Protecting private data

Prevailing wage refers to a formula used to calculate the wages that contractors must pay their workers for building projects funded in whole or in part by the state.

A provision in a technical data practices bill related to prevailing wage reporting had DFLers concerned that it was an assault on the issue that nearly splits along party lines.

Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover) and Sen. Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove) sponsor HF1466/ SF1143* that would detail how private data is collected, maintained or disseminated. The House passed the bill 133-1, but only after the addition of several successful amendments. It now returns to the Senate, where the original bill was passed 57-0 on May 16, 2011.

Of concern to Rep. Joe Mullery (DFL-Mpls) was a provision to classify the contact information of an employee and/or contractor doing business with a government entity as private data.

He said this would, in effect, make policing of the state’s prevailing wage law impossible. There is little state oversight of contractor reporting of these wages, and without contact information, it would be nearly impossible to verify their accuracy, he said.

“You are allowing companies to get by with fraud against the taxpayers,” Mullery said about the system that relies on contractors policing themselves.

He offered a successful amendment to delete the provision; however, Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton), who voted on the prevailing side, argued successfully for the amendment’s reconsideration.

After further discussion, Mullery withdrew the amendment and proposed another that included language supported by Rep. Denny McNamara (R-Hastings) that says information can be disclosed for prevailing wage law enforcement purposes.

An amendment of note receiving overwhelming support was offered by Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia).

A recent change to law requires those covered by state insurance benefits to provide verification to Minnesota Management & Budget of dependent eligibility. His amendment would prohibit the practice.

“It has caused a lot of consternation. Why state employees would have to be forced to give that information out is beyond me. My amendment repeals the special session law that says they can’t ask for that information; that is private information.”