I am reporting back a tally of what I have received so far from list members about whether they agreed with the park board override of the Mayor's veto. I will be sending the compiled comments to the park board commissioners along with a written statement from me to the board members (see below).
Response tally: 27 responses - "No" the park board should not have overriden the veto 3 responses- "Yes" the park board should have overriden the veto This does not include any other emails that have gone out on the list regarding the issue, only the ones that were a direct response to my question. The message I will include from myself to the park board commissioners accompanying the responses is as follows: To Minneapolis Park Board Commissioners: I initiated an informal inquiry on the Minneapolis Issues List in an effort to give feedback to the Minneapolis Park Board Commissioners on your decision to override Mayor Rybak's veto for purchase of the headquarters property. I asked list members if they agreed with your decision - I received 27 responses opposed to the veto override and 3 responses in support of it. I am passing these responses on to you, so you can be aware of what a handful of people who pay attention to local politics think about your decision. I will also provide my own interpretation of why your veto override appears to be so unpopular with List Members. There has been alot of discussion about the specific details of the property purchase and the financial impact of this individual purchase on the city. There has also been some suggestion in posts such as Brian Rice's that list members are responding without knowing all the facts about the purchase. I think the true criticism of the park boards decision is not really about the merits of property purchase itself, but about the park board's apparent unwillingness to work with the Mayor and City Council in their efforts to address the financial problems within the city. The Mayor and Council are leading the city through some badly needed and difficult changes to the status quo and they need you to cooperate. The swiftness and eagerness (refer to Annie Youngs post announcing the emergency veto override meeting) of the park board to cast aside Mayor Rybak's thoughts about the property purchase made it clear to me that the park board sees itself as the only entity it needs to be accountable to. Yes, the Mayor vetoed your decision as an independent board, and that probably made board members angry. But he vetoed with a thoughtful purpose and a request for a collaborative solution to your end goal. The veto was sound public policy done with a vision to benenfit the city as a whole and its taxpayers. The Park Board's response, with the exception of Mason and Erwin, appeared to be rash, defensive, and without any regard for the long term planning the city is attempting to implement. The message I heard through the posts regarding this issue is that we want our park board to be a team player with the rest of the city. Get on board, listen to what the city leadership has to say, and get past your independent board complex. Michelle Mensing Armatage _______________________________________ 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
