►
From YouTube: March 7, 2023 Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
Submit written comments about agenda items to: councilcomment@minneapolismn.gov or https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/meetings/public-comment/online-comment
A
A
A
A
C
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I
just
wanted
to
get
in
cue
to
speak
in
terms
of
a
series
series
of
my
items
specifically
on
item
one,
but
the
support
for
the
University
of
Minnesota
graduate
labor
union.
So
many
folks
are
aware
that
on
February
February
20th
graduate
students
announced
the
intention
to
create
a
graduate
labor
union
and
within
48
hours
they
got
over
2
000
graduate
workers
who
signed
Union
cards
so
I
think
this
absolutely
speaks
to
the
dire
economic
conditions
that
graduate
students
work
under.
C
They
are
compensated
far
below
a
living
wage
and
have
unaffordable
health
benefits
and
even
though
the
you
literally
could
not
exist
without
this
labor,
it's
very
clear,
like
students
have
had
to
go
for
it
with
taking
this
action
in
order
to
get
their
needs
met.
But
I
am
super
excited
to
bring
this
forward
I,
absolutely
Want
to
Thank
The
Graduate
of
student
workers,
who
have
done
an
amazing
job,
organizing
this
Union
drive.
C
This
is
already
a
historic
accomplishment
considering
this
is
now
I
think
the
the
sixth
try
for
for
this
at
the
University
of
Minnesota.
So
this
resolution
establishes
a
position
of
official
support
for
these
graduate
workers.
C
It
also
urges
the
University
of
Minnesota
to
remain
a
neutral
partner
or
party
throughout
the
unionization
process,
so
if
the
union
is
formed
again
it
this
resolution
will
also
urge
the
youth
to
bargain,
in
good
faith,
with
the
recognized
Union
too
so
again,
super
excited,
especially
since
our
award
has
the
largest
student
population,
so
really
excited
to
support
our
graduate
student
workers
in
these
efforts.
Thank.
D
A
Know
these
councilmember
Goodman
these
are
on
the
agenda
as
consent
items.
If
you
would
like
to
pull
item
number
two,
we
can
take
them
up
individually,
one
by
one.
Oh.
A
D
I
have
no
issue
with
item
number
one,
so
I
don't
want
to.
Maybe
you
should
separate
items
one
and
two
and
pull
two
for
discussion,
but
if
that's
the
will
of
the
council.
A
That
sounds
good
I
see
several
other
people
in
queue.
So
what
I'll
do
is
I'll
see?
Does
anyone
else
have
interest
in
speaking
on
item
number
one?
Otherwise,
I'll
just
move
that
ahead
and
then
we'll
deal
with
item
number
two
and
take
up
these
policy
amendments
individually.
So
anyone
on
item
number
one
council,
member
rainville,.
E
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
so
I
do
have
a
question
for
our
igr
staff.
This
we've
supported
labor
negotiations
to
the
private
sector
in
the
past,
but
this
is
through
another
government
agency
and
I'm
wondering
what
what
is
the
effects
of
that
have
we've
been
in
touch
with
the
U
on
this.
C
I
also
ask
in
terms
of
the
question
of
speaking
with
the
you:
we've
been
in
consultation
with
the
University
District
Alliance,
which
councilmember
rainville
I,
think
you're,
also
a
part
of
since
you
represents
the
war,
so
we've
been
in
touch
with
Tina
there,
so
government
agencies
have
been
notified,
but
absolutely
director.
You
can
also
talk
about
the
impact
of
the
piece
all.
F
You
chair,
Johnson,
and
vice
cherienville
and
committee
members,
I
I
also
notified
our
contact
at
the
University
of
Minnesota.
I
haven't
been
in
conversation
with
them
about
it,
but
just
wanted
to
make
sure
they
were
aware.
I
haven't
I,
didn't
get
a
response
back
in
terms
of
in
the
past.
I
I
I
can't
really
speak
to
it.
I
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
we've
how
we've
weighed
in
on
these
in
the
past,
so
I
would
have
to
do
a
little
research
and
get
back
to
you
on
that.
Unless.
E
E
I'm
just
wondering
again
we're
a
government
agency.
Is
our
government
agency?
Do
we?
Is
it
appropriate
for
us
to
comment
on
their
labor
negotiations.
A
C
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I
just
wanted
to
provide
some
clarification
so
right
now
there
is
no
labor
negotiations,
that's
taking
place
because
the
graduate
students
are
not
unionized.
What
they're
attempting
to
do
is
to
form
a
union
so
we're
not
weighing
in
on
any
active
negotiations,
because
there's
not
a
collective
bargaining
currently
in
existence
to
represent
graduate
students.
C
I
will
say
we
have
weighed
in
on
these
issues
when
there
has
been
active
negotiations
prior
to
director
topinka.
You
all
might
be,
or
might
recall
earlier
last
year
that
we
passed
two
resolutions
in
support
of
the
Starbucks
workers
as
well
as
Educators
that
were
actually
in
active
negotiations.
C
So
we
have
a
president
in
supporting
recognized,
Collective
writing
units
and
stating
official
positions
and
also
in
the
past
class,
we've
been
encouraged
to
reach
out
to
the
governmental
agencies
that
are,
you
know,
representing
the
the
negotiating
parties
in
the
case
of
the
Educators
we
reached
out
to
NPS
as
well
as
you
know,
their
their
other
agencies
same
with
Starbucks
workers.
D
A
couple
of
points,
thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
first
of
all,
if
the
University
was
worried
about
it,
they'd
be
here
second
of
all,
asking
them
to
practice,
neutrality
and
exercise.
Good
faith
and
bargaining
is
like
a
basic.
That's
the
law,
so
I
wouldn't
say
it's
really
controversial
to
suggest
that
they
follow
the
law.
In
fact,
I
mean
I'm
supporting
it.
If
that
means
anything
to
anyone,
I
feel
like.
Ultimately,
that
is
very
basic
language
and
it's
more
making
a
point.
D
I'll
also
note
that
the
University
of
Minnesota,
although
it's
a
government
entity,
also
loves
to
say
that
they
operate
completely
on
their
own.
They
have
their
own
zoning
regulations.
They
can
override
us
on
a
number
of
things.
So
there
are
kind
there
are
public
institution,
but
I'm,
not
sure
I'd
call
them
a
government
agency,
but
we're
just
simply
asking
them
here
to
be
neutral
and
bargain
in
good
faith
and
I.
Think
that
that's
acceptable
and
if
they
had
a
concern
about
it
they
would
send
Tina
or
someone
else
on
their
well-meaning
staff
to
be
here.
A
Thank
you,
councilmember
Goodman
I'm,
not
seeing
anyone
else
in
queue,
so
we'll
just
do
a
Voice
vote
on
item
number
one,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
those
opposed,
say,
nay.
That
motion
carries
next
we'll
move
on
to
item
two
one
and
that
is
amending
the
legislative
agenda
to
reflect
changes
related
to
the
classification
of
Public
Safety
complaint
data
council
member
wansley.
Thank.
C
You
chair
Johnson,
so
this
amendment
relates
to
Statewide
policy
for
data
practices
and
around
discipline.
Currently
there
is
a
state
policy
that
has
created
a
huge
loophole
and
disciplined
data.
Transparency
for
the
police
MPD
has
been
able
to
use
this
loophole
in
conjunction
with
the
practice
of
assigning
coaching
rather
than
discipline,
to
avoid
transparency
that
residents
deserve.
C
Some
of
you
might
also
recall,
especially
if
you
sit
on
Pogo
last
year,
I
worked
with
our
chair,
chair
Ellison,
to
bring
forward
experts
in
this
topic
to
give
a
presentation
in
the
Pogo
committee,
those
experts
included
a
former
pcoc
chair,
Abigail
Sarah,
as
well
as
University
of
Saint
Thomas
Professor
Richard
Rachel
Moran,
who
gave
an
extensive
presentation
on
this
topic.
C
I've
also
been
in
close
conversations
with
former
council
member
Paul
ostrow,
who
also
has
been
advocating
for
better
transparency,
as
relates
to
police
at
both
the
city
and
state
level.
There
is
consensus
amongst
these
folks,
as
well
as
other
experienced
professionals
that
there
needs
to
be
Statewide.
Data
policy
changes
around
police
misconduct.
This
is
a
key
part
of
correcting
mpd's
history,
of
evading
accountability
for
officer
misconduct
and
creating
a
better
culture
going
forward.
C
I
also
want
to
give
thanks
to
City
attorney
Kristen
Anderson,
who
our
office
works
with
and
making
sure
that
the
language
in
this
amendment
is
consistent
with
the
amendment
that
council
member
Payne
brought
forward
and
that
we've
us
it
complements
that
amendment
by
adding
additional
mechanism
for
accountability
within
the
disciplinary
data
framework.
So
just
wanted
to
offer
some
clarification
on
that.
Thank.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson,
yeah
I,
just
want
to
thank
you,
councilmember
wensley,
for
bringing
this
forward
former
council
member
Paul
Astro
is
my
constituent
and
I've
also
had
very
long
conversations
about
this
very
specific
detail,
as
it
relates
to
discipline
data
and
me,
and
our
City
attorney
spent
many
late
hours
trying
to
work
around
that
provision
within
the
state
legislature,
as
we
were
finalizing
our
amendments
on
our
ccpo,
so
I
think
this
is
just
the
next
logical
step
to
really
refining
this
and
making
it
more
workable
for
our
community.
G
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
Johnson,
so
this
amendment
supports
a
Statewide
policy
change
that
would
allow
cities
to
mandate
that
peace
officers
carry
personal
liability
insurance,
as
many
of
us
are
aware
of
the
impacts
of
unaccountable
police
force
has
been
incredibly
expensive
to
taxpayers.
It
has
been
reported
in
the
last
several
years
that
average
of
seven
million
dollars
is
paid
out
annually
due
to
police
misconduct,
with
2020
being
a
historic
price
tag
of
a
hundred
and
eleven
million
dollars.
C
Since
the
city
is
self-insured,
all
of
these
police
settlements
come
out
of
the
city's
funds
and
to
significantly
impact
the
general
budget.
This
is
also
a
topic
that
has
been
widely
discussed
over
the
past
several
years,
with
even
residents
back
in
2017
collecting
thousands
and
thousands
of
signatures
to
put
this
on
the
ballot
in
Minneapolis,
but
it
was
ultimately
blocked
because
of
current
state
laws.
Currently,
there
is
a
state,
a
lot
that
prohibits
cities
from
mandating
peace
officers
from
carrying
their
own
Assurance.
C
If
there
is
a
change
at
the
state
level,
the
City
of
Minneapolis
could
have
continued
conversations
of
what
it
could
look
like
to
shift
the
burden
from
taxpayers
to
police
officers,
who
are
the
ones
engaging
in
misconduct
and
ultimately
create
the
culture
change
that
I
think
we
all
are
committed
to
driving
forward
within
our
Police
Department.
So
the
idea
around
this
is
to
create
a
financial
incentive
for
officers
to
behave
safely
and
in
compliance
with
City
policy.
This
is
essentially
the
same
idea
behind
having
doctors
carry
personal
malpractice
insurance.
C
It
acts
as
a
motivator
for
that
individual
to
do
their
job
safely.
I
would
also
like
to
highlight
that
smaller
cities
who
have
been
unable
to
reign
in
the
bad
practices
of
their
police
force
have
also
been
able
to
pursue
some
really
significant
changes
when
they
saw
insurers
come
forward
and
deem
certain
high-risk,
behaviors
unacceptable
they've
been
able
to
leverage
that
to
create
reforms.
For
example,
many
police
forces
and
cities
throughout
the
country
who
participate
in
outside
liability
insurance
have
been
required
to
change
their
policies
and
practices
that
have
been
flagged
as
high
risk.
C
To
helping
all
this
happen,
is
this
current
state
legislation,
so
this
you
know,
would
open
that
door,
and
this
is
what
this
amendment
aims
to
support.
D
C
D
Well,
we
can
debate
that
because
that's
not
the
only
barrier,
the
main
barrier
is
the
Union
contract.
Four
of
the
council
members
here
are
working
on
the
negotiation
of
the
Union
contract
council
members,
Vita
myself,
chug,
Tai
and
Jenkins.
Never
has
this
come
up
as
part
of
the
Union
contract
discussions
that
we're
going
into
for
the
next
three
years.
You
do
realize
or
I
guess.
I
should
put
this
in
the
form
of
a
question.
D
Are
you
aware
of
discussions
as
it
pertains
to
the
Police
contract
or
just
council
member
chugged
I
want
to
answer
that
would
make
this
something
that
would
make
this
a
priority
for
the
us
over
the
next
three
years.
Yeah.
C
I
can
also
respond
to
that,
because
we've
also
been
in
conversations
with
our
city
attorneys.
That
I
also
believe
is
part
of
those
conversations
around
the
contract.
What
has
come
up
time
and
time
again,
especially
this
past
year,
when
we
debated
the
Police
contract,
is
we've
negotiated
every
tool
away
to
in
that
change?
C
And
that's
great
that
you
all
are
at
the
table
and
this
aims
to
complement
those
efforts,
because,
even
if
you
included
any
Provisions
in
the
Police
contract,
you
simply
can't
around
this
because
it
is
prohibited
at
the
state
level.
So
again,
we
would
still
need
to
take
state
level
action
if
you
all
at
that
table
want
to.
Also,
you
know,
demonstrate
support
for
this,
because
you
want
to
see
this
be
integrated
in
your
contract.
D
H
Thank
you,
Mr
chair.
This
is
not
going
to
complement
those
Police
contract
negotiation
efforts.
Let's
play
this
forward.
The
worst
bill
of
all
here
if
to
implement.
What's
on
this
agenda
is
one
that
would
allow
municipalities
to
actually
decide
what
they
want
to
do
and
we're
generally
here
for
local
control.
H
So
we
don't
want
to
have
some
cities
than
choosing
to
say
that
our
peace
officers
need
to
carry
their
own
police
liability
insurance.
If
it's
a
Statewide
program
like
an
insurance
trust,
then
that
is
something
that
would
benefit
us.
It
was.
It
was
absolutely
something
that
would
benefit
Minneapolis
because
it
would
put
the
liability
of
Peace
Officers
across
Minnesota
at
large
on
on
a
Statewide
type
of
insurance
program.
H
The
reason
we
pay
now
is
because
state
law
requires
us
to
do
so,
and
it's
a
hard
and
weird
standard
to
get
around
that
it's
the
woefully
negligent
piece
of
it,
but
the
way
to
improve
this
is
either
to
remove
it
all
or
make
it
such
that
we
every
municipality
would
be
subject
to
this.
So
I
don't
see
this
as
being
helpful
in
any
of
many
different
ways
and
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
H
I
could
see
a
world
that
this
would
work
out,
but
this
and
US
stepping
out
ahead
of
everybody
else
just
doesn't
seem
appropriate
here.
Thank
you.
I
You
chair,
Johnson,
I,
will
say:
I
share
some
of
the
concerns
as
councilmember
Goodman
around
this
just
being
a
bad
idea
and
I
think
it
just
couldn't
come
at
a
worse
time.
Conversations
like
this,
you
know
us
having
conversations
like
this
on.
The
dice
really
hurt
the
morale
with
our
staff
and
I,
and
this
is
just
another.
You
know
another
conversation
that
I
don't
think
we
should
be
having
right
now
if
States
take
this
on
and
different
counties
and
municipalities
can
choose
what
they
want.
I
If
Minneapolis
chooses
to
have
police
have
their
own
insurance
and
St
Louis
Park
doesn't
here's
another
opportunity
for
us
to
have
fewer
officers
than
we
have
anyway,
like
I
I
mean
this
is
just
I
I,
don't
even
know
why
we're
having
this
conversation
right
now
about
this,
because
the
the
work
we're
trying
to
do
also
I
just
want
to
say,
like
we
have
some
really
good
officers
who
actually
want
refer
reform
in
our
department,
and
we
should
be
working
on
those
things
like
this
to
me,
speaks
to
they're,
just
not
doing
a
good
job,
and
we
need
to
you
know,
figure
out
how
they
insure
themselves,
so
they
will
do
a
good
job
somehow
and
and
that
I
don't
think
that's
where
we
are
in
our
Police
Department
right
now
and
so
I
will
not
be
supporting
this
I
won't
be
supporting
this
at
all.
I
J
Osmond,
thank
you,
chair,
Johnson,
I,
agree,
council,
member,
Vita
I
think
we
are
trying
to
recruit
officers
and
the
officers
that
we
hire.
We
are
sending
them.
You
know
in
a
dangerous
job
and
for
them
to
know
that
they're
not
going
to
be
protected.
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
anyone
will
take
that
job.
J
You
know
we,
the
requirement
of
the
interview
or
the
hiring
process
will
be
or
do
you
have
insurance
and
I
don't
know
if
anyone
will
be
able
to
even
come
forward
to
that
and
for
the
for
that
process.
I,
don't
even
know
if
the
insurance
or
company
will
be
able
to
even
take
that
kind
of
quote
or
or
process.
I
am
also
but
I'm,
but
I'm
open
to
talking
about
you
know
of
Duty
of
Duty
police
officers
and
their
behavior
I.
J
Believe
the
city
should
not
be
responsible
that
maybe
we
can
start
a
discuss
over
there,
but
when,
when
they
are
on
duty
and
they're
doing
their
job,
you
should
be
responsible
because
we
tell
them,
you
know
we
send
them
in
harm
ways
and
make
sure
that
they're
protecting
our
residents
and
so
on,
but
I'm
really
really
open
to
discussing
maybe
talking
to
the
state
talking
to
it
with
one
another
figure.
