|
Background & Overview |
|
Quick
Links on this page:
|
|
Background:
Minnesota counties
are creatures/agents of the state of Minnesota. Established under
Minnesota Statute, counties face the daunting task of serving in two
distinctly different roles although the distinction is often muddied and
muddled. The first of those roles is as a local government providing
local services at the behest and demand of local citizens. Traditionally
these roles center around services such as roads, bridges, jails, public
safety, preservation of land records, etc. But even these services are
not just local in nature. Roads may, for instance, serve both a local
function but may also have regional and national utility.
The second
role of county government is to serve as an administrative arm of the
state and federal governments. This role is equally challenging as
it is often hard to distinguish where the state or federal mandate begins
and where local administrative authority and discretion ends. In
addition, a third twist centers on the fact that county government was not
made with a cookie cutter and each county has developed unique structures,
policies and practices to carry out their mission.
Back to top |
|
PHASE I:
Assessment & Analysis of Critical Issues |
|
Completed Fall 2003
Purpose:
The purpose of this
phase is to first assess critical issues for county government in
Minnesota, then assist in the formulation of recommendations for the
future direction of county government.
With these concerns in mind, the Association of Minnesota Counties
retained the public affairs firm of Himle-Horner to assess critical issues
for county government in Minnesota and assist in the formulation of
recommendations for the future direction of county government.
The project was composed of two parts. The first involved conducting
qualitative and quantitative research. The second included the analysis
of the research findings to determine conclusions, recommendations and
present strategic options available for the next step. |
|
The qualitative and quantitative research included:
-
Obtain candid,
unfettered insight from audiences that are essential to the future
success of county government/AMC.
-
Identify
current strengths/weaknesses and future opportunities/challenges.
-
Develop
recommendations/strategic options to assist AMC in effectively
positioning county government for future years.
The Executive Summary of the report lists five key findings:
-
Counties are
generally well-respected for their work
-
Core county
functions are not well understood by the public
-
The political
environment for tax increases is poor – the public is looking for reform
in government
-
The public
supports change but people doubt that counties will be change agents
-
Counties
(local communities) can lead a reform-based agenda
Note: The report did
not review the efficacy or effectiveness of AMC legislative strategies but
Himle Horner noted that counties were viewed very positively and, by
extension, so was the Association. |
The
report outlined the following decision tree to be considered as part of
the process for determining future direction and actions.
Phase I Final Reports
Back to top |
|
PHASE II:
State Workgroup &
Local Projects |
|
Began Spring 2004
Background:
While the Himle-Horner report provided numerous qualitative and quantitative, one of the
key indicators was the need for counties and county officials to become
more proactive. Whether the proactively is related to legislative issues,
public information, community involvement, change and reform, etc., it is
vital that county officials are engaged and informed regarding key county
concerns. It also needs to be recognized that any plan for action must
recognize the uniqueness of each of Minnesota’s counties and that no
single model (as emphasized in the Himle-Horner report) will be
appropriate for each county service or for each county in the state.
|
|
Part One:
Minnesota County Futures (MCF) Workgroup |
|
|
|
Purpose:
This critical next step in the Futures
project required establishing
a state level
workgroup
to review, critique and make recommendations regarding the current
state/county relationship.
Goals:
-
Review, critique and make recommendations regarding the current
state/county relationship.
-
Review and discuss the pros and cons of the Dillon Rule.
-
Make recommendations to the AMC General Assembly regarding legislative
changes needed to reaffirm and clarify the state/county relationship.
-
Invite open discussions regarding the relationship, duties and
responsibilities of each level of government and among local
governments.
-
Investigate topics as determined by the work group.
Facilitators:
Toni Smith and Kim
Boyce, University of Minnesota Extension Service
Time:
Preliminary report to
the 2004 AMC Annual Conference with a final report at the 2005 Legislative
Conference. Any legislative initiatives would be scheduled for the
2005 and 2006 sessions.
Back
to top
|
|
Purpose:
The second part of
Phase II is to establish five or six community projects to explore
potential models and reorganizations of service delivery systems
around the concept of
strengthening communication and collaboration. Each of the projects would
be slightly different and allow discovery of what may or may not be
affective. Each project would be given great autonomy for creating their
individual project.
Goals:
-
Review and
critique current local environment and the demographics of their
community.
-
Open a
dialogue among local leaders regarding opportunities for efficiencies in
service delivery systems.
-
Make recommendations and provide input to the AMC
state futures work group regarding legislative changes needed to
facilitate change opportunities at the local level.
-
Invite open
discussions regarding the relationship, duties and responsibilities of
each level of government and among local governments.
-
Investigate
issues as determined by the local group.
Membership:
Each local project would determine the membership and scope of the local
work group. In all likelihood, the membership would include an array of
local leaders including county, city, school, town and community leaders.
Facilitation:
AMC would work with
Minnesota Extension and Toni Smith to provide facilitators for the
meetings. The cost of the facilitators would be about $1,000 for each
meeting, which would be paid by AMC.
Back to top |
