The Minnesota Department of Education estimates that as much as $1.1 billion will be available from the federal stimulus package for Minnesota's education needs. This could be a welcome blessing for our students. Or, the politicians in Saint Paul could mess it up. Unfortunately, I fear the second result is more likely.
"We're glad to have it, but it's pretty much one-time money for ongoing needs," said Rep. Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville, and chairwoman of the House K-12 Finance Division. "It's a problem child, but we love all our children."
What?!? "One time money for ongoing needs"? How about one-time money for all of those one-time costs that get pushed back year after year because the budget barely pays teacher salaries, let alone staff and other ongoing expenses? I would bet that anyone who has set foot in a school within the last 5 years can name one time projects that would bring long term impact to our schools. Here is my short lists:
Update computer technology for teachers and staff to improve communications with parents and students. This could be adding text messaging to the existing automated voice notifications of truancy or schedule changes for sports teams or club activities.
Purchase new equipment for student groups (where there is a real need) like sound and lighting for theater, new van or trailer for sports teams and band equipment, a new kiln for the art department. There are a miriad of these seemingly secondary needs that could be addressed here.
Video conference equipment for colaborative learning, distance learning, community education.
The idea is that one time funding projects get pushed back time and again because there is no room in the budget. We have the money now, let's use it for all of those neglected one time costs.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Use of Deceptive Names bill
I just read the Use of Deceptive Names bill that Representative Nora Slawik introduced, and that was recently defeated in committee. I fully support the goal of this bill but would recommend a little reworking of the bill to get it through committee.
The bill is intended to keep an organization from taking a name that is so close to an existing organization that it would create confusion with the public. The example often used in explaining this bill is the Maplewood Voter's Coalition. They have been around for a number of years and have supported candidates and causes. Another group with a politically polar perspective took the name Maplewood Voters. Many Maplewood citizens thought that the new messages were coming from the old group.
The goal of preventing one organization from riding the coattails of an established brand has been achieved in business. I'd be hard pressed to get away with opening Three-Em, LLC. anywhere in Minnesota, let alone the entire country. Where I think a rewrite of the bill should go is to require all political organizations (incorporated or not) to register their organizations names with the state. If an organization is going to sponsor literature, contributions, advertising, anything that publicly associates the organizations name to a message, it needs to be registered. Once registered, the organizations names need to be subject to the same legal scrutiny placed on a business.
This approach should achieve the same results as Representative Slawik's recent bill. Let me know what you think.
The bill is intended to keep an organization from taking a name that is so close to an existing organization that it would create confusion with the public. The example often used in explaining this bill is the Maplewood Voter's Coalition. They have been around for a number of years and have supported candidates and causes. Another group with a politically polar perspective took the name Maplewood Voters. Many Maplewood citizens thought that the new messages were coming from the old group.
The goal of preventing one organization from riding the coattails of an established brand has been achieved in business. I'd be hard pressed to get away with opening Three-Em, LLC. anywhere in Minnesota, let alone the entire country. Where I think a rewrite of the bill should go is to require all political organizations (incorporated or not) to register their organizations names with the state. If an organization is going to sponsor literature, contributions, advertising, anything that publicly associates the organizations name to a message, it needs to be registered. Once registered, the organizations names need to be subject to the same legal scrutiny placed on a business.
This approach should achieve the same results as Representative Slawik's recent bill. Let me know what you think.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
A proposed solution for the next close call election
Let me start with the fact that my U. S. Senate candidate from Minnesota is already out of the running. I have joked with former Senator Barkley that he should step up and offer to hold the seat until the election is decided. Heck, he has more experience holding a U. S. Senate seat for 8 weeks than any one.
Now, understanding my bias, here is my proposal for future elections. The incumbent will hold the seat until the election results are finalized and a certificate of election is issued. While an election is up the air, this solution provides continuity. For as rare as these close calls are, the occasional incumbent sitting for an extra month or two would be better than an empty seat. The concern is how to legislate this. If the election is still up in the air, the incumbent hasn't really earned an election certificate. Also, the U. S. Senate can refuse to seat an unelected incumbent. These are the issues that need to be addressed in future legislation. This means that true election reform of this issue may require changes at the state and federal level.
I am surprised that this approach hasn't been taken by the Coleman camp. Of course, there is still time. This whole recount reminds me of two men fighting over who gets to keep a lost wallet full of money. I know the rules don't support it, but I sure would like to see a do over here with all of the candidates. I think Senator Barkley could gain quite a few votes in a new election.