J
Another
way
when
police
officer
is
not
on
duty,
but
he's
off
duty
and
traveling
somewhere
in
Mexico
or
somewhere,
then
when
he
you
know,
violates
or
someone's
rights
or
or
act
a
different
way
than
the
city
should
not
be
responsible.
That
should
be
a
personal
responsible
within
the
officer.
So
that's
my
opinion.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you
chair.
A
few
things
one
is
I
was
listening
to
the
meeting
on
my
way.
Over
and
I
would
like
to
reflect
I'd
like
to
vote
on
item.
One
I
know
that
that's
that
we've
already
passed
that,
but
if
there's
no
objection
from
the
committee,
I'd
like
to
be
noted,
as
in
support
of
that
I.
A
Will
direct
the
clerk
to
notate
that
not
seeing
any
objections.
K
A
K
You
and
then
just
a
few
comments
on
item
two
two
here.
You
know
I
think
that
it's
really
important
that
we
I
guess
my
question
is:
if
we
don't
start
this
conversation
at
what
now?
At
what
point
do
we
start
this
conversation?
The
city
has
paid
out
exorbitant
exorbitant
amounts
of
money
in
a
for
the
conduct
of
officers.
K
I
think
that
it's
it's
not
it
we've
brought
up
several
times
how
we
might
be
able
to
address
this
issue.
The
truth
is:
is
that
it's
going
to
take
a
multi-pronged
approach,
sure
it's
going
to
take
training,
sure
it's
going
to
take
recruiting
officers
who
don't
expose
Us
in
this
way,
but
you
know
I'm
not
necessarily
convinced
that
every
single
large
settlement
that
we
have
had
to
pay
in
the
last
couple
of
years
has
just
been
purely
a
Personnel
issue.
K
I
think
we
have
a
structural
issue
I
think
we
have
a
systemic
issue
and
so
I'm
going
to
support
item
2.2
and
I'm
going
to
ask
my
colleagues
for
that,
if
that,
for
those
that
don't
and
I
think
that
reasonable
people
can
disagree
on
this
issue,
what
starts
the
conversation
right?
50
60
million
dollars
in
the
last
handful
of
years
paid
out
what
starts
this
conversation,
we're
seeing
conduct
from
officers
that
we
don't
approve
of
that
the
community
doesn't
approve
of
what
starts
this
conversation.
K
The
taxpayers
are
on
the
hook,
no
matter
what
and
so
I
think
that
you
know.
Maybe
this
isn't.
Maybe
this
isn't
it
I
do
support
this
today,
but
maybe
this
isn't
the
pathway,
but
if
it's
not
what
starts
the
conversation
and
how
do?
How
do
community
members
not
only
protect
themselves
physically
but
protect
their
tax
dollars
from
from
from
misconduct
from
having
to
go
to
pay
for
misconduct
that
they
didn't
approve
of
I?
K
Think
it's
an
important
conversation
I
think
it's
a
necessary
one
and
and
and
it
comes
up
every
once
in
a
while-
it
comes
up
every
couple
of
years,
and
so,
if
this
isn't
the
appropriate
way
to
start
this
conversation,
what
is
and
not
only
what
is
who's
ready
to
start
working
on
it,
and
so
that's
it.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I'm,
just
wondering:
if
did
you
know
when
these
types
of
things
happen,
do
the
police
officers
get
paid,
but
do
they
is
their
salary
bumped
up
for
them
to
pay
the
insurance
or?
I
How
does
that
work
like?
Do
you
offer
them?
If
anyone
could
speak
to
that
I'm,
not
sure
but
like
how?
How
do
these
things
work?
Do
they
make
more
money,
and
then
we
pay
it
for
them
like
how
I'm
not
sure
how
it
even
works
for
this
type
of
coverage
looks
like
councilmember
Ellison
knows.
K
I
mean,
and
if
the
attorneys
know
better
than
me,
then
then
they
can
they
can
weigh
in.
This
is
from
a
policy
perspective.
This
is
Uncharted
Territory
right,
and
so
we
would
have
to
sort
of
create
that
pathway,
I
think
that
if
we
prevented
ourselves
from
exploring
new
policy
Pathways
just
because
it
had
never
been
done
before,
we
would
never
create
a
new
policy.
And
so
that's
why
I
say
this
might
not
be
the
exact
right
way
to
go
about
this.
K
But
if
we're
going
to
start
this
cover,
but
if
but
if
it
isn't,
what
is
right,
if
we
and
asking
the
question
and
sort
of
forcing
the
issue
as
as
this
as
this
question,
does
it
forces
it
forces
answers
to
those
questions
right
if
forces,
if
forces
answers
to
those
questions,
and
so
and
so
I
think
that
pretending,
like
there's
supposed
to
be
some
kind
of
pre-prescribed
pathway
towards
every
single
nut
and
bolt?
K
Is
it's
just
not
how
good
policy
is
made?
You
start
with
the
question,
and
then
you
let
the
questions,
compile
and
answer
themselves.
That's
how
we've
always
created
a
good
policy
here
in
the
city
and
I
think
that's
how
new
and
Innovative
policy
gets
created
everywhere
in
the
country.
I
Okay,
thank
you.
I
would
just
say
that
this
seems
like
it
could
have
a
huge
financial
impact,
and
so
let's
not
let's
not
forget
that
you
know
a
budget
item-
would
have
to
come
with
something
like
that.
If
we
haven't
even
decided
what
we're
going
to
do,
the
the
good
policy
that
councilmember
Ellison
is
speaking
of
has
a
financial
impact
that
comes
along
with
it.
C
Thank
you,
Cheryl
Johnson,
so
I
do
want
to
highlight.
I
think
this
is
the
appropriate
way
to
have
a
discussion
and
I'm
gonna
connect
this
to
a
couple
of
things
that
some
of
my
colleagues
have
raised.
C
Council
vice
president
palmisano,
you
raised
the
concern
around
local
control
right
now,
what
is
preventing,
as
we've
noted
and
from
even
the
standpoint
of
our
residents,
who
did
a
valid
initiative,
attempt
to
try
to
change
this
very
thing
and
work
with
Council
to
form
a
policy
to
do
exactly
what
also
you
know,
council
member
Ellison
has
highlighted
that
all
was
stopped
because
we
have
a
Statewide
policy
that
prohibits
this.
C
This
starts
the
conversation
of
addressing
the
core
barrier
that
prevents
local
control
or
any
type
of
local
action
that
can
happen
that
segues
into
the
police
contract,
which
I
want
to
know
that
cannot
even
be
negotiated
right
now,
because
we're
currently
having
to
settle
settle
bargaining.
You
know
segments
right
now
and
that's
currently
in
the
mediation
process,
so
the
Police
contract
is
already
kind
of
tied
up
with
some
existing
things.
C
This
will
have
to
be
removed
from
us
in
order
for
us
to
take
action
when
it
comes
to
existing
practices
that
we
can
refer
to
as
we
look
to
craft
a
policy
or
a
product
that
will
allow
us
to
to
transfer
this
burden
off
of
the
backs
of
taxpayers
again.
C
Doctors
are
we
saying
it's
a
bad
idea
for
doctors
to
have
mail
and
practice
insurance?
Do
we
think
it's
an
insult
to
Health
Care
Professionals
like
doctors
to
carry
their
insurance
as
well?
We've
seen
these
models
and
I
think
we
can
refer
to
that
and
we
are
already
having
to
pay
the
burden
of
the
price
tag.
C
We
are
not
going
to
create
a
different
culture
within
that
department
that
hopefully
attracts
officers
that
want
to
uphold
an
equitable
level
of
service
high
level
of
service
and
also
know
that
they
do
not
want
to
engage
in
misconduct.
Behaviors,
that's
going
to
put
Financial
burdens
on
working-class
people
that
makes
up
the
city,
so
the
time
is
now
if
we
are
not
going
to
trigger
this
conversation
and
take
Statewide
action
when
we
paid
a
hundred
and
eleven
million
dollars
in
2020
alone,
I,
don't
know
what
else
would
be.
C
That
should
be
the
trigger
point
for
us
to
have
a
discussion
to
say
that
our
residents
should
not
keep
putting
footing
the
bill
for
this
and
that
we
actually
want
to
take
Serious
action
around
addressing
the
culture
of
unaccountability
within
our
police
department
and
I.
Don't
see
how
that's
controversial.
C
This
is
one
of
the
ways
in
which
we
can
take
that
action
within
our
Authority
and
I
look
forward
to
at
least
demonstrating
to
the
public
that
I
don't
want
you
to
have
to
keep
subsidizing
the
misconduct
of
some
of
our
officers
to
keep
subsidizing
for
the
high-risk
behaviors
for
the
violence
that
our
mdhr
findings
that
are
now
yearling,
two
percent
decrease
likely
from
the
doj
as
well.
C
G
Thank
you,
chair
Johnson,
yeah
I.
There
was
a
lot
of
miscellaneous
questions.
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
going
to
attribute
these
to
the
appropriate
people
to
have
some
thoughts
on
some
of
the
questions.
One
of
them
is
around.
You
know
the
cost
for
this
and
I
think
we're
not
comparing
they're
we're
asking
to
compare
a
counter
factual
of
of
a
reality
that
doesn't
exist.
G
We
actually
don't
know
the
cost
of
this
future
Endeavor
if
it
were
to
come
to
pass,
but
we
do
know
the
cost
of
our
current
status
quo
and
then
our
self-insurance
fund
I
think
we've
paid
out
like
72
million
dollars
in
the
in
the
in
recent
times.
For
some
of
those
settlements,
that's
us.
The
taxpayer
is
basically
paying
that.
So
that's
that's
the
cost
right
now
and
I
think
it
was
mayor
Frye.
G
Who
said
we
need
to
pay
police
more
and
we
need
to
fire
them
more,
and
so
you
know
there
could
be
a
scenario
in
which
we
do
offset
in
in
the
bargaining
agreement,
we
offset
the
cost
of
this
in
the
salary
bomb
to
try
to
keep
it
neutral.
As
far
as
the
impact
on
the
staff
and
then,
if
that
were
to
come
to
pass,
I,
unfortunately
have
a
lot
of
experience
with
the
healthcare
industry
and
health
care
insurance.
G
In
particular,
some
of
these
Health
companies
have
some
of
the
most
sophisticated
data
models
on
Earth
and
they
can
predict
who
will
get
cancer
when
and
how
much
it'll
cost
to
treat
them,
and
then
they
rigorously
fight
against
paying
out
costs
for
those
to
maximize
their
profits.
That
market
there
is
money
to
be
made
in
this
insurance
market
and
the
way
capitalism
works
is
where
there's
money
to
be
made.
The
market
will
follow
so
I
and
and
alternatively,
if
there's
no
money
to
be
made,
there
will
be
no
private
insurance
company.
G
That
wants
to
take
this
business
on
and
then
we'll
continue
in
status
quo,
and
if
this
law
this
this
amendment,
it
is
not
requesting
that
the
state
mandate
self-insurance.
It's
just
saying:
let's
remove
that
as
a
barrier
and
give
it
back
to
local
control
as
to
what
makes
the
most
sense
for
managing
this
risk.
Would
you
rather
pay
out
72
million
dollars
out
of
taxpayer
funds
to
settle
misconduct
cases,
or
would
you
rather
a
private
insurer?
G
You
know:
take
a
stab
at
developing
some
Actuarial
tables,
looking
at
National
Data
of
police
conduct
and
and
police
settlements
and
come
up
with
an
insurance
premium
rate
that
would
stabilize
the
financial
exposure
of
our
taxpayers.
G
D
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
I,
quite
frankly,
am
sick
and
tired
of
hearing
in
this
Council
that
all
cops
are
terrible.
Racist,
misogynist,
horrible
people
and
I
think
the
public
that
I
represent.
Many
of
them
are
sick
and
tired
of
hearing
that
as
well.
Plenty
of
bad
officers
have
left
some
good
officers
have
left
and
there
are
plenty
of
good
people
on
the
job
on
a
daily
basis
and
to
constantly
have
them
berated
in
these
council
chambers,
and
told
that
their
misogynist,
racist,
horrible
people
is
exactly
the
reason
why
many
of
them
are
leaving.
D
So
we
better
look
internally
at
our
own
behavior
about
what
we're
doing
to
drive
people
out
of
working
for
the
City
of
Minneapolis.
The
time
has
come
to
stop
this
performative
behavior
and
character.
Characterizing
every
cop
is
terrible.
I
for
one
am
sick
of
it
number
two
we're
not
asking
snow
plow
drivers
to
have
individual
insurance,
we're
not
asking
tow
truck
drivers
who
work
for
the
city
to
have
individual
insurance.
We're
not
asking
firefighters
to
do
that.
Are
we
simply
saying
some
people
are
bad.
D
Therefore,
all
of
the
other
cops
are
going
to
have
to
pay
for
their
own
insurance
insurance,
which
doesn't
exist
now
on
the
market
here
or
anywhere
in
the
immediate
area
of
Minnesota
and
I'll
note,
insurance
is
really
expensive.
For
doctors
ask
doctors
what
malpractice
insurance
cost
anesthesiologists
are
paying
upwards
of
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year.
Ob
GYN
is
paying
even
more
than
that,
so
this
actually
could
cost
us
more
than
what
we're
paying
now
to
be
self-insured,
there's
absolutely
no
analysis
of
it.
D
K
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
sort
of
take
the
temperature
down
a
little
bit
just
because
I
want
us
to
think
about
the
action.
That's
actually
in
front
of
us.
We
are
asking
we
are.
We
are
trying
to
tell
the
state
legislature
that
we
should
we
would
support
them
in
changing
state
law.
There's
no
operational
impact
to
that.
None!
There's
no
budget
impact
to
that.
None!
K
That's
what
we're
considering
you
know
that
I
wasn't
going
to
use
the
the
doctor's
example,
but
if
we're
going
to
use
the
doctor's
example
and
doctors
are
insured
is
the
is
the
implication
that
all
doctors
are
bad.
That's
not
the
implication
by
doctors
being
insured,
so
I,
don't
think
anybody's
up
here,
making
that
implication
as
much
as
I
respect,
councilmember,
Goodman,
I
I.
Resent
that
that's
my
position.
K
That's
not
my
position,
and
so
but
I
do
think
that,
while,
while
there
might
be
some
settlements
that
we
occasionally
pay
out
for
firefighters
and
snowplow
drivers,
how
does
it
compare
to
the
settlements
that
we
pay
out
to
police
I?
K
Don't
have
the
numbers
in
front
of
me
but
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
question
and
I
think
that
if
we
add
it
up
all
the
snowplow,
all
the
settlements
that
we've
paid
out
and
in
in
snowplow
incidents
and
all
the
settlements
that
we've
paid
out
for
firefighters,
it
wouldn't
come
close
to
what
we've
paid
out
in
police
misconduct.
K
I
would
invite
any
of
my
colleagues
to
correct
me
on
that.
This
is
the
the
question
before
us.
We're
asking
the
state.
Let
we're
telling
the
state
legislature
that
we
would
support
them
in
a
state
law
change.
We
don't
have
to
pretend
like
this
is
anything
other
than
that
we
don't
have
to
assign
too
much
intent
onto
that
and
narrativize
it
in
a
way.
That
is
disingenuous.
K
We
can
look
at
the
question
before
us
and
we
can
answer
it
and
when
councilmember
wansley
is
talking
about
these
reports,
I
don't
think
that
council
member
wansley
is
saying
every
single
cop
is
racist,
misogynist,
I
think
councilmember
wansley
is
very
clearly
saying
that
we
have
feedback
from
mdhr.
We
have
feedback
and
we
were
anticipating
feedback
from
the
doj,
although
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
them
that
this
is
the
culture,
not
every
single
officer,
that
this
is
a
pervasive
culture
and
has
been
a
pervasive
culture
within
our
department.
K
That
doesn't
mean
that
every
single
cop
is
bad.
I
hope
that
officers
can
listen
to
this
discussion
with
a
clear
mind.
K
I
could
understand
if
they're
struggling
to
we're
struggling
to
right,
we're
making
we're
making
things
up
about
what
this
action
means
and
and
understand
that
when
you've
got
I
think
you
know,
I,
don't
have
the
numbers
right
in
front
of
you,
but
I
think
Elliot
said
over
over
70
million
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
If
that's
you
know
that
sounds
that
sounds
accurate,
I,
don't
know
for
sure.
K
Let's
do
an
analysis.
Would
this
cost
more
than
72
million
dollars
and
go
from
there
I
think
it's
a
reasonable
action!
I'm!
Sorry
that
there's
been
so
much
debate,
I
really
regret
that
there's
been
the
tone
that
the
debate
has
had
the
tone
that
it's
had.
G
You
chair,
Johnson,
yeah,
I,
also
just
kind
of
wanted
to
cool
the
tone
off
a
little
bit.
I,
don't
think
anybody
said
racist
cop
in
any
of
this
discussion
other
than
maybe
your
critique
of
this
discussion,
but
and
I've
I've
made
actually
really.
A
I'm
sorry,
councilmember,
panef,
council
members,
one
I
have
a
conversation.
I'd
ask
them
to
please
leave
the
dice
momentarily.
Thank.
G
You
I've
made
really
good
connections
with
MPD
now
that
I'm,
a
council
member-
and
we
get
to
know
these
folks
as
people,
and
these
are
people
that
are
trying
to
navigate
us
a
set
of
forces
that
are
on
them
in
this
system,
a
set
of
incentives
that
are
on
them
in
the
system.
We
ask
a
lot
of
MPD,
we
ask
a
lot
of
each
and
every
one
of
our
uniformed
officers
and
we
actually
demand
certain
things
from
them
that
are
in
contradiction.
G
We
demand
them
to
be
empathetic,
but
we
don't
give
them
the
time
in
their
calls
to
service.
We
demand
that
they
have
a
very
forceful,
tough
on
crime
approach
to
to
violence,
but
we
don't
let
them
run
Rampage.
We
don't
want
them
to
do
that.
There
are
these
systems
that
are
in
place
that
inevitably
lead
to
certain
types
of
behavior,
because
they
are
demanded
to
do
certain
things
that
are
in
contradiction
to
each
other.
G
We
want
them
to
stop
every
possible
crime
that
there
is,
but
we
don't
want
them
to
pull
people
over.
These
are
systems.
These
are
incentives
and
I.
Think
what
we
need
to
do
is
say
what
are
the
different
levers
in
the
system?
What
are
the
different
incentives
in
the
system
that
will
inevitably
take
any
good
character
person
and
have
them
in
a
bad
scenario.
G
And
I
think
going
back
to
council
council
member
Ellison's
point
we're
not
actually
saying
we
want
to
implement
self-insurance
or
individual
liability
insurance
for
each
officer.
We're
saying
we
don't
want
that
mandated
by
the
state
that
we
can't
explore
that
we
want
to
look
at
the
70,
some
odd
million
dollars
of
costs
that
are
carried
by
the
taxpayer
and
ask.
Is
there
a
different
way
to
manage
this
type
of
risk
and
right
now?
The
answer
to
that
question
is
no,
because
state
law
prevents
us
I
want
the
answer
to
that.
L
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I
will
be
supporting
this
amendment
today,
not
because
I
think
all
police
officers
are
bad.
L
Responsibility
of
human
life,
doctors
and
police
officers,
who
have
guns,
and
so
consequently,
those
actions
place
them
in
a
different
level
of
responsibility
in
our
society
and
I
believe
that
if
we
are
asking
doctors
who
have
that
same
responsibility
to
have
a
level
of
coverage
to
help
support
when
mistakes,
accidents
or
intentional
Behavior
happens,
because
some
doctors
do
intentionally
harm
people,
however,
and
we
don't
have
that
same
level
of
protection
for
our
police
officers,
who
have
that
same
responsibility
to
take
people's
lives,
I
think
they
would
take
that
responsibility
much
more
serious
than
we
witness
it
being
considered.
L
Today
to
the
point
that
councilmember
Vitale
made
about,
should
we
be
supporting
that
I
think
we
do
I,
think
police
officers
are
underpaid
now
and
if
we
are
going
to
ask
them
to
spend
extra
money,
we
as
a
society
should
have
to
support
that.
But
I
believe
that,
ultimately,
liability
insurance
would
curb
some
of
the
unnecessary
violence
that
we
see
played
out
not
only
in
our
city
but
all
across
the
country.
I
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson,
I
I,
don't
like
this
comparison
of
doctors
and
police
officers,
like
doctors,
aren't
going
out
to
9-1-1
calls
where
people
have
weapons,
possibly
or
like
there's
violence
happening
at
a
scene.
It's
too
different,
like
you,
go
in
to
see
a
doctor,
sometimes
it's
elective
surgery.
Sometimes
you
needed
to
save
your
life
like
there's,
there's
not
a
comparison
in
like
police,
going
out
from
a
9-1-1
call
into
a
dangerous
situation.
Yes,
they
have
a
gun,
but
the
other
person
can
too,
like
it.
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
why
we're
comparing
doctors
and
police
officers.
It
just
doesn't
feel
like
a
a
good
comparison,
I'm
pretty
sure,
there's,
probably
a
different
profession
that
we
can
maybe
but
the
doctor
thing
I'm,
not
understanding
the
connection
of
of
the
two
because
they're
like
yeah,
they
they
treat
people
or
they
have
like
this.
You
know
they're
they're,
a
different
kind
of
profession,
but
it
just
doesn't
compare
because
we
we
don't
ask
doctors
to
take
9-1-1
calls
and
go
out
into
dangerous
situations.
I
I
feel
like
one
of
the
gifts
of
you
know
like
doctors,
they
they
have
this
passion
to
be
a
doctor
and
they
want
to
fix
things
and
they
want
to
and
I'm
sure,
there's
a
level
of
that
with
policing,
but
there's
also
a
level
of
danger
as
a
police
officer
that
you
go
out
with
every
single
day
when
you,
you
know,
start
your
shift.
That
is
not
the
same
of
a
doctor.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you,
chair
I,
go
back
to
this
point
about
why
we're
comparing
police
officers
to
to
doctors
I
actually
believe
that
comparison
in
this
discussion
was
was
was
not
brought
in
first
by
by
the
council
president,
actually
by
by
council
member
Goodman,
who
made
the
comparison
of
doctors
carrying
professional
liability
insurance
with
a
specific
example
of
anesthesiologists
and
and
the
cost
of
personal
liability
insurance.
So
I
think
the
the
the
comparison
to
doctors
is
just
I
I,
don't
think
it
was.
A
Thank
you,
council,
member
I
am
not
seeing
any
other
discussion
on
this
item
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
because
it
seems
like
there's.
Division
on
this
I
will
ask
for
a
roll
call
on
this
item,
as
amended
and
I
say
as
amended,
because
there's
a
substitute
motion
with
just
some
technical
changes
to
the
language
on
this,
but
it
contains
all
of
the
same
substance
as
the
original
motion
and
I'll.
Also
just
note
for
the
record
that
that
was
the
case
as
well
with
item
two
one.
A
So
with
that
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll
on
item
two
two,
as
amended.
L
A
A
C
You
chair
Johnson,
so
this
amendment
supports
an
existing
piece
of
legislation
that
has
been
introduced
by
Senator
Omar
fate,
which
proposes
using
some
of
the
state's
17
billion
dollar
Surplus
to
make
higher
education
free
in
Minnesota
college
debt.
I
think
many
of
us
I'm
sorry
can
I
be
one
of
my
thank
you.
College
debt
is
a
massive
financial
burden
on
so
many
residents
as
a
council
member
who
represents
the
largest
student
population
in
the
state,
I
see
firsthand
every
day.
C
The
need
for
this
legislation
and
I'm
supported
to
or
excited
to
support
our
Minneapolis
delegation
and
bring
it
in
forward
and
and
really
addressing
this
massive
burden
on
many
working-class
students
in
Residence.
So
with
that,
it's
up
for
you.
All's
consideration.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
I
support
council
member
wansley's
Amendment,
but
I
did
wanted
to
mention
that
invoking
the
name
of
Tina
aresmus
as
someone
who
supports
item
number
two
is
not
true.
She's
been
texting
me
about
this.
She
was
happy
to
be
notified,
but
she
did
not
offer
any
support
from
her.
The
government
relations
team
at
the
University
or
the
University
of
Minnesota
I
strongly
support
item.
One
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
I
did
not
hear
from
the
University
that
they
support
it.
They
appreciate
being
acknowledged
in
the
conversation.
C
A
Councilmember
well,
first
off
thank
you,
councilmember
Goodman,
council
member
wansley
and
then
we'll
movie,
councilmember
Jenkins.
C
Just
for
clarifying
on
the
record
I,
don't
think
at
no
point
did
I
say
the
UDA
I
think
we
said
that
we've
touched
base
with
the
UDA
about
all
of
our
amendments
related
to
higher
education.
So
sorry,
if
there
was
anything
that
came
off
of
like
them
being
in
support,
I
just
said
we
did
touch
base
with
all
the
partners
involved.
L
A
C
And
also
I
can
follow
up.
Yeah
I,
see
director
topinka
is
doing
her
research
on
the
bill,
language
I
definitely
defer
to
her.
We
also
can
follow
up
again,
knowing
that
this
is
a
collaborative
bill
with
Senator
Forte,
the
Minnesota
staff
and
faculty
Union.
All
the
state,
colleges
and
universities
are
also
rallying
support
for
this.
So
there's
been
a
broad
base
of
a
broad
Coalition
of
higher
ed
faculty
and
staff
and
students
that
are
rallying
behind
this
legislation.
A
F
Okay,
yes,
chair
Johnson
and
committee
members,
I
did
find
the
bill
language,
it's
Senate
file,
1986
and
it
looks
like
the
appropriation
is
316
million
dollars
or
close
to
317
million
dollars
in
fiscal
year,
2025
and
and
then
moving
forward.
So
about
317
million
dollars
a
year.
Is
the
amount
in
the
bill.
F
Chair
Johnson,
council
president,
it's
it's
a
general
fund.
Appropriation
is
the
source
in
the
in
the
language.
A
I
will
just
add
myself
to
queue.
I
support
this
item.
I
do
want
to
take
a
moment,
though,
just
to
say
that
we
hear
a
lot
about
different
free
programs
out
there
or
Pursuits
of
free
things:
College
Child,
Care,
Health,
Care,
Transit
housing
and
even
guaranteed
Universal
basic
income,
and
so
my
only
point
in
raising
this
is
I.
Think
we
need
to
talk
about
prioritizing
at
some
point
around
these.
A
A
Think
we
want
to
be
mindful
of
what
are
our
priorities
of
those
things
mentioned,
because
I've
heard
of
those
other
things
that
I've
mentioned
those
being
priorities
for
Council
Members
as
well
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
as
a
body
and
helpful
in
terms
of
our
efforts
around
lobbying,
to
have
some
prioritization
of
those
things
to
say
well,
which
one
do
we
want,
first
and
and
essentially,
what
kind
of
order
around
those
but
again
I'm
happy
to
support
this
item
today.
A
G
We
do
need
to
have
those
priorities
and
one
thing
that
I'm
just
trying
to
bring
into
this
conversation
is-
and
this
might
not
be
relevant
for
the
state
of
Minnesota,
specifically
but
I'm
sure
we
will
find
our
own
version
of
this
in
the
state
of
Minnesota,
but
I,
look
at
frankly
oligarchs,
like
Elon
Musk,
having
enough
free
income
to
purchase
platforms
like
Twitter
as
a
reflection
that
our
overall
tax
code
is
probably
not
reflective
of
the
right
set
of
priorities.
G
So
we
we
know
that
there
is
capacity
when
it's
very
clear
that
Elon
Musk
owning
Twitter
is
not
like
better
for
society
and
that
maybe
those
dollars
would
have
been
better
spent
taxed
and
spent,
and
and
used
for
something
like
higher
education
funding.
So
Elon
Musk.
His
income
is
not
really
relevant
for
the
state
of
Minnesota
but
I'm
sure
there's
a
version
of
that
type
of
wealth
in
our
state
that
maybe
could
be
better
utilized
for
some
of
these
types
of
programs.
C
Building
on
this
discussion
around
prioritization,
it
might
be
good
for
this
body
or
the
igr
staff
to
also
have
a
series
of
meetings
with
our
Minneapolis
delegation,
because
I
will
name
the
things
that
you
highlighted,
the
you
know
a
drive
for
Universal,
Health,
Care,
legalization
of
cannabis
and
then
ensuring
that
expungement
and
decriminalization
efforts
are
complement,
complemented
with
that
legislation,
free
higher
education
through
Child
Care.
All
of
these
things
about
rebuilding
and
fully
funding
our
public
assets
and
public
institutions
are
being
driven
by
the
Minneapolis
delegation.
C
They
see
these
as
priorities.
They
are
being
responsive
to
many
of
the
concerns
that
their
residents
are
expressing
to
them
about
their
material
needs,
and
these
are
legislative
solutions
that
they're
co-creating
with
residents.
That's
what
we're
seeing
happening
with
the
tripod
effect
of
this
being
one
of
the
most
Progressive
agendas
that
we've
seen
pass
for
a
state
in
in
the
21st
century.
C
We're
leading
the
way
on
that
in
the
country
and
I
want
to
give
credit
to
our
Minneapolis
delegation
in
the
house
and
in
the
senate
for
being
a
driving
force
for
those
changes.
So
it
could
be
having
a
conversation
with
our
Minneapolis
delegation.
I
know.
Many
of
us
have
very
you
know,
different
relationships
with
those
Representatives
and
that
can
also
be
a
resource
in
helping
us
really
assess.
C
A
You,
council,
member
I'm,
not
seeing
anyone
else
in
queue,
so
we
will
move
to
a
Voice
vote
on
item
two
three,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
those
opposed,
say,
nay.
The
motion
carries
now.
We
move
on
to
item
two
four
and
then
we'll
see.
If
the
author
wants
to
speak
on
that
or
if
anyone
jumps
in
the
cube.
H
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
we
adopted
our
legislative
agenda
last
December
and
largely
speaking,
I
feel
like
we
need
to
go
with
what
we've
got
or
it
reduces
our
effectiveness
at
the
Capitol,
but
this
is
something
that
you've
seen
increased
activity
around
the
past
few
months
from
the
federal
to
the
local
levels
and,
to
the
extent
that
we
can
connect
things
that
we're
doing
here
to
the
state.
I
have
the
next
two
items.
H
I
want
you
to
know.
My
amendments
today
come
from
a
place
of
sadness.
I
sat
with
our
experience
at
Council
last
cycle
for
several
days
and
reflected
on
the
change
to
meeting
decorum
over
the
years
and
how
our
public
officials,
public
employees
and
their
families
are
being
treated.
I
spoke
with
colleagues
who
filed
police
report.
Reports
spoke
to
a
colleague
who
was
pinned
to
the
top
of
an
escalator
after
that
meeting
council
president
Jenkins
and
I
are
not
done.
H
Hearing
from
you,
we've
been
in
conversation
with
City
staff
building
staff
and
the
mayor's
office
on
potential
next
steps
on
what
we
do
internally
here
to
help
manage
our
meetings
better,
but
I
suggest
that
we
all
come
together
and
not
remain
silent,
but
agree
to
no
longer
tolerate
this.
The
council,
president
and
I
will
continue
to
hear
your
feedback,
and
we
have
our
own
work
to
do
clearly
in
the
meantime
and
in
exploration
of
our
options.
H
H
The
second
one
is
about
threats
to
the
safety
of
public
officials,
so
these
two
have
been
prepared
by
the
city
attorneys
and
are
before
you
I've
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
over
the
weekend
with
some
of
the
state
legislatures,
some
of
the
state
legislators
that
have
introduced
things
like
this
in
the
past
and
that
have
some
different
flavors
of
this
moving
already
in
bills
through
the
house.
My
first
amendment
asks
for
Clear
guidance
from
the
state
legislature
as
to
lawful
meeting
conduct
per
the
open
meeting
law.
H
There
is
no
state
law
we
know
of
for
interrupting
the
Democratic
process.
This
speaks
very
much
about
disruption
of
a
body's
meeting
and
I
believe
in
peaceful
protest,
but
I
do
not
believe
that
what
happened
in
this
chamber
two
weeks
ago
was
peaceful
right
now.
The
only
tool
in
our
toolbox
is
to
recess.
H
C
Thank
you,
chair
Johnson
I
just
had
a
couple
clarifying
questions
for
the
author,
so
from
my
understanding,
our
legislative
agenda
shows
you
know,
support
for
things
that
we
cannot
change
at
the
municipal
level,
because
there's
legislative,
you
know,
barriers
at
the
state.
That's
what
some
of
my
amendments
were
also
attempting
to
redress
so
Council
vice
president
King,
you
helped
me
understand
what
are
some
of
the
current
barriers
at
the
state
level
as
it
relates
to
open
meeting
laws
that
are
preventing
you
know,
action
from
being
taken
by
the
city.
C
I
know
you
mentioned
some
pieces
around.
You
know
dissuading
certain
behaviors
and
things
of
that
nature
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
where
some
of
the
gaps
in
our
current
open
meeting
laws
at
the
state
level
that
this
will
help
address.
H
If
I
may,
Mr
chair
I'm
actually
going
to
ask
our
City
attorney
because
I'm
not
an
expert
on
the
law
but
I
have
had.
We've
had
extensive
conversation
about
how
and
where
to
best
situate.
This
as
a.
N
Legislative
priority
council
president
chair
Johnson,
council
members,
so
there
there
really
are
not
a
lot
of
tools
in
our
toolbox
at
the
local
level
to
prevent
behavior
that
that
is
intended
to
and
does
prevent
the
body
from
from
doing
its
job
they're
so
because
we
don't
have
those
those
penalties
or
Frameworks
at
the
local
level.
Looking
to
the
state
level
to
you
know,
there
are
a
couple
of
different
options:
one
is
to
add
something
to
the
criminal
code
that
would
that
criminalize,
disruptive
behavior.
N
There
actually
is
a
state
law
on
disorderly
conduct
in
meetings
that
was
frankly
found
to
be
unconstitutional
by
the
Minnesota
supreme
court,
because
it's
way
too
broad,
so
one
of
our
options
is
to
ask
for
State
legislation
that
actually
corrects
that
and
and
does
the
right
balance
between
free
speech
on
one
hand
and
and
the
ability
for
public
bodies
to
continue
doing
their
business.
And
then
the
second
is
option.
Is
the
open
meeting
law
itself?
N
You
know
creating
some
sort
of
whether
it
be
civil
penalties
or
whether
it
be
just
simply
instructions
in
the
open
meeting
law.
That
again
does
that
balance
between
between
First
Amendment
protected
activity
on
one
hand
and,
on
the
other
hand,
allows
for
the
conduct
of
meetings
without
disruption,
so
that
the
an
elected
body
or
even
a
another
public
body
can
do
its
business.
Do
the
Public's
business
without
without
without
interruption,
because
the
open
meeting
law
is
a
state
law
it.
N
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
that
that
some
of
this,
some
of
these
strictures
could
actually
fit
very
well
in
the
open
meeting
law.
So
it's
a
very
clear.
You
know
allowance
for
that
open
process
and
also
allows
for
again
this
kind
of
that
give
and
take
between
expressive
activity
and
letting
the
governing
body
do
its
job.
I.
C
Have
a
one
more
question
either
for
the
author
or
our
staff,
so
also
this
amendment
includes
language
that
describes
safeguarding
the
First
Amendment
rights.
C
You
know:
can
the
author
staff
share
if
civil
rights
or
their
race
and
Equity
inclusion
and
belonging
department
where
they
consulted
in
or
got
you
know,
asked
for
guidance
on
this
amendment
as
well
in
terms
of
the
language,
because
you
know,
conduct
and
I
will
name
this.
This
isn't
documented
too,
so
you
can
go
on
our
YouTube,
but
conducting
the
the
Quorum
in
this
space
has
often
been
weaponized
against
people
of
color.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
this
practice
also
isn't
used
here.
C
H
Mr,
chair
I
will
take
that
this
is
a
legislative
priority,
so
that
we're
not
at
the
point
of
enacting
changes
at
the
city
level
when
we
do
that,
I
would
absolutely
expect
that
we
would
want
those
different
departments
consulted.
This
is
just
stating
and
ask
for
the
legislature
to
clearly
Define
open
meeting
law
and
the
times
and
ways
in
which
it
could
be
closed.
C
I
I
understand
that
Council
vice
president
and
I
will
name
you
know.
For
instance,
one
of
my
amendments
agenda
said
it.
You
name
wanting
me
to
seek
out
guidance
from
Rashida.
You
know
our
labor
negotiation
staff
and
just
considering
and
providing
feedback
on
our
language.
This
seems
like
this
will
also
be
relevant
to
the
work
that
our
race
and
equity
and
belonging
Department,
as
well
as
civil
rights,
what
they
do
currently
so
it
would
make
sense.
C
You
know
to
want
them
to
have
eyes
on
this
language
too,
because
I
know
we're
often
encouraged
to
seek
out
advice
from
departments
too,
even
with
language
like
what
we
brought
forward
today,
but
I'm
understanding.
You
did
not
do
that.
H
Thank
you,
Mr
Mr,
chair,
no
I.
We
are
not
there
yet
and
that's
just
as
fast
as
we've
been
able
to
get
this
together
in
a
little
bit
more
than
a
week.
I
don't
again
see
why
this
would
be
I.
Think
we're
conflating
two
things
here.
C
Just
clarification
on
that
I
brought
up
the
labor
piece,
because
my
Amendment
also
tied
to
the
Police
contract,
or
that
was
was
raised
so
because
of
that
I
was
encouraged
to
seek
out
additional
feedback
or
guidance
from
the
relevant
Department
that
will
be
holding
that
piece,
because
we
are
trying
to
do
things
around
open
meeting
laws
that
again
the
concern
here
that
might
have
unattended
consequences,
especially
in
dealing
with
First
Amendment
rights.
Those
are
often
dealt
with.
C
Our
departments
like
race,
Equity
inclusion
and
belonging
and
civil
rights,
so
I
would
just
assume,
just
like
I've,
been
encouraged
to
seek
out
guidance
from
other
departments
that
have
relevance
to
the
language
or
the
you
know:
legislation
that
I'm
trying
to
bring
forward
those
seem
like
two
departments
that
also
could
have
been
consulted
as
well
and
I'm
hearing.
That
did
not
happen
in
in
the
rash
now
for
why?
But
that's
why
I
asked.
G
G
You
mentioned
that
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
tools
in
our
toolbox.
So,
like
my
first
question
is:
do
we
not
have
those
tools
because
we
haven't
passed
them
as
a
body
or
do
we
not
have
those
tools,
because
we
are
preempted
by
state
law
to
pass
those
types
of
tools?
And
then
my
other
question
was
it
sounds
like
this.
The
exact
intent
of
this
was
implemented
in
state
law
and
was
found
to
be
unconstitutional
and
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around.
What
version
of
this
would
pass
that
test
and
I?
N
Johnson,
council
members,
so
in
in
terms
of
your
first
question,
the
tools
in
the
toolbox
in
terms
of
criminal
statute.
That
is
something
that
the
the
city
could
adopt
by
ordinance.
Obviously,
it
would
be
a
petty
misdemeanor,
a
misdemeanor
level
offense
in
terms
of
making
a
change
to
the
open
meeting
law.
Obviously
that
is
a
state
law
that
has
to
come
at
the
state
level.
N
Your
second
question,
with
regard
to
constitutionality,
the
reason
why
that
statute?
It's
a
criminal
disturbance
statute.
The
reason
why
it
was
found
unconstitutional
unconstitutional
is
because
it
was
drafted
really
really
broadly
and
didn't
kind
of
it
didn't,
have
an
intent
element.
It
it
didn't.
You
know
these.
These
laws
have
to
be
narrowly
tailored.
N
These
laws
exist
in
many.
Many
different
places
in
the
country
and
most
of
which
are
lawful,
they'd
have
to
be
crafted
so
that
again,
they're
not
targeted
at
speech.
They're
targeted
at
intentional
conduct
done
for
the
purpose
of
disrupting
and
meeting.
So
it
is
very
possible
to
craft
a
a
statute
that
would
be
fully
constitutional
and
obviously,
if,
if
this
passes
our
office
would
would
work
on
on
Crafting
such
a
statute.
But
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
say
that
it's
always
easy
to
craft
statutes.
N
But
this
is
one
that
we've
got
lots
of
guidance
all
over
the
country
of
of
statutes
that
have
been
upheld
as
constitutional.
G
I
I
have
to
say
that
I
have
a
lot
of
questions
about
this,
as
it
relates
to
the
First,
Amendment
and
I
definitely
think
that
we
should
be
pursuing
what
we
have
the
control
over
and
kind
of
maximizing
the
impact
that
we
could
have
with
our
local
control
on
this
issue.
But
I
see
a
lot
of
other
folks
in
queue
and
I'm
really
open
to
this
discussion.
So.
I
You
chair,
Johnson
I,
want
to
thank
you
Council,
vice
president
for
bringing
this
forward.
You
know,
as
you
acknowledged
earlier,
that
last
meeting
it
was
rough.
It
was
hard.
Some
of
us
really
took
a
lot
of
abuse
in
that
meeting
and
in
a
way
that
I
probably
had
never
imagined
before
and
I.
Consider
myself,
pretty
tough
I,
don't
scare
easy,
but
there
were
some
things
that
happened
in
that
meeting.
That
scared
me
and
then
later
on,
that
scared,
my
team
and
I
being
trapped
at
the
top
of
a
two-story
escalator,
and
so
thank
you.
I
You
know
for
bringing
this
forward
and
also
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
acknowledging
the
staff
in
this
because
I've
heard
so
much
from
staff
about
how
they're
treated
recently
an
employee
had
their
tires
all
cut
up
because
they
were
given
a
ticket
to
someone
in
my
ward,
a
public
works
truck
was
set
on
fire
recently.
You
know,
there's
been
these
attacks,
some
staff
have
had
their
phone
numbers
and
addresses
put
out
publicly.
So
so
you
know,
I
really
want
to
thank
you
for
acknowledging
this
and
I
hope.
Everyone
supports
this.
I
You
know
last
year
a
couple
of
my
colleagues
one
you
know
felt
they
were
being
bullied
on
Twitter
and
reached
out
to
me
because
they
thought
I
knew
the
person
that
was
bullying
them
and
asked
me
to
call
these
people
and
ask
them
to
stop
and
I
did
that.
I
took
that
serious
Twitter
doesn't
bother
me,
but
it
clearly
bothered
my
colleague
and
so
I
took
that
serious
I
reached
out
to
that
person.
I
Another
incident
with
a
different
colleague,
you
know
someone
was
calling
I
felt
like
he
was
harmless.
It
was
just
a
phone
call,
but
my
colleague
didn't
feel
they
were
harmless.
They
alerted
security
and
others
at
the
at
the
state
that
this
person,
you
know,
was
seeking
help
in
a
certain
type
of
way
and
thought
it'd
become
a
dangerous
situation.
I
didn't
feel
in
danger
at
all.
I
I
just
thought
it
was
a
person
who
was,
you
know,
passionate
about
what
they
wanted
to
see
happen
around
legislation
with
children
being
molested,
and
this
person
was
very
passionate,
and
you
know
my
colleague
was
like
wow.
What's
happening,
I
need
to
let
security
know
and
I
need
to
let
people
at
the
state
know
that
that
this
person
is
reaching
out
in
this
way
and
I
took
that
serious.
You
know
so
I
want
us
all
to
take
Serious
that
safety
may
be
different
for
all
of
us.
I
You
know
what
happens
on
Twitter
May
Scare
some.
It
may
not
scare
others,
but
to
have
threats.
You
know
to
you
and
your
family
in
public,
in
your
face,
like
that,
you
hear
to
be
trapped
on
the
escalator
that
affects
me.
It
might
not
affect
you
but
support
me,
and
you
know
how
I
want
to
feel
safe,
because
I'm
always
gonna
I,
don't
care
what
differences
I
have
with
my
colleagues,
I'm
always
going
to
support
their
safety
and
whatever
that
looks
like
for
them.
I
It
may
not
be
the
same
for
me,
but
it
is
important
to
me
as
a
person
to
support
my
colleague,
safety
and
whatever
that
is,
and
I
want
people
to
do
the
same
for
me.
So,
thank
you
so
much
vice
president
and
president
Jenkins.
You
know
for
really
seeing
the
opportunity
for
us
to
reclaim
our
safety
is
what
I
feel
like
not
only
ours
but
the
entire
city
Enterprise.
So
thank
you
both
for
this.
M
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
so
you
know,
I
want
to
start
with
with
re-affirming
the
the
the
intent
behind
this
discussion.
Nobody
on
this
diocese,
no
public
official,
no
Public
Employee-
deserves
to
have
their
safety
violated.
We
are
doing
the
work
of
we
are
doing
the
business
of
the
people
and
we
have
different
ways
of
approaching
it
and
different
ways
of
of
making
meaning
of
that,
and
that
disagreement
is
is
okay,
it's
healthy!
It's
it's!
M
What
results
in
in
better
policy
making
it's
the
beauty
of
of
democracy
and
nobody
deserves
to
to
to
feel
threatened
or
to
be
victim
to
to
violence
or
abuse
in
in
our
jobs.
I
think
that
deserves
to
be
said
over
and
over
again
I.
So
you
know
again
appreciate
the
the
intent
of
the
items
brought
forward.
M
I
want
to
actually
just
focus
right
now,
since
we're
taking
these
items,
one
by
one
on
item
2.4,
the
one
that
where
we,
the
City
of
Minneapolis,
is
supporting
legislation
that
would
create
clear
guidance
for
lawful
conduct
at
public
meetings
of
government
bodies,
subject
to
the
open
meeting
law.
M
So
I
see
this
item
as
something
that
would
not
just
impact
the
City
of
Minneapolis,
but
would
impact
all
local
bodies
of
government
that
are
also
subject
to
the
open
meeting
law
and
to
whether
it's
the
author
that
wants
to
take
this
question
or
director
topinka
have
we
talked
to
other
partners
like
the
league
of
Minnesota
cities,
about
the
impact
this
would
have
on
local
control.
M
I
know
in
in
previous
items
that
I've,
you
know
ever
talked
with
the
our
igr
team
about
bringing
forward
one
of
the
first
questions.
I've
always
been
asked
is
like
have
you
asked
the
league
of
Minnesota
cities
and
have
we
consulted
with
other
partners
about
the
impact
it
would
have
on
them?.
H
We
have
not
yet
had
a
meeting
with
League
of
Minnesota
cities
to
talk
about
this
effort,
but
I
think
that
what
I
appreciate
about
council
member
chug
Ty's
from
our
conversation
at
least,
is
that
she
sees
this
as
removing
local
control
and
I
see
this
as
gaining
more
ability
for
local
control.
So
I
see
us
as
being
able
to
have
in-state
law,
as
the
City
attorney
was
explaining
to
council
member
Payne
and
the
rest
of
us
how
to
narrowly
define
something
that
different
municipalities
could
make
different
choices
and
operate
within
those
boundaries.
H
M
No
and
just
want
to
clarify,
like
I,
had
a
really
good
conversation
with
with
the
council
vice
president
this
morning
about
the
items
that
that
she
was
bringing
forward
that
are
in
front
of
us
right
now.
So
I
think
I'm
really
interested
in
how
this
conversation
is
going
to
to
unfold
I,
see
a
number
of
our
colleagues
in
queue.
I.
Imagine
more
will
get
in
queue
as
well.
M
I
I'm
struggling
with
this
item
in
in
like
a
couple
of
different
ways,
one
I
I
see
the
point
that
I
believe
council
member
Goodman
made
earlier
about
the
you
know
the
the
first,
the
the
first
bill
deadline
being
three
days
away
right
now,
and
you
know,
unless
the
item
is
already
scheduled,
to
be
coming
up.
It's
not
going
to
happen
this
year,
it's
going
to
happen
next
year,
and
so,
if
we
know
that
an
item
like
this,
like
this
type
of
legislation,
wouldn't
be
brought
up
until
next
year
anyway.
Why?
M
Wouldn't
we
take
the
opportunity,
then,
to
wait
until
until
next
year,
when
we
pass
our
our
legislative
agenda
again
when
we
go
through
that
that
long
process
and
use
the
time
between
now
and
then
to
move
a
lot
more
thoughtfully
with
our
partners
to
think
more
creatively
about
the
solutions
and
the
tools
that
are
available
to
us
right
now
within
open
meeting
law.
M
And
why
like?
Why
would
we
not
do
that
that
work
now,
instead
of
you,
know,
moving
something
that
that
is
reactive
and
isn't
hasn't
fully
checked
all
of
the
boxes?
Yet
that's
that's
like
one
concern,
I
have
and
then
I
think
the
second
piece
is
I
I.
Think
most
of
the
discussion
and
conversation
I've
heard
so
far
has
been
about
lawful
conduct
right.
That's
the
exact
language
used
here
for
for
meeting,
subject
to
to
open
meeting
law
as
the
conduct
of
participants,
the
public
when
they
come
to
public
meetings.
M
M
The
City
of
Minneapolis
is
is
rare
for
a
city
that
we
that
we
don't
have
an
open
public
comment
period
at
every
single
committee
and
council
meeting
asking
for
this
type
of
clarity
and
guidance
might
result
in
us
being
mandated
to
include
that
in
every
single
Council
and
committee
meeting
I'm,
not
saying
that's
good
or
bad
I.
Think
the
public
being
being
able
to
have
their
voices
heard
is
a
good
thing.
I'm
just
saying
that's
an
unintended
consequence
that
I
don't
think
we've
fully
thought
through
yet
another
example
was
around.
M
You
know
the
people
that
are
going
to
be
making
these
laws
a
lot
of
they're
going
to
be
thinking
about
their
current
conditions.
So
as
an
example,
the
Senate
has
really
specific
rules
about
how
members
conduct
themselves,
including
how
they
dress.
M
You
know
every
member
is
required
to
cover
their
shoulders.
Wear
closed-toed
shoes.
Men
are
required
to
wear
a
suit
and
tie
if
a
member
walks
into
the
chambers
wearing
a
jacket
or
a
Blazer
they're
not
allowed
to
take
that
item
off
members
can
vote
on
behalf
of
each
other.
We
don't
do
that
type
of
work
here,
so
I
think
the
unintended
consequence
of
how
is
this
going
to
impact,
how
we
as
a
body
can
conduct
ourselves.
M
A
Thank
you,
council
member
Chuck,
Tai
council
member
Vice,
chair
rainville.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I
was
one
of
those
people
who
were
threatened
bullied
intimidated.
All
of
us
on
that
end
of
the
dice
down
there,
council
member
Vitas
left
in
Goodman,
but
we
and
oh
I
see
you
thank
you.
Lisa
councilman
murkowski's
children
were
threatened.
This
is
not
acceptable.
You
can
fine
tune
and
find
think
of
a
reason
to
not
move
this
forward.
But
as
colleagues
we
cannot
allow
each
other
to
be
bullied
and
intimidated
and
threatened
so
a
vote
today.
We
should
have
a
13-0
vote
on
this.
E
We
need
to
go
on
the
record
that
we
need
protection.
We
need
decorum
here.
Please,
please,
vote
for
this
and
by
the
way,
I
find
it
very
interesting
that
those
who
have
objections
have
yet
to
come
and
give
sympathy
to
us
who
have
been
bullied
and
threatened
and
intimidated.
K
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
I,
think
I
was
largely
un
undecided
on
this
item,
because
I
did
have
a
few
questions.
K
I'll
admit
that
I
think
councilmember
rainville's
comments
may
have
persuaded
me
to
a
no
on
this
item.
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
something
that
I
don't
often
talk
about,
because
for
for
very
personal
reasons,
but
during
2020
a
lot
of
us
were
experiencing
a
lot
of
threats.
A
lot
of
us
experience.
You
know
mostly
digital
threats
online.
You
know
and
I
in
my
capacity
experienced
a
number
of
threats
that
were
both
that
were
that
were
physical,
that
would
that
didn't
stay
online.
K
K
I
had
the
FBI
come
and
collect
a
letter
that
had
been
sent
to
my
house,
and
these
are
things
that
I
don't
like
to
talk
about
because
I,
because
another
thing
that
happened
was
that
colleagues
who
did
receive
very
credible
threats
took
it
upon
themselves
to
get
security
for
themselves
and
they
were
royally
mocked
by
the
media
by
folks
in
the
public.
K
You
know
and
I
feel
like
some
were
mocked
by
by
members
of
the
body.
I
didn't
accept
security,
because
I
kind
of
anticipated
that
that
would
be
the
reaction
that
those
threats
would
be
kind
of
brushed
off
and
that
if
you
took
political
positions
that
were
not
supported
by
the
institution
or
by
the
body,
and
you
receive
threats
that
was
just
sort
of
on
you-
and
maybe
it's
my
mistake
for
having
sort
of
accepted
that,
as
my
reality,
I
became
familiar
with
my
second
amendment
rights
castle
doctrine.
K
You
know
weapon
security,
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
just
kind
of
felt,
like
you
kind
of,
had
to
take
it
and
so
I.
Look
at
it.
I
look
at
an
incident
like
this
and
I
kind
of
think.
Well,
what's
different
about
this,
and
and
there
might
need
to
be
a
a
broader
conversation
about
about
safety
that
doesn't
just
play
into
whether
or
not
the
people
who
were
threatened
are
possess,
a
certain
level
of
likability
or
not.
And
that's
what
this
feels
like.
K
I'm
being
honest,
it
feels
like
the
folks
who
are
threatened
last
term
didn't
possess
the
same
level
of
likability
and
folks
who
are
being
threatened
now
possess
an
increased
level
of
likability
and
and
and
now
we
have
to
force
a
conversation
about
safety,
and
we
got
to
take
it
all.
The
way
to
the
state
and
I'm
happy
to
have
a
conversation
about
safety
and
I.
K
Think
that
there
have
been
a
lot
of
credible
threats
and
I
think
there
have
been
a
lot
of
Champions
on
this
diocese,
the
council,
president,
being
one
of
them
who
have
named
a
number
of
ways
in
which
they've
been
threatened
and
feel
unsafe
in
this
space.
K
K
It
really
left
an
impact
to
see
my
colleagues
who
receive
security
after
after
receiving
credible
threats,
be
in
by
my
estimation,
mocked
for
doing
so,
and
so
and
so
yeah
I
I,
don't
know.
What's
changed
here
and
and
I
would
like
to
know
what
our
options
are
before.
We
are
potentially
changing
open
meeting
laws.
What
happens
in
those
jurisdictions
if
this
is
a
state
law
change,
what
happens
in
those
jurisdictions
where
they
are
going
to
push
the
boundaries
of
violating
People's
First
Amendment
rights?
K
Maybe
we
trust
ourselves
here
to
not
do
that,
but
what
happens
in
those
in
those
in
those
municipalities
and
in
those
school
districts
where,
where
there's
a
lot
less
hesitation
to
violate
People's
First
Amendment
rights,
I
think
that
this
I
think
that
there
does
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
discussion
about
what
exactly
we're
asking
the
state
to
do,
and
there
are
things
that
have
happened
to
members
of
this
body
that
are
absolutely
unacceptable.
K
K
Don't
know
why
we
would
take
extra
steps
in
this
way
and-
and
the
one
thing
I
do
appreciate-
is
that
employees
are
included
here,
because
I
do
know
that
some
of
our
housing
inspectors,
as
well
as
others,
do
experience
a
certain
level
of
of
unsafety
and
that's
another
thing
that
I
feel
like
has
been
a
conversation
among
Department
leadership,
but
not
necessarily
a
conversation
that
that
we
have
leaned
into
enough
here
locally
and
yet
now
here
we
are
taking
this
issue
to
the
state
I'm
really
interested
in
knowing
what
we
can
do
locally,
I'm,
really
interested
in
understanding.
K
You
know
exactly
what
we're
asking
the
state
to
change
before.
I
can
support
something
like
this,
so
a
little
bit
of
vulnerability,
just
kind
of
sort
of
shared,
some
of
that
of
my
personal
experience,
with
threats
and
and
and
and
what
I
feel
like
has
been
a
real
unserious
conversation
in
the
past,
about
threats
and
and
and
you
know,
and
so
those
are
the
reasons
that
I
feel
like
I.
K
Can't
be
I
I'm
not
going
to
be
supporting
this
item
today
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
but
that's
all.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
H
Thank
you
Mr
from
the
politics
here
all
of
the
public.
All
of
the
public
should
have
the
benefit
of
being
able
to
see
what's
going
on,
and
we
are
literally
elected
by
the
public
to
be
that
check
to
do
the
business
of
our
local
government
and
if
people
interrupt
our
meetings
and
prevent
us
from
being
able
to
get
government
government
business
done
they're,
also
preventing
people
from
being
able
to
see
that
work.
H
This
is
not
about
shutting
anyone
down.
It
is
about
letting
government
work
I.
Had
that
anecdote
in
my
notes
about
colleagues
from
our
previous
Council
and
getting
to
the
point
of
needing
personal
security
and
I
appreciate
councilmember
Ellison,
bringing
that
up,
I
think
that,
instead
of
as
individuals,
we
all
trying
to
figure
out
and
navigate
with
our
loved
ones
and
other
members
of
our
household
how
to
navigate
this
individually.
These
two
things
are
things
we
could
do
collectively.
H
I
need
to
comment
on
a
letter
that
we
all
received.
Last
night,
we
all
received
a
letter
citing
objections
that
conflated
what
we're
doing
here
with
these
goals,
the
writers
objected
to
us
criminalizing
freedom
of
speech
in
the
right
of
protest,
and
this
in
no
way
do
either
of
these
amendments.
Do
that
both
of
these
are
about
clarifying
our
ability
to
do
our
work
and
keep
everyone
safe,
while
also
allowing
protesters
to
exercise
First
Amendment
rights.
These
are
not
mutually
exclusive.
We
are
not
criminalizing
protest.
H
We
are
stopping
people
from
stopping
us
from
doing
our
work,
and
that
is
exactly
what
happened
at
the
last
council
meeting
and
how
does
that
benefit
anyone
here?
It
doesn't
we've
seen
as
of
late
things
that
are
not
peaceful
protest.
It
crosses
a
line,
but
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
and
ask
the
state
to
Define
what
is
that
line,
and
then
we
can
create
in
a
fulsome
way
that
makes
sense
for
our
city
boundaries
around
that.
H
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
I
support
the
efforts
of
council
member
palmisano
because
it
sadly
has
gotten
to
this
point
and
I
want
us
to
reflect
on
the
fact
that
in
my
25
years
of
being
in
office,
this
is
really
only
in
recent
times.
Have
we
had
a
situation
where
council
members
don't
stand
up
for
Council
Members,
where
they
agree
or
disagree
when
there
are
threats
against
them
and
the
silence
after
the
last
council
meeting
in
terms
of
those
who
had
been
attacked
by
those
who
had
egged
on
the
attacks
was
deafening.
D
Not
one
person
on
the
council
other
than
those
of
us
that
have
been
attacked,
came
to
me
and
said
I'm,
sorry
that
they
behave
that
way.
I,
don't
think
it's
a
legitimate
threat,
don't
worry,
but
you
shouldn't
be
treated
like
that
in
all
the
years
I've
been
on
the
council
council
members
have
understood
that
there's
only
13
of
us
that
we
all
share
a
very
common
situation
and
that
when
one
of
us
is
attacked
any
of
us
is
attacked
in
the
last
group
of
people
on
the
council.
D
The
council
president,
had
someone
come
to
her
house,
while
her
small
children
were
in
the
building
and
and
someone
dumped
concrete
on
her
front
porch,
and
we
all
condemned
that
privately
and
publicly.
We
felt
that
that
was
out
of
line,
and
it
was,
and
in
the
last
group,
when
I
shared
with
council
member
Allison
that
people
were
coming
to
my
house,
knocking
on
my
door,
putting
things
in
my
lawn
threatening
and
yelling
at
me.
Do
you
know
what
he
did
he
stood
up
for
me?
He
told
me:
I
will
come
to
your
house.
D
If
I
have
to
stay
there,
I
will
I'm
not
going
to
put
you
in
a
situation
where
you
feel
unsafe
and
it
feels
like
we
have
disintegrated
into
having
common
goals
about
how
people
can
be
treated
and
the
two
one
side
of
all
of
us
being
in
the
same
situation
has
turned
into
two
sides,
and
that
is
super
sad
and
frustrating
I
didn't
I
was
here
for
the
meeting.
I
was
threatened
by
people
who
were
threatened.
D
I
didn't
file
a
police
report
because
I
felt
it
would
further
escalate
the
situation
not
because
I
felt
it
would
calm
down
the
situation.
Everyone
is
entitled
to
their
own
opinion.
I
was
not
attacked
the
way
council.
Member
Vito
was
but
I
was
in
the
same
restaurant
10
minutes
before,
and
so
were
the
people
who
went
after
council
member
Vita
and
they
didn't
come
after
me.
Thankfully,
at
that
moment
they
waited
10
minutes
and
went
after
her
when
something
bad
happens
to
any
one
of
us.
D
D
That
makes
me
feel
like
you
think
that
that
behavior
is
okay,
I'm,
just
trying
to
be
vulnerable
and
honest
I,
don't
actually
believe
that
from
Council
Morales
and
because
he's
been
to
my
house
and
he's
stood
up
to
protect
me
and
I
didn't
have
private
security,
because
I
felt
like
that
was
escalating.
The
situation
so
I
would
just
have
us
think
about
the
fact
that
we
could
treat
each
other
better
during
these
times
of
intensity.
We
don't
need
to
amp
it
up.
L
That's
where
we
have
been
witnessing
throughout
my
term
in
office,
and
it
is
continuously
getting
more
and
more
after
dangerous
and
frightening,
and
it
is
literally
impeding
our
ability
to
do
the
work
that
we
were
elected
to
do,
and
so
I
am
supporting.
This
is
it.
L
This
is
not
the
only
measure
that
we
will
be
taking
to
try
to
improve
safety,
the
Quorum
and
our
ability
to
do
our
jobs
on
behalf
of
the
residents
of
Minneapolis,
but
it's
one
of
them
that
I
believe
we
have
to
take
and
I
do
believe
that
council
member
rain
bills
comments
that
this
should
be
a
unanimous
vote
on
this
Council
that
we
come,
that
we
are
have
the
ability
to
come
here
and
do
the
work
that
the
people
elected
all
of
us
to
do
should
be
utmost
importance
to
everybody
on
this
body.
P
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I
want
to
begin
by
saying
that
no
elected
official,
their
family
or
loved
one
should
ever
have
to
face
death
threats
or
physical
violence,
and
that
no
one
in
this
body
will
ever
wish
any
harm
to
any
of
you
and
I
will
always
stand
against
any
of
this
Behavior
to
any
of
my
colleagues
and
myself
included.
This
behavior
is
unacceptable
and
not
okay
and
I
do
agree
with
councilman
Goodman
that
no
one
should
be
attacked.
P
Protecting
the
First
Amendment
right
is
important,
so
I'm
glad
that
this
is
included
and
I
think
it's
important
important
that
our
communities
know
the
guidance
of
public
meetings,
so
they
are
accessible
and
easy
to
follow.
It's
also
important
and
just
and
maybe
even
more
important,
that
elected
officials
also
know
the
lawful
guidance
that
they
must
follow
when
they
interact
with
the
public.
So
I'm
glad
that
this
is
included
in
that
and
I
will
say
this.
The
city
council
already
unanimously
voted
to
support
our
public
employees.
P
So
part
of
this
amendment,
the
second
one
that
we're
going
to
touch
base
later
is
pretty
misleading
and
redundant.
We
get
an
email
from
the
Minneapolis
building
and
construction
trades
Council
last
night,
asking
us
to
support
our
employees
and
to
that
email.
I
will
say
that
the
city
council
unanimously
voted
an
approval
of
that
in
November
in
our
igr
agenda.
That
is
not
what
this
is
about.
We
approved
that
in
November
and
I'll
say
this.
This
is
a
touchy
topic.
P
This
is
not
behavior
that
is
okay,
there's
not
behavior.
That
is
going
to
be
diminished
to
Twitter.
Only
it's
not
Twitter
Behavior
customer
Utah,
that's
not
just
Twitter
behavior,
that
is
threats
to
my
family
and
loved
ones
too,
and
I
have
yet
to
receive
any
help
from
Council
leadership
or
the
city
government.
When
my
own
people
and
my
own
community
members
and
my
own
family
have
been
reported
to
immigration,
Customs,
Enforcement
and
I
can't
even
block
my
harassers,
because
I'm
going
to
receive
an
Ethics
complaint
from
the
city
government.
P
So
I
hope
that
when
that
time
comes
and
that
my
own
family
and
loved
ones
are
impacted,
that
City
leadership
and
the
city
government
is
actually
going
to
stand
up
for
my
community
and
my
loved
ones
as
well,
because
I
have
heard
nothing
of
sort
I,
don't
understand
why
we
need
help
from
our
state
government
when
we
should
be
doing
safety
in
our
own
jurisdiction
right
here.
Right
now.
P
I
hope
that
our
Council
leadership
is
willing
to
stand
up
for
the
safety
of
all
of
our
colleagues
right
here
and
do
what
is
needed
in
our
own
jurisdiction,
because
every
single
one
of
us
believe
that
we
deserve
to
be
safe
and
I'll
end
it
with
this.
I
cannot
sit
here
in
good
conscience,
while
the
indigenous
people,
the
native
people
of
my
ward,
are
being
called
Dangerous
criminals
violent
and
by
some
members
of
this
diocese
insurrectionists
compared
to
January
6th
I
will
not
tolerate
that.
P
We
can
have
healthy
dialogue
without
stereotyping,
people
of
color,
and
we
can
have
conversations
about
safety
without
disproportionately
incarcerating
communities
of
color
I
had
some
questions
for
the
City
attorney,
but
it
seems
like
this
Council
this
body.
This
Administration
already
has
power
to
address
the
safety
of
our
colleagues
in
our
own
jurisdiction.
P
B
Councilmember
Chavez
I
think
I
would
have
to
defer
that
to
Casey
Carl,
who
is
not
here
right
now.
P
Thank
you
so
much
I
appreciate
it.
I
would
hope
that,
as
we
continue
to
deliberate
this,
that
we
can
figure
out
if
we
have
any
current
guidelines
that
we
have
to
follow
in
our
city
council
meetings
and
if
not,
how
are
we
going
to
decide
what
those
guidelines
are?
How
are
we
going
to
make
sure
that
the
public
is
involved
in
these
guidelines,
so
they
understand
how
they
can
get
involved
and
what
the
guidelines
are.
P
We
know
as
a
customer
that
represents
the
most
racially
diverse
ward
in
the
state
of
Minneapolis
guidelines,
aren't
meant
for
my
community
to
understand
and
learn,
and
then
I
have
two
I'll
have
two
questions.
If
the
council,
vice
president,
will
yield
Council
vice
president
I,
as
you
know,
the
policy
deadline
and
a
customer
truck
I
alluded
to
this
earlier-
is
Friday
I
expect
this
will
pass
on
Thursday.
Have
you
talked
to
any
state
representatives,
any
state
legislators,
anybody
in
our
own
delegation
about
who
is
going
to
carry
this
legislation?
H
Mr,
chair,
councilmember
Chavez,
you
know
the
state
better
than
I
do
you've
had
more
experience
there,
but
I.
It
is
important
to
note
that
I
had
conversation
over
the
weekend
with
representative
Zach
Stevenson.
He
said
he's
interested
in
revamping
his
old
bill
from
last
year
and
having
it
be
modified,
he's
very
busy
on
the
Cannabis
and
the
sports
betting
legislation,
but
he's
open
to
other
authors.
He
also
suggested
that
representative
Becker
Finn
and
representative
Greenman,
who
both
have
things
moving
and
the
approach
to
be
more
inclusive
in
their
language.
H
So
that's
the
extent
of
my
conversations
at
the
Capitol.
P
Thank
you
Council
vice
president
and
the
last
one
is:
should
this
passive
State
Legislature,
do
you
have
any
plans
to
co-create
guidelines
with
the
public,
the
people
that
actually
come
to
our
meetings
to
make
sure
that
they
aren't
being
left
behind?
We
know
that
City
Hall,
based
on
actions
that
our
city
government
has
taken
over
the
past
years
centuries
decades
has
traditionally
kept
communities
of
color
and
immigrants
out.
Do
you
have
a
plan?
P
H
Mr,
chair
council
member
Chavez,
absolutely
I,
anticipate
that
elements
of
this
policy
position
could
get
incorporated
into
some
existing
bills.
If
that
happens
for
this
year,
if
that
doesn't,
then
we
could
work
on
this
in
a
different
kind
of
way,
perhaps
next
year
once
that
happens,
it
is
absolutely
important
to
keep
welcoming
people
into
our
council
chambers.
H
P
You
Council
vice
president,
my
last
one
is
through
the
igr
team
is
does
eye.
Judging
director
topenco
have
any
thoughts
on
both
of
these
amendments
and
have
you
been
able
to
talk
to
our
Minneapolis
delegation
about
what
their
appetite
is
director.
A
F
F
If
it
is
I,
Our
intention
would
be
to
to
follow
up
on
on
some
in
some
of
the
ways
that
Council
vice
president
has
mentioned,
with
some
of
the
bills
that
are
already
moving.
As
has
been
noted
here
a
couple
of
times
today.
F
The
first
committee
deadline
is
this
Friday
and
so
getting
a
brand
new
bill
introduced
in
in
before
deadline
on
any
Topic
at
this
point
is
going
to
be
very
challenging,
and
so
it
likely
would
need
to
be
looking
at
things
that
are
already
moving
if
there
was
going
to
be
something
done
this
year.
But
again
we
are
waiting
for
the
council
to
act
before
we
take
any
next
steps.
P
Johnson
I'll
just
end
with
this,
as
I
stated
earlier,
the
violence
and
harm
that
has
been
felt
to
my
colleagues
is
unacceptable
and
I
will
always
stand
against
that
and
I
will
make
it
clear
that
this
body
unanimously
voted
13-0
to
support
our
public
employees
already
so
I
want
to
make
sure
the
public
understands
that
the
council
unanimously
stood
with
their
employees
already.
This
is
this.
This
may
be
a
little
misleading.
I
appreciate
the
public.
I
You
chair
Johnson,
you
know
this
I
I
want
to
say
I,
don't
shy
away
from
conversations
I
love
talking
to
people,
it's
just
not
my
thing
to
like
not
talk
to
someone
and
the
people
who
were
here
threatening
us
last
week,
never
tried
to
have
a
conversation
with
me
or
my
office
in
between
what
happened
at
the
last
councilman
meeting
and
before
that,
so
to
be
sitting
in
this
very
seat
and
be
threatened
in
my
family.
I
Even
my
dog
was
threatened
like
to
to
go
through
that
with
people
who
never
even
tried
to
meet
with
me.
I
I
can't
support
that,
like
if
I
had
denied
folks
a
meeting-
and
this
was
the
only
way
they
felt
like
they
could
talk
to
me
or
and
talk
to
me
is-
is
what
needs
to
happen.
We
should
talk
and
listen
to
one
another.
That
is
not
what
was
happening
here.
I
I
Why
people
didn't,
but
you
have
an
opportunity
to
support
your
colleagues
in
taking
it
serious
right
now,
like
I,
can't
I,
don't
know
why
people
you
know
got
security
or
did
whatever
they
did,
but
right
now
we're
trying
to
work
on
something
that
is
suitable
for
all
of
us,
the
existing
Council,
maybe
the
next
Council
comes
along
and
change
it
to
something
different
I,
don't
know
and
I
also
don't
think
like
this.
It
really
hurt
my
feelings,
councilmember
Ellison,
when
you
said
it's
because
we're
more
likable,
that's
that
you,
you
know
me
better
than
that.
I
A
Would
just
remind
council
members
of
decorum
on
this
diet.
I
E
Thank
you,
chair
Johnson,
councilmember,
Goodman
I,
really
appreciate
your
remarks.
Your
maturity
and
wisdom
will
sorely
be
missed.
So
thank
you
for
sticking
up
and
again,
council
president
Jenkins.
Thank
you
for
acknowledging
my
comment
that
this
should
be
a
13-0
vote.
This
is
a
watershed
vote
here.
Let's
start
to
do
the
business
of
the
people
and
take
and
take
control
of
this
body.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
council,
member
and
I
put
myself
in
queue
to
speak
on
this
item.
You
know
first
I
want
to
say
it's
inexcusable.
What
happened
and
I'm
sorry
to
my
colleagues
for
the
threats
they
face.
I
face
those
threats
to
over
the
years,
and
it's
not
right.
I.
Take
these
concerns
very
seriously
and
I
think
that
these
ongoing
threats
are
harmful
to
democracy.
A
It
makes
it
very
difficult
for
people
to
step
up
and
run
for
office
when
they're,
getting
threatened
and
I
I
really
see
that
and
reflect
an
item
to
five
which
we'll
be
speaking
on
next
I
also
want
to
note
that
I'm,
a
part
of
the
league
of
Minnesota
cities
and
I'll
note
that
cities
are
struggling
with
this
across
the
state
with
their
meetings
and
if
you
go
out
and
you
search
news
articles
for
it,
you
will
see
that
there
have
been
Council
meetings
and
school
board
meetings
that
have
been
shut
down
by
those
that
are
opposed
to
black
lives
matter
that
are
opposed
to
trans
Youth
and
lgbtq
actions.
A
At
these
various
meetings,
they're
opposed
to
race
equity,
they
have
shut
down
meetings
over
masks
and
vaccines.
There
have
been
white,
supremacists
and
proud
boys
that
doxed
one
school
board
chair,
and
so
this
is
a
widespread
problem
in
the
state.
At
the
same
time,
I
go
out
and
I
look
at
the
league
of
Minnesota
cities,
own
guidance
for
councils
and
under
maintaining
order,
they
say
well,
Council
meetings
must
be
open
to
the
public.
No
one
who
is
noisy
or
unruly
has
a
right
to
remain
in
the
council
chambers.
A
When
the
council
decides
that
a
disorderly
person
should
not
remain
in
the
meeting
Hall,
the
police
may
be
called
to
execute
the
orders
of
the
presiding,
the
presiding
officer
or
the
council.
We
do
have
tools
in
place
today
to
remove
disruptive
people,
disruptive
people
from
our
meetings,
and
so
because
we
have
those
tools
because
of
the
timeline
around
the
deadlines
over
at
the
legislature.
I
am
not
going
to
be
supporting
this
motion
today.
I
do
support
more
work
on
this.
A
I'll
even
note,
if
you
go
out
and
look
there's
Council
councils
in
cities
in
our
state
that
post
clear
guidance,
even
saying
things
like
you,
can't
use
profanity
at
your
meetings
and
put
a
lot
of
stipulations
in
place,
and
so
I
would
support
more
work
on
this.
I'm
thankful
to
the
author
for
thinking
about
this.
I
also
think
the
language
right
now
is
Broad
and
we
still
have
more
work.
We
can
do
to
Define
this
and
I
think
that's
best
done
with
partner
jurisdictions
as
well.
So
with
that
those
are
in
my
comments.
G
You
chair,
Johnson,
yeah
I,
was
just
really
trying
to
take
in
this
whole
conversation,
I
had
those
kind
of
First
Amendment
questions,
but
I
was
really
receptive
to
how
this
dialogue
would
unfold.
I
was
able
to
have
the
little
side
conversation
with
our
City
attorney
around
what
the
process
might
look
like
in
the
legislature.
Giving
those
timelines
and
I
was
wavering
until
you
just
you
know.
You
made
that
point
and
we
do
have
tools
here
to
keep
us
safe
and
I.
G
Don't
think
we're
fully
utilizing
those
right
now
I'd
requested
a
closed
session
to
talk
about
building
security
around
the
budget
timeline
to
see
if
there
was
something
that
we
could
do
there
I
think
there's
a
lot
left.
Undone,
that's
within
our
control
that
I
think
could
really
meaningfully
impact.
Our
safety
I
also
want
to
apologize
to
my
colleagues
if
I
didn't
appropriately
speak
to
the
events
that
happen
and
how
that
impacted.
You
that's
a
failing
on
my
part
and
I
really
do
deeply
care
about
your
safety.
G
G
Think
we
have
some
tools
that
we
should
really
be
looking
into
right
now
that
can
keep
us
safe
and
that
we
should
be
exploring
those
tools
and
I
think
that
the
reality
is
we're
going
to
have
to
spend
the
next
year
with
the
legislature
after
this
deadline
drafting
up
language-
it's
probably
not
going
to
come
in
at
this
term
and
I
think
that
we
should
maybe
get
our
house
in
order
a
little
bit
more.
So
thank
you
for
your
comments.
Sure
Johnson.
K
Yeah
just
wanted
to
almost
I
didn't
I
didn't
know
what
councilmember
Payne
was
going
to
say,
but
I
kind
of
want
to
Echo
those
sentiments
around
I'm
I've,
never
been
afraid
to
defend.
Colleagues
when
conduct
has
been
inappropriate
and
I
do
you
know
I've
been
kind
of
inactive
in
the
media
and
on
social
media,
and
so
I
haven't
had
a
formal
statement,
but
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
face
some
inappropriate
conduct.
K
I
also
want
to
say
that
when
we're
up
on
this
diet
trying
to
run
a
meeting
we're
not
up
here
alone,
our
security
staff
were
on
the
other
side
of
this
rope
and
they
were
doing
their
best
to
maintain
the
Quorum
and
they
faced
a
lot
of
not
a
lot,
but
a
number
of
them
faced.
K
K
He
did
de-escalate,
and
so
I
really
want
to
just
take
this
moment
to
appreciate
the
ways
in
which
they
sort
of
stood
with
a
lot
of
integrity
and
didn't
allow
themselves
to
be
pushed
around,
but
also
you
know
there
they're
not
I,
don't
believe
our
security
are
like
sworn
peace
officers
they're
there
and
they
and
they
and
they're
there
with
their
bodies
to
stand
in
front
of
to
stand
on
the
other
side
of
this
rope.
Here
when
a
meeting
is,
is
getting
out
of
out
of
order.
K
So
just
wanted
to
both
say
to
my
colleagues
I
I.
If
it
wasn't
clear,
I,
definitely
don't
think
that
any
of
you
deserved
to
be
attacked
or
threatened
and
also
just
want
to
say
that
the
same
is
true
for
our
security
staff,
who
you
know,
while
that,
while
it
wasn't
everybody,
while
it
wasn't
the
whole
crowd,
they
did
have
to
face
some
vitriella
comments
from
a
few
individuals
that
day
so
I
just
want
to
thank
them
for
their
integrity
and
and
and
their.
A
C
L
A
That
motion
carries
and
with
that
we
have
one
more
item
to
take
up
before
we
turn
to
our
presentations.
We
have
item
two
five
and
I'll
just
pose
this
to
colleagues.
If
anyone
is
interested
in
a
biological
break
for
five
minutes
after
item
two
five,
let
me
know
I'm
seeing
a
couple
head
nods,
so
I
think
that's
what
our
plan
will
be
after
we
get
through
item
two
five,
we'll
do
a
just
a
five
minute
recess
for
that,
and
then
return
and
finish
up
with
these
presentations.
Councilmember
palmisano.
H
Sure
I'll
try
to
make
this
quick,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
discussion
from
the
previous
one
really
applied
broadly
to
both
of
these
amendments.
My
second
amendment
seeks
increased
penalties
for
those
who
assault
or
threaten
violence
against
public
officials,
public
employees
or
their
families.
An
important
point
to
my
colleague,
councilmember
Chavez's
piece
about
the
resolution
that
he
mentioned
is
that
that
was
about
people
in
working
in
their
jobs.
H
Another
important
distinction,
just
like
the
previous,
also
different
from
this
previous
proposal
that
we
just
voted
on
that
only
impacts
them
when
they're
performing
their
duties.
This
amendment,
this
one
that
is
different
than
the
previous
one,
would
protect
public
officials
when
there
are
threats
to
them
because
of
their
status
as
an
employee,
because
of
who
they
are
and
the
role
that
they
have,
even
if
they
are
not
working.
So
this
one
is
about
people
following
around
electeds
at
home,
threatening
violence
to
them
in
the
Skyway
Etc
I
feel
strongly.
H
We
need
to
advocate
for
the
safety
of
everyone,
who's
serving
the
city
and
anything
less
to
me
is
unacceptable.
Sure,
Johnson
and
I
together
made
a
few
calls
to
some
of
our
labor
Partners
on
this
to
communicate
and
to
share
you
know
we
are
early
in
this
work.
You
do
have
a
a
letter
of
support
from
The,
Building,
Trades
and
reflective
of
the
board
of
business
agents.
I
mentioned
speaking
with
our
afsme
partner
earlier
today.
So
I
will
move
this
forward.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I
had
a
couple
questions
again
for
either
staff
or
the
author.
So
to
my
understanding,
if
someone
were
to
assault
elected
official,
you
know
after
an
investigation
after
arrest,
they
will
be
charged
for
a
crime,
and
this
might
actually
be
to
the
author.
Then,
can
you
explain
how
this
amendment
language
would
change
that
process.
N
Chair
Johnson,
council
member,
so
essentially
what
this
would
do
would
be
to
enhance
the
criminal
penalty,
because
the
object
of
the
assault
or
the
object
of
the
threat
is
a
public
official,
their
family,
a
Public
Employee.
Because
of
that
status.
So
you
know
obviously
they're
just
regular
assault,
regular
terroristic
threats,
but
this
would
increase
the
penalty
because
people
are
being
targeted
because
of
their
their
public
standards.
C
So,
if
I'm
understanding
this
correctly,
the
increase
in
charges
for
assault
or
other
crimes
when
they're
done
to
elected
officials,
basically
the
goal
of
this
amendment
is
to
make
the
category
of
public
official
or
Public
Employee
a
special
class
or
protected
class.
That's
above
residence
kind
of
like
what's
reflected
in
some
of
our
civil
rights.
You
know
ordinances
both
at
the
city
level,
also
at
the
state
just
trying
to
see
are
we
trying
to
make
ourselves
a
protected
class
here.
N
I
mean
I,
don't
think
that
the
the
comparison
to
civil
rights
statutes
is
is
exactly
right.
I
mean
I,
think
what
what
this
is
trying
to
do
is
kind
of
acknowledge
that
public
officials,
public
employees,
you
know
sort
of
put
themselves
out
there
to
do
the
business
of
the
public
and
when
they
are
targeted.
Because
of
that
that
you
know
this
is
obviously
supposed
to
be
a
deterrent
right,
so
that
that
targeting
people,
because
of
their
status
working
for
the
benefit
of
the
public,
would
would
result
in
an
enhanced
criminal
penalties.
N
So
I
mean
in
some
respects,
I
see
see
what
you're
saying
I
mean.
It's
the
you
know
it's
different
from
a
regular
assault.
It
would
increase
the
penalty
because
of
the
the
status
of
people
stepping
up
to
do
the
work
of
the
public
and
shouldn't
be
targeted.
Because
of
of
that,
you
know
service
that
public
service.
C
And
do
we
know
if
there's
other
cities
that
have
also
pursued
similar
changes
like
this
and
been
able
to
like
get
a
sense
of
some
of
those
impacts.
N
Council,
chair
council
members,
I
can't
say
off
the
top
of
my
head:
whether
there
are
other
cities,
I
I
believe
that
there
are
but
I
haven't
done
the
research
to
know
you
know
kind
of
the
50
state
impact.
Thank.
C
You
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
Just
a
comment
on
this,
so
I
do
want
to
point
out
a
pattern
of
selective
awareness.
This
Council
has
exhibited
when
we
discuss
the
safety
of
public
officials
and
our
public
employees.
As
council
members
highlighted
in
a
prior
discussion
on
item
2.4,
when
former
council
member
Philippe
Cunningham
was
being
targeted
with
racist
and
transphobic
threats,
he
had
to
take
out
a
restraining
order
because
the
city
provided
no
support
with
dealing
with
those
threats.
C
Also
in
the
name,
just
six
months
ago,
there
was
a
black
lab
movement
of
City
staff,
telling
this
body
that
they
felt
unsafe
under
the
leadership
of
coordinator
Heather
Johnson,
and
the
majority
of
this
Council
looked
at
those
appointees
or
employees
and
appointed
her
anyways.
In
that
case,
we
also
told
our
employees
that
we
didn't
believe
their
concerns
and
that
their
safety
didn't
matter
so
I
do
want
to
know.
C
If
we
were
serious
about
the
safety
of
elected
officials
and
public
employees,
then
let's
create
a
democratic
process
that
was
highlighted
in
a
prior
conversation
where
council
members,
City
staff
can
use
their
experiences
and
insights
to
address
and
or
strengthen
security.
Related
policies
and
practices
that
is
within
our
wheelhouse
equally
important.
C
Let's
make
sure
to
invite
the
public
to
be
part
of
that
process
to
guarantee
that
their
first
amendment
rights
are
protected
and
thus
ensure
that
our
security
measures
will
not
compromise
their
ability
to
also
fully
participate
in
our
local
democracy,
which
I've
heard
we
all
want
to
so.
I
did
want
to
name
that
and
thank
you
again
for
providing
those
clarifying
questions
or
answers
to
those
questions.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I
will
be
voting
yes
on
this
today
and
I'm
doing
this
to
protect
our
employees
as
well
as
our
elected
officials.
I
I
want
to
apologize
to
our
employee,
who
had
their
their
car
burned
to
have
their
tires
slashed.
That
is
totally
unacceptable
and
I
will
not
allow
that
as
long
as
I'm
an
elected
official
thank.
L
And
I
do
want
to
say:
I
am
absolutely
100
supporting
this
Amendment
I'm,
not
sure
how.
L
A
Is
as
typical
practice
of
chairs,
they
wait
until
the
end
to
speak.
It's
not
unprecedented.
They
could
speak
before
that,
but
that's
typically
the
practice
out.
A
And
respect
for
colleagues
and
wanting
to
run
the
meeting
okay.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson
I,
do
want
to
highlight.
You
know
the
examples
that
our
reference
actually
are
relevant
to
what
we're
discussing
today
to
show
again
The
Selective
enforcement
and
selective
considerations
that
is
becoming
a
pattern
of
when
and
who
we
consider
deserving
to
be
safe
and
who
and
when
we
decide
to
ignore
so
I
did
name
that
for
credible
purposes,
but
I
absolutely
want
to
underscore
the
fact
that
everyone
deserves
to
feel
safe
and
we
will.
C
We
must
make
sure
our
public
officials,
you
know,
know
that
that
safety
should
not
come
at
the
cost
of
criminalizing
Working
Class
People,
especially
black
and
brown
residents,
which
is
a
historic
pattern
for
elected
officials.
This
is
not
made
up
the
intention
behind
behind
this
amendment
or
language
or
efforts
might
be
safety,
but
we
know
the
road
to
hell
can
be
paved
with
good
intentions
and
badly
constructed
public
safety
measures
can
actually
do
more
harm
than
good.
We've.
C
Seen
this
before
a
significant
example
of
this
is
mass
incarceration,
harsher
sentencing
and
criminal
laws
that
were
passed
by
elected
officials
in
the
late
80s
and
early
90s
were
designed
to
keep
super
predators
and
criminals
off
the
streets.
