HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 04-21 CHCABROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 21, 1976
City Hall, 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of minutes of meeting of April 14, 1976
3. Discussion of joint meeting with other charter commissions
4. Reports on ward system
Group I
Group II
Group III
5. Discussion of Ward System
kk
e
ef,
C
Wednesday April 21, 19 76
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP I SUMMARY REPORT
WARD SYSTEM NON WARD SYSTEM
After analyzing the statistical data accumulated in
the two schedules attached to this report the concenius
of this Committee is that the figures do not reveal any
notable evidence that one system is better than another.
Our ccnclusion Follow:
A. Recorded campaign costs of candidates for
office do not appear to be appreciably less
in communities where ward systems are in
effect. It depends largely on the competition
for office.
B. The incumbent. candidate has the advantage
in either ward or non -ward communities.
Regardless of the system in effect in a
community those contacted supported the
system they have, whether ward non -ward
or combination of each.
1). Use of a ward system does not appaar to
encourage more filings for office.
E. Overlapping boundaries wards, districts,
precincts, etc. contribute to voter confusion
and additional expanse for the community
STUD: GROUP I MEMBERS
Henry A.Dorff, Chairman
James Gillen, Vice- Chairman
Cheryl. Asplund
Mildred Hendrickx
Barbara Swart
1
C.N.)fc I
e ovf
COJ NC:
C ooP,r;
1.11
1,
Iry 'LI Vie" (1 ft,'
Pnr,J1 47 0, j 3
P.2.0 LI. C 04m
1.....\
A.
It.
i's ,k r
1.' I 3
hA)% yo IrAtml
Vt. op; eouh
Aftilpt ic/ (-4
c;:t ep7i
kr)., /NI _OD I Sqt1r3
1 aoriL VI /4
I 621 1
li
r 6 6
V
57.1c
NO
0
s
•--C
l'i
A\
MAUPEP-6
e. 7 .siL
E biro
11
le lcrv;
L /0.6
-4
N
t
tj
41
ItIst
ro*..
r I
P-Ccf,•ref,
r r
1
t
16
s
[Reo 147i
3). TO PS II
c1 ‘47,94
kit
L 14Frigi
n_DX,Tic;
(4,4
I rnr ^r•
c o ff
r
tr, •0
V
:/q3 :St-
(A)
otr
L EV PA're
r
R"- 5
91.
7.0
r1k 1 1 4,, ,10,1
u
1 c.t,t
J
Fpag_
Se6
C Le 1 111111 1
Cou !orTAII\
co. brt', 1 I
co
CeJol.)C,i(
C1.50
Y`e\ tic
t=4,` etsrs
1( iNe
Plh
fitortiDn
WA V, ('fl F(1Ff bv
V I cw-7, fA 0. )0
Irq
t;4 i1ik.c
6
P-1rt I/6 ei_s
C.00 pr... p et4
hilt•tr;z.. tFet-,,tkl
IttIolreFA
00 Ji
\Q_. 1
4154‘1
3
0
1 .1A
eArtck
r
r
f
3 L..
e
..-z
0
....1
/qtd
L—baci
xcas
—7 1i1Lch
fel(
H sc.
r.ft orfter
e
I C O O pi I
b• .1.■
3W/
7.0
/960
Ca y5.7`i
It(
104'
L
L P7ri
[C ou_Pe;
11
i
i
I i
PINApA 1,4
1
t 1nm
1 )0
7"V
.17
40 ?it
ro,r 4 Fru(
Q 00 I
elt; t
)1 6
0
-.4
•tt
-C
1-
--1
FiLq
!Aut.!, tr.?
q33 II
i\ANoe
froik
1 ■_t 411,
1. P cel
(IN No rl
3 Pei clAsit]
[irn
F3
eb
[Ted e 1
163
'1 s
I lq3g I
k tow D
S3790(1
ic,01,6fros
1 3.ff
1°41
,(le
a-pm
11.3
1 e eL
0■.) ere;
[C.11
...e,
r
-c
fie9-I1Sem
q',Z 0 !0Ors
SI Lot)
i
I S1 9
1'1P
r (-1 4%
3n/‹
!goy
19 0,r
1 3
111 3.-rc
3113 .-y‹
for
30x wet
C
r
e..
f..7
1960
1AJ N
Committee II
Committee meeting March 24, 1976
Present: Kanatz, Nelson and Vennewitz
(Hintzman at the Commission executive committee meeting and Bullick
out of town)
Committee members have talked with Mayor, councilmen and city manager.
Two had very few comments, but would prefer to analyze any proposal for a change
the Commission might arrive at at that time. One thought change not needed,
but that either the at -large system or the ward system would be workable.
Three were opposed and felt that the city is not large enough for division
into wards and for the division it would create. Accountability should be
to the entire electorate.
A couple mentioned that it might impede the ability of citizens to get in touch
with councilmen if they were not in political accord with their own councilman.
The committee went through the theoretical pro and con issues with respect to
ward system vs. at -large representation. No single issue seemed to be of
compelling importance, although some of the concepts might be viewed as
suggesting that one or the other approach had validity. Most of the committee
members' responses to the various pro's and con's was "perhaps" "depends upon"
or "might or might not be important."
With this ambivalence to the issues, we feel that this is in fact, the discussion
that will have to be engaged in by the entire commission. We say this, not with
any 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
BOOKLTN CSSTTYR CRLRTrB CO I SS I OL
investigation regarding Wari /Atr Large. City Structure r of other sir es of
the .Metre- area,• I called, the officials from Edina. and. Rirshliold to get 4heir
opinions to the sovon questions we had. Most of then had about the sass answers
so they are ail listed together with no noises aentioned to asks it easier.
1. =ow Long have you had your present structure? Both aitiss have always had
the At Large systsa.
2. What are the advantages of this structure?
Elected by all of the sitiseas We sposial group in control offistal
"not awned" by a group people able is *all en any or all sffisials for
help and net just like ono aldsraan Be Lack scratching by officials to
get passage for saasthing in their own areas.
What are the disadvantages of this structure?
Thor* were really no to speak of except to really not have close ties
with just a few parsons.
If it wort possible to adept an At Large or ward system without any
difficulty, which would you prefer?
=vary one said they would rather be at large.
5. Whet are the advantages of At Large system when running for office?
Being popular sity wide ant provost to help the entire amenity
Not just running to put a stop and go sign up in your neighborhood
Broader area of sanrcts of support.
i. Approximate cost of campaign for a council sandidats?
This ran free $500.00 all the way up to $1.500.00.. Boa* were less for
the starting out and sons were less when they had been proven and net
Long apposed to heavily. Then it was aestly advoetiseaonts to get out
the vote.
9'. De you have An difficulty in finding (wadi stills to run for sffise?
Against a popular inauabent soaatiass it is Too costly for the saall
salary it pays Can't be running for the aensy but the &seize to help
improve the eity in which they live If the proposed legislation is passed
to dsciar* *salth" sorts any not wish to be a candidate One said he would
hate to &eclair* how poor he is.
Subaitted by Betty Johnson
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
Crystal
Golden Valley
Brooklyn Park
Fridley
Columbia Heights
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.
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
STUDY GROUP III FINAL REPORT
WARD SYSTEM VS. AT LARGE SYSTEM
New Brighton
Roseville
St. Louis Park
Edina
Richfield
Bloomington
(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.
c
ANSWER
7. QUESTION
ANSWER
STUDY GROUP III MEMBERS
Ed Theisen, Chairman
Robert DeVries, Vice Chairman
Richard Higgins
Frank Kampmeyer
RcFF[7 .Tnhnnn
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?
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.
At large Do you experience any difficulty
in finding candidates to run for office?
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.