The bill cleared the Senate earlier this week; expectations are that it will be taken up by the House before the current session ends. The House bill’s sponsors are Rhode Island Democrat Patrick Kennedy and Minnesota Republican Jim Ramstad.

Currently, many plans that include mental health coverage provisions offer a lower level of coverage than for other health problems. For instance, plans may require higher co-pays and deductibles, lower limits for the numbers of inpatient or outpatient visits allowed or annual and lifetime caps on the amount of coverage. The proposed mental health bill would require those who offer mental health coverage to provide the same level of benefits for mental health coverage as for physical health.The Senate version of the bill also mandates out-of-network mental health coverage, while the House bill does not. If the House passes the bill, its version will need to be reconciled with the Senate’s.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that one in five American families are affected by mental illness, and that passing the parity bill would have significant impact in Minnesota. Minnesota NAMI executive director Sue Abderholden explained that although Minnesota already has a mental health parity law, “Over half of Minnesotans with coverage are covered under self-insured plans.” The significance of that, Abderholden explained, is that self-insurers are not required to provide mental health coverage, and that the federal plan would close that loophole.

Although the parity bill has had many supporters over the years, two of its most ardent proponents have been Ramstad and the late senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota; the House version is named “The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act.”

Most members of the Minnesota congressional delegation have voiced their support for the parity bill. Republican Rep. John Kline is said to favor the Senate version; Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann’s position is unclear. Neither returned calls seeking comment.

Ramstad, a recovering alcoholic who has announced he will not run for re-election, spoke of the parity bill as his legacy: “Before I leave Congress, I expect the mental health and addiction treatment parity bill will become law. This landmark bill to provide greater access to treatment is the legacy I want to leave to millions of Americans suffering from mental illness and addiction; a legacy of access to treatment and recovery; a legacy of hope for a healthy and sober life.”

Abderholden agreed that the bill’s passage would be Ramstad’s “crowning moment,” and referred to him as a “great friend of the mental health community.”

Ramstad and Abderholden also had kind words for Paul Wellstone and his efforts.

“I will always cherish my work with Paul to provide greater access to treatment for people with mental illness and chemical addiction,” Ramstad said. “Paul would call me frequently to breathlessly relay his progress in securing another co-sponsor or to share counsel.  I came to absolutely treasure those late-night phone calls.”

Abderholden said that if Congress passes the mental health parity bill, “I can just see Paul Wellstone smiling and saying, ‘It’s about time.’”

The Lowry bridge, which crosses over the Mississippi River, is classified as a “minor urban arterial,” and listed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as “fracture critical.” According to the MnDOT website, “fracture critical” is defined as a bridge with “steel superstructure with load (tension) carrying members arranged in a manner in which if one fails, the bridge could collapse. …The classification of fracture critical does not mean the bridge is inherently unsafe.”

Starting earlier this week, the bridge has been closed during daylight hours while inspectors check for deficiencies. MnDOT has directed that all bridges on the list must be inspected by Dec. 1.

The bridge was slated to be replaced in 2009, but lack of transportation repair funding has made the replacement uncertain.

One end of the Lowry bridge is in state Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller’s district. Pogemiller said, “This is a bridge that has been in trouble for quite a few years. I think Hennepin County has been trying to move this up the list of problem bridges because there was a shift in one of the supports noticed a year or two ago. It’s got big problems, and it needs to be replaced, the entire bridge.”

When the Monitor asked Pogemiller about replacing the bridge, he replied that the Legislature would like it replaced. “There’s been planning, there’s been some design done, and they’ve just been trying to come up with the funds to do it,” he said. “The funding’s not committed. We put in some money last year at the state level to proceed with the planning, but they’re basically waiting for both the state and federal commitment to try to get the bridge fixed.”

Pogemiller called on Gov. Tim Pawlenty to sign a transportation bill, the last two of which he vetoed. “This is just one example of any number of bridges around the state that need help,” Pogemiller said.

Minnesota Monitor will continue taking a weekly look at these bridges.  If you have feedback on this or any other bridges on the list, please contact us at tips@minnesotamonitor.com.

A hearing on the plant’s certificate of need, required before transmission lines can be run from the plant across Minnesota, is scheduled for Oct. 4. Environmental opponents of the plant believe that withdrawal of the two Minnesota partners — Great River Energy and  the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency — will make it even more difficult for proponents to justify the plant to Minnesota regulators.
The controversial proposed Big Stone II power project suffered a setback on Monday when two of the utilities backing the $1.6 billion project pulled out, leaving it up to the remaining partners how to make up many millions of dollars if the project is to proceed.

The $1.6 billion coal-fired project is proposed to be built near Milbank, South Dakota, on the banks of the Big Stone Lake, near the border between Minnesota and South Dakota. The majority of the electricity produced, if the project goes forward, would be sold and consumed in Minnesota.

The remaining five utility companies promoting the Big Stone power plant are Otter Tail Power Company, Montana-Dakota Utilities Company, Missouri River Energy Services, Central Minnesota Municipal Power Association and Heartland Consumers Power District.

Although the plant would be located in South Dakota, it is a concern to Minnesotans because of estimates that the plant would release 4.7 million tons of carbon dioxide–a greenhouse gas–into the air every year for decades.

South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission approved the project last year, despite strong opposition. The Izaak Walton League, Fresh Energy, Wind on the Wires, and the Union of Concerned Scientists joined in the coalition opposing the power plant, with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy taking the lead.

The next hurdle for the project is winning the approval of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for a certificate of need, which is required before project proponents can proceed to build two power lines to bring the electricity from the power plant into Minnesota.

Dan Sharp, spokesman for the project, said it is likely that they will seek a postponement of the Oct. 4 PUC hearing in order to regroup after the two partners backed out, as well as to make any necessary revisions to the project proposal.

Chuck Laszewski of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy says that in addition to the carbon dioxide emissions, concerns also exist about whether the utility companies’ proposal meets the standards of Minnesota state law.

In its 2007 session, the Minnesota legislature passed environmental laws to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sharp said that his group included a wind energy component in its application; Laszewski maintained that the amount of wind energy the project would include would be minimal.

Sharp’s position is  that the plant is “still the best cost alternative for consumers and it’s certainly needed in this region, so we’re going forward.”

Laszewski’s group strongly disagrees: “We just don’t need this big coal-fired power plant. We say–and we have a lot of evidence to back us up–that the alternatives of wind energy, of which we have a lot and are developing even more, and energy efficiency investments would take care of whatever need they have.”

When asked what his group intends to do now that two partner utilities have backed out, Sharp answered, “Probably what will happen is either we’ll downsize the plant or we’ll keep the plant at its current proposed size, but the current remaining partners will take a bigger share.”

Whichever option the utilities pursue, Laszewski said that, “They will make their pitch and we will make ours. Our pitch will continue to be as it has been: this is unnecessary, we don’t need this plant. It’s a terribly polluting plant. It’s going in the wrong direction and we think you guys should just get rid of the idea and go with wind energy and energy efficiency.”

Image: Artist’s rendering of Big Stone II via the project’s website

One example is in the number of underfed in Minnesota: Like the number of underinsured Minnesotans, the state’s share of residents who go hungry is alarming.

According to Minnesota’s Second Harvest Heartland, the largest food bank in the area and seventh-largest in the nation:

*In Minnesota, 380,000 people are food insecure, hungry or at risk of hunger.
*There were more than 1.8 million visits to Minnesota food shelves in 2006, up from 1.7 million in 2005.
*Two out of five seniors will fall below the poverty line–annual income of $9,570 or less–between the ages of 60 and 90.
*38 percent of households using Minnesota food shelves are the working poor–the fastest growing group of food shelf clients.
*Children make up almost 45 percent of those served by Second Harvest Heartland’s member food shelves.

read moreSecond Harvest has just undertaken a 10-year initiative to address the hunger issue in Minnesota. Newell Searle, its vice president of external relations, explained that the organization’s goal now is “to end hunger rather than just fight hunger.”

He explained that “Ending hunger means that there will be enough food available to people in need through enough outlets that no one goes to bed hungry, and no one wakes up in the morning wondering if they’re going to eat that day.”

To meet that goal, Second Harvest projects that within 10 years it will need to  increase food distribution from its current 33.5 million pounds of food per year to 83 million pounds–234 pounds of food per year for each person in need. That amount is in addition to what public assistance, food charities and clients’ own resources provide.

“Once we get to 83 million, we don’t say that’s enough, we’re done,” said Searle. “We have to sustain it after that until such time as people no longer need [supplemental] food.”

Second Harvest will also continue to distribute personal care and hygiene products as well as food.

A Harvard School of Public Health study estimates that the cost of hunger to the U.S. economy is $90 billion annually. “The case that still needs to be made in very clear terms is that unaddressed hunger and unaddressed poverty–we work on the hunger aspect of poverty–affects everybody in the community, not just the people who are immediately hungry, Searle said.” Those costs include increased public spending for police. (“When people don’t have the basic necessities, it does alter their ethical behavior. Public policing costs do come into that,” Searle said). Another additional public expense derives from education dollars spent trying to teach hungry students, who are more concerned with their next meal than with learning.

And those with less purchasing power also have less ability to contribute to the economy.

The study also estimated that unaddressed hunger costs Minnesota about $1.1 billion a year and that hunger could be ended in this country with an expenditure of about $12 billion.

Second Harvest statistics show that 93 percent of the people they serve are U.S. citizens, 78 percent are registered voters, and only 3 percent are homeless. Half of the families visiting Twin Cities-area food shelves have at least one underage child.

“You add this up, and you say, ‘Who are these people?’ They’re our neighbors; they’re down the block. Or next door. They’re not segregated somewhere else; they’re everywhere throughout the whole community,” Searle noted.

Among those communities are suburbs, who saw the fastest increase in food shelf use when the travel and high-tech industries went into economic decline, particularly after 9/11. When the economy improved, the need for food shelves decreased, but Searle says that trend is starting to reverse. He thinks the suburbs may not be immune to the skyrocketing number of home foreclosures: “We haven’t seen it yet because this is so new, but it will not surprise me.I think it’s only a matter of time before we start hearing the stories related to foreclosures. I can’t say we have heard of any yet, but I anticipate that that will be a factor,” Searle said.

Photo: A food distribution line outside Park Avenue United Methodist Church in south Minneapolis

But lost in the flurry of reporting those dismal results was the fact that there are some outstanding schools in the metro area. While many schools were being added to the watch list, others were taken off. The Monitor spoke with the principals of three of those schools to find out how they achieved their excellent results.Jayne Ropella is beginning her seventh year as principal of Eastern Heights Elementary School in east St. Paul. Previously, the school was under scrutiny for possible corrective action in math and reading, but scored well enough on the last round of tests to be removed from that list.

Ropella said it took hard work for the school to improve and that “We came together as a group” to focus on raising math and reading scores.

First was math: “We did staff development; we looked at the curriculum. We mapped it out so we were all on the same page at each grade level, and really learning how to teach math better,” Ropella explained.

Once the direction for the math curriculum was set and the teachers were oriented, reading was next. “We looked at the current research of what was the best way to improve our instruction,” explained Ropella. “We looked at student work; we looked at out assessments; we changed how we were assessing kids for our benchmarks and how we used those assessments to drive our instruction.”

Most important, according to Ropella, was that “It was a 100 percent team effort,” and that, “We all worked together. Our teachers have been in study groups for the last few years here, looking at research, best practices and how to implement them in the classroom and talking to one another.”

Jan Parrish has been the principal of Richard Green Central Park Community School in south Minneapolis for three years. She says that when she arrived to take over that spot, the school was “at the bottom of the watch list. When I came here, this school was one of the original seven in the state that was not making adequate progress, and they were looking at severe consequences,” she said. Three years later, the school has turned the situation around and received outstanding scores.

Parrish said that her strategy was to closely examine the state’s standards. “We began to focus in on teaching the standards as our curriculum, not teaching the textbook as our curriculum,” Parrish said. She insisted that “We did not teach to the [NCLB] test, but rather concentrated on teaching the components of each subject.”

In reading, for example, Parrish said, “We teach the skills of story elements; character, thought, setting, those kind of things. We help the kids identify the story elements and see how, if you change any one element, it would make the story different.”

Math and other subjects were broken down in similar ways, and soon, Parrish said, teachers were becoming excited all over again about teaching as they saw their students becoming excited about learning.

Like Principal Ropella, Parrish also inspired the teaching staff to pull together with a common vision and goal. The results speak for themselves; the students of her school performed well and the school is off the watch list.

Bethune Elementary School in north Minneapolis is another previously low-performing school that has turned itself around. Principal Marianne Norris, is going into her sixth year as principal.

Like her counterparts Ropella and Parrish, Norris uses a team approach to education with the teaching staff. The school is part of the federal Reading First program, and receives what Norris calls “research-based” training in the best ways to teach reading. The teaching staff also pulled together to create a cohesive approach to teaching that stretched across the entire curriculum.

But Norris’ school added a twist by forming partnerships with outside groups and businesses.

Members of Minneapolis’ Stages Theater help the students engage in the arts. “The artists and teachers work together to integrate arts into their literacy program,” Norris explained, “so it will be enjoyable for the kids, they can use their whole bodies to learn vocabulary, or to read, or whatever.”

Bethune’s other partnerships are with the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center, which provides before- and after-school programs; Dorsey-Whitney law firm and other businesses, who have provided volunteers to help teachers and put on family events and carnivals for the students; and the University of Minnesota and Metro State University, providing instruction by “non-traditional” teachers.

These exceptional educators have several traits in common: Each of them has:

The final bill’s major provisions include:

# $38 million for repairing flood-damaged sewer and water systems, city and county buildings, municipal utilities and state and local parks.
# $35 million in grants and loans to small businesses.
# $16 million in low-interest and forgivable loans to individual homeowners.
# $1 million for property tax abatements for flooded homes and businesses.
# $584,000 to clean up and repair schools and provide aid to offset pupils who left school districts after the flood.

The bill also provides more than $5 million in aid to farmers affected by drought, forest fire damage in the Boundary Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area and flood relief for Browns Valley and Crookston.

Pawlenty signed the bill about two hours after the end of the session.

more insideDFL legislative leaders had pressed for the session to also consider funding for a transportation bill that would address road and bridge repair, but Pawlenty would only agree to a session that covered flood relief for southeastern Minnesota. The governor had previously said he would be willing to allow infrastructure issues, as well as property tax relief and a small gas tax increase to be taken up in the session.

Although a transportation bill was not included in the package taken up by the legislature, a provision for $51 million to repair and replace roads and bridges found its way into the bill that Pawlenty approved.

Although it wasn’t on the agenda, a comprehensive transportation bill still was referred to several times in DFL House members’ floor speeches.

DFL Rep. Phyllis Kahn expressed at one point that she was “saddened and disappointed” that the governor wouldn’t allow the session to deal with the state’s most pressing issues and hoped “we don’t have reason for regret” before February’s regular session for not addressing them.

Tony Sertich, DFL House Majority Leader, complained that the legislative package Pawlenty allowed to be considered focused “solely on being reactive, and not proactive,” by not including a transportation bill that would cover road and bridge repair.

Before the session, several Republicans also voiced their dissatisfaction with the exclusion of a transportation bill, especially in light of last month’s I-35 bridge collapse. A transportation bill had passed with bipartisan support in the last regular session, but Pawlenty vetoed it. When asked whether he thought the bill would be resurrected in February’s regular session, Republican representative Jim Abeler said, “Oh, absolutely. It has to get addressed, and I hope that level heads will prevail. If they don’t, I hope we pass that bill anyway.”

Abeler and other representatives in both parties say that a veto-proof majority now exists, and that Pawlenty would in effect have no way to prevent a transportation bill from becoming law.

Republican representative Neal Peterson went as far as to say, “I’m hoping the governor has a good experience today and will be willing to call another special session in a week or two, just to deal with transportation.” Such an occurrence seems unlikely.

Although legislators worked throughout the day Tuesday on the details of the final version of the flood relief proposal, House debate did not begin until about 11:15 PM Tuesday night and lasted about two hours. The ensuing Senate debate was almost anti-climactic, with the Senate approving the House bill several moments after calling the session to order.

The final votes were 130-0 in the House and 62-1 in the Senate.

The session is to last only one day and will only deal with disaster
relief for flood victims in southeastern Minnesota,as well as costs
resulting from massive fires earlier this year in the Boundary Waters
Canoe Wilderness Area in northern Minnesota. Funding for roads, bridges
and transit will not be on the session agenda.

About 1,500 homes were damaged and about 300 homes were destroyed in the
flooding about three weeks ago. Pawlenty said on Monday that he expects
the resulting funding to be in the $150 million range, with half being
cash from the state coffers and the remainder from bonding.

Legislators will meet Tuesday before the session to finalize details of
the relief package.

The council voted 5-2 against developer Jerry Trooien’s rezoning request to allow a proposed $1 billion dollar mixed-use retail and residential development on the west side of the Mississippi River, just opposite from downtown St. Paul.

When asked what his next move would be after the meeting, Trooien said, “I’m not going to do anything. Consistent with what I’ve said is, we don’t have another plan.”Early in the meeting, a representative of the Planning Commission recommended against “green-lighting” the project. The Planning Commission had concerns that the project would “place an excessive burden on the area,” increasing traffic and public safety concerns. The project also would be detrimental to the future development of other businesses in the area, the representative  said.

During the public hearing, supporters emphasized the jobs and revenue the project would create, and denied that it would threaten the vitality of nearby downtown St. Paul or that increased foot traffic would require an additional police presence.

Opponents reiterated earlier objections that the upscale project was “not intended for everyone to use and enjoy” and that the high-rise buildings would impede the view of the river.

Council Member Dave Thune, who represents the ward where the project was planned, introduced a motion to reject the rezoning request. While all council members expressed sympathy for the goals of the Bridges project to improve the riverfront, Lee Helgen, Kathy Lantry, Pat Harris, Jay Benanav and Thune voted against the request. Members Dan Bostrom and Debbie Montogomery voted in favor.

Related: Guest Post: Why St. Paul’s “Bridges” Project Matters by Diane Gerth

The letter from House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, sent Tuesday, begins with a recap of efforts to facilitate a special session, leading to the terse declaration that “It is time to stop the word games.”
The two DFLers went on to say, “It is unfortunate that you are unable to act decisively and comprehensively to the transportation challenge, either due to philosophy or politics.” They also reiterated their stance that “the emergency needs from the bridge collapse and the flooding remain and must be dealt with immediately.”

Citing the desire to not “burden a future generation with more borrowing,” the two leaders called for a special session to be held Tuesday, Sept. 11 that would only deal with cash flow for I-35 bridge reconstruction and a flood relief package. Pawlenty had previously expressed resistance to the kind of transportation bill the DFL wants — particularly about the size of a proposed gas tax increase — and the DFL has apparently taken that item off its proposed session agenda. The idea expressed in the letter was to not present to Pawlenty legislation from a special session that would probably just be vetoed.

Pawlenty has recently said that he is considering issuing executive orders rather than calling a special session. Kelliher’s spokesman, however, called it “unlikely” that all concerns could be dealt with in that way.

The Monitor was unable to obtain a response from Pawlenty’s office.

DFL Rep. Michael Paymar of St. Paul echoed the tone of his party’s leaders when he said, “I’m very frustrated with the whole process.” Referring to Pawlenty as a “stone wall,” Paymar speculated about the cause of the governor’s intransigence: “I think that what Pawlenty does is to put his finger in the air and see if he has support or not.”

Paymar said he thinks it possible that Pawlenty is being driven by polls showing his popularity increased after his initial handling of the bridge collapse. “He probably said, ‘We don’t need a special session. I can probably do this through some special funding and through executive order.’”

Thus, Paymar does not believe Pawlenty will call a special session.

Pawlenty has said that a transportation proposal could wait for the regular legislative session scheduled for February. Paymar indicated that it would indeed be put on the table at that time, if there is no special session or if there is no transporation measure on a special session agenda. In that event, said Paymar, “We’ll probably give him the same bill that he vetoed last session.

“But, hopefully, the public will be more supportive and put some pressure on him to change.”

The school districts in Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Ky., had won lower court victories when their integration plans were challenged; the Supreme Court ruled against them. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s was the deciding vote in the 5-4 decision. This vote was more important than what meets the eye. We will return to this point shortly.

more insideHamline University law professor Joe Daly explained why this summer’s ruling does not overturn Brown v. Board of Education ruling: “A majority vote is when five of the justices agree in principle in the jurisprudence in the very basis of why they made a decision. A plurality vote is when five of the justices have … differing ways of looking at why they came to the same conclusion.

“Did this case overrule Brown v. Board of Education?” asked Daly. “My answer would be ‘no, it has not.’ Justice Kennedy’s swing vote to make it a plurality decision did not overrule the Brown decision.”

In short, if all five justices had reached their conclusion using the same reasoning, Brown v. Board of Education would be no more. As it is, however, the more recent ruling does call into question the desegregation plans already in place in schools across the country. Kennedy’s opinion, while leaving the door open to some integration practices, leaves the boundaries between what is allowable and what is not somewhat murky and is almost certain to invite more court challenges.

“Parts of the opinion by the Chief Justice imply an all-too-unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor in instances when, in my view, it may be taken into account,” Kennedy’s opinion stated. “The plurality opinion is too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race.” What is not immediately clear is how the “legitimate government interest” should be defined.

With the new school year beginning this week, how will admission policies be affected in Twin Cities learning institutions?

Jill Cacy, assistant director of student placement in the St. Paul school district, said, “We have gotten away from using race as a determiner for selecting kids for school choice.We don’t use race and haven’t since 1999, so it really doesn’t have that big an impact in our day-to-day work in terms of placing students into schools.”

Margaret Weston, legal counsel for the Minneapolis public school system, said, “We do not use race as a criteria for placing students in any of our schools. Obviously, we will keep that in mind as we go forward, but we have not used race as a basis at all.”

Hamline University in St. Paul actively solicits diverse groups of prospective students. With that in mind, we asked Steve Bjork, associate vice president for admissions and career services, whether Hamline’s admissions practices would be affected. His answer was that the ruling would not hamper recruitment or admissions policies at all. “What we try to do is build the largest diverse pool of applicants that we can, and then from that, admit students based on their academic preparation,” Bjork said.

The University of Minnesota did not respond to requests for information by our press deadline.

Cross-posted at the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
]]> http://minnesotaindependent.com/2349/did-the-supreme-court-overturn-brown-v-board-of-education/feed 0