Minnesota Legislature Rule and Policy Changes

Recently, the Minnesota legislature made some rule or policy changes effecting the way it operates. Here are those changes. I placed them into three categories reflecting my opinions on each one and have commented in italics but all of these have been implemented.

I agree this is a good change
•The names and jurisdiction of House and Senate committees should be more closely aligned, including the accounts assigned to budget divisions.
•House and Senate committees should cooperate more, by establishing more joint House/Senate committees, or by having more joint committee meetings. The Pension Commission is a good example. Having joint committees or joint hearings would be particularly useful for finance committees.
•Each House member should serve on fewer committees, which should be accomplished by reducing the number of committees and by reducing the number of members serving on each committee. Too many members are too busy with committees and there is little time for constituent work or time to study the issues.

•The jurisdiction of each House committee and division should be described in detail (including the chapters of Minnesota Statutes within the jurisdiction of each group) and this information should be available on the House website. This is already done!
•Committees should give better notice of their agendas, including notice of major amendments to be considered.
•Committee chairs should attempt to give notice of the next week’s agenda by Thursday of the preceding week.

•Committee meetings should begin at the scheduled time. Gone should be the days of jokes about “legislative time.”

•Committees should be expected to do most of the work on bills. The House should use standing committees and subcommittees to hear testimony, build expertise, and take action on bills, and not rely on working groups, or leave detailed work for the House Floor. Committees should take the time necessary to do this work, even if it means holding bills over for multiple hearings, or having bills sent back from the floor to committee. Committee schedules, member schedules, and committee deadlines should be designed to facilitate this role.

•The House and the Senate should make it easier for the public to track bills, especially when bills from one chamber are substituted for companion bills from the other chamber, and when individual bills are rolled into omnibus bills.

•In establishing House rules and procedures, a primary consideration should be making the legislative process easier for the public to participate in and to follow. To the extent possible, the process should be made more transparent to the public, including specifically allowing the public to track movement of language between bills. Transparency is an important part of decision-making in a representative democracy.

•In establishing meeting schedules, the House should take into account the time demands on members who have other jobs. The Minnesota Legislative schedule was designed to be part-time. Specifically, it met during the winter post and pre-harvest. The legislature was never meant to be a full-time undertaking. There needs to be a balance between an individual’s legislative, employment, and home life. Too many good legislators are lost to this imbalance.
I disagree with this change

•The minority caucus should have proportional representation on all committees and divisions. There should be a premium on issue expertise.

•House and Senate committees with similar jurisdictions should facilitate joint hearings. These committees could be scheduled to meet at the same time, to facilitate joint hearings. However, if this is done, committee chairs and staff would need to coordinate to make sure members of the public can participate in the meetings of committees in both the House and Senate when they don’t meet jointly. I believe the Minnesota House and Senate were specifically devised to be separate. We should not compromise our legislative system solely for expediency.

•The House should establish a process under which aggregate time limits can be established for debate on all amendments to a bill. I am whole heartedly against time limits for floor debate. Limits are likely to increase hasty decision-making and could deprive people of public discussion of important issues. Debate and is a necessary and component of American Democracy.

•Legislative leadership and committee chairs should be more willing to say “no” at various points in the process, in part as a means of reducing time spent on matters that are not likely to advance. This seems to run counter to the goal of providing for the public good. Not every piece of legislation will be advanced but it’s an important part of the democratic process to allow various issues to be heard in the committee process. Allowing a select few from leadership to shutdown an issue for a hearing is not very inclusive and could stifle the development of new policy ideas.


I am ambivalent about this change
•The house should hold more hearings away from the Capitol, including possibly mini-sessions in Greater Minnesota during the interim

•The House should consider the scheduled time of floor sessions in relation to scheduled committee meeting times, in particular with regard to potential inconvenience to the public and to House members if meetings/sessions run longer than expected.

•The legislature should attempt to create reasonable expectations for the media and for the public about what the legislature can accomplish and what process is necessary for the legislature to conduct its business.
•The House should make legislative service more family friendly for House members by limiting evening meeting and limiting meetings on Friday afternoons and Monday mornings.