Secretary of State: Election Division: May 1999 Meeting Minutes

Indiana Election Commission

MINUTES

MAY 27, 1999

MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Cruea, Chairman of the Indiana Election Commission [IEC]; S. Anthony Long, Butch Morgan; Robert Bohnsack, proxy for Joseph M. Perkins, Jr.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph M. Perkins, Jr.

STAFF ATTENDING: Laurie P. Christie, Co-Director, Election Division, Office of the Indiana Secretary of State ("Election Division"); Spencer Valentine, Co-Director, Election Division; J. Bradley King, Co-General Counsel, IEC and Election Division; Kristi Robertson, Co-General Counsel, IEC and Election Division; Pam Potesta, Co-Director, Campaign Finance, Election Division; Michelle Thompson, Co-Director, Campaign Finance, Election Division; Bruce Northern, NVRA and Precincts Coordinator.

ALSO ATTENDING: Mr. Kevin Corcoran, of The Times of Northwestern Indiana; Mr. Steve Corey of Governmental Business Systems (GBS); Mr. David L. Daugherty, of Warren; Mr. Ken Gibson, of Fidlar & Chambers; Mr. Charles T. Hiltunen, of Indianapolis, representing the Indiana Orthopedic Society; Mr. Jeff Hintz, of Global Election Systems; Mr. David Hughes, of Election Systems & Software (ES&S); Mr. William S. Keown, of Indianapolis, representing Meijer, Inc.; Mr. Robb McGinnis, of ES&S; Mr. Kurt Matz, of Munster; Mr. Timothy Petersen, of Indianapolis; Ms. Linda Rogan, office of Secretary of State; Mr. Doug Simpson, of Munster; Mr. Paul Van Camp, of Fidlar & Chambers; Mr. Don Vopalensky, of Global Election Systems; Ms. Allison D. Wharry, of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, Indianapolis; Mr. David H. Wiesman, of Indianapolis, representing the Indiana Heath & Hospital Association.

1. CALL TO ORDER:

The chair called the May 27, 1999 meeting of the Indiana Election Commission to order at 10:09 a.m. in Training Center Room 8, Indiana Government Center South, 402 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. He noted that proper notice of the meeting had been given, as required by state law, and that a quorum of Commission members was present. The chair noted that Mr. Perkins was absent due to a scheduling conflict, and that Mr. Morgan was expected to arrive momentarily.

A copy of the meeting notice and agenda is 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. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OF PROXY MEMBERS:

The chair noted that a document had been filed with the Election Division on May 25, 1999 by Mr. Perkins designating Mr. Robert Bohnsack as his proxy for this meeting. A copy of this proxy is incorporated by reference in these minutes. The chair welcomed Mr. Bohnsack and thanked him for his participation.

3. LITIGATION REPORT:

A. ANDERSON v. LONG

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson, who noted that Commission members had received a memorandum from herself dated May 24, 1999 entitled "Litigation Update." A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes. Ms. Robertson stated that the District Court would be conducting a hearing on May 28, 1999 concerning the settlement of this case, and noted that Commission members had been provided with the Attorney General's response to the court's request for a status report concerning this litigation. A copy of this seven page document is incorporated by reference in these minutes. Ms. Robertson noted that on May 3, 1999, Governor O'Bannon had signed House Enrolled Act 1440, which embodied the legislative portion of the settlement in this case.

B. BAPAC v. BALDWIN

Ms. Robertson reported that the Indiana Supreme Court was still considering the question certified to the court by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning whether the definition of "political action committee" under IC 3-5-2-37 only includes groups who engage in "express advocacy."

C. BENTZ v. JUDD

Ms. Robertson stated that Commission members had been provided with a copy of the two page chronological case summary of this matter from Jennings County. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes. She noted that although the trial court judge had dismissed this action in December 1998, the plaintiff had filed a Praecipe during the same month. She added that no further action had been taken. Mr. Long remarked that since the deadline for pursuing an appeal had expired under the Trial Rules, there should be no further developments in this case.

D. LEAF v. ABELL

Ms. Robertson reported that the court had dismissed the state claims against the Election Commission, and that a Motion for Summary Judgment to remove the Election Commission members from the case in their individual capacities was pending before the court.

E. SPRINGER v. ALABAMA

Ms. Robertson stated that the Attorney General had filed a Motion to Dismiss in this case, which is still pending before the court.

F. MAJORS v. IEC

Ms. Robertson noted that this case involved the assessment of campaign finance fines by the Election Commission against certain Libertarian Party candidates for state legislative office. She reported that the Marion County Superior Court did not grant the plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in this case, and provided a one page copy of the court's ruling, which is incorporated by reference in these minutes. She noted that plaintiffs have filed a Praecipe to appeal this case.

The chair thanked Ms. Robertson for her report.

4. APPROVAL OF MARCH 25, 1999 MINUTES:

The chair welcomed Mr. Morgan upon his arrival at the Commission meeting. The chair noted that each Commission member had previously received a draft of the proposed Commission minutes for the March 25, 1999 regular meeting. There being no corrections, Mr. Cruea moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Long seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

5. CAMPAIGN FINANCE ENFORCEMENT:

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:

The chair directed Mr. King to administer the oath to all individuals who wished to testify in any cause to be heard before the Commission on this date. After the administration of the oath, the chair asked that all individuals testifying limit their remarks to three minutes.

A. ADOPTION OF FINAL ORDERS 1999-26 THROUGH 1999-52 (CAUSES HEARD MARCH 25, 1999):

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that Commission members had received a copy of proposed Final Orders 1999-26 through 1999-52, which reflected the enforcement actions taken by the Commission at its March 25, 1999 meeting. After reviewing the proposed Final Orders, the chair asked if any individual wished to testify concerning the proposed Final Orders.

The chair recognized Mr. Robbin Stewart, who stated that he was appearing on behalf of Victor Germann, the candidate referenced in Final Orders 1999-49, 1999-50, and 1999-51. Mr. Stewart said that while he was not waiving his objection to the Commission's lack of jurisdiction in these matters due to the failure of Mr. Germann's committee to raise or expend at least $100 on behalf of his election, he moved that the Commission reconsider its actions of March 25, 1999 concerning the civil penalties to be assessed against Mr. Germann.

Mr. Stewart remarked that although the Commission had not assessed the full amount of the proposed penalties against Mr. Germann in these causes, the Commission had reduced the penalties in an amount that was inconsistent and unjust when compared with its actions regarding other candidates. He noted that although the proposed civil penalties had arisen from Mr. Germann's failure to file three different reports before the applicable deadlines, Mr. Germann had not previously appeared before the Commission, and that all three causes were heard simultaneously. Mr. Stewart stated that in the past the Commission had reduced proposed penalties by a smaller proportion when a candidate or committee had previously appeared before the Commission, and then later appeared before the Commission concerning a subsequent violation. He said that Mr. Germann's situation was not comparable to committees appearing before the Commission again after a previous enforcement hearing had been conducted.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King stated that the proposed penalty and actual penalty assessed by the Commission in these causes were:

(1) Cause #99-4361-008 Order 1999-49 Proposed: $1,005.95 Assessed: $155.75

(2) Cause #99-4361-029 Order 1999-50 Proposed: $1,005.95 Assessed: $505.75

(3) Cause #99-4361-097 Order 1999-51 Proposed: $ 652.98 Assessed: $652.98

for a total assessed civil penalty of $1,314.48. Mr. Stewart disputed this calculation, stating that pleadings filed by the Attorney General before the Marion County Superior Court in the IEC v. Majors case indicated that the total civil penalty proposed to be assessed against Mr. Germann was $652.98. Mr. King responded that although there had been some question regarding the exact amount of the civil penalties following the March 25, 1999 meeting due to the numerous mailing costs assessed in these causes, the final orders in these matters had been prepared based on the understanding that the Commission intended to include all mailing costs properly documented by

the Election Division. Mr. Long requested that staff advise the Attorney General's office of this matter so that any supplemental pleadings would be filed with the Marion County Superior Court if the Attorney General determined it to be proper to do so.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Long, that the Motion to Reconsider made in the above referenced causes be denied. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Long, that Orders 1999-26 through 1999-52 be adopted as presented. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

B. CONTINUED CAUSES FROM MARCH 25, 1999 MEETING:

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who referred Commission members to a six page document dated May 26, 1999, 3:03:37 p.m., and entitled "Late Committee Filings before the Indiana Election Commission." The Commission consented to the introduction of this document as evidence in each of the causes to be heard before the Commission on this date. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Cause 99-4386-100 Richard E. Villegas

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this matter was One Thousand Five Dollars and Ninety Six Cents ($1,005.96), being One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a delinquent 1998 annual report (due by noon January 20, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on February 11, 1999), and Five Dollars and Ninety Six Cents ($5.96) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been brought before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause, and that the candidate closed this committee at the time of filing this report.

Ms. Thompson noted that the Commission had received a photocopy of the CFA-4 filed by this committee with the Marion County Election Board on January 13, 1999. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After reviewing the documents, the chair asked if any individual was present to testify regarding this matter. The chair recognized Mr. Robbin Stewart, who stated that he was appearing on behalf of Mr. Villegas in this matter.

Mr. Stewart said that the document indicated that Mr. Villegas had filed the committee's campaign finance report with the Marion County Election Board before the January 20, 1999 deadline, and had merely failed to file a copy of the report with the Election Division.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Long noted that the report showed that the committee had raised and expended zero dollars, and that in accordance with the Commission's past practice in similar cases, he moved to dismiss this cause. Mr. Bohnsack seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4406-101 Rebecca Majors for State Representative

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this matter was One Thousand Five Dollars and Ninety Six Cents ($1,005.96), being One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a delinquent 1998 annual report (due by noon January 20, 1999, and which had not yet been filed with the Election Division), and Five Dollars and Ninety Six Cents ($5.96) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been brought before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause, and that the candidate closed this committee at the time of filing this report.

The chair asked if any individual was present to testify regarding this matter. The chair recognized Mr. Robbin Stewart, who stated that he was appearing on behalf of Ms. Majors in this matter, and Ms. Sara Cotham, Executive Director of the Indiana Libertarian Party. Ms. Cotham noted that Ms. Majors had been a first time candidate for Indiana State Representative, but that in August 1998, the Commission had ordered her name removed from the ballot upon determining that she did not meet the constitutional minimum age requirement to serve in that office. Ms. Cotham requested that the Commission reduce or waive the proposed civil penalty entirely since Ms. Majors had not continued her candidacy after August 1998.

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who asked Mr. Stewart why the annual report for this committee had not been filed before being presented into evidence at the Commission's hearing today. Mr. Stewart responded that the report had been included in the pleadings filed with the Marion County Superior Court in the Majors v. IEC case earlier this month. Mr. Long noted that Indiana Code 3-14-1-14 provides that a person who fails to file a campaign finance report with the proper office commits a Class B misdemeanor, and that this committee should have filed its final report before the Commission meeting today.

Mr. Stewart stated that by appearing on behalf of Ms. Majors, he was not waiving his objection to the Commission's lack of jurisdiction in this cause due to the failure of Ms. Majors's committee to raise or expend at least $100 on behalf of her election. He said that nonetheless, for the reasons offered in Ms. Cotham's testimony, the Commission should reduce or waive the civil penalty against Ms. Majors in this cause.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Cruea moved that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Five Dollars and Ninety Six Cents ($255.96), being a civil penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250), plus Five Dollars and Ninety Six Cents ($5.96) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. Mr. Long seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

C. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER:

Cause 99-4313-034 Committee to Elect Linda Lawson

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the civil penalty assessed in this cause by Order 1999-36 was Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($52.98), being Fifty Dollars ($50) for a delinquent 1998 annual report (which was due by noon January 20, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on January 20, 1999 at 12:15 p.m.), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 17, 1999 from the Honorable Linda Lawson, Indiana State Representative, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After Commission members reviewed this letter, the chair asked if there was any person present to speak on behalf of this committee. There being no response and no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Cruea, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; (2) assess a civil penalty of Fourteen Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($14.48), being a civil penalty of Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12.50), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division; and (3) amend Order 1999-36 to delete all references to

this committee and cause. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

D. DELINQUENT 1998 ANNUAL REPORTS:

Cause 99-0750-102 Fourth District Republican Central Committee

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this matter was Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($52.98), being Fifty Dollars ($50) for a delinquent 1998 annual report (due by noon March 1, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on March 2, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause on one occasion (the 1996 pre-primary report). Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a photocopy of a three page document from this committee consisting of the certified mail envelope and receipts for the mailing of this report to the Election Division. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After reviewing the documents, the chair asked if any individual was present to testify regarding this matter. The chair recognized Mr. David Daugherty, who stated that he was the treasurer of this committee. Mr. Daugherty stated that the postmarks shown on the photocopies established that the committee's annual report had been mailed from Warren, Indiana, on February 21, but did not arrive at the Election Division office until March 2, 1999. He said that he could not explain why the mail delivery in this case took so long, and that he ordinarily sent certified mailings to Indianapolis from Warren that were received within three or four days.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Long stated that in accordance with the Commission's past practice in similar cases, he moved to dismiss this cause. Mr. Cruea seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

E. DELINQUENT 1999 PRE-PRIMARY REPORTS:
Cause 99-0414-105 Friends of Indiana Hospitals

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this matter was Seven Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($702.98), being Seven Hundred Dollars ($700) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 30, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received two documents: (1) an appearance from Ms. Allison D. Wharry dated May 27, 1999; and (2) a two page letter to the Co-Directors dated May 13, 1999 from Mr. David H. Wiesman, Vice-President of the Indiana Health & Hospital Association concerning this matter. A copy of each document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After reviewing the documents, the chair asked if any individual was present to testify regarding this matter. The chair recognized Ms. Wharry, who stated that the letter from Mr. Wiesman indicated that the committee had attempted to hand deliver its report after noon on the filing deadline date, and was advised by Ms. Potesta that the committee could avoid a civil penalty by mailing the letter so that it would be postmarked on April 16, 1999. Ms. Wharry added that the committee then mailed the report, but due to a typographical error in the Election Division address, the report was returned by the Postal Service after the deadline date. She noted that the committee had filed a copy of this report immediately upon receiving a delinquency notice from the Election Division.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Long stated that in accordance with the Commission's past practice in similar cases, he moved to dismiss this cause. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4420-121 Indiana Orthopedic Society

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was One Thousand Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($1,002.98), being One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 27, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause.

Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 27, 1999 from Charles T. Hiltunen, III, representing the Indiana Orthopedic Society, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After Commission members reviewed this letter, the chair asked if there was any person present to speak on behalf of this committee. The chair recognized Mr. Hiltunen, who stated that the committee had mistakenly relied on a reference in the version of the Campaign Finance Manual found on the Election Division's web site, which referred to filing the pre-primary report eighteen days before the general election. He added that the committee had also misunderstood the filing requirements for political action committees in municipal election years. Mr. Hiltunen remarked that nonetheless, the committee accepted its responsibility for the delinquent filing in this matter.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($252.98), being a civil penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-3962-115 Munster Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #147 PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Nine Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($902.98), being Nine Hundred Dollars ($900) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 4, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause (a delinquent 1997 annual report). Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 3, 1999 to herself from Mr. Kurt Matz, treasurer of the committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After Commission members reviewed this letter, the chair asked if there was any person present to speak on behalf of this committee. The chair recognized Mr. Matz, who stated that the committee had mistakenly relied on information from an unidentified Election Division staff member, who had told him that the committee was not required to file a pre-primary report

during a municipal election year. In response to a question from the chair, Mr. Matz stated that the telephone call referenced in his letter had occurred on March 29, not May 29, 1999.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Matz stated that this committee had functioned as a political action committee for at least four years, and had previously been fined $400 by the Election Commission for a delinquent report. He added that the committee had not engaged in any activity during the period covered by the 1999 pre-primary report.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Two Hundred Twenty Seven Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($227.98), being a civil penalty of Two Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($225.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-1250-106 Indiana NARAL PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Nine Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($952.98), being Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars ($950) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 5, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for three campaign finance enforcement causes (a delinquent 1996 pre-primary, a delinquent 1997 annual report, and a delinquent 1998 annual report). Ms. Thompson noted that the 1999 pre-primary report was also a final report disbanding this committee.

The chair asked if there was any person present to speak on behalf of this committee. The chair recognized Mr. Tim Peterson, who stated that the committee had relied on volunteer staffing to complete these reports, and had disbanded when it became apparent that this approach was not practical.

There being no further testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Cruea, that the Commission assess a civil penalty of Nine Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($952.98), being a civil penalty of Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars ($950.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4230-117 Clay County Republican Central Committee

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this matter was One Thousand Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($1,002.98), being One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 12, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a four page letter to the chair dated May 20, 1999 from Mr. Garry Warren, the treasurer of this committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After reviewing the document, the chair asked if any individual was present to testify regarding this matter. There was no response. There being no testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Long noted that the letter indicated that this report had been filed with the appropriate county election board, and stated that in accordance with the Commission's past practice in similar cases, he moved to dismiss this cause. Mr. Morgan seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4418-120 Newton County Democratic Committee

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this matter was One Thousand Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($1,002.98), being One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 21, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a one page letter dated May 21, 1999 from Ms. Dorothy J. Sargent,

treasurer of the committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Cause 99-0107-103 Transpac, PAC of Transtar

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this matter was Seven Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($702.98), being Seven Hundred Dollars ($700) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 30, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a two page letter dated May 20, 1999 from Ms. Leann Greenwald, attorney for Transtar, concerning this matter. A copy of this document is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that the Transtar letter raised an issue concerning the interpretation of the campaign finance requirements under Indiana Code 3-9-5-6. He said that he and Ms. Robertson had reviewed this statute, and disagreed with the analysis set forth in this letter.

Mr. Long stated that he believed the proper course would be to direct staff to respond to the Transtar letter, and to continue this matter until the next Commission meeting to permit Transtar to consider the staff's response. Mr. Cruea seconded this motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-0362-104 Public Employees Organized to Promote Legislation

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Nine Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($902.98), being Nine Hundred Dollars ($900) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 4, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 10, 1999 to herself from Mr. Chung Hui, Political Research Analyst, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

After Commission members reviewed this letter, the chair asked if there was any person present to speak on behalf of this committee. There was no response. There being no testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Two Hundred Twenty Seven Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($227.98), being a civil penalty of Two Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($225.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-1767-109 Indiana Cable PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was One Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($152.98), being One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 19, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 21, 1999 to Ms. Potesta from Ms. Dottie Hancock, Executive Director of the Indiana Cable Telecommunications Association, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Forty Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($40.48), being a civil penalty of Thirty Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($37.50), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-3685-113 French Lick Idea Fund

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Three Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($352.98), being Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 23, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 26, 1999 from Ms. Janet Crews, treasurer of this committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Ninety Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($90.48), being a civil penalty of Eighty Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($87.50), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4171-116 Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Six Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($602.98), being Six Hundred Dollars ($600) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 28, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause.

The chair asked if there was any person present to speak on behalf of this committee. There was no response. There being no testimony, Mr. Cruea moved that the hearing in this cause be closed. The Commission adopted this motion by consent.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of One Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($152.98), being a civil penalty of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4316-118 Dearborn County Betterment Foundation

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was One Thousand Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($1,002.98), being One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 7, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause.

Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4428-122 St. Joseph Valley Plumbing, Heating and Cooling PAC Fund

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Seven Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($702.98), being Seven Hundred Dollars ($700) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 30, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had not previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause. Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 17, 1999 from Mr. Michael A. Trippel of Thorne, Grodnik, Ransel, Duncan, Byron & Hostetler, LLP, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of One Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($177.98), being a civil penalty of One Hundred Seventy Five Dollars ($175.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4404-123 Sierra Club PAC

Commission members had received a letter dated May 26, 1999 to the chair from Ms. JauNae M. Hanger, Treasurer of this committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Forty Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($40.48), being a civil penalty of Thirty Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($37.50), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-1545-107 Indiana Beef Cattle Association PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Two Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($252.98), being Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 21, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause (a delinquent 1996 pre-primary report). Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a two page letter dated May 25, 1999 from Mr. Philip G. Anderson, Assistant Treasurer of this committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of One Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($127.98), being a civil penalty of One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($125.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further

discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-2059-110 First Chicago NBD Corp. State PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Nine Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($952.98), being Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars ($950) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 5, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause (a delinquent 1998 annual report). Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received an undated and unsigned one page letter dated May 25, 1999, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Four Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($477.98), being a civil penalty of Four Hundred Seventy Five Dollars ($475.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-3450-112 Indiana Right to Life PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Two Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($202.98), being Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 20, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for a campaign finance enforcement cause (a delinquent 1996 annual report). Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 19, 1999 from Mr. Leslie W. Wagner, treasurer of this committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is

incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of One Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($102.98), being a civil penalty of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-1547-108 Ironworkers Local #103 PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Nine Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($902.98), being Nine Hundred Dollars ($900) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 4, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for two campaign finance enforcement causes (a delinquent 1996 pre-primary report and a delinquent 1997 annual report).

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Six Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($677.98), being a civil penalty of Six Hundred Seventy Five Dollars ($675.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-3258-111 Primerica Financial Services Indiana PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Eight Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($852.98), being Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($850) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on May 3, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for two campaign finance enforcement causes (a delinquent 1997 annual report and a delinquent 1998 annual report). Ms. Thompson noted that Commission members had received a letter dated May 26, 1999 from Mr. Steven A. Reidich of this committee, concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Six Hundred Forty Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($640.98), being a civil penalty of Six Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($637.50), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-4370-119 Campaign for Hoosier Families

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was One Thousand Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($1,002.98), being One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was had not yet been filed with the Election Division), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for two campaign finance enforcement causes (a delinquent 1998 annual report and a delinquent 1998 pre-election report).

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission: (1) find that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty and documented costs in this cause would be unjust under these circumstances for the reasons set forth in these minutes; and (2) assess a civil penalty of Seven Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($752.98), being a civil penalty of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-3908-114 Indiana Black Legislative Caucus PAC

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who stated that the proposed civil penalty in this cause was Five Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($502.98), being Five Hundred Dollars ($500) for a delinquent 1999 pre-primary report (which was due by noon April 16, 1999, and which was filed with the Election Division on April 26, 1999), and Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in certified mail costs. She added that this committee had previously been before the Commission for four campaign finance enforcement causes (a delinquent 1995 annual report, a delinquent 1996 annual report, a delinquent 1998 pre-election report, and a delinquent 1998 annual report).

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the Commission assess a civil penalty of Five Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($502.98), being a civil penalty of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), plus Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) in investigative costs properly documented by the Election Division. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

F. ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT MATTERS:
Cause 98-4090-171 Citizens for Anthony Underly

The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that Commission members had received a ten page memorandum (including attachments) dated May 24, 1999 from himself and Ms. Robertson concerning this matter. A copy of this memorandum is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. King reviewed the memorandum, and noted that the complaint initially filed by Ms. Kavanaugh in this matter concerned an alleged violation of Indiana Code 3-9-3-4, which prohibits the use of campaign contributions received by a committee for "primarily personal purposes." Mr. King stated that the expenditures questioned by Ms. Kavanaugh involved the reimbursement of the candidate for lost wages and salary. He indicated that these expenditures had been properly documented on the committee's report, and that the only issue in this cause concerned the application of IC 3-9-3-4 to these expenditures.

Mr. King called the Commission's attention to the memorandum's discussion of the efforts of the Federal Election Commission to enforce the comparable federal statutes and administrative rules through a series of FEC Advisory Opinions. In reviewing these opinions, Mr. King stated that the FEC had not directly addressed the issue at hand in the Underly matter, but had focused on a number of factors, including: (1) whether the compensation paid by a committee to a candidate, or a member of the candidate's family, reflected the fair market value of bona fide services rendered to the committee; and (2) whether there was a written contract between the committee and the candidate. Mr. King noted that the end result reached by the FEC Advisory Opinions was somewhat curious, in that reimbursement for lost wages would ordinarily be easier to document and to determine fair market value (as opposed to a more amorphous determination of unspecified services rendered by a candidate under a contract).

Mr. King then reviewed the history and subsequent attempts to amend the 1987 legislation central to this matter, and noted that the absence of clearly enunciated standards concerning personal use of campaign funds makes it very difficult to apply IC 3-9-3-4 to any situation except a clear-cut violation of the law. He indicated that the penal nature of the statute, which permits the imposition of a fine by an infraction judgment, or a civil penalty assessed by the Commission, requires that the statute be construed strictly in favor of a defendant. He also remarked that Indiana case law would require the General Assembly to establish these standards through legislation, rather than permit the Commission to do so through the adoption of administrative rules.

Mr. King concluded by stating that the staff would not make any statement as to whether these expenditures were appropriate, ethical, or right, but would instead recommend that this cause be dismissed since the allegation made in this cause did not provide an adequate basis for the Commission to find that a violation of IC 3-9-3-4 had occurred. He added that the staff recommended that the Commission provide additional guidance concerning this particular issue through the adoption of an Advisory Opinion, which could be included in the next edition of the Campaign Finance Manual.

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who stated that he believed that the consideration and adoption of an Advisory Opinion in this matter would be very useful, and that any Commission recommendation should be forwarded to the General Assembly for it to consider the enactment of legislation. He added that the state political parties should be advised of the Commission's action in this matter so that this guidance could be communicated to candidates.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that: (1) this cause be dismissed due the absence of a formal interpretation of IC 3-9-3-4 which would give adequate notice to citizens and committees subject to its provisions; and (2) staff prepare an Advisory Opinion for future action by the Commission concerning the issue of a committee's payment of a salary to a candidate or reimbursement of a candidate's expenses. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Inquiry concerning Committee to Elect Bob Cherry

The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that Commission members had received a five page memorandum (including attachments) dated May 21, 1999 from Ms. Robertson concerning this matter. A copy of this memorandum is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. King reviewed the memorandum, and noted that the Election Division did not receive any further communication concerning this matter from the Sarah Wolf for State Representative Committee. He noted that the Election Division had forwarded the Cherry committee's explanation of certain mailing expenditures to the Wolf committee, and had requested that the Wolf committee make any additional response to the Election Division no later than April 30, 1999.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that the inquiry concerning the Committee to Elect Bob Cherry be closed with no further action by the Election Commission. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Cause 99-033 Alleged excess contributions by Meijer, Inc.

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who noted that Commission members had received the following documents: (1) a seventeen page memorandum (including attachments) dated May 21, 1999 from herself and Ms. Potesta concerning this matter; (2) a letter to Ms. Thompson dated April 15, 1999 from Mr. Brian S. Breslin, Senior Vice President, Public and Consumer Affairs, Meijer, Inc; and (3) a letter to Ms. Thompson dated April 15, 1999 from Ms. Kim Tygesen,

Senior Administrative Assistant, Meijer, Inc. Copies of each of these documents are incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Ms. Thompson reviewed the memorandum, and noted that Meijer, Inc. had contacted the Election Division in December 1998 to inform campaign finance division staff that the corporation had mistakenly exceeded the statutory limit on corporate contributions within a calendar year. She indicated that subsequent research and correspondence with Meijer, Inc. indicated that the corporation had exceeded its $2,000 limit for contributions to candidates for Indiana state representative under Indiana Code 3-9-2-4 by a total of $1,400. Ms. Thompson noted that Meijer had requested that three candidates return contributions of $500 each, and that each candidate had done so.

The chair recognized Mr. William S. Keown, who was appearing on behalf of Meijer, Inc. in this matter. Mr. Keown stated that he had originally brought this matter to the attention of the Election Division by his letter of December 3, 1998. He indicated that the excess contributions had occurred due to a clerical error by Meijer, and requested that a civil penalty not be assessed in this cause.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King stated that the Commission was authorized by Indiana Code 3-9-4-16(a)(5) and (e) to impose a civil penalty of not more than three times the amount of the excess contribution, which in this cause would be a maximum permitted civil penalty of Four Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($4,200).

The chair recognized Mr. Long, who stated that since: (1) this excess contribution was brought to the attention of the Election Division by Meijer itself; (2) Meijer and its political action committee had no previous campaign finance enforcement violations; and (3) the candidates receiving the excess contributions had returned them to Meijer upon request, he believed that it would be in the interests of justice to dismiss this cause without imposing a civil penalty.

Mr. Long therefore moved, seconded by Mr. Cruea, that this cause be dismissed, and that no civil penalty or investigative costs be assessed. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Campaign Finance data base audits

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who reported that Quest Information Systems was currently testing the campaign finance database audit functions to make certain that they were all functioning properly. She added that the audit functions had worked well in researching the Meijer situation, and that staff would be examining the reports generated by the audit functions to determine whether further potential enforcement actions should be brought to the Commission.

6. RECESS AND RECONVENING OF COMMISSION MEETING:

At 11:50 a.m., the chair moved that the Commission meeting stand in recess until 11:55 a.m. Commission members adopted the motion by consent, and the Commission stood in recess at that time.

At 11:55 a.m., the chair reconvened the Commission meeting in the same location. The chair noted that the same Commission members present before the recess were present for the reconvened Commission meeting.

7. VOTING SYSTEM DEMONSTRATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS:

A. PENDING APPLICATION: FIDLAR & CHAMBERS EV 2000 DIRECT RECORDING ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that Mr. Paul T. Van Camp, National Sales Manager, Fidlar & Chambers, was present to conduct a demonstration of the Fidlar & Chambers EV 2000 direct recording electronic voting system, pursuant to the company's application for certification of this voting system for marketing and use in Indiana.

The chair recognized Mr. Van Camp, who distributed a brochure concerning Fidlar & Chambers, which is incorporated by reference in these minutes. Mr. Van Camp then performed a demonstration of the EV 2000, and answered questions posed by Commission members.

The chair thanked Mr. Van Camp for the demonstration, and noted that the application would be placed on the Commission's agenda for further consideration.

B. STAFF REPORT: MICROVOTE MEMS "YEAR 2000 UPGRADE":

The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that Commission members had received copies of a fourteen page memorandum (with attachments) concerning MicroVote's request to upgrade all MicroVote counties using the MEMS 6.4 version software program by installing version 7.3 of the MEMS software. A copy of the memorandum and attachments are incorporated by reference in these minutes, including: (1) a letter dated April 19, 1999 to the Co-Directors from Mr. James M. Ries, President of MicroVote; (2) a letter dated April 19, 1999 to the Co-Directors from Mr. Steve Shamo of MicroVote; (3) a letter dated January 8, 1999 to Mr. King and Ms. Robertson from Mr. Ries; and (4) a letter dated January 11, 1999 to Mr. Shamo from Mr. William H. Carson, President of Carson Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Mr. King reviewed the memorandum and attachments, and stated that MicroVote had supplied all the information required under Indiana Code 3-11-15-57 for the Commission to approve the proposed "non-emergency" voting system change. He noted that Mr. Valentine, Ms. Robertson, and himself had visited the MicroVote Corporation offices in Indianapolis earlier this year for a demonstration of the updated 7.3 version of the MEMS software, in accordance with the Commission's direction at its March 25, 1999 meeting. Mr. King recalled that the current software system can accommodate one hundred years of elections, but did not use a four digit field to indicate the years.

Mr. King stated that, based on the demonstration conducted by MicroVote and the information supplied concerning this software change, the staff recommended that the Commission: (1) find that the proposed change will not impair the accuracy, efficiency, capacity or ability of the MV 464 DRE voting system to meet the applicable requirements of state law; and (2) approve the proposed voting system change.

Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Morgan, that findings and recommendation of staff concerning this proposed voting system change be adopted. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, and Mr. Morgan), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

C. STATUS REPORT: GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS ACCU-TOUCH DIRECT RECORDING ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that representatives from GBS were present to address the Commission concerning this voting system.

The chair recognized Mr. Steve Corey of GBS. Mr. Corey presented Mr. Jeff Heinz and Mr. Don Vopalensky, who are employees of the manufacturer of this voting system, Global Elections. Mr. Corey noted that Global is based in McKinney, Texas.

Mr. Corey stated that GBS had already filed the application and supporting documentation for certification of this voting system for marketing and use in Indiana, and would be demonstrating the system for Commission members today. He noted that the ACCU-TOUCH has been tested by Wyle Laboratories and given a control number by NASED. Mr. Corey stated that the voting system meets all Federal Election Commission standards.

Mr. Corey remarked that this voting system is certified in eight states, and that certification is pending in an additional six states. Mr. Corey requested that the Commission consider voting to certify this voting system for marketing and use in Indiana following the demonstration conducted today.

Mr. Corey stated that Mr. Heinz and Mr. Vopalensky had been associated with this system since its earliest stages of development through certification by Wyle Laboratories.

Mr. Heinz said that the ACCU-TOUCH voting system is a stand-alone unit 486 computer, which has the technology to generate the ballot style available for each individual voter when the voter appears to cast a ballot. He indicated that when the voter signs in, the voter is given a card indicating the voter's ballot variation for that precinct (and party identification in a primary), which the voter then inserts in the voting system. He added that the system takes about fifteen seconds to read the card, and then displays instructions to the voter, along with a running total indicating how many voters have voted on this unit so far.

Mr. Heinz indicated that the system permitted a voter to cast a straight party ticket, and to revise the ballot by touching other selections. He remarked that the software permitted the columns on the ballot screen to be adjusted for width as needed, and that the system offers plenty of space for candidates, such as state convention delegates, so that all candidates in a race can appear on one screen. He noted that while the system will not permit overvoting, it does permit a voter to undervote or cast a blank ballot. He indicated that the system permits write-in voting by using the screen to type in the name of the write-in candidate.

Mr. Heinz said that the system uses a red check to highlight the voter's choice, and permits a voter to cast a ballot very quickly. He noted that although the voter can review and change ballot choices, once the voter casts a ballot, the system's smart card "reader-writer" takes the voter's information off of the card. Mr. Heinz said that the card must be re-energized each time a ballot is cast, and if it is not, the system will not do anything when the card is inserted. In response to a question from Ms. Christie, Mr. Heinz said that a poll worker would be required to retrieve the card from a voter after the voter cast a ballot.

Mr. Long asked whether he could vote in another precinct if he retained the card after voting. Mr. Heinz said that the system permits using the card to vote in any precinct, but that the card could be customized to only permit voting in a specific precinct. He added that the system was designed for use in states with statutes that permitted "non-geographic" voting, so that a voter could cast a ballot at a central location for a ballot variation used in any precinct in the county, and that the registration record for the voter would be available electronically to prevent multiple voting at different county locations. He noted that the card could be customized for a specific set of a candidates, but not for an individual voter. Mr. Heinz added that voters in the future may be more interested in the convenience of "non-geographic" voting, and if security concerns can be adequately addressed, this technology would permit voting over the Internet. He noted that the statutory changes would be required, and would not happen overnight.

Mr. Corey noted that the previously certified ACCU-VOTE optical scan ballot card resembles the ballot face used by this DRE voting system.

Mr. Heinz remarked that the system uses a manager's card with a password to activate the system when the polls open. He indicated that when the polls close, the system can generate voting results and print results from its hard drive or can transmit results by modem or on a 3.5 inch floppy disk. He noted that if the system failed, the ballot results would still be obtainable from the hard drive.

