►
From YouTube: July 7, 2021 Charter Commission
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
C
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting.
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
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
C
D
D
B
D
D
D
A
E
D
C
I
would
like
to
amend
the
agenda
to
include
an
item
titled
consideration
of
resolutions
regarding
ballot
question
language
for
the
government
structure,
amendment
and
I
would
insert
that
after
item
eight.
So
after
the
the
amendment
work
group
reports
but
before
the
before
the
redistricting
work
group
reports.
G
I
was
just
chair
clegg,
commissioner
abbott
here.
I
think
I
think
the
you
want
to
slide
it
in
after
number:
nine,
not
number,
eight
yeah.
So
that's
that's
the.
H
C
C
G
D
A
E
D
E
C
A
F
C
Been
moved
and
seconded
in
third
and
fourth,
we
have
a
proper
motion
before
us.
Is
there
any
discussion
or
are
there
any
corrections
to
the
minutes
before
the
clerk
calls?
The
rule.
G
D
I
H
D
E
D
D
C
C
C
I
would
also
ask
that
the
clerk
provide
us
with
an
update
on
the
status
of
all
likely
charter
amendments,
including
the
charter
commission,
amendment
on
government
structure.
The
council
proposed
amendments
on
public
safety
and
rent
stabilization
and
the
petition
amendment
regarding
public
safety.
Mr.
J
Carl,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
As
this
body
is
aware,
a
total
of
five
proposals
to
amend
the
city
charter
have
been
submitted
and
were
submitted
prior
to
the
may
first
deadline
for
this
year's
general
election,
which
is
set
for
tuesday
november
2nd.
Among
these,
as
the
chair
just
indicated,
are
two
proposals,
both
of
which
relate
to
public
safety,
one
initiated
by
the
city
council
and
one
which
was
submitted
by
petition.
J
There
are
two
proposals
initiated
by
the
city
council,
related
to
the
subject
of
rent
stabilization
and
one
proposal
from
this
body
about
government
structure
of
these
proposals.
There
are
currently
two
that
have
almost
completed
the
entire
process
and
are
ready
to
be
submitted
to
hinopa
county
before
the
statutory
deadline,
which
is
august
20th.
Those
include
the
charter
commission's
government
structure
proposal
and
the
public
safety
proposal
that
was
submitted
via
petition
by
the
yes
for
minneapolis
committee.
J
The
committee
is
scheduled
to
take
up
both
of
those
proposals
at
its
next
regular
meeting
set
for
wednesday
july
21st
at
1,
30
pm
and,
as
you
may
have
heard,
at
its
last
regular
meeting,
which
was
this
past
friday.
The
council
did
vote
to
withdraw
and
return
to
author
its
proposal
on
the
creation
of
the
new
public
safety
department.
J
That
action
removes
that
particular
proposal
from
q
and
prevents
it
from
being
submitted
on
this
year's
election.
The
council
took
that
action
in
order
to
avoid
potential
voter
confusion
that
might
have
been
caused
by
having
essentially
two
nearly
identical
questions
on
the
ballot.
At
the
same
time,
the
only
substantive
difference
between
the
council-initiated
proposal
and
the
proposal
from
the
petition
committee
was
about
the
status
of
law
enforcement
within
the
proposed
public
safety
department.
J
Under
the
council's
proposal,
law
enforcement
was
a
required
element
of
the
new
department
under
the
petition
law
enforcement
may
be
included
in
the
new
department
if
necessary,
making
it
a
permissive
function
subject
to
future
action
by
the
mayor
and
council.
By
removing
its
own
proposal,
the
council
has
reduced
the
total
number
of
potential
ballot
questions
to
four.
The
government
structure
proposal
from
the
charter
commission,
the
public
safety
proposal
by
petition
and
then
the
two
questions
related
to
rent
stabilization,
which
are
currently
pending
before
this
body,
as
required
under
state
statute.
J
The
deadline
for
this
body
to
act
on
those
two
questions
on
rent
stabilization
is
july,
31st
and,
as
commissioners
are
aware,
the
statutory
deadline
to
submit
any
ballot
question
for
this
november's
general
election
is
friday,
august
20th.
After
that
date,
no
question
may
be
submitted
before
that
deadline.
The
council,
by
a
majority
vote,
must
adopt
the
final
ballot
language
and
the
mayor
must
approve
that
language
or
the
council
must
act
to
override
an
objection
from
the
mayor
by
the
affirmative
vote
of
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
members.
J
K
Mr
chair,
this
is
commissioner
perry.
Commissioner,
go
ahead,
mr
carl,
I
have
a
question
for
you.
So
can
I
interpret
that
the
mayor
has
veto
power
over
whether
something
appears
on
the
ballot
or
does
he
just
have
veto
power
over
the
language.
J
Through
the
chair,
commissioner,
perry,
the
ability
of
the
council
to
prevent
a
question
pertains
to
those
matters
that
are
of
its
own
initiative
or
matters
which
have
been
reported
as
not
being
constitutional,
not
proper
subjects
for
a
city
charter.
The
council
cannot
prevent,
nor
can
the
mayor
prevent
a
question
or
a
proposal
that
is
deemed
constitutional
and
a
proper
subject
for
the
charter
initiated
either
by
the
charter
commission
or
by
petition
from
being
submitted
to
voters
their
job.
At
that
point,
both
the
council
of
mayor
is
ministerial.
J
J
Correct
the
all
acts
of
the
council
are
subject
to
the
mayor's
approval
or
veto,
and
therefore
a
proposed
amendment
which
would
be
initiated
by
the
council,
ultimately
is
subject
to
the
approval
or
veto
of
the
mayor.
And
then
the
potential
override
by
a
two-thirds
affirmative
vote
of
the
majority
of
the
council.
C
C
So
I
think
our
statutory
duty
is
still
to
either
accept,
reject
or
propose
a
substitute
for
the
council
proposal.
It
may
be
moot,
but
I
think
that
is
our
statutory
obligation
and
we
will
consider
that
when
we
get
to
the
public
safety
work
group
report,
I
am
concerned
about
the
council's
delay
and
about
the
council's
disregard
of
the
normal
ballot
question
language
development
process.
C
J
I'm
sorry
this
is
casey.
I
hate
to
interrupt
you
and
I'm
afraid
we
may
have
to
go
back
and
and
start
some
of
this
process
again.
I've
just
been
informed
by
several
members
of
the
public
that
apparently
we
are
having
technical
difficulties
we
were
unaware
of
and
that
none
of
the
meeting
thus
far
has
been
broadcast
and
available
to
the
public,
either
through
our
tv
channel,
the
youtube
channel,
the
city's
website,
etc.
J
So
I
have
already
sent
a
high
priority
request
to
our
tech
team
to
look
into
what
we
can
do
to
make
that
correction,
but
because
we
are
not
therefore
able
to
get
this
meeting
broadcast
to
the
public,
we're
not
providing
the
public
access
required
by
law.
At
this
point,
we
should
simply
recess
the
meeting
until
the
tech
team
gives
us
a
cue
that
they've
addressed
the
problem.
J
Colin,
we
certainly
can
mr
chair,
but
with
colin
on
the
phone,
I'm
just
wondering.
If
colin
could
give
us
an
estimate,
it
might
be
a
five
minute
fix,
it
might
be
a
longer
fix.
I'm.
J
C
C
C
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d,
.021
2
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
The
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
C
This
meeting
is
public
and
subject
to
the
minnesota
open
meeting
law.
My
name
is
barry
clegg
and
I'm
the
chair
of
the
charter.
Commission
I'll
now
call
this
meeting
to
order,
as
we
repeat
business
that
we
already
conducted
during
the
first
15
minutes.
I
will
not
take
another
roll
call
vote,
but
instead
I'll
ask
the
clerk
to
rick
to.
C
To
announce
the
vote
that
was
already
taken,
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum
to
make
sure
that
everyone
who
is
at
the
first
part
of
the
meeting
is
now
back
with
us.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
rule.
H
E
D
E
C
C
I
would
like
to
first
propose
an
amendment
to
the
agenda
to
include
after
item
9
and
before
item
10,
an
item
titled
consideration
of
resolutions
regarding
ballot,
question,
language
or
government
structure,
amendment
with
that
change.
The
amendment
is
before
us.
Please
have
a
motion
to
adopt
the
agenda.
D
C
So
that
motion
passes
and
the
agenda
as
amended
is
adopted.
Next
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes.
The
minutes
of
the
regular
meeting
dated
june
2nd
2021
are
before
us.
May
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
no
move.
C
C
A
A
I
work
for
the
state
of
minnesota.
Indeed,
I
have
been
with
the
state
about
13
years
in
a
variety
of
different
capacities,
I'm
currently
serving
on
different
equity
and
commission
programs
and
projects.
I
volunteer
in
the
community-
and
I
am
a
mother
of
20
boys
that
are
24
years
old
and
I
am.
F
C
J
F
J
These
were
submitted
prior
to
the
may
1st
deadline
in
order
to
be
submitted
for
this
year's
general
election,
which
is
set
for
tuesday
november
2nd.
Among
the
proposals
are
two
related
to
public
safety.
One
was
initiated
by
the
city
council.
One
was
submitted
by
petition.
Two
proposals
were
submitted
by
the
city
council,
both
related
to
the
subject
of
rent
stabilization
and
one
proposal
from
this
body
about
the
structure
of
city
government
of
these
proposals.
J
There
are
currently
two
which
have
almost
completed
the
entire
process
and
are
about
ready
to
be
submitted
to
hennepin
county
before
the
statutory
deadline,
which
is
august
20th.
The
these
include
the
charter
commission's
government
structure
proposal,
as
well
as
the
public
safety
proposal
that
was
submitted
by
the
petition
submitted
by
the
yes
for
minneapolis
committee.
Both
of
those
proposals
are
currently
before
the
council's
policy
and
government
oversight
committee
for
adoption
of
the
language
of
the
actual
ballot
questions.
J
That
committee
is
scheduled
to
take
up
both
of
those
proposals
at
its
next
regular
meeting
set
for
wednesday
july
21st,
beginning
at
1,
30
pm
and,
as
you
no
doubt
have
already
heard
at
its
regular
meeting.
Just
this
past
friday,
the
city
council
acted
to
withdraw
and
return
to
author,
its
proposal
on
the
creation
of
the
new
public
safety
department.
J
That
action
removes
that
particular
proposal
from
the
council's
policy
and
government
oversight
committee
and
effectively
prevents
it
from
being
submitted
on
this
year's
election
ballot.
So
the
council
took
that
action
in
order
to
avoid
any
potential
confusion
for
voters
that
could
have
been
caused
by
having
essentially
two
nearly
identical
questions
on
the
ballot.
J
At
the
same
time,
the
only
substantive
difference
between
the
council's
initiated
proposal
and
that
that
was
submitted
by
petition
related
to
the
status
of
law
enforcement
within
the
new
proposed
public
safety
department,
specifically
under
the
council's
proposal
law
enforcement
was
a
requirement
as
part
of
the
new
department.
Under
the
petition
law
enforcement
may
be
included
in
the
new
department
if
necessary,
making
it
a
permissive
function
subject
to
future
action
by
the
mayor
and
council.
J
By
removing
its
proposal
on
public
safety,
the
council
has
reduced
the
total
number
of
potential
ballot
questions
this
year
to
four.
The
government
structure
proposal
initiated
by
this
body,
the
public
safety
proposal
initiated
by
petition
and
then
the
two
questions
related
to
rent
stabilization,
which
currently
are
pending
before
this
body,
for
its
consideration,
as
required
under
state
law.
The
deadline
for
the
body
to
complete
action
on
those
two
rent
stabilization
proposals
is
july,
31st
and,
as
commissioners
are
aware.
J
As
I
said,
the
statutory
deadline
to
submit
any
ballot
question
for
this
year's
general
election
is
friday,
august
20th.
After
that
date,
no
question
can
be
submitted
before
that
deadline.
The
council,
by
a
majority
vote
of
its
members,
must
adopt
final
ballot.
Language
and
the
mayor
must
approve
that
language
or
the
council
can
act
to
override
the
objection
of
the
mayor
by
the
affirmative
vote
of
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
members.
J
K
Mr
chair,
this
is
commissioner
perry.
Go
ahead,
commissioner.
I'm
going
to
ask
the
same
question
before
that
when
we
had
technical
difficulties
and
mr
carl,
the
focus
of
my
interest
is
on
what
can
be
vetoed
by
the
mayor
in
terms
of
charter
proposals.
K
J
You,
commissioner,
and
through
the
chair,
I
would
respond
again
that
it
depends
upon
the
source
of
which
the
amendment
is
initiated
for
proposals
that
are
initiated
by
the
council.
The
mayor
and
the
council
together
have
to
approve
those
questions
to
be
submitted.
Thus,
a
mayoral
veto
on
a
proposal
initiated
by
the
council
returns
that
to
the
council
and
requires
the
council
to
act
by
a
two-thirds
vote
on
the
underlying
proposal.
J
There
also
is
the
question
of
ballot
language,
which
the
mayor
could
veto
on
proposals
that
are
initiated
by
the
charter,
commission
or
those
that
are
initiated
by
petition.
The
mayor
and
the
council
have
a
ministerial
role
under
state
law,
which
is
to
set
the
language
of
the
actual
question.
The
language
of
the
ballot
question
referred
to
voters,
so
they
cannot
impact
the
underlying
proposal.
They
can't
prevent
a
proposal
initiated
by
petitioner
by
charter
commission
from
being
submitted
to
the
voters.
J
Their
only
duty
is
to
decide
the
language
on
the
ballot,
which
must
be
a
fair
and
accurate
summary
of
what
the
proposal
proposes
to
do.
So,
as
long
as
the
question
is
determined
to
be
constitutional
and
a
proper
subject
for
the
charter,
then
they
have
no
ability
to
prevent
it
from
being
submitted
to
voters.
Their
duty
is
simply
to
set
the
language.
J
C
C
If
not,
I
have
a
few
thoughts
first
with
respect
to
the
council's
withdrawal
and
return
to
author
of
the
council
public
safety
proposal-
that's
all
well
and
good,
but
that
proposal
has
been
submitted
to
the
charter
commission
and
once
submitted.
I
don't
think
that
proposal
can
be
unsubmitted.
C
I
think
the
charter
commission
has
the
statutory
duty
once
a
proposal
is
submitted
to
it
by
the
council
to
either
accept,
reject
or
propose
a
substitute.
I
suspect
the
appropriate
for
us
is
to
reject
the
proposal
on
grounds
of
mootness
and
on
the
same
grounds.
We
rejected
a
similar
proposal
last
year,
but
we'll
get
to
that
when
we
get
to
the
public
safety
work
group
report
on
the
government
safety
proposal,
I'm
sorry
the
government
structure
proposal.
I
am
concerned
about
the
council's
delay
and
about
the
council's
disregard
for
the
normal
ballot
question
language
development
process.
C
The
council
has
the
statutory
and
ministerial
duty
to
develop
ballot
question
language
on
a
timely
basis.
This
duty
is
mandatory,
not
optional.
Historically,
the
ballot
question
language
is
drafted
by
the
city
attorney's
office
and
adopted
by
the
council
promptly
after
submission
of
a
proposed
amendment.
C
Now
action
is
delayed
until
at
least
the
july
21st
pogo
meeting
less
than
a
month
before
the
august
20th
statutory
deadline.
The
charter
commission
began
considering
the
government
structure
amendment
last
september.
All
meetings
were
public.
All
drafts
of
the
amendment
were
public
council
members
were
invited
to
a
public
meeting
to
share
their
questions
and
concerns,
and
many
did
any
claim
that
the
council
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
learn
about.
The
amendment
is
disingenuous
at
best.
C
C
C
I
am
concerned
that
the
council
is
attempting
attempting
to
raise
questions
that
are
really
disguised
political
statements
in
opposition
to
the
amendment
and
may
propose
language
which
may
be
inaccurate
or
intentionally
portray
the
proposed
amendment
in
a
disparaging
way.
I
know
some
council
members
are
opposed
to
this
amendment.
We
expected
that
they
would
be,
but
we
expected
and
the
law
requires,
that
the
council
timely
adopt
accurate
and
impartial
ballot
question
language
accordingly,
when
we
get
to
the
agenda
item
that
I
added,
which
comes
after
published
vendor
item
number
nine.
C
I
will
ask
for
motions
for
two
resolutions
as
follows:
number
one
resolve
that
the
charter
commission
urges
the
city
council
to
promptly
adopt
accurate
and
impartial
ballot
question
language
for
the
proposed
government
structure.
Amendment
number
two
resolve
that
the
officers
of
the
charter
commission,
that
being
the
chair,
the
vice
chair
and
the
secretary
together,
be
authorized
to
retain
legal
counsel
on
behalf
of
the
commission
and
to
take
any
steps
necessary
in
their
judgment,
including
through
legal
proceedings,
to
ensure
that
accurate
and
impartial
ballot
question
language
is
forwarded
to
the
ballot
on
a
timely
basis.
C
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
defer
questions
that
you
might
have
and
discussion
until
we
get
to
that
item
on
the
agenda
again.
That
comes
after
item
9..
So
I
don't
have
anything
further
to
report.
So
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
five,
which
is
to
receive
an
update
from
the
amendment
review
committee
on
the
status
of
its
review
of
any
amendments
submitted.
L
Thank
you,
chair
clegg
for
members,
there
were
two
matters
that
were
heard
by
the
amendment
review
committee
on
june
10th.
Those
matters
were
a
proposal.
L
Excuse
me
the
proposal
to
remove
the
park
board
from
the
city
charter.
The
second
matter
was
asking
for
a
provision
that
would
provide
for
recall
of
public
officials
in
the
city
of
minneapolis.
Those
matters
were
both
discussed
at
that
meeting,
and
the
action
was
taken
by
the
committee,
which
was
to
postpone
both
matters
indefinitely.
L
I
would
note
that
neither
matter
that
came
before
us
had
been
fleshed
out
in
any
detail
and
that,
in
conjunction
with
the
the
nature
of
the
amendments
themselves,
the
committees
voted.
The
committee
voted
to
postpone
those
matters
indefinitely.
C
The
amendment
review
committee
is
a
fairly
new
committee
for
us
and
the
committee
is
not
the
committee.
Action
is
not
positive
on
the
commission.
The
commission
could
still
elect
to
take
up
something
that
the
committee
tabled,
but
it's
sort
of
like
a
council
consent
agenda.
So
is
it
appropriate,
mr
clerk,
for
to
move
the
committee
report.
C
The
committee
report
is
sued
by
the
committee
and
doesn't
require
a
second
since
it's
a
report
of
a
committee.
So
will
the
alert.
Please
call
the
role
on
the
acceptance
of
the
committee.
C
G
D
Cohen
davis.
D
E
E
C
That
report
is
adopted
and
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
file
that
items.
Number
six,
seven
and
eight
on
the
agenda
are
all
dealing
with
rent
stabilization,
the
work
groups
report
and
the
charter
commission's
findings
with
respect
to
the
work
groups
report.
We
discussed
this
at
length
at
our
last
meeting.
Some
commissioners
wanted
more
time
to
consider
that
the
amendment
and
that
report
of
the
work
group
so
we're
now
back
to
considering
those-
and
I
call
on
commissioner
ginder
to
lead
us
through.
L
The
commission
should
have
in
front
of
it
which
was
attached
to
today's
agenda.
The
final
report
of
the
amendment
review
excuse
me
of
the
rent
stabilization
committee,
I
believe,
was
also
sent
out
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
for
members
to
review
briefly.
L
As
you
recall,
the
recommendation
of
the
rank
excuse
me
of
the
rent,
control
or
stabilization
committee
was
to
reject
chapter
the
amendment
for
chapter
1.4,
which
was
termed
the
initiative
referendum,
and
those
reasons
are
outlined
in
the
memo.
L
Second
part
of
it
addressed
the
amendment
to
section
4.1,
which
is
called
the
referendum
section,
which
would
provide
for
the
council
to
pass
an
ordinance
and
then,
in
its
discretion,
pass
that
on
to
the
voters
at
the
general
or
special
election.
L
For
the
reasons
that
are
outlined
in
that
memo,
which
I
won't
both
see
in
detail,
the
committee
has
recommended
that
that
proposal
be
rejected
and
a
substitute
amendment
returned
to
the
council.
The
substitute
amendment
would
do
a
couple
of
things.
L
One
would
allow
the
city
council
to
exercise
its
legislative
abilities
to
discuss
and
enact
the
rent,
control
or
rent
stabilization
ordinance,
but
it
would
require
it
to
go
to
a
ballot
which
we
believe
is
necessary
in
order
to
comply
with
minnesota
state
law,
and
it
also
sets
the
standard
of
approval
by
the
voters,
which
is
the
51
or
more
standard,
which
is
the
standard
that
this
committee
or
this
commission
is
familiar
with
from
private
amendments
that
go
through
this
commission.
L
That
is
a
brief
summary
of
the
overview
of
the
report
of
the
amendment
review
committee.
Excuse
me
of
the
rent
stabilization
committee.
C
G
A
A
E
E
E
E
C
That
matter
passes
and
that
council
proposal-
and
I
will
I
would
alert
to
please
prepare
an
appropriate
transmittal
to
the
count
reflecting
that
rejection.
The
next
item
is
to
consider
the
referendum
matter,
which
is
chapter
4.1,
which
the
committee
has
proposed
a
substitute
for
in
order
to
comply
with
state
law.
C
K
Ed,
yes,
I
am
not
going
to
support
the
committee's
recommendation,
even
though
I
did
serve
on
the
committee.
I
in
the
committee
I
brought
up
that
I
thought
that
this
I
I
think
the
work
that
has
been
done
by
commissioners
sandberg
and
is
well
done.
K
K
Impact
of
rent
control
affects
everyone
in
the
city
that,
rather
than
the
51
percent
vote
or
standard,
that
is
in
the
substitute
motion
that
it
should
be.
It
should
be
50
percent
of
all
voters
with
voters
who
are
not
voting
to
be
considered
a
no
vote,
so
I
will
not
be
supporting
the
motion.
Thank
you.
M
M
I
haven't
supported
in
the
committee.
I
also
supported
the
amendment
to
make
it
so
that
would
be
everybody
voting
on
the
issue
rather
than
just
51
of
those
people
who
are
voting
on
that
issue
and
again.
I
believe
also
that
if
there's
any
word
that's
dealing
with
rent
control,
it
affects
the
lives
of
everybody
in
the
city
and
basically
the
people
will
be
voting
on.
M
This
will
be
people
that
are
for
it
and
people
that
are
against
it
and
the
other
voters
won't
pay
any
attention
to
it
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
it
may
pass,
and
now
it
affects
them,
and
so
I
think
again
we
should
have
had
that
amendment.
We
did
not
did
not
prevail
in
committee.
I
will
also
be
voting
against
the
substitute
proposal.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
and
for
the
edification
of
those
commissioners
who
did
not
attend
that
committee
meeting.
What
the
two
commissioners
are
talking
about
is
the
approval
threshold
on
the
referendum.
The
current
language
proposed
by
the
committee
requires
a
51
percent
approval
rate
of
and
it's
51
of
those
voting
on
the
question,
which
is
the
same
threshold
that
is
required
to
approve
a
charter
amendment.
C
The
the
proposed
amendment
which
failed
at
the
committee
was
to
change
that
to
50
to
a
majority
of
those
voting,
whether
or
not
they
vote
on
the
amendment,
but
a
majority
of
those
voting,
which
is
a
standard
used
in
minnesota
for
approval
of
constitutional
amendments,
but
is
not
used
by
the
city.
C
G
D
D
K
E
C
C
H
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
guess
I
will
start
you've
already
heard
from
chair
clegg
that
the
city
council
has
taken
action
essentially
to
withdraw
the
amendment
that
had
been
pending
before
the
charter
commission,
and
so
because
of
that
it
would
seem
that
the
most
appropriate
thing
for
us
to
do
in
that.
We
must
also
take
some
action,
because
that
amendment
is
still
before
us
is
to
declare
it,
and
so
I
consequently
propose
emotion.
I
make
a
motion
that
we
reject
the
city
council
amendment
on
the
grounds
of
mootness.
C
That
there's
been
a
motion
made
and
seconded
that
the
council
proposal,
which
has
been
withdrawn
and
returned
to
author,
be
rejected
on
the
grounds
of
mootness.
Are
there
any
questions
for
commissioner
rubenstein.
C
Hearing
none
a
an
I
vote
will
be
a
vote
to
reject
hearing
no
further
discussion.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
rule.
G
E
D
E
C
C
N
C
M
A
D
D
D
E
K
Yes,
so
I'm
very
supportive
of
this
proposal,
this
resolution,
but
I'm
wondering
about
what
the
communication
will
be
to
the
commission
itself
on
the
actions
that
you
may
have
to
take
as
officers
is
that
because
of
the
timing,
we
won't
be
meeting
again
until
after
the
fact
I
think
again,
but
maybe
that
I've
got
that
the
timing
wrong.
But
I'm
wondering
if
we
can
include
something
about
where
there
will
be
timely
communication
to
the
commission
on
actions
taken
as
well.
C
I
I
envision
that
communication
to
the
commission
would
be
contemporaneous
with
any
actions
that
that
the
officers
took,
but
I
certainly
think
that's
an
appropriate
suggestion.
K
N
Yeah
I
was
attempting
to
speak
and
what
I
said
was
when
you
said
prompt
and
timely.
I
said
it
was
unnecessary
to
say
timely
after
you
said,
prompt,
prompt.
G
I
don't
think
we've
gotten
the
second
thing
on
this,
yet.
G
C
Half
it's
been
moved
and
seconded,
I
don't
think
there's
any
more
discussion,
but
if
there
is,
let
me
know.
G
I
just
I
just
want
to
comment.
I
think
this
is
a
very
important
motion.
I
think
we
need
to
be
prepared
to
defend
our
prerogatives
and
I
I
couldn't
be
more
in
favor
of
this
motion.
If
I
tried
so.
C
G
I
D
I
E
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Our
temporary
acting
clerk
today
is
the
legislative
support
services
manager
of
the
clerk's
office,
ken
daler,
all
of
the
clerks
who
support
the
council's
committee
in
its
legislative
process
and
a
number
of
our
policy-making
boards
and
commission's
report
to
ken
he's
our
senior
clerk
in
the
office.
I'm
excited
to
have
him
covering
for
ms
norgaard
today,
while
she's
enjoying
some
vacation
time.
So
thanks
for
your
support
and
help
today,
ken.
J
J
Munson
is
the
new
redistricting
project
coordinator,
who
has
replaced
nicole
weber,
who's
moved
on
to
other
opportunities,
greg's
been
with
us
for
just
a
few
weeks
and
is
already
working
with
the
co-chairs
of
the
various
working
groups
to
make
matters
continue
to
operate
very
smoothly
and
bring
forward
those
actions
in
a
timely
manner,
so
greg,
if
you
wanna,
say
hello
and
I
think,
introduce
the
business
for
the
redistricting
reports.
That
would
be
great
sorry
about
that.
Mr
chair
yeah,.
O
Thank
you
casey.
I
appreciate
that
very
much.
Yes,
I'm
greg
munson
and
I
am
assisting
the
clerk's
office
with
the
various
work
groups
here.
So
I
will
defer
to
commissioner
garcia,
or
I
can
give
a
little
shout
out
about
the
activity
that
we've
got.
What
would
you
prefer.
I
I
this
is,
commissioner,
garcia.
I'm
happy
to
give
a
quick
report
of
him.
Perhaps
if
there
are
additional
questions
that
mr
munson
can
provide
clarity
on.
I
I,
along
with
commissioner
kozak,
our
service
co-chair
of
the
redistricting
advisory
group
selection,
work
group,
and
we
have
received
32
applications
for
people
interested
in
serving
on
the
redistricting
advisory
group
and
working
with
mr
munson.
We
will
proceed
to
inform
candidates
about
whether
we
will
proceed
to
schedule
interviews
with
them
and
do
so
for
in
the
month
of
july.
C
Garcia
hearing
none
thank
you
for
that
report
and
do
we
have
a
report
from
the
outreach
and
education
committee
or
work
group.
F
Yes,
we
do
this.
Is
commissioner
sandberg?
If
you
can
hear
me,
I
can
go
through
it
briefly.
If
that's
okay.
F
Okay,
tony
newborn,
who
is
the
co-chair
obviously
and
myself,
met
with
greg
a
few
weeks
ago.
We
reviewed
some
of
the
documents
we
verified
that
our
work
group
is
not
involved
with
the
redistricting
group
orientation.
F
That's
up
to
the
clerk
in
the
city
of
germany,
we
said
we
will
take
the
lead
on
outreach
and
education
in
advance
of
the
september
october
listening
sessions
and
the
four
public
hearings,
two
in
november
january
to
february
march,
that
many
of
the
activities
will
be
accomplished
through
ncr,
which
is
continuing
the
work
that
was
started
with
the
search
for
advisory
group
members.
F
We
thought
that
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
downloadable,
redistricting,
faq
document
for
the
city
charter,
commission,
website
and
greg,
I
think,
was
going
to
talk
to
casey
about
that
we're
meeting
with
charlie
ito
and
katie
lauer
to
explore
options
for
video
powerpoint
options
and
social
media.
I
think
that
meeting
is
next
week.
F
F
I
know
that's
something
we
haven't
discussed
before,
but
we're
putting
it
out
there
now
that
the
commission
may
want
to
think
about
it,
and
tony
also
suggested-
and
I
think
this
might
be
in
process-
we
should
consider
how
we
could
involve
local
artists
in
the
production
of
education
and
outreach
documents,
including
the
video
and
printed
materials,
and
that's
all
I
had
in
my
report.
Tony
may
have
something
else
to
add
for
gray.
H
Hi
there
thanks
so
much
commissioner
know
that
I
believe
commissioner
zembra
covered
all
of
my
all
of
my
thoughts.
I
appreciate
it.
O
I
would
just
point
everybody
to
the
first
deliverable
from
the
work
group,
which
is
a
pretty
robust,
redistricting
section
within
the
city's
website
at
minneapolismn.gov,
and
if
you
just
do
a
search
box
for
redistricting
you,
you
can
see
quite
a
bit
of
information
about
the
process
and
timeline
governing
laws.
The
advisory
group,
description,
census,
information
and
a
bunch
of
material
for
from
the
last
redistricting.
It's
it's
quite
robust,
and
I
would
encourage
everybody
to
take
a
look
at
it.
C
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
final
questions
for
either
the
work
group
co-chairs
or
munson.
C
Okay,
so
members
of
the
public
registered,
so
no
public
commentary
tonight
there
being
no
further
business
to
come
before
the
charter
commission.
Today
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everybody.