Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


GOP’s double reversal leaves Legacy funding bill in limbo

Rep. Dean Urdahl expressed concern over the reduced oversight.
MinnPost photo by Terry Gydesen
Rep. Dean Urdahl expressed concern over the reduced oversight.

Can you do a double back flip? The Legislature proved it could.

An unexpected double reversal by House Republicans on the Legacy Amendment funding bill derailed the evening hours of the House’s final 2011 session.

DFLers kept talking until time ran out at Monday’s midnight deadline, keeping a number of bills (including the roughly $450 million Legacy measure) from passage.

The chaos came from a proposed change to language in the measure that would loosen open-meeting requirements on a key council that makes recommendations on how to spend $86 million in Legacy funds.

Rep. Dean Urdahl, the bill’s chief House author, expressed concern over the reduced oversight but said Senate Republicans wouldn’t budge on the matter in conference committee.

Urdahl said he didn’t sign the bill’s final conference report because of “timing” problems but hinted that the main reason was his disagreement over the open-meeting changes.

An outpouring of bipartisan support — including the backing of Ways and Means Committee Chairwoman Mary Liz Holberg — for retaining the current open-meeting provisions that govern the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council persuaded Urdahl to support sending the measure back to conference committee.

“I have many, many concerns when it comes to this language,” Holberg said, calling it “extremely troubling.”

The motion passed 119 to 14. The Democrats were riding high.

A flurry of activity from House conferees ensued. When reporters pressed Urdahl for answers on what would happen, his response was “I ain’t got time for news.”

But the House action didn’t change the mind of Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, the Senate author. The measure passed the Senate earlier Monday with ease.

“We asked them to reconvene the conference committee,” Urdahl said, almost dejected. “They wouldn’t do it.”

But then, less than an hour after passing the widely supported amended measure — with theoretically enough time to convene a conference committee and re-pass an amended bill — Rep. Denny McNamara, a conferee, took to the House floor and urged members to re-adopt the original language.

“I certainly am sorry for the situation tonight,” Urdahl told his colleagues on the House floor, “but we need to get these bills passed.”

The Democrats were outraged by the reversal, and the motion passed by only four votes.

It was then, a number of DFLers said, that they decided to run out the clock.

They took issue with money hat was dedicated to rural parks from the sales tax-supported Legacy constitutional amendment, passed by voters to fund wildlife, the environment and the arts. Under the bill, outstate Minnesota parks were to receive $15 million more than those in the metro, which, Urdahl said, was one of the toughest provisions to negotiate with the Senate.

Democrats criticized the open-meeting provision again and again.

And they criticized Republicans.

Minority Leader Paul Thissen derided GOP lawmakers for voting against a measure that “passed almost unanimously on the House floor minutes ago,” adding: “I think we have a lot of questions about this legislative session.”

DFL members (although some supported the bill) questioned almost everything about the legislative process and the GOP budget bills.

While Urdahl seemed relatively cool to the barrage from Democrats, McNamara didn’t take it well, accusing DFLers of nitpicking at small pieces of the bill.

“This is the one good vote we get,” McNamara said. “If you want to kill the good stuff, then kill it.”

In the end, after a short speech from Thissen, House Majority Leader Matt Dean called a quick end to session and the lawmakers left without final action.

As a result, the Legacy bill is on hold until Gov. Mark Dayton calls a special session. At that time, Urdahl will have to re-enter conference committee and craft a new Legacy bill using the framework of the one that didn’t pass.

Both the House and Senate versions are likely to keep a provision that would require Dayton and the Legislature to solve Minnesota’s existing $5 billion deficit before state agencies can begin using Legacy money. That provision is meant to stop the state from using the dedicated Legacy dollars to fund day-to-day operations.

“We’ll go into special session and we’ll make this a better bill,” Urdahl said. “If it wasn’t this issue,” he said, referring to the open-meeting provisions, “it would have been another.”

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/24/2011 - 10:29 am.

    I just have ask the author here why he thinks we’re more interested the house procedures and votes than we are the actual meeting requirements that were in dispute? This kind of reporting has been sooooo frustrating and typical. Yes, they had a big argument. Whatever you do DON’T explain what they were actually arguing about and why. What were the Republicans trying to change and why did the Democrats think it was a problem? I mean this could be huge since they’ve already decided that everyone has to has to apply for the grants, and this committee makes the decisions, but whatever you don’t explain that. I just don’t understand this kind of reporting.

  2. Submitted by Noah Hanson on 05/24/2011 - 12:29 pm.

    I agree with Paul, very confusing and poorly explained information on the actual dispute.

  3. Submitted by Don Medal on 05/25/2011 - 08:56 am.

    I agree with the above. I was really looking to find out what the justification was for reducing the open meetings policy. Poor job of explaining the two positions, good job explaining the political wrangling. “Why” was missed.

  4. Submitted by jody rooney on 05/25/2011 - 10:37 am.

    What on earth is this reporter trying to say?

    In the key questions who, what, when, where, how and why. He forgot to explain the what and they why very well.

  5. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/26/2011 - 10:25 am.

    I’ve actually been thinking a lot about this lately on my blog. Why do reporters focus on the process of the dispute instead of the nature of the dispute? It’s not just Mr. Nord that does this, it’s always a frustrating characteristic of mainstream political reporting.

    The problem is sports. Seriously, it’s a sports mentality. Sports is all about process, moving the ball or getting something into a net of some kind. All that matters is how the ball is moved. It makes no sense in any sports competition to ask “why?”. No one asks why a football team is trying to move a ball down the field, or why baseball players are trying to run around the bases, all that matters is how they do it, not why they do it. Likewise it makes no sense to question the nature of the ball or puck, or whatever that’s being moved.

    When you combine a sports mentality that treats politics like a game of some kind with some reporters aversion to drawing conclusions about anything you end up with this kind of reporting. They focus on the process, how the bill is moved rather than why it’s moved or what it is.

    The thing that amazes me is that reporters report this way given the fact that political processes are soooo incredibly boring. It almost guarantees that no one will pay attention.

Leave a Reply