Today, the legislature will hear five bills ripped straight out of the ALEC playbook.
By now, you may have heard us–or someone else–talking about ALEC. So now you’re probably wondering, “Just who is this ALEC guy?”
Well, the answer is simple: ALEC is Minnesota’s most powerful state legislator.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a secretive, corporate-funded organization that brings together hundreds of corporate lobbyists and thousands of state legislators together. ALEC allows legislators to essentially outsource drafting legislation to corporate lobbyists, ensuring that legislation introduced across the country benefits large corporations, not middle-class Americans. [Common Cause MN, 01/17/12]
ALEC’s “model legislation” is often cut and pasted verbatim and introduced at state Capitols around the country. Minnesota is no exception.
Don’t believe us? See for yourself:
At 8:15am, the House State Government Finance committee will hear HF 2033–what Republicans call the “Equal Pay and Benefits Act.”
|
HF 2033 “Equal Pay and Benefits Act” |
|
|
(b) By July 1, 2013, each legislative and executive branch employer must implement compensation for each position for its employees that, as nearly as applicable, is comparable to the compensation of private sector positions with similar skill, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions, as determined by the commissioner under paragraph (a). |
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the year to year annual percentage increase in average annual compensation per full time equivalent employee of any government entity shall not exceed the annual percentage increase in average compensation per employee of the private sector in the state for the corresponding period. In the event that average compensation per employee of the private sector declines on a year-to-year basis, the average annual compensation per full time equivalent employee of any government entity shall decline by at least the same percentage. |
|
HF 2033 “Equal Pay and Benefits Act” |
|
|
Subdivision 1. Future compensation. (a) The commissioner of management and budget must contract for a compensation study for legislative and executive branch position descriptions. The study must compare the total compensation, including salary and benefits, of each position description with positions in the private sector in which the skill, effort, responsibiities, and working conditions are similar. The commissioner must report the results of the study by March 1, 2013. |
Each government entity shall file an Employee Compensation Report with the (state fiscal officer) for each fiscal year, no later than 180 days following the end of each fiscal year in the form specified in Schedule A (attached). |
| HF 2033 “Equal Pay and Benefits Act” | ALEC State Budget Reform Toolkit Recommendation |
|
Subdivision 1. Future compensation. (a) The commissioner of management and budget must contract for a compensation study for legislative and executive branch position descriptions. The study must compare the total compensation, including salary and benefits, of each position description with positions in the private sector in which the skill, effort, responsibiities, and working conditions are similar. The commissioner must report the results of the study by March 1, 2013. |
Everything should be on the table, including changes in benefits and increased employee contribution rates, as well as employer contribution rates. Most importantly, states should consider replacing their defined-benefit plans with defined-contribution (401k style) plans for new employees. |
Though the language isn’t identical, it’s clear in both cases public sector workers are being attacked. The same sentiment and ideas lie behind Minnesota’s HF 2033 and numerous ALEC model bills and recommendations.
At 10:15am, the House Government Operations and Elections committee will hear HF 1975, which removes the requirement that before an agency seeks out a private contractor, it must first verify that no state employee is able and available to provide the services needed. This is, quite simply, an attack on public workers. It hands their contracts over to private contractors!
|
(1) no current state employee is able and available to perform the services called for by the contract; |
Increase the use of privatization and competitive contracting to execute tasks to lower costs and improve the quality of service provided. |
|
(7) in the event the results of the contract work will be carried out or continued by state employees upon completion of the contract, the contractor is required to include state employees in development and training, to the extent necessary to ensure that after completion of the contract, state employees can perform any ongoing work related to the same function; and (8) the agency will not contract out its previously eliminated jobs for four years without first considering the same former employees who are on the seniority unit layoff list who meet the minimum qualifications determined by the agency. |
|
|
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (1), employees are available if qualified and: (1) are already doing the work in question; or (2) are on layoff status in classes that can do the work in question. |
|
But wait! There’s still more ALEC to come! At 12:30pm, the Education Finance committee will hear HF 1860. HF 1860 is a bill aimed at defunding and starving Minnesota’s public education system by allowing school levy dollars to follow students to charter schools. One of ALEC’s main goals in education is defunding public education by driving those dollars to charter schools. Just take a look at the ALEC Charter Schools Act:
“This legislation allows groups of citizens to seek charter from the state to create and operate innovative, outcome-based schools. These schools would be exempt from state laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Schools are funded on a per-pupil rate, the same as public schools. Currently Minnesota operates the most well-known program.”
At 1pm, we turn to the Senate for more ALEC hearings. The Senate will hear SF 1577, their controversial, burdensome and unnecessary bill proposing a constitutional amendment requiring law-abiding citizens provide a photo ID to vote. As stated in Common Cause MN’s recent report on ALEC:
Requiring eligible voters to produce identification at the polls is an unnecessary hurdle to law-abiding citizens exercising our right to vote. It is a costly bill that has significant unintended consequences, the most significant of which is that it could prevent many law-abiding Minnesota seniors and veterans from voting.
|
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, article VII, section 1, will read: Section 1. Every person 18 years of age or more who has been a citizen of the United States for three months; who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next preceding an election; who presents valid photographic identification as prescribed by law; and whose eligibility to vote as been established under this section shall be entitled to vote in that precinct. |
(b) Any person desiring to vote in this state shall present proof of identity to the election official when appearing to vote in person either early or at the polls on Election Day. |
|
All voters must be subject to identical standards of eligibility verification before voting and the state must make photographic identification available to eligible voters at no cost to them. |
(e) An identification card shall be issued without the payment of a fee or charge to an individual who: (1) Does not have a valid driver’s license; and (2) Will be at least eighteen (18) years of age at the next general election, special election, or municipal election. |
If all that’s just not enough ALEC for you, you’re in luck. Also at 1pm, the Committee on State Government Innovations and Veterans will hear our final ALEC bill of the day: SF 1614. SF 1614 has the distinct honor of being one of the Republicans’ Reform 2.0 initiatives as well. I wonder if Reform 2.0 and ALEC are related somehow…?
SF 1614 creates a Small Business Regulatory Review Board, which sounds mighty similar to ALEC’s Regulatory Flexibility Act. Let’s take a look, shall we?
| ALEC Regulatory Flexibility Act | |
|
Sec. 5. [14.1294] IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES (a) An agency proposing a new rule, or an amendment to an existing rule, affecting small businesses shall: (1) consider methods for reducing the impact of the rule on small businesses, including, but not limited to, less stringent reporting requirements, reduced fees, simplification of compliance, or exemption for small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule; and (2) submit a proposed rule having an economic impact on small businesses to the board on the same day the proposed rule is submitted for publication in the State Register. (b) An agency submitting a rule to the board shall include, along with the rule, a statement detailing the considerations made for lessening the impact of the rule on small businesses. |
Section 3. {Economic Impact Statements} (a) Prior to the adoption of any proposed regulation that may have an adverse impact on small businesses, each agency shall prepare an economic impact statement that includes the following: (1) An identification and estimate of the number of the small businesses subject to the proposed regulation; (2) The projected reporting, record keeping and other administrative costs required for compliance with the proposed regulation, including the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; (3) A statement of the probable effect on impacted small businesses; (4) A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the proposed regulation. |
|
Sec. 6. [14.1295] ANNUAL REVIEW; REPORT Beginning in fiscal year 2012, each agency shall annually review the current statutes, laws, and rules of the agency and shall consider methods of reducing their impact on small businesses as provided under section 14.1294. If a method appears feasible, the agency shall propose an amendment to the statute, law, or rule, and submit the proposal to the board for consideration. By December 31 each year, each agency shall submit a report to the board, including any proposal and confirmation that a review has been conducted. |
Section 6. {Periodic Review of Rules} (a) Within four years of the enactment of this law, each agency shall review all agency rules existing at the time of enactment to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of those statutes, to minimize economic impact of the rules on small businesses in a manner consistent with the stated objective of applicable statutes. |
Well, folks, there you have it. Minnesota Republicans are working hard to pass ALEC’s pro-corporate agenda–from attacking public sector workers and defunding public education to disenfranchising law-abiding citizens and cloaking deregulation as being concerned about small businesses. Minnesota Republicans seem more than willing to forward ALEC’s agenda no matter how it will negatively impact the rest of us.
