MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-Second Session
May 27, 2003
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 9:15 a.m., on Tuesday, May 27, 2003. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman
Mr. David Brown
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Sharron Angle (excused)
Mr. Jason Geddes (excused)
Mr. William Horne (excused)
Mr. Garn Mabey (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Speaker Richard D. Perkins, District No. 23, Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Nevada
Ron Titus, Director and State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Supreme Court of Nevada
Wayne Pressel, Executive Director, Nevada Legal Services
William Magrath, Attorney, McDonald•Carano•Wilson, LLP, and President, Washoe County Access to Justice Foundation
Betsy Gonzales, President of the Board of Directors, Clark County Legal Services Program, Inc.
Chairman Anderson:
[The Chair reminded the Committee members and those present in the audience of the Standing Rules and appropriate meeting etiquette. Roll called.]
We have a committee of 11, 8 being necessary for a quorum; a quorum is present.
Let’s turn to Senate Bill 106.
Senate Bill 106 (2nd Reprint): Provides for imposition of certain fees in certain actions and proceedings filed in courts of this state. (BDR 2-614)
Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Nevada:
[Introduced herself.] Senate Bill 106 is a bill that adds a $30 surcharge to each additional plaintiff or defendant beyond the first named party on each side of a civil action. Currently, for a divorce in which there is one plaintiff and one defendant, the filing fee is the same as for a 2,000-party complicated construction defect case. Yet the difference in the work that is required to support the case in the district court is quite a bit different. This bill attempts, among many things, to address that difference. The filing fee remains the same. This bill is not a filing fee increase bill; the filing fee is not raised at all. A surcharge is added per additional plaintiffs and defendants as they come into the action.
[Chief Justice Agosti explained the breakdown of the surcharge.] Of the $30…
· $8 remains in the local district court to address technology needs. This is very helpful because the courts are moving in the direction of increased technological support for the trial cases including e-filing, which is being accepted on an experimental basis in Clark County with multiple party actions. In fact, a number of construction defect cases are included in that experiment with very good results.
· $10 would be diverted to the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) for statewide technology purposes. As you know, it is the obligation of the State Court Administrator and the AOC to provide technical support as well funds for hardware and software when available to the trial courts of this state. This is particularly helpful, useful, important, and necessary for the rural courts. The courts are supported at all levels—justice court, municipal court, and district court, as well as the Supreme Court. It is the lower courts—justice, municipal, and district—in the rural areas that have the most difficult time obtaining funds from their local funding entity, be it the county or the city. This bill would aid in addressing the gap that might exist in resources between urban and rural courts.
· $5 is for the Retired Justices and Judges Duty Fund.
· $7 is for legal aid, [split] $5 for indigent persons and $2 for elderly persons, is an aspect of the bill that we feel very strongly about and would encourage this Committee to fully support; this is an access to justice issue. The courts need to remain open for everyone, not simply those that can afford it.
I would also underscore that this surcharge, as well as the filing fee, is always subject to waiver upon a proper application if an individual is unable to afford it.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I would like to disclose that when I am not serving in the Legislature, I am a director of legal aid for indigent persons. I will not be voting on this matter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
[Relative to the $7 for legal aid], why does $5 go to indigent persons and $2 to the elderly, when maybe in some areas it should be just the opposite? I don’t know why we don’t give them the money and let them decide where the need is.
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
I will ask that either Betsy Gonzales or Wayne Pressel answer that question in greater detail with current information. As I understand it, and I am going back many years when I was the senior staff attorney for the Senior Citizens Legal Assistance Program in Washoe County, Nevada, the funding for the two programs—legal services and senior citizens legal services—had to be kept strictly separate. The numbers were with the legal aid side of the equation, but the record-keeping was kept separate. It wasn’t possible to shift money according to need; it had to be earmarked as it came in.
Ron Titus, Director and State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Supreme Court of Nevada:
[Introduced himself and submitted Exhibit C.] I am here to answer any questions, although I must point out that our technology efforts, primarily in the rural courts, are in desperate need of these funds. Of course, there are significant projects in both the Second District Court and the Eighth District Court that would benefit significantly from this bill.
Wayne Pressel, Executive Director, Nevada Legal Services:
[Introduced himself.] I can very specifically address Mr. Carpenter’s concern. The division of money between the elderly and the indigent is a historical one that traces back to the beginnings of filing fee legislation in the state in 1975. The federal funding for legal services to the elderly has traditionally been without any regard of income or assets, whereas legal services to the indigent has taken both income and assets into account. The original division of money in 1975 was $5 and $2, and that may be why it has been carried forward. I would also note that at Nevada Legal Services, we are the recipients of that money for all the rural counties including Elko County. In Elko County, the elderly that are indigent are counted as indigent in our book. This allows use of some elderly money to provide services beyond the fairly strict structures of income and assets. I am also happy to report that this year in Elko County we were able to open a full-time staffed office for the first time in 15 years. This filing fee will go to support that office in Elko County.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Carpenter, does that take care of your concern?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Are there requirements for federal aid regarding how it is to be handled?
