►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
The
regular
meeting
of
the
charter
commission
government
structure
work
group
will
now
begin
good
afternoon.
Welcome
to
this
virtual
meeting
of
the
charter
commission's
government
structure
work
group.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
greg
abbott.
I
am
one
of
the
co-chairs
of
the
charter
commission's
government
structure
work
group.
I
will
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
that
the
clerk
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
C
D
A
A
I
do
believe
that
commissioner
metki
was
in
earlier,
so
I
don't
know
if
she's
having
technical
difficulties
but
keep
keep
an
ear
out
for
her.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
we
have
a
quorum.
We
will
now
proceed
to
our
agenda,
a
copy
of
which
was
posted
for
public
access
to
the
city's
legislative
information
management
system,
which
is
available
at
lims.minneapolismn.gov
commissioners.
The
agenda
for
today's
meeting
is
before
us
you've
seen
the
proposed
agenda,
which
was
attached
to
the
email
with
respect
to
the
meeting.
A
There
is
a
one
only
one.
I
wouldn't
even
call
this
a
change.
I
item
three
is
proposals
and
recommendations
where
we
were
discussing
the
initial
proposals
for
possible
reforms
to
the
city's
government
structure
and,
as
you
know,
the
co-chair,
my
co-chair
jill
garcia
and
I
sent
out
a
memo
on
january
4th
describing
six
areas
in
which
we
were
considering
possible
recommendations,
and
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
actually
break
the
discussion
down
into
three
groups.
A
I
think
we
would
like
to
and
actually
maybe
perhaps
get
a
recorded
vote
on
these
things.
I
would
like
to
get
a
vote
on
whether
people
agree
with
one
through
four
of
our
summary
of
initial
proposals
and
then
a
separate
discussion
on
five
and
a
separate
discussion
on
item
six.
So
that's,
I
think,
a
little
more
detailed
than
what
we
put
into
the
proposed
agenda.
So
I
would
say
a
motion
to
adopt
the
agenda
is
in
order.
D
F
A
A
Just
a
technical
note,
I'm
getting
the
the
request
to
get
admitted
from
the
lobby
are
kind
of
popping
up
as
a
pop-up
screen.
For
me.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
didn't
know
if
I
needed
to
do
anything
with
that.
Thank
you.
The
motion
is
a
past
and
the
agenda
is
adopted.
We're
going
to
move
right
to
our
only
agenda
item,
which
is
proposals
and
recommendations.
A
I
guess
I'd
like
to
open
the
floor
to
with
reference
to
our
memo
of
january
4th
and
the
summary
of
initial
proposals
items
one
two
three
and
four
I'd
like
to
get
any
feedback
on
on
those
four
items,
and
let
me
just
for
summary
purposes
and
for
those
of
you
who
may
not
have
the
memo
in
front
of
you,
I
would
say:
casey
carl
has
very
conveniently
put
up
a
pdf
memo
of
the
of
our
of
our
memo.
A
A
pdf
copy
of
our
memo.
Excuse
me
in
the
chat
in
the
meeting
chat
here
and
obviously
now
it's
up
on
the
screen
for
your
reference,
but
the
the
the
summary
goes
as
follows.
Our
initial
proposal
is
to
go
to
a
legislative
council
and
executive
mayor
system,
which
would
clarify
that
the
legislative
power
of
the
city
would
be
exercised
through
the
city
council.
The
policy-making
power
of
the
city
would
be
exercised
through
the
city
council
and
the
administrative
and
executive
power
of
the
city
would
be
exercised
through
the
office
of
mayor.
A
Our
second
proposal
was
that
we
needed
to
focus
and
strengthen
the
council's
legislative
and
representative
functions.
The
council
needs
to
be
provided
sufficient
resources
to
do
a
policy-making
role,
additional
resources
than
I
think
what
exists
now,
and
certainly
comparable
to
the
resources
that
the
mayor
has.
A
Our
third
item
would
be
to
establish,
centralized
accountability
for
city
performance,
which
consists
of
one
line
of
authority,
one
chain
of
command
for
department,
heads
and
city
employees,
and
that
the
mayor
should
have
the
power
to
appoint
obviously
subject
to
confirmation
by
the
city
council,
department,
heads
and
that
those
department
heads
would
then
serve
after
confirmation
of
the
pleasure
of
the
mayor
and
our.
A
Our
fourth
item
was
four-year
terms
for
department
heads
instead
of
doing
the
two-year
term
with
a
renewal
at
the
end
of
two
years,
we
would
go
with
a
four-year
term
that
would
run
concurrent
with
the
mayor's
four-year
term
at
the
time.
So
those
are
the
that's
the
summary
of
items,
one
two,
three
and
four.
