Laserfiche WebLink
434997v1 LW105 -1 <br />However, if it is determined that there is no legal reason why weighted voting <br />cannot be instituted, whether to do so becomes a policy question. There is no single <br />answer that is necessarily right or wrong and, if there is no legal prohibition against <br />such weighted voting in this case, the only real question is whether any given <br />proposal to change the voting requirements is one that can be accepted by the city <br />councils of all of the member cities. As requested by the Commission, I offer the <br />following comments and observations about weighted voting in general. <br />1) I have seen joint powers agreements for other kinds of joint powers <br />organizations that provide for weighted voting in some form. The <br />agreements that I have seen usually take the form of allowing one of the <br />parties to a joint powers agreement to name additional members to the <br />governing board rather than giving a single person more votes. While <br />weighted voting is not unlawful, in my experience it is rather unusual. <br />2) In other joint powers organizations that I represent, the issue of weighting of <br />voting has come up from time to time. However, I believe that the parties <br />have generally decided not to pursue this option to avoid disputes and <br />controversy, to avoid creating an impression that one of the parties to a joint <br />enterprise is somehow more important than another, and simply to <br />demonstrate intergovernmental comity. <br />In other joint powers WMOs the contributions by a single city may have a <br />disparity that is quite great. For example, in the Mississippi WMO, the city <br />of Minneapolis contributes, in the form of taxes, over 90% of revenues of the <br />WMO yet has only one vote on a fire - member board. In West Mississippi, <br />the city of Brooklyn Park contributes over 58% (one vote on a five - member <br />board) and in Shingle Creek, the city of Brooklyn Park provides over 24% <br />(one vote on a nine- member board). <br />4) One argument for weighted voting is that it is a way of addressing the <br />concern of a city that it does not wish to have to pay for a project that it does <br />not support. However, this concern is not unique to parties providing the <br />greatest contribution. Although the amount may be smaller, any party to an <br />organization such as this may find itself outvoted and required to support a <br />project that it does not wish to pay for. <br />5) Another argument advanced in favor of weighted voting is that the city that <br />will be required to pay the most should have more to say about projects that <br />are constructed by the WMO. It is true that one city may be required to pay <br />more. At the same time it is also true that each similarly situated citizen <br />within the various cities pay about the same. For example, if a given project <br />will cost the average citizen in the watershed five dollars, a larger city will be <br />required to contribute more and it will have more citizens affected. <br />However, a smaller city could very well have the same concern about <br />protecting the financial interests of its citizens and the financial impact on <br />each of its citizens will be the same as the impact of a citizen in a larger city. <br />Page 4 <br />