As we noted earlier, amendments were filed to amend both amendments. The lesser effort--amending language in an amendment about monarch butterfly habitat--passed.
But something remarkable happened when Duluth DFL freshman representative Jennifer Schultz rose to speak about her amendment: she called the bluff of Representative Paul Torkelson:
Here's the transcript:
This amendment does not allow the use of pesticides lethal to pollinators on land acquired with Legacy funds.
Like I said before, it's very important that we protect our pollinators. Over eighty percent of crops, plants, flowering plants are pollinated and need pollination, which is important for our food supply.
The biggest environmental concern when Americans are polled, after water, are pollinators, so people care about this issue.
Unfortunately Representative Torkelson has amended this amendment, and in that amendment, they drastically changed it, to protect chemical companies, the company that produced the pesticide lethal to pollinators like neonicotinoids. And these corporations are outside the US, countries like Germany and Switzerland.
So again, this is another example the majority in this House representing ther interests of corporations over the interests of Minnesotans.
So, unfortunately, I'm going to withdraw this amendment because of Representative Torkelson's secondary amendment. Thank you.
Later, as the larger bill was being discussed before passage, Torkelson claimed his amendment to the amendment would have actually expanded pollinator protection.
However, since he made no move to suspend the rules and establish his own glorious bee-loving language on its own, Bluestem is left to conclude that the hive had swarmed and left the hollow shell of the Hanska Republican's rhetoric.
Photo: Some honeybees gathering pollen on corn tassels.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Bluestem has been following the effort to keep the White Earth Band of Chippewa's request for Legacy funding for a project to protect a stretch of the Wild Rice River.
Later this afternoon, Rep. Phyllis Kahn will be offering H0303A31 an amendment to HF303, the Legacy Omnibus bill. The pre-filed amendment would add this language:
(h) Protecting Forest Wildlife Habitat in the Wild Rice River Watershed
1.5$2,188,000 in the first year is to the 1.6commissioner of natural resources for an 1.7agreement with the White Earth Nation 1.8to acquire lands in fee to be managed for 1.9wildlife habitat purposes. A list of proposed 1.10land acquisitions must be provided as part of 1.11the required accomplishment plan." 1.12Page 11, line 27, delete "$4,318,000" and insert "$2,130,000" 1.13Adjust amounts accordingly
But the resistance to the White Earth Nation's owning the land and managing it is so strong that House Environment chair Denny McNamara (R-Hastings) will move to amend the amendment with H0303A47, which strips out the involvement of the White Earth Nation.
Just two years ago, I was lambasted for having the gall, as a legislator, to propose changes. This year, a Republican legislator is doing the same, and the critics …
Two years ago, outdoor sports columnist Dennis Anderson of the Star Tribune vilified my leadership of the House Legacy Committee because I had the temerity to change the funding recommendations of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council.
In a series of eight articles prominently featured in the sports pages, Anderson excoriated me because I believed that elected legislators should be able to change recommendations of the Outdoor Heritage Council. So virulent were his criticisms that I actually received a death threat from one of his readers.
Anderson’s main point was that the conservation, hunting and fishing interests in the state had been original advocates for constitutionally dedicating sales tax receipts to outdoor projects and that, as part of that effort, those groups sought and received approval for a joint citizen-legislative body to recommend projects to be funded. Anderson felt that there should be absolutely no deviation from those recommendations. He believed that legislators should not be trusted, given a history of environmental degradation in the state for which he blamed the Legislature and politicians.
My sin, in Anderson’s myopic view, was that in 2013 I believed that the council had improperly excluded $6.3 million in conservation projects in the metro area from ever being considered for a hearing, that it had excluded a land acquisition project for the Fond du Lac Reservation solely because of anti-Indian bias, and that it did not consider aquatic invasive species a threat to conservation, hunting and fishing interests.
In addition to accepting all of the council’s recommendations, I used undesignated Outdoor Heritage Fund money to fund these three projects.
Those changes generated a firestorm led by Anderson and joined by dozens of conservation and sports groups. Anderson even threatened Gov. Mark Dayton and the DFL House with electoral defeat if they dared to even consider these changes.
My position won the day on the floor of the Minnesota House, in the joint House and Senate conference committee, and by verbal agreement of the governor. In the end, Anderson’s threats convinced Dayton to veto the provisions. (Ultimately, each of the rejected proposals was recommended by the council, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor the year after the Anderson outcry.)
Just this year, a council project for the White Earth Reservation has been removed entirely by the Republican-controlled Minnesota House. The White Earth project followed the process and was among the highest-ranked.
So where are Dennis Anderson and his horde of conservation allies and hunters and fisherpersons who believe in the sanctity of the council’s process? Nowhere. Where is the hue and cry? Silence.
Why is this happening?
Why the double standard?
Is it because the House Republican author and council member Denny McNamara, who had voted for the White Earth project during council meetings, flip-flopped and changed the council’s recommendation at the legislative level when he was in charge?
Is it OK for a Republican, but not DFLers, to change the council’s recommendations?
Is it because a woman proposed the change two years ago?
Or is there a consistent theme that some mainly Republican members of the Legislature just don’t want to fund projects on Native American land because they don’t value Native Americans’ religious freedom and their desire not to allow the hunting of wolves on their land?
Whatever the reasons, it is abundantly clear to me that Anderson and his allies in the conservation, hunting and fishing communities are rank hypocrites.
In just two years, they have gone from vocal defenders of the Outdoor Heritage Council and its process to silent and deadly collaborators in killing the White Earth project.
There has been no such high-minded sanctimony this year over process from Anderson and his adherents. Rather, only smug self-satisfaction that their Caucasian Legacy remains intact.
Strong language for the Minnesota Nice folks who might not feel comfortable with such directness.
Photo: A canoe in wild rice beds.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
UPDATE: Schultz withdrew her amendment after a passionate discussion of Torkelson working for pesticide companies. We'll have video as soon as it is available.
The House adopted the Poppe amendment to Kahn's monarch amendment, and passed the amendment itself. [end update]
Update: here's the video and transcript of Schultz's speech:
Here's the transcript:
This amendment does not allow the use of pesticides lethal to pollinators on land acquired with Legacy funds.
Like I said before, it's very important that we protect our pollinators. Over eighty percent of crops, plants, flowering plants are pollinated and need pollination, which is important for our food supply.
The biggest environmental concern when Americans are polled, after water, are pollinators, so people care about this issue.
Unfortunately Representative Torkelson has amended this amendment, and in that amendment, they drastically changed it, to protect chemical companies, the company that produced the pesticide lethal to pollinators like neonicotinoids. And these corporations are outside the US, countries like Germany and Switzerland.
So again, this is another example the majority in this House representing ther interests of corporations over the interests of Minnesotans.
So, unfortunately, I'm going to withdraw this amendment because of Representative Torkelson's secondary amendment. Thank you.
As readers know, there's been a tug-of-war struggle to secure pollinator-friendly language for projects funded with Legacy amendment dollars.
With HF303, the Omnibus Legacy finance bill coming to the floor Thursday afternoon, Minnesota's pollinator champions are trying to amend the bill to be more pollinator friendly, while those who are listening to the pesticide industry are trying to water down those efforts again. While both amendment authors are DFLers, the anti-butterfly and bee brigade is bi-partisan, drawing from the faction of the House that's identified with production agriculture.
Ever wonder why ag has a bad public image when it comes to environmental issues? Bone-headed, ag chemical industry-friendly lock-step moves like the Torkelson and Poppe amendments to the amendments are why.
This isn't an ag bill, it's Legacy bill, but heaven forbid we follow the will of Minnesota voters and make Legacy projects as friendly to these smallest of wild creatures.
Let's look at what Rep. Kahn (DFL,Minneapolis) and Rep. Schultz (DFL, Duluth) are trying to do with their pre-filed amendments--and what Rep. Torkelson (R, Hanska) and Rep. Poppe (DFl, Austin) are trying to undo with their amendments to those amendments.
