"Busing, Flushing And Planning": Met Council At A Crossroads
Once again, there's a perennial proposal (HF 2662/SF 2605) to create staggered Met Council terms (retaining some Council members after the Governor who appointed them leaves office), and all the functions of the Council seemed to be on the table at the House floor last Wednesday. Should its members be elected? Is it a villain, an unelected bureaucracy with unchecked taxing powers? Is it an instrument of socialized planning, or a pawn of a right-wing governor? For DFLers, whether or not Pawlenty's Council can advocate a regional transit system has become the key question; the Senate still has to confirm some members this session. The GOP's Council view seems to divide along regional lines.
PIM talked with several legislators looking critically at the Met Council, especially since what chairman Peter Bell called his "number one" priority, the St. Paul light rail line, got vetoed. Sen. Kathy Saltzman (DFL-Woodbury), Reps. Neil Peterson (R-Bloomington), Sandra Peterson (DFL-New Hope), Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) and Frank Hornstein (DFL-Minneapolis) each gave PIM quite a different view about the generally overlooked metro super-agency. Saltzman and Sandra Peterson are carrying different versions of the staggered terms bill.
Who supports staggering? We heard support came from metro cities and counties, but mainly the cities. Saltzman said staggering would provide "a little independence" to work with local communities and the region. With more continuity between governorships, the Council could better focus on developing good regional policy. Saltzman's proposal enters effect in 2009, while the current House version starts after re-apportionment in 2013.
The Central Corridor "is too important to pawn," and everyone wants to be partners in getting it on track again, she said.
Her Council proposal has strong
bipartisan support (GOP Sens. Chris Gerlach (R-Apple Valley) and Geoff Michel (R-Edina) have signed on), and it feels like a modest and responsible reform, she said.
[Update 4/23: To clarify the above paragraph, Sen. Gerlach let PIM know that he is on board with Saltzman's Council proposal, but wanted to add that if anyone got the impression he's advocating the Central Corridor, that's "not the case."]
The House version might stick in
the gubernatorial craw, a DFLer thought: members would be removed not
at "the pleasure of the governor," and instead only with cause. There's
concern this defeats the Council's purpose: isn't it really an arm of
the governor's office?
Neil Peterson became the Met
Council District 5 member under then-Gov. Arne Carlson; it was his
"exit strategy" from the office of Bloomington mayor. He lost his
spot when Ted Mondale took over, wielding a free hand from then-Gov. Jesse Ventura
to fill the Council with "good people" from all sides, Peterson said.
He supports staggered terms; staff would operate more smoothly. Even as a chair changes, the staff really
doesn't. He said that it's overwhelming to become a new member, and
when everyone's new, what he dubbed the "large operating utility"
suffers. Staggering is "not going to change" the three big functions:
busing, flushing, and planning.
Peterson said it's "not a
villain"; it's "an easy villain to chase. Everyone loves a villain."
The
Council needs its supposedly "unaccountable" taxing authority in order
to issue AAA bonds and buy
big items like buses. "Woodbury's not complaining" about Council
policies, said Peterson; the
Council is "only a threat to the outlying suburbs." It would be "chaos
without it," bringing disorganized low-density sprawl. Forming a
long-term
development plan is beyond the ability of individual townships to deal
with. "It's like that movie... lions, and tigers, and bears, oh no..."
You don't find out the wizard isn't evil until the end, he joked. Even
though its members are obscure, "Good people are on there... [They]
work as a
team."
If elected, it would be as polarized as the House, he said. Minneapolis would send three DFLers, he predicted, and they
would "serve for life!" Peterson figured he could win his old seat exclusively
with Bloomington votes. It might become parochial because "you dance
with who brought you." His old seat
is vacant: with low pay and no benefits, no one wants to work his
old job!
Frank Hornstein, who Gov.
Ventura appointed to the Council in 2000, supports the staggered terms
proposal, and proposed direct elections last year. Staggering is "better than the status quo, marginally" but it's still
an "unaccountable system." A council of governments or direct elections (like Portland's Metro, motto: "People places. Open spaces.")
would be much better. Having an entirely gubernatorial group without
policy differences doesn't work: it's too diverse an agency to be
exclusively "under a thumb of a governor."
Hornstein wants to have hearings about the Council along with Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis) on the Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Government
next year. Through the Alliance for Metropolitan Stability,
which Hornstein co-founded, the "closest thing to a Met Council
watchdog" has been able to pull a few votes around through organizing.
"Why would obscurity be a good thing?" he asks. He
thinks that members are not accountable enough to their districts, with
"little constituent service," partly because "no one knows who they
are." Having Annette Meeks
represent an inner-city Minneapolis district is "in itself a case
study" of why the Council is "dysfunctional." Needing a new joint
powers board for the metro sales tax is an
"indictment of the current structure," and involved Council conflict.
The Central Corridor rebuff is an "earthquake," Hornstein said, proof
positive
it's not working; it "casts a
pall over the reputation of the Met Council" as a truly independent
agency, bringing demands for accountability.
The Council has to unite the region -- the alternative
is "more competing fiefdoms," he said. The DFL's new transportation plan could build a
regional rail system in place in 12 years, but now that's in jeopardy
if the Council can't implement the policy, Hornstein concluded.
Mark Buesgens comes from an
exurban sector which seems most interested in being left alone by the St. Paul agency. His frustrations started when
he was on the Jordan City Council and had to obtain go-aheads from the Council. It's an "unnecessary
layer" which the Legislature uses to "shield themselves" from tough
decisions, he says. The Council's functions seem redundant: transit
should be handled by MnDOT and the Legislature's committees; likewise parks should be handled by the DNR and committees.
Local governments can plan and cooperate among themselves,
and the Council isn't needed to settle disputes. He's
concerned about the staggered terms, since members are supposed to be
beholden to an elected official. He also doesn't like restricting their dismissal to
"for cause." With staggering, you'll likely get "a partisan body" where
the vote count matters, not a "harmonious" Council.
Sandra Peterson said that the Council needs
more attention and staggered terms. "There are too many silos
in the legislative process" and state agencies like DNR to operate without the Council. "We're here five months" and there's not
enough time for it, she said. While staggering might create a little
partisanship, the staff always facilitates policy work. "We need both voices,"
and it should be possible to reach consensus relatively easily.
Peterson learned a legislative lesson: the
first time, her bill got shot down on in
committee, and she had to go around to the Senate to get things going
again. Also, changing the staggering date to start after
reapportionment made people more comfortable.
Peterson had three conclusions: Not enough people pay attention to the
Council; some people don't think it's necessary at all, which surprised
her; a lot of people want a direct election process. Peterson felt
that a bipartisan task force should evaluate the Council, and recommend what should be done,
including perhaps expanding it.



