The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, February 26, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Robert (Bob) E. Price, Assembly District 17

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After calling the meeting to order, Chairman Bache announced an informational presentation by alternative sellers of components of electrical service as defined in chapter 704 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He introduced Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Chairman Judy M. Sheldrew.

Ms. Sheldrew began her remarks by indicating three alternative sellers that potentially would be doing business in Nevada once the state went into a competitive regime. Those businesses, she said, represented a wide range of services to many classes of customers. Since the committee was delving into the issues of competition in the electric industry, she felt it would be helpful to discuss issues and concerns with those alternative sellers. New Energy Ventures Southwest would provide a wide spectrum of services to all customer classes. CellNet Data Systems, an active participant in PUC’s restructuring efforts, would bring information about new metering technologies. Finally, Mt. Wheeler Power, a Nevada company, also involved in restructuring, was looking forward to the competitive marketplace.

Phil Harper, Vice President and General Manager of New Energy Ventures, indicated his company was one of the largest energy service providers in the country with over 5,000 accounts from 3,000 customers. Through strategic alliances with other distributed generation companies, New Energy Ventures provided on-site generation services throughout the western United States, Australia, New Zealand, and certain Asian and South American countries. They provided wholesale and retail commodity services, and thought of themselves as a total solutions provider.

Benefits that came to the competitive marketplace, Mr. Harper continued, revolved around price, reliability, new products, technologies and services, and better information sharing with utility companies and consumers.

Price was always a factor, he said. Customers wanted to know if there would be savings to end-use customers once competition was in place. He cited an example of an area near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where customers were realizing additional savings of 10 to 15 percent.

Information services had always been in the possession of host utilities and not shared with consumers. The typical utility bill usually said, "Here is what you have used, here is what we charge, and here is what you owe." Given new technologies and the internet, consumer information could be provided on almost a real-time basis.

Once the electric utility industry was unbundled and restructured, new technologies, previously available only to large industrial customers, would be readily accessible to all consumers.

The Nevada Public Utilities Commission, Mr. Harper concluded, was the appropriate organization for implementing and overseeing any disputes that could arise between energy service providers and the host utilities.

Chuck Miessner, New Energy Ventures Southwest, discussed proposed operating protocols. By implementing the rules of enabling legislation and work completed by the PUC, Nevada had the possibility of being a large viable market. He named three key areas for a successful competitive market: (1) making services highly competitive, (2) unbundling rates, and (3) implementing consistent statewide operating rules for handling customers.

The term "unbundling" was discussed at length. Mr. Miessner told the committee that unbundling took the old utility rate and broke it up into smaller portions, such as costs for electrical generation, distribution, transmission, metering, and billing. In almost every case customers appreciated the extra accounting work involved and were able to more closely monitor their electrical costs.

Implementation of consistent statewide operating rules was mandatory. Nevada had distinct advantages because there were fewer incumbent utility companies. In areas where there were many utilities, operating protocols varied widely and made consistency difficult.

Assemblyman Mortenson addressed the importance of unbundling rates. "I get at least eight telephone bills," he said. He would rather pay one bill, even though more, and not bother making eight separate payments. He wondered if rate unbundling would accomplish that. Mr. Miessner responded New Energy Ventures preferred that approach.

Mr. Mortenson asked for a rough idea of the percentages represented on a typical utility bill, such as metering, billing, and information services. With an average bill of $100, Mr. Miessner said, probably $50 to $60 represented generation costs, $20 transmission, $25 distribution, and the metering and billing would be the smallest amount, around $5 to $10.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked for clarification of the term "information services." A typical bill for services, Mr. Miessner said, gave no information beyond what was used, how much it cost, and a total. New Energy Ventures hoped to allow a customer to take control of his utility costs by providing a detailed breakdown. Eventually that would be done on a real-time basis.

Mr. Harper added New Energy Ventures had a vested interest in seeing the energy marketplace open soon and offered his company’s services to assist with legislation and the PUC.

Assemblywoman Gibbons had questions regarding residential customers. As an example, she disliked the idea of being told the best time to do a load of laundry was 2 a.m. when rates were at their lowest. Several billing packages would be available to the residential customer, Mr. Harper replied, and a customer could take advantage of simple, flat rate pricing or more flexible plans.

Chris B. King, Vice President, CellNet Data Systems, used a prepared slide presentation and discussed the new technologies already available to customers of alternative electrical service providers. CellNet was a wireless data services company, focused on advanced metering technology. There were three parts to electricity: power plants that created it, wires that transmitted it, and customer service. Customer service, although the smallest portion of the total cost was by far the most important in terms of possible benefits.

Under regulation, Mr. King continued, utilities were required to build what he called "a church for Easter Sunday." By building enough power plants to serve the peak day of the year when all air conditioners were running, those plants would be idle most of the rest of the year. There was a huge opportunity for savings there. He discussed the digital metering system his company was introducing. In that way utility companies could project future energy needs and avoid the "Easter Sunday" analogy.

Energy prices fluctuated hourly. Metering would allow a more fluid operation of the market, efficient load forecasting, and reliability. The cost of a typical CellNet meter was about $50 to $75, compared to the existing solid state meters that sold for around $500.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked if, with the proposed metering systems, the meter reader would be a thing of the past. Mr. King responded affirmatively. She wondered if individual house thermostats would be set remotely. Mr. King said a thermostat could even be controlled through the internet.

Chairman Bache observed he had not been sure how metering services would work in the competitive marketplace, and Mr. King’s presentation had answered many of his questions.

Mike Reed spoke on behalf of Mt. Wheeler Power, Deseret Generation and Transmission, and Great Basin Electric Cooperative. Great Basin Electric Cooperative was a consumer owned and controlled electric cooperative presently in the stages of being organized. Mt. Wheeler Power would eventually become a partner with Great Basin Electric Cooperative and he assured the committee the cooperative venture would be a viable alternative to ensure the small customer reaped the benefits of restructuring. He introduced David L. Fair, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Mt. Wheeler Power.

Mt. Wheeler Power was one of the last electrical cooperatives to be created in rural America, Mr. Fair said. It began operations in 1972. Using a prepared handout (Exhibit C), he said its service area comprised over 15,000 square miles of eastern Nevada and western Utah. The company had no outstanding federal or state loans. Its rates were less than those of Sierra Pacific Power. Because Mt. Wheeler Power was a cooperative, profits were returned to the customers. He likened the economy in Mt. Wheeler’s service area to that of a third world country, dependent mostly on mining, some irrigated crops, and ranching.

Because Mt. Wheeler Power and five other partners were members of Deseret Generation and Transmission, power, at low rates, was guaranteed for 30 years. Mr. Fair stressed the advantages of the cooperative type of business structure. Management expertise, training and support were provided by a cooperative organization called the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. A cooperative bank with assets of over $25 billion was willing and ready to finance Mt. Wheeler Power.

Chairman Bache informed new members of the committee that a provision dealing with cooperatives had been addressed in Assembly Bill 366 of the 69^th Session. In the legislation, if a cooperative wished to expand its territory and enter into competition it could do so, but their territory would then be open to competition from other companies. He asked Commissioner Sheldrew if his statement was worded correctly.

Mike Reed responded by affirming Mt. Wheeler Power was very aware of the provisions of Assembly Bill 366 of the 69^th Session, and was willing and able to go into the competitive marketplace but could not speak for other cooperatives in Nevada.

In response to a question from Assemblywoman Segerblom, Mr. Fair indicated Mt. Wheeler’s power came mostly from Deseret Generation and Transmission, its primary source, with over 500 megawatts of coal-fired power located in Utah. The company also had allocations of federal hydropower from the Western Area Power Administration, and it had combined those resources for operation and rate setting purposes with the aforementioned coal resources.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel wondered about Mt. Wheeler Power’s marketing plans for convincing consumers, most of whom were already using power from Sierra Pacific, that they could provide better and cheaper service. Mr. Reed indicated he was unable to reveal Mt. Wheeler’s business plans, but the information would soon be available.

Assemblywoman Berman asked exactly in what was Mt. Wheeler Power interested. She needed information on its diversification efforts. Mr. Reed responded utilities were looking at themselves more as service companies who provided bundled services to customers. And Mr. Fair said diversification provided more services to customers such as radio communications and internet access.

Ms. Berman asked if Mt. Wheeler could sustain business losses. "That is part of our caution," Mr. Fair replied. "Co-ops are very conservative by nature." He went on to say Mt. Wheeler’s banking, management, and power supplier alliances were literally "portfolios of power".

Chairman Bache thanked the three companies for their presentations. "It gives us an idea of what will be out there as far as alternative sellers once the PUC completes their task of leading us into the deregulated environment." He indicated the speakers were invited guests and not registered lobbyists.

Chairman Bache introduced Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-789.

• BDR R-789 – Urges Congress to oppose extension of mandatory Social Security coverage of newly hired state and local governmental employees (A.J.R. 10).

The committee recessed at 9:40 a.m. and reconvened at 9:50 a.m.

Chairman Bache cited a letter he had received from the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, through County Manager Daniel C. Hollar, who were the prime sponsors of A.B. 97. The bill had been designed to address specific water issues within Douglas County and after beneficial discussions with the state engineer, Mr. Holler was directed by the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners to ask for the withdrawal of A.B. 97.

Mr. Bache asked for a motion to accept its withdrawal.

Assemblyman Bob Price, Assembly District 17, introduced A.B. 212 and gave the committee some background on his involvement with the open meeting law. A.B. 212 addressed the ability of a body, whether a county commission, a city, or any public body, to appear before another public body for purposes of giving testimony or taking positions, and in what instances those appearances would violate the open meeting law. As amended, A.B. 212 would exclude from the law the appearance of a quorum of one public body at the meeting of another public body provided the appearing body did not deliberate or take action.

Mr. Price indicated that his wife, Nancy, had been involved with the open meeting law. As she was unable to attend the hearing on A.B. 212 she asked Mr. Price to have her go on record as being opposed to the exact concept of the bill.

Mr. Price indicated several guests who wished to address the subject in more detail.

Mary Walker, CPA, Principal and Owner of Walker & Associates, representing Carson City and Lyon and Douglas Counties, offered an amendment to A.B. 212 she felt would be more restrictive. The amendment would delete the words "another public body" and insert "the legislature" on page 2, line 1, and again on line 5. She cited examples both in Carson City and in Douglas County where important bills had been submitted to the legislature. In order for the Douglas County commissioners to appear before the legislature, a meeting would have had to be agendized, recorded, and minutes taken. The intent of the proposed amendment would make it simpler for all public bodies to come before the legislature, listen, testify, and participate without having to go through the formality of agendizing, assembling a quorum, and other qualifications of an open meeting.

Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager, echoed Ms. Walker’s comments. He added he felt the proposed amendment served the purpose of scoping the bill toward the legislature.

Assemblyman Humke asked how counties would keep from violating A.B. 212 if it did pass into law. "All we’re talking about here is allowing them to come to the legislative hearings," Ms. Walker replied. They would be able to testify but not deliberate.

Mr. Humke opined all the elements of a violation were in place. "You’re together, there’s a quorum, you’re here, isn’t there the temptation to deliberate and take action?" Ms. Walker agreed. She added, however, there were plenty of safeguards built into the legislation.

"I’m not convinced," Mr. Humke said. He asked if Ms. Walker favored the original intent of the bill.

The amendment, Ms. Walker replied, would resolve existing problems. The present system was particularly cumbersome. Typically, a public body did not know what bills would be heard until the day of the hearing. Mr. Humke again voiced his feelings the legislature could be involved in complicity in an open meeting law violation by statute.

Ms. Walker suggested the Attorney General’s Office might respond.

Greg Salter, Deputy Attorney General, was invited to testify. He began his remarks by saying the attorney general was neutral on A.B. 212. However, the Attorney General’s Office had made some observations. The original wording of the bill, where one public body appeared in front of another public body, was too broad. The attorney general suggested the language be limited to appearances before the legislature. While the attorney general realized the legislature was moving very quickly during the 120-day session, there was often no time for public bodies to give the required 3 days’ notice for a meeting. The attorney general suggested the language of the bill be limited to meeting or appearance before the legislature.

Assemblyman Mortenson said, as he understood the open meeting law, if no deliberations or actions were taken, a group could form in a quorum and not violate existing law.

Mr. Salter indicated Assemblyman Mortenson was correct. When a quorum of a public body gathered together, but did not deliberate nor take action over which it had jurisdiction, it would not be construed as a meeting. That was why the Attorney General’s Office took a neutral position.

If a public body were legally trying to influence legislation, Mr. Mortenson continued, its constituents would have to be notified. "I agree with Nancy (Price) on this one," he said.

Assemblywoman Gibbons also "agreed with Nancy".

Assemblywoman Parnell asked how the language on page 2, lines 15 and 16, which stated "Public body does not include the legislature of the State of Nevada," fit in with the amendment language.

The way the bill was written, Mr. Salter replied, since the legislature by definition was not a public body, the bill’s proponents were attempting to get the ability to come before the legislature with a special definition of a "meeting". The term "public body" specifically excluded the legislature, and the way the bill was drafted would not have accomplished that purpose. The Attorney General’s Office suggested the technical changes for clarification of the intent of the bill.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked for explanation of the term "come before the body." Did it simply mean to see what was happening, or to actually try to accomplish some legislative feat.

Every city or county board had on its agenda during the legislative session discussions of legislative items, Mary Walker responded. Those items would have already been deliberated in open meetings. To have an entire governing board appear at a legislative committee meeting hearing and record the proceedings seemed ridiculous. The final intent was to have elected officials participate with legislators.

Assemblyman Mortenson opined that even though a topic would have been discussed in an agendized meeting by a public body, the potential still existed for a different action once the public body reached the legislature. "I think you should agendize when you are going to come here and speak and take action," he said. "That is my opinion. Nancy’s opinion."

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Salter if it would be considered action if county commissioners from any county testified before the legislature, especially if testimony was based on a previously agendized meeting and the commission had adopted a position. It could be very confusing where a 3-to-2 vote had been recorded in a county commission meeting, all five commissioners appeared at the legislative committee hearing, and proceeded to argue both sides of the issue. The situation could arise, he said, where freedom of speech was prevented on some of the commissioners. "Is that considered action or is it subsequent to an action taken?" he asked.

Mr. Salter responded by citing an example of a complaint filed last year regarding an appearance by a public body before one of the interim committees of the legislature. The entire board of that public body had appeared before the committee. No agenda had been posted, no notice given. The Attorney General’s Office got a complaint from one of the constituents of the public body. The complaint said, in essence, "There is my board down there. What are they doing? They did not post the meeting nor note it as a meeting." The Attorney General’s office conducted an exhaustive investigation, through interviews and reviews of the tape recordings of the meeting. The conclusion was reached that no action was taken because the individual board members simply got up and said, "Well, I am a member of this board but I am speaking as an individual." There was no evidence of collaboration between members of the board.

"From what you said, purely testifying as an individual would not be considered a violation of the open meeting law," Mr. Bache questioned. "However, if they deliberated while here, that would be a violation. If they had a previously agendized meeting, taken a position as a group, and then had come here when it was posted because they had previously agendized and taken a position in an open meeting, that would not be a violation?"

If the position was reached in an open meeting, a position was developed to present before the legislature, and if that position was actually advanced before the legislature, Mr. Salter replied, no action could be construed as being taken. However, if a public body was to advocate position "A" at an open meeting, and, after coming to the legislature, the members huddled together and changed

to position "B", the change could possibly be considered an action.

Assemblyman Humke, citing lines 15 and 16 on page 2 of A.B. 212, asked Mr. Salter why the Attorney General’s Office had conducted an investigation. "Nevada legislature, by definition, is not a public body," he said.

The allegation was made by a constituent of the public body in question, Mr. Salter replied. In other words, the accusation was made the board had been meeting in secret.

Mr. Humke indicated he had nothing against A.B. 212, only the amendments.

Dan Holler, Douglas County Manager, indicated the many challenges local governments faced. The Douglas County District Attorney had written an opinion that stated three or more members of a board sitting in a room at the legislature did constitute a quorum of the board, and such action was inadvisable. Often local governing bodies were faced with time constraints, especially when deliberations involved legislative committee hearings. "With our District Attorney’s opinion, we cannot have a quorum of our board here at a committee hearing unless we follow the open meeting procedures," Mr. Holler concluded.

Assemblyman Mortenson commented he could not see where such action would change anything. "You are allowed to come here if you do not take action as a body," he said.

The situation would be helped, Mary Walker answered, if an opinion were obtained from the Attorney General’s Office. Different attorneys had different opinions.

Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association, opposed A.B. 212 as originally written. His main complaint about the bill was it would allow a public body to attend the meeting of another public body without adhering to the open meeting law. He cited an example. The North Las Vegas City Council (NLVCC) wanted to attend a county commission meeting. Under the provisions of A.B. 212, as it was written, the NLVCC was not required to adhere to any provisions of the open meeting law. It could simply show up at the county commission meeting and do whatever it wanted. Also, taxpayers of North Las Vegas would not have known their city council was planning to attend the county commission meeting. The Nevada Press Association (NPA) attempted to narrow A.B. 212 to language that allowed appearances before the legislature only in emergency situations. Those were occasions where the public body had to come to the legislature and deliver testimony without having been able to give the customary 3-day public notice. Mr. Lauer was concerned there would be temptation for the public body to deliberate, either driving in their cars, in the hallways, or in the back of the meeting room. Under the amended version of A.B. 212 or the open meeting law, he said, that action was not allowed.

Assemblywoman Gibbons asked if county commissioners did not already have lobbyists who would speak for them in open meetings.

Mr. Lauer told Ms. Gibbons she would have to ask that question directly of the county commissioners. He raised the point that nothing prevented a county commissioner or a member of a city council or a school board member from coming to the legislature and testifying as an individual. Nor did the open meeting law prevent five county commissioners from coming to a meeting, and each member testifying individually. Only when the five attended the meeting as a quorum and presented a unified stand was the open meeting law in violation. According to the open meeting law, that unified position should have been adopted at an open meeting.

Assemblyman Humke asked Mr. Lauer his position on amendments or bills put together by a local board of county commissioners. "Did they develop through non-open meetings or through posted meetings?" Mr. Lauer responded if a quorum or majority of a public body were to huddle in a hallway and change its position or adopt a new one, it would be a violation of the open meeting law. The public had a right to know, he said.

Mr. Humke wondered whether it would be a violation if someone from a county commission telephoned to his home city and obtained a majority opinion. Mr. Lauer, affirming, added that majority decisions made by a public body had to be done in open meeting.

Citing page 2, lines 15 and 16 of A.B. 212, Mr. Humke referred to the definition of the Nevada legislature as "not being a public body," and asked Mr. Lauer if he did not feel the language was ludicrous.

"Of course," Mr. Lauer replied. "From our perspective, we think all public bodies in the state, including the legislature, ought to adhere to the open meeting law."

There being no further questions, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 212, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 213.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Assembly District 6 testified in support of A.B. 213. As a public employee of over 25 years, he was a strong advocate for employee representation and collective bargaining. A public employee needed to have a certain and solid amount of protection, but never when it infringed on the overall and total good of the public.

He described the items in his personnel file, evaluations, medical information, and transfers should remain private. But anything he did as a public employee which would jeopardize the safety and good will of the public the public had a right to know. Privacy rights were important and deserved to remain as such, but persons working in the public sector needed to stop using those rights as excuses to cover up things that jeopardized the public safety.

The bill did not call for opening up personnel files but simply for creating separate investigative files should the occasion arise. At any time an investigation took place, Assemblyman Williams continued, the public had a right to know the outcome of that investigation, whether proven worthy, unworthy, warranted or unwarranted.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel asked if any areas of state government were exempt from the proposed legislation. Mr. Williams said he had consulted the Legislative Council Bureau and it was his understanding no state government areas would be exempt.

Kent Lauer, Nevada Press Association, reading from a prepared statement (see Exhibit D) applauded Assemblyman Williams for sponsoring A.B. 213. The Nevada Press Association supported the legislation because it recognized the public’s right to know, which was a fundamental principle of democracy. He felt the bill should not be limited to employees in the executive branch of state government; rather it should apply to all public employees, including local public employees.

The legislation should not have been necessary, he said. Under public records law information covered in the bill should be open to inspection. Information that would become available to the public under A.B. 213, he continued, was not declared confidential by any statute. The public records statutes were subject to various interpretations.

However the bill was important because it provided accountability to the public. Public confidence in government was enhanced when public officials were required to answer to scrutiny. Despite arguments that revealing such information would embarrass or humiliate a public employee it did not outweigh the need for public accountability.

Assemblyman Neighbors, citing the open meeting law, wondered what would happen if a closed, properly agendized meeting was held to review the performance of a public employee. The issue was discussed, but no decision was made. The meeting was recessed, and after the meeting was reconvened a decision was made. He questioned the confidentiality of the discussion in the closed meeting. Did it not need to be released.

Mr. Lauer responded affirmatively. A public body could go into closed session to discuss the competence or the character of an individual, but any action taken would have to be conducted in an open session. Many of those situations never came before a public body. Most of them were handled administratively and internally.

Mr. Neighbors expressed concern that a big investigation, supposedly brought on by "sour grapes", could ruin a person’s career when it reached the media, even though later on the investigation was declared invalid.

Information would not become available until the investigation was over, Mr. Lauer responded. The way the bill was written, a public employee whose name had been cleared would want the information released.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel said she believed the bill language needed to be added to the statutes. She felt much stronger language was needed to make certain that once an investigation was over, the information was released to the public. She asked Mr. Lauer if that was also his position.

At present, Mr. Lauer said, if a public agency refused to disclose such information, one’s only alternative would be to bring suit. The proposed legislation would serve to clarify the current public record law.

Assemblywoman Gibbons cited an example of a group, going into closed session to discuss an executive decision, came out of closed session and took action. Could one find out what happened in the closed session, she asked.

Mr. Lauer responded in the negative. That was an open meeting law issue as opposed to a public records type issue. Many times those issues did not rise to levels of a public body and were handled internally.

Mary Phelps Dugan, Assistant General Counsel, University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN), testified against A.B. 213. Speaking for the Board of Regents of UCCSN, (see Exhibit E), she emphatically opposed passage of the bill because it would make investigations relating to the conduct of employees become matters of public record.

Since professional staff/faculty members of the UCCSN were required to execute written annual contracts incorporating the UCCSN Code, those faculty members had a contractual right to expect investigations that related to conduct remained confidential. The conduct of members of the classified staff of UCCSN was under the supervision of the Nevada State Personnel Division, and the Nevada Administrative Code provided that personnel records were confidential.

Andy Anderson, President, Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc., and representing Nevada police and sheriffs, was in opposition to A.B. 213 because he saw many inherent problems. It was too broad and had the tendency of actually opening up interviews with prior witnesses. He felt prematurely releasing information, especially where it involved an appeal process, would literally "try our people in a newspaper and in a court of law."

In response to Mr. Anderson’s statements, Assemblyman Williams reiterated many times an allegation was true and there was no need for appeal. But where the results of the investigation were not a matter of public record the public still had the right to know.

Chairman Bache, noting the Assembly floor session was due to begin, suggested the hearing on A.B. 213 be continued. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Charlotte Tucker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: