March 12, 2009 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Marci Francisco, Curtis Harris, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Aimee Polson, Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Quinn Miller, Brenda Nunez, Roberta Suenram |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Phil Collison, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association; KT Walsh, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association; Ted Boyle, North Lawrence Improvement Association; Loring Henderson, Lawrence Community Shelter. |
Welty called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the February 26, 2009 minutes.
Norwood submitted the following corrections to the February 26, 2009 minutes:
“Item #4, Page 2, Paragraph 6 corrected to now read:
Harris moved to fund the following:
16a, Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority TBRA Program- $275,000; 18c, CDD First Time Homebuyer’s Program/Lawrence Community Land Trust HOME - $163,294.
Welty seconded the motion.
Discussion followed.”
Item #5, Page 3, Paragraph 6 corrected to now read:
“Norwood agreed that the neighborhood itself may be performing well, but the reports are a requirement of the funding agreement and they still need to be submitted by the due dates.”
Item #5, Page 3, Paragraph 11 corrected to now read:
“Norwood said her concern was that reporting is a requirement for all the neighborhood associations and if some are not reporting and nothing is being done, then other neighborhoods might wonder why they have to follow the rules and others are not. Reporting is required, and no matter what the good deeds of the neighborhoods are they still need submit their reports.”
Item #5, Page 5, Paragraph 6 corrected to now read:
“Norwood pointed out that the funding request application from the agencies referenced only a percentage of the agency total budget.”
Item #5, Page 6, Paragraph 7 corrected to now read:
“Norwood moved to fully fund 1a, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association for $6,115; 4a Oread Neighborhood Association for $10,520; and 5a Pinckney Neighborhood Association for $2,734. The remaining neighborhood associations, North Lawrence Improvement Association and East Lawrence Neighborhood Association need to attend a CDAC meeting. North Lawrence Improvement Association will be required to provide an explanation on why their neighborhood performance reports were not submitted by the due dates and the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association will be required to explain the reasoning behind the increased funding request based on their 2008 grant year award. Polson seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-1.”
Item #5, Page 7, Paragraph 5 corrected to now read:
“Norwood moved to fully fund 8a, Douglas County AIDS Project Emergency Assistance Program for $4,000. Polson seconded the motion.
Discussion followed.”
Welty submitted the following correction to the February 26, 2009 minutes:
Item 5, Page 6, Paragraph 6 corrected to now read:
“Welty said that since DCAP is only asking for $4000, that might not be enough for them to do anything with.”
Harris moved to approve the February 26, 2009 minutes with corrections submitted by Norwood and Welty. Mitchell seconded the motion, which passed 4-0-1.
3. Neighborhood Discussion – North Lawrence Improvement Association, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association.
Welty introduced the topic and explained to Ted Boyle, President of North Lawrence Improvement Association that the question the Committee had was about the fact that the performance reports are not being turned in as required. She asked him to provide an explanation to the missing reports of the 1st and 3rd quarter of the 2007-2008 CDBG grant year.
Boyle said that during the 2007-2008 CDBG grant year the North Lawrence Improvement Association switched coordinators and this was the reason that the performance reports fell behind. He handed in the missing reports to Swarts earlier this afternoon and as the President he takes full responsibility for the oversight. As of now all the reports have been turned in and North Lawrence is current on their requirements. He indicated he wanted to speak to the performance of the North Lawrence Improvement Association.
Norwood explained to Boyle that the CDAC was not questioning the performance of the neighborhood. The question the CDAC had was the fact that there is a requirement of performance reports and they have not been turned in on time.
Welty told Boyle that there was discussion during the February 26, 2009 meeting about the fact that the North Lawrence coordinator works the fewest hours of all the neighborhoods that have applied for funding. She posed the question if the coordinator was able to work more hours then would the performance report requirements be fulfilled on time.
Boyle said that they do work their coordinator fewer hours than the rest of the neighborhoods, and if that is something they can look at changing in the future. He said that he has been doing about 75% of the work himself for the neighborhood, and the North Lawrence view is that sometimes money is better spent in another direction. Maybe that is something they can take a look at and change.
