►
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
A
B
Okay
sounds
good.
I
am
letting
everybody
in
I'll
give
you
the
official
message
and
then
go
ahead
and
get
started.
Okay,.
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
We
approve
a
substitute
amendment
if
there's
a
clear
legal
defect
of
the
proposal
or
if
it
needs
greater,
greater
clarity
or
if
it
needs
to
comply
with
the
standards
we
have
now
established
for
charter
amendments
and
commissioner
sandberg,
perhaps
you
can
add
to
what
I've
just
said.
D
I
think
that
this
is
very
familiar
to
those
of
you
when
I
brought
up
the
comments
before
about
creating
expectations,
standards,
guidelines,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
but
when
we
request
additional
time
in
this
case,
it's
what
do
we
consider
when
we
do
want
to
prepare
a
substitute
amendment,
and
commissioner
rubenstein
mentioned
a
few
things
that
I
thought
about,
which
clearly
would
be
if
everything
else
is
okay
in
a
proposed
amendment,
except
that
there's
a
legal
defect,
could
we
cure
that
defect
and
then
still
have
the
amendment
move
forward?
D
That
would
require
substitute,
I
assume,
or
there
could
be
other
issues
that
probably
relate
to
those.
What
were
they
six
standards
that
we
developed
earlier
for
when
we
require
additional
time?
I'm
just
thinking
it
would
be
nice
to
have
some
discussion,
some
ideas
in
our
minds
for
the
future,
if
not
for
today
moving
forward
and
it's
nothing
to
do
with
the
amendments
that
have
been
proposed.
D
I
just
like
process,
and
it
would
make
me
feel
better
if
we
did
have
those
expectations
so
and
I'm
sure
that
for
the
amendments
they've
been
proposed,
they
may
have
thoughts
in
mind
already,
but
this
is
a
bigger
issue
than
just
today.
As
I
see
it,
thank
you.
A
Okay,
commissioner
abbott.
E
Yeah,
I
am
it's
my
impression
that
the
city
council,
when
we,
if,
if
we
send
our
recommendation
back
to
them
positively
or
negatively
or
if
we
send
them
a
substitute,
my
understanding,
is
the
council-
can
only
either
adopt
or
substitute
instead
or
proceed
with
the
original
proposal
itself
like
if
there's
going
to
be
a
fix
for
some
legal
flaw
that
we've
identified
that
the
vehicle
to
fix.
That
is,
in
fact
our
substitute.
I
mean
if
I'm,
if
I'm
wrong
about
that,
I'm
happy
to
be
corrected.
E
B
F
Thank
you.
My
view
is
that
proposed
substitutes
are
subject
to
the
same
standards
as
proposed
amendments
which
we've
just
adopted
at
the
full
charter.
Commission.
I
think
those
same
standards
should
apply
to
any
proposed
amendments.
A
Thank
you
checklist.
I
wanted
to
add,
maybe
for
my
own
clarity
or
clarification,
that
when
we
consider
substitute
amendments
as
we're
doing
today,
I
think
it's
because
there
you
know
it.
It's
we've
decided
that
perhaps
the
charter
does
need
amending
and
that
the
the
city
council
proposal,
which
is
the
one
before
us,
is
worth
considering
in
depth
as
we
have
done
and
considering
whether
substitutes
amendments
would
help
it
along,
and
so
it
it's
an
important
part
of
the
process.
A
I've
been
thinking
a
lot
about
our
own
amendments
and
at
this
point,
that's
not
before
us.
What's
before
us
our
substitute
amendments,
and
so
the
issues
that
commissioner
sandberg
raises
are
important
ones,
because
we
are
taking
seriously
the
city
council
amendment
as
we
should.
Commissioner
perry,
you
had
your
hand,
though.
G
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
quick
say
that
I
agreed
with
sure
clegg.
I
I
don't
really
see
a
need
to
differentiate
between.
G
A
A
E
Well
I'll
be
brief,
because
I
think
my
email,
you
know
pretty
much,
gets
the
gist
of
it.
You
know
my
my
proposal
is
essentially
the
same
as
the
council
proposal,
except
that
I
preserve
the
mayor's
role
in
administrating,
the
day-by-day
operation
of
law
enforcement
and-
and
I
I
provide
that
the
administrative
structure
can
be
done
by
ordinance
instead
of
establishing
it
in
the
charter.
E
The
thing
about
the
council
proposal
that
that
has
driven
me
to
do
this
is
you
know
the
old
line
about
be
careful
what
you
wish
for
you
might
get
it
I
mean,
I,
I
think
the
the
the
restrictions
on
the
mayor's
powers
and
the
administrative
complications
of
the
council's
proposals
are
really
problematic.
E
E
You
know,
charter
amendment
stuff
that
gets
in
the
way.
I
think
that
in
some
ways
I
think
this
is
an
improvement
on
the
on
the
council
proposal.
I
think
it'll
be
cleaner
politically
than
their
original
proposal,
and
I
I
you
know,
and
lastly,
I
would
say
if
you
know
I
think
you
know
I
think
we
should
give
the
council.
E
I
mean
it's
very
clear
that
the
council
wants
to
put
the
reimagining
of
the
police
in
front
of
the
voters,
and
I
think
we,
when
we
give
them
a
substitute
or
give
them
an
alternative.
I
think
we
should
give
them
a
perhaps
a
different
better
way
to
do
that,
as
opposed
to
something
I
think,
that's
going
to
cut
against
the
grain
of
what
their
actions
have
been
to
this
point.