Wayne Pressel:
The federal law is complicated; the simple part is that if we receive money to serve a population whose income or assets are higher than our basic guidelines we are only allowed to receive that money and use it for those purposes. Essentially and basically, Nevada Legal Services, as do the other legal aid organizations in the state, has strict income and asset guidelines. Our particular one is at 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline, adjusted annually.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Would these guidelines make it so restrictive that you could not help someone because one pot of money was larger than the other? Do you think that these guidelines meet your needs? I don’t want to get anybody cut out with something that we might put in the law.
Wayne Pressel:
Nevada has the fastest-growing poverty population as the general population in the United States of America. Legal aid will never have money for the indigent, for the elderly, or for any population that we serve adequate to meet the needs. I would endorse the division of money at $5 and $2 because I think that represents a fair apportionment of money and permits Nevada Legal Services, as well as the Senior Law Projects of Clark and Washoe Counties, to provide some level of legal services to the elderly that are not under the strict federal poverty guidelines. Again, the elderly that are indigent are treated by my firm and by the other legal aid firms as indigent. Those members that are elderly and below our poverty guidelines would be treated, not with the $2, but with the $5.
Assemblyman Brown:
Listening to Chief Justice Agosti’s comments, it sounded like the necessity arose from the more complex cases, yet we are using… Looking at the handout (Exhibit C), the funds to be disbursed are as follows: $8 to the local district court for technology and $10 for State Court Administrator for technology. I see the relationship for the legal aid. The Retired Justices and Judges Duty Fund, I don’t see as strong a correlation. I would like further discussion on that. Also is there a portion of the current filing fee that goes to these areas as well? I think we just raised the filing fee from $133, at least in Clark County, to $149. No, didn’t I see something?
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
I am unaware of an increase in the filing fee at the local level. Ordinarily, filing fees are handled exclusively through the Legislature, so I would not have any knowledge of that.
With respect to the Retired Justices and Judges Duty Fund, this is crucial because Clark County relies heavily upon the use of senior judges to handle excess cases, in particular, complex litigation. In fact, we had a retired judge spend the last four or five months trying the Venetian case in Las Vegas so that the other judges could handle ongoing matters. We are now out of money for the remainder of the fiscal year and have been for some time. We just don’t have enough money to pay the retired judges, these senior judges, what we should be paying them or need to pay them to keep them working. When we run out of money, they stop working. If there are overflow cases, they just have to wait in line. This is very important, increasingly so because of the growing need in Washoe County to utilize senior judges. Everyone seems to agree that the use of senior judges is helpful because it staves off the need to ask for an increase in the number of sitting judges as well as all the attendant secretarial help and infrastructure that accompanies hiring additional trial judges.
A portion of the existing filing fee does go for legal services at this time, but I am not remembering the exact amount. I think Mr. Pressel knows the answer to that question.
Finally, concerning the relationship of a portion of the funds to Nevada Legal Services, you have to look at it in the broader sense of keeping the courthouse doors open to the people who cannot afford justice otherwise. It seems logical to look at the fees that we collect from individuals who are taxing the court system mightily. These complex cases do tax the court system; they require a tremendous amount of resources in order to move them through the system. [This bill proposes] to take a portion of this fee and provide it to those who otherwise could not afford to be there at all. I will defer to Mr. Pressel to respond to the question of the amount of existing money from the filing fee.
Wayne Pressel:
The filing fee for legal services in Nevada has two statutory structures. One is the basic filing fee [established in] 1975, although it has been enhanced by the Legislature over the years, on district court actions for filing the complaint and filing the answer. One fee for each complaint, one fee for each answer. That is a mandatory filing fee apportioned between the indigent and the elderly.
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
To cut it short, $25 of the original filing fee of $133.
Wayne Pressel:
The second filing fee passed by the Legislature is entirely a county option only for the benefit of pro bono, domestic violence, and abused children. That has been implemented only by county commission rule in Carson City and Clark, Douglas, and Washoe Counties.
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
…and that’s $5 for the additional pro bono, if it’s included.
Assemblyman Brown:
I certainly understand and support [the fees for] complex litigation. I guess the only time when I have hesitation is when we have small matters involving a husband and wife as a plaintiff, and it is just one more fee we tack on for the small litigants.
