►
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
C
D
E
B
B
C
E
C
B
C
E
E
B
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
item
4,
which
is
considering
a
potential
amendment
to
eliminate
the
part
board,
which
was
submitted
by
jeremy,
bergerson
and
you'll
notice
on
the
agenda
that
came
out
that
there
is
a
link
to
or
an
attachment
of
that
proposal
to
amend
the
part
board
with
that.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
this
matter
at
this.
B
E
And
that
is
literally
an
eye
blink
in
time
in
charter
time,
so
we've
considered
this
matter
very
recently
and
concluded
at
that
time,
not
to
put
it
on
the
ballot
after
extensive
testimony
was
received
from
the
public
absent
a
significant
change
or
overwhelming
community
demand
for
something
like
this.
I
think
it's
it's
premature
to
consider
this
without
additional
community
input
and
until
we
have
more
of
an
idea
about
what
the
community
wants,
rather
than
than
one
or
two
proposers,
so
I
I
would
not
support
recommending
public
hearings
on
this
matter.
B
Our
options
are,
we
could
move
forward
with
some
kind
of
exploration
of
this
idea,
which
would
could
include
holding
a
public
hearing.
It
could
include
directing
the
committee
to
do
further
evaluation
of
this.
We
could
table
it
indefinitely.
We
could
table
it
to
a
later
time,
for
example,
as
we
did,
we
had
the
amendment
for
the
board
of
them.
B
F
F
So
I
would,
I
would
move
to
table
it
and
maybe
not
I'm
trying
to
think
of
indefinitely
or
until
next
year,
but
I
would
move
to
table
it
and
if,
if
some
commissioners
want
to
take
it
from
the
table,
they
can
they're
free
to
make
that
motion
anytime
so
that
I
think
that's
what
I'll
I'll
leave
it
at.
I'm
I'll
I'll.
Just
move
the
table
to
table
this
item.
D
D
In
addition,
I
would
think
that
mr
bergerson
should
have
a
chance
to
respond
to
the
memo
that
we
received.
I
think
yesterday
from
the
park
board
and
also
I
agree
with
commissioner
kozak-
that
we've
already
got
way
too
much
on
the
ballot
now
in
terms
of
the
charter
and
would
much
prefer
waiting
until
after
the
election.
B
B
B
F
C
E
E
B
Okay,
next
item
or
that
that
matter
passes
so
that
it
is
tabled.
The
next
item
is
item.
Five,
which
is
contin,
is
considering
a
potential
amendment
to
allow
for
recall
of
the
election
of
public
officials,
and
I
would
just
notice
him
before
this
is
again
something
that
comes
in
front
of
us
from
it
appears
to
be
just
a
single
person
with
that.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
this
matter.
E
B
Chair
clay,
my
understanding
of
this-
and
I
know
we
have
the
city
attorney-
is
listening
into
this,
but
my
understanding
of
this
that
we
would
be
free
to
set
the
parameters
of
the
what
would
constitute
a
recall
how
the
process
would
work.
So
I've
seen
a
few
of
the
recall
ordinances
or
charters
charter,
amendments
and
charter
sections,
as
well
as
the
ordinances
implementing
that
in
several
cities
and
they're
quite
varied.
B
G
The
recall
is
under
the
same
statute
for
10.20,
as
we
are
using
to
review
the
the
initiative,
the
voter
initiative
for
the
public
safety
department.
I've
done
some
research
on
that
there
is.
There
is
no
specific
provision
in
that
statute.
That
says
what
the
percentage
should
be.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
you
know
that's
one
thing
I
looked
at
when
when
I
was
helping
draft
the
language.
What
should
the
percentage
be
for
the
initiative?
It's
the
same
statute.
G
E
E
F
I
I
apologize
if
I
have
for
not
having
read
the
amendment,
but
first
of
all
I
would
ask
the
city
attorney
carol.
If,
if,
in
fact,
what
constraints
do
we
have
from
state
law,
I
remember
I
was
actually
remembered
the
debate
from.
I
don't
know.
10
15
years
ago,
when,
when
the
legislature
passed,
a
law
dealing
with
recounts
or
a
recall,
are
there
constraints
on
what
we're
allowed
to
do
for
grounds
and
so.
G
F
Okay,
well,
I
don't
think
it's
probably
that
can
wait,
and
I
guess
we
the
only
discussion.
I
know
we
had
a
discussion
when
we
when
we
talked
about
the
amendment
that
we
are
going
to,
I
think,
put
on
the
ballot
on
on
the
structure
of
city
government,
and
I
think
that
was
a.
There
was
a
discussion
about
it,
but
I
I
think
I
I
agree
with
commissioner
clegg
that
we
that
we
ought
not
to
do
this.