The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Monday, March 8, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 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. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, District 22

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson announced he had changed the order of bills to be heard. The order was A.B. 304, S.B. 19, A.B. 287, and A.B. 286. Chairman Anderson informed witnesses they would be sworn in. He began the hearing with testimony on A.B. 304.

Gary Wolff, Business Agent Nevada Highway Patrol Association testified in favor of A.B. 304. The Nevada Highway Patrol had requested A.B. 304. The bill was designed to curtail willful fraudulent complaints against highway patrol officers and all peace officers. Fraudulent complaints had removed officers from duty and had been costly to investigate only to discover the complaints were unsubstantiated. The second purpose would require all police agencies to have a written policy for handling written misconduct complaints against a police officer and to make their policy public. The penalty for a written false complaint against a peace officer would be a misdemeanor.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Wolff if he had received amendments to the legislation. Mr. Wolff responded, "Not at this time."

Chairman Anderson asked if there was a statement on the complaint form against a police officer informing citizens of their right to file a written complaint against a peace officer. Mr. Wolff stated the highway patrol did not have a written statement. He thought some police agencies had written statements on their forms. The bill would make all law enforcement agencies in Nevada have a written policy. He had never seen a person prosecuted for making a false statement on a complaint against a police officer. He had known some officers on administrative leave for as long as 6 months before being exonerated. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Wolff about a standardized form throughout the state for all police agencies, state, county, or municipal. Mr. Wolff responded, "That’s correct sir."

Assemblywoman Angle asked if the current wording in the bill would have a "chilling" effect on the average citizen. Mr. Wolff had discussed the possibility. He did not think there would be a chilling effect on the person filing a complaint. Office personnel would take the written complaint from the citizens. He was concerned with citizens filing complaints against a police officer because they were upset with getting a ticket.

Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens testified for A.B. 304. She was concerned with the wording in the bill having a chilling affect. The wording of section 2 lines 14 to 30 could deter some people from filing a written complaint against a law enforcement officer. She proposed an amendment, (Exhibit C). "You have the right to make a complaint against a peace officer and have it investigated if you believe a peace officer has acted improperly. According to the laws of the State of Nevada, this agency has established written procedures for investigating complaints against peace officers. You have a right to receive a written copy these procedures. This agency investigates complaints and determines, based on the evidence, any action that may be warranted. Please provide accurate and complete details of the reason(s) for your complaint. It is against the law to knowingly make a false or fraudulent complaint against a peace officer. I have read and understand the above statement."

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if the present laws on the books would allow a citizen to file a written complaint. Ms. Lusk felt citizens should be made aware there were penalties for filing a false complaint against an officer.

Chairman Anderson mentioned every person filing a complaint would know the complaint would be investigated, and the person filing the complaint would be notified of the results of the investigation. Ms. Lusk agreed with Chairman Anderson and agreed a person should be made aware of the outcome of the investigation of their complaint.

Niles D. Carson, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department, testified against A.B. 304. He stated the Reno Police Department had a written policy on making complaints against a police officer. The department had a brochure explaining how to file a complaint against a police officer. The department moved the Internal Affairs department into a separate building to be less intimidating to citizens. He had experienced some false complaints against a police officer. Mr. Carson wanted his officers to be able to file a civil action against the person or persons who filed a false complaint against the officer. According to the Nevada Supreme Court, a police officer could sue the person who made a false complaint against the officer. Mr. Carson recommended changing the penalty for filing a false complaint against a peace officer from a criminal level to a civil level. Currently, peace officers did not have recourse for the mental anguish they suffered as the result of a false complaint filed against them. Chairman Anderson asked if the police department wished to pursue charging a person with a misdemeanor for filing a false complaint against a peace officer. Mr. Carson did not believe filing of a false complaint could be prosecuted because the complaint is not taken under an oath.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Carson if the Reno Police Department already had most of the bill in effect. Mr. Carson responded because of civil rights actions Reno Police Department had gone beyond A.B. 304. The department did not use the form in A.B. 304 that admonished a citizen for making a false report concerning a peace officer. Reno Police Department used a regular statement form to record a complaint against a peace officer.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked about the difference between lying on a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) and lying on an internal affairs form. Mr. Carson stated when a citizen signed a TPO, it was signed in court and was an official record of the court. The complaint was a statement, not sworn testimony.

