Good afternoonand 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 6th, 2026.Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a friendly reminder reminder toall committee members, staff and the public that these meetings are broadcastlive to enable greater public participation.These broadcasts include real-time captioning is a further method toincrease the accessibility of our proceedings to the community.Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech sothat our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for thebroadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate thespeed and clarity of their comments. At this time, I'll ask the clerk to callthe roll so we can verify a quorum for this meeting.Commissioner DeMello. Present. Holquist.Present. Nye. Present. Schneider. Present. Brindle. Present.Doughty. Here. Cooper uh Boone.Present. Clegg. Here. Garcia. Present. Smith. Here.Cooper. Present. Perry. Here.Kozak. Here. Vice Chair Rubinstein. Present. Chair Ginder. Present. We have15 present. Let the record reflect we have a quorum.For the members of the public that are here for the public hearing and thatwish to address the commission, we ask you to register with the clerks to myright outside the door here. They've been taking names. So, if anybody wantsto speak who hasn't registered out there, please do so.Um you can also provide any written comments or materials to include in therecord. Commissioners, the agenda for today'smeeting is before us. May I please have a motion to adopt theagenda. So moved, Terry. Is there a second?Second, DeMello. We have a proper motion before us. Isthere any discussion? Seeing no discussion on the motion, allthose 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 regularmeeting and the April special meeting. May I please have a motion to acceptthose minutes. So moved, Rubenstein. So moved, Rubenstein.Second. Mr. Chair, would now be an appropriate time to suggest acorrection? Yes.Um so on page six of the minutes, uh I believe this would be for the April9th meeting. Uh uh on the last roll call of the motionfor uh adopting the I believe the umthe uhthe the charter uh question, it lists uh Cooper, DeMello, Doherty, and Prindle asabstaining, but I believe they voted no. Not abstain.Um If one of if they would confirm. Second.Confirm. Yep. Mr. Chair, that is that is correct. Thatis a clerical error uh with the roll call, but we can revise that umif that's the motion from Commissioner Knight.That is the motion. Um I think without any uhdiscussion that we can accept that that amendment and then uhmove forward with that correction in mind.So with that um we're still waiting then for a second on the corrected agenda.Flag. We have a second. Umand uh Is there any discussion on that?Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor say I to the corrected uhmotion. I. >> 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'sreport um is one go through briefly for thebenefit of members of the public as well as commissioners,uh a little bit of the history on how wegot here today with the with the items that are on the agenda.And I want to go back to more than 10 years ago whenthe Charter Commission proposed the plain language charter.Members will recall, and members of the public, the charter at that time wascomposed of a compendium of special laws that hadformed basis of the charter. This was special laws created by the the state ofMinnesota for the city in the 1920s. It was all put together and that became ourcharter. The charter then, throughout the years,proved to be one extremely large, uma lot of archaic language, um and uh it did notrender itself to being understandable by most members of the public.And so there was a lengthy process, probably about a 10-year process torewrite the charter into a plain language charter.Part of the discussion back then, and I was not on the charter then, was thatonce the plain language charter was adopted, then it would be easier forpeople to move forward with um amendments of the charter. And it wascontemplated that once we had the plain language charter, that amendments to thecharter would come forward. And umand after the that went in place uh in 2021,um with the modernized charter, the charter then moved forward againwith what became known as the executive mayorand legislative council method. And this reflected, umongoing history where that kind of a setup for the council andmayor had been proposed several times over the preceding decades and it hadhad not gone forward. Umthat went forward in 2021 and was passed.And for those who are members of the commission at that time, it was alsounderstood that once the executive mayor legislative councilwent into effect, that it would likely be necessary to have additionalamendments to play to make it workable.And so what we found after the amendment was passed,uh the mayor, then Mayor Frey, in 20, um 20, uh 1, 22,had a task group that was put together to say, "How do weimplement the strong mayor system?" And they came up with basically threeoptions. One included a deputy, uh mayor, one included deputy mayor andan administrative or chief officer, and the third one was kind of thecabinet structure, which became what was later on in 2024 passed as thegovernment 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, theCommissioner of Public Safety, the Commissioner of Operations, and the CityAttorney, and then the newstructure underneath them for all the department heads. So, after that was put into effect, thenfor the the Charter Commission became, "Okay, we have something. Is thissomething that now should be put in place permanentlyfor the city in the charter, not just an ordinance.One, the charter's harder to amend, but if you leave it in ordinance, everytime there's a change of administration, change of council, it's possible that bya 7-0 vote, if the mayor agrees, that this structure can change again.So, the idea is we have a structure that has beenimplemented by the council and the mayor back in 2024,um and we've decided to move forward withtrying 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 10years, 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 thatwere believed to be more administrative terms, sometimes we've used thistechnical. And so, we've had those two items moving on a parallel track. Um toto get to where we are today, which is we're getting ready to consider what, ifanything, should be put on the ballot for 2026. So,with that in mind, which is the preface for the part of thisum meeting, and for the public hearing, I'm also just giving a heads-up for thecommissioners, is at the conclusion of the public hearing,then I will be looking to us to decidehow do we want to go forward? Currently, we have uha combined government structure and technicalamendments uh amendment put together for theballot, or possible ballot. We also have separated out technical amendment andthe government structure amendment, either of which could go on the ballot,or could be sent to the council for a 13-0 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 howwe want to go forward. The second part of that is if we decidewhen we decide which way we want to move forward,then are there any amendments we want to make todayto 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 decided on that, then we'll have a special meetingscheduled to come back to look at the final language for bothballot questions or the transfer to the city council as well as suggested ballotlanguage. And um traditionallywe have prepared the charter commission or the chair has prepared a reportthat goes to the city council along with what the uh proposal that we send overthere that describeswhat um what we've done, how we got here, whatwe considered, that kind of thing. That's in preparation, but it won't befinal 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 ouragenda will be the public hearing. Um and Ican just kind of go through anybody who has signed up and again ifyou haven't signed up, it's outside the hall right now at to my right,uh will be given 2 minutes to testify and there's a clock over here that willdo that. Umand for everyone in attendance and especially those who will participate inour 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 theMinnesota Government Data Practices Act. By attending and participating in theseproceedings, your image and any testimony orinformation that you provide will also be subject to disclosure under that law.This includes, but is not limited to, your attendance, your name, and otherpersonal details that you may provide, as well as any testimony or comments youprovide, which includes any written submissionsyou 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 askthe city attorney um to just describe brieflyum how we separated this out at our last special meeting.We had just the combined government structure and amendments together withall revisions. And we asked her to go through and tryand separate those out. Um it's it's a challenging task whenyou're doing these together as opposed to doing them in ina serial fashion. So, um Ms. Neff, if you could just describebriefly what ended up in these two different um proposals. Yes, thank you, Chair Gender.Um to describe um how we ended up with these two different drafts, well, nowthree different drafts which are in front of you. The combined uh governmentstructure technical amendments, uh government structure and technicalamendments, is the the draft that was before you at your last meeting with thetwo changes that uh this body voted to add to it, namely the Public WorksDepartment and CPED Department. Um so that that document is familiar toyou. The less familiar documents are the twodocuments that separate the government structure provisions from the technicalprovisions. So, perhaps the easiest way for me to explain this is to just gothrough the government structure document and identify what is in it, andeverything else is in the technical amendments.Um So, you do have a a a draft in front ofyou that's labeled government structure amendments.And I'll just briefly identify the items that are in that um in that documentthat were identified as needing to go together to implement the two thingsthat um this body said should be in a government structure amendment document,namely the executive offices and then the department heads um and theirconfirmation process. And it that necessitates some other things that comealong with it in order to make the document cohesive.Um so, on the very first page of that, there are just two date corrections thatwe would need to do to bring the document um up-to-date and avoidconfusion. But then, the first place that you see asignificant amount of red is in article 4on page two, where there are provisions for removalof council members included here um and provisions for the removal of theauditor on the following um this three pages or so.And these are here because we need to keep all of the removal provisionstogether in a single uh draft package. Otherwise, if uh one of these packageswere 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 uhredlining. Uh 7.2 creates the executive officers,which is consistent with current ordinance and the current structure ofthe city. And then 7.3, beginning on the nextpage, provides for the administration, uh which includes police, fire, publicworks, and CPED. Public works and CPED being the twoadditions that this body voted for at your last meeting.Uh you'll see in 7.3 that there is a lot of uh strike through.This is because the city attorney was moved out of the middle of 7.2or 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 outof 7.2 and into a new section 7.4.So, this is organization um is what we're doing here in order to make 7.2about 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 themiddle of 7.2 and into their own section um for readability, really. Moving along to Article 8, 8.1 definesthe officers, as we need to do if we're then going to talk about executive andadministrative officers, so that's sort of the foundation for setting up theexecutive officers. In 8.2, you see uh quite a bit of strikethrough because provisions like term, tenure,and removal are now going to be provided for in 8.3and 8.4, which relate to the elected and the executive officers. So, again, thisis all It all kind of goes together. If we If we um amend 8.3 and 8.4, we needto amend 8.2 to make the package cohesive and avoid inconsistencies andgaps. 