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

Home

the ability to assert regional leadership at critical times. The Council has taken particular steps to make sure that persons named to subordinate commissions do not "repre- sent'' any unit of local government. This principle was built in at the outset to assure that people who serve on the boards and commissions would not wear "two hats". How- ever, this principle has come narrowly close to being violat- ed in the case of two appointments to the Parks and Open Space Commission. In these two cases some persons believe that in recent years seats have been "reserved" for the city of St. Paul and the Minneapolis Park Board. As a conse- quence, county and municipal governments elsewhere in the metropolitan area which own and operate metropolitan parks too, have begun arguing that they, 1oo, are entitled to have seats on the commission. Thus in the 1981 Legislature, a bill was being drafted to permit local government officials nam~ persons to the Parks and Open Space Commission. a change would be wholly inconsislent with our posi- tion. It would not be possible for any such agency to reach an independent judgment. Undoubtedly there would be strong forcek at play for one representative not to go con- trary to 'the desires of another city or county for fear of retribution. )~t lel~islative review should look at two other issues involv- ·ing the relationship between the Council and the commis- Sions: 1) Whether all commissions should have the same relationship to the Counc~?. For example, now the Council does not exercise the same amount of control over the Met- ropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission as it does over the Metropolitan · ~Wast~ Control Commission, the Metropolitan Transit Com- ~nissibn, and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Com- mission. 2] Whether the Council should approve annual ' -' operating budgets' of the commissions. Some persons be- lieve this is needed to strengthen the Council's influence 'over the 'commissiuns"while others believe such a move 'would push the Council too much in the dbectinn of day-to-day involvement in the commissions' operations. Whether the Metropolitan Council should have "home rule" power. We think the Council should have only those power~ specifically given to it by the Legislature. The principle established at the outset was that the Council would have powers only as explicitly given to it by the Leg- islature. It would have no general grant of authority. We be- lieve that position was sound and it remains so today. From time to time there has been some suggestion that the Coun- cil might get into the area of taxing- No general grant of taxing authority should be provided. However, we have sop- "ported the'idea that the Council should make a proposal to the Legislature every two years concerning the financing of all of the subordinate agencies. The Legislature could make -3- one decision on financing of all of them, together. Whether the office of Chairman of the Council should con- tinue to be representative of and respons~le to area whole. We think it should be. Prom the time the Council was first named in 1967 the ol- rice of the Chairman has been a separate office providing arcawide leadership. We strongly supported this approach, as contrasted with the idea of making the Chairman simply a presiding officer at meetings, selected from one of the other members. Because the other members all represent parts of the metropolitan area, it is critical that the 'Chair- man represent the entire area. But furthermore, the Chair- man, as the areawide leader, can be the official spokesman for the Council and direct its overall operations. Although this principle has been preserved, suggestions have been made to select the Chairman from among the other mem- bers. For example, one bill to select members of the Coun- cil provides that the Chairman would be a presiding officer named by the other members of the Council. Under such an approach the Chairman would have no areawide constitu- ency. Currently, the Chairman serves as head of the Council staff, too. If the Chairman were only a presiding officer selected by the other members, it is likely the Council's staff opera- tions would be directed by a professional "city manager". The result could be that the staff would be insulated from direct policy leadership. Under the existing Council struc- ture the policy leader is also the staff leader. Whether the members should represent people ~r units of government. We think they should represent people. The Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) had repre- sented vafibus local units of government. Such an approach provided a forum for discussion, but not decisions. More- over, the various local units of government--cities' counties, and school districts- each had in addition its own associa- tion of members in the metropolitan area. The Miuneso__ta Legislature consciously moved away from creating a cil of governments" when it set up the Metropolitan Coun- cil. In fact, these other associations of local governments can be called councils of government for the melropolitan area. By moving to a system of representation of people, the Lcgislature was Creating a body with the capacity 1o decide. It also was recognizing that issues of the metropoli- tan area, are not issues for residents served by local govern- ment, but area issues for the people of the region as a whole. We supported this concept and continue to do so. Minne- sota has received very little cooperation from the federal government on this issue. On several occasinns federal regulations have required Ihat there be a metropolitan