Minnesota’s self-induced legislative crisis nears end

Gov. Mark Dayton, House Speaker Kurt Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk have reached a tentative compromise on the bills vetoed by the governor, paving the way for an imminent special legislative session.

Having already abandoned his demand for universal voluntary early childhood programs, and more recently the repeal of (probably unconstitutional) provisions that would strip power from the State Auditor’s office, DFL Gov. Dayton floated a handful of smaller requests yesterday. Rural broadband. Mishmash. Some Here and there. In further negotiations, Dayton got a small percentage of his ask (no broadband add-ons, which continues a theme), and so here we go. The deal Minnesota gets is slightly different than what passed in the flurry of the end of session, but not dramatically so.

Gov. Mark Dayton’s statement on the tentative deal was as follows:

“We have reached tentative agreements on the remaining bills, which must be enacted to conclude the 2015 Legislative Session. I will call a Special Session, as soon as the four Caucus leaders and I have each reviewed and approved the proposed statutory language and have all signed a written agreement defining the session’s parameters.

“I am pleased that these agreements finally include $5 million to help Minnesotans with disabilities find and maintain employment, and to help prevent Minnesotans with mental illness from becoming homeless. They also add consumer protections to the Energy Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) rate provision that will help the taconite and forest products industries in northeastern Minnesota. Finally, they add a provision giving the City of Rochester flexibility to use its local sales tax to support the Destination Medical Center economic development project.

“These resolutions to the bills I vetoed three weeks ago have been extremely difficult. Last fall, Minnesotans elected a divided state government, led by people with very different views about the role of government in our society; the optimal levels of state revenues and expenditures; and the policies and programs, which they should support.

“The sign of a true compromise is that no one is happy with it. Proponents and opponents of various policies across the political spectrum will be as unhappy with certain features as we, who ultimately had to accept them to avoid another government shutdown, the indefinite layoffs of 9,500 state employees, and severe disruptions of important public services.”

GOP House Speaker Kurt Daudt, on the other hand, seemed perfectly fine with the deal:

“Minnesotans expect us to come to St. Paul and lead by working together. The House Republican majority’s aim from the beginning was bringing government spending more in line with family budgets. I’m proud to say, upon enactment, our budget will have the third lowest percent increase in general fund spending in over 50 years. We are targeting tax dollars toward our state’s priorities – E-12 students, roads and bridges, aging adults – and we are doing so without increasing the tax burden on hardworking Minnesotans. We are also taking swift action to address emerging issues like the avian flu outbreak on Minnesota farms and steelworker layoffs on the Iron Range,” said Speaker Daudt. “I’m pleased we can move forward with this tentative agreement today and pass a bipartisan budget that invests in Minnesotans’ needs while still respecting taxpayers.”

It’s true that shutting down the state government wasn’t a prudent strategy for any one side of this debate. In other words, there was no reason to play extreme chicken this year and if the DFL or GOP were to be “blamed” for doing so, the reaction would be deeply unfavorable. The state, for all practical purposes, is “fine” despite various points of contention all around.

The takeaway from this session, however, has less to do with the policy of this compromise, but the process of its conclusion. That was messed up. Things might be “fine” now, but if we had a more pressing budget or policy crisis, our system of divided government appears unable to respond maturely. No, this is not a “DFL and GOP are the same” post. They’re not, but what the session has shown is that certain actors seem to thrive in the muck of closed-door dealmaking and others don’t. Obviously, Gov. Dayton is not a “mudder,” but Tom Bakk clearly is. Well, maybe.

But I’d defy most Minnesotans to even accurately name what’s in these deals. They’re so convoluted that the state’s best political reporters practically have to lawyer up to write 500 words about them.

The attempt to privatize the State Auditor’s office, for instance, has almost no logical policy basis and seems more an outcropping of political shenanigans and think-tank ideas run out of control. While it will almost certainly be struck down by the state Supreme Court, it’s a whole *thing* that has to happen now, a thing that had no public support to begin with.

Meantime, the “rural issues session” — led by a supposedly rural-friendly GOP House — was a total bust. We had “rural” leaders in both houses, and rural people got less than they did in the last biennium.

Yes, voters will have their say. Rather than telling you to vote DFL or GOP in response to this mess, I’ll only recommend the following. If you see a politician who prefers to deal in private than negotiate in public, cast them out. We can only understand people of opposing views if we understand their motives and values. What values dictated the end of this session? This special session? If you can name them, you should apparently be an office-holder.

The true unfinished business of this session is legislative reform.