Norwood told Boyle to keep in mind that if you are requesting CDBG funds, regardless of the hours that your coordinator is putting in, there is a requirement of a quarterly performance report submission.
Boyle said he absolutely understands that and he also understands that the CDAC is looking for this report on time. He admits he is liable for that as he is the President and he will make a point to hand deliver the performance report every quarter before the due date. That will resolve the problems with the performance reports.
Harris told Boyle that he appreciates the fact that money could be spent on additional coordinator hours. If North Lawrence wants to allot more hours to their coordinator going forward he would like to see an application reflecting that next year.
Boyle told the CDAC that North Lawrence has a very good and efficient coordinator and he will get together with her and they will work this out and see that the CDAC receives their performance reports on time and more efficiently.
Welty thanked Boyle for coming.
Welty introduced the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association.
Polson said that she was the one who had questions regarding the application, but upon re-reading it she determined that the request was not actually doubled from last year. She looked at the awarded funds instead of the application request. The neighborhoods are on the front end of allocations this year, and she understands that East Lawrence is a very labor intensive neighborhood much like Oread. She does not feel like she has as many questions as she originally thought she would coming into the meeting.
Norwood told East Lawrence Neighborhood Association that she would still like to hear from them.
Phil Collison, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association President, verified that they were only asking for $400 more in funding than they had requested last year. The application itemizes out what they are looking at for their budget. The bulk of the money goes to the coordinator, who works six hours a week. The East Lawrence Neighborhood Association’s preference would be that the coordinator would be able to work 10 hours per week. The time that the coordinator spends is made up of a weekly meeting one hour a week, and the other time is spent on email, the newsletter, and other events. Of the $600 expense of the newsletter, $400 of it is CDBG funded. The application reflects that they would like to have a 10 hour a week coordinator, as well as a little more money to spend on their workdays. They also hold two fundraisers a year.
Polson asked about the date of the financials on their application.
Collison told her it was as of November 1, 2008.
Polson said that they got $6,000 last year from CDBG. From the end of November according to their financials they have $400.
Collison said that these numbers do not reflect the CDBG award from last year. That was just the bank balance on that day. Sometimes they pay out of the bank balance and then get the money from the City.
Norwood asked East Lawrence Neighborhood Association to explain the request for the stand-up recycling containers.
KT Walsh, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association Secretary, said that the basis for the recycling containers was that at their neighborhood events the biggest complaint they hear is that they do not do a good job of recycling. In Topeka, she is aware of a program where the City has containers for rent. The recycled materials feed into a plastic bag. The plan for East Lawrence is to buy some of these recycling containers and they would be able to effectively recycle at their events, as well as have the ability to loan the containers out to other neighborhoods. She also wanted to point out that they are doing a good job of selling metals at the recycling center to raise money, as well as selling T-shirts. They are working very hard to try to raise money.
Polson asked if the shortfalls shown in their financial report, such as no payment for a PO Box, are due to any event in particular.
Collison said that those items just had not been paid yet at the time the application was due. He also wanted to add that they are looking at utilizing the recycling bins 10 or more times a year.
Polson told Collison that for this year she had a little bit of a problem reading the financials. She asked if they could adapt a more user-friendly version of the financials for next year’s application.
Collison said they would do that and would appreciate any suggestions on how to make that page easier to read.
Harris commented that on the application under the heading of “Describe the agency philosophy and practices regarding recycling and other “green” practices” that the Committee appreciates the recycling efforts, but he questioned the paragraph on home preservation. He said there seemed to be a spin on the information.
Collison said that they have been working with Dennis Domer and they have 33 applications ready to put homes in East Lawrence on the historic registry. This project has been done with volunteer hours and donations made through the Lawrence Preservation Alliance. In May they will have at least 40 more houses to put on the historic registry and will have a presentation ready to take before the City Commission. There is so much historical content on individual houses in the neighborhood. It will be a district distinction as well. They have had many initiatives in the past where they have tried to do a project such as this. There are many stories in the neighborhood that would be nice to be able to share. They want to have a book available with the historical documentation as well as have a packet that they are able to give to homeowners regarding the history of their home. They are also looking at implementation of an online data base with the same information. Domer thinks that the East Lawrence neighborhood history is very significant.
