GREG - Not so. To use the example you cited, Walt Dziedzic will have to stand for re-election in 2005 in his district (albeit a modestly different one than he ran in previously) which has about the same number of people as the other five districts.
Assuming he runs, the voters is his district will either to choose to return him to the Park Board or replace him with someone else. Granted, he has what seems like a pretty solid political base in Northeast but in fairness, he has obviously met the expectations of a pretty healthy majority of voters in his district for a long time. Whether voters in district are angry enough to replace him, well, we'll have to wait and see. While you and others may believe that he should be replaced because of the superintendent hiring process, his re-election depends on how the voters in his district judge his performance. And, that is how it should be! Whether or not Walt Dziedzic (or Ms. Hauser or Mr. Olson) could win re-election as an at-large candidate is speculation. I would not bet against it but who knows! Frankly, from what I have been hearing, the whole park superintendent hiring process is not that pressing of an issue with many voters. Obviously, some people are very angry at the process, some are somewhat angry, and lots of people seem to be pretty indifferent about it. Only time will tell whether or not is a major issue in the autumn of 2005; I suspect challengers to the "The Five" will make the superintendent hiring an issue and we'll see if it plays or not. I very strongly disagree with your contention that "district-based members can really play hard ball without fear of retribution". People who run in districts, whether they are park commissioners, council members, or legislators all have to face "retribution" in the form of an election. Granted, some - too many in my opinion - represent relatively safe districts but I have to lay that responsibility on the voters. I'm sure we could both up with a list of people elected in districts that if it were in our power, we would remove in an instant! Nevertheless, they were elected and their future is not our hands, but those of their constituents. I also disagree that at-large commissioners "at-large members cannot respond in kind without making themselves politically vulnerable". In fact, at-large commissioners have much less vulnerability since they do not represent well defined constituencies. A commissioner representing a specific district is much more likely to be held accountable on how well he/she represents the interests and needs of that district. At-large commissioners generally do not face that same scrutiny. For that reason, I do not think your idea of giving an at-large commissioners a veto over any action of the Park Board is fair to other the other elected commissioners. And lets face it, each commissioner elected at-large (and I am not referring specifically to the current at-larges) generally has a political base somewhere in the city. And while they may run at-large, their votes are not necessarily "better" on any issue than those cast by their colleagues elected in districts. Final point: This entity is called Park & Recreation Board. For many people in Minneapolis, the "recreation" part is equally or possibly even more important than the "parks". And if it were true that commissioners elected from districts do have a greater bent for the "recreation" function, is that necessarily a bad thing? Jim Bernstein Fulton -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Abbott Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 4:09 PM To: Jim Bernstein Cc: Issues Forum Mpls Subject: Re: [Mpls] Park Board Five continue their mockery of taxpayers and process I disagree, partly because district-based park board members are far more insulated from the political consequences of their decisions than the at-large members. The political constituency of a district member can be quite small and still be unassailable in political terms. Walt Dziedzic's political base is barely wider than the boundaries of Ward 1, for example, but I suspect it's enough to keep him on the park board for as long as he wants. Dziedzic can't be beat in his own district, but after the superintendent fiasco he'd lose if he tried to run city-wide. The same is true for Jon Olson, and (perhaps) Marie Hauser. This has a real tactical impact on the politics of the board. The district-based members can really play hard ball without fear of retribution, but the at-large members cannot respond in kind without making themselves politically vulnerable. There is also, in fact, an ideological split between the at-larges and the district commissioners. Roughly speaking, there are two camps on the park board, those who put environmental issues first and those who put recreation issues first. The "environment" camp contains all the city-wide commissioners, while the "recreation" camp contains almost all of the district commissioners. The one district commissioner in the environment camp -- Vivian Mason -- comes from a district where residents by and large care more about environmental concerns than particular recreational facilities. No doubt personality conflicts have greatly contributed to the divisions on the park board. But the underlying splits are IMHO structural and ideological. (The fact that these splits have persisted for many years, despite the addition of several new commissioners, supports my argument). But, at any rate, it strikes me as a real problem when the commissioners who have the broadest democratic mandate -- those elected city-wide -- are ALL in the minority. Instead of my previous proposal, perhaps it would be simpler to require the affirmative vote of at least one city-wide commissioner for the Park Board to enact any ordinance, resolution or official action. Greg Abbott Linden Hills REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
