Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners Conference Room.
The following Commissioners and staff participated in the meeting:
Diana E. Murphy, Chair
Ruben Castillo, Vice Chair
William K. Sessions, III, Vice Chair
John R. Steer, Vice Chair
Sterling Johnson, Jr., Commissioner
Michael E. O’Neill, Commissioner
Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Commissioner Ex-Officio
Eric H. Jaso, Commissioner Ex-Officio
Timothy McGrath, Staff Director
Charles Tetzlaff, General Counsel
Judith Sheon, Special Counsel
Chair Murphy opened the meeting by welcoming guests. She noted that for the first time, the entire group of judicial fellows was in attendance.
Chair Murphy reported that this would be the last public meeting in which Judge Sterling Johnson and Judge Joe Kendall would be serving as voting commissioners.
Chair Murphy spoke to recognize the great contribution to the Commission that Judges Johnson and Kendall have made. She stated that Judges Johnson and Kendall brought not only their experience as federal judges to the Commission but also their experience in law enforcement. Chair Murphy said that this perspective and insight regarding the human element of sentencing has been very helpful to the Commission. She also acknowledged that Judges Johnson and Kendall have both worked very hard in helping the Commission meet challenges and accomplish its work. Chair Murphy remarked that both possess unusually good cheer and humor. She spoke on behalf of the Commission and staff in stating that Judges Johnson and Kendall will be greatly missed and thanked them for their contributions.
Vice Chair Sessions remarked that the Commission will be a different place without Judges Johnson and Kendall. He stated that this shows how much impact two people can have. Vice Chair Sessions said that, in his view, Judge Johnson has perhaps the brightest approach to life — his good humor and positive outlook solidified the Commission and helped it arrive at unanimous votes on important and contentious issues. Vice Chair Sessions stated that he had developed a life-long friendship with Judge Kendall. He added that he was surprised to discover commonality with someone from such a different perspective and background from his own.
Vice Chair Castillo stated that he was saddened that the Commission was going from seven voting Commissioners to five. He said that he believes that the Commission is weakened by this loss and the country suffers the detriment. Vice Chair Castillo added that he did not understand how this could be allowed to happen, especially because of the loss of the unique law enforcement perspectives that Judges Johnson and Kendall brought to the Commission. Vice Chair Castillo stated that one of the greatest contributions that Judges Johnson and Kendall made to the Commission was the constant reminder that the work of the Commission is ultimately a human endeavor. Vice Chair Castillo concluded by stating that for as long as he serves on the Commission, he will approach issues by asking himself what Judges Johnson and Kendall would have thought. He stated that by so doing, the two will be here in spirit.
Ex Officio Commissioner Reilly stated that it has been a privilege to serve on the Commission with Judges Johnson and Kendall. He stated that, in his view, the two fulfill what the late Katherine Graham said, “To love what you do, and feel that it matters — what could be more fun in life and more important in life?” Ex Officio Commissioner Reilly presented Judges Johnson and Kendall with a token of appreciation on behalf of the United States Parole Commission.
Commissioner O’Neill stated that having had the opportunity to work with and learn from Judges Johnson and Kendall has been a great blessing for him. Commissioner O’Neill shared the advice he had received from Judge Kendall when the Commission was newly appointed: to consistently do what is right and hold on to the important principles. He also stated that he had observed that when Judge Kendall took difficult positions, he acted on a set of core principles and beliefs. Commissioner O’Neill added that Judge Johnson approaches issues similarly – from a practical background and enormous experience. Commissioner O’Neill stated that the actual process of sentencing is an incredibly awesome responsibility, and Judges Johnson and Kendall consistently reminded him that this is not about politics, but about fundamental fairness and humanity. He added that both brought insight into the effect of sentencing on individuals, families, and communities to the process of setting guidelines for the sentencing of federal offenders.
Vice Chair Steer stated that he felt greatly appreciative for having had the opportunity to work with such fine, capable, and experienced individuals as Judges Johnson and Kendall. He added that they brought a wealth of professional and personal qualities to the work of the Commission. Vice Chair Steer thanked them for their service to the Commission and thanked them personally for having had the opportunity to work with both of them.
Chair Murphy noted that Judges Johnson and Kendall have expressed a willingness to continue helping with training seminars and talking about the guidelines and guideline issues.
Ex Officio Commissioner Jaso spoke about the great contribution Judges Johnson and Kendall have made to the Commission. He stated that while he has not served on the Commission for very long, he has enjoyed working with and learning from Judges Johnson and Kendall.
Commissioner Johnson thanked everyone for their kind words. He noted that they all came from different backgrounds but discovered that there was a great deal of chemistry between them once they got down to work on the guidelines. Commissioner Johnson stated that he learned a lot about the guidelines, a lot about the Commission, and a lot about himself. He added that there was a lot of give and take among the commissioners and that this has been a wonderful experience for him. Commissioner Johnson stated that he looked forward to continuing to help with guideline training and education.
Commissioner Kendall also thanked everyone for their kind words. He stated that he has been privileged to serve on the Commission. Commissioner Kendall stated that he hopes the Commission continues to remember that it is setting policy for human beings. He added that each number on the page of statistics represents a real human being with a real story, and that to the extent that the law allows, this should be factored into the decision making process. Commissioner Kendall concluded by quoting Mark Twain, “Always do right. By so doing, you will gratify some and astonish the rest.”
Chair Murphy then updated the public attendees about the recent work of the
Commission. She stated that the Commission’s ad hoc advisory group on
organizational guidelines had held a public hearing at the Thurgood Marshall
Federal Judiciary Building on November 14, 2002. Chair Murphy stated that she
and Vice Chair Steer had been in attendance. Chair Murphy reported that the
hearing was a success, as evidenced by the excellent panelists and lively question
and answer sessions. She stated that the ad hoc advisory group will be in a
position to make useful recommendations to the Commission regarding the organizational
guidelines. The Commission’s ad hoc advisory group on Native American
issues has been meeting regularly by teleconference and will meet in person
in February. She added that the Commission looks forward to further developments.
Chair Murphy stated that the Commission had received a letter from four senators
expressing concerns that the current manslaughter guideline penalties are
too low. Chair Murphy stated that this is an area that the ad hoc advisory
group on Native American issues has under consideration. Further, the Commission
would vote during the meeting on publication of an issue for comment regarding
manslaughter.
Chair Murphy then updated those present on the progress of the Commission’s 15 year study. She stated that the study has many components, including the Commission’s recent submission to Congress regarding federal cocaine sentencing policy. Chair Murphy said that the Commission looks forward to continuing to work with members of Congress toward enacting the recommendations contained in the report. Chair Murphy stated that the summary of the results of the judicial survey will be released soon. It will first be mailed to federal judges and then made publicly available. Chair Murphy said that work continues on the Commission’s recidivism study. Additionally, the Commission plans to update its 1991 Mandatory Minimum Report.
Chair Murphy remarked that this year the Commission is once again under the gun to complete its full agenda because of the emergency amendment authority contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Campaign Finance Reform Act. She stated that this emergency amendment authority gives the Commission a very short time to address extremely complicated issues. Chair Murphy added that the emergency amendment time frame does not take into account the amount of careful work that goes into the creation of an appropriate guideline.
Chair Murphy stated that staff and members of the Commission had participated in a recent Yale Law School Symposium on the federal sentencing guidelines. She stated that Vice Chair Steer, Commissioner O’Neill, Commissioner Johnson, and Ex Officio Commissioner Jaso had attended the symposium. Commissioner O’Neill stated that the symposium had been very well received, and attendance was very good. Commissioner O’Neill mentioned that there were a number of panel groups that focused on technical aspects of the guidelines. He stated that the Commission should be pleased both with the work of the staff and with the hospitable conditions provided by Yale. A number of students presented research papers as well.
Chair Murphy then requested a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the Commission’s last public meeting, held in August of 2002. Vice Chair Castillo moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Vice Chair Steer. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Chair Murphy stated that the Commission would be voting on proposed amendments and issues for public comment. She stated that under the Commission’s rules, the decision to publish for comment requires three affirmative votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff introduced the proposed amendments and issues for comment concerning corporate fraud. He stated that the proposed amendment implements the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”). The Act requires the Commission to promulgate guideline amendments under emergency amendment authority not later than January 25, 2003. In addition to several general directives regarding fraud and obstruction of justice offenses, the Act also sets forth specific directives that require the Commission to promulgate amendments addressing, among other things, officers and directors of publicly traded companies who commit fraud and related offenses, offenses that endanger the solvency or financial security of a substantial number of victims, fraud offenses that involve significantly greater than 50 victims, and obstruction of justice offenses that involve the destruction of evidence. The proposed amendment includes some optional approaches as well as issues for comment.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish for comment would be in order. He added that the motion should include authorization for staff to make technical and conforming changes. General Counsel Tetzlaff added that with respect to the emergency amendment authority, the Commission should consider setting a deadline of December 18, 2002, for public comment in response to proposals with emergency amendment authority. With respect to the permanent amendment portion of this proposal, the Commission’s usual 60 day comment period should apply.
Vice Chair Castillo moved to publish the proposed amendments and issues for public comment and to authorize staff to make technical and conforming changes, with a deadline of December 18, 2002, for public comment in response to proposals with emergency amendment authority, and a 60 day comment period for permanent amendment proposals. Seconded by Vice Chair Steer.
Vice Chair Castillo stated that there are a number of issues for comment included in the package to be published. He stated that these issues are all very important to the Commission, and he encourages the public to respond and looks forward to input from the public.
Commissioner O’Neill stated that he hopes that as the Commission moves forward in considering these amendments, it will also consider encouraging a forum where interested groups can engage one another in a constructive debate.
Chair Murphy then called for the vote to publish. The motion passed unanimously, with seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff introduced the proposal regarding terrorism. He stated that this proposed amendment is a continuation of the Commission’s work over the past two years to ensure that the guidelines provide appropriate penalties for offenses involving terrorism. Specifically, this proposed amendment (1) further responds to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001; (2) responds to the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002; and (3) responds to the Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish would be in order with an authorization for staff to make technical and conforming changes. He added that the normal 60 day comment period should apply.
Commissioner O’Neill moved to publish the proposed amendment language and issues for comment with a 60 day comment period, and to authorize staff to make technical and conforming changes. Seconded by Vice Chair Sessions.
Vice Chair Steer stated that included in this package are some options that further a theme of trying to treat similar offenses similarly, regardless of how they might initially have been charged. He stated that one of the criticisms leveled at the federal guidelines is that its system unduly transfers discretion from judges to prosecutors. Vice Chair Steer stated that the guidelines have devices that limit this, including a generic guideline device that treats similar offenses similarly regardless of how initially charged; another device that limits the transfer of discretion is the cross reference. Vice Chair Steer stated that each of these mechanisms has trade-offs and so as the interested public goes through this package, they will see, for example, in the money laundering proposal several different approaches that carry out this theme and require a balancing of which consideration the Commission should seek to further. The same optional considerations are included in the proposals for tampering with the water supply and consumer products which might combine four guidelines into one, or at least four into two. Vice Chair Steer stated that these proposals require careful consideration and asked that the public take this into account when submitting comment.
Chair Murphy called for a vote on the motion to publish. The motion passed unanimously, with seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff introduced proposed amendments and issues for comment concerning campaign finance reform. He stated that the proposed amendment responds to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the “Act”). The Act breathed new life into the Federal Campaign Act of 1971 by increasing penalty provisions and directing the Commission to promulgate a new guideline or amend existing guidelines. The Federal Campaign Act of 1971 addresses such issues as banning soft money, restricting hard money contributions, banning contributions by foreign nationals, imposing restrictions on electioneering communications, prohibiting fraudulent misrepresentations, and restricting conduit contributions. A related criminal statute makes it unlawful to solicit or receive campaign funds in a federal building. In order to implement the congressional directive, the proposed amendment expands the scope of Chapter 2, Part C (Offenses Involving Public Officials) by providing a new guideline. The proposed guideline contains some bracketed options for base offense levels and specific offense characteristics. Additionally, there are several issues for comment.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish for comment would be in order. He added that the motion should include authorization for staff to make technical and conforming changes. General Counsel Tetzlaff added that with respect to the emergency amendment authority, the Commission should consider setting a deadline of December 18, 2002, for public comment in response to proposals with emergency amendment authority. With respect to the permanency of this proposal, the Commission’s usual 60 day comment period would be appropriate.
Vice Chair Castillo moved to publish the proposed amendment and issues for comment as stated by General Counsel Tetzlaff. Seconded by Vice Chair Sessions.
Vice Chair Castillo stated that the Commission is specifically seeking input on setting the appropriate offense level for campaign finance offenses. He stated that he takes this issue very seriously, perhaps due to problems unique to his own district in Chicago. Vice Chair Castillo added that he looks forward to receiving public input in this area, including input from the DOJ.
Chair Murphy then called for a vote on the motion to publish. The motion passed unanimously, with seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff introduced the proposed amendment regarding illegal reentry. He stated that this proposed amendment addresses various application issues that have come to the Commission’s attention through its help-line, training process, and a review of case law. The guideline was amended last year, and issues have arisen in conjunction with whether prior convictions should receive a 16, 12, or 8 level enhancement. This amendment seeks to clarify these issues by providing additional definitions, language, and commentary.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish the proposed amendment for public comment would be in order. The motion should include authorization for staff to make any technical and conforming changes. General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that the Commission’s normal 60 day comment period would be appropriate. Additionally, he recommended that the Commission consider an invitation to the public to comment on whether to make the amendment retroactive.
Vice Chair Steer moved to publish the proposal as stated by General Counsel Tetzlaff. Seconded by Commissioner O’Neill.
Vice Chair Steer stated that this proposal is a continuation of what has been a good process. This amendment was initially promulgated last year in an attempt to respond to concerns from the field. Vice Chair Steer again commended Commissioner Kendall for his leadership in devising the design for this guideline and moving it through the amendment process. He stated that the Commission demonstrated that it could respond quickly to serious concerns. He stated that this proposal also shows that as the Commission operates its help-line and trains guideline users, it receives a lot of valuable, helpful feedback. Vice Chair Steer stated that this guideline has quick impact due to the volume of cases in which it is applied. He added that he believes that the Commission has received much appreciation for its efforts in providing a more structured and proportional guideline during last year’s amendment cycle. Vice Chair Steer said that the Commission has received information about application problems and is trying to fashion a proposed amendment that will address these areas. He stated that perhaps other issues will be discussed in the public comment. He concluded by stating that this exemplifies the Commission’s work to respond to issues and learn from the field.
Commissioner Kendall commented on the quality of the internal consistency of the guidelines. He stated this guideline needs some cleaning up but asked those present to remember the maxim that sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Chair Murphy then called for a vote on the motion to publish. The motion passed unanimously, with seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff then introduced the proposed amendment regarding discharged terms of imprisonment. He stated that last year in response to a request from the Criminal Law Committee, the Commission authorized a downward departure under §5G1.3(b) when the conduct underlying a fully discharged term of imprisonment had been fully taken into account for the instant federal offense. The proposed amendment seeks instead to treat discharged terms comparably to undischarged terms in the body of the guideline. Two options are presented to accomplish this. In addition, there are two options on how the guideline applies in cases in which an instant federal offense is committed while the defendant is on probation, parole, or supervised release and has had such probation, parole, or supervised released revoked. This will resolve a circuit conflict on the issue. Finally, there is an issue for comment to resolve another circuit conflict.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish for comment would be in order, as well as a motion to authorize staff to make technical and conforming changes. He stated that the Commission’s normal 60 day comment period should apply. Further, the Commission should consider an invitation to the public to comment on whether this amendment should be made retroactive.
Vice Chair Steer moved to publish as stated by General Counsel Tetzlaff. Seconded by Commissioner O’Neill.
Vice Chair Sessions stated that he wanted to highlight one issue in the proposal. He stated that there is a circuit conflict as to whether a sentencing judge is required to impose a sentence that is consecutive to any probation violation, either federal or state. He stated that there are proposals to either make that mandatory or discretionary. Vice Chair Sessions stated that this is a very significant issue and he will be very interested to see what kind of comments the Commission receives regarding the issue.
Chair Murphy then called for a vote on the motion to publish. The motion passed unanimously, with seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff then introduced proposed amendments relating to miscellaneous new laws. He stated that there are seven of these miscellaneous amendments; as a package, these amendments make technical and conforming changes to various guideline provisions. As an example, one makes clear that the application instructions are to be applied in the order presented in the guideline; another makes clear that multiple specific offense characteristics triggered by the same conduct are to be applied cumulatively; another restructures the definition of prohibited sexual conduct in §2A3.1. There is a proposed amendment to the definition of child pornography in §§2A3.1 and 4B1.5, and to the definition of visual depiction in §2G2.4. General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that these changes are being proposed in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
The proposed amendment contains a proposal to amend §2D1.11, providing a maximum base offense level of 30 if the defendant receives a mitigating role adjustment; this is to conform with the §2D1.1 amendment made last cycle. There is a provision providing a two level reduction if the defendant meets the criteria of subdivisions (1) through (5) of §5C1.2, the safety valve guideline. There are also provisions adding red phosphorous to the chemical quantity table in §2D1.11. Additionally, there is an issue for comment regarding the penalties for oxycodone. Another proposed amendment provides for a departure provision to conform application note 6 of §2G2.1 with application note 12, which was amended last amendment cycle. There is a proposed amendment to subsection (b)(5) of §2G2.2, involving possessing material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor; the proposed amendment adds receipt of such material to the application note. Finally, there is a proposed amendment which makes miscellaneous technical amendments in response to new legislation.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish the proposed amendment for comment would be in order, including an authorization for staff to make technical and conforming changes. He stated that the Commission should consider an invitation to the public regarding comment on the issue of retroactivity. General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that the Commission’s normal 60 day comment period would be appropriate.
Vice Chair Sessions moved to publish the package of proposed amendments for public comment as stated by General Counsel Tetzlaff. Seconded by Vice Chair Castillo. The motion passed unanimously by seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff introduced two issues that were included in the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (the “Act”), each of which has a corresponding issue for comment. The first issue for comment is derived from section 1109 of the Act, which directs the Commission to review and amend the sentencing guidelines, as appropriate, to provide an enhancement for any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the defendant used body armor. The issue for comment seeks public comment on how the Commission should respond to this directive.
The second issue for comment is derived from section 1108 of the Act, which directs the Commission to review and amend, if appropriate, guidelines and policy statements to provide a suitable enhancement for offenses involving influencing, assaulting, resisting, impeding, retaliating against or threatening a federal judge, federal magistrate judge, or any other official described in 18 U.S.C. § 111 or § 115. The proposal is an issue for comment seeking public comment on whether there should be an enhancement, whether base offense levels should be adjusted, and whether the Commission should consider more comprehensive amendments in the assault guidelines generally.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion would be in order to publish these two issues for comment and to authorize staff to make technical and conforming changes, all with a 60 day comment period.
Vice Chair Castillo moved to publish the issues for comment as described by General Counsel Tetzlaff. Seconded by Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed unanimously by seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff then introduced the proposed amendment regarding involuntary manslaughter. He stated that this proposed amendment is a continuation of the Commission’s work over the past several years to ensure that the guidelines provide appropriate penalties for offenses involving involuntary manslaughter. In 1994, Congress increased the statutory maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter offenses from three years’ to six years’ imprisonment after receiving a Commission report analyzing federal criminal penalties and recommending that the statutory maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter be increased to six years. Studies have shown that the heartland of involuntary manslaughter offenses involves vehicular homicide and that these offenses are punished more severely by many of the states. The Commission has received recommendations from Congress and the DOJ that it amend the guidelines for involuntary manslaughter to increase the base offense levels. This proposed amendment increases the base offense levels for involuntary manslaughter by any number of bracketed proposals. An issue for comment follows that generally seeks the public’s input regarding which of these proposed offense levels would be appropriate.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish for comment would be in order, as well as authorization for staff to make technical and conforming changes. The Commission’s normal 60 day comment period would be appropriate.
Vice Chair Steer moved to publish the proposed amendments and issue for comment as stated by General Counsel Tetzlaff. Seconded by Vice Chair Castillo.
Vice Chair Castillo stated that he believes it is important for the Commission
to receive input from its ad hoc advisory group on Native American sentencing
issues because data show that Native Americans particularly would be affected
by this proposed amendment. Vice Chair Castillo stated that the Commission
has tried mightily over the past two years to have a good relationship with
Congress. He said that as the 107th Congress ends, he is happy that the Commission
can respond to this request and that as the 108th Congress begins, the Commission
can reach a new level of congressional cooperation. Vice Chair Castillo stated
that he believes the Commission can still do better in forging relationships
with Congress, and he is hopeful that this goal will be accomplished.
Vice Chair Steer stated that while it is the request from Congress that moves
this amendment forward, it has been on the Commission’s agenda as its
own initiative for some time. He said that the Commission was directed as
part of its original mandate to review statutory maximum penalties and identify
any that might constrain the guidelines. The Commission did this in 1991
and recommended to Congress that the maximum penalty for various statutes,
including involuntary manslaughter, be increased from three to six years.
Vice Chair Steer stated that this shows why the Commission needs to be responsive
and follow through, because it did not make any changes in the guidelines
following the increase in statutory penalties. He stated that those who are
familiar with the intricacies and nuances in the guideline amendment process
will know that there is a rational explanation, but Vice Chair Steer acknowledged
that the outside perception may be different. Vice Chair Steer stated that
the Commission luckily has an advisory committee in place that can hopefully
help the Commission implement this statutory change and be responsive to
Congress.
Chair Murphy stated that she had recently spoken with Chief Judge Larry Piersol who chairs the ad hoc advisory group on Native American sentencing issues. Chair Murphy stated that she had informed him of the likelihood of publishing this proposal, and he stated that the group intends to respond. She added that while the group might prefer to make all of its recommendations at the same time, they understood that the Commission wanted to be responsive to Congress.
Chair Murphy then called for a vote on the motion to publish. The motion passed unanimously, with seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff then introduced an issue for comment that had been prepared in the event that Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the “Act). Section 225 of the Act (this section is known as the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002) directs the Commission to review and amend, if appropriate, the sentencing guidelines and policy statement applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, to ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the serious nature of such offenses, the growing incidence of such offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses. General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that the issue for comment seeks public comment regarding how the Commission should respond to this directive.
General Counsel Tetzlaff stated that a motion to publish would be in order and to authorize staff to make technical and conforming changes. He stated that the normal 60 day comment period would be appropriate.
Commissioner O’Neill moved to publish the issue for comment as described by General Counsel Tetzlaff. Seconded by Vice Chair Steer. The motion passed unanimously by seven affirmative voice votes.
General Counsel Tetzlaff then requested that the Commission consider a motion authorizing staff to include a request for public comment on retroactivity to the extent that it is applicable to any of these amendments.
Commissioner Castillo moved to authorize a request for public comment regarding retroactivity. Seconded by Vice Chair Steer. The motion passed unanimously by seven affirmative voice votes.
Chair Murphy then thanked those present for attending the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 a.m.