HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 03 24 CHCABROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY 24 March 1999
7 P.M. CITY HALL
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes 27 January 1999
4. Old Business
A. Did the Council give the City Manager a performance review?
B. Election of City Councilmembers "At Large" vs "Ward"
C. Items for possible consideration:
1. Reviewing language of Charter to make it less negative.
2. Creation of an Ombudsperson position
D. Other
•6. New Business
7. Next Scheduled Meeting Dates
June 23, 1999; October 27, 1999; January 26, 2000
(Subject to change at the will of the Commission.)
8. Adjournment
O lease call Carl Wolter at 561 -5627 or 721 -6661 if you cannot atten
'zu..Y;- AP.2A .F +lakM?RM1X 4' 5'a*v°- -+..f S kk k i m e. k.
To: All Charter Commission Members
From: Sy Knapp, Secretary
Date: February 1, 1999
Enclosed, FYI, are the following items:
a draft copy of the minutes of the January 23rd Commission meeting.
Please note the schedule for our meetings this year is: March 24,
June 23, and October 27. Mark these dates on your calendar now...
Thanks.
copies of a 10/1/98 letter from Sharon Knutson to me, along with a large
packet of enclosures, detailing past considerations on the ward vs. at -large
issue. As shown in the minutes of our January 23 meeting, this item will
be included in the agenda for our March 24 meeting "for possible
consideration along with 2 new items which have also been suggested
"for possible consideration
an updated roster of Commission members.
Also: for Commissioners Bursch, Hatle, Holst, Sannes, Thielsen and Willson
Enclosed are copies of:
a draft copy of the 1998 Audit Report. Note: this will be re- formated for
use as the final report.)
the "1998 Annual Report", covering the activities of the Charter
Commission during 1998, as prepared by Chair Wolters and approved by
the Commission on 1/23.
City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
Sharon Knutson
City Clerk
October 1, 1998
Mr. Sylvester Knapp
Charter Commission Member
7221 Riverdale Road
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Knapp:
Office of the City Clerk
Enclosed you will find copies of several items:
4 the complete file relating to the Charter Commission study of the ward vs. at -large system which was
discussed in 1976 with a cover memo from Carole Blowers dated February 1, 1988.
4 the minutes and annual report from 1988 at which the ward system was discussed.
4 Resolution No. 66 -291 in which the City Council endorsed the proposed City Charter which was
being presented to the electorate November 8, 1966.
-4 the minutes of November 8, 1966.
-4 the cover page of the first City Charter, and a copy of page 2 from the first City Charter which
identifies the elective officers serve at large.
There was not a referendum vote held regarding the Charter Commission as it relates to ward or at large
system. The only other two referendum votes were conducted November 4,1986,_ regarding, terms of office;
and November 3, 1992, regarding filling vacancies on the council.
In reviewing the annual reports from 1988 to present, there has been no further discussion relating to the
ward system. Hopefully the enclosed information will be beneficial to the Charter Commission. in its study
of the ward vs. at large system.
Sin rely,
ff"Z� 7 sx
Sharon Knutson, CMC
City Clerk
enc
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action l Equal Opportunities Employer
Member Howard Heck introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 66 -291
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE PROPOSED CITY CHARTER
FOR BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1962 the Village Council, by unanimous
motion, established the Brooklyn Center Government Study Commission,
and charged said commission with a review of the then existing procedures
of Village government and the development of a recommendation relative to
the desireability of establishing a charter commission; and
WHEREAS, following the submission of the Commission's report,
and in accordance therewith, the Village Council petitioned the District
Court to appoint a Charter Commission for Brooklyn Center; said Charter
Commission being established and sworn on April 15, 1964; and
WHEREAS, from its creation until the present time the Charter
Commission, and the membership thereof, have spent numerous hours
studying and debating the alternative modes of government, and thereafter,
additional hours in the preparation of the proposed City Charter; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 1966 the Commission presented the
proposed City Charter to the Village Clerk for presentation to the Village
electorate at the November 8, 1966 General Election; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Village Council, both individually
and collectively, have reviewed the provisions of the proposed charter and
find them to:
1. Establish an effective framework for responsible representative
government.
2. Reserve more powers to the citizens of the community than
is permitted under the present Village form of government.
3. Place final responsibility for the operation of the government
in the hands, and within the purview, of the elected
representatives of the people.
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Ceenter, as the eleventh largest community
in the State of Minnesota, is in fact a city of substantial consequence and
therefore should be governed as a city under the provisions of a home -rule
charter:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Village Council endorse
the proposed City Charter and the philosophy of government set forth therein.
Resolution No. 66 -291
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Village Council urge the
citizens of the community to carefully review the copy of the proposed
charter delivered to each home on October 20, 1966, and request citizen
support for, and approval, of, the proposed City Charter at the November 8, 1966
General Election.
October 24, 1966
Date
ATTEST: ffjL'Id
Clerk
0 Mayor
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Earl Simons and upon vote being taken thereon the following
voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Earl Simons, Howard Heck, john Leary,
and Theodore Willard,
and the following voted against the same: none,
wherVupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
�)t�
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Village
Council of the Village of Brooklyn Center
in the County of Hennepin and State of
Minnesota
November 8, 1966
The Village Council met in special session as the Canvass Board of
the Election and was called to order at 9:30 P. M.
Roll Ca12: Mayor Philip Cohen, Earl Simons, John Leary, ,i�'���
and Theodore Willard were present.
The Mayor announced that the order of business was the consideration
of the returns of the General Election held November 8, 1966. The offices
up for election were Trustee and Clerk, and the Referendum Question:
"ShaYl the Proposed New Charter be Adopted?"
Ballots were cast for candidates as follows:
F'or the Uffice of Trustee: Received
Howard Heck 4, 558
Chauncey Myers 2, 241
For the Office of Clerk:
Robert Long 3,455
Roger Van House 3,390
Referendum Questfon;
"Shall the Proposed New Charter be Adopted?
YES 4,383
NO 1,179
After completing the foregoing canvass, member Theodvre V�/illard
fntroduce� the followfnq resolution and moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Villaqe Council af the Village of Brooklyn
Centsr that it is hereby determined upon the foregoing �Canvass that I�award
Heck is declared the duly elected Trustee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the referendwn question: "Shall the
Proposed New Charter be Adopted?" is hereby determfned to have been
adopted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Village Council o# the Viliage of
Brooklyn Center that it is hereby determined upon the foregoing Canvass
that although the office cf Villaqe Clerk is abolished by the adoption of the
New Charter, Robert I.ong received the greater number of votes.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoinq resolution was duly seconded
by member John Leary, and upon vote being taken thereon, the foliowing
voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Earl Simons, John Leary �a��ek'`�
and Theodore Willard, and the #ollowing vot�d against the same: none,
whereupon safd resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Motion by john Lpary and seconded by Theodore Willard to ad�ourn.
Motion carried unanimously. The Village Council adiourned at 2:30 A. M.
r
L 11�� Mayor
Clerk
-1-
i
I,
BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER
EFFECTIVE THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1966
1
CITY
OF
OOKLYN
C ENTER
MINNESOTA
z�tf E RP
CITY
OF
OOKLYN
C ENTER
MINNESOTA
Dr, 4P Published.in the Brooklyn
Center Post the 20th day of October 1966.
Referendum vote conducted the. 8th day of Novem ber 1966.
r.
I
z�tf E RP
Sash r D
Dr, 4P Published.in the Brooklyn
Center Post the 20th day of October 1966.
Referendum vote conducted the. 8th day of Novem ber 1966.
r.
I
`C r r t f sir. rt f't ily1� e tr f r t:4 fr f �C'
Section 2.02. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. There shall be no separate
administrative board of health, library board, park board, or any other
administrative board or commission, except for civil service commissions
p
and boards and for the administration of a function jointly with another
political subdivision. The Council shall itself be and perform the duties
and exercise the powers of such boards, and commissions. The Council
may, however, establish boards or commissions to advise the Council
with respect to any municipal function or activity, to investigate any
subject of interest to the City, or to perform quasi judicial functions.
ins Section 2.03. ELECTIVE OFFICERS. The Council shall be composed of
a Mayor and four Councilmen who shall be registered voters of Brooklyn
!r Center, and who shall be elected at large. Each Councilman shall serve
for a term of three years. The Mayor shall serve for a term of two years.
When the charter is ratified, the Mayor and Councilmen who had been
elected to office under the Village form of government shall continue in
office until their term expires, The Council shall be judges of the
election of the Mayor and Councilmen.
Section 2.04. INCOMPATIBLE OFFICES. No member of the Council shall
be appointed City Manager, nor shall any member hold any paid municipal
office or employment for the City; and until one year after the expiration
of his term as Mayor or Councilman, no former member shall be appointed
to any paid appointive office or employment for the City which office or
employment was created or the emoluments of which were increased
during his term as Councilman.
Section 2.05. VACANCIES IN THE COUNCIL. The office of Mayor or
Councilman shall become vacant upon his death, resignation, removal
from office in any manner authorized by law or forfeiture of his office.
The Mayor or Councilman shall forfeit his office if he (1) lacks at any
time during his term of office any qualification for the office prescribed
by this charter or by law, (2) violates any express prohibition of this
charter, (3) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, or (4)
fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without
being excused by the Council. A vacancy in the Council shall beIfilled
temporarily by the Council and then by the voters for the remainder of the
term at the next regular election unless that election occurs within sixty
(60) days from the occurrence of the vacancy, this period being necessary
to allow time for candidates to file. The Council by a majority vote of all
its remaining members shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy
until the person elected to serve the remainder of the unexpired term takes
office. If the Council fails to fill a vacancy within thirty (30) days, the
election authorities shall call a special election to fill the vacancy. The
election will be held not sooner than ninety (90) days and not later than
one hundred and twenty (120) days following the occurrence of the vacancy
and to be otherwise governed by the provisions of Section 4.03, special
elections. The quorum of the Council consists of three (3) members; if
at any time the membership of the Council is reduced to less than three
,r! -2-
BROOHLTS CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT
1988
The full Brooklyn Center Charter Commission met five times during 1988, and a sub committee
met once early in the year. The annual meeting was held on January 27, 1988, and the
following officers were elected: Chairperson -nary Heitzig; Vice Chairperson- -Dann Escher;
Secretary Barbara Sexton.
The following appointments were made by the Chairperson: Public Relations Edward Commers;
Audit- -Jean Schiebel; Rules /Parlimentarian- -Neil Smeaton.
Tony huefl =_r and Edward Commers were reappointed to full terms on the Commission, with terms
expiring in September of 1992. These reappointments kept the Charter Commission's member-
ship to its authorized number of fifteen until December of 1988, when two members completed
maximum terms. One new member has been appointed; therefore, there is currently one vacancy
on the commission.
During 1988, the Charter Commission could see the effects of changes they initiated in the
past few years. The most noticeable change that could be seen was in the city elections of
1988. Charter changes passed by the voters in 1986 regarding election dates and terms of
office for the Mayor and Council members meant Brooklyn Center held city elections for the
first time in an Pvaa year. The Charter Commission played a major role in this change. In
the last, city election of 1985, voter turnout was 2.1% of the registered voters; in 1988,
voter turnout was 78.5`0 of the registered voters. Realizing this was both a presidential
and local election, this still represents a large increase in voters in our city.
Another change that was implemented involved the public notification regarding availability
of our minutes and agendas. During 1987, changes were made to our Rules of Procedure to
provide the citizens of Brooklyn Center and other civic organizations more complete
information and better access to the Charter Commission's activities, minutes, and agendas.
Accordingly, notices were published in the city's official newspaper and newsletter to this
effect.
Early in 1988, the Charter Commission formed a sub committee to study the pros and cons of a
ward system for the City of Brooklyn Center. A consensus was not reached by the sub
committee, and the study was postponed indefinitely by the entire commission in May.
The Charter Commission became aware of a state statute affecting charter commissions which
was enacted at the last legislative session. Presently the Chairperson is awaiting clarifi-
cation from the author of this change, and she will be reporting this clarification to the
full commission as soon as it is available.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary ?iii t zig, Chairper. n
Brooklyn Center Charter Commission
cb
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
PARCH 30, 1
MINUTES
7 P. If.
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mary Heitzig at 7 :02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Allen Anderson, Marie Castle, Benjamin Chatelle, Ran Christensen, Edward
Commers, Mary Heitzig, Mona Hintzman, Tony Kuefler, Dennis Kueng, John
Lescault, Everett Linda, Yea! Smeaton
Members absent and excused: Dann Escher, Jean Schiebel
Members absent and unexcused: Barb Sexton
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of January 27, 1988, were approved as submitted. Passed unanimously.
OLD BUSI=
lub rammittp on Ward Sv,t m
Ed Commers, Chair of this committee, stated that no decision was made by the sub committee
as far as how to proceed on this issue. Possible suggestions that were discussed at the sub
committee meeting were: doing a survey of citizens of Brooklyn Center; sending a survey to
cities of like size; or having public hearings. Discussion was then held as to whether
there should be a survey or public hearing first (survey first). A survey of cities of like
size is not useful because it has already been done; perhaps a survey of cities who have
changed should be done to find out whether it is better or worse.
Chairperson Heitzig commented on the letter from Mayor Nyquist dated March 22, 1988, which
was sent to Charter Commission sub committee members, City Council members, and Mr. Splinter
City Manager. In this letter, Mayor Nyquist stated his views an the ward system.
Chairperson Heitzig stated, "I am disappointed at the professionalism of Mayor Dean Nyquist
in his sending of a letter to the sub committee members, the city manager, the city council
and NOT to the chairperson of the Charter Commission."
Motion was made by Tony Kuefler to table this issue indefinitely. Motion passed.
ITEIT MEETING DATE
The next Charter Commission meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 25, 1988, at 7 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
SUE COMMITTEE ON WARD SYSTEM
MINUTES
MARCH 9, 1988
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM A
Members present: Jahn Lescault, Dennis Kueng, Tony Kuefler, Marie Castle, Barb
Sexton, and Edward Commers
Also present: Phil Cohen
The sub committee on the ward system was called to order by Chair Ed Commers at 7:05
P. M.
Ed Commers asked whether the committee should do a survey; who should be surveyed;
what should the survey say. Marie Castle stated in reading over all the material
presented, people seem to be happy with whatever system that they have, and that maybe
we should survey randomly only Brooklyn Center residents. What to ask citizens was
discussed; would pros and cons be stated? Ed Commers questioned whether we should
survey cities of like size. Dennis Kueng stated we should formally decide on whether
or not we should proceed on this issue and then what should we do and 'now will we do
it.
Motion by Marie Castle that we proceed on the studying of this issue on the ward
system; seconded by Dennis Kueng; passed unanimously.
Dennis Kueng suggested that the Charter Commission hold public hearings on this
subject instead of a survey; Ed Commers suggested doing a survey and at least two
public hearings. Uz her suggestions included palling the mayor and council members for
their opinion and use of neighborhood advisory committees.
John Lescault reiterated his reasons for wanting this issue studied at this time. As
Brooklyn Center is entering into a redevelopment stage, he feels the council members
need to be more accountable to the citizens in a particular area; having that type of
system would probably encourage more candidates to run.
After much discussion about haw we should proceed and no consensus, a motion was made
by John Lescault, seconded by Marie Castle, to bring these thoughts to the next full
Charter Commission meeting to be discussed to get the full charter commission's
opinion and input. Motion passed unanimously.
Motion was made to adjourn at 7:50 P.M.
t pectf ly sub m' t d,
'-U Carole J. wers, C.P.S.
Administrative Assistant
Chair of Sub- Committee: Ed Commeers Chair of Commission: Mary Keitzig
Secretary: Barb Sexton
TO: John Lescault
Barb Sexton
Tonv Kuefler
Marie Castle
Mary Aeitzig
Dennis Kueng
FROM: Ed Commers, Chair
Sub Committee on Ward System
DATE: February 29, 1988
Enclosed you will find a list of Minnesota cities with more than 10,000
population. Also enclosed is information on ward systems dating back to
1965 and 1975.
Please look this over as it does contain some information that is worth
noting.
See you at the March 9 sub committee meeting at 7 P.M. in Conference Room
A.
cb
Encls.
FROM 1987 9IE =CTORY OF MINNESOTA CITY OFFICIALS
February 13, 1988
CITY POPULATION
Albert Lea
19,200
Anoka
15,634
Apple Valley
21,818
Austin
23,020
Bemidji
10,949
Blaine
28,558
Bloomington
81,813
Brainerd
11,439
Brooklyn Center
31,230
Brooklyn Park
43,332
Burnsville
35,674
Cloquet
11,142
Columbia Heights
20,029
Coon Rapids
35,829
Cottage Grove
18,994
Crystal
25,543
Duluth
92,811
Eagan
20,700
Fairmont
11,506
Faribault
16,241
Fergus Falls
12,519
Fridley
30,228
Golden Valley
22,775
Hastings
12,827
Hibbing
21,193
Inver Grove Heights
17,171
Lakeville
14,790
Mankato
28,651
Maple Grove
20,525
Maplewood
26,990
Marshall
11,161
Minnetonka
38,683
Moorhead
29,998
Moundsview
12,593
New Brighton
23,269
New Hope
23,087
New Ulm
13,755
Northfield
12,562
No. St. Paul
11,921
Oakdale
12,123
Owatonna
18,632
Red Wing
13,736
Richfield
37,851
Robbinsdale
14,422
Rochester
57,906
Roseville
35,820
St. Cloud
42,566
1
FRO;t i� ?87 JI cCTCnY OF MINNESOTA CITi OFFICIALS
;:-nruar J
CITY POPULATION
St. Loui =ar
42,431
Shoreview
17,300
So. St. Paul
21,235
Stillwater
12,290
Virginia
11,056
West St.
18,527
Waite Bear Lake
22,538
Willmar
15,895
Winona
25,075
Woodeury
10,297
Worthington
10,243
Hinnear_oiis
370,951
St. Paul
270,230
2
GARY R. CURRIE
EILEEN M. BAUNIGARTNER
BARBARA M. UTAMOND
GAIL HANSEN
0=NNIS W. RAPPEL
JOHN HELLAND
ALAN R. HOPEl.1 AN
KEVIN P. KENNEY
JAMES NOBLES
SARA L. PETERSON
SAMUEL W. RANKIN
LEROY H. SCHRAMM
T140MAS M. TODD
FRED VESCIO
JOHN WILLIAMS
BARBARA H=IKSS
AOMINISTRATIV= ASSISTANT
TO:
FROM:
RE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
HOUSE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
November 6, 1975
Representative William Luther
Dennis Happel, Legislative Analyst
The Pros and Cons of the 'lard System of
Election of City Councilmen
THE CAPITOL
ST. PAUL 55155
(612) 296 -6753
I did not have any :cno:•:ledge personally of the pros and
cons of the ward system of election. I did approach
Lois Mizuno who has had some personal experience in this
area and she summarized very briefly in her opinion the
pros and cons of the ward system. (See Attachment 1 l.)
I also obtained a bulletin from the League of Minnesota
Municipalities which was published in 1965 which has a
discussion of the ward system in general. I also enclose
that for your convenience.
Very briefly, it appears that both of the sources agree
that the pro aspects of establishing a ward system are:
(1) There is a better relationship between the voter and
the councilmen since the councilman has a certain definite
area to represent and, therefore, the constituents can
make a more intelligent choice of councilmen and can keep
in closer touch with the councilmen; (2) There is a more
simple manner of running for office and it is easier to
conduct the election process since the ballot is shorter
and the candidate's area is smaller in geographic size.
The con arguments are: (1) The vote of the council person
tends to be more parochial and, thus, benefits only a
specific section of the city rather than the whole city.
There are a number of other pros and cons that are varia-
tions of the ones I've mentioned above, which are enclosed
in the two sets of materials I am sendin-. For the most
part, there does not seers to be any real technical problems
with establishing the ward system. The main problems in-
volve theoretical practicalities regarding the convenience
�n
Rep. William Luther -2- November 6, 1975
or the representation of one system over another.
I hope these materials answer your questions. If you have
any further questions, feel free to call me at 296 5055.
DH/ j h
Enclosures
WARD SYSTEM
Pro
(From Voter's Viewpoint)
1. Better chance to know councilman who represents him/her.
2. Greater "accountability" voter knows who to contact for help,
who to complain to. Councilman can't hide in a crowd.
3. Minority political /ethnic /social better chance of being represented.
4. Smaller chance of one -party control (which happens even or especially
in a 'non partisan' election.)
(From candidate's viewpoint)
1. Cheaper to run in smaller geographic area.
2. Easier to vote as a representative of a specific constituency.
Con
1. Tends to be more parochial. Benefits to ward beat out benefits to whole city.
2. Prestige of position is less than that of at -large councilman.
3. Chance of defeat of incumbent are greater than in an at -large election
(which is a disadvantage* to incumbent, not to voter.)
league of minnessi municipalities
300 hanover building. 400 cedar st..saint paul. minn. 55101
a
list Li tttt •iS�
t 1
A
for Municipal officials
110a._2..
Revised: September, 1965
THE WARD SYSTERA OF ELECTION OF D` cst4 V
CITY COUNCIT1AEN
Contents
Page
Part I
Discussion of the 'lard System
A. What is the `'hard System of Election 1
B. Arguments for the Ward System 3
C. Arguments Against the Ward System 3
D. Compromise Proposals 4
E. Revision of Ward Boundaries 4
Part II
Actual Provisions of Minnesota Charters
Part III
Council Composition and method of Election in
ttinnesota Cities
A. Cities Operating Under Home Rule Charters 9
B. Cities Operating Under Special Charters or General Acts 14
THE: T -TiTM SYSTEM OF ELECTION OF CITY COUv7CITIMAEN
Part I
Discussion of the Ward Svstera
A. bJhat is the Hard System of Election
B.. Arguments for the I•Tard System"_
C. Arguments Avainst the Ward System
D. Compromise Proposals
E. Revision of Ward Boundaries
A. I-Jhat is the Ward Svstem of Election?
The ward system is 'a method of election in t. hich the city is divided into dis-
tricts, theoretically of equal population. From one to three councilmen are elected
by the residents of each of these wards. Residence in the ward is almost invariably
required of the candidates. Usually, only one councilman at a time is elected from
each ward. This means that, when more than one councilman represents each district,
the.whole council is only partially renewed at any election, and there is some con-
tinuity of experience in'the governing body. Continuity may also be secured by
electing from half the wards at any one election.
Although the ward system was introduced into' this country in 16 by the
Dongan Charters granted to Albany an"' New York City, it attained its greatest vogue
in the 19th century. At the present time, Americans prefer the method of election
at large; about 61% of all municipalities over 5,000 population elect all council
members at large. It should be noted, however, that 44% of the mayor- council
cities use the at -Large system; 22% elect by wards, while 17% combine the two methods,
In Mirnesota, the at large and the coobination system have been preferred over
the ward system during the last fifty years. Of the five new charters adopted since
1960, two provide for at -large elections, one for election by wards and two for a
combination.
A11• Cities
•/S
First C1a
I•• C con
10
1922
194f, 'x.964
.J- A922 ._.1546 •1964
1922
1946
�96�r:- 1922
2.
1.946
puP.CEIdTAG15 OT' '.GIMT�R CITIES' US.TnG EAC}Z N1ExfI�D: :OF
ELE�xOV
No. of
Tliird•'Class Fourth Class
t
A11• Cities
•/S
First C1a
I•• C con
10
1922
194f, 'x.964
.J- A922 ._.1546 •1964
1922
1946
�96�r:- 1922
2.
1.946
No. of
92
3
3 3
0'i _2 �0.
7,'"
1
Cities 65
7
3,946 1564
62
45%
65
At Large 35%.. 39% 40% '662/31, 33]./.v. 33.13% 0 50 :.50. 2' 33I. 33 I.
'24%
I 3 25% 24112% 21%
Wards 2�`� 1 24% .22 33.4410 33 i�3 /o 33l/3 V. 0 ,.,..�0% 7 1/�!
i
nation 401 37% 30% 0 331Q% 1 0 50 "1 IA
ry� 35% 417. 37ti
34%
ArFnraents. For tile, [lard System
(1) :tlie' citizen votes only for candidates in his ward, and 11n no other, the
ballot is, shorter and s;,mpler.
The. voter is more likely r
to have direct, pesonal kii6wledge about the
:..qualiiics` those *ho seek tc7 represent him, and thereby will make •a more Intelli-
choice. After election; the councilman will keep in- closer touch with'his con-
st
;.-.0) Insofar as 'wards have special intdrests, these mill- be represented.
Insofar as bards contain distinct social,.cthnic, and economic ;roues, the.'council
.will be a better cross section of the population.
.E4) V. a minority, is concentrated in one geographical �.rea, the curd system
_assures it of'securing some representation on council.:
C. Ar5zUments Against the 'Ward System
:.(1) As a valid answer-to (3) above' .it might be said that in fact'ward'bound-
aries.rarely delineate homogeneous areas_. They tend.to be ar or merely
traditional lines. Therefore, there is rarely a hard interest or a um id "personality"
that would justify separate representation...
(2) The last argument listed in favor of ward elections is only one side of the
coin. A voter residing in one ward may find there is•no.candidate in his area
whom he can wholeheartedly support, and that there is a candidate in another Ward ciho
Mould more fully represent his views. The ward system pravents this voter froal fully
.exercis,ing his freedom of choice.,
One gremi se of the crara syste:a is that men group themselves geographically.'
In fact, this is not completely true.• Other groupings; such as ;rationality. economic
posi,tioz; and social class, are equally •compell1ng. -A geographic location cannot be
said to comprehend ail other loyalties.
(3) Since residence in the 'ward is an almost universal requirement_ for candi-
dates,: 'some wards have no: top- notch.aldernanic, material.': So the voter `s raing, e of
choice is restricted, •and, the quality of the 'council is,:likely. to be •lowered.
(4) The'system results in_ unequal -representation. 'Even if the city is not
gerrymandered, natural•population.shifts soon render the wards uaicqual in numbers. S
The well- ?cnoc,n fact that, once. tab lished, card lines are extremely difficult to-3
char -e perpetuates the inevitable inequities.. A final consideration is that a
minority group r:aJ completely dominate the council by Grinning in a majority of the h•„
wards.
(5) The chief weakness of the systecrCis that it encourages a spirit of
localise. The basis of selection of councilmen tends to be service to the ward,
not to the city, r increase in trading and lo-roilir.g is the result, and the alder-
man who returns to his ward- with "clean but empty hands" is less likely to be
re- elected.' Finally, it is only a step from representation local interests to
representation of the private interests that dominate tine ward.
Cv d.e
D. Comnramiaa ProDo--als
,The objective of any electoral system in a democrady is'to Ycdoncil*e" adequate
minority
ity representation with majority control Neither the ward nor the at- large
sysUm
qccur in.:evcry:eldction, as *a result, neither
_pystem.,.� qs.. forc -zthc have soL *"S'OlUtiO� by'dOinblntU
1 .4. q�t.t.
0 k>*
ell�two -inethods.. -Sor.7a falect eatrlare ..but nominate .by fiatda•; 'othdrs elece'pari*
of'the,'!council by wards, and part at lar-e. The latter compromise has -woilked.
reasonably well in small cities because a council of small size, which works with
more: dispatCh..,tha= a %large,-. unwialcly. body, may be prescrvdawitho'ut so
e,size. the. -yards...thqt. close contact betwealn-councilrffan* and-ccon'stittienc is=�-
both:-the 7traditional: ar And -the'* ward -system is
Proportional Representation, -.This, method of preferential- votin6', -iihich 1s`d
asigned
to secure majority control and minority representation, is beyond the scope cf this
memo. It was once used in Hopkins, Minnesota but was abandoned after about 10 years
use
(For those who are interested in this, as well as other aspects of tke;,salec-...,
pLr.-ani zat gi;d duties qf--• councils the -'fo'llowin,
s- Oill be of value:
CLC;Son and t-7;aidner,,, Armerican. Citv-,:Government; :Kneier- tv.:Cov' the
States rev. ed.}
urp., The -Go% oZ Am.drIca;-,1 Cit-ies" (4th ed.-)
1 Zink,
Government of Cities in the United States.T.i.......
Revision. &f Ward Boundaries
bard lines should be changed periodically to• ref le'nt� bop S' t in order
to give equality of representation in city councils.. Recent decisions on reappor-
tio�nmci,t.by the. United.Stat '11.
e �Supreme Court regarding the* "bne man con
Fiav -e an effect .on ttie. revision" of ward"boUndaridi.-
s the. f indiners in 'Baker -0. Carr,,. 3 59. 186 and Ids v. Sims 8-4 Sz Ct. 13 6 have been
a s Reviio i _j
pr'eted as applying to local as 'Z' bo died I s 1
0 well as state. goitdrnin n Nichi
court held that equal protection clause of the 'Fourteenth Amdndinent requires .j a
county bqard..of.4!4p.�i;visorS .-,t.o meet .-Ehe 'sama baslc:s�tafidaiil
ad the lesislAt&r'O.
Also '.',see
i iis u,• lef-Elvor and -C-;-t Counci o ta It!rmib e 234 F Siapp. 945 and SE e l f e
ex v. Svlvester. 1 2d •249-. Su of Wisconsin)
Segeral..city charters con prov 0 ..!P
ris 'to 'insVre xegx�lar r� ap ion me nt of
city N .For ins Lance, -the HLnneapolis -'chdrter 'requ •e.: the` read jus tmdnE of
ward Iiouiidaries
within three: months aft�er -each decennial *census according to
aids _del
in,cate ..:Eri e. charter.,. such as population of'-each 'ward must 'Vir
o
p c
mmore tfia;rx. .5 f f rom, the v_qrae; edch,sward mus 'b c 'm act and t
a
Okfici"al`*_ figures must be used. If the city council fails to act, a
boundary commission consisting of the mayor; comptroller and treasurer of the city
readjusts the
r
Ft t:;
TI f
ie provision ;-.n the St. Louis: Park charter. states-. "'Toa boundarit's' th
EOL sh rcdetermined
fm -time to time by' dtdinanccs' adop
th c
and ascd,on f indings of .the 'covntil- that th6-i4a'ards-as"so rtdct'& rmined
are of as mega e'gta size in
decennial census of t'hc'United States, the council shall redetermine ward boundaries,
and if the council shall fail to do so within a period of two years after the official
certification of the decennial: census, no further reaultration shall be paid to the
mayor or councilmen until the wards of the city are duly redetermined as required
by this charter."
Part ?Z
Actual I?rovi ions of �Hnresot.a Charters
The followin- e::cerpts from charters -are illustrative of t'ne variety "of method:,
used in Ni.nuesota cities.
:•1. Crookston (1:61). One councilman from each ward; overlappin terns.
Section 2.04. Elective Officers and Elections. The elective officers of
7..the city shall be mayor, one alderman from each ward in the city, and
two justices of the peace, all of whom shall be qualified electors of the
said city, elected in the manner hereinafter provided. The aldermen shall
be elected for terms of four years by the voters of the respective ward
such alderman represents and he shall serve until his successor is elected
and has qualified. All other elective officers shall be elected for terns
of twa years and until their'successors are elected'and•.have have qualified.
The election of aldermen shall be so arranged that*aldermzn from each odd
numbered ward shall be elected at one regular mun= cipal.election and
aldermen from each even numbered ward shall,be elected at the next reSulzr
municipal election. Terms of elective officers shall begin on the first
Monday of January following the.date of the municipal election when such
officers are elected, An alderman crust be a resident-!of.th-_ ward he
represents on the city council. The City Council shall-consist of the
Mayor and ona alderman-from each ward. The election, qualification znd
terra of office of a municipal judge shall be governed _by the general laws
of the State 'olf .'Mi naesota.
2. Ferars Fads (1936) -T-wo councilcren- from each ward; ove_ terms.
Section 2,01. Councilmen: A'umber:' Selection: Term: The Council shall
be composed of eight (0) Councilmen, two (2) of whore shall be selected
frac� each card for a term of two �(2) years each, except• -as hereinafter
:provided. 'At the first City election held following the adoption of this
Charter, four (4) Councilmen, 'one (1) from each ward shall be elected for
a terni beginning, on the second Tuedday of Apsil•i =ediately following
such election and ending on the last day inclLSive of the second Dacember
thereafter.
At 'the 'second. City election 'following the adoptio of this. charter four (4)
Councilmen, one.from each ward,, shall be•:elected for a..term beginning on
--the-second Tuesday of 4pril icmediately following such election and ending
on the last day-inclusive the second December thereafter. each and
every City election thereafter, four (4) •Councilmen; one (1) from each
ward, shall be elected for two (2) yeer. terms. Each alderman .shall serve
until his successor is. elected and qualified.
2.02.•- Cualifications: A. member of the Council stall be a qualifies'
elector of the ward which he represents and shall hold no other public
office incompatible with the office of Councilman.
3. Uest St. Paul. (1162). Two aldermen from each ward; non- ovcrlappirg terms.
Section. 2,03.. Elective Officers. The shell be composed of a
mayor•.and six (6) .aldermen. The Mayor, ;Iunicipzl Judge and Constable
shall be qualified electors and shall be elected at large. Two (2)
eldermcn shall, be elected.; fro.n. each aldern inic district and shall be
qualificd electors. The Mayor, Ald-irn, an and the Constable shall be elected
for terms .of. .tt';o'_(2) years`.and the _;.un cipal Jud -e for a term of six (6)
years
•1+; -Coon Rapid (1959, :amended-.1961) One councilman rroca eaeh.izartl; one
councilman at large; overlapping terms.
The••I95 ezmeudment -to Section 2:03 .provides for 'a mayor and::one.councilman
to be elected at large in altercate years (for terr:s of 2 years) for
;•t three. councilmen to be elected, ont from each of three wards '-for staggered
,:ntcrms (for. terms• of 3 years) and 'for••the.city- to -be divided into three
_.t -wards
5:..; Glencoe (1957). ,•One councilman from: each ..ward; one councilman large;
_,,Section 2 ;OI. Elective .Officers; •.The :clectivd officers. of the City of
Glencoe shall themselves ba 'qualified =voters of rue City of Glencoe and
.:r•.shall•b.e elected by-the-mote. of the qualified voters of said::city and.
consiat of •a.Iin Alderman a resident' of; eac'n ':wa3zd, one
Al.aerman at_Lax ;e, d 1•lunieipal Judge; and a Spacial Munici ial Judge.
-Section 2; .Q5.•- .Ternr.•:of'Office.•••The term of off ice 'of;thc`x:unicipal.
-;-Judge .andrSpacial iunicipal'Jud;e shall be .fo& years:• -:ThQ terra of o
:.of -the •liayor -.and Aldermen shall .be. two yews, e cape that the term of the
;first Alderman .at Large .elected hereunder' shell• ba for "o -year only and
tvo years in order that thereditcr the Mayor and Alde_ -an
at Large shall be elected in alternate 'years 'The 'term of office of
appointive officers, e.ccept Co=, ission manxbers, shall not exceed two years;
arld;:tezms ;of all :such appointive offices shrill 'a::nJre .wit'a filie terry of
the 2.2ayor. The term of office of each officer elected hereunder shall
comAance.,or_' the -first =day of April in the year. he wjjs elected.
All ;affxcers_i. both,:Qlective and appoizitive. shall: ho•1d' Off ice •lUntil their
su�cessoxs. are elected or �aointed and qualified,' Ehec *_ive 'officers those
.1c- ::terms have.•not ai .pired.at. the .time. of the first' election following the
zdbption of this Ciiarterr; hail col hue for Bold office to the e�:piration
r•of ,thq:_tc_cm for Vhich or ginally..elected.
6. Northfield (1961). One councilman from each ward; thrce councilman-
ant-large; ovezlapping tares.
Elective. •Officers •.:The•. -2• shall 'bc composed of a mayor
si:: wlio •shall, be. qualified: �eladtors`. •One councilman shall
be elected ;from each •,aru.-and threw coup ci1men -shall be elected at large.
E h epuncitlman s1ia11 serve Isar, a term-of three pears 'ai d. until. his
success
ar is, elected.:and. qualifies:, excccpt :tlia.t et 'the• first�'electior held
after the adoption; of :th::s charter the candidate. for courci.lman at 1a.ge
from the first ward shall serve for one year, the candidate for council
i x7pn a t. j4rgo ;.from. the'- s fond: ward shall serve for C w o.; S eaxs -the c andidat e
for. cou::cilrigri at. larg from the.- third..T.:ard shall•serve':fbZ three years.
The candidate .for'..couacilmnn at.•iarge .having. -the highest •numibcr of votes
shall serva for three years, the r candidate for councilman at large
h:1VLrl& r -t ip nc-t •hi,7�heSti vumb,-r, of'..vo�les s hall..3z=: %rp 'fcx. two; Y- arse and
the next candidate for councilmae at large having the nest highest number
,.Of.- F:� l serv._a :for Year.:: The r t^yor. aha11 serve for a teres of
,,two- ycars .cad:uatii taia, suc.cesser is elected h:i�I qualifies;
7'; (1951) Two. councilmen from each ward; one councilman- at- laL -e;
cvcrlappin- terms.
Section Elective Officers. The elective Officers of the city shall
be the mcnbcrs of the council,. includin3 the mayor, and two justices of
the peace all of whom shall'be ouaZifiedi. electors of said city. The -mayor
shall hold his office for the terra of two: years and the alderneru shall
hold their offices for the term of four years, all commencing on
January 2nd, ne:.t following their election and until their successors are
elected and qualified except that at'the first election held after the
adoption of this amendment, the candidate for alderman.in each ward havinJ
the highest number of votes- shall serve for four _rears, and the.candidate
in each ward having the nest hi -hest number of votes shall serve for two
years and the alderman at lsroe shall serve for two years. The justicM of
the peace shall hold their respective offices fo: the term of two years,
commencing on January 2nd, ne::t following their election and until their
successors are elected and qualified.
Section 9. Council. The council shall be composed of the -mayor and five
aldermen, two of which aldermen shall be elected by and from the electors
of each ward of said city respectively, and who shall be bona fide residents
of their respective wards and residents of the city for a four year period
ta:,payers and qualified voters, and one alder-mar. to be elected by and
from the electors of said city at large.' The mayor shall have no vote
in the proceedings in said council e: :cep- in the case of a tie vote.
C..: Detroit s aces (1959) Two councilmen from each x:ard; three councilmen -at-
large; overlapping terms.
Sectioa 3.a1_ Elective Officers. The elective officers of the city shall
be a mayor, nine aldermen, a judge, a special judge of the municipal court
and.two Justices of the Peace. Of the nine aldermen, two shall be elected
*from each ward and three at large. The Justices or the Peace shall be
elected for term; of two years until such a time as the office is abolished
pursuant to IaW. All elective officers shall be,qualified-electors of the
city or ward from which they 'are elected, and all elective 'officers holdinG
office when this Amended Charter takes effect shall co =ntinue in office
until the terms for which they have been elected have expired.' Except
as provided herein, the mayor and aldermen shall hold their for four
Years, and the judge and special judge of Municipal Court shall hold their
office for terms as provides by law. All elective-officers shall continue
in office until.their successors have been elected and qualified.
At the first biennial election following the adoption of this Amended
Charter,•the mayor and nine aldermen, ttto from each ward and three at lar -e,
shall be -elected for terns beginning March first i=ediately following such
election, the -eras of which, under the present city charter:, expire on
'said date.
At the said first biennial election the alderman receiving the highest numler
of votes in each ward shall be elect._d for a terms of four years, and? the
alderman from each ward receivin the second hig..est number of votes shall
be elected fora term of two years.
At said first biennial election the alderman receiving the highest number
of vote.; for alderman at large shah be elect--d for a .term of four years
and the alderman receiving the second and third highest number of votes for
aldermen at large shah be elected for terms of two years.
I
At the said first biennial election two Justices of the Peace shall be
elected for terms` beoinnin� April 'first inn!ediately follo:iiti�'sucli election,
the terms of whicla* under the present cliar'ter, 'erpire`.o'ci said date.
At' the *third bicnnial' election folloiYing the of" this Amended
Charter,: the` Judges ind "special 'Judge` �of the Huhici,a •Court shall be
:.elcCt fox terms beCi.nriing March ',first i=nediately' follot;in-, such clec-
Ition, the tern of the•.present Municipal .7ualge e };p ring`on said date.
'A tFje ;second biennial election tTzhe sfzall be elected orie `a cIernan from
.e srcF: ward and trio aldermen at Iar�e; all for- terms of four years At
every electioa thereat ter all: eiective officES s;zal =be filled as the
••tergLi of the officexs'
exp_
James'. G:• Cohe
Resea'rc?i' Assis
Lo•.cise fud rlin;
:Research .Assistant
Revised':• May, 1965
L-Kjea t
Rev:.
M ''!1965
140c .I
Part III
Council Comno.ition and :?athod of Election in Minnesota Cities
Yotcs:
In the first column, the: fi urc followin- the rame'.is the 1960 populatipn.
In the second column, wards that serve only as elektion districts are marked
with a double asterisk
In the third column, if the total number of councilmen is one morn "than the
:total of the other columns, the mayor is included as a member of the council, with
voting pourers unless marred by an asterisk The asterisk denotes thz ;t' tea
_mayor votes only in case of a tie.
rIn the columns "EJ.ected at Large" and "Terms", the number does not include file
mayor.'
In the last column, A' means means annual election and "B" means biennial election.
A. Cities Gperatin7 Under Home Rule Charters
Cities over No. of ho. of Elected Elected Terri .'Time of
20,000 [la=ds Councilmen by [lards at Lar *e "I Ye a r S E lection
:Austin 3 8 6 I 4 ()ardh} B
(27, 903) 2
Bloomin3ton• 7 6 4 B
(50,495)
;Crystal 4 7 4 2 3 B
(24,233)
Duluth S 9 S 4' 4. B
(1b6,3o4)
,Yznkato 7 6 A A
(23,797) r
Minneapolis -13 13 13 2 -B
(432,372)
Xoorhead 4 9* ....8 4 B
(22,934)
Richfield 5 4 3 A
(42,523)
Rochester 6• ....7 5 1 A
(40, 663) 7t
St Cloud 4 7 7 .4: A .yrs
(33,615)
St. Lour Park 4 7 4 2 4 B
(43,310)
1. Mayor has no votin- power.
i
2. One elected from wards 1 and 2, file other by ward:, 3 and 4.
3. list be one fro-.n each ward.
St': Paul
22
i
6
2 B
'�-'t uar;:e
(Years) Election
S 411)
So. St. Paul
3
6
1
2 B
(22,032)
Cities from
I30 of
No. of
Elected
Elected
Tarm Time of
10,000
Wards
Councilmen
by Wards
at Tare.
(Years) Election
'...Albert Lea-. ..6•_
4.•
:s. 6::....
4'. B
(17, 1.00)
Anoka
3
5
4
4 B
(10,562)
•Brame
i
t d
:.5:
Il
10
t
j1' `8, ;B
4: B
(17,533)
Coon Rapids
:5
3
"1
3: ?ard.) A
Faribault
4*
5
4
2 B
(16,926)
S.
'Fers'ds* Falls
-4.
9'^
B
2, 4
(13,733)
Fridley
-;3'
L_
3 A
(15
Hopkins
5
4
2 B
(11,370)
c,
_Vc.* Ulzu
4
...._._.B.
:O;a�to:�;�aC
5
2
2 tlards) B
(13,409)
Red Win;
4
9
t3
1
2' I=ii
(10,52G)
,Roobinsdal�
4
5
4
2 =8
(16 ,31)
Vir -inia
6
9
6
3
4 B
(14
Mast St. Paul
3
7
6
2 B
(13,101)
1- hite Bear Lake
5
6
5
s
3 P
Wi Ilnzr
4
4 3
(10
•Citiar. from
•5,000- 10,000
Alc;candri a
(6,713)
Bemidji
(9,950)
No. oil-
Wards
5
No. of
Elected
Elected
Terra Time of
Council l=ien
bv" [.'ards
'�-'t uar;:e
(Years) Election
4. Mayor cannot 4ote on m.-zoure he has vetoed.
Blaine
4
2
A
(7 570)
Chisho? rd
5
11
IO
2'.
B
(7,144)
t
Crookston
8
9�
8
4'_
B
(G,546).
Detroit Lakes
3
10*
6
3
4-
B
(5,633)
El
3
7
6.
2
A
(5,433)
Eveleth
6
5
f 4
3
A.
(5,721)
Fairmont
4
9*
8
4
B
(9,745)
Eas tin. -s
4
9
8
4
E
(3, 9 6 5)
Hutchinson
5
4
2.
A
(6,207)
Int' 1 Falls
3
7
6
1
2
A
(6,770)
Litchfield
3
7*
6
2'.
A
(5,070)
Little Falls
.4
9
3
1
4
B'
(7,551)
Montevideo
5
B
(5, 693)
Northfield
3.
7
3
3
3
A
(0,707)
Pipestone
2*
5
4
2,
A
(5,324).
Stillwater
3'=
5
4
'4
B
(0
Uaseca
3
7
6
1
2.
A
(5,398)
Worthington
2
6y
4
I
2
A
Cities under
No. of
No. of
Elected
Elected
Term
Time of
5,000
Wards
Councilmen
by Wards
at Lame
{Years)
Election
Ada r
2
u
4
3
B
(2;064).
Arlin
6
3
A
(1,601)
Barnesville
3
7*
6
B
(1, 632)
Benson
4
is
A
(3, 673)
6
Biwabik
•5
Z for
2
A
1' for
3
Bluc Earth
3
.2
A
(4,200)
Br--ckenrid -a
3
7*
6
4
B
(4,335)
Browcrvi llc
5
3
3
A
(744)
5. Mayor rotes on
policy
quLstions but
only in ca
3f- tie oil
le illative matters.
6 Yncltidon e- ln: t.
r..1.n a
Canby
2
5
4
4 S.
2 145
Cannon palls
6
6
2
(2,055)'
ChatficId'
6''
5
4 B
(1,341)
3
4
3 7
Dawson
2
Fraser
5
4
A
Gaylord
6
-5
3
.z
2 fo.
2 A
Gilbert
5
r
yeax f
(22591)
1 for
3 ..years
i"
Glencoe
4
6�-
4
1
A
2
(3,216):
Glenwood:
5
4
4 B
(2,631)
Granite Falls
2
5_
3
1
A
'(2,723)
Ja chs on
3
6x
3
2
2 A
(3,370)
?.a ke City
2
5
4
2. A-
(3,494)
Lake Crystal
5�.
4
4} B'
Luverne
2
5*
4
4
(4, 249)
radison
3E
7^
6 g
4 B
(2,330}
Wton a Beach
5
3 for
3 years A
(544)
rec dcr
5
4
4 B
(4,199)
Qrtonville
2
3�'
4
3
(2,674)'
Redwood Falls
3
5
3
1
4' B
(4,235)
&envi l .e
..6�
...w
2
-1 (•lads) A
(1,373)
2 (t'�t. L.).
{1,335-
St James
2
6*
4
1
4 O dards) B
(4,174)
i
2, LG.)
Saul: Cantre
5
5
2. A
(3,573)
Sleepy Eye
2
6
4
1
f::�:
c (I•Iard) B
Springfield
2
6�-
4
1
2 A
(2,701)
Staples •:o'
2
c
6'' y
4
l
2 B
(2,706)
6. Includes clerk who is a member and has
a tiro -year term.
7. Mu st be one
£rcm eaca ,zard.
3. Ilards are not expressly provided for in the
charter.
9. Must be two
from each ward.
10. Mayor votes
pt nc::t meeting on questions on
thick vote eras
a ti:�
11. riayor Oas no voting power.
Tower
5.
4
2
4
Trac
2 Hatbors
Two 4
7
4�
3,
2
B
(4,695)
Wabashn 3
7
6
2
A
.(2,500)
Warren
5
4'
2
B
(2,037)
j
t:ayzata
S
•4
3
A
(3,219)
Windom 2
6h
4
1
4
B
(3,691)
a
W:Lnthrop
note: This information is
taken
city charters. Since some
charters.
allow the council to
increase the number of
wards by ordinance or
resolution and thereby increase the nu,
of councilmen,
this
information may not
correspond
to present circumstances.
3
Each city is permitted to determine the number of curds which it will have.
C
B.
Cities Cncratini
Under Special
Charters
or Gencral Acts
t
Special No.
of
No. of
Elected
Elected
Term'
Tirne of
Charter or Wards
Council-
by Ilards
at Large
j. Elec-
General
men
,tion
Citv
Act
Marshall
Laws IC70,
3--
5
.6
A
Ch. 31
_'MontSomery`
Waterville
`-Shal ;opee
Sp. Lae:a 1575,
5
5
4
A
Ch. 6
St. Charles
Sp. Laws 1GU79,
5
4
'1
A
Ch. 57
tlinona.,,
Sp. Laws 1007,
4
9
3.
1
4 Wards B
Ca. 5
2 at Lam.
Chaska
Sp. Laws 1391,
3
9
9
2
B
Ch, 2
Henderson
Sp. Laws 1391,
5
4
2
A
Ch. 3.
Le Sueur
Sp Laws 1091
5
5
3
A
Ch. 45
Jordan
Sp. Laws 1091,
2
7
6
1
2
B
'Ch. 4
New PraOue
Sp. Laws 1391,
2
5
4
.1
2
A
Ch. 46
St. Peter
Sp. Laws 1391,
2
6
6
3
A
Ch. 5
37
p
Cloquet
Lawa I895,
(Varies) (Varies) 3
from 2 to
3 2
B
Ch, u
Pach ward
E. Grand
Forks
Melrose
Red Lake
Falls
Thief River
Falls
12
No. Mankato
Laws 1921,
Not less (caries) 2
from 1
2..
B
Ch. 462
than 2
each ward
Waconia
Each city is permitted to determine the number of curds which it will have.
C
?-PCGKLYN CENTER CHARTER COXXISSION
ANNUAL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 1988
7 P. X.
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Kueng at 7:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Allen Anderson, Marie Castle, Benjamin Chatelle, Ron Christensen, Edward
Commers, Donn Escher, Mary Heitzio, Tony Kuefler, Dennis Kueng, John
Lescault, Jean Schiebel, Barb Sexton
Members absent and excused: Mona Hintzman, Everett Lir_dh, Neal Smeaton
Also present: Phil Cohen
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Ben Chatelle, seconded by Allen Anderson to approve the minutes of November 18,
1987, as submitted. Passed unanimously.
ANNUAL REPORT
Motion by Tony Kuefler, seconded by Jean Schiebel, that the Annual Repart be ar_ce_oted as
mailed. Motion passed unanimously.
AUDIT REPORT
Motion by Allen Anderson, seconded by Tony Kuefler, that the Audit Report be accepted as
mailed. Passed unanimously.
BOMINATIRG COXMITTEE REPORT
Ben Chatelle, chair of the nominating committee, reported the following nominations:
Chairperson: Mary Heitzig; Vice Chairperson: Donn Escher; Secretary: Barbara Sext
Chairman Kueng asked three times for additional nominations and none were made. Mary Heit
then chaired the meeting.
APPOINTMEflTS
Jean Schiebel was appointed Audit Chairman. Ed Commers was appointed Public Relations
Chairperson. Neil Smeaton will be contacted to serve as Rules Parliamentarian.
I 1
V r
d
OLD BUSINESS
,nr Drn a n:
A letter from Charles LeFevere, cit7 attorney, was read. He saw no problem with the propose
language 'changes. M.ai lin l g of notices, agendas, and minutes are not required unless requeste
by an organization or individual. He also stated that when an issue arises which warrants
greater public notice, that most public bodies provide for whatever notice it believes is
best to inform those people and /or organizations; having a maintained list of those people
organizations in the city would be most helpful in situations such as this.
Study of Ward Sv tam:
John Lescauit introduced the ward system. He feels a councilmember should be accountable to
citizens in his area. Candidates for office would represent their area. Ben Chateile stated
that Brooklyn Center has 30,000 people and that a city of this size does not need a ward
system. If you don't get along with your representative, you're dead. (Examples: U.S.
Congress and City of Minneapolis.) Ron Christensen said that the ward system is divisive.
Tony Kuefler stated that Brooklvn Center is the size of a Minneapolis ward. Jean Schiebel
said the city was big enough and stated that the City of St. Peter (population of 10,000) ha
had two wards some years back. Dennis Kueng asked, "Does it do a better job for the citizen
of Brooklyn Center Tany Kuefler said that ward systems pit one ward against another.
Marie Castle asked. "What would be a suggested division of the city Dann Escher who serve
an Brooklyn Center's ori.ginal'Charter Commission, said that at that time far each argument
for the ward system, there was an argument against it. In depth research is needed. John
Lescault stated that there was no competition for office; there was a 20% annual turnover in
the city's apartments, and voter lethargy among apartment dwellers.
Chair Mary Heitzig .stated that the committee an the ward system should check .structure of
cities of like size to Eraaklvn Center and ien.gth of time with the ward system. She
appointed Ed Commers as chair or the study committee, and John Lescault, Barb Sexton, Tony
Kuefler, and Marie Castle. Ed Cammers will check over material in the car mission's files an
the ward system for timeliness, then material will be mailed out to all commissioners.
NEV BUSINESS
Motion by Dennis Kueng, seconded by Donn Escher that Carole Blowers' pay be raised to $12.50
per hour. Motion carried unanimously.
NEXT MEETING DATE
The next Charter Commission meeting will be held an Wednesday, March 30, 1988, at 7 P.M.
The sub committee an the ward system will give a preliminary report.
ADJOURIMNT
Motion by John Lescault, seconded by Dennis Kueng to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 P.M.
Chair: Mary Heitzig
Secretary: Barb Sexton
R e ectf ully submitted,
Barbara Sexton, Secretary
(Typed by Carole glowers, Administrative Assistant)
-2-
1 -27 -88
TO: All Charter Commission Members
FROM: Carole Blowers, Administrative Assistant 04
DATE: February 1, 1988
RE: Summary of Study of Ward vs. At Large System done in 1976
I have been asked to provide you with the attached information.
In summary, in reviewing my files at home, this subject was brought up
for discussion by R. Forstrom and D. Kanatz at the January 21, 1976
Charter Commission meeting. See item "A" which states their arguments
for a ward system along with a pro and can sheet on both systems.
The Charter Commission's Executive Committee met and decided to form
three study groups for this issue. Each group was assigned a specific
area of concern. See item "B" (memo from Chairman Dorff to Commission
dated 1- 29 -76).
Enclosed are final reports from each study group. Item "C" is from
group I, item "D" is from group II, and item "E" is from group III.
I have enclosed item "F" which is a statement made by the Citizens for
Better Government on this issue. I am uncertain if it was written in
1975 or 1976 as it is not dated.
Two public hearings were held on this matter.
A handwritten note in my file written by Dorff (Chairman) dated 9 -15 -76
stated:
1. There are good arguments for both ward and at large systems.
2. All communities and individuals interviewed liked their system.
3. All present and former council members except one preferred our at
large system.
4. Greater need for a change must exist to change our system.
I am also attaching for your review copies of any minutes which
pertained to this issue.
If I can be of any further help, please contact me at 560 -0421. Thank
you.
Attachments
k
TO: Brooklyn Center Charter Commission Received by Henry Dorff
FRAM: Richard J. Forstrom and David Kanatz February 12, 1976
RE: Ward System of Electing Councilmen
At your January 21, 1976 meeting you requested that we put our arguments for
a ward system in writing, which we have tried to do here. During your meeting we
observed that there were a few questions on some complicating features or other
considerations that might arise. For example, how many wards shall there be?
What do we do with the problem of two legislative districts? Who shall draw the
boundaries? How and when will the conversion take place? These are good questions
that must be explored and answered: however, they are of a smaller importance than
"Shall we have a ward system In general, these peripheral questions should be
approached after we answer the basic question. We are prepared to address these
other issues, but here we will confine ourselves to presenting the pros and'cons
of ward and at -large elections.
BACKGROUND
In researching this issue, it does not take long to deduce there is little
information we can use to aid in the decision. In fact, Professor Backstrom,
Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, says there is no data and
no scientific basis for making a decision. It appears, then we must use our own
opinion, prejudices, and guesses. Because the character of each city is different,
a comparison with other cities may not be overly fruitful,- but it will be worth
the effort.
Since we will find no factual basis for our decision, it seems that, even though
you and the Council might accept this proposal, it still should be presented to the
public for a vote. Our opinions are no better than other citizens. Thus, we
request that your review and findings be completed so that the public may vote on
this issue in November, 1976.
The original idea behind our proposal was generated from the fact that
although many citizens that we contacted before the last city election!were willing
to serve on the Council, and we felt that these people would make good councilmen,
they felt the problems of campaigning city -wide would be insurmountable. After
reviewing the issue in more depth, we feel there are many good arguments favoring
a ward system.
n
WARD SYSTEM
PRO
1. It is cheaper and easier to campaign
in one ward than city -wide. (Brooklyn
Center is about 25% larger than our
primary legislative district 45B based
on registered voters.)
2. Easier to attract candidates
(Follows from #1)
3. There is a better chance to know
your councilman
4. Greater accountability (Easier to
follow the actions of one councilman
instead of four)
5. City government is more accessible.
(Follows from #3)
6. Councilman may have a smaller constit-
uency to keep in touch with.
7. Residents have more of a sense of
participation. (An item with no
factual basis)
8. Better minority representation
political, economic, social ethnic
and religious. (Sections of the city
with a large fraction of, for e-mmple,
senior citizens, have a better chance
to elect a representative.)
9. Council will have a better cross
section of the population (No factual
basis, it may follow from 8)
10. A shorter, simpler ballot (You vote
for 1 of 2 instead of 2 of 4)
CON
May have no good candidates in a
particular ward.
Voter influence is limited to his
councilman.
Councilmen have little impact on service
complaints. (Due to manager /council
form of government)
Councilmen complain that constituent
complaints and requests are time
consuming. (That is one of their duties.)
Voter's range of choice is limited.
11. Smaller chance of one party control.
(Political scientists "think" no
factual basis that this is true
especially in non partisan contests.)
A"
WARD SYSTEM
PRO
12. Ward, and thug geographic, interests
protected. (Here, clearly, we must
look at the character of the city.
Except for the S.E. portion of the
city, there are few ward interests.
Perhaps, the ward which contains the
Industrial Park would have a
particular interest. We feel this
argument and the counter arguments
are of little value in Brooklyn
Center.)
(Continued)
CON
Encourages localism, poor representation
of city -wide interests. (Virtually all
issues in Brooklyn Center are city -wide
interests.)
Gerrymandering could occur, difficult
to set boundaries reflecting neighbor-
hoods, wards eventually become unequal
in number of voters. (These are admin-
istrative problems, similar to legisla-
tive districts, which are of little
importance.)
No guarantee of equality of power and
influence for each councilman. (No
guarantee with present system either.)
Trading of votes in return for favors
could thwart will of the majority.
(There are few or no favors to be
considered in Brooklyn Center)
Wards are the building blocks upon which
political machines are built. (This no
longer is a concern because the manager/
council plan prevents the "spoils"
system.)
Less prestige than that of at -large
councilman. (No basis for this claim.)
Chance of incumbent defeat greater.
(No factual basis- however, this only a
disadvantage to the incumbent, not the
voter.)
f
AT -LARGE SYSTEM
PRO
1. Council makes decisions and policy for
the entire city; therefore, councilmen
should be accountable to the entire
city. (Conclusion doesn't follow
from the premise. Besides, the best
guess is accountability.is easier to
obtain with a smaller constituency.)
2. Same constituency for all councilmen.
Ch
Lack of accountability, neighborhood
interests not well protected.
3. Some areas may have several qualified Sacrifices minority interests and
candidates, so "at- large" broadens candidates.
elective opportunity. (Probably true)
4. Each citizen should have the right to
vote for each councilman.
5. Eliminates trading of votes. (Votes
still could be traded on city -wide
issues)
6. Prevents election of persons of
narrow vision interested in only one
area of the city. (No area has any
particular interest.)
7. Discourages development of ward
politics. (No longer are ward
politics, even is they develop, a
concern because of the mangLger/
council system.)
8. Lessens fragmentation on council.
(No factual basis)
More burden on citizen to decide on
more than once candidate.
Costs more to win campaign, so influen-
tial and affluent run. (Premise correci
conclusion has no factual basis.)
No one to run against specifically.
Limits the type of campaign. More
chance to run a "popularity contest"
rather. than an issue campaign but
no factual basis for this.)
Incumbents stay in office longer.
Suggests accountability harder to
achieve.)
ig
From: H. A. Dorff
Subject: Report to the Charter Commission
Tot Charter Commission Members
January 29, 1976
Per instruction from the commission at our last meeting of Wednesday,
January 21, 1976 the Executive Committee met on January 27 and determined that we
approach the study of a ward system in. Brooklyn Center by assigning specific
areas of- concern to each of the present study groups I, II, and III. The chairper-
sons and membership of each of the groups are to remain the same as previously set
up.
It was also decided that each of the three chairpersons, I Henry Dorff,
II Vi Ranatz, and III Ed Theisen will submit a written report to all commissioners
one week prior to our next meeting scheduled for February 25, 1976. This report is
to cover details of their respective group meetings. Barbara Sexton will type and
mail each report if you send or deliver it to her.
The assignments are:
Group I
1. How do we go about setting up a ward system and what are the legal
requirements?
2. Also research of election campaigns for successful and unsuccessful
candidates in communities with wards as well as those without wards.
Group II
1. Research the pros and cons of a ward,system in Brooklyn Center.
i
2. Contact local elected officials as well as the city manager for their
response to a ward system versus an at large system.
Group III
1. Contact and interview managers, administrators and elected officials
of adjacent communities to get their feeling of ward versus non -ward
system. Both ward and non -ward communities should be contacted.
i
Henry. Dorff
rr Wednesday Air ;1 21, 1976
L
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP I SUMMARY REPORT
WARD SYSTEM NON WARD SYSTEM
After analyzing the statistical data accumulated in
the two schedules. attached to this-report the consensus
of this Committee is that the figures do not reveal any
notable evidence that: one system is- .better than another
Our conclusions follow:
A. Recorded' campaign costs of candidates for
office do not appear to be' appreciably less
in communities where ward systems are in
effect. It depends largely on the competition
for office.
B. The incumbent candidate has the advantage
in either ward or non -ward communities.
C. Regardless of the system in effect in a
community those contacted supported the
system they have, whether ward,..non -ward
or combination of each. j
D. Use of a wand system does not appear to
encourage more filings for office:.
E. Overlapping boundaries wards, districts,
precincts, etc. contribute to vo;.er confusion
and additional expense for the community.
STUDY GROUP 111EY -BERS
Henry A.Dotiff, Chairman
James Gillen, Vice- Chairman
Cheryl Asplund
Mildred Hendrickx
Barbara Swart.
J AI
Tn
01
ca
oEb
0 44
1 s-d
.f
getaa
t 1"" eit4 Lt+� oa►1+S
Oil 04
a
1SH"
-w,
01Si .„o... yy►a5
+vw I
Q1 fs t •Jq°
olho 11 v�+t t no
lot
al
vQ
s a a� 1
all
o•Vh 5� ^fir a vw
h L
tow 0 Opt
ti
y o7b pv�t •tMt r
4199 �yti�j'`a^►
w�SNa� ovo� vYb tS
�w� 0
.01� 1P0'i
DO Vo
C
MEMO TO: Henry A. Dorff, Chairman
Brooklyn Center Charter Commission
FROM: R. J. Schieffer, City Attorney
RE: Charter Amendments
Changes have been made recently in the Charter Amendment
process. The memorandum which you received from Blair Tremere
some years ago is no longer accurate. I have attached to this memo
a copy of the current law. Note that I have added typewritten material
to the copy since the Revisor of Statutes omitted a line from the text.
The correction is taken from Minnesota Statutes Annotated which is
published by West Publishing Co. by arrangement with the State of
Minnesota.
To summarize the law, the methods of amending the Charter
are as follows:
1. The Charter Commission may propose amendments
to be submitted to the voters.
2. Petitioners numbering 516 of the total votes cast in
the last previous election (registered voters only) may petition
for an amendment which the Charter Commission is required
to then submit to the voters.
3. An amendment proposed by either one or two, above,
may be submitted by the Charter Commission to .the City Council
rather than to the voters.. The City Council may then enact the
amendment by a unanimous vote after public hearings and public
notice.
R. J. S.
January 26, 1976
rmg
o f a nv n ew s f wo
sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change I
ment is-'Songirt -to be accomplished by the amendment. The summary, to
'With a,.kopy of proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to e a
comrrifssion for Its approval as to form and substance. the commission I
i Imission to it,, return the same to the J�
th uch modifications In statement as it may deem 'necessary
order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set fortIL
Subd Ia. Alternative methods of charter amendment. A home rule c
may vx ,00co only DY following one of the alternative methods of
,f
^~��a"�`"^=" """^p�00000cro not all be- w
t o one paper but t o each
J"� t circulator thereof as provide by this section
his si gn his name i n in or inde pe a sha
tify the p^="= There shall a p p ea r each pe t he nam and add
a n d on each paper the names and addresses of the same
e lec to rs who as a committee of the p etitioners shall be regarded as resporuftk' 7�
circulatio a filin g t h e pe titio n. T he a ff ida vi t
shall beuafollows:
r Stat o f
County
duly sworn, deposes and says tb��Ie, mud��
bum
Ir
410-11 CITIES; CLASSMCATION, CHARTERS
may in addition thereto publish the notice. In any other legal newspaper pablMd-,
in the city.
Subd. 3. The ballot shall bear the printed words, "Shall the proposed am
charter be adopted? Yes—No," with a square after each of the last.two Werft
in which the voter may place a cross to express his choice. If any part of r-xt:
charter be submitted in the alternative, the ballot shall be so printed as to per=
the voter to indicate his preference in any instance by Inserting a cross In Ut
Subd. 4. If any charter so submitted be rejected the charter commirs',on =3.
propose others from time to time until one is adopted.
410.11 ADOPTION; NOTICE, EFFECTIVE DATE. If 51 percent of the
cast on the proposition are in favor of the proposed charter, It shall be considerM
adopted; and, if any provisions thereof are submitted In the alternative, thm
ra
tifled by a majority of the votes cast thereon shall prevail. If the charter W
adopted, the city clerk shall file with the secretary of state, the ro. gister of d4eeft ol"
the county in which the city lies, and In his own office a copy of the charter sr.
compariled b
date of the election and the vote by which the charter was adopted. The charW
shall take effect 30 days after the election, or at such other time as Is fixed In tbi
charter, and shall then supersede all other charter provisions relating to such cily..
L T
Thereupon the courts shall take judicial notice of the new charter and, upon thw
election of officers thereunder, the o
officials of t
to them the records, money and other public property in their control.
410.12 AMENDMENTS. Subdivision I.' Proposals. The charter commBdin
may propose amendments to such charter and shall do so upon the petidan of
voters equal in number to five p
percent of t
state general election in the city. If the city has a system of permanent registratto
of voters, only registered voters are eligible to si- the petition/Ml petittBtf
g n
circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character atd
shall have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; exL
that in the case of a proposed amendment coniaining more than 1,000 words, a
true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city clerk, and the petittm
shall then contain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words
se tft
forth in substance the nature of the proposed amendment. Such summary Shia
contain a statement of the objects and purposes of the amendment proposed and..
"U"
ou 4
sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change I
ment is-'Songirt -to be accomplished by the amendment. The summary, to
'With a,.kopy of proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to e a
comrrifssion for Its approval as to form and substance. the commission I
i Imission to it,, return the same to the J�
th uch modifications In statement as it may deem 'necessary
order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set fortIL
Subd Ia. Alternative methods of charter amendment. A home rule c
may vx ,00co only DY following one of the alternative methods of
,f
^~��a"�`"^=" """^p�00000cro not all be- w
t o one paper but t o each
J"� t circulator thereof as provide by this section
his si gn his name i n in or inde pe a sha
tify the p^="= There shall a p p ea r each pe t he nam and add
a n d on each paper the names and addresses of the same
e lec to rs who as a committee of the p etitioners shall be regarded as resporuftk' 7�
circulatio a filin g t h e pe titio n. T he a ff ida vi t
shall beuafollows:
r Stat o f
County
duly sworn, deposes and says tb��Ie, mud��
bum
Ir
Ir
t
CHM; CLASSMCATION, CHARTERS 410AZ
lor.. pub11s&^4 '10-fts after such submission to It, return the same to the proposers of the
pasonally circulated the foregoing paper, that all the signatures appended
oposed'I'Mi were made In his presence, and that he believes them to be the genuine
two of the persons whose names they purport to be.
)MLft f
VIP Signed..'
33 t.O
(Signature ot Circulator) 4
_I%= tzk J*
and sworn to before me
...day of 19..-
AiSSIC6 12 f lbtuy Public (or other officer)
7
'Oftrized to administer oaths
art S
foregoing affidavit shall be strictly construed and any affiant convicted of
falsely as regards any particular thereof shall be punishable in accord-
of the va� existing law.
li T SIX 3. May be assembled as one petition. All petition papers for a proposed
ative.. thm shall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instru-
c h arter
lNot Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the
Of deeds
derk shall determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested
charter it"J!
Ud whether the petition is signed by a sufficient number of voters. The city clerk
I g *A LAW declare any petition paper entirely Invalid which Is not attested by the cir-
rhe I n ow, thereof as required in this section. Upon completing his examination of
dxed In OR i-.; 7
the city clerk shall certify the result of his examination to the council.
*��z`ffbvshall certify that the petition is insufficient he shall set forth In his certificate
d upon *W
e a particulars in which it Is defective and shall at once notify the committee of
deftwAr:'. of his findings. A petition may be amended at any time within
after the making of a certificate of Insufficiency by the city clerk, by filing
toWlementary petition upon additional papers signed and filed as provided in
comniLl 4. an' t an original petition. The city clerk shall within five days after suelt
1,MAS filed, make examination of the amended petition, and if his certificate
petiti(a.it show the petition still to be insufficient, he shall file it in his office and notify
st'
-e-gistrats* committee of the petitioners of his findings and no further action shall be had
a pet
Law xM c3ch insufficient petition. The finding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not
tracter avo adIce the filing of a new petition for the same purpose.
ull; emic"t
9*4 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a
0 words. a,
or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The
th r Am of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the
0
3rds ymsdon on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to
e
bftary sbaR dW#guish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same
OPbsed �Ma* 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are In favor of its adoption,
and AT. 0iViis of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the
:13y, govittl
charterand the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of
.47 Wdection at such o ther time as is fixed in the amendment
A
S. Amendmenii by council. The council of any city having a ;F
hAU with*
nde qharter may propose. charter amendments to the voters by ordinance.
!cessary f* posing sudS anamendment shall be submitted to the charter com-
ce pro
i set
ays. 1,here4ftqr, the charter commission shall review the pro
i*, dbarta. amendment but before the expiration of such period the comn may ex-
L73rdz
Vine for review.4qr-an- additional 90 days by Ming with the city clerk its
n det&m1fiffig thaf an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing
�11k'jto'posiK affi6ftdment _tbe charter commission shall approve or reject the pro-
ai�efiCfmi substitute amendment The commission shall prompt-
ch n3tify the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter commission's
rAiLs na" 400n, the council may submit to the people, in the same manner as provided in
n 4, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment
ises of *0 by the charter commission. The amendment shall become effective only
same epw 1 --jibm approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be
VS 4 "A"tn the same manner as other amendments. Nothing in this subdivision pre-
do&S the charter conu from proposing charter amendments in the manner
Stowided by subdivision L
�90& 6. Amendments, cities of the fourth class. The council of a city of the
class having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments by or- A!
without submission to the charter commission. Such ordinance, if enacted,
ftH be adopted by at least a four-fifths vote of all its members after a public hear-
in. Z
t
Committee II
Committee meeting March 24, 1976
Present: Kanatz,. Nelson and Vennewitz
(Hiatzman at the Commission executive committee meeting and Bullick
out of town)
Committee members have talked with Mayor, councilmen and city manager.
Two had very few comments, but would prefer to analyze any proposal for a change
the Commission might arrive at at that time. One thought change not needed,
but that either the at -large system or the ward system would be workable.
Three were opposed and felt that the city is not large enough for division
into wards and for the division it would create. Accountability should be
to the entire electorate.
A couple mentioned that it might impede the ability of citizens to get in touch
with councilmen if they were not in political accord with their own councilman.
The committee went through the theoretical pro and con issues with respect to
ward system vs. at -large representation. No single issue seemed to be of
compelling importance, although some of the concepts might be viewed as
suggesting that one or the other approach had validity. Most of the committee
members' responses to the various pro's and con's was "perhaps" "depends upon"
or "might or might not be important."
With this ambivalence to the issues, we feel that this is in fact, the; discussion
that will have to be engaged in by the entire commission. tae say this, not with
any optimises that a strong consensus will occur, but with the realization that
we have no strong recommendation to present, nor, in fact, any recommendation.
Reluctantly submitted,
Vi Kanatz
410.121 CITIES; CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS
ing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amens
meet and shall be approved by the mayor and published as in the case of o*r
k;-:
ordinances. The council shall submit the proposed amendment to the people In Me
manner provided in subdivision 4, but not sooner than three months after the pm
4
sage of the ordinance. The amendment becomes effective only when approved bF
the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved, it shall be filed in the same
W T i
manner as other amendments.
Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the charter
commission the city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Such an
ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted by the council by an affirmative vote of all
its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the
text of the proposed amendment and shall be a proved by the mayor and published P
as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall 09
become effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at such later date 31
is fixed in the ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such as
ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed With t1-P
city clerk. Such petition shall be signed by qualified voters equal in number to two
percent of the total number of votes cast in the city at the last state general else
tion or 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a system of permanent registration
of voters, only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. If the requisite
petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become e2rect[w
until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments submitted by
the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except that the
council may submit the ordinance at any general or spe6ial election held at least 6a
days after submission the
of petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the
ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of, subdivisions 1 to 3 apply to
petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance amending a charter, and to
the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters.
CR L s 756; 1907 c 199 3 1 1911 c 343 3 1 1939 C 292 3 1 19 c 227 8 11 194
c 122 3 1 1959 C 305 s 3 4; 1961 c 608 s 5, 6; 1969 c 1027 s 3; 1973 c 503 a 1 (1286)
410121 SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR WINE; FAVORABLE V(VM
It the charter which is to be amended or replaced contains provisions which pro
hibit the sale of intoxicating liquor or wine in certain areas, such provisions shall
not be amended or removed unless 55 percent of the votes cast on the proposition
shall be in favor thereof.
[1969 c 1027 s 2]
410.13 (Repealed, 1959 c 305 s 61 f
410-14 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS. In submitting a charter oz' an amend
ment to the voters any alternative
section or article may be presented and voted
on separately, without prejudice to other articles or sections of the charter or mw
amendments thereto.
[R. L. s. 7571 (1288)
b"
410.15 SUCCESSION; SUBSISTING RIGHTS. The new city so organhzd
shall be In all respects the legal successor of the former corporation, and a*
charter so adopted,. nor any amendment thereof, shall prejudice any subsie ft
right, lien, or demand against the city superseded, or affect any pending action or
proceeding to enforce the same. All rights, penalties, and forfeitures accrued ce
accruing to such former corporation, all property vested therein or held in ftug
therefor, all taxes and assessments levied in its behalf, and all its privileges and.hn,
s.
munities not inconsistent with the new charter, shall pass to its successor. All or
dinances, resolutions, and by-laws in force at the adoption of such new charter, and
not in conflict with its provisions, shall continue in force until duly altered or
repealed.
[B L s 758; 1973 c 123 art 5 a 71 (1289)
410.16 FORMS OF GOVERNMENT INCORPORATED IN CHARTER. 7te-
incorporate
charter commission may as part of the proposed charter for any dty
the commission, mayor-council, council-manager form of city government or any
other form not inconsistent with constitution or statute, and may provide that ag
elective city officers, including mayor and members of the council, shall be elected
at large or otherwise.
[1909 c 170 s 1; 1959 c 305 a 5; 1961 c 608 3 71 (1290)
.�3
r r; Nu
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP III FINAL REPORT
WARD SYSTEM VS. AT LARGE SYSTEM
s� ".Study Group III was charged with the task of contacting nei:ghboring
communities to determine their. attitude on the. system used•in their
Community
s
h The communities contacted were:
Aw �"�y t' k r j' K ^C. 2 y 11. 't f �'S SF!
�A
.New Hope New Brighton
Crystal': Roseville
s Golden Valley S Louis Park c
r Brooklyn Park Edina: y
z
1 Fridley Richfield;
Columbia Heights Bloomington
r F 2° Plymouth
questioned were past and present mayors and councilmen,
administrators and party officials...'x.;'`
The questions and summary of responses are as follows:
I QUESTION How long have you had present structure?
ANSWER None`had changed their structure in the past
ten years.
k (2. QUESTION What are the advantages o of this structure? r y
b v
(3 QUESTION What are the disadvantage td: this s �strueture� p s
ANSWER All respondents 'cited tie` regular list of r _F
advantages and di:sadvantagea to their
systems.-... 'Those "with ward structures _ci.ted
p
a w Better accountability -and neighY5c rhood a
x interests better represented. i
1 y
r resented bcft�r
b M�.nority interest- ep
c. ;Campaign costs are' 'lower. t
a. Easier on the candidate to comp aign
because of smaller area. s
r e': Local alderman takes care of his ward w
and is more accountable to residents:
f
4
r Y:
Those with at large structures cited:
a.. Far less parochial._
b. Represents all of the people rather than�`4
a special geographic area.w';
c. Able to recruit candidates from entire
city who are qualified and not 'restricted`
to a ward area.
d. Eliminates tiading of votes.
Y� 2.
e. Lessens fragmentation.
If it were possible to adopt at large or
ward system without any difficulty, which
would you prefer?
None of the respondents wanted to change
their present structure.
5. QUESTION What are the advantages of the at large or
ward system when running for office?
ANSWER The advantage of the ward system when running
for office is that the campaign costs will be
less and the territory to be covered going door
to door is also considerably less.
6. QUESTION Approximately what are the campaign costs for
a council candidate? �r
ANSWER Range $500 to $4,000
City with ward and at large
Ward $2,000
At large $4,000 _v
Cost of campaign is influenced as much by
competition as by area to be covered.
7. QUESTION At large Do you experience any difficulty._
in finding candidates to run for office?
ANSWER No for all respondents.
The only conclusion one can draw from the survey of communities is all.
of the communities like their present structure and none of them wish
to change.
STUDY GROUP III MEMBERS
Ed Theisen, Chairman
Robert DeVries, Vice Chairman
Richard Higgins
Frank Kampmeyer
Ro +-+-cr 7 1
CITIZENS FOR
BETTER GOVERNMENT INC.
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
The Citizens for Better Government of Brooklyn Center held
its summer meeting on August 21st, and at. that meeting an
extensive discussion was conducted on the "ward system" for city
elections as compared with the "at -large system" presently used
in Brooklyn Center. Advantages and disadvantages of both structures
were discussed.
A week to ten days later a verbal poll was taken of those CBG
members and guests present during the discussion. The question
asked was "Do you favor the ward system or the at -large system for
city elections in Brooklyn Center All present at the dis-
cussion responded to the question.
Favor Ward System
Favor At -Large System
Favor Combined System
The results are as follows:
0 0%
49 92%
4. 8%
Submitted by:
Leon Binger
President
`Winners `Together
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 21, 1976
Call to order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dorff.
Present: Commissioners Asplund, Dorff, Gillen, Higgins, Hintzman, DeVries,
Kampmeyer, Kanatz, Nelson, Swart, and Theisen were present.
Absent: Commissioners Bullick, Bush (resigned), Johnson (ill) and Vennewitz
(out of town) were absent.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Kanatz, seonded by Commissioner Nelson
that the minutes be approved. Motion carried.
Annual Report: Motion by Commissioner Hintzman, seconded by Commissioner Swart that
the annual report for 1975 be accepted. Motion carried.
Audit Chairman Report: Commissioner Hintzman reported expenditures of $50.56 for
secretarial services during 1975. Motion by Commissioner Theisen,
seconded by Commissioner Kanatz that the audit chairman's report be
accepted. Motion carried.
Election of Officers: Motion by Commissioner Theisen, seconded by Commissioner
Kanatz that Commissioner Dorff be nominated for chairman. Motion carried.
Motion by Ccmmissioner Kanatz, seconded by Commissioner Kampmeyer that
Commissioner Gillen be nominated for Vice Chairman. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Kanatz, seconded by Commissioner Gillen that
Commissioner Swart be nominated for secretary. Motion carried.
The above nominees were duly elected.
r
Appointments: Chairman Dorff appointed Commissioner Hintzman as Audit Chairman.
Motion by Commissioner Kanatz, seconded by Commissioner Kampmeyer that
the appointment be approved. Motion carried.
Chairman Dorff appointed Commissioner Theisen as Public Relations Chairman.
Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commisioner Gillen that.the
appointment be approved. Motion carried.
Re- appointments to Charter Commission: Commissioners Kanatz, Swart, and Theisen
indicated they would accept another term on the Charter Commission.
Study Group II Report: Chairman Kanatz of Study Group 11 reported to the Charter
Commission (report enclosed).
\I—
page 2
Brooklyn Center Charter Commission
minutes 1/21/76
Written Reports of .Study Groups: Motion by Commissioner Swart, seconded by
Commissioner Kampmeyer that reports of study groups be distributed to
Charter Commission at least one week before Charter Commission meeting.
Motion carried.
Joint Meeting of Charter Commissioners: Chairman Dorff responded favorably to a
joint meeting of Charter Commissioners -to John Lund, Chairman of the St..
Louis Park Charter Commission. Date set for the meeting is Tuesday,'
April 24th.,
Ward System: Dave Kanatz presented the recommendation of the DFL party for a ward
system in Brooklyn Center. Dick Forstrom listed pr&s and cons for a
ward system and pros and cons for an at large system.
Next meeting: Motion by Commissioner Swart, seconded by Commissioner DeVries that
the next meeting of the Charter Commission be Wednesday, February 25,
study groups to meet prior to meeting to review and study designated area
and report to the commission on February 25. Motion carried. Maps of
precinct boundaries to be mailed to commissioners.
Report of Study Group I: Chairman Dorff reported to the Charter Commission.
Study Group III: Chairman Theisen reported to the Charter Commission (report
enclosed.)
Nominating Committee: Motion by Commissioner Gillen, seconded by Commissioner
Swart that a nominating committee of three be appointed at the,fall
meeting to select candidates preceding the January meeting of election
of officers. Motion carried.
Resignation: Motion by Commissioner Gillen, seconded by Commissioner Swart that
the commission accept the resignation of Commissioner Elizabeth Bush.
Motion carried. Suggestion was made that a certificate of appreciation
be presented when commissioners resign,or terms expire. Public Relations
chairman will publish that charter commission has a vacancy.
Adjournment: Motion by Commisioner Gillen, "seconded by Commissioner Kampmeyer that
the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted
Chairman: Henry Dorff CcJ�`— �''`E'�
Barbara Sexton
Secretary: Barbara Swart Secretarial Assistant
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
RROOKLYN CATER CHARTER 't0i1lMISSIOTt
Wednesday, February 25, 1976
Call to order- The meeting was called to order by Chairman Henry Dorff at p.rt.
Present: Commissioners Cheryl Asglund, Robert DeVries, James Gillen, Richard
Higgins, Poona Hintzman, Betty Johnson, 'Prank Kamomeyer, Orlander Nelson,
Henry Dorff, Barbara Swart, Edwin Theisen, and Walter Vennewitz were
present.
Absent: Co- missioner Bullick did not indicate he wasn't coming and Commissioner
Vi. Kanatz was absent because of a conflict.
Appointment of Vice- Chairpersons of Study Groups. The follow.:ng were appointed:
Group I Jim Gillen
Group II Mona Hintzman
Group III Bob DeVries
Group I Report: The Group I report was given by its Chairman, Henry Dorff.
Group II: Group II had not yet held a meeting.
Group III: The Group III report was given by Chairman Ed Theisen. They have
dropped city managers from the list to be interviewed and have
substituted past councilmen and past mayors.
?Rules of Procedure: Motion by Commissioner Ed Theisen, seconded by Commissioner
Jim Gillen to adopt the Rules of Procedure as changed at the last
meeting. Motion carried.
Open Meeting: Motion by Ed Theisen, seconded by Commissioner Jim
Gillen that the sub-committee chairmen comply with the opera meeting.
law of the state of Minnesota by properly posting such notification
and such sub committees hold meetings in a public place. Motion
carried.
Next Meeting: Motion by Commissioner Jim Gillen, seconded by Commissioner Orlander
Nelson that the next meeting of the Charter Commission by Wednesday
March 10, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of approving an appointment
to the Charter Commission. Motion carried.
Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Jim Gillen, seconded by Commissioner Frank
Kampmeyer that the minutes of January 21 be approved. Motion carried.
Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Orlander Nelson, seconded by Commissioner
Frank Kampmeyer that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned
at 9:45 n.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Chairman: Henry Dorff
Secretary: Barbara Swart Barbara Sexton
Secretarial Assistant
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMISSION
yTednesday, April 21, 1976
Call to-order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Henry Dorff at 7 :35 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Cheryl Asplund, Glen Bullick, Robert DeVries, Henry Dorff,
Mildred Hendricks, Richard Higgins, James Gillen, Edwin Theisen, Orlander
Nelson, and Walter Vennewitz were present.
Absent: Commissioners Vi Kanatz (out -of- town), Frank Kampmeyer (conflict), Mona
Hintzman (conflict), Barbara Swart and Betty Johnson were absent.
Minutes:. Motion by Commissioner Gillen, seconded by Commissioner that.:the
minutes be approved. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Gillen, seconded by Commissioner Theisen that
bFginning immediately the minutes include a synopsis of all discussion
during the meeting, cf all subjects, and by all persons. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Gillen, seconded by Commissioner Theisen that
Chairman Dorff investigate some form of recording to use at meetings to
meet our needs and report back as soon as possible.. Motion was amended
that the chairman in concert with executive committee is to purchase it
before the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Theisen. Both motions
carried. Blair Tremere will check into the possibility of renting,a
recorder. A recommendation will be made to the city manager that the
city purchase a recorder.
Joint Charter Commissions meeting: Commissioners Dorff, DeVries and Gillen
attended dinner with secretarial assistant, Barbara Sexton. About 100
communities out of 825 have a home rule charter. It is the obligation of
charter commissions to study their own charter, consult with the council
and city manager as to how it is working. Minutes of that meeting will
be distributed. fi t
Ward System: Group I Report: ?Motion by Commissioner Vennewitz, seconded by
Commissioner Higgins to accept the report. If the statutory limits were
not reached, amount of campaign expenditures are not filed. Motion carried.
Group II Report: Report was read. Discussion on whether or not there
would be vote trading with ward system. Motion by Commissioner Gillen,
seconded by Commissioner Higgins that the report be accepted. Motion
carried.
Group III Report: Two parts are complete, three parts are nearly complete,
therefore, report will be summarized and mailed within two weeks. Motion
by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickx to approve
report. Motion carried.
Alternative Amendment: Chairman Dorff read letter from Commissioner DeVries that
Charter Commission would be open to a law suit from petitioners if another
amendment were also on the ballet. Cormissioner`DeVries'source. was Orville
Peterson, an attorney on the St. Paul Charter Commission. Motion by
Commissioner DeVries, seconded by Commissioner Gillen that our counsel get
an opinion from the attorney general in writing as to the probability of
a court test. Motion carried.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
BROOKLrT CENTER CHARTER Crf- MSSION
Wednesday, June 23, 1476
Ca11 to order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dorff at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Henry Dorff, James Gillen, Barbara Swart, Prank Kampmeyer,
Viola Kanatz, Richard Higgins, Mildred Hendrickx, Orlander Nelson,
Edwin Theisen, Mona Hintzman, Glen Bullick,. Cheryl Asplund, and Walter
Vennewitz were present.
Absent: Commistoners Betty Johnson and Robert neVries were absent.
Minutes: Correction to the motion, second to the last paragraph on the first
page: Commissioner DeVries seconded the motion not Commissioner Gillen.
Motion by Commissioner Kana.tz, seconded by Commissioner Kampmeyer that
the minutes be approved as corrected. Motion carried.
Charter Amendment: ?lotion by Commissioner Theisen, seconded by Commissioner Higgins
that the Charter Commission adopt the revised charter amendment to
Section 6.02. Motion carried unanimously.
Next meeting: Public hearings on ward system are scheduled for Thursdays, August 26
and September 2 for those who wish to speak on the issue.
Adjournment: Lotion by Commis loner Gillen, seconded by Commissioner Nelson that
the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Chairman: Henry Dorff
Secretary- Barbara Swart
Barbara Sexton
Secretarial Assistant
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
1 Public Hearing, Social Hall
Thursday, August 26, 1976
Call to order The meeting was called to order by acting chairman, Barbara Swart.
Present: Commissioners Edwin Theisen, Barbara Swart, Orlander Nelson,. Viola Kanatz,
Cheryl Asplund, Richard Higgins and Mona Hintzman.
Absent: Commissioners Bob DeVries (out of town), James Gillen (out of town),
Betty Johnson, Frank Kampmeyer, Olen Bullick, Mildred Rendrickx (out of
town), Henry Dorff (out of town) and T•Talter Venneuitz.
Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner ?Zanatr that the
minutes of June 23 be approved. Motion carried.
Public Hearing on TTard System=
Henry Bogucki, 7000 Quail Avenue .forth; He opposes ward system as a step
backward. It lends itself to petty politics. Councilmen shot.ild represent
the entire community.
r,
Dick Rodenborn, 6546 Willow Lane North favors the ward system. It gives
citizen better chance to know councilman. The ward system brings greater
accountability to the council and voter. The councilman can't hide in
the crowd. Minorities are better represented, easier to attract candi-
dates, cheaper and easier to campaign, in one ward. At 20C.per voter,
campaign costs are $4,200 to run at large, only the affluent can run.
Councilmen would have a smaller constituency, the city would have a shorter,
simpler ballot. City government would be more accessible through the ward
system. A small minority can't dominate the council. A ward system would
mean a smaller chance of one party control over a long period of time.
The ward's special interests are protected. Voters feel a greater sense of
participation. l
Forest Elliott, 3224 65th Avenue North,opposes the ward system as big.city
politics. There are political pay -offs with yard system.
Bob Jensen, 6330 Humboldt Avenue North believes the ward system would be
detrimental to Brooklyn Center. TTe are small geographically and have
maintained Qood geogrnahic representation. ?Minorities are part of the
council. The council has responded to citizen complaints. The citizen
has five people he can contact. Each councilman represents each citizen.
In the Frard system, good candidates could be excluded. The ward system
encourages trade offs and votes. ;iuman nature enters in and dynasties
develop more easily in the ward system. Power in the ward can be abused
and can develop into full time bureaucracy.. The ward system can weaken
representation and not loot; at the total city question. The community is
now divided into four school districts, by freeways and higheays. The at
large system does broaden the base to draw from. The at large system does to
take more money. His own campaign will cost about 10 per voter or about
$2,000. A person should be judged by the total community. A councilman
should not be -ut in the position where he makes the sole decision. The
at large system is more responsive, more efficient.
page 2
Charter Commission, 8/26/76
Barbara Jensen, 6539 Drew Avenue North favors the at large system. The
over all good of the city should be considered. It would be cumbersome
to establish ward lines after each census.
Vince Tubman, 6425.r-irard.Avenue North the ward system. There is
more local or neighborhood input with ward system. In the at large
system, local control is given lip service. The constituency is greater
than that of state legislator. Door mocking, face to face campaigning
is best in Brooklyn Center. It takes two to three months to cover the
city. Other ways of getting to the electorate such as media are expect
sive.. More candidates would come_forth. with the ward system. Now one
needs to join a.political organization to run then have an obligation
to the organization. The city council should represent all walks of
life. The ward system would foster the competitive system.
Leon Binger, 2300 'Mumford Road, favors the at large system. History
would prove that the community is not too large for an at large campaign.
It is not easy to knock on doors, the campaign is a test of the candidate':_
commitment. The legislative district is not significantly smaller.
Brooklyn Center is nqt likely to grow from it 35,000 Population. The
state demographer projects a population of 35 to 37,000 people in ten
years, but the-mix of age is chan;in It has worked in the past to
cover the entire city. At least basic factors will not change. Last
year's campaigns cost from $1500 to @000.
Tony Schelanka,4201 71st Avenue North asked what's the problem. If we're
having good government, we don't need to change. He doesn't think the
ward system provides good government. The City Charter should provide
good government and I think it does. Candidates -for council should get
involved in the community before running.for office. The charter
provides for good government in Brooklyn Center.
Henry Bogucki states that candidates could campaign at coffee parties.
People could ask questions o`f the candidates. The ward systemllends
Itself to single prupose candidates and to bigots racists:
Dick Rodenboru announced a private poll taken where.902 said no to the
reponsiveness of city government.
Adjournment: ''Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Rich Huggins to adjorn
the meeting. Motion carried.
Chairman: henry Dorff
Secretary: Barbara Swart
Respectfully submittedt
Barbara Sexton
Secretarial Assistant
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
BROOKLY4 CEPITER CHARTER COW. ISSION
Public Hearing, Social Nall
AMSRL
Thursday, September 2, 1476
Call to order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Henry Dorff at
7:40 p.m..
Present: Commissioners henry Dorff, Rich Higgens, Viola Kanatz, Orlander Nelson,
Cheryl Asplund, Mona Hintzman, Edwin Theisen, James Gillen, and Frank
Kampmeyer.
Absent: Commissioners Betty Johnson (ill) Mildred Hendrickx (out of town), Bob
DeVries, Glen Bullick, Barbara Swart (couldn't make it) and Walter
Vennewitz.
Ward System: Chairman Dorff limited presentations to 4 minutes.
Councilman Maurice Britts listed advantages of ward system as smaller,
less money needed for campaigns, closer to people, each area of the
city represented,.citizen knows who to call. His campaign cost between
$1800 and $2000. ,,Disadvantages of ward system are vote trade offs,
will not know the whole city, interest in oT problems, the ward boss,
no checks and balances, if he doesn't vote right he won't be re- elected.
Advantages of the at large, the candidate can still win election, looks
at the problems of the whole city, and has to know the whole city.
Disadvantages of the at large takes more money to campaign, not as
close to the people.
We can't compare Brooklyn Center to a Minneapblis ward, but we can
compare it to Crystal. Crystal has four wards and two sections. It
has a mayor and 6 councilmen. The citizen votes for two councilmen.
If we go to a ward, the council should be expanded. Some at large
people should be elected such as Crystal. Crystal likes what they
have, closer to the people. Be sure to have balances, enlarge the
council to 7 members 2,half at large or 2 at large:
I
Dave Kanatz stated that the system as it is now cuts off people who
want to serve, increased costs to campaign. It would be great to
have a senior citizen on the council. Encourage people to run for
office by reducing scope of campaign to .a ward.
Howard Heck stated that the at large system has served Brooklyn Center
well.. Five people are interested in an issue on the council. With
the ward one councilman will be making the decision for his area. Any
candidate worth his salt will get out and lozow the community. He
presented map of city showing residences of councilmen since 1961
which showed an excellent spread in the community. The cost of a
campaign is not excessive, makes for healthy competition. There is
a better choice of candidates. We should continue with the at large
system. The at large system is fair in that people from all over
the community run for office.
l Dawn Kiefer stated that Brooklyn Center is divided in several ways:
by schools districts, freeways and highways, and two legislative dis
tricts. The ward system would cut us again. Disunified city if
divided one more time.
page 2
Charter Commission
September 2, 1976
Arnold Foslien is interested in Brooklyn Center and its future. We have
f.- honest government in Brooklyn Center which has improved as years have
gone by. He does not favor a ward system. Ile lived in Minneapolis
formerly. It is- healthier here. We can lick City Hall in Brooklyn
Center. Fe don't have ward heelers in Brooklyn. Center and we don't
hear that dirty word, gerrymandering. We should.be cautious of
changing-our system.
Ted Willard.has had unique exposure to municipal government the past
15 years. He has observed the ward system and the at large system.
Dave Kanatz and Dick Forstrom have s mmar ized_. the pros and cons of
the ward. system and.there is little to disagree crith. Weigh in your
own mind the accountability and responsiveness of coucnilmen. There
tends to be a demarkation between a large community and a small commun-
ity. Brooklyn Park operates well under the -Yard system because of
disparities. Brooklyn Center is largely developed and more homogene-
ous. Councilmen need to be responsible to citizens and to the whole
community. In the ward system they tend to be much more concerned
with own ward which detracts from the community. Perspective of entire
city needs are impgrtant. In the ward system, one man is the decision
maker for his ward. Tendency to provinciality outweighs given citizen's
concern. The citizen can talk to one councilman rathern the five
councilmen.
Vern Ausen was pro ward when running for the council. He has changed
his thinking. Brooklyn Center is unusually divisive. Council members
elected at large would tend to unify Brooklyn Center. ..If we_ divide
into 4 wards, they will not be concurrent with the school districts.
A councilman serves the..whle city. The councilman does a better job
when he has to consider all diverse problems in the community. .-He
has to be highly motivated to campaign the second time. He recommends
we not change the system.
Phyllis Plummer represents the League of Women Voters Board and an ad
hoc committee that has been meeting through the summer. Brooklyn
Center is already divided. Unless more substantial reason is given
for the ward system, we should retain the at large system. Government
works because of the people involved rather than the system of election.
Phil Cohen stated the community was cut up. Few things hold us together.
When ward lines are drawn, they become unequal right away. If we
divide.into wards; councilmen will protect the interest of the ward,
and get involved in trade -offs. At the present time all the council
is accountable to all the voters. Campagin. costs will vary.
have accelerated. The council should be accountable to the entire
electorate of Brooklyn Center. Stay with the at.large system.
Lee Binger represents the Citizens for Better Government tonight with
a membership of over.-100. This organization held a discussion on the
ward system with 53 members and guests present. Ten days later a
r straw vote was taken of the 53 who attended. They were interviewed
by Lee Binger and Tony Schelonka. Results were as follows:
ward system 0 0%
at large system 49 92%
combined system 4 8%
page 3
Charter Commission
September 2, 1976
Y Tony Rueflet stated that all councilmen.vote on all matters and should
be knowledgeable about the whole community. The candidate has 8 square
miles to campaign and he doesn't see a problem. He covered 4500 homes
in 10 weeks which is 3/4 of the single family dwellings. It is not an
unreasonable demand of a candiate. His campaigns cost $1500 each.
Divisions in the community were the main concern at the town meeting.
He favors the at large system.
Bill Fignar states there are political trade -offs in the ward system.
His two campaigns cost $1500 with union shop printing and he disputes the
$4200 figure. He works in the community, hears concerns from citizens
and responds to calls. In the ward system you call your own councilman.
The ward system is cheaper and easier to campaign, but he wouldn't
guarantee the most qualified people would run. The ward system tends to
create political dynasties. He walked evenings and Saturdays and hit
the majority of ourses starting August first. Local elections could be
held in odd numbered years with two councilmen elected every two years.
He opposes the ward system. By creating; wards the only people who
benefit would be the political party.
Gene Lhotka, council candidate left questionnaire as he went door to
door. It is not a scientific study. The ward system has the advantage
in that it is accountable and responsible. He received 514 responses
to his questionnaire. The question "Is our city government responsive
to citizens of Brooklyn Center
yes 220 42.8e
no 199 38.7%
50 -50 or no answer 95 11.5
Government is not accessible to them. The ward system brings people
closer to councilman. "Do you feel you are adquately informed
yes 112 21.7%
no 363 70.6%
no answer X40 .7%
"Would you support award system for election of councilmen ?'J.
yes 286 55.6%
no 120 23.3%
no answer 108 21.1%
I personally am for the ward system.
Bob Jensen stated that he doesn't agree with the statement that the
at large system is not responsive. He didn't hear the argument that
the ward system would be more responsive. Present and past councils
have been quite responsive. Nothin, he heard would prove that the
ward system would be more accountable.
Dick Rodenborn stated that a lawn sign today costs 75� and 2,000 lawn
signs cost $1500. An at large race is for the rich and affluent. The
constituent can be turned out of office in a ward when he is.not tune
with the voters disproving that partisan politics dominate wards.
Ron Visness talked about liars and statisticians. It is incredibly
naive to infer the sample survey is what people in Brooklyn Center
think..
page 4
Charter Commission
September 2, 1976
At-
Henry Bogucki tried to reach professors in political science departments.
He interviewed a student who had just graduated and would be teaching
at Haml.ine. The nec%r graduate said it doesn't make any difference.
whether the election system is ward or at large, it is the quality of
the people that are candidates that is'important. The ward system is
heeded to get representation of minority groups. The thrust today is
on the professional administrator.
Vern Velasco, stated that all can vote.*for -all councilmen. .With the
ward system you can vote only for a neighbor. There is no trouble
getting± financing and workers to .campaign.
Mayor Pete Meits.ma of Crystal stated that Crystal had the combination
system already described. The ultimate test is the quality of the
people on the council. He doesn't find provincialism. The councilmen
vote on the merits of the city -wide case. Local government should be as
small as you can make it. It is easy for a person to enter politics.
Three years ago his campaign cost $600. He and his opponent agreed
agreed not to use laT�m siums. People of. modest circumstances can
aspire to political The Crystal council has unusual diversity,
wide range of voacations and opinions. Crystal has had wards for
more than 16 years. There are no ward heelers and no political dynasty.
Campaigns in the wards are different. Issues have been city wide. No
politcal party is dominate. Lawn signs not needed in a ward system
campaign. All councilmen bring unique qualifications to the council.
Only one councilman was actively involved in the community organization
before running for council.
Next meeting: The next meeting of the Charter Commission will be Wednesday,
September 15 at the Social Hall.
Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Kanatz, seconded by Commissioner Hintzman
that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Chairman: henry Dorff
Secretary: Barbara Swart
Barbara Sexton
Secretarial Assistant
Minutes of the Proceedings of the
BROOKLYN CENTER CLfARTE�'. CCMPffSSION
Wednesday, September 15, 1976
Call to- order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Henry Dorff at 7:40 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Henry Dorff, Rich Higgins, Robert DeVries, James Gillen,
Mildred Hendrickx, Orlander Nelson, Cheryl Asplund, Barbara Swart, Mona
Hintzman, and Edwin Theisen were present.
Absent: Commissioners Betty Johnson, Frank Kampmeyer, Glen Bullick (unable to atten
Viola Xanatz (ill), and Tlalter Vennewitz (out of town) were absent.
Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Higgins that the
minutes of August 26 be approved. Motion carried. Correction to the Sep-
tember 2 minutes was made that Barbara Swart was absent because she was
ill. Motion by Commissioner Gillen, seconded by Commissioner Hintzman
that minutes of September 2 be approved as corrected. Motion carried.
Ward Study: Commissioner Hendrickx stated that Brooklyn Center should not be furthe--
divided, that the ward system would provide further divisiveness. There
would be confusion on the part of people as to where they belong, There
is no compelling reason to chanfye.
Commissioner Nelson believes that Brooklyn Center should have a ward syste
plus two sectional districts and a mayor. Brooklyn Center is large enough
to have more than five make decisions. He would like to see more represen-
tation from different areas.
Chairman Dorff responded that the council could be expanded without wards.
Commissioner Theisen stated that the question posed to the Charter Commis-
sion is should we advance this proposal to the voters whether,they want a
ward or at large system. Hg does not see enough merit to placing this
question on the ballot. He grants to see names on a petition. He opposes
forwarding the ward system to the council.
Commissioner Swart favors putting to the voters the question of the number
of councilmen. Seven members on the council would have more diversity and
ideas and the people would be better represented by more councilmen. The
ward system works well in Crystal. [That's wrong with the at large system
in Brooklyn Center. She herself couldn't campaign. She would have to
give up 3 months of her time to campaign for office. Less time is needed
to campaign if we had the ward system. If the candidate doesn't get to
the people with his message, he can't win.
Commissioner Hendrickx stated there was merit in covering the whole area.
Knowledge of the whole area is needed.
Commissioner Higgins hasn't heard people outside of organizations making
comments. The poll taken by a local candidate for council is not valid.
Most people do not want a change.
page 2
Charter Commission, 9/15/76
2 0
Commissioner Hintzman said Brooklyn Center needs more councilmen. The ward'
system would give wider diversity of background. Brooklyn Center has an
educator and three businessmen on the council. People on physically active
jobs can't campaign. This is a form of discrimination against people with
physically active occupations. They have the opportunity to run for office,
but not the physical capabilities. Brooklyn Center needs wider diversity
on the council. Crystal has a diversity of occupations on the council.
The ward system should be placed on the ballot in November. There is no
way to reach people except to door knock.
Commissioner DeVries stated that based on other communities, he doesn't lik
the cliquishness of the at large system. '-Re would like a combination of
the two. Maybe it is important to enlarge the council. Fridley has split
groups where it is easier to get a guy out of office in a ward. A campaign.
cost of $1500 is a lot of money unless a candidate has outside help. He
can't support the ward system, but is willing to put it to a vote of the
people. He supports part at large and part ward system.
Commissioner Hintzman stated she had no objection to the combination.
Commissioner Asplund stated that her father is a farmer who works 10 hours
a day and then campaips for office. It boils down to desire for office.
If we make it easier for the candidate, will it provide us with better
representation? The cost of campaigns depend on the corifest.
Commissioner Gillen stated that cost of campaigns in St. Louise Park ran
from $1,000 to $2,000. When the mayor left, candidates for mayor spent over
$5,000. The at large positions had the most challengers.
Commissioner Theisen added that in no
candidates for the at large system.
case has there been a shortage of
b
Commissioner Dorff stated.that the preponderance of thinking a� the public
hearings supported the at large system_, political leaders and former
councilmen.
Commissioner Hintzman replied that when you ta1L- to officials they support
the system, when you talk to citizens you find they differ with the
system they have. k.
Commissioner Swart added that there is the possibility of the incumbent
losing ground if the system is changed.
Commissioner Dorff stated that unlessthere is a real reason for
the ward system, there is no need to change the system in Brooklyn Center.
At the public hearings 18 favored the at large system while 6 favored
change. Are there people not being; represented or, misrepresented?
Commissioner Nelson stated that maybe ward system should be put on the
ballot and see what the people want.
page 3
Charter Commission, 9/15/76
Commissioner Theisen stated that it takes a unique person to run for
political office. It takes an aggressive person.
Commissioner Gillen stated that each community.contacted seemed to be
happy. with ...what they had. ._We_should.have a reason to change. Even if we
have the ward system, a person has. to contact 2500 homes. A councilman
has to have a crocodile skin. It is easy to lose your cool. People get
violent.and.swear.and.an official has to be able to take it to serve.
A campaign costs too much for any one T%Thether at large or ward, the candi-
date has to have help. Costs vary depending on the number running. He
favors changing the number on the council.. The more councilmen you have
the more you can split up various duties. It is wise to consider changing
the terms of office. .Local elections can be held in the odd years. The
commissioner doesn't see any reason for changing to wards.
notion by Commissioner Theisen, seconded by Commissioner Higgins that the
Brooklyn Center Charter Commission go on record in favor of continuing the
present at large system. Commissioners Gillen, Dorff, Asplund, Hendrickx,
Theisen, Higgins and DeVries voted in favor of the motion, Commissioners
Swart, Hintzman, and Nelson opposed the motion. Motion carried..
Vacancies: Terns of two commissioners, Henry Dorff and Nalter Vennewitz expire on
October 24. Glen Bullick is resigning as he is going back to school and is
moving out of the community. There will be three vacancies on the commis-
sion.
Next meeting: Next meeting of the Charter Commission T>r111 be T-tednesday, October 20.
Study groups will report progress on study of charter.
Study Group I Chapter 2 H. Dorff
Study Group II Chapter 6 V.. Kanatz
Study Group III Chapter 10 E.. Theisen
Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gillen that the
meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m.
Chairman: Henry Dorff
Secretary: Barbara Swart
Respectfully submitted:
Barbara Sexton
Secretarial Assistant
0
AREAS TO BE INVESTIGATED REGARDING WARE ?AT LARGE
CITY STRUCTURE
1. How long have you had your present structure?
2. What are the advantages of this structure?
3. What are the disadvantages of this structure?
4. If it were possible to adopt an At Large or
Ward system without any difficulty, which would
you prefer?
5. What are the advantages of the At Large or
Ward system when running for office?
b. Approximately what is the campaign cost for a
council candidate?
7. At large Do you experience any difficulty
in finding candidates to run for office?
l
Ai-
4 s j
Wv ol
X
L. ,K'Alj
A!
el rt
ko NAII
wv O' �n�
m
i M
-0 tj
y;:, m
WiW, 0
Ul
(n Lor.
rt- ul
t3i
rt* rt It
_.Pe
Ild Q
M 0
il o o z P o
ri
H 0 1 1 0 H (L)
"o
's. 0 H 11 4
0 r Ul
0 0
Pi 0 Pi En rt
Ul rt H (D
m H :3 A) o
io 'o
H PV (V'rl-
En
t1i fjj 0) t P. 1`4
En
(D
pile En En iu r ,S D
rt 0)
1-3 0 rt*
j!
I'd H 0
0. EQ
0
0
P. rl (D rt
z
P)
LQ
0
rt fu ft rt
rt
(A m
A
L Q
En! cu
(D
ft; a Irt rt 0
0
cr L11
M
ril
:j rt p) U)
pj (D tl 14.
Oil 0 'Q to (D LQ
'o '(D rt r (D 0
0) (D En (D P En
P- FJ
En a rt:;`
rt (t
Lo h H (D H En
r t. i t
0 P. it (D
t-h rf I o A)_ W En
(D 0 v o (D
ID
CL (D
En :.4 PA :-0
(n rt (D r: 0, r
6 1 U)
P)
rt rt
o pv
0 H (D (D P) (t rt rj)
cn p Z
(D W
0 Irt H u) 11 11 (D (D A) (D art 0 (D 0
0 (D Lo pil 4 it
ul
0 fu rt 0 0 H
Ell 0 o :j i m
rt (D '(D P- 0) 0 rt. 9) ,.EA t-h 0); 0 .4 1 tri (D 0
Fl- 0
U) y rt: h �r w U) 0 J. 0
4 PA fu (D (D 0 rt 0 1-h (n
!0
pjl'� 0 11 1
W N �-h H O (D
M Ell (D H N' .IP• HLQ rt
(D P) A) (D (D (D W A)" Lo
rl- itu U) (D �r
An (D 0 rt U) (D rt H
:::r o rt In
:o ..rt' 0 En
-(D
rt (D rt
(D 0 (D ft
0
0.
VU
P) 0
PA 0
0
4 rt rj)
(D
1-h
(D
M
0
SI
rt rt
r.
(D
ft P
M :3
0
m rh P- H. (n
H.
Q rt. rr
Pi Ea ft. It
VI
0
0
114
(D
Awr-rt*
rr 0) Z' 0 0
in W O:J" tj n
0 (D
RR
Oil
4V
W14 ih
W7
0
.4
lel 4� 10
(D H A2
P.
w
1
0 0
r r
En 1-4
7 rA
En 0
O z
En H
H C)
H
H ftj
H F3
0 n
W 0
En I'd
V-4 0 H
H W rn
1-3 1-3 En
H
0
1.
1, It
W X5 RE:v Y Nom'
,K A. y q!
Those with at large structures cited:
.sx r
a. Far Less parochial.
T
s t
r
b. Represents all of the people rather than
a special geographic area.Y
c. Able to recruit candidates from entire",.
}1
city ho are qualified and not restricted
to a ward area. f
d. Eliminates trading of votes
i z
Y
e. Lessens fragmentation.
37
4. ...QUESTION
r
If were possible to adopt at ..large or`
P
ward system without any difficulty,` :which.;
would you prefer
ANSWER
None of the respondents wanted to change Y max"
their present structure.
1
S. QUESTION
What are the advantages of,the at large or,' an'_
ward system when running for office?
.ANSWER
The advantage of the ward system when running
for office is that the campaign costs will'be.,
less and the territory to be covered going door S
to door is also considerably less.;
a:
6. QUESTION
Approximately what are the campaign cos ts.for`'
a council candidate?
i ANSWER
Range $500 to $4,000 s
S
City with ward and at large
Ward $2,000
At large $4,000
p.:
d s'
Cost of campaign is influenced as much by
competition as by area to be covered
7. QUESTION
At: large Do you experience any difficulty w
in finding candidates to run for office? err
ANSWER_
No for all respondents.
The only conclusion
one can draw from the survey of communities is a11=
of the communities like.their
present structure and none of them wish
to change.
STUDY GROUP III MEMBERS
Ed Theisen, Chairman
Robert DeVries, Vice
Chairman
Richard Higgins
Frank Kampmeyer
T4etf ohnsnn
June 15, 1976
From: Henry Dorff
Subject: Change in location of Charter Commission meeting
7 P.M. tednesday, June 23 1976
To: All Commissioners
All of you have previously received the notice and agenda for our next meeting
scheduled for the above date. Since that notice was sent out I have received from
our city attorney, Richard J.. Schieffer, a draft of his revision to our recommended
charter amendment. His revision resulted from a request made by the city council to
clarify the language of our amendment which was filed with them on May 24.
A copy of his revision which does not appear to have any material changes from
ours is attached for your review as is a copy of our proposed amendment. The
council has asked that we give;.consideration to this revision and if we agree that
the change is in order to submit it to them at their meeting of June 28.
Because it would not be appropriate to discuss and vote on an issue of this
magnitude at a social meeting at my house, I have made arrangements for the
Charter Commission to meet in the council chambers at 7 p.m., Wednesday, June 23 at
which time we can discuss this change and any other business that might come before
us.
f °Then the business meeting is over we can adjourn for the social end of the
meeting at my place.
If you cannot attend this meeting. I would appreciate hearing from you prior
to that date.
j
o, O
Wednesday April 21 1976
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP I SUMMARY REPORT
WARD SYSTEM NON WARD SYSTEM
After analyzing the statistical data accumulated in
the two schedules attached to this report the consensus
of this Committee is that the figures do not reveal any
notable evidence that one,system is better than another.
Our conclusions follow:
A. Recorded campaign costs of candidates for
office do not appear to be appreciably less
in communities where ward systems are in
effect. It depends largely on the competition
far offi -ce:
B. The incumbent candidate has the advantage
in either ward or non -ward communities.
C. Regardless of the system in effect in a
community those contacted supported the
system they have, whether ward, non -ward
or combination of each.
i
D. Use of a ward system does not appear to
encourage more filings for office.
E. Overlapping boundaries wards, districts,
precincts, etc, contribute to voter confusion
and additional expense for the community.
STUDY GROUP I MEKBERS
Henry A.Dorff, Chairman
James Gillen, Vice- Chairman
Cheryl Asplund
Mildred Hendrickx
Barbara Swart
I
I
I .s
I bal r•o�'�
I
g1°�' h�!
At4
VYN� (7� •s�w�` ?O�fl°��NViNno��r�
Mir
1
I Z
I 'C I
I
I I
I hO.l I
I If 1 1
i;°vnoa
No 'ON
I
I
tb�
I
I
I I
yt:j
"'s °s'¢
I ��gti�IS�9�811Vtt�
�'►�rp��a`vl "a'?i MO B
I xYl Cf;*
18LE fn; I
l 98 LX b
"tt$', QXj q 'sqai r
vale
b bGf
I�tr f�1�.
I
I I
I I
I II
�a�,►a��
pnO
h 151 m
I
i I
I I
I I
I WL9h
I 090 I
.hoc I �.tibh L
osbL-h
I QWL
I o,y I
0'h I rat I
n-t
I
I
I
I .s
I bal r•o�'�
I
g1°�' h�!
e" a t 3 i 4 N a',p10a
ON
a rf r
Mir
1
I Z
I 'C I
I
sz. I W VI4 b O h VVI
No 'ON
I
I
tb�
I
°1 °f 6/
I�,' ►1�
"'s °s'¢
I ��gti�IS�9�811Vtt�
�'►�rp��a`vl "a'?i MO B
I xYl Cf;*
18LE fn; I
l 98 LX b
"tt$', QXj q 'sqai r
vale
e" a t 3 i 4 N a',p10a
ON
a rf r
�AiWT�—
(O 'm n,,.' C S e 0 c�
'BnoeY�fy f",u+ M1 "*1) IZb tAIs sr Looj 131 oow,�a'4j
v4AK c.L s ,a Fki d jb+ •t k a< ��,Q�l PA e i�c
fiA�ew, Flo- 1 4a.t vl J37dVzI IX 71lyfo I g33 I S314(3g 106
P�+►S 00 Iu,.
AAA 1. 4
M I.iN �_KWpN o jE.a'msoa
�t I I
I 1960
,ka r Q MI ne` 1�,al I
C4G
96d IQf1
!43 g
/9 s-,�
I
4N Cap c; 1 1'
1 7 I 1
7 I Y' 1 7 1
S'
MA-16►c f oM.,w 13
I .3 1 3 I
2 I 4 I I
A
c4„;I►�Q►, I
z 1 3 1 3 1
y I y l q I
F
A mm Wl A�l,v�,e// AwNueu�l
I Z- yR l Z Y R S i
1y KS
N Iw
L7. d 1 7.0
L t1 I 1.? 1 /4; 1 I
yo .o
Phfulo
3L Obe 1 3 1931 I U 714 1 99NO
I IG84.(' 1 494So I
I I
86,oac I
I I I I
W f.h, t. e��,. Ic h. C c►,c�.rr... LCD to u.. Ich cb.w,
I
WA O su
Co oft; I I haoMe, OW."
w a I Co�NCjI I CeuMa I I
�o�M I
Tkloiwl Plwj;601
yds I �1 I y rg I
Vf' I ye I ties I
ties I
W he K I
ra�+� 1 3 caved I tc�ead
3 cewa. 1 3 N ad 1 3 u od 1 3cx
Nd I
I
-I
t-A, 600-1 FIX Erik I PVK OFP*tt
f1ft t KrItE $ort AFFKIF IFeR D#Tc ce' I�en erFaf I
CAM VAt 4SIs. l
I I
I I
I
wt►YOn. I
�I I I
M clxss I S/ SI
I I
3 1 Y<
?e uaa�(T ",,I
X4 >S
���y►sss
7 0 ein Nor'I :a7
1 s' Y 4 I
i 3 311trI
4
I
�tlo a
�I� I
I Re u
1 o
L esQltj I
I I I
L'.
I
I
Cawr '.Aw
Cnv»u) I
3y� I I aS3o I
I 1 3oAKI �x�zMtat I 1oGl I
3x46
Cb� ati
I� V14 I
111- I
Cb r= I
I I vas I
I I I
I
_*I A`hUNAPN-tr*. CO. McLN C L- M
'L d
lb cs fi� i cfi S
1
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
Imo)
I
I.
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
AAA
I I I
I I I
Committee II
Committee meeting March 24, 1976
Present: Kanatz, Nelson and Vennewitz
(Hintzman at the Commission executive committee meeting and Bullick
out of town)
Committee members have talked with Mayor, councilmen and city manager.
