 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Sign up for LWVMN E-News: |
LWVMN Capitol Letter™Volume XXXIII Issue 2, February 3, 2007The Capitol Letter™ is a report of the activities of the LWVMN volunteer lobbyists. It is published approximately every two weeks during the Legislative Session. Printable PDF Version
It’s Time to Write or Call. What Works?
Laura Fredrick Wang, LWVMN Legislative Coordinator, (651) 224-5445
Before the session is over in May, something is sure to compel you to speak up. Sometimes it only takes a handful of messages from constituents to make lawmakers take note, but what is the best way to get your voice heard above the frenzy? There are three primary means of contacting your legislator – telephone, postal mail and email, each with its own pros and cons. Capitol insiders are telling us that your best bet to is to pick up the phone or drop a letter in the mail. A quick phone call is an easy way to let your legislator know your opinion on a bill they are considering. Typically, an aide will record your opinion to pass on to the legislator. You can be connected by calling 800-657-3550 for representatives and 888-234-1112 for senators or checking the Minnesota Legislature’s website. If you have more to say on the issue, a brief letter is best. This is especially true if a bill will affect you personally. Few things move a legislator more than a powerful personal story from a constituent. Don’t hesitate to share yours with the people making laws that affect Minnesotans! To find addresses for legislators, check out the links in the Capitol Letter™, visit the Minnesota Legislature’s website or call the numbers listed above. What about email? This was once an effective way to communicate with your lawmaker, but its efficacy is waning as lawmakers’ inboxes overflow with more messages than it is possible to read. However, email is better than nothing, so if you only have time to send a quick message, make good use of your subject line – something like, "Constituent asks your support for Education bill; response requested." This lets your legislator know that he/she needs to prioritize your message and act on it quickly. Whatever method you choose, many of the same guidelines apply. Constituent mail always takes priority, so let your legislator know you live in his/her district and include your address and contact information so that he/she can respond. Be brief and to the point. If your message is succinct, your legislator will be able to respond more easily and in a more timely fashion. It may be helpful to identify yourself as a member of LWV; use your own judgment. In addition to the Capitol Letter™ and the LWVMN website, the Minnesota Legislature has many useful resources for at-home activists. The House Session Weekly has information about what is going on in the House of Representatives, while the Senate Briefly keeps you informed about the Senate. You can also find information about the status of legislation that has been introduced and committee schedules. True devotees can sign up to receive updates by email and even watch committee meetings or either the House or Senate in session on Ch. 17 or over the internet. By familiarizing yourself with these resources, it is easy to be an effective advocate from the comfort of your own home. EducationLWVMN Position: All Minnesota children should have equal access to a good public education. State funding for education should be at a level that makes programs of comparable substance and quality available to all. A student's access to a good education should not depend on the wealth of his or her school district. Kay Kessel, lobbyist, (612) 926-1387 Monitoring Education Finance committees has always been a challenge, and now we’ve added a new one. House Education Finance and Economic Competitiveness Finance Division Committee, chaired by Rep. Mary Murphy (DFL-06B-Hermantown), is a new House committee overseeing education finance and property tax reform. Rep. Murphy has recommended that all individuals and/or groups who anticipate requesting or receiving education funds should be in attendance. The Senate E-12 Education Budget Division, chaired by Sen. LeRoy Stumpf (DFL-1-Plummer), has heard the P.S. Minnesota goals for education funding, which link revenue to achievement. P.S. Minnesota is an outgrowth of Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s Education Finance Reform committee chaired by Edina Superintendent Ric Dressen that was described in the January 21 Capitol Letter™. The governor’s remarks about education in his State of the State Address surprised many educators. He came across as an adversary rather than a collaborator with Minnesota educators. In addition, Governor Pawlenty’s proposed 2% increase on the per pupil formula met with an underwhelming response from educators and education committee members alike. There were some excellent ideas in the governor’s message. To name a few, there is suggested funding for:
However, the governor’s emphasis on high school reform, as opposed to early childhood education, is at odds with the data and research testified to by the experts who presented this week at the House Education committees on what is necessary to close the achievement gap, according to Mary Cecconi of Parents United for Public Schools. Education experts in general are very precise when they spell out the advantages of early learning opportunities, both to children and their families, and to taxpayers. Early childhood education is cost-effective. The governor’s insistence on his 70 percent rule, which he included in his political ads last fall, did not reassure educators.* This proposal ties the hands of local school districts. In fact, Minnesota ranks third in the nation for directly placing resources in the classrooms (Nov. 2006 report, "Overview of Public Elementary and Secondary Students, Staff, Schools, School Districts, Revenues, and Expenditures: School Year 2004-05 and Fiscal year 2004," National Center for Education Statistics). What are the non-classroom expenditures identified in the 70% bill? School administration, district support services, social workers, security, counselors, athletics, and co-curricular activities, instructional support services, pupil support services, staff development, operations and maintenance (Minnesota Department of Education website). Rep. Mindy Greiling (DFL-54A-Roseville), chair of the House K-12 Finance Division Committee, has worked on educating the new members about education finance. Utilizing the professional staff of the House and the Department of Education, along with outside experts in education, Rep. Greiling has provided a primer for new legislators, and for lobbyists and educators at her committee meetings. In addition, both Rep. Greiling and Rep. Carlos Mariani (DFL-65B-Saint Paul), chair of House E-12 Education Committee, have brought in experts to help committee members understand the achievement gap and accountability. What will be the final outcome for Minnesota education funding? There will be many committees to monitor and the compromises between the governor and Alice Seagren, Commissioner of Education and the DFL-controlled House and Senate committees will be fascinating to watch. *For information on this go to the Minnesota Department of Education website. At one time there was a link to the percent of education spending by district but that is no longer available. Minneapolis spent over 70 percent on the classroom in 2004. Thanks to Mary Cecconi of Parents United for Public Schools for some of this information. State Government FinanceLWVMN Position: Support of a balanced and diversified revenue system that is equitable, progressive, and reliable. Support of long-term financial management projections and a budget reserve. (1995) LWVMN Position: LWVMN believes that the highest priority areas for state spending are the following: (1) K-12 (regular) education; (2) Health Care; (3) Environmental protection.... Nancy Witta, lobbyist, (612) 928-7007 The governor’s budget proposal has been released. The plan calls for no new taxes but does include a 9 percent increase in spending. The increases are apportioned among higher education, K-12 education, tax relief, health care reform, technology, military/veteran support, budget reserve, technology and energy initiatives. As indicated in the Star Tribune "Much of the money comes with strings attached. About $1 billion of new spending would be out the door as performance pay - one time bonuses tied to specific state-set goals." The Minnesota Budget Project, an initiative of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, finds the budget proposal falls short in three key areas: No provisions to narrow disparities between those who are well off and those who are struggling to make ends meet; no reform of the state budget process; and no improvement in the state tax system in terms of fairness and adequacy. Also missing is increased spending for early childhood education and transportation. Rep. Marty Seifert (R-21A-Marshall), minority leader of the House, was equally critical of the budget proposal. He was particularly concerned about its failure to provide more tax relief and about the amount of increased spending. Meanwhile SF11 and HF68, authored by Sen. Richard Cohen (DFL-64-Saint Paul) and Rep. Loren Solberg (DFL-03B-Grand Rapids) respectively, are working their way through the legislative process. SF11 has had its second reading and is awaiting floor action. HF68 awaits committee action. The bills provide for an annual appropriation to the Executive Council for emergencies, reinstate inflation in the budget forecast, require that the state budget comply with generally accepted governmental accounting principles, and provide for continuing appropriations to continue state services in the event of a budget deadlock. A more direct approach is taken by SF25 and HF11, authored by Sen. Cohen and Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-05A-Virginia), which says very simply that state budget revenue forecasts must include inflation. SF25, co-authored by Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-6-Cook), Sen. Terri Bonoff (DFL-43-Minnetonka), Sen. Katie Sieben (DFL-57-Newport), and Sen. Tarryl Clark (DFL-15-St. Cloud), passed the Senate 43-21 on January 25. HF11, co-authored by 19 representatives in addition to Rep. Rukavina, awaits action in the House Ways and Means Committee. Given the complexity of state finance and tax issues in general, it is encouraging that Rep. Ann Lenczewski (DFL-40B-Bloomington), Chair of the House Taxes Committee, has used the first meetings of her committee to provide a detailed tax primer for her committee members. She has made use of the professional staff in the House Research and House Fiscal Analysis Departments as well as professionals from the Minnesota Department of Revenueand the Office of the Legislative Auditor. These people have briefed the committee on the tax structure of the state, including income taxes, sales taxes, and tax compliance, and the roles of their respective offices in the legislative process. FYI – Interesting note from the Session Weekly, January 19, 2007: The General Fund makes up about 60% of the total state budget and is funded by state resources. Education