BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Norma J. Torres, Chair
BILL NO: AB 857 HEARING DATE: 7/2/13
AUTHOR: FONG ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: 6/26/13
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Initiatives: petition circulators
DESCRIPTION
Existing law allows electors to propose statutes and amendments
to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them through the
initiative process.
Existing law requires that a state or local initiative petition
contain a notice alerting voters that the petition may be
circulated by a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer, and that
voters have the right to ask if a petition circulator is a paid
gatherer or volunteer.
Existing law establishes penalties for fraudulent activity
related to signature gathering.
This bill makes numerous significant changes to provisions of
state law governing initiatives and referenda. Specifically,
this bill :
1) Requires at least 20 percent of the signatures needed to
qualify a proposed state initiative measure for the ballot
to be collected by individuals who did not receive money or
other valuable consideration exclusively or primarily for
the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors on
the petition, as specified ("20 percent requirement").
a) Provides that signatures on a petition qualify toward
meeting the 20 percent requirement if they are collected by
a person who: 1) is an employee or member of a non-profit
organization, other than an organization in the business of
soliciting signatures on initiative petitions, 2) who
receives money or other valuable consideration from the
organization and as part of that employment or membership
solicits signatures for the qualification of an initiative
measure, unless a primary purpose of that employment or
membership is to solicit signatures on an initiative
petition. Defines "member" for the purposes of this
provision.
b) Provides that signatures solicited by registered voters or
employees of a political party who receive money or other
valuable consideration from the political party for
soliciting signatures on an initiative petition do not
qualify toward meeting the 20 percent requirement.
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 2
c) Provides that signatures solicited through direct mail do
not count towards the 20 percent requirement unless the
person soliciting the signatures through direct mail, and
every other person who organizes, pays, or arranges for the
direct mail, is eligible to solicit signatures that qualify
toward meeting the 20 percent requirement, as described
above. Provides that this provision shall not preclude an
organization that has a primary purpose other than
soliciting signatures on initiative petitions from
soliciting signatures from its members through direct mail
and relying on those signatures for the purposes of
satisfying the 20 percent requirement.
d) Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to
preclude signatures that are solicited by a person who
receives nominal, non-monetary benefits, including food,
transportation, or lodging, from qualifying toward meeting
the 20 percent requirement.
2) Notwithstanding existing law, requires each proposed
initiative measure to also include on the first page of each
section of the petition the circulating title prepared by
the AG, placed in the one-inch space across the top of the
page in 18-point roman boldface type.
3) Requires a petition for a proposed initiative measure that
is circulated by a person who does not receive money or
other valuable consideration for the purpose of soliciting
signatures of electors to be printed on white paper in a
contrasting color ink.
4) Requires a petition for a proposed initiative measure that
is circulated by a person who receives money or other
valuable consideration for the purpose of soliciting
signatures of electors to be printed on paper of a color
other than white in a contrasting color ink.
5) Requires a petition for a proposed initiative measure that
is circulated by a person such that it will not qualify
toward meeting the 20 percent requirement to include all of
the following:
a) Immediately prior to the portion of the petition for
voters' signatures, the following language printed in
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 3
18-point boldface type:
"NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION IS BEING CIRCULATED
BY A PERSON PAID TO OBTAIN YOUR SIGNATURE. YOU ARE
ENCOURAGED TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THIS PETITION BEFORE
SIGNING."
b) Immediately following the notice identified above, a
disclosure statement, in 14-point boldface type, that
includes the following language:
"The political committee paying for this petition to be
circulated is (insert full name of committee as registered
with the Secretary of State (SOS)).
The following donors have contributed $50,000 or more to the
(insert full name of committee as registered with the SOS)
within six months of the printing of this petition: (insert
name of each of the top three donors who have contributed
$50,000 or more and, if an individual, his or her occupation
and the identity of his or her employer)."
c) Requires, if the information for the disclosure statement
changes, that the statement be updated within 14 days.
d) Provides that failure to include the disclosure statement
does not constitute grounds for an elections official to
refuse to receive or file an initiative petition, nor render
invalid any signature on an initiative petition.