Mr. Heinz noted that the larger counties in Nebraska have used the ACCU-TOUCH system software since 1996 for absentee voting. He indicated that each machine has an audit trail generated by time stamping each ballot, but with the ballot record randomly rotated to prevent identification of how a voter voted. Mr. Heinz stated that either GBS or the county could program these voting systems, but that the county would need to acquire the accumulation software from GBS to total its precinct results. He indicated that the precinct results could be generated either on paper or on floppy disk, but that a paper report would be desirable.

Mr. King asked what would occur if a voter cast an absentee ballot before election day, and then was disqualified before election day due to death or some other reason. Mr. Heinz indicated that so long as the absentee ballot had been marked as a "challenged ballot" and placed in a separate file, the ballot could be retrieved and discarded on election day as a result of the voter's disqualification. Mr. King noted that the General Assembly had enacted legislation requesting that the Census Data Advisory Committee study the possibility of using these types of voting systems while retaining the ability to prevent the casting of absentee ballots by disqualified voters. Mr. King noted that each absentee ballot would have to be challenged, and then accepted as a ballot on election day.

The chair thanked Mr. Corey, Mr. Heinz, and Mr. Vopalensky for the demonstration of this system and indicated that certification of the voting system would be placed on the agenda for the next Commission meeting.

D. PENDING APPLICATION: ELECTION SOFTWARE & SERVICES MODEL 550 OPTICAL SCAN BALLOT CARD TABULATOR:

Mr. King noted that Commission members had received a copy of a letter dated March 31, 1999 to himself to Mr. Dan T. McGinnis, Vice-President of Election Software & Services, along with the IEC-11 application form for certification of this system. A copy of the letter and application are incorporated by reference in these minutes. Mr. King stated that representatives from ES&S were present.

The chair recognized Mr. Robb McGinnis of ES&S, who introduced Mr. David Hughes of ES&S to perform a demonstration of this optical scan ballot card tabulator. Mr. McGinnis stated that this system is a central count system used in more than thirty states throughout the nation.

Mr. McGinnis stated that the Model 550 has been tested by Wyle Laboratories, and assigned a NASED number, and displayed copies of the reports and ballots to Commission members. The following documents are incorporated by reference in these minutes: (1) a two page list dated May 24, 1999 titled "Voting Systems that are NASED Qualified"; (2) a five page list dated May 24, 1999 titled "ES&S Reference List"; and (3) a five page letter dated June 7, 1995 from Wyle Laboratories to American Information Systems. Mr. McGinnis noted that this system was very similar to some punch card voting systems, but had some additional features.

Mr. Hughes proceeded to demonstrate the voting system, which he described as a marksense optical scan system. He indicated that the system is placed in a central location, with ballots being brought to the central location for processing. He noted that the system had originally been marketed by American Information Systems (AIS) about fifteen years ago, and that the system was the first to complete testing at Wyle Laboratories. He remarked that its NASED number was "00001."

Mr. Hughes said that in addition to the central count function, this system could also be used as an absentee subsystem for large jurisdictions using precinct counting devices such as DREs. He noted that the system could generate specific absentee ballots through offset printing or on special programs available upon demand. He indicated that the system can generate voting result reports and statistical percentage information for candidates, as well as status reports listing the number of votes cast in each precinct, and in a primary election the number of party ballots cast in each precinct. Mr. Hughes added that the system can sort out ballots with anomalies overvoted ballots, blank ballots, or ballots with write-in voting for special manual processing. He said that the system has a large data storage capacity, with a large disk drive. He noted that the system permits data to be backed up on 3.5 inch floppy disks. Mr. Hughes noted that the system featured safeguards to prevent any loss of information due to utility power fluctuations.

Mr. Hughes remarked that the system included a number of diagnostic features to monitor the system's performance. He displayed a test deck of optical scan cards, which he indicated were similar to the ballots used in the recent Marion County municipal primary election. He noted that when these ballot cards were processed, the voting system would generate a report. In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. McGinnis stated that the ballots used in the Marion County primary election for absentee voters. Mr. Hughes added that if these ballots were folded by voters, the ballots must be smoothed out, and run through the system in smaller stacks, but that there would be no more than a 10% reduction in processing speed. He noted that the ballot card is well fitted for use in absentee voting since it consists of offset paper (rather than heavier paper), but noted that the ballots can be flattened and machine tabulated even when folded by the voters into an odd shape.

Mr. Hughes stated that pursuant to FEC standards, this voting system documents every event which occurs during ballot processing by logging the event during real time. He noted that the data generated by the system permits the election to be reconstructed from beginning to end, and that the system has the capacity for a separate log printer to be set up, an option requested by some jurisdictions.

Mr. Hughes indicated that, unlike other ballot card tabulators, this unit does not require the placement of header cards at the front before the processing of a precinct's ballot cards. Mr. McGinnis noted that in Marion County, ballot cards from all precincts were loaded together in this system, which then separated the ballots by precinct. In response to a question from Ms. Christie, Mr. McGinnis stated that Marion County generated its own ballot cards on a laser printer by using the system's "Ballot on Request" feature, and that Marion County was able to avoid pre-printing lots of absentee ballots as it had done in previous election years. Mr. Hughes noted that this procedure eliminated a great deal of waste, since the "Ballot on Request" used a shell, with the ward and precinct identification and candidate names encoded on the ballot card when a voter requested a ballot for the voter's precinct. In response to a question from Ms. Christie, Mr. Hughes stated that the system could accommodate ballots with significant variations resulting from shifting when the ballot is printed. Mr. Hughes noted that even some high torque laser printers do not have the same tolerances that offset presses are, and that the system was designed to recognize markings appearing within the "look window." Mr. McGinnis remarked that during the recent Marion County municipal primary, almost no ballots were rejected by this system.

In response to a question from Ms. Christie, Mr. Hughes said that the system's hardware device only needed to be tested by Wyle Laboratories, and that the other software applications of the system would go to Nichols Research. He noted that the application used in this demonstration was the AERO software, which has already been certified. In response to an additional question from Ms. Christie, Mr. Hughes stated that this system has probably been used in conjunction with every other type of voting system, with the original versions of this system being used for absentee voting along with lever machines in some counties. Mr. McGinnis added that the system loads the voting results data directly into the AERO software program.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. McGinnis stated that Marion County had exercised its local option to conduct a central count of absentee ballots, rather than sending the ballots to each precinct for processing. He added that the Marion County Election Board sent a list of absentee voters out to each precinct so that the voters could be subject to challenge in the traditional manner. Mr. King noted that under central count procedures, a challenge to the ballot itself, such as the absence of a voter's signature on the secrecy envelope, is performed at the central count facility. He added that in a central count county, the ballot never leaves the central facility, and is challenged there. Mr. Long asked how a challenge to the eligibility of the voter would occur in a central count county. Mr. King responded that the statute provides for a

challenge of this type to occur when the inspector and judge announce that the poll list in the precinct will be marked to indicate which voters are voting absentee. Mr. Long noted that if the voter is challenged at the precinct, this must be communicated to the central count facility. Mr. King noted that when the challenger files the affidavit at the precinct, the voter's secrecy envelope functions as a counter-affidavit, with the challenged vote being counted, and the matter referred to the prosecuting attorney after election day.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. Hughes indicated that this system was not primarily an absentee voting system, but was used in about 85% of its applications nationally as a central county wide system. He noted that only a relatively small number of jurisdictions were large enough to utilize this system for an absentee voting subsystem.

The chair thanked Mr. Hughes and Mr. McGinnis for the demonstration of this system and indicated that certification of the voting system would be placed on the agenda for the next Commission meeting.

E. PENDING APPLICATIONS: ELECTION SOFTWARE & SERVICES MODEL-100 PRECINCT LEVEL OPTICAL SCAN COUNTER, PBC-2100 PRECINCT LEVEL PUNCH CARD COUNTER, AND VOTRONIC DIRECT RECORDING ELECTRONIC PRECINCT LEVEL COUNTER:

Mr. King noted that Commission members had received a copy of an eight page letter (with attachments) dated May 25, 1999 to the Co-Directors from Mr. Dan T. McGinnis, Vice-President of Election Software & Services, along with the IEC-11 application forms for certification of the following voting systems: (1) the Model-100 precinct level optical scan counter; (2) the PBC-2100 precinct level punch card counter; and (3) the Votronic direct recording electronic precinct level counter. A copy of the letter and each application are incorporated by reference in these minutes. The chair deferred consideration of these applications until the next Commission meeting.

F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: VOTING SYSTEM TESTING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH INDIANA CODE 3-11-15:

Mr. King noted that Commission members had received a memorandum from himself and Ms. Robertson dated May 25, 1999 concerning the status of voting system applications and related issues. A copy of this memorandum is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. King stated that the memorandum lists the applications for voting system certification received by the Election Division, and provides a status report concerning each application.

Mr. King said that it was important for Commission members to understand that each of the voting systems demonstrated today have never been previously certified for marketing and use in Indiana. He noted that at the last Commission meeting, staff indicated that the Commission would need to address the application of the "Indiana standards" to these new voting systems. He indicated that as a baseline, Indiana has the standards initially adopted in the early 1990's by the Federal Election Commission. He noted that independent testing authorities such as Wyle Laboratories conduct their testing to determine voting system compliance with the FEC standards and the issuance of a number by NASED (the National Association of State Election Directors). He added that beginning in 1992, Indiana, either by administrative rules or statutes, adopted additional "Indiana standards" to supplement the FEC standards. He noted that Indiana had determined whether a voting system complied with these additional standards in a number of different ways, including examinations by the former Voting Systems Advisory Committee, the Information Services Division of the Department of Administration, independent experts, such as Mr. Robert Naegele, or to some extent evaluations by former State Election Board staff member Ms. Robin Spells.

Mr. King stated that although ISD had been helpful in providing information during the Commission's recertification of voting systems currently used in Indiana, staff believed that ISD's scope of coverage was not broad enough to address the voting systems applying for certification for use in Indiana for the first time. He referred Commission members to page 6 of the memorandum, and noted that since the FEC is in the process of revising its own 1990 standards, any new FEC standards may wholly or partially supersede the current Indiana standards. He added that because of the pace of technological development, even any new FEC standards may be a year or more behind the systems being developed by the vendors at that point. Mr. King indicated that for this reason, staff was not recommending that the Commission wait until the FEC finalizes its standard revisions before certifying new voting systems during the next few years. He said that the concerns voiced by staff were that the voting system certification: (1) protect the integrity of the election process, and to ensure that public confidence in the voting systems used in Indiana elections is as high as possible; and (2) treat all vendors as fairly and equally as possible, recognizing that there are differences in voting system technologies may require some different approaches in the certification process.

Mr. King noted that the memorandum referenced several possible approaches for the Commission, including: (1) farming out the technical review process to competent individuals; (2) reevaluating the Indiana standards to determine which requirements are still imperative for voting systems to comply with, noting that the high level language requirement in the original 1992 standards referred to computer languages were obsolete when the rules were codified in 1997; and (3) additional training for staff or additional staff resources to administer this responsibility. He added that in discussions with Ms. Christie, the reevaluation of Indiana standards had been identified as the most fruitful area for further study. Mr. King noted that although the Commission and

vendors must comply with the statutes currently embodying the Indiana standards, staff could identify standards which are now obsolete or in need of revision. He added that vendors could be asked to bear more of the burden in assisting the Commission in determining if a voting system complied with Indiana standards. He noted that the process of having vendors work with ISD in the past had been successful in obtaining this type of detailed information.

Mr. King concluded by stating that in the process of certifying entirely new voting systems, the Commission may need to obtain more extensive information from vendors before proceeding with a vote on system certification, but that the Commission should recognize that 1999 technology may make some 1992 standards irrelevant.

Mr. Long said that it appeared that since some standards had been adopted by the legislature, the Commission was bound by those standards, even though they may now be obsolete. Mr. King agreed. Mr. Long said that the voting system vendors and possibly the Commission should ask the General Assembly to amend the statutes to stay abreast with current technology.

In response to a question from Mr. Long, Mr. King said that Wyle Laboratories had been certified as an independent testing authority by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), and that Indiana law required a voting system vendor to obtain certification of voting system hardware and firmware from Wyle before Indiana would grant the voting system certification. Mr. Long asked whether other firms could apply for accreditation to determine whether a voting system complied with the Indiana standards, in the same manner that Wyle Laboratories had been accredited. Mr. King responded that although he was not aware of any such firms, there probably were firms which could perform that function.

The chair recognized Ms. Christie, who stated that NASED had grappled for several years with the issue of accrediting an independent testing authority (ITA), and that not as many companies had applied for ITA status as NASED had anticipated. She noted that identifying a laboratory to take on this testing had been a major problem due to the sporadic nature of the need for this type of voting system testing. She added that the issue of continuing the ITA testing would be discussed at national conferences of election officials to be conducted during this summer.

Ms. Christie stated that she and Mr. Valentine agreed that the memorandum's recommendation that Indiana's current standards be reevaluated is critical. She noted that when staff met with vendors to discuss the proposed optical scan card stub legislation earlier this year, the group had identified a handful of items during that brief meeting that were now obsolete standards. She said that a more intense examination of the standards in Indiana Code 3-11-15 should continue so that further legislative changes could be identified. She noted that the legislative process could never stay abreast with the voting system technology. Ms. Christie added that thirty or more other states are wrestling with the voting system certification process.

Ms. Christie said that staff discussions would continue regarding these issues, and that she hoped that NASED and the Election Center could continue to provide additional resources and information to the Commission. Mr. Long said he did not understand how staff could currently make recommendations regarding a new voting system's compliance with these standards, and that counties would look back to the Commission if a voting system failed. He noted that the recommendations included having Election Division staff receive additional training or retain additional expertise. Ms. Christie responded that this was a distinct possibility, and that will come as part of the review of these standards. She said it would be helpful to discuss these questions with the other states engaged in certifying voting systems.

Mr. King noted that the General Assembly has been very accommodating in addressing voting system concerns brought to its attention by the Election Division. He stated that during the most recent session, legislation had been enacted to resolve the dual security stub problem for optical scan ballot cards, and to ratify the Commission's action in recertifying voting systems which too expensive to retrofit to meet current standards.

The chair suggested that the Co-Directors meet to discuss these issues and report back to the Commission at its next meeting.

8. VOTER REGISTRATION REPORTS:

A. STATUS REPORT: DESIGNATION OF UNIVERSITY DISABILITY OFFICES:

The chair recognized Mr. Northern, who stated that staff had not made a determination since the last Commission meeting regarding its recommendation regarding the designation of university disability offices as full service voter registration sites. He indicated that he and Ms. Hershberger hoped to meet with the Co-General Counsels before the next Commission meeting to discuss the staff recommendation to the Commission concerning this matter. Mr. Northern stated that he had discussed this issue with several universities, and had a better idea of the manner in which these disability offices were serving the college communities. He anticipated that staff would have a recommendation on this point for the next Commission meeting.

9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who stated that Commission members had received two documents: (1) the 1999 Indiana Election Legislation Summary; and (2) a detailed summary of the election related legislation which was introduced, enacted, or which failed in the most recent session of the General Assembly. Copies of these documents are incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. King noted that in addition to the election related legislation set forth in the summary, the General Assembly had enacted SEA 600, which provides for an automatic continuance (to a date sixty days after adjournment sine die of the General Assembly) for incumbent legislators who are appearing before state or local administrative bodies while the legislature is in session.

Mr. King noted that during this session legislation had been enacted to: (1) to extensively amend the campaign finance disclaimer law to exempt certain items from this requirement and to specify that the Indiana disclaimer statute does not apply to the Internet; (2) repeal the option for political committees to meet campaign finance report filing requirements by having a report mailed with a postmark on or before the deadline date, but to provide instead that all reports must be received and filed in the Election Division or county election board office no later than the deadline; (3) to permit the Commission and county election boards to disband certain defunct campaign committees; (4) establish procedures for filing campaign finance reports by electronic mail or disk; (5) establish standards for how candidate names may appear on the ballot; (6) permit all precinct committeemen and vice-committeemen to participate in filling both ballot vacancies and office vacancies, subject to appointed committeemen and their vice-committeemen having been serving in that post thirty days before the vacancy occurred; (7) provide for an earlier deadline for political parties to fill ballot vacancies for statewide, state legislative, and judicial offices when no candidate is nominated by the party in the primary; (8) make numerous amendments to the recount and contest procedures; (9) beginning in 2000, move many small town election deadlines thirty days earlier in the calendar, so that the ballot will be finalized earlier; (10) clarify that a deputy of an elected officer in a political subdivision is considered an "employee", not an "officeholder", for purposes of the dual lucrative office provision of the Indiana Constitution; and (11) revise the public testing procedures for punch cards and optical scan ballot cards to permit a sampling of precincts to be used in public tests. Commission members thanked Mr. King for the preparation of these thorough documents.

10. REPORT BY CO-DIRECTORS:

The chair recognized Ms. Christie and Ms. Valentine, who stated that they had no additional information to report.

11. LAKE COUNTY COMPENSATION PROCEDURES FOR POLL WORKERS:

The chair recognized Mr. King, who noted that at the last Commission meeting, the chair had asked for information concerning the law applicable to payment of election expenses in Lake County. He stated that currently the County cuts a check made out to the inspector which includes not only the inspector's compensation, but the compensation for other precinct poll workers and any rental payment for the polling place.

Mr. King said that in response to the chair's inquiry, he had located a letter dated September 21, 1993 from himself to Mr. Robert C. Antich, then the Lake County Circuit Court Clerk concerning this matter. A copy of this letter is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

Mr. King remarked that the letter advised that state law does not permit the involuntary assignment of compensation to the inspector, but that each individual precinct worker is entitled to receive a separate check. He noted that the letter also advised that the Lake County Combined Election Board contact the State Examiner of the State Board of Accounts for further information regarding the general statutes applicable to the payment of these individuals. He added that he did not know whether Lake County made any contact was made with the State Board of Accounts. The chair thanked Mr. King, and asked him to advise the chair of the Lake County Combined Board regarding this matter, and to send the Lake County chair a copy of the 1993 letter.

12. CAMPAIGN FINANCE EXPENDITURE CODES:

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson, who noted that Commission members had received a two page document entitled "Indiana Campaign Finance Expenditure Codes", a copy of which is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

She stated that staff had developed these proposed expenditure codes to comply with Indiana legislation which requires campaign finance reports to designate committee expenditures as falling within certain classifications. The chair thanked Ms. Thompson for this document.

In response to a question from the chair, Mr. King stated that the law provides that the expenditure codes are not required to be included on reports filed before January 1, 2000, and that presumably the codes would be required on all reports filed after that date.

Mr. King remarked that under legislation enacted in the 1999 session, these proposed expenditure codes must be presented to the Legislative Council for comments and suggestions, and that the Election Division would then bring revised campaign finance report forms incorporating these expenditure codes to the Commission for approval. Ms. Christie stated that it would be useful to advise the Legislative Council that the Commission approved of the proposed expenditure codes. The chair noted that Mr. Morgan had left the meeting following the last vote taken by the Commission, but that a unanimous vote was not required in this case.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Long, that the proposed expenditure codes be approved as presented. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with three members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, and Mr. Long, no member voting "nay", and one member absent (Mr. Morgan), the motion was adopted.

13. APPROVAL OF FORMS (ORDER 1999-53; SPANISH LANGUAGE VOTER REGISTRATION FORM):

The chair noted that Commission members had received several documents relating to the approval of forms: (1) a certification dated May 4, 1999 by Mr. King and Ms. Robertson concerning the distribution of previously approved forms to county election officials and the state chairs of political parties; (2) a memorandum dated May 4, 1999 from Mr. King and Ms. Robertson to circuit court clerks, election deputies, and voter registration officers concerning the approved forms; (3) a letter dated May 4, 1999 from Mr. King and Ms. Robertson to Ms. Barbara Roberts, Hamilton County Circuit Court Clerk, notifying her of the Commission's approval of a version of the ABS-1 form to be used in Hamilton County; and (4) proposed Order 1999-53, which would approve the use of a Spanish language voter registration form. A copy of each of these documents is incorporated by reference in these minutes.

The chair thanked the Election Division staff, particularly Mr. Northern, for his efforts in developing the Spanish language mail-in voter registration form. Mr. Northern stated that after some initial inquiries last year concerning the availability of this form, he had prepared a key to assist a Spanish speaking person in completing the English language version of this form. He noted that the text of the proposed form had been reviewed by six or so individuals, including a Spanish speaking attorney serving as counsel at the Department of Revenue, to ensure that the text used in the form was accurate.

Mr. Cruea moved, seconded by Mr. Long, that Order 1999-53 be adopted as presented. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with three members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, and Mr. Long, no member voting "nay", and one member absent (Mr. Morgan), the motion was adopted.

14. ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Long moved, seconded by Mr. Cruea, that the Commission do now adjourn. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with three members voting "aye" (Mr. Bohnsack, Mr. Cruea, and Mr. Long, no member voting "nay", and one member absent (Mr. Morgan), the motion was adopted. The Commission then adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________ ________________________

Laurie P. Christie, Spencer Valentine,

Co-Director Co-Director

APPROVED,

________________________