Constitutional amendment; special sessions. Proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to call a special session that could last up to seven legislative days. This would be done upon the written agreement of a majority of the members elected to each house or upon the order of the presiding officers of both houses. Provides that any bill may be considered whose subject is stated in the agreement or order that convened the special session.

Submission to voters. The proposed constitutional amendment would be submitted to the voters at the 2008 general election.

The thought of legislators setting their calendar is scary. First off, it isn't a good idea to give the legislature this much power, regardless of which party controls the legislature. The last thing we need is to give legislators more time to spend more of our money. They've got enough time to do that already.

There's another good reason why the Minnesota Constitution says that the governor is the only official who can call a special session. He's the only constitutional officer in the legislative chain who's accountable to each citizen of this state.

Having legislators controlling their schedule is inappropriate because it doesn't incorporate anything to hold legislators accountable. How can someone in Fargo or St. Cloud or Owatonna hold speaker Kelliher or Majority Leader Pogemiller accountable? It's only logical that the governor, the person at the top of the legislative food chain, be held accountable for calling a special session. This amendment seeks to abandon the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

Frankly, this amendment won't have a chance to pass once people explain the impact this amendment might potentially have.

This constitutional amendment all but removes deadlines on getting bills done. Let's also recognize that it's an attempted end run around this governor. Those aren't the only negative things to this amendment. According to the amendment's text, it doesn't specifically limit the legislature to only calling one special session per year:

Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, article IV, section 12, will read:

Sec. 12. The legislature shall meet at the seat of government in regular session in each biennium at the times prescribed by law for not exceeding a total of 120 legislative days.

The legislature shall not meet in regular session, nor in any adjournment thereof, after the first Monday following the third Saturday in May of any year. After meeting at a time prescribed by law, the legislature may adjourn to another time. "Legislative day" shall be defined by law. Upon the written agreement of a majority of the members elected to the house of representatives and a majority of the members elected to the senate or upon the order of the presiding officers of both houses, the legislature shall convene in special session. Any bill may be considered whose subject is stated in the agreement or order that convened the special session. A special session called by the legislature may not exceed seven legislative days. A bill may be passed on the day prescribed for adjournment of the special session. A special session of the legislature may also be called by the governor on extraordinary occasions.

Neither house during a session of the legislature shall adjourn for more than three days (Sundays excepted) nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be assembled without the consent of the other house.

2.1 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.

The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2008 general election. The question submitted must be:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require the legislature to meet inspecial session for up to seven days upon the agreement of a majority of the members of each house of the legislature or upon the order of its presiding officers?

Yes .......

No ......."

Because it's vaguely worded, the legislature could call a special session for education, another for transportation, still another for jobs, another for health care, etc. Based on that information alone, why would we want legislators to have that much authority? Their authority would all but exceed that of the governor.

This is intolerable. It's an unprecedented attempt to rewrite the basic structure of Minnesota's Constitution. One thing further: I'll bet that the DFL knows that this constitutional amendment doesn't stand a prayer in hell of passing. I'l bet that they're using this to push turnout. That's why it's imperative that we use it to push turnout on our side.

Let's use this initiative to highlight how power-crazed the DFL is.

It took a $25,000 fine to make Al Franken play by the rules.

Minnesota lawmakers could go around the governor and call a special session of the Legislature under a constitutional amendment being introduced at the Capitol.

Rep. Lyndon Carlson, a Crystal Democrat who has served in the House for 36 years, said in a news release that the current system, which allows only governors to call lawmakers back to work outside of their regular annual sessions, breeds delay and confusion.

Under the measure, a majority of the 201 lawmakers would have to sign a call for a special session or the presiding officers of both the House and Senate would have to agree to bring lawmakers back to the Capitol.

In order to change the rules for special sessions, a majority of lawmakers would have to approve the constitutional amendment and then a majority of Minnesotans voting on Election Day 2008 would have to vote for the ballot measure.

Since the democrats didn't get their hefty tax increases passed last year, this could be their way of "breeding delay and confusion" in order to get their way past vetos or their special interest legislation moved forward. Or is it the money? Carlson and legislators would earn more per diem income by coming to the Capitol more often. One Pioneer Press reader commented on Carlson:

36 years of living off the backs of taxpayers. MN needs term limits, badly.

Another commenter raised a good point:

Seems to me the Legislature never adjourned ... haven't they been having countless committee meetings non-stop since June?

