A Break Down with Senator Heather Gustafson: Why Minnesota Needs an Inspector General

[00:00:12] Welcome to The Break Down with Brodkorb and Becky, a weekly podcast that breaks down politics, policy and current affairs. I'm Michael Brodkorb and today I'm diving into a timely and impactful topic, government accountability. I'm thrilled to be joined by Senator Heather Gustafson who represents Senate District 36. A former teacher and small business owner, Senator Gustafson brings a pragmatic solution focused approach to the state Capitol. Today we're talking with her about her bipartisan legislation establishing an independent office

[00:00:40] of the Inspector General in Minnesota. In an era where public trust in government is more important than ever, this bill aims to root out waste, fraud and abuse while ensuring Minnesotans get the transparency and accountability they deserve. We'll talk about what inspired this effort, how it's been received across party lines and what it could mean for the future of state government. Thank you for joining me today and I hope you enjoy this episode.

[00:01:06] I am very excited to be joined today by Senator Heather Gustafson from Senate District 36, represents Senate District 36 in the Minnesota Senate. Senator, I grew up in parts of Forest Lake. Your district touches on that, correct? Yes, we have part of Forest Lake School District too. Okay. Yeah, I was a 1992 graduate of Forest Lake High School. I'm a ranger, but I lived up in that area. It's a great part of the state. It is.

[00:01:36] Tell our listeners a little bit about your background and your first term in the Minnesota legislature. Yeah, well, I'm a small town Minnesota kid. I grew up in Sartell, but I always remind people that I was an 80s kid in Sartell when we were like less than 4,000 people in population and dirt roads and no stoplights. And now they have a Walmart. They've got a McDonald's. It's a completely different town now. Sartell's booming.

[00:02:03] It's grown so much. I mean, I don't recognize it. And that isn't an insult. It's just a very different town than the one I grew up in. But that's where I grew up, small town. I went to Moorhead State, came to the cities. I was in radio. That's why I ended up back in the cities. I was in radio for a long time. And then I got out of radio, got my teaching license. I've been a teacher for, I'm not currently a teacher, but was a teacher for about 12 years and then left that to join the legislature.

[00:02:33] So kind of an interesting career path, but here I am. It's a citizen legislature and it's always great to talk to people about their backgrounds when they serve in the legislature. Give our listeners just a breakdown on the status of where things are at right now from just the potential of a special session where we're at from a timing perspective.

[00:02:55] I keep comparing it to summer school. Maybe that's my teaching background, but I don't know. For those of you who've ever gone to summer school or taught or whatever, there's just an energy shift where you have to buckle down and get your work done. But it just feels very different than a regular school year. And that's where we're at. One of the things that struck me was that I was on the education work group and we were in our room working and there were other work groups all around the Capitol working too.

[00:03:22] But we didn't really cross paths too often. Of course, both of the caucuses are meeting frequently, but they're just giving brief updates. So there, you know, it's just it's different when when we're in a regular session, you know, you just the energy is there. You feel like you're a little bit more finger on the pulse of what's going on. And this feels very much, you know, you're kind of laser focused on the task you've been given.

[00:03:48] We were up in a room in the Capitol and, you know, there were long hours. Right. We didn't take many breaks. We were there from morning until sometimes middle of the night. So if that, you know, education is now posted, I don't know which two are out. I hear it's two, possibly three bills that are still being figured out.

[00:04:12] And I imagine they have probably the same experience, right? It is just trying very hard to make sure that we get it right, especially in the climate that we're in. With a tied house and a one seat majority in the Senate and a Senate that is notorious for independent thinkers, you have to make sure that you are representing everybody and that you have the votes to pass what you need to pass.

[00:04:37] Absolutely. You're on here today, aside from giving us an update on the legislative session is my co-host and I, Becky, who's off, just had a kid. We have had been discussing the issue of kind of waste, fraud and abuse that's been going on in this state and some of the legislative proposals. Yeah. And your legislation, Becky and I talked about, just briefly mentioned, is probably one of my favorite legislative proposals this session. And I think it is just a great piece of legislation.

[00:05:05] And that's why I wanted to have you on to talk about it, which is the creation of a Office of Inspector General. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about your legislation and kind of the genesis of it? So, when I was running for office in 2022, that's when Feeding Our Future broke. And I wasn't in office. I was running. But I remember thinking, this is going to have a lasting impact. People are talking about that. It's sort of breaking through the noise. I think you know a little bit about that, where a lot of information comes at people, especially nowadays.

[00:05:36] And it's hard to sort of break through the noise to some of the people who just, you know, I represent a suburb. Most people are working their full-time jobs. They're raising their kids. They're not following the legislature super closely. But this was one of those things that broke through. And I remember when I was elected and having just a fresh set of eyes, I kept thinking, OK, so what are we going to do about this? And to be clear, we did do quite a bit about it. I think there were over 10 pages of policy that were passed in 23 that strengthened OLA, put more guardrails on grants.

[00:06:05] But I don't think it was doing what we needed it to do completely. And that is to sort of fill that gap on the proactive side versus just the reactive side. We have really great state workers and people who are doing a great job on fighting fraud where they can. But one of the things that we've seen in Minnesota is that we are very reactive to when it happens and we do our best to stop it and then prevent it going forward.

[00:06:30] But we don't do a lot on the proactive investigative side or we don't do enough, I should say. That's what this bill could do. So we've seen gaps and how fraud is caught and prevented. But we could do more on the investigative side. A statewide office of inspector general would have the tools necessary to aid and help existing programs in place. So this is not, unlike some of the pushback we get is this is already being done. This is duplicative. This is redundant. We already have this. We don't.

[00:07:00] We have a fabulous OLA. The governor put in place an executive order that beefed up the fraud prevention with the BCA. We have a great attorney general. But what we don't have is more of that provider and recipient accountability. And inspector general can do that. I think it's a great idea. My late father was a forensic accountant, was a CPA, worked a lot with the IRS. And so he would always tell me that it wasn't that showboat Elliot Ness who caught Al Capone.

[00:07:30] It was an accountant, Frank Smith, who got him. And so this kind of rings true. And what I like about this is the independence of it. And it's the creation of something. And I consider myself a bit of a homeless Republican. Republicans are always concerned about the size and growth of government. But to me, this is such common sense. Because what you laid out there about legislation responding reactively to what goes on.

[00:07:57] My co-host, Becky, always talks about that. And she makes such great points about how legislation comes out of that. And here's a proactive measure that would do that. Explain a bit to our listeners what gap. And I completely understand what you just said. OLA is Office of the Legislative Auditor. Yes. Can you explain to our listeners what the various kind of what the OLA does versus what's in the purview of the attorney general?

[00:08:27] And what gap that this important legislation would kind of cover? Yeah, absolutely. So the OLA really looks at systemic issues, right? So people, and I don't know if the public knows this, the OLA can take requests from the public. So if there's something that just your neighbor wants to take a look at more deeply, they can submit a request. It's not a guarantee that it'll get picked up, but they can do that. Plus the legislators obviously can put in requests. They have subpoena powers.

[00:08:56] OLA can also investigate. So people think, okay, well then why do we need an inspector general? But again, they are looking at more of broad patterns or systemic oversight. What an OIG would do, an Office of Inspector General, is look more at providers and recipients. So for instance, if there is fraud or misuse, and I want to be clear too, it's not fraud is bad and that is what grabs all the headlines. But sometimes it's just misuse and it's not necessarily nefarious. It could be a computer error or something.

[00:09:24] But we want to catch that quickly and we want to make sure that, you know, maybe it's a couple hundred thousand dollar mistake instead of a $250 million mistake. And so grabbing that quickly is essential. But looking at providers and recipients, finding out immediately based on tips or maybe work that's being done in another agency that gets brought over to the OIG, we can go in and investigate that quicker. With our version, we do have police powers.

[00:09:51] Those police are not, those are not like patrol cops or things like that. They're very specific to, similar to what your dad did, right? Looking at fraud, misuse, sort of those ways of being able to catch something early. If they do need to do some auditing, it's not in the same sense of an OLA, but maybe they need to subpoena records. Something like that on the investigative side. Yeah, it is a gap that we just don't have. I also think that it meets the moment.

[00:10:19] And I don't mean, I'm not one of those people who's like, I'm going to drop a bill so I can get a bunch of attention. It's more about, we need sort of a shift. There needs to be an office that's just dedicated to fighting this fraud and misuse of our tax dollars. We don't have that. And I think here in Minnesota, the public wonders why we don't. And this addresses that concern as well. I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's a perfect example of both.

[00:10:46] It's the kind of responsive legislation that I think, it just makes sense. Yeah. And I've reached a point in my life, I'm 51, a homeless Republican, but I am someone who just likes legislation that just makes sense. And this really, and again, being a Republican who kind of like, you know, limited government size and scope and stuff, this just makes sense because, help me understand.

[00:11:09] And the reason why I think that is because, you know, Republicans traditionally, you know, don't like government to grow, don't like the creation of new offices. But this is such a common sense approach that could potentially save taxpayers money. And it's in essence, one of the areas where it's value added to the bottom line.

[00:11:31] Some of the costs that you would envision related is because I know, and we'll get to kind of the status of it, but I think some of the costs have been some concerns that people have raised. Can you kind of set the record straight on what you think is the author of this legislation, the costs would actually be? Yeah. Well, first of all, I fought very hard to keep a small fiscal note as possible because, and you keep bringing up your homeless Republican. So was my husband up until Trump. I think he feels a little bit lost in the woods.

[00:12:00] And so I always say that, you know, there's lots of people like him. There's lots of people like you. And to the point of the OIG bill, this is just good governance. People want to be able to trust the government again. And I don't think that they care so much about which club they belong to. It's more about, do you just, can you do the job? Can we trust you? Are you normal? You're going to be in charge of a lot of policies and programs and tax dollars. Are you going to do good things with it or are you going to abuse it? And so, again, this is really meant to build back trust.

[00:12:29] But to your point on the fiscal note, yeah, I mean, the election happened. We had a tied house. So I thought, okay, I'm going to scale back my projects. What can have bipartisan support? What can I actually pass this session that will do the things that we're kind of hoping to accomplish? That was one. And then two, when we got the forecast in, okay, we have limited dollars. Now what? And I think to your point, why grow government in a year where we are looking at every dollar

[00:12:58] and making sure that we have enough for all the things that we need? The reason why is because those dollars are precious. They are scarce. We are making sure that they're going to the places where they're needed the most. And that is the reason why we want to protect it so that they actually are going to those places. Our fiscal note is $8.3 million, I think, in the first biennium and $8.5 million in the second.

[00:13:25] We are going as lean as we can and still able to do the job. A lot of that is going to be setting up the office and FTEs. But really, we are meant to be a complement to some of the other fraud prevention strategies that are in other places. And so our costs can remain, you know, sort of low. I know it's like regular people. You're like $8 million isn't low. So as far as the state budget goes, it's money well spent to make sure that you have an insurance plan in place

[00:13:53] and those dollars are going where they're supposed to go. So that's one. And I would also say, too, that every time we fund a program, right, or there's a program that is benefiting people who are particularly either marginalized or have a high need, and we allot money to a program to help them, and then that money is either taken from us or is misused in some way, we've essentially lit that money on fire. We're not going to recoup that.

[00:14:21] And on top of it, the people who needed our help now don't have it. So it's a double whammy. And this is where I think people can start to see the cost savings of it. Because if we can make sure that we don't have to spend that money twice, right, because those people who were supposed to get that funding are still going to need that funding. And now we've got to find a way to fund it again. It's just, again, good governance bill builds back public trust,

[00:14:48] and it makes it so that we are more responsible with our public dollars. How does your legislation deal with the independence of the office? How do you make sure in this kind of hyper-partisan time, which is on both sides, that in a divided government, in a hyper-partisan time, that the office of the inspector general can operate independently? Yes, that was such a key. So I should say when, you know, everybody is like, oh, this is bipartisan.

[00:15:13] This was in the most genuine way bipartisan. So what happened was every Tuesday night, a bicameral bipartisan meeting would happen in the Senate building, and we would be there with nonpartisan and Senate counsel and House counsel, and we would work on this bill. The original draft was mine. And it wasn't great. It got better over time. That's because of bipartisan authors, right? So we brought them in and worked closely. That's great. Very quickly. Yeah.

[00:15:43] And it was really helpful, which was kind of a surprise why it stalled in the House. But we can talk about that later. I think, but what it did show me and tell me and really taught me was the perspective on government from both sides. It's, you know, we hear a lot of the fighting and we see social media and it's crazy. But if you can get into a room and work on a bill like this with them without, you know, any of the, you know, the pretentiousness,

[00:16:10] you can really learn a lot about how they see things. And then you can solve a problem based on the rules of the game. That's really all I ever try to figure out. What are my parameters? What are my rules? What are the boundaries? Okay, so I have to operate within this system. I still maintain we can solve a problem here. We just have to figure out how to do it within the parameters that we have. And so for the Republicans, it was, we don't want to have this complete executive control over the OIG

[00:16:40] so that it's basically just the heads of agencies and the governor telling the OIG what to investigate and what not to investigate. And for us, on the Democrat side, we really wanted to make sure that we were working closely with the agencies, but that we also weren't going after people. Neither one of us wanted to have an office that served as just a witch hunt, that it was just about of a political hack job. And so because of that, we put in a lot of parameters that you don't see

[00:17:09] with other offices or agencies. So for example, we have a bipartisan selection committee made up of four Democrats, four Republicans, two from each chamber. And they will do a public vetting and hearing of all of the viable candidates. So that's one. And then they have to submit a list of people that they approve of. So they have to vote and the, you know, whatever candidates have a majority, they will provide that list to the governor to select from.

[00:17:38] He can choose somebody off that list or he can choose not to pick somebody from that list. It's up to him. However, that leads us to the next step. It has to have a supermajority in the Senate confirmation process to pass. So if you go with somebody on the list, you probably have a better chance of getting that supermajority confirmation vote in the Senate. If you choose to go off the list, you might have a little bit more trouble and the process would have to start over again.

[00:18:05] We also have a supermajority safehold in place too, so that if you wanted to remove an inspector general, it has to be confirmed by the Senate as well. So this is very different, by the way. You talk about Republicans without a home. You sort of watch the conundrum there and seeing what Trump is doing on the federal level, where he's just firing inspectors general at a moment's notice and not doing very much on fraud or oversight.

[00:18:33] And they are really operating in a different space, which gives me hope, right? I think in the end, people understand and they'll go back to their roots where like, we really just want this to be an independent office that is meant to do the job it's supposed to do and politics should not be a part of it. And so I am hopeful that we can all sort of find our place back to a good spot where we're just public servants. But that is the goal.

[00:18:59] It is, you have to, I mean, there's more details in the bill too about the criteria of how you're even chosen to move forward in the process. You have to be actively nonpartisan. If you have to be very open and transparent about any political affiliations you've had. And all of that is just to get through the first step. And then it's the selection committee hearings. And then it has to be a super majority confirmation. There's quite a bit of checks and balances in there.

[00:19:27] There's also whistleblower protections in the bill to make sure that there is no retaliation should somebody report something. So it's a lot of good stuff that I think was in there. Again, shoulder to shoulder, Democrats and Republicans coming together in language that they could agree upon and not only felt good about, but we got 60 votes in the Senate. All the Republicans, almost all the Democrats. So it was good. I am proud of our bill. I think it is well written. But we had accomplished three things.

[00:19:56] It had to be independent. It had to be constitutional. And it had to be able to do the job it was supposed to do. Oh, and it had to make sure that we preserve federal funding. That was the other key. That might be a little bit too in the weeds. But there is some federal regulations around DHS having its own internal inspector general. So we just had to make sure we honored all of that. This is an in the weed show. So we appreciate going in the weeds. I have to say a couple of things. You got 60 votes in the Senate. Yeah.

[00:20:26] When the Senate is as tight as it is, if there was a vote on apple pie in the Senate, I don't think it would get 60 votes. And so that's impressive. You got 60 votes in the Senate. Not to take anything away of apple pie. But 60 votes is that's impressive. Yeah. Second of all, you said something that I want to make sure our listeners understand. Bicameral bipartisan. That means you were working with House and Senate members from both parties. Yeah. And that's so impressive.

[00:20:50] And one of the things that I think has been, again, your first session, but you've already kind of earned a really, really good reputation of working in a bipartisan way. How did that approach help you in this process? Because, look, I used to be incredibly hyperpartisan and can still play that role occasionally. But there's different kind of modes at the legislature. There's partisan bomb throwers on both sides.

[00:21:18] But there's also those that are just trying to craft out a little bit of that bipartisan mold. Becky and I have had Shannon Watson on multiple times from, you know, majority in the middle. And we love her organization and what they're doing. But this is the type of bill that you had to approach from a bipartisan standpoint. How did that mindset help you in this process? Well, I'm in a purple district. I mean, we were the only Senate race to flip a seat. And so I've got a very red and blue group of constituents.

[00:21:48] And so right off the bat, talking to people who don't always line up perfectly with maybe my ideas is not new. So that is just a regular day here in my district. So I have lots of friends who are Republicans, Democrats. Like I said, my husband isn't even a Democrat. Like there is nothing wrong with either being a Republican or a Democrat. What I think is wrong is trying to score points or trying to be, you know, politically famous.

[00:22:17] Those are the things I have no stomach for. So if you could just come and leave your ego at the door and sit in this conference room and we can all just be honest, but also professional and mature and problem solvers. And we're not trying to score points or we're not trying to get a bunch of clicks and likes on social media. We're just trying to do our job. I can get along with just about everybody. And the people in that room have the same personality.

[00:22:41] So I want to give a lot of credit to not just my Democrat authors who are great. Senator Ron Latz, Senator Eric Putnam, Senator Dibble helped with this. Senator Marty helped with this. And all of them did great work. But also to the Republicans. Senator Crueh is also in a targeted seat and represents the Blaine area.

[00:23:03] If I was a political mind and I was like, oh, I'm going to try to score points here, I probably wouldn't have picked somebody that's also in a targeted seat, right? But I don't care about that. And I don't think he does either. And he was great. We were able to work with each other on this. And he was extremely helpful. He is also a workhorse. Really smart. He's a lawyer. He was really into constitutional law. All of this was very useful.

[00:23:29] And then you have Senator Draheim, who is maybe one of the nicest individuals in the Senate and is just a straight shooter. And Patty Anderson, who represents an area like Forest Lake, kind of by your old neck of the woods. And also, too, I mean, all of us were very much like we're not here to climb a ladder. And everybody sort of understood that. And we just worked and we all trusted each other. And now, of course, I'm a proud Democrat.

[00:23:54] So, you know, like you always are a little bit like we can work on this, but we might disagree on this. And you just put it in separate boxes and that's OK. But I think it was what was needed. And it was really refreshing. This is the kind of thing that I was hoping I would be able to do when I was elected. And I feel very grateful that I got to experience this.

[00:24:16] And then I want to say the Democrats in the House, I know, you know, if I could go back and change things, I would maybe ask a little bit more about the buy-in from the Democrats in the House. Because I want to be clear, they also care very much about fighting fraud. I just don't know that they were sold on this the way that I thought they were. And so we have some work to do for next session. And that's OK.

[00:24:40] But kudos to Representative Matt Norris and Jenny Cleavorn for joining us on those meetings every Tuesday. And their input was also valuable, too. So I appreciate them. Well, first of all, let me just say the way you describe the legislative process as Joe Q, citizen than I am, that's the way it's supposed to work. And so kudos to you for coming in and working with a bicameral, bipartisan group of legislators to come up with.

[00:25:06] I think the more I learn about it from talking about you, and I certainly think our listeners will agree, just a great piece of legislation that's targeted in the right way. It fits into that mindset of what I think the average taxpayer, my wife and I, and my area, I live in Egan, certainly want to see happen. And your approach in doing it is just so refreshing, and it's exactly the type of subjects and interviews you like to have in this podcast. You touched on it a little bit, and I just want to get a little bit more understanding.

[00:25:34] What is the status of this in the House? Because so our listeners kind of understand, again, legislature is going to be meeting. There's going to be a special session to kind of close things. And your legislation, correct me if I'm wrong, is kind of up in the air as to whether it'll be included in kind of the special session package. Am I describing it accurately? Yeah, yes. I mean, I don't know if it's going to come up again in special session. Of course, this is my bill. I worked really hard on writing this bill.

[00:26:03] I would love to see this bill get across the finish line. But I also know that there's some delicate conversations happening. So I'm not a part of those right now, and I can just find out what I can. As you know, the legislature is always full of rumors and gossip, and you never know what you can believe. So I hear little bits and pieces of what's going on. I don't know what's going to happen with it.

[00:26:26] I fully intend that it'll just come back next session, and we will just do the work necessary to make sure that everybody sees the value in this legislation. That is my goal. And so I'm not here to try to get it in the back door and make it part of a thing that maybe not everybody can agree on, and then somehow that leads to the government shutdown. That would be the worst-case scenario. I think that that is sort of the opposite of what this bill is trying to accomplish. So I hope it goes through.

[00:26:55] You know, I hope the conversation is still alive and people are still bringing it up because it is important. It really is one of those, you know, we keep saying this and everybody is going to get sick of it maybe, but it is a common-sense bill. This is not legislation that is backed by a bunch of special interest groups. There's no coalition behind it. This is just average people asking for the government to do what they're supposed to do with the tax dollars that we all pay in.

[00:27:22] And, you know, maybe that's why it doesn't always grab the headlines or maybe that's why there's not, you know, more, I don't know, like groups coming to the Capitol with signs or something like that. It's just not that kind of a bill. But it is so important, and I think it really will do a lot to build back public trust. I think it's a great piece of legislation.

[00:27:45] And when we had Representative Kristen Robbins on talking about her work in the Minnesota House, and I brought up, I said, this is the – and it was this legislation. It was your legislation. I said, this is the one that I like because I like the independence of it. I also will just say your approach to this I think is just remarkable, the common-sense approach of dealing with stuff. And, again, I live in Eagan.

[00:28:09] I think my greatest political education was not anything when I was in party office, but it's just being a suburban dad, going to, you know, kids' sporting events and talking with my neighbors. And I think that most people out here, particularly at least in my area in Eagan, just want government to function, just wanted to be smart. And this is what's so interesting. You really touched on something. It's so common sense. You would think that – and you really touched on something. You said it's so common sense.

[00:28:38] And it's not the type of bill, even though it is so common sense, that people are going to show up in droves because it just makes sense. It's not as controversial. It just makes sense because – and the kind of reaction it triggers with people is like, oh, that just makes sense. Why would they be opposed to that? And so that's where I think you've struck – really struck a good chord with coming up with a really thoughtful approach. And what I also like about it is I think you're looking at it from all of the right aspects.

[00:29:05] And I think that comes from, I think, your bicameral, bipartisan work, which is you're not trying to be punitive. You're not trying to punish anyone. But there's an understanding that I think, at least in the public, that there needs to be something more done in this state without pointing fingers too much about where we're at as a state. And we've all seen the headlines.

[00:29:25] And I think that this is a proportional and common sense response that I hope still has a possibility of this passage in this session, but if not, certainly next legislative session. Yeah. You know, we've seen some pretty crazy things happen in the legislature in the last three years. There is always a chance that it could come through in special session, but if not, I am here to work on it next session too. So either way, it is my goal to get this done.

[00:29:53] Here's my last question for you, which is – you've been so great with your time. Oh, yeah. Here's my last question, is that one of the things that Becky and I really try to do on this podcast is we've tried to create a space where people from different sides can come together. And that's what's so great about your legislation. Give some lessons or help maybe with some leadership a bit for our listeners about how you approach this.

[00:30:17] Because one of the things that I know Becky and I try to do and, you know, I try to do with my kids and others is just kind of in some ways kind of tone down the rhetoric and be problem – you know, look at problems from a solution standpoint, not from a blaming standpoint. It really seems that you've taken a complex issue that is very partisan on both sides about waste, fraud, and abuse. And there's always a little bit of gotchism in all of politics. And I've done it in the past. We've all done it. But you've really kind of approached this in a thoughtful way.

[00:30:47] What have you learned in that? And what type of lessons do you think our listeners can take away from that and how we can just be more civically engaged with each other and work with each other on different sides? Here's an example. So I sit next to Republicans in committees all the time. That's the way we usually do it, right? Every other is Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. And so you get to know them. And I will have the nicest, most pleasant conversation with one of my Republican colleagues.

[00:31:15] And then all of a sudden something will – you know, they'll want to say a statement on something. And it'll be the most partisan thing ever. You'll see it clipped on social media lately. Their mic goes off and then we go back to a conversation. And in my mind I thought it's not necessarily their fault. I mean, I don't agree with that. It's not how I operate. But we live in a culture where we reward that. So the crazier you are online, the more attention you get. And then we just feed off of that.

[00:31:43] And you look at it – I mean, look at your Twitter feed. It probably looks like mine, right? Where it's like you've got to see this person got owned or this person is like must watch. It's just this craziness. And so we reward that. So my advice to people is always like stop giving them that. Don't feed that monster. If they are going to post some outlandish thing that has been highly edited or out of context, like let them. But don't retweet it. Don't comment on it. Don't like it. Just ignore it. Mute it.

[00:32:11] Because if you stop being rewarded for that behavior, then maybe you'll stop posting about it all the time. Second of all, like the Tide House was really an opportunity, I think, for people to say, yes, nothing can pass unless at least one person switches sides for that bill.

[00:32:29] Okay, so what relationship strategies do I have within myself or my work outside the legislature that I can bring in that will help me be able to pass bills? Because you did see some bills get passed. But they're usually by people who have sort of understood the assignment. I can't make everything a punch. I can't make everything a hit. I can't make everything about me all the time.

[00:32:55] I have to be able to just reach across the aisle, not get triggered by everything that they say, and just do work. And I feel like we had those people in the room, which was really nice as well. I just, I'm not one to call out colleagues. I don't do a lot of social media. And I'm not saying that in a way where, like, I'm just better than everybody. I just mean it like it doesn't seem to work. It's like a rubber ball against a wall. It's just whatever insult you throw at somebody, they're just going to retaliate and throw it back.

[00:33:25] And I don't love that psychological warfare. It's not great. And then I would just say, too, like, the last thing is my mentor, Carrie Dietzik. I remember when I was elected, I knew her a little bit from the campaign. But when I was, when we got down to work, I just, she was the smartest person in the room. And I was feeling extremely out of my element. And she would just pull me aside, and we would meet late at night or talk on the phone.

[00:33:54] And she would just always have really great advice. And one of the best things that she would always say to me is, stay focused. Don't pay attention to that stuff. Not to distract or, like, ignore a problem. So I think sometimes Democrats fall into that, too. Like, oh, we just don't talk about it. It'll go away. Not like that. Staying focused on just, like, let people do the crazy things that they're going to do. But if you can, like, find a way to still just get your work done and not get bothered by all of that,

[00:34:21] you will have a much better career here and a much better experience as a legislature. And you'll be able to do more for your district. So I have a sign up in my office now that just says stay focused. And it's sort of this, it just reminds me of what she would always say. And she was like that, right? I mean, she just head down, always working, had great relationships with everybody. So if I can even be, like, half of the senator she was, I'll feel successful. That's wonderful.

[00:34:47] Senator, where can people follow you for more information on this bill or just stay updated with what's going on at the legislature? Yeah, I think if you sign up for our newsletter, we try to be really good. Credit to my L.A., Carly O'Neill, who's amazing. But she is really organized and she puts out really good information every week. And we try to make our newsletter a little bit different than just a typical, here's what we did. And we try to be a little bit more informative. And so I would just, I would focus people to that piece of it. And I think it'll be really helpful.

[00:35:16] We do an OIG update almost every week. And so if that's the legislation that you're interested in, that'd be my best advice. Wonderful. Senator, I greatly appreciate you taking time during this time. And I know it's busy and it's a hurry up and wait right now. But I just appreciate you so much coming on and we hope you'd be interested in coming back sometime. Yeah, of course. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. Thanks so much. Have a great day. You too. I want to thank you for listening to this episode of The Breakdown with Brodker and Becky.

[00:35:45] We know you have a lot of podcast options out there and we're truly grateful for you to choose to spend time with us. Before you go, show us some love for your favorite podcast by leaving us on Apple Podcasts or on the platform where you listen. You can also follow us on our website and across all social media at BBBreakPod. The Breakdown with Brodker and Becky will be back next week. Until then, thank you for tuning in. We appreciate you flying with us through the world of politics and current affairs. Have a great weekend.