State Allocation Board Increases Developer Fees School Districts are Authorized to Collect

January 2014
Number 10

On January 22, 2014, the State Allocation Board (SAB) approved an inflationary increase applicable to “Level 1” developer fees. Based on application of the Marshall & Swift Eight California Cities Index for construction costs, SAB adjusted the Level 1 fee to $3.36 per square foot for residential development and $0.54 for commercial development. The increases take effect immediately, and constitute a 4.93 percent change over the previously authorized amounts of $3.20 for residential development and $0.51 for commercial. Pursuant to Government Code section 65995, the fee may be increased by SAB every even year. School districts may now take action locally to implement the Level 1 increase.

The SAB increase does not affect “Level 2” developer fees, which must be adopted annually based on a school district’s own School Facilities Needs Analysis. The change also does not affect “Level 3” fees, which school districts currently have no ability to collect. (See Client News Brief No. 44, July 2012.)

Based on this and other legal developments, we are preparing the 2014 update for Lozano Smith’s publication, Developer Fee Handbook for School Facilities: A User’s Guide to Qualifying for, Imposing, Increasing, Collecting, Using and Accounting for School Impact Fees in California. The update will be available shortly. The handbook is designed to assist school districts in dealing with numerous developer fee issues. The handbook can help school districts reduce their legal costs by providing comprehensive information regarding California law and the process for school impact fees. The handbook contains procedures, timelines, checklists, and forms to be used when adopting and implementing fees and/or increases.

At this time, Lozano Smith is continuing to make the handbook available to school districts at no present cost. School districts that previously ordered the handbook will be sent the 2014 updates at no charge.

For more information on the Developer Fee Handbook, or to order a copy, please contact our Client Services department. If you have any questions regarding the adoption or implementation of fee increases or any other developer fee issue, please feel free to contact one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.

Written By

Harold M. Freiman
Partner
Walnut Creek Office
hfreiman@lozanosmith.com

Kelly M. Rem
Associate
Walnut Creek Office
krem@lozanosmith.com

©2014 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

CalSTRS Election Remedy – Frequently Asked Questions

January 2014
Number 9

Lozano Smith has continued to coordinate with ACSA, CASBO and other administrative associations for K-12 and community college administrators regarding the steps that school districts and community colleges should take in response to the August 29, 2012 CalSTRS Circular Letter raising questions about the creditable service of employees in certain administrative positions.

CalSTRS publication of a second Circular Letter on November 25, 2013 provided useful guidance regarding how employers could assist affected certificated employees with filing a Retirement System Election form (ES 372) to ensure that CalSTRS members receive proper credit for service in positions that CalSTRS might determine to be classified and included in CalPERS.

Typically, the Retirement System Election form must be filed within 60 days from the date the employee started in the position requiring membership in another public retirement system. (Ed. Code § 22508.) However, as specified in the November 25, 2013 Circular, CalSTRS is currently allowing employers to use the employer correction statute (Ed. Code § 22308) to file an election form with a retroactive effective date for any employee who was eligible to make such an election in the past but failed to do so because the employer did not provide the employee with the necessary information regarding his or her election rights. Election forms must be mailed to CalSTRS within 180 days of the November 25, 2013 Circular Letter. We recommend that CalSTRS receive all Justification Letters and election forms prior to May 23, 2014.

Following the November 25, 2013 Circular Letter, several questions have arisen regarding procedures for filing the election form, who should file the form, and the required content of the Justification Letter. After communicating with CalSTRS and coordinating with various associations, the following answers represent our guidance to several frequently asked questions:

    • Who should submit the ES 372 Form and Justification Letter?
      The Justification Letter must come from the current employer and the completed ES 372 Form should be submitted with the Justification Letter as an enclosure.

 

    • What is the role of the County Offices of Education?
      Typically, the ES 372 Form is routed through the county offices. We recommend collaborating with your county office regarding procedures for securing appropriate county signatures on the form. Districts should factor in additional time to work with their respective county office and obtain the necessary signatures in time to submit the form prior to the deadline.

 

    • Should an ES 372 Form and Justification Letter be completed for retirees?
      CalSTRS has indicated that forms and Justification Letters for retirees are not necessary at this time. However, to the extent practical, we recommend that districts consider identifying all current and retired employees hired July 1, 1996 or later who may be affected, and prepare ES 372 Forms and Justification Letters for each. Neither the law nor CalSTRS provide clear direction on this issue. Therefore, each district should balance the burden of submitting forms for retirees with the potential future liability of not submitting forms on behalf of retirees.

 

    • What is the proper effective date to be listed on the ES 372 Form?
      The retroactive effective date should be the first day in the first administrative position where service credit may be questioned even if that date is with a prior employer, not the current employer. In most instances, this will be the first date the employee entered a position at the district-office level.

 

    • How much work history should be included in the Justification Letter?
      The work history provided in the Justification Letter should begin with the current position and list all positions the employee held with all employers going back to the last schoolsite level position (i.e., the last position clearly providing creditable service).

 

    • What about employees who worked for more than one employer in a questionable position?
      The current employer should submit one ES 372 Form and Justification Letter for each affected employee, even if the employee held a questionable position with more than one employer.

 

    • What type of statement regarding the reason for the employee’s late election should be included in the Justification Letter?
      The statement in the Justification Letter explaining the circumstances of the employee’s late election does not need to be elaborate. Some districts have expressed concern that using an employer error correction procedure to file a retroactive election form could be viewed as an admission of liability that could be used against it later if the employee initiated litigation. To address this concern and keep the statement simple, we recommend using a statement similar to the following:

      “Without admitting any fault or liability, the District certifies that the member was not offered the opportunity to timely complete the election form because the District believed that the member was performing creditable service in a certificated position and therefore the member was not provided the opportunity to complete a Form ES 372 at the time he/she changed positions.”

    • Can the documents be faxed or emailed to CalSTRS?
      The completed ES 372 Forms and Justification Letter cannot be faxed or emailed to CalSTRS. The original documents must be mailed to the P.O. Box specified by CalSTRS in the November 25, 2013 Circular.

A copy of the CalSTRS Circular can be found here. The required election form (ES372) can be found here. Also see CASBO’s advisory, which can be found here.

If you have any questions about whether your position is performing creditable service work or questions about how to complete the election form, you may contact the CalSTRS Employer Services Helpline at (877) 277-5778 or feel free to contact one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.

Written By

Michael Smith
Partner
Fresno Office
msmith@lozanosmith.com

Thomas Manniello
Partner
Monterey Office
tmanniello@lozanosmith.com

Ashley N. Emerzian
Associate
Fresno Office
aemerzian@lozanosmith.com

©2014 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

False Alarm! CDE Reverses Own Changes to Initial Assessment Timelines, Reinstating Exception for School Breaks Over Five Days

January 2014
Number 8

Uncertainty and confusion developed in October 2013 when the California Department of Education (CDE) stated an intention to change the way initial assessment timelines are calculated. On January 17, 2014 CDE issued guidance reversing that decision and advising school districts to continue to utilize the school break exception to the 60-day assessment timeline, in compliance with the California Education Code.

In California, the timeline for completing an initial assessment and holding an Individualized Education Program (IEP) team meeting is generally 60 days from receipt of parental consent. (Ed. Code § 56043(c).) However, by statute, the 60-day timeline does not include “days between the pupil’s regular school sessions, terms, or days of school vacation in excess of five schooldays.” (Ed. Code § 56344.) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) allows each state to establish its own assessment timeframe. (20 U.S.C. § 1414, subd. (a)(1)(c)(i)(I).) The official comments to the IDEA regulations expressly “decline[] to require that a State-established timeframe be less than 60 days or to place additional requirements on states with timeframes of greater than 60 days . . . .” (71 Fed.Reg. 156, 46637.) California created its own timeline of 60 days, with a tolling period for school vacations in excess of five schooldays and periods between regular school terms. This has long been the initial assessment timeline under which school districts have operated.

On April 11, 2012, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the United States Department of Education issued Letter to Reyes, evaluating the initial assessment timeline in North Carolina. North Carolina had established an assessment timeframe of 90 days and had generally incorporated the timeline exceptions included within the IDEA regulations. Letter to Reyes concluded that the IDEA did not contain an exception for school breaks and, as such, there was no such exception to incorporate into North Carolina’s timeline. Relying on that language, on October 24, 2013, CDE hosted a California Special Education Management Information System Software (CASEMIS) webinar stating “school vacation [was] no longer a valid reason” for not completing an initial assessment within 60 days.

The CDE webinar generated much concern and confusion. Districts wondered how assessments could practically be completed on shortened timelines and questioned the ability to staff assessments during summer vacations. Many wrestled with the apparent conflict between this newly announced rule and the language of the Education Code and sought to reconcile the two. Much discussion ensued amongst the various stakeholders in California in an effort to resolve the discrepancy. CDE sought additional guidance and clarification from OSEP regarding Letter to Reyes and its applicability to the California statutory timeline.

On January 17, 2014, Fred Balcom, Director of the Special Education Division at CDE issued guidance to the SELPA Administrators of California confirming initial assessment timelines will continue to be tolled during school breaks over five school days and between regular school sessions and terms, consistent with the California Education Code. This confirmation officially resolves the concerns faced after the October 24, 2013 webinar. Accordingly, school districts should continue to calculate the 60-day timeline as they have previously. Specifically, “[a]n individualized education program required as a result of an assessment of a pupil shall be developed with a total time not to exceed 60 days, not counting days between the pupil’s regular school sessions, terms, or days of school vacation in excess of five school days, from the date of receipt of parent’s written consent for assessment.” (Ed. Code § 56344(a).)

For further information regarding this or other special education issues, please feel free to contact one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.

Written By

Deborah R. G. Cesario
Partner
San Diego Office
dcesario@lozanosmith.com

Sarah L. Garcia
Senior Counsel
Walnut Creek Office
sgarcia@lozanosmith.com

©2014 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Recent Federal Guidance Details Expectations Regarding Non-Discriminatory Student Discipline

January 2014
Number 7

The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter (Letter) on January 8, 2014, guiding schools on administering student discipline without discriminating against students on the basis of race, color or national origin. The Dear Colleague letter is available here. While “Dear Colleague” letters are non-binding, they communicate details regarding expectations and enforcement under federal laws by the U.S. Department of Justice and OCR.

Notably, the Letter begins with an overview of racial disparities in student discipline and argues that substantial racial disparities evident in research by OCR may indicate that schools are engaging in racial discrimination. OCR’s research also indicates that an increasing number of students are losing instructional time due to exclusionary discipline such as out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Similar findings have been made in other studies, driving recent legislative efforts in California to modify student discipline laws such as Assembly Bills 1729 and 2537.

Administration of student discipline may result in unlawful discrimination based on race in two ways: (1) a student is treated differently based on his/her race (disparate treatment); or (2) whether a policy, although neutral on its face, is administered such that there is a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race (disparate impact). The Letter contains charts depicting the analysis that the Department of Justice and OCR will use to determine if unlawful discrimination has occurred in one or both ways. We highlight below some of OCR’s expectations.

Districts are expected to maintain and produce documentation so investigators can determine whether the administration of student discipline discriminates against students on the basis of race. The Letter identifies the following “non-exhaustive” list of the types of information that investigators have examined when analyzing the possibility of discriminatory discipline: written policies (such as student codes of conduct, parent handbooks and teacher manuals); unwritten disciplinary practices (such as the exercise of discretion by teachers and administrators); data indicating the number of disciplinary referrals to administrators or to law enforcement authorities; discipline incident reports; copies of student discipline records and discipline referral forms; school discipline data broken down by subgroup, offense and other factors; and interviews with students, parents, school staff and law enforcement officers.

The Letter recommends that schools establish a system for monitoring all disciplinary referrals and have a system in place to ensure that staff with authority to refer students for discipline are properly trained to administer student discipline in a nondiscriminatory matter. Districts with significant numbers of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions may want to review their data to determine whether their discipline policies and practices are having unintended discriminating effects.

For further information regarding the January 8, 2014 Dear Colleague Letter, non-discriminatory student discipline, or student discipline in general,
please feel free to contact one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.

Written By

Thomas Manniello
Partner
Monterey Office
tmanniello@lozanosmith.com

Ashleigh Rollins
Associate
San Diego Office
arollins@lozanosmith.com

©2014 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

PERB Clarifies Parameters on Duty to Bargain Mandatory Subjects in Labor Negotiations

January 2014
Number 6

The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) recently held that an employer may not use a “Side Letter” proposal to postpone negotiations on certain mandatory subjects of bargaining until after the parties reach agreement on other issues. According to PERB, such tactics amount to piecemeal bargaining and violate the duty to bargain.

In American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 101(“AFSCME”) v. City of San Jose (“City”) (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, AFSCME filed an unfair practice charge alleging that the City bargained in bad faith through surface bargaining and by adopting a “rush to impasse” strategy. Facing a budget shortfall in 2011, the City sought a ten percent reduction in total employee compensation, including benefits, healthcare, and retirement costs. In the course of bargaining, the City raised the subject of retirement reform but then sought to defer negotiations on retirement benefits until after a deal had been reached on a salary reduction. The City proposed this through a “Side Letter,” tabling negotiations on retirement reform to an unspecified future date, even though it constituted one third of the City’s proposed cuts. AFSCME insisted on including retirement reforms in the negotiations, but the City refused. After twice declaring an impasse, the City imposed its last, best, and final offer (LBFO) which included a 10 percent reduction in overall employee compensation.

A PERB Regional Attorney initially dismissed the AFSCME charge, stating that existing case law allows a party to insist to impasse on a proposal that may not be acceptable to the other party. The Regional Attorney also concluded that the City’s Side Letter proposal – effectively deferring negotiations on the matter of retirement reform – could be lawfully bargained to impasse and then implemented after exhausting the impasse process.

On appeal, the PERB Board unanimously overturned the PERB Regional Attorney’s decision. In its ruling, PERB relied on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases to support its holding that a party cannot refuse to negotiate on mandatory subjects by insisting on a proposal to set those negotiations aside until an indefinite future date. PERB stated that this violated the parties’ “mutual obligation” to negotiate, and eliminates “any meaningful role for the bargaining representative.” (Emphasis in original, citing FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (2012) 358 NLRB No. 96.) While it considered the “totality of circumstances” in the bargaining history, PERB also emphasized that just one indicator of bad faith – such as the City’s refusal to bargain retirement reforms – could be sufficient to allege a prima facie case in an egregious case.

PERB therefore reversed the dismissal of the charge and remanded it to the General Counsel’s office for a complaint to be issued. This notable PERB decision provides further clarity on the overall duty to bargain and an employer’s limits on using the impasse process.

If you have any questions about mandatory subjects of bargaining in labor negotiations, please feel free to contact one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.

Written By

Darren C. Kameya
Senior Counsel
Los Angeles Office
dkameya@lozanosmith.com

Teddy K. Miller
Associate
Walnut Creek Office
tmiller@lozanosmith.com

©2014 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Risks in the New Year: Use Caution with “Agreement Not to Contest Unemployment Benefits” Clauses

January 2014
Number 5

As we enter the new calendar year, be on the alert for “do not contest” clauses included in proposed employment separation agreements. Typically, in these clauses the employer agrees not to contest an employee’s claim for unemployment insurance. Due to a recently enacted federal law, these seemingly benign provisions could potentially leave public entities on the hook for benefits paid into their unemployment tax account as well as significant fines.

The Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act (Act) originally passed Congress in 2011 and took effect in late 2013. The Act’s purpose is to protect the integrity of unemployment insurance claims, in part by requiring employers to respond to requests for information from state unemployment insurance agencies (including California’s Employment Development Department), seeking to verify employee unemployment claims. California law, enacted in response to the Act, allows for employers to lose credit for payments into their unemployment insurance account when “the employer or agent fails to respond timely or adequately in two instances relating to the individual claim for unemployment compensation benefits.” (Unemp. Ins. Code §1026.1.) Further, under California law, if the employer “willfully makes a false statement of representation or willfully fails to report a material fact concerning termination,” the employer and/or the employer’s agent can be fined between two and ten times the weekly benefit amount (up to a maximum of $4,500). (Unemp. Ins. Code §1142, et. seq.)

So how do public entities balance their obligations under existing or potential employment separation agreements with the new legal requirements to avoid any penalties? If you have a separation agreement that contains a “do not contest” clause, you should:

    • Create a clear process for staff to respond truthfully to any inquiries from the Employment Development Department (EDD).

 

  • Update all administrators handling unemployment insurance claims on the heightened reporting requirements and remind them to always be truthful in their responses.

But what if the language in your existing separation agreement limits your ability to adequately respond to EDD inquiries? When in doubt about conflicts between adhering to contract provisions and following the law, you may wish to seek legal counsel to determine how to balance your obligations.

Going forward, if you are considering a proposed separation agreement that contains a “do not contest” clause, you should:

    • Avoid blanket “Do Not Contest” clauses that do not comply with state and federal law.

 

  • Include language in the agreement clearly stating that you will not withhold or misstate any information in response to inquiries from the EDD.

If you have any questions regarding the Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act or compliance with California Employment Development Department rules, please feel free to contact one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.

Written By

Dulcinea Grantham
Partner
Walnut Creek Office
dgrantham@lozanosmith.com

Teddy K. Miller
Associate
Walnut Creek Office
tmiller@lozanosmith.com

©2014 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Unraveling Employer Reporting Requirements Under the Affordable Care Act: What Employers Should Know For 2014

January 2014
Number 4

With the phasing-in of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), employers should be aware of certain reporting requirements that may affect them as early as January 2014.

The ACA contains three different provisions that establish annual reporting requirements for employers.

  1. The ACA amended section 6051 of the Internal Revenue Code to require certain employers to report to employees, on the standard Form W-2, the cost of their employer-sponsored group health plan coverage.
  2. The ACA also added section 6055 and 6056 to the Internal Revenue Code, which require annual reporting to the IRS and the furnishing of written statements to each individual for whom a report is generated. Section 6055 requires information reporting by any entity that provides minimum essential coverage to an individual, and primarily applies to insurers and self-insuring employers.
  3. Section 6056 requires information reporting by applicable large employers regarding health care coverage offered by the employer to individual employees. The definition of an “applicable large employer” under the ACA is an employer with at least 50 full-time or full-time equivalent employees. To determine employer size, an employer must add the number of full-time employees to the number of full-time equivalents. Full-time employees are those that work on average 30 hours of service per week. The calculation of full-time equivalents requires totaling the hours of service for all part-time employees and dividing that figure by 120.

Section 6051 reporting requirements technically became effective in 2011, while section 6055 and 6056 reporting requirements have been delayed until January 1, 2015. When all three provisions eventually become effective, certain employers may be subject to multiple reporting requirements. The IRS is currently working on developing rules and regulations to minimize duplication in reporting for employers that are subject to more than one reporting provision.

Sections 6055 and 6056 Reporting Requirements are Delayed until January 2015

In July 2013, the federal government announced that the sections 6055 and 6056 reporting requirements are delayed until January 1, 2015. This delay is intended to provide time for employers to provide input on reporting requirements, allow for federal agencies to simplify the reporting process, and grant employers time to adapt their health care coverage and reporting systems. As a result, the first reports required pursuant to these sections will cover the 2015 calendar year and will be due in early 2016 pursuant to tax filing deadlines. However, in issuing the delay, the IRS is strongly encouraging employers to voluntarily comply with reporting rules for the 2014 calendar year in order to provide for a smoother transition into compliance with future requirements. Employers may want to take this time to develop systems for collecting the necessary information.

Section 6051 Reporting

In contrast, all employers that were required to file at least 250 Form W-2s for the 2012 calendar year and offer medical benefits to their employees, are required to report the aggregate, or total, cost of applicable employer-sponsored coverage in Box 12 of the Form W-2, with Code DD to identify the amount. Smaller employers may also comply with the requirements on a voluntary basis. This was the rule in the 2012 calendar year, and will continue to be the rule until the IRS issues further guidance or regulations.

Note that as long as the employer offered coverage to an employee at some point during the calendar year, the employer will have information to report on the employee’s Form W-2, regardless of whether the employee is a full-time employee or has a different employment status.

“Applicable employer-sponsored coverage” is defined as coverage under any group health plan made available to the employee by an employer which is excludable from the employee’s gross income under section 106 of the Internal Revenue Code, or would be excludable if it were employer-provided coverage. For example, group medical coverage is reportable, while Archer medical saving accounts and health savings accounts are not.

Employers are not required to report anything on their Form W-3s, the summary page of all Form W-2s issued by an employer. Information is only reported on the employees’ Form W-2s and is purely for the use of the employee, intended to inform them of the cost of their health care coverage. The amount reported is not considered taxable income.

Employers who believe that section 6051 may apply to them must first take steps to determine whether they filed 250 or more Form W-2s for the 2012 calendar year in January 2013. If the employer filed less than 250 Form W-2s for the 2012 calendar year, then the employer is not required to report on health care coverage for the 2013 calendar year. However, if the employer determines that it did file 250 or more Form W-2s for the 2012 calendar year, then the employer will need to identify all reportable coverage plans, calculate their total cost for the year as to each individual employee, and report the coverage on employees’ 2013 Form W-2s.

The amount reported should include both the portion paid by the employer and the portion paid by the employee. This is true even if the employer did not contribute any funds towards the employee coverage. The IRS has provided a number of methods employers may use to calculate the cost of coverage for different plans in preparation for combining those costs into an aggregate amount. The applicability of these methods to employers varies based on the specific circumstances surrounding each employer-sponsored plan.

The IRS “Affordable Care Act Tax Provisions” webpage provides further guidance on reporting requirements.

The rules and regulations implementing the ACA are complex and evolving. For instance, many employers face confusion regarding which employees qualify as “full-time employees” for purposes of the ACA. While some guidance exists on this issue, the IRS and other federal agencies are currently developing rules to simplify this determination and to account for the different categories of employees that do not fit neatly into the ACA’s “full-time employee” definition. If you have any questions regarding the reporting requirements discussed above or any other ACA matters, please feel free to contact one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.

Written By

Karen Rezendes
Partner
Walnut Creek Office
krezendes@lozanosmith.com

Niki Nabavi Nouri
Associate
Walnut Creek Office
nnabavinouri@lozanosmith.com

©2014 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.