Felien believes "it's the best we have, so far." Not so. 15 years of
the NRP Experiment have not shown the system still in use in other
American cities to be obsolete. What is that other system? It is that
of really democratically elected representation, selected at the ballot
box, of a City Manager/Mayor, and City Council authorized to prudently expend tax income - now that's real and verifiable citizen participation!
It is high time to revert to that system by dismantling NRP.
NRP should be dismantled for a bunch of reasons but a paramount one is that 1 voter trumps 90 to 99 others when it comes to authorizing large NRP expenditures.
On December 28th last, Mayor Rybak wrote a letter to all Minneapolis Election Judges commenting on the November 2004 General Election in specific, and in general calling elections and voter turnout a part of "the democratic process that is at the core of what we as a country are..." Minnesotans are proud of this State's excellent record in turning out the vote, where it is generally at the top of the heap in the country.
But turning attention back to 1999-2000:
The November 2000 General Election had a voter turnout of 82% for the City of Minneapolis in total. For the Cedar-Riverside West Bank (C-RWB) neighborhood, the corresponding voter turnout was 72%, a number of the same order of magnitude as for the whole City.
However, when it came to the turnout of C-RWB voters eligible to vote for authorizing the expenditure of $1,500,000 in NRP funds about that same time, it was a very different type of democracy, a dubious democracy to be nice. Of the 6,212 C-RWB residents eligible to vote, about 60 did vote, allowing a voter turnout of 1% to be easily calculated.
When the Cedar-Riverside West Bank neighborhood has a 82% turnout of
voters eligible to vote in the November 2000 election, how can it be
ignored that a 1% turnout, at about the same time, of residents eligible
to vote, occurred? It was at once a joke and about authorizing the expenditure of $1,500,000 NRP funds.
Cedar-Riverside West Bank and the City of Minneapolis in total generally turn out about 70% of voters eligible to vote. The year 2000 example above is not freak data.
The time has come to determine for the other eighty neighborhoods in the City, how their turnouts to authorize NRP millions of dollars compares to their corresponding turnouts in elections.
C-RWB's miserable turnout of 1% means that for each 1 NRP vote counted, 99 were not. I have a hunch that the results will not be significantly different for the average of the other neighborhoods.
Will the neighborhoods research their files and bring in the harvest
and let it be seen? To avoid any misunderstanding, I'll restate:
Will the individual neighborhoods post, for votes on NRP big buck authorizations, the number of persons present and voting, with dates?
There was a big redistricting and 2000 Census ruckus over the last two years with the Greens and Kahn lawsuits based on the principle of one person - one vote, voter rights being protected more by the MN constitution than the US Constitution, it was opined. Those lawsuits
got a lot of attention for a really minor problem which can be deduced from the lack of any court order for a Minneapolis City Council election ahead of the scheduled Autumn 2005.
Where is the outrage of the Greens and the Kahns about the gross disenfranchisement of eligible voters when it comes to authorizing the spending of $millions from NRP pots.
Assuming that the other Minneapolis neighborhoods had for NRP Phase I
authorizations the same order of magnitude turnout as C-RWB, where's the
outrage about the 95-99 out of 100 votes/voters which don't count? The neighborhood activists' reply that in order to count, a resident must show up is a sharp indictment of the whole NRP system, not a plausible excuse.
Michael Atherton has regularly commented on this topic, although qualitatively, on this List over the last several years. And in Rochelle Olson's article in the Strib (02Jan05), "Civic funding agency emerging as issue in mayoral campaign", Council Member "Goodman repeated a frequent criticism of the NRP, that the circle of activists who allocate funds tends to be small."
NRP is defective democracy to say it in the most charitable way.
Following the Strib's recent proposals to reform this City's government,
including bringing the Parks and Libraries in from their protected
bunkers, the NRP hierarchy must also be brought to accountability. Thank God, the MCDA was finally brought in from its bunker last year. Democracy and fiscal accountability requires it.
It would not be such a serious problem if the amount of money in the NRP pot(s) was not so large, or if the City was not broke. However, the City is broke, and the amount of money still in NRP pots is large.
And then there is the matter of poor oversight by NRP Headquarters of the use of NRP funds in the neighborhoods by the elite activist groups who claim to know what is best for the neighborhoods, much like General Bullmoose. Certainly C-RWB had a J. Roaringham Fatback as well at the head of the elite activist group - how about the other neighborhoods?
Part II will detail some of the mismanagement and poor oversight.
Bob Johnson Cedar-Riverside West Bank W2/P10
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
