►
From YouTube: August 5, 2020 Charter Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Members
has
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13
d
.021
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
My
name
is
barry
clegg
and
I
am
the
chair
of
the
minneapolis
charter
commission
for
your
information.
If
you're
watching
online,
this
broadcast
may
also
be
viewed
on
comcast
channels,
14
and
799
and
centurylink
channels,
8001
and
8501..
D
E
E
F
E
E
A
A
G
H
D
D
E
E
E
E
F
E
F
I
I
I
A
D
D
C
C
E
E
E
E
F
E
F
I
A
A
That
motion
carries
and
the
minutes
are
adopted.
Next
is
the
chairs
report.
I
only
have
a
couple
of
items.
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
all
commissioners.
We
just
approved
the
minutes
from
five
meetings
and
those
are
meetings
of
the
full
charter
commission.
In
addition
to
that,
there
were
several
meetings
of
of
the
work
group
considering
this
matter.
So
that's
a
lot
of
work
that
we've
done
over
the
last
month
and
the
cost
of
the
city
of
minneapolis
has
been,
as
usual,
zero
I'd
like
to
give
special
thanks
to
commissioner
rubinstein.
A
A
A
F
F
The
public
comments
also
had
addressed
more
than
just
the
gerod
isaacson
amendment
in
the
meetings
before
that
we
had
gathered
as
much
information
as
we
could
and
talked
to
a
number
of
stakeholders,
and
so
it
seemed
that
the
only
business
we
had
yesterday
was
to
repeat
the
conversations
we
just
had
and
for
that
reason
I
had
suggested
we
canceled
the
meeting.
A
Thank
you
and
I
concurred,
so
we
did
cancel
the
meeting.
The
only
other
update
is
that
we're
not
going
to
have
an
update
this
month
on
the
redistricting
work
groups
which
have
been
meeting
over
the
past
few
months,
but
we
will
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
next
month
and
make
sure
we
move
things
along
on
the
redistricting
front.
A
A
We
can't
say:
well,
we
want
more
time,
but
we
also
accept
the
amendment
or
we
can't
say
we
want
to
propose
a
substitute
and
we
want
more
time.
We
can
do
one
of
these
four
things,
but
not
more
than
one.
So
what
I'm
going
to
ask
us
to
do
is
to
have
somebody
make
a
motion
to
do
any
one
of
those
four
things
to
get
the
discussion
started.
A
We'll
then
proceed
to
discuss
the
motion
under
consideration
and
then
act
on
it,
and
if
that
motion
fails
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
person
who's,
making
a
motion,
and
hopefully,
by
the
end
of
the
meeting,
we
will
have
adopted
one
of
these
four
mutually
exclusive
motions,
just
a
a
minute
on
procedure
for
discussion,
I'm
going
to
allow
discussion
around
the
virtual
room
after
we
have
a
motion
and
I'll
give
you
pretty
much
free
hand
to
take
time
for
your
initial
comments.
A
If
you
go
on
too
long,
I
may
reel
you
in
a
little
bit,
but
we're
going
to
hear
from
everybody
who
wants
to
speak
initially
before
we
come
back
for
follow-up
comments
and
follow-up
comments.
I'd
ask
you
to
keep
it
short
in
the
one-minute
range
because,
because
I
can't
see
hands
here,
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
put
if
you
want
to
speak,
put
a
note
in
the
chat.
If
you
put
a
note
in
and
you've
spoken
before,
I'll
put
you
next
on
the
list
after
everyone
who
hasn't
spoken,
has
an
opportunity
to
speak.
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
clegg
and
commissioners.
In
accordance
with
minnesota
statute,
410.12
subdivision
5.
I
move
that
the
charter
commission
take
an
additional
90
days
for
review
of
this
amendment.
There
remains
several
items
to
consider
under
our
statutory
application
to
ensure
that
this
amendment
can
be
the
best
it
can
be
for
the
residents
of
minnesota
minneapolis.
J
A
All
right
I'll
say
the
second
is,
commissioner:
metchi.
Are
there
any
speakers
and,
commissioner
garcia,
would
you
like
to
speak
to
that
or
would
you
like
to
come
back
later
or
not
speak
at
all.
J
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
clegg,
so
I
was
going
to
second
commissioner
garcia's
motion.
I
think
we
I
for
the
viewing
public
and
for
colleagues
I
was
one
of
the
people
on
the
public
safety
work
group.
J
I
think
we
did
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
during
the
amount
of
time,
and
I
want
to
thank
commissioner
rubenstein
for
her
leadership
in
getting
us
through
all
that
we
did
and-
and
there
was
a
lot,
we
had
substitute
motions
and
then
we
had
the
gerard
isaacson
motion
and
so
we've
been
through
quite
a
bit,
as
you
pointed
out
at
the
beginning,
but
I
think
we
have
not
put
enough
time
into
actually
analyzing
the.
J
Motion
that
the
council
has
brought
before
us
as
a
work
group
because
of
the
other
things
that
we
were
doing
and-
and
I
think
there
are
some
things
that
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
very
quickly.
I
think
a
legal
analysis
needs
to
be
done
of
the
most
of
the
of
the
amendment
that
was
done
in
2018.
J
I
think
a
question
one
of
the
remaining
questions.
This
is
kind
of
down
in
the
details,
but
what
public
safety
it
functions
must
be
performed
by
a
dually,
trained
and
licensed
officer.
That's
sort
of
been
answered,
but
not
completely,
and
is
there
increased
liability
potential
for
signing
responsibilities
to
non-sworn
personnel?
J
J
J
I
was
part
of
that
work
group
that
put
that
together,
but
I
think
a
comparison
analysis
with
other
cities
abolishing
or
considering
to
abolish
their
police
departments
should
be
done
with
considering
the
city
proposal
amendment
and
to
have
the
council
share
control
over
the
police.
So
I
think
there
is
a
number
of
things
we
still
have
yet
to
do,
and
so
I
agree
with
the
motion
and
will
be
voting
to
support
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
will
be
opposing
the
motion
to
ask
for
to
have
an
additional
90
days
for
review.
First,
I
want
to
thank
all
the
people
who
testified
at
the
public
hearings
and
also
all
the
people
who
emailed
us.
I
want
to
thank
the
city
council
members,
the
mayor
and
the
chief
for
attending
our
q
a
sessions.
K
What
I'm
hearing
from
the
commissioners
who
want
to
ask
for
or
to
get
an
additional
90
days
is
that
we
need
more
time
to
make
the
amendment
better
or
to
seek
legal
analysis,
and
I
don't
see
those
things
as
needed
for
us
to
do
under
the
situation
that
we're
under
where
this
is
a
city
council
amendment
that's
being
proposed
to
us
and
our
job
is
to
recommend
either
that
we
approve,
reject
or
propose
an
alternative.
K
Now,
if
you're
asking
for
more
time,
because
you
have
a
proposed
alternative
that
you're
going
to
put
forward
then
say
so
and
then
also
let
us
know
how
come
we
haven't
done.
That
already
I
mean
I
had
plenty
of
time
to
put
a
proposed
amendment
and
our
own
amendment
together
in
time
to
make
it
to
this
meeting
so
that
we
could
make
a
decision.