This comment summed it up nicely:

If you want to call a special session, run for Governor.

This November, it's high time the good residents of SD-45B vote to retire this lifer — and the good residents of Minnesota to vote NO if it appears on our ballots.

This is an excellent opinion piece on how change begins with local politics — by attending the precinct caucuses February 5. From Prior Lake, blogger "Lady Logician" discusses activism and how you can make a difference:

While I was visiting family over the holidays, I got an email from a reader - a sincere, lovely lady who was troubled about the state of the Minnesota GOP. Her concern was the GOP's "excited" support of Ray Cox for the SD25 Special Election specifically and of "squishy" (as I call them) Republicans in general. Her concern is not isolated to a few "malcontents" as some within the party may try to tell you - I hear that complaint from Republicans all over my Senate District as well, which is why I thought I would expand on my answer to her here.

One of the things that grass roots activists need to remember is that the BPOU is responsible for endorsing candidates. Those who live in Senate District 25 have as much say in who Senate District 1 puts up as Senate District 1 has in who SD 25 will put it! It's that simple. If the delegates to the SD25 BPOU Endorsing Convention feel that Ray Cox is best suited to their district, then that is who they are going to put up. They are the ones that live in the district and who know it best. Putting up a hard core Conservative may not work for their district. Again - they are the ones who have the final say in the matter.

Who makes up the BPOU Endorsing Convention you ask? The BPOU Endorsing Conventions are made up of residents of the district who had previously attended precinct caucuses and had been voted to represent their precincts at the BPOU level. So if you are unhappy with the candidates that your BPOU is putting up, you have the ability in your hands to start the change....get thee to your precinct caucus! Go to caucus and put your name in the hat to be a BPOU delegate! If you want input at the Congressional District level or the State Level you can put your name up for Congressional District Convention delegates (this year), State Convention delegates (this year) or even State Central delegates (next year) at the BPOU convention levels as well. You may even be recruited (as I was) to a spot on the BPOU Executive Committee if you are not careful. THOSE are the folks that make the BPOU decisions.

Once the Endorsing Convention has picked their candidate it is the job of the State Party to get that person elected. They don't care how solid the "R" is behind that person's name. All they care about is that the candidate is properly endorsed (or if there was a primary, then the primary winner) by the appropriate convention! That is the job of the state party - to win elections. Everything that they do is geared toward that one single goal.

Can you imagine what would happen if the State GOP tried to step in tell a Senate District or County just which candidate they should run in a race? I can tell you from experience that the BPOU leadership would not take that kind of "interference" lightly! That is why the State Party supports whatever the BPOU's give them to work with.

I hope this explains some of the dynamic of who gets what support. More importantly, I hope that this will get you to realize just how important February 5, 2008 will be for the state of the Minnesota GOP! If you don't like the direction it is going in right now, sitting home on Feb. 5 is not going to fix it....only your presense on caucus night will do that. I plan on being at my precinct caucus location - will you? You say you don't know where to go? That's no excuse. The Minnesota GOP has a wonderful precinct finder on their website. Simply plug in your full address or your zip +4 and you will know where to go. It's that easy. No pre-registration is necessary and new attendees are welcomed with open arms!

There really are no excuses. See you caucus night!

Cross posted and comments always encouraged at Ladies Logic

Superintendent Stan Mack's proposal to close three schools prompted the Robbinsdale City Council to unanimously pass a resolution to object it. It seemed to have had an effect, as Lakewood was taken off the chopping block and Northport Elementary is now on it. Reported in the MN Sun Post:

Before learning of Mack's new proposal, city officials said Robbinsdale had "shouldered enough" school closings. In the past three decades, three schools have closed in Robbinsdale: Lee Elementary in 1978; Robbinsdale Junior High School in 1979; and Robbinsdale High School in 1982.

The City Council unanimously passed a resolution Dec. 11 objecting to Mack's original proposal and requesting school district officials explore other options. The resolution was included in a 138-page budget-cutting report the district released Dec. 13.

Of interest is how Mayor Mike Holtz learned of the proposal:

Holtz said he first learned about Mack's earlier recommendation in a telephone conversation he had with Mack in late November, before that first plan to close three schools went public.

"I was stunned and in disbelief," Holtz recalled. "I recognized that there were cuts coming but to hear that there would be three closings when, prior to the [failed] levy, they said only one elementary school would close - I just couldn't believe that this was happening."

Over 500 attended the School Board Public Forum December 18. The school board could vote on proposed budget cuts on January 7, 2008. View the calendar, proposed budget and other updates at Robbinsdale School's web site. Comments and suggestions can be sent to the board by phone or email:

• Budget Reduction Hotline: 763-504-8104 
• School Board voice mail: 763-504-7990
• Board e-mail: school_board@rdale.k12.mn.us

From Rep. Eric Cantor's Web site, here's a perfect summary of the Democrats' first year in charge of congress:

One year ago, when they took control of Congress, House Democrats made many promises.  Most of all, Democrats promised you that they were ready to govern – over the past year it has become all too clear that they have let you down.

Take a moment to watch our latest web video, which highlights the performance of House Democrats over the past year. With an 11 percent approval rating, the lowest in recorded history, it’s no wonder that Speaker Pelosi recently remarked, "I know that Congress has low approval ratings, I don’t approve of Congress, because we haven’t done anything."

After watching the video, be sure to leave a comment on this blog with your feedback. 

Now that the voting is over on the referendum, let’s all remember that the point was to look at the request being made by the school district from all perspectives and do our best to judge the situation.  Some have suggested that both sides amplified their case and that is the nature of these things. 

In the end, the referendum was defeated because a group of citizens organized themselves to oppose it.  This opposition effort created enough interest in the issue to keep it on peoples minds – often times these referendums are passed because the only ones paying attention to an off cycle election are those directly involved with the schools.  That is why these referendums always seem to come up on off cycle elections in the first place.  I believe the district could have won an increase half the size of the one they asked for.  They would have increased their chances if they had made it for a shorter term (say 6 years instead of 10).  With potentially tough economic times ahead I believe it was just too much for people to commit to.  It is likely that some of our seniors couldn’t justify voting for the increase – especially if on fixed incomes.

Moving forward I am hopeful that the district leaders will look at the concerns of those that were opposed and find ways to make future decisions with their concerns in mind.  I think the time of the unopposed school referendum has passed – the question is, will what follows be constructive for the students in the district to observe?  Or, will there just be tantrums?

In the Thursday edition of the MN Sun Post, the following announcements were advertised:

City of Crystal Notice of Proposed Total Budget and Property Taxes

The Crystal city council will hold a public Hearing on its budget and on the amount of property taxes it is proposing to collect to pay for the costs of services the city will provide in 2008.

Monday, December 3, at 7:00pm; Crystal City Hall, 4141 Douglas Drive. 

Spending: increase 8.00%

Taxes: Increase 2.75% (The Council reduced the rate from 5.71% in September)

 -----------------------------------

Robbinsdale Schools: Notice of Proposed Property Taxes

Independent School District #281

The school board of Robbinsdale Area Schools, Independent School District 281 will hold a public hearing on its current budget and on the amount of property taxes it is proposing to collect in 2008 to pay for the costs of the district for the 2008-2009 school year.

Attend the Public Hearing

All residents of the school district are invited to attend the public hearing of the school board to express their opinions on the current budget and on the proposed amount of 2008 property taxes. The hearing will be held on:

Tuesday, December 4, at 7:00 pm

Board Room, third floor, Education Service Center
4148 Winnetka Avenue N., New Hope

CD-5's Representative Keith Ellison is drafting a bill to allow Ex-Felons vote in federal elections - which would make void laws in Minnesota and other states. Ten states have a lifetime voting ban with felony convictions, Minnesota allow ex-felons to vote once they have finished their parole and probation. From WCCO-TV :

"I'd be happy if people could vote once they're out," he (Ellison) said. "I don't think there's any real good reason to deny you the right to vote once you're in, but, once you're out and you can vote -- that would be a system that would make sense to me." Ellison said he's still polishing the legislation, along with other lawmakers.

The Minnesota Republican Party expressed opposition to Ellison's idea.

"Felonies are so serious that there have to be serious consequences," said Mark Drake, a party spokesman.

Along with this bill, Ellison wants to ban requiring photo IDs to vote in federal elections.

Keith Ellison: more concerned with lawbreakers' rights than law abiding citizens' rights. Voting is a privilege, not a right.

This blog is an opinion forum for our readers.  The submitted opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent the opinions of SD-45 Republican organization. SD-45 Republicans are welcome to share opinions with us: E-mail them to the webmaster.