MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 29, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Thursday, March 29, 2001. 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. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David Goldwater, District 10
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dennis DeBacco, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety/Nevada Highway Patrol (DMV&PS/NHP), Criminal History Repository (CHR)
Lucille Lusk, Co-chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens
David Pursiano, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA)
Scott Canepa, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA)
Renny Ashleman, Nevada Government Relations
Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.
A March 28, 2001 letter (Exhibit C) from Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, was distributed to the committee with the most recent effort from bill drafting relative to the summary and comparison of eight major pieces of legislation dealing with construction defects (Exhibits D, E, F and G). The summaries and comparisons were prepared in an effort to give each committee member a comparable overview of each bill.
Exhibits D and E covered the following bills:
Assembly Bill 81: Revises provisions governing claims for constructional defects, dissolution of corporations and limited-liability companies and common-interest community associations. (BDR 3-989)
Assembly Bill 133: Revises various provisions regarding claims against contractors for constructional defects and against design professionals for professional negligence. (BDR 3-667)
Assembly Bill 366: Revises various provisions governing claims and transactions relating to real property. (BDR 10-911)
Assembly Bill 477: Revises procedures for resolving matters involving constructional defects. (BDR 54-1250)
Exhibits F and G covered the following bills:
Senate Bill 89: Revises provisions governing claims for constructional defects, dissolution of corporations and limited-liability companies and common-interest community associations. (BDR 3-940)
Senate Bill 185: Makes various changes concerning construction, constructional defects and common-interest communities. (BDR 3-94)
Senate Bill 310: Creates commission to review constructional defect claims and revises various provisions governing actions resulting from constructional defects. (BDR 54-448)
Senate Bill 516: Makes various changes concerning contractors and constructional defects. (BDR 54-1452)
Chairman Anderson had requested a second document from Ms. Lang covering amendment language (Exhibit H) for A.B. 105, which was currently on the Chief Clerk’s Desk.
Assembly Bill 105: Revises provisions pertaining to explosive and incendiary devices. (BDR 15-425)
The proposed amendment was prepared in response to an inquiry regarding rocket engines, and how it would affect the “bomb” bill recently heard in committee.
Mr. Lang reported the proposed amendment hoped to clarify the intent by re-defining “explosive or incendiary device”; take out the word “intended” replacing it with “ordinary”; and adding a sentence referring to “model rockets and model rocket engines.”
Chairman Anderson stated A.B 105 could have proceeded without the amendment, allowing the issue to be raised at a later date. But rather than doing that, Chairman Anderson wanted the committee’s intent to be clear. The bill was not in committee, however it was his belief the amendment could be added on behalf of the Judiciary Committee.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO FURTHER AMEND A.B. 105.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MS. BUCKLEY AND MR. CARPENTER ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 325 by recognizing Assemblyman David Goldwater as he approached the witness table.
Assembly Bill 325: Revises provisions concerning rule against perpetuities. (BDR 10-46)
Assemblyman Goldwater, District 10, was a sponsor of the bill. A.B. 325 attempted to shore up the statutory provisions regarding perpetuities; part of Assemblyman Goldwater’s elaborate plan to make Nevada the best place in the country to die…”Nevada—a great place to die.” In Section 3, paragraph 3, the effective date of this act was contingent upon the passage by the voters of the repeal of the constitutional prohibition against perpetuities. Assuming that happened, Assemblyman Goldwater wanted to pass A.B. 325 to provide additional statutory strengths giving Nevada not only a statutory rule against perpetuities but also a great deal of common law. The meat of the bill was in Section 1, paragraph 7 where a trustee had the right to sell assets in the trust, assuring that a human being was in charge of the assets of the trust.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked Assemblyman Goldwater to explain the rule against perpetuities, what the exceptions were, and the public policy behind the rule.
Assemblyman Goldwater explained perpetuities originated during feudal times when feudal lords granted themselves property and continued to pass it down to their families, never leaving their own immediate family. Since that time, some passage of assets was allowed – life and being plus twenty-one years; the amount of time an asset was allowed to remain in a nonhuman entity, which was a trust.
One exclusion was for eleemosynary (charitable) purposes. For some reason there was a constitutional prohibition two lines long that said, “Perpetuities were excluded except for eleemosynary purposes.” The courts of Nevada had interpreted that statement so broadly that some of the unique estate planning tools available in other states were not allowed in Nevada. So it was determined to take away the constitutional prohibition, keep the statutory prohibition and keep the common law.
