Click
here for PDF format
Click
here for participants' responses to this interview.
What
is pdf
?
Summary of
Discussion with Al Quie and Martin Sabo
Civic Caucus,
8301Creeekside Circle, Bloomington, MN 55437
Friday, December 11,
2009
Present:
Verne Johnson (Chair, phone); David Broden, Paul Gilje, Jim Hetland
(phone), Dan Loritz, Tim McDonald, Jim Olson, Wayne Popham (phone), Tim
McDonald, Bob White
A. Context of the
meeting— The
coming off-year session is going to require supreme amounts of
statesmanship and leadership. As will the next year, and those to follow.
The two with us today, from different political parties, have both
exercised impressive bi-partisanship throughout their careers. They will
provide their thoughts on the Civic Caucus’ argument for redesign of the
public sector to help resolve long term problems the state faces.
B. Welcome and
introductions—Dan
and Paul welcomed and introduced Al Quie, former state legislator,
former member of Congress, and former Governor, and Martin Sabo,
former state legislator, former Speaker, Minnesota House, and former
member of Congress. Both were born and reared on farms, Quie in Minnesota
and Sabo in North Dakota. While their careers paralleled one another,
they never served together in either the state Legislature or Congress.
Quie is a Republican; Sabo, a Democrat.
C. Comments and
discussion—During
Sabo and Quie's comments and in discussion with the Civic Caucus, the
following points were raised:
1. Support with
different views of Civic Caucus statement on redesigning public services--Dan,
as chair, opened discussion by asking the speakers for their reaction to
the statement Different Choices. Find the statement at
http://bit.ly/8g11aT.
Sabo and Quie
are among some 120 individuals who signed on in support. “I won’t give it
an A+,” Sabo responded first. He is concerned with resolving the present
budget shortfall. Redesign is more of a long term issue, he said. “I have
a real problem with getting the public as well as the legislature to
understand the severity of the problem. There needs to be serious cuts and
new taxes.” The statement does not make that case forcefully enough, he
said. “The biggest cost driver is long-term care, and health care—both of
which are being pre-empted by the federal government.”
Quie came in:
“I signed on because one always needs to think of redesign. Crisis
energizes the mind. Redesign is long-term.” Quie said he also believes
that revenue increases will be needed to solve the shortfall issue. Civic
Caucus members noted that getting a start on redesign in the short term
will help lawmakers offer something positive to offset the negative
aspects of revenue increases and spending cuts.
2. Importance of
candidates for governor making proposals--During
discussion of key characteristics for Minnesota's next Governor, Quie said
that he admires candidates with the courage to advance proposals for
change, even though candidates might expect attacks from the opposition.
However, he said, some Republican and Democratic candidates campaign on
change but after the election fail to work with the other party.
3. The need for trust in
state governance--There
is something very basic missing, the Quie said: Lack of trust. “When I
became Governor, there was not trust between the DFL legislators and me to
solve serious problems. Governors and legislators need to die to their
political selves and put the state first. It took more courage for me to
not run again in order to do that than any other decision I have
made."
For Minnesota’s
next Governor, and the legislative leadership, trust is required. They
simply “cannot stay in ideological camps,” the former Governor said, if
they want to govern well.
Trust
means you cannot demonize those you disagree with, Sabo said. A member
voiced concern that candidates today seem to emphasize polarization, not
consensus-building.
To illustrate
the importance of mutual respect in producing trust, Quie shared a story:
“Roger Moe was my chief nemesis and as DFL leader was supposed to
be. I tried to work with him at first, and couldn’t. Then a trust
developed. And we worked together. We put the state first. He quoted Moe
as saying, ‘Governor, if you can put something together that will solve
not only this budget shortfall, but into the future, I’ll commit my
caucus to it.’ I decided that we had to increase taxes,” and Moe
made politically difficult concessions, too.
A member asked, How did you
build this trust with Moe? They found something to connect on. “I was
speaker at an event for donors to Concordia College in Moorhead.
When I got up to speak, I realized that we were all there for at least one
common reason and not the state's financial woes. So I said, ‘Instead of
saying what I prepared, I’ll speak to you about the Holy Spirit.’ Roger
was there, too, to give a prayer and he included me. Afterwards he came up
to me, and we shook hands. I invited him to come to see me when he came
down to St. Paul.”
A bit later on Moe showed
up at his office. “The staff was shocked. ‘What are you doing here!?’ they
asked. There was a sense that he was the enemy. But I had invited
him. In those 20 minutes together, we formed a bond. And I knew: I
would never break his trust. Because once you do, you can’t get that
back.”
That trust proved pivotal
in governing. “There was a time where I said to him, ‘If you offer
that, I’ll protect you from the Republicans.’ We both took hits for this;
some he has never lived down. But we could survive it because we looked
out for each other.”
4. Be cautious about
promising too much--Sabo
said it is important for candidates to keep options open and avoid
promising too much to supporters, particularly in the2010 campaign. "I
wish candidates will make a pledge—to not make pledges," Sabo said. "The
next Governor is going to have a problem communicating just how
significant the problem is. Virtually unprecedented. We had a big one in
’71 (budget shortfall), but nothing like this.” Speaking personally, he
said he doesn't know what mixture of revenue increases and spending cuts
should be part of any final action. Lawmakers need to remain flexible and
work with one another across aisle, he said.
5. Put parents first,
not the educational institution--Both
of you have strong views, the chair came in. But what I’ve heard from you
is not new. What kind of changes would be helpful in solving the
long-term problem?
“Education
is a must,” Quie said, beginning with pre-k. “You cannot have an
education system where students are lost in the early years.” And the size
of schools. “When you see Minneapolis Public Schools closing some
buildings to fill others, that’s putting the institution first. Parents
aren’t involved. The community is not a part of the schools. Going
into some schools the security is like a prison—but not for some schools,
like Hiawatha Leadership Academy that I visited last year.” He emphasized
the need for local, community-based parental leadership in schools.
Quie suspects
there are ways to staff differently, more creatively. As the Governor must
put the state first, education leadership must put the students
first—ahead of the system. He recalled becoming the president of a
non-profit organization. “As I walked around with the CFO looking
at the flow of the organization.” It was obvious, it was obvious we could
redesign. We could cut three employees and serve people better. “When
you are protecting the institution you don’t see that.”
6. Involvement of the
citizenry--What
about aging services and involvement of seniors? “We’ve got to get
creative with it,” Sabo said. The speakers agreed: the best system of
federal, state, or local care is the cooperative arrangement. “I don’t
care who you are, and how dumb the federal government thinks you are,”
Quie said. “There is a wisdom here at the very-local level. People
learn from each other, how to care for one another.”
7. Resistance to change
from advocacy groups--Sabo
and Quie agreed that government structures reflect too much the interests
of advocacy groups. “Last Friday,” a member noted, “Jan Malcolm was in
and said that in both the executive and legislative branches are organized
the way lobbyists want—not the way problems require. Malcolm said we need
to consider problems in a systemic way, examining health, for example, in
education and housing in addition to usual ‘health care.’”
“They (advocacy
groups) would rather take a cut in spending,” Sabo responded, “than lose
their silo. People throughout the government process want to protect their
silos.”
“We need a huge
restructuring” of the Legislature, Quie said, “with fewer committees.
Members could develop more expertise, then, and do the compromising
themselves instead of relying on staff and lobbyists. Lobbyists are
important to articulate positions, but the legislators should be the ones
doing the negotiating."
8. Reduce state
government influence over local government decisions?--On
local government and the improvement of services, on member observed that,
“We have hamstrung local government to the point where they cannot move.
But—that’s where the innovation happens.”
The notion of
local-governance, and local-control, raised an interesting question: “My
sense,” a member said, “is that in the past the citizens played more of a
role in bringing ideas to government. We prided ourselves on innovation,
and let the legislators resolve the proposals."
9. Restricting
lawmakers' flexibility in solving budget problems via constitutional
amendments?--A
member noted that twice in the last four years the state constitution was
amended at the urging of advocacy groups to guarantee revenues to certain
functions, thereby removing a measure of lawmakers' flexibility.
Quie said,
“I’ve always thought that the more revenue that is controlled by the
Governor and Legislature, the better.” The two speakers agreed that we
shouldn't be surprised if other advocacy groups--after having seen the
transportation and the arts/environment constitutional amendments
adopted--would try get constitutional revenue guarantees, thereby removing
themselves from the biennial battle over the general fund.
“The
legislature is not providing the services people want,” Quie followed.
There needs to be balance and priorities. “When I was in
office I was confronted all the time with the fact that some people didn’t
see the whole picture. I had to, I was Governor.” That’s the nature of a
republic.
10. Balancing the public
interest with the political party interest in primary elections--Returning
to the importance of the upcoming race for Governor, Quie and Sabo agreed
that because of a wide open race in both major parties, it would be
helpful if serious candidates, even though unendorsed, would pursue their
objectives through the primary election, instead of being talked into
yielding to endorsed candidates and withdrawing from the race.
11. Re-emphasis on
severity of the budget problem and the need for trust among office-holders--Any
closing thoughts the speakers would like to make sure are in the notes?
Sabo took this
time to re-emphasize the severity of the budget problem. “The problem the
state faces in 2010 is immense,” he said, and “goes beyond what any of the
candidates for Governor have said so far. Everything will need to be
looked at on the spending and taxing side.”
“I’d agree,”
Quie added. “The people don’t realize how bad it is. When the $1.2 billion
shortfall came this quickly in this biennium, it shows we missed
something.”
He also
re-emphasized the need for trust between parties, amongst one another,
during this time of crisis: “You can’t solve problems without trust.”
To close, a
caution—and a reminder of what is ultimately most important: “When Iceland
went broke it got rescued by England. When America goes broke, nobody will
save it. Communities will need to pull together.”
12. Thanks--On
behalf of the Civic Caucus, Dan thanked Quie and Sabo for meeting with us
today.
|
the