Members in attendance: Bob Berger, Ann George, Bill Green, Andy Jensen, Joel Kangiser, Bill Mason, Doug Muse, Bryan Sakuma, Herb Teas, Kurt Volker, Doug Walsh, Tedd Wildman

Staff in attendance: Donna Gorham, Cindy Hayes, Tracy Olberding, Karen Roberts, Alan Schreiber

Guests: Ben Barstow, John Brown, WSU, Catherine Daniels, WSU, Vince Hebert, WSU, Shawn McNeil, Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, Sandra Ristow, WSU, Aaron Shultz, ADG, Inc

Commissioners not in attendance: Ron Angel, Chuck Masters

Chair Doug Muse called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.

Commissioners, staff and guests introduced themselves.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Muse called for public comment. Shawn McNeil of the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission stated he was attending the meeting to learn what the Commission does and how Commission activities relates to his new position with the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, in particular, one of his areas of interest is third party registration. Administrator Schreiber responded that he has done extensive work with third party registrations in both public and private applications. Schreiber added he would be willing to meet with Mr. McNeal to share information and experiences he has. Shawn McNeil indicated he would be working with other Washington groups and would like to meet with Schreiber.

MINUTES
Schreiber directed Commissioner's attention to the minutes from the last two Commission meetings and explained the process now in place to provide an auditable file for meeting minutes. Schreiber noted three copies of the minutes would be in the file: proposed, amended and approved. Schreiber explained the proposed copy is considered the first draft, the amended copy will indicate changes made with sidebars and underlines for additions and sidebars and strikeouts for deletions. Schreiber noted the minutes from the March Commission meeting had been approved at the May Commission meeting and no corrections were noted for the May Commission meeting minutes other than correcting the spelling of amended on page one.

FINANCIAL REPORT
Schreiber updated Commissioners on staffing changes at WSU. Sandy Christian has retired and Tucson Smith has taken over Commission financial duties at WSU. Schreiber invited Tucson Smith to attend today's meeting, however, WSU's fiscal year closing is today and he was unable to attend. Schreiber received an e-mail from Tucson Smith with year-end fiscal information included. The amount of forward allocation is the same as last meeting, <$173,572.16>. Schreiber noted the deficit allocation is not over the twenty-five percent level as of 6/30/01. Schreiber noted another one million dollars would be available as of 7/1/01. Schreiber noted the amount of money allocated but not spent was about $800,000. The total included $618,184.68 that has been spent plus the amount of deficit allocation, <$173,572.16>. Schreiber indicated that the Commission is in good shape financially.

Schreiber directed Commissioner's attention to the WSCPR's fiscal year 2002 budget summary included in the meeting notebooks. Schreiber noted to meet the mandate a contingency fund must be set aside and historically the contingency fund has been ten percent of the budget, but is now five percent. Chair Muse asked for comments. Herb Teas noted the mandate must be satisfied. Bill Green questioned the need to label the money as old and new mandate contingency, and suggested leaving the funds unlabeled to use in an emergency. Schreiber noted there is no statutory requirement to separate the funds, but it is the policy adopted by the Commission. Chair Muse noted old and new mandate funds are tracked separately. Bob Berger stated the impression is to split 50-50 between mandate with separate line items, and his preference is not to identify by mandate. Schreiber agreed to combine the contingency to one line item and not identify by mandate. Schreiber noted the projects total of $855,950 equaled 85.6% of the budget and the administrative costs of $144,050 equaled 14.4% of the budget.

ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Schreiber reviewed the hours worked breakdown, noting Tracy Olberding was now included and would be easing into her role as Assistant Administrator. Schreiber then directed attention to the letter of agreement between WSU and WSCPR noting changes discussed at the last meeting to dates and dollar amounts. Schreiber directed attention to the contract between WSCPR and ADG, Inc. noting changes to dates, dollar amounts, and service provisions also discussed at the last meeting. Chair Muse asked Commissioners for any questions. Hearing none, Schreiber noted at the last meeting, Tedd Wildman had expressed his thanks to Tanya Wojtowych for her years of excellent service as Secretary/Public Records Officer. Schreiber then requested Commissioner's sign a Thank-you card that would be presented to Tanya Wojtowych.

Schreiber reviewed the 2001 Washington Pest Control Tour and asked for comments. Bob Berger stated the change in timing was great; he liked seeing crops in a different stage of development and received lots of positive comments from participants. Joel Kangiser stated he enjoyed the Washington Bulb Company and the Weyerhaeuser forest nursery stops. Schreiber commented many had expressed the bulb stop and forest nursery stop were favorites and noted the right of way equipment demonstration was amazing. Schreiber had asked participants who was the best speaker and one of our commissioners, Bob Berger, was mentioned most often. Bob Berger talked about nursery and landscape and also provided informative local commentary on roads and highways during the tour. Schreiber distributed pictures taken during the tour. Kurt Volker noted participants were enthusiastic and fascinated with stops on the day he attended. Andy Jensen stated the Washington Bulb Company stop was interesting to him and his two young sons who also attended that day. Kurt Volker noted an article by a food critic in the Seattle-Times newspaper included a mention of the tour during the outing to Blake Island and the Tillicum Indian Village tour. Bill Mason stated he found the forest nursery stop and the Department of Transportation roadside stop and the invert emulsion process interesting. Sandra Ristow indicated it was interesting and fun to see what is on the other side of the state.

Schreiber continued discussing the Tour, focusing on budgetary issues. Funding sources included registration fees and contributions from various commodity groups. In past years, the contribution level was higher from West Side commodity groups. This year's contribution from commodity groups was $1,650 less than expected. Schreiber indicated cost cutting measures were implemented. Schreiber felt these changes did not detract from the quality of the tour and will be used in the future as well. Schreiber reported the tour was just under budget.

Schreiber moved on to discuss the 1999-2000 Progress Report. Schreiber updated Commissioners on the status of the progress report. Schreiber reminded Commissioners the Progress Report was in a second printing to correct errors and omissions in the first printing. Schreiber told Commissioners the report had to be re-ran due to poor print quality on the back cover. Chair Muse asked what the cost to the Commission would be. Schreiber responded the first run cost was $2,000, and the second run would be at no cost to the Commission. Chair Muse asked the number of copies ran each time. Schreiber responded two thousand copies were ran the first time and one thousand clean copies would result from the second run and mailing would occur over the next six weeks. Chair Muse asked what the cost per issue was. Schreiber responded the cost per issue was approximately $1.50 plus mailing expenses (postage and processing time). Kurt Volker asked why Schreiber was absorbing the cost of the second printing. Schreiber responded it was his responsibility to have Commissioner's review the progress report before printing occurred and due to time constraints the review did not occur. Ann George questioned the cost of the 1997-1998 Progress Report. Schreiber responded the cost was approximately $5,000.

Ann George presented an update on a Commission funded new mandate project, Dr. Walter Mahaffey's work on developing a model infection risk forecaster for Hop Powdery Mildew. The project was co-sponsored by Wilbur-Ellis and Western Farm Service. Currently, an untested draft model is on the Internet free of charge, growers are watching it and comparing results with Dr. Mahaffey's team. A lot of data is being compiled with 30 sites in a weekly formal scouting program and weather data updated daily. Hopefully, by fall growers will have a useful model. Once the model is validated it will be put into a commercial application. The service will be offered to growers for a fee in Oregon and Washington. This is a tool growers can use for an added level of security when making treatment decisions. Growers tend to err on the side of caution and this may stretch treatment applications out and cut down on the use of fungicide. Schreiber asked what percent of funding were Commission resources. Ann George indicated approximately one-third of the funding came from the Commission and commented the project would not be at the level it is without Commission funds. The project is being validated at two sites, one being Washington and Oregon and the other in Germany. Chair Muse thanked Ann George for the update.

Schreiber reported on several Commission funded project site visits. Schreiber and Joel Kangiser visited Lindsey du Toit and discussed her work on cabbage seed and brussels sprouts. The cabbage seed project will result in a registration. It is interesting to note 100% of the U.S. supply and ½ of the world's supply of brussels sprouts seed is grown in Washington. Schreiber and Joel Kangiser also visited Tim Miller and discussed his work on strawberries. Joel Kangiser noted it was good to see Miller's work on an alternative for Goal on strawberries. This project found no effective organic herbicide alternative. Miller asked for small amounts of money, Schreiber encouraged him to increase his funding requests. Schreiber visited Vince Hebert and discussed the Guthion-Sevin project. At the time of the visit, last years samples had not been sent to the lab, the project was placed on probation, and a return visit was scheduled for two weeks. Schreiber indicated the status of the project had improved and noted Vince Hebert was making a presentation later in the meeting agenda. Schreiber visited with Joe Yenish and discussed his dryland herbicide project. This project resulted in the study being included in IR-4 work. Schreiber also attended a Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association (PNDSA) meeting in Lind, WA and spoke about the WSCPR. Schreiber indicated he felt the site visits are a good practice. Chair Muse asked if Commissioners would like to be involved with site visits. Commissioner response was positive.

Schreiber reported on pending Commission appointments. The paperwork for Ben Barstow's appointment was misplaced and has been re-submitted and action by the Governor's office is expected within days. The food processors group has not identified an individual for the vacancy left by John Shields. Schreiber reported he hoped someone with more involvement in a variety of vegetables could be found.

RESEARCH PRESENTATIONS

Schreiber introduced Tracy Olberding, supervisor of the 2001 Washington Potato IPM program. Tracy Olberding presented an overview of the program: funding sources include WSCPR, Washington State Potato Commission, Syngenta, Bayer Corporation, Dow Agro Sciences, Gowan, and Gustafson; researchers include Keith Pike and Bill Snyder at WSU and Pete Thomas at USDA. Andy Jensen, WSPC, is providing project oversight, Alan Schreiber, WSCPR, is the project manager. The purpose of the project is to improve IPM practices and reduce usage of hard chemicals. The program includes 43 fields for a total of 4,500 acres; this equals 3% of all potato acreage in Washington. Ten cooperators from Paterson to Moses Lake are participating in the study and three scouts are sampling fields twice weekly. The program includes a wide spectrum of potatoes including six varieties and six at planting applications. Ms. Olberding indicated the program was up and running well. Keith Pike, WSU, will analyze the data gathered, Bill Snyder, WSU, will be looking at insect predators, and Pete Thomas, USDA, will perform ELISA testing. Although it is early in the program, some recommendations have been made already, i.e. Actara is no longer recommended for chemigation application. Chair Muse asked how many years the program had been in place. Tracy Olberding responded this was the second year. Chair Muse asked if this would be the last year. Andy Jensen responded there might be another year of study. Alan Schreiber noted last year acreage was 1,500, this year acreage is 4,500 and the size of the program could not increase again. Alan Schreiber indicated although this years results are not finalized, grower attitudes are changing. Growers are shifting away from pyrethroids and following IPM guidelines. The intent of the program is to shift attitudes toward IPM practices and based on current research, growers are changing their approach. Alan Schreiber noted Kurt Volker is involved with oversight of the program. Kurt Volker noted valuable information is being gathered and passed onto growers. Bob Berger asked if any non-chemical approaches were being evaluated. Andy Jensen responded that Keith Pike and Bill Snyder would be comparing hard and soft programs, however, growers were not using non-chemical controls. Kurt Volker noted the timing of applications are optimized by the scouting information and asked if the 4,500 acres represents the industry distribution for chemicals. Alan Schreiber stated it did not and that the program was designed to reflect geographic and variety distribution, and is heavy on insecticides with shorter residuals.

Schreiber introduced Vince Hebert who provided Commissioners with an update on the Guthion-Sevin project. Vince Hebert stated he felt the site visits were very helpful and it was a good opportunity to talk to Schreiber. Vince Hebert noted both WSCPR and the Washington Tree Fruit Commission funded the Guthion-Sevin project, it is a GLP study, and he is responsible for the overall quality of the study. He noted Doug Walsh and Allen Felsot also contributed to the study. Study objectives included development of a model for optimizing spray for both Guthion and Sevin and generating Guthion data for magnitude residue study. The test system design included a three-application regime with detailed blocks and applications. All three will be evaluated for contribution to terminal residues. Vince Hebert stated accomplishments to date for Guthion include field rates are complete, analytical phase and residue phase are complete, three quality assurance inspections have been completed in accordance with GLP requirements. Accomplishments for Sevin include the field phase is in progress and a quality assurance inspection will occur at completion. Vince Hebert stated this is a great study in terms of quality and residue data generated. The study data is well within acceptable range and confidence in the study is high to estimate residues. Study completion dates are on target for residue data. Vince Hebert noted the Sevin work was done under GLP conditions but no protocol was available and the Sevin work cannot be considered GLP.

Chair Muse asked if a market basket survey would be done. Vince Hebert responded the USDA does market basket survey for tolerances. Schreiber noted the registrants do some market basket survey. Doug Walsh noted Vince Hebert's predecessor completed a market basket survey and found residue.

Vince Hebert stated the project will make time deadlines and the final product to the WTFC and WSCPR will be useable for registrations. Schreiber asked when the report would be sent out. Vince Hebert responded that assuming there were no quality assurance problems, the report would be out by September 2001. Schreiber noted the previous years samples were used for the current report and asked when the report for this years samples would be done. Vince Hebert responded by March 2002.

Schreiber asked Shawn McNeil what he thought of the project. Shawn McNeil responded he was interested in the project and the information generated is critical. Herb Teas noted he had talked to Jim McFerson and he was confident in the project.

Chair Muse asked if Commissioners would like to see other reports presented at other meetings. Commissioner response was positive. Herb Teas suggested reports not be presented at funding meetings.

Chair Muse adjourned the meeting for lunch at 12:05 pm. The meeting resumed at 12:45 pm.

DEVELOPMENT OF 2002 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Chair Muse directed Commissioner's attention to the policy and procedure section of meeting notebooks. Schreiber noted a copy of his notes from the last discussion was included for Commissioner's to continue the discussion. Chair Muse noted the last discussion was at the meeting in Wapato. Schreiber stated the Request For Proposals (RFP) is the most important document the Commission generates. Schreiber noted the policy and procedure issues to be discussed are part WSU and part Commission that were brought up during the review of policies and procedures at the Wapato meeting.

Schreiber stated Issue 1 involves whether WSU salary can be used as matching funds. Schreiber stated that state funds could be used as match per Ralph Cavalieri. Chair Muse noted the question was on federal funds. John Brown noted most faculty do not know where salary money comes from. Sandra Ristow noted salary can be paid from state and federal funds. Schreiber noted the Commission is changing the terminology from match to co-funding in the RFP. Tedd Wildman noted the issue goes back four years and the intent of matching funds was to demonstrate good faith or show the level of commitment of the commodity group submitting the proposal. Andy Jensen suggested the RFP state clearly what is acceptable as matching funds. Schreiber stated the Commission needs to decide if the source of matching funds matters and, historically, the Commission has said the source does matter. Ann George noted it is impossible to judge industry commitment to research by one project the Commission sees in one year. Tedd Wildman noted anything outside the scope of the project being evaluated is outside the view of the Commission. Ann George stated Commissioners are smart enough to sense lack of commitment by groups with funds that show only WSU salary as matching on proposal. Bill Green suggested the RFP include a list of criteria and a statement indicating the ability of the commodity group to raise funds may be considered.

Schreiber continued with Issue 2; the WSCPR must define what constitutes in-kind cost sharing. Sandy Christian requested a statement be included in the RFP against the use of research grants for more than one proposal (double dipping) and provided examples of research grants awarded from other commissions and used as matching money. Currently, a copy of the check is provided as proof of matching funds but the check may not be noted as being for our project. Andy Jensen noted the Potato Commission sends monthly payments and has an agreement that lists what payments are for. Chair Muse questioned if funds are co-mingled, whose money gets spent first and should the Commission ask the match money be spent first. Ann George asked for clarification. Chair Muse responded if monies are all spent and the project cannot be finished. Chair Muse questioned if it was enough of a problem to reflect on the RFP. Herb Teas noted a statement indicating the Commission frowned on the use of double dipping. Schreiber agreed a statement noting cost-sharing dollars may not be used for more than one proposal will be included in the RFP.

Schreiber continued with Issue 4; does the source of matching funds matter. Schreiber questioned Commissioners if a shift in Commission policy has occurred. Herb Teas replied source of matching funds does not matter. Joel Kangiser noted it is the discretion of Commissioners. John Brown stated the policy should be spelled out. Schreiber noted if the Commission is going to reject a proposal or give demerits due to the source of matching funds, then the Commission must let researchers know the source of matching funds does matter. Bill Green noted providing matching funds is how grower groups show support for the project, it may be an out of state group, but the Commission needs to look at local support. Tedd Wildman suggested stating researcher salary is not adequate for matching funds. Ben Barstow stated the source of match must demonstrate local demand and local need. Ann George noted the Commission should capture all sources of co-funding to show the legislature as part of the larger picture of Commission impact. Schreiber stated no geographic limit will be placed on the source of matching funds and evidence of local in-state commitment or need be provided by the commodity group.

Schreiber continued on to Issue 6, quality of proposal. Schreiber stated proposals are received with budget figures that do not add up correctly. Schreiber suggested proposals submitted by university staff be reviewed by the appropriate department or extension fiscal agent. Bob Berger suggested adding a block for the fiscal agent to sign. Bill Green noted the appropriate fiscal agent should review budgets whether it is a commodity or university.

Schreiber continued on to Issue 10; establishment of a policy on cost extensions for grant funds. Schreiber stated currently if the project has funding left 90 days out from the end date, the researcher must contact him for an extension. Schreiber noted if the project is largely complete and the extension is justified, the least amount of time for the extension is given. Bob Berger stated if the final project report is done, no cost extension should be given. Schreiber noted 40% of university projects do not have the money spent by the end date. Doug Walsh noted in the past many researchers have been critized for failing to have a final report in and having unspent funds when asking for the next years funding for the project. Schreiber asked John Brown what percent of university grants are spent within budget time frames. John Brown responded very few grants are spent within budget time frames. Doug Walsh asked when researchers are permitted to spend awarded funds. Schreiber responded funds can be spent when the researcher receives the award letter. John Brown responded funds are encumbered for the award and termination dates are adjusted to allow for agricultural work that requires spillover to complete. Chair Muse asked if any action was required. Schreiber responded the Commission expects awarded funds to be spent during the life of the project and extensions may be granted beyond the life of the project under extenuating circumstances. Tedd Wildman noted the Commission was not extending funding, just the time to use the funding.

Schreiber noted two meetings ago the Commission voted to ask Representative Gary Chandler to contact the Attorney General for an opinion on fiscal issues. Schreiber noted there are several issues to resolve including how obligated is the Commission to follow all financial policy and practices of WSU, and what level of tracking matching funds is required. Bill Green noted the summary he made at the meeting at Snoqualmie Pass said the law does make a distinction between FEQL, the Center on Sustainable Agriculture and WSCPR. Bill Green continued other commissions use fiscal agents and these commissions make decisions on how closely to follow fiscal agent policy, and there is no legal obligation to follow the fiscal agents policy. Bill Green suggested asking the Attorney General if he concurs with the Commission's position, present the case and ask for concurrence from legal research, indicate the Commission is just asking for a formal opinion.

Herb Teas noted tracking matching funds is a problem. Schreiber stated tracking matching funds to the level as other funds caused the greatest heartburn. Bill Green noted finding out what policy the Commission can set and what the Commission must to follow, would free WSU from liability.

Chair Muse adjourned for a five-minute break.

Schreiber directed Commissioner's attention to the 2001 RFP and reviewed edits: the date will be August 2001; the last sentence of the first paragraph is deleted (As instructed by the Legislature, Washington State University was named the fiscal agent for funds made available to the Commission specifically for these studies and activities.) Doug Walsh noted a contractual agreement is needed with WSU if researcher is outside of WSU. Kurt Volker suggested changing part of the heading to read: Proposals That Do Not Follow Guidelines Will Not Be Funded. Bob Berger suggested saying: … Will Be Returned To The Submitter", if they do not meet guidelines. Kurt Volker noted if the proposal guideline requires a specific length, why accept any other length, and suggested providing a completed example. Schreiber suggested, "will be returned" as a compromise. Commissioners agreed.

Schreiber continued with the second paragraph on page one noting the last sentence currently states, "The WSCPR intends to allocate 50% of available funds to pesticide registration projects and 50% to integrated pest management and pesticide resistance projects." Schreiber stated the statement was to let people know an effort to balance out pesticide registration and projects that don't move toward registration. Schreiber noted last year 55% of funding went to new mandate, and 45% to old mandate. Tedd Wildman suggested using parity instead. Herb Teas suggested saying 50% to pesticide registration and 50% to pesticide resistance projects not related to pesticide registration. Schreiber noted the purpose of the sentence is to communicate the Commission wants to fund about the same amount.

Schreiber moved onto page two. Bill Green noted the reference to RCW 15.92.010 Section 3 should read RCW 15.92.010 (3). Kurt Volker suggested adding ", etc." to the first sentence of the third paragraph listing examples of affected pest management user groups. Bill Green questioned if a user management group of private households could present a proposal. Schreiber replied a defined user group is not required; user groups could be the registrant for homeowner products, pest control operators, a group of concerned homeowners, as long as the group has a qualified researcher. Bill Green asked if cities qualified. Schreiber replied yes. Andy Jensen asked if the Commission should define what support is required. Schreiber replied support can be a lot of things; email, phone calls, and his preference was to keep the definition open.

Schreiber noted the remainder of page two had no changes. Schreiber stated the last sentence of paragraph one on page three would be reworded. Schreiber noted Assistant Administrator Tracy Olberding would be helping to get more proposals from minor-minor crops (paragraph 2).

Schreiber continued with the last paragraph of page 3 noting no indirect or overhead costs are allowed. Doug Walsh asked for clarification. Schreiber replied, for example, UDSA at Wapato cannot take 25% overhead before the researcher receives the funds. Andy Jensen noted instructions on how to prepare the proposal needs improvement; there is some redundancy to the application form and instructions, reference to the instructions is made but no reference to see the application form. Schreiber agreed to strike out references to filling out the form and refer to instructions.

Schreiber continued with page four paragraph one noting references to matching funds will be changed to co-funding. Commissioners agreed.

Bill Green asked how often travel is required. Schreiber noted two requests had foreign travel; one came back to request travel to allow a graduate student to present a paper and the request was denied due to no benefit to the Commission. Tedd Wildman asked if travel to British Columbia was acceptable. Bill Green noted the State does not consider British Columbia foreign travel. Schreiber replied travel to British Columbia is considered foreign travel by WSU. Tedd Wildman noted all travel be approved. Doug Walsh noted the Commission does not fund travel to professional society meetings.

Schreiber continued with page five paragraph five; "Deadlines", noting proposals are accepted at any time, but must be received 30 days before the meeting the proposal is to be presented at. Current meeting dates for proposal presentations are November 13 and 14, 2001 and January 8 and 9, 2002.

Schreiber continued with page six paragraph one; "Resubmission", noting resubmitted proposals should denote changes using strikeout and underscore features on word processing software. Kurt Volker asked if any format was acceptable. Schreiber replied the preferred format was MS-WORD. Kurt Volker suggested specifying the format in the RFP. Schreiber noted proposals are submitted electronically and a signed hard copy is expected at the meeting the proposal is presented at. Bob Berger asked who submits the project report. Schreiber noted it is up to the commodity group. Doug Walsh suggested the principal investigator or the applicant is responsible for the report. Ann George noted it depends on the project.

Schreiber moved onto the application form. Ann George suggested in block 2, broadening the term pest. Schreiber suggested pest management issue. Bob Berger noted on the application form, page three has WSCPR proposal evaluation criteria and page four has evaluation and selection criteria and stated these are never filled out correctly. Ann George suggested combining both sections. Doug Muse suggested proposals go to the appropriate fiscal agent for review before submission, noting proposals are received containing simple addition errors. Bill Green suggested a signature line. Schreiber agreed to insert a line for signature by the appropriate fiscal agent for the proposal. Bob Berger questioned the budget table on page four of the application form, noting the table shows one fiscal year at a time and the calendar shows more than one fiscal year. Schreiber replied the reason was to show when spending occurs. Tedd Wildman suggested reinforcing the fiscal agent review in the instructions.

Schreiber asked if Commissioners had any other questions. Commissioners did not. Schreiber committed to send a revised copy of the RFP with changes noted with strikeouts and underscores to Commissioners by the end of July.

NEW BUSINESS
Chair Muse asked for any new business. Schreiber replied a new Webmaster would be hired for the WSCPR website. Schreiber review upcoming meeting dates: November 13-14, 2001 at the North Bend Public Library, September 19, 2001 in Leavenworth at the Icicle Inn, January 8-9, 2002 in Portland, March 13, 2002 in Moses Lake, May 9, 2002 in Yakima.

Chair Muse asked for any other new business, hearing none, the meeting adjourned at 3:25 pm.

Return to the Minutes Page

Return to WSCPR