Rules and Administration - Subcommittee on Joint and Permanent Rules - 03/08/24

[Music] I'd like to call the uh subcommittee on joint and permanent rules to order I have to say that I have been looking forward to this um Senator rowski I know you are looking forward to this as well uh just in terms of uh the lay of the land for today and the process we're going to use today is a day for us to be introduced to the ideas that are coming from a variety of places um we're not going to take action today um today is the day for us to hear the proposals to perhaps ask uh some fund

amental questions but not get into debate um we are going to come back for a second meeting um there will be time in between this and the next for people to talk together um as we do as members of this body to talk together and to understand a little bit more deeply um what the ramifications might be that might be discussions among members but I think it's also important that it is among members and the staff who have expertise um in the in the body in the function um in our customs in our pract

ices um and so today really is a day for us uh to consider to contemplate to ask some basic questions knowing that we're going to come back uh for a second discussion does that make sense for everybody we're not planning to act Senator rest uh thank you just um another question um is it um at least a goal um to um recommend to the rules committee um uh some changes that then would need to go to the chamber floor to be um adopted or rejected so my my process if you will would be for us to do this

work today um that we would come back together again as a subcommittee to then wrestle with what we have been um what we've considered that would then go to the rules committee yes okay and then that would go beyond that with recommendation or not from rules um onto the floor and they don't have Madam chair and they don't um senator they can decide not to take any action at all I mean this is just a report to them I'm just the expectations I think need to be clear all along the way all right th

ank you very good without further questions um about what we're doing today on this beautiful Friday before noon um when the sun is out um I will say welcome to the committee secretary b u members before us we have a document uh it's Sr 0295 uh and this is the first document that we're going to go through which is I understand secretary bin uh set of proposals primarily from um our staff and you can correct me on that if you'd like welcome thank you madam chair hope the microphone is working her

e I never know if these are on thank you um so yes the document that uh represents the staff proposal is the SR 0295 document you should have that in front of you um what this represents it's the product of some work during the interim I work together with the front desk staff and um Senate engrossing uh to prepare a set of recommendations that really in effect update the rules they there are a variety of changes that are made here um ranging from eliminating obsolete language uh to rules that a

re really no longer used um the intent is technical in nature um and just to make the rules easier to to work with um a word about the process uh we developed uh a set of recommendations basically the front desk staff and Senate engrossing and then work together with Senate council um who made some additional uh recommendations that you'll also see represented in this proposal I took that those recommendations and shared them with leadership um you know with the majority and minority leader and

with leadership staff as well as the Senate President um at every stage of the way I've indicated um you know there's no pride of authorship in any of this and if there's anything that seems objectionable or doesn't make sense or for whatever reason uh people aren't comfortable with including I've I've asked for that feedback and along the way have removed a couple of Provisions so that's how this document um has reached this stage uh and then I can walk you through uh those changes I'll try to

be relatively brief there's a lot of material here please interrupt um if there's anything that seems to require a little more explanation um one at the outset I'll say the I think a large part of the changes you'll see in the document reflect the the elimination of the process for the committee of the whole um it's been used once in the Senate since 2010 um and there appears to be um really no momentum or interest in using that if um and I'll phrase it like this I I think it's kind of a it coul

d be a leader ship decision made at the beginning of a bium to employ that practice it would be a very it would be a simple matter to bring it back into the rules if there were a need but right now I think the way that process reads in the rules and you'll see when you look through the document there's just an enormous amount of additional language that does not make the rules any easier to comprehend that seems to serve no useful purpose mam chair Senator R so by the committee of the whole you

mean that we would uh use general orders um and then come back and vote on the calendar another day I mean that process secretary B Madam chair so sen rest the process that remains there there would be a document labeled general orders that is in effect a list of bills that have been passed from committee and sent to the whole Senate um special orders really becomes the working tool for dealing with consideration of Senate bills thank you secretary B like toce thank you madam chair so beginning

with uh section one uh you'll just see a brief addition brief uh some additional language there that clarifies that we will work with the most the Senate will use the most recent version of Masons the ncsl and the American Society of legislative clerks and secretaries update Masons every decade there's a lengthy process to do that uh so it just would be and sometimes it's not immediately clear which version uh has applied in the past this is just clarifying language for that purpose beginning on

the bottom of page one um from lines 1.31 going forward there's some stricken language that refers to a process that hasn't been used in many years for the introduction of bills in the interim um uh between the odd-numbered and even numbered year again hasn't been used don't see the need to include it in the rules on line 2.6 you'll see the first of many shell to must changes um that's obviously cting convention uh in short I don't think there's any legal distinction between the two but many re

aders prefer must and believe that's easier to comprehend so that's a recommendation as well Senator pus I'm sorry madam chair it's just this whole move to to must it it's so funny because it sounds so harsh to my ears when we're so used to using sha which has a much more Gentile feel to it so I'll take some adjustment thank you senator papis Madam Shar and Senator papus I admit to being agnostic on the question and take their guidance from Senate council on this one um so moving ahead to page t

hree um rule five contains um some clarifying language that is intended to illustrate the to to clarify the number of votes needed to remove a bill from committee after committee deadlines um what is added here clarifies that if a bill is in a committee that is not subject to deadlines it's clear that a majority of the whole Senate I.E 34 votes is what's needed to pull that bill from committee not the 41 votes that are needed for bills in committees that are subject to deadline that haven't met

deadlines so a semi complicated concept but hopefully this language will make that um much more clear rule six uh beginning on line 3.23 um is intended to clarify the situation that could arise when the Senate organizes itself and this rule is invoked to send uh a resolution to a rules committee that has not yet been established it's kind of a chicken or the egg question um really you need a Rules Committee in order to be able to refer a resolution to it and if the organizing resolution hasn't p

assed yet hasn't been adopted it's difficult to do that if not impossible uh let's see I'm just turning the pages here I'll next take you to page six uh the language in rule 10 reflects uh it's just modern izing language that refers to uh the or majority and minority groups that's intended to read as caucuses um the uniform criteria referred to in the stricken rule 10.3 have not been employed for many years it's not precisely clear how that would operate I could elaborate on it but again this is

another rule that really has not been used um and no longer seems necessary for that reason um I will move past uh conforming changes that I've already discussed such as the change from group to caucus and the shell to musts and and rules as we move through here next I'll take you to rule 12 shown on page seven this strikes a reference um in the uh committee meeting rule to cuses of the henpen county Ramsey County or St Louis County delegations and requires those to be open to public uh I'm not

aware and haven't talked to anyone else's aware of meetings of those groups as such and I don't think the open to the public requirement applies um to my knowledge next uh there are some obsolete references in the remote voting provisions of the committee meeting rule to covid-19 that are stricken and then clarifying language on line 7.21 to 7.22 that is intended to make it very clear and this is the guidance chairs have been providing that a member must be visible when speaking or voting on pa

ge eight uh at the top of page eight in rule 12.3 um there's some language that modernizes uh reflects the current practices the Senate uses there are no longer bulletin boards available for posting that's all done on the internet um and the last piece of additional language you see on 8.8 to 8.9 um makes it clear that putting a notice on the committee list serve will satisfy the requirement you see in the rule to give simultaneous notice to all known proponents and opponents um rather than gues

sing at who those are um providing that um on through the list service deemed to meet that requirement um in the middle of page eight on line 8.22 uh there is um more affirmative language that directs that minutes must be taken uh which they are for meetings of standing committees and subcommittees and must reflect every action and vote this rule appears to make it um you know the existing language is a little hard to understand and seems to suggest that a member would have to request that um th

at is in fact the practice and requirement for all committees currently um Senator rest um thank you um Madam chair and and Mr B the um um I just wonder if there are more uh General and enduring terms than internet and website um um because we don't uh we can anticipate new technology I think um without having to go back and change obsolete words like website and and um and the uh internet and I just um would like you to give some um thought to that and maybe talk to our it people if they have u

m ideas of a more General descriptive term that will not require um changing um common terms that are used today but may not be um two years from now and I think we it's been a long time since we've um taken up permanent rules and we're finding other kinds of obsolete things so if we have a description of of uh uh you know technology available or something that that might be um we could do that we wouldn't have to revisit it secretary B Madam chair and Senator rest I can certainly uh work with S

enate council and attempt to come up with some language that might um be more generally applicable Senator Dr Kowski thank you madam chair and u i I don't want to step on the toes of of council because they know this stuff better than I but just as I read on 8.32 um if would it read better if we struck the word no and said a senate committee or subcommittee U must not permit would that read easier and less confusing secretary batter a note um Madam chair and Senator drowsky thank you for that ob

servation um I'm looking at that and thinking perhaps there's a better way to word it thank you mam appreciate that age please proceed so taking you to the top of page nine Rule 13 um this rule provides a default if the Senate adjourns without setting a precise it adjourns from day to day without setting a precise time for when to meet the existing language um really leaves some ambiguity because it refers to the next legislative day which is not established until the Senate meets so this this c

hange would direct that the Senate would have to meet at 11:00 a.m. on the following calendar day if it adjourns without setting a time um and obviously would exclude Sundays the change to rule 14 that you see below that um is really intended to simplify um the requirement that a member must inform the president of the memb geographic location just by supplying the words city and state Secretary BN Senator rest has a question Senator rest on on um 91 and and two um um on the following calendar d

ay excluding Sundays but it um but some sessions including this one is going to come very close to running out of legislative days and so I mean they could say on the following calendar day um given that the that the legislature or the Senate is uh legally able to be called into order I mean if we run out of days um um uh we can't follow this rule if we're done with the number of days calendar day or legislative day just ask you to think about a temporizing word or two it has to be as long as th

e Senate is in section secretary sen rest I will uh I'll chew on that one and think about a way to address that hypothetical thank you so taking you to uh line 9.24 the there's a change made to rule 14.4 um what this change does you can see the new language that states that a TI vote sustains the decision of the president um this is what Masons provides and what has been the practice of the senate for a long period of time incorporating this into the rule will save the trouble of references to M

asons and a description of Senate practices and just make that practice more straightforward but it certainly is it and has been for a very long time the Senate practice I'm just turning the pages slowly here to make sure I don't miss anything secretary batter secretary batter Senator rest has a question um the rule change under 141 does not require the president to publicly announce where the the city and state where someone is voting from currently right and does and this will not change that

it will still be just a notice to the president it will not be a notice that is publicly proclaimed secretary B Madam chair and Senator rest that is correct there's no requirement to affirmatively announce [Applause] it Senator D Kowski thank you madam chair so Mr B on on that that discussion um would would that information be available for members um to discover secretary batter Madam shair and Senator Dr Kowski that's correct that that knowledge is in the possession of the president and if a m

ember asked the president I think the president would need to provide it to them thank you moving ahead to page 12 um there's a small change made really I think just to emphasize to separate a couple of items in rule 17 um the language referring to demonstrations is clarified to be consistent with statute and presented as a separate item in the list of um items that apply to decorum in the chamber beginning uh at the bottom of page 12 in rule 18 and uh shown on the next page as well are a series

of changes that reflect the elimination of the committee of the whole process so these items are are stricken um and they're repositioned elsewhere in the rules um let's see moving ahead to page or excuse me to rule 19 on line 13.13 um the requirement to ensure that messages are promptly delivered in the chamber has really been a responsibility of the secretary of the Senate um through the pages and is more properly contained in this portion of the rules you'll see it later is stricken from req

uirements that apply to the sergeant at the bottom of um page 13 there are changes to rule 22 that would preserve the document that is known as general orders um the senate in other words will keep that list of bills that have been referred from committee uh but general orders no longer remains an item of business uh an order of business moving through basically everything you see um in the middle of page 14 the stricken language for rules 23 and 24 eliminates the committee the whole process ano

