Let me expend my second post on this same topic. Walt raises a critical point and it needs resolution. Minneapolis City Council has 4-year terms. Were the Councilmembers to be forced to run in 2003 rather than 2005, the term to be run for in 2003 should be four years...like the State Senate: 4-4-2 every ten years. Why? Because it's one thing to require an election as soon as possible after redistricting, but entirely another if you retreat to two consecutive 2-year terms to satisfy that desirable end.
What makes this interesting is that every ten years the State Senate must alternate running in the same year as the Governor (as they will this year) with running with the Presidential campaign (which they'll not do now until 2012). If Rep. Kahn's bill passes, the Council will fall out of sync with the Mayor's term, running as they did with him this last year, then after 2003 in staggered years until the next redistricting. As an elections person and one interested in local governance, I don't find staggered terms between the Mayor and the City Council a good idea at all. All officials in the city should run together. Lacking interest in a citywide race during Council elections drives turnout down too severely. And a councilmember in this scenario, may, as we do in St. Paul, run for Mayor in the by-election from City Council but retain their Council seat. There is no requirement to resign to seek another office. I'm torn on that issue, but not at all on the premise that all elected officials in the same jurisdiction should stand for election simultaneously. Most County Boards are staggered-term bodies, but, in those cases, while I'm not crazy about that situation, either, for a number of similar reasons, at least there is no elected at-large executive at the County, only a board-appointed administration. Minneapolis wisely recoiled at the imminent prospect of staggered Council terms in the throes of moving from two to four years, but Jim Niland engineered a Charter amendment that kept all Councilmembers running in the same elections. A wise move. Take it from a former St. Paul Charter Commissioner who's disappointment runs deep that our Charter Commission, in putting the 4-year term on the ballot, failed to think ahead to the need for concurrent council and mayoral terms and made certain the amendment's effective date was put out to the next mayoral election rather than immediately as we did. I was off the commission before it was put on the ballot (we have term limits there), but none of saw this coming until it was too late. Correcting it now would be like pulling teeth, but it should be done. Question then: shall we encourage Phyllis to make certain that her legislation does not result in staggered terms between the Minneapolis Mayor and the City Council? This would mean that RT and the entire council would have to run in 2003, but I am, frankly, unmoved by that inconvenience vs. the good government aspect of coincidental elections. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul buddy to our Miller Twin. ------ "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral" --Dante > From: "Walt Cygan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:16:46 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Mpls] City elections > > Phyllis Kahn wrote: >> ...require the city council members and park board members >> elected by district to run in their new districts (after >> redistricting) in 2003 rather than 2005 as scheduled. > > For one 12th-Ward resident: works for me. But... > > 1) If this became law, what impact would it have on challenges to > incumbents for the 2-year term? Who would want to finance a challenge > for a 2-year term, rather than wait for the next 4-year term? > > 2) Shouldn't this take effect for the election in 2011, since the > currently elected officials won 4-year terms? > > Walt Cygan > 12-5 > Keewaydin > > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
