MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 10, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association Ande Engleman, Concerned Citizen Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder, Carson City Mary Henderson, Lobbyist, Legislative Affairs Representative, Washoe County Fred H. Dugger, Manager, Information Systems Kim Marsh Guinasso, Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau JoAnn Malone, Deputy, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State Charles Horne, Coordinator, 10th Amendment Committee Tom Stown, Vice President, Veterans in Politics, Nevada Election Watch Jared E. Shafer, Public Administrator, Public Guardian, Clark County Michael Pasek, Concerned Citizen, Nevada Election Watch Richard Brophy, Concerned Citizen Barbara J. Reed, Douglas County Clerk, Treasurer Ned Eyre, Lobbyist, Business Records Corporation Senator O'Connell opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 412. ASSEMBLY BILL 412: Revises provisions governing contests of elections of certain state officers. Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8, testified in favor of A.B. 412. She stated: A.B. 412 changes existing Nevada election law, which deprives a person of their seat and voters of their representative, solely because the candidate rejected by the voters decides to allege impropriety. Under current law, if a challenge of an election is filed, the certificate of election is withheld. In past sessions, . . . a person's name is draped on the floor; opening day commences; everyone else receives a certificate of election; . . . those who have challenges filed against them cannot participate [in opening day ceremonies.] . . . Ms. Buckley said the elected person cannot participate because of the allegation, although no proof of impropriety exists. She stated one person nullifies the election results and this should be corrected. She discussed the way other jurisdictions handle the problem of challenges and suggested changes to the law. Senator O'Donnell asked if the elected person is seated, would he or she also have voting privileges? Ms. Buckley responded that he or she would have voting privileges, rights and duties of the seat until it is proven that he or she should not have these privileges. If someone voted on a bill and he or she were proven not to be entitled to the seat, a vote could be retaken or the Assembly or Senate could decide to delay business until they decided all challenges. Senator O'Donnell reiterated that he wanted to know if the person in question could vote on whether he can hold the seat or not. Ms. Buckley explained that the bill does not address that issue. She explained the Assembly and the Senate had to decide that for its own members. Senator Raggio inquired why a house would want to hear the specifics of the contest if they have already seated the person in question? He suggested the bill include language specifying a period in which to hear a challenge. Ms. Buckley said she does not have a problem with his suggestion, but she does not think it is necessary because of the integrity of the legislative body. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.B. 412 and opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 13. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13: Proposes to amend Nevada constitution to provide for resolution of conflicts between certain amendments of statutes and constitutional provisions. Bob Erickson, Research Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau, was first to testify in favor of A.J.R. 13. He discussed and presented Exhibit C. He stated that the original proposal addressed only what happened if two initiative petitions conflicted with each other. The proposal did not tie the initiative approach of amending the constitution with the legislative approach. He said this bill assures that the bill with the most favorable votes would go into effect. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on A.J.R. 13 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 450. SENATE BILL 450: Revises provisions governing distribution of lists of registered voters in precinct, district or county. Marlene Henderson, Registrar of Voters, Washoe County, testified this bill would save Washoe County money by requiring that people working for the same organization share the voter list. Senator Titus asked for more explanation. Ms. Henderson said the political parties get a free list which should be shared within their own political parties. Dale Erquiaga, Chief Deputy, Office of the Secretary of State, stated lines 3 and 4 (the language that they are deleting), removes the phrase, "requiring one to provide an assurance that the list will be used only for purposes related to an election." He said the Washoe County district attorney has determined that this statute conflicts with the public records' statutes in Nevada. He explained that this part of the law is enforced in other counties. He said he supports making the list available to anyone and opposes a voter being able to withhold his name from the list. A discussion ensued regarding language for a proposed amendment. Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters, Clark County, testified next on S.B. 450. She discussed some examples of people who might want to keep their address private. She stated Clark County has an option to keep addresses private, but the voter's name still appears on the list of voters. Senator O'Connell asked if the system worked very well. Ms. Ferguson said keeping a voter's address private makes it very hard to challenge a voter's address. Senator O'Connell asked if Ms. Ferguson thought this would significantly save money for Clark County. Ms. Ferguson responded, "No." Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Ferguson about the specific procedures they have to follow to assure the privacy of certain addresses. Ms. Ferguson said money could be saved by printing less lists, but it does provide problems when assuring privacy of addresses. Ande Engleman, Concerned Citizen, testified that reporters have to sign an affidavit saying they want the list of voters for election purposes. She explained the reporters are probably lying because they want information for stories they are working on and the only way they can get the information is to sign the affidavit. She stated she thinks the information should not have limited access, since it is public information. With the addition of language that states the list is public information and available to everyone, she said she would support the bill. Alan Glover, Clerk/Recorder,Carson City, stated he has concerns about the language being taken out regarding the assurance that the list has to be used for election purposes. He said he has received requests from credit agencies who want to buy the list. He agrees that the list is public information, but he thinks people will not register to vote. Senator O'Connell asked if Mr. Glover has a position on the bill other then the language. Mr. Glover responded, "No, I understand what Washoe County's problem is and we will live with whatever this body passes." Mary Henderson, Legislative Affairs Representative, Washoe County, clarified that the district attorney did not make a ruling on this section of law. She stated the bill is just a clarification of the law so there is no question about how it is interpreted. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the bill limits to four the number of supplemental lists that anyone can get. Ms. Henderson responded that is correct. She discussed past procedures regarding the voter list. Senator O'Donnell asked if people are still requesting paper lists. She said one party still requests paper lists. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 450 and opened the hearing on S.B. 420. SENATE BILL 420: Makes various changes relating to elections. Dana Bennett, Principal Research Analyst, was first to testify. She discussed a summary of S.B. 420, presented Exhibit D, and continued her testimony with Exhibit E and F. Senator O'Connell discussed and introduced Exhibit G. Senator O'Connell explained that she requested Fred H. Dugger, Manager, Information Systems, to address questions and concerns raised regarding this bill and the Sequoia voting machine. He introduced and presented Exhibit H and I. (The original of Exhibit I is on file in the Research Library.) He discussed Exhibit H and the definition of a ballot. He said the statute definition that applies to the voting machine is Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 293B.175. He added the statutes seem specific about what constitutes a ballot and that a ballot does not have to be paper. Senator O'Connell requested testimony from Kim Marsh Guinasso, Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, since she was the attorney who wrote the bill. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Guinasso if the definition of the ballot is in the Constitution and if using the electronic voting apparatus is a violation. Ms. Guinasso stated that the only definition of a ballot is the one in chapter 293 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The constitutional provision is not a definition; it is a requirement that any vote by the people be by a ballot. She said they qualified the definition in chapter 293 of NRS. She continued to discuss the definition provided in the NRS. Senator O'Connell explained that concerns have been raised that there will not be a physical paper ballot with the Sequoia voting machine. She asked if the state has been in noncompliance of the law by using the punch card in elections. Ms. Guinasso responded, "It is our position that, no, we are not in noncompliance with this provision." She stated she thinks that chapter 293B of the NRS contemplates methods other than the punch card method. She added that there are also definitions of a mechanical voting system in chapter 293B of NRS. Mr. Dugger continued his testimony by explaining concerns regarding the function of the Sequoia machines in Clark County and if there will be a proper audit trail. He visited the facility and observed demonstrations of the equipment. He said the machine has redundancies built into it that are superior to the current ballot system. He testified that the Sequoia machine has superior audit trails. He described the Sequoia voting machine and how it works. He explained that the Sequoia system prints out a consolidation and total of the votes for each precinct at each polling place. Senator O'Connell asked if it would be possible for the Sequoia system to provide a printout to the voter after registering his or her vote? Mr. Dugger said he does not think that is a current possibility, but there could be changes in future models. Senator O'Connell stated that there have been concerns about holding a recount, absentee counting and early vote counting. Mr. Dugger said he understands that the Sequoia machines are not certified to do the early vote and absentee vote counting; consequently, that early voting and absentee voting will be held as it has been in the past. As far as the recounts, he was not positive how they would do a recount, except to reload data from the cartridge and reprocess it or manually add the printed totals at the precincts. Mr. Dugger addressed the issue of tampering with the machine. He stated he does not think that an election, held on a Sequoia machine, would be compromised. He said security measures include the original programming which occurred on the east coast. He testified the original programming is not available to the people at the voting center. He added since the layout of the ballot is not known to the people who wrote the original program so they cannot influence an election either. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Erquiaga to speak on the certification of the Sequoia machine and the electronic voting program. Mr. Erquiaga stated he was the chief deputy at the time the Sequoia certification occurred. He explained that the certification originated with chapter 293B of NRS, which allows and defines mechanical voting. He stated in May 1993, Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment, Inc. requested certification of their machine from the secretary of state. He presented Exhibit J. Senator O'Connell stated concern that the certification was done on a machine which did not exist. Mr. Erquiaga said this was not true. He testified that the secretary of state traveled to Clark County, met with the vendor, viewed the machine, voted on the machine, and inspected the machine. He presented Exhibit K. The Secretary of State at the time, Ms. Cheryl A. Lau, became concerned after viewing the machine, since there is no typical ballot. She wanted to know about recounts, since the law requires the recount by hand. She requested the attorney general's opinion concerning the certification of the machine. Mr. Erquiaga discussed and presented Exhibit L and M. The attorney general reviewed the documents and responded with Exhibit N. The attorney general's opinion is, "The secretary of state may approve a direct record, mechanical system, as long as all of the legal requirements of Nevada's election laws are complied with. It is evident that compliance can be through a functional equivalent." On November 10, 1993, the secretary of state and others viewed the system again. They went through the entire procedure to see if the machine met the functional equivalent of the statutes that had been outlined. It was the secretary's determination that the system complied with all portions of Nevada law except three; early voting, absentee voting, and challenged ballot voting. The secretary of state certified the system with those three exceptions. Mr. Erquiaga presented Exhibit O. Senator O'Connell asked if the machine that was certified was the same machine that was purchased. Mr. Erquiaga replied he did not know. He said the election standards require that any new system approved by the secretary of state must meet Federal Election Commission (FEC) standards. At the time Sequoia applied to the secretary of state, their application stated that they have not been tested to meet FEC standards, because they were not required to do so. Senator O'Connell inquired if there was information available whether or not the machine meets FEC standards. Mr. Erquiaga responded that before the secretary of state's final approval, the people at Sequoia provided information that the Sequoia machine goes through the FEC tests and assured her that the system does meet those standards. JoAnn Malone, Deputy, Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of State, testified she went to Clark County on election day and witnessed voting procedures. She asked voters about the accessability of the machines and if they understood them. She said everybody seemed to be very comfortable with the machines. Senator O'Connell asked if there were lines at the precincts where the machines were used. Ms. Malone responded that there were no long lines and the turnout was low. She said the local student council assisted the voters using the machine. She testified the local student council had used the machines previously for their student council elections and were familiar with the machines. She stated: Not only did the people seem to be pleased with the system, but each area had great public access. There was a place taped off . . . and it said for public viewing. . . It said if you were going to videotape that you not be disruptive to the voters. I never saw anybody there videotaping, at any of the polling places that I happened to be at. . . Later that afternoon I went down to Cashman Field where the counting process was going on and I was really impressed with the set up. Ms. Malone said she contacted the elections center and asked them if any other state in the United States has a law like the one being proposed. She testified 22 other states had attempted such legislation, but have all been denied. Senator O'Connell asked why it had been denied. Ms. Malone said because it allowed videotaping at the polling place. She noted there was concern that this would cause voter intimidation. Senator O'Connell asked, "Had any of those other states installed any kind of system like they have in the stores, where there is a camera that tapes what is going on without having an individual taping it. Is there some record of what is going on at all?" Ms. Malone responded that certain organizations opposed it, saying it would cause voter intimidation. She cited potential problems with videotaping the election process. Senator O'Connell continued, "How about in the county areas . . Was there actual counting of the votes and things like that going on?" Ms. Malone said there is no law in any state that allows it. Senator O'Connell requested Ms. Ferguson address if the machine that the secretary of state certified is the same machine that the county purchased. Ms. Ferguson stated, "Yes, the machine that the state purchased is the one that the secretary of state certified." Senator O'Connell asked if Clark County is using the same model that was certified. Ms. Ferguson said it was the same model and she has documentation. She stated that the machine has been in operation since 1988 and was used in 12 states in 1993. Ms. Ferguson testified: Page 1, line 5, requires the use of locked and sealed metal transfer cases. I have no problem with this request. I think it is legitimate. It will cost Clark County approximately $40,000, but it will be budgeted for and will not be a problem for us. . . Page 1, line 10, 'receipt of transfer cases at a central counting place.' This is done now, as I believe I testified to you before, so that is no change, I certainly have no problem with that. Page 2, line 1, 'the general public must be allowed to observe at the polls.' I oppose this. There are opportunities in place for people who want to observe the process, ... and one of those is to come down and hire on to work as an election board officer. . . Poll watchers are allowed at all polling places. Every candidate in an election can assign poll watchers to every polling place. Also challengers are allowed in every polling place. . . The polling place is sanctified for the voter. The voter coming to vote should have the privacy of voting in private and making sure that their ballot is private, so I would disagree with that one. Page 2, line 3, 'The general public may photograph, film conduct of voting.' This is intimidation of voters. I believe it is in violation of NRS 293.700- 710. Senator Raggio asked Ms. Ferguson what section she was addressing. Ms. Ferguson responded, "Page 2, line 1." Senator Raggio said that section says the clerk shall insure no member of the general public photographs or records a voter in the act of voting. He asked if she supported that statement. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Guinasso if she agreed with Ms. Ferguson's interpretation of the NRS. Ms. Guinasso replied, "That was a concern when we were drafting this, which is why we put in ... subsection 3. We were concerned that, as requested, permitting members of the public to photograph, record . . . the process of voting, would compromise the voter's secrecy in voting. So we included section 3 to insure this would not occur." Ms. Ferguson clarified that section 3 stated the county clerk shall insure that this does not happen. She said that is an impossible requirement to be met. She discussed her concerns about possible voter intimidation. She presented Exhibit P, Q, R, S, and T. She said she has no problem with changing the last day for filing. She stressed she is against photographing any ballots, except after the close of polls. Senator O'Connell inquired if Ms. Ferguson would have a problem if the committee required filming of the counting by cameras placed in the ceiling, as they are in stores. Ms. Ferguson responded that she had no problem with that process at the tabulation site or the receiving center. She stated that currently there is public access to the tabulation site, the poll closing, and the receiving centers. Senator O'Donnell questioned, "You have a situation where you are saying that you don't believe that the public should have a camera, be able to photograph, or record what goes on inside the count room because they feel intimidated . . . or inside the polling place as well?" Ms. Ferguson replied that was correct. Senator O'Donnell said he agreed with her regarding the polling place, but he was not sure he supported not photographing in the count room. Ms. Ferguson said she does not mind photography in the counting room, as long as there are not lights shining in people's eyes or questions being asked of the people in the count room. Senator O'Donnell stated he agreed with Ms. Ferguson, but if ordinary citizens are not allowed to do that, how would she handle the media? Ms. Ferguson responded the press has always been allowed admittance as a watchdog for the public. Ms. Ferguson continued with her testimony on the bill. She stated, page 3, number 3, she has the same objection and reiterated prior testimony. She noted page 4, section 10, and said the system does comply with the requirement. She explained how a recount would be done. Senator O'Donnell said: . . . I think people feel uncomfortable with something that is transparent, that is not tangible. You cannot touch a ballot inside the computer. You don't know that your vote really registered . . . I think that is probably where the real fear lies. I was wondering if we had the same problem in the 1970s when we instituted the punch card and we had computers counting instead of hand tabulation. . . Is there any way that the Sequoia machine can print out just a series of codes . . . to prove it took the vote? Ms. Ferguson responded that it probably could be done, but there are other reasons that it is not such as pressure on citizens to vote a certain way and the receipt would prove that a person did vote in a certain way. Senator O'Donnell continued that he would not give the sheets of paper away. He wanted to know if, as someone is voting, a random number could be printed so the person knew the vote took place. Ms. Ferguson stated that would violate the privacy of the vote because it would no longer be randomized. Senator O'Donnell asked if there could be a piece of paper that the machine prints, and then the citizen would put the piece of paper in the ballot box just like they do with the punch cards currently. He thought this might be an extra security factor as well as a way to satisfy citizens' fears. Ms. Ferguson responded that there is a security factor with the machine. She stated when the voter presses a selection to vote for a candidate for office, that candidate's name appears in the window of the computer. Senator Porter stated that there is a certain amount of assurance that a vote has been recorded, if the voter gets some kind of receipt. He said he used the machine in Boulder City and he did not realize there was a printout at the bottom, because he is tall and could not see it. He restated that some kind of receipt would give some assurance to the voter. Ms. Ferguson explained how the machine votes are balanced to the signatures and receipts. Mr. Dugger agreed with Senator O'Donnell in regard to the change and the public anxiety with the change. Ms. Ferguson continued with testimony on the bill. She stated page 5, line 3 says, "A vehicle used to transport the ballots must have a locked area which is inaccessible to drivers or passengers." She does not like the idea of locking ballots in an area of any vehicle where they could not be watched. Senator O'Donnell thought that the metal locked boxes would be sufficient for protection of the ballots. Ms. Ferguson agreed with Senator O'Donnell. Ms. Ferguson continued with page 5, line 10, "Members of the public may follow the vehicle." She stressed she thinks it is intimidating and that it should not be allowed. Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Ferguson if the seals on the ballot containers are going to be replaced. Ms. Ferguson said they would be using police tape, but the metal ballot box would solve the problem. Senator O'Donnell questioned when the Sequoia machines would be put in place and used. Ms. Ferguson stated they are already receiving the machines and adding them to cities. Senator O'Donnell and Ms. Ferguson discussed the machines and if the tapes or votes would have to go in the box. Senator Porter wondered if they will still have to buy the boxes, if they are going to use tapes. Ms. Ferguson said the tape will go in the locked box. Ms. Ferguson continued with the testimony on the bill. She said page 5, line 18, talks about the city and county clerk publishing the approximate time the ballots will be transported. She does not think she can determine the time with accuracy. She continued her testimony by addressing page 5, line 27, "Ballots from containers with broken seals must be placed in separate envelopes, they must be counted and reported separately." She commented that she objects to this part of the bill because elderly workers may not be able to correctly close the ballot containers. She noted if there is a discrepancy between the number of signatures and the number of ballots counted for that precinct, it comes out in the canvassing and is reported. She stated she has talked with most counties in Nevada and all counties, except two, objected to the bill (Exhibit R and S). She addressed the early voting law. She said it did not meet their requirements because it was written with the punch card in mind. She said there is a bill draft that makes the language comply with their requirements. Senator Porter questioned Ms. Ferguson about losing volunteers and poll workers because of the videotaping at elections. Senator Porter read an article from the Las Vegas Sun about senior citizens who have decided to stop volunteering at the elections because of videotaping and rude video operators. Ms. Ferguson said she has received a lot of calls in regard to that issue. Charles Horne, Coordinator, 10th Amendment Committee, provided opposing testimony on S.B. 420. He said he does not know that a vote is recorded just because the voter pushes a button. He discussed the definition of ballot. Senator O'Connell asked if Mr. Horne had been elected by a punch card in 1985. Mr. Horne said he was; however, at the time he was not informed in all aspects of the law. He stated there were incongruities that caused him to question the validity of the system. He discussed the punch card system and electronic voting. Senator O'Connell asked if Mr. Horne had the same concern in 1985. Mr. Horne said he did. Senator O'Connell questioned if anyone had ever challenged the punch card system. Mr. Horne said no, but he thinks they should and if they do not get redress here, they probably will do that. He continued to discuss the ballot definition with Ms. Guinasso. In response to Mr. Horne's concern, Ms. Guinasso said, "How the meanings ascribe to them in those sections, that refers to the definition of ballot. . . That term, used throughout the title, has that meaning unless the context otherwise requires. . . Therefore, in chapter 293B, which is in title 24, the context obviously is different the way ballot is used." Mr. Horne clarified that Ms. Guinasso was saying the term "this title" includes 293B. Ms. Guinasso responded that this was true. Mr. Horne expressed concern because he thinks definitions are being stretched to fit a circumstance or particular machine. He reiterated prior testimony. Senator O'Donnell discussed the voting machine and the process in which votes would be stored. Mr. Horne continued to assert that the voting machine does not constitute a ballot. Senator O'Donnell proposed the bill require a duplicate paper copy of votes cast. He suggesed the copy is printed and then the voter puts the paper in the ballot box. Mr. Horne offered a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit U). He stated: Each mechanical voting system must provide a ballot as defined by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 293.025. The ballot must be printed on paper, in plain English, along with its computer language equivalent. . .in duplicate at the time the vote is cast. One ballot must be immediately dispensed to the voter and the other ballot must be immediately dispensed into a rigidly constructed metal container used to transport official ballots. . . Mr. Horne stressed he does not think the secretary of state should be the only person to approve a voting machine or change a ballot. Senator O'Donnell reiterated his proposal to Ms. Ferguson to require the Sequoia machine to print a receipt and drop it in the box. He said the count could be performed by the computer. He stressed if there ever was a discrepancy, they could count the individual slips of paper. He asked if anyone objected to his proposal. Mr. Tom Stown, Vice President, Veterans in Politics, Nevada Election Watch, objected to the proposal. Senator O'Connell temporarily closed the hearing on S.B. 420 and opened the hearing on S.B. 414. SENATE BILL 414: Makes various changes relating to public administrators, public guardians and other fiduciaries. (BDR 20-2012) Jared E. Shafer, Public Administrator, Public Guardian, Clark County, discussed and presented Exhibit V. Mr. Shafer stated: Section 1, has to do with trust account investments for public guardian, public administrator. The concept behind it is that if we accumulate the total amount of funds we have and invest them in one account we can earn a higher interest rate then if we invest each separate account unto itself. What we would do . . . is we would then pay each account the amount we would earn on its own with any difference being paid into the county general fund. This provides a method to raise money for the county; offset the cost to the taxpayers; does not reduce services to the individuals and, in effect, makes a little bit of money. . . Senator O'Donnell questioned, "Why wouldn't you want to...give the interest that was earned back to the people whose money it is, instead of gleaning off whatever extra interest there would be and putting it in the county coffers?" Mr. Shafer responded this method will reduce taxes of the individuals. Senator O'Donnell continued, "You are using other people's money to benefit the rest of the taxpayers." Mr. Shafer said that is correct, to offset the cost of the services he provides to those people who receive care from him. Senator O'Donnell asked how Mr. Shafer would determine what each account would have earned if they were kept separate. Mr. Shafer responded he would use ranges of daily average balance. He explained their computer software and how it would allocate the interest to the different accounts. Senator O'Donnell inquired how Mr. Shafer would determine the rates. Mr. Shafer said he would get that from the banks. He stressed that this bill would not change the type of investments that he could invest the money in. Senator O'Donnell asked if Mr. Shafer would have a problem if all of the money were applied to the accounts instead of the excess going to the county general fund. Mr. Shafer said he would have a problem with that and cited the cost of the work that it would take to figure out if they would lose money. He said he thinks this bill is for everyone's benefit. Senator O'Donnell questioned if Mr. Shafer had the authority, through statute, to not give any interest to anybody with an account balance of $5000 or below. Mr. Shafer said statutorily he does not have to earn any interest on the money. He could let it sit in a non-interest bearing account. Senator O'Donnell and Mr. Shafer continued to discuss the accounts that Mr. Shafer manages. Mr. Shafer continued with his testimony: Section 2 and 3 have to do with the bonds posted by the public guardian and the public administrator on each separate account. Under the statute, the public administrator and public guardian's bond and oath of office are in lieu of posting a bond that a regular person would have to post. What that means in effect is that the taxpayers of the individual county would have to pay for the bond if something were to go wrong. All this does is allow for us to charge $25 for the first $100,000 or .25 percent over that. . . Sections 4 and 6 are a request to require that the statement `not being a felon' be added to the forms used for an administrator or a guardian. . . Section 5 is a real estate statute. . . The real estate people . . . in southern Nevada helped write the change. . . Mr. Shafer read the statute and continued with testimony on Exhibit V. Senator O'Donnell asked, "Why can't you write the language to say the commission will be divided amongst the agents representing the interested parties?" Mr. Shafer replied, "Upon confirmation, the real estate commission may be divided between the listing agent and the agent, if any, who procured the purchaser for whom the sale was confirmed. That is exactly what you said, I think. That is what I want you to put in the statute and I will tell you that you will get a rousing hand from a couple of judges who practice our probate." Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 414 and reopened the hearing on S.B. 420. Michael Pasek, Concerned Citizen, Nevada Election Watch, was next to testify. Before he testified Senator O'Connell said that she had a copy of his suggested amendments (Exhibit W), and that it is basically a rewriting of the bill. Senator O'Connell stated it has taken approximately 5 months to get the bill from the bill drafters. She stressed if the committee attempted to give it back to the bill drafters, she does not think it would be passed this session. Mr. Pasek testified that he has lived in Clark County for nearly 10 years; he is not a lobbyist; he is not being paid by any organization to be at the hearing; and he thinks the election department has been deliberately deceptive. He played a 1- minute recording of a news broadcast to the committee. He testified the election department denies the broken seal incidents from the November 1994 election. He said he thinks there have been violations of Nevada Revised Statutes and introduced and discussed Exhibit W. He introduced Exhibit X and discussed the Nevada Constitution and the founding fathers' definition of a ballot. He introduced Exhibit Y. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Pasek if he would be satisfied with Senator O'Donnell's proposal for a paper ballot. Mr. Pasek said he would under certain circumstances, and he introduced Exhibit Z, Exhibit AA and Exhibit BB. Mr. Pasek continued discussing Exhibit W. Senator O'Connell stated she thought Mr. Pasek made a good point about the lock and the key on the ballot box. Mr. Stown testified next on S.B. 420. He said he is a member of Veterans in Politics and they support his position. He testified that he has no interest in photographing people who are voting. He introduced and discussed Exhibit CC, DD, EE, FF and GG. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Stown if Senator O'Donnell's proposal for the paper ballot satisfies him. Mr. Stown replied that it did satisfy him and gave examples why a paper copy should be used. Mr. Stown thinks that an optical scan machine would be better to use. Senator O'Donnell stated, "I think we have to look at the realities of what has already happened. The Sequoia machine has already been selected by the county and I think they have expended quite a few dollars and signed a contract . . . " Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Ferguson how much money the county has already spent on the program. Ms. Ferguson replied, "I believe we spent $240,000 at the end of the pilot project with the [19]94 general election. . . The contract has been signed and we pay for them upon delivery, so we pay as we go, but it was $5.5 million." Senator O'Donnell asked if it was possible to go to the Sequoia company and have an addendum to the contract to require a printout for each ballot cast. Ms. Ferguson said she would be happy to go to the president of the Sequoia company and ask what the cost would be for this addition and if it could be done. Mr. Stown reiterated prior testimony about the optical scan machine and referred to Exhibit CC. Senator Townsend stated: This is an appropriate time to clear the record with regard to Washoe County. Senator Raggio and I have not had any complaints from any of our constituents (and we represent at least half the county), about our voting procedures. . . My precinct happens to be one of the experimental ones, that deals with the new . . . [voting procedure]. I traditionally, after I vote early in the morning, go to a couple of other precincts just to see how it is going . . . If there were complaints, we would hear about them. I think now is an appropriate time to commend the people in Washoe County who do this, that they have done a job that has kept faith with the people. They believe that they are getting a true and accurate count . . . I think that it is crucial that it be on the record that our county has the faith of the public behind their voting every spring and in the even years in September, November. Senator O'Connell said to Mr. Stown, "Before you go on, when you had sent that report and we read it, it had not yet been accepted by the county commission." Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Mary Henderson if that had been done yet and if she wanted to make a comment. Ms. Henderson replied: After the meeting down in Clark County . . . we had an initial report done. We went back and did a little more homework in terms of the accuracy of the equipment. The comfort level of the board was enhanced greatly and they have entered into an RFP [Request for Proposal] process now. So we will be purchasing the equipment. We will eliminate the punch card ballots after this next Reno election. We will not phase in the new equipment. It will come in across the board so the scanners will be the system in the next election that we have in Washoe County. Senator O'Connell asked if the people voting would receive a paper listing of what they voted on. Ms. Henderson said: They receive a stub. It is my understanding with the equipment that the stub comes off just as it does on the punch card now. The ballot that you mark falls into the machine, so you have a backup with the paper ballot that resides in the machine. That is going to have to be sealed in a box and transported. There will be a cartridge that we will do the actual vote count with that gets sealed in a box. I think we need to accommodate some of the new technologies in whatever we do in the language of this bill. There is that paper backup as well as a cartridge that remains in the machine as an additional backup. Mr. Stown continued with his testimony and reiterated prior testimony in regard to the optical scan. Senator O'Donnell stated: If the Sequoia machine can be reprogrammed with a receipt type printer and give the same kind of application that these other machines can do, wonderful. I, as a state senator and as a member of this body, cannot micro-manage a county who has already set taxes, . . . we can be upset as we want to, but those are elected officials down there. If you are asking us to circumvent their decision, I am not sure we should. . . Let me put on the record here that I would like to encourage the Sequoia Pacific Company to come up with a printed type ballot, that can be dropped in a box individually by a voter, at a very reasonable price. If not, then I would hope that the county would look into and consider very carefully the aspects of getting out of that contract and going to a machine that is more appropriate to do the things that this body would request. Senator O'Connell said to Mr. Stown, "The committee understands your concerns. We will initiate a letter from this committee to Mrs. Ferguson, as well as to the county commission, requesting that this be done." Mr. Stown stated he did not object to the letter, but he still has concerns about the areas the Sequoia is not certified for. Senator O'Connell said the committee would put in writing that the Sequoia would not be used for absentee, early and the challenge balloting, and send a copy of the letter to Mr. Stown. Mr. Stown insisted, again, that the optical scan would be the best machine for the purpose. Senator Townsend asked Mr. Stown for clarification on what the committee is supposed to fix. Senator Townsend stated, "Your county commission voted to do something. I can't help you there, that is done, that is over with. I can't help you from there on, but there is a bill here that we might be able to do something about, so can you help me help you? I am lost here." Mr. Stown said he was trying to answer Senator O'Connell's question about whether the model that was certified is the same model that was purchased. Senator O'Connell said that she had asked that question, and Ms. Ferguson said the same model that was certified is the same model that was ordered, and that she will provide documented proof. Mr. Stown discussed the certification of the Sequoia machines and his experiences with the Sequoia company. He stated the machine he saw was not the machine that the county bought, and he thinks the Sequoia should be recertified. Mr. Stown continued with his testimony by discussing Exhibit GG, his proposed amendments to S.B. 420. He discussed Exhibit CC, the letter from Attorney General, Frankie Sue Del Pappa. He testified he thinks the letter states that the Sequoia machine does not meet all of the statutes of Nevada. He stated that the letter mentions a functional equivalent of a paper ballot could be used. He stressed he does not think the Sequoia is a functional equivalent and is not properly certified. He continued to discuss his proposed amendments. Mr. Stown reiterated he wanted metal boxes for the ballots and drew a picture of the type of box that he thinks they should use. He discussed his concerns about the validity of the vote and reiterated concerns mentioned by Mr. Pasek. He continued his testimony with discussion of his proposed amendments (Exhibit GG). He said when they film people they are polite and do not shine the camera light in people's faces. Senator Porter stated: Since we are on the topic of the tape, Mr. Stown I want you to know I do not get upset very often. Having the opportunity to take a look at the tape, and I want to reflect . . . before I get to the tape that I appreciate your concerns as does this committee. I think we have 7 or 8 hours of public hearings showing our concern and trying to correct what you and we see as some potential problems. Plus, I am sure, 5 or 6 months of staff time trying to come up with some type of regulations that improve a problem. I have to tell you Mr. Stown and Mr. Pasek, I find it totally unacceptable the way you have treated public employees. I feel a responsibility not only to you to try to resolve a problem you have, but I have a responsibility to these public servants. As you have said, you could not prove it if you did not have the tape. Well, I have the tape (Exhibit HH. Original audiotape is on exhibit in the Research Library.), and it shows quite evidently that you have not treated these public employees with the courtesy and respect that they deserve. They are doing their job. They are following the rules of their supervisors. They are being directed properly, but according to this tape that you provided for me, you have not treated these folks with courtesy and respect. I cannot allow that to continue. You have to find a way to work within the system. Time and time again you have talked about your treatment, how you have been treated by the system. I must say again, for the record, the way you have treated these public employees cannot continue. We seem to have this attitude that the end justifies the means; well, it doesn't. There is no right way to do the wrong thing. . . We have employees that are quitting because of treatment. You are entitled to express your opinion; you are entitled to do your research and I encourage that, . . . but you don't take it out on those employees that are doing their job. As I said, there is no right way to do the wrong thing and this tape shows the pressure you put on those employees is not right. You are upset with the system, I understand that. Don't take it out on those employees. We have heard now for almost 8 hours about your frustrations here and [in] Las Vegas. I am happy to do that and we are happy to work on your problem, but you have to treat people with courtesy, as we have [treated] you Mr. Stown. Until that happens, why should we pay attention? Mr. Stown responded, "I defy you to show me on that tape where we have done what you just said." He stated he does not believe he did anything wrong. Senator Porter stated he did not want to argue about it. Mr. Stown continued with his proposed amendments (Exhibit GG). He continued to discuss Senator Porter's comments on photographing employees at the polls. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 420 and opened the hearing on S.B. 446. SENATE BILL 446: Revises provisions for failure to report certain campaign contributions and expenditures. Ms. Engleman said she was testifying for herself, as well as Jim Halls and Leola Armstrong of Common Cause. She stated that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that people have no right to privacy in a public area. She said if there are no curtains across the area where the voter goes in to vote, there should be some limitation on videotaping so that people's ballots would not be photographed. She emphasized that the people that come in to tape the voting are not journalists. She stressed they should not be considered as press, because they do not make their living that way. She commented those people have as much right to videotape elections to play them on cable access as journalists do. She discussed Common Cause's opinion on page 7 of S.B. 420, lines 25 to 45. Common Cause very much supports this section which makes this a civil fine for penalties rather than a misdemeanor. She stated they support the removal of the word willfully. She testified Common Cause supports S.B. 446, but would like an amendment to remove the word 'willfully' and they feel the contributions in excess of $500 should be changed to $100. Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association, testified: ...Over the years I have been involved with reviewing reports from the election officials where our candidates have signed documents saying they know what the laws and what the rules are. Among those rules and laws are that they are to file a certain number of campaign contribution reports. . . The law says that the district attorney is supposed to prosecute you for a willful failure. To be honest with you, on the hierarchy of things, the failure to file an election contribution report is not up there with assault and battery . . . We do everything we can to try to get compliance. Very seldom . . . we will file a criminal action. You still have to prove willful. . . So what we came up with . . . [is] lets make it almost like a strict liability thing. . . Taking it out of the criminal realm, taking it out of each individual county district attorney and then centralizing it in a place which will probably be a little more removed from politics than we have on the county level. . . Make it more of a strict liability thing, more of a civil penalty...There should be a provision that the agency can recover costs and attorneys' fees as well. Maybe these people will know that it can become a judgement and maybe they will file them. The longer they wait, the higher the penalty can be...We are not wed to either one of these versions, but we feel it would be important to take it out of the criminal realm and put it into a civil-type strict-liability situation. Senator O'Connell said neither she nor Senator Titus knew this would be included in each other's bill. She stated it would be addressed in one of the bills, S.B. 420 or S.B. 446 and deleted out of the other bill. Mr. Erquiaga testified that the secretary of state thinks that the way to affect shady politicians is through their pocketbook; not through misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors which are not typically enforced. He stated the secretary of state supports changing it to a civil enforcement. He stated: ...One bill puts enforcement with the attorney general and the other puts it with the secretary of state. The attorney general would be required to pursue some kind of a court proceeding, the secretary would be required to use an administrative hearing. That is a question for you to decide. Where does it best belong? ...If you give us the responsibility, please also give us the authority to complete that job. . . If you are going to give the secretary of state that much authority, are you creating a federal elections commission at the state level? Are you creating a campaign czar who would have a tremendous amount of authority during a political season? The person who holds that office . . . is a candidate. The chance for abuse is there. Having said that, the secretary of state is already an administrative hearings officer in the areas of notaries and securities. It is a much more ministerial office in the area of corporations, and...elections. Again, we very much support the concept of using the civil remedy. If you choose to put it in our hands, we will take that. It is not authority that Secretary of State Heller is seeking, I want to make that clear. It is not something that he has requested. If the Legislature deems that is the proper place to put it, he would like to be sure that he can recover costs and would like to be sure there are some constraints put upon that authority. For example, what does 'reasonable cause' mean? You don't want a secretary of state holding hearings against all of his opponents just to slow down their campaigns. Again, it is an excellent direction in which to go and I know it has also been discussed in the other house. . . Senator Titus said that she chose to put the authority under the secretary of state in S.B. 446 because there is existing legislation involving elections under the secretary of state's control. She stated that the key issue is to change it from being criminal and make it civil in the hope that it will be enforced. Mr. Graham said he was pleased about the testimony and the bill. He stated whichever way the committee choses to go with the bill, he thinks it is an excellent approach. Senator Titus commented that judicial review is still written in the bill, so if they find out that it is too political, there is an action that could be taken. Mr. Erquiaga interjected: On page 3, line 26 of S.B. 446, I think there is a drafting error. The word 'contributions' is used again on line 26. It should be 'expenses.' The bill drafter has simply copied the same language over from the earlier statute and put it into the expenses, but didn't change that word. So that word 'contributions' should be 'expenses.' Richard Brophy, Concerned Citizen, stated he would send a letter instead of testifying in person (Exhibit II). A letter from Kateri Cavin, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, was entered into the record (Exhibit JJ). Mr. Glover testified: Briefly, while you are...on that section on the civil penalties, we strongly support that. That is really wonderful. Carson [City] has a unique situation in there because when these people violate state statute, it is up to our district attorney to prosecute them...From our point of view, . . . we do have a number of problems with the bill. We brought along with us what we use as a transfer case to take our ballots. After the ballot boxes are opened, they count all of the ballots. They balance that against the number of signatures in the roster poll book. The ballots are then put in this box like this. This moves up and down to hold them tight. We put on a metal seal with a number. The number is assigned in the morning. When it comes back at night to the counting room, that [seal] is clipped off and that number is checked again. Our point is that . . . the locks really don't work, but on the other hand paper seals . . . really aren't needed. . . You start building those up and...It ruins the transfer case, I think, and causes a lot of confusion because people see a broken one may have been here this year. Next election is over here; I think that would add to the confusion. This has worked well. There is not a problem anywhere else in the state except in Clark [County]. With the videotaping and that . . . we got the reaction from some of our workers that they really don't like that. If you are interested in pursuing that concept, would you maybe consider a population limit on that, . . . since we don't have a problem up here. Senator O'Connell asked how much the ballot boxes cost. After presenting Exhibit KK, Mr. Glover said: We brought the figures on those, because if we had...if under the way the law is written now, we would have to order new ones because you need two locks. Transfer cases...the quote was $44.50 each, locks and keys were $20 each. After you hear the Clark County figures of $40,000, I mean, $2,600 does not seem like a lot, but still, I'm not budgeted for that. I would rather spend my money on paying my election workers than I would buying...We've had these for years. They have the precinct number on them, so we know which precinct they go to, which precinct when they come back. The ballots from precinct 331 had better be in here. This seal had better not be broken. If it is, then we investigate. We call those people back in. We talk to them. No one could really duplicate this because no one knows what number they are going to get, we just reach in the bag and pull them out and start dropping them in. It is a random deal. These are very good boxes and they work really well for us. With the videotaping, I think that's going to have a real down effect on voting. I don't think the workers or the voters are going to like it. People in Carson [City] do get taped because the Governor comes in to vote. The press comes and the camera comes. We have no problem with that and nobody else does either. The clerks have to control that counting room. You get the situation, everything from...a candidate and a crowd of his rowdy friends show up just to see what is going on and are very disruptive, to a conspiracy where you can get lots of people coming. Then ballots start missing, and ballot boxes...who do you blame? You have a thousand people in your counting room. What is going on? When we counted over at the state, they would not let anybody...we had the party people and we always invited the press. They never came because once they were locked in, they were in for the night, so they didn't like to come. They could not get their reports out. All the state's gaming information was in that computer facility...and boy, they just would not...they [the gaming department] control that situation, not me. We need to control who comes in and it should be open enough that people feel comfortable that there is an honest vote going on. We are quite liberal in our county on that, maybe more so than Douglas. Those are our concerns. Barbara J. Reed, Douglas County Clerk, Treasurer, stated: We use the same type of ballot box as Alan [Glover] uses in Carson City. We also put the orange seal on it. We do one additional thing. We have a paper seal, and he is correct, once they adhere, they are adhered. They [the ballot boxes] are sealed. The election worker signs the paper seal. The counting board actually slits the seal and then...breaks the orange seal. They do not come off and add up after a lot of years. I do have a real concern with the video and the photographer. There is not any distance point. I have a real concern that people would be coming to the table and would be taking photographs or videotaping very close to the workers. I think that could be very disruptive to the ballot process and could lead to having some ballots disappear if you just have people flashing flashbulbs in your face, even at the counting center or at the polling centers. I do have concern with that. If you are really adamant about that, I would ask you to put some distance markers so we can control how close they get to those tables. On page 5, where we have the following the vehicles, I do have a lot of senior citizens. We are a very rural community. I do not want anybody to be panicking. If you are adamant about allowing that to be, the only thing I would request is that those names be submitted to the clerk so that we can provide to the election workers and to the chairman, that they will be followed and who will be following them so they will know in advance. The deputies at the polling locations will also know that those workers are going to be followed. We do have some distances out where people have to travel about a half hour in, and having a car following them might make them a little...unnerved. I have a comment on your moving the contributions to the civil section. I do agree with that. My only comment would be, that I have a lot of general improvement districts that are volunteer people. They don't get compensated. They don't take contributions. They don't have any expenditures. They frequently do forget. I do have 25 improvement districts with a lot of boards running. I would hate to see them fined, and I don't know if there is some way we can identify if they don't receive any compensation, or contributions, and [have] no expenditures, maybe we can have them just file one report stating those facts. Otherwise, I am very supportive of that. Ned Eyre, Lobbyist, Business Records Corporation, stated he has very deep concerns about the voting system which was proposed for Clark County. He stressed he thinks everything possible should be done to give the voters the perception that everything is okay. He stated he likes the idea of a ballot with the names printed on it that can be put in a box. Ms. Mary Henderson stated: From the position of the [Washoe] county, you have a very difficult decision in front of you because you are balancing the rights of the public not only to a fair and accurate vote, but in an environment where they are not interfered with; where they feel comfortable going to the polls; where poll workers and people who come forward basically in a volunteer mode. . . I think we need to take into account the statewide issues. I am terribly concerned with the issue of video cameras and cameras at the polling places and having some kind of restrictions on that process. . . I know we have had representations in this room today that the folks in the room have not used lights, whatever, well when you write laws, you write it for the public. There is no guarantee that someone else in the state of Nevada is not going to do that. When you look at the issue of going into the count room, for Washoe County in particular, this does create a difficulty because we do that in our management information systems area. What you do is count it in the area where all the county's computer systems are. It is a very restricted area. It is a secured area. Our financial systems, confidential records, everything is in that area of the county. We would have to have some kind of assurance . . . so that you do get situations where somebody slaps a little piece of a magnet on the back of a 486 computer, that has nothing to do with the vote, but might have something to do with how we run our financial system or anything else. Senator O'Donnell asked what kind of ballots they were using in Washoe County. Ms. Henderson said they are currently using punch cards, but on the election following the next one they will use the scantron. Senator O'Donnell questioned if they were using a punch card counter. Ms. Henderson responded that it is a computerized system. Senator O'Donnell asked Ms. Ferguson what Clark County is using to count the cards. Ms. Ferguson replied they are using a card reader. Senator O'Donnell inquired if the county [Washoe County] was charging the election department for the use of their computer. Ms. Henderson said that Washoe County was not charging. Senator O'Donnell stated that the counting can be done completely by a 486 computer. Ms. Henderson said the county will be at that point and the counting can be done on a 486, but the computer is tied into the network, the room downstairs where the election results come in. She continued to discuss the process in the vote counting and public access. She reiterated that the north is not having the election problems the south is having. She told the committee during a mock election, over 160 people, comprised of voters, workers, precinct leaders, etc., picked the Sequoia equipment as their number one choice of equipment to use. She stated the second pick was the scanner. She stated the Washoe County Board of Commissioners chose the scanners for several reasons. She urged the committee to structure the bill so that it does not restrict or encumber the counties from using more technological equipment. She stated technology has changed and it is something everyone must accept. Ms. Henderson concluded, "...How we conduct ourselves as governments in this state, and it is how we conduct our elections...in the public trust. I appreciate the remarks of Senator Porter and Senator Townsend in terms of how employees are treated and how our poll workers and our volunteers are treated. We have to protect that side of the equation too." Senator O'Connell stated that in Nevada there are 17 different counties. She noted the population in the smallest county is about 1390 people. She said when laws are made all the counties are affected. Things that seem right for one part of the state, which has in excess of a million people compared with another part of the state who has only 1300, may not be right for the smaller county. Senator Titus added: When we talk about all of the problems in Clark County,... if you will recall, 95 percent of the people in Clark County were happy and satisfied with the Sequoia system. So we are talking about a very vocal, but very small minority. While I support some of the things in this bill, I think if I ask my constituents, 'Do you distrust the election department so much that you don't mind being videotaped?' You will find a very large percentage of them would not support that kind of action. Ms. Marlene Henderson showed the committee the box Washoe County uses to transport the ballots. She said: In this bill, on page 4, section 12, it states where we can send out deputized officers to pick up ballots early. On line 27, it is quoting NRS 293B.335. That is the NRS for the chairman and one worker of a different party to deliver the ballots to you. So that cannot work properly because the chairman cannot leave the polling place. . . Section 14, page 5, where they are saying that the sealed containers must be transported in a locked area of a vehicle. Some of my election board workers drive vans, trucks, four runners. . . so it cannot be in a designated area like the trunk of the car. Mr. Stown thanked the committee and proposed that the language on the bill include the statement that lights will not be used with cameras except with the permission of the election department. He continued: On page 4 section 12 . . . the county clerk may order deputized officers to pick up all voted ballots from any or all of the precincts or districts after the polls have been opened for 5 hours. . . I hope you will consider removing that because what that will do is defeat the whole purpose, when people watch the votes coming from the polling place, they may have picked them up 2 or 3 hours earlier. We want to avoid that. . . One other thing is at the ballot counting area, we had no problem with order as long as people treated us with respect, we also treated them with respect. The lady mentioned not wanting us milling around the computers and everything. We agree with that. What you could do is have a glass wall on each side so the people could look through the glass. That way they could be satisfied they are watching what is going on. . . Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 420 and adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, for DeLynn Gillentine, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 10, 1995 Page