STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
FINANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

MINUTES

Thursday, November 19, 2020
*The Board did not meet at a physical location. As part of the response to the threat of COVID-19, Governor David Ige issued a Fourteenth Supplementary Proclamation dated October 13, 2020, suspending Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 92, Public Agency Meetings and Records, to the extent necessary to enable boards as defined in Section 92-2, to conduct meetings without any board members or members of the public physically present in the same location, among other things.

PRESENT:
Kenneth Uemura, Chairperson
Bruce Voss, Vice Chairperson
Lynn Fallin
Kili Namauʻu
Catherine Payne
Dwight Takeno
Shanty Asher, ex officio
Kaimana Barcarse, ex officio

EXCUSED:
Margaret Cox

ALSO PRESENT:
Stacey Aldrich, State Librarian
Mallory Fujitani, Special Assistant to the State Librarian
Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent
Randall Tanaka, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Facilities and Operations
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Executive Secretary


I. Call to Order

Committee Chairperson Kenneth Uemura called the Finance and Infrastructure Committee Meeting to order at 11:18 a.m.


II. Public testimony on Finance and Infrastructure Committee (“Committee”) agenda items

Committee Chairperson Uemura called for public testimony. The following people provided remote oral testimony.

Name
Organization
Agenda Item
Position
Corey RosenleeHawaii State Teachers AssociationIV.B. Committee Action on Department of Education’s repair and maintenance priority list in accordance with Board Policy 301-10, Equitable Allocation of Facilities Resources (FIC Strategic Priority 2)Comment

Corey Rosenlee, Hawaii State Teachers Association, testified on the Department of Education’s (“Department”) repair and maintenance priority list and on Board Policy 301-10, entitled “Equitable Allocation of Facilities Resources.” He stated that Board Policy 301-10 would be a good policy in a perfect world but noted that the Legislature never funds all of the facilities needs in a given year. He stated that under this policy, Title I schools would receive funds every year while non-Title I school facilities would fall into disarray.

Committee members received written testimony. The following is a listing of the people who submitted written testimony before the meeting.

Name
Organization
Agenda Item
Position
Deborah AndersonPublicIV.A. Committee Action on recommendation concerning the Hawaii State Public Library System’s proposed budget for 2021-2023 fiscal bienniumSupport
Corey RosenleeHSTAIV.B. Committee Action on Department of Education’s repair and maintenance priority list in accordance with Board Policy 301-10, Equitable Allocation of Facilities Resources (FIC Strategic Priority 2)Comment


III. Approval of Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2020

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked Committee members to review the minutes of the Committee’s July 23, 2020 meeting.

Committee Member Catherine Payne moved to approve the Committee’s meeting minutes of July 23, 2020. Committee Member Kili Namau‘u seconded.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if there were any objections to the motion. No Committee member raised objections, and the motion carried through unanimous consent from all members present (Committee Vice Chairperson Voss, Committee Members Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, and Takeno).

ACTION: Motion to approve the Finance and Infrastructure Committee Meeting minutes of July 23, 2020 (Payne/Namau‘u). The motion carried through unanimous consent from all members present.


IV. Recommendation for Action

Committee Chairperson Uemura noted that the proposed budget for the Hawaii State Public Library System (“HSPLS”) for the 2021-2023 fiscal biennium is in the Committee’s meeting materials.

Committee Member Payne moved to approve the HSPLS’s proposed budget for the 2021-2023 fiscal biennium as attached to State Librarian Stacey Aldrich’s memorandum dated November 19, 2020. Committee Member Takeno seconded.

State Librarian Aldrich introduced Mallory Fujitani, Special Assistant to the State Librarian and informed the Board that she would be available for today’s presentation as well.

