Brooklyn Park Charter Commission Minutes Wednesday, March 9, :00 p.m. Brooklyn Township Conference Room

Transcription

1 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Brooklyn Park Charter Commission Minutes Wednesday, March 9, :00 p.m. Brooklyn Township Conference Room Chair Scott Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were: Gordy Aune, Jr., Mary Ann Bishman; John Hultquist, Nausheena Hussain, Mary LeClaire, Heidi Ritchie, Dennis Secara, Scott Simmons, Jason Smalley, David Williams, Council Liaison Bob Mata and Staff Liaison Devin Montero. Absent: John O Hagan (excused) Chair Simmons welcomed Commissioner Jason Smalley to the Charter Commission and was introduced to the Commissioners and Council Liaison. 2. Additions/Approval of Agenda of March 9, 2016 Motion Gordy Aune, Jr., seconded by Mary Ann Bishman, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously. 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1 February 10, 2015 Meeting Minutes Commissioners Ritchie and Hultquist provided some minor corrections to the minutes. 3.1 Motion Heidi Ritchie, seconded by John Hultquist to approve the February 10, 2016 minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Unfinished Business 4.1 Discussion of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Chair Simmons stated he wanted all of the Commissioners to have a chance to provide input regarding the RCV discussion. Commissioner Aune, Jr., stated the main reason he agreed with RCV from the beginning was there would not be a Primary but the city would still have a Primary for the state and federal elections. He didn t see the city saving money initially and later on. The campaigns he had been involved with in the city, the candidates talked to each other and no negative campaigning was going on. He felt the city was not ready for RCV at this time but as a member of the Charter Commission when it came to a vote he would vote for it to go on the ballot as question in November. 1

2 Commissioner Williams stated there were new members to the Commission and asked if them if they would like to hear more about the pros and cons of RCV summarized so they could make a better decision or if they had educated themselves and felt confident on the ins and outs of RCV and could make an informed opinion. Commission LeClaire stated she attended the Council meetings, read about RCV and felt comfortable with taking a vote. Commissioner Smalley stated he studied the issue, attended the Council meeting when it was presented to the Council, heard both sides of the issue and felt comfortable voting on it too. Commissioners Williams stated he was a proponent of RCV and didn t know anything about RCV when it was introduced through the Commission and educated himself on it. He didn t know if the city was ready for RCV but thought that citizens should have the opportunity to express their opinion on RCV. He stated there were many things about RCV that were good and the things that were negative about RCV had to do with the system in place already was business as usual and everyone was comfortable with it and there was no reason to change it. He stated the city had a diverse population and was a progressive city and many progressive cities were moving towards RCV and nationally in many countries. He stated RCV provided a way for more inclusion and took away a lot of the negativity. With moving RCV forward to a referendum vote, it would spur more education on RCV because most people in the city didn t understand RCV. He stated that putting it on a ballot referendum this fall would give citizens that opportunity whether the city was ready for RCV or not and thought the citizens should make that decision. Commissioner Hultquist stated he had gone into the RCV issue with an open mind to study it. After studying it very thoroughly for a year and half, he was not in favor of moving the proposal to the Council but the Charter Commission voted 6 to 5 to move it forward. He stated the next step was to present the plan to the Council and wanted to give Commissioner Williams and subcommittee members a lot of appreciation for the good work that was done and putting together a presentation that he felt comfortable saying, the Commission voted to bring something to the Council and the product they put together to consider was a very good one. He thanked everyone who served on the subcommittee. He stated the Commissioners brought RCV before the Council in January and the meeting made the front page of the SunPost newspaper. The public hearing was set for February and that made the front page of the SunPost newspaper. He stated he was looking forward to hearing what the citizen s feeling would be on RCV and was very surprised that outside of Commissioner Hussain and the people that Jean Massey, FairVote Minnesota, brought with her, there was a sum total of two other citizens, one for RCV and one against RCV that spoke. He stated that was very telling and it said whether or not the city was ready for RCV or not, they didn t care. He stated the Commission could go forward and put it as a ballot initiative but didn t see a ground swell of support one way or the other. He stated that those who would be in favor of 2

