While many political observers, and elected officials themselves, are calling for reforming the Minnesota legislative process to improve transparency and public input, legislators also should think about how their own attitudes and tactics have damaged the process.

We support more transparency and public access to lawmakers as they conduct the people’s business. Proposals for a 24-hour waiting period to vote on bills make sense. Requiring that legislators or conference committee leaders negotiating large spending and taxing bills have budget numbers at least two weeks before deadlines also seems prudent.

But we also believe the partisan attitudes and press conference tactics have eroded the trust and personal relationships legislators must have with each other.

That has to start with leadership of both parties. Some lawmakers lament the loss of collaboration from even just a few years ago where lawmakers from both parties contributed to the serious discussion of bills. Minority party members of committees with expertise were consulted. That’s an important part of not only getting good bills but having bipartisan support for those bills.

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, recently pointed out that legislators of different parties used to socialize more and got to know each other better. It sounds like a simple concept, but it should be taken to heart. Minnesota’s restrictions on legislators accepting meals and drinks from interest groups should be reconsidered if it is stopping the basic social interaction needed for legislators to get along and compromise.

Any business or nonprofit seminar would talk about getting things done through building these relationships and banking “social capital.”

A recent series of heated letter exchanges between GOP House Speaker Kurt Daudt and Gov. Mark Dayton suggested there was not a lot of social capital built up between the two.

At the same time Daudt and the Republican caucus did not appear to be providing a lot of information on their plans or positions in advance to the DFL. There must be an environment of mutual trust and professionalism. Time and again, we heard that if the party leadership would allow the DFL and GOP transportation committee chairs to do their work, they would have come out with a compromise on road funding.

So while we can change the process to include more deadlines, if we do nothing about the relationships or the behavior of those who must use the process, we won’t be getting very far.

The common goal of both parties should be solving the state’s critical problems by collaboration, cooperation and bipartisanship.

 

— Mankato Free Press, June 5