Can Minneapolis afford the antiquated bureaucracy that seems often to hang as an anvil around its neck?

Three City Council members think that it cannot, especially given the current financial crisis. And so Paul Ostrow, along with Don Samuels and Ralph Remington, will today inform Council President Barbara Johnson of their intent to launch a voters' initiative that, if passed next fall, would significantly streamline the city government's organization and operation.

The object is not only to save money, they said, but to bring Minneapolis' 1870s-era charter into line with the competitive realities of the 21st century. "We can't flourish as a city carrying the extra weight of a cumbersome bureaucratic structure," said Ostrow, who initiated the effort.

The changes would:

• Expand professional management at City Hall by installing a city administrator to oversee the day-to-day operations of all departments.

• Eliminate the Board of Estimate and Taxation.

• Absorb the Park Board, which operates essentially a separate city government, into the new unified city structure.

Each issue would be separate
These would be separate questions for voters to decide next fall. After a series of public hearings, the City Council could vote to put the questions on the ballot or, if that fails, citizens could gather petitions to do so.
 
The most significant change would install centralized management of city departments. All department heads – from police chief to the directors of public works, health and economic development – would be answerable to a single boss – a city administrator –  rather than be whipsawed by 14 bosses (the mayor and 13 council members) with varying agendas. The mayor and council would remain the city's policymakers.

The change wouldn't tip the balance of power very much, either toward a stronger mayor or council. Department heads would still be appointed by the mayor and approved by the council. But lines of accountability and responsibility within the bureaucracy would be clearer. The current organization chart, sometimes described as "everyone's in charge, so no one's in charge" – would be replaced with a more rational structure.

Eliminating the Board of Adjustment and Taxation, a 1920 relic, is considered less controversial. Setting the tax levy would be reassigned to the City Council.

Plan for Park Board expected to be controversial
Absorbing the Park Board, now an elected independent body, into the new structure is expected to draw a lot of political fire. The proposal would make the elected board an appointed body that would advise the mayor and council. The parks superintendent, as with other department heads, would report to the city administrator and be selected by the mayor and council.

Mayor R.T. Rybak said he welcomes any good ideas and that some of Ostrow's proposals are valid. But he said he dislikes being "blindsided" on the issue and worries that all parties will be distracted from the very tough budget decisions that soon must be made.

"I will look at any good ideas," Rybak said. "And there are changes that need to be made. The library merger showed clearly some of these benefits. But good ideas are made harder to accomplish when so many people, including me, are blindsided."

Asked for her reaction, Council President Johnson rejected the city administrator and Park Board ideas. “I believe the independent Park Board is one reason that the Minneapolis Park System is as good as it is. The arrangement protects the park system from competing interests.” She also defended the current City Hall administrative structure. “I don’t think people want an unelected bureaucrat running the city,” she said.

Park Board President Tom Nordyke could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

Support in business community
The business community, however, signaled support. "This has been a good idea for many years, but now, with the current economic situation and the need to be smarter and more efficient, it's time to move forward," said Todd Klingel, president and CEO of the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Of the City Council members so far favoring the initiative, two are not running for reelection. Ostrow is retiring after 12 years and Remington is departing after four.

In a letter to Johnson, the council members noted that other layers of government are looking for ways to streamline services and boost accountability and transparency. "Minneapolis must reexamine its current structure to ensure our city has the tools and authority to adapt to the changing times."

In a statement, Samuels said that last year's successful merger of the city and county library systems helped keep buildings open and expanded library hours for city residents. "[It] taught us that consolidating services can give residents a more responsive, effective government," he said. "If we apply those same principles to shifting the Park Board's responsibilities to the council, I am confident we can preserve our parks and set a clear vision for our parks' future."

The Park Board dates to 1883. Historically, Minneapolitans have credited their acclaimed parks system to the independence of its board. It's widely held that separation helps shield the parks from competing political interests, although it is the mayor and council that set the parks tax levy. The Park Board, then, decides how to spend the money. Therein lies the root of conflict. Parks advocates accuse the city of allocating too little, and the city questions the Park Board's spending priorities.

Separate police forces
It's a sore point that the city and parks maintain separate police forces. They also have separate policy visions. Riverfront development, public safety and youth initiatives are among programs that clash and overlap.

Conflict over the city's Wi-Fi system is a recent example. For two years, Minneapolis has been working to install wireless Internet citywide. But Park Police halted Wi-Fi installation along parkways, saying the Park Board had not approved.

 "It's a frustrating example of Minneapolis being two cities," Ostrow complained. "One part of the city gets wireless Internet, but those near parks are treated differently. Presumably the Park Police couldn't use the communications benefits of it, but the Minneapolis Police could. That doesn't make sense to me."

Ostrow said that Minneapolis is the only major U.S. city with an elected Park Board. Cities with highly rated parks (including Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago and Denver) have appointed bodies. Cities with the highest per capita investment in parks (Seattle and San Francisco) have appointed boards, he said.

(Disclosure: As a member of the Star Tribune editorial board in 2004, I helped write a series of opinion articles that advocated these changes. Ostrow sought my advice on this initiative and I offered it. So, my leanings on this matter are well-known.)