0

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Division 3/28/19


>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE JUDICIARY FINANCE AND CIVIL LAW DIVISION TO ORDER. MEMBERS; TAKE YOUR SEAT. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES A QUORUM. TODAY WE’VE GOT 11 BILLS ON THE AGENDA. I’M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM BUT THE FIRST BILL UP IS GOING TO BE REPRESENTATIVE MANN WE CAN DO THE MINUTES. MINUTES FROM WHERE? [INAUDIBLE / OFF MICROPHONE] WE HAVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21. REPRESENTATIVE BAHR MOVES THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE; ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PASSES.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: THE MOTION>>CHAIR LESCH: THE MOTION PASSES 1-0 MARCH 21. REPRESENTATIVE MANN; WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE ON YOU HAVE HOUSE FILE 557. THIS IS PROHIBITING NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS FOR PHYSICIANS BUT IT HAD TO HEARINGS HHS POLICY AND IN LABOR AND THE MOTION . THE CHAIR MOVES HOUSE . THE CHAIR MOVES HOUSE FILE 557B RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL REGISTER. REPRESENTATIVE TO MANAGE YOUR BILL>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. GOOD MORNING TODAY WE ARE TALK ABOUT 80 JEFF 557 WHICH LIKE THE CHAIRS THAT WOULD RESTRICT NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS WITH NONPHYSICIAN COMPACT STATE WOULD CURRENTLY HAPPEN [INAUDIBLE] YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN A;; PICK A NUMBER AND PICK A MILE RADIUS FROM YOUR PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT. SO IF A PROVIDER FOR WHATEVER REASON WAS TO LEAVE THE PRACTICE THEY HAVE TO SOMETIMES RELOCATE TO THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY IN ORDER TO CONTINUE PRACTICING MEDICINE. EVEN IF THE CLINIC DOWN THE STREET IS HIRING. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT IT IMPACTS THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR DOCTORS ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO RECEIVE THEIR PATIENTS AND THEIR PATIENTS HAVE TO FIND A NEW DOCTOR. THIS CLAUSE IS A DIRECT BARRIER TO GOOD PATIENT CARE. DIRECT BARRIER TO CONTINUITY OF CARE. WHICH WE HAVE SEEN AND WE KNOW IMPROVES HEALTH OUTCOMES. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES THAT IS THERE SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ORGANIZATION AND NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PHYSICIAN OR THE PATIENT. THERE ARE MANY MANY BARRIERS TO PATIENT CARE AND THIS JUST IS NOT HAVE TO BE ONE OF THEM.>>CHAIR LESCH: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE MANN WHEN WE GO TO TESTIFIERS TO RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU ARE HERE TO TESTIFY ON HOUSE FILE 557. I SEE TWO HANDS UP. TWO GUYS AND DARK SO IT’S ON THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE ELSE? COME ON DOWN. DID YOU HAVE ANY OF YOUR TESTIFIERS REPRESENTATIVE?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: NO>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE PLEA SE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AND PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY. AND BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BEN VICE PRESIDENT OF LEGAL AND FEDERAL AFFAIRS FOR THE MINNESOTA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION. BEFORE THAT I SPENT SEVERAL YEARS WORKING AS A TRAINED ATTORNEY IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE OF A LARGE MINNESOTA HEALTH SYSTEM. WHEN I NEGOTIATED AND WAS INVOLVED IN WORKING ON DOZENS AND DOZENS OF CONTRACTS THAT INVOLVE CLINIC ACQUISITIONS EMPLOYMENT OR REGIONS OTHER SUCH PSA TO 141 HOSPITALS [INAUDIBLE] IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND WE EMPLOY THOUSANDS OF PHYSICIANS HERE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF PHYSICIANS EMPLOYED BY OUR HEALTH SYSTEMS IS GOING. HEALTH SYSTEM EMPLOYMENT IS A VERY ATTRACTIVE OPTION FOR PHYSICIANS TO . IT PROVIDES THEM WITH LESS FINANCIAL RISK [INAUDIBLE] . MORE RESOURCES FOR STAFFING. TECHNOLOGY; ALL THESE KIND OF THINGS. NOT COMPUTER ACTUALLY QUITE POPULAR WITH MANY PHYSICIANS. THEY GIVE THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM AND THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE PHYSICIANS WITH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION; ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION. BY LAW; EVERY NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT HAS TO BE ATTACHED TO SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION THROUGH THE CONSIDERATION. THESE CLINIC ACQUISITIONS EMPLOYMENT OR REGIONS; PFA’S CALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS ARE POSSIBLE BECAUSE HOSPITAL SYSTEMS ARE ABLE TO MAKE INVESTMENTS BASED ON A LONG-TERM PLAN FOR SUPPORT IN THE PHYSICIAN HELPS HIS PATIENT. WITHOUT SOME ASSURANCES THAT THE SYSTEM THE HEALTH SYSTEM CAN MAKE THESE CAN RECOVER THEIR INVESTMENTS THEY’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS LONG-TERM AND WILL HAVE TO OPERATE IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THIS LEGISLATION WOULD MAKE US IN MINNESOTA A BIT OF AN OUTLIER. PHYSICIANS WOULD BE THE ONLY PERSON PROFESSIONS IN THE STATE THAT WOULD ENTER INTO NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS AND VERY FEW OTHER STATES HAVE TRIED THE SORT OF SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE. IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER HERE THE PHYSICIANS; THERE ARE HELPLESS VICTIMS HERE. THEY BENEFIT FROM THESE EMPLOYMENT MODELS. NO PHYSICIAN IS EVER REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT. NO PHYSICIAN IS REQUIRED TO GO FOR TO GO TO WORK FOR THE HEALTH SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND MINNESOTA CURRENTLY PROTECTS THESE PHYSICIANS AND ANYBODY WHO ENTERS INTO THESE NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS BUT AS I MENTIONED TO THERE’S A REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION. IN ADDITION TO THAT; COURTS LOOK AT THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT ; THE EXTENT OF THE BUSINESS THE TIMEFRAME OF THE RESTRICTIONS THE TERRITORY THEY ARE COVERED TO MAKE SURE THESE AGREEMENTS ARE REASONABLE. WHEN THEY ARE CHALLENGE AND IF THEY’RE NOT REASONABLE MS. MINNESOTA HAS ADOPTED THIS NEW PENCILED DOCTRINE WHICH WE ALL LEARNED ABOUT IN LAW SCHOOL THAT ALLOWS THE COURT TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THESE PROPOSALS WHEN THEY ARE UNREASONABLE. WHEN THE NONCOMPETE IS UNREASONABLE. IN CLOSING; I JUST WOULD SAY THAT THE LEGISLATION IS OVERBROAD. IT PUTS IS SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON [INAUDIBLE] LEGAL RANGES THEY SEEM TO INCREASINGLY REFER TO ENTER INTO AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THE COMMITTEE REJECT THE PROPOSAL.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU MR. . I THINK MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS. NEXT PERSON COME ON UP. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AGAIN YOUR TESTIMONY. MEMBERS; KEEP IN MIND WE HAVE 11 BILLS ON THE CALENDAR TODAY. WE ARE GONNA BE GOING UNTIL 12:30 PM BUT I AM GOING TO BE LIMITING THE PEOPLE ARE GOING ON LIKE THAT PLEASE PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF MY NAME IS SANTO CREWS ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH. I LIKE TO EXPLAIN [INAUDIBLE ] BECAUSE IT’S COUNTERINTUITIVE. I THINK IS VERY GOOD INTENTIONS PRESERVING A VERY SICK RELATION BETWEEN A DOCTOR AND PATIENT COULD I BELIEVE MANY OF YOU RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM DR. [INAUDIBLE]WHO HERSELF HAS A NONCOMPETE AND A PROPONENT OF NONCOMPETE ALSO THE CEO OF [INAUDIBLE] IN WILMER MINNESOTA IN THAT EMAIL AND I WON’T GO THROUGH IS FOR SAKE OF TIME FOR THE CHAIRS RECENT;; SHE DESCRIBES WHAT I WOULD BOIL DOWN TO IS A DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE CLAIM. AGAIN GOING BACK TO THE LAW SCHOOL; ALL YOU KNOW THAT DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE IS A WAY TO SAY WHEN YOU RELY ON A PROMISE THAT THEY ARE GONN A DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT’S FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AND YOU MAKE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN TERMS OF PERHAPS FORGIVING TUITION DEBT OR PAIN OFF TUITION THAT; BUILDING A MILLION-DOLLAR FACILITY IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON OR YOU NAME IT; YOU HAVE DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON THE PROMISE OF THAT PERSON WILL FULFILL THEIR PROMISE THAT THEY WILL SERVE IN A CAPACITY TO MAKE THAT INVESTMENT NOT JUST WORTHWHILE TO THE PRACTICE GROUP BUT ACTUALLY AS IN RURAL MINNESOTA MANY MANY OF THE THINGS THAT ROLE MINNESOTA NEEDS AS WE DO OUR COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT ARE THINGS LIKE TOBACCO CESSATION TREATMENT ; RURAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT; SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER TREATMENT AND A LOT OF POPULATION HEALTH WORK THAT [INAUDIBLE] INVEST HUGELY IN PURE WE DO PRIMARY CARE IN THE JUST WE WOULD TELLADVOCACY CENTER PART OF MANY MANY COMMUNITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT DO NOT SELF SUSTAIN. THOSE OF YOU WHO LOOKED AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS KNOW THAT RURAL MINNESOTA IS ON AVERAGE DEMOGRAPHICALLY OLDER POOR AND SICKER THAN ARE METRO COUNTERPARTS. THIS MEANS THAT CROSS SUBSIDIZATION IS NOT A DIRTY WORD IN RURAL MINNESOTA. WHEN WE LAY OUT AN INVESTMENT FOR A CANDIDATE AND SAY WE WILL DO THIS AND WE WILL PURCHASE A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF NONCOMPETE BUT WHAT WE ARE SAYING WE ARE RELYING UPON OUR DETRIMENT TO PUT THESE TYPES OF RESOURCES OUT THERE IN ORDER TO SERVE MANY MANY OTHER AREAS>>CHAIR LESCH: IF YOU COULD WRAP IT UP?>>TESTIFIER: I WILL WRAP IT UP NOW .>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WAS WHO IS HERE OR ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS ; ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO IS HERE AND WISHES TO BE HEARD ON HOUSE FILE 557? SEEING NONE; QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS? REPRESENTATI VE BAHR>>REPRESENTATIVE BAHR: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. IS THAT MR. CRUZ THE LAST TESTIFIER?>>CHAIR LESCH: MR. CRUZ; YES>>RE PRESENTATIVE BAHR: MY QUESTION FOR MR. CRUZ YOU’RE THE ROLL DR. REPRESENTATIVE; YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RURAL ASPECT OF COULD YOU TELL ME HOW A BIGGER TOOL OR WHAT KIND OF TOOL IS THE NONCOMPETE CLAUSE FOR GETTING DOCTORS TO PRACTICE OR SET OF PRACTICE IN A RURAL HOSPITAL? IS THAT A MAJOR TOOL FOR RECRUITING DOCTORS OUT TO YOUR AREA OUT TO RURAL HOSPITALS?>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; MEMBERS; ABSOLUTELY. IN TERMS I THINK DR. TALK ABOUT SHE’S RECRUITED FOR EVERY SINGLE SPECIALTY AND I COULD TAKE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT JUST IN RECRUITING AND THEN OFTEN AS SHE DESCRIBED THE LABOR COMMITTEE SHE GOT TO DO MORE THAN THE METRO COUNTERPARTS WOULD DO IN ORDER TO INDUCE THAT PERSON TO COMMENCE HER RURAL MINNESOTA.>>REPRESENTATIVE BAHR: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO WHEN YOU HAVE THE NONCOMPETE CLAUSE IN A RURAL HOSPITAL ELIMINATE THE NONCOMPETE CLAUSE ; WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT FOR RECRUITING TOOLS TO GET DOCTORS OUT TO RURAL HOSPITALS? IS IT JUST FISHING?>>CHAIR LESCH: OTHER THAN PAIN IMPROPERLY.>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; MEMBERS WHOM I WOULD SAY AROUND PAIN IMPROPERLY YOU CAN’T BASE ON PUBLIC CANNOT EXPECT THEM TO NONCOMPETE BECAUSE THEIR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. IN ADDITION I WOULD NOTE THAT WITH THIS BILL SAYS UNDER THE REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD IS THAT IT’S NEVER REASONABLE THE SCENARIO DESCRIBED OF PUTTING $1 MILLION OUT FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY UNIT; IS NEVER REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT EITHER YOU WOULD BE MADE WHOLE ON THE WAY OUT SIX MONTHS LATER OR THAT PERSON WOULD FULFILL THE PROMISE OF WORKING THERE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME TO CROSS SUBSIDIZE OTHER SERVICES.>>REPRESENTATIVE BAHR: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MORE OF A COMMENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY; THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT IF A NONCOMPETE CLAUSE IS LOPSIDED THAN ITS INVALIDATED . SO I’M KIND OF TRYING TO FIGURE O UT IF THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED WHY DO WE DO THIS?>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE DAUDT I ONE QUESTION FOR MR. CRUZ. HOW OFTENWHEN A NONCOMPETE IS LITIGATED IS IT MODIFIED BY THE COURTS?>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; I DON’T HAVE THAT INFORMATION>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY. WELL THE QUESTION RELATES TO WHETHER OR NOT YOUR TRACKING YOUR NON-COMPETES WAY TOO BROADLY. ARE YOU? YOU CAN SAY; NO BUT>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; WHAT I WOULD SAY WITH THIS BILL IT’S NEVER REASONABLE. SO IT’S NOT MY POSITION DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THAT IT CAN BE UNREASONABLE NOT TO BE. THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT FOLLOW DR. AND WHAT I AM SAYING THIS DOSE OF THE COURT YOUR GET TO APPLY THAT STANDARD ANYMORE. THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REASONABLE NONCOMPETE. RECENTLY IT’S A CUT-AND-PASTE OF MASSACHUSETTS LAW THAT’S BEEN INTERPRETED>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE’S REASONABLE [INAUDIBLE] AND GET A COFFEE OFFER A AMENDMENT TO WHAT YOU THINK IS REASONABLE PARAMETERS>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; MEMBERS WE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. THE PLOP IN THE [INAUDIBLE]>>CHAIR LESCH: YOU DON’T GET THE AUTHOR TO OFFER THE AMENDMENT COULD YOU GET THE MINERALS TO OFFER IN COMMITTEE BUT WHATEVER THE CASE. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I KNOW WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA HERE AND THERE’S A LOT [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE NOT MET FOR THE LAST TWO DAYS DURING OUR NORMAL COMMITTEE TIME SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THESE BILLS VERY SERIOUSLY AND ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR TESTIFIERS AND NOT CUT THEM OFF AND ALLO W AMPLE QUESTIONING BY THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. THAT’S WHY WE ARE HERE. THAT’S WHAT I CONSID ER IN SELECTING US TO DO IS COME DOWN HERE IN VET ISSUES. SO THE AGENDA IS FULL OF BILLS THAT HAVE NOT MET DEADLINE ; THAT DON’T HAVE SENATE COUNTERPARTS; THAT ARE NOT MOVING IN THE SENATE BUT WE ARE HERE AND WERE GOING TO I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD BET THESE BILLS ADEQUATELY BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. MR. CHAIR; FOR I ONE FOR THE BILL AUTHOR. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE ARE ALL IN THE LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR; WHEN THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT WE ARE HERE FOR IS TO LOWER HEALTHCARE COSTS AND MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE AMPLE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. I AM JUST WONDERING IS THIS PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS SO IN NORMA’S THAT WE NEED TO TAKE STEPS TO ACTUALLY LIMIT HEALTHCARE ACCESS IN RURAL AREAS?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. REPRESENTATIVE; THE TESTIFIERS ARE [INAUDIBLE] SEVERAL ISSUES FIRST OFF SO THAT LET ME CLEAR THAT UP BECAUSE THAT WILL BE BRING CLARITY TO THE ISSUE. ONE THING THOUGH IS THAT THE NUMBE R OF EMPLOYER PHYSICIAN IN LARGE ORGANIZATIONS IS GOING AND ; BUT NO PHYSICIAN IS REQUIRED TO WORK FOR THESE ORGANIZATIONS. THAT PARTICULAR PART IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE POSITIONS IS GOING [INAUDIBLE] CANNOT PRACTICE BY THEMSELVES ANYMORE. DUE TO THE CURRENT BUREAUCRACY IN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. SO THEY HAVE TO BE EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS AND NOT WORKING OUT ON THEIR OWN. SO WHEN THAT HAPPENS AND YOU START APPLYING THESE NONCOMPETE CLAUSES TO PHYSICIANS; ANOTHE R THING I’VE HEARD IS THAT IT’S CONDUCIVE AS A BARGAINING CHIP WHICH HOW MANY BAD THINGS WE PUT IN A CONTRACT IN ORDER TO BE USED AS BARGAINING CHIPS AND THAT ARGUMENT IS RIDICULOUS IN ITS OF HIS OPEN ENROLLMENT SO YOU CAN PASS ME BECAUSE I WAS A RURAL PHYSICIAN I WORKED IN A TOWN OF 1000 PEOPLE. AGAIN THERE CONFLATING A NONCOMPETE WITH ESSENTIALLY THE REST OF THE CONTRACT. SO IN A RURAL AREA [INAUDIBLE] OFFERED A SIGNING VERSUS MOVING EXPENSES THEY CAN BE SPECIAL METALEQUIPMENT THAT CAN HELP IN ANYWHERE IN THOSE THINGS; WITH A SEPARATE CLAUSE IF YOU WILL. IF WE GIVE YOU THE REX AMOU NT FOR SAMPLES YOU HAVE TO WORK THERE FOR THREE YEARS. GREAT. THAT’S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN A NONCOMPETE IS AN ISSUE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THOSE THREE YEARS. SO THE INVESTMENT THAT ANY ORGANIZATION MAKES ONTO THAT PHYSICIAN IS PAID BACK WITH TIME AND THIS BILL DOES NOTHIN G TO TOUCH THAT WHATSOEVER. IT’S JUST THAT WHEN A COMMITMENT TIME IS DONE AND THAT PHYSICIAN IS ALLOWED TO WORK ANYWHERE THEY WANT. WE WERE GIVEN AN EXAMPLE EARLIER ABOUT PHYSICIANS IN DULUTH OUR GROUP OF PHYSICIANS ARE VERY UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THEY WERE WORKING AND IN ORDER FOR THEM TO LEAVE THEY WOULD’VE HAD TO LEAVE DULUTH. SO THE TOWN LOST OUT A GROUP OF PHYSICIANS BECAUSE OF NON-COMPETES. SO THE NONCOMPETE IS HURTFUL TO RURAL COMMUNITIES. I’VE SEEN IT FIRSTHAND. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. WELL; SORT OF. HOW BIG OF A PROBLEM IS THIS? ACROSS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA? I MEAN THIS IS THE FIRST WE’VE HEARD OF THIS ISSUE PHYSICIANS ARE NOT BEING [INAUDIBLE] TO MAKE THIS CHANGE ANDTO ME; YOU KNOW WE ARE [INAUDIBLE] DECIDING WHAT PEOPLE CAN AND CANNOT HAVE IN A CONTRACT AND I DON’T KNOW I WENT TO [INAUDIBLE] ONE OF THE THINGS THEY ONLY TALKED ABOUT A CONTRACT AS YOU CAN PUT ANYTHING IN A CONTRACT IF THE TWO PARTIES AGREE TO IT. SO WHY WOULD WE WANT TO TAKE ONE OF THOSE TOOLS OUT OF THE TOOLBOX FOR ABOUT CONTRACT AND IT’S NOT LIKE PEOPLE ARE ENTERING INTO THIS WITHOUT KNOWING. WE WELL-EDUCATED PEOPLE WE OF PHYSICIANS THAT ARE [INAUDIBLE] THEY CAN SAY WHETHER THEY AGREE OR DON’T AGREE TO A NONCOMPETE AND [INAUDIBLE] EDUCATED AS WELL. IF THE PHYSICIAN WAS [INAUDIBLE] THEY CAN HIRE THEIR OWN ATTORNEY TO WORK ON THEIR OWN BEHALF. I JUST THINK THIS BILL IS PROBABLY JUST IT’S NOT NEEDED BECAUSE YOU CAN AGREE TO ANYTHING IN A CONTRACT. YOU CAN SAY; I WILL NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT IT HAS NONCOMPETE IN IT. WE DON’T HAVE TO PUT IT IN STATUTE THE WAY THAT YOU ARE DOING HERE. I GUESS IF YOU HAVE FEEDBACK ON HIS COMMENTS?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: REPRESENTATIVE; ALTHOUGH PHYSICIANS ARE GENERALLY VERY SMART PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT LAWYERS. SO A LOT OF PHYSICIANS DON’T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT A NONCOMPETE IS I’VE HAD MANY PHYSICIANS SIGN A CONTRACT NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT MEANS AND NOT ONLY THAT BUT AGAIN THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WAS THOUGHT ABOUT CONTRACT LAW. I UNDERSTAND THAT’S WHAT IT IS BUT IT’S ABOUT DETECTING PHYSICIANS AND PATIENTS. THAT’S RE ALLY THE BOTTOM LINE OF THIS. WE ARE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN IN THIS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM TO MAKE MONEY AND TO MAKE PROFIT THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO STOP AND END [INAUDIBLE] I’M GOING TO SAY IT’S NOT ABOUT MONEY. IT’S NOT ABOUT PROFIT IT’S ABOUT PROTECTING PATIENTS. THIS IS JUST A VERY VERY SMALL STEP IN ORDER TO DO THAT.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: MR. CHAIR I WOULD ASK MR. CRUZ I BELIEVE IT IS TO COME UP. I BELIEVE HE HAS MAYBE SOME INPUT ON SOME OF MY QUESTIONS.>>CHAIR LESCH: DO HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR MR. CRUZ?