►
Description
The panelists will discuss the role citizens play in encouraging civil and productive dialogue among elected officials and their perspective on how Minnesotans can move politics to constructive debate and away from gridlock.
Panelists for the discussion are Steve Sviggum, member of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents and former Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, also a recent Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, and Stacy Doepner-Hove, President, League of Women Voters MN. Former WCCO news anchor Don Shelby will moderate the discussion.
B
E
E
Of
the
Bloomington
Vegas
welcome
to
the
sydney's
program
on
civil
discourse
beyond
gridlock,
it's
great
to
see
such
a
crowd
here
tonight
interested
in
this
import.
What
we
believe
to
be
a
very
important
topic:
League
of
Women
Voters,
is
a
nonpartisan
volunteer
organization
that
has
been
active
in
Minnesota
for
over
50
years.
While
we
have
a
league,
do
studies
and
take
issues
on
positions,
we
do
not
endorse
political
parties
or
candidates.
E
League
of
Women
Voters
encourages
citizens
to
be
informed
and
active
participants
in
government
and
if
you
are
interested
in
learning
how
to
make
an
impact
on
local
state
or
even
national
issues,
I
encourage
you
to
take
some
of
the
League
of
Women
Voters
information
off
the
tables
outside
the
door
before
you
leave
tonight.
Our
membership
is
open
to
men
and
women.
Now
tonight
the
views
expressed
in
this
form
are
those
of
the
panelists,
not
those
of
the
League
of
Women
Voters,
except
for
Stacy
dubner
hovey.
A
A
Thank
you.
There
is
no
audio
or
video
recording
of
the
program
tonight,
but
the
program
will
be
recorded
for
webcast
and
cable
cast
so
that
you
can
look
for
that
opportunity,
as
this
is
a
program
focusing
on
civil
discourse.
We
hope
that
everybody
participates
tonight
in
that
spirit.
If
you
come
up
to
ask
a
question
at
the
microphone,
please
limit
your
time
so
that
people
will
be
will
have
time
to
ask
questions
and
please
resist
repeating
a
question.
That's
already
been
asked.
A
Thank
you
for
your
willingness
to
serve.
We
appreciate
that
I'd
now
like
to
introduce
our
moderator,
Don
Shelby.
For
the
evening
Don
Shelby
has
been
a
reporter
and
television
anchor
for
45
years
before
retiring
from
public
journalism
in
2010.
He
worked
for
32
years
as
an
anchor
investigative
reporter
and
environmental
correspondent
for
WCCO
TV.
He
has
won
three
national
Emmy
Awards,
the
Columbia
DuPont,
the
Scripps
Howard
and
the
National
Distinguished
Service
Award
from
the
Society
of
Professional
Journalists
and
he's
twice
won
the
Pulitzer
Prize
of
broadcasting.
A
The
george
foster
peabody
award
since
retirement
Don
continues
his
work
in
the
in
environmental
journalism,
reporting
from
n
posts
the
online
daily
and
he's
a
member
of
the
climate
science.
Rapid
response
team
round
table
he's
also
an
author
of
the
season,
never
ends
wins
losses
and
the
wisdom
of
the
game
with
a
foreword
by
Toby
Smith.
Please
join
me
in
welcoming
Don
Shelby.
F
Thank
you
very
much
everyone
and
thank
you
for
being
here.
It's
always
heartening
to
see
so
many
people
who
care
about
the
issues
and
care
about
our
political
process
who
want
to
be
a
part
of
the
conversation.
That's
one
of
the
great
things
about
the
league
of
women
voters
in
the
organization
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
active
and
involved
that
no
matter
what
side
of
the
aisle
one
happens
to
be.
The
important
point
is
that
we
that
know
what
we're
talking
about
and
we're
concerned
about
this
process.
F
There
might
be
a
good
point
of
departure
to
say
this
is
a
good
time
to
be
concerned
about
the
process.
How
we
came
up
with
this
I
did
not.
We,
the
league
of
women
voters,
came
up
with
the
idea
that
we
wanted
to
talk
about
civil
discourse
and
collegiality,
and
collaboration
and
partnership
and
team
were
in
state
government.
F
But
the
headlines
in
the
newspapers
from
late
last
night
through
today
show
that
something
has
gone
wrong
and
with
the
comments
by
the
governor
after
the
decision
to
did
not
confirm
Ellen
Anderson,
former
senator
and
colleague
of
the
people
who
voted
for
her.
As
the
chair
of
the
PUC,
it
has
caused
a
rift
that
is
going
to
take
a
long
time
to
heal
and
how
it
manifests
itself
in
politics
and
in
what
has
to
be
done
in
terms
of
state
government.
F
This
is
a
discussion
that
should
be
held
in
every
community
in
every
state,
and
an
elected
officials
and
former
elected
officials
should
hear
these
comments
and
discussions,
and
we
hope
that
you
will
take
part
in
the
conversation.
We
turned
the
microphone
around
for
you
and
about
8
10
or
so
then
we're
going
to
open
it
up
for
questions
for
our
panelists
as
well,
and
I'd
like
to
introduce
these
panelists
tonight,
I'd
like
to
introduce
first
of
all,
Margaret
Anderson
Kelliher,
a
name
awfully
familiar
in
the
state
of
Minnesota
for
his
her
legendary
service.
F
First
elected
19-9.
She
served
as
Speaker
of
the
House
of
the
minnesota
state
legislature
from
2007
to
2011.
She
is
only
the
second
woman
to
ever
hold
that
position
of
House
Speaker
and
the
first
woman
to
earn
party
major
party
endorsement
for
a
gubernatorial
election
for
the
state
of
Minnesota.
Now
she
is
the
president
and
CEO
of
Minnesota
high
tech
Association,
and
that
is
an
organization
which
I've
had
some
familiarity
and
it
is
a
wonderful
organization
and
made
even
better
by
her
participation
by
her
leadership.
Thank.
F
Thanks
Stacey
depner
Hovey
is
president
of
the
League
of
Women
Voters
of
Minnesota,
and
before
taking
that
role
of
president,
she
spent
ten
years
on
the
state
board
as
the
voter
service
chair
and
the
first
vice
president.
This
depth
ROV
also
works
at
the
University
of
Minnesota,
where
she
is
the
director
of
the
master's
program
in
human
resources
and
industrial
relations
at
the
Scott
carlson
school
of
management,
Stacy
depner
holy
thank.
F
Our
next
panelist
is
Steve
swiggum.
He
served
in
the
Minnesota
State
Legislature
for
29
years.
He
was
first
elected
to
the
Minnesota
House
of
Representatives
in
1978.
He
served
as
House
Minority
Leader
from
nineteen
ninety
three
to
nineteen
ninety-eight
and
later
as
Speaker
of
the
House
from
nineteen
ninety
nine
to
two
thousand
seven.
Now
during
that
time,
he
served
on
the
board
of
directors
the
national
speakers
conference.
F
Now
we
can
start
in
Oh,
fifty
or
sixty
thousand
different
places
to
get
the
ball
rolling,
but
what
I
wanted
to
do,
since
we
have
such
a
fine
audience
tonight,
is
to
include
you
and
to
ask
you
because
of
your
participation,
to
participate
in
listening
to
these
answers,
because
I'm
going
to
try
to
represent
you
in
this
very
first
question
and
we'll
go
straight
down
the
line,
starting
with
Speaker
Keller.
Now
the
question
is
this:
what
role
does
a
citizen
play?
What
role
can
a
citizen
play
in
encouraging
civil
and
productive
dialogue
among
elected
officials.
D
Well,
that
is
a
great
question
of
strap.
No
can
I
say
it's
just
an
honor
to
be
sitting
next
to
you
as
a
kid
growing
up
on
the
farm
watching
wcco.
It
was
the
only
channel
that
came
in
on
our
farm
and
so
kind
of
a
lifer
on
the
WCCO
thing.
So
it's
great
to
be
next
to
you
tonight
and
thank
you
for
being
willing
to
do
this.
This
sort
of
public
work
as
well.
D
Well,
citizens
and
constituents
always
play
a
critical
role
in
the
civil
discourse
because,
ultimately,
you
are
who
elected
officials
have
to
come
home
to,
and
so,
if
you
are
not
happy
with
what
the
elected
official
is
doing.
Believe
me,
that
is,
that
is
ultimately
who
we
all
answer
to.
I
have
to
say
that
over
the
years
of
service
and
I
certainly
did
not
serve
as
long
as
Steve
served
in
the
house,
but
the
the
12
years
of
service,
I,
always
I,
always
said
the
most
interesting
issue.
D
That
I
heard
about
I'm
I
heard
about
a
lot
of
issues
during
a
legislative
session,
but
the
most
interesting
one
and
I
think
you
were
speaker.
I
was
in
the
minority,
but
there
was
work
being
done
to
curb
methamphetamine
production
in
Minnesota,
so
there
was
a
pretty
strict
bill
to
curb
the
over
the
sale
counter
over
the
counter
sale
of
things
like
sudafed
and
I.