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
This does not affect that. If it is a divorce case, one plaintiff, one defendant, this represents no increase whatsoever.
Assemblyman Brown:
I understand, but sometimes they are both plaintiffs.
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
I see what you are saying. It would be an additional $30 if it were a husband and wife as two plaintiffs. If there is ever a question of an inability to pay, upon application the court will always consider waiving all of the fees. We would certainly consider this as a portion of that.
William Magrath, Attorney, McDonald•Carano•Wilson, LLP, and President, Washoe County Access to Justice Foundation:
[Introduced himself.] I am not a participant in the Nevada Legal Services or Clark County Legal Services, but I am here in support of the bill. My counterpart in Las Vegas, the President of the board that oversees the same function in Las Vegas, is Betsy Gonzales.
Betsy Gonzales, President of the Board of Directors, Clark County Legal Services Program, Inc.:
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit D.] Our nonprofit organization provides free legal services in Clark County to those individuals who cannot otherwise afford an attorney. We represent abused and neglected children, domestic violence victims, victims of consumer fraud, and others in need of legal help. Each year we also provide free legal classes to those in the community that help educate themselves about legal issues. Last year we provided those classes for over 2,000 individuals in family law, guardianship, bankruptcy, small claims court, and housing issues. We also run a pro bono project where we recruit private attorneys, like Mr. Magrath and myself, to help people when they cannot afford an attorney and there are not enough staff attorneys available through Clark County Legal Services to donate their services.
Our goal for Clark County Legal Services is to provide access to justice for those who cannot otherwise obtain an attorney. Unfortunately, due to limited resources, we cannot provide service to all of those who come to our door and qualify; every day we have to turn individuals away. We represent only 35 percent of the abused children in our system. As you know, every child deserves to have its voice heard. Fraud victims, domestic violence victims, and individuals with other problems are likewise turned down due to lack of resources.
Although we know that there are no funds in the Legislature’s budget to help legal services for those who cannot afford an attorney, by raising this fee on multi-party cases we are able to generate some additional income for the legal services organizations and for the senior law projects to be able to provide much-needed services for the individuals in our communities who cannot otherwise get representation for themselves in court. The cost will primarily be borne by litigants in complex cases, by charging the $30 fee [surcharge] per additional party in the cases. The funds will not only help legal services, but will also help the court by increasing the technology base that is needed for the more complicated cases.
As a practicing attorney in southern Nevada, where I handle many multi-party cases, I can tell you that those multi-party cases do tax the court system more than the cases like Assemblyman Brown was talking about with a smaller group of litigants. In complex cases with 60 or 70 plaintiffs and 20 or 30 defendants, to make more equitable the burden that is placed on the court by those cases, this $30 surcharge per party can help to alleviate part of that burden by paying for the senior judges, by increasing the technology, and sharing the obligation that all of the cases currently have in the system to help provide access to justice for those who need assistance in our communities. This legislation only taxes those cases that are burdening the court systems that already have a heavy load; it is not focusing on the simpler cases, the one-party cases that are not causing an increased burden on the court system.
Chairman Anderson:
Thank you and your organization for putting forth such a strong advocacy program to help the indigent. I compliment [you on] the 4,777 hours of pro bono work; that’s an awesome task. I support that kind of effort trying to provide a level playing field for those who might not otherwise have it. I think all of us appreciate the legal service program that is going on in the south.
William Magrath:
I am a private attorney; I have been practicing for 23 years since I left the district attorney’s office. I have to concede, being in a big firm, I had no exposure to the pro bono or the indigent aspects of our practice until I became the Washoe County Bar President and served as the President of the Volunteer Lawyers of Washoe County. I was stunned, as each of you would be if you were to go into our family courts each day and watch how many people appear in that court pro bono. It really boils down to the fact that they can’t afford $150 to $250 per hour. I know that for all of you and myself included, that’s a lot of money.
These people are pro per, which means they are on their own, they are individually there. Maybe it is because of the proliferation of the “Judge Mills Lane” or “People’s Court,” those people who show up on TV and argue their own cases that these people feel, “If they can do it on TV, I can go into court and do it.” The problem we have is that, and I am sure that you have seen unprepared witnesses before you, unprepared witnesses blunder their way through testimony, unprepared court litigants blunder their way through the cases, and the judges find themselves going out of their way to take more time to explain procedures.
I have sat in the back of a courtroom sometimes and wished I could intervene and say, “Judge, move this matter back to the end of the calendar, give me 10 minutes so that I can talk to them,” and we can get done in 5 minutes what the judge is taking 20 minutes to blunder through. The judges are very helpful but these indigent people, unfortunately, without the legal skills or the guidance of a volunteer lawyer or legal services lawyer, literally clog up our courts. Our budgets are tight and it has become very difficult.
The other factor is that when these folks leave the court, they are still confused, often angry, and feel like they have been let down by the system. I really believe that we are developing, as a result of this huge unmet need of legal services, a group of people in our community who really are underrepresented and who are bitter. They lose confidence in the legal system; they walk out of the courtroom and say, “I got a raw deal.” They don’t understand that the judge followed a law or that the judge had to do something. The net result is that we are developing a group of people who are going to lose respect for our laws, our Legislature, our lawyers, and the entire system. That great undercurrent is a problem that will continue to generate and grow exponentially.
[William Magrath continued.] Lawyers do volunteer their time. The Volunteer Lawyers Program in Washoe County just had our pro bono luncheon on May 10, 2003; we honored those lawyers who gave hundreds, if not thousands, of hours. Karen Dennison is one of those who were honored for some wonderful activities she has done for a group in Lockwood, Nevada, in setting up a community corporation. That’s a lawyer who volunteered her time; many other lawyers do the same. Our Supreme Court, Chief Justice Agosti and our justices encourage lawyer pro bono activities through Supreme Court Rule 191. The lawyers are doing their part; they are doing it in a variety of ways. The problem is, even with all that volunteer time, there are not enough people to serve the community.
Now, $5 of this bill will go to help serve the indigent. Let me explain for Assemblyman Brown the current process. If you file a complaint for one party, you pay a flat filing fee. If you file the same complaint for 35 plaintiffs for whatever reason or whatever type of litigation it may be, construction dispute or neighborhood dispute, the 34 additional plaintiffs get a free ride; they don’t pay a fee. The court has to enter information for every plaintiff, but they get a free ride. If there are two parties, a husband and wife, yes, it’s true the $30 surcharge for the wife or husband to be an additional party is added onto the filing fee, but this filing fee is a cost of the litigation. What that means is that when the lawsuit is over, the loser of the lawsuit will pay that in court costs. If the husband and wife have a valid and legitimate case and prevail, they will recover that $30 from the losing party of the lawsuit when the case is over. It’s a legitimate cost that gets reimbursed to the prevailing party that brought the case.
If you are a plaintiff and you choose to sue three people as defendants, but you think, “Why not shotgun everybody in? Let’s add another 25; this will make 25 more insurance companies come in, etc.” You in effect have invited all those additional parties to the case, and now you will have to pay additional fees for those additional parties you are bringing in. After you pay the filing fees, if you win, you recoup it; if you lose, that’s an expense you will have to bear. The key, I really want to explain, is that it’s a system that allows the costs of the legal system to be borne by the consumers of the system. You and I, if we are not in court, will not pay this fee; only the people in court will pay the fee, and ultimately the loser will pay the fee.
Although we are in the last week of the Legislature, I really consider this one of the most important bills in front of you. I know it took long time to go through the Senate, but I am hopeful that we can get this through the Assembly and get it signed by the Governor this session. This money, if we don’t get it through the Legislature this year, will be waylaid for another two years and the services are still needed.
[William Magrath continued.] I would like to address two other factors. Your legislative Web site is one of the best I have ever seen; last night I downloaded the bill as currently written. Our courts are developing technology; right now you can go into Washoe County and the docket… If we allow the additional $8 for our local courts, if we allow the additional $10 for our state courts, that will make it accessible for anybody; if you are in Pioche, [Nevada], or Jackpot, [Nevada], you can get into the local court system. You can now read the Nevada Supreme Court opinions online for free.
Finally, the last comment I would like to make is that the $5 for the senior judge system is the best bang for the dollar we’ll ever find. You have experienced senior judges volunteering their time; they don’t have secretaries or all the legal staff that are required of a district court. That additional $5 gives you an experienced judge who has years of experience, who can step in and take the burden off the regular court system, which is already burdened, in these special cases—the construction defect litigation in Las Vegas is a classic example. Even in Reno, when a judge goes on vacation, that courtroom doesn’t go dark because some of these judges come in and work.
I know you have a lot to do in the next week, but I hope we can pass this bill. Obviously, I strongly support it; I think it is the best thing we have coming for legal services.
Chairman Anderson:
I am pleased that we have been working on the computer system here in the Legislature, trying to get all those things on now for ten years that I have served on that particular committee. I am very pleased that it is finally to a point where it is almost usable and workable. Construction defects has taken a while to get through here and I have been working on it for a while, as has this Committee.
Assemblyman Brown:
I want to make sure that I am clear; I think I understand the bill. The answer by the defendant, if it is multiple defendants, is $30 paid by the defendant and not the plaintiff. Is that correct?
William Magrath:
Currently, if you have six defendants and they each individually file an answer, they would each individually pay the filing fee and not the additional $30. If one lawyer files a single answer for all six defendants, currently, he only pays one filing fee; under the new law, he would pay one filing fee plus $30 for the additional five defendants.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
I was concerned about the issue of senior judges. There is at least one, possibly several in southern Nevada, about whom there have been many letters to the editor written over time, and if one goes far enough back, this individual resigned as a sitting district judge under a case that was followed in the papers with a federal indictment pending under some sort of RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act) statute. A deal was made and the judge resigned rather than take the indictment and fight it. Now he sits as a senior judge and no one has ever looked at the issues. Is there anything in the machinery of appointing senior judges to particular cases that screens their backgrounds in any way?
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
That’s a very difficult question to answer. Certainly we have a very active Judicial Discipline Commission; it applies to senior judges as well as the current sitting judges. If there were an action against a senior judge as well as a sitting judge in Judicial Discipline Commission that came to fruition, it would be the subject of discipline and, in fact, I suspect, depending, of course, on the severity of the offense, infraction versus a serious offense, it would affect the court’s desire to appoint someone to sit. Right now, there aren’t very many senior judges and we’ve got all the senior judges who exist working until we run out of money because the need is so great.
Soon we expect we will have many more sitting judges and a larger pool of judges to choose from because there will be several who are retiring, who will be eligible to accept assignment, and who have indicated a willingness to be senior judges. I think that is very good for the system to have judges who are fresh from the bench, current on everything, and willing to serve. Right now, our problem is not that there are unsuitable people; our problem is that there is no money to pay judges who might otherwise be willing to help us.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
In other words, unless such a judge does something in the future, the fact that he had agreed not to sit as a judge in order to avoid federal prosecution doesn’t count against him.
Chief Justice Deborah Agosti:
I don’t know about doing something in the future; if there were something in the judge’s past that was reported to the Judicial Discipline Commission and was the subject of discipline, the judge would be disciplined.
William Magrath:
I am a private lawyer. If I have a judge whom I believe has acted improperly, I have a remedy, which is to report the judge to the Judicial Discipline Commission. I have a duty to do that simply because that judge can affect a lot of other cases, not just mine. Relating to this one unique case, which you have described, I would think that lawyers from the south would make a similar complaint, even if it were something in the past that could be investigated. It may have been investigated, the process is private until there is a public finding by the Judicial Discipline Commission. If, in fact, it was investigated and there was a finding that there was no connection, then under those circumstances, there would be no discipline entered. I don’t know if that was investigated or not, but you are right, is it a perfect system with perfect judges? I can tell you that the ones who rule against me aren’t always perfect in my client’s minds, but there are always going to be some glaring examples. The entire system is too important not to fund it simply because one judge makes a public statement that causes disrespect for the rest.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
I don’t disagree with you. My question was whether a system could be adopted to review such cases where the specific agreement was that the judge not sit again as judge, again, to protect those pro per individuals who can’t afford lawyers that you were talking about earlier who might not know what to do or where to go.
Chairman Anderson:
That would probably be appropriate for a separate piece of legislation relative to the Judicial Discipline Commission. If we are having problems with them, I am sure they would be more than happy to come over and talk to us about it. I don’t think that is part of this particular bill, although it is a funding mechanism for the way it is set up. I would think that would be more properly addressed through the Judicial Discipline Commission.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
When you file an action on the part of an indigent or an elderly person, most of the time, are these fees waived?
Wayne Pressel:
In every case of an eligible client, we file for a fee waiver and very happily the courts have become accustomed to them and they are regularly granted.
Chairman Anderson:
Any other questions for Ms. Gonzales, Mr. Magrath, Chief Justice Agosti, or Mr. Pressel? Is there anybody else that wishes to get on the record? Close the hearing on S.B. 106. Chair would entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 106.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
[Roll call vote was taken.]
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON VOTING NO, AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN BUCKLEY AND OHRENSCHALL ABSTAINING. (Mrs. Angle, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Horne, and Mr. Mabey were absent for the vote.)
There are 8 in the affirmative, 1 in the negative, and 2 abstentions; 8 being required for bill passage, the bill having received the necessary majority, it does pass. I will ask Vice Chairman Oceguera to carry the bill on the Floor.
Those who are working on conference committees or have been assigned to conference committees, I would remind you that we need to close those by Wednesday, (May 28, 2003). We are adjourned [at 10:01 a.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: