August 2000 Meeting Minutes

Indiana Election Commission

Minutes

AUGUST 24, 2000

MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Cruea, Chairman of the Indiana Election Commission {"IEC"), S. Anthony Long, Butch Morgan, and Joseph M. Perkins, Jr.

STAFF ATTENDING: Candy Marendt, Co-Director, Election Division, Office of the Indiana Secretary of State ("Election Division"), Spencer Valentine, Co-Director, Election Division, Kristi Robertson, Co-General Counsel IEC and Election Division, Dale Simmons, Co-General Counsel IEC and Election Division, and Michelle Thompson, Co-Director, Campaign Finance, Election Division.

ALSO ATTENDING: Brad Klopfenstein, executive director of the Libertarian Party, Mark Rutherford, state chairman of the Libertarian Party, Dan Derrick, Hendricks County chairman of the Libertarian Party, Charles S. Kennedy, Libertarian candidate, Robin Stewart, Tavel & Stewart, Ken Rogers, Bethany M. Hayes, and Kate Bryant, Indiana Greens Campaign Committee, Kristina Buchthal, Indianapolis Star Reporter, Fran Quigley, NUVO Newsweekly, Steve Hinnefield, Bloomington Herald-Times, Jim Ries and Steve Shamo, representatives of MicroVote, Jack Black, representative of Election Systems & Software, and Steve Corey, representative of Global Election Systems.

1. CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairman S. Anthony Long called the August 24, 2000 meeting of the IEC to order in Room 233, Indiana State House, 200 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. He noted that proper notice of the meeting had been given, as required by state law, and that all Commission members were present except Chairman Dudley Cruea. Mr. Long advised that, according to information supplied to him, Chairman Cruea was on his way and would be joining the proceedings soon. Mr. Long then indicated that the Commission members present would proceed with business on the agenda that could be performed in the Chairman's absence.

Copies of the meeting notice and agenda are incorporated by reference in these minutes. (Copies of all documents incorporated by reference are available for public inspection and copying at the Election Division office.)

2. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 2000 MINUTES

Mr. Long noted that each Commission member had previously received a draft of the proposed Commission minutes for the July 27, 2000 meeting. There being no corrections, Mr. Perkins moved that the July 27, 2000 minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Mr. Long, the acting Chair, called the question, and declared that with three members voting "aye" (Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

3. REPORT BY CO-DIRECTORS

Mr. Long recognized Ms. Marendt who addressed the Commission on the continuing operations of the Election Division. Ms. Marendt stated that the Election Division had almost completed the administration of the duplicate voter registration elimination program. She reported that there had been a small problem with the program in that extra postcards in the second mailing had been sent to people who returned their postcards from the first mailing, however, the Election Division did manage through this problem. She added that the counties would be resubmitting their voter registration records after they have been through the dual elimination process by September 7.

She also stated that the Election Division had attended the first meeting of the Census Data Advisory Committee ("CDAC") at which the Election Division presented a list of potential legislative ideas resulting from the experience the Election Division during this past year. She explained that these ideas incorporated matters brought to the attention of the Election Division by circuit court clerks, candidates and Commission members. She stated that at the CDAC meeting Mr. Valentine also gave a short presentation on the feasibility of creating a statewide voter registration file. She stated that representatives from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party also appeared before the committee to give statements in support of a statewide voter registration file.

Mr. Long recognized Mr. Valentine. Mr. Valentine concurred in Ms. Marendt's report. He also added that the Election Division had performed its statutory duty to certify to the counties the list of candidates who filed with the Election Division who will appear on the ballot.

Mr. Long then asked staff about the timetable for candidate challenges as we go into the fall election. Ms. Valentine indicated that there were several challenges to petition candidates that would be heard at today's meeting. Ms. Robertson advised that any challenges to convention or primary candidates, or candidates selected to fill a ballot vacancy, would be heard at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting on September 28.

Mr. Long asked whether the Commission's Advisory Opinion, which establishes the deadlines for filing candidate challenges, had been disseminated to county clerks and the parties. Ms. Robertson stated that it had. Mr. Valentine indicated that the fact that there are no statutory deadlines for filing candidate challenges was also brought to the attention of the Census Advisory Committee at its last meeting.

Mr. Long then indicated for the record that the Chairman, Dudley Cruea, had arrived and would be conducting the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Long advised the Chair that the Commission had just concluded the items on the agenda through the report of the Co-Directors.

4. CANDIDATE CHALLENGES

The Chair then announced that the Commission would hear the candidate challenges. He requested the administration of the oath. Ms. Robertson administered the oath to those in attendance who identified themselves as parties present to testify on the candidate challenges.

The Chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that the Election Division had received a number of candidate challenges. She stated that these challenges were made to minor party candidates who are seeking to be placed on the ballot by petition. She stated that the first such challenge received was the challenge to Ralph Nader, cause number 2000-145. She stated that the challenge was the first challenge in the Commission packets under the candidate challenge tab. She indicated that she did not know if there was anyone present to testify on behalf of the challenged candidate.

The Chair asked if there was anyone present to testify on the first cause.

The Chair recognized Robin Stewart who stated that he did not represent the Nader campaign but that he did have information that he though was relevant to the challenge.

The Chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that Mr. Valentine and Ms. Thompson, two members of the staff, had gone through all of the petitions to get a count of the number of signatures on the petitions that had been certified by the circuit court clerks. She stated that for statewide office, state statute requires petition candidates to obtain the signatures of 30,716 registered voters. She explained that this signature requirement equals 2% of the votes received for Secretary of State in Indiana in the 1998 election. Ms. Robertson stated that she would defer to Mr. Valentine as to the number of certified registered voter signatures counted on the contested petitions.

Mr. Valentine stated that staff had brought the petitions to today's meeting if anyone wanted to go through them for any reason. He confirmed that he and Michelle Thompson counted the certified petition signatures and tallied the count on an adding machine. He offered the tape from the adding machine into the record and stated that the count performed by he and Ms. Thompson totaled 15,891 certified registered voter signatures on the Nader petitions. The tape was received by the Commission and made a part of the record by consent. The tape is incorporated into these minutes by reference.

The Chair recognized Mr. Stewart who stated that his concern was whether Alicia Hayes, the individual who filed the challenge to Mr. Nader's candidacy, properly filed the challenge. Mr. Stewart argued that the Commission should determine if it has jurisdiction to hear the challenge before the Commission gets into the number of certified signatures on the petitions.

Mr. Long requested counsel to address the issue of whether Mr. Stewart, who stated that he did not represent the Nader campaign, had standing to raise the issue of jurisdiction. Mr. Stewart, again, confirmed that he did not represent the Nader campaign but stated that he did represent Mr. Hagelin in the next case before the Commission. He stated that he believed he had some information that might be relevant to the Nader challenge.

Mr. Long then stated that he would defer to counsel on the issue of whether Mr. Stewart could raise a jurisdictional issue as to the Nader challenge when he acknowledges that he does not represent Mr. Nader.

The Chair recognized Mr. Simmons who stated that he would agree with Mr. Long's assessment that Mr. Stewart lacked standing to challenge jurisdiction on behalf of Mr. Nader and indicated that, as a point of order, if Mr. Stewart represented the Reform party candidates who were next on the Commission's agenda then he should hold his remarks until that cause was called and that persons who were present to speak as representatives of Mr. Nader should be allowed to speak at this time. Ms. Robertson concurred.

The Chair asked if the Commission had any other questions of counsel. Mr. Long requested that counsel address the statutory authority and requirements for a challenge. Ms. Robertson stated that the authority for a candidate challenge is established in Indiana Code section 3-8-1-2. She stated that this section authorized a registered voter, from the same election district the candidate seeks to represent, to file a candidate challenge questioning the validity of the candidate's petition. She stated that the requirement that a petition candidate gather 30,716 signatures of registered voters is contained in Indiana Code section 3-8-6-3.

Mr. Long asked counsel if anyone had verified the registered voter status of the challenger Alicia Hayes. Ms. Marendt indicated that she had checked the statewide compilation of voter registration records she had in the office of the Election Division that were compiled as part of the duplicate registration elimination program and that those records indicated that Alicia Hayes was a registered voter in Indiana.

The Chair asked if the challenge was filed on the proper state-approved challenge form. Mr. Simmons responded that the challenge was filed on a CAN-1 form that is the proper form. He stated that a properly executed CAN-1 constitutes a statement by Ms. Hayes, made under oath, that she is a registered voter and that Ms. Marendt confirmed this with the statewide voter registration compilation kept in the office of the Election Division.

The Chair then recognized Ken Rogers who stated that he was appearing on behalf of the Nader campaign. The Chair asked Mr. Rogers if he had taken the oath and he stated that he did not as he did not understand why the oath was being administered at the time it was administered. The Chair then indicated to Mr. Rogers that he would have to be sworn in. Ms. Robertson then administered the oath to Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers stated that he was the Indiana coordinator of the Green Party campaign committee that is working on behalf of the Nader/LaDuke campaign in Indiana. He stated that he wanted to reiterate what Mr. Stewart had said. He stated that he would like to challenge the legitimacy of the person who challenged Mr. Nader and the person who challenged Ms. LaDuke. He asked whether or not that the challengers were required to be present at today's meeting in support of the challenge.

The Chair then recognized Ms. Robertson who advised the Commission that code section 3-8-1-2 does not have a requirement that the challenger be present at the meeting.

The Chair asked Mr. Rogers to specify the basis of his claim that the challenge forms that have been filed are not valid. Mr. Rogers stated that he had no basis other than the possibility that the challengers are not registered voters. He stated that he knew about people who believed that they were registered to vote but when they went to vote they found out they were not, in fact, registered.

Mr. Perkins asked whether the basis of Mr. Rogers argument is that the challengers are not registered voters. Mr. Rogers responded that he would like to see evidence that shows that they are registered voters. He stated that he would like to see their official registration to show that they have the authority to file a challenge.

The Chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that the Election Division is a ministerial body and that the challenge statute was put into place to allow each side to a challenge, the challenger and the challenged candidate, to come forward with evidence relevant to the challenge. She stated that voter registration records are pubic records so that the challenged candidate has access to those records and may present evidence about those records to the Commission.

The Chair recognized Mr. Long who asked Mr. Rogers if he had any evidence to show that Alicia Hayes is not a registered voter in the 82nd precinct of Lawrence Township, Indianapolis.

Mr. Rogers responded that he would hope that the Commission would want to make sure that Ms. Hayes was a registered voter before accepting her challenge.

The Chair responded to Mr. Rogers that Ms. Marendt had told the Commission that she was a registered voter according to the records at the Election Division.

The Chair recognized Mr. Simmons who stated that he might have something to add to the voter registration status of Ms. Hayes. He stated that when Ms. Hayes was in the office of the Election Division filling out the CAN-1, she indicated that the precinct indicated on her form was the last precinct that she was registered in. He explained that she stated that she had submitted a request to transfer her registration to a new address within Marion County but that she did not know if the transfer had been made by the voter registration office in Marion County. He stated that he advised Ms. Hayes to write this information on the CAN-1 and she did, in fact write: "currently transferring registration within Marion County" on the CAN-1. He stated that the records that Ms. Marendt reviewed in the office of the Election Division were the voter registration files submitted by all the counties, including Marion County, to the Election Division as part of the dual registration elimination program and that according to those records Ms. Hayes was a registered voter in Marion County.

Mr. Rogers asked whether that meant that the registration of Ms. Hayes was "indeterminate." Ms. Marendt responded by stating that a request to transfer a registration does not affect a person's status as registered, they are still registered. Ms. Marendt stated that Ms. Hayes also had in her possession when she came into the office a signed document from Marion County voter registration official, Kathleen Mullin, indicating that she was a registered voter in Marion County.

Mr. Rogers whether the same could be said of the challenger who challenged the candidacy of Ms. LaDuke.

Mr. Long stated that he thought that this hearing was just on Mr. Nader's petition. The Chair indicated that Ms. LaDuke is Mr. Nader's designated candidate for Vice-President candidate and that both of these candidates were placed under the same case number by the Election Division and could be heard at the same time.

