Faculty Senate Minutes, April 10, 2026

Faculty Senate, April 10, 2026

10:00 AM-12:00 PM: Hammond – LAWS 131

Minutes

1. Determination of quorum.
   • Quorum determined at 10:00 AM
2. Call to order.
   • Meeting called to order at 10:00 AM
3. Approval of the agenda.
   • Motion for approval by R. Hallock
   • Seconded by M. Hughes
   • Approved by voice vote
4. Approval of the minutes from March 13, 2026
   • Motion for approval by
   • Seconded by
   • Approved by voice vote
5. Remarks by the Senate Chair
   • Faculty/Staff Satisfaction and Burnout Survey
     1. As Chair, Dave Kozel reminded senators that the 2026 Faculty/Staff Satisfaction and Burnout Survey from Faculty Affairs is currently open and urged all faculty to complete it. He emphasized that the instrument is based on research about factors contributing to a satisfying work environment, that responses are anonymous (no IP, location, or contact data recorded), and that results are genuinely used—Faculty Affairs will report findings to the Senate at the end of the semester, compare them to data from two years ago, and incorporate them into strategic‑planning discussions. He asked faculty to be candid but respectful in their comments, noting that respectful, specific feedback is much more likely to be taken seriously and shared than comments that are inappropriate or purely venting.
   • Administrator Satisfaction Survey and Annual Evaluations
     1. Kozel explained that the usual administrator satisfaction survey distributed by the Faculty Affairs Committee was not conducted this year, in part because of time constraints and in part because past iterations sometimes produced very negative or inappropriate responses. He reported that the Executive Committee had discussed an alternative approach: instituting annual evaluations for department heads, associate deans, and deans that would include structured feedback from the faculty and staff they supervise, analogous to student evaluations of faculty. Drawing on an analogy from control systems, he argued that delayed or absent feedback makes it difficult for administrators to know when they have gone “off course,” and that regular, timely feedback would support better performance and reduce the build‑up of frustration that can surface in one‑off, highly negative survey responses.
   • Standing Committee Chairs and Annual Reports
     1. The Chair also reminded senators of two specific bylaw requirements for Senate standing committees. First, each committee must elect a chair for the next academic year prior to the last regular Senate meeting, so committees meeting today or before the next meeting should discuss and confirm who will serve as chair next year. Second, each Senate committee must submit an annual written report summarizing its actions and accomplishments (including those of any subcommittees) for the year; these committee reports are due to the Senate Secretary by May 15. He encouraged committees, after their final meeting, to review their work—such as documents passed or key initiatives—and prepare a concise report to fulfill this obligation.

6. Remarks by the Chancellor
   • Commencement
     1. Chancellor Holford announced that this year will feature PNW’s first combined commencement ceremony, scheduled for Saturday, May 9, at 10:00 a.m., with a weather backup date on the following day. He noted that the university expects 5,000–8,000 attendees on campus and warned that parking will be tight, encouraging faculty who plan to attend to arrive early. Connecting the event to the RISE strategic framework and its emphasis on student centricity, he stressed how much students value faculty presence at commencement—particularly the opportunity to take photos and speak with professors after the ceremony—and strongly urged faculty to attend if at all possible.
   • Restructuring Task Force
     1. The Chancellor addressed concerns about the academic restructuring task force, clarifying that its original intent was only to facilitate discussion about possible structures for the campus, not to generate an immediate, definitive reorganization plan or proposal to the Board of Trustees. Because the committee’s work had “taken on a life of its own” and created unintended angst in departments and colleges, he announced that its activities would be paused. Over the summer, the administration will review and use the feedback gathered this year to recharge and restructure the committee, issuing a new charge in the fall to continue discussions in a constructive, informative way that does not create anxiety across the university.
   • Graduate Enrollment & Recruitment Efforts
     1. Chancellor Holford reported that graduate applications and enrollments are significantly down, and that the university is moving from a largely passive approach—waiting for students to find and apply—to a more active recruitment strategy. Steps already taken include hiring a new graduate recruiter to work directly with graduate program chairs and units, launching additional on‑campus informational programming such as the “Masters and More” workshop series held on Mondays in April to help PNW undergraduates understand how to apply to graduate school, and directing the Testing Center to move toward offering the GRE on campus (anticipated about two days per month) so PNW students can test locally rather than locating external testing centers.
   • Women’s STUNT Team National Tournament
     1. He shared a celebratory update that PNW’s women’s STUNT team—a relatively new sport combining aspects of cheerleading and gymnastics—is the first women’s team at Purdue Northwest to be invited to a national tournament. The team, only in its second year of competition, is currently ranked 7th in NCAA Division II and has been invited to the College STUNT National Championship in Nashville, Tennessee, taking place April 23–26. PNW will open the tournament by facing Malone University, ranked 10th, on April 23 at 11:15 a.m., in a double‑elimination format, ensuring that the team will continue to compete even if it loses its first match.
   • Fort Wayne Trustees Meeting
     1. Finally, Chancellor Holford reported that he had traveled to Fort Wayne the previous afternoon, where the Purdue Board of Trustees was meeting. He met with several trustees and university administrators, using the visit to share updates on PNW’s work and to highlight the campus’s initiatives and accomplishments. He returned from Fort Wayne in time for the Senate meeting, briefly noting that his conversations there focused on Purdue Northwest’s progress and ongoing work.