A
I
know
that
you
know
jill-
and
I
have
been
talking
about
this
quite
a
bit,
but
I'm
I'm
interested
in
any
members,
other
members
of
the
work
group
and
their
feedback,
and
obviously
other
other
commission
members
who
are
with
us
today,
obviously
administering
that
feedback
as
well,
so
I'll
open
the
floor.
If
anybody
wants
to
give
their
feedback
on
our.
D
This
is,
commissioner
smith.
I
guess
I
would
just
note
over
primarily
looking
at
the
first
four
now
to
me.
They
all
seem
perfectly
reasonable
and
appropriate.
I
wouldn't
see
the
need
for,
I
guess
a
whole
lot
of
discussion
about
them.
Just
kind
of
one
nitpicky
point,
and
I
don't
know
if
it
makes
sense
or
not,
but
now
I
have
to
find
it.
D
In
the
very
first
in
the
box,
where
it
says
executive
mayor,
it
says,
council's
actions
are
subject
to
the
approval
or
veto
by
the
mayor.
Does
the
mayor
really
approve
something
it
seems
like
if
he
or
she
doesn't
veto
it
it's
kind
of
deemed
approved?
So
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
need
the
word
approval
in
there.
A
I
think
that's
well
taken.
I
don't
think
that
our
proposal,
I
don't
think,
is
intended
to
change
the
veto
process
at
all.
So
if
there's
a
if
there's
a
word
edit
there,
that
would,
I
think,
clarify
that
I
think
that'd
be
appropriate.
So
I
mean.
A
Say
by
the
way,
now
is
the
time
for
nitpicking
right,
so
we
wanna,
we
wanna
wordsmith
this
and
make
sure
we
get
it
right.
So
you
know
it's
off
the
old.
You
know
no,
no
question,
there's
no
such
thing
as
a
dumb
question.
Well,
that's
not
true.
There
are
dumb
questions,
but
but
but
at
least
at
this
stage
I
don't
think
there's
any,
I
don't
think
the
wordsmithing
or
working
on
the
grammar
of
this
I
mean
we
are
talking
about
the
charter
document
that's
going
to
have
to
last
for
decades.
A
I
think
we
can
take
some
time
to
look
at
the
grammar
and
punctuation.
So
I
think
that's
a
good.
I
I
think
that
comment
is
well
received.
Commissioner,
schwarzkopf
has
his
hand
up.
G
Mr
chair,
the
only
thing
I
want
to
say
is:
I
thought
that
the
four
proposals
were
very
good,
having
served
as
the
city
clerk
for
a
number
of
years
and
then
later
the
city
coordinator
for
a
number
of
years,
and
also
the
lobbyists
for
the
city
indianapolis.
I
think
that
the
four
proposals
really
make
sense.
Thank.
A
You
very
good,
thank
you
very
much.
Chair
clegg
has
his
hand
up.
F
The
only
item
I
I
would
like
a
little
discussion
around,
or
at
least
I
think
we
should
talk
about-
is
the
four-year
term
for
department
heads
and
to
run
concurrent
with
the
mayor
that
that
would
mean
that
department
heads
would
have
to
go
up
for
confirmation
every
four
years
by
the
council,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if,
if
we
should
do
that
or
if
we
should
just
have
a
straight
up,
they
go
up
for
confirmation
when
they're
first
appointed
and
then
they
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
the
mayor
and
those
are
two
different
systems.
F
A
I've
got
commissioner
ginder
with
his
hand
up.
I
don't
know
if
you're
gonna
talk
about
chair
clegg's
point
or
what
different
point,
but
let
me
just
is
anybody
out
there
want
to
respond
to
chair
clegg's
point.
H
Yes,
mr
chair,
yes,
mr
commissioner,.
H
H
I
think
it
you
get
to
the
same
place
without,
but
do
it
in
this
in
a
more
streamlined
way.
If
you
go
that
route
rather
than
the
the
every
four
years,
thanks.
A
I
think
the
the
the
debate
is
whether
you
know
I
mean
if
you
get
a
four-year
term,
you
get
you'll,
get
a
four-year
contract,
which
I
think
might
from
an
employment
law
standpoint
I
think,
might
affect
you
know.
If
there
was
a
midterm
change
of
direction
by
the
city,
but
but
yeah
I
mean
I
think
you
could
argue
that
they
could
continue
kind
of
as
an
at-will
employee
after
the
four-year
term
is
up.
If
that's
what
you're
getting
at.
C
C
That's
a
lengthy
term
for
the
department
head.
It
seems
to
me
there's
an
appropriate
time
for
at
every
four-year
annual
election
for
people
to
sit
down
and
take
an
evaluation
again,
and
that
would
include
council
members
as
well
as
the
mayor,
and
you
know.
How
often
are
you
going
to
have
a
four-year
term
mayor
where
that's
it's
a
four-year
term
mayor
and
so
it's
going
to
be
turned
over
automatically,
so
I
think
I
would
lean
towards
the
four-year
term.
Now,
with
the
idea
of
the
contract,
I
mean
you're
still
going
to
use
contracts.
C
C
My
other
comments
were
going
to
be
directed
towards
the
first
item,
which
is
as
a
practical
matter
or
as
an
actual
matter
all
city
council
measures
currently
are
either
approved
or
vetoed
by
the
mayor.
There
is
also
the
possibility
of
the
pocket
approval,
but
they
all
go
to
the
mayor
for
approval
and
the
vast
majority
of
all
actions.
The
council
are
literally
approved
by
the
mayor.
C
Second
item
I
wanted
to
address
was
raised
in
there
about
the
idea
of
giving
council
additional
staff
for
their
oversight
capabilities,
and
I
don't
know
how
much
people
are
aware
of
this,
but
every
council
member
currently
has
two
full-time
staff
members
and
so
that
they
are
in
fact
right
now
staffed
and
their
staffing
requirements
are,
I
think,
for
both
positions
are
found
in
state
special
law,
so
there's
and
mr
carl's
chasing
is
is
nodding.
The
other
way
that
that's
not
true.
I
thought
that
one
of
those
was
governed
by
special
law.
C
You
know
I'll,
let
mr
carl
weigh
in
on
that,
but
I
think
there's
a
balance
here,
because
they
do
have
current
capability
for
oversight
and
when
we
get
into
some
of
the
other
comments
on
the
drafts
that
were
done,
I
tried
to
formalize
that
a
little
bit
with
the
internal
audit
function
that
people
may
have
seen.
C
So
I
guess
that
is
my
first
level
of
comment
on
this.
A
Okay,
ms
bushoon
has
had
her
hand
up
for
quite
a
bit.
Go
ahead.
I
Yes,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
mention.
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
the
department
heads
serving
a
term
for
four
years
currently
under
the
charter
section
8.2.
I
I
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
because
say
if
you
have
a
brand
new
mayor,
the
mayor
is
not
going
to
get
somebody
in
on
the
first
first
working
day
of
in
january
that
they
would
have
to
go
through
a
process
where
the
council
would
have
to
approve
whomever
they
want
to
be
the
department
head.
There
might
be
public
hearings
so
you're,
not
in
essence,
you're,
not
gonna
get
somebody
in
the
first
week
of
january.
I
For
that
new
mayor,
your
the
department
heads
may
be
appointed
at
a
different
time,
maybe
maybe
in
february,
at
the
earliest.
Who
knows
so?
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up,
that
you
could
still
have
the
four-year
term
you
could
but,
and
you
could
still
have
the
whole
over
provision
in
the
charter,
and
that
could
work,
and
I
did
talk
to
one
of
the
hr
attorneys
today
and
you
know
that's
a
possibility
to
still
keep
that
hold
over
provision
in
there.
A
Thank
you,
clerk
carl
casey.
You
had
your
hand
up.
B
Sure,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
address.
Originally,
I
believe
it
was.
Commissioner
smith
had
asked
about
veto
authority
and
under
the
current
provisions
of
the
charter,
every
official
act
of
the
council,
as
mr
ginder
also
noted,
is
subject
to
the
approval
or
disapproval
of
the
mayor,
a
veto,
and
there
are
only
three
things
that
are
not
subject
to
the
mayoral
approval,
so
every
act
of
council,
whether
an
ordinance
resolution
or
other
action,
is
subject
to
the
mayor's
approval.
B
The
only
things
not
subject
to
the
mayor's
veto
under
the
current
charter
are
the
organization
of
council
itself.
So
how
council
chooses
to
organize
its
own
body,
its
own
leadership,
its
committee
structure,
how
council
chooses
to
adopt
rules
to
governance
proceedings,
so
it's
procedural
rules
and
then
the
election
by
the
council
of
the
city
clerk?
Those
are
the
three
actions
that
the
council
takes
that
are
not
submitted
to
the
mayor
for
the
mayor's
approval
or
veto.
B
So
the
mayor
does
have
quite
a
broad
veto
of
power
or
approval
and
veto
power
over
all
of
the
council's
actions.
The
other
issue
is
about
council
staffing.
Commissioner
ginder
mentioned
they
all
have
currently
all
13
council
members
do
have
two
political
aids
politically
appointed
aides,
to
a
assist
them
the
long
history
that
goes
back
to
the
50s
and
60s.
B
There's
a
senior
position
and
a
junior
position,
the
senior
position
each
of
those
positions
was
created
by
special
state
law
that
was
accepted
then
by
the
city
council
to
create
those
senior
aid
positions.
The
junior
aid
positions
actually
started
as
civil
service
positions,
that
reported
to
the
city,
clerk
and
prior
to
my
time
with
the
city
in
2010.
B
Those
positions
were
converted
to
be
politically
appointed
positions,
so
they
were
actually
created
under
local
home
rule
authority
as
a
classified
position
and
then
were
made
to
be
politically
appointed
positions.
So
today
they
have
two
politically
appointed
aides,
but
the
way
that
both
of
those
positions
were
originally
constituted.
A
And
is
the
c
are:
are
those
positions
still
mandated
by
state
law
or
are?
Are
they
totally
domestic
domesticated?
At
this
point?.
B
They
are
not
mandated
ever,
they
were
permissive,
so
the
state
legislature
gave
the
council
permission
to
have,
and
I
should
point
out
I
mentioned
there
are
two
different
acts
of
the
state
legislature.
The
two
different
laws
created
two
different
positions
and
when
we
over
the
years
accepted
them,
they
were
changed
originally.
The
first
five
positions
that
were
granted
were
to
work
for
the
council
as
a
body
to
do
drafting
research
policy
analysis
and
that
type
of
thing
for
the
body.
A
Okay,
chair
clegg
has
his
hand
up.
F
Thank
you,
based
on
the
discussion
and
and
based
on
the
fact
that
when
we
talk
to
former
elected
officials,
I
think
all
of
the
former
mayors
and
former
council
presidents
on
the
line
seem
to
agree
that
four-year
terms,
concurrent
with
the
mayor,
was
the
way
to
go.
I'm
I'm
persuaded
that
we
should
leave
it
at
four-year
terms.
A
In
other
words,
leave
it,
as
is
correct,
okay.
Well,
let
me
let
me
suggest
at
this
point,
if
there's
any
other
discussion,
I
know
I
know
commissioner
ginder
has
had
some
proposed
edits.
We've
had
a
draft
of
a
possible
amendment
drafted
up
by
brian
melenda,
as
a
former
commission
member
and
somebody
who's
very
talented,
with
drafting-
and
I
know
commissioner
ginder
has
kind
of
looked
at
that
made
some
changes,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
to
at
this
point.
A
A
I
don't
think
we
need
to
get
into
the
minutia
of
particular
drafting
proposals,
because
I
think
we're
going
to
kick
those
drafts
around
still
yet,
but
what
I
would
I
would
hope
that
somebody
could
make
a
motion
at
this
point
that
we
would
approve
initial
proposals,
one
two
three
and
four,
as
they're
drafted
in
in
the
memo
that
we
sent
out
on
january
4th,
and
we
can
use
those
as
a
basis
then
to
to
adopt
a
specific
proposed
amendment.
J
A
All
right,
it's
been
moved
and
seconded
we've
had
some
discussion.
Is
there
any
additional
discussion.
B
E
A
All
right,
we've
adopted
our
initial
proposals
on
one
two,
three
and
four.
Let's
move
now
to
initial
proposal,
five,
which
we
have
been
calling
the
prime
directive,
non-interference
in
administration
and
this
a
number
of
city
charters
have
included
a
provision
like
like
this,
which
essentially
specifically
bars
council
from
interfering
with
the
executive
or
administrative
function
of
the
city.
J
A
Appropriate
commissioner,
chair
clegg
has
your
hand
up.
F
Sorry
I
was
on
mute.
I
would
not
include
this
provision,
it
seems
to
me
to
be
over
draconian
and
likely
to
draw
opposition,
and
you
know
when
I
contact
a
council
member
and
say
I
want
a
stop
sign
at
my
corner.
F
F
A
Go
ahead,
commissioner,.
J
Well,
I
I
I
concur
with
what
commissioner
clegg
is
saying,
but
I
think
then
that
we,
you
know,
I
think,
that's
what
the
311
system
does
and
I
think
that's
why
it
was
put
in
place.
So
so
I
I
think
that
that
is
a
complication
in
this
and
that's
why
I
support
this
moving
forward
for
discussion.
A
Okay,
see
no
one's
hand
up.
Let
me
oh
I've
got
commissioner
cochair
garcia,
go
ahead.
E
Thank
you,
commissioner
abbott.
I
would
also
like
to
speak
against,
including
this
going
forward.
E
I
think
that,
as
we
look
at
what
we're
our
proposals
as
a
whole,
I
think
in
clarifying
that
the
city
council
is
a
let
the
legislative
body
and
making
making
that
line
more
clear
and
that
they
are
the
ones
that
have
legislative
oversight
over
the
entire
city
as
well
as
constituent
relations.
E
The
legislative
and
policy
making
feasibility
and
preparation
when
it
comes
to
working
with
city
departments,
for
example,
in
order
to
improve,
to
propose
an
ordinance
or
to
improve
a
piece
of
either
resolution
even
to
prepare
resolution
or
improve
an
ordinance.
