MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNTY OFFICERS DESIGNATED TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SEPTEMBER 28, 2009
(SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ON OCTOBER 20, 2009)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Discussion of Open Meetings Law With County Attorney Janet Lyness............................... 1
Discussion/Action Regarding Calling An Election or the Decision to Appoint...................... 2
Discussion/Action Regarding Filling the Vacancy By Appointment and Legal Publication of Notice of Intent to Fill the Vacancy by Appointment......................................................................................... 7
Discussion/Action Regarding Selection Process and Location and Due Date for Applications........... 8
Additional Discussion......................................................................................................... 11
Setting Next Meeting Time, Date, and Location.................................................................. 11
The Committee to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors was called to order in the County Attorney Conference Room at the Johnson County Courthouse at 2:00 p.m. Members present were: County Treasurer Tom Kriz, County Recorder Kim Painter, and County Auditor Tom Slockett.
County Attorney Janet Lyness: We are in compliance with the open meetings law, the agenda was posted 24 hours in advance, and the meeting is open to the public. If we run out of space we'll find a better room so all the public can attend if they want to.
County Auditor Tom Slockett: Could you talk a little bit about the three of us in dealing with the fact that we can't talk to each other, and that sort of thing.
Lyness: Anytime there is any discussion going on about appointment versus an election, and while this is pending, you cannot have two of you talking without it being an open meeting. You would need to make sure that it is a meeting the public is notified of at least 24 hours in advance by posting an agenda. I think you all know that and have been in compliance with. That's why it sometimes makes it difficult to schedule the meetings because of the requirement of 24 hour notice. If you seem like you are being rude to each other, it's only because you are trying to make sure that no one thinks you are not in compliance with the law. You are fine to say hello and greet each other.
County Recorder Kim Painter: Somebody suggested that we might carpool up here together and have a designated driver and we had to thumbs down that idea.
Slockett: It would probably be technically okay as long as we didn't discuss it, but the appearance is not good.
Lyness: That's right. Other than casual greetings, I would recommend you not having conversations which are not in a meeting that the public has been notified about. Is there anything else you wanted me to address on that topic?
Slockett: No, not on open meetings. I just wanted to get the lay of the land and make sure everyone understood what the situation is. I think we already understood those points. Although I appreciate having it from the County Attorney what the situation is.
Painter: Just for clarification for the general public, that would include any email.
Lyness: Right.
Painter: We all understand that.
Slockett: Yes.
Painter: But just so people know we are not emailing each other either.
Lyness: Since it is a three-member committee, if two of you are emailing back and forth, that is a majority and so you cannot be doing that. Any discussion should all be done in an actual open meeting.
Lyness: The second point is discussion about how the vacancy is filled. Iowa Code Chapter 69.8 dictates how vacancies are filled for several positions including Board of Supervisors. When there is a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors it is filled by a committee made up of the Treasurer, Auditor, and Recorder. You follow the process under Chapter 69.14A. That specifies that you, as the committee, can choose either to do an appointment until the next pending election, as defined in 69.12 which I will get to in a minute, and shall be made within 40 days after the vacancy occurs. You have 40 days from the date of Larry's death on Tuesday in which to fill the position. You can also choose that you will have a special election to fill the vacancy as well. Should you opt to go with an appointment there is still a possibility within 14 days for a petition to be filed requesting a special election to fill this. Or there could be a petition to fill it by special election prior to that time as well. It is really up to the committee how you want to proceed at this point, whether by appointment or whether by a special election. Even if you choose to fill it by appointment, there could be a petition to have it filled by special election. There are different ways of filling it depending on when it is. There was a question about whether the City Election is the next pending election. It is not considered a pending election. Iowa Code Chapter 69.12 specifies that the next pending election would be one in which this position of the Board of Supervisors was pending, or in which it was the entire county that would vote on the Board of Supervisors. The City Council election is not a pending election for purposes of appointing or having a special election for a Board of Supervisors member. That's it in a nutshell and maybe it is good at this point in time to answer your questions that you may have.
Slockett: I had a question. Although it's not a pending election, is it too late to combine it with the City General based on 39.2, paragraph two, which discusses filing deadlines. Have you looked at that?
Lyness: I don't know exactly what the filing deadlines are for the…
Slockett: They are September 18th for the November election.
Lyness: What is says under the Special Election section is that you would have to give 32 days notice for the special election.
Slockett: Right. In that case, the filing deadline, if it is not combined with another election, would be 25 days before the election. This Code section talks about the instance where the special election is held in conjunction with the regularly scheduled election. In that case, it requires that the filing deadlines shall coincide with the filing deadlines for the regularly scheduled election.
Lyness: Right, I have that here.
Slockett: I think that would preclude, if this were done earlier it could have been combined. Since it is after the filing deadline that would preclude combining it with that election, I believe. I would like you to confirm that or straighten us out.
Lyness: When I looked at that I didn't have the deadline for it because I was looking at the 32 days prior to the date of the election. It is very clear that you cannot hold the Special Election on the same day as the School Board Election, but there is no such prohibition. It would probably go back to the default of the election deadlines, which would be September 18th which would preclude having it on that same date.
Slockett: Okay. Will you check into that? We believe that to be the case but if that is not the case, let us know.
Lyness: You cannot have it on a Primary or City Runoff Election.
Slockett: Correct. That was the main legal question I had. Please if you have anything more to say, please do. I would like to talk about process a little bit. I would hope that the three of us can have a full discussion before someone puts a motion to vote on the table, that we are all comfortable with voting and we're all ready to vote when we get to that point. I would like to give a little bit of history about the appointment process since I've been Auditor just because we have to pick some point in time to start. Immediately before I was elected there were two vacancies. Bob Burns resigned from the Board of Supervisors. Richard Bartel resigned shortly after that. When I was first elected in November of 1976, both Don Sehr and Harold Donnelly took office immediately because, if there is an appointment once an election has selected candidates, they take precedence and are seated immediately. They didn't wait until January to be seated. Lorada Cilek died in office May 20, 1982 and her son, Mike was appointed to fill the vacancy. He left immediately after the election when Dick Myers was elected to that position. On December 15, 1988, Harold Donnelly died in office and Pat Meade was appointed to fill the vacancy. She took office early as well, due to the resignations of Bob Burns and Richard Bartel. Betty Ockenfels resigned on January 20, 1994 and Don Sehr was appointed March 1, 1994. There was a special election called by petition on April 12, 1994, and Sehr was elected in that election for the remainder of the term. Joe Bolkcom resigned on December 31, 1998 to take a seat in the Iowa Senate and Carol Thompson was appointed. A state-wide special election occurred after she was appointed and she went on the ballot in that election that covered the same voters. She was elected for the remainder of the term. Of course we are meeting because, sadly, Larry Meyers died in office on September 22, 2009. That is a total of seven vacancies filled since shortly before I have been in office. We're on the topic of whether to appoint or hold an election and I want to make sure my position is clear. While I agree with Kim's statement that elected offices should be filled by elections, I don’t see a problem in an appointment to fill a vacancy for a temporary period of time. In this case, we estimate it would cost a minimum of $75,000. The examples I gave before show that there would have been seven elections just since I have been in office if every one of them were filled by vacancy. There would be costs, and another vacancy could appear. One of us could get hit by a truck crossing the street at any point in time. Hopefully nothing like that happens. Someone could win the lottery and choose to resign. Someone could get elected to another office that they'd prefer to have. My thinking is that the only way the public will have the opportunity to save $75,000 is if we appoint. If we call an election, there will be no way to avoid those costs. If we appoint, then the public can decide whether they want to save the money. If they would rather not save the money and have an election, they can petition for an election. That will give them the option to decide either way. While elected offices should be filled by elections, generally speaking, the elected Legislature and Governor did pass into law and, allow to become law, this option in order to save the taxpayers the cost and to fill the seat more quickly, if that is desirable. When I was first elected we had three supervisors and not five. I think three supervisors can run the County perfectly well. Frankly, the biggest problem with having only three supervisors is the one we have just talked about that our committee has. With the requirements of the open meetings law it is not practical to be able to conduct business without being able to talk to another member of the Board. My feeling is that our current four Supervisors are perfectly capable of operating the County until next November. I would prefer that we appoint, give the public the option to realize that savings, particularly given the economic situation we are in right now. If the public wishes to have an election and petitions, I would be perfectly happy with that option as well.
