Episode 6: The Power of Performance

In some ways the state capitol is like theater. In other ways, it really IS theater. Guests: Sam Fettig and Jim Schowalter 

0:00- Introductions 
5:25 Do you remember a moment when you were younger when something with your work went differently than you expected it to? 
8:06 How are hierarchies important in the capitol? 
15:10 When working in communications, are you really a spin doctor? 
21:29 If people are confused by the performance, how do you recommend they can find out what’s really happening? 
24:45 Do you remember a moment that clarified for you what was important at the capitol? 
30:14 Is the conflict performative? 
41:25 How do you personally emotionally endure the way these issues affect people? 
43:58 Was this particular session different?
50:24 What’s happening in “the room” where deals are getting made? 

Transcript

 [show music]

Alan Berks

Welcome to Our House, a podcast that pulls back the curtain on Minnesota State government. I’m Alan Berks.

Leah Cooper

And I’m Leah Cooper. We’re the co-artistic directors of a theater company called Wonderlust Productions. In the process of putting together an original show about life at the state capitol, we learned that Minnesota government is very much like theater. 

CHORUS

It’s a game, it’s a show.

There’s so much happening behind the scenes

That you don’t know.

Alan Berks

We keep talking about how the capitol is like theater. In this episode, we’re going to talk about when it really IS theater. 

CHORUS

It’s a joke, it’s a game

There’s so much happening behind the scenes

You’d think they’d feel shame.

Leah Cooper

One of our guests, Jim Showalter, has had a long career in Minnesota State government including as the Commissioner of Management and Budget up until this week, I think? He just recently stepped down.

Alan Berks

 Jim and his wife Stephanie Andrews, who was a guest on our first episode, participated in a story circle early in the story gathering process. True story, by the way - they fell in love as young non-partisan staffers working together on the state budget.

Leah Cooper

And Jim was one of the first people to explain how what we see politicians say in front of the camera does not necessarily indicate what legislation is going to pass or how.

Alan Berks

Yes, for example, for any one bill there might be a bunch of deals being made behind the scenes by a variety of players, over a long period of time,  but what we see on TV or hear reported are the public remarks of politicians, performances that don’t reflect what’s actually getting done.

CHORUS

It’s a story, like a play

There’s truth beneath the drama

If you only see the way.

. . .

It’s a game, it’s a show.

There’s so much happening behind the scenes

That you don’t know.//

It’s a game It’s a show It’s a story It’s a joke

It’s a joke, it’s a game

There’s so much happening behind the scenes

You’d think they’d feel shame.//

It’s a story it’s a joke

It’s a story, like a play

There’s truth beneath the drama

If you only see the way.

It’s a joke, it’s a game, it’s a story like a play

It’s a joke, it’s a game, it’s a story like a play

It’s a game, it’s a show

there’s so much happening behind the scenes 

that you don’t know.

Leah Cooper

 It gets very complicated very quickly.

Alan Berks

 Jim is a really great explainer. We’ll let him start

Jim Schowalter   

It both is like an onion, you just keep on learning on another layer, there's behind the one that you thought you understood. And also, it keeps changing because people move in and out, governors come and go. And so we're all different types of people. So what worked one day, or what maybe is the organizing principle one day is totally different another. So there were moments where it's like, you know, a beehive of activity. And all of a sudden, you know, there's a new chief of staff or there's a new administration, and it's a totally different vibe. And that means you just keep on learning, you just keep on starting over again. The pomp and circumstance of it, though, is real. I even as we're talking, I remembered, actually, the first time I was at the Capitol, I was an intern for the Seatbelt Coalition way back then when seatbelts weren't the law, we said they should be. And I remember being there as an intern dropping off our lobbyists going up to the portico, I think it's called, where you used to be able to drive right up to the Capitol, and this is beautiful marble overhang. Can't do it now. But it was spectacular. And I thought, wow, this is amazing. Little did I know our lobbyist was probably gonna go in and sit in the hearing for a little while; the actuality of it wouldn't have been nearly as magnificent. Until then I start to think about oh, but they're gonna go interact with people, they’re gonna talk, it's a deeply human thing, and tell stories and figure out how to help people understand why, in this case, seat belts or the advocacy agenda was what was necessary today.

Alan Berks

Our other guest, Sam Fettig, has worked in communications in the political process, both inside and outside government. His first experience simply showing up to his first job in Governor Dayton’s office back in 2015 is a physical manifestation of this episode’s theme.

Sam Fettig  

Coming into the Capitol, and especially into the Governor's Office specifically, and just being struck by just kind of the awe of it. The scale, the, the stone, the carvings, the paintings, from the Capitol, into the governor's office with those two Civil War paintings framing the entrance, getting scanned in. And then this was before the Capitol renovation, restoration. And so I remember there's a really, to me kind of funny contrast, when you went through from that lobby, through the first door that you needed a badge to get through. You were walking from this beautiful, you know, intricate building, and then you stepped into like a 1970s, office building, you know, cubicles, gray, cream, off-white, really tight corridors, because it had never been laid out intentionally to be used in the way it was today. Piles of boxes and stacks of papers and file cabinets in every corner. And you know, a lot of really fun energy, exciting energy to be there. But I distinctly remember that contrast, of like kind of walking through the door into kind of the inner workings.

Alan Berks  

Do you remember a specific moment when you were younger? When you were like, this is how this is gonna go, and then it went some other way. And you dont, or didn't exactly understand why or how.

Jim Schowalter 

Great question. And the answer is, there were plenty of instances - I'm trying to give you an exact moment. There was a moment when I was in a civil service position. And we were told that we were going to interpret a particular law in this particular way. That was regarding the provider tax, and I was gonna go tell the House Ways and Means Committee how it was gonna work. I thought it was obviously a tough call. And there might be some anger about it, but I just, I'm the messenger, I'm gonna go there. Instead, I present the information. And by the end, I had both the Republicans and the Democrats saying I should be locked up. And I was like, Wait a second! I'm the messenger! So several days later, they had another hearing. And I'm like, oh gosh, this is gonna be terrible. I am scared to death! My Commissioner went along with me. And I'm thinking this is going to be terrible. She goes to the table. Everything's good. Everyone's happy. Oh, thank you for explaining it to us. Next. I didn't understand what was going on. I just knew that I had suffered from several days of stage fright, that people at one point didn't like the news, and then something happened behind the scene and everything was all okay.

Alan Berks  

Huh. And do you have any idea why they took it out on you?

Jim Schowalter 

Well, I have some theories. I didn't go back and ask them. Because at the time, I really just wanted to get out of the room. But I think part of it was because they could. You know, because I was a fine person to say no, that we don't like this. But when somebody higher up comes in, well, now it gets real. You know, do they really object that strenuously that they want to have it something else happen? In this case, you know, it's an interpretation of a tax trigger. That's way deep in the in the law. Eh, Maybe they don't? Or maybe there were other conversations that were had, so that they were able to say privately, I'm not so thrilled about this. But I'm not going to say it publicly, because that just makes it a bigger deal. Now, either way – probably both probably happened – I wasn't the person who they would say, Oh, sure, we'll do that. They needed somebody else to say, yeah, that's okay.

Alan Berks 

So that raises the issue of hierarchies, which, which are important that the capital in ways that I don't know people understand. Can either of you enlighten us?

Sam Fettig 

Yeah, I think there's any number of places where that shows up within staff for any given office, within elected officials within any given caucus in the legislature. I think that one in particular is a place that people don't always grasp exactly how it works. From my perspective, I think the place it was the most clear to me was around end-of-session negotiations, where the legislative process has played out for three, four, five months. And now, the Governor, and the Senate leader and the House Leader need to work out a deal, particularly in a budget year where you're deciding what's going to get funded and what's not, what policy provisions are gonna get included and which ones aren't. And certainly, other legislators are a part of that process; those leaders will go back to their caucus and say, here's what we're talking about, you know, can we make this work? Especially if it's discussions on specific issues like health care, they're going to go talk to their, you know, their Health Committee chair. But it is through that hierarchy structure, where it's kind of the three at the table, and then the larger numbers behind them in that. And, you know, I think everyone knows that negotiations are a part of the legislative process. But I think, seeing how much happens, and how much can change at that final stage with the top of the hierarchy, compared to the long process with so many more people involved.

Leah Cooper

We should draw attention to what Sam is talking about here because it has come up in our interviews again and again. In episode 1, Andy Dawkins describes it as the bottleneck that thwarts legislation. Kevin Lindsey also mentions it. Roger Moe and Athena Hollins talk about it. You’ll hear it come up again in future episodes.

Alan Berks

And, for many people outside the political process, it seems like an embodiment of what is wrong with the system. So, I asked –

Alan Berks 

Does this work? Like I that's what I keep thinking, right? Is like, what you're describing, I think is what makes people angry.

Jim Schowalter

Yeah.

Alan Berks

Right? Like, I don't know what's happening. And there's three people in a room somewhere or there's a story in the play and I don't know, it might have come from you about like people going into a room and not talking. Like, like, this seems like a game. It seems like a game. But it's not a game. 

Jim Schowalter  

Not at all.  It's such a Rubik's Cube. I mean, I think that's part of the reason there's so many audiences that elected officials, state officials, lobbyists are trying to communicate to so we have multiple sort of audiences going on at the same time. So it's like having a play. But actually, it's not just one audience. You have multiple places. So you may have a fairly complicated script. So you know, I may be trying to make sure that state agency employees know what's going on to some degree. So they got some level of certainty. But at the same time, you may have a legislator who's trying to make sure that people who support him or her in their district have a very clear idea that they're doing what they came to St. Paul to do. And the governor may be talking of a totally different higher level of stability or a future vision, and how it's all going to fit into their expectations for the future. And so you have multiple audiences at the same time. And I think the other thing that I would just add to that hierarchy concept is not just positional hierarchy. There's relationship hierarchy, there's expertise hierarchy, there's information hierarchies. And so those also get fit in together at the same time. It's absolutely the responsibility of the Governor and the Speaker and the Majority Leader to work it out. But it doesn't mean it's a cookie cutter operation, because all of those things differ. You know, there were times when a Health and Human Services Bill wouldn't happen. Unless the Health and Human Services chairs were in the room. In fact, that's pretty, if there's ever an area that's so complicated, and so technical, that you want the chairs in the room, that's usually it. There's other areas where the Governor and elected leaders will oftentimes say, Yeah, I got it. Those kinds of dynamics are always at play. And it's hard. Unless you're really into long form, maybe listening to this podcast, to learn enough to understand that it's not insulting, it's not a game. But it is complicated, and it's deeply human.

Alan Berks 

Wow, that is well articulated. And you, from your experience, you were a little bit more in the political realm. And also you're coming in and relatively, last 10 years, basically. Does that make sense to you? Or does that sound like something else?

Sam Fettig 

I think it's true. I mean, I think also bringing back in your question, you're kind of starting question of does it work? I think it works as the system is structured, right. And I think different people have different ideas for ways the system could work better. It works in that bills do get done, budgets do get passed. Again, plenty of people would give you plenty of reasons why maybe it should work differently, more transparently, more open, less reliance on hierarchies, but does it kind of ultimately achieve what it sets out to do? Mostly. I do think, for me, as like, a younger person coming into this realm. I think I had an idea of coming in and kind of working to change things from the inside. And I think it does help to have good driven people inside, I think most people inside are, because it's a hard job to do if you're not. But I also personally experienced, which I know a lot of other people do as well, that can be kind of draining, you can get burned out putting that much time energy dedication into something that moves so slowly, that doesn't always work the way you wish it did. And and to the political piece, I think, you know, I think it's one of the dynamics, whenever you have people who are elected, they were elected because they made certain promises, they have certain ideas, they have certain agendas. And those aren't always perfectly in sync with the people they represent. The nature of an election is it's never going to represent everyone. No one ever is elected with, you know, 100% of the vote. But they are elected by a majority or a plurality, who on some level agrees with the political agenda they're trying to enact. And so that's part of the balancing act. That's part of the negotiations, whether that's in an open committee or three people in a room at the end. So  to the question of does it work? As it's structured, it does. Could it be structured differently? Should it be structured differently?  Is another question.

Alan Berks  

You were in communications in various offices. 

Sam Fettig 

Yeah. 

Alan Berks

Communications, a lot of people again, what makes people mad, they think you're a spin doctor, is that what you were?

Sam Fettig  

I have complicated feelings about communications, the career I've chosen, and continue to work in. And I think, like a lot of parts of this, this job in this profession in this realm of politics and government, there's, there's multiple aspects to it. One of them, I think, is genuinely truly informational. This is something that I remember discussing with my co workers, my colleagues in the Governor's office in the communications department was that we're really doing two jobs. One is that we are advancing, you know, the specific agenda that the governor was elected to advance. And the other is, we're selling people state government. And I don't mean selling in a derogative sense, I mean, selling in the sense of giving people the information, giving people the transparency, about what bills are being proposed, and why and why do we think they're important? And what bills have been passed? And how do the state agencies work? Who can you go to for help? And those are very different roles. But I think both equally important, again, to informing people about how government works to hopefully get over some of those hang ups that people have. But also, at the same time, there is that more political piece of it of pushing a specific agenda for for a particular reason. So I think that is the latter case is where people tend to think more of the spin coming in. And I think I have tended to see my job, even in that realm less as spin, and more as advocating for the positions that either I believe in, or the person I worked for believes in, in the most effective way possible. And I think, I don't think it's been to advocate for a certain position. I think there's ways you can do the job that are, more or less consistent with, with values that someone might or might not hold. But at a fundamental level, the kind of basic function of the job, I think, is again, to bring people in on the process of state government, how it works, how it can work, and also to advocate for that agenda.

Jim Schowalter  

I totally agree, I and I really appreciate the two sort of the binary way of thinking about it, the Governor's agenda, and also sort of that broader entity, because nobody thinks about Target, or Ford or anybody like that, when they're trying to build their brand to help people understand what they do, and that the institution has value. But when somebody says, well, state government has value, and that it's an institution, and that we should talk just generically, you know, in support and understand it. Well, that sounds insanely wonky or naive. And I think that's the part that I really appreciate where Sam's going, because there is a kind of a recognition that we always want to make sure that people aren't so jaded, aren't so distanced from state government, from federal government, from local government, from community affairs, that they opt out. Because the whole model assumes everyone's in. And so to some level, everyone's job has to be at least partially, help people understand, attach, accept that this is how we're going to make the big decisions. And it's true, it's confounding. It's confusing, but it's also true, we play with a really big lever, if you think about a huge boulder, and how much does it take to move that boulder? Well, if you have a really long lever, and a fulcrum, we're at the end of a very long lever, trying to move that. That's okay. And that's part of the respect, we kind of come into the Capitol, we're doing something that's gonna affect a lot of people who are only tangentially aware of what we're doing.

Alan Berks  

So  you're saying you see everybody's job in this way advocating for like the brand, the institutional brand in a sense so that they can participate. But a person would say, some people would say it seems needlessly complicated. I mean, I I love your metaphor, that it's a complicated script with multiple audiences. You know, being a theatre person, I can actually see like multiple stages and how hard that would be to script that. And yet, some things just seem silly. And it's hard for at some point to not believe that some of that is intentional, that it's not trying to be accessible. Right you want everyone to participate, but it sometimes feels like not you personally, but people don't want everyone to participate.

Jim Schowalter  

That's, I get that feeling. And you know, and yeah, these are flawed people, flawed institutions, flawed processes. And so yeah, sometimes change doesn't happen as fast as I would want, you would want, the critic would want. But things do happen. And they do keep moving along. And I think that's the other part of just taking the longer view. And if you're not seeing it, then get active. Because that's where the advocacy role is, that's where the voice in elections is super useful. That's what people listen to. And if you're active, you can move an issue very quickly.

Alan Berks  

Did you always feel this way? Or did you just sort of develop it after seeing the long view?

Jim Schowalter  

I always had some of this, but I have appreciated it differently all along. And I started with, you know, community organizing after college. And, you know, we were working on a contract that hadn't been signed, and they were working on it for 10 years, and I was lucky enough to come in after four months. It's like, yay, we won! So I got to see the end of that struggle in that particular instance. But for the most part, you know, I've now been in government long enough that I've seen ideas come and they go, and that washing in and out, probably makes me a little bit more understanding that it doesn't always happen at the pace I want it. And that it, there may not be a perfect answer, that what fit today may not fit tomorrow, it's just gonna take a little while to throw out the old idea and get in the new one.

Alan Berks  

Uh-huh. What would you recommend is the way that people could know what's really happening instead of being kind of confused by some of the performance parts of it?

Jim Schowalter  

Well, my first answer is to listen to and understand what's going on in government, just half as much as like I listen to or think about the Vikings or the Twins. Because, you know, I can tell you the batting averages, I can tell you some of the strategy moves and who might be drafted in the recent MLB draft. I know that. Very few people know who was the most recent commissioner to be named, you know what was the success rate of projects in the Department of Human Services? Nobody has that information. And it's knowable. But nonetheless, you know our attention tends to go to other things,

Alan Berks  

We should make decks of cards like baseball cards with civil servants on them and their records and stuff. What do you think people should do if they're, if they're trying to pay attention to what matters and not get…? What is it people should know? Do you think, so that they could actually, you know, engage and have access?

Sam Fettig 

Yeah, I think it's a difficult question - there is a high barrier to entry. There are places you can get shorter, quicker, more accessible information. And I'll come back to that thought. But if you really want to know the ins and outs, like you described of bills that are going to pass or not, does this committee hearing matter or not? What's going on behind the scenes, when are decisions really going to be made? I don't know that there is a short, easy, accessible way to get that. The best I can think of is news. And I work in media communications, and sometimes there's a contentious relationship between communication staffers and reporters. But ultimately, that's what the job is. There's a reason it is sometimes called the fourth estate - to cut through what matters. Give enough of the background that can bring people up to speed, enough of the context to know why it matters. And enough of that filtering to cut through what's worth people's time and attention and what's not. It's a difficult job that's become more difficult over the last two decades, but even just the one decade I've been in this job, the number of reporters in the capital has just cratered. It's been decimated. A lot of that is due to private equity that has bought up and hollowed out local newsrooms. Some of it is the shift to digital and the economic challenges of adapting to that model. There's still journalists doing really good work. But it gets harder to do deep, long form investigations, when you're a smaller newsroom and you also need to keep up with the news of the day. So I think there's been something lost there. I think again, there are still newsrooms doing it well, and journalists doing it well. But as far as I know, that's still the best option. I do think coming to the Capitol, even if it's for one day, is a great place to start. If you do want to get just a little bit more sense of, of how things work, of the pace of the day, of the pace of session, what a committee hearing really looks like, legislators coming and going, just to kind of get a pulse. You won't know everything. But I think it's, it's worth doing if you haven't.

Alan Berks  

Do remember a moment when you felt like oh, I actually understand what's important and what's not important? I'm not going to actually waste time on unimportant things that I've been wasting my time on?

Sam Fettig 

It's a good question. I think again, I would have to go back to the end of session crunch. So probably the first year that I experienced that in 2015. And just seeing, the priorities come together from the Governor, from the House, from the Senate, compare the lists, what's in what's out. And just  seeing that process. You really learn that, unfortunately, more decisions are made in the last two weeks than in the preceding run. And so it's not exactly an answer to what is important, but it is an answer to when in the process is most important to tune in, if you want to see what's happening, how it's working, and what's ultimately gonna come out of it.

Alan Berks 

Yeah, and I'm trying to get you guys to give me something that's impossible, which is that if I am a casual observer, I don't want to devote my life to politics, but I want to know how to enter the process at the right moment when there's all of these things going on… Because probably in that room near the end, that's too late, right? So there's all these things going on, there's a lot of performance, there's a lot of like, how do I just conserve my own energy and live my life and not become a political junkie? How do I know where to look?

Jim Schowalter  

Well, let me just check the premise on that, because remember that lever and that really big boulder you're trying to move? Should everyone be able to sort of like, skip around the crowd and grab the lever and move it? Because that's kind of the assumption behind it is like, you know, if I don't want to, or can't spend all that time and I know there's all kinds of other voices, but I want to be able to make that decision or move my issue, should I be able to do that? And our system is set up to say, No, you got to convince some other people to help you. And you all grab the lever at the same time. And right now, that's how it works. And it's frustrating because I can order a pair of shoes online and get them and I don't have to get your permission to do it. But if I want to get a bill going I probably do have to work with both of you and talk to our legislator and start to get other people moving on it. 

Sam Fettig  

To Jim's point about the long road to things, not only becoming law, but even before that becoming serious issues on the table, is most of them start as a messaging bill, right, it starts as something that one legislator, two legislators really believe in. They know it's not going to go anywhere, but they really believe in it. And so you could call it a messaging bill, you could call it a bill designed to go nowhere when it's introduced. And it's that slow build from there, building a coalition of legislators to support it, building an outside coalition of advocates and organizations to push for it, that starts that long road. And again, that road can be one year, two years, 10 years. And I get that, that's frustrating. And I'm not going to necessarily endorse the length of that road. But I do think, to the answer of where to start. And to Jim's point, it doesn't need to be that you start at the finish line. Start where you are, find some people on the outside that want to advocate with you or find some people on the inside that want to buy in. And, again, be prepared for, for how long it might take. 

Jim Schowalter  

I totally agree with Sam’s point. I was at a bill signing a couple months ago. It’s on paid family medical leave. And I knew who was carrying the bill this session. But I didn't realize that some other people I knew and who had since left the legislature were the people who put the bill in many years earlier, probably at some felt like a messaging bill at the time, because it went nowhere. But it started the conversation, started moving it, they made sure that other people picked up the lead. And you know, it was enacted into law. It took a little while, but it started out as an idea and got developed, got support. And now it's law.

Alan Berks  

So you guys are saying that if people would work well with others, be patient, and do a number of things Americans are very bad at – your example of buying something off the Internet is a good one – that's how the government works is slowly, deliberately, collaboratively.

Jim Schowalter  

Not always. I mean, I came back in in 2020, September 2020, we had a little pandemic, we had a few crises going on. Things were happening all the time, we were deploying money resources to help get food into into communities, we were trying to figure out how to keep nursing facilities working. We were you know getting masks when we didn't have any supply of masks. So we were learning how to order masks from - it's like all kinds of stuff was going on. It was happening really fast. But it was also a really clear agenda. And so it depends, you know, in that pace, it's like, yeah, protecting health and safety, making sure that families are safe and people are fed. Yep, we all agree we're going to do that. Legislature gave us unprecedented flexibility, then they re-upped it again the next year, because they saw that we had a common objective here - wasn't in doubt. It was just our job to get it done, so we moved really fast. Most of the time, it's less clear about a big policy change or procedure change because somebody's on the other side saying no, don't do that.

Alan Berks  

You know you mentioned the pandemic. And when I listen to you, I'm like, oh, that sounds like everyone was holding hands and singing Kumbaya. But it never feels that way from the outside. It feels like the Republicans want to kill the Democrats and the Democrats… it doesn't feel like people are cooperating. And that was actually something that I learned when talking to people is that a lot of that conflict is performative. And that behind the scenes, it's not, not so much. So am I remembering that incorrectly? Was everybody standing around holding hands? Oh, gosh, no, It felt like the GOP kept trying to get rid of commissioners or something. Wasn't that a thing? 

Jim Schowalter 

Totally! Totally. Yeah, one by one. And that was always a message to the Governor. You know, we aren't thrilled with your executive order. We're not thrilled with where you're going at some level. There were policies or things that they wanted to communicate, and they used whatever lever they could, as the majority of the Senate, to do it. You know that is the rough and tumble part of politics – not thrilled with it. You know it sends a message to people that everyone's fighting. But it's also true that the same – in that case it was a Republican held Senate – was authorizing and overseeing our work to make sure that we spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars in rapid relief, whether it was for COVID tests, when they became available, whether it was masks when we could find them, or food or housing for unsheltered individuals and families, wherever it was necessary. So, you know, it depends on how many people are looking and how longform your conversation is. And so, and Sam is absolutely right, there's not as many people walking around to collect those stories, because they're there. It's just harder, because we’re a little bit - our messages are simpler, they're cleaner. And there's a little less subtlety as to all of the different things that are going on.

Alan Berks  

You're describing that there's conflict and fighting going on. But there's also cooperation going on among the same people. But it's hard to see, because the conflict takes a lot more attention.

Jim Schowalter  

Yeah, at least in my household, it's sort of the same way sometimes, you know, it's like, there's a lot of love. And then sometimes it feels like conflict, but depends on which view you take of it. You know, it might be more or less.

Alan Berks  

Well, you're more specifically on one side, you know, and you're advocating now and you were working for DFL politicians. I mean, are you do have that same sense that like the conflict, some of it is performative, or some of it is overblown? I don't want to say it's performative, but, because I might be wrong.

Jim Schowalter  

Yeah I wouldn't say it's performative. Some of it’s very real, there's deep disagreement on things.

Alan Berks  

But it's not all that's going on?

Jim Schowalter

Correct.

Sam Fettig 

Yeah, I think, I think an element that sometimes gets missed in kind of the simplified view of party versus party – This is not to say the conflict is overblown, it is to say that there's actually more conflict than that –  You have personal animosities, between people of the same party, you have political animosity or disagreements, if not animosity. People in the same party within one legislative body or across both legislative bodies or into the executive branch. You have legislators of one party who might want to break ranks to support a bill that's primarily authored by the other party. But their party leaders put pressure on them not to – that's conflict that you don't always see. And so I think it's not so much that the conflict you see – party versus party – is performative, it's that it's simplified, and kind of obscures some of the even more complex dynamics under the surface.

Alan Berks  

Hm. Okay. There's a line and one of those scenes that you guys listened to where the lobbyist is saying, “Well, everyone used to play poker together, and everything was better when people played poker together.” Is that “everything was better when” type thinking or do people really need to be connected more relationship wise? Would that make it work better?

Jim Schowalter  

I think it would if you're one of the people at the poker game. And if you're not, it would feel even more alienating. And so  No, I actually, I don't think it would. But I do think that, you know, finding ways for people to socialize, people to have time together, not just come into the legislature and drive out to their districts, and that on the floors or in the committee hearing is the only time they meet each other  – That's not healthy. Same thing for our state agency workers and our leaders, it's like being able to have that social contact is really important, whether it's in a hearing or other places. But making it private, taking it so close. It works if you're in the “in” crowd, but only then.

Sam Fettig 

Yeah, I think when people fondly remember an era of greater cooperation with poker tables, the poker table is not the defining feature. It's not the cause of that cooperation. It's that there was more consensus and ideological agreement on what was the range of the politically possible.

Jim Schowalter

Right. 

Sam Fettig

Some people would say, that's good. I would say that was maybe limiting in who was left out, to Jim's point, of those conversations, who wasn't at those tables. But the agreement came first and the poker came after. And I think a clear example that I always saw when I was working in the Governor's office is the Governor's fishing opener. One of the roles of, of the governor is to do these official acts and there's the various hunting openers, there's the deer opener, the pheasant opener. The fishing opener, every year, falls right in the crunch time at the end of the legislative session. And traditionally, the Governor will invite on his personal fishing boat, the leader from the House, the leader from the Senate, and by all accounts, they have a genuinely great time. Then they go back the next day, they drive back down to the Capitol. They go back to the conference room and they talk or they don't. They come out and they talk to the press and they have the same positions they do. And Governor Dayton, when I worked for him, would answer this question from the press too. And they would ask, you know, you came back from the fishing trip? How was it? Are you working together better now? When you disagree ideologically, you can still get along as friends. And that might make the discourse more civil, but it doesn't make the disagreements go away.

Alan Berks  

That's incredibly well said.  You're an advocate from the outside now, what needs to change in terms of what we're talking about the system, rather than a specific issue, though you can get on your high horse if you want to.

Sam Fettig  

Yeah, I think I think that the answer that I came to, so when I left, I was in the governor's office for pretty much the full second term. I went and worked on a statewide campaign, political campaign after that. And when I got done with that campaign, was the first time in four or five, six years, right, really, like, had a minute to catch my breath. As we've talked about a little bit already, political government work, you're going full speed, elections even more so. So I got done, I had some time. And it just like, hit me that I wasn't sure I could do it anymore. And the challenge with that is that the motivating drive that got me into this line of work was still there, which was the desire to do something to help people to make the state better to make things better for people. And a job also has to be a job. And there's only so many jobs where you can try to find that mission, that meaning, that purpose. And the answer I came to was bringing it to a more local, smaller, more grassroots more immediate level. And so the type of advocacy work I do specifically is with a labor union. In a union, you have a group of people coming together to do democracy at an immediate local level, to get what they need to get what they want. That's not to say that process always works perfectly, or always goes smoothly. But it's a lot closer to the ground, it's a lot more tangible to people in their lives. So that was part of the answer for me. And I think, without going on too much of a high horse about government and politics more broadly, I think that's part of the answer for me, is looking for ways not just to bring people into the process as it exists. Because I think that can ultimately be really disempowering. In a counterintuitive way. Someone comes to the Capitol, they expect to be heard, they expect to see change happen. And instead they sit through a committee hearing where they don't know what's going on, and they don't have a chance to speak. And they go home more disillusioned and more cynical than they were. They had a chance to be in the room, and it made it worse. So what I would say is, again, not just to bring more people into the system as it works now but to look for ways to take parts of the system, parts of the process closer to the ground, where people can actually have an immediate say and an immediate impact. And I don't mean immediate to Jim's good point of buying a pair of shoes online, and it shows up the next day. But I mean, a way they can engage in a process where they can see how it moves, even if it moves slowly. Something like a neighborhood council, something like a community organization. What I would like to see is as much as possible a transfer of some of the decision making power that's currently inside of those oblique, complicated, frustrating structures. down to a level where people can wrap their hands around it, where they can see it. Not government “small enough that you can drown it in the bathtub” as the right wing formulation sometimes puts it, but government small enough that you can shake its hand, that you can look it in the eye, that you can see it going through the motions. 

Alan Berks

Okay.

Jim Schowalter  

I like where Sam's going. And at the same time, I would challenge that at some level, we're also in an era where things are big and uniform, so that if I do something in one part of Minnesota, I would expect that I'd be able to do the same thing in another part, or that things would work the same way. And the more we push and decentralize, the more it’s like, “Oh, I can't get a bottle of liquor here, because there's blue laws in this community” –  all the different things that start to become really complex and could lead to even more disillusionment. At the end of the day, I agree with the recipe that we have to find ways for people to find places to engage at a scale that they want to be engaged on issues that they care about. And that's something we all have to work on. But I'm never quite clear if it's at a really big level, because we're all just pushing a big agenda, because I want to just be able to vote a couple times, and be done with it. Or if I have to invest all the time in order to organize a team, work on an individual issue, and then find out there's 20 other issues that are fighting for the same space. 

Alan Berks  

Right, but then how do you personally just emotionally endure the way in which these things affect people? 

Jim Schowalter 

Well, that's part of why I said it's deeply human. You know, you got to be in touch with why you're there. You gotta be willing to listen to people. And you know, one of my professors back in the day used to say, have a soft heart and a hard head, you know, you want to skip the information, but you always want to be accessible. And that's a balance we're always trying to do whether you're in government or someplace else.

Alan Berks 

You started by talking about a story when you got sort of attacked by people in committee, when you were much younger. I expect you have been attacked many times since then. 

Jim Schowalter

There’s been a few times.

Alan Berks

Have you gotten a thick skin or does it - ?

Jim Schowalter  

Um, I have a thicker skin. Part of it is also as Sam said, you know, there's roles. And sometimes I know, that's just my role to be the messenger for the administration for an issue, whatever it is, and that's okay. I'm the lightning rod today. I don't necessarily like it. Some people like that stuff. That's personal taste. That's personal skills. But I know it's part of the process.

Alan Berks  

Wow, there is a line in the scene where a character says “I saw my commissioner and I joke that you don't care what I'm about to say. Let's just get to the games. What role do you want me to play here is this performance you're doing.” And like everything else in play a direct quote, and the person who said it was not nearly as accepting of that, that part of it as you.

Jim Schowalter 

Well sometimes it sucks. But I you know, when you look back at it, you know, you're you're working issues, you're trying to help people understand. And it's not that straight a line. We're not logical people. We're emotional people too. And there's stories. Thank God for you and everyone who has tried to tell stories, because that helps us understand and access different ways of thinking. And sometimes it's a little ugly, but that's okay. Because you're stretching yourself, you're tearing people a little bit away from their preconceptions maybe, or at least you're letting them vent their preconceptions. And either way, you know, let it happen.

Alan Berks 

You’re like the Zen Commissioner! (laughter). My last question would be this: This particular session seemed different. Everyone was talking about how different it was? Was it different? We passed a lot of bills. So substantively, lots of things happened. But did it feel like it was a different kind of environment and different kind of process? Or was it “this is the way that it works,” and we just happen to be catching a snapshot of a moment?

Jim Schowalter  

You wanna gonna go first? 

Sam Fettig 

Sure. I think the results are clearly different from the norm. Like you said, the number of bills passed, just as a total number. Also specific bills that passed kind of, as we were starting to talk about earlier that have maybe been around for five years, 10 years, 20 years, that maybe struggled to get one committee hearing in the past, now they're, now they're flying. One that jumped out to me, comparing my time in the governor's office to what I saw this last session was, we spent months and months if not years, on transportation funding, and specifically trying to get a gas tax. This was like the firs,t when I came in, in 2015, my first year on the job, this was the big, you know, we're putting everything we've got – messaging, communications, advocacy, relationships – into trying to get this. And we didn't. We made a good run at it. We had good popular support, good public support for it. It didn't, it didn't happen, the political will wasn't there, to get it to get it passed through the legislature. And then this session. In the last, I don't remember how long a couple weeks last month, it hadn't even really been discussed much at all this legislative session, and all of a sudden there was new transportation funding in the budget. And it wasn't exactly what we had asked for, we, ours was a gas tax, this was something different. But all of a sudden, it was there. And I was just kind of sitting there. Like when I saw this on Twitter, or wherever I saw it just kind of in disbelief like something that hours and hours of sweat to push nowhere. And then all of a sudden it was just done. It was there. And that's great. These are good things. But that's a long way of saying, on the one hand, yes, the total volume of bills that moved and some of the specific things that were not possible before that got done now is different. I would say the process was not as different as some people would think. And I'll say even a little more frankly, than some people would like it to appear. I mentioned earlier, that the conflict isn't just between one party and another. It's between legislator and legislator in the same party, in the same party in different bodies, between the House and the Senate and the executive, and between leadership and other legislators. And that was still there, and it wasn't as public. And again, the results were very different. But the process, the way that bills moved or didn't, the way that thing's made it into the final budget agreement or didn't, the way decisions were ultimately reached through a hierarchy. The balance of that decision coming at the end of session, not in the last minute crunch like we're used to and not in a special session, like we were all too used to for too many years. But nonetheless, that those decisions still flowed to that hierarchy of those three at the end. And so, results very different. Process? Not so much.

Jim Schowalter  

It was absolutely a historic session. I mean there’s no way you can look at everything that happened. The volume of bills, the magnitude of bills, the transformative elements that are there, that we're just going to be unpacking for years to come. There's no way you can look at all that and say, Well, this is like most years. No, this was totally a different cat. I agree that it was the same process. I think that things lined up in ways that were really unique. Part of it is the trifecta. Part of it is our leaders, the willingness to really merge the views and opinions early on of the session, where the Governor and the Speaker and the Majority Leader all thought about what they wanted to get done, and how I was going to work through the entire session. Those are just very unusual features. I've been in the room a lot, seen a lot of administrations, I've never seen it really so authentic, and shared to say these are the things that are most important to me. So while Sam’s also right, like things popped up at the end, it wasn't because they weren't thought of before then, it was that nobody quite knew how to get there. Or maybe it was, you know, things were developing to, till that issue could be ripe. And that's just a very unusual path. For it to be so orderly. One of the normal features of you know, if you think of the capital as a playhouse, you think about those last couple of weeks as being the time when all the action happens. That wasn't the case this year. Now, right after we did the February forecast, where we say, here's how much money we think we're gonna have. We had targets we met together and set up basically the fiscal framework that the final deal was going to be made on. Normally, that happens only after the government gets off a fishing opener, and comes out of the boat. And on that Sunday afternoon, maybe there's a pronouncement. That was done in March? April. So the the cooperation was really unprecedented, and that meant a lot. The one other thing that I think is really unusual, and probably overlooked is that we did have just a lot of money. We had a lot a LOT of money. And that was because we forgot to or not, didn't forget to but we chose not to do some things the year before. And we chose not to do some things the year before that, too. Because there was gridlock. There was disagreement and deals couldn't be struck.

Alan Berks  

Glad you mentioned the money. I was afraid I was gonna have to be the cynic who said that everything worked because there was just a big pile of money.

Jim Schowalter  

No and sometimes, you know, there's a big pile of money and it doesn't work. Look at the previous session. We still had a pretty big pile of money. It was by historic terms pretty big. If we still couldn't get it done. So it's not always just having the money. It's alignment about where you want to go with it.

Alan Berks 

Does this teach people to make deals next time? Because they didn't make the deal. So all the money gets spent on other other things. And next time, maybe they'll be more compelled to make the deal so that they don't lose their chance to spend some of that money. 

Jim Schowalter

It should

Alan Berks

But will it?

Jim Schowalter

I don’t know.

Alan Berks 

And you had mentioned, I didn’t mention it before, but you mentioned that you've often been in the room, right? And it's that room where these things are happening. We've sort of touched on it in different ways. That's the thing that people focus on. Right? Why, what's happening in that room? Is it a smoke filled room with cigars? Are they playing poker? 

Jim Schowalter 

I think the only piece I'd add about the room, or any room in the Capitol, is that's where you get exchanges. That's where I can tell you what is really eating me, what's my concern? And you can say, reciprocate. And you can choose not to, but that's what the room does. You sit there and say, here's what, here's what I'm about, here's what's my concern, or you can get my support if you do this, or that or the other thing, or if you just, that's what's important about the room. And at some level, it's really hard to do that in front of 1000 people. It’s really hard to do that in front of 100 people or in front of…  –  So it's like you always are trying to create a place of trust. And that sometimes shows up as arcane, stupid things when you go to a hearing and it’s like, why are they directing everything to the chair? I don't get it. It's because they're just creating a process that everyone knows how to work, at least in the room. And and so that's always the task, in your negotiations on your omnibus bills or at the leadership level, it's how do you create a sense of trust, so that you can have authentic communication so that you can leave the room and work with other people, and have another room and an honest conversation and pull it all together.

Alan Berks 

And how does the kind of more public performance part feed into that? Like, if there's a, I've heard this story, there's a legislator who says, I want to vote for that bill, but I can't vote for that bill because the NRA will kill me or somebody you know, and it's like, so I know, you need that battle, and I agree with you. But I'm gonna go out there and attack you because that's what I need to do. 

Jim Schowalter  

Yeah and then the leaders have to decide, does it travel separately? Maybe it gets packaged? If you can't vote for the bill as a freestanding bill, would you tube an omnibus bill or a tax bill because it's in there? Those are the questions and the explorations that, you know, he may not have an answer right away. But it's important information to figure out.

Alan Berks  

But isn't the performance part, if you really like them, that same legislator goes out and attacks you in a hearing or whatever, even though you know that they don't feel that way?

Jim Schowalter  

Yeah 

Alan Berks

Does it have to be? 

Jim Schowalter

 Doesn't have to be and not everyone plays it that way.

Sam Fettig  

From my perspective on the room, on the other side of those doors, when it's the room of the three at the end, or the press is a press stake out of the room, every time they get together. Sometimes they find their way there because someone told them the meeting was happening. Sometimes they are just sitting out there waiting to see people go in. And the press hate it  just as much as anyone else. They want to be out doing deeper investigative journalism, enterprise stories. But they have to be there because that's where the decision makers are – nine times out of 10, they don't come up with a decision. But you have to be there for that 10th time when they do. And then I'm sitting there and the meeting ends, whether it was productive or whether they sat in silence. And then there's the negotiation over, what are we going to do about the press? Are we going to all go out the side door? Are we going to all go out together and talk about how we're close but we're not quite there yet? Are we going to go one at a time separately to take those swings at each other? And it is for performance. But I think there's a difference between it being a performance and being performative. It's not performative in the sense that it's it's genuinely driving towards whatever someone's goal or position is. So back to what we were talking about earlier. It is part of the process, that posturing, that's part of the negotiation process to stake your claim to stay firm to go to the press and say, they didn't make a serious offer, they're not serious about solving this issue or to say, I think we're close. “That's a strategic decision to try to get a result that you want that hopefully the voters who supported you want, that hopefully you think is good for Minnesota. And so there's, there's theater to it. But again, it's not to put makeup on a pig, so much as it is to present the strongest, most compelling, clearest message in case for what you genuinely truly believe in and are trying to accomplish.

Alan Berks

So, I have to admit, after this interview, I’m more confused than I was before. I’d like to say that is appropriate considering this episode is right in the middle of a 12 episode podcast. Like, we’re learning. But we’ve actually been thinking about these issues for a while now, so I’m kind of frustrated.

Leah Cooper

And I’m feeling more cynical than ever. There is so much wrong with this process. Neither of them think making decisions at a poker game or at the last minute is a good idea, but that is essentially what is happening, just without the poker, and they seem to think it’s inevitable. Jim makes such a compelling case for it all being necessary. Even Sam, who really wants there to be another way, admits that this process “kind of” works as it is. 

Alan Berks

Jim talks about how there needs to be a process that everyone understands but I’m not sure I understand. However they’ve designed the process, only certain people seem to understand it. Like, are “messaging” bills just performative or not? Should we watch the performance part or try to see behind the curtain? Among the many analogies we’ve reached for so far in this podcast, we’ve also talked about a puzzle and putting the pieces together. At this point, I feel like I’m in the middle of making the puzzle but some of the most important pieces have fallen to the floor… and probably been swallowed by a dog walking by.

Leah Cooper

Or there’s the machine analogy again. Jim mentioned a big lever that everyone is trying to push, or pull, and it’s hard and we all have to be in perfect alignment to get the lever to move.

Alan Berks

And the implication was that no one should be allowed to jump the line and grab the lever. Like, being confused and frustrated is part of the process. Everyone goes through it. And then they learn. And then maybe, eventually, by spending the time and considering a whole bunch of different audiences, they build a coalition big enough to move the lever.

Leah Cooper

Maybe. But how are regular citizens, with jobs and lives, really supposed to be a part of that process?

Alan Berks

It’s like they’re setting up our next episode. When we talk with two members of the press about the value of the information they convey to the public but also the limits of what they can report. 

Leah Cooper

Our first guest is Brianna Bierschbach, politics and government reporter for the Star Tribune:

Briana Bierschbach 

Legislators sometimes don't think people are paying attention. We're there. We're in the basement. But what really worries them, even more than us watching, is their constituents and people, regular people watching and paying attention. They don't like us watching either. Not all the time.

Alan Berks

And we’re also joined by Lori Sturdevant, retired Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist who has written about Minnesota government and politics since 1978. She believes that journalists are still the least cynical people in the building.

Lori Sturdevant  

I think we as journalists still think that this process that we are covering has value, that the messaging associated with that is of value to our citizens. We believe that the citizens seek and desire this information, so they can make good choices at the ballot. 

Leah Cooper

 You’ve been listening to Our House. I’m Leah Cooper.

Alan Berks 

And I’m Alan Berks

Leah Cooper

“Our House '' is a podcast of Wonderlust Productions. Our production assistant is Frances Matejcek, our editor is Marianne Combs, and our sound designer and audio engineer is Peter Morrow with additional audio support from Rachel Briese. Music was composed by Becky Dale. Lyrics by Alan Berks and Becky Dale. For detailed credits on the making and performing of the play and the original cast, visit our website at wlproductions.o-r-g.

Alan Berks

The professional actors you heard singing in this episode are Bradley Greenwald, Adam Whisner, Megan Kim and Laurel Armstrong.

Leah Cooper

Big thanks to our partners and supporters who have made this podcast possible, including the Minnesota Humanities Center, Eastside Freedom Library, In Progress Studios, MinnPost, The Theater of Public Policy, and the Elmer L. and Eleanor J. Andersen Foundation. See the thank-you page on our website for a full list of the donors and foundations who make all of our work possible.

Alan Berks

Thanks for listening!