I. SUGGESTIONS FOR TWO-YEAR STUDY
Education: Financing
1) Study of statewide bargaining:
Rationale: Inadequate funding of districts by the Legislature puts a heavy burden on districts without operational levies and results in teacher lay-offs that can put education at severe risk. The inequities between districts make this an even greater problem—and it is because the Legislature refuses to adequately fund our districts. Therefore, the Legislature ought to bear the burden of dealing with the problems it has created! We should study the pros and cons of statewide bargaining.
2) Early childhood education
Rationale: Our positions speak to K-12 and higher education, but not early childhood education. Questions: How is it funded? A patchwork of programs—Head Start, Early Childhood Family Education programs, day care, nursery school—exists, but there are sometimes long waiting lists. What are the needs? How are they best met?
Government:
1) Election laws:
Rationale: Election laws regulating campaign practices; Election Laws and Campaign Practices, we need SOMETHING! Action on what is there? Re-examination of what is there; do we need to look at the process of purging the names of registered voters? Are election laws stringent enough, too stringent? Do we need more regulations on local election officials? Do we need more stringent rules regarding campaigning?
2) Revenue sources—diversified, progressive, reliable. We should study and articulate a long-term vision for state spending decisions.
3) Reapportionment—bills have been introduced; Mondale-Carlson proposal.
Natural Resources:
1) Economic viability and environmental health of family farms and farmers; unintended consequences of our current agricultural policies, such as water pollution, soil erosion, flooding, lumbering, and lack of crop diversity.
2) Evaluation of DNR (similar to study of MPCA)
3) Water resources:
a) Shoreland standards
b) Effects of ethanol plants on water resources
Housing:
Plight of homeless
Transportation:
Alternative transportation
CRITERIA FOR NEW STUDIES
Timeliness: Is this a hot issue? Is the political timing right?
Appropriateness: Can the problem be solved by governmental action at the state levell Will this study lead to effective action for LWV? Is LWVMN the most appropriate and effective organization to make this study?
Membership: Will the issue increase the interest and participation of current members? Will the study attract new members?
Resources: Can LWVMN find both people and money necessary to carry out the study?
II. ALTERNATIVE TO TWO-YEAR STUDY: Briefing Papers
As an alternative to a two-year study, we are proposing that LWV task forces prepare short briefing papers on topics of immediate relevance, and/or on topics on which we could use a refresher. Redistricting, for example, comes around with every ten-year census; legislation governing the process and criteria will be voted on in this session of the legislature. Our position: “Support of timely redistricting based substantially on population of congressional districts and of all elected state and local governmental bodies.” In the context of this position a small group of LWVMN members could illuminate issues in redistricting (race, for example), and write a three-to-five-page educational piece that could be distributed to members, used by our lobbyists, and form the basis for local league programs and op-ed pieces in their communities.
Or we could form an LWVMN task force to clarify a LWVUS position, to run parallel to LWVUS materials. In the context of the LWVUS focus on global warming, for example, a task force could produce a briefing paper on nuclear energy. This could be timely, since President-elect Obama has not dismissed nuclear power as part of the answer to reducing our carbon footprint, and a review of our positions on the subject (now running to over two pages) could update our knowledge of the arguments. (One instance: LWVUS has opposed Yucca Mountain as either an interim or a permanent storage site for waste.)
Advantages of briefing papers:
1) Briefing papers would allow us to be as nimble as possible, prepared to understand and respond to issues when they are current. These papers would be helpful to members individually and within local leagues; they would be timely and could be given by LWVMN lobbyists to legislators.
2) We would enable more LWV members to participate. Task forces would require a short time commitment. We could do several a year, tapping LWV expertise in a variety of areas. The strain on both human and monetary resources would be less.
3) We have the positions we need in order to take action, so a two-year study leading to consensus on a position is not necessary.