University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

April 14, 1992


    The following minutes were officialy approved on 28 April, 1992.


                               Faculty Senate


                               14 April 1992

                              32 Pamplin Hall


     I.   President Leon Geyer called the Senate to order at 7:00 PM.

          Visitors Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate), John Ashby

          (Spectrum), and representatives of student government

          organizations (see below) were welcomed.  Roll call and

          announcements were held until the program was completed.


     II.  A. Present:  Bunce, Geyer, Marriott, Vinson, Webb, Wright,

          Howard, Wang, Ficenec, Murray, Baumbach (for Snoke),

          Sorrentino, Tideman, Webster, Williams, McDaniels, Brown,

          Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Michelsen, Hardell (for Neu),

          Pierce, Walker, Asche, Gordon (for Jones), Barbeau, Beamish,

          Parsons, Beagle, Norstedt, Carrig, Eng, Saunders, Shires



          B.  Absent:  Feret, Flick, Kerns, Poole, Barker, Falkinham,

          Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Olin, Simmons, Fern, Hicks, Rakes,



          C.  New senators present:  Mullins (Entomology), O'Brien

          (Architecture), Graham (Art/Art History), Scigaj (English),

          Shumsky (History), Armstrong (Electrical Engineering),

          Laudgraf (Engineering Science and Mechanics), Martin

          (Veterinary Medicine).


     III. Announcements


          A.   The draft roster of the 1992/93 Senate has been

               distributed.  Make certain the information,

               particularly the e-mail address, is correct.  Some

               colleges still need to provide alternatives.


          B.   Next meetings


               1.   24 April 1992.  Breakfast with President McComas,

                    7:30 AM, CEC Old Guard Room.  Old and new senators

                    and the faculty association presidents are



               2.   28 April 1992.  Election meeting.  Nomination

                    forms should be returned as soon as possible.

                    Thee elections are especially important since

                    faculty will be chairing the commissions.


          C.   Senate officers met with President McComas on 1 April.

               Among items discussed:


               1.   Faculty representation on the Virginia Tech

                    Foundation Board.  President McComas suggested

                    that President Geyer meet with the chairman of the

                    Foundation Board to discuss faculty involvement.


               2.   Faculty representation on the Board of Visitors.

                    At the August meeting, selected faculty will meet

                    with BOV subcommittees.  Chairs or members of

                    commissions probably would be the most appropriate



               3.   President McComas expressed concern over future

                    legislative support for the university.  SCHEV is

                    going to do a faculty load analysis to assess

                    faculty productivity.  He stressed the need for

                    the university to publicize the importance of

                    research to the state.


          D.   President Geyer attended the April Board of Visitors



               1.   The Board is concerned with the efficiency of

                    management in the university, but is quite

                    supportive of the current administration.


               2.   Tuition was raised, but with some reluctance.


               3.   Approval was given for construction of a parking



          E.   Senate officers met with the Provost on 30 March.


               1.   The Provost supported faculty representation on

                    the Foundation Board but indicated he would not be

                    an advocate.


               2.   He was receptive to the Senates' proposed

                    resolution on domestic travel.


               3.   Regarding executive search firms, the Provost said

                    he would go ahead with his plan to use the firm.


          F.   President Geyer and the secretary met with the faculty

               association presidents on 27 March to discuss how the

               budget review process could be used at the college



          G.   President Geyer met with Charles Forbes and other

               members of the administration to discuss administrative

               costs.  Endowment accounts will be assessed by 1.5% to

               recover money for management, fund-raising, etc.


          H.   An article in the 31 March Collegiate Times contained a

               proposal (from a CSA subcommittee) to include a

               question on student evaluation forms regarding the

               instructor's attitudes on matters of race, sex,

               politics, etc.  While the concerns might be legitimate,

               such a question is open to abuse.  For the time being,

               the faculty will work behind the scenes on this



     IV.  Program:  Student-Faculty Relations


          Speakers: Melissa Byrne, President, SGA

                    Kevin Mottley, President-elect, SGA

                    Tony Townsend, President, GSA

                    Ken Kahn, President-elect, GSA


          A.   Townsend thanked the Senate and the faculty in general

               for their support of graduate students.  He hoped for

               greater communication on objects of joint concern, such

               as an additional seat for graduate students on CSA.

               Enumerating some of the needs of graduate students,

               Townsend discussed better housing, parking privileges

               equal to faculty/staff, reducing tuition costs for ABD

               students (similar to the UVa program), and a more

               competitive wage/benefit/insurance package.  On the

               other hand, the inequities of Virginia Tech -

               particularly the financial inequities - are overshowed

               by the high quality of graduate education at the



          B.   Byrne shared comments, both positive and negative, she

               had collected on students' opinions of faculty.  She

               suggested that the university study those areas where

               graduate students (as opposed to faculty) are teaching

               undergraduates.  She strongly encouraged faculty to

               share their research with undergraduates in their

               classes, which would help the students understand the

               faculty and the university and would improve faculty-

               student communications.


          C.   Mottley pointed out some similarities between students

               and faculty, chiefly that, no matter what the

               perception, neither group has nine-to-five jobs.  The

               students are aware that they are paying for their

               education, and many are considering the quality of

               teaching as a commodity, which can be stressful for

               faculty.  In an effort to improve faculty stamina and

               endurance, Mottley challenged the Senate to a

               volleyball game with the SGA.  Senators can get into

               condition over the summer.


          D.   Kahn, backing Townsend's concerns, referred to them as

               "supportability" issues that could be worked through by

               faculty-GSA cooperation.  In the coming year, the GSA

               will be looking at the role of graduate education at

               Tech, in the state, and nationally.  He asked for

               faculty support and assistance in this endeavor.


          President Geyer thanked the speakers and accepted the SGA's

          volleyball challenge.


          E.   Discussion.


            1.  Tuition, etc.


          Question: How does Tech's financial package for graduate

                    students compare to those of other universities?


          Answer (Townsend):  Because graduate students at Tech are

                    required to pay tuition, the benefits package is

                    about 50% of what a student would receive at

                    "sister" schools.  The tuition waivers were a

                    great idea, but they revert back to the

                    departments for use at the department's

                    discretion.  Most departments use the money to

                    attract new students for the first year, but offer

                    little to graduate students after that.  He would

                    like to see more extensive support for all grad



          Observation:  The College of Architecture and Urban Studies

               proportions the money, giving about 10% for first-year

               students and reserving the rest for second- and third-

               year students.


          Question:  Regarding tuition increases, how much more can

               undergraduates bear?


          Answer (Mottley):  The in-state students seem to be able to

               handle the increases.  The SGA is concerned mostly with

               out-of-state students who come to Tech rather than

               attend a similar institution in their home state; the

               margin of advantage is closing.  SGA is stressing the

               quality of education at Tech in this regard.


          Answer (Byrne):  As an out-of-state student, her tuition has

               increased 40% since she came to Tech.  Had she known

               this might happen, she would not have chosen Tech.

               Students like herself will be continuing to work for

               the bond issue, taking trips to Richmond, etc., but

               they need the support of the faculty to keep attitudes



          Question:  Could the graduate students prioritize their

               concerns?  There might be things on which we could work



          Answer (Townsend):  The most important matter is the

               economic status the students will have when they leave

               the university.  As all costs go up, the debts

               increase.  His and his wife's combined debt will be

               $47,000.  He is afraid this situation may lead to a

               lowering in the quality of graduate students.


          Answer (Kahn):  Graduate tuition has had the highest jump.

               How does this affect the role of graduate education in

               the state?  We have to work on this locally and at the

               state level.


            2.  Role of the faculty


          Question:  In a recent column in the Roanoke Times, Gordon

               Davies assigned a role to faculty that differs from the

               perceptions of some, emphasizing the need for

               universities to support more applied research, as

               opposed to pure research.  What do you think?


          Answer (Townsend):  Given the outside pressures on higher

               education, this is almost inevitable.  Graduate

               students need to be prepared for this, but current

               faculty cannot be expected to change overnight.  There

               has to be a link between what the university does and

               what benefits the commonwealth can derive.


            3.  Classroom and campus climate


          Observation:  Classrooms will be greatly improved over the

               next few years.  This is the first time in Tech's

               history that money has been budgeted specifically for

               improvement in the classroom environment.


          Question:  Many classrooms are marred by appalling graffiti.

               How does this form of communication affect the

               classroom climate?


          Answer (Byrne):  Older classrooms seem to be the most

               abused.  Perhaps the professor should remind the

               students not to make things worse.


          Question:  The graffiti is not just untidy - the comments

               are racist, sexist, violent, homophobic.  Everything we

               attempt to do to improve classroom climate is negated

               by this.  Can the students get a handle on this



          Answer (Townsend):  A lack of respect for property is an

               historic problem with students.  The other problem is

               the thought behind the language on the wall - this

               underscores the tensions existing on the campus between

               races, sexes, etc.  Both organizations are working on

               efforts to identify the tensions and establishing

               methods for defusing them.  The GSA has had little

               success in dealing with the problem and in bringing people

               together.  The climate on this campus seems to be more

               pressurized in this area than at other schools.


          Answer (Byrne):  All student senators were required to

               attend a sexual assault and rape awareness seminar.

               This was a successful effort that included many more

               students than those in SGA.  On campus, however, many

               compare Tech to a stew, rather than a melting-pot.


          Observation:  The new core curriculum supports courses in

               diversity.  If every student were to take courses in

               black studies, women's studies, the third world, and

               the environment, the graffiti would disappear.


          Observation (Townsend):  Students believe that taking

               courses that identify groups as "special" (without

               identifying their own group as special) has, in part,

               created the tensions.  What is needed is a program to

               teach students the common culture of academia,

               including respect, courtesy, dignity, and the like.


            4.  Honor System


          Question:  There's a general perception in the country that

               student cheating is on the increase.  Is the Honor

               System really working?


          Answer (Townsend):  There are separate systems for graduates

               and undergraduates.  The system is successful in some

               areas, such as plagiarism, computer programs, etc.  But

               the Honor Court is not hearing many cases brought

               forward, claiming a clack of physical evidence, even if

               the cheating is reported by several people.  The GTAs

               have little confidence in the system.


          Observation (Byrne):  Why do faculty not report people in

               blatant cheating situations?


          Observation:  When a student was reported for plagiarizing a

               computer program, the Honor Court did not follow

               through because the program was not a significant

               percentage of the student's grade.  When a faculty

               member goes through all the steps and there is no

               conviction in a case like this, it's hardly worth the

               faculty member's time.


          Observation (Townsend):  At UVa, the system was single

               sanction; cheating meant expulsion.  There's a

               different climate surrounding Tech's Honor System.

               UVa, however, has dropped single sanction.


          Observation:  Greater participation in the process might

               clarify matters for the faculty.


          President Geyer reminded the Senate that there will be

          reports from both the graduate and undergraduate Honor

          Systems at the next Senate meeting.


            5.  Athletics


          Question:  Is there any hope of getting the $1.00 per

               student portion of the activity fee diverted to



          Answer (Byrne):  There are two issues:  First, is there

               a need to increase recreation facilities?  Second, is

               too much money going to athletics?  Everyone agreed

               that there was a need for money for rec sports, and,

               according to the Division of Student Affairs, the money

               was there.  It was how the money was spent that was the

               issue.  Athletics is a separate issue.  It seemed that

               the money for rec sports was available, but it needed

               to be reallocated to areas where it was needed instead

               of taxing the athletic portion.


          President Geyer thanked the student panel and Senator

          Barbeau who had suggested the discussion topic.


     V.   Program:  Health Care Issues


          Speaker:  Ann Spencer, Associate Vice President for

                      Personnel and Administrative Services

                    Senator Ed Bunce, Chair, Employee Benefits



          A.   The Senate viewed a state-produced video, "Commonwealth

               of Virginia Open Enrollment 1992," that attempted to

               explain the new Key Advantage system.


          B.   Spencer provided some background to the development of

               Key Advantage.


               1.   The 1991 General Assembly directed a revision of

                    the state health care program.  The objective was

                    to reduce costs through a preferred provider plan.

                    The Governor set up an advisory committee, with

                    consultants, to devise a plan.  There was no

                    representation from higher education on the

                    committee.  The new plan was to be included in the

                    budget package for 1992.  The plan was presented

                    to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations

                    Committee, was accepted (probably because it

                    showed a $64 million saving), put into the budget,

                    and passed.  Most legislators did not realize the

                    plan was included.


               2.   It was not until mid-March that the university

                    began to learn details of the plan, which is to be

                    implemented 1 July.  Spencer contacted the state

                    Department of Personnel and Training to express

                    concerns from the university and the region but

                    found the responses she received were rather

                    unhelpful.  She reported the concerns to President

                    McComas and his staff.  The President, in turn,

                    took these to the Presidents' Council (a state-

                    wide group), Minnis Ridenour took them to the

                    state group of collegiate business officers, and a

                    task force was formed with Ridenour as chair.

                    [Spencer distributed a handout, "Issues Raised by

                    College and University Committee on Health

                    Benefits."  Copies of the handout are available

                    from the secretary.]  The task force encouraged a

                    transitional plan prior to full adoption of Key



               3.   Timing is a major issue.  An equally important

                    issue is the number of physicians who have signed

                    up for the program.  In the Sourcebook list, there

                    are only seven physicians.  The state and Blue

                    Cross, however, have assured the university that

                    there are many more signees.  The university is

                    facing significant problems in attempting to

                    implement the plan, and is receiving little help

                    from the state/Blue Cross.  At the last meeting

                    she attended, she was told by the Blue Cross

                    representative (who could provide no detailed

                    information):  "Trust me, just trust me."


               4.   There was a large rally in Richmond last week in

                    opposition to the plan.  Legislative action is

                    needed to effect change.  The legislature is

                    meeting tomorrow - some action may be taken.  At

                    the minimum, we hope for delayed implementation.


          C.  Discussion


          Question:  What about the issue of referrals to OB/GYNs?


          Answer:   That is one of the major issues.  We are meeting

                    with local physicians on Thursday to discuss this.


          Question: How does one choose a dentist or a therapist?


          Answer:   Any dentist currently under KeyCare is

                    automatically signed on - no referral is required.

                    As to therapist, it is unclear if the same

                    provision stands.  Specialists are the current

                    network of KeyCare physicians, but it is not clear

                    if this applies to mental health specialists.  It

                    would be best if we could continue as we are now

                    until a better implementation plan is designed.

                    Any managed care program requires tremendous

                    planning.  This can't be done by 1 July, given

                    that the plan was only passed last month.

                    Enrollment is to take place in May, just when

                    school is out and the faculty disperses.


          Question: In business, there is often a choice for health

                    care.  Are we locked into the state program?


          Answer:   The state is self-insured; Blue Cross administers

                    the program.  The design of the program is up to

                    the state.  We have no option to go outside.  We

                    have discussed pursuing a separate plan for higher

                    education as a long-term objective.


          Observation:  This plan and KeyCare pays the doctors less

                    less than Medicare.  It's shocking that we are

                    being subsidized by the poor and unemployed.


          Question: Doe the primary care physician dictate your



          Answer:   The plan is to have each patient's care managed by

                    one physician.  Each individual will work with the

                    primary care physician to ensure continued care by

                    the specialist of choice.  But doctors also have

                    major problems with the plan.  We are caught in

                    the ongoing battle between the insurance carriers

                    and the doctors.


          Observation:  If your primary care physician believes the

                    best specialist for you is at Duke, you'll have to

                    pay.  My freedom of choice, and my doctor's

                    freedom of choice is being eroded.  This is



          Question: How are weekend emergencies to be handled?  What

                    about children and other dependents who are away?


          Answer:   The problem of family members living away is on

                    the list of concerns, along with the problem of

                    out-of-state employees.  We have been told that

                    these people can designate a primary care

                    physician in that area.  Also, the primary care

                    physician can be changed once a month.  Emergency

                    care is covered.


          Observation:  According to personnel in a local physician's

                    office, an office visit to the primary care

                    provider in order to get referred would be

                    required.  This would double the paperwork.


          Spencer:  We are all experiencing inconsistency in

                    information.  Even the Sourcebook does not provide



          Question: Great power is being given to the referring

                    physician.  Convenient arrangements, possibly

                    financial, could be made.  Has thought been given

                    to this?


          Answer:   One of the concerns listed is the quality of care

                    that might result from the system.


          Question: Many people have ongoing medical conditions.  Do

                    they always have to be referred by the PCP?


          Answer:   That's what we've been told.  We are suggesting

                    grandfathering of pregnancies and preexisting



          Question: How will this save the state $64 million?


          Observation:  No one has really explained this.


          Answer:   One of the savings (we've been told) is that the

                    Basic Plan will no longer be offered.  The mental

                    portion of Basic was very costly.  We are unclear

                    as to how this will be covered in the new plan.


          Question: Is there any incentive for doctors to sign up?


          Answer:   It's more of a disincentive.  If no doctors sign,

                    Blue Cross designates the doctors.  These doctors

                    get full reimbursement.


          Question: Are there major changes in coverage or benefits?


          Answer:   The benefits are similar to KeyCare, so long as

                    you stay in the network.  If you go outside the

                    network, the penalty is 25% of the allowable



          Question: How does the new plan work with major medical?


          Answer:   There is still major medical as a part of the



          President Geyer thanked Ms. Spencer for sharing her views

          and concerns so openly with the Senate.


     VI.  Adoption of agenda


          The agenda was adopted with the addition of two items:

          Faculty-legislator hospitality and a resolution on health



     VII. Approval of minutes


          A.  Senate Cabinet minutes of 3 April 1992 were accepted.


          B.  Senate minutes of 17 March 1992 were approved with a



     VIII. Council, Commissions, and Committees


          A.  Commission on Undergraduate Studies (Senator Murray)


            1. The meeting of 23 March continued the discussion of W.

               Winstead's proposal to have a moratorium on academic

               policy changes.


            2. At the meeting of 13 April, Joyce Williams-Greene

               presented the report of the Retention Committee, which

               generated much discussion.  The proposed calendar for

               1993/94 was also considered.  The calendar published in

               Spectrum is most likely to be implemented.


          B.  Commission on Faculty Affairs (Senator Murray)


               The proposal on instructors, discussed at the last

               Senate meeting, passed the CFA and will go to

               University Council on Monday.  The initial employment

               will be for one year; subsequent employment will be for

               either one or two years.  There are explicit provisions

               for notification of non-reappointment.  Both the

               Provost and the legal counsel considered that the

               proposal would not give rise to claims of de facto

               tenure and that the university needed to give strong

               support to the instructorate.  The proposal does not

               require a department to follow the policy; departments

               may continue to hire part-time instructors.


     IX.  Unfinished business:  Resolution on Support for Domestic

          Travel, Senate Resolution 1991-1992A (appended to 14 April

          agenda, with minor language changes). (Senator McDaniels)


          The motion was made and seconded to take the resolution off

          the table.  Discussion centered on clarifying who would be

          eligible for the grants, the number of people who might be

          included (probably between 150-250), the amount of the

          awards, the geographic area covered.


          Senator McDaniels accepted two changes:  to change the range

          from "$500-$1000" to "less than $1000," and to drop

          "continental" from "continental USA."  An amendment

          specifying eligibility, "untenured tenure track or

          continuing appointment track faculty who have been at

          Virginia Tech less than five years," was approved, 21-7.


          The resolution as amended passed unanimously.  A copy of the

          resolution is appended to thee minutes.


     X.   New business


          A.  Election of officers (Senator Eng)


            1. Nominations:


               President - Leon Geyer

               Vice President - David deWolf

               Secretary - Marilyn Norstedt


               There were no further nominations from the floor.


            2. The slate as presented was elected.


          B.  Faculty-legislator hospitality (President Geyer)


               Former Senator Hillison attended the spring Alumni

               Association meeting on behalf of the Senate.  He

               reported to President Geyer that, for the Commonwealth

               Day football game (Tech vs. UVa), the Norfolk and

               Southern is running a special train from Norfolk to

               bring members of the state legislature to the game.  A

               concern is the lack of lodging in Blacksburg.  A

               possible alternative would be to have legislators stay

               in faculty members' homes, which could be good PR for

               the university if handled well.  Would the Senate be



               After discussion - some wondered what railway station

               in Blacksburg would be used, others asked it the hosts

               might get complimentary game tickets - there was a

               consensus that the idea was worth pursuing.  A straw

               vote showed approval.


          C.  Resolution on health care (Senator Bunce)


            1. Prior to the presentation of the resolution, Senator

               Tideman responded to Senator Bunce's request that

               someone defend the Key Advantage proposal:  Perhaps the

               intent of the program is to stop people from "wasting"

               health care resources because they cost so little.

               They are unconcerned about medical resources.  The

               state has decided that the way to better manage these

               resources is to have a "gate-keeper," either the PCP or

               the 800 number.  The program is flawed, but it deserves

               attention.  Senator Bunce pointed out that it has never

               been explained how the money will be saved.


            2. After further discussion, Senator Bunce presented the

               following resolution:


             Whereas the primary benefit of a health-care insurance

             program is to protect the enrollee from bearing

             personally the cost of catastrophic diagnostic and

             treatment procedures,


             and whereas the Key Advantage health-care plan will limit

             the choice of both primary care and specialist physicians

             unless state employees are willing to pay a significant

             proportion of medical costs,


             it follows that the Key Advantage health-care program

             will represent a significant erosion of our present

             benefits program since state employees will either have

             to accept the services of enrolled physicians only or pay

             a potentially severe financial penalty,


             therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the

             Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University finds

             the Key Advantage health-care program to be

             unsatisfactory as a sole program and therefore requests

             that the Department of Personnel and Training offer Key

             Advantage as an option to the current programs rather

             than as the single mandatory health-care program.


             Senator Bunce moved acceptance of the resolution.  The

             motion was seconded.


          3. Discussion centered on options and implementation.

             Perhaps specific options should be made.  Should options

             be tied to cost considerations?  This would be difficult,

             considering the constantly developing medical procedures.

             Could we ask that the university be free to look

             elsewhere for an option while details are being worked

             out?  The resolution does not address the problem of

             implementation procedures, even if we have options.


          4. Senator Shumsky suggested two additional clauses:


             a.  Following paragraph two, insert:


                  and whereas adequate procedures have not been

                  developed for the implementation of the Key

                  Advantage health-care plan,


             b.  Add to the final paragraph:


                  and that implementation of the Key Advantage plan be

                  delayed for one year.


          5. Senator Bunce said he was in contact Joan Munford's

             office and would see that the resolution, if passed,

             would be phoned or faxed to her in the morning.  Senator

             Williams moved the Shumsky amendment, which was seconded.

             Discussion centered on whether implementation should be

             included and whether the option was a reasonable way to

             go.  The amendment presupposes the option.


          6. By voice vote, the amendment was defeated.  The original

             motion, to pass the resolution as it stands, passed

             unanimously to Senate applause.


   XI.  There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at

        10:30 PM.

                                      Respectfully submitted,


                                      Marilyn L. Norstedt, Secretary



   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


   Resolution on Support for Domestic Travel,

   Senate Resolution 1991-1992 A:


   Whereas, the funds available for new faculty to travel to

   professional conferences in the last 3-5 years has been severely

   restricted just when these new faculty need to be establishing

   themselves by presenting papers and teaming up with colleagues at

   other research universities,


   Whereas, there are very limited funds available for travel either

   in Virginia or in the USA,


   Whereas, at the start of their careers new faculty especially need

   to establish themselves professionally in order to earn tenure and

   promotion at Virginia Tech,


   Whereas, the Faculty Senate is particularly concerned about

   providing the most favorable climate possible in order that junior

   faculty members can succeed here at Virginia Tech, and


   Whereas, the University has a supplemental grants program to

   support faculty presentations at international conferences and

   enhance the reputation of the University,


   Now, therefore be it resolved by the Faculty Senate, that the

   Faculty Senate President be instructed to ask the Provost to

   continue to request $125,000 for supplemental grants for

   international travel and to include a new $125,000 for supplemental

   grants for domestic travel for untenured tenure track or continuing

   appointment track faculty who have been at Virginia Tech less than

   five years,


   And be it further resolved, that these grants would be less than

   $1,000 for a faculty member presenting an accepted paper or

   presentation at a state or national meeting in the USA.


                            Passed by the Faculty Senate

                            14 April 1992

Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives

Send questions or comments to:

Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:41 EDT