Dayton should push to restructure IRRR board

If Gov. Mark Dayton wants to leave a positive legacy for the Iron Range, he should use his next two years in office to advance a restructuring at the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board. The current practice of appointing an agency board composed overwhelmingly of local legislators is not only very likely unconstitutional, it has served to stifle the introduction of new ideas and new leadership that could otherwise advance the region’s future.

At the same time, it has made the agency’s funding a frequent target for Republicans. It’s worth noting that it was Gov. Harold Stassen, a Republican, who created the agency back in the 1930s. Republicans certainly have no objection to the idea of economic diversification on the Iron Range, but they have taken issue with what they see as the use of tax dollars, albeit local tax dollars, to further enhance the power base of already powerful DFL politicians by giving them decision-making authority over the expenditure of significant amounts of funding for community infrastructure and economic development projects, often involving political pals.

Stories, such as the one that appeared in March in the Star Tribune, about the sweetheart deal the agency made with a company whose primary function is raising dollars for Democratic candidates, only fuels the already ever-present perception of an agency board rife with cronyism.

This isn’t a reflection on the employees of the agency, who in my experience do their jobs very professionally. But the current board structure, which gives members of the Legislature direct authority over the operations of an executive branch agency is unprecedented and almost certainly a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers enshrined in the Minnesota Constitution. That’s not just my view. Neil Hamilton, a highly-regarded professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, in St. Paul, determined similarly back in 1999 in an article which appeared in the William Mitchell Law Review. Hamilton, at the time, recommended that the agency be restructured as a public corporation, with a board subject to appointment by the Governor and confirmation by the Senate.

To me, the constitutional question is secondary to the bigger problem with the current structure of the board— it’s harmful to the development of new leadership on the Iron Range. By giving local legislators power to determine funding for community projects within the Taconite Relief Area, the IRRRB serves to stifle the development of new political leaders and new ideas. I’ve covered local governments in our area for over a quarter century now, and have listened in on hundreds of conversations between local officials. And there is no question, from my experience, that many local leaders are highly reluctant to challenge, in any way, sitting legislators, because they fear it will impact their decisions on future funding requests to the IRRRB.

In other places, local legislators don’t have authority over the allocation of funding such as we see with the IRRRB. In other places, it’s possible for a local alderman or mayor to voice an opinion that conflicts with their area legislators, without fear that their much-needed sewer project will be left undone due to lack of funding. Heck, in many other places legislators aren’t necessarily elected for life or for however long they decide to stay in office. The IRRRB gives Iron Range legislators outsized political influence, like the Mafia godfathers of old, and they often wield it in a way that keeps budding political challengers, and the new ideas they might bring with them, under their thumbs. In terms of mapping the region’s future, we end up with a narrower field of vision as a result.

While the IRRRB has certainly had successes, I think almost everyone would agree that progress towards creating a diverse and sustainable economy in our region has been lackluster, at best. And our legislators’ increasing focus on promoting mining at all costs doesn’t well serve the mission of the agency they oversee.

I know there’s frustration from some former IRRRB officials that the Iron Range delegation’s biases too often stymie the agency’s effectiveness. Area legislators, for years, have dismissed the value of tourism, for example, which they say brings only low-wage service jobs. But one former IRRRB commissioner recently noted in a meeting I attended that tourism in other parts of the state, such as the Brainerd lakes area, or the Alexandria area, has helped grow a much more diversified economy, including even small-scale manufacturing. He complained that by failing to invest in tourism in our area, we lack many of the amenities that typically piggyback on the development of tourism infrastructure. Those amenities help make these other competing parts of the state more attractive for professionals and entrepreneurs, both as places to visit as well as to relocate both homes and businesses.

Restructuring the IRRR board and appointing civic leaders, business people and entrepreneurs, or folks with actual economic development experience to the board could bring a vast expansion of fresh ideas and vitality to an agency that is too often hamstrung by the limited vision of the same bunch of politicians. We can’t base a sustainable economic future on mining and call centers.

We could do better. Maybe it’s time to try.