I went to the Mayor of St Paul's budget speech at the Amsterdam today which is a new "venue" as the Mayor called it to help revitalize Wabasha Street. Typical budget speech with cuts, lay off possibilities, and the raising of property taxes.
What caught my attention though was the cutting of 50 hours of public access to the St Paul Library System. Living in downtown St Paul I wanted to know if my neighborhood library would be losing hours. As soon as the speech was over I looked for Kit Hadley, Director of the St Paul Library. I asked her if the downtown Central would be losing hours. She stated that the library budget will be released on Friday. In other words, in her view it is not public. I have known Ms. Hadley for decades she knows what I lobby and advocate for. I stated to her that the data is public and that I could place a Data Practices Act request for it. She indicated the data would not be released until Friday.
I tried again stating all I want to know is if downtown Central will be losing hours. It is not a hard question to answer. Her response was the Mayor stated that no information could be released about the Library budget until Friday. I stated to her it's plain BS that I am being told by her. I have interacted with Ms. Hadley many times before on issues of public access and accountability. Usually she is good on those issues, but today she is just following orders.
Decided to track down the Mayor since he gave the order not to have any information about the Library budget released until Friday. Direct question to Mayor Coleman, Is downtown Central Libray going to lose service hours? He did not know. I told him how I asked Ms. Hadley and she would not tell me based on the Mayor's direction. I stated to him it is BS that a simple question as to whether or not the downtown library will lose hours cannot be answered.
Mayor Coleman was annoyed I believe about my question and statement. We interacted for a minute or two. He stated that the information will be released on Friday.
The Coleman Administration has a knack for wanting things to be secret or kept from the public until they decide to give it out even though it is public data. In 2009, Mayor Coleman wanted to keep budget data completely secret and away from the public until the Mayor gives his speech. With the recent selection process of the new St Paul Police Chief the administration wanted to have meetings closed. There are other examples.
Before I left the Mayor, Erin Dady, the Chief of Staff told me to send her an e-mail. I asked her a few minutes later if I did would she tell me whether or not the downtown library would lose hours. Once again she stated the refrain the library budget will be released on Friday. I again stated that the data is public. I also stated the City is just playing the game that government does with the public when they want to control the information and not release it. Before I left the Amsterdam venue, Ms. Dady stated that the employees should know before the public does about hour cuts.
What I experienced is not what many members of the public experience when they ask questions or seek answers because most individuals do not persist. What I encountered with the Mayor, the Library Director, and the Chief of Staff was not pleasant. I am sure they were annoyed. Why they could not answer a simple question or tell me I can give you the answer later today is beyond me. It must be that secrecy and control thing. Wait til Friday.
By the way I had a great conversation with St Paul Superintendent of Schools Silva. I have never met her before. I told her who I was and that I was critical of her in regards how she kept secret the school budget last year. Indicated to her that hopefully she has learned from her experience and the public criticism that came with that episode. She stated she has. Is there hope?
Finally for those those who want to know what malarkey means. Go here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malarkey
Well, that's all folks for now. Got to rush across the street to City Hall to place my Data Practices request in to find out if the downtown library will lose hours. By law that data is to be easily accessible for convenient use so that a simple question like mine can be answered. Will see.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Who is actually building the New Planned Parenthood Clinic?
Every so often I check the Minnesota Department of Administration's IPAD web site. On the site is information on our state laws that relate to access to government data and privacy rights. It also lists opinions which the Commissioner of Administration has made decisions on as it relates to interpretation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Last week I read the latest opinion issued by the Commissioner. What a doozy. It states that the City of St Paul can make not public or secret identities of contractors, subcontractors, and almost any one else that is involved with the new construction of the Planned Parenthood facilities.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) is building a new facility in St. Paul. In order to build, PPMNS must file building plans, get building permits, and allow inspection of the construction and get approval by city officials.