Two had very few comments, but would prefer to analyze any proposal for a change
the Commission might arrive at at that time. One thought change not needed,
but that either the at -large system or the ward system would be workable.
Three were opposed and felt that the city is not large enough for division
Into wards and for the division it would create. Accountability should be
to the entire electorate.
A couple mentioned that it might impede the ability of citizens to get in touch
with councilmen if they were not in political accord with their own councilman.
The committee went through the theoretical pro and con issues with respect to
ward system vs. at -large representation. No single issue seemed to be of
compelling importance, although some of the concepts might be viewed as
suggesting that one or the other approach had validity. Most of the committee
members' responses to the various pro's and con's was "perhaps" "depends upon"
or "might or might not be important."
With this ambivalence to the issues, we feel that this is in fact, the discussion
that will have to be engaged in by the entire commission. We say this!, not with
any optimises that a strong consensus will occur, but with the realization that
we have no strong recommendation to present, nor, in fact, any recommendation.
Reluctantly submitted,
Vi Kanatz
Primary election yes yes yes yes yes yes
When 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 sand.
for office for office for office for office for office for office
Campaign Costs
Winners:
Mayor
Council
Council
Council
Council
Losers
Mayor
Council
Council
Council
Council
Denotes incumbent
25*
373
500
186
0
323
48*
25*
160* 119*
383* 879
393*
0 1530
456 1188
58 175
235
60*
745
51
0
1130*
2
5151
1287*
1348*
2144
5581
1061
1355
yes
3 cand.
for office
3113*
1243
1173*
1904
1905
3015
3046
1069*
2317
1579
f�
F
BROOKLYN
CENTER CHARTER
COMMISSION
Study Group I
2/25/76
47ARDS OR DISTRICTS
Brooklyn
Park
Crystal
Fridley
Minnetonka
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Park
Bloomington
Telephone No.
425 -4502
537 -8421
571 -3450
933 -2511
537 -4534
920 -3000
881 -5811
Person Contacted
W. Long
H. Truax
S. Haapala M. Mullin
G. Koland
E. Hanson
A. Jensen
Charter Adopted
1968
1960
1957
1969
1938
1955
1960
No. on Council
7
7
5
7
5
7
5
Mayor Term
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
Councilmen Term
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
Freq. of Elections
Annually
Annually
Annually
2 -Years
2 years
2 years
2 years
Sq. miles in Comm.
27.0
7.0
10.5
28.0
2.7
10.7
40.0
Population
32,000
31,831
32,716
39,340
16.845
49,650
86,000
Ward estab. by
Ch. Com.
Ch. Comm.
Ch. Com,
Council
Ch. Com.
Ch. Com.
Ch. Com.
Wards changed by
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Primary election yes yes yes yes yes yes
When 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 sand.
for office for office for office for office for office for office
Campaign Costs
Winners:
Mayor
Council
Council
Council
Council
Losers
Mayor
Council
Council
Council
Council
Denotes incumbent
25*
373
500
186
0
323
48*
25*
160* 119*
383* 879
393*
0 1530
456 1188
58 175
235
60*
745
51
0
1130*
2
5151
1287*
1348*
2144
5581
1061
1355
yes
3 cand.
for office
3113*
1243
1173*
1904
1905
3015
3046
1069*
2317
1579
February 19,:1976
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Report of Study Group 3 on Ward versus At Large System
Meeting held 8 p.m. on February 10, 1
Present: Richard Higgins, Robert DeVries, Frank Kampmeyer
and E. M. Theisen
Absent: Betty Johnson
Report of Study Group 3 on Ward versus At Large System
Meeting held 8 p.m. on February 18, 1976
Present: Robert DeVries, Frank Kampmeyer, Betty Johnson
and E. M. Theisen
Absent: Richard Higgins
This Charter Commission Study Group was charged with the following:
"Contact and interview Managers, Administrators and
elected officials of adjacent communities to get
their feelings of Ward versus Non -Ward System."
Both Ward and Non -Ward communities should be contacted.
At the first meeting the group developed a listing of communities to be
contacted, which is enclosed. In addition, a series of questions to be
asked was also developed and this list of questions is also enclosed.
The second meeting was devoted to reviewing the responses which have been
received to date and the status of contacts with the respective communities.,
In most instances one or two individuals have been contacted in the communities
and we intend to contact three or four individuals in each community prior'to
issuing a report on the survey of these communities.
Our final report should be complied by March 10, 1976. We hesitate providing
an interim report at this time since the preliminary findings may be misleading.
Respectfully submitted
E. M. Theisen
BROOKLYN CENTER CHAPTER COMMISSION
GROUP 3 CHAIRMAN
rte=
PRO
WARD SYSTEM
1. It is cheaper and easier to campaign
in one ward than city -wide. (Brooklyn
Center is about 25% larger than our
primary legislative district 45B based
on registered voters.)
2. Easier to attract candidates
(Follows from #1)
3. There is a better chance to know
your councilman
4. Greater accountability (Easier to
follow the actions of one councilman
instead of four)
5. City government is more accessible.
(Follows from #3)
6. Councilman may have a smaller constit-
uency to keep in touch with.
7. Residents have more of a sense of
participation. (An item with no
factual basis)
8. Better minority representation
political, economic, social ethnic
and religious. (Sections of the city
with a large fraction of,. for e:mmple,
senior citizens, have a better chance
to elect a representative.)
9. Council will have a better cross
section of the population (No factual
basis, it may follow from 8)
10. A shorter, simpler ballot (You vote
for 1 of 2 instead of 2 of 4)
11. Smaller chance of one party control.
(Political scientists "think" no
factual basis that this is true
especially in non partisan contests.)
CON
May have no good candidates in a
particular ward.
Voter influence is limited to his
councilman.
Councilmen have little impact on service
complaints. (Due to manager /council
form of government)
Councilmen complain that constituent
complaints and requests are time
consuming. (That is one of their duties.)
Voter's range of choice is limited.
WARD SYSTEM
PRO
12. Ward, and thus geographic, interests
protected. (Here, clearly, we must
look at the character of the city.
Except for the S.E. portion of the
city, there are few ward interests.
Perhaps, the ward which contains the
Industrial Park would have a
particular interest. We feel this
argument and the counter- arguments
are of little value in Brooklyn
Center.)
EM
(Continued)
CON
Encourages localism, poor representation
of city -wide interests. (Virtually all
issues in Brooklyn Center are city -wide
interests.)
Gerrymandering could occur, difficult
to set boundaries reflecting neighbor-
hoods, wards eventually become unequal
in number of voters. (These are admin-
istrative problems, similar to legisla-
tive districts, which are of little
importance.)
No guarantee of equality of power and
influence for each councilman. (No
guarantee with present system either.)
Trading of votes in return for favors
could thwart will of the majority.
(There are few or no favors to be
considered in Brooklyn Center)
Wards are the building blocks upon which
political machines are built"'. This no
longer is a concern because the manager/
council plan prevents the "spoils"
system.)
Less prestige than that of at -large
councilman. (No basis for this claim.)
Chance of incumbent defeat greater.
(No factual basis7 however, this only a
disadvantage to the incumbent, not the
voter.)
AT- LARGE'SYSTEM-
PRO
1. Council makes decisions and policy for
the entire city; therefore, councilmen
should be accountable to the entire
city. (Conclusion doesn't follow
from the premise. Besides, the best
guess is accountability is easier to
obtain with a smaller constituency.)
CON
Lack of accountability, neighborhood
interests not well protected.
2. Same constituency for all councilmen.
3. Some areas may have several qualified Sacrifices minority interests and
candidates, so "at- large" broadens candidates.
elective opportunity. (Probably true)
4. Each citizen should have the right to
vote for each councilman.
More burden on citizen to decide on
more than once candidate.
5. Eliminates trading of votes. (Votes
still could be traded on city -wide
issues)
6. Prevents election of persons of
narrow vision interested in only one
area of the city. (No area has any
particular interest.)
7. Discourages development of ward
politics. (No longer are ward
politics, even is they develop, a
concern because of the mangger/
council system.)
8. Lessens fragmentation an council. Costs more to win campaign, so influen-
(No factual basis) tial and affluent run. (Premise correct
conclusion has no factual basis.)
No one to run against specifically.
Limits the type of campaign. More
chance to run a "popularity contest"
rather: than an issue campaign but
no factual basis for this.)
Incumbents stay in office longer.
Suggests accountability harder to
achieve.)
City of New Hopew s�
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Crystal.
Six Councilmen and Mayor 4 wards
Once councilman runs at large and the mayor
City of Plymouth
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Golden Valley
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large (six voting precincts)
Assigned to
Let S' ..3C•J
Frank
Frank Kampmeyer
Frank Kampmeyer
City of Brooklyn Park Richard Higgins
Six Councilmen elected by districts two to a district
Mayor at large
City of Fridley Robert DeVries
Four Councilmen 3 wards
One councilman and mayor at large
City of Columbia Heights Robert DeVries
Four councilmen and mayor
At large
City of New Brighton Ed Theisen
Four councilmen and mayor
At large
City of Roseville Robert DeVries
Four councilmen and mayor
AT large
City of St. Louis Park" Ed Theisen
Six councilmen and mayor 4 wards
Two councilmen at large and mayor
City of Edina Betty Johnson
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
(over)
1`� 1
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER
COMMISSION
Study Group I
2/25/76
WARDS OR DISTRICTS
Brooklyn
Park
Crystal
Fridley
Minnetonka
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Park
Bloomington
Telephone No.
425 4502
537 8421
571 3450
933 2511
537 4534
920
881 5811
Person Contacted
W. Long
H. Truax
S. Haapala
M. Mullin
G. Koland
E. Hanson
A. Jensen
Charter Adopted
1968
1960
1957
1969
1938
1955
1960
No. on Council
7
7
5
7
5
7
5
Mayor Term
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
Councilmen Term
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
Freq. of Elections
Annually
Annually
Annually
2 -Years
2 years
2 years
2 years
Sq. miles in Comm.
27,0
7.0
10.5
28.0
2.7
10.7
40.0
Population
32,000
31,831
32,716
39,340
16.045
49,650
86,000
Ward estab. by
Ch. Com.
Ch. Comm.
Ch. Com.
Council
Ch. Com.
Ch. Com.
Ch. Com.
Wards changed by
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Primary election
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
When
3 cand.
3 cand.
3 cand.
3 cand.
3 cand.
3 cand.
3 cand.
for office
for office
for office
for office
for office
for office
for office
Campaign Costs
Winners:
Mayor
25*
60*
5151
3113*
Council
373
160*
119*
745
1287*
1243
Council
500
383*
879
51
1348*
1173*
Council
186
393*
0
2144
1904
Council
1905
Losers
5581
Mayor
0
1061
3015
Council
323
0
1530
1130*
1355
3046
Council
48*
456
1188
23
1896*
1069*
Council
25*
58
175
0
2317
Council
235
1579
Denotes incumbent
Brooklyn Center
Telephone No.
561 -5440
Person Contacted
A. Lindman
Charter Adopted
1966
No. on Council
5
Mayor Term
2
Councilmen Term
3
Freq. of Elections
Annually
Sq. Miles in Comm.
9.0
Population
35,000
Primary election
yes
When
3 cand.
for office
Campaign Costs
Winners:
Mayor
627*
Council
2225*
Council
1869*
Losers:
Mayor-
Council 5
Council 131
Council
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Study Group I
NO WARDS
Edina Golden Valley Hopkins
927 -8861 545 -3781
F. Hallberg J. Skyberg
5
2
4
2 years
29.0
47,930
no
5
2
4
2 years
10.6
24,923
no
2480
5799 2160*
1682*
2545
3633* 1121
1334
2/25/76
New Hope Richfield
1964
5
2
3
Annually
7.0
yes
s
Denotes incumbent
TO Brooklyn Center Charter Commission Received by Henry Dorff
FROM: Richard J. Forstrom and David Kanatz February 12, 1976
RE: Ward System of Electing Councilmen
At your January 21, 1976 meeting you requested that we put our arguments for
a ward system in writing, which we have tried to do here. During your meeting we
observed that there were a few questions on some complicating features or other
considerations that might arise. For example, how many wards shall there be?
What,do we do with the problem of two legislative districts? Vho shall draw the
boundaries? Sow and when will the conversion take.place? These are good questions
that must be explored and answered; However, they are of a smaller importance than
"Shall we have a watd system In general, these peripheral questions should be
approached after we answer the basic question. We are prepared to address these
other issues, but here we will confine ourselves to presenting the pros and cons
of ward and at -large elections.
BACKGROUND
In researching this issue, it does not take long to deduce there is little
information we can use to aid in the decision. In fact, Professor Backstrom,
Department of Political Science, University of 1 1 1 1innesota, says there is no data and
no scientific basis for raking a decision. It appears, then we must use our own opinion, prejudices, and guesses. Because the character of each city is different,
a comparison with other cities may not be overly fruitful, but it will be worth
the effort.
Since we will find no factual basis for our decision, it seems that, even though
you and the Council might accept this proposal, it still should be presented to the
public for a vote. Our opinions are no better than other citizens. Thus, we
request that your review and findings be completed so that the public may vote on
this issue in November, 1976.
The original idea behind our proposal was generated from the fact
although many citizens that we contacted before the last city election were willing
to serve on the Council, and we felt that these people would make good councilmen,
they felt the problems of campaigning city -wide would be insurmountable. After
reviewing the issue in more depth, we feel there.are many good arguments favoring
a ward system.
City of New Hope
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Crystal
Six Councilmen and Mayor 4 wards
One councilman runs at large and the mayor
City of Plymouth
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
Assigned to
Richard Higgins
Frank Kampmeyer
Frank Kampmeyer
City of Golden Valley Frank Kampmeyer
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large (six voting precincts)
City of Brooklyn Park Richard Higgins
Six Councilmen elected by. districts two to a district
Mayor at large
City of Fridley Robert DeVries
Four Councilmen 3 wards
One, councilman and mayor at large
City of Columbi^ Heights
Four councilmen and mayor
At large
City of New Brighton
Four councilmen and mayor
At large
City of Roseville
Four councilmen and mayor
At large
City of St. Louis Park
Six councilmen and mayor 4 wards
Two councilmen at large and mayor
Robert DeVries
Ed Theisen
.Robert DeVries
Ed Theisen
r'
City of Edina
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Richfield
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Bloomington
Eight Councilmen and Mayor
Four Districts.
Three at large and mayor
Betty Johnson
'Betty, Johnson
Richard Higgins
I
L
February 19, 1976
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Report of Study Group 3 on Ward versus At Large System
Meeting held 8 p.m. on February 10, 1976
Present: Richard Higgins, Robert DeVries, Frank Kampmeyer
and E. M. Theisen
Absent: Betty Johnson
Report of Study Group 3 on Ward versus..At Large.System
Meeting..held.8 p .m. on February._ 1976
Present: Robert. DeVries,. Frarxk_ Kampme.yer;..Se��ty sah_�xscn
and E. M. Theisen
Absent: Richard Higgins
This Charter Commission Study Group was charged with the following:
"Contact and interview Managers, Administrators and
elected officials of adjacent communities to get
their feelings of Ward versus Non -Ward System."
Both Ward and Non -Ward communities should.be contacted.
At the first meeting the group developed a listing of communities
to be contacted, which is enclosed. In addition, a series of
questions to be asked was also developed and this list of questions
is also enclosed.
The second meeting was devoted to reviewing the responses which
have been received to date and the status. of..contacts :_with: the
respective communities. In most instances one. or"two individuals
have been contacted in the communities and we intend to contact
three or"four individuals in each community prior to issuing a
report on the survey of these communities.
Our final report should be.compiled by March 10, 1976. We hesitate
providing an interim report at this time since the preliminary
findings may be misleading.
Respecf 11 submitted
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
GROUP 3 CHAIRMAN
TO: Brooklyn Center Charter Commission
FROM: Richard J. Forstrom and David Kanatz
RE: Ward System of Electing Councilmen
At our January `21, 1976 meeting you requested that we ptit .y
our arguments for a ward system in writing,:awhich we have tried
to do here. During your meeting we observed that there were a
few questions on some complicating features or other considerations
that might arise. For example, how many wards shall there be?
What do we do with the problem of two legislative districts? Who
shall draw the boundaries? How and when will the conversion take
place? These are good questions that must be explored,ind answered;
however, they*are of a smaller importance that "Shall we have a
ward system In general, these peripheral questions should.be
approached after.we answer the basic question. We are prepared -to
address these other issues, but here we will confine ourselves to
presenting the pros and cons of ward and at -large elections.
BACKGROUND
In researching this..issue, it does not take long to deduce
there is little information we can use to aid in the decision.
In'fact, Professor Bockstrom, Department of Policital Science
University of Minnesota, says there is no data and no scientific
basis for making a decision. It'appears, then, we/ must use-our own
opinion, prejudices, and guesses. Because the character of each
city is different, a comparison with other cities may not be overly
fruitful, but it will be worth the effort.
Since we will find no factual basis for our decision,.it seems that,
even though you and the Council might accept this proposal, it
should be presented to the public for a vote. Our opinions are no
better than other citizens. Thus, we request that your.review and
findings be completed so that the public may vote on this issue
in November, 1976.
The original idea behind our proposal was generated from the
fact that although many citizens that we contacted before the last
city election were willing to serve on the Council, and we-2felt'.that
these people would make good councilmen, they felt the problems of
campaigning city -wide would be insurmountable. After reviewing the
issue in more depth, we feel "there are many good arguments favoring
a ward system.
�'-`l 9�.���'�I°
�.3 3
j��l=�
�rmou m w 1
=1r1�r� T==
�7� a w w W \1�
S G�'�,t�!�1_ ..q� .L-,Y�sNYr �u u� n►��'. �1��.�L��•!
m.. t
f D ���S���l S�` �3 s
�g, �mr� 'L'� Ri
��I� �xuUnit /t�
n iu a. ��frT r I o�w� 1��� J
���7 i �j �zS� y _itri �i� �1r=!��►�'��,!�
t���:�i-r� i��e.'^�� E'r �fA��l�, .I���tin I/��I���e..���.------- .ti
j �I�^- �_P./�" '3ie
•3.� g��� a�� i�'� ;��',1-1
�.:H■i� a?
��►���;��11�
�s.,_ fi
t r a "'i.�.uu.« .'m�'e�W� h
!'w i v� �i �jl� /K����� 7= �:i 0%� /.�91'��
4��+
lr �T'�= �I�;� ��::1 �•f�
I
r +=J� �y�4 Y --i�
t l 7�....�.. wL�.ss� \�j{�� N +.u. �y� x!`-3'I III�;�'
il��� �t�a':�� A.�. ��ZTI�,
�i T-=—i l l
i w'- i
��.1111 b� �Yi� 1 �J _I� 9�1�lV\.
au t 1
ti�=i� I� f'�� ��L���i/ ��al1��� N��!1�IY1�1� 1�¢10113�
J
�--F� g f r ??�3��,;' °-J�`�x i
..__r��
i$ ii �t
gas- :•...�..s
l j�� 1� s �'I,:s
e� i
�`�-��1�1�1��1'�I��I�
�I�I�I -r�
t y j ;s l
�i_,,�i� 32t?� 5=
.1 t� fi�fi �i.
fi�7
I �a��� ��,�,�-�N������
9 i 'S.
�i �t
`E'�'��� H r �l 3 �?3
1�1;� ��1� �'�j
a�"�£i �1� s�: .�ii�.i3�37i �i�i�i�m�
��t� l.:
�Y� I� I
s� C�_r ss
�.��ava�s�' i
��r.��r� r
t�t'
�1
1��
d
f C
WARD SYSTEM
PRO
1) It is cheaper and easier to campaign
in one ward than city -wide. (Brooklyn
Center is about 25% larger than our
primary.legislative district 45B based
on registered voters)
2) Easier to attract candidates
(Follows from #1)
3) There is a better chance to know your
councilman
4) Greater accountability (Easier to
follow' -the actions of one councilman
instead of
5) City government is more, accessible.
(Follows from #3)
6) Councilman will have a smaller
constituency to keep in touch with.
7) Residents have more of a sence of
participation. (An item with no
factual basis)
Councilmen have little impact on
service complaints. (Due to mana-
ger /council form of government)
Councilmen complain
stituent complaint§ and:'requests
are time consuming.(That is
one of their duties.)
8) Better minority representation
political, economic, social, ethnic
and religious. (Sections of the city
with a large fraction of, for example,
senior citizens, have a better chance
to elect a representative.)
9) Council will have a better cross
section of the population (No factual
basis,- it may follow from, #8)
10) A shorter, simpler ballot (You vote
for 1 of 2 instead of 2 of 4)
11) Smaller chance of one party control.
(Political scientists "think" no
factual basis that this is true
especially in non partisan contests.)
Voter's range of choice is
limited.
May have no good candidates in
a particular
Voter influence is` limited to.
.his councilman.
WARD SYSTEM (Continued)
PRO
CON
12) Ward, and thus geographic, interests
Encourages,localisms, poor
protected. (Here, clearly, we must
represezitatf'od� af! city -wide
look at the character of the -city.
interests. (Virtually all issues
Except for the S.E. portion of the
in Brooklyn Center are_city -wide
city, there are few ward interests.
interests.)
Perhaps the ward which contains_ -the
Industrial Park would have a particular
interest. We feel this argument and the
counter arguments are*of little value in
Brooklyn Center.)
r
Gerrymandering could occur,
difficult to boundaries .re-
flecting neighborhoods, wards
eventually become unequal in
number of voters. (These are ad-
ministrative problems, similar
to legislative districts, which.
are of little importance.)
No guarantee of equality of power
and influence for each council-
man. (No• guarantee with present
system either.)
Trading.of votes in return for
favors could thwart will of the
majority. (There are few or no
favors to be considered in
Brooklyn Center)
Wards are the building blocks
upon which political machines
are built. (This noi! longer is a
concern because the manager/
council plan prevents the "spoils"
system.)
Less prestige than that of at-
large councilman. (No basis for
this claim.)
Chance of incumbent defeat
greater. (No factual how-
ever, this only a disadvantage to
the incumbent, not the voter.)
AT -LARGE SYSTEM
PRO
2) Council makes decsions and policy
for the entire city; therefore, council-
men should be accountable to-the entire
city. (Conclusion doesnft follow from
the premise. Besides, the best guess is
accountability is easier to obtain with
a smaller constituency.)
2) Same constituency for all councilmen.
3) Some areas may have several qualified
candidates, so "at- large" broadens
elective opportunity. (Probably true.)
4)
5)
Each citizen should have the right to
vote for each councilman.
Eliminates trading of votes. (Votes
still could be traded on city -wide issues)
b) Prevents election of persons of narrow
vision interested in only one area of
the city. (No area has any particular
interest)
7) Discourages development of-ward politics.
(No longer are ward politics, even if
they develop, a concern because of the
manager /council system.)
8) Lessens fragmentation on council.
(No factual basis)
liflyd
Lack of accountability,'
neighborhood interests not well
protected.
Sacrifices minority interests
and candidates.
More burden on citizen to decide
on more than one candidate.
Costs more to win campaign, so
influential and affluent run.
(Premise correct, conclusion has
no factual basis.) i
No one to run against specifically.
Limits the type of campaign.
More chance to run a "popularity
contest "`rather than an issue
campaign but no factual basis
for this.)
Incumbents stay in office longer.
Suggests accountability harder
to achieve.)
z.
AREAS TO BE INVESTIGATED REGARDING WARD /AT LARGE
CITY STRUCTURE
e
1. How long have you had your present structure
2. What are the advantages of this structure
3. What are the disadvantages of this structure
4. If it were possible to adopt an At Large or Ward
system without any difficulty, which would you
prefer
5. What are the advantages of the At Large or Ward
system when running for office
6. Approximately what is the campaign cost for a.
council candidate? j
7. At large Do you experience any difficulty
in finding candidates to run for office?
'r r*
Data
City
Contact 7.
Year your Charter was adopted?
tKUUNLIIl UtAltit Lrt,KtcK l.Ui^►91J�il:P�
STUDY GROUP I
Phone No.ff2
96 c)
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from wards A
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections,ldistricts`) etc.
Term of office y ears
Councilmen 5L
Mayor
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years?
Numter of square a:i es in community?
N:zo established the original wards?
Wno determines�a ecchhange ir. ward area?
'1�4� -y
V. -io changes waxd toundaries if required?
ASK FOR A WARD ;+IA.Z: Q,0/
Do you have a primary election?
What are the renuirements o' candidates per office)?
M
MAIN
Names of elected officials,
U ��a
3
'Page 2
9?
Campaign expenses dost for each:
Losers r',Z�,�:� Cv�d 1 3
Incumben >'d3- 70
Area
,o Represented?
3, o y C1 7
How many carriid�� an3 t mazy?
�y
Please add any additional comments and inrormatior. below.
.GG
COMMISSIONERS NAME ��l�liill,
Date Yr y /i3/�,6
City
Contact cClPr
bKUUKLYN LtMLR LHAR:ER LOMMiSSION
STUDY GROUP I
WAkP A Phone No.
Year your Charter was adopted?
Hou many councilmen? T at—o Z xe A
Number elected from yards 3
Number elected at, large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc. #wc---
Tern of office years
Corncilmen�
;Mayor
Frequency of elections annually or 2 ye,=s?
�jvyu.LL t y
Number of square miles in comm-v.nity? /O, J�
Who established the origiral wards?
w
k,e l Qi .e.t,.�— c 4 s c D t
Who date rmir_es a change ir: wa_rc, araa?
Who c'iangas wz :rd bounearies if required?
ASK FORA 4ARD MAP
Do you have a election%
7� S
What are the recuirements of candidates per office)?
o a c". o F A I c Ow LvJrKer
Names of elected officials,
t i i i N t Np e li.► r o S7 7 r g
C r A Out. r<� ��cw S t o te tjc t j woU. AN 4 f L•rw
E 4 w*x -el 4,4u- e /L N! tr,. W-' I W wa I
Wi t- SNK aIVit -L
S')/ .01(/
r� l Go9/
&LzB'
Page 2
How many candidates anr'. was there a pj'effsa y?
w" 3
Please add any addit io ial commnents and information below,
TiLe t ot cf' AA4k-
-�►reie
0
r
(Ncuhb a
Iii"
gsY►tR
Pc; rjy6f
No
wtw�/ 1
t�7'f
PJL I%
&0
VO
w4*4
CCMMISSIONERS NAME A0,
--�Y t ke 4' �w C- �t'"'t�'++ y'" C .E l J r cA 6
Q so �r k►� b L *-A" tt view- k A it m, v. �a�• t'r w �l
N a c Mr.� I�,.y�,rn, fi w 4• r� e �r�•e fi b 1 cJ b�
GC` mpaign expenses cost- for each
'Reat O
f `j I►�'�"�����
i� +�ekNrk
6�+�fF�
Vi =e r
r C
pR;M Sttw,9 Pra►.
"m. Z4"3
L f17.L
Losers aStc1/�
X30
Incumbent
/yo_•.
i
�f/0
Nn
'Area.. Represented?
NAJ"4 3
How many candidates anr'. was there a pj'effsa y?
w" 3
Please add any addit io ial commnents and information below,
TiLe t ot cf' AA4k-
-�►reie
0
r
(Ncuhb a
Iii"
gsY►tR
Pc; rjy6f
No
wtw�/ 1
t�7'f
PJL I%
&0
VO
w4*4
CCMMISSIONERS NAME A0,
--�Y t ke 4' �w C- �t'"'t�'++ y'" C .E l J r cA 6
Q so �r k►� b L *-A" tt view- k A it m, v. �a�• t'r w �l
N a c Mr.� I�,.y�,rn, fi w 4• r� e �r�•e fi b 1 cJ b�
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP I
4
Date
City
Conta Phone No•
Year your Charter was adopted?
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from wards
Number elected at large- ¢sa'{ c
Number elected from sections,-districts, etc. -e�
Tess of office -gears
Councilmen
Mayor
Frequency of elections!- annually or 2 years?
Number of square miles in community+
Who established the original
Who determines i change in ward area?
Who changes ward boundaries if required?
ASK FOR A WARD MAP
Do you have a primary election?
What are the requirements of candidates per offic e F
Names of elected officials
e"'Page
Campaign expenses —cost for eachs
rg
eoff
acJ
'Losers'
t
a Incumbent
•�W"� ..ems r
Area Represented,�
M
s
How many candidates and was' there a primary.
h
Irate 2 -12 -76
City St. Louis Park
Contact Earle Hanson
Phone No. 920 -3000
Year your Chat V was adopted? 1955
Fou many ccuncilmen?
Number elected from wards 4
Number elected at large
Number Elected _'rom sections, districts, etc.
Term of office yearn
:ouncilmen 4
Xayor ?L-
FTequ.nc;r of Election; annuai.ly or 2 years?
humbec o:_ square miles in ccmmunity? 10.67
2 years odd numbered years
Who e3ta %lished the original wards? By original Charter Commission Based
on population in area.
Who d�ateMmiae._ a. change in ware axea? City Council by ordinance. Must re-
determine boundaries within two years
after each decennial census.
Wno ehanges ward boxnearies if required? City Council.
ASK F0,R A WARD MAP Received
Do you have a prima:--y election! Yes
Vlat are the requirements of candidates per office" 3 or more candidates
per office. Held 7 weeks
prior to general election.
DM,- Qht t�tw i.�A 1-41AKItK IU�YG`I1JJ1U1'i
STUDY GROUP I
`tames of elected officials. Unnecessary
n
Pagy L
Campaign expenses dost for each:
Winners
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
See attached sheet.
iow many candidates and was there a primary?
Pleas E:dd any acditional comments and information below.
.St. Louis Park has 20 precincts.
Wards system tends to get political Councilmen try to gerrymander
areas to suit their needs takes about 20 different rearrangements
of new ward boundaries before acceptance.
COMMISSIONERS Nth@
City Crystal
Contact Ms. Hester Truax (Jack Irvinq) Phone No. 537 -8421
Year your Charter was adopted? 1960
Hou many ccuncilnen?
Number elected from wands 4
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc. 2
Term of office year.
Councilmen 3
:Mayor 3
Frequency of elections annua?ly or 2 years? Every year if necessary.
Dumber of square miles in community? 6 -8
Who established the original wards? Charter commission.
Who determines a change in ward area? Staff brings to attention of council.
Vno chark;es ward boundaries if required? Council changes when necessary but must.be
reviewed 'and adjusted within two years after
a Federal census.
j
ASK FOR t: TeLLRD MA-P Received
Do you have a prima:,-j- election? Yes
`ghat are the recuirements of candidates per office)'? More than two per office
g T
ames of elected af= icials. Unnecessary.
e
Campaign expenses dost for each: SSeerattidled. sheet_
winners.
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary?
Three candidates in 1974
Two candidates in 1.973
No primary either year
Pleases add any additional comments and information below.
Ward system has caused minor conflicts and additional nuisances in elections,
but has operated well on'major matters.of.city.
Ward system appears to give advantage in re- election to incumbent.
COMMISSIONERS NAME Jim Gillen
CITY OF CRYSTAL
CANDIDATES ELECTION EXPENSES
1973 Election
Area
Section I
Ward I
Candidate
Incumbent (Winner)
Challenger (Loser)
Incumbent (Winner)
Challenger (Loser
1974 Election
Section II
Ward I
Ward II
No primary either year.
Incumbent (Winner)
Unopposed
Incumbent (Winner)
Challenger (Loser)
Incumbent (Winner)
Challenger (Loser)
Amount
$234.00
292.00
264.00
7.00
160.00
383.00
456.00
393.00
58.00
Date 2 -11 -76
City Brooklyn Park
Contact Wes Lonq Phone No. 425 -4502
Year your Charter was adopted? 1968
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from wards
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc. 6 2 from each district..
Term of office yeas
Councilmen Z
Mayor
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years? every year
Number of square miles in community? 27
Who established the original wards? Charter commission,
Who determines a change in ward area? Every two years
Manager submits population report to council.
If variation of 5% then council redraws.:
Who charu;es ward baundaries if required? Council redesigns and approves new boundaries
if necessary.
ASK FOR i3 lCaRD MAP Received
Do you have a primannr election? Yes
;:gnat axe the xsou4rements of candidates per officep Three candidates or more for a
position.
Nimes of elE:cted ofricials. Unnecessary.
pgga d
Campaign expenses dost for each: See- attached sheer.
Winners
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented
How many candidates and was there a primary?
.Mayor unopposed in 1975.
No primary in 1974 or 1975
Each councilmen had opponent in 1975
Please add any ac.ditional comr -erts and information below.
Last year was first time in many years that there was a race (more. than one candidate).
for councilman in all three districts.
COMMISSIONERS NAME Jim Gillen
BROOKLYN PARK CANDIDATES' ELECTION EXPENSES,
1974 Election
District Candidate
East Incumbent (Unopposed)
Central Incumbent (Winner)
Challenger (Loser)
West Incumbent (Unopposed)
1975 Election
East Challenger (Winner)
Challenger (Loser)
Central Incumbent (Loser)
Challenger (Winner)
West Incumbent (Loser)
Challenger (Winner)
Major Incumbent (Unopposed)
No primaries either year.
Incumbent did not run.
Amount
25.00
595.26
591.93
182.74
272.98
323.46
48.04
500.41
25.00
185.70
25.00
Date
City
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP I
ContacJ Phone
Year Your Charter was adopted? q 7/ 7111
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from wards 71-
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc.
Term of office year
Councilmen
Mayan
n A-X-t j
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years?
Number of square miles in community?
Who established the original wards?
Who determines a change in ward area?
Who changes ward boundaries if required?
ASK FCR A WARD MAP
Do you have a primary election?
What are the requirements of candidates per office)?
Names of elected officials.
C/ itrQ..4� cL�-cJ
Mw•
a� r. Y
Page 2
Campaign expenses cost for eachs
Winners
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary �.MJ
Please add any additional comments and information below.
!/v..C.. Q� c_.0 ✓�l� .�L:Qt.,c.;l� 7'Le-- t..�.i Gc.
r
I
i
COMMISSIONERS NAME
BROOKLYN CENTER
4 r CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP I
Date 14
AL
City
Contact s C.Q.
Phone N0. t
Year your Charter was adopted? 7L -rr,¢�
H ou many councilmen? y'"L'`'`
t 5
Number elected from wards A0-7i_4/ ,.r.
Number elected elected at large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc.
ye
Term of office ars
C ouncilmen
Mayor
xe
1
S
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years
Number of square miles in community? s
Who established the original wards?
Who .determines a change in ward area?
A
Who changes ward boundari if required? n'o —n.�J
es
ASK FOR A WARD MAP
Do you have a primary election?
4;; ri
What the requirements of candidates per office)?
Names of elected officials.
t t b y ��Y
�rP
'Campaign expenses cost for eacht
A
Winners
L osers
,OIL
Incumbent'
Area
Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary
10'
4,
UKUleKL P! UGI`fILM �ClAKiCa l.Ul'P11.�J1lrIV
STUDY GRCUP I
Hate 7
City-
Contact .1 j,1z4x ax e Phone No.
7- ?6
Year your Charter was adopted? /WBt
Hou many councilmen%
Number elected from wards
Number elected at Large h�
Number elected from sections, districts, etc.
Term of office.- years
Councilmen
Mayor
Fraquency of, electicna annually or 2 years?
Number of square Wailes in community? 9
oW r.g na wards?
N /f,
Who determines a charge in ward area?
1
Who cha.ngas ward boundaries if required?
A J/R
AS -POR A WARD MAP IU /H
Do you hwre a prinary election? O
I
i
What w -e the requirements of candidates -per office)?
Nartie of elected officials.
1pe� 1��
f,
ti
Page 2"
Campaign ex;enses dost for each: 97
Winners
Losers
d
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How' many candidates and was there a primary?;` 3
Pl esse add any additional comments and information below.
COMMISSIONERS NAME Q
OVPI
De e v// 3
City (A 05411/kP
Contact !e Q �A4"O1
Year your Charter was ac opted?
UKUUN-f i`! Ct1t-.KI LK UUVIs
STUD" GROUP I
A AA rya L�0Jv Le 5;elmA
i ok 04 "r W e'N
Phone. No. 07 of 3Y
Hou many councilmen? q AOLA 1
?:umber elected from wards AA
Vumber elected at Iarge A 4-W BreC,
Vumber elected from sections s fTicts, etc. )�t# P
Term of offica ye s
Councilman
r
Frequency of elections annually 2 years?
Nur Mbar of sou;re miles in comm.=.ty� g a )t
v,-
Who established the original wards?
Who deterTire; a chz:n,e in ward Fxea?
�0 ox C
Who changes ward bci:rdaries if required?
�o U k-Qk,
ASK FCR A ',fPR) MAP
Do you hava; a primary elect on?
ghat are the eq-Jirt:ments (4 of candidates per office;?
0 P- iM v tL �t
Names of elected officials.
AT A-7 0 K
0 cup c
ra
i ,'c- k s
sxa s r S
3'�`!
ti
14. U POWACD S
S� s C4 a'-►
ra
i ,'c- k s
sxa s r S
Page 2
Campaign, expenses cost for each:
Winners
Losers
Incumbent
ArEa Represented?
How'rtany candidates and was there a primary?
-?lease add any additiona.7 comnents and information below.
COMMISSIONERS NAME
Ur-QUi\L 1 :Y V..L11 I CM t,.IMK I GK 1.0 1'ilIl_JJ1UIJ
STUDY GROUP I
Date o
city
Contact Phone No.
Year ycur Charter was adopted? /9l f
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from wards
Number elected at large 1
Number elected from sections, districts, etc..
Term of office years
Councilmen
Mayor
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years?
Number of square Hiles in corumu:iity? ,7,?
Who establishes= the Origi:zal wars?
Who 3eterm nes ac ange in area':
Who changes ward bouniaries if required?
ASK FUR A WARD MAP
Do you have a primary election?
What are the requirements of candidates per office)?
Names of elected offi
`f AIL-1 Q.�' &Ie,2c- &.'r<
v
Page 2�
Campaign expenses dost for each: C .a
Winners 6d
c
Losers Aj� OT 1 L
Incumbent
Area Represented?
Hoir many candidates and was there: a primary?
197
Please add any additional comnenis and information below.
at
COMMISSIONERS NAME
r,
Date
C:'.ty,, c V4111
Contact k:tV !'gyp ,6
Yoar your Charter was adopted?
NI \�JV ILL. II \1 iI "I�, �41ni% It' I L J J l U 17
STUD`( GROUP I
jKy AAIk s kc.
Phone No. 3 7
Hou many councilmen? A b K
Number elected from ards__&o L,14
w WS
Number elected at large 4 z-,e r!�`
Number electad from sections, districts, etc. /(6"
Term of office ya s
C ounc it rye n CZ J� C `QCA� Z )r ,04 k S').
Mayor -I
K- equercy of elect Loris annually or 2 years?
Z y ~--5
Number of square miles in community?
/o.b
Who :stab'Lished the or: ginal wards?
AN�
Who deternirc:s a change iii wad axes?
Ab"t e-
Who changes ward bou-,daries if requi_yeV
!V� C T 1 y C w nec)Ae-
ASK <CR A WARD YAP
Do you have a primezy election?
FI
��PCtNC
i
Wr at are the recuiremerts of cand-- dz.t.es per off'_ce
Na.meq of elected of'fic;.als.
4V), Pd b42^r' Nv6
�4 44L
6/o Jou Mf o q
5 SiVARfi2_
goasmo y 16k�ri
r4 r
ew
ref
8S ?S
s8?
Go 3
sqy
YTRI
r4f
0(661
Page 2
Campaign expenses cost for each:
grinners
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary?
Pp NAL
P1e ase 0A -iny additl onz1 comments and information below.
d ,x7- wK
COMMISSIONERS NAME