[Speed Gibson,
Friday January 7, 2005 at 1:22pm]
Minneapolis: Who's in Charge? (5)
After their Dec 5 opening round of comment and proposals for reforming Minneapolis's convoluted city government structure, some somewhat predictable rebuttals were published Dec 18.
Gregory Gray, former DFL State Representative and current Mpls Library Board trustee wrote that "... many of the suggestions offered in the editorial are poorly thought out and often unsupported by facts." For example,
Give Mr. Gray partial credit on this one. Each of six wards would have over 50,000 residents, huge by suburban standards. But a suburban style City Manager operation would field much of the constituent work that today has nowhere else to go but the Council. He may also be overly discounting all the time consumed by day to day operations, sub-committees, and cross-memberships that the Star Tribune outlined.
I totally disagree here. Going through volumes of information is what staff does, not elected officials who should set direction that, yes, goes to the heart of what the people want for their city. Let the City Manager and his departments handle this, i.e., review the situation and present alternatives for the Council's consideration.
The cost of a separate board isn't the main issue. By definition, an independent Library board is simply out of the loop when it comes to the city's strategic directions, especially a city choked by many such independent agencies. It will always tend to turn inward towards its own concerns as history has shown.
Now let's hear from Jon Olson, president of the Park and Recreation board, published Dec 18. First, though, let me acknowledge that Minneapolis has one of the best park systems in the country. But now that they're built, the current question is how to keep them exceptional.
No one is talking about abandoning the parks. If the Council wants to keep the parks vibrant, it will so order the City Manager until the proposed new charter. The City Manager will come back with the costs and some alternatives. The Council will choose one and vote the funds. Meanwhile, the parks can be more professionally managed, by qualified staff, not politicians however dedicated.
This smacks of fund-raising, not park management. Such levels of "professional advocacy" would not be necessary if Minneapolis didn't have so many chiefs affected by each decision.
How can the Park board negotiate a deal with the Legislature if they want a quid pro quo from another department? They can't; that requires that be someone at the top with such overall responsibility. That's why the current system should be replaced.
Gregory Gray, former DFL State Representative and current Mpls Library Board trustee wrote that "... many of the suggestions offered in the editorial are poorly thought out and often unsupported by facts." For example,
The Star Tribune has proposed reducing council members to part-time status by specifying their salaries could be no more than one-quarter or one-third that of the mayor's. Yet even though council members would be making a fraction of what they now do, the editorial seems to suggest they should be responsible for even more work.
For example, the council would still have to perform constituent service work, which, while rarely making the news, constitutes the largest block of time in an elected official's day.
Further, the Star Tribune's plan would cut in half the number of wards, thereby doubling the number of constituents that each remaining ward council member would have. The paper's plan also would add responsibility for managing libraries and parks to the council.
Give Mr. Gray partial credit on this one. Each of six wards would have over 50,000 residents, huge by suburban standards. But a suburban style City Manager operation would field much of the constituent work that today has nowhere else to go but the Council. He may also be overly discounting all the time consumed by day to day operations, sub-committees, and cross-memberships that the Star Tribune outlined.
Guiding the park and library systems through tough economic times has required numerous meetings with the general public, review of volumes of information and the examination of numerous policy alternatives. These are not staff responsibilities since they go to the heart of what kind of library system the people of Minneapolis deserve and can afford. A part-time City Council could never have devoted the time and attention these precious Minneapolis resources deserve.
I totally disagree here. Going through volumes of information is what staff does, not elected officials who should set direction that, yes, goes to the heart of what the people want for their city. Let the City Manager and his departments handle this, i.e., review the situation and present alternatives for the Council's consideration.
Eliminating the library and park boards would result in very little cost savings, since both boards pay only small stipends to members. These stipends are more than offset by the cost savings generated by the strategic decisions made by these boards. While we, as board members, remain open to becoming even more efficient, we must keep in mind that short-term efficiencies sometimes result in long-term problems.
The cost of a separate board isn't the main issue. By definition, an independent Library board is simply out of the loop when it comes to the city's strategic directions, especially a city choked by many such independent agencies. It will always tend to turn inward towards its own concerns as history has shown.
Now let's hear from Jon Olson, president of the Park and Recreation board, published Dec 18. First, though, let me acknowledge that Minneapolis has one of the best park systems in the country. But now that they're built, the current question is how to keep them exceptional.
The extraordinary quality of the Minneapolis park system has developed with leadership from the independent Park Board, particularly in recent decades. We strongly disagree with the opinion expressed on these pages on Dec. 5 that the Park Board be folded into the Minneapolis city government. Park needs cannot be left unattended no matter who the mayor is and how streamlined city government becomes.
No one is talking about abandoning the parks. If the Council wants to keep the parks vibrant, it will so order the City Manager until the proposed new charter. The City Manager will come back with the costs and some alternatives. The Council will choose one and vote the funds. Meanwhile, the parks can be more professionally managed, by qualified staff, not politicians however dedicated.
The independent Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board works closely and directly with citizens and partners for the benefit of residents and visitors alike. This powerful and professional advocate for the preservation and development of parkland should retain its independent leadership.
This smacks of fund-raising, not park management. Such levels of "professional advocacy" would not be necessary if Minneapolis didn't have so many chiefs affected by each decision.
How can the Park board negotiate a deal with the Legislature if they want a quid pro quo from another department? They can't; that requires that be someone at the top with such overall responsibility. That's why the current system should be replaced.