In one of my flights of fancy, I looked at the Minneapolis City Council as it is and wondered:
What if council member were a volunteer position? Who would run for it? Would it be good for the city or bad? After all, the council SHOULD be about policy decisions on behalf of citizens. It seems to me that this could be handled nicely on a part-time basis. If it WERE a volunteer position, it is probable that council meetings would have to happen when MOST of us are off work. So attending them would be much, much more possible. And why downtown? Yes, the bureaux must be down there. And since Mayor Rybak represents everybody, he probably should be down there. But the council member's offices? Why shouldn't they be IN the neighborhoods? Even be part of the neighborhood association headquarters? Why is it so necessary for ordinary citizens to go downtown to see any part of its government. Gary Schiff holds monthly meetings here IN his ward. That is a nice concept to expand upon. And then the last flight of fancy was: How about holding the full council meetings on a weekday night in a neighborhood location, rotating from neighborhood to neighborhood so the full council can get used to what neighborhoods look like, especially the ones they DON'T represent. Would this all be GOOD for the city? Or bad? The city has done fairly well with the traditional concepts. But isn't there room for improvement? Congressional committees or subcommittees infrequently meet outside Washington, but it's not like it's NEVER done. Jim Mork Cogitatin' in Cooper Lounging in Longfellow Meditating in Minneapolis, That Fine City I Call Home TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
