Readers Write: 'Strong mayor' amendment

I disagree with the Star Tribune Editorial Board's recent instruction to vote "yes" on Minneapolis City Question 1 ("Vote 'yes' on 'strong mayor' question," Oct. 3) and urge my neighbors to vote "no" with me to stop expanding mayoral control. Voting "no" feels like we are maintaining more of a representative democracy in our city government. Our City Council is an essential group of people representing their neighborhoods to ensure everyone in Minneapolis — no matter their race, income, or ZIP code — have their voices heard at the city level. Voting "no" will make sure we do not shift and consolidate power to one person or one type of person (wealthy, older, white, frequent voter). I will be voting "no" on Question 1 this fall and encourage all Minneapolis voters to do the same.

Hannah Kuether, Minneapolis

•••

Kudos to the Star Tribune Editorial Board for advising city voters to vote "yes" on City Question 1. It is time to improve public accountability and authority in our city in ways voters can understand — with clear legislative functions residing with the City Council and clear public administrative and execution functions residing with the mayor's office. This is a division of government responsibilities that has served our state and federal governments effectively.

The Editorial Board also notes that City Question 1 would add "another important safeguard: creation of an independent auditor's office by the council that could investigate waste and abuse, assess risk and monitor compliance across city departments." This is a laudable goal that the city has already achieved. City ordinance already provides for a robust, independent and professional office of internal audit, overseen by a city audit committee that is independent of the mayor and City Council. The city's internal auditor is hired by and reports to the independent audit committee, and is charged by ordinance to conduct "audits of all city departments, boards and commissions to address financial, strategic, compliance, reputational, operational, and other risks for compliance with generally accepted accounting principles, best financial and operations management practices, and any applicable laws and regulations governing the financial and operations practices of the city."

The audit committee is be made up of six members, including the chair of the City Council's ways and means committee, two members of the City Council appointed by the City Council president, one Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board commissioner, and two citizen members. I serve as a citizen member of the audit committee, and am vice chair of the committee.

More effective, efficient and reliable governance is an important goal of any government, and no less so in our city. And like the Editorial Board, I encourage all voters to vote "yes" on City Question 1.

•••

The Editorial Board asserts that "Minneapolis' peculiar form of weak mayor/strong City Council governance is not found in other cities in Minnesota. In fact, it cannot be found in any comparable city anywhere in the country." There is a lot of hypocrisy in these statements.

The same Editorial Board, in its Sept 26 editorial, argued that residents should "Vote 'no' on the police charter change." This ballot initiative, if approved, would among other things terminate City Charter language on mandated police staff levels (Section 7.3(2)(c): "The City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident").

The Editorial Board's two-facedness is that there are no other municipalities in Minnesota that have such police staffing mandates — including St. Paul.

Furthermore, there is a disreputable history behind this required policing language. The website Wedge Live explains that the Minneapolis Police Federation in 1961, in a brazen effort to avoid any threats to dedicated police funding, successfully lobbied "Council President George Martens [to] introduce a charter amendment that was more to the union's liking," i.e., dedicated police staffing and funding levels. "'Amendment 17' ... ensure[d] the city had 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents, and that the police department was entitled to $3 annually for every $1,000 of taxable property within the city." Amendment 17 passed by a 2:1 margin.

Bill Adamski, Minneapolis

•••

Two related concerns persuade me to vote "no" on the mayoral power consolidation amendment: accessibility and accountability. In the current system, persons living in a ward can work with their council person to figure out how to solve problems ranging from how to navigate the city's bureaucracy to obtain a business license to how to get an absentee landlord to shovel snow off the sidewalk to how to get an encampment safely moved off private property. If Question 1 passes and executive power is centralized in the mayor, the role of the council in providing these constituent services is in jeopardy. It has been suggested by some city staff that all a council member could do when approached by a constituent would be to refer the individual to the relevant department.

The well-heeled and well-organized residents in Linden Hills, the lakes area and downtown vote their interests regularly and reliably. As a result, they have significantly more political power than folks in other less affluent parts of the city where the turnout can be fragmented due to a complex of issues — including the idea that their vote doesn't matter. Consequently, the people who put the mayor in office have the attention of the mayor and consider the mayor accountable to them. This is our present state of affairs. The marginalized stay on the mayoral margins.

Our current system is designed so all the people in Minneapolis have accessible and accountable representation. Let's keep it that way.