Although I rarely second a Strib editorial, I do think they hit the mark in one remark: "Rybak has failed to build a strong case -- with the executive committee, with the City Council or with the public -- for getting rid of Olson."
I can't speak for the Exec. Committee or Council, but I don't think the mayor has made a clear case with the public. There are vague media reports about tussles over the budget, and the mayor's barely disguised (but somewhat couched) displeasure at being bombarded with excessive force complaints. How 'bout marshalling the arguments here, Mr. Mayor? However, the Strib overreached when they wrote "Nor, apparently, did Rybak think through the consequences of failing to honor the clear will of Minneapolis voters -- that a police chief serve a set term except in extraordinary circumstances." There's nothing "extraordinary" indicated by the city charter snippet the same editorialist helpfully provided a few paragraphs earlier: "The executive committee shall, by and with the consent of a majority of all the members of the City Council, appoint for a term of three years . . . some suitable person as chief of police, subject to removal upon the recommendation of the executive committee by a vote of a majority of all the members of the City Council." I didn't see the word extraordinary in there, or even the inference. The executive committee & council pick a chief, and they can remove them. There's nothing wrong (though perhaps bad strategy) with a mayor going public before going to the executive committee - it's just another way to get support. The Strib also noted that voters approved a three-year term for the chief in 1979, back when the mayor was elected for two years. This constituted "this amendment specifically rejected the notion that a new mayor had a 'right' to a new police chief." OK, maybe - but the reality is that it only stops *some* mayors from naming a new police chief, not all. If you go by the 3-year rule, the chief's term comes up in Jan. 2004, 2007, and 2010. We elect mayors in Nov. 2005 and 2009. Therefore, the mayor elected in Nov. 2009 will, in effect, get more a lot more power to name his or her chief in Jan. 2010 than the 2001-vintage Rybak, or whoever is elected in 2005. If the principle is to insulate the chief from the mayor, we shouldn't rely on this weird cycle that insulates some mayors more than others. Perhaps the chief's terms don't come up regularly every three years, but shift a bit in the transition (the chief gets a 3-year deal, but it doesn't open precisely every 3 years). That would weaken my point. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ 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
