Director Tyrrell presented a public notice and proofs of publication thereof relating to this meeting, all of which are attached to and made a part of these minutes. Acting Chairperson Shepard reported that all Commissioners had been notified of the meeting simultaneously, in writing, and that a proposed tentative agenda accompanied the notification.

Acting Chairperson Shepard pointed out to those in attendance that a public copy of the materials being used during the meeting and a copy of the Open Meetings Act were available to the public on the counsel table in the meeting room, and that the procedures followed were in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. Acting Chairperson Shepard asked that guests sign the guest list.

Director Tyrrell noted that agenda items 5c and 10c had been added since the tentative agenda was mailed to the Commissioners.

The minutes of the Commission meeting held on October 5, 2006, were considered.

Director Tyrrell presented the Receipts and Expenditures Report for September. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Director Tyrrell noted that an explanation page was included on the report.

The cash fund balance as of September 30, 2006, was $767,646.99, which compared to a cash fund balance of $783,207.74 on September 30, 2005.

Director Tyrrell presented the Renewal Report. Copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes. (Note: It was discovered after the meeting adjourned that the Exhibit for this Agenda Item was incorrect. The date of the 2005 comparison was set forth as A 11/17/05" when, in fact, the date should have been A 11/9/05". The Exhibit was corrected for attachment to these minutes.)

No action was necessary on this report.

Director Tyrrell presented a specialized registrations report which included the registration of amendments to time-share registrations for Private Quarters at Porto Cima, A Condominium; for Vacation Village at Parkway; and for Fairfield Orlando at Bonnet Creek. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Non-Resident Licenses and Resident Licenses Issued to Persons Holding Licenses in Other Jurisdictions Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the September Examination Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Pre-License Education Instructor Approval Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Continuing Education Activity Approval Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Continuing Education Instructor Approval Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented for ratification the Continuing Education Activity Significant Change Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

After review, a motion was made by Bohrer and seconded by Griess to ratify the four reports. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, and Shepard voting aye, with Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented a Continuing Education Activity Rejection Report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

No action was necessary on this report.

Director Tyrrell presented a summary report of the pending complaints, which included a list of licensees presently under disciplinary action or on appeal. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

No action was necessary on this report.

The following sworn complaints and investigative matters were presented to the Commission:

Deputy Director Mayrose presented a Stipulation and Consent Order in the matter of Complaint 2006-040, Lawrence E. Masilko vs. Christopher Darby Wear. A copy of said Order is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Mayrose reviewed the circumstances involved and noted the provisions of the Order, which had been signed by Mr. Wear. The Order specified a censure plus three hours of additional continuing education in the area of license law, to be completed within 90 days of the date of the Order.

Deputy Director Mayrose presented a Stipulation and Consent Order in the matter of Complaint 2006-028, Tammy Chaudion vs. Gunner E. Brown. A copy of said Order is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Mayrose reviewed the circumstances involved and noted the provisions of the Order, which had been signed by Mr. Brown. The Order specified a 15 day suspension plus six hours of additional continuing education with three hours being in the area of license law and three hours in the area of ethics, to be completed within 90 days of the date of the Order.

Deputy Director Mayrose presented a Stipulation and Consent Order in the matter of Complaint 2006-046, Commission vs. Lucie Jungjohann-Hazel. A copy of said Order is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Mayrose reviewed the circumstances involved and noted the provisions of the Order, which had been signed by Ms. Jungjohann-Hazel. The Order specified a revocation of the real estate broker= s license.

A hearing was held on November 2, at 9:41 p.m., in the matter of Complaint 2006-029, Tamara S. Leif vs. Joshua Paul Cooley. Neal Stenberg, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, appeared for the Complainant. Respondent Joshua Paul Cooley was present and represented himself. Prior to any discussion, Commissioners Griess and Poskochil recused themselves, thereby nullifying any potential conflict of interest.

After opening statements, Counsel Stenberg offered 11 exhibits, all of which were received by Acting Chairperson Shepard.

After closing arguments had been presented, Acting Chairperson Shepard declared the hearing concluded and gathered the original exhibits.

Prior to any motion the following occurred:

Acting Chairperson Shepard asked Director Tyrrell to review the voting procedures due to the limited number of Commissioners participating. Director Tyrrell indicated that, according to an opinion by a previous legal counsel for the Commission, a motion to find guilt needed to receive four votes. If a motion to find guilt did not receive four votes, then guilt had not been established by the Complainant and the Chairperson should rule to dismiss the Complaint. If a motion to dismiss did not get four votes, dismissal did not result and the Commission needed to continue deliberations.

Commissioner Leisey noted the case appeared to a messy divorce case into which Mr. Cooley was brought by being a friend of Mr. Leif. Commissioner Leisey noted that Mr. Cooley did have the seller= s permission, however, due to the restraining order, Mr. Cooley should have contacted the listing agent or Mrs. Leif, as instructed in the MLS listing instructions. Commissioner Grady felt Mr. Cooley clearly was guilty of violating the license law.

A motion was made by Grady and seconded by Bohrer to find Mr. Cooley guilty of violating Neb. Rev. Stat. ' 81-885.24 (29).

Acting Chairperson Shepard noted that finding Mr. Cooley guilty would assure the public that real estate licensees could be trusted. Commissioner Bohrer indicated that Mr. Cooley appeared to have been brought into his friend= s divorce problems and because he was a real estate licensee was able to access the premises. Commissioner Bohrer also believed that Mr. Cooley knew he should have called the listing agent. Commissioner Bohrer felt that the public needed trust in the lockbox system and trust that what was signed in a listing agreement would be followed. Commissioner Leisey felt that there should be a sense of trust between licensees and the public, and even though Mr. Cooley appeared to be caught in the middle, he should have had a feeling of wrong doing since he knew there was a restraining order. Commissioner Grady noted that there was no question that the license law did not give permission to licensees to violate a court order or to use a lockbox key to violate such order.

Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Leisey, and Shepard voting aye, with Griess and Poskochil not participating or voting, having recused themselves, thereby nullifying any potential conflict of interest, and with Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Acting Chairperson Shepard opened the past disciplinary action= s envelope. It showed no prior disciplinary action. The Commissioners then discussed the penalty to be assessed.

Commissioner Bohrer asked for disciplinary actions from other cases previously heard before the Commission which would be similar to this case. Commissioner Grady asked the Director what was appropriate since the licensee was on inactive status. Director Tyrrell noted that the Commission had the full scope of disciplinary actions available since Mr. Cooley still had a real estate license. Director Tyrrell indicated that disciplinary action was commemorated in the licensee database and in the licensee= s file as ordered by the Commission, and that a revocation of a license was forever. Commissioner Leisey noted that revocation was too strict, however, a censure was too light.

Commissioner Grady noted that any decision made on this case could have a ripple effect through the industry and, perhaps, the errors & omissions insurance industry too.

Acting Chairperson Shepard indicated that a reasonable disciplinary action, in his opinion, would be to suspend Mr. Cooley= s license for 12 months, with 11 months being spent on probation and additional continuing education courses be taken in ethics and license law. Commissioner Grady felt as much of 12 additional continuing education hours would be acceptable.

Commissioner Grady felt that as long as the licensee was on inactive status the disciplinary action was just a paper trail and should not be enforced until Mr. Cooley attempted to activate his real estate license. Commissioner Bohrer felt that a censure was not enough discipline, however, revocation was too much and he felt that when Mr. Cooley wanted to activate his real estate license he should take additional continuing education consisting of 3 hours in ethics and 3 hours in license law.

A motion was made by Bohrer and seconded by Grady to suspend Mr. Cooley= s license for 12 months with the first month served on suspension and the remaining 11 months served on probation with said suspension and probation to begin with any activation of his real estate license and additional continuing education courses of 3 hours in the area of ethics and 3 hours in the area of license law to be completed within one year from the date of the order.

Commissioner Grady indicated that Mr. Cooley needed the additional continuing education courses prior to activating his license. Commissioner Leisey also felt the classes needed to be completed prior to activation of Mr. Cooley= s license. Commissioner Bohrer indicated that perhaps the continuing education classes should be completed as soon as possible.

With the concurrence of the mover and the second, a friendly amendment was agreed to which set forth that the additional continuing education had to be taken prior to any activation of Mr. Cooley= s real estate license and not within one year from the date of the order. The motion, as amended by the friendly amendment, carried with Bohrer, Grady, Leisey and Shepard voting aye, with Griess and Poskochil not participating or voting, having recused themselves, thereby nullifying any potential conflict of interest, and with Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Acting Chairperson Shepard notified the Respondent that the costs incurred for the court reporter and any witness fees would be billed to the Respondent, as provided for in 305 NAC Chapter 4, and that the Respondent would have thirty days from the date of the order to reimburse the Commission for said costs.

With the consent of the Respondent, Acting Chairperson Shepard directed Counsel Stenberg to prepare the order.

The hearing was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

The special appearance scheduled for Terrance Bryan Hoffman was postponed to a future meeting.

Director Tyrrell presented exhibits which included: a summary of Mr. Smith= s situation; correspondence regarding Mr. Smith= s special appearance; additional answers to questions on the salesperson application form; a letter of agreement with the State of Nebraska, Department of Insurance; a discharge of debtor letter from the United States Bankruptcy Court; Mr. Smith= s criminal history report; notes taken by a staff member during a telephone conversation with Mr. Smith; a criminal history report from the Omaha Police Department; a copy of Mr. Smith= s Motor Vehicle Record; and his salesperson application form. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Smith was present.

Acting Chairperson Shepard reviewed the procedure for informal special appearances.

Mr. Smith reviewed the circumstances surrounding his special appearance which involved trust account issues with his title insurance business. Mr. Smith indicated that he had been in the title insurance business since high school and had had his own title insurance agency. Mr. Smith encountered problems with his trust account when a new software program was implemented, and when a discrepancy in outstanding check amounts was discovered, part of the amount was placed into a suspense account within a new trust account, the rest of the amount was placed into the operating account. Mr. Smith remembered making the decision on where the amounts were to be placed, but noted the amount that was transferred to the operating account was to be identified and placed into the correct account. Mr. Smith was in the process of having his business purchased when a due diligence kind of audit was conducted, and one to two days into the audit the auditor had brought the matter of the fund discrepancy to his attention. Mr. Smith indicated he was not dishonest with the auditors and sat down with them and explained the situation. Mr. Smith indicated that as time went by it appeared to be bad bookkeeping practices which had caused the problem. Mr. Smith also indicated that in February 2006, a personal bankruptcy was filed. Mr. Smith also noted that he is still in weekly contact with the representative of the title insurance company which conducted the audit and planned to continue sorting out the problems with their assistance.

Acting Chairperson Shepard asked where Mr. Smith was currently working. Mr. Smith indicated he still was a licensed abstractor and currently worked as an abstractor for an Omaha title insurance firm. Mr. Smith also indicated that some real estate brokers had expressed interest in hiring him, however, he felt that a part-time start in real estate would be less risky financially. Acting Chairperson Shepard asked if Mr. Smith= s bankruptcy had been discharged. Mr. Smith indicated that the bankruptcy had been discharged, no theft had been found in this matter, and he was still in close contact with the Nebraska Department of Insurance. Commissioner Grady asked Mr. Smith if the bankruptcies were due to poor decisions personally as well as business related. Mr. Smith noted that he did not save his money as well as he should have and had purchased new computer software for the business, and then was not able to capitalize on it since the business closed.

Commissioner Poskochil asked if Mr. Smith had any felony charges pending or if the Department of Insurance closed down the business. Mr. Smith explained that he received a cease and desist letter from the Department of Insurance which indicated the poor bookkeeping skills and bad decisions made by Mr. Smith. Commissioner Poskochil asked how long before Mr. Smith could get his title license back. Mr. Smith was not able to give a time frame but thought the Department of Insurance could give it back to him by the end of this year. Mr. Smith also indicated there were no felony charges pending against him. Commissioner Poskochil explained that he would feel more comfortable allowing Mr. Smith to sit if more time had elapsed since these incidents occurred.

Deputy Director Mayrose explained that in the conversation he had with the Department of Insurance about Mr. Smith, it was indicated that there would be no additional action taken and that Mr. Smith had not asked for authorization to use his title insurance license which could possibly be used after an investigation of Mr. Smith= s personal bankruptcy. Commissioner Grady indicated that if Mr. Smith would have the Department of Insurance review the personal bankruptcy, not only would it be beneficial to Mr. Smith, but it would also provide a clean slate and could possibly allow him to sit for the real estate examination.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented an exhibit of the proposed Evaluation Instrument for Licensing Examinations. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these Minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman noted that the Request for Proposal evaluation process was outlined by the State of Nebraska= s Department of Administrative Services Purchasing Division. The process required that an evaluation instrument be developed that must then be utilized in the assessment of each Proposal that is received. The Purchasing Division must review and approve the evaluation instrument. The instrument is then published upon the opening of the Proposals and appears on the Purchasing Division= s website at that time. The Commission reviewed the proposed evaluation instrument and Deputy Director Hoffman reported that the Purchasing Division had reviewed and approved it. Director Tyrrell noted that the Division= s legal counsel had also approved it. She indicated that the Commission could make any changes to the document it chose but that changes would have to be reviewed and approved by the Purchasing Division and its legal counsel.

Deputy Director Hoffman explained that sometime after the Proposals were opened on November 30, 2006, Commissioners would be mailed a copy of each Proposal, a copy of the Request for Proposal and the evaluation instrument. She explained that each Commissioner would be asked to individually review each Proposal and to fill out the evaluation tool relative to each Proposal in preparation for the January Meeting. It was explained that there would be an opportunity for Vendors to make a presentation, if the Commissioners requested it, and for discussion of the Proposals at the January meeting. Each Commissioner= s evaluation instrument would then be completed and results of the combined evaluations would indicate to whom the contract should be awarded. Director Tyrrell pointed out that at that point the Commission would need to entertain a motion and vote on the decision to award the contract.

Acting Chairperson Shepard asked if Deputy Director Hoffman would be able to answer questions about the evaluation instrument and point out how the Proposals compare. Deputy Director Hoffman explained that Commissioners could absolutely contact her with questions and a comparison sheet could be supplied to the Commissioners. Commissioner Griess asked the length of the contract in question. Deputy Director Hoffman explained that the contract was for an initial two-year period with the option of three two-year contract renewal periods. It was further explained that the Commission could act upon the contract at any time and could choose not to renew it at the time of any renewal option.

A motion was made by Grady and seconded by Poskochil to approve the evaluation tool as presented for review of the examination Proposals. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, and Shepard voting aye, with Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Director Tyrrell indicated that a telephone survey, during which approximately 30 jurisdictions were contacted, was conducted to determine how other jurisdictions dealt with advance fee publications primarily advertising real estate. He indicated that the jurisdictions surveyed considered such companies to be like newspapers unless the company began conducting licensed activities. He indicated Nebraska could regulate these entities in a similar manner through the other provisions of this section and the License Act in general. Director Tyrrell noted that California had a court case against one of these companies that advertised properties for sale on a website. The courts in California held that this company was not doing anything different than what a newspaper did. The language challenged and found to be unconstitutional in California was very similar to the provision in Nebraska law which is shown in the exhibit as being proposed for deletion. He indicated that legal counsel agreed that repeal of this provision was best course of action since it appeared to be unenforceable.

Commissioner Griess asked how long this provision had been in the License Act. Director Tyrrell said, he believed, it had been in the License Act since 1978 or before. Director Tyrrell was asked if removing this language removed the requirement that a license was needed to refer prospects. Director Tyrrell noted that a referral agent still needs a real estate license. Director Tyrrell also indicated that this issue could be held until the December meeting.

After discussion, the Commission determined by consensus that this issue should be discussed at the December Commission meeting along with any other proposed legislative changes.

The Commission received a letter from President Gene Ward of the Nebraska Realtors7 Association requesting that the Commission delay final action on matters being considered under A Legislative Matters@ on this Agenda. A copy of said letter is attached to and made a part of these Minutes as Exhibit 15.

Mr. Vanderloo was recognized by Acting Chairperson Shepard. Mr. Vanderloo asked the Commission why it was proposing this legislation. Director Tyrrell explained that earlier in the year, the Commission Staff was contacted by a company called A Commission Express@ requesting confirmation that affiliated licensees could assign future commissions to the company and receive money for said future commission from the company in the form of a loan. When the opinion letter from Director Tyrrell was given to the Commission as an information update, the Commission requested staff develop language to prohibit this activity for possible legislation to be introduced into the 2007 Session. This language was the result of that request and had been acquired from Ohio State law.

Mr. Vanderloo explained that licensees are required to make big dollar payments with monthly income that was not consistent and it was hard to get a short-term loan from banks.

Mr. Vanderloo also explained that he and his wife Diane began using such a third-party company approximately four years ago. It was a national company and, although the interest rate was high, it was available if there was no other alternative. Mr. Vanderloo also indicated that these third-party companies had less risk than banks since the broker cooperated directly with them, and each loan was unique in that all parties had a vested interest in making sure the closing took place. Mr. Vanderloo also indicated that if a licensee took the loan money and ran before or after the closing, there would be no opportunity for a loan in the future.

Director Tyrrell indicated that a telephone survey, during which approximately 30 jurisdictions were contacted, was taken to determine how other jurisdictions dealt with this issue. Director Tyrrell explained that there were two current lawsuits on this issue in Kentucky and in the Kansas City area. The real estate regulatory bodies were not involved as far as he knew. In his conversations with the other regulatory jurisdictions he found that, other than Ohio, no other jurisdiction had any prohibition in this area and none had had any problems in this area. Most of the jurisdictions felt this issue was a business issue and not a licensing or regulatory issue for the real estate regulatory body. Director Tyrrell indicated that based on his discussions with the other regulatory bodies and on Mr. Vanderloo= s testimony, he would recommend the Commission not go forward with this legislation.

Commissioner Poskochil asked Mr. Vanderloo if the broker must agree to pay the third-party. Mr. Vanderloo indicated that the broker must be in agreement. If the broker does not sign the agreement, the licensee cannot get the funds. Commissioner Poskochil asked what percentage of the licensee= s commission would the third-party pay. Mr. Vanderloo indicated that up to 80% of the commission could be loaned but not 100%. Commissioner Leisey noted that if typically 5% of the properties do not close would the broker be responsible for the loan amount. Mr. Vanderloo indicated that the broker would not be responsible for the loan.

A motion was made by Leisey and seconded by Poskochil to not go forward with the proposed legislation to prohibit payment of compensation or consideration by a designated broker to a third-party creditor of an affiliated licensee.

Acting Chairperson Shepard asked Perre Nielan if he thought the Association would object to the motion in light of its request. Mr. Nielan indicated the Association= s request would be moot if the Commission decided not to go forward with this proposed legislation.

After further discussion, motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, and Shepard voting aye, with Gale not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Director Tyrrell indicated that a telephone survey was conducted to determine if other jurisdictions prohibit licensees from being dual agents and the principal in a transaction. He talked with approximately 30 jurisdictions. Director Tyrrell noted that a few jurisdictions do not allow dual agency; none of the jurisdictions had a specific prohibition as proposed in this legislation; most jurisdictions required a separate disclosure as Nebraska does; and all jurisdictions discouraged this practice.

Commissioner Leisey noted that he was not in favor of this legislation since a listing agent might not be able to purchase property from the owner. This might not be as critical when listing a single family dwelling, but if it was a condominium unit, the listing agent would have to give up all of the other listings in order to purchase a unit. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that a licensee could become a dual agent now, and if you were purchasing property from the owner it would not be clear if you were looking out for yourself or the owner. Commissioner Poskochil also noted that an agent would be needed to represent the seller. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that dual agency was fine as long as it did not go bad, and since dual agency was difficult, the Commission would have to take complaints in this area on a case by case basis.

After discussion, the Commission determined by consensus that this issue should be discussed and a final determination made at the December Commission meeting.

Director Tyrrell noted that Commissioners Bohrer, Griess, Grady, and Shepard and Deputy Director Hoffman attended the ARELLO Annual Meeting. Director Tyrrell also indicated that at the Commission= s request, this item was placed on the Agenda for this meeting for additional discussion, since not all attendees were present at the October meeting.

Commissioner Grady noted that the conference was good overall. He indicated that the subject of deliberating disciplinary matters in closed session as opposed to open sessions was discussed. Commissioner Grady indicated that there were times, in open session, when discussing disciplinary actions was uncomfortable. Director Tyrrell indicated that the Commission could go into closed session to prevent needless injury to the reputation of the individual anytime it determined it was necessary. He cautioned the Commission to not A crystalize@ a decision in closed session. Commissioner Griess indicated that the attorneys at the conference indicated there were more troubles with open session discussions and many could not believe Nebraska did this. Commissioner Grady asked the difference between the Commission members coming up with a decision in closed session and a jury that made decisions in closed session. Director Tyrrell noted that jury deliberations were not covered by the Open Meetings Act. Commissioner Shepard also indicated that if the discussion happened in closed session, the Commissioners would have to discuss it again when in open session, therefore having the discussion twice. Commissioner Griess felt that Commissioners become accustomed to open discussions, but the penalty phase is the most difficult. Director Tyrrell indicated that inappropriate comments were what would usually get the Commission into trouble, but again indicated that the Commission could go into closed session, but he, again, cautioned to be careful on how far the discussion went in closed session. Director Tyrrell indicated that Commissioners had been very good over the years to not make inappropriate statements while deliberating. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that the concerns of the other jurisdictions had not happened in Nebraska.

Commissioner Poskochil asked if it was fair to have a Commission meeting with only four Commissioners present, and if a there could be a risk for the complainant. Director Tyrrell indicated that if a motion was made to establish guilt with only four Commissioners present, and the vote was three voting aye and one voting nay the complaint should be dismissed. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that for hearings at least five Commissioners should be participating. Commissioner Poskochil also indicated that legal counsel suggested he and Commissioner Griess recuse themselves for this hearing since they worked for the same company, even though they did not know this licensee or the issues. Director Tyrrell indicated that a recent ruling on an appeal had led to the recommendation. Commissioner Griess indicated that they have to recuse themselves from the green sheets also, even though the report does not give names. Director Tyrrell indicated that it was the A appearance of biasA on which the attorneys base those recommendations.

Commissioner Griess indicated that what amazed her was how different requirements and statutes were between the jurisdictions. She was not aware of this until attending the ARELLO meetings.

Commissioner Grady also indicated that the A Commissioner College@ program that was offered at the ARELLO conference was good, but due to the conflicts in scheduling, he was unable to attend all of the sessions. Commissioner Grady also indicated that he enjoyed going to the ARELLO meetings and viewed Nebraska as being on the cutting edge with what was going on nationally.

Director Tyrrell presented certificates to Commissioners Grady and Griess for their participation in the A Commissioner College@ . Commissioner Griess noted that having the certificates mailed to the Directors to present to the Commissioners was discussed at the sessions and she was glad to see there had been A follow-through@ .

No action was necessary on this report.

Director Tyrrell noted that the Rule Hearing on 299 NAC 5-003.18 was scheduled for December 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m.

Some discussion was held on the effect this proposed amendment would have on licensees. It was determined that this rule amendment would limit the requirement to reduce an offer to writing and submit it to the seller to only those licensees who have an agency relationship with one of the parties to the transaction.

No action was necessary at this time.

Director Tyrrell presented the Trust Account Examination Evaluation Report - Third Quarter 2006. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Director Tyrrell reviewed some of the comments received and how the situations were handled.

No action was necessary on this report.

December 14, 2006 - Staybridge Suites, Lincoln
January 25-26, 2007 - Villager Courtyard & Gardens, Lincoln
February 20-21, 2007 - Staybridge Suites, Lincoln
March 29-30, 2007 - Staybridge Suites, Lincoln
May 24-25, 2007 - Staybridge Suites, Lincoln
June 28-29, 2007 - Settle Inn & Suites, Lincoln
August 23-24, 2007 - Staybridge Suites, Lincoln

At 9:26 a.m., Acting Chairperson Shepard declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 9:41 a.m.

At 11:02 a.m., Acting Chairperson Shepard declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 11:21 a.m.

At 12:45 p.m., Acting Chairperson Shepard declared a recess for lunch, and reconvened the meeting at 1:31 p.m.

At 3:05 p.m., Acting Chairperson Shepard declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 3:21 p.m.

I, Les Tyrrell, Director of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing minutes of the November 2, 2006, meeting of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission were available for inspection on November 14, 2006, in compliance with Section 84-1413(5) R.R.S. 1943, of Nebraska.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Tyrrell
Director