04-27-04 Charter Commission Regular Meeting (2)CITY OF HOPKINS
CHARTER COMMISSION
AGENDA,
April 27, 2004
6:30 p.m.
Conference Room 227
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Election of Chair and Co -Chair for 2004
4. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
5. Reports
6. Consideration of Communications
7. Old Business
8. New Business
• Board of Equalization
• Instant Runoff Elections
9. Adjournment
ATTACHMENTS:
• Minutes of the April 29, 2003 Charter Commission meeting
• Commission Roster
• Information about the Board of Equalization
o Memorandum to the Commission from Jim Genellie
o March 31 e-mail from Wynn Curtiss
o Copy of Council Report 2004-001
o Minnesota Statute, Section 274.01
• Information about Instant Runoff Elections
o April 13 e-mail from Fran Hesch
o Suggested Charter language
o February 4 Pioneer Press article regarding Instant Runoff in Roseville
o March 19 report on House action on HF1719
Minutes of the Hopkins Charter Commission
April 29, 2003
The Hopkins Charter Commission met on April 29. Present were Commission members:
Dorothy Boen, John Franc, Fran Hesch and Jim Shirley. Assistant City Manager Jim Genellie
was also present.
The meeting was brought to order at 6:40 p.m.
Election of Chair and Vice -Chair.
Commissioner Franc was nominated for Chair and Commissioner Hesch was nominated for
Vice -Chair. The Commission voted unanimously to elect John Franc as Chair and Fran Hesch as
Vice -Chair.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Shirley seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of February 12, 2002. The Commission voted to approve the minutes.
Reports.
There were no official reports.
Communications
There were no communications.
Old Business
There was no old business
New Business
Commissioner Hesch had a presentation about alternative voting systems, specifically Instant
Run Off Voting (or ranked ballot voting.) She introduced Tony Anderson Solgard, of FairVote
MN. Commissioner Hesch explained how Instant Run Off voting works. Mr. Solgard explained
that the Federal Government has made money available to the states to upgrade their elections
through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA.) The State of Minnesota has established a
committee to make recommendations on how the money should be spent in Minnesota.
FairVote MN is advocating spending the money on voting machines that would be able to
support Instant Run Off voting.
The Commission discussed the issue. It was the consensus of the Commission that although it
was not ready to make any recommendation about changing the voting method for Hopkins, it
supported the idea that new voting machines should at least have the capability to support
alternative voting methods should such methods be desired in the future.
-1-
The Commission discussed passing a resolution urging the City Council to pass a resolution
directed at the HAVA committee urging the Committee to require any new election equipment,
which is purchased with the federal funds, be compatible with ranked ballot voting.
Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Shirley seconded a motion to approve such a
resolution. The Commission unanimously endorsed this provision.
The Commission then discussed adding language to the resolution that would urge the Hopkins
City Council to require any new or updated voting equipment, which the City might acquire,
have the ability to handle ranked ballot voting. The Commission discussed this provision as well
as alternative language and decided not to include it in the resolution.
The Committee voted unanimously to adopt the resolution.
Adjournment.
Commissioner Boen moved and Commissioner Shirley seconded the motion to adjourn. The
meeting adjourned by unanimous consent.
-2-
April 20, 2004
Name Term Term Expires
Sid Blair First 10/20/2005 —
Dorothy Boen First 4/13/2004
David Day First 9/22/2007
John Frane First 6/10/2004
Roger Gross First 4/13/2004
Marjorie Hance Second 9/26/2004
Fran Hesch First 4/7/2006
John Hutchison First 10/20/2005
Roger Johnson First 8/26/2005
Charles Kritzler Second 9/26/2004
James Shirley Second 10/8/2004
Chair: John Frane
Vice -Chair: Fran Hesch
Department of Administration
To: Charter Commission
From: Jim Genellie
Date: April 20, 2004
Subject: Board of Equalization
In 2003 the City Council, as part of its budget cutting actions, contracted with Hennepin County for
Assessing services. This contract is for six years.
The Council was then faced with the decision of whether it should continue to act as the Board of
Equalization (also known as the Board of Review)
On January 6, 2004 the City Council voted to turn over the duties of the Board of Review to
Hennepin County for a period of three years. (See attached Council Report 2004-001)
In the process of preparing for the 2004 Charter Commission meeting, I came across the following:
"Section 7.03. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. The Council shall constitute the Board of
Equalization and shall meet as such in the usual place for holding Council Meetings not
later than June 1 of each year to equalize the assessments according to law, or at such other
adjourned meetings as it may designate."
By the time I found this it was too late to change the process for this year. Hennepin County had
already sent out the valuation notices which contained the appeal procedure. The County's "open
book" meeting took place on April 12.
I contacted Wynn Curtiss, of the City Attorneys office, to determine now Section 7.03 affected the
Council's decision to transfer the Board of Equalization (Review) to the County. In his response,
which is -attached, Mr Curtiss maintains that the Council's action and Section 7.03 are not in
conflict. He also makes a recommendation as to how Section 7.03 could be amended.
"Had the Council permanently transferred its authority to the County, I think a Charter
amendment probably would be appropriate, but not necessary. If the Council later regained
its authority, the deletion of Charter Section 7.03 would be harmless. In the absence of
such a charter provision, M.S. 274.01 automatically makes the city council the Board of
Review. Nothing really would change from what the city has done in the past.
Even though the City Council has transferred its authority, retaining Section 7.03 would be
appropriate. While the language of Charter Section 7.03 uses the word "shall," in my
opinion the Charter language is not really in conflict with the statute that allows the City
Council to transfer the authority. If you were to amend the Charter, I would only suggest
\2004 MEMO.doc
Department of Administration
amending to add the following language at the beginning of the section: "Unless the City
Council provides otherwise as permitted by law,..." That language should provide the
necessary flexibility for the Council to retain its authority or transfer it without being in
conflict with the Charter language."
Although Mr. Curtiss does not think that the Charter has to be amended, I recommend that the
Charter Commission approve amending Section 7.03.1 believe that this will clarify matters.
Attachments:
March 31 e-mail from Wynn Curtiss
Copy of Council Report 2004-001
Minnesota Statute, Section 274.01
�2004 MEMO.doc
January 6, 2004 Council Report 2004-001
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move approval of transferring the
powers and duties of the Board of Review to Hemiepin Coupfor a period of three ears.
This action will replace the current Board of Review process with the Hennepin County "open book"
process.
Overview
The governing body of any home rule charter or statutory city may transfer the powers and duties of the
board of appeal and equalization (Board of Review) to the county board, and no longer perform the fiuiction
of a local board. This transfer of duties to the county may either be permanent or for a specified number of
years, provided that the transfer cannot be for less than three years.
Before the governing body of a city transfers the powers and duties to the county board, the city's governing
body shall give public notice of the meeting at which the proposal for transfer is to be considered. A public
notice was published in the official newspaper prior to the January 6 City Council meeting.
Primary Issues to Consider
• What is the current process?
• Why turn it over to the County?
Supporting Information
• Analysis of the Issues
James A. Genelhe
Assistant City Manager
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y/N Source: Ge-ral Fund
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes: The City will save several hundred dollars annually.
Council Report 2004-001
Page 2
Analysis of the Issues:
What is the current process?
The Hopkins City Council currently acts as the Board of Review. Prior to the Board meeting, the City
Assessor and Appraiser would meet with residents who questioned the values placed on their homes. If the
Assessor could not resolve the issue, the homeowner could appeal to the Board of Review.
After the local board of review, the homeowner could appeal to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization.
Why turn it over to the County?
When the City had its own assessor, it made sense for the Council to act as the Board of Review. Now that
the assessing duties have been turned over to Hennepin County, the City will have no role in determining
the values placed on properties in Hopkins. If the County is going to be responsible for the entire process,
does it make sense to have the Hopkins City Council continue to act as a local board of review?
In the future, County Appraisers would conduct an "open book" process where they would be available to
discuss valuations with property owners. Appeals would be made to the County board of equalization.
Hennepin County would provide the City with a report on all appeals.
Alternatives
I. Approve transfe mg the duties of the board of review to Hennepin County for a period of three
years.
2. Approve permanently transfer-ilg the duties of the board of review to Hennepin County.
3. Do not approve the transfer. The Hopkins City Council would continue to act as the Board of
Review.
Staff recommends Alternative —.
274.01 Board of appeal and equalization.
Subdivision 1. Ordinary board; meetings, deadlines, grievances. (a) The
town board of a town, or the council or other governing body of a city, is the
board of appeal and equalization except (1) in cities whose charters provide for a
board of equalization or (2) in any city or town that has transferred its local board
of review power and duties to the county board as provided in subdivision 3. The
county assessor shall fix a day and time when the board or the board of
equalization shall meet in the assessment districts of the county.
Notwithstanding any law or city charter to the contrary, a city board of
equalization shall be referred to as a board of appeal and equalization. On or
before February 15 of each year the assessor shall give written notice of the time
to the city or town clerk. Notwithstanding the provisions of any charter to the
contrary, the meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 each year. The
clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting at least ten days
before the date of the meeting.
The board shall meet at the office of the clerk to review the assessment and
classification of property in the town or city. No changes in valuation or
classification which are intended to correct errors in judgment by the county
assessor may be made by the county assessor after the board has adjourned in
those cities or towns that hold a local board of review; however, corrections of
errors that are merely clerical in nature or changes that extend homestead
treatment to property are permitted after adjournment until the tax extension date
for that assessment year. The changes must be fully documented and
maintained in the assessor's office and must be available for review by any
person. A copy of the changes made during this period in those cities or towns
that hold a local board of review must be sent to the county board no later than
December 31 of the assessment year.
(b) The board shall determine whether the taxable property in the town or city
has been properly placed on the list and properly valued by the assessor. If real
or personal property has been omitted, the board shall place it on the list with its
market value, and correct the assessment so that each tract or lot of real
property, and each article, parcel, or class of personal property, is entered on the
assessment list at its market value. No assessment of the property of any
person may be raised unless the person has been duly notified of the intent of
the board to do so. On application of any person feeling aggrieved, the board
shall review the assessment or classification, or both, and correct it as appears
just. The board may not make an individual market value adjustment or
classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or
other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to
inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures.
(c) A local board may reduce assessments upon petition of the taxpayer but
the total reductions must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the
county assessor by more than one percent. If the total reductions would lower
the aggregate assessments made by the county assessor by more than one_
percent, none of the adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any
clerical errors or double assessments discovered by the board without regard to
the one percent limitation.
(d) A local board does not have authority to grant an exemption or to order
property removed from the tax rolls.
(e) A majority of the members may act at the meeting, and adjourn from day to
day until they finish hearing the cases presented. The assessor shall attend, with
the assessment books and papers, and take part in the proceedings, but must
not vote. The county assessor, or an assistant delegated by the county assessor
shall attend the meetings. The board shall list separately, on a form appended to
the assessment book, all omitted property added to the list by the board and all
items of property increased or decreased, with the market value of each item of
property, added or changed by the board, placed opposite the item. The county
assessor shall enter all changes made by the board in the assessment book.
(f) Except as provided in subdivision 3, if a person fails to appear in person, by
counsel, or by written communication before the board after being duly notified of
the board's intent to raise the assessment of the property, -or if a person feeling
aggrieved by an assessment or classification fails to apply for a review of the
assessment or classification, the person may not appear before the county board
of appeal and equalization for a review of the assessment or classification. This
paragraph does not apply if an assessment was made after the local board
meeting, as provided in section 273.01, or if the person can establish not having
received notice of market value at least five days before the local board meeting.
(g) The local board must complete its work and adjourn within 20 days from
the time of convening stated in the notice of the clerk, unless a longer period is
approved by the commissioner of revenue. No action taken after that date is
valid. All complaints about an assessment or classification made after the
meeting of the board must be heard and determined by the county board of
equalization. A nonresident may, at any time, before the meeting of the board
file written objections to an assessment or classification with the county
assessor. The objections must be presented to the board at its meeting by the
county assessor for its consideration.
SUbd. 2. Special board; duties delegated. The governing body of a city,
including a city whose charter provides for a board of equalization, may appoint a
special board of review. The city may delegate to the special board of review all
of the powers and duties in subdivision 1. The special board of review shall
serve at the direction and discretion of the appointing body, subject to the
restrictions imposed by law. The appointing body shall determine the number of
members of the board, the compensation and expenses to be paid, and the term
Jim A. Genellie
From: Fran Hesch Davalamp@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:08 PM
To: Jim A. Genellie
Cc: smielke@hopkinsmn.com
Subject: Charter Commission meeting
0
DraftChaaer
mendment.dc
Hi Jim,
I would like the Charter Commission to discuss a
charter change to accommodate for the usage of instant
runoff voting in our charter (just for Mayor, since it
is a single seat and easier to comprehend for
starters), should the equipment become available (or
should the council decide to authorize a hand -count,
see the contingency in the attached.) I am attaching
suggested generic language which I developed from the
City of San Fransicso language with input from
FairVote Minnesota.
I know this may seem abrupt, but if we never introduce
it, we'll never start having meaningful conversation
about it, right? In any case, it should provide for a
much livelier meeting if we have this on the agenda.
Karen really needs to get sworn in before the meeting
and she is painfully aware of it. Can we make that
happen?
Fran
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
1
SEC [ h INSTANT R UNOFF ELECTIONS.
(a) For the purposes of this section: (1) a candidate shall be deemed
"continuing"if the candidate has not been eliminated; (2) a ballot shall be deemed
"continuing" if it is not exhausted; and (3) a ballot shall be deemed "exhausted," and
not counted in further stages of the tabulation, if all of the choices have been eliminated
or there are no more choices indicated on the ballot. If a ranked -choice ballot gives
!dual rank to two or more candidates, the ballot shall be declared exhausted when such
multiple rankiazgs are reached. If a voter casts a ranked -choice ballot but skips a rank,
the voter's vote shall be transferred to that voter's next ranked choice.
(b) Contingent upon acdzaiSitioaz of ranked -ballot capable counting
eauipinent or approval by the ON Council to authorize a hand -count of ranked -ballots,
whichever comes first, the Mayor shall be elected usi7ig a ranked -choice, or "instant
runotL " ballot. The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order of
preference equal to the total numbea• of candidates- for each of ace; provided, however, if
the voting system, vote tabulation system, or similar or related equipment used by the
City and County cannot feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of
candidates running for the office, then the Director of Elections nzav limit the number of
choices a voter maj, rank to no LCIVea• than three,. The ballot shall in - vay znterfea•e
i-vit,. a voter s ability to cast a vote for a candidate.
(c) If a caazdidate receives a ,,aL,7 11 of the first choices, that caazdidate
shall be declared elected. If azo caazdidate receives a anajoa•ity, the caazdidate who
received the fewest first choices shall be eliminated and each. vote cast for that caazdidate
shall be transferred to the next -ranked candidate on that voters ballot. If, after this
transfer of votes, anv candidate has a maiority o the votes from the continuing ballots,
that candidate shall be declared elected.
(d) If l7o candidate receives a majority ofvotes fi'om the corrtinirirrg
ballots after a candidate has been eliminated and his or her votes have been trans erred
to the next -ranked candidate, the continuing candidate with the fewest votes ronz the
continuing ballots shall be eliminated. All votes cast for that candidate shall be
transferred to the next -ranked continuing candidate on each voter's ballot. This process
of eliminating candidates and transferring their votes to the next -ranked continuing
candidates shall be repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes -om the
continuing ballots.
Lei If the total number of votes OLthe two or more candidates credited
with the lowest n.unWer of votes is less than the number of votes credited to the candidate
with the next highest number OLvotes, those candidates with the lowest number of votes
shall be eliminated simultaneously and their votes transferred to the next -ranked
continuing candidate on each ballot in a single coun.ng opera"on.
with State law.
Lu A tie between two or more candidates shall be resolved in accordance
w At the time "instant runo ff" method o votin is -12 en,.ented, the Cih,
ofHopns shall conduct a voter education canipaign to famarise voters with the
ranked -choice or "instant runo ff "method of votirr .
Posted on Wed, Feb. 04, 2004
Roseville considers instant runoff
BY LENORA CHU
Pioneer Press
Ireland uses the process to elect its president, Australia its House of
Representatives and London its mayor.
Roseville could be next to adopt instant -runoff voting, which supporters say
eliminates the spoiler phenomenon of third -party' candidates and costs less to
administer than traditional elections.
And the state Legislature soon may weigh in on the issue. Advocates hope a
special City Council election in Roseville will fast -track a bill to give Minnesota
cities the option of instant -runoff elections.
Supporters in Roseville say the method is perfectly suited to the April 20 election
for the council seat vacated when Craig Klausing became mayor.
Because there is no primary, more than two candidates could be on the ballot,
creating the possibility that the victor could be ushered into office with less than
50 percent of the vote.
However, with instant -runoff voting — in which voters rank all candidates in order
of preference — a second -round recount is done if no one wins an outright
majority. A vote for the last -place finisher goes to the second choice on that
ballot, and the final tally is adjusted.
The process is repeated until one candidate receives more than 50 percent of the
total votes cast.
Instant -runoff voting can save money by eliminating the need for a primary in
nonpartisan elections like mayor and City Council A Roseville primary - an
option the council decided against in November — would have cost $15,000 to
$18,000.
In early January, the council unanimously passed a resolution asking the
Legislature to allow the instant -runoff option.
Although state statute doesn't explicitly forbid instant -runoff voting, the language
regarding ballot forms could be interpreted to exclude a design that would allow
voters to rank their choices, according to Bruce Kennedy, lead policy advocate
for FairVote Minnesota, a nonpartisan group for alternative voting methods.
"It's really a technical issue, but one that would scare off any city that wanted to
try it," Kennedy said. "That's why we came up with House File 1719."
Already introduced in the state Senate for the coming session, the measure
seeks to clarify the law by declaring that statutes shall not prohibit cities from
adopting cumulative or ranked -order voting, which includes instant -runoff voting.
It also would require electronic voting systems purchased after July 1 to support
these types of voting.
STATE ILLUSTRATES POINT
Advocates say instant -runoff voting may be particularly beneficial in Minnesota,
where third -party movements have been influential. The last two governors won
with less than a majority of the vote.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty won in 2002 with 44.4 percent, and in 1998 Jesse Ventura
prevailed with 37 percent.
Ken Pentel, the Green Party's candidate for governor in 2002, said being able to
rank choices on the ballot takes the fear out of voting your conscience.
"It eliminates the idea of'Don't Waste Your Vote' and the idea of people having to
vote for the lesser of two evils," Pentel said. "The Democrats and Republicans if they're not the first choice for people, they'll be the second choice."
Yet efforts to promote instant -runoff voting at the Legislature during three
previous sessions failed to gain traction.
A measure introduced last year would have adopted instant -runoff voting for all
statewide and congressional elections in Minnesota, plus U.S. president, but the
concept proved too new and wide-ranging for lawmakers. The bill passed a
Senate subcommittee but saw the light of day nowhere else.
Tony Solgard, chairman of FairVote Minnesota, said legislators simply need time
to familiarize themselves with alternate voting methods.
"If they're elected under one system and being asked to change that system," he
said, "they want to look at it pretty carefully."
This year, Solgard and other runoff advocates hope Roseville's ticking clock —
city officials estimate the bill must be passed by the end of February to allow time
to prepare for a runoff — and the council's resolution of support will breathe- new
life into their battle.
"It was something like kismet when this situation came about in Roseville
unexpectedly," Kennedy said.
The chairmen of the House and Senate committees that will be the first stop for
the bill are supporters — one is carrying it — and say they will usher the measure
along.
"There's a genuine sense of urgency and absolutely I hope that we could
respond accordingly," said Sen. Chuck Wiger, a North St. Paul DFLer and
chairman of the newly formed Elections Committee, which is scheduled to hear
the bill Thursday afternoon.
The chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, Rep. Jim
Rhodes, remarked that the measure's scope might need to be narrowed in order
to shove it through the Legislature in time.
"The way to get it passed may be to bring it as a pilot site for Roseville," said
Rhodes, R-St. Louis Park, who is sponsoring the bill in the House.
Should the measure pass and the Roseville City Council choose to adopt instant
runoff for the April 20 election, optical scan machines, which are not configured
for the new method, would produce the first count only. Any recounts would have
to be tallied by hand.
The city of Hopkins has also expressed interest in alternative voting methods.
Last year, the council passed a resolution recommending that any new voting
equipment be able to accommodate such methods.
Across the country, instant -runoff voting has gained recognition in recent years,
especially with San Francisco's move in 2002 to adopt the method.
According to FairVote Minnesota, legislation to enact instant runoff has passed
one body of the New Mexico Legislature, and the concept is gaining steam in
Vermont, where Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, the former
governor, is a supporter.
Even so, back in Minnesota, Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer may hold exactly
the kind of reservations the bill is likely to meet. "It's a complicated idea," she
said. It would change a lot, and we should have cautious consideration."
By changing the process, there would be less
confusion for felons, as well as cities and coun-
ties that sometimes struggle to keep law en-
forcement information organized, he said.
Peter McLaughlin, Hennepin County com-
missioner, said a major concern for the county
is the disenfranchisement for African Ameri-
can men in the community. Data showed that
52 percent of people whose felony sentences
expired between 2000 and 2002 were African
American, and of the felons whose sentences
expired in 2000,79 percent were not registered
to vote.
The change would "assist in the responsi-
bility of citizenship" and could be a key ele-
ment in reintroducing felons back into
communities, McLaughlin added.
Rep. Sheldon Johnson (DFL-St. Paul), not-
ing his work in corrections and as a parole of-
ficer, said a "sense of ownership" for a felon to
their community via the voting process would
be beneficial for those being released.
A companion measure (SF309), sponsored
by Sen. Linda Higgins (DFL-Mpls), awaits ac-
tion in the Senate Elections Committee.
Student voting
Students eligible to vote would be able to
leave school to exercise that right, under a bill
approved by the House Governmental Opera-
tions and Veterans Affairs Policy Committee
March 12.
Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St. Paul), a co-spon-
sor of HF2593, said the bill would give stu-
dents the same rights as those given to
employees in a work setting. He presented the
bill on behalf of Rep. Katie Sieben (DFL-
Newport), the bill'' chief sponsor.
Current law states: "Every employee who is
eligible to vote in an election has the right to be
absent from work for the purpose of voting dur-
ingthe morning of the day of that election, with-
out penalty or deduction from salary or wages
because of the absence." Also, "m employer or
other person may not directly or indirectly refuse,
abridge, or interfere with this right or any other
election right of an employee:'
Lesch said 37 percent of voters between ages
18 and 24 participated in the last state general
election, and the bill would not benefit one
political party over another.
Rep. Bill Haas (R-Champlin) questioned
what would be required for a student to miss
classes, such as a note from an election judge
to qualify for an excused absence.
Lesch said members of the House Educa-
tion Finance Committee, where the bill goes
next, would address the means by which a stu-
dent would be granted permission to leave.
A companion bill, SF2782, sponsored by
Sen. Dan Sparks (DFL-Austin), awaits action mulative voting, ranked -order voting, or an -
in the Senate Elections Committee. other method that differs from current state
Phone survey penalties
A person conducting a phone survey on
behalf of a candidate running for office or any
political subdivision could soon be held liable
for not giving certain information to a survey
participant.
Under HF 1437, the name, address, and tele-
phone number of the person who retained the
pollster and whether the survey is being con-
ducted with the consent or cooperation of any
candidate mentioned must be revealed dur-
ing the conversation, upon request.
If a person refuses to give the information, that
individual or the organization conducting the
poll could be charged with a misdemeanor.
Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Good Thunder), the
bill sponsor, told the House Governmental
Operations and Veterans Affairs Policy Com-
mittee March 15 that when he was running
for office he received a disturbing phone call.
He said a" college -aged student," not ]snow-
ing she'd reached the candidate the survey was
targeting, asked Cornish misleading questions.
He explained the questions and answers could
have led a constituent to believe untrue po-
litical beliefs about him.
Becoming angry, he asked the caller to give
him the name of the company conducting the
survey, her name, or that of a supervisor, none
of which were given. In the end, the caller hung
up on him.
The bill was approved and now moves to
the House floor.
A companion (SF1373), sponsored by
Sen. Julie Rosen (R-Fairmont), awaits action
on the Senate floor.
No alternative voting plan
A bill that would give one city the option of
using an alternative voting system in m up-
comingelection failed to pass the House floor
March 15.
Sponsored by Rep. Jim Rhodes (R-St. Louis
Park) and Sen. John Marty (DFL-Roseville),
HF1719/SF1613* failed 54-78. It passed the
Senate 38-26 Feb. 23.
Rhodes said that if more than two candi-
dates were to run in an April 20 city council
special election, the city of Roseville had re-
quested a one-time sanction to use a different
ballot system. All five candidates involved in
the upcoming special election have signed a
document in support of the one-time action,
Rhodes said on the House floor.
The bill would allow the city to adopt cu-
statute.
Rep. Mindy Greiling (DFL-Roseville) said
the bill initially would have been for the whole
state but was condensed to just one city. "We'd
like to try this in our election where we have
five candidates," she said, adding that the city
council unanimously passed a resolution sup-
porting this bill.
The city, under the bill, would be required
to report on its experience to the House Gov-
ernmental Operations and Veterans Affairs
Policy Committee and the Senate Elections
Committee within 30 days after the opening
of the first legislative session following the
city's first use of the alternative voting method.
i�
Workers'compensation changes
The House Health and Human Services
Policy Committee approved a negotiated bill
for workers' compensation March 17 and sent
it to the House Judiciary Policy and Finance
Committee.
HF2915, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Johnson
(R-Plymouth), is the result of two years of
work on the part of the Workers' Compensa-
tion Advisory Council, which is made up of
representatives from business, labor, and the
Legislature.
The bill is "a delicate compromise," Johnson
said. "There are provisions that one side or the
other doesn't like very much, and other
provisions they really want. If you remove a
provision, it all falls apart."
The committee limited its discussion to the
health -related portions of the bill.
Provisions in the bill include:
• an injury or illness resulting froin a vaccine
required for an employee's job, as a result
of a federal declaration under the Public
Health Service Act, would be compensable;
• if an in -network pharmacy is not within
15 miles of an employee's work or home,
the employee would be allowed to receive
services from a closer pharmacy and still
get reimbursed;
• an exemption from paying for workers' com-
pensation coverage would be allowed for
members of certain religious groups, the
Amish and Mennonites, whose beliefs
prohibit receiving those benefits;
• permission would be granted to certified
managed care plans to offer discounted
provider fees; and
• rules for health care provider standards of
care would be based on an analysis of medi-
cal evidence and accepted standards of
medical practice.
March 19, 2004