The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:15 a.m., on Monday, May 24, 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

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Ms. Sheila Leslie

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Christina R. Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 689.

Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada, informed the committee A.B. 689 was a trailer bill. The bill amended A.B. 284, the fluoride bill. The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) made a mistake on a quickly written amendment. The amended bill was passed and sent to the governor before LCB realized the amendment was written to apply to water systems that served 400,000 customers as opposed to counties whose population was 400,000 or more. The legislators believed they voted on an amendment for counties with a population of 400,000 or more. The changes were not in brackets because A.B. 284 was not signed into law. A.B. 689 on page 1, lines 5 and 6, stated "a population of 100,000 or more in a county whose population is 400,000 or more." Section 4, lines 21 and 22, read, "A public water system that serves a population of 100,000 or more in a county whose population is 400,000 or more." She believed the changes in the bill would bring the intent to what everyone thought was written in A.B. 284. The second change was in section 2 of A.B. 689. Section 2 repealed section 3 of S.B. 471. The Senate bill passed early in the legislative session and was to make the unfunded mandate apply to certain bills during the 1999 Legislative Session.

Since the bill was not passed by the legislature until the end of the session, she was concerned the bill would become effective upon passage and approval. There was a problem because technically LCB would need to reprint every bill that did not have the unfunded language in them. At that time to reprint all the bills that needed to be reprinted would be a nightmare. Ms. Erdoes had a conversation with the requester of the bill, Robert Hadfield representing Nevada Association of Counties (NACO). Mr. Hadfield stated it was not his intent to make the unfunded mandate apply to those bills at that late time. Both committees agreed, the taking of "passage and approval," out of the bill would comport with the intent of the legislature adopting the bill. She did not think anyone would expect LCB to reprint all those bills with the unfunded mandate.

Chairman Anderson referred to section 2 and asked if she knew how many bills would have had to be reprinted. She did not actually know the exact number of bills. She estimated there were between 30 and 50 bills. If a bill cost the local government $5,000 or more, the State of Nevada would have to fund the expense of the bill.

Chairman Anderson stated LCB was not evaluating every bill. The committee had no way of knowing how many bills would have been affected.

Assemblywoman Angle asked about the fiscal note on the bill. The fiscal note for Las Vegas for the first year was $4,424,700. She wanted to know if A.B. 689 would be as expensive. Ms. Erdoes responded there was not a fiscal note on the bill because the bill did not change the number of people, 400,000 or more people. She stated LCB was trying to avoid litigation.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if A.B. 284 was unchanged and that was something to fix the original bill. Ms. Erdoes responded yes. This bill was to bring A.B. 284 to state the original intent of the legislature.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if the unfunded mandate remained the same even though there was no fiscal note on A.B. 689. Ms. Erdoes responded, "That’s the intent."

Chairman Anderson asked without the amendment would Washoe County be excluded or included. Ms. Erdoes responded Washoe County would be excluded. Washoe County did not have a water system serving 400,000 people. She stated A.B. 689 was basically the same because there were other water systems in Clark County.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if Clark County would be excluded because of the wording in A.B. 284. Ms. Erdoes responded if the committee did not pass the amendment, the bill would be litigated in the courts. The way A.B. 284 existed counties were no longer considered. The bill only considered 400,000 or more water users, Clark County would be the only county to qualify.

Assemblywoman Angle asked if Clark County had that many water users on one system. Ms. Erdoes responded the environmental people who pointed out the error to her had told her the city of Las Vegas served 400,000 or more people.

Chairman Anderson reminded the committee members the reason the committee had possession of the bill was the Assembly Committee on Judiciary had jurisdiction relative to take care of the intent of bills previously passed. The intent of the committee was not to discuss the legitimacy of the fluoride question. He thanked Ms. Erdoes for answering the committee’s question.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9 testified for A.B. 689. She gave a summary of A.B. 284. A.B. 284 included Washoe County originally. Senator Townsend amended the bill to exclude counties with a population under 400,000. A.B. 689 corrected the language in A.B. 284, water systems serving 100,000 population would include Henderson and North Las Vegas. Her amendment was a technical adjustment. The amendment, "If upon request," allowed for counties to vote yes to add fluoride to their water system and receive the grant money. A.B. 689 had a funded mandate. There was no fiscal impact on Clark County with the elimination of the water wells from the water system.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Giunchigliani if the changes to A.B. 689 with her amendment expanded the initial intent of A.B. 284. She responded, "No." She said the language in A.B. 284 allowed counties to collect grant money to add fluoride to their water system.

Chairman Anderson asked what was the process for the voters to approve adding fluoride to their water system. Ms. Giunchigliani responded the process for voting was in the current statutes. A.B. 689 "paralleled" A.B. 284 and clearly defined a water system.

Chairman Anderson noticed the Giunchigliani amendment had the word "act" and A.B. 689 had the word "section." Ms. Giunchigliani apologized for the typo. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang for her opinion for the correct word.

Ms. Lang said she felt the word should be section. She would research the language when she wrote the amendment.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked, "If a grant was received by a county of 100,000 then they could by a vote of the people have fluoridation." Ms. Giunchigliani responded the grant would go to the health division of the county. The health division would receive a claim from a county that served a water system of 100,000 and issue the grant to the county. She said current law allowed the county to place the question on a ballot for a vote of the people.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if Washoe County wanted fluoridation, the voters would have to approve fluoridation by a majority vote of the registered voters who voted. Ms. Giunchigliani responded voters would have to approve fluoridation before the county would be able to request their grant.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 689.

He said A.B. 689 was a trailer bill to clarify the language with the water system so the bill applied to a county. Section 2 of the bill clarified the language in S.B. 471, and the bill became effective upon passage and approval. If the committee decided to vote Amend and Do Pass, on page 3, section 3, subsection 6, add the line, "Upon the provisions of this act become effective for all public water systems that serve a population of 100,000 or more." Her amendment was in (Exhibit C).

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 689 WITH MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI’S AMENDMENT.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Gustavson asked if A.B. 284 would go into litigation if A.B. 689 did not pass. Chairman Anderson responded A.B. 689 took care of a bill drafting error. Ms. Erdoes felt because of a technical error on the part of bill drafting there would be an opportunity for litigation to follow. He stated the Assembly agreed to S.B. 471, which notified a county government when there would be a $5,000 unfunded mandate. Chairman Anderson restated, the motion was to pass A.B. 689 with the amendment to have the voters approve fluoridation and the county health department apply for the grant.

Assemblywoman Angle was unclear on A.B. 689 and the litigation question. Since the governor had not signed A.B. 284, was the committee getting ahead of itself.

Ms. Lang answered Ms. Angle’s concerns. If the committee did not pass A.B. 689, then the problems with A.B. 284 would continue because A.B. 284 was signed into law. The litigation problem was to determine to whom the law applied.

Chairman Anderson stated the litigation could come from anyone who read the law and came forward to say, "That’s not what the law says." He said any bill could be litigated, but A.B. 284 did not clearly state the intent of the legislature.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated the intent of A.B. 284 was to exclude Washoe County from the bill. The language in A.B. 689 clarified the language in A.B. 284.

THE MOTION CARRIED, ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE AND ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN VOTED NO

Chairman Anderson wanted the committee to know he recommended concurring with the Senate on all the bills on the list from Don Williams.

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst discussed the first bill, A.B. 154.

Senate amendment 953 to A.B. 154 resolved the conflicts with A.B. 50 and A.B. 51 (two measures from the Family Court study) and replaced section 11 of the bill regarding offers of judgements in actions for divorce. The amendment revised section 11 to provide for the following:

• "The party may serve a written offer of judgment concerning property rights at any time more than 10 days before trial.

• If the offer is accepted, the court must enter judgment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the offer.

• If the offer is not accepted within 10 days or before trial, it is deemed rejected and cannot be given in evidence at the trial. Such a rejection does not preclude either party from making another offer

• If the party who rejected the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court may order the party who rejected the offer to pay the opposing party’s taxable costs relating to the adjudication of property rights and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred after the date of the offer. The court may also prohibit the party who failed to obtain a more favorable judgment from recovering such costs or fees from the other party.

• In determining whether to take action regarding the taxable costs or fees, the court must consider the circumstances set forth under subsection 5 of section 11 of the amendment (see pages 3 and 4). These circumstances include whether counsel represented the parties, whether the issues related to the property rights are conducive to an offer, and whether the offer was made in good faith."

The amendment specified the provisions regarding offers of judgement did not apply to any issues involving child custody or support for a child or spouse. Amendment 953 was located in (Exhibit D).

Chairman Anderson advised the members of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary to read and be knowledgeable with all the judiciary amendments. He explained the Senate wrote the amendments differently from the Assembly. Assemblywoman Buckley was Chairwoman of the family court studies and agreed with the amendments to the bill.

The Committee would concur with the Senate on A.B. 154.

Mr. Williams discussed the Senate amendment to A.B. 158.

Amendment 956 to A.B. 158 included the following three changes:

• The amendment mandated that the rural judicial districts create a local advisory board to expedite the proceedings for the placement of children.

(Currently, the bill provided the district court may create such a board at the request of one or more residents of the judicial district.)

• The amendment eliminated the authority of the agency, which provided protective services to determine whether reasonable efforts to reunify a child with his family should be continued. The court retained that authority.

(Currently, the bill authorized both the court and the agency to make that determination and a concern was expressed that dual authority could create conflicts and confusion within the system.)

• The amendment increased the time period in which a father must commence proceedings to establish paternity before the agency, which provided protective services, was no longer required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the child and his family. The period was increased from 30 days to 60 days after learning of the birth.

Amendment 1053 resolved conflict with S.B. 148 and revised provisions relating to category E felonies and pre-sentence investigations and reports.

Amendments 956 and 1053 were located in Exhibit E.

Chairman Anderson asked for questions from the committee members. There were no questions.

Chairman Anderson would concur with the Senate on A.B. 158.

Mr. Williams reviewed A.B. 239.

Senate amendment 1042 to A. B. 239 clarified that a decision by a nonprofit agency not to use the account established by the bill must not be considered as evidence of negligence or causation in a civil action brought against the agency.

The account established under the bill would be used to pay the costs of the central repository for processing requests from nonprofit agencies to determine whether a volunteer who worked directly with children had committed a sexual offense. The account was funded through gifts, donations, and grants. No appropriation from the state was provided for the account.

There was no statutory duty for those agencies to conduct background checks for volunteers, but the repository’s processing costs could be prohibitive for some nonprofit agencies.

Amendment 1042 was located in Exhibit F.

Chairman Anderson spoke with Mr. Nolan. Assemblyman Nolan did not have a problem with the amendment to his bill. Chairman Anderson stated the bill did not lessen the responsibility of a nonprofit childcare facility to provide the safest atmosphere for the children in their care. The bill would improve the safety for children.

Chairman Anderson would concur with the Senate on A.B. 239.

Mr. Williams gave the committee background information on A.B. 400.

Mr. Williams reviewed with the committee amendment 1064 to A.B. 400. See Exhibit G.

Chairman Anderson stated Assemblywoman Gibbons’ bill A.B. 159 strengthened A.B. 400. Mr. Lee had no problem with the amendments to the bill.

Chairman Anderson would concur with the Senate on A.B. 400.

Mr. Williams gave the committee background information on A.B. 473. (Exhibit H).

Senate Amendment 952 to A.B. 473 resolved conflicts with A.B. 221 and A.B. 262. There were no substantive changes. A.B. 221 required juveniles who committed firearm offenses to be taken into custody. They could receive a psychological evaluation. Psychological treatment was required for juveniles adjudicated as delinquent for torturing animals. A.B. 262 revised the parental notification procedures when juveniles were taken into custody.

Amendment 952 was located in Exhibit H.

Chairman Anderson stated Ms. McClain had no problem with the amendments. The amendments corrected conflicts in bills signed by the governor. He would concur with the Senate on the bill.

Mr. Williams reviewed the background on A.B. 542 and Senate amendment 997.

Nevada Department of Transportation (DOT) requested A.B. 542 to comply with driving under the influence of liquor or controlled substance (DU) provisions of federal law and the Transportation Equity Act of the 21^st Century. The Senate Committee on Transportation recommended amending the second reprint of A.B. 542 and the Senate adopted amendment 997 which was reflected in the third reprint of the bill. The provisions of the Senate amendment were as follows:

• The amendment changed the time period for the suspension of a motor vehicle registration of a DUI offender from 30 days to 5 days in section 2, page 1, and section 7, page 7 of the bill.

• The amendment deleted the provision in section 3, page 2, that prohibited granting probation, a suspended sentence, or a plea bargain to dismiss or reduce charges for a DUI offender driving a motor vehicle with a registration that had been suspended pursuant to the legislation.

• The amendment changed the effective date of the bill to October 1, 2000, and it deleted the reference to October 1, 1999, in sections 14 and 15, page 15 of the bill.

According to Paul Mouritsen, Principal Research Analyst and Committee Policy Analyst for the Senate Transportation Committee, representatives of NDOT supported the Senate amendment to A.B. 542 and indicated it would allow the State of Nevada to comply with federal law. He advised Mr. Williams NDOT testified the federal law did not require a specific time period for the suspension of a motor vehicle registration and the State of Nevada did not have to comply with the federal law until October 1, 2000. Members of the Senate committee did not want to prohibit prosecutors or judges from having the option of granting probation, granting a suspended sentence, or accepting a plea bargain down to dismissal or a lesser charge for DUI offenders driving a motor vehicle with a suspended registration.

Amendment 997 was located in (Exhibit I).

Chairman Anderson had a conversation with the attorney assigned by the Attorney General’s Office to NDOT. He did not have a problem with the bill endangering any of the federal funds. He recommended the Assembly Committee on Judiciary concur with the amendments to the bill.

Assemblyman Manendo asked to have someone explain the first amendment to him.

Chairman Anderson responded NDOT had reviewed their statutes. The first amendment was out of compliance with the federal statutes. The mandatory suspension of a vehicle registration was 5 days. The 5-day suspension would meet the federal requirement.

Mr. Williams added there was no specific time of suspension of vehicle registration for first-time DUI offenders. The Senate went with a 5-day suspension of vehicle registration for the first offense.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated the longer the time period between now and October 1, 2000, the more the bill could be amended.

Chairman Anderson mentioned to the deputy attorney general assigned to NDOT he thought the suspension of a vehicle registration for a first-time DUI offense could have been tougher. Mr. Anderson felt Nevada was tougher on second and third DUI offenders compared to surrounding states.

Assemblyman Carpenter thought there was a Supreme Court decision stating the Federal Government could not withhold money to force states to pass certain laws.

Chairman Anderson added the State of Nevada would still receive the federal money, but Nevada would not be able to spend the money on roads. The money could be spent on education or on anything else but roads. He wanted to see as much money as possible spent on roads.

Chairman Anderson would concur with the Senate on A.B. 542.

Mr. Williams reviewed the background on A.B. 621.

Senate amendment 959 to A.B. 621 deleted all references to and provisions regarding "records of public safety" within the Criminal History Repository. Senate amendment 1052 resolved a conflict with A.B. 165 regarding juvenile restitution for injuring a person and A.B. 626 regarding emergency management. The committee voted to eliminate the requirement for the repository to collect and retain records of public safety which were defined as records, other than records of criminal history. The central repository would retain records submitted by an agency of criminal justice and would maintain according to the provisions governing the repository. Under the bill, records of public safety included records of certain applicants for occupational licenses or permits, records of motor vehicles towed at the direction of law enforcement, death certificates, and fingerprints of a deceased person with a record in the central repository.

Mr. Williams spoke with Dennis DeBacco, and he agreed with the amendments to the bill. Mr. Williams spoke with Jim Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, he was in favor of the bill.

Senate amendments 959 and 1052 were located in Exhibit J.

Nile D. Carson, Deputy Chief, Police Department, City of Reno wanted to be on the record in favor of A.B. 621.

Assemblywoman McClain asked if temporary protection orders (TPO) were records of public safety or records of criminal history.

Chairman Anderson asked Captain Nadeau to answer her question. Captain Nadeau did not know the answer, but he would research the answer to Ms. McClain’s question. He stated Kaylene Dickerson, records and identification director, records division, city of Reno, was one of the originators of A.B. 621. Ms. Dickerson told Captain Nadeau the bill would not have an adverse impact on the Reno Records Division.

Ms. Lang mentioned the bill would not change the records stored in the public safety facility. The bill would only change the new records to be stored in public safety.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang if the amendment changed the bill. Ms. Lang responded the amendment changed the keeping of noncriminal records, the registration of guns.

Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned about the elimination of the fingerprints of a deceased person who had a record. He felt the saving of the fingerprints of a deceased person with a criminal record could possibly solve a crime.

Captain Nadeau checked with Kaylene Dickerson. She told Captain Nadeau TPOs were not impacted by the amendment 959.

Chairman Anderson requested an answer to Mr. Carpenter’s question. Mr. Anderson wanted to know if an unidentified dead person’s fingerprints were checked with the fingerprints on file at the Criminal History Repository. Captain Nadeau responded he felt the identification of an unidentified dead person was covered by a different statute and not impacted by A.B. 621. Captain Nadeau stated the Criminal History Repository had not begun to store the records impacted by the amendment.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated Mr. Williams gave him Exhibit J to review. He was concerned about the fingerprints of a deceased criminal being kept in the repository.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Carpenter if he wanted to be on a committee to see if the Assembly Committee on Judiciary should concur or not concur with the Senate. Mr. Carpenter responded, "Maybe Mr. Williams could research the answer for us."

Chairman Anderson said he would submit his intention to the chief clerk of the Assembly to concur today and have Mr. Williams research Mr. Carpenter’s question. Mr. Anderson would not concur on A.B. 621 until Mr. Carpenter was comfortable with the bill.

Chairman Anderson stated the chairman of the various conference committees needed to get their meetings cleared with Speaker Dini’s office and posted to avoid a violation of the open meeting law. He mentioned the governor did not have a problem with the amendment to A.B. 688

Ms. Lang responded to Mr. Carpenter’s concern. In the first reprint of A.B. 621 there was a provision for a coroner to make a certificate of death concerning a person on whom the central repository had a criminal record and should submit fingerprints to the central repository. The provision was removed from the bill.

Assemblyman Carpenter felt the coroner providing fingerprints of a person with a criminal record was an important part of the central repository.

Captain Nadeau informed Chairman Anderson and Dennis DeBacco, Manager, Criminal History Records Repository, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety was on his way to answer concerns of the committee.

Chairman Anderson called a 5-minute recess.

Chairman Anderson called the committee back from recess. He reviewed the problem with A.B. 621 to revise the reports stored in the central repository.

Assemblyman Carpenter reviewed his concern with the amendment eliminating the fingerprint records from the repository upon the death of a criminal. If the fingerprints were not eliminated, a crime could be solved or a person serving time could be proven innocent.

