Thesecond meeting of the Interim Joint Committee on State Government was held on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 1:00 PM, in Room 149 of the Capitol Annex. Senator Albert Robinson and Representative Charles Geveden, Co-Chairs, presided jointly. Representative Geveden called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.
Members: Senator Albert Robinson, Co-Chair; Representative Charles Geveden, Co-Chair; Senators Walter Blevins, Charlie Borders, David Boswell, Ernie Harris, Alice Kerr, Ed Miller, Ernesto Scorsone, Elizabeth Tori, Johnny Turner, and David L. Williams; Representatives John Adams, Woody Allen, Adrian Arnold, Eddie Ballard, Joe Barrows, Carolyn Belcher, John Bowling, James Bruce, Buddy Buckingham, Dwight Butler, Jim Callahan, Larry Clark, Perry Clark, James Comer, Tim Feeley, Joseph Fischer, Charlie Hoffman, Jimmie Lee, Paul Marcotte, Lonnie Napier, Tanya Pullin, Jon David Reinhardt, Arnold Simpson, John Will Stacy, Tommy Turner, and Jim Wayne.
Guests: Ron Crouch and Vernon Smith, Kentucky State Data Center; Peter Wattson, Office of Senate Counsel and Research, State of Minnesota.
LRC Staff: Joyce Honaker, Joyce Crofts, Barri Christian, Tom Troth, Stewart Willis, Laura Hendrix, Melissa Bybee, and Peggy Sciantarelli.
The minutes of the August 22 meeting were approved without objection, upon motion by Representative Bruce.
Senator Robinson welcomed Ron Crouch, Director of the Kentucky State Data Center, and Vernon Smith, Senior Researcher at the Center, who spoke about the 2000 Census and population trends. They presented the following documents to the Committee: Census 2000 map of Kentucky, from USA Today; "HMK99/How Many Kentuckians 1999 Edition (Kentucky Trends)"; chart, "Median Ages/Kentucky and Counties/1980, 1990 and 2000"; charts showing the population of Kentucky and the Area Development Districts, by age, for 1980, 1990 & 2000; charts showing 2000 population, population change, and percent of change in population, by age categories, in Kentucky and its counties, and age categories as a percent of total population in Kentucky and its counties; Fact Sheet and "Census 2000 Informational Memorandum No. 100 (dated April 26, 2001)" relating to the Count Question Resolution (CQR) Program; three charts relating to the 1990 net undercount and undercount rate for Kentucky counties, ranked by county, by net undercount, and by undercount rate; charts showing 1990 net undercount and undercount rate for Kentucky and its counties, by race, for total population and for population under age 18, including both adjusted and official population totals. Mr. Crouch gave an overview of this data. He made the following key points during his presentation.
Kentucky's 2000 population was 4,041, 769, an increase of 9.7 percent since the 1990 census; nationally, the population grew 13.2 percent. Most of the growth taking place across the country has been in urban areas and along the interstate highway systems.
One issue for Kentucky is the lack of growth in the youth population (age 14 and under). In 1900, there were 809,000 youth (age 14 and under); today the youth population numbers only 825,000, although the state's population has more than doubled in the past 100 years. The growth is now among the mature adult population, especially age 45 and above. In the past, even though there was out-migration from eastern Kentucky, there was a very high fertility rate, and the population grew. Now the fertility rate is very low. Of the 50 states, Kentucky ranked 28th in population growth in 2000.
Kentucky's population age 25-34 declined by 6.9 percent in 2000. Population of people in their twenties today in the United States is the smallest in 50 years. In the 1980's, 171,000 people left the state; in the 1990's there appears to have been in-migration of about 190,000. The largest growth has been in the age 45-54 category; in fact, half the growth in the state in the last 10 years was in this age group. Basically, the population is getting older, which is the reality across the nation. The median age has increased from 33 in 1990 to 35.9 in 2000. Kentucky's white population grew by 7.3 percent; the Black population grew by 12.6 percent. The largest growth in the Black population in the nation is in the southeast. All other regions in the country are experiencing out-migration to the south. The Hispanic or Latino population (of any race) in Kentucky grew from 21,984 in 1990 to 59,939 in 2000, but this population was probably significantly undercounted.
Housing units, which grew 16.2 percent, are growing faster than population. The new census data shows that 60 percent of households in the state contain only one or two people, and 9.8 percent of householders living alone are age 65 or older. Only one in three households contain children under 18, which is a major shift—the largest segment of the population being 35-44. Population growth in the 65-74 "young old" age group during the last 10 years has been limited (2.5 percent), although there has been significant growth in the 75 and older age group.
The population trends in some areas of the state are unexpected. The biggest growth in its middle-age population is occurring in southeast Kentucky, which differs from historical trends. Another unexpected trend is the 7.7 percent decline in the 65-74 age group in Western Kentucky's Purchase Area Development District that occurred within the last 10 years. In 1990, Kentucky's largest population was ages 30-34. It is projected that the largest population in 2020 will be ages 55-64. This is consistent with the national trend.
The number of households in Kentucky continues to grow. In 1980, the largest group of householders was ages 25-34. In the year 2000, the largest group was ages 35-54. Based on current projections, in the next 20 years, there will be no growth in households in the state headed by people younger than 55. There are major demographic changes occurring in Kentucky and across the nation. Over half of all growth in the nation during the next 10 years is projected to be ages 50-59.
There is a growing ethnic minority population in Kentucky, as there is in the South. The growth indicated in the minority youth population is due to a great extent to the declining population of non-Hispanic White youth. This is a major population shift occurring across the country.
The percent of live births to mothers under age 20 has declined in Kentucky to below the national average. However, the number of births out of wedlock increased from 22 percent in 1987-89 to 30 percent in 1997-99, an issue of growing concern. There is concern that the blue-collar, unskilled workers are being left behind in this growing knowledge economy, and this is reflected in the out-of-wedlock data. Data from 1998 indicates that a significant number of women having children out of wedlock have a high school or less education.
Data for 1970-1999 shows that Kentucky is one of the few states that has growth in manufacturing employment; but there is greater growth in the retail and services occupations, which are lower-paying. The 2000 Census data on economics and education will not be released until the summer and fall of 2002. Mr. Crouch concluded his presentation with commentary on how retirement issues are becoming a major concern due to the aging population.
Vernon Smith explained the Count Question Resolution program, a planned administrative review program that will handle external challenges to official Census 2000 counts of housing units and group quarters population received from state, local or tribal officials of governmental entities or their designated representatives in the U. S. and Puerto Rico. He said that between June 30, 2001, and September 30, 2003, there will be changes in the Census counts, as elected local officials in cities and counties challenge them. This has happened in all previous censuses. He mentioned that an undercount occurred in the city of Morehead's population in the 2000 Census because of the way that certain university students were counted. He said the correction is being made and that corrected counts may be issued for other counties and cities that experience similar problems. He said discrepancies are being examined also in a Grant County community in which 70 of the 120 city blocks showed zero population, in Orchard Grass Hills, and in several other Kentucky communities. In closing, Mr. Smith said that the Data Center's role is to supply data and technical assistance to communities that request it.
Representative Larry Clark asked whether there is any standard to determine how an undercount might financially impact a state. Mr. Crouch said there certainly would be a dollar amount tied to an undercount but that no specific figure has been set for the 2000 Census. Representative Clark asked how much federal funding Jefferson County lost as a result of the 1990 undercount. Mr. Crouch said it would have been roughly $800 per household.
Senator Harris asked whether a large percentage of the undercounted Hispanic population in 2000—e.g., in Shelby County—are illegal aliens. Mr. Crouch said that many of them are migrant farm workers and that probably a large segment of the Hispanic population in Kentucky is here illegally. Senator Harris said he believes that a lot of these undocumented people are migrant farm workers who plan to be in the United States only temporarily anyway. Mr. Crouch agreed and added that a high percentage of restaurant workers in Louisville are Hispanic and are probably also undocumented. He went on to say that the population of Hispanic children ages four and under is high in Kentucky and that school officials say they are seeing more Hispanic children being enrolled.
Senator Scorsone asked whether it is fair to say that, although Census methodology has improved, resident population is still being missed. Mr. Crouch said that is correct. He noted that there was a 1.6 percent undercount in Kentucky in 1990—about 60,000 people. Senator Scorsone asked about the accuracy of the Census Monitoring Board's estimates that Asians are likely to be undercounted twice as often as Whites, African-Americans three times as often, and Hispanics over four times as often. Mr. Crouch said that in 1990, in Kentucky, the undercount was about 2:1 African-American and 3:1 Hispanic. Senator Scorsone asked about the accuracy of the estimated 60,000 1990 undercount in Kentucky. Mr. Crouch indicated that that is the accepted figure.
Senator Scorsone said that, according to the Census Monitoring Board, the 2000 undercount appears to be about 50,000 in Kentucky. Mr. Crouch said that the Data Center has received no official data on undercount from the Census Bureau, although a part of a committee that was monitoring the undercount released a report with that figure. He said they have been told that October 15 the Census Bureau will announce whether or not to use the adjusted numbers for future estimates and for other purposes. The Census Bureau has said the adjusted numbers will not be used for redistricting at the national level and that it would be up to the individual states to determine whether or not to use adjusted data. He said he is not sure when the adjusted data might be released. Joyce Honaker, LRC staff, noted that the data that may possibly be adjusted would be at the "block group" level. She said that if the adjusted numbers are released, a separate decision would have to be made to adjust down to the "block" level. Mr. Crouch noted that "block" level data would be needed for purposes of redistricting.
Senator Scorsone made a motion that the Interim Joint Committee on State Government send a letter to the Census Bureau asking that adjusted data be released for Kentucky. The motion was seconded. Senator Williams asked that the motion be laid on the table until all committee members have had an opportunity to speak. Senator Robinson said he, too, would prefer to have additional discussion. Senator Scorsone said he would delay asking for a vote on the motion in order to allow for further discussion.
Representative Feeley asked Mr. Crouch whether he would expect the 2000 undercount to be less than in 1990, due to improved collection methods by the Census Bureau. Mr. Crouch said the data released by the committee that was monitoring the 2000 undercount indicated about a 1.2 percent undercount for Kentucky, which is an improvement over the 1.6 percent undercount in 1990. Representative Feeley commented that the 1990 undercount in nearly all counties was a small percentage—between one and two percent—but that it was spread fairly evenly throughout the state. He noted that the highest undercount rate—2.5 percent in Meade County—fell well within the five percent variance for ideal legislative districts.
Senator Harris asked whether Kentucky would not benefit less from adjusted data than would states that are more populous and less rural in character. Mr. Crouch said that the unofficial 2000 data released by part of the monitoring committee seemed to show that Kentucky is about "on par" and no worse or better than the other states. He said Kentucky was "in the middle" in 1990, also.
Senator Williams read from a letter to the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Commerce, signed by Speaker Richards and Democratic Floor Leader Karem, which quoted from the report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy in Coverage and Evaluation Policy (ESCAP) as follows: "The majority of evidence indicates both the continued existence of differential undercount of the population and the superior accuracy of the adjusted numbers." Senator Williams noted that the report, but not the letter, goes on to say, "…the ESCAP has concerns. There is a significant inconsistency between the ACE estimates and demographic analysis estimates." Senator Williams asked Mr. Crouch if it is not true that the model used overcounts the American population. Mr. Crouch said he is not familiar with the report.
Senator Williams said the truth of the matter is that the Census count can never be 100 percent accurate because the picture is continually changing. Mr. Crouch agreed. Senator Williams asked whether it is not true that many experts believe that the 2000 Census was the most accurate in history. Mr. Crouch said that the undercount increased between 1980 and 1990 and that the 2000 Census certainly does show improvement, in that the undercount declined.
Senator Williams asked how the model for the estimated changes or corrections is determined. Mr. Crouch said the model would be based on the Census Bureau's consulting with outside firms. He said it is not a clear answer and that some officials within the Bureau want to use an adjusted count but others do not. Senator Williams said that the report cited in Speaker Richards' and Senator Karem's letter—which seems to indicate that the executive summary of the report supports the use of adjusted numbers for redistricting—says that "the Executive Steering Committee for the ACE policy is not able to conclude, based upon information available at this time, that the adjusted 2000 data are more accurate for redistricting." Senator Williams asked Mr. Crouch whether he has an opinion whether adjusted data is more accurate for redistricting than enumeration data. Mr. Crouch said that is not his specialty and that he has no opinion. Senator Williams asked Mr. Crouch whether he is aware of adjusted numbers ever having been used in Kentucky for redistricting purposes. Mr. Crouch said that the Data Center is not involved in the redistricting process and has not followed that issue. Senator Williams said it would appear that the statement contained in Speaker Richards' and Senator Karem's letter is unsupported by the report of the Executive Steering Committee. He said, also, it would appear that the experts testifying today do not think that any other statistical information would be superior than the enumeration numbers or are at least not willing to say that.
Senator Scorsone said that, by making the motion, he is not suggesting a commitment to using adjusted data. He is simply asking that Kentucky have an opportunity to look at it before making any decisions.
Representative Larry Clark said his concern relates to the financial impact of the undercount. He said he supports the motion because he believes the legislature has an obligation to try to increase the count as much as possible in order to be eligible for more federal funding.
Senator Robinson said he doubts that using adjusted data would take funding from other states. He said he feels this is an area that involves a lot of hypothetical questions that the Committee should not be involved with at this time. He asked that when the roll call vote is taken on Senator Scorsone's motion, the record should also reflect separate tallies for House and Senate members of the Committee.
Representative Barrows said that getting the adjusted data may not be a bad idea because it could impact federal funding. He questioned whether the data would be specific enough to be used for redistricting purposes. Senator Williams said it depends on what model is applied. He said, for that reason, he does not believe the vote on Senator Scorsone's motion will be of any consequence or have an impact in Washington, D.C. He said that any decision about what model to use for redistribution of federal funds will be made at a national level and that the bottom line is that the motion is part of an effort to delay redistricting. He said the Governor should call a special redistricting session, using the enumerated figures, regardless of the political composition of the General Assembly, and that there are no better numbers than the enumerated numbers. He also said that the smaller the unit to which the numbers are applied, the less validity they have. He asked Mr. Crouch if this is not so, and Mr. Crouch said that is correct.
Senator Robinson called for a vote on Senator Scorsone's motion. The motion passed, with 21 members voting "yes" and 15 members voting "no." (House – 17 "yes," nine "no"; Senate – four "yes," six "no"). He then thanked Mr. Crouch and Mr. Smith.
Representative Geveden assumed the chair and introduced the next guest speaker, Peter Wattson of Minnesota's Office of Senate Counsel, who spoke on federal redistricting law. Representative Geveden noted that Mr. Wattson has assisted in drafting and defending Minnesota's legislative and congressional redistricting plans since 1971. In 1989 and 1998, he served as staff chair of the Redistricting Task Force of the National Conference of State Legislatures. He is a frequent lecturer on redistricting law at NCSL seminars and is the author or editor of many NCSL publications on redistricting law.
Mr. Wattson gave a slide presentation based on his paper, "How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court." (Copies of the slide show were provided to the Committee. Copies of the paper are available from State Government Committee staff.) Topics in the presentation included: racial and partisan gerrymandering (the process of drawing districts with odd shapes to create an unfair advantage); demographic analysis and use of official Census Bureau population counts; data categories for race and ethnicity; measuring population equality among districts; standards for legislative and Congressional districts; racial and ethnic discrimination, and requirements of the U. S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act, in drawing redistricting plans; and importance of avoiding drawing "racial gerrymander" plans. There was a strong emphasis on redistricting case law.
He explained that in February 2001, the Census Bureau's advisory committee recommended against an adjustment of the population head count. He said that because the actual head count in 2000 turned out to be approximately five million more than estimated, the Bureau was not confident that adjusted data would be more accurate than the head count. The Bureau is still reviewing that decision and will announce by October 15 whether to do an adjustment to the summary data—that is, to data only at the block group level and above. Currently, there is not any adjusted data available.
Mr. Wattson said that the courts have developed different standards for legislative and Congressional districts. He said the standard for Congressional districts is based on Article I, Section 2, of the U. S. Constitution, which says the districts shall be distributed equally throughout the country. But the standard developed in case law—primarily since 1983—is "strict equality." In most cases, districts must be mathematically equal. However, the courts have said that if it is necessary to achieve some legitimate state objective, Congressional districts do not have to be drawn mathematically equal. Most states in the 1990's drew plans that were mathematically equal. In Maryland, West Virginia, and Arkansas, the courts did uphold Congressional plans that had some degree of mathematical inequality. In Arkansas, the justification was to preserve the cores of prior districts; in Maryland, to preserve three separate regions; and in West Virginia, to preserve prior districts and make districts compact.
Mr. Wattson said that "substantial equality of population" has come to mean that a state legislative redistricting plan will not be thrown out for inequality of population if its overall range of deviation is less than 10 percent, unless necessary to achieve some rational state policy. So far, "rational state policy" has only meant affording representation to political subdivisions. He said that in a 1973 Virginia case, an overall rate of 16.4 percent was found acceptable. In the 1990's, the U. S. Supreme Court found Ohio House and Senate plans acceptable that had an overall range greater than 10 percent. Mr. Wattson said that it is likely that the courts, when drawing a plan, will settle on some measure less than a 10 percent overall range. In Minnesota in 1972 and 1980, the courts drew plans with an overall range of four percent. In 1991, the legislature drew the plans but stayed with the four percent overall range.
Mr. Wattson discussed federalism in redistricting. He said that in Minnesota in the 1990's there was a battle between a state and a federal court, both of which seemed anxious to draw redistricting plans. The final decision was made by the Supreme Court in 1993 that said that a federal court must defer to a state court that has actively engaged in redistricting litigation. He said it may be reasonable for a federal court to set a deadline for a state court to meet—and to step in if the state court fails to complete its work by the deadline—but the state court's decision is not subject to review by a federal district court. The state court's decision must be allowed to be appealed through the state court system, and ultimately to the U. S. Supreme Court. However, just because the redistricting litigation may be concluded in state court does not mean the end of the process. A different set of plaintiffs or a different claim may be presented in federal court, even after a state court has approved the plan. For example, if a federal court should find something wrong with a plan drawn by the Kentucky legislature or by a Kentucky state court, the federal court must still defer to state remedies, and that usually means allowing the body that drew the plan an opportunity to "fix what's broken." If there is not time to allow that to happen, and the federal court feels compelled to impose its own fix, the federal court must still respect the state's choices as far as possible and make as few as changes in the state drawn plan as can be done and still satisfy the federal requirements.
Mr. Wattson said that the attorney general has an important role in any redistricting litigation, as illustrated in one of the later cases from Florida (Lawyer v. Department of Justice). He said the attorney general is entitled to represent the state in court, and since it is the state's responsibility to draw the plans, if litigation reaches federal court and there is time to talk settlement, the settlement in some cases may be negotiated by the attorney general on behalf of the state, even perhaps without the participation of the legislature—certainly not the legislature through the normal lawmaking process.
Representative Fischer asked if is fair to say that the 2000 Census resulted in an overcount, rather than an undercount, since the actual head count exceeded the estimates. Mr. Wattson said that is correct.
Representative Fischer asked Mr. Wattson how not having adjusted data at the block level would affect redistricting. Mr. Wattson said that some states use whole precincts to redistrict, some use census tracts, and some might use block groups and above; but many states, such as Minnesota, draw districts down to the block level. He said he understands that there is no plan to issue adjusted counts at the block level—i.e., there would be no way to know what the adjustment would be "block by block."
Representative Fischer asked Mr. Wattson if he knows of any cases in which there was a challenge under a "one person, one vote" theory where the legislature had delayed redistricting—i.e., a case that did not challenge the actual new redistricting but challenged the lack of a redistricting plan. Mr. Wattson said yes and that he believes this occurred most recently in Massachusetts in the 1990's. He said Massachusetts was one of two states (Kansas being the other) that conducted a state census in addition to the federal Census. Massachusetts planned to redistrict in 1994 rather than in 1992, and that plan was attacked in federal court. He said, as he recalls, the court said that it is a basic requirement of the Constitution that districts be redrawn at least every 10 years—and if they are drawn at least every 10 years, there is no requirement that they be drawn more frequently than that. The court said that since Massachusetts was on a regular schedule of redistricting in the year ending in "4," in order to tie into the special state census, this was sufficient justification for not having redistricted in the year ending in "2." Mr. Wattson said he believes both states have now abandoned their state census. He noted that McGovern v. Connelly upheld the use of a state census rather than the U. S. Census for redistricting, but that was not the case that challenged the date of redistricting in Massachusetts, because that would have occurred closer to 1992.
Representative Callahan asked when Minnesota will redistrict. Mr. Wattson said that, so far, the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate have each passed quite different bills containing both legislative and Congressional plans. He said a conference committee and private negotiations are now underway. Public hearings will be held, and the most optimistic schedule would provide for a negotiated agreement and a special session around November. Another possibility is a negotiated agreement and enactment of a plan when the legislature reconvenes January 29. A third possibility is to continue to negotiate and enact a plan by the statutory deadline of March 19. The last possibility is that, if the legislature fails to act by March 19, the state panel which has been appointed and is now preparing a backup plan will probably issue a plan on March 20. He said that June is the latest month that Minnesota has ever redistricted, he believes, and that was a 1972 court-ordered plan. Representative Feeley asked about the composition and jurisdictional basis of the state panel. Mr. Wattson said it is a five-member court appointed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. He said the initial case was filed in Wright County. Both plaintiff and defendant—the Secretary of State and the Wright County Auditor—asked the Supreme Court to appoint a special panel to handle that case and any other redistricting cases that might be filed. The Supreme Court deferred action on the appointment of a panel until after the legislature adjourned its 2001 session without passing a plan, but then appointed a five-judge panel consisting of three district court judges and two judges of the court of appeals. This was done based on a 1991 precedent, when the parties likewise had approached the court and requested the appointment of a panel. In that case it was a three-judge panel. The court took that action based on what it found to be its inherent authority to manage the judicial system and a statute that says generally that the Supreme Court should manage the flow of cases in the lower courts. There had been only one precedent in state history where they had appointed a three-judge special panel to hear a case, but they used that one precedent, plus the general statute and the agreement of the parties, to go forward.
Representative Feeley asked whether the special panel would come up with a de novo plan of its own or would work from the compromise plans already on the table. Mr. Wattson said this is not known. He said that, at this point, they are simply taking motions to intervene. The parties who are preparing their plans and negotiating are assuming that they will be presenting those plans to the court. It is entirely possible that if there is no agreement in the legislature, the court will draw a plan de novo.
Representative Scorsone said there are two Kentucky cases—Lancaster v. the City of Owensboro and Gross v. Ross—which basically say that the legislature can use different numbers other than the raw census data if it feels they are more accurate and appropriate. He asked whether there are similar cases in other states. Mr. Wattson said that not a lot of states do that but that the law enunciated by the U. S. Supreme Court is very clear that it is appropriate. If a local jurisdiction drawing a plan can show that the data it is using is at least as accurate as the official Census counts, that is acceptable. If the result produced by that other data is essentially the same as would be arrived at using official Census counts, it is acceptable. If the result might be substantially different, then it is not acceptable.
Representative Geveden asked whether a population variance of 50 to 100, for example, in a Congressional plan would be significant enough to be overturned. Mr. Wattson said that a plan with an overall range of 50 people will lose in court if someone else can present a plan with an overall range of 49 people, unless it can be shown that there is a good reason the range could not be less than 50 and still achieve legitimate goals. He noted, for example, that in Arkansas one of the key factors was that it was not possible to draw a plan with a lower overall range and move as few counties and as few people into a different Congressional district. Representative Geveden thanked Mr. Wattson for a very worthwhile presentation. Mr. Wattson invited anyone with questions to contact him by phone or e-mail.
Ms. Honaker noted that the meeting folders include a March 20 memorandum approved by LRC regarding redistricting workstations and staff assistance to legislators. She said that there will be a number of workstations located in the offices of the Senate President, the House Speaker, the caucuses, and the State Government Committee Co-Chairs. State Government Committee staff have workstations in place to assist individual members with redistricting proposals. She pointed out that any legislator's request for development of a redistricting plan is confidential until the legislator chooses to release it and that the same principles apply as for any bill or amendment draft.
Senator Robinson assumed the chair. Representative Arnold, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Elections, Constitutional Amendments, and Intergovernmental Affairs, reported on the Task Force's September 18 meeting. He said that the Task Force has recommended to the full Committee that the following bills be prefiled for the 2002 Regular Session: BR's 260, 263, 264, 265, 267, and 302. Additional Task Force recommendations may be forthcoming. The next Task Force meeting will be October 16.
Business concluded, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.