K
I'm
prepared
today
to
reject
the
amendment
and
to
send
back
a
recommendation
that
it's
not
referred
to
the
voters
for
several
reasons,
and
one
of
them
is
that
not
all
of
our
black
and
brown
community
leaders
were
invited
in
in
creating
this
amendment
and
that's
a
a
big
reason
why
I
would
not
vote
for
this
amendment
or
that
I
would
reject
and
recommend
rejection
that
they
go
back
and
talk
to
those
leaders.
K
But
you
know
going
to
the
u
of
m
for
checking
to
see
the
emergency
preparedness
and
the
effects
on
all
that.
I
don't
see
how
that
is
in
our
role
today.
That's
for
the
council
and
for
the
mayor
and
the
chief
to
work
out.
If
you
know
they
move
forward
with
this,
today's
recommendation
is
to
accept,
reject
or
offer
a
substitute,
I'm
ready
to
reject.
No
one
else
has
put
up,
except
one
other,
commissioner,
a
alternate
proposal
so
taking
90
days.
K
A
L
Thank
you,
chair
clegg.
I
speak
in
support
of
the
motion.
L
First
of
all,
I
do
want
to
recognize
that
I
agree
with
the
city
council
that
the
police
department
has
failed
the
community
in
many
respects,
especially
in
its
culture,
in
the
failed
attempt
of
prior
administrations
to
address
official
behaviors,
and
I
also
acknowledge
that,
because
there
are
societal
failures
to
address
mental
illness
issues,
addiction
issues,
homelessness,
issues
and
that
by
default,
these
been
pushed
down
to
the
police
department,
the
criminal
justice
system,
which
are
not
well
equipped
to
handle
that.
L
So
it's
it's
appropriate
to
explore
transformational
change
of
the
department,
but
it
needs
to
be
done
thoughtfully.
It
needs
to
be
based
on
evidence.
It
needs
to
be
done
transparently
and
with
significant
community
engagement
by
the
council
before
the
decision
is
made
to
put
it
on
the
ballot
and
that
hasn't
occurred
here.
Let
me
give
a
couple
of
examples.
L
Typically,
when
the
city
council
is
reviewing
a
complex
or
controversial
decision,
it'll
take
a
lot
of
time
and
form
a
staff
work
group
to
work
on
that
matter
and
spend
significant
amounts
of
time
in
engaging
in
community
community
engagement.
Examples
would
be
the
minimum
wage
and
the
safe
and
sick
ordinance
that
was
passed
by
the
council.
L
Similar
examples
are
found
in
the
2040
plan
or
in
the
recent
section,
8
housing
case
decided
by
the
supreme
court.
Each
of
those
matters
had
years
of
civic
engagement
before
they
went
to
vote
for
the
council.
Now
I
recognize
that
an
amendment
isn't
an
ordinance,
but
that
doesn't
mean
we
shouldn't
engage
in
a
similar
kind
of
practice.
L
L
Six
days
later,
they
brought
forward
a
motion
of
notice,
intent
or
a
notice
of
intent
to
introduce
a
charter
amendment
that
would
transfer
power
to
the
police
department
to
the
city
council.
Subsequently,
they
had
one
public
hearing
attended
by
32
people,
and
then
it
was
sent
over
to
this
charter
commission
on
august
3rd.
There
was
no
community
engagement,
really
no
transparency,
how
the
amendment
came
about
and
no
staff
work
group.
L
When
that
came
the
charter
commission,
we
took
our
additional
90
days
to
review,
which
is
our
statutory
obligation,
and
we
came
up
with
a
number
of
memos
that
we
sent
back,
that
we
prepared
for
the
council
and
a
letter
that
we
sent
back
to
the
council.
That
detailed
our
reasons
for
why
we
rejected
the
amendment
in
january
2019,
when
the
council
received
that
they
simply
received
and
filed
it,
they
took
no
further
action
on
it.
They
put
together
no
work
group,
no
community
engagement
plan
didn't
engage
in
any
study.
L
What
would
be
the
best
practice
for
a
proposed
charter
amendment
then
on
may
25th
2020
george
floyd
was
killed
by
the
names
police
department
again
in
completely
reactive
fashion.
In
a
matter
of
weeks,
we
had
a
notice
of
intent
for
a
charter
amendment
that
would
create
a
new
department
of
public
safety
and
abolish
the
police
department
as
a
charter
department.
L
At
the
same
time
that
they
did
that
notice
of
intent,
the
council
passed
a
resolution.
That
said,
we
intend
to
commence
a
year-long
process
of
community
engagement
and
research,
to
study
potential
new
model
of
public
safety
and
to
create
a
staff
work
group
to
set
up
engagement
and
make
recommendations,
city
council
that
wasn't
done
instead
on
june
26,
the
council
walked
on
an
amendment
that
had
not
been
seen
by
any
members
of
the
public
and
suspended
all
of
its
rules
in
order
to
send
it
to
the
charter.
L
The
city
council
in
this
case
hasn't
done
a
fiscal
study,
a
legal
study,
for
example.
The
power
issues
that
made
the
newspaper
today,
the
public,
employee,
labor
relations
act
issues
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
proposed
amendment.
This
should
have
been
identified
and
addressed
by
the
city
council
prior
to
drafting
the
ordinance.
Instead,
charter
commission
had
to
raise
that
issue.
B
L
I
mean
before
the
voters
in
the
city
vote
on
an
amendment
and
let's
hope
that
we
can
resolve
these
issues,
so
we
don't
have
a
replay
of
what
happened
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
where
the
city
council
proposed
that
armed
citizen
groups
would
be
hired
by
the
city
adopted
a
10-2
vote
and
then
two
days
later
it
was
dropped.
Apparently
because
somebody
told
them
it
was
illegal
under
state
law.
L
L
That
means,
if
you're
talking
about
police
officers
as
the
employees,
you
could
lay
off
at
least
100
employees
or,
if
you're
talking
about
all
employees,
including
police
officers,
you
could
be
as
high
as
200
employees
that
the
city
council
could
today
in
its
budget
process,
get
rid
of
according
to
the
mpd
911
chart
or
a
staff
worker
report,
each
officer
costs
city
about
120
120
000
a
year.
So
even
if
you
just
simply
lay
off
100
officers,
that's
12
million
dollars
that
12
million
dollars
could
fund.
L
That
leaves
8
million
right
there
left
over,
for
if
you
wanted
to
do,
expand
the
cope
program,
if
you
want
to
start
mediation,
services,
neighborhood
mediation
services
give
more
money
to
the
office
of
violence
prevention.
L
K
L
Both
the
city
council
and
the
charter
commission
need
to
do
their
respective
jobs
to
study
this
issue,
and
if
our
goal
is
to
transform
a
failed
system
in
a
failed
department,
let's
do
it
thoughtfully
and
create
a
system
that
has
the
greatest
likelihood
of
being
a
successful
new
paradigm
for
public
safety.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you.
Well,
as
usual,
I
find
commissioner
ginder's
reasoning
powerful
and
compelling,
and
I
think
I
agree
with
almost
all
of
it,
except
I
don't
quite
agree
with
the
outcome
and
I
have
to
admit
to
being
a
bit
torn
here.
G
G
I
guess
my
problem
that
I'm
having
is,
I
don't
think
we
have
come
to
a
consensus
as
a
commission
about
what
our
job
is.
Yes,
the
statute
says
we
shall
review
the
proposed
amendment
and
then,
when
tony
behind
me,
and
then
we
have
to
make
a
certain
decision
and
so
forth.