Chairman Anderson asked about the benefits of a uniform complaint process throughout the state. The complaint process would make the person filing the complaint responsible for their statement. Mr. Carson stated the idea of having a public policy for taking complaints was a step in the right direction. He restated favoring the chilling effect of the bill’s statement and to amend the bill to have civil not criminal procedures. Chairman Anderson asked what avenue was open for a peace officer injured by a false complaint. Mr. Carson stated all a peace officer could do was complain to anyone who would listen.

Assemblywoman Angle asked Mr. Carson if he had an amendment to the bill. Mr. Carson responded he did not.

Colonel Michael E. Hood, Chief of the Nevada Highway Patrol, testified for A.B. 304. He stated the Nevada Highway Patrol had a system in place to take citizens’ complaints. Internal affairs investigated all complaints against a highway patrolman. The filing of false complaints was a waste of time and money of the highway patrol. Colonel Hood would like to stop the waste. Chairman Anderson asked Colonel Hood if a mechanism was needed to stop malicious complaints. Colonel Hood responded, "yes." He stated the need for a balance so citizens were not afraid to file a truthful complaint against a peace officer and also to stop malicious complaints.

Ron Dreher, represented Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN) President, Reno Police Protective Association (RPPA) wished to be recorded in the minutes as for A.B. 304.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Wolff if he had an opportunity to review the bill. Mr. Wolff had reviewed the proposed amendment. He had no problem with the wording of the amendment.

Assemblywoman Angle stated she wanted the amended civil language Mr. Carson requested in the bill.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 304. No action was taken on A.B. 304.

Chairman Anderson opened the discussion of S.B. 19.

Cristin Buchanan was a legal secretary and represented herself. She stated her problem was attempting to serve legal papers to a resident agent who did not have a street address but a post office box at a private mail receiving company. The law required legal papers be physically served to a resident agent. Legal papers could not be served at a private mail receiving company because the agent was usually not physically at the company. She was frustrated because of the difficulty of knowing the difference between a physical street address and a private mail receiving company address. S.B. 19 had no negative side effects nor would the bill alter the desirability to incorporate under Nevada’s incorporation laws. The bill would insure prompt judicial process.

Assemblyman Gustavson questioned the use of a post office box as the address of a corporation going into business in Nevada. Ms. Buchanan stated a startup corporation in Nevada did not have to designate a resident agent. A Nevada corporation not physically located in the state legally had to have a representative to be served legal papers. The purpose of the resident agent was to have a physical address to be served legal papers for the corporation. Chairman Anderson asked if it was permissible for a corporation to use a post office box. Ms. Buchanan stated the bill would not prevent a corporation from using a post office box as its official address. The bill would require the resident agent for a corporation to have a physical address on file with the corporate papers filed with the Secretary of State. She was concerned about the clerk at a private mail receiving company after being served legal papers, giving the legal papers to the resident agent.

Assemblyman Brower asked in the absence of a mail service procedure, was it being proposed every resident agent have a physical address. Ms. Buchanan responded, "yes." She was not asking the corporation to have a physical address, only the resident agent. The resident agent represented the corporation and would be served legal papers as a representative of the corporation for a lawsuit to go forward.

Scott Anderson, Deputy of Commercial Recordings, Secretary of State, testified for S.B. 19. He proposed to amend, "In this state." He stated the office would reject any resident agent not residing in Nevada.