6) Requires a person who solicits signatures on a petition
that qualify toward meeting the 20 percent requirement to
sign an affidavit that declares all of the following:
a) That the person did not receive money or other valuable
consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting
signatures of electors pursuant to the requirements of this
bill;
b) That to the best of his or her knowledge, the signatures on
the petition sections circulated by him or her should be
counted towards the 20 percent requirement;
c) If the person is not a resident of the state, a statement
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 4
that he or she consents to the jurisdiction of the state and
service of process for any legal action for the purposes of
an investigation or prosecution by any state or local agency
regarding the validity of the signatures submitted by that
person.
7) Makes corresponding changes to the process for elections
officials to verify signatures submitted on a state
initiative petition.
8) Requires each section of a petition for a proposed state
initiative measure that is circulated by a person such that
it does not qualify toward the 20 percent requirement to
include the unique identifier of that circulator.
9) Repeals a requirement that a person must be a voter or
qualified to register to vote in the state in order to
circulate an initiative or referendum petition.
10) Defines the term "professional petition firm" (PPF) as a
business that is created and maintained for the exclusive or
primary purpose of paying individuals, directly or
indirectly, to circulate initiative and referendum petitions
for the purpose of gathering signatures to qualify an
initiative or referendum measure for a state election
ballot. Further requires the PPF to provide training to
each person hired or retained directly or indirectly, to
circulate an initiative or referendum petition, individually
or in a group, and specifies what is included in the
training.
11) Requires the PPF to register annually with the SOS. The
registration form shall include the full name, address, and
partners, owners, or officers of the firm, and shall be
accompanied by a registration fee established by the SOS.
12) Requires the SOS to adopt regulations providing procedures
for registration, including the denial and revocation of
registration. Further requires the SOS to use the
registration fees collected to maintain a directory of
professional petition firms on his or her Internet Web site
and to defray any costs associated with the requirements of
this section.
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 5
13) Prohibits a PPF from hiring, retaining, or otherwise
compensating a person directly or indirectly for soliciting
signatures on an initiative or referendum petition if the
person has been convicted, within the past 10 years, of a
misdemeanor or felony offense in violation of the Elections
Code, or a felony involving fraud, forgery, or
identification theft.
14) Requires a PPF to obtain a statement, signed under penalty
of perjury, from each paid circulator that it employs that
includes all of the following:
a) The person's name, residential address, signature,
photograph, and a list of the petitions for which the person
will solicit signatures;
b) If the person has been convicted of a criminal offense
involving fraud, forgery, identification theft, or a
violation of the Elections Code, information relating to the
circumstances of the conviction, as required by the SOS;
c) A statement that the person has read and understands the
applicable laws pertaining to the soliciting of signatures
for an initiative or referendum measure, and proof that the
person has completed the required training; and,
d) If the person is not a California resident, a statement
that he or she consents to the state's jurisdiction and
service of process for the purposes of an investigation or
prosecution.
15) Requires a PPF to assign a unique seven-digit
identification number to each circulator, as specified, and
to provide the name and identification number of each
circulator to the SOS within 14 days of the date that the
circulator executed the statement described above. Requires
a PPF to retain copies of each circulator's statement for
not less than two years after the petition is filed or two
years after the deadline for submission of the petition to
the elections official, whichever is later. Permits the SOS
to inspect these records.
16) Requires each circulator hired by a PPF to wear a badge
provided by the PPF in a conspicuous place while soliciting
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 6
signatures on petitions. Requires the badge to contain the
person's photograph and identification number.
17) Requires the SOS to revoke the registration of a PPF that,
in the course of circulating or hiring individuals to
circulate an initiative or referendum petition, engages in
fraud, misrepresentation, or other specified conduct
prohibited by the Elections Code.
18) Provides that if a person who was required to be trained
and certified pursuant to this bill was not trained and
certified at the time he or she solicited signatures on a
petition, the signatures presented on the petitions or
sections of the petition circulated by that person shall not
count toward qualifying that measure for the ballot.
19) Requires a PPF who pays a circulator for the specific
purpose of soliciting signatures of electors on a petition
to keep detailed accounts as specified. Provides that
"accounts," for these purposes, means all of the following:
a) Contracts entered into for the specific purpose of
soliciting signatures on a petition;
b) Employment manuals and training materials provided to
petition circulators;
c) Payroll records for each petition circulator showing hours
worked, number of signatures collected, and amounts paid;
d) Records identifying the amount and purpose of payments
received from a proponent or from any other person who pays
the PPF for signatures on a petition; and,
e) Copies of petition sections circulated by registered
circulators.
20) Permits the SOS to review the accounts of PPFs.
21) Provides that if PPF does not produce accounts upon demand
of the SOS, there is a rebuttable presumption that the
signatures were gathered in violation of the law and cannot
be used to qualify the measure for the ballot. Prohibits
the PPF from soliciting additional signatures on the
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 7
petition until the PPF makes the accounts available to the
SOS for inspection.
22) Provides that a state initiative or referendum petition
section is invalid if the signatures are solicited and
submitted by a person who engages in fraud,
misrepresentation, or other illegal conduct concerning the
circulation of the petition, as specified. Provides that
the SOS or any elector may enforce this provision by a civil
action in which the plaintiff has the burden of showing a
violation by clear and convincing evidence.
23) Makes various findings and declarations about the
initiative process and the influence that special interests
and paid circulators have on that process.
24) Makes corresponding changes.
BACKGROUND
The initiative is the power of the people of California to
propose statutes and to propose amendments to the California
Constitution. Generally, any matter that is a proper subject of
legislation can become an initiative measure; however, no
initiative measure addressing more than one subject area may be
submitted to the voters or have any effect. An initiative
measure is placed on the ballot after its proponents
successfully satisfy the requirements prescribed by law.
COMMENTS
1. According to the Author : In 1911, as part of the
Progressive movement, California voters amended the state
Constitution to reserve for themselves the power of the
initiative, because powerful, out-of-state interests
exercised a corrupting influence over state politics.
Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, the original intent of
the initiative process has been undermined, and the
initiative has become one of the favorite tools of
well-financed special interest groups. Voters recognize that
the ability of an initiative's proponents to gather the
necessary signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot is
not necessarily a function of whether there is broad-based
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 8
community support for a proposed measure, as originally
intended, but rather can depend on the amount of money that a
proponent is willing to spend to place the proposal on the
ballot
When the initiative process was first created, it was
envisioned that petitions would be circulated by volunteers
and grassroots organizations that supported the proposed law.
But in the late 1970s, the signature gathering process
became a professional undertaking, and a number of
professional signature gathering firms were created. Since
the 1990s, most initiative measures have relied primarily on
paid signature gatherers to qualify for the ballot, and no
state initiative measure has qualified for the ballot using
only volunteer signature gatherers since 1990.
At the same time, proposed initiative measures with true
grassroots support have continued to have success in
collecting large numbers of signatures using volunteer
signature gatherers. In 2008, proponents of Proposition 2
gathered half a million signatures using volunteer signature
gatherers.
AB 857 preserves the original intent of the initiative process
by ensuring that proposed initiative measures have
broad-based community support in order to qualify to appear
on the ballot. To achieve that goal, AB 857 requires at
least 20 percent of the signatures gathered to qualify a
state initiative for the ballot to be collected by grassroots
signature gatherers. Additionally, AB 857 helps ensure that
measures do not qualify for the ballot due to fraudulent
activity by signature gatherers by prohibiting fraudulently
collected signatures from being used to qualify a measure for
the ballot. Finally, AB 857 helps protect the integrity of
the initiative process by requiring professional petition
firms to train their employees and to register with the
Secretary of State, and by prohibiting people convicted of
fraud or other elections crimes from being paid to collect
signatures on initiative petitions for a period of ten years.