So
what
does
review
mean?
I
think
many
of
us
have
a
different
interpretation
on
that
and
since
we
haven't
really
ever
discussed
it
formally
we're
left
to
doing
it
here,
which
is
a
little
frustrating.
G
I
mean
I
know
we're
talking
about
legalities
as
a
consistent
with
the
constitution.
Is
it
consistent
with
say
statute?
Is
it
consistent
within
the
charter
itself?
The
problem
that
we
found
the
last
time
are
there
conflicts
with
existing
city
ordinances.
Are
there
inconsistencies
that
we
could
correct
or
mitigate
and
according
to
our
own
precedent-
and
I
am
a
believer
in
precedent-
another
purpose
is
to
assess
the
claims
made
about
the
impact
of
the
change
to
minimize
potential
misunderstanding
by
voters.
G
We
came
back
at
that
first
meeting
after
the
council
transmitted
their
amendment
and
had
a
plan
of
action
laid
out
there.
There
was
never
a
question.
We
were
going
to
act
on
it
immediately.
It
came
to
us
in
august
for
god's
sakes
and
in
fact
our
final
report
included
that
research
and
it
was
interesting-
and
I
thought
quite
thought-
provoking.
G
The
current
proposal
is
much
more
complicated
than
that
in
2018..
One
of
the
components
is
is
similar,
the
oversight
issue,
and
I
I
think
the
research
that
we
did
in
2018
pertains
to
that
component,
but
we
have
four
of
them
that
are
kind
of
left
hanging
here.
So,
what's
our
thinking
on
this?
I
don't.
I
don't
think
anybody
here
supports
this
amendment.
Maybe
you
do.
I
certainly
do
not.
I
think
it's
ill
planned.
It's
ill-conceived!
G
We
do
know
that
there
are
some
of
the
thoughts
expressed
by
the
public.
Legally,
you
know
we're
going
to
abolish
the
union
we're
going
to
abolish
all
the
police.
That's
not
going
to
happen.
It
can't
happen
legally
and
that
seems
to
me
to
be
not
only
inaccurate
but
deliberately
misleading
and
definitely
confusing
to
voters.
G
F
Thank
you,
chair
clegg.
I
also
speak
in
opposition
to
tabling
our
vote
and
I
do
it
painfully.
I
agree
with
what
commissioner
sandberg
and
other
commissioners
have
said.
I'm
concerned
that
we
need
to
vote
this
amendment
up
or
down,
but
I'm
further
concerned
that
this,
if
we
table
it,
it
feels
more
like
a
sleight
of
hand.
F
It's
perfectly
true
that
the
we
lack
sufficient
information
to
make
an
informed
decision
about
the
amendment,
but
an
extension
to
consider
it
will
not
help
us
fill
in
any
crucial
missing
pieces
and
will
simply
be
to
stall
it,
so
it
won't
be
on
the
ballot
while
it's
I
agree
that
it
is
not
a
very
good
amendment
and
I
also
will
vote
to
reject
it.
I
don't
think
that
stalling
is
the
way
to
reject
it.
F
F
Besides
keeping
this
matter
off
the
ballot,
the
city
council
has
refused
to
show
us
the
rfps
or
anything
else
that
we've
requested.
It's
been
suggested
that
a
survey
will
help
gauge
the
will
of
the
people.
Well,
we
just
received
one
and
more
surveys.
One
we
just
received
purported
to
provide
the
information
about
the
will
of
the
people,
but
it
had
some
problems.
F
F
That's
on
the
city
council
and
not
on
us
and
having
read
so
many
emails
and
heard
the
testimony
at
the
four
public
hearings
we
were
able
to
squeeze
in,
I
believe
in
the
law
of
diminishing
returns
as
I've
been
tracking
the
comments.
I've
seen
nothing
new
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks
that
will
assist
us
in
our
consideration.
F
Our
obligation
is
limited
and
broad.
At
the
same
time,
our
focus
should
be,
and
is
on
the
amendment
before
us.
It's
to
take
a
hard
look
at
the
amendment
to
review
it
to
make
a
judgment
as
to
whether
it's
the
proper
subject
for
the
charter,
which
it
is
whether
or
not
we
like
it
whether
it
will
accomplish
the
about
purpose,
whether
it's
necessary,
whether
it's
legal
and
perhaps
whether
it's
good
public
policy.
F
F
Also,
I'm
very
concerned,
although
I
don't
think
we
have
any
control
over
this,
that,
whether
we
accept
and
reject
it.
The
city
council
is
going
to
ignore
our
recommendation,
because
it
has
already
told
us
it's
going
to
ignore
our
recommendation
and
it
is
going
to
be
put
on
the
ballot,
and
so
all
the
issues
that
we
raise
as
to
how
the
process
proceeded
is
not
are
not
going
to
be
answered.
F
It's
also
been
suggested
in
good
faith
that
we
need
to
develop
our
own
plan
and
structure
to
provide
a
basis
for
any
amendment
before
we
act
on
it.
This
suggestion
may
be
reasonable,
but
it's
beyond
the
scope
of
our
jurisdiction,
and
I
doubt
in
any
event
whether
it
could
be
done
in
90
days.
This
is
the
process
that
the
city
council
has
promised,
but
failed
to
do
today,
going
back
years.
F
Only
two
reactions
have
united
the
city,
the
anger
and
pain
caused
by
the
killing
of
george
floyd,
and
that
there
is
a
compelling
need
to
enact
meaningful
reform
in
the
police
department.
How
we
get
to
the
ladder
has
generated
no
unity
at
all
short
term.
We
already
have
some
data,
the
uptick
in
crime,
the
fears
expressed
by
people
who
have
submitted
comments
and
the
divisiveness
already
caused
by
uncertainty
and
misinformation.
F
F
F
F
I
am
gravely
concerned
that
such
a
perception
of
our
motives,
however,
in
good
faith
and,
however,
for
the
best
reasons,
have
been
and
they've
been
created
by
more
disinformation
campaigning,
but
that
will
undermine
the
seriousness
of
our
work.
I
believe.
F
Finally,
I
don't
believe
that
our
vote
up
or
down
on
the
city
council
amendment
will
be
part
of
future
and
more
reasoned
action.
Maybe
in
a
year
for
the
2021
ballot,
when
there
has
been
more
time
to
consider
an
amendment
and
some
of
the
unknowns
have
been
sorted
out,
we
will
be
in
a
better
position
to
act.
F
That's
a
hard
thing
to
say,
because
we
don't
change
the
charter
very
lightly,
I'm
not
suggesting
we
do
that,
but
only
saying
that
another
90
days
for
study
and
contemplation
won't
make
a
difference
to
our
ultimate
decision
now.
So
I
ask
that
we
please
not
table
the
amendment
but
put
it
back
to
where
it
belongs,
for
the
city
council
to
do
what
they
should
have
been
doing
all
along.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
I
will
say
at
the
outset
that
I
am
going
to
support
the
garcia
motion.
As
usual,
I'm
conflicted
like
everybody
else.
I
found
commissioner
perry
and
commissioner
ginders
remarks
as
also
very
compelling,
and
I
agree
with
with
the
outcome
that
that
they
offered.
On
the
other
hand,
I
take
very
seriously
what
commissioner
sandberg
and
commissioner
rubenstein
had
to
say
what
is
the
role
of
the
com
of
this
commission
and
I
think,
on
balance
they
are
correct.
M
We
have
a
we
don't.
We
are
not
the
city
council,
we
are
not
a
substitute
for
the
city
council
and
I
think
we
have
been
very
careful
in
all
the
years
that
I've
been
on
this
commission
that
we
have
deferred
to
them.
M
We
have
we've
certainly
rejected
suggestions
that
would
put
us
into
the
business
of
acting
like
a
city
council
and
but
in
this
case
I
think,
as
mr
kinder
pointed
out,
the
procedural
machinations
that
that
brought
this
to
and
put
this
in
our
lap,
the
particularly
the
absence
of
any
public
hearing
before
the
council
sent
this
over.
I
think
that
gives
us
some
latitude
and
I
think
we
have.
M
We
certainly
have
an
obligation
to
to
honor
what
the
city
council
wants,
but
on
the
other
hand
we
know
exactly
what's
going
to
happen,
which
commissioner
rubenstein
conceded.
We
know
exactly
what's
going
to
happen
when
we
send
this
back
to
them,
even
if
we
send
it
back
with
a
negative
recommendation,
they're
going
to
put
it
on
the
ballot
they've
already
they've
already
told
us,
that's
exactly
what
they
were
going
to
do.
M
So
if
this
commission
is
going
to
have
any
role
in
being
a
a
safeguard
against
amendments
that
are
are
not
ready
that
are
premature,
I
think
we
have.
Then
we
have
to
move
to
ask
for
the
additional
just
to
say
we're
going
to
take
the
additional
time
that
the
statute
allows
us.
We
have
an
obligation,
it
seems
to
me
a
broader
obligation
than
anything
else.
M
If
we're
going
to
have
something
go
on
the
ballot
and
by
sending
this
back
to
the
council,
that
is
a
tacit
acknowledgement
that
there
will
be
an
amendment
on
the
ballot
this
year.
If
we're
going
to
do
that,
then
we
have
an
obligation
to
make
sure
what
is
going
to
go
on
the
ballot
is
a
gives.
The
voters
an
informed,
an
informed
choice
that
they
can
make
a
decision
in
a
thoughtful
way,
and
this
amendment
clearly
doesn't
do
it.
We
know
what
the
flaws
are.
M
M
Well
one
thing
I
have
done
in
trying
to
just
discern
what
what
what
the
these
hearings
were
telling
us
and
if
we
don't
listen
to
these
folks
and
one
sense,
why
have
the
hearings
at
all,
but
one
thing
I
did
see
the
people
that
I
know
who
have
publicly
come
out
whether
they
called
in
whether
they
wrote
in
whether
they
put
letters
into
publications
in
the
neighborhood
publications.
M
Many
african-american
leaders
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
the
the
the
names.
I
can
do
that
if
someone
wants
but
have
been,
if
not
uni
unif
unanimous
at
least
a
consensus
they're
telling
us
do
not
put
this
on
the
ballot.
M
These
folks
are
represented,
many
of
whom
have
spent
their
adult
life
for
human
rights,
for
equality
and
for
racial
justice
in
this
country.
In
this
city
have
told
us
this
is
not
ready.
They
were
never
consulted
these
communities.
I
heard
a
a
podcast
yesterday
with
people
from
the
jordan
falwell
hawthorne
neighborhoods,
and
they
all
had
the
same
thing.
Please
do
not
put
this
on
the
ballot.
M
They
are.
The
these
communities
right
now
are
enduring,
as
one
of
the
people
said,
they're
under
siege,
there
is
a
crime
wave
and
they
they
have
a
double
whammy:
they're,
the
people
that
are
most
affected
by
police
misconduct
and
but
they're
also
the
people
that
are
most
affected
by
crime
and
they're
asking
us.
This
is
not
ready.
They
have
not
been
consulted.
M
This
needs
more
study,
they
do
not
want
it
on
the
ballot
and,
I
think
they're
often
people
that
haven't
been
listened
to,
and
I
think
I'm
going
to
listen
to
them
and
that's
one
of
the
main
reasons
that
I
am
going
to
vote
yes
on
this
on
this
motion.
A
I
I
I'm
the
newest
member
of
the
commission-
and
so
I
don't
know
what
is
normal,
but
I
would
guess
that
we
received
more
comments
on
this
proposed
amendment
than
any
amendment
in
in
previous
charter
history.
Although
I
certainly
can't
say
that
with
any
certainty
and
looking
at
all
those
comments,
it's
kind
of
hard
to
know
what
that
consensus
is.
We've
received
comments
from
many
people
in
favor
of
the
amendment,
and
many
people
opposed
it's
kind
of
hard
to
know.
I
If
people
have
a
political
agenda,
who's
pushing
some
of
those
comments,
but
I
do
value
those
comments,
but
it
seems
to
me
that,
regardless
of
what
we
do
today,
that
this
charter
amendment
is
going
to
appear
on
the
ballot,
it's
a
question
of
whether
it's
going
to
be
in
2020
or
2021.
If
we
choose
to
take
more
time
to
study
the
issue,
I
don't
think
there's
much
doubt
that
the
city
council
will
put
it
on
the
ballot
in
2021.
I
So
I
think
the
real
question
before
us
today
is,
if
we
choose
to
take
extra
time
to
study
this
amendment.
What
are
we
actually
going
to
do
with
that
time
and
I'm
not
sure
what
the
charter
commission
is
going
to
do.
It
seems
to
me
that
it's
probably
more
up
to
the
city
council
to
further
develop
what
a
community
safety
and
violence
prevention
department
might
look
like
what
I.
N
I
Love
to
have
more
information
from
the
city
council
about
public
safety,
what
it
might
look
like
in
minneapolis
absolutely.
I
would
love
to
see
that,
but
is
that
sufficient
to
keep
it
off
the
ballot
in
2020?
And
I'm
not
sure
about
that?
But
what
I
am
sure
of
is
that
I
don't
want
to
prevent
the
democratic
process
from
moving
forward.
We
have
a
charter
amendment
that
was
unanimously
approved
by
the
minneapolis
city
council
and
I'm
concerned
about
an
unelected
charter
commission,
preventing
this
from
moving
forward.
I
I
I
If
we
don't
do
it
now,
why
is
now
not
the
time?
I
think
what
has
happened
in
minneapolis
and
now
is
the
time
william
penn
said
that
to
delay.
Justice
is
injustice
and
I
think
it
would
be
injustice
for
us
to
prevent
this
amendment
from
moving
forward.
Therefore,
I
would
vote
against
the
motion.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner,
commissioner.
Metke.
H
I
am
now
unmuted
I'd
like
to
start
by
thanking
everyone
who
took
the
time
to
testify
and
to
send
in
emails.
I
want
to
thank
everyone.
That's
worked
hard
on
generating
some
great
ideas.
I
know
that
there
have
been
organizations
out
there
that
have
percolated
some
really
great
information,
but
I
also
think
there's
more
to
hear
from.
I
too
am
concerned
about
the
democratic
process,
but
I'm
concerned
because
of
the
voices
not
heard.
I
support
the
proposed
charter
motion
to
use
the
full
150
days
to
keep
a
process
going.
H
I
think
it's
crucial
that
there's
change.
