A couple of weeks ago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The Met Council is appointed by the governor, and traditionally has > been very > partisan. This last group was ideologically diverse and I hope the > next one > will be as well. In addition to looking at the health of the whole > region when > making sewer/water/systems decisions, the council has to act as > ambassador to > serve all the municipalities and prevent and assuage these sorts of > intracable > differences.
[TB] There was an attempt a few years back to make the Met Council an elected body. It passed the Legislature but was vetoed by the Governor (Carlson as I recall). Now I understand why the Governor wouldn't be interested in losing some nice appointed positions. I do, however, think that its an issue that should be brought back. The Met Councils duties have changed. They are not "just" a planning agency, they operate the bus system, the sewer system. Electing them would make it less likely that the entire council would turn over at the same time, there would be some continuity (granted the staff doesn't entirely change). An elected council might lead the way in merging some of the redundant functions we have in the metro area. Do we really need nearly 200 municipalities? Some of that combining would be more acceptable if the regional agency was elected rather than appointed. Terrell Brown Loring Park/Minneapolis __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Metropolitan Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/tcmetro Rules: Sign posts with real name. You may not post more than twice a day.
