Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chair
Judge Karen K. Braaten
Judge Georgia Dawson
Judge Donovan Foughty
Judge M. Richard Geiger
Judge John Greenwood
Judge Gail Hagerty
Judge William McLees
Justice William Neumann
Judge John T. Paulson
Judge Allan Schmalenberger
Judge Robert Wefald
Jim Ganje referred the Council to a letter from Judge David Nelson, Chair of the Committee on Trial Court Operations. In working on revising the Clerk of Court Manual, the committee has encountered several issues concerning the expungement of court records, the most important being what procedure clerks must follow when records are expunged. The committee is requesting the Administrative Council consider whether or not the scope and meaning of expungement should be addressed at the policy level, either by policy or by amendment to rule, and whether expungement should mean different things for different kinds of cases. The primary example is bankruptcy. The statute says the judgment shall be expunged when a certified copy of the discharge in bankruptcy is received, but what exactly does that mean for purposes of the bankruptcy? Should it mean the same as it might with respect to a criminal drug possession expungement, which may mean expunging all evidence that the offense ever existed? The general question is what is the scope and meaning of expungement?
Judge Hagerty stated she read Ted Gladden’s August 16, 2004, memo regarding expungement and asked how the attorney general’s opinion comes into play? Mr. Ganje responded that as he recalled, the only thing the attorney general’s opinion says is if a court orders a criminal record expunged, if the circumstances of expungement do not qualify under State v. Howe, the Bureau of Criminal Investigations will not expunge the record information from their record system. Therefore, even though it may be expunged from the court record system, it will remain in BCI’s system unless they are certain Howe has been satisfied. Judge Paulson commented as a practical matter, they are never removed from the police records.
Judge Hagerty said the public has an expectation that their record is expunged and if it is not really happening, then we are doing a disservice to the public.
Judge Wefald moved to instruct the clerk to put a note in the file that the file or judgment is hereby expunged. He does not feel we should be shredding records and agreed that once the police have a record, they are going to keep it forever.
Mr. Ganje said there is a difference between a confidential or sealed record and what is traditionally regarded as an expunged record. The normal approach to expungement taken in other jurisdictions is all evidence of the existence of the record is erased. It is not there for any future reference except as noted in Jim’s memorandum, some jurisdictions expunge all information except a case number or case type to be used for statistical reasons.
Chief Justice VandeWalle declared Judge Wefald’s motion dead for a lack of a second. He asked that either Jim Ganje or Ted Gladden check with the National Center on this matter as he recalled this issue came up in the report. Jim responded that if they had a recommendation, it would be included in the model records rule, which is before the court now. Amendments to that rule do not address expungement.
Chief Justice VandeWalle asked what the implication is of the fact that BCI keeps the record? Judge Paulson stated it is not so much that BCI keeps it, but all other law enforcement agencies keep it as well. He has issued orders of expungement and the attorney general does not honor them because they are not taking it off their records. Chief Justice VandeWalle responded we can control our own records but we cannot control what other people keep or the consequences of what they keep. Judge Foughty commented that if you are going to expunge it under the statute, it seems BCI should clear it out too.
Mr. Ganje said as a rule, expungement is a statutory matter. There is a common law aspect to it, in that a court is empowered to order expungement of a record if there has been some sort of manifest injustice. In Howe, it is a little bit more particular in terms of the things the court must find in order to justify expungement. However, as a rule, expungement has very limited application. We have very few instances identified by statute where expungement is explicitly authorized, so how do we deal with those? You have circumstances, for example via Howe, where the court could order a criminal record expunged, assuming Howe governs, and how do we deal with those? Then there is the other issue of a judge simply ordering a record expunged, how do we deal with those? At face, the issue is what is expungement with respect to our court records?
Judge Schmalenberger commented the problem comes within the use of the word expungement. In the different statutes, it appears to mean different things. Jim responded it is not that it appears to mean different things, it is the potential consequence, and it is really only with respect to bankruptcy. There was concern that if it erases all evidence of the judgment that has been discharged from the court’s records, at least for title searches or liens, etc., it may be a problem. Jim said with respect to bankruptcy that that was the one consequence of expungement that was considered problematic. He said we do have a policy that governs expungement of juvenile court records, although, in the policy itself, it only talks about destruction of records. It is not clear what this policy means. Judge Schmalenberger commented it is his understanding they actually go in and shred the records. Judge Paulson said bankruptcy is controlled by North Dakota statute where if they want the judgment discharged by virtue of bankruptcy, they have to make application and furnish the court with the appropriate schedules.
Chief Justice VandeWalle informed the Council they have the following options: 1) come up with a policy; 2) do nothing; or 3) look at legislation that would apply to the consequences of other areas, which may cause problems with law enforcement.
Chief Justice VandeWalle said this subject came up most recently in the bar admissions process. The Board of Law Examiners has learned how to word the question so the fact that the charge has been reduced or the record has been destroyed does not permit you to say you have never been convicted of a crime. It is worded such that you have to admit up front you were convicted of something.
Judge Schmalenberger said we are talking more about expungement than is being presented. The issue is, under the statute, what does expungement mean? We should not worry about expunging all of these other records where there is no statutory basis, and we should just limit it to the statute. Giving directions to the clerk on what expungement means under these two statutes would be the extent of where we should go. Chief Justice VandeWalle asked if his statement indicated that if there is no statute, the judge could not order a case expunged? Judge Schmalenberger said no, every judge should deal with it individually and if they do not agree, they can appeal it to the supreme court. Chief Justice VandeWalle said that is the problem the clerk is having. When a judge says expunge it, does it mean you take it to the paper shredder immediately and shred it?
Judge Wefald suggested we just say an expunged file is a sealed file and the public does not have a right of access to it.
Judge Braaten commented what the clerks are looking for is a definition of what expunged means so there is a developed procedure on what they are going to do physically with that file. We need to take into consideration that judges may order expungement when it is not statutorily allowed, so we need to come up with a policy or rule change to define what expungement means to give the clerks direction. Her concern is if a judge orders a record expunged immediately, the record disappears, and then there is nothing that can be appealed.
Chief Justice VandeWalle commented if it is going to be escalated somewhat, the CJIS will mean these records are going to be available through the hub to more law enforcement agencies. Judge Schmalenberger added that not only is it going to be available to law enforcement agencies, but we are moving forward in making information in UCIS available to the public. There is also the possibility the transcripts and all other information are going to be available as well.
Justice Neumann moved, seconded by Judge Schmalenberger, that the matter be referred to a subcommittee.
Ted suggested the Trial Court Operations would be a reasonable committee as it has two judges and a number of clerks of court. This Council could give that committee some general guidance and have them draft something that would come back to the Council. Jim said there are three ways you could do it: 1) it could be a policy of this Council; 2) it could be a judicial system policy adopted by the supreme court; or 3) it could be an amendment to Administrative Rule 41, which governs access to judicial records. If what you want to do is focus solely on trial court records, then the Council policy may be more worthwhile, unless for institutional reasons it is considered appropriate that it actually be a system policy adopted by the supreme court.
Chief Justice VandeWalle commented how we label it is less significant than the substance. We have a motion pending to appoint a subcommittee, and Ted has suggested using the Trial Court Operations Committee. The Chief Justice suggested we ask that group to come up with two or three alternatives for the Council to review, not only in concept, but also in actual wording.
Judge Greenwood commented that someone mentioned earlier that in the context of the three statutes, it is clear it means the record is shredded. A judge ordering expungement of something other than those three goes beyond what we are here to discuss. He suggests we adopt a policy that expungement, as to these three statutes, means it is shredded and taken off the computer records. What it means in another case outside these statutes, should not be decided here.
There being no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously to refer the matter to the Trial Court Operation Committee.
Court Services Agreement - Cass County Ordinance Violations
Judge Dawson stated she received a draft court services agreement from Birch Burdick regarding disposition of Cass County ordinance violations. Currently, the state has agreements with selected municipalities, but no agreement with a home rule county. They are doing the animal violations in Cass County, but Mr. Burdick mentions other ordinances could be enforced that would involve jury trials, transcripts, and the expense of court-appointed attorneys. Judge Dawson referred the agreement to Jim Ganje for language similar to that contained in our municipal agreements.
Justice Neumann stated it was his recollection there is some kind of statutory authorization on agreements with the municipalities. Is there any statutory authorization for this kind of an agreement or if there is not, does there need to be?
Jim responded there are two circumstances in which cases are transferred from cities to district court. Under one statute, which is essentially the transfer for jury trial, there is a statutory description of the agreement between the cities and the state and city. With respect to the other city transfers mentioned in the memorandum, the Council’s predecessor adopted an agreement to be used.
Chief Justice VandeWalle asked Judge Dawson if they were handling these ordinance violations on dogs as if they were state law? Judge Dawson responded they are treated the same. Right now, they are mostly infractions with a $50 penalty, so it really has not gotten to a point where we are looking at big fees but when you talk about overweight truck complaints, it amounts to a lot more money.
Chief Justice VandeWalle stated the statute does authorize home rule cities to pass ordinances and levy fines. He thinks that meant they were going to collect part of the fines or fees for what they were doing. On the other hand, he does not think it meant the state is supposed to carry all their costs. Judge Dawson agreed and said what goes on in the city is fair, and she does not know why the same application would not work here. However, she does not want to set any precedents that are going to cause problems for others later.
Judge Foughty moved, seconded by Judge Braaten, to recommend that East Central District follow the same policies and procedures that are set up for the cities. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Jim was instructed to draft a sample agreement and send it to Judge Dawson.
Proposed Procedures for Electronic Transcript Preparation by Outside Vendors
Ted Gladden stated for years, we have used a service bureau in California whenever there was a request for electronically transcripts not prepared by court personnel. That system worked fairly well. The original company has since gone out of business and another firm has picked up the work. The firm was selected to do the work because the California courts, the Oregon courts, the US Office of Court Administration, and the Alaska courts had certified the work of this firm. We have now received requests from people in state who are interested in doing transcript work in North Dakota when the transcripts are not prepared by court personnel. One individual is an employee who would like to do this as a private business on her own time and the other is a former court employee. Mr. Gladden stated he does not know what the volume of work would be. He is attempting to come up with a policy when a transcript would be sent out and how the contractor would be chosen. One alternative would be to put the work out on bids and choose only one contractor.
Justice Neumann stated if we do that, then we have to come up with some standards we want them to meet, not just go with whoever is going to be the cheapest and end up with poor transcripts. Mr. Gladden agreed and stated in visiting with Washington, D.C. courts, they have established procedures for contracting. He stated there are few people who want the work, so in most locations, it is a matter of trying to find someone who is willing to do the work. The Washington courts have a system whereby they give a test audiotape to a perspective vendor to prepare the transcript, they then check it for its accuracy and formatting. We would then build in a process for monitoring contractors. Periodically they would pull a transcript to make sure it is an accurate verbatim record of the proceeding.
Chief Justice VandeWalle stated in response to Judge Geiger’s question, the supreme court sees some transcripts that occasionally are garbled. However, the only real complaints received all have the same post office box. Justice Neumann recalled a few years ago there was some trouble with an electronic transcript. There were some places where it was unintelligible but it has not been a problem as of late.
Mike Sandal explained what the Department of Labor would be looking at for work which is similar to what you would expect them to do as part of their normal work assignments. Time spent doing that work would be an employer-employee relationship and all time spent doing that work in excess of 40 hours in a week would be at a time-and-a-half rate. The Department of Labor has a test they use to determine independent contractor status. That test includes the opportunity for profit and loss; a review of other clients the independent contractor would have outside of the normal employer; the investment in resources to conduct the business; insurance and bonding, and are there hold harmless agreements to determine whether or not the relationship is truly that of an independent contractor or if it is just another way to maintain an employer-employee relationship.
Judge Hagerty said there is an issue about whether these transcripts can be done during the normal business hours or whether they should be sent out. There might be a real conflict if someone who is involved in a business who prepares the transcript is also involved in a case and whether or not it can be done during regular work hours.
Judge Geiger said the employee we are talking about is a secretary II in the juvenile court office in Devils Lake. She occasionally does some recording for the referee and is occasionally a backup recorder to a judge. Otherwise, she does not do recording as a primary part of her job. She recognizes she would never be able to apply to do the transcript as an outside contractor on anything she records in her job capacity. She is seeking to develop an independent business after hours, outside of business, to do transcripts she is not involved in from courts in other districts. However, before she starts her business, she is waiting to hear from the Council.
Judge Hagerty said the problem is if you allow one employee to do that then there will be others in the state who would also be interested.
Justice Neumann commented it seems the fact that she is a state employee would be a problem, and if she took transcript work from courts other than where her immediate supervisor is located that would be one of the things that would count in favor of potentially treating her as a private contractor. If she bought her own computer, did the work at home, and set up a corporate entity, those would all be things that would be considered. However, one of the things we need to ask ourselves is, do we want to run the risk of having to prove she is an independent contractor in order to permit her to do this? Balancing the things we have to consider, there is also risk of exposure.
Judge Schmalenberger said it is going to be under the worst case scenarios if a problem arises. If something happens and the person is no longer an employee and they make a claim, it will be a federal matter and not within the state courts. It was his opinion we would be better off staying away from the area and so we do not have the problem.
Ted Gladden mentioned another issue that needs to be discussed is job stress. We may end up with a claim where we have an injured employee because of carpel tunnel or some job stress-related problem. The issue will be did the injury occur as a result of work activities or elsewhere?
Judge Geiger said the issue we are talking about now is a little bit different from what is being proposed for this draft policy. The draft policy simply sets out some guidelines for transcription, it does not talk about who can do that, and it is really a separate issue of discussion. Judge Geiger moved, seconded by Judge Foughty, that the draft policy prepared by Ted Gladden be adopted.
Judge Paulson stated he had a problem with the language in the first sentence concerning the “monitoring of contractors preparing audio transcripts. . . .” It sounds like they are preparing audio transcripts. It should read something like “written transcripts from the audio tapes supplied by the court.”
Sally Holewa said the trial court administrative personnel had a lengthy discussion on this policy at their last meeting, partly due to the fact that most of them are new and did not understand why transcripts were being sent out to begin with. That is a side issue on what we expect from our reporters and recorders. Court administrators do not care to be put into a court reporter/court recorder business and part of the objection is having to go back and randomly pull transcripts and verify them or document inaccuracies. They should go back to the court reporter or recorder and not to district administration. Judge Braaten agreed with Ms. Holewa and has trouble with court administrative staff providing insurance that the transcripts are accurate. Whoever prepares them should certify them.
Chief Justice VandeWalle informed the Council there is a motion pending and two concerns. Judge Paulson’s concern is grammatical and the other one from Ms. Holewa is a substantive issue.
Ms. Holewa referred the Council to Section 1. She said the administrative personnel also discussed, at their meeting, that for anyone new reviewing the policy, there really is no guidance as to when transcripts should be sent out or could be sent out. There should be something in there stating it should be an extraordinary circumstance after so many hours worth of testimony or something to that effect.
Judge Paulson offered an example along those lines. He has a 14-day custody hearing spread over six weeks. There is no way he can let his recorder have the time to do 14 days worth of transcription on the audiotape so sending it out is the only option.
Chief Justice VandeWalle reiterated Judge Foughty’s comment that under the policy, anything less than 50 pages would not be sent out.
Judge Schmalenberger commented that what Judge Paulson said reinforces Sally’s comments. Unless you have something within the policy, one judge is going to say his recorder does not have the time and another is going to say his does, thus creating an inconsistency. We are going to have to put it in the policy under what circumstances it is valid and under what circumstances it is not valid. He thinks the policy needs to be redrafted with those concerns.
Judge Geiger moved to amend his motion that paragraph 3 be redrafted to read, “court personnel who took the record of the proceedings shall certify the accurate translation of court testimony.” Judge Dawson asked if number 4 should be included also regarding the grammatical errors or inaccuracies.
With the consent of the second, Judge Geiger withdrew his motion.
Mr. Gladden was directed to redraft the policy. Mr. Gladden said at the risk of making this even murkier, we are at the point where we are moving into digital audio in higher volume areas. There we have the capability of having a number of people typing on a transcript simultaneously as the record is on a server, so when you think in terms of length of record like Judge Paulson is referring to, there are other ways to accommodate it.
Ted Gladden informed the Council that sometime ago, some of the court reporters in the South Central District requested to do captioning for the judges. The request would place a monitor on the judge’s desk so as they were taking the record down, it would be available for the judges. We started working with the court reporters who were interested in doing this as well as with the judges and the court administrator, to develop a process of how we were going to measure whether or not this was a successful venture. Do we want to make the investment in the equipment that is required? How do we determine this is something that is needed? Is it needed in all proceedings? Subsequent to that, a request came from Judge Braaten’s court reporter who was willing to make an investment in realtime by purchasing the digital sharing device and cabling to allow attorneys the capability of receiving a realtime translation feed during bench and jury trials. This proposal would give the court reporter the ability to generate a rough first copy of the record for attorneys for a fee of $50 per day. Something along this line is being allowed in the federal district court. This is one step beyond what was being requested in Bismarck, but it is along the same lines. We are back to the question of who owns the record, who controls it, where do the revenues go, who is providing the equipment, who is managing the system? Mr. Gladden prepared a memorandum and reviewed it with Judge Braaten. He stated this is a complicated and emotionally charged issue, but it is one where we need to set some policy direction. Issues such as what happens when an attorney says they want to have a court reporter take the record because they want rough copy and will pay the $50 per day and we have an electronic person or court reporter that does not do realtime covering court? Do we want to get involved in certification issues recognizing there is only one certifying body, the National Shorthand Reporters Association? We need to provide some policy direction on how we want to deal with this subject. Do we want to mandate it and provide the training for court reporters and within a certain period of time, they have to attain this level of certification or do you want to leave it voluntary? Mr. Gladden suggested putting together a working body to come back with a proposal to the Council on how to proceed.
Judge Paulson asked how many people we have in the state certified by the National Shorthand Reporters Association that are able to take realtime? Ted responded he did not know but could find out.
Judge Braaten commented there are two certifications. There is the certification to be a regular court reporter. Not all of our court reporters have that certification, but we do not require that they have it. As far as realtime, there is one state court reporter, Sharon Fox, who is certified. Judge Braaten’s court reporter, Michelle Bredemeier, recently took a test to be certified. There is a reporter in Fargo in the federal court that has been doing it for a long time who is not certified. He has just never taken the time to get certified. She stated she disagrees with Mr. Gladden on what he sees as a future for court reporting. It is true, we had a school in Crookston close and other schools have closed in our rural areas, but it is just like other schools around the country that are specialized. In the future is going to be a combination of audio and court reporting. We are always going to have trouble in rural areas attracting people and we do not pay much money to our court reporters. If you look at the new salary schedule that was adopted, we are not going to keep court reporters if we do not get their salaries raised. This is one way of attracting those proficient court reporters and providing us with a better record than we get from audio recordings.
Judge Hagerty stated we should not put roadblocks in the way of people who want to do more than is expected of them and there is a benefit in having realtime available, especially for the judge. If you have a rough copy of a transcript when you are writing an opinion, you can do a better job than referring to your handwritten notes. The process in the South Central was to work with the reporters who wanted to become proficient and it was supposed to be a three-part process. First, they work to gain proficiency, then they get to a point where they are sharing the information with the judge, the third step would be to share it with the attorneys. Now, we are told no report is necessary. If you look at what is going to benefit judges and attorneys in doing a better job and we have employees who are going beyond what is expected and they are doing it on their own time, we should not put roadblocks in their way. In other areas, when we are having trouble recruiting, we look at the pay schedule. With the court reporters, we do not do that.
Judge Geiger stated as far as voice recognition is concerned, technology will never be able to reach a point where it can be used in a conference setting because it literally has to recognize each individual voice. As far as court reporters are concerned, he generally agrees with Mr. Gladden that there is a place for different formats (analog, digital recording, and court reporting stenographically) in the court system. Each has its benefit. A stenographic court reporter can reproduce the record faster than other methods, but there is a price tag for it. When you look at the types of cases generally handled by district court judges, analog and digital recording, for the benefit of the taxpayers and the litigants, is just as good as anything else; however, there are times and there are cases where you may want to have the ability to stenographically report a case, especially realtime. As far as frequency is concerned, Judge Rodney Webb made a comment that he has hardly ever had a request in all his years as a judge for realtime reporting in his courtroom. Insofar as the expert is concerned, we pay all staff for their time and expertise, and a court reporter is already being paid for the time and expertise they give during their day. He recalls in their job description, it states court reporters have the ability to provide for computer-aided transcription, and so insofar as charging an additional fee for expertise, we are opening a big door. What happens when we have a technical expert come in the administrator’s office saying he has some special expertise, then what do we do?
Judge Braaten said the computer-aided transcription is something entirely different from realtime. Realtime is like closed captioning. It comes up on the judge’s computer screen. It is very stressful work for the court reporter. They will not use this on master calendar. The court reporter is not going to do this every day all the time or you would totally stress out that person. It would be used only in specific circumstances. She agrees with Mr. Gladden’s suggestion that we get a group together to study this issue. There are enough judges interested that we should explore this option.
Jim Hill echoed the comments of Judges Hagerty and Braaten. He recently tried a case in Grand Forks. The defense made a decision to bring in realtime. It was essential for that case, and they could not have tried it without it. He asked Judge Christofferson and his court reporter if he could bring his own court reporter and the request was approved. Counsel had the system set up, including the monitors. Mr. Hill said they used a recent graduate from UND for technical support. The daily transcript work the official court reporter generated from the digital record had large gaps that were “unintelligible.” You are going to find lawyers wanting to use it and you will find judges very used to using it once you put a screen and monitor in front of them. Concerning an upcoming trial in Minot, he stated counsel worked to determine how much technology they needed. They agreed to pay for the service because technologically, you have to use it. The Minot court is not set up for advanced technology, so they are going to buy it themselves. He stressed the point that we should not pretend this is not happening. It is happening and we do need guidelines on what we can and cannot use concerning the realtime records. He does not know what is going to happen with the trial in Grand Forks because the digitally recorded transcript, which is the official transcript, and the court reporter transcript done by a human being are going to be two different transcripts.
Chief Justice VandeWalle responded in addition to what Mr. Hill described, the other issue we have is, can we afford to pay for what is out there just because it is out there?
Judge Schmalenberger commented that with voice recognition, it was his understanding that because of the English language, they think it is going to be an extremely difficult effort to do voice recognition in the courtroom with all the different voices. They can do voice recognition if that person trains it but as far as it being used in a court setting, he is not sure when or if that will happen. There is a difference between realtime and daily transcripts. Daily transcripts have been around for a long time. Mr. Hill gave the worst-case scenario. We should have policies addressing what is considered the official record because the last thing you want to do when the trial is over is have another trial on the official record. We need to create a subcommittee to address it and come back to this Council with a recommendation.
Judge Geiger stated he appreciated the comments Mr. Hill has made, but no one in this room can take the Grand Forks case as an example of why stenographic reporting is better than, in this case, digital recording. The court reporter in the Grand Forks case is a stenographic court reporter. She ended up going with digital recording and did not have the necessary training for it or the experience for it in a huge case, probably one of the longest cases in the history of North Dakota. So, if there was a flaw in providing an accurate transcription, it should not be attributed to the methodology or the format used.
Judge Paulson commented it is not unusal to have attorneys sitpulate on the record that realitme or the person providing daily copy would in fact be the one to provide the official transcript for the proceeding.
Jim Hill responded that Judge Christofferson indicated the court reporter prepares the official transcript. Jim also hired a court reporter service because he felt if they have daily certification of the transcript by a nationally certified court reporter, they have something at the end of this trial and have a complete transcript.
Judge Braaten moved, seconded by Judge Paulson, to amend her motion to strike the words "court recorders" in the first line.
Judge Braaten said under the current rule, even with the amendment, the judges could enter into an agreement with the court administrator and transfer supervision to the court administrator if that works best for the particular situation. She believes the secretary to the referee should not be treated any differently than a secretary to the judge
Chief Justice VandeWalle said the motion before you, as it has now been structured, adds the words "and referees." The question being called, the motion carried unanimously.
Spring Docket Currency Report
Ted Gladden said a copy of the spring 2004 Docket Currency Report is provided in the meeting materials. He thanked the judges, all of the trial court people, clerks of court and others for their good work. Our caseload is in good shape and it is a credit to all involved. Chief Justice VandeWalle said it was pleasant to be able to read such a good report.
Administrative Unit Activities
Louie Hentzen informed the Council the court administrators and trial court managers are working very hard in their respective administrative units. Status reports from each unit were provided in the meeting materials. They are working on developing work plans in the areas identified earlier and those implemented shortly after the reorganization started in August. We have delayed the work plan deadlines for indigent defense, jury management, and records retention until the Council meets again in February. At that time, it is anticipated we will have those work plans for review. Even though the court administrators are new to North Dakota, they bring fresh ideas that lead to productive discussion in allowing everyone to benefit from looking at things from a new perspective. Overall, he is very impressed with the work ethic of the administrators. They are doing exceptionally well. He also acknowledged the work Chris Iverson has done in Administrative Unit 2 in absence of a full-time administrator. She has been very helpful in keeping on top of the issues.
The next meeting is February 18, 2005 at 10:00 am It was suggested the Council meet some place other than the Heritage Center because of parking