Minnesota Legislative Report, the longestr running public affairs show in the region, now in its 55th season.

Former state lawmaker Tony Certich speaks with legislators from northern Minnesota and answers your questions on the air.

Minnesota Legislative Report starts now.

Hello and welcome to Minnesota Legislative Report.

I'm your host Tony Stitch, fighting through some spring allergies.

With a little over two weeks left in the 2026 legislative session, lawmakers are hitting the home stretch.

Where will we see compromise?

Will there be results in investments in local projects in the Northland?

And what is the state of our state?

We'll break down what's happening and how it may affect you.

Joining us today is Representative Isaac Schultz, a Republican from Elmdale Township representing District 10B.

And also joining us again is Representative Roger Scrabba, a Republican from Elely representing district 3A.

Welcome to both of you.

Now, this week, uh, the governor gave his state of the state address, and this is something that governors do on an annual basis.

This one was a little later in the year, and he talked about this being a season of grief uh, coming through the past year, but said that the state of the state remains strong.

Representative Scraba, we'll start with you.

What do you think the state of the state is?

I don't think it's as strong as he is making it out to be.

Um I'm looking at uh my people when they got their tax statements just recently.

They're all looking at each other like what did we do to deserve this?

And I think uh the legislature in the last three years has done a um a poor job of looking out after the taxpayers.

So, um, we have a lot of work to get back to where we used to be.

Um, and I think that's something that we all have to be cognitive of.

I don't care if you're in the metro or in rural Minnesota, your property taxes went up and for what?

That's the question.

Uh, Governor Walls stated a number of um studies and rankings where Minnesota is in the top five, two or three.

Uh, represent uh, Schultz, what do you think the state of the state is?

I think the state of the state is frustrated by fraud and that being the top concern uh from motans as they've seen uh well over 9 billion dollars uh in Medicaid fraud and all all happening at the exact same time as the cost of state government has increased by 45% and we're all feeling it.

We're feeling it in every lens of our lives, whether it's our property taxes and especially what motans are facing uh now is the uh approximately $1,000 car tab fees for commonly uh driven vehicles across the state and uh family budgets are being very pinched by that.

Um and but I I will say like our state has been through a lot in the last 365 days.

Um, and there's been a lot of mourning, a lot of hard uh, you know, a lot of hard conversations and and hard circumstances uh, that the state is ruling from.

And and I I don't miss that at all.

I mean, it it impacts the conversations that Representative Scraba and I have every single day at the legislature.

It reverberates through the state.

And um and we need to help restore the trust that people should have in their government and uh their eagerness to participate uh in their constitutional republic uh with with the the ideas that that their voice can be heard inside of their government uh where no Minnesota needs to uh resort to violence.

Well, let's continue to talk about the fraud issue.

Uh certainly been uh in the headlines and talked about at the capital.

Uh, one of the major pieces of legislation that's looking to address this is starting an office of the inspector general or IG.

Uh, it's p it's going through the legislative process right now and it looks like this will become law at some point.

Rep.

Schultz, can you talk a bit about what the office of inspector general would do and how would this help curb fraud?

This is a very important proposal and it's it's actually in very similar fashion to one of the offices that Minnesota already has uh in the office of the legislative auditor which is a nonpartisan independent voice that's not tied to the executive branch um that is able to audit uh state programs and and they do a fantastic job including delivering recommendations uh to the agencies and to uh the legislature.

nature for ways that we should be doing uh government better.

And the Office of Inspector General would operate through that same nonpartisan or independent lens um but specifically have a lens to all of state government all the time be able to see across uh and through different state agencies uh over the concerns that we have in fraud.

Uh one of the challenges that we have as a state is there are currently convicted uh fraudsters who uh were convicted for their actions in one um one grant program or one agency who are also receiving funds in another state agency and that other state agency is completely oblivious to what happened uh on the other side of state government.

So what this uh office of inspector general would do is is remove um the accountability uh from the executive branch from specifically um under the the guise of the governor and put that into the hands of someone who is truly independent who doesn't uh who isn't under the thumb of the governor no matter whether the governor is Republican or Democrat and that person would be able to fully investigate the in uh the circumstances within any government program and would have the law enforcement authority uh to to help bring uh those circumstances uh to justice and and get it in the hands of prosecutors.

So, um it's a really important piece of legislation and to to put kind of some finer points on the specifics here as to how um it would happen, a bipartisan group of lawmakers would would bring forward a set of names um as uh potential candidates for this position.

uh the governor would then choose from that set of candidates and then it would have to that person who is nominated by the governor would then have to receive um a twothirds vote of the Senate in order to be confirmed and they would serve a five-year term uh meaning that they would be outside of the normal timelines of uh a governor.

Uh so that's the way that they would maintain independence um and be able to be outside of that um purview of specifically the executive branch.

So this this office really um would then look at things after it happened and represent Scraba to you are there things tools that can be given to state agencies to the attorney general's office and others to combat fraud potentially before it happens.

I know, Representative Schultz talked a bit about um some folks who maybe receive funding from one state agency or program who are eligible in another system or state agency.

That looks like you would need some money to update systems within state government.

Are there other tools that could be necessary to help uh fraud on the front end of things?

Well, I I I think our biggest problem is our society has always been um we do the right thing.

We're just taught not to um uh not not to to to take advantage of something if it's there to take advantage of.

It's like no, we don't do that.

Um there are cultures out there that don't know that.

And where we are um what's where we are in our society, we've always been um trusting.

It's always been well of course you don't take that money and mix it with that.

The rules say you can't.

So you don't.

But when we find out now when they're doing that and there's no repercussions there or no nothing that happened, we're going to have to find a way to teach people to say stop it.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

And and unfortunately that's where in my opinion that's where we are in society right now.

Um I used to run a business and I would rent snowmobiles and people would sign a contract.

They take the over for the day and bring it back.

That was normal.

One time people didn't bring it back.

And I'm like, what do I do now?

How come?

How did I let this happen?

I called the cops.

The cops are like, well, give it 48 hours.

I need those snowmobiles to make money.

Um, it taught me something about how we uh are set up as a trust.

We trust each other all the time.

And now in our government, you just assume, and Tony, you know this from the Northland Foundation, when the legislature gives you dollars to give to an organization, you have a check and balance in your organization so that it doesn't go somewhere else.

Well, we have agencies that aren't doing that.

They're not watching that.

So now we have an over hopefully we'll pass this and then we'll have some oversight over even those people that are supposed to be doing the right thing.

So I I I you know as much as I want to say, you know, um that we're shocked and surprised.

I I'm not.

I I I look at our rules and they've always been just you were taught that you follow the rules.

That's it.

That That's all there is.

Now we have to make rules to teach people that don't know how to follow the rules to follow the rules.

So, um, hopefully we'll get through this and it and it's just going to be my my goal is to never have to use the IG that the OIG just becomes a um oversight of everyone.

And if there is something that looks shady, they come in and they appropriate the the the what's the word I'm looking for?

the law enforcement in it to make sure that if someone's out there thinking they're going to get away with it, they're going to get caught.

So, I mean, yeah.

So, there Oh, go ahead.

Schultz.

Representative Scraba is right.

Um, and the legislature has taken action uh is like just over a week ago, the House uh passed four bills that will help with those preventative measures.

And as an example to you, uh there is now new grant management policies that have passed the House of Representatives.

And by the way, these were broad bipartisan votes.

So four uh anti- uh fraud uh provisions passed the House with broad bipartisan support that do incredibly important things.

One of them is changing uh and updating the statute around payment withhold.

So when there is a credible allegation of fraud uh that that the uh the the agency who sees that credible allegation of fraud has the authority to stop payment.

That has been an issue.

I know it sounds shocking but that has been an issue in state government um that has has resulted in payments continuing uh to suspected fraudsters.

In addition, we changed grant management policy so that if there is a suspicion of uh credible allegations of fraud within one agency that um that same information is being shared to other state agencies.

In addition, we added additional um information so that we have a longer period of time.

the statute of limitations for um um fraud in public programs has a longer look back period so that law enforcement and prosecutors have the time uh to build the case.

Uh in addition to additional statutory uh authority so that um so that folks in law enforcement have the ability against the AI generated um fraud risks that exist in today's world.

So, those were um several key pieces of legislation that passed just over a week ago in the Minnesota House, and we look forward to seeing action on those in the Minnesota Senate very soon.

One more question on fraud.

Uh just this week, the federal government announced they're withholding another $91 million of Medicaid funding to the state of Minnesota.

This is on top of $260 million that they have frozen uh more recently uh all about this issue on fraud.

Uh the federal government has approved the state's corrective action plan already.

Um do you support the federal government continuing to freeze funding or withhold funding from the state of Minnesota around Medicaid knowing that um this has a direct impact especially on our rural hospitals and how they're getting reimbursed for the services they're mandated to provide.

Representative Scrabble, we'll start with you.

I think the governor should do what the federal government wants him to do for the uh information that they're looking for.

If if he doesn't want to follow it, here's the consequence.

You don't get the money.

Well, repres these are two separate issues.

And so there was a corrective action plan.

They're not.

Well, and so you're speaking of uh giving information about what the voter roles are and connecting those two issues.

No.

Well, not just that, but all the information on Medicare, Medicaid, sorry.

He he's he's withholding information they want.

The how do I say it?

If he would just do what they're asking, and I don't think it's if if I go to get a loan in the bank and they say, "Here's here's what you need to do to get your money, and then I decide, I don't want to do that anymore."

Well, they're going to hold the money back till I um do what they asked me to do.

And I don't I don't think I mean why is the governor holding back on all this information?

There's no reason to hold back.

I mean, if everything everything should be transparent here and what he's doing is not I mean it's he is hurting Minnesota.

He is doing it by not um doing what the administration federal administration is asking for.

