Almanac: At the Capitol

Some people have asked why they have seen the House Republicans in the news so much lately. I have the answer: while we are in a deep minority, we will commit to offering positive solutions and continue to be leaders for Minnesotans.

Our work has started and the House GOP has moved quickly: we've proposed five achievable solutions for Higher Education, including a one-year tuition freeze for all public school students & families; consolidation of the 90+ different job training programs to better serve people and to save money; better on-line learning opportunities for Minnesotans; the ability to use pre-tax dollars to pay off student loans and giving legislative protection for Minnesota's cutting-edge Post Secondary Enrollment Options Programs, taught by high school teachers.

This past week, the House Republicans proposed a sweeping anti-crime proposal. This package includes directing Local Government Aid (LGA) in high-crime cities to public safety. Did you know that Minneapolis has more employees in Park and Rec than rank and file street cops? What sense does that make? The murder rate is simply unacceptable. While the DFL Mayors are outragred that lawmakers who hand over millions in state dollars have the audacity to question the ever-increasing murder and rape rates, we are finding that ordinary Minnesotans who live, work and enjoy recreation in the twin cities are extremely supportive of our proposals. In addition to the LGA directive, we are also proposing to disallow out of state felons from getting welfare when moving to Minnesota; toughening sentences for rapists that prey upon senior citizens and children; enhancing tracking of Level II sex offenders and also boosting penalties for criminal neglect of a vulnerable adult. Did you know that the penalties are higher for neglecting your pet hamster than an elderly grandmother? This makes no sense to us and we will work aggressively to change this law. I'd like to thank Rep. Steve Smith (R-Mound) for bringing forth many of these thoughtful proposals for our caucus.

Finally, I would let you know that our caucus pushed very hard for tax relief for average Minnesotans this past week, but it was unfortunately voted down along partisan lines by the DFL. We are for investing in children, but it is the parents that are the foremost investors, not government.

We are very disappointed by the new, so-called "moderate DFLers" that campaigned saying that they would work with Republicans and be fiscally responsible, yet every single one voted like sheep, with the liberal, leadership to keep money in then hands of the government and out of the hands of the hard working taxpayers. The silence from these new lambs, was deafening. Not one spoke up to join with the GOP to help give even the smallest crumb of extra relief to taxpayers, outside of the simple federal conformity that we basically had to do. "The Silence of the Lambs" appears to be the new mantra for the freshman DFLers as they follow along sheep-like with their liberal leadership. The House Republicans have been and continue to expect a good, civil working relationship that helps move Minnesota in a positive direction. We are in hope that the DFLers who campaigned on bipartisanship, cooperation, moderation and "voting their district" will at some point remember what they campaigned about several months ago.

In the 2006 elections, DFLers extended their majority in the State Senate, and took back the majority in the House by a decisive margin. After similar successes in 2004, there are now literally dozens of freshman or second-term DFLers in the Legislature. The dramatic changes beg a question: are the new DFLers liberal, conservative, moderate, or something else altogether?

In comparing the post-2002 and post-2006 legislative maps, a theme emerges: the gains made by DFL candidates have not been concentrated in any one region of the state; rather, they have been spread evenly among the northern and southern suburbs, the West Metro, and southern Minnesota. These areas represent a vast swath of not just Minnesotan society, but American society as a whole, in various socio-economic measures. How then is it possible that a party has built a message and platform that appeals to such disparate communities?

The answer lies not in the political beliefs of DFL candidates, but in the execution of their campaigns. Certainly the DFL has plenty of liberal leaders, some moderates, and even a few conservatives. Certainly they share some political ideals — economic opportunity, fair wages and labor standards, freedom from government intrusion in our personal lives. But the strongest parallel between the vast majority of new DFL legislators is a people-powered approach to campaigning: making personal connections with constituents, pounding the pavement, shaking hands, knocking on doors, getting the candidate's face not just into the community but into the homes of voters and their families to talk with voters, not just at voters.

So what does this mean for the Legislature? It may mean a little less party loyalty. It may mean more intrigue as far as bills and amendments and political maneuvering are concerned. But if the DFL's 30-plus new-ish State Representatives acquit themselves intelligently, fairly, and always on behalf of the people who sent them to St. Paul, I think we can count on a solid DFL majority in both houses for quite a long time. What outside observers think of their liberalness, conservativeness, or whateverness simply won't matter.

Democrats are apparently strategizing to take some attention away from Gov. Pawlenty's State of the State Address. The Senate is scheduled to take up their first bill of the session just 45 minutes before senators have to be in the House Chamber for the address. Clearly, DFL lawmakers want to make some news of their own unrelated to the governor. Also, the Senate may be trying to avoid the three hour amendment-laden partisan debate the House had when taking up the same federal tax compliance bill. In the House, Speaker Anderson Kelliher held a 9:30 am press conference to "discuss Governor Pawlenty's State of the State Address." I don't know how a Democratic lawmaker can discuss a speech several hours before it actually happens. Sure, some of the themes will be predictable, but this is unprecedented to react to something you haven't even heard. I've called her PR person to say I'm only interested in what she has to say after she hears the speech. Senate Dems have smartly scheduled a formal response 90 minutes after the governor's address.

Here's a very interesting post on our Brain Trust from former Senator Ember Reichgott Junge:

Ethics and Legislator Misconduct: Tread Carefully

I don’t know Rep. Mark Olson well, nor the facts of the recent domestic abuse allegations against him. I do know about managing senate ethics investigations, having co-chaired eight of them involving my DFL senate colleagues in the mid-1990’s.

My recommendation to House leadership: be thoughtful and let due process be your guide. This is no place for grandstanding.

The court proceeding is not yet resolved, and there is no ethics complaint filed against Mark Olson. Olson has had no forum to be heard. Yet, House Minority Leader Marty Seifert took strong action against his fellow Republican caucus member by removing his staff and committee status. Due process was left in the dust, seemingly to make a political point.

What happens if Mark Olson is convicted of a felony in court? He must resign his office. There’s no legal question about that. But what about a misdemeanor? His political future could be up to his colleagues. Rep. Olson may make the decision himself, and tender his resignation. If he chooses to serve, he will likely face an ethics complaint against him.

I don’t know Rep. Mark Olson well, nor the facts of the recent domestic abuse allegations against him. I do know about managing senate ethics investigations, having co-chaired eight of them involving my DFL senate colleagues in the mid-1990’s.

My recommendation to House leadership: be thoughtful and let due process be your guide. This is no place for grandstanding.

The court proceeding is not yet resolved, and there is no ethics complaint filed against Mark Olson. Olson has had no forum to be heard. Yet, House Minority Leader Marty Seifert took strong action against his fellow Republican caucus member by removing his staff and committee status. Due process was left in the dust, seemingly to make a political point.

What happens if Mark Olson is convicted of a felony in court? He must resign his office. There’s no legal question about that. But what about a misdemeanor? His political future could be up to his colleagues. Rep. Olson may make the decision himself, and tender his resignation. If he chooses to serve, he will likely face an ethics complaint against him.

If that happens, Olson deserves to be heard. He has a right to state his case, or his apology, or even his intentions to seek treatment. The Ethics committee takes that into account in recommending consequences from apology to expulsion.

The Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct faced similar situations in 1996, where members pled guilty to misdemeanor crimes involving domestic assault, phone misuse, and other transgressions. We had full hearings, offering an open record for the public. We recommended a range of consequences upheld by the full bipartisan senate. Some of these senators chose not to run again or were defeated. Other senators admitted their transgressions in heartfelt apologies and were re-elected with bigger margins than ever.

Remember: there are many different kinds of misdemeanors. Whatever happens in this case will set a strong precedent for future cases involving future members. In cases of personal misconduct, after fair public record and consequence, is a member’s future in elected office a matter for the House to decide, or a matter for the voters of the district to decide?

As a member of the Senate, I've been a passionate advocate against domestic violence. But the issues here go far beyond any individual case. To the House leadership I say err on the side of due process. Make the public record. Bring in outside judges to help, if necessary. The appropriate penalty will become clear.

The minute this becomes a partisan issue on either side, the House loses credibility as an institution. We’ll see a repeat of what happened with the ethics committee in Congress when House Majority Leader Tom DeLay manipulated it. Ethics became a joke.

We often say “do the right thing.” Thoughtful due process is the path to finding the right thing to do.

And to Republican Leader Marty Seifert: become a leader, not a grandstander. In the end, you’ll be more effective.