►
Description
Minneapolis Public Safety & Emergency Management Committee Meeting
A
Buenos
dias,
everyone
today
is
January
23rd
2019,
and
this
is
a
regularly
scheduled
of
the
public
safety
and
emergency
management
committee.
This
morning
we
are
joined
by
council
vice
president
Andrea
Jenkins
councilmember
Steve,
Fletcher,
councilmember,
Philippe,
Cunningham
and
council
member
lenay
Palmisano.
My
name
is
alundra
Cano
and
I
am
the
chair
of
this
committee.
Together,
we
are
a
quorum
and
therefore
can
conduct
the
official
business
of
our
committee
this
morning.
Our
agenda
is
before
us
and
we
have
one
six
items
today.
A
We
will
begin
by
hosting
our
regularly
scheduled
public
comment
period
where
everyone
is
invited
to
come
and
share
their
ideas.
Thoughts
concerns
questions
about
items
of
public
safety
as
they
relate
to
the
work
of
our
committee.
So
we
will
begin
with
that
and
if
there's
anybody
here
in
the
audience
that
is
willing
to
come
up
and
share
their
thoughts,
please
feel
free
to
take
the
podium
and
introduce
yourselves
morning.
B
Good
morning,
I'm
Mary
Moriarty
as
I
live
in
Minneapolis,
ok
and
I'm,
the
chief
public
defender
in
Hennepin
County.
As
you
know,
chair
Cano
I,
have
copied
you
on
a
letter
to
miss
Siegel,
outlining
my
concerns
about
the
contract
approval
with
the
first
48.
Actually
just
this
morning,
I
got
an
email
on
my
data
request.
I
had
requested
the
names
of
any
clients
whose
cases
might
have
been
videoed.
The
response
I
got
was
that
MPD
has
does
not
have
any
of
that
information.
B
I
had
also
asked
for
all
agreements
relating
to
the
situation
and
they
sent
me
a
contract.
That
was
blank
which
I
actually
saw
when
a
reporter
gave
that
to
me
last
week.
So
here
am
I
I.
Don't
want
to
take
up
too
much
of
your
time,
but
I
want
to
talk
about
my
concerns
here.
You
should
think
about
this.
B
As
body
cam,
when
police
have
video
of
witnesses,
crime
scenes
interviews
with
witnesses,
interviews
with
police
officers,
they
have
to
give
that
to
the
prosecution
and
the
prosecution
has
to
give
it
to
us
that
is
under
the
Constitution
and
Minnesota
law
when
MPD
decides
to
give
inside
access
and
I'm,
not
talking
about
access
by
a
bystander
filming,
but
when
they
decide
to
give
a
film
company
or
anybody
else
inside
access
and
that
information
should
also
be
disclosed
to
us.
So
here
are
my
concerns.
B
We
are
in
a
situation
where,
apparently,
there
have
been
hundreds
of
hours
of
video
filmed
and
MPD
has
absolutely
no
idea.
Nor
does
anybody
have
any
idea
what
was
filmed
nothing-
and
this
is
I-
think
this
project
is
done.
It's
been
going
on
since
April
of
2017.
Our
office
has
not
received
any
disclosure
of
anything
involving
any
of
our
clients
and
I'm
extremely
concerned.
B
B
The
other
thing
that's
important
is
that
in
looking
at
the
contract,
that's
here
for
approval,
it
shifts
the
burden
to
us
as
the
defense
to
subpoena
this
information
and
I
have
no
idea
how
we
could
possibly
subpoena
information
when
we
have
no
idea
who's
been
filmed.
The
other
thing
is
that
we
don't
have
to
subpoena.
We
don't
have
that
obligation
in
court.
It
is
a
fundamental
right
that
an
accused
person
by
the
government
has
a
right
to
all
of
the
information
relating
to
their
case.
B
We
don't
have
to
subpoena
that
the
burden
isn't
on
us,
it's
under
the
Constitution
and
under
Minnesota
law,
that
the
prosecution
has
to
hand
that,
over
and
by
law,
the
prosecution
and
police
are
deemed
to
be
a
team.
So
my
concern
here
is
that
if
this
contract
is
approved,
not
only
do
we
have
no
idea
who's
been
filmed,
but
the
burden
is
on
us
to
subpoena
this
information,
and
then
the
contract
appears
to
give
the
producer
the
right
to
contest
whether
this
information
should
be
disclosed.
I
brought
this
just
as
a
visual.
B
We
were
involved
in
the
litigation
involving
the
first
48
because
one
of
our
clients
who
is
accused
of
a
double
homicide
his
case
was
filmed.
This
is
only
the
the
paperwork
for
the
litigation
on
that
one
issue,
because
the
production
company
claimed
journalistic
privilege
that
it
did
not
have
to
give
the
prosecutor
this
information
as
well.
We
spent
months
litigating
this
we
had
to
get
a
lawyer
in
New
York
to
serve
a
subpoena
on
them
there
they
claimed
that
they
did
not.
B
First
of
all
the
city
attorney's
position
was
we
don't
have
to
hand
this
over
because
we
don't
own
it,
and
so
we
had
to
go
to
court.
The
county
attorney's
office
joined
us
because
they
knew
it
was
their
obligation
to
hand
over
this
and
they
wanted
it
to
because
in
the
first
48
they
actually
took
video
of
our
client
or
clients
being
interrogated
of
witnesses
being
interviewed
and
of
the
crime
scene.
So,
of
course,
we
all
wanted
that
this.
This
was
the
amount
I
mean
we
had
to
put
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
into
it.
B
Finally,
the
court,
the
district
court
here
ruled
in
our
favor
and
then
the
production
company,
which
hired
a
big
law
firm
here,
appealed
to
our
appellate
court
that
was
going
to
delay
the
process
for
months
and
our
client
had
been
sitting
in
custody.
Our
client
decided
he
didn't
want
to
wait
in
custody
and
by
the
way
there
were
two
deceased
people
here
whose
families
wanted
some
closure
here
too.
So
this
had
an
impact
on
all
of
us.
Our
client
went
ahead.
B
He
was
acquitted
of
those
two
murder
charges
and
that
meant
that
the
appeal
was
dismissed.
So
our
higher
courts
have
not
decided
about
the
journalistic
privilege
issue,
that's
right
to
litigate
right
now,
so
my
concern
is
even
though
the
contract
says
we
can
subpoena
it,
which
we
shouldn't
have
to
do
by
law.
They
it
leaves
it
open
for
them
to
litigate
this
issue
again.
B
So
I
I
struggle
with
the
idea
that
MPD-
and
this
clearly
happened
back
in
former
chief
harteau-
is
rain
here
after
the
first
48,
which
she
was
a
part
of,
they
submitted
an
affidavit
saying
they
didn't
have
this
information
and
couldn't
hand
it
over
to
us
that
she
would
once
again
agree
to
engage
or
invite
a
film
company
in
give
them
inside
access.
I.
B
Think
it's
bad
policy
that
the
City
Council
would
allow
MPD
to
try
to
contract
away
their
obligations
under
the
Constitution
and
state
law.
I
was
very
alarmed
by
one
of
the
comments
by
the
police
spokesman
in
the
paper
this
morning
that
nobody
from
MPD
has
ever
seen
any
of
this
and
that
they
have
to
rely
on
the
production
company's
representation
that
there's
nothing
there.
That
would
be
required
to
be
disclosed
now.
I,
don't
know
this
production
company
I,
don't
know
them.
They
may
have
the
best
of
intentions.
B
My
experience
is
with
this
production
company,
who
claimed
that
film
of
a
murder
investigation
didn't
have
to
be
disclosed,
so
I
think
it's
bad
policy
to
cut
to
attempt
to
contract
away
your
rights.
Your
obligations.
Excuse
me
under
the
Constitution.
The
other
thing
is,
you
know
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
and
I
very
much
appreciate
all
of
you
for
talking
about
criminal
justice
reform.
I
really
do
we
talked
about
bail
reform,
the
city,
the
Minneapolis,
City
Attorney's
Office,
has
been
a
great
partner
in
many
justice
reforms,
but
this
isn't
reform
this
isn't
about
reform.
B
This
is
a
fundamental
issue.
That's
been
settled
by
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
and
by
our
Minnesota
law.
For
years,
when
the
government
accuses
a
citizen,
a
person
of
eight
crime,
it
is
the
government's
obligation
to
hand
over
that
video
that
evidence
so
that
this
person
can
defend
themselves.
So
I'm
asking
you
if
it
was
you
or
your
loved
one
or
a
family
member
that
was
accused.
Would
you
be
okay
hearing
that
MPD
was
allowed
to
attempt
to
sign
over
it's
obligations
under
the
Constitution,
and
so
they
didn't
have
access
to
the
ER?
A
So
I
appreciate
you
coming
to
speak
to
us
today.
Thank
you
very
much
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
have
an
orderly
meeting
here
today.
What
I'll
do
is
move
to
receive
and
file
your
public
comments,
and
then
you
can
take
a
seat.
I
will
then
pull
the
item
that
you're
referencing
up
for
discussion
out
for
discussion,
pulling
it
off
of
the
consent
agenda.
A
So
we
can
have
a
brief
conversation
about
this
in
case
there
are
questions,
or
we
want
to
ask
our
City
Attorney's,
Office
representative,
for
some
clarification
and
and
then
before.
The
discussion
of
course
will
approve
that
consent
items,
and
then
we
can
decide
what
we
want
to
do
with
the
item
for
discussion
in
terms
of
how
we
want
to
forward
it
on
to
the
full
City
Council.
So
so
thank
you
for
your
time
and
for
the
you
should
express
your
concerns
and
for
writing
to
us.
A
C
My
name
is
Jeanette
Levinson
I
am
Thurmond
revenues
and
you
know
she
was
involved
in
the
shooting
this
summer.
So
I'm
here
to
help
support
the
IJ
is
at
the
IGR
intergovernmental
relations
committee
and
I
just
want
to
help
work
on
that
and
I
try
and
help
him
and
also
others
involved
in
shootings.
You
know
that,
were
they
I
know,
a
lot
of
them
are
young,
you
know
and-
and
it's
you
know
too
bad-
that
they
get
caught
up
in
violence.
You
know,
but
I'd
also
like
to
help
work.
C
A
You
so
much
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
come,
and
if
you
know
my
Kelly
will
be
able
to
sign
you
in,
but
also
maybe
Kelly.
Can
you
give
her
the
date
and
time
of
the
IGR
meeting,
where
I
believe
the
police
charter
amendment
might
be
being
discussed
which
might
be
connected
to
the
issues
that
she's
interested
in
no.
A
A
A
So
you
might
remember
that
this
item
was
slated
for
for
approval
a
few
cycles
ago
in
public
safety,
and
we
did
receive
communication
from
external
partners
about
looking
at
this
item,
and
so
what
we
did
is
we
decided
to
delay
by
a
few
cycles
and
that
allowed
councilman,
Fletcher
and
I
to
have
a
phone
conference
call
with
the
filmmakers
to
better
understand
the
scope,
intent
and
and
context
of
this
particular
project.
Our
city
attorney's
office
was
able
to
facilitate
that
connection
and
joined
us
for
the
conversation.
A
I
was
impressed
with
the
amount
of
thought
and
nuance
that
the
filmmakers
presented
in
terms
of
what
they
were
hoping
to
do
with
this
particular
film.
They
did
point
to
the
project
that
Miss
Moriarty
had
discussed
earlier
as
a
something
that
is
not
an
example
of
what
they're
trying
to
work
on
or
do
so.
We
did
have
that
conversation
and
I
do
just
want
to
ask
for
clarity,
prefer
for
point
of
information
and
public
transparency.
A
Here
we
did
discuss
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
the
the
video
would
include
footage
of
folks
who
are
being
questioned
or
apprehended,
and
one
answer
from
the
filmmakers
was
that
they
have
to
go
through
a
hearty
legal
process.
Review
of
the
film
before
anything
like
that
would
ever
be
exposed
or
feature
in
the
film
but
I'm
curious.
If
our
city
attorney
can
help
us
understand
whether
or
not
there's
a
specific
clause,
it
was
in
the
contract
that
talks
about
that
that
issue.
E
If
a
court
case
of
any
type
civil
or
criminal
comes
up
the
the
film
production
company
they're
under
the
contract,
they
would
provide
us
a
full
copy
of
all
the
footage
and
that
then
we
did
a
agree
that
we
would
participate
in
the
process
with
them
about
getting
a
court
to
look
at
the
footage,
determine
whether
or
not
the
probe
which
exists
and
if
it
does
exist.
If
there's
any
other
way
to
get
the
evidence
to
overcome
the
privilege.
A
F
You,
madam
chair,
this
contractor
this
motion
that
we're
taking
says
it's
specifically
to
enter
an
access,
Department
property
and
facilities,
so
this
isn't
to
like
go
rolling
around
at
the
police
department.
Rather,
this
is
about
going
into
facilities
where
perhaps
people
that
have
been
arrested
or
something
would
be
present
correct,
but
but
I
guess
I'm
struggling
with
how
with
what
the
need
is
to
allow
a
filmmaker
to
enter
and
access
our
facilities
and,
secondly,
to
Moriarty's
important
question.
F
E
I
understand
your
question
correctly,
council
member,
so
the
way
I
understand
this
usually
works
with
production.
Companies
like
this
is
that
they
shoot
the
footage
and
they
possess
the
footage,
as
far
as
I
mean
I,
think
it's
a
pretty
standard
access
agreement
that
was
presented
to
us
by
the
film
company
when
we
became
involved
and
wanted
to
formalize
this
relationship
just
to
for,
among
other
reasons,
to
make
sure
we
had
access
to
the
footage.
E
And
I,
don't
I,
don't
I
think
there
was
some
video
taken
with
some
of
our
women
officers
on
the
MPD
in
a
squad
car
some
in
I
beliefs
in
their
homes.
You
know
the
approach
of
the
project
was
not
really
MPD
officers
engaging
in
law
enforcement
activities
that
might
involve
MS
Moriarty's
clients.
It
was.
It
was
a
different
focus
than
that
so,
but
as
to
your
question
of
how
do
we
know
what
footage
is
there?
We?
E
F
I
think
it
does
in
part
I'm
I'm
pleased
that,
in
continuing
to
bring
this
line
of
work
and
first
responders
very
important
and
very
hard
work
to
the
forefront
that
we're
looking
to
share
more
of
it,
I
mean
I.
Think
the
intentions
behind
this
agreement
were
very
good.
I
just
I,
don't
know
how
much
of
the
intent
here
was
to
film
our
female
swarn
going
to
work
in
the
morning
and
their
offices.
F
E
Understanding
is,
and
again,
I
haven't
seen
a
single
moment
of
the
footage,
but
my
understanding
is
a
large
focus
of
the
project
was,
for
instance,
commander
cheeto
is
one
of
the
MPD
personnel
that
are
the
subject
of
the
film
shows
her.
You
know
engaging
in
training
in
her
office.
Things
like
that.
So.
G
Sort
of
challenging
set
of
issues
here
and
I
usually
find
myself
pretty
aligned
with
our
public
defender
and
and
I'm.
Finding
myself
feeling
a
little
bit
differently
today
on
this
issue
in
that
I
think,
there's
a
balance
between
how
we
think
about
access
to
evidence,
but
also
how
we
invite
the
public
and
third
parties
and
to
look
at
our
practices
to
be
able
to
study
the
police
I
feel
like
at
some
level.
G
G
We
shouldn't
actually
be
inviting
access
for
like
an
exploitive
reality
show
or
some
sort
of
you
know,
and
we
should
be
thinking
about
what
kind
of
content
we
invite
in,
but
here
there's
a
they're
starting
from
a
from
a
research
question
that
that
I
think
is
compelling
and
it's
worth
getting
answered
and
I'd
be
worried
about.
How
could
we
allow
studies
like
that
if
the
act
of
giving
access
is
interpreted
so
broadly,
that
any
of
that
makes
it
essentially
something
that
MPD
needs
to
act
as
though
it
is
theirs
right?
G
You
can't
get
studies
funded
or
done
if
you
don't
sort
of
own
and
access
the
footage,
and
so
there's
a
I
think
there's
a
set
of
ethics
questions
I
think
there's
a
set
of
best
practices
that
we
should
be
thinking
about.
Moving
forward
about
how
we
do
this,
in
this
case,
I,
think
the
biggest
question
for
me
and
one
that
all
that
I'll
ask
in
a
second.
G
It
makes
us
a
little
bit
hard
because
I
think
there
is
a
suggestion
here
that
we
should
be
more
proactively
documenting
what
interactions
are
recorded,
whereas
the
film
crew
presence,
so
that
it
would
be
easier
to
know
if
footage
exists,
right,
I
think
that
there
is
a
best
practice
suggested
there.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
and
in
this
case
it's
coming
to
us
after
the
fact
right,
most
of
the
production
is
done
and
so
I
guess
I'm
curious.
Why
are
we
hearing
about
this
now?
G
Why
wasn't
this
approval
done
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
or
you
know,
back
before
production
started
most
of
the
productions
that
I've
worked
on
in
my
documentary
filmmaker
past,
we
got
our
clearances
upfront.
That
was
pretty
important.
You
know
for
to
make
sure
that
we
felt
confident
that
the
investment
we're
making
in
production
was
going
to
result
in
footage
to
leave
allowed
to
use.
So
we're
only
hearing
about
this
now
I
guess
would.
E
Councilmember
Fletcher
members
of
the
committee
I,
the
MPD,
is
probably
more
properly
the
entity
to
speak
to
that
issue,
but
I.
Sometimes
these
things
begin
organically
and
it
could
have
been
former
chief
harteau
meeting
one
of
the
production
film
makers
in
this
or
that
setting
they
start
to
talk
about
the
project,
and
you
know
if
the
project
begins
before
before
everybody
else
in
the
MPD
in
my
office
knows
about
it
and
once
we
become
involved,
we
make
sure
that
you
know
that
we
kind
of
formalized
this
relationship
as
quickly
as
we
can.
G
Thank
you
so
I
think
there's
sort
of
two
questions
in
front
of
us.
Then
right,
there's
sort
of
one
question
which
is
best
practices
moving
forward
and
I
think
that
I
would
request
that
MPD
well
I
guess
we
should
think
about
where
that
should
happen
at
this
might
actually
be
something
we
want
to
think
about
enterprise-wide
about
sort
of
who
do
we
give
access
to
and
how
does
that
work
and
does
the
city
on
it?
But
it's
a
specific
MPD
question
because
of
the
issues
that
most
Moriarty
is
raising
and
so
I
wonder
if.
G
E
Fletcher
members
of
the
committee
I
think
that's
a
good
idea,
I
think
sometimes
you
know
you
know
we're
the
last
to
find
out
about
a
project
going
on
I
think
if
it
goes
through
the
communications
process.
I
think
you
know
that
would
be
you
know.
Getting
my
office
involved
in
the
communications
office.
Staff
involved
early
on
would
be
definitely
a
best
practice
going
forward.
E
G
The
first
thing
might
be
a
staff
direction
to
come
back
to
us
with
a
plan
about
how
we're
going
to
engage
the
attorney's
office
in
the
communications
office
early
in
the
process
when
we
get
these
requests.
I
think
that
that's
something
that
I'd
be
prepared
to
offer,
but
in
terms
of
the
issue
that
we're
considering
here,
then
the
question
is:
what
do
we
do
with
this
contract?
G
Given
that
the
horse
has
left
the
barn
in
terms
of
the
production,
I
think
the
request
to
get
to
get
a
sort
of
list
of
participation
that
correlates
with
dates.
That
at
least
gives
us
some
sort
of
a
guide
mark
about
when
footage
would
have
been
recorded
under
what
contexts
with
what
officers
participating,
I
think
is
a
good
step.
Is
that
something
that
you
have
a
sense
that
there
might
be
coordination,
or
it
might
be
like
that
they're
willing
to
do
I.
G
A
G
A
H
You,
madam
chair,
still
around
the
research
questions
and
diving
in
for
trans
public
transparency
sake.
I,
think
it's
helpful
for
us
to
have
that
information
and
the
RCA.
The
background
analysis,
because,
what's
currently
available
to
in
a
public
record,
is
a
one-sentence
background
analysis
which
makes
it
seem
like
it's
oversimplified.
This
is
way
more
complicated
than
it's
just
about
women
in
uniform
and
following
their
story.
H
It's
far
more
complicated
than
that
and
I
think
that
to
be
able
to
reassure
the
public,
we
need
to
be
able
to
have,
like
the
research
questions,
the
vote
that
we're
looking
that
is
being
looked
into.
What
what
is
the
general
theme
of
it?
What
is
it
going
to
look
like?
Is
it
in
their
personal
lives?
Is
it
out
on
the
streets
just
to
be
able
to
have
some
more
clarity
as
well
and
I?
Think
having
it
up
front
will
be
really
helpful
and
they
had
a
question
for
the
city
attorney.
H
Can
you
please
describe
in
layman's
terms
what
happens
within
this
contract?
As
you
understand
it,
if
I
were,
for
example,
I
were
to
be
arrested
and
questioned?
How
would
that
like?
What
would
then
be
the
process
in
this
current
contract?
That
I
would
be
that
my
legal
defense
team
would
be
able
to
acquire
that,
so
that
folks
understand.
E
We
forgotten
more
about
this
topic
than
I'll
ever
know,
but
my
understanding
is
under
this
particular
contract
and
then
I
think
it
was
the
same
in
the
first
instance
of
the
first
48
access
agreement,
the
prosecutors
and
the
police
obligation
to
turn
over
evidence
when
somebody
is
arrested
and
charged
with
a
crime
is
to
turn
over
everything
that
they
possess.
E
In
the
in
the
instance
of
the
first
48,
they
were
very
careful
to
make
sure
that
the
police
department,
when
the
prosecutors
didn't
possess,
have
physical
control
and
possession
of
any
of
the
footage
and
then
employed
upon
the
court
to
go
through
the
kind
of
journalists
shield
analysis
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
so
that
I
believe
that
that
would
be
the
the
same
process.
That
would
we
would
go
through
in
this
case.
H
So
within
that
there
there
too,
so
if
so,
what
I
hear
you
saying
is
that
within
this
contract
or
similar
contracts,
the
production
company
tries
to
maintain
all
of
the
footage.
So
then
it's
no
longer
in
MPD's
hands,
for
example,
and
then
that
then
cannot
be
just
turned
over,
because
it's
no
longer
in
their
possession.
E
That's
correct
and
bear
in
mind
too.
