Strib reported today of a special session agreement, the session to be in August. This link.
That's not what confuses me.
Will we have a Constitutional Amendment ballot question this November? If so, it is much below the radar, in comparison to the last two that rightfully got hammered down.
Here is all I know, so reader help is requested:
The Code Revisor's page presenting the Minnesota Constitution, at Article 4, Section 9, has a note about some proposed juggling of pay raises for the two houses via a way around their giving themselves raises and then having to face voters.
That's not what the somewhat puzzling language, where Constitutional provisions usually are in general short sentences, specifically says, but what other effect would it have beyond a hand-off?
Hopefully the watchful folks at ABC Newspapers might inquire about local legislator's knowledge of it, and how they voted. If the incumbents are being indirect, hopefully the media will give it more attention than has been shown, so far.
This link, and again, Article 4, Section 9.
If it is as I read things, my preference would be to hold the incumbents responsible and accountable for making their own pay increase. That it not be handed off to some commission; thereby diluting accountability.