[Speed Gibson,
Friday January 7, 2005 at 4:24pm]
Minneapolis: Who's in Charge? (6)
So far, we've heard from the proponents of reforming Minneapolis's charter, currently of a "weak mayor, strong council" nature. But as Jim Boyd reported, the current charter is really just the codified collection of the state statutes in effect in 1920. There is no real grand design connecting its dots.
We've also heard from the independent Library and Park boards who contend this arrangement works for Minneapolis, not against. But let's now review what the City Council has said, as reported Dec 18 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, starting with its president Paul Ostow.
Those of us in the private sector know that a five year business plan is a relic of the past. Three years is about tops these days. But to Mr. Ostow's procedures can hardly be expected to work if no one is truly invested in making the work, as is the case today. Paul Zerby, Ward 2, notes:
I would turn this around a bit. As others implied in initial spread on Dec 5, the Legislature covered the host of sins facilitated and committed by Minneapolis's awkward structure. Until recently, Minneapolis has seldom needed to "choose" one way or another; with state help, they got it all. That protection is being withdrawn now, exposing the underlying flaws. Barb Johnson, Ward 4 writes:
"Unprecedented participation" does not work in business or the military. Can you imagine a general beset with all kinds of free advice from the privates who only know what's happening within a few hundred yards? Why should it work in government? Citizens don't want to participate in plowing their streets. They just want them plowed, whether that involves calling a city department under a City Manager or your ward's council member. Me, I'd rather talk to the public works director, not my council member.
And no one is portraying employees as the obstacles - it's the positions they've been assigned. Good people will do even better with clear lines of communication and accountability. Next up, Lisa Goodman, Ward 10:
Again, the cart is before the horse. The current chaos, the lack of change, that's what's created the critical time in your city's history. Further, no solution can take root in such poor soil. As Dan Niziolek of Ward 10 notes:
We've also heard from the independent Library and Park boards who contend this arrangement works for Minneapolis, not against. But let's now review what the City Council has said, as reported Dec 18 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, starting with its president Paul Ostow.
Focusing narrowly on our form of government ... fails to consider the very significant measures we have taken to make City Hall both more efficient and more accountable
For the first time in the city's history, each department is preparing a five-year business plan. These plans align resources and services and require managers to plan for the long haul. We have developed performance measures to assess our efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services.
Those of us in the private sector know that a five year business plan is a relic of the past. Three years is about tops these days. But to Mr. Ostow's procedures can hardly be expected to work if no one is truly invested in making the work, as is the case today. Paul Zerby, Ward 2, notes:
[The] decisions [to severely cut our local government aid and to shift our tax burden onto residential property] were not inflicted on us because Minneapolis has a "strong" council or a "weak" mayor or doesn't have a powerful city manager.
The suggestions for improving our city government that your editorial writers make certainly should be given the consideration they deserve. However, to suggest that any such changes in our governance structure will of themselves significantly change what happens to us at the Legislature strikes me as extremely unrealistic...
I would turn this around a bit. As others implied in initial spread on Dec 5, the Legislature covered the host of sins facilitated and committed by Minneapolis's awkward structure. Until recently, Minneapolis has seldom needed to "choose" one way or another; with state help, they got it all. That protection is being withdrawn now, exposing the underlying flaws. Barb Johnson, Ward 4 writes:
I was disappointed in the articles that portrayed Minneapolis as full of dysfunction. Yes, we are complicated, but citizens have unprecedented participation in their government. That is a good thing. The portrayal of our employees as obstacles to change denigrates the good work they do.
"Unprecedented participation" does not work in business or the military. Can you imagine a general beset with all kinds of free advice from the privates who only know what's happening within a few hundred yards? Why should it work in government? Citizens don't want to participate in plowing their streets. They just want them plowed, whether that involves calling a city department under a City Manager or your ward's council member. Me, I'd rather talk to the public works director, not my council member.
And no one is portraying employees as the obstacles - it's the positions they've been assigned. Good people will do even better with clear lines of communication and accountability. Next up, Lisa Goodman, Ward 10:
Change for change's sake is not what's needed at this critical time in our city's history; change in order to ensure a better community for future generations is.
Again, the cart is before the horse. The current chaos, the lack of change, that's what's created the critical time in your city's history. Further, no solution can take root in such poor soil. As Dan Niziolek of Ward 10 notes:
Minneapolis' flat, ward-based organizational structure inhibits clear accountability, discourages departments' collaboration and encourages parochial governance.
A council/city-administrator form of government would celebrate the high level of participatory democracy in Minneapolis, while partnering it with more professional management.