So
I
think
I
would.
E
I
would
consider
this
in
the
nature
of
a
friendly
amendment
to
the
the
council
proposal,
and
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
point.
I
think
the
council
can
discuss
if
we,
if
we
actually
did
adopt
this
and
send
this
back
as
a
substitute.
I
think
this
would
be.
I
think
we
would
get
an
interesting
debate
on
the
council
about
whether
the
mayor,
part
of
their
proposal
is,
is
truly
necessary
or
not,
and
I
think
that's
where
the
you
know
the.
I
think
that's
where
that
sits.
E
My
my
my
substitute
is
designed
to
provoke
that
discussion
and
see
if
they,
if
that's
if
they
really
want
to
go
ahead
with
the
mayoral
part
when
they
present
this
to
the
voters.
I
think
they
should
be
clear
about
that
and
that's
kind
of
the
point
of
my
substitute
so
other
than
that
I'll.
Listen
to
the
discussion
and
answer
any
questions
that
people
might
have.
H
Up
man,
I'm
sure
I
had
my
hand
up
prior
to
or
having
our
discussion
really
sorry
to
mention.
H
You
know
before
we
started
discussing
this
actual
substitute,
that
what
I
had
planned
on
doing
today
was
to
reject
the
council
amendment,
so
that's
clear
and
then
lay
over
the
two
substitute
amendments
that
meet
again
next
year
see
what
happens
with
all
the
different
things
that
are
out
there
and
at
that
point
maybe
adopt
one
of
these
amendments
as
a
actual
charter
recommended
amendment
rather
than
as
a
substitute
and
that's
what
I
would
was
planning
to
do
today,
but
we're
now
into
the
discussion
so
I'll
stop
at
that
point.
A
I
I
I
That
also
includes
personnel
policies,
so
there's
a
direct
overlap
and
then
it
includes
day-to-day
operations,
and
I
guess
I'm
not
sure
what
the
rules
of
operation
versus
the
days
of
operation
would
be.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
those
things
up,
be
because
it's
better
to
take
care
of
those
issues
now
and
clarify
it
than
have
a
charter
provision
that
would
be
difficult
to
enforce.
E
That's
a
really
good
catch.
Actually,
the
second
personnel
policy
in
the
executive
authority
paragraph
is
redundant
and
that
is
a
typo
on
my
part,
I
believe-
and
I
think
I
think
I
will
take
your
proposal
as
a
if
I
can
offer
an
author's
amendment-
to
delete
those
that
those
two
words
in
the
second
paragraph
of
executive
authority.
E
I
think
that
you
know,
but
the
concept
is
that
obviously
the
mayor
would
get
to
enforce
discipline
in
other
employment
policies.
I
mean
the
council
should
not
be
involved
in
specific
employment
cases
and
I
think
I've
covered
that
with
the
enforcement
of
discipline
and
termination
of
employees
section
I'm
open
to
clarification
in
that
language,
but
I
think
if
we
delete
personnel
policies,
I
think
it's
pretty
clear.
I
mean
in
terms
of
day-to-day
operations,
I
mean
the
whole
point
of
my
amendment.
Is
you
know?
E
Public
safety
is
different
than
other
city
functions.
Right
I
mean
you
have
things
moving
very
quickly.
It
is
difficult
to
get
13
bosses
or
14
bosses
to
decide
quickly,
for
example,
how
to
respond
to
riots
or
looting
and
in
a
very
short
term
time
frame,
and
I
think
an
elected
official
ought
to
be
making
those
decisions.
Somebody
who's
accountable
to
the
voters
ought
to
be
making
the
decisions
about
how
to
respond
quickly
in
public
safety
situations,
which
is
the
which
is
the
point
of
paragraph
two.
E
So
if
there's
I'm
I'm
wide
open
on
alternative
language,
if
someone
wants
to
suggest
it,
but
but
like
I
say
I
would
I,
if
that,
unless
there's
an
objection
as
an
author's
amendment,
I
would
delete
the
two
words:
personnel
policies
and
the
comma.
In
the
second
line
of
the
second
paragraph,
there
of
executive
authority.
J
Thank
you
I
kind
of
jumped
in
in
front
of
the
regular
committee,
because
I
can
only
be
here
until
five
o'clock,
but
just
two
quick
comments.
One
is
with
regard
to
commissioner
abbott's
statement
that
the
council
has
two
choices
which
is
either
put
on
a
substitute,
emotion,
a
substitute
amendment
or
put
on
the
original
amendment
when
these
go
back
to
the
council.
J
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
and
then
the
second
point
is
I'm
I'm
having
trouble
with
commissioner
abbott's
amendment
because
to
me
it's
a
throwback
to
some
degree
to
the
2018
council
amendment
in
which
there's
a
large
confluence
between
the
mayor
and
the
city
council
on
what
they
do,
and
I
think
that
there's
a
real
struggle
in
there
about
who
has
control
of
what
what
is
going
to
be
deemed
daily
operational.
J
When
somebody
has
the
full
authority
to
set
policy-
and
then
you
say
later
on,
the
mayor-
has
full
authority
to
set
policy
or
to
set
operation.
I
think
there's
a
whole
lot
of
conflict
in
there
and
I
think
it's
really
problematic
and
I
said
reminiscent
of
the
2018
amendment
from
the
city
council.
Thank
you.
E
Just
briefly,
I
I,
I
think
the
division
between
executive
and
legislative
authority
is
pretty
well
understood
in
the
american
system.
