►
From YouTube: July 29, 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
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
My
name
is
barry
clegg
and
I
am
the
chair
of
the
charter.
Commission
I'll
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
C
D
E
E
F
F
C
A
A
A
A
D
E
H
I
C
A
A
A
So
we
have
something
before
us
properly
and
can
discuss
it.
I'm
going
to
ask
commissioner
jarrow
isaacson
to
make
a
motion
to
put
that
proposed
amendment
on
the
ballot
and
then
ask
for
a
second,
then
we'll
have
a
motion
and
a
second
and
we
can
move
to
a
report
of
the
work
group
and
a
discussion
among
charter
commission
members.
K
A
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
before
we
get
to
discussion
among
charter
commission
members.
I
will
ask
commissioner
rubenstein
to
report
on
the
work
and
results
of
the
work
group
study
of
this
proposed
amendment.
Commissioner,.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
What
I
was
saying
was
that
the
memo
the
written
memo
was
sent
to
all
of
you
is
in
limbs
and
is
in
the
chat
right
now.
The
amendment
is
which
is
set
out
in
full
in
the
memo
section.
7.3
c
of
the
charter
regarding
the
minimum
funding
of
the
police
force
has
really
three
different
items
in
it.
That
we've
noticed
and
noted.
The
first
is
that
it
refers
to
employees
and
not
just
licensed
police
officers.
F
F
F
In
the
aftermath
of
george
floyd's
death,
the
city
council
delivered
to
the
charter
commission
a
proposed
amendment
to
the
charter
that
had
a
number
of
components,
including
the
deletion
of
section,
7.3
c,
the
charter
commission.
Sorry,
the
city
council
amendment
is
not
before
us
today,
except
perhaps
indirectly
the
city
council
amendment
has
effectively
divided
the
city.
According
to
the
thousands
of
comments
that
we
have
received,
the
short
version
of
the
division
is:
let
us
vote
versus
vote
for
what
sadly,
there's
been
misinformation
and
misplaced
assumptions,
including
assumptions
about
what
our
role
is.
F
After
the
short
time
we
had
to
study
and
review
the
city
council
amendment
and
in
the
process
of
gathering
comments
and
reading
research
and
reference
materials
and
attempting
to
consider
potential
unintended
consequences.
F
F
In
that
meeting
on
july
20th,
the
charter
commission
accepts
amendment
for
review
scheduled
an
additional
public
hearing
that
occurred
on
monday
to
invite
public
input
regarding
the
amendment
and
further
schedule,
today's
meeting
to
vote
on
whether
to
place
the
amendment
on
the
november
ballot.
So
that's
the
background.
F
Casey
carl,
our
city
clerk,
prepared
a
timeline
for
this
amendment,
which
told
us
that
we
must
get
it
to
the
city
council
by
this
friday
for
any
chance
that
it
will
appear
on
the
ballot
in
november
and
granted.
The
city
council
could
delay
it,
but
we're
assuming
good
faith.
By
proceeding
today,
the
commissioners
weighed
in
yesterday
on
the
substance
of
the
amendment.
F
And
we
had
by
losing-
and
we
had
that
yesterday
and
of
course
we
look
forward
to
having
it
again
today.
On
the
one
hand,
the
opponents
of
placing
these
this
amendment
on
the
ballot
questioned
the
rush.
They
question.
What
is
that
there
is
missing
a
compelling
reason
to
change
the
charter,
because
we
have
a
responsibility
to
ensure
that
there's
an
actual,
evidence-based
and
soundly
structured
plan
for
reform
before
any
admin.
Amendment
should
be
considered.
F
Finally,
it
was
suggested
that
it
might
make
more
sense
to
place
the
question
on
the
2021
ballot
rather
than
the
2020
ballot.
When
the
avowed
one-year
process
of
public
engagement
and
development
of
the
so-called
details
will
have
taken
place,
then
the
voters
should
have
better
information
and
what
they
are
being
asked
to
vote
for.
F
F
Finally,
the
amendment
is
responsive
to
opposing
public
positions,
in
that
it
honors
the
current
momentum
caused
by
the
death
of
george
floyd.
It
allows
the
voters
to
vote
on
a
first
step
toward
reform,
and
yet
it
also
allows
time
for
more
deliberative
process
of
reform.
So
those
were
the
two
views
that
works.
Two
sets
of
views
that
were
discussed
yesterday.
F
We
also
considered
positive
comments
which
we
had
received
from
the
mayor
and
the
police
chief,
and
they
are
included
in
the
memorandum
and
so
with
all.
After
all
that
discussion,
we
came
to
our
vote,
and
the
motion
that
was
brought
for
a
vote
was
as
follows:
motion
to
recommend
that
the
work
group
expressed
its
sincere
thanks
to
commissioner
gerald
isaacson
for
his
proposal
and
forward
a
recommendation
to
the
full
charter
commission
that
the
jerod
isaacson
proposal
not
be
further
considered
as
a
possible
amendment
to
refer
to
voters
as
a
ballot
question
in
2020.
F
A
You
thank
you,
commissioner
jarrow
isaacson.
As
the
maker
of
the
motion
I'll
give
you
the
option
to
speak.
First,
you
don't
have
to
you,
can
pass
and
speak
later
if
you
wish
to,
but
as
the
maker
of
the
motion
you
may
go
first,
if
you
wish.
A
All
right
are
there
any
questions
before
we
begin
with
discussion,
either
about
the
substance
of
the
amendment
or
the
process
of
the
work
group.
D
What
is
the
exact
motion
before
us
has
one?
Is
the
committee
motion
of
the
motion
before
us.
A
A
If
you
want
to
discuss,
please
sign
up
in
the
chat,
and
I
will
call
on
you.
H
Yes,
I
think
commissioner
rubinstein
covered.
I
was
the
maker
of
the
motion
in
the
work
group
yesterday,
and
I
think
she
did
a
very
good
job
of
covering
the
points
that
I
would
have
brought
up
and
did
bring
up.
H
I
think
what
the
overriding
concern
that
I
have,
and
it's
consistent
with
the
city
council's
proposal
as
well,
is
that
we
have
not
really
given
enough
time
for
the
public
to
begin
to
be
engaged
on
this.
This
is
an
extremely
short
timeline.
As
commissioner
rubenstein
noted,
this
came
before
us
on
the
20th
of
july.
H
The
public
has
really
they're
barely
catching
up
with.
What's
happened
with
the
council
motion,
and
I
think
that
when
we're
talking
about
structural
changes,
especially
in
this
era
of
the
murder
of
george
floyd,
we
need
to
engage
with
as
many
people
as
possible,
and
so
I
think
the
timing
is
critical
and
and
that
timing
is
something
that
I
think
needs
to
be
extended
so
that
we
can
give
enough
time
to
engage
with
with
people
across
the
city
of
minneapolis.
H
On
this,
as
I
said,
I
don't
think
most
people
even
know
what's
going
on,
but
I
also,
I
think,
the
substance
of
it
makes
me
concerned
because
the
council
has
said-
and
they
have
acted
in
backing-
that
up
recently
with
the
2020
budget
revisions,
that
they
are
intent
on
defunding
the
police,
and
so
I
think,
having
the
provision
in
the
charter
to
have
a
minimum
number
of
officers
and
employees
in
the
department,
I
think,
is
a
wise
one
at
this
time.
H
But
my
overriding
concern
is
that
we
we
we
don't
criticize
the
council
for
giving
us
something
on
a
short
timeline
and
then
go
and
do
something
that's
an
even
shorter
timeline.
Thank
you
very
much.
K
Let's
see
if
I
can
figure
this
out,
okay,
let's
go
here.
Actually
I
I
do
appreciate
that
the
timeline
is
very
short,
but
I
see
it
as
short
for
the
council
motion.
I
see
this
the
draw
isaacson
amendment
as
really
a
technical
issue.
My
primary
reason
is
that
this
is
a
very
unique
and,
I
think,
bizarre
funding
formula
for
the
police
department.
We've
all
read
some
of
the
history.
We
understand
some
of
that,
but
still
this
is
just
weird.
K
The
charter
should
be
internally
consistent
and
the
use
of
a
formula
for
mandated
departmental
funding
really
only
appears
here
for
the
police
department,
and
there
is
no
justification
for
required
minimum.
I
review
charters
from
a
few
other
cities,
there's
nothing
similar
in
any
of
those.
It
makes
no
sense
to
me
in
times
of
technological
and
social
change,
to
require
minimum
funding.
K
The
only
reason
I
found
to
keep
a
formula
might
be
that
the
police
department's
a
bit
unique
and
it's
oversight
by
the
mayor,
but
I
do
not
find
that
alone
sufficiently
compelling
this
change
would
not
defund
the
police
department.
As
you
all
know,
from
reading
the
charter,
the
police
department
is
retained
by
the
juror
isaacson
amendment
and
in
section
7.2
a
the
city
council
must
establish,
organize
and
otherwise
provide
for
the
departments
listed
that
includes
police
department
and
in
7.2
b.
K
The
ordinance
establishing
each
department
must
provide
in
some
way
for
appropriate
staff
and
other
resources.
Now,
yes,
the
charter
does
address
more
specific,
yet
extremely
vague
language,
with
respect
to
the
fire
mayor
and
the
charter
commission's
redistricting
work,
but
that
language
is
quite
vague.
K
I
do
not
see
this
amendment
by
the
way
there
needs
to
be
a
date
change,
but
we
can
get
to
that
to
be
in
any
way
inconsistent
with
the
amendment
proposed
by
the
city
council
and
for
comments
that
some
have
made
about
confusing
the
voters.
This
amendment
is
clearly
a
subset
of
the
council
amendment.
It's
open
to
very
little
of
any
misinterpretation.
K
Well,
the
same
can't
be
said
for
the
council's
amendments,
since
there
was
no
planning
and
no
community
discussion,
and
that
amendment
is
designed
to
invite
voters
to
frankly
apply
all
their
hopes
and
dreams
to
re
to
interpret
that
amendment's
effect.
Not
so
here
this
amendment
stands
on
its
own.
It's
quite
possible
a
voter
might
wish
to
make
some
change
pertaining
to
police
funding,
but
can't
support
the
council's
amendment
or
a
voter
so
strongly
supports
the
council
that
he
or
she
wants
to
just
vote
no
or
ignore
the
gerard
isaacson
option.
K
I
don't
believe
that
additional
research
is
needed
to
consider
this
amendment.
You
may
not
agree
with
the
change.
You
may
believe
that
there
needs
to
be
mandated
minimums
in
that
case.
Obviously
you
want
to
vote.
No
and
frankly,
I
I'll
just
add
a
comment
that
will
be
more
of
this
next
week.
I'm
assuming,
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
for
the
commission
to
attempt
to
delay
placing
this
amendment
on
the
ballot
in
the
name
of
political
expediency.
K
In
the
words
of
some
of
the
commenters.
I
don't
think
that's
our
job
now.
One
change
for
consistency
with
the
council
amendment.
I
think
dro
isaacson
had
january
1st
or
something
and
the
council
was
may
1st
2021
under
the
language
as
probably
not
a
big
deal
that
gets
changed
by
them,
but
we
might
want
to
make
that
change.
Thank
you.
L
Yes,
I
would
like
to
say
I
think
commissioner
sandberg
spoke
very
eloquently
to
some
of
the
issues
here
on
the
question
of
timing,
the
simplicity
of
this
amendment.
I
think,
really
cuts
against
the
argument
that
we
need
to
take
a
lot
of
time
to
to
study
it.
L
You
know,
as
I
said
yesterday
in
the
work
group,
it
was
a
mistake,
then
it's
a
mistake
to
include
it
now.
The
re.
The
removal
of
this
provision
does
not
fundamentally
alter
the
balance
of
power
between
the
council
and
the
mayor.
It
does
not
fundamentally
alter
some
of
the
structural
issues
that
perhaps
still
need
to
be
discussed
and
altered
down
the
road,
but
it
does
open
up
the
discussion
to
the
public
for
debate
in
the
in
the
general
election
for
2020..
L
You
know
my
you
know.
I'd
offered
an
alternative
proposal
earlier
in
this
process,
and
my
you
know
my
take
on
this
whole
debate
is
the
the
question
is
not
whether
she
would
have
structural
change.
The
question
is:
what
kind
of
structural
change
should
we
have,
and
I
think
this
amendment,
particularly
if
it's
paired
with
the
council
proposal
on
the
ballot,
I
think,
would
generate
a
healthy
debate
amongst
the
public
about.
Should
we
should
we?
What
should
we
do?
You
know?
L
Should
we
should
we
take
the
subset
proposal
or
should
we
take
the
broader
proposal,
and
I
think
that
would
be
a
healthy
debate.
I
think
it's
you
know
in
the
interest
of
of
of
democracy
and
of
having
a
full
discussion.
I
think
it
would
be
a
nice
compliment
to
the
council
proposal.
I
I
also
think
it
would
be
nice,
even
if
it's
on
its
own,
even
if
the
council
proposal
does
not
make
the
november
ballot,
I
think
it
again.
It's
a
first
step
it
it.
L
It
eliminates
one
obvious
charter
barrier
to
restructuring
the
police,
but
it
leaves
the
rest
of
the
debate
open
for
the
political
process
to
unfold
as
it
should.
In
that
sense,
I
think
it's
a
very
healthy
use
of
our
power
to
you
know
it.
It
fits
with
the
charter
it.
It
removes
a
mistake.
L
We
should
not
be
in
the
business
of
putting
minimum
staffing
requirements
in
a
in
an
organizational
document
and
I
think
it
it
promotes
a
healthy
debate
about
what
alternatives
we
should
be
taking
at
this
point,
so
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
it's
well
taken.
