►
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).
B
B
B
B
D
D
B
B
Thank
you,
the
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
is
adopted.
I
will
note
that
commissioner
newborn
was
delayed
in
a
meeting
and
she
will
be
here
soon
item.
One
on
the
agenda
is
the
chairs
report
and
I
do
not
have
a
report,
and
so
we
will
go
to
item
number
two
and
if
item
number
two
on
the
agenda
are
the
interviews
of
our
invited
guests
to
answer
questions
regarding
the
city's,
the
city
council's
proposed
charter,
amendment
related
to
community
safety
and
violence
prevention,
and
I
want
to
welcome
the
members
of
city
council
who
are
here
today.
B
So
I
will
go
right
into
the
questions
and
I
know
that
you've
received
them
in
advance.
I
apologize
for
the
length
and
hope
they
won't
be
quite
as
likely
as
they
seem,
and
we
also
want
to
leave
room
for
other
members
of
the
commission
to
ask
questions
if,
if
they
are
so
inclined
I'll
start
with
the
first
question
at
the
june
7th
rally
in
powderhorn
park,
nine
council
members
standing
on
a
stage
that
had
a
sign
which
stated
defund
police
called
for
ending
the
minneapolis
police
department.
B
In
a
letter
dated
august
5.
However,
just
prior
to
our
vote
on
the
amendment,
five
members
of
city
council
stated
that
the
council
was
not
actually
asking
to
submit
a
ballot
question
that
would
abolish
the
police
and
specifically
stated
that
you
did.
It
quote
envision
a
public
safety
system
that
includes
law
enforcement.
B
B
We
haven't
addressed
any
of
these
questions
to
any
particular
one
of
you,
and
so
we
welcome
whoever
wishes
to
answer
these
questions
to
answer
them.
So
our
first
question
is:
could
you
clarify
how
you
actually
do
perceive
the
role
of
law
enforcement
existing
in
the
future
under
a
new
community
safety
and
violence
prevention
department
and
whether
licensed
police
officers
will
be
a
part
of
that
future
vision.
E
Madam
chair
council,
member
philippe
cunningham
here,
chair
of
the
public
health
and
safety
committee,
I
would
like
to
speak
to
that.
If
it's
okay,
that.
E
So
I
just
want
to
share
that.
The
approach
that
we
have
been
discussing
as
a
council
is
really
looking
at
the
entire
cycle
of
someone's
involvement
with
the
system,
so
that
includes
prevention,
intervention
enforcement
and
re-entry,
which
is
supporting
folks
coming
out
of
incarceration
back
into
our
community,
that
is
based
on
the
office
of
or
the
department
of
justice.
Their
recommendation
of
a
structure
related
to
violence,
sustainable
violence
in
in
prevention
and
intervention.
So
within
that
prevention
is
something
we've
already
talked.
A
lot
about.
E
Intervention
is
really
thinking
about
when
you're
in
the
thick
of
a
situation,
and
how
do
you
disrupt
violence
is
underway,
or
you
know,
stopping
retaliatory
violence,
for
example,
and
enforcement
is
a
role
within
that.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
good
law
enforcement
and
that
we
are
structuring
it
for
success.
E
But
what
we
know,
though,
overall,
is
that
when
it
comes
to
prevention,
intervention
and
reentry,
that
the
government
programs
that
are
that
have
been
social
programs
that
have
been
investments
in
the
underlying
causes
of
crime
and
violence,
have
been
cut
and
cut
and
cut
and
at
the
same
time,
the
system
of
consequences.
So
the
criminal
justice
system
and
law
enforcement,
their
budgets
have
continued
to
increase.
What
we're
talking
about
here
is
a
comprehensive
approach
that
right-sizes
law
enforcement
within
prevention,
intervention
enforcement
and
re-entry.
E
So
that
is
the
work
that
we
have
been
doing,
and
I
will
allow
one
of
my
other
colleagues
to
be
able
to
speak
to
that,
but
just
wanted
to
give
you
that
framework
from
which
we
are
operating.
B
F
You
hi,
commissioner
rubenstein.
This
is
council
member
alondra.
I
hope
you
can
hear
me
welcome
hi.
Thank
you
for
having
us
again.
I
I
I'm
going
to
put
up
my
volume
here,
so
I
can
hear
you
all
better.
So
I
think
to
your
question.
It's
important
for
me,
as
as
one
of
the
five
co-authors
of
the
charter.
F
Amendment
initiative
is
that
we
did
have
very
thorough,
intentional
and
thoughtful
conversations
about
the
language
in
the
question
that
we
forwarded
to
you
all-
and
I
think
it's
important
for
for
us
to
be
transparent
in
that
that
specific
question
did
have
the
language
that
stated
that
the
city
council
would
be
able
to
activate
a
law
enforcement
division
or
law
enforcement
services
arm
within
the
broader
new
public
safety
department.
F
Shall
the
city
council
choose
to
so
I
believe
the
word.
The
specific
word
we
used
was
may
instead
of
will-
and
I
know
that
there
were
certain
you
know.
F
And
I
think
that
that
was
probably
the
most
significant
point
of
divergence
between
the
the
choice
of
the
five
co-authors
and
the
and
some
of
the
community-based
groups.
Who
who
didn't
want
to
see
that
be
a
part
of
the
the
transition
into
a
new
safety
system.
F
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
that
was
an
intentional
choice
by
the
co-authors
of
the
charter
amendment
and
I
think
that
for
a
while
now,
I've
been
discussing
this
moment
in
time
as
a
transition,
which
means
we're
neither
in
a
world
where
we
can
sustain
our
old
policing
systems
and
we're
not
in
a
new
world
where
we
are
free
of
arrests
and
and
free
of
law
enforcement
personnel.
F
Simply
because
it's
going
to
take
more
than
a
couple
of
months
to
get
our
entire
society
and
the
the
culture
of
violence
to
to
change
to
the
new
context.
So
I
just
wanted
to
provide
some
of
that
background
and
information
and
and
again
point
people
to
the
specific
language.
In
the
question
that
we
forwarded
to
you
all,
which
does
include
the
ability
to
activate
a
law
enforcement
division
component.
If
and
when
the
city
council
wanted
to.
B
Are
there
any
other
comments
from
members
of
city
council.
G
Hi,
chair
rubinstein,
this
is
jeremiah
ellison.
You
know
I.
I
think
that
my
colleagues
really
gave
some
great
responses.
I
think
that,
as
I'm
listening
and
as
I
listen
to
the
question,
I'm
forced
to
wonder
whether
or
not
the
question's
being
asked
in
good
faith
and,
with
all
due
respect,
I
feel
like
the
question's
not
being
asked
in
good
faith.
G
I
think
that
we
had
a
lot
of
discussion
early
on
about
what
the
language
of
the
charter
was.
I
think
that
you
all
were
gifted,
I
think,
in
immense
amount
of
public
with
regards
to
people's
desire
or
or
not
to
to
vote
on
the
future
of
public
safety
in
their
city
and
and
when,
as
I
hear
you
sort
of
rewrite
history
and
say,
oh
there
was
this
massive
confusion
about
whether
this
amendment
was
intended
to
abolish
the
police.
G
I
mean
I
just
that
makes
me
feel
like
the
question's
not
being
asked
in
good
faith,
because
at
no
point
was
that
a
part
of
what
this
language
and
what
this
charter
change
would
represent.
And
so
you
know
I'm
happy
to
sit
here
and
answer
questions.
G
I
think
that
councilman,
ricano
and
councilmember
cunningham
gave
some
good
responses,
but
if
we're-
but
if
you're
not
gonna,
ask
questions
in
good
faith,
I
I
I
have
too
much
respect
for
your
time
and
too
much
respect
for
my
time
to
continue
engaging.
C
Thank
you,
commissioner
rubenstein.
I
think
on
that
note,
I
can't
speak
for
what
questions
are
already
in
the
queue
to
be
asked,
but
I
think
now
post
our
vote.
C
It's
behooves,
the
city
of
minneapolis,
for
the
charter,
commission,
city,
council
and
city
staff,
to
all
act
in
good
faith
and
to
cooperate
and
to
collaborate
on
behalf
of
the
residences
of
minneapolis
coming
together
is
the
only
way
that
we're
all
going
to
work
together
for
the
ultimate
goal
for
the
for
the
residents.
Thanks.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner,
garcia
for
somebody
else.
Councilmember
gordon.
H
Question-
and
I
will
note
that,
there's
no
way
that
one
of
us
can
speak
for
a
consensus
of
the
council,
what
you
need
to
do
is
go
back
to
where
the
votes
were
and
what
we
voted
on
to
find
out
where
we
were,
and
there
certainly
was
unanimous
consent
on
the
chartered
language,
as
well
as
on
some
other
resolutions
that
came
forward.
But
for
my
opinion,
that's
what
that's
the
short
answer
and
the
medium-sized
dance.
B
B
So
I'll
skip
that
as
part
of
your
june
12th
resolution
on
transforming
the
future
of
community
safety,
the
council
promised
a
year-long
engagement
process
that
would
allow
all
stakeholders,
as
well
as
the
general
public,
to
have
input
on
defining
the
future
of
community
safety
in
minneapolis
to
date.
It
does
not
appear
at
least
to
our
as
outsiders
our
eyes
that
any
outreach
or
engagement
plan
has
been
approved
or
that
the
stated
level
of
engagement
and
opportunity
for
input
has
occurred.
E
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
share
with
the
committee
members
that
we
will
actually
be
getting
an
update
on
this
exact
question
from
city
staff
at
this
upcoming
thursdays,
public
health
and
safety
committee.
So
these
questions
will
be
answered
by
city
staff
in
detail
and
a
part
of
that
will
include
a
council
action
approving
a
preliminary
community
engagement
plan,
while
also
discussing
particular
staffing
infrastructure
and
capacity
needs
in
order
to
be
able
to
carry
that
out.
E
So
there
will
be
that
update
to
be
able
to
answer
that
question
more
thoroughly
from
staff
on
thursday
at
the
city,
at
the
public
health
and
safety
committee
meeting.
I
Sure
well,
thank
you
and
thank
you,
commissioner,
rubenstein
and
all
the
commissioners
for
having
us
and
shana
toba.
I
am
very
happy.
You
know
to
have
a
chance
to
talk
with
you
here.
I
I
I
will
say
I
just
want
to
validate
that
it
has
taken
longer
for
that
process
to
get
to
a
public
phase
than
any
of
us
envisioned.
I
think
we're
not
happy
with
that
outcome.
I
We've
been
making
some
steps
to
work
with
staff
to
create
a
little
bit
of
a
different
ownership
structure
for
the
process,
so
that
when
it
comes
forward,
it
will
move
forward
in
a
more
expeditious
way.
I
think
it
hits
some
internal
barriers.
I
This
has
been
a
hard
summer
for
everybody,
I'm
certainly
empathetic
to
the
the
challenges
of
assigning
a
big
project
like
this,
but
certainly
when
we
gave
the
staff
direction
in
june.
It
was
my
expectation
that
there
would
be
more
formal
public
feedback.
I'll
also
note
that
there
has
been
no
lack
of
public
engagement
opportunity.
Every
single
council
member
has
been
working
in
their
wards
and-
and
you
know,
in
slightly
different
ways-
it's
been
less
uniform.
I
It's
been
less
formal,
but
certainly
there
has
been
a
vibrant
and
energetic
and
highly
participatory,
set
of
conversations
going
on
all
over
the
city
that
I
think
you
know
an
awful
lot
of
people
have
weighed
in
on.
I
We
certainly
have
a
lot
more
to
do
to
make
sure
that
everybody
is
invited
in
to
make
sure
that
everybody
has
access
to
that
conversation
and
that
will
be
starting,
but
I
just
want
to
validate
like
frankly,
none
of
us
are
satisfied
with
how
quickly
it
got
out
of
the
gate
and
we're
working
to
correct
that.
B
Connected
to
that,
while
this
and
as
you
say,
this
engagement
process
has
already
been
going
on,
even
if
not
in
a
more
formal
way
are
there
other
policy
changes
that
you
are
planning
to
present
or
have
presented
to
the
community
for
review
and
comment
related
to
public
safety.
Of
course,.
B
Right
or
besides
the
you
know,
the
visioning
for
a
new
department.
Are
there
related
policy
issues
that
are
coming
up.
I
Certainly
and
there's
there's
the
ongoing
policy
work
that
we
were
all
engaged
with.
That'll
that'll
continue
working
its
way
through.
So
as
as
one
example,
I've
been
working
on
data
privacy,
work
which
has
a
relationship
to
surveillance
and
facial
recognition,
technology
and
what
kinds
of
military
equipment
is
in
use
by
mpd
and
that's
something
that
we're
bringing
through.
You
know
in
partnership
with
the
aclu
that
was
on
my
work
plan
long
before
this
summer,
and
it's
something
that
you
know
that's
continuing
to
move.
I
I
We've
received
envisions
solutions
that
go
well
beyond
a
typical
public
safety
response,
and
so
I
I
think
that
a
lot
of
the
conversations
about
what
will
make
you
feel
safe
are
also
going
to
lead
to
policy
change
in
in
public
works
in
I.t,
in
lots
of
different
departments
that
can
all
play
a
role
in
being
part
of
the
response
and
regulatory
services
and
so
on.
So
I
think
that,
there's
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
good
opportunity.
I
see
councilmember
gordon
also
waiting.
H
Yeah,
there's
certainly
a
lot.
I
think
it's
actually
I'm
taking
a
lot
of
our
time
and
attention,
so
I've
introduced
ordinance
amendments,
one,
the
ordinance
that
governs
the
police
department
itself,
another
that
it
governs
police
oversight
and
they
have
begun
discussions
on
those
of
those
amendments.
We
have
the
9-1-1
work
group.
That's
been
working
intensely
on
looking
at
9-1-1
response
and
analyzing
that
data
we
have
the
budget
discussions
and
budget
is
considered
a
policy
discussion
and
documents.
H
There
were
significant
amendments
made
even
to
the
2020
budget
and
certainly
some
of
those
had
to
do
with
community
safety
and
public
safety
in
the
police
department.
You
may
have
seen
some
of
those
in
the
news.
There
was
an
adjustment
there
to
create
to
help
build
out
a
whole
new
program
to
address
the
issues
of
violence.
We
also
had
a
very
interesting
engagement
process
or
lack
of
engagement.
H
Then
super
engagement
in
a
third
precinct
relocation,
so
the
precincts
are
the
the
areas
that
the
police
are
divided
into
covering
and
they
each
have
a
station.
One
of
those
stations
was
destroyed
during
the
civil
unrest.
Hopefully,
all
of
you
know
that,
and
we've
looked
at
the
relocation
for
that.
So
there's
been
a
policy
discussion
over
that
and,
ultimately,
a
rejection.
H
Well,
the
somebody
pulled
out
of
the
lease,
but
so
that
did
not
move
forward,
but
so
yes-
and
there's
probably
a
lot
more,
I
think
andrew
johnson
who's
been
very
involved
in
the
9-1-1
work.
Group.
Probably
has
more.
I
know
the
the
council,
vice
president,
is
looking
at
doing
more
to
create
some
kind
of
process
for
restorative
justice
or
reconciliation.
H
We
are
still
dealing
in
the
aftermath
of
george
floyd's
killing
and
there's
a
38th
in
chicago
we've
renamed
a
street.
Somebody
might
think
that
might
have
been
some
kind
of
policy
decision.
I
don't
know
the
list
probably
goes
on
a
lot
longer,
but
the
answer
short
answer
to
that
one
is
or
was
it.
What
ones
are
we
working
on?
We
are
working
on
many.
B
Yes,
I
just
you
truth
that
you
mentioned
are
that
the
police?
You
said
you
have
introduced
ordinances
or
amendments
to
govern
the
police,
department
and
oversight.
Could
you
explain
what
those
are
and
then
I
know
that
council,
member
f
cunningham
would
like
to
speak,
but
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
H
H
In
order
to
implement
the
city
charter,
we
have
a
code
of
ordinances
and
the
we
have
a
code,
so
the
charter
departments
all
have
ordinances
that
govern
them,
and
so
I
have
introduced
the
subject
matter
or
what
we
like
to
say
opened
up.
The
police
department.
Ordinance
part
of
this
is
to
look
at
potential
changes
now,
but
also
to
be
ready,
should
should
have
the
charter
amendment
gone
forward
so
that
we
could
flesh
out
kind
of
what
aspects
would
be
there
of
the
department.
H
So
that's
that
one
mostly,
although
it's,
I
suppose,
fairly
lengthy,
but
mostly
what
that.
Does
it
points
back
to
the
charter
and
talks
about
how
it's
being
implemented?
The
oversight
ordinance
talks
about
police
oversight
and
mainly
deals
with
work.
That's
done
out
of
the
civil
rights
department.
H
That's
if
you've
heard
of
the
police
conduct
oversight,
commission
that
was
created
by
that
ordinance.
We
used
to
have
a
civilian
review
authority,
but
it
was.
It
was
also
under
that
ordinance
and
then
it
was
changed
and
we
created
two
two
different
things:
the
police
conduct
oversight,
commission
and
also
a
police
conduct
review
panels.
I
think
I
have
that
name
right,
that
it
is
a
separate
entity,
so
those
are
the
things
that
I've
opened
and
I've
already
had
some
conversations
with
the
police
conduct
oversight.
H
Commission,
both
the
staff
that
works
on
this
and
as
well
as
the
commission
itself,
but
they're
they're
short
members
right
now,
but.
J
B
Thank
you,
councilmember
cunningham,.
E
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
add
the
work
around
the
office
of
violence
prevention,
violence
prevention
work
has
been
happening
since
2006
and
we
have
some
work
that
is
already
underway,
ranging
from
a
hospital-based
bedside
intervention
to
help
disrupt
the
immediate
trauma
that
someone
experiences
from
being
a
victim
of
a
violent
crime.
It's
for
folks
who,
under
the
age
of
30,
who
have
been
shot
or
stabbed
and
also
in
interrupts
retaliatory
violence,
so
someone
gets
shot
and
then
their
family
goes
and
shoots.
E
Somebody
also
disrupting
that
process.
We
have
that
we
have
the
group
violence,
intervention
strategy,
that's
underway.
E
So
you
know
these
are
evidence-based,
science-based
strategies
that
are
having
significant
impact
on
the
lives
of
those
they
that
the
office
of
violence
prevention
directly
works
with,
and
so
you
know
the
the
conversation
still
going
forward
is:
how
do
we
scale
up
these
strategies
to
be
able
to
have
the
population
level
impact
that
we
would
like
to
see
as
a
city,
but
that
that
requires
policy,
budgetary
conversations,
structural
conversations
and
so
there's
that-
and
I
also
just
want
to
speak
briefly
to
any
policy
changes
related
to
the
police
department.
E
We
actually
do
not
as
like.
We
do
not
have
control
over
the
mayor,
so
if
he
chooses
to
you
know,
do
a
press
conference
announcing
a
policy
change
that
is
outside
of
what
we're
talking
about
here
in
terms
of
the
community
engagement
process
that
is
within
his
authority
and
and
and
prerogative
to
do
so
so
those,
but
those
are
happening,
though,
outside
of
this
process
like
the
force,
the
use
of
force
policy
has
been
changed
and
there
are
some
other
policies
that
have
been
changed
outside
of
this
process.
E
B
Okay,
the
next
question
we've
already,
I
think,
councilmember
gordon,
has
already
touched
on
the
june
12th
resolution
also
stated
that
the
one-year
process
will
quote
center
the
role
of
healing
and
reconciliation
and
that
you
would
be
working
with
quote
again:
local
and
national
leaders
on
transformative
justice
in
partnerships
informed
by
the
needs
of
every
block
in
our
city.
Unquote.
E
I
apologize
if
I'm
speaking
too
much.
This
is
a
bit.
B
D
E
My
jam,
so
I
can't
help
it
so
I
will
speak
specifically
to
the
local
and
national
leaders
on
transformative
justice,
great
wonderful,
the
wonderful
leadership
of
office
of
violence,
prevention,
director,
sasha,
cotton.
Since
about
2015
we
have
had
partnerships
and
relationships
with
national
experts
related
to
operationalizing
a
violence
prevention
approach.
So
we
have
relationships
with
the
national
network
for
safe
communities
out
of
john
jay
college.
We
also
have
a
relationship
with
the
national
initiative
for
building
community
trust.
I
E
Justice
we
have
relationships
with
cities,
united,
which
has
a
an
organizational
goal
of
lowering
the
homicides
of
black
boys
and
men
by
50
percent
by
2025.
E
We
have
relationships
with
the
prevention
institute
out
of
oakland,
so
we
have
a
lot
of
amazing
national
experts
who
are
all
looking
right
now.
We've
already
been
working
with
them
and
now
they're
super
energized
ready
to
dive
in
and
really
dig
into
this
work
of
building
new
systems
of
public
safety
that
really
are
rooted
in
the
public
health
approach
to
public
safety,
and
we
we're
fortunate
because
we
do
also
have
local
experts.
E
So
folks,
like
we
have
folks
here
who
are
leading
experts
and
so,
for
example,
forensic
psychology
around
children
witnessing
domestic
violence.
We
have
you
know
so
it's
like
we.
We
also
have
we're
very
blessed
here
to
have
national
experts
but
locally
based
and
can
really
put
the
the
big
picture
of
the
data,
the
science
around
public
health
around
criminology
into
our
local
context.
E
So
that's
really
where
we
are,
and
we
talk
about
transformative
justice,
that
is
thinking
about
justice
outside
of
centering,
the
system
of
consequences,
so
the
criminal
justice
system
as
the
main
form
of
public
safety.
Instead,
how
are
we
taking
folks
who
have
entered
into
a
life
of
crime
and
violence
and
gotten
stuck
in
that
cycle?
How
are
we
giving
them
true,
off-ramps,
so
that
we
are
building
lasting
peace?
E
Justice,
as
is
as
it's
defined,
is
really
an
equitable
relationship
between
systems
and
the
people
that
they
serve
and
transformative.
Justice
is
really.
How
are
we
creating
a
healing
and
restorative
approach
to
actually
building
peace
and
equity?
E
So
I
hope
I
didn't
speak
too
too
high
language
there,
but,
but
that's
that's
really
where
that
comes
from,
but
we
are
very
fortunate
as
a
city
thanks
to
the
leadership
of
our
previous
mayor,
as
well
as
the
leadership
of
our
director
of
office,
of
violence
prevention,
for
these
really
like
fundamental
powerful
relationships
that
we
have.
E
So
we
are
so
from
my
understanding
of
how
all
of
this
work
is
going
to
fit
together.
Is
that
there's
really
a
discussion
around
a
truth
and
reconciliation
process
which
is
really
about
like
racial
healing?
We
as
a
system
a
grant
that
I
inherited
it?
We
inherited
it,
but
the
reality
is
now
we
are.
E
The
leaders
of
this
system
have
caused
tremendous
harm
through
structural
violence,
which
is
also
another
form
of
violence
through
in
inequitable
distribution
of
resources,
as
well
as
some
tremendous
harm
caused
by
both
the
conundrum
and
paradox
of
over
and
under
policing
simultaneously
and
mass
incarceration.
That
has
been
tremendous
harm
that
has
happened.
So
if
we
are
unable
to
have
a
healing
process
around
the
trauma
that
has
been
caused,
it
is
going
to
be
very
challenging
for
us
to
be
able
to
have
productive
conversations
about.
E
How,
then
do
we
have
systems
that
restore
people
that
do
not
perpetuate
the
harm
that
has
been
historically
caused?
So
so
that
is
really
what
that
realm
of
work
is
is
focusing
on
is
really
the
healing
aspect.
So
it's
not
specifically
victims.
It
is
a
broader
victims
of
structural
violence
which
are
marginalized
communities.
E
B
Thank
you
not
seeing
any
other
comments
we
we
already
talked
about
the
council
member
kano
talked
about
the
word
may
in
the
amendment,
and
we
just
had
one
question
related
to
that.
B
Your
august
5th
letter
to
the
charter
commission
explained
that
the
word
may
was
meant
to
keep
options
open
and
suggesting
that
one
option
might
be
contracting
with
another
jurisdiction.
I
wonder
if
that
or
any
other
options
have
been
explored
at
this
point.
I
Certainly
informally,
we've
asked
the
question
and
there's
been
significant
changes
in
the
way
that
we
coordinate
with
other
jurisdictions
in
relationship
to
responding
to
emergency
situations.
So
those
multi-jurisdictional
relationships
aren't
happening.
I
I'll
say
it's
not
something
that
we're
pursuing
as
aggressively,
because
the
this
commission
has
run
out
the
clock
on
the
question,
and
so
it's
not
an
immediate
option
in
front
of
us.
I
So
it's
something
that
we'll
take
our
time
with
the
that
timing's
not
available
to
us
in
a
way
that
I
frankly
think
would
have
been
good
from
a
policy
perspective
for
us
to
be
able
to
put
on
the
table
both
as
a
leverage
point
in
negotiations
and
also
as
something
that
potentially
really
needed
to
happen.
We
are
seeing
a
slowdown.
It
looks
like
from
the
data
we're
seeing
we've
made
a
five
percent
budget
cut,
but
we're
seeing
wcco
thought
38
less
response.
I
The
star
tribune
thought
30
percent,
less
police
activity
being
recorded,
and
so,
if
we
are
not
actually
able
to
get
the
response
that
we
need
from
the
current
system
and
that
we're
paying
for
from
the
current
system,
the
ability
to
negotiate
with
other
jurisdictions
and
figure
out
ways
to
get
coverage
feels
like
something
that
people
should
want
the
city
to
have.
I
We
might
not
be
in
a
position
where
we
can
just
pretend
things
are
working,
and
I
think
that's
for
me
is
one
of
the
regrettable
things
about
the
way
that
this
has
moved
forward
is
that
I
think
that
negotiation
is
something
that
you
know.
Frankly,
I
don't
know
why
another
jurisdiction
would
spend
a
lot
of
time
with
us
in
that
negotiation
if
they
know
that
we're
not
empowered
to
do
it.
So
it's
it.
It's
it's
a
conversation.
That's
been
held
up
a
bit
by
this
process.
F
Commissioner
rubenstein
I'll
just
add
this
is
councilmember
cano
again
we
do
still
have
that
thorough
and
robust
process
that
was
kicked
off
by
the
the
state
of
minnesota
through
its
human
rights
department,
and
so
you
know,
I
think
that
we,
we
will
all
continue
to
watch
that
process
move
forward,
engage
with
it
participate
in
it
publicly
when
invited
to,
and
so
I
think
that
the
the
results
of
that
will
be
important
to
watch,
because
they
they
themselves
as
a
state
institution,
might
make
some
requests
of
the
city
and
of
our
police
department,
specifically
that
we
as
council
members,
may
not
be
able
to
necessarily
control
or
or
shape
as
much,
but
that
might
be
a
needed
solution
or
or
an
intervention
for
whatever
the
moment
we
may
be.
F
We
may
be
when
those
findings
and
those
directives
come
come
out.
So
I
just
wanted
to
remind
commissioners
and
the
general
public
that
that
process
is
still
underway.
It's
still
active
and
will
likely
be
active
for
a
long
time.
D
B
Comment:
okay,
okay,
I
think
we
asked
before-
and
I
realized
that
we're
going
through
the
budget
process
now,
so
this
question
may
be
irrelevant
at
this
point.
But
since
the
june
12th
resolution
have
there
been
any
budgetary
or
fiscal
impact
analyses
examining
the
proposal
to
create
the
new
department
and
if
so,
what
are
the.
I
Okay
thanks,
you
know,
I
think,
given
that
our
staff
are
very
very
busy
right
now,
and
so
we
are
attempting
to
get
them
doing
an
engagement
process.
That's
not
going
as
fast
as
we
want
we're
trying
to
get
recovery
process
off
the
ground.
That's
not
going
as
fast
as
anyone
wants.
Although
there
were
some
good
announcements
made
this
week,
I
think
the.
I
The
challenge
for
us
so,
given
that
the
charter
commission
chose
to
take
its
time
and
not
move
this
forward,
is
something
that's
going
to
happen
this
year.
We
have
not
prioritized
that
as
something
that
we've
asked
staff
to
to
work
on
in
a
timely
way.
It'll
certainly
be
in
the
workflow.
It's
the
kind
of
thing
that
we
need
to
look
at.
There
are
definitely
financial
considerations
in
the
pro
and
con
column
for
any
kind
of
a
change
that
you
make
in
public
safety.
I
Policing
is
very
expensive
in
a
lot
of
the
ways
that
it
operates,
but
there
is
also
certainly
an
inefficiency
to
having
specialists
assigned
to
everything
and
having
to
have
a
service
level.
You
know
for
lots
of
different
specializations,
as
opposed
to
just
like
one
big
group
of
interchangeable
workers
right
there's,
an
efficiency
to
that.
I
So
we'll
have
to
look
at
all
of
those
things
as
as
we
think
about
a
fiscal
impact
and
as
we
think
about
what
that
looks
like,
but
no
that
certainly
hasn't
been
done
yet
because
that's
not
one
of
the
things
that
we
can
do
in
the
next
few
months.
B
I
It
certainly
might
be.
I
think
that
the
language
of
that
was
probably
written
in
a
pre-covered
moment,
and
I
I
hope
that
it
in
retrospect
is
asking
the
questions
that
we
would
actually
need
answered.
B
I
Sure
we
should
certainly
do
a
racial
impact
analysis
on
you
know,
looking
at
any
change,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
driving
the
conversation
about
changing
public
safety
is
a
racial
impact
analysis
that
the
community
has
performed
that
finds
us
severely
lacking
in
our
approach
to
public
safety.
As
a
part
of
the
way
our
city
has
behaved
for
decades
in
relationship
to
that
question.
So
I
think
we
do
we
should,
and
we
do
and
in
many
ways
we
have
accounted
for.
I
What's
the
racial
impact
analysis
of
the
current
system
and
and
then
obviously,
we
need
to
account
for
how
we
think
it
has
a
positive
racial
impact
to
make
changes
to
our
system.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
council
member,
gordon.
I'm
sorry.
E
And
I
did
it
too
sorry,
so
I
I
guess
I
my
question
back
would
be
like
racial
impact
analysis
of
of
what
specifically,
is
it
of
a
new
system
of
budgetary
changes
much
to
council
member
fletcher?
Well,
I
see
commissioner
newborn
amy
has
a
response
to
my
question.
K
I
actually
had
a
a
question
that
I
was
going
to
ask
in
response,
but
I
I
would
just
add
to
that
question
about
a
racial
impact
analysis
or
racial
equity
impact
analysis
is
what
I
would
describe
it.
As
the
you
know,
our
office
of
race
and
equity,
the
city's
office
of
race
and
equity.
K
To
add
on
to
that
question
that
has
there
been
any
partnership
or
relationship
with
that
office
to
do
some
form
of
a
racial
racial
equity
impact
analysis
on
specifically
the
the
reform
or
d
or
or
how
we're
thinking
about
policing
in
in
the
city
like
how
it
has
an
impact
analysis
been
done
on
how
to
reshape
the
the
department,
and
I
think,
that's
kind
of
what
we're
getting
to
in.
In
our
question.
E
So
I'll,
just
you
know,
add
to
councilmember
fletcher's
response
of
like
yes,
everything
that
we
do
should
have
a
racial
equity
impact
analysis.
I
will
say
that
the
analysis
that
has
been
done
thus
far
is
very
clear
that
the
current
system
that
we
have
is
producing
racially
inequitable
results,
and
so
you
know
as
we're
moving
forward
and
we're
getting
more
specifics
through
the
iterative
engagement
process
as
we're
moving
these
different
components.
E
All
of
it
would
be
a
part
of
of
a
racial
equity
impact
analysis
would
be
a
part
of
it,
because
a
major
driver
is
the
fact
that
our
current
system
is
creating
producing
racially
inequitable
outcomes,
and
that
is
unjust
and
something
that
we
cannot
tolerate
on
our
watch
as
city
leaders,
so
absolutely
that
that
plays
a
role
the
specifics
of
that
are
yet
to
to
be
determined,
though,
about
what
what
would
be
operationalized.
F
Commissioner
rubenstein
I'll
just
add
that
councilmember,
gordon
myself,
councilmember
andrew
johnson
councilmember
jamal
osman,
as
well
as
councilmember
jenkins
and
councilmember
schrader,
who
all
represent
the
third
precinct,
have
been
really
rolling
up
our
sleeves
to
support
that
conversation
outside
of
the
the
city's
greater
work
on
reimagining
public
safety.
F
F
So
I'll
say
that
as
the
council
members
who
represent
the
third
precinct,
we
have
come
together
to
put
a
series
of
action,
steps
and
community
a
community
engagement
structure
that
we
are
working
hand
in
hand
with
with
our
neighbors
and
our
residents,
and
our
grass
tops
leaders
and
our
stakeholders,
mostly
around
the
the
lake
and
minnehaha
area,
to
ensure
that
this
discussion
about
what
happens
to
the
third
precinct
is,
is
actually
a
leading
example
of
how
we
can
problem-solve
and
really
address
these
issues.
F
And
as
such,
I
will
say
that
if
council
member
gordon
doesn't
mind
me
sharing
that
in
in
those
discussions
and
in
the
explicit
values
and
and
requests
that
we
as
council
members
are
are
looking
at.
It
includes
a
racial
equity
impact
analysis
for
the
relocation
of
the
third
precinct,
which
I
think
a
lot
of
people
know
currently
they're
operating
out
of
the
minneapolis
convention
center
in
general.
F
I
think
many
council,
members
and
city
staff
understand
that
the
understand
and
support
the
third
precinct
not
being
reinstated
where
it
used
to
be
in
the
building
that
was
burned
down
there
on
the
corner
of
lake
and
minnehaha.
F
So
I
know
that
the
conversation
of
a
racial
equity
impact
analysis
has
been
alive
and
well
in
the
conversations
with
us.
Five
six
seven
council
members
that
represent
the
third
precinct
and
that
are
are
really
looking
forward
to
putting
some
some
strong
structure
there
to
those
to
that
effort,
because
that,
unfortunately,
that
that
conversation
got
out
ahead
of
the
year-long
process
of
community
engagement
and
and
so
for
us
it's.
F
It's
really
important
to
bottom
line
that
work
and
to
really
zero
in
on
the
the
restorative
and
healing
steps
that
we
are
going
to
need
in
the
coming
days,
weeks
and
months
as
we
acknowledge
that
unjustly
so,
the
very
people
who
are
disproportionately
impacted
by
police
brutality
are
also
the
very
people
who
are
suffering
the
most
during
this
moment
of
transition
where
lake
street
businesses
are
being
robbed
regularly
and
daily
without
any
system
to
respond
to
them
and
to
support
them.
F
We
know
of
the
stories
of
the
the
folks
who
are
having
to
sleep
in
their
bathtubs
and
the
elderly.
People
who
are
immobilized
in
their
front
yards
as
gunshots
and
bullets
are
a
regular
occasion
now
in
their
neighborhood,
and
those
things
to
me
you
know
are
are
are
serious
in
that.
It's
not
okay
for
community
members
to
experience
that,
but
it's
also
even
more
important
that
we
don't
normalize
that
level
of
gun,
violence
and
harm
in
our
community
just
to
make
a
greater
point
about
transforming
our
policing
system.
F
So
I
think
that
the
racial
equity
impact
will
have
to
be
very
nuanced
in
that
it
must
acknowledge
the
very
complex
realities
of
what
it's
going
to
take
to
fully
transition
our
systems
from
what
were
what
they
were
before
mr
floyd
was
was
killed
until
what
we
hope
they
can
be
in
the
future
in
years
down
the
line.
G
I
wanted
to
maybe
just
add
something
to
that
you're
asking
if
we're
considering
the
racial
impact
of
changing
our
public
safety
system
was
that
the
question.
G
Sure
I
I
think
that
yeah
the
my
colleagues
have
given
some
great
answers.
I
think
that
the
answer
is
yes,
we're
focused
on
on
the
on
what
any
sort
of
racial
equity
impact
would
be
of
a
new
system,
but
I
also
want
to
remind
folks
that
this
entire
endeavor
was
sparked
by
a
dramatic
inequity
of
the
current
system,
dramatic
inequity
and
I'm
not
just
talking
about
the
murders
right.
G
We
we
focus
on
the
murder
of
george
floyd
or
jamar
clark,
and
we
focus
on
black
people
being
killed
by
police,
but
we
often
sort
of
de-emphasize.
You
know
a
lot
of
the
victims
in
the
ketamine
scandal
were
black.
You
know
a
lot
of
the
women
who
have
their
who
had
their
rape
kits
untested
or
or
or
or
don't
get
that
kind
of
treatment
they
need
from
investigators
are
black
women.
G
I
think
that
I
think
that
the
current
system
is
is
is
devastatingly
racially
inevitable,
and
so
I
think
that
that
needs
to
be
stated.
I
also
think
just
to
give
some
context.
