Minnesota's Unbalanced Budget for 2014-2015

I am just spending a quiet Saturday night at home . . . reading Governor Dayton's proposed budget for the State of Minnesota.  The Governor's January proposal looked pretty good from a distance.  I started to believe that he may have actually taken notes on Tom Horner's budget strategies.  Tonight I took a closer look.  The Governor's "Budget for a Better Minnesota" claims to be:

"Honest - A balanced budget with no one-time fixes, borrowing or gimmicks

Invest - In early learning, education and job creation

Fair - Everyone pays their fair share

Reform - A fair, modern tax system and public services that give Minnesotans the best value for their dollar

Sustainable - Settles our debt with schools and positions Minnesota for long-term economic prosperity"

Yup, sure sounds good to me.  Now let me share what I discovered as I read more.

Honest (A balanced budget) - Not even close.  I'll address this a bit later.

Honest (no one-time fixes) - The Governor does not have any big one-time fixes in his budget.  The House on the other hand does.  The House is proposing a one-time 4% surcharge on taxable income over $500,000.  Lets see what the negotiations produce here.

Honest (no borrowing) - The Governor's January budget proposed to "repay the state's obligation to schools by restoring funding to the 90:10 ratio established in law by 2017."  This one sentence raises two obscenely scary propositions.  1) The state will NOT pay the schools back in the 2014-15 budget.  Instead the Governor is proposing to kick the can down the road to a different legislature and potentially a different Governor.  In fact, the Governor's January budget proposal doesn't allocate ANY funds to repay the state's debt to schools in his 2014-15 budget.

While this is inexcusable, the Governor's March budget proposal shows NO repayment of the school shift in the 2014-15 or the 2016-17 bienniums.  Hey Governor, why kick the can to the next budget when you can just ignore it all together.  Come on!

Honest (no gimmicks) - The Governor's budget is much better than last session's budget when it comes to gimmicks.  Unfortunately, it is not gimmick-free.  One such gimmick is the shifting of several health and human services budget items (roughly $400 million) from the General Fund to the Health Care Access Fund.  The problem here is that the Health Care Access Fund is funded by a provider tax which is slated to expire in 2019.  Good luck legislators and Governor in 2019.

Invest (In early learning, education and job creation) - The Governor has budgeted significant increases in all three of these areas.

Reform (A fair, modern tax system and public services that give Minnesotans the best value for their dollar) - Boy, this sounds good, but it really isn't all that it is cracked up to be.  The Governor's January budget proposal contained some "innovative" reforms to the Minnesota tax system.  The Governor's proposals for broadening the tax base by taxing on-line sales, clothing and consumer services felt like a flashback to the Tom Horner campaign for Governor.  Of course, Tom Horner did not propose taxing business services like the Governor did.  Still, the Governor's brave move increased my respect for him.  Then I dug deeper.  While the Governor's budget broadened the tax base and lowered the tax rate, it still would have increased sales tax revenue by over $2 billion.  Tom Horner, and the IP, believe that a broader tax base certainly stabilizes tax revenues, but neither has ever promoted the plan as a way to increase sales tax revenue (read: raise your sales taxes) by more than 28%.  The Governor's proposed sales tax changes would have raised Minnesota's sales tax revenues by 28.5%.  

Don't worry though, by March the Governor had revised his budget proposal and had dropped all of the sales tax reform he had proposed in January.  The Governor's idea of tax reform in his March budget proposal returned to his tired old argument of tax the rich.  Now, he has even suggested that he would veto any legislation that included the proposals he advocated for just 60 days earlier.

Fair (Everyone pays their fair share) - So, the Governor thinks that increasing the income tax rate on Minnesota's top earners is fairer.  There is little disagreement that the top earners in Minnesota pay a smaller percentage of their tax assessment than most Minnesotans, but it isn't because of their tax rate, its because of tax deductions and loopholes.  Without closing tax loopholes and eliminating frivolous tax deductions, Minnesota's highest earners will still have the tools, that some of them abuse, to reduce their actual taxes paid to a ridiculously low sum.  Let me use an analogy here.  Instead of picturing the taxpayer paying in dollars, picture that person paying in sand and gravel.  When the state comes to collect the tax, they have the same large bucket with the same (loop)holes in it that it had last year.  The state asks the taxpayer to put even more of their sand and gravel in the bucket this year than last (the higher tax assessment).  The sand still sifts through the holes.  Now there is a possibility that the state captured a bit more "revenue" from this taxpayer, but patching the holes would be a much more efficient way of fixing the system.  In the end, the increased tax rate looks more fair, but in reality it does very little to make the tax collections more fair.

Sustainable (Settles our debt with schools and positions Minnesota for long-term economic prosperity) - I have already addressed the Governor's intent to kick the school debt can down the road past his current term, and then past his second term, should he get re-elected.  There are other unsustainable changes in the Governor's budget that I want to address here.

