HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-15 CHC MIN
.
.
.
.
.
.
Charter Commission
Nov, 15, 1999
Present:
Kathy Czar, chairperson
Wayne Anderson, Chuck Donnelly, Gary Kriesel, Nance Purcell
and Mary Ruch
Others:
Stillwater City Clerk Morli We~don and Robin Anthony, Washington County
Absent:
Steve Keister, Robert Kimbrel and Howard Lieberman
Ms, Czar called the meeting to order at 7:05 p,m,
Approval of minutes: Mr. Anderson, seconded by Ms, Ruch, moved approval of the minutes of
Sept. 20, 1999; all in favor.
City administrator amendment: Ms, Czar informed members that the public hearing on the
proposed city administrator charter amendment is expected to be scheduled for December or
early January, If the hearing has been held prior to the regular December meeting of the Charter
Commission, the Commission will meet at its regular time, If the hearing has not been held by
then, there will be no meeting in December. Ms, Czar will notify members when the public
hearing is on the City Council's agenda,
Overview of redistricting:
Ms, Czar introduced guest speaker Joe Mansky, who served as Director of Elections for the State
of Minnesota for 11 years and is currently working as a consultant to Hennepin and Ramsey
counties assisting those counties in preparing for redistricting,
Mr. Mansky provided members with a handout of an overview of the redistricting process,
. The handout highlighted the difference between redistricting and reapportionment.
Reapportionment is a function of the D,S, House of Representatives, Redistricting is the
process of dividing the territory of a political unit for the purpose of electing members of any
government body - large or small. Following reapportionment the state Legislature
formulates congressional and legislative districts, and then the process moves to the local
level.
· The handout also highlighted the constitutional basis for redistricting and the statutory basis
for redistricting - 1 person, 1 vote equals the opportunity to be elected to office,
. A "worst case scenario" of the redistricting schedule is as follows: April 1, 2000, federal
census; Dec, 31, 2000" certification of census results; March 19, 2002, congressional and
legislative plans completed; April 30, 2002, ward and precinct boundary plans completed;
May 28, 2002, county commissioner and school district plans completed; July 2, 2002,
filings open for general election, The schedule assumes legal challenges to the congressional
and/or legislative plans, Mr, Mansky noted that congressional districts must be on a precinct
boundary and there are some benefits to having more precincts, He noted the schedule is a
fast time line and the Charter Commission will have to do groundwork in order to meet the
timeline, but also will be hindered due to the unknowns of legal challenges and court rulings,
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
· The handout highlighted geographic criteria for ward boundaries and municipal
responsibilities, Mr, Donnelly asked if the plan must be based solely on the census or
whether it could anticipate future populations changes, Mr. Mansky noted that the city can
ask for a special census if a large annexation occurs, Regarding a city's responsibility of
making changes to polling place locations at least 25 days before the state primary, Mr.
Mansky noted that providing handicapped accessible polling places is important.
· Also highlighted were redistricting tools and redistricting strategies, Mr, Mansky said he
thought it very important that the Charter Commission early on determine a goal and
officially adopt a goal on population disparity for the public record, For example, he noted
that for county boards, there is a statutory maximum +/- 5 percent disparity permitted, Ms,
Ruch asked if software is available tying census date with GIS data/maps, Mr, Mansky said
such software will be available and may not be too costly if the software is purchased in
cooperation with the county/state,
· Also highlighted were issues related to the type of plan to be adopted - single member
districts, multiple member districts, district and at-large representation - and coordinating the
redistricting process with other political subdivisions, Regarding the type of plan, Mr,
Mansky noted there is the option of changing the Charter.
· Potential legal challenges results from districts not of equal population; districts designed to
favor certain voters over others; a plan not adopted in a timely manner; boundaries not drawn
on visible, clearly recognizable physical features; plan prepared in an arbitrary or capricious
manner. Mr. Mansky again reiterated the importance of publicly stating a goal for population
disparity in redistricting, He also noted annexations can pose a problem regarding the issue
of districts favoring certain voters over others,
· In conclusion, Mr, Mansky stated: make sure you have the necessary resources for the job -
accurate maps and boundary data; stick to the facts; keep the public involved; stay on
schedule; and stay away from annexations close to elections, Mr, Mansky noted the county is
authorized to levy a $1 per capita tax for redistricting costs; Ms, Anthony stated at this point
Washington County is not looking favorably on such a levy,
Members thanked Mr. Mansky for his informative presentation, Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p,m,
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary