MN: Millions in legal costs trigger belt-tightening at Minn. human services agency

Admin

The Minnesota Department of Human Services, a giant agency with 6,628 employees and a biennial budget of $28.2 billion, is imposing limits on everything from filling vacant positions to out-of-state travel. The belt-tightening became necessary to bring the agency back on fiscal track after it racked up more than $4 million in costs from litigation over the treatment of sex offenders and the alleged abuse of people with disabilities, among other costs. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

However, she warned, “If these bills continue to ratchet up, it’s a safe guess there will be a conversation among policymakers to make sure our priorities do not get out of whack?????”

It sounds as though things have gone way beyond “out of whack.”

0
Reply

I think “turn about is fair play”: if legislatures wish to keep making these laws, punishments, and registration requirements, it seems contingent upon us to do all we can to make their rules as onerous and costly to them (in taxpayer dollars) as we possibly can. This is one sure way to make them re-think any new rules (and many of the old ones).
At the same time, I suggest we think strategically: if we wish to have these laws changed, then we need to provide lawmakers with some “political cover” so they won’t be called “soft on crime” – the political equivalent of registered sex offender.
If they are able to claim the laws are being “restructured in consideration of excessive burdens on the taxpayers and to accurately focus public safety concerns where most appropriate”, lawmakers may be more willing to address reform of sex offender laws.

0
Reply