National Youth Commission; Umsobomvu Youth Fund Strategic Plan & Budget 2006/07

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS (JMC)
01 June 2007
NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION; UMSOBOMVU YOUTH FUND STRATEGIC PLAN & BUDGET 2006/07

Chairperson: Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC)

Documents handed out:
National Youth Commission Strategic Plan 2007/8 – 2009/10 presentation
National Youth Commission Strategic Plan 2007/8 – 2009/10
Umsobomvu presentation
National Youth Commission website
Umsobombu Youth Fund website

Audio Recording of the Meeting Part1 and Part2

SUMMARY
The National Youth Commission briefed the Committee on their strategic plan and budget. They laid emphasis on the National Youth Policy that they were working on as a means of improving youth development. They had also engaged with departments in ensuring that each of them participate in youth development and in monitoring the implementation of youth related programmes.

The Umsobombu Youth Fund in their briefing on strategic plan and budget, noted that they had also been working with government departments as well as the private sector to help mentor young entrepreneurs. Concerns raised by members dealt with the marketing and branding of these institutions so that the youth were made aware of their work and the opportunities they created.

MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed National Youth Commission (NYC), the Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) as well as Treasury representatives that were there as observers.

Mr B Mkongi (ANC) pointed out that they had received the NYC documents only the day before and they had no documents yet from the Umsobomvu Youth Fund. The Chairperson asked that presentations be sent well in advance so that the members could prepare.

National Youth Commission
Ms Nomi Nkondlo, the Chairperson of the National Youth Commission, noted that the new Chief Executive Officer had started her office that very day and so Mr Elrico van Rooyen, the former Acting Chief Executive Officer until 31 May, would be doing the presentation. She said that the opportunity of a joint planning session between themselves and the Committee would be very useful in order to gain insight into the work of the NYC and assist the Committee in the oversight role that they were playing. As NYC continued with the policy and institutional reviews, they wished to brief members on the process undertaken and where they were in terms of the policy. Their theme for this June month was “deepening youth participation in development through service” and they requested Members of Parliament especially those of this Committee to avail themselves and participate in the series of activities that NYC were organising across the country. She promised they would send a detailed programme to the Committee and also suggested names to be deployed.

Mr Elrico Van Rooyen, former Acting CEO, spoke on the National Youth Commission Strategic Plan 2007-2009 and the Budget. The Strategic Plan outlined the core mandate of NYC and challenges in the youth sector and how NYC would address these. The Strategic Plan would be their guiding tool for the next three years. They have linked their mandate to their strategic objectives. He gave a summary review of the budget but promised that a detailed explanation would be sent. They had received R20.614 which was a million extra. They would need more money to deliver on their programmes. The 2006/07 budget included the money they had received from Flemish government, which was about R1.3 million.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked about the youth policy document. They had referred to the policy review and she needed more clarity on that and how that impacted on their work for 2007.

Ms J Chalmers (ANC) referred to the strategic plan, saying they had many objectives but it did not come across clearly what they were doing to put these strategies into concrete action. Were there provincial offices and if so, how did they make use of national office and what would they do to assist youth in their various constituencies? She resided in the Karoo, which was a remote area, where over 90% of the youth were unemployed. She wanted to know what skills the NYC had looked at and how far the research was and what was it showing about the status of youth. Would they have access to the research and the results?

Ms Mazibuko (ANC) commented that the bulk of the NYC budget went to salaries instead of programmes. She would like them to unpack their goods and services and would such a budget be able to carry out the work load? She hoped they would attach costs to the strategic plan so that the Committee would get a better understanding. Research had to be ongoing because things changed on a daily basis. You need to know how much you would have to put towards different aspects. Furthermore what were they doing in terms of marketing the Commission, as it did not appear on the budget? Youth needed to understand the work they do. She wanted to know if they have expanded their offices into the rural areas and also employment opportunities. They needed also to unpack the organisational culture.

Mr A Madella (ANC) noted that they highlighted research as a problematic area as one needed human resource capacity to deal with this. Had this been taken included in the current budget being presented. He was failing to pick out a specific emphasis or focus on disabled youth. Youth was referred to in general and disabled youth got lost in the general approach.

Mr M Moss (ANC) noted that the new CEO had not given a presentation and hoped that the NYC would not follow the trend of the previous youth commission. The Youth Commission since 2002 had embarked on a programme with young offenders and wanted to know if there had been any progress and were there enough places of safety or genuine improvement. In terms of education and training, they had met UWC students who explained funding as being a problem. He asked if the NYC assists youth to make a breakthrough with the Education Department and access funds, especially for disadvantaged students. The Department of Labour and Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) did not seem to be effective. There should be a shift to the old apprentice system. The Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA) project had taking off but was there meaningful progress?

Ms Nkondlo explained that they had decided that the former CEO be the one to do the presentation, as he had been involved in the planning from the beginning on the programmes and the new CEO would participate in the discussion "as she started a week ago but was appointed into office yesterday".

Mr Van Rooyen replied that the Strategic Plan looked at strategic focus areas, where they would like to see the NYC in the next three years and outlined the key focus areas. The next step was where key strategies were costed in terms of operations. The budget looked at a broad range of issues in terms of strategic focus. How the strategic plans were put into action normally depended on the operational plans that were linked to one's performance management system and staff performance contracts but had not included that content and he apologised for that. He agreed with the member, that the budget was higher for salaries than for the actual programmes but they should also take note that NYC was not an implementing agency hence the small budget. The government departments implement programmes on NYC's behalf and so the budget does not necessarily reflect programmes except for local government programmes, which they drive. They were understaffed, over worked and some underpaid.

They were constantly losing researchers and policy analysts as the government departments pay more than NYC. They were already spending 60% on salaries and if they increase salaries to retain researchers and policy analysts, then it would be difficult to allocate more resources - yet they were understaffed. The researchers and policy analysts use the NYC as a springboard into government. The National Youth Service (NYS) was a National Presidential Project and they had submitted in a previous budget to beef up that unit as they had a leading role to play as the NYC but they did not get the budget from Treasury. They had one person in the unit yet they had to coordinate 18 government departments to unlock NYS opportunities. They had engaged with Presidency on this as they had limited resources. They requested such a budget, which they did not get, and so the limited resources. If they could be more effective at monitoring programmes, they would need a fully-fledged Monitoring and Evaluation System (MNE) unit, to monitor effective implementation programmes.

Mr Van Rooyen mentioned that the NYC budget was not sufficient to address all the needs and specific programmes they would like to implement in redressing imbalances which would need a specific budget. They get the budget to do policy work but not to implement programmes and yet they were expected to do so by parliamentary committees. They normally had a research agenda and the operational plan in the policy and research directorate in the last financial year was allocated R1.4 million. The provincial youth Commissions operate independently from the National Youth Commission but they work in close co-operation with the provincial youth Commissions through the Chairperson and CEO forums. They interact with the youth mostly through the imbizos and they mobilise the youth in voicing their concerns. They want to utilise the youth stage forum.

Ms Nkondlo said that in terms of communication and how to reach out to young people, they integrated their work through available interaction mechanisms of government, which had been mainly through the imbizos. She named instances of these this year such as Sedibeng, the Solomon Mahlangu High School in the Eastern Cape and Central Karoo. They engaged with the youth about the challenges that face them, such as teenage pregnancy, opportunities available for them and so forth. Their communication strategy had improved through their website and they also had a Youth Information Society and Development Programme. This was formed through a committee last year, from the NYC and Presidential National Commission (PNC), to evolve a youth strategy that would look at programmatic areas. It would be launched on the 15 June 2007in the festival with the Communications Minister and provides access to information about services that would help youth with the challenges they were facing.

They had engaged with Umsobomvu Youth Fund to evolve a memorandum of understanding to further integrate the kind of information provisioning they provide. The NYC currently had its own call centre as an access point for young people who were referred to the appropriate service points. One of the challenges of this service provisioning was that the various youth initiatives had separate call centres which might cause some confusion. However, they were thinking of integrating the two so there was one central point and one website with information they could utilise. Minister Pahad last year had instructed the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) to work closely with the NYC to ensure the information they had be sighted in Vukuzenzele and you will see a chapter on NYC and other youth programmes. There were a series of activities to make sure young people get information on how NYC work was pursued. Through strategic interventions, they were working now to ensure concluding the new National Youth Policy. They would make policy recommendations where there were weaknesses, so that the problems encountered in the previous youth policy were addressed.