Painter: My feelings last week were primarily to have the kind of discussion we had on Friday which was to talk about the significance of the election process and to talk about the very difficult questions we face when we try to ascertain whether $75,000 is worth spending on an election when there are major issues before the County that will spend many, many times that amount of money, in possibly fairly short order, that this person would have a substantive voice in making those decisions. Obviously as we worked through our discussion we learned a number of things that have an effect on how we might proceed. One of those is that we cannot combine the election in a cost effective manner with anything coming up soon enough to make a difference. The other obviously is that there are provisions that allow people, although it's a steep hill, there are provisions that allow the people to petition. I think the County's number is somewhere around 7,300 signatures.
Slockett: 7,299 to be precise.
Painter: Thank you Tom. That is a high number, but certainly if there were a core group of 50 to 100 deeply concerned citizens, they would have quite likely, enough time and enough motivation to turn that engine and gather those signatures and allow an election to take place. Probably the first thing I said on Friday was that the dollar amount was fairly daunting. I have run my own office in a way that puts me in the fiscally moderate to conservative category and that is just how I believe government needs to operate. I do take that very seriously. We are in a tough economic situation and people are very concerned about that as well. When I weigh all these factors together, along with any comments that I received over the weekend, the majority of people I spoke to did not seem overly concerned to press for an immediate election. I think if that concern is out there and we haven't seen it yet, it will surface in due course. They will have the capacity to create an election if that is the desire. Given all those factors, and the fact that I have always respected the appointment process, it is a good mechanism, a great utility for us to put someone into a vacancy quickly, and in a cost effective manner. I am comfortable with that process. That is where I sit today.
County Treasurer Tom Kriz: I think I would echo some of those things. As we talked on Friday, I have a real tough time looking at $75,000 to call and to pay for that type of election when I know this position fills over the next year. There will be a Primary in June and a General Election in November. Our Finance Committee has given direction to our Budget Coordinator to have all our departments come in with flat budgets, with no increases, without increasing personnel. That $75,000 represents one person in someone's office that they may well need. I find it hard to justify calling the election and spending that kind of money. I do respect greatly the thought that the people elect this position. But I think with the time frame, and the short period of time before it would be filled, I have confidence that the three of us can come up with the right person to fill the position in the interim, until the people have their chance to vote during the 2010 calendar year. As I look at that and have talked to a number of people, it is the same mixed bag. You talk to some people that very much want the election because they have very little confidence that any elected officials can pick the right person period. That would reflect on the three of us in that case. I look back to the appointment of Carol Thompson, I think Carol served the County extremely well, was a good choice, the voters reelected her to a position. I think we came up with a fine candidate that time. When I look at all those things, I just think that in the short period of time, I think we can find the right person to be appointed. There can be people that are looking at filling the position that have no aspirations other than to be part of the process, to pay back their community with civic duty, and want to do this but have no want or need to proceed beyond this. I believe there are people like that that could be out there. I think there are many talented people in this community that could fill this position on short term and get right to it. The statement that the Board of Supervisors has some big decisions ahead, they always do, and that will always be the case. With budgeting where it is, with flat line budgets, I just can't justify $75,000. You are right Kim, that if people think that whoever we would come up with, if that were the decision, is not the right person, 7,299 signatures is a lot but they can be gathered. We have groups that work very hard in this community to make things happen if they believe there is a need to do that. My mind has not changed much from Friday after talking to people. I can't justify the cost of $75,000.
Slockett: I'd like to put something else on the table that I think should be a consideration. There is at least one really significant issue in which the Board is split three to two on. This has been decided through the electoral process, and that is the Newport Road project. I think we should be careful that as appointed officials, we don't overturn a decision that was made through the democratic process. While I don't want issues to become a significant part of our decision, I think we should be cognizant of close votes and make sure that we don't reverse a controversial issue such as that one. I think that ought to be a consideration. I agree with Tom that we have a lot of really qualified people to serve on the Board, even experienced people. Appointing someone as an interim appointee who won't run is one option. I think that is worth considering. The two sides of the coin are that if you have someone who already is really familiar with the process and up to speed, they don't need a long learning curve. The other side of that coin is they are then gone and if it is a significant period of time, that would be useful for a new person who is going to continue on the Board to gain experience that could then continue. When I look back at our previous appointees, we appointed Pat Meade and Carol Thompson, two women. We only have one woman serving on the Board of Supervisors. This came up because we only had one woman serving during those periods of time as well. Sometimes minority and women candidates are for whatever reasons, reluctant to throw their hats into the ring. These two women were both easily reelected on their own rights when they did come up for election. I think one thing we can think about, and I hope we will consider, is the possibility of having an Affirmative Action aspect to our decision and encouraging a women or a minority person to serve and not preclude the possibility of them running for election again if they choose.
