New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: June 19, 2013

July 18, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: August 25, 2013

Hearing Officer: James Walsh, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 19, 2013

Parent of Student — Parents

Dalit Paradis, Esq. Attorney Associated with Partnership for Parent

Children’s Rights, Attorneys for Parents

Parent (by phone)

Educational Director at Parent (by phone)

Parent (by phone) Education DOE

Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 18, 2013

Parent of Student — Parents

Dalit Paradis, Esq. Attorney Associated with Partnership for Parent

Children’s Rights, Attorneys for Parents

Educational Consultant to Partnership for Parent (by phone) Children’s Rights

District and Committee on DOE

Representative

- DOE

(by phone) Conducted – Served on

Principal of DOE (by phone)

The Matter of Bar Aliza K., (hereinafter referred to as “Student”) came before me for determination in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, on June 19, 2013 and on July 18, 2013. At the conclusion of proceedings, Parent’s Attorney and District Representative both requested the opportunity to submit Post-Hearing briefs The request was granted so long as all Post-hearing briefs were submitted to the Impartial Hearing Office Case Manager by the close of business on August 21, 2013. Each party submitted a timely Post-Hearing brief, and each has been read and considered.

The proceeding was initiated by Parent by the filing by the Partnership for Children’s Rights, Parent’s attorneys, of a Due Process Complaint Notice, dated March 29, 2013 and received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on that date (Exhibit A). Parent alleges that District and its Committee on failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2012-2013 school year, in that it failed to appropriately Student, failed to create an appropriate Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) for Student, and failed to recommend an appropriate placement for Student to receive her education program. Parent unilaterally placed Student at the Education for Students (), a private, sectarian, non-New York State-approved educational facility located in , New York. Parent, in this proceeding, seeks an Order requiring District and the New York City Department of Education to reimburse Parent for that portion of the tuition charged by for Student’s attendance thereat for the 2012-2013 school year which Parent paid, and a further Order requiring District and the New York City Department of Education to directly and retrospectively pay to that portion of the tuition charged by it for Student’s attendance during the 20122013 school year that Parent has not yet paid.

Student, whose educational program is under review in this proceeding, is now years months of age, having been born on February 24, 2007. Student, according to the testimony of her mother, was born with

It has been established that Boards of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if (1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parent were appropriate and (3) equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 01-052). Further, the fact that the facility selected by the Parent to provide education services to the Child had not been approved as a school for children with by the State Education Department of the State of New York is not dispositive of the Parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence County School District 4 et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). In both decisions, the Court noted that:

“Parents who unilaterally place a student

in a private educational facility … do so

at their own financial risk”

(see 471 U.S. 359 at 373)

Further pronouncements by various courts expanded the concept of reimbursement to one of possible prospective tuition authorization (Conners v. Mills, 34 F. Supp 3d 795) and even to retrospective tuition payment (Mr. and Mrs. A v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of. Educ., CV 095097 [2011]). However, in all of the decisions expanding on reimbursement, the Burlington Prerequisites were maintained.

Generally, in applying the three-prong standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Burlington and Carter decisions above-cited, it is necessary, in my consideration of the issues presented, that I first determine whether or not the School District offered to the Student a free, appropriate public education. The burden of establishing that it did so rests upon the District (N.Y.S. Education Law§4404(1)(c)). Under the guidelines established by Burlington and Carter, should I determine that District offered Student an appropriate educational program, my inquiry into Parents’ request would cease at that point, for if a district has offered an appropriate program, Parents’ right to the requested relief must be denied. Under the same guidelines, if it is determined that District failed to establish the appropriateness of its program, I must then determine the appropriateness of the Parent’s unilaterally-selected educational facility. The burden of establishing such appropriateness rests upon Parent (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404(1)(c))). Should Parent fail to establish the appropriateness of the unilaterallyselected facility, Parent’s request for relief must be denied. If the unilaterally-selected educational facility is determined to be appropriate, I must, because the awarding of any relief is possible only by an invocation of the equitable powers inherent in the proceeding, then review the equities in order to determine whether equitable considerations favor an award of any relief to the Parent. It is my determination that the burden of establishing that such equities favor an award of tuition reimbursement rests upon Parent.

DISCUSSION

It has been often stated by the State Review Officer (see Application of the Blank, Appeal No. 11-105), that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). However, that is not exactly accurate. For, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at 4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at 10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA as amended, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at 7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

It was further noted by the State Review Officer in the above-cited Decision that an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a , Appeal No. 93-9).17 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 4509089, at *7 [2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2008]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). A school district may be required to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see also20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148). The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving Parent" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). While such benchmarks, garnered from different sources and different courts dealing with various factual presentments, appear to establish varying standards for the basis of determining whether a particular educational program meets the obligation imposed upon districts to provide a free, appropriate public education, I shall employ, in my review and determination of the issues raised in Parents’ Due Process Complaint, the evaluation of whether the program offered to Student by District was reasonably calculated to provide Student with some meaningful educational benefit.

District presented the testimony of School , who presided over the Committee meeting of March 13, 2012 at which the contested I.E.P. was prepared as District Representative and as the School member. According to the I.E.P. (Exhibit O). there were also in attendance Parent; a , a General Education Teacher and, participating by telephone, a Education Teacher , who appears to have been Student’s Teacher at (Exhibit K). According to the testimony of Witness , the Committee relied on his of Student on February 26, 2012 (Exhibit N), his discussion with that teacher at the conclusion of the , the classroom teacher’s Progress Notes and the input from Student’s classroom teacher during the meeting to develop the information contained in the I.E.P. and the recommended placement of Student in an Integrated Co-Teaching classroom (T.R.217).

Parent has complained that the District failed in its obligation to appropriately reStudent prior to its meeting and its development of Student’s education program. Parent points out that the provisions of Commissioner’s Regulations require that:

“A committee on education shall arrange for an appropriate reevaluation of each student with a if the school district determines that the education or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance of the student warrant a or if the student’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation…”

8 NYCRR

200.4(b)(4)) Remarkably, the Committee itself, by letter to Parent dated January 23, 2012b (Exhibit M), advised Parent that, after a review of Student’s current educational and information, it had been determined that additional assessments were required. The letter sought Parent’s consent to such , which Parent provided, dated February 2, 2012. However, despite such finding by the Committee and Parental consent thereto, - and, indeed, pleadings thereafter by Parent that such occur - no was ever performed.

However, while such failure on the part of the Committee to comply with the provisions of the above-quoted Regulations is a clear violation of procedures so mandated, that failure need not constitute a failure to provide FAPE if, as contended by Witness , the Committee had sufficient information regarding Student to appropriately plan her education program. As noted, Witness claimed to have relied on Teacher Progress Reports and the information provided by Student’s then-classroom teacher . Indeed, not only did the Committee rely on the Teacher Progress Report by Classroom Teacher , but the description of Student’s ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT,

FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE AND LEARNIJG CHARACTERISTICS, as appear in

the I.E.P., is a veritable word-for-word recitation of the first page of that Progress Report (Exhibit K) – with but few exceptions. With the description of Student’s capabilities, it appears that the decision was made that Student could appropriately function in an Integrated Co-Teaching class. However, such copying of the classroom teacher’s Report was unfortunately limited to the first page of that Report. On page 2 of the Report, it is stated that:

“

It is my finding and determination that the Committee had insufficient information before it to properly assess Student’s needs so as to properly plan her educational program - and that what information it did have before it was not properly utilized. On that basis alone, it is my finding and determination that District and the New York City Department of Education failed to offer a free, appropriate public education for the 2012-2013 school year.

I also find that the Committee’s determination to recommend that Student receive her education program in an Integrated Co-Teaching classroom was not properly based upon Student’s needs and would have been detrimental to Student’s education program.

Given Student’s limited , as well as her need for constant repetition, Student would have been unable to participate in a class dominated by general education students or have been able to self-advocate. When instruction was beyond her capabilities, Student was in a poor position to request help or convey her confusion. According to the testimony of Witness , Principal of the school to which Student was assigned (Exhibit P), the recommended school had a Integrated Co-Teaching class that was composed of , of which only two were education students (T.R.197-198). Student would have been unable to keep up with the pace of such class, and, meeting with frustration, would inevitably shut down. In essence, I concur with the opinions expressed by all of Parent’s witnesses that Student would be “ and be passed over. Student was in need of a setting that could provide staff and the assistance Student requited to progress.

It is my finding and determination that the education program prepared by District’s Committee on March 13, 2012 failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education.

Having made such determination, it is necessary that I the appropriateness of the program unilaterally selected by Parent as provided by . is a private, sectarian school not approved by the New York State Department of Education. It is a facility that, as its name implies, is a school providing services only to a population in need of education. The school day is divided into a program of Hebrew Studies in the morning, which runs from 8:00 a.m. to 12 Noon Monday through Friday (Exhibit KK) and educational studies in the afternoon, which runs from 12 Noon until 3:45 p.m. Monday through Thursday (Exhibit Z). As described by Witness , the whole Morning Session is focused on Hebrew and Bible stories and the Hebrew Calendar (T.R.130).The Afternoon Session begins at 12

Noon. Student’s academic program is provided in a class with one teacher and three children – inclusive of Student. Student’s Classroom Teacher described the manner in which the class was taught, with much teaching available for Student, as the number of children was remarkably small and with Related Services diminishing the population of the class throughout the afternoon session, as students were removed to attend .

According to the testimony of Witness , different strategies were utilized in addressing Student’s needs, such as repetition and asking open-ended questions (T.R.29-31), scaffolding and visual aids (T.R.35). The classroom has a wall board for developing sight words that uses accompanying pictures (T.R. 30). Witness claimed she was familiar with the Integrated Co-Teaching Classroom (T.R.38) and expressed her belief that such was not an appropriate setting for Student, as such would have been with many students and that Student would have gotten lost and overlooked – in light of Stu

While such appraisal might be accurate – as I have already determined – I have severe reservations regarding the appropriateness of the unilaterally-selected placement made by Parent. Student continues to display serious deficits in her speech and language abilities, which may be exacerbated by having her interactions and discussions during the day limited to a class of only two others, besides herself, and with her teacher. The program unilaterally-selected by Parent must offer a program sufficient to specifically address Student’s education needs. While I have determined that placement in an Integrated Co-Teaching class was inappropriate because it was too big, might not placement at inappropriate because

Moreover, Student’s educational program is severely limited. A review of her class program during the afternoon portion of Student’s program (Exhibit Z), it appears that, on Mondays, Student has . Again, there is . Thus, Student received – during the entire school week - a total of of instruction. It would appear that Parent, in determining the unilateral placement Parent selected to afford Student her education program, concentrated more on the religious or sectarian aspects of the selected placement than on the sufficiency of the education program offered to Student at such placement.

Nevertheless, the program at , as described by her classroom teacher, did afford Student instruction in a setting that, by default, provided a great deal of instruction. It is on that basis that I find that Parent has successfully borne the burden of establishing – barely – the appropriateness of the unilaterally-selected placement of Student at for the 2012-2013 school year.

Having made such determination, it is necessary that I consider whether equitable considerations favor an award of tuition reimbursement or an order of direct payment. It find it egregious that District’s C.S.E. specifically made a determination that it needed additional assessments of Student so that it could plan her education program for the 2012-2013 school year (Exhibit L) and then failed to complete such assessments.

Attention to the completion of such assessments might have obviated this proceeding, by either supporting the Committee’s ultimate placement decision or using the results of such assessments in recommending a more appropriate placement. Parent cooperated with the Committee in consenting to the requested assessments, in attending both the Committee meeting of March 13, 2012, objecting forcefully to the Committee’s decision to place Student in an Integrated Co-Teaching class and, thereafter, returning for a second

Committee meeting in August of 2012 to discuss the same issue. It is my finding that Parent has successfully borne the burden of establishing that equitable considerations favor some award in this proceeding.

The Enrollment-Tuition Contract entered into by Parent and called for a

Registration Fee on Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars; a payment for a Dinner Journal of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars; a charge for Related Services of Four Thousand

($4,000.00) Dollars; and Tuition in the amount of Twenty-Three Thousand Seven

Hundred Fifty ($23,750.00) Dollars (Exhibit DD). I find the charge for Related Services of Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars to be reasonable and shall be included in any payment made to for Student’s placement at that facility for the 2012-2013 school year. I note, however, that the affidavit submitted by , Director of (Exhibit Y) states that Parents have made a payment of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars “to cover the Hebrew part of the day.”. I do not accept such description and find – as stated in the Contract itself – that such payment of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars was the non-refundable Registration Fee. I also disallow Parent any credit for assuming a charge for any Dinner Journal.

In determining the amount of any payment required of the District and the New York City Department of Education, I make no award for the Morning Session of the program, which was described by Witness as “focused on (T.R.130). As the Morning

Session runs from 8:00 a.m. to 12 Noon – four hours - as opposed to the Afternoon

Session, that runs from 12 Noon to 3:45 p.m. - three and three quarter hours - I attribute

52 % of the charged tuition of $23,750.00 – or $12,350.00 – to the Morning Session, and the balance - $11, 400 to the Afternoon Session. However, in determining the amount to be ordered to be paid directly to for such tuition, I have deemed it appropriate to reduce the amount of tuition of $11,400.00 by $1,400.00, in light of my finding that the

Afternoon program provided to Student by was but barely appropriate,. Such results in my finding and determination that District and the New York City Department of Education shall pay directly to the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.0) Dollars for the tuition charged by and Four Thousand ($4.000.00) Dollars for Related Services provided to Student at , for a total of Fourteen Thousand ($14,000.00) Dollars to be paid to , resulting from the unilateral placement by Parent of Student at such facility for the 2012- 2013 school year. I deny Parent’s request that Parent be reimbursed the full amount of

Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars paid to as a Registration fee, but shall allow Parent to be reimbursed 48% of such amount – or the sum of Fourteen Hundred Forty

($1,440.00) Dollars.

ORDER

Base upon the above review, it is

HEREBY ORDCERED that District # and the New York City Department of Education pay to Parent the sum of Fourteen Hundred Forty ($1,440.00) Dollars; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that District # and the New York City Department of Education pay directly to Education for Students () the sum of Fourteen Thousand ($14,000.00) Dollars, representing a portion of the tuition and the provision of Related Services provided by resulting from the unilateral placement by Parent of Student at such facility for the 2012-2013 school year. Dated: September 4, 2013

_______________________

JAMES P. WALSH

Impartial Hearing Officer JW:mv

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”

(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JUNE 19, 2013

A. Parent’s Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 3-29-13 Parent (7 pages; Parents)

B. New York City Department of Education’s Response to Parent Parent’s Due Process Complaint, dated4-5-13 (3 pages; Parents)

C. , dated 11-1-09, by J. Verger, LCSW Parent (3 pages; Parents)

D. , Parent, dated11-19-09 (3 pages; Parents)

E. Parent, dated 11-19-09 (5 pages; Parents)

F. Parent New York, dated 11-22-09 (4 pages; Parents)

G. of Student Parent by of NY, dated 11-24-09 (4 pages; Parents)

H. Student’s I.E.P.. on Parent 1-11-10 (19 pages; Parents)

I. Progress Notes (3) from, Parent Each dated 12-20-10 (3 pages; Parents)

J. Student’s I.E.P. as Prepared on Parent 3-23-11 (17 pages; Parents)

K. Annual Review by, dated January and Parent February 2012 (8 pages; Parents)

L. Request for, dated 1-23-12 Parent (3 pages; Parents)

M. Consent to Parent, dated 2-2-12 Parent (1 page; Parents)

N. dated Parent 2-26-12 (1 page; Parents)

O. Student’s I.E.P. as Prepared by. on Parent 3-13-12 (11 pages; Parents)

P. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 5-2-12 Parent (2 pages; Parents)

Q. Fax Cover Sheet (1); Note from Parent to, Parent dated 8-13-12 (2 pages; Parents)

R. Letter from Parent’s, dated Parent 8-22-12 (2); Copy of First Page of Same (1) (3 pages; Parents)

S. Letter from Parent’s Attorney, dated Parent 8-28-12 (2); Copy of First Page of Same (1) (3 pages; Parents)

T. Copy of Sign-in Sheet from C.S.E. Meeting of 8-28-12 Parent (1 page; Parents)

U. Copy of Present Levels of Performance from I.E.P. of Parent (2 pages; Parents)

V. Copy of Recommended Education Program and Parent Services from I.E.P. of 8-28-12 (1 page; Parents)

W. Request for of Student, dated 2-8-13 Parent (5 pages; Parents)

X. Description of Education for Students Parent (4 pages; Parents)

Y. Affidavit by, Director of, Parent Sworn to on 6-5-13 (1 page; Parents)

Z. Afternoon Schedule for Student for the 2012-2013 School Parent Year AA 4 Student’s Annual Report from for the 2012-2013 Parent School Year, last dated 5-29-13 BB 1 Statement To Whom It May Concern by Parent of, dated 6-10-13 CC 2 Notice of Decision on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Parent DD 2 Enrollment Contract between and Parent for Parent Student’s Enrollment for the 2012-2013 School Year, dated 8-21-12 (by Parent) and 9-6-12 (by ) EE 1 Statement of Expenditures of P.S.# FF 1 Description of GG 1, Parent dated 6-10-13 HH 3 Parent dated 6-10-13 II 2 Parent dated 6-13-13 JJ 7 Copies of Pages from New York City Department of Parent to KK 2 Affidavit of sworn to on 7-21-13 (1); Parent Morning Schedule of Student at – 2012-2013 School year LL `4 Notice to Parent of Scheduling of IEP Parent Meeting on 3-13-12, dated 2-17-12 (2 pages; Parents)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JULY 18, 2013

None