Agenda - Council Work Session - 02/23/2016

Home

CC Work Session 2. 2. Meeting Date: 02/23/2016 Title: Metropolitan Council Governance Information Purpose/Background: Purpose: To have discussion with City Council re Metropolitan Council Governance Structure. Background: Recently, Anoka County and three other metropolitan counties, put together a coalition that is advocating for a change in the structure of the Metropolitan Council. Documents explaining their position are attached for consideration. These comments from the Metro Cities also offer guidance on the issue: ... a 2011 Metro Cities Governance Task Force identified several problematic implications for this structure and did not recommend this model of metropolitan governance. Metro Cities subsequently has not recommended this model in its positions on the governance of the Metropolitan Council. Task force members identified several concerns, primarily related to the incompatibility of holding the offices of local official and Metropolitan Council member. Concerns centered on: • Local officials who are elected in one community and are appointed to serve other communities through Metropolitan Council membership could face actual conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts in determining regional investments, funding and policy. • Local officials would be serving and voting on two political subdivisions, generally considered to be incompatible functions . • The Metropolitan Council could become overly parochial and politicized, which could hamper regional planning, and service delivery effectiveness and efficiency. • Appointments to the Metropolitan Council could potentially be geographically imbalanced. • There could be an infusion of special interests and political campaigns into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members. • Local officials would serve as both the "regulator" and "regulated" party, which are generally considered to be incompatible roles. • This governance structure could result in less scope of expertise on regional issues on the Metropolitan Council. • A Metropolitan Council with this structure could be more resistant to legislative oversight. The 2011 Task Force also identified a concern about the impracticality of having sitting city officials serve as Metropolitan Council members. Unlike county commissioners, most city officials are not full time mayors or city council members. The Task Force concluded that the practical result could be to narrow the pool of potential candidates from which to draw future Metropolitan Council members. Metro Cities' policies do align with the counties' proposal in support of staggered terms for Metropolitan Council members. Staggered terms would confer significant benefits for regional governance, providing more knowledge continuity on the Council, more political and philosophical diversity, and fewer possibilities for narrow policy agendas to emerge from the Metropolitan Council. Metro Cities' governance policies on the Metropolitan Council recognize the importance of a separate regional government, more input by local officials into the selection process for Metropolitan Council members, staggered