ther component is the elimination of the consent calendar that's Rule 25 um that's another item that has been used um very infrequently and does not no longer would convey an advantage if the uh Committee of the whole process is eliminated one advantage that's the the consent calendar had was to accelerate the consideration of a bill but that's obviously available through special orders as well then moving ahead to um yes rule 26 is more conforming changes related to the elimination of the commi

ttee of the whole taking you to rule 29 shown on page 16 there's new language um related to a motion to adjourn sin die which is distinct from a motion to adjourn um it is given separate treatment with respect with respect to debat ability amenability and so forth um that is a Mason provision it has been the Senate practice and I think it's helpful to include it um in the rules so again eliminating the need to refer to Masons and and take more time it's just makes it um very plain to see looking

ahead to rule 32 on page 17 those are just conforming changes related to the elimination of the committee of the whole um on page 18 line 18.5 is a conforming change related to the elimination of the consent calendar um rule 35 uh the language shown beginning on line 18.19 uh contains kind of a complicated concept um when the president elects not to rule on a question of gerus and puts the question directly to the body this becomes difficult to explain in terms of what a red vote means and what

a green vote means the language you see here is intended to clarify that And to clarify what happens in the event of um a TI vote um but there's really no better to way explain it than just to read what the president must inform the body of again when a question of gerus is put directly to the body for its consideration without a previous ruling by the president the president would explain that a yes vote means that the point of order on gerus is well taken and therefore the amendment is not Ge

rmain and that a no vote means the point of order is not well taken and the amendment is Germaine and a TI vote would mean that the point of order is not well taken and the amendment is Germaine Senator rest thank you and this is the same approach um when a uh when a motion is made to challenge a ruling of the of the Senate if it's a tie vote um the point of order explain that again secretary B with the president and how it's different if the if it is with the whole body voting Madam chair and S

en rest and yeah we I think um I'd have to take a moment to find that but there is the we we looked at that rule previously and it clarifies that a TI vote sustains the decision of the president when there is an appeal from the decision of the president and a tie vote M chair Mr and a TI vote by the body also so um sustains the the the point of order is well taken or is not will taken so different secretary B Madam chair and Senator rest it's correct that the language you see here would in effec

t um a Tai vote would would not sustain the point of order um the way I think about it maybe um kind of from the more legal perspective is who has the burden of affirmatively um if an amendment is offered it's presumed to be Germain and would require a majority of votes to demonstrate that it is not gerain but Madam chair Mr B when the president makes that ruling um and it is um the vote to uphold or not to uphold that ruling um sides with the president on a TI vote right secretary B Madam chair

and Sen that's correct okay yes moving ahead and turning the pages slowly here to make sure I draw your attention to the changes uh the next I item is on page uh 20 rule 39 um this is another item in in the change to that that you see uh in the language that remains um again reflects Senate practice and what is written in Masons and just brings it into the rule um and a president deter whether a division uh can be made in the first instance and then the author of the amendment or resolution tha

t is divided must is permitted to determine which portion is taken first the language that's stricken on Senator rest I'm sorry I am going to keep asking questions just to understand because I haven't seen these before so um the um um the president determines whether a motion is divisible usually in Amendment and then the um author uh determines which portion to vote on first is this an issue that comes up in Masons and it is it identical to what is recommended in Mason's or is it something diff

erent secretary B Madam chair and sener rest you are correct Mason's addresses this the Senate has followed Masons that's been the practice so yes um to your question it's affirming um Madam chair and Senator rest Mr B's affirming that the practice we have been using uh coincides what's recommended in Masons but now it's going to have a higher order of meaning by being in Senate rules secretary B Madam Shar and Senor rest that's correct thank you please proceed um taking you to line 20.7 You'll

see stricken language what was formally what would be formally rule 39.2 this provision has not been employed for decades to my knowledge referred to or used in any way and I think if you asked a variety of staff and others um who've been here for quite a while um really what they would have to do is guess at the meaning of this provision so we're recommending removal um taking you to the changes you see in rule 40 which refer to the procedure for voting um and this is voting uh as it occurs in

the Senate chamber uh as distinct from the previous rule on voting that applied to committees uh you'll see the stricken language deletes the reference to a peacetime Public Health Emergency um and then there is language at the bottom of the page that affirmatively requires remote votes to be recorded in the journal again that's the the present practice but this just puts it into the rule to make sure um the Senate continues to follow that practice rule 41 um the change you see there is another

conforming change related to the elimination of the committee of the whole um same on line 21.16 the changes you see to rule 44 are intended to um ensure that the careful engrossing occurs in every instance um that's the first portion of it and then uh you'll see on lines 21.28% a little less logical thank you secretary B Senator rest thank you um uh Madam chair so on 28 and 29 um does that mean that both have to uh give the direction or should it be either or or just plain or secretary B Madam

chair and Senator rest I think both would need to agree I think we know how that would work if there were a disagreement um but it's it's it's just to affirm that the engrossing secretary needs to be involved in that and Madam chair Mr but is that current practice that both of you uh or people in that those two positions have to agree um on the um uh um together must exercise The Authority about engrossing secretary batter is that common practice current practice Madam shair and senat rest I don

't think there's you know the the secretary and the engrossing secretary do not confer in every instance uh I think what this change is intended to confer to convey is that um their the engrossing secretary will work uh together with the secretary to ensure that it is done properly thank you thank you please proceed so Madam chair I will next take you to the changes shown on lines um 22.2 and 20 22.2 one that's another conforming change related to the elimination of the committee of the whole th

at is proposed um then at the bottom of page 22 um the subcommittee on conference committees meets um fairly well I I suppose somewhat frequently and more informally than any other subcommittee or committee this makes it clear uh that it's not required to follow all the procedures contained in rule 12 when it does that take you to um rule 47 uh again these are conforming changes related to the elimination of the committee of the whole and then on line 23.7 um there's an additional change here ju

st there are other Provisions in rule that make it clear making uh bills and and uh other legislation available through electronic means will meet the printing requirements they're contained elsewhere in the rules this does the same thing chair Senator rest um Madam chair Mr moern how often um has there been an issue about a bill um uh that is um I realize it's forget the updating but um part of it on uh lines 234 um that's on general orders or on the table is that just a a a technical change th

ere secretary batter Madam chair and Senator rest yes I think the language you're referring to on 23.4 is just um purely Technical and intended to convey what you know the the significance of being on the table um laid on the table so I'll next take you to the changes that you see um in rule 51 on page 25 um the language you see from 25.7 to 25.9 we just finished discussing and was moved to the section on engrossing where it um it really I think it fits better there um the other changes you see

here are purely technical there are changes in rule 52 um that uh We've discussed on line 25.25 the responsibility for delivery of messages in the chamber and the language in 25.26042 on telephones and um I I think maybe now might be the time as we go through this process Madam chair to just think about telephones and long distance um I got rid of the phone in my office as soon as I arrived um every member I think uses a cell phone um I think my opinion is um none of the members really need a ph

one in their office maybe their LA's do um some things for us to think about is since we're talking about telephones probably not a need to have longdistance fees or charges be part of it um maybe we want to remove that from our practice anyway that's my my thoughts Madam chair thanks thank you Senator jowy Senator rest um thank you um Madam chair and Mr ban and Senator drowsky I um I agree here's another opportunity to um uh modernize and bring you know uh what's a telephone I um and many of us

don't have telephones at home either and so it's an outdated um technology that um we could change and have um and not have to revisit it um if we talk about U you know um the some sort of Technology communic thing um uh or um or we just delete it because it's it doesn't work I mean we don't do it Mr Bell is quaking just a bit I can feel it um secet Madam Madam Sher um and senator's rest and Jass Kowski what I will say about this one is that there was an appropriation made in the state governme

nt bill last year uh for changes to the voiceover Internet Protocol system um that funding was provided a group of staff from the LCC the Senate and the house have been working on what is necessary to accomplish those changes and um while the work is certainly not complete I think you'll see uh very significant changes coming in that area and certainly would would add I think Senator Dr Kowski said this it's very important that Legislative Assistant have um a phone number uh for members of the p

ublic to call and others to be able to contact legislators uh the need for things like telephones in the chamber desks Etc that's all under consideration thank you please proceed thank you madam chair um and I promise to do my part to keep this moving fairly quickly um changes on in rule 54 are shown on page 26 um again there's some posting requirements that are modernized uh I'll draw your attention to lines 26.7 and 26.8 there is language uh here that really is Superfluous um it simply States

what any member would have the right to do which is to prepare a resolution and submit it for adoption by the Senate uh relating to an action of the rules committee that's we're we're not really sure where the language came from and do not see anything you know any additional um power or authority would provide beyond what a member already has um line 26.7 contains a change intended to reflect that I I think were this language read literally uh no change in the assignment of Duties to an employe

e could be made without having the rules committee approve that I don't think that's what's intended or or needed um any longer very clearly the rules committee does have um the authority to direct uh and really provide final Direction on matters like salary um um ranges things like that moving ahead to rule 55 there's these are just conforming changes again group to caucus um as it appears in rule 55 I think um that completes uh the proposal the remaining changes are all Technical and conformin

g and have been described previously with that secretary B thank you uh very much for the work uh and members for the questions knowing there will be more uh in between we appreciate your time and your work so members um we're GNA we are going to operate now uh knowing that I I have a list of some uh proposals but I don't have a list of all proposals so if you are here with a proposal um that I don't call but it is in the category of what we're talking about please raise up your hand and say I'v

e got something to add in this discussion um and we're going to begin first with uh 54.1 which is being brought by Senator Champion please welcome to the committee 54.1 uh is being distributed right now to members and Senator Champion if you'd like to be and it's good to see you thank you so very much uh thank you uh Madam chair and to the committee for for for allowing me to speak today uh and put forth a proposal uh for your consideration I recognize that there's no action that's going to be d

one today this is uh uh put forth as an opportunity for you to think about it and then when we come back um or even between now and when we come back if you have any thoughts we'll certainly entertain those as well the proposal that I'm putting forth today is really about the subcommittee on ethical conduct that is a committee that I currently chair so I want to go through a couple uh recommended changes and answer any questions that you have if you look at line 1.16 that you'll see um that it s

trikes shall investigate and just just that we have there that a member May submit a complaint and writing and under oath to the chair of the subcommittee that just makes it a little straightforward and really clear that is that any complaint must be put forth in writing and under oath and submitted you also see on line 1.20 that the chair of the subcommittee must promptly provide the subject of the complaint um and uh the subject of the complaint and members of the subcommittee a copy of the co

mplaint and complaints and any information included with or attached to the complaint are public after being provided to the subject of the complaint and members of the subcommittee that just you know just if you clearly think about it that that that written complaint is submitted the chair has to make sure it's distributed to the subject as well as to other community members uh and uh committee members and also just to make sure that everyone is clear that any and all information that is attach

ed and provided um uh is uh public and at the at the end when I go through this I also will ask councel if I got everything right so so that she can uh uh let us know then if you look at line 2.1 it just just simply says that the subcommittee shall investigate a complaint that satisfies the requirements of 55.3 that's all that is um and then you just see some conforming changes as far as numbers but if you go to line 2.12 uh this is a substantive change from this vantage point the subcommittee m

ust not call witnesses or take testimony during an executive session an executive session must not be recorded except upon a vote of three members a recording must not be made available to the public until the complaint has been full has been finally acted upon just so that you have some context what usually what can happen is when the subcommittee meets they talk there's testimony that's presented each side is given given ample time to to make their presentation and for the committee to to ask

