Well you can bet those who pushed the ammendment, and the outdoor groups that pushed for the ammendment are not going to just lie down and not fight. Just because one reporter mentions this, is not a "I told you so" silver bullet. Sure it was mentioned, but if you read the article a lot of other ideas were mentioned too.

Wait and see what happens, and if you voted for the ammendment, Like I did at the last moment, then speak up and tell them to find other rev sources.

Told you so

Well. let's see. New budget forecast just came out - we'll be short about $5.1 billion in the next biennium. What the heck is Pawlenty doing here - his no new taxes credo is leading us further into the hole. Talk about stuffed shirts...

Hello FishingMinnesota folks. I have followed this amendment this year and voted in favor. However, after looking at the members on the commission - it seems to me some quality organizations would be out of the running for funding.

Meaning, how can a lifetime member of PF, MWA or DU along with Minnesota Deer Hunting Association's Executive be allowed to vote on projects to which they have an association? Does this not constitute a conflict of interest?

Or, am I totally wrong on my thinking here?

Or excess spending. One of those two.

I hope your not advocating a raid on lakes and arts fund ?
That will come soon enough.
T. Pawlenty's battle with the Dems. and the special interest groups that support them is an uphill battle.
He's doing his best to keep spending under control.
I think you owe LIMTOUT a beer and an appology.
So far he's called this one on the nuts !

The committee was formed a week ago. Lots of decisions made up to this point, eh? Way to look into the future on this one.

That's what I was thinking........but alas, I was bashed on another site for mentioning that.

Guess it threw up some red flags for me too.

If your negitive on everything ALL the time eventually you will get one right! But this amendment hasn't gone far enough to even see where its going.I'm not pushin it's good qualities cause its not started yet! but there are those who assume and have been from the start its bad cause they dont like it!
They voted against it and didn't get their way!! Get the Gerber jar out!

At the rate of spending increases we will soon be handing over pretty much all of our compensation to the govt. They need to quit spending!!!

I rarely comment down here anymore because of the way things get out of hand, but here goes:

While it still remains to be seen what will actually happen with the money, to me this one fell under the "Road to He11 is Paved With Good Intentions" category, which is why I voted against it. That and there were plenty of programs already in place, particularly in outstate MN to accomplish many of the same goals without the arts. The thing that appears lacking all too often is business sense and the communication savvy to pull them off. I hope the somewhat nebulous intentions of the ammendment are met. However, knowing how our legislature has operated the last several sessions, am not holding my breath as they appear to be readying for another assault on the cookie jar.

how is this even legal to do the bait and switch on us?

Yes and no. If it's a choice between saving the economy and saving a woodpecker's habitat or sculpture.....

Bob

Welcome to FM DuckDog and I think you are right on the numbers here.

97A.056 OUTDOOR HERITAGE FUND; LESSARD OUTDOOR HERITAGE COUNCIL.


Subd. 4.Conflict of interest.(a) A council member may not be an advocate for or against a council action or vote on any action that may be a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest must be disclosed as soon as it is discovered. The council shall follow the policies and requirements related to conflicts of interest developed by the Office of Grants Management under section 16B.98.

(b) For the purposes of this section, a "conflict of interest" exists when a person has an organizational conflict of interest or direct financial interests and those interests present the appearance that it will be difficult for the person to impartially fulfill the person's duty. An "organizational conflict of interest" exists when a person has an affiliation with an organization that is subject to council activities, which presents the appearance of a conflict between organizational interests and council member duties. An "organizational conflict of interest" does not exist if the person's only affiliation with an organization is being a member of the organization.