Minnesota Legislature

Present: (Members) Stephen Baker, Jeanine Barker, Carmelo Bramante, Angela Burrs, Jeff Carlson, David Claypool, Michael Cunniff, Larry Dalien, Dennis Distad, Don Goedken, Marty Henschel, Bob Horton, Chuck Hoyum, Charles Jensch, Paul Kiltinen, Mary Kiffmeyer, Cindy Koosman, Denny Kron, Charles Krueger, Senator Warren Limmer, Richard Little, Gail Miller, Mark Monacelli, Bill Mori, Leonard Peterson, John Richards, Eileen Roberts, Deborah Thaw. (Guests) Bill Batcher, Randy Becker, Bert Black, Luci Botzek, Terri Duchenes, John Jones (via telephone hook-up), Erling Rood, Bob Schroeder, Lisa Skipton, Milton Valera.

1. Call to order

Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer called the meeting to order at 1:10 P.M.

2. Minutes

The minutes of the 17 August 2000 meeting were approved as distributed.

3. Review of efforts of other jurisdictions

Secretary Kiffmeyer noted that the task force’s mission was printed on the meeting agenda. It is open for revision, but will stand until suggestions to change it are made. The agenda also states the task force’s immediate objective, to make out a report for the legislature outlining a work plan and budget.

Bert Black described the efforts of other jurisdictions to study the question of electronic real estate recording. Tim Nolan, from Texas, forwarded copies of the rules and bill its study commission formulated and recommended. These have a narrow focus, emphasizing recording only. The rules have not yet been formally approved. The study effort was conducted using regular staff and without a special appropriation.

Black also spoke with Carl Ernst, who named four counties which are working with electronic real estate recording. These are Broward Co., FL; Maricopa Co., AZ; Orange Co., CA; and Salt Lake Co., UT. In each, virtually all the work was done with in house staff and resources.

California’s task force report was distributed at the meeting. The study was managed through the state’s Attorney General’s Office without an additional budget or staff. Carmen Bramante noted that this handout does not include the appendices to the report, which covered some significant issues.

Bob Horton noted that efforts have proven fruitless to get the head of the study effort in Virginia, Jack Kennedy of Wise County, to discuss his work. Bert Black will distribute copies of the products of Virginia’s study by email.

Black concluded by noting that all other efforts were in some way different from Minnesota’s, particularly in their focus. Minnesota was looking at a more comprehensive set of functions related to recording and at a state-wide application. In short, there is no model completely adequate for the Minnesota task force to follow.

4. Working session and brainstorming: issues to be covered by the group

Bill Mori noted that the law establishing the task force raised four areas of concern: technology, legal issues, cost and a timetable for implementation. He distributed a list classifying a variety of topics under those four categories.

Carmen Bramante raised an issue for clarification. The law calls for a study of "a state wide system." Does that imply a single system for the entire state or does it point to local government to adopt individual systems? The following discussion developed a consensus for the latter interpretation, although there was an emphasis on the need to develop compatible systems. John Richards noted that E-Sign might make it impossible to recommend specific hardware and software solutions.

From the counties’ perspective, the task force should respect local investments and should define what benefits will result from automation. Smaller counties might not gain the same benefits as larger ones; as well, they might not be able to bear the costs as effectively. Counties will also be likely to maintain two systems, both paper and electronic. One key concern should be data practices. Overall, an improved record keeping system and process should be the result of automation; the task force should point out the way to achieve that.

Senator Limmer said that the Legislature will expect some recommendations and it is likely that individual legislators will ask many of the same questions the task force is raising. The report should indicate what can be done now – i.e., how the system can be tweaked for improvements. The task force should stick to its mission, as defined in the law creating it. The goal should be to improve services to the consumers; these benefits should be articulated in order to justify the costs of automation. This is especially true as an investment in information technology will have significant financial tails.

Eileen Roberts said that solving these problems would be beneficial: the current system allows for conflicting legal descriptions of property; requires searching multiple sources; is based on 19^th century practices and principles; and makes it difficult to determine "who is who" in records.

Bert Black said that the report should define benefits in terms of outcomes and deliverables. Eileen Roberts added that outcomes could be classified under these four functions: intake, retrieval, searching and storage. Bill Mori suggested amending these to origination, delivery, filing, recording and retrieval.

Paul Kiltinen offered this summary of the discussion: "The task force should focus on the development of standards for electronic filing systems, which shall, should the counties choose, be implemented in Minnesota. These standards shall include mechanisms or requirements for easy access or transference of such recorded information from and to diverse locations which shall include origination, delivery, recording, confirmation, retrieval, payment, searching and storage."

John Richards moved and Carmen Bramante seconded that this statement should guide the task force as it moves forward to develop smaller work groups. The motion passed unanimously.

Eileen Roberts suggested that each member should use the statement as the basis for a commentary on the goals of the task force. The commentary should go over the issues from the perspective of the group, organization or interest which the member represents. The task force agreed that these should be forwarded to Bert Black, who will distribute them by email to the group as a whole.

To address the format of the task force’s report to the Legislature, these members volunteered to meet before the next session: Cindy Koosman, Richard Little, Mark Monacelli, Bob Horton, Bill Mori and Larry Dalien. The Secretary of State’s Office will arrange and coordinate their meeting.

David Claypool mentioned that the Land Records Modernization Committee has covered many of the same issues and would be a useful resource. Cindy Koosman noted that the Minnesota Association of County Officers was preparing a report on the status quo of information technology in the counties and that this could also prove useful.

5. Review of E-Sign/UETA/Recording Process Interface

Mike Cunniff reported on his conversation with the Hennepin Co. Attorney’s Office. E-Sign aims to encourage all states to deal with electronic commerce. This task force and the passage of UETA demonstrate that Minnesota is seriously addressing electronic commerce. If anyone tries to file electronically at a recorder’s office after 1 October, a recorder can refuse to accept such a filing and say that Minnesota is not ready to accept electronic records, but that it is working towards that goal.

Bert Black attended recently a national meeting on E-Sign. He underscored Cunniff’s report. E-Sign does not force governments to accept electronic records as of 1 October and it does not supersede any extant record keeping requirements in place. E-Sign includes an exemption for important government functions. It is unlikely that any office or state would be sued for not accepting electronic records as long as it is working towards automating its processes. Overall, though, it is preferable to develop procedures that mandate outcomes and deliverables rather than specifying particular hardware and software applications. The federal Department of Commerce is working on and will soon issue a set of guidelines for states working with UETA and E-Sign.

6. Next meeting: 12 October 2000, 9 AM

These are the action points for the next meeting. Bert Black will email copies of the reports from Virginia to task force members. Each member of the task force should email Bert Black a commentary on Paul Kiltinen’s formulation of the task force goals; Black will then distribute these to the group as a whole. The smaller working group will meet for develop a format for the report and work plan to the Legislature; it will report back to the task force at the October meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 4:10.

Send comments regarding this site to:
www@commissions.leg.state.mn.us

Updated: 08/21/01(jhr)