Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 01-30 CHCA BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION JANUARY 30, 1985 8:00 P.M. City Hall ANNUAL MEETING AGENDA I. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of November 28, 1984 Minutes 4. Approval of Annual Report 5. Audit Report 6. Nominating Committee Report 7. Election of Officers for 1985 8. New Committee Appointments 9. Old Business A. Recognition of Former Members B. Updated Copies of the Charter C. Elections Amendment Action at January 28, 1985, City Council Meeting D. Code of Ethics 10. New Business A. Ratification of Executive Committee Action Regarding Elections Amendment B. Salary for Secretarial Assistant for 1985 C. Year 2000 Report Michael Beauchane 11. Next Meeting Date 12. Adjournment BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 1984 The Charter Commission met six (6) times during 1984. The annual meeting was held on January 25, 1984, with the following officers elected: Chair Donn H. Escher Vice Chair Vincent Tubman Secretary Barbara Sexton The following Committee appointments were made: Public Relations Ernest Erickson Audit Jean Schiebel Rules /Parliamentarian William Hannay During the year, there were no resignations; three (3) new appoint- ments were made: Mona Hintzman, Barbara Swart, and Edward Commers; two (2) consecutive four (4) year terms were completed by William Hannay and Vincent Tubman; and Jean Schiebel, John Lescault, and Donn Escher were reappointed to their second full four (4) year terms. The Charter Commission currently has twelve (12) Commission members, which is three (3) short of a full complement. During calendar 1984, the following business was accomplished: On January 25, 1984, the Commission forwarded seventeen (17) Charter amendments to the City Council which enacted the amendments by ordinance following their second reading on March 26, 1984. These amendments were primarily technical, clarification and /or grammatical in nature, affecting Sections 2.03, 2.05, 2.06, 3.02, 6.02, 6.04, 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, 11.01, 11.02,'12.21. Changes in Sections 7.06, 7.09, 7.16, 8.03, and 8.04 were procedural changes. On May 23, 1984, the Commission forwarded two (2) substantive amendments to Sections 2.03 and 4.O1 relating to Municipal Elections to the City Council. The first reading of these amendments was heard on November 19, 1984, with the second reading scheduled for January 28, 1985. Considerable discussion transpired concerning both the need and form of a Code of Ethics for city employees,and appointed and elected officials. The Commission has requested the City Manager to prepare a resolution, that could be. placed in or- dinance form, for possible formal action by the Commission in 1985. Re ectfull su mitted, Donn H. Escher, Chair BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION cb CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKL YN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROV LY A TELEPHONE 561-5440 le-4 7BY M I E M E R G EN CY-- PO Ll C E F I R E ENT E K 911 D,20 70U) fwenue 'Nortk certc-.-r IMN Dear Mrs. Schiebel: At your request as Audit Chairman of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission, I have listed below the expenditures k,-'har to the Charter Commission budget appropriation in 19',34. pROFESSION-AL SERVICES: Date payee Amount Purpose 40.90 Secretarial Services 02/13/84 Carole R�Jower'--� C)3/ 2/8 4 C a. r I E Blower 4 6 0 Secretarial Services 04/23/84 Carole Rlowers 2,9.90 Secretarial Services 05/129/84 Carole Blowers 24.80 Secretarial Servi.ces 06 x`11/84 Caro Fil-owers -3-2. 30 Secretarial. Services 1/13/84 Carole B -1. o w e, r s 6 4 6, 0 Secretarial Services 1-2/24 C ar o l e P, I o c r s 45. Secretarial- Services ,2.33.70 ThC� ('01MniSSi0-f1 $281.70 oT its .1.984 apprc)priation of $1,500, leavir an unexpended balanc(.- of $1,21( .(1. Sincerely yours, Paul W. Holiplund Director of F PWI-1 CITIZENS FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT (CBG) POSITION PAPER ON CHARTER CHANGE PROPOSAL REGARI:IING CITY ELECTIONS AS PRESENTED TO THE BR(JOKLYN CENTER CITY Ci)UNCIL 1/20/85 THIS PAPER HAS BEEN PREPARED BY A CBG TASK FORCE WHICH CONSISTS OF: -CBG PRESIDENT DAVE SKEELS FORMER MAYOR PHIL COIIE:N FORMER COUNCILMAN TONY KUEFLER THE PAPER ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: IMPORTANCE OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ON THIS PROPOSED 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 RAJ t 1 a 1 IMPORTANCE OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE THE STRUCTURE OF LOCAL G0VERNMENTHAS BEEN A LONG TIME CONCERN OF THE CITIZENS OF 8R00KLYN CENTER' SINCE 1961, WHEN THE FIRST REFERENDUM ON THE F0RM OF GOVERNMENT WAS HELD IN BROOKLYN CENTER AND T0 THIS DATE, THIS HAS BEEN A MOST SENSITIVE ISSUE' IM 1961, A PROPOSAL-. FOR THE `PLAN 8 C0UNCIL/MAN4GER` FORM OF G0VERNMENT WAS SOUNDLY DEFEATED BY THE RESIDENTS' THIS WAS MAINLY DUE T0 THE CITIZENS CONCERN FOR BEING SURE THAT THEIR FRANCHISE AS 4 VOTER WAS PROTECTED. AS A RESULT OF THAT REFERENDUM, THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED 4 `GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE IN 1962' IN THE FALL OF 1963, THIS COMMITTEE MADE ITS REPORT, WHICH RECOMMENDED (8Y A MAJORITY VOTE) THAT THE CITY PROCEED WITH ESTABLISHING A C144RTER COMMISSION BY CALLING FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE T0 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 4 78% MAJORITY VOTE (4,248 T0 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 T0 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 T0 DATE. THEY SEEM T0 HAVE SERVE BROOKLYN CENTER WELL, AS WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HAD GOOD, OPEN, HONEST AND NON 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 T0 THE CHARTER ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED. PERHAPS IF THE C8G WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE T0 THE WORK OF THE CHARTER COMMISSION, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THEIR MEETINGS WHEN THE ISSUES CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION. FOR M0T.HAVING DONE THIS, WE SINCERELY AP0LOGIZE 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 T0 INCREASE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TERMS FROM 3 YEARS T0 4 YEARS, WHILE LEAVING THE MAYORS TERM AT 2 YEARS' FRANKLY, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT T0 UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC FOR THIS WE FEEL THAT IF ANY TERM WERE T0 BE LENGTHENED, IT OUGHT T0 BE THE MAYORS NOT THE COUNCILS'. WHY BECAUSE THE MAYOR IS THE TITULAR HEAD {>F 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 01 COMMITMENT THAN THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND RIGHTLY S0- AND, HE ALSO HAS T0 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 T0 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 T0 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 1983 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 IN OTHER ODD YEAR ELECTIONS WHEN THERE WAS COMPETITION AND THE VOTER TURNOUT WAS MUCH HIGHER, WHICH WOULD SEEM T0 DEM0NST4TE THAT ITS NOT THE FACT THAT IT IS AN OFF YEAR ELECTION, BUT BATHER A FACT OF AN UNCONTESTED ELECTI0 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 4 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 T0 PRESERVE THAT PROCESS. C0ST OF ELECTIONS VERSUS THE PUBLICS VOTING FRANCHISE THE COST OF AN ELECTION SHOULD BE PUT IN THE PERSPECTIVE WITH WHAT AND WHO) WE ARE VOTING FOR. HE CITY [�()UN[�IL IS I�� EFFECT THE BOARD 0F DIRECTORS, ELECTED BY THE STOCKHOLDER THE VOTERS. THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE P(LI( MAKER THAT OVERSEES AN ANNUAL BUDGET OF $7,500,000 ALONG WITH 4 PHYSICAl PLANT, UTILITES, ETC THAT IS WORTH WELL OVER $50,000,()00 (COST BASIS). THE DESIRE T0 BE PRUDENT IS COMMENDABLE, AND THIS CITY COUNCIL HAS AN OUTSTANDING RECORD OF RUNNING THE CITY IN AN EXCELLENT FINANCIAL MANNER' HOWEVER, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAVE "THE RIGHT T0 VOTE" THE COST OF ELECTIONS HAVE T0 BE PUT INTO THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE' T0 CARRY THE COST SAVINGS EVEN FURTHER, ONE MAY WISH T0 TALK ABOUT' ELECTIONS EVERT 6 YEARS, OR LESS VOTING PRECINCTS, LESS JUDGES, ETC;' HOWEVER, THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE IN BROOKLYN CENTER' WE HAVE STRIVED T0 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 A80) WERE VERY CAREFUL ON THIS ISSUE' THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE WHAT IS THE GOVERNANCE ISSUE IN THIS CHARTER CHANGE? THE MAIN ISSUE I3 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 T0 BE 4 G00D ENOUGH REASON T0 ELIMINATE ODD YEAR ELECTIONS. IF ONE WAS T0 TAKE A PURIST POINT OF VIEW, OF GETTING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE WI--I0 ARE DEDICATED T0 LOCAL. GOVERNMENT ISSUES OUT T0 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 T0 ALLOW FOR A MAJORITY SHIFT IN LOCAL PHILOSOPHY. THIS IS 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 S0 THAT THE TOTAL FOCUS IN THAT ELECTION CAN BE SOLELY ON LOCAL ISSUES' THEREF0RE, 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 T0 HAVE BEEN INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED' PROVISIONS FOR ENACTING CHARTER CHANGE IN RESEARCHING THE CHARTER, WHICH WE REALLY SEE AS A DOCUMENT WHICH IS INTENDED T0 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 T0 ENACT 4 CHANGE' 1) BY REFERENDUM VOTE OF THE PEOPLE 2) BY UNANIMOUS VOTE 0F 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 T0 MAINTAIN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE STATUTES, etc;)' AND, THAT THE `REFERENDUM VOTE OPTION' IS INTENDED T0 BE USED FOR ALL CHANGES WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL RESULT IN `A CHANGE IN INTENT'. WE CLEARLY SEE THE CURRENT PR0P0SAL FOR CHANGE AS BEING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF INTENT T0 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 01-ITSIDE OF THE CHARTER 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 IM THE MIDDLE 70`s TOOK THIS TYPE OF INITIATIVE WHEN THE QUESTION OF `WARD G0VERNMENT CAME UP FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION DID G0 OUT AND BRING IN ALL THAT MIGHT BE CONCERNED T0 OFFER THEIR RESPECTIVE VIEWS. THE COMMISSION AFTER THOSE TYPE OF EXTENSIVE HEARINGS VOTED AGAINST WARD GOVERNMENT FOR BROOKLYN {}ENTER' SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS 1' THE HISTORY OF THE DEBATE AND DECISI0NS OF THE ORIGINAL CITY CHARTER WRITERS SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED AND UNDERSTOOD WHEN CHANGES ARE BEING CONSIDERED. 2' PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OUGHT T0 'NOT ONLY BE ALLOWED' BUT OUGHT TO BE WIDELY SOLICITED'. 3' IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE TERM OF MAYOR MORE THAN THE TERM OF C0UNOILMEM8ER MERITS CONSIDERATION FOR LENGTHENING' 4' THE MERITS OF ODD YEAR ELECTIONS AND THEIR APPARENT INTENDED VALUE IN PROVIDING THE CITIZENS AN ANNUAL OPPORTUNITY T0 REGISTER THEIR SATISFACTION AND/OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CITY OFFICIALS ACTIONS OUGHT T0 BE PRESERVED AS 4 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 T0 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 T0 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 DE8ATE AND INPUT HAS BEEN 'AGGRESSIVELY SOLICITED AND HEARD' RECOMMENDATION BASED ON OUR FINDINGS TO DATE, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION T0 THE CITY COUNCIL THAT YOU REFER THE PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE BACK T0 THE CHARTER COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR FINDINGS AND THAT OF OTHER INTERESTED GROUPS AS WELL' THE C8G, OF COURSE, STANDS READY T0 FURTHER EXPLAIN AND DISCUSS WITH THE COMMISSION AND/OR THE COUNCIL OUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION. WE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY T0 PRESENT OUR INPUT ON THIS MATTER- 6