Agenda - Council - 05/12/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and by an endless flow of dclailcd plans and projects," wrote Arthur Nafialin and John Brandl, pr~ffessors of pub- lic affairs, University of Minnesota, in their recent book- · 1. The Twin Ct'ties Regional Strategy. The heavy load of "activities" may be squeezing out the Cmmcil's ability to take policy initiatives on its own. The Council seems to be functioning more as an administra- live b,~dy, doing what eiders want it t, do, as contrasted with presenting its own ideas about the metropolitan :,re:~'s needs before the Legislature. The following are examples where in our view the Legislature needs greater arcawide leadership from the Council: Cable communications. In the absence of Council leadership, rcgkmal interconnection of cable television is uncertain; each municipality, in the melropolilan 'area is on its own in dealing with the w~riely of firms compeling with cable franchises. Regional employment policy. Several years ago. the Cooncil decided nol to enler this area. Although the region .is one employment market, efforls are fiag- merited among a variety of CETA offices, each with its own "turf". Financing regional services. The Council lets the indiv- idual regional agencies, such as the Transit Commission develop their own financing proposals to the Legisla- ture. Council leadership on the appropriale balance among users fees, regional taxes and state aids is not present. Nor does the Council present any plan to the Legislature for coordinating the financing of all region- al agencies. · Functions, structures and boundaries of local govern- ments. The Twin Cities area has about 300 differenl units of government. The Conncil has not provided · ' leadership in sorling out 'which units of government should perform which services. A legislalive study of the Council should address the ques- lion of whether the Council's role as the region's policy advisor to the Legislature should be clarified. For/~xample, should the Council be requ?ed to present to the Legislature every two years policy proposals on the region's needs, broadly construed, as distinguished frmn proposals which might relate to the Council's own activities or which are in response to specific legislative directives? Whether the Counc~ remains a policy body rather than an opemfional body. We think the principle of separating poli- cy and operational responsibilities should be reaffirmed. When the Metropolitan C~mncil was first crcaled there was considerable controversy over whether the Council ilself would take over the direct operatinns of transit, airports. sewers, and other regional functions. With our supporl, the Legislalure made a conscious decision to assure thai the Council would maintain effective control over those func- linns, but that the Council ilself would not dircclly operate them. Keeping thc Cmmcil free from operational responsi- bilities makes il possible for thc body to cut across ~ variety of regional issues and prcscnl policy proposals l~ the Ixgis- lature. If the Council were ~csponsible for the day-to-day operations of these melropolitan services, it wonld ha,e time for litlle else. The Melropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 underlined the importance of this separation of responsibility. From time to time there has been some tendency for the Council to drift towards direc! operations. Perhaps the clo- sest it has come is in the area of housing, where the Council functions as a housing and redevelopment aulhority. So far. however, the Council has not aclually purchased and run housing itself. But the mailer of handling rent subsidies is carried out through an advisory committee to thc Council which does not have authority independent of thc Council as is true of the other metropolitan agencies. One issue is wheriser a separate housing commission should be created lo replace Ihe advisory committee, Io keep policy review by the Council sepal al e Ii om implementation. Whether the Council is maintaining adequate control over the metropolitan commissions. We think the Council as a whole should assert more influence in the selection of coramission members. The Council is responsible for selecting the members el these subordinate commissions, approving their long range plans and approving their capital budgets. From time to time there is some criticism over the alledged autonomy uf these other bodies. · It is possible thai some of the concern over the Council's influence may relate Ir) how the Council exercises its responsibilities in selecting the members of the subordinate commissions. Officially the members of the commissions are named by the Council as a whole. In aclual practice, however, a form of "aldermanic courtesy" often prevails. While there has been a few exceptions, usually the Council members from the precincts from which members of the subordinate commissions will be named pick the persons fo,r lhe job. Sometimes Council members take turns so that in practice only one person's judgment is involved in the nominalion. In fact, il is possible thai the only person who interviews a candidate may be the appointing Council mem- ber in a private di.~ussinn. What Ibis means, therefore, is lhal there is a p.ssibilily that persons appoinlcd to Ihe sub- ~,rdinate boards may luff sense their resp(msibilily Io the Metropolilan ('~mncil us u whole. This may inlcrfere with