►
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
And
whenever
you're
ready
to
go,
I
will
go
ahead
and
admit
the
three
callers
who
are
in
the
lobby
and
we'll
get
started.
C
C
C
D
B
C
C
B
D
B
C
C
The
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
is
adopted.
Moving
on
to
the
agenda
item,
one
of
the
agenda
is
the
cheers
report
co-chair
rubenstein
will
offer
the
chairs
report.
Thank
you.
Newborn.
B
B
B
Hearing
that
I
think
we
can
move.
Oh,
mr
commissioner,
kerry.
E
Yes,
I'm
wondering
if
amendments
is
there
going
to
be
a
point
and
where
amendments
will
be
taken
to
that
to
those
standards.
B
D
E
B
Thank
you,
commissioner,
perry
any
other
questions
or
comments,
and
we
shall
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
the
interviews
of
invited
guests
to
answer
questions
regarding
public
safety
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
our
invited
guests
to
we
offer
our
most
sincere
appreciation
and
welcome
our
new
city
attorney,
jim
rohder,
carol,
bushon
and
bert
osborne
and
a
city
attorney
wrote
and
we're
going
to
start
with
you,
not
because
we
want
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
mostly
so
that
we
can
welcome
you
and
say
hello
and
also
to
say
that
if
we
have
a
number
of
questions
for
the
assistance,
the
attorneys
who
are
here
and
of
course,
if
you
would
like
to
weigh
in
on
any
of
them,
your
comments
would
be
most
welcome.
B
F
F
Knowing
that
I
mean,
as
you
pointed
out,
I
am
in
the
first
day
of
my
third
week
on
the
job
and
it's
been
a
little
bit
of
drinking
out
of
the
fire
hose,
but
I
have
had
some
opportunity
to
work,
particularly
with
carolyn
here,
to
get
up
to
speed
as
best
I
can
in
a
very
short
period
of
time
on
the
issues
that
you're
working
through,
as
you
probably
can
imagine,
prior
to
my
starting
at
city
hall,
I
was
a
very
interested
observer,
like
any
other
citizen
of
minneapolis,
with
most
of
my
knowledge
coming
through
media
reports.
F
That
said,
I
do
think
it.
It's
relevant
to
point
out
that
during
my
confirmation,
I'm
sorry
not
my
confirmation
hearing
my
public
hearing
before
the
pogo
committee.
F
F
Now
what
I'm
trying
to
learn
at
this
point
is
to
how
best
support
that
effort,
which
I
think
is
very
I
I
perceive
from
certainly
what
I've
read
in
the
media
these
past
few
months,
that
most
people
in
the
city
are
certainly
very
invested
and
interested
in
seeing
some
significant
police
reform.
F
I'm
really
focused
now
on
understanding
how
the
office
of
city
attorney
can
support
that
work,
and
obviously
we're
here
today
in
part
to
do
that,
and
I
think
one
of
the
over
arching
themes
that
I've
discussed
with
my
team
in
terms
of
our
role
is
that
we
need
to
provide
the
best
legal
and
factual
information
and
advice
that
we
can
and
that's
going
to
be
evidenced
today
by
answering
some
of
the
questions
more
specifically
that
you
have
for
bert
and
carol.
F
But
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
not
trying
or
allowing
ourselves
to
wade
into
true
political
debate
which-
and
I
don't
say
that
with
a
negative
connotation.
I
think
that
political
debate
is
extremely
healthy.
That's
part
of
the
process
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
our
office
is
is
very
well
positioned
at
some
point,
once
the
political
debate
has
taken
its
course
and
decisions
have
been
made,
and
we
understand
where
we're
going
with
regard
to
how
to
achieve
police
reform.
F
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very
important
for
our
office
to
be
in
a
very
strong
position
to
support
that
work
and
just
be
able
to
support
it
from
a
place
of
not
being
judged
as
having
been
biased
to
one
avenue
of
reform
or
another,
and
that
would
be
something
I'll
look
out
for,
as
we
continue
to
go
through
this
process
is
so
that
our
office
is
providing
all
the
good,
factual
and
legal
support.
F
We
can
and
then
be
well
positioned
to
help
the
city
and
support
the
city
move
forward
once
a
direction
becomes
clear.
B
I
think
the
the
next
person
on
our
agenda
was
mrs
bishop
and
first
of
all,
we
wanted
to
thank
you
for
your
memo,
which
we
received
and
we've
certainly
reviewed
today.
We
appreciate
the
legal
work
that
you've
done
on
it.
We've
had
a
couple
of
general
questions
that
we've
been
working
on
actually
in
each
meeting
and
are
very
interested
to
hear
your
thoughts
from
the
legal
point
of
view.
G
Okay,
I
would
like
to
first
address
whether
the
the
the
recommended
charter
provision
of
the
city
council,
whether
if
that
was
passed,
whether
it
would
conflict
with
any
other
charter
provisions.
G
G
However,
at
the
minneapolis
code
of
ordinances
may
need
to
be
changed
and
for
those
that
don't
know
the
difference
between
the
charter
and
the
code
of
ordinances,
the
charter
is
like
the
minneapolis
constitution.
It's
very
broad-based.
The
ordinances
are
enacted
to
be
more
detailed
and
to
provide
more
details
about
how
things
will
be
done
in
the
city.
G
So
there
are
quite
a
few
ordinances
that
do
reference
the
minneapolis
police
department.
Those
would
have
to
be
amended.
There
are
other
ordinances
that
would
reference
some
duties
that
a
licensed
peace
officer
will
do,
and
if
the
city
council
at
some
point
determines
that
some
duties
will
be
done
by
civilians
versus
peace
officers,
then
those
could
be
changed
as
well
so,
but
the
charter
would
be
fine.
There
would
be
no
problem
with
any
conflicting
charter
provisions,
so
that
relates
to
the
charter.
B
I
wanted
to
ask
the
question
a
little
differently
as
well,
which
is
get
the
same
question,
but
the
fact
that
the
city
council,
amendment,
let's
say,
lacked
specificity
or
really
lacked
a
plan
in
using
language
like
may,
in
reference
to
having
police
a
police
department,
and
so
on.
Does
that
affect
your
answer
to
this
question
as
to
whether
it's
confident.
G
Not
now
with
respect
to
the
charter,
I
just
I
just
went
over
the
remaining
charter
provisions.
What
would
the
with
the
remaining
charter
provisions
after
an
amendment?
Would
those
be
in
conflict?
They
would
not,
but
I
can
talk
about
the
other
issue,
the
issue
of
the
specific
charter,
language
with
respect
to
may-
and
I
do
talk
about
that
in
my
memo-
but
let
me
just
talk
about
that.
Now.
G
Basically,
the
charter
is
setting
forward
a
new
department,
a
department
of
community
safety
and
violence
prevention
and
within
that
department
there
may
be,
according
to
the
charter
language
there
may
be.
A
division
of
law
enforcement
services
now
may
is
permissive.
That
would
mean
there
may
or
may
not
be
a
division
of
law
enforcement
services.
G
Now
that
doesn't
mean
that
there
cannot
be
any
peace
officers
that
are
doing
duties
that
only
peace
officers
have
to
do.
It
could
mean
that
the
city
council
determines
that
there
will
be
a
division
of
law
enforcement
services.
G
G
G
It
could
even
do
a
combination
of
the
two
have
some
independent
contractors
who
do
the
work
and
also
have
the
division.
So
just
that
language
alone
is
is
not
necessarily
problematic,
but
you
know
the
city,
the
the
charter.
Commissioners,
can
look
at
your
standards.
I
know
you've
been
working
on
some
standards
to
determine
how
you
how
you
look
at
different
charter
amendments.
G
You
can
consider
your
standards
to
see
what
you
think
about
that
the
charter
provision,
but
it
is
possible
that
the
licensed
peace
officer
work
would
be
done
by
licensed
peace
officers,
but
in
a
different
context,
in
a
different
structure.
B
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
too,
and
this
this
is
obvious,
but
I
thought
it
would
be
useful
to
clarify
it
anyway
that
your
the
memorandum
that
you
provided
to
us,
the
legal
opinion
that
you
just
provided
to
us
does
not
address
part
of
the
city
council
amendment.
That
is,
that
part
of
the
amendment
that,
regarding
the
shifting
of
authority
from
the
mayor
to
the
city
council,.
G
Yeah,
the
authority
issue
was
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
2018
memo
that
was
provided
to
the
charter
commissioners
back
in
2018,
when
there
was
a
proposed
amendment
in
play
at
that
time,
and
I
think
that
goes
into
quite
a
bit
of
detail
on
this
city.
Council
function
the
mayor's
function
with
respect
to
the
police
department
and
also
the
city
council's
function
with
respect
to
other
departments
of
the
city.
G
A
And
madam
co-chair,
this
is
casey
sargent
to
jump
in
for
the
public
who
may
be
watching
or
viewing.
We
did
put
into
the
chat
for
easier
access
all
of
those
documents,
but
they
are
also
posted
online
for
public
access,
they're
on
linked
and
available
from
tonight's
agenda
and
as
well.
