What is sad about all this is the lack of foresight when changing the charter to reflect desired structures. The City Attorney's office, who should be consulting to the Charter Commission, should have scoured the Charter for all affected articles should an amendment pass, in this case, the switch to four-year terms for councilmembers.
This is the role of the Revisor of Statutes at the state level. It is, in the absence of charter provisions to the contrary, the City Attorney's job to treat all Charter Amendments as they would ordinances and resolutions (those are the local governance terms for legislation). It's not as though this or any other city attorney's office hasn't the background. It's one of the main things they do, and the Minneapolis City Attorney's office has had this issue on the ballot at least a couple of times before it passed. Plenty of time to put the revisor's eye to the Charter as though a proposed amendment will pass. In other words, what will 4-year terms mean to local election law and procedures and to those activities in light of redistricting. Why do lawmakers and administrator so often come in after the barn door is closed and wield the heavy hand to reverse the people's will? It's important to remember that the people's will supercedes that of the Legislature when they're allowed to be heard - as in an election. The idea of new elections may have been a good idea if voters knew ahead of time they'd be electing this particular term for two years, returning to 4-year terms following redrawing of their wards. This retro approach is very bad public policy, and Phyllis should know better. Pass the legislation, but like almost all other of this kind of reform, apply it to the next census and do not thwart the will of the public because you didn't think of it when you passed the legislation requiring all home rule city councilmembers to have 4-year terms years ago. That's right, the state already passed the required 4-year terms for councilmembers in Minnesota cities with charters governing them (home rule). Better start contacting your other legislators about this. It's one thing for a court to shove it down your throats retroactively,; but, in contravention of Bert Black's suggestion that we might as well legislate it, it's an entirely different matter for our representative to show such disdain for a completed election. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul former St. Paul Charter Commissioner ------ "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral" --Dante > From: Brown, Terrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:52:11 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Mpls] City elections/Redistricting > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Garwood, Robin Bert Black wrote: > > "Given that inevitability, why not have legislation?" > > That's a good question, but it isn't the only one I'd like to have answered. > Here are the others, for me: > > 1) Why not have legislation (or the city version of that word) come from the > city level? If the need for a new election in 2003 is as inevitable as Bert > says, I think we should be able to count on our current council to see that. > > [TB] The Council, on its own, cannot change the City Charter. There were > some last fall who advocated the Council passing "emergency" language that > would have made the 2001 election for a 2 year term. I'm not going to > pretend to be a legal expert who knows if they could have done that, but I'm > not sure how I see it was an emergency that couldn't be worked out over a > reasonable period of time. > > [Robin Garwood] Whether the State has the legal authority to set our > election agenda, is it right, or even good policy, for them to do so? > Though the bill's author is a Minneapolis resident, my understanding is that > the Senate sponsor is not, and the vast majority of the two houses are not. > And the unfriendliness of the current house to the interests of Minneapolis > is famous on this list. > > Minnesota cities are a creation of the state. The state sets the parameters > under which cities operate. While we don't really need the hundreds of > units of local government we have in the metro area and the multitude of > governmental units we have certainly inhibits good ubran planning, the state > is who sets the rules and we need to work within that structure. > > [TB] When I read the bill, it didn't say "Minneapolis" anywhere in it. It > applies to all cities who elect City Councils from wards to 4 year terms. > There are other cities that fall into this catagory. > > [Robin Garwood] 2) I'd really like an answer from Representative Kahn (who > up until Sunday was my State Rep, for whom I have cast votes in the past) to > the question I've read on here numerous times now: why did you not bring > this legislation before the last election? > > [TB] My reaction is this falls into the Law of Unintended Consequences, no > one really thought this through at the time council terms were extended from > 2 to 4 years. Talking with people who are rather close to Minneapolis city > government, no one seems to have even considered this issue until sometime > last year, as we were approaching the convergence of redistricting and the > elections. > > Take a look at our existing wards. Wards 10, 11, 12 and 13 are 6,998 people > short of what the new wards need in population. This is 23.78% of a total > ward. With these wards having boundaries of the east, south and west city > limits they have no place to go other than the 8th and 9th wards which only > need 995 new people (with Wards 10 and 13 possibly taking from the 6th and > 7th Ward (Ward 6 needs 3,287 people, Ward 7 only 192). We will be seeing > some major changes in the way some of our wards look, especially south of > Franklin Avenue. > > > > Terrell Brown > > Loring Park > > terrell@terrellbrown. org _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