.................... moves to amend H.F. No. 303, the third engrossment, as follows:Page 21, after line 29, insert:
1.3
"Subd. 11.Monarch Butterfly Habitat
When feasible, a recipient of funds appropriated in this section is encouraged to use conservation practices that promote monarch butterfly habitat, including planting and maintaining vegetation beneficial to monarchs and avoiding the use of pesticides."
How hard is that? Too harsh for Rep. Jeanne Poppe's special interest friends, who want Minnesota law to avoid the word "avoiding," even when it comes to our beloved monarchs, here's the Poppe H0303A48 amendment to the amendment:
moves to amend the ....... amendment (H0303A36) to H.F. No. 303 1.2as follows: 1.3Page 1, line 9, delete "avoiding" and insert "minimizing"
Can we just stop with the denial and minimizing of risk to butterflies (which are insects) to the herbicides that kill varieties and species of milkweed, their caterpillars' sole source of food, and avoid the use of insecticides that kill both butterflies and their larvae?
Ask your state representative to reject attempts to water down Kahn's language and keep a request that those receiving Legacy grants be encouraged to use conservation techniques that produce healthy monarch habitat.
Sheesh.
H0303A43 -The Schultz Amendment on Pollinator Lethal Insecticides
Kahn is one of two long-serving state representatives in the Minnesota House, but she's joined in seeking protection for pollinators by Duluth DFL freshman Jennifer Schultz, whose amendment
moves to amend H.F. No. 303, the third engrossment, as follows: after line 29, insert:
1.3
"Subd. 11.Pollinator Lethal Insecticides
1.4Land acquired in fee with money 1.5appropriated in this section shall not be 1.6planted or otherwise treated with a product 1.7that contains a pollinator lethal insecticide, 1.8as defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 1.918H.02, subdivision 28a." 1.10Page 41, after line 22, insert:
1.11
"Subd. 4.Pollinator Lethal Insecticides
1.12Land acquired in fee with money 1.13appropriated in this article shall not be 1.14planted or otherwise treated with a product 1.15that contains a pollinator lethal insecticide, 1.16as defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 1.1718H.02, subdivision 28a." 1.18Page 70, after line 8, insert:
1.19
"Subd. 4.Pollinator Lethal Insecticides
1.20Land acquired in fee with money 1.21appropriated in this article shall not be 1.22planted or otherwise treated with a product 1.23that contains a pollinator lethal insecticide, 1.24as defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 1.2518H.02, subdivision 28a.
The Torkelson amendment to the amendment, H0303A50 removes the word "insecticide" :
moves to amend the ....... amendment (H0303A43) to H.F. No. 303 1.2as follows: 1.3Page 1, line 3, delete "Lethal Insecticides" and insert "and Butterfly Habitat" 1.4Page 1, line 4, before "Land" insert "When appropriate," 1.5Page 1, line 5, delete "not" 1.6Page 1, line 6, delete everything after "planted" and insert "and maintained with 1.7vegetation beneficial to butterflies and other pollinators and the use of pesticides on the 1.8land must be minimized." 1.9Page 1, delete lines 7 to 9 1.10Page 1, line 11, delete "Lethal Insecticides" and insert "and Butterfly Habitat" 1.11Page 1, line 12, before "Land" insert "When appropriate," 1.12Page 1, line 13, delete "not" 1.13Page 1, line 14, delete everything after "planted" and insert "and maintained with 1.14vegetation beneficial to butterflies and other pollinators and the use of pesticides on the 1.15land must be minimized." 1.16Page 1, delete lines 15 to 17 1.17Page 1, line 19, delete "Lethal Insecticides" and insert "and Butterfly Habitat" 1.18Page 1, line 20, before "Land" insert "When appropriate," 1.19Page 1, line 21, delete "not" 1.20Page 1, line 22, delete everything after "planted" and insert "and maintained with 1.21vegetation beneficial to butterflies and other pollinators and the use of pesticides on the 1.22land must be minimized." 1.23Page 1, delete lines 23 to 25
And again picks up the "minimized" language.
Ask your representative to quit playing games on this one as well.
Photo: A monarch caterpillar on milkweed.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
After the Star Tribune raised this issue to a larger audience, Hamilton changed the language to purportedly make the Transfer Board an "advisory board."
However, representatives raised questions in the Ways and Means committee about the remaining language in the Ag Omnibus Bill: that the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture "shall award" funds to the recommendations of the board. Ordinarily, that mean that one has to do something (witness the changes in Minnesota law governing lawn enforcement agencies issuing of carry permits from "may issue" to "shall issue.")
While Hamilton argued Tuesday in the Ways and Means Committee that the commissioner can turn down the recommendations, he adds that the Department of Ag loses that funding. Moreover, Hamilton whines that criticism of transferring public dollars to special interests is occurring only because the spending is for production agriculture.
Here's the at times heated exchange:
We understand the concerns shared by Representatives Wagenius, Mahoney and Carlson. We're left wondering why Hamilton went this route, rather than simply establishing an advisory board for applied research, while working in his caucus for a more robust budget for research and ag instruction and management education.
Photo: Ag finance chair Hamilton says that language now in his bill doesn't mean what it ordinarily means--and so his special interest pals won't be as powerful as the bill suggests. It's good that he's getting the intent of his bill on record.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Given that much of the responsibility for the pollutants on the maps above lies at the feet of agricultural land use, the release of "Swimmable, fishable, fixable? What we've learned so far about Minnesota waters" by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency should provoke wailing and gnashing of teeth as well as tears from the state's ag storytellers, apologists and the legislators who enable them.
- A new report released today by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) provides additional evidence that agricultural and urban runoff is contributing significantly to the impairment of Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, and streams. The new study, which monitored half of the state’s 81 major watersheds, takes an in-depth look at the lakes and streams in major drainage areas. According to the MPCA, it is unlikely that current or new clean water funding can significantly improve the deteriorating conditions of many of the state’s waters – unless the state employs new strategies to prevent the pollution from happening in the first place.
The study, “Swimmable, Fishable, Fixable?” (www.pca.state.mn.us/fixable), found that poor water quality is concentrated in certain regions of the state, especially in southern Minnesota. MPCA researchers noted that in heavily farmed areas, surrounding lakes and streams had high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These high levels make it difficult to support aquatic life, and in some cases prohibit people from swimming in lakes and streams. The report’s findings conclude that poor water quality in southern Minnesota waters is caused predominantly by agricultural runoff. Urban areas also suffer from elevated levels of water pollution caused by runoff.
“We have seen many of these patterns developing over the last 20 years. With the comprehensive watershed information we are gathering, we are much closer to a diagnosis that can point us toward the changes that need to happen,” said MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine. “While the Legacy Funds Minnesota citizens invested are helping us take steps forward, it’s clear that we can’t buy our way to healthy waters.”
Key Findings in the Report
The report released today was compiled by the MPCA over the last several years, and was funded by the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Constitutional Amendment. The MPCA found that phosphorus and nitrogen, high bacteria levels, and mercury contamination continue to be problems in many of Minnesota’s lakes, rivers, and streams. These pollutants, which are typically the product of urban and agricultural land runoff, have left many bodies of water inadequate for human consumption and aquatic life. Key findings from the report include:
Urban and Agricultural Impact – Areas of Minnesota with larger human and livestock populations are struggling the most with water-quality. According to the MPCA study, runoff from land under intense urban or agricultural uses has left half or less of the lakes in those areas clean enough for healthy aquatic life and enjoyable swimming.
Bacteria Levels – Higher levels of bacteria were discovered in many Minnesota waters. Generally, higher levels of bacteria indicate feedlot runoff or human waste in a water body, indicating it may be unsafe for swimming and other recreation.
Mercury-Tainted Fish – Despite Minnesota’s progress in preventing mercury from entering lakes, rivers, and streams from our state’s power utilities and other sources, the MPCA study concluded that mercury remains widely present in fish. The vast majority of lakes and streams examined in the study – 97 percent of 490 stream sections and 95 percent of 1,214 lakes studied – contain fish tainted by mercury.
High Levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus – The MPCA study also found that watersheds that are heavily farmed or developed tend to have high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended solids in their waters. Nitrogen and phosphorus can cause algal blooms while suspended solids make the water murky. These pollutants hurt aquatic life and recreational opportunities.
Problems Vary Regionally – While urban and agricultural runoff were the general source of problems across Minnesota, the types of pollution causing problems in specific bodies of water varied regionally. Typical problems included issues such as low oxygen levels, excess nutrients, excess sediment, disruption of natural water flows, a lack of habitat, and a lack of connectivity between different bodies of water.
Recommended Strategies to Improve Water Quality
In addition to identifying stressors and healthy conditions in Minnesota’s lakes and streams, the MPCA and partner agencies have recommended strategies to restore and protect our waters. Those recommendations include: stream buffers, nutrient and manure management, storm water controls, and in-lake treatments. While most strategies are tailored for their specific watersheds, some strategies recommended by the MPCA do call for stronger and more targeted application of state and local laws on feedlots, shoreland, septic systems, storm water controls, and wastewater discharges.
“We are in this for the long haul – and we are talking 20 or more years,” said Commissioner Stine. “We need continued vigilance to protect our healthy waters and take targeted action to restore those that are impaired. It took decades for our lakes and streams to become polluted, and it will take many more years to restore them.”
Photo: Maps of pollution by chemical, via the report.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Regardless of what one thinks of Johnson (and we don't think highly of him or his political beliefs), his appeal does raise important questions about the "violent offender" clause. Civil liberties are not about who's Minnesota Nice.
In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began investigating Samuel Johnson based on his involvement in an organization called the National Social [sic] Movement. Later in 2010, Johnson left that group to found the Aryan Liberation Movement. In November of that year, Johnson told an undercover FBI agent that he manufactured napalm, silencers, and other explosives for the Aryan Liberation Movement in addition to possessing an AK-47 rifle, several semi-automatic weapons, and a large cache of ammunition. In April 2012, Johnson was arrested at a meeting with his probation officer and admitted to possessing some of the previously mentioned weapons.
A grand jury charged Johnson with six counts of firearm possession, three of which relied on his classification as an “armed career criminal.” This classification was based on the fact that he had three prior felony convictions that the district court designated as “violent felonies”—attempted simple robbery, simple robbery, and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), Johnson was then subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. Johnson argued that the convictions in question should not be considered violent felonies and that the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague. The district court held that the felony convictions in question were in fact violent felonies and that Johnson was an armed career criminal for the purposes of the mandatory minimum sentence required by the ACCA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Question
Is the definition of "violent felony" in the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague?
“I can think of no other instance in which the court has endeavored so many times in so few years to answer precisely the same question,” said Katherine M. Menendez, a lawyer for a Minnesota man who was sentenced to 15 years in prison based in part on an earlier conviction for possessing a short-barreled shotgun.
The case, Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120, was before the court for a rare re-argument. When the court first heard arguments in the case in November, the question before it was whether merely possessing the shotgun could be considered a violent felony under the law.
In January, the court asked the parties to come back for a second argument on the broader question of whether the key phrase in the law was unconstitutionally vague.
Under the law, convicted felons caught with guns face a maximum sentence of 10 years. But those with three prior convictions for violent felonies are subject to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Which crimes qualify as violent felonies has been the subject of much litigation. The law defines the relevant crimes to include burglary, arson, extortion, the use of explosives and ones that “otherwise involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
On Monday, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested that the law, if not the court’s interpretations of it, was clear enough. “Can a statute be vague simply because this court messes it up?” he asked, adding that the court had twice upheld the constitutionality of the law. . . .
Read the rest at the New York Times.
Photo: Sam Johnson in his southern Minnesota NSM glory days. Via Austin Daily Herald.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Watching the Minnesota state senate floor debate over the upper chamber's transportation funding bill--which would raise the gas tax while funding metro-area transit with an increased Twin Cities-region only sales-tax--Bluestem was struck by conflicting views of a transportation "war" offered by southwest metro suburban Republican Julianne Ortman (Chanhassen) and that of senate transportation committee chair, DFLer Scott Dibble (Minneapolis).
Both framed the bill in terms of war--but Ortman thought the attack was on the poorest of the poor (and everybody else), while Dibble defined the battle as one against potholes and for future prosperity which depends on well-maintained roads and bridges, along with reliable public transit.
At our request, The Uptake pulled video of both senators' remarks, going beyond our call to edit a Youtube of the moment. Here's that one video; first Ortman speaks, followed by Dibble:
Ortman says in part of a longer speech:
. . .Members, all of these taxes are regressive. What that means is they are imposed on the poorest of the poor and hit poor Minnesota families harder than anybody else because it's a much larger portion of their income and it's a much larger portion of the value of their vehicles.
Members, make no mistake. This is a tax on the poorest of poor Minnesotans. Members, this didn't just a transportation bill as I said it's not even needed this bill is a war, the declaration of war on drivers, on car owners, on commuters who might have to commute into Minneapolis-Saint Paul.
It's a war on businesses that have premises in the Twin Cities; it's gonna cost them a lot more to get their employees to work. It's a war on producers that have to pay for the costs of transportation. Those transportation costs get added into the price of goods, into the price if production, and the consumers then pay even more on top of the gas prices that they pay out of their pockets. . . .
After Senators Benson and Osmek speak, Dibble responds with his own battle cry:
I like to use the word war because this bill is a war. It's a war on the kinds of congestion that we're facing. It's war on our lack of investment that have occurred over 30 years despite the little bump that we got about seven years ago. It's a war on potholes and it's an effort to invest in shared prosperity across the state. I make no apologies for this bill.
We know from what I said earlier that business pays a huge premium. We either make some a rational investment up front or we pay later in lost opportunity. We pay in congestion. We pay in the inability to get to the things are important in our lives.
. . .I don't aspire at all to what the house has put before us or the state of Minnesota, the people of Minnesota for transportation.
In order to do what they're doing, they're taking from General Fund resources that we would otherwise be using for our senior citizens and health care and education. They have over a billion dollars that they're cutting from the poorest and sickest Minnesotans in health care and Human Services, the youngest.
Want to talk about a war on poor people, and the most vulnerable, the most needy? That's a war on the most vulnerable and the most needy. And what are they doing? They're putting that in the transportation bill.
You know what? We've read this book before. This legislature has tried to put general fund dollars into transportation in the past and you know what's happened? The next year it's taken right out right out. Right out! so Senator Hann is incorrect when he says this is a sustainable plan that the house is putting before us. It is exactly the opposite.
What we do in transportation is we dedicate reliable, ongoing, sustainable resources so that we can plan for a long-term horizon, so that businesses and communities and people can invest in their lives and know that their ability to get to places and people getting to their jobs and their work sites.
And businesses can get goods and services to market and construction companies . . .can invest in mobilizing a workforce--and in the intensive capital investments they need to make to build those roads and bridges over the long haul. That's what sustained investment in transportation looks like and when we fail to do that we pay.
We pay because other states become more competitive--and they're making those investments. State after state, controlled by Republican governors and Republican legislature, are raising their gas taxes, are raising sales taxes in their metropolitan areas because they know that those are investments that have a return on the dollar.
And they know that they'll pay anyways in a loss of opportunity, in congestion, in lack of shared prosperity. That's the alternative. That's what the House puts before us.
Photo: Scott Dibble declaring war on potholes.
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
We've been seeing a number of comments about the lack of a roll call vote, and so thought it worthwhile to present the unfiltered footage of the discussion and passage of the amendment that brought anti-transgender language into the omnibus bill.
Here's the entire floor debate on the Miller language, which had not been heard in committee:
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Guest post by Andy Birkey Crossposted from The Column
Photo and videos added by Bluestem Prairie.
The Minnesota House of Representatives passed an omnibus bill on Saturday that includes a provision that would repeal transgender-inclusive policies in Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts, and prevent future districts from implementing their own.
Rep. Tim Miller (photo above), a Republican from Prinsburg, offered an amendment called the “Student Physical Privacy Act” to the House K-12 education policy and finance bill being debated on Saturday. Miller’s amendment bars schools from allowing transgender students to use facilities based on their gender and instead base those decisions on “chromosomes.”
The amendment states, in part:
The purpose of this section is to protect and provide for the privacy and safety of all students enrolled in public schools and to maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, showers, and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students. Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.(a) “Sex” means the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy. Subd. 3. Student physical privacy protection. (a) A public school student restroom, locker room, changing room, and shower room accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for the exclusive use by students of the male sex only or by students of the female sex only.(b) A public school student restroom, locker room, changing room, and shower room that is designated for the exclusive use of one sex shall be used only by members of that sex.
The amendment passed by a voice vote after several DFL house members gave impassioned speeches against the amendment, and the omnibus bill that contains it passed largely along party lines
Rep. Barb Yarusso, a DFLer from Shoreview who is the parent of a transgender child, gave the House members a lesson on transgender issues, including the variability that can exist in terms of gender, sex, chromosomes, anatomy, and hormone levels.
She said the amendment “sends the message that you are not quite welcome in this school and to not be accepted for who you are puts you at huge huge risk.”
“There’s been an awful lot of stuff trying to say if we don’t do this policy there is this big safety risk [to cisgender students]. The people that actually have risk to their comfort, safety and privacy is transgender kids.”
Bluestem note: here's a video of her courageous floor speech, via The Column YouTube:
Rep. Karen Clark, a DFLer from Minneapolis, said, “What we know about gender identity has been evolving… My message is these transgender children are our children. They are somebody’s child.”
Clark added, “I want to say to any of these children who are out there listening today, your public officials, some of us do truly support you and accept you and your families and recognize you and we want you to have that message in addition to whatever this amendment might send as a message.”
Rep. Peter Fischer, a DFLer from Maplewood who has worked with homeless youth, outlined the harm that this legislation could have on transgender youth. He said that acceptance of transgender youth is vital. “We find that not to do so causes great harm and damage as we go forward and that’s one of the primary reasons that I am opposed to this bill because it has the unintended consequences for our trans youth out there.”
Rep. Susan Allen, a DFLer from Minneapolis, said the amendment could clash with Title IX. “If you believe in local control, vote against this amendment. This amendment actually interferes with the ability of schools to create a non-discriminatory environment for their students in compliance with Title IX. This amendment will violate title IX.”
Rep. Carlos Mariani, a DFLer from St. Paul, said, “I urge you to vote against this… there’s a lot of misunderstanding and fear and lack of knowledge around these dynamics and these children, all the more reason not to do anything until we understand these issues better… It does harm to young children. We are better than that.”
Bluestem note: Here's the entire floor debate on the Miller language:
The passage of the amendment comes as Republicans faced opposition even in their own party to Miller’s bill. It failed to receive a hearing ahead of a March deadline in the House and Senate, and a move in the Senate to force a floor vote on the bill failed.
The omnibus bill with the anti-transgender language now moves to the Senate where the DFL holds a majority of the seats. If the Senate does not pass the same amendment, the two chambers will meet for a conference committee to hash out differences in the omnibus bill. Gov. Mark Dayton, a DFLer, has the power to veto the entire omnibus package if it reaches his desk. LGBT advocates are holding a lobby day on Thursday where inclusion for transgender youth — and opposition to the bill — is the major topic.
Chris Stinson, Political Director for OutFront Minnesota, posted a statement on the group’s Facebook page following the vote:
Today we experienced a painful set-back when the GOP controlled house passed a provision to discriminate against transgender kids. Together we can still defeat the provision in the Senate (and then in conference committee) and make sure that schools are safe for the most vulnerable Minnesotans but each one of us needs to be part of the fight. Please call or email your Senator today and come to Lobby Day on Thursday.
The Minnesota Family Council and the Minnesota Child Protection League, two groups opposed to LGBT rights, have been heavily lobbying lawmakers to pass a bill barring transgender inclusive school policies.
John Helmberger, CEO of Minnesota Family Council, released a statement on Saturday praising passage of the amendment: “We are overwhelmingly grateful to Representative Miller and the Minnesota House for their leadership in protecting students’ basic physical privacy and safety rights. Like Representative Miller, I too am a parent and grandparent, so I am very familiar with praying for the safety and protection of my kids when they head out the door each day for school. Of all the things parents have to worry about, the Student Physical Privacy Act ensures that parents won’t have to worry about their child encountering someone of the opposite sex when they use the restroom or change for gym at school.”
If you liked this article, please make a pledge to keep high-quality LGBT journalism going! Visit Give MN to make a donation today!
On Friday night, state representative and House Environment committee chair Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, seemed a bit miffed as he began his rambling and defensive closing remarks about the Environment and Natural Resources Finance bill.
How defensive? McNamara began his floor speech by dismissing claims that he's in the back pocket of Big Business:
I think it's interesting how we paint a bill and unfortunately we end up so partisan. Kind of interesting to hear how I'm the one in the pocket of big business. Fourteen years that I've been here and never taken a penny from a PAC, lobbyist, or special interest group and spent more time door-knocking than anyone in the body and I'm the one about big business.
If anyone here believes that, I think you're kind of a loner.
Here's the video:
That sort of loner-hood is the sort of thing that the respected Center for Responsive Politics--which focuses mostly on federal campaign finance and public disclosure issues--describes on its FAQ page in one item in a section on research and methodology:
In tracking campaign contributions from industries, why do you include contributions from individuals, and not just PACs?
CRP is the only organization that invests in categorizing campaign contributions by industry in a way that includes individuals' contributions, not just money from political action committees. Here's the logic behind our methodology: Since corporations and other organizations are prohibited from making political contributions from their treasuries, one must look at the contributions from people associated with the institution to gauge its political persuasion and how it might be trying to exert influence in Washington. Also, the Federal Election Commission requires disclosure of a donor's employer and occupation if they contribute more than $200, which suggests the government is concerned about individuals' economic, or industrial, interests. We know that not every contribution is made with the donor’s economic or professional interests in mind, nor do we assert that every donor considers their employer’s interests when they make a contribution. But our research over more than 20 years shows enough of a correlation between individuals’ contributions and their employers’ political interests that we feel comfortable with our methodology. We have also observed that the donors who give more than $200, and especially those who contribute at the maximum levels, are more commonly top executives in their companies, not lower-level employees.
This methodology, applied on the state level, may be what produces the sense of some that Representative McNamara is in the pocket of special interests.
No one has suggested that McNamara takes money from lobbyists or PACs. Instead, loners who accept the methodology of CRP's Open Secrets--and data there is used by both parties in critiquing federal candidates-- agree with this premise:
But our research over more than 20 years shows enough of a correlation between individuals’ contributions and their employers’ political interests that we feel comfortable with our methodology. We have also observed that the donors who give more than $200, and especially those who contribute at the maximum levels, are more commonly top executives in their companies, not lower-level employees.
The disclosure threshold for state giving is $100, rather than $200, but the principle is the same.
The MJC is credited as being one of the forces that flipped the Minnesota House; Ben Golnik, its chair, has become the executive director of the Minnesota House Republican Caucus.
The company itself funded the group, but several Offutt family members also gave campaign contributions to Representative Denny McNamara (R-Hastings), who was the lead Republican on the House Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee in the last session.
McGovern, Keith 09-17-2014 McNamara, Dennis House Dist. 54B Committee RDO $250.00
McGovern, Rondi 09-17-2014 McNamara, Dennis House Dist. 54B Committee RDO $250.00
Neal, Scott 09-16-2014 McNamara, Dennis House Dist. 54B Committee RDO $500.00
Keith McGovern and Scott Neal are the sons-in-law of RDO director emeritus Ron Offutt; Rondi is his daughter.
While that's a mere $1000--dwarfed by the privately-held company's contribution to Golnik's PAC--there's a fair chance that the donors (who don't appear to live in McNamara's district) understood that McNamara would once again chair the committee with oversight of the Department of Natural Resources budget.
According to Minnesota Legislators Past and Present, McNamara chaired the committee in the 2011-2012, and became the minority when the DFL retook the House in the 2012 election. The courtesy was discontinued with the ascendance of Speaker Daudt and Golnik.
So there's that--and earlier in Friday's debate, McNamara brought up the need to rewrite a law so that unnamed company wouldn't have to put up with the trauma of getting a sudden phone call from the Department of Natural Resources about how the agency was going to do a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet about the consequences to water of your plan to turn pinelands into potato fields.
Not a penny of lobbyist or PAC cash directly to McNamara, but the interests of the Offutt family are being served by McNamara, who received their largesse--and benefited from its channeling to the MJC Legislative Fund PAC.
. . .the Offutts aren't the only ag interests who gave McNamara money last year--indeed, they're pikers compared to the Molitor Brother Farms family contributions.
According to a search of the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board's individual campaign contribution database for political contributions by the Molitors and Thorkelsons, family members gave $12,700 to three candidates: Representative McNamara (R-Hastings); Representative Garofalo (R-Farmington); and Ryan Rutzick, who was defeated by Minnetonka DFLer Jon Applebaum.
Brent Molitor and Rita Molitor made two contributions totaling $700 to Rutzick, while Brian Molitor, Charles Molitor, Heather Molitor, Patrice Molitor, Eric Thorkelson and Sara Thorkelson each gave McNamara and Garofalo $1000, for a total of $6000 each.
According to Ownership interests information online at the EWG Farm Subsidy database, the Thorkelsons and the Molitors (with the exception of Brent) were the owners of Molitor Brothers Farm in 2012. Brent Molitor is employed by the farm, according to information at the Minnesota campaign finance site.
But there's more in the post:
Agriculture and ag lobbyist contributions for the HRCC and its allies in the 2013-2014 cycle
While other parts of the country are limited by water shortage and the need to import feed, Minnesota has plentiful opportunities with respect to both of these essential elements of a successful livestock operation. Unfortunately, new investment in this industry has been placed at risk due to recent actions by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Citizens’ Board. Beyond the costs and delays of these projects, the recent Citizens’ Board action raises real questions about Minnesota’s willingness to accommodate growth and new investment in the animal agriculture sector. AgriGrowth will be asking the legislature to review the Board’s responsibilities and powers to ensure that Minnesota can become an inviting location for responsible growth and investment in Minnesota’s agricultural sector to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, rural communities, and our entire state.
So what sort of money did Big Ag put on the table to help flip control of the House? In this post, we won't be looking at contributions to individual campaigns, but rather contributions to the HRCC, the MN Job Coalition Legislative Fund and the MN Action Network IE Fund.
We found at least $295,000 in contributions over $10,000 given directly by Big Ag interests to these three committees. With smaller PAC contributions by commodity group and ag law/lobbying entities, the total easily approaches climbs over the $300,000 mark.
These contributions are by no means a complete picture of the political giving--merely that which we can dig out of state-level year-end campaign finance reports. Nor are we suggesting that the getting and spending only occurs on one side. The problem is one of transparency.
Two Davis family members gave a total of $75,000 to the HRCC, the committee's 2013 and 2014 year-end reports reveals. On December 31, 2013, Marty Davis, founder of Cambria, gave $25,000 to the HRCC; months later on October 9, 2014, he threw another $25,000 into the kitty. On September October 8, Mitch Davis of the Davis Family Dairies, contributed $25,000.
. . . contribution of at least $45,000 in cold hard campaign cash to the Minnesota state House Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC; year-end report here) by members of the Fehr family, owners of Riverview Dairy. (Some might add in an additional $2500 donated by Mitch Fehr, to make the total rise to $47,500).
Tom Rosen, of Rosen's Diversified and the American Food Group, the nation's 5th largest beef processing company. gave $25,000 in 2013 and $25,000 in 2014, for a total of $50,000 for the cycle. Rosen Diversified gave the Minnesota Action Network IE Fund $50,000 on September 5, 2014.
Rosen's Diversified, Davis Family Dairies, New Horizon Feeds and the RD Offutt Company are all Agri-Growth Council members.
MN Jobs Coalition's Agribusiness Money from the Republican State Leadership Committee?
The Minnesota Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund also received $325,000 from the Republican State Leadership Committee. Although we can't determine if any of the Agribusiness contributions to the RSLC was earmarked for Minnesota, we can discern ag money in the pot.
Kraft Foods gave RSLC a total of $100,000; Kraft maintains a presence in Minnesota's dairy industry with cheese plants in New Ulm and Albany.
Archer Daniels Midland contributed $25,135 to the RSLC in 2014; the food-processing and commodities-trading corporation was founded in Minneapolis and maintains a large presence in the state.
Perhaps that has something to do with why people say Denny McNamara is in the pocket of industry. Not only did he receive large contributions from upper management-level individuals in industries regulated by--and seeking relief from--his committee, but industry special interests gave to PACs that were helping to smooth McNamara's ascendency to the committee chairmanship.
Other than that, McNamara's right: there's no reason for anyone to think he's got to where he is through anything other than knocking the snot out of doors in his district.
Photo: McNamara defends his honor and his omnibus bill on Friday night.
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Bluestem was up late last night watching the Minnesota House Republicans and their special interest allies pillage both our state's environmental and campaign finance laws. We'll have more on the former later, but can turn to The Uptake for coverage of the latter.
Minnesota mailboxes will likely continue to be flooded with campaign flyers, many of them negative, that don’t disclose who paid for them because of what Rep. Ryan Winkler (DFL-Golden Valley) calls “campaign finance law loopholes.”
“The public deserves to know if you’re on their side or only care about the people who bought your election,” Winkler said, introducing his campaign finance disclosure provision that he said requires disclosure of “who is paying when you are trying to get somebody in office or out of office.”
After a tense late night debate, the Minnesota House rejected Winkler’s proposal on a 51-78 party line vote.
Republicans, who hold the majority in the House, blocked Winkler’s bill from being heard in committee and blocked it several times from being added as an amendment to other bills. Friday night was the first time it received substantial debate this session.
Winkler seemed almost surprised when no point of order was raised when he offered his amendment to the omnibus state government finance bill. He then proceeded to quiz various Republican members about letters they had forwarded to other lawmakers from special interest groups such as the National Rifle Association and Minnesota Concerned Citizens For Life warning that his bill is unconstitutional and prevented free speech. . . .
Read the rest at The Uptake. Weeks ago, we tweeted the word "winkler" as a verb to describe the Golden Valley lawmaker and attorney's skill at needling his opponents. Watch some world-class winklering here:
Photo: Ryan Winkler (DFL-Golden Valley).
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
During last night's debate over the Omnibus Environment and Natural Resources Finance bill, Rep. Jennifer Schultz (DFL-Duluth) rose to amend the bill to prohibit the use of state funds by Soil and Water Conservation Districts to purchase of plants and seed treated with neonic insecticides:
Members, I've noticed that many of you like to eat and to continue enjoying you fruits and vegetables, your apples and your strawberries, I urge you to vote yes on this amendment to the amendment to save and protect our food supply and our bees and other pollinators. This amendment prohibits the use of state funds, specifically grants to the soil and water conservation districts, to plant or purchase a product that contains a pollinator-lethal insecticide.
What this is an insecticide that's absorbed by a plant, that makes the plant lethal to pollinators. This includes neonicotinoids and other classes of insecticides which affects the central nervous system of pollinators and could cause paralysis or death, and bees are very susceptible to this class of insecticide and may even cause the colony collapse disorders that we're seeing across the country.
Bees in particular are very valuable to our food supply. They are very important in the $15 billion of crop production annually and pollinators support 35 percent of crops globally and 85 percent of our flowering plants.
I urge you to vote green for the bees. . . .
Here's the speech:
Environment committee chair Denny McNamara supported the amendment to the amendment, and the measure passed by a 116-13 margin (Journal of the House, page 3269).
Here are the members who voted against bees, whom we might call Daudt and the New Neonicotinoid Twelve:
Matt Dean
Steve Drazkowski
Dan Fabian
Pat Garofalo
Dave Hancock
Jerry Hertaus
Deb Kiel
Eric Lucero
Tim Miller
Joyce Peppin
David Quam
Nick Zerwas
Speaker Kurt Daudt
Unfortunately, the underlying amendment was defeated.
The vote echoes a May 2014 vote, in which Daudt and Mark Anderson Steve Drazkowski, Sondra Erickson, Tom Hackbarth, Jerry Hertaus, Brian Johnson, Jim Newberger, Joyce Peppin and Peggy Scott.
Daudt, Drazkowski, Hertaus and Peppin are consistent votes against bees; one has to wonder what prompted Dean, Fabian, Garofalo, Kiel, Quam and Zerwas turn their backs on pollinators. Hancock wasn't around for the 2013-2014 session, while Lucero and Miller are serving their first terms.
To contact Speaker Daudt and the Neonicotinoid 12 to ask them why they took this vote, locate their contact information here. Let Bluestem know if you get an answer.
We'll share the buzz.
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
As readers know, Bluestem's been following Tim Miller's crusade against transgender high school athletes. In the guest post below, The Column journalist Andy Birkey looks at Miller's latest move, to add his anti-transgender language to the K-12 omnibus education bill.
To follow the debate on K-12 funding and policy, we recommend watching it on The Uptake's Minnesota House channel. The House also supplies the feed, but we've been finding that it's been freezing and hiccuping of late.
On Friday afternoon, Rep. Tim Miller, a Republican from Prinsburg, offered an amendment to HF844, the Omnibus K-12 education policy and finance bill, that could be debated on Saturday. That amendment states:
moves to amend H.F. No. 844, the second engrossment, as follows: 1.2Page 24, after line 23, insert: “Sec. 9. [121A.35] STUDENT PHYSICAL PRIVACY ACT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect and provide for the privacy and safety of all students enrolled in public schools and to maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, showers, and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students. Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.(a) “Sex” means the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.(b) “Public school” means a public school under section 120A.05, subdivisions 9, 11, 13, and 17, and a charter school under section 124D.10. Subd. 3. Student physical privacy protection. (a) A public school student restroom, locker room, changing room, and shower room accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for the exclusive use by students of the male sex only or by students of the female sex only.(b) A public school student restroom, locker room, changing room, and shower room that is designated for the exclusive use of one sex shall be used only by members of that sex. (c) In any other public school facility or setting where a student may be in a state of undress in the presence of other students, school personnel shall provide separate, private, and safe areas designated for use by students based on their sex.(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit public schools from providing accommodation such as single-occupancy facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities upon a student request due to special circumstances, but in no event shall that accommodation result in a public school allowing a student to use a facility designated under paragraph (b) for a sex other than the student’s own sex.” Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references Amend the title accordingly
Miller is asking the Republican-controlled Minnesota House to add the amendment language to the K-12 education omnibus bill, a package of budget and education policies. Twenty-nine Republicans have signed on to Miller’s bill, or just under half of the votes needed to pass the amendment (68 votes are needed to pass and the House has 72 Republicans).
The amendment is similar to Miller’s “Student Physical Privacy Act,” a bill introduced earlier this legislative session.
The bill is one being touted by anti-LGBT groups, the Minnesota Child Protection League and the Minnesota Family Council. The bill is a reaction to recent policies enacted in the Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts that increases safety and inclusion for transgender and gender nonconforming students. It is also a reaction to an appeals process put in place by the Minnesota State High School League that allows transgenders student to play on athletics teams based on their gender. It would bar school districts from adopting transgender-inclusive policies, and repeal the MSHSL appeals process.
The amendment by Miller appears to skip over the MSHSL appeals process and targets the Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts’ policies.
Bluestem's up in Moorhead for a speaking engagement, but thought we'd passed along this action alert just in from the Minnesota Environmental Action Network. Readers will recognize many of the objectionable parts of the bill from earlier posts.
The action alert:
In a disappointing move this week, the Minnesota Legislature moved forward multiple Dirty Water provisions pollute so-called “Environment” Bills. A floor vote on the House bill is expected this Friday. The Senate Bill also was amended to include some of the Dirty Water provisions.
House File 846 attacks Clean Water rules and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Specifically, the House bill:
In a disappointing move this week, the Minnesota Legislature moved forward multiple Dirty Water provisions pollute so-called “Environment” Bills. A floor vote on the House bill is expected this Friday. The Senate Bill also was amended to include some of the Dirty Water provisions.
House File 846 attacks Clean Water rules and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Specifically, the House bill:
Eliminates the MPCA Citizens' Board’s long-standing power to make important environmental review decisions;
Suspends new pollution limits designed to protect rivers from suspended solids, phosphorus, and other pollution;**
Blocks the MPCA's clean water rulemaking authorityand upends the rulemaking process by giving legislators veto power over water quality rules – on the pretense of injecting more science into agency decision making;
Prohibits the MPCA from doing its duty under the Federal Clean Water Act, including enforcement of existing water standards meant to safeguard wild rice;**
Weakensthe Department of Natural Resources’ ability to protect trout streams, rivers, and lakes from the negative effects of over-pumping groundwater; and
Raids tens of Millions of dollars from the dedicated fund meant to clean up and protect our water from closed and leaking landfills.**
**These Dirty Water Provisions are also in the Senate bill, which passed the Senate floor on Earth Day.
These bills roll back long-standing protections for our Great Outdoors. They are a “wish-list” from corporate interests and the Dirty Water Caucus in the Legislature, who want to undermine the state agencies and laws that protect our water.
Photo: Denny McNamara, House Environmental Committee chair.
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Our editor's late father spent some time working at the Regional Treatment Center in St. Peter. His stories about the needs of the patients and occasional punch or slap from those under his care are unforgettable.
But Minnesota took some pride in the 1949 reforms that had lifted the treatment of the mentally ill and the working conditions for those who attended them. Perhaps there's no greater sign of the re-branding of the Republican Party in Minnesota than this note in the biography of former Governor Luther Youngdahl:
. . . [A]ppalled by the conditions of state mental hospitals, Youngdahl introduced a more humane concept of care. His sincere efforts to improve the lot of troubled youth, enhance public education, and give returning World War II veterans a financial boost earned this Republican administrator bipartisan respect and support. So popular was Youngdahl that he won each successive gubernatorial election by an ever-larger margin. That some conservatives found him "too liberal" didn't diminish his appeal or effectiveness.
Humane care for the mentally ill and the safety of those who provide it were once winning political platforms.
Safe staffing is now a hot topic being debated at the Legislature. The number of patient-on-staff assaults is surging at Minnesota Security Hospitals and psychiatric facilities. There has also been an alarming increase in violence toward health care workers at hospitals like Fairview, Regions and HCMC. The number of inmates in state prisons and county jails is also rising as corrections staff has been cut by the budget axe. Those trends should prompt lawmakers to protect the public workers who protect the public.
AFSCME is asking the Minnesota Legislature to increase funding to assure safe staffing. Keeping workers and the public safe is a core responsibility of government and it should be a funding priority. The Minnesota Security Hospital requires $10.4 million to add staff and other safety measures that protect patients. Investments are also needed for safe staffing at correctional facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, and other human service facilities operated by the state and counties.
AFSCME has created a page where readers can learn about workers' injuries on Facebook; caution: some of the comments by and photographs of injured workers are graphic. The union has created video testimonials as well.
Next week, union members will be marching for safe jobs at six sites on Tuesday. From a press release:
April 28 is Workers' Memorial Day. It's a day when the labor movement remembers all workers who have been killed or injured at work. This year, AFSCME is fighting for the living. AFSCME members who work in state-run mental health facilities are taking a beating from violent patients. The workers are fed up with management giving them lip service instead safe jobs.
Mental-health workers will be marching for safe jobs at six sites on Tuesday.
ANOKA: Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center 3301 Seventh Ave. N., Anoka April 28 - 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. Contacts: Jackie Spanjers, 763-227-6837; David Ruth, 763-291-7980
BRAINERD: Department of Human Services / Brainerd Campus 16515 State Ave., Brainerd April 28 - 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. Contact: Aleathea Modlin, 218-851-9584
DULUTH: DHS State Operated Community Services Lake Ave. & Superior St., Duluth April 28 - 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. Contact: Chris St. Germaine, 218-590-8839
MOOSE LAKE: Moose Lake Sex Offender Program 1111 Minnesota Highway 73, Moose Lake April 28 - 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. Contact: Jessica Langhorst, 763-477-8210
ST. PETER: St. Peter Security Hospital Minnesota Square Park Highway 169, downtown St. Peter April 28 - 12:00 to 4:00 p.m. Contacts: Tim Headlee, 507-469-5609; Eric Hesse, 507-382-9607
WILLMAR: Outside AFSCME Office at Plaza One Mall 1305 S. First St., Willmar April 28 - 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Contact: Cathy Malvin, 320-522-0847
Workers' Memorial Day is observed every year on April 28. It is a day to honor those workers who have died on the job, to acknowledge the grievous suffering experienced by families and communities, and to recommit ourselves to the fight for safe and healthful workplaces for all workers. It is also the day OSHA was established in 1971. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their workers. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.
Photo: Workers Memorial Day poster, via OSHA,
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Fresh off a round of criticism for a racially-charged remark the day before, on Wednesday, Minnesota State Representative Jim Newberger agonized on the house floor about being labelled and persecuted for his beliefs on climate change.
An amendment to an energy related bill essentially asked Minnesota lawmakers to decide if climate change is real. Rep. Jim Newberger (R-Becker) took exception to that and that he was voting no because the amendment was questioning beliefs.
Transcript: I’m voting red because we’re being asked to make a statement about what we believe. And we have to be very careful with this because what happens to the people that vote no?
I’ll tell you what happens. We’re going to get labeled. We’re going to be called deniers and then we’re going to be persecuted. It will happen. I’ve seen it.
I’m not standing up here and I’m not giving this advice to the body lightly.
So if you’re asking me to vote on this issue, I’m voting. But I’m voting red because I refuse to be put in this position. I’m not voting on how I feel about this issue . I’m not going to be put in the position where if I take this vote then, what I believe in going to be judged. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing and we have to be very careful with the precedent that we’re setting here members . This has the potential to be a dangerous path. I thank you for your time, and I don’t take this lightly. And I respect the opinions of everyone on both sides of this issue, deeply. I’m not here to insult anybody. I respect you and I’ll never question your beliefs. Please don’t question mine.
The amendment failed on a 58-71 vote.
Here's the video:
It had not been a good week for the Becker Republican.
House Speaker Kurt Daudt said Wednesday that he is satisfied with an apology from a fellow Republican lawmaker for a comment on the House floor that many considered a racial insult to people in north Minneapolis.
Democrats say the apology isn’t enough. They say Rep. Jim Newberger, R-Becker, should be publicly reprimanded by Republican leaders for remarks they believe show he’s insensitive to minority communities.
During a Tuesday night debate on a transportation funding bill, Newberger was speaking out against an effort to study extending the Northstar Commuter Rail Line to
St. Cloud. He said that a train between the prison in St. Cloud and north Minneapolis — a predominantly black Minneapolis neighborhood — would be “convenient.”
“Right on the edge of St. Cloud, about a half of a mile, maybe a quarter of a mile from the rail tracks is the St. Cloud State Prison,” Newberger said. “Boy, wouldn’t that be convenient to have the rail line going from the prison to north Minneapolis?” . . .
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
With a new and dirtier Jobs and Energy Omnibus Finance Bill up for debate on the Minnesota House floor Wednesday afternoon, Bluestem thought we'd examine part of that earlier story from a different prism: which energy special interests paid to try to defeat Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL-Fridley), a clean energy advocate who chaired the Minnesota House Energy Policy Committee in 2013-2014.
The company also gave $25,000 directly to the Minnesotan Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund PAC on August 15, 2014 (p. 6, year end report). That's at least $25,000 and perhaps as much $50,000 of good Bakken crude flowing into Minnesota politics for independent expenditures.
It's hard not to envision at least some of that oozing into the hands of the venders MJC chair (now House Majority executive director) Ben Golnik hired to craft $58,640 worth of attacks against DFL state representative Melissa Hortman in House District 36B (page 18, year end report).
That's one possible source of independent expenditure cash from the energy industry to work against Hortman. Here's the list of all the IE above $1000 that were spent against Hortman in 2014, via the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board:
HRCC (MN House GOP campaign committee) $91,328.00 Minn Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund $68,140.00 Republican Party of Minn $14,338.83 MN Action Network IE PAC $9,009.32
After all, in the 2013-2014 session when the DFL held the majority in the Minnesota House, the Fridley Democrat chaired the Energy Policy Committee, helping to shepherd through clean energy policy.
Northern Oil and Gas Inc Chair and CEO Micheal Reger also gave big to the HRCC, the campaign committee for Minnesota House Republicans. Reger dropped $10,000 into the HRCC kitty on October 14, 2014, (p. 48 year end report) after giving the committee $25,000.00 on December 31, 2013 (p. 26 year-end report), or $35,000 for the cycle.
HRCC Energy Money
So perhaps some of that Northern Oil and Gas cash got spent against Hortman by the HRCC. The $91,328 Independent Expenditure spending by the HRCC against Hortman was the committee's highest IE figure in 2014.
From whence else in the energy industry do we find money flowing to the Jobs Coalition Legislative fund and the HRCC?
Clearly, energy policy mattered to the HRCC, and to current Jobs and Energy chair Pat Garofalo, whose campaign committee contributed $60,000 to the HRCC (page 18, year end report). This contribution appears to be the largest gift to the HRCC by a GOP House candidate's committee; other high-rolling committee chairs, such as McNamara and Loon, contributed between $32,000-35,000 each.
Xcel Energy Employees PAC gave the HRCC $12,000 (page 60). The Rural Electric PAC gave $1900.
Republican State Leadership Committee funds to Jobs Coalition
While some funds shifted to the from the Jobs Coalition to its legislative fund, we don't know where the thought leader organization got most of that money. The biggest contributor to the IE spending was the Republican State Leadership Committee as we'd noted in February's Feb 2015 update: MJC received $325,000 from the RSLC; where'd that money trickle down from?. We noted a few energy industry and industry ally contributors to the RSLC:
UPDATE II: According to Open Secrets, Edison Electric Institute, an industry front group that's anti-solar, gave RSLC over $100,000 in the 2013-2014 cycle. How much of that flowed to the $325,000 the RSLC sent to Minnesota Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund for IE against DFLers?
$25,000
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON DC
06/26/14
$25,000
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON DC
11/26/13
$295
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON DC
11/26/13
$399
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON DC
10/14/13
$50,000
Edison Electric Institute
Washington DC
03/28/13
UPDATE III:According to Open Secrets, the Nuclear Energy Institute gave RSLC $115,000 in the 2013-2014 cycle. How much of that flowed to the $325,000 the RSLC sent to Minnesota Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund for IE against DFLers?
SourceWatch describes the front group in these terms: the "NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the "beneficial uses" of nuclear energy in the United States and around the world. It has over 280 corporate members in 15 countries, including companies that operate nuclear power plants, as well as design and engineering firms, fuel suppliers and service companies, and labor unions."
$5,000
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON DC
10/30/14
$50,000
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON DC
02/06/14
$10,000
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington DC
03/15/13
$50,000
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington DC
03/14/13
UPDATE IV: According to Open Secrets, Continental Resources, Inc, an Oklahoma based energy company that calls itself the largest acreage holder in the Bakken, gave RSLC $57,000 in the 2013-2014 cycle. How much of that flowed to the $325,000 the RSLC sent to Minnesota Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund for IE against DFLers?
How much of that $50,000 flowed to the $325,000 the RSLC sent to Minnesota Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund for IE against DFLers?
