Newfoundland Club of America Board of Directors Meeting

Teleconference of August 27, 2002


President Tom Broderick called the teleconference meeting to order at 8:05 pm Eastern time on Tuesday, August 27, 2002. The following directors were present: Tom Broderick (TB), Mary Lou Cuddy (MLC), Aura Dean (AD), Jack Dean (JD), Roger Frey (RF), Joan Gunn (JG), Sandee Lovett (SL), Roger Powell (RP), Mary L. Price (MLP), Robin Seaman (RS), Deb Wigal (DW) Mary W. Price (MWP), AKC Delegate (ex-officio) and Beverly Eichel (BE) (ex-officio). Clyde Dunphy (CD) was absent due to travel. Member guests present were Patti McDowell, Lori Littleford and Pat Randall, members of the Rescue Prevention Committee (RPC).

The correction of the June 25, 2002, July 1, 2002 and July 8, 2002 minutes, the July 30, 2002 minutes and the July 30, 2002 Charitable Trust minutes were postponed until later.

Report of the Recording Secretary

Mary Lou Cuddy reported that the July 30, 2002 minutes were ready for correction and that she had prepared the August 27, 2002 agenda.

She sent a letter to persons whose membership application was challenged and has received verification that the letter was delivered.

Report of the Corresponding Secretary

Robin Seaman reported that she had received a letter from Suzanne Jones regarding the notating of the Nominating Committee’s selected candidates on the election ballot. That letter was forwarded to Mary Lou Cuddy for inclusion on the next agenda. She also forwarded to Mary Lou Cuddy letters from the Bernese Mountain Dog parent club to be included in the agenda as FYI items. She also reported that the New-Pen-Del Club has sent a $4,000.00 check to the NCA Health Challenge. These funds were profit from the 2002 National Specialty.

Report of the Treasurer

NCA Operations








     Checking Account




     Savings Account
















"Distinguished Member" Restoration



     Money Market Account












Uniform Trophy Fund




     Money Market Account












 Report of the AKC Delegate

 Mary W. Price reported that she had nothing to add since her mailing to Board members in August. She will attend the September 10, 2002 Delegates’ meeting in New York. 

Health and Longevity Committee

 Rebecca Stanevich, Chair of the Health and Longevity Committee (H&L), reported that the AKC Canine Health Foundation is sponsoring “Genes, Dogs and Cancer – 2nd Annual Canine Cancer Conference” on September 18-20 in Aurora, OH. The fee is $100 before August 1st and $150 until August 31st. The hotel and food are covered. In an earlier phone conversation, President Tom Broderick had authorized her to reserve a place to take advantage of the lower price.

 There was discussion whether to send her or another member of the H&L committee. Roger Powell motioned and Sandee Lovett seconded that Rebecca Stanevich attend this seminar. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: CD) 

Health ROM Award Ad Hoc Committee

 Sandee Lovett spoke to Tamzin Rosenwasser, Chair of the Ad Hoc Health ROM Award Committee. Tamzin is eager to work on this project and will have a report for the board shortly. 

Proposal by AKC Delegate Parent Clubs Committee

 Mary W. Price, AKC Delegate, reported that the AKC Delegate Parent Clubs Committee is proposing a rule change that would allow the awarding of a three point major to the Reserve Winners Dog and Reserve Winners Bitch at National Specialties where the entries total at least twice the number required for a five point major for their sex.

 Jack Dean motioned and Robin Seaman seconded that the NCA support this recommended change.

Discussion followed. Reserve Winners is a high honor at National Specialties and points should be awarded. There are some parent clubs that have multiple Nationals. This rule change would be limited to one show per year, so parent clubs with multiple Nationals would have to choose one show at which to award these points. There was concern that some large all-breed shows might try to extend this to the largest all-breed shows. It was stated that the committee would be against that and would work against anything other than the stated proposal. There seems to be support from parent clubs of all sizes. Some Board members felt that tradition should not be changed. Some Board members stated they were ambivalent about the change. Mary W. Price was questioned as to whether she had any feedback from other clubs. She responded that she really won’t know until the September meeting, but she has a sense that most clubs are leaning towards supporting the proposal.

