The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 7:30 a.m., on Friday, April 9, 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:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was called, Chairman Anderson drew attention to the work session document from which the committee would be working during the meeting. The document was attached as Exhibit C.

Assemblyman Brower pointed out the committee had not taken action on Assembly Bill 579 and expressed his desire for the bill to be further discussed. Chairman Anderson stated it was his intent to address the bills scheduled for the work session and possibly, there would be an opportunity for him to make a statement at the end of the work session.

Don Williams, committee policy analyst, stated as staff of the Legislative Counsel Bureau he neither supported nor opposed any of the measures before the committee. Reading from page one of Exhibit C, he reminded the committee of the previous testimony on Assembly Bill 666.

Chairman Anderson recalled the bill was just recently heard and at that time, the State Gaming Control Board brought forth an amendment to address a small problem in regard to jurisdiction. The amendment was attached as Exhibit D.

Mr. Williams reviewed the past discussion on Assembly Bill 549. (See page 1 of Exhibit C). He noted Risa Lang, committee counsel, had prepared an amendment based on concerns which had arose at the original hearing. The amendment was attached as Exhibit E.

Chairman Anderson stated members had expressed to him their unhappiness with the bill as a whole. After review of the amendment, he inquired if cigarettes were sold in packages of less than 20.

Anne Cathcart, Legislative Representative for the Office of the Attorney General, explained there had been a couple of instances where cigarettes were found being sold in bundles less than 20. However, she noted she was unaware of a manufacturer marketing packages of less than 20 cigarettes.

Amy Hill, Legislative Representative for the Retail Association of Nevada, explained currently, state law prohibited the sale of single cigarettes. She indicated they had no knowledge of any retailer in Nevada selling them in anything less than a pack of 20 and no major tobacco company manufacturing anything less than a pack of 20. She noted the issue had been brought forward because of a fear that a smaller company might possibly decide to market packs of 5 or 10 under the national tobacco settlement. However, it was not currently occurring.

Assemblywoman Leslie opined the bill, even with the amendment, was still unworkable. She noted she had a brief discussion with the juvenile authorities in Clark County and believed it would only overwhelm the juvenile justice system. Washoe County indicated they would have to add five probation officers just to address the smoking issue. She suggested deleting section 5 in its entirety.

Assemblyman Gustavson expressed support of section 5 as amended but disliked sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. He believed it would have a deterrent effect.

Assemblyman Carpenter suggested deleting all sections except sections 3 and 4.

Assemblyman Collins expressed opposition to A.B. 549, particularly with those provisions which meant getting involved with what manufacturers were able to market or package as well as the restriction of vending machines. "That is free market."

Assemblyman Nolan expressed similar concerns with section 3 of the bill.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall disclosed she was Vice President and Director of Cirani Inc., which had various concession contracts with hotels and was involved with the wholesale distribution of tobacco. Therefore, she would not be voting on the bill.

Assemblywoman Koivisto reminded the committee there was legislation in 1997 which made it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes, but not illegal for them to possess or smoke cigarettes. She noted further discussion occurred on how to prevent that. She remarked now, "We are either going to do something or we are not."

The committee engaged in further discussion, specifically about the proposed fine in section 5, and the impact it would have on the juvenile justice system.

Mr. Carpenter suggested deleting subsection 1(a) of section 5. Subsection 1(b) of section 5 would remain.

Ben Graham, Legislative Representative for the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, stated over the last several sessions, there had been several measures to come before the committee on judiciary allowing the juvenile court to automatically remand certain offenses to justice or municipal court. Even though they would normally go to juvenile court, the judges could execute an order to remand certain offenses to justice court.

Ms. Leslie commented the bill could potentially effect thousands of kids and inquired about the fiscal cost. Mr. Graham replied they did 180,000 misdemeanor citations a year and another 20,000 would not be significant.