I
think
it's
crucial
that
there's
something
that
there's
an
amendment
coming
forward
and,
if
needed
in
november,
of
2021,
specifically
because
of
voices
not
heard
in
the
creation
of
this
proposed
ordinance.
As
I've
said
before,
there
are
over
37
000
people
in
the
sixth
ward,
which
represents
phillips
west
cedar,
riverside
elliott
park,
ventura
village
stevens
square.
H
They
have
no
council
member
reaching
out
or
sharing
information.
Like
all
the
other
council
members
are
doing,
I've
been
watching
council
members
newsletters
and
their
facebook
pages
and
joining
in
on
some
zoom
meetings.
There
is
nothing
like
that
happening
for
the
37
000
people,
so
I
actually
am
rather
like
shocked
that
this
even
moved
forward
without
sixth
ward
representation.
H
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
this
significant
violence.
That's
happening
in
several
of
our
awards.
There
are
many
people
who
have
ideas
and
opinions
and
concerns
and
are
out
on
the
street
boots
on
the
ground,
24
7..
H
I
also
want
to
say,
through
all
the
testimony.
Wherever
you
fell,
wherever
you
fell,
there
was
consensus
that
real
change
needs
to
occur.
The
movement
provides
an
opportunity
to
bring
this
city
together
and
to
do
that,
all
voices
need
to
be
heard
not
to
just
build
an
agenda
but
to
create
real
change.
H
Chief
rondo
has
a
lifetime
and
a
family
of
roots
in
this
town
in
minneapolis
and
finally,
there
are
great
officers
out
there
and
to
name
a
few
that
need
to
be
at
the
table.
In
this
conversation,
charlie
adams,
his
son,
charles
adams,
second
generation
officer,
rob
thunder
lieutenant
lindsay,
herron,
lieutenant
mark
cluck
cow
glenn,
burke,
mike
perchin,
and
all
the
other
officers
each
and
every
day
out
in
the
community,
doing
good
work.
H
We
are
blessed
in
this
city,
for
so
many
people
that
do
such
good
work
each
and
every
day,
24
7
voices
need
to
be
included.
We
have
a
great
opportunity
to
move
forward
together.
I
want
to
keep
this
going.
I
and
that's
why
I
support
the
motion.
I
don't
want
the
momentum
to
stop.
I
support
the
motion
to
use
the
full
150
days
to
have
a
plan
and
to
and
and
to
then
look
forward
to
a
proposal
on
the
2021
ballot.
A
A
C
Been
speaking
in
favor
of
my
motion,
I
just
wanted
to
address
a
couple
of
things
from
commissioners
who
have
spoken
first
of
all,
in
an
overarching
way.
I
think
there
is
there
remains
people
have
asked.
What
are
we
going
to
use
this
90
days
for
what
what
is
within
our
purview?
What
is
within
our
budget
or
lack
thereof,
to
do?
C
C
C
C
These
are
some
of
the
things
that
we
should
not
have
needed
to
do,
but
could
do
in
these
90
days
as
well
as
looking
forward
to
the
results
of
the
state's
human
rights
investigation,
taking
a
close
look
in
interdisciplinary
study
sessions
and
work
groups
in
the
9-1-1
study
that
looked
at
the
highest
needs
of
calls,
looked
at
the
financial
impact
and
look
at
the
co-responder
pilot
program,
which
was
deemed
so
helpful
that
the
mayor
actually
allotted
funding
for
it
in
the
2019
budget
and
while
what
our
call
is
in
reviewing
this
amendment
may
be
unclear
or
not
as
clear
as
it
could.
C
This
is
an
issue
that
involves
the
lives,
the
well-being,
the
safety
of
minneapolis
residents.
This
isn't
a
popularity.
This
isn't
a
bumper
sticker
slogan
sound
bites
debate.
This
is
something
that
the
city
has
begun
looking
at
in
various
times.
Throughout
throughout
the
past
several
years,
the
ground
is
fertile
to
continue
to
look
at
that
work
and
to
look
at
something
that
prevents
the
loss
of
lives
unnecessarily
incarceration,
unnecessarily
use
of
force
and
decreased
police
brutality,
and
these
are
just
some
of
the
the
efforts
we
can
undertake
and
review
during
this
this
90-day
period.
D
You
know
the
question
is:
how
do
we
evaluate
this
proposal
in
the
context
of
where
we're
at
right
now,
and
I
think
we
should
start
with
two
principles?
The
first
principle
is
clarity.
The
charter
is
the
foundational
document
of
the
city.
It
should
establish
the
general
principles
and
the
basic
structure
of
city
government.
Its
text
should
be
plain
and
straightforward.
D
D
We
don't
know
what
challenges
the
city
will
face
in
10
years
or
20
years
or
even
in
50
years.
How
do
you
apply
those
principles
to
the
council's
proposed
amendment?
The
problem,
as
I
see
it
is
the
council
proposal
contains
policy
provisions
and
restrictions
that
would
tie
the
hands
of
future
city
councils.
D
It
proposes
removal
of
the
police
as
a
charter
department,
but
then
establishes
a
new
charter
department
in
its
place.
It
proposes
permanently
moving
the
city's
law
enforcement
function
down
to
a
sub-department
two
levels
removed
from
supervision
by
elected
officials.
The
council's
proposal
even
specifies
the
professional
qualifications
for
the
head
of
the
new
department
details
more
appropriate,
in
my
opinion,
for
a
zip
recruiter
ad
than
for
a
charter
provision.
D
Now
these
ideas
may
well
be
good
under
the
circumstances,
however,
they
should
be
enacted
as
part
of
an
ordinance
not
included
in
the
charter
itself.
Ordinances
can
be
amended
quickly
in
an
emergency
if
a
future
council
has
to
do
so.
Unlike
the
charter,
which
cannot
there's
another
problem,
I
have
with
the
council's
proposed
amendment.
The
proposal
radically
reduces
the
power
of
the
mayor
and
transfers
those
powers
in
their
entirety
to
the
city
council.
D
D
Failure
to
separate
executive
and
legislative
powers
is,
in
my
judgment,
the
fundamental
flaw
of
our
current
charter.
Combining
these
powers
has
produced
a
strong
council
weak
mayor
system
that
in
many
ways
is
unaccountable
and
unresponsive
to
the
public.
The
most
powerful
person
in
city
government
right
now
is
the
president
of
the
city
council.
D
However,
the
president
of
the
city
council
is
not
democratically
accountable
to
12
out
of
every
13
residents
that
is
not
accountable
to
over
92
percent
of
the
city.
The
real
power
of
the
city
is
decided
by
the
internal
politics
of
the
council
city
council.
Decisions
are
generally
opaque
to
the
average
voter
and
individual
council
members
are
generally
isolated
from
city-wide
public
opinion.
D
I
moved
to
minneapolis
30
years
ago,
and
in
that
time
I've
witnessed
the
city
council
repeatedly
defy
public
opinion
in
favor
of
its
own
parochial
interests.
Most
recently,
this
has
involved
blocking
police
reform,
as
we
well
know,
but
in
the
past
it
has
involved
funding
for
professional
sports
stadiums
and
subsidies
for
corporate
development
downtown.
D
The
reason
I
take
this
detour
into
this
is
because
the
council's
proposed
amendment
in
this
issue
takes
a
bad
situation
and
makes
it
much
worse.
It
takes
the
most
important
function
of
government
public
safety
and
makes
it
subordinate
to
a
committee
of
13
bosses
who
do
not
have
city-wide
accountability.
D
I
believe
in
the
hippocratic
oath
of
charter
amendments
first
do
no
harm,
and
this
council
proposal
violates
that
principle
repeatedly.
Our
first
response
to
a
weak
mayor
system
should
not
be
to
weaken
the
mayor
even
further.
Our
first
response
to
a
large
concentration
of
power
should
not
be
to
further
concentrate
that
power
in
the
city
council's
hands
and
our
first
response
to
a
charter
cluttered
with
policy.
Details
should
not
be
to
add
more
policy
details
to
it.
D
So,
in
my
judgment,
the
council's
proposal
doesn't
fit
the
charter
and,
I
think,
is
not
to
you
know,
use
the
vernacular
phrase
ballot
worthy.
Despite
these
flaws,
I
devote
to
advance
this
proposal
to
a
referendum.
If
I
thought
it
would
save
lives
or
even
if
it
would
save
a
single
life.
Unfortunately,
I
don't
think
this
amendment,
even
if
it
were
enacted,
would
have
much
short-term
impact.
D
I
mean
the
biggest
obstacle
to
reform,
as
we
all
know,
and
it's
been
discussed
extensively
since
the
murder
of
george
floyd
is
the
police
federation
and
its
commitment
to
violent
forms
of
policing.
The
whole
point
of
the
council
amendment
is
to
bypass
the
police
federation
by
abolishing
the
existing
police
department
and
standing
up
a
new
department.
Instead,
that's
how
the
council
proposes
to
change
the
culture
surrounding
law
enforcement.
D
However,
as
been
discussed
a
little
bit
today,
there
is
the
state
law,
the
public
employees,
labor
relations
act,
which
I
think
effectively
bypasses,
prevents
us
from
bypassing
the
police
federation.
That
law
bans
unfair
labor
practices
by
minnesota
cities
and
counties
in
connection
with
collective
bargaining.
D
Less
than
a
year
ago,
the
minnesota
supreme
court
held
that
it
was
an
unfair
labor
practice
for
a
city
to
disestablish
a
labor
bargaining
unit
when
it
abolished
the
underlying
department.
That
case
involved
the
city
of
brainerd,
which
had
abolished
its
five-member
full-time
fire
department
and
then
replaced
it
with
a
volunteer
on-call
force.
D
The
minnesota
supreme
court
held
that
the
city
of
brainerd
should
have
negotiated
with
the
existing
firefighters
union
over
the
terms
and
conditions
of
its
decision
to
abolish
the
department,
and
I
think
this
opinion
by
the
minnesota
supreme
court
is
a
real
obstacle
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
If
the
city
of
minneapolis
abolishes
its
police
department,
it
will
have
to
negotiate
with
the
existing
police
federation
over
the
terms
and
conditions
of
their
employment.
D
In
short,
it
will
take
many
months,
if
not
years,
for
change
to
occur
and
we
will
be
we
will.
We
will
be
dealing
with
the
same
officers
in
the
same
union
as
before,
which
gets
to
the
truth
of
the
matter,
which
I
think
no
one's
really
discussed,
which
is,
I
don't
think,
there's
a
charter
amendment
out
there
that
can
solve
the
police
federation
problem.
The
only
way
forward,
I
think
in
teams
in
terms
of
fundamental
reform,
is
collective
bargaining
with
our
employees
through
the
collective
bargaining
process.
D
Now
it's
clear
charter
change
is
still
important.
There
are
obstacle
obstacles
in
the
charter
that
we
need
to
deal
with.
It's
an
important
part
of
fixing
the
problem,
but
the
general
need
for
charter
change
doesn't
justify
the
specific
argument
that
we
have
to
vote
on
this
exact
proposal,
and
then
we
have
to
do
it
right
now
in
november
of
2020.,
you
know
the
public
hearings
were
filled
with
cries
of,
let
us
vote,
I
mean,
I
agree
with
that,
and
I
and
other
commissioners
I
think,
also
agree
with
that.
D
There
should
be
a
public
referendum
on
the
proposed
council
amendment,
but
the
question
is
not
whether
a
referendum
should
be
held,
but
when
it
should
be
held,
should
we
hold
it
this
year
or
should
we
hold
it
next
year
in
next
year?
In
this
general
election
in
2021,
the
city
council's
charter
proposal
represents
the
most
sweeping
and
radical
charter
change
in
living
memory.
It
deserves
much
more
scrutiny
and
discussion
than
we
can
given
in
a
mere
35
days.
Quick
action
on
a
flawed
charter
amendment
will
not
produce
immediate
benefits
and
could
have
long
unintended
consequences.
D
I
think
it
includes
a
lot
of
extraneous
elements
such
as
the
transfer
of
power
to
the
council,
which
I
think
makes
producing
it.
I
think
the
public
needs
to
be
better
informed
about
the
other
ramifications
of
this
amendment.
I
think
if
we
produce
it,
if
we
put
this
on
the
ballot
this
year,
I
think
the
public
will
be
somewhat
deceived.
D
I
think,
as
to
the
contents
of
this,
and
some
of
the
larger
implications
of
what's
going
on
holding
the
vote
in
2021
gives
the
charter
commission
a
chance
to
do
its
job
and
whether
that
happens
in
the
next
90
days
or
whether
we
hit
a
reset
button
and
we
get
a
new
proposal
from
the
city
council
by
march
1st
and
by
the
way
march.
1St
is
the
deadline.
D
If
the
council
is
really
committed
to
this
version
of
its
of
its
proposed
amendment,
it
could
simply
resubmit
that
to
us
before
march,
first
and
and
and
that
would
they
would
be
able
to
wait
out
the
clock
and
put
that
exact
proposal
on
the
ballot.
Next
year
there
is
no
democracy
denied
here
there
is
no
denial
of
democratic
rights.
It's
a
question
of
when
not
if
and
this
exact
proposal,
if
it
does
have
the
kind
of
support
on
the
council
that
that
the
authors
claim
it
does,
it
will
will
come
back
in
in
full.
D
So
I
think
we
have
time
to
do
this.
The
right
way,
I'm
going
to
vote
in
favor
of
this
motion,
because
I
think
the
there's
it's
too
much,
there's
too
much
extraneous
stuff,
and
I
think
it
makes
all
the
other
problems
in
city
government
and
the
charter
worse.
If
it
were
to
actually
pass,
we
can
fix
this.
We
can
get
police
reform,
we
just
we
just
need
to
find
a
different
avenue
to
do
it
in.
Thank
you.
O
Yes,
hopefully,
everyone
can
see
me
here
well.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
to
my
fellow
commissioners,
city,
council,
members
and,
most
importantly,
the
residents
who
are
listening
here
on
this
call.
I
want
to
offer
a
statement
of
gratitude
for
participating
in
this.
This
whole
process
as
a
commissioner,
and
I
know
that
we
all
have
a
goal
of
building
a
city-
that's
equitable,
that's
just
and
fair,
and
one
in
which
our
residents
ultimately
feel
safe
in
in
this
city.