Motion carried. 8 Yes (TB, MLC, AD, JD, SL, MLP, RS, DW); 3 No (RF, JG, RP); (Absent: CD) 

November 2002 Face-to-Face meeting

 President Tom Broderick reported on prices for the hotel and meeting room for the November face-to-face meeting. Both hotels are five minutes from the airport and have shuttle service. The Sheraton rooms are $99 per night and the meeting room is $150 per day. The Hilton rooms are $85 per night and a small meeting room is $100 per day and a large meeting room is $200 per day.

 Jack Dean asked how many people are expected to come and hear Steve Gladstone from the AKC. The reply was that the number was uncertain. There was discussion of moving the face-to-face to California.

 Jack Dean motioned and Roger Powell seconded that the Board meet in California in November.

 Discussion followed. The reception for the Landseer painting cannot be held this year so there is no reason to stay in Philadelphia. There are East Coast members who wish to hear Steve Gladstone speak. On the other hand, there are also West Coast members who would like to attend such a meeting. Steve Gladstone is highly unlikely to travel to the West Coast. The Board would lose much of their meeting time on Sunday as Board members would have to be leaving early to catch flights. Some Board members cannot do the red-eye flight. It is much less expensive to stay on the East Coast. It is very important that the Board maintain a good relationship with members and regional clubs in all parts of the country. Some members who live in the West feel ignored by the Board. It was asked if the Board could go to California next year. A Board member asked about meeting in the Midwest. If we stay in Philadelphia this year, would there be a reception for the painting next year?

 Robin Seaman called the question and Deb Wigal seconded. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: CD)

 Motion failed. 7 No (TB, RF, JG, SL, MLP, RS, DW); 4 Yes (AD, JD, MLC, RP); (Absent: CD)

 The face-to-face meeting will be in Philadelphia at the Hilton. The large meeting room will be booked.

 Committee Members Attending Teleconferences

 Patti McDowell requested that she be allowed to attend the Aug 27, 2002 teleconference at her own expense. Discussion followed. A new policy of inviting a committee chairperson whose committee is being discussed was approved at the June 6, 2002 meeting. There is no policy for NCA members attending a teleconference. This would be setting a precedent. There could be 50 people calling in. Roger Frey, Chair of the Rescue Prevention Committee (RPC) was asked if he had any objections as this pertained to the RPC. Roger Frey replied that he had no objection but wanted two other RPC members to be invited to call in as a very sensitive issue will be discussed.

 Jack Dean motioned and Roger Powell seconded that NCA members be allowed to listen in at a teleconference call, except for executive sessions, at their own expense and this was to start immediately.

 There was more discussion. It was asked how would the Board know if NCA members had indeed hung up for the executive sessions. Is it fair having one person be able to call in tonight when no one else has an opportunity? People ask and are able to attend face-to-face meetings, they should be allowed to attend teleconference calls. When the Board conducted business by mail meetings, NCA members did not participate in those. The teleconference meeting replaces the mail meeting. Some Board members expressed concern over the precedent that this could set. NCA members who would attend should be warned that any reports must be their own personal observations and not an “official” report. There was concern expressed about the amount of time that could be taken up and whether the phone line would be further degraded. The quality is not the best with the number of lines there are now. It was stated that this could become a logistical nightmare. All members of a committee should be able to come aboard when their committee is being discussed.

 Roger Powell left the meeting at 9:05pm.

 Motion failed. 7 No (TB – I would like to discuss this more at the face-to-face, I didn’t like the way the motion was worded; MLC – It is not fair to let one person on tonight when no one else has the opportunity; RF – I am not against the premise but we need to work on the logistics first; JG – I agree with Roger; MLP – I agree with Roger; RS – I agree with Roger; DW – I agree with Roger); 3 Yes (AD – I just think it would be a positive way to include the membership; JD – This is another way to shut out the membership; SL – It is a good way to let interested members be involved); (Absent: CD, RP)

 Joan Gunn motioned and Jack Dean seconded that we investigate the technology, such as phone lines or the Internet, and the costs of allowing members to listen in on teleconference calls.

 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: CD, RP)

 Jack Dean is directed to research the Internet possibilities and Aura Dean will investigate phone lines via Vialog/Genesys or other companies.

 Robin Seaman motioned and Aura Dean seconded that, as well as committee chairs, all members of a committee, at their own expense, be allowed to listen and participate in a teleconference call when their committee is being discussed, if they so choose.