Assemblywoman Buckley announced she could not support sections 5 or 6. She agreed with Ms. Koivisto’s comment; however, she did not think it would be effective to add kids who smoked to the juvenile court workload. "Clogging our courts with those type of cases would mean less time for the cases that involve serious crimes by minors." She added the criminal justice system would not effect their behavior. She opined only peer pressure and effective anti-tobacco programs would do that.

Chairman Anderson stated he was in a quandary over the bill. He noted there were definite pros and cons with the various provisions. He believed the least obtrusive method of denying access to kids would be to eliminate their access to vending machines.

Mr. Nolan noted the bill did not have the full support of the committee. He suggested making a motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 549.

Mr. Carpenter reiterated his desire to take action on the bill. Referring to Exhibit E, he suggested keeping sections 3, 4, and 5, and deleting subsection 1(a) of section 5. He did not believe subsection 2 of section 5 would result in an overwhelming number of kids entering the system and added it would help the retailers.

Responding to a request for clarification, Ms. Lang explained section 6 would give the court jurisdiction over those matters. It would need to remain, but it would be amended to appropriately match the deletion of subsection 1(a) of section 5.

Ms. Leslie said she could support sections 3 and 4 but not section 5.

After further analysis of the member’s desires, Chairman Anderson accepted a motion from Mr. Carpenter.

Chairman Anderson repeated the proposed amendment was reflected in Exhibit E with the additional deletion of subsection 1(a) of section 5.

A roll call vote was called for.

Mr. Williams reviewed the previous discussion on Assembly Bill 478 (see page 2 of Exhibit C). He noted the Nevada Beer Wholesalers Association and the Retail Association of Nevada had submitted a revised joint amendment to address the concerns raised at the hearing, which was attached as Exhibit F.

Chairman Anderson asked Amy Hill to come forward.

Amy Hill, Legislative Representative for the Retail Association of Nevada, briefly reviewed the revised amendment, which she noted had been approved by Assemblywoman Cegavske and Senator Amodei. She noted retailers would be required to maintain a form which would be used as a receipt on which the items in the new section 5 of Exhibit F would be recorded. She reminded the members there had been discussion on how the kegs would be tracked and since then, she had determined that all kegs had an identification number embossed on them by the manufacturer. She noted the proposed amendment was a step in the right direction towards working with a keg identification system. Unfortunately, it was something that should be done at the state level, but they could not find a state agency to oversee the project. She suggested using the proposed system until a state agency was found to coordinate it. She told the committee the provision preventing the keg from being moved to another address, which was Mr. Carpenter’s concern, was removed.

After a brief recess, the committee reconvened with a quorum present.

Mr. Carpenter stated his opposition to the bill, even with the amendment.

Mr. Williams reviewed the previous testimony on Assembly Bill 593 (see page 4 of Exhibit C).

Jim Avance, Legislative Representative for the Slot Route Operators Association, told the committee the opponents of the bill had indicated they could support it with the proposed amendment, which was attached as Exhibit G. He noted the Nevada Gaming Control Board also supported the amendment.

Captain Jim Nadeau, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, expressed support of limiting it to only slot route operators. He also said requiring the licensee to notify the licensing agency would address the previous concerns brought forward by the Reno Police Department.

Mr. Williams proceeded to review Assembly Bill 436 (see page 2 of Exhibit C). He drew attention to Ms. Berman’s proposed amendment, which was attached as Exhibit H. He commented Ms. Buckley had also submitted a proposed amendment, which was attached as Exhibit I.

Assemblywoman Merle Berman, Assembly District 2, expressed approval with the amendment proposed by Assemblywoman Buckley. In addition it had been brought to her attention after the initial hearing that three of the judicial district court judges suggested that the "shall" on page 3, at the end of line 23, be changed to "may".

Ms. Buckley said "may" would be more consistent with the philosophy and the public policy adopted. She further noted there had been confusion at the original hearing because of the way the statute was written. She elucidated the first section dealt with married people after separation or divorce and the second section dealt with parents who had never been married. The same standard for each set of people had been adopted with the proposed amendments in which the court "may" if it was in the best interest of the child, permit visitation.

Ms. Lang clarified if the same standard was to be applied, as Ms. Buckley suggested, the committee might want to combine those two sections. She further explained for drafting purposes, section 1 would remain, and the relevant portions of section 2 would be moved over to section 1. The rest of section 2, an existing statutory provision, would be repealed. Ms. Buckley’s amendment would also be added to section 1 so that if a child had established a meaningful relationship through living with someone else, they would be included in that provision.

Ms. Buckley expressed confusion with subsection 2 of section 2. She stated when courts terminated parental rights it was usually because of something quite serious. She asked why it would be reopened to allow them to apply for visitation.

Ms. Lang pointed out that language referenced existing law also found in subsection 5 of section 1.

Mr. Graham explained it was not unusual for a parent to agree to terminate their parental rights primarily to get out of child support obligations.

Chairman Anderson pondered if Ms. Buckley’s concern was addressed by changing "parent of parent" to "grandparent".

Ms. Lang further clarified the language would mean that if the parental rights were terminated, then all of the rights granted to grandparents and other people under subsection 1 would also be terminated unless the court found it would be in the best interest of the child to continue those visitations under subsection 1.

Ms. Leslie stated she had contacted a few of the family court judges from the Second Judicial District Court and while they were not strong proponents of the bill, they were not against it. She expressed her approval of the amendment proposed by Ms. Buckley.

Mr. Williams reviewed the previous testimony heard on Assembly Bill 577 (See page 4 of Exhibit C). He drew attention to the amendment submitted by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, attached as Exhibit J.

Chairman Anderson complimented Ms. Giunchigliani for having the courage to bring A.B. 577.

Ms. Giunchigliani thanked him for his kind words. She noted the key piece of the legislation would allow local jurisdictions to assess additional penalties for the purposes of reestablishing rehabilitation programs and assistance with drug courts. In response to testimony submitted by opponents of the bill, a letter written by Ms. Giunchigliani was attached as Exhibit K. She further noted testimony showed the bill was not an attempt to decriminalize or legalize marijuana. Even with the lower penalty, Nevada would have the toughest law on the books because its fines were higher and steeper. She remarked felonies did not apply to our youth, they were simply adjudicated as a delinquent. The bill would allow for the opportunity to immediately refer kids into rehabilitation programs. It paralleled how youth were treated for alcohol problems, which was why Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 62 was referenced.

Chairman Anderson said he would accept a motion.

Responding to a previous question posed in the initial hearing by Mr. Nolan, Ms. Giunchigliani said she had conferred with Bob Bayer, Director of the Department of Prisons, and he indicated that the bill would not restrict his ability to impose any penalties he felt necessary within the prison.

Ms. Buckley decided she would like further clarification of the proposed amendment. She inquired if Ms. Giunchigliani had discussed it with law enforcement. Ms. Giunchigliani replied she had worked with individuals within the law enforcement area. She elucidated currently, all fines went to the Distributive School Account. The amendment would change the penalty from a class E felony to a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $500 on a first offense involving less than an ounce of marijuana. It would also allow a local jurisdiction to assess a penalty under NRS Chapter 478. The assessed penalty could be up to the same amount of $500. That would generate revenue for the drug court and rehabilitation programs. Law enforcement would also be given some additional revenue at the local level, rather than the money going to the school account.

Because she still believed marijuana was a gateway drug, Ms. Leslie clarified she was not minimizing the related problems. But, because she appreciated a realistic attempt to get money into rehabilitation, she would support the bill.

Mr. Carpenter stated, "We are not winning the war on drugs." He said focusing on rehabilitation might be better than what was currently being done. He would support the bill.

Mr. Collins and Mr. Nolan also expressed support for the bill.

Chairman Manendo reminded the committee a motion to amend and do pass had been made and seconded. After an informal vote, a roll call vote was called for.

The next bill on the work session document was Assembly Bill 617. Mr. Williams reviewed the testimony heard at the initial hearing (see page 5 of Exhibit C). He pointed out proposed amendments were submitted by the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office (Exhibit L) and the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office (Exhibit M).