2. 20 Percent Signature Requirement : Under the provisions of
this bill, in order for a state initiative measure to qualify
for the ballot, at least 20 percent of the signatures
gathered on the petition for that measure would have to be
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 9
collected on petition sections that were circulated by a
person who does not receive money or other valuable
consideration exclusively or primarily for the specific
purpose of soliciting signatures of electors on the petition,
as specified. This "20 percent requirement" does not apply
to state referendum or recall petitions, nor does it apply to
local initiatives, referenda, or recalls.
While signatures collected by volunteers will count toward
meeting this 20 percent requirement, the language of the bill
does not require the signatures to be gathered by volunteers
in order to qualify to meet the 20 percent requirement.
Instead, in certain circumstances, signatures collected by
individuals who were paid for their time could count toward
meeting the 20 percent requirement provided that the person
wasn't paid exclusively or primarily for the specific purpose
of soliciting signatures. This bill provides that signatures
will count toward the 20 percent requirement if they are
collected by employees and members of nonprofit organizations
who receive compensation from that organization and solicit
signatures as a part of their employment or membership, as
long as the nonprofit organization is not primarily focused
on soliciting signatures on petitions. In the case of
signatures solicited by direct mail, those signatures would
apply toward the 20 percent requirement if the person
soliciting the signatures through direct mail and all persons
that organize, pay for, and arrange the direct mail are
persons who were eligible to solicit signatures that counted
toward the 20 percent requirement. Additionally, signatures
solicited by direct mail would count toward the 20 percent
requirement if they are collected by an organization that is
soliciting signatures through direct mail from its members,
as long as the organization has a primary purpose other than
collecting signatures.
In 1988, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado
prohibition against the use of paid circulators for
initiative petitions violated the First Amendment's guarantee
of free speech. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice
Stevens noted that "[t]he State's interest in protecting the
integrity of the initiative process does not justify the
prohibition because the State has failed to demonstrate that
it is necessary to burden appellees' ability to communicate
their message in order to meet its concerns." Meyer v. Grant
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 10
(1988), 486 U.S. 414. It could be argued that the 20 percent
requirement imposed by this bill could be susceptible to a
court challenge in light of the United States Supreme Court's
ruling in Meyer . However, the 20 percent requirement in this
bill is distinguishable from the law struck down in Meyer in
a number of different ways, and thus may be more likely to
withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Unlike the law considered by the court in Meyer , the 20 percent
requirement in this bill does not apply to all signatures
gathered to qualify a measure for the ballot, but only a
portion of the signatures. Furthermore, as discussed above,
the signatures that are gathered to meet that 20 percent
requirement do not necessarily have to be collected by
individuals who are unpaid if they are gathered by members
and employees of a nonprofit organization in furtherance of
that nonprofit's objectives. These provisions are designed
to help ensure that initiative measures that qualify for the
ballot have sufficient grassroots support, while still
providing significant flexibility for proponents of
initiative measures to gather the necessary number of
signatures.
Additionally, there is reason to believe that changes in the
initiative process since the Meyer decision may undercut a
key rationale used by the court in striking down Colorado's
law. The Meyer court held that Colorado's interest in making
sure that an initiative had sufficient grassroots support to
be placed on the ballot did not justify the prohibition on
the use of paid signature gatherers because it found that
interest was "adequately protected by the requirement that no
initiative proposal may be placed upon the ballot unless the
required number of signatures has been obtained." But this
bill questions whether the signature requirement, in and of
itself, still serves as a sufficient barometer of grassroots
support for a measure, finding that "[d]ue to the growth of
paid signature gathering, the presence of an initiative
measure on the ballot is no longer necessarily viewed as an
expression of a minimum amount of public support but, rather,
often is the result of a special interest willing to pay a
sufficient number of petition circulators to qualify the
initiative measure for the ballot." Research in 2008 by the
now-closed Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) supports
these findings, suggesting that over time, the signature
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 11
requirement has morphed from being a measure of the level of
grassroots support for an initiative to instead being a
measure of the amount of money that proponents are willing to
spend to qualify a measure for the ballot. In its 2008
report, "Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California's Fourth
Branch of Government, Second Edition," CGS wrote:
For the last few decades, the most important factor determining
whether an initiative will qualify for the ballot has been
the amount of money spent on petition circulation. In the
late 1970s, a gap began to grow between the amount of money
spent on successful and unsuccessful attempts to qualify
initiatives. Prior to the upsurge in ballot qualification
costs that began with the 1978 general election, expenditures
on petition circulation for both successful and unsuccessful
efforts were reasonably close.
While expenditures on unballoted initiatives have barely risen,
the amount of money spent on successful qualification efforts
has increased exponentially. In the early 1990s, ballot
qualification could reasonably be assured at a cost of
$500,000 and guaranteed at a price tag of $1 million or more.
Some initiatives had managed to qualify spending less, and,
throughout the entire history of California's initiative
process, only two initiative proposals that spent as much as
$500,000 on qualification efforts failed to make it to the
ballot. Proponents of 10 of the 50 balloted initiatives from
1984 through 1990 spent under $500,000 for qualification,
while 24 campaigns spent over $1 million. By contrast, the
vast majority of the 39 campaigns for balloted initiatives
between 2000 and 2006 spent more than $1 million on
qualification, and 16 spent over $2 million. The fact that
ballot access can be so reliably measured in terms of dollars
rather than degree of public concern clearly runs counter to
the original intent of the initiative process?. Money, rather
than breadth or intensity of popular support, has become the
primary threshold for determining ballot qualification.
3. Registration and Training of Paid Signature Gatherers &
Badge Requirement : This bill requires PPFs to register with
the SOS and to train their employees pursuant to regulations
adopted by the SOS. The training program would focus
primarily on instructing circulators about the requirements
of state law when circulating petitions, while the
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 12
registration requirements appear to be designed primarily to
assist in the enforcement of this bill and of other
provisions of state law. This bill additionally requires
employees of a PPF, when circulating a petition, to wear a
badge that contains the person's photograph and unique
identifying number.
In 1999, the United States Supreme Court examined a Colorado
law that provided a number of restrictions on the signature
collection process for ballot initiatives. In that case the
court ruled that there must be a compelling state interest to
justify any restrictions on initiative petition circulation.
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), 525
U.S. 182.
In Buckley , the court invalidated Colorado's requirement that
paid petition circulators wear badges identifying themselves
and identifying that they are paid circulators. The court
stated that the requirement to wear badges inhibits
participation in the petitioning process. "Because the badge
requirement compels personal name identification at the
precise moment when the circulator's interest in anonymity is
greatest, it does not qualify for inclusion among 'the more
limited [election process] identification requirement[s]."
The Buckley court did not rule on the validity of the
requirement that a circulator wear a badge stating whether a
petition circulator was paid or a volunteer.
It could be argued that this bill's requirements for certain
circulators to wear a badge could be susceptible to a court
challenge in light of the ruling in Buckley . Unlike the
badge required by the Colorado law at issue in Buckley ,
however, the badge required by this bill does not "compel
personal name identification," or otherwise compromise the
anonymity of the circulator because it does not require the
circulator's name to appear on the badge. Instead, the badge
would contain a photograph of the circulator and unique
identifying number. Requiring circulators to wear this badge
can help facilitate enforcement of this bill's provisions and
of existing law by allowing voters who are asked to sign a
petition to verify that the person circulating the petition
has been trained in accordance with the law, and to report
any misconduct by petition circulators by referencing the
registration number of a circulator who violates the law.
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 13
Because the badge required by this bill helps facilitate
enforcement of the state's laws governing the initiative
process while maintaining the anonymity of the circulator,
the badge requirement in this bill would appear to be on
firmer ground than the badge requirement in question in
Buckley .
4. Invalidation of Signatures : Existing law generally is
silent on the issue of whether violations of state law
prohibiting improper signature-gathering tactics will result
in the signatures on those petitions being invalidated. In
at least one case, however, a court invalidated signatures
gathered to qualify an initiative for the ballot due to
improper signature-gathering tactics by the proponents of the
measure. In San Francisco Forty-Niners v. Nishioka (1999),
75 Cal.App.4th 637, the California Court of Appeals for the
First District, Division One, prohibited an initiative
measure from appearing on the ballot because the initiative
petition included false statements intended to mislead
voters, in violation of Section 18600 of the Elections Code.
In this case, the false statements appeared on the text of
the petition itself. As a result, every person who was asked
to sign the petition was exposed to these false statements
that were intended to mislead voters.
In a case where petition circulators make false or misleading
statements about a proposed ballot measure, or engage in
other illegal signature-gathering tactics in an attempt to
get voters to sign a petition, it is unclear whether that
misconduct can result in signatures being invalidated.
Committee staff is not aware of any court cases that have
addressed this issue.
5. Non-Resident Circulators : In 2008, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Nader v. Brewer
(2008), 531 F.3d 1028, that it was unconstitutional for
states to prevent non-residents from circulating petitions.
In 2009, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the
case on appeal, so the Ninth Circuit opinion still stands.
In the latter half of 2012, a number of California counties
were sued because their county clerks were allegedly
enforcing state laws that prevent non-Californians from
circulating initiatives and/or nomination papers.
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 14
In light of the court's ruling in Nader , this bill repeals a
requirement that a person must be qualified to register to
vote in the state in order to circulate an initiative or
referendum petition in the state. To help facilitate
enforcement of the law in the case of circulators that are
not residents of California, this bill requires non-residents
to sign a declaration consenting to the jurisdiction of the
state and to service of process for any legal action for the
purposes of an investigation or prosecution by any state or
local agency
6. Related Legislation : SB 477 (Steinberg), which is pending
in the Senate Rules Committee, declares the intent of the
Legislature to enact legislation to prohibit a political
campaign committee from accepting large contributions for
supporting the qualification of a statewide initiative ballot
measure until the committee has first received a significant
number of small individual contributions made for the same
purpose, thereby demonstrating a sufficient degree of public
support for the proposed initiative measure.
AB 400 (Fong), which is pending on the Assembly Floor, requires
an initiative, referendum, or recall petition that is
circulated by a paid circulator to include a statement
identifying the five largest contributors in support of the
measure.
7. Previous Legislation : SB 334 (DeSaulnier) of 2011, would
have required the state ballot pamphlet for an election to
include a list of the five highest contributors of $50,000 or
more to each primarily formed committee supporting and
opposing the ballot measures that would appear on the ballot
at that election. SB 334 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who
expressed concern that the cutoff date for including
contributors in the ballot pamphlet in order to comply with
printing deadlines could "mislead voters about the true
supporters and opponents of a ballot measure."
AB 651 (Hueso) of 2011, would have required all professional
petition firms, as defined, to register with the SOS, and to
review the law relating to obtaining petition signatures with
each paid petition circulator before the circulator could
obtain signatures for the firm. AB 651 was vetoed by
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 15
Governor Brown, who stated that he was "not convinced that
these new requirements are needed or would improve the
initiative process."
AB 2946 (Leno) of 2006, would have provided that any signatures
collected in violation of any provision of state law relating
to the circulation of a statewide initiative, referendum, or
recall petition shall be invalid and shall not count towards
qualification of the initiative, referendum, or recall, among
other provisions. AB 2946 was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, who argued that it would "allow legal
technicalities to thwart the will of hundreds of thousands of
Californians who choose to sign initiative petitions."
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 5-2
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 12-5
Assembly Floor: 53-24
POSITIONS
Sponsor: California Labor Federation, Co-Sponsor
California Professional Firefighters, Co-Sponsor
Support: California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California School Employees Association (CSEA),
AFL-CIO
Communications Workers of America District 9
Engineers and Scientists of California
International Longshore & Warehouse Union
Laborers' International Union of North America Locals
777 and 792
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
San Mateo County Central Labor Council
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western
States Council
UNITE HERE!
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
Oppose: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 16
AB 857 (FONG)
Page 17