![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerThere are two elections this year related to the BET: one is the election for candidates to serve on it, and the other is the referendum on whether to abolish it entirely and have the City Council take over its job.
There are two at-large seats on the BET. (Also on it: the Mayor, the City Council President, the City Councillor who is Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and a representative from the Park Board.) The BET is in charge of three things:
* They set property tax rates.
* They decide when and whether to borrow money.
* They oversee an internal auditor to ensure clean government.
I initially thought the pay for BET members was $35/year, which made me bug out my eyes and say, "why even bother?" On looking at web pages, I think I may have been wrong and it's $35/meeting. They appear to meet once or twice a month, depending on the month, so maybe a whole $630 to $840 a year, which at least is enough to pay for parking during the meetings, and coffee to keep them awake. Still, as government bodies go, this is a pretty cheap one, and no one running is doing it for money. Or fame and glory, for that matter, since many regular voters never even cast a vote in that election since they don't pay enough attention to it to know what the BET does, let alone who to vote for.
Analysis of the charter proposal follows below the cut. I'll be back later with candidates.
After looking at the two website (vote YES to ditch the BET, vote NO to keep the BET), I am planning to vote NO to keep it. But, there are some legitimate arguments on both sides. I'll link to the two official websites and try to give a fair summary of their arguments.
Vote YES to ditch the BET. The big reason to vote yes is that the BET is an obscure body and most voters don't really know what it does. If you randomly asked a bunch of Minneapolis residents who sets the property tax rate, most would think the City Council did it, and there's an argument that things like this ought to work the way most people think they do, because it really impairs your ability to participate in democracy when you can't even figure out who to call to complain about something.
The other reasons they give -- OK, I'm sorry, I can't just report here, I'm going to have to give my analysis because some of these reasons are just dumb.
1. Transparency and Open Government -- which is to say, no one knows what the BET is, or who's on it. They also note that the meetings aren't televised and are rarely reported on; I don't think that's because the BET's charter says that all business is to be taken care of in a dimly lit locked room, after sweeping for bugs and checking under the table for anyone under the public who might have snuck in to listen. I think this is because the press doesn't always do a good job of covering local politics. Besides, no matter what they say, ALL government is basically about deal-making in back rooms.
2. Equal Representation. They note that right now, only two City Councillors are on the board, and then extend that to say that this means that only the people in the 1st and 4th wards are represented. Except, the Council reps on the BET are the President and the Chair of the Ways & Means committee; it's not like merging the BET with the City Council is going to abolish the power imbalances inherent in some of the committee work. This isn't a completely whacked argument, but they present it deceptively on their website.
3. Prevent a Crisis. They say that the BET used to have seven members, and now have six, which could create a deadlock and a Charter crisis. The logical solution seems to me to add a member. That said, it's such a totally un-sexy board that major grandstanding seems unlikely, even in a city where sometimes it seems like no one in city government gets along with anyone else in city government. (I have this vague memory of the day RT hired a group therapist to try to improve working relations on the City Council. I think it wound up with my Councillor needing lots and lots of kleenex. Sigh.) Anyway, since there has not yet been a crisis, this seems like a thin straw they're grasping.
Oh, and I bet the seventh member was from the Library Board. Funny how they don't feel any need to mention that...it's almost like they don't want to remind us that the library merger with Hennepin County has mostly sucked.
4. Accountability. People should know who to yell at when they're pissed off. Which is true, but you don't have to hire an attorney to read the city charter to figure that out. I have a great amount of confidence that if I called up my City Councillor to complain about property taxes, she'd point me at the BET and I bet she even has their phone numbers at her fingertips.
The League of Women Voters endorsed this amendment.
On to the opposition.
Save the BET has a slightly more complex set of arguments. It's a very simple website (one page).
1. We lose voices for fair taxation and reasonable tax rates. In other words, the financial wonks won't be in charge.
2. We lose two elected officials, making our elected representation less diverse. On the other hand, we diversify the board by having every councillor in the city instead of just the President and W&M Chair.
3. It will reduce the independence of the city auditor. I think this is a legitimate concern. Our corruption issues have been small potatoes compared to an average day in some big cities, but it's nonetheless I would prefer a well-trained guard dog keeping an eye on the metaphorical henhouse, and I'd prefer that it not be reporting to the fox. If that makes sense.
4. We would lose a check and balance regarding the City Council, Mayor, and Park Board. Every city government -- actually, this is true of every governmental body, period, but it's most visible with cities since there's so much variation in how they work -- has to find a balance between efficiency and "checks and balances." If you put in too many, you can slow things down so thoroughly that nothing ever gets done. However, if you make things too efficient, the bad ideas often race through as fast as the good ideas; worse, it's a lot easier for one really godawful person to consolidate power.
In the past, the Minneapolis city government has done some incredibly stupid stuff. I voted for RT in 2001 not so much for what I hoped he'd do, but because I hoped he would do fewer insanely stupid things, and I have generally been satisfied. The previous Mayor spent some truly insane chunk of city money to subsidize the downtown Target, and in my opinion seriously abused eminent domain (both to build the Target, and in other cases). And that was WITH the checks and balances provided by the BET....so yeah.
5. This would put the City Council in control of all the Park Board's funding. I think this is a real issue for a couple of reasons. I am not actually that worried at this point that the City Council will abolish the Park Board, since that idea went over like an entire fleet of lead balloons, but (a) I don't entirely trust the City Council to fund the parks adequately, and (b) if the taxing authority all goes to the City Council, this might increase the agitation to give the Park Board independent taxing authority, which I think is actually a really stupid idea.
6. This would eliminate the only place the City Council, Mayor, and Park Board HAVE to work together. Yeah, given how well they all get along, that might be just as well. But I do agree that I don't want the Park Board to be utterly dependent on the City Council for money.
So, my thoughts: the fact is, it's not like all twelve City Councillors would pay significant attention to the tax/estimation issues ANYway. What inevitably happens on boards happens here, which is to say, everyone gets to be a designated wonk on SOMEthing and your friends ask you how they ought to vote, and you do the same on the issues your friends are wonks on. Or you watch to see how your least favorite person is voting and vote the other way. However, the board would lose the Park Board representation. And I want the Park Board to have a voice in how the money gets portioned out.
The fact is, at any given time, there are needs in our city that seem a lot more urgent than parks; I fear that it may be tempting to the City Council to sneak money out of the parks budget to fill the potholes. But our parks are what make this a great city -- or at least, they're a huge piece of it. Our park system kicks ass. People who live here love our parks, but still, I don't think most Minneapolitans realize just how incredibly lucky we are.
Anyway. I love our parks, and want to continue to have a Park Board. But I don't want to give the Park Board independent taxing authority; I want a balanced approach. I think the BET is a pretty good way to provide that approach, so I'm going to vote to keep it.
Oh, and I got a reply from Carol Kummer, Park Board district 5, but I haven't had time to post about it.
There are two at-large seats on the BET. (Also on it: the Mayor, the City Council President, the City Councillor who is Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and a representative from the Park Board.) The BET is in charge of three things:
* They set property tax rates.
* They decide when and whether to borrow money.
* They oversee an internal auditor to ensure clean government.
I initially thought the pay for BET members was $35/year, which made me bug out my eyes and say, "why even bother?" On looking at web pages, I think I may have been wrong and it's $35/meeting. They appear to meet once or twice a month, depending on the month, so maybe a whole $630 to $840 a year, which at least is enough to pay for parking during the meetings, and coffee to keep them awake. Still, as government bodies go, this is a pretty cheap one, and no one running is doing it for money. Or fame and glory, for that matter, since many regular voters never even cast a vote in that election since they don't pay enough attention to it to know what the BET does, let alone who to vote for.
Analysis of the charter proposal follows below the cut. I'll be back later with candidates.
After looking at the two website (vote YES to ditch the BET, vote NO to keep the BET), I am planning to vote NO to keep it. But, there are some legitimate arguments on both sides. I'll link to the two official websites and try to give a fair summary of their arguments.
Vote YES to ditch the BET. The big reason to vote yes is that the BET is an obscure body and most voters don't really know what it does. If you randomly asked a bunch of Minneapolis residents who sets the property tax rate, most would think the City Council did it, and there's an argument that things like this ought to work the way most people think they do, because it really impairs your ability to participate in democracy when you can't even figure out who to call to complain about something.
The other reasons they give -- OK, I'm sorry, I can't just report here, I'm going to have to give my analysis because some of these reasons are just dumb.
1. Transparency and Open Government -- which is to say, no one knows what the BET is, or who's on it. They also note that the meetings aren't televised and are rarely reported on; I don't think that's because the BET's charter says that all business is to be taken care of in a dimly lit locked room, after sweeping for bugs and checking under the table for anyone under the public who might have snuck in to listen. I think this is because the press doesn't always do a good job of covering local politics. Besides, no matter what they say, ALL government is basically about deal-making in back rooms.
2. Equal Representation. They note that right now, only two City Councillors are on the board, and then extend that to say that this means that only the people in the 1st and 4th wards are represented. Except, the Council reps on the BET are the President and the Chair of the Ways & Means committee; it's not like merging the BET with the City Council is going to abolish the power imbalances inherent in some of the committee work. This isn't a completely whacked argument, but they present it deceptively on their website.
3. Prevent a Crisis. They say that the BET used to have seven members, and now have six, which could create a deadlock and a Charter crisis. The logical solution seems to me to add a member. That said, it's such a totally un-sexy board that major grandstanding seems unlikely, even in a city where sometimes it seems like no one in city government gets along with anyone else in city government. (I have this vague memory of the day RT hired a group therapist to try to improve working relations on the City Council. I think it wound up with my Councillor needing lots and lots of kleenex. Sigh.) Anyway, since there has not yet been a crisis, this seems like a thin straw they're grasping.
Oh, and I bet the seventh member was from the Library Board. Funny how they don't feel any need to mention that...it's almost like they don't want to remind us that the library merger with Hennepin County has mostly sucked.
4. Accountability. People should know who to yell at when they're pissed off. Which is true, but you don't have to hire an attorney to read the city charter to figure that out. I have a great amount of confidence that if I called up my City Councillor to complain about property taxes, she'd point me at the BET and I bet she even has their phone numbers at her fingertips.
The League of Women Voters endorsed this amendment.
On to the opposition.
Save the BET has a slightly more complex set of arguments. It's a very simple website (one page).
1. We lose voices for fair taxation and reasonable tax rates. In other words, the financial wonks won't be in charge.
2. We lose two elected officials, making our elected representation less diverse. On the other hand, we diversify the board by having every councillor in the city instead of just the President and W&M Chair.
3. It will reduce the independence of the city auditor. I think this is a legitimate concern. Our corruption issues have been small potatoes compared to an average day in some big cities, but it's nonetheless I would prefer a well-trained guard dog keeping an eye on the metaphorical henhouse, and I'd prefer that it not be reporting to the fox. If that makes sense.
4. We would lose a check and balance regarding the City Council, Mayor, and Park Board. Every city government -- actually, this is true of every governmental body, period, but it's most visible with cities since there's so much variation in how they work -- has to find a balance between efficiency and "checks and balances." If you put in too many, you can slow things down so thoroughly that nothing ever gets done. However, if you make things too efficient, the bad ideas often race through as fast as the good ideas; worse, it's a lot easier for one really godawful person to consolidate power.
In the past, the Minneapolis city government has done some incredibly stupid stuff. I voted for RT in 2001 not so much for what I hoped he'd do, but because I hoped he would do fewer insanely stupid things, and I have generally been satisfied. The previous Mayor spent some truly insane chunk of city money to subsidize the downtown Target, and in my opinion seriously abused eminent domain (both to build the Target, and in other cases). And that was WITH the checks and balances provided by the BET....so yeah.
5. This would put the City Council in control of all the Park Board's funding. I think this is a real issue for a couple of reasons. I am not actually that worried at this point that the City Council will abolish the Park Board, since that idea went over like an entire fleet of lead balloons, but (a) I don't entirely trust the City Council to fund the parks adequately, and (b) if the taxing authority all goes to the City Council, this might increase the agitation to give the Park Board independent taxing authority, which I think is actually a really stupid idea.
6. This would eliminate the only place the City Council, Mayor, and Park Board HAVE to work together. Yeah, given how well they all get along, that might be just as well. But I do agree that I don't want the Park Board to be utterly dependent on the City Council for money.
So, my thoughts: the fact is, it's not like all twelve City Councillors would pay significant attention to the tax/estimation issues ANYway. What inevitably happens on boards happens here, which is to say, everyone gets to be a designated wonk on SOMEthing and your friends ask you how they ought to vote, and you do the same on the issues your friends are wonks on. Or you watch to see how your least favorite person is voting and vote the other way. However, the board would lose the Park Board representation. And I want the Park Board to have a voice in how the money gets portioned out.
The fact is, at any given time, there are needs in our city that seem a lot more urgent than parks; I fear that it may be tempting to the City Council to sneak money out of the parks budget to fill the potholes. But our parks are what make this a great city -- or at least, they're a huge piece of it. Our park system kicks ass. People who live here love our parks, but still, I don't think most Minneapolitans realize just how incredibly lucky we are.
Anyway. I love our parks, and want to continue to have a Park Board. But I don't want to give the Park Board independent taxing authority; I want a balanced approach. I think the BET is a pretty good way to provide that approach, so I'm going to vote to keep it.
Oh, and I got a reply from Carol Kummer, Park Board district 5, but I haven't had time to post about it.