Madelyn Shipman spoke on behalf of the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office. She explained the proposed amendment (Exhibit L) was an attempt to address the issue of an affirmative defense through the language "excessive spending, indebtedness or other legal obligation". It would make it clear it was outside the control of the defendant and therefore, an affirmative defense could be asserted. Ms. Shipman explained the addition of a new paragraph to section 1 was to address the noticing issues previously raised by Ms. Buckley. A separate notice would be submitted at the time the complaint was served upon the defendant. It would also allow the opportunity for other jurisdictions to handle it differently by having it handed out at the court when it was determined whether or not a pro per defendant was involved. No later than arraignment would a notice be provided to any pro per defendant regarding the requirements for notification on the affirmative defenses. The additional language added to section 3, subsection 2(b) submitted by the district attorney’s office was an attempt to address the issue of timing as it related to the ultimate $5,000 amount. She noted after further discussion, there was a question of whether the language was necessary because it was only when the amount of $5,000 was reached that it would be a felony. The previous payments or nonpayments did not constitute a part of that amount. However, she believed it would make it clear that an arrearage accrual in excess of $5,000 would be from the time of the first court order.

Mr. Brower said he saw potential difficulty for the court and the lawyers in trying to interpret the definition of "unless outside the control of the defendant." He asked for clarification of that phrase. As an example, Ms. Shipman offered a situation whereby the Internal Revenue Service had confiscated a person’s assets from his bank account that were intended to be used to pay his child support. If that had occurred, the district attorney’s office would reconsider whether they would move forward with that criminal case. If the person did not have any control over that aspect of it, as a prosecutor, she would argue that he had control because to refuse or deliberately underpay his taxes would be voluntary and knowing. On the other hand, the defense could argue it was a mistake and that there was no intent on the part of that taxpayer to underpay and therefore, should not have the penalty of a criminal conviction.

Mr. Brower opined the issue of individual responsibility was being approached and he believed an unwarranted excuse was being made for the obligor where it was under his control.

Ms. Shipman said the amendment would allow the defense to be asserted so that the proof could be put forth to the court.

While she favored the amendments, Ms. Buckley brought forth another concern, which had developed since the last hearing in regard to reciprocal discovery. She inquired how the legislation would effect the current state of the law relating to reciprocal discovery. Ms. Shipman opined it would not be inconsistent with what occurred currently in regard to reciprocal discovery.

John Morrow, Legislative Representative for the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office, opined special rules were not to be applied to particular types of cases, and he believed that was what was being proposed. He explained in the criminal system, there were two exceptions to the general rule contained in NRS Chapter 174 dealing with discovery, and those were an alibi and expert witnesses. He pointed out the disparity in the bill relative to the disclosure requirements between the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution was required to reveal only names and addresses of their witnesses and yet, the defendant must give a complete summary of his evidence with his affirmative defense.

Ms. Shipman noted there was another exception. An affirmative defense of drinking after the incident versus the "last gulp defense" also had to be alleged by defendants. She remarked it was a policy question for the committee.

Mr. Morrow believed the committee should use that as a model. He explained the defense must notify the prosecution of who the witnesses were that would establish that defense.

Mr. Brower asked if Mr. Morrow had a problem with the bill in respect to discovery. Mr. Morrow replied his concern rested with the level of effort that was required on the part of the defendant in the notification process. If it was going to be an affirmative defense, they were entitled to know who the witnesses were.

Mr. Brower further inquired if Mr. Morrow saw any unwarranted discovery problems for defendants in those cases emanating from the passage of the bill. Mr. Morrow responded it would depend on whether discovery required a summary of the evidence or if it was discovery typical in criminal cases whereby notice was given of the intent to use the defense as well as a list of the witnesses. He reiterated his concern with disparate treatment of the two parties. He explained the way the bill was written, the defendant was required to basically give full disclosure of how his evidence was going to "play out in court", relieving the prosecution of any burden. On the other hand, the reciprocal discovery given back to the defendant by the prosecution was only a list of witnesses.

Ms. Buckley asked if the bill was to be processed, if Mr. Morrow would prefer the language on page 2, lines 7 through 10, to reflect notice was required that the defendant intended to proffer an affirmative defense and names and addresses of the witnesses would be listed. The detailed description of the factual basis would be removed because he contended that was different than current practice.

Mr. Morrow said that was what he would prefer.

Ms. Buckley asked Ms. Shipman her opinion of that suggestion.

Ms. Shipman commented the prosecution would not know what the affirmative defense was.

Ms. Buckley explained the affirmative defense would have to be stated. A person would have to notice that they intended to say they were involuntarily laid off and list their witnesses, but they would not have to provide the detailed description of the factual basis. She noted it would then be consistent with the rest of the law as well as the concept that the burden of proof rests with the state and not the defendant.

Ms. Shipman stated that would be acceptable.

Mr. Carpenter stated the concerns he raised at the initial hearing had been addressed. His other concern was with the language, "including without limitation", on page 1, line 10. He pondered whether that was too strong.

Chairman Anderson shared Mr. Carpenter’s concern.

Ms. Buckley suggested stating, "Voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, without good cause." She explained there might be a good reason why a person was making a little bit less.

Ms. Shipman said Ms. Buckley’s suggestion would address the issue. She added the courts would never penalize someone for being underemployed unless they found it was for the purpose of avoiding their obligation.

Ms. Buckley acknowledged her point and suggested, "underemployed without good cause or underemployed to avoid child support obligations."

Chairman Manendo asked if an individual would still be required to go through the court order for 3 months. Ms. Buckley replied the issues should always be litigated first in the child support arena.

Mr. Brower expressed support for language which would clarify that it would have to be proven that the underemployment or unemployment was for the purpose of avoiding child support.

After another recess, the committee reconvened. Chairman Anderson explained interest had been expressed in reconsidering Assembly Bill 304, previously indefinitely postponed by the committee.

He stated he would entertain a motion for reconsideration of A.B. 304.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee it would take 10 votes for the bill to be reconsidered.

A roll call vote was called for.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee the bill would be helpful to the highway patrol and other state agencies that did not have a procedure in place to investigate complaints made against peace officers.

Kathy Nauman spoke on behalf of the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, in lieu of Andy Anderson. She expressed support of A.B. 304 and explained after the committee moved to indefinitely postpone it, they had asked for support from other state peace officers. She said they received a great deal of response, especially from parole and probation officers. They indicated the bill would greatly facilitate the kind of protections they felt they did not presently have.

Ms. Buckley reiterated her belief the bill would have a chilling effect on people who had a legitimate complaint. She remarked in Clark County, a civilian review board had been established to work with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the community. It was progressing forward in a positive way and she supported it. She opined the legislation would be a step back and therefore, her position was unchanged. She would not support A.B. 304.

Assemblywoman McClain agreed with Ms. Buckley. "It is A.B. 52 for a special class of people." She stated she would oppose the bill.

Mr. Brower opined the bill would not have a chilling effect on complaints being made. He stated the only thing that was prohibited was to knowingly make a false statement. Referring to Ms. McClain’s comment, he remarked there was already a procedure as well as a penalty in place for false statements in the domestic violence context. He would support the motion.

Mr. Carpenter felt peace officers would probably have a lot more support than a person who was in a position where they were considering filing a complaint against an officer. He further stated he completely supported police and sheriff departments, but the bill "just goes too far."

Mr. Collins commented on the hardships faced by police officers on a daily basis. He remarked the bill would send the message that law enforcement was there to protect the public and having false accusations made against them would impact their ability to their job. He believed the bill would hopefully curb the false accusations from being made.

Based on a request made by Ms. McClain, Stan Olsen, Lieutenant with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, explained that department had an internal affairs unit. It consisted of seven sergeants and a lieutenant. If a complaint was filed, it was the responsibility of the investigator to determine if the accusation was true or false and if the person accused was the one that did the act.

