Providing a non-partisan model for generating and sharing          

    essential information on public issues and proposed solutions              

10th Anniversary :  2005- 06 to 2015-16

   
                                                                                                  About Civic Caucus   l   Interviews & Responses  l   Position Reports   l   Contact Us   l   Home  

 
 Response Page - Minneapolis Charter Commission  Interview -     
Please take one minute to evaluate our website. Click here to take the survey.

These comments are responses to the statements listed below,
which were generated in regard to the
Minneapolis Charter Commission Interview of
10-18-2013.
 

City charter revision is long overdue

OVERVIEW

Revisions to the Minneapolis City Charter are long overdue, say Barry Clegg, Brian Melendez and Lyall Schwarzkopf, all involved in an 11-year project to revise the charter by modernizing it into plain language, shortening it and reorganizing it. In the Nov. 5, 2013, election, Minneapolis voters will decide whether to approve the proposed revised charter.

Minneapolis adopted its charter in 1920 and it contains archaic provisions and archaic language, the three say. The current charter has been amended 100 times over the years, with many of the amendments tacked onto the end of the document, rather than placed with the provisions they affect. The situation is made more complex by the involvement of the state in Minneapolis governance. The legislature can override provisions of the city's charter by passing special laws affecting only Minneapolis. The proposed revisions include adding the provisions of those special laws in the charter, reorganizing the amendments and making the document much shorter and easier to understand, Clegg, Melendez and Schwarzkopf contend. They say the revisions are at least 40 years overdue.

They maintain that the charter revisions might make Minneapolis more economically competitive by clarifying the city's government structure for developers and others looking to invest in the city. They say that the proposed revisions should make it easier to implement charter revisions and charter reform in the future.

For the complete interview summary see:  Charter Commission interview

Response Summary: Average response ratings shown below are simply the mean of all readers’ zero-to-ten responses to the ideas proposed and should not be considered an accurate reflection of a scientifically structured poll.

To assist the Civic Caucus in planning upcoming interviews, please rate these statements on today's topic on a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (neutral) to 10 (strongly agree):

1. Value of topic. (7.8 average response) The interview summarized today provides valuable information or insight.

2. Value of further study. (4.9 average response) It would be helpful to schedule additional interviews on this topic.

On a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (neutral) to 10 (strongly agree), please rate the following points discussed during the meeting: 

3. Revision is substantial improvement. (8.4 average response) The proposed revised city charter with its use of plain language and simplified organization represents a substantial improvement over the current city charter.

4. Revisions may benefit competitiveness. (8.4 average response) The charter revisions might make Minneapolis more economically competitive by clarifying the city's government structure for developers and others looking to invest in the city.

5. Revised charter easier to amend. (8.4 average response) The proposed revisions should make it easier to implement charter revisions and charter reform in the future.

Response Distribution:

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neutral

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

Total Responses

1. Interview valuable.

0%

0%

17%

67%

17%

6

2. Further study helpful.

0%

40%

20%

40%

0%

5

3. Revision is substantial improvement.

0%

0%

17%

33%

50%

6

4. Revisions may benefit competitiveness.

0%

0%

0%

67%

33%

6

5. Revised charter easier to amend.

0%

0%

0%

67%

33%

6

Individual Responses:

Don Anderson  (5)  (5)  (7.5)  (7.5)  (7.5)

1. Interview valuable. If you are a Minneapolis resident.

Ray Ayotte  (7.5)  (2.5)  (10)  (10)  (10)

Steve Tjeltveit   (7)  (3)  (8)  (7)  (7)

John Nowicki   (na)  (na)  (na)  (na)  (na)

Is this of interest to most?

Lydia Howell  (na)  (na)  (na)  (na)  (na)

Not nearly enough specifics---in fact, whenever asked for specific examples none were given. We are being asked to simply trust on faith that nothing of substance has been extracted. Putting the revisions out to the public two weeks before Election Day does not allow for any debate either. I will be voting no and encouraging other people to vote no.

Chuck Lutz   (9)  (8)  (10)  (9)  (9)

Arvonne Fraser    (8)  (6)  (5)  (7)  (7)

I was impressed by Tony Hill's analysis reported in STrib opposing this effort.  His point was that so much case law has been set through the old charter.

Carolyn Ring   (10)  (na)  (10)  (10)  (10)

The revision is long overdue

    

The Civic Caucus   is a non-partisan, tax-exempt educational organization.   The Core participants include persons of varying political persuasions,
reflecting years of leadership in politics and business. Click here  to see a short personal background of each.

   David Broden,  Janis Clay,  Bill Frenzel,  Paul Gilje,   Jan Hively,  Dan Loritz (Chair),  Marina Lyon,  Joe Mansky, 
Tim McDonald,  John Mooty,  Jim Olson,  Wayne Popham  and Bob White


©
The Civic Caucus, 01-01-2008
2104 Girard Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55405.  civiccaucus@comcast.net
Dan Loritz, chair, 612-791-1919   ~   Paul A. Gilje, coordinator, 952-890-5220.

contact webmaster
 

 

 

Hit Counter