What is so unusual about the Commissioner's opinion in my judgement is the sweep of it to which St Paul is allowed to broadly decide what information should be public. I have never seen an opinion like it before. The Commissioner in the opinion states that St Paul should not use it as "a blanket classification scheme." I wondered about that so I visited the St Paul agency that oversees the permits and construction. The name of the agency is the Department of Safety and Inspections. (DSI)
I called and visited with DSI staff about the opinion and how they were interpreting it. I can understand why building plans, security, layout scheme and data specifically related to those areas of the facility can be not public per the opinion, but anything more I question. The staff I met with indicated to me that DSI is taking the position that every document filed with them, in their entirety, architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of the PPMNS building is not public or "security information".
This would mean the names of the contractors, subcontractors, and others also would not be public. I could see no rationale for that. The opinion says that companies that have worked on PPMNS projects have been subject to threats and boycott campaigns.
Threats towards parties that are involved in the PPMNS project cannot be tolerated by anyone and need to be dealt with immediately and investigated by law enforcement authorities. I have no knowledge as to the degree of the threats, but I do not see it as blanket justification for closing public access to all identities of suppliers, vendors, subcontractors as it seems the City is doing.
Another side to this situation is what about the general permits that are public and collected by another part of DSI, for plumbing, electrical, and other venues of the building process for the PPMNS project. When I questioned DSI staff as to whether or not the general permit data are public I was told that they may be applying the scope of the Commissioner's opinion to that data. The City Attorney may be reviewing that question currently.
I do not believe that data that is public should be made not public under security information without without a very well documented, intensive and thorough review. As to the plans of the building which involve layout and security the case has been made. Identities no. The City of St Paul is interpreting the opinion too broadly now and may in the future to other permit data. Are they using it as "blanket" for all public data to the PPMNS project?
The public has a right to know who builds structures in their communities for a number of reasons from safety to accountability. Another aspect to this situation is that some people in our community may have a viewpoint different than PPMNS. A segment of our community would like to let people know what businesses are doing work on the PPMNS project or public members may not want to do work with companies or individuals who work on the project.
I spoke with Don Gemberling about the Commissioner's opinion. Mr. Gemberling is former director of the division now known as IPAD. He told me about a Minnesota Supreme Court that was decided in 1978 with similar issues.
The court decision was named: Minnesota Medical Association vs State of Minnesota, 274 NW2d 84. The case held that names of all physicians, clinics, and hospitals that had performed abortions with state monies are open to public scrutiny. An argument used against having identities to be public was that there would be boycotts, pickets, and other threats. 33 years later similar arguments, different times, yes.
But it is a case in point not to allow the City of St Paul to arbitrarily deny the public access to public data of the PPMNS project, particularly identities of the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors, and others.
Last week I read the latest opinion issued by the Commissioner. What a doozy. It states that the City of St Paul can make not public or secret identities of contractors, subcontractors, and almost any one else that is involved with the new construction of the Planned Parenthood facilities.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) is building a new facility in St. Paul. In order to build, PPMNS must file building plans, get building permits, and allow inspection of the construction and get approval by city officials.
What is so unusual about the Commissioner's opinion in my judgement is the sweep of it to which St Paul is allowed to broadly decide what information should be public. I have never seen an opinion like it before. The Commissioner in the opinion states that St Paul should not use it as "a blanket classification scheme." I wondered about that so I visited the St Paul agency that oversees the permits and construction. The name of the agency is the Department of Safety and Inspections. (DSI)
I called and visited with DSI staff about the opinion and how they were interpreting it. I can understand why building plans, security, layout scheme and data specifically related to those areas of the facility can be not public per the opinion, but anything more I question. The staff I met with indicated to me that DSI is taking the position that every document filed with them, in their entirety, architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of the PPMNS building is not public or "security information".
This would mean the names of the contractors, subcontractors, and others also would not be public. I could see no rationale for that. The opinion says that companies that have worked on PPMNS projects have been subject to threats and boycott campaigns.
Threats towards parties that are involved in the PPMNS project cannot be tolerated by anyone and need to be dealt with immediately and investigated by law enforcement authorities. I have no knowledge as to the degree of the threats, but I do not see it as blanket justification for closing public access to all identities of suppliers, vendors, subcontractors as it seems the City is doing.
Another side to this situation is what about the general permits that are public and collected by another part of DSI, for plumbing, electrical, and other venues of the building process for the PPMNS project. When I questioned DSI staff as to whether or not the general permit data are public I was told that they may be applying the scope of the Commissioner's opinion to that data. The City Attorney may be reviewing that question currently.
I do not believe that data that is public should be made not public under security information without without a very well documented, intensive and thorough review. As to the plans of the building which involve layout and security the case has been made. Identities no. The City of St Paul is interpreting the opinion too broadly now and may in the future to other permit data. Are they using it as "blanket" for all public data to the PPMNS project?
The public has a right to know who builds structures in their communities for a number of reasons from safety to accountability. Another aspect to this situation is that some people in our community may have a viewpoint different than PPMNS. A segment of our community would like to let people know what businesses are doing work on the PPMNS project or public members may not want to do work with companies or individuals who work on the project.
I spoke with Don Gemberling about the Commissioner's opinion. Mr. Gemberling is former director of the division now known as IPAD. He told me about a Minnesota Supreme Court that was decided in 1978 with similar issues.
The court decision was named: Minnesota Medical Association vs State of Minnesota, 274 NW2d 84. The case held that names of all physicians, clinics, and hospitals that had performed abortions with state monies are open to public scrutiny. An argument used against having identities to be public was that there would be boycotts, pickets, and other threats. 33 years later similar arguments, different times, yes.
But it is a case in point not to allow the City of St Paul to arbitrarily deny the public access to public data of the PPMNS project, particularly identities of the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors, and others.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
GangNet database going BYE-BYE?
A communication sent out by Ramsey County Sheriff Matt Bostrom to other law enforcement agencies dated August 1, 2011 states that GangNet is to be shut down effective August 15, 2011
GangNet is a database run by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office since 1998. Two years ago there was a story about the database in the Pioneer Press and a report done by the St. Thomas Law School Community Justice Project with the St. Paul NAACP. The report and the news story created for the public a number of questions of how law enforcement collects data on people and the databases that police use to keep track of people. The debate about GangNet and other related issues were front and center in 2010 at the State Legislature.
With the ending of GangNet by the Ramsey County Sheriff a number of questions still need to be answered to the public. These are some of them:
Why did Sheriff Bostrom make this decision?
When he took office in January, 2011, did he have an evaluation, or review of the GangNet program done?
What did the report say? Were there issues and problems? Did he talk with his colleagues in law enforcement and what did they say?
With thousands of people being in GangNet should not the subjects be made aware that they either are or were in the database?
Granted GangNet disappears, Will it not appear in another form? Is there a need to have such types of databases? If so how can law enforcement guarantee accountability and transparency?
The GangNet program is an example of how law enforcement collects names and data on thousands of Minnesotans, some justified, some not, putting them in databases and sharing that information with others within the law enforcement community with the public not even knowing about it. There are many databases within Minnesota law enforcement agencies with individual names in them. These databases have names and data from contact reports to licence plate reader collection.
The broader concern of how law enforcement collects "intelligence" on the public, is the issue that underlies the discussion of GangNet. The Minnesota Legislature in 2010 recognized this by forming a work group to study in essence a tough and expansive question:
How can Minnesota law enforcement collect "intelligence" on citizens to prevent crime and keep people safe, but at the same time have accountability, transparency, and respect Minnesotans privacy and civil liberties?
The group known as the SF 2725 Work Group met last fall. Their proceedings, material collected, and their report is available through the link/BCA website. Bottom line is the work group came to a general agreement on some issues, but on others they did not. "Key" issues such as how accountability and transparency is implemented, what is the trigger/standard that is used to collect "intelligence", among other points, there was no agreement.
So is GangNet really going Bye-Bye? No, it will just rear its head in another form and named something else with less public scrutiny, accountability, and transparency.
GangNet is a database run by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office since 1998. Two years ago there was a story about the database in the Pioneer Press and a report done by the St. Thomas Law School Community Justice Project with the St. Paul NAACP. The report and the news story created for the public a number of questions of how law enforcement collects data on people and the databases that police use to keep track of people. The debate about GangNet and other related issues were front and center in 2010 at the State Legislature.
With the ending of GangNet by the Ramsey County Sheriff a number of questions still need to be answered to the public. These are some of them:
Why did Sheriff Bostrom make this decision?
When he took office in January, 2011, did he have an evaluation, or review of the GangNet program done?
What did the report say? Were there issues and problems? Did he talk with his colleagues in law enforcement and what did they say?
With thousands of people being in GangNet should not the subjects be made aware that they either are or were in the database?
Granted GangNet disappears, Will it not appear in another form? Is there a need to have such types of databases? If so how can law enforcement guarantee accountability and transparency?
The GangNet program is an example of how law enforcement collects names and data on thousands of Minnesotans, some justified, some not, putting them in databases and sharing that information with others within the law enforcement community with the public not even knowing about it. There are many databases within Minnesota law enforcement agencies with individual names in them. These databases have names and data from contact reports to licence plate reader collection.
The broader concern of how law enforcement collects "intelligence" on the public, is the issue that underlies the discussion of GangNet. The Minnesota Legislature in 2010 recognized this by forming a work group to study in essence a tough and expansive question:
How can Minnesota law enforcement collect "intelligence" on citizens to prevent crime and keep people safe, but at the same time have accountability, transparency, and respect Minnesotans privacy and civil liberties?
The group known as the SF 2725 Work Group met last fall. Their proceedings, material collected, and their report is available through the link/BCA website. Bottom line is the work group came to a general agreement on some issues, but on others they did not. "Key" issues such as how accountability and transparency is implemented, what is the trigger/standard that is used to collect "intelligence", among other points, there was no agreement.
So is GangNet really going Bye-Bye? No, it will just rear its head in another form and named something else with less public scrutiny, accountability, and transparency.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
What's Up at those City Council/County Board Meetings?
Have you ever gone to a public meeting of the city council, commission, or county board, school board, or other public body, and you want to know what the members of the meeting are talking about or referring to? You may also want to look at the documents on the budget, or the licensing issue or any issue that could affect you that is the subject of the meeting.
I have many times.
What I look for is a folder/notebook which usually has all the printed materials that members of the public body has before them. The specific section of the law that gives you the right to inspect and review information/documents at a public meeting is 13D.01, subdivision 6.
There have been instances where I have gone to public meetings, and could not find the materials that should be available to public. When I have asked the person responsible for logistics and setting up the meeting-Where are the materials?. The response sometimes is "Oh you can look at them on the Internet."or "I did not know that", or even "I forgot."
Granted this happens, but it does not mean that is excusable particularly using the Internet as a rationale. Government entities should know what the law is.
Today I popped in the Metropolitan Council meeting. I looked for the folder/notebook. I did not find one, but what I saw was a number of copies of materials on the table in separate piles outside the meeting room. My impression is that could have been the package of material that was before the Council per the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Have to compliment the Council if it was the material that its great to have more than one copy for public to review, inspect, and take if interested.
Next time you go to a public meeting of a public body, and you are wondering what the heck they're talking about, remember the section of law I have told you about.
I have many times.
What I look for is a folder/notebook which usually has all the printed materials that members of the public body has before them. The specific section of the law that gives you the right to inspect and review information/documents at a public meeting is 13D.01, subdivision 6.
There have been instances where I have gone to public meetings, and could not find the materials that should be available to public. When I have asked the person responsible for logistics and setting up the meeting-Where are the materials?. The response sometimes is "Oh you can look at them on the Internet."or "I did not know that", or even "I forgot."
Granted this happens, but it does not mean that is excusable particularly using the Internet as a rationale. Government entities should know what the law is.
Today I popped in the Metropolitan Council meeting. I looked for the folder/notebook. I did not find one, but what I saw was a number of copies of materials on the table in separate piles outside the meeting room. My impression is that could have been the package of material that was before the Council per the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Have to compliment the Council if it was the material that its great to have more than one copy for public to review, inspect, and take if interested.
Next time you go to a public meeting of a public body, and you are wondering what the heck they're talking about, remember the section of law I have told you about.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Are you being N-Dexed?
You call to complain on a barking dog. Maybe you happen on crime on the way home from work. Maybe you're an innocent person stopped by police. Should your name go into a national database anytime you have contact with a law enforcement agency?
It could happen.
The FBI and several other law enforcement organizations have been meeting with police agencies in Minnesota to introduce them to N-Dex. N-Dex is a product of post 9/11 data-sharing. The FBI basically wants to set up basically a national database of all incident reports and other police files -- including names of suspects, victims, complainants and witnesses -- from every law enforcement agency.
There is currently a similar database called NCIC which has criminal history information, stolen properties, and other data.
But before N-Dex gets going full steam here in Minnesota we should be asking authorities: what do we -- as the ultimate authority in our state -- what information do WE want shared?
N-Dex proponents are going to each law enforcement agency and ask them to share their data. So one agency can share everything as to what they consider incident reports, another may only give the FBI case closed files. Should there be state standards? Are there privacy and civil liberties interests?
The answers to these questions are too important to make up as as we go along. But that's what's happening as these N-Dex officials travel around Minnesota.
The above post was originally placed on Open Secrets on October 1, 2010. Since then there have been developments with our state's involvement with N-Dex.
Update:
There has been major discussions about implementing N-Dex in Minnesota since last year. The Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Task Force has taken a lead with work groups. Next month the task force will start discussions as to what to recommend to the Minnesota Legislature on issues, for example, What kind of data should be shared with the FBI?, Should it go through the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension?, or should law enforcement agencies throughout the state be able to share what they want to share with the FBI? What protections should there be for the people of Minnesota?
Think of N-Dex has a "large national data warehouse." It is important the people of Minnesota be involved on this issue because it can and will have an impact on rights, liberties, and privacy.
N-Dex has positives, but there must be thorough open and public discussion as to how Minnesota should participate. You might wonder why this matters to you, a law biding citizen. Well information about you and your contact with a law enforcement agency could end up in N-Dex.
I will be doing future posts on this issue in the near future.
It could happen.
The FBI and several other law enforcement organizations have been meeting with police agencies in Minnesota to introduce them to N-Dex. N-Dex is a product of post 9/11 data-sharing. The FBI basically wants to set up basically a national database of all incident reports and other police files -- including names of suspects, victims, complainants and witnesses -- from every law enforcement agency.
There is currently a similar database called NCIC which has criminal history information, stolen properties, and other data.
But before N-Dex gets going full steam here in Minnesota we should be asking authorities: what do we -- as the ultimate authority in our state -- what information do WE want shared?
N-Dex proponents are going to each law enforcement agency and ask them to share their data. So one agency can share everything as to what they consider incident reports, another may only give the FBI case closed files. Should there be state standards? Are there privacy and civil liberties interests?
The answers to these questions are too important to make up as as we go along. But that's what's happening as these N-Dex officials travel around Minnesota.
The above post was originally placed on Open Secrets on October 1, 2010. Since then there have been developments with our state's involvement with N-Dex.
Update:
There has been major discussions about implementing N-Dex in Minnesota since last year. The Criminal and Juvenile Justice Information Task Force has taken a lead with work groups. Next month the task force will start discussions as to what to recommend to the Minnesota Legislature on issues, for example, What kind of data should be shared with the FBI?, Should it go through the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension?, or should law enforcement agencies throughout the state be able to share what they want to share with the FBI? What protections should there be for the people of Minnesota?
Think of N-Dex has a "large national data warehouse." It is important the people of Minnesota be involved on this issue because it can and will have an impact on rights, liberties, and privacy.
N-Dex has positives, but there must be thorough open and public discussion as to how Minnesota should participate. You might wonder why this matters to you, a law biding citizen. Well information about you and your contact with a law enforcement agency could end up in N-Dex.
I will be doing future posts on this issue in the near future.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Having Capitol open is more than symbolic
There were comments made in the media that the Capitol being open is a symbol of our representative form of government. So true. As many Minnesotans know though our Capitol was locked up "tight as a drum". No public around other than essential employees, plus the elected officials, and the Capitol press corps.
But the Capitol is more than symbolism. It is a living building which carries the vibrancy of history and the exhilaration of the democratic process. Which the public did not experience for 19 days.
When entering the Capitol from the south steps today I was excited with the eagerness to participate in the process. I wanted to see if legislation I fought for or against were still in the Special Session bills.
I engaged legislative staff in discussion. Spoke and interacted with lobbyists who were there to see what may have happened to their legislative endeavour. Spoke frankly with a number of legislator's about the last 19 days of having the Capitol wrapped up like a cocoon.
I have not seen the actual comments of Governor Dayton and Speaker Zeller when questioned by the press today on why all the secrecy the last few days. Been told though, answers were basically, that public had opportunity for input on bills during regular session. Also in the past meetings of legislators and members of the executive branch have been private.
But what was so different from public input on bills during the regular session and the private meetings as done in the past?
"Action and scenery of a great drama" called the Minnesota Shutdown.
For 19 days, this dramatic play took hold, people's lives were upset and the state shook.
The Capitol should have never been closed.
To have gone to the Capitol during shutdown people would have known we would get through this, the public would have been able to see and talk with their leaders and elected officials, for the public and lobbyists interested in legislative bills to engage and to participate.
The "People's House" is more than symbolic, it gives us a sense of continuity, it is who we are as a State and as a people.
But the Capitol is more than symbolism. It is a living building which carries the vibrancy of history and the exhilaration of the democratic process. Which the public did not experience for 19 days.
When entering the Capitol from the south steps today I was excited with the eagerness to participate in the process. I wanted to see if legislation I fought for or against were still in the Special Session bills.
I engaged legislative staff in discussion. Spoke and interacted with lobbyists who were there to see what may have happened to their legislative endeavour. Spoke frankly with a number of legislator's about the last 19 days of having the Capitol wrapped up like a cocoon.
I have not seen the actual comments of Governor Dayton and Speaker Zeller when questioned by the press today on why all the secrecy the last few days. Been told though, answers were basically, that public had opportunity for input on bills during regular session. Also in the past meetings of legislators and members of the executive branch have been private.
But what was so different from public input on bills during the regular session and the private meetings as done in the past?
"Action and scenery of a great drama" called the Minnesota Shutdown.
For 19 days, this dramatic play took hold, people's lives were upset and the state shook.
The Capitol should have never been closed.
To have gone to the Capitol during shutdown people would have known we would get through this, the public would have been able to see and talk with their leaders and elected officials, for the public and lobbyists interested in legislative bills to engage and to participate.
The "People's House" is more than symbolic, it gives us a sense of continuity, it is who we are as a State and as a people.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Why Capitol should be open to public during shutdown
The public has a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and what is fair or not. The situation at the "People's House" is very unique, but it does not mean the public should be locked out when legislator's behind an impenetrable Capitol discuss the public business.
How the legislative sausage is made during regular session is far different when there is a special session as I stated in a previous post. If this was just a "regular" special session, the Capitol would be open, the public and lobbyists would be able to engage the elected officials and staff. Ask questions, get materials, gather information and see things.
It is unique since the early seventies when the "Open Government" movement hit the Minnesota Legislature, the Capitol and Legislature is less accessible to the public for the last 18 days than since that time.
Per media and press reports, billions of dollars of state monies and how to spend or reallocate it are being discussed in conference committee/committees. Deal making and horsetrading is going on to get support from other legislator's, to comply with the GOP Leadership and Governor Dayton's agreement, and for many other reasons. This happens all the time, but what's different, there's no public to see, watch, to ask questions, and put two and two together.
Since the announcement of the Gov/Leaders agreement the outstanding bills which include, the Health and Human Services bill, State Government Finance bill, and Legacy bill among others are on a "fast track." Commissioner's, legislators, and staff are working "out hundreds of details" in these bills. What does that mean?
It means that there is a big push to zip these bills through and that there will be changes of language, with shifts of money going from one program to another, language and money allocations in bills disappearing, possible new language being added, and an array of legislative slights of hand without any public scrutiny.
From the small non-profit who worked on language in a specific area with funding to the large corporate entity that wants less government regulation are all interested where the money and resources go. There is also interest in the law and policy changes. But we are all locked out.
With the public or interested parties to be able to be at the open "People's House" where discussion since July 1 has taken place there would be so many positive gains rather than the suspicions if the doors were only open.
The ability of the public to be at the Capitol would allow for Minnesotans to gain knowledge about the spending of public monies, priorities and policy changes that may be different because of the BIG DEAL. To gain a good realization of the entangled and challenging choices we in Minnesota face, but also to be more broad minded about the negative consequences and to appreciate the Legislator's dilemma. To see the various interests play out in the public we are able to discern the conflicts of interests, the special interests, and to watch the decision making about the public expense and policy which is about us. We may also be able to bring a perspective, facts, or information that may help resolve an issue, error, or misunderstanding.
The Governor and the Legislative Leadership did not provide the direction for the Capitol to be open for the public during the shutdown time. It was a slap to our faces, to our traditions of open government and accountability. Even to the point, that legislators could not even escort their own constituents to their own offices.
Am I too idealistic about government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Damn right I am. I have a real appreciation of the process and I know the public can make a difference.
The public I think believes it was wrong and not fair to have the "People's House" closed and locked while legislator's and Dayton administration officials worked on our business. The shutdown created the unique situation,"but that does not mean we should throw away Minnesota's tradition of accountability, transparency and openness."
As I said to the Pioneer Press "This is the weird backside, the ugliness of the shutdown. It's sausage making on the fast track, greased, without any public questioning."
How the legislative sausage is made during regular session is far different when there is a special session as I stated in a previous post. If this was just a "regular" special session, the Capitol would be open, the public and lobbyists would be able to engage the elected officials and staff. Ask questions, get materials, gather information and see things.
It is unique since the early seventies when the "Open Government" movement hit the Minnesota Legislature, the Capitol and Legislature is less accessible to the public for the last 18 days than since that time.
Per media and press reports, billions of dollars of state monies and how to spend or reallocate it are being discussed in conference committee/committees. Deal making and horsetrading is going on to get support from other legislator's, to comply with the GOP Leadership and Governor Dayton's agreement, and for many other reasons. This happens all the time, but what's different, there's no public to see, watch, to ask questions, and put two and two together.
Since the announcement of the Gov/Leaders agreement the outstanding bills which include, the Health and Human Services bill, State Government Finance bill, and Legacy bill among others are on a "fast track." Commissioner's, legislators, and staff are working "out hundreds of details" in these bills. What does that mean?
It means that there is a big push to zip these bills through and that there will be changes of language, with shifts of money going from one program to another, language and money allocations in bills disappearing, possible new language being added, and an array of legislative slights of hand without any public scrutiny.
From the small non-profit who worked on language in a specific area with funding to the large corporate entity that wants less government regulation are all interested where the money and resources go. There is also interest in the law and policy changes. But we are all locked out.
With the public or interested parties to be able to be at the open "People's House" where discussion since July 1 has taken place there would be so many positive gains rather than the suspicions if the doors were only open.
The ability of the public to be at the Capitol would allow for Minnesotans to gain knowledge about the spending of public monies, priorities and policy changes that may be different because of the BIG DEAL. To gain a good realization of the entangled and challenging choices we in Minnesota face, but also to be more broad minded about the negative consequences and to appreciate the Legislator's dilemma. To see the various interests play out in the public we are able to discern the conflicts of interests, the special interests, and to watch the decision making about the public expense and policy which is about us. We may also be able to bring a perspective, facts, or information that may help resolve an issue, error, or misunderstanding.
The Governor and the Legislative Leadership did not provide the direction for the Capitol to be open for the public during the shutdown time. It was a slap to our faces, to our traditions of open government and accountability. Even to the point, that legislators could not even escort their own constituents to their own offices.
Am I too idealistic about government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Damn right I am. I have a real appreciation of the process and I know the public can make a difference.
The public I think believes it was wrong and not fair to have the "People's House" closed and locked while legislator's and Dayton administration officials worked on our business. The shutdown created the unique situation,"but that does not mean we should throw away Minnesota's tradition of accountability, transparency and openness."
As I said to the Pioneer Press "This is the weird backside, the ugliness of the shutdown. It's sausage making on the fast track, greased, without any public questioning."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)