BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE



Taken at the County Council Conference Room, Seventh Floor,
Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 11:05 a.m. on May 17, 2001
pursuant to Notice.

REPORTED BY:  GLORIA T. TAVARES, RPR/CSR #262

Members present:      
Jonathan Starr, Chair
Clark Hashimoto
Mike Nobriga
Peter Rice
Orlando Tagorda
Kent Hiranaga

Staff present:        
David Craddick, Director
George Tengan, Deputy Director
Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
Mike Quinn, Fiscal
Ellen Kraftsow
Tony Linder
Mike Cabral
Dexter Lau
Walter Hoger
Paul Seitz
Robert Vida
Andy Pascua
Shirley Falcon, Secretary

Others present:       
Elliott Krash
Sally Raisbeck
Zandra Amaral
        
                   * * *

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Call to order the Operations Review
and Evaluation Committee.  I would like to request that all
board members present act as committee members today so that
we're all on equal footing and all participating in this, and
hopefully we can get it done.
 And we have board members Starr, Tagorda, Rice,
Hashimoto, Nobriga, and Kent Hiranaga.  And I know we have some
members of the public who are moving their cars, Sally Raisbeck
and Elliott Krash, and we have some very good members of the
department staff as well.
 We have one agenda item which relates to the
criteria for the evaluation of the director, and we had some
criteria which had been passed out over the committee to the
board, and actually the framework of them had been approved by
the board, and then there was a desire on the part of the board
for us to look at this and perhaps fine-tune these before board
action.
 Before we begin to do that, I would like to open
this up to members here.  There are two issues:  one is the
framework of how we're going to do the evaluation and whether
the framework as outlined, you know, if that's still acceptable
with everyone.  And then if so, then that framework is based on
a number of questions which would be asked, and the score is
graded, then we would have the opportunity to revise, add, or
delete some of these questions.
 So as far as the first question goes, regarding the
framework of this where we would have basically a list of
questions, and the board members would fill in a number to each
question.
 I'll get back to the minutes if that's okay with
everyone.  Also, we'll have to get back to testimony because
the members of the public are moving their cars.
 Anyway, I want to leave it open to board members as
to whether the framework of the way we want to do it, not
necessarily the questions themselves or the substance of the
questions, is acceptable.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  May I ask a question?  Does the
director give us an annual report on accomplishments?  I don't
remember.  Or is it required of him --

MR. CRADDICK:  That's the last one.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  That's the annual report, okay.
That's overall or is that director's accomplishments or is that
a --

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't think I put out a report with
my specific accomplishments.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  We're evaluating the department, not
the director, so if -- I don't know if the director can --

MR. CRADDICK:  On the annual report, well, to me the
annual report is certainly not mine.  Everybody has
participated in that.  But getting that document out is one of
the things that I'm required to do by charter.  So, does it
come out, yes.

MR. RICE:  Do you have a job description?

MR. CRADDICK:  Other than what's in the charter, not
to my knowledge.

MR. RICE:  Mr. Chairman, there are some very good
questions here, but I think it needs to be expanded.  And my
suggestion -- and I don't have it all worked out and I would be
happy to help anybody with it.
 But if we created sections for the performance
review that dealt with the important areas like charter
compliance, and underneath charter compliance would be the
things that are important, interaction with the public.  I
wrote, for example, management of the financial affairs of the
department, personnel management, those kinds of areas, and
then underneath it, what is important.
 And because the director does not have a job
description, I think these would then become the essence of a
job description.  Because with the agreement of the board, we
would be telling him that these are the things that are
important to us.  And then there's also the source of the
performance evaluation and the use of numbers, and creating is
fine with me.  All that part I think is good.  But that way we
can make sure we cover everything.

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan?

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Go ahead.

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know if you remember it, Bob
kept interjecting that this had already been done.  And in
1998, through the better part of 1998, I think they finally
completed September 1999, and if you read the minutes here of
the first meeting, Jonathan asks for all of that stuff.
 I don't know if any of it has ever been reviewed in
any of the meetings.  They asked for it, we got it all
together, but there's been no time where that stuff has been
reviewed, that I know of.  And in there, the board went over
all of that stuff.  And we suspected that in 2000, that would
be the basis for any review; there was no review in 2000 and so
now here we are in 2001.
 I myself feel we're still being evaluated on that
last criteria for evaluation.  If there's going to be a new
criteria for the future, that's fine, too, because it happened
more than once where the board changed their criteria for
evaluation.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Let me speak to that.  When the
committee put this together, we basically took a lot of it from
the minutes and from the written letter by Mr. Takitani.
 So I would say, I think four or five out of these
ten questions actually came straight out of those job criteria,
and then the rest of them came directly -- some of them came
directly from the charter and some of them came from questions
that had been brought up either in other subsequent board
minutes, you know, things that were being asked of the director
or points that had been brought up by the QualServ.
 I think a lot of that is there but there certainly
could be more areas and it could be put together in a form to
create a better working tool for the future.
 Before we proceed, if it's okay, I would like to see
if -- Sally, do you have any testimony?

MS. RAISBECK:  Yes, I would like to.  Are you
considering what was submitted previously a month ago or so?

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Why don't you step up and state
your name.

MS. RAISBECK:  My name is Sally Raisbeck and I live
in Wailuku.  I read over the previous -- the proposal that was
made previously, and I wanted to simply comment on one aspect
of it, which is the numerical aspect where you -- each member
assigns a number, and then by manipulating these numbers you
come up with an average that is determinative one way or the
other.
 I had experience with that when I was on a committee
for a nonprofit for choosing an executive director.  We weren't
rating one to five; we were rating zero to a hundred on three
candidates, I think it was.  The thing is that people have very
different feelings about how they are going to rate different
candidates.  This is just one candidate, but even so.
 It's subject to manipulation and if you understand
that you affect the average much more if you rate five than if
you rate zero, or if you rate zero or five than if you rate
somewhere in the middle, then you have a lot more affect.
 So I think to make it numerical in that sense would
only make sense if the ratings are known to the members who has
rated the director what and there's an opportunity to discuss
those before you sum them up.  I think it should be an open
process, at least within the board, as to what the best
numerical ratings would be.  Otherwise, it's sort of subject to
manipulation.  That's all I wanted to say.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Thank you.  Anyone else who would
like -- any questions?  Anyone else that would like to give
testimony?  Seeing none, we will continue.
 I heard a desire to work to kind of reorganize and
reformulate some of these, and I have no problem about that.  I
would like to wrap this up.  I know we have been spending a lot
of meeting time, expensive meeting time on it.

MR. RICE:  I'll be happy to draft something and send
it to you and everybody else, if you want.  Just not changing
what you've done, but adding some suggestions.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  I would be happy with that.  Will
we need to come back to another committee meeting or -- I would
be happy to look at it and take it straight to a board meeting
if the other committee members will.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Question, Mr. Chair.  I guess again
being new, maybe you could just give a brief history or
synopsis of how we got to this point.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  The review of the director is
something that has been done sort of sporadically, and tracing
back the history of how it was done, it was kind of done
somewhat differently in each year or two years or three years,
whenever it was done.
 Generally, looking back, and mostly before I was on
the board, it was kind of an -- each board member would really
write -- kind of write almost like an essay in their comments,
and those would get read at the meeting.
Orlando, you went through that?

MR. TAGORDA:  Actually, what we do in the past,
which was only '98 when we evaluated the director, is you go
around each board member and say what he's done for the
department.  That's all it is.
 Now you are coming up with a very good format,
wherein board members who doesn't want to speak or comment on
his perception about the director, he can just write it down
here and it's really up to the chairman to tabulate those
numbers, whether the director is good for a job or not.
 Which I believe is a good, acceptable way of
evaluating the director; instead of going out in the open,
since the director doesn't want to go into executive session
when you evaluate him.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  That was a definite desire to try
to make it a quantitative thing.  Also to do it in such a way
that there wasn't the pressure on the board members to have
difficulty in whether they felt praise or whether they felt
admonishment was necessary.  I didn't want to make that an
emotional issue when it was happening, which is to be able to
give a real subjective evaluation.
 There was an in between step which was two years
ago, Bob Takitani who -- it started, I think, before he was
chairman.  When he was chair they spent meeting after meeting
going over this letter about the director and about what they
wanted to see him accomplish and change and so on.  So it's
just a lot of board time spent on that.
 And there was ultimately a letter sent and a lot of
that was implemented in these questions.  Perhaps there are
some other aspects of it that could be additionally implemented
to make it a better selection of questions.
 There was also other things brought into this that
were things discussed at board meetings, some comments from the
last evaluation that some of the members had felt were things
that needed to be changed or worked on.  So this is really a
compilation of a lot of different things.  Mike?

MR. NOBRIGA:  I would like to refer to Ellen
Kraftsow.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Come forward, Ellen.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I guess one thing I would say is
whatever criteria the board wants to evaluate staff and our
director on, obviously, that's the board's privilege; but it
would be nice if you set the criteria clearly up-front and then
gave them some time to operate against those criteria, instead
of back casting about -- you know what I mean?
 Another thing is that it would be nice if funding
and resources were consistent with those criteria and how
heavily they are weighted.  That's all.

MR. CRADDICK:  May I say something?

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Do you have comments, David?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  I hesitate in making them
because Peter's going to reword them.  But you were all sent a
letter from QualServ group saying it's not proper to be even
using that QualServ in this content, because that's not the
intent of it, so I would object strenuously to any reference to
QualServ.  And that's something for self-assessments,
self-improvement.  And to focus only on the weaknesses of that,
when there are lots of other parts to that report, is not
proper.
 The other thing is, you know, having a nebulous
question in there, you know, is the council happy with you.  I
haven't passed them out, but I got letters from all the
councilmen or most of them, more than five, let's put it that
way, happy with the work we're doing.
 So in this criteria question, is it a yes, the
council is happy with you and you get a ten, if five or more of
the council members or if one council member says, I'm not
happy, then it's a zero.  I think it goes back to what Sally
was talking about that there's -- the short story is that it's
really rigged to fail and I don't particularly like it because
of that aspect to it.
 Anybody can put anything they want.  If they hear
one customer out in the system that doesn't like what's going
on, then that's a zero, potentially.  It has that potential.
I'm not saying everybody would do that.  But that's just my
comments on it, generally.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Good comments, and I'm sure some of
that will be taken into account.

MR. RICE:  I would ask the board members, as it
relates to the performance evaluation, to keep in mind that you
should, and to the extent you feel strongly about something, it
should be included in here; but you need to communicate your
level of expectation to the director.  I'm a firm believer in
that.  And once that is done, whether he likes it or not, he
will know whether he is able to perform acceptably or not.
 If we don't communicate what our level of
expectation is, then we have a hard time evaluating anybody.
So in your own cases, you have -- and it gets to the issue of
writing things or not wanting to say things; but you, in your
own mind, have an idea of what you expect from the director, so
let's say it.
 If the board as a whole disagrees with you, that's
fine.  Then that won't be a criteria and it won't be fair for
you to judge him on that.  But if the board as a whole agrees,
and that's why I asked the question about job description,
because you generally tell somebody what their job is when you
hire them.
 You don't say here's the charter and your job is
to -- certainly that's one of the items on the list, but it's
not the -- list of duties.  So you need to communicate your
level of expectation.  Whatever it is, or however many items it is.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Kent had his hand up first.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Thank you.  I guess my perspective of
this is, since typically the evaluee (sic) versus the
evaluator, I think what Peter says is that you need to have a
job description with certain tasks and also milestones that you
feel he needs to accomplish within the fiscal year.  Then one
year from that point is when you conduct the evaluation.
 And I don't know what the history is, but if you are
creating a criteria for him to be evaluated with and you are
going to evaluate him now based on that criteria which he
didn't know he was being evaluated on, I don't see that being a
fair thing.  I know for whatever reason you want to evaluate
him now, but I think you need to do the job description and
have milestones and then wait a year to see if he has
accomplished those things.
 One suggestion, maybe, is to query other counties if
they have job descriptions of directors of their Board of Water
Supply, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel.  And then
there's, I guess, corporations have standard evaluation forms
that you could glean.
 A lot of these are -- some of these questions are
good.  And it's upon the board members to go talk to the mayor
or go talk to the council, are they happy with the director.
But he needs to know these criteria first so he has a year to
work on them.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Clark?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  At the college, we have job
descriptions and we do a self-evaluation every year and maybe
some of these questions can be included in the
self-evaluation.  It's not a Board of Water Supply report.
It's something he had accomplished -- whatever the department
accomplishes is part of his.
 But it's hard for me to answer some of these
questions without really a report on what he did.  I don't know
everything he did or accomplished.  Like Kent said, if we have
a job description and a criteria on what we expect him to
accomplish during the year, his future implications or what he
sees in the future, etc.  It might be difficult to evaluate.  I
would go along with what Kent said.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I would like to request that your
committee report include former Chairman Takitani's report, our
current strategic plan, a copy of the charter that goes over
the powers, duties, and functions of the director, in addition
to the current community development plans.  This should all be
part of the committee report.
 These are basis of -- that's the basis of what we're
supposed to be doing.  And because of the volume of paper and
they just don't all fit in my briefcase, I can never find these
things ever again.  It vanished.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Do you have the list?

MS. FALCON:  I think I do.

MR. CRADDICK:  The list you asked for?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Not that list.

MS. FALCON:  Bob Takitani's, I guess.

MR. NOBRIGA:  The 1997 or 1998 evaluation criteria.
Fran knows about it; she gave it to me about three times
already.  Damned if I can find it.  Howard Nakamura's 2000
strategic plan.  So I don't know if we still use -- if we're
using that plan in CIP and stuff or we're still using the
original Bob's bullets.  But Bob's bullets is pau.  We stay on
the strategic plan now, which is about 80 pages too.
 Chairman did include in his previous report the
charters, specifications of the job description; but we have
never received on the board, and what we are charged to do is
to keep up with the community development plans, and we have
never reviewed formerly the community development plan.

MR. CRADDICK:  We have a workshop next week.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Ellen probably knows all of this information.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I would not say all.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Just a summary, I don't want to
actually read the whole -- I try to.  Every time I get my
agenda I go to my porcelain library and I can never read it
all.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That's actually one of our
questions.  In developing the water use and development plan,
we have to comply with the community plans; but there's several
areas of the community plans, sometimes they will say something
very important in their goals and objectives but it won't be in
the implementing actions in the back.
 Other times, one community plan says we want to
develop this much, and it's like three times what we would
normally build, and another community plan says you can't take
water out of here.  So there are conflicts between and among
the community plans and even within them, and so one of the
questions for the water use and development plan is what
constitutes complying with these community plans.  Even when
you have them it's not always clear.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Anyway, I want to try to wrap this
up and get to our direction.  Orlando, you have a question?

MR. TAGORDA:  Like I said, I have been here almost
five years; I only had a chance to evaluate the director one
time.  He knows his job, he knows his job description mandated
by the county charter.  Whatever criteria we have in mind and
communicate with the director, we can see how -- each one of us
has criteria in mind, which is a good question or not.
 I think the committee on operation had done a lot of
research on strategic planning.  Bob Takitani's criteria was
originally one of the board members who created that format.
If you read all of these tough questions, I take this
encompasses a lot of the director's job.  You can see whether
he's going to have a blindfold on or not, and by answering the
questions honestly now.  Honestly.
 If you want, we can do like survivor, you put the
answer yes or no in the hat and see what happens.  Don't you
want to do that too?  Let's be fair.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Tribal council?

MR. TAGORDA:  Instead of a lot of criteria, nonsense
questioning and all that, let's do it that way.  Make it fair
for the director -- to retain his job, that's it.  Simple.
What I need to evaluate the director -- I'm almost going out,
give the chance.

MR. RICE:  I think evaluating is not necessarily
stay or go.  Evaluating someone's performance over a course of
a period, there's a lot of input.  They may need a lot of
direction in one area.  That doesn't mean they get fired or
they don't get fired.  So that's what -- the performance review
is not simply about stay or go; it's about giving him input as
to what --

CHAIRMAN STARR:  But there has to be the stay or go part.

MR. RICE:  The stay or go decision, sure.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  By charter we're mandated to hire
or fire the director, so we have to have a stay or go
component.  And that was my problem with the previous process
because it didn't have that.  All it was, was just comments on
the director and there was no actual teeth to it.
 So I think that there has to be a stay or go
component, and then there has to be in the shade of gray the
correction or the ability to improve performance if it's in the
stay category.

MR. RICE:  I agree with that.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Let's try to reach a consensus
here, because I do feel we should proceed with the evaluation.
I know I'm happy with the basic framework, but -- and Peter has
offered to spend some time trying to go through the questions
and work them out.

MR. TAGORDA:  I would be willing to wait for Peter
or Kent's suggestions and let's work it out to wrap it up.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Do we need to come back to another
committee meeting, or if you send something out --

MR. RICE:  I'll send something out.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  I would like to work with you on
that.  And then if we send something out and if the committee
members -- basically, the committee is becoming -- if most of
the board feel that that's good, we can go -- if it's all
right, we'll go straight to a board meeting with it.

MR. HIRANAGA:  May I make a comment?

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Sure.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Upon review of these ten questions, I
think eight of them are good questions.  I perceive question
No. 8 would be like the milestones.  You say you have
quantitative criteria, then you have milestones to be
accomplished next year.  It appears like No. 8 would be the
milestones.
 To me, you could have a chairman at the beginning of
his term establish the milestones, and then you have an annual
review.  So prior to the chairman's term or you do the review,
annual review, versus a random decision to have an evaluation.
That way it gives the chairman some direction as to where he
wants the board to go, but he creates the milestones, he has
this set criteria so that there is some stability in the
evaluation.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  My own feeling of moving forward,
that's a good idea.  I also feel beyond that, though, there are
certain subjective things that a director or any employee has
to follow.  I know I have had troubles with this in the past
and commented vocally for a while at board meetings and I kind
of gave up with that.  It was related to credibility and
whether, you know, the presentation of information and so on.
 I know that there has been a lot of that at board
meetings over the years, and kind of -- people who were doing
it kind of gave up on doing it, because you can't -- how many
times can you say the same thing.  But I feel that's sort of
there; that's sort of important.  I do feel we have a process
and if anyone wants to make a motion --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.  I have a
small problem with what you are proposing, that there would be
discussions among board members outside of the official setting.

MR. RICE:  We would never do that.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  There's the potential for violations
to Chapter 92 if it's done that way.  My recommendation is that
you do have one more meeting, at least, to decide and take
action on a recommendation to the full board.  Again, from what
I was hearing and your proposal --

CHAIRMAN STARR:  No, no, we were not --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  -- that if most of the board members
feel it's appropriate, then in my mind, that means that a
decision has been made already among the board members outside the --

CHAIRMAN STARR:  No, we were not going to -- I think
you were misunderstanding.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's what I heard from you, that
if there was in essence an agreement, then we take it to the
full board.  And if that agreement is being made outside an
official board meeting or a committee meeting, I have some
problems with that.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  The agreement was not about -- the
subject was to take it to the full board, not to decide on it.
But if you are happier to have another committee meeting, it
will be my pleasure to schedule another committee meeting
before we send it to the board.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chair, couple more comments.  I
feel that there's some merit to this numerical grading system;
but I feel the final decision whether to terminate or retain
the director should be done by the vote of the board, be it
silent or open, five votes to take action.
 Because then the numerical rating will give him an
indication how good a job the board feels, you know, if it's an
A, B, C, or D rating.  But it still leaves the ultimate
decision that five board members have to determine his status
versus just relying on a numerical rating.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  It was my belief that ultimately
that would have to happen anyway.  There would have to be a
motion to act in that.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Thank you.

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, this is more in response to
Orlando's things about this nebulous credibility and
informational meeting, and I know people keep bringing that up
and I keep asking the question:  Do you have a specific
example?  And I have yet to hear specific examples of what it
is.
 Now, information at the meeting, I've asked on many
occasions what is it that you want.  We never get any calls,
rarely.  I never get any calls from anybody saying, Hey, I read
over this stuff, I don't have this information, I want this
information in the meeting.
 Because, I mean, we'll do everything we possibly can
to get the stuff to the meeting if you need it; but when nobody
calls, nobody asks for anything, we assume you have the
information you need.  So to then come up and say we want
information, and nobody is asking for it, I don't know what I
can do.
 We used to have agenda packages that were inches
thick, that provided everything you possibly could, and then
board members said, We can't read all of this crap, cut it
down.  So okay, it gets cut down.  And then you got one saying,
Oh, we don't have enough.
 But again, all I ask and that's all I can ask, is if
you see something in the minutes that you need to make a
decision and you don't have, I mean, we'll bend over backwards
to try to get it to you.  And I think you all know that we do
if -- even if it's not specific, if it's other things in
general we try to get them to you one way or the other.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  I believe we have someone who wants
to give testimony.

MS. AMARAL:  My name is Zandra Souza Amaral, for the
record, and I'm for the citizens of the Kihei community.  I'm
here on behalf of Mr. David Craddick, for members of the Kihei
community as well as myself.  Not very many, but enough that
can be vocal so that people, our directors of our departments
of our county are not put forth in a kangaroo court, which is
what was terminated to me.
 My request to all of you is quite simple, Chair and
members, is number one, do not evaluate an employee of the
public or of the administration on principals and rules that
you suggest to put forward as criteria that he should have
followed.  In front of me I have the charter; we reviewed this
last night, his duties.
 Mr. Craddick has not only shown us in board water
meetings within the board, but also within the community.  We
recall that man has spent numerous hours with myself in his
office, other members of my community, explaining to us the
rational about the water shortage, the wells, the aquifers and
the like, educated an otherwise ignorant, ignorant community.
Ignorant individuals such as myself.
 This is more than any director has done since I had
been born into the territory of Hawaii, has ever done for us.
Many have not found the time.  Mr. Craddick has found the time
to service not only the board, and I might say very patiently,
with much diligence, having to put up with the rhetoric that he
has had to put up with.  I'm sorry if that's out of order, but
that's how we feel.
 You change.  There are many of you; there is one of
him.  There is many of us.  He tries very hard to service all
of you with all of your various and devout ideas, wishes,
wants, often neglected needs; but he does an absolutely superb
job, in my view, in addressing the needs and the concerns of
the community.  There may be few in the community or many, I
don't know, I can only -- that may not agree with me, but I can
only speak for myself and those that I work with.
 So I ask all of you if you are going to evaluate
Mr. Craddick, do it on the principals that he took and accepted
the position with, and that is by the code of charters that is
established right here in this book, as well as anything else
that he may have reviewed with you or previous boards when he
accepted the position as director of our water department.  Use
those criteria.
 And if he has not by any way followed through in his
obligations to yourselves, the mayor, or the citizens of Maui
County, then and only then do you have the power or the
authority to dismiss him.  Whether that's your intent or not,
that is the intent that we feel some of you on this board
have.  And we ask you to do it fairly, squarely, we know that
you can, but get your egos out of the way and put yourselves on
the side and put the people first.
 And that is my testimony.  Thank you gentlemen.  I'm
sorry there's just no lady here that I can address, because you
need one.  And that is on the record.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  Any questions?  Okay.  Anyway, do
we have a consensus that we'll come back again with a refined
set of questions to examine them?  Anyone have a problem with
that?  That will be our recommended action to the board, that
we come back.
 Also, we have two sets of minutes in the package.
If we can get a motion, I believe it's February 21st and March
6th.

MR. TAGORDA:  I move that the minutes on February
21, 2001 and March 6, 2001, given 30 days' review, to be
approved and filed.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN STARR:  All in favor say "aye."

(A chorus of ayes.)

Thank you.  The minutes are approved and the meeting
is adjourned.  Thank you all.

(The deposition concluded at 11:45 a.m.)