They
are
included
in
the
research
and
reference
file
for
the
charter
commission,
so
in
multiple
places.
B
Yes,
thank
you.
We
have
commissioner
schwartz
class
had
a
commenter
question.
H
Hi,
I
have
a
question
in
regards
to
this
area.
The
charter
amendment
proposed
by
the
city
council
does
not
talk
about
the
police
department
in
the
for
the
park
board.
Is
there
any
conflict
then,
because
there
will
be
a
police
department
in
the
park
board
and
they
naturally
take
over
policing
of
parks?
But
I
don't
know
if
they
police,
parkways
or
not.
If
they
please,
the
boulevards
or
not,
those
are
parked,
and
so
is
there
a
conflict
there.
G
I
I
would
think,
there's
not.
I
think
the
city
council
made
a
determination
that
it
would
not
make
changes
to
the
park
board.
The
mayor
does
appoint
the
park
board
police
as
the
park
board
requests,
but
they
have
their
own
jurisdiction
and
you
know
if
you
would
want
more
details
about
that.
G
H
But
the
the
question
I
have,
though,
is
that,
if
do
if
they
do
handle
the
enforcement
of
parkways
and
there's
no
police
department
handling
the
rest
of
the
city,
is
there
a
conflict
there
or
not?.
G
I
would
think
if
the
park
board
stays
within
their
the
jurisdiction
of
their
own
jurisdiction
and
there
should
not
be
a
conflict,
and
that
doesn't
mean
necessarily.
There
will
be
no
peace
officers
on
the
streets.
We
don't
know
the
the
exact
details,
but
I
guess
it
sounds
like.
Commissioner,
you
are
making
some
assumptions
that
there
won't
be
any
peace
officers
available.
H
E
You,
madam
chair,
miss
bashoon.
What
I
have
two
questions.
One
is
elementary
but
I'll
I'll
get
to
that.
Secondly,
in
the
proposed
amendment
there
there
as
you
s
we've
been
talking
about
it,
says
there
may
be
a
department
of
law
enforcement
services
and
what
I'm
wondering
is
does
that
in
the
way
it's
worded
in
the
amendment?
Does
that
make
it
a
charter
department
or
not.
E
The
I
was
talking
about
the
optional
department.
G
Okay,
I
did
a
little
I
looked
at
that
issue.
I
did
not
brief
it,
but
and
what
I
what
I
saw
that
the
department
itself,
the
department
of
community
safety
and
violence
prevention,
that
will
be
a
charter
department
because
it
would
be
listed
in
the
charter
under
7.3
now
the
the
way.
This
is
how
I
see
it
being
set
up.
The
director
of
that
department
will
be
an
officer
under
the
charter,
because
that
person
will
be
appointed
under
8.1.
G
Wait
I
forget
what
it
is
that
person
will
be
appointed
under
the
charter
to
be
an
officer.
They
will
be
so
that
person
will
have
a
two-year
term,
probably
because
under
the
charter,
officers
generally
have
a
two-year
term.
So
that's
what
will
happen
with
the
director
with
respect
to
the
division
head?
There
will
be
a
director
of
the
division
if
the
division
is
in
place
that
individual
not
necessarily
be
an
officer.
G
8.1
of
the
charter,
specifies
and
defines
what
an
officer
is.
I
don't
think
that
that
division
director
would
be
an
officer
which
would
mean
they
would
not
have
a
set
term
now
that
would
mean
they
have.
They
would
be
one
of
two
things
they
would
either
be
in
the
class.
They
would
be
an
employee
in
the
classified
service
or
the
unclassified
service.
G
Now
those
provisions
lay
out
the
requirements
to
be
in
an
appointed
position
and
also
how
those
appointed
positions
are
set
up
by
the
city
council.
Basically,
the
city
council
would
have
to
do
an
action
to
make
that
an
un
basically
an
appointed
position,
so
so
it's
not
in
the
classified
services,
so
that
would
mean
there
would
be
no
term
limit
on
that.
It
would
basically
be
an
at
will
position,
so
you
could.
G
E
Okay,
and
so
the
the
basic
question
is
in
terms
of
what
we're
talking
about
here,
the
what
is
the
benefit
of
being
a
charter
department
versus
a
division
head.
G
A
G
Are
in
they're
in
charge
and
just
like
any
other
department,
there
might
be
divisions.
You
know
the
large
departments
department
of
public
works,
they
have
divisions.
Ultimately
they
are
responsible
up
to
the
head
of
that
department.
So
I
mean
that's.
That
would
be
the
main
gist
of
it.
I
would
assume.
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
carol,
mr.
I
I
have
two
questions
and
I
I'm
sorry
if,
if
maybe
they've
been
answered
already-
or
you
may
have
answered
them
a
long
time
ago,
since
this
all
started
back
in
june,
provision
that
the
.0017
provision
in
the
charter-
that's
the
centerpiece
of
of
the
controversy-
is
that
does
that
include
all
in
all
police
department
employees,
or
is
that
specifically
applied
to
sworn
sworn
the
sworn
officers?
I
What's?
What's
that
that
the
I
guess
would
be
the
denominator
of
the
of
that
fraction.
G
Well,
that's
a
good
question.
I
don't
think
we
have
an
exact
answer
at
this
time.
There
have
been
some
prior
city
attorney
opinions
that
have
looked
at
that
issue.
The
charter
has
changed
over
time.
G
I
don't
know
if
it's
exactly
clear
whether
it
would
be
only
sworn
or
the
entire
department.
At
this
point,
I
don't
think
the
city
attorney's
office
had
me
has
made
a
an
exact
determination
on
that,
because
it's
not
completely
clear
in
the
charter.
G
I
Well,
let's
assume
I
you
know,
I
I've
read
it
about
three
or
four
times,
and
you
know
your
guess
is
better
than
mine,
probably,
but
let's
assume
for
the
moment
that
it's
ruled
someone
goes
to
court
and
the
court
rules
that,
in
fact
it
applies
to
sworn
personnel
as
many
of
the
members
here
and
I'm
sure
you
saw
it
the
letter
we
got
from
mr
michael
from
mr
michael's
last
week
that
casey
sent
out
to
us
talks
about
where
we
ranked
in
where,
where
the
city
ranks
officers
and
employees
per
per
thousand-
and
I
think
we're
like
number
53
out
of
for
cities
that
are
250
000
and
above,
but
if,
if
the,
if
that
fraction
.0017,
if
that
fraction
is
applied
to
all
police
employees,
we're
well
above
that,
however,
given
what's
happened
since
since
june,
and
we're
down
according
to
some
estimates,
we're
we're
down
around
750
of
those
sworn
officers,
we're
getting
pretty
close
to
that
to
that
number.
I
If,
in
fact,
that
is
the
that's
the
denominator
of
the
fraction,
so
if
that
were
to
occur,
if
we
got
below
that
what's
the
remedy,
if
someone,
if
it's
a
violation
of
the
charter,
what
is
there
a
remedy
or
someone
have
to
go
to
court
court
orders,
the
city
hire
more
cops
or
what.
G
I
can
say
that
we
are
in
litigation
right
now
on
this
very
issue.
There
is
litigation
related
to
the
funding
provision
in
the
charter
and
whether
the
city
is
in
compliance
with
that
charter
provision.
G
I
would
like
to
advise
the
charter
commission
that
the
charter
provision
does
state
that
when
we
are
talking
about
population,
we
are
talking
about
the
last
decennial
census.
G
I
want
to
say
it's
in
1.3,
but
you
can
check
that
out.
So
so,
presumably
when
we
were
looking
when
we
were
are
looking
at
the
population
under
that
funding
provision,
the
population
would
be
based
on
the
city's
population
based
in
on
the
2010
census.
So
if
you
recall
it
was
something
like
what
385
000
yeah.
D
G
So
that
is
the
number
that
we
use
the
population
number
and
that
that's
my
interpretation,
that's
the
population
number.
We
would
use
to
to
multiply
that
times
the
.0017
now,
whether
it's
the
whether
we
multiply
that
by
whether
we
compare
that
to
sworn
or
the
entire
department.
I
can't
give
you
an
exact
answer
at
this
point,
but
but
I
would
suggest
that
you
do
look
at
that
link
that
terminology
in
this
in
the
charter
provision.
I
I
will
thank
you
yeah
right
now.
If
it
were
the
385
or
whatever
it
was
it
would,
the
city
would
certainly
be
in
compliance
with
the
charter,
but
next
year,
once
we
get
the
data
that
the
calc
that
that's
going
all
going
to
have
to
be
recalculated,
and
this
the
lawsuit
you're
talking
about
is
the
one
that
was
filed
a
month
or
so
ago
from
the
neighborhoods
up
in
the
north
side,
and
I
think
phillips,
is
that
the
one
we're
talking
about.
G
It
I
think
it's
kathy
spann.
There
are
some
other
individuals
yeah
it
was
filed.
I
don't
know
a
few
weeks
ago.
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
more
thing.
G
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
more
thing:
the
the
charter
provision
talks
about
funding.
It
doesn't
talk
about
at
any
point
in
time
like
today
or
tomorrow.
G
What's
our
staff
level,
it
talks
about
the
funding
for
the
department
so
or
or
the
the
funding
for
the
individuals
to
which
it
applies,
the
sworn
or
the
department.
So
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
about
that
also,
because
the
funding
is
done
through
generally,
but
the
budgetary
or
appropriation
process,
and
so
that's
what
the
provision
relates
to.
So
I
wanted
to
be
make
it
clear
that
that
provision
relates
to
funding.
D
G
B
Mike
sorry,
good,
I
had
just
a
couple
of
follow-up
questions
from
those
questions
that
commissioner
perry
and
commissioner
jose
asked,
and
one
with
respect
to
commissioner
perry's
question
is:
do
we
actually
need
a
charter
provision
to
create
the
new
department,
as
proposed
in
the
city
council
amendment,
and
I
ask
that
because
section
7.2,
a
15,
provides
that
the
city
council
can
establish
or
provide
for
any
other
department
necessary
to
the
city?
B
Doesn't
that
provision
already
give
the
city
council
authority
to
create
the
department
it
has
proposed.
G
I
would
have
to
look
at
that
in
more
detail,
but
if
the
city
council
intends
to
change
the
scheme
of
the
current
charter
like
the
scheme
of
government-
and
they
want
the,
they
want-
a
more
holistic
department
that
will
over
that
will
oversee
public
safety
and
they
want
the
sworn
officers
to
be
a
division
or
a
part
of
that,
but
not,
but
they
wanted
more
of
a
holistic
department.
G
B
Thank
you,
okay
and,
and
my
other
question
was
simply
commissioner
kozak
referred
to
the
letter
that
we
received
from
jim
michaels
last
week,
and
I
wondered
if
either
of
you
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it,
and
so
you
had
any
comments
about
it.
I.
A
B
D
Not
really
a
question
just
a
comment.
My
own
view
is
that
the
city
council
can
establish
or
disestablish
non-charter
departments
as
it
chooses
to
do
so
at
will,
and
the
only
difference
is
that
a
non-charter
department
can
be
disbanded
by
the
city.
Council
and
a
charter
department
can
only
be
disbanded
by
amendment
of
the
charter.
I
Just
a
comment
to
follow
up
with
the
commissioner
clegg
that
in
in
reality,
I
I
agree
with
with
him
that
the
having
a
new
department
as
part
of
the
charter
means
that
it
has
to
stay
until
the
charter
is
changed,
that
some
council
can't
come
along
and
and
by
fiat,
eliminate
the
department.
On
the
other
hand,
as
we
have
seen,
the
council,
irrespective
of
the
charter
can,
with
the
power
of
the
purse,
can
reorganize
as
a
practical
matter
and
really
do
pretty
much
whatever
they
want.
I
For
example,
they
could
shift
all
the
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
consistent
with
the
.0017
funding
requirement,
but
they
can
shift
a
whole
bunch
of
things
over
to
the
division
within
the
health
department
of
the
violence
prevention
and
have
basically
the
same
effects.
It
might
not
be
as
elegant,
but
as
a
practical
matter.
The
council
has
enormous
discretion
about
how
how
to
structure
law
enforcement
charter
makes
it
maybe
easier,
but
they
can
do
if
they
have
the
determination
they
can
do
pretty
much
what
they
want.
B
Hands
chair
clegg.
D
Just
by
way
of
example,
when
we
were
rewriting
the
charter
to
put
it
in
plain
language,
we
discovered
a
an
orphan
department
in
the
charter.
I
believe
it
was
called
the
department
of
industry
and
something
or
other,
but
it
the
last
time
it
had
been
referred
to
in
any
council
proceedings
had
been
the
1960s.
D
B
Oh
true,
commissioner,
ginder.
J
Well,
thank
you.
I
I
was
just
going
to
reiterate
apparently
has
already
been
said
by
a
couple
of
the
commissioners
is
that
the
council's
ability
to
to
create
departments
is
pretty
much
unlimited
and
they've
done
that
in
the
past,
as
whether
the
department
of
communications
or
other
any
other
number
of
departments.
J
So
they
do
have
that
follow-up
and
then,
just
with
regard
to
the
question
that
was
raised
earlier
about
the
difference
between
a
charter
department
head
and
a
non-charter
department
head,
which
was
a
question
I
addressed
when
I
worked
at
the
city
attorney's
office-
is
that
there
really
is
none
other
than
the
greater
prestige
of
being
named
in
the
charter.
B
I
I
wanted
to
ask
you,
ms
bushoon,
about
page
seven
in
your
memo,
when
you
were
discussing
the
city
council
authority
over
the
police
department,
understanding
that
that
was
more
thoroughly
addressed
in
2018
when
we
were
looking
at
that
question
then.
B
But
you
you've
mentioned
in
your
memo
that
that
2018
memo
provided
that
the
city
council
has
the
same
authority
over
the
police
department
as
it
does
over
ever
all
city
departments,
and
I
wondered
if
you
could
elaborate
on
that
a
little
bit
and
specifically,
could
the
city
council
say
pass
an
ordinance,
an
ordinance
that
defines
or
limits
police
functions
or
if
it's
the
same
as
other
departments.
G
Well,
with
respect
to
generally
what
the
city
council
can
do
with
respect
to
other
departments,
it's
the
same
thing:
the
departments
kind
of
control
themselves,
but
the
city
council
can
set
policies
and
goals.
They
often
have
staff
come
forward
to
provide
updates.
G
They
can
do
a
lot
of
staff
direction
to
departments,
but
the
departments
are
generally
running
themselves
and
that's
what
I
was
talking
about
that
was
in
the
summary
or
the
summary,
or
of
the
2018
memo
with
respect
to
the
duties,
the
specific
duties
that
the
city
at
city
council
has
over
the
police
department
and
the
mayor
has
over
the
police
department.
I
think
that
memo
is
very
detailed.
G
It
goes
over.
You
know
what
the
city
council
can
do
and
what
the
mayor
can
do.
I
know
the
city
council.
They
have
the
ability
to
fund
the
police
department,
that's
a
big
big
big
option
for
them
to
determine
how
they're
going
to
fund
it,
of
course,
with
the
with
the
current
provision
and
the
charter,
they
have
to
follow
that
funding
provision
in
the
charter,
but
that's
one
of
the
main
things
that
the
city
council
can
do
with
respect
to
the
police
department.
G
They
can
decide
how
many
officers
are
we
going
to
fund
in
the
police
department.
So
that's
a
huge
huge
option
for
the
city
council
to
decide
how
they're
going
to
fund
the
police
department
and
how
many
officers
there
there
will
be.
So
that's
one
one
way
that
the
city
council
can
be
very
involved.
G
G
So
those
are
the
main
issues
and
if
you
know,
if
jim
or
bert
want
to
talk
about
that
any
further
I'll,
let
them
do
so
later
or
at
any
time.
G
B
B
Not
at
the
moment,
one
more
question
for
ms
michonne,
although
again
this
may
be
for
any
of
you
from
your
perspective,
are
there
barriers
or
obstacles
in
the
current
charter
that
would
affect
police
reform
and
accountability
and
are
there
opportunities
for
inter-departmental,
partnerships
and
alternatives
to
public
safety
service
delivery
in
the
charter.
G
So
I
wanted
to
address
some
of
excuse
me.
Some
of
the
options,
as
I
talked
about
the
city
could
still
contract
out
for
police
services.
If
it
wanted
to,
there
are
some
good
and
bad
things
about
that.
One
is
that
they
can.
They
would
not
have
to
have
maybe
as
large
of
a
police
force
or
or
as
many
licensed
peace
officers
who
work
for
the
city
they
could
contract
out
and
have
some
of
that
work
done
by
lsat
contractors.
G
However,
the
issues
with
that
would
be
that
the
city
may
not
be
the
priority
of
that
contractor,
say,
for
example,
if
we
contract
with
hennepin
county
to
do
some
of
the
law
enforcement
work
for
the
city
of
minneapolis,
hennepin
county
may
have
other
priorities
at
any
given
time.
So
we
have
to
consider
that
we
also
general
generally
when
cities
contract
out
with
other
cities
or
counties
the
assisting
county
or
city
fall,
they
would
follow
their
own
procedures
and
policies
for
that
law
enforcement
agency.
G
So
if
the
city
wanted
to
contract
out
with
say,
saint
paul,
saint
paul
would
follow
their
own
processes
and
their
own
policies,
which
would
mean
that
the
city
wouldn't
have
a
lot
of
input
into
how
they
did
their
work.
Now,
it's
true
that
the
city
could
decide
who
we're
going
to
contract
with
and
who
we're
not
going
to
contract
with
based
on
their
policies
and
procedures.
G
However,
again
we
still
have
the
issue
of
prioritizing
if
something
happens
in
saint
paul
and
saint
paul
has
to
attend
to
that,
they
will
not
be
able
to
necessarily
provide
services
to
the
city
of
minneapolis
or
the
services
that
we
we
may
need
at
the
time.
So
contracting
out
is
an
option,
and
I
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
G
G
That
law
allows
this
city
to
contract
with
other
public
political
subdivisions
other
cities.
However,
that
law
also
says
that
you
know
they
don't
have
to.
They
don't
have
to
give
us
services
if
they
don't
want
to.
So,
if
there's
a
regional
or
a
metro
emergency,
the
city
of
minneapolis,
if
we
don't
have
enough
officers,
we
may
not
be
able
to
get
all
the
peace
police
force
that
we
need,
because
those
other
entities
might
be
busy
and
using
those
officers
for
their
own
purposes.
G
Also,
you
know
the
the
city
can
always
look
at
or
the
charter
commission
can
also
look
at
what
are
what
are
other
cities
doing?
What
kind
of
funding
do
other
cities
have?
G
How
is
that
working?
What
programs
are
working?
There
are
a
lot
of
programs
that
could
be
done
in
the
city
and
it
sounds
like
a
lot
of
those
programs
are
are
being
done
by
the
police
department.
At
this
time
you
had
a
deputy
chief
eric
force,
talk
about
that.
I
think
last
week
at
this
work
group-
and
he
mentioned
a
lot
of
different-
a
lot
of
different
programs
that
have
been
put
in
place
for
the
last
five
years
and
some
of
them
do
track
with
the
united
states
conference
of
mayor's
report.
G
G
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
other
questions
on
that,
but
there
are,
there
are
quite
a
few.
There
are
quite
a
few
options
and
also
we
do
have
right
now
the
office
of
what's
the
office
of
violence
prevention,
that's
in
the
or
it's
not
an
office,
it's
in
the
health
department
and
the
office
of
violence
prevention.
They
are
now
working
on
new
programs
and
they
could
be
working
with
the
police
department
to
provide
this
holistic
form
of
community
policing,
and
that
could
continue
even
with
with
it.
G
It
could
change
a
little
bit
with
the
new
department.
If
so,
the
new
department
would
be
the
overarching
department,
they
could
be
dealing
with
the
holistic
viewpoint
and
they
could
be
working
with
the
division
of
law
enforcement
services
to
do
this
kind
of
work
to
find
correspondent
programs
to
try
to
try
new
ones
out
to
expand
those
to
look
at
other
programs.
B
Thank
you.
I
I
found
your
discussion
in
your
memo
and
today
very
thought-provoking.
I
think
it
gives
us
a
lot
to
consider
and
thank
you
for
it.
Sort
of
a
small
question
I
had
related
to
the
interagency
agreements
was
whether
you
know
such
as
the
ones
in
saint
paul
and
with
the
hennepin
county
sheriff
to
those
refer
only
to
licensed
police
officers,
or
is
it
more
open-ended?
B
G
I
know
that
a
lot
of
our
interagency
agreements-
they
are,
you
know
we
do
have
agreements
with
like
hennepin
county
and
some
of
the
other
cities
so,
and
we
do
also
set
up
agreements
for
certain
things
like
if
there's
a
republican
national
convention
here
or
other
other
events
where
we
might
need
police
forces
from
other
cities,
we
will
have
contracts
for
those.
G
You
know
the
city
can
contract
out
with
anybody.
They
want
through
our
contracting
process.
The
city
has
a
very
robust
contracting
process,
so
we
can
follow
that
to
contract
out
for
say,
civilian
type
of
services.
If
we
wanted
to
contract
out
social
workers
or
people
who
are
psychologists
or
psychiatrists
or
other
individuals
who
are
good
with
organizing
those
are
all
the
possibilities,
we
can
always
contract
with
others.
So
we
don't
necessarily
need.
B
Thank
you.
Finally,
and
this
is
a
question
for
I
think
both
you
and
mr
osborne
from
your
perspective
again.
Are
there
appro
improvements
or
changes
to
the
current
charter
other
than
what's
the
one,
the
amendment
now
before
us?
That
would
help
to
advance
or
support
police
reform
and
accountability.
G
I
I
can
say
I
I
read
through
the
entire
charter
just
recently
to
make
sure
that
the
new
charter
provision
would
not
conflict
with
other
charter
language.
If
it
was
passed,
I
don't
know
I
haven't
thought
about
that.
That's
really
more!
So
I
think
the
charter
commission
can
think
about
that,
because
I
know
the
charter
commission
is
considering
whether
in
the
future
you
will
be
proposing
your
own
amendments,
and
that
would
be
you
know.
G
That
would
be
a
great
time
for
you
to
consider
that
look
at
all
the
charter
provisions
and
see
if
there's
something
that
you
could
come
up
with
collectively
with
all
of
your
bright
minds,
to
maybe
put
some
language
in
the
charter
that
will
be
great
for
public
public
safety
or
anything
else.
G
So
just
keep
in
mind
that
the
charter
is
very
broad,
and
so
once
you
have
the
department
or
the
division
there's
a
lot
that
can
be
done
within
that
department
or
division,
and
that's
something
that
the
city
of
minneapolis
can
consider.
They
can
look
at
those
look
at.
How
do
we
want
this
department
to
be
run?
How
do
we
want
the
division
to
be
run?
What
kind
of
programs
are
we
going
to
put
into
this
department
or
division?
G
Where
are
we
going
to
focus
our
funding?
So
there's
all
kinds
of
options
there
that
the
city
council
could
have
under
these
current
charter
provisions
and
the
charter
commission
can
consider
you
know
what
kind
of
charter
provisions
would
you
come
up
with
if
the
charter
commission
were
to
be
proposing
its
own
amendments
to
the
charter.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
think
commissioner
newborn
was
gonna.
Take
over
some
questions.
If
you're
available.
B
B
B
This
is
for
mr
osborne.
It's
your
yes
turn.
H
B
K
K
K
Setting
that
forth-
and
you
know
what
I
discovered
is
there,
isn't
the
the
the
gold
standard
of
statutory
construction
in
this
area
exists
in
just
a
couple
places,
for
instance,
there's
a
statute
626.862
that
that
reads
only
a
peace
officer
and
part-time
peace
officer
may
and
then
it
lists
three
things:
issue
a
citation
in
law
of
arrest
or
continued
detention,
ask
a
person
receiving
a
citation
to
give
a
written
promise
to
appear
in
court
or
take
a
person
into
custody
as
permitted
by
section
629.34.
K
So
that's
one
of
the
few
statutes
that
actually
sets
forth
in
pretty
clear
terms
that
only
a
peace
officer
can
take
those
actions.
Now
I
will
say
that
the
the
profession
of
law,
enforcement
and
and
peace
officers
in
minnesota
is
heavily
heavily
regulated.
There
there's
a
couple
hundred
at
least
references
in
state
law,
and
you
know
I
think,
based
on
when
statutes
might
be
drafted.
K
There's
you
know
that
they're
variously
referred
to
as
peace
officers,
officers,
law
enforcement
officers,
police
officers
licensed
peace
officers,
and
you
know
I
didn't
didn't
find
anything
that
would
lead
me
to
believe
that
all
of
those
things
weren't
referring
to
the
same
thing.
But
it's
this
it's
this
kind
of
tangled
bowl
of
spaghetti
of
regulations
contained
in
state
law
in
many
different
places.
K
I
have
to
publicly
thank
the
police
department
and
lieutenant
chris
hildreth,
who
I
think
he
searched
every
single
state
statute
to
find
various
terms,
and
I
found
some
of
his
research
to
be
very
useful
and
helpful
in
this
task,
but
the
the
the
the
question-
I
I
think
you
know
the
we
talk
about
in
the
in
the
memo
that
we
sent.
We
talk
briefly
about
the
concept
of
preemption.
K
K
I
have
a
hard
time
viewing
preemption
as
a
real
barrier
to
police
reform,
because
you
know-
and
you
know,
deputy
chief
force
can
hop
in
here
anytime
too,
but
there
are
already
many
many
different
types
of
civilian
employees
who
work
directly
with
licensed
peace
officers
and
are
part
of
law
enforcement
that
you
know
work
in
conjunction
with
licensed
peace
officers.
We
already
have
that.
K
That's
not
a
new
thing,
and
so
you
know
I
you
know
I
I
I
think
that
you
know
that
tells
me
anyway,
and
I
I
hope,
others
that
you
know
there's
there's
more
opportunities
to
rethink
how
public
safety
works
in
the
city
and
we're
not
necessarily
preempting
what
the
legislature
wants
its
peace
officers
to
do.
Many
many
of
the
requirements
and
rules
contained
in
state
statutes
regarding
peace
officers.
K
They
come
in
the
form
of
what
a
peace
officer
must
do
if
they
come
upon
a
certain
situation,
many
reporting
requirements.
You
know,
if
a
peace
officer
you
know,
finds
a
b
or
c
they
have
to
send
reports
to
this
agency,
that
agency
and
and
the
post
board.
You
know,
for
instance,
it
doesn't
say
anything
about
others
not
being
able
to
to
take
those
reports
or
make
those
reports
to
certain
agencies.
