Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


You know you want to read this sexy story about legislative process reform

MinnPost photo by Corey Anderson
“If the people who are paid to be here on a full-time basis are unable to follow the process, how can you expect your constituents to?” asked Nick Harper, civic engagement director for the League of Women Voters.
There might have been no better illustration of how long the lack of transparency at the Minnesota Legislature has been a problem than the testimony provided by a longtime lobbyist and former legislative staffer at an informational hearing Wednesday on legislative process reform.

Phil Griffin, in response to a request from state Rep. Gene Pelowski, Jr., dug up and offered testimony on the shortcomings of the legislative process he had delivered before.

In 2008.

The concerns were much the same back then, Griffin said, and they remain today: The Legislature is hard to follow, even for those who get paid to do so. Too much work is done out of public view. Too much is left for the closing days. And too much business is left to be addressed in massive omnibus bills that include dozens and sometimes hundreds of bills.

“In short, Mr. Chair and members,” Griffin said (again), “we have concerns about how the legislative process is being abused and the impact this has on the public’s ability to follow and comment on proposed legislation.”

Others echoed those complaints. “I don’t think anyone really likes the process,” said Nick Harper, civic engagement director for the League of Women Voters.

The news media, lobbyists and even members in the minority party are “often left in the dark.” “If the people who are paid to be here on a full-time basis are unable to follow the process, how can you expect your constituents to?” Harper asked.

Lobbyist John Kaul said he has watched the process become less transparent over time, as more decision making has gone into fewer hands and legislation that once moved through the process individually gets placed in “these mega, mother-of-all conference committees.”

“If we’re doing what the people want, why is this level of secrecy needed?” he asked. “I’ve often wondered why you go to all the trouble to campaign for six months-eight-months a year, raise all that money only to be taken out of the process when these big decisions are being made.”

After detailing a set of suggestions about making the budgeting process more open, Rep. Jim Knoblach, a Republican who is the outgoing chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the problem starts with individual elected officials.

“The common denominator of these recommendations is to take some power away from leadership,” Knoblach said. “I think that members in general delegate too much power to their leaders. The state would be better served if members did not do it as much as they do.”

Jack Davies, who served in the state Senate from 1958 to 1982 and was later appointed to the state court of appeals, has long made the case that the Legislature regularly violates what is called the single-subject clause of the Minnesota Constitution. While the Supreme Court has done little to enforce the clause in the cases that have so far been brought before it, Davies thinks a better case might bring a different result.

In the meantime, he thinks the Legislature itself could stop using omnibus bills and large “committee bills” that contain all of the work of a given committee in one end-of-session bill. He also thinks the incoming DFL House leadership won’t use the omnibus bill tool this session, noting that Gov.-elect Tim Walz opposed them during the campaign.

“Rumor has it that the governor elect will take the position that since the Supreme Court won’t enforce the single-subject rule, he will,” Davies said.

Davies also said he thinks the legislative process could be made more efficient, more-transparent and less partisan if small subcommittees worked on individual bills.

The price of compromise

The discussion also covered a lot of items that matter more to legislators and insiders than to the public, such as whether there should be limits on the number of bills each legislator can introduce and whether budget targets — which set the dollar amounts that can be spent in each area of government — should be voted on by all members rather than set by leaders. There was also an esoteric discussion about increased partisanship in Minnesota and America and the effect that has on legislating.

The incoming Rules Committee Chair will likely be Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-St. Louis Park, who is returning to the Legislature after resigning his seat in 2015. After listening to the testimony — which included a lot of talk about how a better process existed in the 1970s and 1980s, when lawmakers were more-likely to compromise with the other party — Winkler noted, “times have changed.”

photo of rep gene pelowski at legislative hearing
MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan
Rep. Gene Pelowski Jr. will chair the subcommittee of the House Rules Committee on Legislative Process Reform.
“The two parties are more ideologically consistent and pure than there once were,” he said. “The incentives for negotiating have changed. There is far more outside pressure from interest groups to maintain a strong position and not ‘sell out.’ There is a political price to be paid for compromise that is different than it once was.”

Winkler said leaders, committee chairs and members of both parties can take action outside of rule changes to “mitigate these harms.” But he said that requires spending time building relationships that cross party lines, which is easier to do behind closed doors.

“Part of it is because that’s where people feel like they have space to actually give and take,” Winkler said. “It’s not ideal from a transparency perspective but it is, I think, a realistic response to the glare of attention on public decisions when they might not always be popular with all groups.”

Complaints about process and transparency tend to be the domain of the minority party, which is often shut out of the decision-making late in session. That could explain why only one Republican, Knoblach, attended Wednesday information hearing, and he won’t be in the next Legislature. Knoblach suspended his re-election campaign after his daughter came forward with allegations of inappropriate touching.

Pelowski said he hopes his DFL party leadership will push the transparency issue in the upcoming session. House DFL leader Melissa Hortman of Brooklyn Park, who will be elected House Speaker in January when the new Legislature convenes, has created a subcommittee of the House Rules Committee on Legislative Process Reform. Pelowski, a Winona lawmaker first elected in 1986, was appointed chair.

Comments (10)

  1. Submitted by Bob Barnes on 11/29/2018 - 11:24 am.

    One fix would be a do nothing legislature. Passing bills for the sake of passing bills is bad governing. Let’s truing cutting govt instead of expanding it for a change.

    • Submitted by Mark Voorhees on 11/29/2018 - 12:56 pm.

      This article is about making government more efficient and bills would be to-the-point. This would be a great step forward to normalize relationships between the two parties.

  2. Submitted by Joel Stegner on 11/29/2018 - 12:55 pm.

    Time to say no to special interest demands while responding favorably to reasonable requests. Demands are the actions of bullies, who threaten rather than persuade. Whether it be the NRA or Education Minnesota, legislators need to show an openness to all viewpoints and backbone when confronted by groups that place their own interests above those of the citizens and communities of our state.

    • Submitted by Mark Kulda on 11/29/2018 - 06:55 pm.

      With everything everybody does in life, at some point everybody is part of a special interest group, usually many at a time. Paying taxes, driving a car, buying insurance, breathing air, etc….everything everyone does makes them part of a special interest group. Who cares where good ideas come from? Being open to all viewpoints means being open to special interest groups when they have good ideas too.

      • Submitted by Jim Bernstein on 12/01/2018 - 03:01 pm.

        I spent several years in office oftentimes disagreeing with Mark Kulda but his perspective here is spot on! Most of us are in fact de facto members of “special interest” groups even we may not perceive our own interests as “special”.

  3. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 11/29/2018 - 03:33 pm.

    The Governor should veto any omnibus bill that comes his way–announcing that he will do so way in advance, so the Legislature can get its act together and actually legislate discreet bills.

    Also, Winkler is wrong: It is the must-pass-it omnibus bill, not tribal divisions, that causes the stark divisions in our legislature. If senators and representatives could talk together about this or that particular issue–in one bill, as our state Constitution requires–they could pass this or that bill without drama. There are lots of things Minnesotans of all stripes agree on; they should ask Amy Klobuchar how she does just that in the U.S. Senate, where she has a reputation for Getting Things Done with GOP colleagues, one discreet issue at a time.

    However, when these unreadable gigantic monster bills come up at the end of a session, with everything but the kitchen sink in them and most of it done and negotiated in absolute secret (most legislators have NO IDEA what they’re voting for with these monstrosities), that’s when you get Party Leadership claiming that The Sky Will Fall if one party’s secret doings don’t get voted up. Leaders create a do or die situation, Us versus Them, with huge grab-bag bills.

    They’re the problem, and should be outlawed. Otherwise, if someone wants to file a lawsuit against the majority party leadership that forces through another omnibus bill, I’ll join it!

  4. Submitted by Bill Kahn on 11/30/2018 - 12:09 pm.

    Funny notion of what’s sexy.

    If increased transparency doesn’t work out, maybe quadratic voting in the Leg might be worth a shot (see Radical Markets … by Posner and Wehl). I tend not to buy economic approaches to anything but ecology, but this might be worth a shot for those who do.

    Otherwise, take the can do attitude to a transparent full time Leg and we might see better results.

  5. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 12/01/2018 - 06:03 am.

    Thank you, Peter. This is the sort of stuff that keeps some of us awake at night…

  6. Submitted by Mike Schumann on 12/02/2018 - 10:03 am.

    The main reason for these large bills is to stuff things in that would never have a chance to pass on their own merits. This is what is destroying our political system. People holding hostage common sense legislation that has broad support and using that as a lever to pass things that don’t have enough support to make it into law on their own merits.

    If single subject is too mushy of a concept to enforce, maybe an alternative is a hard limit on the number of words (or characters) that can be part of a single bill.

  7. Submitted by Carl Brookins on 12/03/2018 - 09:29 am.

    This issue is far more important than the ironic headline suggests. Senator Marty and others have resisted the tidal wave of huge omnibus bills and voters ought to raise the issue during election campaigns. If legislators received more comment from constituents they might pay more attention and insure that important bills receive hearings. If the citizens of the state want better representation, such as thoughtful consideration of issues, they should ask their legislators. I know where mine stand and I suggest that others spend even a little more time on the work of representative government. The issue of huge omnibus bills is not a partisan question its a government question. Minnesotans have done a lot to demonstrate to other states how to govern effectively and evenly. Perhaps we need to raise our voices.

Leave a Reply