>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: WELL IF HE COULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE [INAUDIBLE] THE SIZE OF THE CONTRACT AND THEN ALSO MY LINE OF QUESTION REGARDING RURAL CARE AND ACCESS TO ROW CARE>>CHAIR LESCH: MR. CRUZ>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR MEMBERS. WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRACTING AND HOW IT WORKS YOU’LL FIND MASSACHUSETTS CASE [INAUDIBLE]OB/GYN ASSOCIATES INC. VERSUS RICHARD C AND IT DESCRIBES EXACTLY THE SCENARIO THAT THE AUTHOR TALKED ABOUT IN SAYING THAT WELL YOU CAN BE MADE WHOLE IN THESE OTHER WAYS . NONCOMPETE IS SEPARATED IT’S OVER HERE JUST ABOUT GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. NOW IF THIS WERE TO PASS INTO LAW WITH THE LOCAL COURTS ARE GOING TO SAY WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE THIS LAW AND THERE TO FIND THIS IS A [INAUDIBLE] IN MASSACHUSETTS AND ON MANY STATES HAVE FALL BEHIND MASSACHUSETTS IN THIS REGARD AND WITH ALL FINDING THAT RULING IS THAT EVEN BE MADE WHOLE THE INVESTMENTS WOULD BE CONSIDERE D AN [INAUDIBLE] UNDER THIS LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD BE NO REMEDY; NOT JUST THE LOCATION OF PRACTICE; BUT NOT EVEN A WAY TO BE MADE WHOLE.. YOU WANT TO COMMENT ONE OF THE PART OF THIS. [INAUDIBLE] ARE NOT-FOR-PROFIT AND SO TO THE POINT THE TESTIFIER OFTEN MAKES ABOUT THIS IS ABOUT PROFITS. OFTENTIMES [INAUDIBLE] LEAVE THEY BECOME FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES AND COMPETE AGAINST A NON-FOR PROFIT WHICH HAS AN OBLIGATION TO SERVE THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS AND THEY MAY NOT EVEN ACCEPT MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PATIENTS. SO I’M NOT SAYING THAT AND WHAT HAS THAT INTENTION COULD I’M SAYING I’M DEFENDING OUR INTENTIONS.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE>>REPRESENTATIVE : THANK YOU ; MR. CHAIR. I’VE A KIDNEY TO THE DISEASE. I HAVE HAD IT SINCE 15 COULD I SEE MULTIPLE DOCTORS OF THEM IN A VICTIM HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE] I LITERALLY HAVE TO REEDUCATE PEOPLE ON MY CONDITION BECAUSE IT’S NOT VERY COMMON AND I WISH THERE WERE AN ABILITY FOR ME TO GO WITH MY PHYSICIAN BUT THAT’S ALMOST HAS NEVER BEEN THE CASE. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS FORWARD BECAUSE IT REALLY IS IN THE PATIENT’S INTEREST TO BE ABLE TO IF A DOCTOR LEAVES THEY CAN STILL SEE THAT DOCTOR SO I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I SEE THREE DIFFERENT DOCTORS FROM A KIDNEY DISEASE AND BECAUSE OF HAD REALLY GOOD CARE AND I DIDN’T REALLY GOOD ADVOCATE FOR MY OWN CAR; THAT’S THE ONLY REASON WHY I’M ONE OF THE 10% THE PEOPLE OF THIS CONDITION BUT DON’T GO TO KIDNEY FAILURE AND EXPECT PATIENTS TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THEIR [INAUDIBLE] I THINK IT’S AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK AND HAD TO BE STAYED HOME TO MOM TO DO THAT SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BUT I JUST WANT US A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE NEED FOR THE TYPE O F BILL. REPRESENTATIVE MANN; DR. MANN; CAN YOU JUST TELL ME. I HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWING IS QUITE A BIT. THERE ARE LESS AND LESS PEOPLE CHOOSING TO GO INTO PROFESSIONS BEING DOCTO RS BECAUSE OF THE COST AND THAT’S WHY UNIVERSITIES ARE MAKING AT SCHOOL FREE TO GET PEOPLE INTO THOSE PROGRAMS OF THE REALLY IS ALL THE [INAUDIBLE] WOULD MAKE IT MORE TYPICAL FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BE USED [INAUDIBLE] IS THAT CORRECT DR. MANN?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: REPRESENTATIVE; YES. THERE’S A LOT OF [INAUDIBLE] IN OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM BUT ALSO ALL THE PROVIDERS. I MEAN WE ARE IN A TIMELY KNOW WHERE WE ARE MOVING ONE [INAUDIBLE] TO SUICIDE AND PEOPLE GRADUATE MIDDLE SCHOOL SCHOOL WITH 200; $300;000 IN DEBT.. SO WE KNOW; WE CAN ARGUE; TO THIS WILL THOSE BILLS THAT WOULD ALSO GIVE PHYSICIANS A LITTLE MORE FREEDOM. AGAIN; AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ARE NOT SERVING OUR PATIENTS WELL IN MANY MANY ASPECTS AND THIS IS JUST AGAIN A VERY SMALL PIECE OF THAT.>>REPRESENTATIVE HER: A COUPLE OF OUR COMMON SURROGATE I DID HEAR TH E IDEA ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEMS AND NON-FOR PROFIT AND THEY DO MAKE A PROFIT BUT I DID MANAGE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS IN MY PRIVATE-SECTOR LIFE AND MET WITH MANY MANY HOSPITALS AND HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS THAT WERE NONPROFIT AND THAT MEANS HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS INTO THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND REVENUE THAT [INAUDIBLE] IN PROFIT TO KNOW WHAT THEY DID WITH THOSE PROFITS BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A NONPROFIT STATUS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT MAKING PROFIT. IT DOES HAPPEN IN A REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS INTO OTHER WAYS IN INSTITUTIONS. SO I DON’T WANT A NOT-FOR-PROFIT STATUS TO CONFUSE THE SITUATION HERE. [INAUDIBLE] ORGANIZATION SO I DO KNOW. I DID JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING AS WELL. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE IS OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY WE WERE NONCOMPETE BUT THE ONLY REASON WAS NONCOMPETE EXISTED BECAUSE WE CANNOT TAKE OUR CLIENTS OR WE COULD NOT TAKE COMPANY LIKE PRIVATE DATA OR INFORMATION WITH US SO WE COULD GO AND BE PROFITABLE BY OURSELVES AND I GUESS I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE IS OPPOSITION BECAUSE THIS IS NOTHING TO DO THEY SHOULD HAVE NO INVESTMENT I N PROTECTING WHY A PHYSICIAN CAN LEAVE AND PRACTICE OR ELSE TO HIM A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY THAT. SO I DID JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I’M UNDERSTANDING REALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS WITHOUT PROTECTING PATIENTS; THE ABILITY TO HAVE ACCESS TO POSITIONS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH AND TELL THOSE PHYSICIANS TO HAVE OTHER JOBS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WORKING MAYBE AT THIS OTHER PARTICULAR CHAPTER IS THAT CORRECT REPRESENTATIVE MANN>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: MR. CHAIR; THE REASON [INAUDIBLE] SO THE POSITION DOESN’T LEAVE THE PRACTICE GO TO WORK SOMEPLACE ELSE AND TAKE YOUR PATIENCE WITH THEM. BECAUSE THEN THAT HOSPITAL WOULD NO LONGER GET THE MONEY THAT COMES FROM THOSE PATIENTS. SO THE FACT THAT WE ARE ARGUING THIS BILL IS REALLY HIGHLIGHTS WAS WRONG WITH TODAY’S HEALTHCARE. IS THAT WE ARE ARGUING FOR THE MONEY AND WERE ARGUING FOR THE PROFIT AND NO ONE EXCEPT FOR SOME PEOPLE; SAYING LET’S ARGUE FOR THE PATIENT. IF WE ARE ARGUING FOR THE PATIENT WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.>>REPRESENTATIVE HER: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE TO MANY I’M TAKING THE GAVEL HERE FOR XAVIER REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON [INAUDIBLE / CROSS-TALKING] THANK YOU; MME. CHAIR. JUST A QUICK COMMENTS. REPRESENTATIVE MANN; YES I CAN COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. THE IDEA OF PAIN THE PHYSICIAN FIRST FOR THE CONTINUITY OF CARE IS IMPORTANT IT I SUPPORT YOUR BILL.>>CHAIR: REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MME. CHAIR. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. HER THE FIRST ONE IS UNDERSTANDABLE AUTHOR CORRECTLY DID YOU SAY THAT THERE IS CURRENT BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE THAT EXISTS THAT PREVENTS PHYSICIANS TO GO INTO BUSINESS FOR THEMSELVES?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: ADAM CHAIR; YES.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: MME. CHAIR I WAS JUST THAT PERHAPS THE BE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REMOVING SOME OF THE [INAUDIBLE] MANDATES THAT ARE PREVENTING PHYSICIANS FROM ENGAGING IN THEIR PRACTICE. THE NEXT QUESTION I WOULD HAVEASKED THE BILL AUTHOR IS ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PHYSICIANS THAT HAVE INVOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO THESE NONCOMPETE CONTRACTS?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: MR. CHAIR; TO YOUR PREVIOUS POINT; IT’S NOT ONLY JUST BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE TO GET RID OF IT’S THE WAY THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WORKS IN GENERAL. A POSITION CAN GO INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE OF THE HAVE TO HIRE A STAFF OF 25 PEOPLE TO GET TO ALL THE PAPERWORK THAT’S REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS. IN TODAY’S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. MOST OF WHICH ARE COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. HONESTLY. SO THAT’S PART OF THE ISSUE. IT’S LIKE A CHANGE THE ENTIRE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM APSLEY WOOD AND WORKING ON THAT SO THANKS FOR BRINGING THAT UP. THE SECOND PART IS I KNOW PHYSICIANS WILL ENTER INTO THESE CONTRACTS NOT NECESSARILY KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A NONCOMPETE AND BECAUSE OF THAT THEY REALLY HAD TO ALTER THEIR LIFE WHEN THAT CAME TO LIGHT UNFORTUNATELY.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: TO THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO PHYSICIANS HIGHLY EDUCATED ARE ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS UNAWARE OF WHAT THEY’RE DOING OR PERHAPS THEY HAVE A CHANGE OF ATTITUDE AFTER THEY MADE A COMMITMENT IS NOT A RECENT TO NULL AND VOID VOLUNTARY ACTION THEY TOOK. THE NEXT QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS DOES THE BILL AUTHOR; DO YOU AT LEAST AT ALL SLIGHTLY AGREE THAT IF A HOSPITAL OR WHATEVER ORGANIZATION IN ORDER TO INCENTIVIZE SOME OF THESE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONALS TO MOVE OUT TO THEIR AREAS TO THEY ARE PAYING FOR THEIR PAYING TRAINING PAYING THEIR [INAUDIBLE] SON ARE BOTH NURSES ETC.; IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE RECRUIT THE UPFRONT INVESTMENT COMPANIES PROFESSIONALS TO INCENTIVIZE THEM TO COME OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU ELIMINATE THE ABILITY TO RECOUP THEIR COSTS DO YOU NOT AT ALLL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS MIGHT THIS INCENTIVIZE PHYSICIANS FROM COMING OUT AND THEREFORE YOU WILL WORSEN THE PROBLEM YOU’RE ATTEMPTING TO FIX?>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO INCENTIVIZE IS NOT A REAL WORD.>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO I NEVER SAID THAT’S THE REASON THE POSITIONS [INAUDIBLE] FOR THIS BILL. SO THAT’S A FALSE ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART. SECOND OF ALL; AGAIN LIKE HIS PLANE PREVIOUSLY THIS BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE INCENTIVES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RECRUITMENT; BONUSES; MEDICAL EQUIPMENT . GETTING PEOPLE TO ROLL AREAS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. BECAUSE THE HOSPITALS CAN DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS REQUIRE PHYSICIANS TO SAY THEREFORE THREE; FIVE; 10 WHATEVER YEARS. LAST CONTRACT I AM ASSIGNED HAD REQUIRED ME TO STAY FOR SEVEN YEARS WHICH IS FINE . THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT. THE SIBLEY SAYS THAT WHEN THAT TIME IS UP THAT PHYSICIAN CAN GO PRACTICE WERE REALLY LIKE. AFTER THEY HAVE SPENT THE TIME THAT WAS REQUIRED OF THEM IN THE HOSPITAL HAS RECOUP THE COST.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO LAST QUESTION>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: LAST QUESTION MR. CHAIR BUT THAT’S NOT TRUE BUT THIS DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE. THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL FIELD IS NOT THE ONLY FIELD THAT HAS THIS ACTIVITY. I’M IN THE IT FIELD AND ANOTHER HIGHLY SPECIALIZED FIELD. THERE ARE NONCOMPETE CLAUSES BECAUSE IS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT WE AS HIGHLY SKILLED PROFESSIONALS AND DEMAND THERE’S OTHER EMPLOYERS THAT CAN COMPETE FOR SKILL SET. AN EMPLOYER HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN HAVING A COMPUTER EMPLOYER MAKE THE INVESTMENT TO TRAIN SOMEBODY TO INCREASE THE RISK LEVEL AND KNOWLEDGE AND THAT ONE EMPLOYER TAKE THAT COST AND THEN ANOTHER EMPLOYER SIMPLY SIPHON THEM OFF AND NOT HAVE TO TAKE ANY THAT COSTS. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. SO ABSOLUTELY; IT DOES HAVE A REALITY IN PREVENTING PROFESSIONALS AFTER THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE INITIAL CONTRACT FROM BECOMING A DIRECTOR COMPETITOR TO THE FIRST IMPORT. SO MR. I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE A NOBLE.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE HASSAN>>REPRESENTATIVE HASSAN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. TH ANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE JIM AND FOR BRINGING THE BILL. I THINK WERE DRIVING AWAY THE COMPETITION THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS LEGISLATION WHICH IS THE PATIENT CARE AND THE DISRUPTION OF CARE WHEN A DOCTOR LEAVES . THE PATIENTS ARE THE ONES THAT LOSE BUT THE HOSPITAL DOES NOT LOSE BECAUSE THEY’LL FIND ANOTHER DOCTOR. THE DOCTOR WILL FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO PRACTICE AND I THINK THE BIGGEST LOSER IN THIS CONVERSATION ARE THE PATIENTS AND THE REASON WHY WE GOT ELECTED IS TO ADVOCATE [INAUDIBLE] SO THANK YOU FOR THE BILL AND I SUPPORT THIS BILL.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: CHAIR LESCH REPRESENTATIVE JAMILA; FOR SOLOMON TO GIVE AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATEMENT YOU MADE. DULUTH CLASS A CITY IS NOT RURAL MINNESOTA. WHERE I CAME FROM; CAMBRIDGE OF THE POPULATION UNDER 10;000; ALL THESE POPULATIONS UNDER 40;000; THAT IS RURAL MINNESOTA. A CLASS A CITY IS NOT RURAL AS MUCH ABOUT THE METROPOLITAN AVENUE. IF YOU HAVE ONE HOSPITAL IN DULUTH [INAUDIBLE] I HAVE ONE; 20; 30 MILES BETWEEN HOSPITALS. ONCE YOU GET NORTH OF CAMBRIDGE THERE’S ONLY TWO HOSPITALS BETWEEN CAMBRIDGE AND DULUTH. THAT BRINGS UP THE OTHER ISSUE THAT’S NOT BEEN TALKED ABOUT. ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. MINNESOTA IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTRY. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE HOSPITALS OUT THERE ARE NOT FOR PROFIT THAT ARE OUT THERE TO MAKE THE PROFIT THEY ARE NOT FOR PROFIT. THEY’RE GIVING THE BEST HEALTHCARE THEY CAN THE DOLLARS THEY HAVE. IN GREATER MINNESOTA MOST OF OUR PATIENTS ARE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE OF SOME TYPE. THE DOCTOR; HOSPITAL THERE GENERALLY LOSES MONEY. THESE NONCOMPETE CLAUSES ARE THERE FOR A REASON .. THAT IS TO KEEP THE DOCTOR THERE AS LONG AS POSSIBLE AS FAR AS THE CONTRACTS. SO THEY DON’T LEAVE THEIR CONTRACTS EARLY FOR THE INVESTMENT THESE HOSPITALS ARE ACTUALLY LOSING MONEY PUT IN TO KEEP THOSE; TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE TO THE PATIENTS AND THEIR COMMUNITY. GIVE THE PATIENTS AND THE PEOPLE IN THEIR COMMITTEE THE BEST CARE POSSIBLE WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE TO METROPOLITAN AREA OF THE MINNEAPOLIS; DULUTH AT A HIGH EXPENSE AND A LOT OF TIMES IT’S THE ELDERLY THAT CANNOT AFFORD OR CANNOT GET TO THOSE HOSPITALS WITH SPECIALTY CARE. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT PROBABLY DID NOT COME UP WITH THIS BILL BECAUSE WE HAVE DOCTORS; DR. HOPPING THE THEY DON’T HAVE TO STAY. THERE’S NO NONCOMPETE. CITIES WITH MORE THAN ONE HOSPITAL;; THE DOCTORS AGAIN BE JUMPING HOSPITAL TO HOSPITAL TO HOSPITAL SO THEY CAN GET THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK WHICH IS GOOD. THEY ARE THERE TO MAKE PUT MONEY IN THE POCKET WHICH I DON’T BLAME THEM. WE ALL WANT TO PROVIDE THE BEST THEY CAN BUT THAT REESE’S HEALTHCARE COST. OUR HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE THROUGH THE ROOF WERE HEALTHCARE IS NO LONGER ACCESSIBLE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. THE REQUIRED TO HAVE INSURANCE BUT [INAUDIBLE] IS SO HIGH THEY CAN AFFORD TO GO TO THE DOCTOR I BELIEVE THIS IS JUST GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL>>REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE; DR. MAN N FOR BRINGING THE BILL FORWARD. I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. ARE THERE SITUATIONS IN WHICH; LET’S SAY A DOCTOR IS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT AT A HOSPITAL AND IT SAYS OKAY LETS ON THIS CONTRACT. IT HAS A NONCOMPETE CLAUSE IN IT. DR. SAYS DHARMA CAN ASSIGN THAT AND IT SAYS40 OTHER PEOPLE LINED UP WHO WILL. IS THAT A SITUATION THAT HAPPENS ORFORCING THE DOCTOR INTO THIS TYPICAL SITUATION?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE CONTROL; YES IT’S ACTUALLY METRO AREAS THAT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. YOU CAN BE ESSENTIALLY FORCED TO SIGN THE CONTRACT YOU WANT TO BE WITH [INAUDIBLE] WHICH THEN IF YOU SERVE YOUR TYPE THE HOSPITAL RECOUP THEIR COSTS BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE] MAYBE YOU DON’T GET ALONG WITH O THER AMENDMENTS MAYBE YOU’RE UNHAPPY WHERE YOU ARE WORKING. [INAUDIBLE] TO CONTINUE WORKING AND PAYING YOUR BILLS AND PAY YOUR STUDENT LOANS. SO YES; THAT DEFINITELY HAPPENS ESPECIALLY IN THE METRO AREA.>>REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE MANN. WITH THIS BILL SEEKS TO DO IS PREVENT DOCTORS FROM T HE BEING FORCED INTO A SITUATION WHERE THEY MIGHT ONLY HAVE THE OPTION OF SIGNING A CONTRACT WITH THESE CLAUSES IN IT THAT NOT ONLY MAY AND OFTEN DOES; SUBSTANTIALLY DETERIORATE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL STABILITY BUT BE ABLE TO BUY THE BEST QUALITY OF CARE FOR THE PATIENTS; BUT I ALSO THINK; TOO; IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US THE COMMITTEE AND AS A BODY TO NOT THINK OFCLIENT IS PATIENCE IS NOT BEING IN THE CENTER. CLIENTS IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF INDUSTRY ARE OBSOLETE DIFFERENT FROM PATIENTS LIKE REPRESENTATIVE HER LIKE MYSELF BOTH FOLKS LIVING WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS. WE NEED THE CONTINUITY OF CARE. SO ANYTHING THIS BILL IS DESERVING THE CONTINUITY OF CARE IS ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE BALANCE THE SCALES FOR PHYSICIANS AS WELL. IS WHAT THIS BILL REPRESENTATIVE MANN AND I THINK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS B ROBBINS THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE TO MANAGE IT AT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. REGARDING THE; KE EP YOUR PATIENCE AND CONTINUITY OF CARE ISSUES; I JUST WANT TO ASK [INAUDIBLE]>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: MR. CHAIR; YES IT DEPENDS WHERE THAT PHYSICIAN GOES TO WORK. THE INSURANCE COVERAGE IS CERTAINLY MY CHANGE. I THINK YOU BRING UP A REALLY GOOD POINT IN THE OTHER REPRESENTATIVE ALSO BOB SEVERAL REALLY GREAT POINTS IS THAT OUR SYSTEM DOESN’T WORK FOR PATIENTS. OUR SYSTEM IS NOT PATIENT DRIVEN. OUR PATIENT IS NOT OUTCOME DRIVEN. OUR SYSTEM IS PROFIT DRIVEN AND BECAUSE OF THAT THAT’S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT OCCURS.>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: THAN K YOU REPRESENTATIVE JIM AND I AGREE WITH A LARGER POINT EVEN THOUGH I’M NOT SUPPORTING THE BILL BECAUSE IT’S CONTRACT LAW [INAUDIBLE] I THINK IS MORE WHAT WE NEED IN THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT [INAUDIBLE] DOESN’T NECESSARILY [INAUDIBLE] SECONDLY; TO THE DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL WILL TALK ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBLEM BUT ESPECIALLY IT’S IN THE METRO AREA; I MEAN LIKE IT’S A 25 MILE NONCOMPETE YOU COULD KEEP A FAMILY AND THEIR HOMES AND KIDS IN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND DESTROYED 25 MILES. IN THE METRO THAT’S A VERY COMMON LEVEL OF COMMUTE . SO I DON’T SEE WHY THAT SUCH A BIG HARM.>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: MR. CHAIR; SO 25 MILES IS JUST A RANDOM NUMBER PICKED OUT OF THE AIR TODAY. IT CAN BE SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER. ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS OR I MEAN HONESTLY; EVEN IN THE WINTER WHERE THE ROADS ARE BAD WERE IN A RURAL AREA; A KIND OF COMMUTE IS ACTUALLY A GOOD BIG DEAL POSITIONS PICK A LOCATION BECAUSE THEY WANT TO COMMUTE. THEY HAVE [INAUDIBLE] THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THEY CHOOSE A JOB. TO RESTRICT SOMEONE AND TELL THEM WHERE THEY CAN AND CAN’T WORK I MEAN IT GOES AGAINST ALL THE PRINCIPLES THAT WE SUPPORT AND WE STAND FOR THIS COMMITTEE. FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM ALL THAT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST ALL THOSE THINGS.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE JAN JOHN.>>REPRESENTATIVE XIONG: MR. CHAIR I’LL KEEP THIS SHORT .. I THINK I KNOW IN [INAUDIBLE] INTERESTIF I’M SICK I’M GOING TO SEE A DOCTOR NOT A LAWYER AND I’M JUST VERY GLAD THAT YOU BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD AND THAT THE UNOFFICIAL IN-HOUSE PHYSICIAN>>>>[LAUGHING] A>>REPRESENTATIVE XIONG: I WILL SUPPORT THIS BILL BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO MORE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON PATIENTS AND NOT THE CORPORATIONS OR BUSINESSES TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF PATIENTS WERE CONCERNED; MORE CONCERNED ABOUT POCKETING [INAUDIBLE] SO THANK YOU FOR THIS.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE>>REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. AS OF LISTENING TO THE TESTIMONY I THINK THE BILL REALLY GETS ONTO THE FREE MARKET AND THAT THIS HELPS STRENGTHEN THE FREE MARKET AND COMPETITION AND MEDICAL FIELD. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO FOR HELPING ME MAKE UP MY MIND. THANK YOU.>>CHAIR LESCH: LAST ONE ON MELISSA REPRESENTATIVE HER BUT YOU ARTIE SPOKE TO ONE QUESTION OKAY. CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: ONE LESS QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT HERE. I DON’T THINK EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE IS SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE PATIENTS THAT’S WHAT WE’VE BEEN ARGUING . FOR YOU TO SAY THIS BILL IS SOLELY FOCUSED ON PATIENTS I THINK IS MISCHARACTERIZING WITH THIS BILL IS REALLY DOING. WE HAVE HEARD NUMEROUS TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE THAT UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE THAT THIS WILL HURT ACCESS FOR PATIENTS IN RURAL MINNESOTA IN PARTICULAR. THIS IS TO YOU TALK WHAT THE FREE MARKET REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE. THE FREE MARKETARE BASED IN PART ON CONTRACTSAND THE BILL AUTHOR TODAY IS TRYING TO DO IS INTERVENES CONTRACTS AND SAY WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE AGREED TO. SO I THINK IT’S MISCHARACTERIZED BY THE OTHER SIDE. REPRESENTATIVE MANN; YOU SAID THAT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THERE’S A SHORTAGE OF PHYSICIANS. THERE WERE LOSING THEM DAILY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU YOU [INAUDIBLE] REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL’S CHARACTERIZATION THAT THERE’S A LONG LINE OF PHYSICIANS WILLING TO SIGN UP TO GO TO WORK. THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ARE INCONGRUENCE. I THINK WE HAVE GOT A PROBLEM HERE THAT IS REALLY NOT A PROBLEM. I THINK IT’S SOMETHING THAT A PHYSICIAN CAN EASILY WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH A CONTRACT COULD IF IT ON TO THE CONTRACT THEY CAN HIRE THEIR OWN ATTORNEY. I THINK THIS IS BE EN LARGELY MISCHARACTERIZED AND I WOULD ASK FOR A ROLLCALL ON THIS BOAT MR. CHAIR>>CHAIR LESCH: ROLLCALL HAS BEEN REQUESTED. BEFORE WEMOVED TO THAT ANY FURTHER; TO WHEN I DOING THE PING-PONG. I KNEW THEY DO THAT IN TAX COMMITTEE WHERE SOMEONE GETS BROUGHT UP BUT THIS WILL GO ON FOR ANOTHER HALF HOUR. IT WAS SCHEDULED TO GO FOR 20 MINUTES AND NOW WE ARE AT 45. SO WE WILL NOT DO ANYMORE THAT. REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO [INAUDIBLE] BEFORE WE GO TO CLOSING COMMENTS FROM YOU FROM THE AUTHOR; REPRESENTATIVE MANN; I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO I THINK A LITTLE SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THIS DEBATE IS LOOKING FORWARD TO THE OPPOSITION BRINGING FORWARD WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE RESTRICTION OR REASONABLE NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT . INSTEAD THEY JUST CAME UP AND SAID NO; THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD ONE. I WAS KIND OF LOOKING I SUSPECT THAT PROBABLY THERE IS ROOM FOR ONE BUT THEY DIDN’T PROPOSE ANY ALTERNATIVE. THE PLACE LIMITS ON CONTRACTS OF TIME. IT’S ILLEGAL YOU CAN’T DO AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT. YOU GET TO A CONTRACT THAT BRIDGES SOMEONE’S HUMAN RIGHTS OR CIVIL RIGHTS AND IN FACT THIS BODY ROUTINELY RESTRICT CERTAIN INDUSTRIES FROM DOING CONTRACTS BECAUSE THEY HEARD THE DIFFERENT INDUSTRY. SO THERE’S AN EAST AFRICAN;; I THINK IT’S A CANYON PROVERB FOR THAT COULD IT SAYS WHEN ELEPHANTS FIGHT IS THE GRASS WHO SUFFERS GOOD YES; THE TWO GROUPS ARE FIGHTING OVER WHICH SHOULD BE THE CONTRACT BUT IN THE FUTURE SOMEONE SAYS NO; THIS IS GOOD HERE’S THE IDEA WE SHOULD DO THAT ARE NOT HAPPEN. BUT REPRESENTATIVE MANN CLOSING; RE-REFER WE GO TO THE ROLLCALL>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO SAY I DON’T THINK THAT THIS BILL HAS BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED WHATSOEVER. IT’S PRETTY CUT AND DRY IT’S ABOUT PATIENT CARE AND CONTINUITY OF CARE WHICH WE KNOW WILL REDUCE HEALTHCARE COSTS AT WHICH WE KNOW HAS BETTER HEALTH: OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE. THAT’S WHAT IT’S ABOUT. I SAID WE NEED LOSING PHYSICIANS TO SUICIDE ONE A DAY. ON AVERAGE. WE LOTS OF PHYSICIANS IN AREAS WHERE WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH PHYSICIANS THAT WANT TO WORK THERE. SO IN CLOSING; DELETE THIS BILL IS ABOUT AGAIN PATIENT CARE. I’M STANDING UP FOR P ATIENTS AND REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT.>>CHAIR LESCH: AND THANK YOU. THE MOTION WAS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVE I THINK I MADE IT BE RECOMMENDED TO BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL REGISTER. ROLLCALL HAS BEEN REQUESTED. THE CHAIR [INAUDIBLE] I>>STAFF: MOLLER AYE SCOTT NAY; BAHR NAY; CANTRELL AYE; CARLSON AYE; CONSIDINE AYE; GROSSELL HASSAN AYE; HER AYE; JOHNSON NAY; LUCERO NAY; MARIANI AYE; NOOR AYE; ROBIN NAY; XIONG AYE;>>CHAIR LESCH: A VOTE OF 10-5 THE MOTION DOES PREVAIL.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE LIEN HAS BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING. PLEASE COME ON UP REPRESENTATIVE LEE. TWO OF THE MOTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE LEESVILLE HOUSE FILE 2000 2B REFER TO IT’S GOING TO BE LAID OVER FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF FINANCE BE BEST BILL. THAT IS THE MOTION. GO AHEAD TO YOUR BILL REPRESENTATIVE LEE FEELY THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HOUSE FILE 2000. CURRENTLY WHEN [INAUDIBLE] CONTRACTOR FOR GOODS AND SERVICES OF AT LEAST 100;000 [INAUDIBLE] CANNOT ACCEPT BIDS FROM CONTRACTORS WITH THOSE CONTRACTORS HAVE A [INAUDIBLE] APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO CONTRACTORS TO MORE THAN 40 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. THIS LAW HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG TIME IN AROUND 2100 CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE CURRENTLY HAVE THE CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE FOR [INAUDIBLE] THAT ARE GOOD FOR FOUR YEARS. AS FILE 2000 EQUITY GOES TO BONDING PROJECTS AND EXPENSE THESE REQUIREMENTS A LOT TO CITIES COUNTIES AND OTHER ENTITIES THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] GEN. OBLIGATIONS LAW. I LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MY TESTIFIER.>>CHAIR LESCH: MR. WELCOME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU CHAIR LESCH AND MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE. FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS SCOTT TO ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. WE APPRECIATE IT MAY TAKE IT DOWN TO HEAR THE DEPARTMENT HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCY BILL. IT CLARIFIES AND EXTENDS WHAT STATE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDING PROJECTS ; BY THE STATES WERE FOR CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE AND [INAUDIBLE] PROGRAMS. REALLY; THESE PROGRAMS COVERED BY BONDING PROJECTS OVERSEEN BY ENTITIES SUCH AS MUCH ABOUT IN COUNCIL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE GENERALLY COVERED BY THESE PROGRAMS. BONDING PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE STATE BUT CONTRACTED FOR BY CURRENTLY NOT COVERED ENTITIES SUCH A SMALL CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE NOT COVERED BY THE PROGRAMS RIGHT NOW. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE THAT ALL PROJECTS TO ME ET THE FUNDING THRESHOLDS REGARDLESS OF WHICH ENTITY IS RUNNING THEM AND REQUIRES CONTRACTORS TO COMPLY WITH THESE EQUITY REQUIREMENTS BUT THIS IS TO ENSURE WORKFORCE AND GOOD OPPORTUNITIES EXIST ON ALL PROGRAMS AND THAT ALL THE STATES BUSINESS PARTNERS ARE FOLLOWING EXISTING EQUAL PAY LAWS. CONTRACTORS THE CERTIFICATE OF COMBAT ON THE FRONT AND IS THE PERMIT ONLY PASSES ABOUT THREE DAYS APPLICATIONS BUT THE PRIMARY OBLIGATION FOR COMPLIANCE IS ON THE CONTRACTOR AS REPRESENTATIVE LEE SAID THERE’S ABOUT 2100 CERTIFIED CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE UNDER THE WORKFORCE PROGRAM ABOUT 7000 OF THESE [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE THE THRESHOLD IS $500;000. SO LITTLE HIGHER. LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT OTHER ENTITY RUNNING UP [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMOROUS. CONTRACTORS NEED TO MAKE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO HIRE WOMEN OF PEOPLE COLOR WITH GOALS SET AT REGIONS AROUND THE STATE. IN THE HANDOUT YOU RECEIVED IS A MAP OF THOSE GOALS AND THEIR DIFFERENT BASED ON THE AREAS OF THE STATE. FOR THE EQUAL PAY CERTIFICATE CONTRACTORS MUST CERTIFY THERE AND COMBINED WITH EQ UALLY CERTIFICATE [INAUDIBLE] THIS WAS A PROGRAM CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN 2014. THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [INAUDIBLE] EXISTING AUTHORITY TO OTHER CONTRACTORS UNDER THESE PROGRAMS WHICH GENERALLY DO ON A RANDOM BASIS. THIS IS CONTRACTORS ARE [INAUDIBLE] ‘S BILL WILL RECOGNIZE THE SUCCESS WE’VE SEEN ON SOME LARGE STATE-FUNDED PROJECTS LIKE THE RESTORATION OF THE CAPITAL BUILDING AND U.S. BANK STADIUM IN RECRUITING AND HIRING WORKFORCES THAT ARE MORE REFLECTIVE MINNESOTA’S POPULATION. BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS CONTRACTORS EXCEEDED HIRING GOALS FOR BOTH WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR HELPING DIVERSIFY THEIR WORKFORCE AND PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS WITHIN MINNESOTA. IN THE LABOR MARKET WITH STIFF COMPETITION FOR EMPLOYEES AND CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF A SIGN HIRING METHODS OF A POSITIVE IMPACT FOR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES THERE PERMIT HUMAN RIGHTS [INAUDIBLE] OF AN PROACTIVE PARTNER WITH OUR CONTRACTORS TO HELP THEM BUILD THE SYSTEMS THE PRACTICES THEY NEED TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN THE CELLS. SO I APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE HOPEFULLY MOVING THIS FORWARD TO INCLUDE IN THE OMNIBUS BILL TO A PICTURE WOMEN AND PEOPLE IN COLOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY SEVEN OPPORTUNITY TO AND IF IT FROM THESE PRACTICE.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. CHAIR JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: CHAIR LESCH; MEMBERS; I HAVE CONCERNS ON THIS. I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR IT. BUT I’VE BEEN AT SOME OF MY CITY COUNCIL AND COUNTY BOARD MEETINGS; TOWNSHIP MEETINGS; THEY ARE DOING BUSINESS FOR PROJECTS RIGHT NOW AND THEY 10 OVER THE PAST YEAR. THEY’RE SETTING UP THESE BIDS TWO; THREE; FOUR TIMES ALREADY BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT GETTING ANY BIDS. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS BUT THIS IS GOING TO LIMIT THE NUMBER PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY BID ON THESE PROJECTS THEY CAN FIND PEOPLE TO BID ON HIM NOW. IT MIGHT ACTUALLY HURT GREATER MINNESOTA.>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THIS WOULD BE FOR THE BILL AUTHOR. I GUESS IT PROBABLY IS. IT LOOKS LIKE HOUSE FILE 2000 AND 2001 ARE AMENDING THE SAME AREA OF STATUTE THAT I JUST WANT; THE BILL AUTHOR; WHY WAS A COMBINED INTO ONE BILL?>>REPRESENTATIVE LEE: MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT THESE ARE TWO AGENCY BILLS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: DID YOU:>>CHAIR LESCH: YES>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. JOE. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT; THESE TWO BILLS START OUT WITH LIFE INTO SEPARATE GENESIS. TO THIS BILL WAS ABOUT SUBSTANTIVELY AND NUMBER PROJECTS THAT ARE BEEN COVERED UNDER THE STATUTE IT HAS FILE 2001 BEEN CARRIED BY REPRESENTATIVE CONTROL IS A TECHNICAL BILL TO COMBINE TWO PARAGRAPHS [INAUDIBLE] GET SOME QUESTIONS FROM ANOTHER STATE AGENCY WHO HAD A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION AND CONCERN ABOUT HOW THESE TWO WERE BEING; THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS WERE BEING INTERPRETED FOR IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACTORS AND SO THE REQUEST WAS MADE AS WE ARE WORKING FOR WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] ONE IS PURELY A TECHNICAL BILL WITH HOUSE FILE 2001 AND THE OTHER ONE IS A LITTLE MORE SUBSTANTIVE AND FOR CONTEXT. WE SPOKE WITH COUNSEL ABOUT HOW THIS GOES INTO A OMNIBUS OF THESE TO BE MERGED AND I THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE TO TAKE HOUSE FILE 2001 AT THE BASE AND ADD IN THE PROVISIONS [INAUDIBLE] THE STAT UTE>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MR. MINUS AND IS YOU AGREE IN THE LABOR COMMITTEE TO MERGE THE TWO BILLS. THAT I GET WRONG INFORMATION ON A?>>TESTIFIER: MR . CHAIR; REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT IN A CONVERSATION IN LABOR I BELIEVE THAT WE COMMITTEE WAS MAKING SURE AS THIS MEANS FOR AN OPPORTUNITY IF THAT CAME UP AND I THINK WE SEE HOW THIS GOES INTO THE OMNIBUS>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I DON’T SEE A GOOD REASON IS THE VERY SAME EXACT SECTION OF STATUTE WIDEST TWO BILLS VERSUS ONE. IS CANADA BEING ONE ANYWAY. THAT’S ALL.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. THERE BEEN NO OTHER COMMITTEE DISCUSSION THE CHAIR LAYS OVER HOUSE FILE 2000 POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN THE OMNIBUS FINANCE BILL. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE LEE.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: IS REPRESENTATIVE DEHN HERE? OKAY. WE HAVE THE SECRETARY OF STATE PATIENTLY WAITING FOR YOU TO GET HERE. THIS BILL; HOUSE FILE 1603 THE MOTION ON IT IS A B RECOMMENDED BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE TO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THAT? REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL MAKES THE MOTION. MEMBERS; SCOPE OF OUR DISCUSSION INVOLVES THE DATA PRACTICES PROVISION; ; LINE 2.63 2.9; A .6 TO 8.7; 42.31 TO 43.40 I’M IMAGINING AND AND 76.28 THROUGH 76.29 AND THE PENALTY PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS 56.20 TO [INAUDIBLE] 66.17 TO 68.20. OKAY. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE DEHN>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I KNOW THERE’S A FEW PROVISIONS IN HERE THAT SECRETARY SIMON WILL WANT TO TO I BELIEVE WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF SOME CONCERNS ON SOME OF THE DATA AND WAS CAN HAPPEN WITH IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN THE BILL WAS SHAPED THAT WE ARE NOT DOING A WHOLE LOT TO CHANGE ANY DATA CLASSIFICATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WOULD JUST OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS MIGHT HAVE UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE>>CHAIR LESCH: AND NO; I DON’T.>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: OKAY>>CHAIR LESCH: ARE THERE QUESTIONS? DO YOU WANT TO DO A LITTLE SPIEL MR. SECRETARY? OKAY WELCOME BACK TO YOUR OLD COMMITTEE. TO MR. CHAIR THIS A FIRST TIME I’VE BEEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE THIS SESSION SO THANK YOU MEMBERS FOR YOUR TIME. I’LL TRY TO COLOR INSIDE THE LINE SO TO SPEAK. TALK ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE COMMITTEES [INAUDIBLE] IN PARTICULAR I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE] ITEMS*942.41. HAPPENS TO BE THE [INAUDIBLE] I AM REALLY HERE TO SOUND THE ALARMAS I HAVE IN BOTH CHAMBERS AND MULTIPLE COMMITTEES.. THIS IS REALLY UNNECESSARY PROVISION IN MY JUDGMENT AND I THINK IN THE JUDGMENT OF MOST MINNESOTANS. SO IN 2015 AS MANY OF YOU RECALL WE HAD HUGE HUGE TURNOUT AT THE PRECINCT CAUCUSES? [INAUDIBLE] WHAT OF ENERGY BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES THAT LITERALLY OVERWHELMED THE ABILITY OF VOLUNTEERS IN CHURCH BASEMENTS AND JUNIOR HIGH CLASSROOMS AND ALL THE REST TO HANDLE. TO THE LEGISLATURE IN 2016 DECIDED THAT ONLY FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND ONLY OBVIOUSLY ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS WE WOULD BECOME A HYBRID STATE IT WERE GIVING CAUCUSES FOR EVERYTHING IS GOOD I KNOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOMARE THE PRODUCT OF THE CAUCUS PROCESS. THAT’S NOT CHANGING. SO WITHOUT STATE LEGISLATOR OR SECRETARY OF STATE OR GOVERNOR EVERYTHING IS STAYING THE THINK IT FROM ISSUES [INAUDIBLE] LEGISLATURE DECIDED IN 2016 TO POINT OUT AND DO A REELECTION REAL PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY. THAT WILL BE NEXT MARCH 3 SUPER TUESDAY ALONG WITH MANY OTHER STATES. SO MINNESOTA WILL SHARE THAT SPOTLIGHT. THERE WAS A FEELING NOT ONLY THAT THE CROWDS WERE UNMANAGEABLE IN SOME CASES BUT ALSO THAT THE CAUCUS SYSTEM FOR SUCH A HIGH INTEREST ELECTION TENDED TO SHOW PEOPLE IN THE SENSE THERE WAS NO ABSENTEE OPTIONS. SO IF YOU’RE A PARENT WITH CHILDCARE ISSUES ARE WORKING LATE SHIFT AT WORK OR YOU’RE IN THE MILITARY WE ARE STUDYING ABROAD OR WHATEVER; THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL ABSENTEE PROVISION FOR YOU TO HAVE A VOICE IN YOUR PARTY’S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. SO; THE PROBLEM WITH THE HAPPEN IN 2016 MR. CHAIR MEMBERS; THAT THE WAY THE BILL WAS DRAFTED THERE WILL BE SEPARATE BALLOTS FOR EACH POLITICAL PARTY AND UNLIKE OUR TYPICAL EXPENSE FOR MINNESOTA IN THE AUGUST FOR EXAMPLE; SEPARATE BALLOTS. SO FAR SO GOOD BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE RECORD OF WHICH ABOUT A VOTER CHOOSES WILL BE PUBLIC. THAT WILL BE A PUBLIC RECORD. IF YOU GO TO POLLING PLACE WHERE YOU GOVOTE ABSENTEE AND YOU SAY GIVE ME THE DFL BALLOT FOR THE PRESIDENT OR THE REPUBLICAN BALLOT FOR BARGAINS OR THE [INAUDIBLE] BOTH WHICH SUPPORT MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FOR THOSE FOUR MAJOR PARTIES THE CHOICE OF BALLOTS [INAUDIBLE] RESOLVE A SECRET BALLOT FOR YOUR CHOICE OF PARTY WILL BE THAT IS A BACKDO OR PARTY REGISTRATION SYSTEM. SOMETHING WE’VE EVER HAD SINCE [INAUDIBLE] AND I WOULD SAY IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN THE STATE REGISTRATION SYSTEM BECAUSE AS MANY OF YOU KNOW FROM EXPENSE IF YOU LIVED IN ANOTHER STATE THAT HIS PARTY REGISTRATION WHEN YOU KNOW SOMEBODY HAS IN EVERY OTHER STATE IN AMERICA THAT IS PARTY REGISTRATION THERE’S ALWAYS AN OPTION TO REGISTER THIS INDEPENDENT UNAFFILIATED. THAT’S NOT AN OPTION IS COMING MARCH 3. SO UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE MAKES A CHANGE HERE MEANS EVERYONE WHO WANTS OF A VOICE IN CHOOSING A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE HAS TO PICK A TEAM AND THE RECORD OF WHICH TEAM THEY PICK WILL FOLLOW THEM FOR YEARS. THAT MEANS YOUR NEIGHBOR; A MAJOR EMPLOYER; THAT MEANS ANYONE IN YOUR LIFE AS PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION BUT WE’VE NEVER GONE IN FOR THAT IN MINNESOTA AND THINK ABOUT SOME OF THESE OCCUPATIONS OR PROFESSIONS THAT A S A MATTER OF COURSE MIGHT OPT OUT FROM VOTING IF YOU’RE MEMBER OF THE CLERGY; IF YOU’RE A JOURNALIST; YOUR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IF YOU’RE A JUDGE IS BEEN MORE I’M SURE YOU CAN THINK OF; MAY NOT BOTHER AT ALL BECAUSE IT’S NOT IN YOUR INTEREST TO WEAR YOUR PARTY IDENTIFICATION ON YOUR SLEEVE. SO THIS IS A PROBLEM. I THINK ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS WILL BE QUITE UPSET TO LEARN IF THE CHANGES MAY BE WILL HAVE TO SIGN UP WITH A TEAM THAT WILL BE A PUBLICLY A BILLABLE RECORD. SO THE MAIN THINK THIS PROVISION DOES IS CLOSES THAT LOOPHOLE AND MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN VOTE FREELY IN PRIMARY WITHOUT FEAR OF THEIR EMPLOYER; THEIR NEIGHBOR AND OTHERS OF ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC AFFILIATION. SO THE SEMANTIC WHERE THINK THIS PROVISION. I’M HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THAT SECRETARY SIMON. IT SOMETHING I THINK PROBABLY OF HIGH IMPORTANCE TO THIS COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL>>REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU SECRETARY SIMON COULD I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU THIS SEEMS TO BE CHANGE FOR THE REASONS ENUMERATED. WE AS MINNESOTANS PRIDE OURSELVES ON INDEPENDENCE AND BEING ABLE TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WE CHOOSE THE BEST CANDIDATE POSSIBLE SOMEBODY SHOULD HAVE THE STATE OF BEING PUBLIC AND HAVING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THEY VOTE ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET FOR REPUBLICAN TICKET HANGING OVERHEAD SO I APPRECIATE YOU COMING FOR THAT I SUPPORT THIS BILL.