I again want to take a step back from a point-by-point debate with Michael
Atherton to concentrate on the larger significance of this debate
The most important aspect is whether Minneapolis, by subcontracting NRP
direction-making to neighborhood groups, subverts citizens' due process and
legal protections....that somehow neighborhood groups have "no controlling
legal authority" (or an insufficient one) and can engage in extra-legal
shenanigans.
Michael asserted his neighborhood org was disenfranchising residents, then
quotes state NRP law that requires broad participation. I would argue this
makes MY point - PPERRIA is bound by law, not excused from it. If they are
violating state rules on participation, then appropriate legal redress is
available. Even if the city council bails politically, the courts are
available. Rather than a "tyranny," PPERRIA is governed by law that seems
directly appropriate to Michael's concern. City leaders and state
legislators are to be complemented for ensuring these guarantees exist.
Again, the rest of his indictment seems pretty picayune. PPERRIA meetings
are not closed, and all records are available. Michael's Open Records "harm"
is that he can't videotape or audiotape his neighborhood meetings. I don't
agree with PPERRIA's action here (I understand there's a dispute over how
aggressive and intimidating Michael was in doing this), but it's not the
same as closing meetings or falsifying records. That's the big kahuna to me.
Michael belittles my comparing City Council redress to neighborhood group
redress as "grass is greener." Yes it is! Without NRP, we revert (in the
absence of a third alternative) to more council power. We will live under
one system or the other, so citizens do have to find the greener grass.
NRP-Council or Council Alone are both imperfect. But I don't think we're
comparing tyranny to democracy - rather, two political systems that should
be scrutinized and improved, made "greener" (small g, DFLers).
Finally, regarding neighborhood democracy: the King Field board has but 13
members (a 40-member board blows my mind!). However, at our mid-'90s
revolution, insurgents turned out probably 100 plus neighborhood residents
without taxes as a driving force. If the PPERRIA clique is as small and
unrepresentative as Michael insists, it should be that much easier to
overthrow. He asks, "how many loyal supporters could the board call on to
pack meetings with?" as if that is extra-legal. I call it organizing and
democracy - to be met by your crew turning out its loyal supporters. That
only boosts turnout and improves democracy. If PPERRIA has enough supporters
to hold power, they're doing it the democratic (small d, Greens) way.
Michael does bring up a new and perhaps legit concern: a "nominations
committee" that could conceivably block insurgents from getting on the
ballot. However, he only notes that the committee exists, not that willing
candidates have been excluded. In the absence of such cases, I still think
he lost a political fight and is trying to turn it into a legal and due
process case. At this point, I don't think that's supported by the facts.
But even if such serious systemic problems exist, there seems to be ample
redress through the law and city government. Far from being lawless
"tyrannies," neighborhood groups spending NRP funds must please many legal
masters.
And no, I won't challenge Michael to a "Let's Bowl!" duel! I don't think
Minneapolis's NRP should hinge on my unreliable and out-of-practice left
arm....
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
Who - believe it or not -- was in a bowling league as a youth!
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
