Debate on when to vote derails potential new-look Office of Inspector General bill

On the final night of the 2025 regular legislative session, a motion was made to suspend House Rules and bring up a bill that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate 11 days earlier.

The bill to establish an Office of the Inspector General in the executive branch, SF856, passed the Senate 60-7. With a two-thirds vote needed to bring the bill up for action, all House DFLers except Rep. Matt Norris (DFL-Blaine), Rep. Brad Tabke (DFL-Shakopee) and Rep. Dan Wolgamott (DFL-St. Cloud) voted against a rules suspension. With all Republicans voting in favor, the tally was only 70-63.

In the interim, Norris had “countless discussions” with stakeholders to reach some consensus on the issue.

A delete-all amendment before the House State Government Finance and Policy Committee Thursday was the result. However, it was rejected via a 7-7 party-line vote.

“Fraud prevention isn’t about politics; it’s about making sure our programs work for Minnesotans,” Norris said. “… We’re determined to dismantle the business model of fraud, and take action to prevent, detect, investigate and punish the greedy fraudsters who drain our community resources.”

Part of the DFL anti-fraud plan, his amendment includes creating the office and its duties, including overseeing current agency-based inspector generals and creating an executive branch commission to coordinate the office’s work along with agencies that have their own inspector general, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Department of Administration and Minnesota Management and Budget.

The vote itself raised the ire of Co-Chair Rep. Jim Nash (R-Waconia), who in a later statement said the amendment would make the bill “more expensive and less independent.”

Rep. Ginny Klevorn (DFL-Plymouth), the co-chair leading the meeting, called for a vote before Republicans could ask questions of the amendment, noting it’s customary for a bill sponsor to add an amendment, including a delete-all, before discussion of the updated bill.

“What happened yesterday in the health committee was DFL members not allowing an author’s amendment to go on a GOP bill,” Nash said. He said his members voted no largely because they had no chance to weigh in on the proposal, nor had Senate sponsors of the bill.

“The custom that I have set for bills is that we adopt the DE then we move to discussion. The DE was not adopted; therefore, there is no discussion on the DE,” Klevorn responded before speaking directly to Norris.

“I apologize to you; I have never seen that in this committee. … Where there are disagreements there is growth. To have two bills that are not exactly the same brings us growth and better policy and better procedure. It‘s unfortunate that my colleague did not agree to allow discussion on this bill.”