Articles, Blog

House Transportation Finance and Policy Division 3/5/19

House Transportation Finance and Policy Division  3/5/19


>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCE AND POLICY DIVISION. IT’S TUESDAY; MARCH 5 ON THE CHAIR FRANK HORNSTEIN COULD I LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF BILLS ON THE AGENDA SO WE WOULD LIKE TO GET GOING. WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM QUITE YET SO HE WILL HOLD OFF ON THE MINUTES. OUR FIRST -WE’VE A TRIO BILLS FROM REPRESENTATIVE LESCH. I DON’T KNOW IF HE’S HERE YET. SO ANY WORD ON -HE’S ON HIS WAY WE WILL HEAR THEM BUT OTHERWISE I DON’T SEE REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER EITHER. SO- OR REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE. ALL RIGHT.>>>>[LAUGHING]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: REPRESENTATIVE KOEGEL’S ON THE COMMITTEE. SHE’S NOT QUITE HERE YET SO WILL HOLD FOR A SECOND AND WAIT FOR–[INAUDIBLE / OFF MICROPHONE]. LEXICON REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. THE RUMOR MILL HAS BEEN QUITE ACTIVE OVERNIGHT AND APPARENTLY THERE’S AN EFFORT TO MOVE A BILL IN THE SENATE THAT HAS SOME DEPUTY REGISTRAR FUNDING IN IT . IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN I HAVE THE COMPANION TO THAT BILL HERE IN THE HOUSE. I GET THIS IS A GOOD A TIME AS ANY TO REQUEST A HEARING ON IT>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: I WILL SUBMIT WILL BE HEARING A DEPUTY REGISTRAR BILL AREA SHORTLY. HOPEFULLY; IN THE NEXT WEEK. YOU KNOW IF THEY HAVE A-TH AT BILL HAS TO GO ANYWHERE ELSE OR STRAIGHT UP TO [INAUDIBLE] TO WORK MR. CHAIR ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC I THINK I TOLD YOU EVERYTHING I KNOW.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIR TORKELSON AND I DID SEE REPRESENTATIVE LESCH. WE ARE READY.>>[INAUDIBLE / OFF MICROPHONE]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. DO YOU HAVE A TRIO OF BILLS. LET’S SEE. WE WOULD LIKE TO-WOULD YOU LIVE 10/6101? THAT IS A DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION BILL>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: YES PLEASE MR. CHAIR>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY. I WILL MOVE HOUSE FILE 1061 AND THAT WILL BE GOING TO THE GENERAL REGISTER. SO WERE IN GREAT SHAPE.>>CHAIR LESCH:>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. HOUSE FILE TECH AND 61 STOPS A DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSIONS ANYWAY VIOLATION IS FAILURE TO PAY TRAFFIC TICKETS. SO IT ELIMINATES THE ADDITIONAL SUSPENSION PERIOD AFTER PAIN ANY TICKET AFTER SUSPENSION. SO PEOPLE PAY THEIR FINE CAN GET BACK TO WORK AND MAINTAINS COLLECTIONS PROCESSES SO PEOPLE ARE SO ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR TICKETS AND DOES NOT IMPACT SUSPENSION FOR DWI RECKLESS DRIVING’S HABITUAL OFFENDERS. SO MEMBERS; THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE OMNIBUS PRIME LAST YEAR. IT’S PRETTY CONSENSUS AND THE ISSUES THAT WE’VE HAD IS; WE HAVE MARY ELLEN — HERE WHO’S A PROSECUTOR MINNEAPOLIS; ACTUALLY THE PROSECUTOR MINNEAPOLIS; RIGHT? I WAS JUST A LINE COOK BUT I HANDLED A LOT OF THESE AND EVERY TIME THIS HAPPENS PEOPLE GET SUSPENDED ON TOP OF BEING SUSPENDED OR REVOKED ON TOP OF BEING SUSPENDED AND THERE’S THIS CYCLE OF CRIMINAL LAW CONSEQUENCES THAT ESPECIALLY FOR SOMEONE WHO IS POOR WHICH IS USUALLY THE CASE; FOR THE SITUATIONS; THEY JUST CAN’T GET OUT OF IT. I REMEMBER AT LEAST UP UNTIL I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS AGOWHEN SHE GOT YOUR FOURTH WHEN WE WERE DOING JAIL TIME LIKE 15 DAYS IN JAIL. SO I WAS EARNING SOME PEOPLE THAT JUST TO RACKING THESE UP AND YES; THEY ARE NOT THE SMARTEST TO RECUR BUT I MEAN IT WAS ABSOLUTELY A CONSEQUENCE OF POVERTY. SO THAT’S ONE THING THAT I THINK WE CAN HOPE TO ADDRES S THIS AND I DON’T KNOW; DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT AMENDMENTS NOW>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: SURE. I UNDERSTAND REPRESENTATIVE KOZNICK HAS ONE AND THEN YOU HAVE ONE. SO I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW CHAIRMAN LESCH IS I GET YOUR BILL IN THE SHAPE YOU LIKE THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER IT>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: THANK YOU. TO STIR CHAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE KOZNICK’S BILL SOMETHING HIGHLIGHTED REPRESENTATIVE O’NEIL AND SHE BROUGHT THAT UP WHEN SHE WAS SITTING-IT W AS MY COMMITTEE SHE WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE AND SHE SAID; IF YOU HAVE THESE SUSPENSIONS ON TOP OF REVOCATIONS ON TOP OF SUSPENSIONS; LAST SUMMER APPARENTLY; I HEARD THAT THE DEPARTMENT STARTED STACKING THE FEES. MULTIPLE ONES WAS 20 BUCKS A POP AND THEN YOU HAD TO PAY LIKE 60 IF YOU 60 IF YOU HAD 32 I DON’T KNOW; REINSTATE YOU THREE TIMES WHICH IS KIND OF SILLY. I THOUGHT BUT; THIS JUST IS; NO; WE REINSTATE YOU ONE TIME AND THAT IS REPRESENTATIVE KOZNICK AMENDMENT. REPRESENTATIVE O’NEIL THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND I THINK MOST OF THE COMMITTEE DID ON BOTH SIDES LAST TIME; TOO; SO>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: REPRESENTATIVE KOZNICK YOU WANT TO MOVE YOUR AMENDMENT AND ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BECAUSE THE KNOW; MR. CHAIR BUT IT’S NICE TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT WHEN YOU PRESENT YOUR AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: YOU WILL SEE MY BILL REPRESENTATIVE KOZNICK>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: IS THERE DISCUSSION TO THE KOZNICK A- FOR AMENDMENT? DO YOU OFFICIALLY MOVE YOUR AMENDMENTS?>>REPRESENTATIVE KOZNICK: I THOUGHT I DID BUT JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD I WOULD MOVE THE A- FOR AMENDMENT TO HOUSE FILE 1061.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: DISCUSSION TO THE A- FOUR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: I BELIEVE THERE’S AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT AS WELL. THE A- FIVE .. I CAN MOVE THAT REPRESENTATIVE LESCH IF YOU LIKE>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: I WILL MOVE THE A- FIVE AMENDMENT FOR THE AUTHOR AND YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN WITH OUR DOES IT>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: YES MR. CHAIR BUT THIS REPLACES FOR PAYMENT OF A FINE AND LINE 1.19 TO MATCH THE EXISTING STATUTORY THE POINT OF IT IS TO ENSURE A PERSON LICENSE IS NOT SUSPENDED IF THEY MISS THE ORIGINAL 30 DAY DEAD LINE FOR PAYMENT OF THE PAYABLE MISDEMEANOR TRAFFIC TICKET OR THEY GET A LETTER ALERTING THEM THERE LICENSE WILL BE SUSPENDED IF THEY DON’T. EITHER PAY OR SCHEDULE A COURT DATE AND IN A PAY THE FINE BUT DO NOT APPEAR IN COURT. THEN YOU’VE GOT THIS CATCH-22. SO IT’S MEANT TO ADDRESS THAT TECHNICAL DONUT HOLE I GUESS.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: GOOD. SO IS THERE DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON THE A- FIVE? OKAY. THEN W E WILL VOTE ON THAT. TO THE A- FIVE AMENDMENT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: NOW WE HAVE HOUSE FILE 1061 AS AMENDED IN THE SHAPE THE AUTHOR WOULD LIKE IT. AND I THINK YOU HAVE A WITNESS?