Chairperson Gale convened a meeting of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission at 9:02 a.m. on March 29, 2007, in the Staybridge Room of the Staybridge Suites, located at 2701 Fletcher Avenue in Lincoln, Nebraska. All of the members of the Real Estate Commission were present. Also present were Director Les Tyrrell, Deputy Director for Education and Licensing Teresa Hoffman, Deputy Director for Enforcement Terry Mayrose, and Administrative Assistant Monica Wade. Neal Stenberg, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, was present for the Lisa Lee Hansel show-cause hearing and Greg Barton, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission was present for the Daniel Carl Bohm hearing.

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. Chairperson Gale reported that all Commissioners had been notified of the meeting simultaneously, in writing, and that a proposed tentative agenda accompanied the notification.

Chairperson Gale 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. Chairperson Gale asked that guests sign the guest list.

After review of the final agenda, a motion was made by Grady and seconded by Leisey to adopt the final agenda as presented. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

The minutes of the Commission meeting held on February 20, 2007, were considered.

After review, a motion was made by Griess and seconded by Shepard to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil and Shepard voting aye, with Gale not voting having not been in attendance at the February Meeting.

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

The cash fund balance as of February 28, 2007, was $896,120.33, which compared to a cash fund balance of $1,047,983.03 on February 28, 2006.

Chairperson Gale pointed out that the year-to-date renewal revenue was over budget and that examination receipts were lower. Director Tyrrell pointed out that the reduction in license and renewal fees was reducing the cash fund balance as the Commission had wanted.

After discussion, a motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Grady to file the February Receipts and Expenditures Report for audit. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

Director Tyrrell presented a specialized registrations report which included the registration of an amendment to the time-share registration for Fairfield Orlando at Bonnet Creek. A copy of said report is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

A motion was made by Grady and seconded by Leisey to approve the amendment to the registration as presented. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

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.

After review, a motion was made by Grady and seconded by Leisey to ratify issuance of the licenses as set forth in the report. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

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

Deputy Director Hoffman noted that three individuals had taken the examination multiple times in February. Chairperson Gale indicated that multiple examinations taken in one month would most likely not allow the applicant to take a preparation course between examinations. He asked if the examination fee was reduced for subsequent examinations. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that there was no reduction in fee due to volume. Commissioner Griess sought confirmation that an applicant= s application was only current for one year and that beyond that the applicant would have to submit a new application and fee. Deputy Director Hoffman confirmed this information.

Chairperson Gale asked if the pass/fail rate was reasonable. Deputy Director Hoffman felt the pass/fail rate was within the norms established for the examination. She indicated that she keeps statistics on failing rates for each part of the examination and that those who fail both parts of the examination generally outnumber those who fail either part which indicates that failure was often more a matter of an individual= s preparation than the examination= s construction.

Commissioner Griess asked if there had been progress toward incorporating a study of Nebraska-specific laws and regulations into a pre-license course. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that the exhibit regarding the proposed Instructor Development Workshop that would be reviewed later on the Agenda reflected a one-half day working session devoted to the construction of such a course. She indicated that it was her goal to have the course ready by mid-summer. Chairperson Gale asked if the additional examination questions were on the examination yet. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that those were a part of the new examination contract and would not appear until July 1, 2007.

Deputy Director Hoffman also handed out an exhibit that indicated locations across the United States where Applied Measurement Professionals, the Commission= s examination provider, could administer Nebraska= s real estate examination. This was in answer to questions from the Commission at last month= s meeting. This exhibit is attached to and made a part of these Minutes.

After review, a motion was made by Leisey and seconded by Bohrer to ratify the February Examination Report for the purpose of issuing licenses. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

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.

Commissioner Poskochil inquired into the acronym CREW. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that it stood for Commercial Real Estate Workshop. Commissioner Grady asked if there were more internet pre-licensing courses like that offered by the University of North Dakota. He asked what Larabee School's course was like. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that both schools had a Principles and Practices class which utilized Nebraska= s prescribed course outline. She explained that while the North Dakota class was indicated as an Internet course, Larabee's was also delivered via the Internet with the exception that the textbook was separate and in hard copy, therefore, this course was described as a web-enhanced correspondence course. In addition to this course, Larabee also has Real Estate Finance in this same web-enhanced format.

Chairperson Gale asked if there was any problem with requiring licensees to take courses in a classroom environment as a part of a disciplinary order. Deputy Director Hoffman responded that if this requirement was in response to concerns over measures to verify the identity of those taking distance education courses she hoped that the required ARELLO certification of distance education courses would allay some of these concerns. The certification process reviewed providers= methods in this area and would take any breaches seriously, although she was unaware of any such breaches.

Commissioner Leisey asked Deputy Director Hoffman if there were any restrictions for assigning in-class continuing education classes. Commissioner Poskochil also wanted to know if there were enough classroom continuing education courses offered. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that the availability could very well be a restriction since most schools run very few continuing education courses until the last half of the year. Director Tyrrell indicated that since there are few providers for in-class continuing education courses, a person may have to travel some distance in order to meet the requirement. Commissioner Griess indicated that if an order was for in-class courses and if the licensee had to drive a distance in order to meet that requirement then that was what they would have to do as part of the penalty. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that area Community Colleges normally only offer continuing education courses once a year. Chairperson Gale indicated that the Commission should be aware of that when penalties are assessed.

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 Shepard and seconded by Poskochil to ratify the four reports. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

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

Commissioner Poskochil asked if the notice, indicating that failure to submit an Annual Report resulted in the provider being removed from approved status, was sent by certified mail. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that two notices were mailed to the providers but neither was sent by certified mail.

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

Commissioner Grady asked how an instructor acquired approval. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that the continuing education courses were coordinated by the provider who identified the instructor and submitted an application for continuing education approval. All instructors must meet a set of criteria, determined by the Commission. Some providers agreed to only use instructors who met or surpassed the criteria and their instructors did not submit separate approval applications. All other instructors submitted instructor applications which were reviewed by Staff and approved, if the applicant met or exceeded the criteria. Commissioner Poskochil asked if the provider had a process available should there be a need for a substitute instructor. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that there was such a process. An instructor application could be faxed to the Commission Office and could be approved immediately should a substitute be required.

After review, a motion was made by Poskochil and seconded by Leisey to ratify the two reports. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard, and Gale voting aye.

Deputy Director Hoffman presented an exhibit regarding the proposed Instructor Development Workshop, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Deputy Director Hoffman noted that this Workshop would be one and one-half days long. On the first day there would be a discussion of the simulation examinations and the teaching methodologies developed in response to simulation examinations. Dr. Larry Fabrey with Applied Measurement Professionals (AMP) would attend the Workshop to discuss and demonstrate broker simulation exercises. Mary Shern, who had been recommended to Deputy Director Hoffman by the Georgia Real Estate Commission, would discuss teaching methods used to prepare students for simulation examinations. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that a mailing would be sent to all pre-license instructors and continuing education providers and potential instructors would be welcome as well. The second day of the Workshop would consist of a half-day working session to develop the Nebraska-specific pre-license course manual.

Commissioner Leisey indicated that day one of the Workshop appeared to be important and asked if the majority of pre-license instructors attended or if the Workshop is required. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that generally thirty people attended. However, a larger room had been reserved due to the potential interest in this subject. Commissioner Poskochil asked if a Commissioner could attend the Workshop. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that the Commissioners were invited to come. She asked that the Commissioners consider offering the Workshop free of charge as they had in the past.

A motion was made by Grady and seconded by Poskochil to approve the expenditures for the Instructor Development Workshop and to provide the Workshop free of charge.

Chairperson Gale indicated that the expenses were being paid for Ms. Shern. He wondered if the same would be appropriate for Dr. Fabrey. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that under the Commission' s contract with AMP, AMP paid Mr. Fabrey= s expenses.

Commissioner Poskochil asked how long the Georgia Real Estate Commission had used the simulation examinations. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that she believed that Georgia had used simulations for two or three years, first for continuing education then for licensing. Deputy Director Hoffman also explained to the Commission that sample simulation examinations were on the AMP website at www.goamp.com/PRODUCTS/REPsimtests.htm. She encouraged the Commissioners to refer interested people to this site or to her.

Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

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:

Item A Complaint 2006-062 - James E. Bachman vs. Randall Ray Bailey and Renae Diane Cohn

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Griess and seconded by Leisey that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. After further discussion, motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

Item B Complaint 2006-063 Steven A. Dougherty vs. Timothy J. Hearty and Abby Marie Lauritsen

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Leisey and seconded by Poskochil that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. After further discussion, motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

Item C Complaint 2006-064

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Griess and seconded by Bohrer that the complaint be set for hearing on Neb. Rev. Stat. ' 81-855.24(29). After further discussion, motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

Item D Complaint 2006-065

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Leisey that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and a letter of admonishment be sent to the Respondent. Motion failed with Leisey voting aye, and with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting nay.

A motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Poskochil that the complaint be set for hearing as presented. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

Item E Complaint 2006-068

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Grady that the complaint be set for hearing as presented. Motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Item F Complaint 2006-070 - Kenneth R. Wright and Diane L. Wright vs. Mary C. Searcy

Prior to discussion of this matter, Commissioner Griess recused herself, thereby nullifying any potential conflict of interest.

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Leisey and seconded by Shepard that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Motion carried with Grady, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Griess not participating or voting, having recused herself, thereby nullifying any potential conflict of interest, and with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Item G Complaint 2006-074

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Poskochil and seconded by Griess that the complaint be set for hearing as presented. After further discussion, motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Item H Complaint 2006-076

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Grady and seconded by Poskochil that the complaint be set for hearing as presented. Motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Item I Complaint 2007-001 - Frank Miller Vs. Duane Floyd Murdoch

Deputy Director Mayrose presented the alleged violations and investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After being advised of the results of the investigation and discussion, a motion was made by Griess and seconded by Poskochil that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Item J Investigative Report

Deputy Director Mayrose presented an investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After discussion, a motion was made by Grady and seconded by Shepard that a
complaint be filed on the Commission= s own motion for violating Neb. Rev. Stat.  81- 885.24 (29). Motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Item K Investigative Report

Deputy Director Mayrose presented an investigative report to the Commission and, when necessary, answered questions on this matter.

After discussion, a motion was made by Grady and seconded by Leisey that complaints be filed against both licensees on the Commission's own motion for violating Neb. Rev. Stat. ' 81- 885.24 (29). Motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Deputy Director Mayrose presented a Stipulation and Consent Order in the matter of SC2007-002, Commission vs. Gunnar 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 thirty-day suspension to commence on April 2, 2007, followed by six (6) months of probation plus nine hours of additional continuing education with three hours being in the area of license law, three hours in the area of contracts and three hours in the area of ethics to be completed within one hundred and eighty days of the date of the Order.

Commissioner Grady indicated that the additional continuing education courses required should be taken in the classroom, since the previous punishment had been taken lightly.

Chairperson Gale indicated that it appeared that Mr. Brown went onto the computer for the coursework the first time. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that Mr. Brown actually completed paper and pencil correspondence courses. Commissioner Grady indicated that if Mr. Brown had to take courses in the classroom, the courses would have to be scheduled at least a couple of days prior to the course being offered. Deputy Director Hoffman indicated that there may not be any in-classroom courses being offered during the time frame allowed in this Order. Commissioner Grady indicated that if the Order read two hundred and seventy days that should allow enough time for Mr. Brown to complete the additional continuing education.

After discussion, a motion was made by Grady and seconded by Poskochil to amend the Order to require Mr. Brown to attend continuing education courses in a classroom environment.

After further discussion, a friendly amendment was suggested to give Mr. Brown two hundred and seventy days to complete the education courses. The friendly amendment was accepted by the mover. The second did not accept the friendly amendment.

Motion carried to require the courses be completed in a classroom environment with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Poskochil voting nay, and with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

The Joint Hearing regarding Complaint 2006-032, Commission vs. Jack Raymond Nitz and Jay D. Nitz; Complaint 2006-067 Commission vs. Jack Raymond Nitz and Jay D. Nitz was continued to the May 2007 Meeting at the request of the Respondent= s Counsel.

A Hearing was held on March 29 at 1:56 p.m., in the matter of SC2007-001. Neal Stenberg, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, appeared for the Complainant. Respondent Lisa Lee Hansel was present without Counsel.

After Opening Statements, Counsel Stenberg offered eleven Exhibits. Counsel Stenberg withdrew his offer of one of the exhibits, the other ten were received by Chairperson Gale. Counsel Stenberg called Deputy Director Hoffman and Marilyn Masters as witnesses.

At 2:45 p.m., Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the Hearing at 2:55 p.m.

Ms. Hansel offered one exhibit which was received by Chairperson Gale. Ms. Hansel called herself as a witness.

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

Prior to any motion the following occurred:

Commissioner Leisey indicated that Ms. Hansel had been trying to get into the classroom to complete the three-hour requirement but could not find a provider who offered the course other than through correspondence. Commissioner Leisey felt that contacting the providers thirty-five days in advance of the deadline showed that she had been trying to meet the requirement. Commissioner Leisey also felt that Ms. Hansel= s license should remain on inactive status until proof had been provided to the Real Estate Commission that the requirement had been met. Commissioner Leisey also indicated that he would have a problem revoking Ms. Hansel' s license for trying to attend classroom education, although she had shown some neglect in trying to complete the education. He felt thirty-five days should have been a reasonable time frame. Commissioner Leisey also explained that a revoked license in Nebraska could affect any other license she tried to obtain.

Commissioner Poskochil indicated that if a license was issued to him from another state, he would not wait to complete the education requirement. Commissioner Poskochil also indicated that the Commission had given Ms. Hansel at least five notifications and if she had been too busy to follow the clear requirements of the law, what would she do to the public.

Chairperson Gale recited the statute referring to this requirement. At the conclusion of his reading, he indicated that the statute did allow the Commission to decide if just cause had been shown. Chairperson Gale felt that Ms. Hansel had proven to be a responsible person, wife, mother, full-time student, but did not know how much impact revoking her license would have on her income or life. Chairperson Gale indicated that having a revoked license in Nebraska could affect her Iowa and South Dakota licenses, creating unintended consequences. Even though being busy was not an overly compelling reason for not following the law, the revocation of her license could cause a problem selling real estate in her area. However, the Commission did have some discretion.

Commissioner Griess indicated that the reason behind the law should not be overlooked. Commissioner Griess felt that a licensee should know the laws if they intend to practice real estate in Nebraska. Commissioner Griess also felt that the course should be taken prior to getting a real estate license and made reference to reading an operator manual before you use the equipment. Commissioner Griess indicated that if Ms. Hansel had not been too busy she might have had time to fulfill the requirement. She felt the law should be taken seriously.

Chairperson Gale indicated that the law stated that the Director had to put Ms. Hansel's real estate license on inactive status. Therefore, Ms. Hansel was not practicing real estate. He then asked Director Tyrrell if the Commission were to find reasonable cause to revoke Ms. Hansel= s license, would she have to reapply for a license or what could she do. Director Tyrrell indicated that if the Commission determined that Ms. Hansel had shown cause why her license should not be revoked, as part of the motion, the license could be activated after a certain event occurred. Or, if the determination was that Ms. Hansel had not shown cause why her license should not be revoked, then the license would be revoked.

Commissioner Shepard indicated that the Commission might set a terrible precedent if it was determined that Ms. Hansel had shown cause by being too busy to complete the requirement. Commissioner Shepard felt Ms. Hansel had her priorities out of order.

Commissioner Leisey felt the cause shown, referred to her preferring to take the education requirement in the classroom rather than the cause of being too busy. Commissioner Leisey also indicated that Ms. Hansel had contacted the education providers over one month in advance and no classroom courses were available and all that was needed was a week or two extension in order to complete the course in the classroom. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that she could have contacted the education providers in December instead of January.

Commissioner Bohrer did not feel that Ms. Hansel had met the burden of showing cause. However, he did not want to revoke her license and suggested that a more creative punishment would be to keep her license on inactive status and allow her to activate her license within a certain time frame. Commissioner Griess indicated that the problem with the law was that it indicated that the license should be revoked. Commissioner Leisey indicated that if the license was revoked then Ms. Hansel would have to report that to other states. Commissioner Bohrer indicated that there was a breakdown in the process and the Commission staff had made the correct decision. They did not have the right to grant an extension to Ms. Hansel. Chairperson Gale agreed with Commissioners Bohrer and Leisey, however, did not feel Ms. Hansel deserved to have a license nor did she earn it. Chairperson Gale indicated that being too busy was not a highly valued response. He felt that Ms. Hansel was trying to do too much. He felt that the revocation of her license might have unintended consequences and that, although some cases called out for compassion, others did not.

A motion was made by Leisey and seconded by Bohrer to not revoke the license of Ms. Hansel' s but to have the license remain on inactive status and complete the required course in thirty days and if not completed in thirty days then the license would be revoked.

Commissioner Grady asked Director Tyrrell if Ms. Hansel did not complete the class, how much of a trail would be left and what would be the alternatives. Director Tyrrell indicated that the pending motion indicated that the license would remain on inactive status and Ms. Hansel would have thirty days to complete the education, however, if after thirty days Ms. Hansel had not completed the course, she would have violated the Order of the Commission and then a complaint would have to be filed and the Commission would have to go through due process in order to revoke the license. Director Tyrrell indicated that if the license would be revoked, then the non-compliance would be in the licensee= s history forever. Commissioner Grady asked if the pending motion was defeated, what the other action could be taken in this matter. Director Tyrrell indicated that would be for the Commissioners to decide.

At 4:05 p.m., Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the Hearing at 4:12 p.m.

Director Tyrrell requested time to clarify his answer to Commissioner Grady. Since the motion included revocation, if the course was not completed, then the license would be revoked without an additional hearing.

Commissioner Shepard asked if a comment could be made about something he found out about Ms. Hansel that was not in the testimony. Chairperson Gale indicated that only testimony could be considered today.

Commissioner Poskochil indicated that since the hearing was to show cause, there should be a motion that she had shown cause first and then decide penalty. Commissioner Bohrer indicated that he still agreed with the pending motion, however, a separate motion could be made or an amendment could be made to the pending motion.

A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Leisey, the mover, to indicate that Ms. Hansel had shown cause to not have her license revoked. The friendly amendment was accepted by the second, Commissioner Bohrer.

Commissioner Grady indicated that according to the pending motion Ms. Hansel had two alternatives either complete the education or her license would be revoked.

A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Leisey, the mover, to include in the motion that Ms. Hansel's thirty days would start on March 29. The friendly amendment was accepted by the second, Commissioner Bohrer.

Commissioner Grady asked if the course could be taken by correspondence. Commissioner Leisey indicated that it could be completed within thirty days either by correspondence or by attending the class.

Commissioner Poskochil asked what the consequences were for having a revocation of a license. Director Tyrrell indicated that a revocation was virtually forever. An individual could reapply for a license, although the Director had denied those applications in the past. The applicant does have the right to appeal the Director= s denial to the Commission. With this type of revocation, which is not similar to a trust account violation or another serious violation, the Commission Staff would consider this revocation different and would likely bring any of these types of previously revoked applicants back to the Commission rather than denying the application.

Commissioner Poskochil indicated that if the license was revoked in this case, the licensee could reapply and supply proof that the education course had been taken prior to getting licensed. After reviewing the statute, Director Tyrrell indicated that an applicant could take the required education course either before or after getting licensed as long as they submitted proof in accordance with the statute.

Commissioner Leisey indicated that if an individual applied for a license anywhere, one of the questions asked was if they had a license revoked or suspended. Commissioner Leisey felt there was no compassion for having a revoked license. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that he felt Ms. Hansel had not shown cause other than being too busy to complete the required course and it appeared there was no provision for submitting the education late. Commissioner Leisey noted that the cause Ms. Hansel had shown was that she had attempted to get the course, not that she was too busy.

Motion failed with Bohrer, Leisey and Gale voting aye, and with Grady, Griess, Poskochil and Shepard voting nay.

Commissioner Poskochil asked for clarification from Director Tyrrell if a licensee can be disciplined when their license was on inactive status. Director Tyrrell indicated that disciplinary action could be taken against an inactive license. Commissioner Poskochil felt it was unfair to give a thirty-day extension, unless additional continuing education was added on as a penalty. Otherwise, there would be no penalty for not complying. He also felt that by enforcing this law as written, it could harm the licensee for life. Chairperson Gale indicated that prior to additional comments, a motion should be made.

A motion was made by Bohrer and seconded by Leisey that Ms. Hansel had shown cause for not having her license revoked.

Commissioner Griess indicated that the motion made was the same as the previous motion. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that without a penalty he would not vote for the motion. Chairperson Gale agreed that the motion could fail without the penalty included. Commissioner Grady indicated that if the motion passed, the license would not have a direction and the Commission would need to decide which direction the license should go. Director Tyrrell indicated that in his opinion, if the motion only stated that the licensee had shown cause not to have the license revoked then Ms. Hansel would be able to activate it. Commissioner Grady asked if an attorney could review the law before a decision was made. Chairperson Gale indicated that perhaps a decision could be made at a subsequent meeting. Director Tyrrell noted that in the past, a delayed decision required transcripts to be obtained so the Commissioners had everything fresh again in their minds and only made the decision based on the testimony set forth in the transcript rather than anything obtained outside of the hearing. Chairperson Gale suggested that the vote not be postponed but rather the vote on an issue be taken today.

Commissioners Bohrer and Leisey withdrew their pending motion.

A motion was made by Leisey and seconded by Bohrer that Ms. Hansel had shown cause not to have her license revoked; the license remain on inactive status; and she complete the required course within thirty days and an additional three-hour continuing education course as determined by staff within ninety days, otherwise the license would be revoked.

Commissioner Poskochil asked when the thirty and ninety days would start. Commissioner Leisey indicated that March 29 would be the start of the thirty- and ninety-day periods.

A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Leisey, the mover, and accepted by the second, Commissioner Bohrer, to add to the pending motion that the start of the thirty- and ninety-day periods would be March 29, and that the license would remain on inactive status until Ms. Hansel completed the first education course, and her license would be revoked if either of the required education courses were not completed by the applicable deadline.

Chairperson Gale indicated that the motion was following a narrow line that only one of the education courses needed to be completed.

Director Tyrrell requested that the motion include that upon completion of the education the license may be activated.

Commissioner Leisey, the mover, offered a friendly amendment which indicated that Ms. Hansel could not activate her license until both education requirements were completed. The friendly amendment was accepted by the second, Commissioner Bohrer.

Director Tyrrell reviewed the pending motion including the two friendly amendments which motion set forth that Ms. Hansel had shown cause not to have her license revoked. The license should remain on A inactive status until she completed the Nebraska-approved, three-hour course as required, and an additional three-hour course as determined by Staff. She would have thirty days from March 29, 2007, to complete the required course. If it was not completed within thirty days of March 29, 2007, her license would be revoked. She would have ninety days from March 29, 2007, to complete a three-hour course as determined by Staff. If it was not completed within ninety days of March 29, 2007, her license would be revoked. After completing both courses, her license could be transferred to A active@ status.

Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Griess voting nay.

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

Chairperson Gale announced that all exhibits related to this hearing would be retained in the Commission office.

The Hearing was adjourned at 4:45 a.m.

Director Tyrrell requested sometime to discuss the origination of the statutory provision that had just been adjudicated in the Show Cause Hearing. He reviewed the Commission' s consideration of the provision when it was proposed. He pointed out that there had been almost no time for consideration. It was just a matter of a few days until the Legislative Hearing. Amendments were drafted during a fifteen- or twenty-minute recess of the Commission Meeting and this resulted ultimately in a poorly drafted piece of legislation. He requested that the Commission, when being asked to support legislation, make it clear to parties that the Commission needed time to review proposals. He encouraged the Commission to insist on being given the opportunity to study the relevant issues to assure that the legislation was doing what it was proposed to do and was written so as to be able to be administered properly. If this were done, then situations such as that which occurred in this Show Cause Hearing should not occur.

Complaint 2006-048 Susan Lorman-Keen and John Keen vs. Daniel Carl Bohm

A hearing was held on March 30, at 9:30 a.m., in the matter of Complaint 2006-048,

Susan Lorman-Keen and John Keen vs. Daniel Carl Bohm. Greg Barton, Special Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the Commission, appeared for the Complainant. Respondent Daniel Carl Bohm was present and represented by Counsel Michael J. Matukewicz of Omaha.

After opening statements, Counsel Barton offered 5 exhibits, all of which were received by Chairperson Gale. Counsel Barton called John Keen, Susan Lorman-Keen, and Debra Ann Hopkins as witnesses.

At 10:40 a.m., Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the Hearing at 10:55 a.m.

Counsel Matukewicz motioned for a directed verdict of dismissal. Chairperson Gale took the motion under advisement.

At 12:15 p.m., Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the Hearing at 12:30 p.m.

Counsel Matukewicz offered 1 exhibit, which was received by Chairperson Gale. Counsel Matukewicz called Daniel Carl Bohm and Lisa Bohm as a witnesses.

After closing arguments had been presented, Chairperson Gale denied Counsel Matukewicz' s motion for a directed verdict of dismissal. He then declared the hearing concluded and gathered the original exhibits.

Prior to any motion the following occurred:

Chairperson Gale referred to the pre-hearing order which indicated that the decision that needed to be made was if the delivery of the counteroffer had been completed in a timely manner. Commissioner Leisey indicated that Mr. Bohm had been fired the night he received the counteroffer. He also believed that many, or most, counteroffers were verbally communicated. Commissioner Leisey also indicated that Mr. Bohm's telephone call had been made in a timely manner. He also indicated that it was a logical request by the Keens to see the counteroffer. Chairperson Gale wanted to know if it was unreasonable for a buyer to want a copy of the counteroffer before meeting with the licensee. Commissioner Leisey indicated that it would be unusual for a licensee to drop off the counteroffer without going through it with the potential buyers at that time. Chairperson Gale asked if the obligation of a licensee changed since the buyers were in separate locations. Commissioner Leisey indicated that Mr. Bohm notified the Keens that he would have problems getting together with them on the following day. Commissioner Leisey felt that Mr. Bohm had provided the facts to Mr. Keen over the telephone. He also felt that Mr. Bohm, in this case, should have  dropped-off the counteroffer to the Keens.

Commissioner Poskochil indicated that when Mr. Bohm was terminated by the Keens that it was within an hour or two of receiving the counteroffer. He also indicated that a licensee would not normally be fired in the middle of a transaction. Commissioner Poskochil also felt that he probably would not have delivered the counteroffer either if he had had the same conversation that Mr. Bohm had had with Mr. Keen. Commissioner Leisey indicated that if he had been fired, he probably would not have delivered the counteroffer either.

Commissioner Griess felt Mr. Bohm did not have an obligation to deliver the counteroffer after he had been fired. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that Mr. Bohm had made arrangements for the Keen' s to pick up their documents the next day since the documents were in different locations.

Commissioner Griess indicated that the Keens wanted to see the counteroffer in writing and Mr. Bohm had offered to get together with them. Commissioner Griess also indicated that the issue seemed to be that the buyer did not have a copy of the written counteroffer. Commissioner Griess felt that since Mr. Bohm had been terminated, he should have made arrangements for another means of delivery.

Chairperson Gale felt it was not clear when Mr. Bohm had been terminated. Commissioner Griess indicated that the letter written by Mr. Bohm stated the date and time of termination. Commissioner Poskochil indicated that the letter appeared to reflect the date and time he spoke with Ms. Lorman-Keen. Commissioner Leisey indicated that Mr. Bohm had been fired the previous evening whether Ms. Lorman-Keen had called the next morning or not.

Commissioner Griess felt that the licensee had a responsibility to deliver the counteroffer and if not delivered then the counteroffer was still live . Commissioner Poskochil indicated that in this type of situation a licensee would typically go to the broker of the firm, however, Mr. Bohm was the broker of the firm.

Commissioner Grady indicated that the Keens had a right to file a complaint. However, it was not imperative that they had the counteroffer on Friday evening. Commissioner Grady felt that negotiations got out of hand and the parties were caught up in emotions.

A motion was made by Grady and seconded by Leisey that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

Chairperson Gale indicated that the situation was very confusing. He could not believe the deal could go bad so quickly, especially since the buyers really wanted the house. Chairperson Gale felt that the buyers would not have wanted to interfere with progress and seemed eager to move ahead and get the deal done. He was confused by the testimony when Mr. Bohm said Mr. Keen did not want to get together on Friday evening, and then Ms. Lohrman-Keen was crying after speaking with Mr. Bohm because she wanted to see the counteroffer. Therefore, it appeared that there was interest in closing the deal. He added that other than having a personality conflict with Mr. Keen, Mr. Bohm still had a duty to provide the requested information to the Keens instead of having Mr. Keen call to get the documents from Mr. Bohm' s wife.

Chairperson Gale felt that Mr. Bohm was dealing with inexperienced people, who were entitled to receive documents in a timely manner. Chairperson Gale also noted that he hoped that all of the Commissioners agreed that licensees have a duty to deliver documents to the clients even if there was a personality conflict.

Commissioner Leisey indicated that it was not unreasonable to communicate counteroffers verbally or unreasonable for buyers to ask for copies of a counteroffer. However, when time was short, many counteroffers were relayed over the phone. Commissioner Leisey noted that if buyers had requested hard copies they should have been delivered. Commissioner Poskochil felt that the copies should have been delivered if Mr. Bohm had not been fired.

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

Chairperson Gale announced that all exhibits related to this hearing would be retained in the Commission office.

The hearing was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

Director Tyrrell presented an exhibit which included correspondence regarding Mr. Newson's special appearance, a copy of a Presentence Investigation Report, a copy of Mr. Newson's Resumé, letters of reference and information regarding Mr. Newson's previous special appearance. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Newson was present.

Chairperson Gale reviewed the procedure for informal special appearances.

Mr. Newson reviewed the exhibits with the Commissioners and indicated the Presentence Investigation Report set forth the facts as he indicated in his previous special appearance. Chairperson Gale asked Mr. Newson to tell the Commission the relationship he had with the people who wrote the letters of reference. Mr. Newson indicated that the letter written by U.S. Probation Officer James P. Rowoldt, indicated that his probation was completed and discharged on March 17, 2004. The second letter was written by Herbert C. Rhodes, President of American Harvest Company, Inc., who Mr. Newson had known for a long time as a tutor and who he also represented in investing and on construction projects. The third letter was written by Evonne Williams, President of Make-A-Wish Foundation of which Mr. Newson was a member of the board. Mr. Newson indicated that Ms. Williams was attesting to the community service he had done through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The fourth letter was written by William H. Dodd, RIO Director of the Metropolitan Community College, who got Mr. Newson interested in the real estate industry when he wrote funding grants in North Omaha.

Chairperson Gale indicated that Mr. Newson appeared to have been involved in a horrendous crime. Mr. Newson should have contacted the FBI or police when contacted by the other individual. Instead it appeared Mr. Newson had a lapse of judgement. Chairperson Gale also indicated that Mr. Newson was an excellent candidate for licensure, but the crime committed was of enormous concern to the Chairperson.

Mr. Newson explained that he had spent days and nights asking himself the same questions. He realized the burden he put on his family's wealth. Mr. Newson indicated that he felt pressure not to fail and felt he needed to do what he needed to in order to get financing for the business. He also explained that at his young age he did not have the foresight and did not have exposure to criminal enterprises. He felt that since he had not been A streetwise@ that that was the reason this hit him broadside and devastated his life. He also noted that some things are unforgivable, but would be grateful if he were allowed the opportunity to get a real estate license to provide for his family. He also indicated that he would steer clear of problems and wanted to do things the right way.

Chairperson Gale explained to Mr. Newson that he had asked for the right to sit for the real estate broker examination and that brokers were expected to use the highest judgement. He felt that the Commission might have more comfort in letting him become a salesperson first before becoming a broker. He also explained that the temptation to take shortcuts in real estate were huge and Mr. Newson would need to have good judgement since bad judgement would not be tolerated. Therefore, experience as a salesperson might be more appropriate. Mr. Newson explained that he understood the Commission's reservation. He had made plans to hang his license under a broker who was also a board member of the Make-A-Wish Foundation. He also explained that he no longer had a margin of error. It was thirteen years ago that he made a bad decision, not just last week. He noted that he had to deal with the bad decision he made for five years in the penitentiary and five years on probation and now felt he had proven himself and his integrity. He also noted that he was not going to make a bad decision in order to make money on one real estate deal.

Chairperson Gale asked Mr. Newson if he was interested in sitting for the salesperson or broker examination. Mr. Newson indicated that he was interested in sitting for the broker examination even if there were conditions with which he would have to deal. Commissioner Leisey indicated that Mr. Newson had planned on working under a broker, but if the Commission decided to let him sit for the salesperson examination then he would not be able to be a broker. Director Tyrrell indicated that some conditions could be made on his license, for example, if Mr. Newson were to get his broker's license, he could be an associate broker, but prior to becoming a designated broker he would have to appear before the Commission. Commissioner Leisey explained that if Mr. Newson received a salesperson license, he would have to work for a broker, the same as if he was an associate broker. Mr. Newson indicated that being an associate broker was his intention, but that might only be a three to four year relationship if the broker decided to let him go. Commissioner Leisey indicated that if that were to happen, then Mr. Newson could appear before the Commission to become a designated broker. Commissioner Leisey felt that Mr. Newson paid quite a price for the crime committed and seemed to be headed down the right path.

A motion was made by Leisey and seconded by Griess to allow Mr. Newson to sit for the broker examination after making proper application and to have a license issued upon passing, but prior to becoming a designated broker, he be required to appear before the Commission.

Commissioner Poskochil asked if Mr. Newson had a criminal background before or after this incident occurred. Mr. Newson indicated that no other incidents had occurred. Commissioner Poskochil asked Mr. Newson if he understood the difference between an associate broker and a designated broker license. Mr. Newson indicated that with an associate broker license he would be unable to hire people but could gain the experience necessary to become a designated broker. Commissioner Poskochil also indicated that a designated broker was in control of money received and would receive a share of the commission earned. Mr. Newson noted that his intention was to work with real estate organizations not for them and it had been suggested to him to get his own broker's license. Commissioner Leisey felt that Mr. Newson would give the Commission comfort if they knew he was receiving guidance as to what was right and what was wrong and then come before the Commission at a later date to become a designated broker.

Commissioner Shepard suggested that a time frame be included after which Mr. Newson could appear before the Commission to be allowed to become a designated broker. Commissioner Leisey indicated that after two years from the date of licensure, Mr. Newson could reappear before the Commission to seek approval to become a designated broker. The friendly amendment was accepted by the second, Commissioner Griess.

The motion as amended by the friendly amendment carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

Director Tyrrell presented an exhibit which included correspondence regarding Ms. Wilder's special appearance, criminal explanation letter from Ms. Wilder and a copy of her salesperson application. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Ms. Wilder was present and handed out three character reference letters which are attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Chairperson Gale reviewed the procedure for informal special appearances.

Ms. Wilder thanked the Commission for letting her explain the stupid mistakes she had made in the past. She indicated that she married at a young age and had been married for twenty-two years, and during the last five years of marriage she had taken to alcohol. She called herself a determined drunk because she worked a job during the week but on the weekends became a drunk which led to doing stupid things. During this time she had a different group of friends who liked to shoplift and she enjoyed having the extra money that was not spent paying for the items taken. She explained that the items taken were not even something she needed. She just wanted to see if she could get away with it and blamed her behavior on the failing marriage and alcohol. The last time she was arrested she had gotten sick and the judge ordered her to go to treatment. Since then she had written letters to thank him for forcing her to go through a treatment program. Her son was affected by her alcoholism and so was her family, but no one told her to get help. She noted that she had not shoplifted since then and no longer drinks.

Ms. Wilder indicated that she had received awards and was now a mentor, who educated individuals by telling them her story. She also indicated that she received her associates degree in computer science and when she would be considered for a position to use her degree, they reviewed her criminal history and no longer wanted to employ her. She said that her criminal history still came back to haunt her, which was why in her speeches she would tell girls how the same behavior could affect their future. She currently was a personal preference counselor, which included decorating offices with art. She noted that she had always worked with computers, but now feels that she was a people person and would like to help people buy and sell houses. She said she had worked with title companies and was working with First National Bank. She also explained that she had tried hard to clean-up her name from her criminal past and felt she deserved a second chance.

Chairperson Gale indicated that it was a very compelling story. Commissioner Poskochil asked Ms. Wilder to explain that if she had been sober since 1992 as indicated in her letter, why she had a shoplifting conviction in 1997. Ms. Wilder indicated that she had gone back to drinking and had not had a drink since November 17, 1997. Ms. Wilder explained that she still attended Alcoholics Anonymous. Commissioner Grady asked how often Ms. Wilder attended Alcoholics Anonymous. Ms. Wilder noted that she attended every Friday.

Chairperson Gale indicated that Ms. Wilder appeared to be a good candidate to receive a pardon and was impressed with how quickly she had moved through school to get her degree. Ms. Wilder explained that she had taken a forty-eight-week course in business management which was an accelerated program, held one night a week for four hours. She indicated that she had worked for ConAgra and made more money once she received her degree.

Commissioner Grady asked how Ms. Wilder's family status was now. Ms. Wilder explained that her family life was wonderful now. The family looked up to her. She also explained that when she had been in the treatment center her family had come to visit her and she learned that they had suffered more than she had realized. She indicated that her son had to become independent at a young age, and always received good grades but he felt he did not have a mother because she would either be sleeping or yelling at him. She did not recall doing a lot of things her family had told her she had done and was not proud of her actions. She indicated that she was a whole different person now and her family respected her and her son had forgiven her.

Chairperson Gale asked if Ms. Wilder had spoken with any brokers about employment. Ms. Wilder indicated that she had only spoken with four and had decided to seek employment with one company after reviewing the information she had acquired.

A motion was made by Poskochil and seconded by Leisey to allow Ms. Wilder to sit for the salesperson examination after making proper application and to have a license issued upon passing. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye.

Director Tyrrell presented a list of the current pre-hearing officers and a sample Agreement. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Director Tyrrell noted that four of the pre-hearing officers had not yet been used. Chairperson Gale indicated that he would like to have Dick Nelson added to the list of pre-hearing officers. Director Tyrrell indicated that he would contact Mr. Nelson and see if he would be interested.

Commissioner Grady asked that with the limited use of pre-hearing officers if Director Tyrrell was satisfied that it was working. Director Tyrrell indicated that the process had only been used three times, but appeared to work fine. It was just a step in the disciplinary process to clarify the issues and get the hearing organized. Chairperson Gale indicated that he had not been totally satisfied, but since use had been limited, it was too early to tell. Although he still felt the idea and direction was good. Commissioner Leisey asked if the purpose of the pre-hearing officers was to sort through what was to be or not to be submitted to the Commission. Chairperson Gale indicated that the pre-hearing officers were to determine the issues of the complaint, to determine any stipulations, set the foundation for the exhibits and save time at the Commission meetings.

A motion was made by Poskochil and seconded by Griess to reappoint the current pre-hearing officers and give Director Tyrrell the authority to extend their agreements until June 30, 2009. The Director shall also contact Dick Nelson to ask if he wanted to be added to the list of pre-hearing officers and, if so, to contract with him. Motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

Director Tyrrell presented a list of the newly appointed Special Assistant Attorneys General. A copy of said exhibit is attached to and made a part of these minutes.

Director Tyrrell requested authority to enter into memorandums of understanding with the newly appointed Special Assistant Attorneys General, Gregory D. Barton, John H. Bergmeyer and John Selzer of Harding and Schultz PC, LLO.

Director Tyrrell indicated that due to unusual circumstances there was a need to have additional attorneys with Harding and Shultz PC, LLO appointed as Special Assistant Attorneys General. He needed the authority to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with each new appointee. Chairperson Gale asked if the same fee schedule would apply. Director Tyrrell indicated that the fee schedule approved for 2007 would apply.

A motion was made by Shepard and seconded by Grady to authorize Director Tyrrell to enter into memorandums of understanding with the newly appointed Special Assistant Attorneys General. Motion carried with Bohrer, Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard, and Gale voting aye.

LB 26 - No new information presented.

LB 104 - Director Tyrrell reported that this bill, to change the age of majority, would continue to be monitored. There were still some technical changes being considered.

LB 321 - Director Tyrrell reported that the budget bill had not yet been reported to the full Legislature.

LB 386 - Director Tyrrell reported this bill would allow attorneys or title companies to file satisfaction certifications if not done in a timely manner by the lender.

LB 622 - Director Tyrrell reported that this bill required training in the Public Records and Open Meetings Acts. This was a priority bill and an amendment had been made to the bill which required current board members and staff to also attend training.

No action was necessary with regard to these matters.

There were no information matters to present at the meeting.

May 24-25, 2007 - Staybridge Suites, Lincoln
June 28-29, 2007 - Settle Inn & Suites, Lincoln
August 23-24, 2007 - Staybridge Suites, Lincoln

Recesses and Adjournment

At 10:36 a.m. on March 29, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 10:55 a.m.

At 11:30 a.m. on March 29, Commissioner Bohrer was excused from the meeting and rejoined the meeting at 1:35 p.m.

At 12:10 p.m. on March 29, Chairperson Gale declared a recess for lunch, and reconvened the meeting at 1:16 p.m.

At 1:45 p.m. on March 29, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess to allow the parties to prepare for the Show Cause Hearing, and reconvened the meeting at 1:56 p.m.

At 2:45 p.m. on March 29, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 2:55 p.m.

At 4:05 p.m. on March 29, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 4:12 p.m.

At 4:45 p.m. on March 29, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 4:47 p.m.

At 5:00 p.m. on March 29, Chairperson Gale recessed the meeting until 9:30 a.m. on March 30.

At 9:30 a.m. on March 30, Chairperson Gale reconvened the meeting for the second day.

At 10:40 a.m. on March 30, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 10:55 a.m.

At 12:15 p.m. on March 30, Chairperson Gale declared a brief recess, and reconvened the meeting at 12:30 p.m.

At 2:35 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, a motion was made by Poskochil and seconded by Leisey that the meeting adjourn. Motion carried with Grady, Griess, Leisey, Poskochil, Shepard and Gale voting aye, with Bohrer not participating or voting, being absent and excused.

I, Les Tyrrell, Director of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing minutes of the March 29-30, 2007, meeting of the Nebraska Real Estate Commission were available for inspection on April 11, 2007, in compliance with Section 84-1413(5) R.R.S. 1943, of Nebraska.

Respectfully submitted,
Les Tyrrell
Director

Mary Kuhlmann, Woods Brothers Realty, Country Club, Lincoln
Rich O'Neill, Home Real Estate, Lincoln
Warren Wakeland, Nebraska REALTORS Association, Lincoln
Tammy Brookhouser, Nebraska REALTORS Association, Lincoln
Rod Faubion, NP Dodge, Omaha,
Suzi Wolfe, Coldwell Banker, Norfolk
Beth Lube, Re/Max Real Estate Group, Omaha
Susan Geschwender, Randall School, Omaha
Harold Johnson, NP Dodge Co, Omaha
Deb Hopkins, NP Dodge, Omaha
Lisa Bohm, Omaha
John Keen, Omaha