The following is an article from the City Pages
following the election of Don Samuels to the city
council and the defeat of an antiwar resolution by the
city council.  The article is dated February of 2003.

How many feel this analysis is spot on and how many
feel it is off base?

What can we do to empower those attempting to enact
progressive policies at city hall in the upcoming
elections and after?


David Strand
Loring Park
http://citypages.com/databank/24/1158/article11051.asp

"A year ago city hall was infiltrated by a majority of
first-time office holders, a regime that introduced
not only Rybak and Johnson Lee, but six other new
council members--and the promise of sweeping reform.
Yet aside from some victories for Rybak, the rest have
encountered an old guard that is still very much on
its game. 

Council president Paul Ostrow and Barb Johnson and
Sandy Colvin Roy seem to be carrying a torch for the
way things used to be. Despite public distaste for
what was perceived to be self-interested leadership at
city hall--Cherryhomes, former mayor Sharon Sayles
Belton--and the felony convictions of Biernat and
former Eighth Ward council member Brian Herron,
there's more than a hint that old alliances are alive
and well. 

The other council vets, onetime outsiders Lisa Goodman
and Barret Lane, have joined the traditional voting
bloc. Rybak has mostly lined up with them, leaving the
other less experienced ward leaders to fend for
themselves. 

This was evident recently, when Paul Zerby tried to
introduce an antiwar resolution in a committee
meeting. More than just a plea for peace, Zerby's
resolution (co-authored with Dean Zimmermann) laid out
the detrimental financial impact a war with Iraq would
have on the city's finances. The resolution was
"returned to author," a rare move that essentially
killed the idea. 

Two days later Zerby brought up the resolution again
before the Committee of the Whole--a dress rehearsal
for the next day's council meeting--this time adding
fellow council newcomers Robert Lilligren, Gary
Schiff, and Johnson Lee. (The two other first-year
representatives, Dan Niziolek and Scott Benson, did
not sign on.) 

Ostrow immediately spoke against the resolution,
arguing that it was not "germane to the business" of
the council, and that he intended, as council
president, to rule it "out of order" at the next day's
meeting, thereby killing any discussion. (Ostrow
followed through on his promise.) Then he, Lane, and
Goodman left the meeting, without even participating
in the committee's debate. 

The power play was surprising, given that the city
council can spend more than two hours debating far
more trivial matters, such as, say, zoning issues.
Several cities across the United States, including
Philadelphia and Chicago, have passed similar antiwar
statements. That three council members did not even
discuss an item signed by five of their colleagues was
shocking. 

But the reaction went beyond personal feelings
regarding war and peace. Most council members opposed
to the resolution, and Mayor Rybak, have expressed
antiwar sentiment outside of city hall. The utter
disregard for debate has less to do with council
protocol than with political paranoia. It's no secret
that Minneapolis is concerned with proving its mettle
to a new state legislature dominated by budget-cutting
Republicans. Most council members have bent over
backward trying to curry favor at the capitol in hopes
that state lawmakers won't pull funding for various
programs that the city relies on. The city does not
want to stir any partisan waters right now. 

And there's a profound fear of the federal government
among city leaders as well. The investigations of
Biernat and Herron haunt city hall to this day. The
prospect of facing a federal mediator from the U.S.
Department of Justice to quell bad feelings between
the Minneapolis Police Department and minority
communities has met with unease. And the status quo
successfully fought against adding subpoena power to
the restructured Civilian Review Authority, the
citizen board that handles complaints against the
city's cops, for fear that all city workers would be
vulnerable to federal subpoenas. At the moment, few
city officials want to malign Bush Administration
policies or antagonize U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft. 

Concern over the city's financial troubles has divided
the council as well. Though a five-year plan to cut
fat from the city's future budgets, heartily endorsed
by Rybak, was approved by the council two weeks ago,
debate again fell along old-guard/new-guard lines.
Zimmermann and Schiff questioned the plan for
burdening the poor--and increasing police--in their
wards. Lane struck back by accusing them of engaging
in class warfare to drive out the city's "richest
people." 

It's not that dissent is not welcome on the city
council. And it's not that the council isn't moving
together on some very tough issues. On January 31, for
instance, the council earmarked $10 million of this
year's budget to establish a "trust fund" to ensure
there's affordable-housing money for years to come--an
issue that united Goodman, a financial hawk, and
Zimmermann, a far left Green. The city is facing
serious issues, and the debate has been thoughtful and
passionate. 

But it's clear that the days of risk taking and
progressive politics are gone. The more experienced
council reps are holding their cards close. Don
Samuels should take note before he antes up."




        
                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com
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:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to