>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS JASON CHAVEZ AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER OUR REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2025. BEFORE WE BEGIN THE MEETING, I WANT TO OFFER A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS, STAFF,
AND THE PUBLIC, THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER PARTICIPATION. THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REALTIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD TO INCREASE 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. >> COUNCIL MEMBER PAYNE IS ABSENT. OSMAN. >> PRESENT. >> CASHMAN. >> PRESENT. >> JENKINS. >> PRESENT. >> CHUGHTAI. >> PRESENT. >> KOSKI.
>> PRESENT. >> PALMISANO. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR CHAVEZ. >> PRESENT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE A QUORUM.
FIRST WE'LL TAKE UP OUR CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM ONE IS POLICE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE RELATED TO OVERSIGHT. NUMBER TWO WAS NOT READY IN TIME FOR THE CLIMATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING
ON JUNE 26TH AND IS HERE BEFORE US NOW. THIS ITEM IS APPROVING A SOUND PERMIT FOR EAT STREET CROSSING EVENT JULY 12 THROUGH AUGUST 1ST. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'LL PASS IT TO COUNCIL MEMBER PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. I WANTED MY COLLEAGUES AND THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THE ITEM BEING BROUGHT FORWARD ON NUMBER ONE FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT. JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, DURING ONE OF THE TRIFECTA LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS, THERE WAS A STRENGTHENING OF CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT IN STATE STATUTE. I ORIGINALLY OPENED UP THE BOOKS TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE
STRONGER PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, WE DID LEARN THAT THERE WAS A BIT OF A CONFLICT WITH THE CITY CHARTER AROUND HOW I WANTED TO STRENGTHEN IT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO CCPO AFTER A
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS, BOTH WITH COMMISSIONERS AND THE BROADER PUBLIC. AND IN WORKING WITH OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT INCREASING THE CAPACITY TO MOVE THROUGH CASES
AND NAVIGATING SOME OF THE COMPLEXITIES NOW THAT WE HAVE A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS BODY IS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION. SO MORE TO COME WHEN WE GET TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT LITTLE BIT
OF HEADS UP. >> THANK YOU. THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYBODY ELSE ON QUEUE. I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY. AND WITH THAT, SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL MOVE TO SET
THE ORDINANCE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 22nd AND APPROVE THE SOUND PERMIT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THE AYES HAVE IT. AND THOSE MOTIONS HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
NOW I WILL TURN THIS MEETING OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER PAYNE.
>> WE HAVE TO RECEIVE AND FILE A MEMORANDUM WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT. MADAM ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK MORE ABOUT THIS ONE? >> I CAN BRIEFLY GO THROUGH MY MEMO. THE REQUEST FOR THE MEMO WAS
WHAT IS THE PROCEDURAL PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THERE ARE THREE SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REGARDING DEADLINES, MOVING DEADLINES THAT
ARE IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO SORT OF BRIEFLY THERE'S AN INTERNAL PROCESS AND AN EXTERNAL PROCESS. THE INTERNAL PROCESS IS NOT FORMALIZED BUT IT'S GENERALLY
RESULTING AS A RESULT OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CITY STAFF IN CHARGE WITH IMPLEMENTING THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE EXISTING TERMS THAT PRESENT A BARRIER TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION AND SHOULD BE CHANGED AS A RESULT. EXAMPLES OF THE CHANGING OF
DEADLINES IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WHERE ONE WAS CHANGING DEADLINES FOR HIRING THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR. THE OTHER WAS CHANGING DEADLINES FOR WHEN THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR WAS IN PLACE THEY HAD A DEADLINE FOR COMPLETING AN EVALUATION PLAN THAT WAS TOO
SHORT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH. AND THEN THE THIRD WAS ONCE THAT EVALUATION PLAN WAS FINISHED, THEN WE SOUGHT COURT APPROVAL OF CHANGING THE DEADLINE SO THAT INSTEAD OF THE DEADLINES RUNNING
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF WHICH WAS THE DATE OF COURT APPROVAL, INSTEAD IF THOSE DEADLINES RAN FROM THE DATE OF RETENTION AND ONBOARDING OF THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR SO THAT
THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR ACTUALLY HAD A FULL YEAR'S WORTH OF DATA TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW IN THEIR FIRST YEAR. SO THAT'S AGAIN THE CHANGES
REALLY ARE SURFACING FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATION STAFF THAT ARE PART OF IMPLEMENTATION. AND THEN THERE'S ALWAYS A REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON ANY DESIRED MODIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUPPORTED AND CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE THIS
AGAIN, IT'S A COURT ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT. THE COURT HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF OVERSEEING THE AGREEMENT. AND SO ANY CHANGES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE HAVE TO ACTUALLY PASS MUSTER FOR COURT APPROVAL. AND FOR OUR JOB, WE ARE BOUND BY
THE MINNESOTA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ONLY TO MAKE REQUESTS OF THE COURT THAT HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS AND LAW IN FACT. SO ANYTIME AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE PROPOSED IT WOULD TO GO THROUGH OUR OFFICE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THE IN DEPTH LEGAL AND
FACTUAL ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS IN FACT A LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS TO PRESENT THEM TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE INTERNAL
PROCESS. EXTER EXTERNALLY WOULD INCLUDE A COUPLE OF PARTS. ONE WOULD BE NEGOTIATION WITH MDHR. AND THE SECOND AGAIN WOULD BE COURT APPROVAL. SO IN TERMS OF NEGOTIATION WITH MDHR, IT WOULD BE A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. IF AGREEMENT IS REACHED TO
JOINTLY SEEK COURT PERMISSION TO AMEND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THAT AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE FORM OF A STIPULATION WHICH IS BASICALLY A FORMALIZED PLEADING THAT THE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT INDICATES THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTY AND THE WHY. WHAT'S THE LEGAL BASIS, WHAT'S
THE FACTUAL BASIS OF MAKING THE REQUEST. THAT STIPULATION AGAIN IT'S A FORMAL PLEADING THAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. IT'S SIGNED BY THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY AND BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS, THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPRESENT ITSELF IN COURT. THAT'S ALWAYS DONE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THE STIPULATION AGAIN WOULD EXPLAIN THE AGREED UPON CHANGES, THE BASIS FOR THE CHANGES SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ALONG
WITH A PROPOSED ORDER FOR COURT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND THEN FINALLY, ANY STIPULATED CHANGES CAN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNLESS THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE COURT BY A COURT ORDER. IF THE COURT SIGNS AN ORDER APPROVING THE CHANGES, THEN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS SO
AMENDED TO THE EXTENT OF THAT COURT ORDER. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. DO COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE. I ACTUALLY WANT TO START WITH OUR ORIGINAL MEMO THAT WAS
SHARED WITH COUNCIL REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF THE STAFF DIRECTION, BUT ALSO IT'S THE ONE THAT WAS WAIVED VIA OUR VOTE. SO FIRST, I WANT TO DIVE A LITTLE BIT INTO THE FIRST
SECTION OF THAT MEMO WHERE I'M SEEING THAT THE CAO OUTLINES THAT THE OUTLINES TO NEGOTIATE THE MDHR SETTLEMENT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE SAME PROCESS THAT ANY OTHER CONTRACT THAT THE CITY PURSUES. AND THAT PROCESS ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE SOLE
AUTHORITY TO RENEGOTIATE OR RENEGOTIATE ALL CONTRACTS AND COUNCIL'S ROLE IS TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THOSE CONTRACTS. WHICH THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH.
