Topic: Vote to tax ourself?
started by: MADDOG
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 06 2008,9:51 pm
One thing many of you probably don't know is that on November 4, you will have the choice of voting yourself a tax increase to fund special interests and the "arts".This year when you enter the voting booth, you not only get to decide who you want as the next President, you will have the opportunity to decide if you want to pay more sales tax.
There is a constitutional amendment on the ballot to increase the state sales tax by 3/8 of a percent to 6.875%.
By putting this to a vote and amending this tax to the constitution, special interest groups who are supporting it will be guaranteed this money will always be earmarked to their pet projects.
For years now, people supporting the arts and enertainment have lobbied the state to give them more money. Several in the recreational industry and lodging have done the same. Each and every time, their bills were defeated as special interests. Now they are working together and have put together a bill that they think voters have a soft spot for....the environment. So this constitutional amendment will give them their "pet" money by passifying the majority.
The tax if passed will raise aproximately $300 million dollars per year.
Distribution is
33 percent to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife;
33 percent to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation (at least five percent of the this amount must be spent only to protect drinking water sources)
14.25 percent to support the state’s parks and trails;
19.75 percent for the arts and cultural heritage purposes.
These first two areas are the meat these two special interest groups are using to get them the funds they could not get otherwise.
Pure pork barrel politics.
It only adds insult to injury with our economy in shambles. Don't forget. If you vote this sales tax through, you're adding it to the %7-800 million in gas tax increases, higher vehicle licensing and property tax increases.
This constitutional amendment is SO BAD, that even the < Minnesota Chamber of Commerce >, < Minnesota Farm Bureau > and of course the < Taxpayers League of Minnesota > are against it.
Posted by Santorini on Oct. 06 2008,10:04 pm
MADDDOG,Thanks for the heads up.
Appreciate it.
Posted by ICU812 on Oct. 06 2008,10:48 pm
I am all for the money to go to the above. That said, don't vote yes. Our elected leaders do not need more money to fund this, the money IS there but is spent other ways. Last time we voted for the dedicated money to roads..............................then they voted to raise the gas tax..............we were taken.Period.Don't vote us into being triple taxed. It only makes it easier for South Dakota to attract business due to lower taxes.
Posted by ICU812 on Oct. 06 2008,10:49 pm
QUOTE
Pure pork barrel politics.
Exactly...
Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 07 2008,1:12 am
Wonderful.The economy's in the toilet, money's already tight, and they want MORE money.
It never ends. And these morons in office have no clue what it's like to be squeaking by on five figures.
Vote out the incumbents. Nothing sends a message like that does.
Posted by grassman on Oct. 07 2008,7:51 am
I would have been fine with the first three, when they added on the arts, it lost my vote.
Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 07 2008,8:26 am
Robin Brown and Eric Larson...give us your thoughts please and if you support this or not. A simple yes or no would satisfy me...
Posted by hot84svo on Oct. 07 2008,9:35 am
Here's a link to review other states sales tax rates:< http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html >
It does not included the local added sales tax
How is the ballot going to be worded?
I hope is not worded like: a vote to disapprove, where a no is a yes vote.
Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 07 2008,9:49 am
Just voted...it's not worded that way but it starts out with something like "would you like to dedicate funding to protect clean drinking water...etc..etc... It isn't until the very end that they mention anything about the cost.Nice set up on their part...the average joe will read the first line and vote yes thinking who wouldn't want clean water.
Posted by ICU812 on Oct. 07 2008,9:58 am
QUOTE
The question that will be on the 2008 General Election ballot will state:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"
Yes ......
No ......
< Link >
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?"
Yes ......
No ......
< Link >
250-300 Million per year or 11 billion over 25 years.
Posted by hot84svo on Oct. 07 2008,10:10 am
As I expected.... mumbo jumbo to confuse joe six pack... No mention of % fund to each area in ballot wording.
What is defined to be Art's and Culture? How the heck does it relate to clean water and water resources?
Posted by hot84svo on Oct. 07 2008,10:19 am
QUOTE
Robin Brown and Eric Larson...give us your thoughts please and if you support this or not. A simple yes or no would satisfy me
Brown helped write the Bill!!! I bet she is not against it.....
< https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor....8&ssn=0 >
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 07 2008,2:01 pm
I wouldn't have expected anything less from the tax and spend dem.Not a single one of us believes in pork barrel spending.
If you vote yes, you're a pork barrel spender.
Better yet, if you're confused, just don't vote on the measured at all.
Posted by hot84svo on Oct. 07 2008,2:08 pm
Any ballots without a vote will be counted as a NO on Robin Brown's sponsored $11 billion tax increase.
Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 09 2008,9:50 am
< Poll Shows Voters Split >
Posted by ICU812 on Oct. 09 2008,9:56 am
link no good
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 09 2008,10:07 am
Try this < one. >
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 09 2008,10:18 am
< say no ad. >
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 15 2008,12:49 am
< 10 Reasons Why You Should Vote No > QUOTE
1. It’s $11 billion out of Minnesotan’s pockets. The almost half percent sales tax increase will generate $11 billion over 25 years, paid for by you, the taxpayer, and given into the hands of government.
2. It’s a Constitutional Amendment. If passed, the question on the ballot will be an amendment to the state Constitution, which will never go away. The Constitution is a document formed for the purposes of giving rights to the people and limiting the rights of government. A mandated tax increase and a mandated way to spend that money is an abuse of the state Constitution.
3. It mandates where $300 million each year will be spent. If passed, $300 million each year will be dedicated solely for the purposes of the arts and outdoors. Although these things are important, the role of the state legislature is to decide where taxpayer dollars are spent each 2-year budget cycle. We elect representatives to the legislature to prioritize spending. This amendment would allow $300 million of taxpayer money to bypass the legislative process and force them to spend it on the arts and outdoors, even if that year there were higher-priority needs for other things, like roads and education.
4. There’s no lack of current funds. Although few know it, millions of taxpayer dollars already go to fund environmental projects. The Department of Natural Resources has a 2-year budget of $1.5 billion. A portion of the state lottery proceeds goes to the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The market value of this fund is currently at $415 million. Clearly, there is no lack of funding for environmental projects.
5. We can’t follow the money. If this tax increase passes, hundreds of non-profit organizations will lobby to get their hands on these government grants. As opposed to government departments, non-profits do not have to report where and how they spend their money. Once these non-profits receive government grants from the dedicated funding, taxpayers will never see where their money is spent.
6. It creates a scary precedent. This will be a precedent-setting amendment if it passes. Once our Constitution begins to dedicate money to specific spending projects, there will be no end in sight of coalitions and special interests enticed to seek constitutionally dedicated funding for their own pet projects. Just in September, Speaker Anderson-Kelliher (D-Minneapolis) mentioned she can now start planning a constitutionally dedicated gas tax. If this $11 billion ballot question passes, we can guarantee we’ll see many more and many higher tax increases on future ballots.
7. The first version of the bill was better. The tax increase on the ballot didn’t start out as a tax increase at all. Initially the idea was a bill to dedicate a portion of the existing sales tax to environmental conservation programs only. But that plan proved unpopular with liberal legislators who didn’t want to divert current sales tax revenue to rural environmental programs. So instead they are asking voters to increase the state’s sales tax by an additional almost half a percent and direct billions of those dollars to arts and cultural heritage.
8. Look who’s supporting this tax increase. Just looking at the 200+ groups supporting this tax increase shows that this is nothing more than a slush fund for special interest groups. Over half of the groups are arts and theater organizations. The only reason they are supporting this and are willing to give large donations to the vote yes campaign is because they know they will receive free taxpayer dollars if it passes. Don’t let them tell you this is for Minnesota’s outdoor heritage alone; billions of dollars will go to art and theater organizations.
9. The government is not a charity. We’re all supporters of the outdoors and we all love beautiful Minnesota. But that doesn’t mean the government should mandate a tax on Minnesotans so that non-profit organizations can get funding. Thousands of non-profits exist strictly off of charitable donations from people who support their causes. There’s no reason that these organizations should be any different. For infrastructure and environmental projects that benefit all of Minnesota, there’s plenty of money available through the DNR and the lottery.
10. We already pay enough taxes. Minnesota is home to one of the highest sales tax rates (6.5%) in the country, plus we have a high income tax rate too. If the ballot question passes, the sales tax will increase to 6.875%. Next add county and city sales taxes already implemented, and in Hennepin County alone, we’re looking at almost an 8% sales tax.
2. It’s a Constitutional Amendment. If passed, the question on the ballot will be an amendment to the state Constitution, which will never go away. The Constitution is a document formed for the purposes of giving rights to the people and limiting the rights of government. A mandated tax increase and a mandated way to spend that money is an abuse of the state Constitution.
3. It mandates where $300 million each year will be spent. If passed, $300 million each year will be dedicated solely for the purposes of the arts and outdoors. Although these things are important, the role of the state legislature is to decide where taxpayer dollars are spent each 2-year budget cycle. We elect representatives to the legislature to prioritize spending. This amendment would allow $300 million of taxpayer money to bypass the legislative process and force them to spend it on the arts and outdoors, even if that year there were higher-priority needs for other things, like roads and education.
4. There’s no lack of current funds. Although few know it, millions of taxpayer dollars already go to fund environmental projects. The Department of Natural Resources has a 2-year budget of $1.5 billion. A portion of the state lottery proceeds goes to the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The market value of this fund is currently at $415 million. Clearly, there is no lack of funding for environmental projects.
5. We can’t follow the money. If this tax increase passes, hundreds of non-profit organizations will lobby to get their hands on these government grants. As opposed to government departments, non-profits do not have to report where and how they spend their money. Once these non-profits receive government grants from the dedicated funding, taxpayers will never see where their money is spent.
6. It creates a scary precedent. This will be a precedent-setting amendment if it passes. Once our Constitution begins to dedicate money to specific spending projects, there will be no end in sight of coalitions and special interests enticed to seek constitutionally dedicated funding for their own pet projects. Just in September, Speaker Anderson-Kelliher (D-Minneapolis) mentioned she can now start planning a constitutionally dedicated gas tax. If this $11 billion ballot question passes, we can guarantee we’ll see many more and many higher tax increases on future ballots.
7. The first version of the bill was better. The tax increase on the ballot didn’t start out as a tax increase at all. Initially the idea was a bill to dedicate a portion of the existing sales tax to environmental conservation programs only. But that plan proved unpopular with liberal legislators who didn’t want to divert current sales tax revenue to rural environmental programs. So instead they are asking voters to increase the state’s sales tax by an additional almost half a percent and direct billions of those dollars to arts and cultural heritage.
8. Look who’s supporting this tax increase. Just looking at the 200+ groups supporting this tax increase shows that this is nothing more than a slush fund for special interest groups. Over half of the groups are arts and theater organizations. The only reason they are supporting this and are willing to give large donations to the vote yes campaign is because they know they will receive free taxpayer dollars if it passes. Don’t let them tell you this is for Minnesota’s outdoor heritage alone; billions of dollars will go to art and theater organizations.
9. The government is not a charity. We’re all supporters of the outdoors and we all love beautiful Minnesota. But that doesn’t mean the government should mandate a tax on Minnesotans so that non-profit organizations can get funding. Thousands of non-profits exist strictly off of charitable donations from people who support their causes. There’s no reason that these organizations should be any different. For infrastructure and environmental projects that benefit all of Minnesota, there’s plenty of money available through the DNR and the lottery.
10. We already pay enough taxes. Minnesota is home to one of the highest sales tax rates (6.5%) in the country, plus we have a high income tax rate too. If the ballot question passes, the sales tax will increase to 6.875%. Next add county and city sales taxes already implemented, and in Hennepin County alone, we’re looking at almost an 8% sales tax.
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 15 2008,2:34 pm
With the local option sales tax to "clean up the lakes", we would not only have sales tax over 7%, but we would be taxing ourselves a THIRD time for the same thing--once for the Watershed, once for the local option, and once again for this hare-brained scheme.Voters in EVERY county in Minnesota should review the map I made a couple of years ago, showing population gains and losses. The counties in Orange had static or declining populations.
What are the chances that EVERY county that borders Iowa had a loss?
What are the chances that EVERY county that borders South Dakota had a loss?
What are the chances that EVERY county that borders North Dakota (except one--it borders Fargo, N.D.) had a loss?
What are the chances that 26 out of the 35 border counties had a population loss?
The answer--would you rather live in a high-tax state, or move a few miles to a lower tax state? If you were a business, where would YOU locate?
This is bad for residents, bad for business, and bad for Freeborn County.
Send a copy of the map to your legislator.
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 22 2008,4:08 pm
Frequently Asked Questions on the $11 Billion Sales Tax Increase Q. How much will this tax increase cost?
A. The additional 3/8ths of a percent sales tax will raise $11 billion over the 25 year duration of the amendment ($300 million per year).
Q. Why is this a constitutional amendment? Can’t the legislature appropriate the money?
A. The tax increase on the ballot didn’t start out as a tax increase at all. Initially the idea was to dedicate a portion of the existing sales tax to environmental conservation programs only. But that plan proved unpopular with liberal legislators who didn’t want to divert current sales tax revenue to rural environmental programs. So instead they are asking voters to increase the state’s sales tax by an additional 3/8 of a percent and direct billions of dollars to arts and cultural heritage.
Q. Isn’t the lottery supposed to be paying for our state’s environmental projects, and don’t we already spend millions of dollars each year on these programs?
A. Much of state lottery proceeds go to the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The market value on this fund is $415 million! Since 1992, $208 million of the Trust Fust money has been expended on 343 projects. That does not include the $1.5 billion Department of Natural Resource 2-year budget, most of which is spent on game and fish programs. Clearly, there is no lack of funding!
Q. Won’t the dedication of the taxes tie the hands of future legislatures?
A. Yes. Every year, $300 million of taxpayer money will be off the table and unavailable for basic state needs. This will be precedent-setting if the amendment passes. Other coalitions of special interests will be enticed to seek constitutionally dedicated funding for their pet “wish lists.”
Q. How will the money actually be spent?
A. The language in the amendment only says the money will be allocated among four purposes: $3.64 billion for water quality; $3.64 billion for wildlife habitat; $2.13 billion for arts and cultural resources; and $1.58 billion for parks and trails. A citizen panel will recommend how the money will be spent.
Some of the groups donating to the campaign in support of the tax increase that are likely to benefit from this tax increase include: Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Friends of Minnesota Public Television, Bloomington Chorale, Blue Mound Area Theatre, and the Sharp Tailed Grouse Society.
Q. Will all taxable purchases be subject to this sales tax increase?
A. Yes. Every purchase on which sales taxes are paid will increase 3/8ths of a percent effective July 1, 2009. The current sales tax is currently 6.5% state wide, with several counties having an even higher sales tax already.
Q. If Minnesota’s sales tax base is broadened in the future to include services (as some propose), will this tax be collected on them?
A. Yes. The 3/8ths of a percent tax applies to all purchases. If the sales tax is broadened to include clothing, food and/or services of all kinds, this tax increase will collect more than the projected $11 billion.
Q. Who will authorize expenditures from the new fund?
A. Decisions on spending bypass the legislative process entirely. A group of legislators and citizens will form a committee to decide how the funding is distributed once collected. Often times these people are appointed by the state legislature, so as a result their decisions cannot be influenced by voters.
Q. Why put the arts and environment together in the same package?
A. This strange alliance was formed because it was the only way to get enough votes to put the $11 billion tax increase on the ballot.
Q. What will the “No Constitutional Tax Increase” campaign do to fight this tax increase?
A. In order to withstand the media onslaught from those sponsoring this tax increase, we will distribute lawn signs, put up billboards, run television commercials and radio ads. We will also send out informational mailings and make get-out-the-vote calls on Election Day.
Q. Can I contribute to the campaign and is it tax deductible?
A. Both businesses and individuals can contribute and there are no contribution limits. Unfortunately, since we are technically a campaign, contributions are not tax deductible. Checks can be mailed to PO Box 120444, St. Paul, MN 55112.
QUOTE
Star Tribune & Pioneer Press Oppose Constitutional Amendment
Wednesday, 22 October 2008 08:23
No Constitutional Tax Increase
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Brad Biers
Ph: (651)261-2182
ST. PAUL – The Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press both published editorials last weekend in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment that would increase the sales tax by 3/8ths of a percent for the next 25 years agreeing that the proposed $11 billion dollar dedication of sales tax revenues would not be good for Minnesota.
“The Pioneer Press disagrees with the proposed amendment because special interest proponents added art and cultural heritage funding to the mix. The Star Tribune disagrees because other special interest groups may line up for their dedicated funding, circumventing the legislative decision making process,” said Rod Grams, Chairman of the No Constitutional Tax Increase campaign. “These are the same key reasons that the “Vote No campaign” has opposed this amendment from the beginning.
“I am glad to see the newspapers with the largest subscription bases inMinnesota understand that the Constitutional Amendment is a bad idea,” said Phil Krinkie, President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. “With the shaky economy of concern to everyone, adding a new tax burden on Minnesota families is the wrong thing to do. I’m glad the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press are helping to educate the voters on this issue.”
###
< http://www.nosalestaxincrease.org/ >
Wednesday, 22 October 2008 08:23
No Constitutional Tax Increase
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Brad Biers
Ph: (651)261-2182
ST. PAUL – The Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press both published editorials last weekend in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment that would increase the sales tax by 3/8ths of a percent for the next 25 years agreeing that the proposed $11 billion dollar dedication of sales tax revenues would not be good for Minnesota.
“The Pioneer Press disagrees with the proposed amendment because special interest proponents added art and cultural heritage funding to the mix. The Star Tribune disagrees because other special interest groups may line up for their dedicated funding, circumventing the legislative decision making process,” said Rod Grams, Chairman of the No Constitutional Tax Increase campaign. “These are the same key reasons that the “Vote No campaign” has opposed this amendment from the beginning.
“I am glad to see the newspapers with the largest subscription bases inMinnesota understand that the Constitutional Amendment is a bad idea,” said Phil Krinkie, President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. “With the shaky economy of concern to everyone, adding a new tax burden on Minnesota families is the wrong thing to do. I’m glad the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press are helping to educate the voters on this issue.”
###
< http://www.nosalestaxincrease.org/ >
Posted by Page_6 on Oct. 22 2008,5:06 pm
State Auditor Jim Nobles blasted the Minnesota Department of Resources Thursday for its handling of a conference last summer. Nobles said the DNR wrongly spent about $300,000 when it co-hosted a gathering for wildlife enforcement officers.
St. Paul, Minn. — The conference in July of last year was jointly sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources, and two external groups, the Minnesota Conservation Officer Association and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association.
Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles said the DNR wrongly spent almost $300,000 by covering a large portion of the conference cost.
The conference was meant to train conservation officers, but Nobles said the DNR could have accomplished that goal by spending less money. He says the department even covered expenses for social activities.
"It had a golf outing, it had various other kinds of family activities, and those are all fine for people to attend and participate it," he said. "It just shouldn't be paid for by taxpayer's money with taxpayer funds. We are very critical of the department for allowing public money to be used to support these other aspects of the conference."
DNR employees within the enforcement division helped plan the conference along with people at one of the conservation officers groups. Nobles said documents his agency reviewed show the conference produced a profit of nearly $77,000 for the officer groups.
"Their intent, this was not by accident, there intent was to use this conference to make money," Nobles said. "And that's what they achieved but they achieved that by an inappropriate use of public resources and through an inappropriate use of state resources to raise additional money from private sources."
Nobles said the officer groups also profited by charging conference volunteers registration fees.
He said DNR employees solicited donations from private businesses, many of which interact with the department. Nobles said none of that money went to the state.
"They used state time and state money, and we know that they made many of those representations in uniform and we think that is a direct conflict with the code of conduct for state employees," he said.
Posted by Page_6 on Oct. 22 2008,5:07 pm
DNR supervisor loses her job over improper spendingCapt. Cathy Hamm's lawyer said she retired before she could be fired. Audit found the agency misspent $300,000 for a game warden conference last year.
A Department of Natural Resources enforcement supervisor lost her job and the deputy DNR commissioner was suspended for three days following investigations into improper spending and fundraising by the agency for a game warden conference last year, the DNR announced Thursday.
DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten said Thursday that he fired Capt. Cathy Hamm, central region manager in the agency's enforcement division and a 33-year DNR employee, for "serious employee misconduct pertaining to management of public funds, failure to follow DNR procedures and violations of the DNR's harassment and discrimination policy."
Hamm's attorney countered Thursday that she retired before she could be fired. Hamm's husband, former chief of DNR enforcement, resigned from the agency last month after he, too, became a focus of the agency's investigation.
Posted by minnow on Oct. 22 2008,5:19 pm
That's what happens when you have husband and wife teams (nepotism) in charge of each others public business. The same type thing happened in Austin between the head drug treatment guy and his wife.
Posted by Page_6 on Oct. 22 2008,5:37 pm
here is the excerpt direct from the MN Lottery website:"Lottery contributions to the Trust Fund totaled $29.6 million in fiscal year 2007. The remaining 60 percent of net proceeds is allocated to the state General Fund to pay for programs related to public education, health and human services, and public safety, among others. Additionally, an in-lieu-of-sales tax on lottery tickets contributed another $19.8 million (6.5 cents per dollar spent on lottery tickets) to environmental and natural resources programs in fiscal year 2007. This money was allocated for state and local parks and trails operations and maintenance, programs to enhance fishing and hunting, and the State’s three public zoos."
Posted by grassman on Oct. 22 2008,5:52 pm
Remember the old saying, get a govt. job. Well boys and girls, these people have been enjoying themselves at our expense. Go to Anoka and ask a few citizens how they feel about their tax dollars at work. It is more than a time for change, it is time to kick some fat out of programs.
Posted by Botto 82 on Oct. 22 2008,8:33 pm
(minnow @ Oct. 22 2008,5:19 pm)
QUOTE
The same type thing happened in Austin between the head drug treatment guy and his wife.
Lord knows, you'd know.
Posted by Santorini on Oct. 22 2008,9:57 pm
(grassman @ Oct. 22 2008,5:52 pm)
QUOTE
Remember the old saying, get a govt. job. Well boys and girls, these people have been enjoying themselves at our expense. Go to Anoka and ask a few citizens how they feel about their tax dollars at work. It is more than a time for change, it is time to kick some fat out of programs.
Gov't job!! I want to get on that gravy-train!!
Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 24 2008,6:21 pm
Is there not enough with the Clean Water Act, The State lotteries, the DNR and our extra 1/2 percent? I wonder where the money came from to send those people to town to hype this. It can't cost nothing. Don't those people have to work? Could Robin Brown post here to give us an insight as to how much it cost to send these people out? Who funds the innitiative to fund the inniative ? I do not believe that anyone can be for this that is not getting something on the back side (and please don't say "don't you like clean water"). It seemed that they did not know that we had just taxed ourselves for the same thing minus the paint brushes.
They call them starving artist for a reason. Brother can you spare 3/8's of a dime. Vote No. Stop the madness. I like museums but come on. If I want art I will pay as I go, thank you. I'll not ask anyone to pay for my blacklight posters for me.
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 24 2008,7:32 pm
QUOTE
Is there not enough with the Clean Water Act, The State lotteries, the DNR and our extra 1/2 percent?
Probably not when they do stuff like this.QUOTE
May 5: Taxpayers paid for game warden meeting, records show
By DAVID SHAFFER, Star Tribune
Last update: May 7, 2008 - 11:51 AM
When game wardens from across North America were invited to a conference in St. Paul last year, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources rolled out the welcome mat -- and pulled out the taxpayers' checkbook.
Far fewer people than expected came for the three days of training and entertainment. Fundraising from private donors also was disappointing. So the DNR's enforcement division pumped $196,000 in state money and an estimated $187,000 in staff salaries to make the annual conference a success, according to financial reports reviewed by the Star Tribune.
Some of the state's 204 conservation officers also solicited private donations for the conference -- a practice one DNR official says was improper -- and all were required to attend. Officers were paid, and those from outside the metro area stayed in downtown hotels at state expense.
Thanks partly to the state aid, organizers of the 26th annual North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association Convention earned a $76,600 profit, state records show. The state didn't share in the profits.
One DNR manager was so opposed to the state's involvement that he resigned the day before the conference. And since the Star Tribune began asking questions, state officials have said two investigations will be launched.
The DNR enforcement division also now finds itself strapped for cash because of tight state revenues, and is considering $160,000 in program and staff cuts.
DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten said last week that an internal auditor will review conference spending and fundraising. He said that he supported Minnesota's hosting of the event, and that "on the surface" what was done seems legal. But he said agency officials have conflicting views on the legality of employees soliciting money on state time for such an event.
The state Legislative Auditor also will investigate, said Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, who serves on legislative committees that oversee the DNR. Hansen also is chairman of the Legislative Audit Commission. He said he was never told about the conference spending even though he attended meetings about DNR conservation officer training.
Minnesota in spotlight
The game warden conference is held in a different place every year and considered a plum for the resources agency in the host state or province.
Col. Mike Hamm, director of the DNR enforcement division, led the effort to bring the 2007 conference to Minnesota. His wife, Capt. Cathy Hamm, a supervisor in the DNR enforcement division, played a key role in organizing the event. In 2005, she and three other DNR officials spent $7,400 in state funds to travel to British Columbia to make Minnesota's successful bid to host the game warden group, state records show.
Capt. Hamm and other DNR employees spent a significant amount of work time planning the event, according to internal e-mails. But the division didn't track those hours, so it is not possible to tell how much employee time was involved.
Former DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam, who left office at the end of 2006, said he supported hosting the conference, but never authorized state funding for it. The money was authorized in 2007; the spending requests were signed by the deputy commissioner. Col. Hamm said he believed Merriam knew of plans to spend state money on the event. Hamm said no line-item for the event appeared in the DNR budget, though other DNR officials knew state money would be used.
"I don't think anybody knew the final dollars until they came out, so I fully understand the surprise at the end," said Col. Hamm.
Even so, he said, the conference "was a wise use of taxpayers' dollars," because Minnesota officers received better training than they get at annual sessions held at Camp Ripley.
The conference also offered fishing on Lake Mille Lacs, a boat cruise and a fish fry. Some events were on days before the official opening. About 200 officers' spouses, guests and family members came to the conference at the Crowne Plaza Hotel St. Paul-Riverfront.
The financial report prepared by Capt. Hamm and others last year said if Minnesota hadn't paid to send all its conservation officers, who made up nearly half of the conference delegates, "this conference would not have been successful." Under a profit-sharing formula that excluded the state, about a third of the profit went to the Minnesota Conservation Officers Association, the conference's local host, and the union representing most conservation officers. The rest went to the 8,000-member international game wardens group known as NAWEOA.
Six months after the conference, the DNR paid its final share of the meeting expenses -- $35,500 to the state conservation officers group. That payment was made after officials knew the group would profit from the event. Some of the group's profits will go to its charitable offshoot, the Minnesota Game Warden Foundation, said its head, retired conservation officer Brad Schultz.
Officials of those two organizations and the DNR said nobody discussed skipping that final DNR payment. Holsten, the DNR commissioner, said the state was obliged to write the check, which covered contracted training-related expenses. NAWEOA officials did not return calls for comment.
Tried to raise money
State money might not have been needed if conference organizers had been more successful raising private funds.
But getting donations was a challenge, and it didn't help that questions arose about whether fundraising by state employees during work hours was legal. One major effort was a solicitation letter, prepared on state computers and bearing the conservation officer logo, sent to nearly 600 companies and groups. "We received very few donations back,'' the financial report said.
Conservation officers also were enlisted to solicit donations, and given blank donation receipts in the name of the game warden foundation, but listing the DNR central region address. Col. Hamm said all of the fundraising was legal, citing a directive he issued in October 2006.
Another DNR official has pointed to a state law that bars state employees from using their position to benefit a group they are associated with. The conference donations and profits went to the conservation officer-related groups, including its union.
When the fundraising question arose, Jerry Hampel, assistant administrator in the DNR Office of Management and Budget, wrote an e-mail in January 2006 to an enforcement division manager. It said: "State time should not be used for fundraising. This is state policy and we must follow the rules. Mike (Hamm) is aware of the commissioner's position."
Hamm said Hampel is wrong, adding that he wouldn't risk his career if he thought on-the-job fundraising was unethical or illegal. Hampel said he stands by his position.
Another DNR official who had concerns is now-retired Capt. Perry Bollum, former head of the wetland enforcement program, who said he refused to do conference planning or fundraising because it took time away from protecting natural resources.
On the day before the conference, Bollum left the agency, taking early retirement after a 31-year career. He said he hadn't planned to retire at that time, but he wanted nothing to do with the conference.
He fears public disclosure will reflect badly on field officers. He said it shouldn't.
"This was not their idea; it was a management idea," Bollum said. "Unfortunately, these are the kinds of things that go on in DNR when managers put self-promotion and their egos and political gains ahead of sound ethical business decisions. ... The people of the state of Minnesota deserve better."
David Shaffer • 612-673-7090
< http://www.startribune.com >
By DAVID SHAFFER, Star Tribune
Last update: May 7, 2008 - 11:51 AM
When game wardens from across North America were invited to a conference in St. Paul last year, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources rolled out the welcome mat -- and pulled out the taxpayers' checkbook.
Far fewer people than expected came for the three days of training and entertainment. Fundraising from private donors also was disappointing. So the DNR's enforcement division pumped $196,000 in state money and an estimated $187,000 in staff salaries to make the annual conference a success, according to financial reports reviewed by the Star Tribune.
Some of the state's 204 conservation officers also solicited private donations for the conference -- a practice one DNR official says was improper -- and all were required to attend. Officers were paid, and those from outside the metro area stayed in downtown hotels at state expense.
Thanks partly to the state aid, organizers of the 26th annual North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association Convention earned a $76,600 profit, state records show. The state didn't share in the profits.
One DNR manager was so opposed to the state's involvement that he resigned the day before the conference. And since the Star Tribune began asking questions, state officials have said two investigations will be launched.
The DNR enforcement division also now finds itself strapped for cash because of tight state revenues, and is considering $160,000 in program and staff cuts.
DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten said last week that an internal auditor will review conference spending and fundraising. He said that he supported Minnesota's hosting of the event, and that "on the surface" what was done seems legal. But he said agency officials have conflicting views on the legality of employees soliciting money on state time for such an event.
The state Legislative Auditor also will investigate, said Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, who serves on legislative committees that oversee the DNR. Hansen also is chairman of the Legislative Audit Commission. He said he was never told about the conference spending even though he attended meetings about DNR conservation officer training.
Minnesota in spotlight
The game warden conference is held in a different place every year and considered a plum for the resources agency in the host state or province.
Col. Mike Hamm, director of the DNR enforcement division, led the effort to bring the 2007 conference to Minnesota. His wife, Capt. Cathy Hamm, a supervisor in the DNR enforcement division, played a key role in organizing the event. In 2005, she and three other DNR officials spent $7,400 in state funds to travel to British Columbia to make Minnesota's successful bid to host the game warden group, state records show.
Capt. Hamm and other DNR employees spent a significant amount of work time planning the event, according to internal e-mails. But the division didn't track those hours, so it is not possible to tell how much employee time was involved.
Former DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam, who left office at the end of 2006, said he supported hosting the conference, but never authorized state funding for it. The money was authorized in 2007; the spending requests were signed by the deputy commissioner. Col. Hamm said he believed Merriam knew of plans to spend state money on the event. Hamm said no line-item for the event appeared in the DNR budget, though other DNR officials knew state money would be used.
"I don't think anybody knew the final dollars until they came out, so I fully understand the surprise at the end," said Col. Hamm.
Even so, he said, the conference "was a wise use of taxpayers' dollars," because Minnesota officers received better training than they get at annual sessions held at Camp Ripley.
The conference also offered fishing on Lake Mille Lacs, a boat cruise and a fish fry. Some events were on days before the official opening. About 200 officers' spouses, guests and family members came to the conference at the Crowne Plaza Hotel St. Paul-Riverfront.
The financial report prepared by Capt. Hamm and others last year said if Minnesota hadn't paid to send all its conservation officers, who made up nearly half of the conference delegates, "this conference would not have been successful." Under a profit-sharing formula that excluded the state, about a third of the profit went to the Minnesota Conservation Officers Association, the conference's local host, and the union representing most conservation officers. The rest went to the 8,000-member international game wardens group known as NAWEOA.
Six months after the conference, the DNR paid its final share of the meeting expenses -- $35,500 to the state conservation officers group. That payment was made after officials knew the group would profit from the event. Some of the group's profits will go to its charitable offshoot, the Minnesota Game Warden Foundation, said its head, retired conservation officer Brad Schultz.
Officials of those two organizations and the DNR said nobody discussed skipping that final DNR payment. Holsten, the DNR commissioner, said the state was obliged to write the check, which covered contracted training-related expenses. NAWEOA officials did not return calls for comment.
Tried to raise money
State money might not have been needed if conference organizers had been more successful raising private funds.
But getting donations was a challenge, and it didn't help that questions arose about whether fundraising by state employees during work hours was legal. One major effort was a solicitation letter, prepared on state computers and bearing the conservation officer logo, sent to nearly 600 companies and groups. "We received very few donations back,'' the financial report said.
Conservation officers also were enlisted to solicit donations, and given blank donation receipts in the name of the game warden foundation, but listing the DNR central region address. Col. Hamm said all of the fundraising was legal, citing a directive he issued in October 2006.
Another DNR official has pointed to a state law that bars state employees from using their position to benefit a group they are associated with. The conference donations and profits went to the conservation officer-related groups, including its union.
When the fundraising question arose, Jerry Hampel, assistant administrator in the DNR Office of Management and Budget, wrote an e-mail in January 2006 to an enforcement division manager. It said: "State time should not be used for fundraising. This is state policy and we must follow the rules. Mike (Hamm) is aware of the commissioner's position."
Hamm said Hampel is wrong, adding that he wouldn't risk his career if he thought on-the-job fundraising was unethical or illegal. Hampel said he stands by his position.
Another DNR official who had concerns is now-retired Capt. Perry Bollum, former head of the wetland enforcement program, who said he refused to do conference planning or fundraising because it took time away from protecting natural resources.
On the day before the conference, Bollum left the agency, taking early retirement after a 31-year career. He said he hadn't planned to retire at that time, but he wanted nothing to do with the conference.
He fears public disclosure will reflect badly on field officers. He said it shouldn't.
"This was not their idea; it was a management idea," Bollum said. "Unfortunately, these are the kinds of things that go on in DNR when managers put self-promotion and their egos and political gains ahead of sound ethical business decisions. ... The people of the state of Minnesota deserve better."
David Shaffer • 612-673-7090
< http://www.startribune.com >
QUOTE
They call them starving artist for a reason. Brother can you spare 3/8's of a dime. Vote No. Stop the madness. I like museums but come on. If I want art I will pay as I go, thank you. I'll not ask anyone to pay for my blacklight posters for me.
Don't worry too much about this. Albert Lea is attempting to do their part to use your tax dollars for the arts. QUOTE
On Jan. 6, Artspace Resource Development Director Roy Close and Government Relations Director Stacy Mickelson will return to Albert Lea to launch the survey, which will determine if there is a market for artists in the region and how many units would be needed to accommodate them.....Around 2,000 postcards will be mailed out to artists, asking them to participate in the online survey regarding the potential Artspace live and work development in the Freeborn Bank and Jacobson Apartment buildings in downtown Albert Lea......If the survey comes back a success, the project will include 15 to 18 loft-like apartments with subsidized rents. < Tribune >
I wonder how much is subsidized besides the housing?