We
got
a
great
presentation
from
the
chief
of
police
about
a
week
ago,
where
he
talked
about
the
patrol
levels.
G
Aren't
are
actually
being
really
well
maintained,
partially
because
of
his
great
leadership
and
and
moving
some
things
around,
so
we
so
the
patrol
levels
are
are
being
maintained
and
we're
getting
a
lot
of
help
from
other
jurisdictions.
We
had
the
federal
task
force
that
was
in
operation
for
a
while,
and
so
we
probably
have
been
operating
the
last
couple
of
months.
G
So
not
only
does
our
current
system
create
devastating
outcomes,
perpetuate
devastating
outcomes
for
communities
of
color,
including
death,
but
it
also
doesn't
do
a
great
job
of
preventing
violence
and
crime
from
occurring
in
those
same
communities.
G
And
so
I
I
just
think
that
that's
important
to
contextualize
that
that
we've
been
that
we've
had
a
lot
of
police
infrastructure
operating
in
our
city
for
the
past
couple
of
months.
Because
of
the
way
that
the
chief
of
staff
things
and
because
of
the
fact
that
we've
been
getting
external
support
from
a
lot
of
different
jurisdictions.
B
Thank
you,
councilmember
gordon,
you
were
going
to
say
something
did
you
want
to
say
something.
B
Oh
okay,
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
we
had
a
presentation
by
the
city
attorneys
and,
according
to
the
city
attorneys,
the
city
council
maintains
the
same
policy
authority
over
the
minneapolis
police
department
that
it
has
over
other
departments.
I
H
Okay,
well,
I
think
they're
both
critically
important.
So
I
think
that's
a
tough
question
to
answer.
I
will
say
that
back
in
2018
and
I've
consistently
probably
been
myself
more
concerned
about
the
policy
setting
issue.
I've
also
heard
different
things
from
different
city
attorneys.
I
still
remember
when
the
assistant
city
attorney
told
me
when
we
did
a
staff
direction
for
the
police
and
they
failed
to
respond
to
it
that
I
was
informed
when
the
council
actually
gave
staff
directions
to
the
police
chief.
H
It
was
more
like
a
request
and
he
pointed
directly
back
to
the
charter
provision
that
gives
the
mayor
complete
authority
over
it.
Same
thing
happened
when
I
wanted
the
council
to
approve
the
taser
policy
in
their
use
of
force
policy.
I
was
told
the
council
doesn't
have
jurisdiction
over
that,
and
the
city
attorney
pointed
directly
back
to
the
charter
provision
that
gives
the
mayor
complete
command
and
authority
over
the
department.
H
So
I'm
gonna
have
to
look
at
what
you're
parsing
out
to
say
that
we
have
the
same
policy
making
authority
to
see
if
it
it
measures
up,
because
then
I
think
it
would
be
exciting
to
have
us
have
a
public
hearing
and
a
full
discussion
on
the
use
of
force
policy
and
some
other
matters,
and
we
could.
We
could
maybe
test
that
again.
I
think.
H
H
So
I
think
that
I
didn't
when
I
asked
the
for
city
attorneys
opinions,
I've
gotten
different
things,
and
I
will
confess
to
you
that
sometimes
city
attorneys
are
very
risk
averse
and
so
perhaps
they're
being
more
careful
when
they're
doing
something
to
you,
that's
more
public
than
they
might
otherwise.
I
also
recall
when
we
wanted
to
strengthen
the
civilian
review
authority
and
we
were
exploring
having
some
disciplined
decisions
could
operate
outside
the
sphere
of
the
police
chief,
the
assistant
city,
attorney.
H
At
that
time
also
said,
we
absolutely
couldn't
do
that
and
pointed
directly
back
to
the
charter
that
says
that
all
command
of
discipline
and
the
authority
over
the
department
is
vested
in
the
mayor
and
only
the
mayor
can
delegate
that
out.
H
So
I
suppose
the
attorney
could
have
been
assuming
a
mayor
could
just
give
that
authority
to
the
council
and
operate
under
it,
but
it's
never
been
the
same
as
with
other
departments
where
we
will
approve
city-wide
policies,
they
will
stand
and
the
council
members
will
leave,
the
mayors
will
leave
and
all
the
department
heads
will
say.
Well,
this
is
still
our
our
you
know.
H
You
name
it
street
lighting
policy.
This
is
the
city
policy,
and
now,
if
you
want
to
change
that,
you
have
to
go
back
and
talk
about
that.
That's
not
the
case
with
police
department
policies.
In
fact,
we've
had
instances
I'll
go
back
to
the
taser
policy,
when
the
entire
policy
was
deleted
from
the
the
the
policy
manual
six
months
after
the
funding
was
made
available
for
the
tasers
and
they
were
purchased,
which
was
kind
of
a
way
that
we
could
get
the.
When
I
wanted.
H
The
council
to
actually
approve
that
policy,
but
instead
the
chief
agreed
to
the
policy
prior
to
the
money
being
approved
and
six
months
later
it
was
gone
and
we
were
told
we
moved
that
those
into
our
training
practices,
but
we
didn't
think
they
made
sense
being
in
the
in
the
policy
document,
probably
because
of
concerns
about
possible
lawsuits
or
something
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
they
took
them
out
because
there's
no
public
process.
H
You
won't
find
those
kind
of
policy
policy
discussions
or
that
transparent
process
with
police
department
policy.
What
you'll
find-
and
I
think
maybe
my
colleague
philippe
cunningham,
said
this
earlier
you'll-
find
a
press
release
that
gets
announced
when
the
use
of
force
policy
has
now
been
changed
in
a
phrase
was
added
by
the
chief,
and
I
think
the
only
legal
requirement
is
that
it
at
least
gets
published
and
posted
as
an
order
from
the
chief.
H
So
I'm
no
lawyer,
I
do
sometimes
help
write
laws,
but
I
don't
know
that
that's
the
right
interpretation
of
what
the
city
attorney
told
you,
or
maybe
the
city
attorney-
was
missing.
Something
that
past
city
attorneys
have
seen.
B
I
Thank
you
chair.
I
I
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
the
police
department
is
not
the
same
as
other
departments,
so
in
general
there
are
things
that
we
do
as
ordinance.
I
There
are
things
that
we
do
as
sort
of
guiding
policy
documents
and
then
there's
day-to-day
policy,
and
it
is
true
that
you
would
not
want
the
city
council
involved
in
day-to-day
policy
that
there's
a
that
there's
an
understanding
in
a
division
of
labor,
that
we
empower
staff
based
on
a
set
of
principles
based
on
a
set
of
guiding
ideas
to
go,
make
the
day-to-day
decisions,
and
we
don't
pick
out
which
brand
of
paint
public
works
paints
the
streets
with.
I
We
tell
them
that
they
need
to
paint
the
streets
and
often
have
a
lot
of
conversations
about
that.
But
but
there
is
a
level
of
detail
that
it
wouldn't
be
efficient
or
useful,
or
produce
good
results
for
for
us
to
govern
at
that
level.
The
problem
is
that
the
police
department
does
a
lot
of
things
in
policy
that
are
way
more
important
than
that
so
and
they're.
I
The
only
department
that
I
know
of
where
the
legislature
actually
calls
out
the
legislature
writes
laws
that
preempt
city
ordinance
that
refer
to
police
policy,
so,
for
example,
use
of
force,
there's
a
there's,
a
use
of
force
policy
at
the
state
legislative
level.
That
says
the
chief
will
maintain
a
policy,
that's
actually
in
the
legislative
language
and
so
the
city
act.
We
can't
through
the
mechanism
of
ordinance,
which
is
what's
referenced,
often
in
conversations
about
the
powers
that
the
council
has
actually
intervene
in
that
kind
of
a
policy.
I
You
know
I
think
people
ask.
For
example,
why
didn't
you
just
write
an
ordinance
banning
you
know
so
so?
Okay,
so
the
the
council
has
or
the
the
mayor
has
direct
control
over
the
police
department.
But
why
don't
you
just
write
an
ordinance
making
it
illegal
for
city
employees
to
use
chokeholds
that
would
apply
to
the
police
right,
except
that
it
wouldn't,
and
it
would
be
absurd
because
right
now,
any
other
employee
if
they
were
to
use
a
chokehold
they'd
already
be
breaking
the
law.
I
We
don't
need
to
write
a
law
for
that.
It's
already
against
the
law.
For
someone
from
cped
to
deploy
a
choke
hold
when
they're
in
a
conversation
with
somebody
about
a
zoning
issue,
and
so
any
ordinance
that
we
pass
would
be
duplicative
of
that
and
at
the
same
time,
would
be
preempted
by
state
law.
On
the
question
of
what
force
is
available,
because
the
use
of
force
statute
would
override
anything
that
we
wrote
as
an
ordinance
and
would
refer
down
to
the
level
of
policy.
I
So
the
ability
of
the
city
council
to
influence
policy
becomes
much
more
important
and
much
different
in
the
context
of
a
minneapolis
police
department.
And
that's
where
the
charter
language
is
actually
very
important
is
that
there
are
critical
public
policy
discussions
that
the
public
feels
very
engaged
in
that
are
not
the
day-to-day
operations
of
the
department,
but
that
are
big,
important,
guiding
principle
issues
that
we
get
excluded
from
participating
in
by
the
way
the
charter
is
structured.
K
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
rubenstein
and
appreciate
the
council
members
for
their
responses.
To
that.
I'm
wondering
you
know,
for
you
know,
for
us
to
work
in
government
or
affiliated
with
government.
We
may
understand
those.
K
You
know
nuances
and
differences
between
the
day-to-day
actions
and
discussions
that
that
that
the
mayor
is
involved
in,
as
the
you
know,
the
presiding
or
or
supervising
his
his
staff
and
and
and
how
the
council
members
are,
it
would
be
involved.
If
such
an
amendment
were
to
take
place
in
change,
could
you
describe
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
or
anyone
could
describe
in
a
little
bit
more
detail?
What?
K
How
would
that
distinction,
or
that
line
be
drawn
between
the
day-to-day
interactions
of
supervising
a
you
know,
employee
or
in
a
or
a
an
entire
department
versus
what
the
council
has
intended
or
was
intended
to,
as
it
relates
to
a
reporting
structure
with
the
police
department.
I
But
sure
thank
you
for
that.
I
I
think
that
the
goal
really
is
that
our
relationship
is
to
the
police
department
the
way
it
is
for
other
departments,
so
it
we
do
not
manage
the
little
day-to-day
minutia
of
any
of
the
departments,
and
it
wouldn't
make
sense
for
us
to
as
a
legislative
body,
but
we
do
set
the
guiding
policy
and
we
do
have
public
conversations
that
are
transparent
and
available
to
the
public
about
the
guiding
policy
that
informs
the
day-to-day
decisions
that
we
expect.
I
The
people
doing
that
work
to
make
from
the
department
head
on
down,
and
so
I
think
it's
very
important.
It
is
our
view
that
our
relationship
to
the
minneapolis
police
department
is
not
the
same
as
it
is
to
other
departments,
and
we
we
would
like
to
make
it
the
same.
We
think
that
those
other
departments
operate
well
and
have
a
level
of
transparency
about
what's
guiding
their
vision.
What's
guiding
their
mission.
What's
informing
the
practical
decisions
that
they're
making
day-to-day
and
and
that's
the
overall
intent.
H
Yeah,
I
think
that
steve
answered
it
pretty
well,
but
if
you
can
just
think
about
how
their
interactions
are
with
the
fire
department-
and
I
know
that
sometimes-
and
I
know
that
tony
happens-
to
have
more
personal
experience,
working
for
the
city
of
minneapolis
than
other
people
have
so
I'm
sure
there
are
times
when
council
members
would
like
to
be
able
to
direct
staffs
work
time
and
all
of
that.
H
But
really
we
operate
through
department,
heads
and
that's
how
we
should
and
we
can
do,
staff
directions
through
department
heads
which
I
had
one
assistant
city
attorney.
Tell
me
a
staff
direction
to
the
police
chief
was
actually
a
request
because
he
answered
to
the
mayor
and
not
to
the
council
because
of
the
charter.
But
nevertheless
we
do
do
staff
directions
through
department
heads
and
so
that's
really
where
we
would
interface
and
we
would
set
policy
and
there
would
be
opportunities.
H
I
think,
for
those
to
be
at
different
degrees
and
different
levels
and
there's
different
opportunities
to
influence
those
things,
because
we'll
also
do
staff
directions.
That
could
impact
people,
but
really
it's
at
the
higher
level.
And
there
isn't.
We
don't
get
to
direct
staff
or
evaluate
individual
staff,
we
kind
of
work
in
a
very
structured
system
and
more
it's
on
the
policy
level
where
we
set
the
policy
and
we
approve
the
budgets
and
one
of
the
things
we
can't
do
is
set
policy
for
the
police
department.
H
Now
we
set
some
policy
that
some
people
we
do
because
the
city
department
comes
and
asks
us
to,
and-
and
some
people
might
think
this
isn't
a
level
that
we
should
be
concerned
about,
but
we
have
a
street
lighting
policy
and
the
council
discussed
it.
We
had
community
engagement
about
it,
we
talked
about
it,
and
street
lighting
is
really
really
important
to
a
lot
of
people
and
we
want
some
kind
of
uniform
policy
and
costs
a
lot
of
money.
K
Sorry
about
this,
I
have
lots
of
questions.
Thank
you
so
much
councilmember
gordon.
For
for
that
response,
I'm
wondering
if,
if
it's
a
matter
of
you
know,
if,
if
not
much
would
change
between,
you
know
the
what
you're
doing
now
and
how
you're
working
with
the
with
the
the
other
staff
and
departments
across
the
city?
Is
it
a
matter
of
having
a
understanding
or
or
some
level
of
a
structure
with
the
mayor's
office
if
the
mayor's?
K
If,
if
the
department
directors
are
reporting
to
the
mayor
and
currently
as
the
charter
stands,
the
mayor
is
authorized
to
provide
direction
in
et
cetera,
it
could.
Is
there
an
opportunity
for
the
the
council
and
the
mayor's
office
to
be
aligned
about
how
the
how
to
work
specifically
with
the
police
department.
H
Well,
there's
got
to
be
an
opportunity,
but
the
way
the
charter
is
set
up
if
it
ever
comes
to
any
difference
of
opinion.
The
mayor,
the
mayor,
has
full
authority.
I
mean,
if
you
just
read
that
provision
of
it
it
has
the
command
or
whatever
I
think
the
word
command
might
be
in
there.
I
should
pull
it
up,
so
we
could
look
at
that
language,
but
it's
just
very
different.
So
there's
not
a
need
to
cooperate.
H
Often
there
isn't
the
desire
to
cooperate
and
we
can't
even
necessarily
give
the
same
kind
of
leverage
with
our
staff
directions
that
we
can,
with
other
department
heads
to
come
and
talk
to
us,
because
the
mayor
has
the
more
exclusive
authority
baked
right
into
the
charter,
so
that
I
think
there
is
an
opportunity
to
work
together,
and
I
think
there
would
be
a
motivation
for
a
mayor
to
want
to
include
the
council
in
more
things.
But
I
don't
know
that
it
ever
goes
there.
H
And
I
think,
when
the
mayor
looks
at
their
role
in
their
what
they
do,
they
really
see
that
control
of
the
police
department
as
one
of
the
things
they
want
to
hold
on
to,
because
I've
been
rather
surprised
that
no
mayor
has
really
been
interested
in
modernizing
that
department,
like
the
rest
of
the
departments,
so
that
they
could
be
guided
the
same
way.
H
We
guide
the
fire
department,
the
public
works
department,
where
we
do
it
together
and
so,
where
it's
not
just
kind
of
the
the
concentrated
interest
that
a
mayor
would
be
paying
attention
to
when
they're
kind
of
thinking
about
their
policy
and
their
decisions.
It
would
be
a
little
bit
more
dispersed,
so
every
area
of
the
city
would
at
least
have
more
of
a
role
to
play.
H
In
that
and
say
we,
you
know
we
can
listen
to
council
members
can
listen
to
their
constituents
and
they
can
bring
their
opinion
in
and
then
we
can
set
the
policy
together
and
make
those
decisions,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
it
can
work
under
this
charter,
except
by
a
very
open
mayor,
who's
willing
to
kind
of
concede
those
decisions,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
there
is
one
that
will
necessarily
do
that
because
of
the
way
it's
set
up.
So
it's
a
good
question.
H
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
do
it
would
just
be
to
look
at
how
the
other
departments
are
structured
and
to
say
we're
going
to
structure
this
one
in
the
in
the
city
like
that
too,
so
that
at
least
that
there
can
be
more
representation
that
boils
up
in
terms
of
policy
making
just
like
we
would
with
the
fire
department,
and
then
we
can
also
do
that.
Making
policy
about
the
police
department.
B
Commissioner
newborn
did
you
want
to
ask
further
questions
or
shall
we
turn
first
to
council,
member
cunningham?
No
other
questions.
H
I'll
bring
up
one
little
interesting
turn
of
events
that
happened
recently.
H
We
were,
I
think,
even
in
terms
of
giving
budget
direction,
it's
more
challenging
with
the
police
department
than
other
departments,
because
we've
seen
how
we
can
approve
something
that
we
think
is
clearly
we're
approving
something
for
one
particular
purpose,
and
then
the
money
never
actually
goes
to
that
and
it's
just
moved
within
the
department,
and
basically,
I
think
we
were
told
recently
correct
me.
H
Colleagues,
if
I'm
wrong,
but
by
the
city,
attorney
that
once
the
budget's
approved
in
its
entirety,
the
police
department
can
shift
it
around
where
they
would
like,
and
the
council
can't
necessarily
restrict
it
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
far
we
get
with
other
departments.
But
we
can
give
staff
directions
and
those
department
heads
take
them
much
more
seriously
or
to
implement
them.
I
would
say
in
my
experience
because
they
feel
like
it's:
it's
their
supervisors
have
now
given
them
this
direction
with
the
police
department.
It's
different.
H
E
E
One
of
the
things,
though,
is
that
hoping
for
collaboration
and
much
to
council
member
gordon's
point
around
giving
up
some
of
the
power
over
the
police
department.
From
the
perspective
of
the
mayor.
E
That's
really
personality
based,
so
it
really
depends
on
the
personality
of
the
council
members,
individual
council
members,
how
the
the
personality
of
the
body
how
it
behaves
as
a
whole,
as
well
as
the
personality
of
the
mayor
and
in
policy,
making
it's
just
very
important
to
make
sure
that
we
are
not
making
policy
and
trying
to
govern
from
a
personality
perspective,
but
from
good,
structured
government,
and
so
that's
a
part
of
the
reason
why
you
know
we're
looking
at
setting
up
this
department
to
function.
E
Similarly,
the
mayor
is
still
the
executive
and
the
council
is
still
the
legislative
branch.
We
still
have
those
division
of
governing
authority
and
it
doesn't
have
to
rely
on
the
hope
that
there
are
the
right
mix
of
personalities
in
order
to
be
able
to
govern
from
that
from
the
executive
and
the
legislative
branch
perspective
and
approach.
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
kind
of
like
we
always.
E
You
know
I'll
speak
for
myself.
Instead
of
we,
you
know,
I
always
think
that
collaboration
and
cooperation
amongst
elected
officials
produces
good
outcomes.
You
know
governing
without
drama
it's
hard
to
do,
but
it
is
preferred.
You
know,
because
it's
a
little
bit
smoother,
but
it
also
is
very
personality
based,
so
you
know,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
good
structure
policy
in
place
so
that
no
matter
who
is
in
who
is
the
mayor?
Who
is
the
council
president?
E
Who
are
the
council
members
that
there
is
consistency
rather
than
having
to
rely
on
personality?
So
thank
you
for
that.
B
Thank
you,
councilmember
ellison,.
G
Thank
you,
commissioner,
and
commissioner
newborn.
If
you
could
help
clarify
something
for
me,
it
does
sound
like
there
might
be
a
little
bit
of
confusion
baked
into
your
question
itself.
It
sounds
like
you're
asking
if
the
if
the
mayor
gives
us
permission
to
give
direction
to
the
other
departments,
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
understood
the
difference
between
how
the
police
have
are-
are
structured
versus
how
the
other
departments
are
structured
because
it
sounded
like.
G
Maybe
you
felt,
like
all
the
departments
were
structured
the
same,
but
that
simply
the
mayor
just
picked.
The
police
to
hold
on
have
a
tighter
grip
on.
K
Yep,
no,
no
I'm
fully
aware
of
the
the
structure
I
used
to
work
for
the
city
of
minneapolis.
So
no
that
that
wasn't
my
question.
Yeah.
B
Yep,
commissioner
newborn
you
had
other
questions
as
well.
No,
no
I'm
good!
For
now!
Oh
okay!
Thank
you.
Well,
I
know
that
we're
starting
to
run
out
of
time.
I
wanted
to
open
it.
I
have
a
couple
more
questions,
but
I
wanted
to
open
it
to
other
members
of
the
charter
commission
in
case
they
have
questions.
B
Well,
okay,
chair
club.
D
Thank
you
and
anyone
can
answer
this,
but
can
you
tell
us
what
public
safety
related
changes
in
state
law?
The
council
may
want
to
prioritize
as
the
city's
legislative
priorities
for
2021
and
beyond,
and
what
charter
changes
if
any,
would
be
appropriate
or
desirable
in
conforming
the
charter
to
these
priorities.
I
Thanks
thanks
for
that
question
I
so
so
I
think
that
you
know
in
in
many
ways
the
document
that
bert
osborne
you
know
provided
had
the
very
comprehensive
list
of
an
awful
lot
of
places
where
licensed
peace
officers
are,
you
know,
referenced
in
law
in
a
way
that
is
not
necessarily
useful
or
helpful
or
necessary,
and
so
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
options
and
certainly
having
that
catalog.
I
Even
if
I
disagree
with
some
of
the
ways
that
mr
osborne
concluded
that
we
currently
need
peace
officers
because
of
the
way
that
some
of
those
laws
are
written,
I
think
it's
not
as
clear
as
that.
So
I
I
don't
accept
the
premise,
but
I
do
accept
that
that's
a
useful
to-do
list,
as
as
one
thing
that
we've
been
able
to
provide
the
legislature
as
a
part
of
the
you
know,
work
product
moving
forward
and
that's.
I
I
know
something
that
we
had
asked
for
quite
some
time
ago
and
I'm
happy
we
were
able
to
to
generate
the
you
know.
I
would
say
that
there
are
several
things
that
are
on
our
legislative
agenda
that
feel
important.
We've
seen
a
real
gap
in
traffic
enforcement.
I
I
think
the
opportunity
to
reconsider
the
way
we
do.
Traffic
enforcement,
including
potentially
automated
camera-based
traffic
enforcement,
is
something
that
we
want
to
work
with
the
legislature
on
that's
already
in
our
igr
agenda.
I
I
certainly
think
that
there
are
opportunities
to
expand
the
ability
of
9-1-1
dispatch,
to
dispatch
specialists
more
freely
and
with
fewer
restrictions,
so
that
we
can
make
better
decisions
as
a
municipality
about
what
the
best
way
is
to
respond
to
incidents
in
our
city,
and
I
think
that
there's
an
opportunity
for
the
state
to
work
with
us
on
that,
and
you
know,
I
know
that
we
have
a
robust
igr
agenda,
that
that
will
continue
to
work
on
as
we
move
forward.
I
I
don't
think
that
any
of
those
changes
in
particular
are
suggestive
of
charter
changes
to
my
knowledge,
but
I'd
be
curious
if
any
of
my
colleagues
can
think
of
any
in
response
to
the
second
part
of
the
question.
D
B
Your
head,
oh
it's!
Your
that's!.
D
J
Madam
chair,
the
question
that
I
have
is
that
now
that
the
negotiations
are
going
on
on
the
police
contract
and
if
it
is
a
problem
and
the
base
contract
is
to
how
to
discipline
or
for
the
for
the
treat
the
discipline
people
are,
we
negotiating
whatever.
We
need
to
go
out
of
the
contract
so
that
that
can
be
handled
by
the
chief
better
in
the
future.
G
I'm
happy
to
speak
a
little
bit
to
it,
but
steve
yeah.
You
know
one
of
the
one
of
the
downfalls
of
contract
negotiation
is,
that
is
that
we
don't
have
a
ton
of
leverage,
because,
if
the
co,
if
the
old
contract
allows
a
lot
of
leeway
and
wasn't
a
great
contract,
then
it
stays
in
effect.
G
G
I
think
that
we
developed
a
bad
contract
with
our
with
our
police
department
and
and
what
that
means
is
that
for
us
to
try
to
go
back,
strengthen
it,
we
we're
we're
doing
so
with
very
little
leverage,
I
think,
and
so,
and
so
absolutely
I
I
I
think
a
lot
of
us
have
recognized
the
issue
with
the
arbitration
process
that
that
says
when
the
police
fire,
when
the
police
chief
fires,
someone
our
arbitration
process
essentially
says
they're,
getting
it
wrong.
50
of
the
time.
G
Do
we
necessarily
think
that
rondo
is
getting
it
wrong?
50
of
the
time
when
he
fires
someone,
I
I
surely
don't
think
so,
but
our
arbitration
process
says
yes.
He
is
because
we
reinstate
50
of
the
officers
that
that
are
around
50
of
the
officers
that
we
that
we
fire
and
so
and
so
obviously
we're
not
going
to
approve
a
contract
that
at
least
not
this
council
or
or
not.
You
know
I'll
speak
for
myself.
G
I
would
not
vote
in
favor
of
any
contract
that
doesn't
strengthen
our
ability
to
hold
officers
accountable,
but
I
also
have
to
say
that
acknowledging
the
fact
that
we
have
very
little
leverage
given
given
the
current
state
of
the
of
of
the
police
union
contract
and-
and
I
think
that
it
prob
it
might
require
some
level
of
of
of
state
intervention
or
at
least
cleverness,
to
really
bring
things
back
in.
B
Thank
you.
I
will.
I
know
that
council
member
fletcher
wants
to
add
a
comment,
but
I
just
wanted
to
add
something
as
well:
I've
spoken
to
labor
arbitrators
and
other
experts
in
the
field,
and
I
used
to
be
an
employment
lawyer,
so
I
know
a
little
bit
about
employment
law
and
I
understand
that
one
reason
that
the
arbitration
decisions
have
gone.
B
It
can
be
agreed,
we're
not
going
to
we're
not
going
to
rely
on
this.
It's
a
grant
passed
practice
anymore,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that's
something
that
is
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
city
council
and
in
the
negotiations,
or
of
the
city
and
city
management,
and
since
council
member
fletcher
at
least
nodding,
and
you
were
going
to
speak
anyway.
I'd
call
on
you.
B
I
Great
well
so
you're
correct
that
best
practices
can
be
negotiated
and
you're
correct
that
all
kinds
of
discipline
issues
can
be
negotiated.
It's
also
worth
pointing
out
that
not
every
union
defends
every
member
for
every
offense,
no
matter
how
egregious
it
is
a
choice,
a
value-based
choice
that
the
police
federation
makes
to
defend
people
for
doing
really
awful
and
defensible
things
and
it's
reprehensible.
I
What
I
do
want
to
say,
though,
is
we
have
extremely
limited
leverage.
We've
basically
identified
that
there
are
three
major
structural
barriers
that
prevent
us
from
making
significant
changes
in
public
safety.
Those
three
major
barriers
are
state
law,
the
minneapolis
city
charter,
which
is
what
we're
discussing
here
today
and
the
police
federation
contract,
and
now,
if
you
think
about
the
police
federation
contract,
think
about
the
position
that
we're
in
when
we
go
to
negotiate
that
we
are
required
to
have
a
police
department
under
charter,
and
we
are
required
to
have
a
minimum
staffing
level.
I
So
we
can't
make
a
credible
threat
of
making
any
kind
of
structural
change.
So
when
we're
at
the
table,
they
know
we
can't
walk
away
and
not
have
them.
We
don't
have
a
choice:
to
go,
negotiate
some
other
way
of
providing
for
public
safety.
We
don't
have
choices
to
fire.
Everybody
in
fresh
start,
there's
a
whole
lot
of
things.
I
That,
frankly,
would
we
would
like
to
have
under
our
power,
but
given
the
structure
of
labor
law
and
given
the
structure
of
a
charter
that
really
back
us
collectively
into
a
corner
when
we
get
to
the
federation
contract,
we're
not
sitting
there
with
a
lot
of
leverage.
The
other
thing
that
takes
away
our
leverage
by
the
way
is
that
they
operate
under
the
old
contract
until
we
negotiate
a
new
contract,
so
I
feel
fairly
confident.
I
If
I
was
then
my
strategy
would
be
looking
at
this
council
and
knowing
that
we
will
not
sign
something
that
doesn't
solve
some
of
the
significant
problems
in
public
safety.
I
think
that
they're
looking
at
this
and
saying
we
probably
don't
feel
like
we're
in
a
negotiating
mode
in
in
real
good
faith
until
after
the
2021
elections.
I
think
if
I
was
them,
I
would,
I
would
slow,
play
it
and
see
if
we
get
a
council
that
would
sign
off
on
some
of
the
things
that
they
want.
I
I
certainly
hope
that
they
don't,
but
I
think
that
that's
they
don't
have
any
obligation.
I
will
finish
my
first
term
having
never
had
a
chance
to
vote
on
a
police
union
contract,
so
that
hasn't
been
a
point
of
leverage
for
anybody
who
got
elected
in
this
term,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
part
of
why
we
wanted
the
charter
change
part
of
why
we
wanted
a
charter
that
allowed
us
to
say
you
know
if
we
really
can't
get
the
outcomes
that
we
need
from
you.
I
We
will
shrink
the
department
and
we
will
find
other
ways
to
solve
these
problems.
We
need
a
credible
way
to
say
that
I
don't
know
how
we
would
negotiate
a
better
contract
unless
we
have
that
and
that's
really
what
by
deciding
to
drag
this
out
and
by
deciding
to
not
act
in
a
timely
way.
That's
really
what
the
charter
commission
did
in
terms
of
the
current
state
of
labor
negotiations.
So
absolutely
in
answer
to
your
question,
commissioner:
schwarzkopf.
I
We
are
committed
to
not
signing
a
contract
that
doesn't
solve
these
problems,
and
I
think
everybody
knows
that.
I
think
it's
very
clear.
I
have
major
problems
not
only
with
the
discipline
issues,
but
with
the
way
that
the
contract
ties
the
chiefs
hands
about
how
assignments
are
made.
I
think
it's
very,
very,
very
important
that
we
be
able
to
put
people
in
roles
that
we
think
are
appropriate
and
and
not
be
tied
to
70
of
the
roles
being
biddable,
etc.
I
So
I
think,
there's
very
very
important
issues
that
have
to
be
changed
in
the
contract
and
I
just
without
without
some
more
systems
change.
You
know
it's
not
an
accident
that
the
federation
lobbied
and
campaigned
for
the
1961
amendment
that
got
us
the
minimum
right,
because
that
really
is
something
that
deflated
the
city's
leverage
and
negotiations
with
them
ever
since.
So
that
was
a
smart
tactic
back
then
you
know
kudos
to
the
organizers
who
thought
of
it.
J
B
J
H
B
B
What,
if
anything,
would
you
offer
from
your
perspective
and
experience
that
you
think
would
be
important
for
the
charter
commission
to
consider
as
it
evaluates
the
current
proposed
amendment
submitted
by
city
council,
and
I
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
already
about
the
minimum
funding
requirement
and
the
oversight,
but
I
wonder
if
there
are
other
things
that
you've
now
identified
that
might
be
of
interest
to
us
in
the
charter
commission,
as
we
continue
working
on
the
amendment
council,
member
fletcher.
I
Thank
you,
commissioner
rubenstein.
I
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
it
might
not.
I
It
might
actually
not
be
important
that
probably
this
conversation
between
the
council
and
the
charter
commission
is
not
what's
going
to
produce
the
language
that
ends
up
on
the
ballot
next
year,
but
I
think
at
this
point,
what
is
likely
to
happen
is
that,
rather
than
a
few
of
us
coming
together
to
work
this
out
among
the
folks
on
this
call,
I
think
a
whole
lot
of
people
are
going
to
come
together
to
do
a
petition
drive
and
the
language
that
they
determine
is
appropriate
to
bring
forward
is
really,
I
think,
the
language
that
we're
going
to
end
up
discussing
next
year.
I
So
I
would
not
encourage
you,
I
would
I
would
I
I
would
not
want
to
say
that
there
are
things
that
you
can
work
on
with
this
body
that
feel
important
right
now,
because
I
think
that,
actually,
what
we're
going
to
end
up
discussing,
I
would
say,
focus
on
doing
whatever
due
diligence
you
feel
like.
You
will
need
in
advance
of
probably
a
petition-based
charter
proposal
coming
forward
early
next
year,
knowing
that
it
will
come
through
in
time
to
get
on
the
ballot
without
delay.
I
Next
time-
and
I
would
just
you
know-
really
say
if,
if
you
think
you've
got
a
novel
approach,
that
might
be
something
different
than
what
we
came
up
with
that
you
want
to
make
a
public
case
for
so
that
the
advocates
who
are
coming
together
by
the
thousands
to
do
that
kind
of
a
petition
drive
have
the
benefit
of
those
ideas.
I
I
think
that
effectively,
having
run
out
of
the
clock
on
the
potential
of
the
2020
amendment,
we
probably
have
put
it
in
the
people's
hands
for
early
2021,
and
I
think
that's
probably
fine
with
me.
I
think,
but
I
think
that's
where
the
conversation
is
going,
is
that
it's
going
to
be
a
much
broader
group
of
people
coming
together
to
work
on
this
as
it
should
be.
I
This
is
going
to
be
a
big
community
conversation
and
that's
where
I
expect
it
to
go,
so
I
would
focus
your
energy
in
terms
of
you
know
where
you
go
with
this
on
what
you
think
might
be
able
to
provide
some
prompts
or
ideas
to
a
broader
public.
That's
contemplating
a
charter
amendment
by
petition.
B
K
Commissioner,
rubenstein
and
chair
ruminstein,
thank
you
so
much
for
that
opportunity.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you.
I
know
I
arrived
a
little
bit
late,
but
thank
you
to
our
council
members
for
for
coming
to
to
this
meeting
and
talking
with
us.
You
know,
I
understand
that
you
know.
A
lot
of
things
have
hap
have
happened
over
the
last
three
months
and
you
know
we
all
have
different
opinions
about
what
the
process
is
and
and
and
what
should
have
happened
and
what
should
not
have
happened
during
this.
K
But
I
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
have
a
discussion
with
you
without
you
know,
cameras
and
you
know,
media
involved
and
and
be
able
to
talk
about
this
issue,
knowing
that
we
have
different
perspectives
and
different
opinions
about
it,
and
so
I
think
all
of
us
have
that
interest
in
ensuring
that,
within
our
respective
roles
that
we
are,
you
know
working
on
behalf
of
the
residents
here
in
minneapolis
and
and
the
charter
commission
being
residents
as
well
and
have
a
an
interest
and
a
stake
in
and
seeing
that
this
that
our
city
being
successful
and
how
we
reimagine
public
safety
in
our
in
in
our
city.
K
B
Thank
you,
commissioner,
commissioner
councilmember
gordon.
H
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
all
for
the
invitation,
and
I
know
this
is
the
second
time
we've
been
invited,
at
least
to
one
form
or
another
of
of
the
commission
and
your
where
your
work
on
this.
I
really
appreciate
that
you're
concerned
and
that
you
care
about
it,
and
you
want
to
hear
from
us
and
understand
it
better.
H
It's
probably
going
to
take
all
of
us
working
together
to
figure
this
out
and
make
sure
that
we
can
improve
public
safety
in
minneapolis
so
that
it
benefits
everybody,
and
we
can
avoid
the
killings
that
we've
seen
in
the
past.
So
thanks
for
your
time
and
for
facilitating
such
a
good
meeting-
and
I
appreciate
being
here-
and
you
know-
welcome
an
invitation
in
the
future
as
well.
B
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
would
add
my
thanks
to
all
of
you
for
a
very
interesting
and
informative
meeting.
I
think
we
are
all
on
the
same
page
when
it
comes
to
not
only
an
interest
but
a
passion
and
changing
the
direction
that
the
city
has
been
going
in
and
we,
as
a
charter
commission,
are
certainly
intending
to
keep
working
on
that
item.
Three.
B
The
last
item
on
the
agenda
is
a
discussion
of
next
steps
for
the
public
safety
work
group
and
I'll
just
mention
that
next
week
we
will
be
meeting
with
the
mayor
and
the
police
chief
again
and
following
that,
we
will
be
meeting
with
people
in
the
office
of
racial
equity,
as
well
as
the
commissioner
of
the
minnesota
department
of
human
rights.
So
we've
got
more
meetings
and
more
work
to
do
with
that.
We
have
concluded
all
business
before
the
charter
commission's
public
safety
work
group
and
without
objection
we
stand.