AND I WANT A LITTLE MORE CLARITY AROUND THIS PIECE, THERE'S A STATEMENT IN THE MEMO THAT SAYS NEITHER THE COUNCIL NOR THE MAYOR MAY GIVE THE CAO A DIRECTIVE THAT INFRINGES ON THE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CAO AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ACT WITHOUT
REGARDS TO ITS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 15200 OF THE CITY'S ETHICS CODE. SO MY QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY IS IS THIS ESSENTIALLY A GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION OR IS IT
THE OPINION OF THE CAO THAT IT'S THE MAYOR WHO HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS? AND THAT ESSENTIALLY WILL BE FOR
ANY RENEGOTIATIONS AROUND THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR MEMO, I TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE DIRECTIVE TO MODIFY THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE. THE REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT THAT, AND I MENTIONED IT IN THE PUBLIC MEMO THAT I JUST READ FROM, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A COURT
ENFORCEABLE, COURT APPROVED DOCUMENT THAT THE COURT IS STILL RETAINING JURISDICTION OVER. SO THIS IS NOT LIKE A NORMAL CONTRACT WHERE THE PARTIES JUST COME TOGETHER AND WHATEVER THEY AGREE TO IS FINE AS LONG AS IT'S NOT LIKE OVERTLY ILLEGAL. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE IN
ORDER TO GET ANY CHANGES TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IT HAS TO GO TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. AND THAT PUTS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE POSITION THAT WE FRANKLY ALWAYS HAVE AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT. SO WHEN WE ACTUALLY MAKE
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT, SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT, WE ARE BOUND BY OUR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES, BY OUR
LICENSES, TO ONLY MAKE MERI MERITORIOUS CLAIMS. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAYOR WANTS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS TO DO OUR INDEPENDENT LEGAL ANALYSIS, FACTUAL ANALYSIS ABOUT WHAT
AMENDMENTS HAVE A LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS IN ORDER TO BRING THEM TO THE COURT. I HAVE DONE THAT LEGAL FACTUAL ANALYSIS AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT
THAT THERE IS NOT A LEGAL BASIS TO ASK THIS COURT, IT'S JUST A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO PARTIES, MDHR AND THE CITY, AND WE HAVE COMPLETELY RESOLVED THAT DISPUTE WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IN ORDER TO GO TO THE COURT AND ASK THE COURT TO INCREASE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY ABOUT A THIRD, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS TO DO THAT. AND I DON'T HAVE THAT. I CAN'T MAKE THE REPRESENTATIONS I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT THESE NEW TERMS ARE SOMEHOW NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT WHICH IS THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETELY RESOLVED. THESE ARE TERMS WE NEGOTIATED WITH A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PARTY TO RESOLVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LAWSUIT IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FORUM. WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS TO GO TO COURT AND ASK THE COURT TO EXPAND ITS
JURISDICTION JUST BECAUSE WE WANT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN ASK THE COURT TO DO THAT. THE COURT JUST DOESN'T ACT JUST BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO. WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY PRESENT TO THE COURT THAT THESE TERMS ARE ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO RESOLVE A
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES BEFORE IT, MDHR AND THE CITY. AND IT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. WE'VE ALREADY RESOLVED THAT DISPUTE WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I KNOW AGAIN IN OUR MEMO WE HAVE A LONG EXPLANATION OF THE ROLE
OF COUNCIL AND THE ROLE OF MAYOR AND WHO GETS TO DO WHAT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WHO GETS TO DO WHAT WITH NEGOTIATION OF CONTRACTS. BUT THIS IS SUCH A SPECIAL SITUATION WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A COURT, AND OUR SPECIAL
ROLE AS ATTORNEY AS INDEPENDENT, FRANKLY, OFFICERS OF THE COURT THAT CAN ONLY MAKE GOOD FAITH LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND FACTUAL ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT, CITY ATTORNEY. I DO THINK THE ULTIMATE PIECE OR
THE BASIS OF MY QUESTION WAS NOT NECESSARILY ANSWERED AND I THINK IT GETS REITERATED IN THE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT'S ADDRESSING THAT SAME MEMO. WHERE IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT OR STATES THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEWS ANY DESIRED
MODIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUPPORTED AND CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. SO AGAIN, THE BASELINE IS AND THIS IS WHERE THE DIRECTIVE CAME FROM BECAUSE I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR SIX MONTHS IT WAS THIS BODY'S UNDERSTANDING FROM CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT PURSUING MODIFICATION, THAT'S INCLUDED NOT ONLY IN THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BUT ALSO THE CONSENT DECREE TERMS ALLOWS A STIPULATION FOR US TO JOINTLY COME TOGETHER TO MODIFY. ESSENTIALLY WHO GETS TO PULL THE
TRIGGER ON THAT AND I THINK IT'S HONING IN ON YOUR SECOND MEMO WHICH I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE DON'T HAVE AN INTERNAL PROCESS FOR THAT WHEN WE DID HAVE AN INTERNAL PROCESS FOR THAT IN 2023 TO GET INTO THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
AND AT THAT POINT IT'S SAYING THAT THE MAYOR AUTHORIZED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GO IN THE PROCESS. I'M ASKING IF THAT STILL STANDS. WHO SUBMITS OR AUTHORIZES THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE A REVIEW OF MODIFICATIONS TO THEN APPROACH MDHR?
>> COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAVE INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE CITY. WE ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CITY BY CHARTER. I DON'T NEED TO GET A DIRECTIVE FROM ANYBODY TO DO LEGAL REVIEW. THAT IS MY JOB, THAT IS WHAT I
DO ALL OF THE TIME. AND THAT IS WHAT I DID HERE. I WAS HOPEFUL THAT THIS WAS A PATH FORWARD, BUT THEN I DUG IN AND DID THE LEGAL RESEARCH AND TALKED TO THE EXPERTS WITHIN MY OFFICE AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NOT A LEGAL PATH FORWARD. >> AND I THINK THAT'S THE PIECE.
I GET THAT YOU SAID THAT THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY THAT YOU'RE FINDING AND I THINK WE ASKED THIS IF YOU CONSULTED MDHR ABOUT YOUR FINDINGS. BECAUSE THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS IN THAT CONSENT DECREE, THERE'S BEHAVIOR RESPONSES THAT OVERLAPS
WITH COMPONENTS IN OUR MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THAT'S NOT RELATED TO CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING OR CONSTITUTION AT ALL. SO THERE'S SO MANY PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD APPLY OR TRANSFER OVER.
WE'RE ALSO HEARING FROM OTHER LEGAL EXPERTS, INCLUDING THE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY, WHO SAID THERE IS AN ABILITY AND THEY WERE HELPING US INITIATE THE FIRST PROCESS. SO I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS THAT LEGAL BASIS. I GET YOU'RE SAYING IT'S UP TO THE COURT. BUT THIS PROVISION ALLOWS FROM
MY UNDERSTANDING, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND MDHR TO DO THAT JOINT REVIEW OF WHAT TERMS COULD BE BROUGHT OVER TO THEN PRESENT TO THE COURT TOGETHER AND THEN LET THE COURT OR THE JUDGE PRESIDING JUDGE MAKE THE DECISION. IT SEEMS IN THIS CASE THE CAO,
AS YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING, IS ACTING INDEPENDENTLY AND SAYING WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO DO THE REVIEW. >> MADAM CITY ATTORNEY. >> COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO I DID DO THE REVIEW. I DID DO THE REVIEW. AND I HAVE THOUGHT DEEPLY ABOUT THIS.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHATEVER MDHR WANTS TO DO IT, WHETHER WE WANT TO DO IT, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT IN GOOD FAITH THAT THESE TERMS ARE ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY.