O
I
I
want
to
say
that
I'm
proud
to
serve
on
this
commission,
I'm
proud
to
say
that
I've
been
a
member
of
this
commission
and
have
been
appointed
by
the
chief
judge
and
and
that
I
have
been
willingly
and
voluntarily
exercised
my
civic
duties
to
uphold
the
constitution
of
the
state,
thereby
through
the
city
charter
and
I'm
glad
to
volunteer
my
time
to
serve
as
a
resident
of
the
city.
O
With
my
position
on
this
whole
issue
and
I'll
get
into
specifically
with
this
particular
motion,
I'm
in
full
support
that
change
needs
to
happen
now,
with
strong
input
from
our
community
residents.
We,
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
its
residents.
Let's
change
how
we
view
and
implement
public
safety
in
our
city,
and
that
has
been
the
overwhelmingly
resounding
words
that
we've
heard
from
our
residents
and
and
a
larger
community.
O
We
want
to
have
a
system
that
and
right
now
we
have
a
system
that
is
unfair,
inequitable
and
unsafe
for
our
entire
community.
To
be
clear,
I
wanted
to
express
that
I
do
not
agree
with
staying
with
the
status
quo
quote
the
the
change
needs
to
happen
now.
What
happened
to
george
floyd
was
horrific,
I'm
still
angry
and
outraged,
as
well
as
the
various
other
incidents
that
have
happened
in
our
city
and
across
this
country.
O
O
I
think
the
residents
of
this
city
must
be
at
the
table
to
change
the
system
and
change
how
policing
is
done
here
in
minneapolis
when
it
comes
to
this
specific
proposal
and
the
issue
around
reimagining
public
safety
in
this
city,
I
do
want
to
see
change
happen,
quick
swiftly.
I
live
in
a
world
in
which
I
live
in
war.
O
Six,
I
hear
gunshots
in
my
block
and
when
I
do
my
first
inclination
is
to
call
the
police,
but
I
worry
that
if
I
call
them
that
my
husband
who's
african-american
black
and
if
he
goes
out
to
meet
them,
he
will
be
harassed,
harmed
or
shot
by
minneapolis
police
officers.
I'm
scared
about
that.
This
is
a
real
issue
for
me
and
my
family
and
I
hate
being
in
this
space.
O
O
My
concerns.
I
question
like,
like
all
of
you
all
have
mentioned.
You
know
have
we
and
has
a
city
council
genuinely
and
authentically
and
equitably
engaged
our
minneapolis
residents?
Has
the
council
granted
community
spots
at
the
table
to
help
co-create
decide
and
build
a
new
public
safety
framework?
O
These
are
all
questions
that
I've
asked
myself
and
others
have
asked
of
me
and,
to
be
honest,
I
don't
know
I
probably
lean
on
the
side
that
we
haven't
adequately
done
that
level
of
engagement.
But
what
I
do
know
is
that
we've
heard
from
thousands
of
our
community
residents
marching
and
protesting
protesting
in
minneapolis
that
they
demand
change
now
now
I
have
some
serious
concerns
about
this.
This
proposal
and
this
amendment
that
the
council
has
have
made
I've
worked
in
government
for
for
both
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
also
city
of
st
paul.
O
O
O
O
It's
also
important
to
have
the
executive
administrative
branch
of
government
at
the
local
level,
such
as
our
mayor
and
his
cabinet,
or
her
cabinet
to
oversee
the
daily
functions,
the
day-to-day
functions
of
departments,
with
consistent,
authentic
community
oversight
and
involvement
embedded
into
the
work
of
that
department,
especially
a
new
department
that
is
going
to
be
responsible
for
community
violence
and
enforcement.
O
So
for
these
reasons
I
cannot
fully
support
the
council's
proposal
and
also
I
do
not
support
the
motion.
That's
on
the
table
to
delay
the
vote
in
order
for
this
body,
this
commission
to
review
the
issue.
I
don't
think
that,
as
stated
before,
that
this
body
should
serve
in
the
role
to
provide
more
of
a
legal
review
or
more
information
regarding
this
issue,
I
do
think
that
that
is
the
role
of
the
city,
council
and
collaboration
in
working
with
the
mayor
and
chief
ordado.
O
P
P
Today's
newspaper
article
written
by
liv
navratil,
who
is
our
new
city
hall
reporter
and
by
the
way,
a
pulitzer
prize
winner
when
she
worked
in
philadelphia
points
out
that
the
city
council
has
presented
us
with
a
proposal
of
such
questionable
legality
that
the
police
function
it
proposes
for
the
city
is
one
in
which
their
substitute
peace
officers
are
quote
generally
prohibited
from
enforcing
the
general
criminal
laws
of
the
state
and
do
not
have
the
full
powers
of
arrest
or
authorization
to
carry
a
firearm.
P
N
Up.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
wanted
to
also
say
that
I
wish
to
thank
everybody
that
informed
us
of
their
opinion
of
this
amendment.
N
It
was
very
good
to
have
influence
from
the
city
council,
the
mayor
and
the
chief
of
police,
and
I
congratulate
commissioner
rubenstein
for
doing
a
very
good
job
of
running
our
subcommittee,
of
which
I
was
a
member.
I
wrote
a
memo
to
commissioner
rubenstein
yesterday.
I
think
it
was
saying
that
if
we
are
not
going
to
have
a
meeting
yesterday,
I
think
we
need
to
have
many
meetings
here
after
because
I
think
we
need
to
really
continue
working
on
this
amendment
or
whatever
is
a
good
idea
for
public
safety
in
minneapolis.
N
We
do
know
that
there
is
a
rfp
out
right
now
by
the
city
and
that
nine
different
consultants
brought
in
brought
in
their
their
consulting
proposal.
N
N
Having
been
the
city
clerk
in
minneapolis
having
been
the
city
coordinator
minneapolis,
I
know
what
it's
like
to
work
for:
13
bosses
or
14
bosses.
When
one
consumer
comes
to
you
and
says
I
want
you
to
do
this.
For
me,
I
owe
my
ward
and
don't
tell
the
other
council
commander
members
you're
doing
it.
I
can't
do
that.
N
I
gotta
go
back
to
the
council
member
and
tell
them
you
get
me
seven
votes
and
the
mayor
to
say
I
should
do
it
and
I'd
be
happy
to
do
it
or
you
give
me
nine
votes
if
the
mayor,
beetles
it
and
I'll
be
happy
to
do
it.
That's
a
very
important
thing
that
we
were
structured
today
in
minneapolis.
N
I
think
commissioner
abbott
is
very
right
with
a
weak
counsel
of
the
weakness.
I
mean
strong
council
former
government,
which
is
what
we
have.
It
is
very
difficult
to
decide
who
is
going
to
minister
what
and
who
is
going
to
be
legislating.
What
perhaps
in
the
future
we
the
council,
should
the
christians
should
take
a
look
at
what
is
the
best
structure
of
government
for
minneapolis?
N
That's
another
issue
entirely
right
now,
and
I
don't
want
to
get
into
that.
But
in
the
meantime,
though,
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
work
we
can
still
provide
for
the
council.
Hopefully
they
can
go
ahead
and
think
about
those
things,
as
they
propose
an
amendment
either
this
year
or
next
year
or
any
year
they're
after,
and
I
hope
that
we
might
be
doing
that.
Therefore,
I'm
going
to
support
the
motion.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
chair.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
I
don't
see
any
first-time
speakers
with
their
hands
up,
so
if
there
aren't
any
others,
I
have
a
few
remarks.
I'd
like
to
make
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversation
about
the
role
of
the
charter.
Commission
commissioner
sandberg
raised
it.
The
role
of
the
charter
commission
is
laid
out
in
article
12
of
the
minnesota
constitution
and
then
defined
by
minnesota
statute.
Section
410.
A
A
A
The
law
doesn't
specify
what
factors
charter
commission
should
look
at
in
evaluating
proposed
amendments,
but
here
are
some
tests
that
I
think
any
amendment
whether
proposed
by
the
council
or
the
charter
commission
itself
needs
to
pass
before
going
on
the
ballot.
First,
is
the
council
amendment
germane
to
the
charter?
A
Sometimes
amendments
are
proposed
that
are
really
an
ordinance
in
disguise.
This
amendment
is
germane.
It
removes
a
city
charter
department
and
proposes
to
add
a
new
one.
These
changes
belong
in
the
charter.
This
amendment
passes
this
test.
Second,
is
the
council
amendment
well
considered
or,
as
we
sometimes
say
at
the
charter
commission?
Is
it
fully
baked?
A
A
Charter
change
should
be
discussed
for
months,
not
hours.
We
need
more
time
to
gather
this
input.
We
need
to
complete
the
911
study
currently
underway.
We
need
to
conduct
the
staffing
and
efficiency
study.
We
need
to
see
the
results
and
recommendations
of
the
minnesota
department
of
human
rights
investigation
of
the
department.
How
can
we
proceed
without
that?
A
A
It's
also
telling
that
the
council's
outreach
plan,
which
was
due
in
mid-july,
has
been
postponed,
ironically
until
tomorrow,
the
day
after
our
vote.
The
third
test
I
have
is:
is
the
amendment
clear
and
specific.
No,
this
amendment
is
not
far
from
it.
The
role
of
the
new
department
of
public
safety
and
violence
profession
is
not
clear:
it's
not
even
clear
that
there
will
be
any
law
enforcement
function.
A
Some
proponents
tell
us
the
charter
change
has
to
happen
before
a
discussion
about
public
safety
can
occur.
That's
just
wrong
and
it's
not
the
way.
Charter
change
works.
We
have
the
conversation
first,
then
we
consider
an
amendment.
If
one
is
necessary,
the
council
says
trust
us,
we'll
figure
it
out
after
this
is
approved,
trust
us
well,
I
don't
and
we
shouldn't
charter
change
is
too
important
for
that.
A
A
A
That's
because
public
safety
is
one
of
the
most
important
government
functions
and
people
have
a
right
to
have
input
as
to
how
the
police
department
is
structured
under
our
current
charter.
Changing
any
of
these
is
a
right
that
is
reserved
to
the
voters.
The
charter
commission
can't
change
the
charter.
The
city
council
can't
change
the
charter.
Only
the
voters
can
change
the
charter.
A
The
council
amendment
would
eliminate
this
specificity
and
give
the
council
the
right
to
fill
in
the
many
blanks.
The
voters
would
lose
the
controls
they
have
now.
We
need
more
time
to
add
enough
detail
so
that
voters
retain
their
control
over
what
law
enforcement
looks
like
in
minneapolis
and
not
just
seed.
That
control
to
the
council.
A
Fifth,
is
the
proposed
amendment
consistent
with
state
law.
The
minnesota
supreme
court
decided
last
year
in
firefighters,
union
versus
city
of
brainerd
that
elimination
of
a
collective
bargaining
unit
by
termination
of
all
covered
employees
is
a
prohibited,
unfair,
labor
practice.
So
by
eliminating
the
police
department,
we
either
commit
an
unfair
labor
practice
or
perhaps
worse.
The
city
attorney's
office
believes
we
end
up
with
the
current
police
union,
representing
the
officers
of
the
new
department
of
public
safety,
with
the
current
police
force,
members
being
called
back
in
seniority
order.
A
That's
not
reform,
that's
negotiating
with
the
police
officers,
federation
of
minneapolis
wearing
a
different
colored
uniform.
There
was
an
article
in
the
strip
about
this
this
morning.
As
recently
as
two
hours
ago,
we
were
getting
legal
memos
memos
from
the
aclu
with
their
analysis
of
these
issues.
I'm
sure
the
city
has
not
even
reviewed
this,
yet
we
need
more
time
to
come
up
with
an
amendment
that
will
not
violate
minnesota
law.
A
E
A
E
I
just
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
met
our
current
police
chief
in
1994
when
I
started
working
for
nrp
and
the
first
year
I
was
there.
I
was
in
public
housing
with
kim
and
a
whole
squad
of
six
officers,
and
he
is
one
of
the
finest
I
mean
when
you
look
in
the
dictionary
under
police
officer.
They
should
have
his
picture
there,
because
that
man
has
been
through
hell
and
back
and
he
is
a
great
chief,
and
so
I
think
this
whole
motion
is
just
out
of
bounds.
A
I
think
we're
to
people
who
want
to
go
for
a
second
time
and
again,
let's
try
and
keep
this
to
a
minute,
not
not
restate
what
you've
said
before.
Just
add
any
clarifications
you
think
are
necessary.
Commissioner,
perry
euro
first.
J
Yes,
just
very
quickly,
a
number
of
things
have
been
said
that
I
would
have
said
so,
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
those.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
when
we
did
the
report
in
2018
that
we
surveyed
the
city
had
surveyed
eight
cities
and
we
did
an
additional
nine
so
there
we
do
have
the
wherewithal
to
do
significant
work
in
in
the
additional
time
that
we
have
and
I'm
not
buying
into
the
narrative
that
we
are
delaying.
J
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
recognize
and
thank
commissioner
newborn
for
your
words,
and
I
hope
everyone
who
is
listening
to
what
you
had
to
say
can
acknowledge
that
this
is
real
for
you
in
ways.
That's
not
real
for
a
lot
of
other
people.
K
I
hope,
there's
a
plan
out
there,
that's
going
to
get
us
to
either
approving,
rejecting
or
offering
an
alternative,
because
our
role
here
is
not
to
safeguard
the
city
council
amendment
from
the
charter.
That's
not
our
role!
The
way
I
see
it,
our
role
is
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council
about
their
proposal,
and
it
sounds
to
me
that
everyone
on
the
commission
has
a
position
of
yes
or
no
on
the
charter
amendment.
K
So
taking
an
additional
90
days
to
add
studies
is
going
to
do.
What,
for
us,
is
it
going
to
allow
us
to
make
a
a
a
proposal,
a
recommendation
that
they
can
just
reject
and
they
they
can
reject
whatever
recommendation
we
send
them.
So
I
I
I
know
this
sounds
like
we're
going
to
lose,
but
this
should
be
going
to
the
ballot
in
november
and
the
ultimate
decider
and
safeguarder
are
the
people
and
the
voters
of
minneapolis.
Thank
you.
A
B
E
I
M
E
E
O
F
N
I
I
A
A
Thank
you
with
that.
We've
concluded
all
business
to
come
before
the
charter
commission.
I
think,
by
the
way
that
I
will
likely
call
a
special
meeting
for
sometime
next
week,
so
we
can
develop
a
work
plan
for
the
next
90
days
and
laundry
list
of
any
items
that
we
need
to
continue
our
evaluation,
but
with
that
we've
concluded
all
business
to
come
before
the
charter
commission.
So
without
objection
we
stand
adjourned.
Thank.