As editor of a major daily newspaper in Minnesota, I am often asked to meet with interest groups on matters at the Legislature these groups feel will impact my local readers.
Last Thursday I met with the leaders of the two largest state employee unions, AFSCME and Minnesota Assocation of Professional Employees. On Friday, I met with representatives from Flaherty and Hood, the lobbying firm that represents outstate Minnesota cities in the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities. Those folks were accompanied by Mankato Mayor Eric Anderson and Mankato city manager Pat Hentges.
There is some urgency with these groups in that they are under fire from Republican lawmakers in the Minnesota Legislature on two points. Proposals to freeze state employee wages made it as far as the House Senate Conference committee bill on the plan to cut $900 million from state spending.
Gov. Dayton vetoed that bill the day I spoke to the unions. There remains a plan to cut 15 percent of the state workforce. It's a bill authored by Edina Rep. Keith Downey, HF 4, (Here's a House Research summary), that is now in the State Government Finance Committee.
Some quick points about the case they made.
Eliot Seide, executive director of AFSCME, noted Blue Earth County had the highest number of state government workers per capita than any other county except Ramsey.
There are about 550 AFSCME members at MSU and South Central College and about 600 total in Blue Earth County. MAPE has 578 members locally.
The unions have taken zero wage increases in four out of the last eight years.
When the state employee retirement pension funds got into trouble a few years, ago, the unions supported higher contributions from their members.
AFSCME retirement benefits are not "gold plated" with the average being $13,000 a year.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
When lawmakers don't listen to police
Sgt. Mark Elliott of the Bloomington Police Department denied 37 dangerous individuals a permit to buy a gun in Minnesota last year.
He told members of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee all were tracked through Minnesota's background check law, and did not show up in the federal database on crime that would deny them a permit.
Yet, the committee voted 10-7, with all Republicans voting to dismantle Minnesota's background check law and rely only on the federal system. The seven Democrats on the committee seemed shocked and in a state of disbelief that this committee would turn back Minnesota's law after this testimony.
The police and peace officers unions favored keeping it, so did the Minnesota chiefs of police.
Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R, Mazeppa, sponsored the repeal bill, ostensibly to remove an unfunded mandate, that he notes costs a sheriff's department 1/2 hour to 1 hour per week. City and county associations said the could not support it even though they oppose unfunded mandates because their local law enforcement officials would likely lose local control over the threat in their neighborhoods.
The thing that taxpayers and citizens should be most concerned about in this activity is not whether you agree we should do background checks or not, but politics (not sound information and facts) appear to be driving many of these very serious public safety decisions.
The bill, HF161, was referred to the House Civil Law committee, but I expect it will be rammed through that committee as well on a party line vote.
Here's a House Research summary of the bill, Public Safety Committee meeting minutes and the roll call vote of the committee. All "ayes" are Republicans, all "nays" are Democrats.
Sgt. Elliott's testimony begins at the 53 minutes 30 second mark of the audio. It gets better from there.
Here's a link to the audio tape of the meeting.
He told members of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee all were tracked through Minnesota's background check law, and did not show up in the federal database on crime that would deny them a permit.
Yet, the committee voted 10-7, with all Republicans voting to dismantle Minnesota's background check law and rely only on the federal system. The seven Democrats on the committee seemed shocked and in a state of disbelief that this committee would turn back Minnesota's law after this testimony.
The police and peace officers unions favored keeping it, so did the Minnesota chiefs of police.
Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R, Mazeppa, sponsored the repeal bill, ostensibly to remove an unfunded mandate, that he notes costs a sheriff's department 1/2 hour to 1 hour per week. City and county associations said the could not support it even though they oppose unfunded mandates because their local law enforcement officials would likely lose local control over the threat in their neighborhoods.
The thing that taxpayers and citizens should be most concerned about in this activity is not whether you agree we should do background checks or not, but politics (not sound information and facts) appear to be driving many of these very serious public safety decisions.
The bill, HF161, was referred to the House Civil Law committee, but I expect it will be rammed through that committee as well on a party line vote.
Here's a House Research summary of the bill, Public Safety Committee meeting minutes and the roll call vote of the committee. All "ayes" are Republicans, all "nays" are Democrats.
Sgt. Elliott's testimony begins at the 53 minutes 30 second mark of the audio. It gets better from there.
Here's a link to the audio tape of the meeting.
Monday, February 7, 2011
"Go ahead and sue"
I got my annual lesson on legal risks of publishing a newspaper at the Minnesota Newspaper Convention seminar about 10 days ago.