3 moving to an RCV system in the city, and wanted it, they would have come out in mass instead of Ms. Massey s people who were benefactors from RCV in Minneapolis and St. Paul, one Charter Commissioner and two citizens talking about RCV. He stated he didn t see that the voters were interested in moving to an RCV system right now and with the Council being unanimously opposed to it wouldn t try to get out and get citizen involvement and interest moving in that direction. Commissioner Ritchie stated she thought a lot about RCV and knew it had been divisive and Council unanimously voted against it. It was a close vote when the Commissioners voted on it and thought it would be an uphill battle to have it on the referendum ballot in November. She stated that from the perspective of wanting to see it successful in November asked if it was smart for her to vote to have it go forward in November or take a step back because if it failed in November it would be even harder to come back at another time when the education was done. She stated she struggled with wanting to see it in November with the fear it would fail or do more work on it and see if the Commission could bring it back at another time. The reason she thought RCV was needed in the first place, struggled to have it on the ballot or wait later was because the city was the most diverse city in the state. She stated when she looked at the representation it was not reflective of those voices in the city. She thought the public hearing showed the Commissioners that maybe some people didn t feel their voices were heard in the first place and why show up when they were disenfranchised already. She stated that no one could argue there was a lot of work to be done as far as voter outreach, making sure they were more inclusive, getting more people to vote and getting more candidates that were representative of the community. She stated that whether or not that was the work of the Charter Commission was another question. She stated that she was not completely convinced that November was a good idea but would be working to make sure that the Council was reflective of the community and not just on the Council but within the City Government. She stated she would like to hear from other Commissioners and was still struggling to make her decision as to whether or not November was the right choice for the city. Commissioner LeClaire asked if anyone had any idea if outside money would be coming to the city for pro RCV if it was on the ballot. Staff Liaison Montero stated that in Duluth, there were outside organizations providing education to the public regarding RCV. 3

4 Commissioner Williams stated that he had been advised the city was not ready for RCV and if the Commission had a successful vote tonight and put it forward as a vote in November the prediction was that there would be a lot of organized political organization coming to the city. Most of them against RCV and that happened in Duluth where several organized groups went in and lobbied and held press conferences. He stated there was no question that RCV had a unique advocate all over the country which was FairVote Minnesota and they were the ones telling him there was no political support. He stated that FairVote Minnesota pulled back their wings and was not sure if they lost their funding. He stated for a long time they contacted him and now they were saying it was a city issue and didn t want to get involved. He stated he had gotten calls and requests to attend meetings in support of RCV around the state. Commissioner LeClaire thought money would come in for both sides of the issue. She was against RCV and believed in the one person one vote and didn t see any point in not having a Primary. She stated it gave the people an opportunity to decide that maybe the candidate was not ready or not qualified rather than having 35 candidates on the ballot. She stated she didn t see a point in trying to manipulate a vote to get some people in the voters didn t feel weren t fairly represented. She stated she didn t mind voting for anyone of any color or faith as long as they were qualified candidates. Commissioner Secara asked if the Commissioners decided not to send RCV to the voters in November, what the procedure would be to table it and bring up at a later time. He asked how long it would be on the back burner. Chair Simmons stated Commissioner Ritchie raised an important point which he had not considered. Failure of the ballot would impair any future success of RCV for those that wanted it. If it was soundly defeated, didn t know if there would be any political will or interest in trying for a second chance. He stated it was not a school referendum seeking money which was repeatedly brought up after failure at the ballot box, it was a policy issue and unless there was significant change within the community didn t see a second chance ever happening. He stated that tabling wasn t the exact motion because it prevented debate. He stated it would be something in the order of postponing indefinitely which was similarly that the body could bring it back without prejudice and would still stay on the Work Plan until the Charter Commission decided it didn t want it on the Work Plan. Commissioner Williams stated that if the Commission didn t put it forward right now, whether it passed or not, believed it would take a long time before it would be brought back to the Commission to go forward. He stated RCV was going forward in many cities and thought the city was ready to consider RCV, not because the population understood it and had an opinion one way or another, but those that had researched it felt it was a system that deserved a change to be brought to the citizens. He stated a vote from the Commission would spur a community effort to publicize RCV and put some educational resources around the city. He stated if it didn t come now it would be another 5 years before it got out of the Charter 4

5 Commission and didn t believe the community would be at a different point now until it was asked about RCV. Commission Hussain stated she was a proponent for RCV and the number one reason why was because she saw an increase in participation of people of color in Minneapolis and other cities. She stated she looked at the Charter Commission and Council and half of the community was missing from the decision making, voicing their opinions on their issues and concerns. She stated that looking at what the Commission was trying to do with RCV and being at that public hearing and not seeing anyone show up on either side was disheartening. She stated that the more time she spent in the city and engaging with many different communities of color, thought there was a wide variety of reasons why they were not engaging. She stated that like Commissioner Ritchie said she was also trying to focus on her community and find out why they were not participating and not showing up in the city. She stated this year they were trying to help people understand how the city government worked, what the conditions were and how it worked to serve on a Commission. She stated was struggling with the same thing if it was the right time for RCV and maybe ready in a few years when the City Council and Commissions were more reflective of the city. Commissioner Smalley stated he was on the fence because he liked RCV and it was a good democratic process that he would love to see in every city. He agreed it was an uphill battle and his default position was to let the voters decide. He stated he wanted it on the ballot even though personally was afraid it would fail and maybe wasn t the right time now. He stated he wished there was more consensus in the group if they were making a recommendation as a Commission. He stated he would hate to see it so divided in the group and was still thinking about what he wanted to do. He asked if it would change then when the city would have the elections and would that increase the costs for the city. He stated he heard about doing RCV in even year elections. Chair Simmons stated it wouldn t change the time of elections, Brooklyn Park was an even year city and conducted city elections in general election years. He stated there were only a few cities across the state that conducted elections in odd years. Commissioner Smalley asked if the city would have two different types of ballots. Chair Simmons stated that was a technical issue to be addressed too. On the costs, that along with the memos and supporting materials that went out with the public hearing documents had an appendix related to the costs, along with the education and ballot costs. He stated that on state amendments, to pass, it needed a majority of those voting on the amendment and not those voting at the election. He asked if it was the same with the city and the ballot question. Staff Liaison Montero stated it was 50% plus one to pass voting on the question. 5

6 Chair Simmons asked if the ballot question was at the end of the ballot or the second page and if there was a prescribed order. Staff Liaison Montero stated the question would be after the Council Member s races. Chair Simmons stated there was a significant drop off in a presidential year between what was first on the ballot and what was last which made it a more difficult challenge to pass if in an election year to put it as the very last item on the ballot. Commissioner Hultquist asked if it was for those voting on the initiative or for those voting in that election. Staff Liaison Montero stated it was for those voting on the ballot initiative. Commissioner Hultquist stated it was different than a constitutional amendment. Not voting on a constitutional amendment was a no vote and that was a big distinction and was a much higher threshold than those voting strictly on the ballot initiative. Commissioner Williams stated that made it a critical difference if 100 people come into the voting booth and only 75 people voted on the last page or the referendum question it made a big difference whether it s a majority 100 people or majority of the 75 people. Commissioner Hultquist stated the Commissioner should get a clarification from the city attorney. Chair Simmons said that it went back to the discussion about bringing outside interest and enthusiasm into the issue. He stated there would be a lot of things thrown at people in a presidential year anyway even though they didn t have any statewide offices and would be bombarded with so many things. He stated that for the RCV issue to get the air time and play, it would be very difficult for proponents to do it, to ramp it up in terms of issues of significance and identification of what it was all about. Commissioner Bishman stated she was for RCV and thought the citizens of the city should have a chance to vote on RCV. She stated that whether the Commission did it now or at a later time was leaning toward doing it now. She stated that if the Commissioners postponed it, it would be gone forever and knew there were uphill battles with getting out information with commercials, printed material and door knocking for the Presidential campaigns. Commissioner Ritchie stated she was going to vote to send RCV to a ballot in November. She stated that to get the representation to look like the community was through the vehicle of RCV or getting people in those positions before even looking at RCV. She stated she was looking at it through the lens of, if RCV went on the ballot in November, was she personally going to have time to a) elect the candidate she wanted to see elected or b) making sure the ballot initiative passed. She stated that she came to the conclusion that it was important enough that it should 6

7 be on the ballot and it would raise awareness of RCV with educational campaigns being on the ballot. She stated that talking about RCV and the Commission considering it in the first place would have another indirect consequence that was valuable and was talking about what was going on with the community when half of them weren t at the table and not being heard and weren t being engaged. She clarified there were multiple different vote systems with the Primary and RCV systems. She stated that one thing she heard from Commissioner LeClaire was that RCV was a manipulation of the voting system and was not a manipulation of the existing voting system, it was a completely different system and was just exchanging one for the other. She stated there were pros and cons for all of them and the Commissioners sat through the presentations and the multiple different systems used around the world. She stated that it did make for less negative campaigning. She stated that it also made for people who didn t think they had a chance that they could put their name on ballot because if they didn t get the first choice maybe could get the second choice and maybe for the next time their name recognition would be out there and could run again. She stated she would vote for it and was ready to make that motion. Commissioner Aune, Jr., stated that through the process, a timeline was set up as to what the Commissioners wanted done. They checked with the city attorney several times and was brought up to put it on the work plan. He asked if the city attorney needed to be involved being that they set the timeline they were adhering to and was now being put on the work plan. Chair Simmons stated the timeline was a pragmatic response to how to schedule the Commission s time that if a positive outcome was desired, was to do it in time so it safely met the ballot, the county and state requirements to get on the ballot. He stated that was why they had a timeline. Commissioner Aune, Jr., stated that it was brought up several times about education of the community. He stated he believed all of the Commissions were community leaders and connectors and would be a place to start. The community engagement team was connectors with the neighborhood and had watch block captains as community connectors and not just the Charter Commission. Council Liaison Mata stated that he failed to see how RCV would bring out more people of color to apply to be candidates. At his first election, he ran against a candidate of color and in the last election, had candidates of color run for the East district and Mayor. He stated a candidate would have to campaign from June through the first part of November and that was a lot of work, a lot of money and a lot of effort that had to be put forth to run a campaign that long. He thought it diluted a campaign to have a lot of people running. Once there was a Primary, people could now focus on two candidates and didn t get confused on whom to vote for, they could pick one or the other. He stated that when there were 15 candidates running for a seat, people got confused on who they were talking to. He stated he couldn t see RCV as a good thing and spoke for the entire Council. He stated there was opportunity for people of color to 7

8 be elected and weren t and didn t know why. He stated that voters had to come out and support their candidates. Commissioner Williams stated that the City Council had ample time to make their opinions known in two meetings and they all did it and one of the meetings where no one did. He stated the Council took the opportunity to stress their opposition in that meeting and was their prerogative. He stated that he didn t think that in tonight s meeting that the Council liaison was there to communicate back and forth between the Council and Commission. He didn t think that the Council liaison should be in a position or should be making opinions one way or another on what the Commission was doing. He stated the Commissioners sat through two Council meetings where they were not allowed to make statements. There was a 10 to 2 in favor and the Council said they wanted to hear what the citizens said and totally disregarded the public hearing and no one said anything, like I m glad I got that information, etc. He stated that regarding the education, believed that as a Charter Commission, their responsibility was to do what was best for the City in terms of Charter changes and they were doing it tonight. He didn t think the education process was their charter and shouldn t be engaging in it. He stated they had plenty of other Charter issues they should move to. He stated the Charter Commission should not be putting a lot of resources in educating the community because that came from the city, from groups that were advocates, and groups that were proponents of RCV but didn t think it was the Charter Commission s responsibility. Chair Simmons stated it was the role of the Council Liaison to present the perspective of the Council back and forth and was appropriate to have that conversation. He stated that not all of the Commissioners were at the Council meeting and all what he saw was what he saw in the newspaper. He stated the bigger picture going on was what do Council Liaisons do in general and that was brought up at their focus group when the Chairs of all of the Commission met with the Community Engagement staff. He stated he appreciated having the feedback and input especially from those that weren t able to attend the Council meeting. Commissioner Ritchie made the following motion: Motion Heidi Ritchie, seconded by David Williams to move forward with ranked choice voting on the November ballot. Chair Simmons stated there was a motion made by Commissioner Ritchie and seconded by Commissioner Williams to put the issue of Ranked Choice Voting on the November ballot. Commissioner Hultquist asked the Chair if everyone was allowed to speak just once since the motion had been made so there wasn t a continuation of the same people speaking on the issue. Chair Simmons stated there was a motion on the floor and would expect the comments to be on the motion and not on other extraneous comments. 8

9 Commissioner Hultquist stated the motion was to put it on the ballot in November and initially when he voted, voted against it. He stated it wasn t because he was opposed to RCV, even after studying it, thought it was too early for the city to move the initiative forward and there were number of reasons. He stated the Commissioners heard from elections officials from Minneapolis, and Ramsey County and seen some of the results. The Commissioners didn t know yet whether or not RCV would achieve the desired results. He thought it was too early, it had only been three election cycles and only one where it was a wide open field when Minneapolis had the incumbent mayor running for election and it didn t get a lot of high profile. Commissioner Hultquist stated the Commissioners hadn t seen whether or not the minority candidates were elected in Minneapolis because of RCV or because they got out there and worked hard. He stated Council Member Yang might well have gotten elected under the traditional system and the Commissioner didn t don t know. He stated that Mayor Lunde mentioned that the way to get elected was to get out and door knock because there was no substitute for it and the candidates had to meet the citizens. He stated he didn t think RCV would achieve the desired results unless people were committed to work and to run. He stated that if it was given some time for RCV to take hold and build a ground swell of support, he might become a proponent of RCV, but the logistics of implementing it right now just wasn t there either, with the voting machines, the tabulation of ballots, using paper ballots and an excel spreadsheet. He stated he didn t know why the city had to be first when the results weren t in. He stated the Commission already seen there wasn t a ground swell of support and didn t have the infrastructure in place to support it. He stated he was of the mindset to keep RCV on the Work Plan and possible look at it in the future. He stated that Commissioner Richie made a point that if it failed in November as it failed in Duluth last November it would be a much steeper uphill battle to try and get it back on the ballot. He stated that anytime in the near future the Commission could continue to work behind the scenes. He stated he was disappointed to hear that Jean Massey, Fairvote Minnesota had pulled back because they could be a strong advocate, continue the conversation and keep it on the front burner and build up support. He stated that maybe in 2018 when the Commission was not wondering whether or not it was going to pass and knew it was going to pass because it had the support of the citizens. He stated that maybe it was something the Commission could talk to CEI staff and have their group talk to the citizens in the communities and add it to their work plan. He stated he didn t think the city was there yet and he could be swayed in the future but needed to see more before doing it. Chair Simmons stated the research was inconclusive as to whether RCV actually addressed things that the proponents said of the merits. He stated he had not seen any research that was conclusive on any of the points that Fairvote Minnesota said that RCV brought to the city. He stated it was too early in the process and it hadn t been around long enough. He stated it was more of a solution in search of a problem and the city didn t have those kinds of problems. He stated the Council was very telling. The 7 that voted unanimously against it represented the 9

10 community and was telling what the outcome was going to be. He stated the Commissioners already spoke on what happened if it was put on the ballot and received a negative outcome. He thought it would be gone forever and didn t think they would get a second chance at RCV. He stated the citizen support was nowhere to be seen. There was ample time, ample notice, and ample opportunity for all citizens to say it was a great idea for whatever reason to get on the ballot. He stated they did not show up, there was no presence. He stated that RCV was a complex issue but still no one took the time, energy and initiative to go to the Council and speak for it and that was telling. He stated that voter dilution was an issue and to keep in mind that the Charter Commission could eliminate the Primary right now for the City Council and Mayor election. He stated that what troubled him more than anything else was the issue that the Commission wanted to use RCV as a means to enable people to be on the Council that looked like the city was very troubling. He stated it was divisive and didn t know that the community wanted to do something that s intentionally divisive to say they were going to advocate that the commissioners wanted someone on the Council that looks like the city whether it was their religion or ethnic background. He stated he wanted a system where a vote for the person was based on their qualifications and their capability to do the job not because of their skin color or their politics or religion. He stated it was divisive to him and antithetical to what he thought democracy should be all about and hoped RCV didn t happen in the city. He stated he didn t want to be Minneapolis and was it was loud and clear that was the answer of all of the focus groups he had been to in the city because they didn t want to be Minneapolis and why they were in Brooklyn Park. He stated whether it was St. Paul or Minneapolis that was not a model he wanted to aspire. He stated was going to vote against the motion. He stated the motion was fine, but thought it was the wrong thing for the wrong time for the wrong reason and was strongly against it. He stated he had always been against it but to put it on the ballot now before there was any indication of any community support behind it thought it was damaging to the proponents and would backfire especially in a presidential election. He stated that in two years from now things might be different and that was where he stood. Chair Simmons asked the Staff Liaison Montero for a roll call vote. The motion failed on a roll call vote as follows: YES: Commissioners Bishman, Hussain, Ritchie, Williams; NO: Hultquist, LeClaire, Secara, Simmons, Smalley, Aune; Absent: O Hagan. (4-Yes and 6-No) Chair Simmons stated he appreciated the Commissioner s debate and being respectful of every ones opinions and the time they took with dealing with the issue, especially those on the subcommittee, who worked hard and were passionate about it. 10

11 Commissioner Hultquist asked that the RCV issue remain on the Work Plan and that tonight s vote did not take it off the Work Plan and continue to keep it an issue that the Charter Commission would discuss and continue to consider it and move forward. 5. Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees Council Liaison Mata stated that the Franchise fees for electric and gas would be deducted in April. He stated at the Council Work Session, they received a presentation about the bicycle and walking paths throughout the city and where they wanted to go with them, how they were going to take up space on the road and how to do it. He stated there was a proposal to look at parts of it or not do it all and was a future plan building towards Chair Simmons stated he attended a focus group with the Chairs of the other Commissions, a two night focus group, facilitated by CEI. The two items spent the most on was talking about the volunteer recognition event and how that would be structured, the annual meeting with the Council and how that should be done to make it work better. He stated staff presented some recommendations at the Council Work Session. Council Member Mata stated that instead of having a large dinner gathering they would do it in smaller groups and be recognized amongst their peers rather than large formal gathering, like the volunteers at Eidem farm, they would be recognized at the farm with a picnic or those that volunteered with picking up trash around the streets could have a separate recognition for them. 6. New Business 6.1 Charter Chapter 9, Bonds. Chair Simmons stated he spoke with someone at the NLC about bonds and that discussion and follow up s did not materialize into something substantive that he could present to the Commission tonight. He stated there was nothing to present to the Commissioners tonight and was not sure where to go on it but if there was any consensus with the Commissioners to do something, he would be interest in hearing what that was. Commissioner Williams thought it was an interesting proposal to consider giving the city Council limited authority on large spending activities and go with some sort of a vote on it. He thought it deserved a look from the Commission and worthwhile to keep it on the work plan. Chair Simmons stated he would see if he wanted to bring it back on the next agenda or see what he needed to do. 11

12 Council Liaison Mata stated they were still trying to figure out what to do with the annual joint Council/Commission meeting and lay out. He stated that a suggested was that rather than having all Commissioners at once was to do it with two Commissions at a time and set it up where there was more communication between each other rather than the Council at the table with very few Commissioners. Chair Simmons stated there was also the idea that there was no cross communication between Commissions and the idea was to have tables with smaller groups so people on one Commission got to know other people serving on Commissions and have more informational feedback and communication at the annual meeting. He stated the Signature Event Task Force put together a good plan. The next step was to go and transfer it to community engagement and have members of the public take a look at it and provide input. He stated it looked interesting if the city had the ability to pay for it and was a worthy project if it could be done. 7. Correspondence/Communications Chair Simmons stated there were amended bylaws that were provided by the staff liaision. Staff Liaison Montero stated that the Charter Commission was scheduled for their annual verbal report on March 14, He also reminded the Commissioners whose terms would be ending to submit their applications if they wanted to be reappointed. 8. Adjournment Motion Gordy Aune, Jr. and seconded by Mary LeClaire, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Devin Montero, Staff Liaison 12