To improve accountability and transparency, Rochester's park, library boards should be advisory

Rochester's Home Rule Charter is the roadmap for how the city operates. Since 1904, it's been the city's organizing document, and it's described on the city website as an "organic document of city government."

Prior to 1904, the city operated under a system established by state laws. Just before the turn of the 20th century, the Minnesota Legislature gave cities the ability to adopt home rule charters with voter approval, and Rochester voters wisely chose to do that 117 years ago.

The Charter initially had 17 chapters, 314 sections and was novelistic in length. Over the years, it's been revised and amended many times, often to eliminate obsolete features such as speed limits for horses and carriages, and antique or confusing language. Many changes have been made to bring it more into alignment with how the city functions, or should function.

Last month, the Rochester Charter Commission, which oversees the Charter and of which I'm a member, voted to revise two chapters that address the powers of the Rochester Library Board and the Rochester Park Board. These boards have exceptional powers under the Charter that we believe are no longer necessary or appropriate.

For example, Chapter XIII in the Charter says the library board has "full possession and control" of the library building. Chapter XIV says the park board has "management and control of all the parks and parkways" in the city, and can buy and sell property. Both chapters give the boards financial and personnel authority, even though the City Council makes final decisions.

The powers authorized by the Charter may have been appropriate in the city's early days, when the library was in City Hall and the parks system was pretty much just Central Park. The boards operated to an extent like autonomous agencies, and also as charitable foundations do today, receiving gifts of money, books and land.

We believe the powers outlined in the Charter are no longer relevant to how the boards and city departments operate. We propose to remove the boards' financial, personnel and property ownership authority and make them advisory, like other Rochester city boards and commissions, and like park boards and library boards in most Minnesota cities. Duluth, for example, has a remarkable park system and a public library with two neighborhood branches, and their boards are advisory only.

The changes we're proposing would not diminish the influence or value of the boards, contrary to what board members have argued. The Charter Commission itself is advisory — the City Council has to approve any changes we propose for the Charter, though we also can go to voters for approval if we want. These revisions are more like housekeeping, to clear away responsibilities that are no longer accurate or appropriate.

The leaders of the two boards say the changes would make them less effective, but it's hard to see why. They say the current system works just fine, and it would be too big a burden for City Council members to take on more direct oversight of Parks and Rec and the public library. The latter is an especially poor argument. This year's operating budget for Parks and Rec is $12.6 million, and for the library it's $8.4 million. Together that's about 15 percent of the city governmental operating budget. It's important that City Council members are completely involved in how that public money is spent, with advice from the boards.

If the Charter were being written today, there's no way it would be drafted to give financial, real estate and executive powers to unelected citizen boards in charge of the library and parks.

A majority of Charter Commission members voted last month to make these changes because we believe it's important for the Charter to accurately reflect how the city departments and boards function. Just as important, we believe financial and administrative powers are properly vested in the City Council, whose members are elected and directly accountable to voters.

The public library, parks and recreation facilities are among Rochester's great assets. The City Council needs meaningful input and recommendations from the boards, especially at a time when major investments are on the table. Five years ago, the library board and library officials proposed a $55 million expansion on the current site, which went nowhere; now they're considering a new library as part of a proposed mixed-use project nearby. In November, the park board and city won voter approval for a $2 million annual tax levy for a wide range of improvements, and they're now working on how to spend it.

The changes we're proposing would continue to value citizen input while improving oversight, clarity and transparency in how decisions are made — and who is accountable.

This is precisely the kind of issue the Charter Commission is empowered to take up, to assure that the Charter is accurate and relevant, and that it reflects and protects the interests of all Rochester citizens.

Jay Furst is a member of the Rochester Charter Commission.