Balancing Act (Part 1)

MINNEAPOLIS GOVERNMENT: A BALANCING ACT

Prepared and Published By THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS® OF MINNEAPOLIS

The League of Women Voters of Minneapolis 81 South 9th Street, Suite 335, Minneapolis, MN 55402

April 2005

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major policy issues, and inﬂuences public policy through education and advocacy.

i MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

LWVMPLS CITY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE COMMITTEE 2004-05

Martha S. Allen Joan Niemiec Jeanne Andre Ann Pugliese Janet Gendler Susan Simmonds Polly Keppel Nancy Witta Pat Kovel-Jarboe

Committee Chair: Joan Niemiec Writers: Pat Kovel-Jarboe and Jeanne Andre Editor: Martha S. Allen

Working under the auspices of Alice Moormann, Program/Action Chair

This report is made possible in part by the following:

MEDTRONIC FOUNDATION GRANT

JOLA PUBLICATIONS Dennis Schapiro, owner, graphic design by Amanda Luker

CURA This project was supported in part through a New Initiatives grant from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), which funded the work of graduate research assistant Jose Diaz. The contents of the report are those of the League of Woman Voters City Government Structure Committee and do not reﬂect the views of the University of Minnesota or CURA.

ii A BALANCING ACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ...... ii Criteria for Study ...... 1 Forms of Government ...... 3 Minneapolis Past and Present ...... 3 Comparing with Other Cities ...... 5 Pros and Cons of Government Forms ...... 6 City Government Structure – Comparisons to Other Cities ...... 8 Weighing the Factors ...... 9 Measures for Evaluating Potential Change ...... 12 Minneapolis City Government – A Balancing Act ...... 10-11 Strategies for Change ...... 13 Citizen Participation and Involvement ...... 13 Options for Independent Boards ...... 14 Previous League Studies and Positions ...... 18 Possible Changes ...... 18 Timeline ...... 21 Resource Materials ...... 22 Resource Interviews ...... 23 Appendix: 2005 Charter Amendment Proposal Calendar ...... 24

iii “Democracy is supposed to be inefficient. It’s designed to place a premium on patience, perseverance, compromise—and accountability. Forced to choose between accountability and efficiency, we will choose “In an era of permanent the former every time.” fiscal pressure, liberals should welcome a more “Is The City Too efficient government to Complicated”, assure that more money by Craig Cox, The Minneapolis Observer, is available for social (December 14, 2004) needs. Conservatives should welcome it to help keep taxes at levels consistent with strong economic growth. Rightly understood, better performance by government can become that rare arena in which common ground is possible.”

Dohrmann & Mendonca, The McKinsey Quarterly, (2004, Number 4) A BALANCING ACT

THESE ARE NOT EASY DAYS FOR MINNEAPOLIS. Once Minnesota’s shining light, the city is derided at the Legislature, faces constant budget crunches and struggles with myriad entrenched constituencies and performance inefﬁciencies.As the chart on pages 10 and 11 shows, it is a labyrinth of confusing lines of authority and responsibility. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said,“If you want to move people it has to be toward a vision.”

A vision for this city is missing. This is no secret. In a 2003 city survey, 33 percent of respondents said that “managing city government” was the second biggest challenge after public safety.Without a vision how can Minneapolis balance priorities and move forward on the road to the future? How can the city create a balance between citizen access and performance efﬁciency?

The League of Women Voters of Minneapolis chose to study the city’s structure as a way of starting the conversation on a meaningful level. What should we as citizens do? How can we make this the best city in the nation once again? To do that we interviewed many current and former participants and experts in Minneapolis government and studied the key scholarship on city government.This report lays out the issues, the history and research to help start the debate.

CRITERIA FOR STUDY criteria for determining what makes good government altered? What other factors As we begin to consider whether the cur- might influence local observers? As a 2002 rent government structure in Minneapolis article in Governing Magazine said: Among will be able to serve its residents well into the leadership and the citizenry of the Twin the future, we immediately encounter ques- Cities, there is a feeling that the city’s prom- tions such as “what should be the purposes ise once put on national display has some- of a local government” and “on what bases how gone unfulfilled. The last time one should its success (or failure) be measured.” of the big newsmagazines devoted a cover Most would agree that the purpose of gov- to celebrating a place Americans ought to ernment should be to deliver services to consider living, it was Newsweek’s salute to its residents, but we may argue about what Seattle, with a photo of journalist Michael services are most efficiently provided at Kinsley in a yellow rain slicker and the tag what level of government. Decision making line “Swimming to Seattle: Everybody Else should be carried out by the level of gov- Is Moving There. Should You?” (Governing ernment that is closest to the individual Magazine,April, 2002). citizen. We discovered in our preparation of this Several of the local observers we interviewed study some criteria that seem to be gener- for this study pointed out that at one time ally equated with good government. These Minneapolis was considered the destination include:accountability,transparency,respon - for those who wanted to see “good govern- siveness, equity and accessibility. Other ment” at work, but this is no longer the factors such as: flexibility, cost effectiveness, case. Has Minneapolis changed? Have the diversity, and sustainability were also men-

1 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

tioned in the research we examined. (Slack, when expectations, roles and responsibilities 2004; Bird, 2001; etc. ) These criteria are are clear. City government works poorly neither monolithic nor mutually exclusive; when these are unclear.” they interact with and influence each other. The goal is to balance the criteria in a way Responsiveness occurs when government that allows for solid decision making and is aware of and acknowledges resident needs effective governance. and desires and, ideally, addresses them. Sometimes the question seems to be not Accountability is a commonly-estab- whether Minneapolis officials are respon- lished norm by which a specific entity is sive but are they responsive in the right held responsible to complete duties and/or way. Should council members, for example, obligations by correctly executing delegated emphasize constituent services or the policy powers or managing entrusted resources. In needs of the entire city? One former coun- government this means, in part, that there cil member said “the council shouldn’t be in should be clear linkage between decision the business of customer service.” But the making related to revenues and to expen- government overall needs to be responsive, ditures. Models of accountability depend so whose responsibility is it to ensure that on who is in charge and include: legisla- service, accessibility, and responsiveness are tive, executive, and partnership. One of provided to Minneapolis residents? our resources argued that the fundamental problem with our present form of city Equity requires that the level and kinds of government is that there are no clear lines services provided are uniform across the of accountability. Others argue that elec- governmental unit without regard to variations are the way we hold the government tions in the resources (ie. taxes) collected accountable. An argument that is made there. Some of our interviewees suggested in favor of the city-manager form of gov- that committed council members represent- ernment is that it separates politics from ing wards (and neighborhoods) are the most administration, thus clarifying and enhanc- effective way of ensuring that all parts of the ing accountability. city are treated fairly.

