To participate in todays hearing. Members are reminded to keep p their video function on at all ible for hemsel theyre notot recognized by the chair. Ve the members are also reminded ey that they are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. To mute themselves after they r have finished speaking. Consistent with regulations, 96s astaff will only mute members and witnesses as appropriate when not recognized to avoid inadvertent background noise an otherre embarrassments. Members are reminded that all house rules related to order ano decorum apply to this remote trn hearing. G this hearings entitled exposure notification and Contact Tracing, how ai helps localities open safety and researchers finn it pure. Statem i will now recognize myself for four minutes to give an openingc statement. Good morning. Todays hearing will focus on the essential trade offs that ry the covid19 pandemic is forcing upon us to make between life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. A and the r
The United States at 3 years old. All of her friends and immediate and most extended family who are citizens and residents live near her in new york. Shes a fulltime caretaker for a family in brooklyn with two 14 month old sons. One who has special needs and requires physical therapy. Although the childs special need were not known when she was hired, she was risen to the occasion with grace, calm, and competence according to the family of the were devastated by the thought she may not be able to continue to work in this country. And no, we wont find another caregiver who is as reliable, nurturing, and unshakable as brit nifment she submitted her renewal application september 21 but sent back to her on october 5 because she forgot to sign her name in one place. She sent it back immediately but rejected. Untimely. Hugo in texas, houston, texas. A 34yearold father who lives in houston, texas. He came to the United States from mexico when he was 6 and lived in houston ever since. He he co
I think it lines up with the 10 change of other jurisdictions and realizing this was the threshold. We werent sure why it was set the way it was back in 2003. We didnt see a strong justification for that at the time. What was the justification in new york city for 10 . I guess it was they had a substantial white paper done by nyu on the number of individuals that were associated with contractors and business entities in the city that were giving and they had given around 25 of all contributions. We have not been able to do the same analysis that was done by a university working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing
Otherwise, the discloser would have to change to the individual making the contribution. The committee would be in a better place to report it to us. Are committees liable if donors are not forth coming and fail to inform the committee out of neglect . I think thats i dont think that was the intention of the commission but a policy directive for them to determine. Theres administrative opposed to civil criminal agency, we look at strict liability and dont try to understand the intent. But we look at all the factors for enforcement action and what severity. Page 10 line 9, why is the ownership interest threshold lowered from 20 to 10 . Is there data that supports that change . I think its consistent with the ideas from other jurisdictions, particularly new york citys ban where this was extracted or amended from. I think it lines up with the 10 change of other jurisdictions and realizing this was the threshold. We werent sure why it was set the way it was back in 2003. We didnt see a str
University working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing potentially wasnt capturing a lot of the money, i dont have the specific numbers in front of me, but raising it to the 100,000 threshold reduces the number of affected parties by 100, 120 i think it was. But captured 80 of the money. So we thought it was a substantial amount of the money still captured but not having less sophisticated or the parties that shouldnt be captured. That was based on your own analysis. Correct. And page 12 line 22, why is the term of the period of prohibitions expanded from six to 12 months, is there data that supports that change .