►
Description
View Marked Agenda
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/MarkedAgenda/Charter-RAMS/2398
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
The
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
meeting's
website
and
you
enter
its
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
B
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
minnesota
open
meeting
wall.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
andy
kozak
and
I
am
one
of
the
co-chairs
of
the
charter
commission's
redistricting
advisory
member
selection.
Work
group
I'll
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
E
B
F
E
B
B
F
E
B
E
B
D
F
B
G
Can
we
yes
thank
you?
Can
we
go
back
up
to
the
first
page,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
the
question
regarding
election
judge
work
in
that
final
box
there,
the
yes
or
no
section
it
does
say
during
the
period
have
you
been
or
will
you
be
and
there's
some
spacing
problems
there
as
well?
That
need
to
be
corrected,
but
that
bottom
question
does
say
an
employee
of
minneapolis
city
government
other
than
as
an
election
judge.
Does
that
suffice
or
do
we
need
do
chair
clegg?
Do
you
have
an
opinion?
E
G
H
H
B
B
I
I
I
just
noticed
that,
just
with
the
track
changes,
there's
two
questions
see
where
there's
a
at
the
very
top
there's
a
lot
of
a
small
print
and
at
the
very
end
of
that
small
print,
it
says:
are
you
able
to
devote
the
time
required
for
participation
on
the
advisory
group?
That's
a
separate
question
that
should
be
in
a
separate
box.
I
think
just
with
the
track
changes
that
just
came
out
that
way.
So
that's
intended
to
be
a
separate
question
with
a
yes
or
no.
F
G
J
H
H
B
I
I
that
sounds
that
sounds
reasonable.
What
about
anybody
else
have
a
comment?
I'm
not
I'm
sorry,
but
I
don't
know
so
I
think
whoever
is
964,
I
think
blinked
but
nobody's
linking
now.
Anybody
have
any
comments
on
what
ms
kendrick
is
suggesting,
suggesting,
if
not
we'll
ask
that
that
without
objection,
we'll
ask
that
be
put
in.
B
G
B
D
H
H
H
B
B
B
Suggest
reply,
however,
strongly
that
you
have
to
be
one
of
the
diverse
groups
in
order
to
be
seriously
considered
for
for
for
the
for
the
group,
and
so
that's
what
we,
but
we
wanted
to
express
some
way
of
saying
that
we
wanted
to
understand
the
the
screening
process
we
wanted
to
be
through
the
screening
process.
We
wanted
to
be
able
to
to
discern
that
people
did
have
breadth
and
depth
of
understanding
of
diversity
and
and
how
important
it
was
to
the
process,
but
take
a
look
at
it.
F
F
B
A
Mr
chair,
I'm
sorry
I
wasn't
immediately
responsive
I'm
looking
up
in
the
commission's
rules
itself
for
definitions,
but
the
general
description
you
gave
is
correct.
An
excused
absence
is
where
a
member
has
given
advanced
notice
prior
to
the
meeting
that
they
cannot
attend
versus
an
unexcused
absence
where
there
was
no
such
contact.
B
B
I
I
I
B
J
K
From
the
rules
work
group,
I
would
just
say
we
were
going
to
when
we
discussed
this
in
the
rules
work
group.
We
were
going
to
use
the
rule
for
unexcused
an
excuse
that
was
applicable
to
the
to
the
charter
commission
at
large,
and
so
I
think
the
suggestion
of
putting
in
inserting
rule
two
1.,
2.1.6
and
7
is
makes
sense
to
me.
B
G
B
B
J
B
B
H
H
H
D
Oh,
this
is
jill
garcia.
I
just
wanted
to
just
further
add
that
I
think
our
intention
was
to
say
you're
on
this
group,
because
you
understand
the
importance
of
diversity
as
it
relates
to
the
city,
and
we
want
you
on
this
group
to
articulate
that
and
to
so
you
don't
have
to
be
a
member
of
a
diverse
community,
but
if
you
are
whatever
the
unique
array
of
diversity,
it
is
that
you
have
and
that
you
bring
that
we
want
on
this
group.
B
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
that's
what
we
tried
to
get
at
and
and
I'll
take
the
some
of
the
blame
for
it's
not
a
very
artful
way.
We
put
it
and
I
think,
but
I
think
commissioner
garcia
explains
exactly
what
we
were
trying
to
get
at.
You
don't
have
to
be
one
of
this
group,
but
you
have
to
be
able
to.
We
hope
you
can
demonstrate
that
the
concerns
that
she
outlined,
ms
kendrick,
how
does
that
square
with
what
you're
trying
to
do.
H
I
just
to
ensure
that
it's
presented
appropriately
is
to
make
sure
that
the
language
we're
using
is
about
task
drivens,
especially
since
this
is
a
job
description
about
what
you're
expected
to
bring
and
do
versus
about
versus
language.
That
points
to
how
someone
identifies,
especially
since
we're
looking
for
folks
who
understand
across
the
board
how
important
it
is
to
really
take
into
consideration
all
of
the
domains
of
community
into
perspective.
When
they're
talking
about
redrawing.
B
Right
and
that's
what
we
tried
to
do,
because
the
original
language
kind
of
implied
that
it
did
imply
that
you
should
be
a
member
of
one
of
these
one
of
the
groups,
the
enumerated
groups,
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
know
you
didn't
have
to
be
a
member
of
the
group
in
order
to
to
be
considered.
So
that's,
I
think,
we're
we're
getting
close,
but
I
have
who
is
cb.
I'm
sorry!
That's
mr.
J
L
That
that's
okay,
you're,
fine!
I
I
understand
what
ms
kendrick
is
saying,
but
I
think
what
the
purpose,
what
you
are
trying
to
get
at
is
to
demonstrate
the
depth
and
breadth
of
understanding
the
importance
of
the
city's
diversity
in
the
redistricting
process.
It's
not
just
geographic,
that's
just
a
tiny
part
of
it
and,
in
fact
it's
more
true
for
wards,
I
believe
than
it
for
park
districts
than
is
for
wards,
but
and
again,
you're.
Absolutely
right,
though,
this
was
never
about
this,
a
person's
specific
characteristics.
L
H
Yeah,
well,
that
would
be
the
original
statement.
I'm
only
I'm
not
married
to
anything,
so
I'm
only
making
suggestions
and
I
will
be
completely
transparent
when
it
comes
to
the
whole
redistricting
process.
I'm
I'm
just
I'm
still
myself
understanding
what
that
whole
process
is
so
if
it's
not
specific
to
the
city's
as
we're
drawing
boundary
lines
and
thinking
about
what
that
particular
community
is,
which
is
why
I
inserted
geographic
if
you're.
L
Oh
that
was
before
I
would.
I
made
an
early
suggestion
that
I
just
that's
fine,
I
think
on
this
one.
It
was
there's
a
slight
language
shift,
that's
a
little
bit
different
and
it
may
be
important
or
not,
but
it
was
demonstrate
depth
and
breadth
of
understanding
the
importance
of
the
city's
diversity
in
the
redistricting
process.
It's
a
little
bit
different
than
what
the
original
language
above
and
maybe
it's
not
an
improvement.
L
I
I
leave
that
to
your
committee
members,
but
but
the
idea
was
that
the
whole
range
of
diversity
again,
not
who
you
are,
but
what
you
understand
your
experiences
and
so
forth
are
important
and
that
we
acknowledge
the
importance
of
diversity
of
many
different
whatevers
right.
I'm
not.
I
am
not
articulate
today.
I'm
sorry.
D
D
B
B
Maybe
we
could
work
with
that.
Geography
and
community
of
interest
are,
are
the
factors
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
diversity
is
a
ingredient,
as
we
make
decisions
on
the
basis
of
community
of
interest
in
geography,
because
you
know
that's
really
what
we
as
a
practical
matter.
That's
really
what
we
do.
We
look
at
the
geography,
the
demography
and
the
community,
and
community
of
interest
was
always
a.
B
D
B
I
I
E
I
Want
to
we
have
to
watch
things
like
we
don't
want
to
pack
them
so
that
they
lose
more
voter
power
or
crack
them
so
that
they
don't
have
any
voting
power.
So
there
are
so
many
things
that
we
have
to
look
at,
so
I
don't
think
we
should
get
too
detailed.
I
did
like
what
jan
said.
The
other
thing
we
could
do
is
we
could
follow
what
we,
the
change,
that
we
made
in
the
application
and
say
just
help,
bring
a
diverse
perspective
when
engaging
in
the
work
of
the
redistricting
group.
G
B
B
B
Exercise,
I
guess
awareness
is
not
something
you
exercise,
but
I
think
we're
getting
there.
Let
me
suggest
this,
commissioner.