John T. Olive, Administrative Vice President, Acorn Corporate Services, Inc., testified for S.B. 19. He was a resident agent and all the resident agents were in favor of S.B. 19. The importance of a responsible resident agent was to be easily located for suit or for service of process. It was counterproductive for a resident agent to avoid being served legal papers. Mr. Olive was in favor of the secretary of state’s amendment. Chairman Anderson stated the bill came from the senate with the secretary of state’s amendment and the bill would be considered with "in this state."

Luke Perry representing himself in Las Vegas testified for S.B. 19. He was concerned about resident agents being served legal papers.

ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 19.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson assigned Assemblywoman Ohrenschall to present the bill to the floor.

Chairman Anderson opened the testimony on A.B. 287.

Assemblywoman Segerblom testified for A.B. 287. She had sponsored the bill.

Laura Fitzsimmons, Esq. testified for A.B. 287. She had represented landowners resolving problems with eminent domain land appraisals. Ms. Fitzsimmons asked the committee how they would feel about their land being taken from them at a lower value than the land was worth? How would the committee feel about having to go to court to prove the value of their land and waiting three years to get a court date? Up until 1991 the landowner received prejudgment interest on the money deposited in an account until the difference of the value of their land was resolved. The landowner received the prime rate of interest plus 2 percent. In 1991 the interest was changed to the short term Treasury Bill rate which was 5 percent less than prime rate plus 2 percent. She stated the landowner lost what the land had appreciated over the three years before going to court. Since Clark County had been a fast growth area, the value usually appreciated 20 percent over the three years. She testified the landowner was punished because the delay of three years before going to court to resolve monetary differences. She stated Section 6 was the most important part of the bill. Section 6 stated, "if the action is not tried within 2 years after the date of the first service of the summons, and the delay is not caused primarily by the defendant or defendants, the date of valuation is the date of the actual commencement of the trial. If a new trial is ordered by a court, the date of valuation is the date of the actual commencement of the new trial unless the court, in the best interests of justice, orders otherwise."

Bill Bradley representing landowners testified for A.B. 287. He stated "this bill evens the playing field for the landowners."

Gary Bruno represented himself in testifying for A.B. 287. He shared the problems he had with the value of his land and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) valuing his land at the higher rate and demanding capital gains taxes on the higher amount within six months before he received his money for the land from McCarran Airport. He won in court and was paid interest on the money deposited for his land while waiting for his court date. He had to pay $30,000 capital gains tax on the interest received. He was later informed the decision was going back to 1992. He had to repay money plus the interest he had gained. He doubted the IRS would give back the $30,000 he had paid in capital gains taxes. To payback the money, he would have to cash in his Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Since he is 53, he would have to pay a penalty plus capital gains on his IRA money. In addition he would have to take a second mortgage on his house plus a personal loan to repay all the money owed because of a reversal of the court decision.

Gertrude Rudiak testified for A.B. 287. She had been financially hurt, too. Her husband was a former Nevada Assemblyman.

Ms. Fitzsimmons mentioned Kenneth Barsay wanted to be on the committee record in favor of A.B. 287. He did not testify because of time limitations.

Kermit Waters, Esq. testified for A.B. 287. He stated the bill helped to guarantee the constitution. The court had caused the delay in going to trial to resolve the price difference between the owner and the government entity taking the land. He stated the bill was needed in an ascending market. He stated everyone else pays prime rate plus 2 percent when paying interest.

Charles Moehler representing himself testified for A.B. 287. He represented several property owners who had been waiting more than two years for a retrial. If nothing changes the investors stand to lose money on their money. Chairman Anderson asked if there was a bust market, what would happen to property valuations. Ms. Fitzsimmons responded the current law stated either the date of the summons or the date of trial, whichever is the greater compensation.

Assemblywoman Segerblom wanted Ms. Fitzsimmons to testify for A.B. 287. This bill is the law currently in most states around Nevada. Assemblyman Collins wanted to know if eminent domain cases could be settled in a more timely manner so as to reduce costs and save the taxpayers money. Ms. Fitzsimmons responded the government agency obtains an appraisal, if the landowner did not accept the valuation of the land, then the government agency files the case. The government agency usually would get immediate occupancy and begin the project.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked about the valuation being either the date of the summons or the date of the trial whichever was the greater amount. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated if two or more years had transpired between the date of the summons and the trial, the valuation would be either the summons date or the trial date, whichever is the greater amount.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked why there has to be a two-year delay between the summons and the trial. Ms. Fitzsimmons responded that the value of property had to be set. The bill would remedy the current inequities.

Chairman Anderson asked about the value of property increase because of a project. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated the increased value of property was called project influence. Project influence was not a part of A.B. 287.

Assemblyman Brower asked why did Ms. Fitzsimmons not want the government to make an offer of judgment. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated the cases are not like any other civil case. The settlement between the private citizen and the government agency had to be full, fair, and just compensation under the constitution. If the landowner feels the government offer is not full, fair, and just, the landowner would be informed by their lawyer the possibility of loosing if it went to trial with the looser having to pay court costs when the landowner does not have the money.

Assemblyman Brower stated the downside was only if the property owner was unreasonable in settling with the government agency. Ms. Fitzsimmons stated if the offer of judgement was close to the amount the landowner was demanding, the landowner would have to pay the court costs. In one case with Nevada Power, the court cost were more than what the owners received for their land. The Nevada Power example had a chilling effect on a number of landowners.

Chairman Anderson stated he and Assemblyman Carpenter were on the Judiciary Committee in 1991 when the Assembly passed legislation which changed the state statutes concerning eminent domain. The Assembly made more changes in 1995.

Brian Hutchins, Chief Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada testified against A.B. 287. He stated the Attorney General’s Office strongly opposed A.B. 287. He referred to his position paper, (Exhibit D) to save time. He stated his duty is to uphold the Nevada Constitution and the United States Constitution. He stated the bill went far beyond the guarantees of both the constitutions. The State Supreme Court had stated the owners had been justly compensated under the existing laws. This bill would create a fiscal impact on the state and government agencies. The fiscal impact on the Department of Transportation would be between $7 million and $14 million a year. Mr. Hutchins reviewed Section 3 of the bill. The Department of Transportation had complied with section 3 since 1995 with the passage of A.B. 532. He stated Section 4 as worded in A.B. 287 would change the appraisal of property established in 1993 which is inline with the National Appraiser Standards. In Section 4 the highest price would increase the price of land 10 to 20% above the current method of appraising land.

Heidi Mireles, Chief Right-of-way Agent Nevada Department of Transportation testified against A.B. 287. She stated the current 3-year transportation plan, $140 million would be spent for the purchase of right-of-way land during those three years. If A.B. 287 were to pass, Nevada would pay an additional $4.7 million to $9.3 million a year to purchase the same right-of-way land, or $14 to $28 million for the three years.

Mr. Hutchins focused on the change in Section 5 (f) goodwill. Goodwill would be a new item to Nevada jurisprudence. He stated goodwill does not focus on the value of property and went beyond any constitutional requirements. It was his understanding goodwill was based on California law. He referred to (Exhibit D) for his prepared statement concerning goodwill.

Heidi Mireles stated based on the current 3 year plan highway construction plan, goodwill would cost Nevada an additional $5.6 to $7 million over the three year period.

Mr. Hutchins stated Ms. Mireles’ numbers were conservative and would probably be higher. He suggested the bill with goodwill would make a lengthy process more drawn out to purchase right-of-way land. It was his opinion there would be more and longer litigation because of goodwill in Section 5. For decades the burden of proof was on the property owner. The bill would change the burden of proof stating that nobody had the burden of proof. For decades there was an advantage with the burden of proof on the property owner because the property owner presented their case first and was allowed to argue last in court before the jury. He stated the change was based on California law. Section 6 would change the date of value. The date of value was established in 1993.

Chairman Anderson mentioned there was no fiscal note in the green book concerning cost to the state or governmental agencies.

Mr. Hutchins mentioned Section 7 concerning the change in the interest to be paid the owner. The condemnor had to make a deposit for the amount of the appraised value of the property before the trial. When the property owner won, the property owner was paid interest. Condemnation cases were the only tort cases where the money was put aside before the trial as opposed to after the trial. He concluded Nevada could adopt California law, but Nevada would have to adopt California tax structure.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if the judges were awarding the prime rate of interest plus two percent, what has been his experience? Mr. Hutchins responded the judges had been awarding about 8 percent interest to the property owner. The Nevada Supreme Court had stated the statutory rate is a "floor" which means the interest rate cannot go below the statutory rate. The Statutory rate was the beginning rate, and the awarded rate could be higher.

Assemblywoman Buckley was concerned with Sections 6 and 7. She asked why the interest rate was not the same as in other tort cases, prime plus 2 percent? Mr. Hutchins stated the legislature had established the difference in tort cases and condemnation cases. There was more risk in tort cases, so the interest rate was higher. The higher interest rate in tort cases prompted the loosing party to pay the winner in a prompt manner.

Assemblywoman Buckley asked if Mr. Hutchins had a comment concerning the legislative history of the legislation. Mr. Hutchins responded he recalled the year was 1993. All parties involved supported the 1993 legislation concerning eminent domain cases. Assemblywoman Buckley wanted to know the State of Nevada’s position? Mr. Hutchins responded the Nevada Supreme Court had interpreted the law the Attorney General’s Office was required to follow.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Hutchins if he would support the amendment which would more closely reflect the intent of the 1993 statement which would closely parallel the Department of Transportation at the time as opposed to the Nevada Supreme Court’s interpretation, "yes or no Mr. Hutchins." Mr. Hutchins responded "no," and he would have to consult with his client. He stated property was taken at the date of the filing, and did not belong to the owner. The owner cannot use the property after the date of filing. He deferred to the legislature as to how the legislature chose to compensate the property owner.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked Mr. Hutchins if the Constitution guarantees certain freedom, "yes or no." Mr. Hutchins responded, "right." Assemblyman Carpenter asked, since the rights were guaranteed, was the Constitution written guaranteeing those rights only if there were available funds? Mr. Hutchins answered, "no."

Mark Wasser, Attorney at Law represented the city of Las Vegas testified against A.B. 287. He had specialized in eminent domain work in California and Nevada. In Nevada he represented condemnors. In California he represented plaintiffs. He stated goodwill is expensive. He related the financial problems in California, a $27 billion deferred highway maintenance problem. A property owner client of his was awarded $60,000 for the property and $525,000 for goodwill in California. Californians processed everything whereas Nevadans got things done. A.B. 287 was a process heavy bill. The bill would not allow things to get done.

• First, goodwill was not guaranteed in the constitution.

• Second, market value according to the Appraisal Institute was the "most probably price." The Constitution guaranteed property owners to be justly compensated for their property. Appraisers had believed market value was the most probably price obtained in a market sale. If the law were to be changed to the highest price the new law would cause confusion.

Stephen R. Johnson, Member Appraisal Institute (MAI), Society of Real Estate Appraisers (SREA) Certified General Appraiser for Johnson Perkins & Associates, Inc. testified against A.B. 287. "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus." He apologized for not having enough copies of (Exhibit E) for the committee. Assemblyman Carpenter asked Mr. Wasser if the California law regarding goodwill should be removed. Mr. Wasser stated, "No," when he represented property owners and, "Yes," when he represented condemnors.

Chairman Anderson stated he would take a handout from Marta Brown, Manager represented the City of North Las Vegas against A.B. 287, see (Exhibit F). Andy Urban represented the City of Henderson against A.B. 287, see (Exhibit G). Mary Walker, Principal and Owner Walker & Associates represented Carson, Douglas, and Lyon Counties was recorded against A.B. 287. Michael K. Haley, Deputy City Attorney Reno was recorded against A.B. 287. Brent Boyer, Property Manager Reno was recorded against A.B. 287. Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney Washoe County was recorded against A.B. 287. Renny Ashleman, Clark County was recorded against A.B. 287, see (Exhibit H). Bob Nunes representing Douglas County was recorded against A.B. 287. Bob Crowell, Attorney at Law representing Nevada Power Company was recorded against A.B. 287. Chris Weiss, Government Affairs Representative Southern Nevada Water Authority was recorded against A.B. 287. Chairman Anderson stated he would allow additional testimony from only the people listed in this paragraph.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 287.

Assemblyman Collins asked if the committee could get responses from the people for and opposed A.B. 287 if the 1993 law before the Nevada Supreme Court decision would correct the situation.

Chairman Anderson requested any amendments or additional information be sent or faxed to the chairman by Thursday, March 11, 1999.

Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to see a narrower definition of the word "goodwill." He wanted the phrase "last best offer" clarified.

Chairman Anderson opened the testimony on A.B. 286

Chairman Anderson stated the bill has been heard in one form or another for the past three legislative sessions. Nevada had become the Delaware of the west with incorporations. He mentioned a long committee hearing in the 1993 legislative session.

Luke Perry representing himself testified for A.B. 286 from Las Vegas via teleconference. Mr. Perry stated a resident agent had one duty, to accept legal papers being served the corporation. He had been approached by a number of people with concerns about resident agents. Resident agents were not financial advisors, corporate advisors, or attorneys. He stated the law was vague pertaining to resident agents. Some resident agents had done telemarketing to gain clients. He wanted to see resident agents licensed with the standards upgraded. He believed Nevada had a good corporate law.

Betty Tuten representing herself testified for A.B. 286. She was a 72 year old retired educator. She believed she was a victim of elder abuse. She was introduced to the Phoenix Institute for Research and Education during the Gulf War. Phoenix Institute for Research and Education used fear to manipulate the readers of their literature. People were encouraged to hide their assets through a Nevada corporation. E.J. and Doris Ekert were her resident agents starting up a Nevada corporation for her. E.J. Ekert was the president, Betty was the vice president, and Doris Ekert was the secretary/treasurer of Betty’s corporation. Betty never received any receipts for the purchase of her gold. She had invested $402,000 to buy gold. Betty was informed there was an extraterrestrial in a space ship giving inside information on investing and guidance to Doris Ekert. Ms. Ekert received the inside information and guidance as electrical impulses in her head. Ms. Tuten lost all her invested money because she had tried numerous times to unsuccessfully recover her money. She stated she knew of others who were attempting to recover their money in excess of $3 million. She had contacted the Nevada Attorney General’s office, the Nevada Secretary of State’s office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office, but she had not been successful recovering her money.

Scott W. Anderson, Deputy Commercial Recordings submitted (Exhibit I) against A.B. 286. Mr. Anderson would prepare a financial impact report for Chairman Anderson. John T. Olive, Administrative Vice President Acorn Corporate Services, Inc. submitted (Exhibit J) against A.B. 286. Charlie Joerg representing Nevada Association of Industrial Business, Elizabeth Brogan representing Nevada Association of Listed Resident Agents, and Lynne Jones representing CT Corporation stated they would submit written statements against A.B. 286 by Thursday, March 11, 1999. The following list of persons, each representing himself or herself, wanted to be recorded as opposed to A.B. 286, but each person did not wish to testify, Corinna Davis, Debra Sandow Hood, Rani Vaughn, Ron Poircen, Faye Twyman, January Fierro, Virgilio A. Sabas, Cinci Davis, and Dana Nikoleyczik.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:02 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: