I've purposely waited for this thread to run its course to add my two cents
worth.
First, please know that I spent 8 years on St. Paul's Charter Commission,
and as chair of its Council Structure Subcommittee (formed precis to study
and recommend changes to same), presided over debates on the part time
council and the addition of at-large seats with a re-districting of wards.
(There were a couple of other issues considered, but they didn't make the
ballot - term limits and 4-year terms for the Council.)
I was and remain now strongly in favor of a mix of ward and at-large city
council seats. I've come to believe now, too, that the at-large seats, if
installed, should be elected by proportional representation.
That year - 1991 - the part time ballot question passed, the at-large seats
failed, both by 2-1 margins - primarily because voters were prepared to
punish all politicians that year. Never mind the reasons.
The at-large proposal would have cut St. Paul's wards from seven to five and
created four at-large seats - sort of a house and senate at the city level.
The main issue is that an all-ward system creates individual fiefdoms from
which single council reps can log-roll or vote-trade to an detrimental
degree. Admittedly, Minneapolis' City Council has much more power than St.
Paul's because of the form of government in each - St. Paul's is a
strong-mayor form, Minneapolis' a strong council-weak mayor form.
Nevertheless, ward reps have absolutely no competition for their
constituents' affections and leave constituents with but one councilmember
to consult when the resident has a beef or wants to affect a vote. If they
get no cooperation from that member, they're sunk - nowhere to go.
With at-large seats - say three or four with nine or ten wards - each voter
has their ward rep to tap, but also all at-large members as well. This
forced sharing of constituents keeps the ward reps on their toes because
they can't use an exclusive bailiwick to leverage their vote against the
votes of their colleagues - at least not quite as easily and not without
ramifications in the next election.
The vote-trading that's a very natural part of an all-ward system stifles
larger and innovative policymaking and lacks the critical citywide
perspective so necessary to balance the sheer parochial bent of ward reps.
Further, at large members provide some citywide competition/balance for the
mayor's otherwise sole citywide constituency, and provide a citywide basis
for a future run at the executive office. Some naysayers tried using this
mayor-in-waiting concept as a pejorative, but we embraced the notion as yet
another check and balance on the mayor's influence.
Our research debunked the red herrings raised by naysayers who cited a
diminishing of minority voices in city politics through at-large
representation. Some cities have used at-large councils to prevent
participation by a variety of "unsavory" subcultures, but those with
combination systems have not been painted with the same brush because a
mixed system actually provides many more opportunities for all constituents
to both vote for more than one councilmember and more than one office to run
for. A diminution of minority power would require a truly monolithic white
community confronting a monolithic minority community, which Minnesota's
major cities do not have.
In our example above, constituents of color or economic disparity are
provided their ward seat plus three others to both vote for and run for.
In St. Paul's proposed configuration, voters would have been able to cast
votes for a majority of the council: one ward rep and four at-large
members. That's a good deal of voter power over the City Council.
As for who would "control" the at-large members, there's no doubt that
larger interests would try, but the at-large reps would still be outnumbered
too significantly for any undue influence on policy to emerge from them.
Again, the balance is there by their very constituencies - all shared and
all with more influence on City Hall than they are now.
I would urge that Minneapolis explore this charter revision as a very real
reform of city governance that would better represent all sections of the
city, all constituents and all political philosophies (esp. with
proportional representation for at-large seats).
I wish we could do this again in St. Paul, but the Coleman years have
stifled any reform up to now.
Andy
> From: "wizardmarks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:29:57 -0800
> To: "jmostrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Issues Minneapolis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] RE. Mpls # of Councilmembers
>
> Actually, the better solution might be to add two seats and divide the 13
> districts into 15.
> WMarks, Central
>
> jmostrow wrote:
>
>> *** Disclaimer: The following is the opinion of Julie Mattson Ostrow
>> and does not to represent that of her husband Council member Paul
>> Ostrow. (Paul and I haven't even talked about this, so I don't know how
>> he feels about his issue.) I just have strong opinions and felt the
>> need to respond. JMO
>>
>> While on the surface this seems like a great solution to some
>> "unresponsive" CM's, I do think that it opens up a lot more problems. A
>> significant part of the CM's job is ward and constituent work. I can
>> speak first hand to this. As the wife of a CM there are a lot of
>> neighborhood and community meetings as well as calls at city hall and
>> home from concerned residents about a variety of issues.
>>
>> Other than serving on the obligatory committees what would these
>> folks do? Just wait to be called into the ward of an "unresponsive
>> CM"? Would do anything to foster peace and harmony within the council?
>> And just who would these "Super CM's" be responsible to? I doubt that
>> most residents would really know who these folks were. They see ward
>> CM's at neighborhood meetings, at the gas station and in the community
>> papers.
>>
>> Additionally, the "Super CM" would have the additional challenge of
>> being elected citywide. Just ask folks from Est and Taxation, school,
>> library or park boards as to the logistics and costs to run such a
>> campaign. The reality is that many successful city wide candidates have
>> had the benefit of a coordinated party (DFL) campaign. I know because
>> I've been involved in coordinating some. I would suspect that a
>> successful "Super CM" would be elected the same way. Talk about
>> campaign finance reform and the influence of PAC's and large
>> businesses! Do we really want to open this Pandora's box?
>>
>> As an active DFL'er I do support more grassroots/local control and
>> feel strongly that CM's should continue to be elected from and represent
>> wards. As for the "unresponsive CM"? Do what you can (legally and
>> respectfully) to get a response. If none, find their replacement and
>> work to get them elected. CM's work for the people of Mpls. It's not
>> an entitlement position.
>>
>> Julie Mattson Ostrow
>> Windom Park
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
>> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
>> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