K
But
you
know
the
the
many
many
places
in
state
statute
that
refer
to
what
peace
officers
do,
how
they're
licensed
how
they
enforce
the
laws
talk
specifically
about
you
know
what
a
peace
officer
must
do
to
make
sure
that
the
wheels
of
the
criminal
justice
system
and
the
reporting
and
the
policies
of
the
legislature
are
carried
out,
and
so
you
know,
is
there
a
lot
in
state
law
or
that
that
that
says
others
can't
do
that?
No,
but
you
know
they're
a
preemption
challenge
is
always
an
issue.
K
Now
again
I
say,
and
I
point
out:
we
have
safe
officers.
We
have
civilian
specialists
in
the
crime
lab
working
with
law
enforcement,
others
already
you
know
working
hand
in
glove
with
licensed
peace
officers,
and
so
you
know
you
know
I
I
again
am
skeptical
of
the
notion
that
that
that
can't
be
developed
further.
K
They
we
point
out
a
few
considerations
in
our
memo
that
our
criminal
division
was
not
concerned
about
just
wanted
to
point
out
for
anybody
thinking
about
police
reform
and
what
licensed
peace
officers
do
and
what
others
might
do.
You
know
a
few
considerations
include
the
brady,
the
brady
rules
pertaining
to
what
must
be
disclosed
to
criminal
defendants
and
their
attorneys
in
in
a
criminal
prosecution.
K
It
goes
to
the
credibility
in
the
past
of
mostly
police
officers,
but
I
think
it
would
apply
to
any
agent
of
the
state
any
any
tool
of
the
state
used
in
criminal
prosecutions.
That
is
not
an
insurmountable
barrier.
I
think
there's
you
know
there.
I
think.
Like
carol
pointed
out,
you
know,
I
think
we
very
much
envision
licensed
peace
officers
still
continuing
to
have
a
role
in
public
safety
in
the
city,
and
so
you
know,
I
think,
to
the
extent
that
there
needs
to
be
a
law
enforcement
agency.
K
A
lot
of
some
post
rules
and
other
statutes
require
certain
things
to
happen
under
the
umbrella
and
under
the
authority
of
a
law
enforcement
agency
under
the
authority
of
a
chief
law
enforcement
officer,
chief
rondo,
in
our
in
our
case.
And
so,
but
you
know
I
I
again
don't
view
those,
as
necessarily
as
barriers
at
all,
to
rethinking
how
we
might
do
some
of
this.
B
C
I
I
have
a
follow-up
question,
I'm
I'm
back
on.
I
hope
that
you
all
can
hear
me
attorney
osborne.
First
of
all,
I'd
love
the
hot
sauce
selection
that
you
have
in
your
kitchen.
It's
very
nice.
C
I
need
to
come
over
and
taste
each
one
of
them,
but
second,
I
think
you
got
to
the
question
that
we
had
that
we
sent
out
to
you
all,
which
is
you
know,
question
number
six,
because
you
were
talking
a
bit
about
the
the
barriers
and
so
I'll
just
read
it,
but
I
think
you've
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
and
if
you
can
expand
upon
it
or
attorney
bashun
good,
to
see
you
as
well
and
the
question
read
separate
from
the
charter.
C
What
examples
can
you
provide
of
existing
state
or
local
laws,
policies,
regulations,
etc?
Are
barriers
or
obstacles
to
police
reform
and
accountability,
opportunities
for
inter
departmental
partnerships
and
alternative
to
public
safety
service
delivery?
I
know
that's
a
loaded
question,
but
you
started
to
go
a
bit
down
the
road
of
alternatives.
C
K
Sorry
to
interrupt
madam
chair
through
the
chairs,
and
ms
bashun
already
responded
to
some
of
that,
but
you
know
just
from
my
perspective
I
don't
think,
there's
any
barriers
in
the
charter
to
police
reform.
I
think
the
charter
should
be,
as
carol
pointed
out.
Ms
buschoon
pointed
out
a
very
high
level
structure
of
your
local
government.
K
You
know
departments
working
together
and
divisions
working
together
and
all
of
us
helping
to
accomplish
the
city's
goals.
You
know
that
is
very
much
incumbent
on
the
goodwill
of
the
department
heads
and
who
the
executive
committee
and
the
mayor
and
the
city
council
put
in
positions
of
leadership.
It
very
that
all
comes
down
to
people.
You
know
I
don't
I
don't
envision
a
lot
of
structure
that
could
be
put
in
the
charter.
K
That
would
you
know
magically
make
departments,
work
together
or
find
some
synergies.
You
know
I'm
not
the
most
creative
person
in
the
world,
but
maybe
I'm
wrong
about
that.
But
you
know
I
don't
I
I
don't
think,
there's
any
barriers
in
our
current
charter
to
reforming
any
part
of
our
our
local
government
or
how
it
does
business.
C
Okay-
and
I
apologize
for
that-
I
was
having
some
technical
issues
so
sorry
about
that
tiny
bushoon.
If
we've
already
addressed
that
issue.
Thank
you
so
much.
A
Madam
chair,
it's
casey,
maybe
I
could
emphasize
or
redirect
the
two
attorneys
in
a
different
direction.
The
question
is
very
long
and
they've
both
addressed
that
the
charter
doesn't
propose
or
present
necessary
obstacles,
but
part
of
the
question
did
say
what
about
state
laws
and
things
above
the
charter.
G
It's
the
state
law
related
to
it's
called
the
uniformed
services,
employment
and
re-employment
rights,
act
ucera,
and
that
only
comes
into
play
if
a
charter,
if
the
new
charter
provision,
which
sets
out
the
qualifications
of
the
new
director
of
this
new
department,
if
that's
interpreted
in
a
certain
way,
the
charter
provision
itself,
as
it
reads,
is
fine.
It
requires
that
that
director
have
at
a
minimum
long
some
non-law
enforcement
experience
in
community
safety
services,
including,
but
not
limited
to
public
health
and
or
restorative
justice
approaches.
G
G
They
have,
they
may
have
some
law
enforcement
experience
in
their
background
through
their
work,
as
maybe
a
reservist
or
prior
work
with
the
armed
forces.
So
to
just
exclude
those
individuals
who
have
the
armed
force.
Experience
in
law
enforcement
to
exclude
them
from
the
application
process
could
be
a
violation
of
ucera.
G
So
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
There
could
potentially
be
some
equal
protection,
our
arguments,
if,
in
fact,
you
know
we're
treating
people
with
law
enforcement
experience
different
than
people
without
law
enforcement
experience.
There
has
to
be
a
rational
basis
for
making
that
determination
and
deciding
that
we're
going
to
make
that
that
distinction.
G
When
we're
looking
at
the
you
know
when
we're
looking
at
applications
and
the
qualifications
of
individuals
for
the
director
position,
so
that's
something
for
the
city,
council
or
the
city
and
human
resources
to
consider
when
they're.
Looking
at
this
charter
language,
we
just
have
to
be
careful
that
we're
we're
staying
within
the
law
and
we're
considering
the
qualifications
and
making
decisions
based
on
the
law.
So
that
would
be
one
thing
that
we
just
have
to
think
about
at
least
the
city
and
human
resources.
G
When
they're
actually
choosing
somebody
from
that
director
position,
but
technically
as
the
language
stands
in
the
charter,
amendment
there's
no
problem
with
that
language,
it's
just
the
application
of
it.
That
could
go
a
little
bit
awry
if
the.
If
this
the
constitutional
provisions
and
the
state
laws
not
and
the
federal
law
is
not
followed.
F
Manager,
I
and
I
want
to
respect
what
the
clerk
has
brought
up
in
terms
of
the
question.
I
think
it
also
referred
to
some
state
law
potential
and
again
this
is
the
beginning
of
my
third
week
on
the
job.
F
So,
with
the
caveat
that
I
I
know
just
enough
to
be
dangerous,
I
think
it's
relevant
to
at
least
point
out
that
there's
a
public
employee
relations
act
that
minnesota
has
that
essentially
would
ensure
that
we
have
a
collective
bargaining
relationship
and
obligation
with
the
existing
police
force
and
that
doesn't
go
away
if,
for
some
reason
you
had
a
charter
amendment
like
this
pass,
so
that
is
something
that
would
have
to
be.
F
You
know,
be
considered
and
certainly
be
relevant
as
we
continue
to
deal
with
the
police
federation
on
terms
and
conditions
of
their
employment.
That
that's.
I
want
to
make
sure
we
point
that
out,
because
I
think
it's
a
very
relevant,
I'm
not
saying
it's
an
obstacle
or
some
sort
of
problem,
but
it's
it's
a
very
real
obligation
that
would
not
disappear
just
by
a
change
in
the
city
charter.
C
D
Thank
you-
and
I
just
wanted
to
also
thank
assistant
city
attorney
bashoon,
because
on
note
that
she
also
did
refer
to
the
labor
issues
in
her
memorandum
and
the
opinion
we
received
several
weeks
ago
concerning
the
the
city
of
brainerd,
the
firefighters
versus
the
city
of
brainerd
case.
So
that's
that's
in
there
as
well,
and
the
fact
that
you're
not
referring
to
it
now
is
fine.
B
C
C
C
Perfect,
so
speaking
of
the
the
brainerd
lawsuit
if
the
brainerd
lawsuit
concerning
its
attempt
to
eliminate
his
fire
department
was
upheld
in
court
for
about
four
years
approximately.
How
many
years
do
you
estimate
a
proposal
to
eliminate
the
minneapolis
police
department
would
be
in
court?
Second,
part
of
this
question
is,
or
would
the
court's
judgment
in
the
brainerd's
case
be
applicable
to
minneapolis,
and
would
that
expedite
a
decision
being
made
for
action
by
minneapolis.
G
I
can
excuse
me,
I
can
say
that
the
brainerd
case
related
to
a
very
small
fire
department
that
was
eliminated.
The
specific
facts
of
those
case.
That
case
was
that
the
city
that
city
thought
about
eliminating
the
fire
department
and
making
them
into
volunteer
firefighters,
and
then
they
kind
of
they
decided
that
they
weren't
going
to
do
that.
Then
they
went
in
to
the
negotiations
with
the
union
entered
into
union
contract
and
after
they
entered
into
the
union
contract,
they
then
decided.
G
Okay,
we
will
get
rid
of
the
fire
department,
so
they
already
had
a
union
contract
for
you
know
for
years,
and
then
that's
when
they
decided
they
were
going
to
get
rid
of
the
fire
department
and
they
wanted
to
get
rid
of
the
entire
fire
department.
So
there
would
be
no.
No,
there
would
no
longer
be
a
fire
department
and
they
would
use
volunteers.
G
So
then
that-
and
in
that
case,
one
of
the
things
I
will
say
is
that
the
city
of
brainerd
did
admit
that
they
did.
They
used
the
language
of
the
provision
in
pelra,
saying
that
they
did
do
what
was
in
the
language
of
pelro,
which
is
they
did.
I
can't,
I
can't
remember
the
exact
language,
but
they
kind
of
admitted
to
the
the
language.
G
That
would
be
a
violation,
but
they
said
they
had
a
reason
for
doing
it.
You
know
they
wanted
to
have
this
other
department
where
it
would
be
volunteer
firefighters,
so
they
said,
and
they
had
they
had
other
reasons
for
doing
it,
but
that
may
not
be
the
case
with
the
city
of
minneapolis.
We
don't
know
what
will
happen.
We
don't
know
what
a
division
of
peace
officers
would
look
like.
We
don't
know.
If
it
would.
G
We
don't
know
how
many
people
would
be
in
the
department.
We
don't
know
how
long
it
would
take
before
we
have
the
divisions
set
up.
I
I
can
tell
you
that
the
human
resources
department
has
worked
on
issues
like
this
in
the
past,
where
there's
been
a
changeover
in
divisions
or
departments,
and
they
have
worked
through
some
of
these
issues,
so
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
we're
going
to
be
in
litigation
on
all
of
these
issues
or
we're
going
to
be
in
the
brainerd
type
of
area
where
we're
getting
rid
of
every
single
police
officer.
G
So
we
don't
know
what
will
happen.
We
don't
that
brainerd
case
may
not
be
applicable
to
us,
but
we
do
have
to
look
out
for
that
brainerd
case.
We
have
to
look
out
for
that
brainerd
case.
We
don't
know
how
it
would
apply.
G
What,
if
you
remove
a
larger
percentage
of
the
police
police
officers
from
the
city
versus
you
know
not
having
any
peace
officers
with
the
city,
we
don't
know
how
that
brainerd
case
will
will
be
applied
to
the
city
of
minneapolis
when
it
takes
its
actions.
And,
quite
quite
honestly,
we
don't
know
exactly
what
the
new
division
of
lawn
law
enforcement
services
will
look
like
at
this
time.
But
as
the
new
city
attorney,
jim
router
has
stated,
we
do
have
to
watch
out
for
those
issues.
G
We
do
have
a
union
contract
with
the
peace
officer
federation
of
minneapolis.
They
represent
the
sworn
officers
we
do
have
pelra,
which
is
the
law
that
relates
to
employer
relations
with
the
union
employees.
So
we
do
have
to
watch
those
issues
with
respect
to
litigation.
You
know
there
could
always
be
litigation.
The
city
of
minneapolis
is
always
at
the
forefront
when
we
have
new
programs,
we
were
at.
We
were
the
first
in
minnesota
to
rank
choice.
Voting.
We
were
in
litigation
on
that.
G
So
could
there
be
litigation?
There
could
always
be
litigation.
How
long
would
it
take?
You
know?
I?
I
can't
estimate
that,
but
you
know
the
city
has
determined
to
make
policies
over
the
years
based
on
what
the
city
determines
to
be
the
best
in
its
interest
and
and
if
there's
litigation
that
occurs
after
that.
The
city
has
always
been
here.
The
city
attorney's
office
has
been
available
to
assist
the
city
with
those
issues
great.
C
Thank
you
so
much
assistant
attorney
bashoon.
I
believe,
commissioner,
garcia
had
her
hand
raised.
L
L
Perhaps
one
idea
may
be
to
require
police
officers,
especially
those
who
don't
live
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
to
do
some
kind
of
community
volunteering
work.
Perhaps
they
coach
literally
perhaps
they
help
out
at
you
know
the
north
side,
arts
flow
or
different
neighborhood
events.
L
G
B
F
L
F
There
are
things
that
I
am
still
learning
in
this
new
role
in
the
public
sector,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
are
similar,
and
so
I
think
first
off.
What
I
would
say
is
what
you're
describing
particularly
if
we're
trying,
if
that,
if
in
your
scenario,
that
was
a
required
duty,
so
to
speak
of
of
these
sworn
peace
officers
covered
by
this
collective
bargaining
agreement,
that
would
be
a
negotiable
item
that
we
would
have
to
to
work
through
with
the
police
federation.
F
Because
and
and
plus
you
described
it
as
a
volunteer
activity,
that's
determining
condition
of
employment
that
that
would
entail
them
spending
otherwise,
compensable
time,
I
guess
in
an
uncompensated
fashion,
I'm
not
gonna
try
to
opine
right
now
off
the
cuff
about
whether
that
would
be
completely
legal
if
we
even
reach
that
agreement
with
the
federation,
but
we
certainly
would
have
to
bargain
over
that.
I
don't
think,
there's
any
question.
F
L
I
guess
it
would
be
something
that
would
be
part
of
their
their
pay
time.
So,
while
it's
technically
not,
you
know,
volunteer
it's.
The
concept
is
just
relationship
with
the
community
and
building
trust.
F
Absolutely
I
understand
your
concept,
I
just
I
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
you
understand.
We
I'm.
I
am
fairly
certain
that
that
would
be
a
mandatory
subject
to
bargaining
with
the
with
the
federation.
L
Would
there
be
any
other
way
to
promote
that
or.
F
You
know
there's
other
ways
you
could
come
at
that
with
regard
to
maybe
providing
incentives
to
engage
in
certain
activities
and
depending
on
how
you
structure
the
incentives
it
may
or
may
not
be
a
mandatory
subject
to
bargaining.
I
don't
want
to
go
too
far
down
the
path
of
you
know.
Dealing
in
a
lot
of
you
know
vague
what-ifs,
but.
A
F
C
Great
do
we
have
other
questions,
commissioner
kozak.
I
Oh
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
to
follow
up
on
with
commissioner
garcia.
Her
question.
You
know
we
did
have
residency
requirement
in
minneapolis
for
about
probably
about
six
years,
maybe
from
93,
I
think
until
it
was
repealed
in
99,
but
state
law
now
preempts
the
city
from
unilaterally
doing
it.
I
haven't
looked
at
the
law
and
I
wouldn't
know
that
I
would
be
interpreting
it
properly.
I
I
I
assume
you
could
collectively
bargain
for
some
kind
of
residency
or
some
kind
of
volunteer
activity,
as
commissioner
garcia
suggests,
but
I
I
don't
know
that
you'd
have
to
look
at
the
the
law
which
preempts
local
residency
requirements.
I
However,
they
did,
I
don't
think
anyone's
mentioned
when
they
passed
the
police
reform
bill
during
the
second
or
third
special
session
this
year.
They
did
explicitly
permit
the
cities
to
offer
incentives
for
for
that
kind
of
activity
for
residency,
which
I
assume
would
apply
also
to
some
of
the
things
that
been
discussed
here,
but
it
it
would
be.
A
major
undertaking.
I
Residency
was
very
difficult.
The
police
obviously
didn't
like
it,
but
the
ones
that
really
affected
the
the
politics,
though
there
were
the
teachers
in
afscme
they
they
were
violently
opposed
to
it.
And
then,
when
politics
changed
in
1970
after
the
seven-day
election
it
was,
it
was
doomed.
C
Thank
you
so
much,
commissioner.
I
believe
we
have
a
question
I
can't
see
from
whom,
though
commissioner
abbott
commissioner
abbott
okay
great
commissioner
everett.
M
Yeah
I
wanted
to
follow
up
on
the
you
know,
the
collective
bargaining
element
here.
The
question
I
have
is-
and
I
suspect
the
answer
is
no,
but
I
think
we
should
raise
the
issue
which
is:
is
there
any
special
status
to
a
charter
amendment
when
it
comes
to
negotiating
over
terms
and
conditions
of
employment
in
the
sense
of
you
know?
Obviously
you
go
into
every
bargaining
session
with
you've
got
a
list
of
things
you
want.
M
The
other
side
has
a
list
of
things
they
want,
but
I'm
just
I'm
just
wondering
like
if
if
a
charter
amendment
gets
passed
and
if
the
city
goes
into
a
negotiating
session
saying
well,
you
know
we
can't
move
on
this
because
it's
part
of
the
charter
or
if,
in
fact
the
voters
have
enacted
it
through
the
charter.
You
know
we've
got
a
popular
mandate
for
this.
Does
that
change?
You
know
any
analysis
when
it
comes
to
say
whether
the
city
might
be
bargaining
in
bad
faith.
D
M
Generally
does
the
fact
that
does
any
kind
of
element
of
the
charter
have
any
kind
of
effect
on
on
how
how
a
court
is
going
to
look
at
possible
labor
violations.
F
Well
and
carolyn
burke
can
certainly
chime
in,
but,
as
I've
gotten
tried
to
get
quick
quickly
up
to
speed
on
the
public
sector,
labor
law
issues
that
are
relevant
here,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
minnesota
statute
to
the
public
employee
relations
statute
is
pretty
clear
that
a
city
could
not
really
amend
its
charter
in
a
fashion.
F
That
would
avoid
its
obligations
under
that
statute,
and
so
there's
really
no
no
way
through
a
charter
change
to
relieve
ourselves
of
the
duty
to,
for
instance,
bargain
overturns
and
conditions
of
employment
carol
burt,
I
don't
know
if
you
have
more
to
add
there
that's
high
level,
that's
my
pretty
clear
understanding
of
this
of
the
public
employee
relations
statute.
G
Yeah
I
can
chime
in
because
I
did
some
litigation
on
something
that
related
to
this
provision.
G
G
G
But
if
it's
something
else
that
the
minneapolis
charter
provides,
then
the
top
the
contract
can
not
be
in
conflict
with
the
charter,
so,
for
instance,
the
how
the
city
is
set
up.
If
it's
set
up
with
a
division
of
community
safety,
and
then
it
has
a
division
of
the
police
department,
that's
not
something!
That's
under
chapter
179,
that's
not
a
requirement
in
a
collective
bargaining
agreement.
That's
not
something
that
is
specifically
supposed
to
be
bargained
for.
So
I
think
that
the
charter
would
override
the
collective
bargaining
agreement.
G
Now
if
we
started,
if
we
tried
to
put
in
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
that
every
gut
everybody
gets
paid
15
an
hour,
no
matter
what
that
would
be
problematic,
because
wages
would
be
a
typical
thing
that
should
be
bargained
for
under
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
and
if
we
put
that
in
the
charter
that
might
be
problematic.
M
I
guess
that's
excellent
and
I
appreciate
that
I
was
thinking
more
along
the
lines
of
you
know.
Suppose
we
were
passed,
a
charter
amendment
that
would
you
know,
implement
specifically
implement
like
de-escalation
strategies
or
ban
warrior
training
or
otherwise
govern
the
conduct
of
a
peace
officer
which
seems
to
me
that's
kind
of
the
the
immovable
force
and
the
irresistible
object
in
the
sense
that
you
have.
I
think
I
just
mixed
those
two
man.
M
Let's
just
make
that
metaphor
up,
but
you
have
I
mean
you
know
clearly,
that's
a
you
know
an
element
of
how
a
peace
officer
is
going
to
conduct
his
or
her
employment
and
then,
to
put
that
in
you
know,
that's
obviously
a
subject
of
collective
bargaining,
and
you
have
to
put
it
I
mean
so
my
question
is:
do
we
get
any
kind
of
special
sauce
or
special
status,
for
you
know
terms
and
conditions
of
employment
if
the
city
as
a
whole,
through
its
through
its
citizens
and
a
general
referendum?
You
know
enacted
policy.
F
F
Some
of
the
examples
you've
just
brought
up
are
actually
not
necessarily
mandatory
terms
that
need
to
be
bargained
for
they're
actually
within
the
management
rights
policy
clause
of
of
the
collective
bargaining
agreement,
and
I
think
your
word
training
example,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
would
squarely
fall
into
the
management
rights
policy
domain
terms
and
conditions
of
employment
tend
to
go
more
specifically
to
straightforward
things,
like
wages,
benefits,
disciplinary
rules
that
type
of
thing
carol.
What
do
you
want
to
add
on
to
that.
G
Yeah,
that's
exactly
what
I
was
going
to
say
that
we'd
have
to
determine
what's
like
an
inherent
management
right
like
a
general
policy
on
how
things
are
run
versus
a
term
and
condition.
So
if
we
were
looking
at
those
types
of
charter
provisions,
we
would
have
to
look
at
that.
Is
that
an
inherent
management
right
or
is
that
something
that
you
have
to
bargain
for
as
a
term
and
condition
of
employment?
And
we
could
look
at
the
terms
in
the
statute.
G
It
lays
out
what's
a
term
and
condition,
but
there's
there
might
be
gray
areas,
there's
a
lot
of
case
law
on.
What's
it
you
know,
what's
a
term
and
condition,
and
what's
not
if
it's,
if,
like
I
said,
if
it's
something
like
a
wage,
that
would
be
clearly
a
term
and
condition
if
it's
like
a
management
policy,
it
may
not
be
a
term
and
condition.
It
may
be
an
inherent
management
policy
or
decision.
G
K
Can
can
I
just
briefly
hop
in
yeah,
commissioner,
madam
chairs
and
commissioners,
you
know
if
it's,
if
it
truly
would
be
an
inherent
managerial
right,
you
know
I
I
would
hesitate
to
put
it
in
the
charter.
You
know
that
I
think
the
charter,
you
know
it
once
that
is
in
something
is
in
the
charter.
You
know
we.
We
all
know
that.
That's
you
know,
that's
a
permanent
part
of
our
city's
constitution
and
very
difficult
to
change.
K
M
Okay,
I
appreciate
the
feedback
here.
It's
been
very
helpful.
I
mean
obviously
that
one
of
the
issues
we're
dealing
with
is
you
know
how
necessary
is
a
charter
amendment
to
accomplish
certain
goals.
The
council
is
laid
out
and
I
think
this
really
kind
of
cuts
to
the
cuts
to
the
core
issue
and,
as
I
read
your
answer,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
fact
that
something
may
be
a
charter
provision
or
not
be
a
charter
provision
really
doesn't
give
it
any
kind
of
special
status.
M
It's
just
a
question
of
how
it
fits
into
the
existing
categories
of
labor
law.
So
I
think
that.
K
G
And
I
would
agree
with
bert,
and
you
can
see
this-
the
minneapolis
police
department
has
changed
its
use
of
force
policy
on
a
couple
occasions
and
fairly
quickly
in
response
to
events
that
have
occurred,
and
it
makes
sense
that
you
should
be
able
to
quickly
change
things
up
if
they're
not
working
and
if
you
put
in
the
charter,
you
can't
change
that
up
quickly.
C
Great,
I
think,
commissioner
ginder,
you
have
a.
J
So,
for
example,
when
you
talk
about
management
rights,
the
city,
putting
aside
the
charter
requirement
right
now,
the
city
could
decide
that
we
only
want
to
fund
500
police
officers
or
400
police
officers.
That's
a
management
right.
The
city
could
say
we
want
to
have
four
divisions,
a
patrol
division
and
this
division
in
this
division.
That's
a
management
right.
J
Most
policy
decisions
are
going
to
be
management
rights,
but,
for
example,
when
the
city
decided
that
they
wanted
to
put
in
cameras
in
every
squad
car
you
could
we
argued
that
was
a
management
right,
but
the
implementation
of
that
management
right
became
a
subject
of
bargaining.
Okay,
under
what
circumstances
was
it
going
to
be
turned
on?
How
long
could
it
be
turned
off,
so
the
policies
can
be
enacted,
but
sometimes
the
implementation
of
those
policies
also
becomes
more
complicated
and
what
may
fall
into
a
bargaining
aspect
of
that.
J
So
it's
a
very
sometimes
complex,
decide,
decision
or
a
matter
of
trying
to
figure
out
whether
it's
where
the
line
is
between
a
pure
policy
or
management
right
in
a
subject
of
mandatory
bargaining.
J
You
know
one
other
thing:
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
go
along
in
this.
This
vein
is:
when
we
talk
about
some
of
the
state
law,
prohibitions
or
impediments
to
change.
You
know
we
talk
about
power.
A
lot
especially
like,
in
terms
of
when
you
want
to
terminate
an
officer,
discipline,
an
officer
power,
isn't
the
only
impediment
we
have
in
these
kind
of
areas
so,
for
example,
the
veterans
preference
act.
J
You
know
we
can
go
ahead
and
convince
the
state
legislature
to
change,
maybe
a
special
exemption
for
police
officers
and
how
arbitration
works
for
police
officers,
but
they
have
the
option
of
not
going
through
pelro.
They
also
have
the
option
if
their
former
military,
in
which
police
officers
are
significant
percentage
of
those
department
or
military,
they
can
go
through
the
veterans,
preference
act
which
has
a
similar
just
cause
standard,
and
so
it's
every
time
you
remove
one
impediment,
you
have
to
look.
J
There
may
be
another
impediment
behind
you
as
far
as
you
go
forward
and
that
falls
into
the
hiring
process.
So
if
the
city
wants
to
move
into
a
new
law
enforcement
division
well,
when
they
go
out
for
applicants
and
putting
aside
the
city's
own
policies
about
hiring
people,
they're
going
to
go
into
it
and
say
well,
we've
got
veterans
preference
points
when
we
want
to
hire
this
new
law
enforcement
thing.
J
Every
one
of
those
veterans
starts
out
five
points
up
on
the
scale
and
one
can
have
a
significant
argument
about
whether
or
not
veterans
are
actually
the
best
candidates
for
police
officers.
Yes,
they
have
a
lot
of
experience,
but
does
that
experience
translate
equitably
into
what
you're
trying
to
do
in
law
enforcement
in
a
in
a
city?
So
just
sign
up
kind
of
some
comments.
There
is,
as
you
wander
through
these
decisions.
C
Great
thank
you
so
much,
commissioner
gender.
I
believe
that
commissioner
metke
has
a.
N
Yep,
sorry,
I
was
trying
to
unmute
and
it
kept
muting
me
back
up.
You
might
have
answered
this,
but
I'm
just
going
to
throw
it
out
there.
Anyway.
I
hear
a
lot
of
conversation
about
law
enforcement
and
another
part
of
policing
is
community
policing,
which
kind
of
goes
back
to
what
commissioner
garcia
was
asking
about
kind
of
goes
back
to
what
commissioner
ginder
was
just
talking
about.
N
Could
community
policing
be
a
stand-alone
loan
point
in
in
a
bargaining
agreement,
and
then
you
could
build
in
some
of
the
community
outreach
and
community
engagement
types
of
activities
and
not
just
have
it
be
law
enforcement?
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
question
or
just
a
comment,
but
I
just
wanted
to
throw
it
out
there
because
it
is
separate
than
law
enforcement
by
the
u.s
department
of
justice.
They
look
at
community
policing
and
law
enforcement
as
two
separate
things
and
two
separate
strategies
so
just
throwing
it
out
there.
G
The
structure
of
the
police
department,
the
police
department,
determines
where
it's
best
to
place
its
officers
and
I
think
they
they
recently
did
make
some
changes
and
they
moved
the
structure
around
a
little
bit
and
I
think
they
may
not
be
working
with
pal
and
some
other
of
these
community
organizations
at
this
point,
but
typically
that
is
something
I
that
may
be
more
of
a
management
right
to
determine
how,
where
you're,
going
to
put
your
force
and
what
kind
of
exact
duties
they're
going
to
be
performing.
N
N
So
I
think
it's
something
really
important
to
think
about
when
I
was
the
chair
of
the
philip
sweden
seat
for
eight
years
when
mayor
belton
was
the
mayor,
it
was
a
separate
component
and
it
was
structured
separately
and
it
was
funded
separately
and
it
was
prioritized
separately,
and
so
I
just
think
it's
something
to
think
about,
because
I
am
watching
what
happens
as
money
gets
taken
away
and
police
must
respond
to
911
calls,
and
so
then
you
lose
what
commissioner
garcia
is
asking
about
and
you
lose
the
ability
to
do
it,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
it
can
become
a
mandated
part
of
an
of
a
negotiated
agreement
or
or
what,
but
I
think
that
it
needs
to
be
protected.
N
C
F
I
was
just
going
to
say
I
I
again
without
getting
in
the
weeds
and
we're
talking
about
some
big
picture
concepts
to
a
certain
extent,
but
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
mislead
anyone
to
think
that
separate
community
based
activities
that
supplement
you
know
our
overall
public
safety
framework,
for
instance,
does
not
necessarily
bring
into
play
collective
bargaining
rights
for
the
community
side
of
that
activity.
Does
that
make
sense?
F
You
might
find
yourself
having,
let's
assume
for
a
second,
that
you
had
some
community-based
activity
that
that
was
implemented
and
one
of
the
effects
of
that
was.
We
are
going
to
use
x,
number
of
less
officers,
peace
officers
to
as
part
of
the
force
and
and
by
the
way.
This
is
very.
This
is
very
theoretical
and
and
you're
talking
about
maybe
some
job
reduction,
some
layoffs
well,
so
the
effects
of
that
on
the
organized
unit
with
the
collective
bargaining
rights.
Well,
that
would
have
to
be
negotiated.
F
What
are
the
effects
of
reducing
those
jobs
and
eliminating
them?
But
that's
that
does
not
mean
that
you're
bargaining
over
that
the
core
of
what
that
community-based
activity
that
you
have
put
in
place
is
occurring
does.
Does
that
help
bring
some
clarity.
C
C
Right
so
we
have,
we
want
to
be
respectful
of
everyone's
time
and
we're
rounding
up
to
close
to
6
15..
We
do
have
one
last
question
that
was
presented
here
and
that
is
question
number
eight.
What,
if
anything,
would
you
offer
from
your
professional
perspective
and
experience
that
you
think
would
be
important
for
the
charter
commission
to
consider
as
it
evaluates
the
current
proposed
amendment
submitted
by
the
city
council.
G
I
would
just
say
I
think
the
charter
commission
is
this
work
group
is
seems
to
be
doing
a
very
good
job,
very
thorough
job.
You
have
different
speakers
coming
in
you.
Had
our
deputy
chief
eric
force
talk
about
the
programs
that
have
been
going
on
in
this
in
the
minneapolis
police
department
over
the
past
five
years,
you
you
have
brought
in
the
correct
people
and
I
think
you're
doing
a
great
job
on
that.
G
I
know
commissioner
ginder
at
one
point
talked
about
looking
at
other
cities,
how
they
are
funded,
how
they
are
structured,
because
the
charter
is
really
about
structure
and
big
picture.
That
might
be
useful
for
you
to
look
at
what
other
cities
are
doing
and
how
they're
set
up
and
what
kind
of
funding
they're
doing
and
if
they,
if
they're
a
charter
city,
you
know
what
does
their
charter
look
like
too?
So
you
could
look
at
some
of
those
issues.
C
Great
city,
eternity
or
assistant
city
attorney
osborne,
any
fight
at
all.
Any
responses
to
that.
K
Madam
chairs
and
commissioners,
you
know
I,
I
guess
my
my
caution
would
be.
You
know
that,
were
you
know
we're
looking
at
a
charter
change,
and
you
know
that
you
know
the
the
when
I
started
working
with
the
charter.
It
was
a
byzantine
mess
and
you
know
the
many
years
the
charter
commission
and
the
community
worked
to
to
pass
the
plain
language
charter
and
have
it
truly
be,
you
know,
kind
of
set
forth
the
structure,
the
the
the
the
bare
bones
structure
of
our
city
government?
K
And
so
you
know
I
I
I
think
the
commission
should
just
keep
that
in
mind
when
it's
considering.
You
know
how
we're
gonna
change
things,
because
it
might
be
there
for
a
long
time.
C
Great,
thank
you
so
much.
I
believe
that
a
one
of
our
commissioners
has
a
question.
Commissioner
perry.
I
believe.
E
Yeah,
yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
Hopefully
this
isn't
the
last
question
because
I
don't
want
to
finish
up
on
this
note,
but
I'm
just
curious.
If
the
city
attorney's
office
was
consulted
in
drafting
the
the
amendment
that
the
city
council
proposed
to
us.
G
I
can
say
that
you
know
eric
nilsson
was
the
acting
director
or
not
at
director
acted.
He
was
the
interim
city
attorney
and
I
understand
he
he
was
in
charge
at
the
time,
so
he
may
have
been
involved.
E
I
I
only
asked
that,
because
we
spent
a
good
deal
of
time,
I
think
there
have
been
some
great
questions
here
and
all
of
you
have
put
in
a
good
deal
of
work
to
provide
really
terrific
answers
that
I
think
have
shown
shine
a
light
on
some
important
aspects
of
this.
So
I
I
was
just
curious
again
what
your
involvement
was
and
on
the
amendment
itself,
because
this
has
been
very
helpful
for
me
I'll
speak
for
myself.
It's
been
very
helpful
for
me.
E
C
C
Commissioners,
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
feel
free
to
send
those
over
to
commissioner
and
chair
rubenstein,
and
I
and
we'll
get
those
set
up
for
for
next
week
unless
there
are
any
other
questions
or
topics
that
we
need
to
discuss
again.
Thank
you
to
our
our
panel
for
for
joining
us,
and
with
that
commissioner
rubenstein,
should
we
adjourn
the
meeting.