Lori Cardella: Your comment that you shared with the other two members as far as concern about not electing someone who would disturb the 3 to 2 position on the Newport Road issue, is that not a conflict of interest? Would that not be a litmus test typing you would have to have for the candidates. That validates the need, all the more, to put the vote to the people in my opinion.
Slockett: What I feel is that it would not be appropriate for us, as an appointed board, to appoint someone who intended to reverse that decision. That is my personal feeling. I don't know whether Tom or Kim share that point of view, but that is the way I would look at it. Once the person runs for election, if they run for election, they could have an opposite decision if they wanted to campaign on it. I would feel uncomfortable appointing someone who was going to reverse that decision because it was so controversial, and, I believe it did result in an incumbent Supervisor loosing the election which isn't all that common. I think it is just something we need to keep in mind as we make this decision.
Kriz: I'll weigh in on that a little bit Tom. That is really not a strong concern because the person we appoint is only one vote. I think the people, and that whole issue was well gone over. It would still take two other Supervisors and things change over time. People see that things have worked and worked all right. I'm not quite as concerned that would be an issue. I understand where you are coming from.
Slockett: It was three to two.
Kriz: It was three to two at that time. There has also been some time between that and more dialogue and discussion. I don't perceive that as being an issue. The other two would still have to feel strongly and I don't know that that's the case anymore.
Slockett: I don't either.
Painter: That's true.
Kriz: That would be my guess. The one person would not change that.
Cardella: I guess the point that you brought it up, in and of itself, that you expressed that concern was just interesting.
Kriz: I think a general concern that you wouldn't want to bring anything with a real special focused agenda on any one particular item, whatever that is, is something that we'd have to wade through. I still believe the rounded person is out there and that is not a big issue.
Painter: I would be uncomfortable compiling any kind of list, even if it is just one, of litmus test type questions. On the other hand, I would feel badly if someone was appointed who, with much election opportunity around the horizon, made a change that went against a process that had been decided once electorally. I sympathize with what you are saying, Tom. I would not like to see that happen, but I would not like to start a list of things we should ask people about or try to ascertain. That brings up the other issue which has been mentioned by both other members of this committee which is that we always get terrific ranges of applicants when this process happens. I have only been through it one time but as Tom was saying, we get people who may want to run and may express that. We get people who may not and will express that, we get people who may hold their cards a little closer to their vest, and we get people who are complete surprises, that we never had that much of a chance to talk to. In its way, though it is not an elections process, it is a process that I think can provide some really good energy and some good leadership.
Slockett: I would like to add a little follow up on that. My basic point that was made into that specific instance that we talked about is that I personally feel that in the process of appointment we should not reverse the will of the voters. I think that is a personal consideration for me that I not do that.
Painter: I agree.
Lyness: It looks like you have several different things on your agenda that you can decide.
Slockett: It sounds to me like we have an agreement to appoint at this point. That being the case, the next step would be to publish a notice. There are a number of decisions we would need to make that require scheduling. This is a previous notice published, just as an example. Everyone knows what a nightmare it is to try to schedule five people to do something. I don't see how we could do that today without having our calendars in front of us. Some of the things we would need to decide are…we did talk about taking applications and having a deadline and interviewing the people we decided to interview and making an appointment. If we did that process we would need to schedule the date on which applications must be received. We would have to schedule a meeting to screen the applications. Then select candidates to be interviewed. Then we would have to decide which people we were going to interview and then we would have to make the appointment. I think there would probably be four meeting dates we would need to schedule. What I am suggesting is that we set another time to meet. How do you feel about emailing each other to schedule meeting dates?
Lyness: Why don't you email those dates to me and then there is no question about what's on the emails. Just send me your dates and I can figure out a date that works for all of you and then let you all know. Then there is no question about your emails containing anything other than the dates.
Slockett: We'll need four dates. Theoretically we could decide today the date that the applications must be received. Casie, if we published a notice, when would it be published in the newspaper if we send it to the newspaper either today or tomorrow.
Deputy Auditor Casie Parkins: Would you want to publish in all three official newspapers or just the Press-Citizen?
Slockett: We are only required to publish it in the Press-Citizen and that would allow us to proceed more quickly because of the weekly deadlines.
Parkins: It could probably be in the Press-Citizen on Thursday or Friday.
Slockett: That would be when the public would be notified if they don't read any newspapers. They would have to read the newspaper to see that I guess. Friday, let's say Friday at the outset. How long a period do you think would be, Kim and Tom, sufficient for people to submit resumes? Do you think one week, or two weeks?
Painter: Probably two at the most.
Kriz: I'd prefer two weeks. One week is a little bit short.
Slockett: That would be Friday, October 16. Does someone want to move that we have a deadline that we publish as soon as possible and that the applications be received by 5:00 p.m. Friday, October 16th, in the Auditor's Office?
Painter: Shall we combine that with a motion to appoint?
Slockett: We could have separate motions. Does somebody want to move that we appoint or would someone like me to?
Kriz: I can certainly move that we vote to appoint to fill this position. It's up to you whether you want to tie the other one together.
Painter: We'll just vote one at a time.
Kriz: I'll move that we appoint to fill this position.
Slockett: Second. We are required to record how each person voted in the minutes.
Painter: Aye.
Kriz: Aye.
Slockett: Aye. Do we have a motion to publish a notice?
Painter: Yes we do. And with the timeline you mentioned, which I can't repeat.
Kriz: Friday, October 16, at 5:00 p.m.
Slockett: We will have to ask the advice of the County Attorney. It is my assumption that we can't approve this with the dates to be filled in for these time slots. We'll have to have a completed timeframe in front of us and vote on it to approve it.
Lyness: Right. I think you can go ahead and publish, and then you would have to do a separate publication about when you are going to do everything else. It makes more sense to have everything all at once, all the dates when you are going to decide.
Slockett: Right. I just thought of that as we are proceeding.
Lyness: Do you have any ideas what your calendars are? Do you think you could look at some dates now?
Kriz: I can.
Slockett: Shall we come up with some dates? I think we are in consensus that the deadline for receiving applications in the Auditor's Office be 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 16th. Now we need one for a time to select the candidates to be interviewed. We can make copies and distribute them. We can be screening them as soon as we receive them. We will need a meeting to select which candidates to be interviewed.
Painter: Could we just meet that next week on possibly Wednesday, October 21st, give us a couple of days? Or would you rather go earlier in the week.
Kriz: I'd prefer anything but Mondays.
Slockett: How about Tuesday just to move it along a little faster?
Painter: That looks good. Tuesday is great.
Slockett: We will tentatively say Tuesday, October 20. We don't have a room.
Lyness: Let me bring my calendar.
Slockett: 2:00 p.m.
Parkins: What time Tom?
Slockett: Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. is what I just tentatively threw out.
Painter: Janet will check for a room.
Slockett: We'll see what time Janet comes up with.
Painter: Tom, do we have a 40 day count? What is our 40th day?
Slockett: It would be November 1st. Forty days from September 22nd.
Lyness: Room 203b, I believe that's one of the big ones. It is taken from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. on the 20th. You could either meet before 10:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. or between 12:00 and 1:30 p.m. Is 203c the other half?
Slockett: Yes.
Kriz: Yes.
Lyness: 203c is booked for the same things.
Lyness: What is 202A?
Slockett: That is the nice room with the windows.
Lyness: That big one?
Slockett: No.
Kriz: It looks over the parking lot.
Painter: It’s a good size.
Lyness: It's open entirely on October 20th.
Slockett: Let's reserve that. What time would you like?
Painter: 2:00 was fine if that's what people want to do.
Kriz: 2:00 is fine.
Slockett: Yes, that's fine with me.
Kriz: That's in 202A?
Slockett: Are you reserving it right now?
Lyness: I'm going to see if I can do it.
Slockett: While Janet is doing that…
Lyness: I'm sorry, what time did you say?
Slockett: 2:00 p.m. What do you think, an hour or two?
Painter: Plug in two hours.
Slockett: Yes, that's a good idea. We'll need to actually do the interviews.
Lyness: That room appears to be open on Thursday and Friday that week, and it is open on Wednesday except for 10:00 until 11:30.
Slockett: What are your wishes?
