Minneapolis City Council — Transcript
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Charter Amendments Overview and History
Proposed Changes to Civil Service Commission and Workers' Rights
Mayoral Appointment Authority and Council Oversight
Meeting Process and Public Participation
Votes (2)
Referral of Technical Amendments to Working Group
Dissent: Commissioners DeMello, Schneider, and Doughty voted against the amended motion to refer technical amendments back.
Moved by Commissioner Kozak [1:21:44] (as an amendment to Commissioner Doughty's motion) · Seconded by Commissioner Boone [1:22:20]
The commission debated whether to send a package of 'technical amendments' back to a working group for further review. Public and union representatives raised significant concerns that these seemingly technical changes had profound implications for workers' rights, civil service protections, and union representation, accusing the process of lacking transparency and proper stakeholder engagement. The City Attorney clarified that the intent of these changes was simplification, not undermining existing systems. After an amendment to separate this from government structure changes, the commission voted to send the technical amendments back.
Referral of Government Structure Amendments to Working Group
Dissent: Commissioners DeMello, Schneider, Clegg, Smith, Perry, Kozak, and Ginder voted against referring the government structure amendment back to committee.
Moved by Commissioner Nye [1:39:53] · Seconded by Commissioner Prindle [1:40:02]
Following the decision on technical amendments, the commission debated whether to advance or refer back the government structure amendments (primarily concerning mayoral appointment authority). Arguments for moving forward emphasized years of prior work and ongoing governmental dysfunction, while those for referral cited overwhelming public opposition, the City Council's request for more time, and concerns about democratic checks and balances. The tight deadline for ballot placement and the lack of a mayoral election in the immediate future influenced the discussion.
Notable Quotes (6)
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 determine It seems like it most of those changes are stand-alone. 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?
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.
The changes to the Civil Service Commission provisions are intended to simplify a level of detail that's quite extensive... 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.
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.
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 they're 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...
The purpose of the charter am- uh commission. The purpose of the charter commission is to create permanence, not to deal with immediate personality issues.
Ordinances & Resolutions (13)
The foundational document of the city, subject to proposed amendments for clarity, modernization, and governmental structure.
A rewritten version of the City Charter, adopted in 2021, to make it more understandable to the public.
A governmental structure adopted in 2021, now being further refined and potentially codified in the charter.
Proposed changes to the charter concerning the structure of city administration, executive officers, and department head appointments.
Proposed administrative and technical changes to the charter, which became a point of contention due to perceived impact on workers' rights.
Current legal framework defining the city's government structure (three executive officers and department heads), which is proposed to be moved into the charter.
Law classifying recordings and broadcasts of public hearings as public data.
The wording presented to voters for proposed charter amendments, criticized for being vague and confusing.
Submitted to the Charter Commission opposing changes to the Civil Service Commission.
Cited as an example of mayoral backroom decision-making by a public commenter.
Report on the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) mentioned during public comment.
A physical copy of the rules was presented by a public commenter.
Requesting more time for the mayor and council to resolve issues regarding amendments.