State Librarian Aldrich shared the process of how the budget was put together, what the budget means in context to the previous budget, and the impact HSPLS will be facing with the current budget. The process this year is different whereas previously HSPLS was provided with a memorandum from the Department of Budget and Finance (“B&F”) with instructions to put forth a budget; however, this year HSPLS was given an actual ceiling on the amount of funding that it could request. The budget reflects the ceiling B&F provided of $37,124,076.00. She stated that 80% of the HSPLS budget is personnel cost and 20% is for operations. In addition, HSPLS has $4 million in special funds and $1.3 million in federal funds, which is an authority to spend up to that amount. Aldrich explained that the general fund amount represents the first budget cut from last year’s budget of $1.4 million, in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2020, HSPLS was provided with $38,512,179.00 and for FY 2021, its budget was $38,582,681.00. Even though this
amount was provided, HSPLS did not receive the entire amount due to budget restrictions caused by the pandemic. HSPLS is receiving its budget by quarters and for the first and second quarter there has been a reduction of $1,558,220.00 and 69 frozen positions which total a reduction of $3,218,236.00. The budget that they are working on for FY 2021 is $33,806,225.00 and they anticipate further cuts in quarters three and four. She explained that even if HSPLS is provided with the budget it is requesting it is most likely that they will continue to see cuts to the budget and restrictions. The impact of these cuts to run the 51 statewide branches of the library has forced a review of operations. Normally, HSPLS has 145 student helpers to help keep the general operations of the libraries going by shelving books and moving materials or moving items to other libraries. HSPLS is no longer hiring substitutes and the impacts of the student helper and substitute positions has caused a shortfall in staffing. In the event that there are not enough staff to keep the library open they will have to temporarily close libraries. The budget impact is that there is less money for collections and means fewer opportunities for patrons. As required by the Legislature and B&F, HSPLS has participated in many exercises and have looked at a variety of scenarios on what may happen with further reductions. Aldrich stated that HSPLS’ key focus is that public libraries are vital to pandemic recovery as people need resources now to connect to the internet, have access books and materials to support their studies, and to support the mental health of our community.

Fujitani stated that for FY 2022-2023, HSPLS is requesting $10 million for FY2022 and $10 million for FY 2023 for capital improvement program (“CIP”) funding. The request is for a lump sum health and safety line item that is asked for each year, the additional funding will be used for: (1) additional funding for current or ongoing projects from last biennium; and (2) new project funding. The attached spreadsheet updated with the Department of Accounting and General Services (“DAGS”) is prioritized based on the condition of certain equipment or infrastructure for each library. The list looks at the highest needs and/or if replacing items need to be done sooner than later. For example, if a project requires replacement of an air conditioning system that will require building closure then they will also look at other upgrades that can take place while the library remains closed in an effort to consolidate as much as possible. Some of the projects that they would like to follow through with given the funding that is provided includes: (1) expansion of the McCully library; (2) structural assessments for Liliha, Hilo, Kailua and Pearl City; (3) energy efficiency and heat abatement studies for possible electrical upgrades, particularly for the locations that do not have air conditioning; (4) replace air conditioning systems at Molokai, Hanapepe, Waianae, and Waipahu branches since the systems are reaching end of life; (5) security improvements at support offices; (6) start the process for planning and designing improvements for Wailuku and Hilo libraries, which are fairly older buildings that will require a longer planning process.

Committee Vice Chairperson Bruce Voss stated that 10% budget reductions would be a little over $3 million for HSPLS and asked for a description of the programmatic impact of cuts at that level. Aldrich replied that the impact would be the level of staffing that the libraries could provide, branch hours, access to digital materials (which are much more expensive). She stated that they are reviewing what is in the general fund budget and the variety of databases and looking into the possibility of moving some expenses to the federal budget. She further stated that the public will see services impacted with branch hours, reduction of materials, and the number of programs and services libraries can provide, and a delay in repairs and maintenance in some buildings. If the cuts go deeper, Aldrich stated that she would need to look at spaces and actual services being provided. She expressed her concern that during these times people need to have access to the library as a safe place.

Committee Vice Chairperson Bruce Voss stated that HSPLS has labor costs and material costs, he asked if there has been estimates if there were additional cuts such as $7 million. Aldrich stated that she has looked at various projections and basic things like postage to ship materials from one branch to another and security would be impacted. Aldrich explained how security is essential to ensure branches are safe, but if there are further cuts, this security cannot be provided.

Committee Chairperson Uemura shared that HSPLS is working at a level of $33.8 million and it appears that HSPLS can still fulfill its mission at this level of funding, but that it there are further cuts, it will be in trouble.” He pointed out that the new budget request is $37 million and if that amount is reduced by ten percent it is the amount HSPLS is working with now. Aldrich stated that HSPLS is living within its current budget, but challenge is every time the budget is cut, it impacts future years for library service and technology maintenance of effort requirement. Maintenance of effort requires HSPLS to stay within a 3-year average of the amount of funds invested in libraries from the state; the more that is cut starts to impact HSPLS’s ability to sustain its maintenance of effort. HSPLS can request an exemption but Aldrich expressed her concern about access to future funds if the budget gets cut too much. These funds are used for technology and keeps systems up to speed for online access and learning opportunities. The challenge will be to look at how HSPLS continues to ensure the equity of access in all 51 branches.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that there is $1 million in repair and maintenance included in the budget that could impact operations. He stated that regarding the CIP budget, HSPLS and DAGS worked together to determine future projects and the reason that the request is $10 million is because HSPLS does not have the capacity to do more than the requested amount. CIP projects are initiated by priority but if there are lower priority items that can be done they will take those on as well so that they do not have to disrupt operations and it can be put into one package. He stated that he is comfortable in how HSPLS is developing the CIP list and the amount they are requesting.

Committee Chairperson Uemura called for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously with all Committee members present (Committee Vice Chairperson Voss, Committee Members Fallin, Namauʻu, Payne, and Takeno) voting aye.

ACTION: Motion to approve the HSPLS’s proposed budget for the 2021-2023 fiscal biennium as attached to State Librarian Stacey Aldrich’s memorandum dated November 19, 2020 (Payne/Takeno). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.


Committee Chairperson Uemura noted that the Department of Education’s (“Department”) recommendation on the maintenance priority list is in the Committee’s meeting materials.

Committee Member Payne moved to approve the proposed R&M priority list attached to Superintendent Christina Kishimoto’s memorandum, dated November 19, 2020, as Attachments A through D. Committee Member Takeno seconded.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the purpose of the agenda item is for the committee to take action under the Department’s proposed priority list and factor into the affected socio-economic and academic needs in accordance with Board Policy 301-10 on the equitable allocation of facilities resources. The reprioritization and list for completion of projects for the next two years. He stated that the Board sets policy and the Department implements the policy therefore the committee should focus on ascertaining whether the proposed not only factored in socio-economic and academic needs in accordance with Board policy 301-10 comprised in how the list was developed. As the FIC Chairperson he suggests taking the lead in structuring the review and then obtaining information and clarification through answers and questions to assist the Committee in its review of the Department’s materials.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that his first set of question are general in nature and not directly related to the R&M priority list but provides related information. He asked if the Department has the workforce capacity to complete approximately $240 million dollars in R&M projects for the next two years.

Randall Tanaka, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Facilities and Operations stated that there has been some staffing turnover and in January there was potential lapse of $498 million but through the work of the team and coordination they only lapsed $12 million of those funds. He is in process of filling positions from project planning, project management to construction management to rebuild the team. He is confident that the Department will meet the goals for this year which is rolling down into the construction area to ensure we are getting proper value for the work being done.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if the Department has the capacity now to complete the $240 million request or will the Department have the capacity in the future. Tanaka replied that the Department does not have currently have the capacity and is working with consultants and outsourcing needs in the short term and will rebuild staff in the long term.