The estate tax paid was split 50-50 between K-12 and higher education budgets; more and more those budgets were relying on the estate tax. If the repeal of perpetuities was passed and the changes were made to the statutory provisions, given what occurred last session with self-settled trusts, there were very few large estates that would not locate in Nevada. When those trusts paid the state taxes, Nevada would be the benefactor. And when that money was paid to K-12 budgets and higher education budgets, the children were the real benefactors.
Chairman Anderson asked who would be explaining the impact of A.B. 325. Assemblyman Goldwater replied he would do that. Chairman Anderson asked him to explain the three steps in Section 1 of A.B. 325 where the property interest and powers of appointment were subject to the rule; and how A.B. 325 would change what was currently being done. Should it be recognized that the property interest and powers of appointment were not subject to the rule when (1) the trustee had unlimited power to sell the assets of the trust or if at least one person had the power to terminate the entire trust; (2) the instrument that created the trust stated the rule against perpetuity did not apply to the trust itself; and (3) the trust executed in Nevada had at least one trustee who was domiciled in Nevada, the trust was administered in Nevada or had assets of which a substantial portion was located within Nevada? It might be an inviting invitation for people to “die” here; would there still need to be an asset held in the state for the rule to apply?
Assemblyman Goldwater said Chairman Anderson was correct…that was “home cooking.” The trusts needed to be located in Nevada in order for Nevada to get the benefit of the estate tax paid. Additionally, Nevada courts and trustees needed control over the execution of the provisions of any elaborate estate plan.
Chairman Anderson asked what risk was there for people who stay in Nevada? Why had other states not done this? Assemblyman Goldwater replied a great number of states had gotten very aggressive, had repealed their constitutional provision and amended the statutory provisions against perpetuity, such as Delaware, South Dakota, Arizona and Alaska. Since nonreal assets were very mobile, the trusts moved. Those especially versed in the estate planning discipline were well aware of state laws and knew where the best financial benefit would be in the fifty states. Nevada was not a leader; Nevada was a follower with some indigenous advantages such as no state taxes, etc.
Chairman Anderson asked to what harm, if any, did Nevada hold the citizens of the state of Nevada who had estates of less than $2 million, if the rule of perpetuity was removed. Assemblyman Goldwater said the risk would include the ability for very wealthy estates to accrue assets beyond the life of an individual, which might or might not be a good thing.
Assemblywoman Buckley clarified on the accrual of wealth issue; with proper planning were there not already ways to accrue wealth forever? Assemblyman Goldwater replied the main purpose of this bill was to allow dynastic trusts, which allowed for even larger estate tax exemption. “In de facto terms, it would be seamless.” Assemblyman Goldwater reminded Chairman Anderson of bills passed during the Seventieth Session regarding self-settled trusts and Nevada on-shore trusts. The on-shore trusts had been a boon to the state; there were record estate tax collections last year, which the budgets desperately needed.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B 325 and entertained a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO “DO PASS” A.B. 325.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MR. BROWER ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 331.
Assembly Bill 331: Makes various changes concerning dissemination of records of criminal history by central repository for Nevada records of criminal history. (BDR 14-304)
Assemblyman Nolan, District 13, and Dennis DeBacco, DMV&PS/NHP Criminal History Repository (CHR), approached the witness table. Mr. Nolan said, although A.B. 331 would not promote “a great place to die,” it would help children. A.B. 331 had been discussed during the Seventieth Session in several bills related to CHR background investigations on people working with children. One issue evident from previous testimony related to the limited information nonprofit organizations were allowed to obtain when a criminal background check was done through the CHR; statute only permitted information regarding “crimes against children” to be obtained. A nonprofit employer would not be told if a prospective bus driver had a history of DUI, or if a prospective bookkeeper had a conviction for embezzling or financial fraud, or if a prospective youth sports coach had just completed a stay with the Department of Prisons. Additionally during bill drafting it was discovered that while public schools systems were allowed to conduct background checks through the CHR, private schools were not included in statute and thus were not allowed to conduct background checks.
Section 10, subsection 4, page 9 listed proposed offenses for which a notice of information could be obtained by nonprofit organizations. Assemblyman Nolan was unsure why text on page 14, Section 15, subsection 6(a-b) text had been deleted, and supported un-deleting the text.
Chairman Anderson asked what restrictions were placed on a nonprofit volunteer organization regarding dissemination of the information gathered in this manner. Assemblyman Nolan did not know the answer to that question, but he believed there would be civil liabilities if the organization made the information public and defamed the person in any way.
Dennis DeBacco managed the state’s Criminal History Repository (CHR). He stated anyone who obtained information from the CHR was guided regarding how they could use and disseminate that information by specific statute already in place. No matter who they might be, they were precluded from using that information for any purpose other than which it was obtained. Mr. DeBacco also confirmed what was given to the nonprofit organization was only a “notice” of whether the person fell within a prohibited category, not the actual criminal history information.