AND THEY'RE JUST NOT. WE'VE ALREADY FULLY RESOLVED THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. THERE IS NOT A PATH FORWARD. THERE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT I CAN MAKE THAT IN FACT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO TAKE OVER JURISDICTION OF THESE OTHER
TERMS THAT WERE NOT PART OF RESOLVING THE ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE CITY AND MDHR. SO I, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, HAVE TO BE ABLE TO IN GOOD FAITH MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT AND I CAN'T IN THIS
SITUATION. >> JUST GOING BACK TO THIS OTHER PIECE OF SO WHY DID YOU INCLUDE OR WAS IT THE PURSUIT OF BOTH PARTIES, THE CITY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, TO INCLUDE IN BOTH THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE CONSENT DECREE THE BASIS FOR MODIFICATIONS? YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR MEMO, THE PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW IS AROUND -- PRECEDENT RIGHT NOW IS AROUND DEADLINES AND TIMELINES BUT
WE'RE ALSO IN UNPRECEDENTED TIMES. IN READING THIS PROVISION IT DOESN'T SAY IT'S LIMITED TO DEADLINES. SO ESSENTIALLY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS PROVISION OF BEING ABLE TO DO MODIFICATIONS ON BOTH
AGREEMENTS THAT WERE NEGOTIATED BY BOTH PARTIES IS ESSENTIALLY MOOT. IT WAS JUST AROUND THE ABILITY TO DO DEADLINES, NOT TO PURSUE OTHER SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT THIS
HAPPENED BEFORE THE D.O.J. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THERE WAS THE ASSUMPTION THAT CHANGES WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IT'S UNCLEAR IF YOU ALL KNEW THAT IT WAS NOT LEGALLY VIABLE NOW, WHY WOULD YOU INCLUDE THIS PROVISION IN THE FIRST PLACE? >> MADAM CITY ATTORNEY.
>> SO COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE AMENDMENT PROVISION IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A PRETTY TYPICAL THING TO INCLUDE IN CONTRACTS. AND NO, IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO INCLUDE MAJOR SCALE ADDITIONS. AGAIN, FOLLOWING THE CONSENT
DECREE TERMS, IT WOULD INCREASE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY ABOUT A THIRD. AND AGAIN TERMS THAT WERE NOT NEGOTIATED WITH MDHR, WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WITH MDHR. IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED AT LEAST BY ME AND I WAS IN THE
NEGOTIATIONS AS SOON AS I GOT HERE IN LATE SEPTEMBER OF 2022, I SAT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT MY CONTEMPLATION THAT THAT AMENDMENT TERM COULD BE USED TO
INCREASE BY A THIRD SOMETHING THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED. WE DID IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACCOUNT FOR IF THERE WERE DIRECT CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CONSENT DECREE TERMS AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TERMS THAT
WE WOULD GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE THOSE THINGS. THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CONSENT DECREE AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE CONSENT DECREE IS NOT ENFORCED BY THE FEDERAL COURT. THE REASON WHY WE INCLUDED THAT
IS BECAUSE WE ASSUMED THAT THERE WOULD BE A FEDERAL COURT INVOLVED AND FEDERAL LAW ALWAYS TRUMPS STATE LAW SO WE AGREED WITH MDHR THAT WE WERE GOING TO MODIFY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TWO. BUT WE NEVER DISCUSSED MODIFYING
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FROM THE CONSENT DECREE UNDER ANY TERMS, WHETHER IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL AGREEMENT NEVER HAPPENED, OR BECAUSE THE FEDERAL AGREEMENT DID HAPPEN. WE NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT. IT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
AND AGAIN, WE RESOLVED ALL OF MDHR'S CLAIMS. WE COULD HAVE LEFT THINGS OPEN FOR ADDITIONAL NEGOTIATIONS, WE DID NOT. WE COMPLETELY SETTLED ALL OF MDHR'S CLAIMS. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION, AGAIN, TO ASK THE COURT TO EXPAND ITS
JURISDICTION TO INCLUDE TERMS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. AND I CANNOT REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT IT IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT. >> SO JUST WALKING AWAY FROM THIS WHOLE PIECE WHERE AGAIN THE
GOAL, I THINK, AND THIS IS A SHARED GOAL IS WE WANT TO SEE A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ITS RESIDENTS AND TO HAVE A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT THAT ENFORCES THAT. THAT RIGHT NOW IS ABSENT WITH THE DISMISSAL OF THE DOJ CONSENT
DECREE. IN LIGHT OF THAT, IT'S UNCLEAR THAT RIGHT NOW, AND THIS IS WHERE WE GOT TO THE DIRECTIVE FOR THE CAO, WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THE CAO HAS MADE THE INDEPENDENT DECISION OF ITSELF TO NOT EVEN PURSUE A PATHWAY FOR
EXPLORATION. BECAUSE YOU'RE NAMING TO NOT BRING CLAIMS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S AUTHORITY. WHAT I'M NOT HEARING IS THERE HASN'T EVEN BEEN CONSIDERATION OF WHAT TERMS COULD BE INCLUDED. AND THOSE HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE CAO IS INDEPENDENTLY MAKING THE DECISION TO NOT PURSUE THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION REGARDLESS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL? >> COUNCIL MEMBER, AGAIN, WE HAVE DONE THE LEGAL ANALYSIS AND
THERE IS NOT A BASIS FOR ME TO GO TO THE COURT AND MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT THAT ADDITIONAL TERMS NEED TO BE ADDED IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WITH MDHR BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY RESOLVED. I CAN'T MAKE REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE NOT IN GOOD FAITH.
THAT IS JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO UNDER MY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FRANKLY, BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED, IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE FOR YOU TO DIRECT ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU IN THE
EXERCISE OF MY PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT I CANNOT CONSISTENT WITH MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES DO. I HAVE DONE THE ANALYSIS, I HAVE NOT FOUND A LEGAL PATHWAY.
WE DO HAVE A SHARED COMMITMENT TO MAKING THE REFORMS. THE MAYOR MADE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT IS BINDING -- >> LEGALLY BINDING? >> IT IS BINDING UNTIL THE NEXT MAYOR REVOKES IT WHICH I THINK POLITICALLY WOULD BE A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR ANY MAYOR TO DO.
I WISH I COULD GET YOU A COURT ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT. I WORKED SO, SO HARD, NIGHTS, WEEKENDS, TRYING TO GET THE D.O.J. CONSENT DECREE NEGOTIATED AND SUBMITTED IN TIME SO THAT WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN COURT APPROVAL.
I DID EVERYTHING THAT I COULD IT DIDN'T WORK. I WISH THAT IT DID. BELIEVE ME, OF ANYBODY WHO HAS SKIN IN THIS GAME, IT'S ME. AND I TRIED MY HARDEST, AND IT DID NOT WORK. WHAT I CAN'T GET YOU, WHAT I
CAN'T GET THE MAYOR, IS A COURT TO ENFORCE THESE TERMS. THERE IS NOT A PATHWAY FOR ME TO DO THAT CONSISTENT WITH MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. AND NO, I'M NOT GOING TO GO TO THE COURT AND SAY WELL I DON'T REALLY HAVE A LEGAL BASIS TO DO THIS, BUT WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME
WHETHER WE CAN DO IT OR NOT. I HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL BASIS, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT AND I CAN'T. >> AND COULD YOU DO A MODIFIED MEMO THAT REFLECTS THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T, AGAIN IN YOUR
MEMO YOU TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE COMPONENTS, YOU REITERATED THAT. IT IS STILL NOT CLEAR IN WHAT TERMS YOU DID THE REVIEW THAT YOU'RE SAYING ALL 40400 PROVISIS
FROM BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO CHAIN OF COMMAND, THOSE PROVISIONS, THINGS ALREADY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR, YOU'RE SAYING NONE OF THOSE COULD BE FOLDED OVER INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT THAT COULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE. AND THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU
SETTLED THAT YOU CANNOT REOPEN RENEGOTIATIONS. AND THAT JUST DOES NOT SEEM CLEAR IN THE FACT THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM OTHER LEGAL EXPERTS THAT THERE COULD BE A PATHWAY AND FOR SIX MONTHS WE'VE HEARD ALSO FROM THE CAO, YOUR OFFICE
THAT THERE WAS A PATHWAY. THIS JUST DOES NOT SEEM -- IT DOESN'T SEEM SOLID. AND THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON YOU, KRISTIN ANDERSON. >> I MEAN, HOW IS IT NOT? TRULY. >> NO, KRISTIN.
>> LET'S STICK WITH TITLES. >> CAO ANDERSON, THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON PERSONAL. YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN YOUR MEMO THAT THE CAO OFFICE HAS THE PUBLIC GOOD IN MIND. PUBLIC GOOD IS A LEGALLY BINDING
AGREEMENT THAT GETS OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. THAT IS A PUBLIC GOOD. A PUBLIC GOOD THAT I KNOW YOU ADVICE US AROUND LEGAL RISK IS TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE PAYING
FOR SETTLEMENTS BECAUSE OF VICTIMS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED. AND RESIDENTS HAVING TO PAY OUT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THAT OR PTSD SETTLEMENTS BECAUSE OFFICERS ARE ALSO PUTTING THEMSELVES IN COMPROMISING POSITIONS.
SO THAT IS THE BASIS. THIS IS NOT REFLECTIVE ON ANY PERSONAL DYNAMICS AT ALL. IT'S WE WERE ADVISED BY THE OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS THAT THIS IS VIABLE AND WE'RE ASKING HAS LITERALLY EVERY AVENUE BEEN
EXHAUSTED BECAUSE TO GO FROM SIX MONTHS TO LITERALLY IN ONE DAY A COMPLETELY 180. AND WE'RE GETTING VERY CLEAR, YOU'RE SAYING THE COUNCIL CANNOT DIRECT YOU, BUT MY QUESTIONS WAS HAS THE MAYOR EVEN MADE AN EFFORT TO ALSO MAKE THE DIRECTIVE? BECAUSE I'M GOING FROM THE
ORIGINAL MEMO WHERE YOU SAID THE MAYOR IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY TO SETTLE CONTRACTS. AND JUST GETTING CLEAR ON THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND THAT WAS NOT FULLY FLESHED OUT IN THE SECOND
MEMO. >> I HAVE ADVISED THE MAYOR JUST LIKE I HAVE ADVISED YOU THAT THERE IS NOT A LEGAL PATHWAY FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. I KNOW THERE ARE LOTS OF LEGAL EXPERTS OUT THERE THAT ARE OUT THERE SECOND GUESSING. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW FOR 28 YEARS.
I'VE BEEN A PUBLIC SECTOR LAWYER FOR 24 YEARS. I AM AN EXPERIENCED LITIGATOR, I HAVE AN OFFICE FULL OF EXPERIENCED LAWYERS WHO I CONSULTED WITH. I'VE DONE THE RESEARCH AND I KNOW ALL OF THE FACTS. I AM CONFIDENT IN MY LEGAL
OPINION. I WAS EXPLORING, AND I WAS DOING IT IN GOOD FAITH, EXPLORING THIS AS AN OPTION. AND IT WASN'T JUST IN A DAY THAT I CHANGED MY MIND. I DID LEGAL RESEARCH, I DID LEGAL ANALYSIS, I CONSULTED WITH THE EXPERTS IN MY OFFICE.
AND I LEARNED THAT IN FACT THIS IS NOT A LEGAL PATHWAY FORWARD. I WISH THAT IT WAS, IT IS NOT. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU DIRECT ME OR THE MAYOR DIRECTS ME, I CAN'T DO IT CONSISTENT WITH MY PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. >> NO, YOU'VE PROVIDED GOOD CLARITY IN TERMS OF ONCE AGAIN I ASKED FOR THE FORMAL PROCESS WHICH WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN THIS MEMO THAT WAS REQUESTED OF THE CAO. AND BEING CLEAR ON WHAT THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND WAS.
BECAUSE CITY ATTORNEYS ALSO RAISED CONCERNS DURING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEN WE WERE FIRST ASKED TO START THAT PROCESS. BUT THE MAYOR ALSO OPPOSED IT. BUT THIS BODY AND THAT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT EVENTUALLY GOT ON THE SAME PAGE AND SAID WE WANT TO
ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT IN SPITE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RAISING CONCERNS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF THE MAYOR'S DIRECTION AT THAT TIME, WE ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS. SO THAT'S WHY CAO ANDERSON, IT'S
A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING TO HEAR OUR CITY ATTORNEYS SAY THAT THEY ARE HOLDING THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT EXPLORING WHAT PROVISIONS COULD BE INCLUDED AND ARE NOT EXPLORING ANY FURTHER A LEGAL STRATEGY THAT GETS US A LEGALLY BINDING
AGREEMENT WHEN WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE IN SOME WAYS. AND THERE WAS A PATHWAY THAT WAS ADVANCED. BUT I RECOGNIZE THATHERE IS OTHER COLLEAGUES IN QUEUE. YOU'VE PROVIDED A LOT MORE CLARITY TO THE PUBLIC THAN I THINK HAS BEEN IN THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS THAT WE'VE HAD
THESE DISCUSSIONS AROUND HOW DO WE DO A PLAN B AND GET A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT. SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT, BUT I WILL PASS IT OVER TO THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES. >> MADAM CITY ATTORNEY. >> COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE POSITION
THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS COMPLETELY DISTINCT THAN THE POSITION WE WERE AT WHEN WE WERE NEGOTIATING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BEGIN WITH. AGAIN, WE WERE NEGOTIATING LEGAL CLAIMS, WE WERE SETTLING LEGAL CLAIMS. WE'RE DONE WITH THAT. WE ARE NOW IN A POSITION WHERE
WE HAVE A FULLY SETTLED DISPUTE BETWEEN US AND MDHR. IT WOULD BE AN ETHICAL VIOLATION FOR THE MAYOR TO DIRECT ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT I HAVE SAID IS AGAINST MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES JUST LIKE IT IS
FOR YOU. SO I DON'T EXPECT THAT THE MAYOR IS GOING TO DIRECT ME TO DO SOMETHING IN VIOLATION OF MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. I HOPE THAT HE TAKES THE ETHICS CODE SERIOUSLY AND WOULD NOT DO THAT.
>> I PUT MYSELF IN QUEUE BECAUSE I DO WANT TO TAKE THE TEMPERATURE DOWN A LITTLE BIT. I'VE GOT OUR NIMS TRAINING PRINT OUT IN FRONT OF ME. AND ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS MANAGING BY OBJECTIVES.
AND I THINK THAT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY IS TRYING TO GET TO IS AN OBJECTIVE OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT IS OPERATING CONSTITUTIONALLY. AND I THINK WE ARE JUST ALL VERY CURIOUS ON HOW WE CAN BEST ACHIEVE THAT OUTCOME.
AND THE MEMO THAT WE HAVE PRIVILEGE ON, WHEN I FIRST READ IT IT WAS VERY CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE IT HAD A LOT OF GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE CONCERNS AND AUTHORITY OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES ALSO BUNDLED UP WITH OUR QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE
ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL POLICE FORCE THAT IS REFORMED. AND SO I KIND OF WANT TO JUST BREAK SOME OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE MEMO DOWN JUST SO I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF IT. I THINK THE CLEAREST
UNDERSTANDING IS COUNCIL AS A BODY HAS CERTAIN AUTHORITY, THE MAYOR HAS CERTAIN AUTHORITY. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS THE SOLE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF
THE INSTITUTION DOESN'T JUST WORK FOR THE COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR BUT HAS TO HAVE THAT BROADER PERSPECTIVE. SO WHEN CITY COUNCIL IS DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE ARE DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ACCOMPLISH TASKS THAT ARE WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY. AND WHEN THE MAYOR IS DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY, IT'S ONLY
TASKS THAT ARE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR. I THINK WHERE A LOT OF US ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE CONFUSED IS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT UNDER THAT FRAMEWORK OF WE
ONLY GET TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY WITHIN WHAT'S IN OUR AUTHORITY, CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY.
BUT IT DOES SEEM THAT THE MAYOR DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE IN CONTRACTS. AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD UNPACK TWO QUESTIONS. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY, THIS CONVERSATION IS HAPPENING IN PUBLIC SO THAT WE'RE BUILDING A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING FOR OUR
COMMUNITY AND THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE COUNCIL AS A BODY. THAT IS NOT THE NATURE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO OPERATE IN PUBLIC IN THE SAME WAY AND HAVE THESE DEBATES AND CONFLICTS IN PUBLIC. THOSE DEBATES AND CONFLICT CAN HAPPEN IN MEETINGS THAT ARE NOT
BROADCAST ON YOUTUBE. SO JUST TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS ALL UNCHARTED TERRITORY. NO ONE PERSON IN THIS INSTITUTION IS GOING TO KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER ON THE SPOT, INCLUDING YOU. THIS HAS TAKEN A LOT OF TIME TO
NAVIGATE. OUT THE GATE, WHEN YOU SAW THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS COMING INTO OFFICE AND ANTICIPATING THAT THERE COULD BE THIS RISK OF IT GETTING WITHDRAWN, OUR VERY FIRST MEETINGS WERE ABOUT HOW UNIFIED WE WERE. ALL 13 OF US, AND THE MAYOR.
EVERYONE THAT WE STILL WANT TO DELIVER ON THIS CONSENT DECREE PROVISIONS. AND THIS IS ULTIMATELY OUR GOAL, HOW DO WE BEST ACHIEVE THAT. DID THE MAYOR SPECIFICALLY ASK TO INCORPORATE THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE PROVISIONS INTO
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? WAS THAT EVER A FORMAL ASK OF THE MAYOR THAT YOU ALSO HAD TO -- WE DID IT IN PUBLIC, IT'S ON OUR AGENDA RIGHT NOW AS A DIRECTION. AND WE'RE LEARNING ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT. DID YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS
EXACT SAME EXERCISE WITH THE MAYOR? DID HE ALSO ASK YOU TO INCORPORATE THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE INTO THE STATE PROVISIONS AND YOU HAD TO ALSO GIVE HIM A SIMILAR TYPE OF LEGAL EXPLANATION? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, SO WE HAVE
ALL HAD CONVERSATIONS WHERE YOU ALL, ALL 14 OF YOU, HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THIS IDEA. ALL OF YOU. >> I'M ASKING DID THE MAYOR FORMALLY MAKE A DIRECTION TO
THAT END THAT YOU HAD TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT THAT WAS NOT WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY TO DO OR DID THAT NOT HAPPEN? >> SO THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR AND I WORK IS NOT BY HIM ISSUING ME FORMALLY DIRECTIVES. FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS
BODY IS ISSUING ME FORMAL DIRECTIVES WHETHER THAN HAVING A SOUND ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ME. THE MAYOR AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS. AGAIN HE EXPRESSED INTEREST AS ALL OF YOU DID AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM WHEN I CONCLUDED THAT
THERE WAS NO LEGAL PATHWAY FORWARD. I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THERE WASN'T A LEGAL PATHWAY FORWARD AND WHY. AND HE DID NOT PROCEED TO TRY TO DIRECT ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. >> I'LL SAY THAT WE DO FORMAL DIRECTIVES SO THAT OUR COMMUNITY
CAN FOLLOW ALONG WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE GOAL OF THAT.
SO I THINK THAT WAS MY MAIN QUESTION. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION WAS, BUT I SEE OTHER FOLKS IN QUEUE AND I'LL CALL ON COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, CAO ANDERSON. THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE I'M TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER CLARITY ON IS JUST LOOKING AT SECTION 438, IT PRETTY CLEARLY STATES HOW
MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT ARE MADE. PARTIES MAY JOINTLY STIPULATE CHANGES SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL AND THERE'S NOT ANYTHING THAT ARTICULATES A NECESSITY TO HAVE A DISPUTE.
SO COULD YOU KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT DEPARTURE IN HOW WE'RE ABLE TO. IT SEEMS THAT WE ARE JUST ABLE TO WORK WITH MDHR TO MAKE THE
MODIFICATION AS IT HAS HAPPENED TWICE. >> COUNCIL MEMBERS, THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. THE COURT CAN ONLY TAKE JURISDICTION WHEN THERE IS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY.
IN THIS SITUATION, THE IDEA OF INCREASING AN ALREADY SETTLED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY A THIRD, ADDING ALL OF THESE NEW TERMS, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE COURT AND BASICALLY SHOW THE SAME THINGS THAT WE HAD TO SHOW TO GET COURT APPROVAL OF THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BEGIN WITH. WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THE NEW TERMS ARE NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. I CAN'T REPRESENT THAT. IT'S NOT TRUE. THEY AREN'T NECESSARY TO RESOLVE
THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. WE'VE ALREADY RESOLVED THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE FEDERATION TRIED TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS FIRST APPROVED.
I CAN APPRECIATE YOU ALL SAYING WELL WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY IT AND SEE WHAT THE COURT DOES. THE FEDERATION ABSOLUTELY WILL BE RIGHT THERE TO OBJECT. AND AGAIN, I DON'T FEEL THAT I HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO MAKE THOSE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE
COURT. THE COURT CAN'T JUST EXPAND ITS JURISDICTION JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES WANT IT TO. THE COURT HAS TO ALWAYS HAVE A CASE OR CONTROVERSY THAT IS BEFORE IT. AND THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY, IT'S
A VERY SIMPLE LAWSUIT BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY HAVING TO DO WITH CLAIMS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION AND ALL OF THOSE CLAIMS WERE ALREADY SETTLED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WHAT YOU'RE ASKING HERE IS SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY,
INCREASING BY A THIRD, TERMS AND ADDING THEM TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. INCREASING THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. THIS IS ABOUT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND WHAT THE COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER. THE DISPUTE AGAIN BETWEEN MDHR
AND THE CITY HAS BEEN FULLY AND FINALLY RESOLVED. SO TO GO TO THE COURT AND SAY COURT, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE JURISDICTION, I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU THAT THESE TERMS ARE NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BEFORE YOU WHICH IS THE LAWSUIT BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY, I CAN'T DO
THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER PALMISANO. >> THANK YOU. I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID ALL THAT'S NEEDED TO BE
SAID HERE, SO I'LL REMOVE MYSELF FROM QUEUE NOW. >> I ADDED MYSELF BACK IN QUEUE BECAUSE I REMEMBERED THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION WHICH WAS I'VE BEEN TRYING TO LEARN WHAT'S
THE TECHNICAL TERM CASE OR CONTROVERSY BECAUSE I THINK IT HAS MORE MEANING THAN JUST WHAT OUR LAYPERSON'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THOSE WORDS ARE. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, AND I KNOW WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE OF USING THE MODIFICATION PROVISION FOR
ADJUSTING TIMELINES. BUT WHAT WOULD BE MAYBE AN EXAMPLE OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THE NEED TO MAKE A MODIFICATION ON THE SUBSTANCE ON SOME PROVISION AND SOME SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH. WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT? AND JUST RECALLING WHEN I WAS
WANTING TO AMEND THE CCPO INITIALLY, THERE WAS, I VAGUELY REMEMBER A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT COULD REQUIRE GOING THROUGH THIS KIND OF SOPHISTICATED MODIFICATION PROCESS. AND THAT WAS VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S REQUIRED OF US AT THIS TIME. BUT WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF US, WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR US TO SAY OH OKAY, I SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BY INCLUDING THESE FEDERAL PROVISIONS AND WHAT THIS VERSION OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY
IS THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE LEGAL MODIFICATION? DOES THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE? >> NOT COMPLETELY SURE. AGAIN, THE ISSUE HERE IS EXPANDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY A THIRD. THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CASE OR CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THESE ADDITIONAL TERMS THAT WERE
NOT NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES WERE NOT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THIS LAWSUIT BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A NECESSITY, A CORRELATION BETWEEN THOSE
TERMS AND THE NEED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CITY AND MDHR WHICH WE CAN'T DO BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY RESOLVED. SO IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THOUGH, COULD THERE BE TERMS IN THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT ARE NOT WORKING THE WAY THAT THE PARTIES THOUGHT THAT IT WAS GOING TO WORK, AND WOULD THAT JUSTIFY GOING TO THE COURT FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH WHAT THE PARTIES ACTUALLY INTENDED? POTENTIALLY, I WOULD HAVE TO SEE
WHAT THE EXACT SITUATION WOULD BE. >> MAYBE I CAN USE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. SO WE HAD A BIG SECTION IN THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE AROUND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND JOURNALISTS. AS WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT THERE ISN'T AS DIRECT A BASIS FOR
INCLUDING THOSE IN THE STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT'S UNDER STATE JURISDICTION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT WOULDN'T APPLY IN THAT CASE. HOWEVER, SOME OF THOSE PROTECTIONS FOR JOURNALISTS HAD SPECIFICS AROUND USE OF FORCE
WHICH WOULD BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AND PERHAPS OUR USE OF FORCE SECTION WE HAVE AGREED TO IN THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ISN'T AS EXPANSIVE AS SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE. AS AN EXAMPLE, OUR USE OF FORCE TRAINING IS NOW BEING QUESTIONED IN SOME SCENARIO, WOULD THAT
KIND OF US NOT MEETING THE EXPECTATION OF THE STATE BE A BASIS OF CONTROVERSY THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A MODIFICATION. >> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME
TOTALLY FOLLOWING THE HYPOTHETICAL, BUT I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. WE'VE ALREADY SETTLED THE CLAIMS ABOUT USE OF FORCE WITH MDHR. WE'VE ALREADY SETTLED THOSE CLAIMS WITH THE TERMS THAT ARE IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WE WOULDN'T HAVE A BASIS TO ASK THE COURT TO ADD ON BECAUSE
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS ADDING ON TERMS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH JOURNALISTS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE LEGAL CLAIM BETWEEN US AND MDHR. THAT LEGAL CLAIM, AGAIN, HAVING
ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY SETTLED. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CHUGHTAI. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY ATTORNEY ANDERSON, I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO PRESENT TO THE COURT ANY TERMS THAT DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN EXACTLY AS IT EXISTS TODAY OR WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT.
SO I DO REMEMBER, I MEAN THERE WERE SEVERAL TERMS WITHIN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT LEAD TO A POTENTIAL FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE. I REMEMBER IN PUBLIC
COMMUNICATION WITH OUR COMMUNITY THAT SEVERAL TIMES THE CITY HAS AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BOTH HAVE EXPLICITLY TALKED ABOUT THE
INTENT OF MAKING SURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A POTENTIAL CONSENT DECREE. BUT BOTH PARTIES WERE ALWAYS PLANNING FOR THERE TO BE A THIRD PARTY INVOLVED AS WELL. IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT YOUR OFFICE AND YOU CONSULTED WITH
THAT THIRD PARTY A COUPLE OF TIMES WHEN CERTAIN LANGUAGE WAS BEING FINALIZED, I REMEMBER HEARING ABOUT THIS. SO IS THE INTENT THAT THERE WERE EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE
MODIFICATIONS MADE TO ALIGN WITH A THIRD AGREEMENT OR A SECOND AGREEMENT NOT ENOUGH OF A LEGAL BASIS? I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. I'M SURE YOU CONSIDERED THIS AS A PART OF YOUR LEGAL REVIEW. >> YES, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I DID CONSIDER THAT. AGAIN, WE DID ACCOUNT FOR A CONFLICT AND THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED THAT. WE NEGOTIATED IF THERE WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE THAT AND THAT TERM IS EXPLICIT
AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT. AND IF THAT WAS THE SITUATION, WE WOULD HAVE A LEGAL BASIS TO GO BACK TO THE COURT WITH HEY, THESE TERMS ARE CONFLICTING. HERE'S THE NEW TERM THAT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR WHAT'S NOW HAPPENED AT ALL. I WISH, HINDSIGHT BEING 20/20, WE COULD HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR IT. WE DIDN'T. AND INSTEAD WE FULLY SETTLED ALL
OF THE LEGAL CLAIMS OF MDHR. SO THERE IS NOT A LEGAL BASIS FOR MDHR TO COME BACK AND SAY WELL THIS THING THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT HAPPEN WON'T HAPPEN SO PSYCH, NEVER MIND. WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLVED DISPUTE.
WE HAVE FULLY AND FINALLY RESOLVED THAT DISPUTE. >> I AM NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. SO I WILL DIRECT THE CLERK TO
RECEIVE AND FILE THAT MEMO ON ITEM 3.1. WE STILL HAVE TO DISPOSE OF ITEM 3.2 WHICH IS THE STAFF DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE MEMO THAT WE RELEASED PRIVILEGE ON. AND I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY TO SPEAK ON THIS
ITEM. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE. AGAIN, APPRECIATIVE OF HAVING THE DISCUSSION BEFOREHAND AND AS YOU HIGHLIGHTED HAVING A PUBLIC DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF COURSE WE HAVE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS THE SHARED DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE PROVISIONS THAT WERE IN THE CONSENT DECREE ALSO BE LEGALLY REINFORCED. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REGROUP OR REGROUND THIS CONVERSATION IN THE FACT THAT WE APPROACH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS WITH THAT SAME INTENT OF FINDING A PLAN B
AND WERE INFORMED THAT IT WAS VIABLE AND WHEN SOMETHING THAT WAS SHARED AROUND THAT IT WASN'T JUST A DAY, 24 HOUR DECISION TO HAVE A CHANGE IN LEGAL OPINION. I WILL NOTE, WE HAD A CLOSED
SESSION AROUND MID-MAY WHERE WE WERE STILL UNDER THE SAME ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS STILL A PURSUIT IN COLLABORATION WITH MDHR. AND THEN LITERALLY A WEEK LATER, WE HAD A SMALLER GROUP MEETING WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHERE
WE FIRST LEARNED OF THIS VERY DIFFERENT OPINION. AND IT WAS A 180. SO IT DID PRESENT ITSELF AS SUDDEN CONFLICTING INFORMATION. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC OURLVES.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A COHERENT BASIS AS TO WHY THE PUBLIC WILL NOT SEE THE CITY PURSUING A PATHWAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S LEGAL CODIFICATION OF THESE 300 PLUS TERMS THAT
COULD ENSURE THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT GOT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. AND I GET THE REITERATION OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AND SAYING THAT WE'RE DOING IT ANYWAYS.
BUT QUITE FRANKLY AND WHAT IS HIGHLIGHTED EVEN IN THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS FOR THE MDHR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS THAT THE CITY COULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ANYWAYS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND IT DID NOT. AND THAT HAS CAUSED A ROAD OF
HARM FOR SO MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS AND HAS PUT THE CITY IN FISCALLY PRECARIOUS POSITIONS TOO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO EVERYTHING WE COULD TO MAKE SURE WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH HUMAN
RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS. THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, WE WERE AFFIRMED THAT THIS WAS A VIABLE PATHWAY AND EARLY JUNE WE WERE TOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
IT'S ALSO CONCERNING TO BE IN A POSITION TO SEE AN ARTICLE RELEASED TODAY THAT HAS YOUR FORMER CITY ATTORNEY SAYING THAT THIS IS ALSO POSSIBLE OR SEEING THE ACLU CITY ATTORNEY SAYING IT'S NOT REALLY A COMPLICATED LEGAL THING.
OR SEEING AGAIN ADDITIONAL LEGAL EXPERTS HIGHLIGHT THAT ♪THERE I A WAY FORWARD AND IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WALKING AWAY FROM THIS PROCESS, WE'RE NOT LEAVING ANYTHING ON THE TABLE. BUT I WILL HIGHLIGHT ONE THING
THAT THE CAO REFERENCED THAT US TAKING ACTION ON THIS ITEM WILL HAVE POTENTIAL ETHICS VIOLATION ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL SHOULD THE MAYOR OR EITHER PARTY DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO NOT LEAVE ANYTHING ON THE TABLE AND TO
FIND A LEGAL PATHWAY, TO FIND WHATEVER POSSIBLE TO SEE ARE WE MISSING ANYTHING. AND WHILE I THINK AN ETHICS VIOLATION IS COMPLETELY WARRANTED IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT A RISK
THAT COLLEAGUES NECESSARILY WANT TO MAKE AND NOT THE MAYOR. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE EXPLORING ALL OPTIONS AND NOT JUST LEAVING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO BE THE ONLY MECHANISM FOR SUPPORTING ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING. BUT IN LIGHT OF THAT, I'M MORE
THAN HAPPY TO REFER THIS MOTION BACK TO ME AS THE AUTHOR, SO I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION AND ASK FOR A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO REGROUND THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE AGAIN THERE HAS BEEN THE INCLUSION OF THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK OR THIS IS VIOLATING
INTEGRITY. AND IT'S LITERALLY BEEN A SHARED BASIS FOR OVER SIX MONTHS THAT I THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS ON THE SAME PAGE AND WE SAID WE'VE ALL BEEN ON THE SAME PAGE AROUND GETTING LEGALLY BINDING ENFORCEMENT BEHIND THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE TERMS.
AND IT SEEMED AS IF WE ALL WERE MARCHING TOGETHER TOWARDS THAT GOAL AND THEN SOMEONE GOT OFF THE PARADE IN JUNE. AND SO WHILE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS MOTION SIGNAL TO THE
PUBLIC THAT COUNCIL IS BACKING AWAY FROM ITS COMMITMENT TO DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO GET A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT, AND I DO THINK THERE IS STILL A PATHWAY EITHER THROUGH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FIGURING OUT A WAY TO DO SO AND I WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE, FOR ISSUING THAT LETTER THAT STILL PUTS THE OFFER ON THE TABLE FOR THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO WORK WITH COUNCIL TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE DO THIS WORK STILL. BUT I AT LEAST WANT TO NOTE THAT IT DOES NOT FEEL LIKE ALL HOPE IS LOST. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT ASPECT WITH OUR CITY
ATTORNEYS. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND IT'S SOMEWHAT THE BASIS FOR THIS MOTION, IT'S NOT IN OUR AUTHORITY TO DIRECT YOU. AND ON THAT BASIS, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY BUY THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO FIGURE OUT A LEGAL STRATEGY TO PURSUE
THAT LEGAL BINDING PATHWAY. SO WITH THAT, I'LL ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. >> COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY HAS MADE A MOTION TO RETURN TO AUTHOR? AND THAT'S BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? I CAN'T EITHER. COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU, I CAN'T GET IN THE SPEAKER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY ANDERSON, FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH ALL OF US THROUGH
THIS. IT'S BEEN QUITE AN ORDEAL. NONE OF US ARE ATTORNEYS, YOU'RE THE ATTORNEY. NONE OF US HAVE THE EXPERTISE YOU DID. AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING ALL OF THE TIME AND EFFORT TO THOROUGHLY RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> AND IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTED TO GET IN QUEUE AND HAVE PROBLEMS WITH SPEAKER MANAGEMENT? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY, FOR BRINGING UP THE LETTER. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I HAD COLLABORATED WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY ON AS WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS OUR PATH. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR AND IN THE SPIRIT OF ACTUALLY STILL MOVING US TOWARDS THAT SHARED GOAL, I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE NOW THAT WE'RE DISPOSING OF
THESE ITEMS FOR US TO REALLY GET ON THE CALENDAR, MAYBE A SMALL GROUP OF US, PLUS THE MAYOR, PLUS THE CLERK, COULD AT LEAST BRAINSTORM ABOUT WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO US TO GET TO THAT SHARED GOAL THAT WE HAVE ALL EXPRESSED.
THAT THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A LOT OF CONFLICT AROUND, I BELIEVE. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY QUEUE, SO I'LL JUST ASK THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RETURNING THIS BACK TO AUTHOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THE AYES HAVE IT. THAT MOTION CARRIES. AND NOW I WILL RETURN THE CHAIR BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER CHAVEZ FOR OUR STANDING COMMITTEE
REPORTS. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE. WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE ADMINISTRATION & ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT FOR
CHAIRING OUR LAST AO COMMITTEE. SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE 29 ITEMS THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD. THE FIRST IS A GIFT ACCEPTANCE FOR TWO MINNEAPOLIS POLICE
EMPLOYEE. TWO IS FROM THE CITY COUNTY HEALTH OFFICIALS. THREE IS A GIFT ACCEPTANCE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS OF AIR FARE, LODGING, GROUND TRANSPORTATION, AND PER DIEM. FOUR IS A GIFT ACCEPTANCE FROM LOCAL PROGRESS FOR TRAVEL
EXPENSES. FIVE IS MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATION GRANT TO SUPPORT OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SAFETY INTERNS. SIX IS A CONTRACT WITH STANTECH SERVICES CONSULTING INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES.
A CONTRACT FOR SPEED AND RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM. EIGHT IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS VENDORS FOR THE 2025 THROUGH 2028 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY DEPARTMENT SERVICE PROVIDER POOL. NINE IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS
ARTISTS FOR THE NEW NICOLETTE PUBLIC ART DESIGN PROJECT, PHASE TWO FABRICATION. TEN IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR SENIOR SERVICES AND SENIOR COMMUNITY NAVIGATOR SERVICES. 11 IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS FOR PARTNERSHIP
ENGAGEMENT FUND PROJECTS. 12 IS CONTRACT WITH FIRST-PERSON RESPONDER LLC FOR MEDICAL CONSULTING SERVICES. 13 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ROOFING COMPANY FOR THE STATE PARKING RAMPS AND SKYWAYS ROOF RESTORATION PROJECT.
14 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR THE BANCROFT POND PROJECT. 15, CONSTRUCTION FOR THE MEETING ROOMS REMODEL PROJECT. 16 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR RENTAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES. 17 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH GRAY MATTER SYSTEMS LLC FOR GE DIGITAL SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SUPPORT FOR THE WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
DIVISION. 18 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR UTILITY BILLINGS, INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM, 19 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH TOUCH OUTREACH FOR DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES. 20 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH
FORMATION HILLING ARTS FOR THE TRANSEQUITY SUMMIT. 21 IS A SUMMIT FOR CATCH BASIN AND MAINTENANCE HOLE REPAIRS. 22 IS A BID FOR SHINGLE CREEK PLUS 88 PEDESTRIAN RAMP IMPROVEMENTS.
23 IS A LEGAL SETTLEMENT CLAIM OF JOSEPH LEVAK. 24 IS A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM. 25 IS A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM OF GRETCHEN ROSS.
27 WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM. 28 IS LEGAL SETTLEMENT WORKERS' COMPENSATION. 29 IS A LEGAL SETTLEMENT OCTAVIA MARSHALL V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE THE BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY VICE PRESIDENT CHUGHTAI. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE BRINGING FORWARD ANY ITEMS FOR APPROVAL. WE'VE RECEIVED A REPORT RELATED TO ESTIMATED REVENUES AND
EXPENDITURES FOR THE 2026 BUDGET OR THE CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE THE BUSINESS HOUSING & ZONING COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OSMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. THE BUSINESS HOUSING & ZONING COMMITTEE IS BRINGING FORWARD 15 ITEMS.
ITEM ONE IS PROVING THE STREET CAFE LICENSE. ITEM TWO IS PROVING LIQUOR LICENSE. ITEM THREE IS A PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE -- DEALERS. ITEM FOUR IS PROVING
MULTIHOUSING FAMILY BOND. ITEM FIVE IS APPROVING 180 DEGREES FOR HOST APPROVAL OF TAX REVENUE. ITEM SIX IS APPROVING THREE LIQUOR LICENSE. ITEM SEVEN IS APPROVING 51 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS.
ITEM EIGHT IS ACCEPTING WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY GRANT FOR TRAINING SERVICES. ITEM NINE IS AUTHORIZING AN INTERDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EXISTING GRANT AGREEMENT. ITEM TEN IS AUTHORIZING AT 1200
LAKE STREET EAST TO -- PROPERTIES. ITEM 11 IS AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH MET COUNCIL FOR WATER GRANT PILOT PROGRAM. ITEM 12 IS A PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING SUPPORT
FOR HIAWATHA LAKE BRIDGE PEER PROJECT. ITEM 13 IS AUTHORIZING A LOAN AT 2828 HENNEPIN AVENUE. ITEM 14 IS AMENDING DEVELOPMENT TERMS WITH THE PORT OF MINNEAPOLIS.
AND LASTLY, ITEM 15 IS APPROVING AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO -- I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NO ONE IS ON QUEUE. SO NEXT UP WE HAVE THE CLIMATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. CLIMATE & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE IS BRINGING FORWARD TEN ITEMS. ITEM ONE, APPROVING THE PROJECT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FULTON RESURFACING PROJECT. ITEM TWO IS AMENDING PROVISIONS
RELATED TO CONCERTS AT THE UPPER HARBOR COMMUNITY PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. ITEM THREE IS APPROVING A LARGE BLOCK EVENT PERMIT FOR THE SOMALI AMERICAN DAY FEST. ITEM FOUR IS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CEDAR LAKE ROAD BRIDGE OVER THE
BNSF RAILROAD. ITEM FIVE IS ACCEPTING A BRIDGE INVESTMENT PROGRAM OVER MINNIEHAHA CREEK PROJECT. ITEM SIX AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE BRIDGE OVER THE MINNIEHAHA CREEK REHABILITATION.
ITEM SEVEN IS AUTHORIZING YEAR-END BUDGET PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL BUDGET DISTRICTS. ITEM EIGHT IS AUTHORIZING AN M.O.U. WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO RECEIVE VEGETATION FOR OUR CITY PRODUCTION. ITEM NINE IS AUTHORIZING A PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
THE CPKC FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A STORM SEWER PIPELINE BENEATH THEIR RAILROAD TRACKS. AND ITEM TEN IS AUTHORIZING A PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH CPKC FOR A STORM SHARE PIPELINE
CROSSING ON 21st AVENUE NORTH AND 4th STREET NORTH IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. I'LL STAND FOR QUESTION ON THESE ITEMS. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY VICE CHAIR CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE ONLY HAVE ONE RECEIVE AND FILE AND THAT'S RECEIVING AND FILING AN UPDATE OF FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS EFFECTING THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. NOTHING TO MOVE FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE THE PUBLIC
HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE WITH THE VICE CHAIR COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE IS BRINGING FORWARD THREE ITEMS. THE FIRST IS ACCEPTING A FOURTH
JUDICIAL DRUG COURT GRANT AWARD FOR RESEARCH AND MONITORING SUPPORT. TWO IS AMENDING THE GRANT PERIOD FOR THE PROMISING PRACTICES PROGRAM FOR CULTURALLY SPECIFIC FAMILY HOME VISITING SERVICES. THREE IS APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON
POLICE OVERSIGHT. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, WITH THAT, WE CONCLUDE ALL BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE COMMITTEE TODAY. HEARING NO OBJECTION, I WILL DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.