Minutes 3-1-2006

CURRICULUM/GEN ED COMMITTEE

a standing committee of the Education Advisory Committee

Minutes

March 1, 2006- 3:00 pm

Sylvania, CC- Conference Room B

Committee Members:

X

Kendra Cawley, Chair

X

Diane Kamali

X

Ed DeGrauw

Michael Cleghorn

X

Pam Kessinger

X

Doris Werkman

X

Marlene Eid

X

Jim Straight

X

Joe Wright

X

Dan Findley

X

Moe O’Connor

X

Jim Jeffery

Jeff Josifek

x

Adrian Rodriguez

X

Scot Leavitt

Committee Support:

Amy Alday-Murray

X

Chris Chairsell

X

Susan Wilson

Rick Aman

X

Stacey Timmins

Guests:

Dave Kercher

Laura Spillum

Vicky Charlston

Karen Jolly

Takako Yamaguchi

Susanne Christopher

Reine Thomas

Scott Huff

Barb VanAmerongen

Phil Thurber

Brooke Gondara

Mary Courtis

Martha Bailey

Chrystin Dundorf

Rhonda Smythe

Dylan Irish

Cami Bishop

Craig Kolins

Information Items from the Curriculum Office:

(These items do not require curriculum committee recommendation)

Experimental Course

  • MM 299v- Video Production II
  • ED 199f- Phonetics for Language
  • ED 199g- Language Therapy for SLP-A’s

OLD BUSINESS:

9. ALC 52- Basic English Language Skills Lab

Course Revision- Course Title Change

Recommend moving word “Language” from the course title

9a. ALC 50- Basic English Language Skills Lab

Course Revision- Course Title Change

Removing the word “Language” from the title

Recommend moving word “Language” from the course title

10. ALC 53- Basic English Language Skills Lab

Course Revision- Course Title Change

Removing the word “Language” from the title

Addition to Minutes

 10a. ALC 54 Basic English Language Skills Lab

Course Revision-Course Title Change

Recommend moving word “Language” from the course title

9. ALC 62- Basic Math Lab

Course Revision- Course Tile Change

Adding the word “Review” Basic Math Review (Lab)

Recommend

10. ALC 63-Basic Math Lab

Course Revision- Course Title Change

Adding the word “Review” Basic Math Review (Lab)

Recommend

11. ALC 64-Basic Math Lab

Course Revision- Course Title Change

Adding the word “Review” Basic Math Review (Lab)

Recommend

 12.  MTH 21C- Percentages and Statistics

Course Revision- Description Change

Recommend

13. MTH 22- Measurements

Course Revision- Description Change

Recommend

14. MTH 23c- Introduction to Geometry

Course Revision- Description Change

Recommend

15. MTH 24c- Pre-algebra

Course Revision-Description Change

Recommend

16. MTH 25c- Pre-algebra

Course Revision- Description Change

Recommend

17. MTH 26c- Decimals

Course Revision- Description Change

Recommend

18. MTH 27c- Applications in Mathematics

Course Revision- Description Change

Recommend

187.  ETC201- Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS)

            New Course

Recommend

195. LAT 280B- CE: Landscape Seminar

Course Revision- Title, Description, Requisites, Outcomes

Postponed at SAC request

196. LAT 280c- CE: Landscape Design

Course Revision- Title, Description, Requisites, Outcomes

Postponed at SAC request

201.   HE261- Healthy Nutritional Choices for a Sustainable Future

            New Course

Postponed at SAC request

NEW BUSINESS:

203. OS 245- Office Systems and Procedures

Course Revision- Prerequisite Change                                                          

Current: None

Proposed: CAS 216, OS 120

Recommend to read Prerequisites: CAS 216 and OS 120

204. ETC 111- Communication Center Operations-Intermediate

Course Revision- Prerequisite Change

Current: None

Proposed: ETC 110

Recommend

205. ETC 104- Emergency TeleCommunications-Call Taking

Course Revision- Prerequisite Change

Current: None

Proposed: ETC 103

Recommend

206. JPN 260B- Japanese Culture

Course Revision- Description, Requisites, Outcomes

Postponed at SAC request, due back in April  

207. JPN 261B- Japanese Culture

Course Revision- Description, Requisites, Outcomes

Postponed at SAC request, due back in April.

208. JPN 262B- Japanese Culture

Course Revision- Description, Requisites, Outcomes

Postponed at SAC request due back in April.

209. ARCH 121- Structural Systems 1

Contact/Credit Hour Change

Recommend

210. AMT 101- Introduction to A&P

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Already recommended at Nov. 2005

211. AMT 105- CFR’s and Related Subjects

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

212. AMT 109- Assembly & Rigging

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

213. AMT 115- Aircraft Structures & Inspections

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

214. AMT 117- Reciprocating Engine Theory & Maintenance

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

215. AMT 120- Propellors & Engine Installation

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

216. AMT 121- Turbine Engine Theory & Maintenance

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

217. AMT 123- Ignition Systems

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

218. AMT 124- Fuel Metering Systems

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

219. AMT 203- Aircraft Electricity II

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

220. AMT 204- Aircraft Electricity III

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

221. AMT 208- Aircraft Systems

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

222. AMT 211- Composite Structures

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Already Recommended in Nov. 2005

223. AMT 212- Sheet Metal

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

224. AMT 213- Hydraulics, Pneumatics, & Landing Gear

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

225. AMT 214- Instruments, Communication & Navigation Systems

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

226. AMT 216- AMT Practicum/Airframe

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

227. AMT 218- Powerplant Inspection

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

228. AMT 219- Turbine Engine Overhaul

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

229. AMT 222- Reciprocating Engine Overhaul

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

230. AMT 225- AMT Practicum/Powerplant

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

231. AMT 227- A&P Make Up

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend with working learning outcomes via email.

232. AMT 228- A&P Shop Practice

Course Revision- Learning Outcomes

Recommend

233. LAT 280a- Cooperative Work Experience-Landscape

Contact/Credit Hour Change

Postponed at SAC request

234.LAT 280b- Cooperative Work Experience- Landscape Seminar

Contact/Credit Hour Change

Postponed at SAC request

235. LAT 280c- Cooperative Work Experience- Landscape Design

Contact/Credit Hour Change

Postponed at SAC request

The following items will be discussed at 4pm.

19. ATH 212 – Introduction to Shamanism

20. ATH 213 – Shamanic Healing Traditions

March 1, 2006   4 PM  SY CC Conference Room B

Kendra Cawley (Chair of the Curriculum Committee), welcomed the group and discussed the background of the courses under discussion, ATH 212 and 213. These courses originally came before the committee in November and were recommended in a split vote.  The EAC entertained discussion of the courses at two meetings as a way of providing input for the Deans of Instruction. Following the EAC discussions, the Anthropology instructor agreed to clarify the intent and design of ATH 213 in a revised submission and CCOG. Because the changes were significant, it was deemed appropriate that the course come back through the Curriculum Committee. The Deans of Instruction asked that both courses be reviewed.

Karen Jolly (Chair of the EAC Committee) gave some background on the Curriculum Committee and its evolution from a management –based to faculty-based committee. She explained why the committee has seldom had the opportunity, or perceived the need, to consider some of the fundamental issues of how we approve courses for our curriculum, especially in the LDC curriculum.  The courses in question today put into focus the need for such discussion. Last week the Curriculum Committee, EAC Leaders, Deans of Instruction and Chris Chairsell (VPASA) met to wrestle with these issues, and feel they have moved closer to an understanding of what is needed.

Kendra presented some potential criteria the might be used to help establish the appropriateness of courses for our LDC curriculum that emerged from that meeting.  She noted that usually, when new LDC courses are proposed they are already in the LDC catalog, or have some obvious equivalence in the OUS system that gives us precedent to follow. Because there are no clear equivalences for these shamanism courses, we need to use criteria of our own.

***********************  

Kendra stated that the next segment of the meeting would be to take comments from guests who have signed up to speak, and requested that this be handled as commentary rather than Q and A.

Phil Thurber (PCC Instructor, Math)

The principle in which the appropriateness of this course is questioned is that a public college classroom should not be used as a platform for advocating a personal subjective belief system. Some of the precedence is that we don’t allow organized prayer and the controversy over teaching creationism. The course description repeatedly refers to Core Shamanism.  When search for Core Shamanism, one name came up repeatedly: Michael Harner, with an organization called Foundation for Shamanic Studies.   Phil quoted from a paper which staid that in Shamanism there are two different realities, ordinary reality and non-ordinary reality, and the perception of each depends on one’s state of consciousness.  Both are considered reality because each is recognized to have its own form of knowledge and relevance to human existence. The individual forms in non-reality are called spirits and are considered to be real by Shamanic parishioners... Everything Phil reads about Shamanism has people interacting with spirits, and takes the existence of spirits as an empirical fact.  Phil believes that this is highly subjective and a matter of belief. He referred to the outcomes of ATH 212:  Students will practice upper, middle and lower journeying skills”.  This is, to him, a subjective belief system.

Martha Bailey (PCC Instructor, Philosophy)

In our culture medicine is related to science.  Yes, there are healing techniques we don’t have a full accounting for, but we presume that we can find a physical explanation at some point.  From the religion side there is another serious question. The description of ATH 213 states that “thorough participant observation exercises students in the class will be encouraged to see, think and experience the world from an animistic perspective, enlarging their appreciation of tribal cultures and the shamanic roots of the Western tradition”.  I have no trouble with someone studying and learning about it, but there is a limit as to how far you can go as a participant observer. You can participate to some level, but to really experience the world form someone else’s eyes you have to take on that entire belief system.  You can’t fully appreciate what it means to be an animist unless you become one yourself, and to ask students to take that much of a step into that world is problematic.  It is asking them to practice a religion in the classroom. I would take that differently if you were doing a field study.  Students may end up taking this class and find themselves doing things that violate their own religious beliefs.  Once you open this door, anyone who wants to introduce something related to a religious system will have a foot hold. Oregon doesn’t have very many religion courses, but you would find this as an upper division course.  She does not feel it is appropriate at a Community College level.

Mary Courtis (PCC Instructor, Anthropology)

What she is teaching is Anthropology, not religion, and the practices are about experience with participant observation. This is not a Religion course. Within Anthropology, Shamanism fits in as the study of different states of consciousness. Shamanism is a very respectable field. Anthropologists have studied shamanism since its inception; this is a basis of research in Anthropology.  These courses fit within the framework of what Anthropologists do. Anthropologists look at systems within cultures. Animism is a central concept in trying to understand other people’s perspectives. In an Anthropology class you are trying to expose people to different ways of thinking, feeling, experiencing the world, and this is a valuable perspective to have. The best ways to get students to experience this it to have them try it out. Also, understand that they aren’t going to fully experience it at that depth. Appreciation of diversity, understanding of other values and belief systems in a cultural context is one of the goals. Many Anthropology courses have the same goals as part of their learning objectives, and in this course the students are not being asked to do anything different than in other Anthropology courses. They are trying to gain an understanding of cultural diversity and the way things are dealt with cross-culturally. What is the definition of a cult?  What comes to your mind?  Do you think of Anthropology?  Shamanism has nothing to do with spells, incantations; it’s about native customs in healing. Modern medicine and psychotherapy and spiritual traditions have their roots in shamanism.  Students find that learning about shamanism complements whatever spiritual tradition they come from rather than challenges it.  This is not a cult practice associated with magic and witchcraft. Shamanism is not about that. This course speaks to the mission statement about cultural diversity, and it certainly speaks to the central aspect of what Anthropology is about.  This will stimulate discussion and is an opportunity for the campus to learn more and challenge some of the deep assumptions and beliefs people may have.

Brooke Gondara (PCC, Division Dean for Social Sciences, Sylvania)

Brooke stated that her primary concern for the items under discussion is that she and Mary came prepared to address additional concerns and questions regarding ATH 213. They met last week with part of the Native community here in Portland and had a productive and positive discussion regarding their concerns.  Her concern is with the recent developing of criteria, and that these courses would be laid out against a process that is under development. She acknowledged that this is probably an institutional issue that is long overdue, and is supportive of this discussion, but is adamantly opposed to using these courses as test markers for criteria that are not fully developed.

***********************  

Kendra explained that the next part of the meeting is for committee members to ask questions and discuss, but would not be encouraging further commentary. 

Regarding ATH 212 Introduction to Shamanism.  Is this and appropriate LDC course?  And, should it be on the transfer list?

Diane asked about the paperwork that indicated that this course was intended to be the cornerstone for a new certificate program in Shamanic Healing.

Mary replied that a Program Award would be more appropriate, but she would like to revise it to Program Award in Shamanic Studies

Kendra noted that the course description and outcomes that appear in the CCOG for ATH 212 are different from those on the New Course forms, and asked which is correct. Mary indicated that the Descriptions and Outcomes on the CCOG are the correct ones

Diane asked about Outcomes 3 and 5; should the “concept” and “shamanistic experience” be plural?  Mary agreed.

Kendra asked the committee members how they felt about using the developing criteria for evaluating this course.   Scott (CC Member) questioned what background a student would need to bring to this course.  Looking at intended Outcome #4: what background would a student need to be able to do the Shamanic journeying?  Mary replied that no background would be needed, but it would be nice to have an introductory ATH and WR 121 as recommended prerequisites. With the intro ATH they would have some cultural background

Diane asked why at Cultural ATH course was not a required prerequisite.  Mary replied that she did not want to scare students away that might have the capacity to take it, especially since we are moving to WR prerequisites college-wide. .  Diane commented that the college wide prerequisites will be in ENG and MTH.  That won't get you the student with some consciousness of what a study of cultural groups would consist of, but is that something that would help student understand the concepts in the course?  Mary replied that she would like to state the prerequisite as recommended as apposed to required because some students may come in with significant life experience, and aware of cultural diversity.  Scott questioned leaving the door open for students with no background of cultural awareness.  Mary replied that ATH 212 would be an introductory course similar to Introduction to Cultural Anthropology.

Kendra asked if the committee would feel comfortable use our experience with other courses as well as the developing criteria to determine whether this course is appropriate in our lower division curriculum, and asked if the group might discuss that issues.

Doris said that does see this course as LDC because it is an introduction, broad-based and comparative.  Students will be critically looking at a number of different things and how they compare, and that is what LDC is.

Diane commented that these questions were to the LDC basis, and drew a comparison with Latin American Lit, another LDC course with a prerequisite of WR 121. She felt that a student coming into wit a RD 90 or WR 90 background would not succeed because the student would not have the analytical skill to deal with the different world views. Mary acknowledged that, but reiterated her interest in having it recommended, not wanting to exclude students.

Kendra asked for the committees views on this point

Dan asked how many times the course has been taught.  Mary replied six or seven times.  Doris asked if the student have come in with some ATH background, and Mary replied that it has been mixed. Doris asked if she could tell a difference [in student performance]; Mary replied that she has not seen a difference   Kendra asked whether the concern was with a  WR 121 or an ATH prerequisite. Diane replied that either would be appropriate as required.  Ed agreed on the basis of the specialization, that even though it is an introductory course, it would seem that some ATH background is needed Mary asked if we could indicate prerequisite or instructor permission. In that case she would be comfortable with WR 115 [WR 121 readiness] and ATH 103 (Cultural Anthropology).

Moe asked about the Theory vs. Practice issue, and what would be practiced in the participant observation. Mary commented that an example of participant observation would be a rock divination.  Students run up against their own cultural ideas about what is real and what is not, and then discuss who found this difficult and how that relates culturally.

Moe asked if they would practice on each other. Mary replied that in some instances it might involve helping each other. In rock divination, one would do the exercise and the other would be an observer and recorder.

Pam asked if Mary feels that she brings specialized skills to the teaching of ATH 212.  How can we define what skills are needed to be qualified to teach this introductory Shamanism course. Mary replied that any ATH instructor with Shamanic background and training could teach the course, it jut might be from a different perspective.

Shari asked for clarification on Outcome #5 (Reflect on personal values and how they are shaped by Shamanic experiences) Does shamanic experience shape personal values?  Mary replied that that might be a possibility, but not an expectation.

Kendra asked to entertain a motion for this course.

Joe asked about the specific practices and exercises that the students do in  ATH 212, and exactly hat is being asked of the students. Mary described examples of rock divination and filtering energy, and commented that exercises on how people filter energy helps students in their daily lives.

Kendra noted that is was 5:10 PM and asked the group what is still needed. She expressed surprise that the group seemed to be conflicted about ATH 212, which had raised few issues in prior discussions

Ed commented that the focus seemed to be on methodology, not comparison and not theoretical.  The description indicates it is an Introduction to Shamanism and a survey course, and that is no problem but the emphasis on methodology is troubling. .  Scott commented that when both courses were considered together, ATH 213 raised more concerns, and ATH 212 was not looked at as closely. Paul commented that the question about methodology have taken led the focus of the discussion astray. He likened the participant observation to taking music in which student are expected to go to concerts. Scott suggested that might not be the right comparison, as there is a difference between performing and observing.

Dan commented that his understanding is that the goal of this course should be to teach student how to think like Anthropologists in the process of learning about a particular set of practices, similar to taking phrenology and not necessarily embracing, but understanding and appreciation some aspects of that.

Dan moved to Recommend ATH 212 with the following changes

Add Prerequisite of WR 121 and ATH 103 or Instructor approval.

Outcome #3 to read:  Understand Shamanic concepts of health and illness

Outcome #5 to read:  Reflect on how a person's values may be shaped by Shamanic experiences.

Doris seconded the motion.  

The motion carried, with 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 abstaining.

Kendra asked if the group was willing to address the request for the AAOT Distributing List B designation

Susanne commend that from a Degrees and Certificates perspective, when something is on the A or B list we are giving our students the understanding that it will transfer as Gen Ed. If a student doesn’t complete the AAOT at PCC and transfer to another institution, the other institution may not give credit for Gen Ed, but only as an elective.

Doris noted that it is important that we look at this and find a way to clarify this situation, but argued that we should not apply different criteria to course recommendations at this point

Ed moved that ATH 212 be recommended to List B

Doris seconded the motion.

The motion carried, with 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 abstaining.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 PM

ATH 213 will be discussed at a follow-up meeting to be held March 8, 2006, at 3 Pm, Sylvania CC Conference Room B

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

March 8, 2006

3pm SY CC Conference Rm B

ATH 213- Shamanistic Healing Traditions

Kendra called the meeting to order, and discussed the established state criteria for Upper vs. Lower division courses, based on what is or is not in the Lower Division Collegiate Catalog and in the OUS System.  Because there is no clear precedent or equivalent for this courses, we need to consider what criteria or guidelines to use to determine when a course slides over into upper division   She asked the committee to take a look at the developing criteria/guidelines based on the prior meeting and recent discussions, and to consider whether these are appropriate and useful for deciding if a course is LDC?

Chris Chairsell asked the Committee to look at the criteria as framework.  Also, to look at courses from an academic standpoint and not from a personal one.  This framework may prove helpful down the road.

After some discussion of these guidelines, ATH 213 was specifically addressed.

Kendra asked for clarification of the outcomes.  What do you want a student to be able to in the real world – the main things? Has the course changed its direction in this regard?

Mary replied it has not changed. They should be aware of cultural differences and how it is reflected in Shamanic cultures.   Distinguish the difference between tribal and core Shamanism. Brooke added an example in Nursing. They’re going to be able to distinguish between the two and see potentially how they interacting.  Say they’re pursuing a Nursing degree and they’re dealing with a tribal culture setting and the fact that they understand some of the differences about Tribal Shamanism  and the way  people of that background approach it will help them deliver better medical care.

Marlene commented that while she appreciates diversity a lot, things have to be objective and at the time [these courses were initially reviewed] we didn’t have the working framework.  She did some of her own research putting her feelings of diversity aside.  Her struggle comes from where this course would fit in the LDC; there aren’t any other courses alike offered at LDC level.  She looked at a couple Private Universities and State Universities she feels that these courses belong in upper division.  These courses fit under spirituality, Buddhism, comparative religions, under PHL or Religion or Divinity.  If she is going to look at a course she’s going to look at it from an objective perspective.   Mary replied that throughout the ATH department at PCC we have a wide variety of courses that are taught at the 200 level, which is a lower division aspect of a particular specialization.   This course fits into the 200 level sequences, with the idea of an intro to Anth.  This is consistent within ATH and other community college around the state that also have very specialty courses in the area of expertise. 

Scott asked why create a 200 level course if a student transfers to PSU they have to take the same course at the 300 level?  Mary replied that specialty courses at PCC don’t transfer across the board, but students are given elective credits for them.

Kendra asked what is the difference between the two course [ATH 212 and ATH 213} now?   Mary replied that ATH 212 is a survey on all different aspects of Shamanism, while ATH 213 is more focused specifically in Shamanic Healing Traditions which is a subtopic within a larger topic that is covered in the first course.  While both are comparative, 213 focuses more on a specific area.

Pam asked what kinds of does the instructor need to teach Shamanic healing, what kind of licensure or certification is there in this area?  If that isn’t required, then it would seem to be in terms of developing a world view and accepting certain beliefs and that would conflict with separation of church and state.  She commented that the college is going to be in a good spot if we start with the approval of curriculum that crosses that line. She did not see enough change in the CCOGs to convince her otherwise.

Mary said that is why she presented the Syllabus.  Participant observation is a standard ATH technique done in all the ATH courses that I teach.  The importance of participant observation is to gain insight on how other people think and experience the world.  This isn’t all were doing we’re also looking at cosmology and concepts of values about reality. 

Pam argued that the information that we look at to approve a course is the online submission and the CCOG, that she did not want the Syllabus to carry any extra weight.  We need to see a course that is designed for all ATH instructors can teach it [from the CCOG].  Mary commented that if the instructor has expertise in Shamanism, you have to show evidence of specialized training in that area than you can teach the course. 

Brook offered a real world example in which Providence changed part of their practice to allow Medicine people of their tribal specific background to come in and perform the things that needed to be done.  A nurse would be able to influence those decisions.  Pam commented that the person who would make that decision would likely be at a much higher level. I’m still seeing a differentiation between what we offer at LD transfer vs. getting into a situation where you need a much higher background in order to understand.  Scott noted that giving your syllabus as an example doesn’t assure that every other Instructor would use that syllabus?  That is why that we want to use the CCOG here not the syllabus.

Scott commented that while he has nothing against participant observation or learning about other cultures, his issue here is with performing religious practices in the classroom.  Mary disagreed that these are religious practices.  This started a discussion as to whether Shamanism would be considered religious, or spiritual or cultural, and it was clear that there is no clear answer to that. Mary commend that it depends on who you talk to

Dan asked whether we are we teaching students to heal, or to understand and appreciate the practices of a particular group through the lens of an ethnographer.  Is Shamanism widely distributed?   Mary replied that we’re not teaching students to become Shaman’s and yes, Shamanism is global.

Pam asked what a student’s grade would be based on?  What if a student can’t get it because of there personal bias?  Mary replied that that would not be criteria on which a grade was based. 

Rhonda Smythe (student, visitor): Lea Gibson, whom is part of the tribal community, couldn’t be here due to a death and she wanted to make sure that the Curriculum Committee knew that among the elders in her community 1 person voted for the Shamanism course, 1 against, and 2 were indifferent.

Marlene commented that using Psychology as a comparison, if she were to replace the word Shamanic and replace it with Pastoral counseling she would have a problem with this course.  She also noted that here is currently a Shamanism course in Community Education. Mary remarked that the Community Education instructor probably isn’t an Anthropologist.

Kendra commented that searching other schools revealed Shamanism courses with numbers that seemed upper division in most cases (though the numbering systems were not familiar or obvious.  She asked Mary how she would see the difference between a 200 level and 300 level course?  Mary replied that the approach would be more in depth in the 300-level course.

Dan Moved to Recommend ATH 213; Jim Straight seconded the motion

Recommend 3

Opposed 5

Abstained 1

Meeting Adjourned at 4:40 pm