Committee update - Minnesota State Legislature

usiness subsidy law enacted in the
1999 legislative session. The bill was
laid over for further discussion.
Workers comp bill okayed
A bill making the first major changes
in the workers compensation system
since the overhaul of the system in
1995, was approved at the Weds., Mar.
1, evening hearing of the Jobs, Energy
and Community Development Committee.
S.F. 3644, authored by Committee
Chair Steven Novak (DFL-New
Brighton), increases benefits, clarifies
language, provides for a transfer of the
assigned risk plan surplus to the special
compensation fund for purposes of
reducing the liabilities of the second
injury and supplementary benefits
programs, provides for a reduction in
the assessment made on insurers and
self-insured employers by the special
compensation fund and modifies various
other workers compensation provisions.
Novak said the bill encompasses
changes amounting to about $355
million.
Bernard Brommer, president of the
Minnesota AFL-CIO, and David Olson,
president of the Minnesota Chamber of
Commerce, spoke in support of the bill.
Brommer said the bill is the work of the
Workers Compensation Advisory
Council, of which he and Olson are cochairs,
and represents a good faith
process to come up with a bill upon
which both labor and employers could
agree. “We look at this as a win-win
situation,” Brommer said, “ there are
benefit increases for workers and cost
savings for employers.” Olson said he
wanted to emphasize the business
community’s support of the Advisory
Council process. “Each year we agree to
recommend one bill. It is an arduous
process to get to this point, and we urge
support of the bill, Olson said.
Members adopted two amendments
offered by Novak. The first clarifies the
nonseverability provisions in the bill.
The second makes changes to the limits
on attorney’s fees contained in the
measure. The bill was approved and
advanced to the Senate floor.
In other action, the panel approved
two addition bills relating to worker
safety. S.F. 295, authored by Sen. John
Marty (DFL-Roseville), provides a civil
remedy to injured workers if an employer
violated safety laws. Currently,
workers’ compensation remedies usually
exclude recovery for damages in a civil
lawsuit. Marty said the bill addresses an
issue that shouldn’t be part of the
workers compensation system–those
instances where employers have broken
the law. A number of witnesses spoke in
support of the bill. Elizabeth Lambrecht
told of one of her sons being seriously
injured at a job site where there were
violations in safety procedures and then,
a week later, of another son being killed
at the same site under the same unsafe
conditions. Under current law, there
are no remedies available to the family.
“It is not about money,” Lambrecht said,
“but instead about employers having
safe working conditions.”
Tom Hesse, representing the Minnesota
Chamber of Commerce, spoke in
opposition. He said, “The bill undoes
the very foundation of the workers
compensation system.” Hesse added,
the system was developed to compensate
workers injured on the job without
having to file a lawsuit.
Randy Danielson, an injured worker,
said that the bill levels the playing field
for workers and allows those who have
been severely injured because of safety
violations to have a remedy.
Members approved the bill and
advanced the measure to the full
Senate.
The second bill, S.F. 3095, authored
by Sen. Mark Ourada (R-Buffalo),
provides for a presumptive penalty for
occupational safety violations related to
the death of an employee. An amendment,
offered by Sen. Steve Kelley
(DFL-Hopkins), raises the maximum
penalty of the fine for serious, willful, or
repeated violations that cause or
contribute to the death of an employee
from $70,000 to $200,000. The amendment
was adopted. The bill specifies a
minimum total fine of $50,000 for an
incident involving a willful or repeated
violation or $25,000 for an incident
that is not willful or repeated. Members
debated a sentence relating to the
factors the commissioner must consider
when reducing the minimum $25,000
fine for a serious violation. As a result,
members adopted an amendment,
offered by Sen. Linda Runbeck (R-
Circle Pines), including negligence of
the employee as one of the factors. The
bill was approved and advanced to the
Senate floor.
Judiciary
Data sharing bills heard
The Judiciary Subcommittee on Data
Privacy and Information Policy met
Thurs. evening, Feb. 24, to consider
three bills. Betzold, who chairs the
committee, explained that the panel
would focus only on policy issues
contained in the bills.
The first bill under consideration was
S.F. 2891, carried by Sen. Randy Kelly
(DFL-St. Paul). Kelly said he wanted to
expand the authority of educators and
probation officers to allow the transfer
of court dispositions regarding juvenile
offenders. Provisions allow for the
transfer of a court disposition order
from the juvenile’s probation officer to
the juvenile’s school, sent to either the
principal or chief administrative officer.
The measure also allows for ongoing
discussion about the juvenile by the
probation officer and the school official,
in order to ensure compliance with the
disposition order. The bill specifies
which crimes fall under the auspices of
the provisions, including an illegal act
committed on school property, or
committing certain types of acts ranging
from controlled substance crimes to
criminal sexual assaults to first-degree
murder. The bill was recommended to
pass and sent to the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Anthony “Tony” Kinkel (DFL-
Park Rapids) sponsored S.F. 3000, a bill
that incorporates privacy provisions of
the new federal financial services law,
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Under
provisions in the bill, financial institutions
are required to comply with
regulations mandated by federal law.
One of the provisions states that a
financial institution may not disclose
nonpublic personal information to a
nonaffiliated third party except with the
consent of the consumer, pursuant to
exceptions authorized under federal law,
or for the purpose of reporting a suspected
violation of law. Another
provision specifies the form requirements
for a valid consent. Kinkel said,
“The key to the bill is that the bill uses
an “opt in” and federal law requires an
“opt out” consent strategy. The consent
form must be written, signed and must
specify the time period under which the
consent remains valid, with a limit of
five years. The bill refers to definitions
27