Tech team, uh, we're ready to begin in one minute. >> Sounds good. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome. My name is Peter Ginder and I'm the chair of the charter commission. I'm going to call to order our regular meeting for Wednesday,
May 6, 2026. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder reminder to all committee members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include real-time
captioning is a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast.
We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. At this time, I'll ask the clerk to call the role so we can verify a quorum for this meeting. >> Commissioner Dillo >> present. >> Holquest >> present. >> Nye
>> present. >> Schneider >> present. >> Prindle >> present. >> Dhy >> here. >> Cooper uh Boon >> present. >> Kle >> here. >> Garcia >> present. Smith >> here. >> Cooper >> present.
>> Perry >> here. >> Kak >> here. >> Vice Chair Rubenstein >> present. >> Chair Ginder >> present. >> We have 15 present. >> Let the record reflect we have a quorum. For the members of the public that are here for the public hearing and that
wish to address the commission. We ask you to register with the clerks to my right outside the door here. They've been taking names. So, if anybody wants to speak who hasn't registered out there, please do so. Um, you can also provide any written comments or
materials to include in the record. Commissioners, the agenda for today's meeting is before us. May I please have a motion to adopt the agenda? >> Is there a second? >> Second, Dlo. >> We have a proper motion before us. Is
there any discussion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. That motion passes and the agenda is adopted. >> Our next item of business is acceptance
of meetings from our January regular meeting and the April special meeting. May I please have a motion to accept those minutes? >> So moved. Rubenstein. >> So moved. Rubenstein. >> Second. >> Mr. chair, would now be an appropriate
time to suggest a correction? >> Yes. >> Um, so on page six of the minutes, uh, I believe this would be for the April 9th meeting, uh, uh, on the last roll call of the motion for, uh, adopting the, I
believe the, um, the, uh, the the charter, uh, question. It lists uh Cooper, Dlo, Dherty, and Prindle as abstaining, but I believe they voted no,
not abstain. >> If one of if they would confirm >> second >> confirm. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, that is that is correct. That is a clerical error uh with the roll call, but we can revise that um if that's the motion from Commissioner I.
>> That is the motion. >> Okay. Um I think without any uh discussion that we can accept that that amendment and then uh move forward with that correction in mind. So with that um we're still waiting then for a second on
the corrected agenda. >> Okay, we have a second. Um and um is there any discussion on that? Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor say I to the corrected uh motion. I
>> opposed say nay. >> That motion passes and the minutes are accepted. The next item is uh the chair's report. And what I intend to do with the chair's report um is one go through briefly for the benefit of members of the public as
well as the commissioners. Uh a little bit of the history on how we got here today with the with the items that are on the agenda. And I want to go back to more than 10 years ago when the charter commission proposed the plain language
charter. Members will recall and members of the public, the charter at that time was composed of a compendium of special laws that had formed basically the charter. This was special laws created by the the state of Minnesota for the city in the 1920s was all put together
and that became our charter. The charter then throughout the years proved to be one extremely large um a lot of archaic language um and uh it did not render itself to being
understandable by most members of the public. And so there was a lengthy process probably about a 10-year process to rewrite the charter into a plain language charter. Part of that discussion back then and I was not on the charter then was that once the plain language charter was
adopted then it would be easier for people to move forward with um amendments of the charter. And it was contemplated that once we had the plain language charter that amendments to the charter would come forward. And that um and after the that went in
place uh in 2021 um with the modernized charter, the charter then moved forward again with what became known as the executive mayor and legislative council method. And this reflected um ongoing history
where that kind of setup for the council and mayor had been proposed several times over the preceding decades and had not gone forward. Um that went forward in 2021 and was passed. And for those who
are members of the commission at that time, it was also understood that once the executive mayor legislative council went into effect that it would likely be necessary to have additional amendments to plate to make it workable. And so
what we found after the amendment was passed, uh, the mayor then, mayor Fry in 20 um, 2022 had a task group that was put together to say, how do we
implement the strong mayor system? And they came up with basically three options. One included a deputy uh, mayor, one included deputy mayor, and an administrative or chief officer. And the third one was kind of the cabinet structure which became what was later on
in 2024 passed as the government structure kind of implementing the strong mayor system. And so that is the construct we have now in ordinance which is um the three executive officers, the commissioner of public safety, the
commissioner of operations and the city attorney and then the new structure underneath them for all the department heads. So after that was put into effect then for the the charter commission became okay we have something is this something that now should be put in place
permanently for the city in the charter not just an ordinance one the charter is harder to amend but if you leave it an ordinance every time there's a change of administration or change of council it's possible that by a 70 vote if the mayor agrees that this structure can change
again. So the idea is we have a structure that has been implemented by the council and the mayor back in 2024. Um and we've decided to move forward with trying to implement that structure into the charter and with some changes.
So that's part of this and the other part of it is in the intervening 10 years or from when the passage of the charter the plain language charter staff also caught administrative items that they thought needed to be changed or errors or gender corrections or other
issues in the charter that were believed to be more administrative terms sometimes we've used as technical. And so we've had those two items moving on a parallel track um to to get to where we are today, which is we're getting ready
to consider what if anything should be put on the ballot for 2026. So with that in mind, which is the preface for part of this um meeting and for the public hearing, I'm also just giving a heads up for the commissioners
is at the conclusion of the public hearing. Then I will be looking to us to decide how do we want to go forward. Currently we have uh a combined government structure and technical
amendments uh amendment put together for the ballot or possible ballot. We also have separated out technical amendment and a government structure amendment either of which would go on the ballot or could be sent to the council for a 130 vote.
And so we have to decide what we want to move forward with. And so after the public hearing I would I want to have a discussion on that how we want to go forward. And the second part of that is if we decide when we decide which way we want to move forward then are there any
amendments we want to make today to that structure or whatever amendment that we're putting forward. So there'll be a two-step process for us at the end of this meeting. And then once we've decided on that, then we'll have a special meeting scheduled to come back
to look at the final language for both the ballot questions or the transfer to the city council as well as suggested ballot language. And um traditionally we have prepared the charter commission or the chair has prepared a report that
goes to the city council along with what the uh proposal that we send over there that describes what um what we've done, how we got here, what we considered, that kind of thing. That's in preparation, but it won't be final until
after we decide what we're going to do today. So, that's kind of my plan for how the meeting will go. Um, if there are any questions, you can ask me that now or later on. Um,
so with that, um, the next item on our agenda will be the public hearing. Um, and I just going to go through anybody who has signed up. And again, if you haven't signed up, it's outside the hall right
now at to my right. Uh we'll be given two minutes to testify and there's a clock over here that will do that. Um and for everyone in attendance and especially those who participate in our hearings or comment period, uh let me
notify you of this. These hearings are being recorded and broadcast. Both the recording and broadcast are classified as public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. By attending and participating in these proceedings, your image and any
testimony or information that you provide will also be subject to disclosure under that law. This includes, but is not limited to, your attendance, your name, and other personal details that you may provide, as well as any testimony or comments you
provide, which includes any written submissions you may make, which are included in the record of this meeting. And another reminder, if you wish to speak, sign up with the clerk. And before I open that meeting, I'm just going to ask the city attorney um to
just describe briefly um how we separated this out. At our last special meeting, we had just the combined government structure and amendments together with all the revisions and we asked her to go through and try and separate those out. Um it's it's a
challenging task when you're doing these together as opposed to doing in a serial fashion. So, Miss Nef, if you could just describe briefly what ended up in these two different um proposals. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair Ginder. Um to
describe um how we ended up with these two different drafts, well, now three different drafts which are in front of you. the combined uh government structure technical amendments uh government structure and technical amendments is the the draft that was before you at your last meeting with the
two changes that uh this body voted to add to it namely the public works department and CPED department. Um so that that document is familiar to you. The less familiar documents are the two documents that separate the government
structure provisions from the technical provisions. So perhaps the easiest way for me to explain this is to just go through the government structure document and identify what is in it and everything else is in the technical amendments. Um, so you do have a a draft
in front of you that's labeled government structure amendments. And I'll just briefly identify the items that are in that um in that document that were identified as needing to go together to implement the two things
that um this body said should be in a government structure amendment document. namely the executive offices and then the department heads um and their confirmation process and it that necessitates some other things that come along with it in order to make the document cohesive.
Um so on the very first page of that there are just two date corrections that we would need to do to bring the document um up to date and avoid confusion. But then the first place that you see a significant amount of red is
in article 4 on page two where there are provisions for removal of council members included here. Um and provisions for the removal of the auditor are on the following um three pages or so. And these are here because
we need to keep all of the removal provisions together in a single uh draft package. Otherwise, if uh one of these packages were to pass but not the other, you would have inconsistencies and gaps. So, all of those removal provisions
needed to stay together. Moving along to article 7, page two, which is the next place that you see a significant amount of uh red lining. Uh 7.2 2 creates the executive officers which is consistent with
current ordinance and the current structure of the city. And then 7.3 beginning on the next page provides for the administration um which includes police, fire, public works and CPED.
Public works and CPED being the two additions that this body voted for at your last meeting. Uh you'll see in 7.3 that there is a lot of uh striketh through. This is because the city attorney was moved out of the
middle of 7.2 and or out of the middle of 7.3 and into 7.2. Um and then the civil rights commission and the planning commission uh being commissions rather than departments of the city were moved out of 7.2 and into
a new section 7.4. So this is organization um is what we're doing here in order to make 7.2 about the administration. Um and then if you move along to 7.4 you see a significant amount of red again
which is the commission section. The civil rights commission and the planning commission now moved out of the middle of 7.2 into and into their own section um for readability really. Moving along to article 8, 8.1 defines the officers as we need to do if we're
then going to talk about executive and administrative officers. So that's sort of the foundation for setting up the executive officers. In 8.2, two, you see uh quite a bit of striketh through because provisions like
term, tenure, and removal are now going to be provided for in 8.3 and 8.4 which relate to the elected and the executive officers. So again, this is all it all kind of goes together. If we if we um
amend 8.3 and 8.4, we need to amend 8.2 to to make the package cohesive and avoid inconsistencies and gaps. Moving along to 8.3 and 8.4, those relate to uh elected officers and
executive officers. And you see in these sections the addition of term tenure removal and other such provisions as that um as they relate to those two specific types of officers. And then finally 8.5 establishes the
administrative officers which are the non-executive officers. The rest of the draft uh 8.6 six is largely unchanged except for small edits um that necessarily flow from the other
changes to the earlier parts of seven and 8. And then finally uh article 9 is attached but only so that you can see that there are no changes to it. All of the changes to article 9 were not deemed to be government structure related. they
did not um necessarily need to be part of this package and so article 9 is unchanged. So that's a summary of what needed to go in the government structure package. Everything else is in the technical package. Um and rather than uh going
through that at length, I think I would just uh say that that's everything else. All the other um changes that this body has has been looking at in the combined document. And uh with that, I'd be happy to take any questions uh or um additional information if you would
like. Chair Ginder. >> Are there any other questions um for uh assistant city train? >> Thank you. Um and seeing no questions, then um
I'm going to now open the public hearing. And so I'm going to call your names off of the list that's been provided. Um I'm going to apologize up front if I mispronounce your names because I'm only getting a carbon of what was the originals and some of this
is kind of uh v uh vague on it. So you'll have two minutes. The clerk has a timer over here. Um, and if um if you've already submitted comments, please be aware all of the written comments have been provided to all of the commissioners
ahead of time. So, we've had an opportunity to review comments with that. The first and I will ask you as you come up to identify yourself and identify if you're a Minneapolis resident and your ward if possible and um and then we'll move forward. So, the
first one is Lydia Boulder. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Lydia Boulder and I am a min Minneapolis resident from the Harrison neighborhood in W 5. I am here today to speak about the proposed charter amendment regarding mayoral
appointments. While I strongly oppose the substance of this amendment, which strips city council of its confirmation authority, my primary concern today is how this proposal is being presented to the public. Specifically, I am deeply concerned about muddy ballot language.
When we ask Minneapolis voters to change the foundational document of our city, we owe them absolute clarity. Unfortunately, this proposal combines several ideas into one confusing ballot question for voters to untangle. Let's be clear about what this amendment
actually does. It eliminates a fundamental checks check and balance. If this commission is going to advance a measure that removes city council's ability to vet and confirm the unelected officials who who run our city departments, you must be honest with the
voters about it. The ballot language cannot hide behind vague phrasing. It must explicitly state what power is being taken away. I ask that if this moves forward, the ballot question explicitly and plainly read, "Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the city
council's authority to confirm the mayor's department head appointments?" If propos if proponents of this amendment truly believe that eliminating legislative oversight is in the best interest of Minneapolis, they should not be afraid to say so plainly on the ballot. If the language here has to be
has to be watered down or obscured in order to pass, it shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place. I urge you to reject the amendment entirely. But if you do not, you have a duty to make the ballot language explicit, transparent, and honest. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you, >> Lindseay Silus. Good afternoon, Chair Ginder, members of the commission. My name is Lindsay Silus. I'm a Minneapolis resident in Ward 8. I'm a city of Minneapolis employee and I am the president of MPA. MPA is the Minneapolis Professional
Employees Association. We represent over 700 employees at the city of Minneapolis across 300 different job titles from accountants to forensic scientists to city planners to administrative analysts to project coordinators and hundreds more. Um I am here along with other reps
of unions um represented by the board of business agents and we have submitted um a letter to the public record to oppose the changes to the civil service commission that would strip the commission of its power to provide oversight to HR. These changes have been
discussed as technical in nature but they are not and they would undermine the authority of the commission and that would erode workers rights for workers at the city of Minneapolis. Changers. Changes would strip workers of basic rights and protections against unfair treatment. Would eliminate standards of just cause and appeal rights for
discharge. Would remove seniority protections. Would remove basic rules for hiring and promotion that ensure transparency and fairness. And would include anti- labor language and erode union representation for employees. I'm also opposed to any changes that
remove council oversight of department heads. This is not just critical for public transparency, but it's also critical for workers to have an opportunity to come and speak in opposition to the reappoint of department heads if that department head
has been taking the department in a in a poor direction. um having having to report to council, to report to the public, and to report to the own their own employees and the unions that represent those employees. Those are critical oversight for
department heads and keep those department heads accountable to not just the mayor, but everyone else. Um I implore you to reject these changes to the charter to protect the rights of Minneapolis workers, keep the commission's authority intact, and retain council oversight of department heads. critical to having a fair and
accountable workplace. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Heather Hinkle. >> Hi, my name is Heather Hinkle and I'm a resident of the Willard Haye neighborhood here in Minneapolis. I'm giving my first ever public comment as a direct result of my attendance of the
April 9th special session of the charter commission meeting. When I left that meeting, I was kind of concerned that it felt like the makeup of this board wasn't necessarily representative of the demographics of the city. And it made me feel like democracy here in this
particular setting only existed for privileged people who have the opportunity to take the time off, who have child care, to come to a meeting at 400 p.m. in the middle of downtown Minneapolis. And to me, that feels very exclusionary. Right? If people can't participate in government, we have no
real say in how the city is run or operated. To me, the rejection of moving this meeting to 6 p.m. felt like an deliberate attempt to exclude workingclass of people's ability to make comments on how our government is run. And I found that to be quite upsetting.
Um to me that it kind of indicates right that the commission does not care what people think that can't attend these meetings at 4M. People who may not have PTO like I do to come to these meetings in the middle of the afternoon. People who can't have child care. People who
can't access transportation to come downtown. And to me that means participating in government is a privilege that people have. And I feel like it should be a right that people have here in this country. So my demand here from the charter commission is to
reject these amendments um to limit city council approval authority because frankly like we don't have the opportunity to give a whole lot of feedback if the meeting is at a time where most people cannot attend. So my ask is to reject the proposed combined amendment. Um and I'd like to thank you
guys for kind of inspiring me to do my first public comment ever. I really appreciate having the opportunity and I'm looking forward to making more comments in the future. GWENDALYN PAGE. HELLO, my name is Gwendelyn Paige and I am a resident of Ward 4 here in
Minneapolis. Um, I would like to thank the commission for giving me the opportunity to speak. Um, and I would like to voice my opposition to the government structure amendments question and the combined question. As citizens
of this city, we rely upon our city council members as a necessary bridge between ourselves and the larger structure of city government. While I may not always agree with the decisions that my city council member takes, I always feel confident that I can turn to
her when I do need someone to be my voice and my advocate inside of city government. By stripping her and other city council members ability to weigh in on certain departmental head confirmations, we are removing a necessary check that allows for voices
like mine to be heard inside of our city government. I would truly ask in this time where we are experiencing increasing amounts of authoritarian change in our government that we reflect very critically on the changes that
we're attempting to make here and ask ourselves if we're going to be comfortable with this kind of change when we have a different mayor. Maybe a mayor who isn't so progressive when it comes to things like civil liberties. I ask if we are going to be permanently
okay with taking power away from not just our city council members but from the people that they represent. And so I ask you again to please reject both the city government structure amendment question and the combined question that
includes it because it takes away a necessary avenue for people like me to have a say in who runs my local city government. Thank you again for your time today. I truly appreciate all of you and hope that you'll consider the things that you're hearing from this
very full room here today. >> Thank you. BEN REICHLEY. Is there Ben Reichley or Richley? Next person looks like it's Jonathan Turner. I'll keep this short. Uh, my name is Jonathan Turner. I'm the local 49
business agent representing the public works employees, the mechanics, and operators at the city of Minneapolis. I do not currently live in the city, but I do work in the city. Um, and I'm here to support the letter the Minneapolis BIS board of business agents wrote to the
charter commission and oppose the amendments, both of them. Thanks. >> Thank you. Next is looks like Tate Wyn. Hello, commissioners and members of the public. My name is Tatewin. I'm the secretary of the Minneapolis Professional Employees Association
representing over 700 city employees. Let me be clear. Calling the proposed amendments to the civil commission as technical is deeply misleading. These changes are sweeping and completely dismantle core protections that protect employees that keep the city moving.
These proposed changes include eliminating just cause protections, stripping workers of appeal rights, erasing seniority, weakening anti-discrimination safeguards, and removing charter support for affirmative action. The amendment also sideline
labor representation and create pathways to push workers out of union protection altogether. This is union busting in action. As a city employee and a war 12 resident, I can say that there is no voter mandate for this. There has been no meaningful engagement with
Minneapolis residents or with the workers most affected with these amendment proposed amend proposed amendment changes. There has been no transparency that matches the scale of what is being proposed. Labeling these changes as technical is not inaccurate.
It undermines public trust. On behalf of MPA members, we strongly oppose these amendments and call on the commission to withdraw them. Anything less is a decision to weaken accountability, undermine fairness, and erode the integrity of public service. Thank you.
Thank you. The next person is Stacy Gullen Shino. Thank you. I'm Stacy Gurian Sherman. I'm an Minneapolis resident in Ward 9. Thank you sincerely for the opportunity for public comment, albeit at a horrible
time of the day. I wish I had more to thank you all for, but the proposed charter amendments are pure folly. I stand in opposition to them as does the city council with one in particular and with the previous speakers. They're ill-conceived. They're illtimed and
especially I'm going to speak to the unilateral charter amendment which would give unilateral control to the mayor uh to appoint specified department heads without city council approval. This includes the civil rights department. The timing of the proposed charter
amendments could not come at a worse time. We see the daily drum beatat of the president as the head of the executive branch of federal government choking off any semblance of democracy. One day it's starting a war without mandated congressional uh authorization.
And the next day it's firing the 22 member board of the National Science Board which oversees a$9 billion National Science Foundation budget. This is no time to be engaging in fascist follys at the local level. No mayor
should have these extended unilateral powers. There should be no abrogation of the rights that are guaranteed in the charter. They fundamentally erode the checks and balances and our democracy. And we certainly should not give these
powers to this mayor. He has engaged in the fraud of backroom decisionmaking. That has been a travesty to both transparency and accountability. But one example, the police contract. Under state law, the public has the unfettered
right to access and view these negotiations. Yet, my organization, Minneapolis for a Better Police Contract, had to sue the city to enforce this right. Even after a landmark settlement, this mayor right now for the third time is back in backdoor closed
mediation. If I could just finish my thought, we had an example of robust check and balances on April 9th when the council rejected Commissioner Barnett for a new term. Yet, with this charter amendment, the city council would be
silenced and so would we. This these charter amendments also lead us down a really sorry slippery slope and allow a precedent for further departments to be unilaterally appointed. This is the time
for accountability of the executive branch at the federal level to be shored up and certainly at the local level. These amendments are unconscionable and must be stopped. Thank you. Next person is Michelle Gross.
>> Michelle Gross. >> Don't start my two minutes yet. >> Good afternoon, commissioners and commissioner president. My name is Michelle Gross. the president of Communities United Against Police Brutality and we are here to express our concerns about the proposed charter change that would eliminate city council
approval of the proposed mayoral appointments for department heads. There's a long list of department heads that would not be getting any input from the city council and thus no input from the community and that includes the police chief. We need to be able to have something to
say about who is going to police our city. And it's unconscionable that you all would write such a ridiculous proposed change and even consider it. Community member input into our city government is by way of our elected uh
representatives. Removing them from the approval process removes the community from the process. The selection of individuals to lead departments deeply impacts the quality of life for us and thus we have a say in who does this work and by the way I do live in Minneapolis wards seven. Um our
commissioner suggests through social one commissioner rather suggested through social media that the democratic process is somehow preserved through voting every four years for the mayor. Voting is the lowest form of democratic involvement. Elections generally focus on a small range of issues, typically
hot button type issues, and they rarely include discussion of potential appointments to important positions. So, giving us a chance to say something about it every four years, not good enough. Rather than seeking to limit community input, the charter commission
should be finding ways to encourage more community involvement in our city government. You clearly see that people have interest in this issue. Look at how many people took off of work to come here at 4:00 in the afternoon at a time of a working day when you could have had this meeting at a time when more people
could even show up. You know, we question why a public hearing on such an important matter would be held at 4 in the afternoon and we see it as yet another attack on the involvement of the community. I urge you again to reject the proposed
amendment that would limit the ability of the city council to have input and thus the community to have input on these appointments. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next is John Elward. I live in u I think it's Ward 12 Longfellow neighborhood and I'm not sure
you guys are probably all Minneapolis residents too. I'm not sure of that but I agree with what people have said here. efficiency maybe but taking away democracy is messy
>> and it's let us have an input and I don't I have I have some bosses for instance in the park board who have never come clean on we had a strike last couple of summers ago and they never come and talk to us
about it that's what I don't want I engage with us make this a better place. I strive every day to make this a better city. Planting trees, picking up garbage, being nice to people on the street.
Give us a say, respect us. Thank you. Thank you. And uh the next is on it's on a new sheet. It's number one, Lizzie Palmer. Hello, my name is Lizzie Palmer. I'm with Twin Cities Coalition for Justice. I live in W 6.
Autocracy is defined as a government in which one person possesses unlimited power. It is the antithesis of democracy and the will of the people. It is fundamentally undemocratic for the mayor to be the sole appointing authority for department leadership. This consolidation of power will only harm our residents. We see the danger of this
model in the mayor's management of MPD. The recent 4-hour audit report revealed a staggering pattern of negligence under the leadership of Brian O'Hara, Todd Barnett, and Jacob Fry, and shows how they failed Davis Muri and Allison Lucer. In the case of Allison Lucer, MPD failed to secure the crime scene, failed
to collect evidence, and ruled her death an overdose despite an autopsy showing a subdural hematoma. They didn't even bother to request the medical examiner's report until an auditor did it for them two years too late. In his eight years as mayor, Jacob Fry
has held sole control over MPD. Under his watch of the apartment murdered George Floyd and Amir Lockach, racked up two consent decrees, ignored the pleas of Davis Motor, Allison Lucer, and Mariah Samuels, and violated the city's own separation ordinance. Yet, there is no accountability. Mark Haniman, who
killed Amir Lock, was rewarded with a lead training position and only moved to a wellness unit after public outrage. Michael Hire, the investigator who refused to cooperate, the city's own audit, was allowed an early retirement, and Chief O'Hara remains in his in his
position despite the auditor's finding of misleading public statements. This is the fate that awaits every other city department if the mayor is allowed to consolidate this power. Minneapolis has no desire for kings nor tyrants. Just as we have fought for community control of the police, we demand that
the mayor not be granted more control over our city's departments. Jacob Fry serves the people, not the other way around. We demand that you reject this attempt to centralize power and protect the democratic checks and balances our city deserves.
Thank you. Next is number two on the list. It's Barack Balian. Right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh, my name is Barat Balan and I am an atlarge board member of the Minneapolis Professional Employees Association. I'm not a Minneapolis resident, but I am a
city employee. I'm here to express my concern and opposition to the anti-worker amendments proposed to the charter commission. These changes that would remove wellestablished standards, excuse me, these amendments, if adopted, would substantially reduce the oversight
and authority of the Civil Service Commission. These changes that would remove wellestablished standards such as just cause and appeal rights, affirmative action, and prohibiting labor representatives from serving in the civil service commission. It is misleading and deceptive to label these
as merely technical changes. On behalf of our union members, I ask that the charter commission to reject these changes as these amendments would erode public trust and eliminate the important role of the civil service commission in upholding equitable and fair hiring practices at the city. Thank
you. The next person on the list, number three, Josh Martin. Good afternoon, Chair Ginder and members of the commission. My name is Josh Martin and I live in the Kingfield neighborhood in Mate. I am here to speak against the proposed amendments to
reduce the city council's confirmation authority over department heads. It is critical that the city council retains this important check on executive power. It is a common sense provision that is also found in many other cities and at the state and federal level. And 11 out
of 13 council members agree, a rare accomplishment these days. Residents share many of their concerns with their council members and trust their council members to serve as their voice. The role of the council in confirming department heads is another important part of this representational
role. I would also urge the commission to put on its docket for future years ideas to clarify the confirmation process as issues surrounding a recent appointment have led to a bit of a constitutional crisis for the city. Finally, I also support the concerns
raised by the hardworking city employees who spoke here today and urge the commission to reconsider the proposed changes to the civil service provisions. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Next on the list is number four, Jim Michaels.
Good afternoon, Chair Ginder, members of the commission. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jim Michaels. I am a labor attorney. I represent uh half a dozen of the unions uh that represent city of Minneapolis employees. The unions that I represent constitute about
40% of the city's total workforce. I'm here today to speak uh regarding the so-called technical amendment package. Um I'm going to try to not repeat what others have already said and what's in the letter from the board of business
agents which uh I and the unions that I represent support. The Civil Service Commission was created by the charter in 1920. It has served this city well for over a hundred years to first of all establish
and then maintain a merit-based system by which we hire and keep and in the event of it's necessary discharge our city employees. The proposed amendments would radically change the scope and authority of the commission. It would
change its role. It would change its authority and it would change the criteria by which people are eligible to serve on the civil service commission. In fact, if adopted, the proposed amendment would require one current commissioner to be removed.
There is no good public policy reason for these changes. As has been stated multiple times, they are not technical. They are substantive and greatly so. And we ask that you uh strip out this uh provision from the civil service
commission and the two uh uh provisions relating to the fire department that address the rights of employees and management staff. Uh strip those out from the technical package. If it's necessary to pass the rest rest of the package, so be it. But this is no time
for all the reasons that we've already heard to be tinkering with a merit-based system and the commission that has existed for a hundred years to oversee and protect it. Thank you. Next is number five, Connor Wells.
Afternoon, commissioners. Um, my name is Connor Wells. I'm a Ward One member and representing Communities United Against Police Brutality. Just to echo a couple things said by other people as well. The time of this is not appropriate at all. People are at work. um doing this is not fair or nor
democratic. Um this in the future should be adjusted and should be condemned by everyone here who's participating. But to go beyond that, I have some issues as well with the report um that was used to talk about the shifting of this government structure. There are several really bad form elements in this report.
Uh one of which being the weaponization of BIPO communities to say that this more authoritarian structure would actually possibly assist in racial equity. I find this entirely inappropriate that tokenizing black and brown people in order to push for more centralized power is not going to be
reflective of what is needed for those types of communities. Period. If black and brown people in their wards cannot talk to their ward member and say, "Hey, I have an issue with an appointee. I need this changed." How is it that those appointees are actually going to be representative of the interest of these
communities? Beyond that, calling this modernizing efficiency as progressive when it's actually anti-democratic, I think is poor framing as well. So, there's multiple other issues that need to be paid attention to, such as that. Individual wards have their own unique
issues and the ability for ward members to have a dedicated space to voice those issues. for that to be funneled through a council member is necessary to pay attention to throughout and between these election cycles the key instances in which appointees engage in misconduct, engage in improper action,
all of that. This is super super essential and avoiding that to me is avoiding democracy and its useful mechanisms available to us. To say that this is an inefficiency is admissing the fact that democracy is about taking the time to listen to people, having those voices heard and
processing through them effectively. Saying centralization of power is about efficiency is true. But if that efficiency does not come at the benefit and the consideration of everybody involved, that is not good efficiency. That is authoritarianism. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Number six, Lauren George. Hello, I'm Lauren George. I'm a central Minneapolis resident of Ward 5 and I'm a volunteer with Communities United Against Police Brutality. Um, elections are an insufficient democratic check. First, a direct and
important part of the democratic process is having public input regarding important positions. A four-year election cycle com sorry four-year election cycle campaigns are filled with hot button issues that are most pressing to the general public but rarely are the
mayoral appointees part of that conversation because of this and the distractions campaigns like to set problematic or unpopular appointees often get lost in everything going on. Input from the legislative branch is an important check on executive power. It's
suspicious that anyone would consider to eliminate it. The problem with concentrated influence is central centralizing power allows appointees to be less transparent and reduces ideological diversity within a department or institution. Often
creating a certain uniformity which makes it less responsive to desires for systemic reform. Something that the public expects to improve our city. Allocating power under a single personality means that should a mayoral
candidate act hostile or ambivalent toward particular communities or efforts, the institutional power doesn't have a sufficient way to direct or check said influence due to its robust nature. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Next is number seven, AJ Lang. Thank you, Chair Ginder. My name is AJ Lang. I'm the business manager with Laborers Local 363. We're a union representing nearly a thousand public workers in Minneapolis. Uh you're currently considering a series of amendments to the charter that betray
the core principles of the civil service system. These proposed changes would strip the Civil Service Commission of its authority to provide oversight to the Department of Human Resources. It would take away its power power to adopt and enforce rules that protect employees
from unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory treatment. It creates a potential for workers to be deprived of their union rights. Removes just cause and appeal rights. and it dilutes the city's long-standing commitment to abide by these basic
principles of fair treatment. It removes affirmative action language from the charter. It removes residency requirements and adds targeted anti-UN language that would bar representatives from serving
on the Civil Service Commission. If adopted, these changes would lower standards for all workers. These are not technical amendments, as people have pointed out. They don't modernize or simplify the charter. These are
reckless, anti-worker, anti-UN amendments that reduce the transparency and accountability of the city. You've got nearly 10 pages of deletions and insertions pertaining to the civil service alone.
Yet you have half a sentence, seven words I believe, in your ballot language that's being proposed. There's no need or justification for removing council confirmation powers or removing oversight authority of the Civil Service Commission. This demand to
operate with impunity is alarming. We can see the attacks on workers and our democracy at the federal level and we see that they're wrong. Well, they're wrong here, too. The charter commission, I'll remind you,
holds a city charter in trust for the people of the city of Minneapolis, and any changes that you consider must align with the values of our community. So, that said, we demand that you reject
the amendments in their entirety. Thank you. NEXT is number eight, Heather Silsby. Hi, I'm Heather Silsby and I live in the West Maska neighborhood of W 7. I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed
government structure alignment charter amendment which reduces the power of the city council and increases the power of the mayor. First, the proposed ballot language for this amendment is incredibly vague and technical, which will likely mislead voters into thinking they are voting for something
unimportant, which is not the case. Second, the portion of your amendment that reduces the number of city department heads the city council gets to confirm by vote is inherently anti-democratic. City council members are elected by and accountable to each of the city's 13
boards, which are racially and economically diverse and have unique needs and priorities. All of these perspectives deserve to be heard and considered when selecting the leaders of crucial city departments. By contrast, the mayor is elected by a city-wide vote. In local elections, either the
first or second highest number of votes for mayor consistently comes from W 13, which also has the highest percentage of white residents and homeowners in the city. Therefore, by removing more powers from the city council and giving them to the mayor, regardless of who is in that office, you are taking decision power
away from the more racially and economically diverse areas of the city and giving it to southwest Minneapolis residents who already have many advantages in our political system. any imagined benefits of this amendment are not worth those costs. This amendment should now move forward. Thank you.
Number nine is William Shroyer. >> Hi, I'm William Shroyer. I'm a uh 50-year resident of Minneapolis Phillips neighborhood uh Longfellow How and uh I'm a I campaign for people that are
running for office and I also care about the civil service roles. This is my old dogeared copy of the civil service rules and I'll point out some of the principal things on the purpose. Provide fair treatment of applicants and employees in
all aspects of human resource without regard to age, ancestry, color, creed, disability, familiar status, gender, pregnancy, genetic information, sex, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation. It's
provides for an objective nonbias evaluation of and classification of jobs. It's to enhance the existing employees in their chance to develop new job skills. Um there's I don't know 18 people here. I
mean wouldn't 18 people be smarter than one guy or one woman? So this is a move backwards away from democracy and we see what that does on the national level. Minneapolis really was an inspiration to people around the world actually. And
that was uh something that we still get credit for. We deserve it for standing up. 200,000 people at at protests in the middle of winter or at the state capital. I mean, this is undemocratic. We do not need to uh hurt worker rights.
It's bad for us workers. It's bad for the city. THANK YOU. AND WE'RE ON A NEW PAGE. AND NUMBER ONE IS Janet Corscilius. Greetings. My name is Janette Corsilius. I work in Minneapolis and I am a member
of OPEIU Local 12 and a delegate to the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation. I just came back from a 20-day tour in Europe talking to different trade unions in France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, many of which were so proud
of the work that we did during Operation Metro Surge. I'm here to speak against the amendments proposed by to the city charter. This is anti-UN. This is union busting. This is compliance with a fascist authoritarian
federal government. And I'm disgusted and disheartened that you all would think to do this to our union brothers and sisters. As a union organizer, I stood on the picket lines with Luna
363. People who work tirelessly to make sure members of our communities have clean drinking water, clean and happy, friendly parks to play in.
This is a smack in the face. It's not only going to just hurt Lyuna 363. It's going to hurt 15 other local unions and who are public servants and stewards of our public dollars and
two councils. I'm urging every single one of you to go back to the original charter. Stop the madness. Stop treating workers like garbage.
Next person is number two is Rachel. Hi, my name is Rachel. I am a Minneapolis resident born and raised. I work for public works. I'm also a union steward and auditor. I'm gonna make it short and sweet. Um I feel like giving that man more control when he has proved
to us what he has done already doesn't make sense. And to remove some of the rules that protects us as employees and as a Africanamean woman and being a minority, I feel like taking those away
really makes me feel unsafe at my job now. like who's really out here protecting us when we need the protection when we're taking away word and and all the stuff that we need. And it's already kind of hard for some of us
on this job and we come in 6 days a week, 12-hour shifts, and now it's like we don't matter, but we do the grunt work. We deserve our counsel to be in charge. We shouldn't just give the power to one person. And I feel like you
really I'm not feeling I hope all of you guys stand with us and don't pass this and make the wording better for people when they come to vote so they truly understand what they're voting for cuz like I think I don't know if it was the lady or the man it's seven words on
there that's not actually describing all of the things you are trying to take away. So please think about the workers, the union people, the people that are here every day, the people who don't have time to come down here all the time to take off work because they don't have
the child care. They don't have a way here. Also, it's so many people in the overflow room and in the hallway that can't actually come in here and be seen and be heard. So please, please take us into consideration. We deserve that. We
deserve that. We come in, we do everything with without us. Where would where where would the city be? Please stand with us and do right by us for a change. Thank you. >> Next person on the list is Chelsea
Globitz. >> Good evening, commissioners. My name is Chelsea Globbitz Gabio. I am the president at the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation of the AFL CIO and we represent all of the union members throughout this great city, including many of the public workers who you got to hear from tonight. I'm not going to
be reiterating any of the points. You received a very welloutlined letter that is discussing some of the more challenging aspects of these amendments that we are encouraging you to um reject here at your meeting and in your deliberations. I hope you listen to the voices of those frontline workers. I'm
so glad you got to hear them. So, because that is pretty powerful walking through them. Um, we do know here at the city, our unions are committed to having robust discussions around labor relations and labor standards and they are more than willing to come and talk about all of these issues with you in
those facil in the in the capacities that we already have and exist and work on. And they would love to tackle what the intentions are of what this is, but this current charter amendment is not that. And this also will have implications beyond just the um workers who work in the city of Minneapolis. We
are facing a changing economy and changing work all around us everywhere. So we need to have a worker voice at the table whenever these discussions whenever these technical amendments are being made and being discussed. So I encourage you to reject these um amendments and get back to the table
with workers. Thank you. There is no one else on the list. So, um, is there anyone else who would like to speak? Please come forward. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Deanna Thomas.
Just this week, I went and applied for citizenship here in Minneapolis as a motan state resident. I left my home where I own property in Fairmont, West Virginia to come here and start a new life. Every morning when I go to the bus stop, there's a sign that says there's a
$5,000 sign on bonus. And I'm tempted at 59 years old to go get a CDL and follow in my dad's footsteps. not to drive cross country the way he did, but to drive and work for the citizens in Minneapolis. I've been coming here since
20 22. I come as an activist, an ally, a nana, a mother, and a sister. I respect every one of you. But how can you ask me to apply to go to
work here if you're not going to have my back? When I saw that this meeting was being held today, I had to come. How can I, as a newcomer, I don't even know what ward I'm staying in Powder Horn.
I signed up with a temporary ID address from the task force, the Indigenous People's Task Force, so that I could become a citizen here. I don't even have a place to live, but I chose Minneapolis as my new home.
Please support the people that you already have working. And please support me in my quest to find a job and to be a productive member of this community. Is there anyone else that would like to address the committee? Hello, my name is Mecca Johnson. I've
lived in Minneapolis since I was 18 years old. I am 41 right now. I've been working for uh I've been working in the parks since 2017 and oftent times I am working alone.
I've lost track of how many times my shoulders I've gotten strained in my shoulders. My neck was sprained when I when a two when a 4x4 hit me in the head. I've been rearended twice on the job by distracted
drivers. Um on Sunday I work in southwest Lake Harry Lake Harriet predominantly. And there was uh bowel movement all over the walls um in one of the restrooms that I cleaned up. And in
another restroom, I also cleaned up be, you know, bowel movement from there. And I h I have co-workers that have contracted hepatitis C. I've um been in
a area where there was a 30 pound pipe bomb. Um, and I've I've had co-workers that have been sprayed with piss or pee in water bottles. And I still in the
morning when I wake up, I am excited to go to work. I love taking care of parks. I love it so much. And I love working with these co-workers, these people of Minneapolis.
They bring me so much joy every day. And I want to work for the city of Minneapolis and the parks for the rest of my life. I don't even want to retire. I love my job so much. Like, but what's going on right now with this and the
seven words on something that people can vote on, that is so scary to me. That makes me feel that maybe instead of possibly retiring someday that I'm just going to end up homeless on the streets where who's going to take care of me? I
have so much empathy for people that I see that don't have homes. It just breaks my heart every day and I just want somebody to take I want you guys to take care of me and my co-workers and anyone that's going to continue working
here. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK you for letting us speak. I'm Lisa Brew. I'm an engineer in public works. I also live in Ward 5. Uh I have been trying to keep up with some of this in my spare time, but it is complicated. Um, I'm represented by one
of the unions that showed up here tonight and even I was not aware of all of the the language regarding workers rights and the civil service uh commission. This is complicated. This cannot be summed up in seven words. Um,
when the city voted for a strong mayor, the voter turnout was was decent, but it's still not a large number of people who knew what they were voting for. There is no mandate for this. Um, people have not asked for more. Um, people are
already worried about their representation. We want to be able to be heard by our council members. We want that to mean something. When it's our boss who that who's being talked about, we want to be able to make public comments. Um, some of us have worked
with these people before. We have experience with them. Um, it's already hard to attract talent and keep talent. This is a very difficult environment to work in. But the people who show up here love it. We love our neighbors. We want to make sure that our neighbors are
represented as well. I urge you to reconsider and not pass this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Uh, hi. My name is Paul Kirk Davidoff. I'm a W 10 resident in Whittier
neighborhood. Um I'm a executive board member of UFCW 6663 uh which represents 14,000 uh grocery store workers, uh meat packing workers, and other retail workers. Um uh I I'll just uh add my
voice in support of um what everyone else here has been saying. Um, uh, 363 and the other city unions are great, strong unions. Uh, I'm happy to stand, uh, beside them. Um, you know, in grocery stores, we do, um, lots of work
that ends up in, uh, I cut the steaks that, you know, people grill in the parks that the people behind me then throw out take the trash out of. So, you know, circle of life and all that. Um, so, uh, yeah, I won't say anything more, but, uh, I'm I'm in support of these
workers, and if it does get to the ballot, um, that's something that we would bring back to the, uh, I would bring back to the executive board to oppose, uh, formally. So, thanks. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Ariseli Kasola. My friends call me Jules and I
am a resident of a beautiful, diverse, loving community called Uptown in W 10. I am a teacher and a public citizen. I believe that we should have a role in government and that is why I'm here on behalf of my students and myself.
I will say that as a resident of Uptown, I have personally witnessed Jacob Frey's policies to veto bus lanes, to veto policies that would help the unhoused, to veto policies that reduce harm to those who are struggling with drug
addiction on our streets. I have seen uh Jacob Frey step in the way constantly of moving the city forward. And yet, the ward that I work in is Ward 9. that counselor has been working to help our
school, protect our school from the gun violence that is persistent there. I do not believe that Jacob Frey has my back and I have seen constantly how that ward uh counselor does. I cannot support
this amendment. And I will say one last thing. I moved to Minneapolis from Houston not too long ago in the belief that this is a democratic place and a belief that this is a loving place. It's diverse place where people are heard. I
do not believe that these amendments help push that forward. Thank you. And for for those who have testified and haven't signed up, please make sure that you sign up so we have a record for this. Um, anyone else who would like to
speak? >> Hello. Um, I'm Abigail Enzer. I'm Metroransit operator and I'm a member of ATU 105. I just want to make sure that all of the unions are on the record who have come here to um speak out against
this um this charter or whatever whatever it is. Um and I just uh want to say that I have absolutely no faith um in Jacob Fry as a leader to make decisions that would affect my
co-workers or the public that I serve on a daily basis. For example, one of his initiatives over the last year was to move uh buses off of Nicollet Mall. And he tried to push that through without doing the correct studies necessary to
understand how or and getting the word out to help other people understand how that was going to affect their daily workers. workers who rely on transportation to take the who have to do transfers downtown and it's already tight and they're already a big part of
their day as a commute, something that people who have more money don't have to deal with. You know, you you get to work and you go home. Well, this commute is a big part of your day and dealing with child care. And he didn't and and and he continued on until one of my co-workers sued the city. Now, he's backed off and
we'll see what goes on. But I have absolutely no faith. I we do not want Jacob Fry making decisions that will affect workers or the public or our jobs or anything to do with transit. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak? Anyone else? Seeing no one else wishes to speak, I will now close the public hearing. And as I do so, um I do want to extend to you our thanks and appreciation for those of you who have taken the time to
show up. We understand that it's an imposition. Um this is the time that we get from the city um to do this. Uh but again, we understand that it's difficult and we appreciate the effort that you have made to come down and to testify in front of us today. So, thank you.
With that, as I said, the public hearing is now closed. Um, the next steps for the committee for the commission are to consider where we go next. Um, I had thought what I might do in light of the concerns that we've heard today is open this up for a
general discussion before we make motions because the intention of this is as we move through the evening is to make a motion on how we want to proceed. what do we want to put on the ballot in what form? What do we want to send to
the council? Uh, in what form? So, as I said earlier, the idea is at some point to have a motion on putting, for example, the government structure on the ballot and then take um amendments to that or um if it's to put on the uh
so-called technical amendments um to take uh to have that motion come forward, take any amendments that might be made to it. But uh but before I move into that, I was going to maybe start with a general discussion on thoughts that might help move us forward. So with that, I see we have a number of hands
up. Um I'll start with Commissioner Kle and then Commissioner Holquist. No. Okay. Commissioner Kle. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would uh like to ask and can put this in the form of a motion the city attorney to review section 8.5 to deter it seems like it
most of those changes are standalone. If we could revert section 8.5 dealing with civil service commission, delete all the changes, restore the old language, and would that affect any other provisions in the document?
Commissioner, go ahead, please. I'd like to go a little bit further than that. Given the public sentiment that has been unanimously uh in favor of keeping the legislative function of the council to confirm appointments,
there was a statement uh there was a statement made by the uh DFL at the Minneapolis convention uh suggesting that these amendments not go forward. There was a letter we received today from the majority, great
majority of the city council requesting more time for the mayor and the council to work out a mutually acceptable resolution. And most importantly, the letter that we received from the unions pointing to substantive changes that
um really importantly the working group that worked on this never meant to make or address. It would seem to me that returning this issue, the whole issue, the amendments to the working group at
this juncture would be in order. That would mean not getting it on the ballot this year, but so be it. I think making sure that we're making necessary changes and if we're going to cement them into the charter and that really is cementing them into the
charter which a number of us don't agree is necessary at all we have to be confident that the changes we are making benefit the city and what we have before us today doesn't. So, I would like once
we're done with discussion, I will propose a motion that we move these amendments back to the working group for further work. >> Commissioner N. >> And uh thank you, Mr. Chair, and Commissioner Dhy. I would second that
motion when it is appropriate. Um, I'd like to talk about process uh for um a minute. I'm uh I'm a stickler for process and uh I I've been on the this commission uh
since 2024 um which I would say is probably uh in the middle of when we started talking about uh changes to the charter. Now, I've gotten copies of, and I I hate seeing myself in the screen, so I'm I'm trying not to look at myself.
Um, excuse me. Uh, uh, so I've gotten copies that were purple, that were red, that were blue. Uh, changes that were, uh, uh, stricken that were stricken red, that were stricken purple, that were stricken blue. Um, it really concerns me
that I didn't know that we struck non-discrimination language until I got a letter from a stakeholder group. That really concerns me. Now, maybe I didn't read as thorough as I should have, and that could very well be the case, but I
remember asking uh in a in a workg groupoup meeting, will this impact workers? And I was told no. and that concerns me.
So, I absolutely would support including including back all of the civil service language, but more importantly, I would in I would support Commissioner Doert's motion when it comes to return this back
to a working group where we can have first of all more constituent and more uh more uh public hearings and discussion. as somebody who works at the legislature, we should have more discussion on something that this big
because from from what I heard today, um not only do people want to be heard, uh but but we need to hear from them. And again, since I've been on the council or commission since 2024, that's what I've
been asking for. So, um I I'm I'm sorry that people are here worried unnecessarily. So, um and I I don't this is important and I
don't want to say unnecessarily so being flippant. We should have done the process better >> is what I mean. Right. That is what I mean. Um,
and so yeah, um, I'm I'm a pro I'm a process person and this process just concerns me. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Um, we had Commissioner Perry. >> Sorry, very short. I just want to second
the motion so we have something to discuss. We don't have a motion yet, but >> uh I'm sorry. Commissioner Kle made a motion >> and I am seconding it. >> Um can I clarify?
>> Yes. >> I was not making a motion, but I said I would make a motion time it's appropriate to do so. Right now we're just having discussion right now. My intent was to have some general discussion and then get into the motion. So I think next was um uh Commissioner
Boon. >> So to clarify the items that are in red in um section 8.5, the the red items were to be moved not
stricken. Is that correct? the the red items are to be included. >> They're but they're being moved from this section or >> included in this se >> depending on which section you're looking at. >> Okay. >> The red would be the changes. >> Um and the the strikeouts are what was
being removed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um Commissioner Garcia. >> Thank you, Chair Ginder. Thank you, Chair Ginder. One thing I would like to say, I
co-chared the government structure workg group when it put the issue on the ballot and one piece of the appointment process was
we looked at pre at we interviewed department heads, we interviewed past council presidents and mayors. We did extensive research with other cities um on other cities in a similar position and we had public hearings.
The origination of that um of the government structure with the f creating the five um having the five positions appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council.
What was happening before that with the old charter was that we couldn't get wellqualified, highly qualified people to come and work and head these
departments. >> Don't try. >> That's not the answer. Don't try to justify it. That that said, >> please can can we can we just allow them to speak uninterrupted?
>> The one thing that the charter is supposed to do is outlive personalities, outlived the time and place. And if we could have if we could have a council and a mayor
work together, we could look at having a better better coordination. But that is one issue we found. agree with it or not, we
have, you know, everything online. That's one thing. The second thing is I really am agreeing with the timing of this. We have had so much stress and
tension as a city, as a state, on the federal level that we need, my opinion is that we need to be mindful of what
trauma, what other stressors we're putting on the city. And if we have to take a rest on the government structure piece and look at it more, whatever it
is we have to do, I would support that. Thirdly, I support um pulling back every change around the civil service and completely reooking at that. Um I think there were major issues in putting those
changes forward. Um, Commissioner Schneider, are you next? >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I'm going to make a short comment and then I I'm going to direct a question to the city attorney. Um, so I, as I mentioned to the my fellow commissioners before
and for the public, I am a retired 37-year city employee. For most of that 37 years, I was a member of MPA. I would not support I would not support this if I did not
understand that it has no material impact on the authority and role of the civil service commission which as I understand it will continue to be defined by the city charter
city ordinance the commission's own rules and most importantly the dozens of labor contracts. So am I I I guess my question to the city attorney is am I mistaken in
understanding that this is not a technical committee amendment? I thought it was. That's what and and in the discussions we've had prior that has been my understanding. So perhaps the city attorney could just comment briefly
and I know she didn't draft this, but the background and and I guess the the the big question is um does this materially impact the authority and role this civil service commission? My understanding has been it is it does
not. >> Do you want go ahead commissioner or city attorney F. >> Hi Chair Ginder. uh commissioners. Um the changes to the civil service commission provisions are intended to simplify a level of detail
that's um quite extensive. Um be beyond that that is needed in a charter level document. But it does not change the fact that we have a merit-based system. It does not change the fact that the civil service commission would be supervising and in charge of that system. Um it does not change any of the
labor agreements. So none of those things change. Let's see. Uh I'm going to go down. Commissioner Hulquist. >> Um I'm going to change Thank you, Commissioner Ginder. Um I'm going to change the subject just a little bit, but I don't want to go off subject of that. Um so we'll circle back. Um I just
want to say I do support the statements that have been said so far about especially from Commissioner Nye and Commissioner Dirty about sending this back to government committee. What I want to address that I don't think has been addressed by us yet is the time
that this meeting is held at and when it's held. I have problems making this meeting oftentimes and that has come up in emails before. Sometimes these meetings are scheduled 2 weeks in advance and I already have work commitments. And so I think it's really challenging the way in which this
process is happening and the structures that are in place because we can't hear from people because we have these meetings at very explicit times. And I understand that this is when we are allowed to have meetings, but I feel like that's a broken process. And when I pushed back on it via email to uh the
clerk's office, it has been said this is the time we're allowed to have meetings. And I don't think that's an appropriate response. And I also don't like that even the commission members aren't allowed to say like aren't allowed to have input of when meetings are. that is really challenging for us to be able to
shift our schedules around especially at short notice for committee for community members to come. That's >> um Commissioner Cooper. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I would agree with uh Commissioner Doy's
suggestion to um remand the the whole package to the work group for further discussion. I um you know I've I think I've said in in several of our meetings before that um the our role as the charter commission
is to hold the charter in trust and to do that work. We have an important role in it. But we do that work with our partners in on the city council with the mayor and with other stakeholders. um
and and we have those partnerships and an important part to make sure that the work that we put on the ballot is understandable, is clear, and that we're doing a service um to the voters when we um when we put something on the ballot.
Um, and I I think sending it back to the work group allows us to engage in the discussions that it sounds it sounds like we really need to have um and to do that additional work with the city council and with the unions and the other stakeholders. Thanks,
>> Commissioner Prindle. >> Yes. Uh, I'd also like to speak in favor of um moving this moving the entire package back to committee. I think that um you know I I'm the newest member of the charter commission um and I came in knowing that the government structure
piece was going to be controversial. I didn't I didn't know that the portions about the civil service commission were going to be controversial and it sounds like I wasn't the only one who didn't know that. Um you know we are a a volunteer group. Um I left work early to come here just like most of the folks in
the room. Um I I don't think even with the best of intentions, I don't think we are at a place where we're going to get any of these amendments in fit state to be put on the ballot in time for uh the deadline for for this year. I also have concerns um that in an election year
where we have tw everybody in the city of Minneapolis has 12 or 13 substantive public offices to vote on uh as well as the judicial offices um that I I I don't want these very important charter amendments to get lost in the shuffle. And I'm afraid that um as as the
complexity of what's being proposed here becomes more and more obvious, I I think it is it would be uh it would be detrimental to ask voters uh to make those decisions this year. So I uh I think we we need some more time and I think we need to put this back uh into
the committee for for further work. >> Commissioner Kak. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've let I know that we have constraints of time. We have to move if we're going
to put anything on the ballot this year, we have to move quickly. From what I've heard today and uh from what I heard really just a few days ago, uh the first thing I would say the technical amendments so-called
uh are nowhere near ready to be uh submitted to the to the public. So I think we should uh very quickly or as in a timely way as we can just put those aside. uh they need a a hell of a lot
more discussion among uh not only folks out here but uh whoever uh might be in favor of of these changes and we haven't had that. So uh when the time comes for motions if someone else doesn't make it
I will say the technical uh amendments we should defer uh for the whole year. Uh the other ones I have I have mixed feelings about and I'm willing to listen. Uh we have had extensive discussion. I don't think process has
been the problem with the uh uh government structure amendments because we have had considerable discussion going back to last year. So I I think it's an open question. uh it's the uh
the controversy is a lot simpler to understand and uh I think we can all make some decisions and I say that as someone who uh who added try to add and we did add a couple of uh department heads to the
list. So, and just so you know, uh the the the proposed amendment does not eliminate the council's uh prerogative for confirmation for all the commissioners. I think I heard some
people imply that today. That's not the case. It's only uh it's only commissioners who are department heads who have been uh who are appointed who report to
somebody else uh up the ladder. Uh they do not report directly to the mayor. they report directly to the uh the uh COO or the head of uh public safety and that sort of so uh I think there's room
for debate there but for the other I think we should just uh defer it for a year the technical amendments and spend the time trying to figure out uh what to do there. Thank you. >> Um Commissioner Dlo.
>> Thank you Chair Vender. Thank you, Chair Ginder. I would like to echo um Commissioner Schneider's remarks. as a woman of color, as a daughter of immigrants who did not have
the privilege of being in a union, as a lifelong city employee, former city employee, um, and a public servant. I would not have supported anything that I thought would hinder our workers rights,
the people who keep our parks running, our city clean, our water running. um going through spending countless months if not more like years going through uh these proposed amendments, I
did not uh foresee or any challenges that would um impact our unions, our city employees um ability to do their job in an a fashionable, safe working
manner. Um, but I am in support of taking a pause if needed be to revisit any of those proposed challenges or foreseeable um consequences that that this uh
proposal could have. I just on its face right now, I don't see any issue um with just taking a pause and revisiting. And I want to say too, it feels like we're
conflating a bunch of issues the time of this meeting. I again, I believe this is like a completely separate issue than what's before us now. Um, as someone that also has a day job and has to take time off work and has to plan in advance
around attending these meetings, I'm totally in support of pushing uh these meetings to 6:00 or later. Um, just so we can have this as many people as we have today at every charter commission
meeting. I mean, that would be great. Um, so I again many many different issues being conflated here and I do want to take a pause and just parse things out more. Thank you. >> Um,
Commissioner Smith, >> first I just wanted to thank all of the people in the audience for being here. You raised a lot of issues that I was not aware of before I came today. So, I appreciate hearing from you, taking the time out of your busy lives to be here.
That being said, when I came today, I thought the hearing was going to be more about the appointment of certain city officials and whether or not they needed to be approved by the city council. We didn't really hear too much about that. A few people mentioned that. It was really more about the civil
service commission. And I can tell you that I have never heard or have never been a part of a discussion on this commission where anyone has ever suggested that we wanted to take rights away from any city employees. And so I guess I would echo what other people
have said that I think we need to take a look at these uh civil service changes. I know myself I feel like I need some time to go home and read them. I've kind of been looking at them, but I need to dedicate more time to doing that. So, as far as the
technical amendments go, I guess I'm in complete agreement that we need to hold off on that. I do think there's the other issue about some of the other changes whether we want to proceed with those. I'm not necessarily opposed to moving forward with the department head
discussion, but uh maybe we need to delay that too. I guess I'm not sure about that. >> Commissioner Doherty, >> thank you. Just a a couple of follow-up comments on what people have said. And I'm going to start with a simple one,
the timing one. It I'm not sure I think I think our meetings are a little bit more difficult to change than the public hearing. I know the last time we had a public hearing scheduled, it ended up getting cancelled, but it was scheduled for the evening. It was scheduled for, I
think, 6:30 in the evening. So I think that is possible to do and I hope we can do that in the future in terms of public hearings. Uh in terms of the um department heads being confirmed by the
city council, couple comments by that. I heard way more than just a couple people say that they wanted that taken off the table as well. I also think that in terms of the fact that if
we do take that off the table, it's not going to be on the ballot this year. So what? There's not a mayor. There's not a mayoral election. It's not like the mayor is going to be appointing or somebody's going to be appointing all these department heads. in terms of the
thought of the fact that the only ones we're concerned about is the community sa the the department heads that are under the community safety commissioner, the COO, uh the city operations officer. All the more reason that those get confirmed by
the council because those folks aren't even elected. They're appointed by the mayor and they are confirmed by the council, but they're they would be then appointing department heads and they haven't even been elected. So, it it just see and then the push that this is
a strong mayor system and the city voted on it. They did. They did vote on this. But one of the things in the campaign for the strong mayor system was well look at St. Paul. They have a strong mayor system. They're okay. You know, in
St. Paul right now the mayor nominates department heads and the city council confirms them. It is a legislative function. It is a check and balance on the executive branch. And I think again
for us to go back given all of the comments made today and the letter from the city council saying they'd like a little more time to work with the mayor on this. 11 out of the 13 city council members asked for that. It seems to me
it behooves us to not rush and try to put this on the ballot this year. >> Um I'm going to make a comment and then I'm going to um open this up for possible motions. Um I wanted to uh do a couple of things. Um like many of the
members in the body that testified uh today in front of us um I was a union member myself for many years. I was also an attorney uh on that represented management for a number of years and had many dealings with the attorney who
drafted um the letter that we have in front of us today. And so um there was nothing intended in any of these changes to the civil service commission that would impact workers rights. And I want
to just touch briefly on this because part of it is process. And I would like to point out that the first meeting on this that included these changes to the civil service commission was October 31st, 2023.
Since then, we've had literally um a couple of dozen meetings between the charter commission, the charter commission, the city council, um our our government structure committees, our amendment review committees in which we have discussed this at some of those
meetings. My recollection is business agents were present and there was nothing was raised about this until I heard about it last night. So, the changes that I viewed in this, and I'm not going to engage in a point-by-point
uh uh rebuttal of what was in the letter, but some of them I think are simply wrong. Some of them uh misstate what is actually happening here. But I understand that for many people now, this is apparently the first time they've heard about it. I understand that. But, um
there was no intention on this body at all to inhibit workers rights. Nothing touches all of your labor agreements. And you will continue to have choices, even if this were to pass, to go to civil service, to go to your labor
contract, to go to veterans preference, to have just cause, to have due process, to have the civil service commission draft rules. All of this was going to be the same. There are some small changes. Uh I acknowledge that uh the uh u
affirmative action equal opportunity one is a is a big one for some people. Um but the idea that um >> what what it what it means in practice is a lot less than what it sounds like because the city can continue to recruit
affirmatively can recruit can continue to recruit affirmatively under an equal opportunity method. At any rate, um I do want to note that I'm sorry that you feel that this has been sprung upon you. Um and uh
and so that I understand the need for further consideration on this. Um by the same token on moving to the government structure, we have had this we've worked hard on this for two and a half years. We've had meetings with the city council
uh number of times I see members of the city council are here and for a long time there was no response respectfully from the city council when we asked for comments on this. We had to come back after about a year of time to ask again what were the concerns about this. So my
concern if we table everything is that it sets and falls aside again that we won't get the city council back to the table to discuss this again. At any rate, that's my discussion. Um I'm going to open this up for amendments um
because if we do table this then uh or move it back to committee then we understand that we're not likely to get anything on the ballot this year. And um right now there's not an election scheduled next year, but there's certainly a possibility uh with the Senate uh races and the governor races
that there would be a special election. So with that, um are there motions to be made? >> Chair Gender, excuse me. I I wanted to add one thing that I didn't speak to in my comments >> and that and I hope I don't open it up
for everybody. Um, I am not comfortable, just for the record, having only one public hearing and then moving forward. I'm not comfortable having a public hearing downtown. We need more than one public hearing different times of the day in
different parts of the city. Thank you, >> let's let's Commissioner Dhy. >> I'm ready for a motion. Based on everything that has been said, um, including that suggestion that more public hearings are needed for all of
this, I move that the government structure and technical amendments with all revisions be sent back to the working group for uh for more work. >> Now, I second
Is there any discussion? Commissioner Kak. >> Um, Mr. Chairman, just in the interest of uh clarity, giving everybody a chance to uh uh to vote this to vote uh different
options. I'd like to amend Commissioner Dohert's and move the technical amendments back to committee as as she as she suggests, but uh uh keep the government structure amendment, keep
that uh at least temporarily alive. How however we we would do that. That would be my uh >> Please members of the audience, please. Is there a second to that emotion? To that motion? >> Second. >> Second. Is there discussion?
>> Can I ask a question? Um, okay. I feel comfortable voting on them separately of going back to committee. So, like sending technical I guess I'll propose a third motion. >> Perfect. Can't do that yet. Can't do that. Perfect. Uh, can I ask a question
about uh the government structure? If we were to keep that, what would and it went to the ballot and it was voted no, >> would it just come back to us >> or like how would that get resolved? >> It would be a no. >> Right. So then like do we just start over? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Um I'm going to go back to the author of the original amendment and maybe consider as a friendly amendment. Would you wish to move these separately? No, I don't consider that a friendly amendment.
>> Okay. Then we still discussion on Commissioner Kak's uh amendment to the original amendment. Any discussion on that? Commissioner uh um Cooper. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I' I'd oppose the amendment to the amendment. I think
that um while the city attorney did great work to um separate the two packages, I think there are uh there are elements of the technical package that are substantive and there
are elements of the government structure package that do interact in um you know when you look at the whole ecosystem of the of the organization of city government uh the two packages do interact with each other and I think that we'd be better served and we'd do
better work and we'd put out a better product at the end if we work on the whole package and we have continued discussions with all stakeholders, city council, the mayor's office, uh the unions and and um and voters and have
have additional conversations with with the public. Um so I' I'd oppose the amendment to the amendment. Thanks. Any other any other discussion on the Kak motion to amend the original motion? Commissioner Hulquist,
>> I would support um that amend that Commissioner Kak. Um I think that we've been sitting with this for two years now. Um we have gone in circles with the mayor's office. We have gone in circles with the uh council. Um we have had
studies done. Um I think I agree. I think there should be more opportunity for public comment. I do think that the opportunity for public comment can happen through a ballot process. Um, and actually quite a lot of public comment can happen through an amendment. Um, I
think that we would be like I I agree that we should change the amendment structure like how it's written to make it more clear about what their people are actually voting for. But I do think this circle of process of going to council and mayor's office isn't working right now. And so giving
it to the people to vote for. And if they say no, great. If they say yes, okay. >> Any further discussion? Uh, Commissioner Prindle. >> Yes. Uh, I would oppose the the motion um to uh move the government structure
amendments forward. Um, I understand the point that for better or for worse, there have been there's been a lot of discussion. There's been a lot of votes. I understand I was on the losing side of some of those votes on the government structure amendment uh within this within this body but I still feel that
we have not gotten sufficient input from the public. Uh the public the input that we have gotten is almost uniformly uh opposed uh to these changes uh and you know really questioning the urgency uh behind it. We have again we've heard the letter we received the letter from the
city council. the vast m the supermajority of the city council wants to be able to have more of a role in this discussion and and have a constructive discussion with the mayor about this. I also feel that there are some of these technical amendments that could potentially move forward uh by
ordinance through the council. I think the council has expressed an openness to some of the more purely truly technical amendments. um and to have a pending uh ballot question in November uh would potentially inhibit them from making changes in the meantime because they wouldn't be sure how the language would
interact. And so I think it it's a much simpler process to take it all back uh and uh really give it give every piece of of what's being proposed here subject matter by subject matter due consideration. >> Commissioner Dell,
>> thank you. So I I just need some clarification. I'm all about having a second public hearing maybe hopefully at 6 PM or a different time. Um I want to acknowledge that, you know, I I feel like some wards have been under
represented um in this dialogue. So that's just something I' I'm very I feel very strongly about. But my question is, if we had another public hearing, is this going to delay us more from having any
type of uh movement on the ballot? because I don't want to delay this further given that we have spent over two years talking about this issue and now all of a sudden there is some type
of miscommunication being relayed to the public and to the unions about what this proposal does in terms of like employment contracts civil service uh activity and all that stuff.
Um, Commissioner, um, I'm not sure when we would get another, uh, public hearing scheduled. That depends on what's available for the clerk's office. Um, as a practical matter, probably the latest we could send something over to the council would
be the first week in June. Um, so that would encompass having another public hearing. And also then for example on if this if the KAC amendment went forward where the technical would be um um put
back to a committee and the government structure would be alive. We would still have to schedule probably a special meeting as well as with in conjunction with the uh public hearing and then still come forward then with a final
hearing that would make sure that all the any amendments that were captured as well as the preparation of our typical report that goes along with it. So could it be done possibly? Um, is it can it'll be a squeeze probably to do it.
Um, we're going to go uh Commissioner Smith. I just wanted to comment that I agree with Commissioner Kak, but I would suggest that we proceed with Commissioner Doh's motion as stated. I probably will vote
against it um just because I would like to see it broken up, but if it passes, it resolves the issues. If not, then we could go back and entertain another motion to to do something else. >> Commissioner Perry. >> Yep. Uh I just want to say that Commissioner Holquist comments are ones
that I agree with. Ultimately, the ballot is the public forum that will decide what happens. Um we have been working. Uh I'm I think uh on my third term I know at least two of these I have
been working on this government structure issue um and a great deal of work has gone into it. I do want to see the technical sp the technical issues separated out or what
is being called technical is not technical but uh the civil service separated out uh but I think we can go forward with the government uh structure amendment and so I will be voting against the uh uh dorium mo motion and
for the Kak motion >> commissioner dherty Thank you. Thank you for uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. All of these comments um are meant, you know, from people's
uh what they believe is is in the best interest of the city. But because there is no mayoral election in 2027, it seems to me and because there are so
many issues coming up in November, all of of our senators, congressmen, we have governor, we have state senators, we all of these things, this issue is going to get lost. And for some people,
that's what they want to have happen. >> So my suggestion in deference to the city council, 11 of whom who've asked us for more time, that we give them that more time because there isn't a mayoral
election. It's not a big deal if this doesn't go on the ballot this year. There is no need to put this on the ballot this year. In fact, it is detrimental. Thank you. Commissioner Kak.
>> Uh I would just add uh m Mr. Chairman that uh if in fact the decision is to go forward at least with the uh uh more discussion on the uh government
structure that uh today we uh someone makes a motion to have another public hearing. So just to shorten the the time to prepare and that the hearing should actually be offsite and in the evening and we've done that before. We did it
with uh reaportionment the last uh several times in the last uh two reaportionments. So that's possible. That's all I would say. Otherwise I just think we should vote and let everybody uh have their say.
Um, Commissioner and I, >> just a a point of information for our friends in the audience. When do we have to have this settled for it to go on the ballot? Um, Commissioner, as I said earlier, I think our last availability
would be probably the first week of June um to get it over to the council. Council will then refer it to a committee. Committee would have its own um process. It would get then come back up to um the full council and the council when it gets sent to the
council, remember what the council does is they get to take a look at the bag the ballot language that we suggest and they're the ones that approve or write the ballot language. So that's what it gets sent over there for. And so then uh they go through their whatever it be two
four six week process uh and then then they would refer over to the county for placement on the on on the ballot but roughly counting back I think it's the first week in June because it has to be over to the county in I don't know the spec specific date in August.
>> So we would need to finish uh we would need to have the the public hearing by the first week in June. it. We would have to have everything pretty much completed by the first week in June in order to send it over. >> Okay. So then we would need to have our our work done including the public
hearing by Memorial Day >> to have to give the city attorney time to put everything that we do together. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's rough rough rough timeline. >> Thank you. >> Um Commissioner Kle, >> I was just going to say I'm urging us to
proceed to a vote. I think we're starting to repeat ourselves and I think everyone knows which side of the motion they're on. >> Okay, I think with that we'll consider that as a motion to call the question. Um and so we're back to the KAC motion which is the amendment to the original
motion. The Kak motion is to have the um technical amendment move back to committee and to move forward with the government structure um uh ballot language. And with that, I'll have the clerk call the role. All those in favor
of the COAC motion. >> Mr. Chair, just to clarify, uh the motion as I caught it was to refer back to technical amendments to the work group. It was not to forward or approve. It was just to keep the government structure one >> in the process. So, okay.
>> Is that um correct, Mr. K? Commissioner Kak. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, what is the >> the motion is to refer the technical amendment back to committee and leave the government structure um as is. Mr. I just have a question Mr. Chair. So
when we're talking about govern government structure we mean the appointments specifically. >> Yes. The executive committee um excuse me the executive officers and the department had appointments. >> Commissioner Dillo >> I to the Kak motion.
>> Could we >> I think we're still confused. Are there is there still some lack? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. >> I thought the motion was Mr. Dordy's motion. >> This is the this is the Kak motion. Kak amendment to the Dhy motion we're voting
on first. If if that fails, then we go back to the original Dohy motion >> and remind us what the KAC motion is. The KAC motion is to refer the technical um amendment back to committee and to
leave the government structure amendment alone to to continue to move forward. >> Is that what I understand? Commissioner Kak, >> that's correct. >> Okay. >> So to clarify so all members understand what they're voting on >> and and the uh Mr. Chairman uh to move
the government structure amendment forward does not mean people support it. It just means the process continues and the debate that debate continues. >> Correct. I wanted to clarify what Commissioner Kak just said. The motion we captured over here was to refer back
the entire packet of quote unquote technical amendments to the working group to separate out the question of appointments and leave that on the table. No decision on what to do with it. Further amendment needed or further motion needed on that piece. Is that
clear to everyone? Okay. Call the RO. >> That's clear. Mr. Cler, if you call the RO. >> Commissioner Dillo. >> I. >> Colequest. >> I. >> Nye. >> No. >> Schneider.
>> No. >> Prindle. >> No. >> Dhy. >> No. >> Boon. >> I click. >> Hi. Garcia >> I >> Smith
>> I >> Cooper >> no >> Perry >> I >> Kak >> I >> vice chair Rubenstein >> I >> chair Ginder >> I >> we have 10 eyes's and five nazs.
>> That motion passes. >> So um M mr clerk. Now, do we need to vote on the full as amended? >> Mr. Chair, the current motion is DHY's motion uh to as amended by by Kak. So,
>> um >> Okay. So, >> if there's >> we now have in front of us is the original Dohy motion as amended. So what you're voting on now will be this amended motion which is that we're
moving the technical amendments back to committee and we will are leaving the um government structure committee alone which means we'll come back to it after this motion depending on what happens with this motion. >> This motion is meaningless now.
>> No, there's no there's nothing that we're moving on. He's moved He's moved >> He's moved the amendment to your motion. So now we're back to your motion as amended. >> So my motion as amended is to move my my
motion is to move both back. It's been amended. Now it's been amended. Yes. >> So the question but we just so the question >> we accepted his amendment. Now we have to vote on it. Is is is your amended motion? So the amended motion is simply to just move the one
>> half of this back rather than the whole thing. >> That's correct. >> So >> with that clerk, we now call on the amended motion. >> Commissioner Dlo, Commissioner Dillo on the
>> nay. Holquest, >> no. >> I >> Nye, >> yes. >> Schneider, >> no. >> Prindle, >> uh, yes. >> Dhy, >> no.
>> Boon, >> I click. >> I >> Garcia, >> I >> Smith, >> I >> Cooper, >> I >> Perry, >> I >> Kak. I >> vice chair Rubenstein
>> I >> chair Ginder >> I >> we have 12 eyes's and three nays. >> Wow. >> That motion carries. So the technical amendments has been sent back to committee. Now we still have to decide what we're going to do if anything with
the government structure. So government structure now we have to decide are we going to move it forward put it on the ballot? We could decide not to put it on the ballot. we can amend it or we can decide if we wanted to even send it to city council. So,
there are a number of options on what you want to do with what we are calling the government structure motion. Um, Commissioner Cooper, >> Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to the uh package of government structure um amendments that I'd like to offer.
First, we need to move um I think the government structure amendment um forward um to to uh to move it forward either to place on the ballot or I guess to place it on the ballot. >> Well, I'd like to amend the language of
the amendment like the the actual contents of the >> understood. >> Okay. >> Once we get it on get the motion to move forward on putting this onto the ballot, then we will take we will amend it. Then after we amend it, we'll vote on that. And then depending on what we end up
with, um, we'll then forward that to our next special meeting, um, to vote on actually putting it on the ballot. >> Mr. Chair, I think that if if we're going to be putting something on the ballot, I think the commissioners and I certainly want to know what the language is before I can vote whether to move
something onto the ballot. So, I think we should settle on the settle on the substance of the amendment uh, of the proposed amendments before we before we vote. M Mr. Chairman, >> Commissioner Gozac. >> Uh no, of course, uh Mr. Chairman, of
course, we're we're not going to vote on something that we don't know what the language is, but the fact is we're not ready pro probably to to actually uh write write the final language. Uh and I assume that's what a special meeting
would Yes. >> would be about. And I think the only thing that to me uh that's pertinent right now that's urgent, we have to decide about another public hearing one way or the other. And if we can do that
today, I think then we then we know where we're going and then we can then this after the hearing we have the special meeting and then make the big decisions about what it about what what the amendment would say whether or not we in fact want to put it on the bill.
And I think there most of the people here are still kind of are still undecided about whether ultimately that's where it belongs. And folks, it's been mentioned already that we're not the ones that uh determine the final
language. That comes from the city council. They get to write the final language. So, >> so, >> so what we need to do is >> it goes on the ballot, but they have to they actually write the the specific
language. >> They write the ballot question. So, we'll have a motion to to move forward on the government structure. then we can make the amendments and then get a final government structure format and then
we'll move we'll have the question on whether to put it on the ballot at our special meeting and we and if we can decide if we can get another special um public hearing in in place but we're trying to do is finalize the language for the government structure amendment.
So, um, Commissioner Prrena, >> I I'm still unclear on the necessity for the first motion. The the government struck we we didn't move it to committee and so it's still >> it's in front of us. >> It's still in front of us. Um, so I'm not sure. I don't want to accidentally vote
>> uh to to put something on the ballot. So, I I mean I'm unclear on the necessity of that first one. >> M Mr. chair if I c could um just sort of suggesting there's nothing saying that this body couldn't right now make a motion if someone gets in queue to refer this also
back to the work group that would be a legitimate motion what we need is to know is this body prepared to submit a ballot question it would open it up to amendments if that's the direction the body wants to go does this body want to refer this as a potential ordinance question to the city council I think
they've indicated you know they want some more time to think about that So if you want to work on that with the council, that would be a different journey for this potential amendment to go through or send it back to work or so it's the direction we need before we open up to what would that language look like.
>> Can you say more about the ordinance thing? I think I don't understand what that is like how it goes to ordinance. >> The second option, >> Mr. It it goes it goes to ordinance if we were to refer to city council for um unanimous 130 vote plus the mayor all
agreeing on it. So you'd have to get a unanimous 140 vote in order to put it into the charter. So um that's um clearly is is not going to happen in this kind of construct. bill. The motion would be to move forward on
placing this on the ballot even though we won't actually vote to put it on the ballot tonight. >> That's that's one path forward. That's one path. >> That's one path. If if the majority of the body feels that this is a ballot question this year, that's been a
discussion, too. Then we need to talk about the next step of calling a meeting. Uh getting the final language drafted, putting together what that proposal is. You would want to probably draft suggested ballot language recognizing as has been clarified. This
this body doesn't write ballot language. The council does. Um and so it's the direction you want to go that then opens it up for further discussion. It's currently on the table. Uh you need to decide is this a ballot question amendment? Is this potentially an ordinance amendment or the third path
that is in is obviously in front of you? Does it need more study, more time? Uh, and does that this also need to be referred back? >> I have a question >> for Mr. Dhy. >> Mr. Carl, in in your uh opinion, given
your history with this group, do you believe it is possible to send this to a committee to have the final uh work done and proposed ballot
language written, another public hearing offsite in time to send it to the city council? uh before Memorial Day or by Memorial Day
>> in your opinion, >> Mr. Chair, I I I will just respond exactly what you said. Is it possible? Yes. Is it is it likely? No. The time is very very tight to get a ballot question on this year. >> Mr. Chair,
>> is there an active motion on the table? >> I'd love to put one on the table. There isn't, but we we need an active motion and then if we wanted to do amendments to the government structure, then we can do it. But first of all, we need an active motion. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to move to send this
back to the uh work group, the whatever work group that it was sent to government structure work. >> And Mr. Chair, if I could speak to that motion really quick. >> First, we need a second. >> Second. >> We have a second. >> Um uh based on Mr. Carl's description. I
just don't we clearly don't have time to do the work in between now and Memorial Day, which uh is my mother's birthday. Um I believe uh and and given given the comments, given comments that we've heard uh that we've spoken
ourselves, um I just don't think that there's time between now and and then to do due diligence. And so I would I would move and no disrespect to my my friend and colleague Commissioner Kak. Um I
just would ask for uh support. >> Yeah. >> Further discussion on the motion to refer back to Government Structure Committee. Commissioner um Cooper. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm I'm very sensitive to the time and effort that
the whole commission has spent. I've been on the commission less time than many of you. Um, so I'm very sensitive to that. But I I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of putting lang putting an amendment with language on the ballot
that we know needs work. I don't think the ballot's a place to be saying we hope the voters figure it out. I think we we owe it to ourselves, to the commission, to the charter, to the voters to to put in the the time that it
needs to to get it. So, I would I'm supporting the motion to uh remand to the work group. >> Commissioner Garcia, >> I would like to speak against the motion. I do not want it. I
do not think it should be on the ballot this year. I want to keep it alive. I think we need to take a beat, kind of figure out what would be the best next
step. I don't want to rush ourselves and um so I want to keep it alive but not put it on the ballot and take our time to look at what ought to be done to it. >> Um Other discussion?
Commissioner Prindle? >> Yes. I I I think I appreciate that that we need more time. I think I think referring it back to the government structure work group accomplishes that uh because the work group for those who don't know in the audience or in the public that it consists of anybody in
this body who wants to be on it. Um and so it's it it comes out it comes out to the same thing uh really in my mind. But I think, you know, it through this process uh of of talking about government structure with stakeholders and and the feedback we've gotten, I think there have been a lot of good
ideas that could point us toward more of a consensus, more of a middle ground where we get, you know, by adding in specific positions like we tried to do in the last meeting, like we added two of them in last meeting. We're making the the the structure more inflexible, but by leaving them out, we're taking
away the council's authority to to approve uh to approve department heads. I think there is there is potential to get the the flexibility that I think is really needed in our government structure so we can adapt and change uh while still um giving the council its
you know its authority uh to weigh in in those decisions. And so I think that uh with more time we will we will produce a a better product. I don't think we're just going around in circles here. I do think we have the potential to to make something better out of this. further discuss. Commissioner Hulquist,
>> I think what I would just like to add is I do think that there is potential for a better outcome. I do think it requires the city council and the mayor's office to come to the table in good faith. And I haven't seen that yet. And I've been on the commission for a year. And so that's the only hesitation that I have
towards not sending this to the ballot is that I haven't seen the mayor's office or the city council's office really come in good faith of wanting to reach an agreement together. And I would just implore that both of those bodies do come within a good faith effort to
reach an agreement because it's not attainable right now. And so that's the only reason I feel like we're in a rush to give this to the voters is because of the dysfunction between those two bodies. >> Agreed. >> Further discussion. Commissioner Rosstein. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I agree. I've
been on this um commission for many more years than one and I have never been so discouraged. It's at the dysfunction um among the government um the the upper levels of government and I don't have
any faith that it's going to get any better if we delay this. On the other hand, I think that it's not going to do us any good to rush it because there, you know, at at once it gets on the ballot, there will be a lot of
discussion at that point among the members of the city who will be able to, you know, decide for themselves, but they need time to understand what it's about. And my other feeling of great discouragement is some of the misunderstandings that became clear
today, such as the fact that we were trying to eliminate um employee protections when that was absolutely contrary to everything that we stand for. So um delaying it seems to be the only option. You know, maybe for all the
wrong reasons, but it seems to be they all those wrong reasons seem to be the best reason. I called a question. >> So um >> that needs to be >> So we have in front of us now the
question uh commissioner NY's motion which is to refer um government structure um back to a committee. And um so I'm going to ask the clerk to call the role on the motion to refer this back the government structure amendment
back to committee. >> Commissioner Dillo >> nay. >> Holquest >> I >> Nye. >> Yes. >> Schneider. >> No. >> Prindle. >> I >> DHY. >> I
>> click. >> No. >> Garcia. I >> Smith. >> No >> Cooper. >> I >> Perry. >> No >> Kak. >> No. >> Uh, Vice Chair Rubenstein.
>> I >> chair Gender. >> No. >> We have eight eyes and seven NAZs. >> That is taken back to committee. Um,
so what we have left. I I we have ballot language, but um since I don't see any point moving forward with that because that will be taken up with the committees again. So, let me go back to our agenda. Mr. Chair, I if I could also
just add um in light of the amendments being sent back to the work group, um it would not there wouldn't be a need to have another meeting following this um to send anything to the council. >> That's correct. So the the next actions will be by the chairs of the respective
committees to schedule meetings. >> Commissioner Clay question. There is no municipal election in 2027. >> Correct. >> And no state election or federal election either. >> There may be a special >> there may be a special federal election
to um for the Senate seat. >> Yes. But um the re reality is this this means we're likely considering 2028 to put this on the ballot. >> Technically we can put it on any special election that would be called next year.
We we we can do that. Um whether we would want to do that is another question or if we would wait until the 2028 election. But but the option is there for 2027 depending on what happens. >> It it's it'll be Mr. Chairman. It'll be
2028. uh the Senate Senate vacancy uh well there's no special election law to fill a Senate vacancy in Minnesota right now. Uh so it would 2028 would be uh whoever gets appointed to fill the
vacancy would be 2020. I think that's when the term uh the term runs out anyway. So 2028 would be the time for a Senate election. Senator Clolobashar was just elected in or reelected in 24. >> So yeah, but but
>> she would be up in >> whoever got this whoever got appointed would have to run in 28. >> Yeah. No, >> no, there is there is a statute. I'm trying to look it up now. But um >> regardless, we don't need to decide it tonight. It will be decided in in the coming year. We'll find out if there's a
special election or not. So >> um the last we the last item on our agenda is public comment. And if there's any further public comment that would be taking place right now.
>> We appreciate y'all. >> So is there any public comment? Then please come up to the dis Commissioners, I just want to say thank you for deferring this um government structure um amendment to back to the
committee. I think there's some serious problems with it. Um and I think they need to be worked out before they ever get anywhere near a ballot. And it's important because the community needs to have much more input into these kinds of structural issues. I've heard multiple commissioners say things like, "Well,
that's dysfunctional between the city council and the mayor." Those are immediate issues. They do need to get worked on. No question about it. But that is not the purpose of the charter amend uh commission. The purpose of the charter commission is to create permanence, not to deal with immediate
personality issues. So, I'm distressed that this was the solution that you came up with. I hope that the process will be improved and that the community will have more input into the process. Thank you. And is there any other public comment? And uh if you could again state your name, I'm sorry.
>> Sure. Uh hello again. My name is Gwendelyn Paige and I am a resident of Ward 4. I would like to pay special thanks to all of the commissioners and particularly Commissioner Dowardy for chairing for championing what the people
here have said today. I understand that our city is going through a very difficult time and where there is a lot of internal dysfunction. As others have said, I don't believe that this type of solution is the right answer. As you
were debating amongst yourselves, I couldn't help but notice and believe me, I work in corporate America. I'm very sensitive to sunk cost. Why did nobody have the idea to just scrap this all together? It's clearly
not something that the people are in favor of. And I'm a little disheartened that there was not any discussion of the possibility that this is the wrong choice for Minneapolis, period. Not that it needs more work. Um, so I would ask
all of the commissioners to please consider that. And I do appreciate the hard time and effort that many of you have put into the work, but sometimes the work we do just doesn't go anywhere. And that doesn't mean anybody did anything wrong. That doesn't mean that
you wasted your time. That means that you engaged in the process of being a human being. So again, I really appreciate all of you and the hard work that you do. I recognize that in each of your own ways, you're trying to do the right things for our city. But this is
clearly not the right thing. So I I appreciate that these have both been referred to committee and I hope that you will take the time to think about whether or not this is really something that needs to move forward in the years ahead. Thank you. >> Okay. And please state your name.
>> Lauren George, Ward 5 and volunteer with CUPB. I want to second everyone's thanks to Commissioner Dy. And I want to thank Commissioner Nye for his accountability. It goes a long way. Thank you.
>> Hello. Um I'm Corbin Olsson. I live in Ward 5 Minneapolis. I want to thank all of you for doing work and taking your time to try to make our city better. Um,
I want to thank Commissioner Dhy especially for standing with what the people have shown up. They said the extra room was full. We could hear them from in here. You can see how many people care enough
to take that much time out of their day to be here. I want to express concern that we're talking about one of the parties involved in the you're describing that interaction between the mayor and the city council
is dysfun dysfunctional and meanwhile discussing giving one of those groups more power over the other and I just want to express concern about that. Thank you. my second public comment. So, my name's Heather. I just wanted to thank you a
lot for considering a lot of these comments that the public has brought to you today. Things have changed a lot in the last few months since January. So, I do want to thank and recognize you guys for your work. I know you similar to my neighbor, right? Sunk cost is very real,
but the world is different than it was pre January 2026 and I think our government needs to reflect that as well. So, thank you guys for your time and thanks for listening to us. It's very important that we feel heard by you guys. Even though you're not electeds, it is nice to be recognized and heard by
you. I'm Stacy Guran, Sherman, Ward 9. You are all doing it right. I was on the community commission on police oversight. We had things passed and ram through that we should not have. We did not have the public comment. We did not
get people out like you did tonight. We did not have a chair who keeps asking people, do you want to get up and have public comment? We got cut off as commissioners. If we spoke for more than two minutes on a subject, we could not speak anymore. That's what got rammed
through. So, you're doing it right. That said, let me just say nobody was blaming you for the technical amendment. When you are told, does this work hurt
workers and you're told no, I would go forward with it. I would think it was just a matter of technical punctuation kind of things. It wasn't. What in the world? Who gave you that? No. How did
that process happen? Cuz if you want to talk about dysfunction, that is the beginning of it. And you all need an apology, an explanation, and as a member of the public, we need an answer. How were you told that misinformation?
That is serious. Second, stop calling it technical. Give it a different name. Is it workers rights? Is it something other substantive? Stop throwing this away as if it's just dimminimous. It's obviously not. So, please, when you go back to the
working committee, come up with a different name so we're not in an Orwellian uh dysfunctional double speak. And then lastly, again, I just want to say thank you. You have a you're all volunteers.
You're all giving up time. It's a long process. But as Michelle Gross said, whatever ends up happening and if it gets voted on and approved, it's permanent until this goes process goes through again. And we all know it's not going to happen soon. So, we've got to
get it right. And for all of you who are on the side of getting it right, and I believe all 15 of you are, even if you differ on how to get there, thank you. >> Please state your name. >> Hello again. My name is Lydia Boulder, W
5. Um first of all um someone uh one commissioner mentioned that we were maybe conflating issues and starting to talk about timing um being separate from these amendments. And I would argue that they are
very much intertwined. Um, as uh, Chair Ginder mentioned, this has been going on for several years now, and only now did you have 26 public comments and a full hearing room and a full overflow room that we could hear through two walls and
at least one closed door. Um, so something is wrong with how the information about this process is getting to the public. Um, and so I do appreciate this time. Uh, I do appreciate any further considerations you have about moving the time of this
meeting or at least having alternative public hearing options so that the public can know a little bit more about what's going on or at least that information is being delivered to them. Thank you. Seeing no other public comment, um um
thank you commissioners um for the thoughtful discussions today. I appreciate it. And with that, we're adjourned.