Hawkins
is
correct
in
her
her
observation
that
we're
probably
overthinking
this,
but
if
ms
weber
and
commissioner
garcia
and
I
can
visit
before
the
next
meeting,
let
us,
let's
we'll,
come
up
with
something
that
I
think
maybe
everybody
can
go
along
with
and
we
can
deal
with
it
at
the
next
meeting.
Okay,
does
that
make
sense.
E
E
A
Comment,
the
only
comment,
mr
I'm
sorry,
mr
chair,
it's
casey.
The
only
comment
I
would
add
is
to
tie
back
to
what
your
attorney
ms
bashun
had
said
earlier,
and
I
think
ms
weber
had
noticed
this,
because
a
desired
qualification
or
quality
of
the
people
selected
is
to
demonstrate
that
deep
personal
awareness
and
appreciation
this
more
task-oriented
focus
connects
both
the
duty
of
the
member
and
the
qualifications
that
you're
seeking.
So
I
think
that
makes
a
nice
package
together.
B
H
B
G
I
Oh,
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
one
thing
that
for
sure
we
have
to
look
at
is
the
whether
somebody
should
be
able
to
nominate
others
for
consideration
where
we
then
send
an
application
out
to
that
person.
So
you
can
continue
looking
at
the
rest,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you,
at
a
minimum
cover.
I
I
J
I
Miscalculated
that
later
that
when
we
started
working
on
like
nicole
and
casey
and
I
started
working
on
or
nicole-
and
I
worked
on
this
document-
and
it's
actually
we
we
have
to
be
done
by
like
march
29th
unless
there's
some
other
weird
issues
that
come
up,
so
that
really
should
be
april.
First,
that's
my
mistake.
I
B
B
G
A
L
You
I
sorry
I
missed
this
point
before
I
absolutely
strongly
feel
that
it
should
people
have
to
nominate
themselves.
I,
if
they're
not
interested
enough
to
fill
out
an
application.
They
can
certainly
be
told
by
somebody
about
the
process,
but
they
should
fill
out
their
own
application.
If
that's
what
that
means.
Otherwise,
I
think
you
could
be
opening
up
a
world
of
hurt
for
the
advisory
group.
That's
just
what
I
think,
though,.
B
G
Carol
brought
it
to
my
attention
that
it
is
listed
in
here
that
applicants
could
contact
ncr
for
information
on
where
to
find
their
local
organization
where
they
could
obtain
copies
of
the
application,
and
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
okay.
To
put
because
I
part
of
me
is
afraid
I
don't
want
people
to
reach
out
with
questions
about
the
application
for
ncr.
G
H
I
Yes,
commissioner
kozak,
this
is
carol
bushoon
again
yeah.
We
just
need
to
remove
see
my
suggestions
above
application
process
that
pic
and
that
paragraph
under
there.
I
think
that's
all
taken
care
of
above
okay
right,
I
mean
nicole,
can
I
mean
the
under
there's
another
section
that
says
application
process
and
it
lays
out
various
links
and
that's
the
one
that
nicole
just
talked
about
too.
So
I
think
that
paragraph
should
be
removed
unless
somebody
else
has
an
issue
with
that.
I
Yeah
I
just
I
just
noticed
that,
actually
you
can
get
them
in
person.
We
didn't
put
that
under
the
application
process.
Above
so
maybe
maybe
you
can
no,
no
the
paragraph
above
that
see
application
process.
It
doesn't
say
that
you
can
get
an
application
from
room,
304
city
hall.
I
just
suggest
that
you
know.
Maybe
you
can
work
with
the
two
chairs
and
just
make
sure
that
you
have
everything
in
one
place
that
includes
you
know
physically
going
into
room
304
city
hall,.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
D
H
L
Oh
yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
say,
I
think
what
you
mean
in
the
in
the
first
bullet
is
not
all
eligible.
Applicants
must
be
interviewed,
clearly
you're
not
going
to
interview
the
ineligible
ones
and
last
time
we
had
yes
because
of
the
election
judge
issue,
we
had
a
number
of
ineligible
applications,
but
it
sounds
like
what
you're
saying
is,
even
if
someone's
eligible
you
may
not
interview
all
of
them.
L
J
I
Carol,
I'm
sorry.
I
was
going
to
just
talk
about
one
other
one
other
issue.
I
I
suggest
that
the
chairs
and
nicole
just
go
over
in
a
the
eligibility
it
talks
about
when
you
answer
yes
or
no
to
different
questions
and
whether
it's
you're
no
longer
eligible,
I
would
suggest
that
you
look
at
those
I
was
looking
at.
I
think
that's
there's
some
errors
in
that
when
I'm
looking
at
the
application,
so
you
can
just
revise
that
when
you
two
meet
when
you
three
meet.
J
D
D
There's
the
competencies
and
the
interview,
questions,
and
one
thing
I
propose
is
literally
having
an
evaluation
score
sheet
that
I
have
a
draft
of,
and
I've
been
in
process
of
drafting
where
we
can.
Actually,
it
would
be
an
excel
spreadsheet,
where
we
would
actually
have
a
guide.
That
says
this
is
what
number
one
through
ten.
D
This
is
what
this
is.
What
needs
to
be
said,
if
you
score
number
ten,
and
then
this
is
what
would
qualify
as
a
number
two,
for
example,
and
then
we
have
a
excel
spreadsheet,
where
we
can
wait
the
questions,
perhaps
in
order
of
importance
and
then
assign
a
number
to
each
and
have
comments
at
the
bottom
and
this.
B
I
think
let
me
give
our
our
our
city
attorney
carol.
Rashoon,
give
her
a
chance
to
think
about
what
you're
suggesting
to
see
what
kind
of
legal
implications
you
mentioned:
freedom
of
information
act,
but
any
kind
of
data,
privacy
or
any
kind
of
issues
that
having
a
scoresheet
a
documentation
of
how
we
decided,
if
that's
got
any
legal
implications.
H
I
just
want
to
say
I
fully
support
that,
and
it
was
a
recommendation
I
put
forward
whenever
we,
whenever
we
put
together.
Committees
such
as
this,
we
typically
do
have
a
pretty
transparent,
outlining
of
how
selection
is
made,
whether
it's
joining
an
advisory
committee
such
as
this,
or
whether
it's
who
gets
funding
or
other
support
through
the
city
etc.
So
I
I
highly
recommend
that
the
the
redistricting
group
or
the
charter
committee
here
consider
putting
together
criteria
on
how
they're
selecting
the
applicants.
B
D
D
Answers
will
be
rated
on
a
scale
of
one
to
ten
and
if
we
do
weight
them
differently,
which
we
really
don't
have
to,
because
that
might
get
us
into
having
to
explain
why
we
weighted
things
differently,
have
a
little
chart
that
says
you
know.
This
is
how
many
questions
we
are.
We
have
if
we
give
x
number
of
points
to
each
one.
I
Commissioner
kozak
we
we
do
have
an
hr
department
that
works
on
assisting
with
hiring
and
they
may
be
able
to
give
their
opinion
on
some
of
this
it.
It
does
make
sense
to
know
how
you're
going
to
score
as
far
as
the
data
practices
act.
There
are
statutes
that
deal
with
you
know,
what's
public
and
what
what's
not
public
when
you're
scoring
an
individual,
so
that's
under
minnesota
statutes,
13.43
and
13.34.
G
G
Yes,
thank
you,
ms
bishoon.
After
you
had
encouraged
me
to
reach
out
to
hr
for
this,
I
have
been
in
contact
with
them.
They
have
responded
to
me
to
say,
they'd,
be
happy
to
review
the
documents.
I've
sent
them
our
previous
drafts
and
I'm
going
to
be
sending
them
drafts
after
our
meeting
wraps
today,
and
they
are
planning
to
get
back
to
us
with
their
recommendations
and
opinion
by
next
tuesday.
D
D
D
The
group
of
interviewers
needs
to
be
unified.
They
need
to
have
the
message
they'll
go
through.
You
know
a
little
training
and
those
who
are
not
part
of
the
interview
team,
even
though
they
may
be
jumping
at
the
bid
to
participate
that
it
be
clear
that
they
are
observers,
and
then
we
also
don't
want
participants,
perhaps
seeing
their
name
or
seeing
their
picture
and
getting
the
impression
that
they
will
weigh
in
at
all.
L
I'm
sorry
I'm
talking
so
much
today,
so
I
just
want
to
make
it
be
clear
to
myself
so
you're
going
to
have
all
the
applications
will
go
through
casey's
office
to
clear
out
the
ones
who
are
clearly
ineligible,
okay,
and
there
will
be
a
few,
I'm
sure.
So
then,
will
you
have
a
set
of
criteria
to
decide
so
that
you
can
do
a
paper
review
on
the
applications
to
decide
who
to
interview
and
will
you
are
you
considering
having?
L
We
will
consider
interviewing
at
least
30
people
or
some
kind
of
number
out
there,
or
is
it
just
going
to
be
we're
going
to
go
through
and
pick
the
ones
that
kind
of
fit
our
set
and
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
that
would
work?
Then
it
sounds
like
of
those
you
choose
to
interview
and
I
think
last
time
we
interviewed
21
people.
L
Would
you
have
a
refined
version
of
your
checklist
to
use
to
decide
how
to
rank
those
applicants
or
something
similar
for
your
final
committee
decision
and
I'm
no,
commissioner,
garcia,
has
that
idea.
My
second
question
is:
is
it
likely
that
there
will
still
be
a
remote
meeting
requirement
this
summer?
If
there
is,
there
could
be
actually
allow
some
in
person
but
with
a
limit
of
say,
15
or
20,
which
creates
a
whole
other
issue?
So
then,
would
you
have
teams
as
an
option
and
do
a
part
to
a
hybrid?
B
B
B
As
for
the
first
question,
I
think
when
we,
when
we
would
sit
down
to
decide
how
many
we're
going
to
interview,
maybe
come
up
with
a
a
provisional
target,
but
all
the
but
all
of
a
sudden.
If
we
have
a
bunch
of
applicants
that
we
kind
of
like
we
like
because
of
the
criteria,
we
might
be
we'll
be
flexible.
D
D
But
then
again
that
may
be
difficult
to
say.
I
would
suggest,
as
part
of
consulting
with
hr
hr
score
process
should
be
such
that
you
can
take
the
application
in
the
scoring
process.
Just
like
you
do
a
cover
letter
and
a
resume
in
the
scoring
process
and
compare
those
head-to-head,
and
we
can
do
that
as
a
way
to
identify
the
top
scores
and
then
conduct
the
interviews
with
those
folks
which
will
pretty
much
be
the
same
questions.
D
Will
you
serve
in
a
nonpartisan,
non-partisan
basis
and
what
which
there's
a
number
of
reasons
that
face
to
face,
or,
albeit
virtual
interviews,
take
place
so
that
that's
what
my
my
take
would
be
first
to
yes
or
no's,
and
determine
eligibility
on
that
then
take
what
they
submitted
in
writing
in
a
simple
score
sheet
in
writing.
Compare
those
and
then
from
those
take
people
to
interview.
D
B
H
B
Okay,
let
me
answer
your
first
question
or
give
me
a
tentative
answer
and
I'll
defer
to
our
clerk,
mr
carl,
or
to
carol
bashoon.
I
recall
back
in
1981,
getting
interviewed
by
the
charter.
Commission,
that's
how
I
got
on
the
the
original
reapportionment
commission
and
we
were
all
in
the
interviews-
were
live
down
at
city
hall
and
they
were
all
open
to
the
public
and
what
carol?
What
do
you.
I
Think,
commissioner,
kozak
typically
when
the
city
does
interview
individuals,
it
is
not
open
to
the
public
and
also
when
they're
they
are
scoring
sheets
or
discussing
applicants
to
determine
who
they
will
interview.
That
is
not
open
to
the
public,
and
so
I
would
suggest
that
maybe
those
are
issues
that
you
could
discuss
with
the
hr
staff
to
see.
If
that's
advisable,
I
mean
I
I
would,
I
think,
a
lot
of
information
that
is
not
public
would
be
discussed
in
the
interview
and
also
during
the
scoring
process.
I
So
I
don't
know
that
there's
a
statute
that
requires
these
to
be
open
to
the
public.
Therefore,
it
might
be
best
to
not
have
them
open
to
the
public,
but
I
think
that's
a
good.
Those
are
good
questions
for
the
hr
staff
that
could
assist
you
and
that
might
be
a
good
meeting
between
the
two
chairs
and
nicole
and
the
hr
staff.
B
J
K
B
B
G
I
think
the
reason
this
was
listed
as
an
agenda
item
was
chair.
Garcia's
thought
that,
because
the
rules
and
procedures
do
have
elements
that
pertain
to
what
the
advisory
selection
work
group
is
doing,
it's
good
to
go
through
those
items
just
for
transparency
for
the
public
to
follow
and
connect
those
dots
if
they're
not
attending
both
or
viewing
both
both
types
of
meetings
between
the
rules
meetings
and
these
meetings.