0001 1 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 2 TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION AUSTIN, TEXAS 3 4 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.101 ? 5 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.102 ? 6 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.103 ? 7 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.405 ? 8 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.409 ? 9 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.411 ? 10 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.422 ? 11 16 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ? ?402.702 ? 12 13 PUBLIC HEARING ON RULEMAKINGS 14 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009 15 16 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT on Tuesday, 17 the 3rd day of November 2009, the above-entitled 18 public comment hearing was held from 10:07 a.m. to 19 10:41 a.m., at the Offices of the Texas Lottery 20 Commission, 611 East 6th Street, Austin, Texas 78701, 21 before SANDRA JOSEPH, SPECIAL COUNSEL. The following 22 proceedings were reported via machine shorthand by 23 Lorrie A. Schnoor, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of 24 the State of Texas, RMR, CRR, BRCP, and the following 25 proceedings were had: 0002 1 APPEARANCES 2 SPECIAL COUNSEL: 3 Ms. Sandra Joseph 4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BINGO DIVISION: Mr. Bruce Miner 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE 3 PROCEEDINGS - TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009........... 4 4 COMMENTS BY STEPHEN FENOGLIO...................... 5 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE............................ 25 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0004 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009 3 (10:07 a.m.) 4 MS. JOSEPH: Good morning. For the 5 record, my name is Sandra Joseph. I'm special counsel 6 for the Lottery Commission. And with me is Bruce 7 Miner, manager of the bingo division. 8 We're here this morning to take public 9 comments on a number of rules. Those rules include 10 the following: Amendments to ?402.101, advisory 11 opinions; 402.102, Bingo Advisory Committee; 402.103, 12 training program; 402.405, temporary authorization; 13 402.409, amendment for change of premises or occasions 14 due to lease termination or abandonment; also comments 15 for proposed new rule 402.411, late license renewal; 16 also amendments to 402.422, amendment to a regular 17 license to conduct charitable bingo; and finally, 18 repeal of 402.702, location verification inspection. 19 I have one witness affirmation form from 20 Mr. Stephen Fenoglio, who has indicated he would like 21 to comment on all of the rules. Mr. Fenoglio, is that 22 correct? 23 MR. FENOGLIO: That's correct. 24 MS. JOSEPH: All right. There -- I see 25 no one else as a member of the public that's present 0005 1 today at this time. 2 Although this is not an evidentiary 3 hearing, because the Commission does rely on the 4 comments that we receive, I would like to ask that you 5 be sworn at this time, Mr. Fenoglio. 6 MR. FENOGLIO: All right. 7 (Witness sworn by Ms. Joseph) 8 MS. JOSEPH: Thank you. All right. And 9 I know there's a lot to -- a lot here to talk about 10 potentially. There are a number of them. And, 11 Mr. Fenoglio, since you're the only person here to 12 provide comments, I'll let you take them in any order 13 you like. 14 MR. FENOGLIO: All right. 15 MS. JOSEPH: If you can just be clear 16 which one you're talking about. 17 MR. FENOGLIO: I will. Thank you. 18 Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I'll get right 19 to the meat of the issues. 20 On -- on Rule 402.101, which is the 21 request for advisory opinion, thought all those 22 comments were -- or the proposal is consistent with 23 the statute. We support the amendments. 24 On 402.102, Bingo Advisory Committee, I 25 think that's the bulk of my comments, so I'll reserve 0006 1 those for just a moment. I want to go through the 2 rest of them. 3 103, training program, I like the fact, 4 and the clients like the fact, that you have a primary 5 training course and a continuing education course. 6 That was far -- more than what was anticipated by the 7 amendments to House Bill 1474, but it occurs to us 8 that once someone has pass -- taken and passed the 9 primary training course, then the continuing ed course 10 would be different and perhaps focused and could be 11 focused, for example, for a new bookkeeper versus 12 someone who is new to the conduct of bingo, for 13 example. And that wouldn't necessarily be in the 14 context of the rule-making but as you develop the 15 course curriculums. 16 MS. JOSEPH: All right. I'd like to ask 17 you a question about that comment. 18 MR. FENOGLIO: Sure. 19 MS. JOSEPH: You said that -- I believe 20 you said this was more than the amendments to the 21 statute anticipated? 22 MR. FENOGLIO: Yes. 23 MS. JOSEPH: However, would you agree 24 that the Commission has authority to do this? 25 MR. FENOGLIO: Oh, yes. Absolutely. 0007 1 Absolutely. I -- what I meant to say was in the -- in 2 the discussions between the industry in which I was a 3 part and Commission staff, Bruce Miner, Phil 4 Sanderson, I believe, Sandy, you were at a couple of 5 those meetings, and then some of the legislative 6 staff, what we were trying to get at was to get a 7 training course that would meet the standards but also 8 be flexible enough so that the staff could, for 9 example, offer them over the Internet, and -- which is 10 what, you know, from lawyers to accountants to 11 engineers, geologists, and the like, everyone now can 12 do it over the Internet. So that's what I was 13 referring to. 14 But no, I -- if I believe this 15 Commission doesn't have the authority to adopt a 16 proposed rule, I'll let you know. 17 MS. JOSEPH: All right. Thank you. I 18 just wanted to clarify that. 19 MR. FENOGLIO: You bet. 20 Sharon Ives had raised an issue on the 21 training course, and she just e-mailed it to me. And 22 her question was under (f)(3), which is confirm 23 attendance on an on-site training course, if she 24 preregisters either online or by telephone, why can't 25 the Commission give a confirmation number instead of 0008 1 requiring -- requiring the individual to confirm on a 2 form prescribed by the Commission. And it seems to me 3 that since the Commission has that information 4 available, if the person can't confirm because they 5 can't find the information that they called in, for 6 example, to register the course and they were given a 7 confirmation number, it seems appropriate that perhaps 8 the Commission could confirm that, not the individual. 9 MS. JOSEPH: Hold on just a second. 10 MR. FENOGLIO: And specifically, she 11 states, "If I preregister either online or by 12 telephone, why can't the Commission give a 13 confirmation number instead of requiring the 14 individual to confirm on the form prescribed by the 15 Commission?" 16 MS. JOSEPH: All right. I have a 17 question there or a comment -- 18 MR. FENOGLIO: Sure. 19 MS. JOSEPH: -- I want to clarify. 20 Is she thinking that -- or is it your 21 understanding that that comment is based on the 22 understanding that an individual registering has to 23 confirm prior to attending? 24 MR. FENOGLIO: Well, it doesn't say. 25 And you could read it that way. It just says that if 0009 1 a person attending an onsite training course, they 2 must preregister by confirming attendance on a form 3 provided. And if they've signed up and they're there, 4 maybe the anticipation was that -- which I believe I 5 attended -- I know I attended an onsite training 6 course about five years ago in Bell County somewhere, 7 Belton, at a VFW or something like that, and you had a 8 registration form that everyone signed in. Maybe 9 that's all that's anticipated by that language, or is 10 there something more. 11 MS. JOSEPH: Okay. 12 MR. FENOGLIO: And if there's something 13 more, it seems to me it ought to be specifically 14 specified -- 15 MS. JOSEPH: And that's -- 16 MR. FENOGLIO: -- as opposed to just a 17 sign-in sheet, which is what I did this morning when I 18 came in. 19 MS. JOSEPH: Okay. And that's (f)(3) 20 that that comment -- 21 MR. FENOGLIO: Yes. 22 MS. JOSEPH: All right. 23 On Subparagraph (f)(8), which is where a 24 license authorized organization has requested the 25 Commission to hold an on-site training course, and the 0010 1 comment concerns the -- where it is approved, "the 2 organization must reimburse the Commission ... for all 3 travel expenses," her concern is that they may not 4 know what the cost is and be surprised after the fact. 5 My experience has been in the limited 6 time where I believe a group of charities requested 7 the Commission to come to Dallas to train, I don't 8 believe there was any cost associated with the 9 Commission staff coming to Dallas because of -- 10 there's a Dallas office, but I could see where in 11 theory, at least, someone could request it, Staff 12 could show up. If there wasn't a discussion of what 13 the costs were going to be, someone could get 14 surprised. And I don't have enough experience to know 15 if the Commission regularly charges organizations for 16 onsite training or not. Those are her comments. 17 She -- her other comment related to 18 (f)(8) is the source of funds to pay for the training. 19 I thought this rule allowed an individual or the 20 organization to use bingo monies to pay for training. 21 Under (f)(6), reasonable and necessary costs of 22 attendance by a member of an authorized organization 23 may be paid from the organization's bingo bank 24 account. So I guess that comment is injured by the 25 comments or the proposal in (f)(6), which is existing 0011 1 rule. Those are all the comments I have on that rule. 2 On 402.409, the amendment of change of 3 premises, it's -- we support those changes. 4 402.011, late license renewal. For some 5 reason, I could not print out the costs for a late 6 license, but someone was kind enough to hand it to me 7 outside. Give me just a moment to find that. Here it 8 is. 9 This new rule is consistent with the -- 10 the language in House Bill 1474. If you'll give me 11 just a moment to review the 402(e), cost associated. 12 I was a little surprised at if there are 57 days, I 13 believe it is -- yeah, here it is -- to 60 days, it's 14 50 percent of the estimated license fee. That's -- 15 I'm not sure what the basis of trending from 16 10 percent up to 50 would be, but it seems to me that 17 50 percent is a little high for a late license fee. 18 There may be costs associated with the 19 Commission staff if it's -- they're processing a late 20 fee as opposed to a regular license fee. And if there 21 are, I guess I'd like -- we'd like to see what that 22 justification is. It just seems like that -- 23 extraordinarily high for 50 percent. 24 MS. JOSEPH: All right. Mr. Miner would 25 like to address that. 0012 1 MR. FENOGLIO: Sure. 2 MR. MINER: I believe in the House Bill, 3 it says 10 percent for every 14 days. And using that 4 calculation, it comes up to those rates. And then it 5 also says over 60 -- over 60 days after reapply. 6 MR. FENOGLIO: Right. 7 MR. MINER: So that's the cutoff. 8 MR. FENOGLIO: And I recall that. Okay. 9 Well, I'll look at the statute again, but I'm not 10 sure -- someone has handed that to me. Ah, okay. 11 Then I think it's consistent -- entirely consistent 12 with the statute. 13 On 402.422, amendment to a regular 14 license to conduct charitable bingo, we believe all of 15 those changes are consistent with the statute, and we 16 support the changes. 17 Repeal of 402.702, we agree that it's -- 18 the rule is no longer necessary. 19 On 402.405, we agree and we think that 20 that's consistent with the legislative changes. 21 Turning now to 402.102 and the Bingo 22 Advisory Committee and changes, and they have to do -- 23 they center around changes in subparagraph (g) where a 24 BAC member may be removed from the Bingo Advisory 25 Committee, BAC, before the member's term has expired. 0013 1 There are probably 40 -- well, there are 2 in excess of 40 advisory commissions or committees for 3 different agencies from insurance to Railroad 4 Commission and a whole host in between, most of which 5 their rules are substantially shorter insofar -- 6 certainly insofar as they were moveable, and they 7 usually center on, No. 1, the Commission has the 8 discretion to who's going to be a member; No. 2, if 9 they don't show up regularly for meetings, which is in 10 the language, or -- or don't participate in some 11 fashion; and then if they violated some clear 12 standard, and the concern we have is the standard is 13 not very clear. For example, under F -- I'm sorry -- 14 (g)(3), they consider -- they can remove someone for 15 any unlawful conduct. 16 About three times or four times a year, 17 I get a parking citation, which is unlawful conduct. 18 I don't think the Commission really wants to go into 19 and determine if a parking violation or a speeding 20 ticket violation is the type of conduct that is 21 sufficient to remove someone. If it is, I would 22 suspect that there are a whole host of commissioners 23 who wouldn't be eligible to serve if the standard was 24 any unlawful conduct. I mean, it seems to me there 25 needs to be more focus on the type of conduct. 