Minutes of the

NIU Board of Trustees

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, STUDENT AFFAIRS

AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE

June 5, 2003

 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chair Barbara Giorgi Vella at 10:12 a.m. in the Regency Room of Holmes Student Center.  Recording Secretary Sharon Mimms conducted a roll call of Trustees.  Members present were Trustees Catherine Adduci, Robert Boey, Student Trustee Jesse Perez and Chair Vella.  Not present was Trustee Myron Siegel.  Also present were Committee Liaison Ivan Legg, President John Peters and Board Parliamentarian Kenneth Davidson.  With a quorum present, the meeting proceeded.

 

Confirmation of Open Meetings Act notification compliance was given by Board Parliamentarian Ken Davidson.

 

Trustee Boey made a motion to approve the agenda.  It was seconded by Trustee Adduci.  The motion was approved.

 

It was moved by Trustee Adduci and seconded by Trustee Boey to approve the minutes of the March 4, 2003 meeting.  The motion was approved.

 

Chair Vella stated that the meeting agenda contained seven action items and three information items.  Of particular importance to the faculty, she said, is the consideration of tenure and promotion recommendations, which now takes place in June instead of March.  These submission date changes improve the faculty tenure and promotion evaluation process by providing additional time for receipt of more up‑to‑date materials for use in the decision‑making process.  Other action items include the granting of tenure to a new department chair and two new faculty members; two administrative appointments – a new vice president for research and dean of the graduate school and an acting dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology; a number of programmatic items, including approval of two new emphases and a new specialization and the deletion of three existing specializations.  Of special note is Action Item 7.g., which involves the transfer of tenure and tenure track faculty located in the College of Education to other existing departments.  This transfer is necessary due to the elimination of the Department of Leadership in Educational and Sport Organizations, in which the faculty’s tenure presently resides.  Information item 7.h. provides the background for the department’s elimination.  The other two information items include a summary of the 2002‑2003 program reviews and a Higher Learning Commission Accreditation update.

 

The Chair recognized the University Advisory Committee representatives to the Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and Personnel Committee, Dr. William Tolhurst and Dr. Paul Loubere.

 

It was suggested by Provost Legg that we say something on the subject of tenure and its importance to the university, Paul Loubere said.  I am from the Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences and a Presidential Research Professor here at NIU.  When I think about tenure, I would like to emphasize that tenure is not about guaranteed employment, and it is not about resting on your laurels while senility sets in, as is often thought in the world outside the university community.  Rather, it is a critical component in a system that searches for the truth.  And that is what our universities do.  The faculty here exist in a highly critical environment with pressure both from outside the university and from within and from our colleagues.  Every time I apply for support to do work that I want to do, he said, colleagues and the outside world review my accomplishments. My colleagues, in particular, want to know why I should get the money instead of them.  In this setting, it is hard to pursue the difficult questions rather than simply please the paymasters.  If I can quote for a minute from Arthur Schopenhauer, the philosopher, “The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”  Tenure is the only defense that we have against preconceived opinion.  It is key to the hope that we will eventually find the truth of the many things that we need to know about as a civilization.  Seeking that truth is what makes universities unique and what keeps me here as a faculty member.  It is key to our technical and social progress.  So, as a faculty member, Dr. Loubere concluded, I would speak strongly in favor of tenure for those people who have passed over the hurdles and are ready for it.

 

My colleague has commented exceedingly well on the idealistic and philosophical justification of tenure, Dr. Tolhurst said, and I concur entirely.  There are also some very practical reasons for the tenure system.  For one thing, we need to recruit a strong faculty in order to provide the kind of quality education to which our constituents have become accustomed.  In many cases, we are hiring people at salaries far lower than they could command in the private sector, and they want to be here because they agree with the mission of the university.  They want to pursue truth in their areas, whether they are engineering or business or what have you.  But in order to convince them that they should come here for lower pay, it is important that we provide them with other benefits and a certain security, which they might not receive in the private sector.  So, in order to maintain strong programs in engineering, computer science and business, the tenure system plays a crucial, practical role.  Furthermore, as our senior faculty retire, we can replace many of them with junior faculty who will command somewhat lower salaries.  But it is important, at least on some occasions, to hire senior faculty who have already attained tenure at other institutions.  And in those cases, it is important to bring people in with tenure and, perhaps, a somewhat higher rank.

 

Trustee Adduci inquired whether or not it was possible to recruit a professor with tenure from another institution to this university or any other university.  Dean Fred Kitterle stated that they can have significant numbers of such people.  One of the things that is truly attractive about this institution and the quality you see in the people, he said, is that everyone of the people who came in at the senior level as professor has reached the rank of presidential research professor in this university, which has significantly enhanced its reputation and visibility.

 

Your comments are very well taken, Chair Vella said.  And, in fact, we will be voting on that same issue – whether or not to grant tenure to people coming from other universities.

 

It is important from time to time that we have a discussion on this subject, Trustee Boey said, because, to the outside world, the word tenure is a lightening rod for criticism.  Outside the university, very little is known about the process that leads up to tenure being given to any individual.  After serving a number of years here on the Board of Trustees, he said, I am just beginning to have a better handle on it.  Before that time, I, too, had a very fuzzy definition of what tenure is.  A discussion like this from time to time helps to educate the outside world better.  And, especially in the legislative world of Springfield, it is important that we have this kind of discussion so that perhaps some of this information can filter out to the people who need to understand what tenure is all about.

 

The Chair asked Board Parliamentarian Kenneth Davidson if any members of the public had registered a written request to address the Board in accordance with state law and the Board of Trustees Bylaws.  Mr. Davidson noted that no requests for public comment had been received.

 

Agenda Item 7.a. – Recommendations for Faculty Promotions, Tenure, and Promotions with Tenure for the 2003‑2004 Academic Year

Moving back the process of tenure has been an enormous help in completing the cycle of information that is needed for considering people for this very challenging decision, Provost Legg said.  I am pleased that we are now reporting these in June instead of March as we have in the past.

 

Having started out in my career as a tenure‑track faculty member in the 1960’s, Dr. Legg said, I can say that the process of tenure has gone from what was basically a mysterious process to something that is much more detailed, much more open and better understood.  Back then, I did not even know I was up for tenure.  I just found a letter from the chair on my desk one day telling me that I had received tenure.  That is no longer the way this is done.

 

Indeed, the Provost said, the tenure process goes way back to the hiring process.  That really is the first stage in deciding who is going to get tenure.  The hiring process in itself is a very rigid, difficult and challenging process for a faculty member.  In many cases, we have up to a hundred candidates for a position.  We narrow it down to three or four and then make a decision to hire based on interviews and other information.  So, we are already making a pre‑tenure decision in the process of selection.  In addition, there are rigorous annual reviews and a three‑year review.  Many people drop out during that period or move to other institutions or are encouraged not to continue.  So the screening and the rigidity of the process is ongoing for the six years prior to the time the person comes up for tenure.  I wanted to make sure that those of you who were not aware of this know that it is not just showing up at the door in your sixth year and being considered for tenure.  When you are changed from a nontenure to a tenured position, that almost always goes along with a promotion from assistant to associate professor.  The Board will also be considering approval of people who are promoted from associate professor to professor.  That decision is based primarily on the national/international recognition that the faculty member has achieved in his/her scholarly work, which may include creative teaching, creative research or other venues of expression.  Those that have reached that stage usually are eligible for promotion to professor.

 

Provost Legg stated that the university requested that the Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and Personnel Committee endorse the university’s 2003‑2004 tenure and promotion decisions and ask the President to forward them by means of the President’s Report to the Board of Trustees for approval at its June 19 meeting.

 

In answer to a question from Trustee Boey, Provost Legg stated that the asterisks under the assistant professor to associate professor category denoted both tenure and promotion for those individuals.  It would be rare for us to tenure someone and not promote them, President Peters said, and I discourage that.  In the normal course of things, a promotion to associate professor is associated with the tenure decision.  Dr. Cassidy pointed out that the exception would be in the College of Law where it was customary for faculty to seek promotion prior to a tenure appointment.  In law schools across the United States, Provost Legg said, most faculty are hired after long experience in the field.  They are given credit for that experience by being promoted in the third year rather than in the fifth.

 

I wanted to make a comment on tenure that has not been mentioned, Dean Kitterle said.  At the end of the third year, there is a fairly comprehensive review that takes place as well.  So it is not just the one shot at the end of a series of five years or so for a faculty member.  It is important to note that, because what may happen is that you may see a number of people coming through who are recommended for tenure and wonder if our standards are still high.  What you do not see are people who are counseled out at the third year review.  Many departments at Northern are doing that now because it is pretty obvious from the decision at that time that people can be counseled out.  Another thing that has changed since the time that I came up for tenure is a real investment on the part of the institution in human capital.  So what you see more and more at Northern are programs that help enhance the scholarship of faculty members and programs that help to enhance teaching.  It is not simply a sink or swim situation.  There is a tremendous institutional support system within the department itself and within the university to really help people succeed, and that is an excellent model.

 

Chair Vella asked for a motion to approve the Recommendations for Faculty Promotions, Tenure, and Promotions with Tenure for the 2003‑2004 Academic Year.  Trustee Boey so moved, seconded by Trustee Adduci.  The motion was approved.

 

Agenda Item 7.b. – Tenure Appointments

Earlier in our meeting today, Provost Legg said, we discussed, in general, the case of the university hiring people from other universities where they hold tenure, and we are looking at three people who were hired from other universities of comparable stature, where they held tenure.  In addition, they are being hired at the rank they held at their previous institutions.

 

The Provost stated that the university requested that the Committee endorse the decision to grant tenure to (1) Michael Bishop, who comes from Iowa State, in conjunction with his appointment as associate professor in the Department of Philosophy, effective August 16, 2003; (2) Kenton Clymer, who comes from the University of Texas at El Paso, in conjunction with his appointment as Professor and Chair of the Department of History, effective July 1, 2003; and (3) Dr. Douglas Klumpp, who comes from California State‑Pomona, in conjunction with his appointment as associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, effective August 16, 2003, and ask the President to forward these recommendations by means of the President’s Report to the Board of Trustees for approval at its June 19 meeting.  Chair Vella asked for a motion to approve the tenure appointments for Dr. Michael Bishop, Dr. Kenton Clymer and Dr. Douglas Kumpp as stated.  Trustee Adduci so moved, seconded by Trustee Boey.  The motion was approved.

 

Agenda Item 7.c. – Appointment of Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School

We have two new appointments that require Board approval, Dr. Legg said.  But there is one appointment I would like to recognize that does not require Board approval.  As most of you know, Robert Wheeler is stepping down as vice provost effective June 30.  The appointment of Earl Seaver, who goes by “Gip” Seaver, came out of a very careful search for someone to take over the vice provost’s role, and Gip will be taking over that position.  Gip has served as Chair of Communicative Disorders since 1992 here at the university. He started his employment at NIU in 1975.  Trustee Boey offered his congratulations to Dr. Seaver whom he has known for some time.  It is a well‑deserved appointment, he said, and we congratulate you on it.

 

Provost Legg stated that the first appointment requiring Board approval was the appointment of the vice president for research and dean of the graduate school.  Two searches were conducted and a total of seven candidates were interviewed for this position.  In reflecting on the seven candidates that were interviewed, Dr. Rathindra Bose is, without question, the leader.  And it was during our second search that we found him.

 

Dr. Rathindra N. Bose has been selected for appointment as Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School.  He will hold the rank of tenured professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.  Dr. Bose is a tenured professor serving as vice president for research and dean of graduate studies at Kent State University, where he has already had considerable success in promoting the research program of the university.  Dr. Bose has published extensively.  Important to his leadership and his credibility is his role as vice president for research.  He has a successful track record securing grants having acquired research grants totaling more than $2.5 million from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Education and the Ohio Board of Regents.  In addition to substantial current grant funding, he has a number of grant proposals in preparation.  The university recommends that the Committee endorse this request and ask the President to forward it by means of the President's Report to the Board of Trustees for approval at its June 19 meeting.

 

I want to congratulate the search committee and Provost Legg for attracting this outstanding candidate, President Peters said.  I have had occasion to interact with Dr. Bose on several occasions, and he has already helped us tremendously in evaluating our federal agenda.  I feel that he is the right choice to carry on the good work that Jerry Zar did laying this foundation, and that Rathindra will take us to the next level.

 

Chair Vella asked for a motion to approve the appointment of Dr. Rathindra Bose as Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School.  Trustee Boey so moved, seconded by Trustee Adduci.  The motion was approved.

 

Agenda Item 7.d. – Appointment of Acting Dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology

There are basically three reasons that we decided to appoint an Acting Dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Provost Legg said.  One is that we did not have any choice because Rom Kasuba, who has ably led the college for almost 17 years, announced his stepping down as dean at the end of April.  Considering it takes eight to nine months to run a search, we had to appoint an acting person in that role.  But there are two other very pragmatic reasons.  One is that in view of our current budget situation, we felt that the venue into which we would try to recruit a new dean might be difficult and challenging.  So, during the period that we have the acting dean we can at least hope that the budget situation will improve.  The second reason is that we are within two years of our accreditation review period, and we wanted to have continuity in the dean’s position for that review process.  The person we have chosen to appoint as acting dean has been serving as associate dean in the college and has been involved in the accreditation preparation.

 

Dr. Promod Vohra has been asked to serve as Acting Dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology.  Dr. Vohra has been employed at NIU since 1988 as assistant, associate, and tenured professor in the Department of Technology, assuming the position of associate dean of the college in January of 1997.  Professor Vohra has assumed a strong leadership role in the college.  He has received more than $8 million in external and internal equipment grants and other grants.  He is an active scholar.  Professor Vohra serves as a member of the NIU Alumni Board of Directors and was honored with an NIU Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Award in 1995.  Provost Legg stated that the university recommended that the Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and Personnel Committee endorse the request and ask the President to forward it by means of the President's Report to the Board of Trustees for approval at its June 19 meeting.  Like Gip, Trustee Boey said, I also have known Promod for a few years and am delighted that he has the opportunity to fill this position.

 

Chair Vella asked for a motion to endorse the appointment of Dr. Promod Vohra as Acting Dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology.  Trustee Adduci so moved, seconded by Trustee Boey.  The motion was approved.

 

Agenda Item 7.e. – Request for New Emphases and New Specialization Within Degree Programs

Agenda Items 7.e. through 7.h. involve changes in academic programs, Provost Legg said, and I have asked Virginia Cassidy, who deals with these changes directly, to present the recommendations.  The first of these items is the approval of new emphases and new specializations within existing degree programs.

 

The first request, Dr. Cassidy said, is to create a new Emphasis in Human Resource Management and a new Emphasis in Organizational Management within the B.S. in Management.  This is essentially a housekeeping task to change the label for a set of courses that are currently referred to as an area of study.  We are asking to have them reclassified as emphases for the primary reason that it will give our students who complete this course work the advantage of having that notation on their transcripts, which will make their employers or potential employers aware of the specific skills they have developed within the area of either human resource management or organizational management. 

 

The second request is to create a new specialization, Learning Behavior Specialist I, within the M.S.Ed. in Special Education.  If you recall some of the discussion we had at our last meeting relating to the changes in special education that affected our undergraduate programs, this is a parallel kind of change that resulted from the same federal court case referred to as the Corey H case that mandates the reconfiguration of educational programs to prepare teachers as special education teachers.  In the next item, you will see that we are asking for the deletion of specializations we currently have that will be replaced by this new specialization, Learning Behavior Specialist I, so that our students will meet the certification requirements as special education teachers.  It is these three items, the two emphases and the new specialization, on which we ask the Committee to take action and approve them and ask the President to forward them to the Board of Trustees on June 19.

 

In reply to a question from President Peters, Dr. Chris Sorenson, Dean of the College of Education, said that the Learning Behavior Specialist I terminology was the state’s definition of the classification.  The certificate is called Learning Behavior Specialist I.

 

Chair Vella asked for a motion to approve the new Emphasis in Human Resource Management and an Emphasis in Organizational Management and the new specialization, Learning Behavior Specialist I.  Trustee Boey so moved, seconded by Trustee Adduci.  The motion was approved.

 

Agenda Item 7.f. – Request to Delete Existing Specializations

This item is a request to delete existing specializations within the Master of Science in Education degree and Special Education.  The first two deletions, the Specialization in Behavior Disorders and the Specialization in Learning Disabilities will be replaced by the Specialization, Learning Behavior Specialist I.

 

The second deletion, she said, the Specialization in Multiply Handicapped, Deaf or Vision, we are asking to delete primarily because the Corey H legislation has also affected this specialization, and it is no longer appropriate for students to complete it.  We have no students currently enrolled in this specialization, and students who are interested in working with individuals who have a hearing or vision impairment have options on this campus to complete specializations that are currently within the degree program either in blind rehabilitation, orientation and mobility or in visual impairments.  It is our request that the Committee endorse the deletion of these specializations and ask the President to report them to the Board on June 19.

 

To answer a question from a trustee, Dr. Cassidy stated that all of the deletions in the Master’s in Special Education program have been necessitated by changes in the certification requirements for teacher preparation resulting from legislative action related to the state standards.  These changes will now enable NIU students to meet the state standard to become special education teachers.  All universities in the state are dealing with these issues to make sure that the current programs they have available for teacher preparation meet the new standards.  So, we are not unique in seeking these kinds of changes, she said.

 

Chair Vella asked for a motion to approve the request to delete Specializations within the Master of Science in Education degree and Special Education and the Specialization in Multiply Handicapped, Deaf or Vision.  Trustee Adduci so moved, seconded by Trustee Boey.  The motion was approved.

 

Agenda Item 7.g. – Transfer of Tenure and Tenure‑Track Location for Faculty in the College of Education

The last item that we have for action refers to the transfer of tenure for faculty in a department within the College of Education, Dr. Cassidy said.  Several years ago, the College of Education underwent a reorganization, and we created seven new departments to help advance the goals of the College of Education.  As that reorganization has been implemented, several things have occurred that led the dean of the college to reconsider keeping the number of departments at seven.  A chair resigned his position, and we also had the all too familiar budget cuts occurring concomitantly.  It was decided that in order to best serve the students in degree programs in educational administration and school business management and in sport management, to eliminate one of the departments to reduce administrative costs, thereby creating a need to transfer the tenure of the faculty who were in that department to two other departments.  So, the faculty who are teaching in the degree program in sport management will have their tenure transferred to the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education.  And the faculty who were teaching in the school business management and educational administration programs will have their tenure transferred to the Department of Educational Psychology and Foundations.  We ask the Board to endorse the transfer of these tenure appointments and request that the President forward this request to the Board at its June 19 meeting.  Chair Vella asked for a motion to approve the transfer of tenure and tenure‑track location for faculty in the College of Education.  Trustee Boey so moved, seconded by Trustee Adduci.  The motion was approved.

 

Agenda Item 7.h. – Elimination of the Department of Leadership in Education and Sport Organization

Agenda Item 7.h. was an information item giving a brief explanation for the elimination of the Department of Leadership and Sport Organization, which was part of the rationale for the transfer of the faculty tenure locations.

 

Provost Legg stated that Chair Vella had asked if the Committee could have an update on the reorganization of the College of Education.  Provost Legg reported that in accordance with a request from Chair Vella, Dean Chris Sorenson would present a summary on the reorganization of the College of Education at the next Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and Personnel Committee meeting.

 

Agenda Item 7.i. – 2002‑2003 Program Review Summary

Provost Legg asked Associate Vice Provost Virginia Cassidy to give a brief summary of the 2002‑03 Program Review Summary.  Dr. Cassidy reported that this is an item that appears on the agenda every June.  It is an information item to let you know that the university closely monitors the quality of our academic programs.  We have a very sophisticated process in place to review programs that begins with the department developing a document that will answer questions related to the faculty, faculty scholarship, the resources allocated to the department, information about students and alumni, and information about how the department itself is monitoring the quality and the currency of its programs.   Following its preparation, that report is discussed with the dean and the college office.  Then there is a discussion with the Provost’s staff and, finally, the Academic Planning Council, which is a faculty committee, will do their review of the programs and make observations and recommendations to the full council.  The reports of those reviews then come to the AASAP Committee.  Ultimately, our findings on these programs will be reported to the Illinois Board of Higher Education in the university’s Results Report.

 

We have an eight‑year cycle for reviewing the programs, Dr. Cassidy said.  In 2002‑03, we reviewed 16 academic programs housed in the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.  Our conclusions are that these programs are extremely strong.  The departments and the colleges have done an outstanding job of maintaining the quality of the programs.  We have highly productive, professionally active faculty members teaching in these programs.  We have students who are very satisfied with the quality of their educational experience at Northern and in these programs.  And we also have very cost‑effective programs.  Many of these programs provide course work not only to the majors in the degree programs, but also to students throughout the university.  In particular, the programs in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and some of the programs in the College of Education provide a great deal of course work to students in support of our general education program.  So, the programs are well respected on campus.  They got excellent reviews from the Academic Planning Council.  We wanted to take this opportunity to give you a brief overview of some of the major findings from the programs.

 

In the program review process, Dr. Cassidy stated, we also review offices that have responsibility for research or public service.  For this report, we reviewed three offices:  the Office of Human Resource Development and Workforce Preparation, the Office for Health Promotion, and the Office of Research and Evaluation in Adult Continuing Education (REACE).  You will note in the item on page 25 that the RE/ACE Office has been disbanded, and the responsibilities of monitoring and administering the grant funding that has come in via that office has been transferred to a college‑level office in Education, the Office for Research and Educational Policy Studies.

 

Dr. Cassidy stated that the eight‑year cycle was legislated as part of the oversight of the Illinois Board of Higher Education.  However, as an institution, she said, we have the opportunity to review programs more frequently if we deem that necessary.  On occasion, we do ask programs to submit a report to provide further information, clarification or updates on one specific item related to that program.

 

These reviews are very important, President Peters said, and we should not necessarily just meet the minimum cycle requirement of the IBHE.  I am going to ask the Provost to do an evaluation of this.  There are two things that I think will strengthen this already tremendously strong program, and one is if we can find the funds to make sure every program has external reviewers.  The other is to have some sort of a midcycle quick review of the recommendations that were made to determine if we need to do a review sooner – maybe after three or four years, do a very quick evaluation to see whether recommendations are being followed.  Then, if need be, do a more substantial review after five years.

 

I commend you, Virginia, as coordinator, and your staff for all the hard work that goes into these reviews, Chair Vella said.  It is that quality and accountability that make this university vibrant and causes us to renew ourselves.

 

Thank you, Dr. Cassidy replied, but I also have to give credit to the departments and to the deans, because they are the individuals who prepare these reports, do the research and put all the reports together.  That is a substantial amount of effort on their part.  So, it really is a collaborative process.  And our appreciation goes along to those people as well, Trustee Boey said.

 

I would like to point something out that is related to this, Dr. Tolhurst said.  Although the program review at present only comes once every eight years, assessment of programs is a continuing activity that provides the basis for the program review.  It is not as though departments are not doing anything at all and then, all of a sudden, we have a program review.  But rather, we are all expected to implement assessment programs so that we can continually monitor the success of our programs and make improvements where needed.  So, I think that needs to be factored into any decision about how often the program reviews ought to be, in view of the fact that assessment is an ongoing and continuing activity.

 

Agenda Item 7.j. – Higher Learning Commission Accreditation Update

The last item is a very important item, Dr. Legg said, and it has to do with our rapidly approaching accreditation visit from NCA.  He asked Virginia Cassidy to give a brief summary.

 

I do not know if I can add any more information to what is in Agenda Item 7.j., Dr. Cassidy said.  We are in the process of revising the initial drafts of the chapters we received for the self‑study.  That is going very well, and we feel very comfortable with the process.  We are starting now to think about some logistical things:  What will the cover of the self‑study look like?  How will we solicit public comment about our review as an institution?  And, thinking about things like how we will gather the backup material we will need for the site team when they come in February.

 

Chair Vella announced that the next Committee meeting would probably be in September and members will be notified.  The next full Board Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 19, in the Clara Sperling Sky Room.

 

There being no Other Matters, Chair Vella asked for a motion to adjourn.  Trustee Adduci so moved, seconded by Trustee Boey.  The motion was approved.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

  

 

Respectfully submitted,

  

Sharon M. Mimms

Recording Secretary