►
From YouTube: August 20, 2021 Minneapolis City Council (afternoon)
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
I'm
lisa
bender
the
president
of
the
minneapolis
city
council.
The
time
is
now
3,
34
p.m,
and
the
council
has
reconvened
its
open
public
meeting.
We
are
here
to
reconsider
our
action
on
the
resolution
sending
ballot
language
for
the
proposed
charter
amendment
creating
a
new
department
of
public
safety.
B
That
resolution
was
vetoed
by
mayor
frye.
As
I
noted
this
morning,
our
process
is
now
to
reconsider
our
action.
In
light
of
the
mayor's
veto,
the
council
can
override
the
mayor's
veto
with
nine
votes
and
pass
the
original
language
that
we
adopted
just
this
morning
before
I
we
proceed
I'll
recognize
the
clerk
to
provide
to
provide
an
explanation,
although
perhaps
first
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
to
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
A
D
B
C
Thank
you.
Madam
president,
as
you
mentioned,
mayor
frye
has
vetoed
resolution
2021
r254,
that
was
the
language
of
the
ballot
question
pertaining
to
the
proposed
charter
amendment
seeking
to
create
a
new
public
safety
department,
and
he
returned
that
act
together
with
his
objections
and
writing.
We
have
circulated
the
mayor's
letter
with
the
veto
to
all
council
members
and
posted
that
for
public
access
in
limbs
before
explaining
the
reconsideration
process
on
the
mayor's
veto.
C
I
just
want
to
remind
the
body
and
the
mayor
that
the
city
is
obligated
to
set
that
ballot
language
for
the
proposed
charter.
Amendment
that's
set
forward
in
minnesota
statute,
section
410.12,
subdivision,
4.
and
further
pursuant
to
minnesota
statute,
section
205
point
10,
subdivision,
5,
a
ballot
question
may
not
be
submitted
to
voters
unless
all
statutory
deadlines
are
met.
The
statutory
deadline,
as
we
all
know,
is
74
days
before
the
day
of
the
election,
and
that
is
today.
The
city
clerk
is
required
to
submit
those
questions
to
the
county
auditor.
C
The
county
auditor
in
turn,
is
required
to
submit
those
questions
to
the
secretary
of
state.
All
of
those
submissions
must
be
made
today
to
comply
with
the
law,
given
that
legal
grounding
the
council
now
has
before
it.
As
the
council
president
has
stated,
the
original
resolution
that
was
adopted
this
morning
by
the
council
setting
the
ballot
language
for
a
proposed
charter
amendment
that
would
create
a
new
public
safety
department.
That
proposal
has
been
vetoed
by
the
mayor
pursuant
to
the
city
charter,
section
4.4
c3.
C
The
charter
then
provides
that
the
city
council
now
must
reconsider
its
original
action
to
decide
if
it
will
override
the
mayor's
veto
and
pass
its
original
act.
Notwithstanding
the
mayor's
objections
under
council
rule
8,
section
8.
The
question
now
before
the
body
is
as
follows:
shall
the
decision
of
the
city
council
stand
notwithstanding
the
veto
of
the
mayor?
If
two-thirds
of
the
council
votes
affirmatively,
then
the
mayor's
veto
is
overridden,
and
the
original
resolution,
as
adopted
this
morning
by
council
is
passed
to
override,
requires
a
minimum
of
nine
affirmative
votes.
C
If
the
council
does
not
achieve
at
least
nine
affirmative
votes,
then
the
veto
of
the
mayor
is
sustained
and
that
original
resolution
fails.
If
the
reconsideration
of
the
resolution
fails
to
override
the
veto,
then
the
council
of
the
mayor
must
consider
alternate
language
that
they
find
acceptable
in
order
to
fulfill
our
legal
obligations
as
a
city
to
set
the
ballot
question
on
this
particular
proposal.
With
that.
Madam
president,
I'm
ready
to
call
the
role
on
the
question
for
reconsideration,
but
we'll
defer
to
you
first.
If
there
are
any
questions
from
your
colleagues.
A
E
E
F
A
D
B
Okay,
the
clerk
is
working
to
explain
it
display
it.
This
is
a
motion
by
bender
jenkins,
joss,
johnson
and
osman.
