Education Finance and Policy Committee - 05/04/2022

and the senate finance and policy education committee will now come to order and for the record we have a quorum today we have senate file 2307 and senator matthews this is a debt of privacy and i might add for the record that we want to do this quickly because we want to be outside okay so keep that in mind um all right so senator matthews first i think you want to since this isn't your first committee you want to um talk about your bill quickly and then we have an amendment yes uh mr chair i will and i'll keep your timing advice in mind as well thank you uh so members we have senate file 2307 a little history on where it's come so far is this is a bill uh to help with uh the technology that can be utilized in our schools uh with our students and to put some privacy protection in place on our student data i want to thank you mr chair and the committee for uh hearing this after deadline i want to thank my colleague senator bigham who is the initial chief author on this did a fantastic job getting it through the civil law committee before we switched authors i also want to thank my house authors as well we've been working closely to get this across the finish line the bill as it started mainly had two topics that we're trying to address one was some student and parent protections for their curriculum the original version had opt-out clauses to allow parents the right to opt out if they had concerns over the way data was being used in curriculum and the second part of the bill was about surveillance and putting some protections and guard rails around the ability to surveil student usage of electronic devices and so forth particularly while outside of classroom hours in working on this legislation we've agreed to essentially drop and tone way down that first part the opt out provision of this bill you gave a lot of guidance to that mr chair worked with many of the members and stakeholders on this we are still specifically trying to get at uh some protections of the second piece of the bill uh the surveillance piece so the first section and then this will be in the a9 amendment uh when we officially move that but the the opt-outs essentially being replaced with a notice provision to give parents uh the avenue to go uh when they need to raise concerns or questions allow their voice to be heard on that but the the full-blown opt-out piece uh is no longer in the bill and then the the second section that's uh that language is on page three of the a9 amendment and then page four has no page three as well also has the the technology and surveillance piece to it so this has gone through a number of conversations number of stakeholders that are here to share it technology advances faster than our ability to regulate it and this is particularly true in our schools the pandemic dramatically expanded the use of school-issued devices with surveillance capabilities and new tools are able to scan volumes of our students emails chat messages files and work we've worked really hard with the stakeholders over the history of this bill this has evolved over many many rounds of revisions and this version is to ensure that schools are not unduly inhibited in their use of the software they rely on but still have some protections in place for students and families so that's kind of a brief history and overview of the bill the path that it's taken i i believed we had enough of an agreement worked on it behind the scenes all session i believe we were close enough that i granted a hearing in the civil law committee on the final week before deadline we had a very very thorough and expansive discussion in the civil law committee and then since deadline we've made a stop in rules and now then i greatly appreciate you granting a late hearing to this bill mr chair so with that i'm ready to answer any questions or ask the committee to move the a9 amendment or proceed how you would like yeah i don't mind the bill i'd but you bugged me hard enough so not that it works all the time so um yeah we'll have senator wieger move the 89 amendment and you kind of went over the bill is there anything else we have to did you want to summarize the a9 amendment or anything else in there i'll point out mr chair thank you i know you had a couple of things you talked to me about that you changed i just want to just a couple of changes that came up recently page 2 line 24. was a discussion with some of our technology companies this is a change from previous versions of the bill that said 30 days they raised concerns that requiring them to destroy data within 30 days could cause problems in certain cases that they laid out i've decided to settle on 90 days i believe you were in support of that number mr chair make sure that they had adequate time especially if they're renewing the contract and that may lapse for a few days before a contract is renewed not wanting them to force them to destroy data right before they re-up for another term with a school so that was one recent change page three at the top line one through five was another uh recent change to make sure that we weren't catching simply web-based cloud services into into this rule about not using data for commercial purposes because a cloud service essentially does not perform that function anyways and didn't wanted to make sure that nothing was read in a way that would negatively apply to them they've essentially described themselves as the storage container that that data is stored in rather than being an actual technology provider and then let me make sure i find it here mr chair page 3 line 14 is the notice provision that replaces the opt out that section and following provides giving notice and then line 3.22 directing them to allow parents and students where to direct questions and concerns over it and then subdivision 14 at the bottom of page 3 and into page 4 is the language on on the monitoring piece of the amendment all right members any questions on this but the thing i see is just i mean it's it's good and thank you for making those fixes and working with the school orgs to tighten it up a bit we don't want to put any undue burdens on the schools but this is a lot better than what it was and it still i think gets to the point that the child's information because they're in school and using these devices is the child's information and not to be used commercially or exploited in any way commercially by anyone it's protected it's private it's for a particular purpose and not for making profit or anything else so good it's really a good idea so with that members um we are going to adopt the a9 amendment all in favor of the a9 amendment say aye aye opposed okay that was kind of weak but i think it was there so um we have a couple testifiers we have uh mr anthony pad pedro nos anthony uh are you here okay welcome to the committee please state your name who you're with for the record good afternoon chair chamberlain and committee i'm anthony paternus the executive director of technology for osseo area schools i'm here today as a former teacher current district administrator and parent of school-aged children to speak on behalf of ossuary schools the minnesota association of school administrators and the minnesota k-12 technology leaders regarding this bill technology is inevitable in our society including schools it creates conditions in education to innovate and have efficiencies in operation and instruction to invest more time on our scholars learning as they need it we also must prioritize information security and privacy while balancing instructional and operational needs this bill as currently amended moves this direction by holding technology companies accountable and to high standards with data and privacy while providing education professionals with the ability to use technology to meet learning needs as school leaders we share a common interest in digital security and privacy and we have been working diligently for years to increase these protections for scholars families and staff when it comes to district issued technology and technology systems this is a priority that keeps many of us up at night this bill with the current amendments as proposed by senator matthews provides a statewide structure to strengthen the work many school technology leaders across minnesota have been independently engaging in through technology vendor contract negotiations to ensure security and privacy protections of our scholars in digital spaces as public schools we have the charge of delivering high quality instruction to develop scholars in minnesota to be successful and productive members of our communities instructional delivery has changed over the years and technology has been foundational to create effective methods of adapt adaptions to meet the individualized needs of our scholars for example many school districts have moved away from traditional textbooks to digital instructional resources that are adaptive to different scholars learning needs and provide anytime anywhere access to learning i want to thank senator matthews and others for their engagement and collaboration with concerns we've had with this bill in order to ensure schools can deliver on our charge in education and meet our common interest of greater digital security and privacy protections in the increasingly digital landscape of education we look forward to continued partnership as this bill moves through the process and any additional language changes that may be presented our interest continues to be that education professionals are able to effectively use digital tools that enriches enhances and produces high quality learning experiences for our scholars ensures effective operations of schools ensures the ability to meet state and federal laws ensures cyber security and ensures the safety of our scholars with district provided technology and technology systems education professionals have a different need and interest in digital data than technology companies who develop the products and services we utilize thank you chair chamberlain and committee for your time this afternoon thank you mr pettiness so just just to make sure this is workable oh mister you got to come back i know i wanted to be quick but um so just to just to confirm the the changes are workable for for the technology departments in the schools yes the current language as as amended and proposed is workable for for our functions as educators and the technology professionals to help ensure that the systems work our greatest challenge and concern that we had and worked with with many stakeholders on this was really around that that opt out language we have core systems that you know are essential for the delivery of instruction as well as offer operations in terms of managing grades and systems and schedules and transportation and so forth and so those concerns have been addressed as we look at the current language as proposed and thank at the not thank available next up miss caitlin snyder and then mr liddell he's online i believe a remote i should say welcome please state your name and you know how to go about this good afternoon mr chair and members my name is caitlin snyder with education minnesota we represent over 86 000 educators across every school district including 463 local unions across the state education minnesota supports senate file 2307 we share concerns about off-campus monitoring of student conduct and the gendered and racial dimensions that may unintentionally take we would not support legislation that will make it harder for educators to do their jobs in minnesota school is not optional and fortunately most students attend public schools among the responsibilities that schools and educators have is to respect and protect the privacy of students and their families this bill requires that the technology vendors who receive our students data in the course of providing school information services and curriculum abide by the same rules that schools do this bill limits tracking of students by tech vendors make sure student data remains private and prohibits the sale of student information it would also require districts informed families about their students privacy rights this bill protects students from unwanted unwarranted surveillance we have come a long way from students periodically visiting a computer lab students are often sent home with laptops tablets or obligations to communicate electronically on their own devices when the devices they carry are school issued devices they are often equipped with all manner of monitoring software such that individual words that students use can generate a flag for someone to review while the proponents of this surveillance assert that it is necessary to prevent bullying or help with mental health needs it can also be a super highway for racially biased behavior referrals and intrusions into students personal discussions about their identities there is research showing that schools with a higher number of students of color are more likely to have a range of security measures that is in a word troubling worse yet researchers have found that relying on surveillance contributes to racial inequities in school discipline academic achievement high school graduation rate and involvement in the criminal justice system lastly this bill will not necessitate greater work for educators it is the responsibility of every adult in a school curriculum instructors tech directors superintendents principals teachers and education support professionals to provide for the learning of our students educators and administrators will jointly collaborate to meet the requirements of this bill for these reasons and more we are happy to support senate file 2307 thank you for your time thank you miss snyder i um i did have oh you can answer this question if you want maybe mr pattners could come back too but um is it your opinion as well that the other concern we had was trying to balance is that schools are also obligated to protect you mentioned bullying protect students from unwanted harassment or we'll just talk about health and safety of the kids so being on these devices and having access to the internet a lot of bad stuff floats around out there gets sent back and forth for whatever reason between students or coming from the outside in so it's your opinion that the way this is written that will that balances the need for privacy against that need for protection uh for the health and safety of the kids and the obligations of the school does that make sense or should i have mr patterns um thank you senator chamberlain my only hesitation in answering is that i saw the amendment just before committee i've talked with our attorney about it so the underlining bill language we think absolutely protected um the privacy concerns while also being able to implement requirements under state and federal law so assuming that language was maintained which i'm sure it was yes okay thank you ms snyder mr penis would you mind coming back up and answering that question quick so i'll kind of go over it again so in your opinion this has to do with health and safety that was one of our thoughts here too so in your opinion you had already mentioned a balanced issue before as far as providing services does this offer the right balance to be able to protect the health and safety of students in accordance with the state federal laws and you know we still have to monitor and the school still has to monitor and track to an extent it's still school property and school wires and systems so to help balance and you're still able to provide for the health and safety of the kids and protect them from stuff yes as we've reviewed the language as the monitoring languages change that was another area of concern that we had brought up very early on the there was additions brought in um very early around allowing districts and district personnel to be able to continue monitoring to meet state law federal law and e-rate funding programs which also uh requires us to file the follow the child internet protection act so that would include our authority to continue to monitor for the minnesota bullying act and other legislation around that and safe and supportive schools as well as the the federal laws around child internet protection so the way that we are reading this and interpreting this language now it is allowing our authority um to still be able to maintain that from district employees and and district personnel while it does give tighter requirements to vendors on what they can and can't access from a monitoring situation thank you very much appreciate that and we have um senator matthews did you have a comment just to that point mr chair um i turn the committee's attention to page four uh where some of these uh items are listed out that you're discussing uh a list of when when surveillance can be allowed some of them i'll highlight are some of the things you mentioned line 4.15

activities necessary to respond to an imminent threat to life or safety number five on 17 and 18 comply with federal or state law uh number six below it is the e-rate program some of these are spelled out that was our intention and so far i believe that we've struck that balance with all the stakeholders thank you very much senator matthews so um mr i'm sorry andrew little liddell you're online remote welcome to committee please state your name for the record you may begin uh thank you mr chair um good afternoon church chamberlain and senators my name is andrew liddell and i'm a technology lawyer and digital rights activist from austin texas where i live with my wife and two young kids today's actually my daughter's seventh birthday so i'm in just as much hurry to get out of here as you all are from 2018 through early 21 i co-founded and ran a privacy and health focus education technology startup and i also co-founded the student data privacy project which is a grassroots parent effort to understand what information has been collected about our kids by tech vendors at school and what's being done with it so i speak from experience when i say that today's digital products including those used in school collect a staggering amount of information about their users and that information is usually used against those users for someone else's benefit and that's by design for 20 years early stage investors have embraced both the surveillance business model and the move fast and break things approach to all things digital new companies are incentivized to collect as much information as they can use that information however they please to make as much money as they can and externalize the costs to the user education technology vendors are often no exception the information collected through school platforms includes demographic information including information about age sex race sexual orientation and religious affiliation it includes grades for every assignment and attendance and disciplinary records going back to kindergarten it includes includes every search every website you visit and every person you interact with it also includes every mouse movement how long you linger on an image or a test question truly every single thing you do on a computer all this information is fed into an algorithm that is used to build a digital model of you and this digital you not only determines what you experience in the digital world but also what opportunities you have in the real world some applications are even able to monitor students activities in real time or in virtually real time through their school issue devices even while students are not at school sometimes this is the purpose of the application much more often is because applications are built quickly are poorly vetted and are embedded with other company software designed to collect personal information for marketing purposes and transmit that information to data brokers who sell it on the open market a may 2021 report by digital researchers at the media b alliance showed that as many as two-thirds of applications used in k-12 schools leak student information in this way everything a child does on a computer for the 13 years they're in school is subject to being collected in this way this vast trove presents risks for hackers digital profiles of children are sold in the dark web and are especially valuable because they enable criminals to open up credit cards and bank accounts in the child's name as soon as they turn 18. school districts and education technology companies are known to have some of the weakest cyber security defenses so we have a situation where the most valuable information is in the possession of those least able to keep it safe cybercrime notwithstanding i'm most concerned about how the currently legal uses of this information are shaping this generation of young people these digital models of our kids are used in life-altering ways including to determine which students will be recruited by a selective college and which will be referred to the local police currently there are no practical limits on how this information is used and no assurances that this information is accurate before it is disclosed to those who make life-changing decisions about our kids futures other uses are concerning as well just yesterday vice reported that that in 2021 a federal agency bought location data from a data broker called safegraf representing tens of millions of devices and almost inc certainly including the data of children collected through school issue devices belonging to visitors to k-12 schools and churches as part of a plan to enforce curfews during the pandemic even those of us highly sympathetic to the need to protect vulnerable vulnerable people during the pandemic should stop short when a federal agency decides on its own that it can surveil u.s citizens for whatever purposes it sees fit without oversight or disclosure this current paradigm places kids at substantial risk and denies them both a childhood and a future for all of us who came of age before the internet childhood and young adulthood was a time of becoming you made mistakes you said hurtful things but hopefully you learn from them and grew into a better person now everything you do on a computer from kindergarten to graduation is kept potentially forever to develop a digital version of you that may bear little resemblance to the person you actually are or want to become and to be used against you by insurance companies healthcare companies and institutions of higher education i'm not being paid to be here today i'm here because today's polluted digital ecosystem is hurting my kids their friends and everyone in their generation in material and lasting ways and i want to help clean it up others representing i.t professionals and school administrators have testified against this bill that i'm pleased to see that come around um about how useful they find today's technology and about how hard it would be to make substantive change but perceived efficacy and convenience to the administrative stakeholders should not be the only considerations ddt was great at killing mosquitoes but it also killed a great number of children so it's taken off the market asbestos is an excellent insulator against those cold minnesota winners but it gives people cancer so we don't use it in new school buildings and we remediate old ones lead paint with stands scratches and scuffs better than other formulations but kids like to eat it and they gave them brain damage so you can't buy lead paint anymore pesticides insulation and paint still exists of course just without the harmful additives proven to hurt children in the digital context the harmful additive is surveillance parents should have the right to determine whether to expose their kids to applications that surveil them constantly and to not have that decision forced upon them by the government in the form of a school district that may be putting its own needs first and pushing the costs off onto children and their families the consensus among cyber security researchers is that in the current digital environment there is no such thing as de-identified data given enough data points anyone can be identified and right now hundreds of thousands of data points will be collecting our children over their time in public school it's possible that in the current environment there are no actual alternatives to the surveillance status quo but if you legislate it and if you mandate change the market will provide those alternatives just as it did with pesticides paint and insulation all those years ago i think that sf 2307 is a good start to creating a healthier digital ecosystem for the school children of minnesota and i hope that someday texas falls is its example by legislating the student data is not the price the property of technology vendors and by limiting how that data can be used and by sharply curtailing the surveillance of students this bill safeguards the freedom and self-determination of the children of your state and i urge you to support it thank you thank you well that was concerning if not a little frightening to be reminded of why we're doing these things and addressing these issues um thank you mr liddell lydell um [Music] i'm going to ask ms gilbert did you have a thought you wanted to share mr chairman thank you just thought and i will be very brief as well and i uh i married gilbert doherty from the saint paul public schools and um i wanted to thank senator matthew because i did have a chance to talk i know we're not supposed to mention the other body over here but the chief author on the house side as well before and talk to senator matthew about potentially just doing a little bit of tweaking which we discuss which we we can work on uh lines 4.8 through 4.11. or 8 to 4 11.

we're turning there now hang on the um as you know saint paul public schools has had a one-on-one device for over 13 years um and we were actually well poised for our community uh when the pandemic hit and we had to go to virtual learning and as a result i mean i just want to assure you uh like mr pednos that we do have very tight contracts related to privacy and uh the provisions that are included in this bill are currently included in our contract as well as we do training for our staff and our students around digital uh citizenship on how to how to use the device in ways that won't result in bullying um or any other intended consequences um the the clarification or tweaking that i talked to senator matthews about um right now obviously teachers were working in our virtual school or any of our staff that are working with students that may be in quarantine right now and maybe getting their services virtually um the language on those lines limits it to just district employees or technical employees and then depending on how different attorneys read it different ways um imagine that um it does include vendor and which we were very happy to see because this was also included in the house amendment but we wanted to just make it clear that that's everybody's understanding that for example this committee has appropriated money for sena foundation to provide fellows who pr provide individual individual instruction in our district or reading in math core when you've also appropriated money for like the saint paul promise neighborhood where we have uh folks that are doing individual instruction directly with our students and they're using the ipad and they are accessing the information through the item so ms gilbert i'm gonna i'm gonna try to cut to the chase here so what boil it down to three sentences what are your what's your challenge here mr chairman we would uh like to just make it clear that vendor in the language would include them and make it clear that we're this language wouldn't exclude them because in this case they are not district employees so so you're talking about when you spoke to me you talked about third parties outside the school who are not employees of the school who sometimes have to have access to this technology that has this data correct correct but it would only be for non-commercial instructional use so wouldn't vendor fit into that so you mentioned senna or something someone else there could be they could be non-district employees that are that are have access to the school systems for particular reasons under a contract or whatever the case is that they can have access to that information would vendor not cover that though i mean like stand a foundation or something mr chairman it absolutely would the question that the attorney our attorney raised was that because it says or exam proctoring by staff contracted by a district or vendor that the vendor would only apply to to testing proctoring oh okay so we so we prefer so i read it exactly like you did and the way senator matthew did but like i said some attorneys said that that because of the ore there that the vendor only applies to to monitoring and that would be one of the clarifications okay i yeah i get it now senator matthews you have a thought otherwise we can go somewhere else uh mr chair that was a suggestion briefly mentioned right before perhaps just deleting that word or then makes everything a more clear listed area that vendors would then hopefully fall very neatly into that list so i'm open to that change so if we so if we remove the word or so it would read technical just support by district employees or exam proctoring by staff contracted by the district a vendor the department of education and notices provided in advance yeah what show are you speaking of the one after vendor mr chairman the one after um district employees okay so i'll read that again and see if that makes any sense so paragraph b blah blah blah blah can can engage in the activities only engage in activities prohibited in paragraph aef activity is limited to a non-commercial educational purpose for things for instruction by district employees comma technical support staff by district employees comma exam proctoring by staff contacted by a district a vendor or department of education is that make it work we should ask the expert over here henry is that does that make sense ms murray what we're trying to do they're trying to clarify that vendors are not third parties like santa would not be excluded that they could be part of this yet mr chair and members on line 4.9 i think the amendment would only need to strike or delete the ore on that line you can keep the other or at the end for all right great thank you and mr chairman one other really brief issue would be um a student teacher that might be working all year with our staff also is kind of a weird character they're not exactly district employees and they're not exactly vendors either so if we would include a student teacher that's under the supervision of the district or the school that would help clarify that as well so what you're suggesting ms gilbert is we would have to add student teacher in this language right mr chairman correct and i've spoken with senator matthews about that as well is that okay with you senator matthews mr chair yes okay so where would we miss miss anne-marie um mr chair and members uh to add a student teacher i would suggest um perhaps 4.9 then this will go along with the previous amendment discussed on 4.9 delete or and insert student teachers comma okay okay that makes sense thank you ms lewis um okay so here's i should have had you you got it okay here's here's what we're going to propose for an oral amendment uh starting on line 4.9 district employees comma technical support by district employees comma in strike or insert student teachers comma then we go on with exam proctoring by staff does that ever make sense everybody okay good so um i'll make that if you are you okay with it senator matthews mr chair yes okay all right so that's what we're gonna do everybody understand it that's the oral amendment to this amendment amendment all in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed all right good so we got that so thank you miss gilbert thank you judy um all right those are all the testifiers members any questions senator wieger yes sir mr chairman just to re-echo the appreciation for senator matthews bigam and all the others that have worked so hard on this uh one quick question perhaps so on the sub section 4 subdivision 15 there's an exemption for post-secondary institutions i'm wondering because we have students getting college credits in high school whether it's college in the schools at the university of minnesota where they're actually at their high school or some other type program is this exemption but potentially a loophole post-secondary institution exempt from 13-14 this exemption extends senator matthews any comment on that mr chair senator wieger could you point me to the line again mr chair uh page five uh i'm on the amendment and line five the application of post-secondary institutions there's an exemption and at 5.4 it refers to an exemption for post-secondary institutions so your question senator wieger is is that a potential loophole because they uh it's an exempt a post-secondary institution is exempt from subject 1314 and sent a technology provider for purpose of a contract with so um so does that make sense senator matthews mr chair i'm going to ask ms julia decker to come up and try to help answer senator wieger's question this is miss who mr chair julia decker policy director for the aclu of minnesota all right okay thank you welcome uh mr chair senator uh that the intention there is that it simply doesn't apply to any device or technology contract in between a post-secondary institution or a device that's issued by a post-secondary institution so if we're talking about if if a student is using a device that's issued by a non-post-secondary public institution then it is covered by this bill if it is a contract between a public school and a technology provider and the school is not a post-secondary institution then they are covered by this bill but if we're talking about contracts between a post-secondary institution and a technology provider that's not covered by this bill if it's a device issued to a student by a post-secondary institution that's not covered by this bill senator wieger oh this mr chair i want to think a little bit more about it i'm you want to protect you know the students who are focused on the the uh up to 12th grade i imagine but we have students that are enrolled in college you know getting credits and you know just the exemption for post-secondary institutions caught my curiosity where you you could have uh 10th graders 11th graders 12th graders so let's pursue it offline and there'll be other opportunities to address thank you senator wieger i i would agree with you i mean i get it so u of m that they've doing pseo or something through uf u of m they're there u of m gives him the device u of m this does not apply to that institution so it could possibly be in a limited way senator miss chairman senator matthews or ms decker do you know how many other states have similar uh laws in place senator likely who's being proposed here who wants that one mr chair senator rieger um this would be at the sort of vanguard the front of some of the most protective student data privacy laws there are other student data privacy laws uh in other states um but we feel this this would be one of the most protective excellent final question yes senator rieger and i do support the bill the i believe the civil penalties are in 1308 criminal in 1309 so that's the civil would be 1 000 per violation up to 15 000 i believe criminal i believe is misdemeanor talk more about that perhaps senator matthews mr chair and senator wieger yes and you're catching me trying to recall off recollection but that is what would be provided under the data practices act in the state of minnesota so it would whatever the penalties are are provided for just generally under data practices would be directly applied here i'm blanking on exactly what the amount is for each uh each lane of of a fence but they would they would essentially match with the rest of the data privacy chapter all right thank you thank you well that makes sense all right that's quite enough on this thank you miss decker appreciate it um so i might i'll just go ahead send you any closing comments senator mr chair uh thank you for this hearing um we're essentially trying to get at protection against surveillance and tracking and the way i've i've approached this bill since working with senator bigam on it and then since taking it over is kind of under the general philosophy that we're all having to address in many areas of life right now with technology is just because you can doesn't mean you should trying to thread that that needle of uh how we how we uh make these laws and and draw that line in this area so i appreciate your time mr chairman thank you senator matthews um i was just reading too i came across a thing some people might be familiar with is they're starting to talk about too much technology in the classroom that it actually inhibits in cases you know good learning and experiences and growth and that some educators i've read prefer you know getting them away from all those devices and the best times i have is when they're able to sit outside and study and do their work and then they're not paying attention to their devices hopefully as much or using other electronics i mean still have their phones which is a problem but just technology is a tool to educate it can be useful can be helpful but people are starting to rethink how much of that we need to use and how much is too much to your kind of your point so i thank you for doing this and getting it right i think it's a great idea and if we're in the vanguard of this it's uh it's a great thing i'm glad you could work it out with the schools and others so um members are going to be voting on this everybody else ready to do that all those uh colleagues of mine if you're at home and you can turn on your screen so i can get a or your audio yeah so the motion is going to be uh uh to approve senate file 2307 as amended recommended pass and send it to general orders all right all in favor of that say aye hi opposed great unanimous thank you senator matthews and thank you members for and all the testifiers for joining us for one late um hearing so with that we are adjourned thank you very much thank you mr chair and members [Music] you

2022-05-10 12:23

Other news