 Discussion followed. A committee member may be able to make a convincing case when the chair may not necessarily agree. Chairperson could use the talent on a committee to make better points during discussions. It was pointed out that unhappy committee members may try to fight the consensus of a committee. There should be time limits imposed to keep the teleconference call within a reasonable length of time.

 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: CD, RP) 

Rescue Prevention Committee

 Patti McDowell, Lori Littleford and Patrick Randall were invited to join the teleconference. They joined in at 9:34pm.

 The Board had received, prior to this teleconference, a copy of the rescue ballot document. There was discussion of the preparation of the pro and con statements.  It was stated that the original idea before the RPC was that each side’s article was going to be written, circulate among various people for comments and then submitted to the RPC for discussion and then a final approved article would be submitted. 

 One person stated and the preparers agreed what happened was that the pro article was written and then circulated among about ten or twelve people.  It was reworked and then the final version was sent out.  The con article was written by one person, checked by his wife and then submitted as the final version without being shown to anyone.

 There was a question about page length of the articles.  The pro article was always three pages.  The con article went from its original 2 pages to 3 pages.  There was disagreement even among the members of the Rescue Prevention Committee about the proper page length.

 Both preparers said they were satisfied with their presentations.

 Roger Frey, Chair of the RPC, asked that the Board go through the document page by page to make any changes.

 Page 0 was the actual ballot showing the intended format. The RPC had approved this format unanimously. Pages 1-4 included the NCA Rescue Policy (excerpted from the NCA Policy Manual) and the published AKC Position Statement on Dog Auctions. Both articles were verbatim. It was suggested that the AKC statement indicate where it was originally printed.

 Page 5 started the pro-purchase commentary. (Page 5 included the paragraphs entitled “Some Background On The For-Profit Dog Industry”, “AKC Involvement” and “NCA’s Role”.)   Some Board members thought that both commentaries (pro-purchase and con-purchase) were very well-written. Roger Frey reported that the RPC had approved the pro commentary unanimously. 11 Yes, 4 Absent. Some Board members did not like the ‘AKC Involvement’ paragraph, stating that it was an opinion. Other Board members felt that it was factual. Allowing for an AKC response was discussed but it was conceded that due to the tight time constraints for publishing, this would not be feasible. Roger Frey stated that the RPC approved this paragraph by a close vote. There was further discussion on the AKC’s priorities concerning registering puppies from puppy mills versus AKC’s support of rescue. It was stated that the Board could argue this all night, the fact remains that the RPC approved this paragraph. Roger Frey reported that 10 committee members were involved in writing the pro commentary. The committee’s procedures and progress were discussed. It was stated the RPC approved each part of the document.

 There was a discussion on the separate fund statement on Page 6. (Page 6 included paragraphs entitled “About NCA Rescue”, “The Benefits Of The Current Policy” and “The “Competition””.) The Board then moved on to Page 7 (Page 7 included paragraphs entitled “Sooner Or Later – We Rescue These Dogs” and “Are We “Creating A Market” For Newfoundlands”.) and considered a request to drop the identification of a former USDA license holder. It was stated that this person had given up their USDA license several years ago and was in the process of trying to become a reputable breeder. It was felt that by identifying this person, it would negate the positive things this person has been trying to accomplish.

 Discussion moved on to Page 8. (Page 8 included paragraphs entitled “In The Best Interest Of Newfoundlands”.) It was stated that the pro commentary should have included greater reference to the condition of the dogs at auction, i.e. badly infected ears, matted coats, maggots under the mats, etc. It was pointed out that the commentary does reference articles in Newf Tide where these conditions have been described. The group that wrote the pro commentary made an effort to keep it factual and not emotional.

 Concern was expressed about the two sentences concerning the failure of AKC and of education efforts. Discussion then turned to Page 9 and to the voting timelines. (Page 9 was the start of the con commentary and included paragraphs entitled “Introduction” and “The Current Decision”.)

 Jack Dean motioned and Robin Seaman seconded to send the document back to the RPC with the Board’s comments and the committee members writing the commentaries may make changes and the timeline will change.

 There was more discussion on reviewing and changing the document. A member of the RPC stated that she was under the impression that both pro and con commentaries are drafts and not final committee approved. It was stated again that the RPC had approved this document unanimously. 