Shall
the
minneapolis
city
charter
be
amended
to
strike
and
replace
the
police
department
with
the
department
of
public
safety,
which
could
include
licensed
peace
officers,
police
officers,
if
necessary,
with
administrative
authority
to
be
consistent
with
other
city
departments
to
fulfill
its
responsibilities
for
public
safety?
B
G
H
H
But
I
just
wanna
especially
share
my
thanks
to
council,
vice
president
jenkins,
to
council
member
osman
for
their
work
all
day
today
and
as
well
to
counsel
president
bender
and
mayor
psy
for
the
discussions
and
the
efforts
to
try
to
bring
people
together.
I
think
that's
what
the
people
of
minneapolis
expect
us
to
try
to
do.
H
I
Oh,
thank
you.
Madam
president.
I
just
want
to
uncover
what
council,
member
as
president
jenkins
and
johnson,
say
and-
and
I
want
to
thank
their
leadership.
It
hasn't
been
easy.
We
were
on
the
phone
talking
to
both
sides,
it's
very
strong
opinion
and
but
I
think
that
we
have
a
responsibility
as
a
council
somebody
to
come
together
and
make
a
decision
is
that
that
will
benefit
the
community.
I
I
I
know
none
of
the
sides
will
will
be
happy
or,
but
you
know
for
me,
you
know
I
would
even
consider
having
a
multiple
language
on
this
question
because
of
the
communities
we
have
here
in
the
in
minneapolis,
but
as
the
deadline
approaches
feel
like
we
did
everything
we
could
to
provide
a
clear
question
for
the
voters
to
exercise
their
rights
and
make
their
decisions.
So
I
do
want
to
thank
three
council
members
and
all
of
you,
as
the
leaders
of
the
city
of
minneapolis,
for
your
effort
of
work
and
coming
together.
F
Excuse
me,
I
have
a
question
for
the
city
attorney
or
perhaps
the
authors,
how?
How
does
this
address
the
role
of
the
chief
of
police,
because,
as
I'm
reading
the
language
it
doesn't
address,
what
would
happen
to
the
the
chief
of
our
police
department?
Would
they
be
replaced,
would
be,
would
that
position
be
eliminated?
What
exactly
would
happen
to
that
position?
And-
and
why
is
that
not
reflected
in
the
language.
B
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
jump
in
to
answer.
I
I'm
not
sure
I'm
the
best
person
to
to
to
sort
of
I
supported
the
the
motion
that
we
brought
earlier.
I
would
say
that
the
the
exact
language
of
the
charter,
amendment
from
the
citizens
petition,
is
in
the
charter
itself.
The
language
here
represents
a
position
of
including
the
information
needed
to
explain
to
voters
what's
happening
in
a
way
that
isn't
confusing,
and
that's
what
that's
what's
before
us.
F
So
I
I
just
need
to
understand,
because
I'm
also
a
voter.
So
if
I'm
looking
at
this
question-
and
it
says,
shall
the
minneapolis
city
charter
be
amendment
to
strike
and
replace
the
police
department?
Does
that
assume
that
you're
also
striking
to
replace
the
chief
of
police?
I
think
that's
just
like
a
yes
or
no
answer
the.
B
F
B
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
curious
if
the
city
attorney
has
reviewed
this
and
if
they
find
this
language
to
be
sufficient.
If
you
and
I
I
saw
an
earlier
version
of
this,
I
understood
that
you
know.
Maybe
that
would
have
it
seemed
to
me
in
my
own
eyes-
I'm
not
an
attorney
to
to
maybe
be
a
little
bit
more
sufficient
and
past
that
threshold
of
being
a
little
more
descriptive
of
what
we're
putting
in
and
what
we're
taking
out,
which
is
my
goal
in
reflecting
accurate
language
in
this
ballot
measure
that
we're
voting
on
today.
K
Thank
you,
council,
president
bender
and
council
member
palmitano,
unless
I
am
unaware
of
somebody
else
on
my
staff
over
the
last
few
hours
it's
this
would
be
the
first
time
we've
seen
this
language
and
would
be
a
little
hard
for
us
to
give
a
definitive
legal
opinion
about
the
sufficiency
of
it
not
trying
to
dodge
the
question
at
all,
but
I
I
would
not
I
mean
from
my
knowledge
we
have.
We
have
not
reviewed
this
until
we've
just
cleaned
it
down.