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. JUST WONDERING IF THE BILL AUTHOR COULD EXPLAIN ARTICLE 5 AND 46.7 THROUGH 46.17?>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE IS A PART OF THE SCOPE OF OUR BILL?>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: NOT TO NOT NECESSARILY BUT THE WHOLE BILL IS [INAUDIBLE] HOURS.>>CHAIR LESCH: IT IS BUT THIS IS [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU CAN ANSWER BRIEFLY REPRESENTATIVE DEHN. I DO WANT TO GO TOO FAR ON THIS BUT I’LL [INAUDIBLE]>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: MR. CHAIR I KNOW THIS IS REGARDING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR AND I KNOW THIS MR. SECRETARY COULD INTO THE. I’M A DANCE AROUND IT A LITTLE BIT>>CHAIR LESCH: GO AHEAD.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU>>CHAIR LESCH: PEOPLE CALL YOU THAT; MR. SECRETARY?>>TESTIFIER: SOMETIMES>>CHAIR LESCH: I THINK IT’S KIND OF COOL.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU. THIS IS THE SECTION THAT POINTED OUT AS PART OF THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PROVISION IN THIS PARTICULAR WHEN YOU HAVE ISOLATED HERE TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS INTERSTATE COMPACT ONLY TAKE EFFECT PEACEABLY WENT TO AN AND 70 ELECTORAL VOTES ALSO JOINS THE CONTEST. SO WHETHER YOU ARE FOR IT OR AGAINST IT IF MINNESOTA DECIDES TO DO THIS IT WILL ONLY KICK IN WITH OTHER STATES IF THE OTHER 270 HAVE DONE THE SAME THING. THAT’S WHAT THIS PROVISION DOES.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. IS A GOOD CHAIR SCOTT?>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE DATA IN DIFFERENT THINGS.>>CHAIR LESCH: GO AHEAD AND>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: SO AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION THAT WE HEARD IN THE WINKLER BILL; IT ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE HOUSE A DRIVERS LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND REPRESENTATIVE WINKLER’S BILL THE DRIVERS LICENSES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS BE HANDLED? HOW WOULD THAT BE HANDLED?>>CHAIR LESCH: WAIT A SECOND. GO AHEAD REPRESENTATIVE DEHN>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: WITH THE DESIGNATION OF NOT FOR VOTING WOULD CLEARLY STATE THE DRIVERS LICENSE AND PART OF THE PROCESS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING THAT LICENSE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. SO THAT DATA WON’T BE HELD IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT WILL BE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN MINNESOTA.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO WILL THERE BE A SEPARATE DATABASE WITH JUST THOSE PEOPLE’S INFORMATION?>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: MR. CHAIR; I BELIEVE THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SOME DATA SET. THE ACCESS TO THE DATA SET I BELIEVE WILL BE VERY VERY DIFFERENT THAN A TRADITIONAL DATA SET BUT I WILL LET SECRETARY SIMON THREE TO THAT SPECIFICALLY.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT; YES THERE WILL BE TWO WAYS THAT THE PLANE WAS AT REPRESENTATIVE DEHN TALKED ABOUT WILL BE USED IN ONE; WILL BE ABLE TO PHYSICALLY APPEAR ON THE LICENSE. [INAUDIBLE] THE WEAR AND TEAR BUT ALSO BE NOTED IN THE SYSTEM. THAT WILL BE SEPARATE FROM ALL THE REST OF THE DATA AS WELL AND I MIGHT ADD THIS IS ACTUALLY A STRONGER PROVISION THAT HAS EXISTED TRADITIONALLY MINNESOTA. I USE AN EXAMPLE FOR MY OWN FAMILY MIGHT MOTHER WAS NEVER A US CITIZEN. SHE LIVED THERE FOR DECADES AND WAS A GREEN HER OLDER BUT SHE WITH YOUR [INAUDIBLE] THERE WAS EVERYTHING ON HER DREAM DRIVERS LICENSE THAT SAID SHE’S BEEN GONE A WHILE NOW BUT THOSE ELECTRONIC THAT SORT OF SORT OF HER RECORD. NOW WE WILL HAVE THAT BOTH ELECTRONICALLY AND PHYSICALLY IN A DRIVERS LICENSE. SO I WOULD SAY IT STRONGER THAN IT HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY MINNESOTA.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND I KNOW THAT IS NOT YOUR BILL THE DRIVERS LICENSE LEGISLATION. WELL THE MOVERS BILL IS A SEPARATE BILL BUT SO A PERSON COMES IN TO APPLY FOR DRIVERS LICENSE WILL THE APPLICATION BE ANY DIFFERENT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE SEEKING THE NONCOMPLIANCE DRIVERS LICENSES AND NOT? BECAUSE WHAT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT THERE’S GOING TO BE A BOX THERE TO CHECK WHETHER YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE OR NOT AND IT’S A FELONY IF YOU CHECK THE BOX YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE HECK YOU’RE DOING. SO WILL BE A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO NOT NONCOMPLIANT DRIVERS LISTEN?>>CHAIR LESCH: CAN I CLARIFY CHAIR SCOTT ARE US WHAT THE LANGUAGE IN TH IS BILL?>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: YES. THIS IS THE MOTOR VOTER PEACE IN THIS BILL HAS TO DO WITH THE DATA THAT’S THERE. SO>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: MR. CHAIR; TO BE CLEAR THE NONCOMPLIANCE DRIVERS LICENSE REGISTRATION WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN THE COMPLIANT REGISTRATION AND THE COMPLIANT REGISTRATION IS WHAT THE MULTIPLE MOTIVE OH [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE ACCOMPANIED WITH IT WILL BE ACCOMPANIED WITH THE OTHER APPLICATION.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. THE ISSUE I’M CONCERNED ABOUT IS IMPLEMENTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS WITH PEOPLE’S DRIVERS LICENSE DATA AND WI TH THE MNLARS SYSTEM BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS IN THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT DRIVERS LICENSES THAT ARE NOW GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTING BETWEEN REAL ID; COMPLIANT; NONCOMPLIANT. I AM ASSUMING THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE DRIVERS PERMITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME WAY. I AM JUST WONDERING IF MNLARS IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT AND HOW SOON I MIGHT HAPPEN BECAUSE WE MAY BE [INAUDIBLE] PASSING A LAW HERE THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL MNLARS IS READY>>CHAIR LESCH: WELL I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE THE SECRETARY STATE AND REPRESENTATIVE DEHN ENTER A MNLARS QUESTION. THAT’S A WHOLE ANOTHER BURRITO THAT’S KIND OF>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: MR. CHAIR THIS BILL IS BEFORE US NOW AND IS RIGHT APPLICATIONS WAS GOING>>CHAIR LESCH: THE DATA PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ARE RELATED TO WHAT WERE DOING. SO I MEAN ANSWER WITH RESPECT TO THE PREMISE BUT I DOUBT ABOUT IF YOU CAN REPRESENTATIVE DEHN>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS; REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT; ACTUALLY THE MNLARS SYSTEM WILL NOT BE THE SYSTEM THAT USE RELATIVE TO THIS BUT IT WILL BE PART OF THE FASTEST SYSTEM AND LEAVE THEIR SOMEONE FROM DVS>>CHAIR LESCH: YOU CAN BRING IN>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: I JUST WANT TO BRING IT OUT THERE MR. CHAIR. SPEECH OR>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW EVERY DIFFERENT SYSTEM ALTOGETHER. SOME REASSURANCE THAT WE WON’T HAVETO BUILD A MNLARS SYSTEM THAT WE WILL HAVE TO BUILD IN REGARD TO THAT. THAT’S MY LINE OF QUESTIONING FOR THE MOMENT.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. CHAIR JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: CHAIR LESCH; [INAUDIBLE] SECRETARY SIMON. IN THE [INAUDIBLE] ISSUE WAS JUST HAVE THE DATA IN CALIFORNIA THEY FOUND OVER 300;000 UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE PUT INTO [INAUDIBLE] VOTER REGISTRATION. IN HOUSE FILE 1500 AND CAUSE FOR INFORMATION IS INADVERTENTLY SHARED OR IS SHARED WITH ANYBODY ELSE’S OF $10;000 FINE PUT INTO THIS. UP TO A $10;000 FINE. I’M JUST WONDERING IF THE SECRETARY SIMON HAS THE FUNDS AVAILABLE IF EVEN 100;000 NAMES GOT INADVERTENTLY ON THE VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND SET OUT THAT DATA WOULD BE A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR FINE JUST WONDERING IF THE SECRETARY [INAUDIBLE] IS READY TO PAY THAT FINE IF THAT SHOULD HAPPEN.>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON AND MS. ANDERSON [INAUDIBLE] CAN ISSUE A FINE IN THE SUBMISSIVENESS AND THE FINES ON THE INDIVIDUAL NOT THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY NECESSARILY EVEN IF [INAUDIBLE] THE WAY IT WORKS IN MINNESOTA IS THAT WE PROVIDE THE OVERALL STRUCTURE THE STATEWIDE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM; BUT A REGISTRATION SYSTEM IS COUNTY BASE. SO THEY MAKE USE OF THE SYSTEM. THEY INPUT THE VOTER REGISTRATION INTO THE SYSTEM BUT IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN WOULD PROBABLY BE A ERROR THAT LIES ELSEWHERE OTHER THAN THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE. THAT JUST THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. I CAN TO ANY PARTICULAR [INAUDIBLE] I DON’T KNOW WHAT PENALTY PROVISIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY IN THIS BILL BUT MY UNDERSTANDING CALIFORNIA BILL [INAUDIBLE]>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR JOHN SON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: CHAIR LESCH SECRETARY SIMON; THAT’S THE ISSUE IN HOUSE FILE 1500 TO 10;000 ARE FINE FOR DISSEMINATING THAT INFORMATION AND SO IS IT GOING TO BE THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE THAT’S DISSEMINATING TO THE COUNTY. IS AGAIN BE THE COUNTY [INAUDIBLE] IS THAT IF THE ELECTION JUDGE WHO’S GOING TO BE PAIN THAT 10;000 ARE FINE FOR EVERY NAME THAT’S THEIR FELLOW WHOSE NAME WAS DISSEMINATED? AS FAR AS YOUR MOTHER AT THE GREEN CARD THEN GOT THE DREAMER DRIVERS LICENSE. IF YOU’RE IN MINNESOTA IF YOU’RE HERE LEGALLY WITH A GREEN CARD THAT IS THE LAW NOW. WITH THE MOTOR VOTER ISSUE WE WANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT’S GONNA WORK. BECAUSE THAT’S A LOT OF DETAILS IS NOT IN THE BILL DEALING WITH DRIVERS LICENSE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE HAS TO FIGURE OUT. NOT SURE IF THIS BILL HAS BEEN THERE YET. IF THE MOTORBOAT MOTORBOAT VOTER BILL HAS BEEN TRANSPORTATION WITH THERE’S LOT OF [INAUDIBLE] ISSUES TO BE DEALT WITH SHOULD MOTOR VOTER REGISTRATION ACTUALLY GO INTO EFFECT.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE HASSAN>>REPRESENTATIVE HASSAN: JUST A QUICK QUESTION MR. CHAIR. HAS FILE 1500>>CHAIR LESCH: YOU KNOW; IT’S NOT. [INAUDIBLE]>>REPRESENTATIVE HASSAN: OKAY. I WAS CONFUSED BUT I WAS LOOKING FOR HOUSE FILE [INAUDIBLE] AND JUST FOR THE RECORD I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE ISSUE THAT VOTING IN ELECTION WHEN YOU ARE NOT UNDOCUMENTED. PEOPLE; IMMIGRANTS AND PEOPLE WERE UNDOCUMENTED [INAUDIBLE] IT’S NOT EASY FOR THEM TO RUN INTO ELECTION POLLS AND VOTE ILLEGALLY. I KNOW MY OWN COMMUNITY; COMMUNITY ORGANIZER; IT’S REALLY HARD FOR THE ONES THAT ARE CITIZENS WHO WANT TO BOW. THEY DON’T WANT TO DO THAT. SO THIS POINT PEOPLE WERE UNDOCUMENTED AND IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES IN THIS COUNTRY DO NOT WANT TO COMMIT CRIMES BY ILLEGALLY VOTING.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE ROBIN>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION. SO WHAT IS THE CURRENT DATA CLASSIFICATION FOR REGISTRATION [INAUDIBLE]>>CHAIR LESCH: MR. OPPEN>>STAFF: MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE; THIS OF REGISTERED VOTERS ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER CURRENT LAW.>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: IS SO THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SORRY SO FOR THE DATA ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE [INAUDIBLE]>>STAFF: MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE; NOT SURE ABOUT PEOPLE THAT APPLY AND ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. I’M NOT SURE IF THERE’S A CLASSIFICATION IN LAW THAT EXISTS FOR THAT DATA CURRENTLY.MAYBE THE TESTIFIERS WERE NO COULD I’M NOT SURE.>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY. WHAT WAS THE MOTION ON THIS? REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL’S MOTION IS THAT HOUSE FILE 16 03B RECOMMENDED TO BE REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PASSES.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE DEHN; YOU HAVE 2367. IS THAT MORE SIMPLE THAN THIS LAST ONE>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: MR. CHAIR I HOPE IT’S MORE SIMPLE. I DO HAVE A TESTIFIER WHO CAN SPEA K TO POSSIBLY SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. SHE MIGHT ALSO WANT TOSPEAK FOR A COUPLE MINUTES ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS FOR THE SAFETY IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO [INAUDIBLE] COULD COME FORWARD IF WE COULD RECOGNIZE HER FOR A COUPLE MONTHS ISSUES AND HANG OUT FOR LONG;>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY. THE MOTION ON THIS IS THAT IT BE REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS REPRESENTATIVE CANTRELL MAKES THAT MOTION. YOU HAVE GOT A AMENDMENT IS AT RIGHT REPRESENTATIVE DEHN>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: YES MR. CHAIR. IT’S A SMALL AMENDMENT TO MAKE SOME SLIGHT CHANGES TO AT SOME CLARIFICATION>>CHAIR LESCH: WHICH AMENDMENTS? THE A-2 AMENDMENT. REPRESENTATIVE [INAUDIBLE] WAS THE A-2 AMENDMENT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PASSES.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: TO YOUR BILL REPRESENTATIVE DEHN>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: SO HOUSE FILE 2357 IS REGARDING THE [INAUDIBLE] CURRENTLY IN OUR STATE FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON’T KNOW THE VISA IS IN PROCESS BY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL IS HERE UNDOCUMENTED. IT’ S [INAUDIBLE] ACTUALLY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO; ONE; REPORT THE CRIME WITHOUT REPRISAL AND AT THE SAME TIME IT ALSO THEN CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO REMAIN IN THIS COUNTRY AS LONG AS THEIR COOPERATING AND WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED TO THE CRIME. THIS IS A BILL THAT’S BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND [INAUDIBLE] IN THE STATE AND WHAT THIS IS DOING IS TRYING TO CREATE SOME UNIFORMITY SO THAT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOUR OFFENSE HAPPEN IN GOLDEN VALLEY VERSUS MINNEAPOLIS. YOU WILL BE TREATED THE SAME WAY AS WELL AS HOW IT GETS PROCESS A NUMBER OF DAYS IN THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. SO REALLY WHAT THIS IS IS TAKEN WAS ALREADY HAPPENING IN SEVERAL CITIES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND MAKING IT UNIFORM ACROSS THE STATE.>>CHAIR LESCH: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] I AM AN ATTORNEY>>CHAIR LESCH: SAY YOUR NAME AGAIN.>>TESTIFIER: I AM AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING [INAUDIBLE] FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS NOW. I WORKED AT THE CITY MINNEAPOLIS IN DEVELOPING THEIR OWN VISA REGULATIONS AND THE NEW VISA BILL THE PAST THE CITY MINNEAPOLIS IN 2017. IT’S VERY IMPORTANT FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME TO HAVE AN ASSURANCE THAT THEY CAN REACH OUT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEY WILL NOT BE [INAUDIBLE] THEIR IMMIGRATION BACKGROUND. [INAUDIBLE] TO COLLABORATE AND COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CREATE A SAFER COMMUNITY. FOR [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE REQUESTED FOR MANY PLACES IN THE STATE FOR CERTIFICATION. FOR FOLKS THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH OTHERS ARE AND FOR THE MOST PART WE ARE ABLE TO GET THOSE CERTIFICATIONS DONE.NOW FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS IS A AMENDMENT THAT COVERS THEM AS WELL AS I THINK NORTHFIELD AND [INAUDIBLE] MAKE IT UNIFORM ACROSS THE STATE. SO THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER [INAUDIBLE] IT’S AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT IMMIGRATION HAS TO APPROVE THE VISA. THE CERTIFICATION IS JUST [INAUDIBLE] THAT THIS PERSON WAS A VICTIM OF A CRIME IS COOPERATING OR HAS COOPERATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WILL LIKELY COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE FUTURE. SO IN A WAY SIGNING A CERTIFICATE DISCRIMINATION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT [INAUDIBLE] SHOULD BE APPROVED. CITIZENSHIP SERVICE TO APPROVE THE NEW VISA BUT SO WHAT YOU’RE [INAUDIBLE] A PROCESS THAT CAN BE USED MANY AREAS WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT MAY NOT BE SO FAMILIAR WITH A VISA>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? A CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.. THIS A REALLY NEW CONCEPT TO ME. MAYBE OTHERS HAVE HEARD ABOUT THIS .THERE BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REQUESTED A VISA? IS THERE ANYTHING [INAUDIBLE] ANYTHING PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM INQUIRING ABOUT GETTING ONE RIGHT NOW?>>TESTIFIER: I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SECOND PARTY A QUESTION.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: TO THE TESTIFIER; THE VISA IS A FEDERAL LAW; RIGHT? SET UP THAT ALL PEOPLE CAN GET ONE OF THESE VISAS AND SO IS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON THAT MINNESOTA HAS TO HAVE A LAW [INAUDIBLE] BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL LAW DOES AND THEN HOW MANY PEOPLE IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER; HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT OBTAINING THE VISA IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA?>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IN 2018 THERE WERE 750 REQUESTS AND STATEWIDE I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL YOU. FEDERAL LAW CREATED THE U VISA TO HELP VICTIMS OF CRIME BUT FOR THEM TO OPEN THE DOOR THEY MUST FIRST HAVE A SIGNATURE FROM AN OFFICIAL IT SAYS THIS PERSON WAS A VICTIM OF A CRIME AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. THAT’S ALL THAT THE STATE IS DOING FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL LAW.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO THERE’S 700 REQUEST FOR THIS IN MINNEAPOLIS IN THE LAST YEAR?>>TESTIFIER: IN THE LAST YEAR THERE WERE 750>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: WOW. THAT’S A LOT OF VICTIMS OF CRIME. THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. WOULD YOU DEFINE WHAT A FAMILY MEMBER IS IN THIS BILL? IS THAT INCLUDED JUST IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR DOES IT GO BEYOND THAT?>>TESTIFIER: A VICTIM IS A PERSON WHO SUFFERED THE CRIME. A FAMILY MEMBER ALL GETS INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION [INAUDIBLE] UNDERAGE OR THE SPOUSE.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU. ONE OTHER QUESTION.>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: I THINK WE ARE GETTING FAR BEYOND THE ISSUE OF THE DISCLOSURE RELATIVE TO THE BILL AND I THINK HIS WIFE IT IS HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE COULD WE HAVE HEARD THIS IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND OTHER AREAS AND I THIN K THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE DATA IS REALLY WHY WE ARE HERE.>>CHAIR LESCH: KEEP THAT IN MIND CHAIR SCOTT.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. [INAUDIBLE] THE WHAT POINT IN THE PROCESS IS NOT TO BE AN ACTUAL INVESTIGATION OR ALLEGATIONS OF CRIME FOR THE VISA TO BE GRANTED?>>TESTIFIER: THE U VISA HAS TO BE GRANTED IF [INAUDIBLE] A SIGNATURE RECOGNIZE INSTRUMENTS OF VICTIM IT’S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE EACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND INQUIRES THAT SOMEONE EITHER WAS THE DIRECT VICTIM; INDIRECT VICTIM [INAUDIBLE] AND ALL THOSE THINGS ALL OF THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE QUITE COMPLICATED.. BUT SAY SEMI-BROKE MY ARM AND I TOLD THE POLICE. I’M THE VICTIM.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON ASKED QUESTIONS BECAUSE AND TO THE QUICK QUESTION. PERHAPS TO THE TESTIFIER; WAS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME FOR WHICH WOULD TO RECEIVE A VISA?>>TESTIFIER: THE ACTUAL PROCESS OR THE TIMING OF THE CERTIFICA TE?>>REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I GUESS BOTH>>TESTIFIER: THE CERTIFICATES ARE USUALLY SIGNED WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF MINNEAPOLIS. [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY HAVE TO BE WELL-VERSED IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS. ACROSS THE STATE I’VE SEEN THESE ASSIGNED WITHIN THREE; FOUR WEEKS. SOMETIMES [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY CAN TURN THEM AROUND IN A MATTER OF DAYS . IT IS UP TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST TO PROCESS THE BETA IT TAKES FOUR YEARS TO TAKE THE FIRST OF WHICH IS DEFERRED ACTION AND THEN YOU CAN TAKE UP TO 15 YEARS TO RECEIVE A VISA.>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR MARIANI>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MS. ; I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS. WE DID HEAR THIS IN MY COMMITTEE. THIS BILL DOES NOT THIS LANGUAGE GRANT VISAS TO PETITIONERS. IS THAT CORRECT?>>TESTIFIER: THAT IS CORRECT. THIS BILL ONLY AFFECTS THE GUIDANCE THE WAY I SEE IT [INAUDIBLE] FOR THE SIGNATURE [INAUDIBLE] SOMEONE WAS A VICTIM. THE VISA IS ENTIRELY UP TO [INAUDIBLE]>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: I BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND THE ISSUE BEFORE US IN YOUR BILL IS PRETTY CLEAR IS THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT HERE FOR STATE LAWS INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES TO SIMPLY PROCESS A CERTIFICATION WHEN IT’S REQUESTED BY THE VICTIM .. IF WE CARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY; IF WE CARE ABOUT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO B E RAPED SEXUALLY ASSAULTED OR TRAFFIC THEN WE SHOUL D BE SUPPORTING THIS BUT I REALLY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FOR DID I CAN TELL YOU OVER THE YEARS THAT I’VE HEARD SOME SURVIVORS IS UNFORTUNATELY THAT THERE’S MANY INSTANCES WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES SIMPLY DO NOT RESPOND DIDN’T SAY NO. THEY JUST DID NOT RESPOND. SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES I THINK IT’S A GOOD BILL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOR JUSTICE AND FOR DOING WITH SURVIVORS BUT TO LIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT IN OUR SOCIETY MR. CHAIR I FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS A REQUEST A ROLLCALL>>CHAIR LESCH: ROLLCALL HAS BEEN REQUESTED. CHAIR JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: CHAIR LESCH; TO THE TESTIFIER; GOOD MENTIONED THE SOMEBODY BREAKS AND ARM COULD I’M TRYING TO REMEMBER EARLIER I LOOKED UP QUALIFYING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW IS VERY LIMITED. I WONDER IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE WITH THAT INFORMATION AND TESTIFY THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT GO BEYOND THAT?>>TESTIFIER: THERE ARE [INAUDIBLE] ENUMERATED CRIMES AND THERE’S ALSO A PROVISION FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE WAY IT’S [INAUDIBLE] SEXUAL ASSAULT; KIDNAPPING; BLACKMAILING;. SO TRAFFICKING. THERE ARE 21 AND THEY COULDN’T GO INTO ASSAULT OR; SEXUAL ACTIVITY OR [INAUDIBLE] RESTRAINT AT THE VERY SPECIFIC. [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE TO USE IN MINNESOTA CRIMINAL STATUTES UNDER WHICH THIS CRIME WOULD FIT. SIMPLE ROBBERY DOES NOT FITTHE FEDERAL DEFINITION.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. I CAN SEE HER FACE . REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION RELATING TO THE DEAD PROVISIONS? BE JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: NOT AT THIS HUNDRED PETER LESCH REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO D OF A QUESTION RELATED TO THE DATA PROVISIONS>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. WINDO W ICE OFFICIAL BE ABLE TO DEPORT SOME OF 14 DAYS OF THE GIVEN A VISA?>>CHAIR LESCH: THOUSAND HOPE YOU DON’T HAVE A QUESTION RELATED TO THE DATA PROVISIONS. RIGHT?>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: TO THE BILL MR. CHAIR>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH:>>CHAIR LESCH: THIS WE ARE IN PUBLIC SAFETY HOW MANY COMMITTEES THIS IS BEEN HEARD IN REPRESENTATIVE DEHN>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: MR. CHAIR PUBLIC SAFETY TO THE COMMITTEE.>>CHAIR LESCH: WELT YOUR QUESTION WAS A YES OR NO QUESTION IS THAT RIGHT REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: CORRECT RULE>>CHAIR LESCH: OF YOU CAN ANSWER YES OR NO THEN GO AHEAD>>TESTIFIER: [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE REQUESTED IT AND WE CAN DO A NUMBER OF THINGS TO PREVENT [INAUDIBLE] WILL WAITING FOR THE VISA.>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY.>>TESTIFIER: [INAUDIBLE] NOT SUPPORT VICTIMS OF CRIME IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO WAIT ENDLESSLY UNTIL WE ARE [INAUDIBLE] THEY WANT TO SELECT PROMPTLY.>>CHAIR LESCH: FOR IS THAT A YES OR NO?>>TESTIFIER: IT’S NOT A YES OR NO.>>CHAIR LESCH: THERE BEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS THE MOTION IS REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE’S TO BE RECOMMENDED TO BE REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS. I’M SORRY CANTRELL.>>REPRESENTATIVE DEHN: MR. CHAIR I BELIEVE IT’S AS AMENDED>>CHAIR LESCH: AS AMENDED. THANK YOU. DID SOMEONE CALL FOR A ROLLCALL? YOU DID; OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] I>>STAFF: BAHR NAY PINTO AYE; CARLSON AYE; CONSIDINE AYE; GROSSELL NAY; [INAUDIBLE] HER AYE; JOHNSON NAY; LIEBLING LUCERO NAY; MARIANI AYE NOOR AYE; O’NEIL AYES AND ROBBINS XIONG AYE>>CHAIR LESCH: IN A VOTE OF 10-6 THE MOTION DOES PREVAIL.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE DEHN. REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI HOUSE FILE 2709.>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I MOVE HOUSE I MOVE HOUSE FILE 27 09B REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS>>CHAIR LESCH: THAT IS THE MOTION. YOUR BILL WE HAVE A DE AMENDMENT>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: MR. CHAIR I WOULD MOVE THE DESIX AMENDMENT.>>CHAIR LESCH: I’M SORRY WHICH AMENDMENT CHAIR MARIANI ?>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: MR. CHAIR I WOULD MOVE THE DE SIX AMENDMENT.>>CHAIR LESCH: THE DE SIX. DOES EVERYONE HAVE A COPY OF THE DE SIX? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PASSES.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: TO YOUR BILL AS AMENDED CHAIR MARIANI>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: MR. CHAIR I’LL TRY TO BE AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE. EVEN IMPORTANT ABILITY TO INCREASE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BASED ON WHAT THIS LEGISLATURE HAS IDENTIFIED THE QUITE FRANKLY A BIPARTISAN MANNER THAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM RELATIVE TO THE KIND OF THINGS WE EXPECT OF POLICE OFFICERS TO RECEIVE TRAINING.. WITHIN THE LAST BIENNIUM WE TOOK SPECIAL; L ESS TO BIENNIUM’S GOAL TOOK SPECIAL STEPS TO IDENTIFY [INAUDIBLE] DE-ESCALATION KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINNESOTA’S LICENSED POLICE OFFICERS IN RESPONSE TO A NUMBER OF TRAGIC INCIDENCES THAT ALL OF US WERE RECEIVING FROM CONSTITUENTS. MR. CHAIR MEMBERS; LET ME JUST SAY RIGHT OFF THE BAT THIS BILL NEED SOME WORK SO I’M GOING TO BEVERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT BEING UPFRONT ABOUT THAT I WANT TO IDENTIFY WHERE THAT IS BUT; QUITE FRANKLY; GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS LEGISLATION; GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE US AND GIVEN THE – EXCUSE ME – THE COMMITTEE DEADLINES; IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THESE PROVISIONS HERE TODAY IN JUDICIARY. I WILL CONTINUE TO HEAR THIS BILL IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COMMITTEE AND WORK WITH MEMBERS AND INTERESTED CONSTITUENTS. HOUSE FILE 2709 HAS DATA COLLECTION REPORTING PROVISIONS THAT WERE RELATED AS I SAID; TO THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION THAT A PORTION OF THE MANDATED TRAINING FOR POLICE OFFICERS LICENSED THROUGH THE POST BOARD BE PROVIDED TRAINING AND PROVIDE DE-ESCALATION A MENTAL HEALTH. THAT 12 A DOLLAR BIENNIAL APPROPRIATION FOR THAT TRAINING COMPONENT OF OUR OVERALL TRAINING MANDATES IS SET TO SUNSET AFTER THE NEXT BIENNIUM. WE WILL TALK WHAT THAT IN A SUBSEQUENT COMMITTEE BUT THE IDEA HERE MEMBERS IS THAT TO HAVE THIS BILL PROVIDE ONGOING FUNDING TO PARTICIPATION OF OUR [INAUDIBLE] IN A DATA COLLECTION PROCESS THAT WILL MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TRAINING THAT WE ARE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY IN. THE BILL THEN DOES THAT THROUGH DATA COLLECTION IDENTIFIED IN FOUR BROAD AREAS. TRAFFIC CITATIONS WHERE WE ARE LOOKING FOR A DESIGNATION OF ETHNICITY. PEACE OFFICER DISCIPLINE FINANCE WHERE WE ARE FOCUS REALLY ONLY ON MAJOR DISCIPLINE ISSUES; NOT SMALL MINOR DISCIPLINE INFRACTIONS THE USE OF FORCE DATA. THAT THE BCA [INAUDIBLE] ALREADY REQUIRES AND THEN PARTICIPATION IN THE UNFOLDING REPORTING SYSTEM. [INAUDIBLE] IS A NATIONAL INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM THAT WILL RETIRE THE FEDERAL REPORTING SYSTEM WHICH IS STOOD AS OUR UNIFORM CRIME CRIME REPORTING FRAMEWORK IN OUR NATION FOR DECADES. LIBRA’S WILL MAKE IT TO THE INTENT IS TO MAKE IT THE ONLY NATIONWIDE FORMAT FOR CRIME SPECIFIC IN THE US. IT ALLOWSPOLICYMAKERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITIES TO GO MUCH DEEPER IN TERMS OF [INAUDIBLE] FOR ENHANCING OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY EFFORTS. IT IS THE PROVIDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONTEXT FOR CRIMES. IT’S GOING TO BE A USEFUL STATISTIC [INAUDIBLE] IS A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD IN THIS LEGISLATURE AND LEGISLATURES ACROSS THE NATION. SO WITH THAT; MR. CHAIR; THERE’S DATA COLLECTION PROVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE BILL .. SECTION 1; WE TO THE TRAFFIC CITATIONS IN SECTION 2 WHICH SPEAKS TO THE DISCIPLINE FINANCE. SECTION 4 WHICH SPEAKS TO THE USE OF FORCE DATA. THAT THE BCA ALREADY REQUIRES AND THEN SECTION 3; WHERE WE MAKE AN APPROPRIATION FOR RESEARCH ENTITY T O WORK WITH THE POST BOARD TO DEVELOP COMMON MEASURES BASED ON THE DATA PROVIDE DATABASE INFORMATION FOR ADVANCING CLEAR DECISION-MAKING AND FRANKLY; TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WERE LOOKING AT THIS DATA WERE ABLE TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. AS I SAID WHEN I STARTED THERE ARE AREAS I WANT TO CONTINUE WORKING ON IT WOULD BE MY HOPE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT BEYOND AFTER THIS COMMITTEE BUT THEN ALSO IF THE CHAIR IS OPEN AND IF THE COMMITTEE IS INTERESTED; TO BRING THAT BACK IN THE FORM OF LANGUAGE THAT THIS COMMITTEE MARKS UP [INAUDIBLE] SO EVERYONE IS FULLY INFORMED ON WHAT ARE CHANGES TO DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING WOULD BE. THE FOUR AREASI INTEND TO WORK ON IS IN SECTION 1. THE WE DO NOT QUITE DRAFT THIS RIGHT. IT’S NOT OUR INTENT TO HAVE ETHNICITY MARKED ON ANY TRAFFIC TICKET. IT’S NOT OUR INTENT TO HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] BE REPORTED. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING CONCERNS OF MINNESOTA POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATION HAS RAISED [INAUDIBLE] INFORMATION ABOUT NAME AND BADGE NUMBER. THE PEACE OFFICER IS PARTY TO THE DISCIPLINE REPORTING; WE THINK THEIR WASTE WHICH WE CAN ANONYMIZE THAT. QUITE FRANKLY; THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLIC DATA THAT EXISTS AT THE LOCAL [INAUDIBLE] BUT THEY HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT PULLING IT TOGETHER INTO AT THE POST BOARD EVEN THOUGH WERE CALLING FOR SOME OF THE DATA REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC BASED ON THAT INFORMATION. THERE’S A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THE DATABASE WILL BE HOUSED. I’M HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BCA ABOUT THAT THE BILL AS STRUCTURE IMPLIES IT ALL [INAUDIBLE] I THINK I WOULD BE IDEAL BUT THE POST BOARD HAS SOME SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR USING PAPER FOR COLLECTING DATA AND NOT DIGITAL AT THIS POINT. SO ONE OF THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES THAT THE DATA [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE RESEARCH ENTITY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN THE RESEARCH ENTITY WE ARE INTERESTED IN IS THE [INAUDIBLE] FOUNDATION WHO CAN SPEAK QUICKLY ABOUT THAT. THEIR EXPENSE IN HOLDING DATA FOR A NUMBER OF STATE MANDATED PROJECTS. TOTALLY FOLLOWING OUR CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY STATUTES. THEN; FINALLY THERE SOME ISSUES WORKING WITH THE BCA RELATIVE TO THE LEVEL OF [INAUDIBLE] DATA REPORTING WHEN IT COMES TO THE LEVEL OF THE CATEGORY OF OFFENSES AND SO THERE’S STILL WORKING OUT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN IMPROVE THOSE CATEGORIES WITHIN THIS DATA COLLECTION SCHEME. SO WITH THAT MR. CHAIR; I WILL STOP AND PERHAPS ALLOW WITH THE INFORMATION MR. ‘S TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT AND THIS WILL BE TO THE ISSUE OF OF THE DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRUCT AND ISSUES ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY AS WELL.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU CHAIR MARIANI. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I’M PAUL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHILE THE RESEARCH JUST BY THE WILDER FOUNDATION. WHETHER RESEARCH IS A NONPROFIT NONPARTISAN RESEARCH ORGANIZATION WE APPRECIATE THAT MANY OF THE LEGISLATORS HERE IN MINNESOTA FROM BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR STAFF MAKE USE OF THE RESOURCES THAT WE PROVIDE. I WOULD JUST SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THE DATA COLLECTION AND MECHANICAL AND CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES THAT REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI MENTIONED. WE HAVE PROJECTS SUCH AS MINNESOTA COMPASS WHICH IS A WEBSITE PROVIDING SOCIAL INDICATORS. WE CARRY OUT PROJECTS WHICH REQUIRE A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BUT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO DO WOULD BE TO DEVELOP A SYSTEMATIC RELIABLE CONFIDENTIAL COMPILATION OF THE DATA IN THE AREAS THAT REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI LISTENED. AND THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG CREATES TWO MAIN FUNCTIONS; TWO THINGS. ONE WOULD BE PUBLIC FACING AGGREGATE INFORMATION THAT COULD BE USED TO SEE TRENDS IN THESE DIFFERENT AREAS . SOMETHING THAT ANY JURISDICTION COULD USE;; LEGISLATORS CAN USE; OTHER POLICYMAKERS; DECISION-MAKERS TO SEE WITH THE OVERALL TRENDS ARE WITH RESPECT TO THESE ISSUES. THE SECOND PART OF IT WOULD BE INFORMATION WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO PARTICULAR JURISDICTIONS; POLICE DEPARTMENT’S THAT THEY COULD USE FOR THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT; TRAINING; MONITORING OVERTIME IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR SERVICES. OUR GOAL IN ALL THIS IS TO IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPROVE TRUST; IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH LAW ENFORCEMENT IS OCCURRING;; WHAT DRIVES THE OUTCOME OF THOSE OF THAT PARTICULAR CONTEXT AND TO BE SURE TO INCORPORATE ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS WERE RELEVANT FOR DECIDING ABOUT THIS HOUSE SHOULD BE MEASURED INTO THE PROCESS. THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE WOULD DEVELOP ANY FORM OF THE DATABASE WE WOULD BEGIN WITH A PROCESS IN WHICH A MULTI-PARTISAN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER GROUP COMES TOGETHER.. THEY IDENTIFY WHAT WOULD BE VALID AND RELIABLE CREDIBLE INDICATORS SPEAKING TO THE TOPICS THAT REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD DEVELOP A SCIENTIFICALLY CREDIBLE WAY TO COLLECT PROTECT AND SECURE A REPORT THOSE INDICATORS. AGAIN; ENTERED AGGREGATE LEVEL FOR ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN A MORE DETAILED LEVEL TO PARTICULAR DEPARTMENTS WHO ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THAT INFORMATION. WE HAVE DONE THIS WITH THE MINNESOTA STUDENT SURVEY. WE DO THIS WHEN WE DEVELOPED A HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WHICH ACCESS DATA FROM HOMELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND ALL THESE CASES; IT’S HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL DATA. IT’S PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION. IT’S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SECURELY SYSTEMATICALLY COMPILED AND USED FOR DECISION-MAKING TO IMPROVE LAW ENFORCEMENT; TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY RELATIONS TO IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY. SO THAT’S ENOUGH TO SAY ABOUT IT. I’LL CONCLUDE.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU.>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: I WOULD ONLY EDIT VERY QUICKLY WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON LANGUAGE PRETTY SERIOUSLY FOR THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS WITH A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS. I’M NOT SAYING THEY’RE SUPPORTIVE BUT LETTING YOU FOLKS KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A PRETTY RIGOROUS PROCESS AND INTERACTION WITH THE BCA; WITH A POST BOARD WITH OUR CHIEFS WITH OUR SHERIFF’S; WITH THE MPO A AND WITH OUR ADVOCATES PARTICULARLY IN THE MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATE COMMUNITY AND OUR SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR COMMUNITY. AS WELL.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. WE HAVE TESTIFIERS. MR. PLEASE COME FORWARD. IF YOU CAN KEEP IT TO WITHIN TWO MINUTES; THANK YOU. CHAIR JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: SINCE THIS IS NOT A WHOLE NEW BASICALLY ON THE BILL OF LIG HT OF TESTIMONY GO LONGER THAN JUST TWO MINUTES FOR THIS TESTIFIER BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION WE NEED TO COVER.>>CHAIR LESCH: THIS IS ALL BE COVERED IN PUBLIC SAFETY. THE CORPUS OF THIS WILL BE FOR CHAIR MARIANI’S COMMITTEE. GO AHEAD MR . HUTTON.>>TESTIFIER: GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS WILHELM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MINNESOTA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE 87 ELECTED TO COUNTY SHERIFFS IN MINNESOTA. I’M HERE TO TESTIFY REGARDING FOR THE SHERIFFS REGARDING HOUSE FILE 2709. FIRST WE LIKE TO THANK CHAIR MARIANI FOR THE CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS BILL. THERE’S BEEN A VERY GOOD EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND INFORMATION ON THE ITEMS WITHIN THE BILL. WE DO APPRECIATE THE CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED FIVE PIECES OF THIS BILL AND NOT [INAUDIBLE] MINNESOTA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION UNDERSTANDS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIANT BY 2021 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WITHIN THIS BILL MINNESOTA LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTINUES TO WORK WITH HER RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SPEAKERS AND VENDORS; TO MAKE THIS A REALITY BUT NOTHING WAS EVER EASY WITH IT PROJECTS.. AS WERE ALL AWARE THAT TYPICALLY NOT [INAUDIBLE] WITHOUT ISSUE OR WITHIN BUDGET. THIS MEANS CHANGING TO [INAUDIBLE] IS AN EXPENSIVE PROJECT FOR THE COUNTY. USE OF FORCE REPORTING FOR THE BCA WHICH IS CURRENTLY ONGOING. WE DO NO MORE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE W ITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT BY WAY OF EDUCATING ON THE REPORTING PROCESS. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THIS REPORTING IS RELATIVELY NEW. POST ANNUAL DATA REPORTING WILL REVEAL THIS IS NEEDED. WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEED FOR A SERIOUS STATEWIDE PICTURE CURRENTLY LAW ENFORCEMENT [INAUDIBLE] TO POST OFFICER COMPLAINTS ON ANNUAL BASIS AND REPORTED DATA IS NOT SPECIFICALLY INDIVIDUAL LICENSE PEACE OFFICER IN SPECIFIC COMPLAINT. THE PROPOSED BILL REQUIRES A POST PUBLISHED SUMMARY DATA ANNUALLY. OUR SUGGESTION IS TO LET’S AGREE ON WHAT DATA POINTS ARE NEEDED AND REPORT DATA [INAUDIBLE] TRAFFIC CITATION ETHNICITY. THE [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT DEFINITE FOR [INAUDIBLE] DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE ACCURATE OR GOOD DATA. POTENTIALLY CAN PLACE THE OFFICER IN A BAD SITUATION AS WELL. AND ESPECIALLY THE PEACE OFFICER TRAINING ASSISTANCE MINNESOTA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION APPRECIATE THE MONIES THAT ARE BEEN APPROPRIATED TO THE MANDATED TRAINING BUT WE CONTINUE TO EXPRESS CONCERN THAT [INAUDIBLE] HAVE A SUNSET DATE. THIS BILL AS THOSE POTENTIAL MANDATES AND IS ONLY TO LAY THE SUNSET DATE. AGAIN; THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS BILL AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONTINUED CONVERSATION.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. MR. GOTTSCHALK WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY TO MR. DEMERS FOR THE NAME IS BACK GOTTSCHALK CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF CORCORAN. I’M TESTIFYING TODAY ON BEHALF THE MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION AND WE THANK CHAIR MARIANI FOR BRINGING THE BILL BEFORE ENGAGING WITH OUR ASSOCIATION WORKING WITH SOME OF THE LINKAGE. WITHIN FOUR TO WORK WITH A LEGISLATURE TO GO FOR BELIEVE SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS BUT ALSO AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. WITH SOME GOOD POINTS THE BILL IN SUPPORT WORKING TOWARDS THINGS ARE GETTING OUR AGENCY COMPLIANCE BUT THERE ARE SOME HURDLES IS YOUR HOT MENTION. THE BILL CURRENTLY TRUST A VERY ISOLATED SPECIFICS OF THE SEVEN INPUTS AND ENDED ON THE FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BUS TRAINING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO DIVERSITY AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES MANAGEMENT MEDIATION [INAUDIBLE] MENTAL ILLNESS CRISIS.HE GOES ON TO A HOST OF OTHER UNFUNDED REPORTING MANDATES AND GAIN SOME SIGNIFICANT LANGUAGE THAT’S ONLY MORE CONSIDERATION. WHEN IT COMES TO GATHERING ETHNICITY DATA ON [INAUDIBLE] WERE APPLIED TO ACTUAL TICKET PUTS OUR OPPOSITION TERRIBLE POSITION TAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS AS AN INDIVIDUAL’S RACE OR ETHNICITY THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL OF ADDING ANOTHER BARRIER TO OUR POSITIVE COMMUNITY INTERACTIONS. IT ALSO FEEL THIS DATA REPORT LANGUAGE IS SOME WORK AT THE CURRENT BILL LANGUAGE [INAUDIBLE] AND WE FEEL SUMMARY OR ACCURATE DATA TO POST BOARD WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. ALSO MOST COMPLAINTS ACTUALLY COME FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN HOLDING OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE. THE THOSE DRAFTED DOES ALLOW AGENTS TO INDICATE A COMPLAINT CAME FROM A [INAUDIBLE] TAKE DISCIPLINE SERIOUSLY. SOME USES COMPLAINT CAME FROM MEMBER THE PUBLIC OR OTHER SOURCES. THE OTHER SOURCE MOST OF THE TIMES AS OUR AGENCIES. FURTHERMORE; ALL THE DATA BECAUSE WHAT IS PRIVATE DINNER ASSOCIATION MEANS CONCERN ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THAT TYPE OF SENSE OF PERSONAL DATA BEING HOUSED IN A DATABASE BY COMMITTEE-BASED RESEARCH ORGANIZATION WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] TO THE POSTWAR. LASTLY I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT THE [INAUDIBLE] DATA PROVISIONS ARE BUILT THE TRAINING REIMBURSEMENTS ARE THE CLIENTS WITHIN THE BILL. MESSAGE WAS SENT INTO OUR STATE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT I CAN DO TO SUNSET THIS AND TRAINING FUNDING IS DISAPPOINTED THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAME FOR THE TRAIN PROPOSAL A FEW YEARS AGO WE KNEW [INAUDIBLE] AND THE NEED TO BE A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT. AND SO SETTING THIS FUNDING IS NOT SOMETHING WE SUPPORT. THANK YOU.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS? CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI;I APPRECIATE YOUR OPENNESS TO MAKE CHANGES IN THIS BILL AS IT GOES ALONG AND PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO DATA ESPECIALLY IT’S GREAT HOUSE THAT A THIRD PARTY. THERE ARE SOME PARAMETERS I THINK YOU’D WANT TO PUT AROUND THAT DATA BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO DETERMINE FIRST OF ALL HOW LONG THE DATA IS GOING TO BE KEPT AND THEN ALSO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE BEEN PUTTING IN A 10;000 DATABASE [INAUDIBLE ] AND WHAT ELSE. AUDIT TRAILS; THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. SHOULD BE BUILT IN SO THAT WE KNOW WHO HAS BEEN ACCESSING THE DATA. I SEE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WILDER FOUNDATION AND PERHAPS HE CAN TO THOSE THINGS; BUT THOSE ARE SOME OF THE PARAMETERS WE HAVE CONCERNS AB OUT NEW DATABASES THAT ARE BEING CREATED. THANK YOU.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MY FIRST QUESTION IS TO THE BILL AUTHOR MAY BE TO RESEARCH WOULD BE LOOKING AT LINE 1.12; IT SAYS THE NEW LANGUAGE IS ONCE IDENTIFY THE COMPLAINTS ETHNICITY BUT THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE HANDOUT WE WERE GIVEN REGARDING THE WILDER FOUNDATION IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPHTHERE IS A FOOTNOTE TO MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO ARTICLE IN REGARD TO MINNEAPOLIS IF THEY WERE TRACKING RACE.. SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS; CAN WE CONFIRM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RACE AND ETHNICITY AND THEN HOW WAS THE DEFINITION OF ETHNICITY AS IT IS IN THE BILL LANGUAGE?>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR MARIANI DID YOU WANT TO TAKE UP?>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO; WE STRUGGLED A BIT WITH THOSE BECAUSE WE HAD DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS USING DIFFERENT DESCRIPTORS BASED ON WHAT WERE INTERESTED IN. SO THE COURT IS USING ETHNICITY DESCRIPTORS. [INAUDIBLE] I BELIEVE USES RACE DESCRIPTORS. BUT I AM LEARNING; AS I INTERACT WITH THE BCA IS THAT THE RACE DESCRIPTORS ARE LIMITED RELATIVE TO THE COURTS USE OF THEIR ETHNICITY. SO LATINOS FOR INSTANCE ARE GOING TO BE LOST IN THE [INAUDIBLE] REPORTING AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.. WITH THAT I’LL BE EVIDENCE IN THE COURT APPROACH. SO QUITE FRANKLY; THIS IS WHEN THE AREAS I WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON AND SETTLE ON BUT MY INTENT WHITE FRANKLY IS TO HAVE AS INCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE A DESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT’S GOING TO TAKE FOR US TO GET TO THE ULTIMATE INTENT BEHIND THIS LEGISLATION WHICH IS PROVIDING DATA FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS OF THAT FRAMEWORK TO ENHANCE THE PRACTICES OF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: MR. CHAIR; TO YOU THEN BECAUSE I DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THIS IS GOING TO PUBLIC SAFETY? ALSO MY QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL>>REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. TO THE AUTHOR; AS WELL; IN REFERENCE TO THE ETHNICITY OR THE RACE THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP TRACK OF; ANYTIME I SEE THAT IT MAKES ME CRINGE IN ALL HONESTY. IT MAKES ME CRINGE BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN HE WAS IN FRONT OF OUR COMMITTEE IN PUBLIC SAFETY FLAT OUT SAID WERE TO EXECUTE OUR DUTIES IN AN UNBIASED MANNER.. THAT’S WHAT ENFORCEMENT’S JOB IS. THAT’S THE WAY I DO THINGS. THAT’S THE WAY EVERY OFFICER OF EVERNOTE DOES THINGS. WHEN WE START KEEPING TRACK OF ETHNICITY AND THINGS IT JUST MAKES ME THINK ARE WE WANTING TO START A RACIAL PROFILE DATABANK SOMEPLACE. WHEN I SEE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS I DON’T LIKE IT BECAUSE I DO WANT TO PUT OUR OFFICERS IN THE POSITION . CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING TO THAT WAS THE WAY WE CAN THAT YOU CAN TAKE AND GET RID OF THAT BECAUSE>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL WE WILL HAVE A LONGER DEBATE IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE AND SHOULD BE A WELCOME DEBATE. THE COMMISSIONER ALSO SAID WHEN IT WAS BEFORE US THAT RACIAL BIAS IS A PROBLEM. IT’S A REALITY IN SOCIETY SOCIETY THAT IMPACTS WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT TO THE CURRENT MINORITY MOUSE WHEN THEY WERE THE MAJORITY UNDERSTOOD THIS. SO CHAIR CORNISH WAS PART OF THE ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS IN DIRECTING THE TRAINING DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IMPLICIT BIAS IN THE QUESTION BECOMES HOW DO YOU ADDRESS IMPLICIT BIAS IF YOU’RE NOT COLLECTING DATA ABOUT THAT BIAS? I THINK THE ISSUE IS AND AGAIN I WANT TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT; THE ISSUE RELATIVE TO SSECTION 1 IN THIS BILL IS I THINK WHAT I’VE DONE WITH THIS LANGUAGE IS PLACE THAT IDENTIFICATION IN A TRAFFIC CITATION ITSELF. THAT’S NOT MY INTENT. SO I’M PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD THAT MY INTENT IS JUST WILL HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER WAY TO BE UP TO HAVE A CHECK OF FOR THE SIDING OFFICER TO BE ABLE TO REGISTER THEIR OBSERVATION THAT’S INDEPENDENT OF THE TRAFFIC CITATION ITSELF. I THINK AT THAT POINT BEEN THE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE RAISING BECOMES COMPOUNDED IF YOU ARE GETTING CITED A ND CITATIONS [INAUDIBLE] I’M SITING YOU BECAUSE YOUR BLOOD. THAT’S NOT WHAT THE BILL IN TENNIS. SO WE WILL FIX THAT FOR SURE.>>CHA IR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL>>REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR FOR LOOKING CLOSER AT THAT. I’M WONDERING BECAUSE OF WHAT THE COMMISSIONER SAID THE RACIAL BIAS IN SOCIETY COME I HEAR A LOT OF THINGS COMING FORWARD WE NEED TO MAKE OUR COPS BETTER. WE NEED TO MAKE OUR COPS BETTER. I WAS ONE AND OF ALWAYS TO TRAIN WE NEED TO DO IT RIGHT. WE NEED TO DO THE BEST OFFICE WE COULD BE ON THE STREET BECAUSE WE ARE REPRESENTING EVERYBODY. OUR OFFICES ARE REPRESENTED BY EVERY RACE CREED COLOR GENDER AND WE ARE ALL OUT THERE AND WERE ALL OUT THERE TRYING TO THE BEST WE CAN TO SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITIES. YOU AND I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS OFF-LINE JUST ON WHERE WE COME FROM; HOW WILL YOU BROUGHT UP THE THINGS WE SEE IN THE DIRECTION WE SEE SOCIETY GOING FROM TIME TO TIME . IT’S NOT A GOOD DIRECTION. SO I TAKE A STEP BACK TO ASK IS THERE ANYTHING BEING DONE TO MONITOR THE TRENDS FROM THE GENERAL POPULATION; THE GENERAL PUBLIC; TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNITIES OUTLOOK OR THEIR APPROACH TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS? IF WERE ONLY DOING FOR ONLY ASKING THE OFFICERS TO STEP UP BUT WERE NOT ASKING THE COMMUNITY TO TAKE A HOLD OF YOUR YOUNG PEOPLE THIS IS HOW WE DO NEED TO DO THINGS THAT EVERYONE EVERYBODY TO TOGETHER. I MEAN THAT’S MICHAEL. THAT’S ALWAYS BEEN MY GOAL IS A POLICE OFFICER TO MAKE SURE THAT I’M A REPRESENTATIVE TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMMUNITY BUT YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT IF THE COMMUNITY IS NOT BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS; BUILDING BRIDGES TO IMPROVE RELATIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WE [INAUDIBLE] AND IT’S NOT GOING TO AMOUNT TO A WHOLE BEANS.>>CHAIR LESCH: WE HAVE TWO MORE PEOPLE ON THE LIST. MEMBERS KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHARES MY MEMBERS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE BASIC POLICY BLISTERS CAN BE HEAVILY DECIDED PUBLIC SAFETY BUT WERE HERE ON THE DATA PRACTICES COMPONENT THEN REPRESENTATIVE JAMILA>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. WITH THAT I’LL KEEP MY COMMENTS SHORT. THE DUTCH JUST TO ADDRESS WHAT REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL’S AND I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE KNOWS I’M A PROSECUTOR. I WORK IN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND I TOOK IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING AS PART OF MY JOB THERE AND IT WAS LIFE-CHANGING FOR ME.. FOR SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR YOU CHAIR MARIANI IS JUST BECAUSEI’M NEW HERE; AND I DON’T KNOW HOW THE ORIGINAL TRAINING DOLLARS CAME ABOUT THE THINGS YOU MENTION THAT BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THOSE INITIAL FUNDS IN PART WERE TO PROVIDE IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING. MIGHT UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY?>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER; YES. ALONG WITH DE-ESCALATION SKILL ENHANCEMENT DOING WITH MENTAL ILLNESS AS WELL. AND BY THE WAY; MEMBERS; WILL TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE OTHER COMMITTEE BUT THE SUNSET COVERS [INAUDIBLE] AT THAT POINT THIS BILL ACTUALLY EXTENDS THE SUNSET OUT. THEY’RE STILL SUNSET BUT WERE NOT CREATING THE SUNSET NOR SIT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS COMMITTEE BUT YES REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER THAT IS CORRECT.>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I WOULD JUST SAY I LOOK FORWARD TO BROADER DISCUSSION THIS THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AND PERHAPS WE CAN TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT IT IMPLICIT BIAS; TO BUT IT DOES APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE HAVE IMPLICIT BIAS NO MATTER WHAT RACE OR COLOR YOU ARE. THANK YOU.>>CHA IR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON. THE>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: CHAIR LESCH; REPRESENTATIVE DETTMER; MY COMMENTS WERE PARTIALLY WHAT WE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THE OFFICER TRYING TO GUESS WHICH ETHNICITY. I CAN TRY TO GUESS WHAT REPRESENTATIVE LESCH IS ETHNICITIES..>>CHAIR LESCH: YOU WOULD BE WRONG>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I HAVE A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE OF THE ITEMS HE’S BROUGHT IN.. BUT THERE’S PROBABLY SOME IRISH IN HIM. BUT EVERYBODY HA S ETHNICITY COULD I’M SWEDISH AND ENGLISH. I’VE REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE IS.>>>>[LAUGHING]>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: SLC DON’T KNOW EITHER>>>>[LAUGHING]>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: BUT IN TRYING TO GET AT ETHNICITIES NOT THE WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO THE STOPS AND THE CITATIONS ON PROBABLE CAUSE. THEY HAVE TO PROBABLE CAUSE IN ORDER TO MAKE A STOP TO MAKE AN ARREST. WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE THE REST IS NOT GOOD AND YOU’D GET A NUMBER OF CITATIONS OR CONVICTIONS THROWN OUT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE; THERE GENERALLY SHORTLY DONE BEEN AN OFFICER. SO THE OFFICERS VERY CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THERE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BEFORE THEY MAKE ISSUE A CITATION MAKE AN ARREST. NOW ON THE BACK THERE’S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH DATA PRIVACY. ON THIS DISCIPLINARY REPOR T. I’MHOPING THE POST BOARD COMES UP IN A LITTLE BIT TO TALK WHAT THIS AS WELL. THERE’S A LOT OF DEPARTMENTS COME ABOUT 40% OF THE DEPARTMENTS;; WITH FIVE; SIX; SEVEN OFFICERS [INAUDIBLE] AND IS THE GENTLEMAN FROM WILDER INSTITUTE SAID; THEY CAN GET THESE DATA DOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT. YOU HAVE A THREE-MAN DEPARTMENT AND ALL THE SUDDEN OFFICER IS DISCIPLINED. THEY DON’T KNOW A LOT OF THAT DISCIPLINE IS FOR A LOT OF TIMES IS FOR VIOLATIONS OF POLICY WERE NOTHING TO DO THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE. THAT INFORMATION SHE IS NOT ON VACATION HE’S NOT HOME IS NOT WORKING. A MONTH LATER THEY CALL POST BOARD AND GET THE INFORMATION ON THAT DEPARTMENT; A THREE-MAN DEPARTMENT. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL. PERSONNEL POLICIES ARE CONFIDENTIAL. WHEN AN OFFICER MOVES ON TO A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT IS ACTUALLY SO THAT DEPARTMENT TO IN THE BACKGROUND CHECK AND ACTUALLY LOOKING TO THE PERSONNEL POLICY. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND CAN BE VERY DAMAGING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE PUBLIC THEMSELVES. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT PROTECTING THE DATA;; HOW WE DISSEMINATE; WHAT IS DISSEMINATED AND BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT WE DON’T HAVE OUR LIBERTY.>>REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI: VERY QUICKLY; REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON; I THINK I PARTIALLY AGREE. I WOULD POINT YOU TO JESSE YOU KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE; IF YOU LOOK AT LINE 3.22; IT SAYS THE DATA RECEIVED [INAUDIBLE]’S PRIVATE DATA ON INDIVIDUALS. IT IS GOING TO SAY IT DOESN’T RESTRICT THE [INAUDIBLE] SUMMARY DATA. IF YOU SWITCH OVER TO THEN LINE 4.1; SUBDIVISION SIX; IT TALKS ABOUT THE BOARD PUBLISHING A SUMMARY OF DATA AND GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE SUMMARY SHALL EXCLUDE PLEASE OFFICER’S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER. SO THE IDEA IS NOT TO HAVE THAT IN THE OUTWARD PUBLIC FACE. THE ORIGINAL INTENT IS TO HAVE AS MUCH REAL DATA AS POSSIBLE SO THAT INTERNALLY WE CAN HAVE A KIND OF DATA-DRIVEN REFLECTION AND PROCESSES IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO PRODUCE BETTER DECISIONS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE IRONY IS AT THE [INAUDIBLE] LEVEL THE STATE IS ACTUALLY PUBLIC. SO; WE ARE ACTUALLY BACKING OFF WHEN IT COMES TO WERE APPOINTED TOGETHER RELATED TO THE BIG DATABASE. IT IS A SECTION I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AS I MENTIONED IT BUT MR. I THINK HAS A QUICK POINT HE WANTS TO MAKE AS WELL>>CHAIR LESCH: TO JUST QUICKLY I THINK REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI TOOK ABOU TOOK THE OTHER PARTY A QUESTION WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT POINT IS EVEN SUMMARY DATA CAN BE; CARE OF YOUR THINGS YOU DON’T WANT TO REVEALED IF IT’S ABOUT GROUPS THAT ARE TOO SMALL. SO IN ANY PROJECT LIKE THIS THE CENSUS BUREAU DOES OR ANY OF THE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION TO BE MINIMUMS ESTABLISHED AS TO THE SMALLEST UNIT THAT COULD BE DESCRIBED AND SO A THREE-PERSON DEPARTMENT SUMMARY DATA WOULD NOT BE PRESENTED TO THE BE SOME KIND OF A CUT OFF AND THAT WOULD BE STANDARD PROCEDURE TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY AND ELIMINATE THE SITUATION YOU ARE DESCRIBING.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU CHAIR MARIANI’S MOTION IS THAT THIS BE REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS. AS AMENDED. WE AMENDED;. AS AMENDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PASSES.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE LONG PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. MOTION ON THE BILL IS BE LAI D OVER. WE ARE JUST GOING TO LAY IT OVER. OKAY. I GET BIT MEMBERS THIS BILL IS BEING CARRIED IN ANOTHER OMNIBUS BILL. WE ARE HEARING IT HERE IN THE DATA PROVISIONS. SO GO AHEAD REPRESENTATIVE LONG>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS; THIS BILL DEALS WITH>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: MR. CHAIR I’VE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION THAT IS HOW DOES A BILL HAS TO DO WITH DATA AND UP IN A OMNIBUS BILL BEFORE COMES TO THIS COMMITTEE?>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR SCOTT I DON’T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: MR. CHAIR I THINK THIS WAS DONE IN A BACKWARD SORT OF WAY AND WERE BILL EVIDENTLY WENT TO THE BILL’S AUTHOR DID I MEET DEADLINE BECAUSE IT DID NOT COME TO THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE GOT THROWN IN A OMNIBUS BILL. SO I MOVED TO TABLE THE BILL MR. CHAIR>>CHAIR LESCH: WELL CHAIR SCOTT TO TABLE IT YOU GUYS DID THIS PRETTY ROUTINELY AS WELL; TOO. WE HEAR PROVISIONS IN THE BILL AND MOVE UP THROUGH. IF WE HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THAT PORTION THE OTHER OMNIBUS BILL WHEN IT’S ON THE FLOOR WE CAN MOVE ON THE FLOOR OR IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO REMOVE THOSE CONDITIONS PROVISIONS OR MAKE A AMENDMENT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: MR. CHAIR THEY DO NOT FOLLOW PROCEDURE WITH THIS BILL>>CHAIR LESCH: GO AHEAD REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>ARE JUST A QUESTION MR. CHAIR I’M JUST HEARING OUT THIS LINE WHICH EXISTS IN A OMNIBUS BILL IS THE QUESTION I HAVE IF WE TAKE ANY ACTION ON THIS AND PUT IT ON WHATEVER; DOES THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS IN THE OMNIBUS BILL?>>CHAIR LESCH: WITH A RULE SPECIFIC RULE IN THE MINNESOTA RULES WE ADOPT TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT NOW SAYS THAT THOSE PROVISIONS NEED TO BE HEARD IN THIS COMMITTEE. SO THAT’S WHAT WERE DOING THAT WORKING THE PROVISIONS IN THIS COMMITTEE. JUST BECAUSE IS NOT HEARD AS A SEPARATE BILL THAT DOESN’T FOLLOW A DIFFERENT COURSE THERE’S QUITE A FEW WAYS TO SKIN A CAT HERE. SO OUR ACTION HERE NOT MODIFY LANGUAGE IN ANOTHER BILL BE IT A OMNIBUS BILL OR ANOTHER KIND MUST DO FOR EVERY SINGLE BILL THAT COMES TO THIS COMMITTEE NEVER IS OTHER SINGLE BILL.. HE MOVED TO TABLE. ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING HOUSE FILE26 ANYONE SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED? THE MOTION DOES NOT PREVAIL>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: GO AHEAD REPRESENTATIVE LONG>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. [INAUDIBLE] INJURED DATA IS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER. NEARLY HALF OF ALL US HOUSEHOLDS ARE OUTFITTED WITH SMART METERS AND THAT NUMBER IS GROWING EVERY DAY. IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT AS A RESOURCE FOR CUSTOMERS IN A RESOURCE THAT HELP ENERGY STAKEHOLDERS TO UNDERSTAND OUR ENERGY SYSTEM. IT WAS A CARBON POLLUTION BOOKKEEPING ENERGY BILLS LOW. CURRENTLY UNDER MINNESOTA THERE’S NO REQUIREMENT THE UTILITIES RELEASE ENERGY USE DATA TO CUSTOMERS OR THIRD PARTIES. UTILITIES TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO CUSTOMERS IS AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IS A MODEL DATA RELEASE CONSENT FORMS FOR INDIVIDUALS IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT AGGREGATE DATA ADEQUATELY PROTECT ANONYMITY. THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE ACCESS TO ENERGY USAGE DATA IN THREE WAYS. FIRST CUSTOMERS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO CONSISTENTLY LEVEL PERSONAL DATA REGARDS WHERE THEY LIVE IN THEIR OWN DATA AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO IT. WILL ALSO ALLOW CUSTOMERS TO MAKE BETTER CHOICES ABOUT THEIR HOME ENERGY USE TO DECIDE WHERE TO INVEST IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND REDUCE THE UTILITY BILLS. SECOND THE BILL REINFORCE THE CUSTOMER RIGHT TO GIVE PERMISSION TO THIRD PARTIES TO ACCESS THE DATA . THIS CAN BE FOR EXAMPLE TO US SERVICES TO HELP THEM SAVE MONEY SUCH AS INSTALLING INSULATION OR CUSTOMIZING IS OF THE ROOF TO OPERATE. THIS CAN BE A JOB CREATOR GIVING ENERGY SERVICES BUSINESSES NEW WAYS TO CUSTOMERS. THIRD; THE BILL ALLOWS SECURE ANONYMOUS AND DISAGGREGATED UTILITY DATA TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THIRD PARTIES THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. YOU WANT TO RESPECT CUSTOMER PRIVACY IN THE BILL HAS PROVISIONS IN PLACE JUST THAT. THIS RESEARCH FOR EXAMPLE CAN BE USED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO STUDY ENERGY OR BY CITY TO HELP PAY OR ASSIST ANY SUSTAINABILITY) THE BILLS BIPARTISAN REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO IS A CO-AUTHOR WITH ME AND WITH THAT I WILL HAVE MY TESTIFIER PRESENT AS WELL.>>CHAIR LESCH: WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE MY NAME IS ANNIE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD OR COVER. INDEPENDENT NONPROFIT ADVOCATE FOR MINNESOTA UTILITY CUB REPRESENTS RESIDENTIAL SPOTS ENERGY CONSUMERS AT THE LEGISLATURE BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS. WE WORK WITH CONSUMERS ACROSS THE STATE TO A PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOME ENERGY OPTIONS AS WELL AS A BROADER ENERGY SYSTEM AND ENERGY POLICY. OUR AVERAGE TEAMS AS A ONE-ON-ONE WITH INDIVIDUALS TO WALK THROUGH THEIR ENERGY BILLS HELP THEM FIND WAYS TO BRING THEM TO COST. THIS COMMISSION OF WORK ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND A POLICY LEVEL HERE IN ST. PAUL WE SUPPORT THE BILL BEFORE YOU. THIS BILL WILL [INAUDIBLE] IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS REPAIRS. WHEN THE MASS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS DOLLARS INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY SMART METERS WHICH ARE GENERATING MUCH MORE DATA WAS IMAGINE THE MINNESOTA’S ENERGY STATUTES WERE WRITTEN. THIS BILL WILL MAKE SURE THAT DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THE CONSUMERS IS MONIES BEING INVESTED. IT WOULD SURE CONSUMERS ARE PART OF THE STATE OF ACCESS TO THE DATA WHETHER THE MINNEAPOLIS WERE [INAUDIBLE] AND WILL ALLOW THEM TO SHARE THE DATA WITH THE THIRD-PARTY SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. IT WILL ALSO ALLOW THIRD PARTIES TO ASK A SUMMARY DATA [INAUDIBLE] TO IDENTIFY PROGRAM SO PEOPLE USE UTILITY SYSTEMS MORE EFFICIENTLY SAVING EVERYBODY MONEY. UTILITIES HAVE A SOME CONCERN ABOUT PRIVACY PROTECTIONS. CONSUMER PROTECTION IS KEY TO [INAUDIBLE] SO WE TAKE A CAREFUL LOOK AT THOSE PROVISIONS. WE WANT MAKE SURE ANONYMOUS AGGREGATE DATA CAN EVER BE REVERSE ENGINEERED TO IDENTIFY CUSTOMERS. THE BILL ADOPTS OF 15; 15 STANDARD PROHIBITING THE USE OF SUMMARY DATA WITH FEWER THAN 15 CUSTOMERS OF ANY SINGLE CUSTOMERS MORE THAN 15% OF THE TOTAL ENERGY USES. THIS A MORE CONSERVATIVE STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN USED IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE US INCLUDING BY SOME UTILITIES HERE IN MINNESOTA TODAY. MOREOVER IF YOU LOOK AT LINE 2.18 AND 4.2 BUSINESS WOULD PROHIBIT THE LEASE OF ANY SUMMARY DATA THAT CAN BE USED TO IDENTIFY CUSTOMER. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THE COSMIC ENERGY USE TO POTENTIALLY REALLY VALUABLE. THE RISE OF FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE I THINK WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE ENORMOUS VALUE A BIG DATA. [INAUDIBLE] I’M NOT A DATA GEEK AND I DON’T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT VALUE THE CUSTOMER A COMEDY LIKE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF CUSTOMER ENERGY USAGE DATA I AM A CONSUMER ADVOCATE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CUSTOMER DATA DOESN’T END UP BEING USED FOR PROFIT ANYWAY THAT MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IN A SODA CONSUMERS. WE DON’T BELIEVE MINNESOTA LAW CURRENTLY COVERS THE TOPIC THAT’S WHY SUPPORT THIS BILL REALLY WITH THE UTILITY OR ANY THIRD-PARTY FROM A CUSTOMER GRANTS ACCESS TO THE CONCERT FROM SHARING AND SELLING THE DATA. THIS BILL WOULD PUT IN PLACE SAFE PROTECTIONS TEXT A STATUTE IN THE NEW WORLD A BIG DATA BUT I THINK REPRESENTATIVE LONG FOR SHARING THIS IMPORTANT BILL AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.>>CHAIR LESCH: I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT PROHIBITS UTILITIES NOW OF OPERATING AS PERMITTED BY THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: CHAIR LESCH OUT TO. UTILITIES TO SHARE SOME DATA WITH THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS BUT IT’S INCONSISTENT ACROSS THE STATE AND THERE IS NO ESSENTIALLY WRITE FOR CUSTOMER TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE.>>CHAIR LESCH: IS WAS THE PARTIES?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: CORRECT.>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR THE TESTIFIER ? WE HAVE TWO OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP. OKAY; COME ON UP. WELCOME. CHAIR PEPIN.>>TESTIFIER: GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIR BUT IT’S GREAT TO BE BACK MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE IT’S GREAT TO BE IN THE HOUSE. I’M JOYCE PEPPIN AND I REPRESENT THE MINNESOTA RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION AND THE 44 ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION CO-OPS AND SIX GENERATION TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVES IN THE STATE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON THE BILL. THE RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION OF SEVERAL CONCERNS WITH THE BILL. FOR STARTERS PLACES UTILITIES IN THE POSITION OF MANAGING THE DATA AUTHORIZATION PROCESS. ELECTRIC CO-OPS ALREADY PROVIDE ACCESS TO ENERGY DATA FOR THE COUNT ON OUR CURRENT TO ENSURE SECURITY AND STILL ALLOWS CONSUMERS ACCESS THE DATA. THEY CAN THEN PROVIDE THE DATA TO WHOMEVER THEY WISH ALLOWING THIRD PARTIES TO REQUEST AND GAIN ACCESS DIRECTLY UTILITY JEOPARDIZES THE EXISTING SECURITY MODEL. SECTION 2 SUBDIVISION FOUR REQUIRES UTILITIES TO PREPARE AND MAKE AVAILABLE AGGREGATE SUMMARY ENERGY USAGE DATA UPON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF ANY PERSON IN PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE DATA CREATES A VARIETY OF POTENTIAL ISSUES . FIRST; CUSTOMERS HAVE NOT GIVEN THEIR CONSENT FOR THE DATA TO BE USED IN ANY FASHION OTHER THAN FO R UTILITY PURPOSES. THE SECTION GREATLY EXPANDS WHO CAN GAIN ACCESS TO THE DATA. FOR EXAMPLE; TO THE TECH COMPANY AFTER THE AVERAGE KILOWATT HOUR IN ORDER TO TARGET THE PRODUCTS BY ZIP CODE OR CITY BLOCK I THINK SO. SECOND; THERE IS NO CLEAR DIRECTION OF HOW UTILITY WOULD AGGREGATE THIS DATA AND REGARDLESS [INAUDIBLE] COMES WITH GREAT RISK. BUT THE DATA COULD BE UNWOUND BY SPECIFIC SOPHISTICATED HACKERS BY [INAUDIBLE] WHAT SCHEDULE THE RESIDENTIAL MEETINGS. THOSE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL SECURITY RISK ARE STAGGERING. THIRD; THE BILL PROVIDES AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON UTILITIES TO PROVIDE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF DATA SETS. MANY UTILITIES DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO CONDUCT THIS TYPE OF ANALYTICS AND WOULD NEED TO OUTSOURCE THE CAPABILITY THIS IN TURN LOSE THE DATA ONCE AND FOR THE WAY FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] CONSUMER CONTRIBUTE FINALLY; THIS LEGISLATION REQUIRES UTILITIES TO IMPLEMENT RISK-MANAGEMENT PATCHES THAT INCLUDE MITIGATING CYBER SECURITY RISK. THEY MUST PROTECT AGAINST LOSS AND UNAUTHORIZED USE ACCESS AND DISSEMINATION OF CUSTOMER DATA AND MUST MAINTAIN A CONFERENCE OF DATA BREACH RESPONSE SYSTEM. HOW CAN UTILITIES ENSURE CUSTOMER DATA INTEGRITY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT T HAT WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CUSTOMER DATA TO ANYONE WHO ASKS? HOW WE UTILITIES ENSURE THAT THIRD PARTIES STORE DATA IMPLEMENTATION RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENT? HOW WILL SMALL ELECTRIC CO-OPS ABLE TO DO ANY OF THIS WITHOUT ADDING SIGNIFICANT CYBER SECURITY STAFF TO ENSURE DATA PROTECTION? ALL WITHOUT BEING INDEMNIFIED. THESEE ARE JUST YOU WILL THE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERABLE FOR THE BILL MOVES FORWARD AND I ASK YOU TO TRULY CONSIDER THE CUSTOMERS AND WHAT DATA YOU THINK THEY WOULD WANT ANYONE TO HAVE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU MS. PEPIN.>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; WAS THE COMMITTEE I’M TIM AND WE ARE HERE TO EXPRESS CONCERNS OF HOW THIS BILL CREATES UNIQUE CHALLENGES FOR UTILITIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO DATA PRACTICES ACT BECAUSE WE END UP HAVING IN THIS BILL IS A DOUBLE LABOR OF PROCEDURES AND [INAUDIBLE] PROCEDURES LAID OUT IN THIS BILL NOT ALL THAT CLEAR. [INAUDIBLE] MUCH ARE WHAT CAN THE UNIT REALLY IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN THE DATA PRACTICE PROCEDURES. [INAUDIBLE] THE STATUTORY LAW SO WOULD HAVE THIS CONFLICT.. YOU HAVE UNDER THE DATA PRACTICES ACT THE DATA MOST OF DATA IN HERE IN ITS RAW FORM WOULD BE PRIVATE DATA. IT IS BEING AUTHORIZED TO BE RELEASED BUT WHEN WE MUST PREPARE AND MAKE AVAILABLE THIS DATA WERE ASKING FOR. SO IT’S A NEW REQUIREMENT TO MANIPULATE THE DATA AND CREATE A NEW FORMAT FOUR. I CANNOT SEE ANYTHING IN HIS BILL THAT LIMITS ADDRESS RESEARCH. I KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE TESTIMONY I MAY BE WRONG BUT I FIND NOTHING [INAUDIBLE] WHEN IT GETS ASKED FOR. IN LIGHT OF THOSE TWO PROBLEMS IN THE CONFLICT WITH THE DATA PRACTICES ACT YOU ASK YOU TO GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF ABOUT THIS BILL IS ALREADY WHETHER [INAUDIBLE] AS A FOLLOW BILL TODAY WHETHER IT BE PART OF THE WITH THAT I’LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.>>CHAIR LESCH: MR.>>TESTIFIER: OTHER DATA PRACTICES WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN AT THE IPAD DIVISION AND SEEK ADVISORY OPINIONS AND GUIDANCE AS TO WHETHER WE DO ANYTHING THE CORRECT WAY. HERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [INAUDIBLE] CAN COME AFTER US IF WERE NOT DOING RIGHT [INAUDIBLE] CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN AND IPAD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. AN ARM WRESTLING MATCH OR WHAT BUT WE WOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] ONE MORE REASON TO PROVISION [INAUDIBLE]>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WAS HERE WISHES TO BE HEARD ON HOUSE FILE 2681? MEMBER; QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I’VE GOT SEVERAL HERE. THE FIRST IS IN LOOKING ARE WE IS ALL THIS INFORMATION OUR CUSTOMERS GOING TO BE THIS AND OPT IN OR OPT OUT? IS DATA CAN BE AVAILABLE UNLESS WE AFFIRMATIVELY OPT OUT OR IS IT CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE AND HAVE TO AFFIRMATIVELY OPT IN? BELONG THIS IS ALL OFTEN. THIS IS A REQUEST OF THE INDIVIDUAL UTILITY SUBSCRIBER.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THEN TO THAT POINT; WHEN I LOOK AT LINE 3.26 DOES THAT INCLUDE SUBDIVISION FOR OR IF FROM A CUSTOMER CAN I CHOOSE NOT TO OPT IN THAT WHICH MUST BE MADE PUBLIC?>>RE PRESENTATIVE LONG: SO SUBDIVISION FOUR IS NOT SPECIFICALLY TO THE DATA [INAUDIBLE] ANONYMIZED AGGREGATE DATA ALSO WILL NOT BE ANY ABILITY TO DETERMINE ANY INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER DATA WITH THIS IN THE PROVISION THAT PROTECTS THAT IS THAT YOU CAN CAN’T REQUEST DATA FOR MANY FEWER THAN 15 CUSTOMERS NO SINGLE COSMIC IS MORE THAN 50% OF THE DATA WHICH IS A TEST US BUT WAS A VERY CONSERVATIVE STANDARD.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: SO JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT I HEARD THEN ISAAC CUSTOMER I DON’T HAVE THE OPTION EVEN THOUGH IT’S NOT PII PERSONALLY I DON’T FOCUS ON THE CUSTOMER DO WANT TO PARTICIPATE MY DATA BEING PART OF THIS PROVISION I DON’T HAVE THAT OPTION . THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE IS WHAT I’M LOOKING AT LINE 2.6 THE DEFINITION CUSTOMER DATA MEANS ALL DATA AND UTILITY COLLECTS MEETINGS ETC. SO I’M A LANDLORD MULTIPLE PROPERTIES. I RECEIVE JUST EQUIVALENT OF A FYI CARD ON ALL OF MY TENANTS SO I CAN SEE WHAT THEIR BILLS ARE AND THEIR USAGE. WHY IS A LANDLORD HAVE THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE WHAT MY [INAUDIBLE] IF MY TENANT CHOOSES TO OPT IN CAN I CHOOSE TO OPT OUT?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: VETERANS IN THE QUESTION BUT THIS ONLY PRICE UTILITIES NOT LANDLORDS.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: TO CLARIFY MY QUESTION; A CUSTOMER OF UTILITY WHO CHOOSES TO OPT IN; THAT IS THE TENANT OF THE PROPERTY CAN THE LANDLORD CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE THEIR PROPERTY BE PART OF THIS THAT THE CUSTOMER MIGHT HAVE OPTED IN?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: IN THE PROVISION ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION FOR OR ARE YOU TALK WHAT THE ENTIRE BILL? THE CUSTOMER DATA UNDER THIS BILL BELONGS TO THE CUSTOMER TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBSCRIBED TO THE UTILITY. SO IT WOULD BE THEIR OWN DATA. THEY COULD REQUEST ACCESS TO IT OR GIVE IT TO A THIRD-PARTY THAT THE LANDLORD WILL NOT BE ABLE TO IMPACT THE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS DATA . THEN FOR THE SUBDIVISION FOR THINK THE ANSWER WOULD BE [INAUDIBLE]>>RE PRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO IF I WAS A LANDLORD OR PROPERTY THAT IF I DON’T WANT MY PROPERTY TO BE PART OF THIS PROGRAM I WOULD NOT HAVE THAT OPTION TO NOT HAVE IT PARTICIPATE I GUESS THE POINT.THEN THE LAST QUESTION I WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT LINE 3.18;; THERE IS THE OPTION TO REVOKE AUTHORIZATION OF ANY TIME. DOES THIS REVOKE ABOUT AUTHORIZATION THAN IS A PROVISION HERE TO INCLUDE THAT THIRD PARTY THAT MIGHT HAVE COLLECTED DATA OR ACCESS TO CUSTOMER DATA THAT POINT THAT’S BEEN REVOKED TO PURGE THE DATE OF THE MIGHT OF COLLECTED OF ACCESS TO AND SAVED AND THEN IF THERE IS; WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME TO PURCHASE PURGE THAT AND WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR ANY BREACH OF THE DATA OF THE THIRD PARTY?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: I DON’T BELIEVE WE ADDRESS PURGING IN THE BILL.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CONSIDER ADDING SOME PROVISION THAT PROVOKING AXIS MEANS IF THERE’S [INAUDIBLE] WERE LOOKING AXIS WOULD BE GOING FORWARD BUT WOULD NOT RETROACTIVE TO I SAID THEY ARE BE COLLECTED?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: I BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON A.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO’S POINTS; I DO NOT SEE WHERE THE OPT IN IS. I SAW THE REVOKE LANGUAGE AND 3.18 BUT WHERE DOES IT SAY THE CUSTOMER HAS DROPPED IN .. MAYBE SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN I READ ITTHAT ALL THE CUSTOMER DATA WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE THIRD PARTY UNLESS THEY OPT OUT.>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: SO THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. LINE 3.8 PROVIDES AUTHORIZATION.>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: PERFECT; THANK YOU. MY SECOND QUESTION IS IN SECTION B TALK ABOUT 15 CUSTOMERS; AS YOU READ THROUGH THAT AT 4.1 IT SAYS SUMMARY ENERGY USAGE DATA MAY BE DISAGGREGATED PER CUSTOMER BASES PROVIDED THE CUSTOMERS [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT ATTAINABLE. AT THE TIME OF 15 PEOPLE IN A VERY RURAL SECTION OF MY DISTRICT IN HENNEPIN TOWNSHIP; A BIT AND BURN A BLOCK NOTICES 15 PEOPLE ARE. SO I’M JUST WONDERING HOW CAN YOU DISAGGREGATE PER CUSTOMER BASIS IF THE ATTORNEY IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE; HOW DO YOU ACHIEVE THAT?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: IT SPECIFICALLY YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE ANY IDENTIFIABLE DATA. SO YOU CAN ATTACH FOR EXAMPLE THE NAME OF THE ADDRESS FOR INFORMATION ON THOSE LINES. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE 15 AND 15 TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE DATA. SO THOSE ARE THE PROTECTIONS AND THEREFORE FOCUS ON THE BLOCK.>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: FIGHT CLARIFY IF I MIGHT. WITHOUT THE DISAGGREGATE UPPER CUSTOMER BASES WHICH IS A LOOK LIKE?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: ARE>>TESTIFIER:>>CHAIR LESCH: GO AHEAD>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. JOE REPRESENTATIVE; I THINK IT’S A GOOD QUESTION WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A DISAGGREGATED SET IS YOUR KIND OF LIKE LINES OF INTEGRAL CUSTOMERS DEBUT NOT BE ABLE TO WHO THOSE CUSTOMERS ARE. THIS IS MODELED ON HOW IT’S DONE IN ILLINOIS. WE HAVE KIND OF A [INAUDIBLE] TO RECEIVE DATA SETS OF SAY 300;000 CUSTOMERS IN THE GOES INTO RATE DESIGN MODELING PROGRAMS TO SEE HOW INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS ARE TYPES OF CUSTOMERS MIGHT BE ENTERED BY DIFFERENT UTILITY OFFERINGS.. SO THAT’S HOW IT WOULD LOOK GOOD I’M IMAGINING A EXCEL SHEET WITH 300;000 ON IT OR IF YOU ARE IN YOUR EXAMPLE. I THINK IF THERE IS A CASE WHERE YOU HAVE A SMALL ENOUGH SUBSET OF CUSTOMERS HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO POTENTIALLY IF THERE’S A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION MAY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY CUSTOMERS THAT THE DATA SET UTILITY WOULD NOT REALLY [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE I PROVISION.>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO JUST TO CLARIFY; HOW’S IT CLARIFIED IN YOUR MIND? BECAUSE IT SAYS NO LESS THAN 15 CUSTOMERS. SO IF YOU 15 TO BE THE LEAST AND HOW I READ THE BILL LANGUAGE.>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; REPRESENTATIVE; THAT LYNN WHICH APPLIES TO TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA THAT COULD BE RELEASED. AS AN AGGREGATED DATA. LET’S SAY YOU HAVE A LARGE BUILDING OR BLOCKING WANT TO JUST SEE THE AGGREGATION OF ENERGY USE IN THOSE CUSTOMERS. WITH A NOT BROKEN OUT I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE A 15; 15 STANDARD IT’S QUITE A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO THAT AND PROBABLY WILL NOT POSE A KIND OF A RISK. THE OTHER TYPE OF SUMMARY DATA WERE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT DISAGGREGATED WHERE 15 CUSTOMERS COULD POTENTIALLY I THINK BE TOO SMALL THE DATA SET [INAUDIBLE] WITH A REDESIGN WHICH WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION BUT THEN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ONE OF THE TESTIFIERS TO COME IN TO THAT BUT THE LAST QUESTION IS; BACK TO THE SECURITY OF THE DATA BY THE THIRD-PARTY; SONY PROVISION THAT STANDARD FOR THEM; IS THERE ANY BEACH BACK TO THE UTILITY IF THE THIRD-PARTY THAT IS BREACHED; IS THERE ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE UTILITY?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: THERE IS IF YOU LOOK AT 3.3 TO 3.5; THIRD-PARTY ARE SUBJECT TO THE DATA SECURE IMPROV ZERO COMMENTS UNDER SUBDIVISION SIX OF THE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS UTILITY. [INAUDIBLE] THE BILL TO START TO LIABILITY>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: ALTERS A VIOLATION – SORRY – WAS ON THE HOOK IF THERE’S A VIOLATION? DATA PRIVACY?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS IN CURRENT LAW. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE THE ABILITY FOR FOLKS FOR VIOLATION OF THE DATA PRIVACY>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: RESEARCHER IF I COULD HAVE THE TESTIFIER COME BACK TO THE TABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS; THANK YOU.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU THE QUESTION REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS. FIRST I DID NOT POINT OUT MY EARLIER TESTIMONY BUT THIS IS SUCH A COMPLICATED ISSUE. IT’S AN OPEN DOCKET IN FRONT OF THE PUC FOR YEARS WITH HIS REPORT ON IT AND I CAN HOW MANY PAGES LONG COULD I THINK I MADE IT TO MAYBE HALF THE WAY THROUGH ONCE I GOT ABOUT PAGE 50 STOP BLEEDING COULD USE HUNDREDS AND HUNDRED PAGES LONG COULD DID NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION IS BECAUSE OF EXACTLY THE ISSUE AND COMPLICATIONS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK JUST A COUPLE OF THE COMMENTS BUT I THINK 4.20 DATA [INAUDIBLE] AND PRIVACY DOES PUT THE ONUS ON UTILITIES THERE SOME UTILITIES THAT ARE VERY SMALL AND OTHERS NOTHING IN HERE THAT INDEMNIFIES THEM. HAVE TO PUT SYSTEM IS PLACE TO MAKE SURE THEY MAINTAIN ALL THE CUSTOMER PRIVACY AND THAT THEY’RE GUARANTEEING TO BE NO BREAC HES BUT YET THERE’S NO WAY TO KNOW HOW THIS IS DONE. IS NOT LAID OUT IN THE BILL. IT’S NOT CLEAR THIS WAS THE BEGINNING OF SOME OF YOU SEE DOCKET AS WELL. SO I FORGOT WHERE YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS.>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: I’M SORRY. JUST SPEAKING TO WHAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF 4.1 THE DATA IS DISAGGREGATE UPPER CUSTOMER BASES BUT THE CUSTOMERS IDENTITIES NOT ASCERTAINABLE. I’M NOT SURE THAT WOULD BE TRUE ESPECIALLY IN SMALL DATASETS.>>TESTIFIER: YES. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE TIM ROBBINS. [INAUDIBLE] DATA BREACHES IN ENORMOUS COMPANIES WHEN YOU TAKE THIS DATA AND TO HIM AS A PERSON BUT IF YOU’RE ABLE TO GET OTHER DATA YOU ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A LOT OF INFORMATION TO BUILD A PROFILE ON A CUSTOMER. I THINKTHAT’S VERY VERY PROBLEMATIC ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS THAT DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO A LOT OF THE STUFF. THEN I WOULD ALSO SAY TO A LOT OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS TALK ABOUT OPT IN AND OPT OUT I THINK THAT THERE’S A LOT OF DIRECTION TO THE FIRST PART WERE TALK TO CUSTOMER’S OWN DATA BUT THE SUBDIVISION FOR PART THERE’S NO OPT OUT AVAILABLE. TO REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO’S QUESTION; TO ME IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THERE’S NO WAY FOR ANYONE TO OPT OUT OF THIS. IF I SAY I KNOW YOU HAVE FOR EXAMPLE 15 PROPERTIES AND I WANT TO GET THE ENERGY USAGE DATA I DON’T SEE ANYWHERE WOULD PREVENT ME FROM GETTING THAT DOESN’T HAVE TO JUST BE ME. I COULD JUST GONE AND I CAN BE ANYONE. ANY PERSON THE BILL. SO A LOT OF THINGS TO BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IN THE BILL. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS>>REPRESENTATIVE ROBBINS: ALSO; THANK YOU>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE DUNBAR>>REPRESENTATIVE BAHR: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I’ VE A AMENDMENT I LIKE TO OFFER THE A1.>>CHAIR LESCH: REPRESENTATIVE DUNBAR OFFERS THE ONE GO AHEAD>>REPRESENTATIVE BAHR: MR. CHAIR THE A1 AMENDMENT ESSENTIALLY DOES TWO THINGS IT EXEMPTS THE MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AND COPS AND IN THE LANGUAGE OF 1.3 OF THE AMENDMENT IT MAKES IT AFTER THE COMMA IS DEFINED IN SECTION 215 32 SUBDIVISION FOR THAT MAKES IT BASICALLY INVESTOR ONLY UTILITIES LIKE EXCEL ENERGY WILL BE AN EXAMPLE AND THEN THE OTHER; LESS BEAST ON HERE IN SUBDIVISION FOR WHICH BOTH TESTIFIERS OF TALK TO AND QUESTIONS THERE ON THE SECURITY ON SUBDIVISION FOUR. THE REASON I REMOVE SUBDIVISION FOR IS NOT ONLY I CAN SEE THE ADVANTAGES [INAUDIBLE] TO TRY AND MAKE OUR LIVES BETTER OR STEER INDIVIDUALS WITH ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS BUT I CAN ALSO SEE OTHER UTILITIES OR OTHER UTILITIES; THE BUSINESSES COME IN AND USE THIS DATA DETRIMENTALLY. SO LET’S SAY EXCEL ENERGY WANT TO TRY TO BUY MUNICIPALITIES. THEY COULD COME IN AND REQUEST THE DATA ON THE WHOLE MUNI OR WHOLE CO-OP AND COME IN AND FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MAKE A BID ON THIS OR DO NOT MAKE A BIT ON THIS. WITH THE 15% YOU COULD TAKE A CHUNK OF DATA AND REQUEST A CERTAIN AREA HERE HERE AND HERE AND END UP WITH AN OVERLAPPING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE TO ISOLATE CERTAIN CHUNKS JUST BY REQUESTING DIFFERENT DATA SETS AND OVERLAY IT AND WE’VE SEEN SOME AMAZING DATA DECEPTION WITH GOOGLEAND COMPANIES LIKE THAT. SO I DON’T THINK THERE’S NEARLY ENOUGH PROTECTIONS ON THIS FOR ANY PRIVATE COMPANY TO PROTECT ANY OF THEIR USAGE DATA FROM BEING BOUGHT OR TRIED TO BE BOUGHT . PICK ANY HEAVY UTILITY OF PAPER COMMITTEE; A MINING COMPANY; ANYTHING LIKE THAT DOES HAVE ELECTRICITY OR HEAVY UTILITY USAGES; THE COMPETITION USES DATA TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THERE WAS RIPE FOR HOSTILE TAKEOVER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I WANT TO REMOVE SUBDIVISION FOUR AND THEN LASTLY; WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES AND THE CO-OPS YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD FROM BOTH OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY REALLY DON’T HAVE; THEY’RE NOT SET UP TO HANDLE THIS ENTIRELY TOO SMALL. THAT DATA ; IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OP THAT DATA ACTUALLY BELONGS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE CO-OP; NOT THE ENTITY ITSELF.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE BAHR ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO THE A1 AMENDMENT?>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: I OPPOSE THE A1 AMENDMENT I BELIEVE ALL MINNESOTANS WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS TO THE DATA BELIEVE THE 15; 15 CENTERS A CONSERVATIVE ONE GET THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY WERE THERE ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS AND THEYNOTIFIED ME THEY BELIEVE IT’S A CONSERVATIVE STANDARD AS WELL.>>CHAIR LESCH: MR.>>TESTIFIER: I’VE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AROUND THAT MAY AFFECT THE AMENDMENT AS WELL IF I COULD SPEAK BRIEFLY.>>CHAIR LESCH: YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT; RIGHT?>>TESTIFIER: I THINK THERE’S STILL COUPLE OF QUESTIONS CLARIFICATION OF THE COMMITTEE. IF I CAN ANSWER SOME CLARIFICATION TO QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED>>CHAIR LESCH: I DON’T THINK HE ASKED ANY QUESTIONS. SO REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: WAS A QUESTION ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] ATTEMPTED TO[INAUDIBLE] PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT.>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY. I DON’T THINK SO. I THINK WILL MOVE ON IT. THIS IS MEMBER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT AND WILL ENTERTAIN REPRESENTATIVE LUNGS;; BUT ANY OTHER COMMENTS OF MEMBERS ON THE AMENDMENT.. PEOPLE DO HAVE QUESTIONS ON IT THEY CAN ASK IT. CHAIR JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: CHAIR LESCH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE DOING WITH THE CO-OPS. THE CO-OPS ARE PRIVATE;; OWNED BY THEIR MEMBERS. SO THE INFORMATION ON YOUR ON THAT MEMBERS INFORMATION BELONGS TO HIM. RESPOND TO THE CO-OP. IT BELONGS TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT IS AN OWNER OF THE CO-OP. THIS DOES ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. IT’S A DATA PRIVACY ISSUE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. THIS IS MAKING THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER [INAUDIBLE]>>CHAIR LESCH: CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. BEFORE I VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. IF YOU LIKE MORE INFORMATION I HAVE TO BASE MY DECISION THE BETTER>>CHAIR LESCH: I’M NOT GOING TO LET THEM GO ON BUT IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR HIM CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I THINK IT WAS DETERMINED BEFORE THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO GIVE INFORMATION ENOUGH TO THE AMENDMENT THAT HE HAD INFORMATION ON TWO PREVIOUS LINES OF QUESTIONING. SO I WOULD JUST ASK HIM TO BE ABLE TO ELABORATE ON THOSE>>CHAIR LESCH: I’M IN HEAVEN ONE ELABORATE. THERE’S A QUESTION THAT SOME AND HAS FOR MR. ASKED THE QUESTION. REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL>>REPRESENTATIVE GROSSELL: I GUESS I’LL JUST ASK. MY QUESTION IS; WHAT DID YOU HAVE TO SAY?>>CHAIR LESCH: NO.>>>>[LAUGHING]>>CHAIR LESCH: IF THERE’S A QUESTION TO MAKE AN ASS IN THE QUESTION. REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: I DO HAVE A>>CHAIR LESCH:>>CHAIR LESCH: HERE’S THE DEAL REPRESENTATIVE BAHR TO SUPPORT YOUR AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT. YOU’RE SO GOOD WAS BECAUSE IT’S GONNA GO DOWN SEVEN; SEVEN. IF YOU THINK IT’S REALLY PERSUASIVE TO GET SOMEONE ELSE ON THE WAY WERE DISCUSSED [INAUDIBLE] GO AHEAD.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: WHEN I’M READING THE SUBDIVISION FOR A B UPON REQUEST CAN ASK FOR A SUMMARY DATA. THE QUEST TO SPECIFY WITH A GEOGRAPHIC AREA WOULD BE IS MY UNDERSTANDING SO THAT COULD BE REPEATED REQUESTS. SO ENVISION AN AREA; LEGISLATE 500 HOMES AND IN THE REQUESTER COULD ASK FOR THAT. THEN AS LONG AS THEY NEED THE 15% REQUIREMENT THEN THEY COULD SHIFT IT OVER EVER SO SLOWLY THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA LOOKING FOR AND SHIFT OVER AGAIN AND SHIFTED OVER AGAIN BY DOING SO THEY MIGHT BE SHIFTING OVER ONE BLOCK OR EVEN HALF A BLOCK ONE HALF OF ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. AND THEY THEN HAVE ACHIEVED DOWN TO VERY NARROW AREA AND SO TO THAT POINT; IT DOES EXPOSE AND ALLOW SOMEBODY AND [INAUDIBLE] TO GET DOWN TO A VERY GRANULAR DATA WHICH IS OF HIGH CONCERN. SO I WOULD HIGHLY SUPPORT REPRESENTATIVE BAHR’S AMENDMENT>>CHAIR LESCH: ROLLCALL HAS BEEN REQUESTED. THE VOTE ON THE A1 AMENDMENT. THE CHAIR ABOUT AYE>>STAFF: MOLLER NAY; SCOTT AYE; MOLLER AYE;CANTRELL NAY; [INAUDIBLE] CONSIDINE; PASS; GROSSELL AYE; HASSAN HER JOHNSON NAY; LIEBLING LUCERO AYE; MARIANI NAY; NOOR NAY; O’NEIL ROBBINS AYE; XIONG NAY; CONSIDINE TO I’M GOING TO PASS>>CHAIR LESCH: THE AMENDMENT FAILS EIGHT; FIVE.>>>>[MULTIPLE VOICES.]>>CHAIR LESCH: 21 CHECK YOUR NUMBERS? WILL CALL THE ROLL AGAIN. THE CHAIR BOTH AYE>>STAFF: MOLLER NAY [INAUDIBLE] BAHR AYE; CANTRELL NAY; CARLSON NAY; CONSIDINE PASS; [INAUDIBLE] HASSAN HER JOHNSON NAY; LUCERO AYE; MARIANI NAY; NOOR NAY; O’NEIL ROBBINS AYE; XIONG NAY;>>CHAIR LESCH: THE AMENDMENT PREVAILS ON A SEVEN; 60. REPRESENTATIVE LONG THIS IS KIND OF A BIGGER DEBT ISSUE THAT THIS COMMITTEE CARES ABOUT QUITE A BIT CAN HAVE MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WITH RESPECT WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OTHER OMNIBUS BILL. BUT THE INTENTION AT THE END OF THE DAY IS THIS WOULD BE LAID OVER AS WELL BUT IT’S NOT THAT THIS HAS ZERO EFFECT. IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT LONG-TERM WITH RESPECT TO HOW THAT OMNIBUS TEARS BUT WE CAN ABOUT LARGER CONVERSATION ABOUT AND SEE HOW WE CAN TWEAK IT ALLEVIATE SOME CONCERN. REPRESENTATIVE BAHR ANY OTHER COMMENTS?>>REPRESENTATIVE BAHR: NO; MR. CHAIR>>CHAIR LESCH: OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO HOUSE FILE 26 ANYONE AS AMENDED? CHAIR SCOT T>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I THINK WAS MY NAME ON THE LIST PRIOR TO [INAUDIBLE] BUT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE CO-AUTHOR OF THE MUNI.>>CHAIR LESCH: GO AHEAD. WELCOME FOR CHAIR SCOTT.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: SO TO THE CO-OPS AND UNI; WOULD CREATING ESPECIALLY THE SMALLER CO-OPS AND THE COMMUNITIES ARE PEACEFUL ANYWAY; USUALLY COMMITTEE THOSE FOLKS IF THEY’RE HAVING TO CREATE THESE DATABASES AND SO FORTH IS THAT GOING TO BE REFLECTED ON RATES EVENTUALLY IS A [INAUDIBLE] CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO BUSINESSES?>>TESTIFIER: REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT I THINK THE ANSWER IS ESSENTIALLY A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. THE BILL DOES PROVIDE REQUESTING PARTY CAN BE HELL TO PAY THE COST BUT THERE MAY BE SOME BASIC THINGS; STRUCTURAL THINGS; THAT ARE RELATED TO [INAUDIBLE] THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE TO MEET THE REQUESTS . IF THE [INAUDIBLE] IN THOSE TYPES OF EXTRAS WOULD HAVE TO BE CHARGED BACK TO RATES THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE GENERATED REVENUES COULD INDIVIDUALLY REQUESTS [INAUDIBLE] BE PAID BY THE REQUESTING COPY.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I WOULD ASK THE SAME QUESTION OF MS. PEPIN.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT. I THINK THERE’S DEFINITELY A POTENTIAL ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER SUBDIVISION SIX WHAT THE AMENDMENT DIDN’T SUSTAIN. BECAUSE OF THE DATA SECURITY AND PRIVACY SECTION. THE POTENTIAL CYBER SECURITY RISK IS SO GREAT. I THINK THAT EACH COP WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT FIRST STAFFING LEVELS AND SOME OF THE SMALLE R CO-OPS MIGHT HAVE 14; 1516 EMPLOYS MOST OF THEM ARE LINE WORKERS WILL BE ABLE TO ENSURE THIS OR ALTERNATIVELY; TO HAVE TO CONTRACT WITHOUT TO ANOTHER THIRD-PARTY; IT’S DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE A COST AND AS YOU KNOW WE WORK FOR OUR CONSUMER AND WE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO KEEP [INAUDIBLE] BUT THIS WOULD BE POTENTIAL REVENUE IMPACT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR; JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE BILL. BECAUSE WE ARE THE COMMITTEE THAT LOOKS AT ALL THESE DATA ISSUES. SOME OF MY CONCERNS IN ADDITION WAS ALREADY MENTIONED HERE. MY CONCERN IS THAT EVENTUALLY THE QUESTION OF ALL THIS DATA IF IT EVER COMES A TIME WHEN ANY CONCERN FOR ANY PARAMETERS AROUND ENERGY USAGE ITSELF IS THAT WITH THIS DATA THAT THERMOSTATS COULD EVENTUALLY BE REGULATED BY [INAUDIBLE] MAY EVENTUALLY COME THROUGH THIS BODY BUT IT’S ONLY SAYS YOU CAN ONLY YOU SO MUCH ENERGY PER HOUSEHOLD OR PER BUSINESS THEN HAVING THIS DATA AT SOME OF HIS FINGERTIPS COULD I THINK THE KIND OF DANGEROUS AND I DO HAVE ONE OF THINGS I HAVE CONSIDERED WITH THIS BIL L THAT REPRESENTATIVE PEPPIN BROUGHT UP WAS THAT CONNECTING THE DOTS HACKER COULD FIGURE OUT WHEN SOMEONE IS HOME WHEN SOMEONE GO SOUTH FOR THE WINTER THEY COULD DETERMINE BASED ON ENERGY USAGE THE PERSON IS AT THEIR HOME AND IT COULD BE A PROBLEM THERE AS FAR AS SOMEONE BREAKING INTO THE HOME. SO THAT SOMETHING I HAD NOT THOUGHT ABOUT AND I UNDERSTAND WITH THE BILL AUTHOR IS TRYING TO GET OUT HERE BUT I JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THIS REALLY MEANS TO THE CUSTOMER AS A WHOLE.>>CHAIR LESCH: THANKS. IF THERE’S NO OTHER I WILL LAY THE BILL OVER.>>WE LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER VOTE>>CHAIR LESCH: WOULD YOU CARE TO REPHRASE YOUR MOTION>>REPRESENTATIVE LONG: I LIKE TO RECONSIDER THE AMENDMENT MR. CHAIR.>>CHAIR LESCH: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO RECONSIDER THE A1 AMENDMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS. SO BE A1 AMENDMENT IS ON THE TABLE BEFORE US I SHOULD SAY AND>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I REQUEST A ROLLCALL AGAIN.>>CHAIR LESCH: ROLLCALL BEEN REQUESTED. THE CHAIR BOTH AYE>>STAFF: MOLLER NAY SCOTT AYE; BAHR AYE; CANTRELL NAY; CARLSON NAY; CONSIDINE BEECHER LESS WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROLLCALL CHAIR SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON WAS NOT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE ASKED FOR RECONSIDER>>CHAIR LESCH: WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A ROLLCALL.>>STAFF: CONSIDINE-PASS GROSSELL AYE; HASSAN NAY; HER JOHNSON AYE; LUCERO AYE; MARIANI NAY; NOOR NAY; O’NEIL ROBBINS AYE; XIONG NAY;>>CHAIR LESCH: THE MOTION DOES NOT PREVAIL ON A SEVEN; EIGHT VOTE. SEVEN TO SEVEN OR SEVEN TO EIGHT. IT STILL FAILS. SO THE MOTION FAILS.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: SEEN THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION HOUSE FILE 26 ANYONE IS LAID OVER.>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR LESCH: MEMBERS ; WE HAVE WE GOT THROUGH SIX BILLS 2.5 HOURS. AND WILL BE RECONVENING TONIGHT 50 MINUTES AFTER SESSION TO COMPLETE THE REST OF THE AGENDA AND THAT WILL HAPPEN IN 500 N. WILL TRY TO GET A BETTER [INAUDIBLE] AS OF RIGHT NOW IT’S CAN BE 500 N. JUDICIARY IS IN RECESS.>>[GAVEL]>>[RECESS]>>

Stephen Childs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *