Boncher's proposal for lobbying against unfunded mandates gains no support
Jordan Mayor Pete Ewals knew the votes weren't there for Councilmember Thom Boncher's proposal to write a collective letter in opposition to the state handing down requirements for which it doesn't pay.
Government officials like to call the requirements 'unfunded mandates,' and they are a regular topic of whining and complaining at city halls and county boardrooms throughout the state.
This month, Boncher proposed that the city of Jordan list the unfunded mandates it opposes and forward a letter to each of state Rep. Mark Buesgens, state Sen. Claire Robling and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton.
The councilmember wrote letters addressing the lack of funding for pay equity implementation and reporting, development and permit fees reports, flood plain management, forfeiture of unclaimed utility deposits, purchasing American-made equipment and uniforms, tobacco compliance checks, predatory offender registration and tracking, firearms permit acquisition, and fine distribution for enforcement of state laws.
'The state of Minnesota has a history of well-run, responsible government. That reputation is, in our opinion, being tarnished by the drive to mandate actions, while pushing costs down the government chain,' the letter stated.
It asks for the state to fully fund or eliminate the mandates it has imposed.
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), an organization of which Jordan is a member, also opposes many of the listed items, with the exception of three additional suggestions Police Chief Bob Malz made when asked.
'I appreciate the effort,' Councilmember Joe Thill said of Boncher's letters. 'I would've picked some different ones.'
Thill said he supports LMC's position on the subject.
Councilmember Mike Shaw said LMC is doing the lobbying for the city.
'They draft a letter,' Councilmember Tanya Velishek agreed.
LMC also details its stances for the legislators, she added.
'The League is a strong voice at the legislature,' City Administrator Ed Shukle said. 'They represent all cities in the state.'
Boncher offered to hand over his draft letter to the city staff and ask staff to incorporate any additions offered by councilmembers.
'We have a voice, and we have an obligation to use it,' Boncher said.
Ewals suggested that the council try to agree about which unfunded mandates are the most important to repeal.
'When you send a letter, it has a big impact,' he said.
Velishek said that since each councilmember has a different opinion, separate letters could be sent.
A letter from the council would be 'reinforcing what's already there' – a redundancy, Shukle said.
'Are we going to put a sock in this?' Boncher asked. '(If so) this group will no longer have the right to talk about unfunded mandates.'
Ewals saw the writing on the wall, and didn't ask for a motion or second on the matter.
'I don't think anyone wants to change their minds,' he said, 'so we can just move on.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
31 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How Involved Was the U.S. in Israel's Attack on Iran?
The U.S. has repeatedly denied involvement in Israel's initial attack against Iran —a position that Iran has disputed as missiles continue to fly between the two countries and the risk of further escalation looms should the world's biggest military be pulled into the fight, which has already killed hundreds and wounded more than a thousand since Friday in Iran and killed 19 and injured hundreds in Israel, as of Monday morning. A number of reports, however, suggest that the U.S. may have played a greater role than has officially been admitted. Unnamed U.S. officials told multiple news outlets on Sunday that President Donald Trump rejected an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 'Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do we're not even talking about going after the political leadership,' one official told Reuters. Israel has denied such a plan, but the reported rejection by Trump would indicate some amount of coordination between the U.S. and Israel. The attack on Iran came amid protracted talks between the U.S. and Iran centered around Iran's nuclear program. Trump has emphasized finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict, touting his self-professed ability to broker peace, but Iran and Israel have so far shrugged off international calls for deescalation as both sides launched new attacks early Monday. Iran has vowed to retaliate against the U.S., too, while Trump has warned: 'If we are attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.' Here's what to know about U.S. involvement so far. 'Nothing to do with the attack' Israel launched its attacks, dubbed 'Operation Rising Lion,' early Friday, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities as well as military leaders and nuclear scientists and promising that strikes 'will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat' of Iran's nuclear program. Iran launched retaliatory strikes at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on Friday evening and have continued to fire missiles at the country. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran has 'solid evidence' that the U.S. provided support for Israel's attacks. Iran's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the attacks 'could not have been carried out without coordination with and approval of the United States,' adding that the U.S. will be 'held responsible for the dangerous consequences of Israel's adventurism.' The U.S. has denied any involvement in Israel's strikes, a position that the Trump Administration has repeated multiple times since Friday. 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement released soon after the strikes started, describing the attack as 'unilateral action' by Israel. Rubio admitted Israel had informed the Trump Administration of the attack, which both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have also reiterated. The U.S. evacuated embassy staff from across the region the day before the attack last week. In a post on Truth Social urging Iran to 'make a deal,' Trump suggested Friday that he was also aware of 'the next already planned attacks,' which would be 'even more brutal.' Later that day, when asked by the Wall Street Journal if he was given a heads-up about the initial attacks by Israel, he suggested that description was an understatement, responding: 'Heads-up? It wasn't a heads-up. It was, we know what's going on.' But on Saturday night, following further strikes, Trump again posted: 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight.' 'Clear U.S. green light' Israel's attack had been months in the making. Reports in May of Israel's preparations to strike Iran suggested that the Trump Administration would not assist Israel in such an operation, especially as Washington was in the midst of negotiating a nuclear agreement with Tehran. But news outlet Axios reported Friday that Israeli officials said the strikes were in fact coordinated with the U.S., claiming that the Trump Administration publicly pretended to oppose an Israeli attack but gave Israel a 'clear U.S. green light' in private. According to the latest reports, the U.S. has even intervened to shape the attack. U.S. officials told Reuters, the Associated Press, CNN, and others that Israel had informed the Trump Administration of a credible plan to assassinate Khamenei and that the White House waved Israel off the plan. Netanyahu spokesperson Omer Dostri later denied those reports, calling them 'fake.' 'There's so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I'm not going to get into that,' Netanyahu said when asked about it on Fox News on Sunday. 'But I can tell you,' he continued, 'we'll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States.' The unclear messaging about the extent of U.S. involvement, however, could reflect mixed priorities between the U.S. and Israel. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on U.S.-Iran relations, told NPR that 'clearly there had been coordination and some form of a green light' by the Trump Administration for the Israeli strikes. 'Trump is making a major gamble here, thinking that this actually will soften the Iranian position and make them capitulate,' Parsi added. 'If they don't, what are his options? And this is where I think the Israelis are hoping that the Iranians will not capitulate and that will force the United States into the war.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The peril of government by soldiers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now Trump and his Cabinet advisers are making things even worse by repeating a tragic mistake: calling in the military, a force ill-suited to the job of ordinary policing, to suppress the expression of dissent against unpopular and unwarranted government actions. We have seen this before. It did not end well for those who deployed the troops against the American people. Advertisement In 1766, Benjamin Franklin testified before the British Parliament in opposition to the newly instated Stamp Act. Colonists had protested the act — in part because the burdensome tax on printed materials like newspapers, pamphlets, and almanacs — came at a moment of economic distress, but mainly because the act violated a right deeply rooted in British history: the right of the people to consent to taxation. Advertisement The colonists had no representatives in Parliament, and their colonial legislatures had not been consulted on the Stamp Act. Protests were mostly peaceful but turned violent in Boston, where crowds destroyed the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, believed (wrongly) to be a supporter of the tax. A member of Parliament asked Franklin whether soldiers could enforce the Stamp Act. Franklin tried to disabuse Parliament of this terrible idea which was, in any event, a violation of England's Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that keeping a standing army in peacetime without the people's consent was against the law. If Britain sends a military force to America, Franklin said, 'they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one.' Franklin's advice was ignored. The crown sent troops to enforce constitutionally dubious laws such as the Townshend Duties, which levied import taxes on tea, glass, paper, and paint, among other daily goods. As Franklin anticipated, protesters were inflamed. The two thousand soldiers who occupied Boston in 1768 provoked the infamous Boston Massacre of 1770; five townsmen were gunned down on King Street in front of the Old State House. Four years later, after the Boston Tea Party, Parliament stripped Massachusetts of the self-government guaranteed by its charter and placed the Colony under martial law. The military governor, General Thomas Gage, once more used soldiers to suppress dissent. On April 18, 1775, he sent a thousand regulars out into the countryside, aiming to arrest resistance leaders and capture stockpiled weapons. This time they did find Americans in arms — the rebellion was sparked, and the Colonies were lost. Advertisement In Boston, this pattern of resistance was deeply etched in the consciousness of its fiercely independent population. Nearly a century before the Battles of Lexington and Concord, townsmen in Boston had arrested Edmund Andros, a soldier sent by King James II to seize the Colony's original charter and create an authoritarian government. Nearly 80 years after Lexington and Concord, President Franklin Pierce dispatched US Marines to Boston to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Anthony Burns, who had escaped from slavery in Virginia and fled to Boston, was captured by US marshals in May 1854. Boston abolitionists organized massive protests to prevent his deportation. They were unsuccessful. The protests turned into an assault on the courthouse where Burns was held, and a deputy marshal was killed in the fray. Fifteen hundred state militia and several hundred marines, supported by horse-drawn artillery, escorted Burns down State Street to a federal ship waiting to bring him back to Virginia. Massive force prevented further violence in Boston on that day, but it also spurred a transformational movement. Moderate and even pro-slavery Bostonians whose fortunes were built on New England's textile economy and its ties to the Cotton Kingdom were shocked by the scene of federal troops trampling the freedom of their city and Commonwealth. In the words of Amos Lawrence, son of the founder of the Lawrence textile mills, 'We went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs, and waked up stark mad Abolitionists.' Advertisement Boston had known abolitionists for decades — a small minority of its citizens, generally unpopular for their strident views. But the Burns incident triggered a change of heart among moderates, conservatives, and compromisers, people who tolerated the seemingly distant evil of slavery because it served their self-interest. The sight of marines with bayonets enforcing the law of slavery on the site where the Boston Massacre occurred, where colonists had arrested Andros and rejected a government of soldiers, crystallized what was at stake in appeasing the Slave Power — the planter oligarchs of the Southern states who wielded disproportionate influence in the US government. This change of heart explains the surge of support for a new antislavery party in the elections of 1856 and 1860. Thousands of New England men, not just a handful of abolitionists, turned out to enlist when, after the election of 1860, the Slave Power launched a violent rebellion against the Union. There are echoes of the Fugitive Slave Law in Trump's campaign to arrest and deport immigrants. Hard-working people who perform vital labor for the nation are being persecuted for seeking a better life and the human dignity America claims to stand for. The tactics of masked ICE agents who snatch people off the streets, terrorize their communities, and deny them due process is eerily reminiscent of the actions of the slave-catchers of the 1850s. Of course, today's issues are different from those of earlier centuries. Nevertheless, certain fundamental principles are essential and eternal if we claim to believe in self-government. Government should operate by deliberation and consent, not force or fiat. All people should be secure in their persons and properties, and government can intrude on this security only with due process and legitimate warrants. All people have the right to assemble and express their views, including criticism of the government, without fear of molestation. Advertisement Trump has undermined these principles and now turns to the military to enforce his will in the face of justified resistance. Wittingly or not, Trump seems to be betting that Americans have forgotten this history, that these constitutional traditions are dead. That leaves it up to the American people, in another moment of peril, to prove otherwise.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
American biotech dominance under threat
And while Massachusetts remains a cornerstone of US biotech dominance, similar ecosystems have taken root and thrived in cities across the country — each contributing to our national strength in science and innovation. But this engine of innovation and economic growth is under threat. Advertisement Recent federal actions . As a recent Advertisement Many small biotechs — the true engines of innovation — are struggling to navigate this great uncertainty. Meanwhile, China has prioritized investment in biotechnology, This matters far beyond company balance sheets. The global bioeconomy is estimated to be The stakes couldn't be higher. If American biotech leadership is allowed to erode, critical discoveries, economic growth, and strategic leverage will migrate to rival nations. The suffering of patients waiting for cures and new medicines will be prolonged unnecessarily. But there is reason for optimism. The biotech industry is resilient precisely because its core has always been patients. Through economic downturns, policy shifts, and scientific setbacks, the mission to develop life-changing therapies has never wavered. And the industry is ideally positioned to lead what will be the next revolution in medicine: the integration of artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies into drug discovery, clinical trial operations, and diagnostics. When we emerge from this period of uncertainty, we will have strong science and battle-tested leaders. But a future that accelerates innovation, while reducing costs, depends on our actions today. Strategic investment in research, fully staffed and highly capable regulatory agencies, and stable, open supply chains are not Republican or Democratic issues — they're imperatives for safeguarding American biotech innovation. Advertisement There needs to be an immediate course correction, starting with clear and consistent regulatory policy. Predictable rules, timely reviews, and independent oversight are essential for restoring confidence in the US biotech ecosystem. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has underscored this need, calling for a long-term federal strategy to support innovation and strengthen our competitive edge. That includes at least The choice is clear: Lead the world in biotechnology or watch critical discoveries happen elsewhere. As the biotech community convenes in Boston, we call on policy makers across the political spectrum to protect America's innovation leadership.