Committee Chairperson Uemura thanked him for the information to give the committee an idea of staffing and capabilities because every year the Board asks if staffing is adequate and every year the response is no. He asked what the R&M backlog amount is since currently since the last report showed it was closed to $1 billion. Tanaka explained at the time the last report was provided, the Department was not measuring backlog in the best way because it can only do the amount of work that funds are appropriated for. The Department has instituted a program which invests assets on a school by school basis to give a better understanding on the priority of work to be done. The project has been affected due to Covid-19 and the inability to get onto campuses and explained that the backlog is directly proportional to the projects that are on the list.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if the $240 million is included in the $500 million backlog mentioned. Tanaka confirmed that the amount is included in the $500 million.
Committee Chairperson Uemura asked how the R&M backlog was decreased to $500 million from $1 billion. He asked what would be the reduction of the $500 million net the additions of the backlog assuming the $240 million was approved. For example, if you reduce it by $240 million you also have additions coming in so what is the plan for how to reduce the amount going forward. Tanaka stated that the Department is in the process of rebalancing the list and constantly have an inflow of projects that are not on the list. An example would be roofing repairs that are unanticipated but they need to be addressed quickly. The budget is in constant flux and the list from February already has changes.

Committee Chairperson Uemura thanked him for the response and asked if he can answer the questions to give the Committee information for its review since it is important for them to understand how the backlog is developed. The Committee is tasked with approving the priority list of $240 million for the next two cycles so it needs to understand how the Department goes through this process and how it prioritizes projects.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if there are projects that are already prioritized being reviewed in conjunction with 21st Century design renovations because if a project does not proceed will it still be good two years later. Tanaka stated this is a tough question but the answer is yes; however, given the current situation with COVID-19 there are new considerations on how schools are designed.

Committee Chairperson asked what is the definition used for a project to be classified as R&M versus CIP. Tanaka replied that R&M is primarily fixing the problems that are existing whereas CIP has more latitude in anticipating the work that has to be done.

Committee Chairperson Uemura expressed his concern that based off a quick review of the backlog list by year, $50 million plus of the $110 million budget are potentially CIP because there are items like replacing roofs or chairs. If there is no description to repair or maintain something then it is CIP. He also asked if any funding mechanisms are used to determine if a project will issue bonds. Tanaka stated that part of the concern is sometimes R&M blends with CIP and it needs to be better defined.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that it is difficult for the Committee to approve an R&M priority list that includes CIP because it is mixing both and that this issue needs to be resolved quickly. He also shared that Act 72 was just passed by the Legislature and a new facilities agency is now charged with completing CIP and regular R&M is left at the school-level so it is important that we are not looking at a priority list that includes CIP. Tanaka stated that going forward the Department is making a distinction between CIP and R&M and that it is his understanding that the new facilities agency will be primarily focused on new school development.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the new facilities agency will go beyond new school development and he wants the Committee to understand that he is not sure if going through the priority list is productive if it mixes CIP and R&M.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that there are 181 Title I Schools and he would like to know if there was an internal ranking of the schools within the list as a returning priority. Tanaka explained that there is a ranking but it focuses on the scope and magnitude of the projects in the Title I category. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if non-Title I schools were ranked in the same way. AS Tanaka stated that the magnitude of Title I schools versus available funds used a lot of the money although we have some R&M monies that go to non-Title I schools based on project needs.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated it is important to recognize the testimony provided by HSTA on the amount of money that is available for non-Title I schools. He asked if the Department spends money on projects that do not have funds allocated. Tanaka stated that based on the timeline there needs to be some work on the front end to understand the work that needs to be done and ultimately what the project will cost the Department. He stated that the Department tries to distribute the money so we have other projects in some form in progress.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that this goes back to the allocation of dollars where the Department can switch months. Tanaka replied yes and stated that the lump sum amounts are critical.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the priority baseline list was established using a formula that factors the square footage and age of each building facility and built from there. Currently the Office of Facilities and Operations is working on further implementing industry standards that would provide greater detail on the condition of school facilities. He asked what formula is used and to provide an example of how this works. Tanaka stated that the team looks across the 48 contiguous states to try and find the model that best represents our opportunity. The team found a facility inspection tool used by California and the Department is calling it HI-FIT and localizing it to Hawaii; it is an ongoing and fairly new process. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked for an example on how this is applied. Tanaka stated that he will need to get back to the Committee. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that his request can be logged as a BOE IOU for further Department follow-up.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if the Department has used the facilities master plan at all as a guide to address work over the next 10 years. Tanaka confirmed that it has. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked why the Department is not using the information that was gathered over the course of two years. Tanaka explained that the study was an asset review and the problems are different so what the Department is doing is getting the most relevant information at this point in time. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the facilities master plan study was completed in 2019 and the scope of the project was determined by the Department. He asked if the study, which the Department spent $9 million on, is outdated after one year. He stated that there will be a lot of comments and questions on why the Department is not using the facilities master plan.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that he noted two initiatives HI-FIT condition index and Hawaii facility tool and asked whether these tools were used to create the priority list. Tanaka said no because these are new programs.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked how the Committee can be comfortable that the current process being used will ensure Department resources have been allocated accurately and effectively according to the new Board policy. Tanaka stated that he relies on the team’s expertise and he will look at catching up and moving forward it will be added to the priority lists.

Committee Chairperson Uemura is concerned that the Committee is being asked to review a process that they are not familiar with. He asked what is being done about the modernization efforts to improve the office. Tanaka replied that the team struggles with a multitude of permitting processes working with the counties and the new codes that will be impacted. He stated that believes the relationship needs to be established and there will be reformatting by island. They also looked at the speed of the projects to expedite them. The Department is looking at other tools, such as a program to give on demand status updates of projects aligned with districts of legislators and a system employed by the University of Hawaii that has contractors uploading project status.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that for FY 2020 the current projects need descriptions in the column headings and asked about the significance of the column with the House and Senate numbers. He state the following regarding the recommendation: (1) the schedule does not show the stage of completion of each project and whether the project will be over budget; (2) the tiers are not explained; (3) it is unclear whether the schedule is being used under the assumption that projects started last year may not be in the determination of priorities; (4) there are no totals for the columns; (5) There should be no contingency since the Department is allowed to switch funds to cover; and (6) the amount should be allocated to projects to reduce the backlog list.

Committee Vice Chairperson Voss stated Board Policy 301-10 is very important to schools and students because it is the first step to correct 40 to 50 years of inequity in school facilities. He is disappointed in the work product and seems like it was thrown together at the last minute. He asked other than characterizing the schools as Title I or CSI whether any consideration was given to schools’ socio-economic or academic needs. Tanaka replied not at this time and he understands that this will be factored in going forward.

Committee Vice Chairperson Voss stated that it was never his expectation that Title I or CSI schools would receive priority over other schools, although a substantial factor, it is not simply just a bucket that has complete and total priority. He requests that this be reevaluated and changes made. He further stated that his expectation was that a list would be provided of projects and priorities for transparency purposes so the public can see the limited resources and what would be completed first. The recommendation contains three big buckets and he would like to know why there was no effort to prioritize these projects within the three categories. Tanaka replied that the list was created based on criteria and priority. The list was provided to the Board in February prior to COVID-19 and he will make sure a list is provided to Board Member Voss, which shows how it was prioritized. Committee Vice Chairperson Voss replied that he does not have the list and in the interest of transparency he wants everyone to see the list and not just three very large tiers. He has serious issues on how this was presented for approval.

Committee Vice Chairperson Voss moved to defer consideration of this to the next committee meeting to allow the Department to address concerns. He stated that procedurally he believes it would be important if the person who made the motion can withdraw their motion for approval.

Committee Member Payne requested to withdraw her motion. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if there was any objection to withdraw the motion. Committee Member Takeno withdrew his second. There were no objections, and the motion was withdrawn.


Committee Chairperson Uemura noted that the Department of Education’s (“Department”) recommendation on the priority criteria for executing Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) projects is in the Committee’s meeting materials.