D
That's
where
you
first
walk
into,
and
some
guy
said:
I
hate
that
bill
you're
doing
right
now,
I
thought.
What
is
he
talking
about
you
talking
about
some
big?
You
know
awful
thing,
know
it
and
it
continued
as
I
went
throughout
the
store
and
I
thought
wow.
This
is
really
fascinating.
Think
you
heard
that
Mr
Speaker
from
just
about
everyone
who
came
back
after
that
break,
so
you
know
it.
May
not
have
been
the
most
eloquent
way
that
people
express
themselves,
but
I'll
tell
you
got
the
message
through.
C
D
D
F
D
I'm
talking
about
my
mother,
elaine
was
going
to
be
88
next
week.
I
never
wanted
to
be
in
the
position
and
I
think
it
it.
It
was
how
I
behaved
with
my
constituents,
then
that
I
had
to
explain
to
my
mother
what
I
was
doing
because
I'm
telling
you
she
watched
everything
we
did
and
if
I
had
to
come
home
and
she
would
say
why
were
you
so
cross
with
that
person
today?
I
would
have
to
explain
that
to
her
and-
and
you
know,
there's
nothing
like
explaining
something
to
your
mother.
So.
H
D
To
keep
those
three
things
in
in
case
I.
Think
people
generally
do
that
when
they're
when
they're
saying
something
to
their
elected
officials
I,
I
think
that
overall
I
would
say.
Ninety
nine
percent
of
my
interactions
with
my
constituents
were
civil
I.
Had
one
door
knocking
experience,
I
woke
up
two
sleeping
babies.
Twins
I
got
yelled
at
yeah.
F
D
G
G
How
we
talk
to
our
kids,
how
we
talk
around
our
kids
and
I
have
two
young
kids,
and
when
we
talk
around
the
dinner
table
because
we
have
dinner
together
almost
every
night,
we
talk
about
politics
and
when
we
are
talking
about
something
and
the
kids
go
well,
how
come
that
happened?
We
try
very
hard
to
explain
our
perspective
and
the
other
perspective
the
best
that
we
can
and
that
way
the
kids
can
make
up
their
own
mind.
I
I
First
of
all
want
to
apologize
to
you
for
being
a
little
late.
I
wanted
to
be
here
early
enough
to
mingle
and
and
speak
to
you,
but
I'm.
Not
I
am
a
hayseed
farmer,
and
you
put
me
into
the
cities
and
I
thought:
I
knew
were
old.
Shakopee
road
was
so
I
took
off
at
the
mega
mall,
where
old,
shakopee
road
starts,
and
I
thought
was
1800
old
shakopee
road
east
is
a
municipal
liquor
store
off
sale.
Awesome!
I
kid
you
not.
I
was
there.
I
was
there.
I
I
If
I
could-
and
I
think
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
start
this
way-
things
always
weren't
so
good
in
the
old
days
folks-
and
we
think
things
are
worse
now
and
I'm
going
to
tell
you
a
little
bit
later
and
some
questions
that
things
are
worse
now,
but
things
weren't
still
good
in
the
old
days
either.
You
know
the
good
old
days,
weren't,
always
the
good
old
days.
I
I
The
one
thing
I've
tried
to
bring
out
of
folks
when
they
they
come
and
visit
me
they
come
and
talk
to
me.
They
come
to
my
room
is
I.
Try
to
put
him
in
the
chair
of
the
other
person,
the
other
side
of
an
issue
and
I
did
that
often
now
whether
it
was
a
trick
whether
it
was
what
I
would
do,
whether
it
was
just
my
method
where
there
was
my
mo
whatever.
I
When
folks
would
come
in
my
office
as
a
speaker,
I
would
literally
you
ask
them
to
stand
up
and
switch
places
with
me
from
either
my
speakers
chair
or
maybe
the
other
side
of
an
advocacy
issue
that
they
were
advocating
and
and
all
of
a
sudden.
You
see
a
little
change
in
heart
of
people.
A
little
change
in
their
their
tone
when
you
put
them
in
to
a
different
chair
and
not
that
you've
convinced
them
not
that
you've
said
well.
I
Maybe
there
needs
to
be
some
balance
and
moderation
in
your
position,
but
but
it
does
bring
a
different
perspective.
I
think
from
a
citizen.
Involvement
in
stability.
I
would
tell
you
your
first
action
starts
on
next
week,
tuesday
night
februari,
7th
precinct
caucuses.
Now,
I,
don't
know
how
many
of
you
are
going
to
go
or
not
go
but
I
know
less
people
go
now
than
before,
and
unless
people
go
then
should.
I
But
you
go
to
those
precinct,
caucuses.
Folks,
they're
not
going
to
be
very
civil
I
guarantee
I've
been
the
Democratic
precinct,
caucuses
and
I've
been
to
Republican
precinct
caucuses
in
rural
Minnesota,
they're
all
held
in
the
same
school
building,
so
I
would
go
to
the
Republicans
once
and
speak
a
line
and
since
I
was
walking
by
the
Democratic
caucus
done
I'd
walk
in
there
too,
and
it
was
way
to
keep
my
opposition
away
uninvited.
F
I
But
that
never
stopped
me
and
at
that
precinct
caucus,
because
so
few
people
show
up
so
few
it'll
be
dominated
by
the
more
extreme
philosophies
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
I
guarantee
you
I
guarantee
you
are
the
the
the
Democratic
precinct
caucus.
It's
still
going
to
be
that
village
idiot
from
down
in
Texas.
You
know
George
W,
Bush
and
bad
words
that
were
said
about
him
about
defoliate
bush
and
all
those
things
that
you
guys
have
heard
and
said,
and
and
the
Republican
caucus
it's
going
to
be
the
socialist
obama.
I
So
I'm
going
to.
I
tell
you
that
involving
citizens
in
that
discourse
and
next
tuesday
night
is
extremely
important.
I'm
going
to
tell
you
that
sitting
in
somebody
else's
chair
is
extremely
important.
Look
at
it
from
the
other.
Ladies
to
the
other,
guys
view
once
in
a
while.
Then
you
save
yourself
up.
Maybe
we
have
to
find
some
agreement.
Some
compromise
some
balance
here
because
you
know
maybe
I
don't
get
everything
the
way
I
want.
Maybe
there
is
some
reason
ability
on
both
sides
to
find
common
ground
to
find
balance
on
various
issues.
Well,.
F
D
I
I,
don't
think
you
seek
compromises
for
compromise
sick
just
for
compromise
like
that's,
not
necessarily
the
reason
you
do
it.
If
you
do
it
just
for
compromise
sake,
you
almost
you
almost
empower
extreme
positions
from
beginning
I'm.
Take
the
bonding
bill.
That's
going
to
be
up
this
legislative
session.
If
you
want
to
compromise
the
governor
will
start
at
a
billion
and
the
Republicans
will
start
at
two
hundred
million
you'll
started
ridiculous
ends
to
compromise
at
five
or
six
hundred
million
right.
So
so
I,
don't
think.
I
Compromise
in
itself
is
a
goal
and
I
would
also
take
comp
and
I'm
compromises,
not
a
bad
word.
There
are
those
who
feel
advocates,
passionate
I,
give
them
their
love,
passion,
I.
Think
passion
is
very,
very
important
as
long
as
you
realize
that,
sometime
or
another
that
passion
leaves
two
to
being
able
to
agree
with
somebody
bring
people
together
moving
forward
in
the
best
interest
of
whether
it
be
the
city
of
Bloomington,
the
state
of
Minnesota
or
the
country
at
some
time.
I
Those
decisions
have
to
come
together
now,
whether
its
cooperation
Don,
whether
it's
compromised,
whether
it's
finding
the
right
balance.
You
know
I'm
not
sure
what
the
right
word
is.
I'm
not
one
that
think
compromise
is
a
bad
word.
I
think
it
is
actually
part
of
the
process,
but
but
but
I
don't
I
wouldn't
always
tell
you.
It
is
the
goal
that
you
have
to
begin
with.
If
it
does
that
that
begs
extremism
and
more
radical
positions,
Stacey.
F
G
And
and
yeah
I'm
gonna
start
by
ever
saying:
Don
Shelby,
yes,
you're
wrong.
No,
that's
not
gonna
happen,
but
no
I
do
hear
what
you're
saying
and
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
good
analogy
with,
because
I
think
we
all
couldn't
agree
that
I'm
not
sure
we
all
can
agree,
but
I
hope
that
we
all
can
agree
for
two
plus
two
is
not
five,
and
I
know
I
was
thinking
about
what
you
were
saying
and
we
think
about.
G
Even
when
you
know
we've
we
were
putting
this
together
when
we've
been
thinking
about
things
is,
is
compromised
wrong
in
and
of
itself
is
partisanship
wrong
in
and
of
itself
and
and
and
yes-
and
no,
I
think
what
your
point
is:
well-taken,
that
if
you're
striving,
if
you
know
that
what
you're
going
to
have
to
do
or
what
the
goal
is,
is
to
compromise.
Certainly
you're
going
to
you
are
going
to
start
far
apart
because
you're
hoping
to
make
that
compromise
the
middle
actually
closer
to
your
side
than
the
other.
G
So
so
you're
going
to
start
far
apart
and
maybe
a
goal
then
should
be
coming
to
a
solution
that
is
going
to
work
for
the
most
people.
That's
going
to
work
the
best
we're
not
going
to
get
this
we're
not
going
to
get
this.
So
we're
not
going
to
get
everything
in
here
and
we're
not
going
to
get
everything
in
here.
So
what
are
the
pieces
that
we
can
agree
on
and
what
are
the
pieces
that
we
can
agree
that
we
need
to
move
forward
on
and
keep
discussing?
G
The
group
can
find
consensus
even
if
it's
not
what
most
people
would
consider
compromised,
they
can
say:
okay,
we
come
to
consensus.
We
agree.
This
is
this
is
what
we're
going
to
do.
This
is
the
best
thing
for
the
city
for
the
state
for
the
nation,
for
this
group
for
my
family,
for
whatever
you're
talking
about
and
that
maybe
we
didn't
get
everything,
but
we
came
to
consensus,
that
of
all
the
things
that
we
could
have.
G
These
are
the
things
that
we
think
are
the
best
ways
to
move
forward,
and
so
what
what
I
think
happens
is
that
people
pick
these
words
partisanship
compromise
and
they
they
kind
of
demonized
the
word,
and
then
it
becomes
difficult
to
even
talk
through
the
situation,
because
people
are
using
those
words.
Well,
you
compromised
and
or
there
is
no
compromise-
we
will
not
compromise
on
this.
G
Well
then,
if
you're
anything
besides
those
extremes,
you
started
with
you've
failed
to
live
up
to
what
you
said
and
so
I
think
that
maybe
we
need
to
just
take
a
step
back
from
some
of
those,
even
some
of
the
use
of
the
words
and
say
well,
let's
come
to
to
some
understanding
of
how
we
can
move
forward
and
and
looking
at
it
from
a
perspective
of
what's
what's
the
thing
that
we
can
all
move
forward
on
and
start
with
that
and
then
and
then
go
from
there.
I.
F
F
F
Somebody
had
to
figure
in
mind
when
I
was
going
in
for
a
raise
and
I
had
a
figure
in
mind
when
I
went
in
for
a
raise
and
they
were
completely
out
and
we
reached
the
middle
and
and
that's
where
we
were
that's
what
we
both
agreed
on.
Mm-Hmm
I
had
to
invent
a
higher
number
and
he
had
to
invent
a
lower
number
when
we
both
knew
this
is
what
I
was
going
to
get
paid.
Why
didn't
we
just
walk
in
and
say
all
right,
here's
what
I'm
offering!
F
Would
you
take
that
and
yeah
and
it's
over?
It's
done.
We've
agreed
so
I'm
asking
you
speaker,
Anderson
Kelliher.
Why
do
we
start
so
far
apart?
Why
why?
Why
is
it
there
in
caucuses?
Why
isn't
there
agreement
among
the
parties
to
say
look,
let's
cut
six
weeks
of
discussion
out
of
this
by
really
thinking
hard
about
what
our
offer
is
going
to
be
and
and
and
alerting
the
governor
that
we're
willing
to
do
that.
If
he
comes,
we
don't
come
in
at
two
hundred
million
and
he
doesn't
come
in
at
a
billion.
F
D
Let
me
start
by
saying
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
that's
set
up
here.
That's
right.
I
think
there's
also
some
big
misunderstanding.
So
I'm
going
to
take
a
little
bit
of
a
contrary
point
of
view,
and
that
is
that
negotiation.
The
result
of
negotiations
are
not
fifty-fifty.
The
agreement
is
not
fifty-fifty.
I
I
think
that
in
the
days
of
negotiating
internally
within
the
caucus
and
remember
there
are
internal
negotiations
that
go
on
as
well.
We
could
talk
about
that
a
lot.
D
Sometimes
the
harder
part
was
coming
to
agreement
within
intra-party
negotiation
to
go
forward
with
that
offer.
But
rarely
was
the
answer,
a
50-50
answer,
and
so
I
want
us
to
kind
of
you
know
one
of
the
other
things
I
do
in
another
part
of
my
life
is
I
teach
a
class
called
managing
conflict
at
the
Humphrey
school
and
I
have
for
four
years,
sometimes
I,
even
laugh
at
myself.
Doing
that
thinking,
you
know
wow.
D
This
is
interesting,
but
it's
because
I
have
taken
a
real
interest
of
an
interest
in
not
just
the
practitioner
side
of
negotiation,
but
also
the
art
and
science
of
it.
Studying
it
and
I
had
a
great
opportunity,
I
have
to
say
a
thank
you
to
the
Bush
Foundation
for
funding
a
bush
leadership
fellowship
that
I
did
in
2003
and
2005,
and
since
this
is
going
to
be
broadcast,
I
always
have
to
say
thank
you
to
my
husband
who
stayed
home
with
two
little
kids.
D
D
The
focus
should
be
where
we
get
to,
and
we
have
to
kind
of
get
out
of
our
head
that
that
means
always
a
50-50
split,
because
the
interest
in
what
you're
negotiating
can
be
very
different,
I
mean
I,
get
to
negotiate
salaries
as
well
now
and
make
offers
to
people
and
often
I
find
that
the
salary,
although
important,
is
not
as
important
as
other
things
to
people
nowadays
vacation
time
time
with
their
family
flexibility.
The
ability
to
do
other
things.
D
Do
you
know
that,
there's
like
a
hundred
things,
you
can
negotiate
in
a
salary
negotiation
other
than
the
salary
I
mean?
These
are
the
things
you
have
to
be
creative
and
steve?
Was
a
very
creative
I
think
a
very
creative
negotiator
and
understood
this
very
well
that
you
have
to
get
down
to
what
the
interests
are,
and
you
know
governor
pawlenty.
We
certainly
disagreed
on
a
lot,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
there
were
certain
things
that
he
knew
very
well
were
not
lines.
D
D
You
know,
it
all
seems
so
romantic
and
wonderful.
Well,
it's
true.
You
know
they
didn't
build
the
capital
because
everybody
could
get
along.
If
all
of
you
could
get
along
and
figure
it
out.
We
would
not
need
places
like
the
city
hall
chamber
or
the
state
capitol
right,
because
that
is
where,
when
collectively
as
a
society,
when
we
can't
settle
our
disputes
or
the
courthouse,
that
is
where
we
go,
and
sometimes
we
can't
collectively
or
individually
solve
our
problems
that
we
have
to
solve
collectively.
D
One
other
thing
I
have
to
say
so,
just
like
this
doesn't
spin
you
a
little
bit
of
house
chamber,
you
know,
there's
two,
you
know
there's
this
aisle
here
and
I
always
at
my
most
frustrated
moments
and
represent
land.
Cesky
knows
about
a
lot
of
them.
So
if
you
want
to
know
about
them,
you
can
ask
her
about
those
offline,
but
I
would
look
out
at
the
members
serving
and
it's
a
wonderful
place
to
sit
at
speaker.
Isn't
it
it's
a
beautiful
place,
you
get
to
see.
The
view
is
amazing.
D
D
They
really
come
to
serve
out
of
the
interest
of
wanting
to
serve
people
and
the
things
that
they
care
about,
or
their
community
cares
about,
and
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
kept
me
always
grounded
and
hopeful
that
we
could
get
to
that
agreement
because
people
don't
come
to
take
the
grenade
pin
out
and
throw
it.
That's
not
why
they
come.
That
happens
in
other
places,
but
it
it's
not
here.
Okay,.
F
All
right
Stacey,
my
good
friend
speaker,
swiggum,
brings
up
history.
Andy
bring,
and
you
and
I
were
talking
about
history
just
before
this
entire
thing
started
and
and
and
mentioned
that
it
was
tough
during
the
Jefferson
Adams
a
period
of
time,
and
they
were
using
a
lot
of
back-channel
means
to
try
to
disrupt
each
other's
campaigns
and
republicanism.
Federalism
was,
it
was
a
big
issue
in
the
land
and
it
was
an
either/or
kind
of
thing.
It
was
not.
You
could
not
compromise
between
federalism
republicanism.
F
They
had
to
compromise
with
themselves.
They
had
to
say
I'm.
I
am
willing
personally,
to
give
this
up
in
order
to
get
this
so
that
we
can
move
the
country
forward.
So
there
have
been
exceptional
periods
of
time
in
our
history
where
we
worked
collaboratively
collaboratively
and
we
worked
as
a
team
on
the
same
team
of
a
guard
and
a
forward
Democrats
and
Republicans,
but
we're
all
on
the
same
team,
we're
all
on
the
Minnesota
team
trying
to
do
the
best
for
the
state
of
Minnesota
in
its
people.
