Now that he's sitting in the catbird seat in the battle within the Senate Majority caucus to slip policy and reform into the new budget talks, Emo Senator Mike Parry is carrying on mightily about "reforms" to government. He's not saying precisely what those reforms might be.
And committee deliberations on the bills are taking place behind closed doors--so it's anybody's guess.
One reform that came up early on in this spring's session was removing a raft of state mandates on local governments. John Carlson threw SF0159 into the hopper, and all hell broke broke loose in February when Andy Birkey at the Minnesota Independent noticed that Republicans propose repeal of fair pay laws for women.
As Birkey (and Bluestem) noted, newspapers across the state condemned the bill, and Carlson apologize[d] for pay equity repeal, pull[ed] bill from a committee hearing. The notion lived on, though, in three other bills, but the ever-vigilant Birkey reported in late April that the Repeal of women’s pay equity [was] pulled from omnibus bill in the House.
That would seem to be the end of it, but although Carlson pulled the bill from committee, he never asked for it to be returned to him. After Bluestem posted Not yet past tense: Senate author says he'll pull mandate bill that repeals pay equity, I was assured that pulling a bill from committee meant it was dead, though having it returned to the chief author would be the real double-tap.
And Carlson never asked for that double tap.
Instead, on May 3, his name was stricken as chief author of the legislation. Mike Parry was added as chief author instead. Gretchen Hoffman, Al Dekruif and Paul Gazelka remain as sponsors.
Is this bill the sort of thing that Parry means when he carries on about "reform"? Someone should keep an eye on him. Sadly, with the behind-closed-door negotiations, citizens have no idea what deals are being cut and no means for assuring transparency.
An idle fear? For now, perhaps. But as the Minnesota Independent reported, Republicans floated three other bills with provisions to gut the Pay Equity Act. This reform seems rather dear to their hearts, regardless of what Greater Minnesota newspapers had to say about it.
Without transparency, how will we know what is being slipped into the agreements? Transparency champion Rich Neumeister writes in Why Capitol should be open to public during shutdown:
The public has a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and what is fair or not. The situation at the "People's House" is very unique, but it does not mean the public should be locked out when legislator's behind an impenetrable Capitol discuss the public business.
How the legislative sausage is made during regular session is far different when there is a special session as I stated in a previous post. If this was just a "regular" special session, the Capitol would be open, the public and lobbyists would be able to engage the elected officials and staff. Ask questions, get materials, gather information and see things.
It is unique since the early seventies when the "Open Government" movement hit the Minnesota Legislature, the Capitol and Legislature is less accessible to the public for the last 18 days than since that time.
Per media and press reports, billions of dollars of state monies and how to spend or reallocate it are being discussed in conference committee/committees. Deal making and horsetrading is going on to get support from other legislator's, to comply with the GOP Leadership and Governor Dayton's agreement, and for many other reasons. This happens all the time, but what's different, there's no public to see, watch, to ask questions, and put two and two together. . . .. . .The ability of the public to be at the Capitol would allow for Minnesotans to gain knowledge about the spending of public monies, priorities and policy changes that may be different because of the BIG DEAL. To gain a good realization of the entangled and challenging choices we in Minnesota face, but also to be more broad minded about the negative consequences and to appreciate the Legislator's dilemma. To see the various interests play out in the public we are able to discern the conflicts of interests, the special interests, and to watch the decision making about the public expense and policy which is about us. We may also be able to bring a perspective, facts, or information that may help resolve an issue, error, or misunderstanding. . .
Photo: The Emo Senator as a cross-dressing artist--Flouncett O'Parra, the belle of Southern Minnesota. Via Tild's Emo Senator Mike Parry, AKA Flouncett O’Parra.
Comments