Painter: We could certainly schedule a full day or a big chunk of the day on Friday. Thursday I see there is a Finance Committee meeting. But it's 2 until 3:30 or something. So we could do a morning on Thursday, depending on how many time slots we need and how long each interview will be. I don't know how that sounds to you guys. Start Thursday morning and try to finish Friday. I can't remember how many days we needed the last time.
Parkins: We did 13 interviews the last time, I believe.
Slockett: It can be difficult to narrow the list down because we have a number of highly qualified people. Is the 26th open too?
Lyness: It's open until 4:15 p.m. that day.
Slockett: Let's schedule that too and hope against hope that we can cancel it. The morning of the 22nd, the 23rd all day, and the 26th until 4:15 p.m.
Painter: I do show an elected officials meeting on the 26th at 1:30 but hopefully that's right.
Kriz: I think that's right.
Painter: But we could make it work with the morning block.
Slockett: Should we just reserve the morning on the 26th? And we can always find another room. Surely we'll know 24 hours ahead of time and be able to post an agenda if we think we'll need to go longer we can reserve another room after Friday. And then we'll have to schedule a time to make the decision. What do you think? Wednesday?
Kriz: Wednesday the 28th.
Slockett: Is that room available? Thank you for doing this Janet.
Painter: Do you want an afternoon time on Wednesday?
Lyness: Wednesday is open all day.
Slockett: Should we just stick with 2:00 p.m. or do we want to do it in the morning?
Painter: Sounds good to me, 2:00 p.m.
Slockett: 2:00 p.m. for the rest of the day.
Kriz: What times do we have on the 22nd and 26th then?
Slockett: We have the morning open on the 22nd. What time do you want to meet? 9:00?
Painter: Yes.
Lyness: From 2:00 on, on the 28th. I'll put you down for 2:00 until 5:00.
Parkins: On the 23rd did you want to start at 9:00 a.m. also?
Slockett: Yes, that makes sense. And the same for the 26th?
Lyness: 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. on the 26th.
Slockett: Starting time would be 9:00 a.m. And the 28th would be 2:00 p.m.
Kriz: So we've got the 23rd right, not the 22nd?
Slockett: We've got the 22nd in the morning starting at 9:00 a.m., the 23rd all day starting at 9:00 a.m., and the 26th 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 we have available, but we would start at 9:00 a.m. if we need to. And the 28th from 2:00 until 5:00 but the meeting time would be 2:00. Does someone want to move that we publish the notice with the agreed upon starting times and dates?
Painter: I would move that.
Slockett: I'll second it. I guess we can start at this end this time. I'll say aye.
Kriz: Aye.
Painter: Aye.
Slockett: I think that's everything we need to decide. Let's take a look at the agenda again. Is there anymore discussion or questions?
Kriz: Are there any guidelines Tom for what we expect to see in the applications?
Slockett: No, but that reminds me in the past we've had a list of questions that we asked, so that's something that we should probably put on the agenda for one of the meetings that is scheduled.
Kriz: Probably the first one on the 20th.
Slockett: Yes.
Parkins: What time are we meeting on the 20th?
Kriz: 2:00 p.m.
Lyness: Kim, in this sample notice you have, it says resumes, cover letters, and letters of recommendation, where to be sent. So we have a request here already for resumes, cover letters, and letters of recommendation.
Slockett: Then we'll decide on the 20th what list of questions we're going to ask each candidate. Lori?
Cardella: Is there any part of the interview process that is open to the public?
Slockett: It's all open.
Cardella: It's all open? Even the interviewing is open to the public?
Slockett: It's a public office. In some County positions there is a provision that if the applicant requests that it be closed because it will harm their reputation or something to that effect, in the Code, but it has to be at their request to go into executive session and that has to be on the record. But that doesn't really apply to this position.
Lyness: I do think it's a meeting though where the Committee will be asking the questions, so it's not like everybody who comes can ask questions. It's only the three committee members.
Slockett: Okay, I don't think we have any more business.
Lyness: So your next date would be October 20th at 2:00 p.m.
Kriz: Casie will take care of the publication?
Slockett: Yes, and we'll distribute agendas through Janet as well, to make sure we're in agreement with the agendas before they're posted. Okay should we adjourn? Thank you everyone for attending.
Adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2009
By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Committee on September 30, 2009 at 2:45 p.m.