How about a stroll down memory lane to Joan Niemec's proposed Charter Amendment in '93 which suggested the city council go to staggered terms and which passed in the city-wide elections. Part of the reasoning for that change was to draw greater attention to odd-year elections for the school board. It was also suggested that this arrangement would be good for the democratic process by providing a more steady stream of new blood into the council and that it would be easier for people to speak out on the direction of the city and make mid-course corrections, all of which seemed reasonable to me. The Strib opposed the original idea in '93 but when the council, led by Jim Niland, got it put back on the ballot in '97 to reverse the citizens prior endorsement the Strib came out in against what it saw as the Council's cynical attempt to subvert the will of the people without ever having given it a chance to work. The upshot of the citizen's voting in '97 to rescind their previous vote in favor of staggered terms is what has prompted the change in school board elections going to legislative voting years if I interpret correctly. I would point out Jim Niland's suggestion in '97 when he pressed for doing away with the idea of staggered terms that if the electorate were of such a mind they could make a wholesale change in government under the existing framework. I thought staggered terms made sense at the time and wrote as much to the Strib; this forum did not exist at the time. Alas it is water under the bridge, again, or as Councilmember Goodman likes to say, "another lost opportunity". Please correct me if I am wrong. Tim Connolly Ward 7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
