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