20
years
later,
with
tens
of
millions
of
black
and
brown
indigenous
people
now
sitting
behind
bars,
are
holding
our
criminal
record.
We
now
know
that
those
laws
disproportionately
targeted
poor
and
working-class
communities
of
color.
There
is
also
expansive
body
evidence
that
shows
that
those
policies
actually
did
not
achieve
the
intended
outcome.
C
So,
while
that
is
obvious
that
you
know
on
a
larger
scale
than
what
we're
discussing
today,
I
am
concerned
that
this
will
have
the
same
essential
Dynamic.
We
do
have
a
lot
of
mechanisms
that,
as
we've
discussed
thus
far,
we
can
use
to
keep
public
official
and
public
employees
safe.
Increasing
our
ability
to
criminalize
people
is
not
a
acceptable
option.
I
also
want
to
mention
that,
while
this
language
does
not
specifically
mention
criminalizing
protests,
it's
heavily
implied
based
on
the
timing
of
when
this
is
being
brought
forward.
C
I
want
to
name
clearly
that
increasing
criminal
penalties
for
a
protest
is
inherently
racist
and
reactionary
in
2016.
I
did
work
with
the
black
lives
matter,
movement
to
oppose
a
bill
that
Republicans
were
bringing
to
the
state
capitol
in
response
to
protests
after
Police
Murder
philando
Castile.
That
was
also
a
reactionary
attempt
to
repress
justify
protests.
This
also
feels
like
another
reactionary
attempt
to
repress
and
justify
protests.
Both
our
own
both
are
completely
ignoring
the
power
differentiation
between
elected
officials
and
residents,
using
their
first
amendment
rights.
C
We
on
this
dice
have
a
huge
amount
of
power.
We
have
the
power
to
allocate
resources,
change
policy
and
set
the
political
agenda
of
the
city
when
people
tell
us
that
they
are
hurting
or
they
need
something.
We
also
have
the
responsibility
to
use
our
power
to
help
them.
People
with
power
have
a
responsibility
to
de-escalate
conflict
before
it
comes
to
conflict,
and
if
we
want
our
Chambers
to
be
calm,
one
of
the
best
tools
we
can
use
to
make
that
happen
is
to
actually
meet
residents
needs
and
take
their
concerns
seriously.
C
So
they
are
not
here
having
to
protest
because
of
it.
That's
a
conversation
that
needs
to
be
having
and
I'm
sorry,
there's
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
chatter
outside
of
this,
because
it's
a
One
mic
situation,
I'm!
Sorry,
if
this
is
not
in
agreement
with
your
spirit,
but
that
is
the
basis
of
the
conversation
I
think
many
of
us
want
to
have
after
today,
outside
of
relying
on
tools
that
we
know
are
not
effective.
Like
criminalizing
people.
A
Think
you'd
all
remind
all
of
my
colleagues
to
please
do
not
speak
when
others
are
in
queue
and
have
the
mic.
So
I
will
now
go
on
to
council
member
of
Utah
thank.
I
You
chair,
Johnson,
you
know
I'm
struggling
with
this
conversation
because
previous
council
members
are
being
talked
about
for
actions
that
they
took
to
keep
them
in
their
family
safety,
to
keep
them
and
their
family
safe,
like
a
restraining
order.
I
had
to
take
a
restraining
order
out
too
I
had
to
take
a
restraining
order
on
a
person
who
physically
trapped
me
and
my
two
Ward
4
staff
at
the
top
of
a
two-story
escalator,
a
physical
trapping,
not
I
mean
like
literally
seeing
Our
Lives
Flash
before
our
eyes.
I
I
am
just
struggling
with
this,
because
all
we're
asking
for
is
support
here.
We
can't
go
back
and
change
what
happened
on
the
previous
Council.
We
can't
say
what
people
on
the
previous
Council
should,
or
shouldn't
have
done,
to
protect
them
in
them
in
their
families.
What
I'm
saying
today
and
what
I'm
asking
on
support
for
is
what
has
happened
to
me
and
what
I've
witnessed
happened
to
my
colleagues.
Rather,
it
was
on
social
media
over
the
phone
in
person.
It
is.
I
It
is
now
we're
in
the
moment
now
where
this
is
not
about
someone
else's
restraining
order.
I
have
a
restraining
order
and
I'm
going
to
be
happy
to
pass
it
out
to
all
my
colleagues
as
I
was
instructed
to
by
MPD
when
I
get
a
physical
copy
of
it,
but
now
like
I'm
here
right
now,
I'm
serving
on
this
body
with
12
other
people
and
I'm
asking
for
support,
because
I
felt
like
mine
and
my
staff's
life
was
physically
threatened.
I
All
we
could
see
that
day
was
falling
down
50
stairs
in
the
U.S
Bank
building
on
an
escalator
that
we
were
trapped
on.
M
Mr,
chair
I,
you
know
I
started
my
comments
on
the
on
the
last
item.
M
With
this
and
I'm
going
to
do
it
again,
I
again,
I,
don't
think
it
is
okay
or
acceptable
or
should
be
normalized
in
any
way
that
any
one
of
us
it
doesn't
matter
which
side
of
the
dice
you
sit
on
or
how
you
vote
should
should
experience
any
form
of
violence,
intimidation,
threats
in
carrying
out
your
jobs,
our
jobs,
we're
all
doing
our
best
with
the
information
that
we
have
at
any
given
moment
and
being
being
threatened
experiencing
acts
of
violence
is,
is
not
okay
and
I.
M
Think
there
are
for,
for
those
of
you
who
have
been
here
longer
and-
and
you
know
in
this
moment-
I
am
thinking
about
our
council
president,
who
has
who
has
it
consistently
been
someone
who
has
talked
about
the
safety
of
elected
officials
in
in
the
time
that
I've
been
here
and
I?
I
know
that
she
speaks
to
it
from
an
incredible
amount
of
of
personal
experience.
So
just
want
to
reiterate
that
piece
and
then
I
want
to
move
into
the
the
actual
language
of
this.
Of
this
amendment.
M
M
M
I've
spent
a
lot
of
time
personally
moving
children,
creating
safety
plans
and
comforting
the
targets
of
these
these
these
these
acts
of
violence,
I
have
personally
been
the
target
of
of
racialized
and
gendered
violence
at
many
points
throughout
my
my
time
as
a
candidate
and
as
a
policy
maker
just
over
these
last
two
years,
I
want
the
cycle
of
violence
to
stop
and
I.
Don't
think
that
this
is
the
the
way
to
do
it.
M
I,
don't
think
that
we
make
ours
ourselves
safer
with
it,
asking
the
state
to
increase
criminal
penalties
for
those
who
inflict
or
or
threaten
an
act
of
violence
on
public
officials
or
public
employees.
That's
what
this
item
is
doing.
The
the
reality
is,
though,
in
the
places
that
have
implemented
laws
like
this
right.
In
the
best
case
scenario,
we
passed
this
item
and
then
the
legislature
acts
and
does
the
thing
we
want
them
to.
M
Other
states
have
done
that,
and
the
impact
in
real
life
in
real
time
has
been
harsher:
criminal
penalties
and
criminalization
of
of
people
of
color,
of
lgbtq
people
and
of
those
without
permanent
citizenship,
citizenship
status.
These
laws
have
not
protected
marginalized
public
officials
from
violence
rooted
in
misogyny
or
in
white
supremacy.
M
These
laws
historically
have
been
carried
by
far-right
Republicans,
both
in
other
states
and
in
Minnesota
in
moments
when
the
when
the
increase
in
criminal
penalties
was
was
about
the
protest
of
homes,
a
protest,
the
people
protesting
the
homes
of
of
elected
officials
restricting
the
right
of
people
to
do
that,
it
didn't
happen
as
a
result
of
extremists
showing
up
outside
of
the
homes
of
public
officials
of
color,
with
with
guns,
it
happened
as
a
result
of
people
protesting
outside
of
conservative
leaders
of
police
unions.
M
So
I,
just
you
know,
I
want
to
be
really
really
rooted
in
what
the,
in
the
best
case
scenario,
what
we're?
What
we're
really
talking
about
doing
here?
I,
don't
want
myself
or
any
of
you
to
be
put
In
Harm's,
Way
I.
Think
it's
a
really
good
thing
that
we're
trying
to
address
this
issue,
especially
because
so
many
of
us
on
this
body
and
Beyond
have
been
victim
to
Serious
violence,
everything
from
death
and
rape,
threats
to
gunshots
through
people's
homes
to
being
chased
to
Vehicles.
M
While
holding
your
toddler
in
your
arms
that
type
of
violence
has
happened
over
the
years
and
I,
don't
want
it
to
to
continue
to
be
the
case,
I'm
willing
to
put
in
work
with
all
of
you
on
figuring
out
what
the
right
Solutions
are
all
I'm
saying
is
that
this
this
solution
has
not
worked
to
protect
people
like
us
from
acts
of
violence
like
this.
A
You
councilmember
I
added
myself
the
key
to
speak
on
this
first
I
just
want
to
clarify
one
thing:
this
is
not
increasing
penalties
for
protests.
A
This
is
about
threats
and
actual
acts
of
violence
and
I
think
it
does
harm
to
our
legal,
rightful
protesters
to
conflate
this
in
any
way
as
being
an
increased
penalty
for
them,
and
it
kind
of
reminds
me
of
when
we
heard
from
some
conservative
media
commentators
with
these
talking
points
trying
to
conflate
all
of
the
protesters
in
Minneapolis
who
are
in
standing
in
righteous
outrage
against
the
murder
of
George
Floyd
they
were
trying
to
conflate
them
is,
is
violent
and
threatening
violence,
and
all
of
that,
when
we
know
that
it
wasn't
the
thousands
and
thousands
of
people
out
Marching,
In
righteous
outrage
that
were
out
there
burning
down
our
neighborhoods,
so
it
it
was
I
think
it
does
a
disservice
to
protesters
to
conflate
this,
because
this
is
about
actual
acts
of
violence.
A
Now,
to
speak
to
this,
it's
not
normal
for
most
people
in
their
work
occupations
to
get
multiple
threats
of
assassination.
It's
not.
These
jobs
are
fundamentally
different
because
of
that
and
it
affects
children.
It
affects
spouses,
it
affects
Neighbors
when
that
last
very
public
threat
we
got
about
placing
pipe
bombs
around
our
homes
was
reported
in
the
news.
I
had
people
reaching
out
as
far
away
as
a
couple
blocks
from
my
house
to
ask
if
their
homes
needed
to
be
evacuated
as
well.
A
I
mean
this
is
not
normal
stuff
and
colleagues
I
I'm
not
going
to
be
here
in
10
months
on
this
dice
I'm
going
to
be
back
in
the
private
sector
somewhere
and
so
I
don't
stand
to
gain
a
lot
from
this,
but
with
this
item
I
am
thinking
about
all
of
you,
because
Society
is
changing
what
is
happening
now
around
elected
officials,
it's
not
normal
and
when
I
started
and
councilmember
Goodman
is
the
longest
serving
can.
Maybe
you
know
provide
some
feedback
on
this,
but
we
didn't
face
this
stuff.
A
E
A
Motion
carries
and
now
colleagues
we'll
take
a
five
minute
recess
and
return
with
our
igr
team
with
the
three
presentations.
Thank
you,
foreign.
A
All
right
everyone,
we
are
going
to
resume
this
intergovernmental
Relations
Committee
meeting
and
we
have
three
presentations.
I
do
want
to
let
our
committee
members
know
that
we
are
being
cognizant
of
time
with
the
committee
of
the
whole
meeting
coming
up
at
1,
30
and
I
am
guessing.
People
would
like
an
opportunity
for
lunch
as
well,
and
so
we
also
have
the
director
who
has
to
be
back
over
at
the
Capitol
and
folks
with
some
personal
business
as
well
or
appointments.
A
So
we
are
going
to
try
to
get
through
these
three
items
pretty
quickly
and
we'll
start
by
welcoming
up
the
director
for
item
number
three
for
a
federal
state
and
legislative
update
and
I
would
ask
that
committee
members.
Please
save
their
questions
until
the
end
of
the
presentation
and
that
we
can
ask
those
welcome
director.
F
Thank
you,
chair
Johnson
and
committee
members
and
I
am
going
to
try
to
move
relatively
quickly.
We
also
have
MS
Olson
who's,
going
to
be
doing
an
update
on
federal
Appropriations,
and
we
have
some
staff
who
have
to
leave
at
one,
but
who
are
here
for
questions
on
that
as
well,
so
we're
going
to
try
to
get
through
this
quickly.
F
I
did
just
want
to
briefly
acknowledge
that
our
government
relations,
Representatives,
Steve,
huser
and
Indira
Falana
are,
and
our
seasonal
legislative,
Aid
Chloe
Wallwork
are
all
at
the
Capitol
juggling
many
hearings
and
and
tracking
bills
today.
So
they
can't
be
here
for
this
presentation
just
want
to
thank
them
for
their
work
and
also
thank
Lauren
for
all
her
work
in
in
tracking
items
related
to
The,
Met,
Council
and
keeping
us
going
with
the
federal
Appropriations
process.
F
There's
a
lot
happening
and
I'm
just
really
proud
of
the
work,
the
team's
doing,
to
keep
track
of
everything.
So
on
that
note,
just
thought
I'd
update
our
statistic
that
I
shared
with
you
last
time
now
there
have
been
2500
bills
introduced
in
the
house,
2600
in
the
Senate,
as
of
yesterday.
F
F
But
as
I
noted,
the
rate
of
inflation
is
now
included
in
the
forecast
and
it
wasn't
before
so.
Revenues
actually
went
up,
but
the
for
the
the
Surplus
is
the
same.
So,
even
though
costs
have
gone
up
because
the
States,
including
the
rate
of
inflation,
because
revenues
also
went
up,
the
Surplus
remained
the
same
in
the
February
forecast
and
the
state
budget
office
is
forecasting
that
revenues
will
continue
to
exped
exceed
spending
through
fiscal
year
2027..
F
So
this
forecast
is
what
determines
the
budget
targets
for
spending
committees
at
the
legislature,
and
so
we
anticipate
that
those
targets
will
come
out
sometime
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks
and
that's
what
will
inform
how
much
it's
spent
in
each
in
each
committee
area
and
ultimately,
what's
included
in
the
state
budget
at
the
end
of
session
updates
on
some
of
this,
our
city
priorities.
This
is
not
an
exhaustive
list.
I'm
just
trying
to
highlight
some
items
that
I
know
are
of
interest
to
the
council.
F
So
if
something's
not
on
here
that
you
have
a
question
about,
please
do,
let
me
know
either
now
or
or
after
the
meeting.
But
I
did
want
to
note
that
yesterday
the
house
passed
a
capital
investment
bill.
This
included
both
General
obligation,
bonds
and
then
a
second
bill
that
included
cash
Appropriations.
F
This
bill
has
been
characterized
by
the
capital
investment
shares
as
the
2022
bonding
Bill,
since
there
was
not
a
bonding
Bill
last
year
and
they
are
planning
to
then
assuming
this
passes
the
Senate
as
well,
which
is
not
a
certainty
but
but
they
will
be
considered
by
the
Senate.
Then
they
plan
to
write
another
bonding
bill
that
will
they
will
consider
the
2023
bonding
bill.
So
we
do
hope
that
in
the
22
23
Bill
there
are
more
City
projects,
but
we're
excited
that
the
Central
City
stormwater
tunnels
included
in
the
bill.
F
F
Adult
use,
cannabis
legalization
continues
to
move
through
the
many
committees
that
it
needs
to
move
through
in
both
the
House
and
Senate.
We
did
share
a
detailed
update
with
council
members
last
week
via
email
about
some
of
the
priorities
that
igr
team
is
tracking.
One
of
those
is
around
licensing
at
first,
the
bill
didn't
have
any
licensing
Authority
for
local
governments.
Now
it
does
have
a
registration
process,
but
it
only
allows
local
governments
to
charge
a
one-time,
200
dollar
fee.
F
The
municipal
building
commission
bill.
This
is
a
bill
to
repeal
the
statute
that
created
the
municipal
building
commission
and
instead,
the
city
and
the
county
would
come
to
an
agreement
to
manage
this
building
and
and
keeping
the
employees
who
who
currently
work
for
the
municipal
building
commission
that
Bill
had
a
hearing
last
Friday
in
the
Senate.
It
was
a
very
nice
hearing.
F
We
learned
some
fun
facts
about
the
history
of
City
Hall,
like
that
there
used
to
be
a
chicken
coop
in
this
building
and
horse
stables,
yeah
and
Vice
chair,
igr,
Vice,
chair,
rainville
was
able
to
come,
testify
in
support
of
that,
and
so
that
has
met
deadline
in
the
Senate
and
so
then
we're
working
to
meet
the
second
deadline
in
the
house
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks.
F
On
that
bill
there
is
a
bill
that
has
a
hearing
this
week
in
the
Senate,
it's
authored
by
Senator
fate
in
the
Senate
and
representative
Jordan
in
the
house.
F
It
would
clarify
that
the
adoption
or
amendment
of
comprehensive
plans
consistent
with
the
Met
Council,
comprehensive
planning
statutes,
does
not
constitute
conduct
that
would
be
defined
under
the
environmental
rights
chapter
of
law,
so
essentially
that
it
wouldn't
require
an
environmental
review,
so
that
bill
has
a
hearing
this
week,
and
that
of
course
relates
to
our
own
comprehensive
plans
and
that
process
and
then
lastly,
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
elections.
There
are
a
number
of
Elections
Bills
moving
our
seasonal
legislative
aide.
F
Chloe
Wallwork
has
been
our
Point
person
on
elections,
she's
doing
a
great
job
of
tracking
all
of
the
different
things
and
working
with
clerk
Carl
and
the
elections.
The
city's
elections
director
to
weigh
in
so
there
are
things
related
to,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
safety
of
Elections
officials.
F
There
is
some
funding
support
for
for
local
elections
offices
to
help
to
to
help
us
with
our
elections
process,
and
there
is
some
bills
related
to
ranked
Choice
voting
tabulation
that
our
Elections
office
is
supportive
of
so
we've
been
trying
to
weigh
in
and
then
there's
a
bill
related
to
making
it
easier
for
students
to
register
to
vote.
F
Councilmember
wansley
testified
and
supported
that
bill,
and
so
we
are
trying
to
weigh
in
on
all
of
those,
as
as
we
can,
but
there's
a
lot
going
on
related
to
elections
as
well,
and
perhaps
that
our
next
update
we
could
have
Chloe,
come
and
get
some
practice
presenting
to
the
council
and
and
do
a
more
comprehensive
update
there.
F
F
Last
week,
the
budget
chairs
the
housing
budget
chairs
and
the
House
and
Senate
with
Senator
Lindsey
port
in
the
Senate
and
representative
Mike
Howard
in
the
house
and
representative
Mike
Howard,
is
now
a
member
of
the
Minneapolis
delegation
and
they
released
their
priorities
for
their
budget.
So
they
now
budget
targets
haven't
been
released.
Yet
so
we
don't
know
what
their
budget
Target
will
be,
but
they're
seeking
a
billion
dollars
for
housing,
with
their
three
goals
being
to
end
youth
homelessness
by
2030.
F
To
cut
racial
disparities
in
home
ownership
in
half
and
to
build
and
preserve
150
000
homes
to
address
the
shortage
of
affordable
housing
available
in
Minnesota,
so
some
of
the
ways
they
would
do,
that
would
be
by
creating
a
state-based
housing,
voucher
program
and
other
forms
of
direct
support
to
low-income
families.
To
try
to
prevent
homelessness.
F
There
are
also
a
number
of
bills
around
renter
protections
that
are
moving
and
some
other
housing
bills
that
I
wanted
to
highlight.
One
of
the
bills.
That's
moving
is
source
of
income
protection
similar
to
a
ordinance.
The
city
adopted
many
years
ago
now
saying
that
a
property
owner
cannot
decline
to
rent
to
someone
based
on
their
source
of
income.
So
if
that
source
of
income
for
rent
is
a
Section,
8
voucher
or
housing
Choice
voucher,
they
have
to
accept
that,
and
so
that
is
moving
now
at
the
state
level,
in
both
the
House
and
Senate.
F
There
is
a
bill
that
would
require
a
right
to
counsel
for
residents
for
public
housing
residents.
If
they're
facing
eviction,
there
is
a
bill
that
would
prohibit
eviction
for
non-payment
of
rent
if
there,
if
the
renter
has
a
pending
application
for
rental
assistance.
This
is
similar
to
something
that
was
in
place
during
the
eviction
moratorium
during
the
pandemic,
that,
if
somebody
had
a
pending
application
for
emergency
rental
assistance,
they
could
not
be
evicted
for
a
non-payment
of
rent
and
then
there's
also
a
bell
moving.
F
That
would
require
a
pre-eviction
filing
notice,
which
again
is
a
policy
that
the
city
has
already
adapted,
requiring
a
14-day
pre-filing
notice
before
somebody
can
be
evicted
for
non-payment
of
rent.
So
those
are
examples-
that's
not
an
exhaustive
list
of
all
the
rental
protection
bills,
but
those
are
some
that
are
moving
at
the
state
level
and
we
do
anticipate
that
that
these
do
have
a
path
forward
toward
adoption
this
session.
F
There
is
also
a
bill
that
we
testified
in
support
of
last
week
that
would
eliminate
the
30-year
limit
on
affordable,
affordable
housing,
covenants.
So
right
now,
State
Statute
does
limit
our
ability
to
be
able
to
require
that
housing
be
affordable
for
longer
than
30
years.
This
would
allow
government
units
to
have
a
longer
affordability
period
than
30
years,
so
it
would
mean
housing.
We're
funding
under
the
affordable
housing.
Trust
fund
could
have
longer
term
affordability,
which
we
think
would
be
a
good
thing.
It
is
part
of
our
legislative
agenda.
F
F
Sorry,
I
gotta
find
my
notes:
Here
But.
It
includes
shelter,
Capital
funding
for
shelter,
Capital,
Emergency,
Services,
Grants
and
the
homeless,
youth
Act,
and
it's
100
million
dollars,
so
that
has
passed.
The
house
has
not
housed
the
Senate,
yet
mpha
is
seeking
45
million
dollars
to
preserve
its
scattered
site
housing
that
Bill
had
a
hearing
last
week
and
the
mayor
testified
in
support
of
it.
That's
authored
by
senator
fatay
in
the
Senate,
and
then
I
already
mentioned
the
bonding
bill
that
passed
yesterday
in
the
house.
F
F
And
then
I
just
wanted
to
end
by
reiterating
some
of
the
key
dates.
I
we've
already
mentioned
a
couple
of
times
that
this
Friday
is
the
first
deadline.
That's
for
committees
to
act,
favorably
on
bills,
in
the
house
of
origin.
That
applies
to
policy
bills,
it
doesn't
apply
to
funding
bills
or
tax
bills
and
also
if
a
bill
was
referred
directly
to
a
finance
committee,
at
least
in
the
house.
It
still
can
be
heard
after
the
10th.
So
it's
the
deadline,
but
there's
also
some
flexibility
around
that.
F
The
second
deadline
is
March
24th
and
then
the
deadline
for
a
major
appropriation
and
finance
bills
is
April.
4Th
and
again.
F
The
last
day
of
session
is
May
22nd,
so
we're
just
about
halfway
through,
and
there
is
a
lot
that
has
happened,
but
there's
still
a
lot
left
to
do
and
and
so
it'll
be
it'll,
be
exciting
to
see
what
what
all
happens
throughout
the
rest
of
session-
and
that
is
was
my
very
quick
overview-
sorry
to
kind
of
rush
through
it,
but
happy
to
take
questions
if
there
are
any
before
we
move
to
Federal
Appropriations
great.
I
Thank
you,
chair
Johnson,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
didn't
see
anything
in
here,
but
I'm
wondering
we're
going
to
have
a
presentation
next
from
the
chief
of
police,
and
he
is
asking
for
two
additional
Deputy
Chiefs
and
I
know
that
that
has
to
happen
at
the
state
level.
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
bill
that
is
asking
for
those
and
if
there's
not
does
that
March
10th
deadline
apply
to
that.
F
Yes,
chair
Johnson
and
council
member
of
Utah,
there
is
a
bill
that
has
been
drafted.
It
we're
still
waiting
on
it
to
be
introduced.
F
However,
we
do
know
that
Senator
Latz
who's,
the
chair
of
the
Public
Safety
Committee
in
the
Senate,
has
it's
told
us.
He
supports
this
and
he
intends
to
work
on
a
sort
of
comprehensive
policy,
Bill
and
so
I
think
there
will
be
a
way
to
get
that
amended
into
that
bill,
even
if
it
doesn't
get
a
hearing
by
this
Friday.
But
yes,
there
is
a
bill,
that's
being
drafted
and
we're
working
to
find
strategies
to
make
sure
it's
moving
forward.
L
Thank
you,
chair,
Johnson,
just
a
clarification
on
the
Senator
vitae's
bill
regarding
the
2040
plan.
Essentially,
did
you
say
it
would
add
an
environmental
review
or
eliminated
by
it?
I
couldn't
determine
yes.
F
Chair
Johnson
and
council
president,
it
would
clarify
that
comprehensive
crumpy.
Excuse
me
comprehensive
plans
that
are
reviewed
by
the
Met
council.
Do
not
need
to
have
an
environmental
review,
so
would
clarify
statute.
Okay,.
A
O
You
good
afternoon
missile
members,
I'm
Lauren,
Olson
senior
government
relations,
representative
I
know
it's
been
a
long
meeting
and
I'll
try
to
give
you
the
expedited
version
of
this
and
but
allow
you
to
ask
any
questions
that
you
have
so
I
did
previously
kind
of
give
you
a
heads
up
that
we
were
waiting
for
details
on
the
earmarks
process.
Well,
then,
suddenly
I
think
it
was
February
23rd.
O
We
heard
that
the
Senate's
going
to
have
a
process
and
their
deadline
was
going
to
be
March
10th,
based
on
the
last
couple
years,
we're
kind
of
hoping
we
would
have
until
mid-april
or
so
so.
This
was
even
much
more
accelerated
than
I
guess
we
were
hoping
for,
but
we
had
begun
the
process
so
that
we
could
deal
with
whatever
they
threw
at
us,
so
we're
in
a
good
position,
but
it
also
means
that
we
are
still
massaging
some
of
these
to
be
as
competitive
as
possible
for
submission
on
Friday.
O
So
some
of
the
work
is
ongoing
right
now,
but
I'll
tell
you
a
little
bit
more
about
it,
so
the
Senate
deadline,
again,
is
this
Friday,
the
10th,
non-profits
and
government
agencies?
Can
apply
from
specific
accounts
made
available
from
the
House
and
Senate.
The
accounts
in
the
House
and
Senate
are
different
from
one
another.
In
terms
of
what's
available
in
the
house,
the
house
here
March
process
was
also
recently
announced.
O
The
deadline
for
us
to
get
projects
in
to
representative
Omar
is
March
17th
again,
as
I
had
advised
you
guys
before
the
house
process.
It
has
it's
different
in
nature
and
how
it
functions.
So
each
member
gets
to
pick
up
to
15
projects.
Representative
was
looking
for
shovel
ready,
Omar's
office
is
hosting
a
q,
a
which
I
think
is
a
nice
thing.
O
So,
just
a
quick
note
again
about
the
fact
that
the
Senate
accounts
that
are
available
and
the
house
accounts
are
different
and
also
the
house
under
GOP
leadership,
made
some
changes.
This
year,
they've
they've
said
that
they
will
not
accept
earmark
requests
from
certain
accounts
like
labor,
Health
and
Human
Services
or
financial
services.
O
O
A
lot
of
the
law
enforcement
or
Community
public
safety
issues
do
get
burn
grants.
So
this
is
The
house's
commentary,
and
it
gives
you
some
insights
into
how
they
might
handle
earmarks
this
year.
O
So
the
city
has
five
projects
that
we
tend
to
bring
first
one
we
have
been
we've
brought
a
couple
times
and
last
year
was
our
top
priority,
which
is
38th
Street
Thrive,
to
implement
the
Strategic
plan
that
was
community-led
and
developed
and
adapted
by
the
city
for
38th
Street
area,
including
the
historic
Cultural
District.
O
We
are
in
the
process
of
kind
of
reworking
that
one
just
because
we,
the
ask
before
was
to
fund
a
community
development
committee
and
that
hasn't
been
seen
as
a
allowable
cost.
So
we
are
reframing
it
to
ask
for
resources
that
will
allow
us
to
implement
elements
of
that
plan
around
affordable
housing
and
business
support
in
the
vicinity
of
like
38th
and
Chicago
and
the
30th
Street
cultural
corridor.
O
Next
we
have
2.5
million
dollars
for
violence
Interrupters
and
by
the
way
Josh
has
Josh
is
out
in
the
hallway
somewhere
Peterson.
If
anyone
has
questions
about
this,
we
might
need
to
pull
them
up
now
because
he's
available
till
one
o'clock,
so
this
additional
money
would
allow
either
an
expansion
of
like
the
hours
of
service
currently
offered,
and
it's
enough
money
to
fund
additional
teams
and
therefore
reach
different
areas
with
violence.
O
Interrupters
there's
also
a
portion
of
this
money
that
would
fund
training
and
technical
assistance,
as
well
as
kind
of
looking
at
ways
to
measure
the
impact
of
this
work
before
I
go
on.
Does
anyone
have
a
question
for
Josh
Peterson
about
this
particular
item,
so
he
might
be
able
to
speak
to
it
for
one
minute.
O
You,
okay,
all
right!
Thanks
all
right
next
item,
Emergency
Operations,
a
training
facility,
I,
think
you're
familiar
with
this.
We
are
still
seeking
money
to
pay
for
some
modular
components
that
could
be
at
the
Emergency
Operations
and
training
facility.
That
would
allow
the
fire
department
and
other
First
Responders
to
train
on
Specialized
rescue
techniques,
including
responding
to
rail
disasters
and
confined
space
rescue
Etc,
still
quote,
haven't
quite
nailed
down
the
source
on
that,
so
we're
seeking
that
again,
pedestrian
access
and
safety.
Again.
O
This
will
help
fund
our
needs
to
ensure
that
the
streets
are
accessible
to
everyone
through
Ada
improvements
and
Etc
farmers,
market
Minneapolis,
Farmers,
Market
infrastructure.
So
it's
the
one
near
the
impound
lot
needs
a
new
roof
among
other
pedestrian
and
parking
improvements
that
once
the
new
roof
is
in
place,
it
will
allow
support
solar
panels
and
then
that
will
allow
better
lighting
and
hot
water
and
some
other
additions.
O
So
that's
that
request.
We
do
have
folks
available
to
speak
to
that.
If
you
have
questions
on
that
one,
so
we
are
required
by
the
Senate
process
to
apply
ranking.
This
is
the
proposed
ranking
from
igr.
It's
mainly
based
on
how
competitive
we
think
these
might
be
in
the
a
process
and
in
the
accounts
that
they're
applying
for
38th
Street
is
one
that
we've
been
talking
to
people
about,
and
our
Senators
and
representative
Omar
understand
that
it's
very
important
priority.
O
So
I
think
that
was
one
reason
why
it
remains
at
the
top
of
the
list.
I,
we
believe
the
violence
interrupter
work
is
an
excellent
fit
for
what
has
typically
gotten
funded
through
earmarks
and
through
the
Senate
account.
However,
we
do
see
the
house
saying
they're
that
they're
going
to
be
very
particular
about
what
kinds
of
stuff
is
funded
by
burn
grants
and
the
other
things
are
fairly
close
together.
O
A
O
A
Right,
thank
you,
I'm,
not
seeing
any
disagreement
with
it
or
any
any
comments,
so
appreciate
that
I'll
go
ahead
and
direct
the
clerk
to
receive
and
file
this
presentation.
Thank
you
and
we'll
move
on
to
our
last,
which
is
the
federal
legislative
agenda.
I'll
also
note
that
I'll
be
turning
the
chair
over
to
Vice,
chair
rainville,
because
I
have
a
medical
appointment
for
one
of
my
children.
That
I
must
attend.
So
thank
you.
O
O
O
As
you
know,
there's
a
few
issues
that
come
up
when
we
talk
about
small
Wireless.
So
you
know
this
is
kind
of
the
future
of
Wireless.
Technology
requires
this
many
low-mounted
antennas
as
a
way
to
provide
5G,
and
so
people
have
certainly
noticed
the
proliferation
of
the
infrastructure
required
for
this,
and
it's
called
small
cell,
because
each
antenna
actually
call
covers
a
smaller
area.
O
That's
why
or
that's
why
it's
called
small
Wireless
excuse
me
we're
updating
our
policies,
because
I
think
you
are
familiar
with
the
fact
that
federal
law
preempts
us
very
much
when
it
comes
to
any
control
or
control
over
citing
of
these.
O
This
infrastructure
and
there's
also
questions
that
I
think
some
people
in
the
public
have
about
health
associated
with
this
infrastructure,
because
there
are
radio
frequency
emissions
associated
with
this
infrastructure,
and
although
so,
the
FCC
is
obligated
to
maintain
standards
of
safety
around
radio
frequency
emissions
and
while
they
say
that
the
typical
emissions
from
the
sub
infrastructures
many
times
below
with
their
current
standards,
I
think
a
lot
of
people
just
want
to
refresh
those
standards
because
of
the
kind
of
the
proliferation
required
for
this
type
of
infrastructure.
O
So,
due
to
the
concerns
that
exist
about
you
know,
wishing
there
was
a
little
bit
more
control
over
the
sighting
of
these
and
also
questions
people
have
about
health,
we're
updating
our
policies
and
kind
of
consistent
to
with
the
national
league
of
cities
about
basically
calling
for
the
FCC
to
make
sure
that
they
do
an
update
of
the
radio
frequency
emission
standards
and
to
either
determine
and
ensure
that
they're
the
right
standard
now
or
if
they
needed
to
be
changed.
O
The
other
thing
we're
looking
for
is
just
to
maintain
the
authority
that
cities
should
have
and
do
have
over
the
right-of-way.
To
some
extent,
but
we
do
recognize,
you
know
when
it
comes
to
certain
things
like
that:
ensuring
their
communication
tools
and
systems,
the
United
States,
you
know-
can
work
for
everyone.
O
We
there
is
a
level
of
federal
preemption
there,
but
at
the
same
time
we
want
to
be
able
to
control
our
right
of
way,
and
we
and
you
guys
and
excuse
me
you've,
recent
casual
term,
the
city
attorney's
office
would
know
all
the
details,
but
there
are
limited
things
that
we
are
able
to
do,
but
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
we
are
not
able
to
do,
since
this
is
in
the
realm
of
the
federal
government.
E
B
Mr
chair
this
item
is
a
motion
to
amend
okay.
K
L
E
Thank
you
clerk.
Could
you
please
take
a
voice
fight
to
approve
the
cemented
item,
amended
agenda
item.
G
L
E
Okay,
thank
you
and
see
no
further
business
before
us.
I
moved
to
oh
council
member
Vita,.