First, the Governor proposes reducing state and local property taxes by 9.7%.  Good luck with that.  The Governor has no say in a local jurisdiction's choice to raise or lower property taxes.  For more than a decade, local governments have been consistently denied promised state aid.  Now the Governor believes that $80 million dollars in new state aid will motivate cities to reduce their property taxes in response.  I can speak confidently from hundreds of hours in city council meetings in several cities that the backlog of projects that have built up over the past decade will not be delayed any longer if cities get an influx of state aid.  I believe many cities may continue to hold city tax rates at current levels, but I doubt many, if any, cities will actually reduce their tax rates.

Second, You can't spend your way out of debt.  As cliche as that sounds, the Governor is proposing a 7.6% increase in spending over the last biennium.  Of course an 8.5% increase in revenue can help you dig out of debt.  The question is this, is it sustainable.  That type of revenue and spending growth is absolutely NOT sustainable.  And remember, all of this increased taxing and spending does not include the state's debt to our schools.

I need to address one more budget injustice.  Justice.  The Governor's budget proposal includes "$36 million for the Court systems to maintain current service levels."  Current service levels are appalling.  If there was one area that I would celebrate increasing revenues to support, it would be funding a person's right to "a speedy and public trial" as dictated by the United States Constitution.  Minnesota's legal system is so overburdened that it is impossible to refer to almost any trial as "speedy" today.  This is an issue that needs more than just maintenance.  It needs reform.

Conservatives love to use the phrase "tax and spend."  They often misuse it.  If the Governor's budget proposal makes for the bulk of our 2014-15 budget, all Minnesotans will have the right to use that phrase in regards to Minnesota's Governor and Legislature.  And yet, they probably won't tax, or spend, our way out of our indebtedness to our schools.  What a shame.

Why I support marriage equality legislation in Minnesota

In my perfect world, the sacrament of marriage would only be defined by churches, synagogues, mosques and other faith communities.  It certainly would not be defined by Republicans, Democrats or any party.  Unfortunately, politicians decided in 1977 to change Minnesota law to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  Now the political battle over the definition of marriage rages again.

In my perfect world, all human beings would be treated equally under the law.  Unfortunately, politicians have tied that equal treatment to the legal definition of marriage over 500 times in Minnesota law alone.  For this reason, it is the legal definition of marriage that determines over 500 individual rights in Minnesota statutes alone.

Obviously, none of us live in our own perfect world.  We live in a world of opposing opinions and conflicting goals.  I, like many of my friends in the Independence Party of Minnesota, am conflicted between a political definition of marriage and protecting the rights of all Minnesotans.  After a lot of research and long consideration, I have decided where I stand as an individual on this issue.

I support legislation to remove language from Minnesota statutes that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.  I support the legislation presented by Representative Karen Clark and Senator Scott Dibble for two reasons.

My first reason for supporting this legislation is because it doesn't expand the definition of marriage as much as it removes the limitations installed in 1977.  It also adds language that protects religious organizations’ rights to define and recognize marriage as they wish.

My second reason for supporting this legislation is because I support the Independence Party of Minnesota’s core values.  One of those core values is our support for “a society that is inclusive, embraces diversity, and protects everyone’s rights.”  Everyone’s rights are not protected under current Minnesota law.  This legislation removes one of the barriers to equal rights for all.

Please put the rights of every Minnesotan first.  Please join me in supporting every Minnesotan’s individual rights by supporting this important legislation.

Repeal Republican Rhetoric on Obamacare

Dear Republican Senators and Representatives,

Congress passed it.

The President signed it.

The Supreme Court upheld it.

And you still talk about repealing it?

What does this say about your respect for the three branches of government and the inherent checks and balances that our founding fathers handed down to us?  I understand that the ACA is not perfect.  Heck, I am sure there are parts of it that downright suck.  That doesn't mean we should tear down legislation that survived the scrutiny of all three branches of our government.

The battle over Obamacare is over.  Instead of retreading old, and obviously ineffective, arguments against health care reform, show us how Obamacare can be made better.  Give us something to support instead of something to oppose.  I know for fact that moderates support solutions a lot more than your endless stream of anti-Obama rhetoric.

If you want the moderate vote in November, I suggest you give us solutions worth supporting. If you want four more years of President Obama and a do nothing Congress, continue to oppose health care reform, and the system of government that approved it.

“Typical” day in D.C.?

April 25, 2012. It's a beautiful day in Washington, D. C.. This morning, I stopped by the offices of many members of Minnesota's Congressional delegation. I had a great conversation with Congressman Tim Walz. After my visit to "the hill" I decided to walk past the Supreme Court to see what issue was being considered by the Justices. Judging by the signs outside, it was apparent that the court was hearing arguments regarding Arizona's immigration law. As I approached, I observed two large, loud, and passionate groups proselytizing their support or opposition for the law. The signs and the speech from both camps were simplistic and polarizing. I began to leave with the consolation that the Justices would be giving this complex issue the thorough, in-depth, examination it required.

As I was walking away, a gentleman shouted to an American of Hispanic descent, "no one invited you to come to this country!" I tapped the gentleman on the shoulder and mentioned that there was a lady with a torch in New York City who would disagree with him. This began a fairly impassioned, yet civil, discussion. I agreed that current immigration laws are not being enforced to the extent that they could be. The gentleman agreed that even the most recent legal immigrants have the same rights that he and I inherited from ancestors who emigrated here generations ago. Maybe it was the impassioned civility, or the fact that protestors from both camps began to circle us like it was a street fight, but the media began to shoot video and take photos of our discussion. Eventually, the gentleman I was talking with was engaged in conversation with another protestor. As I began to leave, one of the photographers asked me for my name. At that point I realized that my brief conversation had become news-worthy.

A couple hours later I realized how news-worthy my walk past the Supreme Court had been. When I Googled my name I discovered that a couple different photos of the event had been spreading across the online news media. The Daily Mail, Voice of America, and Yahoo News were just a few of the outlets that had posted my name and photo with their coverage of the Supreme Court hearing. Now this is where I could do a little proselytizing of my own about immigration reform, but I have to say that immigration is not the thing I keep thinking about today.

Mark Jenkins (L), an opponent of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and Blake Sutherland (R), a supporter of the bill, discuss their opposite viewpoints outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, April 25, 2012. 

First, I question the thought process used to caption the photos of me showing up all over the internet. Any photo that had my name associated with it had me labeled as an opponent of the Arizona immigration law. No one asked me my position. At no time in my discussion with the gentleman at the Supreme Court did I say I supported or opposed any position. I merely questioned this gentleman's argument. I could have just as easily encountered an opponent of the law and asked him to make his argument in English. Too many of the opponents were preaching to the choir, and were not trying to persuade their opponents or even the undecided.

Mark Jenkins (L), an opponent of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and Blake Sutherland (R), a supporter of the bill, discuss their opposite viewpoints outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, April 25, 2012.

Second, I keep going back to my college speech classes and remembering how important body language is in a discussion. The reason for this is that I have seen two different photos of the discussion on the web. In one photo I am leaning back listening to the gentleman make his argument. Of course, that is how I see it since I was there and I know what I was thinking. With more objective eyes, I see myself shrinking from a strong forceful argument. In the other photo I am in a more aggressive posture, with my finger in the other gentleman's face. In my memory, I was pointing at him when I was referring to him or his argument. While I know that both photos were mere slivers from a longer moment, I will be working on using more open handed, and less aggressive, hand gestures in my face to face communications.

If you want to see how I am doing with my gestures, just ask me about immigration reform the next time we are face to face.

Cynthia Kafut Hagen Demonstrates True Independence

If you have been following the special election for State Representative in Legislative District 5B, you have certainly heard all of the important issues. You have heard from the state Republican Party that DFL endorsed candidate Carly Melin may not meet the residency requirements to qualify as a candidate. This would be an important issue if it were true, but the state Republican Party has chosen to contest her residency in the media, instead of with the courts. You have heard the state Democratic Party attack a controversial piece of campaign literature distributed by the state Republican Party. Just as the Republicans showed complete disregard for their candidate by issuing the piece without their candidate’s knowledge or approval, the Democrats showed the same level of disregard by issuing the condemnation of the piece from the state party instead of through their candidate.

These are the issues that the state Republican and Democratic Parties have been pushing and publicizing. These are the issues that they want you to base your decision on.

I attended the debate on Wednesday night. What I saw was telling, and troubling. The good news is that I saw three candidates who each had the work experience and civic involvement needed to represent the citizens of the Iron Range effectively at the State Capitol. The bad news is that I saw two candidates who were visibly uncomfortable with the position their respective parties had put them in.

Paul Jacobson, the Republican, was in the most obvious distress over the actions of his party. The Republican Party created and distributed a controversial piece of campaign literature without his approval, or even his knowledge. When asked, by the Democratic candidate, to condemn the piece, Jacobson replied that “Miss Melin does not know what my discussions have been with the party since then.” Unfortunately, neither do the voters.

When the candidates were asked what they would like the campaign to be focused on, Carly Melin stated very pointedly, “the issues”. She lamented that other things had stolen the spotlight. Unfortunately for Melin, her state party’s response to the Republican attacks has also played a role in keeping the focus off of “the issues”. Melin never took the opportunity herself to criticize her own party’s actions in this regard.

