Cam Gordon
BY CAM GORDON
Is it possible that the city’s new Executive Mayor – Legislative Council charter change is making it harder for our city government to function well?
That certainly appeared to be the case in October, when Mayor Jacob Frey, the council majority, city attorney and other department leaders grappled with Frey’s veto of a new pollution control annual registration fee. Following the veto letter from the mayor, the council voted to override the veto, and the mayor threatened to instruct staff not to do the work to implement it.
As we shift attention to the upcoming city elections, the timing seems right to look at how that new structure is working.
It is worth recalling that three years ago, the so-called strong mayor charter amendment was narrowly passed with just 1.41 percent more than the required 51 percent of the votes. It was defeated in 8 of the 13 wards, but passed because of the large number of voters in wards 13, 11 and 7 where it won handily, especially because of the 12,082 yes votes in ward 13.
“During the campaigning, assurances were given that this was not intended as a power grab, but simply as a way to ensure each branch of government stayed in their lane,” recalled Josh Martin, a city hall watcher from Kingfield.
“Three years later, and all of these promises ring hollow,” said Martin. “Increasingly, the mayor has used the ‘strong mayor’ card as a cudgel against the council in cases of disagreement. And at the same time, the reform has not delivered the accountability that was promised, as allies of the mayor frequently blame the city council for failures that would clearly be under the purview of the mayor, even under the old system of government, let alone post-charter amendment.”
Not everyone agrees.
“I think the fact that the current mayor and council don’t get along on some major issues right now is unfortunate, but I think this just shows the executive mayor/legislative council was a good idea,” said Barry Clegg, who helped spearhead the effort as chair of the charter commission. “Imagine if city staff were faced with inconsistent direction by a divided executive/legislative branch. We would have a worse mess.”
“Backers of the strong mayor amendment seem to be reneging on the deal,” said David Brauer, southside based former journalist. “The mayor got his power but the council was supposed to get enhanced oversight and legislating power, yet a PAC supporting the mayor constantly attacks the council for seeking staff to do its redefined jobs.”
“The ideological gulf between the moderate mayor and much more extreme city council has put the mayor in the role of ballast to the extremism of the council,” said Carol Becker, who has followed city government for decades as a former elected office holder and Cooper resident. “This has raised tensions between the two sides right when they were working out the mechanisms of the new system. But I think the majority of residents want the mayor to play this role.”
“We were promised a couple of things if the strong mayor amendment passed,” said John Edward, who carefully tracks council meetings and lives in the Wedge neighborhood. “One, we would finally know who is in charge and two, it would usher in an era of cooperation at city hall. It hasn’t worked out that way.”
“Public confusion still exists about who is in charge,” said Edward. “This is in part thanks to the mayor and his allies who benefited from the blame game in 2021 and want to keep playing it.”
Implementing the charter change has not been easy.
Early on, we saw the mayor and his restructuring workgroup prioritize the consolidation power with the mayor, as the council lost the authority it had had for years to direct staff to do research or make recommendations. Instead, based on advice from the city attorney, the council can now only make requests.
We saw several popular, independently minded, community-oriented staff – including Gina Obiri, Brian K. Smith, Joy Marsh and Fadi Fadhil – resign or have their roles eliminated. It is hard to know what kind of chilling effect this may have had on the staff that remain.
With this history, and the fact that the mayor has exclusive authority to remove department heads, we are seeing a growing lack of confidence in professional staff working under him and his department heads. In turn, the mayor complains that council members are not following his staff’s recommendations.
“Once again, we find ourselves in a needless state of limbo because the majority of city council refused to listen to expert staff,” he said in a recent veto letter. “And once again, a short-term political win was favored over actually getting the work done.”
Previously, most city staff worked for the entire enterprise and for the people of Minneapolis, as determined by official city policy approved by the mayor and council. While the city clerk’s office and individual ward office staff were under council authority, the mayor had exclusive authority over the police department and his office staff. All the major departments operated under the democratic control of the 14 elected policy makers, and their jointly approved ordinances, plans, directives, and resolutions.
Today, council members often refer to “the administration,” when referring the operating departments the mayor oversees. The council talks about holding the mayor and his administration accountable, yet they have no authority to fire or discipline him, or even direct his staff.
“Of course, we have only had one Mayor since this charter amendment was introduced,” admits Martin. “And so it may be that many of these problems arise from the mayor, not from the system of government. That will be something to review when a new mayor takes office, possibly as soon as 2026. But as it stands today, I would give our ‘strong mayor’ system of government a failing grade.”
Short of repeal or a new mayor, what can we do?
The mayor and council could recreate an executive committee through ordinance. If the mayor and council leadership met regularly and publicly to coordinate between the two arms of city government – as it had in the past – it could provide guidance for contract negotiations, department head selections, and facilitate approving a shared vision, priorities, and a strategic plan for the 14 elected officials every 4 years.
To help restore trust between staff and elected officials, the mayor could agree, and perhaps an ordinance could require, that any department head termination be approved by the council.
As it is now, if the council is to effectively help govern the city, at least they deserve to have their own attorneys and other professionals with expertise in the policies areas they work on. This could be accomplished in a cost-effective way by transferring positions from the mayor’s operating departments to a new division where council members would hire and oversee the directors.
If the new structure is not working as well as hoped, can we at least talk about how to make it better?