You
know
if,
in
the
case
of
an
arrest
and
a
person
charged
with
a
crime,
there
will
be
extensive,
Police,
Department
evidence
and
police
reports
that
the
evidence
gathered
that
would
by
law,
be
turned
over
to
the
defense
and
the
prosecution
in
a
criminal.
Proceeding.
E
H
With
him
within
that
the
and
the
spent
my
last
question
sorry
so
within
within
that
the
question
that
I
have
is
that
are
there
policy
mechanisms
that
are
possible
to
be
able
to
keep
the
transparency
there
rather
than
having
to
go
through
the
process
of
the
production
company
owns
all
of
it?
So
then
they
have
to
subpoena
for
it
and
like
they
have
to
be
a
whole
thing.
You.
I
I
A
B
They
come
again
Thank
You,
chair,
Connell,
councilmember,
Jenkins,
I,
appreciate
that
question.
It
is
a
much
bigger
issue
and
to
clarify
we're
not
talking
about
footage
that
ends
up
in
the
actual
film,
we
would
be
entitled
to
all
hundreds
of
hours
of
video,
so
it's
not
just
that.
We're
also
entitled
to
it.
It's
not
just
if
our
client
is
part
of
the
process.
It
is
if
any
of
these
police
officers
were
interviewed
about
the
case
as
well.
That's
a
huge
issue
as
well,
so
the
big
broad
issue
is.
B
We
have
absolutely
no
idea
what
was
filmed
and
to
hear
the
filmmakers
say
it
wasn't.
The
focus
is
not
an
answer
to
the
question
of
were
any
of
our
clients.
Cases
filmed
that's
the
answer.
We
don't
have
and
I
don't
think
we
can
ever
know
that
proper.
Actually,
unless
somebody
from
MPD
or
a
prosecutor's
office
actually
sits
through
all
this
footage
and
looks
at
it,
we
ought
not
have
to
rely
on
a
filmmaker
who
has
a
very
different
view.
B
Understandably
of
what
should
be
handed
over
to
tell
us
what's
relevant
to
our
case,
and
it's
not
a
balancing
situation.
We're
talking
about
our
concept
where
our
clients,
constitutional
rights
here
I
mean
I,
can't
emphasize
that
enough,
and
it's
what
and
and
our
bigger
concern
is.
Yes,
we
have
to
subpoena
this
that's
a
problem
because
we
don't
have
to
subpoena
anything
else.
B
Then,
once
we
subpoena
it,
if
we
can
figure
out
what
we're
subpoenaed,
we
have
to
litigate
once
again
the
journalistic
privilege,
which
was
that
stack
of
papers
I
had,
and
we
overcame
that
by
the
way
the
county
attorney's
office,
you
should
know,
joined
us
in
that
motion.
They
were
very
upset
about
the
contract
with
MPD.
They
thought
it
was
inappropriate.
B
If
information
has
not
been
disclosed
and
we
find
out
about
it
and
I'm
not
even
sure
what
there
may
be
motions
to
dismiss
for
prosecutorial
misconduct,
there
may
be
motions
to
reopen
cases.
So
this
is
a
big
issue
and
I
do
appreciate
that
it's
transparency
is
important
and
you
know
I
particular
empathy
for
the
idea.
This
is
about
part
of
it
is
about
how
women
are
treated
at
MPD.
I,
get
that
I
do
understand
that,
but
it
isn't
so
much
of
a
balancing.
It
is
recognizing
that
sometimes
you
simply
can't
do
certain
things.
B
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
have
two
questions
and
one
is
more
I
think
a
question
for
our
city,
clerk
and
I
understand.
This
has
been
happening
for
the
better
part
of
two
years
now
and
in
my
own
experience,
having
inspector
wait
come
to
what
was
going
to
be
an
admittedly
tense
community
meeting.
My
understanding
was
this:
film
crew
is
going
to
show
up
and
then
out
of
sensitivity
for
the
topic
chose
not
to
I
mean
they
seem
to
be
acting
very
appropriately,
even
in
a
setting.
F
That's
a
public
meeting
that
people
would
be
welcome
to
come
in
and
film
any
member
of
the
public.
But
my
question
for
the
clerk
is
back
in
2017.
Do
I
forget
and
we
didn't
take
a
vote
unlisted.
Was
there
any
sort
of
anything
that
came
through
public
safety
committee
or
council
about
the
embarking
on
this
women
in
blue
and
the
city
of
Minneapolis?
Do
you
know.
F
And
then
my
other
question
is
is
maybe
for
the
chairs
of
this
committee
is
you've
spoken
about?
That's
not
the
research
research
question
and
in
the
RCA.
What
is
the
research
question
I
understand
from
the
RCA?
This
is
about
gender
and
violence
and
policing
and
those
are
really
important
topics.
But
can
you
share
more
from
your
converse?
They?
What
is
the
research
question
and
are
there
any
deliverables?
A
I'll
start
customer
Palmisano
I
appreciate
your
questions
and
the
robust
discussion.
We're
having
about
this
item
so
on.
I
am
NOT
able
to
speak
to
the
frame
of
a
research
question,
because
that's
not
the
way
that
the
filmmakers
discussed.
It
I
think
that
was
more
something
a
frame
that
that
the
discussion
has
currently
put
put
on
the
conversation.
It's
it's
a
film
project,
and
so
the
direct
deliverable
will
be
a
film.
There
is
a
timeline
that
they
need
to
stick
to.
A
And
so
her
her
initiative
came
from
a
very
personal
I
guess,
experience
of
wanting
to
learn
more
about
how
policing
work
is
done
and
implemented
through
the
lens
of
women,
from
the
departure
of
her
personal
interest
in
the
topic
and
only
having
access
to
one
female
police
officer,
which
happened
to
be
her
friend
that
she
continually
you
know
reached
out
to
to
get
questions
answered
about
them.
The
things
of
police
and
policing,
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
I
understand
this
project
to
be
coming
from.
A
G
G
Female
officers
were
less
likely
to
escalate
to
use
the
Force
in
interactions
in
public
and
they
got
curious
about
what
what
was
causing
that
now.
You
know
what
what's
reflected
in
the
data
and
so
they're,
starting
from
a
very
interesting
I
to
me.
That
constitutes
a
really
interesting
research
question
that
I
would
like
to
learn
more
about,
and
so
they
started
pitching
to
foundations
in
the
public
television.
G
This
is
designed
for
a
public
television
audience,
and
so
that's
that's
likely
where
it
will
air
and
that's
its
funding
source,
and
it's
sort
of
you
know
how
they're,
how
they're
shaping
the
project.
So
that's
what
we
know
about
it.
The
reason
I
actually
got
into
the
queue
it
was
to
ask
a
question:
I'm
curious,
together,
City
Attorney's,
sort
of
response
to
Miss
Moriarty's
characterization,
particularly
of
this
question
of
if,
if
a
third
party
interviews,
an
officer,
does
that
create
an
obligation
for
disclosure
in
discovery
process?
Does
that
constitute
access?
G
Do
we
have
a
definition
of
what
inside
access
means
that
would
create
ownership
and
an
obligation
I'm
trying
to
understand
that
it
feels
surprising,
and
it
feels
like
the
interpretation
as
presented.
Would
create
real
boundaries
to
anybody
ever
studying
or
doing
journalism
about
or
interacting
with
MPD
it
feels
like
it
would
prescribe
some
very
restrictive
rules
about
who
MPD
could
talk
to
outside
of
the
department.
You.
E
E
It's
an
interesting
question.
If
the
the
act
of
being
interviewed
by
a
journalist,
you
know
what.
How
should
the
MPD
record
that
you
know
and
then
what
should
be
turned
over
in
any
particular
case,
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
an
interesting
question.
You
know
I
knowing
police
officers
like
I
know
them.
It
probably
wouldn't
occur
to
most
of
them
or
even
most
of
us.
You
know.
A
I
I
A
D
A
G
A
And
all
those
in
favor
of
I
would
like
to
move
this
item
to
be
moved
forward
to
the
full
City
Council
without
recommendation,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye
and
that
Adam
moves
forward
without
recommendation
all
right.
So
there
are
no
more
items
on
our
agenda
for
today.
However,
however,
before
we
part,
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
all
a
heads
up
that
I
sent
an
email,
noting
that
February
20th
I
believe
is
considered
world
social
justice
Day,
and
we
have
a
public
safety
meeting
scheduled
that
morning
at
10:00
a.m.
A
and
so
we're
hoping
to
do
a
special
presentation
that
morning
highlighting
the
work
that
our
city
does
through
the
Public
Safety
arm
and
Emergency
Management
realm
to
talk
about
social
justice.
And
so,
if
you
have
ideas,
thoughts,
recommendations,
we
are
putting
that
presentation
together
and
welcome
your
input.
I
would
love
to
hear
from
you
within
the
next
24
hours
on
that
and
councilmember
Fletcher
might
have
a
comment.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I.
Think
I
would
like
to
try
to
formulate
a
staff
direction
here
directing
MPD
to
return
to
this
committee
within
three
cycles,
with
a
report
on
their
current
policy
related
to
providing
access
to
journalists,
documentary
crews,
academics
and
other
researchers
and
recommending
policy
changes
that
would
create
greater
transparency
and
compliance
with
evidence.
Rules
in.
A
G
A
All
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
to
move
forward
a
staff
direction
with
the
language
councilmember
Fletcher
mentioned,
with
a
friendly
amendment
to
include
specific
language
around
the
process
of
engaging
the
City
Attorney's
Office,
as
well
as
the
communications
department.
Any
other
discussions,
councilmember
Cunningham
I,
just.
H
G
A
Console
we're
putting
him
well.
H
If
I
made
to
for
clarifications
sake,
make
a
friendly
amendment
to
the
friendly
amendment
to
add
citywide
Enterprise
to
the
second
component
of
it,
so
that
we
get
recommendations
on
citywide
while
we're
also
digging
into
MPD
policies,
just
to
make
sure
we
delineate
those
because
I
think
I
agree
with
council.
Vice
president
Jake,
it's
it's
really
important
for
us
to
think
about
this
citywide,
and
also
that
we
need
to
be
nuanced
thinking
about
how
MPD,
specifically
since
it's
a
it's
a
different
in
a
slightly
higher
stakes.
H
G
I
I
think
respectfully
that
if
we
do
that,
we're
straying
out
of
the
bounds
of
this
committee
and
I
would
suggest
that
we
take
up
a
broader
citywide
question
in
the
enterprise
committee.
I
think
there's
actually
probably
a
very
good
idea
and
I
think
if
people
would
prefer
to
think
about
this
in
a
citywide
frame.
G
H
Just
want
to
say
that
actually
support
the
MPD
piece
of
it.
I
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
between
the
two
I
think
that
it's
important
for
MPD
you
know
to
to
dive
in
and
give
us
some
clear
feedback
on
what
their
current
policies
are
and
bring
recommendations
for
that.
So,
if
I
may,
would
you
not
retract
and
put
it
back
on
the
table
because
I
I
do
I
just
want
to
say,
I
do
agree
and
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
larger
conversation.
H
G
It
please
the
chair.
I
will
retract
my
retraction
and
we'll
we'll
move
a
strap,
a
staff
direction
constrained
to
MPD
and
scope,
requesting
an
update
on
current
policies
and
recommendations
for
future
policies,
including
timely
contact
with
the
communications
department
and
the
City
Attorney's
Office.
A
Wonderful,
ok,
so
that
has
been
clarified
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
staff
direction.
Please
say:
aye
all
right
and
I
really
appreciate
the
motion
of
the
motion.
The
intent
to
pick
up
this
conversation
in
Enterprise
I
think
that
having
our
chair
here
for
the
Enterprise
Committee
will
help
certainly
bring
a
lot
of
depth
to
that
conversation
next
and
come
summer
Palmisano.
If
I.
F
May,
madam
chair,
we
do
some
of
our
enterprise.
Work
is
about
all
data
and
how
we're
using
all
data
and
sharing
all
data
in
the
city.
So
I
think
this
is
one
piece
of
that.
If
we
want
to
go,
if
you
want
to
get
more
specific
with
a
question
for
enterprise
about
things
more
like
the
staff
direction
you
made
here,
then
let's
talk
more
about
that.
F
We
also
have
three
members
of
the
committee
sitting
here
in
public
safety,
so
I'm
open
to
that,
but
I
wonder
how
it
might
already
be
part
of
our
state
of
data
effort
and
doing
something
like
that
on
an
enterprise
basis.
Let's
just
be
really
careful
about
how
we
tailor
that,
so
that
we
get
something
back
that
has
value
so
happy
to
continue
that
part
of
the
conversation,
wonderful.
H
A
A
We're
wrapping
up
our
committee
meeting.
This
is
the
public
safety
and
emergency
management
committee.
We
help
to
oversee
the
police
department
and
the
city's
emergency
response.
So
we're
glad
you
were
able
to
see
a
little
bit
of
what
we
were
doing
today,
but
we're
at
the
end
of
our
committee
meeting
today.
So
we're
going
to
adjourn.
We
have
a
comment
from
customer
Palmisano.
Madam.
F
F
J
So
so
I
am
Sam,
Quincy
I'm,
a
social
studies
teacher
over
at
Jefferson
and
so
at
the
end
of
every
quarter.
J
We're
trying
to
get
out
into
the
community
do
things
that
are
kind
of
off
base
from
the
curriculum,
and
so
we
decided
to
come
to
our
City
Hall,
see
our
representatives
and
things
and
so
we're
coming
from
Jefferson
Community
School
go
Eagles
and
we
are,
we
are
out
seeing
we're
gonna
get
a
nice
of
City,
Hall,
see,
see
our
government
and
things
and
then
and
then
we're
off
to
the
Convention
Center
to
go
kind
of
just
to
around
another
Municipal
Building.
So.