>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: THANK YOU; YES MS. — IS HERE FROM THE CITY MAP IS GOOD TO BE JOINING WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR ON THE CRIMINAL DEPUTY FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUT THE PROSECUTOR NOW FROM HIS 22 YEARS AT THE CITY LEVEL SO WE DO A MISDEMEANOR PROSECUTION AND I’VE SEEN A LOT OF DRIVING CASES OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER GENERALLY ABOUT 30% OF OUR CASELOAD IS SPENT ON THESE TYPES OF CASES . WHERE THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAN JUST A LICENSE SUSPENSION AND WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS THAT COME I DON’T THINK SUSPENDING SOMEONE’S LICENSE BECAUSE THEY CAN’T PAY A FINE REALLY ENHANCES PUBLIC SAFETY. I THINK YOU WOULD EVEN ARGUE IT MAKES-IT HURTS PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE OFTENTIMES THESE DRIVERS; THEY HAVE TO DRIVE. I MEAN; WE WOULD LIKE HIM TO NOT DRIVE WHEN A LICENSE IS SUSPENDED BUT THE REALITY IS THEY NEED TO GET TO WORK. THEY NEED TO TAKE THEIR CHILDREN TO DAYCARE AND SCHOOL. THEY NEED TO GO TO GET TO THEIR POINTS AND LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN A FRANKLY; DON’T HAVE MANY OPTIONS AND EVEN OUTSIDE OF MINNEAPOLIS WHERE WE HAVE REALLY GREAT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES THEY DON’T HAVE THAT. SO IT REALLY PUTS PEOPLE IN A REAL BIND TO BREAK A LOT TO DO WHAT I NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO MAKE MONEY TO BE ACCOUNTABLE PAY MY FINES AND FEES OR DO I JUST NOT GOING TO WORK AND WE ALL KNOW WHERE THAT LEADS. TICKETS CAN ADD UP VERY QUICKLY. IF YOU MISS YOUR TICKET BECAUSE YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY IT THEY ARE ON LATE FEES AND COLLECTION FEES AND DELINQUENCY FEES AND DEPENDING ON HOW MANY COUNTS WERE CHARGED WITH; I’VE SEEN ONE TICKET EQUAL 800; $900 ALONE. IN THE INTERIM BEFORE WE KIND OF CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION FOR THIS FIX WE HAVE BEEN A BIG SUPPORT OF THE DRIVER DIVERSION PROGRAM WHICH IS HELPING PEOPLE PAY OFF THEIR FINES AND FEES AND I’VE SEEN PEOPLE COME THROUGH FOR ME TO APPROVING A PROGRAM OWING 10;000 OR MORE DOLLARS JUST FROM TRAFFIC TICKETS THAT ARE BUILT UP OVER TIME. SO MY OFFICE SUPPORTS THIS BILL. I SPOKE INTO CENTRAL CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. THEY SUPPORT THIS BILL. BUT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON AS PROSECUTORS; IS DRIVING CONDUCT I WANT TO SPEND MY RESOURCE ON PEOPLE OUT THERE DRIVING DISTRACTED TEXTING WHILE DRIVING RUNNING RED LIGHTS; DRIVING DRUNK. I DON’T WANT TO SPEND MY RESOURCES ON PEOPLE THAT ARE SIMPLY PROBABLY IN A LOT OF CASES DRIVING LAW-ABIDING OBEYING ALL THE TRAFFIC LAWS BUT THE OFFICERS ABLE TO RUN THE PLATE AND SEE THEIR SUSPENDED AND PULLED THEM OVER SOME BECAUSE OF TRYING TO GET TO THEIR JOB SO THEY COULD PAY OFF THE BILLS AND PAY THEIR TICKETS. MY TIME IS MUCH BETTER SPENT FOCUSED ON THOSE BAD DRIVERSTHAN THE PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY ARE JUST TOO POOR TO PAY THEIR TICKETS. SO WE FULLY SUPPORT THIS BILL AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. QUESTIONS? OKAY. DISCUSSION? REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. TO THE AUTHOR; WHEN WE CONSIDER THIS ISSUE LAST YEAR I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE OMNIBUS BILL.. YOU MADE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE OTHER OTHER CHANGES FROM LAST YEAR’S LANGUAGE?>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON; I DON’T THINK SO. I JUST DO PHONE A FRIEND OF REAL QUICK? MY WIFE JUST TEXTED ME; NO. THERE’S NO CHANGES. I BELIEVE HER.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THAT’S VERY SMART MR. JABIR REPRESENTATIVE TO TALK TO REPRESENTATIVE LESCH THAT’S VERY SMART OF YOU TO BELIEVE HER.>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: I FIND THAT OUT EVERY MORE MORE YEAR REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON TO LIKEWISE IN MY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE ALTHOUGH MY WIFE IS NOT TEXTING REGULARLY DURING COMMITTEE HEARINGS.>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: I’M SORRY>>>>[LAUGHING]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY.>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE LESCH I’M NOT SORRY>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: FURTHER DISCUSSION? REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG>>REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. TO THE TESTIFIER; I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY EARLY ON IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ELIMINATE PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO DRIVE BECAUSE ARE UNABLE TO PAY A FINE AND THEN IT DOESN’T REALLY ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT UNPAID PARKING TICKETS?>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: [INAUDIBLE]>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE; I THINK PARKING VIOLATION EVEN MORE SO. PARKING VIOLATION; WE ARE PARKING RULES FOR A REASON OBVIOUSLY AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO OBEY THE PARKING RULES BUT UNLESS YOU ARE PARKING LITERALLY BLOCKING TRAFFIC IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREETS; PARKING AT AN EXPIRED METER IS NOT; DOING ANYTHING FOUR–IT’S NOT HARMING PUBLIC SAFETY. IT’S WRONG AND YOU SHOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] DO I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD ; WHAT YOU’RE ASKING ME ISSUE THEY HAVE LICENSE SUSPENSIONS DROPPING PACKETS AND TICKETS. NO. I THINK WITH ALL OF THESE TICKETS WAS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THERE WILL STILL BE SOME RAMIFICATIONS TO THE PERSON IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY THEIR FINE OR FEES OR THEY DON’T PAY THEM. THEY STILL ULTIMATELY END UP IN THE COLLECTIONS PROCESS. HOPEFULLY; BY LESSENING SOME OF THIS WE WON’T HAVE PEOPLE OWNING SO MUCH MONEY THAT THEY CAN’T PAY THEM OFF WHEN THEY WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE BUT THERE STILL IS A CONSEQUENCES COULD UNPAID PARKING TICKETS THEY GO TO COLLECTIONS OF THAT’S CONSEQUENCE FOR THE PERSON. AND WITH PARKING TICKETS RIGHT NOW; IF YOU HAVE FIVE OR MORE YOUR CAR CAN BE TOWED AND I THINK THAT IS A SUFFICIENT RESPONSE FOR PEOPLE THAT DON’T PAY THE PARKING TICKETS.>>CHAIR MORAN:>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP>>REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG: JUST A COMMENT TO MY CONCERN; TOO. LAST WEEK WE JUST HEARD A BILL IN THIS COMMITTEE WHICH GAVE THE COMMISSIONER THE ABILITY TO REVOKE SOMEONE’S DRIVER’S LICENSE. FOR PACKAGES I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY EGREGIOUS [INAUDIBLE] SAME REASONS YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE OTHER KINDS WAS IN WAYS WE DID IT DOES HAVE ANYTHING TO WITH SAFETY OF DRIVING WHICH REALLY IS THE PREMISE FOR HAVING A DRIVERS LICENSE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION ON A.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION TO HOUSE FILE 1061 AS AMENDED? MR.->>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS>>STAFF: MR. CHAIR MEMBERS TO REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON’S QUESTION I THINK THE SELECTIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN SENATE FILE 3656 LAST YEAR . SO JUST SO THE COMMITTEE IS AWARE I WAS WHEN A QUICK REVIEW AND FROM MY RECOLLECTION AS WELL AS TAKE A LOOK I THINK SECTIONS 5 AND SIX REFLECT NEW LANGUAGE. SECTION 5 WAYS OUT SOME REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND THERE’S SOME SIMILAR DATA COLLECTION IN SECTION 6. THEN; TO REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG POINT; THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT CAME OUT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT LAST YEAR VERSUS WITHIN THE LANGUAGE HERE ON PARKING VIOLATIONS AND THE PROHIBITION ON SUSPENSION FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON 3.26 THROUGH 3.29>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: MEMBERS; IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON THE CHANGES? REPRESENTATIVE RUNBECK>>REPRESENTATIVE RUNBECK: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I LIKE TO ASK THE AUTHOR; THE TWO SECTIONS ON REPORTS; WHAT IS THE REAL BENEFIT OR PURPOSE IN DOING REPORTS? COLLECTING DATA AND>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: I’M SORRY. DID YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION>>REPRESENTATIVE RUNBECK: YES; THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. COULD YOU THERE’S TWO REPORTS REQUIRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE . IT’S GATHERING A LOT OF DATA REGARDING DRIVERS LICENSE ISSUE SUSPENDED AND REVOKED BROKEN DOWN BY COUNTY. WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM THAT?>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: WELL; MR. CHAIR ; REPRESENTATIVE RUNBECK; THIS WAS TWO SEPARATE BILLS LAST YEAR. THE REPORTING BILL WAS A SEPARATE PROVISION COULD I BELIEVE IT WAS ONLY THE FIRST PART OF THIS IN OMNIBUS PRIME. ADVOCATES OF THIS WE HAVE SUPPORTED THE COLLECTION OF THAT DATA JUST TO SEE IF THIS IS A USEFUL ENDEAVOR FOR US TO CONTINUE DOWN THIS PATH AND PART OF THE REASON FOR IT AND MS.-CAN CORRECT ME ON IT-IS THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF COURT RESOURCES IN COURT TIME THAT WE USE FOR SOME OF THESE WITH HER ULTIMATE PETTY; NOT DANGEROUS PEOPLE TO ENSURE WHETHER OR NOT WE’RE GOING ON THE RIGHT PATH. MAYBE MS.-HAS ANOTHER ANSWER>>TESTIFIER: YES. MR. CHAIR MEMBER TO THE COMMITTEE; I THINK THE DATA CAN BE USEFUL. PART OF THE REASONING BEHIND ADDING THAT LANGUAGE IS WE HAVE TRIED TO GET THE DATA. IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE DATA IN I THINK LIKE I SAID; I’VE BEEN IN THIS WRITING CITATIONS FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND I THINK IT’S THE LOWEST LEVEL CRIME OF PETTY MISDEMEANOR MISDEMEANOR BUT OFTEN IT’S THE MOST CONFUSING PROCESS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE COURT IN I CAN SHOW YOU MY PROCESS MAP SOMEDAY IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME. IT’S KIND OF SCARY HOW CRAZY IT IS JUST FOR THE PARKING TICKETS OR ANY S ORT OF TRAFFIC TICKET; BUT BECAUSE IT’S A LAYERED THERE’S LOTS OF REASONS WHY SOMEONE MAY BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED AND YOU CAN BE SUSPENDED AND REVOKED ON TOP OF THAT AND CANCELED AND I THINK WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET AT IS WHEN WE LOOK AT ALL THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE THAT HAVE EITHER SUSPENDED REVOKED CANCELED OR SOME COMBINATION OF THAT DRIVER’S LICENSE; WE DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS. WHY DID THAT STATUS HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET AT WHAT WAS THE FIRST CAUSE AND THEN BUILD ON IT LIKE OFTEN HAPPENS. YOU MAY GET A SUSPENDED FOR NOT COMING TO COURT AND THEN IT JUST BUILDS AND BUILDS AND BUILDS . SO I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHY ARE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR DRIVERS PRIVILEGES SO WE AGAIN; MY HOPE FOCUSES THEN I WANT TO DO WHICH WERE THOSE ARE VALID BECAUSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED VERSUS RELATED TO SOMEONE’S FINANCIAL STATUS.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU FOR THAT YOU ALL OUT ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP WITHIN WEEKS TO MOVE ON IT IF YOU ARE FOLLOW.>>REPRESENTATIVE KOZNICK: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. LOOKS TO ME IT COULD BE A REPRESENTATIVE REPORT OVER EIGHT YEARS. GOING BACK EIGHT YEARS. I MENTIONED BE SUNSET IT GATHER THE INFORMATION? LOOK AT IT AND THE N DO SOMETHING WITH IT? WE DON’T NEED TO DOING THE REPORTS; DO WE?>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE; THINGS PROBABLY ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. BUT I THINK; YES THERE COULD BE SOME MERIT IN THE K IND OF THINKING. I THINK ONCE WE HAVE IT WERE ABLE TO ANALYZE THE DATA HOPEFULLY CAN LOOK AT IT AND FORMULATE POSITIVE SOLUTIONS AND THEN I DON’T KNOW WE WOULD NEED TO KEEP COLLECTING DATA JUS T TO COLLECT IT AND THAT’S NOT A GOOD USE OF TIME. SO I THINK THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS WORTHWHILE CONSIDERING.>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: I THINK I PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON HOUSE FILE 1061 AS AMENDED? SEEING NONE; YOUR FINAL COMMENT REPRESENTATIVE LESCH>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: MR. CHAIR; THIS IS SUPPORTED BY YOU KNOW HOW WHEN YOU GET THE RIGHT [INAUDIBLE] COMES BACK IN A CIRCLE ON THE BACK AND IT SUPPORTED BY [INAUDIBLE] WE OF ALEC NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS MINNESOTA POVERTY LAW CENTER HAVE ALL SUPPORT THESE TYPES OF INITIATIVES AND OF DOCUMENTED ENORMOUS ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT OF SUSPENDING DRIVERS LICENSE TO A BREACH OF THE COMMITTEE SUPPORT.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THAT IS TRULY A UNIQUE BILL. SO THANK YOU CHAIR LESCH. WE WILL ;-I WILL RENEW MY MOTION THAT HOUSE FILE 1061 AS AMENDED BE REFERRED TO THE GENERAL REGISTER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: WE ARE NOW ON TO THE SECOND OF THE TR IO OF CHAIRMAN LESCH IS BILLS AND THIS IS HOUSE FILE 1060. WE WILL MOVE OUT ONE TO WAYS AND MEANS AND I WILL MOVE THAT BILL.>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: SO THESE BILLS THE THREE BILLS THAT YOU ARE HEARING TODAY;; THE FIRST TWO WERE IN 1061 AND THEN THE THIRD ONE W AS 1060. THESE WERE ALL CARRIED BY REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS LAST YEAR . I WAS THE SECOND AUTHOR AND REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS I THINK WAS SECOND AUTHOR ON THEM THIS YEAR BUT I CAN REMEMBER. WE SUPPORTED THESE. MY INITIAL DEAL WITH THIS MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS; WAS HAVING BEEN A PART A FEW PEOPLE AROUND HERE I THINK REPRESENTATIVE RUNBECK WAS AROUND; REPRESENTATIVE NELSON; REPRESENTATIVE HAUSMAN AND I THINK REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDY. WHEN WE DID ALL THE FLASH DURING THE LEAN YEARS OF 2003 THROUGH 2011; WE IMPOSED FEES BUT WE DID ALL KINDS OF WEIRD STUFF BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID IS WE IMPOSED THESE FEES; THE SURCHARGE AND INCREASED THE SURCHARGE SUBSTANTIALLY. WE BUY THE INCREASED THE COST OF A BASIC TRAFFIC TICKET TO ABOUT $130. WHICH FUNDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A PENALTY FOR BAD CONDUCT; NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST FEED GOVERNMENT. THAT’S WHAT REALLY BOTHERED ME ABOUT THIS. SO THIS REQUIRES THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE ; WE GAVE THE COURT DISCRETION TO REDUCE OR WAIVE THE STATE SURCHARGE IT DOESN’T MEAN IT GETS WAIVED FOR EVERYONE BUT IT OFFERS A COMMITTEE SERVICE ALTERNATIVE OR IN CASE OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. IT’S THEY CAN DO NOW MEMBERS. FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO WANT TO DO COMMITTEE SERVICE BECAUSE THE RAPPORT AND I SEE A LOT OF THOSE. I HAVE SEEN ALL OF THOSE FOLKS IN THE FORM YOU CAN’T DO THAT. NO. YOU HAVE TO PAY MMA AND A POPPING AND THEY GET SUSPENDED AGAIN. SO THIS ADDS LANGUAGE TO THE STANDARD CITATION FOR NOTIFYING PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR REDUCTION IN COST AND REQUIRES JUDGES TO CONSIDER THAT ABILITY TO PAY. SO CLIENTS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER HAVE A GREATER AND 50% DEFAULT RATE ON THE SURCHARGE WHICH LEADS TO COLLECTION PROCESSES WHICH IS COSTLY FOR INDIVIDUALS AND THE STATE .. RIGHTSIZING THE FINES FOR THESE PEOPLE LEAD TO A LOVER DEFAULT RATE FEWER COLLECTION CASES AND MAY EVEN INCREASE COLLECTION RATES. MR. CHAIR; FINALLY COME I THINK WHEN THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IS ALL THOSE WHERE THINGS THAT WE DID IN THOSE LEAN BUDGET YEARS; 2003; 2005; 2009; WE DID SOME STUFF WE PROBABLY SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE BUT WE DID UNDER THE GUISE OF MAKING THE BUDGET BALANCE IN OUR INNER SURPLUS I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVERSE SOME OF THO SE ERRORS. AT LEAST FOR THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED IT THAT MEANS PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR US. SO THAT’S ALL I GOT RAIN A.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU. I SEE YOU HAVE ONE TESTIFIER. PLEASE DO YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON. I’M JEANETTE>>TESTIFIER: IF AND PUBLIC DEFENDER IN HENNEPIN COUNTY I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK YOUR AGAIN. THIS INITIATIVE WE BEEN PUSHING FORWARD A JOINT INITIATIVE FOR THREE YEARS AND I’M LOOKING FOR THIS YEAR TO BE THE MAGIC YEAR. I’VE BEEN PRACTICING AS A LAWYER IN HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 25 YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT IN AN OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC DEFENDER CLIENTS. FOR THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ELIGIBLE IS THAT YOU FALL BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES WHICH MEANS FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR YOU ARE LESS THAN $25;000 A YEAR OR FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LESS THAN $12;000 A YEAR. BUT THE REALITY IS; MOST OF THE CLIENTS THAT I REPRESENT OR WE REPRESENT IN INNER-CITY DISTRICTS ARE FAR MORE POOR THAN THAT OFTEN AND WAS WITHOUT A JOB OR UNDEREMPLOYED. SO TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A SENSE OF WHICH CASES THIS IS APPLIED TO; IT APPLIES TO ALL CRIMINAL CASES THAT COME TO COURT AND END UP IN A CONVICTION. THAT MEANS A PERSON OR CLIENT THAT WE HAVE AND GOES TO PRISON FOR LIFE FOR HOMICIDE HAS A $75 SURCHARGE ATTACHED TO THEIR CASE. LIKEWISE; A SONY CLIENT WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT GOES TO THE WORKOUTS; CAN’T WORK FOR A YEAR AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR CONVICTION AND THEN HAS TO DO TREATMENT OWES $75 SURCHARGE AND THEN Y OU HAVE PERHAPS A TRESPASSER WHO IS CONVICTED OF THE LOW-LEVEL MISDEMEANOR AND THEY END UP WITH THAT SAME $75 SURCHARGE. I THINK YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE FINE SYSTEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS BECOME A VERY INEQUITABLE SYSTEM THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. THE FINE IS ABSOLUTELY CONSIDER PUNISHMENT WITHIN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND ITS PUNISHMENT PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IT MEANS THAT THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO USE DISCRETION LIKE THEY ARE IN ALL PUNISHMENTS IN MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT A JUST OUTCOME. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ABILITY TO PAY. HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE THEM. THE SURCHARGE IS COMPLETELY REMOVED THAT ABILITY FOR THE COURT TO BE FAIR IN ASSESSING THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THEM. IT HAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT AND A CONSISTENTLY HAS HAD ON POOR PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO ABILITY FOR SOMEBODY WHO’S COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY MONEY TO PAY THIS. AND QUITE HONESTLY; I THINK THOSE OF US IN THE SYSTEM AND A MS. — WOULD JOIN WE FEEL LIKE IT REALLY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE THE COURT NOT TO CONSIDER THE FACT BEFORE HIM OR HER REALLY DOES DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE CRIMINAL SENTENCE. SO TO THE STA TE SURCHARGE WAIVER WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE ADDRESSING HERE TODAY; JUST TO REMIND YOU IS MANDATORY WHICH MEANS IT’S ABSOLUTELY NOT WAIVABLE. THERE’S APSLEY NOTHING THE COURT CAN CONSIDER WITH REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL. IT’S AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADD ON TO A PUNISHMENT AND IMPORTANTLY; FOR THOSE OF US IN THE SYSTEM IT TENDS TO BE A DEALBREAKER . IT DELAYS THE SYSTEM BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY; AT $75 IS THE REASON THE INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT TAKE THE DEAL AND RESOLVE THE CASE . AS ABSURD AS THAT MIGHT SEEM TO THAT’S REALITY IN WHICH WE PRACTICE. IT TAKES RESOURCES TO ADMINISTER. YOU HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT; AND THE MOST ABSURD PART I THINK AND I HOPE YOU WOULD JOIN ME AND THINKING THIS IS THAT IT CAN BE MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL FINE. A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SURCHARGE ARE MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THE FINE AND THE SENTENCE AND HERE’S AN EXAMPLE. RECENTLY WE HAD A CLIENT TO ADD SIX CASES. THEY WERE TRESPASSER CASES FOR LIGHT WRITING THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT THEY CAME TO THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS SOME OF HER CONCERNS AND WAS REACHING OUT FOR SOCIAL SERVICES. THE CITY ATTORNEY REALIZED THIS WAS A PERSON WHO THEY WANTED TO INVEST THE PERSON WAS WILLING TO TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFERED A GENEROUS OFFER A PLEADING BEFORE DISMISSING – EXCUSE ME – PLEADING TO [INAUDIBLE] DISMISSING CASES NO ADDITIONAL TIME FOLLOW THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION. THAT BEING DON’T COMMIT ANY NEW CHARGES ATTAINABLE. GET A CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY TREATMENT ATT AINABLE. DON’T-FOLLOW WORKER WITH YOUR SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDER; ATTAINABLE. THEN OF COURSE YOU FIND IT YOU CAN DO TWO DAYS OF SERVICE; ATTAINABLE AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IT WAS THE $75 SURCHARGE ON HIS GAZE; WOULD HUNDRED $50 COMPLETELY UNATTAINABLE.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: CAN YOU WRAP UP?>>TESTIFIER: I CAN. I WOULD JUST AS YOU CONSIDER THE PROCESS THE SURCHARGES; MIRROR THE PROCESSES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOR FINES AND THAT YOU ALLOW THAT TO BE HIM APPLIED THEY WANT TO BE EQUITABLE>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TO OTHER QUESTIONS OF EITHER THE AUTHOR OR THE TESTIFIER? OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE LESCH YOU WANT TO CLOSE UP ANY FINAL;>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: NO MR. CHAIR. I MAY WANT TO CLOSE UP.>>>>[LAUGHING]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY WELL MEMBERS; WE ARE NOW READY TO VOTE ON HOUSE FILE 1060 AND I WILL RENEW MY MOTION. THIS ONE WILL GO TO WAYS AND MEANS. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] OPPOSED? THE MOTION PREVAILS>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE HAVE YOUR LAST BILL CHAIRMAN LESCH THAT IS HOUSE FILE 898 AND THIS IS THE LICENSE REINSTATEMENT DIVERSION PILOT PROGRAM. I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT HOUSE FILE 898 BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AS WELL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO IS WHEN YOUR>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS COULD THIS BILL IS THE MAKING THE DIVERSION PROGRAM PERMANENT.. WE HAVE HAD THIS PATCHWORK OF ENABLING DIVERSION PROGRAMS MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS FOR YEARS AND IT’S GOT TO BE LIKE 10 YEARS OR SOMETHING HOW LONG IS IT? [INAUDIBLE / OFF MICROPHONE] 10 YEARS. I WAS RIGHT. SO ABOUT 10 YEARS BECAUSE OF THE GLUT OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE’VE HAD WI TH THE SUSPENDED REVOKED DRIVER’S LICENSE AND A FLOOD OF THE COURTS. THEY’VE CAUSED A SUCH HEADACHES THAT EVENTUALLY PROSECUTION AUTHORITY BEGAN WORKINGWITH FOLKS INDEPENDENT PROVIDERS; THE PROGRAMS THAT WOULD ALLOW THESE PEOPLE TO GET VALID; GET ON A PAYMENT PLAN OF AVAILABLE LICENSE AND MOVE FORWARD. IT’S BEEN A CONSENSUS ITEM FOR YEARS AS LONG AS BEEN IN PLACE I KNOW THAT I WORK WITH JESSICA AND THE KONICA OF THE ST. PAUL CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUT I KNOW MARYELLEN-IS WORKING ON IT IN MINNEAPOLIS COULD ODYSSEY THAT WE GET A BIG CHUNK OF THESE BE A FOLKS IN THE SUBURBS IN GREATER MINNESOTA THEY’RE DOING IT AS WELL. SO THIS JUST SAYS; LET’S STOP WITH THE VARIOUS EXTENSIONS OR CHANGES IN JUST MAKE IT PERMANENT. THEY’RE DOING A GOOD JOB. LET’S LET ALLOW THEM TO KEEP DOING IT TO TAKE THE BURDEN OFF THE COURT SYSTEM GET PEOPLE VALID AND MOVE ON.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU. LOOKS LIKE YOUR TESTIFIER. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD I WANT TO WELCOME YOU TO THE COMMITTEE BUT WE’VE A COUPLE MORE BILLS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE SHOWN UP TO OBSERVE AND PARTICIPATE SO WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP TESTIMONY TO AS POSSIBLE. SO WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE.>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIR; THANK YOU MY NAME IS DAVID–I REPRESENT DIVERGENT SOLUTIONS HERE TODAY. THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY BY THE PROSECUTORS I THINK MADE A HUGE AND WONDERFUL ARGUMENT FOR THIS BILL AS DID OUR CHAIR AND OFFER I WILL NOTICE THAT WE HAVE THREE CO-AUTHORS THAT ARE SITTING ON THIS COMMITTEE AS WELL. THE PROGRAM THAT WAS CREATED BY PROSECUTORS IN 2009 [INAUDIBLE] AND THE PROGRAM BASICALLY DID THIS. IT ALLOWED PARTICIPANTS TO GET THEIR LICENSE REINSTATED . IF THEY WOULD SHOW PROOF OF INSURANCE PAID BETTER DELINQUENT FINES ON A MONTHLY PAYMENT PLAN BASED ON THEIR INCOME NOT HAVE ANY MORE CITATIONS. IF THEY DID THAT; THEN THEY COULD DRIVE LEGALLY DURING THE THIRD TIME AND PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS; -DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY GOVERNMENT-FUNDED IT’S ALL FUNDED BY PARTICIPANTS AND IT SUPPORTED BY A LONG LONG LIST OF PEOPLE. Y OUR HANDOUTS HAVE THAT LIST. THE BILL PROPOSES FOR CHANGES. IT CREATES A PROCESS WHERE DBS COULD CHARGE A MODEST PAYMENTS FOR REVIEW [INAUDIBLE] REVIEW APPLICATION. SECOND; TODAY IF YOU GET A CITATION WHERE THERE ISN’T A PROGRAM IN PLACE IN A CITY OR COUNTY; YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. SO THE SECOND CHANGE WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD ALLOW PROSECUTORS TO REQUEST AN INDIVIDUAL BEING REVIEWED BY DVS AND PARTICIPATE IN SECONDLY; THAT A JUDGE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND AND REQUEST AN INDIVIDUAL TO APPLY. THIRDLY; THE CRIMINAL LAW REQUIRES PARTICIPATING COUNTIES AND CITIES TO PROVIDE BIENNIAL PROGRAM REPORTS . DIVERSION SOLUTION DOESN’T DO ANY OF THIS HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR NINE YEARS. SO WE JUST DECIDED TO PUT IT IN LAW AND THAT WAY IF OUR CITY OR COUNTY IS DECIDING TO JOIN THE PROGRAM IT’S ONE LESS THING FOR THEM TO DO AND WORRY ABOUT. FINALLY; IT REPEALED THIS JUNE 30 SUNSET OF THIS YEAR. THIS HAS PROVEN ITS VALUE . I’LL TAKE OFF SOME FACTS TO SHOW THE. IN 2009; THE PILOT PROGRAM BEGIN IN FIVE CITIES. TODAY PROSECUTORS FROM 142 CITIES AND 19 COUNTIES HAVE CHOSEN TO OFFER IT. AS OF 12-31-18 THIS PROGRAM HAS COLLECTED OVER $9.4 MILLION IN DELINQUENT FINES AND FEES FROM THEIR PARTICIPANTS AND RETURNED ALL THOSE TO THE STATE. AS OF 12-31; IT HAS HELPED 6693 INDIVIDUALS EARNING THEIR FULL DRIVING PRIVILEGES BACK AND KEPT HIM OUT OF COURTS. FINALLY; IT MAKES ART ROAD SAFER.. IT PROMOTES JUDICIARY EFFICIENCY AND IT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF INSURED DRIVERS ON THE ROAD. IS MARK RUBIN FROM THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WRITES; WITHOUT QUESTION; THIS PROGRAM SHOULD BE AVAILABLE STATEWIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF NOT JUST DRIVERS WHOSE LOST THEIR DRIVING PRIVILEGES BUT FOR ALL OF US. WITH THAT ALL IN MY TESTIMONY.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. -EVAN REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG>>REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. JUST QUICKLY BECAUSE THIS DEALS WITH BEING ABLE TO TRACK A JOB AS LICENSE AND SO FORTH TO WE KNOW IF THERE’S BEEN ANY ISSUES THE NEW ROLLOUT OF THE REAL ID ACT AS LICENSE PROGRAM AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT’S WORKING SATISFACTORY TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THESE ISSUES?>>TESTIFIER: MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ALL AT THE SEO ANSWER THE QUESTION>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: WE DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TESTIFIER THE CEO OF EMERGENT SOLUTIONS COME IN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. SO MR. ATKINSON.. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU SCOTT ATCHINSON.. CEO OF DIVERSION SOLUTIONS. MR. CHAIRMAN; REPRESENTATIVE TO ANSWER QUESTION FOR YOU; THE LICENSE UNDER THE DIVERSION PROGRAM IS A STANDARD DRIVERS LICENSE. SO IT DOES NOT AFFECT ;; HAS NO EFFECT AT ALL. IF I’M ANSWERING A QUESTION CORRECTLY?>>REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG: NO. ACTUALLY I’M NOT SURE BECAUSE FROM THIS POINT FORWARD WE WILL BE DOING REAL ID LICENSE WHICH IS A NEW SYSTEM. SO I’M INQUIRING WHETHER OR NOT THE NEW SYSTEM WILL BE ABLE TO DO ALL THE TRACKING THAT WAS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM?>>TESTIFIER: I CAN SPEAK FOR DVS MR. CHAIRMAN REPRESENTATIVE I CAN’T SPEAK FOR DVS BUT WE WORK VERY VERY CLOSELY TO THE APARTMENT OF VEHICLE SERVICES; DRIVERS LICENSE DIVISION AND THEY HAVE NOT BROUGHT UP ANY CONCERN AT THIS TIME.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: FURTHER TESTIMONY? OR ARE YOU HERE JUST TO ANSWER THE QUESTION>>TESTIFIER: WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO RUN A TWO-MINUTE VOICE MESSAGE FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY WERE KIND ENOUGH TO SEND IT TO US AND SO WE COULD LISTEN TO IT ALSO.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY. PROCEED.>>TESTIFIER: THAT WILL BE A 2.5 MINUTE VIDEO VOICEMAIL. SPEECH OR EVENT WILL RAPIDLY QUICKLY AFTER THAT.>>TESTIFIER:>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: IS ANYONE FROM MN.IT IN THE AUDIENCE?>>[LAUGHING]>>TESTIFIER: I’LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>[INAUDIBLE / OFF MICROPHONE] TO HONEY CAN YOU MAYBE RECAP A LITTLE VERY BRIEFLY TO TESTIFIER SURE. THE AUDIO THIS INDIVIDUAL CALLED 911 TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE POLICE OFFICER WHO WROTE HER A CITATION FOR DRIVING AFTER REVOCATION AND WANT TO THANK THE POLICE OFFICER BECAUSE AT THE SAME TIME . GIVEN OUT A ORANGE CARD WHICH GIVES OUR PHONE NUMBER OUT TO THE DRIVING DIVERSION PROGRAM. SHE JUST WANT TO CALL UP AND THANK HIM FOR WRITING THAT CITATION SO SHE COULD GET INTO THE PROGRAM AND WE DID GET HER LICENSE [INAUDIBLE] TO HELP HER OUT.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: WELL HOPEFULLY WILL BE WILL TO HEAR THAT AT SOME POINT. THE WEEKEND PROVIDE A LINK FOR MEMBERS. IS THERE DISCUSSION TO HOUSE FILE 898? YES BUYS CHAIR TABKE>>REPRESENTATIVE TABKE: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I USED TO BE THE MAYOR OF SHAKOPEE AND WE WERE [INAUDIBLE] IS NOTHING BUT FANTASTIC TO SAY AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE WORK BEING DONE.>>TESTIFIER: REPRESENTATIVE HORNSTEIN AND REPRESENTATIVE TABKE I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE YOU HIRED WHEN MY EMPLOYEES AND NOW ONE OF YOUR OFFICERS.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON HOUSE FILE 898? SEEING NONE; I WILL RENEW MY MOTION HOUSE FILE 898 BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIRMAN LESCH>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OUR NEXT BILL ON THE AGENDA IS HOUSE FILE 932. THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER’S LEGISLATION. THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER’S FIRST BILL BEFORE THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCE AND POLICY DIVISION. YES?>>FOR THE RECORD SHE DID BRING TREATS>>>>[LAUGHING]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: SO MEMBERS THIS IS KNOWN AS HOUSE FILE 932 IS ALSO KNOWN AS MITCHELL’S LAW. THIS MOTION WILL GO TO WAYS AND MEANS AND FROM THERE I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO GO TO JUDICIARY AND WE WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR THE WAYS AND MEANS SHARE REFER THAT TO MEMO. MY MEMO. SO I WILL FORMALLY MOVE HOUSE FILE 932 TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. REPRESENTATI VE MOLLER IF YOU COULD SWING YOUR BILL BRIEFLY AND ALSO KNOW YOU OF AN AUTHOR AMENDMENT AS WELL THAT WE CAN TAKE THE AMENDMENT FIRST OR YOU COULD GO OVER YOUR BILL. WHATEVER YOU PREFER>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I THINK WE DO THE AUTHOR AMENDMENT IS THE A- ONE AMENDMENT>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: WHEN YOU EXPLAIN THE A- ONE AMENDMENT>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: THE A- ONE AMENDMENT IS A MINOR CHANGE BASED ON CONSULTATION WITH A PERMANENT PUBLIC SAFETY.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE A- ONE? WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER AMENDMENTS WE WILL DO THOSE AFTER TESTIMONY. OKAY. I WILL MOVE THE A- ONE AMENDMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: HOUSE FILE 932 AS AMENDED IS BEFORE US WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS HOUSE FILE 930 TO THE IDEA FOR THIS BILL AND REALLY THE ADVOCACY AROUND IT FROM THE BRAIN INJURY ALLIANCE AS A RESULT OF WHAT HAPPENED TO MITCHELL–WHO LIVES IN MY COMMUNITY. I DON’T KNOW IF I MISPRONOUNCED YOUR LAST NAME? [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE / OFF MICROPHONE] MR.-EVAN WAS IN MY COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE TELLING YOU IS COMPELLING STORY AND JUST THE MINUTES. BUT JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER THE BASICS OF THE BILL; THIS BILL ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PERSON WHO APPLIES FOR DRIVERS LICENSE TO PROVIDE NAMES AND CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF UP TO THREE EMERGENCY CONTACTS. THAT INFORMATION WOULD THEN BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR FIRST RESPONDERS WOULD BE ABLE TO NOTIFY THOSE EMERGENCY CONTACTS. THIS BILL DOES HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT MR. CHAIR IF IT’S ALL RIGHT I LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MY TESTIFIER NOW.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD>>TESTIFIER: MY NAME IS MITCHELL RODNEY AND HELLO AND GOOD AFTERNOON MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. FIRST; LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I WOULD LIKE.. THEN ALSO IN THE SITUATION BEHIND MY REQUEST. I WAS A 25-YEAR-OLD; PLAYED SPORTS IN HIGH SCHOOL AND MOVED OUT TO THE OIL PATCH IN NORTH DAKOTA. AT 9:01 AM ON MAY 1 ON MAY 1; 2015 RUNNING LOW ON SLEEP I CROSSED THE CENTERLINE NEAR HARVEY NORTH DAKOTA. MY PONTIAC VIBE WAS NO MATCH FOR A SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER HITTING EACH OTHER ON A HEAD-ON COLLISION. THE EMERGENCY TEAM HAD TO CUT MY CAR INTO PIECES TO REMOVE MY UNCONSCIOUS BODY HAD TO AMBULANCE TO HARVEY NORTH DAKOTA HOSPITAL AND INTO MY HOSPITAL. I HAD BROKEN BONES; SHATTERED KNEES AND CRUSHED SKULL. THE HOSPITAL CHAPLAIN; AFTER MAKING MANY PHONE CALLS;; BECAUSE OF MY GRAVE CONDITION AND AFTER A .5 HOURS WAS ABLE TO REACH MY PARENTS AT 5:30 PM. BEING ONLY TOLD TO GET TO [INAUDIBLE] AS FAST AS THEY CAN. ASKING FOR DETAILS THE CHAPLAIN WAS ONLY ABLE TO REPEAT IT. GET TO [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE IT WAS A 9 HOUR CAR DR. TO MY NOT. THEY OPTED TO FLYARRIVING AT THE HOSPITAL AT 12:30 AM ON MAY 2 ; 13 HOURS AFTER THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED. AFTER 212 DAYS OF THE HOSPITAL I WAS ABLE TO COME HOME. I ASKED FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHARING THAT. VERY IMPORTANT AND HARROWING STORY. AS A PARENT I CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT YOUR PARENTS WENT THROUGH IN THE MIRACLE -WE WELCOME THEM-THE MIRACLE THAT YOU ARE HERE AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THESE MIRACLES BUT HOPEFULLY THROUGH YOUR LEGISLATION AND YOUR COURAGE AND YOUR BONUS TO COME HERE WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR MANY OTHERS WHO FACE A SIMILAR SITUATION. SO WITH THAT I WOULD ASK THE COMMITTEE IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE HAUSMAN? [INAUDIBLE / OFF MICROPHONE] YES. WE WILL MOVE TO THOSE IF THERE’S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE NELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I GUES S I DON’T KNOW DVS IS THERE BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE IS JUST IN MY MIND; PUT IN THESE ON THIS INFORMATION WITH THE NEW DRIVERS LICENSE SYSTEM IS INCAPABLE OF ADDING THIS ON AND DOING THIS?>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: D O WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM DRIVER AND VEHICLE SERVICES? WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD>>TESTIFIER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS MY NAME IS TERRY-LEGISLATIVE ANALYST FROM DVS. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER WE CAN PUT THIS -COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? SORRY.>>REPRESENTATIVE NELSON: MY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF ADDING THIS INFORMATION AND HAVING IT AVAILABLE AS THE BILL ASKED FOR>>TESTIFIER: CHAIR AND MEMBERS; YES.