(bright music) - This is "North Dakota Legislative Review" on Prairie Public.

I'm Dave Thompson.

Thanks for joining us today.

Our guest on the show this week has been on this show before this season.

We have Senator Sean Cleary from Bismarck.

He's a Republican first term member.

- Yeah, well thanks for having me back, Dave.

- Yeah, so one of the reasons I invited you back is now that you've served a term in the Northfield legislature, what are your impressions of it?

- You know, I really enjoyed my first session.

I'm really grateful for the chance to do the work.

We tackled a lot of big issues this session, and I really enjoyed being part of it.

You know, it was something that, it all seemed to go by so quick.

I can't believe we were there for 75 days, but now we're done and summer's almost here.

- So was it what you kind of expected it to be?

- More or less.

You know, I don't know exactly what I expected it to be, but there were certainly ups and downs, but it came to be about what I thought it would be I think.

- From your perspective, what were the big issues that were decided this time?

- Well, obviously tax reform will be one of the lasting major impacts, over $500 million worth.

I think the childcare proposal we passed will be a very significant step in that we've shown a willingness that we're gonna do that going forward and invest in our families and our workforce in that way.

And, you know, I would have to say, obviously, a big topic of discussion throughout it were some of these bills that we had that were a little more controversial on bathroom use and pronouns and that sort of thing.

And while that's not certainly my cup of tea, it was something that took up a lot of discussion during the session.

- Yeah, but you didn't mention the retirement plan, which was also a big thing that you were kind of wrestling against some members of your own party on that one.

- Yeah, that was probably my biggest priority this session was to preserve our state retirement plan for future workers.

And unfortunately, fell a little bit short there.

We had a lot of good discussions about the role that the retirement benefits and other benefits play for state workers and the promise that we have to keep to retirees and current workers, but the decision was made to transition that to a 401K style plan.

- Do you have ideas yet about how much it's going to cost to close the defined benefit plan?

- We've seen estimates anywhere from $2 billion to over $5 billion.

And that was one of my major concerns with the plan to close it is that we didn't have a clear estimate on what that would cost.

And it's something that we're gonna have to pay over the next 30 bienniums, and, 15 bienniums, 30 years.

And it's gonna be an incredible expense to taxpayers.

And that's really where I got concerned is we're really committing ourselves to a tremendous expense.

And so, in some ways, I hope I'm proven wrong in that it's not that big of cost to taxpayers, but I have pretty big concerns about that going forward.

- One other question on that retirement plan, one of the proponents of keeping defined benefits said that was a way to attract employees to state government.

Those who uphold it saying, well, you're probably not gonna have people stay more than three, four, five years, and they want something portable.

- Yeah, there were definitely two sides to the coin there.

I would say that as far as the state workforce goes, it's often difficult for us to compete on salaries compared to the private sector, and so the fact that the state covers the entirety of the employee health plan, and then also had this generous retirement plan, I think were two of the big things for recruitment and retainment.

And so going forward, I think we'll have to look at ways that adjusting total comp to make sure that we're competitive.

And a point I made throughout the session, regardless of how folks feel about the role of government or the different bills we're enacting, we need to have a talented stake workforce in order to execute on the laws the legislature's passing.

So getting the right people in those jobs and making sure we can keep talented employees there is a big part of that.

- One big thing the legislature did do this time was the raise package that came out for state workers.

Originally, it was four and four, but that was a placeholder, 4% for each year.

Now, it's 6% the first year of the biennium and 4% the second year of the biennium, and that's probably the largest raises that state employees have seen for a while.

- Yes, Dave, I was pleased to see the six and 4% with the inflation we've all been dealing with.

Obviously, state employees, medical providers, schools, they're all grappling with that too.

So to be able to get to that six and 4% number, and then also do some, we also increased some funding to address some inequities between different positions and different state agencies.

And so hoping to bring some of those salaries up to a more equitable level throughout the agencies.

- Is it going to be enough to keep employees do you think?

Or... - You know, I hope so, or I think so.

There're folks choose to work in public service for a variety of different ways, and, you know, while there is a big mission and service component to it, being able to pay competitively is a big part of that.

So I think that'll be something that we'll see going forward as far as have these changes we've been making helped or hurt our ability to have a talented state workforce.

- Since we're talking workforce, a big issue was workforce development and workforce attraction.

And you had mentioned that, you know, there were some things done with childcare, but overall, do you think the legislature did enough?

- I think we have a little bit more to do on the workforce front.

I was happy, like I said, with the childcare investments we made because if folks, especially working or middle class families, are making the decision whether or not to stay at home or send kids to childcare, it's incredibly expensive.

And so I think some of the things that we invested in this session will make that decision a little easier for some families, and more folks will be able to, you know, if they want to, join the workforce and, you know, earn for themselves obviously, but contribute to our economy too.

So I think the childcare investments will help with that.

But I do think there's a little bit more to be done on investing in the sort of skills training and education that we have in order to make sure we're actually filling the open jobs that we have in this state.

And I think that's something we're gonna have to revisit next session to continue to work on.

- Would it be through career and technical education through career centers, or also through colleges like Dickinson State University with a dual mission, Bismarck State College with its polytechnic institution?

- Yeah, certainly.

And I think a lot of the organizations you just mentioned do a tremendous job in that.

And when you look at the return on investment for the state, as far as dollars we're putting in and value we're getting out, it's really great, and I think there's room for us to keep doing even more of that.

- What about attracting people from out of state and possibly from out of country to come to North Dakota?

One thing that did pass was that Office of Immigration.

That's going to help probably bring some people, but could more be done there?

- I think so, but that is a pretty tricky problem.

You know, there's a lot of things that motivate people to move to a different part of the country.

And I love North Dakota.

I grew up here and love raising my family here and, but in order to get people to come here, it's a challenge that if any state figured it out, I think they'd be well ahead of the rest of 'em.

But I do think that Immigration Office is going to be helpful for folks who might not have the resources or the knowledge to navigate our federal immigration system.

It's incredibly complex, and so hoping we can do some things to help employees and employers out there too.

- And one thing that people who work in that workforce development say a lot of the jobs that are open right now in North Dakota pay very well, and that might be another enticement.

- Definitely, we're definitely a good place to be right now for if you're someone looking for work because nearly everyone's hiring, and like you said, wages are going up, which is a good place to be in my opinion.

- I wanted to ask you about education funding because we didn't spend a lot of time on that, but it looks like K-12 schools are getting a nice bump.

I think it's 4% for each year of the upcoming biennium.

Higher education is getting some money, and not just for buildings, but for other things.

So what do you think about how education came out of the session?

- You're definitely right.

It was a good session I think for public education in our state.

You said that four and 4% increase to the per pupil funding.

I think that shows that we're committed to investing in our public education system.

There were some buildings and some additional higher ed spending, and, you know, we're fortunate to be in a strong financial position and be able to make those investments.

I think there were other things that got a lot of headlines, you know, as far as school lunches and school choice and that sort of thing in the K-12 space.

But at the end of the day, we did make a pretty sizable investment in our public school system too, which I was happy to see.

- I also wanted to get into corrections because that turned into kind of an interesting little political football toward the end of the session about, you know, moving the women's prison and building a women's prison in Mandan, basically repurposing the New England facility.

And there was arguments on the Senate floor especially that maybe you don't wanna build one big prison, but maybe smaller facilities around the state where women who are incarcerated are closer to their families.

How did you come down on that?

- Well, I voted in support of the budget that would help build that new facility in Mandan.

I do have to say I did share some of the concerns about such a large single investment.

I think it was Senator Mathern who spoke about his concerns, and I think he made a lot of good points.

But at the end of the day, I do have concerns about the current state of the facility in New England.

And so I think in order to make sure we're providing adequate services for those residents, investing in a new facility will be a step in the right direction.

I do think Senator Mathern brought up a lot of good points about the role that corrections and rehabilitation should be playing in making sure these folks are being able to be reintegrated into their communities and families as well too though.

- And dovetailing into that is behavioral health.

Again, there's some more strides on behavioral health in North Dakota, correct?

- Yeah, there were a few, a few adjustments that we made that I think will be beneficial.

Another big thing related to the Capital Project is taking a look at building that new state hospital.

And so I think that also has similar discussions is do we need, what sort of facility do we need, the size and the location.

But we did some things with licensing on counseling and psychologists that I think will help with behavioral health.

And then that physical component with the state hospital I think will be a big component going forward too.

- One thing that I will say surprised me is a lot of the discussion over a few bienniums at least about building a new state hospital because the current facility has some issues, and buildings are going to be removed from that facility.

I was surprised that it wasn't included in the budget this time and that the can was kicked down the road another two years.

- Yeah, you know, it's something that when I worked for Governor Burgum during the 2019 session, we discussed building a new facility then, and that was four years ago.

So I do think the study we're doing this interim will be helpful in making sure we're doing it the right way.

It's a very unique population we're serving there, and so it's gonna be a unique building.

And that almost seems to change every year as far as the scale and scope of that, but I'm optimistic we'll be able to get it done the right way this biennium.

- Is it because behavioral health treatment is changing too?

- I think there's more of a focus on those services in the community as opposed to institutionalization.

And so I think however these new facilities look, there'll be less of a focus on how many people can we fit in 'em and more so on how can we make sure we're serving these people in the environment that works best for them.

- And not to find a point on that too is that a hospital is designed for acute treatment, but, you know, there are behavioral health treatments in smaller communities that, you know, if these are not severely mentally ill people, they can actually get treatment there if they have substance abuse problems.

- Yes, that's that's correct.

And there was, I think, funding included for more behavioral health services in western North Dakota.

Once you get past Bismarck, it gets really difficult to find services for those folks.

And so I believe there is funding in the OMB bill to help with some of those services in western North Dakota.

And I think there'll be a demand for that too.

- You brought up the OMB bill, which is always one of those things that you call it a Christmas tree bill or a kitchen sink bill, which I dubbed it several years ago because a lot of ideas that were defeated earlier in the session come back in, and it turns into a bill with 20, 30 amendments.

What actually happened at the end there?

- Well, I think you described the process pretty well.

I'd have to say as a freshman lawmaker, it's almost a little confusing to watch because we've spent all this time on really important issues throughout the session, and I would have to say it's sort of a strange way to end the session with all these amendments being tacked on, especially ones that have been ideas that have been defeated earlier in the session.

It's one thing when it's a technical correction, or maybe we have a little bit more money to spend on something like that behavioral health facility I mentioned.

But when there're ideas that have been rejected by the body, for example, a pretty noticeable change to how the PERS board is governed, and there were big policy changes on how the review of the auditors functions and Legacy Fund earnings.

I think those discussions could have benefited from a little bit more public input too.

So, you know, not the end of the world for how we ended a session, but a kind of a strange way to do it, in my opinion.

- Since you brought up the PERS board, putting four legislators on the board now.

- Yeah.

- That was the bill that was, that was finally passed the OMB budget but had been rejected at least once in the session at large.

What do you think about changing that PERS board that way?

- Well, we did defeat that bill twice during the session.

It changed forms slightly, but similar idea.

And I opposed it all three times because with all the changes we've been talking about with retirement, and then in the past there's been pretty heavy political debates on how the health plan should work too, I don't see the benefit in adding more political pressure on the board during those discussions.

And that's what I view those changes as.

And I think there was a point to be made about responsiveness for the board, but in my mind, the legislature makes the policy decisions, and then we have these executive agencies who execute on that law.

And I thought the separation of powers got a little swapped around in those pieces of legislation.

- But that is now law.

- That is now law, so.

- There was, just as an aside, I read something in a column that there might be a technical issue that might bring you back, but we're really not sure because code revisers in the legislative council, which is your research arm, have a lot of leeway if it's going to be kind of small corrections.

Have you looked at that issue at all?

- Yeah, and I've discussed that issue with legislative council and with the governor's office too.

It's, I think a, well, the change itself is major, but the issue is small, and I think legislative intent on what we were planning to do with some of these retirement plans was pretty clear.

Even on the things that I didn't agree with, I think the body spoke on what they wanted to do.

So I'm hopeful, in this case, it can be more of a technical correction, and they can move forward with what the legislature decided on doing.

- I just wanna jump back to the Jamestown, the new state hospital in Jamestown.

One thing that was discussed at least briefly in the interim and also during the session was maybe moving the hospital facility off that campus with the JRCC, the James River Correctional Center, and maybe moving it toward the new hospital in Jamestown.

How far have those discussions gotten, or is that something that will be probably studied in the upcoming biennium?

- I think that'll be something that's taken a look at when we're doing that study of what the new facility should look like.

I do think that that would be a step in the right direction, just given that having kind of the shared campus there, I think sort of reinforces this idea that this state hospital is a institution, and having it right next to the correctional facility I think is a sort of a strange dynamic.

And so I think by separating those out, we could, I think, provide better clarity to the roles of both the institutions.

- I have to ask you, how many conference committees were you on?

- Well, in the Senate, we have double duty compared to the House just 'cause there's fewer of us, and I think north of 10.

And some we got done on the first meeting.

We all came in, and it was easy conversation.

There was at least two that I met on six or seven times, and, you know, that pales in comparison to some of the big budget ones.

But some bills take more conversation than others, but, you know, at the end of the day, we had folks who were trying to reconcile those differences and wrap the session up, and so it was a unique part of session.

I got to talk with some House folks that I hadn't interacted with a ton during the session, but I was happy with the conversations we had and the ability to move some of these bills forward too.

- So what were the toughest issues that you had to deal with on that?

- We had a difficult bill related to the use of coupons on prescription drugs, and basically making sure that those count towards someone's out-of-pocket costs, and I supported the bill.

It was actually sponsored by my seatmate, Representative Carls.

But there were a lot of pushback from insurance companies and other stakeholders about maybe some of the unintended consequences.

And so we turned that bill into a study that wasn't something I supported, but I do think the study could give us a chance to look at not only this coupon issue, but some of these prescription drug issues more in general.

It's an incredible expense for a lot of different folks, and so I think a study could help us take a look at some of the policies we could do to address some of those concerns.

- Was that a MAE study or a shell study.

- That was a MAE study, which the overwhelming majority of the studies we passed, I'm sure you've seen has that.

And then when legislative management meets later this month, they'll decide which ones to move forward, or sometimes if they need to be combined with other similar topics.

- Is there any subjects or any particular area you'd like to be on during the interim to study?

- I'd like to continue the work that I've been doing on human services and in the healthcare space.

Like I said, the prescription drug area, I think there's more work to be done there.

We have a study related to prior authorization for medical procedures at health providers, and I think that'll be a big part of some of the discussions we have next session.

And as well as there's a, it's not a legislative study, but there's a healthcare task force that's been formed to take a look at healthcare costs and accessibility, and those are conversations I'd like to be a part of too because it just, it impacts so many people, and the dollars involved are so large that making sure we do it the right way is incredibly important.

- So you were in the Human Services Committee.

What was your other committee?

- State and local government.

So I enjoyed both those committees.

The state and local government, we addressed a lot of the issues related to public workforce, state workforce.

And then human services, we addressed a lot of the issues that I'm interested in related to healthcare and social services and that sort of thing.

- You did talk about workforce, but there was a workforce committee that was set up.

- [Sean] Yep.

- But it looked like every committee somehow touched the workforce issue.

- Yes, that was a directive that we got at the beginning of the session as we were looking through these bills to look at how they impacted workforce development since that was such a big theme of the session.

And I think going back and looking at it, not only with that independent committee that reviewed all of these bills directly, but also other committees that we really are gonna be able to drill down in the interim here.

What did we do and what do we need to continue to do?

- I'll have to ask this question.

Do you see missed opportunity from the session?

- I think we were able to move the needle in the right direction on a lot of issues.

One thing that I think I'd like to revisit this next session is I thought there would be a little bit more of a robust discussion on the use of Legacy Fund earnings.

The bill we passed, 1379, allocates the legacy fund earnings to bond repayment and a highway distribution formula, and then the general fund and the SIF fund, the Strategic Investment Fund.

And while that's helpful for balancing our budget and spending the priorities on certain priorities, I think when the Legacy Fund was established, there was more of an intent that we would be saving that money for a future generation when oil revenue might not be as prevalent.

And then also if we were to spend it, that we'd be using it on legacy projects that had a statewide and lasting impact.

And I didn't really see that with the bills that we passed this session.

So coming back next session, I think that's something I'd like to revisit and take a deeper look at.

- So that might become a larger discussion in the next session.

Maybe the session afterwards.

- Yeah, I hope so.

And I'm sure you might remember from the 2021 session, but they had the Legacy Fund streams that were dedicated towards certain spending, and it looked like that was gonna be the case this session too.

That's what the governor called for in his budget address as well.

But the way the legislative process unfolded it, it didn't really head that direction.

- Yeah, it seems there are, you're sure your concern is shared by a number of legislators.

How do you define what a Legacy Fund project is, what a legacy project might be?

Is the new presidential library at Manara a legacy project?

Some people would argue yes, some people would argue no.

But there are things that might still be out there that you might say, these are legacy projects, we oughta do something.

- Definitely, and it could be something physical like that, or it could be something that's a policy change.

You know, when we're talking about workforce, is there more we can do on targeted scholarships or loan relief, or when we're talking about behavioral health services, are we able to invest more aggressively there?

Or something like the destination development that we've talked about in the tourism industry.

That'd be more of a physical thing.

But are there things that we can invest in physically that would make North Dakota a place where more people wanna come and visit.

- Now the destination development, there are $5 million grants now out of the budget for that?

- Yep, $25 million total and then $5 million cap.

And that's gonna be used for what the name implies, things that are tourism attractions that make people wanna come and spend some time here and visit our state.

We have a lot of great things going right now, and I think there's ways we can match and leverage those dollars to increase those opportunities for folks too, so.

- Now, you said you enjoyed your service on Human Services Committee.

This is gonna be an off the wall question, but I happen to see it.

The committee put together this full color brochure about Judy-isms because of the chairman, you know, from West Fargo.

Judy Lee is a great person by the way.

- Yeah.

- But I really enjoyed that full colored brochure, and what got me was the phrase on it says, "Judy Lee is a not poster child for term limits."

I thought that was really interesting.

- Yeah, you know, Senator Lee, she's served on the Human Services Committee and chaired it for a couple sessions now, and, you know, I, she was a bit of a mentor to me during this session and grateful to learn a lot from her.

And, you know, I think the joke with the term limits reference was that Judy's been in the legislature for over two decades now, maybe coming up on three, and, you know, she adds a lot of value with that knowledge that she brings, and term limits were gonna have to adjust to that, not just with Senator Lee, obviously, but with a lot of folks who bring a lot of institutional knowledge to the conversations we have.

- You don't have to run again next year, do you?

- Nope, I am off the ballot until 2026.

- And then you can run for another four year term.

- Correct.

Yep, it's up to eight years in each chamber.

- Okay, quick answer.

I'll put you on the spot.

Yes or no, was term limits a good idea for legislators?

- I think eight years is a little short.

You know, I think of all the things it took for me to learn this session and everything that I'll build on after that, and a lot of my other freshman colleagues in the exact same situation, and eight years I think will be about the time that if folks are really digging in, that they're really starting to learn the process and learn the policy.

And then, you know, they're, right now, able to change chambers, and I think a lot of folks will do that, but it seemed kind of an arbitrary way to limit people's service.

And I don't know if I'll serve longer than eight years or not, but there's certain folks who would wanna do that, and there's certain people who move on.

And so I could see a situation where maybe an expanded amount might be a better fit for our citizen legislature.

- Well, you have term limits, we have time limits.

Our time is up.

I apologize.

- Oh, no problem.

- Our guest, Senator Sean Cleary from Bismarck.

For Prairie Public and Legislative Review, I'm Dave Thompson.

(bright music)