Conversations on bullying

Bullying has been a so called "trending" topic in the news lately, and it's got our attention here at The Free Press.

Recent news stories that two students in southeastern Minnesota committed suicide in part because of how they were bullied at school created a lot of public interest in the issue.

The news stories motivated people to go to town-hall meetings. A meeting in Mankato a few weeks ago was packed with nearly a hundred people as the statewide bullying task force came to town. The task force had planned to be here before the suicides happened, but those events seemed to draw more people to the meeting.

The Rochester Post-Bulletin held a town-hall meeting Tuesday on the subject prompted by the suicides.

Myself and other Free Press editors and reporters recently met with MSU professor Walter Roberts who was selected by Gov. Dayton to be on the statewide bullying task force because of his expertise in counseling and education and the issue of bullying.

We wanted to get his input on what the newspaper could do to address the issue of bullying in the community.

Several interesting takeaways talking to Roberts, who noted he was not speaking as a spokesman for the task force but simply as an education professional:

Bullying has always been around: It is now exacerbated by a number of societal changes including the expansion of the Internet and social media. Whereas kids could once escape bullying by going home, now it's almost 24/7 as they spend a lot of time on Facebook and other sites.

When you're bullying someone or being mean to someone on Facebook, we can't see their reaction like we might in person. So it's easier to bully online. It's lower risk to the perpetrator.

Roberts looks at bullying as a symptom of a larger societal issue of civility. Kids learn how to treat each other by family influences but also by media influences, newspaper stories, talk radio and any other exposure they have to how people interact.

There's more incivility today all around us and that likely breeds more copying behaviors among kids that result in bullying.

Bullying isn't a school problem, it's a societal problem. Kids just happen to congregate at schools.

More and more the message kids get from society and media is: "someone has to be dominant." That's not good.

Roberts surmises Mankato might be doing better to help prevent bullying, but he isn't sure what is working. It could be a number of things. The goal would be to find what is working and report on that.

Roberts suggests newspapers can 1) Make people aware of the issue, sensitize them to it 2) Get people to accept information for combating it. 3) Get communities to talk about it. 4) Report on what the community is or isn't doing.

Lots of good ideas. We'll be formulating a plan soon to develop some stories and possibly a series of stories and public events.

Stay tuned.

Election framing already happening with Dayton, GOP

One of the last acts of the 2012 Legislature will likely be one of the first themes bandied about in the 2012 elections between DFLers and Gov. Mark Dayton and the Minnesota GOP that controls the Legislature.

Dayton vetoed the GOP business and property tax relief bill in a move that many Republicans called everything from outrageous to underhanded. They claimed they met Dayton "half way" on his spending limits for the bill and he still vetoed it.

They claimed there was an understanding that if GOP helped passed the Vikings stadium bill, Dayton would help them with one of their main priorities in business tax relief.

Dayton vetoed the bill saying they should have known better and that he made clear he was not going to sign any bill that increased the state deficit.

It's always hard to decipher who is more truthful in these deals because it often relies on what someone meant when they said such and such.

But, from a strictly political perspective, Dayton would seem to have the upper hand in the narrative. I'm not saying he's right. In fact, the tax bill he vetoed didn't sound very far off from a bill a Democrat Rudy Perpich - one of Dayton's mentors - would have signed a few years ago. And there certainly were provisions in there that would help many small businesses in outstate Minnesota.

But this is where the narrative comes into play. Most typical voters don't really want to invest a lot of time in understanding detailed nuances of legislation. Who can blame them? It's time consuming and well, sometimes, mind-boggling.

So for those folks who just vote based on more simple explanations of things, here's how it will play out.

Dayton: "I vetoed that bill because it increased the deficit." Done, end of story.

Republicans: "Dayton is a job-killing governor for vetoing our tax bill that would have given business property tax relief."

Most people can see with clarity that the bill would have increased the deficit. The Republicans are not denying that.

But it's more complicated to know if a bill would have created jobs or not. Besides, most folks see that jobs are on the rise, so what's the big deal if a few more are "not created."

I'm no political pundit or prognosticator, I just know from 25 years in the newspaper business, how people read things and how they hear and understand things.

Bottom line: My view is that Dayton has an easier sell through a less complicated message. It doesn't make it right. But if one thinks about it, he has framed himself as the "fiscal conservative" and put Republicans in the bad spot of proving him wrong.

When have Republicans ever put on the defensive to claim a Democrat's fiscal conservatism is not right? Not often. And, again, it's going to be tough to prove. The bill would've increased the deficit. No one on the other side is denying that.

Again, I would not be qualified to be hired as an advisor to the Republican Party, but I would have figured out a way to cut spending to pay for the business tax cut. Then, at least, they can say, they weren't going to increase the deficit.

Vikings stadium debate: some entertaining and interesting snippets

It seems it takes a $1 billion construction project to get state legislators to debate economic theory and for others' eyes to gloss over.

In Tuesday's Senate debate on the Vikings stadium, DFL Sen. John Marty continued to argue sports stadiums don't bring one new dollar of economic development to a city, citing numerous studies. In fact, he argued dropping cash out of a helicopter would generate more business than a stadium.

From my experience, many of those studies do contend in fact just that, and argue convincingly in some cases. In fact, I've seen studies that suggest stadiums LOWER the average wage in a town because they do create jobs, but a lot of lower paying jobs, so they lower the average wage.

Others contended, and rightly so, that the $18 million to $25 million in player income taxes cannot be denied. That's true. You lose them, you lose the income tax.

Marty tried to argue that the spending people would do on other things without Vikings stadium would bring similar income tax revenue.

To that I say, not even close. Let's just take one salary, say of Adrian Peterson. He gets about $15 million a year. It would take the employment of 500 new workers making $30,000 a year to pay roughly the same same income taxes as Peterson.

And that's probably a very conservative estimate because the people at $30,000 would pay a much lower rate than Peterson.

If Marty is arguing the number of jobs created by people going to movies and plays versus a Vikings football game would generate the same in income taxes as Vikings players, he is not using common sense and his math and assumptions are very far into conjecture land.

Yes, perhaps stadiums don't contribute to substantially higher OVERALL economic impact. One can debate that based on a number of assumptions.

But there is some new spending that happens with a stadium. Sometimes it isn't the amount one would spend, but it's the rate of spending. Do I spend more money when I go to a Vikings or Twins game than when I go to the local pub? Yes. Do I spend it faster? Yes.

As in all things economic, one cannot assume a cause and effect "ALL OF THE TIME." So, in some cases, Marty is right, the money would spent anyway. In other cases, he is not. Some spend more on sports than movies and would then SAVE less.

In the end, for me, it's not so much about the economics, though I do clearly think there is some benefit.

It's also a quality of life thing, as much as that is a soft cost. Don't forget the old phrase "We'd be a cold Omaha" without pro sports. I believe that is very true.

A few other choice quotes from the Senate Vikings stadium debate.

From DFL Sen. John Marty,

"You don't build a $1 billion stadium for monster trucks" referring to argument that state gets benefit from other uses of stadium.

That is getting one of my top votes for snarkiest quote of the day.

Another Marty quote:

"If the team were not here, we spend the money in other ways....we don't throw it in a recycling bin, in the garbage, flush it down the toilets. We don't do that."

Nice three phrase rhythm on that one.

From Sen. Roger Chamberlain, R, Lino Lakes:

"We can keep 'em here. We need a better deal. We don't make any money on this deal, " and income tax from player's salaries is "a rounding error."

Sen. Sean Nienow, R, Cambridge, commenting on the overriding of Minneapolis requirement for a referendum on paying its share via city charter.

"This bill says to the voters, to the electorate, to the voters, your desires are irrelevant, because we think this is important, you're inconvenient....cause you might cause a delay."

DFL Sen. Patricia Torres Ray from Minneapolis, in response to Nienow's strong words on Minneapolis charter.

She spoke quietly in her Hispanic accent:

 "Please don't use this argument and don't use us the way they are using it, because it is hypocrisy. Because it is not about Minneapolis....just don't use it today, because what you are saying is not reflecting honesty."

To which Nienow replied:

"Madam President I resent those remarks. I have been consistent and honest and I deeply resent that."

More fun to come tomorrow.

When bonding bill turned into political theater

I don't remember the last time I listened to a floor debate at the Minnesota Legislature, but the two hours I spend listening to the debate online over the bonding bill Monday jump started my blog idea list again.

So here goes.

I generally think people in public office are fine people. Ninety-five percent of them have a true desire to serve a given public, though many more than that have sometimes "different" ideas of who that public is.

Still. I like elected leaders or candidates. They are generally smart people who want to do good. They will engage you in intellectual conversations and most have learned how to argue fairly and respectfully.

But sometimes, you just wonder where some of this stuff is coming from given floor debates.

A few examples.

When Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL and Iron Ranger, got up to offer his amendment that would help solar equipment manufacturing companies in his district and others get a provision that would encourage bonding projects to use solar, he was met by Mary Franson, R, Alexandria, who asked if Rep. Rukavina knew what "Solyndra" was.

Of course, Solyndra is a solar energy company that has defaulted on similar federal loans in a big way.

After a short speech by Franson, Rukavina responded that Franson's steel worker union grandfather was turning in his grave and he would be supporting jobs through this initiative. (Sounds like a line out of the Godfather)

Franson responded that yes her grandfather was turning in his grave because of the excessive spending of government.

Another representative got in the middle of this debate to point out Solyndra's default came in a federal program that was established by the Bush Administration, just to get that on the record.

Franson appeared to be done making her point and said she didn't agree with Bush all the time.

In another exchange on the bill, Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R, Mazeppa, raised his voice against the solar bill arguing that a company owned by billionaire T. Boone Pickens was suing and 85-year old grandmother's with Alzheimer's near his district in a wind project dispute.

It could be true, and it certainly is a dramatic story to introduce into a debate about solar energy incentives. There is apparently a property dispute with landowners on the project near Red Wing.

Actually, what politicians say on the House floor doesn't have to be true. The law exempts elected leaders in the center of a public debate like this from libel laws.

The vote on the solar enticements went down in the House, 62-69.

But it was fun watching this political theater play out. Ok. I'll admit, if I think this was fun to watch I may not have enough fun things to do, but Act I is barely over.

Weekend buzz: politics: teacher layoffs, Vikings stadium

Teacher seniority LIFO bill vetoed by Dayton

 The Free Press editorial board endorsed the idea of ending the so-called LIFO (last in, first out) seniority system of  layoffs for public school teachers earlier this year.

But in looking at Gov. Mark Dayton's veto message, and speaking for myself and not the board, I can't say I disagree with his argument on why he vetoed the bill. 

The legislation would make it a state law that schools not use seniority as the only criteria for layoffs, and that teacher evaluations should also play a role.

Education groups opposed the measure and business groups and others favored it. Only a couple of Democrats voted for it as it was going through the Legislature, and Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed it.

 But Dayton vetoed the LIFO bill saying it was 1) not developed in a bipartisan way or with teachers 2) that it unduly prejudiced hard-working school teachers and 3) it replaced the seniority system with a vague formula.

He likened it to a business, which he said wouldn't tell its employees there's going to be a new evaluation system, but we can't tell you exactly what it is until four years from now.

Can't say I'd disagree with this premise. I wonder why the effective date of the bill was four years from now.

Still, it seems Dayton leaves room for eventually approving such a law by suggesting from his veto message that if the evaluations were developed cooperatively, were more specific and had a reasonable timeline, he'd go for it.

Sounds reasonable. It seems he made his objections clear early on as well. He had the same objection to the bill when he visited with The Free Press editorial board a few months ago.

Actually, school districts have the ability to negotiate their own layoff policies with current law, but proponents felt as a practical matter most just went by seniority.

As an editorial board we generally favored the idea that teachers should be evaluated and that should play a role in whether they keep their job when layoffs come. That happens in the private sector, so it would be equitable that it happen in the public sector, at least in some form.

But the governor makes some good points.

Vikings stadium: I predict passage on Monday

I'm not sure I would put money on the prognostications of a small-town newspaper editor, but my guess is that the Minnesota Legislature will pass a Vikings stadium bill in some form before they leave St. Paul this year.

The bill has passed all the committees controlled by the Republican Majority. It would look bad if a good number of the Republican caucus didn't support it.

The Democrats have pledged half the votes needed for passage, modeling the politics of the Twins stadium. So the Democrats can really have a good argument to the people next November that says: "We weren't even in the majority and we offered our votes to pass the Vikings bill."

So, even already, Republicans will have to share credit with Democrats who will get a disproportionate share of the credit.

If it fails, the Republican Majority will get a disproportionate share of the blame. I think Republican Speaker Kurt Zellers realizes this and that's why he said on KFAN Radio he hopes it passes, but is personally against it.

Also. What I'm hearing from outstate Republican legislators is that a lot of them will vote for it because they can tell their constituents it didn't cost them anything. No statewide taxes will be used, and the folks in Good Thunder might like that extra pull table gambling they'll be able to play.

We also have to  remember, yes the Vikings stadium is a Dayton priority, but two Republicans have been the authors and leaders on this in the Legislature.

But there is the wildcard that Republicans will withhold stadium votes because Dayton vetoed their tax bill that offered relief to businesses.

I found it odd that the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce President David Olson would suggest in his comments to the Star Tribune that his organization might not support the Vikings stadium because of Dayton's tax bill veto.

That's like saying because Dayton made it tougher on business in general we're going to make it tougher for the business he likes: not exactly a good position for the head of the state's largest business group to take.  That one just won't sell to well among outstate business, some of whom are very wary of associating with the Minnesota Chamber.

With football fans, who I'm guessing will vote in big numbers this year, I don't think Dayton or the Democrats for that matter, are the loser on this one.

Republicans will come to realize this and some, out of their sincere belief it's a good and needed bill (like author Julie Rosen), will vote for it.