I
mean
this
is
the
way
the
federal
government
operates
and
you
know
perhaps
there'll
be
some
technical
issues,
but
you
know,
I
think,
the
idea
that
the
council
would
legislate
standards
by
which
the
police
would
operate
and
then
the
mayor
would
enforce
those
standards.
E
I
think
it's
a
pretty
standard
legal
concept
and
I
do
in
the
last
sentence
paragraph
two
say:
the
mayor
must
faithfully
execute
and
abide
by
the
policy
rules
and
regulations
established
by
the
city
council.
So
if
there's
any
dispute
as
to
who
gets
to
set
the
rules,
I
think
that
dispute
is
pretty
well
resolved.
So
that's
my
response.
Thank
you.
C
Follow
up
on
what
mr
ginger
said
that
the
council
can
choose,
does
have
the
option
to
choose
to
do
nothing,
no
matter
what
we
say,
and
I
just
want
to
remind
people
that
it's
our
second
or
third
meeting
when
we
had
our
guests
were
the
city
council,
folks
that
I
think
council
member
fletcher
was
the
one
who
told
us
that
our
role
in
this
whole
process
is
pretty
much
irrelevant
that
we
had
done.
You
know
that
the
time
our
time
was
passed,
so
I'm
not.
I.
C
I
guess
I
just
want
to
suggest
that
whatever
we
send
back
to
the
city
council,
they
have
basically
told
us
they
will.
They
will
be
deciding
not
not
us
on
on
what
the
next,
what
their
next
step
is
going
to
be,
and
as
far
as
the
the
commissioner
abbott's
proposal,
it's
certainly
an
improvement,
and
it
clarifies
some
things
that
we
saw
from
the
original
proposal
by
the
city
council.
C
But
yet
I
still
think
it.
It
raises
a
lot
of
questions
about
who's,
going
to
do
what
and
the
fact
that
I
as
as
I
read
it,
I
still
think
that
the
police
chief
is
going
to
be
reporting
to
to
a
to
the
head
of
the
new
department,
the
new
this
new
department,
and
I
have
a
real
problem
with
that.
I
think
the
police
chief
should
be
reporting
directly
to
the
mayor
when
you
have
a
an
operation
like
a
police
department,
it's
a
very
hierarchical.
C
I
think
lines
of
command
are
extremely
important,
and
I
think
this
this
this
provision
in
the
in
the
charter,
I
believe,
goes
back
a
lot
farther
than
a
lot
of
other
things
we've
been
discussing,
and
I
just
I
think,
there's
no
compelling
reason
to
change
it
right
now
and
the
and
nobody
that's
come
before
us
in
these
last
three
months
since
august
5th
has
really
made
the
case
for
why
we
need
to
change
the
authority
and
reporting
structure
of
the
of
the
police
department.
A
I
guess
at
this
point
we
should
at
least
we
should
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
commissioner
abbott's
proposed
amendment
probably
should
have
done
that
earlier,
but
at
least
we
could
take
it
to
a
vote.
Commissioner
sandberg.
D
I
know
that
we
would
only
be
sending
one
as
a
substitute
amendment,
but
frankly
I
think
at
some
point
we
need
to
discuss
whether
I
suspect
this
is
what
commissioner
schwarzkopf
was
talking
about,
whether
we
in
fact
want
to
propose
our
own
amendment
next
for
early
next
spring,
which
would
have
on
the
ballot,
whereas
this
substitute
would
not,
unless
we
propose
something
as
a
substitute
that
we
would
be
likely
to
be
consistent
with
what
we
might
propose
next
spring.
But
I
would
like
to
hear
from
commissioner
clay
also.
H
That's
exactly
what
I
was
planning
on
doing,
commissioner
sandberg,
and
so
therefore
I
would
like
to
hear
from
everybody
also,
but
then
I'd
like
to
kind
of
lay
it
over
and
see
what
happens
next
year.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
commissioner
schwarzkopf.
I
wanted
it
as
long
as
we're
still
discussing
before
we
go
on
to
commissioner
chair
clegg's
amendment.
I
also
had
some
thought
about
commissioner
abbott's
proposed
amendment.
A
I
would
say
that
I
very
much
appreciate
this
effort
to
address
the
key
issue
of
separation
of
powers,
but
I
feel
that
I
could
not
support
this
amendment
because,
partly
because
I
see
this
as
a
part
and
parcel
of
the
work
that
the
government
structure
work
group
is
doing
and
they're
just
getting
started.
A
A
I
think
it
shares
too
many
of
the
flaws
of
the
city
council
amendment
in
that
it
demotes.
The
police
chief
keeps
in
the
word
may
in
terms
of
establishing
a
law
enforcement
function,
and
this
was
would
raise
a
concern
under
state
law
and
it
establishes
the
same
charter
department
that
the
city
council
wish
to
establish
when
it
could
be
done
without
charter
change,
because
the
city
council
already
has
the
authority
to
establish
a
department,
even
if
it's
not
a
charter
department.
A
A
It
reflects
the
lack
of
consideration
by
the
city
council
in
seeking
to
establish
a
chartered
department
in
the
absence
of
a
plan,
community
engagement
and
so
forth.
Is
it
clear
and
specific,
I
thought
initially,
it
was
as
just
separation
of
powers,
but
now
I
think
that
matter
is
a
little
bit
in
doubt.
A
Does
it
interfere
with
the
right
of
voters
in
a
way
it
does
because
it
incorporates
the
uncertainty
that
was
in
the
city
council
amendment?
