The Minneapolis City Council has hardly been a beacon of unity lately, earning more attention for tense discussions between its moderate and progressive factions and pointed language flying in both directions. So when an issue brings them together, it’s worth paying attention.

In this case, what’s uniting them is a shared desire to hang on to their power (even if they fight about how to use it). Faced with a proposal by the Minneapolis Charter Commission (more on them below) to spare certain mayoral appointees from a Council approval process, Council members are united in a firm “nope,” saying the move would strip them of crucial checks on the mayor’s power.

Related: Minneapolis City Council members push limits of power vs. ICE

Here’s what you need to know about the proposal, including when you’ll be able to share your thoughts on it.

Let’s start at the start. What exactly might be changing here?

That’s a good question, and “might” is an important word, because everything about this proposal is still up in the air. But here’s the elevator pitch: the Minneapolis Charter Commission is considering a ballot measure that, if approved by voters, would allow the mayor unilaterally to appoint certain department heads that currently require City Council approval.

Those departments are Public Works, Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED), Regulatory Services, Emergency Management, Civil Rights and Health – although the commission voted on April 9 to put Public Works and CPED back into the Council approval process, at least in the draft ballot language.

Alright. I know what some of those departments do, but what’s the charter commission?

The charter commission is a 15-member volunteer body that maintains the city’s charter – essentially Minneapolis’ constitution, dating back to April 22, 1909. Happy 117th birthday, Charter! If you haven’t heard of them, it might be because they’re not elected. Every member is appointed to 4-year terms by the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court.

I’m still drawing a blank. Have they done anything important recently?

Some of the commission’s work can be pretty dull – fixing confusing language in the charter that could hypothetically cause a legal problem, stuff like that. But they also spend years researching, discussing and drawing up ballot measures that can make foundational changes to how the city operates, like whether city elections should take place in even-numbered years instead of odd ones, or if the Minneapolis Police Department should be run by an elected commission.

They were also behind the city’s shift in 2021 to a “strong mayor” form of government – or to be more precise, they were behind the proposal, which voters then passed.

Okay, so if this happened, the mayor would have an easier time choosing some members of his administration. Is that something that’s been an issue?

Mayor Jacob Frey certainly feels that it has been. He told the Charter Commission at their meeting on April 9 that he felt that the appointment process had become too political and that it was scaring away good candidates.

“I have heard again and again and again,” Frey said, “that very talented, high-ranking people in government, in the private sector, won’t come to work at the City of Minneapolis out of concern for their own reputation.”

Related: Emergency rental assistance is coming, but from where?

He referred to something that had happened that very morning, when the Council denied the reappointment of Community Safety Commissioner Todd Barnette in a 7-6 vote while approving the reappointments of the city attorney and city operations officer. Frey described the actions as “vote trading and political gamesmanship.” Council President Elliott Payne (Ward 1) disagreed, releasing a memo on April 15 outlining several issues he felt disqualified Barnette from the job.

I’m guessing some of the Council members feel differently than Frey about the appointment process?

You would be correct. Payne was joined by Council member Jason Chavez at the Charter Commission meeting on April 9. Payne said he was frustrated that a lot of the commission’s technical work addressing non-controversial issues was getting tied into something that was removing accountability for the mayor’s administration.

Chavez said he didn’t believe it was appropriate to remove the checks and balances currently in place, noting that the six department heads originally under discussion were in charge of a combined $700 million in taxpayer funds.

I know Payne and Chavez are on the progressive side of the council. What do the moderates think?

There is indeed a progressive wing of the Council whose members often find themselves at odds with Frey’s administration. Most of the time, progressives outnumber the moderates 7-6, as seen in Barnette’s failed reappointment, though they have a little less power today than in recent years. And if you’ve paid attention to the Council recently, you know that the rhetoric can get heated between the sides. 

But hours after the April 9 vote not to reappoint Barnette, moderate Council members Michael Rainville (Ward 3) and LaTrisha Vetaw (Ward 4) were in front of the Charter Commission (the same meeting where Payne and Chavez also spoke), where they revealed that on the topic of the Council approval process, the factions agree: To allow the mayor to appoint department heads unilaterally would reduce transparency in government.

“It’s accountability at its basic core,” Rainville said.

Okay, now that you’ve explained all that, I’ve got some real feelings about it and I’ve got to tell the commission that I love/hate their idea.

Well, I’ve got great news: They’re holding a public hearing for that exact purpose. It’s going to be on May 6 at 4 p.m. in room 350 of the Public Service Center, located at 250 South 4th Street in Minneapolis.

I’ll see you there.

To learn more about the Charter Commission and other city agencies, take a look at summaries of their meetings, thanks to Twin Cities Documenters, now housed at MinnPost.

Related