$50,000
PAUL SINGER
NEW YORK NY
10/29/14
UPDATE VI: According to Open Secrets, Cloud Peak Energy Resources LLC, a Powder River company that sends coal to Minnesota, gave $15,000 to the RSLC. Wyoming Mining reported. in 2014 that Cloud Peak Taking More Active Role in Coal Debate. How much of that $15,000 flowed to the $325,000 the RSLC sent to Minnesota Jobs Coalition Legislative Fund for IE against DFLers?
$15,000
CLOUD PEAK ENERGY RESOURCES LLC
GILLETTE WY
10/06/14
What proportion of all these contributions trickled into Minnesota? We'll never know how much of the mix came from which industry, but given where the spending was directed, it's likely some energy money flowed to Minnesota.
Tweet photo: Rep. Melissa Hortman, former Minnesota House Energy Policy Committee chair, who was a big IE target in 2014.
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
If you think you are hearing the exact same argument repeated over and over by agriculture groups when it comes to proposed buffer strip legislation, it's because you have.
Nearly from the day Gov. Mark Dayton announced he wanted to see 50-foot buffer strips along all rivers, streams, drainage ditches and other "perennial waterways" farm groups have been on the same page when criticizing it.
A 50-foot vegetative buffer, they say, is a one-size-fits-all approach that isn't necessary in many cases.
That would have been a strong argument if the actual legislation required 50-foot buffers in all cases and everywhere. But if they actually read the legislation it's clear it provides for alternatives if a 50-foot buffer doesn't make sense in improving water quality. (Google "minnesota senate file 1537" to read it yourself. The House version is exactly the same.)
Subd. 5 of the legislation is helpfully labeled "Alternative practices."
It says: "When a 50-foot buffer will not protect or improve water quality, a landowner may seek approval for an alternative water quality conservation plan or alternative water quality best management practice, including variable width buffers, that fulfills the purpose under subdivision 2."
The DNR says alternative practices could include things like narrower buffer strips or a combination of other water management practices that are approved by the local soil and water conservation district.
Despite the obvious intent to provide a flexible plan, agribusiness groups continue to peddle the idea that 50-feet of land along all waterways will be "taken" by the government.
Critics occasionally move away from the one-size-fits-all arguments by using suspect "research" and science to argue modern agriculture has no effect on water quality. . . .
That one reminds us of the pesticide industry shills claiming that pollinator-lethal insecticides are good for bees (and they have). Read the entire editorial at the Free Press.
The county seat of Blue Earth County, Mankato is located at the confluence of the Blue Earth and Minnesota Rivers, in the heart of agricultural south-central Minnesota.
Photo: Agribusiness talking points constantly remind us of the rhetoric value of manure. Like Harry Truman, we took a long time to learn to use the word "manure."
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Like many who follow Minnesota politics, Bluestem is watching the state House of Representatives debate the Transportation Omnibus bill. There have been some moments--like Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) minimizing the dangers of texting while driving (and belittling bicyclists)--but nothing measures up to Rep. Jim Newberger (R-Becker) and his special moment.
Newberger has a history of making extreme remarks.
Rep. Jim Newberger (R-Becker) is against more funding for Minnesota’s North Star rail, a line that was originally supposed to go between Minneapolis and St. Cloud but has yet to be extended that far. During debate on a transportation bill Newberger said he’s against expanding the route because the tracks would go near St. Cloud’s prison.
“Boy, wouldn’t that be convenient, to have that rail line going from the prison to North Minneapolis,” said Newberger. After hearing some grumbling he quickly added, “or to any section of our state.” Boos were heard in the House chamber.
North Minneapolis is a neighborhood with a racially diverse population.
Newberger quickly apologized for naming North Minneapolis, “but that’s what came into my mind. It doesn’t matter, it could be any part of the city. But if you’re going to connect a large metro to a prison there’s going to be some concerns. I would be lying if I said there wasn’t.”
Newberger said in his “neck of the woods,” there’s a different name for the North Star. “We don’t call it North Star, we call it the black hole because that’s where all the money goes.”
Other representatives brought up the presence of St. Cloud State University, which had 17,231 students enrolled in 2011, but Newberger? Mention St. Cloud, and the first thing he's thinking about are 1035 prisoners now living in the state prison. According to the April 21, 2015 facility inmate report, 50 percent of those incarcerated are from non-metro areas, while 23 percent are from Hennepin County.
But on Planet Newberger, those 250-odd souls (and who knows how many of the Hennepin County population of the prison are from North Minneapolis) are the magnet for the North Star line if it's extended to St. Cloud.
It is time to act. The Environmental Quality Board is organizing an Agenda 21-style "congress” for Minnesota. I have received reports from folks who have attended the Rochester and Bloomington “congresses”. This is a huge move by the state to force a “Green Agenda”.
We have an opportunity to attend, to vote, and to speak at these events. The Liberals have been stuffing these rooms FULL. I was told there were 160 at the Rochester event! I was also informed that the majority of these people were government union people, or staff members from one of the MANY agencies behind this “congress”.
St. Cloud is Central Minnesota. This is OUR home turf. We need to be there. If we pull together: Liberty folks, TEA Party folks, Republicans and Conservatives then we CAN make an impact. We must stand together!
GET YOUR PEOPLE to the St. Cloud event. I will be there.
I will also be having an organizational meeting BEFORE this takes place so we are united and can work as a team. Stay tuned. Details to come.
Since Newberger hasn't been sworn into office yet, we suspect open meeting laws don't apply. Will his pre-Citizen Forum organizational meeting for his kindred spirits be open to the public and the press?
We have more, but those are pretty good introductions to Representative Newberger.
Photo: Jim Newberger.
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Giving special interests easy access to state funds is a lousy idea.
An agricultural powerhouse of a state like Minnesota should be plowing healthy sums into agricultural research to ensure abundant yields and economic growth far into the future. But a legislative proposal with the noble aim of boosting state support is unfortunately based on a dubious strategy — routing the additional public dollars through a new board whose voting members are often self-appointed by political special interests.
The measure is known in Capitol shorthand as the “Ag Transfer Board.’’ Officially, it’s dubbed the “Agricultural Research, Extension and Technology Transfer Board’’ by the Minnesota House legislation that would make it a reality and potentially provide at least $7 million in funding over the next biennium (requested sums have been a moving target during the session but at one point were at $37 million for the biennium). The board also has a powerful champion: Republican Rep. Rod Hamilton, chairman of the House Agricultural Finance Committee. Similar legislation in the Senate doesn’t set up the board, but requires University of Minnesota officials to “consult with stakeholders representing general farm, forestry and agricultural producer organizations.”
The House version has momentum thanks to Hamilton’s influence and the lobbying might of agricultural organizations backing it. Proponents also pitch the board as better able to respond to emerging crop and animal diseases — a selling point as turkey farmers grapple with the spread of avian flu. But legislators and state and university officials already have the ability to target dollars to crises like those. A convincing argument has not yet been made in numerous committee hearings for how a large, new board would expedite rather than slow this process.
The board would also establish a troubling precedent on control of general fund dollars, which would provide the board’s funding. Essentially, the legislation creates a pot of public money and turns it over to interest group representatives with vague language about how it could be spent. . . .
The state does have other independent boards with influence over spending of public dollars. A well-known one is the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council. But that board makes recommendations for legislators to approve. The new agricultural board, if it becomes a reality, appears to be the first entity that would be authorized to spend general fund dollars without this approval. That some interest groups would appoint their board representatives also appears unusual.
Special-interest groups are not accountable to the public. . . .
Read the entire editorial in the Strib.
Bluestem wonders why we need more bureaucracy in order to adequately fund agricultural research and ag education and farm management (and don't get us started on "leadership education" that's little more than teaching public affairs "communications" techniques; the state shouldn't be in the propaganda education business for any industry).
Handing over public money to special interests to make the decisions about how to spend that money? Not so much.
Photo: Representative Rod Hamilton, who wants to be known as a pork producer in more ways than one.
We're conducting our spring fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Recent Comments