House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Division 4/9/19


>>MEMBERS WE HAVE BILLS AND THE FIRST IS — OMNIBUS POLICY BILL AND THE SECOND IS THE — FIRST WE NEED TO MOVE THE MINUTES. MOTION PASSES. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED FOR APRIL 4TH. SO THE FIRST BILL — WE HAVE THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT SO I’LL MOVE THAT IT BE RECOMMENDED (INAUDIBLE). BE REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS. AND WE DID THE ENTIRE WALK THROUGH LAST WEEK WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE YOU WALK THROUGH THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT?>>THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT IS THE A NINE AMENDMENT. THIS BOILS DOWN TO TWO PRIMARY THINGS. THERE WAS AT ORIGINAL BILL 76;000 IN THE FIRST YEAR AND 77;000 IN THE SECOND YEAR THAT WAS FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT RELATED TO DRIVERS LICENSE FOR UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS. THAT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED. IN ADDITION THE QUOTE UNQUOTE RED FLAG BILL WAS — AND THE CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT FOR THE GOVERNORS BILL THE — FOR TWO FULL-TIME POSITIONS BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WENT INTO THE PUBLIC SAFETY BILL. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY WAS REDUCED. DOWN TO 81;000. AS A RESULT OF THOSE TWO CHANGES; THAT FREED UP $157;000 IN THE FIRST YEAR AND 158 IN THE SECOND YEAR. SO THOSE NUMBER CHANGES THAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT; GIVES THAT NEW MONEY TO FIRST THE SUPREME COURT — LEGAL SERVICES. CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES APPROPRIATIONS ARE INCREASED. HUMAN RIGHTS IS REDUCED BY 76;000 IN THE FIRST AND — IN THE SECOND YEAR. THANK YOU.>>ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT?>>I’M JUST WONDERING DO YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE (INAUDIBLE)?>>YES. I MOVE THE D E — I’M MOVING THE A 19. AND THEN I’M ALSO MOVING THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT. THE A 19. THE A 9? NINE?>>THIS WORKS WELL WITH THE A NINE AMENDMENT. FIRST THERE WAS A TECHNICALER OR IN REMOVING SOME THAT OF MONEY I NEGLECTED TO MOVE THE RIDER LANGUAGE.>>AND THE REST OF THAT THERE ARE TWO TRANSFERS. THIS RELATES TO THE REMAINDER OF THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT. THIS IS CHANGES RELATED TO THE FORFEITURE BILL. THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS; THE OFFICE OF THE — THE GENERAL FUNDS AND ONE OTHER ONE. I THINK THAT’S THE 4TH. WE DIDN’T HAVE ACCOUNTS CREATED FOR ALL OF THOSE. WITHOUT CREATING AN ACCOUNT; THE MONEY GOES TO THEM BUT THEY DON’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO USE THAT MONEY. SO THIS ALLOWS THEM TO USE THAT MONEY. THE TRANSFERS THAT ARE IN THE A 13 ARE BASED ON WHAT IS GOING INTO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE CHANGE. THIS IS TO FILL IN LOSSES. AND FOR THE G P A; BASED ON THEIR ESTIMATES OF LOST REVENUE RELATED.>>THE CHAIR MOVES THE A NINE AND THE A 13.>>(INAUDIBLE) I MOVE THE A NINE AND A 13. THAT AMENDS THE A 9. NINE. IT NEEDS TO BE ON THE TABLE. AM I WRONG?>>I’M MOVING THE A 19; 0359. THE A NINE AMENDMENT; AMENDS THAT. THE A 13 AMENDMENT AMENDS THE A NINE. SOMEONE TELL ME I’M WRONG.>>I’M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU’RE WRONG. CAN YOU HAVE — CAN YOU MOVE THREE AMENDMENTS?>>YES.>>OKAY. WELL; YOU CAN DO THAT ON THE FLOOR. BUT IN COMMITTEE AND THIS IS SOME POINT THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. IF YOU’RE DOING A DELETE ALL WHICH IS THE BILL. THEN YOU CAN ONLY OFFER PRIMARY AMENDMENTS. WE CHECKED IN WITH — WHO SAID NO. SO YOU CAN DO AMENDMENT; AMENDMENT AMENDMENT. WE’RE AVOIDING THAT BY ALLOWING — OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WE STILL NEED TO VOTE ON IT. SO A 13; ALL IN FAVOR OF THE A 13 TO AMEND THE A NINE WITH THE A 13. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. SO WE HAVE THE A NINE BEFORE US AS AMENDED. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. NOW WE’RE BACK TO THE PRIMARY A 19; IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT WITH THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS? SEEING NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE A 19? MOTION PASSES. NOW WE’RE BACK TO THE BILL AND THE AMENDMENTS WE’RE GOING TO TAKE IN ORDER IS REPRESENTATIVE — A ONE. YOU’RE GOING TO TAKE IT? GO AHEAD. THE IDEA WAS THAT BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN AMENDMENTS. NOW — IT DEPENDS ON — I INTENDED TO SAY THIS AT THE BEGINNING. WE HAVE THIS ROOM UNTIL 1230. IT IS MY IN TENSION TO GO TO 1230. WE ALSO HAVE A ROOM RESERVED FOR FIVE O’CLOCK. WE SHOULD SEE HOW IT GOES IF WE CAN DO THAT OR NOT. SO IS THAT FAIR?>>DID YOU SAY WE’RE GOING TO 1230?>>YES. WE HAVE A ROOM AT 5. FIVE. GO AHEAD.>>THANK YOU. SO THE A ONE AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY FOR OUR — REVIEW FROM OUR DATA (INAUDIBLE) AROUND A PARTICULAR PROGRAM THAT MINNEAPOLIS IS LOOKING TO LAUNCH. A PROGRAM; I D CARD. AND SO I’M PUTTING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I WANTED TO — KNOW ABOUT THIS BILL AND IT COULD BE COMING IN THE FUTURE AND I’D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT I’D LIKE TO WORK OUT. I’M PRESENTING IT. I’D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT. DO YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION?>>ARE WE GOING TO HEAR IT AGAIN THIS YEAR?>>NO.>>OKAY. THE A FOUR. GO AHEAD.>>THANK YOU. I’D LIKE TO OFFER THE A FOUR AMENDMENT. WHAT THIS DOES IS DO YOU RECALL WHEN WE HAD TESTIMONY ABOUT COOPERATIVE — BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN A MARRIAGE. HOW DOES PRIVATE DIVORCE AGREEMENT MIGHT WORK. AND I HAD A CONCERN THAT EXPRESSED AT THAT TIME ABOUT WHEN THESE AGREEMENTS ARE FIRST PUT TOGETHER; ONE OF THE PARTIES MAY DECIDE THAT THEY NEED TO GO TO COURT. AT THAT POINT UNDER THE CURRENT LANGUAGE; THE COURT IS — HAS THE PRESUMPTION OF FOLLOWING THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED BETWEEN THE PARTY. WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES; THE CORE OF IT IS TO CHANGE IT TO A DE NOVO OVERVIEW. THEY ARE TAKING THE FAIRLY — OF ONE OF THEM GOING TO COURT TO HAVE THE AGREEMENT REVIEWED; I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THE COURT REVIEW IT DE NOVO AS THOUGH THEY’RE LOOKING AT THE THING FRESH. IF THERE IS A POWER IMBALANCE WHEN THEY HAVE THE CONTRACT OUTSIDE OF A — THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES. THERE ARE SOME OTHER MINOR TWEAKS IN HERE. AND THE ONLY OTHER THING ON HERE IS JUST THIS SUBDIVISION 15. NOTICES NEED TO BE PROVIDED IN LANGUAGES THAT THE PARTICIPANTS CAN UNDERSTAND WHICH IS I THINK IS COMMON SENSE. I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.>>MEMBERS; I EXPRESSED SEVERAL RECESS CERTIFICATE EXPRESSED SEVERAL REASONS. CHILD SUPPORT. THE RECESSER VISION THAT I HAD WAS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEAVE — MADE SE COND DLAS CITIZENS TO — WHEN THEY AGREE ON THEIR OWN. HOWEVER IT IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT ON THE PART OF REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE THIS MORE PAL LITABLE TO ANYONE WHO HAS RESERVATIONS.>>YOU CHANGED SHALL TO MAY. AM I READING THIS IN CORRECTLY? IF YOU HAD ALREADY AGREED TO THE DIVORCE ON YOUR OWN AND WENT IN AND IT WAS DONE; DOES THE COURT NOW MAY HAVE TO ISSUE THE PARTICIPANT CERTIFIED — IS THAT DURING THE PROCEEDING THAT IT IS A MAY? IS THIS AFTER EVERYTHING IS FINALIZED? IS IT STILL A MAY?>>CHAIR AND MEMBERS; (INAUDIBLE) ISSUED AFTER AND IT RELATES TO THE COURT ORDER; THE SHALL TO MAY IN THAT SPOT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS — THE COURT NEEDS TO DECIDE. IF IT IS AN APPROPRIATE ISSUE.>>OKAY. THANK YOU.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE A FOUR AMENDMENT? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES. THE NEXT AMENDMENT. THE A 10. TEN.>>WITH THE MASS — PASSAGE OF THE A FOUR; I WAS STILL HAVE — I’LL BE WITHDRAWING THE A 10. TEN.>>WITHDRAWING THE A TEN. WE’VE GOT THE AN 8. EIGHT.>>THANK YOU. I WITHDRAW THE AN 8. EIGHT.>>WE’RE JUST MOVING ALONG HERE. THE A TWO? AND THEN AMENDED BY THE A 12.>>I’LL WITHDRAW THE A TWO AND A 13.>>OKAY. THE A 3. THREE.>>THIS WILL BE REPRESENTATIVE MUELLERS AMENDMENT.>>THANK YOU. I’M GOING TO TALK FOR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS. BUT I’LL CUT TO THE CHASE AND SAY THIS WILL BE WITHDRAWN ALSO. MEMBERS; AS WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT CIVIL FORFEITURE HERE. WE HEARD ABOUT IT A COUPLE OF TIMES. I HAVE DONE A DEEPER DIVE INTO THIS BILL. WHILE I THINK THAT THE INTEND BEHIND THE BILL IS GOOD. I HAVE REALLY GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE EXECUTION OF THIS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL IS DOING. THERE ARE A LOT OF PRACTICAL ASPECTS THAT ARE VERY CONCERNING TO ME AND OTHER FOLKS. I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE. IF YOU LOOK AT SUBDIVISION SEVEN IN THE BILL; THAT TALKS ABOUT — IT IS ON PAGE 20. AND IT BEGINS ONLINE 20.13. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT — FOR FOLKS WHO REALLY KNOW THIS STUFF; ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE AMOUNTS ARE SET. THEY’RE NOT DEFINED. HOW ARE WE DEFINING? THIS IS ALL BEGINNING ON PAGE 22. THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS IS IMPACTING. THIS IS EMBEDDING THE FORFEITURE INTO THE CRIME — CRIMINAL COMPLAINT. IS THIS GOING TO BE USED AS A BARGAINING TOOL? THE FACT THAT THESE TWO THINGS ARE TIED TOGETHER ARE TROUBLING TO THE PRACTITIONERS. SO WHAT THAT DOES IS ALLOW SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION TO HAVE AN EARLY APPEAL. AND THAT’S PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THAT CAN DELAY THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN THAT IT VIOLATES THE PERSONS RIGHT AGAINST SELF IN INCRIMINATE NATION. SUBDIVISION IS RELATED TO SOME FACTORS THAT THE COURT WILL CONSIDER. WE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT RECENT CASES. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT — FOR 20 YEARS. WE ALREADY APPLY AN ANALYSIS AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FACTORS. THE FACTORS IN SUBDIVISION 19 C ARE NEW OR ADDITIONAL FACTORS. THE FINAL THING IS SUBDIVISION 27. THE BEST WAY TO AFTER THE ACCIDENT PLAIN THIS IS THE EXAMPLE THAT ONE OF THE PRACTITIONERS GAVE ME. UNDER THIS ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION THE LOCAL AGENCY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS DESPITE — THE DRUG MONEY. I’LL SAY — CIRCUMSTANCE THAT I KNOW OF IS WHEN THE STATE BRINGS A — SO THE STATE BRINGS AN APPEAL. HOWEVER THOSE ARE CAPPED. THAT AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS FEES IS CAPPED. THIS DOESN’T HAVE A CAP SO THAT IS ALSO CONCERNING. THE TASK FORCE; IF YOU LOOK AT THE BILL THAT KRE I DIDN’T CREATES A TASK. THE INTEND BEHIND THE BILL ITSELF. THE EXPERTS AND PRACTITIONERS ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME FIXES TO OUR FORFEITURE STATUTE. THAT WOULD INCLUDE HOW THE MONEY IS DISTRIBUTED. WE SHOULD MAKE SOME CHANGES BUT I FEAR THAT THIS TAKES A SLEDGEHAMMER WHERE A SCALPEL IS NEEDED. THIS IS A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE THIS. BUT FOR ALL OF THE REASONS; SAID I; I’M GOING TO WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT.>>REPRESENTATIVE WITHDRAWS THE A THREE AMENDMENT. THERE WAS JUST A TO CLARIFY YOU WITHDRAW YOUR A 11 AS WELL? CORRECT?>>YES.>>SO THERE BEING OTHER AMENDMENTS.>>THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT WE DON’T NORMALLY COMMENT ON THAT BUT HAVE ALSO A LONG DISCUSSION WITH MY COUNTY ATTORNEY AND I BELIEVE THAT HE HAS SOME FIXES THAT WE COULD LOOK AT. I’M HOPING THAT WE WILL TAKE THIS UP NEXT YEAR AND LOOK AT WAYS TO IMPROVE THIS. KEEPING WITH WHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO DO. LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING ON IT IN THE FUTURE.>>THANK YOU. AS A CO AUTHOR ON THE UNDERLYING BILL; I HAVE A GREAT INTEREST IN THIS TOPIC. BUT I ALSO VALUE REPRESENTATIVE MUELLERS COMMENTS. SHE BRINGS SOME IN SIGHTFUL AND VALUABLE EXPERIENCE TO THIS IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. SO THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE; MY UNDERSTANDING WE’RE GOING TO PASS THIS AND IT WILL GO TO THE FLOOR. BUT DO YOU PLAN TO DO ANYTHING ON THE HOUSE FLOOR? I JUST WANT TO GET SOMEONE TO SAY WHAT THE INTENT IS. TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS.>>THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO WHETHER IT IS THIS OR SOMETHING ELSE I’M INTERESTED IN — AND IT HAS PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE. IT IS LIKELY THAT IT WILL END UP IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.>>THANK YOU FOR THE GOOD EXPLANATION. SOME OF THE ISSUES; IT IS A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. ONE THING THAT THE CURRENT (INAUDIBLE) THAT WE TRY TO DO IS KEEP THE ASSET THAT — IT COSTS 200 TLRS TO MAKE THE STUFF DOWN THERE AND THEY SELL IT FOR AS HIGH AS 5 $5;000 AND THAT MONEY GOES BACK DOWN TO MEXICO. WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN DO STOP THE FLOW OF THEIR PROFITS GETTING TO THEM. WE NEED TO STOP THE — GOING DOWN THERE TO SUPPORT THEM. OVER THE YEARS THIS HAS BEEN A VERY INTERESTING TOPIC. VERY DIVERSE AND DIVISIVE. SO OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE BEEN CAREFUL NOT TO PASS ANYTHING THAT ISN’T SUPPORTED BY BOTH SIDES. WHAT’S IN THE CURRENT BILL IS A SLEDGEHAMMER TRYING TO FIX A (INAUDIBLE).>>I WILL ONLY SAY BECAUSE I’M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS THAT WOULD (INAUDIBLE) OUTSIDE OF MY CHARACTER. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A MAJOR ISSUES THIS COULD BE A SITUATION OF DUALING ANECDOTES. THAT’S A MAJOR PROBLEM TOO. AND SO OF THE 80 PERCENT OF ASSETS THAT ARE SEIZED WITHOUT ANY HEARING; I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE HEARING FROM FOLKS BETWEEN NOW AND CONFERENCE OR IN CONFERENCE. HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE THE CARTEL? HOW MUCH OF IT IS THE CARTEL MONEY? WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT — I THINK THAT’S IS PROBABLY WORTH EXAMINING. I APPRECIATE YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO THE BILL? 2705 AS EARLY AMENDED? I SEE NO OTHER COMMENTS. MEMBERS; BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS; I WANT TO THANK MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. I’M NOT MUCH FOR SENT MENTAL HOG WASH; BUT I’M REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THIS COMMITTEE. WITH HOW ENGAGED PEOPLE HAVE BEEN. IT HAS BEEN CONTENTIOUS AT TIMES. BUT STAFF HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE. YOU GUYS ARE REALLY GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO. AND IT IS IMPRESSIVE WORK. WORKS ON WEEKENDS AND AT NIGHT. AND THEN CHAIR SQUAT– — WE STILL COULD IF WE WANTED BUT I THINK WE ARRIVED AT RESOLUTIONS. SO THAT BEING SAID AND THERE BEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR OF HOUSE FILE — HOUSE FILE 25 AS AMENDED BE RECOMMENDED TO WAYS AND MEANS. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU MEMBERS. I WOULD MOVE ON — WE DID GET THROUGH IT. THANK YOU.>>SO DO I HAVE A MOTION THAT CHAIR DAVIDS BILL — SO CHAIR JOHNSON MOVES SENATE FILE THAT IT BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL REGISTER. THE AUTHORS AMENDMENT TO GET THE BILL IN THE SHAPE THAT THE AUTHOR SO DESIRES. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE A 19 AMENDMENT? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. YOUR BILL IS AMENDED.>>THANK YOU. THE — THE REASON SHOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE GOOD — LAW. THE BILL AS AMENDED.>>IT ALLOWS AN ENTITY TO POSSESS AN EPINEPHRINE PEN — THEY’RE CREATING A COT GORE EVERY OF AN INDIVIDUAL THAT CAN GET TRAINED ON HOW TO USE IT. THE REASON THAT IT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THIS IS A LEGEND DRUG. YOU CAN’T GET IT WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION. IT IS A LIFE SAVING DEVICE. I HAPPEN TO BE ALLERGIC TO BEE STINGS. IF YOU NEED IT; YOU NEED IT QUICKLY AND THIS WILL ALLOW MORE PEOPLE ACCESS TO IT. AND I WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY NOTE THE PROTECTION THAT IS PROVIDED. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT IN THIS COMMITTEE DEALS WITH IT FREQUENTLY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GOOD SAMARITAN LAW; ONLY APPLIES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THINGS WITHOUT COMPENSATION. IF THIS IS YOUR JOB; YOU’RE TRAINED TO DO IT; YOU DON’T GET GOOD SAMARITAN PROTECTION. SO IT NEVER APPLIES TO SOMEONE WHO IS GETTING PAID TO DO THEIR JOB. WHAT WE WANT IS PEOPLE WHO ARE VOLUNTEERS OR HAVE A PEN — WILL USE IT IN THOSE SITUATIONS. THAT IN A NUTSHELL IS THE BILL. IT CAME THROUGH A CONSTITUENT OF HIS WHERE SOMEONE NEEDED A PEN AND DIDN’T HAVE IT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. THIS BILL REMINDED ME TO GET MY EPIPEN OUT OF MY DRAWER. I’M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. AS A FORMER FIRST RESPONDER; ACTUALLY I’M STILL CERTIFIED. IF SOMEONE WAS HAVING AN ALLERGIC REACTION I COULDN’T USE IT — FIRST RESPONDERS ARE UNABLE TO USE THAT AT THIS TIME UNLESS THEY ARE PROPERLY TRAINED. WITH THIS BILL IT FIXES THAT ISSUE.>>THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? TO THE BILL AS AMENDED OR QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. CHAIR JOHNSON; I THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. THE AMENDMENT IS THAT SENATE FILE 1257 BE RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL REGISTER. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES. MEMBERS; WE ARE CANCELLING TOMORROWS MEETING. BECAUSE WE GOT THIS STUFF DONE. AND THEN THIS REPRESENTS THE END OF OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS. IF WE FIND OUT; I DIDN’T GET A HEARING IN — SO WHO KNOWS. MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL HAPPEN. AND SO THAT MIGHT HAPPEN. BUT THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETINGS YOU CAN TAKE OFF YOUR CALENDAR.>>I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR RUNNING A GOOD COMMITTEE. THE BEST PART OF THIS COMMITTEE; I FEEL EVERY LEGISLATURE SHOULD SPEND ONE SESSION UNDERSTANDING THE DATA PRACTICES. I THINK YOU SET A RECORD ON THE FASTEST TIME THAT AN OMNIBUS BILL HAS BEEN PASSED IN THIS COMMITTEE.>>I TOO WANT TO THANK YOU. YOU HAVE BEEN GOOD TO WORK WITH AND YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN VERY VERY; ACCOMMODATING. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR RUNNING A GREAT COMMITTEE.>>THANK YOU. THERE BEING NO –>>I JUST WANT TODAY THANK YOU MR. CHAIR FOR RUNNING A SOLID COMMITTEE AND THANK OUR STAFF AND EVERYBODY WHO MADE IT POSSIBLE TO DO THIS WORK. AS A FIRST TERMER THERE IS A TREMENDOUS LEARNING CURVE. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL OF THE IN SIGHT. IT HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE LEARNING EXPERIENCE. THANK YOU.>>I AGREE. : IT HAS BEEN GREAT. I SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE LAST TERM UNDER THE CHAIR OF PEGGY SCOTT. I OBSERVED THE COOPERATION; BECAUSE MANY OF THE TOPICS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE NOT PART SON. WE GENERALLY WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE PRIVACY OF MINNESOTANS. AT THE SAME TIME ENSURING OPEN ACCESS OF GOVERNMENT. WITH THAT GREAT CONVERSATION; I THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN THIS COMMITTEE.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET SLOBBERY LIKE THE REST. I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB. YOU RUN A TIGHT SHIP.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO SERVE WITH YOU. THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS; MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

Leave a Reply

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