Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 09-17 CHCA BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMTSSION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 8 :00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of April 23, 1986, Minutes 4. Correspondence 5. Old Business A) Charter Amendment Procedures 6. New Business 7. Next Meeting Date 8. Adjournment *BROOKLYN CENTER, CHARTER COPtMISSION ELECTIONS SUB COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 27, 1986 CITY HALL, ROOM B 0 7:30 P.M. Members present: Allen Anderson, Edward Commers (Chair), Ernest Erickson, Dennis Kueng, Jean Schiebel, Barbara Sexton Members absent: Mary Heitzig, Barb Swart Other Charter members present: Ben Chatelle, John Lescault, Neil Smeaton STATUS OF CHRONOLOGY The meeting began with Ernest Erickson reporting on the status of chronology. He explained that he had contacted Mary Jane at the Brooklyn Center Post various times regarding its publication. School board and Earle Brown Days information did not allow for space for it in May and June; July was too early to put anything in on the elections. Due to space limitations, Mary Jane feels only parts of the chronology could be used; she would prefer more newer information on this matter. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 25 1986 Chairman Commers requested that Dennis Kueng speak on this subject. Mr. Kueng stated that as per the October 23, 1985, Charter Commission minutes, he notified the City Clerk regarding the vote taken at that meeting and in- structed her to prepare the necessary wording for the proposed Charter amend- ments and ballot.. That wording (prepared by the City Clerk) was presented to the City Council and Mayor at the August 25, 1986, City Council meeting. Mr. Kueng reported that Councilmember Theis indicated there is some dis- atisfaction regarding the procedures that our committee used regarding the barter changes. Councilmember Lhotka asked if any Charter Commission mem- bers present at their meeting would like to speak; no one chose to speak at this time. The City Council voted to table the vote on calling a special election for submission of proposed amendments to the City Charter and fix- ing the form of ballots until their next meeting (September 8). A memo (dated August 21, 1986) from the Board of Directors, Citizens for Better Government to the Mayor and Councilmembers was passed out for the sub committee's information. el o Discussion wash d on Nether or not someon e w from the Charter Commission should attend and represent the Charter Com- mission at the next City Council meeting (September 8). Donn Escher, former Chairman, will be asked to attend this meeting as well as Dennis Kueng (present Chairman). Ernest Erickson stated he could attend if Donn could not OTHER PUBLICITY DISCUSSION At the February 18, 1986 sub committee meeting, the idea of publicizing the charter change at the candidates' forums was discussed. It was stated that no forums have been scheduled yet. The commission's goal on publicity of this issue was again reiterated: to provide information on what the change is to the public. CLOSURE Discussion was held on what will happen if the City Council does not pass on the proposed change. Mr. Kueng stated that the City Attorney stated at the council meeting that the City Council shall allow this to be put on he ballot. Legal recourse is available to the Charter Commission if the ouncil does not pass the change onto the voters. The action taken at the City Council meeting of September 8, 1986, will be discussed at the regular Charter Commission on September 17, 1986. Meeting adjourned at 8:09 P.M. �spectfull su tted, role J.Iow rs,Se Assistant i CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561.5440 C ENTER August 27, 1986 Mary Jane Gustafson Post Publishing Co. 8801 Bass bake Road New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Upcoming Charter Commission Meeting Dear Mary Jane, This letter is to inform you that the full commission of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission plans to meet on ti^dednesday, September ,17, 1986, at 8:00 P.M. at the Brooklyn Center City Hail. Please make certain that this meeting notice is published in the Brooklyn Center Post. Thank you. Sincerely, Carole J. Blowers Secretarial Assistant BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION bees DArlene Weeks, City Clerk 74 .Sawed 3'1'1 ne s August 21, 1986 FROM: Board of Directors Citizens for Better Government TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City of Brooklyn Center SUBJECT: Proposed Charter Change The Citizens For Better Government (CBG) has been closely following the Charter Commission's deliberations on the Council election year issue. This has been an agenda item for the Commission since early 1984 and we understand it will now be on the November 1986 election ballot. The CBG still fails to understand the need and justification for the proposed change. One only has to look at the quality of the community, the State and National recognition that our community has received to assure ourselves that the current process has served our community very well. However, since the Commission is determined to bring this matter before the voters this November, the issue may at last be aired in a public forum. This is something that has not really happened since the Council last had this item on your agenda on January-28, 1985. /9 The Council at that meeting took action to send the matter back to the l Charter Commission with instructions ---"to review the issues raised at this evenings public hearing and decide and recommend a course of action after further discussions on the pertinent issues have been conducted". (Excerpt from Council Minutes of the 1/28/85 meeting). The CBG is concerned with the approach selected by the Charter Commission in responding to the City Council referral request, which was to appoint a Sub- committee which surveyed the preferences of elected officials in other communities, rather than to request input from citizens, civic and political organizations in our own community. There is also a question of whether proper public notice was given of the sub- committee meetings. The CBG feels strongly that the Charter Commission has not yet given the public an opportunity to express itself prior to bringing this matter up for official action, therefore apparently has taken onto itself to judge whether this proposal is truly within the public interest. This process is in stark contrast to the careful and considerate work that the original Charter Commission performed in the mid 1960's that led to establishing the present method of electing the City Council. 1 t We enclose for your convenience and review the following documents: -CBG's record of actions todate on this issue (ie. Chronology) -CBG position paper on this issue that was presented at the City Council public hearing on 1/28/85 Your time and ear on this most critical issue has been appreciated. Respectfully, O Tony Huefle Exec �ve Citizens f Better Go ent Encl cc Jerry Splinter, City Manager Mary Jane Gustafson, Editor Brooklyn Center Post 1 2 f BRC uLYN CEb7ER CHARTER CO1 USSIOr- CH,Ro.;C1DGY 1984 -85 1984 4/25/84 Charter Commission Reports on the opinions of the City Council Members and City Manager regarding the proposed change to even numbered years municipal elections. Minutes indicate they all were in favor of that change and 4 year terms for the Council Members. City Manager did not comment on length of term. ,/23/84 Charter Bommission votes to recommend that the City Charter be changed to have the Councilmember terms extended from 3 to 4 Years and leave the Mayor at 2 years. Action did not reflect even numbered year elections, but the discussion in the minutes talked about it. Fall -84 City Manager's newsletter talks about the proposed charter change that would have the elections I.t the municipal level every two years in even numbered years and extending the Councilmembers terms from 3-4 years. 11/19/84 City Council receives the Charter Commission Amendment and has a first reading and schedules the amendment for public hearing on January 28, 1985 12/6 Amendment is published in the Brooklyn Center Post. 12/13 o ®ew�0mo ®o 1995 1/28/85 City Council public hearing and after presentations 'by both the Charter Commission and the Ad Hoc Committee of the Citizens for Better Government the Council votedl 1) to approve the charter change that failed 2/3: 2) To refer the matter back to the charter commission and ask them to review the issues raised at the public hearing and recommend a further course of action. Passed 4/1. 3/27/85 Charte- Commission meets and reviewed the actions of the City Council. Dave Skeels and Phil Cohen represented CBG and were invited to participate in the discussion. An elections sub committee was appointed and the Charter Commission's next meeting was set for October 23P 1985• 4/25/85 Electians Sub Committee holds meeting. No public notice was apparently given and no member of CBG was apparently notified. They voted to conduct a survey of other cities.. 9/25/85 Elections.-Sub Committee holds another meeting and reviews it survey and makes its recommendations to the Charter Comm. No public notice was apparently given and no member of CBG was apparently notified. 10/23/85 Charter Commission votes to accept the Election Sub Committee's recommendation, ie: 4 year terms for the Mayor and Council and elections to be held in even numbered years. Kuefler k Cohen attemded the meeting. Cohen asked to speak, but was ruled out of order by the Chair since he did not register with the Chairman that he wanted to speak. Charter Commission also votes to send the issue directly to the voters in N of 1986. There was not any Tf1�•�N° 4 *U �w^ T�1 mow— n.....1 3..+•� ♦sac Te%-=+a; in City Hall BROOKLYN MYERr CHARTER COMKISSION CHRNOIC)GY- PAGE 2 11/4/85 Phil Cohen sends*.letter to Donn Escher, Chairman of the Commission asking for minutes of the charter commission meeting of 10/23/85 election sub committee minutes of 4/25 9/23/85• Also asking hoy public notice was given of these meetings. Also, copy of letter was sent to the City Manager. 11/18/85 Escher responds with copies of the minutes and noting that the City Manager would respond relative to the public notice question. 0000000000000000 1986 1/7/86 Letter received from the City Manager Wig stating how they post notice of meetings and if they are notified they are posted in City Hall and listed on Channel 7 TV. He also commented that they do not keep record of meetings posted. 1/22/86 Charter Commission holds its annual meeting to elect officers and asks elections sub committee to recommend a plan of action to publicize the Charter Amendment vote in November. Tor1Tuefler attended the meeting. 2/18/86 Election Sub Committee meets to lay out its strategy and time table, as follows: 4/23 Charter Commission meeting to review the recommendations of the sub Committee which apparently will be= May or June- Iflitial news release. Meet in early August with full plan of action in the fall. Distribute information and ask to speak to various organizations. Approve a Spring to November plan of action. 00000000000000000 Notes Also to be included in the 1984 record is a letter from Tony Kuefler to Mayor Nyquist asking for a public hearing be held by the Charter Commission, City Council, CBG, etc. I CITIZENS FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT (CBG) POSITION PAPER ON CHARTER CHANGE PROPOSAL REGARDING CITY ELECTIONS AS PRESENTED TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL 1/20/85 THIS PAPER HAS BEEN PREPARED BY A CBG TASK FORCE WHICH CONSISTS OF: -CBG PRESIDENT DAVE SKEELS FORMER MAYOR PHIL COHEN FORMER COUNCILMAN TONY KUEFLER THE PAPER ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: IMPORTANCE OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOS D CHARTER CHANGE -TERMS OF OFFICE FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL MERITS OF ODD YEAR VS EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS -COST OF ELECTIONS VS THE PUBLICS VOTING FRANCHISE -THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE PROVISIONS FOR ENACTING CHARTER CHANGE SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS RECOMMENDATION 1 IMPt iRTANCE OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE THE STRUCTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME CONCERN OF TliC CITIZENS OF BROOKLYN CENTER. SINCE 1961, WHEN THE FIRST REFERENDUM ON THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS HELD IN BROOKLYN CENTER AND TO THIS DATE, THIS HAS BEEN A MOST SENSITIVE ISSUE. IN 1961, A PROPOSAL FOR THE `PLAN B COUNCIL /MANAGER' FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS SOUNDLY DEFEATED BY THE RESIDENTS. THIS WAS MAINLY DUE TO THE CITIZENS CONCERN FOR BEING SURE THAT THEIR FRANCHISE AS A VOTER WAS PROTECTED. AS A RESULT OF THAT REFERENDUM, THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED A `GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE' IN 1962. IN THE FALL OF 1963, THIS COMMITTEE MADE ITS REPORT, WHICH RECOMMENDED (BY A MAJORITY VOTE) THAT THE CITY PROCEED WITH ESTABLISHING A CHARTER COMMISSION BY CALLING FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO TAKE THE ACTION PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE. THE CHARTER COMMISSION HELD ITS FIRST MEETING ON APRIL 29, 1964. AT THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1966 MEETING THE CHARTER WAS APPROVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLICATION. THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER AND AT THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, THE CHARTER PASSED BY A 78% MAJORITY VOTE (4,248 TO 1,235). DURING THE STUDY, THE ISSUE OF DATES OF ELECTION AND TERMS OF OFFICE WERE STRONGLY DEBATED. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THE ISSUE WAS RAISED ABOUT THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED TO KEEP THE TERMS AS THEY HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY. AND, THOSE ARE THE TERMS OF OFFICE THAT THE VOTERS OF BROOKLYN CENTER VOTED FOR IN THE CITY CHARTER ELECTION OF 1966 AND WHAT WE HAVE HAD TO DATE. THEY SEEM TO HAVE SERVEI BROOKLYN CENTER WELL, AS WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HAD GOOD, OPEN, HONEST AND NON- PARTISAN GOVERNMENT EVER SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE CITY CHARTER. PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OUGHT'TO BE SOLICITED FROM ALL CONSTITUENCIES WHEN CHANGES TO THE CHARTER ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED. PERHAPS IF THE CBG WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE WORK OF THE CHARTER COMMISSION, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THEIR MEETINGS WHEN THE ISSUES CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION. FOR NOT HAVING DONE THIS, WE SINCERELY APOLOGIZE TO _THE COMMISSION. HOWEVER, GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE TO THE CITIZENS, PERHAPS THE COMMISSION TOO COULD HAVE BEEN MORE AGGRESSIVE IN SOLICITING INPUT FROM US AND OTHERS. 2 TERMS OF OFFICE FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL THE CHARTER COMMISSION IN ITS FINDING DECIDED TO INCREASE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TERMS FROM 3 YEARS TO 4 YEARS, WHILE LEAVING THE MAYORS TERM AT 2 YEARS. FRANKLY, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC FOR THIS WE FEEL THAT IF ANY TERM WERE TO BE LENGTHENED, IT OUGHT TO BE THE MAYORS NOT THE COUNCILS'. WHY, BECAUSE THE MAYOR IS THE TITULAR HEAD OF THE CITY AND THE SPOKESPERSON AT ALL OFFICIAL MEETINGS WHERE THE CITY IS REPRESENTED. HE IS LOOKED AT AS THE PERSON WHO GIVES POLICY DIRECTION ON ISSUES AT THE COUNTY, METRO, STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL AS IT AFFECTS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. THE MAYOR OF THIS CITY HAS MORE OF THAT TYPE Of COMMITMENT THAN THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND RIGHTLY SO_ AND, HE ALSO HAS TO INTERFACE WITH MAYORS OF OTHER CITIES WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME LENGTH OF TERMS, WHETHER THEY BE FULL OR PART TIME MAYORS.. OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES OF BROOKLYN PARK AND CRYSTAL ARE EXAMPLES OF THIS AS THEY EACH HAVE 3 YEAR TERMS-FOR THEIR-MAYOR AND MINNEAPOLIS RECENTLY VOTED A CHARTER CHANGE TO MAKE THEIR MAYORS TERM 4 YEARS_ MERITS OF ODD YEAR VERSUS EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS IT APPEARS THE DRIVING FORCE, OF THE CURRENT CHARTER COMMISSION, IN SETTING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WAS THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE ELECTIONS ON EVEN YEARS ONLY. AND, THE DESIRE FOR EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS ONLY APPARENTLY HAS COME ABOUT FROM CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY SOME ELECTION JUDGES AT THE 1953 FALL ELECTION, WHERE THE VOTER TURNOUT FOR AN UNCONTESTED ELECTION WAS LOW. THE QUESTION OF JUSTIFICATION ON A COST PER VOTER BASIS WAS APPARENTLY SURFACED. ONE MIGHT QUESTION WHETHER COST WAS A CONCERN I14 OTHER ODD YEAR ELECTIONS WHEN THERE WAS COMPETITION AND THE VOTER TURNOUT WAS MUCH HIGHER, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO DEMONSTATE THAT ITS NOT THE FACT THAT IT IS AN OFF YEAR ELECTION, BUT RATHER A FACT OF AN UNCONTESTED ELECTIO1 THAT CAUSES THE LOW VOTER TURNOUT_ FURTHER, IF ALL ELECTIONS WERE HELD ON EVEN YEARS AND HIGHLY COMPETITIVE CAMPAIGNS FOR LOCAL OFFICE ENSUED, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO RAISE FUNDS IN COMPETITION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICE CANDIDATES WITHOUT PERHAPS A GOODLY AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND ENDORSEMENTS FROM THE RESPECTIVE POLITICAL PARTIES. BROOKLYN CENTER HAS BEEN ONE OF THE SHINING EXAMPLES OF HOW NON PARTISAN GOVERNMENT HAS SERVED THE PEOPLE WELL FOR OVER 20 YEARS. WE FEEL THE PRESENT ELECTION FORMAT HAS GONE A LONG WAY TO PRESERVE THAT PROCESS. 3 *COST OF ELECTIONS VERSUS THE PUBLICS VOTING FRANCHISE THE COST OF AN ELECTION SHOULD BE PUT IN THE PERSPECTIVE WITH WHAT AND WNW! WE ARE VOTING FOR. THE CITY COUNCIL IS IN EFFECT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ELECTED BY THE STOCKHOLDER THE VOTERS. THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE POLICY MAKER THAT OVERSEES AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF $7,500,000 ALONG WITH A PHYSICAI PLANT, UTILZTES, ETC THAT IS WORTH WELL OVER $50,000,000 (COST BASIS). THE DESIRE TO BE PRUDENT IS COMMENDABLE, AND THIS CITY COUNCIL HAS All OUTSTANDING RECORD OF RUNNING THE CITY IN AN EXCELLENT FINANCIAL MANNER. HOWEVER, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAVE "THE RIGHT TO VOTE" THE COST OF ELECTIONS HAVE TO BE PUT INTO THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. TO CARRY THE COST SAVINGS EVEN FURTHER, ONE MAY WISH TO TALK ABOUT ELECTIONS EVERY 6 YEARS, OR LESS VOTING PRECINCTS, LESS JUDGES, ETC;. HOWEVER, THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE IN BROOKLYN CENTER. WE HAVE STRIVED TU MAKE ELECTIONS AS ACCESSIBLE AS. POSSIBLE AND THE WRITERS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER (IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS VOTED IN BY 75% 18 YEARS AGO) WERE VERY CAREFUL ON THIS ISSUE. THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE IN THIS CHARTER CHANGE? THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT MORE PEOPLE VOTE IN THE EVEN YEAR ELECTIONS THAN THE IN ODD YEAR ELECTIONS. THIS WAS ALSO KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD WHEN WRITING AND VOTING ON THE ORIGINAL CHARTER IN 1966, BUT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO ELIMINATE ODD YEAR ELECTIONS_ IF ONE WAS TO TAKE A PURIST POINT OF VIEW, OF GETTING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DEDICATED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES OUT TO VOTE, THEN THE ELECTIONS SHOULD BE HELD ONLY IN THE ODD NUMBERED YEARS_ THIS ALSO WAS REJECTED BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION IN 1966. THE CHARTER COMMISSION WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING CONTINUITY IN THE CITY COUNCIL, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE TO ALLOW FOR A MAJORITY SHIFT IN LOCAL PHILOSOPHY. THIS I`, EVIDENCED AS ONCE EVERY 6 ELECTIONS, 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS PLUS THE MAYOR STAND FOR ELECTION AT THE SAME TIME. BUT THIS IS DONE ON THE OLD NUMBERED YEAR ONLY SO THAT THE TOTAL FOCUS IN THAT ELECTION CAN BE SOLELY ON LOCAL ISSUES. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNANCE QUESTION GOES BEGGING FOR AN ANSWER. IF THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE GOVERNANCE BY THE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS UNDER THE EXISTING CHARTER, THEN THE JUSTIFICATION FOR A CHANGE IN THE TERMS OF OFFICE AND IN ELECTION YEARS WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INADEQUATELY-ADDRESSED. 4 PROVISIONS FOR ENACTING CHARTER CHANGE IN RESEARCHING THE CHARTER, WHICH WE REALLY SEE AS A DOCUMENT WHICH IS INTENDED TO GIVE ALL CITIZENS A GUARANTEED VOICE IN GOVERNMENT, WE SEE IT AS A DOCUMENT WHICH `IF AND WHEN CHANGED' SUCH CHANGE *SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY STUDIED, RESEARCHED, CHALLENGED AND DEBATED IN EACH AND EVERY CASE. WE ALSO FIND, THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SEVERAL AVENUES FROM WHICH A CHARTER CHANGE CAN BE INITIATED, THERE ARE REALLY ONLY 2 BASIC AVENUES TO.ENACT A CHANGE. 1) BY REFERENDUM VOTE OF THE PEOPLE 2) BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE `UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL OPTION' IS INTENDED FOR USE WHEN THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE IS IN REALITY A HOUSEKEEPING ITEM (ie TO MAINTAIN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE STATUTES, etc;). AND, THAT THE `REFERENDUM VOTE OPTION' IS- INTENDED TO BE USED FOR ALL CHANGES WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL RESULT IN `A CHANGE IN INTENT'. WE CLEARLY SEE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE AS BEING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF INTENT TO THE EXISTING CHARTER. THEREFORE, WE QUESTION THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE OPTION CURRENTLY BEING PURSUED BY THE CITY COUNCIL --AND MOST CERTAINLY FIND IT MOST QUESTIONABLE CONSIDERING THAT WIDE SOLICITATION OF DEBATE BY, AND INPUT FROM, GROUPS OUTSIDE OF THE CHAPTER COMMISSION HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE_ AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN THOROUGH STUDY, DEBATE AND SOLICITATION OF COMMUNITY INPUT DID TAKE PLACE WAS WHEN THE CHARTER COMMISSION IN THE MIDDLE 70's TOOK THIS TYPE OF INITIATIVE WHEN THE QUESTION OF `WARD GOVERNMENT' CAME UP FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION_ AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION DID GO OUT AND BRING IN ALL THAT MIGHT BE CONCERNED TO OFFER THEIR RESPECTIVE VIEWS. THE COMMISSION AFTER THOSE TYPE OF EXTENSIVE HEARINGS VOTED AGAINST WARD GOVERNMENT FOR BROOKLYN CENTER_ 5 SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS 1. THE HISTORY OF THE DEBATE AND DECISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CITY CHARTER WRITERS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED AND UNDERSTOOD WHEN CHANGE, ARE BEING CONSIDERED. 2. PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OUGHT TO `NOT ONLY BE ALLOWED' BUT OUGHT TO `BE WIDELY SOLICITED'. 3. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE TERM OF MAYOR MORE THAN THE TERM OF COUNCILMEMBER MERITS CONSIDERATION FOR LENGTHENING. 4. THE MERITS OF ODD YEAR ELECTIONS AND THEIR APPARENT INTENDED VALUE IN PROVIDING THE CITIZENS AN ANNUAL OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER THEIR SATISFACTION AND /OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CITY OFFICIALS ACTIONS OUGHT TO BE PRESERVED AS A GOOD `CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE CITIZEN'_ 5. THAT THE ISSUE OF COST OF ELECTIONS CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE LOOKED AT IN THE SAME LIGHT AS OTHER CITY BUDGET ITEMS. THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE MEASURED IN DOLLARS. 6. THE MERITS OF PROVIDING THE CITIZENS MAXIMUM ASSURANCE OF CONTROL BY ASSURING THAT EVERY 6TH YEAR THEY HAVE AN' OPPORTUNITY TO AFFECT A CHANGE IN THE MAJORITY ON THE COUNCIL BY HAVING 2 COUNCIL POSITIONS PLUS THE MAYORS POSITION UP FOR ELECTION IN THE SAME YEAR OUGHT TO ALSO BE PRESERVED AS A GOOD `CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE CITIZEN'. 7. IT SEEMS VERY QUESTIONABLE THAT THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE SHOULD BE ENACTED VIA THE `UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COUNCIL OPTION'. IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS COULD /SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED IF AND WHEN ALL POSSIBLE DEBATE AND INPUT HAS BEEN `AGGRESSIVELY SOLICITED' AND HEARD. RECOMMENDATION BASED ON OUR FINDINGS TO DATE, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT YOU REFER THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE BACK TO THE CHARTER COMMISSI01 FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR FINDINGS AND THAT OF OTHER INTERESTED GROUPS AS WELL. THE CBG, OF COURSE, STANDS READY TO FURTHER EXPLAIN AND DISCUSS WITH THE COMMISSION AND /OR THE COUNCIL OUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION. WE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR INPUT ON THIS MATTER. 6