Secrets of the City

I can’t convey in strong enough terms how serious this is. Nonpartisan research staff are the hidden engine of the Legislature, and their nonpartisan nature is an absolute sacred line that is never to be crossed. Because of what the DFL did in ordering staff to take a position against a particular lawsuit, nonpartisan research staff cannot provide information concerning some aspects of unallotment to GOP members without the DFL’s permission, which the DFL has not given.

Here is a link http://mnhousegop.squarespace.com/blog/tag/abuse-of-power to posts on our Web site tracking this ongoing scandal.

Pah-leeze…do not use True North as a resource for any sort of information. These guys are just right of John Birch.

kwatt, as per the website you linked to why is there no information on who is actually creating those posts or any information at all behind who supports that website. The link on the site just sends you to a list of all House Republicans. How about a little transparency. I don’t trust anything that hides behind anonymity.

Andy Aplikowski is a neighbor of mine. I used to drop by his “Residual Forces” blog from time to time. He’s most (in)famious for his deep-throted criticism of his party’s leaderhip. Andy’s sort of a proto-Teabagger, a loose cannon on the deck of the GOP flagship.

There is a big jump from doing reseach on the legality of a rarely used legislative tool and taking a partisan position. If the staff is as professional and nonpartisan as you suggest, kevin, they know where the line is, and won’t cross it.

“Pah-leeze…do not use True North as a resource for any sort of information. These guys are just right of John Birch.”

I disagree, and I offer kudos to Christina for a link to a conservative site talking about a subject that our own kwatt tells us is serious. ARE YOU READING THIS, MINNPOST? While I disagree with his conclutions, I greatly respect his insider knowledge of Minnesota’s legislature. So, let the discussion begin — this one, unlike the fluff jobs MinnPost have been doing lately, has some meat.

bob did you read that True North post? It is a bunch of bullshit talking points with no factual back up. I would guess most conservatives would want nothing to do with these Rand Worshiping Utopians.

Of course their Utopia is filled with white straight christians that have lived in the US for at least 5 generations.

Truthfully, no. However, I am familiar with Andy’s writting style, so I’m not surprized if it is not particularly well written. It is, however, a worthy topic of discussion. That’s my point — engaging conservatives in discussion on these sites needs good topics where both sides can make their points without the usual name-calling.

(You’ve got to be kidding me. I had a comment written out, accidentally hit the ‘back’ button and it went poof.)

@dougie: It’s the House Republican caucus Web site, that’s pretty transparent and obvious by the giant header. As communications director, it is my job to run the site for the caucus.

There is a big jump from doing reseach on the legality of a rarely used legislative tool and taking a partisan position. If the staff is as professional and nonpartisan as you suggest, kevin, they know where the line is, and won’t cross it.

They were not asked to do research and weigh in with what they find. They were ordered by the House Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration to adopt a particular position that reflects the viewpoint of the DFL majority and file a brief reflecting that position with the court. There was no room for interpretation on what they were supposed to do, it was spelled out specifically by the committee. I would link to the resolution, but I can’t find it anywhere online, speaking of transparency.

Or, the House Committee adopted a particular position and asked its research arm to draft a report explaining and clearly definiing the legal reasoning it had used to reach said position.

That’s what legal clerks and paralegals do every day, isn’t it?

Now, if they had insisted that the research group sign off on the measure as their personall opinion, then yes, that is an abuse. But that’s not what they asked for, or got.

I understand that you see this as a cheap shot at Pawlenty, kwatt. Understand that others see the Governor’s actions as an illegal abuse of his power. In any case, it’s in the hands of the court now. We’ll see.

Frankly, Bob, you’re wrong. If you are right, then it would be perfectly okay for the tax committee to tell nonpartisan staff to write its bill summary in such a way that reflects the committee’s position on the bill, and then deny anyone who might oppose all or part of the bill from receiving research guidance to argue otherwise. That’s not what research and fiscal staff do, nor should it be, nor has it ever been until now according to the best recollection of nonpartisan staff who have been here for decades. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that Republicans never ordered them to work in such a fashion, though they certainly could have in the 2005 case in which members sued the judicial branch for appropriating state funds without the approval of the Legislature. I doubt it even occurred to anyone.

If what Kevin says is true, then it is indeed serious. However, I think it is probably more of an exaggeration than actual conspiracy. If you’re in the minority position, and things are not going your way, you lash out for any thread or appearance of impropriety to derail the process. That is the goal here. They have nothing to offer in form of compromise or even alternatives (other than the status quo), so all these individuals have is scare tactics and innuendo.

For a better understand of the fine difference between what nonpartisan staff normally do and what they were ordered to do in this instance, check out this link (PDF) http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/unallot.pdf to a research memo of the unallotment statute. Then read the amicus brief here (DPF) http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2009/11/documents/Amicus-brief.pdf

These documents were written by the same people. (No one is questioning their integrity, by the way. Mark and Joel are the best.)

kevs, if this is true, does the staff have any way to voice their concerns about this OTHER than through the Republican Party? Because I don’t think that you folks are going to get much traction on this one. The GOP is not exactly an unconnected 3rd party on this…

I’m afraid this session is going to be even messier and nastier than the last. That’s too bad.

Actually Doug, our members have A LOT of ideas, most of which are never given consideration, which though unfortunate is within the majority’s right. The ironic thing is when they accuse our members of “gumming up the works” by offering so many amendments to bills, then launch accusations like yours that we have no ideas of our own. Here are some http://mnhousegop.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/2/reforms-and-cost-saving-ideas-offered-in-2009.html

I think we have some good folks at the Capitol Press Corps who can determine if the Republicans’ cause has merit. I’ll be watching for more.

Thanks, kevin, for the followup. I’m not yet convinced, but I’m keeping an open mind.

kevs, if this is true, does the staff have any way to voice their concerns about this OTHER than through the Republican Party? Because I don’t think that you folks are going to get much traction on this one. The GOP is not exactly an unconnected 3rd party on this…

No, and they would not publicly voice their concerns because 1) they are in an attorney-client relationship, and 2) they are too professional to do so. House Rules disputes never get traction, and no one is expecting otherwise. It still does not mean manipulating staff or cutting off opposing viewpoints is the right thing to do.

To the winners, go the spoils. A messy way to govern, but in the long run, it seems to work.

Again, good response, kevs. Glad you are around to talk about this inside-baseball kind of stuff.

We really don’t care what a paranoid white guy thinks. To him, everything in the public sphere is for poor black people and he just can’t stand it. True North is not worth reading.

“To the winners, go the spoils.”

From what I’ve been reading, that’s not really an applicable cliche.

It’s more like, we won, now go stand in the corner.

your point, rat?

Actually, rat, it’s more like “We won, now go down to second floor.” The SOB has this really odd set up that whenever the majority changes we all have to pack up and switch floors because 4th and 5th floors have more office space. It’s a nightmare.

But I can think of one time when a House rules dispute did get traction, that was this year when the DFL tried to put restrictions on media access to committee rooms and the House Floor. That got their attention, as well it should have.

Read through the GOP proposals. Almost completely terrible ideas that would leave our state far worse off. Others are so vague as to be meaningless.

That’s a good point, I should go back and link them to the specific pieces of legislation that accompany them. D*mn, marklar, I should bring you in as an advisor. I feel kinda dumb for not thinking of that already.

Thank Kevin, but there is a problem with that list of ideas. They attack the heart of Democratic ideals. Limit purchase abilities for EBT cards? That is a non-starter. Eliminate MN Care for anyone convicted of violent crimes? Then what do they do? These are pretty much non-negotiable. While Republicans think these may be good ideas, they are really not in any way palatable to the Democratic leadership. Hey let’s cut Democratic programs! The rest of the list is much of the same. Privatize things like prisons. While it is a typical Republican suggestion, it is unthinkable to the Democratic leadership. The entire list is ideas that are not conducive to the liberal minded ideology. Thus, you may as well not even suggest them.

Again, compromise and bipartisanship does not mean do whatever one side wants. It means finding the middle ground. It means give an take. It does not mean — you will not raise taxes under any circumstances — the only acceptable action is service cuts.

Sorry for having ideas, Doug.

Eliminate MN Care for anyone convicted of violent crimes?

Actually, the proposal the DFL will unveil at 12:30 is said to include that, so chalk one up for the good guys!

What part of “we won,” don’t you understand, Rat? Does the majority party have a mandate from the voters, or are they expected to morp into something else, once in office?

That’s pretty much the way it works in the House (both in MN and in DC). The Senate is another creature.

Watching the health care debate from afar and the other local issues being fought out here offers an excellent lession on how politics, special interests and government all mash together.

Interesting issue. On one hand, there really isn’t any public purpose to Republican legislators using research staff to prepare opposing documents at this point, other than their own P.R., since such documents wouldn’t/couldn’t be filed in the case anyway. And it’s not as if the governor and attorney general don’t have access to their own research staff to prepare their defense.

On the other hand, if Democratic legislators are allowed to join the lawsuit and use public resources to draft documents supporting the prosecution, then it seems like Republican legislators could be allowed to do the same for the defense. The Democrats can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be able to file their supporting documents as “the Legislature” and thus block any other legislators from doing the same, because although they control the legislature, they don’t comprise 100% of it.

yeah, but the legislature operates (or is supposed to) on a majority rule basis. So if the majority votes to take action, it IS the legislature taking action. Following your reasoning, spycake, the minority can refuse to be bound by any law that the majority passes.

Marklar is correct. To spycake’s point, “their own PR” includes members’ constituent service. At this point, Democrats are blocking them from getting research information to use when responding to constituents’ questions.

Carful liberals the independent are getting sick of you. The far left wing party is over. It is bullshit like this that turns off the undecided voter. If the republicans can keep the god,guns and gynecology off the table they will sweep. the People of Minnesota are looking for fiscal leadership not increased spending on the middle class’s dime. That said the republicans better run for the middle and stop pandering and giving money away in the form of corporate welfare. If any legislature supports a stadium you can count on losing, just ask Colman. I liked what I saw on Kwat’s link.

Check back with us on Nov. 3, 2010, swandog, and well see who gets to gloat then.

As I warned one conservative on Twitter, “Don’t spike the ball until you cross the goal line.”

I absolutely can’t believe the attitude posted by the liberals here. We won, so you shouldn’t even suggest ideas that we don’t agree with. I wish I had known that so I could have come here when the Republican’s were in charge and told all of you not to even suggest any ideas because the Rebublican’s had won so there is no reason for them to listen to you. DouglasG’s post is CLASSIC. “The entire list is ideas that are not conducive to the liberal minded ideology. Thus, you may as well not even suggest them.” – then he goes on to imply that Pawlenty should try and find middle ground. According to his logic though if he supported Pawlenty then Tim should just say to the DFL – if its not conducive to the conservative minded ideology don’t even suggest anything.

“I wish I had known that so I could have come here when the Republican’s were in charge and told all of you not to even suggest any ideas because the Rebublican’s had won so there is no reason for them to listen to you.”

OK, not restricting ourselves to MN State legislature, that’s exactly how the Tom Delay, Dick Armey and Denny Hastert US House was run.

“According to his logic though if he supported Pawlenty then Tim should just say to the DFL – if its not conducive to the conservative minded ideology don’t even suggest anything.”

Of course, this also is EXACTLY how Tim runs his administration. Tax increases, no matter what or how much, is not conducive to his conservative mindset, so the DFL damn well better not present any to him, or he’s going to take his ball and play all by himself.

Exactly mnblrmkr – I agree with you. What is comical to me is that the comments here seem to applaud that attitude for the DFL run legislature. However when it comes to T-Paw and when the Republican’s were in charge nationally then it is all – we need compromise, lets find middle ground!

mnblrmkr: I understand majority rule, but it seems a little odd that the majority party could join a lawsuit which is basically against the minority party, and use the legislative research team to support it, all while barring the minority party in the legislature from accessing the same research team. I assume that when they join the suit, they are joining as “The Legislature” and not the party or caucus, since they are using legislative resources, but they’re not a homogenous group, so it’s not clear to me that they should be able to join as that government body. Could “The Legislature” join any lawsuit that the majority party wanted and use publicly-financed resources to support that suit?

If three members of my family wanted to join a lawsuit against Microsoft, but two members of my family were opposed, could the majority three join as the “spycake family”? And prevent the minority two from using any shared computers in the house to support the Microsoft side?

How often do legislatures join lawsuits? It just seems like a weird move, but maybe it is more common than I realize (although I would guess the suits don’t often target the governor and the minority party!). Is there any other recourse if they disagree on the legality of the governor’s actions?

@spycake Of course there are other avenues. They could file suit, which several have said they think legislators should do. They could hire outside counsel to file an amicus brief or bring the suit (which is what GOP legislators did in 2005). For whatever reason, they choose to do it through the House nonpartisan staff instead, which costs them no money. To hire outside counsel to do 112 hours of work would likely cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

I would like to clarify my position here. I am going to use some exaggerations to illustrate my point, so bare with me. So, there is a battle over budget. The minority party says, “Hey lets scrap all social programs! That is our only offer!” The majority party — which put those social programs in place are likely not interested in scrapping those programs.

The latest budget adjustments were all cuts. Thus, the Republicans got their way. The Republicans did not meet anyone in the middle. They were certainly crowing about attempts to be bipartisan, but they would only offer to cut programs. They allowed the Democrats to eliminate JobZ! Hey! Compromise!

There are layoffs all over the state and more to come. There are poor people losing health care and other programs going without funding. There are towns and schools borrowing money. The ripples of the latest budget battle are going to be felt throughout the state for years. It looks like people who have made a mistake, and paid their debt to society are going to lose their health insurance. These are things that the Democrats caved on. What did the Republicans? JobZ?

You see, there was some give, but they got no take.

I am not saying that the majority should always get their say. I am saying that cutting programs to the poor and underprivileged should be a non-negotiable position for the Democrats. (Apparently it isn’t.) What did the Republicans give up in the latest battle?

so bare with me

Dammit. Unless you have a sauna, I’m not baring it with anyone in this kind of weather!

It’s NOT against the minority party. It’s against the Governor, who simply happens to be a member of the other party. The lawsuit itself should make no reference to the Republican party. The plaintiff of record would be Governor Pawlenty, and possibly other members of his administration.

And no, the legislature can’t join any lawsuit it wants, merely at the behest of the majority. The legislature itself would have to have standing. In this case, part of the argument is that the Governor’s action violates the constitutional power of the legislature over budgets and revenues.

The legislature may not be a homogeneous body of individuals, but it can essentially act only as a single body. Individual republicans could perhaps join the suit as individuals, perhaps even as individual legislators (In fact, back in the 90s (late 80s?), US Sen. Robert Byrd filed suit as an individual after Congress passed and the President signed the line item veto).

As for your family, that’s a flawed analogy. I don’t believe that there is a legally recognized entity of the “Spycake family.” A lawsuit would be filed with each individual listed as a separate plaintiff. Barring a situation such as a family farm/business that has been incorporated, or established as a partnership. In that case, yes, depending on the terms of incorporation or partnership, a majority could probably take similar actions. Although restrictions on the minorities actions would likely be limited to the property held by the legal entity. (and they still couldn’t prevent someone from taking action as an individual if they meet the standing requirements.)

That’s a nice argument doug, but it ignores two key facts:
1. The governor signed all the finance committee bills.
2. Democrats wrote those bills. And voted for them, something they would not have done of only Republicans got their way.

except that he DIDN’T sign the revenue bills that actually paid for the stuff. And he signed the finance committee bills KNOWING that he wouldn’t sign the revenue side of the equation.

At the time he signed the finance bills, there was no revenue bill. He’d previously vetoed one, but that didn’t come close to covering all the spending in the bills the DFL would subsequently send to his desk. There was no revenue bill large enough to pay for everything until the last hour of session – literally the last minutes. If they were truly interested in preserving the system set forth in the constitution, they would investigate whether or not the tax bill actually passed the Legislature before the constitutionally mandated adjournment, which it probably didn’t. (The court would throw out the case anyway, because it typically gives defference to the Legislature to conduct its business.)

He still knew that they couldn’t pay for what was appropriated without some kind of tax hikes, which he was categorically refusing to allow.

Any revenue bill they sent that matched appropriations, he would veto. Any revenue bill he would have been willing to sign, he knew would create a deficit.

Not true. There were all kinds of options, he even offered to accept the Democrats full K12 funding shift (which passed the House), the Democrats; not funding a budget reserve (passed the DFL Senate) and half his tobacco bond proposal. They responded to his offer by calling it extreme and unwise, even though they’d already passed 2/3 of it. He announced that, if no other deal was reached, he would use unallotment. That was a Thursday. The DFL spent most of the next two days in recess or in a made-for-TV committee that heard zero bills and took zero votes. Then 90 minutes before session ended they cobbled a last-gasp tax bill together that they knew would be vetoed. They could have re-opened their bills to make reforms and other cuts to reach a deal, but they chose not to.

Wow, justplainb, you’re neighbors with a teabagger? In Anoka County, you say? Crazy town!

Tru dat, girl, tru dat.

@bob- Check back with us on Nov. 3, 2010, swandog, and well see who gets to gloat then.

I would add careful what one wishes for because I am no huge fan of the far right god crowd. My vote is always against the party in power, if at all feasible. Keep the political bastards moving out the door. Until we have a third party we will always have a “no” choice between bought out politician one or two.

Can’t a third party candidate be bought too? Look at (ahem) Sen. Dean Barkley. He’s available. Cheap.

@kwatt- what was good about this last session was very little got accomplished. My faith in the DFL or the GOP is zero. Grid lock is the citizens of Minnesota’s friend, the outcome was limited tax increases and limited give a ways in the form of corporate welfare. Both parties fail to realize the growing anger with both of our bought out parties. However, the blame lies with the sheep of this state and nation for tolerating it. The citizens have gotten what the deserve complete and utter mediocrity if not failure at the local, state and national level.

“Can’t a third party candidate be bought too?”

Remember the tale of Dean “Money,Money,Money” Zimmerman from the Green Party?

I had forgotten about him. Yep, being a Green doesn’t mean who won’t try to grab some green. It’s about people, not party labels.