Really, I would love to see Minnesota adopt a Fair Vote for Minnesotans with Instant Run-off Voting. It would save millions of dollars in recount expenses or the millions that the candidates in Georgia had to spend in their run-off. It would also help avoid, but not completely eliminate, the possibility of a "virtual" tie. The possibility of a tie exists in almost every election. For that reason, we need some law to ensure continued representation through the election cycle.
Now, understanding my bias, here is my proposal for future elections. The incumbent will hold the seat until the election results are finalized and a certificate of election is issued. While an election is up the air, this solution provides continuity. For as rare as these close calls are, the occasional incumbent sitting for an extra month or two would be better than an empty seat. The concern is how to legislate this. If the election is still up in the air, the incumbent hasn't really earned an election certificate. Also, the U. S. Senate can refuse to seat an unelected incumbent. These are the issues that need to be addressed in future legislation. This means that true election reform of this issue may require changes at the state and federal level.
I am surprised that this approach hasn't been taken by the Coleman camp. Of course, there is still time. This whole recount reminds me of two men fighting over who gets to keep a lost wallet full of money. I know the rules don't support it, but I sure would like to see a do over here with all of the candidates. I think Senator Barkley could gain quite a few votes in a new election.
Really, I would love to see Minnesota adopt a Fair Vote for Minnesotans with Instant Run-off Voting. It would save millions of dollars in recount expenses or the millions that the candidates in Georgia had to spend in their run-off. It would also help avoid, but not completely eliminate, the possibility of a "virtual" tie. The possibility of a tie exists in almost every election. For that reason, we need some law to ensure continued representation through the election cycle.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
MN Sen. Chuck Wiger wants to gamble with our students educations
Minnesota State Senator Chuck Wiger has introduced legislation that will approve video gambling machines in bars and airport terminals with a portion of the revenue going to education. I am concerned about this legislation for two reasons.
First, I acctually support legalizing some forms of gambling in the state. I also support increased funding for the education of our students. What I don't support is tying those two issues together. If the goal is to increase state sponsored gambling, I'd rather vote on that issue than tie it to some emotional heartstring yanking education plan. Minnesota has always tied gambling to emotional issues, and once approved, has just as quickly pulled the funding. Let me vote on gambling on its own merits, not some contrived emotional issue. Fortunatly, I think the Senator's goal is to increase funding for education. This is a noble and worthy goal that should not be sullied by tying it to expanded gambling. The messages that could be derived from this are scary.
Minnesota gambles on its student's education.
Students: When it comes to gambling, do as we say, not as we do.
I'm not addicted to gambling, I'm an avid financial supporter of our public schools.
The ends DO justify the means.
Last, I don't believe the Senator's bill would be the end story on gambling and educational funds. Let me explain. In 1988, 57% of Minnesotan's approved a state lottery for the bennefit of our state's "natural resources." The next legislative session, the lottery was created with a bill splitting net revenue evenly between natural resources and the eceonomic development of out-state Minnesota. One session later, in 1990, the legislature cut the out-state revenue share to 25% and the natural resources share to 40%. The resulting 35% share was allocated to the state's general fund. Today, more than 50% of net lottery revenue goes into the general fund.
How long would this law survive in-tact before a state budget crisis "requires" our legislators to make the "hard decision" to reroute these funds to the general fund?
Please don't let the state gamble with our student's education. Contact Senator Wiger and ask him to find other ways to protect education funding.
First, I acctually support legalizing some forms of gambling in the state. I also support increased funding for the education of our students. What I don't support is tying those two issues together. If the goal is to increase state sponsored gambling, I'd rather vote on that issue than tie it to some emotional heartstring yanking education plan. Minnesota has always tied gambling to emotional issues, and once approved, has just as quickly pulled the funding. Let me vote on gambling on its own merits, not some contrived emotional issue. Fortunatly, I think the Senator's goal is to increase funding for education. This is a noble and worthy goal that should not be sullied by tying it to expanded gambling. The messages that could be derived from this are scary.
Minnesota gambles on its student's education.
Students: When it comes to gambling, do as we say, not as we do.
I'm not addicted to gambling, I'm an avid financial supporter of our public schools.
The ends DO justify the means.
Last, I don't believe the Senator's bill would be the end story on gambling and educational funds. Let me explain. In 1988, 57% of Minnesotan's approved a state lottery for the bennefit of our state's "natural resources." The next legislative session, the lottery was created with a bill splitting net revenue evenly between natural resources and the eceonomic development of out-state Minnesota. One session later, in 1990, the legislature cut the out-state revenue share to 25% and the natural resources share to 40%. The resulting 35% share was allocated to the state's general fund. Today, more than 50% of net lottery revenue goes into the general fund.
How long would this law survive in-tact before a state budget crisis "requires" our legislators to make the "hard decision" to reroute these funds to the general fund?
Please don't let the state gamble with our student's education. Contact Senator Wiger and ask him to find other ways to protect education funding.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
"Keep the Independence Party from ever Winning an Election Act of 2009"
Bob Collins, in the Minnesota Public Radio's News Cut Blog, labeled a new bill from Minnesota Representative Kent Eken as one of "Five bills worth visiting before they die." He joked that it should be called the "Keep the Independence Party from ever Winning an Election Act of 2009." His reasoning is because the Representatives bill would require certain elected officials to receive the majority (50%+) of the vote, not just the plurality. Of course the recent, current, yet to be determined U.S. Senate race may be the motivation behind this bill. While Bob joked about it being the death knell of the Independence Party, I commented that I could actually support this measure.
The reason I don't support the bill as written is because it lacks any resolution to elections where the top vote getter does not receive the majority of the vote. That is not to say that members of the Independence Party of Minnesota are against a majority requirement for election. On the contrary, we have supported this position for years. The IP has been a strong and vocal supporter of a Fair Vote for Minnesotans. If Representative Eken will add a provision for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to his bill, he will see the members of the Independence Party actually rally support for this bill.
No matter where you stand on IRV, Representative Eken's bill is incomplete, and thus unworkable. If he adds IRV, or some other bridge from plurality to majority, this bill may get the support it will need to live through the session.
The reason I don't support the bill as written is because it lacks any resolution to elections where the top vote getter does not receive the majority of the vote. That is not to say that members of the Independence Party of Minnesota are against a majority requirement for election. On the contrary, we have supported this position for years. The IP has been a strong and vocal supporter of a Fair Vote for Minnesotans. If Representative Eken will add a provision for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to his bill, he will see the members of the Independence Party actually rally support for this bill.
No matter where you stand on IRV, Representative Eken's bill is incomplete, and thus unworkable. If he adds IRV, or some other bridge from plurality to majority, this bill may get the support it will need to live through the session.
MN Representative Slawik thinks government can legislate better parents.
Representative Slawik,
I have several concerns with this bill.
First, I understand protecting our kids, but I am not one of those that believes the government can do it better than the parents. I could see legislating a ban on youth smoking while driving, but not legislating parental responsibility.
Second, I am curious as to why you introduced this bill now. With all of the budget issues our state faces, why did you introduce such a divisive bill that will only take time, effort and attention away from the state's bigger problems.
Third, this just feels like a bill that many people will support, yet will not make it very far through the process. I'm worried that this bill is just a political tool to say that you and its other authors care for kids and its opponents don't.
Instead of legislating parental responsibility, I think it would be more productive to protect the tobacco lawsuit funds from the governor's budget proposal. Instead of penalizing poor decisions and addiction, use your legislative powers to protect the tool that has contributed to a significant decline in overall smoking, the tobacco lawsuit funds.
I have several concerns with this bill.
First, I understand protecting our kids, but I am not one of those that believes the government can do it better than the parents. I could see legislating a ban on youth smoking while driving, but not legislating parental responsibility.
Second, I am curious as to why you introduced this bill now. With all of the budget issues our state faces, why did you introduce such a divisive bill that will only take time, effort and attention away from the state's bigger problems.
Third, this just feels like a bill that many people will support, yet will not make it very far through the process. I'm worried that this bill is just a political tool to say that you and its other authors care for kids and its opponents don't.
Instead of legislating parental responsibility, I think it would be more productive to protect the tobacco lawsuit funds from the governor's budget proposal. Instead of penalizing poor decisions and addiction, use your legislative powers to protect the tool that has contributed to a significant decline in overall smoking, the tobacco lawsuit funds.
MN Senator Wiger introduces Three Strikes and You Graduate bill
Minnesota Senator Chuck Wiger has introduced a bill (SF405) that would allow students in the classes of 2010 through 2014 to graduate even if they repeatedly fail the basic skills test. He isn't saying that students will graduate even if they fail AP Nuclear Physics. He is saying that four years of Minnesota students do not have to demonstrate Basic Skills in order to graduate. I am apalled that any state Senator would take the time and effort to legislate approved failure.
Senator, instead of a three strikes and you graduate bill, how about legislating assistance programs for those students who need it to learn the basic skills. Letting these students out of the education system without the basic skills we have promised them is the same as giving up on them. As a Minnesotan, I expect more of our education system, and of you.
Senator, instead of a three strikes and you graduate bill, how about legislating assistance programs for those students who need it to learn the basic skills. Letting these students out of the education system without the basic skills we have promised them is the same as giving up on them. As a Minnesotan, I expect more of our education system, and of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)