Based on the results from the Convention last year, a submission was made to the Cabinet lekgotla about an integrated youth strategy that responded to the specific challenges raised by honourable member Mr Moss. Together with the Policy Unit within the Presidency and Youth Desk there had been critical appraisals to look at how government departments had individually responded. They sent questionnaires to establish what departments were doing in relation to the concerns raised by the youth at the convention. For example, on access to education, the transformation and re-capitalisation of the Further Education and Training (FET) colleges was one of the things implemented by the Education Department and the President spoke about this in the State of the Nation Address. The government’s program of action for youth development priorities also speaks to this particular area of re-capitalising FET colleges and ensuring the relevance of the skills obtained there to meet the needs of the economy and meet the targets of the Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA) and Accelerated and Shared Growth initiative for South Africa (AsgiSA). Some of these questions were incorporated and expressed in the work done by the departments. The NYC together with the Education Department had a youth directorate to ensure work done was streamlined so that the NYC could continue to monitor implementation of their particular programmes. They had made proposals from the convention to Justice and Safety cluster on a campaign to help young people not to engage in criminal activities. The NYC currently engages with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and adopts a youth crime prevention strategy. All national Departments were working with NYC on specific programmes.

Ms Yolisa Makhazi, the NYC CEO, suggested that one of the gaps related to key programme implementation. The challenge of the Commission was ensuring the resourcing of youth development by government and maybe they should outline the challenge they face as the commission in terms of resources. One needed to understand the NYC function as that of lobbying, advocating and generating policy advice to government on a wide range of youth issues and also representing them at different levels of government to ensure youth development remained a key public policy issue. The state should be prepared to spend on that. They were in the process of looking at restructuring. A large amount was spent on staff due to the coordinating nature of their work. They know they should strengthen their research and policy capacity and so would have to work on this issue.

The complaints raised about the NYC spending more on salaries than programmes should also be understood within the context that the NYC was not there to fund youth development. That was not the role of the UYF either, as it was an intervention aimed at controlling economic participation of young people. Those students should note that there was the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) which was a decisive intervention of government to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds with funding. One of the victories of youth sector was the Department of Education extended funding to FET colleges to deal with issues around apprenticeship etc. Departments should account on how they integrate youth development into their programmes and how they were delivering because the NYC only monitored programmes. She suggested that they would need to identify some of these departments on how they were integrating youth development and also it was critical that they appear before this Committee to account for how they ensure delivery to young people.

In terms of the policy process they were engaging in a policy review. The outcome they want was a youth policy that would be adopted by government. The JMC was encouraged to see how best they could engage with this policy review. There would be consultation via public hearings on this review and they would have to engage with the JMC and key departments. By mid July they want to have a draft ready to be presented to the social cluster of departments and then to Cabinet.

The Chairperson asked the draft policy to be emailed so that members could read it.

Mr Mkongi thought the policy review and institutional review was the major task of the NYC this year and they would have to be dedicated to it, if they really want it to be adopted in August 2007. He raised his concerns about the JMC committee being involved in this process at the eleventh hour.

Three years ago in the NYC strategic plan, there was mention of a review and a process of realignment for the Commission and he wanted to know what had happened to that process. The process outlined capacity challenges and a lack of uniformity of approach. There was a need for the institution to be guided nationally. The national commission was going by invitation to the provincial youth commissions instead of popularising it in terms of outreach programmes. The issue of realignment as it related to information services, integration of call centres had been raised years ago. The presenter had mentioned these were still underway whereas that was said years ago. He asked what the constraints were. All these youth entities should be reached under one integrated system with integrated information services and programmes and this would solve issues of capacity. There were other structures that were doing similar work, research and that were not accountable to the NYC and sometimes competing with NYC.

The NYC spoke about budgetary constraints in their presentation and they could lobby Presidency and so forth but what should be the role of Parliament in that regard because the Committee had to intervene on the budget. He noted constraints in the Act in terms of fundraising by the NYC and if they get donations, what were the policy implications in term of the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA). Where would the commission account for money they receive from external donors.

He was not sure whether the imbizos were effective for the Commission. It was a waste of resources for the NYC to fly to Bloemfontein, talk for fifteen minutes and have the youth report for thirty minutes. He asked what the NYC would like the Committee to do as it was a joint committee of NCOP and NA. He asked if the national youth service was functional and what the constraints were. Were they reaching the targets as outlined in state of nation address and what were the challenges. He asked if the NYC still had the “yellow book” which had the youth development strategic plan of each department - it was be a useful tool in terms of a monitoring and evaluation system. This was in reference to the suggestion that departments should account and report to the JMC. He discussed the effectiveness of the interdepartmental committee on youth affairs and departmental implementation at a strategic level.

Ms P Bengu (ANC) asked the NYC whether they monitor the provincial Commissions. Did they have a database to collect all information on youth matters such as on unemployment. What were they doing to make young people understand the initiatives of JIPSA and AsgiSA?

Mr Madella was disappointed by Commissioner Van Rooyen’s response on strategic responsibility as they were also supposed to include the disabled youth especially because they were the most marginalized. They did not appear in the strategic plan and his response did not reflect on that. His response spoke of imbalances and money. If it meant they needed an additional budget for something he thought they were mainstreaming, this needed clarity. The CEO had referred to NSFAS but youth were starving at educational institutions as they had bursaries that did not cover food and. Students were not progressing at these institutions, there was a high failure rate and they did not have food to eat. He would like NYC to address these challenges. He also asked about the level of interaction or understanding with local governments. Commissioner Van Rooyen had mentioned some kind of interaction with these. In Cape Town the mayor had cancelled all June 16 activities. Did the NYC have a relationship with the municipalities, particularly Cape Town. It was important to have such a relationship.

Ms Mazibuko asked if the NYC had set up relations with other youth units like Umsobomvu. She suggested that if there was a vocal youth focus in Parliament, this would help address some of the difficulties facing the youth such as exclusion at and NSFAS students having to pay a deposit first which some did not have. They could make proposals to the relevant departments about effective implementation and holistically addressing youth issues. Some youth do not have the relevant experience and this was the reason for not getting employment. They could ask departments to provide internship programmes and other such proposals.

Ms Chalmers suggested that a presentation on programmes and progress would be very helpful.

The Chairperson asked about the criteria the NYC used to pick the provinces where they do outreach. She noted a request she had received from someone who works in Lavender Hill on the Cape Flats, where children do not know about any jobs other than working at supermarkets and were not aware that they could go further than that or of the services available to them. She spoke of the challenges for disabled students and the lack of emphasis on tuition for disabled youth. The Department of Labour used to give bursaries to disabled youth but now they had cut that out and gave these to postgraduate students. Most disabled youth did not make it to tertiary institutions and this remained a challenge.

The NYC Chairperson replied that people with disabilities raised the issues that the Committee Chairperson raised, at their last imbizo. A recommendation had been made in this regard. She would support the issue of a youth focus in Parliament. Monitoring the provincial youth commissions and the extent the provinces respond was done through the coordinating mechanism of the Chairpersons forum. They would have a lekgotla where they agree on priorities and align the work of the Commission and the priorities of the provinces with that of government. The Commission not only worked during the June youth month but the entire year and they had visited all nine provinces. Issues of young people, access for those in rural areas, disabled people and women and all vulnerable groups were looked at. At their next meeting with the JMC, they would provide a report of what was happening in the provinces as the provincial Commissions give them an update every month which they would integrate as the NYC. They would refer to the provinces the questions raised by members, so that they could also respond.

She acknowledged the importance of the establishment of youth focal points at local government level. They were engaging with the DPLG to raise this particular concern as local government was close to young people. They needed to sure the rollout of local youth units across municipalities. At national level they had sent questionnaires to departments and suggested that a youth directorate be established in the offices of the Directors General but some did not see the need for a youth directorate. She spoke of the Project Partner Team as the coordinating body for proper implementation of the national youth service. Concerns had been raised around coordination and in the national youth service strategic workshop they had decided to have a national steering committee, which would be convened and chaired by the NYC Chairperson. That structure takes place at a provincial level and the youth service would account to the steering committee and departments would be invited. The national steering committee would be accountable to the inter-ministerial committee that was chaired by the Deputy President. Ministers also form part of these meetings. Departments were engaging in this work although the challenge was resources and budget for the programmes to be implemented. The Commission would look at the suggestions made by the JMC and try to improve on the concerns raised. In maximising research, they had approached the HSRC.

Ms Makhazi replied that they were allowed to fundraise in terms of the PFMA and one of their partners was the Flemish government. They were allowed to fundraise but had to follow a certain procedure. They were accountable to both government and funders. They did not have the necessary money and people to organise massive imbizos like the departments did, but they had negotiations with departments on joint-planning initiatives with youth friendly departments. The government programme itself was focusing on people in rural areas and there would be an effort to leverage this niche to make an impact in involving young people.

Mr Van Rooyen further mentioned that these programs were directly linked to their strategic objectives as the Commission. In spite of challenges they were partnering with different institutions, to develop youth programmes and they could bring to the JMC a detailed programme and their key partnerships. He mentioned some of these such as working on the issue of racism in schools and an anti-drug campaign and sport.
In June they would be launching a social dialogue and look at intervention strategies for disabled youth and the content of bursaries. Most bursaries had been shifted to postgraduate studies. They would make a submission to the education department to make provision for bursaries for disabled youth and they would like to involve the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons (OSDP) to support them in making that submission. Key to the consultation process was mainstreaming the needs of disabled youth.

The Chairperson thanked the NYC and said that they would like to hear a report on their programmes and operational plans plus updated information on the provinces with regards to youth development. They would like to have monthly or quarterly reports. They had not seen a breakdown of the budget and this was important so they could be able to address the programmes in the light of this. She was happy that the Commission was embarking on a dialogue with disabled youth and would like to see a report on that dialogue in due time. She hoped the JMC could get a draft of the policy framework so that they could give feedback.

Umsobomvu Youth Fund Presentation
The CEO, Mr Malose Kekana, gave an update on the previous financial year’s targets, strategy and budget. He noted the concerns raised by the JMC at their previous meeting about access in general and support for people with disabilities. Their strategy tried to link young people to employment and helped them in terms of self-employment and the national youth service. They had graduate programmes to help youth gain skills so that they get employment such as how to use a computer and obtain a drivers licence. They teach young people in schools and out of schools and also provided access to procurement opportunities. They had also introduced a volunteer mentorship programme in order to give business support. The UYF had always used intermediaries and they were never on the ground and they had had to consider having a service delivery channel. There would be an additional 30 advisory centres in partnership with municipalities. He also spoke about discussions with the Justice Department about alternatives for young offender and preventing recidivism. They were two months into the new financial year and some of the programmes were already occurring.

In their volunteer mentorship programme, they had partnerships with private companies and business people in communities who volunteered to assist the young entrepreneurs. They raised money from government and the private sector to support young people. Corporate social investment was something they would have to tap into. Their weakness had been not having a well-organised plan on how to respond to young people with disabilities, but they were now working with organisations work with people with disabilities, to cater for their needs. The youth advisory centres provided information and counselling. The UYF was also thinking of having a ”take a disabled child to work” campaign similar to that of the “girl child”. They were hoping to improve the youth service as not much had been done. Corporate programmes were weak, as they did not have a structure.

The UYF budget for this year was approximately R400 million although they would have liked more. 80% was going directly to product support for young people. Most capacity building was meant for rural areas. Communication was one of the areas they had invested in as a direct result of criticism they received about this. He mentioned the launch of a programme dealing with business development support on 10 June.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked where the separate monies received from government and private sector was reflected in their budget. What kind of assistance do you provide for child headed homes? She asked about tax compliance of the small businesses and the young entrepreneurs that UYF assisted.

Ms Chalmers asked if the provincial constituencies could be navigated on the website and asked for details of interventions and what they consisted of. It would be useful to have a map of how everything was operating through the provinces.

Ms Mazibuko stated that going through the documents she could not pick up over the MediumTerm period how much they were getting. What was the budget requested for this financial year as they kept on referring to interest but the breakdown shows that they would overspend? Furthermore, what were the requirements of the PFMA and did the UYF not abide by it and thus inhibit under spending or over budgeting? He had mentioned that they had budgeted 64 million for the national youth service, and were targeting 18 government departments and she wondered if the departments had not budgeted for this themselves and what role did the departments play.

Mr Madella asked if the NYC should not merge with the UYF. He asked for clarity on the figures in the comparative analysis of the two different budgets. He was also interested to know where the advisory centres were located.

Mr T Setona (ANC) commented that the UYF had lots of work but they were clouded by number of factors in society. He wondered if the UYF could be the panacea for youth unemployment and lack of skills. In terms of branding, had they communicated with government as to what their mandate was as the UYF. What initiatives had they sponsored that were sustainable? In terms of outreach in the rural areas, they needed to have programmes to mobilise in those areas. He asked if they had a database of service providers that identify with their core mandate in the various provinces, so that they were not seen as a Johannesburg based agency but a national one. He wanted to know about their relationship with government on Small Medium Enterprise (SME) development so that departments would report also on what the UYF had done where they had integrated their initiatives across the provinces. This would impact on UYF marketing. He asked where the UYF projects were based and what their communication strategy was like.

Mr Kekana showed the members the UYF website in addressing Ms Charmer’s question and they had translated it into Pedi and Zulu to make it user-friendly, but were also looking at other languages and accessibility for people with poor vision. He apologised that he did not provide a cash flow statement showing the funding that they had from government and the private sector. They received R400 million from government for this financial year. Money from the private partnerships they put into a separate account, and it would go straight to what had been approved. The need for support to vulnerable children was increasing and they had worked with an organisation called “Big brother, big sister”. It was an approved national association of community care workers programme in partnership with the South African Council of Churches that would help recruit people from churches to help children in child-headed homes. They were trying to move away from enterprise individual focus but rather look at enterprise development and what you provide to the entrepreneur. When people come to UYF for support, they insist on tax compliance. They wanted to make sure that a person’s taxes were in order. To clear the confusion, he said that the NYC monitors and does not implement.

Mr Moss was interested in the national youth service programme. He wanted to know the challenges they faced and if they had succeeded.  Was their work framed within local government economic development plans as local government does not effectively plan for young people. He suggested the UYF needed a parliamentary office. Were there any plans set for integration of youth development national policy. He noted that some people had been referred to Umsobomvu but had not been successful, and asked how their selection process operated. He wanted to know particularly with regards to the West Coast area, so that he could get meaningful intervention and also where their office was based there. Lastly, he wanted to know what their success rate was for the young people that they had given assistance to.

Ms Bengu said that most people drop out before they get to matric. How were they assisted and did the UYF get involved in FET programmes? She noted that people were given vouchers to get consultation in pursuing their business. She asked if this was monitored and how to ensure people get funding and whether the businesses were successful or not.

Mr Setona suggested that branding and communication was important, as most people seem not to be aware of the UYF programmes. He suggested that they should list all the applications and what had been approved and not approved and the reasons for this. A profile was needed of their success with the youth fund so that people know.

The CEO replied that there had been progressive improvements in accessibility. They were trying to improve accessibility and the marketing of the UYF. They would work with the municipality in Saldannah and look at activities that the youth could be involved in that area and other areas, which seem to have been neglected. They youth service programme was launched to help communities with service delivery. In terms of business development, they would give people a chance even if not everyone succeeds, but give them the opportunity to try and build their own businesses. They had found the need for career pathing, which was not cheap. He mentioned that problems should be viewed as part and parcel of implementation. He acknowledged that there would be problems in implementation of youth programmes but one should rather learn from those programmes to better service delivery. Some municipalities did not have tax space; the budget was limited yet the unemployed youth problem still remained high. Where the municipality was small and they cannot do it then they cannot force that municipality and they would treat each municipality case by case. Last year they committed on making use of a parliamentary office. The integration of the website and call centre would be problematic as it would create confusion and the transference from one youth sector to the next. They could have linkages on their websites to the NYC website so that it were easier to do so. Government’s commitment to youth development cannot be questioned but the issue could be scale. The question to ask was, was it enough and he did not think it was.

The Chairperson asked that a combined meeting between NYC and UYF be arranged.

Meeting adjourned.