►
From YouTube: July 20, 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
The
broadcast
of
the
special
meeting
of
the
minneapolis
charter
commission
will
now
begin
good
afternoon.
Everyone
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
the
charter
commission's
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.
C
D
E
D
D
D
D
A
A
G
H
D
D
I
J
A
That
motion
carries-
and
we
have
an
agenda
next
item-
is
the
chairs
report
and
I
have
nothing
to
report-
that's
not
on
the
rest
of
our
agenda,
so
we'll
proceed
right
to
that.
The
first
item
of
discussion
is
commissioner
abbott's
proposed
substitute
to
the
charter
amendment
proposed
by
the
council.
Commissioner
abbott
I'll
call
on
you.
K
A
L
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
That
proposed
substitute
is
withdrawn.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda-
and
the
final
item
is
a
discussion
of
our
proposed
charter
amendment
as
a
ballot
question
to
be
referred
to
voters
at
the
general
election
on
november
3rd
2020
and
for
our
listeners
just
to
explain
the
difference.
The
previous
two
substitutes
were
substitutes
to
the
amendment
proposed
by
the
city
council.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
chair.
Pursuant
to
minnesota
statutes,
section
410.12
subdivision
one.
I
move
the
charter
commission
consider
whether
to
propose
an
amendment
of
its
own
to
the
city
charter
related
to
the
required
minimum
staffing
levels
in
the
minneapolis
police
department,
section
7.3
c,
to
be
submitted
to
the
voters
as
a
ballot
question
at
the
general
election
set
for
november
3rd
2020.
L
Sure,
mr
chair,
thank
you
this.
This
proposed
a
charter
amendment
would
bring
our
charter
back
to
the
pre-1961
charter,
where
the
police
minimum
funding
was
added.
L
It
came
from
the
city
council
at
the
time
and
was
supported
by
the
minnesota
or
I'm
sorry,
the
minneapolis
police
federation.
This
gives
the
voters
an
opportunity
to
vote,
yay
or
nay
on
maintaining
or
removing
the
minimum
funding
of
the
police
force
if
approved.
This
brings
the
charter
to
that
pre-1961.
L
The
city
council
can
continue
to
fund
public
safety
programs
as
they
are
doing
now.
The
city
can
continue
its
plan
for
a
year-long
community
engagement
process
regarding
creating
a
new
way
of
policing
and
public
safety.
It's
a
simple,
clear,
understandable
and
straightforward
ballot
question
and
that's
why
I'm
moving
this
for
moving
this
forward.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
A
L
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
As
everyone
knows,
our
rules
require
that,
before
voting
to
put
a
proposed
amendment
on
the
ballot
we
have,
we
must
have
a
public
hearing
unless
two-thirds
of
the
charter
commission
vote
not
to
have
a
public
hearing.
Commissioner
jeroe
isaacson,
are
you
also
moving
that
we
hold
a
public
hearing
on
this
proposed
amendment.
A
We
need
a
second
for
that
before
discussion.
Is
there
a
second.
F
J
The
question
I
have
is
that
does
this
because
we
have
if
we
pass
this
and
if
it
goes
back
to
the
council,
does
it
automatically
go
on
the
on
the
ballot
as
the
charter
quit
question,
and
does
the
council
then
write
them?
Well?
No,
it's
already
been
so
this
is
automatically
go
on
the
ballot.
Or
can
the
council
still
push
us
aside
and
put
their
amendment
they
had
before
us
on
the
ballot.
A
Commissioner,
schwarzkopf
and
I'll
ask
city
clerk,
casey
carl,
to
add
anything
if
he
wishes
to,
but
the
charter
commission
has
the
right
under
the
statute
to
put
amendments
on
the
ballot
without
approval
by
the
city
council,
and
this
amendment
would
be
independent
and
separate
from
the
council's
proposed
amendment.
So
if
we
voted
to
put
this
on
the
ballot,
the
city
council
would
have
the
right
to
determine
the
ballot
question
language,
but
it
would
go
on
the
ballot.
A
If
we
vote
to
accept,
propose
a
substitute
or
reject
their
ballot
question,
then
they
could
then
vote
to
either
put
it
on
the
ballot
or
accept
a
substitute.
We
propose
if
we
vote
to
request
our
additional
time
to
throw
to
more
thoroughly
review
the
council
ballot
question.
G
I
I
If,
if
we
accept
or
we
offer
a
substitute
amendment
or
even
if
we
don't,
it
still
doesn't
preclude
them
from
putting
another
ballot
question
on
the
ballot,
I
take
it.
And
secondly,
since
we're
not
voting
on
this
proposed
amendment
today,
is
it
open
for
us
to
suggest
other
language
in
the
course
of
our
consideration
of
this
amendment.
A
With
respect
to
your
first
question,
yes,
as
I
said
before,
the
city
council
could
proceed
to
put
their
own
amendment
on
the
ballot.
Assuming
we
either
accept
it
propose
a
substitute
or
reject
it.
The
only
thing
that
would
preclude
that
from
being
on
the
ballot
is,
if
we
request
our
additional
time.
I
A
With
respect
to
your
second
question,
suggested
changes
in
the
language
can
you
would
either
be
appropriate
now,
before
a
public
hearing
or
after
a
public
hearing
and
before
a
final
vote
by
the
charter
commission.
H
I
have
a
question
that
and
it's
it's
a
bit
off
topic,
but
we've
had
I've
listened
to
the
city
council
hearing
last
week,
almost
two
and
a
half
hours
and
of
course
I
listened
through
hours,
and
it
seemed
to
me
that,
unlike
public
hearings
in
other
venues
such
as
legislature-
and
even
you
know
what
happens
in
a
hearing
is
they
give
both
sides
equal
time
to
to
talk
and
rather
than
who,
who
jumps
in
and
signs
up?
H
First,
and
so
I
would
like
to
know
if,
if
the
the
hearing
rules
are
already
set
in
stone
or
if,
in
fact,
we
can
change
the
format
so
that
we
would
have
at
least
expectation
that
that
the
the
hearing
we
would
hear,
we
would
get
roughly
the
same
time
from
from
for
each
side
to
to
make
their
make
their
case.
A
A
Second,
we
would
take
people
who
sign
up
for
tomorrow's
hearing
in
order,
but
have
not
spoken
before
and
third.
If
anybody
wants
to
spoke
last
week
and
wants
to
speak
again,
they
would
be
last
that's
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
body,
and
the
body
may
certainly
propose
different
rules,
but
that's
the
order.
I
have.
A
E
E
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
chair
clerk
and
my
second
question
is:
would
we
still
be
within
the
time
frame?
I
believe
it's
august
5th
or
are
we
on
a
different
timeline.
M
Mr
chair,
the
timeline
that
I
have
developed
in
concert
with
you
would
have
this
proposal
also
completed
by
the
charter
commission
at
its
regular
meeting
on
august
5th,
in
order
to
make
the
timeline
for
the
submission
of
ballot
questions
which
is
74
days
prior
to
the
date
of
the
general
election.
M
That
date
as
a
reminder
is
friday,
august
21st,
and
in
order
for
us
to
complete
the
work
as
a
charter
commission
body
and
to
give
the
city
council
time
to
finalize
and
approve
ballot
language,
we
would
need
to
have
action
completed
by
the
regular
meeting
on
august
5th.
So
it
does
follow
a
very
similar
timeline
to
the
one
we
are
currently
following
for.
The
amendment
proposed
by
city
council.
E
Sorry
this
is
commissioner
newborn
again
cherry
craig.
I
do
have
another
question
and
maybe
it's
directed
towards
commissioner
gero
isaacson.
E
Do
we
do
you
have
any
concerns
around,
and
I
know
this
is
a
what,
if
game,
but
if
we,
if
this
body
decides
to
move
forward
with
our
own
ballot
question
and
then
the
council's
ballot
question
is
also
provided
or
presented
as
well.
Is
there
any
concerns
about
it
being
confusing
to
our
voters
and
and
that
may
get
into
some
language
issues,
but
just
one
to
see
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
about
that,
but
the
questions
directed
towards
commissioner
gerald
isaacson.
L
If
both
do
go
to
the
ballot
there,
there
could
be
some
who
are
confused
by
the
ballot
language
from
the
city
council's
proposal,
but
I
believe
that
my
proposal
here,
if
this
moves
forward,
is
pretty
straightforward
and
clear,
with
just
eliminating
the
minimum
funding.
So
while
their
question
is,
is
I
believe,
confusing.
E
No
thank
you
so
much
chair
clegg
and
also
commissioner
gerard
addison.
Thank.
H
Yes,
I
did,
mr
chairman,
thank
you.
The
fact
is
that
there
could
be
a
conflict
if
both
if
both
amendments
as
they're
they're
now
put
end
up
on
the
ballot,
because
the
you
have,
commissioner,
our
commissioner
isaacson's
amendment,
I
believe,
says
that
the
council
or
the
city
must
have
a
police
force,
whereas
the
council,
the
council
amendment,
says,
may,
and
the
council
amendment
would
still
have.
If
they
were
to
do
this
in
its
current
form,
they
still
have
the
.0017
provision.
H
N
Thank
you.
It's
kind
of
a
question
comment,
I'm
very
intrigued
by
what
has
been
proposed
here
on
it's
it's.
It's
simple,
two.
It
kind
of
goes
into
the
idea
of
what
is
appropriately
in
our
charter,
but
I
do
have
a
concern
is
that
this
feels
quite
rushed
to
me
if
this,
if
we
go
forward
in
this
it'll,
be
less
than
I
think
two
weeks
from
proposal
to
where
we
vote
on
it.
N
With
a
hearing
stuck
in
between
there,
it
seems
to
me
that
it's
right
for
confusion
with
people
who
want
to
attend
the
public
hearing
and
others
who
just
want
to
understand
what's
going
on,
and
it
also
kind
of
goes
against
the
idea
that
you
know
we've
had
time
to
really
consider
this
in
all
this
ramifications,
as
I
said
on
its
surface,
it's
a
very
attractive
and
simple
idea,
but
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
whether
this
sends
a
message,
that's
kind
of
contrary
to
what
we've
done
with
the
city
council's
amendment.
K
Yes,
I
just
want
to
comment
on
the
overlap
with
the
council
proposal.
I
mean
the
question,
I
think,
is
what
happens
if
both
of
them
get
onto
the
ballot
and
both
of
them
pass,
and
I
think
the
virtue
of
of
this
particular
amendment
is
that
it
is
consistent
with
the
council
proposal
if
both
passed
or
in
if
the
council
proposal
passes
this
ends
up
being
kind
of
a
you
know,
there's
no
longer
any
language
to
eliminate
from
the
charter
and
this
becomes
kind
of
a
surplus
or
meaningless.
K
So
I
I
think
there
are
other
things
that
we
could
potentially
talk
about
in
terms
of
a
a
charter
commission
initiated
amendment,
but
I,
but
I
I
think
the
the
possibility
of
conflict
between
two
competing
amendments
is
keeps
us
from
doing
anything
more
than
just
something:
a
simple
deletion
of
language
like
this.
I
think
I
think
this
is
well
crafted
and
I
think
it's
even
if
both
end
up
on
the
ballot.
I
think
it
would
be
perfectly
fine.
F
F
F
F
If
the
council
amendment
fails
and
only
this
passes,
then
there's
this
small
part
of
the
requirement
for
a
certain
funding
that
would
pass
and
be
applicable
with
no
change
to
language
for
the
presence
of
police
force
if
both
fail
we're
right
where
we
are
right
now,
I
I
don't
see
this
as
a
conflict
at
all.
I
I
think
actually
it's
quite
interesting
and
that
it's
quite
straightforward
and
in
some
respects
may
mirror
some
of
the
comments
that
we've
been
hearing
online
and
at
the
hearing.
So
I'm
fine
with
it.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
agree
with
most
of
what
commissioner
sandberg
just
said.
I
do
not
think
the
fact
that
it's
rushed
is
a
problem
because
it
has
already
been
incorporated
in
the
other
amendment
and
we've
been
working
on
it
anyway.
I
My
concern,
though,
is
that
there
is
a
conflict
between
may
and
must
and
on
the
other
hand,
because
our
comments
and
the
emails
and
everything
else
have
been
so
divided,
it's
giving
the
city
of
minneapolis
a
choice
that
they
want
to
have,
and
so
for
that
reason
I
think
it's
a
very
good
proposal.
J
As
a
former
city
coordinator
and
as
a
still
a
member
of
the
international
city
managers
association,
I
have
been
in
contact
with
them
about
this
whole
issue
of
policing
and
how
you
do
it
and
how
it
should
be
done.
Things
like
that,
and
they
have
appointed
me
to
a
number
of
different
consultants
that
have
been
working
with
different
cities
about
the
same
kind
of
issues.
J
I
don't
know
whatever
happened
on
that
proposal.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
ever
implemented.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
chosen
or
not,
but
somebody
anyway
has
a
proposal
out
there
and
it
looks
like
we
need
to
take
the
time
to
figure
out
what
is
that
proposal?
Are
they
going
to
use
those
people?
What
will
they
say?
How
will
the
structure
change
based
upon
that?
J
Those
are
some
of
the
things
I'm
finding?
What
I
want
to
do
is
I
wanted
to
send
a
memo
to
all
the
members
of
the
subcommittee,
and
I
don't
know
how
to
do
that.
Apparently
I
go
through
the
city
clerk
and
he
then
sends
it
on
to
the
member
subcommittee
that
the
way
it's
done.
A
A
Minute,
I
don't
see
well,
there
is
okay,
we'll
let
commissioner
perry
go
first.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair
I'll,
just
briefly
say
that,
although
we're
talking
about
the
motion
and
the
subject
of
the
motion
is
whether
to
have
a
public
hearing,
people
have
sort
of
commented
on
the
actual
substance
of
the
proposal.
G
I
would
say
that
I
also
have
concerns
about
the
conflict
between
if
both
get
on
the
ballot,
and
I
do
believe
that,
while
the
author,
I
believe
the
author's
intent
is,
is
a
good
one.
I
think
this
is
a
bit
rushed
and
for
that
I
have
concerns,
and
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
doing
the
proper
study
and
and
taking
into
account
the
implications.
G
For
example,
what
happens
if
both
are
on
the
the
ballot
in
both
pass?
What
are
the
legal
implications
of
that?
Those
types
of
questions
I
think,
need
to
be
asked
and
answered,
and
that
may
be
one
of
the
things
that
we
talk
about
in
the
work
group,
but
I
think
those
types
of
things
need
to
be
addressed
before
I
could
vote
in
favor
of
this.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Commissioner
kozak
one
more
comment:
go
ahead.
H
One
final
one
this,
mr
chair,
it
it
seems
to
me
that
in
the
real
world,
the
commissioner
hudson's
amendment
is
certainly
a
lot
narrower
narrower
and
more
focused
than
the
council
amendment.
However,
by
removing
the
.0017,
even
though
it
may
just
be
a
in
the
real
world,
a
symbolic
number
and
we,
the
current
complement
of
the
police
force,
is
way
above
that.
Nevertheless,
if
that
were
to
pass,
if
they
were
the
only
thing
to
pass,
it
would
still
be
interpreted
by
many
people.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Abbott.
K
Yeah
just
a
reminder
this,
the
motion
pending
is
whether
or
not
to
schedule
a
public
hearing
for
this,
not
whether
we
should
adopt
this
substantively
or
not,
and
I
I
think
the
public
ought
to
have
a
a
say
on
this.
It
seems
to
me
if
we
vote
a
public
hearing
down
we're
killing
this
amendment
before
we
have
a
chance
to
hear
public
input.
I
think
which
would
be
a
mistake.
A
That's
a
good
point,
commissioner,
and
a
reminder
as
to
how
we've
handled
past
proposed
amendments,
because
our
rules
do
require
a
public
hearing.
We.
B
A
A
C
Well,
I
I
believe
that
the
charter
commission
has
a
legal
and
moral
obligation
to
uphold
the
strong
minneapolis
police
force
for
the
benefit
of
citizens
of
the
city.
I
believe
these
proposals
punish
the
many
brave
and
law-abiding
police
for
the
sins
of
the
few,
such
as
the
horrible
crime
against
george
floyd.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
One
more
comment
by
commissioner
metchi.
D
I'm
gonna
pass
on
my
comment.
Thanks
to
commissioner
cohen's
comment,
I
was
thinking
along
the
same
trains
as
to
as
to
the
public
hearing.
So
I'm
passing
on
my
comment
right
now.
A
C
H
B
E
E
E
I
A
That
matter
carries
in
terms
of
scheduling
of
the
proposed
public
hearing.
We
have
a
public
hearing
tomorrow.
As
you
know,
for
the
council's
proposed
amendment.
We
also
have
a
work
group
meeting
tomorrow.
A
D
I'm
in
support
of
moving
a
public
hearing
to
next
week,
whatever
is
convenient
for
the
group.
I
think
it's
only
responsible
of
us
to
be
able
to
give
people
in
the
city
and
neighborhoods
as
much
advance
notice
as
we
can,
and
I
think,
having
something
on
friday
for
a
new
amendment
is
just
way
too
short
of
a
time
period.