So
why?
Why
do
we?
F
G
And
people
talked
about
that
form,
and
they
talked
about
how
you
know
I,
really
like
the
fact
that
we
could
hear
for
what
they
wanted
on
the
issues.
And
it
wasn't
just
he
said
she
said
he
said
she
said
so
I
think
it
is
there
and
I
think
people
do
look
for
the
best
and
look
for
when
we
can
work
together,
but
I
think
what
maybe
is
more
sexy
and
plays
better
is
is
when
people
are
mean
to
each
other
and
I
think
that
we
as
citizens
need
to
hold
anyone
that
we
can
who's
who's.
G
Like
you
know,
if
you
12
people
were
on
a
desert,
island,
I'm,
pretty
sure
you'd
be
working
together
because
otherwise
you're
all
going
to
die,
but
the
whole
show
the
whole
premise
of
the
show
is:
how
can
we
be
really
mean
to
each
other,
so
I
win
so
I've
never
watched
the
show
I
it
just
I
want
to
see
the
show.
That's
we
survived,
you
know
like
really
put
them
on
a
desert
island
and
see
how
they
build
a
society.
G
That's
what
I
want
to
watch
and
I
think
that
so
in
the
answer
to
maybe
my
long-winded
answer
to
your
question
is
I
think
that
it's
there
I
think
that
we
just
choose
not
to
look
for
it
and
I.
Think
we
really
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
looking
for
those
times
when
when
people
are
working
together,
because
if
everybody's
as
unpatriotic
and
and
against
the
country
as
those
other
as
the
other
side
says,
then
nothing
would
ever
happen,
and
we
really
wouldn't
have
anything
going
on
the
country
and
that's
clearly
not
happening.
G
F
G
I
Thank
you,
I
think
Donna
I'm,
gonna,
I'm
gonna
answer
your
question
and
I'm
going
to
answer
it
very
directly.
So
you
can
all
hear
the
Paul
Harvey
other
side
of
the
story,
because
you
folks
know
you're
wise
enough
to
know,
there's
always
the
other
side
of
the
story,
but
at
first
one
if
I
could
Don
talked
about
the
the
best
interest
in
the
team
and
I
I
might
sound
hokey,
it
might
sound
kooky,
but
I
actually
believe
it
folks
I
believe
in
my
heart,
I
ran
my
Caucasus
way
once
in
a
while.
I
They
told
me
up
against
the
wall.
You
been
there.
Margaret
you've
been
you
come
in
from
a
negotiation
and
you
did
what
then
all
of
a
sudden
you're
up
against
the
wall,
but
I
believe
very
honestly,
with
your
caucus
with
your
party,
whether
you're
a
legislature
with
your
Congress
or
whether
you're
a
state
done
I,
believe
it
operates
and
can
operate
as
a
team,
and
in
that
you
do
you
do
two
things
and
I
preach
to
my
caucus.
All
the
time
about
this.
I
You
you
recognize
that
there's
differences
of
abilities
and
talents
visions,
ideas
of
what
should
be
done
for
the
state.
You
recognize
that
that's
a
front
I
mean
some
block.
Some
rebound
some
shoot
some
defend
right
done,
but
then
the
key
is,
after
that
recognition
that
respect
you
gotta
hope
and
work
for
each
other
success.
I
Now,
if
you
do
that,
you're
a
pretty
good
basketball
team,
if
you
do
that,
you're
a
pretty
good
caucus,
if
you
do
that,
you
can
be
a
pretty
good
legislature.
If
you
do
that,
you
can
be
a
pretty
good
Minnesota
and,
generally
speaking,
I
agree
with
Stacey.
Generally
speaking,
I
think
that
things
do
work
out
in
the
end
the
way
they're
supposed
to
a
little
tough
times
in
between,
but
generally
they
do
work
out.
The
way
they're
supposed
to.
Let
me
get
to
the
the
news
of
yesterday.
I
I
first
need
to
give
a
little
disclaimer,
there's
been
a
couple
of
things
that
were
set
in
motion
before
I
became
the
media
communicator
director
for
the
caucus,
as
you
would
guess,
things
don't
happen
overnight.
So
there
were
some
things
that
maybe
were
set
in
motion.
In
fact,
including
our
colleague
and
Margaret,
our
colleague,
who
has
not
confirmed
yesterday,
I,
want
to
I
I
think
that
I
need
to
tell
you
this
and
the
senator
did
or
the
governor
did
come
off
the
wall.
I
The
first
thing
you
need
to
ask
the
governor
is
when
he
was
united
states
senator.
How
many
times
did
he
not
confirm
appointments
by
george
w
bush
lots,
folks,
lots
and
all
of
a
sudden.
The
governor
comes
unglued,
I,
understand,
I,
understand
him
being
upset,
but
go
back
to
his
previous
service
in
six
years
in
the
United
States
Senate,
and
ask
him
how
many
tens
of
times
whether
it
was
the
supreme
court
or
whether
it
was
other
appointments?
I
He
didn't
know
he
didn't
confirm
george
w
bush's
appointees,
that's
sitting
in
the
other
chair
the
way
I
mentioned,
the
wii
I
a
tactic
I
use.
Secondly,
there
is
no
question
that
the
personality
of
the
of
the
former
senator
that
was
not
confirmed
was
not
a
question.
The
personality,
the
person
was
not
a
question,
but
the
Constitution.
The
Constitution
gives
the
responsibility
to
the
Senate
to
confirm
appointments
and
generally
they're
to
be
confirmed
in
the
best
interests
of
the
state
of
Minnesota
now
by
any
measure
by
any
measure.
I
If
you
look
at
bills
that
have
been
introduced
by
the
former
senator,
if
you
look
at
votes
of
legislation,
we've
passed
by
the
former
senator,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
ratings,
all
of
you
guys
give
us
ratings.
I
mean
sometimes
the
League
of
Women
Voters
gives
us
ratings.
Sometimes
it's
child
works
now.
Sometimes
it's
a
Chamber
of
Commerce.
Sometimes
it's
the
Sierra
Club,
but
when
you
give
us
ratings-
and
you
know
whether
they're
right
or
wrong
Don,
you
look
at
those
ratings
and
the
former
center
that
did
not
get
confirmed.
I
You
don't
had
an
advocacy.
There
is
no
doubt
about
it
in
this
quasi-judicial
spot.
Much
different
than
a
commissioner
of
economic
development
are
much
different
than
a
commissioner
transportation.
In
this
spot
of
quasi-judicial
spotted
at
PUC.
You
cannot
have
an
advocate
there.
You
should
not
have
an
advocate.
I
Now
that
is
the
position
they
took.
Actually
you
know
the
comp
non-confirmation
it
was
going
to
be
done,
should
have
been
done
last
year
when
she
was
a
point.
But
honestly,
the
governor
asked
for
time.
They
were
going
to
not
confirm.
Last
year
the
governor
asked
for
time
and
this
year
came
and
the
question
got
to
be
well.
What
did
the
time
bring
us?
I
You
know
what
changed
and
actually
nothing
did
so
that
took
place
in
the
senate
budget,
which
was
a
story
the
day
before
again
probably
set
in
motion
from
from
a
year
ago,
but
here's
basically
I
would
took
place.
There
was
a
flip,
as
you
know,
in
majority,
in
the
senate,
between
Republican
and
Democratic
in
the
2010
elections.
I
At
that
time,
the
majority
who
happened
to
be
the
Republicans
actually
cut
1414
permanent
positions
from
the
majority
staff,
albeit
by
reducing
the
number
of
basically
the
reduce
the
number
of
committees
that
that
the
Senate
had.
So,
if
you
reduce
the
number
of
committees,
you
probably
don't
need,
as
many
committee
administrators,
you
don't
need
as
committee
a
number
of
committee
legislative
assistants
fair
enough,
but
they
did
reduce
by
14
the
number
of
permanent
positions
the
the
Senate
Majority
prior
to
them
had
had
again
because
they
cut
a
number
of
committees.
I
There
should
have
probably
been
some
reduction
to
the
minority
staff.
At
that
time
there
was
not
from
the
permanent
staff.
They
took
it
all
out
of
the
majority
staff,
the
permanent
reductions,
so
you
gotta
go,
but
you
got
to
put
in
a
little
perspective
at
that
point.
Then
you
come
to
the
action
this
year.
We
all
know
that
the
legislature
house
to
an
had
to
cut
budgets
by
about
five
percent
because
of
the
budget
balancing
agreement
of
last
year,
very,
very
appropriate.
I
For
this
biennium,
there
was
a
number
that
was
given
to
the
minority
in
this
a
Democratic
minority.
A
number
was
given
and
asked
them
to
balance
their
budget
within
that
number.
I
think
it
was
1.6.
Maybe
it
was
2.6,
seven
million
something
like
that.
In
all
honesty,
in
all
fairness,
the
minority
has
a
number
of
comparable
positions
to
the
majority
that
are
paid
at
higher
rates,
higher
reimbursements,
some
of
it
due
to
the
fact,
some
of
due
to
the
fact
that
they've
been
there
in
the
majority
for
quite
a
long
period
of
time.
I
So
you
have
la's
comparable
in
the
minority.
Making
a
lot
more
than
la
is
comparable
in
the
majority.
Same
is
true
with
other
positions
and
some
of
it
due
to
longevity.
But
what
the
Senate
decided
to
Senate
rules
committee
was
saying:
give
him
a
budget
manage
it
within
that
budget
now?
Could
it
have
been
done
better
I'm,
not
saying
it
couldn't?
Has
there
been
an
outreach
made
to
the
Senate
Minority
to
say
you
can?
Should
we
be
looking
at
this
more
fair?
F
Let
me
ask
speaker,
Anderson
Kelliher,
her
take
on
this
issue,
and
let
me
remind
you
of
the
only
senator
who
spoke
on
this
issue
on
the
floor
was
Senator
Julie,
Rosen
Republican,
who
had
co-authored
bills
with
Ellen
Anderson,
and
they
had
work
collegially
in
getting
things
past.
Much
of
the
environmental
energy
picture
that
is
operating
this
ball
now
in
the
state
of
Minnesota
was
authored
by
Ellen
Anderson.
F
There
is
no
question
that
she
advocated
for
renewable
energy.
There
is
no
question
about
that.
There
is
no
evidence
she
ever
advocated
for
higher
tax
rates
or
higher
rates
for
ratepayers
and
in
the
voting
that
the
PUC
since
she
has
been
in
that
position,
she
voted
almost
always
with
the
mainstream
Republican
Republican
majority
of
the
PUC,
the
other
positions,
Julie
Rosen,
said
that
she
was
an
extremist
and
she
said
she
based
her
position
on
the
fact
that
she
had
heard
from
so
many
people
in
the
utility
community.
F
D
D
The
puc
represent
tomp,
you
who
actually
I
think
served
as
an
and
my
minority
leader
when
we
were
first
in
the
house,
and
so
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
curious
situation,
because
I
know
that
there
there's
a
majority
I
mean
if
you
were
doing
this
by
a
partisan
basis.
You'd
say
there
is
a
majority
in
the
puc
of
people
who
would
have
put
our
behind
their
name.
They
would
have
identified
as
a
Republican
all
those
things.
D
So
it
is
a
bit
curious
and
the
previous
appointees,
like
Leroy
Copeland,
dryer
Betsy
worgen,
all
former
senators
were
Republican
senators.
So
this
this
notion
that
you
can't
have
done
a
job
that
required
advocacy
and
then
go
to
a
quasi-judicial
roller
judicial
role
smacks
in
the
face
of
our
history
in
the
state
of
Minnesota,
I
mean
I.
Think
the
League
of
Women
Voters
knows
that
very
well.
There
are
many
many
examples
of
people,
Democrats,
Republicans
independents
who
go
on
to
be
appointed
to
be
judges
in
the
administrative
law
judge
function.
D
I
know
that
there
are
a
number
of
former
House
members
that
we've
served
with
there
in
those
roles,
so
I
don't
buy
that.
I
will
say
that
I,
don't
know
that
we'll
ever
know
totally.
What
happened
here.
I
think
that
you
have
identified
some
of
the
things
that
people
will
probably
scratch
their
head
about
for
a
long
time.
It's
unfortunate
that
that
people
did
not
come
forward
in
that
hearing
last
spring
and
publicly
voice
their
concerns,
because
in
my
reading
of
the
record
here
there
were
some
there
were
sort
of
things
surmise
these.
D
You
know
the
voting
records
all
those
as
we
each
have
those
things
when
you
serve
in
public
office.
You
have
these
ratings
that
people
come
up
with
and
they
pick
out
the
vote
where
you
most
agree
with
them,
or
they
vote
pick
out
the
vote
where
you
least
agree
with
them,
and
then
they
score
you
on
those
and
sometimes
we
all
run
around
and
say:
I
got
a
hundred
percent.
You
know
I
think
today,
I
have
a
nature,
conservancy,
notebook,
I,
guess
I
know
I
mean
you
know
it's
just
what
happens.
D
D
Think
Ellen
Anderson
is
a
really
really
bright
public
servant
who
ended
up
on
the
wrong
side
of
a
whole
bunch
of
things
here
and
I
hope
someday.
We
know
I
hope
someday
20
years
from
now.
Somebody
tells
us
what
all
those
issues
were.
Not
just
what
we're
hearing
today,
because
I
suspect
there
were
other
things
now.
I
will
also
say:
governor
pawlenty
was
mad
when
lieutenant
governor
mall
now
was
rejected
as
the
transportation
Commissioner.
He
was
very
angry
about
former
commissioner
Sharon
pure
sherry
Pearson
yucky,
as
as
these
governors
should
be,
these
are
their
appointees.
D
These
are
their
choices.
This
is
a
poke
in
there
I
or
that's
what
they
feel
like
at
the
time.
So
I
think
governor
Pawlenty
and
governor
Dayton
both
have
felt
this,
and
we
shouldn't
be
surprised
by
that
reaction.
That's
a
strong
reaction.
I,
don't
think
it's.
Maybe
how
any
of
us
would
have
reacted
are
things
we
would
have
said,
but
I'm
not
surprised
by
a
strong
reaction.
The
Swan,
partly
because
I
know,
Ellen
Anderson
I
know
how
smart
Ellen
Anderson
is.
D
D
It
was
seen
as
the
forefront
of
our
new
economy,
which
it's
been
many
of
the
people
who
join
my
organization
today
are
in
this
new
economy
and
I.
Don't
think,
there's
anything
I
think
it's
a
very
mainstream
Minnesotan.
What
LM
Anderson's
record
had
been
about
I
think
whatever
this
was
truly
about
I
hope
we'll
find
out
someday
Stacey.
F
Let
me
ask
you
from
the
position
at
the
Carlson
school
as
well
as
the
League
of
Women
Voters.
It
seems
to
me
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
is
made
up
of
conservative
and
liberals.
They
may
not.
They
may
recuse
themselves
if
they
advocate
for
a
certain
railroad
that
comes
before
them
on
certiorari,
but
in
most
cases
they
don't
recuse
themselves.
They
bring
to
the
table
in
the
discussions
about
how
a
certain
case
is
going
to
be
ruled
upon
their
perspectives.
G
Well,
I
can
I
I.
Can
I
or
I
am
choosing
to
speak
as
from
League
of
Women
Voters,
but
considering
that
I
work
at
the
university
of
minnesota
and
remember
the
Board
of
Regents
in
sitting
next
to
me,
I'm
going
to
just
go
with
the
League
of
Women
Voters
and
and
not
speak
for
my
boss's
boss's
boss's
boss,
who's
sitting
right
here
so
but.
G
G
It's
a
pretty
good
experiment
that
we're
in
and
I
think
that
you
to
pretend
that
you
don't
have
a
background
that
you
don't
have
individual
opinions,
that
you
don't
have
a
culture
and
a
history
and
things
that
you
bring
with
you
is
is
unrealistic
because
none
of
us
work
that
way
and
just
because
you
sit
behind
a
media
desk
or
you
sit
behind
a
desk
in
a
courtroom.
You
still
bring
all
of
that
with
you,
because
we
don't
want
you
to
lose.
G
What
makes
you
human
I
think
that
to
say
from
any
side
of
any
aisle
that
people
cannot
because
they
have
an
opinion.
They
cannot
then
possibly
see
the
other
side
sit
in
someone
else's
chair
and
be
able
to
rule
in
a
way
that
is,
in
their
opinion,
the
best
the
best
interests
of
what
they're
supposed
to
be
ruling
on
whether
it
agrees
with
what
they're
doing
or
not.
There
are
many
times
when
the
Supreme
Court
will
sit
down
and
people
will
say.
Oh,
we
can
just
pick
how
this
is
going
to
go.
G
There's
going
to
go
for
on
this
side
and
five
on
this
side
and
they're.
Never-
and
you
know
it
doesn't
turn
out
that
way
because
they
look
at
the
law
and
they
look
at
what
they're
supposed
to,
and
they
say
you
know,
I'm
bringing
my
humanity
here
and
I
think
this
is
what
we
should
rule,
and
sometimes
people
say
it
went
just
what
they
brought
their
humanity
with.
G
If
I
was
going
to
say
if
Ellen
Anderson,
but
let
just
even
it,
take
away
from
that,
if,
if
someone
is
in
a
position-
and
they
are
clearly
acting
outside
of
the
realms
of
what
is
the
people
who
can
Melanie
Anderson
goes
off
the
deep
end
and
does
crazy
things?
There
are
ways
to
get
rid
of
her,
but
until
she
does
that
I
think
we
need
to
allow
that
to
move
forward.
Even
if
we
don't
necessarily
agree
with
everything
she's
doing,
we
have
a
system
of
checks
and
balances
that
we
can
use.
G
G
Everybody
has
made
me
have
your
opinion
about
the
system
too,
but
you
know
it's
a
way
to
make
your
point
heard.
If
you
don't
like
what
happens
and
I
think
that
we
have
to
allow
for
the
fact
that
whether
the
recall
happens
or
not
whether
Alan
Anderson
gets
confirmed
or
not,
I
mean
she
didn't.
But
if
she
you
know,
we
have
to
allow
the
system
to
also
work.
You
can
recall-
or
you
can
have
the
election
when
Walker's
up
again
in
Wisconsin
and
maybe
he'll
be
tossed
out
then,
or
maybe
he
won't
be.
G
Maybe
he'll
be
confirmed,
and
that's
okay,
because
that's
what
the
people
wanted
and
I
think
that
too,
but
to
try
and
pretend
the
judges
or
quasi-judicial
or
any
of
us
come
without.
Our
history
is
to
is
to
make
us
into
something
that
we're
not
we're,
not
we're
not
robots
for
human,
and
we
have
to
be
upfront
about
that
first
and
and
go
from
there
and
and
use
the
system
and
its
checks
and
balances
to
make
sure
that
we
were
in
agreement
as
a
unit
moving
forward
for
the
state
speaker.
F
Swickle
I'm
going
to
let
you
wrap
up
this
part
before
we
enter
into
the
question-and-answer
process
with
the
people
in
attendance
tonight
and
because
you
are
still
involved
in
the
at
the
Statehouse
and
have
now
taken
over
communications.
A
lot
of
this
is
going
to
fall
on
you
to
not
only
explain
to
the
public
but
to
explain
to
other
people
in
the
state
legislature.
F
I
However,
if
it
we
want
to
consider
that
when
a
awesome,
talented,
very,
very
intelligent
commissioner,
miss
Jackie
I
think
from
North
Carolina
or
wherever
she
was
from
South
Carolina
was
not
confirmed
three
years
ago,
maybe
four
years
ago,
four
years
ago,
you
did
not
see
governor
pawlenty
react
that
way
in
a
very
uncivil
way.
When.
C
I
Malna
was
not
confirmed
as
transportation
Commissioner.
You
did
not
see
governor
Pawlenty
react
in
that
same
way
and
he
was
able
to
move
ahead
and
move
ahead
in
the
best
interest
of
the
state,
a
couple
things
that
needs
to
be
clarified.
First
of
all
done
you
mentioned
that
there
would
be
a
Republican
PUC
I,
that's
not
possible
folks.
The
PUC
is
a
quasi
judicial
body
that
is
balanced
from
its
makeup.
I
think
and
speaker
help
me
I,
think
the
law
says
no
more
than
two
from
each
party.
Is
that
what
it
says
I,
don't.
I
I
believe
it
says
that
no
more
than
two
from
each
party,
so
it
cannot
end
up
to
be
four
Republicans
or
four
Democrats
or
anything
like
that
on
the
board.
So
so
I
and
I
think
there
has
to
be
an
independent.
And
if
you
remember
correctly,
it
was
governor
plenty
that
appointed
Democrat,
Minority
Leader
Tom
pew
I
to
the
board
in
nineteen
and
2003.
C
I
Senator
Anderson
has
been
appointed
busey,
there
were
221
votes,
and
206
of
them
were
unanimous.
That
means
nothing
folks.
That
means
nothing
in
the
house
and
in
the
Senate
and
ninety
percent
of
the
votes
are
unanimous.
Are
they
not?
Ninety
percent
of
the
votes
are
unanimous,
so,
whether
it's
206
or
205
out
of
220,
that
really
doesn't
speak
to
the
differences
that
do
exist
or
the
lack
of
balance
or
the
balance
that
did
exist.
I
It
does,
it
doesn't
speak
to
it
and
then
the
the
last
thing
I
would
say
is
is
that
in
this
what
I
think
was
Stacey
was
mentioning
about
about
the
check,
that's
involved
in
the
Constitution
and
and
the
Senate
is
given
the
authority
in
the
Constitution
to
confirm
appointments
by
the
government.
That
say
that
that's
got
a
a
responsibility
given
to
the
Senate,
hopefully
acting
in
the
best
interest
of
Minnesota,
hopefully
doing
that
in
this
case,
I
would
argue
act
acting
in
the
best
case
of
jobs
and
a
break
payers.
I
I
would
argue
that,
but,
but
even
if
somebody
would
argue
something
different,
which
I
fully
fully
accept,
there
probably
was
a
concern
amongst
some
that
once
confirmed,
there
is
no
check
Stacey.
There
is
no
check.
There
is
no
way
to
remove
a
puc
commissioner
after
confirmation,
so
once
confirmed
there
would
be
no
check
there
if
they
mentioned
about
the
checks
and
balances.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
a
couple
things
that
you
know
might
be
of
interest
to
people
who
wanted
to
be
a
student's
of
the
of
the
process
with
with
facts.
I
I
done
with
without
question,
there
is
bad
feelings
at
the
legislature
without
question.
You
know,
I
again,
let
me
say:
tim
pawlenty
got
over
it.
George
w
bush
got
over
mark
Dayton,
not
confirming
many
of
his
appointments.
Those
people
rose
to
the
higher
standard
above
it
I'm.
Trusting
that
the
governor
will
be
able
to
do
it
too,
but
my
job,
but
I
guess
is
quote
the
face
of
the
Senate
and
that's
not
probably
a
very
good
thing
to
be
saying,
because
this
isn't
necessarily
a
face.
I
You
want
to
put
out
to
the
people,
but
my
job
my
background,
my
history
I'm
generally
not
a
confrontational
person.
I
confront
pretty
good.
When
somebody
confronts
me
but
I
don't
confront
by
nature.
That's
that's
not
my
nature.
I
try
to
bring
people
together.
So
what
I
try
to
do
is
to
reach
out
to
folks
as
we're
doing
maybe
to
senator
Bach
the
minority
leader
in
relationship
to
the
Senate
budget.
Those
overtures
have
been
made.
Other
issues.
I
You
know
the
non
confirmation
is
going
to
be
a
tough
one,
because
you
know
that
you
know
it's
yes
or
no.
You
know
it's
not
a
something.
You
can
find
common
ground
or
compromise
on
done
that
that's
that's
a
tough
one
but
I'm
going
to
assume
that
the
governor's
will
put
up
another
appointee
very
interesting
when
the
governor
plan.
I
Folks
I
was
a
commissioner
of
Governor
Plenty's
I,
never
got
confirmed,
never
got
confirmed.
I
was
unanimously
confirmed
by
the
jobs
committee
of
Senator,
Jim
metzen
unanimously
confirmed,
but
the
majority
leader
at
that
time
and
I
had
had
you
know
a
few
given
takes
when
we
were
negotiating
budgets
and
he
never
decided
to
bring
my
confirmation
up
to
the
Senate
floor
because
he
probably
knew
I
had
the
votes
to
be
confirmed,
and
he
didn't
want
that
to
happen.
I
D
D
F
J
C
J
So
I'd,
like
you
to
consider
being
a
professional
football
game
and
there's
a
big
play
and
the
ref
calls
the
penalty
of
some
sort
and
he
gets
on
his
PA
and
he
says
this
side
claims
it's
a
penalty.
This
side
claims
it
is
not
you
decide
and
unfortunately,
the
media
these
days.
Pretty
much
does
that.
You
know
to
the
point
where
sometimes
you
take
a
media
person
to
a
math
class
and
they'll,
say
math
teacher
claims
student
2
equals
for
the
administration
wants
to
do
a
study.
So
what
is
the
proper
role
of
the
media?
J
F
It
is
you
basically
written
the
first
chapter
of
the
book
that
I'm
currently
working
on
called
the
failure
of
American
journalism,
and
it
fails
just
because
of
that
it
fails
exactly
because
of
that.
The
new
york
times
just
in
their
blog
space,
asked
readers
weather
reporters
should
identify
wrong
statements
made
by
politicians
for
instance.
So
if
someone
says
that
President
Obama
is
a
socialist
who
intends
to
hates
work
and
intends
to-
and
you
hear
these
statements
in
a
rolled
out,
is
there
a
role
and
a
responsibility
as
part
of
the
reporter
to
know
the
facts?
F
Well,
that
requires
investigation
and
requires
time
the
current
economic
model
for
journalism,
as
seen
on
television
and
in
the
printed
press
is
mature
and
failing,
and
there
are
not
enough
reporters
and
there's
not
enough
time
currently
2,
I'm
not
making
excuses.
I'm
saying
this
is
a
failing,
not
enough
time
to
do
that.
They're
not
trained
well
enough.
They
don't
know
the
facts
well
enough,
and
if
you,
if
you
watch
television
news
today
as
I
watch
television
news,
if
you
can
come
up
with
ten
percent,
that's
actually
the
news
I'll
be
really
surprised.
F
And
now
you
know
why
I'm
retired,
and,
and
so
yes,
the
he
said
she
said
you
decide
is
terrible,
and
it's
particularly,
I
might
to
not
my
own
horn,
but
I
might
trumpet
my
own
cause.
It's
particularly
true
in
global
warming.
There
is
no
debate.
There
is
no
debate
in
science,
none
whatsoever.
There
is
no
other
cause.
Nevertheless,
reporters
who
are
gone
going
out
to
try
to
talk
about
global
warming
who've
never
covered
it
before
who
have
no
science
background
wats.
F
Whoever
have
never
read
the
reports,
don't
know
any
of
the
scientists
are
bound
when
they
hear
a
person
come
to
town
say
there
is
global
warming.
The
first
instinct,
according
to
the
journalism
construct,
is
to
go
out
to
find
someone
who
disagrees
now
that
and
a
given
30
seconds
each,
but
the
one
who
says
there
is
global
warming
is
represented
by
ninety-eight
percent
of
all
published
peer-reviewed
science.
F
The
one
who
is
speaking
represents
only
one
percent,
because
the
two
percent
of
the
97
98
two
percent
actually
agree
that
there
is
global
warming.
They
just
disagree
on
the
sensitivity
of
the
earth's
climate
and
the
human
costs
and
one
percent
such
as
a
hoax.
So
you
talked
that
one
percent,
so
what
I'm
telling
you
is
97,
98,
99
and
one?
So
really.
You
should
give
99
seconds
for
the
person
who
says
there
is
and
one
second
the
person
who
says
there
isn't
and
that
would
be
balanced.
F
But
we
can't
we.
We
don't
know
what
happened
with
Ellen
Anderson,
for
instance,
I
learned
a
lot
from
from
speaker
swiggum
today
about
what
happened
and
there
and
it's
a
new
take
and
it
and
it
puts
a
different
color
on
what
happened.
People
jump
to
conclusions,
they're
short-handed
and
there
are
still
some
State
House
reporters
who
cover
what
goes
on
there
and
they
can
be
listened
to.
They
can
be
bliss
to
Eric
asked
Allah
was
one
that
Kessler
is
another
one
that
I
will
speak
of.
F
Who
know
what
they're
talking
about,
but
they're
not
going
to
know
everything,
but
I
agree
with
you
completely
that
we
make
no
headway
whatsoever
in
journalism.
When
we
say
this
person
says
this,
this
person
says
this:
you
be
the
judge.
You've
done
you've
not
kicked
the
can
down
the
road
in
terms
of
knowledge
at
all,
and
it's
a
failure
and
journalism
is
failing
it,
and
so
it's
up
to
you.
It's
up
to
you
to
find
the
information,
because
if
you
read
broadly,
the
information
is
out
there.
D
So
I,
you
know
I
think
that
that's
a
good
segue
to
citizen
journalism
and
there's
some
really
amazing
things
happening
out
there,
that
our
citizen
movement,
based
both
conservative
and
more
liberal
that
are
following
the
story
that
do
more
in-depth
things,
but
I
do
have
to
say
that
after
the
failure
to
confirm
I
was
working
away
and
then
I
turned
on
Twitter,
which
I
like
watching
and
I
sort
of
use
it.
As
my
news,
aggregator
and
people
were
saying,
really
awful
things
on
both
sides.
D
Yesterday,
staffers,
probably
on
both
sides,
were
saying
really
awful
things
about
the
members.
There
was
all
sorts
of
really
inflamed
stuff,
and
this
happens
every
day
on
Twitter.
You
know
it's
down
to
140
characters
done
you
can,
you
know,
say
you
have
to
be
really
inflammatory
to
get
your
tweet
read
or
forwarded
it
or
whatever
and
I
wanted
to
I
really
thought
about
saying:
put
the
device
down.
Everybody
just
put
the
device
down.
You
know
this
is
like
a
moment
when
you
just
should
put
the
device
down
and
a
lot
of
people
either.
D
They
want
the
attention
so
badly
that
they
just
keep
saying
inflammatory
stuff,
and
this
can
go
for
both
sides
can
go
for
multiple
sides
of
partisan
view
or
they
want
to
be
noticed
and
they
want
to
say
things,
and
you
know
it
happened
in
December
when
I
think
you
know
a
really
a
really
personal
tragedy
happen
at
the
Capitol.
That
I
think
a
lot
of
people
have
to
say
that
political
people
are
human
too,
and
things
happen,
but
you
don't
have
to
go
out
and
say
horrible
things
about
other
people
when
something
like
that
happens.
D
D
Hat
needs
to
be
stopped,
I
mean,
but
that's
self-control,
net
self-discipline
and
sometimes
that's
people
who
are
people's
bosses
needing
to
say
to
them.
You
need
to
stop
it.
I
know
what
I
would
have
done
it
as
Speaker
had
one
of
my
communications
staff
gone
out
and
done.
Some
of
these
things
are
said.
Some
of
these
things,
I
would
have
said
you
get
a
warning
and
this
is
going
in
your
file
and
if
you
do
it
again,
then
you're
going
to
be
dismissed,
Bravo.
F
Social
media
is
not
moderated
now,
comments
sometimes
to
newspapers,
are
moderated
based
on
certain
strictures
regarding
taste
and
how
one
communicates,
and
so
it
keeps
the
the
conversation
a
little
bit
more
civil,
but
social
media
is
not
I'm
going
to
say
something
to
you
that
that
I
can
say
now
after
45
years.
That
will
surprise
you.
The
least
important
thing
to
me
in
the
world
is
your
opinion.
H
F
F
She
graduated
from
Columbia
with
a
master's
degree
she's
an
author,
but
she
was
13
at
the
time
and
and
something
big
had
happened
in
the
news
and
she
said:
I
have
an
opinion
about
that
and
she
told
me
your
opinion.
Then
she
said
what
do
you
think
of
that
opinion?
I
said
stinks,
and
she
said
you
can't
say
that
to
me
because
I'm
studying
the
Constitution
social
studies
and.
C
C
F
You
have
a
right
to
hold
your
own
opinion,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
respected.
In
fact,
here's
what
you
don't
like
about
the
Constitution
I
want
to
tell
you
that
part
amount
of
Constitution
says
everybody
has
a
right
to
their
opinion.
She
said
yes,
I
said
protects
my
right
to
my
opinion
that
your
opinion
stinks
and
she
said
well
what
what
uses
the
Constitution
I
said:
you're,
not
the
person
who
never
said
that
so.
C
F
Said
but
here's
12
things
to
read
three
books
and
a
bunch
of
websites
and
things
you
can
go
to
read
dad
come
back
with
another
opinion.
She
came
back
and
she
said
alright.
I've
got
another
opinion
about
three
weeks
later
after
she'd
studied
and
and
she
said,
what
do
you
think
of
that
opinion
I
said
well,
it
doesn't
suck
is
bad,
but
I
love
it
and
I
respect
it,
because
you
took
the
time
to
try
to
learn
and
you
tried
to
end
it
and
it
changed.
F
Your
opinion
over
here
is
different
than
your
opinion,
since
you've
read
so
there's
too
many
opinions
going
on
out
there
right
now,
too
many
based
opinions
based
only
an
ideology
not
based
in
knowledge,
and
so
it
is
your
responsibility.
I'd
like
to
say
it
was
my
responsibility
to
make
you
smart,
but
really
might
the
news
hole.
I
only
had
maybe
18
minutes
to
tell
you
everything
in
the
world
that
you
should
know,
including
charlie
sheen,
and
it
couldn't
be
done
and
it
was
frustrating.
F
F
Some
of
you
remember
that
the
morning
newspaper
and
evening,
newspaper
and
before
he
left
for
work
in
the
morning
he
read
every
page
of
the
newspaper
every
word
of
the
newspaper
and
when
it
came
home,
took
him
two
hours
to
read
the
evening
newspaper
cover
to
cover
every
word
and
I
said.
What
do
you
do
that
he
said
it's
my
job?
F
I
I
had
known
your
father.
It
sounds
like
a
real
genuine
person.
Obviously,
the
immediate
direct
role
is
at
the
keeping
the
public,
honest
and
informing
the
public,
but
you
got
to
keep
us
honest,
I'm
going
to
just
step
back
for
a
second
to
what
I
started.
My
first
question
about
the
good
old
days
not
being
as
good
folks-
and
we
you
know,
have
great
people
and
great
leaders
of
this
country.
But
you
don't
want
to
go
back.
I
You
don't
want
to
go
back
to
the
1940s,
50s
and
60s
in
Minnesota,
when
the
decisions
in
the
legislature
were
made.
The
proposed
room
with
bottles
of
booze
at
the
st.
Paul
hotel
with
14
70
year
old
white,
guys,
that's
how
it
was
done.
Yep
I
know
you
don't
want
to
go
back
there
now.
Opening
it
up
shows
you
a
little
bit
of
the
ugliness.
If
you
don't
remember
the
ugliness
back
dandiya
yeah.
C
I
Don't
remember
it,
but
it
opening
up
shows
you
the
difficulty,
the
struggles,
the
ugliness
of
the
process,
but
we
don't
want
to
go
back.
You
want
to
see
that
most
you
can
about
how
the
decisions
are
made,
that
the
people
making
the
speeches
it's
good.
But
that's
the
reason
I
think
that
maybe
we
don't
have
the
the
the
positive
attitude
towards
our
decision
makers
and
the
process
today
that
maybe
we
did
50
years
ago
or
a
hundred
years
ago,
because
you
actually
see
what
is
going
on
by
the
way
those
things
we're
going
on
before.
I
I
Better
that
you
see
that,
and
that's
maybe
why
you
know
right
now.
We
give
Congress
in
the
state
legislature
something
like
a
fifteen
or
sixteen
percent
approval
rating,
because
you
see
what's
going
on
the
same.
Dang
thing
was
going
on
maybe
120
years
ago,
but
it
was
closed.
Let's,
let's,
let's
not
go
back
and
and
just
one
comment
I
want
you
I
want
you
to
sit
in
the
other
chair
for
a
second
just
sit
there
for
a
second
Don
mentioned
appropriately
about
global
warming.
He
said
ninety-eight
percent,
two
percent.
I
Yeah,
I,
respect
that
the
last
poll
I
saw.
The
last
poll
I
saw
was
seventy-eight
percent
approval
of
the
citizens
for
a
photo
ID.
So
I
want
you
to
sit
in
the
other
chair
and
say:
do
you
want
to
switch
around
and
for
the
campaign
on
the
constitutional
amendment
going
up
this
fall
or
for
the
discussions?
I
Do
you
want
twenty
percent
of
that
to
be
opposed
to
photo
ID
and
eighty
percent
in
favor
just
because
that
may
be
what
the
polls
say
or
what
nine
then
I
need
to
put
yourself
in
a
position
and
just
wonder
if
you
want
that
now
I'm
not
saying
anything
about
what
your
position
should
be
or
not,
but
just
to
respond
to
Don's
comment
about
the
98
to
I
think
you
would
be
very,
very,
very
upset,
very
frustrated
and
rightfully
so,
if
over
the
next,
what
is
it
to
election
time?
10
months,
yep.
H
I
F
The
science
of
security,
the
science
of
security,
says
that
photo
IDs
do
not
prevent
fraud
so
I'm
talking
about
scientists,
not
public
opinion
surveys,
I'm
not
saying
ninety-eight
percent
of
the
public
agrees
in
fact,
you're
forty-nine
percent
agree.
So
it's
not
a
it's.
Not
your
doing.
Apples
to
oranges
on
the.
I
C
K
To
me
in
this
state
that
we've
had
a
long
history
of
constitutional
amendments,
most
of
them
have
failed,
but
nonetheless
it
seems
to
me
that
it
there
is
an
abdication
of
responsibility
for
making
decisions
as
governing
bodies
and
that
the
use
of
constitutional
amendments
is
being
used
as
a
proxy
for
not
being
able
to
win
success
through
the
current
legislative
session.
So
I'd,
like
your
opinion
on
that.
Well.
D
Can
I
start
first
of
all,
having
been
there
when
a
transportation
constitutional
amendment
out
to
the
ballot
that
went
on
to
pass
the
legacy
amendment
that
went
on
to
pass
I
made
it
a
habit
to
read
the
constitution
of
the
state
of
Minnesota
every
year
in
elected
office,
and
also
to
study
the
history
of
these
amendments
and
I
think
what
you
would
be
surprised
about
is.
There
are
many
many
amendments
that
have
been
made
to
the
Constitution
over
the
years.
D
Only
recently
have
we
entered
into
an
era
of
what
could
be
seen
as
and
I
will
say,
you
know,
I
supported
the
change
to
the
Constitution
on
the
transportation
amendment
I
supported
the
legacy.
Amendment
change
I
have
concerns
about
the
current
amendment
going
out,
but
I
think
what
you're
speaking
to
clean
is
really
are
we
going
down
the
pathway
of
backdoor
initiative
and
referendum
in
the
state
of
Minnesota
and
I
I
for
one
have
never
been
a
fan
of
initiative
and
referendum.
D
I
didn't
agree
with
him
when
I
was
in
college
and
I
didn't
agree
with
him
eyes
in
the
legislature,
but
I
think
you're
speaking
to
the
more
recent
history,
because
there
have
been
many
amendments
to
our
state
constitution,
often
very
minutiae
and
very
boring
about
mill
rate
and
all
sorts
of
things
that
you're
sort
of
like
wow
I
had
no
idea,
and
you
think
how
do
people
get
educated?
You
know
in
1955
to
pass
this
constitutional
amendment
because
it's
a
high
hurdle
to
pass
a
constitutional
amendment.
D
It
has
to
be
of
those
voting
and
all
those
things.
So
I
will
say
that
I
think
everybody
has
a
bit
of
a
concern
when
it
seems
like
you
know.
I'll
tell
you
represent
Rukavina
every
single
year
wanted
me
to
put
the
the
income
tax
constitutional
amendment
out
on
the
ballot.
He
said
that
thing
it
polls,
you
know
I
mean
it's
kind
of
the
precursor
to
the
Occupy
movement,
which
would
have
been
sent
out
to
Minnesotans
a
constitutional
amendment.
D
D
F
Actually,
a
move
backwards
for
those
of
you
who
know
your
constitutional
history
that
the
person
measurement
of
the
Constitution
United
States
protects
in
its
last
Clause,
the
right
of
the
people
to
petition
their
government
for
redress
of
grievance
during
the
first
Congress's
of
the
United
States.
The
only
legislation
that
was
ever
brought
to
the
floor
was
brought
by
petition
of
the
people.
C
D
History
out
of
out
of
where
we
came
from
because
the
term
speaker
actually
is
a
term
that
meant
the
people
could
plead
to
the
king
through
the
speaker.
So
you
know
we,
we
have
a.
We
have
a
complex
history
here
with
where
we
came
from
and
the
the
growing
up
of
the
democracy,
the
growing
up
of
the
people
to
see
you
know
where
we
are
today
so
I
think
that
makes
total
sense.
That.
B
F
L
Frisch
I'm
a
past
president
of
the
league
of
women
voters
in
Minnesota
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
misconception
that
might
people
might
leave
the
room,
thinking
that
the
League
of
Women
Voters
rates
candidates
and
we
do
not.
We
do
not
rate
candidates
or
we
do
not
rate
officials
based
on
their
votes
and
I
thought
that
impression
was
conveyed.
Or
do
you
endorse
them?
No,
we
don't
cry.
G
I
I
I
I
think
it
is
a
assessment
by
some
and
you
may
or
may
not
agree
with
the
Carol,
but
there's
assessment
by
many
that
that
some
of
the
policy
decisions
that
were
promoted
by
a
senator
Anderson
witness
when
a
senator
and
I've
read
all
the
bills
she
introduced
and
all
the
the
bills
were
passed.
I've
had
to
do
that
the
last
couple
of
days
and
that's
pretty
into
it
done,
but.
C
I
Think
there
is
certainly
assessment
by
some
that
that
her
policy
positions
would
lead
to
significant
increases
for
ratepayers
in
the
state,
and
that
would
also
in
terms
job
producers
and
jobs.
Now
you
may
or
may
not
agree
with
the
Carol.
That's
that
that
you
have
that
right,
but
there
are
others
in
a
chair
next
to
you-
maybe
not
the
chair
next
to
but
chair
that
the
someplace
down
here,
who,
who
would
feel
very
strongly
that
that
that
is
very
that
that's
true.
I
F
That's
all
the
time
we
have
our
questions
tonight
and
please
remain
seated,
as
we
conclude
our
program
this
evening.
We're
going
to
take
a
minute
to
thank
the
panelists
for
participating
in
the
discussion
and
thank
you
to
the
League
of
Women
Voters
of
Bloomington,
edina
minnesota
and
the
Joyce
foundation
for
sponsoring
the
forum.
You
can
view
this
forum
on
the
Bloomington
and
edina
City
websites
or
watch
a
rebroadcast
on
the
Bloomington
City
channel,
14
or
Edina
city
channel
16
for
more
information
on
voting.
F
Please
visit
the
League
of
Women
Voters
Minnesota
election
website
and
thank
you
for
attending
tonight's
forum
and
please
remember
to
attend
your
local
caucuses
on
February's,
seventh
and
vote
on
Tuesday
November.
Sixth,
thank
you
very
much
to
our
panelists
tonight's.
Been
a
pleasure,
be
with
you
all
and
thank
you
very
much.
Goodnight
everybody.