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU MR. — WE HAVE A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS I BELIEVE THEY ARE BACK FROM REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON. DO YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH TH E COMMITTEE YOUR IDEAS?>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I LIKE TO MOVE THE A- TO AMENDMENT>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THE A- TO AMENDMENT IS BEFORE REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. FIRST MITCHELL; THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR TELLING YOUR STORY BUT WE WILL GET INTO SOME MECHANICS OF THE WORK WE DO HERE IS NO REFLECTION ON YOU OR YOUR IDEA . IT’S MORE A REFLECTION ON THE BUSYWOR K THAT WE HAVE TO DO HERE AT THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THINGS AS WELL AS WE CAN. SO I WANT TO AGAIN CONGRATULATE YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS; THIS SEEMS TO BE THE YEAR OF THE DRIVERS LICENSE AND DRIVER’S LICENSE DATA AND WE ARE DO ING WITH THIS ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT BILLS. AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS SESSION. THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT REALLY IS TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO KEEP THIS DATA PRIVATE. WE HAVE HAD A SERIES OF DATA BREACHES RELATED TO DRIVER’S LICENSE INFORMATION AND SO THIS WOULD REALLY JUST KIND OF PUT ON THE BELTS AND SUSPENDERS AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THAT THE DATA IS KEPT AS PRIVATE AS POSSIBLE AND PROTECTED AND THEN IF IT SHOULD BE SHA RED THAT THERE BE SOME PENALTIES FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT SHARE THIS DATA INAPPROPRIATELY. THAT’S KIND OF THE JUST OF THE AMENDMENT MR. CHAIR. I STAND FOR QUESTIONS>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON. QUESTIONS AND WILL SUPPORT THE COMMENTS FROM THE AUTHOR UNLESS THE COMMITTEE HAS QUESTIONS? RE PRESENTATIVE MOLLER DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE A- TO AMENDMENT>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: I DO MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON; I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT TENT BEHIND THAT BUT IT’S ALREADY COVERED BY THE BILL. IF MEMBERS WOULD LOOK AT LINE 2.27; THIS INFORMATION IS BEING CLASSIFIED AS PRIV ATE DATA AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 13 AND I DID CHECK CHAPTER 13; DOES HAVE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS RELATED TO DATA CLASSIFIED LIKE THIS SPECIFICALLY. CHAPTER 13.09 ALREADY PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES SO BECAUSE WE ARE CLASSIFYING THIS IS PRIVATE DATA THE PROTECTIONS IN CHAPTER 13 WILL APPLY IN THE AMENDMENT I BELIEVE IS UNNECESSARY.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I DID DESCRIBE IT AS BELT AND SUSPENDERS. BECAUSE THE PROPS DOES REPEAT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WITH ALREADY IN THE BILL BUT I STILL BELIEVE IT WOULD BE WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE MAKE INTENTION VERY CLEAR THAT WE WANT THIS DATA KEPT PRIVATE AND PROTECTED AND THAT THERE ARE PENALTIES INVOLVED SHOULD BE SHARED INAPPROPRIATELY.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE AUTHOR IS RECOMMENDING–>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: MR. CHAIR I’M RECOMMENDING A VOTE; NO ON THIS AND I WILL SAY I BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH -I DON’T NECESSARY LIKE THIS LANGUAGE BUT MAYBE SOME OTHER LANGUAGE I CAN LOOK AT IT BEFORE HE MAKES HIS NEXT STOP BUT FOR PURPOSES NOW I WOULD RECOMMEND A NO VOTE ON THE A- TO>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: FURTHER DISCUSSION? A ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION DOES NOT PREVAIL>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE. THE A- THREE I BELIEVE.>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: YES MR. CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE A- THREE AMENDMENT>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THE A- THREE AMENDMENT IS BEFORE US REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THIS AGAIN DEALS WITH A POTENTIAL DATA BREACH AND JUST REALLY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT INDIVIDUALS ARE SUBJECT TO THE DATA THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS A DATA BREACH AND CONSEQUENCES WOULD RESULT.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: DISCUSSION TO THE AMENDMENT OR QUESTIONS? OF THE AMENDMENTS? ALL HANDED OUT TO THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL FOR HER PERSPECTIVE AND RECOMMENDATIONS>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: SO THIS AMENDMENT IS WAY TOO ANOTHER SUCH ARE NOT CITED IN HER BILL; 13.055. I ALSO BELIEVE IT’S UNNECESSARY I WOULD NOTE THERE’S ANOTHER BILL MOVING RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD IN CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE; HOUSE FILE 54; THAT IS LOOKING AT SUBDIVISION ONE PARAGRAPH C ALREADY AND SO I JUST DON’T BELIEVE THIS IS NECESSARY AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT 30.055 ARE ALREADY BEEN HAD. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND A NO VOTE ON THIS AS WELL BE JOINING THANK YOU THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE YOUAKIM>>REPRESENTATIVE YOUAKIM: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. JUST A CLARIFICATION . THE DATA THAT’S BEEN PROVIDED FOR LICENSEE [INAUDIBLE] THIS A VOLUNTARY; RIGHT?>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: THAT IS CORRECT THAT THIS IS A VOLUNTARY.>>REPRESENTATIVE YOUAKIM: THANK YOU>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. EVEN THOUGH IT’S VOLUNTARY I DON’T THINK WE NESTLÉ WANT TO DISTRIBUTE IT INAPPROPRIATELY AND IT’S NEVER THE HARMFUL TO HAVE THINGS TUCKED INTO MORE THAN ONE SPOT AS WE WORK THROUGH OUR WORK HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE. IT’S A GOOD IDEA HAVING IT REPEA TED SOMETIMES GIVES IT LIFE RATHER THAN HAVING IT SIDELINED. SO I WOULD AGAIN ENCOURAGE MEMBERS TO VOTE YES ON THE AMENDMENT>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: ANY FINAL THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING THE AUTHOR WANTS TO ADD RELATED TO THE AMENDMENT? OKAY AMENDMENT IS BEFORE US. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION DOES NOT PREVAIL>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: WE ARE BACK TO THE BILL. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? REPRESENTATIVE HEITZMAN>>REPRESENTATIVE HEINTZEMAN: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. FIRST I WANT TO THANK REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON FOR MAKING AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE PROTECTING DATA AND I’VE HEARD A COUPLE TIMES NOW IT’S VOLUNTARY AND I THINK IT’S A GREAT IDEA. I AM JUST WONDERING IS THERE A PERIOD OF TIME THAT DATA WOULD FALL THAT LICENSE OR IS THERE AN OPT OUT? I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S IN THIS COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW OVER THAT’S A QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR OR MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE; BUT EMERGENCY CONTACT DATA; I CAN SEE A TIMER ALSO BE SOMEBODY LIST IN A LIST THESE THREE PEOPLE HERE AND MAYBE YEARS GO BY AND THEY DECIDE THAT THEY DON’T WANT THOSE PEOPLE ON THERE ANYMORE. SO WHAT’S THE MECHANISM FOR OPTING OUT OF THAT AND IF THEY DON’T ARE THOSE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTED IN THEORY; WITH A FOLLOW THAT LICENSE PERSON FOREVER?>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: MR. CHAI R AND REPRESENTATIVE HEINRICH THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS WONDERING ABOUT IS FOR DRIVERS LICENSE RENEWAL. IF THIS INFORMATION COULD BE PROVIDED ON THE RENEWAL FORM AND IT IS. SO I WAS A LEASE WHEN YOU RENEW YOUR LICENSE YOU COULD PROVIDE UPDATED INFORMATION NEW CONTACT FOR YOUR EMERGENCY CONTACT CHANGE OR PHONE NUMBER [INAUDIBLE] CONTACT INFORMATION BUT AS FAR AS LIKE BEING ABLE TO OPT OUT I GUESS I DON’T KNOW THE PERSON FROM DVS COULD BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IF YOU COULD GO TO DRIVER MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES AND ASK THAT YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION REMOVED? DO YOU KNOW? PHONING A FRIEND HERE.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD>>TESTIFIER: KERRY-LEGISLATIVE ANALYST . THANKS FOR LET ME PHONE A FRIEND. TO YOUR QUESTION; THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THIS AT RENEWAL TIME AND ALSO IF THEY WANTED TO COME IN AND GET A DUPLICATE THEY COULD CHANGE THE INFORMATION AT THE TIME.>>REPRESENTATIVE HEINRICH: THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE MR. CHAIR. SO IF THEY WANTED TO JUST OPT OUT COMPLETELY NOT CHANGE THE INFORMATION ARE THE RECORDS OF THOSE ORIGINAL CONTACTS KEPT SOMEWHERE IN THE DATA LOCKBOXES SO TO SPEAK? WITHOUT JUST BE AROUND FOREVER OR IS THERE MECHANISM TO A RACE THAT ? I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION AT THIS POINT BUT I WOULD ADDRESS THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO HAVE THAT JUST ERASED IS THAT A POSSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE?>>TESTIFIER: YES.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTH ER DISCUSSION? REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SORRY TO EXTEND THIS A LITTLE BIT LONGER; BUT AS WE ALL KNOW OUR CONTACT INFORMATION IS CERTAINLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE OVER TIME WE’VE ALL EXPERIENCED THE CHANGES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES ETC. THAT OVER TIME ARE NO LONGER UP TO DATE AND VALID. PHONE NUMBERS ADDRESSES EVEN CHANGE OVER TIME. IS THERE ANY PROVISION IN THIS WORK; THIS BILL TO ENSURE THE DATA THAT’S ON THE LICENSE IS ACTUALLY UP-TO-DATE AND WILL DO WHAT IT’S SUPPOSED TO SHOULD BE NEEDED?>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE; DO YOU MEAN DATA ON THE LICENSE ITSELF OR THE EMERGENCY CONTACT DATA BEING UP TODA Y?>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: I MEAN EMERGENCY CONTACT DATA.>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: AGAIN THAT I THINK THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE RENEWAL . YOU CAN PUT THOSE CONTACTS AGAIN IS UPDATED INFORMATION AND I ALSO THINK THAT IS WHY AND MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS;; MITCHELL; BUT THE INTENT OF HAVING THREE EMERGENCY CONTACTS AS OPPOSED TO JUST ONE IN CASE OF’S CONTACT INFORMATION DOES GET CHANGED OR SOMEONE IS NOT REACH THAT’S WHY WE HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING THREE PEOPLE LISTED HERE.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON>>REPRESENTATIVE TORKELSON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO THERE’S NO REQUIREMENT TO UPDATE OR CHECK ON THE VERACITY OF THE INFORMATION AT THE RENEWAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: NO; THERE IS NOT.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: SEEN NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS DO WE HAVE ANY CLOSING THOUGHTS BEFORE WE VOTE>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: I DO. I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU. I REALLY WANT TO THANK MITCHELL FOR BEING HERE ALL THE ADVOCACY WORK IS DONE AND I WOULD JUST SAY AS THEY WOULD HAVE IT I DROP THIS BILL ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF A LOVED ONE IN OUR FAMILY AND 19-YEAR-OLD AND WHILE THIS CONTACT INFORMATION WASN’T SOMETHING THAT IMPACTED OUR FAMILY COULD HAVE SEEN HOW THAT WOULD’VE BEEN REALLY HORRIBLE FOR THOSE PARENTS NOT TO KNOW AND LIKE I SAID THAT WAS THE DAY I DROP THIS BILL. SO THIS BILL HAS A LOT OF MEANING FOR ME; TO AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THE BRAIN INSTITUTE HAS DONE GET A REALLY HOPE I’LL BE WILL SUPPORT THE BILL. THANK YOU>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I WOULD ECHO OUR GRATITUDE TO YOU MITCHELL AND TO ALL OF YOU IN THE BRAIN INJURY ALLIANCE THAT YOU’VE DONE EXCELLENT WORK OVER MANY MANY YEARS ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT ARE BEEN BEFORE THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. SO WITH THAT MEMBERS I WERE NEW MY MOTION FOR HOUSE FILE 932 2B REFER TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. AS AMENDED. TO BE REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER. NEXT BILL ON THE AGENDA IS HOUSE FILE 729. BEFORE WE DO THAT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SETS OF MINUTES BEFORE US REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG; WE OF MARCH 1 AND I BELIEVE FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 2520TH; SORRY.>>REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ALL THE ATTENDANCE FIGURES CORRECTLY SO MUST WE HEAR SO MANY DIFFERENT I APPROVE FEBRUARY 20 MINUTES>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 1 MINUTES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG>>[GAVEL]>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: SO REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE I SAW HIM EARLIER. THERE HE IS. READY TO ROLL. HOUSE FILE 729 DOES HAVE SOME FISCAL IMPACT SO WE WILL HOLD THIS IN THE COMMITTEE FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN A OMNIBUS BILL. REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE WELCOME TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.>>REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: AGAIN OUR MOTION IS TO LAY THIS OVER FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION I KNOW YOU HAVE A COUPLE TESTIFIERS.>>REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: I DO. THIS IS A BILL THAT DEALS WITH THE CONSULTATION FOR THE STATE TROOPERS.THEY JUST RECENTLY FINISHED THEIR LAST CONTRACT. THEY WORKED WITHOUT A CONTRACT FOR TWO YEARS–AALMOST 2 YEARS IT JUST TO POINT OUT THAT IN FEBRUARY THEY HAD MORE TROOPER CARS HIT THAT THEY’VE EVER HAD IN A SINGLE MONTH THE Y’VE ALREADY EXCEEDED THE NUMBER THAT WERE HIT LAST YEAR. IN THIS EARLY PART OF THE YEAR. WHEN MOST OF US ARE GETTING OFF THE ROAD AND FIND A NICE PLACE TO HOLD UP THEIR THE ONES GOING OUT AND RESCUING PEOPLE ON A REGULAR BASIS. I DON’T BELIEVE FRANKLY; WE WANT TO BE IN AN ADVERSARIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATION WITH THEM BUT I WILL TURN IT OVER NOW TO MY TESTIFIERS.>>CHAIR HORNSTEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. I DON’T KNOW WHICH ONE OF YOU WANTS TO GO FIRST. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOE-TROOPER WHO FROM STATE PATROL AND PRESIDENT OF THE STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION. AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION TO REPRESENT THE 529 [INAUDIBLE] HARD-WORKING STATE TROOPERS WHO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE EDUCATION AND PROTECTION ACROSS MINNESOTA. AND BEHIND ME I LIK