Assemblywoman Buckley verified that any employer, or just the Gaming Control Board and Gaming Commission, could receive information about any crime listed on page 9 that might be in sealed records on those crimes. Dennis DeBacco answered in the affirmative; the amendment would allow the CHR to provide notice, under the provisions of NRS 179A.180 thru NRS 179A.240. Assemblywoman Buckley felt that caused problems for the sealed records process.
Assemblyman Nolan said that had not been the intent of A.B. 331; sealed records were not to be opened for the review of employers.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked Mr. DeBacco to explain the difference between who used the CHR service, what was a “scope”, the FBI checks, and who really used what in Nevada the most? Mr. DeBacco replied the CHR service was used by a wide and diverse group of agencies and individuals in Nevada. The term “scope” was not relevant to the CHR system or the FBI record system; “scope” was part of the system administered by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the internal records management system. Those people in Nevada who used the CHR were state agencies; licensing, employment and regulatory groups. One of the biggest users was the State Department of Education in licensing and certification of schoolteachers, separate legislation gave them the authority to request information from CHR and gave CHR the authority to request information from the FBI. The gaming industry in Nevada was also a large user of CHR in doing background investigations of people employed, as well as gaming and nongaming work card provisions in Nevada. Literally, there were hundreds of statutes that gave various entities authority to check someone’s background including licensing and concealed weapons permits.
Mr. DeBacco brought two issues to the attention of Assemblyman Nolan: (1) Agencies requesting CHR notification were limited to receiving information only about sex offenses and “crimes against children” and (2) there were many questionable offenses that should have been of interest and might prove very important when making decisions regarding positions of trust.
Assemblyman Collins asked if an individual could go to Las Vegas Metro Police and request a “scope” record, which would contain all information from Clark County, but not statewide. Mr. DeBacco answered it would contain information for those arrests made by the Las Vegas Metro Police, although there might be information from Henderson and North Las Vegas.
Assemblyman Collins stated that would be the difference between CHR who had access to multi-state information. Could an individual come to CHR and request a copy of their individual record or did that request need to come from an agency? Mr. DeBacco replied there were provisions in statute that would enable an individual to obtain their statewide and/or national record. A.B. 331 would provide a mechanism to employers, who did not have specific statutory authority to receive FBI record information themselves, to request notification of prohibitive offenses through CHR.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if prospective sealed records or already sealed records could be opened for review? How would someone know in advance what offenses had been in a sealed record? Assemblyman Nolan replied it was his intent to amend out the references to opening sealed records in this bill.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if information on those offenses listed in Section 10, page 9 was currently being collected from law enforcement agencies. Mr. DeBacco replied all that information was already being collected. Assemblywoman Buckley clarified only sexual offense information was released to an employer. Mr. DeBacco answered when an employer made a request to CHR, under the provisions of NRS 179A.180 through 179A.240, only notification of information regarding sexual crimes or crimes against children were released. Assemblywoman Buckley asked what had been the public policy regarding limiting those offenses. Mr. DeBacco did not know the original reasoning behind setting limitations to just sexual offenses.
Chairman Anderson asked if an employer would need to inform CHR of what the employer was reviewing in order for CHR to determine if the prospective employee fell within a certain category? From the list of specific crimes, did CHR only report on convictions? Mr. DeBacco noted text on page 11, subsection 2 specified “convictions for any offenses, an arrest or initial charge for any offense that is pending at the time, or when arrested on two previous occasions that did not result in an arrest.” The requests come to CHR on a fingerprint card by the organization or employing authority, which included the justification for the background check by statute NRS 179A.180 through NRS 179A.240. That meant the organization would get a limited inquiry of the state and FBI system.
Assemblyman Nolan had experience with nonprofit organizations. Such requests included information regarding the nature of the business and the type of volunteers used, and notifications had provided information only on sexual offenses.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if NRS 179A.100 pertained to sex offenses or all records in the CHR? Mr. DeBacco replied currently employers had access to CHR information; there were a number of different ways an employer could make a request. If an employer made a request under provisions as listed in A.B. 331, the employer would only get sexual offenses or crimes against children. If an employer made a request under provisions of NRS 179A.100 that would be a completely different process; and that was where it got confusing. Assemblywoman Buckley wanted to avoid further confusion; she wanted to determine the intent without confusing the statutes even more. Mr. DeBacco restated if an employer made a request under NRS 179A.100, that employer would receive notification of the whole record. Then for those employers who did not know that those provisions existed and made a request under NRS 179A.180 through NRS 179A.240, that employer would only receive notification on the sexual offenses. The issue was how that information should be disseminated to employers and whether or not that included volunteers. It should be noted that NRS 179A.100 did not give an employer the authority to get information from the national files. Mr. DeBacco concurred with Ms. Lang regarding confusion between Section 4, subsection 4, page 5 and subsection 5(m), page 6, suggesting that subsection 4 be deleted and replaced by subsection 5(m).
Chairman Anderson stated the question of sealed records was still of concern. Mr. DeBacco said, “Correct, unless the proposed language in Section 1 was adopted, which was not Mr. Nolan’s intent.” Chairman Anderson queried as to whether Section 1 of the bill was necessary. Assemblyman Nolan replied the portion regarding sealed records was not intended and was not necessary.
Assemblyman Collins stated if misdemeanors were sealed in five years, maybe that explained the reasoning behind opening sealed records to obtain a seven-year background check.
Ms. Lang explained why the sealed records text was in A.B. 331. Because the definition of information relating to sexual offenses was removed and was incorporated into the list on page 9, the bill drafters believed the intent was to refer to the list on page 9. If that were not the case, bill drafters should be able to amend the text. Ms. Lang also noted the difference between subsection 4 on page 5 and subsection 5(m) on page 6 dealt with references to volunteers; subsection 4 referred to volunteers, subsection 5(m) did not. Combining the two subsections could work, if desired.
Assemblywoman Buckley felt A.B. 331 needed to have the sealed records section and the sexual offenses section eliminated; have one section for volunteers, private schools and employers; redraft the statute combining information; then re-add the language taken out regarding nonprofits, the funds and liability. Mr. DeBacco agreed A.B. 331 needed some work, but cautioned not to interfere with the process that provided employers the conduit to the FBI through CHR.
Chairman Anderson did not want the CHR to endanger its ability to have access to the other repositories because of opening an access door in Nevada that might endanger a federal or state compact agreement that holds certain information for police purposes only.
Mr. DeBacco asked Assemblywoman Buckley if she agreed there was a need for the screening of information and establishing the prohibitive categories; or should the entire record be released to an employer. Assemblywoman Buckley believed if the organization was getting the sex information; why not allow them to get the felony information.
Chairman Anderson tried to determine a level of consensus. A.B. 331 needed further work: Mr. DeBacco had language that might clarify the overall intent; felony convictions not in a sealed record could be disclosed; organizations would not be held responsible for not requesting an investigation; and civil liabilities would not be removed. Mr. DeBacco said he would work closely with the committee to make A.B. 331 work from all perspectives.
Lucille Lusk, Co-chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens, submitted a proposed amendment (Exhibit I) as previously mentioned by Assemblyman Nolan. Ms. Lusk understood that organizations requesting background checks would be given a “notice” of information that did not tell what the specific offense was, just that there was a problem. As she looked at the entire list of offenses, both sexual and felonies, she voiced concern that without the explanation of the notice employers might jump to conclusions about the seriousness of the offenses, believing much worse than actual. That could become a problem if the employer were held liable; it could discourage employers to give a person a second chance. If a person received information without receiving enough information to make a judgment, it might result in denial of employment without justification.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 331. It stated if the committee could not bring clarity to the statute, through the use of amending language presented, the committee had better not mess with it at all.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 366.
Assembly Bill 366: Revises various provisions governing claims and transactions relating to real property. (BDR 10-911)
David Pursiano, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, provided a brief overview (Exhibit J). The bill had three main components: (1) disclosures to be made by builders and sellers of new homes; (2) tolling as it related to builders; and (3) issues at the contractors’ license board.
A.B. 366 was intended to require a builder of a new residence to disclose any construction defect litigation that was pending against that builder, any complaints filed against the builder or any participants (subcontractors) in the construction of the residence, and any insurance policies that applied to repairing a construction defect. The bill would also provide for disclosure of the identity (name), license number, business address and telephone number of each subcontractor. Lastly, any deviations from applicable building codes (and/or approved plans) were to be disclosed at the time of the sale of the home. If the builder failed to comply with the disclosures, there was a civil penalty of $1,000 payable to the State Contractors’ License Board. Additionally, the bill did not eliminate any civil remedy a buyer might have against a builder that failed to disclose the information.
The issue of tolling is a legal concept where a “time clock was ticking” upon the substantial completion of the home. During that time, the homeowner could sue a builder for a construction defect. Tolling stops or holds in place the time clock from ticking upon certain activities, such as (1) if a builder controls the activities of an association, the statute of limitations time clock did not begin to tick; and (2) if the builder was performing repairs, temporary or permanent, the clock would stop. This would protect the homeowner as well as encourage the builder to perform permanent and correct repairs.
Section 7 prevented a contractor from avoiding disciplinary proceedings before the contractors’ license board during a Chapter 40 claim against the contractor. The language should clarify the board’s ability to deal with contractors. Section 8 prevented the victim of construction defects to recover the reduction in market value when disclosures were made under NRS 40.688 that covered those disclosures a homeowner must make when they sold their home.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked how Section 8 would work. Mr. Pursiano said whether it involved a simple single-home Chapter 40 suit or complex litigation, it would need to be shown by testimony or evidence of an appraiser that the disclosure would affect the market value of the home.
Assemblyman Carpenter remarked if the problem had been fixed in a satisfactory manner, it seemed the disclosure was a problem. Mr. Pursiano replied one area where a “continuing loss in value” even after a home might be repaired involved soil defects. There could be a continuing loss of value because of the nature of the soil defects. If a defect was above ground such as a leaky roof, leaky window, etc., once it was fixed there usually was not a continuing loss in value.
Assemblyman Collins asked what part of the disclosure issues was not available currently at the Better Business Bureau, if any of it. Mr. Pursiano did not know the answer to that question; he doubted the items detailed in Section 1 would be kept track of by the Better Business Bureau.
Assemblyman Collins stated a situation where construction crews buy homes and ask for minor additional work after the initial framing was completed. Were those types of changes what were addressed when considering changes to building plans? Mr. Pursiano was talking about “major” deviations such as where the building codes required 18” deep footings and the actual footings were only 12” deep.
Assemblywoman Angle asked what was the purpose of disclosing a summary of insurance policies carried by the builder. Mr. Pursiano said the liability insurance of the contractors and subcontractors became the source from which the homeowners were compensated for the construction defect. The intent of the provision was to inform the homebuyer whether there was liability insurance.
Assemblyman Brower clarified Section 1 would require a builder to disclosure information about itself and all subcontractors to perspective buyers “for all time.” Mr. Pursiano replied, “That was correct, as drafted.”
Scott Canepa, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, responded to Assemblyman Carpenter’s question regarding the loss of market value. Mr. Canepa made an analogy of a wrecked car that had been fixed; there might be doubt as to whether the repairs would fix the problems in the long term. There was a belief on the contractor’s behalf that a home subject to construction defects might be stigmatized, which would affect the long-term value of that home, and possibly those around it.
Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned with the language “any deviation” that seemed too encompassing. Assemblyman Carpenter believed that language should be amended to “major deviation.” Mr. Pursiano said he was willing to deal with that.
Renny Ashleman, Nevada Government Relations, spoke in opposition to A.B. 366. Automobiles had killed far more people than houses; defective houses normally were not dangerous. A comparison was between disclosures made on houses and those made for the manufacture of an automobile. Mr. Ashleman complained if settlements must be disclosed, settlements would be discouraged. As far as filing a description of complaints, true or not this would lead to a practice of legal blackmail. What an insurance policy said, what it did and how it applied was usually an issue for complex litigation proceedings. The meaning of the policies, the distinction between a warranty policy or just an insurance policy, was also highly complex. Deviations did not say “major deviations,” what was needed to know was that a deviation took place. It did not talk about “planned” deviations. It did not talk about the cost of the deviation. It did not talk about whether there was a good or bad reason for the deviation. Statutes of repose already guarded against fraud and concealment; extending the statute of repose must be applied equally to everyone. Mr. Ashleman believed taking the bill as whole, it would be very difficult to work with.
Assemblyman Collins said car builders knew where every part came from, when it was produced; who worked on the part, etc. Mr. Ashleman said homebuilders did not have those types of records. If the question was when would the industry change so that this information would be available, it probably would not happen. If the question was when would houses not be rushed, the pressure from the buyers contributed to that. Assemblyman Collins believed better documentation could happen if the industry wanted.
Mr. Ashleman stated the Contractors’ Board prioritizes their efforts to get defects fixed. As far as the reduction of market value, there were a number of problems. It was hoped to avoid generalized complaints where every home experienced every problem. And it should be remembered; appraisals were not an exact science. The situation could create a duplication of recovery in cases where the homeowner did not fix the problem after receiving the settlement money; consequently, the market value was still reduced. By putting such language into the bill, it encouraged litigation rather than repair.
Chairman Anderson said A.B. 366 added new fuel to the ongoing discussion. In order to help a person with a damaged home, an opportunity must be made available to repair that defect as soon as possible. A.B. 366 was an effort to keep the contractor honest.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 366.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: