Geek talk: I've heard 2 things Conor:
1. The Greens, incredibly, failed the test for major party status because they didn't rack up 5 percent in the last U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial race...President Nader didn't count. Of course, the two of 13 council members didn't either... 2. There were too few Green applicants. I cannot confirm that this is right, but I believe a Charter Commissioner or redistricting applicant told me this. I also believe (but am not sure) that Jordan Kushner applied, perhaps as a Green. Obviously, the criteria for major party needs some tweaking...although the Greens did get a redistricting commissioner as the minor party on the Council (poor independent Barret Lane once again outnumbered 2 to 1 by Dean Z. and Natalie Johnson Lee). There may be other reasons but this is what I've heard. Please discuss. David Brauer Kingfield....8-7! > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Conor > Donnelly > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Council Vote on Precinct Lines > > > Thanks Brian for the detailed and clear discussion of the Charter Commission and the > selection > of the Redistricting Commissioners. Thinking about this topic has raised a couple more > questions. > > How come two Green Party members were not selected in the same manner as the 2 DFL, 2 > Republican and 2 Independents? I thought after the 2000 election, the Greens achieved > major > party status in the state. So, was the Redistricting Commission two members short, or did > the > Green Party fail to submit a list? I apologize if this has already been discussed. I was out of > town for the whole first week of April, so I wasn't following this as closely as I would have > liked. > > The city Charter states: > "Within 15 days after receiving the lists of party nominees and self nominees, the Charter > Commission shall select by a majority vote of all of its members, two members from each > major party to serve on the Redistricting Commission, at least one of which must be from > the > lists submitted by the parties." > > Also, I'm not sure if the timing of the meetings and the plan proposals was appropriate. > The Charter tells us: > "A copy of the tentative plan shall be published as a legal notice for the public at least > seven (7) days prior to the public hearing on the tentative plan." > > I assume that this requirement was fulfilled by the map appearing on the city web site. > However, > I still don't understand how the "tentative plan" map appearing on the city web site April > 11th, was changed with respect to the Ward 6 boundary, on the final map released Friday > the > 12th. Maybe somebody who was at the public meeting on the 11th can help explain how > this change > came about. I know the Commission was working under an extremely tight timeline, and I > hope > that changes next time around, but it makes no sense to me that the tentative plan would be > altered, at the last minute, after the public meeting, without re-publishing a new map and > holding another meeting. > > Conor Donnelly > waite park > ward one, precinct 2 > _______________________________________ > 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
