Counterpoint: Mayor, council would both be stronger after reform

Voting "yes" on City Question 1 in Minneapolis would do one simple thing. It would give Minneapolis the government structure that most people think we already have or should have.

That would be a government in which there is a strong legislative body that sets policy, approves taxing and spending, assures that policy is carried out and serves constituents. It also would be a government with a strong executive charged with executing the policy set by the legislative body, hiring and firing department heads, supervising day to day operations and being accountable for results.

That arrangement describes the structure of our federal government, our state government, and every city and county government in Minnesota and virtually all of the nation — except Minneapolis. There is virtually no other government in the country with the structure we have in Minneapolis. Having a structure that makes both the council and mayor actually accountable for what happens is the best path we have for achieving the safety, justice and elimination of systemic racism that the people of our city want and deserve.

The government structure we actually have is weak. A weak council, a weak mayor and virtually no accountability. It is confusing and often chaotic. It is the city charter, our city constitution that defines our city structure. The city government defined in our charter is a mess because both the legislative and executive roles are weak, fostering conflict rather than collaboration.

The charter gives the City Council legislative and policymaking authority but leaves out oversight to assure that policy direction is followed. It does not provide for the council to have either individual or nonpartisan staff to support its work, nor does it provide for an audit function. A "yes" vote on Question 1 would fix all these flaws. And it would go further. It would direct that "The Mayor must furnish to the Council any information that the Council requests for the exercise of its legislative function, including (but not limited to) the budget."

The current charter also gives Minneapolis a weak executive. In fact, the charter does not actually provide for a chief executive. In our charter the mayor is not responsible for hiring, firing or supervising city operations. That responsibility, the charter says, "is vested collectively in the Mayor, Executive Committee, and Council." The result is that there are 14 bosses telling departments what and how to do their jobs.

The one exception to this is the Police Department, where the charter gives the mayor "complete power over the establishment, maintenance and command of the police department." But then it immediately denies him or her the power to hire or fire the chief. A "yes" vote on Question 1 would fix these flaws as well. It would make the mayor the chief executive, responsible and accountable for operations of the city and accountable for executing the policies established by the City Council.

Opponents of Question 1 ("The mayor already has huge power," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 26) get it right when they say that "challenges to governance should be addressed" but get it utterly wrong when they assert that there is any similarity between what they call "weak mayor" cities and how Minneapolis is governed.

In every city that they list as having a weak mayor there is actually a very strong chief executive — a city manager. That executive has all of the responsibility, authority and accountability that a "yes" vote on Question 1 would assign to our mayor. Further, the legislative function in those same cites, which is exercised by a City Council led by the mayor (we would call that person the council president), mirrors the legislative role of the council provided for in Question 1.

For these opponents, and for most of the rest of us, if what we want is what virtually every other city already has — a city government with a strong council, a strong mayor and accountability for safety, justice and the elimination of systemic racism — we should vote "yes" on Question 1.

Peter Hutchinson is former superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, state finance commissioner and deputy in the Minneapolis Mayor's Office. Kathleen O'Brien is a former City Council member and city coordinator. Don Samuels is a former City Council member and Minneapolis school board member. Tony Scallon is a former City Council member.