Minutes of the UO Senate 26 May 2010Present:
A. Berenstein, J. Bonine, S. Chakraborty, K. Dellabough, A. Emami, H.
Gangadharbatla, J. Hurwit, M. Jaeger, D. Kennett, H. Khalsa Kaur, P.
Keyes, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, D. Olson, N. C.
Phillips, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, Z. Stark-Macmillan, T. K. Thompson,
N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel
Excused: T. Bars, C. Bybee, T.
Dishion, L. Forrest, N. Gower, C. Jones, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, L.
Middlebrook, J. Piger, L. Reichardt, P. Southwell, P. Walker
Absent: G. Baitinger, C.
Bengtson, E, Chan, C. Ellis, M. Henney, A. Hilts, M.A. Hyatt, K.
Jensen, T. Minner, L. Sugiyama, T. Toadvine, S. Verscheure, P. Warnek,
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the
University Senate for May 26, 2010 to order at 3:03 p.m. in the
Harrington Room of the Jaqua Center.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the May 12, 2010 regular meeting of the senate were approved
as distributed. President Tublitz reminded all in attendance that
the meeting was streaming live by video.
Wayne T. Westling Award for Leadership and Service.
President Tublitz announced that John Nicols, history, was the 2010
recipient of the senate’s annual Wayne T. Westling Award. The
president introduced CAS Dean Scott Coltrane to make the presentation
and provide some remarks about to Mr. Nicols. Dean Coltrane’s
It is my great pleasure today to
present The Wayne T. Westling Award for University Leadership and
Service to John Nicols, Professor of History.
The Westling Award was established by the University Senate in 2001 to
honor faculty or staff who have provided long-term leadership and
service to the university community. Many of you knew
Professor Wayne Westling, in whose honor this award was
named. Professor Westling set the standard of
exemplary scholar, teacher and university citizen. In
giving this award we acknowledge and remember the remarkable
contributions that Wayne Westling made to the University of Oregon and
are grateful for the other dedicated faculty who have followed in his
John joined the University of Oregon’s History Department in 1980 as an
associate professor and has contributed greatly to university life
during the past thirty years. In addition to being an
accomplished scholar, teacher and citizen here at the University of
Oregon, he has been a visiting professor at the Universities of Munich,
Heidelberg, Cologne and Münster. John has been the recipient of
numerous fellowships and research grants from prestigious professional
organizations, including the German Academic Exchange Service, the
Fulbright Commission, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
During the past two years I have come to know John through his service
as both Director of the College Scholars Program and as Head of the
Humanities Program within the College of Arts and Sciences. His
contributions to each have been phenomenal. John has devoted
himself to the success of these two programs with enormous efforts on
behalf of students and countless hours working with faculty,
administrators and donors. John’s hard work and dedication has
paid off in a dramatic increase in the number of College Scholars and
the number of Humanities majors. Students rave about how these
programs have enriched their intellectual lives and awakened them to
John’s service contributions to the university have been long running
and truly extraordinary. Joe Stone, former Dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences was one of several faculty who nominated
John for this award. In his nomination letter Joe stated
“John’s service to our campus is exemplary and represents the highest
ideals of the Wayne Westling Award. In my 30 years on our
campus, I can think of no member of our faculty whose service has
reached across the campus as broadly and profoundly as John’s.”
I fully agree.
The following partial list enumerates John’s service to his department,
to the College of Arts and Sciences, and to the University: Director,
College of Arts and Sciences Society of Scholars, 2006 – 10; Director,
Humanities Program and Independent Study Program, 1991 –present;
University representative to Inter-institutional Faculty Senate
,through 2008; University Classroom Committee 2002- 2005; 2007;
2010; University's Distinguished Scholarship Committee 2010; University
Committee on Courses, 2003-5; Undergraduate Council, Member and
then Chair: 1999-2003; UO Committee on Courses, through spring 2006;
Department Head, Classics 1991- 98; CAS Curriculum Committee,
Member then Chair, 1997-2000; Academic Requirements Committee, Chair,
1994-96; Senate Budget Committee, Member then Chair, 1996-99;
Faculty Advisory Committee, Member then Chair, 1996-98.