7. Remarks by the Provost/VCAA
   • Promotion and Tenure approvals
     1. Provost Mora announced that the Purdue Board of Trustees had approved all tenure and promotion cases submitted from PNW, effective August 17, 2026.
     2. She read the names of those promoted to:
        1. Professor:
           1. Jesse Cohn; English; College of Humanities, Education, and Social Sciences
           2. Grethe Hystad, Statistics, College of Engineering and Sciences
        2. Associate Professor with Tenure:
           1. Jodi Allen, Nursing, College of Nursing
           2. Manisa Baker, Nursing, College of Nursing
           3. Matthew Bauman, Hospitality & Tourism Management, College of Business
           4. Farai Gombedza, Biochemistry, College of Engineering and Sciences
           5. Omeed Ilchi; Criminal Justice; College of Humanities, Education, and Social Sciences
           6. Aref Yadollahi, Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Sciences
        3. Associate Professor with Tenure:
           1. Arash Asrari, Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering and Sciences

• Provost Mora shared that four faculty members have been approved for sabbaticals, contingent on their formal acceptance of conditions. Once accepted, an official announcement will go out via email.
  1. Nicky Jackson, Professor of Criminal Justice
  2. Kenneth Kincaid, Associate Professor of History
  3. Shengyong Zhang, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
  4. Michael Zimmer, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences
• Post-Tenure Review panel elected from each college:
  1. CHESS: José Castro-Urioste
  2. CES: Anthony Elmendorf
  3. COB: Thomas Keon
  4. COT: Athula Kulatunga
  5. CON: Beth Vottero
• Cybersecurity Faculty
  1. Cyber AI Program under NSA CAE
• Digital Accessibility
• Two faculty fellow positions
  1. Curriculum and assessment
  2. Graduate studies
• Commencement
• Academic notification
  1. Spoljoric asked the Provost about the new academic notification (“student warning”) system that now runs twice per semester, raising concerns that the online form forces a binary “withdraw” or “don’t withdraw” choice with no middle option for borderline students who simply need a wake‑up call. She also noted that the second notification was sent very close to the withdrawal deadline, leaving little time for students to improve, and that advisors must actively log in to the system to see alerts, which is difficult during a busy period.
  2. Provost Mora confirmed that the process comes from her office and reported that the initial implementation last semester produced a strong positive turnaround for many students, functioning as an effective wake‑up call. She agreed that the form is too rigid. She stated that she is already working with Raida Abuizam to add more nuanced options, revisit the timing of the second notification to make it earlier, and improve advisor and faculty notifications, presenting this as part of an ongoing effort to refine and improve the system.

8. SGA Report (Jezelyn Torres)
   • SGA elections and leadership transition
     1. Torres reported that SGA elections are beginning this week, allowing students to choose their new representatives. She noted that there are candidates for every position, and SGA expects to have results by the following week, with a focus on ensuring a smooth leadership transition for incoming members.
   • End of year celebration
     1. She stated that SGA is planning an end-of-year celebration for both new SGA members and all students, targeted for the very end of the month. The goals are to help students decompress before finals, introduce them to the newly elected SGA leaders, and raise awareness of the SGA’s work supporting students.
   • Participation in Play Days/wellness events
     1. Jezelyn announced that, for the first time, SGA will participate in both the Westville and Hammond Play Days organized by the Counseling Center during the week before finals. SGA will use these events to connect with students, promote a low-stress environment during finals, highlight SGA’s role, and support the Counseling Center’s mental health and stress-relief initiatives.