Ms. Robertson directed the Commission to the their packets to the challenge to Ms. LaDuke filed by Scott Bronnenberg.

The Chair asked whether there had been any determination as to the voter registration status of Mr. Bronnenberg. Ms. Marendt stated that she had also checked the registration status of Mr. Bronnenberg with the voter registrations records at the Election Division, and, according to those records, Mr. Bronnenberg was a registered voter in Indiana.

The Chair then asked Mr. Rogers whether or not he had independently checked the voter registration status of Mr. Bronnenberg. Mr. Rogers stated that he had not.

The Chair then asked whether Mr. Stewart had anything to add. Mr. Stewart stated that the preceding discussion had addressed some concerns that he had. He stated that his question at this point was whether the information contained on the CAN-1 had to be correct. He stated that it was his understanding that Ms. Hayes was no longer registered in the 82nd precinct of Lawrence Township, though he acknowledged that there was some testimony indicating that she was a registered voter at some address in Indiana. He stated that he did not have any evidence to contradict that but that he wanted to state that she was not a registered voter at the address listed on the CAN-1.

The Chair asked if there was anyone else present who had evidence to give on this cause. The Chair recognized an individual named (inaudible) who identified herself as someone from the Green Party. She indicated that she had a question about the registration status of the challengers. She stated that for a signature to be valid on a candidate's petition, the person signing had to list same address on the petition that is on that person's voter registration record. She asked whether that requirement also applied to a person filing a candidate challenge. She stated that she felt that many valid signatures collected on the Nader petitions were not certified and should have been.

Mr. Valentine responded by stating that the statute that governs candidate challenges only requires that the challenger be a registered voter in the state. He further stated that petitions had to be submitted to individual counties to verify the signatures on the petitions as signatures of registered voters and that one possible reason why a county may reject a signature is that the voter is not registered in that county even though the voter may be registered elsewhere in Indiana.

The Chair clarified that it was not the Commission or the Election Division that certifies the number of valid signatures on a candidate's petition. He stated that the county clerks certify the number of valid signatures and that the Commission accepts that certification. He stated that the challenge forms are filed in the office of the Election Division and that is why the Election Division checked the voter registration status of the challengers.

Mr. Long asked for a clarification of the tally performed by the staff of the petition signatures. He asked if the signatures counted by the staff were the totals of the signatures that were certified as valid by the counties that performed the certification. Mr. Valentine answered "yes".

The Chair recognized Mr. Rogers who asked whether there was a procedure at this point to challenge the de-certification of petition signatures performed by the county clerks. Mr. Rogers indicated that there were approximately 34,000 signatures submitted to county clerks so there were a substantial number of those signatures that were de-certified.

The Chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that the county registration officials have control of the certification of signatures and that there are specific statutes that guide them in this certification process. She stated that state law entrusts this certification to those county officials. She stated that her best recommendation to Mr. Rogers would be to file a lawsuit against individual counties where the candidate believes that the county did not follow state law in the certification process. She stated that neither the Commission nor the Election Division had authority under state law to determine the certification of petition signatures.

The Chair asked if there was any more evidence relevant to this cause. There being no response, the Chair closed the hearing on cause number 2000-145.

Mr. Long moved that the challenge to the candidates, Mr. Nader and Ms. LaDuke, under cause number 2000-145, be sustained and that the candidates not be placed on the ballot for the reason that there are insufficient signatures certified as valid on the petitions filed by these candidates. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question and declared that with four members voting aye (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan) and no member voting nay, the motion was adopted.

The Chair requested counsel to address the next challenge on the agenda. The Chair recognized Mr. Simmons who stated that there are a number of challenged candidates who were on the same petition and that it might be appropriate to consider the challenges to these candidates together. He explained that these candidates are the candidates who have designated themselves as "Reform Party" candidates on their petitions. Mr. Simmons indicated that he was handing the Commission members a copy of the petition that includes the names of all such candidates. He stated the, specifically, he was suggesting that the Commission combine the hearing on the challenges to candidates John Hagelin, Mike Tompkins, Paul Wilson, Richard Crawford, Larry Evans, and Jack Baldwin. Mr. Simmons stated that he believed that Mr. Stewart represented all of these candidates.

The Chair asked whether Mr. Stewart had any objection to hearing the challenges to these candidates at one time. Mr. Stewart stated that he did not. Mr. Long then moved that the hearings on the challenges to these candidates be consolidated. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question and declared that with four members voting aye (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan) and no member voting nay, the motion was adopted.

Mr. Simmons stated that the same statutes that applied to the challenge of Mr. Nader and Ms. LaDuke also apply to these cases. He stated that since the entire electorate of the state of Indiana would vote upon these candidates, then the requirement that the candidates obtain signatures of registered voters equal to 2% of the votes cast for Secretary of State in 1998 also applies to these candidates. He stated that this figure is 30,716. He stated that Mr. Valentine and Ms. Thompson also counted the number of certified signatures of registered voters for the Reform Party candidates. He indicated that Mr. Valentine could report the number of signatures he and Ms. Thompson tallied.

Mr.Valentine reported that he and Ms. Thompson tallied 10,869 certified signatures on the petitions of these Reform Party candidates.

The Chair recognized Mr. Stewart who stated that he also wished to question the registered voter status of the challenger Alicia Hayes. Mr. Long indicated that because this is a separate hearing that perhaps we should again hear evidence on this issue. Mr. Long suggested that the Commission incorporate the testimony received in the previous hearing on the registered voter status of Ms. Hayes and Mr. Brannenberg into this hearing on the Reform Party candidates. Mr. Long asked if Mr. Steward had any objection to incorporating the prior testimony in this hearing. Mr. Steward stated that it was fine with him. Mr. Stewart stated that this was about the only ground he had to assert in opposition to the challenges. He stated that he also had some concerns about the lack of a process for rehabilitating petition signatures. He asked whether the Commission was ratifying the certification of registered voter signatures performed by the clerks.

Mr. Simmons stated the process for certifying signatures is entrusted to the circuit court clerks and that they are to apply statutory standards set forth in the code in performing that certification. He stated that there is no procedure for the Commission to perform its own review and certification of those signatures.

Mr. Long asked counsel whether candidate representatives give the petitions to county clerks for certification and then retrieve the petitions from the clerks before filing them with the Election Division. Ms. Robertson stated that this was correct. Mr. Long then asked whether the fact that the candidate turned them in is an indication that the candidate accepts the number of signatures that have been certified. Ms. Robertson stated that state statute provides that a candidate, or a candidate's representative, may arrange to pick up the petitions after certification and, in fact, this is what the Election Division recommends to candidates so that they can keep track of the number of signatures being certified and can make sure they get them filed with the Election Division before the filing deadline. She stated further that if the candidate fails to pick the petitions up from the clerks, then the county clerks must file those petitions with the Election Division on behalf of the candidate. She stated that the Election Division did receive a number of petitions from the counties directly. She stated that a representative of the Reform Party filed the petitions with the Election Division directly except for about maybe 3 sheets of petitions sent to the Election Division directly from the clerks.

Mr. Stewart asked whether the Commission would be certifying the number of registered voters on the petitions in their findings of fact. Mr. Stewart stated the number of signatures that were not certified were very high and that he wanted to make sure that they were exercising due diligence to rehabilitate the signatures to the extent that they could. He stated that maybe the people that the Reform Party candidates hired did not do their job in obtaining good signatures and they may need to go back and work that out with them. He stated that he was still concerned that the clerks may have gone too far in failing to certify signatures. He noted the rights to vote petition government are fundamental rights in Indiana and there should be a presumption that the signatures are valid. He expressed concern for the procedural safeguards in place for rehabilitating signatures that clerk's refused to certify. He stated that he has not had sufficient time to go through the petitions to verify the reason for the failure to certify certain signatures. He stated that he wished to preserve the right of the Reform Party to challenge the failure to certify certain signatures, however, he stated that he is not presently in the position to prove that signatures should have been certified in a number that would meet the statutory requirement.

Mr. Robertson stated that, for the information of the Commission, the statutes that the counties have to follow to verify signatures is in 3-5-6 and that clerks are required by 3-5-6-2 to resolve reasonable doubts in favor of certifying signatures of a registered voters.

Mr. Stewart asked about further remedies available to the Reform Party in the event of an adverse ruling from the Commission. Ms. Robertson stated that the candidates would have 30 days to appeal the ruling of the Commission. She stated that any appeal should be filed with the Superior Court of Marion County. Mr. Stewart stated that he felt that too many signatures have been stricken without cause but that he did not have the evidence to show that at this time.

The Chair asked if there was any further evidence to be introduced in cases 2000-146 through 2000-149.

Mr. Valentine stated that candidates were required to submit their petitions to county clerks for certification by July 17 and issues regarding the failure to certify signatures should have been brought to the attention of the clerks at that time or shortly thereafter.

The Chair then asked if there was any further evidence or comments. Hearing none, the Chair then closed the hearing on case numbers 2000-146 through 2000-149.

Mr. Long moved that the challenge to the candidates, Mr. Hagelin, Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Evans and Mr. Baldwin, under case numbers 2000-146 through 2000-149, be sustained and that these candidates not be placed on the ballot for the reason that there are insufficient signatures certified as valid on the petitions filed by these candidates. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question and declared that with four members voting aye (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan) and no member voting nay, the motion was adopted.

Mr. Long stated that he wished to express that he personally favors people being able to run for office and that perhaps more diligence needs to exercised by the clerks to get candidate signatures certified properly. He stated that he believed that each of these candidates has a right to run for office and that he takes no pleasure in his vote to exclude them from the ballot. He stated that he had no reason to believe that these candidates are other than honorable candidates who wish to espouse their philosophical beliefs about our country.

The Chair recognized Mr. Simmons who stated that the last candidate challenge before the Commission at today's meeting was case number 2000-150, a challenge to Reform Party candidate Susan Minx for House District 46. He explained that the basis of this challenge was not the number of signatures on the petitions, but rather that the petitions were filed late. He stated that the deadline for filing the petitions with the Election Division was noon August 1 as set forth in code section 3-8-6-10. He stated that the candidate filed her petitions on August 1 at 2:42 p.m. He stated that Robin Ross White filed the challenge to this candidate. He stated that the basis of the challenge, as stated on the CAN-1 filed with the Election Division, is "signatures were filed late."

Ms. Robertson directed the Commission to the petitions and the candidate consent filed by Ms. Minx and explained that the first page of the petitions, and the candidate consent, were time- stamped at the time that they were filed with the Election Division.

The Chair asked whether anyone was present to testify in case number 2000-150.

Mr. Stewart stated that he could report that the person being challenged has said to go ahead and take her off of the ballot. Mr. Long asked whether Mr. Stewart was appearing for the candidate. He responded that he was not.

Mr. Long then asked if there was any information to indicate that Robin Ross White was not a registered voter as indicated on his CAN-1.

The Chair recognized Bethany Hayes who stated that she objected to the challenge based upon the fact the petitions were filed an hour late. She stated that the candidate has enough signatures. She stated that it was getting to the point where it was ridiculous.

The Chair asked Ms. Hayes whether she had been sworn in and she indicated that she had not. Ms. Robertson then administered the oath to Ms. Hayes.

Ms. Hayes stated that she thought that this country is getting "out of whack." She stated that the candidate was only an hour late and she had enough signatures. She stated that she had a professor at Berkley who told her to "get it in on time for God's sake", however, the candidate should not be removed for being only an hour late. She asked the Commission to consider how Indiana voters would look at removal of the candidate under these circumstances. She also asked whether the Commission ever though about what this does to the image of Indiana when people hear about things like this. She stated that the Commission was nothing but a kangaroo court as far as she was concerned. She stated that she realized that legal points were legal points but that this was ludicrous.

The Chair asked whether staff was aware of any explanation for the petitions being filed 2 hours and 42 minutes late. Ms. Robertson stated that there was not. The Chair asked whether the candidate filed the petitions in person. Ms. Robertson stated that someone had filed the petitions on her behalf.

Mr. Long stated that he had just gone through all of the candidate's petitions and noticed that the clerk certified the latest petition in the bunch on July 18, a full 13 days before the deadline for filing them with the Election Division. He stated that many legislative candidates come before the Commission to complain for being fined for being an hour late in filing campaign finance reports and they are the ones that passed the law.

He stated that he is less persuaded by the comments of Ms. Hayes, however, since this candidate had 13 days in which to file her petitions with the Election Division and now, during the hearing on her case, offers the Commission no explanation.

The chair recognized Charles Kennedy who asked whether candidates who are decertified by the Commission at this point could run as write-in candidates. Ms. Robertson stated that they could. She further stated that the deadline for a candidate to declare as a write-in candidate was noon, September 18. She stated that these candidates would be eligible for that.

The Chair asked if there were any other comments.

Mr. Morgan noted that there was a prior incident of a candidate being removed from the ballot for a late filing. He stated that this was an incident involving Ann Devore in 1994. He stated that Ms. Devore was an outstanding statewide officer holder at the time. He stated that she held the office of Auditor of the State of Indiana. He stated that she was touted to be the next congressman from the second district. He stated that she failed to timely file her declaration of candidacy and the place that she had to go to file her declaration was across the hall from her office. He stated that this was tragic incident considering all that candidates have to go through, however, the statutory deadline for filing candidacy documents was no secret. He further commented that if Ms. Mink was adamant about staying on the ballot she would probably have been at today's hearing, or at least sent the Commission a letter requesting that the Commission allow her to remain on the ballot.

The Chair asked if there were any further comments. There being none, the chair closed the hearing on case number 2000-150.

Mr. Long moved that the challenge to the candidate, Ms. Mink, under case number 2000-150, be sustained and that the candidate not be placed on the ballot for the reason that her petitions and her declaration were filed later than the deadline prescribed by state law. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question and declared that with four members voting aye (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan) and no member voting nay, the motion was adopted.

5. CAMPAIGN FINANCE

The Chair announced that the Commission would proceed to the next item on the agenda, campaign finance. The Chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that the Commission had orders in their packets, order numbers 2000-141 through 2000-154, which reflect the actions of the Commission in the campaign enforcement cases heard by the Commission at its July 27 meeting. She stated that the orders may be adopted at the pleasure of the Commission.

Mr. Long moved that orders numbered 2000-141 through 2000-154 be approved as to form and adopted by the Commission. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question and declared that with four members voting aye (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan) and no member voting nay, the motion was adopted.

6. LITIGATION UPDATE

The Chair recognized Mr. Simmons who stated that there were currently three outstanding cases pending against the Commission. He stated that he had been reporting to the Commission the last few meetings on two cases. He stated the first such case is Leaf versus Able. He explained that this case is now pending in federal court before Judge McKinney. He stated that this particular case involves a challenge to Indiana's disclaimer law. He stated that, as reported in the past, there are still Motions for Summary Judgment pending and the last brief filed on the motion was filed in February.

He explained that the other case that he has been reporting to the Commission on is the Majors versus Indiana Election Commission. He stated that this case involves challenges to campaign finance fines imposed against Libertarian candidates. He explained that the Libertarian's claim in that lawsuit is that since they did not raise money for their campaigns, they did not have to file campaign finance reports. He stated that there is a pending dispositive motion in this case as well.

He advised the Commission that the third case is a case brought against the Commission by the Marion County Committee of the Democratic Party. This case was filed on July 20. He stated that there was a hearing on the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction in the case and the court has issued a decision on the request. He stated that the decision of the court was included in the packet of information provided the Commission under the tab titled litigation. He stated that the decision denied the request for preliminary injunction. He explained the remedy sought by the plaintiff was to have the court declare the deadline established for filling candidate vacancies unconstitutional as violating the equal protection clause and the first amendment. He explained that the argument was based upon a comparison between the candidate vacancy deadlines established for major parties with the candidate vacancy deadlines established for the Libertarian candidates who have more time under the statute to fill their candidate vacancies. He explained that technically the plaintiff's requests for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction remain pending before the court, however, based upon the court's decision, which indicated that it was unlikely that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of the case, it was likely that the ultimate outcome of the case would be the same as the court's ruling on plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction.

7. FORMS

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that at the last Commission meeting the Commission approved the Spanish language absentee ballot application. She stated that since that time it has come to the attention of the Election Division that there were some minor errors with the translation on the form. She stated that this has been corrected and that she would ask the Commission to approve a revised version of the Spanish language absentee ballot application. She stated that order number 2000-155 would approve the revised form.

The Chair asked if there were any questions. Mr. Perkins asked who was checking the Spanish on the form. Ms. Robertson stated that Latisa Terrel who is in the department of natural resources reviewed the form. Mr. Valentine indicated that the form was also submitted to (inaudible), the Mayor's Hispanic Task Force, and representative Jessie Villalpando.

Mr. Long observed that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles was also issuing a driver's manual in Spanish.

Mr. Long moved that order 2000-155 approving the revised Spanish language absentee ballot application be adopted. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question and declared with four members voting aye (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan) and no member voting nay, the motion was adopted.

8. VOTING SYSTEMS

The Chair recognized Ms. Marendt who indicated that she had performed some research on the voting system issue and she was providing the Commission with some information she had developed in her research. Ms. Marendt indicated to the members that they might want to take this information with them and study it and ask follow up questions at the next meeting.

Mr. Morgan indicated that this was a step in the right direction. Mr. Long asked if there were any requests for approval pending that are time sensitive in relation to the upcoming election.

Ms. Marendt stated that this issue had been addressed at the Commissions' last meeting. She stated that it depended on your perspective. She stated there was testimony at the last meeting from the vendors that they would like to see approvals before the election. She further stated that Mr. Long had asked the vendors whether their voting machines would work in the upcoming election even if the enhancements reflected in the vendors' requests for approval were not made. She stated that the vendors indicated at that meeting that the machines would function properly for the upcoming election without the enhancements that they are requesting the Commission to approve. The Chair requested whether any vendor representative wished to comment.

Steve Shamo, representative of MicroVote, stated that he was handing to the Commission a summary of the manner in which voting system approval was conducted in the past. He stated that since 1984 over a million registered voters in Indiana voted on one type of MicroVote system. He stated that the requested approval for software changes is not critical to the upcoming election, however, by questioning the past certification of systems that have been in operation for the past 16 years it seems the Commission is questioning whether the system is a qualified system. He stated that there has not been a problem with this system in tabulating votes in the last 10 years.

He further stated that he brought Jim Ries with him today because Mr. Ries has been involved in the certification process from the very beginning. Mr. Ries asked the Commission if there were any procedures that allowed for support maintenance for existing software. He stated that the former Voting Systems Advisory Committee did address emergency changes before an election. He stated that the voting system was certified before the existing 1990 FEC guidelines and he asked whether there were procedures that allowed for support maintenance in those guidelines.

The Chair stated that he missed the last meeting so he did not know what was discussed concerning some questions that he had raised at the meeting before last. He stated that there was one county where the election workers had erased all the data on a tape. He asked what system was involved in that incident. Ms. Robertson said it involved a GBS system in use in Scott County.

The Chair recognized Steve Corey of GBS who stated that the precinct involved was able to produce the results tape when the precinct was closed. He stated that the memory tape was erased when they turned the tape in. He stated that he could not determine how the precinct workers actually erased the tape but they did print out the results tape before the memory tape was erased. He stated the results tape was then manually entered into the computer at the central location during canvassing of all the results so that the county was able to complete a total vote count despite the erasure of the tape.

The Chair asked if there was any information on how the poll workers erased the memory tape. Mr. Corey stated on any system in use the memory cartridges can be erased. He believes that the election workers went farther into the system than they were instructed. He stated that they tried to find out more specifically what happened but that they didn't really know. He stated that he does know that they printed the results before the cartridge was erased.

The Chair asked about the problem in the other county. Ms. Marendt stated that another county had double counted some precincts in Allen County. Mr. Shamo stated that this particular sequence of events had not occurred before and exposed a bug in the software. He stated that Allen County had 180 some precincts and they were changing the editing of the number of registered voters in the software. He stated that they discovered on a four stroke sequence, a very rare occurrence, an improper use of an enter key exposed a bug that had been in the software all the time. He stated that this is one of the corrections they want to have in place before November. He stated that it is not critical to change this prior to the election because they have issued explicit instructions to avoid the problematic keystrokes, however, it is something that can be addressed by software upgrades prior to the election. He stated, in addition, the other things addressed in their request are enhancements.

He stated further that they are not going to pretend that their MEMS software will pass Nichols certification. He stated that the MEMS software was written in a language prior to the development of the standards applied by Nichols. He further stated that there are much more complicated manners to determine whether a voting system will perform. He stated that this is one of the problems they have with the Independent Testing Authority ("ITA") certification process. He stated that they were the first company to support ITA by voluntarily taking their equipment for certification before the state mandated it. He stated that they believe in the process. He stated the problem is that the Nichols certification process was put in place to preempt the problems that are coming out with electronic ballot presentation, where the entire system is dependent on software. He stated, in contrast, they have 5 audit trails in their system. He stated that the system caught the problem reported to the Commission because it has audit trails. He stated that his concern is that the Commission may require the Nichols and Wylie certification for every system upgrade of existing applications and that this will affect the systems in use in 25 of the 92 counties in Indiana who have not experienced any problem with the system.

The Chair asked for a clarification of what they were changing in Allen County where the bug was discovered. Mr. Shamo stated that in the precinct file there are 5 bits of information you can enter. He stated that 4 of them have to be put into the divisional base program: precinct number, precinct name, ballot number, and absentee ballot number. He stated that the program associates all ballot information for that precinct. He stated that the last item of information is registered voter totals. He stated that when registered voter totals are put into the system the information goes to each precinct one by one. The information is entered to calculate voter turnout per precinct. He stated that the problem occurred when, after programming the machine for the election, they perform a re-initialization of the system. He explained that this re-initialization zeros out everything and locks it into place. He stated that if you go back intro the system after this point you are forcing the system to re-initialize. He stated that the bug occurred when the editor (inaudible) reached into the program files for (inaudible).

The Chair stated that he initially thought that he was talking about changing the number of registered voters on election day and he knows those numbers are determined 30 days before the election and programmed into the machines so that no one has to touch the numbers of registered voters on election day. Mr. Shamo stated that Allen County changed an error they had discovered in their input so they changed it on Election Day after the system was re-initialized and this is what caused the problem.

The Chair stated that one of the concerns he has is that the Commission doesn't know if there have been problems in the past that have not been brought to the attention of the Commission. He stated that there were at least three problems that were discovered during the last primary. He stated that he was about the Commission being blamed for approving software changes that cause errors to occur since the Commission is the entity charged with certifying the systems.

Mr. Long stated that he thought that the Commission was being asked to certify changes to voting systems that the Commission never approved in the first place. He explained that this makes him uncomfortable. Mr. Morgan stated that he believed that the Commission was working with the vendors to take care of some of the problems. He stated that he felt that everyone's goal was to uphold the integrity of elections. He stated that he felt like the Commission was making progress on the issue. He stated that it was good to know that the fact that the Commission needed some time to consider these issues would not impede the upcoming election.

Mr. Shamo stated that he was concerned that the Commission was moving in a direction where software in use in the field was simply not going to be accepted by the state. He stated that this situation is highly uncomfortable for the vendors and even more so for the users of these systems. He stated that upgrades had to be made to accommodate issues like elections on the extra day in a leap year. He expressed concern that the letter from the Doug (inaudible) downplayed the expense of having to go through the ITA certification process. He stated that for some reason the Election Center doesn't any problem with the vendors spending $25,000 every 6 months. He stated that they do say it isn't that much if you don't have a total re-write but if we would take all of the new release issues to the ITA, and have to pay for review of each change, it would cost well over the $30,000 mark.

Mr. Long asked whether these software changes were being sold to customers. Mr. Shamo stated that they have a dilemma. He stated that they have software maintenance agreements with their customers for $1500 per year, which is very low, and it includes all helpdesk applications and all upgrades. He stated that if they have no means to upgrade software they may have to take the position that they will not provide support for the software because of the requirement of having to go through the Nichols certification.

Mr. Long stated that other software companies routinely withdrew support for older versions of software. He stated, for example, Microsoft took the position that it wouldn't provide support for Widows 95 anymore. Mr. Shamo responded by stating that the vendors have to provide support to the counties for their systems and increased costs of such support would be passed on to their customer.

Mr. Long stated that he was concerned with Mr. Shamo's statement that there is no way that their system would meet the qualifications of the FEC or the Nichols certification. Mr. Ries stated that the application involved was written long before the development of the FEC standards. He stated that the software code in their system was written in a manner that exceeds the number of lines of code permitted by the FEC standards by module. He stated that this is a technicality that has nothing to do with the functionality of the software.

Ms. Marendt stated that there have been no new standards established by the FEC in 10 years but that the FEC was coming out with new standards and she wanted to know how the new standards would relate to the vendor's upgrades. Mr. Shamo stated that their systems consist of firmware resident on the machine. He stated that this firmware can be hand programmed and this passed ITA certification before ITA certification was even mandated by the state. He stated that the software application is separate and is used for two functions: to print ballots and to tabulate votes. He stated that the FEC guidelines that are currently being released are addressing the changes in voting systems that have been taking place. The FEC guidelines will not indicate that older voting systems cannot be used anymore. The FEC guidelines will address new voting systems whose audit ability depends upon the integrity of the software.

Ms. Marendt asked whether the new FEC standards would require current systems to go back and be tested for compliance with the new standards. Mr. Shamo stated that the new standards would not apply to older voting machines. He stated that he hasn't seen the new standards and did not know how they might apply to software changes. He stated that he was not arguing that the ITA is a poor system but that the states should not be adopting it as a face value certification. He stated further that the ITA is not going to back the Commission up on anything. He stated that the ITA certification simply means the system has passed all these heat, humidity and all these standard tests. He stated that if Marion County buys a voting system, and you suddenly find out it can't program the ballots in Marion County, the ITA will say that its not our rule but your rule.

Ms. Marendt stated that this was not her understanding at all. She stated that her understanding was that there were two testing authorities: one does the heat and drop type tests and the other do software testing.

Mr. Shamo stated that in Noble County they have a school board race coming up and a feature on their voting system called a "secondary lockout". He stated that they have three school board races: A, B and C. He stated that the vote limit is one candidate for each office but the overall vote limit for the three offices is two candidates. He said if you vote candidate A and candidate B, the system will lock you out not to vote in C. He explained that Wylie and Nichols would never test for that application.

Jim Ries stated that NASED qualifies to standards; they do not certify the application for state specific use. He said that it is up to each individual state to certify the product. He stated that some states allow straight party vote and other don't and there are other issues that are state specific that the federal standards do not test for.

Candy Marendt stated that, while this is true, the ITA does test to determine if a particular system has, for example, a lockout feature s that it is capable of handling state specific requirements.

Steve Shamo responded by stating that this was not necessarily true. He further stated that the ITA does (inaudible) testing. He stated that the type of testing performed is not a hands-on testing to determine if the particular voting system works. He stated that all the ITA does is look at source code and determine if the modules are designed in a supportable manner and that your individual modules are not affecting all the modules in that software. He stated that at no time do they actually program a ballot in it. He stated that the ITA may run a ballot through if it's an optical ballot system, however, they are not going to program an election. He stated that the ITA's job is simply to count code and they are probably less qualified than a person with (inaudible) to determine if it going to operate (inaudible). He stated that while he doesn't want to talk down the ITA, he does see things that get through the ITA process that should not. He stated that the example he used in the last meeting to illustrate this fact is that in Iowa a voting system got through the ITA that allowed a person to vote for the same candidate three times.

The Chair recognized Steve Corey. Mr. Corey stated that with most of the systems, once they are programmed, they can be tested to determine that the functions are working. He stated that after the testing has been performed, the units are put into election mode and the machines are sealed. He stated further that what had happened in the particular incident mentioned earlier was that one of the units went out to a precinct in Scott County while it was still in test mode and that this gave the poll workers the ability to get into the system and keep pushing buttons and erase election results. He stated that this incident occurred with the GBS Accuvote optical scan system. He stated that the essential operating software that they brought before the Commission initially is the same software that they have now, that is, they have put no changes in it and has been through ITA testing.

Mr. Shamo asked if there was any likelihood of getting the software upgraded and in place prior to the November election. He stated that Allen County wants to make sure they don't have the same problem again and they are their highest level user and Allen County also is requesting the enhancement that would help them in processing a high level of absentee voting.

The Chair asked when the software would have to be approved to get the sought after changes implemented before the election. Mr. Shamo stated that the way the upgrade works is that there are two directories: a pin directory, which is your application of software, and a data directory, which is election specific information. He stated that the upgrade does not affect the data directory so they can begin to program the election without the upgrades and the upgrades could be implemented up to the date of the election except for concerns that local officials may have with changing a system so close to the election. He stated that he would like to get the changes approved by early October to allow everyone who wanted the changes the opportunity to put them in place before the election.

The Chair stated that he was not prepared to do anything today and could not guarantee that he could do anything at the September meeting.

Mr. Long requested clarification of the choices the Commission has once they have reviewed the available information. Mr. Long stated that what he would like to have is something that summarizes the issues before the Commission. He asked if the choices are: approval, rejection, or requiring additional information before approval or rejection.

Ms. Marendt stated that she thinks those are the choices. She stated that there is a dilemma and that there are financial concerns for the counties. She stated if the machines have to go back through the initial certification then this would have a cost associated with it and this cost would have to be weighed against the level of security the Commission has with the system. She stated that she has expressed her hope that the Commission would not de-certify any system abruptly and leave the counties exposed to an abrupt financial liability. She stated that the Commission must balance the potential financial impact with the safety and integrity of elections. She stated that she is attempting to provide the Commission with as much accurate information as possible and she hoped that the vendors were doing the same.

Mr. Shamo stated his concern that allowances have been made for the different systems in use in Indiana in the past and there are different concerns between a system like theirs, that has audit trails, and a system that is dependent entirely on software for tabulation.

Ms. Marendt stated that the difference between what was done in the past and now is that there was a vacuum created when the Voting Systems Advisory Committee ("VSAC") was abolished. She stated she doesn't know why that committee was abolished but she has reams of information about their activities in site visits and demonstrations and other detailed investigations into voting systems. She stated that when that committee disbanded, this left the two co-directors to make a recommendation to the Commission. She stated that she does not have the technical expertise to do so. She stated that VSAC had technical experts assisting them in their investigations and the Co-Directors do not.

The Chair stated that he was on the Commission when VSAC was in existence and he recalls that all of the members of the Commission were in favor of doing away with that committee because if the Commission made the final decision on approval of voting systems then the Commission should be the ones to make sure the systems were being tested.

Ms. Marendt stated that having the Commission become much more hands-on in the approval process is another possibility for the Commission to pursue.

The Chair recognized Jack Black who stated that he just wanted to comment to the Commission in general that the Commission has to consider a lot of things but they should look at the historical record also. He stated that ES&S has been conducting elections in Indiana for 20 years and the fact that there were three problems in the spring primary should be considered (inaudible) and the logic and accuracy tests performed on the voting systems before the election show that the voting systems are properly counting votes. He stated that this test is performed before the public that it must be performed before the election.

Mr. Long stated that he is leaning toward having the Independent Testing Authorities certify the changes to the system but the major concern expressed in opposition is the expense.

Mr. Shamo also stated that there are backlogs with these Independent Testing Authorities that also cause time delays that should be considered.

Mr. Black stated that he questioned whether there were problems with voting systems or the Commission would have heard about the problems. He stated that there are probably procedural problems or people problems but he would venture to guess that software and hardware problems were minimal.

The Chair stated that one of the things the Commission is considering is developing a way for the circuit court clerks to report problems that they have with voting systems because there is currently no mechanism in place to bring such problems to the attention of the Commission. The Chair did not know how the current problems came to the attention of the Commission.

Ms. Marendt stated that a caller had stated that someone had come in a re-programmed a voting machine in the middle of the election. She stated that the Election Division found the problem with the double reporting during data entry. She stated the Scott County called and advised the Election Division about the blank cartridge problem

Mr. Long stated that the Commission ought to do a form the clerks can fill out to report such problems. Ms. Robertson stated that the Commission could add a voting systems reporting feature to an election report that the Election Division already had in place.

The Chair stated that for the next meeting he would like to see a form for the clerks and a summary of the changes that have been brought before the Commission for approval.

Mr. Long stated that he would like to have a summary of either staff's recommendations or, if the staff had no recommendations, at least a description of the options available to the Commission.

Mr. Valentine reminded the Commission that Indiana Code 3-11-15-51 gives the Commission the right to deem that a software change is not significant enough to send it back through for testing by the Independent Testing Authorities. He stated that this is where he feels the Commission and staff are floundering, that is, the determination of what is significant enough, or what may affect the tabulation function, such that the system should be sent back to the ITA. He also stated that the vendors have sent letters to the Commission describing the changes and that if there is additional information that the Commission requires then we should establish a format for that also.

Mr. Long stated that the question he has for the attorneys is that once a system before the Commission has been grand fathered because it was approved prior to the FEC standards established in 1990, then at what point do changes in the system take it out of its grand fathered status. He stated that he viewed this like a grand fathered use in a non-conforming pre-existing use zoning case.

Ms. Robertson stated that this is a good question for the Election Center also. She stated that Indiana couldn't be the only state that is dealing with this question.

Mr. Ries stated that one could take a hard line that a change is a change. He said that a discussion started two years ago discussed what constituted a change. He stated that if you change a ballot preparation or reporting module, unfortunately that changes the executable software, however, the more important question is whether those changes affect the core module, the standards, conformance, compliance, logic and accuracy of the voting system. He said the answer is usually "no."

Mr. Long said that he agreed with that if the system has been in use for 20 years, however, once changes are made to modernize the system he wants to know at what point does the system need to be re-tested.

Ms. Marendt stated that she was going to a NASED conference in San Francisco and hopefully we will be able to glean some more information.

Mr. Long stated that maybe the vendors should address what other states are doing. He stated that he would prefer to be proactive on this issue.

Mr. Valentine stated he wanted to address Mr. Shamo's claim that their system is really a paper ballot system. He stated that this is not necessarily for the Commission determine, the statute sets forth the testing procedures for the voting systems. He stated also that the vendors have brought many issues to the Election Division and Commission but they have not made these issues clear to the General Assembly. He stated that he felt that the discussion should be limited to what can be done under present law and not what may happen under a hypothetical future law.

Mr. Shamo stated that the difference in systems do make a difference in, for example, a recount situation where the optical scan systems provide the ability to count the ballot cards manually and a DRE system does not.

Mr. Black asked the Commission to consider how many elections have been overturned because of an error in the voting system.

Mr. Long stated that there are several issues the Commission is dealing with and perhaps there are some parts of the vendor's requests that are more pressing for this election cycle than other parts and that perhaps the Commission could deal with the more pressing requests before the November election.

Mr. Shamo stated that if the Commission is primarily concerned about the Allen County situation then they could demonstrate to the Commission that the upgrade would resolve the situation for the future.

Mr. Long stated that he understands some problems can come up for the first time during the use of a voting system and that this part of progress. He expressed hope that his comments were not being interpreted by the vendors to mean that he did not trust the vendors. He stated that he felt that the vendors were all genuinely dedicated to doing a good job.

The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There being none, the Chair asked if there was any other business before the Commission.

9. OTHER BUSINESS

The chair recognized Ms. Marendt who advised the Commission that the Election Division has chosen a date for the annual training conference. She stated that according to the responses received form a poll conducted of the circuit court clerks, the Election Division chose January 9, 2001 as the date for the conference. She stated that this conference would be a one-day conference at the downtown Hyatt. She stated that although the statute does not require the annual conference in a year in which there is no election, the Election Division felt that since there would be some new clerks coming into office, and during next year there will be issues surrounding the counties' efforts to re-precinct, the annual conference would be beneficial.

Mr. Long asked if this conference was in lieu of the December meeting held in past years. Ms. Marendt indicated that it was.

10. ADJOURNMENT

The Chair asked if there was any further business. There being no response, Mr. Long moved that the Commission adjourn. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted. The Commission then adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,