Bernie Lieder: Engineer and Elected Leader

Engineers serving in elected office are like whooping cranes . . . except that cranes were not always an endangered species. Minnesota has one such rare individual—State Representative Bernard Lieder. A county engineer who moved into politics, Bernard Lieder has served in the Minnesota House of Representatives for more than two decades and remains an energetic and respected public leader. He is highly regarded by constituents and by legislative colleagues. Following is part of his story, including background information and a transcribed interview I conducted with Rep. Lieder, including advice for engineers, civil and otherwise, offered along the way. Interviews with Rep. Lieder were conducted September 17, 2007, and April 15, 2008.

Bernard Lieder was born in 1923 in Hennepin County, Minnesota. He grew up on a farm in what was then Greenwood Township on the northwestern edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. He attended engineering school at both the University of Illinois and Purdue University. Later he completed educational courses provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). He became registered in Minnesota as a highway engineer, first working in nearby Wright County in Buffalo for three years. He then moved north to Polk County where he eventually served as Polk County Engineer for twenty-two years, from 1962 to 1984, until his election to the Minnesota House of Representatives. He is the only engineer serving in the Minnesota House.

Rep. Lieder, better known as “Bernie,” currently represents House District 01B in the Minnesota State Legislature. He was first elected in 1984 and has been repeatedly reelected since, representing his district continuously for twenty-four years. He serves on the following House committees: the Capital Investment Finance Division Committee, the Finance Committee, the Transportation and Transit Policy Subcommittee, and the Transportation Finance Division Committee, which he chairs.

T.E.: What motivated you to run for the legislature?

B.L.: I was actively involved in transportation issues up until that time—I was a county engineer, participated on MNDOT committees, was active with the Minnesota County Roads group, and served as president of the National Association of County Engineers. As I neared retirement age, people convinced me to run for election to the Minnesota House of Representatives. I was still Polk County Engineer when I first ran for election. But, after I was elected, I retired. Serving in the legislature is demanding of time and energy. I felt that I couldn’t be both a county engineer and a state legislator. I also worked briefly as a part-time consultant, but ended that, because I was uncomfortable with potential conflicts of interest.

T.E.: Do your colleagues defer to you on issues dealing with infrastructure?

B.L.: Yes, and also on legislative process. My committee assignments include transportation. I have transportation experience both in the field and in the legislature. After many years in the House, I also understand state law and the legislative policy-making process, and share that experience with colleagues too.

This more general, nontechnical experience is particularly valuable, but it is becoming more rare with more frequent legislative turnover. Term limits if implemented would have a very serious drawback: the loss of experienced lawmakers. You always need a few older ones for institutional memory. Invariably, new legislators spend about two years proposing legislation without knowledge of history and sometimes with unintended consequences. Much valuable time and energy is wasted on repetition and poor process.

This article began with an interview in the fall of 2007. Earlier that year, the Minnesota legislature acted on much-overdue transportation legislation that would basically increase the tax on gasoline for the first time in over twenty years in Minnesota, with the proceeds dedicated to road, bridge, and transit projects. Both houses passed the legislation with rare bipartisan support. It was vetoed by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. Republican support in the legislature was not strong enough to override the veto.

Then, during the summer of 2007, a major (eight-lane, $\mathrm{1,900}\text{-}\mathrm{ft.}$ -long) interstate bridge over Interstate 35W in Minneapolis collapsed during a rehabilitation project being done under traffic. That tragic event, which took thirteen lives, focused public attention on bridge conditions in Minnesota. This resulted in investigations, changes in bridge inspection, and ultimately led to intensified legislative attention to transportation.

Near the start of 2008 legislature session, transportation legislation again passed with strong bipartisan support. Again, the measure was vetoed by Governor Pawlenty. But this year, there was enough Republican support for the bill to override the governor’s veto. As I was writing this article the governor’s commissioner of transportation, Lieutenant-Governor Carol Molnau, was removed as a result of legislative opposition. And, one day before this article was submitted for publication, Governor Pawlenty appointed Thomas Sorel, a civil engineer, as the new commissioner of transportation.

T. E.: What do you see as the broader implications of the I-35W bridge collapse? Will the public and elected decision makers “get” the need to pay more attention to infrastructure condition?

B.L.: The legislature is interested in reviewing bridge inspection process and reports. We as elected representatives are concerned about infrastructure policy quality—including funding and process. The bridge collapse is going to have some positive effect on transportation policy. Transportation funding is getting much more serious attention now….

The reason I say that is now we have the public concerned. They were mostly focused on other issues previously. Legislators of both parties have in recent years recognized a concern about lack of investment in transportation facilities. However, in the 2007 session, Republicans ultimately declined to vote against Governor Pawlenty’s veto out of party loyalty.

Since the collapse, citizens have been demanding more attention. Early in the 2008 session, a transportation bill was again passed with bipartisan support. It was again vetoed by the governor. But this time enough Republican legislators felt compelled to support the bill and the veto was overridden. As a result, there will be a significantly increased investment in state roads and transit in Minnesota. Not enough, but a substantial new step in the right direction.

T. E.: What are some bridge closing insights you experienced as a county engineer?

B. L.: In the [1970s] there was a bridge in bad condition in Polk County. As county engineer, I eventually concluded that the bridge needed to be closed.The elected county officials resisted my efforts to close it. They did listen finally, and we did close the bridge. There seemed to be little public trust in the action, however. I was accused of closing the bridge just to justify spending the money necessary to replace the structure.

T. E.: What do you see as the needed role for engineers working in state government?

B.L.: It is important to have Minnesota Department of Transportation staff advocate for transportation needs before the legislature. The commissioner and staff, while part of the executive administration, must also explain the department’s needs directly to us. This has eroded over the years, particularly with this administration. In recent times, the MNDOT commissioner has not been an engineer. But until the present administration, the deputy commissioner has been an engineer and has served as chief engineer, typically with senior MNDOT managers reporting through that office. This has worked fairly well.

While previous governors have appointed planners, transportation industry executives, and former elected officials as commissioners of transportation, they were all able to rely on senior staff engineer/managers who brought engineering judgment into policy making and management decision making. Currently, district engineers have been discouraged from communicating with the legislature. The current lack of engineering input plus the lack of funding has left Minnesota’s transportation infrastructure in poor condition.

Anything MNDOT engineers put out has to be approved through the commissioner’s office. Formerly, the commissioner was an advocate for the department and for transportation needs. We in the legislature have not been able to get information we require on needs, funding, or performance. What replacement has been done recently has been funded from bonds and redirected maintenance funds. This is not an appropriate way to meet annual replacement needs.

T. E.: What advice do you have for civil engineers concerned about infrastructure condition who desire to become more influential and are willing to become more involved?

B. L.: I think as long as I have been around I’m not aware of many engineers becoming directly involved in elected office. I think we are a different kind of person. Engineers’ professional organizations should probably advocate for good infrastructure policies. Civil engineers could be more active within their own groups, but seem to rarely do so.

T. E.: How can civil engineers, government and private, best help to get the infrastructure message across?

B. L.: Engineers are obviously not willing to run for election. They are also reluctant to support candidates who do run—even if the candidate is also an engineer. Given engineers’ strong reluctance to get involved politically on an individual basis, probably the best approach is to work through professional societies and associations.

Bernie Lieder is an ageless role model that is an encouraging exception to the lament incorporated into ASCE’s current “Number One Strategy Priority.” According to ASCE, “Years of deferred infrastructure investment and maintenance, and the profession’s limited effectiveness in communicating with public officials regarding infrastructure needs: (a) place public safety at risk; and (b) hinder the nation’s economic growth and competitiveness.” Rep. Lieder’s two-decades’ plus of elected official service demonstrate one very effective way to communicate the public’s need for improved infrastructure.

Minnesota State Legislature, House of Representatives’ Web site: ⟨http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?district=01b⟩