I take serious issue with David Brauer on the subject of split representation for elected boards and councils. Neither all-ward or all at-large local policy bodies are a good thing. Whether the Mayor should preside over a city council of this size in a city of this size is questionable, but I'm open to suggestions (I have yet to read the Op-Ex section today).
Let me preface my remarks with the fact that I served for eight years on the St. Paul Charter Commission during which time I chaired the subcommittee that examined the costs and benefits of a combination ward and at-large system of electing councilmembers as well as a part-time city council. This was 1991. I was the author of the ward/at-large proposal, hoping to convert the council to a balanced representation system - in this case, a four-at-large/five-ward split. Both ballot questions went to the voters. My proposal failed, while the part-time proposal passed. The irony? The Star Tribune Editorial Page excoriated me then - and again in 1993 (when I was a candidate for the St. Paul City Council) for proposing what they assured readers would be a diminishment of voting power for Blacks and other minority communities because going from seven to five wards would increase the size of each ward by 15%. I was not interviewed or allowed to explain why it would yield precisely the opposite effect. Now they seem to have reversed their position. I wonder why. We on the Commission researched this issue to a fare-thee-well then and in subsequent years, when we boned up for asking voters to reconsider a scaled back version of our proposal. In every case where mixed council systems were matched against all-at-large or all-ward types, the general balance of meeting human needs and attracting human capital with that of large bricks-and-mortar capital investments was significantly better and stability between parochial interest and those of the city as a whole far more assured. Striking a balance between issues of narrow parochial views (wards) with those of the city as whole is a critical change heading for better policymaking. Not only is this not elitist, it is just the opposite, removing exclusive fiefdoms from serving as leverage for logrolling votes - a the bane of all-ward systems, creating many more opportunities for all classes of people to have a say in who governs them, and providing the mayor with some competition for what is now his exclusive territory - the city at-large. Let's address David's specific concerns here: 1. Increases in the cost of elections will happen with or without a change in council configuration, and the costs of elections is the last reason not to consider changes that would yield better representation and policymaking for all citizens. Here's why: in the present all-ward system, all voters in the city have but one person to elect while the rest of the council is elected by other sections of the city, thus keeping each ward's constituency utterly reliant on the responsiveness of one of thirteen councilmembers and creating a virtual kingdom with which to bargain with council colleagues on issues of importance to a given ward. This invariably means trading votes for one issue or project for similar support when your time comes for needing it. Those votes are often cast without a shred of concern over the merits of the vote vs. what that vote can do for the councilmember later on. The current system also presents but one opportunity for any citizen to be elected to the Council, for they may only run for the seat that represents their residence area. With a combination (we'll use the Strib's breakdown which is strikingly similar in proportion to the one I proposed and they shot down over ten years ago in St. Paul) of (at least) six wards and/or (at least) four at-large seats, each resident gets to vote - and/or run for - five Council seats instead of one. Further, once elected, ward councilmembers are going to be inclined to respond to constituent concerns more quickly since the voter can run to any one of the other four for satisfaction. Show me the elitism in providing a five-fold opportunity for citizens of all stripes to help influence their city's governance. 2. Where is the evidence that nonprofessionals will be short-changed by such a revision? Oh, yes, a few so-called professionals might run and even be elected. First of all, few would be willing to sacrifice high-level careers for a four-year full time stint on their City Council. You have to want to serve badly to leave a law practice, a medical or dental practice, a corporate executive post for scrutiny, the notoriety and significant drop in pay these men and women would suffer. If and when they do, it will obviously be because they are prone to public service over monetary self-enrichment. But, even then, four years apart from their client bases and customers can leave little to come back to. *I* will tell you that this is hardly a recipe for southwest Minneapolitans to dominate the Council, just as St. Paul's history put to rest similar fears that Crocus Hill, Mac-Groveland and Highland Park would be "overrepresented". Councilmembers - even when we had an all-at-large commission form of city government (the strong mayor form has only been with us since 1972) - came from everywhere in the city, many of the most powerful hailed from the East Side, the North End and Northwest sections of the city. You're still overstating the likelihood that those with the dough will even bother running. Secondly, good candidates can raise the money necessary to run and win. And, again, those from Southwest Minneapolis are not likely more active in their communities than residents from other parts of this city. Perhaps less so. As for the city management form, I'm not sanguine about this, although some administrative coordination might be wise, especially if the Mayor is the Chair of the Council. This stuff can become pretty arcane, but it is important that the old fears and elitist saws not be trotted out unless you have pretty solid evidence that the changes can't work, in this case for the betterment of city policy. One thing that must go is the singularly archaic strong-council-weak-mayor form Minneapolis struggles with now. Either make it a strong-mayor/council system with a balance of power struck by a mixed ward/at-large council configuration, or if, like a parliamentary piece, the Mayor is a councilmember, then govern with an executive committee and a city coordinator, much as it is now with the exception that mayor can't veto, only vote along with the rest of them. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men: Plato -- Visit our weblog: http://bumpasblognews.blogspot.com > From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Liz Wielinski writes: > >> -----Original Message----- >> The city has an at-large school board and >> most of the school board members live in the areas that, low and behold >> did not get school closings. > > While I don't think there was a quid pro quo, the school board's at-large > structure invites such suspicion. And it's one good reason to reject the > Strib's "reform" of new at-large councilmembers. > > The Strib proposes to change the current 13-member, ward-based, full-time > Council into a part-time body with 6 wards and 4 at-large members (plus a > full-time mayor who presides). > > This is a double-whammy of elitism: > > 1. It increases the cost of elections (full-time candidates have to fund > citywide races, and bigger wards raise those races' costs) AND > > 2. It reduces the ability of non-professionals to serve on the Council (or, > as the Strib so piquantly put it, "This would...make it possible to recruit > high-quality council members from the private sector's professional ranks, > including Republicans whose influence desperately is needed in city > government.") > > Tell me this isn't a recipe for Southwest Minneapolitans to be > over-represented on the Council. While most voters would live elsewhere and > could vote those geographic interests, I still think it tilts the field too > heavily toward those with dough (or connections to it) and against "regular > folks" candidacies. > > After all, the Park Board and School Board are part-time, with a blend of > at-large and wards (Parks) or all at-large (Schools) and right now, no one > is suggesting they work better than the Council - in fact, the Strib wants > to abolish them! > > I think members can come up with less elitist plans to boost broad-based > interests on the council, and I welcome being reminded about those ideas. > > I'm still pondering how I feel about city manager government (I lived in Des > Moines where there was a real bloodbath over replacing a manager who had > become too much of a strongman). > > In any event, I'd be remiss if I didn't thank the Strib opinion folks for > producing the package - it's a great way to get people thinking about > positive change. It's up to those of us who live here to make sure the > change we adopt is positive. > > David Brauer > Kingfield 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