The
the
other
point
in
terms
of
study
and
analysis
is,
I.
K
L
As
a
subset
of
the
council
proposal,
it
does
benefit
from
the
existing.
I
mean,
I
think
the
public
comments
and
the
public
hearings
we've
had
on
the
council
proposal
also
reflect
and
can
be
considered
here.
It's
not
a
it's
not
entirely
a
separate
proposal.
It
needs
its
own
level
of
process
and
consideration.
L
L
J
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Yesterday
we
asked
in
the
subcommittee
we
asked
the
city
attorney
representative
whether
or
not
what
would
happen
if
these
two
amendments
went
on
the
charter
I
mean
were
voted
on
and
both
of
them
passed
at
the
november
election.
G
She
said
that
by
and
large
she
could
not
tell
you
exactly
what
happened,
but,
generally
speaking,
a
court
would
probably
go
ahead
and
agree
with
the
city
council's
amendment,
and
that
would
be
implemented
even
though
the
other
amendment
that
we
had,
which
said
that
we
would
continue
to
have
the
police
department.
All
we
would
do
is
no
longer
have
a
minimum
funding.
G
So
what
we
were
concerned
about,
then,
is
that
if
that
happens,
and
if
both
of
them
do
pass,
that
the
council
amendment,
which
p,
which
we
think
is,
doesn't
have
really
very
much
planning
behind
it
other.
So
we
don't
know
what
we're
really
voting
on
in
the
future.
N
As
I
said
yesterday,
if
we
have
any
obligation
at
this
at
this
time
of
crisis,
it's
to
to
do
something
anything
we
can
that's
within
our
purview
to
change
the
culture
of
the
of
the
minneapolis
police
department.
N
I
do
not
believe
this
amendment
is
going
to
do
anything
anything
to
alter
the
culture
short
other
than
allowing
the
city
council
and
the
mayor
to
they
could
virtually
wipe
out
wipe
out
this
department.
I
understand
what
mr
sandberg
said
about
provisions
in
the
charter
which
which
pushed
the
idea
that
there
has
to
be
some
kind
of
a
police
department,
even
if
this
were
to
pass,
but
they
could,
they
could
do
serious,
make
serious
reductions
if
not
zero,
then
pretty
close
as
they
try
to
transform
the
department.
N
But
yet
we
have
no
idea
what
that
transformation
is
going
to
look
like
and
right
now
I
know
we're
we
don't
we
don't
generally
look
at
the
current
situation
of
the
city,
we're
supposed
to
be
looking
at
the
long
run,
but
you
know
there
are
neighborhoods
in
this
city,
not
all
of
them,
but
there
are
some
neighborhoods
in
this
city
which
are
right
now
afflicted
by.
N
I
think
what
we
call
a
pretty
serious
crime
wave
and
in
the
midst
of
all
this,
if
the
only
resolution
or
the
only
solution
we
have
or
the
only
change
we're
going
to
offer,
is
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
police
force.
I
think
that
raises
some
questions
about
how
relevant
our
our
action
is
going
to
be
to
to
really
move
forward
on
chain
on
changing
public
safety
in
this
city.
N
I
also
think
that
I
agree
with
if,
if
we
were
looking
at
today,
what
the
amendment
contemplates,
if
we're
looking
today
to
see,
if
there
should
be
a
minute,
we
should
be
in
the
business
of
putting
a
minimum
compliment
requirement
in
the
charter.
I
would
have
serious
questions
like
everybody
else.
N
Should
we
be
doing
this,
but
the
practice
this
has
been
on
the
books
for
60
years
and
as
such,
we're
at
being
asked
in
the
space
of
two
weeks
to
to
get
rid
of
it,
and
I
think
that's
that's
too
quickly.
We
have
not
had
any
serious
discussion
and,
as
someone
mentioned,
we
have
several
studies
that
are
supposed
to
be
underway
on
how
to
change
the
culture
of
this
of
the
minneapolis
police
department.
N
Those
studies
are
nowhere
near
being
being
completed
and
in
fact
one
of
them
is
being
postponed
and
that's
being
postponed,
while
we're
asked
to
to
move
quickly
to
get
something
on
the
ballot,
and
so
for
all
these
reasons,
I'm
I'm
not
inclined
to
vote
for
this,
and-
and
I
I
think,
it's
something
we
need
to
keep
discussing
and
that's
our
obligation
to
keep
to
keep
this
discussion
alive.
But
we
don't
need
to
keep
the
discussion
alive
by
shoving
something
on
the
ballot
for
2020..
It
can
wait
till
2021.
F
F
It
doesn't
preclude
any
city
council
action
except
the
action
that
it
didn't
want,
which
was
to
have
this
provision
in
the
charter,
and
it
also
doesn't
limit
the
hard
work
and
engagement
facing
us
ahead
to
make
systemic
change,
which
should
have
happened
long
ago,
but
didn't,
but
it
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
start
now.
Thank
you.
A
C
A
With
commissioner
rubenstein
and
commissioner
sandberg
that
that
this
this
provision
about
minimum
funding-
really
we
wouldn't
put
it
in
a
charter
if
we
were
drafting
the
charter
anew,
but
it's
there
now
and
the
fact
is
that
it's
become
code
for
defund
the
police.
So
I
think
it
takes
on
a
bigger
meeting,
meaning
than
just
some
quirky
add-on.
That
was
done
60
years
ago.
It's
now
tied
to
the
to
the
defund,
the
police
question,
so
I
think
it's
more
significant
than
some
folks
are
stating.
A
I
also
agree
that
this
needs
more
time,
especially
since
it
does
has
become
code
for
defund,
the
police,
and
especially
since
at
least
the
council
is
saying,
or
a
veto-proof
majority
of
the
council
is
saying:
that's
what
they
want
to
do
so
I
voted
no
yesterday.
I
think
this
is
a
it's
sound
and
worth
considering,
but
we
should
take
a
year
to
do
that
and
put
it
on
the
2021
ballot.
H
Comment.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
You
said
a
lot
of
what
I
was
going
to
say.
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
quick
thing
is
that
it's
not
just
about
research
to
be
done
in
that
time
frame
that
another
year
would
give
us
it's
about
the
engagement,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I
keep
in
mind
is
something
that
commissioner
gin
ginder
brought
up
during
one
of
our
work
group
sessions.
Is
that
the
time
to
really
have
a
discussion,
a
full-throated
discussion
about
this?
H
We
we've
only
spent
two
weeks
as
a
commission
talking
about
it.
The
voters
will
only
have
I
shouldn't
say
only,
but
early
voting
starts
on
september
18th,
and
so
it's
really
not
until
november
that
the
end
of
the
discussion
has
so
there's
a
lot
less
time
for
voters
to
for
some
voters
who
are
taking
advantage
of
that
to
consider
the
amendments
or
the
amendment.
I'm
sorry
thank.
E
Thank
you,
chair
clay,
commissioners.
I
agree
with
commissioner
kozak's
comments
about
the
lack
of
addressing
the
issue
of
the
police
culture
and
both
of
these
amendments.
Actually
organizational
culture
is
not
something
that
can
be
changed
overnight.
It
takes
years
to
cultivate
it'll
take
years
to
remediate,
and
it's
still,
the
question
is
where,
in
the
police
force,
is
this
cultural
barrier?
Is
it
the
police
force?
Is
it
the
federation?
E
Is
it
both
and
for
60
years
ago,
when
this,
when
this
staffing
requirement
was
written
into
the
charter,
it
was
written
into
the
charter
with
pressure
from
the
from
the
union,
and
I
think
it
is
unfair
for
political
expediency
on
the
part
of
the
city
council,
to
assert
pressure
again
and
taking
a
look,
careful
look
at
this
amendment
and
taking
a
careful
look
at
exactly
what
the
roots
are
of
the
systemic
cultural
inadequacy
and
how
to
address
it
takes
time
on
behalf
of
all
of
the
pr
predominantly
black
but
other
people
of
color
residents
of
the
city
of
minneapolis.
E
A
I
Hello,
so
I
said
this
at
the
work
group
yesterday
and
I'm
just
going
to
rephrase
it
again.
The
calls
that
I
am
receiving
and
the
emails
I'm
receiving
are
from
ward
4,
ward,
5,
ward,
6
and
ward
9.
words
that
are
undergoing
and
ducking
gunfire.
I
There
is
an
unprecedented
amount
of
crime
in
the
city
that
has
occurred
in
the
last
couple
of
months:
260,
shots
wounded
people,
37
homicides
and
aggravated
assaults
in
the
third
and
fifth
precinct
are
up.
There
is
no
ward
6
representative,
there
is
no
council
person.
I
counted
one
person
that
testified
for
ward
6
in
three
public
hearings.
One
person
there
are
37
192
people
in
the
sixth
sword,
38
are
black,
4.5
percent
are
asian,
nine
percent
are
latino.
I
I
think
the
only
way
to
slow
this
down
is
to
ensure
that
mandatory
minimums
remain
in
the
charter,
and
you
know
at
least
until
you
know
next
year,
when
we
actually
know
what
the
changes
are,
what
needs
to
happen
in
the
charter,
what
the
plan
is,
then
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
voting,
but
to
not
have
a
plan
and
a
vote
to
take
something
out.