Walsh said that she knows there was a spin on the paragraph because she wrote it that way. She said that part of the looking at the history is pride and the ability to hold on to these houses. East Lawrence works closely with Tenants to Homeowners and the Land Trust for housing rehabilitation in the neighborhood. She indicated that Tenants to Homeowners is currently rehabbing a property at 1107 Rhode Island. There will also be five accessible units.
Collison said that they are also opposed to tearing down houses in the neighborhood and building new ones. They are very excited about the historical preservation project.
Mitchell said that Tenants to Homeowners is doing a project in the Brook Creek neighborhood as well and she is excited to hear that the partnership is going so well in East Lawrence.
Collison said that the five accessible units will be at 12th and Delaware. He emphasized what a valuable asset Tenants to Homeowners is to the Community and how it brings diversity to the neighborhoods. These rehabbed projects are going to be residential and here for a long time.
Welty thanked the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association for attending and presenting.
4. Emergency Shelter Discussion – Lawrence Community Shelter, The Salvation Army.
Welty reminded the CDAC that there were changes with The Salvation Army that were published in the newspaper and that the Committee wanted to hear from both shelter organizations in the community.
Loring Henderson, Lawrence Community Shelter, said that the closing of the Salvation Army emergency shelter had been expected for some time, but they expected to have another year or so to prepare for the changes. The plan was that Lawrence Community Shelter would be in their new building when the Salvation Army closed so there was no question about where people could go when the emergency shelter closed, but the new closing date is May 1 and Lawrence Community Shelter will not be in a new building by then. Between now and May 1, the Lawrence Community Shelter is looking for an interim building to hold the extra 42 homeless people that will be displaced by the shelter closing.
Lawrence Community Shelter has been selected by the Community Commission on Homelessness as the emergency shelter for Lawrence. When they move into a new building they can be that shelter, but for now they need to find an interim building to house the families and individuals from The Salvation Army. The interim building would be just a night building and would not have daytime activity that would consist of people coming and going throughout the day. It would sleep 42 to 50 people depending on the space that they find, and there would be an evening meal served. They would be able to separate the population at the Lawrence Community Shelter’s current location, which do not have to pass a breathalyzer test, and the overflow population from the Salvation Army, which is a facility where you do have to pass a breathalyzer test. They are considering ensuring those at the overflow interim shelter must pass a breathalyzer test as well. This is a different population than those that are currently in the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Henderson stated they have not found a place yet but are actively searching. He is looking at a larger permanent building for the shelter to move into as well, but even if he could find a building at this point it will be a year or so before they could fully utilize the new site. The interim building will be needed for at least a year, and hopefully they are able to find one that does not require a lot of renovations. It will need to include a sleeping room, bathrooms, and small kitchen area. At the Lawrence Community Shelter, they do not cook evening meals; they are brought in each night. Henderson is projecting that the interim shelter will cost about $3,500-$5,000 in rent per month for a 5000 square foot location, with an additional $500-$650 a month for utilities. Other supplies will be minimal. He is under the impression that the total cost for a year will be between $40,000 and $65,000. He said that the transitional housing project from the Salvation Army is very important for the community as well and a very important resource for this population.
Polson asked what will happen between the closing of the Salvation Army and the interim Lawrence Community Shelter building.
Henderson said that an interim second building needs to be found. If something is found but it will take a little time to get into another interim, the interim solution could be working with a church, but they currently have a lot going with Family Promise. The faith community is already doing a lot. If they had their eyes on a building by May 1 and could give the churches a timeline then they might be able to temporarily go that route.
Mitchell said that she believed it was a good idea to look at the interim shelter as a dry shelter for those at the Salvation Army. Many are families and some may be recovering addicts that need the safe and sober environment.
Henderson said that reason is why the Lawrence Community Shelter does not take families now. It is not the right environment for a family. The Community Shelter has worked very closely with the Salvation Army in the past and if there is a sober person at the Community Shelter that needs that sober environment they will refer them to the Salvation Army.
Polson asked if they found a larger building would they need to expand farther than their current area of location.
Henderson said a larger shelter near downtown is not feasible for them.
Polson asked if the Lawrence Community Shelter was looking at the possibility of managing two buildings.
Henderson said they are not because it is not an efficient use of resources. The hope is when a new permanent facility is found there will be facilities for both the individuals that cannot pass a breathalyzer test and a facility for families and sober guests. They would have two separate entrances and one population would not interact with the other.
Harris asked if there was a chance that the availability of beds at The Salvation Army has helped in enabling the homeless.
Henderson said that he did not think so. He does not know the Salvation Army’s statistics, but he can say that approximately 75% of the individuals at Lawrence Community Shelter are ones with local ties. The other 25% do not stay here too long. The ones that stay here have a reason to be in Lawrence. If there is no place for the current guests of the Salvation Army they will go somewhere else in town, which probably means they will camp.
Harris said that the CDAC appreciated the work that Henderson does and it sounds like they are working very hard to prepare for May 1. They have a long term goal and a goal of a new facility.
Wes Dalberg from the Salvation Army was not in attendance so there was no further comment on this topic.
5. Continue Deliberations – CDBG Public Service.
Harris moved to fully fund the remaining neighborhood associations, 2a East Lawrence Neighborhood Association Operating and Coordinator Expenses for $11,516; 3a North Lawrence Improvement Association Operating and Coordinator Expenses for $4,300; and 3b North Lawrence Improvement Association Neighborhood Clean-Up for $1,800. The motion was seconded by Polson.
Discussion followed:
Norwood commented that keeping the economy in mind, how were the neighborhoods funded last year.
Welty said that they worked out a formula and funded the neighborhoods based on their number of households. Last year the amount was approximately $4.45 per household that was allocated to the individual neighborhoods.
Norwood said that she believed that there were other avenues that East Lawrence could take regarding the purchase of the recycling containers. She understands what the recycling containers will be used for in the neighborhood, but has a hard time justifying spending $250 on containers when there are other alternatives to look at.
Harris asked Walsh if the recycling containers were not funded, would they still take on that expense as a neighborhood.
Walsh said that they would still recycle, however they really liked these containers because they were durable and sturdy. They could be loaned out to other neighborhoods as well.
Collison added that the containers would be identifiable as well. They specifically say “recycle” on them, making it less of an issue for those who tend to use current recycle bins for regular trash as well.
Polson asked how many recycling containers they will get for $250.
Walsh said that they would get five containers and a large supply of plastic bags for disposal.
Norwood asked that in time, as the neighborhood accumulates thing such as trash cans, recycling containers and roto tillers, does the neighborhood have a firm grasp on where these items are kept and if they are being taken care of.
Walsh said that although a few trash cans have been stolen, they are mostly still in the neighborhood. The neighborhood items such as the ones mentioned are all kept in a centralized location, which is her barn.
Collison said that there was a neighborhood meeting Monday and the subject of the roto tiller came up. The equipment that is available is available for rent in the neighborhood, but some of the items are going to need some significant upkeep to preserve them. There is a very good caretaker in the neighborhood that looks over the equipment. The roto tiller is approaching 15 years old.
Walsh told Norwood that her point is well taken. Supplies do occasionally disappear, but they have an effective system in place that minimizes this issue.
Mitchell said that her house is the location in Brook Creek that stores their equipment. It is all part of being a neighborhood.
Francisco said that fully funding the neighborhood is a significant increase from last year’s allocation. Looking over the application, there are LAN dues included in the budget. LAN is more a political organization. If they want to join LAN it is her feeling that they can raise the money themselves. If the neighborhood has been successful in the past with the metal recycling then they are able to utilize that funding for the recycling bins. All the rest of the request seems very straightforward to her in comparison to the other neighborhoods and their requests.
Swarts told the CDAC that CDBG funds have been used to pay LAN dues in the past. Belonging to LAN is not necessarily a political activity. Individual neighbors can offer their political support in any way they choose, but CDBG funded neighborhoods are precluded from political activities or specifically endorsing a particular candidate. If the neighborhoods want to use CDBG funds to pay for their LAN dues that it fine, but the thing to watch is the neighborhood participating in a political endorsement.
Harris said that the CDAC allocates $400,000 to the City of Lawrence and do nothing to monitor them as to every dollar’s purpose. If there is a glitch he will offer to amend the motion, but he does not see that there is a reason to.
Norwood said that the difference is that the CDAC is funding salary, newsletters, and mailings for five neighborhoods. What is going to happen next year if five or six more eligible neighborhoods come in and apply for funds. That is something that the Committee needs to take a good strong look at. If the neighborhoods in Lawrence develop more neighborhood associations than the five that are already consistently submitting applications it may become a funding issue. She said that she looks at the recycling containers as a no-no, and at LAN dues as a no-no. She said she is not trying to be picky; she is trying to be realistic.
Polson said that these were one time expenses that we are looking at here.
Welty said that she is not one for picking apart all the neighborhood applications, but one thing that stands out is that not all neighborhood coordinators are paid the same hourly rate. It seems to her that they should be paid the same per hour across the board. That should be consistent.
Harris said that it was not the job of this body to set the wage of any entity.
Welty said her comment was to demonstrate that the Committee just needs to watch what they are doing by just fully funding all the neighborhoods automatically.
Polson commented that the neighborhoods have never been fully funded.
Norwood said that the CDAC needs to take a close look at the economy and some things that they are allocating the funds to. There are a couple of things that she objects to in regards to fully funding the neighborhoods, but the bottom line is what the Committee decides to do.
Polson asked Norwood if she would be more comfortable reducing the East Lawrence funding by $250.
Norwood said she would be more comfortable with reducing the funding $275.
Francisco said that East Lawrence has done an incredible job of working together to raise funds. She would like to see those fundraising efforts included in the budget. The money spent on block parties is probably coming in part from fundraising efforts. By not having this in the budget they are not telling the community how much they are doing as a neighborhood to raise these dollars, and then in turn what they are spending the dollars on. It would help everyone to understand what the neighborhoods are doing and what portion of the funds are being used for what activity or project. This is something that she is working with the Oread neighborhood right now. She would like for East Lawrence to keep this in mind for next year’s application.
Harris moved to close the discussion regarding the motion to fully fund the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and the two North Lawrence Improvement Association’s requests. The motion was seconded by Polson and passed unanimously.
Welty called for a vote on the motion to fully fund the NLIA and ELNA request. The motion passed 3-2-1.
Harris said he preferred to call for public comment and adjourn the meeting, as the remaining public service discussions will be lengthy.
Francisco said that there needed to be a discussion regarding the funding of the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Harris said that the two applications that were submitted by Lawrence Community Shelter and The Salvation Army were self explanatory.
Francisco said that there is a situation in that the action of The Salvation Army does have a major effect on another agency. She worries a little about saying that the CDAC will fund the requests and not respond to some additional issues that will have to be dealt with.
Harris said that The Salvation Army application is not for the emergency shelter.
Norwood commented that the Volunteer Clearance Program is yet to be funded as well.
Polson asked if Lawrence Community Shelter can amend their application since their situation has changed.
Francisco said no, but her thought is to give LCS additional funding above what was requested. The CDAC asks for an application, and she does not think that there is a rule saying that we cannot give someone more money. One possibility is that if they do find an interim shelter the CDAC can ask that some funds be held back for Capital Improvements on the interim facility. That can be set aside.
Harris said that there is already a Community Commission on Homelessness. The CDAC is not the homeless board. They were the ones that made the decision that Lawrence Community Shelter was going to be the shelter in Lawrence.
Welty said that the CDAC has goals, and the service that the Lawrence Community Shelter provides meets some of the goals.
Harris said that if one agency gets more money then another one gets less. Transitional housing programs such as the new Salvation Army program is just as important as the homeless shelter.
Norwood asked Swarts if The Salvation Army was receiving additional funding for their new program.
Swarts said that they their request for SHP funds was not approved. They are utilizing the funds already set aside for the project.
Francisco asked Swarts if The Salvation Army needed the CDBG funds to provide a match. She asked if they have enough funding to start a program if the CDAC allocates funding to make the program work.
Swarts said that you cannot use CDBG funds for match purposes for that program. For that program of supportive housing, match might not be required. The Salvation Army received funding for their renewal application. She was not sure how much funding they applied for on the new project.
Welty said that the overflow from The Salvation Army guests will be camping or going into the neighborhoods after May 1 because they will have no where else to go. This will have an impact on the neighborhoods.
Norwood agreed that when The Salvation Army closes the service then that homeless population will have to go somewhere. Lawrence Community Shelter does not have a building to house these individuals. Setting aside funding for that is something that the CDAC needs to take into consideration.
Harris agreed, but reminded the CDAC that they have limited resources to work with. He asked the Committee if there was any agency in particular that they did not want to fund.
Norwood said that out of the four remaining requests, someone will have to take a hit because the Committee does not have the funding to cover the requests. The funds are unable to stretch towards the need.
Francisco asked about The Salvation Army application and if the program will still go on since they were not able to secure the HUD funding.
Welty said that in the application it reads that the Salvation Army will be able to assist seven individuals or eight families with this program. The newspaper said that if they did not get any funding they would still be able to help five families.
Swarts said that it will be done through their existing grant.
Harris said that he was in favor at this time of moving to public comment and then adjourning for the evening. The final four requests are shaping up to be a very long discussion.
6. Public Comment.
Henderson told the CDAC that he appreciates the dilemma they are in, and he appreciates the work that the Committee does. This is a hit that the Lawrence Community Shelter was not planning for until another year or so. They will have to come up with $50,000+ for the financial hit that they will have to take, including an additional $5,000-$6,500 per month that they will have to absorb. Any help that the CDAC can give them would be greatly appreciated.
Harris asked if the CDAC could put additional money into the Community Shelter by reallocating funds from another agency award.
Swarts said that there are no more available funds to allocate to Public Service activities. The CDAC can set aside money for Capital Improvement projects such as additional bathrooms, kitchen rehab, room dividers, and other activities like that on an interim shelter. The question becomes how much does the Committee want to spend on a temporary location. When the Lawrence Community Shelter has moved into its new permanent facility do you want to put more money in at that time? It is perfectly within the regulations to give an agency more money than they asked for. The case here is a new need was identified with the closing of the Salvation Army’s emergency shelter. Historically the group has not ever funded anyone more than what they requested. The thought is that if you asked for a certain amount you knew why you were asking for that amount. When these applications were completed, the situation with the Salvation Army’s emergency shelter was not an issue.
Norwood asked Swarts if she remembered correctly that the Committee set aside funds several years ago for the Salvation Army and a new building.
Swarts said that it was the 19th and Homewood project and it was several years ago. It was funding for infrastructure improvements. The Salvation Army is still planning to develop that location at some point in the future.
Harris said that if he remembered, The Salvation Army wanted to build a shelter there, but there were some issues with the neighborhood.
Mitchell said that there was a different story presented to the neighbors each time The Salvation Army personnel came to talk to them. The neighborhood still does not know what is expected for that facility.
7. Miscellaneous/Calendar Items.
There were no Miscellaneous or Calendar items to discuss.
8. Adjourn.
There being no further business, Francisco moved to adjourn the February 26, 2009 meeting. Harris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Attendance Record
|
Members |
01/08 |
01/22 |
02/10 Study Session |
02/12 |
02/26 |
03/12 |
03/26 |
04/9 |
05/23 |
05/14 |
|
Marci Francisco |
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
Curtis Harris |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
Roberta Suenram |
|
|
|
|
* E |
E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* designates first meeting after appointment.