MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
June 25, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:15 a.m., on Friday, June 25, 1993, in Room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. EXHIBIT A is the Meeting Agenda. EXHIBIT B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
AB776Abolishes department of insurance's regulatory account.
Ms. Terry Rankin, Insurance Commissioner, testified this bill was discussed during the department's budget hearing. She stated the Prepaid Funeral and Cemetery Account, Budget Account 3836, fees would be deposited into the general fund. She explained the examination of licensees was passed through a separate budget account. Therefore, this account included fees which were not used and could be placed in the general fund. AB776 addressed changes in statutes which would be affected by the deletion of the account.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on AB776.
SB86 Requires development of state plan for educational technology.
Dr. Gene Paslov, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, explained SB86 was the result of the ACR43 interim study. He explained discussion had centered around telecommunications and computer-assisted instruction and resulted in recommendations which became SB86. He stated the fiscal note of $300,000 had been removed as a result of hearings in Senate Finance so there would be no general fund impact and federal dollars would be sought to cover the costs. This would be a cooperative project between the State Board of Education and the local School Boards of Trustees.
Mr. Spitler asked if there would be any conflicts with the new Information Technology Department and its consolidation efforts. Dr. Paslov indicated there would be no conflicts and there would be cooperation between the boards to avoid any anomalies.
Mr. Spitler stated for the record that he was a telecommunications employee, but SB86 impacted him no differently than any one else and he would be voting on this bill.
Mrs. Chowning asked if this would help the Paris family in White Pine and Ely counties as discussed in AB319. Dr. Paslov replied it would help them. This concept was very consistent with what was attempted with SB86.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on SB86.
SB265Makes various changes regarding program for education of handicapped persons.
Ms. Gloria Dopf, Director Special Education, testified SB265 repealed the sunset of SB611 of the Sixty-sixth session. She provided the committee with a memo addressing requested amendments for technical changes (see EXHIBIT C) from "handicapped" to "disability" in other statutes which would be inconsistent with federal law. She pointed out this was being addressed so late in the session because another bill SB153 had carried all the technical amendments to bring the NRS 388 and NRS 387 sections into conformance with federal law, but the status of the bill was unknown.
Mr. Humke commented he had become increasingly dissatisfied with services to handicapped individuals within his district and the state. He believed administrators were looking for excuses and reasons to not certify a child as special education and not place him into the proper program. He asked if the department was aware of any lawsuits by public interest law firms to assure disabled children were receiving proper education by federal and state law. Ms. Dopf replied she was not aware of any lawsuits at this time. She pointed out there were due process procedures whereby if there was any disagreement about the identification, evaluation, placement or any portion of the service system, there would be a formal procedure for review. She stated there were some cases being addressed in the due process procedures, but none were in court action or were likely to go to court. Mr. Humke asked if there had been any diminution of services. Ms. Dopf replied, from her perspective, there had been no diminution of services and her field staff had not reported any noncompliance in the state.
Chairman Arberry closed the hearing on SB265.
SB507Makes appropriation to Nevada racing commission for certain operating expenses.
Ms. Sharon Brandsness, Commissioner and Executive Director of the Racing Commission, provided the committee with a copy of the Nevada Racing Commission's Regulations Governing Horse Racing (on file in the Fiscal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for five years) and miscellaneous information which explained the Racing Commission and included a list of the funds requested by SB507 (see EXHIBIT D).
Chairman Arberry asked if there was an explanation of why the funds were required. Ms. Brandsness stated page one of EXHIBIT D showed the list of expenses and noted the actual documentation was in her budget office.
Mr. Arberry asked her to discuss the individual costs which were listed. Ms. Brandsness indicated the costs for in-state travel were for commission meetings over the last biennium for air fare, travel, lodging and per diem. Mr. Arberry asked if there was a statutory requirement for commission meetings. Ms. Brandsness indicated there were none related to frequency and noted the commission met only when there was business to address.
Chairman Arberry inquired what the contractors costs reflected. Ms. Brandsness explained the individuals had a valid contract with the State of Nevada to regulate racing. She emphasized during the 1991 Legislature funding was approved by the Senate to regulate pari-mutuel betting in Nevada, but the Assembly deleted all the funding. She stated when the funding was removed, the law was not amended. The contracted individuals have been fulfilling their contract for the past two years, but in order to assure the law was fulfilled, contractors have had to pay their expenses out of their own pockets without reimbursement. She emphasized she had consulted with the Deputy Attorney General regarding requiring contractors to travel to regulate the sport, while not providing funding. The Deputy Attorney General had advised Ms. Brandsness the law states racing must be regulated and if the contractors were not sent, the race association and the local entities could suffer great economic damage.
Ms. Brandsness pointed out this situation would be rectified after this session because the responsibilities would be absorbed by the Gaming Control Board, but up to 1993, the commission, by law, had to regulate racing. She stated staff had done their job, but funds were not generated in order to cover the expenses. Funds came from an assessment of one percent of the total pari-mutuel handle of the Race Associations and those associations could not afford to pay a higher percentage.
Chairman Arberry asked what the state steward costs were for. Ms. Brandsness explained the state steward was the final authority for the state of Nevada for all licensure activity on the race track. Mr. Arberry inquired what the pari-mutuel bookkeeping charge was for. Ms. Brandsness replied under the law the Nevada Gaming Control Board (GCB) oversaw the regulation of the pari-mutuel aspect of the race track while the Racing Commission oversaw the actual racing. She stated the GCB, through a verbal agreement between Ms. Brandsness and Mr. Bill Bible, had agreed to hire a racing commission employee, Mr. Ed Hopper, as the pari-mutuel director. Mr. Hopper previously had been a GCB auditor and he assured the accuracy of bookkeeping.
Chairman Arberry asked about the $5,500 in dues for Racing Commission International. Ms. Brandsness explained it was the international organization for all racing regulators throughout the world. The $5,500 constituted the commission's dues for the past two years. She pointed out four years ago she had been successful in getting the Racing Commission International to agree to hold their international conference in Las Vegas in 1994. It was anticipated 650 members of the organization would bring approximately $750,000 into Clark County. She interjected paying $5,500 in past dues for that type of return was a good investment. She noted, as of last week, she had to tell the organization they might have to go to another state if the dues could not be paid. She emphasized the international organization was quite valuable to Nevada's Racing commission because the commission utilized the computer database to complete license checking for GCB work.
Chairman Arberry pointed out there was another $5,000 in accounts payable through fiscal year 1993. She explained it would cover costs incurred at the Mule Races and the 3 to 4 weeks of packing up records to transfer to the GCB.
Chairman Arberry voiced his concern over how these expenses occurred when there was no budget allocated. She emphasized it had been built into the budget, but somehow the funds were deleted without changing the law requiring the agency to regulate horse racing. Mr. Arberry requested Ms. Brandsness submit a letter from the Deputy Attorney General indicating the verbal directive the agency acted upon. She stated she would. She emphasized the Deputy Attorney General had told her the commission had no choice but to regulate the industry because otherwise the state could be sued for damages.
Chairman Arberry commented the list presented in EXHIBIT D showed $63,000 was needed, but the bill only asked for $61,000. He wondered what the difference was for and asked what would occur if the legislature did not approve payment through SB507. Ms. Brandsness replied she was not sure why the bill was for less than the required amount. She pointed out the state had valid contracts with the individuals who had submitted billing. She stressed the contractors did their job and she was only asking the Legislature to do its job by honoring the state's contract to pay the contractors.
Chairman Arberry responded the Legislature would like to do so, but if the Legislature continued to allow agencies to bring in billing over their budget even if statutes required certain functions be performed, all parties would be put into a serious bind. He emphasized having the commission come forward after the funds were already spent was quite serious. Ms. Brandsness noted the funds were not spent, yet. She explained the monies listed were from billings from contractors, not actual expenses paid out. Chairman Arberry reiterated this situation would set a bad precedence. Ms. Brandsness pointed out there was no other any agency in the state where employees worked for free or paid their own living expenses for six weeks out of pocket. She noted, with the reorganization, the Racing Commission's responsibilities would be absorbed by the GCB. She explained the agency was attempting with SB507 to clean up the Racing Commission accounts to facilitate a clean switchover to the GCB.
Mr. Humke commented on the information "Vouchers Salaries Memos Owed but Not Submitted for Payment" and asked how far back the charges were from. Ms. Brandsness indicated through March 31, 1993. He remarked there was an agreement by the people not to submit their bills. Ms. Brandsness clarified all billing had been submitted to the Racing Commission office, and Ms. Matteucci was provided all the backup materials from the commission's accountant. By law, the commission could not expend more money than was given, so the vouchers could not be submitted for payment until the appropriation requested by SB507 was approved.
Mr. Humke remarked the Racing Commission would be folded into the GCB. Ms. Brandsness stated yes, effective July 1, 1993. She commented, as Ms. Matteucci had testified before Senate Finance, if the Racing Commission had not been provided the funds to regulate racing, how would the GCB regulate racing when it was not provided additional funds.
Mr. Humke discussed some of the rulings issued in 1990. Ms. Brandsness noted many of the rulings were based on industry specific verbiage and commented it would be unlikely the GCB would know about many of the devices such as a "buzzer" or "machine." She emphasized discussions with the GCB indicated they were not happy to get these new duties because the agency did not have staff familiar with the racing industry. She was concerned that the American Quarter Horse Association, which sanctions 60 percent of the racing in Nevada, would be withdrawing their sanction. This would mean horsemen would not come to Nevada to race.
Ms. Brandsness emphasized Mr. Bible of the GCB would do the best he could to continue the duties assigned to the Racing Commission to prevent loss of staff or sanctions.
Mr. Humke asked if there would be an Advisory Board. Ms. Brandsness was not aware of any.
* * * * *
Chairman Arberry requested a committee introduction for the Reorganization Bill, BDR 18-2165. Two-thirds of the committee were present as needed for an introduction.
MR. PERKINS MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 18-2165.
MRS. CHOWNING SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MRS. EVANS AND MR. DINI WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB321Revises fees for certain court-appointed attorneys in criminal proceedings.
Ms. Victoria Riley, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, explained the amendments related to AB321 as a result of a Supreme Court case. Mr. John Sherman, Washoe County, stated the Supreme Court ruling affected contracting for attorneys for a given set of hours where the provisions would be outside of the statutory language in NRS 7. He provided the committee with a copy of the proposed amendments (see EXHIBIT E) agreed to with Ms. Riley. He stated they believed the amendments would benefit both the local government and individual trial lawyers.
Chairman Arberry voiced his concern where some language would be removed. Mr. Sherman clarified the only change to the bill would be amending $60 to $75. It would be a good threshold level. Chairman Arberry asked what would occur if the level was left at $60 per hour. Mr. Sherman stated more experienced lawyers would not be able to afford to take these cases and, in the long run, more state funds would be expended if less experienced lawyers were contracted.
Chairman Arberry asked if a new fiscal note was submitted. Mr. Sherman replied the Budget Office had stated the fiscal note change was small enough not to matter. Mr. Arberry asked how the Public Defender's office budget account was affected. Mr. Sherman responded there would be no material affect.
Mr. Price commented having more experienced attorneys worked well with the other program, Post Conviction Project, which was started a few years ago. Ms. Riley emphasized the goal was to have more highly experienced people in the capital murder cases to get them more efficiently through the process and to hopefully cut down the Post Conviction Appeal process addressed by AB72. She explained appeals were based on inadequacy of defense counsel early in the process.
Mr. Kirby Burgess, Clark County, concurred with the bill and the amendments.
Mr. Humke asked what the revised fiscal impact would be. Mr. Thorne, Budget Division, replied the impact would be $25,000 in FY94 and $31,030 in FY95.
SB334Increases compensation to state for collecting certain sales taxes.
Mr. Stevens indicated this would be an increase in the administrative charge on distributing sales tax by the Department of Taxation which was included by the Governor as part of the revenue package to fund the budget for 1993-95 biennium. Mr. Marvel emphasized he had great distaste for the bill, but would vote for it out of a sense of responsibility to close the budget.
* * * * *
MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS.
MRS. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. HELLER VOTED NO. MR. DINI, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MRS. CHOWNING, MRS. EVANS AND MR. PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
SB52 Allows constitutional officers to submit budgets directly to legislature.
* * * * *
MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. DINI, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MRS. CHOWNING, MRS. EVANS AND MR. PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
SB265Redesignates pupils with disabilities and makes various changes regarding program for education of handicapped persons.
* * * * *
MR. PERKINS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. DINI, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, MRS. CHOWNING, MRS. EVANS AND MR. PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
SB273Makes appropriation to office of state controller for expenses relating to assessment of need for statewide accounting system.
Mr. Ghiggeri explained this would provide for an the initial study for the need for a new statewide accounting system and was included in the The Executive Budget. He indicated the Controller's Office had submitted a response to committee questions (see EXHIBIT F).
Ms. Tiffany indicated she had reviewed the response received from the Controller's Office. She did not recommend passage of this bill and commented she was quite uncomfortable with the lack of definition on deliverables. She recommended the agency bring forth a scope of works. For $150,000 the agency should have an idea of what they wanted the system to do and not just give the money to a consultant who would then tell the agency what they wanted the system to do.
Mrs. Williams agreed with Ms. Tiffany. She indicated she had planned to say no to the amendments mainly because the state could not afford $380,000 during this biennium.
Mr. Heller clarified the Controller's Office had already purchased the hardware for the software and commented it was backwards. He stated his conversation with Mr. West was the $150,000 was needed to bring in the company to check out the environment to establish the software needed. The Controller's Office was then hoping to have a letter of intent to come before IFC to report the company's findings.
Ms. Tiffany reiterated Mr. West had indicated the money would be to have the company tell the state agency what the agency needed, but she stated the agency had no path or direction. She suggested if Mr. West could come forth in a day with specific documentation on what he wanted the company to do and look at and what he expected to receive from the company, then the appropriation might be acceptable. It was not acceptable to have a software vendor coming in and telling the state what should be done. The state should be able to tell the vendor what needed to be done.
Chairman Arberry held SB273.
SB494Makes various changes relating to provision of medical care to indigent persons.
* * * * *
MR. MARVEL MOVED DO PASS.
MR. HELLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Williams commented there was a problem in terms of one hospital being treated unfairly. She requested until the problem was resolved, she did not want to move the bill.
Chairman Arberry held SB494.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A VOTE.
* * * * *
SB517Revises provisions governing state highway revolving account.
* * * * *
MRS. WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS.
MR. MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. DINI, MR. PRICE AND MRS. EVANS WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB729Revises provisions concerning fees charged for information obtained from central repository for Nevada records of criminal history.
* * * * *
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
MR. SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. PERKINS ABSTAINED. MR. DINI, MR. PRICE AND MRS. EVANS WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB737Mandates adoption of regulations requiring certain state officers and employees to reimburse state for use of state vehicle to commute from residence to place of employment.
Mr. Ghiggeri indicated the subcommittee had amended the bill. The amendment was designed to allow the setting of procedures where a state employee who needed a vehicle would be charged for it's use when commuting. He stated the connotation resulting from the amendment was bad. He explained there was no statute which allowed a state employee to utilize a state vehicle for personal use. The amendment would allow, through statute, a state vehicle for personal use.
Mr. Perkins explained, as subcommittee chair, it was not the subcommittee's intent to come forth with such a provision which would provide for personal use of vehicles. He suggested the legislation should not be passed.
Ms. Tiffany commented the subcommittee was not aware this would be the result of their work. She suggested the decision on use of state vehicles should be left with the administration. She recommended a letter of intent to articulate what would be preferred.
Chairman Arberry suggested a letter of intent based on this legislation.
Mr. Marvel recommended no action be taken on AB737 and to have a letter of intent from Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees.
* * * * *
MRS. CHOWNING MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON AB737.
MR. PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. DINI, MR. PRICE AND MRS. EVANS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
* * * * *
MR. PERKINS MOVED A LETTER OF INTENT BE SENT TO THE AGENCY RELATED TO THE LEGISLATION CONTAINED IN AB737.
MS. TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. DINI, MR. PRICE AND MRS. EVANS WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
AB776Abolishes department of insurance's regulatory account.
* * * * *
MR. SPITLER MOVED DO PASS.
MRS. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE. MR. DINI, MRS. EVANS AND MR. PRICE WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
* * * * *
Ms. Jeanne Botts discussed two bill drafts regarding Class Size Reduction (CSR) (see EXHIBIT G) and School Funding (see EXHIBIT H).
Ms. Botts explained the CSR BDR would be introduced by the Senate with a few words changed. The preamble set forth the intent of the legislation was to establish a pupil to teacher ratio of no more than 15 pupils per teacher or 30 pupils per two teachers in a classroom in kindergarden and first through third grades. She commented this was in keeping with existing law. She noted the preamble states there was available funding estimated to provide a sufficient number of teachers to achieve a ratio of 16 to 1 in at-risk kindergarden and first and second grades. She pointed out the law and the goal of the Legislature was a ratio of 15 to 1, but funding was for 16 to 1.
Ms. Botts explained ratios were to be reported on a districtwide basis and flexibility within any given classroom or school was allowable, but school districts should as possible reduce pupil to teacher ratio in all classrooms. The laws were crafted to allow school districts discussion and flexibility.
Ms. Botts stated the amended section required the Department of Education to report on or before December 15 of each year to the budget division and fiscal division the number of total teachers, number of class size reduction teachers, the number of pupils enrolled and the number of teachers assigned related to classroom configuration. She stated $25.2 million for FY94 and $27.7 million in FY95 would be appropriated from the state general fund for class size reduction. She noted over $10.3 million in FY94 and $10.8 million in FY95 would be available for the program from the Estate Tax money, a portion of which would continue to be used for 90 scholarships for prospective teachers -- 45 each at UNR and UNLV.
Ms. Botts explained the funding for CSR was designated for salaries and fringe benefits of 980.5 teachers in FY94 and 1034 in FY95. The total funding available would be $35.5 million for FY94 and $38.5 million for FY95. She noted Section 4 addressed conditions on how the funds could be spent related to pupil to teacher prioritizing the funds to schools and classroom with pupils at highest risk. It emphasized the monies must be accounted for separately from any other school district accounts.
Mr. Marvel asked if there was enough legal latitude so the state could not be sued in the event of another fiscal crisis. Ms. Botts stated some language was added in the school funding bill which essentially stated the basic funding amount per pupil could be reduced if the Governor needed to reserve money. She commented there would be enough legal room to protect the state.
She explained the Section 1 of the school funding bill allowed school districts two additional weeks to prepare final budgets while Section 2 required estimates of net proceeds from mines to be provided earlier. Section 3 was amended to require each school district to report teacher assignments and salaries by November 15 for all individuals on staff October 1st. Section 4 addressed the need minus local funds available with an amended portion to adjust the law for the Eureka County situation. Section 5 required collection of information on fringe benefits and extra pay for teachers from the school districts due in November.
Ms. Botts continued discussing the school funding bill. Section 6 was added to assure separate accounting for special education costs. Section 7 listed the statewide average basic support was $3,320 for FY94 with a listing of what each school district would receive per pupil. She noted Eureka County was still listed at an artificially low number in order to not negatively affect the other county's numbers.
Ms. Botts explained the FY95 basic support amounts would be calculated based on changes in enrollment and the net proceeds from mining estimates. This section was new to take advantage of the most recent information available from the mines. Section 9 discussed the special education units with an increase in the 1993-95 biennium, but no increase in the amount per unit. There would be 1,520 units in FY94 and 1,605 units in FY95 allocated to the school districts with 40 units each year reserved to the State Board of Education. The total funding for special education units for FY94 was $40.8 million and for FY95 $43.1 million. Section 10 delineated the appropriations based on the Governor's estimates of revenue from sales tax. Section 11 authorized $67 million each year of other revenues to the DSA over the appropriations.
Section 12 authorized school district to utilize funds to make the match under the school nutrition act. Section 13 allowed the State Controller to borrow money from the general fund when an apportionment was needed from the DSA and the money was short. Section 14 authorized school districts to spend $7.8 million for adult diploma programs and $3.2 million for prison facility adult diploma programs.
Ms. Botts pointed out Section 15 of EXHIBIT H was requested by Senate Finance which stated the amounts of guarantees could be reduced to set a reserve to prevent a shortfall.
AB568Provides financial incentive to prevent dropouts.
Mr. Humke requested Ms. Botts discuss how the fiscal note on AB568 could be reduced.
Ms. Botts stated the original bill's fiscal note had been for bonuses to schools which reduced dropouts by 5 percent in grades 9 through 12 and the fiscal note was $2 million per year of the biennium. An alternative with less fiscal impact would be if the bonus would apply to grades 11 and 12 only with half a percent of basic support. The new fiscal note would be for $433,696. She explained another option would be to require a district to maintain the low dropout rate for two years in a row, the cost would not be paid until August of FY95. Another option would be a $200,000 grant to the school district which showed the greatest improvement in dropout rates. This option would have to be looked at carefully because of the differences between school districts' sizes.
Mr. Humke commented the third option would be a "winner take all" type of view. He commented Clark County had been doing quite well in reducing their dropout rate. He noted the third option would not be the best policy. He believed either the first or second option would be best.
Chairman Arberry requested Ms. Botts provide the committee with a report on the three options.
Mr. Marvel asked if the schools could adequately account for the difference between dropouts versus transfers or move-aways. Mr. Humke explained the State Department of Education had a regulation which had been in effect for four years and adequately handles dropout tracking.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:28 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
Kerin E. Putnam
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
June 25, 1993
Page 1