9. Unfinished Business
   • Senate Vice-Chair Election
     1. Hallock is the only nominee. He delivered a short speech, indicating that it would be an honor to serve as Vice‑Chair and, subsequently, Chair. He described himself as succinct, willing to stand up for what is fair, and someone who seeks compromise, while noting he is not a “great warrior” or especially loquacious.
     2. Motion to approve Rob Hallock as Vice-Chair
     3. Approved by a show of hands
   • Convocation Discussion Topics
     1. The Senate will hold convocation on May 1, in Gyte 103
     2. Academic Affairs budget update
     3. Legislative updates
     4. Post-Tenure Review Feedback
     5. Deans, Associate Deans, and Chairs
     6. Faculty Burnout Survey
     7. Will create an agenda and distribute it soon.
   • Follow-Up Senate Meeting Survey Results
     1. Presentation of survey results and context
        1. The Chair reported that an earlier survey showed ~80% of respondents preferred Hammond and ~20% Westville for meeting location.
        2. A follow‑up survey asked how many meetings should be in each location; 15 respondents favored 2 meetings in Westville and 8 in Hammond, with smaller numbers favoring more even splits (e.g., 5–5, 3–7, 4–6, 6–4).
        3. Comments in the survey highlighted time, travel, and gas costs as reasons to tilt toward Hammond, while others cited the original 50/50 campus‑equity expectation as a reason to keep the split even.
     2. Equity and resource‑use arguments
        1. Kozel and J. Ivy emphasized that Hammond now has far more courses, faculty, and meetings, so having more Senate meetings in Hammond would reduce total travel time and resource use, especially for faculty who have multiple Friday meetings.
        2. They argued the Senate’s work is the same regardless of location, and that a Hammond‑heavier schedule reflects current institutional scale and enrollment, not an attempt to marginalize Westville.
     3. Spoljoric’s objections and equity concerns for Westville
        1. Spoljoric strongly opposed an 80/20 split, calling it another broken promise to Westville and framing it as a symbolic and practical inequity, given Westville’s history of program losses and reduced offerings.
        2. She argued that Westville faculty also have busy schedules and committees and already travel frequently (including to Hammond to teach), and asked that their time, gas costs, and representation be given equal weight.
        3. Spoljoric questioned whether Senate composition (more Hammond‑affiliated senators) was biasing the results and insisted on transparent, on‑the‑record voting so rationales are visible to the campus community that can see Senate minutes.
     4. Other suggestions and logistical concerns
        1. Ludwig-Beymer supported considering a 4–4–2 model (four meetings in Hammond, four in Westville, and two on Zoom), especially using Zoom during winter months for safety.
        2. Kramer noted that the current Westville meeting room is poor (visibility, screens), suggesting that improving facilities there might reduce some resistance.
        3. There was agreement that room quality and technology are legitimate factors, but are solvable (e.g., using Tech 109 in Westville).
     5. Procedural debate (votes, roll call, tabling)
        1. Artz moved to split meetings 5–5 between Hammond and Westville; the motion was seconded, triggering debate.
        2. Some senators argued the 5–5 motion ignored the survey majority favoring 8–2 or similar Hammond‑weighted splits; others saw 5–5 as necessary for symbolic campus equality.
        3. Discussion arose over whether votes should be anonymous or roll‑call
           1. Elmendorf reminded the Senate that the bylaws require a roll‑call vote if requested, even for contentious topics, and that untenured faculty could abstain if concerned.
           2. Choudhury cautioned against open identification of junior faculty votes, suggesting sensitivity to rank.
        4. Use of data and framing of equity vs. equality
           1. The Chair read a written comment (from David Nalbone) noting that for Fall 2026, there are 1,216 Hammond courses vs. 116 Westville courses, arguing that an 8–2 split is actually more generous than the faculty distribution and that strict equality of meetings does not match current structural realities (equity vs. equality).
           2. Spoljoric and others countered that such reasoning reinforces the perception of Westville as merely a “feeder campus” and undermines shared identity and visibility.
        5. Outcome and next steps
           1. No final decision was made on the Hammond/Westville meeting schedule; the motion to set it at 5–5 was tabled.
           2. Kozel indicated the issue will be re‑examined in the Executive Committee and brought back, with possible additional surveys and further bylaw review, before a final schedule is set for next year.
        6. Artz motioned to split between Hammond and Westville 5/5
           1. Seconded by R. Hallock.
           2. Motion to table by D. Kozel
           3. Seconded by R. Hallock
           4. Motion to table approved by a show of hands.
        7. New Business:
           • Curriculum Documents Approval (Curriculog login)
             1. Motion for approval by L. Artz
             2. Seconded by M. Hughes
             3. Approved by voice vote

