HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 03-30 CHCA BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
MARCH 30, 1988
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of January 27, 1988, Minutes
4. Correspondence
5, Old Business
A. Sub Committee Report on Ward System
6. New Business
7. Next Meeting Date
8. Adjournment
I
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
SUB COMMITTEE ON WARD SYSTEM
MINUTES
MARCH 9, 1988
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM A
Members present: John 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 Comm ers 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 how 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 Conn rs suggested doing a survey and at least two
public hearings. Other suggestions included polling 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 how 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 commissions's
opinion and input. Motion passed unanimously.
Motion was made to adjourn at 7:50 P.M.
RK pectf�aly sub,m d
pectf Mi 4
t I
Carole J. wers, C.P,S.
Administrative Assistant
Chair of Sub-Committee: Ed Commers Chair of Commission: Mary Heitzig
Secretary: Barb Sexton
X E M 0 R A ti D U X
TO: John Lescault
Barb Sexton
Tony Kuefler
Marie Castle
Mary Heitzig
Dennis Kueng
U
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 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 DIRECTORY OF MINNESOTA CITY OFFICIALS 1
February 18, 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 11,489
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
FROM 1987 DIRECTORY OF MINNESOTA CITY OFFICIALS 2
February 13, 1983
CITY POPULATION
St. Louis Park 42,931
Shoreview 17,300
So. St. Paul 21,235
Stillwater 12,290
Virginia 11,056
West St. Paul 18,527
White Bear Lake 22,538
Willmar 15,895
Winona 25,075
Woodbury 10,297
Worthington 10,243
Minnearolis 370,951
St. Paul 270,230
GARY R.CURRIE STATE OF MINNESOTA
EILEEN M. BAUMGARTNER HOUSE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
BARBARA M, DIAMOND
GAIL HANSEN
DZNNiS VV. HAPPEL w
c�
JOHN HELLAND i 1
ALAN R. HOPEMAN ',_T'�IS
KEVIN P. KENNEY November 6, 197
JAMES NOBLES F.
SARA L. PETERSON
THE CAPITOL
SAMUEL W. RANKIN
ST. PAUL 55155
L£ROY H. SCHRAMM (612) 296 -6753
THOMAS M. TODD
FRED VESCIO
JOHN WILLIAMS
BARBARA H IKES
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
TO: Representative William Luther
FROM: Dennis Happel, Legislative Analyst
RE: The Pros and Cons of the Ward System of
Election of City Councilmen
I did not have any knowledge personally of the pros and
cons of the ward system of election. I did approach
Lois P- Iizuno 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.)
I also obtained a bulletin from the League of Minnesota
Municipalities which waspiblished 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 sending. For the most
part, there does not seem to be any real technical problems
with establishing the ward system. The main problems in-
volve theoretical practicalities regarding the convenience
cifg;%.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 ®f minnescta municipalities
300 hanover building. 480 cedar st., saint Paul, minn. 551 O 1
aa
assn 6i� ao�r
for municipal officials
140a.. 2.
Revised: September, 1965
THE WARD SYSTEM OF ELECTION OF
X A cwt P
CITY COUNCITJ EN d
Contents
Page
Part I
Discussion of the Ward System
A. What is the Ward 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
Minnesota Cities
A. Cities Operating Under Home Rule Charters 9
B. Cities Operating Under Special Charters or General Acts 14
TI Vlt1RD SYSTEM OF ELECTION OF CITY CoiJivClT -1/1EN
Part I
Discussion of the Ilard System
A. What is the T -lard System of Election
B. Arguments for the Ward System—
C'. Arguments Against the Ward System
D. Compromise Proposals
E. Revision of Ward Boundaries
A. What is the hard Svstem of Election?
The ward system is a method of election in tinich 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$6 by the
Donlon Charters granted to Albany an' New York City, it attained its greatest vogue
in the 19th century. At the present time, Americans prefer the method of election
at lame; about 61% of all municipalities over 5,000 population elect all council
members at large. It should be noted, however, that only 44% of the mayor- council
cities use the at -large system; 22% elect by wards, while 17% combine the two ethods.
In Minnesota, the at -large and the combination system have been preferred over
the ward system during the last fifty years. Of the five new charters adopted since
1960, two provide for at- large elections, one for election by wards and two for a
combination.
p :Cl AI<.TER rITIE3 :U3,ING NETHOD:'0 L xON
111 Cities ',i first Glass Second' Class Tliixd:. Class t, fourth Class
7.922 '':194�� 1,'C4• 1 92 194f 'x.964 ..;.1922` .-1546 1964ry 1922' X 9b �r 1922 ].946 1964
No. of 17 55 65 '2
Cities 6S'`' 7$ 92 3•• 3 3 4' .2 7' o
At l,ar�,e 35%.; 397e 407e 6b ta3 (e 331/ l e 33�C3% 0� 50 50 t,37. r 24 337e 331/2 ry. 457
v i. ,r• �}1;% 25 /e 24 u� /i 21% tdards 2 24 22(e 33I re �3 �/e 331137. 0. 0 'r 0% 4• 371 1
7
nation 40�•:s 37% 337. 0 331.6"1 331/1% 01 50 -40% �7! 371jL2, 357 417. 37� 34
z -3-
Arguments. for the '(lard System
1) .the citizen votes only for candidates in his ward, and in no other, tiie
ballot, is shorter and simpler.
Tile. eater is more lilcey to have direct, persanzl knowledge about the �':quaiities'.of those tiho seek tQ represent him, and thereby -sill make 'a more :intelli•-
'gent choice, After election, the councilman will keep in- closer touch with his.con-
stituehts..
(3) Insofar as wards have special interests, these will- be represented,
snso -ar as wards contain distinct social,. ethnic, and economic groutis, the council
wall be a better cross section of the population.
-_(4) If a minority-Js concentrate6in one geographical area, the ward system
wssures it of securing some representation on council.
7.
C. Ar?iiments AGainst the ''Ward Sys
As a valid answer to (3) above might be said that in fact'ward'bound-
aries rarely delineate homogeneous aregs_. They tend.to be artificial or merely
traditional lines. Therefore,.. there is rarely a ward interest or a ward "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
0 whom he can wholeheartedly support, and that there is a candidate in another Hard %ho
Mould more fully represent his views. The ward system prevents this voter from fully
exercising
his freedom of choice,:
One
premise of the ward system is that Oren group themselves geographically_
in' fact,. this is not completelytrue.v Other groupings; such as ;iationaiity economic
Position and social class, are equally compelling. -A geographic location cannot be
said to comprehend ail other_ loyalties.
(3), Since residence in the, ward is an almost universal requirement for can-di-
dates some curds have no; top- notch_aldermanic material.': So the voter's ran;e of
choice is restricted, "and the quality' of the council is.. likely. to be lowered.
(4) The system results in...up..equal,-representataon. Even if the city is not
gerrymandered, natural- population soon render the wards unequal in numbers.
The well.- icnocm fact that, once..established, ward lines are extremely difficult to
change perpetuates ttze inevitable inequities.. A final consider4tion is that a�
minority group may completely domi.rate the council by winning in a majority of the
wards.
(S) The chief weakness of the system ALs that it encourages a spirit of
localism. The basis of selection of councilmen tends to be service to the ward,
not to tine city. Am increase in trading and log- rolling is the result, and the alder-
man who returns to his ward with "clean but empty hands" is less likely to be
O re- clected. Finally, it is only a step from representati local interests to
representation of the private interests that dominate the tt =ard.
D. Compromise Proposals
The objective of any electoral system in a democracy is to'reconcile` adequate
minority representation with majority control Neither the ward nor the at- largn
systerzr� art .ures.. ;:thi s- ;Z 9ccur. An ;:ev.ery eldction, ana as a resu? t, neither
system_k�as. forced :aitt .the
other; ,'c* have sought a :'solution by c6A
_ttre twa',tnethocls. Sore elect ,at ,'larae -but nominate by Urards others elect•part',.
ao of the.,council by wards, and Part at lar -e. The latter compromise has worked
reasonably well in small cities because a council of small size, which works with
more: di" IaaL ,than a;Zarge,. un:• i aldy. body,' may be preservdd"..without so e :cpandi n-
the.,,size :af the.•��ards_ that.. close contact between, councilsi ari and constituent is
j destroyed'. ......t• s'�
,..A. :r,amprpp.1se .that,rejects both---the-traditional' and the ward'-system is
Pioporional Representation,,.. Tbis: method of preferential voting; tjhich is'cie'sigi�2d
to secure majority control and minority representation, is beyond the scope of 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 the, _.selec
4ax�anization,, ard duties q .councils, the '£ollo�,�ing'lbooks `0 I be of value_
Anderson .and k7pidner.,. A ner i -c2n. Ci ty; :Government; :Knei.e v I in' the
dnited._ States Xrev, 4d.); ,X unr.o., The •Government.. Amcrica i Cit -ies' (4th ,_ed
Zinn, Government of Cities in the United States.)
ti ter._
E. Revision -of Ward boundaries
t Ward lines should be changed periodically to- reflect population shifts'in order
to give equality of representation in city councils. Recent decisions on re.appor-
tiontnent by the United,State Suprene Court re ardin the "bne man ope ;vote con-
cept wi 11. 5ay.e an effect on the r. evision' of ward boundaries.' The findiii ,s in
Baker .v. Carr., 369: U. I$6
and Revho -lds •v. Sims" M S Ct, `136-, e been niter
1 preted as applyin to local as well as state- governing bodies;" In 1964. "'a Michi -an
court held that�the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth �'�mcni�nent recuires a
County board..of sv :t.o meet Ahe basic `stafidard ad the le islatuxe..
�Also.,see. Ellis �v, Flavor and -Ci". Council of taltirror e; 234 F. Supt. 945 *arid Stet e
ex Sonnei�orn v. Svlvester :132 :.�?,tJ,. 2d •21E9 -(1965; Suprei'. "Court of LJisconsin).
Seger city charters contain: provis{ olis to ins`tire re :g filar rea per tionment of
city, N-7,7 ds'. .For instance, -the KLnneapolis charter reqrziri the' read jiffs trtent of
ward boundaries within three: months after-each decennial 'census' 'according Co :stand-
arils ;delineated in the ci }arter.,, such as the population of 'cacti ward mus t` not •vi�iry.
more .tha ..57, from the average; each,Iward must 'be canti; uous arid. compact,' and
official census fi ;ures crust be used. If the city council: fails to act, a ward
boundary commission consistinS of the mayor- comptroller and treasurer of the city
readjusts the. taard linos.. :r:.••
The ,provisiq�i i.n the St. Louis: Parlc charter s z' bounuari�s 'o ncc
u t r states... Til4
Eger w4rds shall be rcdetermi.ned. f -tuna to time bj ordinances duly adopted_ by
the council, and ba,5ed,o,n firrdin -s of •.the 'council• that the•i'vards- as re dctdr1L ned
re Of•as near e'cIu.A sire in :both, population. and. ;a.;,�.pructicable: "After each
decennial census of the United States, the council shall redeterr -Ane 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 re oulo- ration shall be paid to the
mayor or councilmen until the wards of the city are duly redetermined as required
by this charter."
:.Part 11
Actual Provisions of Mi.nneso,a'Charters
The followin- e.ccerpts from charters are illustrative of the variety
J. ri
used in Minnesota cities.*
:l, Crookston (1961). one councilman from each ward; overlappirn terms.
Section 2.04. Elective Officers and Elections. The elective officers of
.:.the city shall be,one mayor, one alderm, 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 shell
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 terms
of two.years and until their successors are elected and•:have have qualified.
The election of aldermen shall be so arranged that' alderm2n from each odd
numbered ward shall be elected at one regular municipal, election and
aldermen from each even numbered card shall,be elected at the ,next re;;uler
municipal election. Terms of elective officers shall begin on the first
1Ionday of January followin- the.date of the municipal election when such
officers are elected, -An alderman must be a resident! of the ward he
represents on the city council. The City Council shall- consist of the
rlayor and one alderman -from each ward. The election, qualification and
term of office of a municipal judge shall be gc,verred .by the general laws
of the State of Mlannesota.
2 f FsrpUS Palls 1956
Two coLncilcren -frore each ward, ove::lapping terms
Section 2.01." Number:'
umber Selection: Term: The Council shall
be` composed of eight (S) Councilmen, two (2) of whom shall be selected
,from each ward for a term of two ;(2) years each, except -as hereinafter
:provided. At the first City election held following th'-_ adoption of this
charter, four (4) Councilmen, one (1). from each ward shall-be elected for
a term beginning on the second Tuesday of April l- irmlediately following
such election and ending on the last day inclusive of.the second December
thereafter.
At the second City election following the adoption of this charter four (4)
Councilmen, one.from each ward, shall be- -elected for a'term beginning on
the-second Tuesday of April immediately following such election and ending
on the last day inclusive of the second December thereafter.�:At each and
every City election thereafter, four (4) 'Councilmen-, one (1) from each
ward, shall be elected for two (2)_yedr.terms. Each aldermaii.s ?call serve
until his successor is elected and qualified.
2.02. A. member of the Council shall be a qualified
_elector of the ward which he represents and shall mold no other public
office incompatible with the office of Councilman,.
3. I -lest St. Paul (1962). Two aldermen from each ware; non- ovcrlapping terms.
Section. 2.03.. Elective Officers. The`Council shall be composed of a
maypr•.and six (6) aldermen. The Mayor, Municipal Judge and Constable
J -6-
shall be qualified electors and shall be elected at large. Two (2)
aldermen shall be elected.;from.each aldermanic district and shall be
qualified electors. The 2•iayor, Aldarmen and the Constable shall be elected
for terms.oE..tc�o: (2) •_yea;;s, and the 2Iunicipal Jucjg,e for a term of six (6)
years
:•l� n Rapids (1959; :amerided,1951); _One councilman. }roy� each.zzaru; one
councilman at large; overlapping terms.
The-•19 -to Section 2;03 .provides for a tayor and,one.councilman
to be elected at large in alternate years (for terms of 2 years); for
•t', three. councilmen to be-elected one from each of thrde wards s tag&ered
,.emerms (for terms of 3 years) and for the.city to.be divided into three
.j wards. i...
:.5;..; Glencoe (1957) -.One courcilman from :each.wa�d; one' counci?�ran -at- large:
..,Section 2:01. Elective .Officers; :electivd kofficers of the City of
:V Glencoe '-shall %themselves b.a qualified voters of tae City of _Glencoe and
.shall b.fe elected by• the ;vote of the qualified voters of said::city and
'shall conaiat of -a.14ayor,..:one Alderman a resident' of each 'Ward, one
Alderman at-
Large, 'a Yiunicipal Judge;: and a Spec i I Munici,3al- Judge.
-Section 2 .q5. -Term ;of 'Of fice. The term of office`ofI
Judge and ~Special liu i.cipal 'Jud ;e shall be _four' }ears ra :The ter of office
:.:.of -the -Mayor and Aldermen shall be two yors, e.;cept that the.. term of the
irst Alderman at: barge .elected hereunder shall. be for "one •yar only and
,thereafter•:,for ttao years 3n= order that thereafter the i�iayor and Alderman
at Large shall be elected in alternate 'years=. The `term of office of
appointive officers, except Co;aaission members, shall not exceed two years,
az c� ;terms ;of all 'such appointive oi:fiezrs shall: �dxp ze .with the term of
the 2a-yor. The term of office of each officer elected hereunder shall
to=. ncG- ,on'the-first: day o£ Apxil in the year in'which- hd'Was elected.
A11.'affxcers_; both "Qlect-ive and appointive. shall hold office -until their
a r e elected or 'appointed and qualified. E•lective' officers whose
t�: ::terms have ..not a3cpired at. _the 2 .time, �of the first: election following the
i o clbptitrn of rthis Chaxte;cr ;hali continue to hold off: to to the expiration
r -of he.._te= -•for which originally elected.
6 Northfield (1961). One councilman from each ward; three councilmen-
at-large; oveJapping terms.
�_.Seetion 2.3. Elective. Officers,. .:The counc-i <l. shall be composed oz a mayor
and sx:councilAZen taiio •5ha•11 bc. qualifryedcl:ectors. One councilman shall.
be elected ;from each ward. -and three coinci. shall be elected at large.
E h c4unci.lman -shall serve for -a .term -of three °y arp''acid. until his
successor -is.,. elected._ancl. qualifies:, e�cdpt :that nt the- first-election held
after the adoption; of -thl-s• charter the candidate. for councilman at large
frora the first ward shall serve for one year, the candidate for council-
R .span at, -J ^r�Q ;.frc�ri :the' second: vard shall serve for two years' :the candidate
for, councAlri;nri at. large..from the. third..x:ard sha?l•serve-:fb1 three years.
The candidate .fo,Y at••.l.arge :having. the hi Bast' •hunibar of votes
shall serve for three years, the next candidate for councilman at large
havi,nd neYt,•higbeSt; riumb_ o f'. Votes shallz`'%:u fcx'• twq j?ai."i'. and
the next candidate for councilman at large having the noxt highest number
;y ,of .votnY F BI serv_a :fox,•onc, year. The r pnyor. 3hnII serve' for a term of
,,twQ ,yc�ars anti? -:Dis uc.cessbr is elected c :6d qualifies
Jam (1951). Two councilmen from 'each -ward; one councilman- at- la r-e;
c terms.
Section 3. Elective Offi -cexs. The elective officers s -of the city shall
be the members of the counci.l,, iticludin- the mayor, and two justice- of
the peace all of whom.shall' oua]ified electors of.said city. The mayor
shall bald his office for the L ,of two years and the ald ern ers shall
hold their offices for the term of four years, all commencing on
January 2nd, next followin- 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 havin-
the hivhest•number of votes shall serve for four years, and the candidate
in each ward bavim- the next highest number: of votes shall serve for two
years and the alderman at large small serve for two years. The Justice, of
the peace shall hold their respective offices for the term of two years,
commencing on January 2nd, next following their election and until their
-successors are elected and qualified.
Section 9. Council. The council shall be composed of the�nayor anal five
aldermen, two of w'nich 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
,as .taxpayers and qualified voters, and one aldernar. to be elected by and
from electors of said city at large.' The mayor shall have no vote
in the proceedings in said council e:.cept in the case of a tie vote.
g. :.Detroit Lakes (1959). Two councilmen from each yard; three councilmen -at-
large; overlapping terms.
Section 3.01. .Elective Officers. The 'elective officers of the city shall
be a mayor, nine aldermen, a judge, a special judge of the municipal court
an(! two justices of the Peace. Of the nine aldermen, two shall be elected
from each ward and three at large, The Justices of the Peace shall be
elected for terms of two years until such a time as the office is abolished
pursuant to law. All elective officers shall be qualified electors of the
city or ward from which they are elected, and all elective *off icers hoidin-
office.when this Amended Charter takes effect shall continue in office
until the terms for which.they have been elected have expired. Except
as provided herein, the mayor and aldermen shall "hold their office for four
years, and the judge and special judge of Municipal Court shall hold their
office for terms as providea by law. All elective officers shall conci.nue
in office until _their successors have been elected and qualified.
At the first Triennial election following the adoption of this A�ccnded
Charter, mayor and nine aldermen, two from each ward and three at ?arge,
shall be,elected for terms beginning Iirch first immediately following such
election, the terms of which, under the present city charter, expire on
•said date.
At the said first biennial election the alderman receiving the highes number
of votes in each card shall be elected for a teian of four years, and the
alderman from each x�ard receiving the second highest number of votes shall
be elected for a term of tiro years.
At said first biennial election the alderman receiving the highest number,
of votes for alderman at lame shall be elected for a.term of four years
and the alderman receiving the second and third highest number of votes for
Aldermen at large shall be elected for terms of two years.
i3-
At th;: said first biennial election two Justices o£ the Peace shall be
-'elected for terms- beginning-April Tirst irmiedintcly fo11o:•�in 'such election,
the terms of which* under the present cha rter,• •ei:pire t.ori said date.
At the; thi rd biennal.' folloiain� the .adopts on oz this Amended
Charter, tne' Juc7g�o a=zt1 'special 'Judge 'of the Munici�a 1 'Court shall be
,eleet;ed for` terms beginning I-Lrch first immediately 6l1o'Wing such elec-
tzon, the term ar the rlunicipal Judgs e�;pizin�`on said date.
M7' tb ,second biennial election the e shall be elected orie Lerman from
.each, ward and trio aldermexi at' larue; .all. for• terms of four years. At
every city election'thereaztor all' elective ofii.ces Tilled as the
••tgrm.s of the offi c eks expire
James G Col ,e
Res earch'Assis tan t
Louise K derling
esear.ch .Assistant
Revised': May, 1965
JGC
Y,1ea'
:Rev: May,'' 29GS
Parma III
Council. Connosition and 11othod of Election in Minnesota Cities
In the first column, the: fi ure following the name .is the 1960 populatign.
In the second column, wards that serve only as elcct7on districts are at rkcd
with a double asterisk 7
s
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 merber of the council, with
voting powers unless marked by an asterisks The asterisk denotes that'tho
;mayor Votes only in case of a tie.
•:,In the co lumns "Electe at Lar -e" and `Nereus the number does not include the
mayor.
In the last column, 0-A" means annual election and "B" means biennial election.
A. Cities Operating Under Home Rule Charters
Cities over No. of No. of Elected Elected Term •`Time of
20,000
Ma Councilmen by ?lards at Lar, *,c (Yea Election
;Austin 3 8 6 1 4 (larch) B
Bloomington 7 6 4 B
{50,498}
;�Crystal 4 7 4 2 3' B
(24,20
Duluth S 9 5 4 4 B
(106,304)
Eankato 7 6. .4 A
(23,797) r
Minneapolis 23 13 13 •2
(432,0
Moorhead .4 9 S 4 B
(22,934)
Richfield 5 4 3 A
(42,523)
Rochester 6 7 6 2.. A
(40, 663)
Cloud 7 7 4 .4 Yrs
(33 X15)
St. Louis Part; 4 7 4 2 4 B
(43,310)
1. Mayor has no -votin- power.
2. One elected fror:2 wards 1 and 2, the other by wards 3 and 4.
3. Nast be one from each ward.
Se 7 4 6 2 B
s (313,411)
So. St. Paul. 3 6 1 2 B
(22,032) i. r..
Cities from vo. of No. of Elected Elected Term Time of
.10 Wards Councilmen by I-lards at Lnrf�e. (Years) Election
_Albert Lea.. 6 :7 b: i 4'' B
(17,100)
Anoka 3 5 4 4 B
r (10,562)
Brainerd <5- Ih .10 j ;B
r (12; 0 9�) •S
ti
Coluai5ia' Y.zi�iits 5 ..:4 :,r 4:., B
(17,533)
7. -.Coon Rapids 3 .:5 =3 F:'1 3. (lard) A
.i .(1((•;931}.: 2 -L
Faribault 5 4 2 B
(16,926) s:
Fa 11s .9
(13,733)
Fridley L.. 3 A
(15,173)
Hopkins 5 4 2 B
(11,370) 4U
_NeV7_Ulm 4
.._...0watontia 5 7 5 2. 2 t4ardt) B
(13,409) 4
Red Win 4 9 B 1 2°
(10,52 0)
Roflbinsdala 4 5 4 2
(16,30-1) f;
Virginia 6 9 6 3 4 `B
(14,034)
I Ji6st St. Paul 3 7 6 2 B
(13,101)
-White Bear Lake 5 6 5 3 p
(12, 049
.TJillmar 4 g;; B [y B
(10,417)
-Cities from No. of No. of Elected Elected Terra Time of
•5,000- 10,000 Wards Counc= l:�en by t.'ards 6t Large (Years) Election
Ale.candria 5 6 5
(6,713)
Bemidji 5 5 _._5 •._._.....:.4. B
(9,958J) Y r i :y
4. Mayor cannot ;ote on mansure he has vetoed.
Blaine 4 2 A
(7,570)
Chisholm 5 11 10 2 B
(7, 144)
Crookston 8 9* 8 4 t B
(8,546),
Detroit Lakes 3 10* 6 3 4- B
(5,633)
Ely 3 *r 7 6 2 A
(5,
Eveleth 6-* 5 4 3 A
(5,721)
Fairmont.' B
(9,745)
Bastings 4 9 8 4-
Hutchinson w 4 2: A
(6,207)
1nt'l Falls 3 7 6 1 ..2 A
(6,778)
Litchfield 3 7* 6 2 A
(5,070)
Little Falls 4 9 3 4 B
(7,551)
Montevideo 5 5 B
(5, 693)
Northfield 3. 7 3 3 3. p
(1,707)
Pipestone 2* 5 2. A
(5,324)
Still trster 3'' S 4 4 B
(3,310)
Waseca. 3 6 2. A
Worthin -ton 2 6;; 4 1 A
(9
Cities under No. of No. of Elected Elected Term Time of
5,000 Wards Councilmen by Wards at Large (Years) Election
Ada 2 8* 4 3 4 B
(2,064)
Arlin ton 3 A
(1,601)
Barnesville 3 7* 6 4 B
(1
4 4 A
(3,673) 6
Biwabik 5 2 for 2 A
(1,836) 1 for 3
Blue Earth 3 7 z A
(4,200)
Breckenrid8, 3 7* �G 4 B
(4,335)
Browcrville 3 A
(744)
5. Mayor votes on policy questions but Only in ca. of tie on Ie8islaCive matters.
6. Tncl udon 4 n
r 14— o
Canby 2 5
4 4 B
(2,146)
Cannon Fails 6 6 2 C
(2,055)`
B
Chatfield% 6* 5 4
Damson 3 4 3 Z
(1,766)
Fraser S is 4 A
Gaylord 6 S 3 A
6
Gilbert 5 2 for 2 y ear3 A
(2,591) 1 for 3 '.:y
A
4 1
V Glencoe 4• 6
(3,216j'
3 216)
Glenwood 5 4 4 B
(2,631)
Granite halls 2 5 3 1 A
(2,723)
Ja cks on 3 6* 3 2 2. A
(3,370)
Lake City 2 5 4 2
(3,494) l
Lake Crystal 5* 4 C} B
Luverne F, 2 5' 4 B
(4,249) g
Madis on 38 7* 6 B
(2
gi'tonka -Beach
3 for 3 years A
(544) lrearder 1yealr-
Morris 5 4 4 B
(4,199)
Ortonville 2 v 4 3 4 A
(2,674}
Redwood Falls 3 5 3 1 B
Renvil S 5�= 3�,... .2 .._.._._,...-I (wads) A
(1,373) 2 (At L
�ushford'.. F :=5 4..; r A
St. James 2 6* 4 1 4 (Wards) B
(4,174) i w 0*4 7 1 S.,
Saul: Centre 5 5 2, A
(3,573)
Sleepy Eye 2 6 4 1 1`' {Zlard} B
(3,492)
Springfield 2 61- 4 l 2 A
(2
Staples .t," 2 6* 4 2 B
(2,706).
6. Includes clerk who is a member and has a two -year term.
7. Must be one from each ward.
3. Uards are not =p provided for in the charter.
9. Must be tuo from each ward,
10. Mayor votes pt ne:.t meeting on questions on chick vote x7as a tie.
11. Mayor has no p wcr.
Tower S. -4 2 4
Tracy
(2,062)
Two IIarboxs 4 7 4 3 2 B
(4,695)
`Wabasha 3: 7 6 2 A
(2,5{30}
Warren 5 4 2 B
(2,007)
t•Iayzata 5 4. 3 A
(3,21.9)
Windom 2 6* 4 1 4 B
(3,691) r
Winthrop 4 4 2 A
ltiote: This information is taken from city charters. Since some charters
alloN7 the council to increase the number of wards by ordinance or
resolution and thereby increase the nu�-nber of councilmen, this
information may not correspond to present circumstances.
-c
is
B. Cities Oneratinn Tinder Snecial or General Acts,
tT Special No. of tTo. of Elected Elected jCrm'' Time of
-Charter or tlards Council- by Ilards at Large (Yrs Elec^
General men tion
City Act
Marshall Laws 1670, 3 5 .6 A
Ch. 31.
'Montgomery
Waterville
4
'Shakopee Sp. Lat:.� S 5 A 1375,
Ch. 6
St. Charles Sp. Laws 1079, 5 4 1 A
Ch. 51
Winona- Sp. Laws 1807, 4 S 1 4 Wards B
Ch. 5 2 at L.,
Chaska. Sp. Laws 1391, 3 9 9 2 B
Ch. 2
Benderson Sp. Laws 1891, 5 4 2 A
Ch. 3,
Le Sueur Sp. Laws 1291, 5 5 3 A
Co. 45
Jordan Sp. Laws 1091, 2 7 6 1 2 B
Ch. 4
New Prague Sp. Laws 1391, 2 5 4 I 2 A
Ch. 46
St. Peter Sp. Lai :s 1.391, 2 6 6 3 A
Ch. S
P
Cloquet Lai•::. 1895, (Varies) (Varies) 1 from 2 to 3 2 B
Ch, n Bach ward
E. Grand u
Forks
Melrose r:
Red Lake
Falls
Thief River
Falls P 19
No. Mankato Laws 1121, Not less (Varies) 2 from I 2 B
Ch. 462 than 2 each ward
6•laconia
1?
Each city is permitted to determine the number of wards i- fal-ch it will have.
DEAN A. NYQUIST CITY HALL
Mayor CITY 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
G es: 533 -0774 OF Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
us: 533 -7272 Telephone 612/561 -5440
6 B ROOKLYN
CENTER
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
March 22, 1988
Brooklyn Center Charter Commission
Attention: Ed Commers
Brooklyn Center City Hall
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Ed,
I noted the minutes of the Charter Commission and your
subcommittee is to study the Ward System. I want to convey
my feelings and thoughts relative to that subject.
For a number of reasons, I am very much opposed to the Ward
System for Brooklyn Center. First of all, Brooklyn Center
is not that large that the council people cannot represent
the total area and population of Brooklyn Center. One of
the significant problems in a Ward System is that it is
inefficient. Part of the inefficiency comes about because
of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back"
philosophy. So if the council people are representing a
particular area and want something for their area,
officially or unofficially there is some trading and
therefore it becomes more expensive. A prime example, of
course, is the Federal Government and all of the pork
barrels. But closer to home, we need only look to
Minneapolis to the south and Brooklyn Park to the north.
That's got to be one of the reasons that Minneapolis costs
something like five to six times more per capita to run
government than it does in Brooklyn Center. With respect to
our neighbors to the north, the mill rate for Brooklyn Park
is something like 8 mills more than Brooklyn Center.
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
ti
Furthermore, the Ward System becomes devisive rather than
unifying, cooperative, and efficient.
Since apparently one of the reasons for a Ward System is
alleged non- responsiveness of Brooklyn Center council
people, I would appreciate some examples. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Dean A. Nyquist
DAN /lb
cc: John Lescault
Dennis Kueng
Tony Kuefler
Marie Castle
Barb Sexton
Council Members
Jerry Splinter
TO: All Charter Commission Members
FROM: Carole Blowers, Administrative Assistant
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 con 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 goad arguments for both ward and at large systems.
2. All communities and individuals interviewed liked their system.
S. 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
TO: Brooklyn Center Charter Commission Received by Henry Dorff
FROM: Richard J. Forstrom and David Kanatz February 12, 1976
RE: Uard System of Electing Councilmen
At your Janu.ry 21, 1976 meeting you requested that c-7e 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. >-Ioca 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. Ue are prepared to address these
other issues, but here we will confine ourselves to presenting the pros and cons
of w g
and and at-large elections.
BACKCROUND
In researching this issue, it does not take long* to (?educe there is little
information we can use to aid in the decision. In fact, Professor Backstrom,
Department of Political Science, University of "Iinnesota, says there is no data and
no scientific basis for making a decision. It appears, then we must use cur ovan
opinion, p neon, 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 cit -wide would be insurmountable. After
Y
reviewing the issue in more depth, we feel there are many good arguments favoring
a ward system.
VIARD SYSTM
PRO CON
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 453 based
on registered voters.)
2. Easier to attract candidates May have no good candidates in a
(Follows from #1) particular ward.
3. There is a better chance to know Voter influence is limited to his
your councilman councilman.
4. Greater accountability (Easier to Councilmen have little impact on service
follow the actions of one councilman cor!nlaints. (Due to manager /council
instead of four) form of government)
5. City novernment is more accessible. Councilmen complain that constituent
(Follows from #3) complaints and requests are time
consuming. (That is one of their duties.;
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 eximple,
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 Voter's range of choice is limited.
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.)
WARD SYSTEM (Continued)
PRO CON
12. Ward, and thu- geographic, interests Encourages localism, poor representation
protected. (Here, clearly, we must of city -wide interests. (Virtually all
look at the character of the city. issues in Brooklyn Center are city -wide
Except for the S.E. portion of the interests.)
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.)
Cerrymanriering 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.)
a�
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.)
AT -LARGE SYSTEM
PRO CON
1. Council makes decisions and oolicv for Lack of accountability, neighborhood
the entire city° therefore, councilmen interests not well protected.
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.
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 More burden on citizen to decide on
vote for each councilman. more than once candidate.
S. 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 manAger/
council system.)
8. Lessens fragmentation on council. Costs more to win campaign, so influen-
(No factual basis) tial and affluent run. (Premise correc
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.)
January 29, 1976
From H. A. Dorf f
Subject: Report to the Charter Commission
To: Charter Commission Members
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 Kanatz, 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.
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.
Henry Dorff
Wednesday 21, 1976
n
BROOjUYN CET=TER 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 tha concensus
of this Committee is that the figures do not reveal any
notable evidence that one system is better than another,
Our conclusions follow:
A. Reco_•ded campaign costs of canc_idates for
office do not appear to be appreciably less
in communities where ward syatems 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.
D. Use of a ward system does not appear to
encourage more filings for office.
E. Overlapping boundaries wards, districts,
precincts, etc* contribute to vo confusion
and additional expense for the community.
STUDY 1ROUP :i rIEr'BERS
Henry A.Do. ?fi', Chairman
James Gillen, Vice-Chairman
Cheryl Asp'lund
Mildred Hendrickx
Barbara Swart.
L l
l yr
Ll
rf
L OM
e
nbr
t2abirrTrs T L
�R�K Cayst �xt r�'o'a •1 a:n! cl�' "`1�,i;� I I
I I I
i l
I J3 7 Nil I- �713�J1� '133�tft(I ��31�►i:�I��o 3000 4S�'isei� I I I I I
olA,a p E. //ANSsfr
on sn Co N l� cTcf w. Leai y'�tvnx .iMAAP A A I t M�+��►N K
c 7 i��� J438 /9s-r
l L
I I
Cl'o rci 1 I I 7 I I I 7
r,..,,,..�,,,. I I 3 1 3 I y I N I 4 I I-f I I I I, I
�',�P'k, a l' Per /TrNC I AN,d +.rl I A•r���11" I ANNvAUy I ,1 I y s I VR s I I
I
.�R.n D I I I I
�-,7 1 f
I i�: r v .o
A �rryul��7►o 3zooa 13Jb'3i I 3g31to 1�8�f NR`So
I
YPf �.,JA 6. 17
ICt I!n.... a0ork IC H.t���... I CaiNC�l Cl-, On ICi��ou.. ICI'A (I�. I I I I
1 I rodeleR ICoo ►Kr 1 I me; I eau M I C Ourrer,
JJ�RrI [`�11►,l1i Lr I
lou y e s I Y�S I l�r._s I ves I vF I vps I times J. I I I I I
f h ►���r I p l p Cl l 7
CA AA 3t &Pd 13 ca•rl. 3CAv,#A, 3 C� 13 cn�i�r I �c���i i I I I
It -A oFr I fa.,+ of rreC r. f Ifsn or<Free Iranart I I I I
CAM p
wl I 3 11 3 I II I I I I
'�R� {r.��,;�;I SISI
r
�I '4 I
c 1 I So A I 2 y 2 .rc I S"7n I C s l �l !`S tl
c 0u !r I 393 I I Z f y 4 I
I �F9wacvl I IHoS
a4 I
l.'l Nt► t I
1 iZ7 I I I I I o ��i�t' ir.:•s'I I I I
C u „c i I I; 3 I •rn.— I S3o %f`I e-eato.t 1 1 3 I
c�.► Nor t I `I *I Hsi I t iXf+ I ti3 3f� 1 `J I II I
t Cou NCi Ilse �+6
I%
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 5% 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
r, j .'i-ts Fr u 5 r f ,'a s z x ,c,�#. ,;R -'S&- 9. a# +.s fa, •1r
'T a o.^c j Fuy- Lr�'.:' ..'Y+ s rk, r .rx:w a s- t+ is _,e
e ka -��.r 7s a f� r 4, i t� !i 'Sl +4���• •'�h -s th,: ��`....a. e`
f A7
r 410.11 CITIES; CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS
aj
may in addition thereto publish the notice in any other legal newspaper publN. r k
r a Fw in the city. k
i
Subd. 3. The ballot shall bear the printed words, "Shall the proposed
i charter be adopted? Yes —No," with a square after each of the last two wv,% f
f in which the voter may place a cross to express his choice. If any part of sat'':
charter be submitted in the alternative, the ballot shall be so printed as to pem.w ,s
t ;t the voter to indicate his preference in any instance by inserting a cross in Us
manner.
R Subd. 4. If any charter so submitted be rejected the charter commission tnh
h 1 propose others from time to time until one is adopted.`.
4- l
RL 5 1 •1 5 1 1 l•1.7. r
s7 190Jc2 s1 9�9c80 su 9G ct'08s clo tSt.••
a 1 (1 284) w
w 410.11 ADOPTION; NOTICE, EFFECTIVE DATE. I! 51 percent of the cede!
cast on the proposition are in favor of the proposed charter, it shall be conddaeb
adopted; and, if any provisions thereof are submitted in the alternative, thaett
ratified by a majority of the votes cast thereon shall prevail. I1 the charter b
adopted, the city clerk shall file with the secretary of state, the register of decks n
the county in which the city lies, and in his own office a copy of the charter:<.
r companied by his certificate attesting to the accuracy of the copy and grin t*! R
1*`6 date of the election and the vote by which the charter was adopted. The charWr F
shall take effect 30 days after the election, or at such other time as is fixed in the bu s;
K charter, and shall then supersede all other charter provisions relating to such city.
.4. Thereupon the courts shall take judicial notice of the new charter and, upon tf*
election of officers thereunder, the officials of the former corporation shall deltm
to them the records, money and other public property in their control.
W L s 755; 1959 c 805 s 2; 1969 c 1027 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 71 (1285)
410.12 AMENDMENTS. Subdivision 1. Proposals. The charter commi9*3
W E, may propose amendments to such carter and shall do so upon the petition
voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last predow
state general election in the city. If the city has a system of permanent registration
of voters, only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition/` h pethtto
circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character and t p
shall have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; except` 3;
that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than 1,000 words, a x
mo t j; true and correct copy of the same may filed with the city clerk, and the petittm
F shalt then contain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words settfrS �r
forth in substance the nature of the proposed amendment. Such summary shaII
contain a statement of the objects and purposes of the amendment proposed and
an outline of any proposed new scheme or frame work of government and shall
4 {-be sufficient to inform` the signers of the
f g petition as to what change in goverb
men t is Sought -to be accomplished by the amendment. The summary, togeLhet�
4 a. copy oUthe proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to the charhtr
commission for its approval as to form_ and substance_ Th e commission s hall wither
z Y t 1.0 days after submission to it, return the same to the proposes of
-!'amendment with ssch modifications in statement as it may deem necessary 1:
1 N i
order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth a r
Subd. 1a. Alternative methods of charter amendment. A home rule charter f_T
M may be amended only by following one of the alternative methods of amendmen i
provided in subdivisions 1 to 7.;
Subd. 2 Petitions. The signatures to such petition need not all be
r r to one paper, but to each separate petition there shall be attached an affidavit at
the circulator thereof as provided by this section. Each signer of any such tlos
:t petI .;e
paper shall sign his name in ink or indelible pencil and shall indicate after his nam�1
his place of residence by street and number, or other description sufficient to idea
tify the place. There shall appear on each petition the names and addresses of the
electors of the city, and on each paper the names and addresses of the same
y s z electors, who, as a committee of the petitioners, shall be regarded as responsibIg P
for the circulation and filing of the petition. The affidavit attached to each petitta3
shall be as follows
State r .t 1
r
C ounty o
being duly sworn, deposes and says that he, and It
s ?a�KSg7ss€�'°4:r +�e?'x� e+.�
E4'Sft �i CITIES; CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS 410.12
ublisi dad's after such submission to it, return the same to the proposers of the
Wr, personally circulated the f oregoing paper, that all the signatures a
p y e ore g g P P g appended
mosed'ncw bero were made in his presence, and that he believes them to be the genuine
two word;, of the persons whose names they purport to be. rµ
art of sud! 3 u
s to pe Signed
(Signature of Circulator)+
'oss in 10w 4 $ftrn'bed and sworn to before me
1 INaL day of ....19.... p
anion >Y Smy public (or other officer)
t�sef' rIzed to administer oaths
P art 3 a _71 The foregoing affidavit shall be strictly construed and any affiant convicted of
Ming falsely as regards an
4 g y particular thereof shall be punishable in accord-
f the votlf +aaewith existing law.
considered Md. 3. May be assembled as one petition. All petition papers for a proposed
LUve, tb4�t. ftftdment shall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instru-
charter is 11M Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the
of deeds of.
f
1 41 c* c!erk shall determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested
charter at.
tE+d wi ether the petition is signed by a sufficient number of voters. The city clerk t w
declare any petition paper entirely invalid which is not attested by the cir
ixed e�xr thereof as required in this section. Upon completing his examination of
fe petition, the city clerk shall certify the result of his examination to the council.`
S`
upon city. t r 21 he shall certify that the petition is insufficient he shall set forth in his certificate
1, u de�� de particulars in which it is defective and shall at once notify the committee of 4
-Oe'petitioners of his findings. A petition may be amended at any time within
='!s da }'s after the making of a certificate of insufficiency by the city clerk, by filing m
rMlementary petition upon additional papers signed and filed as provided in
oinmissioig of an original petition. The city clerk shall within five days after such amend
?etition pi ;Zt2 Is filed, make examination of the amended petition, and if his certificate a
t pretdo= a show the petition still to be insufficient, he shall file it in his office and notify
'ViStratift 'V !'1►.committee of the petitioners of his findings and no further action shall be had
L petits! sun insufficient petition. The finding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not
racter a*G ce the filing of a new petition for the same purpose.
r Sttbd 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a fi
,dal or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The
1 e Petlt� of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the
ati °Minn on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to s`
1 as31 x -V.-' ''wish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same L
P ar,4 fJoL If 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption,
and rJxa of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the
n goV+aM 4fttaal charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of
toget)W 1 7 4 z y ftelection.or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment.
Sltbd. 8. Amendments proposed by council. The council of any city having a
an Wits in zt s ;iiaa�e nile charter may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance.
e ssary AW ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter com
Ie�t fo1?hf uJon Within •60• days, thereafter, the charter commission shall review the pro-
chartm
a
OW amendment but before the expiration of such period the commission may ex
Mndtap.et Vzd the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its s
W.*tion determining that an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing r
appe 't'_e proposed atheitdment; the charter commission shall approve or reject the pro
!$davit a# V=W amendment or "suggest a substitute amendment. The commission shall prompt- f
h petitbo� V ratify the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter comissio's
his nary eetft, the council may submit to the people, in the same manner as provided in
it to idea 6abdh4sion 4, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment
es of five **posed by the charter commission. The amendment shall become effective only
same IIv! i 1ten approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be
�Pib3f Cod in the same manner as other amendments. Nothing in this subdivision pre-
2 petits tl&s the charter commission from proposing charter amendments in the manner
gtvvided by subdivision 1.
=Subd. 6. Amendments, cities of the fourth class. The council of a city of the
i battb class having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments by or-
t�saace without submission to the charter commission. Such ordinance, if enacted,`
d xi thae be adopted by at least a four -fifths vote of all its members after a public hear- g
z s� fn K
y a
410.121 CITIES; CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS M
s ing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed ame,
en
ment and shall be approved by the mayor and published as in the case of otlw
ordinances. The council shall submit the proposed amendment to the people in fLe
manner provided in subdivision 4, but not sooner than three months after the pas
sage of the ordinance. The amendment becomes effective only when approved tr.
w the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved, it shall be filed in the same
y7v*' 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
T ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted by the council by an affirmative vote of ali
its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing tho
text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor and pnblishri
as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall rot
Y become effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at such later date as
is fixed in the ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such a.:
x ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with thr
city cleric. Such petition shall be signed by qualified voters equal in number to t%')
percent of the total number of votes cast in the city at the last state general ehc
tion or 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a system of permanent rehistmti�a
r of voters, only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. If the regtvst.,
xy petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective
the unt charter commission, ommiss on, vo as
council, ch
or by petitionof the v t s, except that
council y �z council may submit the ordinance at any general or special election held at least 60
days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action in ado tine 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
t
d by th
pp
h
di
h f g fili
the n o such ordinance when approved voters.
[R L s 756; 1907 c 199 s 1; 1911 c 343 s 1; 1939 c 298 s 1; 1943 c 227 s 1; 19;3
c 122 s 1; 1959 c 305 s 3, 4; 1961 c 608 s 5, 6; 1969 c 1027 s 3; 1973 c 503 s 1 -41 (12951
v 410.121 SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR WINE; FAVORABLE VOTE.
If the charter which is to be amended or replaced contains provisions which pm
hibit the sale of intoxicating liquor or wine in certain areas, such provisions shall
t R"
not be amended or removed unless 55 percent of the votes cast on the propositioa
shall be in favor thereof.
4 [1969 c 1027 a 21
410.13 [Repealed, 1959 c 305 s 61
t 410.14 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS. In submitting a charter or an ataead
x yak; 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 any
4
amendments thereto.
[R. L. a. 7571 (1888)
410.15 SUCCESSION; SUBSISTING RIGHTS. The new city so organised
shall be in all respects the legal successor of the former corporation, and zo
charter so adopted, nor any amendment thereof, shall prejudice any subdi ft
right, lien, or demand against the city superseded, or affect any pending action Of
r$ tw proceeding to enforce the same. All rights, penalties, and forfeitures accrued cr
accruing to such former corporation, all property vested therein or held in trust
therefor, all taxes and assessments levied in its behalf, and all its privileges and mi
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.
[R L s 758; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 71 (1289)
410.16 FORMS OF GOVERNMENT INCORPORATE D IN CHARTER. The
charter commission may incorporate 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 4
elective city officers, including mayor and members of the council, shall be elected
at large or otherwise.
11909 c 170 s 1; 1959 c 305 s 5; 1961 c 608 s 71 (1290)
p
3
Vp Y
Committee II
Committee rieetilLg 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 Uayor, 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' resptinses 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 optimism 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
f� J
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP III FINAL REPORT
WARD SYSTEM VS. AT LARGE SYSTEM
Study Group III was charged with the task of contacting neighboring
communities to determine their attitude on the system used in their
community.
The communities contacted were:
New Hope New Brighton
Crystal Roseville
Golden Valley St. Louis Park
Brooklyn Park Edina
Fridley Richfield
Columbia Heights Bloomington
Plymouth
The persons questioned were past and present mayors and councilmen,
administrators and party officials.
The questions and summary of responses are as follows:
1. QUESTION How long have you had your present structure?
ANSWER None had changed their structure in the past
ten years.
(2. QUESTION What are the advantages of this structure?
(3. QUESTION What are the disadvantages'to this structure?
ANSWER All respondents cited the regular list of
advantages and disadvantages to their
systems. Those with ward structures cited:
a. Better accountability and neighborhood
interests better represented.
b. Minority interest represented better.
C. Campaign costs are lower.
d. Easier on the candidate to compaign
because of smaller area.
e. Local alderman takes care of his ward
and is more accountable to residents.
s q^
Those with at large structures cited:
a. Far less parochial.
b. Represents all of the people rather than
a special geographic area.
C. Able to recruit candidates from entire
city who are qualified and not restricted
to a ward area.
d. Eliminates trading of votes.
e. Lessens fragmentation.
4. QUESTION If it were possible to adopt at large or
ward system without any difficulty, which
would you prefer?
ANSWER 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?
ANSWER Range $500 to $4,000
City with ward and at large
Ward $2,000
At large $4,000
Cost of campaign is influenced as much by
competition as by area to be covered.
I
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
Rp t_i-v John Scan