Worst of all, the special session follows a regular session where transactional politics traded reforms and votes in a vulgar display of power, leaving the public in the dark or completely ignored.

Looking back, what did Minnesota get out of the partisanship, grandstanding, and deal making? Hard issues such as education, taxation, transportation and election reform were pushed to a special session or deferred until next year. We are skeptical that both political parties can come together next year during the shorter legislative session and when elected officials are thinking about their own re-election. But we also don’t hold out much hope for thoughtful policy emerging from a special session held in a contentious environment.

Clearly, the biggest loser in the 2015 session was our democracy. Issues that make public oversight difficult, such as the wording to amendments not being released in advance, bills that did not make legislative deadlines being brought back in omnibus bills, and the lack of clear, up-to-date online resources, were rampant and made it impossible to decipher what was really going on at the Capitol.

In fact, special sessions typically are unfriendly to public involvement and oversight almost by design. Gov. Mark Dayton has been meeting privately with a handful of legislative leaders, cutting deals on spending and policy issues that have enormous implications for the state’s direction. Only after these closed-door agreements have been reached will he call the Legislature into a one- or two-day session.

Minnesotans, including members of Common Cause, have strong feelings on the key issues that have been pushed to the special session. Sometimes intensity leads to gridlock, and Minnesota and the country have seen too much of that in recent years. But the answer isn’t to return to the days in which the political elite cut deals in a backroom. Rather, our suggestion is to use all the communications tools available today to engage Minnesotans in a conversation about our future. Let’s ask the major parties and the governor to put their proposals in clear terms and share them with the public. Yes, this might take us to November 2016 when the entire Legislature will face election. But wouldn’t it be refreshing if an election came down to big issues that had been debated by Minnesotans in town hall meetings, online forums and traditional media?

The warning from the founders of this country calls upon us to protect our democracy by holding our elected officials accountable. They wanted to protect this country from the rich and powerful using backroom deals for their own benefit, out of our sight. Without openness and transparency now, we will see a bad legislative session compounded with an inaccessible and closed-door special session.

We hope the governor and legislators will embrace the notion of engaging people in a thoughtful discussion about the big issues that will define the state’s future. And, we hope Minnesotans will call their elected state officials with a simple but compelling message: “Trust us.”

Jeremy Schroeder is executive director or Common Cause Minnesota. Tom Horner, the Independence Party-endorsed candidate for Minnesota governor in 2010, is a member of the Common Cause advisory board.

Here’s all the evidence anyone should need to be convinced of Minnesota’s desperate need for comprehensive tax reform:

On one hand, Gov. Mark Dayton is proposing a tax credit for child care expenses. On the other hand, he would impose a new tax on gasoline and increase the metro sales tax on most consumer purchases.

If Harry Truman were alive today, he might add one-handed governors to his plea for one-handed economists.

The child care credit would provide an average tax credit of about $480. Meanwhile, the new and increased gasoline and general sales taxes would add at least $300 to family budgets and up to twice that in two-income/two-driver families. At best, if gas prices stay low, families with child care expenses may come out a few dollars ahead. If gas prices go back up (and who doubts that future?), low-income families likely will fall farther behind.

In effect, Dayton is proposing to take money from the human services budget, subtract the bureaucracy’s costs of collecting taxes and distributing assistance, and use what’s left to pay for roads and bridges. Isn’t that the definition of inefficient government?

For their part, Republicans hardly have taken the high road on tax policy. In 2009, the 21st Century Tax Reform Commission appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty offered thoughtful, strategic and forward-looking recommendations. Even though it included some longtime GOP favorites (reducing business taxes, for one) it made the honest observation that reducing some taxes required increases in other taxes. That trade-off doomed the report with Pawlenty and Republicans before it even received a hearing.

A strong case can be made that the Republicans’ failure to lead on tax reform in 2009 paved the way for Dayton’s tax-the-rich plan in 2013. Thoughtful reform in 2009 would have removed the capacity and the urgency to raise taxes four years later.

In today’s divided Minnesota government, it seems unlikely that Dayton’s current budget proposals will survive. But the Republican-controlled House of Representatives can’t simply say no to everything and win favor with voters. Dayton’s goals are laudable, even if his specific solutions are flawed. It is in every Minnesotan’s best interests to close the income gap and have a growing middle class. And Dayton is at least willing to back his spending plans with realistic and long-term funding mechanisms.

Minnesota’s economic prosperity won’t be sustained, though, with a new variation on the continuing partisan debate between tax-the-rich and no-new-taxes. It will be less well-served by ad hoc tax policy that is defined to meet the sometimes-conflicting needs and demands of specific constituencies rather than the long-term interests of all Minnesotans.

The new battle cry for Republicans and DFLers should be a single word:

Procrastinate.

Don’t do what doesn’t need to be done in 2015. Instead, take advantage of a strong economy, a healthy budget surplus and a divided government, and engage Minnesotans in designing the future while finding bipartisan cooperation to meet immediate needs.

Three bold actions are needed:

• First, as the Republicans are proposing, use a portion of the state’s surplus to fund the most pressing transportation needs. A lot can be done over the next two years by investing $200 million in new funds and reallocating unused transportation dollars to high-value, high-return projects.

• Second, keep new and increased taxes to a minimum. The budget surplus — one that likely will grow with the forecast due in February — can fund the most urgent and legitimate needs in early-childhood education, housing, health and other key areas. It could even provide a bump in a higher tax credit for low- and modest-income households who are paying for care for children and elderly relatives. Dayton’s budget proposal would make households earning up to $124,000 eligible for these tax credits; a lower ceiling may earn enough GOP support to actually pass a bill.

• Third, DFL and GOP leaders should make a commitment to undertake comprehensive tax reform in 2017. With the entire Legislature up for election in 2016, candidates and Minnesota voters would have a chance to weigh in over the next two years on how we want to be taxed and the priorities we want to establish in transportation and other areas.

There are added bonuses to this plan. Legislative campaigns that focused on drawing distinctions between DFL and Republican long-term vision for taxing and spending almost certainly would reinvigorate voters, pulling the state back from the dismal turnout in the 2014 elections. More substantive campaigns could mean less negative campaigns. That alone is a strong argument for thoughtful procrastination in 2015.

Tom Horner is a public relations consultant and was the Independence Party of Minnesota’s 2010 candidate for governor.