Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/10/24 - ADMIN - Minutes - Charter Commission - RegularOFFICIAL MINUTES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA October 24, 2017 6:00 p.m. – Community Room, City Hall 1. Call to Order Chair Maaske called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Attendance Members Present: Maren Anderson, JC Beckstrand, Jim Brimeyer, Gary Carlson, Jim de Lambert, Terry Dwyer, David Dyer, Matthew Flory, Ken Gothberg, Sara Maaske, Andrew Rose, Erin Smith, and Henry Solmer. Members Absent: Lynne Carper (absence excused), Ron Jarvi, Jr. Others Present: Nancy Deno (Deputy City Manager/HR Director), Soren Mattick (City Attorney), and Melissa Kennedy (City Clerk) New members Andrew Rose and Erin Smith introduced themselves to the commission. 3. Approval of Minutes a. March 21, 2017 Charter Commission Meeting It was moved by Commissioner Brimeyer, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to approve the minutes of March 21, 2017. The motion passed 13-0. 4. Old Business a. Update on Approved Charter Amendment Eliminating Municipal Primary Elections and Changing Candidate Filing Requirements Ms. Kennedy informed the commission that the previously approved Charter amendment took effect on August 16, 2017. New copies of the City Charter were provided to each commissioner and the published version on the city website was also updated. 5. New Business a. Proposed Charter Amendments related to Ranked Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Contribution Limits Chair Maaske asked staff to provide an overview of the purpose of the meeting and the request from the City Council. Ms. Kennedy stated that the City Council had discussed the topic of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) numerous times since 2006. She noted that the staff reports and minutes from the Council’s previous discussions were provided in the Charter Commission’s agenda packet at the request of Chair Maaske. She explained on October 2, 2017 the City Council adopted a resolution asking the Charter Commission to study and make a recommendation as to whether the Charter should be amended to provide for the use of RCV to elect candidates to the City Council beginning with the 2019 election, and whether the Charter should be amended to change campaign finance contribution limits to match the limits set forth in statute. Charter Commission Minutes -2- October 24, 2017 Mr. Mattick stated the questions before the Charter Commission were policy questions. He explained the questions at this time are not related to how RCV would be administered, but rather whether or not the City should implement RCV as the method by which candidates would be elected to the city council. He noted that statute allows Charter cities the option to implement an alternative voting method by amending the Charter, whereas statutory cities and school districts do not currently have the same option. Ms. Kennedy asked Mr. Mattick to review the Charter amendment process outlined in statute. Mr. Mattick explained the City Council specifically asked the Charter Commission to consider amending the Charter according to the process outlined in M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7. He noted that this process required a positive recommendation of at least eight (8) members of the Charter Commission and an ordinance to amend the Charter would require a unanimous vote of all 7 councilmembers. He stated under this statute an ordinance to amend the Charter, even if approved by all 7 members of the Council, would not take effect until 90 days after passage and publication. Within the first 60 days of that 90 day period, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. If the requisite petition is filed within that period, the ordinance would not take effect until approved by the voters. He noted the Council would also have the option, at that point, to choose not to move forward with the ordinance to amend the Charter. Commissioner Dyer asked if the Charter Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council to put the question on a ballot. Mr. Mattick stated the commission could make such a recommendation. He explained the Council would then vote on the recommendation as proposed by the Charter Commission. Chair Maaske suggested splitting the two amendments and to focus the first part of the discussion on the proposed amendment related to RCV. She stated it would be helpful to hear each commissioner’s thoughts and questions on the RCV amendment to get an idea of where the commission was at and to figure out a plan for how to move forward. Commissioner de Lambert questioned if something had changed related to statutory authority since the first time this topic was discussed. Mr. Mattick stated he didn’t know that anything had changed per se, but did note that since that time two cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, have implemented and used RCV in their municipal elections. He added that the constitutionality of RCV was challenged and the State Supreme Court upheld its use. Commissioner Brimeyer stated he is generally supportive of RCV but feels it is too early to make a decision as further discussion is needed. He noted he did not want to see a scenario in which the City could potentially elect a Mayor receiving less than 50% of the vote. He explained he would not be in favor of a referendum because he felt they should be limited to issues related to finances and the Council is elected to make policy decisions. He thinks it would be very difficult to educate and inform voters on the concept of RCV in order to get them prepared to vote on the question. He added he would like to see some draft language of the proposed Charter amendment. Mr. Mattick stated a draft amendment could be put together fairly easily. He noted that the Charter amendment would only provide for the use of RCV and the rules and procedures related to election administration would be adopted by an ordinance requiring a simple majority vote of the Council. Charter Commission Minutes -3- October 24, 2017 Commissioner Gothberg stated that RCV is a solution looking for a problem and he does not think the concept is an all-encompassing solution. He explained the city does not know what the impact will be yet of eliminating the primary because the new format will not be used until 2019. He noted it would be a big mistake to not send the question to the voters if the city wants to pursue RCV. Commissioner Dyer stated he appreciates the concept of RCV but is not sure if a change is necessary because he hasn’t seen a need and does not understand what the actual problem is that the city is trying to address. He agreed that the decision should be up to the voters because it affects their ability to vote and the way in which they elect their representatives. Commissioner Flory stated he did not have a problem with RCV, but felt strongly that the question should go to the public. He noted that civic engagement is an extreme source of pride in St. Louis Park and residents appreciate a robust public process. He also expressed concern that having multiple voting methods on the same ballot may be confusing for voters. Commissioner Anderson stated she would like more information on experiences in other cities that have used RCV, both successes and failures. Commissioner Dwyer stated he supports the concept of RCV but does not feel that there is enough data available to truly make a determination as to whether or not cities that use RCV actually realize the outcomes they seek. He added until the method is more widely used people will always be chasing a sufficient sample size of data to really evaluate the effectiveness of RCV. He explained he felt the decision should be made by the City Council with a robust public process because it is hard for people to educate themselves on ballot questions. Commissioner Rose stated civic engagement is a big component of this question and if a change is made a lot of education would be required up front, but over time people adapt to change. He noted that he is in favor of seeking more technical and process improvements to help simplify the administration of a RCV election. He supports moving forward and would also be ok with a referendum if necessary. Commissioner Beckstrand echoed Commissioner Gothberg’s sentiment that RCV is a solution looking for a problem. He stated he looked at the question from many different angles and spoke with election officials from Ramsey County, and had a hard time finding something that was a tipping point that would require a change of this magnitude. He encouraged his colleagues not to underestimate the importance of voter and election judge education and the undertaking that would be for staff. He noted that although he is not opposed to the concept, he is not necessarily in favor of making a change unless there is a strong reason to do so. Commissioner Carlson stated he supports the concept of RCV in general and feels comfortable letting the City Council make the decision given that there is an option for a reverse referendum process included in M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7. Commissioner de Lambert explained that he is open to considering the change and felt the request from the Council was reasonable. He stated he is not thrilled with the election system as a whole in the United States and he was in favor of at least making RCV an option. Charter Commission Minutes -4- October 24, 2017 Commissioner Solmer stated he is open to the concept of implementing RCV but felt strongly that the issue should not go to a referendum. He is in favor of gathering input from the public, but felt the decision should be made by the Council. Commissioner Smith stated she is in favor of RCV and does not like being limited to one choice if there is a strong pool candidates. She added she struggles with the idea of a referendum because the issue is not monetary and a lot of voters are uneducated when they go to the polls. Chair Maaske explained her main concern is that there be a robust public process before a decision is made. She expressed concern that the only public input was at the public hearing for the Charter amendment to eliminate the Primary, and she does not feel that the public at large has had an opportunity to be heard. She stated she is also unclear what the problem is that we are trying to solve. The no Primary system has yet to be tested in St. Louis Park and she would like to see the effects of that amendment and the increase in the number of signatures on a nominating petition. She stated she is not sure that implementing RCV will result in more candidates or diversified representation. She suggested that the Charter Commission outline the process they would like to use to be able to form a recommendation for Council and present their questions to staff if additional information is needed. She noted both Minneapolis and Duluth appointed a citizen task force to independently study RCV and provide a recommendation to the Council, and both ended up as questions on a ballot. She added she still has a number of questions she would like staff to research. 1. What are the types of elections that are run in the Hennepin County cities that currently do not have Primary elections? Are they all at-large seats? Do they elect the top vote getters in one race to fill multiple seats? 2. Provide a rough cost estimate of the administrative costs related to the implementation and administration of an RCV election. 3. Is there a study or analysis of campaign spending has changed in Minneapolis or St. Paul elections since the implementation of RCV? 4. Have there been any studies related to incumbents and how often incumbents win both in St. Louis Park and in cities where RCV is used? Commissioner Beckstrand stated he would like a better understanding of any unintended consequences of switching to RCV. Ms. Kennedy explained that the city has to administer elections regardless of the process selected and the Charter Commission’s decision should not be based solely on administrative factors because staff will be prepared and will have the resources in place to run an election no matter what voting method is used. Commissioner Gothberg stated he would like staff to provide more information on the following: 1. Why did the ballot question fail in Duluth? What were the opinions of voters on that process and ballot measure? 2. Why has RCV been repealed in other cities in the United States? Ms. Kennedy reviewed the questions that were posed and stated staff would make every effort to find the information, although some of the questions may be difficult to answer if no data exists. Charter Commission Minutes -5- October 24, 2017 Ms. Deno reminded the Commission that the City Council had gone through their process and is asking the Charter Commission for a recommendation. She noted the Commission could not necessarily tell the City Council to undertake a separate public process. The commissioners agreed that the topic of public process should be discussed at the next meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Gothberg, seconded by Commissioner Beckstrand, to direct staff to return with additional information in response to the questions raised by the Commission related to Ranked Choice Voting, to prepare a draft Charter amendment for review, and to schedule a follow-up meeting for additional discussion. The motion passed 13-0. Chair Maaske asked for further explanation of the proposed amendment related to campaign finance contribution limits. Mr. Mattick explained that Section 12.04 of the City Charter limits campaign contributions to $250 per year and State statute limits campaign contributions to $600 in an election year. He stated during the 2017 municipal election cycle, staff received several questions regarding this topic and he was asked to provide an opinion as to which limit should govern campaign contributions in St. Louis Park. In this instance he provided the opinion that the statute should govern and a candidate may accept contributions up to $600 in an election year. He noted the primary reason for his opinion is that the when adopting M.S. 211A.12, the Legislature specifically stated that provisions of that section should supersede any home rule charter. He added that M.S. 211A.12 only addresses campaign contribution limits, and the statute does not apply to other provisions of the Charter. Ms. Kennedy explained the City Council discussed this discrepancy and thought it would be best for the Charter Commission to consider an amendment that would eliminate the conflict and eliminate confusion for candidates in future elections. Commissioner Dwyer asked if the commission should consider amending any of the other provisions in the Charter related to campaign finance. Mr. Mattick stated the conflict was specifically related to Section 12.04, Subd. 1, but noted he would review again to ensure no other changes should be considered. Commissioner Dwyer asked if the recommendation was to eliminate the language altogether or to change the limits to match what is set forth in statute. Mr. Mattick stated the safest option would be to simply reference the statute so if the limits were to change in the future another Charter amendment would not be required. The consensus of the Commission was to reference M.S. 211A.12 and the limits as defined. Mr. Mattick stated he would prepare a draft amendment for consideration at the next meeting. 6. Future Meetings The Charter Commission scheduled their next meeting for December 6, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Westwood Conference Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall. Charter Commission Minutes -6- October 24, 2017 7. Communications - None 8. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Flory, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 13-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk