HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 Ward vs. At-Large System 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 good arguments for both ward and at large systems.
2. All communities and individuals interviewed liked their system.
3. 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
T0: Brooklyn Center Charter Commission Received by Henry Dorff
FROM. Richard J. Forstrom and David Kanatz February 12, 1976
RE,* Ward System of Electing Councilmen
At your January 21 1976 meeting you reauested that we put our arguments for
a ward system in writing, which we have tried to do here. ?luring 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? How 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. t7e are prepared to address these
other issues, but here we will confine ourselves to presenting the pros and cons
of ward and at -large elections.
BACKGROUND
In researching this issue, it does not take long to deduce there is little
information we can use to aid in the decision. In fact, Professor Backstrom,
Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, says there is no data and
no scientific basis for making a decision. It appears, then we must use our oTm
opinion, 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 city -wide would be insurmountable. After
reviewing the issue in more depth, we feel there are many good arguments favoring
a ward system.
GIARD SYSTEM
PRO CON
1. It is cheaper and easier to campaign
in one ward than city -wide. (Brooklyn
Center is about 251 larger than our
primary legislative district 45B 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 complaints. (Due to manager /council
instead of four) form of government)
5. City government 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 eiample,
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 thin 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.)
Gerrymandering 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.)
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 policy 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.
5. 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 maneger/
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
i
From: H. A. Dorff
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 a're 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
I. 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.
n
Henry Dorff
G�
I�
p
C I O
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
Wednesday April 21, 1976
BROOE1YN CET?TE R 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 than concensus
of this Committee is that the figures do not reveal any
notable evidence -:hat one system ie better t. another,
Our conclusions follow:
A. Recorded campaign costs of ca.nridatas 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.
C. Regardless of the system in effect in, a
community hose contacted supported the
y PP
E:.ystam they have, whether ward, nor-ward
or combination of each.
D. Use of a ward system does not appear to
encourage lore filings for office.
E. Overlapping boundaries wards, districts,,
precincts, etc, contribute to vo`jer confusion
and additional expense for the community.
STUDY GROUP 111EN!BERS
Henry A.Do ?ff Chairman
James Gilled, dice- Chaiisman
Cheryl Asplund
Mildred Hendric.kx
Barbara Swart,
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Study P Grow I 2/25/76
GIARDS OR DISTRICTS
Brooklyn
Park Crystal Fridley Minnetonka Robbinsdale St. Louis Park Bloomington
Telephone No. 425 -4502 537 -8421 571 -3450 933 -2511 537 -4534 920 -3000 881 -5811
Person Contacted W. Long H. Truax S. Haapala M. Mullin G. Koland E. Hanson A. Jensen
Charter Adopted 1968 1960 1957 1969 1938 1955 1960
No. on Council 7 7 5 7 5 7 5
Mayor Term 3 3 3 2 4 2 2
Councilmen Terri 2 3 3 4 4 4 4
Freq. of Elections Annually Annually Annually 2 -years 2 years 2 years 2 years
i
Sq. miles in Comm. 27.0 7.0 10.5 28.0 2.7 10.7 40.0
Population 32,000 31,831 32,716 39,340 16.845 49,650 86,000
14ard estab. by Ch. Com. Ch. Comm. Ch. Com. Council Ch. Com. Ch. Com. Ch. Com.
Wards changed by Council Council Council Council Council Council Council
Primary election yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
When 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand. 3 cand.
for office for office for office for office for office for office for office
Campaign Costs
Winners:
Mayor 25* 60* 5151 3113*
Council 373 160* 119* 745 1287* 1243
Council 500 383* 879 51 1348* 1173*
Council 186 393* 0 2144 1904
Council 1905
Losers 5581
Mayor 0 1061 3015
Council 323 0 1530 1130* 1355 3046
Council 48* 456 1188 23 1896* 1069*
Council 25* 58 175 0 2317
Council 235 1579
Denotes incumbent
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Study Group I 2/25/76
NO WARDS
Brooklyn Center Edina Golden Valley Hopkins New Hope Richfield
Telephone No. 561 -5440 927 -8861 545 -3781
Person Contacted A. Lindman F. Hallberg J. Skvberg
Charter Adopted 1966 1964
No. on Council 5 5 5 5
Mayor Term 2 2 2 2
Councilmen Term 3 4 4 3
Freq. of Elections Annually 2 years 2 years Annually
Sq. Miles in Comm. 9.0 29.0 10.6 7.0
Population 35,000 47,930 24,923 i
Primary election yes no no yes
Vhen 3 cand.
for office
Campaign Costs
Winners:
Mayor 627* 2480
Council 2225* 5799 2160*
Council 1869* 1682*
Losers:
Mayor 2541
Council 5 3633* 1123
Council 7 31 133E
Council
Denotes incumbent
bsram:.:;.i"=� e x -.c>e� ..�.,i .r may °+r s
t
410.11 CITIES; CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS
may in addition thereto publish the notice in any other le newspaper paEliar!
in the city.