This leaves us with Independence Party endorsed candidate, Cynthia Kafut Hagen. She stated very clearly that “the law should be changed so that nobody can put out information that the candidate doesn't want. If the Independence Party did that to me, I would not be happy or with them still." As the incoming state party Chair, I was proud of her willingness to make that stand in front of me and the voters. That is a brave stand that her opponents have both shied away from.

Earlier that day, I was asked what the word Independence stood for in our party’s name. We are not a loose knit group of independent voters. We are a political party. We have a platform of issues that we expect our candidates to support. We believe that the word Independence means that members and candidates can support that platform in a manner that suites them and their constituents best. It means Independence from state party manipulation as a candidate and as an elected official. For voters, it means that the only dependence an Independence Party candidate has is on your support and your vote.

Cynthia Kafut Hagen demonstrates Independence perfectly.

The Real Reason We Should Support Bonding for Roads and Bridges throughout Minnesota

Wednesday, I drove from Maplewood to Hibbing to attend a debate between the 3 major party candidates for State Representative in Legislative District 5b. The road conditions on Interstate 35 were appallingly bad. It appeared that every seam in the concrete had separated and degraded into crevasses measuring four to six inches across. Of course, this being the heart of winter, there were also numerous potholes ranging in size from divots to open pit mines. If my driveway looked that bad, the City of Maplewood would be justified in issuing me a citation for an unsightly and unsafe driveway.

The Democrats argue that the infrastructure projects needed to improve these roads create jobs. The Democrats go on to explain that more people on a payroll will lead to more spending which will lead to greater economic activity. Then the Republicans respond with their arguments that real job growth needs to come from business. They go on to explain how burdensome taxes are keeping our business community from expanding and hiring more people. We end up in a traditional disagreement between government spending and lower taxes. But spending and taxes are not the point of the original argument.

And that IS the point of this article. Partisan posturing by the two other major parties often causes us to lose sight of the real issues. Regardless of your stand on government spending and tax policy, the fact remains that our roads and bridges are falling apart and they need to be repaired or replaced sooner than later.

Because infrastructure projects are being bid at amazingly low prices, and because today’s investments in infrastructure will benefit the comfort and commerce of at least the next two generations, and because we still have a highly skilled construction workforce, we should support strong bonding measures to finance these critical infrastructure improvement projects.

Good Idea, Bad Timing

Federal Highway Administration Is Ordering Local Governments to Buy New Street Signs That They Say Are Easier to Read

While I support the need to update traffic signs, this is a prime example of an unfunded federal mandate. The regulations require cities and counties to replace signs with 4" lettering with signs with 6" lettering by 2012 and that all signs must use reflective lettering by 2018. If the FHA wants any functional signs replaced by 2012, they can pay for the replacements themselves. In these tough economic times, if they expect cities and counties to pay the bill, they better relax the timing. I would support consolidating the lettering size and reflexivity requirements with the 2018 deadline. This would give communities one target date for all sign replacements and would allow them to spread the cost over several years. It would also make sense for communities to start following the regulations immediately when installing new signs or replacing damaged signs.

This means that cities and counties would still need to start budgeting and planning for the sign replacements now. Even though I support spreading the cost over several years, it is not intended to have communities wait until the last minute in hopes that they will be able to better afford the cost down the road.

Minnesota Conservatives attack Senator Wiger, and miss the mark.

The Minnesota Conservatives blog that elicited this posting

Minnesota Conservatives, instead of demeaning Senator Wiger and his newsletter, why don't you (and the rest of the Republican Party for that matter) address the actual issues instead. The MN Conservatives blog argues that dropouts aren't worth the time or effort to save. Wow, that paints a positive picture of education as viewed through conservative eyes.

Instead of the thoughtless slander, do some research and point out that the current law has mandatory attendance through age 15 and that 16 and 17 year olds who do wish to withdraw must attend a meeting with their parents or guardians and school personnel. They must also sign a written election to withdraw form. In other words, it isn't easy for a 16 or 17 year old to withdraw under the current laws. At the same point, high school dropouts are at their lowest rate ever. The U.S. dropout rate for the 2007-2008 school year was 8.0%. That rate has fallen consistantly since 1980 (14.1%). Minnesota's rate is much lower and also falling with rates of 5.86% in 2007, 5.79 in 2008, and 5.54 in 2009.

I believe that Senator Wiger's goals are noble. I just find the legislation to be a safe way to demonstrate support for education without any real risk of being called out for poor results. Despite what the Minnesota Conservatives blog says, this law will require minimal change to current documents and procedures in schools. Cross out 16, insert 18, apply law as usual. My concern is that dropout rates are already falling to their lowest rates EVER. If rates continue to fall, is it because of the new mandatory attendance age or is it just a continuation of the trend? If the rates level off, or even rise, will people blame Senator Wiger's legislation? Of course not. This bill is an easy Win-Win for Senator Wiger, while having a minimal impact on current high school attendance in Minnesota. I would rather see the Senator quit playing it safe and tackle some real issues facing our schools and our district. I would start, as I proposed in my campaign, with pushing for more consistent funding from the State. If the State "certifies" funds to school districts, those funds should be off limits for any future budget shifts. I would also start working with school districts to find areas that can be scaled back, or temporarily discontinued in preparation for Republican funding cuts. Where possible, also work with them to find alternate funding for some programs.

I absolutely despise the Republican's knee jerk response to belittle the legislator with a D behind their names without even attempting to address the issues in front of them. Quit telling me Democrats are crazy out of touch liberals who want to turn our country into the next socialist republic. Tell me how you would do it different and how your results will be better than the Democrats.

Political Integrity and PACs

Let me begin with an unusual confession. I have never been drunk. Honest! The initial reason for this is that I don't like the taste of beer and as a college student I couldn't afford anything harder. The continuing reason is more important. I quickly learned that my sobriety earned immense rewards in college. I was the guy that the girls trusted to walk them home after a night of drinking. I was the guy who never had to fight a friend for his keys in order to drive him home. I was the guy my friends could count on when their own judgement was a bit clouded. That trust was worth more than any buzz a few too many beers could give me.

Political integrity is much the same in my eyes. While I don't believe that taking money from political action committees is bad. I do think that too much of it can cloud a candidate's judgement. Recent campaign finance reports show that more than 66% of Senator Wiger's 2010 fundraising has come from lobbyists and political action committees. While the Senator has every right to accept those funds, I have made the commitment to the citizen's of Minnesota that I will not accept any contributions from PACs. This means that at the end of a long campaign season funded from the well of political action committees, you can trust that my judgement will be clear and my political commitment will be focused on the concerns of our citizens and not with the narrower interests of any political action committee.

Your trust is worth more to me.

New Years Resolutions

Senator Wiger posted a nice article on his Senate site on December 22. As a student of success, and someone who is constantly challenging myself to improve, I appreciate his article. Here is an excerpt with some personal observations added.

What will you focus on in 2010? A recent article at successmagazine.com offers forty-four ideas on what you can do to “kick-start” your 2010. Here are some highlights from that list that could improve your year:

• Find a volunteer opportunity at www.volunteer.org.
MEJ - I volunteered for, and was appointed by the Maplewood City Council to the Maplewood Business and Economic Development Commission. I am looking forward to promoting economic opportunity in the great city of Maplewood.

• Sign up for a birthday/anniversary reminder service.
MEJ - I have kept every birthday and anniversary in my BlackBerry or PDA for over 10 years.

• Write a personal mission statement or mantra.
MEJ - This year's mission is to bring the citizens of Maplewood, Oakdale, North Saint Paul, and the rest of Minnesota an independent perspective on elections and service in state government.

• Get a whole new hairstyle or haircut.
MEJ - Well, I did promise my wife I would get haircuts more often this year. I tend to go too long between appointments, so just keeping my hair a consistant length will be a worthy goal.

• Do something that scares you.
MEJ - Most of my friends (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) think I should be scared of my State Senate race. I actually am excited by the challenge. I am scared of losing this race because of the prospect of continued partisan failure in Saint Paul and scared that I may let down the people who invest their time and effort in supporting my campaign. But at the end of the day, it is the fear of failure that drives me to work a bit harder and smarter to minimize the possibility.

• Take a dance or fitness class.
MEJ - I have scheduled a 10 month fitness regiment that consists of lots of walking and, well, lots of walking. I don't think door knocking and shaking hands can really be considered physical fitness.

• Schedule a regular date night on your calendar with your spouse.
MEJ - This hasn't been a challenge in the past, but with the rigors of a political campaign and launching a new city commission, this is a great idea for maintaining personal perspective and balance.

Remember, you cannot achieve all of your goals overnight. Many goals will take considerable time and effort, and they can evolve over time. Stay flexible, expect bumps along the way and above all, never give up.

As Ben Franklin once said, “Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each New Year find you a better man.” The New Year gives us all a chance to start over. Make 2010 a year to remember!


Now for a quotation that lies at the heart of my new year and my campaign:

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that our aim is too low and we reach it."
Michelangelo

Letter to the Editor of the Maplewood Review

Here is a letter I wrote to the Editor of the Maplewood Review. It is response to an article where I was quoted as the only citizen at a Maplewood City Council meeting to speak in support of Maplewood setting a maximum tax levy limit of 7%. As it was written, it sounded as if I supported an actual increase of 7%. I can't say today what level of increase I would support until the budget requests have been made and analysed. Read the letter for more.


Dear Editor,

Thank you for your coverage of the recent Maplewood city council meeting where the maximum tax levy for 2010 was set. As reported early in the article, this is the amount that the city can levy in taxes in 2010. This is not necessarily the amount that the city must levy. As the City Manager pointed out “It can be scaled back.” I also want to thank you for including my comments from that meeting in your article. As you quoted, I did support the City Manager’s recommendation to “keep their options open” and report a 7% maximum levy increase. I do want to clarify my overall stand on the city’s taxes though. While I did support reporting a 7% tax levy increase, I believe that even the smallest tax increase needs serious consideration and sound justification to the public before passage.

I am asking for this clarification because I am not just a “Maplewood resident”, I am a Maplewood resident who is running for the Minnesota Senate in 2010. I am running for the senate because I believe that the state has thrust too much of its budget mess into the hands of our cities and counties. Our cities are now caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side they have had significant funding cuts from the state and on the other side they have citizens who are tired of a government that thinks it can tax its way out of any problem. Between these two truths, we have a city that has to figure out how to provide adequate services with inadequate revenue. While I am sure that there are areas of the budget that can still stand another trim, the state has been withholding revenue from our cities for many years, and most of the fat was trimmed from city budgets over the past four or five years. While I am not a fan of raising taxes on the whole, this year’s city budget will probably require a reduction in services to prevent an increase in the tax levy.

As you watch Maplewood’s budget process unfold over the next 2 months, citizens have every right to hold the city council responsible for how they address the budget challenges before them. At the same time, we all need to hold our legislators and our Governor responsible for making cities pay for the state’s ongoing budget problems.

Thank you,

Mark Jenkins
Candidate for the Minnesota Senate in 2010
www.MarkJenkins2010.com

Independence Party of Minnesota 4th CD special meeting

On Thursday, September 24th, the Independence Party held a special meeting in the 4th Congressional District to fill a couple vacant leadership positions. We had an impressive turnout with about a dozen delegates and several guests in attendance. State party Director Kari Johnson-Robinson, who rose to her state position through her involvement in the 4th CD, ran a very smooth meeting, even with the political theater near the end of the meeting.

Several former delegates were in attendance. As the party is always happy to welcome back old friends, a motion was passed to seat the former delegates as current delegates so they could have a say in the meeting. The delegate's first order of business (after the requisite procedural stuff) was to elect individuals for the vacant Chair and Vice Chair positions.

The new Chair of the Independence Party's 4th CD is Earl Johnson. Earl has been one of those party members who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes without ever seeking recognition for his efforts. I am excited to see him get some well deserved recognition for his work, and the opportunity to take on greater responsibility within the party. Earl seems genuinely excited about the opportunity before him.

Tom Klas, a longtime leader in the 4th CD, was elected as Vice Chair. I had the honor to serve as Tom's Vice Chair when he was Chair a couple years ago. Earl's fresh perspectives and enthusiasm in concert with Tom's years of experience will serve the district and the party well.

The Secretary position was vacated when Tom Klas, the sitting Secretary was elected Vice Chair. (I'm wondering if there is a CD 4 position that Tom hasn't served the party in.) That position is still open if there are any readers who want to have a voice in the leadership of the Independence Party's 4th CD.

I was honored to address the meeting for a few minutes to share my enthusiasm for the future of the 4th CD and my campaign. I really do believe that the district, the party and our campaign are poised for growth and success in 2010.

The meeting ended after a savvy show of political gamesmanship and a bit of political theater. Maplewood Mayor Diana Longrie and a number of her supporters attended our meeting. Several of her supporters were former IP delegates and had been seated today as current delegates. Under New Business, delegate Margaret Behrens introduced her friend, Mayor Longrie, to those in attendance and asked the Mayor to say a few words. After the Mayor's campaign speech, Margaret asked for a resolution of support for the Mayor. After some discussion to clarify that we could not "endorse" her, it was agreed that we could pass a resolution of support if a motion was made and passed by the delegates present. A motion was made and seconded. I saw this as a politically gutsy move. The political theater began when the floor was opened to questions for the Mayor. One by one, her supporters tossed out softball questions to the Mayor as if it wasn't obvious to the rest of us what was taking place. I did take the opportunity to ask her how she planned to end the acrimony between members of the Maplewood City Council. She answered by saying that she thought it was more important to identify the cause. While she made a case for what (or who) she thought was the cause, in my eyes, she did not give any plan on how to solve the problem. After one more question, the resolution of support was put to a vote. The Mayor's supporters all voted in favor of the resolution as did 2 or 3 other delegates. That brought the number of delegates in favor of the resolution to 7 out of 12 votes, and the resolution passed. I did not support the resolution for several reasons. The first reason, and the one I explained to the Mayor, was that I have not made up my mind on who I will support in the Mayor's race. Another reason is that I have very strict criteria for cross endorsing (or supporting) any candidate who is not a member of the Independence Party. She had not been vetted as to her standing on the party's platform, and I could not support the resolution for that reason.

Before this meeting, I had already seen the footage of Mayor Longrie seeking a resolution of support and then an endorsement from the DFL. She did not get either. Friends of mine in the Republican Party say that she used to be active in the party up until 2008 when she ran for the Minnesota House as a Democrat. To the best of their knowledge, she has not sought the support of the Republican Party in the current election.

I am very interested in how the Mayor will use the IP's resolution of support in her campaign. While I feel that the party was taken advantage of, I respect the fact that she pulled this off completely within the rules of the party and the meeting. The Mayor's move does show me that the Independence Party carries enough influence that a candidate from another party (whichever one that may be) would seek our support for their campaign.

Before I wrap this up, I want to send special thanks to Sally Paulson and Brian Faas from the state party Executive Committee for all of their work to make the evening a success. You two are true leaders in the party, not just by your titles, but by the example you set for others in the party. Thank you, and thanks to all of the people who attended the meeting.

Maplewood Primary Election Results

Well, round one of the Maplewood city elections are done and the result appears to be 7 weeks of acrimony and vitriol. While there were a few candidates who seemed to be neutral parties to the ongoing council wars, none of them survived the first round.

For City Council:

We have 2 council candidates whose politics I don't exactly line up with and 2 council members whose political maturity I seriously question. Right now, I am leaning strongly towards voting for Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas. While they are more willing to tax and spend than I am usually comfortable with, they are also articulate, reasoned and willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Rebecca Cave and Dave Hafner appear to focus more on attacking the opponent than defending a reasoned policy or proposal. With Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas placing first and second in the primary, it appears to be their race to lose in November. Unfortunately, I fear their perceived lead will only generate more attack ads and slander from Rebecca Cave and Dave Hafner.

Note: I said that I was "leaning strongly". I did not say that I had made a firm decision. If Rebecca Cave or Dave Hafner run professional, issues-based, campaigns and abandon personal attacks, I could be swayed to vote for one or both of them. Likewise, some of the Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas joint campaign collateral was thinly veiled attack ads themselves. If either of them lowers their campaign standards much further, they too could influence a shift in my vote.

For Mayor:

Where the Council race has strong potential for controversy, the Mayor's race is guaranteed to be ugly and embarrassing for all involved. This means that I am now forced to make a choice between two exceptionally qualified and flawed candidates for Mayor.

Mayor Diana Longrie:
Before I attended my first Maplewood City Council meeting, I envisioned Mayor Longrie to be petty and amateurish. This perspective was based on media reports of Council dysfunction and her own writing in the Maplewood Monthly. After attending many city council meetings, I actually find her to be intelligent and diligent in her duties as Mayor. She is also a pro at "working a room". She tries to introduce herself to everyone in the council chambers and tries hard to make everyone feel welcome. With all of these skills, I am still disappointed that she and her supporters spend so much effort on tearing down their opponents instead of trying to sell their vision to the citizens.

Council Member Will Rossbach:
My first impression of Mr. Rossbach was an intelligent and concerned council member. We spoke at several forums that he held in Maplewood's "south leg". We didn't always agree on issues, but he listened and defended his view without attacking mine. I was also impressed with his ability to stay out of the political mudslinging that took place in several Council Member's columns in the Maplewood Monthly. He focused on topics that concerned citizens daily lives, not the political acrimony at City Hall. My attendance at City Council meetings also shed new light on Council Member Rossbach's behavior in the council chambers. I soon found Mr. Rossbach to be a bit thin skinned and quick to point out when he feels slighted by another member of the council. Now, I'm not justifying Mr. Rossbach's behavior in the chambers, but there is at least one council member and a number of citizens who seem to have made it their life's mission to make Mr. Rossbach's life a living hell. Unfortunately, it appears to be working. I think that Council Member Rossbach has been slowly dragged into the political mud by the incessant attacks he is subjected to.

With that, I can not support either candidate for Mayor at this time. I am going to wait and see which Mayoral candidate focuses on what is the right vision for Maplewood, not what is wrong with the other candidate. There is no question that Mayor Longrie has been more aggressive in her attacks on Council Member Rossbach than he has been towards her. Yet Mr. Rossbach's veiled attack ads and council chamber acrimony still exceed my comfort level. I am also worried about the direction the city will take if the entire City Council is comprised of just one political vision. I would prefer reasoned debate and discussion of multiple visions over a 4 to 0 majority. Unfortunately I don't believe the players left on the field are capable of reasoned debate or discussion with members of the "other team". Please prove me wrong or I'm thinking that my decision for Mayor may take until November.

Governor Pawlenty signs Senator Wiger's Three Strikes and You Graduate Bill.

The next 5 graduating classes from Minnesota's High School's have been sent a clear message from the Governor and the Legislature: Failure IS an option. As the Star Tribune put it,

The solution passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, however, could raise a few eyebrows: Students either have to pass the test once, or fail it three times, to graduate.

I have written about this specific piece of legislation several times. I continue to address it because a respected State Senator who has built his legislative reputation on the education of our students drafted the legislation. I was appalled that Senator Wiger would just suspend math testing requirements for half a decade because the test is too hard.

From my research, it sounds like there are several people who agree with the Senator that our students aren't prepared for this test. If that is the case, we need to find ways to prepare our students to succeed instead of telling them they will be allowed to fail. While I am not an expert on education, when I am elected, I will work with fellow legislators to shorten Senator Wiger's 5 year achievement gap by focusing on providing education instead of just testing it.

Update on Senator Wiger's Three Strikes and You Graduate Bill

The Three Strikes bill is moving through the Senate and getting more press. Unfortunately, most people are missing a key point.

Passing the GRAD Math exam is not required to earn your diploma. In fact, the GRAD "Parents Brochure" found on the Minnesota Department of Education website list 4 ways to meet the diploma requirement:

How do students meet the graduation requirement?
There are a number of ways to meet the diploma requirement, including
• Receiving a proficient score on the MCA-II
• Receiving a passing score on the GRAD
• Receiving a Pass Individual (for students on IEP or 504 Plans)
OR
• Receiving a passing score on a GRAD retest

While the GRAD Math exam is "embedded" in the MCA-II exam, the GRAD Math is only part of the total math portion of the MCA-II. This means that a student could fall short on the GRAD math questions, but do well enough on the remaining math questions to pass the MCA-II without meeting the GRAD requirement. In that case, and this has been confirmed by the department, the student would still earn a diploma because they met one of the "4 ways to meet the diploma requirement."

Understanding this reaffirms my opposition to Senator Wiger's bill. I don't doubt that the math test may be difficult. I don't doubt that some of our students aren't prepared for the GRAD math testing. But, I actually believe that the state has adequate options for our students in this regard. Even if they fail the GRAD Math test when it is administered in their Junior year of high school, they still have 2 paths to graduation open to them. They could pass the MCA-II exam and still graduate or they can retake the GRAD math exam until they do pass it. There are several opportunities to retake, and pass, the GRAD before graduation.

The real issue that should be addressed is whether the GRAD math exam is too dificult, our math programs are too weak, or both. If the GRAD requirements are excessive, we definitely should have them reviewed and reworked. If the GRAD requirements are found to be appropriate, then we need to find ways to improve our mathematics curiculums. Lets not dismiss the importance of mathmatics proficiency while we work on the root of the problem.

Anti-bullying law introduced by Senator Wiger

I want to believe that the Senators who introduced the anti-bullying bill in the Minnesota Senate are doing so out of care and concern for those students who suffer with bullying in school. It is a noble goal, but it is the wrong place for it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was on the wrong side of bullies most of my school days. I was that kid who had to explain to my mom why my good school clothes were ruined, my broken finger, and the numerous days I was late because I had to find a creative path home to avoid the confrontations.

I beieve that bullying needs to be addressed and reduced, if not eliminated. Like most education issues though, I don't believe that our state government should be legislating school behavior. Teachers, Principals, staff and school districts need to consider bullying when they create, review and impliment their disciplinary and student safety policies every year. For the state to imply that this doesn't happen is ridiculous. Bullying isn't some new issue that requires special training to understand. To think that schools need the state to tell their staff that this is a problem and that well crafted state statutes will fix the problem is ludicrous.

After reading about the bill, I believe that the actual intent is to educate school staff on the unique issues facing students who are bullied for issues of "gender identity". While this is one reason for bullying, it is only one of many. Regardless of the reason, bullying is wrong, period.

Again, I don't believe that the state should, or honestly can, legislate tolerance for students who are already coping with the pressures of their own gender identity issues. This is an issue that should be addressed on its own merits, and not masked under the guise of bullying. This is an issue that needs to be considered by teachers, principals, staff, schools and school districts when preparing policies for an upcoming school year. But, schools shouldn't have their policies dictated by the state, and likewise, shouldn't wait for the state to tell them what issues are important, and what issues need to be addressed.

If a child is being bullied in school, parents should feel welcome to bring this issue to the school's attention. If school districts need to enact policies to improve how bullying is handled, then take the issue to the school board. My bullying issues ended in my high school principals office, not on the floor of the state capitol. This is where this issue needs to be addressed and dealt with.

$1.1 Billion for MN Schools

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.

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.

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.

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.