Committee Member Payne moved to approve the proposed CIP prioritization criteria attached to Superintendent Christina Kishimoto’s memorandum, dated November 19, 2020. Committee Member Fallin seconded.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the purpose of this action is to approve the criteria proposed by the Department to select CIP. Having to approve of the priority criteria and the projects would not have been productive especially if the criteria changed as a result of the Board’s review. The Board will be reviewing the complete list of CIPs that will be based on the approved priority criteria at the next FIC meeting in early December. Having the prioritized list of CIPs at the next meeting will meet the transparency goals of Board Policy 301-10. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the Committee’s focus should be in reviewing the priority criteria from the perspective of whether the criteria is sufficient to meet the intent of Board Policy 301-10. He stated that he would take the lead by structuring the review by obtaining information and clarification through answers to questions that will assist the Committee in its review of the Department’s material.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that impact fees and fair share funds totaled $17 million at last report. He asked if these funds were targeted for use for R&M and CIP projects. Tanaka explained that those funds are dedicated to increasing capacity and that none of these funds have been spent but once authority is granted they will be used.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked about the status of the expenditure plan that was to be issued in 2020 for the $17 million to be used for CIP. He stated that the Board had issued BOE IOU 514 on February 2, 2020 and that the Department had still not provided a response. Tanaka replied that he will report back to the Board. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked why a response was not issued. Tanaka replied that it will be prepared by the end of the year. Committee Chairperson Uemura reminded Tanaka that this is an outstanding BOE IOU. Tanaka stated that understands and due to personnel retiring someone else will be assigned to the task.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if the $21 million in CIP funds that lapsed was given back to the state or if it could it be reassigned. Tanaka stated that of the $498 million, $12 million lapsed, but it was re-appropriated so it was not really lapsed.

Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if Tanaka has an idea of the total CIP funding request for the next two years. Tanaka stated that it will be $455 million for the first year and $350 million for the second year. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if this was part of the 10-year strategic plan. Tanaka stated that it was just the beginning.

Committee Chairperson Uemura noted a list of key issues relating to the CIP priority criteria. There were no representatives from the complex area and school levels on the committee that developed the criteria due to the demands of COVID-19. This representation is critical and casts a shadow on the development of criteria. This omission should be rectified when the demands of COVID-19 lessen. Tanaka stated that he will correct the situation. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that a future correction does not help because the Committee is being asked to look at it now. Committee Chairperson Uemura pointed out another issue and asked which states have a similar climate and geography to Hawaii and why the maximum score was 268. Tanaka stated that it just calculated out that way and said that he would go back to his team to get more information. Tanaka also stated that the closest state is Florida and they have similar situations like hurricanes and sea level rise and California provided the best model.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that another issue was the score given to BOE Priorities, specifically that it should have been higher. Socio-economic and academic should be weighted the same and equal to at least 50% of the score. He further stated that the cost value/system should be eliminated and the Community Use should be weighted higher than 1, possibly a 4. Committee Chairperson Uemura also asked for an explanation of the strategic location and why this is a criteria when the policy focuses on the equitable allocation of facilities resources. He also asked why health and safety were separate. He also stated that he would prefer to have new schools/capacity in place of building priorities with a different set of criteria. Committee Chairperson Uemura questioned the relevance of some of the criteria without any definitions. He further stated that it was hard to understand the description of distance that was used in the criteria. Tanaka said that the dynamic construction in Kapolei was causing the need for space because developers are building a faster than they can build schools.

Ex Officio Committee Member Shanty Asher joined the meeting at 12:44 p.m.

Committee Vice Chairperson Voss stated that the entire purpose of the Board policy was to emphasize the socio-economic and academic needs, but only 32 points of 238 was allocated to these two important categories. He stated that the Department could not have thought that this was consistent with Board Policy 301-10 and was upset with the lack of respect for what the Board was trying to do with its policy. Socio-economic is not just Title I; schools need to provide input on how to further socio-economic and academic needs and that is why schools should be included. He also stated that he is not sure why fiscally responsible is a criteria and questioned why a project would be there if it is not fiscally responsible.

Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that he does not think the Committee is ready to vote on this and that action should be deferred to give Tanaka time to respond to these comments, get the projects properly sorted between R&M and CIP, and provide information to make the Committee more comfortable with how the criteria was developed and weighted.

Committee Member Payne requested to withdraw her motion. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if there was any objection to withdraw the motion. There were no objections, and the motion was withdrawn.


V. Adjournment

Committee Chairperson Uemura adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m.