H.E. No. 85-17

Synopsis:

A Hearing Examiner for the Public Employment Relations Commission recommends that the Commission find that the University of Medicine and Dentistry committed an unfair practice when it declined to negotiate over which of its faculty members may have their salaries rise above a salary cap when regulations promulgated, pursuant to the Appropriations Act, granted discretion to the President of the University to determine which of its faculty members may have their salaries rise above the salary cap. The hearing Examiner relied on State v. State Supervisory Employees Assn., 78 N.J. 54 (1978) which holds that, the adoption of any specific regulation controlling a particular term or condition of employment will pre-empt negotiations on that subject only to the degree the regulation speaks in the imperative and leaves nothing to the discretion of the public employer.

It was also recommended that the Commission find the State further violated the Act when it failed to grant salary increases which were directed by regulation. All regulations which are applicable to employees within a particular unit are effectively incorporated by reference as terms of any collective agreement covering that unit (State Supervisory, supra at pg. 80) and the alteration of a term of a contract without negotiations constitute a violation of the Act.

PERC Citation:

H.E. No. 85-17, 10 NJPER 615 (¶15294 1984)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

07.31 43.113 46.21 72.5891 72.591 72.667

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- HE 85-017.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

H.E. NO. 85-17 1. H.E. NO. 85-17 1. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE NEW JERSEY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, We hereby notify our employees that: H.E. NO. 85-17 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY, UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-82-92-41 UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY, COUNCIL OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS CHAPTERS, Charging Party. Appearances: For the Respondent Melvin E. Mounts, D.A.G. For the Charging Party Sterns, Herbert & Weinroth (Mark D. Schorr, of Counsel) HEARING EXAMINER = S RECOMMENDED REPORT AND DECISION On October 30, 1981, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Council of Chapters of the American Association of University Professors ( A Association or AAUP @ )1/ filed an Unfair Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission ( A PERC @ ) alleging that the State of New Jersey and the University of Medicine and Dentistry ( A University @ )2/ violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ( A Act @ ), specifically subsection 5.4(a)(1), (3) and (5)3/ when the College failed to pay certain professors at the College their full salaries pursuant to the collective negotiations contract between the parties. It was alleged that this action constituted a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment. The charge itself is very detailed and relates the history of bargaining between the AAUP and the University as well as the Cap laws and its impact upon their negotiations. Much of this history is not in dispute and the parties have stipulated most of the following facts. From 1972 until the filing of the charge, the AAUP has been the exclusive majority representative for full time faculty at the University and has entered into five separate collective negotiations contracts with the University and the State. The State, University and Department of Higher Education actively participated in, and approved, all said agreements, including the one under which this dispute arose, which was for July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1983. From July 1, 1973 to the filing of the charge, the annual Appropriations Acts adopted by the legislature have provided that employees of the State, including those employed by the University, could not receive more in salary than $500 less than the head of their respective departments. Those Appropriations Acts, however, exempted from this limitation the A medical faculty @ of the University as well as certain employees of the State. However, also pursuant to the appropriation acts, such exemptions had to be approved by the State = s Salary Adjustment Committee (the S.A.C.) which is comprised of the State Treasurer, the President of the Civil Service Commission and the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting. Prior to the instant dispute, the S.A.C. uniformly approved faculty salaries in excess of the limits set forth in the annual Appropriations Act. There are two faculty groups at the University, The Basic Science Faculty, who hold degrees in, and teach, the basic science curriculum and the Clinical Science Faculty who hold medical and dental degrees and teach the clinical curriculum. Following the negotiations for the July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1981 contract, the College submitted requests for salary increases for medical faculty (including those who were not licensed doctors or dentists) to the Salary Adjustment Committee. T. Edward Hollander, Chancellor of the Department of Higher Education sought a legal opinion from the Attorney General as to whether those who were not licensed doctors or dentists were included within the medical faculty classification in the Appropriations Act. Accordingly, the Salary Adjustment Committee deferred action on the request until the Attorney General rendered his opinion. This deferral was the subject of another, earlier, unfair practice charge, which was filed on December 10, 1979 (CO-80-159). This charge was resolved when the Attorney General, in April 1980, issued his opinion finding that the term A Medical Faculty @ included faculty members who were not licensed physicians and dentists. In 1980 and again in 1981, the Appropriations Act provided that: with respect to salary adjustment at the College of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, recommendation for such salary adjustment shall be in accordance with criteria promulgated by the Chancellor of Higher Education and Director of the Division of Budget Accounting. The 1981-83 contract, under which the instant controversy arose, was ratified on August 4, 1981. The contract includes a side bar letter of agreement providing that the Association reserved the right to later challenge any limitations that might exist or be imposed on the salaries of members of the unit. Certain administrators, who are excused from the AAUP = s negotiating unit and whose salaries are not determined through collective negotiation, received salary adjustments equivalent to those negotiated by the AAUP on behalf of its members. During the negotiations for the 1981-83 contract, the Association demanded to negotiate salary caps but Frank Mason, Director of the Governor = s Office of Employee Relations, stated that the guideline for piercing the salary cap would not be the subject of negotiations and would be determined only by the State. While the negotiations were in progress, on March 3, 1981, before ratification of the successor agreement, the State, without consultation with the AAUP, imposed salary cap guidelines via a document entitled, A Criteria for S.A.C. approval of CMDNJ Faculty and Administrator Salaries Above the Department Head maximum. @ The Document was dated February 27, 1981. These criteria were developed solely by the State, through its agencies. It affected individuals represented by the charging party by limiting their salaries. Pursuant to the February 27, 1981 criteria, 13 members of the Basic Science Faculty were granted exemptions from the salary cap. The Contract provided that the salaries of these faculty members would be in excess of $55,500 for fiscal year 1981 (but their salaries initially were frozen at the 1981 level at the beginning of fiscal 1982). In November of 1982, the 53 basic science faculty members received lump sum payment for the period January 19, 1982 through June 27, 1982 after the Legislature increased the Chancellor = s salary.4/ These lump sum payments resulted in 44 of these basic scientists on the faculty receiving more than $59,000 for fiscal 1982. For fiscal 1983, the state imposed a salary cap of $59,000. The S.A.C. promulgated a Memorandum, #8-83, which provided that all 131 faculty members paid from the clinical salary scale were exempted from the cap and were increased to the level called for under the contract agreement. This action affected one hundred thirty one faculty members. In addition, of 18 administrators, including 2 with medical degrees who had been on the basic science salary scale, 12 were released from the salary caps and were given salary adjustments equivalent to those received by faculty members under the prevailing agreement. Further, administrators with medical or dental degrees, who were not on the basic science salary scale, were released from the cap and given salary adjustments equivalent to those received by the faculty under the prevailing collective negotiations contract between the parties. The salaries of the 53 faculty members who are paid on the basic science salary scale were not exempted from the cap. These faculty members therefore did not receive their negotiated salaries. Of these employees, 2 have M.D. or D.D.S. degrees, Doctors George Kozan and Duncan Hutcheon. The University refused to negotiate over the implementation and continuation of a salary cap on these faculty members on the basic science salary scale. It is the contention of the Association that the freeze of the basic science faculty salaries constitute an unfair practice. The University argues that there was no unfair practice. It acted pursuant to specific mandate of legislation, the Appropriations Act, and pursuant to duly authorized and adopted regulations of the President of the Civil Service Commission, the State Treasurer and the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting and in accordance with certain regulations approved and issued by the Civil Service President and the Director of Budget and Accounting. It maintains the legislation specifically pre-empted the subject of how individual salaries may pierce established salary caps when it enacted appropriations legislation which directs, in the imperative, that such determination are to be made in accordance with criteria established by the Chancellor and the Director of Budget and Accounting. Specifically, it claimed that the criteria were issued as Memorandum #8-83 (discussed infra at pg. 10). In State v. State Supervisory Employees Assn., 78 N.J. 54 (1978), the Supreme Court of New Jersey first addressed the question of what happens when the regulatory power of a public employer is in conflict with an employee = s right to negotiate terms and conditions of employment.5/ Although employees have the right to engage in collective negotiations on terms and conditions of employment, that right is limited when the subject matter sought to be negotiated is already addressed by legislation. The adoption of any specific statute or regulation setting or controlling a particular term or condition of employment will preempt negotiations on that subject. This preemption doctrine applies to any validly adopted regulation, regardless of which agency or department promulgated it, provided the regulation definitively and specifically fixes a term or condition of employment. 78 N.J. at 80-81 Furthermore, we affirm PERC = s determination that specific statutes and regulations which expressly set particular terms and conditions of employment, as defined in Dunellen, for public employees may not be contravened by negotiated agreement. For that reason, negotiations over matters so set by statutes or regulations is not permissible. We use the word A set @ to refer to Statutory or regulatory provisions which speak in the imperative and leave nothing to the discretion of the public employer. 78 N.J. at 80 However, negotiations over a subject is only partially preempted where a statute allows a range of permissible approaches to the subject. It is implicit in the foregoing that statutes or regulations concerning terms and conditions of public employment which do not speak in the imperative, but rather permit a public employer to exercise a certain measure of discretion, have only a limited preemptive effect on collective negotiation and agreement. Thus, where a statute or regulation mandates a minimum level of rights or benefits for public employees but does not bar the public employer from choosing to afford them greater protection, proposals by the employees to obtain that greater protection is a negotiated agreement are mandatorily negotiable. A contractual provision afforded the employees rights or benefits in excess of that required by statute or regulation is valid and enforceable. However, where a statute or regulation sets a maximum level of rights or benefits for employees on a particular term and condition of employment, no proposal to affect that maximum is negotiable nor would any contractual provision purposing to do so be enforceable. State Supervisory at 81. In IFPTE Local 195 v. State, 88 N.J. 393 (1982), the Court held that, to the extent a regulation is consistent with, and effectuates, the authority delegated to the regulator by statute, it is to be given the same binding and preemptive effect that would be accorded to a statute directly establishing the requirement contained in the regulation. Id. at 403-404. However, in Council of New Jersey State College Locals v. State Board of Higher Ed., 91 N.J. 18 (1982), the Supreme Court held that in order to bar a negotiated agreement on a given term and condition of employment, a regulation or enactment must regulate the term A expressly, specifically and comprehensively. @ Id. at 30. In State College Locals, supra, the court addressed the issue of what happens when the regulated agency also performs certain employer functions regarding the same employees that it regulates. The regulator-employer in State College Locals was also the Department of Higher Education. There, as here, the Department is not the primary employer but does serve as both regulator and employer. In such a situation, the regulator = s right of preemption over negotiation is only presumed. Said presumption can be overcome by demonstrating that the regulations were arbitrary, adopted in bad faith, or passed primarily to avoid negotiation on terms and conditions of employment. When such a showing is made, the regulation will not be given preemptive effect. The Court listed eight relevant factors to be considered in rebutting the presumption: (1) the extent to which the regulation was consistent with or necessary to effectuate the agency = s statutory authority; (2) the relationship between the regulation and the exercise of the agency = s regulatory jurisdiction; (3) the scope of the agency = s employer role; (4) the agency = s rationale for adopting the regulation; (5) the circumstances under which the regulation was adopted; (6) the scope and composition of the class of employees affected by the regulation; (7) the basic fairness of the regulation to the employees affected; and (8) the extent to which the employees or their representatives had the opportunity to express their views on the regulation during its informative stages. (Pgs. 28-29) The Association here argues that it is not necessary to apply the eight factors test of State College Locals, supra, to reach the conclusion that the University here committed an unfair practice. (Although the argument is made in the alternative.) It argues that the regulations, promulgated by the S.A.C. do not satisfy the test of a preemptive regulation. That is, the term or condition of employment herein, salaries, were not regulated A expressly, specifically and comprehensively. @ To explore this argument, one must re-trace the steps of the enactments in the regulatory process. The Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1983, L. 1982, c.2, unlike prior years, contain no express salary cap, rather it provides in connection with the salaries of State employees: No salary range or rate of pay shall be increased or paid in any State department, agency, commission, or higher education institution without the approval of the President of the Civil Service Commission and the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting, pursuant to rules and regulations... One can see power is vested in the S.A.C. to create regulations concerning the salary of the University faculty.6/ Such Regulations were promulgated by the President of the Civil Service Commission, the State Treasurer and the Director, Division of Budget and Accounting when they issued joint regulations for fiscal year 1982-83, effective June 26, 1982, which included these provisions: No employee in the unclassified service shall be paid a cash salary rate in excess of $59,000 except with the approval of the employee = s department head and the President of Civil Service Commission and the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting. The salaries of administrators and faculty at Rutgers, The State University, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and the New Jersey Institute of Technology, as specified by the Chancellor of Higher Education, may be increased beyond $59,000 in accordance with criteria promulgated by the Chancellor of Higher Education and the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting. The Department of Higher Education promulgated criteria in Administrative Memorandum #8-83 which provides in pertinent part: The President of the Civil Service Commission and the Director, Division of Budget and Accounting have approved the following criteria concerning salaries at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; Rutgers, the State University; and the New Jersey Institute of Technology effective June 26, 1982. Faculty at UMDNJ $59,000*** ***Persons holding MD, DO, DDS, DMD exempt as in II below: II. The maximum salaries for faculty and administrators at UMDNJ holding medical or dental degrees (M.D., D.O., D.D.S., D.M.D.) may be increased to the level called for under contracted agreement for faculty, or justified by the President for administrators. III. For other faculty at UMDNJ, Rutgers, and NJIT, the Presidents are authorized to grant exceptions to the $59,000 maximum as follows: Up to 30 at UMDNJ, up to 30 at Rutgers, and up to 10 at NJIT. Within these fixed limits, the Presidents authorized to exceed the maximum salary specified for selected Chief subordinates, thereby reducing the remaining number of faculty exemptions. The senior public institutions will be responsible for providing the following documentation to the Department of Higher Education for all requested faculty and administrative salary adjustments in excess of $59,000. 1. For faculty, documentation shall include each individual = s name, academic credentials, faculty rank, academic discipline/department, current and proposed salary, range and steps; plus the resulting number of faculty positions eligible for increases in excess of $59,000 maximum. V. Process The Department of Higher Education will review all documentation prior to transmittal to the Salary Adjustment Committee. The Department will consult with the institutions where there appears to be insufficiency of documentation and indicate those requested salary actions where further justification is warranted consistent with the criteria enumerated above. The Department of Higher Education will forward to the Salary Adjustment Committee for its consideration, all applications for salary authorization above the mandated limit, with indication of those applications that qualify to meet the criteria established by the Chancellor and the Director of Budget and Accounting. As one reviews this three tiered regulatory process, it is evident that discretion is continually passed on to a lower level in the state hierarchy. The legislative enactment, the Appropriations Act speaks in the imperative but does grant regulatory authority to the President of Civil Service and the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting. Such delegation does not, by itself, vitiate the potential preemptive nature of rules which otherwise satisfy the criteria of State Supervisory, supra. The regulations promulgated by the President of Civil Service and Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting, pursuant to the statute, again delegate rule-making authority. Again, the delegation does not vitiate the preemptive potential of such rules. The rules which were finally adopted, however, are something less than preemptive, for they again delegate authority, this time to the President of the University, clearly the employer. He has discretion in deciding which faculty members in the Basic Science Faculty may have their salaries pierce the cap. This discretion does not conform with the holding of State Supervisory that regulations, to be preemptive, A speak in the imperative and leave nothing to the discretion of the employer. @ (supra). Regulation #8-84 allows a range of permissible actions and is preemptive only to the extent it limits the number of basic science faculty members who may pierce the cap to thirty. When #8-84 was promulgated, granting discretion in its application to the University President, a contemporaneous, co- extensive obligation to negotiate over terms and conditions of employment arose within that very area of discretion. Admittedly, the regulations require that the President of the University provide documentation to support his decision to the S.A.C. Although such justification is commendable, it is no substitute for the requirements of State Supervisory. In failing to negotiate with the AAUP over which faculty members would receive their full salaries under the contract,7/ the University committed an unfair practice. Moreover, the regulations in #8-84 which provide that A faculty and administrators holding medical or dental degrees may be increased to the level called for under contractual agreement @ is ambiguous. Standing by itself, the term, A May be increased @ does not speak in the imperative. The past history of the University is clear, however, Doctor and Dentists salaries have uniformly been allowed to rise above the salary cap. If this regulation is construed to be read in the imperative, consistent with past history, the University has failed to follow this regulation when it declined to allow the salaries of two members of the basic science faculty who hold M.D. or D.D.S. degrees, specifically, Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon, to rise above the cap. The University argues that this regulation applies only to those members of the clinical faculty staff. However, there is nothing in the regulation which makes such a distinction. Since all A statutes and regulations which are applicable to the employees who comprise a particular unit are effectively incorporated by reference as terms of any collective agreement covering that unit @ (State Supervisory, supra, at pg. 80) and, since a simple reading of the regulation demonstrates that Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon were entitled to have their salaries rise above the cap, the University effectively, unilaterally altered a term and condition of the contract and, therefore, committed an unfair practice when it declined to pay the two Doctors their negotiated salary. New Brunswick Bd. of Ed., 4 NJPER 84 ( & 4040 1978) aff = d. App. Div. No. A-2450-77 (4/2/79). However, the promulgation of the regulations, per se, was not an unfair practice under the test of State College Locals. The Chancellor of Higher Education testified as to the recent history of the cap at the University and, more particularly, as to the creation of the regulations in question. He testified that he was aware that the preclusion of negotiations would probably result in the filing of the instant unfair practice charge but he was also aware that the legislation creating the cap, vested in him, in conjunction with S.A.C., the authority to promulgate rules determining which employees may pierce the cap. He testified that he perceived that the CAP law took precedence over negotiations and, therefore, believed he had no obligation to negotiate. His testimony was given in a forthright and credible manner. There is nothing in the record which convinces me that the State College Locals presumption of preemption has been rebutted and can see no unfair practice in the failure of the State or the University to negotiate the promulgation of regulations limiting the total number of basic science faculty who may pierce the cap. In fashioning a recommended remedy, it must be kept in mind that although the regulation allows up to 30 of the 53 members8/ of the basic science faculty to have their salary caps lifted, not one of these faculty members was so benefitted. Of 30 allocated salary cap exemptions, the University has granted 12 of them to administrators. This leaves 18 exemptions which under the then current regulation, could have been negotiated.9/ It is therefore recommended that the Commission order that the University negotiate with the Association over granting retroactive salary cap exemptions to up to 18 faculty members on the basic science pay scale for fiscal year 1983. Also, I will recommend that Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon be reimbursed for fiscal year 1983 in compliance with the regulation imposed by the President of the University pursuant to Administrative Memorandum #8-83. The salaries of the Doctors should not be included as part of the 18 positions on the basic science pay scale, discussed above as their obligation to reimburse Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon were out of the express working of the regulations and not out of the discretion granted to the University President. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is hereby recommended that the Commission issue the following ORDER: A. That the respondent University cease and desist from: 1. Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act by (a) refusing to negotiate with the AAUP over which basic science faculty member = s salaries may arise above the salary cap and (b) refusing to allow the salaries of Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon to rise above the salary cap. B. Take the following action: 1. Negotiate with the Association over allowing up to 18 faculty on the basic science faculty pay sale of their salaries rise above the salary cap to the proposed salaries indicated on the collective negotiation agreement between the parties for fiscal year 1983. 2. Pay to Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon their full salaries in accordance with the collective negotiations agreement for fiscal year 1983 together with interest computed at 12% per annum. 3. Post in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked as Appendix A A. @ Copies of such notice, on forms to be provided by the Commission, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and, after being signed by the Respondent = s authorized representative, shall be maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent University to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced or covered by other materials. 4. Notify the Chairman of the Commission within twenty (20) days of receipt what steps the Respondent University has taken to comply herewith. /s/Edmund G. Gerber Chief Hearing Examiner DATED: October 18, 1984 Trenton, New Jersey WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act by (a) refusing to negotiate with the AAUP over which basic science faculty member = s salaries may rise above the salary cap and (b) refusing to allow the salaries of Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon to rise above the salary cap. WE WILL negotiate with the Association over allowing up to 18 faculty on the basic science faculty pay scale of their salaries rise above the salary cap to the proposed salaries indicated on the collective negotiations agreement between the parties for fiscal year 1983. WE WILL pay to Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon their full salaries in accordance with the collective negotiations agreement for fiscal year 1983 together with interest computed at 12% per annum. 1/ At the time of the filing of the charge, the Association was the College of Medicine & Dentistry, Council of Chapters of the AAUP. 2/ At the time of the filing of the charge the institution was the College of Medicine and Dentistry. 3/ These subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: A (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act; (3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act; (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative. @ 4/ N.J.S.A. 18A:14B-15-107, authorized the Governor to increase the Chancellor = s salary. The Governor did so in January 1982. 5/ It is not in dispute here and has long been held that the issue of compensation is a term and condition of employment. Compensation intimately and directly affects employees and does not interfere with the determination of governmental policy. See Bd. of Ed. of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers Ass = n., 64 N.J. 6-7 (1973). 6/ The Association attacked the validity of the statute in Superior Court to no avail. See Council of Chapter of AAUP at UMDNJ v. State of New Jersey at UMDNJ, App. Div. Dkt. Number A3179 82T2 (1984). 7/ It must be emphasized that the Department of Higher Education was delegated authority to create regulations which could preempt negotiations if the regulations contain specifically detailed criteria. Moreover, requiring negotiations over these 30 positions does not mean the University could not save some of these positions to attract quality people to the University, nor does it mean the University must necessarily accede to the demands of the Association, in negotiations, at to which faculty member will pierce the cap. Rather, the University must sit down with the Association and attempt to reach an agreement over these matters in good faith. 8/ Or 51 if one places Drs. Kozan and Hutcheon in separate categories. 9/ Although it is within the employers power to restore the status quo ante by temporarily rescinding the cap exemption to the twelve administrators, I do not believe such a remedy is in the best interest of the labor stability nor would it be truly meaningful. It is unrealistic to assume that the University would ever accede to a demand in negotiations that the 12 exceptions which were granted to administrators be retroactively granted to faculty. Docket No. (Public Employer) Date: By: This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Public Employment Relations Commission, 495 West State Street, PO Box 429, Trenton, NJ 08625-0429 (609) 984-7372 APPENDIX A A @ ***** End of HE 85-17 *****