Throughout his distinguished career, John Nicols has consistently
volunteered to take on additional duties both in teaching and
service. For example, though a full time member of the History
Department, Professor Nicols served for eight years as head of the
Classics Department. John has also been recognized for his
outstanding teaching. His most recent teaching awards includes the 2009
Williams Foundation Award for notable contributions to undergraduate
education and the 2009 Lorry Lokey Foundation Award for contributions
to digital media (shared with Professor Gregory Bothun, Physics).
It is therefore with great pleasure and deep appreciation, that on
behalf of the University of Oregon Senate, I present John Nicols with
this year’s Wayne T. Westling Award for University Leadership and
Mr. Nicols thanked everyone and noted that he knew Wayne at the end of
his life, when he was on the Faculty Advisory Committee. He also
commented that it was flattering and a real pleasure to be among the
group of Westling Award winners. Mr. Nicols said that many people
begin their academic careers because they seek independence, and he
could attest that he has enjoyed that feeling of independence, although
others may recognize it as a tendency toward orneriness. He added
his appreciation for all the colleagues over the years on all the
committees that were mentioned, who put up with his independent spirit,
and whom he tried to respect as well.
President Tublitz commented that the Westling Award is a faculty award,
but that he intends next year to establish similar separate awards for
officers of administration and classified staff for their leadership
and service recognition in future years. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/WestlingAward.html for more about the Westling Award and past recipients.)
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks by Provost James Bean.
The provost noted that due to the meeting’s full agenda the Diversity
Report was submitted in writing and is posted on both the OIED and
Senate web sites. The provost commented on the amount of progress
made over the past several years, which has been exceptional in
comparison to the previous similar time period; he encourage all in
attendance to read about the accomplishments. Also, the Strategic
Action Plan achieved a great deal this year and represents serious work
done across the university.
Moving on to budget issues, the provost noted that the recent (May)
revenue forecast for the state was down $560 million from three months
earlier. The forecast is the first one since income taxes were
due and there were two surprises. First, profits from businesses
in the state of Oregon went down 80% from reporting the previous
year. It was expected it to go down, but not that much. If
there is no profit by businesses, there is no tax revenue.
Second, tax refunds to individuals went up faster than anticipated, and
the combination of both of these circumstance resulted in revenues that
were far below their original forecast. The state constitution
says the governor must rebalance the state budget immediately, and
because the legislature is not in session, the balancing must be done
across the board. So each agency gets a budget cut in portion to
the size of their budget. Oregon University System has about $31
million to cut. The UO fair share would be about $4.6 million,
but the UO often is assessed at more than its fair share, so we do not
yet know the exact amount to pay back. But with 13 months left in
this biennium, it will be an easier task than the last rescission of
$8.9 million with only 6 weeks to make the cuts. He noted that
some of the money may be used to cover the Oregon Opportunity Grants,
which is a state funded, need-based scholarship fund for students that
are Pell grants eligible. The organization running the Oregon
Opportunity Grants has been recognized as lacking the skills needed to
run such an organization, and they over committed the fund by a large
margin; the UO may be requested to cover the state’s opportunity grant
promises to all of our students. The provost commented that if
the UO must have budget cuts, he would rather see returned funds go to
our students than to other state agencies.
The provost also noted that the White Paper proposal (addressing
funding and operational issues at the UO as part of the OUS) that was
released by President Lariviere in the middle of the month has created
quite a conversation around the state. There is a similar White
Paper by Portland State’s president and Western Oregon’s president,
which along with the UO paper, will be discussed at the upcoming State
Board meeting. One consistency is that every model is not like
anything in place now; everybody believes the current system is
broken. A number of issues are up for discussion and the provost
said he believes we have a good chance in the next legislative session
to get a rewriting of the governance structure of the system.
Clearly the proposal that the UO released had a lot of detailed work
behind it with faculty involved and an outside bond council reviewing
all the work.
During a brief discussion period, the provost noted that the Portland
State proposal is similar to ours in governance structure, but because
they have a special relationship with the City of Portland they would
like the kind of taxing authority that a community college has over the
tri-county area. He added that the UO worked with both
Portland State and Oregon State through the entire proposal development
process. There is the possibility, for example, of having a
single piece of legislation that works for the three “bigs” – PSU, UO,
and OSU -- or all seven institutions, but that has certain changes in
structure that would be for everyone and other parts that would be
flexible for each campus. We are working closely with Portland
State right now. It is a much more difficult question for Oregon
State because, as a land grant university, many of the state-wide
services that they run really are state agency types of
activities. So for OSU to say they are not a state agency anymore
is a much more profound statement than for the UO to say that the UO is
not a state agency anymore. The provost said that the UO is a
state agency in name only. Given that the vast majority of our
financial support is from tuition income, strong development income,
and research grants income, we really do not look like a state agency.
Senator Carla McNelly (multicultural academic success) asked if there
is any plan to add other stakeholders such as classified staff and
officers of administration to the government structure. The
provost answered that those discussions are going on right now.
He said that the president has been meeting with the leadership of SEIU
to determine what their views are with the idea that this is going to
be a partnership, and that the UO will explore what fit is best for all
stakeholders; the White Paper proposal is not about privatization.
With the discussion winding down, President Tublitz thanked the provost
for his comments, and then took a few moments out of the regular agenda
to acknowledge the ongoing contributions of Parliamentarian Paul
Simonds, emeritus professor of anthropology, and Secretary of the
Faculty Gwen Steigelman, academic affairs, who is retiring at the end
of the academic year after serving as secretary for 14 years.
President Tublitz thanked both for their years of outstanding service
to the University Senate and presented each with gifts of appreciation
on behalf of the senate members. Both Mr. Simonds and Ms.
Steigelman gave a heartfelt thank you to President Tublitz and members
of the senate for the kind words and recognition of their respective
Motion US09/10-16b: Conflict of Commitment policy.
President Tublitz explained that the policy statement that relates to
this motion has not yet been written, thus the motion is being
postponed until fall 2010. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-16b.html for text of the motion.)
Motion US09/10-18 -- Academic Freedom Policy.
Senior Vice Provost Russ Tomlin, academic affairs, brought the
following motion to the floor (second by C. Phillips, mathematics):
The University Senate adopts the Freedom of Inquiry policy
and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on behalf of the University.
Mr. Tomlin introduced the motion by saying that the policy it seeks to
adopt comes from a lengthy and thoughtful process that looked at two
complementary issues: academic freedom, and use of campus
facilities. Although stimulated by events surrounding the meeting
of the Pacifica Forum, the policies generated relate to everyone on
campus and all users of campus facilities. The process involved a
working group (M. Skalberg, B. Stilwell, T. Gleason, M. Paris, B.
Smith, K. Stanley, R. Geller, M. Grier, and R. Tomlin) that examined
current policy, researched other campuses’ policies, consulted widely
with campus leadership groups, posted a draft policy on the web for
comment, and previously brought a draft of the policy to the senate for
discussion. From those interactions, the draft policy was revised
again after soliciting more input from the campus community. The
policy under consideration, thus, is the result of many suggestions
that have been heard and incorporated into the policy.
Vice Provost Tomlin acknowledged that some of the policy is drawn from
a similar one at the University of Michigan, which recognizes the
critical importance of ensuring that all parties in the university
community have the opportunity to speak, to be heard if they wanted to
speak, to hear others, and to protest what is said without disrupting
others’ speech. The UO policy tries to be very simple and have a
high standard of public discourse so that individuals have the
opportunity to speak their minds, independent of their status, to be
heard if someone chooses to listen, and to protest with respect.
He noted that if the policy is approved, it would supersede the current
visitor speakers policy.
During a discussion period, there was concern regarding the real intent
of the policy and whether its purpose was to address academic freedom,
or, freedom of inquiry and free speech. President Emeritus Dave
Frohnmayer, law, noted that the policy’s use of the term academic
freedom might be applied in cases that involved academic judgments such
as in promotion and tenure cases, or whether to renew appointments, for
example. Rather, he said he believed the intent of the policy was
to deal with issue regarding speakers, and not from the context of
judgments reached in academic disciplines under the peer review
process. Dean Margie Paris, law school, agreed and said the
policy is about freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech, not academic
freedom. Senator John Bonine, law, then suggested several wording
changes in the draft policy which were agreeable to both Mr. Tomlin,
who made the motion, and Senator Phillips, who seconded the
motion. The policy Title was changed to read “Freedom of Inquiry
and Free Speech” (added text in italics). And, the policy Purpose
was changed to replace “academic freedom” with “free speech”. Two
other changes in the body of the policy included removing “academic
freedom” from the second sentence, and adding a second “is “ in the
first sentence of the second paragraph after the word “and”.
With these changes the revised policy statement reads:
Title: Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech
Purpose: To describe University policy and commitment regarding free speech and freedom of inquiry.
The University of Oregon values and
supports free and open inquiry. The commitment to free speech and
freedom of inquiry described in this policy extends to all members of
the UO community: Faculty, staff, and students. It also
extends to all others who visit or participate in activities held on
the UO campus.
Free speech is central to the academic
mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic
society. The University encourages and supports open, vigorous,
and challenging debate across the full spectrum of human issues as they
present themselves to this community. Further, as a public
institution the University will sustain a higher and more open standard
for freedom of inquiry and free speech than may be expected or
preferred in private settings.
Free inquiry and free speech are the
cornerstones of an academic institution committed to the creation and
transfer of knowledge. Expression of diverse points of view is of
the highest importance, not solely for those who present and defend
some view but for those who would hear, disagree, and pass judgment on
those views. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, and
in any other way despicable, detestable, offensive or “just plain
wrong” cannot be grounds for its suppression.
The University supports free
speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion,
the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of
protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long
as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas.
It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our
community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry
throughout the University community.
Access to UO facilities and space is governed by a complementary policy [Scheduling Use of Facilities].
[The UO recognizes the contribution
made by the University of Michigan policy statements and practice
guides in this formulation of UO Policy.]
With discussion winding down, President Tublitz put motion US09/10-18
regarding adoption of the now revised freedom of inquiry and free
speech policy to a vote, which passed unanimously. With its
passage, President Tublitz indicated the policy would be forwarded to
University President Lariviere for adoption and inclusion in the
university‘s policy library. Lastly, Mr. Tomlin expressed his
gratitude to his colleagues for their suggestions and effort in framing
Motion US09/10-19 -- Facility Use Policy.
Vice Provost Tomlin brought the motion to adopt the revised facility
use policy to the floor for discussion (second by C. Phillips).
The University Senate adopts the Facilities Use policy and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on behalf of the University.
Mr. Tomlin introduced the motion by saying this proposed revised policy
went through the same writing and review procedures that were explained
earlier with the freedom of inquiry and free speech policy; that is,
there was extensive research into policies on other campuses, broad
consultation, and opportunities for feedback and comments. All
faculty responses were incorporated in the revised policy. He
summarized the key points in the proposed policy compared with the
current policy. Essentially, requests for facility use sponsored
by entities which are departments, centers, institutes, regular student
groups, or other recognized academic units, continue to schedule
facility use through the facility’s scheduling manager as they have
done in the past. However, if an individual faculty member,
staff, or student wishes to access UO facilities, he/she must have
sponsorship of an academic entity, and if not, then the access is
subject to facility use request in the same manner as any other outside
community member by going through a university scheduling manager; the
request is subject to the decision of the scheduling manager and is
ultimately overseen by the university administration. Currently,
a faculty member may have access to facility use regardless of whether
he/she has the support of an academic entity for use of the facility or
During the discussion period, Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology,
commented that he approved of the proposed change in policy that opened
up facility access to individuals and not just groups. To a
question of whether an individual would have to be part of the
university community to access facilities, Mr. Tomlin clarified that as
a public institution managing public space the university must allow
reasonable access to facilities. Such requests from the public
would be treated as non-university entities in the proposed policy,
scheduling of facility use would be done by a university scheduler, and
there would likely be a facility use fee assessed as well. Dean
Paris added that the proposed policy is aimed at internal UO use;
non-university users would go to the university scheduler to request
facility use. Next, to a question regarding who in the academic
community might have academic entity sponsorship or not, Mr. Tomlin
explained that academic departments and units each have their own
cultures as to how they manage and schedule their own facilities.
They may have a faculty committee or a department head who determines
internal department use of facilities, for example. Even if a
faculty member is not supported by his or her own department, the
faculty member may find another department that is willing to support
the requested facility use.
There was a brief discussion regarding what appeared to be
inconsistencies in paragraphs number 3 and 4 that were pointed out by
Senator John Bonine, law, who thought perhaps some wording changes
should be made. With other questions posed seeking clarification
on issues such as whether outside academic organizations would have
access to facility use on campus, for example the local chapter of Phi
Beta Kappa, there was a suggestion by Mr. Stahl and supported by
Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, that the policy be referred to the
policy working group again for more work addressing the questions and
concerns raised. Mr. Tomlin responded that the proposed policy
has been posted and available for comment for a considerable amount of
time. He opined that passing the policy now would allow
implementation during the summer and would move the university forward
on the facilities use issue more so than leaving the current policy in
place until sometime later in the fall term. Senator Bonine added
his support for passing the motion to adopt the policy now, saying that
although the policy is not perfect, it is a big improvement over the
policy currently in place. He suggested adding a short clarifying
phrase -- “unless invited by a university entity under paragraph 5,”--
after the first comma in the first sentence of paragraph 6. Both
Mr. Tomlin and Senator Phillips accepted the proposed additional policy
text, so that sentence was amended to read:
university will charge a fee for the use of facilities by
non-university entities, unless invited by a university entity under
paragraph 5, which may include an application fee payable prior to
approval of the use.
With this amendment made, President Tublitz reminded the senators that
any policy passed may come back to the senate for changes at a later
date; the policies are not written in stone and can be revised.
Senator Phillips called for the question, which received a positive
vote. President Tublitz then
put Motion US09/10-19 regarding adopting the proposed facilities use
policy to a vote and the motion passed with two abstentions.
President Tublitz also added that the concerns raised would go to a
senate committee for review and to suggest revisions as necessary, and
if needed it would come back to the senate for discussion. Vice
Provost Tomlin then expressed his appreciation to the senators for
passing the motion and policy and indicated that he would with the
senate committee to achieve greater policy clarity. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-19.html for both the original and amended versions of the facility use policy.)
Motion US09/10-20 – regarding proposed changes to the Student Conduct Code (OAR 571-021-0200 2d & 3b).
Mr. Malcolm Wilson, chair of the Student Conduct and Community Service
Committee, brought the following motion to the floor on behalf of the
The University Senate adopts the following changes in the student conduct code:
Present text: OAR 571-021-0200
2 (d) The requirement to respond
within 14 calendar days, excluding breaks between terms or when the
student is not registered, to arrange a meeting with the hearing
officer. The hearing officer will proceed as provided in (3)(b) if the
Student does not arrange to meet or fails to meet with the hearing
officer as arranged.
3 (b) If after receiving notice,
pursuant to this rule, the Student does not arrange to meeting with the
Director to select an option for disposition of the case within 14
days, excluding breaks between quarters or when the student is not
registered, or if the Student arranges to meet with the Director to
select an option to dispose of the case but does not attend such a
meeting, the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards may
take any of the actions specified in OAR 571-021-0205 or 571-021-0210
for disposition of the case without consultation with or agreement by
Proposed revised text: 571-021-0200
2 (d) The requirement to respond by
the fourth business day after the electronic mail , excluding
University holidays, breaks between terms or when the student is not
registered, to arrange a meeting with the hearing officer. The hearing
officer will proceed as provided in (3)(b) if the Student does not
arrange to meet or fails to meet with the hearing officer as arranged.
3 (b) If after receiving notice, the
Student does not arrange this meeting, or if the Student arranges it,
but does not attend, the Director may take any of the actions specified
in OAR 571-021-0205 or 571-021-0210 for disposition of the case without
consulting the Student.
Mr. Wilson highlighted the proposed changes to the code saying the
change comes down to decreasing the number of days from 14 to 4 that a
student has to respond to, or arrange a meeting with, a hearings
officer once a notice of allegation letter is sent to the complained
about student. Under the present code, a student who receives
such a letter by email from the Office of Student Conduct has 14
calendar days from the date of the letter to respond.
Consequently, if another complaint-worthy behavior by the same student
occurs, there is no good way to deal with the intervening bad
behavior. This has caused a hardship for the administrators of
the dormitories, particularly with underage drinking cases and unruly
behaviors. The proposed change would reduce the response time to
four business days. Student members of the committee agreed that
four days was sufficient time to respond, and the proposed new time
frame would enable the university dorms to respond quickly to
disruptive behavior that does not rise to the level of an
emergency. The procedures by which the complained against student
arranges to meet with the Office of Student of Conduct hearings
officer, and/or appeal the case, remain the same; only the number of
days to respond would changed.
During the discussion period, Mr. Wilson clarified that notices can be
sent to offending students by email or US mail; the email notice is
independently verifiable regarding date sent. Also, a senator
commented that it appeared the words “has been sent” were inadvertently
omitted after the words “electronically mail” in section 2(d); Mr.
Wilson agreed that indeed the words “has been sent” should have
appeared and now were added. There were a few comments related to
whether the offending student would receive the notice of alleged
misbehavior in a timely manner (for example, some US mail may be sent
to a home/parent address rather than to a campus address.
However, Interim Vice President Peter Keyes pointed out the UO policy
that students are responsible for regularly checking their UO email for
any communication from the university.
With the discussion winding down, President Tublitz brought US09/10-20
concerning reducing from 14 to 4 the number of days a student has to
respond to notices of alleged misbehavior to a vote. The motion passed, with one dissenting vote. The revised OAR 571-021-0200 section 2(d) now reads:
The requirement to respond by the fourth business day after the
electronic mail has been sent, excluding University holidays, breaks
between terms or when the student is not registered, to arrange a
meeting with the hearing officer. The hearing officer will proceed as
provided in (3)(b) if the Student does not arrange to meet or fails to
meet with the hearing officer as arranged.
3 (b) If after receiving notice, the
Student does not arrange this meeting, or if the Student arranges it,
but does not attend, the Director may take any of the actions specified
in OAR 571-021-0205 or 571-021-0210 for disposition of the case without
consulting the Student.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Comments from outgoing and incoming ASUO presidents.
Outgoing ASUO President Emma Kallaway noted several accomplishments of
the year, particularly with public safety issues in which campus
lighting was increased and improved, and a number of conversation
occurred regarding ways to further improve safety around campus.
Ongoing issues include videotaping the exits at the EMU, and concern
about students feeling safe when walking to their cars at night.
She thank faculty for their help with the students’ drive to sign on
more voters this past year. She noted, too, that the ASUO will
continue to work on environmental issues and toward more “sustainable”
Incoming ASUO President Amelie Rousseau briefly listed a few goals for
the next academic year. She said the ASUO will be working on
creating a civic engagement minor; it would offer students recognition
in academic credits for their participation in either on-campus or
outside community activities. The ASUO is looking for faculty to
provide feedback on ways to structure such an academic program, and for
a department to sponsor it. Ms. Rousseau also commented that she
was open to dialog regarding the university’s movement toward a
smoke-free campus. On the proposal from the Oregon Research
Institute’s to build on the Riverfront Research Park property, she
noted that she was in agreement with both the Student Senate and the
University Senate in opposing the building development as proposed, so
she will keep an eye on that project. Lastly, she noted that like
many people, she has some questions about President Lariviere’s White
Paper proposal on a new model for university funding and
governance. She concluded by saying that she would like students,
faculty, and staff to work together and will work in the upcoming year
to achieve these goals.
With the business of the meeting concluded, President Tublitz thanked
all senators for their efforts this year, especially those who were
finishing their term of service, and pronounced the meeting adjourned
at 5:07 p.m.
Secretary of the Faculty
|last update 29 June 2010 by ms |