The Minneapolis Charter Commission struck a blow for a simpler, more accountable city government last week, when it sent to the voters a proposal to scrap the obscure, semi-autonomous board that oversees taxation, bonding and audits.

But it was a gentle blow. The proposal to eliminate the Board of Estimate and Taxation (literally, to allow the City Council to function as that board) was but one part of a more sweeping proposal for streamlining city governance, advanced by a group headed by retiring Council Member Paul Ostrow.

The Charter Commission declined to send to the voters two more controversial elements of the proposal -- assigning most departmental supervision to an appointed city administrator and eliminating the elected Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

The 15-member commission did so with lopsided votes, 11-4 on the city administrator proposal, 12-3 on the Park Board's elimination. From those numbers, it would be easy to conclude that the commission found little or no merit in the two stricken ideas.

But that conclusion would miss the nuance a number of the commissioners said they want to convey. They voiced concern that the Ostrow group's proposals were premature, incompletely analyzed and/or flawed in their finer points.

But, they added, the problems the proposals sought to correct are real. It's convoluted to have 14 bosses -- one mayor and 13 City Council members -- overseeing city departments. It's wasteful for the Park Board to operate as separately as it does from City Hall. And as state aid to cities shrinks and resistance to higher property taxes swells, city government must get serious about efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Those comments ought to be taken to heart. Park Board President Tom Nordyke and City Council President Barb Johnson have proposed a study of what steps, short of charter change, might be taken to reduce duplication of services and bring more order to administration at City Hall. The suggestion had eyes rolling among charter change proponents, who have seen similar efforts through many decades come to naught.

That cannot be the outcome this time. Johnson and Nordyke would do well to quickly initiate a thorough review of opportunities to streamline city and park services, and simplify the supervisory structure within City Hall. As the two presidents' letter to the charter commission suggests, the effort should be led by an outside entity such as the Citizens League.

It should not confine its review to matters that would not need voter approval. As Ostrow put it, to discard the possibility of charter revision from the outset "would be like trying to correct car trouble without examining the engine."

If Minneapolis lacks the political will to streamline, it will be forced to cope with mounting financial pressure either by reducing essential city services or significantly raising property taxes. Those two unpalatable alternatives ought to open city minds to a third way.