Dennis DeBacco, Manager, Criminal History Records Repository, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety answered Mr. Carpenter’s concerns. He stated he wanted in the statutes what the repository had been doing. He had exchanged fingerprints with the Washoe and Clark County coroners for years. He stated there was nothing in the statutes preventing the repository from collecting fingerprints of deceased persons from the county coroners. The exchange of fingerprints of deceased persons among county coroners was done by every state, not just Nevada.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. DeBacco to explain why the Senate did not concur.

Mr. DeBacco responded the Senate had a philosophical concern the repository was outside the scope of the records the repository was collecting. The purpose of the collection of fingerprints was to identify "John Doe," an unidentified dead person. He gave an example of a criminal, thought to be dead for years, who was identified as a Utah child molester by his fingerprints from the repository. The repository was in the identification business. The repository was not impacted negatively with the amendment. He wanted to come back in 2 years with a better-written bill, to have in the statutes what the repository had done.

Chairman Anderson summarized Mr. DeBacco’s previous statement. Mr. DeBacco felt the bill was important. The Senate amendment was not of a critical nature to the operation of the repository. Mr. DeBacco agreed with Chairman Anderson’s summary. Mr. DeBacco stated the Senate legal staff felt okay with the repository continuing to collect fingerprints as they had done in the past.

Assemblyman Carpenter could not find where the Senate had removed the language, sections 18 through 20 of the bill. Chairman Anderson pointed out to Mr. Carpenter in Senate amendment 959 on page 2, "Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sections 18 through 20 and renumbering section 21 as section 8." By removing sections 18 through 20 the new language was removed.

Assemblyman Carpenter said if Mr. DeBacco was collecting the fingerprints of deceased persons why could it not be in the law. Chairman Anderson said that was the reason Mr. DeBacco wanted the statute. Mr. DeBacco would prefer the committee to concur on the amendment, and his current practice would be able to continue. Hopefully, in the near future the Senate would vote to place the current practice in the statutes. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. DeBacco if his assessment was correct. Mr. DeBacco responded Mr. Anderson had expressed Captain Nadeau and his viewpoint on the bill and amendment 959.

Assemblywoman McClain asked Mr. DeBacco if TPOs and restraining orders were taken out of the bill with either Senate amendment 959 or 1052. Mr. DeBacco responded the TPOs and restraining orders were removed, but there were other statutes dealing with protective orders both temporary and extended as well as stalking orders. A.B. 165 and A.B. 626 from the 1999 legislative session allows the repository to receive them from the courts, to archive them, and to decimate the restraining orders. The Senate amendments to A.B. 621 allowed the convenience of everything the repository was doing to be under one statute as opposed to several statutes.

Chairman Anderson stated the Senate’s action on the bill was an example of the 120-day session. If the Senate had more time, the Senate would have flushed out their concerns to process the bill. The Senate chose to remove sections 18 through 20.

Assemblywoman McClain asked, if TPOs and extended restraining orders were in other statutes would the repository’s practices be challenged in the courts. Mr. DeBacco responded he was not a lawyer. The state statute for the repository was NRS 179. There were other statutes outside of the repository’s primary statutes that permitted the repository to do various tasks.

Chairman Anderson stated the committee made sure the bill drafter wrote legislation to include a subsection to ensure the repository was responsible for completing the requirement(s) of the bill. The committee did not draft an omnibus bill to clean up the statutes because to do so would lengthen the statutes.

Chairman Anderson would hold A.B. 621 for Mr. Carpenter’s concern.

Mr. DeBacco thanked Chairman Anderson for the committee’s support. He announced the repository was being moved to a new facility in Carson City. He invited the members of the committee to visit the new facility after May 26, 1999.

Chairman Anderson wanted to visit the repository after the legislative session. He mentioned the Assembly Committee on Judiciary should visit the repository before the legislative session began.

Chairman Anderson recessed the committee "at the call of the chair" at 10:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: