►
From YouTube: March 5, 2018 Executive Committee
Description
Minneapolis Executive Committee Meeting
A
Good
morning
and
welcome
to
this
special
meeting
of
the
city's
executive
committee,
my
name
is
Jacob.
Fry
I
am
the
chair
of
this
committee
and
with
me
on
the
Dyess
this
morning
our
council
members
Gordon
bender
Jenkins
and
Johnson
I.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
do
have
a
quorum.
Colleagues,
we've
just
got
one
single
item
of
business,
which
is
considering
the
nomination
of
Susan
Siegel
for
reappointment
to
the
appointed
position
of
City
Attorney.
A
This
item
is
before
us
now
a
second
time,
because
the
rules
of
the
executive
committee
require
three
affirmative
votes
in
this
action.
That
is
a
unique
rule
for
the
executive
body
and,
as
members
will
recall,
we
had
while
we
had
a
majority
or
a
plurality,
we
only
had
two
votes
in
favor
of
the
previous
time,
and
so
we
had
two
members
of
stain
on
the
nomination
of
the
last
meeting,
which
is
essentially
the
same
thing
as
not
voting,
so
abstentions,
don't
count
for
or
against
a
motion,
and
so
we
need
would
need.
A
We
need
three
here.
So
this
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
take
definitive
action.
The
process
has
already
been
initiated,
as
provided
by
city
charter
for
sake
of
discussion,
though
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
approval
of
the
reappointment
of
Susan
Segal
is
City
Attorney
and
I'd
like
to
call
on
our
city
clerk,
casey
carl,
to
give
us
a
rundown
on
on.
Why
we're
here
today
and
why
this
action
is,
is
the
correct
way
to
go?
Procedurally,
mr.
B
Mayor
and
members
of
the
executive
committee,
the
matter
before
you
is
the
appointment
of
the
city
attorney.
The
mayor
is
nominated
for
reappointment
susan
siegel
to
that
position.
As
you
pointed
out
mr.
maryk,
concurrent
with
the
city
charter,
there
are
three
steps
involved
in
the
appointment
of
a
charter
department
head.
The
first
is,
of
course,
the
exclusive
power
of
the
mayor
to
bring
forward
a
nomination.
The
mayor
has
done
that.
The
second
step
is
action
by
the
executive
committee
to
consider
and
act
upon
that
nomination.
The
definitive
action
requires
three
affirmative
votes.
B
As
you've
pointed
out
under
the
executive
committee's
rules,
those
rules
are
and
stature
or
high-ranking
authority
than
the
Charter.
The
Executive
Committee
has
opposed
upon
itself.
It's
own
requirement
for
a
higher
threshold
of
voting,
so
the
requirement
for
those
three
votes
in
the
affirmative
exists
in
these
executive
committees:
rules
not
in
the
Charter.
The
Charter
requires
them
that
the
Executive
Committee
submit
its
recommendation
on
the
mayoral
appointment
to
the
City
Council
and
that
the
City
Council
Act.
There
is
no
requirement
in
the
Charter
for
a
public
hearing
on
these
nominations
or
on
these
actions.
B
The
requirement
for
public
hearing
exists
only
in
the
councils
rules.
Much
like
the
executive
committee
rules.
Those
council
rules
exist
at
the
will
of
the
council.
They
are
adopted
to
facilitate
the
council's
business
and
not
to
frustrate
or
obstructed
so
the
requirement
for
the
public
hearing
is
dictated
by
the
City
Council.
Through
its
rules,
the
council
chooses
to
refer
to
the
public
for
a
public
hearing
the
nomination
to
that
Standing
Committee,
which
has
a
subject
matter,
jurisdiction
or
connection
to
the
department
which
is
implicated
with
the
appointment
of
that
department
head.
B
Before
the
hearing
we
took
action
at
the
clerk's
office
following
a
counsels
action
to
refer
this
to
the
Enterprise
Committee
at
its
meeting
on
February
23rd,
to
publish
a
notice
of
a
public
hearing
at
the
Enterprise
Committee
on
March
1st,
once
that
notice
was
already
published
in
the
public
informed
of
the
need
for
a
public
hearing.
We
were
informed
by
mr.
Dave
picking
on
February
28th
the
day
before
that
there
was
a
technical
error
in
the
vote
conducted
by
the
executive
committee,
and
he
correctly
pointed
out
that
we
failed
to
achieve
three
affirmative
votes.
B
As
a
consequence,
I
advised
the
council,
through
its
chair
of
the
Enterprise
Committee
councilmember,
Palmisano,
that
we
should
continue
the
public
hearing
on
the
day
scheduled
because
the
public
had
already
been
so
informed.
The
public
hearing
on
this
proposal
was
opened
then
at
the
Enterprise
committee
meeting
last
Thursday
March
1st
and
was
continued
at
that
time.
After
accepting
public
comments
from
those
in
attendance
to
this
Wednesday
March
7th
at
1:15
p.m.
at
which
point
the
public
hearing
continues,
so
that
the
public
has
an
opportunity
to
engage
and
participate
in
that
process.
B
Consistent
with
the
council's
procedural
rules,
the
technical
error
in
not
achieving
the
required
threshold
of
a
vote
by
the
executive.
To
me,
the
first
time
this
nomination
was
through
is
now
therefore
needing
to
be
addressed
and
a
definitive
action
needs
to
be
taken,
meaning
at
least
three
affirmative
votes
are
required
to
move
that
process
forward.
So
this
is
simply
a
procedural
correction
to
that
error
that
mr.
bacon
raised
to
our
attention.
B
It
does
not
address
the
other
procedures
in
terms
of
the
council,
giving
notice
of
a
public
hearing
which
was
done
that
public
hearing
was
already
opened,
giving
everyone
a
chance
to
participate
in
that
process
and
has
been
continued
to
a
later
date,
so
that
this
body
can
achieve
the
required
threshold
for
its
vote.
So
then
it
can
go
to
the
council,
in
accordance
with
the
city
charter,
requiring
those
three
steps
in
the
process
of
appointing
a
city
charter
department
head.
A
C
Yes,
I
have
a
question
and
I
have
a
comment:
I
mean
it's
all.
That
was
pretty
confusing
explanation.
I,
don't
understand
exactly
how
the
council
even
had
the
matter
if
there
weren't
the
three
votes
that
were
required
to
get
it
to
the
council.
I
thought
that
we
failed
to
vote
to
refer
to
the
council
last
time,
and
that
was
the
the
read
I
mean.
C
Obviously
I'm
deeply
embarrassed
that
I
didn't
have
the
rules
in
front
of
me
and
I
hadn't
reviewed
them
to
realize
it
took
three
affirmative
votes
to
move
something
forward
and
in
light
of
that,
I
think
we
probably
should
have
stopped
what
we
were
doing
and
redid
it
again
at
the
next
exact
disc
at
the
next
executive
committee
meeting.
Instead,
it
looks
like
we're,
scrambling
and
kind
of
juggling
some
balls
and
trying
to
get
this
all
fit
in
to
make
up
for
it,
and
so
somehow
the
council
ended
up
setting
the
public
hearing.
C
Even
though
the
executive
committee
refer
to
the
matter,
we
didn't
have
the
three
votes
to
get
it
to
them.
We
used
to
send
things
I
guess
in
violation
of
our
Charter
directly
to
committees
from
executive
committee,
and
that
makes
it
even
more
confusing
for
me,
because
we
have
rules
that
are
different
than
the
Charter,
so
I
think
what
would
be
better
is
if
we
just
referred
this
to
the
City
Council
like
we
should
have
done
the
first
time
and
they
can
take
it
up
at
their
next
meeting
on
Friday
and
then
they
can.
C
We
can
figure
it
out,
then,
which
committee
it
goes
to,
which
actually
was
another
added
problem
with
this,
because
originally
it
seemed
like
we
were
communicating
to
people
was
going
to
a
different
committee,
then
and
then
of
the
last
minute.
We
also
switched
the
committee
that
it
went
to
so
especially
I
think
when
it's
it's
an
issue
where
there's
some
dispute
about
the
appointment
or
there's
some
community
discussion.
There's
some
focus
on
this.
C
We
should
be
going
out
of
our
way
to
follow
the
rules
clearly
and
if
we,
if
we
made
a
big
error,
we
should
just
say
I'm,
do-over
or
I.
Don't
know
what
you
used
to
say
in
the
playground,
but
that's
what
we
used
to
say.
It's
a
do-over
and
then
you
just
start
back
again
and
you
do
it
and
I.
Don't
even
know
that
why
we
needed
this
special
meeting,
which
also
seemed
to
make
it
difficult
for
people
to
follow
and
track
and
understand.
C
What's
going
on
and
I
can
almost
bet
that
we'll
have
very
few
people
at
the
next
Enterprise
Committee
meeting,
even
though
that
it
was
noticed,
but
I
guess
we'll
see.
So
if
you,
if
you
can't
tell
by
now
I'm
a
little
bit
irritated
by
this
whole
process
and
I,
think
that
we
could
do
a
better
job
of
doing
the
right
thing
to
make
up
for
the
error.
D
You
mr.
chair
I
agree
with
councilmember
Gordon
I'm,
just
the
process,
procedural
issues,
I,
don't
think
it
would
hurt
to
go
another
cycle
with
this
and
just
make
sure
everybody
feels
comfortable
with
the
scheduling
of
the
public
hearing
and
how
it
was
referred
to
committee,
and
you
know,
mistakes,
happen
and
I
think
it
just
makes
sense
taking
extra
cycle
on
it.
E
You,
mr.
chair,
so
we
agree
that
the
responsibility
of
the
error
is
on
all
of
us.
Many
of
almost
all
of
us,
councilmember
Gordon,
is
the
exception,
are
new
to
this
committee
and
so
I
think
as
we're
in
our
only
our
third
executive
committee
meeting.
You
know
it
I
take
responsibility
as
well
for
not
for
not
understanding
that
this
committee
had
special
rules.
E
E
For
any
reason,
we
go
forward
with
the
public
hearing,
because
we
have
members
of
the
public
who
have
received
a
notification
of
the
hearing
who
have
are
expected
to
come
to
City
Hall,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
their
voices
are
heard
and
that
there
isn't
confusion.
So
people
have
are
sitting
here
in
the
audience
not
able
to
speak,
and
so
that
was
I
think
the
reason
that
the
executive
or
the
Enterprise
Committee
went
forward,
but
the
public
hearing
was
to
ensure
that
people
who
are
expecting
to
speak
were
able
to
speak.
E
The
change
of
course,
I
I
had
here
and
all
of
us
here
had
decided
to
send
the
items
to
the
committee
of
the
whole.
But
then
the
enterprise
committee
chair
comes
Norberto,
Misano
and
the
couch
a
council
member
jenkins
had
decided
they
prefer
to
go
to
enterprise,
so
the
rest
of
us
went
along
with
that
change,
which
was
announced
at
the
council
meeting.
All
of
us
were
there
to
be
able
to
comment
on
that
change.
E
E
I'm,
not
sure
that
you
know.
If
our
goal
here
is
to
make
sure
that
the
public
is
able
to
comment
as
we
are
making
our
decision
about
our
votes
and
postponing
one
cycle
is
still
going
to
mean
that
we
have
another
hearing
at
the
special
Enterprise
Committee
meeting
that
has
already
been
publicly
noticed
and
announced.
So
then
we
will
end
up
with
three
separate
public
hearings
for
the
same
nomination.
E
So
I
just
would
ask
my
colleagues
to
consider
if
you
think
that
that
is
actually
meeting
our
goal
of
being
more
transparent
or
that
just
adding
more
confusion,
I'm,
not
sure
honestly,
which
one
is
best.
There's
no
particular
urgency
to
this
matter.
I
think
the
intention
of
continuing
it
along
in
this
cycle
was
again
to
maintain
that
transparency.
E
I
think
people
knew
that
she
had
been
nominated,
that
there
was
a
public
hearing
expected
and
we
were
going
to
vote
at
the
council
meeting
this
cycle,
and
so
the
intention
was
to
make
sure
that
people
who
are
following
this
were
able
to
be
involved
and
understood,
wouldn't
expected
when
we
were
going
to
vote
so
delay
would
mean
that
some
I
think
there
will
be
confusion.
So
if
folks
feel
like
adding
more
more
additional
meetings
and
more
additional
public
hearings
is
going
to
help
with
transparency.
E
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
communicating
with
the
public
we're
all
here,
we're
all
equally
responsible
for
these
decisions.
These
have
been
discussions
that
council
meeting.
So
my
intention
here
was
to
keep
us
on
track
for
the
expected
time
line
that
we
had
committed
to
when
we
brought
the
nomination
here
in
the
first
place,.
A
Thank
you,
I
agree
with
council
president.
At
this
point,
we've
had
one
executive
committee
meeting
with
not
the
full
body.
This
is
the
second
executive
committee
meeting
with
the
full
body.
The
public
has
had
an
opportunity
to
comment
at
the
Enterprise
Committee
last
week.
They
will
have
another
opportunity
to
comment
at
the
Enterprise
Committee
again,
as
the
public
hearing
remains
open.
A
That
would
be
the
exact
same
thing
if
it
were
left
for
a
different
cycle,
so
I
think
we
should
I
do
think
we
should
move
on
with
the
with
the
process
as
I
think
people
are
very
well
notified.
This
is
this.
This
appointment
has
not
been
in
a
secret,
it's
been
in
most
every
new
source.
We
have
in
the
in
the
twin
cities
and
we
won't,
and
the
new
Enterprise
Committee
is,
is
published
again
for
for
this
Wednesday.
You
have
any
further
comments:
councilmember
Gordon.
C
B
B
Executive
committee
took
action
to
refer
that
executive
action
was
insufficient
to
get
it
to
the
three
votes
required.
But,
however,
the
action
of
the
executive
committee
failed
to
achieve
it's
three
votes.
It
went
to
the
City
Council.
The
fact
that
it
went
to
the
City
Council
was
referred
for
a
public
hearing
notwithstanding.
That
procedure
was
already
done.
Oh
so,.
B
Right,
so,
if
I
could
mr.
mayor
I
think
the
question
when
I'm
asked
this?
That
I
would
answer
is
this
in
the
matter
of
this
procedure?
What
harm
has
been
done
to
any
one
person
individual
or
process
because
of
the
technical
error
and
I?
Think
it's
a
legal
principle
I
would
offer
that
the
rules
of
this
body
exists
to
facilitate
the
transaction
of
its
business,
not
to
obstruct
or
to
frustrate
it
that
principle
of
law
notwithstanding
there
has
been,
as
you
noted,
many
opportunities
for
the
public
to
engage
in
this
process.
B
In
fact,
as
noted
by
members
on
the
record,
contacts
have
been
made
to
individuals
to
groups.
There
are
opportunities
to
contact
the
elected
officials.
We've
had
not
one,
but
now
two
public
hearings.
The
matter
has
been
before,
not
one
but
two
of
the
executive
committee
meetings.
So
if
the
council
wishes
to
delay
this
or
restart
the
process,
the
council
has
that
power.
B
I
was
asked
to
explain
where
we're
at
now
in
the
existing
process
in
the
existing
process,
this
body
is
correcting
a
technical
error
to
achieve
a
definitive
vote
up
or
down.
All
members
of
the
committee
are
here:
they
can
certainly
vote
on
this
process.
The
referral
to
the
City
Council
anticipated
by
the
Charter
would
proceed
anyways.
If
you
wish
to
maintain
that
process,
the
council
acts
the
fact
that
the
council
sends
it
to
a
public
hearing
by
a
committee
is
to
help
the
council
do
its
job.
B
We
stay
on
track
and
have
the
council
take
its
final
action
at
this
in
this
cycle
still
satisfies
the
Charter
timeline,
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
you
don't
wish
to
follow
that
timeline,
that's
the
council's
choice,
so
I
was
asked
to
give
that
interpretation
in
terms
of
where
we
are
in
the
process.
That's
where
we
are
in
the
process.
If
there
is
a
motion
to
approve
the
appointment
of
move
it
forward,
the
committee
certainly
could
entertain
an
alternative
motion,
but
there
is
a
motion
on
the
floor.
E
A
D
Member
Johnson
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I
think
it
just
makes
sense
to
refer
to
the
council
so
that
there's
not
this
legal
question
about
it.
I
understand
the
legal
explanation,
but
just
to
make
it
clear
to
folks
in
the
public
that
you
know
there
is
no
legal
doubt
about
it
in
case
they
have
a
difference
of
opinion
on
it.
So
I
would
definitely
be
interested
in
a
motion
for
that
I'm
trying
to
look
up
our
original
motion
from
the
last
committee,
so
it
looks
like
comfortable
recording
on
speak,
so
maybe
he's
got
a
motion.
E
E
I
think
there
was
intended
to
be
a
special
meeting
for
the
consideration
of
another
department
head,
which,
let's
just
finalize
all
of
that
I,
make
sure
everyone
on
this
committee
is
comfortable
with
it
now,
so
that
we
can
stop
adding
all
of
these
extra
special
meetings
so
that
people
have
to
have
such
a
hard
time
following
this
process.
Mr.
B
Mayor
if
the
intention
of
this
body
is
to
proceed
along
the
timeline
that
I
believe
I
understand,
council
member
Johnson
has
proposed.
It
is
to
take
a
definitive
action
by
this
body
today
and
refer
to
the
City
Council
consistent
with
the
city
charter.
At
its
meeting,
this
Friday,
the
City
Council
then
on
Friday,
would
refer
the
matter
to
its
public
hearing
to
the
committee.
It
chooses
on
Friday,
as
the
council
president
has
pointed
out,
if
it
wishes
to
continue
on
the
path
where
this
goes
to
the
Enterprise
Committee.
B
We
are
in
the
process
of
trying
to
schedule
a
special
meeting,
the
Enterprise
Committee,
because
it
does
not
meet
in
the
next
cycle.
It
only
meets
once
per
month.
We
certainly
could
do
that
or
it
could
refer
it
to
a
separate
committee.
As
members
know,
there
was
a
point
where
we
were
talking
about
sending
this
matter
to
the
Committee
of
the
Whole
which
meets
every
cycle,
so
there
are
options
there,
and
it
is
the
council's
choice
as
to
which
committee
it's
ins,
a
matter
too.
C
A
F
B
Mayor
again,
under
our
rules
and
under
legal
principles
of
interpretation
of
procedural
rules,
we
are
dealing
with
procedural
rules,
not
with
the
law.
The
procedural
rule
is
that
the
executive
committee
would
act
and
refer
to
counsel
and
counsel
would
set
the
hearing.
A
technical
violation
of
a
procedural
rule
by
a
legislative
body
of
its
own
adopted
rules
which
are
not
required
by
a
higher-ranking
Authority
do
not
invalidate
its
action.
Therefore,
the
action
today
is
to
correct
the
procedural
vote
to
get
the
minimum
three
votes
in
order
to
keep
the
process
moving
on
the
current
timeline.
A
C
So
our
original
action
that
we
took
on
the
from
xx
included
two
steps.
We
considered
the
nomination
and
the
second
was
referring
the
appointment
to
the
City
Council
for
the
setting
of
a
public
hearing.
My
issue
is,
we
didn't
properly
actually
vote
to
refer
it
to
the
council?
No
I,
don't
think
the
committee
has
to
kill
things.
What
we
do
in
other
committees
is,
we
usually
say,
move
it
forward
without
recommend
nation
and,
quite
frankly,
I
abstained.
Last
time
thinking
it
would
go
forward.
A
That's
correct,
council
member,
so
we
we
have
already
referred
it
and
we
have
often
voted
to
not
to
refer
something
without
a
recommendation
before
at
the
council.
So
I
think
it
takes
a
similar
path
there.
Nobody
disputes
that
error
took
place
here,
err
did
take
place
and
that's
the
purpose
of
this
executive
committee
was.
It
was
scheduled
to
correct
that
error.
C
F
E
B
Mr.
mayor
to
clarify,
are
you
asking
council
president,
if
the
special
meeting
in
the
next
cycle
in
this
current
cycle,
but
believe
we've
noticed
the
special
meeting
for
the
Enterprise
Committee
at
1:15
on
Wednesday,
so
that
process
has
already
been
issued
to
the
public
in
terms
of
continuing
to
meeting
from
last
Thursday?
So
then,.
E
I
just
want
to
make
very
clear
here
that
this
committee
and
all
members
are
comfortable
with
the
full
process
that
we
are
going
to
follow
going
forward.
For
example,
if
we
weren't
going
to
take
this
special
action
today,
I
would
have
preferred
not
to
come
in
and
rearrange
my
schedule
to
be
here.
So
my
understanding
with
this
motion
is
that
we
will
move
this
to
go
to
the
council
meeting
to
set
another
public
hearing.
E
C
Just
say
that
we
aren't
necessarily
doing
that.
We're
not
necessarily
saying
that
there
has
to
be
a
public
hearing,
we're
doing
our
work
to
refer
it
to
the
council,
and
then
the
council,
at
their
meeting
at
our
meeting,
can
decide
what
to
do
with
this
matter.
But
but
if
they
want
to
follow
the
procedure,
then
they
can
properly
set
a
public
hearing
for
some
time
in
the
future.
C
B
Mayor
to
Claire,
just
just
clarify
it.
Mr.
Gordon
is
correct.
First
and
foremost,
though,
we
have
an
amendment
before
us
that
has
to
be
voted
on
correct,
so
first,
the
amendment
would
have
to
pass.
If
that
amendment
passes,
though
mr.
Gordon
correctly
says
that
the
council
could
choose
not
to
have
further
public
hearing.
E
You
mr.
chair
mr.
Clark,
and
to
my
colleagues
again
I,
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
that
there
is
the
official
rules
that
we
must
follow,
and
then
there
are
questions
about
how
we
are
being
most
transparent
and
accessible
to
the
public
and
again,
while
we
are
all
sitting
here,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
every
member
of
this
executive
committee
is
comfortable
with
us
having
a
second
special
public
hearing
at
1:15
on
Wednesday.
E
A
Thank
You
council
president
I
I
am
not
comfortable
with
how
the
the
motion
is
is
framed.
I
think
that
unnecessarily
sets
yet
another
public
hearing
to
take
place.
Yet
another
several
meetings
to
take
place.
People
have
already
been
notified
that
there
is
an
extension
of
the
public
hearing
on
Wednesday
and,
in
fact,
they're
already
organizing
to
come
out
and
attend
and
oppose
or
support.
A
So
we've
had
multiple
opportunities
at
this
point.
I
think
more
opportunities,
perhaps
than
ever
before,
to
comment
on
a
particular
individuals,
appointment
or
negation
of
that
appointment
and
I
I
think
the
the
right
action
just
for
both
efficiency
standpoint
and
the
transparency
is
to
move
forward.
So
I
encourage
my
colleagues
to
vote
against
this
amendment.
E
Chair
mr.
mayor
well,
I
agree
with
you.
I
am
gonna
support.
The
motion
I
feel
that,
even
though
I
believe
the
colleagues
that
are
amazing
the
most
questions
about
this
are
gonna
vote
against
the
appointment
anyway.
I
really
do
feel
that
it's
important
for
us
as
a
body
to
show
public
confidence
in
our
decisions,
and
if
there
are
any
questions
about
us,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
miss
eagels
tenure,
as
our
city
attorney,
isn't
tainted
by
our
error
here.
A
Any
further
discussion
on
this
item
on
councilmember
Gordon's
motion,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
I,
all
those
opposed
say.
No,
no,
that
motion
passes
and
then
on
to
the
underlying
motion,
which
is
the
reappointment
of
Susan
Segal
through
the
executive
committee.
Any
further
discussion,
councilmember
Gordon
I
just.
C
F
C
No
I
already
know
my
understanding
is
that
we
just
voted
to
amend
the
motion
to
include
both
parts
from
February
20th.
So
there
was
two
actions
that
we're
considering
and
I
was
told
that
it
could.
The
issue
couldn't
be
divided.
I
was
just
gonna
request
it
to
you
know
how
often
at
our
meetings
we
will
when
we
have
a
multi-part
resolution
or
something
we'll
divide.
The
question
so
I
was
requesting
to
divide
the
question,
but
I
think
that
was
ruled
out
of
order.
I.
C
The
way
that
we
did
it
on
the
20th
is
we
had
two
actions
that
we
one
was
to
recommend
approval
of
the
appointment
and
two
was
to
refer
to
the
council.
So
I
thought
we
were
gonna
to
actions.
We
were
approving
now
since
I
amended
your
one
action
to
add
the
referral
to
the
council.
It's
not
a
big
deal.
I
can
just
abstain
from
the
vote.