Is
it
consistent
with
state
law?
I
think
that's
a
real
question
and
is
it
necessary
to
accomplish
its
intended
objective
again,
we
don't
need
a
charter
change
to
establish
a
new
department.
A
So
for
that
reason
I
would
not
support
the
substitute
amendment.
I
do
think
that
it's
something
that
we
want
to
reconsider
later
on,
as
commissioner
schwarz
schwarzkopf
suggested,
because
it's
still
an
important
question,
but
I
don't
see
why
we
have
to
be
limited
in
our
90-day
review
as
to
resolving
that
question
now,
commissioner,
abbott.
E
Just
a
quick
clarification,
the
my
my
proposal
establishes
the
mayor
would
be
supervising
the
law
enforcement
service
function.
That's
a
paragraph
three
excuse
me
yeah
paragraph
three
should
be
a
actually
there's
another.
I
apologize.
It
should
be
3a
division
of
law
enforcement
services,
so
so
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
have
that
flaw
the
council
proposal
by
pushing
the
direction
of
the
law
enforcement
function
into
the
city,
bureaucracy.
A
F
First,
as
as
you
will
no
doubt
recognize,
you
will
see
that
the
so-called
clegg
amendment
is
virtually
almost
identical,
with
some
very
small
changes
to
that
amendment
proposed
by
commissioner
jerome
isaacson.
So
I
would
like
to
credit
commissioner
gero
isaacson
for
his
work
on
bringing
that
forward
and
acknowledge
his
hard
work
and
effort
and
give
and
extend
my
thanks.
F
Second,
in
response
to
commissioner
schwarzkopf's
comments,
I
think
it
would
be
a
mistake
for
us
to
set
aside
the
possibility
of
a
substitute
simply
because
we
might
consider
the
issue
next
year.
I
think
we've
done
the
groundwork
over
many
weeks.
We've
done
our
homework
and
we
should
fulfill
our
statutory
duty.
F
We
might
still
reject
just
reject
and
not
propose
a
substitute,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
do
that
just
because
well
we're
going
to
pick
it
up
later,
so
we
can
just
set
this
aside.
If
we
come
up
with
what
we
think
is
a
better
substitute,
we
ought
to
put
it
forward.
I
think,
for
one
thing,
it
might
inform
what
the
council
does
next
year,
despite
their
assurance
that
they're
not
going
to
pay
any
attention
to
us
at
least
they
would
see
what
might
be
acceptable
to
the
charter
commission
if
they're
moving
forward.
F
A
Okay,
commissioner,
perry.
G
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
think
the
I
want
to
thank
chair
clegg
for
his
his
work
as
well,
and
thank
commissioner
abbott
as
well.
G
Clegg's
argument
in
his
memo
is
is
well
argued,
but
I
think
it
fails.
I
I
just
have
a
fundamental
difference
in
opinion
on
a
couple
of
points
that
he
wrote
he
makes
in
his
guide
in
his
defense
of
the
guidelines
and
I'm
working
as
for
these
guidelines
as
my
sort
of
test.
If
any
of
them
fail,
then
I
would
not
be
supportive
of
the
the
substitute
motion
and
I
think
I
I
would
say
that
I
I
would
disagree
with
him-
that
the
language
being
removed
is
not
germane
to
the
charter.
G
I
think
it
very
much
is
so,
and
I
think
there
are
specific
things
about
the
the
the
police
department
and
the
role
of
the
city's
having
as
its
number
one
priority
to
protect
the
residents
and
citizens
and
businesses
of
the
city.
So
I
see
a
reason
why
that
language
should
be
in
our
constitution.
G
I
don't
think
it
is
a
matter
of
ordinance
or
policy
to
have
it
elsewhere.
I
think
it
very
clearly
needs
to
be
in
there
there's
other
special
considerations
about
the
police
department
in
the
charter.
I
think,
for
the
very
same
reason,
one
problem
I
have
with
both
proposals
is
it
well
considered,
while
we
haven't
really
had
a
chance
to
have
the
public
weigh
in
on
commissioner
abbott's
substitute
amendment,
and
we
have
had
some
for
commissioner
cleggs,
but
I
don't
think
it
is.
G
G
I
think
we
did
the
bare
minimum
that
we
had
to
to
notice
the
public
hearing
meeting
that
we
had,
and
so
I
have
a
hard
time
voting
for
this
for
those
two
reasons,
and
so
I
would
instead,
I
I
think
commissioner
clegg
has
argued
for
the
rest
in
his
his
his
memo,
for
why
we
should
not
be
supporting
the
city
council's
proposed
amendment,
and
I
think
with
these
that
I
mentioned
the
guidelines
not
meeting
for
me
anyhow.
G
D
Thank
you.
I
found
the
clegg
memo
just
fine
and
I
I
think
that
it
meets
the
standards.
My
question
is
more
now
or
later.
D
D
I
was
a
very
strong
proponent
of
this
very
change
and
I
continue
to
be,
but
I
understand
we
might
want
to
let
the
city
council
mull
it
over
a
bit,
I'm
not
quite
sure
where
that
would
go,
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
my
own
mind
the
advantage
of
doing
it
now
versus
later,
except
for
the
possibility
of
a
conflict
later,
because
I
believe
attorney
bashoon
was
very
clear
in
her
admission
to
us
a
few
months
ago
about
being
careful
of
conflicts.
So
so
that's
my
my
thinking
at
this
point.
A
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I've
been
listening
and
I
I
do
like,
like
others
have
said.
I
do
appreciate
the
work
that
both
commissioner
abbott
and
chair
flag
have
put
into
this
and
I
thought
they
put
into
it.
However,
I'm
I
my
question
is
what
has
changed
since
august
5th
and
we
have
had.
C
I
think
this
is
our
fifth
or
sixth
meeting
and
I
have
learned
an
awful
lot
about
how
the
city
handles
public
safety,
but
I
have
had
heard
no
compelling
reason
why
we
should
to
make
these
changes
at
this
point
and
the
the
only
thing
I
recall
hearing
from
anyone
on
the
specifics
of
of
the
get
rid
of
of
the
minimum
compliment
and
budget
requirement
was
that
I
think
the
mayor
and
the
chief
did
say
that
they
would
be
okay
with
that.
C
But
beyond
that,
no
one
has
produced
any
compelling
arguments
why
we
need
to
do
it
now
if
we
were
starting
from
scratch,
whether
to
put
something
like
this
into
the
charter,
namely
the
the
minimum
requirement.
C
I
think
we
would
have
a
a
significant
debate
on
that,
and
maybe
it
doesn't
belong
to
charters,
but
it's
been
there
for
60
years
it
hasn't
seemed
to
have
done
the
city,
any
significant
damage
and,
frankly,
taking
it
out.
At
this
point,
two
things
are
going
to
happen.
If
we
vote
to
do
that
number
one,
it
is
going
to
appear
to
the
outside
world,
as
if
the
charter
commission
has
changed
its
mind
now.
Technically,
we
haven't
because
we're
dealing
with
a
different
we're
in
a
different
phase
of
the
procedure.
C
But
it's
also
going
to
look
like
we
have
are
endorsing
the
idea
that
we're
going
to
defu
that
it's
we're
giving
the
council
permission
to
defund
the
minneapolis
police
department
and
I'm
frankly
not
at
this
point
willing
to
do
that,
because
I
think
it
does
send
a
wrong
message.
C
The
people,
the
reason,
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
was
opposed
to
the
amendment
back
in
august
5th
or
opposed
to
the
isaacson
amendment
the
week
before
was
because,
listening
to
all
the
testimony
we
had,
what
I
heard
was.
Obviously
we
heard
different
opinions,
but
the
letters
in
the
in
the
several
hundred
calls.
What
I
did
here
was
the
people
from
the
areas
of
the
city
that
are
affected
most
by
what
what's
going
on
with
the
police,
namely
the
north
side,
the
african-american
community.
C
How
effective
it
is,
how
fair
it
is
and
what
I
heard
from
people
who,
many
of
whom
have
spent
a
good
part
of
their
adult
lives,
arguing
for
the
very
things
I
think
we
values
that
we
all
share
equality,
diversity,
fair,
fair
law
enforcement,
have
told
us,
don't
do
this
and
I'm
not
ready
at
this
point
to
to
endorse
or
subscribe
to
the
that
we
should
do
anything
to
get
rid
of
the
mandate
that
we
have
a
police
department
in
the
city,
that
of
a
of
a
of
at
least
a
minimum
size.
C
We
could
argue
about
what
that
size
should
be,
so
some
people
would
argue
that
we
should
have
a
a
bigger
requirement
for
a
larger
police
department.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
go
there,
but
anyway,
that's
why
I
have.
C
I
really
do
have
some
significant
reservations
about
recommending
this
to
the
city
council
and
I'm
comfortable.
Rejecting
the
whole
thing
now
come
next
spring
there
might,
we
might
not
be
in
the
middle
of
this
crime
wave
pandemic
that
we
are
now
which
I
think
is
going
to
look
make
the
council
people
question
our
judgment
that
we
are
suggesting
a
a
provision
that
could
eliminate
the
police,
even
though
I
don't
think
that
would
ultimately
happen
in
the
middle
of
what
most
people
think
is
the
worst
crime
pandemic
in
our
in
our
memory.
C
So
for
those
reasons,
I'm
I'm
going
to
to
vote
no.
However,
I
would
open
be
open
to
a
discussion,
as
someone
had
suggested
next
spring.
Maybe
it
makes
sense
to
put
something
like
this
on
the
ballot.
At
the
same
time,
the
council
is
running
for
election,
because
then
the
candidates
would
in
effect
be
forced
to
to
make
decisions
and
we
would
have
a
vigorous
debate,
so
I
I
would
be
open
to
thinking
about
that
next
year,
but
for
now
I
I
would
have
to
object.
A
K
You,
madam
chair,
I
very
much
like
commissioner
clegg's
substitute
amendment.
I
think
it
does
a
good
job
with
removing
the
three
the
three
elements
that
could
cause
some
serious
impediments
to
the
charter
commission,
while
preserving
the
option
of
removing
the
minimum
number
of
officers,
which
was
what
a
lot
of
people
wanted
to
vote
on.
K
I
am
not
in
favor
of
defunding
the
police,
but
I
would
be
in
favor,
given
chair,
clegg's
amendment
to
put
it
forward
to
a
public
vote,
because
I
think,
as
commissioner
kozak
said,
with
all
the
violence
on
the
north
side
and
with
in
the
history
of
police
brutality
and
the
spreading
of
violence
on
the
south
side
among
and
everywhere,
I
would
think
I
would
have
faith
that
the
residents
of
minneapolis
would
vote
it
down.
K
K
Let
those
play
out
and
see
what
comes
of
that,
and
I
think
that
may
play
into
what
would
be
part
of
an
amendment,
and
I
also
think
that
the
lawsuit
that
residents
of
the
north
side
have
against
the
city
of
minneapolis
regarding
the
number
of
police
is
something
that
is
valid
and
ought
to
be
respected,
and
I
would
hate
to
undercut
that
by
putting
forth
commissioner
clegg's
amendment
at
this
point
in
time.
A
You,
commissioner,
garcia
chair
clegg.
You
had
your
hand
up
next.
F
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
address
commissioner
kozak's
question
about
what's
changed
since
august
5th.
Well,
what's
changed
is
it's
three
months
later
now
I
voted
against
commissioner
jerome
isaacson's
proposal
in
august
and
I
voted
against
it
because
I
didn't
think
we'd
done
our
homework
and
didn't
look
at
it
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
and
the
public
didn't
have
sufficient
notice.
But
we've
been
working
on
this
for
three
months.
F
We've
heard
from
the
police
department
we've
heard
from
the
mayor
and
we
we
didn't
ask
the
mayor
if
he
was
quote
okay
with
this
change,
we
asked
him
what
did
he
see
as
a
barrier
to
charter
to
to
change
in
the
police
department?
That
was
in
the
charter,
and
he
said
he
thought
the
minimum
funding
and
staffing
provisions
were
barriers
to
change.
F
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Metchi.
L
Sorry,
it
took
me
a
little
while
to
unmute,
so
I
know
I'm
not
a
part
of
the
committee,
but
here
are
some
thoughts
I
have
so.
I
am
a
real
believer
in
in
a
strategic
process.
I'm
also
a
huge
supporter
of
the
office
of
violence
prevention.
I
think
it's
a
good
add
to
the
city
of
minneapolis,
but,
like
commissioner
garcia
said,
there's
a
workforce
study
going
on
a
9-1-1
study
going
on
there's
the
north
side.
L
Lawsuit
going
on
I've
actually
had
emails
and
calls
from
people
suggesting
that
a
minimum
requirement
ought
to
be
added
to
the
fire
department
too.
Anybody
involved
with
saving
lives
and
emergency
management
that
we
should
never
go
under
a
certain
minimum
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
ensure
the
safety
of
people,
which
is
the
elected's
number
one
goal,
but
most
importantly,
the
community
engagement
process
for
the
future
of
policing
is
just
starting.
L
So
I
don't
think
our
work
is
done.
I
think,
as
a
charter,
our
the
the
process
we
put
in
place
to
look
at
the
proposed
amendment
is
our
90
days
are
done,
but
I
think
there's
too
much
information
yet
out
there
that
isn't
in
to
support
any
amendment,
so
I
will
be
voting
with
with
commissioner
schwarzkopf.
I
think
that
he's
got
a
really
good
idea.
D
Thank
you
well,
as
I
think
I
said
a
few
months
ago,
I
really
hate
dedicated
taxes
and
required
minimums,
but
in
this
case
I
have
concerns
about
a
required
minimum.
For
the
very
reasons
I
believe
commissioner
clegg
was
referring
to
that.
This
may,
in
fact,
totally
defeat
efforts
to
shift
resources
around
to
deal
with
public
safety
issues.
This
is
not
defunding.
I'm
just
saying
that
if
we're
going
to
reimagine
having
a
required
minimum
could
be
a
big
problem.
D
Having
said
that,
I
am
very
sensitive
to
some
of
the
comments
that
there's
a
lot
going
on
right
now
and
even
if
we
vote
to
pass
this
today,
the
council
can
totally
ignore
it.
So
I
think
what
I'm
thinking
that
waiting,
even
though
yes,
I
know
we're
going
to
be
very
busy
with
redistricting,
but
waiting
a
few
more
months
may
not
be
a
bad
idea,
but
I
still
like
the
concept,
and
if
we
don't
do
it
now,
I
would
definitely
vote
to
do
it
probably
later.
E
Yeah,
I
think
I
have
to
say
I'm
a
little
a
little
frustrated,
because
I
think
you
know
we
we
really
don't
have
any
actual
power
in
this
body.
I
mean
our
our
real.
E
Our
ability
to
deal
with
this
process
is
really
more
persuasion
and
advice,
and
you
know
the
question
I
think
is
I
mean
the
city
council,
who
is
a
democratically
elected
body,
has
placed
this
in
front
of
us
for
our
review
and
our
advice,
and
if
we
and
we
have
an
opportunity,
I
think
to
give
them
back
a
substitute
which
is
an
improvement
on
their
original
proposal.
E
I
think
I
think
if
we
give
them
a
negative
recommendation
on
their
proposal
or
if
we
we
don't
really
take
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
engage
with
the
text
that
they've
given
us.
I
think
we
lose
whatever
little
power.
E
We
have
of
persuasion,
and
you
know,
as
I
said
on
august
5th,
I
have
some
serious
issues
with
the
draft
that
the
city
council
gave
to
us
and
that's
why
I've
done
my
amendment
and
I
I
just
I
the
tenor
of
the
discussion
here
is
not
how
can
we
help
the
tenor
of
the
discussion
is
kind
of
you
know
in
the
abstract.
E
You
know
if,
if
what
would
we
do
in
the
abstract-
and
I
think
that's
not
the
proper
frame
of
mind
at
this
point-
and
I
think
we've
I
think,
we've
done
enough-
I
think
we've
done
public
hearings.
I
think
we've
done.
I
think
it's
time
to
make
a
decision
on
the
question
of
whether
or
not
we
should
just
put
put
this
off
for
a
few
months.
E
You
know
I'm
I'm
on
the
government
structure,
work
group-
and
I
mean
I
think
this.
If
we
kick,
if
we
kick
this
back
to
the
council
with
a
with
a
recommendation
with
a
substitute
that
gives
them
a
chance
to
do
something
different
with
the
mayor's
role
in
all
of
this,
and
we
get,
we
get
some
feedback
from
the
council
right
away
on
that
topic,
I
think
that
will
really
inform
how
we
proceed
on
the
government
structure
side.
E
I
mean,
I
am
quite
aware
that
that
the
council
proposal
and
my
substitute
kind
of
really
interact
with
kind
of
the
overall
structure
kind
of
proposals
that
we're
kicking
around
in
the
other
work
group.
I'd
like
to
get
some
feedback
on
that.
I
just
think.
If
I
mean
I
think
if
this
is
headed,
where
it
seems
like
it's
headed,
which
is
just
kind
of
a
a
negative
recommendation
and
no
further
data,
I
don't
think
that
I,
I
don't
think
that
helps
us
on
government
structure.
E
I
don't
think
it
helps
the
council
solve
the
issues
we
have
with
with
our
current
proposal
and
and
and-
and
I
think
we
like-
I
say
our
most
powerful
tool
here
is
advice,
and
you
know
how
do
we
make
this
better?
Our
most
powerful
tools
to
be
constructive
and
I
think
we're
gonna.
I
think
if
we
just
say
negative
recommendation,
I
think
we
leave
that
tool
on
the
table
and
I
think
that's
a
mistake
so.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Kozak.
C
Just
very
briefly,
madam
chair,
you
know,
commissioner,
mr
chairman
clegg.
Your
point
was
well
taken
and
I
probably
didn't
remember
accurately
exactly
what
the
mayor
had
to
say
and
he
was
more
emphatic
than
I
than
I
suggested.
However,
what
hasn't
changed
since
august
is
the
fact
that
we
have
yet
to
see
any
plan.
I
hear
the
term
reimagining
law
enforcement
minneapolis,
but
but
one
of
the
reasons
we
I
think
we
turn
down
the
putting
it
on
the
ballot
this
year
is
because
that
we
had
no
plan
on
what.
C
If
we
got
rid
of
the
police
department,
we
got
rid
of
the
minimum
requirement
for
complement
and
minimum
requirement
for
budget.
What's
going
to
replace
it,
and
we
still
have
not.
We've
been
promised
the
plan,
they
told
us,
it
would
take
a
year
and
we
have
we
have.
We
know
no
more.
I
know
no
more
about
what
they're
planning
what
they
have
in
mind
now
than
we
really
did
back
in
back
in
august,
and
so
that's
while
it
may
be
an
impediment
to
wholesale
change
before
I'm
willing
to
agree
with
that.
C
I'd
like
to
see
what
what
change
they're
contemplating
and
we
still
we
really.
We
still
really
don't
know
how
that's
going
to
work,
and
perhaps
next
spring
we
will
and
the
council
of
course,
as
we
know,
they
are
perfectly
capable
they
they
have.
They
can
come
back
next
year.
Do
what
they
did
this
year.
Only
do
it
in
a
more
timely
way,
and
we
will
have
the
option
really
only
of
reviewing
it
and
going
through
the
same
exercise.
C
Only
they'll
do
it
in
a
in
a
way
that
we
can't
run
the
clock
out,
so
they
still
have
all
the
cards
on
their
head
are
are
on
their
side
of
the
table,
but
I
I
still
think
that
we
by
doing
this,
we
still
don't
know
what
what
the
plan
is.
If
we
get
rid
of
this
this
provision,
we
have
no
idea
what
what
the
new
law
enforcement
law
enforcement
structure
of
the
city
of
minneapolis
is
going
to
look
like.
Thank
you.
A
L
A
G
You,
madam
chair,
yes,
you
know.
The
question
I
have
for
chair
clegg
is
what
you
mentioned.
What
has
changed?
We
have
learned
a
lot
through
our
research.
G
G
But
when
it
comes
the
question
I
have
for
you
to
help
me
out
with
your
with
your
proposal,
is
I
talked
about
the
two
guidelines
and
what
I
am
wondering
is
on
the
one.
What
has
happened
between
now
and
three
months
ago
on
the
community
engagement
side?
That
was
one
of
the
questions
I
had.
I
don't
see
us
having
done
very
much
on
either
proposal
but
and
years
it
seems
to
be.
G
G
F
Thank
you.
We
had
the
council
proposal
also
contemplates
removing
the
minimum
standards.
We
had
two
public
hearings
on
the
council
proposal,
three
really
because
we
had
two
and
some
people
left
over,
so
we
had
a
third.
We
also
had
a
public
hearing
for
the
juror
isaacson
amendment
which,
as
I've
said,
is
quite
similar
to
the
one
that
I'm
proposing.
Now,
as,
as
others
have
noted,
we
got
literally
thousands
of
emails
on
the
police
minimum
subject
and
also
on
other
aspects
of
the
council
proposal
and
on
the
geroa
proposal.
F
You
know
I
I
can't
see
much
more
way
to
get
public
input
and
public
engagement.
This
thing
has
been
considered
by
the
public
for
months
now
with
multiple
opportunities
to
testify
and
participate.
F
A
Thank
you
I
I
would
looks
like
we
don't
have
any
other
hands
up,
but
I
wanted
to
add
what
I
was
thinking
about,
which
is
first
of
all
expressing
great
appreciation
to
both
commissioner
abbott
and
chair
clegg
for
their
effort.
A
I
don't
think
it
was,
and
so
I
started
went
into
this
meeting
thinking
that,
although
concerned
that
really,
even
though
to
propose
or
to
vote
on
a
substitute
amendment
at
this
time,
was
somewhat
meaningless,
because
nothing
was
going
to
happen
as
far
as
a
ballot
question
goes
until
next
november.
A
It
was
worth
doing
something,
but
now
I
have
to
say
I
agree
with
commissioner
sandberg
and
commissioner
schwartzkopf
and
other
people
who
have
expressed
similar
thoughts,
that
what
I'd
really
like
to
do
is
put
the
city
council
amendment
to
rest
this
week
by
voting
it
up
or
down
and
continuing
to
do
work.
We've
we've
built
a
real
foundation
to
contin
to
consider
further.
A
You
know
what
kind
of
amendment
to
the
charter
if
any
might
have
real
meaning
for
public
safety
and
in
balance
bringing
the
city
back
together
even
and
so.
For
that
reason
I
have
to
agree
that
I
would
rather
not
vote
on
a
substantive
vote
to
approve
a
substitute
amendment
at
this
time,
but
to
reconvene
later
when
the
various
things
that
are
missing
from
our
equation,
including,
as
commissioner
garcia
said,
the
lawsuit
the
human
rights
department
investigation.
A
D
Are
you
looking
for
a
motion?
Yes,
I
move
that
we
reject
the
city
council
amendment
and
agree
to
move
forward
with
further
discussion
next
spring.
A
Thank
you
is
there
further
discussion,
it
looks
like,
as
commissioner
perry
did
you
have
your
hand
up.
A
C
A
A
Thank
you.
The
motion
carries,
and
I
think
we
have
now
covered
item
three
in
our
agenda
as
along
with
item
two,
the
so
we're
down
to
item
four
on
our
agenda,
which
is
to
discuss
next
steps
for
the
work
group.
A
I
was
had
in
mind
of
discussing
commissioner
schwartz
schwarzkopf's
suggestion,
but
now
we
have
also
covered
that.
So
thank
you
for
that.
A
We
will
be
reconvening
in
two
weeks
if
everybody's
okay
with
that
date,
to
finish
the
report
our
work
has
concluded.
Besides
reviewing
the
amendment
and
gathering
all
the
information
that
we've
gathered
and
interviewing
many
people,
we
are
to
come
out
with
a
recommendation
and
a
report.
We
have
the
recommendation
for
the
full
charter
commission
on
wednesday,
but
we
do
want
to
commit
to
writing
information
about
what
we
did
and
why
we
came
to
the
conclusion
that
we
came
and
I
had
sent
around
to
members
of
the
work
group.
A
The
outline
that
I
had
drafted
back
in
july
or
august
before
the
60
days
were
up
and
I
would
suggest
if
you
like,
we
can
use
that
just
as
a
working
document.
A
G
Yes,
I
have
a
commission,
a
question
for
chair
clegg,
what
happens
to,
and
maybe
the
the
committee
chairs
already
know
this,
so
I
guess
it's
open
to
any
any
any
three
of
you.
What
happens
to
does
the
committee
get.
G
Disbanded
and
then
reconstituted
at
a
later
date,
or
does
it
stay
on
as
it
is
and
sort
of
adjourns
until
it
is
called
upon
to
continue
additional
work?
I
I
I'm
just
curious
what
the
process
is.
F
Thank
you.
I
think
that
will
be
up
to
the
full
charter.
Commission.
The
recommendation
of
the
work
group
will
be
presented
to
the
charter
commission
at
its
november
meeting.
Presumably,
the
report
will
be
presented
to
the
charter
commission
at
the
december
meeting,
and
the
report
may
include
a
recommendation
as
to
whether
or
not
the
the
work
group
should
continue
to
to
accept
input
and
do
work
and
come
forward
with
a
further
recommendation
or
whether
it
not,
and
my
guess
is
that
the
charter
commission
would
concur
with
that
recommendation.
G
K
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
don't
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
everybody
all
the
commissioners,
but
I
just
want
to
say
that,
as
we
get
down
this
road
and
we
look
at
the
studies
and
the
investigations
and
the
lawsuits
that
are
pending,
I
think
there's
going
to
be
a
time
where,
if,
if
it
hasn't
already
happened
for
the
gauntlet
is
thrown
and
the
charter
commission,
the
city
council,
even
those
who
who
authored
the
proposed
amendment
and
spoke
at
powderhorn
park
among
the
rest
and
the
police
department
and
the
federation
just
need
to
come
together
and
say
enough.
K
K
The
outcome
of
compromise
is
ensuring
that
everybody
is
equally
dissatisfied,
but
I
think
we
really
need
to
have
everybody
around
the
table
and
the
number
one
priority
in
that
is
hearing
from
the
public
engagement
in
this
the
residence
of
the
city.
So
I
look
forward
to
working
on
that
larger
goal.
For
that
larger.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Garcia.
I
agree
with
you.
I
and
I
my
thought,
was
that
in
writing
our
report.
We
can
include
some
findings,
and
one
should
be
that
you
know
if
everybody
agrees,
that
the
city
needs
to
come
together
on
this,
that
it's
it's
too
big
an
issue
and
too
big
a
concern
not
to
have
people
working
together
on
it,
and
we
hope
that
the
city
council
would
take
that
to
heart
as
well.