A national project measuring govern- Accessibility is provided through public ment performance had this to say about meetings, hearings, elections, and direct Minneapolis in 2000: “Minneapolis faces contact with officials. Individuals we inter- many obstacles in its effort to move toward viewed for this study disagreed about how managing for results. Not only is there resis- accessible city government is in Minneapolis. tance from some long-term employees in this One suggested that the system is not set strong-labor city,but the diffuse power struc- up to be accessible; hearings, for example, ture can make it difficult to move forward. are held but poorly advertised. Another As one manager says, ‘with the mayor and said there is too much access. And, a third full-time council, it’s like having 14 bosses.’” pointed out that the city could be run much (Governing Magazine, February, 2000) more efficiently if accessibility were more limited. Transparency means the structure or organization of government is simple and easily Flexibility refers to government that is understood. Transparency relates closely able to respond rapidly to changing needs. to accessibility, since a structure that is not Several of our resources suggested that the well understood will be difficult to access. sheer size of the city council along with One interviewee said that “things work best the number of independent boards makes

2 A BALANCING ACT it hard for Minneapolis to adapt quickly. look. [The council is] a group of people Others felt that additional factors (labor who primarily deal with very mundane, agreements, the local media, political parties, housekeeping things in their districts.That’s and other interest groups) contributed to a what they do, it’s what they’re interested in, lack of flexibility.This criterion also relates and it’s the way they see their power.” (Are to sustainability. City Councils a Relic of the Past? Governing Magazine, April, 2003) This comment was Cost effectiveness rests on indicators made about the Pittsburgh City Council, that measure the extent to which a service but it echoes what we heard from some is achieving its intended results - service of the observers we talked with about the quality, benefits to citizens and impact on Minneapolis City Council. the quality of life - and then balances these with the costs of providing those services. Although not a criterion that was identified Efficiency is a part of the cost-effectiveness in the research, an appropriate communi- equation. Efficiency indicators measure cation system including effective human how much resource (staff time, money, etc.) relationships and regular opportunities for is required to deliver a service. Scale and information exchange was mentioned by duplication are also factors in determin- several of our resources as a critical com- ing whether a service can be provided cost ponent of a successful municipal structure. effectively. Those who urge consolidation of There was concern expressed about the Park Board and City of Minneapolis polic- level of communication and coopera- ing often use an argument of cost-effective- tion between the City of Minneapolis and ness. Smaller bodies and those with fewer other units of government - i.e. Hennepin committees are generally more cost-effec- County, the Metropolitan Council and the tive, because they use fewer staff resources Minnesota Legislature, especially elected and technical expertise. officials representing the metropolitan area. An effective communication system would Diversity among officeholders and policy also enhance accountability and increase makers contributes to the strength and vital- flexibility. ity of our political system. It helps assure community-wide solutions to problems and builds confidence that the political process represents all voices equally. In addition to FORMS OF GOVERNMENT racial,ethnic and political diversity,we might also consider age,economic background,life To understand the issues, we must first look experiences and myriad other factors that at current structures, the city’s history and contribute to a vital and dynamic city. comparisons with others.

Sustainability considers the future impact MINNEAPOLIS PAST AND PRESENT of current decisions - for example, on the budget base or the environment. A widely The State Legislature wrote the ﬁrst shared vision for the city as well as a strate- Minneapolis City Charter in 1872. In gic plan may contribute to making sustain- 1896, the State authorized home rule.After able decisions. numerous attempts to adopt a new charter the Charter Commission compiled all state “There are places where, if you want to laws regarding the city, which was approved ﬁnd the future of the city being pondered, by the citizens in 1920,. Since that time the council chamber is the last place you’d there have been many proposals to amend

3 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

the charter. Most have experienced lengthy all members of the Executive Committee periods of debate and few have been can be of the same party. Under current adopted, and therefore much of the struc- practice the Council Vice President, Chair ture harkens back to the nineteenth century. of the Council Ways and Means and Budget A charter amendment in 1984 created the Committee, and the minority leader of the main components of the current structure. City Council ﬁll the three slots for addi- (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/city- tional members. Other executive functions hall/laws/charter/) provided by the Executive Committee are labor negotiations with City unions and The Minneapolis structure is sometimes supervision of some of the key staff. The called a Strong Mayor / Strong Council Committee also coordinates ideas, policies system. It is similar to a strong mayor system and programs initiated by the City Council but has ceded a signiﬁcant amount of execu- or the Mayor, orchestrating their consider- tive authority to the City Council. ation and enactment by the City Council.

The mayor is elected citywide for a four- The Mayor clearly takes the lead in nomi- year term.There are thirteen council mem- nating persons to fill most key staff positions, bers elected by geographical wards, also for but the Council must ultimately concur and four-year terms. All of these positions are has frequently blocked or strongly influ- elected in non-partisan elections, although enced the Mayor’s selection. Rather than candidates typically seek political endorse- a strong executive leader, the Minneapolis ment, and the City Council does caucus by structure provides for administration by political party. The positions of mayor and committee.The Mayor still has responsibil- city council are paid on a full-time basis, ity for creating a vision for the city, which the current salaries are $89,773 and $68,331 is done through an annual state of the city respectively. address, preparation of a budget for Council consideration and use of the bully pulpit to The Charter provides for a City Coordinator, advance the mayoral vision. an administrator who oversees six major city functions, including finance.As demon- The City has a number of advisory boards, strated in the organizational chart and boxes and the Mayor and the City Council outlining the structure in Minneapolis on both have significant roles in the appoint- pages 10 and 11, most appointments of ment process, in some cases leaning to key staff occur through nomination by greater Mayoral authority (Civil Rights the Mayor and approval by an Executive Commission – 66% of the appointments) Committee of the City Council and eventu- and in other cases greater Council authority ally by a majority of the City Council. If the (Capital Long Range Planning – 79% of the Executive Committee and Council do not appointments). approve a mayoral nomination after three tries,the roles are reversed,and the Executive Independent Boards Committee nominates, with approval of the Another aspect of Minneapolis governance Mayor and Council required. that is unusual is its independent boards. While many cities have school boards which The Executive Committee consists of operate independently of the city govern- the Mayor, City Council President and up ment, as in Minneapolis, the Park and Rec- to three additional members chosen by the reation Board and Library Board have a rare City Council. If multiple political parties amount of independence. are represented on the City Council, not

4 A BALANCING ACT

The Library Board has six members ﬁxes the maximum amount of money and elected at large from the community and maximum rate which may be raised in the two appointed members, one by the Mayor aggregate by general taxation by the City and one by the City Council. Council, Boards or departments.

City/County Cooperation The Park and Recreation Board consists Hennepin County has a separate board of nine members, six elected from defined with elected commissioners, three of whom districts and three elected at large. represent districts which are all or mostly within Minneapolis City boundaries. The Each of these boards hires its own superin- City works cooperatively with Hennepin tendent or director and sets major policy County in a number of areas.The Emergen- for the parks and libraries respectively. The cy Communications User Board, Municipal superintendent or director serves as the chief Building Board and the Youth Coordinat- administrative officer, hiring and supervising ing Board are some of the more significant all other agency staff.The main limitation to cooperative ventures with the County.The complete independence is the requirement City has also provided for representation of to establish budgets within the levy set by the other governmental units on the Neighbor- hood Revitalization Board and the Plan- Board of Estimate and Taxation. ning Commission.

The Board of Estimate and Taxation is another unusual aspect of Minneapolis government. It serves as a mediator in distribut- COMPARING WITH OTHER CITIES ing the financial pie that feeds all components of the city governance. The membership It is difficult and in some ways almost impos- includes the Mayor, City Council President, sible to compare cities on any set of charac- Chair of the Council’s Ways and Means teristics because of state and geographic dif- and Budget Committee, one representative ferences. But, it is possible to look at what each from the Library Board and the Park other municipalities are doing and to exam- Board, and two members elected at large. It ine their structures and strategies as options sets a maximum levy limit, as required by for Minneapolis. To put this into a larger the State’s “Truth in Taxation” statute, and context, it’s useful to understand four com- thereby establishes the budgetary framework mon forms of municipal government. for all City government (excluding schools). The Board serves in lieu of having the citi- Mayor-Council. This form has a legislative body zens of the City vote on each city budget. that is elected either at-large, by ward or district, or by some combination of the two (e.g., some at-large Every office,department,board,commission and other by district). The distinguishing charac- and other agency of the City financed in any teristics of this plan are two. One, the mayor is way by appropriations of the City Council, elected separately, and two, the official designation or having any power to levy taxes,submits to of the Office of Mayor is the formal head of the the Board of Estimate and Taxation and to city government. Depending upon local laws, the the Mayor budget information for the fol- powers of the mayor may vary greatly, from limited lowing fiscal year. Such budget information ceremonial duties to full-scale authority to appoint includes a statement of proposed expen- and remove department managers. The mayor diture, the revenue from all sources and a sometimes has veto power over the city council. recommended program for capital improvements for the ensuing five-year period.The This form tends to be in older,larger cities,or Board of Estimate and Taxation each year in very small cities,under 25,000 population.

5 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

It is most popular in the Mid-Atlantic and the U.S. has all but led to the demise of this Midwestern parts of the US. Depending on type of local government. Its weaknesses are obvi- the city charter, the mayor could have weak ous, since few elected leaders possess the neces- or strong powers. Cities with variations on sary requirements to operate large portions of a the mayor-council form of government are: municipal organization. The commission form of Los Angeles, CA; Houston,TX;Topeka, KS city government is the oldest form of government (in November 2004 Topeka voters approved in the US, but exists today in only a few cities. a change to the council-manager form); and Examples are Cedar Rapids, IA and Great Falls, Minneapolis, MN. MT.

Strong Mayor. In many large cities of America, (The information above is based on: Current the mayor is elected to lead the city. This typi- Municipal Problems, pp. 20-29,Vol. 13, 1986- cally includes running the municipal organization 1987) through city employees, with the top management being selected by the mayor. A good political leader PROS AND CONS OF GOVERNMENT is sometimes not a good municipal administrator. FORMS Hiring trained administrators has served to over- come this shortcoming. Governments are not immune to trends and geographic patterns. Many of us are familiar Some strong mayor systems include a coun- with and associate the town meeting form cil as well, like St. Paul, while others do of government with New England, for not. example, although this form applies to fewer than five percent of cities with populations Council-Manager. This form of government has over 2,500. Likewise there are extreme a leader elected by popular vote. S/he is respon- differences in the role and size of county sible for policymaking, while the management of governments across the U.S. It is the Mayor- the organization is under the direction of a city Council and Council-Manager forms which manager. The council appoints and removes the seem to predominate in larger cities and may manager by majority vote. The mayor is a member be best suited to cities like Minneapolis. of the council,with no special veto or administrative powers. The mayor is, however, the community’s The Council-Manager form of government recognized political leader and represents the city arose during the early years of the twentieth at ceremonies, as well as civic and social functions. century as part of the progressive movement in American politics and gained rapidly in This form is common in cities of popula- popularity. Almost 50 percent of all cities tion over 10,000, mainly in the Southeast now use that form, and 63 percent of cities and Pacific coast areas. Depending on the over 25,000 are under the Council-Manager city charter, the mayor could have weak or form. However,pure forms of either Mayor- strong powers. Some examples are: Phoenix, Council or Council-Manager structures are AZ; San Diego, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; and increasingly rare. Frederickson et al (2004) Rockville, MD. found that Mayor-Council cities (called Type I or political cities) have adapted many Commission. This form of government, which features of the Council-Manager form and usually employs non-partisan, at-large elections, that Council-Manager cities (called Type includes a board of commissioners. Collectively II or administrative cities) have embraced they act as the legislative body. Individually, each features of the Mayor-Council form. These commissioner serves as the head of one or more adapted forms tend to make Type I cities departments. The municipal reform movement in more efficient and Type II cities more

6 A BALANCING ACT responsive. The Frederickson study goes on PROS AND CONS OF GOVERNMENT FORMS to suggest that many cities since the 1980s operate under a new, Type III structure (called conciliated city) which intentionally PROS CONS blends features of the previous structures. Greater administrative efficiency and Less opportunity for political participation. The study concludes “... that cities are much capacity. more structurally dynamic than the litera- More responsive. Less opportunity for political participation of ture suggests. In fact, cities are remarkably minorities. fluid and adaptable.” Type III cities, accord- Cost effective. 1. The standard features of the separation of ing to the researchers, “appear to meet the powers and check and balances are weakened since: 2. There is an established merit-based needs and the wants of citizens.” civil service and professional administration. There are some administrative policies, From our research, it appears that cities with procedures, and that militate against direct council-manager forms of government are meddling in city administrative affairs by city considering the mayor-council form at least council members and/or mayor. as often as mayor-council cities are examin- More favorable environment for ing the council-manager form. Council-Manager formulation and implementation of strategic plans. Another form, one that appears to be Reduces transactional costs. increasing in popularity, is the City-County or Metropolitan government. A number of This form of government makes experts on government including some of commitment more credible for elected officials. the people we spoke with for this study suggest that the issues facing large metropolitan cities are not very amenable to solu- PROS CONS tion at the municipal level; these experts Strong political leadership. Concentration of authority in one person. argue that any consideration of changes to More political responsiveness. Weaker council powers. local government structure would do well to look at metropolitan government as an May enhance the effectiveness of Political agendas may override administrative option. One person argued for an elected bureaucratic organizations because issues. Metropolitan Council with a professional of the political leadership and politi- manager as the best way to develop and cal responsiveness. carry out a metro wide vision in the Twin Clear separation of powers. Cities. Strong Mayor Good when political issues are more Metropolitan governments are intended relevant for the community. to resolve dilemmas of parity - disparities This form of government makes com- between a central city and its suburbs.They mitment more credible for elected are also intended to realize the advantages of officials. scale in the supply of services and the development of infrastructure and to facilitate PROS CONS comprehensive and rational planning. The Promotes participation. Increases potential for conflict. current prevailing conceptions of metropolitan government focus on loose frameworks Balances legislative and executive. Political agenda may take precedence. of cooperation (rather than metropolitan- wide governance) and coordination, par- May provide more opportunity for Less efficient. diversity. ticularly in the realm of development. Mayor-Council Increases accessibility. Generally higher costs.

7 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

CITY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE – COMPARISON TO OTHER COMMUNITIES

Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Tulsa, OK Colorado Omaha, NE Seattle, WA Austin, TX MN MN Springs, CO POPULATION 382,618 287,151 393,049 360,890 390,007 563,374 556,562 (2000 Census) FORM OF Mayor-Council Strong Mayor Mayor-Council Council-Manager Mayor-Council Mayor-Council Council-Manager GOVERNMENT

MAYOR Length of Term 4 years 4 years 4 years 4 years 4 years 4 years 3 years Partisan/ Non-partisan Partisan Partisan Non-partisan Non-partisan Non-partisan Non-partisan Nonpartisan (Runs with (Runs with endorsement endorsement) Powers Executive Executive Executive and No administrative Executive Executive/ Legislative administrative duties Legislative Hours Full-time Full-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Full-time Full-time Salary $89,773 (2004) $96,888 (effective $105,000 Stipend of $6,250 $96,205 $141,650 $53,000 (plus 2002) per year (increase $5,400 car to $18,000 on allowance) April 2005 Ballot

CITY COUNCIL Number 13 7 9 8 (4 elected 7 9 6 city-wide, and one for each of the 4 districts) Length of term 4 years 4 years 2 years 4 years 4 years 4 years (4 in odd 3 years number year & 5 in next odd number year) Partisan/ Non-partisan Partisan Partisan Non-partisan Non-partisan Non-partisan Non-partisan non-partisan (Runs with (Runs with endorsement) endorsement) Powers Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Legislative Method of Ward Ward Electoral Districts City wide and by By district At large Numbered seats election district Staggered No No Yes No Yes terms Hours Full-time Part-time Part-time Full-time Full-time Salary $68,331 (2004) $48444 (effective $18,000 Stipend of $6,250 $30,392 $96,507 $45,000 (plus 2002) per year (Increase $5,400 car to $12,000 on allowance) April 2005 Ballot) Number of 13 wards 13 wards 9 districts 4 districts 7 districts wards/districts

8 A BALANCING ACT

City-county governments are used in sev- WEIGHING THE FACTORS eral metropolitan areas with one central city surrounded by many suburbs. Examples Based on the results of the 2001 and 2003 include Indianapolis and Miami-Dade resident surveys, it is clear that a signifi- County. cant number of people (29%) who live in Minneapolis perceive the city in a more In January 2003, Louisville and Jefferson negative way now than just a few years ago. County, Kentucky, combined into one Communities of color were even more likely metropolitan government, implementing to say that the city has gotten worse (37%.) a merger of a size that no city in America has pulled off since Indianapolis did it in “Managing city government” (including 1970. Interested parties from Memphis, addressing financial problems) was seen Milwaukee, Rochester, Buffalo, Cedar as the second biggest challenge facing the Rapids and Fresno have observed this city after “public safety.” The thirty-three situation as they consider their own moves percent of survey respondents who men- toward merger. tioned this as a challenge listed three specific concerns: balancing budgets, keeping taxes Such consolidated governments are viewed down, and better quality services. When as having improved bargaining power; asked how the City could be more efficient, reduced service duplication; protection of residents showed no consensus. More than the core city and its strengths; and, a com- 50% made no suggestions. petitive advantage in terms of improved metropolitan identity for economic devel- When residents were asked to rate five opment. Disadvantages are described as: aspects of city management on a four-point increased resident isolation from elected scale ranging from poor (1) to very good leaders; decreased efficiency due to sheer (4), no rating exceeded 2.5 in 2003 and size; negative impact on small service sup- every rating was lower than in 2001. The pliers who are closed out of government five areas rated were: providing value for tax contracts; and, masking of problems due to dollars; representing and providing for the larger pools of data (the effect of averaging, needs of all residents; providing meaningful for example.) opportunities for residents to give input;

9 Minneapolis Government: MINNEAPOLIS VOTERS A BALANCING ACT Follow the colored lines to see authority relationships

CITY BOARD OF ESTIMATE LIBRARY BOARD MAYOR & TAXATION OF TRUSTEES COUNCIL 2 elected members Mayor 6 members elected at-large 13 members City Council President elected at-large elected by ward CC Ways & Means Chair 1 appointed by Mayor PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY Library Board Rep 1 appointed by CC 5 Mayor Park Board Rep 4 City Council

CITY CLERK CIVILIAN REVIEW AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

3 Mayor Mayor 4 City Council CC Chair CC Vice Chair CC Majority Leader CC Minority Leader

PLANNING COMMISSION NEI CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES 5 Mayoral Appointees REV claims Representatives PO community development (1 each) from: 4 members elected from CAPITAL LONG-RANGE intergovernmental relations neighborhoods public safety & City Council IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE regulatory service School Board 5 members from transportation & public works Library Board community interest groups 7 Mayor way & means, budget Park Board Hennepin County (3) 26 City Council (2 each) health & human services Mayor planning & zoning Hennepin County elections 1 each from rules City Council taxes Library Board

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION 14 Mayor 7 City Council

CIVIL RIGHTS COORDINATOR PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 3 appointed by Executive Commitee

INFORMATION & HUMAN RESOURCES COMMUNICATIONS FINANCE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 10 MINNEAPOLIS VOTERS Legend

RED MAYOR

BLUE CITY COUNCIL

BROWN BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND TAXATION

YELLOW LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES LIBRARY BOARD HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK SCHOOL BOARD OF OF TRUSTEES BOARD BOARD COMMISSIONERS GREEN PARK BOARD 6 members 7 members elected 9 elected members Special District #1 elected at-large by district 6 by district 7 members ORANGE SCHOOL BOARD 1 appointed by Mayor 3 at-large (3 include parts 1 appointed by CC elected at-large of Minneapolis) PURPLE HENNEPIN COUNTY

Colors demonstrate interconnections in appointments to and supervision of boards, commissions, staff and other agencies, including joint ventures such as the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and Youth Coordinating Board. NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH COORDINATING MUNICIPAL BUILDING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM BOARD BOARD POLICY BOARD Mayor Mayor 4 members elected from 2 Council Members Hennepin County Chair The dotted blue line from Council neighborhoods 2 Hennepin County 1 Council Member Committees demonstrates that work 5 members from Commissioners 1 Hennepin County community interest groups 2 School Board Members Commissioner direction is given by the City Council Hennepin County (3) 1 Park Board Member although official supervision is Mayor 1 Library Board Member through the Executive Committee, 1 each from: 1 Hennepin County Judge City Council School Board Hennepin County Attorney denoted by the red and blue line. Library Board Park Board 1 State Representative 1 State Senator

ATTORNEY ASSESSOR HEALTH POLICE FIRE

INFORMATION & OPERATIONS & TECHNOLOGY QUALITY REGULATORY SERVICES SERVICES 11 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

communicating with residents; and, effec- Other suggestions for improving citizen tively planning for the future. involvement included: better meeting loca- tions; holding meetings at varied times; According to the City’s own analysis of the returning phone calls; promoting ways for survey data “The most significant change has residents to be more involved; greater effort to do with resident perceptions of City gov- by the City to make residents feel their ernment effectively planning for the future - opinions matter; and, making invitations for - a majority of residents (55%) now perceive involvement more appealing. performance as ‘only fair to poor’.” MEASURES FOR EVALUATING Fifty-seven percent of residents rated the POTENTIAL CHANGE City as only fair or poor on communicat- A common theme among those we inter- ing with its residents. This suggests that any viewed for this study was the need to mea- attempts to change the structure or improve sure City performance, effectively monitor the current one should include components performance, and tie those measures and that address this issue. outcomes to funding decisions. Likewise, we believe that any changes to the statutory More than half of the residents surveyed in form of government in Minneapolis and, 2003 rated the City only fair or poor on indeed, any proposed improvements to the providing meaningful opportunities for current structure should be made with a input on important issues. It seems this clear understanding of expected outcomes. issue ties closely to communication. While The “good government” criteria examined many respondents (37%) had no suggestions on pages 1-3 should provide a starting for improving public involvement, those point. who did respond suggested: better notification of meetings through advertising and Proponents of change should be able to getting more information out ahead of time; clearly describe which of those criteria using media such as television, radio and their proposal will address and how. If the newspapers to notify residents of meetings; “problem” is, as a significant number of our providing mailings and leaflets for meeting resources suggested,less one of structure and notification; and, posting notices on the instead one of personality, then it’s difficult City’s website. to see how the criteria would be affected.

12 A BALANCING ACT

Perhaps the statutory form of government STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE MINNEAPOLIS ONE CALL AND matters less than the commitment of elected 311 and appointed officials to accurately assess CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND One of the possible changes that and efficiently meet the needs of their INVOLVEMENT our interviewees mentioned was to constituents. A balanced combination of The League of WomenVoters of Minneapolis clarify the role of the council mem- leadership, responsiveness, and efficiency believes that any changes to city government bers and to emphasize policy may be what’s lacking; if so, it may be that should maintain or enhance the current making over constituent services. With the upcoming implementa- what’s important is to address those issues level of citizen engagement. Our current tion of Minneapolis One Call, a new rather than the structure. As one resource position recommends balance between system that will track and expedite put it “Any structure will work with com- neighborhood and city-wide interests, all kinds of service requests such a mitment behind it, and no structure will maintaining a variety of ways for citizens to change may be feasible. With One work well without it.” And, many of our participate, and improving communication Call, when residents call to report informants felt that personality plays a big and access a pothole or broken streetlight, role in Minneapolis that would persist even they receive a ticket number and if the structure were changed. Depending on the nature of the proposed estimated repair date that allows change, the process for approval and imple- tracking of completion of the work. What other factors should be considered in mentation would vary. Some fine tuning This system should allow measure- order to determine whether Minneapolis of the existing government structure in ment and continuous improvement ought to implement changes in structure? Minneapolis could be undertaken with the of the City’s performance. We think there are at least four sets of fac- approval and commitment of the Mayor and Other cities that have implemented tors that should examined. Two are com- Council alone without any changes in the similar efforts (often called 311 plex: what do residents expect from their charter. Even significant structural changes, service) report positive results. As a city government and what measures would such as a decision to hire a city manager non-emergency companion to 911 any change need to meet. Two are practical: within the current mayor-council form could be service, 311 improves customer ser- what parties and/or interests would need to readily accomplished if the will were there. vice and provides a way of collecting be involved in change and what progression Proposals to change from the mayor-coun- data to make the city work better by of strategies would be required to effect cil form, to reduce or expand the number showing patterns that no individual change. of Council Members, to change the nature department or council member of the independent boards would require would be able to discern based on charter change and/or legislative approval. the limited number of data bits they could collect. It allows the city and While recent Star Tribune editorials have res- its employees to see the big picture and make decisions accordingly. urrected city government structure as a local (To read how Chicago, Baltimore issue in 2005, at least one former Charter and New York have used 311 see Commission member says he doesn’t detect Time, February 7, 2005, p.52)

13 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

a groundswell of support for charter reform OPTIONS FOR INDEPENDENT in Minneapolis. BOARDS Three independent boards are established “People like the checks and balances,” in the Minneapolis Charter, Estimate and says Chuck Lutz, deputy director of the Taxation, Library, and Park and Recreation. Community Planning and Economic They have served the city well over the years. Development Department, who chaired the The Board of Estimate and Taxation serves Minneapolis Charter Commission in the in lieu of a public referendum on setting 1980s. “They are inherently suspicious of maximum tax levies; it also has the inter- what they see as an over-concentration of nal audit function for all city departments, power,” he says. “Good, bad, or indifferent, boards,and commissions. The Library Board democracy is messy, and people like it that has the authority to levy tax for the support way.” (Nathan, Minneapolis Observer) of the library system, although the Board of Estimate and Taxation has the power to Charter changes may be accomplished in set a maximum library tax levy. The Board several ways speciﬁed by Minnesota Statute also appoints the Director and establishes 410.12. Amendments may be proposed: by policy for the city libraries. The Park and citizen petition,by the City Council,or by the Recreation Board, like the Library Board, Charter Commissioners. Proposed amend- levies taxes for the park system and opera- ments must be submitted to the Charter tions, establishes policy, and employs a staff. Commission and enacted only after recom- Both the Park Board and the Library Board mendation by the Charter Commission and are subject to state legislation for some of approval by the City Council on a 13-0 vote their activities. or after placement on the general election ballot by the council after being forwarded (The school board is governed by state from the charter commission. The council legislation since 1959 when Minneapolis does have the authority to determine the Public Schools were established as a Special wording of proposed changes on the ballot. Independent School District. Prior to If 51% of those voting on the amendment that time the city council and board of support it, it passes. For a proposed change estimate and taxation controlled school to appear on the November 2005 ballot, funding. There is also a joint-powers Youth it would need to be introduced after May Coordinating Board.) 10, 2005. (See Appendix for the complete timeline.)

14 A BALANCING ACT

Library Board According to the ULC “traditional reli- PARK/LIBRARY BONDING The Minneapolis Public Library is governed ance on local government budgets has The Park and Recreation and by an independent Board of Trustees.Six are given public libraries a revenue base that is Library Boards are independent elected at large for four-year terms and two relatively stable.” Indeed, between 2002 and boards, except to the extent that are appointed for two-year terms by the 2003 most libraries experienced increases in their budgets, levies and bonding Mayor and City Council. (All board terms general operating revenues. This is a stark authority are cooperatively expire in 2005.) The Library Board derives contrast to the circumstances in Minneapolis, developed with the City Council its authority both from the city charter and where in 2003, due to state budget cuts, the and Board of Estimate and Taxation. However even established controls from state legislation; it has the authority library was required to cut approximately and designed cooperation do not to levy taxes for the support of the library $2.1 million from its budget after the start always work as anticipated. Two re- system, although the Board of Estimate and of the fiscal year. cent cases illustrate the breakdown. Taxation has the power to set a maximum library tax levy. The Library Board also Local Government Aid (LGA) reductions In 2004 the Minneapolis Park Board appoints the Director. to Minneapolis in 2003, 2004, and 2005 was able to secure its own building amounted to $26 million, $35 million, and without bonding authority by using According to the Urban Library Council $2 million respectively. Local Government a lease-purchase agreement to, in (ULC), whose membership comprises 104 Aid (LGA) to the Library went from $7.4 effect, mortgage property it large urban libraries in the U.S. including million (36.8%) of library budget in 2003 to purchased on the riverfront to the Minneapolis Public Library and the St. $6.5 million (32.8%) in 2005.These budget use as park headquarters. This Paul library, almost three-quarters of library reductions resulted in layoffs of 25 percent purchase had a positive financial boards are authority boards, as are both the of the library staff and severe reductions in impact for the Park Board as it replaced space previously leased MPL and St.Paul boards. Fewer than 25 per- library hours across the city.The two entities at a higher cost. However it was cent are advisory. However, only six percent that can give money to the Library Board done without the approval of the of all authority boards have members elected are the Board of Estimate and Council City Council, which weighed in as by the public. In every case, advisory boards’ Members through LGA (local govern- desiring co-location with other city members are appointed. The average size of ment aid).The library can’t raise or borrow offices. The end result was Park authority boards is ten members. money for itself. There is a disconnect Board securing its new between the ability and authority to fund building without City bonding Public libraries vary as to their situation and run the library. A substantial portion of authority or the blessing of the City within the governing environment. Nearly the city’s LGA funding had been allotted to Council. 50 percent are departments of city (or the library, so when LGA was cut the library county) government. About 20 percent was hurt. As noted above LGA has been a On the flip side, the Library Board are nonprofit agencies; the remaining 30 large portion of the library’s funding and sought Council approval to sell bonds for major capital mainte- percent are multi-jurisdictional agencies, accounted for 20 percent of the total LGA nance for the Walker Library. The independent municipal corporations, politi- the city received.Yet, if you go to the City’s Library is located on a key corner in cal subdivisions or autonomous municipal web site and examine its current legislative the Uptown neighborhood and the bodies. stance on LGA, there is no mention of the City Council has visions of selling library and its precarious situation, although the land for a mixed use develop- The Saint Paul Public Library recently there is support for full funding for LGA. ment that would include a new became an independent agency after a long (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/legisla- library along with housing and retail history as a city department. Its Library tiveaffairs/index.asp) space. While considering this option Board consists of the members of the Saint the City Council would not approve Paul City Council. The actions of the If, as the Urban Libraries Council argues, bonding authority for the library Library Board are subject to mayoral veto “Urban public libraries are assets in the com- repairs. Without bonding authority and override of that veto in the same manner munities they serve, supporting and stimu- the Library Board has been stymied as other actions of the City Council. The lating lifelong learning as well as providing in making repairs to its building. library’s proposed budget is now published equitable access to information. In addition and presented separately from the City’s. to their vital roles in serving individuals,

15 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

urban libraries are tools for their commu- Board of Estimate And Taxation nities. Public libraries serve as resources The Board of Estimate and Taxation, con- for addressing community priorities such sists of the Mayor, the President of the City as economic development, neighborhood Council,the Chair of the Committee onWays revitalization, civic participation, and the and Means and Budget of the City Council, integration of new immigrants,” then it may an elected member of the Library Board as make sense that the Minneapolis Public designated by the board, the President of the Library would be better integrated into all Board of Park Commissioners or another the City’s activities if it were more closely member, and two additional members rep- aligned with other City departments and resenting the general public elected at large the Council and Mayor. for terms of four years. The Board serves in lieu of having the citizens of the City vote Park Board on each City budget. In 1883, the Legislature authorized an independent Board of Park Commissioners for Every office,department,board,commission the City of Minneapolis,with its own taxing and other agency of the City financed in any authority. Soon after, City voters elected the way by appropriations of the City Council, first park Commissioners. Later, the Board or having any power to levy taxes,submits to officially adopted the ‘recreation” part of the Board of Estimate and Taxation and to its name. Commissioners are responsible the Mayor budget information for the fol- for: developing park policies; and enacting lowing fiscal year. Such budget information ordinances governing the use of neighbor- includes a statement of proposed expen- hood and regional parks, parkways, beaches diture, the revenue from all sources and a and lakes, and special use facilities such as recommended program for capital improve- pools, ice arenas and municipal golf courses. ments for the ensuing five-year period.The The Commissioners also appoint the Parks Board of Estimate and Taxation each year superintendent. fixes the maximum amount of money and maximum rate which may be raised in the In 2004, the Park Board created new aggregate by general taxation by the City administrative districts, going from six to Council, boards or departments. three, but the number of commissioners will remain at nine, three at large and one each Although several League studies have from six districts. The 2005 election of addressed indirectly the Board of Estimate Commissioners will be conducted along the and Taxation, the LWVMpls currently has new Park District lines that were created via no position dealing specifically with the role the redistricting process. Current elected and responsibilities of that Board. Commissioners continue to represent the Park District from which they were elected The current LWVMpls position on librar- through 2005. ies supports: adequate financing and sound administrative procedures for the The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Minneapolis Public Library; an indepen- Board reduction in Local Government dently elected Library Board; and, coopera- Aid (LGA) was $4.07 million dollars from tion between library systems on a regional the 2003 original budget. Overall revenues basis. Support for an independent library (Property Taxes, LGA, State Grants, Other) board dates back to 1965. for 2004 were $2.3 million dollars less than the 2003 original budget. The proposed The current LWVMpls position on parks 2005 budget is $49.9 million. supports: adequate financing, sound

16 A BALANCING ACT administrative and planning procedures; an park and library matters. This may occur CITY AND PARK POLICE independently elected Park Board; and, pro- because Council Members are better known, In 2000 the Minneapolis Police cedures to increase board responsiveness to have offices and staff, and are listed in phone Department and the Minneapolis the public. Support for a independent park directories. Library and Park Board mem- Park Police Department jointly board dates to 1974. bers,especially those elected at-large,are less reviewed the service they provided well known and may simply be harder to to look for gaps and overlaps that In 1980 the League reaffirmed its support reach by phone. could be addressed by changes in organization, policy or operations. for four-year terms for Council Members, Over a period of six months they the Mayor, Park Commissioners, School Given these considerations it may be time to looked at seven areas of responsi- Board Members, members of the Board of ask whether independent boards continue bility (eg. 911 response, training). Estimate and Taxation,and the Comptroller/ to meet citizen needs in the ways origi- They also reviewed the delivery of Treasurer. Because members strongly sup- nally intended, and to ask whether other park law enforcement services in ported the independence of School, Park options might do as well or better. In the other cities. The study identified the and Library Boards, it dropped support for past, the independent boards, especially the need to formalize and document the consolidation of taxing power under the Park Board, have been successful in securing relationship and responsibilities of Council. funds from the Minnesota Legislature for each department. projects in the city,which also benefit nearby The primary factor influencing the League’s residents and, in many cases, the entire state. Three recommendations came out support for independent boards seems But, the tight financial picture for now and of the study: • undertake a criminal investiga- to have been the belief that their inde- into the future demands careful priority set- tions restructuring initiative in pendence would: increase accountability, ting for the whole of Minneapolis. This may which Minneapolis Police De- provide for greater citizen involvement in be more likely to happen if budget decisions partment would take over the decision making, and lead to better financ- centered on one body, the City Council. investigative work load of the ing. Interviews conducted for this study This certainly does not preclude the con- Park Police as an 18-month pilot suggest that these three goals may not be tinuation of citizen boards for parks and program; as well served by independence as many libraries but would probably mean a change • jointly target preventive law would wish. from elected to appointed members (The enforcement to designated public library board already has some appointed parks and adjacent neighborhood Several of those we talked with argued that members). Such boards are common, at areas; the independence of the boards is costly in least in other large urban municipalities. • develop a written memorandum terms of decision making and transparency. of understanding to formalize For example, tradeoffs in the budgeting pro- Board members argue that the quality of the services provided by each jurisdiction and how cooperative cess weaken the taxing authority of the Park our parks and libraries are directly tied efforts further their individual mis- and Library Boards. While the Council to the independence of their boards, that sion and responsibilities. actually makes many decisions about budgets such high quality is no small matter, and for parks and libraries, Council Members that their future should not be left in the These recommendations were to be are able to refer citizen complaints to the hands of a city department. Yet, public implemented in 2001, but changes respective boards, thus severing decision safety, probably the most important aspect in the players (Council, Police Chief, making from accountability. And, while the of the city according to resident surveys, etc.) have resulted in no action. Parks superintendent and the Library direc- is entrusted to a department. And, great tor are invited to City department head libraries in cities such as Cincinnati, meetings, they have no real input. This has Philadelphia, and Seattle, in fact, 40 out strong negative implications for communi- of 96 large urban libraries surveyed in late cation and trust. 2003, are city (or county) departments. Of those libraries led by authority boards (like Council Members, present and past, have the Minneapolis Public Library) more than reported that they receive a significant 85 percent have appointed boards. number of constituent phone calls about

17 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

“Strong political leader- In the case of the Board of Estimate and an attempt to clarify and update previous Taxation, whose work seems to be little positions and to analyze the effects of the ship is a very rare understood by most residents, the names 1978 charter change.The League reaffirmed and responsibilities of the elected members its support for four-year terms and dropped commodity. It doesn’t of the board are virtually unknown. One of its support for at-large Council Members. correlate with one our resources suggested that the function of In 1989, the LWVMpls published View from the board might be carried out by a body the Inside: The Structure and Functioning of structure or another.... similar to but smaller than CLIC,the Capital Minneapolis City Government. Based on this Long-range Improvements Committee, study, the LWVMpls reaffirmed its support mustering the civic will thereby eliminating the need to elect two for electing the Mayor as the politically citizen members. CLIC makes recommen- responsible city-wide leader to a four-year to make gut-wrenching dations to the City Council and Mayor on term; electing the City Council by ward choices requires the deft capital improvement program development to non-staggered terms and limiting their and annual capital improvement budgets. It terms to twelve years in office; the existence touch of talented has 33 citizen members with seven at-large of a bipartisan Executive Committee; and members appointed by the Mayor and two long-range planning by the City Council. politicians. The most members from each ward appointed by the important challenge isn’t Council. In addition to possible major shifts such as adoption of the Council-Manager form to write charters for them; PREVIOUS LEAGUE STUDIES AND of government, espoused by some of our POSITIONS resources as well as the Minneapolis Star it is to nurture them in From its very beginning, League of Women Tribune in a series of commentaries in the first place.” Voters of Minneapolis (LWVMpls) has December 2004,there are a number of more shown an avid interest in Minneapolis city moderate options which might be consid- government and its structure. In 1923 the ered to improve the functioning and/or LWVMpls endorsed a city manager plan efficiency of Minneapolis City government. “Lure of the Strong and in 1925 reaffirmed its belief in the prin- These include: change in the size of the Mayor,” Governing ciple of home rule. It worked for adoption council, shifting from full-time to part-time Magazine, July, 1993 of city-manager type charters in 1926 and council members, modification or elimina- 1936 without success.It worked for a strong- tion of wards, elimination of independent mayor type charter in 1948, 1960 and 1963, boards, or various combinations of these but those attempts failed, too. After the last options. defeat, the LWVMpls and others interested in charter reform conceded that a complete POSSIBLE CHANGES new charter was politically impossible and that piecemeal charter revision was a more Council Size realistic goal. Although there have never been more than 13 wards in Minneapolis, the number LWVMpls in 1969 and 1970 supported of City Council Members fluctuated, establishing four-year terms for Council being as high as 39 in 1887. Since the mid Members and other City officials and elect- 1950s, when the population of the city was ing some Council Members at-large. As significantly larger at 521,718, each of the a result of the 1971 study New Trends in thirteen wards has been represented by one City Government the LWVMpls reaffirmed full-time Council Member. At that time its support for four-year terms and for at- communication between elected officials large Council Members. In the spring of and their constituents required signifi- 1980 the LWVMpls produced Minneapolis cant time for the distribution of printed Government Structure: Help or Hindrance? as information or the scheduling of meetings

18 A BALANCING ACT or broadcast outlets to engage significant suggest that constituent services are either PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT numbers of citizens. Much communica- better handled through mechanisms such as IN MINNEAPOLIS tion thus entailed considerable lag time or 311 or could be managed more effectively In April 1999, Minneapolis com- was likely to miss many residents. (and, perhaps, more fairly) by structured mitted to a system of performance processes for resident input that did not measurement. Performance mea- With the 2000 estimated city population of require Council Members to be constantly surement is a process of assessing 382,618 people and the widespread avail- at the beck and call of voters. City progress toward achieving City goals. According to the City’s web ability of electronic communication mecha- site, Minneapolis has chosen to nisms, it might be possible for citizens to Elimination of Wards focus on three types of measures: maintain or improve access to their elected Many of those we interviewed lamented the Efficiency Measures (productivity); officials even with fewer Council Members. “lack of vision” or “attention to the big pic- Effectiveness Measures (quality and If constituent services in Council offices ture” evidenced by the Council and Mayor satisfaction); and Outcome Mea- are replaced by the Minneapolis One Call in Minneapolis. This situation, in their sures (results and value added). (311), that major part of the Council’s role view, contributes to short-sighted decision will disappear. making as well as internal competition. Expected outcomes of performance Some decisions that should be made, they measurement include: Some of those we spoke with in preparing told us, are deferred or overlooked because • Enhancing Governance: The use this report strongly suggested that a smaller of their likely effects on one or more wards. of performance measurement is council would be better because it more Even if Council Members know that a par- intended to strengthen the ability of public officials to set priorities, quickly could reach agreement on deci- ticular decision is a good one for the City as inform constituents, and hold the sions. This, they say, would be advantageous a whole, they are understandably reluctant system accountable. especially in times of rapid change. Others to “commit political suicide.” • Enhancing City Management: feel that the current, relatively large council Performance measures will help is better able to bring a variety of view- Some argue that a Council elected at large, provide City of Minneapolis de- points and expertise to the decision making or one that had a combination of at large partments a context for decision- process. This diversity would be lost in a and ward Council Members, would tend to making for the best investment of smaller council and might result in poorer focus on “what’s best for Minneapolis” and limited resources. decisions. thus make better quality decisions with more • Enhancing Relationships with attention to their future impacts. Others Citizens: The City of Minneapolis Full-Time Vs. Part-Time Council believe that an at-large Council would have is working to strengthen the City’s Those who favor a full-time Council point a tendency to make decisions that would ability to communicate perfor- to the importance of the work done by exacerbate existing disparities among the mance to the public. Council Members, the need to attract com- City’s neighborhoods and might also disad- petent, diverse office holders, and to the vantage specific interests or groups. opportunities that having full-time Council Members provides for interaction with con- Some pointed out that Council Members stituents. are often advocates for their constituents based on their more thorough understand- Somewhat surprisingly, those who favor a ing of local situations, while City staff need part-time Council make almost the same to be more uniform in their application of arguments. Part-time office holders, they rules and decisions and are, at the same time, argue, would be more likely to focus on usually less familiar with the neighborhood important policy matters and stay out of situation. day-to-day City management. They also say that making Council Members part-time Another criticism of at-large Councils is that would increase the pool of potential can- running City-wide makes at-large candidates didates by attracting persons whose career and office holders “mini-mayors.” And, the interests are outside of politics. And, they costs of running City-wide campaigns are

19 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT considerably higher than those run in a “The truth is there is no perfect system for IN ONTARIO more limited geographic area. For example, all cities and all seasons. Almost any set of Performance measurement can one person we interviewed suggested that rules can work under the right circum- be more useful when it provides the reason Library Board members are so stances. Phoenix has done extraordinarily benchmarks. For example, in Ontar- little known is that they run City-wide and well under a rather strict system of city- io common assessments are used in with relatively little funding. manager government. Chicago has pros- all municipalities. The objectives of pered under the relatively benign political the program are to: provide a tool to Non-Partisan Council Members autocracy of the Daley family....In a great assess how well municipal services Technically, Minneapolis Council seats are many cities, ‘reform’ is always going to are delivered; improve performance; non-partisan, but, of course, the endorse- consist of whatever system hasn’t been strengthen accountability to taxpay- ment by a political party is a major factor in tried there lately. (“The Mayor-Manager ers; and provide an information resource that allows municipalities most races. Some city councils are elected Conundrum,” by Alan Ehrenhalt, Governing to share strategies and learn new without party endorsements, although Magazine, October, 2004). and or better practices from one often there are other kinds of endorsements another. Ten areas are assessed: sought. In addition to party and labor Realistic Expectations local government, fire, police, roads, union endorsements, police and firefighters, Minneapolis residents, at least in the past, public transit, waste water, storm women’s groups, racial and ethnic interest have shown little inclination to make sweep- water, water, solid waste, and land- groups, and many others are integral to a ing changes to the City Charter. Instead use planning. successful run for office in Minneapolis. they have favored incremental changes such as adjusting terms of office, adding or sub- Other Remedies tracting assigned roles and responsibilities, COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY We also heard suggestions to: lengthen and other subtle modifications in the way PLANNING or shorten terms of Council Members; the City functions. Some would argue that Community Planning and Eco- to streamline or standardize the role of this is exactly why major changes are now nomic Development (CPED) was Council Members; and, to adjust the bal- required. Others, just as adamant, say that proposed as a solution to the city’s ance of power among the Mayor, Executive this incrementalism shows the wisdom of development problems in 2002. It Committee and City Council -- all as pos- the electorate. would bring together three existing sible remedies to perceived weaknesses in units to provide seamless access the current system. Perhaps what Minneapolis needs more for developers working with the than major structural change is widespread city. An outside evaluation of CPED conducted in late 2004 showed that What we did not find in our researches commitment on the part of elected officials the new department has resulted in for this study was unequivocal evidence and city employees to use the performance better management of development that any of these possible changes is con- management system recently put into place funds, but that significant problems sistently associated with better governance. along with other strategic and tactical tech- with the new structure remain to be There are Mayor-Council cities with even niques to make the existing structure work addressed. To date neither the de- larger councils than Minneapolis which as effectively and efficiently as possible. partment nor the Council has taken are viewed as highly effective, but there action to implement the consultants’ are also “good” councils which are smaller. recommendations nor to adopt The same situation exists for each of the other steps to improve the new unit. options. Intuitively, it would seem that smaller councils and/or those with part- time Council Members would be more cost effective. But, this would only be true for Minneapolis to the extent that current council member workloads would not be simply shifted to city employees. It appears that this has been the case in some other jurisdictions.

20 A BALANCING ACT

TIMELINE The current Mayor, potential candidates The Charter Commission is continuing for that office as well as current and future with its work of clarifying language in the Council Members will be active in advanc- current version of the City’s Charter. ing or resisting specific proposals. Recent Charter change initiatives in 1988 and 1989 In February Minneapolis Sen. Larry saw intense involvement by then-current Pogemiller introduced a bill (SF 1234 - office holders. sponsored in the House by Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher as HF 1486) to create a City employees and their unions are now and panel to study the form and structure of city would continue to be key players, as would government in Minneapolis and make rec- the state and local media including electronic ommendations to the Charter Commission, and print outlets. The series of December legislature or other branches of government; 2004 editorials in the Minneapolis Star the bill has been referred to the Senate Tribune and follow up articles in many of the State and Local Government Operations neighborhood newspapers in Minneapolis Committee. If passed the panel would have attest to this latter interest. City employees seven members and would have until June have amply demonstrated their interests in 30, 2006 to complete its work and make past Charter change pushes and in ongoing recommendations. One member would be efforts to influence the course of municipal appointed by each of: Governor, Mayor, decision making. Council, Park Board, Library Board, School Board, and Downtown Council. Political parties and members of the legislature will have strong views on what happens There are many in and out of the City who in Minneapolis. So should residents. We will be highly interested in any proposals for hope this study contributes to the commu- change. It will be difficult to effect changes nity conversation on this important topic. without the support (or perhaps in some cases neutrality) of these interest groups.

21 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

RESOURCE MATERIALS Feiock, R. & Moon-Gi, J., “Credible Commitment and Council-Manager Current Municipal Problems, (Vol. 13, 1986- Government: Implications for 1987) pp. 20-29. Policy Instrument Choices”, Public Administration Review, (Vol. 63, No. 5). “Are City Councils a Relic of the Past?”, Governing Magazine, (April, 2003). Frederickson, H.G. & Johnson, G., “The Adapted American City: A Study in “Choices of the Citizenry: Forms of Institutional Dynamics”, Urban Affairs Municipal Government”, Washington, Review, (Vol. 36, No. 6) (July, 2001). D.C., National League of Cities, (May, 1989). Frederickson, H.G., Johnson, G., & Wood, C., “The Changing Structure of “Governance & Revenue Structures; American Cities: A Study of Diffusion New Field Data on Metropolitan of Innovation”, Public Administration Public Libraries”, Evanston, IL, Urban Review, (Vol. 64, No. 3). Libraries Council, (April, 2004). Frederickson, H.G.,Wood, C. & Logan, B., “Government Performance Project: “How American City Governments Report Card [Minneapolis]”, Governing Have Changed: The Evolution of the Magazine. (February, 2000). Model City Charter”, National Civic Review, (Vol. 90, No. 1) (2001). “Swimming to Seattle: Everybody Else Is Moving There.Should You?”, Governing Gurwitt, R., “Lure of the Strong Mayor”, Magazine, (April, 2002) Governing Magazine, (July, 1993).

Bird, R.M., “Setting the Stage: Municipal Gurwitt, R., “Minneapolis: Mysteries and Intergovernmental Finance,” in of Urban Momentum”, Governing Friere, M. & Stren, R., The Challenge of Magazine, (April, 2002). Urban Government: Politics and Practices, Washington,D.C.,World Bank Institute, Slack,E.,“Models of Government Structure (2001). at the Local Level”, Working Paper. Kingston, Ontario, Queen’s University, DeSantis,V. & Renner, T., “City (2004). Government Structures: An Attempt at Classiﬁcation”, State and Local Svara, J. H., “The Shifting Boundary Government Review, (Vol. 34, No. 2). Between Elected Ofﬁcials and City Managers in Large Council-Manager Dohrmann,T. & Mendonca, L.,“Boosting Cities”, Public Administration Review, Government Productivity”, The (Vol.59, No.1) (January/February, McKinsey Quarterly, (No. 4, 2004). 1999).

Ehrenhalt, A., “The Mayor-Manager Conundrum”, Governing Magazine, (October, 2004).

22 A BALANCING ACT

INTERVIEWS Lee Munnich, Senior Fellow and Director State and Local Policy Program Chuck Ballentine, Director Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Housing, Community Works, & Transit University of Minnesota Hennepin County Kathleen O’Brien,V.P. for University Services Don Fraser, Former Mayor University of Minnesota City of Minneapolis Scott Russell, Staff Writer Jon R. Gurban, Superintendent Southwest Journal Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Jeff Schneider, Senior Project Manager Kit Hadley, Director Community Planning and Economic Minneapolis Public Library Board Development City of Minneapolis Janet M. Hively, Senior Fellow College of Continuing Education and Dick Smith,Assistant Director of Public Works Senior Advisor,Vital Aging Network City of Minneapolis University of Minnesota Lyall A. Schwarzkopf, Former City Coordinator Jay Kiedrowski, Senior Fellow and Former City Clerk Center for Leadership of Nonproﬁts, City of Minneapolis Philanthropy and the Public Sector Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Ray Waldron, President University of Minnesota Minnesota AFL-CIO

Barret W.S. Lane,Ward 13 Council Member City of Minneapolis

Chuck Lutz, Deputy Director Community Planning and Economic Development City of Minneapolis

Bob Miller, Executive Director Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program

John Moir, City Coordinator City of Minneapolis

Trudy Moloney, Director Council Operations City of St. Paul

23 MINNEAPOLIS CITY GOVERNMENT

APPENDIX

2005 Charter Amendment Proposal Calendar Meeting Schedule These regularly scheduled meeting dates do not preclude the Charter Commission, Intergovernmental Relations Committee or City Council from scheduling special meetings. Calendar for a proposed Charter amendment initiated by a Citizen Petition

May 10, 2005 Earliest date a petition may be submitted to place a question on the November General Election ballot. Petitions submitted prior will require a special election be conducted. (M.S.410.10 Subd.1) July 6, 2005 Regularly scheduled Charter Commission meeting to recommend Charter changes for referral to the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee July 19 and August 2, Regularly scheduled Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee 2005 meetings to approve ballot language before statutory deadline to propose charter amendments August 5, 2005 Regularly scheduled City Council meeting to approve ballot language before statutory deadline to propose charter amendments

Aug. 16, 2005 State law prohibits any Charter proposal from being submitted for the November General Election ballot after this date (M.S.410.12 Subd.1- 12 weeks prior to the general election)

September 16, 2005 Written notice to County Auditor of ballot language (M.S.205.16 subd. - 53 days prior to election)

Nov. 8, 2005 General Election

Requirement for number of signatures on a Citizen Petition (M.S.410.12 Subd.1) At least 10,084 Minneapolis registered voter signatures are required to submit a citizen petition. This number is determined by State Law, which requires signatures from at least 5 percent of total votes cast at the previous State General Election. At the last State General Election held November 2, 2004, the number of Minneapolis residents who voted was 201,672. Verification for a Citizen Petition (M.S.410.12 Subd.3)

• The Minneapolis Elections and Voter Registration Office has ten (10) days to verify initial submission of signatures.

• Petitioners have ten (10) more days to obtain additional signatures if needed.

• The Minneapolis Elections and Voter Registration Office has five (5) additional days to verify additional signatures.