11. For Action:
    • None
12. Discussion Items:
    • FSD 25-17 AI Guidelines
      1. The Senate heard a brief report from G. Stefanek that the Gen Ed Committee was tasked with drafting FSD 25‑17 AI Guidelines, using Purdue West Lafayette’s AI competency strategy as a reference, with the goal of defining how PNW programs should incorporate AI competency into their curricula.
      2. The proposed approach places responsibility on individual programs/departments to:
         1. Identify which AI uses and tools are appropriate to their discipline.
         2. Define what AI competency should look like for their graduates, captured in a short, one‑page, bullet‑point guideline document.
      3. The draft includes a requirement that each program’s AI competency plan be submitted to the Gen Ed Committee for review; the original target submission date was October, but committee members suggested moving the deadline later (closer to the start of the semester) to give units additional time to develop their plans.
      4. The Chair indicated he had specific wording suggestions he would send in writing, including a preference to emphasize how AI is used within the curriculum, and where its use is appropriate or not appropriate, rather than focusing primarily on naming specific AI tools.
      5. Senators were asked to take the issue back to their departments and discuss:
         1. Where AI should be integrated into their programs?
         2. Where AI use should be restricted or prohibited?
         3. What AI‑related knowledge, skills, and understanding of limitations should students have at graduation?
      6. Kramer noted he is taking an Auburn University AI course that surveys how other institutions are addressing AI; he suggested its examples and recommendations could be a useful resource for the committee, subject to any licensing constraints.
    • FSD 25-18 EXL Process
      1. Ed will discuss this week.
    • FSD 25-07 PTR Document revisions
      1. The Senate received a brief update on FSD 2507 Post‑Tenure Review Document Revisions from R. Hallock, who reported that the committee believes it has adequately resolved the language related to clinical faculty, but that an additional concern raised by T. Elmendorf will require further work.
      2. Hallock noted that, due to Tony’s new concern, the committee will continue to revise the document over the coming month, with the goal of bringing a revised version back to Senate for a vote at the final meeting of the year, where it is intended to be adopted as the final version of the policy.
      3. The Chair added that Elmendorf had flagged another specific issue in email correspondence: the draft text that treated department heads and other administrators as exempt from post‑tenure review on the grounds that they were “non-voting faculty” is incorrect, since they are, in fact, voting faculty; this point will need to be corrected in the next revision.
      4. Kozel also referenced language in HEA 1001‑2025 indicating that, absent a separate agreement by July 1, 2025, the state‑mandated post‑tenure review process must apply to all tenured faculty members at the institution; he raised the question of whether this should explicitly include deans, department heads, and other tenured administrators, and indicated this must be considered in the committee’s further work.
      5. Senators were informed that additional refinements to FSD 25-07 will be brought back to the Senate after the committee addresses these issues, with the expectation of a final action item vote at the last Senate meeting of the academic year.

13. Reports from Senate Standing Committee Chairs
    • Curriculum (Lee Artz)
      1. No proposals. No meeting.
    • Faculty Affairs (Rob Hallock)
      1. Hallock reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee is currently focused on the faculty satisfaction and burnout survey, which is using the same reliable, validated scale that was administered two years ago, so that results can be directly compared over time.
      2. Hallock noted that 98 faculty had completed the survey at the time of the meeting, while the prior administration had 297 responses, and he identified that earlier number as the target response level for the current survey in order to maintain comparability and statistical strength.
      3. He asked senators to promote the survey within their departments, encouraging colleagues to complete it so the results better reflect the broader faculty experience across PNW.
      4. Hallock indicated he would ask Secretary A. McCafferty to send a reminder email about the survey (not over the weekend, but likely on Monday or Tuesday) to increase participation and visibility.
      5. Hallock stated that the survey is planned to close on Thursday, April 23, which will still allow sufficient time to analyze the data and prepare results for presentation later in the semester.
    • Gen Ed & Assessment (George Stefanek)
      1. Stefanek reported that the Gen Ed and Assessment Committee will be meeting later the same day to review the Experiential Learning (EXL) process document, which covers EXL designations, additions, deletions, and assessment procedures. The committee’s goal is to refine that document and bring a revised version forward to the Senate for discussion and possible action at the next meeting.
      2. Stefanek noted that the committee is currently behind schedule on course assessments, in part due to the university’s transition away from the prior assessment system (Taskstream) toward a new platform (Planning and Self‑Study). The committee had requested a prioritized list of courses to be assessed via PNW SS, but instead received a hard‑copy extract of courses and associated data.
      3. The Gen Ed and Assessment Committee plans to work through the extracted assessment information over the next two months, checking whether the required data for each course assessment is complete enough to permit meaningful evaluation, and then catching up on outstanding assessments as capacity allows.
    • Nominations, Elections, & Awards (Patrick Keegan)
      1. Keegan reported that approximately 20 Senate terms are ending this year, meaning nearly two‑thirds of the current Senate membership will either need to be re‑elected or replaced, and that the Nominations Committee has been working with department chairs and heads to ensure that elections are held where required.
      2. Keegan indicated that progress has been generally good, though a few departments still need to confirm that they have conducted their Senate elections and identified their representatives for the coming term; follow‑up with those units is ongoing.
      3. He explained that once the list of new and returning senators is complete, the committee’s next step will be to assign senators to the various standing committees, and the committee planned to begin that assignment process in their meeting later that day.
      4. Keegan also noted that the committee is considering creating a campus‑wide survey or communication, modeled on a recent effort at Purdue West Lafayette, to educate faculty about the Faculty Senate and its committees and to encourage broader participation in Senate service and committee work in future cycles.
    • Ed Policy (Pam Saylor)
      1. Saylor reported on behalf of the Educational Policy Committee that the Academic Structure Task Force has been actively meeting and working with leadership, and she thanked Chancellor Holford for his earlier update, emphasizing that the group is committed to transparency and to demonstrating that leadership is listening to the PNW community.
      2. Saylor noted that in the committee’s meeting later that day, they planned to discuss the administrative reorganization of the Integrative Human Health program at Hammond, with specific attention to how that reorganization aligns with Senate policies and shared‑governance expectations.
      3. She stated that the committee is in the process of operationalizing Faculty Senate Document 2508, which outlines the process for academic restructuring, and that this document will guide their review of proposed changes and ensure appropriate procedural steps are followed.
      4. Saylor also reported that the committee would be reviewing a draft micro‑credential process and procedures that had been sent to them by Dave and the Provost’s office, with the goal of refining those procedures and determining how micro‑credentials should be evaluated and approved within existing curricular and governance structures.
    • Student Affairs (James Dolen)
      1. Dolen reported that the Student Affairs Committee is actively managing the Student of the Month recognitions. For February, there are 14 students under consideration, and those nominations are currently with the committee for review and selection.
      2. He added that there were four new nominations for March; these students must accept their nomination and provide supplemental materials (such as brief résumé information) before the committee can finalize the March selection, and the committee expects to recognize those students soon once all materials are received.
      3. In response to a question from Tony Elmendorf, Dolen further reported that there are two remaining grade‑appeal hearings to be scheduled and heard in the near future (targeting next week), and that there are no current academic integrity cases pending before the committee.

