Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to protect personal information of UI and paid‑leave administrative judges amid concerns about language breadth
Summary
Lawmakers advanced House File 37 07 to extend protections for personal information to unemployment‑insurance and paid‑leave administrative judges and certain staff after testimony about harassment; lawmakers asked for narrower statutory language and the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further drafting.
Representative Berg told the committee that House File 37 07 would expand existing privacy protections to administrative judges who handle unemployment‑insurance and paid‑leave cases, citing instances of harassment and threats to staff safety. "We want people to be safe," Berg said, arguing the statute should allow affected judicial officials to request removal of public personal information.
Devin Baldry, a government relations director at the Department of Employment and Economic Development, said the proposal is fundamentally about personnel safety and would add UI and paid‑leave judges to the statute’s definition of judges; lines in the draft bill (noted by Baldry) define which personal information may not be publicly shared and clarify that accidental disclosures are not covered.
Sydney Speck of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE), which represents thousands of state employees including administrative judges, urged support and described the proposal as an update to existing law to allow officials to request removal of public personal information.
Committee members expressed support for the bill’s intent but worried the draft language as written could be broader than intended, possibly covering call‑center staff and other employees who are not adjudicators. Representative Dave Baker and others said they wanted to ensure the statute is tailored to protect judges and relevant adjudicative staff without unintentionally shielding employees who are not at similar risk. Baldry said the language could be tailored and acknowledged the agency’s interest in protecting judges and staff who deliver sensitive determinations.
Representative Berg moved that the committee recommend the bill for referral to the Judiciary Committee so authors and agency staff can refine the language; the motion passed by voice vote. Members said they may request the bill return to this committee for a quick review after judiciary takes its amendments.
What happens next: House File 37 07 was recommended for referral to the Judiciary Committee for further drafting to narrow and clarify statutory language.
