A terrific post, David. I appreciate the keen thinking you've displayed here.
I agree - the Strib editorial provided a rather mechanical interpretation of the charter. A three year term is simply that; a description of the length of the term, not a mandate enforcing the incumbency of a particular occupant. Under correct procedure, as the charter states, the occupant can be removed and replaced Mayor Rybak may be criticized for how he has gone about the task of removing the current chief thus far, but certainly not for the fact that he wants to remove him. That is well within his purview. The final decision on the matter is not. As I've stated in a previous post, it is my hope arguments will be put forward publicly. The charter requires only that the city council vote, but whether they will vote on the basis of what they've learned behind closed doors or in a public discussion remains to be seen. At this point, what the Strib should be calling for is a public airing of the issue: step up to the plate and make your case. Thus far, we've heard nothing but speculation and rumor from secondary sources about motives. Removing a police chief should not be a closed door issue. If someone here on the list feels otherwise, I'd like to hear why. Chris Beckwith Ward 6 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mpls list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 5:04 PM Subject: [Mpls] Math geek take on chief thing > 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 > _______________________________________ 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