Subd. 3. The ballot shall bear the printed words, "Shall the proposed we
charter be adopted? Y art
his choice. If any p
es —No," with a square af each of the last o ol ems$
in which the voter may place a cross to express
t; charter be submitted in the alternative, the ballot shall be so printed as to pertZ
bb
�s the voter to indicate his preference in any instance by inserting a cross to
manner.
Subd. 4. If any charter so submitted be rejected the charter commission r
propose others from time to time until one is adopted.
e (R L s 754; 1909 c 211E s 1; 1959 c 305 s 5; 1961 c 608 s 1 197< r 123 art S a t•
410.11 ADOPTION; NOTICE,
EFFECTIVE DATE. I! 51 percent of the re3ml
cast on the proposition are in favor of the proposed charter, it shall be constderd
1E.
adopted; and, if any provisions thereof are submitted in the alternative, er W
ratified by a majority of the votes cast thereon shall prevail. If the charter b�
adopted, the city clerk shall file with the secretary of state, the register of deeds
v the county in which the city lies, and in his own office a copy of the charter at
companied by his certificate attesting to the accuracy of the copy and giving f
date of the election and the vote by which the charter was adopted. The chaster
shall take effect 30 days after the election, or at such other time as is fixed in tFa
charter, and shall then supersede all other charter provisions relating to such city. p
Thereupon the courts shall take judicial notice of the new charter and, upon i�t
4° election of officers thereunder, the officials of the former corporation shall delis z
to them the records, money and other public property in their control.
R f iR L s 755; 1959 c 305 s 2; 1969 c 1027 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 71 (1285)
410.12 AMENDMENTS. Subdivision 1. Proposals. The charter commis
may propose amendments to such charter and shall do so upon the petition of
<j voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous
fi= state general election in the city. If the city has a system of permanent registratie+s F
of voters, only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition/AIT' petit
circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character and
shall have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; except
that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than 1,000 words; a
s true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city clerk, and the petid=
shall then contain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words setf
forth in substance the nature of the proposed amendment. Such summary shall
ses of the amendment proposed
contain a statement of the objects and purpo
an outline of any proposed new scheme or frame work of government and aball
a'd
be sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change in govern a
rnent is sought to be accomplished by the amendment. The summary, together
with a copy of the proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to the crar�t y
commission for its approval as to form and substance. The commission shall Wit"
w: S he proposes of .thE
1,0 days after submission to it return the same to t
t amendment with Bach modifications in statemen; as it may deem necessary
order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth. je
F Subd. 1a. Alternative methods of charter amendment. A home rule charter
may be amended only by following one of the alternative methods of amendmen3..
provided in subdivisions 1 to 7.s,
Subd. 2. Petitions. The signatures to such petition need not all be appended
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 petifl=
paper shall sign his name in ink or indelible pencil and shall indicate after his namt
his place of residence by street and number, or other description sufficient to idev
tify the place. There shall appear on each petition the names and addresses of be
electors of the city, and on each paper the names and addresses of the same tivt
electors, who, as a committee of the petitioners, shall be regarded as responsIb
for the circulation and filing of the petition. The affidavit attached to each petitio$
shall be as follows:
q w, State of
County of ....................4.
.....being duly sworn, deposes and says that he, and 1*
.H+ 5
CITIES; CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS 41012
liler,publisW days after such submission to it, return the same to the proposers of the
SOM personally circulated the foregoing paper, that all the signatures appended
oposed -tom `t o were made in his presence, and that he believes them to be the genuine
two v'orft ft=tures of the persons whose names they purport to be. i
)art of autb Signed
as to permit (Signature of Circulator)
xoss in Ift, Jwtombed and sworn to before me
...........day of .........................19.... 6
nigsion nay Notary Public (or other officer)
rized to administer oaths t
art 5 a �I 'i"lte foregoing affidavit shall be strictly construed and any affiant convicted of
*searing falsely as regards any particular thereof shall be punishable in accord-
of the vow sw with existing law.
e considmil Ott 3. May be assembled as one petition. All petition papers for a proposed
tative, dwo ment shall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instru• y
e charter Is "Mt Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the
r of deeds of t7 clerk shall determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested
charter #I. "whether the petition is signed by a sufficient number of voters. The city clerk i
I giving the dA declare any petition paper entirely invalid which is not attested by the cir-
I'he char{, 1` ttor thereof as required in this section. Upon completing his examination of
fixed in ft ft petition, the city clerk shall certify the result of his examination to the council.