Well, let me let me represent Scraba.

I'm sorry, represent Scraba.

We just got to separate these two issues, though.

So, there's withholding information from the voter roles.

And that is not the responsibility of the governor.

That's the secretary of state's office, a different constitutional officer.

And there's a corrective action plan that the federal government required.

and the state of Minnesota, not just the governor, but the state put forward the corrective action plan and it was approved.

So, what other information are you speaking of that is being withheld by by the state government?

I'm I'm I'm going to defer to uh Representative Schultz.

He he looks like he want he's leaning into the camera.

So, Representative Schultz, go ahead.

Yeah, let me let me dive in on that.

So, there's a few different things.

Number one, um let me highlight uh the SNAP error rates.

Minnesota has had one of the the most challenging SNAP uh error rates and most specifically because the agency has had their own errors in reporting.

Those errors in reporting directly um impact um the trust that the federal government has in our own reporting.

Uh and so that would be one aspect.

Um you are right Tony that they had accepted our action plan.

Um, and so my understanding is that I believe you said $260 million that that money actually is flowing.

Now, what you saw uh this week is uh the FBI raid 22 different facilities, the vast majority of them being Medicaid funded programs.

Um and so in essence that was another concern when the state government in my opinion has not been doing its share of the role um on investigations and stopping payments and ultimately like rooting this out like this.

We we shouldn't be in this circumstance.

And so what the federal government did was they froze $90 million uh for a period of three months.

And so, and that's that's because they're looking for more on the front side from the state in terms of being able to stop uh these payments that are that are it's largely fraudulent billing, over billing of Medicaid.

Um that is being seen specifically in Medicaid funded programs, right?

So, those those 22 sites that they visited, they included child care centers, autism centers, and adult day centers.

And um and I I believe and and we've heard this talked about especially for the last uh nine months or so.

Um we are still and especially right now we are right at the tip of the iceberg.

Right.

So feeding our future is looking like it will be up to $500 million.

That was in the pandemic area food program.

But as it relates specifically to the Medicaid programs and the $9 billion that former acting US attorney Joe Thompson said that we could see um we are just now these are the first instances of uh raids by the FBI into Medicaid funded programs uh beyond the autism centers that we saw a little bit over a year ago.

So I would just say that this is going to continue to unravel.

uh but the the prosecutors and uh the US attorney also said that we have a complete inability to be able to fully prosecute our way out of this problem which is why we need action at the state capital and represent Charles do you agree with the strategy then that uh to freeze this funding once again um it it's directly impacting reimbursements to not just who you mentioned but to many of our rural hospitals and clinics as well.

Is this the right strategy for the federal government to do that's directly impacting not just those programs you spoke about where there's potential fraud and court cases, but it goes further than that by freezing this funding overall.

Yeah, thanks Tony.

So, I I actually listened to Governor Walls talk about this issue a little bit over a week ago.

And uh what he said was while it seemed like it was arduous for us maybe when when they started this reauthorization process of of Medicaid providers, what it gave us is Minnesota is the first one uh to go through this reertification process of providers.

And what that means is they're expecting that with the lens of fraud that is seen in Medicaid funded programs across the nation that Minnesota is now actually going to be the first one through.

They're planning to do this in other states too.

It just means that we're going to be on the front side, meaning we're going to get our system and our program integrity measures right first and we'll be back up and running uh faster.

uh as it relates to um the withholding of payments, I would say that this has actually led to our state agencies having a faster action towards um getting back on track.

So, when we've had issues of fraud, when we have seen uh that um that we're out of alignment with either federal law or what the feds are looking for, this has caused the agency to get in compliance faster.

So, it I believe it's working to this point and we're seeing these corrective action plans built and established faster.

All right.

Well, the legislature meets um for a two-year cycle and last year was a budget session.

This year, historically, the major focus of the legislative session has been on a capital investment or bonding bill.

We've heard from Representative Scraba in the past uh his his support for bonding projects in his region.

So, Representative Schultz, your first time here.

We want to talk to you overall about the capital investment or bonding bill.

Uh, is this something you think is necessary for this legislative session and what sort of projects, if so, would you be looking to support in that process?

Yeah, if a bonding bill is uh going to be passed this year, I hope it follows the same principles as took place in the 2025 bonding bill, which was um between 700 and $800 million worth of projects that went to wastewater and drinking water and roads and bridges um throughout the state.

And and frankly, I was elated at how uh that bill came together.

Um and I but I'll I'll speak just briefly for my community.

Um I I I love representing places like Foley and Malaca and Rice and and my hometown of Upsula.

This year I don't have any specific bonding requests from my own community.

Um and uh and so looking to help support those in neighboring communities um at the moment, but it would still be through the lens of those same principles.

If we're supporting the core infrastructure and asset preservation for state assets, um that's what we need to be doing.

Um, and Representative Scrab and I have had good conversations about this over time.

Um, but if we focus on those core things, I believe that that's what motans support.

Um, and I'll just also say that there are other pots of money that we could be using too uh to help with this because I I just have to mention that in in my eyes, um, those core things and I especially want to highlight water infrastructure are some of the most important things that we can do for local communities.

Um and uh and there's a big need to update that infrastructure uh across the state.

Represent Scraba, last time you were on, you spoke strongly, especially about those water infrastructure needs.

You're closer to this capital investment process.

Can you give us an update on the likelihood of us seeing uh a a a capital investment or bonding bill passed?

And just as a reminder to the viewers, uh the the House of Representatives is tied.

So anything that passes needs bipartisan support, but a capital investment bill where you borrow money at a low interest rate, the state does on behalf of these projects takes a super majority of legislators to pass the bill.

So can you give us an update on uh your um if you look into your crystal ball, the likelihood of a capital investment or bonding bill passing this legislative session?

I think I think it has a a really good chance of passing.

uh how it's being put together now.

Uh all the chairs are meeting the Senate, the House.

Um I can tell you uh in the last 3 weeks uh different um organizations have came down to the capital to lobby for uh bonding bill and the leadership goes into the ratunda and talks to these organizations and says you know we're behind you.

We're going to do a bonding bill.

Um you know please support us.

This is this is a big thing for Minnesota.

And to to uh take off on what Representative Schultz was talking about, the the majority of the groups are are building the water wastewater facilities, bridges, roads, and I think leadership wants to help those folks and help our state.

So, I think there's going to be a bonding bill.

Um, how big is it is going to be the issue.

Is it going to be 998 million?

Is it going to be 1.2 billion, 1.4 billion?

I believe the max is 1.4 billion.

I don't see us going there.

Um, I think there probably might be a compromise at 1.2.

Um, I'm I'm hoping it is.

uh for just how many projects there are that are in dire need.

Like for real, there there are people that are have to buy their water to drink in their house cuz they can't drink it out of the tap.

So we need we can do better.

It's 2027 or 26, you know, it's like really we can't help our friends that are having that problem.

So, I I think we're going to find u um a common ground here.

Leadership wants it.

Um and I think where that number lands is going to be the more of the issue rather than are we going to do it or not?

Well, if you have a question for legislators for a future show, please uh email them in and ask at pbsnorth.org.

You know, a question I get all the time uh from citizens, especially around issues like this capital investment bill or the budget, is you guys work all during the session.

You argue, you debate, you look at all of these issues, and most of the decisions come down to the last day, hours, or even minutes of a session, these big big bills.

Why does it take so long and why does an issue like this have to wait usually till the last day to get to a vote and make a decision on it?

Represent Schultz, we'll start with you.

Yeah, it's a kind of a product of the the the uh system that we have set up where uh we actually have deadlines.

Uh unlike Congress, we are constitutionally mandated to be finished uh by the date that we finish.

This year, the final day that we can pass bills is May 17th.

Having deadlines is incredibly important.

And uh for lack of a better way of putting it, um if you are a student preparing for a final, uh when are you cramming for the test?

it's it's the night before and um in and you know there's a lot of the same things that happen um in in regards to to the legislature.

So um now a lot of these bills and I have to highlight like what is going on in the House of Representatives right now.

Uh it appears like for the first time in a very long time we are very focused upon passing single subject bills which means that if you tune tune in and watch uh the floor sessions on Mondays or on Thursdays uh in the last couple weeks since Easter we've been taking up between uh 10 and 20 bills uh per day and um and they're a single subject.

Now uh will those bills um ultimately be potentially rolled into other larger bills?

Maybe.

Um but the good news is that at least in the house um they have been debated and discussed and passed on a single subject basis uh meaning that they've been aired and given uh the full public vetting um which is great.

So um that is a reason why we end up having um a push towards the end of session.

The other part is these are very big and and um sometimes divisive issues um with competing interests and uh putting the puzzle together does take time and that deadline approaches and helps bring people together.

Represent Scraba, your thoughts on why things seem to take until the very last minute to find a solution?

Yeah, if I ever wrote a book, the chapter would be the art of politics.

Um, it comes down to I want this, you want that.

We we both can't agree to it and we have to agree to it.

That's we have to.

So, we get down and it's not just one subject.

It's like 30 subjects.

So, when you get down towards the end, it's like, okay, I'm not going to get this.

I'm not going to get that, but I I want that and I think they want that.

So, I'll give this if you give me that.

and and that when you finally get that done, you don't want more time after it because then they'll come back and kind of kind of use it to get more what they want.

So, I I I know it sounds like I'm using a lot of what if this that, but that is exactly what happens.

Like the other day, um you know, there's eight people walking around with three ring binders going from room to room to room.

They're the ones trying to put the deal together and we're out there debating bills and they're trying to figure out what's going to happen in the last four days.

So, uh, it's politics.

It's just the way it is.

And as longerving, uh, state representative Davids from southern Minnesota said, it's hard to take the politics out of politics.

Well, on this topic and similar to this topic, we asked Senator Grant Hoschild, a DFLer from Hermantown, what his priorities for this legislative session were and to give a question to our guests.

Well, I think this year we've got to tackle affordability for families.

We've got to look at ways to relieving cost pressures, whether it's utility bills, property taxes that have been skyrocketing across our state, or really just prices at grocery stores and child care and all the different pressures on our families.

So, that's first and foremost.

Secondly, we have to tackle fraud.

In the state senate, we've been leading on this issue, passing an independent office of inspector general that would be able to prosecute and investigate fraud separate from the politics of the day.

So, that's critical we get that across the finish line in the House.

And then lastly, I have a really unique bill for Northern Minnesota that would bring seasonal property tax uh property taxes to local school districts.

This would help save our northern Minnesota schools and make sure there's a little bit more equity when it comes to our tax structure for our rural schools.

I think I'd want to know what is it about the other party that they should focus on more?

What issue or what bill is something that you really passionately want to pass that you think the other side would be willing to join you on?

I'd love to know that because I could work on it with them.

Represent.

Um, Senator Hoschild is the senator of the same legislative district and I assume you work on a bunch of bills together.

Uh, do you want to take some time to talk about maybe one of those bills?

Yeah.

Um, you know, uh, Senator Hosild and I have spoken a lot about the paid family leave.

Um, he's a very strong proponent of it.

Um, I I support the premise of it.

I think it's a it's a good idea.

Uh it's helped a lot of people already.

However, it's so big.

It's so large 20 20 weeks.

Um and I'm I I'm like, can we bring that back to like 6 weeks, 8 weeks?

And if you need more, you appeal for more.

Uh, I think it helps people that work that that diagnosed with cancer and they're going to be in treatment for eight months and on every Wednesday for those eight months, they're going to be gone.

This helps them know that they're going to get paid for that day, that they're going to be gone uh during during their treatment.

Uh, I I think that's where this program would shine.

Uh, I think they bit too much of the the pie.

They took too much and I' I'd be willing to sit down and work on trying to reel this in a little more and make it more affordable.

Um I I just don't see it lasting.

I I hope it does, but I just think it's too big and I would like to sit down and work on that.

Rep Schultz, is there an issue out there that you're passionate about where you see there's an opportunity that it would also be appealing to DFLers across the aisle?

Well, it's interesting that you asked that question and used that video clip, Tony, because what you heard was you heard DFL State Senator Grant Hoschild voice his priorities as if he was a Republican.

And I think that that actually points to this fall's election.

Um because uh as Representative Scrabba and I have experienced, uh state government during the Walls administration has grown by 45%.

We increased taxes.

is when I say we, I mean Senator Grant Hoschild and Tim Walls.

They passed $10 billion worth of tax increases.

And the reason that I point that out to you is the amount of mandates that were passed during the DFL trifecta resulted in higher property taxes.

So, it's cute to see Senator Hoschild talk about wanting to address affordability, especially when those costs come directly from the decisions that he made.

Now there is a way to work together.

So Senator Hoschild has brought forward his own property tax proposal.

His property tax proposal says that motans should get $100 million back and it would impact 588,000 property taxpayers.

I am the chief author of one of the house uh property tax relief proposals that would provide uh over $1,500 per family and per uh property owner uh 2.7 million property owners in the state um of one-time property tax rebate.

And um that's a clear choice.

Right now the state has one of the largest budget surpluses that we have ever had in state history.

We have north of $3.5 billion in our budget surplus beyond the fact that we have a budget reserve that is in its most healthy position.

So that means that motans have been overt taxed and we need to get the money back to them.

So there's an opportunity to work specifically on property tax relief.

I certainly hope that we do that this session and it's really easy.

just take where Senator Hoschild comes from at a hundred million dollars and multiply by 10 and maybe we'll get there.

And uh and and my point in saying that is um Senator Hoschild wants it to only be for the very bottom end of the economic spectrum when there are motans of every different um uh every different income threshold that are feeling the brunt of 10 billion worth of of tax increases and we should be focused on that.

So there are ways to work together in these last whatever we have 61 15 days left.

I hope that we are working on specifically property taxes um and to help solve the problem in the short term while we work on the long-term solution.

Um so that would be my major push.

But I will just say um everything that the senator mentioned is things that that I would like to work on.

And then earlier this week, he and I spoke while at the Ranger party about what we want to do long term to create the the space in Minnesota so that we would be processing our critical minerals from the duth complex here in the Northland here in Minnesota to benefit Minnesota's uh workers and that is something that I'd love to work with him on and and others like representative Scraba in years to come.

Uh, represent Spalty, you spoke a bit about uh, elections coming up this fall.

I've got a couple of questions uh, relating to the upcoming elections.

Now, we're not here to campaign, but we're talking about the actual laws and things you're working on this year in the legislature.

Uh, do either of you foresee any changes to election laws that will impact the November election coming up?

Represent Schultz, we'll start with you a little bit.

Um, so I don't necessarily think that it will be um election laws that originate in in in the state capital.

You know, there isn't anything of great significance that's going to pass um and impact this fall's election by comparison to what we already have in state law.

But I will also point to um what is happening at the federal level, whether it's the conversation over the SAVE Act um in in the United States Senate that's going on right now or whether it is um what the the US Supreme Court uh did uh earlier this week.

And so I would just just say those are probably the the primary impacts that would come largely from that federal level to impact elections in Minnesota.

Um, I I have to tell you that u with the number of bills that we've had on the calendar here, I haven't been able to fully digest exactly what uh the the decision from the Supreme Court uh what its role will be uh for Minnesota's elections.

Uh represent Scraba, are you seeing any potential changes that the state is doing that will impact our our elections this fall?

No.

No.

No, nothing.

There's a, you know, the the Democrats came off of a trifecta.

Uh we we uh worked hard and got a tie.

Uh and their goal right now at the the first dinner we had at the chamber dinner during our first day this year.

Uh, Representative Stevenson, the DFL leader, was asked uh uh what type of weather do you were asking all the leaders, what kind of weather would you describe your next your movement of your caucus of your party?

And uh Representative Stevenson said, "A blue wave."

And what that means is they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep things the way they were two years ago.

And that doesn't include changing the election, anything with the election.

So I see nothing moving at all.

Uh, one piece of legislation that potentially could have longerterm impact that was discussed in the House of Representatives this week was a constitutional amendment to put term limits on the governor and lieutenant governor of the state of Minnesota.

So, I want to ask you both about your thoughts of the likelihood of limiting governors and lieutenant governors term limits to two ter two eight uh four-year terms.

Represent Scrabble, let's start with you.

I think it's a great idea.

I think uh I think it'll bring people out to vote also.

I think people are, you know, concerned.

The president has four.

I think there's a bigger push to put us on on term limits also and I I obviously I've sat down with a lot of people about it and I think we should be looking at it.

I think we should be uh I I I can't imagine 40 years uh I realize you're effective but there's other people just as effective.

So, uh, I think the the the the founders of our nation meant this for this to be turned around to to a citizen uh legislator, not a professional legislator.

So, I support a a two-term governor, lieutenant governor, and I would also look into ours in the future.

Well, you're anticipating my next question, but we'll we'll uh let Represent Schultz come in on this.

Now, Minnesota voters have ultimately mostly decided to limit governor's terms to two terms.

Uh we haven't seen a governor get more than eight years of being governor uh in the history of the state of Minnesota.

And so, do you see this as a necessary constitutional amendment to put on the ballot?

Yeah, I think that um it's it's the right thing to do.

Um necessary.

It's it's hard to like make the you know, specifically necessary.

I think it's the right thing to do.

Right.

So, um this would put us in alignment with with the what the constitution says for for president.

I think that um motans and Americans see that it's beneficial to have new and other voices uh be at the table.

So, um I have already supported this um in the rules committee.

I plan to uh support it when we get it to the floor of the house.

Um, and I also appreciate Representative Jimmy Gordon and the approach that he's taken um to um look at the timeline so that this doesn't feel or seem as though it is directly impacting any current office holder.

So to me, this is just about doing what's right, doing what's right for Minnesota, uh for the future, and to ensure that other voices um of of all different um perspectives are seen inside of government rather than um giving the power within a state to one person uh for for a long period of time.

Uh so, Representative Scraba brought up the point of term limits for other elected offices as well.

And of course up north here we can point to some elected officials, prior elected officials, state legislators who had did serve for decades.

But actually when you look big picture, big term about the state legislature itself, the average amount of service is more around six years if you average it all out.

And so you do see those outlaw outliers that last longer.

And so your thoughts on term limits of state legislators and then do we keep going?

County commissioners, mayors, city council members, where do you draw the line?

Uh uh represent Schultz, we'll start with you.

It's a very good question to ask and the the key thing that I want motans to know is you want your elected officials to be uh empowered and knowledgeable about the issue areas and certainly representative Scraba and I were both serving in our fourth year in the Minnesota House and it takes time to get and the same would be true about local elected officials to to get up to speed on every different issue area.

um especially if you're looking to craft policy uh around those areas.

And uh if the term limit uh around that office is too strict, the position that you find yourself in is that you're actually empowering staff or non-elected officials uh to be making decisions or uh to be informing decisions of elected officials and they have more information about the topic than the actual elected official.

So there's a balance to strike and um and to this point I actually haven't heard uh much conversation about um putting those term limits on you know from the state level putting them on legislators or on um local elected officials is primarily been thinking about those constitutional officers.

Um and the reason being is like take for example Representative Scraba and I we're on the ballot every two years.

Um and the dynamics of our of our races uh change very drastically.

um so the people have a huge um uh ability to to make the change that they want.

So there's a balance point to to strike in that.

Um and it's and it's a excellent policy conversation.

Um and I would just say that we want to empower decision-making by actual elected officials is probably the most important thing that I want motans to take away from this conversation.

Representative Scraba, others would say uh who aren't in support of term limits that uh you're really just picking an arbitrary number whether it be four years, eight years, how many terms.

Uh ultimately, shouldn't we just let the voters decide when they are sick of you and want to kick you out and put somebody else in and voters can decide if you're doing a good job, they can keep you there as long as they want.

I back in the day when I worked for Congress and Overberstar, uh there was a big push for uh term limits in the federal government and Jim used to say, you know, I have term limits every two years.

They can limit me, you know, and and he is correct.

And and I think uh what Representative Schultz was talking about how staff kind of takes over if there's going to be turnaround all the time, then then we're just figureheads.

the real work is being done by staff and our ideas because we're going to be gone.

Let's say you set sixyear term limits.

That's that's not even normal.

I was thinking more like 10 two-year term limits would be you you're there 20 years.

If you can't get enough done and you know I I think that's enough.

Um I think uh senator same way, you know, you get four-year terms, you could be there uh uh 28 years.

to set them so that they're liberal enough that you're not creating a problem, but at the same time letting the public know that person's not going to be there for ever.

And and I and I don't know that we need them really, but I think if everyone uh wanted to do that, I would I would be more supportive of longer term limits rather than shorter ones.

We also asked St.

Louis County Commissioner Annie Harla what her priorities for this legislative session were and to give a question to legislators here today.

Let's hear from her.

My priorities this session are always m making sure that St.

Louis County and the legislature maintain a strong relationship and we do that by making sure they understand the stories of of our neighbors.

And so our you know really our number one priority when it comes to bonding is ensuring that we address our uh the regional um landfill that we'll be building in Canyon.

and uh you know that really addresses POS and as water comes out of it, it actually is cleaner than what is falling down in the rain.

And so that's a really a really big deal.

But another area is really making sure that in as the state works to address fraud, we really want to see an update to the public health and human services recording systems at um and that techn get an update on that technology.

Probably like I'm talking about trash and updating technology.

Really not sexy things, but really incredibly important to the backbone of our democracy and health and safety.

Um and then just another bill that I've I've done some testifying on is some emergency housing support that we'd like to fill up.

um just some we have some folks in our community that really need that additional support and then I'm also really supportive of the ban for elected officials signing non-disclosure agreements.

My question this session is how are you finding relationship with people to get work done?

So uh we talked a bit about the divided legislature total tie in the house one vote majority for DFLers in the Senate.

What are some of your strategies to to develop those relationships and work across the aisle?

represent Scrabble, let's start with you.

Well, uh, Representative Schultz sits behind me and he has far more Democrats coming to his desk to talk to him then they come talk to me.

So, um, he'll be able to talk about that.

I I do a lot of my behind the scenes like when I'm in committee a lot of times my statements my comments my actions are more let's solve the problem rather than create the problem amongst ourselves uh housing wasn't you know I've sat in housing uh there's a lot of issues where I think we all see the same issues like what Annie was talking commissioner Harla was talking about I I just think um and and I think this goes back to who the leader is, who the governor is, who the administration is.

Like u are are we going to get a fair shake if we work together?

Is is that administration saying, "Hey, we we want you guys to solve these problems.

I'll sign whatever you guys do."

Um I I don't get that sense.

I I've never seen the governor in any of our house buildings.

um he's kind of an absentee governor, but that's that changes different people.

But I think um the way we like the Ranger party this year, uh just last week, this week, I'm sorry, Monday, there was a lot of Democrats there and we all talk shop.

We talk about, you know, the the legislature, then we talk about our personal lives and we get to form relationships.

And I I think this new batch of folks that got elected are sharing time together, like going to their districts.

Uh I know Representative Warw has brought up at least two different um Democrat um uh uh legislators to our district and showed them what mining is.

And they were just like, "Wow."

you know, and representatives Lesnikar brought up someone um I was supposed to, but the the person that's going to come me said, "My car doesn't drive for 5 hours.

It's not in good shape, so I can't come up to visit."

So, I'm like, "Okay, you know, we're we're a bit out of the way."

But, um I you know, I look I I'm on bonding, so I get to see everything.

So, I'm always working with the Democrats.

We're in a bus together for, you know, four or five days in a row, uh six times, uh a summer.

So, we build these relationships and, you know, we all have the same goal.

We want people in Minnesota to be prosperous and we want to help those in need.

Um, we just maybe help too many people and we're we're not focused on everyone.

So, I I I think we're doing better maybe than we used to personally and I think it's going to get better because I think that I I know for a fact that society wants us to work together.

Period.

They they don't like the the the division.

They want us to work together.

Period.

Repres Schultz, we've seen an increase in political violence in Minnesota and across our country.

uh we we generally see when we're watching you all uh taking shots at each other uh verbally, speeches and otherwise on social media.

Uh what are some of your uh ways that you're trying to bridge that divide and work with folks that think differently than you?

And that could be politically, geographically, or otherwise.

I think it's important to show uh the public that we can have a vigorous debate about the issues and absolutely care and in a lot of times love the person who we're debating with.

And I mean that so sincerely.

Um and and I know that this exists for Representative Scraba, but it certainly exists uh for me.

Um, the people who I appear on video uh or or you know uh in debate to be disagreeing with the most are also likely people who I spend the most time with um off off camera.

And whether that is working through and finding solutions to uh the issues of the day uh or whether it is trying to better understand uh the the positions that each of us are coming uh from and then uh to this greater point of how do we how do we bridge the divide, it's all about spending more time together personally, right?

you you hear the stories of what Congress used to be when uh members didn't travel as frequently back home to their districts about uh the closeness of relationship between families um and how that that directly impacts um the product that you're able to to deliver for the people.

I think that in St.

Paul that's something that I try to work on, right?

Um, so I have a uh just under two-year-old son and uh when I have him around the cap, um I uh make sure that I am introducing him and building a relationship with him with my friends uh and colleagues on the other side of the aisle and um and that we're establishing those relationships that can see the humanity in one another.

Um and certainly when you have when you bring your family into it, that helps bridge those uh those divides.

And I, you know, just as an example on that, like uh Senator Hoschild and and uh his family and then my family has been at the same playground in the Twin Cities, uh you know, on a weekend ahead of heading back on a uh on a Monday to session.

So like it's it's finding those ways to see the humanity in one another uh so that um our perspectives um don't remove uh the the you know the the love that we have for the person uh that's on the other side of the table.

One of the other topics that Commissioner Harla brought up was non-disclosure agreements and we certainly have heard a lot about this up north especially around a data center uh potentially being built in Hermantown.

And so I know there's a bill going through the legislature that would ban elected officials from signing non-disclosure agreements.

Uh represent Scraba, do you support that legislation?

And if so, why or why not?

I was a mayor and I signed a non-disclosure agreement to get a business in Elely and of all the things that I've done, I would never do it again.

Um, that's a I I don't think a law should regulate a person like that.

Uh, whether you're elected, I I think that's up to each individual.

I I would highly recommend you not sign one.

Uh, because I think your first duty is to the voter.

It's not to the business.

It's not to support.

I uh if that information is that critical that you can't let it out, I don't want to know it anyway cuz I'm going to talk about it.

That's my job.

My job is to talk about the public and their role.

And if you don't want me to talk about it, then don't give it to me.

It's that simple.

Um if you start giving me all this information and making me sign something that says, "Oh, you can't talk about that.

Why am I here?

I'm I like I said, I regretted doing it.

I don't think there should be a law.

I think each individual should make up their own mind if they want to do it.

Again, I would highly recommend not doing it.

Represent Schultz, ban on non-disclosure agreements.

Do you support it?

Yeah, vigorous debate at the legislature at the moment.

Um I it it didn't move through um one of our committees, so at the moment it doesn't appear like it's moving forward this this session in the House.

Um yeah, as we as we look at this, uh I think there is a very strong case made uh that additional guidance uh would potentially um create a more public trust um which is important.

And for um when when you just look at it from the whole, it's this idea that a a citizen um should be able to reach um their elected official and know that their voice is able to be appropriately heard.

Um and so like you you heard Representative Scraba uh outline, you know, his own advice around this issue.

Um and I think that um when we when we just take a look at this, I think that every elected official should consider those things.

Um, and then you it's weird that a state policy would be something that puts local electeds in a position like this.

So, we'll see.

Um, I I haven't formally made up my mind yet on the issue.

Uh, though it's it's something uh where I believe it could enhance the public's trust.

Well, we only have about a minute left and so I'd each like you to take 30 seconds and try not to be too cryptic, but is there a topic, issue, or bill that we haven't talked about or that you haven't seen a lot of public attention on that you would like to see get over the finish line here by the end of the legislative session in the last two weeks.

Represent Schultz, we'll start with you.

Oh man.

Uh, you know, Tony, this is the season of disappointments where your big and bright ideas that that maybe you carried um are beginning to fall by the wayside.

And for me, I was working on a few different wa water policy related issues uh up until yesterday afternoon where it appeared like the uh the bipartisan agreement that we were striving for just fell apart.

So, um for me, I'm reeling a little bit on on my best ideas.

Um, but uh I'm hoping Representative Scraba is going to achieve more than than I am this session.

Only 20 seconds left.

Representative Scraba.

I just there's a lot of uh I sit on LCCMR.

I sit on Legacy.

Um I'm hoping a lot of those local projects make it through.

Um I'm crossing my fingers and when they go through then we know those local issues get taken care of.

And those are natural resource-based issues.

So, uh, we are out of time and I would like to thank Representatives Schultz and Scraba for joining us this evening, answering your questions and sharing their thoughts.

We'll be back again next week to speak to even more members of the Minnesota State Legislature as the session comes to a close.

For the team here at PBS North, thank you for watching.

I'm Tony Certich.

Have a great evening.