E
It
would
make
sense
for
a
committee
chair
to
engage
that
department,
for
example,
on
how
to
craft
potential
language,
and
I
think
that
I
see
no
reason
to
put
something
in
as
hardline
and
draconian
as
chair
clegg
said.
So
I
think
with
other
changes
that
it
would
that
we
don't
need
anything
necessarily
as
harsh,
but.
D
Yeah
we're
just
going
to
comment
about
that
provision.
I
don't
think
as
written.
It
would
prevent
a
council
member
from
I
guess,
having
discussions
with
apartment
heads.
There's
things
I
don't
like
about
the
duluth
language.
I
think
it
refers
to
a
city
council,
member
ordering
an
employee
to
do
something
and
I
think
that
it
wouldn't
prevent
discussions.
I
work
with
a
lot
of
cities
and
I
sometimes
see
this
as
a
problem.
Obviously
it's
a
lot
smaller
cities.
D
In
most
cases
where
we
have
a
city
council
member
who
is
going
and
telling
an
employee
to
do
something.
When
you
know
most
cases,
the
council
member
doesn't
really
have
that
authority
to
do
that,
and
so
I
guess
I
think
it's
worth
considering
have
some
type
of
provision
I
don't
like.
I
said
I
don't
necessarily
like
the
loose
provision,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
I
would
be
already
at
this
point
to
strike
that
from
our
recommendations.
A
Okay,
commissioner,
ginder
you've
got
your
hand
up.
C
A
That
you've
gone
silent
on
us,
commissioner,
kinder.
A
C
I
would
say
I
tend
to
agree
with
commissioner
smith
on
this.
I
don't
necessarily
agree
with
the
version
that
we
have
in
there.
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
strong,
but
I
think
for
purposes
going
forward
and
for
discussion
with
the
larger
group.
C
I
think
some
idea
of
this
should
move
along
yet
there's
a
difference
between
contacting
somebody
about
a
stop
sign
in
chair
clegg's
example,
and
then
actually
directing
staff
to
do
something
which
is
not
an
unknown
occurrence.
So
I
think
it
still
has
a
should
be
a
placeholder
for
further
discussion
with
a
larger
group.
A
And
let
me
say,
oh
commissioner,
perry's
got
his
hand
up
go
ahead.
Commissioner,
perry.
H
Yes,
I
just
want
to
weigh
in
and
support
commissioner
smith's
comments
on
this,
and,
and
commissioner
ginders,
I
I
think
if,
if
we,
if
we
don't,
have
something
like
this,
it
we
end
up
really
weakening
the
the
line
that
you
all
are
trying
to
draw
between
a
lot
of
a
legislative
branch
and
an
executive
branch.
A
Thanks,
I
was
going
to
say
my
own
opinion
on
this
is,
I
think
the
duluth
provision
is
is
far
too
overwritten,
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
happened
when
we
were
doing
the
interviews
with
the
department
heads
and
then
even
with
the
former
electeds
was
the
number
of
times
that
it
became
apparent.
You
know
people
the
people
in
the
department,
heads
and
the
city
staff.
You
know
frequently
look
at
the
charter
to
figure
out.
You
know
what
the
lines
of
authority
are
and
it
seems
to
me.
A
You
know
I
think
the
debate
here
is,
if
you
go
to
a
legislative
council
executive
mayor
system
and
you've
got
a
system
where
the
mayor's
nominates,
the
the
department
heads
and
and
that
they
serve
at
his
pleasure
in
in
theory,
you've
created
one
chain
of
command.
The
mayor
ought
to
have
in
in
the
inherent
executive
power
to
be
able
to
instruct
department,
heads
and
employees
to
communicate
with
council
in
certain
ways
right.
Presumably
there
ought
to
be
a
standard
memo
that
gets
issued
at
the
beginning
of
every
mayoral
term.
A
Saying
you
know,
this
is
how
you
communicate
with
the
council,
but
I
do
think
there
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
of
standard
expressed.
I
mean
I
would
not.
I
wouldn't
put
it
as
a
prime
directive
or
as
a
binding
legal
document.
I
would
almost
maybe
call
it
the
prime
guideline.
I
guess
where
we
just
have
a
single
sentence,
saying
you
know
that
you
know
it
is
the
intent
of
this
document
that
the
council
not
involved
itself
in
administrative
actions,
something
much
more.
A
I
guess
is
a
function
of
principle
as
opposed
to
a
function
of
you
know
not
a
not
a
rule
which
can
be
enforced.
I
mean,
and
I
really
think
the
whole
misdemeanor
provision
in
the
duluth
charter
is
kind
of
over
the
top.
Apparently
they've
never
had
to
the
duluth
folks
have
never
really
had
that
come
up
so,
but
still,
I
think
even
the
language
is
a
problem,
so
I
I
think
I
would
vote
to
keep
this
as
a
discussion
point.
I
do
think
that
yeah.
A
I
think
the
overall
charter
commission
ought
to
have
a
look
at
this,
and
so
I'm
gonna
I
would
I
would
be
in
support
of
just
including
it
as
part
of
our
as
part
of
our
initial
proposals
at
this
point,
but
I
do
think
this
is
a
debatable
point
and
certainly
I'm
I
think
commissioner
clegg's
point
is
well
taken.
I
think,
however
mild
we
make
this,
it
could
very
well
be
used
as
a
as
a
talking
point
against
the
kind
of
the
overall
concept.
A
So
I
I
think
at
this
point
very
tentatively,
I
would
I
would
support
kind
of
keeping
this
in
the
discussion
at
this
point.
So
if
there's
no
other
discussion,
I
think
a
motion
to
include
this
as
part
of
our
initial
proposals
would
be
in
order
in
a
second.
If
there's
such.
A
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
hearing
no
further
discussion.
I
would
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
on,
including
on
adopting
the
motion.
J
F
E
A
A
Okay-
and
I
do
want
to
stress
that
this
is
all
preliminary-
I
think
we
can
subject
a
revision
down
the
road,
so
we'll
just
keep
talking
about
it.
A
little
bit
item
number
six
on
our
a
list
of
initial
proposals
is
the
line
item
veto
the
our
discussions
with
some
other
cities
in
our
analysis
of
other
charters.
A
It's
very
common
in
state
and
local
government
to
have
a
line
item
veto,
it's
not
something
that
we've
ever
had
in
minneapolis
and
we
thought
we
should
at
least
discuss
whether
we
should
include
this
in
our
initial
proposals
or
not.
I
guess
I'm
open
to
discussion
at
this
point.
Commissioner
perry.
You
have
your
hand
up.
H
Yes,
I
just
want
to
get
clarification
on
this
line.
Item
veto.
Would
the
same
rules
apply
in
overriding
a
veto
that
would
apply
today
in
the
mayor's
ability
or
the
council's
ability
to
override
a
veto.
C
Yes,
I
would
be
opposed
to
the
line
item
veto.
I
think
it
kind
of
runs
counter
to
the
idea
of
the
mayor
and
the
city
council
jointly
proposing
both
policy
and
the
budget,
and
so
I
think
it
forces
everybody
to
work
together
a
little
bit
better
than
if
you
just
give
the
mayor
the
line
item
veto.
So
I
guess
I
would
be
generally
opposed
to
it.
A
Okay,
chair
clegg,
you
have
your
hand
up.
F
Yes,
thank
you.
I
agree
with
commissioner
ginder.
I
would
also
like
to
point
out
that
the
line
item
veto
only
applies
to
finance
proposals
so
budgets,
for
example,
where
the
mayor
could
veto
a
specific
allocation
for
a
specific
purpose.
It
doesn't
apply
to
other
ordinances
dealing
with
policy
other
than
the
budget.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear
to
everyone-
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
ginder
and
I'm
also
persuaded
by
the
former
mayors
that
we
talked
to
in
our
discussions
who
sort
of
shrugged
and
said
they
really
didn't.
F
Think
a
line-item
veto
was
necessary
that
they
thought
the
general
veto
was
enough
of
authority
to
ensure
cooperation
between
the
mayor
and
the
council.
Thank
you.
E
I
would
also
like
to
oppose
this
this
proposal.
I
think
what
really
impressed
was
impressed
upon
me
was
the
former
council
presidents
that
we
talked
to
and
they
talked
about.
The
intention
behind
the
whole
budget
process
was
to
come
together
and
compromise
and
talk
about
the
good
of
the
city
as
a
whole
and
I
think,
being
able
to
strike
a
line
item
veto
kind
of.
A
I
would
only
add
my
own
comments.
I
I
agree
with
the
discussion
so
far.
I
agree
with
my
co-chair
and
with
chair
clegg.
I
think
it's
it's
an
interesting
idea.
I
almost
feel
like
it
should
be
its
own
charter
amendment
proposal
and
if
the
public
wanted
it
separately,
I
think
that
would
be
a
different
story,
but
but
I
think
it's
part
of
this
proposal.
I
think
it's
it's
it's
it's
not
necessary.
A
A
When
we
talked
to
the
former
elected
officials,
there
was
really
just
kind
of
a
collective
shrug
of
their
shoulders
about
the
kind
of
the
line
item,
veto
concept
so
and
I
think,
as
I've
said
before,
I
think
we
ought
to
narrowly
tailor
our
proposed
amendment
to
the
issues
that
we
have
in
front
of
us,
and
I
think
the
issue
we
have
in
front
of
us
is
the
14
boss
problem
and-
and
I
think
the
line
item
veto,
whether
whether
whether
it's
whatever
it's
merits
pro
or
con,
I
don't
think
it
addresses
the
14
boss
problem.
A
So
I
think,
for
this
purposes,
I
think
it's
extraneous
and
should
be
should
be
excluded.
So
is
there
any
other
discussion
hearing
none?
I
think
a
motion
to
I
think
the
the
procedural
form
here
would
be
to
move
to
include
line
item
veto
as
part
of
our
initial
proposals
and
a
vote,
I
would
be
to
include
it
and
a
vote
in
a
would
be
to
exclude
it.
I
would,
I
think,
a
motion
in
a
second,
for
that
would
be
an
order
at
this
point.
A
A
C
A
Okay,
it's
been
moved
and
seconded
in
the
absence
of
any
other
discussion.
I'd
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
on
emotion.
A
I
would
ask
for
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
on
the
motion
to
exclude
the
line
item
veto
for
our
initial
proposals.
B
A
The
motion
passes
and
the
line
item
veto
is
therefore
excluded
from
our
initial
proposals
at
this
time.
So
that
is
very
helpful
and
I
think
that
gives
us
a
a
really
solid
basis
to
proceed
with
some
drafting.
There
is
one
I
would.
I
think
we
should
have
some
discussion
too
about
one
topic
we
haven't
really
raised
yet,
which
is
the
implementation
date
of
our
of
any
proposed
amendment.
If,
in
fact,
it's
adopted
by
the
voters
at
the
election
co-chair
garcia,
you
have
your
hand
up.
E
Upon
taking
a
look
at
our
kind
of
the
direction,
we're
moving
to
clarify
the
line
between
executive
mayor
and
legislative
council
and
kind
of
strengthen
the
council
in
the
areas
in
which
it
functions,
namely
making
and
constituent
relations
and
then
looking
at
the
charter
ballot
questions
that
were
passed.
This
recent
election,
specifically
around
redistricting
and
having
a
couple
of
municipal
elections
conducted
every
two
years.
E
E
So
that
way
as
council
members
and
candidates
for
mayor
run
for
office,
they
know
what
they're
gonna
they're
aware
of
these
changes
for
their
platform
and
how
they
want
to
conduct
their
campaign
on
behalf
of
the
city,
and
it
just
makes
sense
to
do
some.
Intentional
planning
and
allow
that
time
frame
for
the
city
and
the
city
staff
to
look
at
this
and
put
their
ducks
in
a
row
going
forward.
A
Thank
you
I
was,
I
was
going
to
say
we
I
mean
there
are
really
only.
I
think
three
possible
dates
that
we
could.
You
know
this
could
be
implemented
if,
in
fact,
the
voters
approved
this
in
november
of
2021,
which
would
be
immediately
essentially
effective
january
1,
2022
january
1
2024,
which
is
immediately
after
the
23.
C
A
Know
special
election
and
then
january
22
26,
immediately
after
the
the
next
general
election
in
2025,
and
I
think
I
and
I
agree
with
co-chair
garcia.
I
think
the
I
think
that
there
needs
to
be
a
transition
period.
I
think
we
should
take
this
opportunity
for
a
special
counsel
election
in
23,
for
people
to
run
under
the
new
system
that
they're
going
to
be
accountable
for
and
yeah,
but
I
do
think
I
think
waiting
until
after
the
2025
election
is
too
long.
A
I
mean
that
functionally
would
be
five
years
from
now
before
before
it
actually
kicks
in.
I
just
think
that's
given
the
situation
we're
addressing.
I
think
I
think
that's
too
long,
so
we
don't,
I
don't
think,
there's
an
emotion
in
in
order
right
now.
I
just
wanted
to
flag
the
issue
because
we
will
have
to
at
some
point
when
we
write
a
report
to
the
overall
commission.
A
I
think,
have
to
address
the
issue
of
effective
implementation
date,
and
I
thought
I
would
just
flag
that
for
everyone
to
consider.
At
this
point
I
mean,
if
there's
other,
if
there's,
if
there's
other
discussion
about
implementation,
dates
right
now,
I'm
happy
to
entertain
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
put
that
out
on
the
floor
and
have
people
think
about
it,
because
we
are
going
to
have
to
at
some
point
resolve
that
I
have
to
make
that
decision.
A
A
I
should
say:
is
there
any
discussion
about
a
specific
language
that
may
or
may
not
be
included?
We're
obviously
going
to
have
a
continuing
discussion
about
this.
So
this
is
not
a
you
know.
You're,
obviously
going
to
have
some
ability
to
have
further
feedback
in
in
future
meetings.
I
think
the
concept
is
we're
going
to
have
a
meeting
next
week
where
we
have
additional
cities
that
are
going
to
testify.
A
A
If
we
can
get
that
organized
and
certainly
we'll
have,
I
suspect,
we'll
have
you
know-
maybe
a
chair
can
put
in
his
two
cents
here
in
terms
of
like
the
overall
commission
schedule,
but
I
think
we're
going
to
have
another
meeting
to
finalize
our
our
draft
report
and
our
report
for
the
overall
commission,
and
I
think
we
can
include
at
that
point-
maybe
a
text
of
the
draft
amendment,
but
I
think
the
charter
commission
as
a
whole,
I
think,
is
going
to
have
their
input
on
that.
A
F
Thank
you.
What
I'd
like
to
see
is:
is
this
group
forward
its
recommendation
of
the
points
that
were
adopted
and
move
forward
tonight
to
the
charter
commission
at
its
february
meeting
and
then
work
with?
F
Can
this
group
continue
to
work
with
former
commissioner
melendez
commissioner
ginder
and
others
who
wish
to
participate
and
review
specific
language
for
the
proposal?
But
what
I
would
see
for
the
february
charter
commission
meeting
is
a
proposal
by
the
work
group
to
move
forward
with
an
amendment
based
on
the
points
that
were
adopted
tonight.
A
Okay,
and
then
is
your-
is
your
concept
that
we
would
have
our
report
ready
at
that
time
or
do
you
think
we
should
take
maybe
another
week
or
two
and
get
a
formal
report
up
to
the
charter
commission.
A
No,
I
mean
like,
like
a
report
similar
to
what
the
public
safety
work
group
did.
You
know,
with
kind
of
an
overall
document
kind
of
assessing
what
we've,
what
we've
considered
and
what
our
recommendations
are.
F
I
think
a
summary
report
by
the
february
meeting
would
be
great
and
it
would
be
the
report
of
the
work
group
and
if,
as
we
expect,
the
charter
commission
would
would
adopt
that
or
approve
it.
It
would
then
become
the
report
of
the
commission.
A
Seeing
no
further
discussion,
I
believe
that
concludes
all
the
business
that
we
have
on
the
agenda
unless
there's
any
any
business
or
any
further
discussion
that
a
commissioner
might
have.
B
Mr
chair,
it's
casey,
clearly
not
I'm
a
commissioner,
but
just
for
for
the
entire
work
group,
the
charter
commissioners
as
a
whole
and
the
public
who
may
be
watching
as
you're
talking
about
meetings.
I
was
going
to
try
and
get
recognized
to
say.
The
next
meeting
of
this
group
is,
of
course,
next
tuesday,
which
is
january
19th
at
our
regular
time,
4
30,
and
at
that
time
we
anticipate
having
presentations
about
government
structure
from
the
other
two
first-class
cities.
B
We've
heard
from
duluth,
we'll
hear
from
st
paul
and
from
rochester
next
tuesday
night
and
then,
of
course,
chair
clegg
has
just
indicated
a
report
to
the
full
charter
commission
at
its
regular
meeting,
which
is
wednesday
february
3rd
at
4
o'clock.
So
for
those
commissioners
and
members
of
the
public
who
aren't,
maybe
members
of
the
work
group
sort
of
that
sequencing
of
time.
A
Well,
I
guess
that
raises
the
question
of:
should
we
schedule
a
meeting
for
tuesday
february
2nd,
or
should
we
try
and
get
our
preliminary
report
done
at
the
end
of
the
19th
meeting,
which
I
think
given
given
how
long
some
of
these
interviews
have
gone?
I
think
that
might
be
a
bit
a
bit
ambitious
in
terms
of
overall
time,
commissioner
co-chair
garcia.
E
Yes,
well,
I
think
what
our
preliminary
report
is
is
simply
getting
back
to
the
full
charter
commission
at
their
february
meeting
about
which
of
the
these
proposals
we
talked
about
now
that
we're
going
to
go
forward
with.
I
that's
simply
it.
I
don't
think
it's
anything
formal
or
prepared,
or
necessarily
in
writing.
Since
our
meeting
notes,
our
meeting
minutes
will
capture
what
we
report
back
from
the
outcome
of
this
meeting.
A
Okay,
well,
what
I,
what
I
would
suggest,
then,
is
perhaps
we'll
just
redraft
the
memo
that
we
did
on
january,
4th
to
reflect
the
outcome
of
today's
votes
and
and
that
just
would
then
be
a
summary
of
our
proposals
as
opposed
to
initial
proposals,
and
then
we
can-
and
we
can
forward
that
directly
to
the
overall
commission
without
doing
a
separate
meeting
and
we'll
have
that
draft.
I
guess
we'll
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
the
19th.
A
A
All
right,
I
think,
we've
concluded
our
business
for
the
day
and
I
I
would
argue
that
without
objection
we
will
stand
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everyone,
productive
meeting.