Chairman Anderson commented that was for Las Vegas only and there were other agencies that had no established procedures.

Ms. McClain inquired what was precluding other police departments from having a procedure in place. Lieutenant Olsen replied some of the agencies would have difficulty setting up an internal affairs unit because of their size. As far as the bill was concerned, he explained they supported setting up a program on how to receive complaints but noted, in regard to the investigation aspect, it would be difficult for the small department.

Mr. Brower exclaimed the bill was about creating a penalty for false statements against police. It had nothing to do with how police were allowed to conduct their internal affairs investigations.

Mr. Nolan asked if passing the bill with the proposed amendment would impede the process already in place in Las Vegas. Lieutenant Olsen replied the bill would have a chilling effect on what his department was trying to do, was already in place, and what they were starting to do with the civilian review board. He emphasized his comments were solely on behalf of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and no other departments.

Ms. Leslie noted the Reno Police Department echoed the concern of creating a chilling effect.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee of the motion made by Mr. Gustavson.

A roll call vote was asked for.

Chairman Anderson explained to the committee there were two bills left on the work session document, Assembly Bills 442 and 651. He also explained, in regard to the request made by Mr. Brower at the beginning of the meeting, there would be another chance to address the issue raised in A.B. 579 when the committee received a similar bill coming from the Senate.

The committee turned its attention to Assembly Bill 651.

Mr. Williams reviewed the previous testimony heard by the committee on A.B. 651 (see page 5 of Exhibit C). He drew reference to the revised amendment, which was distributed to the committee. It was attached as Exhibit N.

Jim Mulhall, Legislative Representative for the Nevada Resort Association, announced an agreement had been reached with the manufacturing industry.

Billy Vassiliadis, Legislative Representative for the Nevada Resort Association, briefly reviewed the proposed amendment. Section 1 was amended to allow accessibility and availability. The games would be made available even to the smaller casinos in a quick and prompt way. There was also language added which would allow the manufacturers reasonable time to meet production and delivery deadlines. Section 3 included a provision which requested the State Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission to create a full set of regulations concerning inter-casino linked systems, including metering, disclosure of the rate of the progressive to licensees and the regulators, and regular auditing of regulatory compliance. In addition to that, there would be language to address confidentiality of that information as it was contractual and proprietary. Section 7 would provide that the operators of the inter-casino linked systems would pay their proportionate share of gross gaming tax revenue. How to accommodate that was worked out between the two parties. He concluded by noting the bill, as amended, was a good piece of legislation.

Sam McMullen, Legislative Representative for the Nevada Gaming Manufacturers Association, explained there would be negotiations on the availability of games on a case-by-case basis with no restrictions on individual terms and conditions. He further explained there were no restrictions in the amendment on the manufacturers in regard to their transfer or sale of games, pricing, or ability to participate in the revenues from the machines. He concluded by noting the amendment was acceptable to the manufacturers, and it would renew the relationship between the industry, manufacturers, suppliers, and customers.

Michael Rumbolz, Chief Executive Officer of Anchor Gaming and representing the Nevada Gaming Manufacturer’s Association, thanked the committee for their time and effort. He told the committee the agreement would allow them to go forward in a spirit of participation and cooperation and they would be able to work out the remaining items contemplated in the bill between themselves.

Mr. Brower asked if the Nevada Gaming Commission and State Gaming Control Board had been apprised of the compromise. Mr. Vassiliadis replied they would not sign off on it, but they had been apprised of it. It was his understanding they did not object to the agreement.

In response to a request for clarification by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Rumbolz explained A.B. 651 would set out in regulation what the board had already been doing administratively.

Chairman Anderson assigned A.B. 651 to Mr. Manendo for presentation on the Assembly floor.

At 12:52 p.m., Chairman Anderson stated the committee would stand in recess in case there were any last minute measures that needed to be addressed or if further information was obtained in regard to Assembly Bill 282.

Later in the day, Chairman Anderson determined it would not be necessary to reconvene and therefore, the committee on judiciary was adjourned.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: