Travis County Commssioners Court
October 28, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 5
5. Consider and take appropriate action on staff recommendations for purchase of social services from community-based organizations.
>> good morning. At the discussion a couple of weeks ago, I worked more intensively with my staff and also with the city of Austin staff to -- to ensure that we had an administrative review of -- an administrative and fiscal review of the social services agencies. And basically has we were looking for was compliance, with some of the basic requirements that we have within the -- within the contract. What we checked for was whether or not the agency had a current audit, whether or not the audit was clear, whether we had a 990, whether they had complied with insurance and performance. I'm happy to say that every agency has pretty much complied with our performance expectations. There were a few agencies that -- that actually did not have a current audit and there was one agency that, in our opinion, did not have a clear audit. So, therefore, we are moving forward -- I'm presenting a couple of recommendations with you. On your -- in your backup, you have a -- a matrix which is titled Travis County health and human services administrative and fiscal review selected components. We are -- we are recommending that social services providers that are designated as qualified be exempted from the competitive procurement process and allow staff to proceed with contract negotiations. Qualified is defined as providers to have a clear audit review, a current audit, meet insurance requirements that are meeting or exceeding performance expectations. We also are recommending that -- that those agencies that are designated -- that have a designation of whole shall not begin to -- the contract negotiation process until the appropriate updated audit is received. Upon receipt of the relevant information, we believe that we should come back to court and seek your permission to proceed with contract negotiations with those agencies. I think to put this in context, especially with the agencies that we are designating as whole, we have to look at the services that the agencies provide. We are talking about agency that's provide critical services related to at-risk youth and [indiscernible] education. We are talking about mental health services and counseling services for women. We are talking about transitional housing and substance abuse screening. In home support for elderly. Job supported life skills counseling for deaf adults. Emergency shelter for teens. And also for homeless -- emergency shelter for those individuals that are homeless.
>> when I see [indiscernible] on your list, I -- hold on your list, I should think that these are the agencies that have not submitted an up-to-date audit as required if.
>> yes. And that's really all it's saying, judge. The agencies have not submitted a current audit. Except in one case, there was an issue related to a clear audit. In that case what we will do is work with an agency to -- to develop a higher level of comfort before we move forward with contract negotiations.
>> is there consistency in our contracts that says when the 2003 audit needs to be turned in, mid year, next year?
>> I think we need to work towards a standard of consistency. In the contract, we require the audio exit to be -- the audit to be submitted think I 18 -- I think 180 days after the fiscal year end of the individual agency.
>> is that a not too exceed, stephen, or is it a -- sometimes clarity on these things in terms of if it's not to exceed, then we should be expecting these things to start --
>> it's within 180 days, yes.
>> within 180 days, if it's not there by -- [multiple voices]
>> the fiscal year year end the individual agency, that will vary from agency to agency. When we check that's what we are looking at.
>> it's their fiscal year not necessarily our fiscal year.
>> yes.
>> interesting. Okay.
>> it will be -- [indiscernible] identified agencies that we have that we do business with, can you tell me which one of these we actually -- would actually have a relationship with the city of Austin in these 8 that are on hold?
>> all of the agencies that are on the list are -- are three-way contracts between us and the city of Austin.
>> and the city of Austin. Okay. Interlocal. All right. Of that, I'm concerned about -- well, all of these actually, but -- but where do we go from here, especially, you know, if we have some elderly folks that we also serve, that want to see a discontinuation of service to the elderly and some of these other folks that are listed here, how are you prepared to continue to provide service for those folks -- for these folks as we go through the modification process to make sure that these are -- that these are compliant? Have you --
>> the end of the -- our contract year end December the 31st. Or -- I believe that agencies should be able to have an audit conducted by the end of this contract year. If you note on the matrix that I gave you, all of the audits are in process, so I would expect that they would be completed. What we are saying is that we are recommending that you not go forward with the negotiations. Until we get an audit and that audit is clear. Or we can answer questions if it's not.
>> and I guess then my question then during the process of negotiations and trying to ask folks to come into compliance, what we are requiring, there still may be a short coming. I'm looking at the worst case scenario. Worst case scenario meaning that the folks out there will not be able to get the service that they justly deserve and so I'm kind of concerned about that. I want to make sure that that's no slippage whereby the services aren't render and we have folks out there like the senior citizens, the elderly, for example, services for the elderly, in this particular regard, where they are going to need this continued service.
>> there are a couple of approaches that we can take --
>> how are we going to do that?
>> one would be that we could purchase that service from another agency. If we believe that that agency is the only agencies that is providing that critical services, then we could go in with a very specific action plan and work very closely with that agency ensuring that there's some technical assistance provided. So that those services are available to those who are in need within this community. But there are options. When I look at the aids services that the -- that the entities -- look at the 8 services that -- the entities that are on this list.
>> okay. All right, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on in.
>> you usually do.
>> okay.
>> I am looking at services for the early daryl, in home care, support, social services to the aged, aged and disabled who are chronically ill. If you go the previous page, page 7, family elder care, we got an up close and personal view of them just yesterday, provides affordable personal attendant and home maker services to frail, elderly and persons with disabilities. There may be others within our community who could step up to the plate if indeed these folks aren't able to do it. I feel certain there are other who's can provide that.
>> when you say aren't able to do it. We are requiring a clean audit.
>> that's not necessarily a big -- that's -- that's the basics.
>> judge. I would like to make a couple of comments. Number one, I'm much more comfortable with where we are going with this than I was a couple of weeks ago. I know that stephen has worked hard. I think susan in the dawrd's office -- auditor's office, cyd in performing, we seem at least to be getting to a spot where I am comfortable with getting the information and some of the things that you have put together for me have really been helpful. As had been mentioned, Commissioner Sonleitner and I started, you know, our -- our process yesterday with -- we were with family elder care, I was highly impressed with Karen and her organization and I was really glad to see exactly how some of these things were being done. Now, obviously I have 53 left to see. And you fully intend to see each and every one of them. As I said before, sometimes when you ask questions of social services, people perceive that as somebody not being supportive of that. That couldn't be farther from the truth with me. I mean, I am really looking for the true performance measures and I would -- I would think that in a year, I will be very comfortable sitting down and discussing with -- with stephen and the department exactly some of the things that I do think that probably needs to take place insofar as my being comfortable with this. But I think there -- you know, I'm still not overly comfortable with the fact that we seem to sometimes have to take the lead of the city of Austin. I mean if the city is not doing something, then all of a sudden, you know, we find ourselves not doing something. The truth of the matter is, I think that cyd said it best last week or the last couple of weeks about, you know, this is really something that we should have started if we were going to go in and start asking tougher questions and looking for certain measures, we certainly need to start it by now because we are, you know, in the need of -- in other words, the social agencies are in need of our going forward with these contracts. And i've also determined that I think that, you know, as opposed to putting these things out for r.f.s.?
>> s.
>> you are probably going to find there are really only a few agency that's do the things for each one of these services. So I'm -- I will look forward to continuing the work that -- that I promise this community that I will do with this and sit down. If I think that there are some issues, then I'm willing to work with them. But -- but I'm -- I'm a heck after lot more comfortable, again, because of what I have heard from stephen having talked to -- to the auditor and purchasing and going forward for this -- from this point. I appreciate your work on this and your department's work on getting me information on this stuff.
>> let me make sure that I understand the full recommendations. Can you -- can you just describe it again for me?
>> yes. Actually it's in the cover memo. And it would be number one and two. Social services providers that are designated as qualified be exempted from the competitive procurement preensd allow staff to proceed with contract negotiations. And the last one would be services -- service providers designated as whole shall not begin the contract negotiations process with staff until the appropriate updated audit is provided.
>> which one of your memos are you riding from? [one moment please for change in captioners] October 20. The one with long sheets that muched. I believed it because we received updated information.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> all the other good things we discussed.
>> yes. I'm hoping that we can try to insert some of that within this contract, especially as it relates to pay now.
>> we'll have an opportunity to get input from contract agencies before the Commissioners court takes final action during fiscal '04.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> real quick, I'm sorry, before we open it up. I want to follow up with what Commissioner Daugherty was saying. We did visit family elder care yesterday. Next week it's any baby can. Week after that it's people's community clinic. So the tour is ongoing. And the point is not only so that we can see the investment, it is also to make the point with our monitors that if the Commissioners court can find the time over a one-year period to do on-site visits to social service agencies, we have no less expectations of the monitors to get out and see these agencies and see where these dollars are being invested. And I will have to warn everybody, family elder care has set the gold standard in terms of what we saw. They made it very clear about why we were investing in their agency. They made it clear as to what the state mandates were out there as to why this was an investment. They gave specifics about what we were specifically paying for. We got to meet the people who are delivering those services, the people in charge of the different programs. We got to meet some of their board members. We got to see their annual report. We got to have some good discussions about how they've been handling the cuts from the city of Austin from united way and others. Some smart strategies that's happened from board member suggestions about paying down their debt. And their facility was in excellent shape. So everybody got a gold star to do, but there's a good point behind all thf in terms of getting out to see everybody. I look forward to the remaining ones.
>> very good.
>> any report from the auditor or purchasing on the recommendation before the court?
>> you know, we have had some really great meetings with --
>> could you speak up a little bit?
>> sure. We've had several good meetings with stephen williams and his staff trying to clarify expectations. We sent around -- y'all had asked a couple of weeks ago for us to clarify what the responsibilities of vendors and the departments are in procurement, and that's really no different for human services than others. You all got copies of that. And stephen was, as well as we will be asking him or his department to certify that the services were rendered and is compliant with the law as it applies to counties. And we sent you copies of those forms. And I think that both of us, both departments and I believe y'all, have the same goal, which is that the services are rendered. We get what we pay for. We are compliant with law and we're not making it more bureaucratic than it has to be, but there are enough steps to make sure that the law is complied with. And so we're looking forward to working with him through the year to simplify those things, but yet provide an assurance that you're getting what you want, you have the information you need to make decisions, and we get that from a financial end. And I think that we've made a lot of progress in the last three weeks.
>> and this process was the first internal process, right, departmental internal process?
>> yes.
>> and the next step is the subcommittee that was -- that committee that was appointed for --
>> yes, that is the broadest thing that we're going to be doing.
>> susan? Within the interlocal, the city of Austin, Travis County, I really am still going to watch very closely. I think we're making some very positive, progressive steps, strategic steps here in Travis County at this point. I would like to make sure that all the parties that are involved in this are of the same mindset and for the same thing as far as when it comes to social service and contracting and serving the community out there. So I pose the question at this time and stephen it's directed to you also, where are we now in the relationship with the city of Austin since Travis County has taken a position to aggressively ensure that the social services needs of this community have been addressed with what we're doing here? Where are their mindset? Any inkling from that?
>> steven murray called me right after we had the meeting in the court the next day and assured me that the city of Austin was interested in providing whatever information that we needed. I tend to go through stephen because he's our executive manager, but mr. Lurie said that if we did have problems that couldn't be resolved, he certainly was interested in resolving. I think the issues with many of the interlocals is we are two distinctly different organizations with different mindsets and different rules under the law. And when we enter into interlocals, we need to be sure that we get -- we, Travis County, get what you want and what I have to get under the law with Travis County tax dollars that you impose. The city of Austin may have a different outlook on those things and there may be nothing wrong with that, but it may be different. And what we need to be sure of is that we are not taking Travis County money and giving it to another agency or a different government to do as they please with no regard to what counties have to do or what you wanted. So that's really the concern. And there may be different policy out looks from the organizations, whether it's the city of Austin or another one. And we just need to be sure that the interlocals protect Travis County tax dollars in terms of what y'all want and financially what the law requires as counties. So that's really what we're -- I think some of it is a communication, a coordination, a reminder of what we all need. I think some of it is simply that.
>> I think we ought to figure out exactly what Travis County needs and basically how to get it. If I were a contracting agency, I would just want to know up front what's expected of me. And who's monitoring, who's certifying delivery of services. After that then in the chain -- how the papers are processed in Travis County, there have been glitches in the past and Travis County got some of it. Some of it I think the documentation that has been delivered may have met city standards, but not county standards. We really ought to come to agreement on that and make sure the contracts are clear, simple, so from day one all of the affected parties know what's expected. And I think the getting paid, preparing the invoice, delivering services, could be a whole lot more efficient, better as a result of that. At this time we're giving ourselves more than a few weeks before we have to adopt a budget, which is why we're doing it early in the fiscal year. Mr. Lurie, you've been more than reasonable, mr. Lurie, from the city of Austin.
>> more than reasonable. Thank you, judge.
>> morning, judge, commissions. I just wanted to make a couple of comments. We view this as a partnership, and I don't think that our objectives are different in terms of the city and the county. We're investing together to improve social services and improve access to what we consider very critical services in our community. And we're trying to do this in a way that we're going to maximize the investment that goes out to direct services. So we are making every attempt to not be bureaucratic, to be efficient in terms of how we disperse those funds out into the community and do everything we can to make it cost effective and easier for the agencies that are charged with providing these services. But ultimately we all feel a very strong responsibility to assure that this investment is going out to achieve wt it's intended to achieve. So I don't see any difference in terms of the city and the county's commitment towards those objectives, but we've been working very closely together at the staff level to accomplish that and we've been doing that in partnership with community action network and with the agencies that are out in the community. We have extensive monitoring that has been in place, everything from monthly monitoring of invoices to quarterly monitoring of performance measures and a number of annual administrative reviews. I don't deny that we can do a better job and we can improve those systems and we're very much committed to doing that. In fact, I think we've probably discussed with you on a number of occasions over the last two to three years the efforts that have been underway to accomplish that? I do want to qualify, however, that the county money is not being turned over to the city. One of the problems we had a couple of years ago had to do with payment and invoicing and there was a decision made at that time to separate out the pain and invoicing processes. So the city's paying independently directly to the agencies and the county likewise is paying independently directly to the agencies. So any time you get into a situation where there's a question about the invoices, the specifics involved there or the backup or whatever, either party has a prerogative of choosing not to pay, which has happened in this instance. We're working very diligently. We have staff out with the agencies looking at backup data. We do site visits on a regular basis, particularly for our large agencies. We interact much more often. And we have processes where if we see a pattern of problems in terms of what's being submitted to us, then that raises red flags and we get more involved with those agencies. So I just want to assure you that in that respect I believe that the city and county objectives are very consistent. I don't see a difference in terms of the interest and the commitment. Thank you.
>> can you provide clarity in terms of the rumor mill that may be out there. We're talking about whether to renew some of these agencies and they're on hold. What about the status of any ongoing payments or bills for this fiscal year that are with these same eight agencies. If they're out of compliance, are we or are we not processing their bills?
>> we will be paying those bills if the certification is signed by our hhs staff saying that they have provided the service that we are paying for. It's this one that we sent you. But we have a contract with those agencies, if they're meeting those contracts they will be getting their money as long as we're assured that they've provided those services in conjunction with that contract.
>> okay. So somebody was saying, oh, all of the contracts are being held up, all of the payments are being held up until we resolve that, is that one of those urban myths that's out there? The agencies are needing to know what is or is not happening.
>> that is true as we speak. What david alluded to, the fact that staff are doing site visits of the agencies, susan has required that we in health and human services sign the affidavit. And so because we don't do the monitoring, we turn the monitoring staff to actually verify that given the requirements in the contract. Once those papers are signed, it's acknowledged by the city that those services have been actually performed, we will in fact sign off on the affidavit. But those payments are currently on hold. We have submitted them for payment, but they were sent back to us.
>> and how far back are they? Are we talking about one month, two months, three months? Give us a sense. Lila is holding up two fingers.
>> I think a minimum of two months. I think overall we're talking about in excess of a million bucks.
>> how long is it going to take to get this resolved because we're out a million dollars in a three-million-dollar budget of Travis County, we can float that, that is a huge sum of money for these nonprofits coming at a time when the city of Austin is chopping back five percent and united way has already given notice that they are cutting back as well. So how quickly, what assurances can we give these folks, what's it going to take to get the city to give us the nmps so we can sign off and start processing these economics?
>> the question would be when can the city basically confirm delivery of service and we can -- I guess have the documentation and certify for auditor delivery of service?
>> we are going out and checking the backup that was requested in terms of the documentation, receipts and so forth for these invoices, these monthly invoices. We expect to complete that by the end of next week.
>> I'm sorry.
>> by the end of this week. But I do think it's important -- well, two fold. One, we need to get that resolved so these agencies get paid because of the cash flow issues, but as an ongoing issue, I think we need to clarify what the expectations are. It is not generally our practice and we don't have the resources to go out and do this every month for every invoice. We tend to review these invoice oz a monthly basis to ensure that they're consistent with what's in the contract, what's in their budgets and then we do a spot-check intermittently to go out and see what the backup documentation is. We don't do that every month for every invoice. And we need to as we go forward understand if that's an expectation because if that is an expectation, we're not geared up to do that and I think we're going to be back here in another month or two with similar kind of problems. But the answer to the first question in terms of the current situation, we will finish the work this week because we've basically sent all the staff out to concentrate only on this task.
>> so it might be the short-term you finish this week, get the Travis County hhs to certify for the auditor?
>> yes, sir.
>> the other thing is that I do think that we need to sit down, brainstorm, try to figure out exactly what the expectations are and, I guess, what we can do.
>> exactly, because, judge, I guess what I would like to avoid here is this perception that somehow the city of Austin is not delivering on its responsibilities or obligations. I think there's a difference in terms of the understanding of what those expectations are, and it's very important, I believe, that we clarify those and then go forward. And if the conclusion is that those expectations exceed, you know, what the city of Austin or whomever is able to deliver on, then a decision needs to be made to find an alternative way to accomplish that or decide if that's not the direction we want to go.
>> I agree.
>> so many times on an invoice, david, somebody somewhere has to sign something that says this information that we've turned over is correct and we need the equivalent of an engineer put their seal. We don't need to go back and check, but the seal means something. So the same way we deal with the health insurance claims, somebody has to take responsibility that these are real kinds of things. I mean, they're not going up and checking on did Margaret go see her allergy specialist this week, no. Somebody, though, checks to make sure that our interests are being covered. So if it's the kind of thing that's on the invoice that somebody's signing off, saying we take full responsibility, we acknowledge, and then there's got to be somebody else in this chain. Otherwise you have issues and everybody is going, well, it wasn't my job. We need to figure out who's job it is to make sure that when we asked for is being delivered on a piece of paper.
>> I uerstand, Commissioner. We have 175 contracts with 75 different contracts and about $75 million that our unit is monitoring what is being asked for is not only to review the invoice and the fact that someone has signed off on it and it's consistent with what's in the contract, but actually go back to the source documents to confirm that there's backup for the information that's included on that invoice. And there's a value in doing that here and there on an occasional basis or in an auditing format, but to do that every month on every invoice would not be practical for us.
>> let's sit down after this week, I guess, stephen, and maybe the first part of next week, if it's approved on the court's agenda, then sit down and figure out immediately what we need to do.
>> I think you've already started the ball rolling when you directed us to work within the subcommittee's to look at the payment process. I think this is the main issue that we're going to concentrate on because david is absolutely right. If we're going to require, I think, more specific documentation, then it's going to be an issue of resources. I think that there is a medium, though, and I think that we can occur with what occurs in other parts of the organization and be pretty comfortable with that.
>> this is not an overwhelming process and it is not different than any other kind of activity that we do financially. And that is, for instance, to use a totally different example, you know, the law requires every elected official and appointed official to turn in inventory of their fixed assets and be responsible for it. In my department I put my name on it. Have I gone out and looked the every single fixed asset in my department? No, I have not, but someone has. One of my employees. And they come up and they say, I have done this inventory, and there's my initial. If they don't sign that, then I don't sign it. They go back and they count. So the question is what do you need to be comfortable? If we don't -- if the people who monitor the services are not comfortable saying that, you know -- that the bills are correct and the payroll is correct and that, then I'm not comfortable with it. And so it bothers me when I hear people say, we're just not -- we're not comfortable with that. When no one signs off on that and the few agencies that we've gotten the gross bills on, and we do that, we check the payroll, we check all of these things, and when we find that they are really not in very good shape at all, then I get nervous about the rest. And Commissioner Sonleitner, you brought up a perfect example with the health claims. Our situation is for me to sign off on it and to pass the bill on to you to sign off on, I need to be comfortable that we've met the terms of the law. I don't see all those medical receipts, but someone in Travis County does and then they have to sign off on it. So someone at some point needs to be comfortable. If mr. Lurie is comfortable with those agencies in signing his name, looking at half the receipts, if he feels that's all he needs to look at to make sure, that's okay with me, but I want his name on there, that he's the one. So it's not as though this is different. In a government we need to be sure that someone has looked at those, and if it's not me or my staff, obviously it isn't me, my staff, then I want the law allows a certification for someone to attest to the fact that they have. And so that's what we're asking. There may be a better way, and stephen and I have talked about this, to document what we need for a contract. There may be different ways to put these together. One of the problems that jose points out, because he deals with a lot of different vendors in my department, is that people sign contracts in -- many people sign contracts and they don't read them. So then they expect to get paid, but they really haven't looked at what they need to do and submit. And I think you're right, judge, we need to make sure that's real clear, and anyone who monitors a contract or gets it signed needs to be sure that the parties to that contract are comfortable with it and that they can give us the documentation we need. If it is submitted in a timely basis, it is correct, we disburse once a week by law because the Commissioners court has to approve everything going out and you meet once a week, is the bill will go out promptly if everything comes in correctly and everyone is on point. And that's really what I want us to do. And it doesn't take many bills or organizations to give the others a black eye. It really doesn't.
>> we're looking at the ones that are outstanding now. We need a meeting in two weeks to make sure we have a meeting of the minds on the expectations and communicate that to the agencies. And during that meeting if we're not staffed properly to get it done what we need to get done, then we take whatever action is appropriate. Now, would anyone else like to address the court on this item today? And specifically a recommendation from stephen's shop. And if you do not think we should follow the recommendation, your testimony is probably more meaningful. Based on what i've read from the court, the inclination is for us to approve the recommendation, I believe. But if there is anyone who would like to speak against the recommendation? I move that we follow mr. Williams' recommendation and authorize negotiation of contract renewal with the agencies indicated on this memo. And that it be placed on hold for renewal until the audit requirements have been met. I don't know that we're posted for the other part, but the court did hear about outstanding invoices, we're working to get those done, and to the extent that the law allows us, this motion is for us to direct that we have a meeting in a few weeks or so to he try to come to terms on exactly what the expectations are to get invoices paid.
>> let me ask this question, judge.
>> is there a second?
>> I second it for discussion. David, can you tell me has there been any (indiscernible) of services, social services in the community since we've been going under this type of scrutiny to bring better service to the recipients here in Travis County? And I'm saying on your end.
>> Commissioner, I'm not aware of that. I think the issue here is that if payment is postponed to the point where there become cash flow problems for these agencies, some of which are relatively small and depend very much on this -- these resources, then it could impact services, but I'm not aware. You mean just in terms of the discussion for the last couple of weeks?
>> right, right.
>> I'm not aware of anything specifically, but I think we're getting pretty close with some agencies.
>> I pose the same question to stephen on the services of lelderly -- elderly, inc. It goes under the administration of a lot other things that we want to make sure that those folks continue to get service. So I'm just really conscious and very adamant about ensuring that the folks out there continue to get the service as we go through this adjustment as far as what we're trying to do here. So I just want to make sure the city's end is -- isn't impacting the community as we're trying to avoid that type of impact.
>> absolutely, Commissioner. I agree. Again, as I said, this is a partnership. The city and county staff are working very closely together. Over the years there are agencies that for whatever reasons go out of business or no longer can provide services or whatever, and we routinely look at those and look at opportunities to reinvest those dollars so that there won't be a negative impact in the community drawing upon how the agencies are in place or in some instances working to develop new services with agencies to fill in those gaps. So again, I would characterize it as a very strong partnership between the city and county and programmatically that's our commitment. So we want to make sure that in the dialogue about, you know, monitoring and payments and so on and so forth and concerns about the city or the county or whatever, that that doesn't get in the way of us working effectively as a partnership in terms of the provision of these services because that's what we're committed to.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> judge, just a clarification that on these eight agencies, you had said until they get their audit stuff done. Is that going to have to come back to court to authorize renewal of those eight agencies, any one of those eight agencies?
>> that's my understanding of the recommendation.
>> I'm just making sure that it's going to come back to court on these eight agencies.
>> on the contract renewal with the agencies that are contracted for, right?
>> right. > any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Is that passes by instance vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 28, 2003 7:52 AM