The current issues with the Park Board do not seem to be a matter of at-large commissioners taking one approach against the interests of commissioners elected by districts or. Nor is it that the interests of the district members are remarkably different than the interest of the at-large members. I have not detected any measurable differences based on size or geography of constituency; it seems more a matter of style and personality.
Jim Bernstein Fulton
I disagree, partly because district-based park board members are far more insulated from the political consequences of their decisions than the at-large members. The political constituency of a district member can be quite small and still be unassailable in political terms. Walt Dziedzic's political base is barely wider than the boundaries of Ward 1, for example, but I suspect it's enough to keep him on the park board for as long as he wants. Dziedzic can't be beat in his own district, but after the superintendent fiasco he'd lose if he tried to run city-wide. The same is true for Jon Olson, and (perhaps) Marie Hauser.
This has a real tactical impact on the politics of the board. The district-based members can really play hard ball without fear of retribution, but the at-large members cannot respond in kind without making themselves politically vulnerable.
There is also, in fact, an ideological split between the at-larges and the district commissioners. Roughly speaking, there are two camps on the park board, those who put environmental issues first and those who put recreation issues first. The "environment" camp contains all the city-wide commissioners, while the "recreation" camp contains almost all of the district commissioners. The one district commissioner in the environment camp -- Vivian Mason -- comes from a district where residents by and large care more about environmental concerns than particular recreational facilities.
No doubt personality conflicts have greatly contributed to the divisions on the park board. But the underlying splits are IMHO structural and ideological. (The fact that these splits have persisted for many years, despite the addition of several new commissioners, supports my argument).
But, at any rate, it strikes me as a real problem when the commissioners who have the broadest democratic mandate -- those elected city-wide -- are ALL in the minority.
Instead of my previous proposal, perhaps it would be simpler to require the affirmative vote of at least one city-wide commissioner for the Park Board to enact any ordinance, resolution or official action.
Greg Abbott Linden Hills
------------------------------------
Sent from the computer of:
Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward
------------------------------------
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