Our association's Legal Update is lead by longtime MNA attorney and media law expert Mark Anfinson. It's always kind of interesting to know what you can and cannot be sued for.
The Readers' Digest version.
Protection via "Decency"
Newspapers or other "internet hosters" cannot be sued for outrageous and libelous things internet posters and anonymous commenters put on a newspaper website. We provide the site and can edit and screen comments, but the liability still falls to the poster.
This protection comes to newspapers or any other corporate entity that hosts a website through Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects us from the nasty things our posters and customers want to say about anybody.
Those posters can be sued but in reality they are usually not sued because they have no assets. There is apparently a case, however, that is going forward where a developer is suing a blogger by the name of "Johnny Northside" in Minneapolis.
Might be a test case to see if someone can put a little fear into unrelenting and irresponsible bloggers.
"You can't say that"
Libelous statements in the context of a public meeting are still protected.
In other words, if a citizen attends a public meeting and tells the City Council they should investigate their police chief because it is their belief he is dealing drugs (real case here), he is protected from a libel action as is the newspaper reporting this event.
There are various defenses against libel in a public meeting, the thought being public debate and discussion will be hampered if the public is fearful what they say at a public meeting can be used against them. It also protects politicians from things they say as well.
However, if the newspaper goes outside the meeting and does more reporting, getting other information, the risk for libel becomes greater. A court will likely view the entire store as a whole, and make a judgment on libel from the entire context.
In this case, it's more risky to do more reporting. Now, most good newspapers will do more reporting, and usually giving the accused a chance to say something is not true helps.
Coleman-Franken vote case to be argued March 1
In a case that may surprise you, an odd twist to the Coleman-Franken recount issue will be argued March 1 in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
KSTP-TV is arguing some 13,000 rejected, but unopened absentee ballots from the 2008 Franken-Coleman race should be treated as public data under the law and should be opened. They don't identify voters.
Presumably, KSTP would do a story on how the rejected ballots would have affected the outcome of the Senate race. If there were something in those envelopes that suggested election fraud or more of them should have been rejected etc., it's remotely possible the U.S. Senate, could, in a long shot, remove Franken, as the Senate, via the law, has the final say on seating a member.
Long shot, not likely, and maybe much ado about nothing. But stay tuned.
Our association's Legal Update is lead by longtime MNA attorney and media law expert Mark Anfinson. It's always kind of interesting to know what you can and cannot be sued for.
The Readers' Digest version.
Protection via "Decency"
Newspapers or other "internet hosters" cannot be sued for outrageous and libelous things internet posters and anonymous commenters put on a newspaper website. We provide the site and can edit and screen comments, but the liability still falls to the poster.
This protection comes to newspapers or any other corporate entity that hosts a website through Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects us from the nasty things our posters and customers want to say about anybody.
Those posters can be sued but in reality they are usually not sued because they have no assets. There is apparently a case, however, that is going forward where a developer is suing a blogger by the name of "Johnny Northside" in Minneapolis.
Might be a test case to see if someone can put a little fear into unrelenting and irresponsible bloggers.
"You can't say that"
Libelous statements in the context of a public meeting are still protected.
In other words, if a citizen attends a public meeting and tells the City Council they should investigate their police chief because it is their belief he is dealing drugs (real case here), he is protected from a libel action as is the newspaper reporting this event.
There are various defenses against libel in a public meeting, the thought being public debate and discussion will be hampered if the public is fearful what they say at a public meeting can be used against them. It also protects politicians from things they say as well.
However, if the newspaper goes outside the meeting and does more reporting, getting other information, the risk for libel becomes greater. A court will likely view the entire store as a whole, and make a judgment on libel from the entire context.
In this case, it's more risky to do more reporting. Now, most good newspapers will do more reporting, and usually giving the accused a chance to say something is not true helps.
Coleman-Franken vote case to be argued March 1
In a case that may surprise you, an odd twist to the Coleman-Franken recount issue will be argued March 1 in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
KSTP-TV is arguing some 13,000 rejected, but unopened absentee ballots from the 2008 Franken-Coleman race should be treated as public data under the law and should be opened. They don't identify voters.
Presumably, KSTP would do a story on how the rejected ballots would have affected the outcome of the Senate race. If there were something in those envelopes that suggested election fraud or more of them should have been rejected etc., it's remotely possible the U.S. Senate, could, in a long shot, remove Franken, as the Senate, via the law, has the final say on seating a member.