receives about 40% of the revenues from this fund, health and human services use up about 30%, property tax aids and credits use about 10% and higher education uses about 9%. That adds up to about 89% of the General Fund. Areas that receive the remainder include agriculture and environment, economic development, public safety, state government, transportation and paying off our debt service. Check the Session Weekly for more information on our state budget. Election LawLWVUS Position: Voting is a fundamental citizen right that must be guaranteed. LWVUS Position: Promote the election of the President and Vice President by direct popular vote and abolish the electoral college. Support uniform national voting qualifications and procedures for presidential election. LWVMN Position: Support of improvements in election laws regulating election procedures, voting and school district elections. Gwen Myers, Action Committee Chair, (952) 545-8696 LWVMN has been invited by the Office of the Secretary of State (OSS) to work collaboratively with Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and others concerned with elections legislation on substantive proposals for improving our election system. As this issue goes to press, LWVMN will be attending a meeting to identify issues that each group will be bringing forward and to find ways we can work together. In preparation for this meeting, Beth Fraser, Secretary Ritchie’s Director of Governmental Affairs asked those invited to participate to identify issues they would like to support. To this end, five issues of particular importance to LWVMN have been sent to Ms. Fraser:
Among the bills that the OSS will propose are the following: an automatic voter registration bill wherein a person who is eligible to vote in Minnesota is automatically registered when he/she completes a driver’s license or identification card application; an absentee ballot bill which would simplify the process; and a bill to require a voter’s guide published by the OSS to be mailed to every household and to be available on the OSS website. LWVMN looks forward to working with Secretary Ritchie on these and other bills. Meanwhile, our work with the Voting Rights Coalition* continues and we hope to have bill numbers and authors to report very soon. * The Voting Rights Coalition includes the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, Take Action Minnesota, Education Minnesota, AFL-CIO, League of Minnesota Cities, MN Trial Lawyers, the Disability Law Center, ACORN, the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition and LWVMN, among others, and is chaired by C. Scott Cooper of Take Action Minnesota. Reproductive ChoiceLWVUS Position: Protect the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices. Anne Salisbury, Action Committee Co-chair, (651) 430-1091 On Monday, January 22, family planning access legislation was introduced in both the Minnesota Senate and House. SF184 and its companion HF298 were put forward by chief authors Sen. John Marty (DFL-54-Roseville) and Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL-07A-Duluth) in their respective governmental bodies. Both bills aim to prevent unintended pregnancies through increased access to family planning information and services. Registered nurses will be authorized to dispense oral contraceptives in family planning clinics. There will be increased reimbursement rates for family planning services through governmental units with an expanded definition of these units so that they include nonprofit health clinics, all providing full and accurate family planning services. The bill calls for eliminating the reduction in family planning grants that was to begin July 1, 2007. In addition the bill addresses the health needs of those with sexually transmitted diseases by establishing a means for testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and complications. Sen. Marty’s co-authors are Sen. Patricia Torres Ray (DFL-62-Minneapolis), Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-61-Minneapolis), Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon (DFL-7-Duluth), and Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-6-Cook). Rep. Huntley has the House maximum of 34 co-authors, including the Speaker, Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A-Minneapolis). SF184 has been referred to the Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee. HF298 was referred to the House Finance Committee. Watch for hearings on these bills in their assigned committees. EnergyLWVUS Position: Energy goals and policies that acknowledge the United States as a responsible member of the world community; reduction of energy growth rates; use of a variety of energy sources, with emphasis on conserving energy and using energy-efficient technologies; the environmentally sound use of energy resources, with consideration of the entire cycle of energy production; predominant reliance on renewable resources; policies that limit reliance on nuclear fission; action by appropriate levels of government to encourage the use of renewable resources and energy conservation through funding for research and development, financial incentives, rate-setting policies and mandatory standards; mandatory energy conservation measures, including thermal standards for building efficiency, new appliance standards and standards for new automobiles with no relaxation of auto-emission control requirements; policies to reduce energy demand and minimize the need for new generating capacity through techniques such as marginal cost or peak-load pricing or demand management programs; maintaining deregulation of oil and natural gas prices; assistance for low-income individuals when energy policies bear unduly on the poor. Julie Risser, lobbyist, (952) 927-7538 More legislation concerning a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) is in play: Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon (DFL-7-Duluth) and Rep. Bill Hilty (DFL-08A-Finlayson) introduced SF145 and HF436 respectively. Also known as the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, this bill calls for utilities to make "a good faith effort" to move toward generating 25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025 – it promotes renewable energy objectives. There are financial penalties if utilities fail to demonstrate commitment to a comprehensive plan. But the question that emerges is does the penalty cost less than the cost of compliance? Utilities also have the option of meeting renewable energy obligations by purchasing renewable credits. The legislation creates a Next Generation Energy Fund for the purposes of encouraging new renewable energy projects in Minnesota and the need for more efficiency at power plants is addressed as well; public utilities can recover costs of energy efficiency and conservation improvements. In addition annual energy savings goals must be established for public utilities. One of the more interesting parts of SF145/HF436 is Section 4; it addresses the need to decouple energy sales from revenues. Here proposed large energy facilities must show that the demand for electricity cannot be met through energy conservation and load-management. A section on climate change establishes guidelines for when certificates of need may be issued for proposed plants. Projects that are based on nonrenewable energy can move forward with the certificate of need process if they arrange to offset carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, or if they purchase greenhouse gas emission-reduction credits, or if they capture and sequester carbon dioxide. To date we have SF4, authored by Sen. Ellen Anderson (DFL-66-Saint Paul), and its companion HF4, authored by Rep. Aaron Peterson (DFL-20A-Appleton), that call for Renewable Energy Standards of 25% by 2020; and Senator Prettner Solon’s SF74 for a Renewable Energy Objective that sets individual targets for utilities. Currently there is no house companion bill for SF74. Add to the mix SF129, authored by David Tomassoni (DFL-5-Chisholm), and HF453, authored by Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-13B-Willmar), legislation that calls for an RES of 20% by 2020. This bill allows for electricity produced by fuel combustion to count towards a utility’s RES if the facility was constructed in compliance with new source performance standards or if the facility uses the best available control technology. Moving on to experimental projects – Sen. Dan Larson (DFL-63-Bloomington) and Rep. Paul Thissen (DFL-63A-Minneapolis) introduced SF171 and HF167 respectively. The bill would provide $5 million from the general fund to design, construct, furnish and equip a biomass waste energy pilot facility using plasma arc technology. Plasma arc technology was developed during the WWII era to break down hazardous material. The energy required to create the plasma arc is high; whether the facility would require more energy to run than it would produce from feedstock or waste material is a question that needs pursuing. On the nuclear power front, a 35,000 pound control box fell off a wall at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, recently. Shutdown of the plant resulted in warm waste water from the facility no longer entering the Mississippi, resulting in approximately 3,000 fish dying from thermal shock. To date no legislation has been introduced that questions the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decision to allow Monticello to store additional nuclear waste at its facility. Environment/Trails and OHVsLWVUS Position: Natural resources should be managed as interrelated parts of life-supporting ecosystems. Resources should be conserved and protected to assure their future availability. Pollution of these resources should be controlled in order to preserve the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the ecosystem and to protect public health. Gwen Myers, Action Committee Chair, (952) 545-8696 The Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Coalition* members have been spending time meeting freshmen members of the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee and the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division Committee. In the past several years, testimony before Senate and House committees has highlighted the OHV problem: destruction of wildlife in roadside ditches, rutted forest paths, erosion, wetlands turned into mud holes, trespassing, and threats and vandalism for those working to control the situation. While many of the veteran legislators disagree with our analysis of the problem, most are familiar with the issue. This is not true of several freshmen legislators with whom we have spoken. In two cases individuals were sympathetic to our cause, but noted that their constituents were not particularly concerned about ATVs, so they would not be leading on the issue. Below are listed the freshmen members of the significant House and Senate committees. If your legislator is listed and this issue concerns you, it would be helpful if you would send a brief message indicating your interest in protecting our lakes and streams, wetlands, forests and prairies from wanton destruction inflicted by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-road motorcycles (ORMs) and 4x4 off-road mudder trucks. House Environment and Natural Resources Committee Freshmen Members:
House Game, Fish and Forestry Division Committee Freshmen Members:
House Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division Committee Freshmen Members:
Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Freshmen Members:
Senate Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Budget Division Freshmen Members:
*The OHV Coalition includes Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Audubon Minnesota, Audubon Minneapolis, the Jack Pine Coalition, the Isaac Walton League, the Sierra Club, North Star Chapter and LWVMN. EnvironmentLWVUS Position: Natural resources should be managed as interrelated parts of life-supporting ecosystems. Resources should be conserved and protected to assure their future availability. Pollution of these resources should be controlled in order to preserve the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the ecosystem and to protect public health. LWVUS Position - Water: LWVUS supports measures to reduce water pollution from direct point-source discharges and from indirect non-point sources; and policies to achieve quality essential for maintaining species populations and diversity, including measures to protect lakes, estuaries, wetlands and in-stream flows. LWVMN Position - Natural Resources: Promote an environment beneficial to life though the protection and wise management of natural resources in the public interest by recognizing the interrelationships of air quality, energy, land use, waste management and water resources. LWVMN Position - Water Resources: Support of a state role in the preservation and management of Minnesota's water resources through protection, allocation, conservation, pricing and interbasin transfer policies protective of Minnesota's current and future needs. LWVMN Position - Land Use: Support an overall land use plan with maximum cooperation and implementation at the regional and local levels, with state help in developing and exercising land use management, with opportunity for maximum local decision making, and with regional planning and regulation for matters of more than local control. LWVMN Position - Air Quality: Support measures to reduce air pollution from vehicular and stationary sources LWVMN Position - Solid Waste: Support of measures to reduce generation of solid waste and ensure safe treatment, storage and disposal of all wastes. Marilyn Morem, lobbyist, (507) 289-7831 Clean Water LegacyThe Minnesota Environmental Partnership Legislative Priorities state that $100 million is required each year in order for the state to comply with the 1972 federal Clean Water Act. These funds are needed to test Minnesota waters, to prepare clean-up plans, and to restore the waters to a healthy status. However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s proposed budget included only $20 million each year for the next two years. Several bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to provide dedicated funding for natural resources, which include Clean Water Legacy, and are in the process of moving through various House and Senate Committees. In the House, these bills include the following: HF244, authored by Rep. Dennis Ozment (R-37B-Rosemount), calls for a transfer of $100 million from the general fund to the clean water legacy account in both fiscal year 2008 and 2009; it has been referred to the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division Committee. It has no Senate companion. HF27, authored by Rep. Tom Hackbarth (R-48A-Cedar), Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-16A-Princeton), Rep. Denny McNamara (R-57B-Hastings), Rep. Tony Cornish (R-24B-Good Thunder), Rep. Jim Abeler (R-48B-Anoka), and Rep. Steve Sviggum (R-28B-Kenyon), proposes a constitutional amendment to dedicate 1/8 of 1% of the current sales tax to natural resources; it has been referred to the House Game, Fish and Forestry Division Committee. Its Senate companion is SF29, authored by Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen (R-11-Alexandria). In the Senate, several bills proposing a constitutional amendment to increase the sales tax and to dedicate the increase to natural resources have been introduced and referred to the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. The bills, which include the following, offer variations on the amount of money to be dedicated and what is to be covered by the funds (natural resources, cultural resources, or both). SF6 is authored by Sen. Lawrence Pogemiller (DFL-59-Minneapolis), Sen. Dennis Frederickson (R-21-New Ulm), Sen. Richard Cohen (DFL-64-Saint Paul), Sen. Satveer Chaudhary (DFL-50-Fridley), Sen. Ellen Anderson (DFL-66-Saint Paul). This calls for 3/8 of 1% increase to be dedicated to both natural resources and the arts. SF20 is authored by Sen. Chaudhary, Sen. Pogemiller, Sen. LeRoy Stumpf (DFL-1-Plummer), Sen. Dan Skogen (DFL-10-Hewitt), Sen. Tom Saxhaug (DFL-3-Grand Rapids). This calls for 1/4 of 1% increase for natural resources. SF37 is authored by Sen. Cohen, Sen. Anderson, Sen. Frederickson, Sen. Pogemiller, Sen. Saxhaug. This one is for 1/4 of 1% increase for natural resources and the arts. You can see that there is a variation on a theme, here, with many of the same authors. The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee is sorting these out the week of January 29. And there are more: SF137 is authored by Sen. Anderson, Sen. Saxhaug, Sen. Pogemiller, Sen. Frederickson, and Sen. Cohen. SF210 is authored by Sen. Saxhaug, Sen. Thomas Bakk (DFL-6-Cook), and Sen. Mary Olson (DFL-4-Bemidji). SF229 is authored by Sen. Pat Pariseau (R-36-Farmington), Sen. Betsy Wergin (R-16-Princeton), Sen. Joe Gimse (R-13-Willmar), Sen. Ingebrigtsen and Sen. Gen Olson (R-33-Minnetrista). SF270 is authored by Sen. Skogen, Sen. Paul Koering (R-12-Fort Ripley), Sen. Kathy Sheran (DFL-23-Mankato), Sen. Anderson, and Sen. Terri Bonoff (DFL-43-Minnetonka). And finally, SF290 is authored by Sen. Ingebrigtsen, Sen. Betsy Wergin (R-16-Princeton), Sen. Gimse and Sen. David Senjem (R-29-Rochester). Evaluation of Minnesota’s Watershed Management Practices - Office of the Legislative AuditorThe Office of the Legislative Auditor just released an evaluation of how Minnesota manages its watersheds. The major findings of the evaluation are that Minnesota’s watershed management structure is a complex network of multiple federal, state, and local entities; the performance of local water management entities has been mixed; and state oversight of local entities is inadequate. The report recommended that the Legislature require the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) provide greater oversight of watershed management practices, that the Legislature give BWSR a wider range of tools to help local entities improve their performance, that the Legislature require the BWSR executive director be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, and that the Legislature ensure that BWSR has adequate resources to perform its new oversight responsibilities. The full report, as well as a four-page summary, is available on the Minnesota Legislative web site. In addition, you can get a printed copy of the report from the Office of the Legislative Auditor in Centennial Building at the Capitol Complex. TransportationLWVMN’s Transportation Position is based on LWVUS Natural Resources and Positions and the LWVMN State Government Spending Position. LWVUS Position: LWVUS supports comprehensive long-range planning; wise decision making requires consideration of environmental, public health, social and economic impacts of proposed plans... LWVUS Position - Air Quality: Support for measures to reduce vehicular pollution, including... development of more energy-efficient transportation systems. LWVUS Position - Land Use: Support for land-use planning that reflects conservation and wise management of resources. LWVMN Position - State Government Spending: Support for maintaining a viable state-wide transportation system, including public transit. Julie Risser, lobbyist, (952) 927-7538 At this writing no further action has occurred on the Rep. Ron Erhardt (R-41A-Edina) and Sen. Steve Murphy (DFL-28-Red Wing) legislation HF23 and SF5 respectively. The topic of transportation was noticeably downplayed in the governor’s State of the Union speech despite the estimated $2 billion-a-year road and transportation gap in Minnesota’s budget. Sen. Terri Bonoff (DFL-43-Minnetonka) and Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL-47B-Brooklyn Park) have introduced SF190 and HF246 respectively. The legislation calls for the Metropolitan Council to study and report on the feasibility of light rail or commuter rail transit in the 394 corridor area from downtown Minneapolis to Ridgedale Drive in Minnetonka with the alternative of extending to Wayzata. Health CareLWVUS Position: LWVUS believes that a basic level of quality health care at an affordable cost should be available to all US residents. Other US health care policy goals should include the equitable distribution of services, efficient and economical delivery of care, advancement of medical research and technology, and a reasonable total national expenditure level for health care. LWVUS favors a national health insurance plan financed through general taxes in place of individual insurance premiums [and] is opposed to a strictly private market-based model of financing the health care system... (1993) Mary Lou Hill, lobbyist, (612) 374-4218 Seniors and Workers for Quality (SWQ) coalition members have met with about 2/3 of the representatives on the House Health and Human Services Committee to present the 2007 platform of proposals, which were detailed in the January 21 Capitol Letter™. Our goal of providing improved care for the elderly and disabled means that close cooperation with this committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Thissen (DFL-63A-Minneapolis), is imperative. On January 30 SWQ lobbyists will meet with Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A-Minneapolis), Speaker of the House, to present information on the platform and to ask for her support. The final bill, just about finished, proposes a five percent cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for continuing care workers for each of the next two years. Another one percent per year would be dedicated to the hiring of additional nursing home staff. Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-61-Minneapolis), chair of the Senate Health and Human Services Budget Division, has offered her support and has agreed to co-sponsor the bill. The authorship has not yet been established. Some aspects of the governor's budget trouble our coalition. His budget proposes a two percent increase for the next two years, but does not specify that it will be dedicated to direct-care staff. Half of one percent of that amount each year will be available only as pay-for-performance, the criteria of which will not have been established or evaluated in a timely manner. Any nursing home not awarded this performance pay may fall behind and never catch up. Another proposal from SWQ not addressed in the governor's budget is that of funding for extra staffing and training in the behavioral care area, i.e., dementia and other mental health care. Finally, people in assisted living situations who need assistance from Elderly Waiver payments for their services will see a reduction, if the governor's budget is accepted. Alternative Care Grant money has already been lost for assisted living clients. SWQ questions how this trend will in any way reduce demand for nursing homes, which has been a goal of state policy. Mental HealthLWVMN Position: Support of a comprehensive and coordinated system of programs and services for mentally ill adults and emotionally disturbed children and adolescents (hereafter referred to as "persons with mental illness"). Priority should be given to persons with serious and persistent mental illness and/or acute mental illness. Minnesota public policy and funding should sustain an array of community-based services, which are available and accessible to persons with mental illness. Administration of that policy should provide clients with appropriate and adequate services. Barbara Flanigan, lobbyist, (612) 928-8033 LWVMN Priority for Persons with Serious and Persistent Mental IllnessIn the 1860s the state of Minnesota assumed responsibility for persons with serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI) with the establishment of the first state hospital at St. Peter. The 1987 Comprehensive Mental Health Act assigned a high priority to serving people with serious and persistent mental illness. Counties were charged with providing these services in community settings. The 1987 Act mandated the creation of a range of support services, including case management and Community Support Programs (CSPs). The League of Women Voters Minnesota urges that future legislation on mental health explicitly recognize the profound importance of these essential support services for people with serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Such services are crucial if this population is to thrive in the community. A full range of Essential Support Services is necessary. They should not be time limited since mental illness is often life-long. Services should vary in intensity to reflect fluctuations in the illness. They should be flexible, tailored to meet individual needs. Essential support services need to include:
Services should be designed for the client, not determined by available funding streams. There must be a full range of housing options, some with strong social supports. AccountabilityLWVMN also urges that mechanisms to ensure accountability be built into the system so that persons with SPMI receive necessary services. Currently the ability to appeal to county boards is a valuable part of the system. If most public funds to serve this population are transferred to private health plans, the plans must systematically be held responsible for providing necessary services. There needs to be an external review process for private health plans, automatic review of denials of service and monitoring to make certain people with SPMI are using the service. The addition of an ombudsman to the forthcoming legislation is desirable but insufficient. Strong oversight mechanisms, including systematic monitoring of performance, are essential to making sure this vulnerable, disabled population is appropriately served. ImmigrationLWVMN Position: Support incorporating immigrants into our communities by providing access to education, by endorsing the development of secure identification documents, and by respecting the right of law enforcement personnel to perform their duties without the burden of interpreting federal immigration policies. All Minnesota residents, regardless of their immigration status, should be eligible for in-state tuition at state colleges and universities under the same conditions, such as one year's state residency or graduation from a Minnesota high school. Oppose residents with legal immigrant status running for local office. State funding of Adult Basic Education for each program site should be adequate to meet the needs of the eligible residents. Judy Stuthman, lobbyist, (651) 644-8588 “They need to become citizens. Why don’t they learn English?” These are common themes in the immigration discussion. Those asking the questions need to know that in Minnesota they are waiting in line to get into Adult Basic Education (ABE) classes! It is a massive waiting line of several thousand in the metro area, but waiting for available space is a problem state-wide. ABE has changed over the past 15 to 20 years. Today, of the people served, 75% in the Twin Cities and 63% statewide are English Language Learners. Legislation will be introduced in the next few weeks that will address the problem of long waiting lines. Tom Cytron-Hysom from Literacy Minnesota, an organization of professionals serving adults with literacy needs, provided the following information: Minnesota’s economic future is at risk.
Adult Basic Education addresses these needs.
Under-funding threatens ABE effectiveness.
With this proposed legislation, they hope to increase ABE funding by $10 million. This will get Minnesota back to where it would have been if the funds had continued at the rate of 8% increase that was legislated in 2000. Unfortunately, it was cut in the following years to help balance the budget. The problem of securing funding for ABE will not be solved easily. Funding for ABE will be before the same committee that will look at the funding for Early Childhood Education. Will there be funding for both of these very important areas? Will one have to be cut to meet the needs of the other? Will our legislators be able to see the need for increased funding for both? |
|||||||