14. West Lafayette Report (Joe Coates)
    • Coates reported that at Purdue West Lafayette, both the President and Provost commented on the men’s basketball team’s success and progression to the Sweet 16, using it as context in their remarks but not tying it to policy actions.
    • He noted that West Lafayette leadership expressed concerns about the current AI course‑policy model, under which each instructor sets their own AI usage rules; they believe this has led to confusion for students who encounter contradictory AI expectations across courses, and they are therefore exploring a more consistent, institution‑level AI policy.
    • He indicated that discussions at West Lafayette also included planning for a 3–5 year vision for Purdue in Indianapolis, with an emphasis on internships, experiential learning, and career transitions for juniors, seniors, and graduate students, along with considerations of summer calendar structure and graduation with distinction criteria.
    • Coates reported that student‑related policy discussions included issues of food insecurity and water quality, reflecting broader student‑affairs and campus‑climate concerns under review by the West Lafayette Senate.
    • He further noted that the West Lafayette Faculty Senate passed Senate Document 2519, which endorses the AAUP Purdue chapter’s vote of no confidence in Provost Patrick Wolfe, signaling a significant level of faculty dissatisfaction with the provost’s leadership there.
    • Finally, he mentioned that West Lafayette highlighted its collaboration with regional campuses through the Intercampus Faculty Council, and that this body has been an avenue for coordination and information‑sharing among Purdue campuses, including Purdue Northwest.
15. IFC Report (Geoffrey Barrow)
    • Barrow reported that the Intercampus Faculty Council (IFC) at West Lafayette requested that Purdue Northwest share the agenda from the most recent PNW Faculty Senate meeting (and, as appropriate, associated materials) so IFC members and West Lafayette senators can see what issues PNW is addressing; Geoff emphasized this is informational and not a directive.
    • He noted that IFC also discussed meeting scheduling and faculty availability. At West Lafayette, they debated when faculty are actually “on duty” and ultimately decided that the final West Lafayette Senate meeting would be held on May 1, with the possibility of an additional meeting before the end of May if urgent business arises.
    • Barrow relayed that IFC members referenced the notion that faculty pay periods extend through the end of May and resume at the end of August, and used this as part of their argument about when faculty can reasonably be expected to attend meetings; however, he clarified that PNW’s specific contract dates differ (with PNW faculty contracts ending on May 15 and starting shortly before fall classes).
    • He stated that West Lafayette would also like to know, by the end of the month, which PNW representatives will serve on IFC/West Lafayette Senate next year, so that intercampus communication and participation can begin smoothly in August.
    • Barrow suggested that sharing PNW Senate agendas and minutes with IFC and clarifying PNW’s official contract dates would help align expectations and maintain effective intercampus collaboration.
16. Open discussion (as time permits)
    • Michael Hensley on grade change policy
      1. Hensley, a continuing lecturer in History, Economics, Political Science, and Philosophy, raised several concerns about the current grade‑change / grade‑appeal policy, noting that he had recent, direct experience with it this semester and believed it needs clarification and revision.
      2. Hensley stated that the policy language is ambiguous and lacks a clear mechanism to ensure that those administering the process follow the written rules. He cited the requirement that students meet with the instructor before a case proceeds to the screening committee, and reported that, in practice, this step can be skipped at the discretion of the committee chair, which he argued should not happen and should be formalized and enforced in the policy.
      3. He also highlighted ambiguity around whether multiple student cases involving the same course/instructor may be combined into a single case. Michael said the written policy appears to allow only one case at a time, but in practice multiple appeals have been merged, and he had been told that a possible revision would formalize combining cases if three or more appeals occur for a given course/section.
      4. Hensley expressed strong concern that combining cases raises fairness and FERPA issues, because each student’s situation is unique, and merging them risks students being exposed—directly or indirectly—to other students’ educational records and grade information, and it also makes it difficult for the committee to ensure that evidence from different cases remains properly segregated in its deliberations.
      5. He further noted that the current practice seems to blur roles
         1. Policy language that students and faculty cannot simultaneously review the same case appears to be in tension with how some mixed or overlapping involvement is occurring now, reinforcing the need for clearer procedural boundaries and safeguards.
      6. Michael urged the Senate to re‑examine and revise the grade‑change/appeals policy to:
         1. Remove ambiguity
         2. Ensure that required steps (like instructor–student meetings) are not bypassed
         3. Carefully limit or prohibit the combining of multiple student appeals into a single case
         4. Explicitly address FERPA compliance and due‑process protections for all parties.
      7. The Chair acknowledged these concerns and responded that the Senate would take them under advisement as part of the ongoing review of the grade‑change policy, including re‑considering any threshold or justification for combining multiple appeals (e.g., large numbers of cases in summer) and routing the issues to the appropriate Senate committee (Student Affairs) for further work.

17. Adjournment
    • Meeting adjourned at 11:45 AM