 Motion failed. 7 No (AD, MLC, RF, JG, SL, MLP, DW); 3 Yes (JD, RS, TB); (Absent: CD, RP)

 It was decided to go back and approve each change to the pro commentary individually.

 Robin Seaman motioned and Sandee Lovett seconded that AKC Involvement paragraph be stricken.

 Motion failed. 5 No (AD, MLC, RF, JG, MLP); 5 Yes (TB, JD, SL, RS, DW); (Absent: CD, RP)

 Robin Seaman motioned and Sandee Lovett seconded that the last sentence in the ‘About NCA Rescue’ section regarding separate funds be stricken.

 Motion carried. 6 Yes (TB, AD, JD, SL, RS, DW); 4 No (MLC, RF, JG, MLP); (Absent: CD, RP)

 By consensus, the Board deleted all identifying information and specific dates regarding the former USDA license holder who is trying to become a reputable breeder.

 Robin Seaman motioned and Deb Wigal seconded to delete the sentences on Page 8, which states the AKC and education have failed.

 Motion carried. 6 Yes (TB, AD, JD, SL, RS, DW); 4 No (MLC, RF, JG, MLP); (Absent: CD, RP)

 By consensus, the Board directed that references to Newf Tide articles documenting the deplorable condition of the dogs be added.

 Robin Seaman motioned and Deb Wigal seconded to delete the sentence “To date, there has been no duplication of sellers.”

 Motion carried. 9 Yes (TB, AD, JD, MLC, RF, SL, MLP, RS, DW); 1 No (JG); (Absent: CD, RP)

 The Board then turned its attention to the con-purchase commentary. There was some discussion of an upcoming auction with approximately 12 Newfs consigned.

 Jack Dean motioned and Robin Seaman seconded that a four to five sentence summary of the con argument be placed at the beginning of the con commentary because the pro article had such a summary and the con article was difficult to read without one.

 There was discussion over whether this change was needed. It was stated that this commentary had been approved by the RPC. Other Board members felt that a summary would help the con commentary make its points.

 Joan Gunn motioned and Mary Lou Cuddy seconded to call the question. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: CD, RP)

 Motion failed. 5 Yes (TB, AD, JD, RS, DW); 5 No (MLC, RF, JG, SL, MLP); (Absent: CD, RP)

 Jack Dean motioned and Deb Wigal seconded that the con commentary needed to be re-formatted, i.e. bolded, italicized, etc., to make it more reader-friendly.  The pro article had bolded highlights and short paragraphs.  The con article had one section with about a thousand words and no format.

 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: CD, RP)

 There was discussion and an exchange of ideas concerning the re-formatting. Suggestions were made for headers and areas to be bolded or italicized.

 Roger Frey moved and Jack Dean seconded that the Board direct Jack Dean, Patti McDowell and Pat Randall to re-write the con commentary.

 Motion failed. 5 Yes (TB, AD, JD, RS, DW); 5 No (MLC, RF, JG, SL, MLP); (Absent: CD, RP)

 Discussion resumed concerning the con commentary. It was proposed to add new information concerning Bernese Auction Rescue Coalition (BARC), the importation of dogs, and Bub Gage (repeat seller). This is information that has come to light since the con commentary was written and approved by the RPC. The membership has a right to have this new information included in the con commentary. A Board member stated that new information comes to light every day and asked where should the line be drawn?

 Jack Dean motioned and Robin Seaman seconded to add relevant facts to the con commentary, i.e. BARC, importing dogs, Bub Gage (repeat seller), that has come up since the committee met.

 Due to the lateness of the hour, Tom Broderick called for a recess and to hold the motion until the next meeting.

 Jack Dean motioned and Deb Wigal seconded that the Board recess.

 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: CD, RP)

 The Board recessed at 12:10 am.

 The Board will reconvene on September 3, 2002 at 8 pm Eastern time. 

Teleconference Reconvenes on September 3, 2002

 President Tom Broderick reconvened the teleconference meeting at 8:05 pm Eastern time on Tuesday, September 3, 2002. The following directors were present:  Tom Broderick (TB), Mary Lou Cuddy (MLC), Aura Dean (AD), Clyde Dunphy (CD), Jack Dean (JD), Roger Frey (RF), Joan Gunn (JG), Sandee Lovett (SL), Mary L. Price (MLP), Robin Seaman (RS), Deb Wigal (DW), Mary W. Price (MWP), AKC Delegate (ex-officio) and Beverly Eichel (BE) (ex-officio)Roger Powell was absent due to travel. Member guests present were Patti McDowell, Lori Littleford, Pat Randall, RPC members and Steve Britton, Parliamentarian.

 The teleconference opened with a discussion about the September 14, 2002 auction at which 12 Newfoundlands were consigned and the moratorium on purchase from the Annual membership meeting. It was pointed out that the Board had not taken an official position on the moratorium.

 There was discussion on whether the membership can direct the Board or only recommend actions. Steve Britton, who was invited to attend the teleconference as parliamentarian, referenced the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th Edition. (RONR is the leading reference book regarding general parliamentary procedure.) The Constitution and By-Laws of the NCA state "General management of the Club's affairs shall be entrusted to the Board of Directors” (Article III, Section 1). Steve Britton stated that this is a general statement and gives the board general powers, but does not specifically grant the board the authority to "take action that conflicts with action taken by the assembly of the society." (RONR pg. 466).  In summary, boards and committees with powers are only given to them the powers that are specifically granted to them from an authority (the bylaws or the assembly) outside of itself.  Further, "a board within an organized society (or club) is an instrumentality of a society's full assembly, to which it is subordinate."  (RONR, page 9)

 There was much discussion regarding the NCA By-Laws and the problem of the wording of “general” management. Some past practices may have differed. It was stated that the next time the Constitution and By-Laws are amended that this sentence should be changed. According to Roberts’ Rules, the membership can make a directive to the Board and thus the moratorium will stand until the conclusion of the rescue voting procedure. No further vote of the Board is needed regarding the moratorium.

The Board then returned to approving the auction rescue document. Several Board members did not have the con commentary with the new formatting. The con commentary was tabled for the moment.

 Steve Britton left the meeting. The Board thanked him for his efforts.

 The Board took up the fact sheet (financial sheet). It was brought up that new information was available concerning Bub Gage, BARC and the importation of dogs. Some Board members wanted this new information added to the fact sheet. It was stated that the RPC had approved the fact sheet 6 Yes, 5 No – the RPC approved the fact sheet and it should stand. There were questions asked as to when the new information first became available. A deadline must be set. There will always be more new information forthcoming – there has to be a line drawn.

 Joan Gunn motioned and Sandee Lovett seconded that the con commentary be approved with the new formatting.

 Motion carried. 6 Yes (MLC – the RPC passed this unanimously, it is well-written and the committee did a good job; CD – the committee did an excellent job and it is well-written; RF – I voted yes, the committee voted unanimously to approve this; JG – same as Clyde; SL – the reformatting really improved the readability and it is ready to send; MLP – agree with Clyde); 5 No (TB – the new formatting is better, I believe it still needs to be more reader-friendly. Some committee members felt it was a draft and not a final copy; AD – I thought it could be more explanatory in the increase of price and more reader-friendly; JD – It is a very difficult article to read and does not address the main points needed to make a decision and those who voted to send this are on the other side of the issue; RS – I can’t vote on something that I couldn’t get off of my computer and I did not feel the first copy was reader-friendly; DW – I agree with Aura and new and important information should be included); (Absent: RP)

 Discussion resumed on the fact sheet. It was felt by some that the fact sheet was too cumbersome and that a “cleaner document” would be preferred. The listing of persons who provided foster care was questioned. The foster care providers were listed to explain why there were, in some instances, no foster care charges as the foster care was a donation. Also, the foster care providers could be contacted for information regarding the condition of the rescue dogs when they came into rescue. It was questioned why if the authors of the pro and con commentaries were not listed, why Mary L. Price’s name appears on the fact sheet. The six point type was questioned as it makes for difficult reading.

 There was discussion on how the rescue packet would be presented. The first item would be the cover letter, then the policy statements. The committee discussed stapling certain items together. Roger Frey, RPC Chair, spoke to the printer about the possibility of putting the con commentary first in half the mailings and the pro commentary first in the other half. The packet will be 11 x 17 folded into a booklet. The approximate cost will be $2,834, which included the printing of all the information, the ballot and the envelopes, stuffing, postage and mailing costs. There would be 18 pages and the printers can have it in the mail in 10 working days.

 Joan Gunn motioned and Deb Wigal seconded to accept the fact sheet with the elimination of the one individual’s identifying information and adding DBA Wild Bill’s Exotic Newfoundland Farm and to include a statement that Wild Bill is still in business every day on the Internet.

 After discussion, the motion was amended to read – Joan Gunn motioned and Sandee Lovett seconded to accept the fact sheet with the elimination of the one individual’s identifying information and adding DBA Wild Bill’s Exotic Newfoundland Ranch (still in business).

 Jack Dean motioned and Robin Seaman seconded to amend the motion to add “still selling puppies on the Internet”.

 Motion failed. 6 No (MLC, CD, RF, JG, SL, MLP – the information is not verifiable); 5 Yes (TB, AD – he is still doing it; JD – the membership is entitled to know Wild Bill’s is still selling puppies every day; RS – I agree with Jack and there is an Internet site; DW – I agree with Robin); (Absent: RP)

 Discussion returned to the original motion. It was stated that a Board member does not believe the name should be omitted as she doesn’t believe in censorship.

 Clyde Dunphy motioned and Aura Dean seconded to call the question. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: RP)

 Motion carried. 7 Yes (AD, CD, MLC, RF, JG, SL, MLP); 4 No (TB – all the facts should be listed on the fact sheet; JD – I think we have left out all the information about Bub Gage, who is breeding Newfoundlands for sale at auction and the membership should know that; RS – ditto Jack; DW – ditto Jack); (Absent: RP)

 Mary Lou Cuddy motioned and Roger Frey seconded that the summary sheet be accepted.

 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: RP)

 The Board turned its attention to the cover letter. Minor changes were made to the cover letter. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of what will constitute a valid vote. There was much discussion of the simple majority of the votes cast versus a percentage (i.e. 2/3) of the votes cast and whether there should be a certain percentage of the votes returned for the vote to even be valid. It was stated that about 50% of the members vote in the Board elections. What, if anything, should be inferred from members who do not vote? The vote should be binding.

 Clyde Dunphy motioned and Joan Gunn seconded to accept a simple majority of the votes cast as a valid result.

 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: RP)

 The question of what a yes/no vote will do to rescue policy was discussed. A straw vote resulted in the agreement that the Board will be guided by the vote. The Board should be able to tweak policy as it is needed and still stay within the wishes of the membership. The following wording was added to the fourth paragraph of the cover letter – “The NCA Board will consider majority votes cast to be binding and will be guided by the vote”.

 More discussion of the effect of the vote upon policy took place. A question of how long the vote will be binding – on just this Board or future Boards. Future Boards will have to consider the vote and be guided by it.

 Clyde Dunphy motioned and Joan Gun seconded to approve the cover letter as amended.

 There was more discussion regarding the wording and the effect of the vote on policy.

 Motion carried. 10 Yes (TB, AD, CD, MLC, RF, JG, SL, MLP, RS, DW); 1 No (JD – I think it is unclear and that the Board is weaseling with what will happen with the vote); (Absent: RP)

 The Board thanks the RPC for all of their hard work. A lot of time and energy went into this document.

 Roger Frey, Chair of the RPC, stated that ballot counters and procedures are in place. The counters will be Dwight Summers, Mary Lou Roberts, Kathy Paxton, Dwight or Chris Gorsuch, Pat Blewitt and Kelly Logan (alternate).

 Clyde Dunphy motioned and Joan Gunn seconded to approve the estimated cost of $2,834 of printing and mailing the document and to print the information in a booklet form.

 Motion carried 10 Yes (TB, MLC, AD, CD, JD, RF, JG, SL, MLP, DW); 1 No (RS – the document should go into Newf Tide to save money); (Absent: RP)

 Lori Littleford addressed the Board concerning the Ad-Hoc Health Class Committee. She wanted to know if the committee was an open committee. She will be happy to take comments and to organize them but she does not wish to chair a committee.

 The Board thanked Pat Randall, Lori Littleford and Patti McDowell for their thoughts and contributions.

 There will be a Board teleconference on Thursday, September 19th at 8 pm Eastern time. The Board will correct the minutes of the previous meetings and will address any other time-sensitive items. Items which are not time-sensitive will be held until the November face-to-face meeting.

 Clyde Dunphy motioned and Joan Gun seconded to adjourn the meeting.


Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: RP)

 The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 pm.

 Respectfully submitted,


Mary Lou Cuddy
NCA Recording Secretary