:o such city O be shall certify that the petition is insufficient he shall set forth in his certificate
d, upon tilt 4: list particulars in which it is defective and shall at once notify the committee of
hall detWw 4* petitioners of his findings. A petition may be amended at any time within
to da%i after the making of a certificate of insufficiency by the city clerk, by filing
a supplementary petition upon additional papers signed and filed as provided in
corn an of an original petition. The city clerk shall within five days after such amend-
1s filed, make examination of the amended petition, and if his certificate
petition A! r show the petition still to be insufficient, he shall file it in his office and notify
st prev i
^egistratioas Ift t�ommittee of the petitioners of his findings and no further action shall be had
111 peg tIF! tctt insufficient petition. The finding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not
xracter tits Wadlce the filing of a new petition for the same purpose. I O
'ull; except Sttbd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a x
0 wor fs, a eretl or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The
the petlUft N of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the
ords Sealy, on on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to
unary siba3t dsftpish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same
bposed ate► ft e. 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption,
zt and sbM opies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the
4 in gor y Ae4t l charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of
y, togethft Getlecti or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment.
the chart* L%bd. 5. Amendments proposed by council. The council of any city having a
shall tv#tlIt tyre rule charter may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance.
ecessary tl1 ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter cam
'e set fort n. Within 60 ,days, ,thereafter, the charter commission shall review the pro
ule. chart# #wd amendment but before the expiration of such period the commission may ex-
3tnend t Jwd the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its
1%*tion determining that an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing
apps fit proposed amendment, the charter commission shall approve or reject the pro
affidavit at amendment or suggest a substitute amendment. The commission shall prompt
tch peti wtify the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter commission's
l',his nab action, the council may submit to the people, in the same manner as provided in
30t to i #e'adivision 4, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment
Oseg of 93va t _i w sed by the charter commission. The amendment shall become effective only
game hart V xrben approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be
responsit" fW in the same manner as other amendments. Nothing in this subdivision pre
.i h petitko i s the charter commission from proposing charter amendments in the manner
Irovided by subdivision 1.
Subd. 6. Amendments, cities of the fourth class. The council of a city of the
class having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments by or-
dzvjce without submission to the charter commission. Such ordinance, if enacted,
i
and bit be adopted by at least a four fifths vote of all its members after a public hear
4
:i u:
ta.s�+t mot a �r !f �i iel�� Gm�r�+assr.
4f gs9 #x11 oi`k R •r ..r
�ro .b.'.` s a� "4, '3,� s r r Mrs
,I
w„
.Ties
e.
t
C
410.121 CITIES; CLASSIFICATION, CHARTERS ¢95a
s:
ing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed am
ment and 1
shall be approved by the mayor and published as in the case of other
t ordinances, The council shall submit the proposed amendment to the eo le in (to
P P
manner provided in subdivision 4, but not sooner than three months after thr� per.
d
Th
e of the ordinance. e amendment becomes effective only when a l
PP roved t-.�
the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved, it shall be filed in the sarne
manner as other amendments.
Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the charter t
commission the city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Such any? t
ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted by the council by an affirmative vote of e
its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing tio
text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor and publis,�ed t
as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall rot
become effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at sueh later date
is fixed in the ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such r. 1
ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with^ t'
City e
cl �I�. Such petition s 'o A
Y on ,hall b
e si n..d b qualified fled t voters n t
Y q e.lual in ._umber to _w., s
percent of the total number of votes cast in the city t the last e
a slat_ general al r.,
g
tion or 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a system of permanent retistr c
of voters, only registered voters
are eligible Y g e to sign the 't'
petition. I t
f he r
.P e t,
4
c
petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become etlect;ve
Until it r c'
is app n e
pp v .d by the voters as in the case. of charter
amendments e is submi r?
tte.. by
the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except that the f
submit th
f
council may e ordinance at an g eneral y g e al or special election held at least 60 I
days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting tl c
ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of subdivisions 1. to 3 apply t..') a
petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance amending a charter, and }a
the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters. o
[R L s 756; 1907 c 199 s 1; 1911 c 343 s 1; 1939 c 292 s 1; 19113 c 227 s 1; 19;9 s
A c122s1; 1959 c 305 s 3, 4; 1961 c 608 s 5, 6; 1969c1027s3; 1973c503s1- 41 1123:
410.121 SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR WINE; FAVORABLE VOTb
t If the charter which is to be amended or replaced contains a
P provisions which pry
hibit the sale of intoxicating liquor or wine in certain areas, such provisions shalt
not be amended or removed unless 55 percent of the votes cast on the proposition 8
v shall be in favor thereof.
[1969c1027s2]
c
410.13 [Repealed, 1959 c 305 s 61
r 410.14 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS. In submlttin a charter or
g an a
rte'
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 atrf
amendments thereto. rr
[R. L. a. 7571 (1288) V
410.15 SUCCESSION; SUBSISTING RIGHTS. The new city so organind
shall be in all respects the legal successor of the former corporation, and no
charter so adopted, nor any amendment thereof, shall prejudice any subsislnr
right, lien, or demand against the city superseded, or affect any pending action of
proceeding to enforce the same. All rights, penalties, and forfeitures accrued cc
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 irr, T
munities not inconsistent with the new charter, shall pass to its successor. All orx rt
dinances, resolutions, and by -laws in force at the adoption of such new charter, anti al
not in conflict with its provisions, shall continue in force until duly altered or n
repealed. cl
[R L s 758; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 71 (1289) pt
410.16 FORMS OF GOVERNMENT INCORPORATED IN CHARTER. ne St
charter commission may inco as art of the of
Y P p proposed charter for any efty re
the commission, mayor council, council- manager form of city government or any Vi
other form not inconsistent with constitution or statute, and may provide that ari to
elective city officers, including mayor and members of the council, shall be elected th
at large or otherwise.
11909 c 170 s 1; 1959 c 305 s 5; 1961 c 608 s 71 (1290)
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
a
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:
h
(2. QUESTION What are the advantagesuof 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. accountability and neighborhood
interests better represented.
b. Minority interest represented better.
C. Campaign costs areP` lower
candidate to co
mai
d. Easier on the p g n
because of smaller area.
e Local alderman takes care of his ward
and is more accountable to residents.
F
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.
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
CITIZENS FOR
E,� c t ee s BETTER GOVERNMENT INC.
E Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
The Citizens for Better Government of Brooklyn Center held
its summer meeting on August 21st, and at that meeting an
extensive discussion was conducted on the "ward system" for city
elections as compared with the "at -large system" presently used
in Brooklyn Center. Advantages and disadvantages of both structures
were discussed.
A week to ten days later a verbal poll was taken of those CBG
members and guests present during the discussion. The question
asked was "Do you favor the ward system or the at -large system for
city elections in Brooklyn Center All those present at the dis-
cussion responded to the question. The results are as follows:
Favor Ward System 0 0%
Favor At -Large System 49 92%
Favor Combined System 4 8%
Submitted by:
Leon Binger
President
Winner- `Together
I
i
Y
1
I
f
4.
r
4-
ul
oj �jj
`;fie`°
r
1975
Hbnry Harris 5.00
Wendell Eriksson 130.80
Phil Cohen 5.00
Cohen Volunteer Committee 362.39
Tony Kuefler 1,724.97
Bill Fignar 1,369.13
Citizens for Better Government Cohen 260.00
Kuefler 500.00
Fignar 500.00
1974
Britts 756.91
Plummer 1,105.97
Citizens for Better Government Britts 50.00
Plummer 50.00
(Citizens for Better Government filed an expense
report of $713.88. Other than the two $50 con-
tributions to each candidate they didn't indicate
for whom it was spent.)
PROOKLYN CEXTER CHI,RTrLR COMIIISaICN
cTUGY GROUP I
Data
C it
C on'e.act� /v, `�lr'rna/ Phone Nc.
Year your Charter was adopted? 9(0
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from -yards rv��
Number elec.tc.d at lai °ge_�
Kuml>ax elected from section's, (districts etc.
Tema of office J9s
C ouncil me n
Mayor.
Frequency of elections s.nnually cr 2 yea -s?
Hamler of squad iri e y s in communit
Wao established the ori.giral wards?
W io determir es s c ir. wexl area?
Vio chan -c"s wa- t loundaries if required?
A=)K FOR A WARD A F
Do you have a p -irary election?
What are the requirements o" ca.ndldzIes per office'
Mimes of ele :ffi.cials,
P j
9� J
Campaign expenses Lost for each:
W'Lnrers
Losers 67
5po.3- 7v
Incumben ,I>)
90 �f
Area Represented?
k3 15 7��
Cv, 3�
How ;many canlidates an! `eras there a pril-mary?
Please add any .dditicnal commerta and in''ormatior. below.
5
A
COMMISSIONERS NAHE
i
BROOKLYN CENTER CHAFER COVISSION
STUDY GROP I
31-7,,
C ity /•e
Con ;act
hone No.
Yea-1- yoix Ch,-,, was adoT)ted?
H ma.r,S c cunc i2 rne rl.? 4 CkA --e A(,' A/
Number e lected f. -.-C
Nunber e'_ectec a large
Number Olected :,rom sec 'ons, districts, ctc. #wC-
Terri of offico year„
'ot nciln?O ia�
May or
F'requancy of election Pnnually or 2 ye.,rs
A)V//C/ nGL t y
Number cf sgtJaro mile:, 1"n commtinit;r? /0, J''
Who estEblis the origiral wzrr.s?
Who d.,tErmine a chc° mr:e it wr..,IG araa?
Who iargas ,v�.rd bour�rar Yes i req.tir_e�F?
t,
ASK FOR A MAID
i ,j
h t &I I A* �D �P f'r ,ts WCr Ids
Do yo,U ha '4 a, Dr r;ar_3. election?
What rtre aria i egtairements of ca 'tejaa Lte rt °r
A
el F IC p Ca rt
I %times of Y13cted off4.ci.aai s.
C+AILOLL 1 <L)KOW s rc wYt-Am 4 t e of r
E4W# 4 ,4W e2H f I<.. w wct 1 s? G
Wgif St OK wk ly
rK,ek 3
Page
z
197 i`f►S` f
t r c r �gfK(t /G T u�W�1�ShclL CIr���r/; /�4YAt•A
N mpai ,n exrenses co;4t for each �eN
/f���
ta1:�_nners Pa�H Sg4aa pain l
uyaa
hose c, p,e; /7Ye
6�I 1 30 3 7
Inc unbent o (vu Al v
Area. neprovertt d? \,UVX4 3 vA e yrA,eb I w»�e, I W14444
r ,4? tt L1M9QnF•�
How mane candidrtes anc- eras there 7 .ppleMl y?
�A
ppiq: �3l'L�
j
fN�ohb o INc�.ab No
Please ads ary ad(:i::io ial ccanenti �r:d information I)rrlm
Qc tcz QC's l�,qc i r
CC'MMISSIONERS SIAM._
V *0- C�w��� sir CC�r a-1
So N w 1n C►,"41 te e A I wo.c k_ A Mme
PA
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Date STUDY GROUP I
City f
Contact (4 Phone No. Ise
Year your Charter was adopted?
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from wards Q
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, �zsti °ices, etc. h�-xzJ
Term of office years. evim
Councilmen A
Mayor
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years?
W
Number of square miles in community? `l y
Who established. the original wards?
Who determines a change in ward area?�
Who changes ward boundaries if required?
ASK FOR A WARD MAP
Do you have a primary election? eLe ezz'
What are the requirements of candidates per office)?
Names of elected officials.„a --�-cJ
r
yy
'Page 2
Campaign expenses cost for each: -/!�,,-o&
Winners
Losers E,e" tai Ct
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary?
Ab
Please add any additional comments and information below,
J
r COMMISSIONERS NAME
BROOK �'N CENT -Z C-PL RT-PR C0MMISSION
y STUDY GROUP I
1,ate 2-12-
titer St. Louis Park
contact Earle Hanson P2102iE, 920 3000
l e ar y our Chai ve:- was adopted? 1955
F- ou ra ecunc;ilmer?
Number e? eci.ed from ,•al,d.s 4
thim,ber e?ec .ece, a- lzxge�
'dumber Elec.tei .-'rori sect ions, stricts, e'..c:.
Term of )ffic€. yeas;
ou
?`requ3nc :r c:f' Election a anrtua .l or 2 years? 2 years odd numbered years
�umbe^ o.' squire ml1_e.= ir; ccmmuni.ty°? 10.67
mho e ta'.lished the original w s? By original Charter Commission Based
on population in area.
Who d ate mi ea a ch an, -e In warc. EXE a? City Council by ordinance. Must re-
determine boundaries within two years
after each decennial census.
Wno ceianges ward boine.arltes if rc gt.irc-d? City Council.
ASX F R i-, vu n F Received
Do yo a hive a pri.ra.My election" Yes
`4 at --.re thF. requirement: of candidates per office)'' 3 or more candidates
per office. Held 7 weeks
prior to general election.
Names, of elceted of- Unnecessary
Paga L.
Campaign expenses cost, for each: See attached sheet.
llirners
Losers
Incumtent
Area Repr >asented?
lout mart' candidate-s- and was thera c, prlmtxy?
Pl €ass Od any acdi.t' one1 comments and information below.
,St. Louis Park has 20 precincts.
Wards system tends to get political Councilmen try to gerrymander
areas to suit their needs takes about 20 different rearrangements
of new ward boundaries before acceptance.
COM,MISSI0NERS NAMI
STUDY GROUP I
City Crystal
Contact Ms. Hester Truax (Jack Irvi Phone No. 537 -8421
Year your Chat -ter was adopted? 1960
Flou many ccuncilnen?
Number elected from wards 4
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc. 2
Term of office years
Councilmen 3
Mayor 3
Frequency of elections or 2 years? Every year if necessary.
Dumber of square miles in ccmmunity? 6 -8
Who estab
lishEd ward
.s? he original w�rc.s. 7
Charter commission..
Who d.ete. ^mines a, change in ward. area? Staff brings to attention of council.
Wno czan.-es ward boardaries if required? Council changes when necessary but must be
reviewed and adjusted within two years after
a Federal census.
ASI{ FCR p lr3_LRI' MAP Received
Do you have a, prim >-3;-7 election? Yes
at
are the reet.irement: of candidates per office) More than two per office
Name of elected officials. Unnecessary.
Campaign expenses cost for each: See attached sMet.
Dinners
i
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary?
Three candidates in 1974
Two candidates in 1973
No primary either year
Please add any ac.ditional comments and information below.
Ward system has caused minor conflicts and additional nuisances in elections,
but has operated well on major matters of.city.
Ward system appears to give advantage in re- election to incumbent.
COMMISSIONERS NAME Jim Gillen
CITY OF CRYSTAL
CANDIDATES ELECTION EXPENSES
1973 Election
Area Candidate Amount
Section I Incumbent (Winner) $234.00
Challenger (Loser) 292.00
Ward I Incumbent (Winner) 264.00
Challenger (Loser 7.00
j 1974 Election
Section II Incumbent (Winner) 160.00
Unopposed
Ward I Incumbent (Winner) 383.00
Challenger (Loser) 456.00
Ward II Incumbent (Winner) 393.00
Challenger (Loser) 58.00
No primary either year.
Date 2 -11 -76 STUDY GROUP I
City Brooklvn Park
Contact Wes Lonq Phone No. 425 -4502
Year your Charter was adopted? 196$
Hou many ccuncilmen?
Number elected from wands
Number elected at large
Number elected fron sections, districts, e;c. 6 2 from each district.
Term of office years
Councilmen 2
.Mayor
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years? y ear
ear
Dumber of square miles in ccmmttnity? 27
Who established the original wares? Charter commission
V'ho determines- a change in ward area? Every two years
Manager submits population report to council.
If vari ation of 5% then council redraws.
Wno changes ward boundaries if required? Council redesigns and approves new boundaries
if necessary,
ASI{ F -R I. T tqr MA,P Received
Do you have a prima �y election? Yes
V?Mat are the reol:..r of candidate per office;':' Three candidates or more for a
position.
,Names of elc;cted officials. Unnecessary.
Campaign Expenses cost for each: See attached sheet.
Winners
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary?
Mayor unopposed in 1975.
No primary in 1974 or 1975
Each councilmen had opponent in 1975
Plf -as -3 Od any acditionsl comments and information below.
Last year was first time in many years that there was a race (more than one candidate)
for councilman in all three districts.
COMMISSIONERS NAME Jim Gillen
BROOKLYN PARK CANDIDATES' ELECTION EXPENSES
1974 Election
District Candidate Amount
East Incumbent (Unopposed) 25.00
Central Incumbent (Winner) 595.26
Challenger (Loser) 591.93
West Incumbent (Unopposed) 182.74
1975 Election
East Challenger (Winner) 272.98
Challenger (Loser) 323.46
Central Incumbent (Loser) 48.04
Challenger (Winner) 500.41
West Incumbent (Loser) 25.00
Challenger (Winner) 185.70
Major Incumbent (Unopposed) 25.00
No primaries either year.
Incumbent did not run.
BROOKLYN CENTER-CHARTER COMMISSION
Date
S `y STUDY GROUP I
city
Contact 7'`c 7�y �-�t�' '7
Phone No.
(�t
Year your Charter was adopted.
Hou many councilmen? 4 t��
Number
r elected from wards n k..
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc.
Term of office -year
Councilmen
Mayor of
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years?
z_%w L� 6��7,C� •2 eta eJL/
Number of square miles in community?
Who established the original wards?
Who determines a change in ward area QJ
Who changes ward boundaries if required?
ASK FOR A WARD MAP
Do you have a primary election?
What are the requirements of candidates per office)?
z�x-t
Names of elected officials.
i
Page 2
Campaign expenses cost for each: „�r r,v
Winners L-4'
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary?
Please add any additional comments and information below.
A ICJ c-u t_ e Cti -C•c i �t�.
COMMISSIONERS NAME ��1�
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Date 4 J1 _J7 STUDY GROUP I
City?'
Contact ��t� c� c Phone No. 5
v
Year your Charter was adopted?
Hou many councilmen?
Number elected from wards 4-z'
Y pf
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, districts, etc.
Term of office years, ,w
Councilmen c,
Mayor
Frequency of elections annually or 2 years?
Number of so_uaEre miles in community
Who established the original wards? Y2
Who determines a change in ward area
Who changes ward boundaries if required?
ASK FOR A WARD MAP
Do you have a primary election? 0
requirements of candidates e
What are the re
q per office) 9
Y�
C
Names of elected officials.
v�
,Rage 2
Campaign expenses cost for each:
Winners
Losers &71-Y
Incumbent
Area Represented?
How many candidates and was there a primary?
s
:tea
tt
Please add any additional comments and information below.
�F
rt
CQMMISSIQNERS NAME
9
7 1`Tp
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTci2 CONMISSICN
STUDY GROUP I
BEte
Contact N 7 p
Year your Charter was a3o,pted?
Hou many councilmen
Numler elected from wards
Numter elected at large
Number elecven from section:,, districts, etc.
Term cf office. years
Councilmen
Mayor
F'ragaency of eleca,ion E,nnually or 2 years?
Nu, of square miles In community?
i iG oT1gg2.ra.I wards?
N/A
Wh) Jetermitnes a change; in ward area?
/1
Why hxng 3s ward `Oounda -!ies if required?
A ll
AS C:3 A WARD MAP
Do you ha•re a prif:ary election? 1
What a: -e i he recui_re heir' ;s of ca.adidates -Der office)?
NIA
Nane:, of ole,ted cffic-%als.
i
P�.ge
Campaign expenses cost for each: 9
Winners o J
Losers
Incumbent
Area Represented?
Pow .nary candidates and was there a w
Kesse add any additional comments and information below.
COMMISSIONERS NAME
r
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMI'MISSION
STUD`' CROUP I m
A
Co nta.c.t c L�Z /r6 1AI#r Phon; i No. J q.S V
e
Ye, your Charter was au.oated'`'
Ho immy coun-cilmen? A-W A49 11 p
Fumber elected from v rdE
t'umber elected at .l ar° e_ Aj D X
Plumbe elected from e;ect.i.ons, distrIct s, etc._ Np
Terri of offica yeoxcs
C ounc it m �n
I.:ayor
rc. q ue ncY of --I e; !t i o s arm ually o 2 Years?
Nwibei. of scs re m, es in C7&mrun'�.t
Who e;Etablish�d. t1 oriE -Anal var(I.s?
Who a ch m,re in waiwd axe -,a?
o
C4
Who cha.nres w -re be ,relax ie s if r #ou red?
R
Do you ha.v) a, pr nlw e'.? Oct
WhEl, a-re Vie Sea iirt ment:s (X of candidates per office;
P'�ar�.es �i' e:�eca.e� off'i.cic.ls.
Af A-y o CIS wQ f 14, U1 C DowAt lj S u 4 `I
v0 r-L 5 o Aj
Page 2
Oa.mpGigr,eypenses a cost for each:
Wir:ners
Los.er,&
Incumbent
ArE.a i epresen ;ed`'
How many ct.nd.idate 3 ar?d 7,as there a. prima -y
'�?leaoe adid any additiona'. comments and information be`_ow.
COMMISSIO HERS NAME
BROOKLY d CENTER R CdARTER W K SSIOIH
Date 9-6-765, STUDY GROUP I
Contact I Z ___Phone No.
Year ycur Charter was adopted?
Hou many councilman?
Number elected from Bards
Number elected at large
Number elected from sections, c_iktr�.ct, etc,
Tern of office years
Counci`l me
Mayor o
Frequency of elections annually or 2 je�.xs:
.2 dye a LtJ�t� 0r y yyLGl)c.� C� c�
0 i
Number of square rules in conmu:ii.ty?
Who establishec` the origi-:,,tal wa: -ds? rsho letr?rm ties a change i'1 wizd arsa
Who cha; waiy-I bounlaries t.f :-9equi red?
ASK FOR A WLRD MAP
Do you have a primary election?
What are the requirements of candida -,;es per office)?
Names of elected officials.
AL-
d, r
r
page.
Canpaign expenses cost for each:
Winners
No
Losers b
1:neumbent
Yzea Represented?
How mr,n�y candidates and. was them a primary"?
pleaso add ar_y a.ddittiom.1 comrery s ane informat ion below,
lz�O
at
a
COMMISSIONERS N MS Al
0
a 7v
L-u
/17 j
�IL
BROOKLYN CEN- ER CHARTER COMMISSION
Date 3 L? STUDY GROUP I �sny A4 A ►ZS 1( ITC
C,ntct, tlV s Phone No 3
Yoa.;. your Charter was ldCDted?
H Ou pry ccu icil ren? 'fil a
Number r�lectei frs 4a ds /0 /Px4S �Ct As
N -umber electel at m-ge L Z
R�z ;nt er elect =cox sectaclis, x ;rict:� etc. 0'.<'
Cc�un,'].lne7"a ®�L,d_ s .�d` P ✓�liiGC/ L .�y� /C S
R:. °eq of ejE'c� o s 3n7:1:a .lrr or u- 'LUIS?
Z ~s
of square, m _los in c;olnm imity?
X0.6
Who established th,
Who Jeterr ne —z F, c mngn� Li waund.
e
Dc y..)u have a prig y cl ct.ion?
SO
lq,`, t are the re^uirererts of c °anu._e.etes per
Name:; cf olected
K4 441-y A s o r8 8 �S 8
610 )e; 4 5 Gc� r 3
5 ��ARr— sup y
Page
Campalgr e:xi enses cost for each:
Vinners
L,Osers
I:ncumbe;nt
Area, Ee- presented?
How mE;.ry candidates and was there a prii.iarj?
PleasE: v d any a.ddi},iom --i comments and informr;tior- below.
COMMISSICiNERS NAME
A
C-
jr
44-(
alipj*-It e--
13,
'/-/3- �6
z���
60 t 3 o Vh
0 fin`.""
��e
w
k�' 4
T
f
NWW
1(w—, ll„" �.t f
ms's
z
,,yy 444AOoe
7- MaU *IZ C V
v 7�
'v v -v
o.
79 0
lolk
C-,A- Wl- W- 4
l ot op
lei
of
4 4
y
f 4
A tv
lilt"
t
��i R flirt �r� J ,.P" 4� 1.� f t
t t
t t
t[1
1
lie
ert
Ze
Z t t
L
S
f
I
s f n t 7 Ala e �Y
W_
r
f �n �.�s�( /mot 1 i�2... t"�`�' 11 /✓V �'�'"L�l ���i'!`IrC,_.
r A l
KI P
lei l y t r z; y,.`�'.;.� Qit,.t -,1 f n'�...;��j� 'w.,.t.W��.�`t�
A s
jj
v
V V
MEMORANDUM��p E
To:. Marvin C. Brunsell, Finance Director
sir f�
From: Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney
Re: Filing of Statements of Receipts and Disbursements by Candidates for
Municipal Office
Date: September 25, 1975
In your letter of September 16, 1975, you ask whether a candidate
for municipal office, who does not personally handle campaign funda: and who
does not have a personal campaign committee, is required by law to file a
statement of receipts and disbursements.
Minn. Stat. 9211.20 subd. 4 provides as follows®
"Every. candidate and the secretary of every personal'.
campaign committee in every primary municipal election,
special municipal election, or regular municipal election
in all municipalities having more than 20;000 inhabitants
shall file financial statement as follows:
(a) Seven days before the primary;
(b) Seven days after the primary;
(c) Seven days before the regular or special elction; and
(d) Seven days after the regular or special election."
This section further defines the contents of the statement and filing require-
ments.
The statute is quite clear that the candidate shall file a statement
of receipts and disbursements. Given the statute's intention of providing.a
full disclosure of campaign financing, the candidate would have to make a full
disclosure of all funds received or spent personally by him, even if he didn't
receive or spend any funds. That in itself would be a disclosure. In the
case where all funds are handled by a committee which would not qualify as a
personal campaign committee since it is not appointed by the candidate, the
candidate's.statement of receipts and disbursements would probably shore only
zeros, except, of course, for the filing fee which is usually paid by the
candidate personally.
It should be noted that the volunteer committee would have to file
the necessary statements required by Minn. Stat. 9211.20 subd. 3, a copy of
which is attached hereto, since the volunteer committee would fall within
the definition of a "political committee Minn. Stat. 0211.01 subd. 8,
Op. Atty. Gen. 627 -6 -7, August 30, 1946.
VCH JLH
Enclosure
2 1 1 .20 FAIR CAMPAIGN PRAC'
Subd.3. Statements of political committees. Statements shall alm) 1w
made by ally political committee showing the total amoni anti
of recriptts ntI
dislnn�s-ments, and for what purpmSe Stich di ►ecru matie. -:Such
statement Shall he filed within 30 days after an
general election: Y primary, municipal, or
O When the committee is organized to support a candidate for a federnt
office w)th the filing officer of such ctuiilidute;
When the coniiaittc* is organizedl to sot I i
port a eiinilhlotte for a Jmliciut
district or county office witit the auditor of the county is which such conl-
"'Ittee has its headquarters;
(c) When the committee is organised to ;salipxtrt or opioSe ally t•oastitationicl
amendment with the secretary of state;
(d) When the committee is organized to support a candidate for municipal
i office in municipalities having more than 20,00() popctlation or to Siip >ptort or
oppose propositions i elections; in SnCh (municipalities with the filinL orfi—
of the municipality.
,r
f"" W�
A
of
7z, f
a
Jr
Z—
x
J
IAI
t
�4 Q
A 61
Q� G Ut �c^+ a to a c
F
r
A""
-o�
3
7 V
l CLIA
February 19, 1976
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
Report of Study Group 3 on. Ward versus At Large System
Meeting held 8 p.m. on February 10, 1976
Present: Richard Higgins, Robert DeVries, Frank Kamomeyer
and E. M. Theisen
Absent: Betty Johnson
Report of Study Group 3 on Ward versus At Large System
Meeting held 8 p.m. on February 1976
Present: Robert DeVries, Frank Kampme17er, Be,:ty Johnson
and E. M. Theisen
Absent: Richard Higgins
This Charter Commission Study Group was charged wi the following:
"Contact and interview Managers, Administrators and
elected officials of adjacent communit=ies to get
their feelings of Ward versus Non -Wa.rd System."
Both Ward and Non -Ward communities shoule..be contacted.
At the first meeting the group developed a listing Of commun.itires
to be contacted, which is enclosed. In addition, a aeries of
questions to be asked was also developed and this list of questions
is also enclosed.
The second meeting was devoted to reviewing the responses which
have been received to date and the statue of contacts with the
respective communities. In most instances one or two indivi.dua-_s
have. been contacted in the communities and we intend to contact
three or four individuals in each community prior to issuing a
report on the survey of these communities.
Our Tina" report should be compiled by March 10, 1976. We hesitate
providi an interim report at this time since the preliminary
findings may be misleadinc.
Respecf ly submitted
t
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION
GROUP 3 CHAIRMAN
Assigned to
City of New Hope Richard,Higgins
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Crystal Frank Kampmeyer
Six Councilmen and Mayor 4 wards
Once councilman runs at large and the mayor
City of Plymouth Frank Kampmeyer
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Golden Valley Frank Kampmeyer
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large (six voting precincts)
City of Brooklyn Park Richard Higgins
Six Councilmen elected by districts two to a district
Mayor at large
City of Fridley Robert DeVries
Four Councilmen 3 wards
One councilman and mayor at large
City of Columbia Heights Robert DeVries
Four councilmen and mayor
At large
City of New Brighton Ed Theisen
Four councilmen and mayor
At large
City of Roseville Robert DeVries
Four councilmen and mayor
AT large
City of St. Louis Park Ed Theisen
Six councilmen and mayor 4 wards
Two councilmen at large and mayor
City of Edina Betty Johnson
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
(over)
l
City of Richfield Betty Johnson
Four Councilmen and Mayor
At large
City of Bloomington Richard Higgins
Eight Councilmen and Mayor
Four Districts
Three at large and mayor
4#
1
?s
AREAS TO BE INVESTIGATED REGARDING WARD ?AT LARGE
CITY STRUCTURE
1. How long have you had your present structure?
2. What are the advantages of this structure?
3. What are the disadvantages of this structure?
4. If it were possible to adopt an At Large or
Ward system without any difficulty, which would
you prefer?
5. What are the advantages of the At Large or
Ward system when running for office?
6. Approximately what is the campaign cost for a
council candidate?
7. At large Do you experience any difficulty
in finding candidates to run for office?