clapping call the first item. Thank you, madam chair the first order of business is item one roll call commissioners respond commissioner pimentel commissioner bustos is absent commissioner singh commissioner mondejar is absent commissioner rosales commissioner mondejar and commissioner bustos are absent all other members of the commission are present the next order of business announcements a the next regularly scheduled meeting on august 16, 2016, at one p. M. At city hall and b announcements of Electronic Devices please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, of cell phones, Electronic Devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room meeting room responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar soundproducing Electronic Devices. K announcements of time allotment for Public Comment. Please be advised a member of the public has up to 3 minutes to address the commission unless the c
So. I think youll find a lot of support among the committee for clearer cyanide, but also to resources needed to address these issues and not without a lot of conversations this morning about prevention and the importance of educating students about healthy relationship, healthy encounters and im glad we are talking about this before they get to college. There were some conversations about the teach safe relationship fact that safe relationship fact that theres a version and have been a cosponsor of other members of the committee. I invite the other Committee Members and colleagues to look at that enjoy nonbecause if we are preventing that is the best approach. We know we can take stronger steps not only in prevention. We want to make sure survivors of Sexual Assault have access to Research Services and privacy on an offcampus is and i want to emphasize we need to have policies encourage, not discourage survivors from reporting and tickling counseling. That is something we see in more
To think very long and hard about the least cost, least risk approach. Oregon especially since 1999 but even back dating back to 1980 has treated Energy Efficiency not as a boutique thing to do every now and then, but as a genuine resource that a utility should rely on. It is a costeffective resource and should be at the top of the list of any utility acquisition as being the lowest cost resour resource. So between planning, Energy Efficiency, weve been able to maintain our low cost. We are below average and weve been below average for dwight quite some time. We dont expect the Clean Power Plan to fundamentally change that because of the tools that you would use to meet the clean power provisions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In my direct in southwest arkansas has already been announced to be closed and theres study thats show that rates will increase from 20 to 60 because of this closure. The the obvious negative effects are direct loss. The higher rates will put a disproportional burden
Implement encryption where the products make sense to include encryption. Yeah. Agent littlehale, as you know, when the Police Search a home or business, officers will provide a copy of a warrant authorizing the search. This might reveal the basic type of investigations whether it involves terrorism or drugs or medicare fraud, but the police dont have to say anything more. Im told Law Enforcement has serious concerns about a provision in the lee leahy bill that changes the notice provisions to require Law Enforcement to go beyond that, potentially divulging specific investigative detail to a target. Do you share these concerns about in this bills notice provisions . Why or why not. We do, mr. Chairman. Because we are both concerned that providing greater protection for evidence because its in digital form is in fact not bringing digital evidence in line with evidence in the physical world. And also because when a search warrant is executed in the physical world, we control the access t
Things like that potentially unininvestigatable if the target has done a good enough job of hiding his other traces. If we believe that be the case, we wouldnt take the position we have. Our belief is the civil agencies with the tools they have can veth. It is our belief that the type you have to be arguing in order for that to be the case, you have to argue theres no case in which access to information by direct request to the Service Provider contributed in a material way to an investigation . I think its difficult to be categorical in a hypothetical situation. So i would not want to say that. But i will say i think we think on balance, balancing the law the needs of Law Enforcement with the privacy here we believe that the best the best outcome to this is that the civil agencies work with the tools they have rather than extending this new power to them. But you agree and accept that a contested Court Proceeding in open court with the target of the investigation present is a more rig