By Mark Fischenich
Associated Press
October 29, 2006 01:07 am
—
It wasn’t a case of everlasting peace, sweet tranquility and 201 state lawmakers singing “Kumbayah” under the Capitol dome back in the mid-1990s when Howard Swenson and Ruth Johnson were first elected to the Legislature.
There were serious policy disputes, sometimes heated arguments and more than one special session to finish the work that hadn’t been completed by the adjournment of the regular session.
But Swenson, now retired, and Johnson, who is retiring at the end of the year, said state government in Minnesota worked pretty well back then. In the last few years, however, it hasn’t.
“Both sides are too locked in and fail to realize that — for the good of the people — there has to be compromise,” said Swenson, R-Nicollet. “... I would say both parties would have to share the blame. You can have different opinions and different outcomes you want to reach. But ultimately, if there’s going to be conclusion, both sides have to give.”
A St. Peter Democrat, Johnson had a unique perspective on the changing House of Representatives because each of her three terms was separated by two-year respites from the Legislature — once after losing a race for lieutenant governor in 1998 and once when she lost a re-election bid to the House in 2002.
When Johnson returned for her second term in 2001, she said the tenor of the place had changed from 1998.
“I was surprised at the level of bitterness and very inflammatory rhetoric in the House,” she said.
There was unmistakable anger during debates, even screaming, that she said was “very disrespectful to the House of the people.”
The ultimate failure
When Johnson returned again in 2005, her initial impression was that attitudes were better. But 2005 was also the pinnacle of legislative dysfunction. It was the year when Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the lawmakers in the Republican-controlled House and Democratic Senate did something that had never happened in the nearly-150 year history of the state.
They delayed, argued, disparaged one another and refused to compromise for so long that the state’s fiscal year ended without a completed budget in place. On July 1, parts of state government shut down because no money had been authorized to fund them — a first in Minnesota history and an extremely rare event in any state.
Longtime lawmakers were embarrassed. Pawlenty said the legislative process was “all gunked up.” Average Minnesotans who rarely paid attention to what happened at the Capitol were disgusted.
A couple of weeks later, the governor and lawmakers reached an agreement during a special session and the shut-down ended. The 2006 session went much better.
But 2005 marked the third straight budget-setting year — and the sixth time in seven — that the governor and Legislature needed to go into special session because they couldn’t finish on time.
Need a little respect
For Swenson, the problem centers on attitudes — particularly among the key figures involved in the final negotiations.
“It seemed to me that over the last period of years it’s escalated — the animosity,” said Swenson, a former dairy farmer and Nicollet School Board member.
Disagreements are inevitable, but disrespect isn’t, he said.
“The only way to get done is for both sides to have some give-and-take and have a serious discussion and still have respect for each other,” Swenson said.
Maintaining mutual respect and civility can be important in the final days of a regular session when a compromise is needed.
“There should be more cooperation,” he said. “And I don’t know why it’s changed and whose fault it is.”
Time for bipartisanship
Johnson sees a number of potential fixes.
Foremost, state leaders need to focus on the core duties of government in Minnesota — how to provide quality educational opportunities across the state, how to preserve and enhance the transportation system, how to protect the environment, how to ensure that health care is available to as many Minnesotans as possible, and how to pay for it through a fair tax system.
A growing focus on divisive social issues distracted lawmakers from the key issues, according to Johnson. Even when it was clear that a social-issue bill wouldn’t pass the Senate, the debate would drag on for hours in the House.
Republicans, and a few Democrats, have made the same case about DFL proposals to raise taxes on high-income Minnesotans — proposals that faced certain doom in the House or via a gubernatorial veto but consumed a great deal of time in the Senate.
Another improvement, according to Johnson, would be for the leaders of the majority party to listen to — and sometimes, at least, agree to include — the ideas of the minority party.
The House Republican majority wrote rules designed to undermine the minority Democrats’ ability to offer amendments when budget bills are being considered, she said.
When the end days of the session come, the Republican legislation from the House is so different from the Democratic legislation produced by the Senate that compromise is difficult. If minority views had been considered earlier, the two bills could be more easily reconciled, Johnson reasons.
“It’s easier to close a gap of 10 miles than 100 miles,” she said.
Johnson also blames the more consolidated House schedule of recent years when lawmakers did most of their work on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in the early months of the session. That leaves less time for public testimony in committees and less time for lawmakers to get to know each other, she said.
Victory isn’t everything
The desire to “win” the legislative session may have also grown in recent years, according to both Johnson and Swenson. Outside forces have contributed to that.
“I don’t know if the general population (demands that),” Swenson said. “But you may have some special interest groups that do.”
A couple of examples ...
Two years after the Republicans won control of the House, an influential GOP donor named Mike Wigley sent e-mails to House Republicans telling them to dump House Speaker Steve Sviggum or he would not contribute “another cent” to their campaign funds.
Wigley accused Sviggum of “giving away the store” in negotiations with Senate Democrats and said other big Republican donors would also shut off the campaign donation spigot if Sviggum wasn’t replaced.
Sviggum kept his job, but a House executive committee — made up of veteran Republicans — was formed to participate in negotiations the following session. Negotiations went badly, a special session was required, and the final compromise budget in 2001 wasn’t approved until just hours before government would have shut down.
In 2004, Senate Majority Leader John Hottinger, DFL-St. Peter, found himself negotiating against a united Pawlenty/House Republican team. Aiming to avoid a government shut-down, Hottinger made major concessions in return for Senate Republicans taking ownership of the deep budget cuts by providing unanimous support when the bills were voted on.
One longtime DFL senator said Hottinger “capitulated on everything”, and the next year Hottinger was replaced as majority leader.
“He lost his leadership position because some thought, apparently, he wasn’t tough enough,” Swenson said.
In 2004, with new Majority Leader Dean Johnson and Senate Democrats digging in, little was accomplished during the legislative session.
Better endings
“It’s that up-or-down, take-it-or-leave-it, win-or-lose (attitude) that has hardened the positions between the two branches and the two caucuses,” Johnson said. “... Is the goal to build consensus, or is the goal to win?”
Johnson said she’s hopeful that lawmakers will begin to concentrate on core issues again. And she says it’s important that elected officials and average Minnesotans don’t forget that it can work better than it has in recent years.
“We should always remember that we can do better,” she said. “... To remember it’s possible — that it happens — is a way to guarantee that it can happen in the future.”
The conclusion of a legislative session doesn’t have to be an ugly thing to watch, according to Johnson. Government leaders of very different philosophies and representing very different parts of the state can come up with compromises that satisfy both sides and make the state work better in the process.
“When we’re at our very best,” she said, “it’s a beautiful thing to see.”
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.