any questions uh and then what happens is that they can ask for a member can say hey um or the chair says let's go into executive uh committee uh and then that's usually done in a different room where the parties get an opportunity or the not the parties where the committee members only get an opportunity to talk about what they see um and try to figure out what should or could be the next step uh um right now just just for your Clarity um no Witnesses go in there it's not an off the Record disc

ussion where Witnesses are invest are are talked to um it's just for the members alone that tape of from currently it's recorded So that becomes available for the public or anyone you know sometime after that uh it under this proposal um it will still be available uh but it'll be available after the complaint has been finally acted upon uh but um that that would be the change there Senator Champion can you pause for a question can I pause yeah for a question yes Senator rest um thank you um if a

um a person U well either person either the complaintant or the person being complained about um uh so objects to what happened in um a um in a meeting of the of the subcommittee um does that mean that and there's no recording um and they want and they bring litigation against the Senate um is the um discussion within the subcommittee um privilege and um as as it would be if you were talking to your attorney um and not subject to public um disclosure um is that is this is this making whatever h

appens in a subcommittee uh meeting um um privileged Senator Champion Madam shair Senator riss um it doesn't make it privileged the the the the best analogy that I'll give for you you that I can think of is is sort of equivalent to when there's a chamber conversation between attorneys and and a judge that's private and the only time that is re revealed obviously they go out and put it on the record they say hey we had a uh a a chamber meeting and here's what we uh talked about or here's what was

concluded in that meeting the recording can still be done if three members of the committee says hey I wanted to to be recorded so that's where you see in that line that says um um uh an executive session must not is line 2.13 an executive session must not be recorded except upon a vote of three members so three members can raise their hand and say Hey I want it recorded and and it will be recorded and the and the reason why we came up with three is because of the fact that usually have four me

mbers and so you want to make sure that you have representation from from both sides and Senator rest thank you and Madam chair so um uh so it can be recorded with the with the request of three members but it's still not available to the public until the comp as you say until the complaint has been finally acted upon and at that point it C that recording if it happened can be made available to the public and used by either either the complaintant or the the the um you know the or the defendant i

f you will um um in any further action either against the Senate um Madam chair and Senator rest I'm not sure if I would say it would be used against the Senate because traditionally now that those recordings are not used against the Senate because this is an ethical um uh uh um complaint that's been brought against a person right so it's it's really just making sure our members are functioning in a way that doesn't bring uh uh disrespect on the body so um so I wouldn't use the word against the

senate in some other legal context okay Senator Pratt excuse me thank you madam chair um Senator Champion I'm curious why we would presume that the the executive session is not recorded versus the presumption that the executive session would be recorded unless there's three votes and I'm thinking back to uh other bodies that I've served on where when we go into executive session we recorded those those deliberations for like you say after you know after the the case has been resolved so can you

touch on that um Madam chair and senator you know right now that's the way it is right now right now is you know you go into executive session it gets recorded it doesn't become available until later but what I've what I've gathered in my experience even with uh then Senator osmi with us being chair what happens is that individuals we would go into an executive session and then we go in the hallway right because of the fact that people sometime want to have a a private discussion to kind of push

each other or bring some clarity what I was trying to create was just an opportunity for the body to be able to have those sort of forthright discussions with each other uh and then figure out what should or should not happen that you eventually have to go back on the record in order to uh talk about but if that's something that this body doesn't want and want us to keep it just the way we have it we can certainly do that but I just thought um it always you know creates a little more forthright

ness amongst people when they can have their their own private discussions that doesn't um challenge or challenge transparency or accountability or anything of that nature thank you Senator Champion please proceed thank you so much and Madam uh chair if you look at line 2.27 we just struck that language there um uh because we wanted to provide some clarities and another place in the uh uh proposal uh one of the things that was uh constantly uh challenging is if you look at line 230 is that we ne

ver would know what happens with a complaint um you know if the committee uh reaches an impass and it just sits out there sorry about that the uh the matter just sits out there forever until we you know uh break s die and so we tried to address that if you look at line 2.30 we say if a vote to find probable cause so that's one thing and a vote to proceed with an investigation have both resulted in a tie vote and the subcommittee is otherwise unable to proceed because we're at this impass the com

plaint is deemed to be dismissed 30 days after the final meeting of the subcommittee unless the subcommittee meets to take further action and the reason why we put it that way is um we know that let's say there's an impact pass two and two nobody's moving um then it just sits there but but let's say within that 30 days we get some additional information that would help uh then there there's still an opportunity for that additional information to come forward uh and then for the body to take acti

on uh in in a way they deemed appropriate as a result of that additional information and we also have here that the chair of the subcommittee must notify the complaint and and the subject of the complaint when the complaint is dismissed pursuant to this rule so if it's if it's just laying dormant nothing's happening doesn't no new information has been brought forward then it will be dismissed and the chair has to notify everyone that the case is dismissed otherwise it it's just in purgatory as i

t is right now that nothing happens Senator drowsky thank you man chair thank you Senator champ and I I really don't want to get into debate on it but just just to point out that doing this places a lot of power in the chair of of the committee or of the subcommittee because they're the ones that will decide whether or not to call the next meeting or whether there will be one um anyway that's all I have Madam chair Senator Champion Madam chair and Senator Jess Kowski not really because the the t

he power is really in the hands of the committee right and and if there's an impath and there's nothing that's that's going to happen because they've already spoken a case right now just sits there and nothing happens to it it just sits there forever uh but that's also been unnerving for others who have been the subject of a complaint because just sits there and the committee also finds it a little unnerving because it's like what do you do there is nothing so I I would hope that you would would

think about that a little more but it's not in the power of the chair deciding when they should dismiss or not is if there's new information it goes to the body because as I mentioned earlier if there's a complaint or there's submitted documentation there's a requirement for it to be disseminated immediately to the committee Senator jaskowski thank you madam chair and Senator Champion I will think about that if you will think about who is it that calls a meeting and decides whether or not there

's a need for the next meeting absolutely oh sorry madam Senator jowy absolutely right so if we would go on to the next page if you look at uh line 3.9 we just want to clarify a couple things uh like for an example sometimes when a complaint comes forward and against the person and and um and then the person says Hey so is the Senate going to provide me legal counsel and the answer to that is no and we wanted to make that clear under um this rule so if you look at 3. n the Senate will not provid

e legal counsel or reimbursement for legal legal counsel for any party to a complaint the complaint or the subject of the complaint may be represented by councel at a hearing of the subcommittee a person has the right to have councel represent them if that's what they want to do um if you also look at lines uh 3.12 all the way to 3.18 it just says uh we needed a process just before I read it we needed a process for sometimes a complaint is pro is is submitted in writing uh and then a person afte

r they talk or whatever happens and they want to dismiss the complaint right now we're like okay how do we really do that in a real way right so U what we are proposing as you see here is that a a complaint May withdraw the complaint by submitting a notice of withdrawal in writing to the chair of the subcommittee if the complaint was brought by multiple complaintants it withdraw by one complaintant has the effect of removing the complaint's name from the complaint but does not withdraw the compl

aint in its entirety if a complaint a complaint is withdrawn by all complaintants who submitted the complaint the complaint is dismissed and the chair of the subcommittee must notify the subject of the complaint notices of withdrawal are public after being provided to the subject of the complaint and members of the subcommittee so we just needed something what if somebody wants to withdraw it how should that occur uh and we wanted to also provide um some guidance for if there's more than one per

son on the complaint that says it's me Joe Robert or whoever right so if just one of us um dismissed the complaint it's only dismissing their name off the complaint but if all agree and all want to have it dismissed then it would be dismissed under those circumstances so let's see that would be it and Madam chair if you don't mind me just at least asking um councel if if there's anything else that I should have highlighted or failed to mention because she is a a great uh uh mind so I just want t

o see if there's anything Miss dangle uh Madam chair I have nothing to add thank you thank you Miss dangle Senator dble um thank you madam chair uh Senator Champion with apologies if we could just back track a little bit that's okay um you know you get your ideas when when when you get your ideas I guess so I was just uh looking at uh the elimination of rule 55.7 on line 2.27 to 2.29 I might have missed it um when you when you explain the reason for that deletion um so if you could either reex e

xplain or or if I could just ask are we are we presuming that uh special counsel when we refer to special Council we're not referring to illustrious Miss stangle we're talking about outside Council in this instance and that is something we we don't want to do or maybe I just missed the whole thing thanksat Madam chair thank you senator dble for that question really what we're trying to clarify is that the this the subcommittee May appoint special counsel to provide expert advice on how to conduc

t its proceedings we want to be clear that there was not going to be any special councel that we have our in-house Council and other others um like Miss uh uh spango and others that will guide us around the investigation or answer any questions that just was confusing to have special counsel mentioned in the rules that's my understanding Senator Dipple thank you so so great that helps so that does not preclude the the great advice and guidance um that we would get from Miss dangle thank m um tha

nk you uh Madam chair and Senator champion and Senator dble that's correct you still have my services for the committee and the the Senate and the chair of the subcommittee also has the authority inherent is the chair and inherent is the Senate uh contract with outside Council if you felt the need um this particular provision hasn't really ever been used and it seen perhaps as a way to delegate away the authority of the subcommittee in a way um so if the committee so choose they could still hire

an outside body without this rule or an outside person not an outside body thank you Miss dangle Senator rest um thank you um when we um heard the secretary's uh recommendations um uh if you look at 55.1 um um the secretary's re recommendations included removing the words group and and um putting in caucus and I think we're going to find that there are overlapping amendments uh where that language comes in and um uh I think it may be just um of interest to indicate uh when people like yourself

are um recommending changes that you say I you know I endorse the change made by the by the uh secretary um with regard to putting deleting group and using the word caucus to be applied in your Amendment too and we might at some point um uh just direct um um staff that any any place that happens that um that comes up in an individual members one that we take the recommendation for changing group to caucus and kind of an automatic instruction um when we're going forward rather than a member havin

g to look through their own suggestion and making the corrections as as as they go along so just uh just a just a thought in terms of procedure down the and editing down the line thank you Senator rest Miss dangle thank you madam chair and Senator rest you read my mind um as I was going through and drafting these instead of making all of the shells to mus and those individual changes in each of the bill um I knew that the proposal for Mr boner picked up all of those changes so the commit the sub

committee can decide what to do and instead of doing all of them throughout the subcommittee can just instruct at the end what the preference is and I can put those all together and and Madam chair would seem to me that that um some of the basic changes if we adopt them first to be part of our report that we um we don't have to quibble about where that language comes up anywhere well uh it will just be understood and a member won't have to again go back and make all those changes themselves whe

n they're making an official um when we're voting on something they won't have to they won't have to do that just just for efficiency thank you Senator rest Senator Dibble my matter is very small I'll just take it up with Miss stangle or Mr or Senator champion thank you Senator dble seeing no further questions Senator Champion enjoy the sunny afternoon oh thank you so very much and thank you for thinking about this proposal appreciate it uh next before us is Sr z56 and this is coming from Senato

r Balden welcome to the subcommittee senator Balden please proceed thank you madam chair and members um so I will preface my comments uh with uh acknowledgement that this um uh you know obviously would be a change uh that people uh likely have strong feelings about on both sides and so present it as a proposal for uh you know discussion and consideration so uh this rule would um provide for a pre-filing deadline for amendments for both committees and uh on the senate floor um and just to say say

a few words about uh my thoughts about the rationale for that um clearly the work we do is um carries a lot of gravity it it um there are um big consequences to the decisions that we make and so I think it is important to be uh deliberative and thoughtful and intentional and um that having uh this process would allow for more of that um uh it would have to be a clear transparent process um and would allow for uh I think more um you know thoughtful discussion and work in both committees on on th

e floor I have experienced myself and have seen this many times um where you know an amendment is brought and the author will say you know I'm just seeing this now it's a lot of information I'm not really sure you know what the implications might be um and so uh you know work either you know that that impacts the the amendment itself and the work that happens after that and so I um having those amendments uh pre-filed 24 hours before would allow the author to um gather information to think throu

gh those implications to talk with Council to talk with stakeholders um to talk with the author of the amendment and allow for a more um I believe productive um process and a a stronger outcome um another piece of this I would mention while is certainly not the uh primary driver but not without consequence is the impact this would have on staff and allowing them to um not be uh scrambling at the last moment um but would allow for more time and uh you know to to do the work of of handling those m

aterials and and bringing things together um I also uh will recognize so maybe I'll just walk through a little bit um the uh first sections talk about uh pre-filling for floor amendments and it it talks about a a process um that is connected to the process that would be of when bills are uh posted that they you know will be taken up um and in conversation with Council uh when drafting this rule um there was recognition that it it as has was mentioned before by senat arest there's interplay with

this and some of the other uh rule changes I think that um uh secretary Baden brought uh earlier so there's sort of maybe room for some changes on the specifics of the mechanics um based on you know how other rule changes might happen um but essentially based on the um posting of the bills that would um be heard uh you know prior to that then would be the pre-filing deadline um uh 11:00 a.m. 24 hours before um and then the second section is about uh committee amendments uh and then realizing tha

t there may be cases where it is appropriate and necessary um and valuable to do things more at the last minute um allowing for a process for that um creating a subcommittee uh of uh members to make those decisions when when it would be appropriate or when it is requested um and could be uh designated uh so with that uh Madam chair happy to take questions if there are any Senator Pratt uh thank you thank you madam chair and and I don't know that I have too many questions reading through this rig

ht now um I think more concern than anything else um in you know now in my I think 12th session um and having you know having the the opportunity to serve in both the minority and majority um I understand how ideas tend to flow um that during debate and we want free flowing debate um as Senator Dibble just said you get a moment of inspiration uh that that uh hits you at at a time time and we've always had the ability to as Senator Balton said if a if an author wants to consult with stakeholders

we can always lay a bill on the table I've had several instances where we've not taken up an amendment but agreed to work in concert before getting maybe uh to the next stop and and so this to me seems a bit unnecessary um given how the the Senate has operated in the past um and I'm you know and I'll even use yesterday as an example uh in in finance where you know I had an amendment drafted and I chose not to to present it um based on the discussion the deliberation that we had so I think it goe

s both ways um and I think it'll end up putting a greater uh burden on our staff if we are EXP expected to think through every Amendment without taking the deliberation into uh uh in into part of that decision making I'm I'm losing my my words right here but um I just wanted to at least put the concerns on the table from both you know again being fortunate enough to have the perspective of of being on both sides of the of the debate Senator rest U Madam chair I appreciate the brevity of um of um

Senator Brat's concern but just to be reminded once again um we're having the presentation of ideas and questions and we're not debating them about whether they're good or bad or or whatever otherwise we're going to be here a much longer time than is necessary so thank you thank you Senator rest further questions thank you Senator Balden um the next that we have is also a Balden proposal uh and this is uh going to be handed out right now dealing with remote testimony I understand so this is thi

s sr43 Senator Balon if you'd like to proceed thank you madam chair and members um this uh proposal would require all committees to allow for remote testimony um from the public uh you know allowing having that testimony and input from the public is very important and valuable in our committee process and um given the geography of our state um depending on where people live in the state it can be a a a burden and a difficult thing to travel to St Paul to provide what two minutes of testimony um

you know there's issues of getting off work and child care and expense of travel and weather and um uh lots of factors that could be barriers for people to get here to give um valuable testimony to us and so given that we have the technology to be able to um do this uh this proposal would just say that um all committees uh would need to allow for that remote testimony from the public Senator rest um thank you um Madam chair I I believe um the practice in some committees now is um to allow uh rem

ote testimony of um anyone who was not a lobbyist and that um or at least in my committee we don't allow lobbyists to testify remotely so they cannot be in Las Vegas um gambling away and uh from their hotel room think that they're doing their job by um by uh uh testifying remotely so I might suggest a um the permission for remote testifying but uh with a car V that it's not wouldn't be allowed to ask you to consider that it wouldn't be allowed to um lobbyist which is the practice in I think um w

ell in my committee but maybe in others as well not not um not Advocates um or are individuals but um uh but you can even say compensated lobbyists or something but um that is a um I'm not debating it I'm making a suggestion thank you Senator Pratt thank you madam chair well I appreciate the brevity of Senator rest comments I would like to hope that we could keep it to questions and not debate well I wasn't debating I was making a suggestion oh eyes of the beholder thank you you think it was oka

y sorry further questions for Senator Balden all right Senator Balden enjoy the sunny afternoon thank you madam chair uh next on my list uh Senator Marty and this is Sr 035 thank you madam chair members of the committee um Senate rule 35 would be proposing to change it so that we would allow members to are participating in the process to fully participate um even when they're remote in other words would make it that they could we could have divisions in which we'd count the members vote we did t

his already during covid early in the covid process we were all in separate rooms and we okay a division was called and we'd all go around and how many you got three here and two against and each room would do that and so on so we've done that before and I think some committees have allowed um have I think it's not spelled out very clearly but some committees have been using divisions where they include people who are um remote and so on and some on the floor I think that one of the things it he

lps would help avoid uh surprising somebody in other words we've got a thing that might be um you clearly know you have the votes for it but I don't want to bother to call a roll call because it's not a big deal and therefore but oh if there's a division and you have there a lot of people who are remote and so on um you know you've got the votes so you ask for roll call and you get it but it seems to be slowing down the process for things like that I just think it makes more sense to have if I'm

participating in the process if I'm listening to the debate and doing that that should be able to be counted remotely um so anyhow that's the extent of that Amendment proposal questions thank you Senator Marty I appreciate that uh next I believe is a r proposal it would be I believe it's Senate Ru 034 may I sit here all right thank you just for today because it's a subcommittee um the um this is to rule 40.9 um and um this was a floor Amendment before for the temporary rules to not allow member

s who are voting remotely to accept pum um on a day when the member voted remotely we um allow um uh just some settings on this if it's if it's on a day when you're in committee but we don't have a floor session and you're voting remotely you're allowed pral it's only on the in a on a floor session when you're not and um I think this um um presents a hardship um but particularly to um uh because of the number of members we have who um or women um that um we have um sometimes they have to be home

but they can be they can they have small children they can um they C can certainly um participate and are watching and so forth and we have a system where they can they can um um participate in in voting remotely they have a system where they can uh participate remotely in a um in a committee even if they're unable to be on the floor and that um um we should um we should just uh delete that that rule and I do think that um uh I had thought about well how about how about this scenario or how abo

ut that scenario know and it ended up being one of those rules where we have otherwise rules like this it has a lot of hairy arms uh that well under this some circumstance you can and under this you can't and so forth and um I think we need to um um be uh respectful of the um of the times when members um according to the policy set by respective caucus deal uh leaders which is not being um proposed to be changed here um the um uh our leader um dfl leader sent out a memo to our members um because

she has the authority to Grant remote uh remote participation um uh to our members um whether the Republican leader did that or not is none of our business um they have their own rules and they should be be able to follow them uh without the approval of the dfl caucus um and um and it seems and and she has laid out um certain circumstances under which she will approve uh voting remotely and some of them do include as you might expect um uh illness of yourself um or illness of um of a child um a

death in the family um even a happy occasion like a a wedding but you could still participate and um it seems to me that um uh we should honor that and that uh allowing um pum is a familyfriendly thing that doesn't say um no uh uh you'll have to hire somebody to come and take care of your sick kid because if you if you many people many members um uh rely on the salary supplement of um of the perdum um and if they have to miss 3 or 4 days you know that's um that's a few hundred dollar and so I I

will hope that when we uh come to vote on these amendments to the um to the rules that we take all of those um points into consideration and and uh delete this this Rule and I could talk about it a whole lot longer longer and give examples but I think I think um each of us can come up with them in our own minds for when we um uh ended up not being able to vote remotely even though we were uh I mean um we could we didn't take we had to vote remotely uh for myself it's any number of days when I w

as in my office in the building but because um was working on the tax bill did not come down um to vote on the floor and because of that um lost pum um it was worth it but I shouldn't have been a I shouldn't have been asked to do that nor anyone else and uh so I hope that we will um abandon uh abandon that that rule thank you very much thank you Senator rest uh the next proposal before us then is uh Sr 037 this is another rest proposal okay wonder what this one is thank you um Madam chair and me

mbers rule 17 uh ended up last year being an amendment with a lot of hairy arms and we have um uh uh and what I've tried to do um with the rules under decorum is to um simplify um and um and actually separate um um Provisions that were all gathered in one so you will it used to um we would say that um I separated into uh starting with 175 that uh demonstrations and that this usually is um um uh under the authority um to call to our attention uh that demonstrations are prohibited in the Senate ch

amber and the Galleries at all times um you can see that then that word is stricken in 17.6 um and in that rule uh in the separating it and then saying at all times um uh food or beverages are prohibited in the Senate chamber and the galleries um and last year we um uh we had the water Rule and we started adding all kinds of things to it which to my mind um and by the way I support the I support the rule um uh led to absurdities so it seems to me you either have water or you don't have water so

the notion that you can only have it when floor proceedings are expected to last more than 1 hour is silly it's just plain silly and and um uh we um we should just allow it or not allow it and um this rule says it's allowed and then the other thing that we neglected to do again because we had an imperfect process on the senate floor is we we gave ourselves permission but we're not the only people in that chamber that are there for the whole time so is a number of Staff people so this rule this r

ule change uh says that um both uh the senate members of the Senate and Senate staff have the same um privilege or right and um uh and all they have to do is when it's not being consumed find a way to store it out of sight yeah and for me Members um can keep it in a bag they can keep it under on under their desk a staff member can do the same thing or find some place to store it and perhaps the um um the the secretary can you know uh give some suggestions about how this rule would be um uh would

would be applied but we don't need it in the language of the bill just that it's out of sight um and and and quite frankly I've been very pleased U myself that um that actually has happened pretty normally um you don't see members um uh sitting at their desks like I am right now because it is allowed in a committee um with their water bottle on the on the uh on their desk throughout they take a they take a swallow and they put it away and and that culture now has developed there that that doesn

't happen seems to me we should indicate that in the um in the rules and we don't have to have it in um it you know a sealed unadorned I mean what does that mean um uh but a sealed container um why do we still want to keep the word sealed and that is because when you're not drinking um you have a tenden you can have a tendency like I'm struggling with right here of um knocking the bottle over and spilling it on the desk um and and and those are cast Over desks and it's really fine Carpeting and

it's up to us to be um uh uh good about that and that means like I tried to do a couple of weeks ago I had a cup of water and Mr Lynn said sorry and this was not when we were in session this was after he says you can't come in here with that and I thought good point I shouldn't I should have this if I want to sit in the chamber and work I should have water in a sealed container not flopping around in a paper cup and so um I think this um acknowledges um a um uh the appropriateness of um members

that uh wanted this rule change including our majority leader and and it extends it to staff um it simplifies it and it it um um it is a um um an acknowledgement that it's appropriate U from someone who fought it for years I'm now a supporter and I would like the rule changed in this manner thank you very much chair Senator drowsky thank you madam chair I'm going to keep my remarks really short um because I want to save my debate for next time and that's what we're going to do right okay so um I

'm just um Senator rest I really like the demonstrations part and you did a great job in tax committee at chasing the demonstrators out and uh I'm wondering if we should I just asked them to leave I didn't ask them I didn't chase any well I characterize it as that matter chair um so could we add that to could we add committees to this too something to think about I don't I don't maybe we don't need to discuss it real long I know we had a bunch ahead of us but um I'd suggest maybe considering add

ing committees to the demonstration portion thank you Senator drowsky Senator dible uh thank you madam chair I'm going to pre-file an amendment to the water amendment to say that uh we can also have peanut M&M's in the chamber I'm just kidding said I said I'm going to I'm going to amend your water amendment to say that we can also have peanut M&M's in the chamber peanuts and M&M's I'm just kidding um Senator rest yes that's on my desk Senator and Senator rest's favorite candy thank you further q

uestions all right uh next sr66 this is a Marty proposal thank you madam chair members of the committee this one is one that probably could or should have been in the boern list of technical things but it was a little late for that and this is one that fiscal staff suggested just to make the rules clearer and more readable we're simply making the sentence more understandable it's the same words I think and um I'd urge your support and it's simply for when the when the budget targets are announce

d it doesn't change any the substance of it just the order of the sentence Senator rest uh Madam chair Senator Marty that that's not done by the that's not done now or is this just reordering Madam chair Senator this is purely technical Amendment this is we're not changing any of the substance we're just starting with the last half of the sentence and ending with the first half of the sentence because it's much more readable this way thank Senator Pratt thank you madam chair um Senator Marty jus

t just a question and maybe a thought since we tend to have uh supplementary budget proposals in even numbered years would it makes sense to strike the odd number year uh designation and just and if there is no budget Target to be set then then the committee chair and and the uh rules chair then say there's no there is no supplemental Target just a a thought and a question to consider um yeah thank you madam chair sen Pratt I guess that's that's the issue I mean because we don't always have targ

ets with them and so on and there's debate whether you should have targets or not um I think we could keep discussing I kind of um feel that I mean like that in a case like this that some years you're going to have them some years you're not so I don't know it seems to me the rule the rule is for when you have the we have to have them for the for the budget cycle and so um we could discuss the other one more but this was meant purely as a technical thing all right see no further questions thank

you Senator mty uh next uh is Senate rule 031 which is also Mar proposal okay thank you madam chair members this one take a little more explanation and the point of this is this is one that would set time for floor debate in the Senate and um I have two purposes for doing this one of which is not to limit debate but to improve debate and the second is to be more Humane and responsible in how we legislate to staff and members and the public um and that is that everywhere we have times for things

we have committee times if something's going to go too long or something we can make different plans but with floor debates um I've noticed it's getting worse for many many years and um and this would be simply saying instead of saying members there have been all kinds of proposals you can only speak once on an issue um well what happens if you make a point and somebody else makes a other point rebuttal point something else um it seems to me that capping you at one presentation on a bill or an a

mendment may be not the most helpful to a debate but here we often have debates that aren't more whatever more thoughtful because they go more hours and this was a proposal that would have a small um subcomittee consisting of the majority and minority leaders and the Senate President that would come and set time limits for debate on bills and in order to protect the minority rights make sure that excuse me all of the all of the limits would give at least half the time to the minority so the beca

use the majority in effect could say hey we want to limit it this long majority usually is the one presenting the bills and that time goes against their time and so on but it would be a 50/50 time and would be simple non-debatable motion to extend debate if the minority felt they did not get their majority their 50% of the time by simple request of the minority leader it would be extended um and again the simple majority um of those there could extend it and it would be simply enforceable by uh

by in effect point of order I'm open to any other way of doing but it seems rather than have the president in the front desk have to be timing this if if debate was set for 4 hours on a bill and it's four and 4 hours and 10 minutes into the bill somebody said uh Madam president the we've gone past the debate time the president would have their ability to Senator you know I think the debate's wrapping up it's a good debate how about we then urge the members to move a little bit to wrap it up quic

kly but they wouldn't have to rule on it and if if that was the case and the person then anybody could move to extend debate um but the the benefit of this among other things I think was shown the last week of the last session we were having very many very lengthy debates and majority and minority leader negotiated um time limits I had urged the at the time majority leader to consider something like this and she said let's try it for this week instead of going through rues change and so on to co

nsider a volunt thing and the majority and minority leader negotiated time limits for every bill for the last week some were I don't know if it was 5 hours for the tax bill and four hours for Human Services but every one of those bills they set a time limit on every one of those bills the debate ended probably an hour or more before the time limit ran out and what that suggested to me is what happens then is if you know there's going to be two hours or a half hour for a minor bill half hour for

a minor Bill the majority minority leader and Majority Leader oh hey we get no more than 15 minutes guaranteed here um you get your best speakers to get prepared to go first and so on and um if there are more things to be said I mean when there's a really controversial issue sometimes every member wants to say something just so they're on the record on the floor that's fine the longer some debate should be longer but we often have things where it's a bill that oh is how long is this going to tak

e 15 minutes or five hours and one of the problems we have then is we have often we're meeting two in the morning and that's um I think one that's offensive to the public who figures people can't think straight when they're very tired and you're trying to write laws for the state at 3: in the morning and the other problem is a lot of members have family obligations child care they have to take care of and when they go in there not having a clue how long it's going to be it seems to me that this

is a responsible way and again I'm very sensitive to the fact that um it could be unfair to the minority which is the reason for putting in the thing that simple request by minority leaders saying we haven't had our share of the time and guaranteeing at least 50% of the time to the minority um if this if the majority says hey these bills take half an hour to explain well then set longer time limits and it's in effect a negotiate you could do it for a type of Bill in general or you could do it sp

ecifically for specific bills and the other point I'll make about the experiment the last week of the last year of session I think the debates were much better then not just were they frankly shorter but people were saying things that related to the bill and wanted to be said and I don't want to cut off any of that but I think what we've had now is is frankly abusive to some of the staff or members or others who have to be there when they have no idea mean most jobs you have a sense what time yo

u might be going home from work um and some of our Senate council staff and so well they're going to be out of here at 6 in the evening or 6: in the morning and there's no clue until then that's the point of it I'm happy to take questions on it and happy to discuss other ways of dealing with it but I think this is a rational way I took a look at what our house had done I looked at from ncsl what other states have done to try and um manage this and it's an attempt to manage it in respons way the

same way a committee has basically time limits and yes you can extend them if you need you can extend and meet the next day if you need but I think the one exception to our um process where we have an orderly processes designed to reflect the the respect the rights of the minority to speak and everything else but also to have management of time so that we don't um waste I would argue sometimes inordinate amounts of times on minor bill which then takes away the biggest argument I had for against

trying to separate more bills out and having less Omnibus bills was that we don't have the floor time and I think this would help manage it so we could have more important bills debated longer and everything else that's the gist of that and I'm happy to take questions or talk with members individually after this Senator rest thank you madam chairman just I'm trying to get clear in my mind um uh you're um you've numbered or included now your suggestion for rule um uh five and Rule five and six bu

t rule adding rule five um that they are not um debatable but then um uh the I just want to make sure I understand understand that um rule one or the question ETC number one there um a motion for adjournment and we had this in the uh secretary's presentation about um the um circumstances for adjournment and I believe we are allowed to amend it but your you are um um picking out just one of these 10 to say it's not amendable is that correct some are not debatable but they are amendable um isn't M

adam is that not correct Madam chair sen rest I wasn't envisioning this being something amendable I I don't think we want to have it debatable otherwise you'll spend all the time debating how long youo I've seen that happen in places but um in terms of that it seems to me that if if the author of the bill or minority lead on the bill or anybody says you know hey this is a really important debate can we extend it I I'll suggest a half hour a 30 minute extension or an hour extension it seems to me

that if at that point somebody can just say no we need more time or we don't need that much time or something inform if you do that I I propose we extend debate for an hour and you come over to me John we don't need that much time then excuse me I'll withdraw that and make it the motion to be extended for a half hour u in other words I hadn't envisioned people doing it formally where we'd amend it but um I'd be open either way the point is we don't want to spend our time debating the time y Sen

ator rest um thank you madam chair and Senator Marty I would um just request that you look through this L this list of 10 um when you're looking at ones that are included as not debatable and then ones that are amendable amendable so that they don't end up being at uh cross purposes um with one another and that they're just clear when you're later wrong maybe when you're going to be asked about them um Madam chair Senator rest the language on 2.4 the um 28.5 a motion to extend debate is not amen

dable I have that's not the gist of this because I think it'd be kind of an informal thing anyway but um the point is to have it where we focus on the good things so thanks seeing no further questions Madam CH Senator mty after that one I just wanted to make one brief comment if you'll give me permission about one of the rurual changes the technical rule changes just to make a comment on it and I talked with secretary B about this and that is the decision to eliminate the general orders from the

rules I realiz I think his point it is a technical thing because we haven't been using it and it's a huge page of the rules that's confusing new members what's general orders what's this and why is that all in here why do we have a general orders calendar that's handed out every day and everything else um and just to say that I I realize we don't use it and I understand therefore why you remove it from there but I also want to say that I think it was a more accountable way of doing it I think i

t actually fit more with the spirit of the Constitution which says bill should be read on three separate days and we used to I mean technically as the secretary point out the first reading the bill introduction it read and introduced sent to a committee so the public and the legislators everybody get a consider it the second reading which is Technically when it's reported back that the general orders where we could amend it we had good debates we'd actually have I remember many times unlike in W

ashington unlike here now when somebody lean over somebody next says how are you voting on this amendment and um I was going to vote against it but so and so just said something that I'm kind of thinking this we actually had real debates kind of thing and I'm not expecting us to go back to that but we then would have the calendar the next day so if you put amendments on a bill you wouldn't have the final vote till a day later unless we suspended the rules because if there are a whole bunch of am

endments that go on maybe people want to Recons that was a bad Amendment or something they may want to reconsider so it was more deliberative I think it was a better process I'm not saying we're going to go back to that but again our special the Constitution allows an exception for that when there's an urgency but we in effect are rolling things together and everything being special ordered makes them not so special anymore so I just want to comment on that it doesn't change whether we should ta

ke it out of the rules or not but just to say someday I hope we can maybe go back to that was a practice we had in the past it was more deliberative and more public I would argue thank you Senator Marty thanks for your time on all you're welcome enjoy the sunny afternoon thanks that exhausts uh what I know of amendments coming forward but I know there could be others so are there other members uh present that have proposals that they'd like to bring forward Senator Dr Kowski thank you mam chair

I've Got U sr51 if staff have that one available sr51 I can start talking about while it's getting handed around Madam chair would that be that' be great Senator drowsky okay thank you thank you um so this um this is an amendment to end proxy voting which is a process that U we have been doing here in the senate for the last year uh which um I think many of us believe is not constitutional uh we did it um in the way that we're doing it as a as a result of of covid and the response to covid uh Co

is over and I did see proposals to strike out references to covid in the rules already and this would uh continue that uh I'm not going to go through all of the elements of this one uh but I've got some other ones that are somewhat similar of kind of different approaches or varying approaches um but this would would get rid of the remote voting and um the proxy voting that's going on um because that's how we're doing it we're having one member vote for another member which is is taking their um

taking their election certificate into hand if you will anyway I don't want to get into debate because um we've done enough of that already for now and it's a sunny afternoon out so that's the um that's the proposal and thank you for questions thank you Senator drowsky members do you have questions we will move to contemp compation then Senator J Kowski thank you madam chair I also have an sr59 and Senator jaskowski if you have um an order in which you want to take things if you want to let us

know that perhaps the staff can okay get those together yes um so sr59 and then it then it'll be sr4 and then I think U we got it I think Senator Pratt and I have an sr47 and sr44 as there's an sr69 and then I'd certainly like to address an sr42 so I'll go through those again 59 40-1 then 47 then 44 then 69 and then 42 so we'll we'll hand them out as we are moving through but that'll help um expedite the process and thank you I got my thank you when you're ready Senator jowy with sr59 okay um I

don't have in front of me Madam chair but I know that maybe here thank you can she with you I'm wondering if uh if staff would help uh Council would help help uh remind us the difference between the first uh this one the first one I think included committees as well so it included prohibition on on uh remote voting and proxy voting in committees and that was sr51 that we just went through this is sr59 which would simply limit uh the the prohibitions or the elimination of remote voting to the flo

or voting and so Madam chair that would be the difference between 51 and 59 so this is 59 which would say um we we we go back to the way that we have governed here under the Constitution by the way Madam chair our Constitution and I don't want to get into too much debate but just kind as a foundation says that um the legislature shall meet at the seat of government and then it goes on to say the seat of government is St Paul Minnesota and so um that is the the spirit of of which I am really driv

ing these proposals so that we can uh continue to operate the Senate as is has been operated for over 150 years so um that's sr59 and then Sr 40-1 um is next I've also got an sr55 um I apologize Madam chair I've got a lot of papers no apology necessary so 40- one please we'll have them better refined by the next meeting for sure Madam chair so Senator drowsky if you want to so Sr sr41 40-1 um the description I have here is require member voting remotely to cast their vote via audio or video vote

with the secretary and staff so it would allow us to continue the ability for people to for members to vote remotely but would have an audio and video component that staff could use to to capture the votes of people voting remotely and that's what 40- one does uh 55- two or Sr 55 55- two let's get the 55 handed out please which is inserted into our list by accident but it's similar Madam chair and that's why I'm introducing it now um this one is similar in that it says and I'm just going to rea

d the language for members here um the secretary of the Senate it's on uh 40 it's on line 3.10 of the 5-2 amendment it says the secretary of the Senate must Implement a remote voting system that allows all members participating in debate as provided in rule 2711 and voting as provided in rule 40.7 in a manner that allows all participants to hear one another speak and I know there are other bodies in this country uh that of those that do things remotely that that's um a very common thing and I wh

at's it yeah including the other body across the street um but Madam chair um you know and again I don't want to debate it right now because we've got a lot of of material in front of us um but I just think it's responsible for us if we are going to have again these are maybe less desirable for me but something that might be more desirable for other members um as we look at this um I think it's just responsible for us to our constituents and to the you know to to members and to uh to debate to u

se the technology that's available to us if we can use a telephone if we can use the internet to allow if we do do remote voting to allow remote voters to be more participatory and um and to have the Senate be much more transparent than it is now I know and again I'm not going to debate but I know some members saw members last year Madam chair that were either in the retiring room or on their way walking into the chamber when another member was reporting the vote to them for them and that seems

problematic um and there's really no reason for us to be in that position so that's that's that one Madam chair thank you Senator Dres Kowski um next on this would be sr47 yes maybe Senator Pratt's got that one Madam chair I'll do sr47 uh it follows along the same theme that Senator drowsky just addressed uh putting some uh protocol around remote voting uh this is modeled off of what the state of Montana is doing where a member would sign uh a form and send it into the into the secretary uh vali

dating that this is how they voted uh the next one would be Senate or sr44 we're just going to give the staff a moment to get caught up with US senator rest thank you on on 40 47 would you EXP a little bit more how that um operate in terms of a remote this remote voting more details about that thank you Senator rust and and I haven't seen it in operation uh with Montana how I would Envision it is say a member would have a form they would uh type in the the question being debated uh and their vot

e and could email it or directly submit it to the secretary depending on how we set it up I think there's some some leeway into the implementation um and and that leeway is is somewhat intentional so that we can continue to to find the best way to operationalize it Senator rest Madam turn Senator prop this would this would not just be for a day of remote voting this would be on um this form would have to be filled out on every single R call vote that would be taken so correct you envision that u

m there would you would be I mean it could be done very quickly but it would you would wait for those who were not in the chamber to send their foreign men or not um to um to V vote um um remotely and that they would be they would be voting for themselves it would not be proxy voting correct be voting for themselves which is I think a major I would I understand it's a major difference um but for every vote um that requires a rooll call um but not not otherwise what about on a Division how would

you how would you in Envision a division following this process Senator Pratt thank you madam chair and Senator rest I think we've contemplated that division would continue to not for uh remote votes would not be considered in division going forward but um again I in my mind what I what I view is is someone is watching the debate they have uh a basically a web form that they could type in A7 no and have some sort of e signature that uh check box that would say they understand that they're voting

under you know under the threat of perjury thank you Senator dible um and that uh Madam chair is my question I don't know if we're going to debate or not and I'm willing to be cut off if we are but the question was a penalty of perjury um do we have prohibitions for perjuring ourselves in other parts of our rules and do we have a a mechanism to deal with with perjury if we commit perjury as members Miss dangle um Madam chair and Senator dible I don't recall I'm trying to find my rules here so I

can do a quick keyword search um but I don't know that there's this specific reference to perjury in the Senate rules thank you Senator dble Senator Jess Kowski thank you madam chair I would just point out I mean this is like like Senator Pratt pointed out this is something that Montana does they they they draw they put really belt and suspenders on on some of the and they have limitations on on times that people can or members can vote remotely and in that case they use these forms which it's

still it's still proxy voting so it's it's Senator rest is mentioning that it's still proxy voting but it's it's the Senate at that point saying under these conditions it's okay for you to proxy vote if you fill out these forms and and do this X Y and Z all right seeing no further questions we can move on to sr44 I can hand I can handle that one Madam chair all right that one is related to the question on division it's uh and that's exactly what it is it just says a member voting remotely must n

ot be counted in a division that's the that's the amendment all right mam chair Senator Pratt thank you madam chair I'd like to uh present sen uh sr69 right we get that one distributed please thank you you'd like to begin thank you madam president um what sr69 does is it instructs uh the secretary to adopt procedures for remote voting to make sure I've got the exact language here um and must be reviewed by the committee on rules and administration thank you uh within 30 days of commitments of of

each uh banial session so during covid I think as we've talked about a number of times we had uh procedures written out that were reviewed um here's how we're going to do it they were made uh available to members and we just want to make that a standard practice going forward here uh here is here's how the secretary is going to be administering um remote voting questions all right see no questions Sr 042 I'll take that I'll take that one Madam chair um so please proceed Senator Dr Kowski thank

you so Madam chair sr42 relates to and I I think I mentioned this on the senate floor um in the interim the uh adopt we we found the adoption of pums being given to members who met during the interim um and were given per DM for committee expenses and this the example I have in mind was a commission particularly Madam chair and um those well again I I don't we don't need to debate this now but um and there could be variations of this too there's a question of whether it's a committee that's meet

ing during session or in the interim that's another maybe distinction for us to Grapple with as we we go to this but certainly I know some members including myself have have a problem with uh with PDM being given to members when they meet via uh via computer and they don't have any additional expenses which is the original reason for which for DMS were invented that's that's sr42 thank you Senator Pratt uh thank you madam chair um I would uh also like to offer Sr 72 please proceed thank you mada

m chair uh Madam chair this uh this is a requirement that uh remote committee members and testifiers uh in order to participate uh must have both audio and vi video uh communication I remember uh at one point during Co we actually made members show their their thumbs up uh when they were voting and I think we've strayed away from that and just reimplements that uh some sort of standard that uh we understand who is voting and members are voting for themselves and Senator Pratt is this related to

committee yes this is related to committees thank you next one is Sr 74 and then uh to be helpful to folks Then followed by the next ones at least that that we have on our list are sr62 and then sr76 and then sr60 then sr75 and then sr73 so I'll go through them again 74 62 76 60 75 73 so the next one Sr 74 I'm just going to read the description I have here proponents and opponents of A bill must be offered equal time to testify at a hearing and determining a list of testifiers to speak on a bill

during a Committee hearing chairs must consult the bill author and minority committee lead committees are prohibited from using randomized methods to determine a list of testifiers and I know um that some of us in the minority have U have uh had questions about how the list of testifiers was provided and it seems at sometimes that uh suddenly the testifier list was full and um so certainly debate around how that testifier list is is is built and arrived at and agreed upon between the majority a

nd minority in the committee and that's what this would address m'am chair thank you Senator drowsky Senator rest Senator um drowsky it's my experience that some people come in and they they they talk on both sides I mean they'll say I like the bill but I oppose this part of it so how would a chair know whether they're for or against it to be a proponent or an un of of or an opponent and you don't have to answer now but it is a it is a it is a I think a consideration sometimes we don't know Sena

tor droski Madam chair we're gonna we're going to pull number 73 out if that's and get rid of that one because it's not ready all right but we're on go uh senator pratz thank you madam chair I'd like to uh offer sr62 62 thank you you're doing great these young kids are Quick aren't they they are my head is spinning not really but if you'd like to proceed Senator Pratt thank you madam chair and we had a bit of this discussion in the finance committee yesterday um that it seems like we are getting

um short notice on what committee agendas are going to be um yesterday we we brought up the SRO Bill and uh there was a bill added at the last minute um and it was fine it was a non-controversial bill but what we want to do is is instead of saying at least three calendar days uh say at least 72 hours before uh before the committee uh has a hearing and as we saw yesterday the the meeting was posted with TBA and it was about 21 hours before the hearing that the list serve went out with the agenda

and the um uh the bills were were identified um and and all the um all the material was was made available um we're also uh um in this saying that uh bills may be removed from the schedule with less than 72 hours notice so if if something happens if a if a bill author uh Falls ill or uh there's a a another reason a bill isn't ready for debate we can we can pull that off and then upon the the agreement of the chair and the ranking member a bill may be added with less than 72 hours so if we take

that resolution um for firefighter gal that uh that we passed yesterday they certainly no reason that that I would oppose putting that on the schedule um and we could continue to do it in that in that manner um I've Madam chair I I I think you heard from me yesterday that and I understand that when we get down to deadlines and we get uh to other uh and and end a session that it becomes a very tight and compressed schedule but we are not following uh rule 12 um at this point in time when we have

more than ample time to do the proper notification not only to the Senators but to the public and that's the that's the intention behind the bill or the the the resolution thank you Senator Pratt Madam chair Senator Dr Kowski so our next one is uh sr76 and Senator Pratt talked about that um this this would suggest that uh to be announced or other similar non-descriptive placeholder on the um on the website doesn't fulfill the posting requirements Senator Pratt thank you madam chair I would uh th

en like to offer the sr60 um and then just for the staff we'll have 75 and 73 uh coming up after that but right now we'll talk about sr60 uh senator Pratt thator that's right you pulled off 73 so we'll just uh 60 and 75 then will be the last two in this section and we'll have some additional all right if you'd like to proceed thank you uh Madam chair this is we think uh we think this is is just clarifying language maybe more of a technical Amendment uh currently Senate rule state that a a commit

tee or subcommittee shall adjourn no later than midnight each day unless two-thirds of the members present vote to suspend this requirement and we're just saying except that a committee May extend the time for up to one hour past midnight by 2third votes of its members so it's just we think it's it's more clarifying and put some guard rails around how much longer that committee will continue to uh to function for the day Senator rest um Senator um would this also apply to Joint rules for confere

nce committees is that what you're or just or just regular um uh committees within the Senate is is there is there or maybe you don't know but maybe Miss dangle does because I don't remember myself I was going to ask Miss dangle if she could help mear joint rule with regard to um extending Beyond midnight in a public meeting which of course um um has become the custom not to have public meetings but we should change that too Miss Dango yes um Madame chair Senator rest and Senator Pratt the Senat

e resolution 060 that Senator Pratt brought would apply only to Senate committees um there is a joint rule for conference committees about conference committee's meeting past midnight that's in here somewhere and of course as everybody's watching me find it I can't find it but there is there is a process for conference committees meeting past midnight that similar members can meet to vote to meet past midnight and mad chair and Senator I realiz Senator dealing with joint rules here but at some p

oint they should be um compatible m suggestion or question for you to consider um and Madam chair it's joint rule 2.06 and it allows members to meet past midnight um three members out of the five uh may vote to meet past midnight of each side of each side yes just thank you members are we ready for the next one I am Senator josi M chair I'll provide staff what I have on the list next so sr75 is what we're looking for now and then following that I have Sr 32-1 and then Sr 33 and then SR71 then sr

70 then Sr 50 and then sr65 so I'll proceed with um sr75 Madam chair this provides that when the Senate is adopting committee reports a member May question the adoption of a particular committee report uh in in the face of the process that that report came through the committee under rule 12 and and and um and how our committee rules were adhered to with that particular report and says if um if that member has uh a problem with uh that they're bringing up with the process that was followed in ru

le 12 with that report that the committee report must be referred without debate to the committee on rules and then following review by the committee on rules on on the allegations related to Senate rule 12 the committee on rules Administration May then refer the committee report back to the Senate Flor for adoption that's what it does Senator rest thank you and um Madam chair and Senator Jess KY this is um in addition to a challenge that is made under rule 21 correct thank you no further questi

ons s s 32-1 Sr 32-1 all right chair Senator Pratt uh thank you madam chair um you know with uh as as Senator rest has has talked about um how we operate the tools we use have changed over the over the decades that the the Senate has been meeting and so uh this mayor is something that I've seen in the corporate world uh members and staff must not use Senate equipment supplies or resources for personal use commercial or nonprofit purposes outside employment or campaign activity uh except as expre

ssly provided by Senate policy so it just clarifies and strengthens um how we utilize the the the resources and the equipment that are provided by the Minnesota Senate for members use thank you Senator Pratt Senator Dr Kowski sr33 madam chair uh prohibits members from authoring bills that appropriate money to a named nonprofit or for-profit entity uh We've saw a proliferation of those last session uh in a way that I have not seen before Madam chair and I think it really raised the antenna on a l

ot of people in Minnesota as to what it was their legislature was doing uh and certainly there are questions around um around ethics that can evolve if a particular member issues or authors a particular Bill uh and we're we're we're placing our members in into into the cobwebs if we continue this Madam chair I think is is the thought so that's what sr33 does Senator rest thank you so the second Clause would prevent a description like um a um an organization whose address is the following or an o

rganization that um uh only exists in um um where do you live mappa mappa um Minnesota I mean so an alternative description that could only apply to particular either one or more um would not be allowed as well that's how I read it too Madam chair thank you Senator Dr Kowski Senator Pratt thank you madam chair uh I would like to present uh SR71 please proceed Senator Pratt thank you madam chair um looking at conflict of of Interest it it uh prohibits members from authoring legislation appropriat

ing money to a nonprofit or for-profit profit entity governed by board members who also sit on Boards of an organization to which the member or their spouse is employed or themselves a member of um this probably wouldn't apply but I can give you an example where as we were debating a bill uh in the jobs committee um there was a a a proposal to uh provide an appropriation to uh an organization that the commissioner's wife was sitting on and we had quite a debate around conflict of interest in in

that scenario and so this would just put some teeth behind that to make sure that members aren't um submitting bills that and and making Appropriations that um would benefit them or their or their spouse Senator rest thank you madam chair does this um um also preclude a member who is um on the board of an um of an organization um from voting on um on something if they haven't done any of the rest of the stuff and um so I'm trying to read it real carefully maybe you already addressed that in here

but um as long as they don't don't participate in debate or any of that your spouse doesn't does that mean they can't vote on a bill that um contains a provision um even though they haven't been involved in it at all um would um would have that um when the board kind of not properly so getting off of a League of Women Voters in my district and there may at some time be um voter education stuff that would be um uh funded or given to League of Women Voters I don't know that they would accept it b

ut let's say they did um but I don't take part of it I'm not on the bill I don't take part of the debate would I be precluded from uh voting on it or would the current rule where um a a member like Senator Miller has done on occasion just announces that um because of rule XYZ um they're not going to be voting on something Senator Pratt thank you uh Madam chair and Senator R right now I'm I'm contemplating the ladder uh that we already have rules on voting for bills um this goes uh really to more

of the debate and and the uh authoring of bills and authoring bills rather than just mere membership on on on a board that may benefit or may not benefit for that matter right Senator Pratt and Madam chair thank you Senator Russ so you know I think back to to when I was uh an employee of US Bank or I also serve on the uh local Board of Directors for my my local nursing home um it would preclude me from authoring or being a part of debate for a bill that provides funding to nursing homes because

I'm not specifically directing it to okay my my nursing home and just like when I was at US Bank I could vote on and author bills that were um maybe good for the uh maybe good for the banking industry as a whole but I couldn't do it specifically for my employer [Applause] all right Senator drowsky thank you madam chair sr70 is is very similar to SR71 and that except that it instead of labeling um this situation as a prohibited activity it would um it would it would apply a standard of conduct t

o that behavior that would could could um expose it to ethics um questions but it's exactly the same situation type of situation Senator Pratt described in the previous amount thank you questions see no further questions Senator Pratt thank you madam chair I would like to then uh introduce sr50 Sr 5050 if you'd like to proceed thank you uh Madam chair uh members when we uh every year we sign for the campaign Finance board a um a statement of economic interest but what it doesn't include is is so

me of these memberships in nonprofit boards like my my local board at St girs um and we think that there ought to be that transparency that uh the public and other members should know that these you know what other organizations we are um in leadership roles for and so this would simply say that we would create a process where uh it requires members to um report to the secretary their membership on any for-profit or nonprofit boards Senator rest um um Senator Pratt would this include um organiza

tion in which um that are uh uh not profits but they are uh organizations that are made up of uh that have uh legislators participating um uh for example um um um um four of us serve on the Great Lakes commission and we are reimbursed for expenses to a meeting or the Great Lakes legislative caucus um or any Committee of ncsl um um that we are would be considered a um a some kind of board member I would that include them or or does this is the language here which haven't been able to read complet

ely would that um preclude not not cover um those kinds of groups where um either the state is a member or the or legis or is a legislative um body like the ncel or Alec or however they're they're they're they're structured Senator Pratt thank you madam chair uh Senator rest it it would not include any any organization where you were appointed based uh on your role of being a senator so I know that we all sit on various um various uh roles that was not my question that was not your question and

and that's what I'm I'm trying to think through and maybe Miss stangle can help me with the the language as it's drafted to answer your question because I have a thought in my mind but I want to make sure that I'm I'm addressing it in the correct way Miss dangles I'm uh Madam chair and senators I'm not sure that the language clearly answers that question okay yes thought Madam chair I'd be happy to continue the conversation with Senator r that is excellent thank you Senator drowsky thank you mad

am chair um while the staff is gathering up sr65 which is our next one um the there's 10 after that that I have on the list Madam chair and I'll go through those for staff so they have them those are sr38 -1 Sr 48-1 sr61 61 sr57 sr45 sr46 Sr 67 that's 67 Sr 6868 Sr 63 and Sr 64 so sr65 Madam chair um relates to an item that I brought up uh last year when we were addressing the temporary rules in 2022 um a law was passed by the legislature and obviously signed by the governor that prohibited lobb

ying activity under certain conditions that's outlined in uh Section 3 3.84 of Minnesota statutes and it directs that law directs the house and the Senate to adopt rules to effectuate the law that's what the law says we have not done that I don't know if the house has done that yet but this would do that this would AFF effectuate the law this would have the Senate following the law to put into its rules um a procedure for the law to be followed and just quickly what it what it does just for your

uh is on 1.18 1.20 of the amendment um a member May submit a complaint to to the Ethics Committee and then sub the subcommittee must investigate the complaint that's it's pretty simple and straightforward but I hope that we can get that into the rules thank you mam chair thank you Senator drowsky 38 thank you madam chair I'd like to introduce sen uh Sen resolution 38 and um I don't know if Mr bod would like to to weigh in on these um this would Place uh into Senate into Senate rules um with the

approval of the committee on rules and administrations uh that they may secure bids and enter into contracts for printing of bills and binding of the permanent Journal uh secure bids and enter contracts for remodeling Improvement and Furnishing of Senate Office bases conference rooms and Senate chamber um along with a number of other items um and it clarifies that oh wait a minute Madam chair I got 48 instead of 38 I'm speaking to the wrong yeah that's not 48 we'll we'll set aside little yeah w

e have a the wrong uh Amendment or the wrong language in front of us so we'll move to why don't we let Senator rowski talk about sr48 and then I'll come back to 38 that's a great idea Madam chair I don't know if I'm more prepared than Senator Pratt to talk about this one I okay so um Sr 48-1 um says a secretary may enter into contracts any contracts in excess of a of a specified dollar amount must be approved by the chair of rules and the minority leader approval of a contract can be rescinded i

f it does not violate the terms of a contract and I don't know um I if Miss stangle could give any better context on that than I or maybe Senator PR can miss dangle I apologize Senator rowski we're we're for the missing amendment can you repeat your question please um can you describe it any better than I did miss stangle I apologize I wasn't listening to your explanation if you would just if you would just describe it for us yes I can do that thank you we are looking at the SRO 48-1 is that cor

rect correct it will fully disclose how little attention I was paying I apologize U Madam chair members the SRO 48-1 is based on on the idea from the interim resolution that is passed every year includes a provision that allows the secretary of the Senate to do various things during the um interim let me make sure I'm looking at the the right provision here and one of those things is to approve contracts and you'll see most of the language at the beginning of this is I identical um to the provis

ion from that interim resolution including approval of uh entering to contracts for printing of bills and bindings in the journal and those sorts of things but if you turn to the back of the page starting on line 2.2 there's some changes to what's in the interim contract including approval of contracts in excess of a dollar amount to be determined um under the current resolution it's $10,000 um it requires approval of the chair of the committee of rules and administration and the minority leader

the current practice is the chair and another um member of the committee and then there's a process that allows termination or withdrawal of the contract of either of the party assuming the contract allows for withdrawal or termination that requires the secretary of the Senate to determine what that process is um and to provide notification of what that process is and then there's a time period That's to be determined um to allow the committee of rules and administration to take action to ratif

y that contract going forward and if that doesn't happen then the contract is withdrawn from or terminated so Madam chair it would Senator J Kowski it would it would provide that this would be ongoing in our rules and we wouldn't have to be deliberate about doing the interim resolution for this each time and it would be an ongoing responsibility of the secretary thank you Senator R um thank you um Senators um Pratt and drowsky in one of the former um um amendments or proposals you made you refer

enced um uh a precedent that that you supported uh from the state of Montana and I wonder um if this and other similar ones that you are um um proposing um uh do they do they have any connection with like um best practices um either from CS G or or um or ncsl or any other National Organization that looks at um or maybe some of the um or Pew charitable charitable trust or something um that uh looks at e efficient and effective ways for um uh legislators to um uh to um um proceed in in passing law

s that that would be very very um interesting I think um as you present whichever ones you choose to present um for debate if you had some information like that that um uh I mean obviously these can come out of your own head too but um I think that would be very interesting to see if um uh if it's some of these things have been recommended as best practices by national organizations that look at how legislator operate thank you thank you all right and just for the record um the we are going thro

ugh a lot of amendments and we're moving language it's not even amendments but language and we're moving fairly quickly and I want to say thank you to all the staff and to the members for their patients including Miss dangle who is looking for Amendment and paying attention to our work all corect I think next is 61 well thank you madam chair well maybe I'll just describe uh uh sr38 very briefly and then maybe we can review it next time but oh you're going to have it I'll I'll wait then all right

uh Madam chair I'd um then like to propose um sr61 Madam chair as as you know Senator Russ talked about we have staff on the floor with members who you know if members can have water they should have water we have our staff on the floor on a on a constant basis and yet our rules say they may only be um and I was I had it right here um at the at the request at the invitation of a member and I think we should just recognize uh that our staff should have access to the senate floor as they are supp

orting all the members and the work of the uh of the committee and then move some of the other um folks who have automatic access to be at the at the invitation of a member um and so just to I think modernize and update and um restructurer lie um who's on the floor during our debates thank you Senator rest um in this proposal would you consider um interns um under the definition of Senate statute Senator Pratt thank you madam they're currently not no maybe they AR thank you madam president Senat

or rest I would and I would also you know I had the same thought when you were presenting one of the amendments about staff on our pages and I didn't know if they would be classified as staff or not but I'd want to make sure that they work right but I think I think um but I think our intern should have that's part of the experience just maybe have a a less General word than staff that would be I would ask a question have you considered having a more specific definition of sta thank you Senator P

ratt Senator drowsky oh I'm sorry Senator dble just a a quick uh question this may not and maybe I missed it what is the effect of the change of moving the Constitutional officers ex-governors Etc uh down to 15.3 and adding the qualifier personally admitted by a member of the Senate Senator Pratt thank you madam president Senator dible um when we're debating a bill when we're when we're in session it's a very busy place to be um I think that there are enough there are enough opportunities for us

to have that conversation with a constitutional officer um and I would you know I would think back I believe there was uh a former a former member who was on on the floor during a debate when they were intimately involved in a bill that was under debate and they should be admitted with the invitation of a member right the floor is for our for our work to get done um and if a member wants to have a constitutional officer then they can invite them into our chamber um and that's fine but otherwise

those conversations should be happening outside the chamber Senator rest mam chair and Senator Pratt I don't remember recall anyone inviting the governor in to watch our debate are no and I won't Express an opinion but I just wanted if you recall any instance in which the governor of this state has stood in the back next to us and our staff to watch a debate Madam chair Senator Bratt thank you madam chair I do not recall that happening I'm not saying it didn't because uh sometimes as you know I

I get a little I get a little wrapped up in what I'm doing but um I would say that I don't know that a governor should be standing in the back during our debates unless they've been invited in by a member Senator rest we not debating even though I may agree Senator J Kowski mam chair thank you I I don't know if we uh if we formally submitted Sr 38-1 yet we talked about it did it come yet Sr 38-1 still works is it it's not here yet still we're delaying we're delaying it until it's ready thank yo

u thank you okay so then we're up to sr57 and then sr45 is on Deck thank you for the and de 57 then 45 then 46 and [Applause] 67 I'm just working for my notes Madam chair sr57 clarifies engrossing of amendments and amendments to the amendment start making my head spin please proceed um I'm gonna have Miss tangle talk about this one miss dangle thank you madam chair and Senator drowsky this is a complicated situation that happens sometimes on the floor because we don't live engross our amendments

when amendments are adopted and then amendments to amendments are adopted you can still further amend both of those but you can't easily see what's already happened so sometimes we find ourselves in a situation on the floor where we don't quite know what's happened um and so this just clarifies current practice um what already it says in Masons that an amendment to an amendment may be adopted once it's once it's already been adopted this also solves the problem of you can't amend an amendment t

o an amendment so you can't go three deep so if you're trying to amend an amendment adopt it and then you can go back and amend it again so anyhow it's a complicated and confusing situation sometimes tensions Run High and then people pull out their Masons so it's easier just to put it in the Senate rule to clarify what's going on Senator drowsky mam chair thank you thank you Miss stingle I've just had an idea Miss stingle I wanted to run this by you um what if we preface the language there on 1.

21 with um words to the effect of the resulting language affected by to make it clearer would that be helpful or am I thinking something else uh Senator drowsky this is language that we worked closely with um engrossing secretary Mapes on so I'd like to have that conversation with her as well so okay I'm just looking I just think if we preface it somehow to give a little context up front it will make it clear for us reading the rule down the future if we adopt it thank you mam chair thank you Se

nator Dr Kowski Senator Pratt thank you madam chair and uh members I'd like to introduce sr45 this might be the simplest one we deal with all day um this basically says that uh all documentation On A bill must be in permanent ink um we've heard uh um that members have signed in pencil erased it um that we want to make sure that uh there is a standard that um pencil is not an acceptable way to be documenting either your authorship or the result of of action taken on a bill or um that all all of t

hat official action must be done in permanent a thank you Senator Pratt Senator rest so Senator Pratt do do you really mean um signatures um or this rule says thank you must be written in permanent Inc um do you mean would would you consider saying signed I'm sorry I didn't would you consider saying signed in permanent Inc rather than um written because um I have heard of the practice of members or staff signing a member's name that is not the member Senator Pratt thank you Madame chair and Sena

tor rest I'd be happy to have that conversation with you offline we kept written because it was in the existing rules please do thank you thank you senator okay Senator rest next is 46 I believe sr46 yes sr46 Madam chair thank you and follow by 67 68 63 and finally 64 um sr46 uh says a bill a bill proposing Constitutional Amendments must be referred to rules that's what it says Madam chair Senator josi excuse me Senator Pratt thank you madam chair um I believe this is the current practice of the

Senate we just wanted to memorialize it in rules thank you then Madam M chair oh Senator W oh sorry you're not suggesting that the um committee on rules and administration be the committee of origin however is that correct if you jow mam chair if you read the rules uh the answer or if you read the language I believe the answer is no it says before passage it needs to be sent pass thank not thank you and then Madam shair Senator Pratt thank you I'd like to introduce Sr 67 thank you how many tree

s did you cut down huh okay Senator Pratt when you're ready thank you uh I'm just making sure the numbers match um so uh Madam Madam chair this strikes the uh General strikes uh the general fund Target Announcement by the majority leader or Finance chair uh Senate budget targets must be adopted by the committee on rules and administration uh before they're in effect thank you Senator Pratt 68 Senator drowsky um I'm I have to read the language Madam chair here it comes okay this is this amends ru

le 7.2 um dealing with an announcement um I don't know those Senate rules as well as many of you do um this is budget Target announcements um it says so it adds on to our existing language says the announcement must reflect only the Senate's general fund budget targets and cannot reflect the budget targets of the House of Representatives a public announcement of budget targets made by a member of the House of Representatives or the executive branch does not not constitute a public announcement u

nder this Rule and I believe this was drafted in response to some lack of clarity among what the what the U Senate's um Target was specifically last session Madam chair thank you Senator drowsky Senator rest uh thank you very much what if the house and the Senate agree on joint targets um um would the um announcement from the Senate even if it's a joint Target include only mention of the Senate even if it's an agreement between the house and the Senate to have joint targets Senator Jess I think

we'll we'll take that one back to the workshop and and Senator rest have that conversation yeah thank you I think it's a good good question and uh let's let's put it in the workshop and go back thank you thank you m chair Madam chair not not to be debating this but uh I Senator rest I believe the the premise of this is that the targets that we're setting are Senate targets and while they may be equal to those in the house the speaker should not be announcing our [Music] Target thank you Senator

Pratt Madam Madam I keep wanting to call you madam president Madam chair uh I would like to offer the uh a 63 Amendment proceed when you're ready Senator Madam president Madam chair I knew I was going to do that um and wait for a crown so [Laughter] often uh so often we hear you know our our staff lets us know what's coming up uh on special special orders but it's often not uh announced to the the public um there's no way for members to look up what's coming up and so what this says is to the ex

tent practical a list of bills designated to special orders must be made publicly available on this Senate's website prior to convening that day Senator rest thank you what about a bill that is uh would be on that list that is then pulled from special orders um how early must that announcement be given I would ask you to consider Madam chair and and Senator rest I would think that it would follow much like we talked about in the Committees where there's no prohibition from pulling a bill from sp

ecial orders it's putting a bill up for Action that we're most concerned about thank you thank you Senator Pratt Senator R I think Senator rowski has the last one the last one Madam chair is Sr 64 64 38 and 38 still coming or we might be able to Des cribe 38 and then put the language on the pile Adam chair if that works you'd like to proceed with SRO 64 Senator address housee okay thank you madam chair sr64 uh strikes in uh rule 3611 uh or at an earlier agreed Time by a majority of the whole Sen

ate what this so this is about the debate on a report of a conference committee you can read the language there see Senator rest so uh does this mean that even though we don't have it um in front of us um we um if 34 members say we want to talk about about something that's not in front of us or a conference committee report that we would be allowed to proceed to do so I I think Senator I think Madam chair and Senator rest I think this was put together um or not not allowed I'm sorry not allowed

I think this amendment was drafted in response to frustration that members have by the speed at which um the Senate was was operating around these conference committee reports in past sessions and um it just seems um like it's responsible for us to find a way whether this is it or some other way to make certain that every Senator knows and can see and understand what is being debated before we move forward and suddenly uh we're moving too far into a debate or a vote thank you thank you senator K

owski so we're pausing on M chair I'll just talk about uh sr38 very quickly and like I say if Mr bod wants to to weigh in but uh it places in Senate rues some boil boilerplate resolutions uh adopted prior to every every interim um rules may study and investigate rules may fill vacancies rules must set comp and appoint employees and allows the secretary to pay election and litigation expenses we think this is a fairly technical Amendment and when we get the language I'm sure it'll it'll Senator R

uss will have a question we are not debating yes ma'am but I'm writing yes or no on each one that's contemplation I'm sure when we have our offline discussion there might be some debate Senor PR we [Applause] do uh I think I've I've described it and I'll just be open to any questions okay I'll invite secretary B if he has any questions I can't read that fast I do have a question Senator rest so does this proposal come also as a proposal um as a best practice from some other body or National Orga

nization Madam chair and Senator and uh Senator rust I don't know okay I think we just looked at it as what we thought fit ours and we can certainly take Senator J Kowski thank you madam chair if it's if it's helpful for Senator rest of the Amendments that we offered the only one that I know of where we looked elsewhere to find these was that Montana example okay that's the only one I'm aware of okay thank you madam chair there any other ideas I do have a senator how many of the ones that you've

presented today have been offered by either caucus um in previous adoption of uh rules many of them few of them or you don't know uh Madam chair and senat rest I think I could say that uh I know that some of them were I recall quite lengthy debate but I couldn't tell you if if it qualifies as few or many just curious I like some all right I I want to say thank you um for this has been great uh what is you know not a debate but a really thoughtful opening on the question of rules um and for uh t

he work to put a lot of ideas in front of us uh good ideas from both sides uh we will uh come back in another subcommittee uh I will I I'm thinking through the process but don't want to talk about it yet because it's not clear to me but we'll talk with members on the next step so that we all come in the next meeting with clarity about how we're going to operate um because there's a lot of material here here um I want to give all of it it's due um and I and as I hear you already uh setting up it'

ll be useful to talk uh to each other between now and when we meet again um and our staff of course are available Miss dangle um secretary B and others uh with questions that any of us might have and without without any further action before us members I'd like to say thank you again and please enjoy the rest of this sunny day and with that the subcommittee is [Music] adjourned