That's
been
there
for
60
years,
which
is
the
only
safeguard
right
now
for
people
who
are
are
having
to
live
under
gunfire
night
and
day.
I
L
Yeah
briefly,
just
a
a
response
to
a
couple
of
things
that
commissioner
kozak
said.
I
was
struck
that
his
his
discussion
was
basically
directed
to
whether
this
is
a
good
idea
or
a
bad
idea.
But
you
know
the
motion
here
is
not
whether
to
directly
amend
the
charter
ourselves.
We
don't
have
that
power.
The
motion
is
whether
submit
this
to
the
voters
in
november,
for
them
to
decide
whether
this
is
appropriate,
and
you
know,
and
if
the
voters
do
in
fact
choose
to
remove
this
provision
from
the
charter.
L
I
think
that
I
think
that
kind
of
addresses
the
the
legitimacy
question
I
mean
the
and,
and
I
think
the
virtue
of
of
the
juror
isaac's
amendment
in
quite
the
opposite
of
the
the
council
proposal.
Is
that
it's
it's
it's
narrow
enough.
I
mean
it
really
comes
down
to
a
simple
debate.
L
Is
you
know,
should
we
give
the
power
to
the
council
to
to
defund
the
police,
or
not
even
that's,
probably
a
bit
of
a
simplification,
but
that's
a
healthy
debate
to
have
and-
and
I
think
that
it
is,
I
think
the
city
would
benefit
by
knowing
you
know
by
taking
the
temperature
of
the
public
in
a
referendum
to
see
you
know
what
their
you
know.
L
You
know
what
the
what
the,
what
their
opinion
is
on
this
and
I
think
the
the
referendum
is
going
to
produce
a
more
reliable
sense
of
what
the
public
opinion
is
than
even,
for
example,
a
council
vote.
L
Would
I
mean
direct
democracy
in
in
some
respects,
and
at
least
in
this
respect
I
think
would
be
preferable
to
representative
democracy
so
and-
and
I
think
that
some
of
the
parade
of
horribles
arguments
that
are
being
made
here
in
terms
of
you
know,
would
that
this
would
permit
defunding
the
police
and
and
things
of
that
nature.
You
know
it's
in
the
nature
of
democracy
that
political
leaders
could
make
mistakes.
I
mean
obviously,
as
we
evaluate
charter
proposals.
L
You
know
we
are
looking
at
the
possibility
of
unintended
consequences,
but
I
think
we're
kind
of
you
know
treading
perilously
into
an
area
where
you
know
some
people
seem
to
think
our
job
is
to
put
up
guard
rails
for
political
mistakes
made
by
the
council
or
the
mayor,
and
I
don't
think
that's
our
role
here.
I
think
our
role
is
kind
of
a
bigger,
broader
question
of
of
you
know
what
should
be
in
the
charter
when,
generally,
what
should
our
organizational
principles
be?
L
And
I
think
everyone
here
and
I
don't
hear
anybody
who's
opposed
to
this
motion-
saying
that
this
provision
should
be
in
the
charter
as
a
matter
of
principle
or
as
a
matter
of
you
know,
for
all
time.
You
know
it
and,
like
I
said
I
I
think,
and
and
and
so
anyway,
that
I'm
about
to
repeat
myself
so
I'll
stop.
L
But
I
just
think
that
I
think
we're
overthinking
the
the
implications
here
and
I
don't
think
like
I
say
I
I
don't
think
I
mean
I
think
we
should
let
the
council
do
its
job
in
a
lot
of
respects.
That
doesn't
mean
that
we
have
to
tune
our
own
opinions
out,
but
I
do
think
we
have
to
have
a
respect
for
the
political
process.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Jarrow
isaacson.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
just
wanted
to
start
out
by
thanking
all
of
the
commissioners
for
all
your
comments
and
questions
that
we've
had
during
this
process
for
all
of
the
points
that
are
being
brought
up
on.
Why
we
shouldn't
get
this
to
the
november
ballot
which
have
been.
You
know
that
it's
been
here
for
60
years.
You
know,
we've
only
had
a
few
weeks
to
debate
it
that
there's
a
lot
of
crime
happening
in
the
city,
that
this
is
a
defund.
J
The
police
statement
that
it's
taken
over
to
defund
the
police
statement
that
if
the
council
passes
their
amendment,
if
that
passes
an
arts
passes,
then
then
we'll
the
council's
amendment
would
take
take
place.
That's
the
opinion
of
the
attorney.
J
All
of
those
are
are
fair
and
all
of
those
are
reasons
why
you
would
vote
no
in
november
at
the
ballot,
and
it
might
be
where
both
of
these
amendments,
if
they
do
end
up
on
the
ballot
november,
fail
this
every
single
one
of
us,
every
single
citizen
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
will
get
a
chance
to
say
we
didn't
have
enough
time,
it's
too
fast.
J
It's
that
that
that
amendment
has
been
there
for
60
years.
They
all
have
the
chance
to
say
that
they
also
have
the
chance
to
say
we
should
let
the
mayor,
the
city,
council
and
the
chief
through
the
fte
process
and
the
budget
debate.
What
policing
should
look
like
and
I'm
okay
with
that
process,
and
they
could
say
I'm
okay
with
allowing
the
city
council
to
say
we
want
to
have
less
law
enforcement
and
different
types
of
responders,
because
I
can
hold
them
accountable
to
what
they
do.
J
So
all
of
those
reasons
are
good
for
yes
or
no.
This
amendment
that
gets
it
to
the
ballot
november
will
give
the
citizens
of
minneapolis
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
to
decide
and
I'll
put
my
trust
in
the
voters
of
minneapolis
and
I'll
say.
I
believe
that
the
citizens
of
minneapolis
have
earned
the
right
to
have
a
say.
N
Mr
chairman,
I
can
I
can,
let
me
let
me
defer
to
the
next
person
just
for
just
for
a
bit.
G
My
gut
feeling
is
is
that
we
need
to
really
work
with
consultants.
We
need
to
find
out
from
them.
What
is
the
real
thinking
of
the
people
in
the
community?
We
then
need
to
as
a
relate
to
public
safety.
We
then
need
to
find
out.
Does
our
police
department
does
all
the
other
organizations
that
do
some
kind
of
policing
in
minneapolis,
such
as
the
violent
prevention
of
department,
where
within
the
health
department
do
all
these
different
organizations
provide
really
good
public
safety?
G
If
they
do,
then
we
should
build
a
structure
which
provides
for
that.
If
we
don't
know
that,
then
we
need
to
find
that
out
and
so
by
hiring
consultants.
We
can
find
out
what's
going
on,
how
does
our
police
department
and
how
does
other
people
relate
to
the
county
sheriff's
office?
What
are
they
doing
and
how
does
the
relationship
between
those
two
we
don't
know
any
of
those
kind
of
things?
G
This
and
we
can
then
provide
as
a
charter
commission.
We
need
the
structure
to
do
it.
If
the
people
vote
for
that
they
have
a
plan
that
was
given
to
the
city
council
mayor
to
implement.
Hopefully
they
will
implement
it,
and
we
can
then
have
something
that
we
really
know
people
really
want.
We
haven't
done
none
of
that
city
council's
not
doing
that.
Yet
they
are
doing
some
plans.
They
are
doing.
They've
already
had
a
911
study.
We
don't
know
what
that
is,
we've
not
received
a
copy
of
that
we've
asked
for
that.
G
A
Thank
you.
I've
been
giving
everybody
pretty
much
free
reign
in
terms
of
your
remarks
and
I'll
continue
to
do
that
for
first-time
speakers,
but
if
you're
speaking
for
the
second
or
third
time,
please
keep
your
comments
brief,
like
in
a
minute,
but
commissioner
smith
hasn't
spoken
yet
so
he
gets
to
go
on
as
long
as
he
wants.
Commissioner
smith,
all
right.
C
C
You
know
if
this
were
to
go
before
a
vote
this
amendment-
I
don't
know
that
I
would
vote
for
it,
but
I
don't
think
it's
the
role
of
this
commission
to
stop
it
from
going
before
a
vote.
I
think
the
timed
act
is
now
minneapolis
has
been
in
the
international
news.
This
is
a
time
like
no
other
in
our
city's
history.
C
C
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Kozak
had
a
follow-up.
N
Yeah
one
final
point,
mr
chairman:
we
have
I
you
know.
I
I
understand
what
commissioner
smith
is
saying
and
because
everybody
that's
spoken,
I
think,
has
a
there's
a
there's
truth
in
in
what
everyone
has
said,
but
our
job
is
to
make
is
to
make
a
decision
and-
and
we
have
the
one
obligation
I
think
we
have
is
when
we
do
deliver
something
to
the
people
for
their
decision.
N
We
have
to
give
them
an
opportunity
to
make
an
informed
decision
and
right
now
what
this
amendment
does,
and
I
think
several
people
have
put
it
this
way.
It
it
says.
Do
you
want
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
police
department?
That's
the
implied
direction
of
this
of
this
amendment,
and
yet
all
we
don't
offer
them
any
alternative
to
reduc,
reducing
the
the
size.
So
because
of
that,
if
we're
when
it,
I
think
what
commissioner
schwarzkopf
said
was
was
right.
N
K
K
D
D
D
D
While
the
massive
thrust
of
this
whole
punishment
would
fall
on
ourselves,
I've
been
there
50
years
ago.
We
had
this.
We
had
the
riots
and
the
result
was
loss
of
population
vacant
houses,
rows
and
rows.
Eighth,
ward,
ninth
ward
years
before
the
city
recovered,
I
don't
care
to
repeat
the
experience
and
I
don't
care
to
inflict
the
repetition
of
the
experience
on
my
fellow
residents.
O
Great,
so
you
know
I've
been
sitting
with
this,
probably
as
long
as
as
everyone
else
has,
and
it's
been
contemplating
about.
You
know
what
what's
the
right
path.
What's
the
right
decision-
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
sandberg
on
this-
this
question
around
both
from
the
residents
and
it
seems
like
internally
about
the
role
of
the
commission.
O
I
I
do
think-
and
I
am
in
no
way
an
expert,
but
I
do
think
that
there
we
need
to
have
that
discussion
and
kind
of
level
set
about
that
at
our
roles,
because
I
hear
things
on
this
meeting
that
it's
it's
confusing
to
me
as
to
what
what
is
the
question
and
what
is
the
decision
that
we
are
supposedly
made
making
and
the
obligation
that
we
have
to
our
residents.
So
I
do
just
want
to
concur
with
commissioner
sandberg's
statement
around
that.
O
I
also
want
to
say-
and
I've
been
relatively
quiet,
because
I
I
wanted
to
be
in
a
place
of
listening
and
and
understanding
instead
of
actively
speaking
with
this
particular
issue,
because
as
a
person
of
color
who
is
a
resident
here
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
you
know
the
the
incident
that
has
taken
place
recently
with
the
murder
of
george
floyd,
also
in
over
400
years
with
with
the
black
community
and
indigenous
community
here
in
this
country.
O
It's
hard
to
to
think
about.
You
know
waiting
anymore
for
change,
and
so
I
want
to.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
as
we
think
about
this-
and
everyone
has
our
different
perspectives
and
backgrounds
and
and
and
on
a
continuum
of
learning.
But
you
know
when
we
talk
about
waiting,
there
are
people
in
our
community
who.
I
O
Who
have
died
and
lost
their
lives
and
in
in
in
there's
a
privilege
to
waiting
that
we
have
as
homeowners
as
business
owners
here
in
minneapolis
that
some
the
rest
of
our
communities
don't
have.
And
this
is
not
me
offering
how
I'm
going
to
vote.
O
Know
that
only
certain
people
go
to
those
meetings.
Only
certain
people
write
a
letter
to
the
commission
into
city
council
and
to
the
mayor,
and
those
are
folks
who
who
have
the
time
and
privilege
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
and
but
and
those
are
also
the
folks
who
are
most
vulnerable
to
being
subjected
to
similar
incidences
that
have
taken
place
by
the
police
here
and
just
in
violence
in
general.
So
again
not
saying
what
my
vote
is
at
this
point,
I
do
appreciate
commissioner
jarrell
eisen
for
lifting
this
up.
O
I
want
to
my
understanding
of
our
role
is
to
for
this
particular
issue
so
that
I
don't
mix
up
the
other
amendment,
but
for
this
particular
issue
we
found
that
there's
a
charter
provision
that
you
know,
I
think
everyone
has
said-
doesn't
make
sense,
given
this
time.
No
other
local
jurisdiction
that
we
know
of
in
our
area
has
a
similar
provision,
and
so
for
me,
what
I'm
looking
at
is,
you
know:
does
this
provision
make
sense?
Should
we
should
we
make
changes
to
that
charter
provision
and
also
have
we
heard
from
our
community
and
the.
I
O
About
their
positions
on
this,
and-
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong-
is
that,
if
that's
not
the
focus
of
this
of
this
particular
discussion,
but
that's
how
I'm
looking
at
this
particular
issue.
A
L
D
E
B
I
O
F
F
H
H
A
There
is
we've
conducted
the
business,
that's
on
the
agenda
for
tonight.
There
will
be
another
work
group
meeting
next
tuesday
and
our
regular
charter
commission
meeting
a
week
from
today
on
august
5th.
That's
where
we
will
continue
to
discuss.
The
council
proposed
amendment
there
being
no
further
business
to
come
before
us
tonight.
Without
objection,
we
stand
adjourned.
Thank
you.