August 18, 2004, Meeting of COMDA
Agenda
Agenda Item Information
Minutes
Agenda
Notice of PUBLIC MEETING -
Notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Committee
on Dental Auxiliaries will be held as follows
Wednesday, August 18,
2004 – 1:30 p.m.
The Westin LAX, 5400 W.
Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, 310-216-5858
Agenda
1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Establishment
of Quorum
2. Approval of May 12, 2004, Meeting Minutes
3. Report of the Chair
4. Report of the Executive Officer
5. Legislation of Interest to COMDA
a. AB539 – 3rd and 4th year dental students applying
for RDH licensure
b. SB 136 – mandatory courses for RDAs
c. SB1539 – long-term health care facilities/RDHAPs
d. SB 1546 – dental assisting scopes of practice
RDA Program
6. Review of RDA Educational Programs and Courses/Recommendations to Board
7. Required Coronal Polishing and Radiation Safety Courses for RDAs – Proposal
to Allow Affidavit in Lieu of Certificate
8. Proposed New Regulation – Approval of Coronal Polishing Courses
9. Proposed New Regulation – Approval of Ultrasonic Scaling Courses
10. Proposed New Regulation – Approval of Teaching Methodology Courses
RDH Program
11. Review of Necessity/Desirability of RDHAP Prescription Requirement
All Programs
12. Agenda Items for Future Meetings
13. Public Comment
14. Adjournment
The Committee may take action on any item
listed on the agenda unless listed as information only. All times
are approximate and subject to change. Public comments will be taken
on agenda items at the time the specific item is raised. Items may
be taken out of order to accommodate speakers and to maintain a quorum.
The meeting may be cancelled without notice. For meeting verification,
call (916) 263-2595 or access the Committee’s website at www.
comda. ca.gov. The meeting is accessible to the physically disabled.
A person who needs disability-related accommodations or modifications
in order to participate in the meeting shall make a request to the
Committee by contacting Karen Wyant at (916) 263-2300 or sending
a written request to the person at the Committee on Dental Auxiliaries,
1428 Howe Avenue, Suite 58, Sacramento, CA 95825, one week prior
to the day of the meeting. Contact: Karen Wyant, (916) 263-2595 or
email Karen_Wyant@dca.ca.gov.
AGENDA
ITEM INFORMATION
5. Legislation of Interest to
COMDA
a. AB539 - 3rd and 4th year dental students
applying for RDH licensure
AB539 would allow 3rd and 4th year California
dental school students in good standing to apply for a Registered Dental
Hygienist license, which would require completion of the National written
examination and the State clinical examination.
Recent amendments added an appropriation
of $138,000 for the current fiscal year, and $264,000 each year thereafter.
As of July 27, the bill was awaiting Assembly
concurrence with Senate amendments and had not yet been sent to the
Governor.
b. SB 136 (Figueroa) - Registered Dental
Assistants
As part of an "omnibus" bill,
the portions affecting COMDA delay for one year (to January 1, 2006)
the requirement that all RDAs provide proof of having completed both
radiation safety and coronal polishing courses. The bill also provides
that an RDA who possess an inactive license need not comply with these
requirements until he or she chooses to re-activate the license.
The bill is scheduled to be heard in Assembly
Appropriations on August 4th.
c. SB1539 (Ortiz) - Long-term health care
facilities/RDHAPs
SB1539 would authorize a long-term health
care facility that has an exclusive contract with a health care provided,
as defined, to allow a RDHAP to perform dental hygiene services under
a written prescription that has been obtained by the patient, or an
agent or guardian of the patient.
The bill is on the Assembly floor.
d. SB1546 (Figueroa) - Dental assisting
scopes of practice
SB1546 defines, in statute, the scope of
practice of dental assisting. Attached, along with a copy of the bill,
is a fact sheet prepared by the Alliance that outlines all of the provisions
of the bill. Recent amendments have addressed the technical concerns
that COMDA staff had with some aspects of the bill.
The bill is scheduled to be heard in Assembly
Appropriations on August 4th.
6. Review of RDA Educational
Programs and Courses
As of July 30, 2004, there were no educational
programs or courses ready for review by COMDA or the Board.
Any programs or courses that are ready for
consideration by the meeting date will be presented at the meeting.
7. Required Coronal Polishing
and Radiation Safety Courses for RDAs - Proposal to Allow Affidavit
In Lieu of Certificate
A law enacted several years ago as part
of the Legislative Sunset Review process requires that all RDAs provide
evidence of having completed both a radiation safety course and a coronal
polishing course by January 1, 2005. SB136, which is proceeding through
the Legislature, would extend that deadline to January 1, 2006.)
COMDA has notified all RDAs of this requirement,
but has heard from many that they have lost or misplaced their certificates.
If they completed a course many years ago, the course provider may
no longer be in business, or if they are, they may not have kept records
for such a long period of time. Members of the public have asked that
COMDA consider allowing an RDA whose radiation certificate and/or coronal
polishing certificate has been destroyed, lost, or misplaced, to file
an affidavit of completion under penalty of perjury.
Following is the text of the law in question:
1645.1. Required completion of radiation
safety and coronal polishing courses By January 1, 2005, each person
who holds a registered dental assistant license shall provide evidence
of having successfully completed board-approved courses in radiation
safety and coronal polishing. The length and content of the courses
shall be governed by applicable board regulations. Failure to comply
with this section shall result in automatic suspension of the license
which shall be reinstated upon the receipt of evidence that the licensee
has successfully completed the required courses. Completion of the
courses may be counted toward fulfillment of the continuing education
requirements governed by Section 1645.
At its May, 2004, meeting, COMDA asked staff
to bring back a proposal detailing which circumstances may warrant
acceptance of an affidavit rather than an actual certification of completion
from a Board-approved course provider.
Staff Proposal: Staff has only been able
to identify the following circumstances that would seem to warrant
acceptance of an affidavit rather than an actual certification of completion
from a Board-approved course provider. Staff believes that allowing
persons to submit an affidavit for other reasons, such as loss or inability
to contact the school who issued the original certificate, may lead
to large-scale abuse of the affidavit process and could adversely affect
the public health and safety by allowing unqualified personnel to perform
coronal polishing and to expose radiographs.
1. Affidavit from a educator who was known
to be faculty of a particular program which has either ceased business
or no longer has records of a particular student, where the past educator
verifies under penalty of perjury that he or she personally recalls
the student's successful completion of either or both courses.
2. With regard to radiation safety only,
evidence of completion of a board-approved RDA educational program
from 1985 to the present (regulations only required such program to
provide such instruction beginning in 1985)
3. With regard to coronal polishing, evidence
of completion of a board-appoved educational program from May 30, 2003
to the present. 8. Proposed New Regulation - Approval of Coronal Polishing
Courses
RDAs who wish to perform coronal polishing
must, by regulation, provide evidence of having completed a Board-approved
course in coronal polishing.
Attached is a proposed regulation that would
define the requirements that such courses must meet for Board approval.
9. Proposed New Regulation -
Approval of Ultrasonic Scaling Courses
RDAs who wish to perform ultrasonic scaling
of cement from teeth under orthodontic treatment must, by regulation,
provide evidence of having completed a Board-approved course in coronal
polishing.
Attached is a proposed regulation that would
define the requirements that such courses must meet for Board approval.
10. Proposed New Regulation -
Approval of Teaching Methodology Courses
Effective on May 30, 2005, Board regulations
governing RDA educational programs will require that "each faculty
member must have received a certification of completion of a COMDA
approved course in teaching methodology of at least 60 hours at a post-secondary
institution prior to student instruction" (regulation section
1070.2(c)(2)).
Attached are proposed regulations that would
define how an instructor will be able to meet the requirements, as
well as the requirements that providers of such courses must meet for
COMDA approval.
11. Review of Necessity/Desirability
of RDHAP Prescription Requirement
In COMDA's October, 2002, Supplemental Report
to the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee, COMDA recommended
that the existing requirement that an RDHAP may only perform services
independently upon the receipt of a prescription from a licensed dentist
be eliminated. While that recommendation was not implemented by the
Legislature, this newly-constituted COMDA may want to consider what
position it wishes to take on the issue.
The issue was discussed at COMDA's May,
2004, meeting, with the understanding that staff would bring back any
pertinent studies and other information relative to the issue.
Attached are background descriptions of
the HMPPs (Health Manpower Pilot Projects) which gave rise to the current
RDHAP classification, two reports on the findings of those HMPPs, and
comments on the issue from existing RDHAPs. Also attached is an excerpt
from COMDA's October, 2002, Supplemental Report to the Joint Legislative
Sunset Review Committee which appeared in COMDA's May meeting binder.
COMMITTEE ON DENTAL AUXILIARIES
Draft Meeting Minutes - August
18, 2004
Members Present: Shanda Wallace, RDH, Chair;
Kevin Biggers, Public Member; LaDonna Drury-Klein, RDA, Vice Chair;
Linda Gipson, RDH, Secretary; Coragene Savio, DDS; Sonia Molina, DDS
Members Absent: Teresita Churchill, RDA;
Darla Dale, RDH; Marlyn Hiroto, RDA
Staff Present: Karen R. Wyant, Executive
Officer; Dyna Leonard, Associate Analyst; Norine Marks, DCA Legal Counsel;
Lori Hubble, Staff Analyst; Donna Kantner, Staff
1. Call to Order/ Roll Call/ Establishment
of Quorum
Chair Wallace called the meeting to order
at 1:35 p.m. Secretary Gipson called roll and a quorum was established.
2. Approval of May 12, 2004 Meeting Minutes
It was M/S/P (Drury-Klein/Biggers) that
the minutes of the May 12, 2004, COMDA meeting be accepted as presented.
3. Report of the Chair
Chair Wallace reported that she had attended
the Dept. of Consumer Affairs' Board Member Orientation with fellow
COMDA members Churchill, Gipson and Molina on June 4th, the RDH Exams
at USC June 13th and July 24th and 25th, and the RDA Exams at USC on
July 24th and 25th. She said that she had been very impressed at how
well choreographed these exams are by COMDA staff, particularly Examination
Coordinator Lori Hubble, reporting that almost 900 RDA candidates were
tested in one weekend.
4. Report of the Executive Officer
Executive Officer Wyant reported that statistics
are included in COMDA's packet, noting that RDA statistics from the
last exam which were not included in the statistics presented indicated
a very high increase in the number tested. She felt that the increase
may in part be due to the reduction from five examinations last year
to four examinations this year, or it may simply be an increase in
the number of candidates applying. She noted that staff has done a
remarkable job accommodating the large number of applicants.
Regarding regulations, she reported that
1079.2 is still at DCA, as is clarifying the RDH student admission
standards. She reported that the RDH Law and Ethics exam regulatory
requirements went to OAL in mid-July. In response to a question from
Chair Wallace about the news reports on eliminating various boards,
Executive Officer Wyant noted that the California Performance Report
recommended that both the Dental Board and COMDA be moved in entirety
to the Department of Health Services.
5. Legislation of Interest to COMDA
a. AB539 - 3rd and 4th Year Dental Students
applying for RDH licensure
Executive Officer Wyant reported that AB539
has gone to the Governor for signature, noting that staff is working
on plans to implement its provisions, tentatively adding an examination
in March. She noted that the bill would augment COMDA's staff for the
first time in 20 years by potentially adding one staff member.
b. SB136 (Figueroa) - Delays Requirement
for Radiation Safety and Coronal Polishing Certification for RDA licensure
for one year
Wyant noted that this bill was expected
to go into effect, and will allow an additional year for licensees
to complete the requirement that all currently licensed RDAs must show
proof of completion of Radiation Safety and Coronal Polishing certification.
This bill would delay the deadline for that requirement to January
1, 2006.
c. SB1539 - Long Term Health Care Facilities/RDHAPs
JoAnn Galliano, CDHA, reported that this
bill had been pulled due to concerns with the certification process
of some facilities. These issues will be addressed and the bill will
most likely be back next year.
d. SB1546 (Figueroa) - Scope of Practice
for Dental Assisting
Executive Officer Wyant reported that this
bill has the most impact on Registered Dental Assistants. The bill
would create three new specialty categories of Assistants: Restorative,
Orthodontic, and Oral Surgery. She noted that if this bill passes,
workshops and informational meetings would need to begin to be scheduled
toward the end of this year since the effective date is January 1,
2007. She noted that there would no longer be RDA written or practical
examinations, reducing COMDA's workload but also significantly reducing
revenue. She noted that the bill would also substantially increase
the duties of the EF category. She said that by November she should
have a recommended blueprint for accomplishing all of the changes.
Tim Hart, CDA, thanked Executive Officer
Wyant for her assistance with this legislation. He noted that the first
analysis called for $170,000 in associated costs, but that she had
told the Legislature that there would be no fiscal impact. Wyant stated
that it is not usual for an agency to tell the Legislature that they
will not need more money to implement proposed legislation, only to
have the Legislature insist that they do.
6. Review of RDA Educational Programs and
Courses/ Recommendations to the Board
There were no programs for review.
7. Required Coronal Polishing and Radiation
Safety Courses for RDAs - Proposal to Allow Affidavit in Lieu of Certificate
Executive Officer Wyant advised that some
licensees were having difficulty in finding documentation because their
certificates have been lost or destroyed, and they are unable to obtain
duplicates because their school has closed or because the certifications
were received many years ago. She asked if COMDA would feel comfortable
in accepting an affidavit in any other situations in addition to the
three listed in the proposal. She noted that staff did not recommend
allowing licensees to submit affidavits of loss or destruction, since
they could be fraudulent and thereby pose a threat to the public health
and safety.
Dorothy Cox, The Alliance, reported that
The Alliance supports the proposal. JoAnn Galliano, speaking as an
educator, felt that there would be no way to know whether the affidavit
was true if licensees were allowed to submit them. Wyant clarified
that the current proposal would only recognize an affidavit from an
educator.
Vice Chair Drury-Klein, speaking as an educator,
stated that she tells those people who have been licensed for 20 years
and who have objections to re-taking the Coronal Polishing course,
that they only need to attend one weekend and will get 16 hours of
CE credit. She felt it was a great hands-on experience, and those students
who objected in the beginning agree after taking the class. She noted
that the X-Ray course is slightly more expensive and more time -consuming,
but it seems to be less of a problem than the Coronal Polishing course.
Dorothy Cox, speaking as an educator, agreed. She felt that if the
licensee has not taken a course in 10 or 20 years, they really need
the course.
Member Biggers asked if the deadline for
compliance is January 1, 2005. Wyant replied that currently it is,
but a bill extending the deadline until January 1, 2006 is pending,
and staff needs to know how to advise licensees.
Tim Hart, CDA, noted that this requirement
was a statutory requirement imposed over two years ago, and that it
may be time to go back to the Legislature and let them know that things
have changed, since new statutory language will be enacted for both
new licenses and old and the requirement may no longer be necessary.
Executive Officer Wyant said that she had a different perspective on
that, stating that all of the specialty licenses will be allowed to
perform Coronal Polishing, and that they should have training.
It was M/S/P (Drury Klein/Biggers) to accept
the proposal of #1, with the assumption that staff would recognize
#2 and #3 as matter of course since they would be in compliance.
8. Proposed New Regulation - Approval of
Coronal Polishing Courses
Vice Chair Drury-Klein felt that the language
for all certifications should be consistent. She believes in modernization
of the language, procedures and supervision, and felt this proposed
regulation to be more modern, user-friendly, and clear to educators.
Executive Officer Wyant thanked Drury-Klein for hard work and input
on the regulations.
Dorothy Cox stated that regarding Page 3
(7), she requires students to provide a calculus-free statement for
each patient prior to performance of the procedure, asking if this
will be placed into the regulatory language.
Tim Hart, CDA, noted that this is consistent
with regulation, but noted concerns they had received that the class
requirement of 12 hours may be too high. Vice Chair Drury-Klein noted
that the requirement was originally 16 hours, and reducing it to 12
hours is a huge concession. Dorothy Cox, speaking as an educator, said
that she currently provides this course, but has found that 12 hours
is not sufficient time. She noted that her courses scheduled for next
year will be at least 14 or possibly even 16 hours.
JoAnn Galliano, CDHA, felt it necessary
to specify in the regulation that patients must be calculus-free, and
Vice Chair Drury-Klein agreed. It was agreed that language would be
added, such as "Clinical patients must provide a calculus-free
statement provided by a dentist or an RDH prior to coronal polishing."
Melody Randolph, Western Career College,
asked if the regulations will allow the final evaluation to be done
by either a RDH or a dentist. Vice Chair Drury-Klein clarified that
the only requirement is that it must be a faculty member performing
the evaluation.
Executive Officer Wyant felt that if Infection
Control is necessary, on Page 1 (b) "board approved course in
infection control" could be changed to "course in infection
control by an approved provider". Vice Chair Drury-Klein noted
that many of those attending the course are on-the-job trained, and
need to demonstrate their Infection Control competency. Wyant noted
that RDAs could be exempted from this requirement, and it could be
applied only to unlicensed DAs. Lana Wright, CADAT, felt it should
be retained, noting that it is a good refresher if the licensee has
had it, and a requirement if they haven't.
Dorothy Cox asked if the two hours of Infection
Control covered could be given as credit for CE requirement for licensees.
Vice Chair Drury-Klein felt that the way the Board's Infection Control
Committee had structured the standards, it would not qualify.
Tim Hart, CDA, asked if it is the intent
of this subdivision to demonstrate clinical proficiency. Vice Chair
Drury-Klein noted that it is inherent in the course to some degree.
The issue is the huge level of misinformation and training that is
done in offices regarding infection control.
Drury-Klein noted that she and Dr. Terlet
also considered imposing a California Law requirement, because after
completing the course many DAs feel that they can return to the office
and perform Coronal Polishing on patients, which legally they cannot
do until they become RDAs. JoAnn Galliano, speaking as an educator,
felt that clinical competency was based on a knowledge of inflection
control, believing that no one should be exempt from this instruction
no matter what other courses have been completed.
It was agreed that the section would be
re-written by legal counsel and the Executive Officer to reflect the
requirement that all students be assessed for clinical competency,
with no specific hourly component and elimination of the 2-hour infection
control component.
It was noted that on page 2 (B) "practitioner" should
be struck, since this would be equivalent to "instructor",
and that on page 3, (h) needs to be clarified to indicate that the
externship is related to clinical instruction only.
It was M/S/P (Drury-Klein/Gipson) to approve
the regulations with changes to be finalized by the Executive Officer
and legal counsel, and recommend that the Board set them for hearing.
9. Proposed New Regulation - Approval of
Ultrasonic Scaling Courses
Executive Officer Wyant noted that these
regulations are an attempt to align the regulations for all certification
courses. With that in mind, she felt that page 1, (B) should strike "practitioner" as
in the previous regulations for Coronal Polishing courses, and also
on page 3 (h) be clarified. Vice Chair Drury-Klein noted that on page
3, subsections (6) and (7), 8 students are allowed, rather than 6,
as stated in the Coronal Polishing language. Wyant replied that current
guidelines specify 8 students for the Ultrasonic Scaling course. Drury-Klein
felt that in the interest of consistency, the number should also be
6.
She also noted that clinical instruction
takes place on typodonts, not people, recommending that sentence be
struck, since other language addresses laboratory instruction. Wyant
asked if there would then be any need for an externship. Drury-Klein
noted that this item would need additional work, so the item was tabled
until the next meeting.
10. Proposed New Regulation - Approval of
Teaching Methodology Courses
Vice Chair Drury-Klein noted that there
are very specific requirements for Community Colleges and others. She
stated that this proposed language prevents interpretation and standardizes
what is required, it is clear, definitive and speaks to the issues.
JoAnn Galliano, speaking as an educator,
felt that Page 1 (1) should include "a post-graduate degree" to
include those who hold a masters or doctorate degree in education,
but do not hold a teaching credential.
Elizabeth Pacheco, Condorde Career College,
testified that The Ryan Credential is very easy to obtain, and should
be a minimum requirement.
Lori Gagliardi, Pasadena City College, asked
how that would affect programs accredited by the Commission on Dental
Accreditation. Wyant noted that ADA approval is currently recognized
by the Board, and that they are not necessarily subject to the same
regulations as "Board"-approved programs. It was suggested
that this should be clarified in regulation Section 1070.2. Lana Wright
agreed that it should be clarified; however the purpose is to address
this current language and move forward.
It was M/S/P (Drury Klein/Savio) to accept
the proposal with changes allowing course instructors, as well as affected
faculty, to have a post-graduate degree in education, and recommend
that the Board set the regulation for hearing.
11. RDHAP Prescription Requirement
Chair Wallace noted that this item was discussed
at the May meeting and staff was directed to bring back any pertinent
studies and other relative information. She felt that a decision should
be made today regarding COMDA's stance on the issue.
Member Savio felt that the issue regarding
nursing homes has been sufficiently addressed previously. She noted
that the original RDHAPs had a minimum of three to four years of college,
and they were treating a higher economic category of people. The current
licensee treats patients of lower economic levels in more rural areas.
She found the letters interesting, particularly the two RDHAPs that
pooled their resources and rented space to a dentist in order to practice.
She felt the current system worked. She noted that HIPPA requirements
have come along since that time, and there are health concerns with
these patients requiring that they be seen by a physician before proceeding.
Member Molina agreed, noting that the patients
in nursing homes have more serious medical concerns than cleaning their
teeth. Vice Chair Drury-Klein asked if the RDHAP is not qualified to
assess a patient's medical history or a patient's health needs. She
would hope that every medical practitioner would be able to assess
a medical history or medical case.
Member Biggers felt that when a person needs
care, they need care, supporting the removal of the prescription requirement.
He felt that these people are professionals and should be able to provide
care when needed.
Diane Azevedo, RDHAP, stated that in a pioneering
position, she must be better than the standard. She noted that she
had been an RDH for 25 years, and a high number of dentists do not
look at the patient's health history. She stated that she has never
treated a patient without checking the patient's health history, noting
that research has shown that there have been no safety issues with
RDHAPs. She cannot understand why she may not work for herself, as
it is simply a new business practice, not an increase in scope of practice.
She wanted to be able to reach people who want to be reached, noting
that many people want these services. She felt that the services provided
have a bearing beyond the mouth and into the person's entire health.
JoAnn Galliano, CDHA, reported that over
12,000 patients were seen in the original program, 1200 were over 65,
and 2,500 had no high school education, so there were quite a few participants
that mirror the patients currently being seen. She stated that many
times RDHAPs consult with a physician who is not the physician of record
of the patient. The problem is not that these people do not need to
go to a dentist, it is a way to get people to go to a dentist. She
felt that as a hygienist, it is her responsibility to protect the patient;
just because there is no prescription required does not mean that she
will not consult with a physician or dentist if she feels it is necessary.
She noted that the prescription requirement does not protect the patient
and it restricts access to care.
Tim Hart, CDA, asked how many RDHAPs are
currently licensed, perhaps 50. He continued that the law implementing
the category is now six years old, and that over half of the licensees
are located in areas where there is a problem with access to care.
He reported that CDA had asked its component dental societies if there
is any problem with obtaining prescriptions and none of them had indicated
that they had been contacted by any RDHAPs.
Chair Wallace felt it would build a rapport
between RDHAPs and dentists if more patients were brought into dental
practices and mobile dental clinics. Executive Officer Wyant noted
that there have only been approved RDHAP programs for the last few
years, and that perhaps RDHs choose not to pursue RDHAP licensure because
they know they will encounter even more problems with prescriptions
in rural and under-served areas.
Gail Gilman of San Diego noted that as an
RDHAP she faces a multitude of problems. She felt that the prescription
requirement is simply a barrier, noting that she can barely get a job
as an RDH because the AP license is like a cloud over her head, asking
that this barrier be removed.
Chair Wallace noted that she had personal
experience with this issue, noting that as an RDH she has a responsibility
to protect the public. She stated that she makes her evaluation of
the patient in the office, she does not call the dentist. The same
in the public health sector, she goes into the schools and places sealants
with no dentist present. She noted that she is qualified to do all
this, even though she has not had the 150 hours of additional coursework,
and she finds it ridiculous that a prescription is required for an
RDHAP do this.
It was M/S/P (Drury Klein/Biggers) to pursue
legislation to remove the prescription requirement for RDHAPs.
12. Agenda Items for Future Meetings
Vice-Chair Drury-Klein asked that the necessity
and guidelines for establishment of a Quality Assessment Subcommittee
of volunteer educators be considered to oversee the continual evaluation
of approved programs and courses, and that proposed changes to section
1086 be considered to allow RDAs to apply pit and fissure sealants.
Member Biggers stated he would like a report
regarding the status of the California Performance Review recommendations
at the next meeting. Gail Gilman, RDHAP, noted that there is no provision
for an RDHAP who does not hold a current RDH license to be appointed
to the Dental Board or COMDA. Wyant stated she would consult with legal
counsel on the issue and, if necessary, bring recommendations to a
future meeting.
13. Public Comment
None.
14. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. |
