Counterpoint: I wouldn't fault Daudt. I'd fault Dayton.

As someone who served for seven years as minority leader in the Minnesota House and eight years as speaker, I know firsthand how challenging it can be to navigate divided government ("The perils of being a House speaker," Lori Sturdevant column, June 19). Minnesotans have a long tradition of asking both parties to come to St. Paul to share power, compromise when necessary and ultimately do what they feel is in the best interest of Minnesota.

To this Capitol observer, it is Gov. Mark Dayton's ever-changing list of demands and politically motivated vetoes that have kept 2015-16 from being one of the most productive bipartisan two-year sessions in recent memory.

Speaker Kurt Daudt has done an admirable job finding areas of agreement, working with legislators on both sides of the aisle and overcoming a governor who refuses to meaningfully engage in the legislative process until the last moments, scuttling bipartisan compromise and putting politics ahead of what's best for Minnesotans.

In 2015, Republicans and DFLers worked together to pass a responsible, bipartisan state budget that kept spending in check and invested in shared priorities. As a former teacher, I was pleased to see legislators pass the largest investment in K-12 education in a decade. Furthermore, legislators enacted historic, Republican-led nursing home reforms that will improve quality of life for our chronologically gifted loved ones across the state.

This past session, Daudt and House Republicans (with the votes of a majority of DFLers) successfully fought for and passed a compromise tax relief bill that would have sent $800 million back to hardworking middle-class Minnesotans over the next three years, including tax relief for our farmers, families dealing with high child care costs, graduates making student loan payments, and more.

That bill earned the support of 89 percent of the Legislature.

In a move that stunned most Minnesotans, Dayton vetoed the bipartisan tax relief bill over a drafting error that nearly everyone agreed could be fixed without a special session.

Minnesotans are left wondering: What's the holdup? Why hold a common-sense tax relief bill hostage that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support? Why not invest in Minnesota with a bonding bill that has mutual priorities?

The governor's approach sadly puts his own party's political considerations before what's best for Minnesota. His lack of meaningful legislative engagement has left him largely empty-handed when the end-of-session dust settles.

His veto and additional spending demands put already fragile agreements in peril.

The Senate and the House agreed on a reasonably sized compromise bonding bill in line with the historical average over the past several years. It's an agreement that would have passed if not for an ill-fated, unrelated amendment regarding Southwest light rail.

It's a bill that included more than $700 million in badly needed road and bridge funding, including key regional projects that communities have waited years for such as the expansion of Hwy. 23 in west-central Minnesota, safety improvements to Hwy. 12 in the west metro and the decades-in-the-making expansion of Hwy. 14 in southern Minnesota.

Sturdevant offered advice to Daudt in her column to do "what's best for Minnesota's future."

I couldn't agree more, but think that's a message that needs desperately to be delivered to Dayton.

Lawmakers on both sides are prepared to come back and pass a fixed tax bill and a compromise bonding bill, both of which would benefit Minnesota tremendously.

Standing in the way? The governor and his unnecessary demand list. It's time to put Minnesotans before politics and call a special session. In politics, it is always easy to find things to disagree upon. We need to focus on the things agreed upon in the tax and bonding bills to move Minnesota ahead in a bipartisan way.

Yes, only the governor can call a special session. His role, after his inappropriate veto, ought to be to bring people together in common ground in the best interests of Minnesota — not to demand a liberal agenda with a strong-arm attitude.