"In her first 18 months as [Met] council chair, Susan Haigh, Bell’s successor, has yet to meet with representatives from the adjacent counties. However, a council spokesperson says she plans to reinstitute the meetings later this year."

The headline is the final paragraph from MinnPost here. Also, can the beast be tamed, and if so, in what manner and direction?

It most certainly costs a bundle, and has nil cost-benefit balance favoring it, but the imposition of comprehensive planning upon the involved counties is pure waste, cauing hiring of staff planners where fewer always is better.

The beast needs taming, the devil is in the details. However, firing all the planners cannot be too bad a way to start sensible reform of Met Council. Ending it is one other option; but eliminating a rung of government in its ladder seldom seems to fit politician biases, the knee jerk response, "it's been there for a reason," being the greatest impediment to fixing a problem. Does it really have a reason to be, and would growth happen better, or not, without any Metropolitan Council at all? Surely it would cost governments less, and that's not a bad start.