Agenda - Charter Commission - 01/08/2002 - Memorandum

Home

since local health is a municipal affair there seems little reason why the.council in each city could not itself be and perform the duties of this board. The same is true with reference to library boards and park boards, which cities may, but are not required to, create. Indeed, so far as power to do so is con- cerned, there is little reason why the charter should not vest in the council all the powers of all the boards which have been named except the armory boards. The same may be said of boards of public works, water and light commissions, and all the other administrative bodies which our legisiatur'es and our home rule cities have seen fit to set up in our cities. Instead of centralizing responsibility, such bodies almost always diffuse it. They do not gener- ally draw more expert and able men into pub]ir service. Frequently, it is hard to get good atten- dance-at their meetings, with the result that the work often devolves upon one-or two .members, They complicate the machinery of the government. They always detract from the importance of the city council. If their powers are purely administra- tive, their work could usually be better done by one man. If they have power to determine policies and to raise and spend money, conflicts with other city authorities are almost sure to result, and the city will develop unevenly along different lines'. Libraries may lag, while parks forge ahead. Indeed, it is becoming generally accepted that separate boards are of little genuine utility in city adminis- tration. Temporary commissions for investigating certain problems, such as public markets, municipal -ownership, and so on, and city planning commis- sions to prepare plans for the city's future growth and development are often of the greatest, utility, as are certain quasi-judicial and legislative boards like zoning boards and civil service commissions. The city council should have power to create temp- orary commissions, but ordinarily their powers should end when they have presented a final report to the council. It is also appropriate to authorize or require advisory boards, even on a permanent basis. 11 2. The problem of separate elective officers. What has been said above about separate boards ap- pi ies in part to the subject of this paragraph. Separ- ate elective officers are not unusual in those Minne- sota cities which have the council and mayor form. Some of these offices have been created for the pur- pose of having one to watch another, They have been made elective because the people have felt that in this way direct responsibility could be en- forced. As a matter of fact it is doubtfu! whether direct election tosuch offices as treasurer, engineer, and so on, has ever justified itself. Popular election is not the best way to get men with train, lng for ad- ministrative positions. The more elective officers there are, the longer is the ballot, and the more divided is ~esponsibi]itiy for administration. In small cities the office of treasurer has little reason for existence. The county treasurer collects mot, t of the taxes, the funds are deposited in banks, and the function of keeping the books and making out order-checks could easily be handled by the clerk or some other official. The offices of clerk and treasurer have been combined in a number of char- ter cities in recent year's. In places which have small annual budgets and which need to. practice rigid economy, the object should be to reduce the num- ber of paid officers to a minimum by combining similar functions into one office. 1 13. Differences between large and small cities. When a charter commission comes to the point of drafting a charter.for the city it should seriously consider the size of the city for which the govern- ment is designed. A large city needs a great deal of machinery not required in a small place~ This fact is recognized in many of the general laws of the state. For example, while a city primary election system may be needed in a large city, it is not necessary in the smallest places. Large cities will need a considerable number .of voting precincts. They may in some cases desire and need a P-get city council and perhaps even feel the need of dis- trict representation in the council~ Having more money to spend they a~e in a better position than the small cities ~o employ expert officials to head the different departments. Hence large cities may require a formal merit, system for selecting officials. Large cities may need a.few more'departments of administration than small places. Thus we could go on enumerating one difference after another be- tween the less populous communities of the state and the I.arger cities. However, while recognizing the differences in the needs of large'and small cities, one should add that most of these differences can be reflected in ordinances adopted by the council and do not require differences in charter provisions, Problems of Popular Control Over City Government I14. Nominating methods: primaries and peti- tions. In small cities, as has been said above, the problem of' nominations is not so difficult as in large.. The state law authorizes primaries (nonparti- san, except in Minneapolis and St. Paul) as a means of nomination to elective office in cities, but any charter may prohibit or provide for a primary: the city is not restricted to the statutory provisions. The primary system is reasonably satisfactory., it ~s understood by the people, and it might well be continued unless the charter commission finds argu-