12:05 p.m.:                  The meeting was chaired by Kate Bruce and Lauren Schrero.

Members present:      Caroline Palmer, Colleen Walbran, Rachel Brygger, Sonja Peterson, Mark Frey, Evan Wilson, and Lloyd Zimmerman.

Agenda items:            1)  Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner, Kevin Lindsey, presented to the Committee.  His presentation included information on:

• Background information on the Department;
• Budget cut information; and
• Developments and initiative with the Department since the Commissioner was appointed.

The Committee looks forward to working with the Department in the future.

2)  The chairs updated the committee on:

• Committee roster and voting requirements;
• Funding protocols; and
• The new Committee Linked-In page.

3)  Ms. Peterson updated the Committee on its co-sponsorship of the League of Human Rights Commissions Human Rights Day, and informed the Committee that the League will have a “celebratory” focus.  This means no sponsorship will be needed, just support in promoting attendance at the event. 

4)  The Committee voted to move forward with pursuing the proposed revision to MSBA Bylaw Article 12, § 12.2.  All voted in favor. 

Revision is as follows:

Sections and committees are strongly encouraged to present legislative recommendations to the Assembly for approval as MSBA positions.  Sections and committees are also authorized to take positions on their own behalf pursuant to this Article, but the President has the authority to preempt section and committee legislative action at any time.  If the President preempts the legislative action of a section or committee, the section or committee shall not take its contemplated action the President’s decision shall go before the Council for a vote at its next scheduled meeting.  A section or committee may appeal the President’s decision to preempt the legislative action of the section or committee to t [T]he Council, which may reverse or amend the President’s decision by a two-thirds majority vote of members present and voting.

5)  Judge Zimmerman informed the Committee that he will likely have a human-rights-related article in the Star Tribune on Thanksgiving and that we should all look for it. 

Next meeting:            December 12, 2011, 12:00pm, MSBA Office.

1:00 p.m.:                    The meeting was adjourned.

12:03 p.m.:                  The meeting was chaired by Kate Bruce and Lauren Schrero.

Members present:    Rachel Brygger (phone),  Amanda Heyman (phone), Sarah Hunter (phone), Valerie LeMaster, Peter Mikhail, Caroline Palmer (phone), Sonja Peterson, Daniel Reynolds (phone), Holly Wallace (phone), Evan Wilson, and Lloyd Zimmerman.

                                    [Notified regarding absence: Mark Frey]

Action items:             Preliminary Matters:

The committee reviewed the agenda and Evan Wilson moved to add a recap of the September 30, 2011 human trafficking event to the agenda. Evan reported that the event was informative, and shared a number of factual highlights including that the St. Paul Police Department is the only state level law enforcement agency with resources devoted specifically to the trafficking issue and there are roughly 500 online postings for sexual services that raise trafficking concerns in Minnesota daily. Evan indicated that he had obtained contact information for a woman with knowledge of current legislative measures targeted at trafficking, and that that he would reach out to her to see whether she would be interested in presenting at an upcoming committee meeting.

                                    Caroline Palmer then described an upcoming webinar to be hosted by MNCasa on October 18, 2011. The webinar will address the issue of sex trafficking in Minnesota, specifically the sexual exploitation of youth. Caroline gave an overview of topics to be discussed, who the presenters will be, and explained that the webinar will be open to Committee members for CLE credit.

                                    Lauren Schrero added that another event will be held on Thursday, October 13, 2011 at St. Thomas Law School regarding the proposed constitutional same sex marriage ban, which the Committee discussed as potential topic of interest last month.

                                    Kate Bruce noted that the MSBA will be hosting a networking event for local law students and solicited volunteers to represent the Committee at the event.

                                    Voting by E-mail:

                                    The Committee agreed that, with respect to setting the agenda, voting by e-mail in order to provide the Chairs with input on which topics the Committee is interested in pursuing is acceptable. Peter Mikhail noted that these types of votes are not binding on the Chairs.

                                    The Committee also agreed that for any items requiring Committee action such as passing a resolution, taking a position, or choosing to co-sponsor an event, the vote should take place during the monthly Committee meeting in order to comply with MSBA bylaws.

                                    Future Agenda Items:

                                    Valerie LeMaster asked whether there are any criteria the Chairs could use as guidelines for setting the agenda. Past chairs and long-time Committee members commented that they did not recall ever being confronted with that issue. Peter Mikhail added that, as far as he knows, there is an “open-door” policy with respect to what items can be put on the Committee agenda. Peter explained that in his opinion, as long as member believes a topic relates to human rights, and raises an issue for the Committee to consider, the Committee may include that topic/issue on its agenda. There was general consensus that this is correct.

Judge Zimmerman noted that where the Committee has particularly contentious items on its agenda that might come before a court, he will likely be unable to attend those Committee meetings. Peter Mikhail countered that those issues that are the most controversial and the most likely to be litigated may well be the most important ones for the Committee to consider. Co-chairs agreed to take both perspectives under advisement.

Discussion on HR Committee 2011-12 Topics:

(1) Issue one: Abortion:
 
Discussion took place on whether the Committee should devote time to learning about this issue.  Judge Zimmerman notes a possible need to abstain.  Peter Mikhail noted that in the past the Committee has always discussed all issues that come up, unless it has just been discussed or clearly unrelated to human rights. The Committee chairs will make a determination on whether to devote a Committee meeting to this topic.   

(2) Issue two:  Co-Sponsoring Human Rights Day with the MN League of Human Rights Commission

Sonja Peterson moved to co-sponsor HR day; without funding at this point.  Peter Mikhail seconded the Motion.

Sonja Peterson moved for discussion on whether the Committee should co-Sponsor Human Rights Day with the MN League of Human Rights Commission. Discussion took place.  Sonja gave some background on the members of the coalition that comprise the Commission, and explained that they are currently working on a Human Rights Day event scheduled for December 1st that they would like to broaden beyond the coalition community. Sonja inquired as to whether the Committee would be willing co-sponsor the event, advertise to the legal community, and assist in preparing CLE materials.  Evan Wilson inquired as to the amount of input the Committee would have on the content of the event, and Sonja responded that the Commission would be open to our suggestions, but that ultimately all decision-making will be theirs. Sonja also asked whether the Committee might be willing to assist financially with the event, and the Co-Chairs agreed to ask the MSBA whether that would be possible.

Chairs called for a vote on co-sponsoring.  The vote was unanimous in favor of co-sponsoring the event.

The Co-Chairs will inquire as to possible funding assistance. 

(3) Issue three:  Budget Cuts to the Dep’t of HR

The Committee chairs will make a determination on whether to devote a Committee meeting to this topic, and will contact the Commissioner as a possible speaker.   

(4) Issue four:  MSBA Bylaws Issue

The Committee discussed moving forward with a possible resolution in support of an amendment to §12.2 of the MSBA bylaws. Specifically, Sonja Peterson suggested language modifying the current provision, which requires a supermajority to overturn the MSBA’s preemption of Committee action.

The Committee chairs will place this issue for a vote on the November agenda.

(5) Issue five:  Civil Gideon

The Committee also discussed whether it should devote time to the issue of Civil Gideon. Valerie LeMaster updated the Committee on the progress of the MSBA appointed Civil Gideon Task Force, formed in 2008 to explore the feasibility of a civil right to counsel in Minnesota. The task force has just recently put together finsdings and there is an editing session later this month.  Caroline Palmer, who is a member of the Task Force, explained that purpose of the investigation is not to take a position on the issue of Civil Gideon, but rather to explore how it does, and could operate in Minnesota. The Committee agreed that it makes sense to await the Task Force’s report, and evaluate then whether we want to take a position on the issue. For now, the issue is tabled pending release of the report.

(6) Issue six:  Same sex marriage ban

The Committee also discussed whether to devote a meeting (or more) to this topic.  Sonja Peterson told the Committee that the Diversity Committee of the Hennepin County Bar Association recently resolved to host training sessions on mobilizing against the proposed constitutional amendment. Valerie LeMaster suggested that we might be skipping a step by jumping straight to advocacy—that not all members of the Committee are persuaded that the proposal should not pass. Evan Wilson suggested that if the Committee does take up this issue, it should first devote some time to exploring both sides of the debate. Dan Reynolds added that specifically, he is interested in exploring what the legal effect of proposed amendment will be.

The Committee chairs will make a determination on whether to devote a Committee meeting to this topic.  

Next meeting:           November 14, 2011, 12:00pm, MSBA Office.

12:59 p.m.:                  The meeting was adjourned.

Human Rights Committee
September 19, 2011
Meeting Summary/Minutes

12:05 p.m.:                  The meeting was chaired by Kate Bruce and Lauren Schrero.

Members present:    Jason Adkins (phone), Valerie Aggerbeck (phone), Rachel Brygger (phone), Amanda Heyman (phone), Sarah Hunter (phone), Valerie LeMaster, Sonja Peterson, Holly Wallace (phone), Evan Wilson (phone), and Lloyd Zimmerman.

                                    [Notified regarding absence: Mark Frey, Daniel Reynolds, and Roger Branigin]

Action items:             The Committee discussed the purpose statement. There was a general consensus that no changes or additions are required at this time. The Committee agreed to consider the scope of the “study and make recommendations” language, deciding, for example, whether the Committee should devote time to study human rights issues not currently before the state legislature. The Committee agreed that it needs to fashion a system for evaluating whether and how deeply to study and take action on human rights issues raised by members as potential topics of interest. For now, all proposals will be put to vote. Co-Chairs encouraged members to propose alternative means of structuring the topic evaluation process.

The Committee discussed topics of interest for the 2011-2012 Committee year. 

Ms. LeMaster requested that the Committee consider taking a position regarding a proposed legislative bill that would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks gestation.  Ms. Heyman commented that it may not be an appropriate subject for the Committee to take on given that it has come before the MSBA General Assembly twice and the Committee has abstained from taking a position given the contentiousness of the issue.  The Committee discussed whether being educated on this issue and possibly exploring it before making any decisions would be worthwhile.  No decision was made. Whether the Committee should pursue this issue will be put to vote.

Ms. Peterson suggested the Committee consider investigating the new process adopted by MSBA leadership for appealing presidential preemption of committees’ ability to take legislative positions. (Article 12, § 12.2) This new process, which requires a two-thirds vote of voting members of the MSBA Council, was designed in response to this Committee’s concern that it was unable to take a position last year regarding the then-proposed Department of Human Rights budget cuts.  It was suggested that we invite a speaker from the Department of Human Rights to discuss the impact of the budget cuts as a jumping off point for approaching the MSBA leadership about modifying the new mechanism of appealing presidential preemption of committee-driven legislative action. Ms. Peterson agreed to look into the matter further. Following the meeting, in an e-mail to the Chairs, Ms. Peterson proposed the following revisions to § 12.2:

Sections and committees are strongly encouraged to present legislative recommendations to the Assembly for approval as MSBA positions.  Sections and committees are also authorized to take positions on their own behalf pursuant to this Article, but the President has the authority to preempt section and committee legislative action at any time.  If the President preempts the legislative action of a section or committee, the section or committee shall not take its contemplated action the President’s decision shall go before the Council for a vote at its next scheduled meeting.  A section or committee may appeal the President’s decision to preempt the legislative action of the section or committee to t [T]he Council, which may reverse or amend the President’s decision by a two-thirds majority vote of members present and voting.

Whether the Committee should pursue this issue will be put to vote.

Judge Zimmerman commented that the budget cuts for the Department of Human Rights cuts resulted in the cancellation of the annual human rights day event typically held in December. Judge Zimmerman proposed that the Committee consider sponsoring an alternative Human Rights Day CLE. Ms. Schrero and Ms. Bruce offered to look into whether the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. could host such an event. Ms. Peterson offered to find the appropriate contact at the Department of Human Rights to work with on this project. Following the meeting, Ms. Peterson sent the Committee Chairs the contact information of Ytmar Santiago. Whether the Committee should pursue this issue will be put to vote.

Ms. LeMaster suggested that the Committee consider looking into House Bill 556 on sexually exploited youth. Mr. Wilson informed the Committee of an event on Sept. 30th relating to the issue of human trafficking called “Rise Against Human Trafficking.”  That event will be held from 6:00pm-10:00pm in Maranatha Hall at Northwestern College, located at 3003 Snelling Ave. N., Roseville, MN.  Mr. Adkins informed the committee that Bill 556 had been signed into law by the Governor in a special session. Issue will be put to vote.
                                   
Judge Zimmerman suggested the Committee consider investigating the right to a lawyer in certain civil cases (“Civil Gideon”). Ms. LeMaster agreed to reach out to the Pro Se Committee to discuss their agenda and possible joint action on the issue, and Judge Zimmerman offered to do the same with the Judicial Committee. Whether the Committee should pursue this issue will be put to vote.

The Committee discussed the issue of the proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution banning same sex marriage, and the capacity in which the Committee should be involved, if any.  Ms. Bruce notified the Committee that the MSBA renewed its position on the issue on April 29, 2010, resolving that the “Minnesota State Bar Association opposes any effort to amend the Minnesota Constitution to forbid the creation of legally-recognized relationships between persons of the same sex.”  Ms. Schrero and Ms. Peterson discussed possible trainings or work with Minnesotans United for all Families.  Mr. Wilson commented that the Committee may want to consider whether we take on this controversial issue as well. Whether the Committee should pursue this issue will be put to vote.

                                    Judge Zimmerman suggested that current Committee-members consider ways to strengthen the Committee’s impact, for example, by recruiting a broader membership. Ms. Schrero suggested that current members should attend other committee meetings and review their agendas for crossover issues. Ms. Bruce asked whether current committee members could provide a list of other committees or sections they are involved with, so that the Committee can track its current resources. All seemed to agree it was a good idea.

Ms. Bruce informed the Committee that we will meet the second Monday of each month.

Next meeting:           October 10, 2011, 12:00pm, MSBA Office.

12:56 p.m.:                  The meeting was adjourned.