MAG Meeting 8 Jan 09

Next MAG Meeting is 22 Jan 09 at noon, please email carl.madsen@gmail.com if you are considering attending.

Minutes of 8 Jan 09 meeting - sorry these are rough, email me if you want more information:

MAG (Military Action Group) Meeting 8 Jan 09 - Chip Laingen
History of MAG - started 4 years ago
3 original pillars of MAG
1 - traditional issues
2 - new veteran issues - coming back from current conflict
3 - business issues reintegration

Main purpose is to feed ideas into governor and legislative body.

Chip received feedback from chief of staff / governor's office- Three groups are untouchable in governor's perspective as far as decreases-veterans are one of those groups. Others in attendance are Rep Dan Severson, Rep dettmer - minority lead on veterans committee, Rep Wardlow. Michael Baumann is new administrative contact. Veterans and Military affairs hold harmless status in the governor's perspective.

How are we going to improve the state veterans initiatives? It's important in legislation to stay where you are at; don't loose ground in difficult times.

Rep Dettmer introduced his wife Colleen and his son CPT Rob Dettmer - Deploying to Afghanistan on his 2nd tour.

MAG is still sticking with the 3 pillars; use the term 2nd career military - don't use term retired.

Chip Laingen discussed 2nd career military tax exemption; 10 percent per year for first 3 years - get up to first $1000 - income pays for implementation of that 30percent; 40, 50, 60 percent - until $2000 - paid for itself, then the last 40 percent.

The numbers from Wisconsin are the basis for this idea.

Veteran's preference - negotiated a study on the number of veterans working for the state legislation which is due Jan 15.

There was discussion on making a protected class for veterans.

Rep Severson spoke with a person at social services who doesn't want to hire vets because they are 'broken' and have issues.

Introduced where LT john anderson of 1st Bde works for veterans affairs on the federal side, and another recent veteran Becky ____ also works for the dept vet affairs and is in the army reserves.

Jim Clarey is a House staffer and will be drafting the veterans benefit bill - need to feed key points to him.

John Baker - attorney and ret marine - vet pref doesn't apply at Dept of Vet Affairs.

We should be using the people on the MAG to educate members of house/senate on veteran's abilities and MAG's priorities.

What the preferential hiring law did for state and county level - identify obstacles that will effect state level.

Before 1975 you had to hire a qualified veteran that made the final round of inverviews, when competing with non-veterans. Today's law is not worded as strongly.

We are all spokespeople for the MAG - the 2008 platform brochure will be updated for 2009.

Is was stated that if a veteran has a rewarding job other issues melt away because they are employed.

John Baker mentioned that the chance of domestic violence rises when veteran is unemployed.

It was noted that current conflict veterans come back with a horizon broadening experience and are perfect to be hired at a higher level, to become community leaders; they focus on community and youth; they have dedication to nation and state based on their deployment experiences.

What is the MAG's strategy to get these laws passed?

The best method is a floor vote on an individual bill; better than omnibus bill which often gets reduced at the end.

How can we get a specific veteran hired in a specific job? It's hard based on resume alone.

It might be better to have percentage based requirement in different agencies - then they will have to show how they are targeting veterans.

Is there a clearing house where a veteran can go to see what jobs are available? - yes the workforce center. The DOL has a priorty of service - show that they are giving priority of service - no directive on how they are done. The veterans they are concerned about are the ones that have barriers to employment. Those veterans get intensive services over other veterans without barriers to employment.

It was mentioned there are problems with a quota based system - the navy tried one for women and had problems with the quota. Also, it implies that we are happy with only 5 percent of the workforce is veterans; is what we are shooting for? It would be better if it was 50 percent.

It's one thing to pass laws, and it's another to make the laws work.

We need a new law to make veterans preference to work. Should we do a review on why bills die - go to committee chair and ask why - should we do it this year? Should we have people assigned to sit there to help get these bills through - visit the committee chair on a number of occassions - we have never done that in past.
Action items -
learning how to lobby - get a list of names - add to those names - figure out how to train quickly - veterans don't have to register as lobbyist.
publish 2009 brochure.

3 key pillars - long term impact in the state; there are other issues outside of the 3 key pillars - add those to our platform as well.

We should change the wording of the bill so that the first thing listed isn't tax relief but instead it's one of the bullet points further down.

Service disabled should be a protected class but currently isn't in Minnesota - there is an agency that certifies that, subject to audit - 10 percent disablity and above.

Jack Scharrett of the Victri center is delaying the grand opening ceremony until the second quarter - the 23 jan event is cancelled.

Kathy Vitel - she's looking at a 75pct cut in her department - serves 870 veterans - her bill is considered "new money" and she has to reintroduce it.

Others in attendance: Jim Cleary House staffer, Rod Erickson - DAV, Ron Lussmen, Mike Moran - need younger veterans to do lobbying - Ralph Denay - TREA - email for breakdown of military in US and income coming to minnesota.

Jan 22nd - next meeting - noon

---------email from Chip Langen:

Information & Agenda

1. Governor's Initiatives: I had a lengthy conversation with the
Governor's Chief of Staff in late December. Unlike past years, there
is not (currently) a plan in work for the Governor to convene a press
conference to lay out his initiatves for Veteran legislation. This is
due to the ongoing fiscal crisis, and an unwillingness to signal even
the perception of new, or additional spending in any area, including
Veterans. Having said that, the Governor's office also made it clear
that Veterans are among just a handful of "special interest"
categories of state spending where the Governor will insist there be
no cuts. Given the economic situation, and the large number of
"special interest" categories in this state, this can be seen as very
good news, and we should integrate that "holding of the line" message
in our own language while looking for creative ways to enhance current
funding initiatives (*). This is a clear signal from the Governor
that Veterans are an important investment for our future.

2) MAG Philosophy: As you are all well aware, the MAG is a
relatively loose conglomeration that is meant to be a "think tank" of
sorts. It is a non partisan way to vocalize the continuing need to
vitalize the state's impressive, but "at-risk" resource that is its
Veteran community; and to recommend doing so in unique ways, or to
communicate traditional needs in new ways.

Our overarching premise is that Minnesota doesn't just owe its
Veterans, it needs its Veterans because they represent a vital,
generally young resource to fuel Minnesota's economic future, thanks
to their diverse, disciplined, well-educated and high technology
backgrounds. They represent a unique demographic of people who have
experienced a way of life that equips them well for the future, with
creativeness, the abilty to integrate complex situations, cultural
sensitivity and even entrepreneurial skills. They are also,
increasingly, re-integrating througout nearly every community in the
state, thanks to the heavy use of Guard and Reserve service members in
recent years. Also, I would remind everyone that the original premise
of the MAG group was to do so by organizing our communication in three
areas:

i. "New" Veterans Issues: The Global War on Terror and Minnesota's
extensive role in it (through its Guard and Reserve members primarily)
has created returning Veterans who have needs that are sometimes
different than those of Veterans from previous eras - because of the
nature of the conflict, and the nature of a different generation of
young people. We need to pay particular attention to those needs,
which include re-integration challenges, education and health care
issues.

ii. "Traditional" Veterans Issues: This and previous generations of
Veterans face challenges that are similar and enduring, and these
require attention as well. But again, many of these issues have
become "tired" from a communications standpoint; in other words, the
same messages have been sent in the same way, by the same people, for
many years, and there is a danger that these needs are not truly heard
any longer as a result. The challenge is to "re-package" and
re-invigorate those needs.

iii. Veterans "Business" Issues: This category plays extensively to a
central premise the MAG group has adhered to: that Veterans are a
vital resource for the state's continued economic prosperity, and we
should look for creative ways to attract and retain them in Minnesota
as a key element in securing our economic future

3) MAG Key Initiatives: We have begun to develop a lengthy list of
topics that the MAG intends to support for the new legislative
session. I propose that we stick with the top 3, as follows:

1. 2nd career military tax exemption
(* As stated above, this may be an area where we can, as Rep. Severson
proposed, ask that already-legislated funding can be re-directed to
begin a multi-year, graduated funding path for this initiative)
2. Veteran's Preference for State Hiring
3. Veteran-owned small businesses designated as targeted group
businesses for purposes of awarding state and metropolitan agency
procurement contracts

This is not to say that the other 5 or 6 issues that were added during
the last several meetings are not important, but it is starting to
look like a re-iteration of what is already on the dockett from other
groups, or from the Governor himself. I think we can add a statement
that we support the continued funding of ongoing state programs, and
those advocated by the UVLC and others.

4) Scorecard: this still needs work, as discussed during the last
several sessions, and several of us are continuing to explore ways to
package this tool.