J
L
L
I
also
appreciate
the
fact
that
it
will
be
left
to
the
future
mayors
and
city
councils
to
determine,
if
or
when,
there's
a
position
for
police
chief,
because
that
can
certainly
still
be
enacted
in
ordinance
and
we
police
chief
could
could
it
be
a
title
that
we
could
decide
to
keep,
and
this
doesn't
necessarily
mean
anybody
and
any
staff
are
being
changed
in
any
way
whatsoever.
Just
because
we're
mending
our
charter.
M
Thank
you,
madam
president.
So
just
a
couple
short
weeks
ago,
this
body
approved
a
point
by
point
explainer
on
what
the
real
world
impact
and
the
real
world
consequences
of
this,
of
what
this
change
would
mean
for
the
people
that
we
represent
and
then,
in
the
intervening
weeks
the
explanation
that
people
need
to
understand
these
consequences
of
their
votes
was
taken
out.
M
The
language
could
have
included
that
it
would
remove
the
mandatory
minimum
number
of
officers,
whether
you
agree
with
it
or
you
don't.
That
is
a
consequence
of
this
action.
It
could
have
included
that
this
would
have
a
shared
reporting
structure
between
the
mayor
and
the
13
council
members,
which
there
is
no
dispute.
It
does
once
again
it
was
not
included,
and
my
question
on
all
three
of
those
elements
is
simply
this:
why?
M
Can
anyone
say
that,
with
a
straight
face,
I'm
appalled
by
the
lack
of
transparency
in
this
approach,
the
the
ballot
language
would
leave
voters
in
the
dark.
It
leaves
our
residents
without
essential
information
that
they
are
going
to
needed
the
ballot
box
again
before
be
against
it,
but
we
not,
we
must
be
transparent.
M
B
B
I
think
that's
what
we've
arrived
at
here
appreciating
all
the
work
from
the
council
members,
who
all
really
are
the
whole
council
in
our
meetings.
In
particular,
we've
had
many
hours
of
public
conversations
about
this
together
over
over
the
past
months,
since
the
petition
was
certified
by
the
clerk
in
may
any
further
discussion.
Council
member
johnson.
H
H
I
was
open
in
negotiations
or
discussion
with
the
idea
of
an
additive
such
as
saying,
commissioner,
adding
a
commissioner
for
instance,
which
I
think
is
another
way
to
put
that
without
giving
a
false
impression
that
biases
voters
again,
our
task
is
to
come
up
with
mutual
language
here,
and
I
understand
that's
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder,
and
so
it's
going
to
be
different
for
everybody.
I
will
say,
with
a
straight
face,
I
believe,
seeing
administrative
authority
to
be
consistent
with
other
city
departments
is
something
that
the
voters
understand.
H
H
It's
it
is
right
there
in
it
if
necessary,
and
that's
something
that
we
know
folks
that
are
interested
in
opposing
this
amendment
have
seized
on
by
the
way
and
say,
look,
there's
no
minimum
staffing
requirements
right
there
in
the
question
it
says,
if
necessary.
So
they've
already
said
that
that
is,
is
sufficient
to
drive
on
that
point,
and
so
even
adding
in
anything
about
that,
I
believe,
would
be
redundant
and
repetitive
compared
to
this.
So
that's
my
take
on
it.
H
Having
carefully
considered
this
having
carefully
look
at
it,
I
get
everyone's
going
to
be
at
a
different
place
with
the
wording.
I
think
that's
the
difficulty
with
things
like
this.
You
got
14
people
here
and
it's
it's
between
the
millennium
and
council
members
everybody's
going
to
be
a
different
spot
on
this,
but
I
want
to
at
least
explain
the
rationale
behind
this,
because
I
do
think
this
is
fair.
A
H
Want
to
see
on
the
ballot,
the
voters
should
have
a
right
to
vote
on
and
we
have
an
obligation
today
to
pass
language,
and
this
is
the
path
forward
on
that.
And
I
I
don't
think
anybody
here
thinks
that
this
is
perfect
language.
But
I,
I
sure
hope
that
a
majority
of
my
colleagues
agree
that
this
language
does
a
good
job
at
overall
striking
the
right
balance
within
all
the
competing
factors
and
the
differences
of
urban
work.
E
Thank
you,
madam
president,
to
be
clear.
20
000,
residents
of
the
city
of
minneapolis
registered
to
vote
did
not
sign
this
petition.
The
number
of
signatures
was
about
14
000
that
were
certified.
Maybe
it
was
12
either
way.
12
000,
really
great
people,
but
let's
not
overstate
the
number
of
people
living
in
the
city
registered
to
vote,
to
sign
the
petition
and
that's
kind
of
what
the
problem
is
here
that
there's
just
an
exaggerated
level
of
truth.
E
We
think
people
understand
council,
member
johnson
thinks
that
he
stood
on
a
stage
to
send
said
he
would
abolish
the
police,
but
he
didn't
really
say
that
so
I
mean
people
think
different
things,
apparently
even
about
what
they
say.
This
is
ins.
This
is
not
sufficient.
It
does
not
explain
what's
coming
out,
it
doesn't
exactly
explain.
What's
coming
in
what
it
is,
is
a
poor
compromise
to
get
the
number
of
votes
needed
by
the
deadline?
E
E
What
does
that
say?
It
says
politically
we
had
to
get
together
quickly.
I
was
not
in
the
room
where
it
happened
was
not
involved
in
any
of
these
conversations
I
understand
my
position
is
probably
much
different
than
most
everyone
else's,
but
at
least
put
out
what
we're
actually
doing
to
suggest
that
police
officers,
if
necessary,
is
the
same
thing
as
eliminating
the
minimum
number.
That's
ridiculous
and
I
don't
think
the
public
will
see
it
that
way.
E
So
please
do
not
question
my
intelligence
to
suggest
that
I
should
understand
that
this
limited
language
that
basically
says
police
officers
if
necessary,
equates
to
eliminating
the
minimum
staffing.
Please
don't
suggest
that
having
a
bit
of
information
about,
maybe
a
new
department
of
public
safety
makes
people
understand
that
the
police
chief
is
not
going
to
be
in
charge
of
law
enforcement,
that
a
civilian
who's
going
to
stand
between
the
police
department
and
elected
officials,
creating
absolutely
no
accountability
at
all
and
that
we'll
have
14
people
in
charge
of
law
enforcement.
L
Thank
you
and
I
appreciate
the
discussion.
I
find
the
language
easy
to
understand
and
acceptable
for
a
ballot
initiative,
but
I
just
want
to
remind
us
that
whatever
we
explain
and
describe
it
as
isn't
going
to
necessarily
be
what
it
is,
what
people
have
to
have
is
access
to
the
actual
charter
amendment
language
and
to
see
it
and,
thank
goodness,
we're
also
working
really
hard
to
do
that.
We
have
it
linked
on
our
city
website.
The
resolution
we
passed
requires
it
to
be
published
in
two
different
newspapers
before
the
election.
L
I
believe
it
two
two
times
each
so
it
will
be
out
there.
We
should
take
personal
responsibility
for
making
sure
that
we
push
out
the
actual
language
of
the
charter
amendment
out
there
and
that's
going
to
be
critically
important
because
you
better
believe
we're
going
to
have
other
people
that
are
going
to
be
pushing
out
information
that
isn't
that
accurate
about
what
it
will
do
or
what
it
won't
do.
Even
we
ourselves
will
fall
prey
to
that
because
of
our
biases
and
what
we
think
should
happen
and
how
we
want
to
pitch
it.
L
So,
let's
make
sure
we
get
real
information
out
there.
Everybody
who
cares
about
this
issue
should
read
through
the
the
charter
change.
It's
really
clear
when
you
see
what's
being
crossed
out
and
what's
being
added
into
the
into
the
city
charter,
and
they
should
base
their
decision
on
that
and
luckily,
when
they
get
to
the
polling,
place,
they're
going
to
be
have
an
item
before
them.
That
clearly
points
them
to
that
charter,
change
and
they're
going
to
understand
what
this
is
about.
Well,
this
is
the
public
safety
department
change.
L
I
can
figure
out
how
to
vote
on
it,
because
I
see
what's
in
front
of
me
and
also
because
I've
been
educated
on
that
issue
and
some
people
will
probably
decide
not
to
vote
on
it
because
maybe
they're
not
ready,
but
we
should
all
do
our
best
to
make
sure
they
get
information
get
educated
here.
Can
I
hear
all
the
sides
of
it
so
they
can
vote
on
it
and
feel
like
they're,
accurately
informed.
H
Thank
you,
madam
president,
and
I'll
correct
what
I
said
earlier.
You
know
the
petition
did
have
25
530
signatures.
The
clerk's
office
was
able
to
validate
with
fourteen
thousand
one
hundred
and
one
compared
to
the
registered
voter
list,
so
I
think
that's
fair
and
accurate.
I
would
ask
our
colleagues,
though
these
personal
attacks
is
a
violation
of
our
decorum.
H
I
think
the
public
expects
more
well.
I
would
just
ask
and
then
the
president
as
well,
if
this
could
be
addressed,
that
when
colleagues
are
talking
about
the
issues
that
they
don't
personally
attack
one
another
on
it,
that
we
can
talk
about
the
issues
that
are
going
for
this
agreement.
But
it's
it's
created
this
really
negative
toxic
culture
at
city
hall
and
I
think
the
public's
think
of
it
and
they
expect
us
to
work
together
and
try
to
find
paths
forward.
H
B
N
Thank
you,
madam
president,
and
I
will
abide
by
that
direction.
So
obviously
wordsmithing
through
this
is
a
very
challenging
exercise.
No
doubt
about
it
and
of
course
you
have
to
go
back
and
forth
between
how
I'm
trying
to
read
it
and
interpret
it
and
then
sort
of
superimpose
how
the
public
will
it's
not
an
easy
exercise.
N
To
be
quite
frank,
and
so
I
really
understand
how
we're
in
this
discussion
in
this
way,
because
it's
it's
inherently
complicated
and
how
how
we're
in
this
place
is,
is
just
for
the
history
books.
In
my
opinion
and
yeah,
I
would
agree
an
administrative
authority
to
be
consistent
with
you
know.
I
get
that
that's
kind
of
how
I
talk
right,
but
again
how
the
voters
perceive
things.
N
You
know
obviously
we're
very
intimately
aware
of
that
that
I
could
see
how
that
could
create
some
ambiguity
and
particularly
that
ambiguity
is
increased
when
we
say
well,
maybe
it
will
be
eliminated.
Maybe
we
won't
we'll
find
out
well,
in
fact
it
will
be
eliminated,
it's
clear
to
me,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
spelled
out
clear
enough
at
this
point
in
time,
but
to
say
that
the
chief
is
just
sort
of
a
word
that
can
be
superimposed
on
whomever
is
hired.
N
Conversely,
I
think
would
be
against
what
the
charter
advocates,
who
work
very
hard
to
get
the
signatures
that
they
did
get.
We
don't
want
to
have
a
charter
change
in
name
only
either.
I
don't
think
we
want
to
have
a
department
of
public
safety
which
just
is
a
rebranding
of
npd.
I
do
not
think
that's
the
intention
of
the
people
who
got
us
to
this
place
to
present
language,
to
the
voters
either,
and
so
again,
I'm
not
here
to
try
to
wordsmith
on
the
fly.
N
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
concur
with
council
member
rank.
I'm
I'm
not
sure
that
we're
done
yet
in
in
line
with
council
member
reich's
comments.
If
this
passes
the
chief,
as
we
know
it
would
be
a
deputy
to
a
new
public
safety
commissioner
at
best,
even
if
that
title
gets
retained,
and
what
we're
asking
to
be
part
of
this
ballot
measure
is
what
gets
amended
in
the
city
charter.
It
does
not
mean
the
chief
gets
fired,
but
it
does
mean
that
the
chief
is
being
removed
from
the
city
charter.
J
That
way.
The
question
that
I
have
just
because
I've
also
seen
this
information
about
this
floating
about
not
from
my
colleagues
but
elsewhere,
is
the
actual
deadline.
I
don't
think
we're
done
yet
with
this
language.
So
could
somebody
perhaps
the
the
city
attorney?
Please
help
me
to
clarify.
When
is
the
actual
deadline?
I
know
it's
today,
but
is
it?
Is
it
at
4
30
pm
or
is
it
at
the
end
of
the
evening?.
C
Yes,
let's
avoid
that
we
have
to
have
the
ballot
language
submitted
to
the
hennepin
county
auditor
elections,
division
no
later
than
11
59
pm
so
prior
to
midnight.
Obviously
I
I
think
I
said
this
earlier.
The
county
auditor
also
has
the
same
deadline
for
getting
our
ballot
language
to
the
secretary
of
state,
so
waiting
to
that
last
minute,
of
course,
is
not
advisable,
but
our
deadline
is
11.
59
pm.
F
I
have
a
question
for
maybe
either
casey
or
perhaps
the
city
attorney's
office,
so
so
first
I
I
should
say
that
I
can't
support
this
language,
the
way
that
it
is
right
now.
I
think
it's
extremely
critical
to
be
able
to
describe
what
happens
to
our
chief
of
police
under
this
proposed
change,
and
you
know
it's
not
by
nefarious
intent.
It
really
is
to
be
able
to
communicate
to
people
who
really
support
our
chief.
F
Exactly
what
would
happen
to
that
position
for
people
who
are
multilingual
speakers
or
learning
english
or
recently
became
citizens.
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
that
cut
that
cut
and
drive.
I
don't
think
this
language
is
actually
that
understandable,
if
you're
not
sort
of
in
the
city
zeitgeist
every
day,
and
so
it
really
is
important
for
us
to
really
strive
for
the
most
straightforward
approach
to
explain
all
of
the
pieces
that
are
going
in
all
of
the
pieces
that
are
coming
out,
especially
with
the
role
of
the
chief.
F
It
would
be
great
to
have
the
city
attorney,
have
time
to
review
and
and
provide
their
professional
opinion
on
this.
I
know
that
a
similar
approach
was
was
given
to
a
previous
policy
issue.
We
voted
on
earlier
this
week
and-
and
I
think
it
was
actually
a
pretty
smart
move
because
we
don't
quite
know
until
the
city
attorney's
office
can
weigh
in
what
the
potential
you
know
pros
and
cons
could
be
of
of
some
of
these
decisions
that
we're
making.
F
So
I
would
love
to
have
the
city
attorney's
office
be
able
to
have
the
proper
time
to
review,
discuss
and
report
back
to
council
members
before
we
can
vote
on
this.
I
understand
if
the
body
doesn't
want
to
do
that.
You
know
that's
that's
up
to
the
majority
of
the
votes
here
today,
so
I
won't
be
able
to
to
support
this.
However,
I
was
speaking
to
council
member
osman
about.
F
Is
there
an
ability
to
be
able
to
provide
this
particular
explanatory
note
in
spanish
and
somali
and
hmong
in
the
actual
ballot,
or
how
will?
How
will
other
languages
be
accommodated
to
explain
things
like
administrative
authority
to
be
consistent
with
other
other
city
departments
and
some
of
these
other
pieces?
That
might
be
a
little
bit
harder
to
grasp
for
new
americans
and
and
other
populations.
B
C
Madam
president,
to
councilman
mcconnell's
last
point,
which
is
about
the
formatting
of
the
ballot
and
language
ballots,
are
only
printed
in
english.
We
do
not
print
ballots
in
other
languages.
As
councils
aware,
however,
we
do
strive
very
hard
in
the
minneapolis
elections
and
voter
services
division
to
recruit
and
deploy
election
officials,
who
are
native
speakers,
and
especially
our
three
primary
languages,
and
they
are
able
to
translate
for
voters
who
are
here
either
in
person
for
early
voting
or
at
election
day
in
the
polls.
C
C
So
we
do
make
extraordinary
efforts
to
provide
access
to
all
of
our
voters
consistent
with
how
the
law
allows
us
to
do
that,
and
that
includes
a
mix
of
people
who
are
native
speakers
in
the
various
languages
serving
as
election
judges
who
are
trained
and
deployed
both
before
the
election
and
on
election
day,
and
we
make
use
of
the
language
line,
which
is
a
resource
available
to
all
city
departments
through
our
311
department.
I
hope
that
answered
your
question.
C
O
M
M
Right
now.
It
says
it
talks
about
the
reporting
structure,
as
quote
administrative
authority,
to
be
consistent
with
other
city
departments,
rather
than
say
that
we
could
say-
and
I
think
it
makes
more
sense-
shared
authority
by
the
mayor
and
city
council,
so
it
just
makes
really
clear
it's
a
shared
authority
structure
by
the
mayor
and
city
council,
as
opposed
to
referencing
other
city
departments
that
people
may
or
may
not
know
how
they're
governed
people
may
or
may
not
know
the
authority
that
we're
actually
talking
about
here.
M
B
Thanks
mayor,
I
know
this
was
offered
in
conversation
with
some
of
the
council
members
that
were
talking
earlier.
I
I
put
myself
in
queue
actually
to
call
the
question.
I
know
we've
had
many
many
hours
of
conversation
and
debate
about
this,
including
this
morning
at
the
council
meeting
wednesday
at
the
committee
meeting
and
for
months
since
the
question
was
submitted
in
may.
I
guess
I'll
just
comment
on
this.
I
don't
support
that
language.
B
It
is
not
accurate
to
say
shared
authority
is
not
an
accurate
description
of
a
system
of
government
and
there
is
a
ballot
question
on
the
ballot
to
decide
our
our
structure
of
government.
So
the
reason
it
was
written
this
way
was
to
be
clear
that
the
no
matter
what
happens
with
the
government
structure,
question
that
the
if
this
were
to
pass
the
structure
of
government
governance
for
the
police
department
would
be
consistent
with
the
structure
of
governance
for
the
other
city
departments.
L
Well
I'll
say
that
this
is
pretty
close
to
something
I
could
live
with
as
well.
I
think
I
even
thought
about
the
idea
of
shared
oversight,
so
I
appreciate
that
language,
but
it
also
is
reflected
in
being
consistent
with
other
city
departments,
and
that
also
has
enough
flexibility
to
go
along
with
whatever
other
charter
amendments
might
happen
to
get
past,
although
this,
of
course
is
not
charter
language,
I
actually
clicked
in,
because
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
clarify
that
I
think
the
point
I
was
trying
to
make
about
denver.
L
L
There's
not
much
laid
out
about
who
the
commissioner
has
to
be.
They
just
have
to
get
nominated
and
appointed
in
standard
procedure,
so
that's
a
possibility
for
folks
who
are
really
concerned
about
what
that
might
mean,
and
that
might
make
a
difference,
but
also
in
denver's
department
of
public
safety.
I
think
it
demonstrates
what
we
could
potentially
do
here,
which
is
add,
other
functions
under
it
like
they
have.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
merge
the
fire
department,
but
what
they
did
in
fact
is
they.
L
O
L
A
D
D
A
A
A
C
D
B
I'm
back
I've
restarted
my
team's
meeting,
I
with
deep
apologies
for
the
technical
issue
that
couldn't
have
come
at
a
worse
time.
Okay,
so
the
motion
to
call
the
question
passes
so
clerk
will.
Please
call
the
role
on
the
motion
that
does
not
include
the
red
language,
but
is
the
original
motion
before
us.
I
K
K
D
F
A
B
B
I
know
that
we
also
passed
a
version
of
language
earlier
today
with
nine
votes,
so
I
just
because
we
are
on
a
deadline
under
the
threat
of
needing
to
con.
We
need
to
finish
our
work
today.
I
will
do
what
I
did
this
morning.
I
hope
we
don't
need
to
meet
again,
but
if
we
do,
I
will
adjourn
this
meeting
for
the
call
of
the
president.
C
I'm
sorry,
madam
president,
just
I
know
the
body
is
well
aware
of
this,
but
for
the
public
who
may
be
watching,
because
this
is
a
new
action
it
becomes
subject
to
the
mayor's
consideration,
which
means
the
american
approve.
The
mayor
could
allow
this
to
become
effective
without
signature
or
the
american
veto
it.
C
So
the
clerk's
office
will
very
quickly
work
to
produce
this
official
act
with
the
new
language
that
was
just
approved
and
get
that
to
the
mayor's
office
as
quickly
as
we
possibly
can
and
work
with
the
mayor
to
see
what
action
he
will
take
in
his
consideration
of
this
new
ballot.
Language,
that's
just
been
approved,
and
I
will
be
in
contact
with
council
president
as
before
to
let
you
know.
C
As
soon
as
I
find
out
the
action
the
mayor
may
take,
and
then
the
council
president
will
direct
us
in
terms
of
reconvening
this
adjourned
session.
So
just
for
the
public,
because
I
know
you
all
know
the
process
at
this
point,
but
I
know
there
are
many
members
of
the
public
who
are
watching
us.
So
I
just
wanted
to
spell
that
out.