To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Georgina Bensted, Derek Biddle, Clive Brain, Dennis Dormer, Maria Edey, Terry Glastonbury, Norman Stephens and Marion Winship.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 24 February 2011 and 2 March 2011.

The minutes of the meetings held on 24 February 2011 and 2 March 2011 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

The chairman identified no items of urgent business.

To receive any declarations of interest in any matter to be discussed at the meeting.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

Cllr Sterry declared a personal interest in items 9.3 and 9.4, as a member of Cinderford Town Council.

Cllr Martin declared a personal interest in items 9.3 and 9.4, as a member of Cinderford Town Council.

Cllr Coborn declared a personal interest in items 9.3 and 9.4, as a member of Cinderford Town Council.

Cllr Morgan declared a personal interest in items 9.3 and 9.4, as chairman of Cinderford Town Council.

Cllr Hale declared a personal interest in item 9.3 as a county councillor.

Cllr Quaile declared a personal interest in item 9.3 as a county councillor.

Cllr Robinson declared a personal interest in item 9.3 as a county councillor.

The chairman announced that she had acquired the royal coat of arms from court number two at Coleford Magistrates Court and it would be displayed during mock hearings for primary schools to be held in the chamber.

She informed members that Mark Harper MP had written to Bishop James offering the chamber to the Independent Panel on Forestry. Members had also all been sent a letter from Jim Paice MP detailing the membership and terms of reference of the panel.

She asked members and officers to consider donating comfort shoeboxes for One Rifles servicemen and women deployed in Afghanistan. She would email a list of suitable contents to include and asked for boxes to be brought to the council reception. She would then deliver the boxes to Beachley barracks

The chairman is pleased to announce that two of the Council’s officers Lisa Bailey and Marsha Llewellyn have been nominated for the Heart of Gloucestershire Community Awards. 

The chairman announced that two of the Council’s officers Lisa Bailey and Marsha Llewellyn had been nominated for the Heart of Gloucestershire Community Awards. 

The chairman is pleased to announce that the Council has been awarded the South West Charter for Member Development.  The award will be presented at a ceremony in Bristol on 9 June.  The chairman to thank Julie Jones, Democratic Services Manager, for her contribution in helping to achieve the award.

The chairman announced that the Council had been awarded the South West Charter for Elected Member Development.  The award would be presented at a ceremony in Bristol on 9 June.  The chairman thanked Cllr Quaile and the Member Development Group along with Julie Jones, Democratic Services Manager, for her contribution in helping to achieve the award.

The chairman to thank retiring members for their service to the council and the community.

The chairman announced that the following councillors were not seeking re-election on 5 May:

Councillors Peter Amos, Richard Long, Georgina Bensted, Clive Brain, Dennis Dormer, Nikki Goodlad, Des Saunders and Venk Shenoi.

She thanked them all for their service to the Council and their local communities and wished them well in the future.  She recorded her personal thanks to Cllr Long for his help and support and the many civic occasions where he had represented this Council over the last four years.

As most members knew, this was her last meeting as Chairman, and she would be handing over the chain of office to a new chairman at the Annual Meeting on the 26 May, when she would make her formal farewell. She reflected that it had been a huge honour to represent the council at many civic occasions and to chair Full Council meetings, which had at times been challenging. She thanked all members and officers for their support and friendship, particularly those who would not be here at the Annual Meeting in May.

She wished those standing again and all other candidates well with their election.

Cllr Edwards wished to thank Cllr Amos for his leadership, under which the council had achieved great things. It had moved from being a failing council to being able to hold its head high on its own terms. She wished Cllr Amos well in his move to support his wife in Aldershot and thanked him again for all he had done for the council.

Cllr Gardiner praised Cllr Saunders for being a council stalwart for many years, becoming almost the father of the council. He had worked hard for his ward and for the British Legion. Cllr Gardiner had great respect for his work in raising money for the poppy appeal and he was a great ambassador for the council and for the British Legion.

Cllr Hogan paid tribute to Cllr Brain, who had been ill for some time and who had been a councillor since 1979. Cllr Brain was a polymath, who knew the forest and its history well and was also a skilled designer. He was enthralled with the area he grew up in, and the council would be a poorer place without him. He was a loyal member of the Labour Party, but always put his principles first.

The chairman said that she too would miss Cllr Brain and would never forget his kindness to her when she first joined the council.

On behalf of all the council’s staff members the Head of Paid Service thanked all members for working together with staff through a challenging period. She wished all current members the best for the future and looked forward to working with returning and new councillors.

To answer questions asked by members of the public. The constitution requires that questions are received three working days before the meeting (deadline 4.00pm on Monday, 11 April 2011.

Question 1

The following question has been received from Mrs Barbara Jenkins Woodgate Bungalow Parkend Walk Coalway Coleford Glos Gl16 7JS

Bearing in mind that the Forest of Dean is an important tourist area which has recently been a focus of action nationally, with great publicity, how are the District and Town Councils, which represent this area, working with the Forestry Commission and local people to make the area more attractive?

Visitors cannot fail to notice the mess created after the wild boar have churned up the road sides and the areas tourist attractions.  What efforts are being made to repair the damage, consulting all agencies concerned?

Response from the Cabinet Member for the Environment, Councillor Martin Quaile

I should like to thank Mrs Jenkins for her question – and I agree wholeheartedly that the Forest of Dean is an important tourist area. 

There are a number of ways in which this Council is seeking to make this beautiful area more attractive. For example, we are working with other organisations across the Forest to launch a clean-up campaign aimed at reducing litter throughout the District and encouraging people to keep the area clean.  Our aim is to involve the whole community in this, including schools. As a council we also have people working very hard to keep the area clean in the four main towns on a daily basis and across the district on a rotational basis.

I acknowledge and understand your point about the damage done by wild boar, but this is a matter for the landowner. I understand that the Forestry Commission will be undertaking some landscaping at Beechenhurst. 

Finally we are working with the Local Action Group and a wide range of partners across the District, including representatives from the 4 towns, to seek funding for a project titled Forest Welcome, which is aimed at improving the image of our Towns and Villages and supporting their businesses to improve the visitor and shopping experience.  Two particular strands of work would involve cleaning our road signs and planting bulbs at key town and village entrance points.  All this is in addition to the public realm improvement work going on in Newent and Cinderford.

I hope this shows our commitment to promoting the Forest of Dean District as a great place to live, work and visit.

Supplementary question

The questioner said that events such as the Mushet exhibition of the previous week had been difficult to advertise. She recognised that the current notice boards belonged to the town councils but asked when the district council would ensure that there were adequate, accessible boards for advertising public events.

Response from Councillor Quaile

Cllr Quaile replied that the council would take on board those comments and would consider what could be done about it in the future.

To consider report EDP.39, the Cinderford Area Action Plan.

Cllr Molyneux, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, presented report EDP.39. He explained that the plan had already gone through three consultation stages and was now at the point of pre-submission. The final six-week period allowed for any final comments and amendments before submission to the Secretary of State, planned for July 2011. It was hoped to publish the plan at the same time as the Core Strategy, since they were complementary.

Cllr Morgan commented that the plan was a long time coming. He welcomed the report, saying that it contained a good action plan for developing a brown field site, which would allow Cinderford to stand on its own two feet.

Cllr Molyneux proposed and Cllr Edwards seconded the motion.

RESOLVED – to endorse the Cinderford Area Action Plan (Northern Quarter) for publication and submission to the Secretary of State.

Voting was as follows:

For (38) – Marrilyn Smart, Roger Yeates, Venk Shenoi, Carole Allaway Martin, Jane Horne, Frankie Evans, David Easton, Grace Bensted, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Alastair Fraser, James Bevan, Keith Aburrow, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Philip Burford, Nikki Goodlad, Des Saunders, Arthur Thomas, Dave East, Andrew Gardiner, Mike Meredith-Edwards, Heather Dalziel, Sue Henchley, Roy Birch, Paul Hiett, David Thomson, Bruce Hogan, Lynn Sterry, Max Coborn, Graham Morgan, Di Martin, Terry Hale, Denis Riley, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Peter Amos, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile,

Against (0)

Abstained (0)

To consider report LD.341 relating to revisions to the constitution.

Cllr Amos, Leader of the Council, presented report LD.341 explaining that it dealt with four issues.

He believed that with a busy work programme constitution changes should only come to Full Council once rather than be delayed.

The publicity and politics protocol followed national guidelines and was required by all councils.

The future of scrutiny task group had spent considerable time considering the structure proposed in recommendation c) and it was right that the new council should consider the points under recommendation d).

The national standards regime did not fit with the notion of localism, but the Localism Bill would not be enacted until 2012. There was therefore a need to ensure that a committee was in place under the present regulations until that point.

He believed that all changes in the report would represent improvements to the operation of the council.

Cllr Long commented that in his experience the formal structure of the standards sub committees was inadequate and he could not vote in favour of recommendation e).

Cllr Shenoi expressed the belief that scrutiny was one of the most important ways for lay members to challenge decision makers. He thought that scrutiny had not been independent and had been used by decision makers as a management consultant. He hoped that Democratic Services Officers would ensure that new scrutiny members would be inducted not to be trodden over.

Cllr Hogan asked if members would be able to vote on each recommendation separately, so that they could express their views.

The chairman agreed.

The following bullet point in recommendation d) was corrected to reflect a change made by the joint scrutiny committee and not transcribed in the report.

From That the chairman and vice chairman be from a different political group for the O & S Committee and for each sub committee/working group

To That the chairmen and vice chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and sub committees/working groups should reflect all political groups

Cllr Amos closed by reiterating that recommendation d) was for the new council to consider and he expected that there would be deep debate on the issue.

Cllr Amos proposed and Cllr Quaile seconded the motion.

RESOLVED –

a)      To amend Part IV Article 12 of the Constitution to delete the words ” and will stand adjourned without discussion until the next ordinary meeting of full council” from paragraph (a) and paragraphs (b) and (c) in their entirety.

b)      To adopt the Publicity and Politics Protocol set out at annex A to form part of Part VI of the Constitution.

c)      That Article 8; Chapter 4, Part IV; Chapter 3; Part V and Appendix 15 of Part VI of the Constitution be revised to provide for one Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee with up to 15 members with the combined terms of reference of the current Corporate and Community Scrutiny and Review Committees.

d)      To recommend to the new Council for consideration at the first meeting of the new Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee after the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This Council notes that the  DEFRA ‘s Forestry Policy Panel membership was announced by the Environment Minister, Caroline Spelman on the March 17^th 2011.

Therefore the Council  to  continue to press for the Panel to meet in the District at the Council's offices to enable local people and local experts to give evidence direct to the Panel.

We recommend that the Forest of Dean  District Council should provide evidence itself to the national  Panel in support of protecting and maintaining  the heritage and small commercial woodlands in the  Forest of Dean and surrounding areas and that  an advisory group  be  established to advise the Council on how best to present its case based on the membership of the delegation which visited the House of Lords & Commons January 17^th and for this advisory group  to again include Council Officers.  

Cllr Gardiner proposed and Cllr Martin seconded the following amended motion.

This Council notes that the DEFRA Forestry Policy Panel membership was announced by the Environment Minister, Caroline Spelman on the March 17^th 2011.

Therefore the Council will continue to press for the Panel to meet in the District at the Council's offices to enable local people and local experts to give evidence direct to the Panel.

We recommend that the Forest of Dean District Council should provide evidence itself to the National Panel in support of protecting and maintaining the heritage and small commercial woodlands in the Forest of Dean and surrounding areas and that an advisory group be established and agreed by members at the Full Council meeting in May 2011, which can then advise the Council on how best to present its case. The group should be based on the membership of the delegation that visited the House of Lords on January 17th to again include Council Officers.

Cllr Fraser reminded members that it was not for this council to tell the next council what to do.

Cllr East welcomed the motion, praising Cllr Gardiner for his work on this issue. He said that the council needed to continue the fight regarding the matter.

Cllr Hogan supported the motion, but pointed out that to recommend the panel comprise delegation members made assumptions about the outcome of he impending local elections. He agreed that it would be essential for the new council to put forward its view, although he would be astonished if it differed from that of this council. He suggested that the phrase regarding the delegation to the House of Lords be removed. He said that the more local groups putting their views the better, to represent the community at large.

Cllr Gardiner accepted the suggestion.

Cllr Morgan totally supported the motion, commenting that it was imperative to recommend to the new council to carry on the work already begun.

Cllr Robinson clarified that he had discussed the motion with Cllr Gardiner before the meeting, hence the inclusion of the sentence regarding Full Council’s agreement in May 2011. The new council would confirm the membership of the panel.

Cllr Burford fully supported the motion. He was concerned over the practicalities of getting the national panel to visit the district and suggested that members write now individually to each member of the panel inviting it to visit the district.

Cllr Aburrow suggested for the incoming council using the words ‘passing on the torch that has been carried so well by this council’.

RESOLVED - This Council notes that the DEFRA‘s Forestry Policy Panel membership was announced by the Environment Minister, Caroline Spelman on the March 17^th 2011.

Therefore the Council will continue to press for the Panel to meet in the District at the Council's offices to enable local people and local experts to give evidence direct to the Panel.

We recommend that the Forest of Dean District Council should provide evidence itself to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.1

To recommend that, following the local elections in May 2011, a scrutiny committee consider carrying out an urgent investigation into the impact wild boar are having on our environment and tourism. The investigation should consider the health and safety implications of the devastation of the grass verges, particularly those in the council’s ownership.

Cllr Sterry proposed and Cllr Morgan seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Introducing her motion Cllr Sterry emphasised that it was not about the boar per se but about the damage. She asserted that all authorities involved seemed to have accepted the status quo and no one was accepting responsibility. She remembered the outcry and immediate action when the verges had become overgrown after the removal of the sheep during the foot-and-mouth epidemic. She had visited Gloucestershire Highways to ask what it was doing about the verges now and about how it worked with the Forestry Commission (Forest Enterprise), but had received no response. Residents and members were privileged custodians of the forest and the council was right to promote tourism. However people should be able to walk along the roadside verges safely without the need for pavements, which she believed were unwelcome. The authorities had a duty of care and could be heading for claims from tourists and residents with ankle injuries caused by the uneven verges. The problem was not confined to Beechenhurst, but there was continual damage everywhere. The council itself was responsible for the verges in its industrial estate at Forest Vale. To do nothing was not an option; action was needed immediately.

Cllr Hale, who had chaired the task group considering this issue, said that one of its recommendations was to review the situation every six months. Kevin Stannard, Forestry Commission, had agreed and had been to a recent scrutiny committee meeting. The Forestry Commission had very recently published a draft management plan for consultation. The plan mentioned damage, considering its impact dependent on how close to people’s lives the boar came. He also stated that a survey concluded that tourists and residents wanted the boar to stay. He proposed a friendly amendment, which Cllr Sterry accepted. The amended motion reads as follows:

To recommend that, following the local elections in May 2011, a scrutiny committee consider carrying out an urgent investigation into the impact wild boar are having on our environment and tourism. The investigation should consider the health and safety implications of the devastation of the grass verges, particularly those in the council’s ownership.

To recommend that the council write to the Forestry Commission and Gloucestershire Highways requesting them to inform the council how they are responding to the impact wild boar are having on our environment and tourism.

Cllr Gardiner said that it was a good motion, which did not ask for the boar to be moved. He suggested that the boar be ringed.

Cllr Shenoi pleaded for tolerance towards other creatures and an appreciation of the forest landscape. The council should not be anti-boar or anti-sheep.

Cllr Horne suggested controlling boar movements using pepper.

Cllr Hogan commented that the council needed to ensure that a balanced management plan was achieved. He recognised that it was difficult because the boar lived closer to humans than in other European countries and had become less wild. He asserted that since most of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.2

To request assurance from Gloucestershire County Council that it will not deplete the local service any further by closing the Cinderford Register Office, centralising registration services away from the Forest of Dean.

The motion follows the removal of all registers from the Forest of Dean Register Office to the Gloucester archives, resulting in no replacement certification production in the Forest and another loss of a local service.

Cllr Coborn proposed and Cllr Martin seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Introducing his motion Cllr Coborn said that he hoped that all members would support it. He was concerned that registration was being pushed to Gloucester, possibly leading to the loss of another local service, as had happened with the courts. After pressure, Cinderford Town Council had obtained some forms to request replacement certificates, but staff could not give the same level of advice that was received at the register office. He felt sorry for people who had just suffered bereavement, needed several copies of the death certificate and had to travel to Gloucester to receive a more impersonal service.

Cllr Aburrow expressed his full support for the motion and sympathy with residents in that situation.

Cllr Aburrow proposed and Cllr Easton seconded that the motion be put to the vote. Members agreed by a show of hands.

RESOLVED - To request assurance from Gloucestershire County Council that it will not deplete the local service any further by closing the Cinderford Register Office, centralising registration services away from the Forest of Dean.

The motion follows the removal of all registers from the Forest of Dean Register Office to the Gloucester archives, resulting in no replacement certification production in the Forest and another loss of a local service.

Voting was as follows:

For (39) – Marrilyn Smart, Roger Yeates, Venk Shenoi, Carole Allaway Martin, Jane Horne, Frankie Evans, David Easton, Grace Bensted, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Alastair Fraser, James Bevan, Keith Aburrow, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Philip Burford, Nikki Goodlad, Des Saunders, Arthur Thomas, Dave East, Andrew Gardiner, Mike Meredith-Edwards, Heather Dalziel, Sue Henchley, Roy Birch, Paul Hiett, David Thomson, Bruce Hogan, Lynn Sterry, Max Coborn, Graham Morgan, Di Martin, Terry Hale, Denis Riley, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Peter Amos, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Richard Long

Against (0)

Abstained (0)

That, should an underspend be identified following reconciliation of the council’s accounts in June, the cabinet consider an additional £10,000 be given to the Forest of Dean Citizens’ Advice Bureau due to the ongoing increasing demand for their services in these difficult times and that the grant to the youth workers’ network be increased to reflect the same level of grant as other SLA providers (15 per cent reduction on the 2010/11 level).

Cllr Martin proposed and Cllr Thomson seconded the motion as at the agenda.

Introducing her motion Cllr Martin said that she had been a member of the cross party Portfolio Support Group (PSG) that had considered grants to community organisations. She had also attended the scrutiny meeting that had considered the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) petition, when the CAB had presented a convincing case for more funding. She recognised that the council would consider funding in six months’ time and that the Cabinet were looking at ways supporting the CAB in kind. She hoped that if money could be found it would be used to help in a time of ever increasing demand for the CAB’s services.

Cllr Riley, Cabinet Member for Community, expressed support for the motion. He informed members that the Cabinet had agreed the recommendation from the joint scrutiny committee. He said that the cross party PSG had set priorities defined by the sustainable community plan, which recommended grants no higher than one third of an organisation’s total income. The work had been undertaken in the knowledge that the council had to make savings of £175,000 in its community services. Decisions about reorganisations and cuts had not been made easily. The PSG did not want to recommend any cuts in grants. After consideration, which included interviewing all organisations with a service level agreement with the council the PSG’s recommendations were unanimous.

Cllr Horne supported the motion, but pointed out that Age Concern also offered advice to its clients.

Cllr Molyneux asked for clarity on how the motion would be dealt with by the Cabinet alongside the recommendation it had already agreed earlier that day.

The Head of Paid Service replied that this could form part of the review that the Cabinet reported back to Full Council.

In supporting the motion, Cllr Amos reminded members that the council had given the CAB an extra £10,000 previously to help with increased workload and needed to remain flexible to respond to changes. However he reminded members that in the medium term the financial situation would not improve and the council would have to find significant savings, while still meeting its obligations.

Cllr Burford said that the cross party PSG had no independent members. The CAB still received a substantial grant compared with other organisations. He believed that the council should look first to helping the Youth Workers’ Network, which represented the future of the district. He added that the council should look carefully at other expenditure, citing the agenda pack for this meeting, which contained 120 colour pages.

Cllr Amos replied that members would not have been able to make sense of the maps in the Cinderford Area Action Plan document in monochrome. It had been money well spent for members to understand this important issue.

Summing up, Cllr Martin said that she had been remiss in not mentioning the Youth Workers’ Network, which was equally important. She reminded members that there had been an open invitation to join the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.4

Why is it that someone can serve as a District Councillor and a County Councillor at the same time, when it could lead to a conflict of interest?

Why is it that someone can serve as a District Councillor and a County Councillor at the same time, when it could lead to a conflict of interest?

Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Peter Amos

I would like to thank Councillor Ede for his question, which does highlight that this Council has been very well served over the last four years by several councillors who have also served on the county council. This has given us an additional opportunity to influence the county council  and to strengthen the vital links between the County , the District and the Forest of Dean communities we serve.

The basic rules for local elections do allow individuals to be elected as both district and county councillors and indeed to also serve as a parish councillor.  In my view this provides an additional opportunity to enhance partnership working across local government and more scope to influence decision making and hold decision makers to account. Whilst multi membership may lead on occasions to a potential conflict of interest, our member code of conduct provides a clear framework to regulate such matters. All councillors are trained in these issues and have to complete a public Register of Interests giving full details of any external body they belong to and any office they might hold there.  They have to publicly declare those interests when ever this Council discusses anything to do with those other bodies. They are prohibited from speaking or voting on these matters if a prejudicial interest arises.

I hope this deals with any concerns Councillor Ede may have.

There was no supplementary question.

The Leader of the Council and the chairmen of the scrutiny committees to report on recent activities, followed by questions from members. Depending on time the Chairman will rule and only take one question per member relating to reports.

a)     Cabinet – Councillor Peter Amos

b)     Community Scrutiny and Review Committee – Councillor Terry Hale

c)      Joint meeting of the Community and Corporate Scrutiny and Review Committees – Councillor Len Lawton and Councillor Terry Hale

Cllr Hiett referred to paragraph regarding land in Bream on agenda page 181. He asked that letters to interested parties concerning sale of council assets be sent in a more timely way. On this occasion there had not been enough time to raise issues at the relevant Cabinet meeting, despite discussions with the Leader.

Cllr Amos replied that he was sure the new Leader would take the point on board.

Cllr Birch asked why there was no mention in the Cabinet report of the GO project, one of the most important initiatives being undertaken by the council, which would have a massive impact. He asked for a complete update.

Cllr Amos answered that the Cabinet had not considered any issues relating to GO during the period covered by the report. He asked Cllr Birch to approach the relevant cabinet member, who would give him a full update.

Cllr Morgan referred to the final paragraph on agenda page 181. Having also read minutes of the Alliance, he wondered if the council could have secured more than £4.5 million if the council’s representative had attended more Alliance meetings.

Cllr Burford referred to the Report relating to the section 106 debate at the joint scrutiny meeting on 17 March 2011 set out on the agenda at page 185. He said that when he had raised the issue, he had been assured that it would come back to Full Council for further debate. He would like to debate certain inconsistencies that he had unearthed since the scrutiny meeting.

The chairman pointed to the last sentence of the resolution from Full Council at agenda page 184, asking for the scrutiny recommendation to be passed to Full Council, which it had been.

The Solicitor advised that with the chairman’s consent, Cllr Burford could propose an amendment to the report.

Cllr Burford asked why it did not warrant a full report as a separate agenda item.

Cllr Hiett alluded to previous reports where members were only allowed to ask questions and not to debate.

The Solicitor suggested that the Constitution Working Group consider the issue as a procedural matter. In her view recommendations to Full Council did not have to be separate agenda items, they could be contained as part of a Report back.

Cllr Hogan said that the recommendation from the scrutiny committee needed to be agreed by Full Council. He added that it could not simply be hidden away, but should be clearly marked as a separate item for debate.

Cllr Molyneux confirmed that the scrutiny report at the agenda was to note and asked if the council was therefore accepting the recommendation.

Cllr Kirkpatrick said that it would have been helpful to have report LD.332, which contained the detail presented to the scrutiny committee.

Cllr Burford repeated that there were several points of fact to be debated before Full Council voted on the recommendation. He did not believe that responses given on 12 January had been adequate.

Cllr Smart said that either Cllr Burford  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.