Amendment News:
Darby Nelson is a member of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council and president of the board of Conservation Minnesota.
Last legislative session, the bill that allocated appropriations for the constitutionally dedicated legacy funds included other provisions as well. One such section, advocated by the House, required establishment of a Legislative Guide. The intent of the guide was to state “principles for use and expected outcomes” of the four legacy funds.
The Guide was to become a joint recommendation by the House Cultural and Outdoor Heritage Division, an un-named senate committee and the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council. To date it has been essentially a House initiative.
Representative Will Morgan, Vice-Chair of the division, guided creation of an initial rough draft of the guide. The eleven page document, released December 14, drew considerable criticism from L-SOHC members and sportsmen’s and other groups. These groups passed on their concerns to Rep. Murphy, chair of the House Cultural and Outdoor Resources Division.
Some provisions appeared to run contrary to the constitution, including language that seemed to imply job creation should have priority, perhaps, over conservation. Jobs are obviously extremely important now, and there is no question that legacy fund expenditures do, indeed, produce jobs. But voters that passed the legacy amendment surely did not think they were voting for a jobs bill as such.
The committee reported out a second, much shorter draft, on January 20. This document improves on the first draft. It establishes principles that apply to all four of the funds: Outdoor Habitat Fund that the L-SOHC addresses; Clean Water Fund; Parks and Trails Fund; and the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund. These principles address accountability and administration, and priorities and outcomes for the funds in general and principles for each of the four funds individually.
Draft Two clarifies and reworks a number of provisions that troubled interested parties but a number of issues remain.
Several of us on the council, and others, have visited with Rep. Morgan on these matters to convey remaining concerns. I find him a sharp, thoughtful legislator who listens. While I expect he may not agree with all the changes we want, he will be open to considering modifications in the draft.
The Senate has not shown the degree of interest in the document that has characterized the House.
Language existing in the bill establishing the Legislative Guide states that the guide shall be for just five years.
Rep. Murphy’s division will hear the revised draft Monday, February 8 at 4 p.m. in Room 5 of the State Office Building. Public testimony will be allowed and amendments considered.
I understand the committee does not plan to put the guide into bill form. They wish to leave it simply as a guide. Rep. Morgan considers it “a guide not a bible.”
Darby Nelson
