Thank you for your kind words Tom. Indeed, I do agree with you that with liberty comes responsibilty and that our elected officials should held to a hire standard. I also take politics seriously, I just take what politicians say with a grain of salt.

You have served in the legislature and you know that true statesmen and stateswomen lead by example. They don't lecture,they don't judge they get things done.

One of my favorite legislators was Senator (now Judge)Knutson.He was conservative both fiscally and socially yet he had very productive legislative career passing numerous bills despite being in the minority his whole legislative career. He did it by being an honest,friendly,likable guy who kept his word and led by example. He had plenty of issues with those on the other side who didn't share his views but he was respectful to them and he earned their respect and cooperation despite being in the minority.

Now days I see more and more politicians who act like entertainers. They talk about family values then cheat on their spouses. They talk about the evils of government while they collect a government check and they talk about how important their work in government is, yet they never seem to pass any meaningful legislation. When someone runs for public office I want to know what they are going to do when they get there, when I talk to an elected official that has served a term or two I expect to hear what they have accomplished without a bunch of excuses.

I am thankful that there are a few happy warriors out there in local and state government that are serious about doing the right thing.They rollup their sleeves and quietly work to get the people's business done instead of all the partisan bickering. Unfortunately they are few and far between, and their voices often get drown out by the angry bickering of those on the fringes of both parties.

Concerning the “per diem” issue I broached previously. Allow me to try to set the record straight: When the House Rules Committee in 2007 set the $77 per session day payment Representative Buesgens was a member of the committee. To his credit, he resisted the increase from $66 per session day. After unsuccessfully trying to keep the session daily per diem payment the same as the previous biennium, he became a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the House Rules Committee and others in state government claiming the increase was a salary increase. This question had been adjudicated, if I recall, in 1977 and the courts ruled against the then plaintiffs as the court also ruled in Representative Buesgens’ action 30 years later. Of note is that Representative Emmer (now gubernatorial candidate Emmer) was also a plaintiff. At the time of the suit, Representative Emmer refunded the per diem payments he had accepted in excess of $66 per session day. Representative Emmer then continued his requested per diem rate of $66 in 2009 for the current biennium while Representative Buesgens requested the highest amount of $77 per day resulting in over a 16% increase in his daily rate. Representative Buesgens signed the request to the House finance office that included Holidays for per diem payments during the session which he had not asked for the previous biennium.
No one – not even DFLers - force any member of the House to take any per diem. I did not take any per diem payments during my three terms in the House. I did not take per diem payments during Special Sessions, as State Senator Robling chose not to accept such payments, while Representative Buesgens did.
If I am not mistaken it was only a few years ago that Representative Buesgens was if not the highest, certainly among the highest recipients of per diem payments for metro legislators.
So, as I stated before - Allow me to make just one point: the “angry” author probably is not as angry as he could be. With the stroke of a pen, he increased his daily session per diem payments by over 16% over the previous biennium – and he now takes the $77 daily session payment on holidays while saying “we need to squeeze our wallets a little harder to sustain the government’s spending appetite.”
We really do need to take our politicians seriously.
Tom Rees

I was going to let the “trivial” comment pass until I thought of my kids and how they can’t just submit a form and raise a component of their pay 16%+.
I stand by my previous statement: : the “angry” author probably is not as angry as he could be. With the stroke of a pen, he increased his daily session per diem payments by over 16% over the previous biennium – and he now takes the $77 daily session payment on holidays while saying “we need to squeeze our wallets a little harder to sustain the government’s spending appetite.”
We really do need to take our politicians seriously.
Tom Rees

Elkes4, I have great respect for many politicians that I know or who I have served with. I had the honor, for example, of having for my campaign chairperson for one campaign State Senator Robling’s father. I have watched Senator Robling become an influential member of our State Senate in a quiet, principled, effective manner doing honor to our area.
Believe it or not, politicians have staff that work to make the politicians look good – not bring up some less than flattering facts.
Representative Buesgens is usually effective when talking about such principles as limited government. He seems to have adopted the philosophy that by not raising state taxes government will ultimately become ineffective resulting not in anarchy but freedom. . (I have visited places in this world where there is no government and seen the “individual freedom” the people have living in that political environment - they would trade places with you in a heartbeat.) Of course the bad news is that local government and schools are then placed in the unenviable circumstance of cutting needed services or raising property taxes.
Obviously you and I have different ways of judging our representatives. My experience and training was to be aware of the “real” actions and be cautious of the “talk” of those seeking my trust. For example, if the investors in the Madoff scheme would have researched the action rather than the talk Mr. Madoff may have gone to jail a long time ago. When the SEC was advised of Madoff’s scheme years ago nobody could believe it because he had been a leader at NASDAC. Madeoff was one of the “community” so the regulators saw Madoff to “have a moral sense and conviction to” his words and did not wish to look at the facts. You know how that turned out.
There is a reason that the information about our elected representatives is public: It is so information can be obtained (preferably by a free press) so voters may decide the trust they wish to place in their representatives. When an elected official complains about “taxes” and repeatedly neglects paying them on time he sets a model for others to follow. When a legislator fails to file required campaign information on time and is fined hundreds and hundreds of dollars for his failure to comply with the statute – not once but several times over the last three election cycles - this is something that I wish to know about my elected representative. When a legislator works for the government and uses government resources for his campaign I believe that is relevant to his stewardship of my tax money. I find it curious that in the last several years on Representative Buesgens campaign reports that a substantial amount of his campaign funds come from outside the district. And when a legislator does not attend meetings of his caucus he fails to share with his colleagues his insights thereby reducing his influence in the caucus and isolating himself from the process. Also, it is not collegial to accuse your colleagues of being “thieves” or referring to an amendment offered by another legislator as “stupid.” The result: In the 2007-2008 legislative session according to the House website fourteen bills were chief authored by Representative Buesgens, seven were requested hearings by Representative Buesgens, one bill was heard by a committee and tabled with no action.
I appreciate your giving my service the benefit of the doubt. I confess, I did have a bill for economic development for Belle Plaine vetoed by then Governor Perpich.
Thank you for the opportunity for this civil discourse.
Tom Rees

Dapa2, I am sorry that you have interpreted my remarks concerning Representative Buesgens as some kind of dislike for the gentleman. I am equally sorry that “everybody here knows you do not like Mark” – wherever “here” is. On the contrary, I have great empathy for him. I served in the legislature while raising three young children – two of them were born while I was in office. I understand from first hand experience how serving can result in career jeopardy. I appreciate the financial stress on your family that can result from doing the job. I have no rancor towards Representative Buesgens as a person – State Senator Robling told me that it was her that recruited him to seek the office originally. If she has such respect for him as a person, I certainly would not question her assessment. I only know the man from a few personal exchanges and from watching him in committee and on the House floor.
Regarding your comment that you do not see “a host of other Republicans or Conservatives lining up behind” me: All I can say is why would you as a Republican or Conservative care about a few trifling matters of campaign or legislative conduct when his vote is reliably more libertarian. I would suggest that no local Republican Party member would question any action of a sitting Executive Committee member who is also a member of the Legislature if you want any future in the local party.
As to your comment about the Republican House members’ bills heard in Committee last biennium, I don’t really care about any of the other House members. I care about the individual that represents me and my family. If you wish to check the record, may I suggest the most reliable comparison is probably those minority legislators with five or more terms in office to see the relative success of Representative Buesgens.
Regarding my fundraising, I knew from the outset that I was fighting a losing battle in challenging Representative Buesgens in a primary race. I did not take public financing, nor did anyone solicit any contributions. Representative Buesgens could campaign on a wholesale level while I had to reach potential primary voters on the retail level. I had great fun spending time meeting the people of the district while mastering the transportation mode provided by a Segway - skinned knees and all. You know – “Politician on a stick.” Did you check my spending for 2008? Did you note the difference in the vote percentage from 2006 to 2008?
I trust that the communications that I have had with Representative Buesgens this year, for example, were of value to him and his campaign funding.
I appreciate your caring about the representation you have.
Tom Rees

Robert Thibodeaux is a multi-talented gentleman. He is Representative Buesgens Campaign Chair, he is the “Savage Republican” blogger, he is the Secretary of the 35th Senate District Republican Party of Minnesota Basic Political Organizational Unit and just an all around good guy! However, it seems he may need to sharpen his secretarial skills in regard to his understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order.
The local Republican Party Constitution from Article IV states: “The SD 35 Republicans BPOU Executive Committee shall, at the initial meeting following each 35th Senate District Republican Party of Minnesota BPOU Convention, establish a calendar of regular monthly meetings. There shall be no quorum call at these meetings. ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, NEWLY REVISED, shall govern all proceedings.”
And there are two important items Mr. Thibodeaux is in error in his recent post:
1. I have no personal dislike for Representative Buesgens. His choices as to how he conducts himself in the office of State Representative and as a candidate for such office are different than mine as the clearly record shows. Most notably I do not believe that in this fiscally trying time that I would reward myself with a hefty 16% plus daily per diem rate increase over last year while suggesting that state government live within its means! I know, what is 16% daily per diem rate increase for one six-term legislator in a state budget of billions! No one else is getting hurt by the tough budget and unallotment choices currently being enacted. So, certainly there is no reason for my Representative to tighten his belt!
2. I suggest that Mr. Thibodeaux, a frequent reader and one who likes to quote the rule book, visit the official Robert’s Rules of Order website and check this out:
http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#2

Can ex-officio members vote, and are they counted in determining whether a quorum is present?

Answer:
"Ex officio" is a Latin term meaning "by virtue of office or position." Ex-officio members of boards and committees, therefore, are persons who are members by virtue of some other office or position that they hold. For example, if the bylaws of an organization provide for a Committee on Finance consisting of the treasurer and three other members appointed by the president, the treasurer is said to be an ex-officio member of the finance committee, since he or she is automatically a member of that committee by virtue of the fact that he or she holds the office of treasurer.

Without exception, ex-officio members of boards and committees have exactly the same rights and privileges as do all other members, including, of course, the right to vote. There are, however, two instances in which ex-officio members are not counted in determining the number required for a quorum or in determining whether or not a quorum is present. These two instances are:

1. In the case of the president, whenever the bylaws provide that the president shall be an ex-officio member of all committees (except the nominating committee); and

2. If the ex-officio member is not a member, officer, or employee of the society (for example, when the governor of a state is made ex officio a member of a private college board).

Again, however, it should be emphasized that in these instances the ex-officio member still has all of the rights and privileges of membership, including the right to vote. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 466-67; p. 480, l. 18-27.]

And Mr. Thibodeaux, I am still awaiting your “thank you.”
Tom Rees
P.S. Mr. Thibodeaux, please let Chairman Johnson know that my family members and I have already received our Political Contribution Refund for the contributions I told him we were making before the program was unallotted.

“Why?” you inquire, elkes4. That is a legitimate question. Perhaps because I am one of the few Scott County residents that have served as a legislator and know what the choices are when you are serving. Most people without legislative experience or some close association cannot appreciate or recognize what importance personal choices during your term in office may be to what is important to the legislator. I am not a faithful reader of the local newspaper, but how many stories did you see about the 16% plus increase in daily per diem payments that Representative Mark Buesgens requested and received? If you think while Scott County employees reduced their request for a pay increase that Representative Buesgens’ increase is not relevant? Maybe you can simple fill out a form and get compensation increased, most people in the real world cannot.
I should challenge you to demonstrate the anger you seem to feel I am manifesting. You are not challenging the accuracy of my comments. Typically when someone is unable to refute facts they adopt a strategy of attacking the messenger. It seems to me that is your strategy.
Tom Rees
P.S. I probably have a better understanding of the challenges of a legislator with a family than most people so I do have love for Mark and his family and trust that the pressures of public service are manageable. The point I was seeking is that it is the details of one’s professional career that are as important or more so than the oratory. If you ignore the details, you do not do service to Representative Buesgens to help him be better and more effective at his job. One of my greatest detractors while I served is one of my friends today. Honest criticism made me a better Representative. Admittedly, most of the critique given me over the years allowed me to be a smarter and a better representative. I trust that Representative Buesgens will accept my observations in the same way.

This is just a glimpse of the "reality" of dealing with Mr. Rees.
Everything is a vast conspiracy, some evil cabal - I assume he can also hears the black helicopters we send to monitor his house :)

If it didn't waste so much time and county resources (such as his filing to run, then leaving the country) it would be funny.

Not to confuse Mr. Rees with facts - something that has proven useless, but for others who may be interested.

I was Mr. Buesgens campaign chairman, a position I took because Mr. Rees filed to run as a Republican.

One of the reasons was that during that period the only person who seemed to be supporting him and the person who Mr. Rees used as his sole campaign consultant is a paid consultant of the DFL Senate caucus. It raised concerns about the real reasons Mr. Rees was running.

As has became apparent over time - his personal reasons for running appear to be more based on his lack of judgment and hold on reality.

Not to confuse things with other facts, but it appears that Mr. Rees is the only one who has trouble finding or staying for meetings. They are held at the same time and place they have been for the last 3+ years. Also at the last two conventions about 100+ new people have run for various State, Congressional and local party delegations and leadership positions. If my count is correct over 60% of the executive board are people who first became active in local politics during the last election cycle. It is actually pretty exciting time for Republican politics here in Scott Country with so much new talent and ideas.

Mr. Rees can continue his rants in his own "reality".

Luckily for the rest of us, the true reality is that the voters of Scott have rejected this sort politics of personal destruction and reject people running for office to fulfill some sort of personal grudge.