Committee Observation The author of this brief report was asked to attend a meeting of a political organization and offer a number of observations, facts and details as it relates to the meeting, what the organization does and where they get their funding, among other things. The details that will be included are the agency that was visited, the date of the visit, the programs and services that are provided to the community, the issues that were discussed during the meeting, the climate of the meeting, what was learned relative to what was known prior about th3e agency and the reaction to the meeting. A conclusion will wrap things up. While there were some newly learned things and items here and there, the meeting was fairly predictable and professional.

Review of Details

The meeting in question was for the Committee of Higher Educaiton Finance and Policy. The meeting occurred on March 14th, 2017 in Room 15 of the Capitol. All but one expected or normal person were there. The present people included Michelle Fischbach, Rich Graheim, Jim Abeler, Paul Anderson, Greg Clausen, Jason Isaacson, Scott Jensen and Jerry Newton. The one person that was absent was Richard Cohen. The meeting...

The meeting lasted less than an hour with three major items being discussed. Those were SF 1519, SF 1743 and SF1982. 1519 was the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities tuition reduction appropriation. The discussion on this was brief as it was tabled for possible inclusion in the omnibus bill. 1753 is a supplemental aid bill that is to be allocated to colleges outside the metropolitan area. An amendment was offered by Sentator Fischbach and it was adopted. However, that bill itself was also set aside for future consideration with the omnibus bill. Finally, there was SF 1982. This bill is related to adjudication of fraud and/or the misrepresentation treatment modification. The bill was presented and, like the others, there as a testifier (that person on this bill was Nekey Oliver). This third bill was set aside for the omnibus as well. The meeting adjourned at 1:50 pm, about 50 minutes after it started. The meeting was a little on the dull side but it was admirable in how efficient, respectful and professional everyone was. Everyone clearly knew the format and expectations and both were followed quite well.
The agency and group of people in question are…