Steve Brandt said: > the > new board that McKinsey recommends for development decisions would > appear to be able to take over NRP functions without legislative (as > opposed to NRP Policy Board) approval as long as the new board includes > at least the core representation the legislation requires of the NRP > Policy Board >
At least one problem associated with this contention is that the statute clearly says that the NRP Policy board runs the program and that board is composed of all the local governmental units that you go on to list. The CITY doesn't run the NRP program. It's run by a board consisting of multiple units of local government. I don't think it's possible to be both a city department AND and independent multi-government board at the same time. At a minimum, it would have two masters, and that's not the way to run a railroad. While the McKinsey report recommends a board (UNDER the new department) it is an advisory or coordinating board and not a governing board. An advisory board isn't consistent with state law that gives the following powers to the board: > The policy board may: > > (1) sue and be sued. .... > (2) hire, retain, discipline, and terminate a director .... > (3) enter into contracts, leases, purchases, or other > documents .... > (4) adopt bylaws .... > (5) enter into agreements with governmental units and > governing boards .... > (6) accept gifts .... > (7) review activities to determine whether the expenditure > of program money and other money is in compliance with the > neighborhood plans.... > (8) prepare annually an administrative budget for the > ensuing year.... > Of course it is a statute, not an article of the Minnesota Constitution. The legislature can change the law to allow NRP to be subsumed into city government. But I suggest that the issue be addressed as the necessity of asking the legislature to change the NRP law and not let wishful thinking take the place of legal analysis. The issue of the NRP's law is but a portion of the head scratching that must go in to figure out how to enact or adopt what McKinsey proposed. In some fashion, the report wants to include the "development" functions of the Minneapolis School Board and the Park and Recreation Board. How the city is going to control in a department of city government what those independent political entities do with their capital budgets is not at all clear. (And those units of government are independent of city government for historically significant reasons.) Again, the legislature could change it, but we shouldn't pretend that the state laws don't have to be changed. There are a litany of other problems with implementing the McKinsey report. I listed some that came to my mind in my earlier posting "Bouillabaisse." From looking at the McKinsey website (http://www.mckinsey.com/) it looks as if they have a very world-wide business practice. But it's really difficult to find that they have any government practice to speak of. They must be commended for the pro bono public work that they have done for government. But I think that the report demonstrates why "running government like a business" isn't all it's cracked up to be. Specifically, the report just doesn't seem to contemplate the web of law in which all governments must operate. As I said in my earlier post, the goals of housing and jobs are worthy of the city's attention. But while I think the McKinsey report has it's heart in the right place, I'm not at all clear that what they recommend can be practically implemented. And if something doesn't get done on the goals, it will be a shame. Steve Cross Prospect Park _______________________________________ 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