Long shot, not likely, and maybe much ado about nothing. But stay tuned.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Minnesota's credit is excellent for bonding
It's nonsense for legislators opposed to a bonding bill this year to be suggesting our credit rating will somehow be damaged by approving bonding projects.
See this report on our credit. It shows that Minnesota not only continues to get the highest credit rating possible, but interests rates are historically low.
We'll already be saving $20 million in interest costs over the next 20 years on the bonds we recently issued.
The credit markets are also demanding municipal bonds because they are safe and secure. More demand, means even lower interest rates.
Wednesday's editorial details the rationale for doing a bonding bill this year and finally including the Mankato performing arts center project.
We've paid for more of our downtown projects out of our own money than any other city. In fact, even if we get our $14 million this year, we'll still be $66 million behind Rochester, St. Cloud, Crookston, Duluth, you name it.
See this report on our credit. It shows that Minnesota not only continues to get the highest credit rating possible, but interests rates are historically low.
We'll already be saving $20 million in interest costs over the next 20 years on the bonds we recently issued.
The credit markets are also demanding municipal bonds because they are safe and secure. More demand, means even lower interest rates.
Wednesday's editorial details the rationale for doing a bonding bill this year and finally including the Mankato performing arts center project.
We've paid for more of our downtown projects out of our own money than any other city. In fact, even if we get our $14 million this year, we'll still be $66 million behind Rochester, St. Cloud, Crookston, Duluth, you name it.
Friday, January 28, 2011
What journalists don't know can hurt you
I have friends who often joke that I'm just "smart enough to be dangerous."
They know, of course, that I have a master's degree in economics, a sort of odd or at least unusual combination with an undergraduate degree in journalism.
Of course, many economists are just smart enough to be dangerous, and most of them get on CNN or Fox because they have something newsworthy to say coming from a discipline that often is not exciting. A report on the GDP, for example, will not be able to compete with American idol.
Still, there are certain economists who offer intriguing ideas or are interesting people at the very least.
Louis Johnston, associate professor of economics at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict in Collegeville, fits the bill.
He spoke to a roomful of journalists at the Minnesota Newspaper Association convention Friday in Minneapolis.
While he was obliged to clarify some of the mysteries of economics to those whose job is to be short and simple in their writing, he had a number of interesting things to say about economic life in Minnesota.
He is currently involved in researching the history of the state's economy.
Some surprising facts: Per capita income in Minnesota has been rising and rising faster than any other states that are said to be in competition with Minnesota for business and jobs. Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota don't beat us in either overall per capita income or the trendline since the 1970s.
Another surprising fact: even when you take into account, Minnesota's relatively higher taxes, we still beat all the other states. We also beat Texas. Only two other states have shown continued per capita income growth over the years: Virginia and New Hampshire.
Johnston explains those: Virginia includes Washington D.C, and southern New Hampshire has become a suburb of Boston.
Johnston is working on research that suggests the reason Minnesota has had higher per capita income growth since the 1970s is that there was a bipartisan political coalition that agreed to invest in infrastructure, education and transportation.
Political leaders actually set up state programs to fund water and sewer projects in every city in Minnesota that didn't have them or didn't have adequate systems. That allowed businesses to locate in any town in the state. The infrastructure was already there.
Of course, now, that infrastructure must be maintained, and the funds for it are decreasing. That could come back to haunt us. Without those infrastructure investments, Johnston says, it may be difficult to maintain the state's manufacturing base.
They know, of course, that I have a master's degree in economics, a sort of odd or at least unusual combination with an undergraduate degree in journalism.
Of course, many economists are just smart enough to be dangerous, and most of them get on CNN or Fox because they have something newsworthy to say coming from a discipline that often is not exciting. A report on the GDP, for example, will not be able to compete with American idol.
Still, there are certain economists who offer intriguing ideas or are interesting people at the very least.
Louis Johnston, associate professor of economics at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict in Collegeville, fits the bill.
He spoke to a roomful of journalists at the Minnesota Newspaper Association convention Friday in Minneapolis.
While he was obliged to clarify some of the mysteries of economics to those whose job is to be short and simple in their writing, he had a number of interesting things to say about economic life in Minnesota.
He is currently involved in researching the history of the state's economy.
Some surprising facts: Per capita income in Minnesota has been rising and rising faster than any other states that are said to be in competition with Minnesota for business and jobs. Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota don't beat us in either overall per capita income or the trendline since the 1970s.
Another surprising fact: even when you take into account, Minnesota's relatively higher taxes, we still beat all the other states. We also beat Texas. Only two other states have shown continued per capita income growth over the years: Virginia and New Hampshire.
Johnston explains those: Virginia includes Washington D.C, and southern New Hampshire has become a suburb of Boston.
Johnston is working on research that suggests the reason Minnesota has had higher per capita income growth since the 1970s is that there was a bipartisan political coalition that agreed to invest in infrastructure, education and transportation.
Political leaders actually set up state programs to fund water and sewer projects in every city in Minnesota that didn't have them or didn't have adequate systems. That allowed businesses to locate in any town in the state. The infrastructure was already there.
Of course, now, that infrastructure must be maintained, and the funds for it are decreasing. That could come back to haunt us. Without those infrastructure investments, Johnston says, it may be difficult to maintain the state's manufacturing base.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Legislative committee menu: chides on the side
Watching two House of Representatives committee hearings the last couple days showed me a Legislature that is going to have its moments of confrontation and personality conflicts.
You can watch many of the important committee hearings online as they happen or later if you don't have the time. Since I wasn't doing anything the other night, I tuned in. (At this point you're thinking I don't have enough to do, and I wouldn't blame you if you did, but in the name of promoting public affairs journalism, I ventured into the hearing room abyss.)
First up, the important Ways and Means Committee in the House that was moving rather quickly on a bill to reduce state spending by $1 billion, about $200 million before June 30 and another $800 million over the next two years.
The Republicans who control the committee moved forward explaining the cuts and a state employee wage freeze that would reduce wages to state employees by $63 million compared to what they would have received. This, by the way, comes on top of another proposal moving through that would actually cut the state work force by 15 percent.
Rep. Bob Gunther, R, Fairmont, and chairman of the House jobs committee had the unpleasant duty of explaining to Democrats on the committee how freezing wages actually saves jobs. It's a reasonable position, argument being if you don't stop wage spending, in the end you'll have to cut jobs to save money.
Iron ranger Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL, had first crack at Gunther, asking if he, Gunther, is now the main negotiator for the state of Minnesota with regard to its unions.
If so, quipped Rukavina, Gunther should get a bump in pay.
Gunther remained polite.
Interestingly enough, Rukavina was pointing out that there may be legal consequences for freezing pay of collective bargaining units instead of letting them bargain for the wage freeze. Not really sure how that helps state employees, but it was an argument nonetheless.
Actually, Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained and the final party line vote, telling me afterward he was concerned about the legal implications of a union contract and that the bill could have legal troubles that way. Cornish didn't chime in about these concerns at the hearing, but he seems knowledgeable given he was a former union negotiator when he was with the DNR.
Rukavina continued with his sucker punches. He wondered if this bill would conflict with the other bill that would actually cut state jobs, and as Jobs committee chairman, would Gunther fight his Republican opponents on that bill.
The gist of Rukavina's statement was something to the effect: "Cause if you do, I want to see that fight."
Gunther said he had no intention of holding up another Republican's bill.
Most of the other Democrats argued that bill should get more of a public hearing. Ways and Means Chair Rep. Mary Liz Holberg said she just thinks they need to move quickly. The more time they have, the more time they have to come up with other solutions.
All in all, the hearing gets a 7 or 8 for civility on my scale of 10 being very civil. I cut a few points regards a subtle but poignant sarcastic attitude on the part of a few member and a few chides on the side.
You can watch many of the important committee hearings online as they happen or later if you don't have the time. Since I wasn't doing anything the other night, I tuned in. (At this point you're thinking I don't have enough to do, and I wouldn't blame you if you did, but in the name of promoting public affairs journalism, I ventured into the hearing room abyss.)
First up, the important Ways and Means Committee in the House that was moving rather quickly on a bill to reduce state spending by $1 billion, about $200 million before June 30 and another $800 million over the next two years.
The Republicans who control the committee moved forward explaining the cuts and a state employee wage freeze that would reduce wages to state employees by $63 million compared to what they would have received. This, by the way, comes on top of another proposal moving through that would actually cut the state work force by 15 percent.
Rep. Bob Gunther, R, Fairmont, and chairman of the House jobs committee had the unpleasant duty of explaining to Democrats on the committee how freezing wages actually saves jobs. It's a reasonable position, argument being if you don't stop wage spending, in the end you'll have to cut jobs to save money.
Iron ranger Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL, had first crack at Gunther, asking if he, Gunther, is now the main negotiator for the state of Minnesota with regard to its unions.
If so, quipped Rukavina, Gunther should get a bump in pay.
Gunther remained polite.
Interestingly enough, Rukavina was pointing out that there may be legal consequences for freezing pay of collective bargaining units instead of letting them bargain for the wage freeze. Not really sure how that helps state employees, but it was an argument nonetheless.
Actually, Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained and the final party line vote, telling me afterward he was concerned about the legal implications of a union contract and that the bill could have legal troubles that way. Cornish didn't chime in about these concerns at the hearing, but he seems knowledgeable given he was a former union negotiator when he was with the DNR.
Rukavina continued with his sucker punches. He wondered if this bill would conflict with the other bill that would actually cut state jobs, and as Jobs committee chairman, would Gunther fight his Republican opponents on that bill.
The gist of Rukavina's statement was something to the effect: "Cause if you do, I want to see that fight."
Gunther said he had no intention of holding up another Republican's bill.
Most of the other Democrats argued that bill should get more of a public hearing. Ways and Means Chair Rep. Mary Liz Holberg said she just thinks they need to move quickly. The more time they have, the more time they have to come up with other solutions.
All in all, the hearing gets a 7 or 8 for civility on my scale of 10 being very civil. I cut a few points regards a subtle but poignant sarcastic attitude on the part of a few member and a few chides on the side.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Legislature moving fast on cuts
The Minnesota House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee moved quickly again Monday to forward a bill to impose some $1 billion in cuts to the state budget.
The pace of all this does seem unusually fast. Not much time for committee testimony. I guess that can be good because it gets us to the final negotiations with the governor earlier in the process. Time will tell.
The plans was apparently modified a bit to make some $400 million in cuts to local government aid temporary, and levels of funding would spring back to higher levels in 2013 unless lawmakers made the cuts permanent at that time.
Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained from voting on the bill which passed the committee on what appeared to be a party line vote of 18-13. The bill is headed to the House floor for a vote.
Cornish told me he abstained because as a former union negotiator he was concerned the bill might have legal issues if it portends to cut raises for people in the future that were already negotiated.
The bill cuts $181 million in current biennium and calls for $819 million more in next two year budget cycle that starts July 1.
The bill would extend temporary cuts made last year including $566 million to property tax relief, 185 million to higher education and $72 million from health and human services. The bill also freezes wages to state workers and asks Gov. Mark Dayton to hold back about $200 million in unspent funds in the current biennium.
Rep.Kathy Brynaert spoke against the bill saying there has not been enough time for colleges in her district to determine how the cuts to colleges would impact them. She called the proposal serious and noted MSU already cut 100 staff, $6.4 million in spending as well as adjunct and grad assistants at a time teaching loads are heavier due to budget cuts.
She said several students who she speaks with regularly say they don't know how they will finish in four years because of budget cuts have changed availability of some classes.
Democrats on the committee say it raises tuition and property taxes without much public input.
Here's the story from the Legislative news service on the committee hearing with links to a video of the meeting.
Here's the video of the hearing. It's 1 hour 30 plus minutes
The pace of all this does seem unusually fast. Not much time for committee testimony. I guess that can be good because it gets us to the final negotiations with the governor earlier in the process. Time will tell.
The plans was apparently modified a bit to make some $400 million in cuts to local government aid temporary, and levels of funding would spring back to higher levels in 2013 unless lawmakers made the cuts permanent at that time.
Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained from voting on the bill which passed the committee on what appeared to be a party line vote of 18-13. The bill is headed to the House floor for a vote.
Cornish told me he abstained because as a former union negotiator he was concerned the bill might have legal issues if it portends to cut raises for people in the future that were already negotiated.
The bill cuts $181 million in current biennium and calls for $819 million more in next two year budget cycle that starts July 1.
The bill would extend temporary cuts made last year including $566 million to property tax relief, 185 million to higher education and $72 million from health and human services. The bill also freezes wages to state workers and asks Gov. Mark Dayton to hold back about $200 million in unspent funds in the current biennium.
Rep.Kathy Brynaert spoke against the bill saying there has not been enough time for colleges in her district to determine how the cuts to colleges would impact them. She called the proposal serious and noted MSU already cut 100 staff, $6.4 million in spending as well as adjunct and grad assistants at a time teaching loads are heavier due to budget cuts.
She said several students who she speaks with regularly say they don't know how they will finish in four years because of budget cuts have changed availability of some classes.
Democrats on the committee say it raises tuition and property taxes without much public input.
Here's the story from the Legislative news service on the committee hearing with links to a video of the meeting.
Here's the video of the hearing. It's 1 hour 30 plus minutes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)