0014 1 Otherwise, there will be a lot of -- if someone wanted 2 to, and there have been on occasion a few people 3 who've complained incessantly to the Commission staff 4 and caused Staff to focus on some of those complaints 5 as opposed to their real business at hand, but that 6 type of unfocused language, it seems to me, is -- 7 could lead to foolish activities. And I don't know 8 what's intended by the words "unlawful conduct," but 9 literally parking violations. 10 MS. JOSEPH: I would like to point out 11 and see if you agree that that's actually in 12 (g)(2)(C). 13 MR. FENOGLIO: Yes, it is. 14 MS. JOSEPH: All right. 15 MR. FENOGLIO: Yes, it is. I'm sorry. 16 I was not as precise as I should have been. 17 And then making false statements, 18 including omissions. And again, the language that 19 I've seen in other agencies, this isn't the type of 20 language I've seen. But, I mean, read literally, 21 making false statements could include -- as opposed to 22 making a false statement -- a materially false 23 statement on a Commission form, but making a false 24 statement could include someone who told a lie in 25 third grade. I don't think that's what's intended. 0015 1 But literally, it doesn't seem like there's a real 2 focus on what the standard is. 3 Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 4 or misrepresentation. Again, a third-grader who 5 steals a piece of candy off the teacher's desk. Most 6 people would say -- and then denies it -- that that 7 would be an act involving one of those things, but is 8 that really what the agency is interested in? 9 The next one is, again, (g)(2)(F), abuse 10 of legal process. And I did a search on Texas law, 11 and there's no statutory standard of what constitutes 12 abuse of legal process. And by that, I mean there are 13 clear standards for speeding and sanctions for 14 speeding for a whole host of crimes in the penal code, 15 but abuse of legal process is not mentioned. 16 Now, there are several cases that 17 address that. They normally address either a convict, 18 of someone's who convicted, who continues to appeal ad 19 nauseum; and some courts have, in criminal cases, 20 have -- have talked about either the individual or the 21 individual's lawyer who's filed frivolous appeals, 22 that that might constitute abuse of legal process. 23 And then there are some civil cases that 24 also talk in terms of lawyers who've either misused 25 the court system in a -- in a -- I don't think they 0016 1 used the words outrageous, but I think most people 2 would look at that as an outrageous series of events 3 or conduct; or in a discovery process where a court 4 has repeatedly ordered someone to either cooperate 5 with discovery or has repeatedly refused to cooperate 6 with discovery, and there's some courts have addressed 7 that as abuse of legal process. 8 I don't know what is meant by that 9 because, again, there's no -- if you go to the 10 Vernon's statutes or Texas statutes, there's no 11 particular crime that's enumerated as an abuse of 12 legal process. 13 I guess every -- and maybe your -- the 14 staff was concerned about lawyers who want to be on 15 the BAC who may have been overly zealous. It occurs 16 to me that I've litigated for 20 -- hmm -- for a long 17 time -- 28 years. And really good lawyers 18 occasionally will step over the line, or at least the 19 judges will find that they stepped over the line, and 20 sanction them for discovery abuse. And I happen to 21 know of a couple of government lawyers who have done 22 the same thing. 23 Does that constitute abuse of legal 24 process if a judge has found that the lawyer has 25 either been too aggressive in deposition questions or 0017 1 in instructing a client not to answer deposition 2 questions and the like. I don't know what is meant by 3 that. And if it -- don't know what it's meant and I 4 can't define it with what I think is -- should be 5 legal precision, then it causes concern. 6 Violation -- and then (g)(2)(G), 7 violation of an order of a court. Again, if a judge 8 orders someone to -- in the discovery process or in 9 any sort of domestic dispute to cease and desist and 10 someone does unintentionally, technically they 11 violated an order of a court. And, for example, one 12 that usually is -- sometimes restraining orders are 13 issued restraining certain people from approaching 14 certain people within a certain known distance. Well, 15 if you -- if they both happen to be in the movie 16 theater unknowingly, then someone technically could be 17 in violation of a court order, but, you know -- so, 18 again, any order of any court it seems to me is a 19 little broad. 20 Subparagraphs (H) and (I), I don't think 21 the Commission really wants to go there, but the 22 proposal is conduct in -- either evidencing mental or 23 emotional instability or evidencing drug or alcohol 24 abuse or dependency. I'm not sure what that standard 25 is, but I'm not aware of any Commission employee who 0018 1 is a licensed counselor or a therapist or a physician 2 who could conclusively view someone's conduct and say, 3 well, that is -- in their professional opinion 4 evidences mental or emotional instability or evidences 5 drug or alcohol abuse -- drug or alcohol abuse or 6 dependency. 7 If it's someone who perhaps had too many 8 beers after a -- or during -- watching a football 9 game, some people might say that that is conduct 10 evidencing drug or alcohol abuse. Others might say, 11 "Well, that's just Joe's six pack" -- every pun 12 intended -- "on Friday night or Saturday night or 13 Sunday night." So it seems to me that those two 14 standards (H) and (I) are fraught with uncertainty. 15 And then Subparagraph (3), failure to 16 disclose a publicly filed allegation of any of the 17 items in Paragraph 2 is grounds for removal. Well, 18 again, if you've been convicted of a parking violation 19 and you didn't disclose that, and I don't think the 20 Commission should concern itself with parking 21 violations, but if they didn't, not withstanding the 22 Commission, on its form, didn't ask for it, that could 23 be grounds for sanction. And the same is true for the 24 other alleged I'll call them shortcomings that the 25 Commission has drafted as a rule. 0019 1 So all that to say with what I consider 2 to be pretty uncertain standards, especially 3 Subparagraph (F) should not be adopted. I'm sorry. I 4 went too far. (F)(1) and (2), I -- 5 MS. JOSEPH: I think that's "G". 6 MR. FENOGLIO: You're right. It is. 7 It's subparagraph (G)(1) and (2) -- are totally 8 acceptable, but it seems the language goes a little 9 farther -- further. 10 I want to read, if I may, this is 11 related to the abuse of legal process. After I went 12 through the Texas statutes and didn't find anything, I 13 then broadened the scope to the Texas Rules of Civil 14 Procedure, which is where I figured I would find cases 15 that deal with lawyers who have been alleged to abuse 16 the legal process. And there's a case that's cited 17 Metzger v. Sebek 892 S.W. 2d 20, and it went all the 18 way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the supreme 19 court said the court got it right. 20 The particular holding was court's power 21 to -- to sanction for abuse of legal process is not 22 limited to that specifically conveyed in rules and 23 statutes but may be implicit in a particular rule or 24 statute. And courts also have inherent power -- 25 powers to administer justice and preserve dignity and 0020 1 integrity, which includes the ability to sanction bad 2 faith conduct that occurs during the course of 3 litigation, but such power is not unlimited. And they 4 don't focus on what the unlimited power is. 5 But what I want to do is, it seems to me 6 if the -- if someone's violated materially a 7 Commission rule, the Railroad -- the Lottery 8 Commission rules, that would be an appropriate inquiry 9 and possible removal for violating -- a material 10 knowing violation. 11 If they -- if they violated 12 unintentionally a Railroad Commission rule on an oil 13 and gas lease, I don't think the Lottery Commission 14 should concern itself, should inquire, if you will, in 15 any way. 16 There are a whole host of rules -- I 17 mean, the Metzger case is very broad in upholding -- 18 upholding a sanction, but it seems to me this 19 Commission ought to focus on its own rules most 20 appropriately and its own statutes and -- and within 21 that, then focus on material violations. 22 I think we've all seen -- I know I 23 visited with Bruce Miner and Phil Sanderson, a number 24 of folks, about charities that, for example, didn't 25 withhold a nickel on a pull-tab -- well, a dollar 0021 1 went -- that's a violation of both statute and the 2 rule. Does the -- if that happened once, does the 3 Commission really care about, again, someone who 4 represents a charity who's being considered for that 5 if it happened once or it happened 12 times over a 6 year? I don't think the Commission should concern 7 itself. 8 But I would also suggest to you that in 9 all of the audits that I have seen and handled, I 10 think all but a couple -- and I've handled several 11 hundred -- have had violations where the charity 12 didn't appropriately withhold all the prize fees. 13 Again -- and that's why I go back to a material 14 violation and a knowing violation as opposed to just a 15 violation, seems to me, is a little -- should be more 16 the focus. 17 And on that regard, other agencies that 18 have advisory committees -- commission -- committees, 19 there's one, the Texas Real Estate Commission, their 20 rule on a Real Estate Inspector Committee is 22 -- or 21 23 -- I'm sorry -- 22 Texas Admin Code 535.206, and 22 Subparagraph (F), the Commission may review -- may 23 remove a committee member if the member doesn't have 24 the appropriate qualifications -- seems clear -- 25 cannot discharge their duties for a substantial part 0022 1 of the member's term, is absent for more than half the 2 regularly scheduled commission meetings, or violates a 3 particular provision of the real estate inspector 4 code. 5 There are also commissions that have 6 given the Commission chairman the authority for any 7 reason to remove someone from an advisory committee. 8 And there are several agencies that have that same 9 type of language that I just read through on real 10 estate inspector, including a solvency survey 11 committee through the Texas Department of Insurance. 12 So all that to say, it seems the -- the 13 language is in the proposed rule as it relates to 14 Subparagraph (F) is in need of more focus. Be happy 15 to answer any questions. Those are all the comments I 16 have. 17 MS. JOSEPH: Okay. Thank you. I would 18 like to ask you in regards to Subsection (G) that 19 you've been talking about in the paragraphs under 20 that, under (g)(2), it says, "The Commission may 21 consider any of the following." Does that seem to you 22 to indicate that it's not mandatory that the 23 Commission consider these? 24 MR. FENOGLIO: No, I don't think it is 25 mandatory. But again, in light of, Ms. Joseph, 0023 1 complaints we've seen in the past from people in the 2 industry trying to gain a competitive advantage, this 3 type of language is an open invitation. 4 I would hope the Commission would use 5 its discretion on that, but yes -- no, I think the 6 Commission has the authority. But again, when -- when 7 I go through and some of the language to me, sitting 8 on my side of the table, as opposed to your side, on 9 the -- representing the agency, it seems a little 10 unfocused and could lead to what I would consider an 11 abuse of the process by someone constantly trying 12 playing a game of gotcha. 13 MS. JOSEPH: All right. Thank you. 14 MR. FENOGLIO: Uh-huh. 15 MS. JOSEPH: I may have just -- I was 16 trying to take notes on each of the rules. I'm not 17 sure -- I believe you said, or maybe perhaps you 18 didn't say, that you supported amendments to 402.409, 19 and I just want to clarify. 20 MR. FENOGLIO: Sure. Give me just a 21 moment. 22 MS. JOSEPH: That's amendment for change 23 of premises or occasions due to lease termination or 24 abandonment. 25 MR. FENOGLIO: Yes, I had no comments, 0024 1 and we support the proposed changes. 2 MS. JOSEPH: All right. Thank you for 3 clarifying that. 4 MR. FENOGLIO: Uh-huh. 5 MS. JOSEPH: All right. We appreciate 6 your comments, as always. And I see no one else has 7 entered the room that would appear to want to offer 8 comments. So this hearing will be concluded at 10:41. 9 Thank you. 10 (Hearing concluded: 10:41 a.m.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0025 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF TEXAS ) 3 COUNTY OF TRAVIS ) 4 I, Lorrie A. Schnoor, a Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do 6 hereby certify that the above-mentioned matter 7 occurred as hereinbefore set out. 8 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the proceedings 9 of such were reported by me or under my supervision, 10 later reduced to typewritten form under my supervision 11 and control and that the foregoing pages are a full, 12 true and correct transcription of the original notes. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 14 my hand and seal this 12th day of November 2009. 15 16 17 _________________________________ 18 Lorrie A. Schnoor, RMR, CRR, BRCP Certified Shorthand Reporter 19 CSR No. 4642 - Expires 12/31/11 20 Firm Registration No. 276 Kennedy Reporting Service, Inc. 21 Cambridge Tower 1801 Lavaca Street, Suite 115 22 Austin, Texas 78701 512.474.2233 23 24 25