The State Line

You can watch the Nebraska Legislature live via computer and you can watch morning floor debate live on NETV.

 But if you heard state senators on Tuesday morning, you might soon be able to watch legislative hearings via interactive video.

 The discussion occured during debate on LB 735, the priority bill of Columbus Sen. Paul Schumacher. The bill adds community colleges and public power and irrigation districts larger than one county to the list of governmental boards that can hold meetings via video conferencing. The proposal allows no more than half of the meetings to be held via such hookups.

 Schumacher portrayed his idea as a “good government” proposal that would save money. After all, it costs board members (who often get reimbursed for mileage) a few dollars in gasoline to drive to a meeting. Why not just sit in front of a camera?

But the discussion quickly turned to legislative hearings. Wouldn’t it be nice, said more than one senator, if those poor folks in Scottsbluff could sit in front of a camera and testify on a bill and avoid the 450-mile drive to Lincoln?

 Some senators questioned the wisdom of turning legislative business into interactive TV shows, but the measure advanced from first-round debate on a 40-0 vote. This is progress; this is utilizing technology. And, didn’t the Legislature use this effectively in soliciting ideas about redistricting last year?

 Perhaps. But one of the things that makes the Legislature so unique is the personal contact people can have with their senators. Their offices are open. So are the committee hearings.

 Personal contact is important. You get a feel for what’s happening when you’re there live and in person that you don’t get when peering through the narrow opening of a camera lens. And, can anyone argue that public officials/judges/etc. behave differently when there’s actual people, actual reporters in the room?

 Schumacher’s bill does not allow for video-conferencing of legislative hearings. But it appears it will be a topic brought up in the future.

 On tap Wednesday is floor debate on a bill raising the mandatory school attendance date to age 18. It ran into some anti-mandate discussion on Tuesday. On deck is the proposal to expand legislative term limits from two, four-year terms to three terms, or 12 years.

A coalition of Nebraska organizations (and one governmental subdivision) summoned news media to the State Capitol last week to announce how much members dislike Gov. Dave Heineman’s proposed tax cuts.

Among them were representatives from AARP Nebraska, the Nebraska State Education Association, Voices for Children, Nebraska Appleseed and the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners. Many of the speakers rhetorically skewered some of the governor’s stock phrases.

Anyone who has heard Gov. Heineman speak has heard the phrase “Nebraska common sense.” And he has said repeatedly his tax-cut plan is intended to provide relief to “hard-working, middle class Nebraskans.” He also has referred to the “special interests” who would rather increase state spending than cut taxes.

So at the news confrence, one speaker said, “We maintain that Nebraska kids are not a special interest.” And another said cutting taxes now could lead to deficits later, which “is not the common sense Nebraska approach.” Still another said “hard-working, middle class Nebraska families” have made sacrifices in recent years to help the state survive the Great Recession.

Minutes after the news conference ended, the governor’s office distributed a news release that featured a variation on a theme. The governor called coalition members “liberal interest groups.”

There’s an extensively used economic redevelopment tool in Nebraska called “tax increment financing” (TIF).

But before cities can use it, they must declare an area “substandard and blighted.”

That created quite a spectacle in Omaha recently when one of its richest neighborhoods, Fairacres – home to more 28 homes worth $1 million or more — was going to be declared “substandard and blighted” so that the crumbling Crossroads Shopping Center nearby could qualify for the generous tax breaks offered by TIF.

 The city eventually pulled Fairacres out of the blighted area. But a state senator now wants to mellow out that language.

Under a proposed constitutional amendment proposed by Omaha legislator Heath Mello, the words “substandard and blighted” would be removed. A more palatable phrase would be substituted “property in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment.”

 The constitutional amendment, LR 376CA, probably isn’t going to advance this year.

  Placing something on the ballot is expensive and can be politically difficult. But can anyone argue that a collection of mansions should be called “blighted?”

Lawmakers have reached the halfway point of the 2012 Legislature and most of their time from here on out will be devoted to the bills named as priorities by individual senators, standing committees and the Speaker of the Legislature.

Tuesday’s agenda starts with an easy warmup – a bill allowing community college board to meet by videoconference or telephone conference call. Lawmakers may stretch their debate muscles a bit more on a measure giving smaller cities a year to plan for sales tax refunds due businesses that qualify for tax incentives. The measure’s $1.6 million price tag could hinder its advancement. 

Senators will have some heavier lifting on the next bill, which would require Nebraska children to stay in school until they reach age 18 or graduate, whichever comes sooner. The bill made it out of committee, but two of the eight senators voted against it. There likely will be more in the full Legislature who have some qualms about trying to force disaffected teenagers to stay in school.

Competing ideas for setting up a state health insurance exchange will be heard in the afternoon. Neither is expected to go anywhere this session, but the debate will shape Nebraska’s response to the federal health insurance reform law.

Some parents and children unhappy with Nebraska’s truancy law left a legislative hearing fuming Monday. 

Twenty-two people associated with the Nebraska Family Forum had come to testify for a bill that would return to a traditional definition of truancy, meaning unexcused absences. Current state law focuses on “excessive absenteeism,” which includes both excused and unexcused absences.

Group members complained that only eight, or 36 percent, of their number got to speak at the hearing, while “100 percent of the bureaucrats” who supported the current law or a tweak to the law proposed by State Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha were allowed to testify.

“What an insult to these citizens of Nebraska,” said Brenda Vosik, an Omaha mother. In an email to Judiciary Committee members, she suggested the hearing had been orchestrated to silence children and families affected by the law.

Ashford, the chief architect of the current trauncy law, did indeed orchestrate the hearing. But he said he had no intent to silence anyone. He took testimony on three bills at once and tried to go back and forth between viewpoints. He determined who would speak and the order of speakers. 

Ashford said he did so because of time constraints and to get dialogue on the issues. “We were trying to get a full complement of people who were against, for and neutral,” he said. “I think we got a full discussion.”

The usual practice at legislative hearings is to take each bill in turn and hear testimony first from people who are for the bill, then against the bill, then neutral. That format can make for a long hearing when the topic draws a crowd.

Committee chairmen have been known to depart from usual practice when highly controversial bills draw lots of people. Sometimes, they will set an overall time limit on each viewpoint. Sometimes, they attempt to take testimony on multiple bills at once. Sometimes, they simply shorten the time limits on each speaker.

In this case, the Judiciary Committee was trying to hear four bills between 9:30 a.m. and noon. The hearings had been rescheduled from the afternoon of February 3 because of a predicted snowstorm.

The 2012 session is almost half over, and things are starting to heat up.

 There was lots of scrambling at the Capitol this week as senators and lobbyists jockeyed to get bills prioritized. If that doesn’t happen, you likely aren’t seeing that bill pass during a 60-day session.

 Look for some fireworks on Thursday afternoon in the Revenue Committee. Omaha Sen. Brad Ashford will present his plan to allow cities, with voter approval, to increase their local sale tax by 1/2-cent.

 Omaha has been pushing for this authority for some time to deal with its expensive pension issues, and Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler held a press conference earlier this week to promote the bill as a way to reduce property taxes.

 Ashford has his own motivation — to encourage the merger of Omaha and Douglas County governments. That would take a shotgun wedding, it appears, but Ashford is holding out hopes that they will work together, if Omaha gets additional taxing authority.

 Omaha Sen. Brenda Council is among the senators who believe that last year’s law that earmarks $70 million a year in general funds to new highway construction is unaffordable, given other budget needs. She’ll be testifying to a committee that includes Sen. Deb Fischer, the author of the roads bill. That could get interesting.

 Papillion Sen. Jim Smith will also introduce his bill (to the Natural Resources Committee) on the Keystone XL pipeline. He introduced a shell bill to allow the Legislature to tweak, if necessary, its deal with TransCanada, Inc., to move the pipeline around the Sand Hills. We’ll find out if Smith thinks that’s necessary, but it appears so — he’s already made the pipeline bill his personal priority.

Wednesday morning will see round two of efforts to lure a major data center to Nebraska. Lawmakers already advanced a bill sweetening the tax incentives for such centers. Now they will talk about letting the state’s public power districts negotiate “economic incentive” rates for large data centers.  The rates would be allowed for no more than five years.

Both ideas are being pushed in hopes of landing a projected $1.2 billion data center that has been dubbed “Project Edge.” Iowa is known to be also pursuing the project, which hopes to break ground in May.

Wednesday afternoon, the Judiciary Committee will hear a bill clarifying the laws on eminent domain. The measure was prompted by the experiences of landowners along the proposed route of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Lawmakers will tackle a potpourri of bills Tuesday morning, starting with one clarifying what types of convictions would bar a person from getting a concealed handgun permit.

Further down the agenda is a bill boosting the salaries of judges by 2 percent next year. Another bill would expand a pilot program in which probation officers work with juvenile offenders, instead of having them handled through the child welfare system. The existing pilot program is in Douglas County. Backers hope to expand the program to North Platte.

The afternoon hearing schedule features a proposal to offer state grants to promote access to healthy food in rural areas and inner cities. The bill passed last year but was vetoed by the governor.

Sen. Tom Carlson of Holdrege told us Monday he will make term limits his priority now that it has advanced to the floor by a 6 to 3 vote of the Executive Board.

That means his 48 colleagues will have a chance to weigh in on the controversial measure because it will be debated.

Carlson’s proposed constitutional amendment would extend the number of consecutive terms a state senator could serve from two to three.  He argues his proposal keeps term limits, it just gives new senators more time to figure out what they’re doing on the front end and more time to put their hard-earned knowledge and experience to use on the back end. That’s assuming, of course, they’re twice re-elected.

Supporters of the current limits point to a 2000 statewide vote in which 55 percent of Nebraska voters approved the two terms. They argue that adding another term will only encourage future attempts to repeal term limits altogether.

Here’s how the exective board voted Monday:

Yes: John Wightman, Steve Lathrop, Chris Langemeier, John Nelson, Mark Christensen, Russ Karpisek

No: Mike Flood, Deb Fischer and Rich Pahls