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.