[Mpls] Bonding for pensions in Mpls.

[Laura Waterman Wittstock]

What we are hearing in this message are the tectonic plates groaning as 
the new pushes over the top of the old in the DFL framework. There are 
differences, significant ones in some cases, that mark a generational 
change in how city business is done. Clearly, Rep. Kahn's last sentence 
is the significant one - "need serious opponents..."

Indeed, yes, that will likely happen. The last mayoral and city council 
election swept change into city government. More is coming. But things 
can only go so far without examining rationally what construct and 
functions will make Minneapolis stronger and better. Just electing new 
people will not get the city where it needs to go.

These are very hard and in some cases dangerous questions because they 
put people's jobs on the line. Of one thing I am confident: we cannot 
go back to the old system and survive the world going past us.

I hope the voters will not have to have secret decoder rings to parse 
out what the political sides are really saying when they go on the 
attack. Even in abrupt change, there should be clarity.

So does the city charter need another nail in it? Enough of those and 
we will be back to pre-charter when the State called all the shots. I 
can't imagine the voters want that.


Best,


Laura Wittstock
Southeast
And a strong supporter of Phyllis Kahn, by the way


On Wednesday, December 29, 2004, at 01:56 AM, Phyllis Kahn wrote:

>     My major effort will be to  repeal the language in state law that
> allows bonding for pensions without a referendum. The need for a vote 
> of
> the people for this form of fiscal irresponsibility will at least 
> entail
> public discussion of this issue.
>
>      Of the eight council members voting against the partial solution,
> three are not running again and apparently have little interest in long
> range solutions. The other five (Ostrow, Samuels, Schiff, Zimmerman and
> Goodman) and Mayor Rybak need serious opponents who will take them on 
> on
> this issue.



On Wednesday, December 29, 2004, at 12:39 PM, rpgoldman at real-time.com 
wrote:

> Can you provide the list more details about this?  Has there been any
> coverage in the local papers?
>
> With all due respect, you have accused the city council of doing
> something prima facie stupid, but you haven't given us any way of
> checking your facts about the MPRA pension plan offer.
>
> Also, it would be nice to know what is the legal status of the
> bonding.  According to your message, it sounds like the bonding WAS
> legal, but you are arguing (it seems reasonably) that it should not
> be.


Laura Waterman Wittstock
MIGIZI Communications, Inc.
3123 East Lake Street
Minneapolis, MN 55406
612.721.6631 ext 219
wittstock at migizi.org
http://www.migizi.org
http://laurawatermanwittstock.blogspot.com/