Insurance Federation
Righting the Wrong Integrity Record
[Note: This story first appeared in the March 18, 2008, edition of The Weekly Report.]
Unbeknownst to most Capitol outsiders is this: A legislator questioning the integrity of a lobbyist or an interest group is a very big thing.
Such a big -- and rare -- thing happened, this week, on the House floor. On a point of personal privilege, Rep. Steve Smith (R-Mound) rose to give a six-minute speech about how angry he was with the actions of the Insurance Federation of Minnesota. According to Smith (his speech can be viewed on the house television archives, time 1:14:13), the Insurance Federation accused Smith of supporting HF 3975 - the "good faith" bill - to "line his own pockets," and those of his fellow trial lawyers. (Click here to read "Keeping the Faith," an archived PIM synopsis of the "good faith" insurance debate). Smith singled out, named and chastised the Insurance Federation's long-time and highly respected president, Bob Johnson.
In a subsequent, un-orchestrated and bipartisan move, Rep. Joe Atkins (D-Inver Grove Heights) then rose to spoke as well, urging legislators to realize that, "An attack on one is an attack on all. When the honesty, the integrity, of a member like Steve Smith is impugned it is a reflection and an indignity to all of us."
Unfortunately for all concerned, Smith and Atkins were unintentionally wrong. Johnson responded to Smith in a letter that was copied to all members of the House, saying, "In my 30 years of work at the Legislature, I have never made a personal attack of such a nature that you accused me of, nor have I ever directed somebody else to make such a personal attack. I would not support anybody in our industry who would do that... As always, our commitment at the Insurance Federation of Minnesota, is to deal with issues as they arise. We sometimes disagree over issues but we never, ever make it personal."
The IFM did, indeed, send out a grassroots alert about the bill, but it was a timeless and harmless one, urging all members to write their Senators (the House wasn't even mentioned) asking them to not support the legislation, and then explained to members why the legislation was bad.
Apparently one of Smith's constituents upped the ante into a personal attack on Smith, but on no specific directive from the Insurance Federation.
What transpired here is a good exercise in how our Capitol works only if we can all agree:
1. Smith was right. If that mean-spirited letter was orchestrated by an interest group, especially from one of the highest caliber like the Insurance Federation, a public outing on the House floor was in order.
2. Atkins was right. And a super-refreshing respite from all the partisan rhetoric flying around the Capitol on almost every issue these days. An attack on the honesty and integrity of one member does reflect on all members. What makes what Atkins did so meaningful is that he just did it. Didn't consider the political implications of a DFLer defending a Republican; considered only the big picture.
3. Johnson was right. He immediately notified Smith and the other members that he didn't do the dirty deed. Those who know Johnson will recognize that this is particularly mortifying for Bob. One of the really good guys in the lobbying profession whose honesty and integrity are beyond question.
Case closed, Bob Johnson. No violation of our honesty and integrity code.
The Star Tribune's Mark Brunswick provides further details on how the good faith bill is moving at the Legislature, "Showdown builds at Capitol between trial lawyers, insurers."
[An integrity history lesson. Legislators, staff and lobbyists new to the process will have no memory of what happens when a lobbyist violates the honesty and integrity code. In 1988, John Bergland was the lobbyist for the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA). A bill to lower the DUI blood alcohol content to .08 was on the Senate floor (that issue was hotly debated before it passed into law in 2004 and became effective 2005). Bergland distributed a flyer on the Senate floor completely -- and some would say, intentionally -- misstating facts supposedly attributable to the highly respected Kathy Burke-Moore, who was then with the Department of Public Safety.
The outcry was enormous. Not only did the MLBA get rid of Bergland. He was unable to find any other lobbying work in Minnesota and moved to Georgia.
In Minnesota, a lobbyist cannot violate the code and survive. Now, case really closed.]
Unbeknownst to most Capitol outsiders is this: A legislator questioning the integrity of a lobbyist or an interest group is a very big thing.
Such a big -- and rare -- thing happened, this week, on the House floor. On a point of personal privilege, Rep. Steve Smith (R-Mound) rose to give a six-minute speech about how angry he was with the actions of the Insurance Federation of Minnesota. According to Smith (his speech can be viewed on the house television archives, time 1:14:13), the Insurance Federation accused Smith of supporting HF 3975 - the "good faith" bill - to "line his own pockets," and those of his fellow trial lawyers. (Click here to read "Keeping the Faith," an archived PIM synopsis of the "good faith" insurance debate). Smith singled out, named and chastised the Insurance Federation's long-time and highly respected president, Bob Johnson.
In a subsequent, un-orchestrated and bipartisan move, Rep. Joe Atkins (D-Inver Grove Heights) then rose to spoke as well, urging legislators to realize that, "An attack on one is an attack on all. When the honesty, the integrity, of a member like Steve Smith is impugned it is a reflection and an indignity to all of us."
Unfortunately for all concerned, Smith and Atkins were unintentionally wrong. Johnson responded to Smith in a letter that was copied to all members of the House, saying, "In my 30 years of work at the Legislature, I have never made a personal attack of such a nature that you accused me of, nor have I ever directed somebody else to make such a personal attack. I would not support anybody in our industry who would do that... As always, our commitment at the Insurance Federation of Minnesota, is to deal with issues as they arise. We sometimes disagree over issues but we never, ever make it personal."
The IFM did, indeed, send out a grassroots alert about the bill, but it was a timeless and harmless one, urging all members to write their Senators (the House wasn't even mentioned) asking them to not support the legislation, and then explained to members why the legislation was bad.
Apparently one of Smith's constituents upped the ante into a personal attack on Smith, but on no specific directive from the Insurance Federation.
What transpired here is a good exercise in how our Capitol works only if we can all agree:
1. Smith was right. If that mean-spirited letter was orchestrated by an interest group, especially from one of the highest caliber like the Insurance Federation, a public outing on the House floor was in order.
2. Atkins was right. And a super-refreshing respite from all the partisan rhetoric flying around the Capitol on almost every issue these days. An attack on the honesty and integrity of one member does reflect on all members. What makes what Atkins did so meaningful is that he just did it. Didn't consider the political implications of a DFLer defending a Republican; considered only the big picture.
3. Johnson was right. He immediately notified Smith and the other members that he didn't do the dirty deed. Those who know Johnson will recognize that this is particularly mortifying for Bob. One of the really good guys in the lobbying profession whose honesty and integrity are beyond question.
Case closed, Bob Johnson. No violation of our honesty and integrity code.
The Star Tribune's Mark Brunswick provides further details on how the good faith bill is moving at the Legislature, "Showdown builds at Capitol between trial lawyers, insurers."
[An integrity history lesson. Legislators, staff and lobbyists new to the process will have no memory of what happens when a lobbyist violates the honesty and integrity code. In 1988, John Bergland was the lobbyist for the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA). A bill to lower the DUI blood alcohol content to .08 was on the Senate floor (that issue was hotly debated before it passed into law in 2004 and became effective 2005). Bergland distributed a flyer on the Senate floor completely -- and some would say, intentionally -- misstating facts supposedly attributable to the highly respected Kathy Burke-Moore, who was then with the Department of Public Safety.
The outcry was enormous. Not only did the MLBA get rid of Bergland. He was unable to find any other lobbying work in Minnesota and moved to Georgia.
In Minnesota, a lobbyist cannot violate the code and survive. Now, case really closed.]
Morning Reports