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, andother such provisions as that um as they relate to those two specific types ofofficers. And then finally, 8.5 establishes theadministrative officers, which are the non-executive officers.The rest of the draft, uh 8.6, is largely unchanged except for smalledits um that necessarily flow from the otherchanges to the earlier parts of 7 and 8. And then finally,uh Article 9 is attached, but only so that you can see that thereare no changes to it. All of the changes to Article 9 were not deemed to begovernment structure-related. They did not um necessarily need to be part ofthis 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 goingthrough 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 combineddocument. And uh with that, I'd be happy to takeany questions uh or um additional information if you wouldlike, Chair Gender. Are there any other questions offor uh Assistant City Attorney Naff? Thank you. Umand seeing no questions, then um I'm going to now open the publichearing. And so, I'm going to call your names offof the list that's been provided. Um I'm going to apologize up front if Imispronounce your names cuz I'm only getting a carbon of what was theoriginals, and some of this is kind of uhva- uh vague on it, so you'll have 2 minutes. The clerk has atimer over here. Um and if uhif you've already submitted comments, please be aware all of the writtencomments have been provided to all of the commissioners ahead of time, sowe've had an opportunity to to review comments.With that, the first And I will ask you as you come up to identify yourself, andidentify 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 nameis Lydia Boulder, and I am a Minne- Minneapolis resident from the Harrisonneighborhood in Ward 5. I am here today to speak about theproposed charter amendment regarding mayoral appointments.While I strongly oppose the substance of this amendment, which strips CityCouncil of its confirmation authority, my primary concern today is how thisproposal is being presented to the public.Specifically, I am deeply concerned about muddy ballot language. When we askMinneapolis voters to change the foundational document of our city,we owe them absolute clarity. Unfortunately, this proposal combinesseveral ideas into one confusing ballot question for voters to untangle.Let's be clear about what this amendment actually does. It eliminates afundamental checks check and balance. If this commission is going to advance ameasure that removes City Council's ability to vet and confirm the unelectedofficials 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 statewhat power is being taken away. I ask that if this moves forward, theballot question explicitly and plainly read, "Shall the Minneapolis CityCharter be amended to remove the City Council's authority to confirm themayor's department head appointments?" If proposed if proponents of thisamendment truly believe that eliminating legislative oversight is in the bestinterest of Minneapolis, they should not be afraid to say so plainly on theballot. If the language here has to be has to bewatered down or obscured in order to pass, it shouldn't be on the ballot inthe first place. I urge you to reject the amendmententirely, but if you do not, you have a duty to make the ballot languageexplicit, transparent, and honest. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Lindsey Silas.Good afternoon, Chair Gender, members of the commission. My name is LindseySilas. I'm a Minneapolis resident in Ward 8. I am a City of Minneapolisemployee, and I'm the president of MPEA. MPEA is the Minneapolis ProfessionalEmployees Association. We represent over 700 employees at the City of Minneapolisacross 300 different job titles. From accountants to forensic scientists tocity planners to administrative analysts to project coordinators and hundredsmore. Um I am here along with other reps of unions um represented by the Board ofBusiness Agents, and we have submitted um, a letter to the public record tooppose the changes to the Civil Service Commission that would strip thecommission 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 erodeworkers' rights for workers at the City of Minneapolis. Changes Changes wouldstrip workers of basic rights and protections against unfair treatment,would eliminate standards of just cause and appeal rights for discharge, wouldremove seniority protections, would remove basic rules for hiring andpromotion that ensure transparency and fairness, and would include anti-laborlanguage, and erode union representation for employees.I'm also opposed to any changes that remove council oversight of departmentheads. This is not just critical for public transparency, but it's alsocritical for workers to have an opportunity to come and speak inopposition to the reappointment of department heads if that department headhas been taking the department in a in a poor direction.Um, having having to report to council, to reportto the public, and to report to the their own employees and the unions thatrepresent those employees, those are critical oversight for department headsand keep those department heads accountable to not just the mayor, buteveryone else. Um, I implore you to reject these changes to the charter toprotect the rights of Minneapolis workers, keep the commission's authorityintact, and retain the council oversight of department heads. It's critical tohaving 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-Hay neighborhoodhere in Minneapolis. I'm giving my first ever public comment as a direct resultof my attendance of the April 9th special session of the CharterCommission meeting. When I left that meeting, I was kind ofconcerned that it felt like the makeup of this board wasn't necessarilyrepresentative of the demographics of the city, and it made me feel likedemocracy here in this particular setting only existed for privilegedpeople who have the opportunity to take the time off, who have child care tocome to a meeting at 4:00 p.m. in the middle of downtown Minneapolis. And tome, that feels very exclusionary, right? If people can't participate ingovernment, we have no real say in how the city is run or operated.To me, the rejection of moving this meeting to 6:00 p.m. felt like an adeliberate attempt to exclude working class of people's ability to makecomments 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 thesemeetings at 4:00 p.m., people who may not have PTO like I do to come to thesemeetings in the middle of the afternoon, people who can't have child care, peoplewho can't access transportation to come downtown. And to me, that meansparticipating in government is a privilege that people have, and I feellike it should be a right that people have here in this country.So, my demand here from the Charter Commission is to reject these amendmentsto limit City Council approval authority because, frankly, like we don't have theopportunity to give a whole lot of feedback if the meeting is at a timewhere most people cannot attend. So, my ask is to reject the proposedcombined amendments. Um and I'd like to thank you guys for kindof inspiring me to do my first public comment ever. I really appreciate havingthe opportunity, and I'm looking forward to making more comments in the future. Gwendolyn Page Hello, my name is Gwendolyn Page, and Iam a resident of Ward 4 here in Minneapolis.Um I would like to thank the commission for giving me the opportunity to speakum and I would like to voice my opposition to the government structureamendments question and the combined question.As citizens of this city, we rely upon our city council members as a necessarybridge between ourselves and the larger structure of city government. While Imay not always agree with the decisions that my city council member takes, Ialways feel confident that I can turn to her when I do need someone to be myvoice and my advocate inside of city government. By stripping her and othercity council members ability to weigh in on certain departmental headconfirmations, we are removing a necessary check that allows for voiceslike mine to be heard inside of our city government. I would truly ask in thistime where we are experiencing increasing amounts of authoritarianchange in our government that we reflect very critically on the changes thatwe're attempting to make here and ask ourselves if we're going to becomfortable with this kind of change when we have a different mayor, maybe amayor who isn't so progressive when it comes to things like civil liberties. Iask if we are going to be permanently okay with taking power away from notjust 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 amendmentquestion and the combined question that includes it because it takes away anecessary avenue for people like me to have a say in who runs my local citygovernment. Thank you again for your time today. I truly appreciate all ofyou and hope that you'll consider the things that you're hearing from thisvery full room here today. THANK YOU. DAN RICKLEY? IS THERE BEN RICKLEY OR RICHLEY? Next person looks like it's JonathanTurner. I'll keep this short. Uh my name isJonathan Turner. I'm the Local 49 business agent representing the publicworks 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 hereto support the letter the Minneapolis BoardBoard of Business Agents wrote to the Charter Commission and oppose theamendments, both of them. Thanks. Thank you. Next is looks like Tate Wynn. Hello, commissioners and members of thepublic. My name is Tate Wynn. I'm the secretary of the MinneapolisProfessional Employees Association representing over 700 city employees.Let me be clear, calling the proposed amendments to the Civil Commission astechnical is deeply misleading. These changes are sweeping and completelydismantle 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, weakeninganti-discrimination safeguards, and removing charter support for affirmativeaction. The amendment also sidelined laborrepresentation and create pathways to push workers out of union protectionaltogether. This is union busting in action. As a city employee and a Ward 12resident, I can say that there is no voter mandate for this. There has beenno meaningful engagement with Minneapolis residents or with theworkers most affected with these amendment proposed amendmentproposed amendment changes. There has been no transparency thatmatches the scale of what is being proposed. Labeling these changes astechnical is not inaccurate, it undermines public trust. On behalf ofMPA members, we strongly oppose these amendments and call on the commission towithdraw 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 Gallon Schaner. Thank you. I'm Stacy Gurian Sherman. I'ma Minneapolis resident in Ward 9. Thank you sincerely for the opportunityfor 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 arepure folly. I stand in opposition to them as does the city council with onein particular and with the previous speakers. They're ill-conceived, they'reill-timed, and especially I'm going to speak to the unilateral charteramendment which would give unilateral control to the mayor to appointspecified department heads without city council approval. This includes thecivil rights department. The timing of the proposed charter amendments couldnot come at a worse time. We see the daily drumbeat of the president as thehead of the executive branch of federal government choking off any semblance ofdemocracy. One day it's starting a war without mandated congressionalauthorization and the next day it's firing the 22-member board of theNational Science Board which oversees a $9 million National Science Foundationbudget. This is no time to be engaging infascist follies at the local level. No mayor should have these extendedunilateral powers. There should be no abrogation of the rights that areguaranteed in the charter. They fundamentally erode the checks andbalances in our democracy. And we certainly should not give these powersto this mayor. He has engaged in the fraud of backroom decision-making thathas been a travesty to both transparency and accountability. But one example, thepolice contract. Under state law, the public has the unfettered right toaccess and view these negotiations. Yet my organization, Minneapolis for abetter police contract, had to sue the city to enforce this right. Even after alandmark settlement, this mayor, right now, for the third time, is back inbackdoor closed mediation. If I could just finish my thought.We had an example of robust checks and balances on April 9th when the councilrejected Commissioner Barnatt 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 slopeand allow a precedent for further departments to be unilaterallyappointed. This is the time Could you prefer accountability of the executivebranch 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 2 minutes yet. Good afternoon, Commissioners andCommissioner President. My name is Michelle Gross. I'm the president ofCommunities United Against Police Brutality and we are here to express ourconcerns about the proposed charter change that would eliminate City Councilapproval of the proposed mayoral appointments for department heads.There's a long list of department heads that would not be getting any input fromthe City Council and thus no input from the community and that includes thepolice chief. We need to be able to have something tosay about who is going to police our city and it's unconscionable that youall would write such a ridiculous proposed change and even consider it.Community member input into our city government is by way of our electedrepresentatives. Removing them from the approval process removes the communityfrom the process. The selection of individuals to leaddepartments deeply impacts the quality of life for us and thus we have a say inwho does this work and by the way, I do live in Minneapolis Ward 7. Um, ourcommissioner suggests through social One commissioner rather suggested throughsocial media that the democratic process is somehow preserved through votingevery 4 years for the mayor. Voting is the lowest form of democraticinvolvement. Elections generally focus on a small range of issues, typicallyhot button type issues and they rarely include discussion of potentialappointments to important positions. So, giving us a chance to say somethingabout it every 4 years, not good enough. Rather than seeking to limit communityinput, the Charter Commission should be finding ways to encourage more communityinvolvement in our city government. You clearly see that people have interest inthis issue. Look at how many people took off of work to come here at 4:00 in theafternoon at a time of a working day when youcould have had this meeting at a time when more people could even show up.You know, we questioned why a public hearing on such an important matterwould be held at 4:00 in the afternoon, and we see it as yet another attack onthe involvement of the community. I urge you again to reject the proposedamendment that would limit the ability of the City Council to have input, andthus the community to have input on these appointments. Thank you. THANKYOU. NEXT IS JOHN ELWARD. I live inI think it's Ward 12, Longfellow neighborhood,and I'm not sure you guys are probably all Minneapolisresidents, too. I'm not sure of that, butI 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 havenever come clean on We had a strike last couple summers ago,and they never come and talk to us about it. That's what I don't want. IEngage with us. Make this a better place.I strive every day to make this a better city, planting trees, picking upgarbage, being nice to people on the street.Give us a say. Respect us. Thank you. THANK YOU. ANDTHE NEXT IS IT'S ON A NEW SHEET. It's number one,Lizzie Palmer. Hello, my name is Lizzie Palmer. I'mwith Twin Cities Coalition for Justice. I live in Ward 6.Autocracy is defined as a government in which one person possesses unlimitedpower. It is the antithesis of democracy and the will of the people.It is fundamentally undemocratic for the mayor to be the sole appointingauthority for department leadership. This consolidation of power will onlyharm our residents. We see the danger of this model in themayor's management of MPD. The recent 4-hour audit report revealeda staggering pattern of negligence under the leadership of Brian O'Hara, ToddBarnette, and Jacob Frey. And shows how they failed Davis Montureand Allison Luverne. In the case of Allison Luverne, MPD failed to securethe crime scene, failed to collect evidence, and ruled her death anoverdose despite an autopsy showing a subdural hematoma.They didn't even bother to request the medical examiner's report until anauditor did it for them 2 years too late.In his 8 years as mayor, Jacob Frey has held sole control over MPD.Under his watch, the department murdered George Floyd and Amir Locke,racked up two consent decrees, ignored the pleas of Davis Monture, AllisonLuverne, and Amir Samuels, and violated the city's own separation ordinance.Yet, there is no accountability. Mark Hanneman, who killed Amir Locke, wasrewarded with a lead training position and only moved to a wellness unit afterpublic outrage. Michael Harteau, the investigator whorefused to cooperate with the city's own audit, was allowed an early retirement.And Chief O'Hara remains in his in his position despite the auditor'sfinding of misleading public statements. This is the fate that awaits every othercity department if the mayor is allowed to consolidate this power. Minneapolishas no desire for kings nor tyrants. Just as we have fought for communitycontrol of the police, we demand that the mayor not be granted more controlover our city's departments. Jacob Frey serves the people, not the other wayaround. We demand that you reject this attemptto centralize power and protect the democratic checks and balances our citydeserves. THANK YOU. NEXT IS NUMBER TWO ON THE LIST. IT'SBarack Balolian. All right, good afternoon,commissioners. My name is Barack Balolian and I'm an at-large boardmember 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 amendmentsproposed to the Charter Commission. These changes that would removewell-established standards So, excuse me. These amendments, ifadopted, would have substantially reduced the oversight and authority ofthe Civil Service Commission. These changes that would removewell-established standards such as just cause and appeal rights, affirmativeaction, and prohibiting labor representativesfrom 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 rejectthese changes as these amendments would erode public trust and eliminate theimportant role of the Civil Service Commission in upholding equitable andfair hiring practices at the city. Thank you. The next person on the list numberthree, Josh Martin. Good afternoon, Chair Gender and membersof the Commission. My name is Josh Martin and I live in the Kingfieldneighborhood in Ward 8. I am here to speak against the proposed amendments toreduce the City Council's confirmation authority over department heads.It is critical that the City Council retains this important check onexecutive power. It is a common sense provision that is also found in manyother 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 trusttheir council members to serve as their voice. The role of the council inconfirming department heads is another important part of this representationalrole. I would also urge the Commission to puton its docket for future years ideas to clarify the confirmation process asissues surrounding a recent appointment have led to a bit of a constitutionalcrisis for the city. Finally, I also support the concernsraised by the hardworking city employees who spoke here today and urge theCommission to reconsider the proposed changes to the civil service provisions.Thank you for your time. THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE LIST IS NUMBER FOUR, JIMMICHAELS. Good afternoon, Chair Gender members ofthe Commission. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jim Michaels.I'm a labor attorney. I represent uh half a dozen of the unions uh thatrepresent city of Minneapolis employees. The unions that I represent constituteabout 40% of the city's total workforce. I'm here today to speak uh regarding theso-called technical amendment package. Um I'm going to try to not repeat whatothers have already said and what's in the letter from the Board of BusinessAgents, 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 100 years to first of all establish andthen maintain a merit-based system by which we hire and keep and in the eventof it's necessary discharge our city employees.The proposed amendments would radically change the scope and authority of thecommission. It would change its role, it would change its authority, and it wouldchange the criteria by which people are eligible to serve on the Civil ServiceCommission. In fact, if adopted, the proposed amendment would require onecurrent commissioner to be removed. There is no good public policy reasonfor 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 uhprovision from the Civil Service Commission and the two uh uh provisionsrelating to the fire department that address the rights of employees andmanagement staff. Uh strip those out from the technicalpackage. If it's necessary to pass the rest of the package, so be it. But thisis no time for all the reasons that we've already heard to be tinkering witha merit-based system and the commission that has existed for 100 years tooversee and protect it. Thank you. Thank you. NEXT IS NUMBER FIVE, CONNOR WELLS. AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. Ummy name is Connor Wells. I'm a Ward 1 member and representing CommunitiesUnited Against Police Brutality. Just echo a couple things said by otherpeople as well. The time of this is not appropriate at all. People are at work.Um doing this is not fair when we're democratic. Um this in the future shouldbe adjusted and should be condemned by everyone here who's participating. Butto go beyond that, I have some issues as well with the report um that was used totalk about the shifting of this government structure. There are severalreally bad form elements in this report. Uh one of which being the weaponizationof BIPOC communities to say that this more authoritarian structure wouldactually possibly I find this entirely inappropriate. Thattokenizing black and brown people in order to push for more centralized poweris 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 wardmember 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 ofthe interest of these communities? Beyond that, calling this modernizingefficiency as progressive when it's actually anti-democratic, I think ispoor framing as well. So, there's multiple other issues that need to bepaid attention to such as that. Individual wards have their own uniqueissues and the ability for ward members to have a dedicated space to voice thoseissues, for that to be funneled through a council member, is necessary to payattention to throughout and between these election cycles. The key instancesin which appointees engage in misconduct, engage in improper action,all of that. This is super, super essential, and avoiding that, to me, isavoiding democracy and its useful mechanisms available to us. To say that this is an inefficiency ismissing 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 thatefficiency does not come at the benefit and the consideration of everybodyinvolved, that is not good efficiency, that is authoritarianism. Thank you.THANK YOU. NUMBER SIX, LAUREN GEORGE. HELLO, I'M Lauren George. I'm a CentralMinneapolis resident of Ward 5, and I'm a volunteer with Communities UnitedAgainst Police Brutality. Um elections are aninsufficient democratic check. First, a direct and important part of thedemocratic process is having public input regarding important positions.A four-year election cycle can Sorry, four-year election cyclecampaigns are filled with hot-button issues that are most pressing to thegeneral public, but rarely are the mayoral appointees part of thatconversation. 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 animportant check on executive power. It's suspicious that anyone would consider toeliminate it. The problem with concentrated influenceis centralizing power allows appointees to be lesstransparent and reduces ideological diversity within a department orinstitution, often creating a certain uniformity which makes it lessresponsive to desires for systemic reform. Something that the public expectexpects to improve our city. Allocating power under a singlepersonality means that should a mayoral candidate acthostile or ambivalent toward particular communities or efforts,the institutional power doesn't have a sufficient way to direct or check saidinfluence due to its robust nature. Thank you.THANK YOU. NEXT IS NUMBER SEVEN, A.J. LANG. THANK YOU, Chair Gender. My name is A.J.Lang. I'm the business manager with Laborers Local 363. We're a unionrepresenting nearly a thousand public workers in Minneapolis.Uh you're currently considering a series of amendments to the charter that betraythe core principles of the civil service system.These proposed changes would strip the Civil Service Commissionof its authority to provide oversight to the Department of Human Resources. Itwould take away its a power power to adopt and enforce rules that protectemployees from unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory treatment.It creates a potential for workers to be deprived of their union rights, removesjust cause and appeal rights, and it dilutes the city's long-standingcommitment 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-union languagethat would bar union representatives from serving on the Civil ServiceCommission. If adopted, these changes would lowerstandards for all workers. These are not technical amendments aspeople have pointed out, they don't modernizeor simplify the charter. These are reckless, anti-worker,anti-union amendments that reduce the transparency and accountability of thecity. You've got nearly 10 pages of deletionsand insertions pertaining to the civil service alone.Yet, you have half a sentence, seven words, I believe, in your ballotlanguage that's being proposed. There's no need or justification forremoving council confirmation powers or removing oversight authority of theCivil Service Commission. This demand to operate with impunityis alarming. We can see the attacks on workers andour democracy at the federal level, and we see that they're wrong. Well, they'rewrong here, too. The Charter Commission, I'll remind you,holds the city charter in trust for the people of the city of Minneapolis. Andany 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. NUMBER EIGHT,NUMBER EIGHT, HEATHER SILSBEE. HI, I'm Heather Silsbee, and I live inthe West Maka Ska neighborhood of Ward 7.I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed government structure alignmentcharter amendment, which reduces the power of the City Council and increasesthe power of the mayor. First, the proposed ballot language foramendment is incredibly vague and technical, which will likely misleadvoters into thinking they are voting for something unimportant, which is not thecase. Second, the portion of the new amendmentthat reduces the number of city department heads the city council getsto confirm by vote is inherently anti-democratic. City council membersare elected by and accountable to each of the city's 13 wards, which areracially and economically diverse and have unique needs and priorities. All ofthese perspectives deserve to be heard and considered when selecting theleaders of crucial city departments. By contrast, the mayor is elected by acitywide vote. In local elections, either the first or second highestnumber of votes for mayor consistently comes from Ward 13, which also has thehighest 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 themore racially and economically diverse areas of the city and giving it to SouthMinneapolis residents who already have many advantages in our political system.Any imagined benefits of this amendment are not worth those cost. This amendmentshould not be forward. Thank you. NUMBER NINE IS WILLIAM SCHROYER. HI, I'm William Schroyer. I'm a 50-yearresident of Minneapolis Phillips neighborhood,Longfellow Hall, and I'm a I campaign for people that are runningfor office, and I also care about the civil service rules. This is my olddog-eared copy of the civil service rules, and I'll point out some of theprincipal things on the purpose provide fair treatment of applicants andemployees in all aspects of human resourcewithout regard to age, ancestry, color, creed, disability, familiar status,gender, pregnancy, genetic information, sex, marital status, national origin,race, religion, sexual orientation. It provides for an objective non-biasedevaluation of and classification of jobs.It's to enhance the existing employees in their chance to develop new jobskills. Um there's I don't know 18 people here. I mean, wouldn't 18 peoplebe smarter than one guy or one woman? So, this is a move backwards away fromdemocracy and we'll see what that does on the national level. Minneapolisreally was an inspiration to people around the world actually.And that was something that we still get credit for. We deserve it for standingup. 200,000 people at at protest in the middle of winter or at the statecapital. I mean, this is undemocratic. We do not need touh 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 ONEIS JANET CORCELIUS. GREETINGS. My name is Janet Corcelius.I work in Minneapolis and I am a member of OPEIU Local 12 and a delegate to theMinneapolis Regional Labor Federation. I just came back from a 20-day tour inEurope talking to different trade unions in France, Switzerland, and theNetherlands. Many of which were so proud of the work that we did during OperationMetro Surge. I'm here to speak against the amendmentsproposed by to the city charter. This is anti-union. This is unionbusting. This is compliance with a fascistauthoritarian federal government. And I'm disgusted and disheartened thatyou all would think to do this to our union brothers and sisters.As a union organizer, I stood on the picket lines with LiUNA363. People who work tirelesslyto 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 LiUNA363. It's going to hurt 15 other local unions and who are public servantsand 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 as number two is Rachel. Hi, my name is Rachel. I am aMinneapolis resident born and raised. I work for public works. I'm also a unionsteward and auditor. I'm going to make it short and sweet. Um, I feel likegiving that man more control when he has proved to us what he has done alreadydoesn't make sense. And to remove some of the rules that protects us asemployees and as a African-American woman andbeing a minority, I feel like taking those away really makes me feel unsafeat my job now. Like, who's really out here protecting us when we need theprotection when we're taking away wording and all the stuff that we needand it's already kind of hard for some of us on this job and we come in 6 daysa week, 12-hour shifts and now it's like we don't matter. But, we do the gruntwork. We deserve our council to be in charge. We shouldn't just give the powerto one person. And I feel like you I'm not feeling I hope all of you guysstand with us and don't pass this and make the wording better for people whenthey come to vote so they truly understand what they're voting for. Cuzlike I think I don't know if it was the lady or the man. It's seven words onthere that's not actually describing all of the things you are trying to takeaway. So, please think about the workers, the union people, the peoplethat are here every day, the people who don't have time to come down here allthe time to take off work because they don't have the child care, they don'thave a way here. Also, it's so many people in the overflow room and in thehallway that can't actually come in here and be seen and be heard. So, pleaseplease take us into consideration. We deserve that. We deserve that. We comein, we do everything with Without us Where where where where would the citybe? Please stand with us and do right by us for a change. THANK YOU. NEXT PERSON ON THE LIST IS ChelseaGarbett. Good evening, commissioners. My name isChelsea Garbett Gabby. I am the president at the Minneapolis RegionalLabor Federation of the AFL-CIO, and we represent all of the union membersthroughout this great city, including many of the public workers who you gotto hear from tonight. I'm not going to be reiterating any of the points. Youreceived a very well-outlined letter that is discussing some of the morechallenging aspects of these amendments that we are encouraging you toreject here at your meeting and in your deliberations. I hope you listen to thevoices of those frontline workers. I'm so glad you got to hear them cuz that ispretty powerful walking through them. We do know here at the city our unions arecommitted to having robust discussions around labor relations and laborstandards, and they are more than willing to come and talk about all ofthese issues with you in those facilities in the in the capacities thatwe already have and exist and work on, and they would love to tackle what theintentions are of what this is, but this current charter amendment is not that.And this also will have implications beyond just theworkers who work in the city of Minneapolis. We are facing a changingeconomy and changing work all around us everywhere. So, we need to have a workervoice at the table whenever these discussions whenever these technicalamendments are being made and being discussed. So, I encourage you to rejectthese amendments and get back to the tablewith workers. Thank you. THERE IS NO ONE ELSE ON THE LIST, so umis 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 forcitizenship here in Minneapolis as a Minnesota state resident.I left my home, where I own property in Fairmont, West Virginia, to come hereand 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'sfootsteps. Not to drive cross country the way hedid, but to drive and work for the citizensin Minneapolis. I've been coming here since 2022. 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 myback? When I saw that this meeting was beingheld today, I had to come.How can I, as a newcomer, I don't even know what ward I'm stayingin Powderhorn. I signed up with a temporary ID addressfrom 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 youalready have working. And please support me in my quest tofind a job and to be a productive member of this community. Is there anyone else that would like toaddress the committee? Hello. My name is Mecca Johnson. I'velived in Minneapolis since I was 18 years old. I am 41 right now. I've beenworking for uh I've been working in the parks since2017. And often times I am working alone.I've lost track of how many times my shoulders I've gotten strained in myshoulders. My neck was sprained when I when a two when a 4 by 4 hit me in thehead. I've been rear-ended twice on the job by distracted drivers. Um onSunday I work in Southwest Lake Harriet Lake Harriet predominantly.And there was uh bowel movement all over the walls um in one of therestrooms that I cleaned up. And in another restroom I also cleaned upa b- you know a bowel movement from there.And I have I have co-workers that havecontracted hepatitis C. I've um been in a area where there was a 30-lbpipe bomb umand I've I've had co-workers that have beensprayed with piss or pee in water bottles. And I still in the morning whenI wake up I am excited to go to work. I love taking care ofparks. I love IT SO MUCH. AND I LOVE WORKING WITH theseco-workers, these people of Minneapolis. They bring me so much joy every day. AndI want to work for the city of Minneapolis in the parks for the rest ofmy 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 somethingthat people can vote on? That is so scary to me. That makes me feel thatmaybe instead of possibly retiring someday, that I'm just going to end uphomeless on the streets where who's going to take care of me? I haveso much empathy for people that I see that don't have homes. It just breaks myheart every day. And I just want somebody to take I want you guys to takecare of me and my co-workers and any one that's going to continue workinghere. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR LETTING USSPEAK. I'm Lisa Brew. I'm an engineer in public works. I also live in Ward 5.I have been trying to keep up with some of this in my spare time, but it iscomplicated. 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 rightsand the civil service commission. This is complicated. This cannot besummed up in seven words. When the city voted for a strong mayor,the voter turnout was was decent, but it's still not a large number of peoplewho knew what they were voting for. There is no mandate for this.People have not asked for more. People are already worried about theirrepresentation. We want to be able to be heard by our council members. We wantthat to mean something. When it's our boss who that who's being talked about,we want to be able to make public comments.Some of us have worked with these people before. We have experience with them.It's already hard to attract talent and keep talent. This is a very difficultenvironment to work in, but the people who show up here love it. We love ourneighbors. We want to make sure that our neighbors are represented as well. Iurge you to reconsider and not pass this amendment. Thank you. THANK YOU.ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? UhHi, my name's Paul Kirk David off. I'm a Ward 10 resident in Whittierneighborhood. I'm a executive board member of UFCW 663,which represents 14,000 grocery store workers, meat packingworkers, and other retail workers. I'll justadd my voice in support of whatever else here has been saying. UmUh Laborers 363 and the other city unions are great strong unions.I'm happy to stand beside them. You know, in grocery stores we dolots of work that ends up in I cut the steaks that, you know, peoplegrill in the parks that the people behind me then throw out take the trashout of. So, you know, circle of life and all that. So,uh yeah, I won't say anything more, but I'm I'm in support of these workers, andif it does get to the ballot, that's something that we would bringback to the I I bring back to the executive board to oppose formally. So,thanks. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH MY NAME IS ADELISACASASOLA. My friends call me Jules and I am a resident of a beautiful, diverse,loving community called Uptown in Ward 10.I am a teacher and a public citizen. I believe that we should have a role ingovernment 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'spolicies to veto bus lanes, to veto policies that would help the unhoused,to veto policies that reduce harm to those who are struggling with drugaddiction on our streets. I have seen uh Jacob Frey step in the way constantly ofmoving the city forward and yet the ward that I work in is Ward 9. That counselorhas been working to help our school, protect our schoolfrom 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 movedto Minneapolis from Houston not too long ago in the belief that this is ademocratic place in the belief that this is a loving place, it's diverse placewhere people are heard. I do not believe thatthese amendments help push that forward. Thank you.THANK YOU. AND FOR FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TESTIFIED ANDhaven't signed up, please make sure that you sign up so we have a record forthis. Umanyone else who would like to speak. Hello. Hello. Um I'm Abigail Anser. I'ma Metro Transit operator and I'm a member of ATU 1005. I just want to makesure that all of the unions are on the record who have come here to umspeak out against this um this this charterthis charter or whatever whatever it is. Umand I just uh want to say that I have absolutely no faith um in Jacob Frey asa leader to make decisions that would affect my co-workers or the public thatI serve on a daily basis. For example, one of his initiatives over the lastyear was to move uh buses off of Nicollet Mall and he tried to push thatthrough without doing the correct studies necessary to understand how orin getting the word out to help other people understand how that was going toaffect their daily workers. Workers who rely on transportationto take the who have to do transfers downtown and it's already tight andthey're already a big part of their day is a commute. Something that people whohave more money don't have to deal with. You know, you you get to work and you gohome. Well, this commute is a big part of your day and dealing with child care.And he didn't and and it continued on until one of my co-workers sued thecity. Now, he's backed off and we'll see what go what goes on, but I haveabsolutely no faith. I we do not want Jacob Frey making decisions that willaffect workers or the public or our jobs or anything to do with transit. Allright, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes tospeak? Anyone else? Seeing no one else wishes to speak, Iwill now I the public hearing. And as I do so, um I do want to extendto you our thanks and appreciation for those of you who have taken the time toshow up. We understand that it's an imposition. Um this is the time that weget from the city um to do this, uh but again, we understand that it's difficultand we appreciate the effort that you have made to come down and to testify infront of us today. So, thank you. With that, as I said, the public hearingis now closed. Um The next steps for the committeefor the commission are to consider where we go next. UmI had thought what I might do in light of the concerns that we've heard todayis open this up for a general discussion before we make motions. Because theintention of this is as we move through the evening is tomake a motion on how we want to proceed, what do wewant 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 atsome point to have a motion onputting, for example, the government structure on the ballot and then take umamendments to that or um if it's to put on theuh so-called technical amendment um to takeuh to have that motion come forward, takeany amendments that might be made to it. But I But before I move into that, I wasgoing to maybe start with a general discussion on thoughts that might helpmove us forward. So, with that, I see we have a number of hands up. Um I'll startwith Commissioner Clegg and then Commissioner Holquist.No? Okay, Commissioner Clegg. Thank you, Mr. Chair.I would uh like to ask and can put this in the form of a motionthe city attorney to review section 8.5 to determine It seems like it most ofthose changes are stand-alone. If we could revert section 8.5 dealingwith Civil Service Commission delete all the changes, restore the oldlanguage, and would that affect any other provisions in the document? Commissioner Go ahead, please. I'd like to go a little bit further thanthat. Given the public sentiment that has beenunanimously in favor of keeping the legislativefunction of the council to confirm appointments,there was a statement there was a statement made by the DFL atthe Minneapolis Convention suggesting that these amendmentsnot go forward. There was a letter we received today from the majority, greatmajority of the City Council, requesting more time for the mayor andthe council to work out a mutually acceptable resolution. And mostimportantly, the letter that we received from the unions pointing to substantivechanges that umreally importantly, the working group that worked on thisnever meant to make or address. It would seem to me that returning thisissue the whole issue, the amendments to theworking 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 tocement them into the charter, and that really is cementing them into thecharter, 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 thatwe move these amendments back to the working groupfor further work. COMMISSIONER KNIGHT. AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ANDCOMMISSIONER DOUGHERTY, I would second that motion when it is appropriate. UmI'd like to talk about process for a minute. I'mI'm a stickler for process and I've been on the this commission since2024, which I would say is probablyin the middle of when we started talking about changes to the charter. Now, I'vegotten copies of I hate seeing myself in the screen, so I'm I'm trying not tolook at myself. Excuse me.Uh UhSo, I've gotten copies that were purple, that were red, that were blue. Uhchanges that were stricken, that were stricken red, thatwere stricken purple, that were stricken blue.Um it really concerns me that I didn't know that we struck non-discriminationlanguage until I got a letter from a stakeholder group.That really concerns me. Now, maybe I didn't read as thorough asI should have, and that could very well be the case, but I remember asking in ain a work group meeting, "Will this impact workers?" And I wastold no. And that concerns me. So,I absolutely would support including including backall of the civil service language, but more importantly, I would I wouldsupport Commissioner Dougherty's motion when it comesto return this back to a working group where we can have, first of all, moreconstituent and more more public hearings and discussion. As somebody whoworks at the legislature, we should have more discussion on something that thisbig. Because from from what I heard today,um not only do people want to be heard, uh butbut we need to hear from them. And again, since I've been on thecouncil or commission since 2024, that's what I've been asking for. So, umI I'mI'm sorry that people are here worriedunnecessarily so. Um andI don't this is important, and I don't want to say unnecessarily so beingflippant. 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 I'm a process person,and this process this concerns me. So, thank you, Mr. Chair.Um we had Commissioner Perry Very veryshort. 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 Clegg made amotion, and I'm seconding it.Um Can I clarify?>> Y- Yes. I was not making a motion. I said I would make a motion>> Motion. a that's appropriate to do so. Right now we're just having discussion.Well, well, now my intent was to have some general discussion and then getinto the motion. So, I think next was um uh Commissioner Boone. 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 In- included in thissec- Right. >> Depending on which section you'relooking at. >> Okay. The red would be the changes.Um and the stri- the strikeouts are what was being removed.Okay. Thank you.Um Commissioner Garcia.Thank you, Chair Gender. Thank you, Chair Gender.Uh one thing I would like to say, Ico-chaired the government structure work groupwhen it put the issue on the ballot. And one piece of the appointment processwas we looked atat We interviewed department heads. We interviewed past council presidents andmayors. We did extensive research with other citiesum on other cities in a similar position, and we had public hearings.The origination of thatum of the government structure with the fivecreating the five um having the five positions appointed by the mayor andconfirmed by the council, what was happening before that with theold charter was that we couldn't getwell-qualified highly-qualifiedpeople to come and work and head these departments.That's not the answer. Don't try to justify it. ThatThat said Shame. Please, canCan Can we Can we just allow them to speak theuninterrupted? The one thing that the charter issupposed to do is outlive personalities, outlived the time and place. Andif we could have if we could have a council and a mayorwork together we could look at having a betterbetter coordination. But that is oneissue we found. Agree with it or not, we have, you know,everything online. That's one thing. The second thing isI really am agreeing with the timing of this.We have had so much stress and tension as a cityas a state on the federal level thatwe need My opinion is that we need to be mindfulof what trauma, what other stressors we'reputting on the city. Andif we have to take a rest on the government structurepiece andlook at it more or whatever it is we have to do,I would support that. Thirdly, I support um pulling back everychange around the civil service and completely re-looking at that.Um I think there were major issues inputting those changes forward. Um Commissioner Schneider.You're next. Yeah, uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I I'm going to make a shortcomment and then I I'm going to direct a question to the city attorney. Um so, Ias I've 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 amember of MPEA. I would not supportI would not support this if I did not understand that it has nomaterial impact on the authority and role of the Civil Service Commission,which as I understand it will continue to bedefined by the city charter,city ordinance, the commission's own rules, and mostimportantly, the dozens of labor contracts.So, am I I I guess my question to the city attorney is am I mistaken inunderstanding that this is not a technical committee amendment? I thoughtit was. That's what and and in the discussionswe've had prior, that has been my understanding. So,perhaps the city attorney could just comment briefly, and I know she didn'tdraft this, but the background and and I guessthe the the big question is um does this materially impact the authority and roleof the of Civil Service Commission? My understanding has been it is it doesnot. Go ahead.Commissioner City Attorney NAF.Hi Chair Ginder and Commissioners. The changes to the Civil ServiceCommission provisions are intended to simplify a level of detail that'squite extensive. Yeah, beyond that that is needed in acharter level document. But it does not change the fact that we have amerit-based system. It does not change the fact that the Civil ServiceCommission would be supervising and in charge of that system. It does notchange any of the labor agreements. So none of those things change. Let's see.I'm going to go to Commissioner Holquist. I'm going to change Thank youCommissioner Ginder. I'm going to change the subject just alittle bit but I don't want to go off subject of that. So we'll circle back.I just wanted to say I do support the statements that have been said so farabout especially from Commissioner Nye and Commissioner Doughty about sendingthis back to Government Committee. What Iwant to address that I don't think has been addressed by us yet is the timethat this meeting is held at and when it's held. I have problems making thismeeting often times and that has come up in emails before. Sometimes thesemeetings are scheduled 2 weeks in advance and I already have workcommitments. And so I think it's really challenging the way in which thisprocess is happening and the structures that are in place because we can't hearfrom people because we have these meetings at very explicit times and Iunderstand that this is when we are allowed to have meetings but I feel likethat's a broken process and when I pushed back on it via email to theclerk's office it has been said this is the time we're allowed to have meetingsand I don't think that's an appropriate response. And I also don't like thateven the commission members aren't allowed to say like aren't allowed tohave input of when meetings are. That is really challenging for us to be able toshift our schedules around especially at short notice for a committee forcommunity members to come. That's all. Commissioner Cooper.Thank you, chair. UmI would agree with uh Commissioner Dougherty's suggestion to umremand the the whole package to the work group for further discussion. I umyou know, I've I think I've said in a in several of our meetings before that umthe our role as the Charter Commission is tohold the charter in trust and to do that work. We have an important rolein it, but we do that work with our partners in on the City Council, withthe mayor, and with other stakeholders. Umand and we have those partnerships an important part to make sure that thework that we put on the ballot is understandable, is clear, and thatwe're doing a service um to the voters when we um when we putsomething on the ballot. Um and I I thinksending it back to the work group allows us to engage in the discussions that itsounds it sounds like we really need to have um and to do that additional workwith the City Council and with the unions and the other stakeholders.Thanks. UhCommissioner uh Trendel. Yes, uh I'd also like to speak in favorof um moving this moving the entire package back to committee. I think thatum you know, I I'm the newest member of theCharter Commission um and I came in knowing that the government structurepiece was going to be controversial. I didn't I didn't know that the portionsabout the Civil Service Commission were going to be controversial and it soundslike I wasn't the only one who didn't know that.You know, we are a volunteer group. I left work early to come here just likemost of the folks in the room. I don't think even with the best ofintentions, I don't think we are at a place where we're going to get any ofthese amendments in fit state to be put on the ballot in time for the deadlinefor this year. I also have concerns that in an election year where we haveeverybody in the city of Minneapolis has 12 or 13 substantive public offices tovote on as well as the judicial officesthat I don't want these very importantcharter amendments to get lost in the shuffle and I'm afraid thatas as the complexity of what's being proposed here becomes more and moreobvious, I I think it is it would be it would be detrimental to ask votersto make those decisions this year. So I uh I think we we need some more time andI think we need to put this back into the committee for for further work. Commissioner Palmisano Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.Um I've letI know that we have constraints of time. We have to move if we're going to putanything on the ballot this year, we have to move quickly.Uh from what I've heard today and uhfrom what I heard really just a few days ago,uh the first thing I would say, thetechnical amendments so-called uh are nowhere near ready to be uh submitted tothe to the public. So I think we should uh very quickly or as in a timely way aswe can, just put those aside. Uh they need ahell of a lot more discussion among uh not only folks out here, but uh whoevermight be in favor of these changes, and we haven't had that. So,when the time comes for motions, if someone else doesn't make it, I will saythe technical amendments we should deferuh for the whole year.Uh the other ones I have I have mixed feelings about, and I'm willing tolisten. Uh we have had extensive discussion. Idon't think process has been the problem with thegovernment structure amendments, because we have had considerable discussiongoing back to last year. So, I I think it's a open question. Uhit's thethe controversy is a lot simpler to understand.And I think we can all make some decisions, and I say that as someone whouh who added try to add, and we did add acouple of department heads to the list. So, and just so you know,uh the the the proposed amendment does noteliminate the council's uh prerogative for confirmation for allthe commissioners. I think I heard some people imply that today. That's not thecase. It's only uh it's only a commissioner'suh who uh are department heads who have been uhwho are appointed who report to somebody elseup the ladder. Uh they do not report directly to the mayor. They reportdirectly to the the COO or the head ofpublic safety, and that's where So,I think there's room for debate there, but for the other, I think we shouldjust defer it for a year for the technicalamendments and spend the time trying to figure outuh what to do there. Thank you. UmCommissioner Demel. Thank you, ChairGinder. Thank you, Chair Ginder. I would like toecho um Commissioner Schneider's remarks. As a woman of color, as adaughter of immigrants who have been not havethe privilege of being in a union as a lifelong city employee, former cityemployee, um and a public servant, I would not have supported anything that Ithought would hinder our workers' rights, the people who keep our parksrunning, our city clean, our water running.Um going through, spending countlessmonths, if not more, more like years, going throughuh these proposed amendments, I did not uhforesee or any challenges that would um impact our unions, our city employees'um ability to do their job in an a functional, safe working manner. Um but,I am in support of taking a pause, if need be,to revisit any of those proposed challenges or foreseeableum consequences that that this uh proposalcould 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'reconflating a bunch of issues, but time of this meeting, I again, I believe thisis like a completely separate issue than what's before us now. Umas someone that also has a day job and has to take time off work and has toplan in advance around attending these meetings. I'm totally in support ofpushing uh these meetings to 6:00 or later.Um just so we can have this as many people as we have today atevery charter commission meeting. I mean, that would be great. Um soI again, many many different issues being conflated here and I do want totake a pause and just parse things out more.Thank you. UmCommissioner Smith. First, I just wanted to thank all of thepeople in the audience for being here. You raise a lot of issues that I was notaware of before I came today. So, I appreciate hearing from you, taking thetime out of your busy lives to be here. That being said, when I came today, Ithought the hearing was going to be more aboutthe appointment of certain city officials and whether ornot they needed to be approved by the city council. We didn't really hear toomuch about that. A few people mentioned that. It was really more aboutthe Civil Service Commission and I can tell you that I have never heardor I've never been a part of a discussion on this commission whereanyone has ever suggested that we wanted to take rights away fromany city employees. And so, I guess I would echo what other people have saidthat I think we need to take a look at theseuh Civil Service changes. I know myself, I feel like I need some time to go homeand read them. I've kind of been looking at them, but I need to dedicate moretime to doing that. So, as far as the technical amendments go, Iguess I'm in complete agreement that we need to hold off on that. I do thinkthere's the other issue about some of the other changes, whether we want toproceed with those. I'm not necessarily opposed tomoving forward with the department head discussion, but uhmaybe we need to delay that, too. I guess I'm not sure about that. Commissioner Daughtry. Thank you. Just a couple of follow-upcomments on what people have said. And I'm going to start with a simpleone, the timing one. I'm not sure. I think I think ourmeetings are a little bit more difficult to change than the public hearing. Iknow the last time we had a public hearing scheduled, it ended up gettingcanceled, but it was scheduled for the evening. It was scheduled for I think6:30 in the evening. So, I think that is possible to do, and I hope we can dothat in the future in terms of public hearings.Uh in terms of the umdepartment heads being confirmed by the City Council, couple comments by that. Iheard way more than just a couple people say that they wanted thattaken 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 mayorThere's not a mayoral election. It's not like the mayor's going to be appointingor 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 isthe community safe the the department heads that are under the CommunitySafety Commissioner, the COO, uh the City Operations Officer, all themore reason that those get confirmed by the Council, becausethose folks aren't even elected. They're appointed by the mayor, and they areconfirmed by the council, but they're they would be then appointing departmentheads, and they haven't even been elected. So, it it just seemed And thenthe push that this is a strong mayor system, and the city voted on it. Theydid. They did vote on this. But, one of the things in the campaignfor the strong mayor system was, "Well, look at St. Paul. They have a strongmayor system. They're okay." You know, in St. Paul, right now, themayor nominates department heads, and the city council confirms them.It is a legislative function. It is a check and balance on the executivebranch. And I think, again, for us to go back, given all of the comments madetoday, and the letter from the city council saying they'd like a little moretime to work with the mayor on this, 11 out of the 13 city council membersasked for that. It seems to me it behooves usto not rush and try to put this on the ballot this year. UM I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT, AND THENI'M GOING to um open this up for possible motions.Um I wanted to uh do a couple of things. Um like manyof the members in the body that testifieduh today in front of us, um I was a union member myself for manyyears. I was also an attorney uh on thatrepresented management for a number of years, and had many dealings withthe attorney who drafted um the letter that we have in front of us today.And so, um there was nothing intended in any ofthese changes to the Civil Service Commission that would impact workers'rights. And I want to just touch briefly on thisbecause part of it is process. And I would like to point out that thefirst meeting on this that included these changes to the Civil ServiceCommission was October 31st, 2023.Since then, we've had literally, um, a couple of dozen meetings between theCharter Commission, the Charter Commission, the City Council, um, ourour government structure committees, our amendment review committees, in which wehave discussed this. At some of those meetings, myrecollection is business agents were present.And there was nothing was raised about thisuntil I heard about it last night. So, the changes that I viewed in this, andI'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 simplywrong. Some of them uh, misstate what is actually happening here.But I understand that for many people now, this is apparently the first timethey'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 tohave choices even if this were to pass, to go toCivil Service, to go to your labor contract, to go to veterans' preference,to have just cause, to have due process, to have Civil Service Commission draftrules. All of this was going to be the same. There are some small changes. Uh,I acknowledge that uh, the uh, um, affirmative action, equalopportunity one is is a big one for some people. Um,but the idea that, um, what what it what it means in practiceis a lot less than what it sounds like. Because the city can continue to recruitaffirmatively. Can recruit can continue to recruitaffirmatively under an equal opportunity method. At any rate, um I do want tonote that I'm sorry that you feel that this has been sprung upon you.Um and uhand so that I understand the need for further consideration on this.Um by the same token, uh moving to the government structure,we have had this we've worked hard on this for 2 and 1/2 years. We've hadmeetings with the city council uh number of times. I see members of thecity council are here and for a long time there was no responserespectfully from the city council when we asked for comments on this. We had tocome back after about a year of time to ask again, what were theconcerns 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 amendmentsum because if we do table this, then uh or move it back to committee, thenwe understand that we're not likely to get anything on the ballot this year.And um right now there's not an electionscheduled next year, but there's certainly a possibility uh with theSenate races and the governor races that there would be a special election.So, with that, um are there motions to be made?Chair Ginder, excuse me. II wanted to add one thing that I didn't speak to in my comments. Okay. And thatand I hope I don't open it up for everybody. UmI am not comfortable, just for the record, having only onepublic hearing and then moving forward. I'm not comfortable having a publichearing downtown. We need more than one public hearing, differenttimes of the day, in different parts of the city.Thank you. Sure.Let's let's Commissioner Daughtry. Yep.I'm ready for motion. Based on everything that's been said, umincluding that suggestion that more public hearings are needed for all ofthis, I move that the government structure and technical amendments withall revisions besent back to the working group for uh for more work. Now, I second. Is there any discussion?Commissioner Kozak. UmMr. Chairman, just in the interest of uh clarity,giving everybody a chance to uh uhto vote this to vote uh different options, I'd like to amend CommissionerDaughtry's and move the technical amendments backto committee as as she as she suggests, but uhuh keep the government structure amendmentkeep that uh at least temporarily alive, how however we we would do that.That would be my uh Please.Um members of the audience, please. Is there a second to that a motion to thatmotion? Second. Second. Is there discussion? Can I ask a question? Umokay, I feel comfortable voting on them separately of going back to committee.So, like sending technical I guessI'll propose a third motion. Perfect. Can't do that yet. Perfect. Uhcan I ask a question about uh the government structure if we were to keepthat, 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? Itwould be a no. It would right. So then like do we just start over? Yes. Okay. I'm aI'm going to go back to the author of the original amendmentand maybe consider as a friendly amendment, would you wish to move theseseparately? No, I don't consider that friendly amendment. Okay. Then we'restill discussion on Commissioner Kozak's amendment to the original amendment.Any discussion on that? Commissioner Cooper.Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I'd oppose the amendment to the amendment. I think thatwhile the city attorney did great work toseparate the two packages, I think there areuh there are elements of the technicalpackage that are substantive and there are elements of the government structurepackage that do interact in you know when you look at the wholeecosystem of the of the organization of city government,the two packages do interact with each other and I think that we'd be betterserved and we'd do better work and we'd put out a better product at the end ifwe work on the whole package and we have continued discussions with allstakeholders, city council, the mayor's office,the unions and and and voters and have have additionalconversations with with the public. So I'd I'd oppose the amendment to theamendment. Thanks. Any other Any other discussion on Kozak motion toamend the original motion? Commissioner Holquist.I would support um that amend that Com- Commissioner Kozak umI think that we've been sitting with this for 2 years now. Um we have gone incircles with the mayor's office. We have gone in circles with the uh council. Umwe have had studies done. Um I think I agree. I think there should uh be moreopportunity for public comment. I do think that the opportunity for publiccomment can happen through a ballot process. Um and actually quite a lot ofpublic comment can happen through an amendment. UmI think that we would be I like I I agree that we should changethe amendment structure like how it's written to make it more clear about whatthere people are actually voting for. But I do think this circle of process ofgoing to council and mayor's office isn't working right now. And so givingit to the people to vote for and if they say no, great. If they say yes, okay.Any further discussion? Uh Commissioner Brendel.Yes. Uh I would oppose the the motion umto uh move the government structure amendments forward.Um I understand the point that for better or for worsethere 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 uh on the governmentstructure amendment uh within this within this body. But I still feel thatwe have not gotten sufficient input from the public. Uh the public the input thatwe have gotten is almost uniformly uh opposed uh to these changes uh and youknow, really questioning the urgency uh behind it. We have again, we've heardthe letter we received the letter from the city council. The vast thesupermajority of the city council wants to be able to have more of a role inthis discussion and and have a constructive discussion with the mayorabout this. I also feel that there are some of these technical amendments thatcould potentially move forward uh by ordinance through the council. Ithink the council has expressed an openness to some of the more purelytruly technical amendments and to have a pending ballot question inNovember would potentially inhibit them frommaking changes in the meantime because they wouldn't be sure how the languagewould interact and so I think it's a much simpler process to take it all backand really give it give every piece of ofwhat's being proposed here subject matter by subject matter dueconsideration. Commissioner De MeloThank you. So I I just need some clarification. I'm all about having asecond public hearing maybe hopefully at 6:00 p.m. or a different time.I want to acknowledge that you know, I I feel like some wards have been underrepresented in this dialogue. So that's justsomething I've I'm very I feel very strongly about. But my question is if wehad another public hearing is this going to delay us more from having any type ofmovement on the ballot?Because I don't want to delay this further given that we have spent overtwo years talking about this issue and now all of a sudden there is some typeof miscommunication being relayed to the public and to theunions about what this proposal does in terms of like employment contracts civilservice activity and all that stuff. UmCommissioner um I'm not sure when we would get anotherpublic hearing scheduled that depends on what's available for the clerk's office.Um as a practical matter probably the latestwe could send something over to the council would bethe first week in June. Um so that would encompass havinganother public hearing and also then for example, on if thisif the Kozak amendment went forward where the technical would beum umput back to a committee and the government structure would be alive, wewould still have to schedule probably a special meeting as well as withconjunction with thepublic hearing and then still come forward then with a finalhearing that would make sure that all the any amendmentsthat were captured as well as the preparation of our typical report thatgoes 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 uhCommissioner Smith. I just wanted to comment that I agreewith Commissioner Kozak, but I would suggest that we proceed withCommissioner Daughtry's motion as stated. I probably will voteagainst it um just because I would like to see itbroken up, but if it passes, it resolves the issues. If not, then we could goback and entertain another motion to to do something else. Commissioner Perry. Yep. Uh I just wantto say that Commissioner Holquist's 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 I'm in my third term.I know at least two of these I have been working on this government structureissue. Um and a great deal of work has goneinto it. I do want to seethe technical spot the technical issues separated out or what is being calledtechnical is not technical, but uh the civil service separated out,but I think we can go forward with the government structure amendment, and so Iwill be voting against the uh uh Daughertymotion and for the Kozak motion. Commissioner Daugherty. Thank you. Thank you for uh thank you,Mr. Chair. All of these comments umare meant, you know, from people'suh 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 senator, weall 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 usfor more time, that we give them that more time, because there isn't a mayoralelection. 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 isdetrimental. Thank you. Commissioner Kozak.Uh I would just add uh Mr. Chairman that uhif in fact the decision is uh to go forward at least with the uhuh, more discussion on the uh, government structure.That uh, today we uh,someone makes a motion to have another public hearing. So, just toshorten the the time to prepare, and that the hearing should actually beoff-site and in the evening. And we've done that before. We did it with uh,reapportionment the last uh, several times in the last uhtwo reapportionments. So, that's possible. Uh, that's all I would say.Otherwise, I just think we should vote and let everybody uh, have their say.Um, Commissioner Knight. Just a a point of information for ourfriends in the audience. When do we have to have this settled for it to go on theballot? Um,Commissioner Knight, as I said earlier, I think our last availability would beprobably the first week of June. Um, to get it over to the council,council would then refer it to committee. Committee would have its ownum, process. It would get then come back upto um the full council. And the council, whenit gets sent to the council, remember what the council does is they get totake a look at the bag the ballot language that we suggest, and they'rethe ones that approve or write the ballot language. So, that's what it getssent over there for. And so, then uh, they go through their whatever it betwo, four, six-week process. Uh, and thenthen they would refer it over to the county for placement on the on on theballot. But, roughly counting back, I think it's the first week in Junebecause it has to be over to the county, andI don't know the specific date in August.So, we would need to finish uh, we would need to have the the publichearing by the first week in June. Mhm. It we would have to have everythingpretty 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 hearingby Memorial Day. Before. To have to give the city attorney time to put everythingthat we do together.>> Yes, yes. Okay. >> That's a rough rough rough timeline.>> Thank you. Um Commissioner Clegg. I was just going to say I'm urging us toproceed to a vote. I think we're starting to repeat ourselves and I thinkeveryone knows which side with the motion they're on. Okay. I think withthat we'll consider that as a motion to call the question. Umand so we're back to the Kozak motion Which is the amendment to the originalmotion of the Kozak motion have the umtechnical amendment moved back to a committee and to move forward with thegovernment structure um uhballot language. And with that I'll have the clerk callthe roll. All those in favor of the Kozak motion.>> Mr. Chair, just to clarify uh the motion as I caught it was to refer back totechnical amendments to the work group. It was not to forward or approve. It wasjust to keep the government structure onein the process. So, is that um correct, Mr. Kozak Commissioner Kozak?Yes. Okay, thank you. So, so what is the The motion is to refer the technicalamendment 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 government government structure, we mean theappointments specifically. >> yes.The executive committee um excuse me, the executive officers and thedepartment head appointments. Commissioner DeMelo.Aye to the Kozak motion. Could we Could I think we're still confused.>> Are there Is there still some left?yeah. I thought the motion was Mr. Daugherty's motion. This is the this isthe Kozak motion Kozak amendment to the Daugherty motion we're voting on first.If that fails then we go back to the original Daugherty motion.And remind us what the Kozak motion is. The Kozak motion is to refer technicalamendment back to committee and to leave the government structureamendment alone to to continue to move forward.Is that what I understand Commissioner Kozak?That's correct. Okay. So to clarify so all membersunderstand what they're voting on. And and the Mr. Chairman uhto move the government structure amendment forward does not mean peoplesupport it. It just means the process continues and the debate that debatecontinues. Correct. I wanted to clarify what Commissioner Kozak just said. Themotion we captured over here was to refer back the entire packet of quoteunquote technical amendments to the working group to separate out thequestion of appointments and leave that on the table.No decision on what to do with it. Further amendment needed or furthermotion needed on that piece. Is that clear to everyone? Call the roll.That's that's clear Mr. Clerk if you call theroll. Commissioner DeMello. I.Holquist. I. Nye. No. Schneider. No. Prindle. No.Daugherty. No. Boon. I. Clegg. I. Garcia.I. Smith. I.Cooper. No. Perry.I. Kozak.Aye. Vice Chair Rubenstein? Aye. Chair Ginder? Aye. We have 10 ayes and fivenays. That motion passes. So, um Mr. Clark, now do we need touh vote on the full as amended? Mr. Chair, the current motion isDaughtry's motion uh touh as amended by by Kozak, so umOkay. If there'sWe now have in front of us is the original Daughtrymotion as amended. So, what you're voting on now will be this amendedmotion, which is that we're moving the technicalamendments back to committee, and we will are leaving the um governmentstructure 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. No.Th- There's no There's nothing that we're moving on. He's moved He's movedHe's moved the amendment to your motion. So, now we're back to your motion asamended. >> So, my motion as amended is to movemy my motion is to move both back. Yes. Now, it's been amended, so the questionBut we just So, the question >> his amendment. Now we have to vote onit. It is is your amended motion. So, the amended motion is simply to justmove the one Yeah. half of this back, rather than the whole thing. That'scorrect. So, With that,Clerk, now call on the amended motion. So,Commissioner DeMello. Just DeMello. Commissioner DeMello on theamended Nay.Holquist. Aye.Nay. Yes. Schneider. No.Brendel. Uh yes.Doughty. No.Boon. Aye.Clark uh Clark. Aye. Garcia. Aye.Smith. Aye. Cooper.Aye. Perry. Aye.Kozak. Aye. Vice Chair Rubinstein. Aye.Chair Ginder. Aye. We have 12 ayes and three nays.That motion carries. So, the technical amendments has beensent back to committee. Now, we still have to decide what we'regoing to do with with anything with the government structure.So, government structure now we have to decide are we going to move itforward, put it on the ballot? We could decide not to put it on theballot. We could amend it. Or we can decide if you wanted to evensend it to city council. So, there are a number of options on what you want to dowith what we are calling the government structure motion.Um Commissioner Cooper. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to theuh package of government structure um amendments that I'd like to offer.First, we need to move um I think the government structure amendment umforward umto to uh to move it forward either to place onthe ballot or I I guess to place it on the ballot. Well, I'd like to amend thelanguage of the amendment. Like the the actual contents of the>> Understood. Okay. Once we get it on get themotion 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 ournext special meeting to vote on actually putting it on theballot. Mr. Chair, I think that if if we're going to be putting something onthe ballot, I think the commissioners and I certainly want to know what thelanguage is before I can vote whether to move something onto the ballot. So, Ithink we should settle on the settle on the substance of the amendmentof the proposed amendments before we before we vote.>> Well, Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Goes Out.Uh now, of course, Mr. Chairman, of coursewe're we're not going to vote on somethingthat we don't know what the language is, but the fact is we're not ready forprobably to to actually writewrite the final language, uh and I assume that's what a specialmeeting would would be about. And I think the only thing that to methat's pertinent right now, that's urgent, we have to decide about anotherpublic hearing, one way or the other. And if we can do that today, I thinkthen we then we know where we're going, and then we can then theafter the hearing, we have the special meeting and then make the big decisionsabout what it about what what the amendment would say, whether ornot we in fact want to put it on the ballot, and I think there most of thepeople here are still are kind of are still undecided about whether ultimatelythat's where it belongs, and folks, it's been mentioned already that we're notthe ones that determine the final language, that comesfrom the City Council. They get to write the final language. So.So. So, what we need to do is>> on the ballot, but they have to they actually write the specificlanguage. They write the ballot question. So,we'll have a motion to to move forward onthe government structure. Then we can make the amendments.And then get a final government structure format, and then we'll movewe'll have the question whether to put it on the ballotat our special meeting, and we'll and if we can decide if we can get anotherspecial um public hearing in in place. What we're trying to do is finalizethe language for the government structure amendment.So, um Commissioner Prendergast. I I'm stillunclear on the necessity for the first motion. The the government struck we wedidn't move it to committee, and so it's still It's in front of us. It's still infront of us. Um so, I'm not sure I don't want to accidentally voteto to put something on the ballot. So, I I I mean I I I'm unclear on thenecessity of that >> First one.Mis- Mr. Chair, if I could could um just sort of suggesting.There's nothing saying that this body couldn't right now make a motion ifsomeone gets in queue to refer this also back to the work group. That would be alegitimate motion. What we need is to know is this body prepared to submit aballot question? It would open it up to amendments if that's the direction thebody wants to go. Does this body want to refer this as a potential ordinancequestion to the city council? I think they've indicated they want some moretime 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 throughor send it back to work group So, it's the direction we need before we open upto what would that language look like. Can you say more about the ordinancething? I think I don't understand what that is. Like how it goes to ordin-ordinance. That's the second option.>> Mr. Chair. It goes It goes to ordinance if we were to refer it to city councilfor unanimous 13-0 vote plus the mayor all agreeing on it. So, you'd have toget a unanimous 14-0 vote in order to put it into the charter. So, umthat's um clearly is is not going to happen in inthis kind of construct. So, the motion would be to move forwardon placing this on the ballot even though we won't actually vote to put iton the ballot tonight. That's That's one path forward.>> That's one path. >> That's one path. If If the majority ofthe body feels that this is a ballot question this year, that's been adiscussion, too. Then we need to talk about the next step of calling ameeting, getting the final language drafted,putting together what that proposal is. You would want to probably draftsuggested ballot language recognizing as has been clarified this body doesn'twrite ballot language, the council does. Um and so, it's the direction you wantto 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 potentiallyan ordinance amendment? Or the third path that is is obviously in front ofyou, does it need more study, more time? Uh and does that this also need to bereferred back? I have a question.For Mr. Daugherty. Mr. Carl, in in youruh opinion, given your history with this group, do you believe it is possibleto send this to a committee to have thefinal uhwork done and proposed ballot language written,another public hearing offsite in time to send it tothe city council uhbefore Memorial Day or by Memorial Day? In your opinion. Mr. Chair, I I willjust 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 government structure, then we can doit. But first of all, we need an active motion.>> Mr. Chair, I'd like to move to send this back to thework group that whatever work group that it was sent to. Second.>> Government structure work group. And Mr. Chair, if I could speak to thatmotion really quick. >> we need a second.>> Second. We have a second. >> Umbased on Mr. Carl's description, I just don'twe clearly don't have time to do the work in between now and Memorial Day,which is my mother's birthday.Um I believe and and given given the comments, given commentsthat we've heard that we've spoken ourselves,I just don't think that there's time between now and and then todo due diligence. And so I would I would move and nodisrespect to my my friend and colleague Commissioner Kozak, I just would ask forsupport. Further discussion on the motion torefer back to government structure committee. The CommissionerCooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm I'm very sensitive to the time and effortthat the whole commission has spent. I've been on the commissionless time than many of you. Um so I'm very sensitive to that, but II'm very uncomfortable with the idea of putting lang- putting an amendment withlanguage on the ballot that we know needs work. I don't think the ballot's aplace to be saying we hope the voters figure it out. I thinkwe we owe it to ourselves, to the commission, to the charter, to thevoters, to to put in the the time that it needs to to get it.So, I would I'm supporting the motion to remand to the work group.Commissioner Garcia. I would like to speakagainst the motion. I do not want it I do not think it should be on the ballotthis year. I want to keep it alive. I think we needto take a beat, kind of figure outwhat would be the best next step. I don't want to rush ourselves.And um so, I want to keep it alive, but not putit on the ballot and take our time to look at what ought to be done to it. Umother discussions? Commissioner Prindle.Yes, I I I I think I I appreciate that that we need more time. I think I thinkreferring it back to the government structure work group accomplishes thatbecause the work group, for those who don't know in the audience or in thepublic, they consist of anybody in this body who wants to be on it. And so, it'sit comes out it comes out to the same thingreally in my mind. But I think you know, it through this processof of talking about government structure with stakeholders and and the feedbackwe've gotten, I think there've been a lot of good ideas that could point ustoward more of a consensus, more of a middle ground where we get, you know, byadding in specific positions like we tried to do in the last meeting like weadded two of them in last meeting, we're making the the the structure moreinflexible, but by leaving them out, we're taking away the council'sauthority to to approve to approve department heads. I thinkthere is there is potential to get the flexibility that I think is reallyneeded in our government structure so we can adapt and changewhile still giving the council it's you know it's authorityto weigh in in those decisions and so I think that with more time we will wewill produce a better product. I don't think we're just going around in circleshere. I do think we have the potential to to make something better out of this.Further discussion, Commissioner Holquist.I think what I would just like to add is I do think that there is potential for abetter outcome. I do think it requires the city council and the mayor's officeto come to the table in good faith and I haven't seen that yet and I've been onthe commission for a year and so that's the only hesitation that Ihave towards not sending this to the ballot is that I haven't seenthe mayor's office or the city council's office really come in good faith ofwanting to reach an agreement together and I would just implore that both ofthose bodies do come with in a good faith effort to reach an agreementbecause it's not attainable right now and so that's the only reason I feellike we're in a rush to give this to the voters is because of the dysfunctionbetween those two bodies. Further discussion, CommissionerWeinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I agree. I've been on thiscommission for many more years than one and I have never been so discouragedit's at the dysfunction among the government the the upperlevels of government and I don't have any faith that it's going to get anybetter if we delay this. On the other hand, I think that it's not going to dous any good to rush it because they're you knowat at once it gets on the ballot, there willbe a lot of discussion at that point among the members of the city who'll beable to uh, you know, decide for themselves, butthey need time to understand what it's about. And my other feeling of greatdiscouragement is some of the misunderstandings that became cleartoday, such as the fact that we were trying to eliminate um, employeeprotections when that was absolutely contrary to everything that we standfor. So, um, delaying it seems to be the only option, you know, maybe for all thewrong reasons, but it seems to be they all those wrong reasons seem to be thebest reason. See? I call the question.>> so, um, So, we have in front of us now thequestion uh, Commissioner Neis'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 roll on the motion to referthis back the government structure amendment back to committee. Commissioner DeMillo?Nay. Holquist?Aye. Neis? Yes. Schneider? No. Prindle? Aye.Doughty? Aye. Bohn?Aye. Clegg? No.Garcia? Aye.Smith? No. Cooper? Aye.Perry? No. Kozak? No.Vice Chair Rubenstein? Aye.Chair Gender? No.We have eight ayes and seven nays. That istaking back to committee. Um,so, what we have left I I we have ballotlanguage, but um I don't see any point moving forwardwith that because that will be taken up with the committees again.So, let me go back to our agenda. Mr. Chair, if I could also just add inlight of the amendments being sent back to the work group, it would not Therewouldn't be a need to have another meeting following thisto send anything to the council. That's correct. So, the the next actions willbe by the chairs of the respective committees to schedule meetings.Commissioner Clay. >> Question. There is no municipal electionin 2027. Correct.>> And no state election or federal election, either.There may be a special federal election to umfor the the Senate seat. Yes. But um the re- reality is this this means we'relikely considering 2028 to put this on the ballot.Technically, we can put it on any special election that would be callednext year. We we we can do that. Umwhether we would want to do that is another question or if we would waituntil the 2028 election. But but the option is there for 2027depending on what happens. It It's It'll be Mr. Chairman, it'll be 2028. Uhthe Senate a Senate vacancy uh willThere's no special election law to fill a Senate vacancy in Minnesota right now.Uh so, it would 2028 would be uh uhWhoever gets appointed to fill the vacancyit would be 2020. I think that's when the term uh Senatorthe term runs out anyway. So, 2028 would be the time for a Senate election.>> Senator Klobuchar was just elected in or reelected in 2024. So, yeah, but but Shewould be up in Whoever got this Whoever got appointed would have to run in '28.Now, there is There is a statute. I'm trying to look it up now, but umRegardless, we don't need to decide it tonight. It will be decided in the inthe coming year. We'll find out if there's a special election or not. So,um the lastWe've got The last item on our agenda is public comment.And if there's any further public commentthat would be taking place right now. So,is there any public comment? Then please come up to the dais. I just want to say thank you fordeferring this um government structure umamendment to back to the committee. I think there's some serious problems withit. Um and I think they need to be worked out before they ever get anywherenear a ballot. And it's important because the community needs to have muchmore input into these kinds of structural issues. I've heard multiplecommissioners say things like, "Well, that's dysfunctional between the citycouncil and the mayor." Those are immediate issues. They do need to getworked on, no question about it. But that is not the purpose of the charteramend uh commission. The purpose of the charter commission is to createpermanence, not to deal with immediate personalityissues. So, I'm distressed that this was the solution that you came up with. Ihope that the process will be improved and that the community will have moreinput into the process. Thank you. And is there any other public comment?And if you could again state your name, I'm sorry.Sure. Hello again. My name is Gwendolyn Pageand I am a resident of Ward 4. I would like to pay special thanks to all of thecommissioners and particularly Commissioner Dougherty for chairing forchampioning what the people here have said today. I understand that our cityis going through a very difficult time and where there is a lot of internaldysfunction. As others have said, I don't believe that this type of solutionis the right answer. As you were debating amongst yourselves, I couldn'thelp but notice and believe me, I work in corporate America. I'm very sensitiveto sunk cost. Why did nobody have the idea to justscrap this all together? It's clearly not something that the people are infavor of. And I'm a little disheartened thatthere was not any discussion of the possibility that this is the wrongchoice for Minneapolis, period. Not that it needs more work.So I would ask all of the commissioners to please consider that. And I doappreciate the hard time and effort that many of you have put into the work. Butsometimes the work we do just doesn't go anywhere. And thatdoesn't mean anybody did anything wrong. That doesn't mean that you wasted yourtime. 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. Irecognize that in each of your own ways, you're trying to do the right things forour city. But this is clearly not the right thing. So I I appreciate thatthese have both been referred to committee and I hope that you willtake the time to think about whether or not this is really something that needsto move forward in the years ahead. Thank you. Okay, pleasestate your name. Lauren George, Ward 5, and volunteer with COAPB. I want tosecond everyone's thanks to Commissioner Daughtry.And I want to thank Commissioner Nigh for his accountability. It goes a longway. Thank you. Hello.Um I'm Carl Nelson. I live in Ward 5, Minneapolis. I want to thank all of youfor doing work and taking your time to tryto make our city better. UmI want to thank Commissioner Daughtry especiallyfor standing with what the people have shown up.They said the extra room was full. We could hear themfrom in here. You can see how many people care enough to take that muchtime out of their day to be here. I want to express concern that we'retalking about one of the parties involved in the You're describing that interactionbetween the mayor and the city council as dysfunc-dysfunctional and meanwhile discussing giving one of those groups more powerover the other. And I just want to express concern about that. Thank you. My second public comment. So, my name'sHeather. I just wanted to thank you a lot for considering a lot of thesecomments that the public has brought to you today.Things have changed a lot in the last few months since January. So, I do wantto thank and recognize you guys for your work. I know you're similar to myneighbor, right? Sunk cost is very real, but the world is different than it waspre-January 2026, and I think our government needs to reflect that aswell. So, thank you guys for your time, and thanks for listening to us. It'svery important that we feel heard by you guys. Even though you're not elected, itis nice to be recognized and heard by you. I'm Stacy Gray and Sherman Ward 9.You are all doing it right. I was on the Community Commission onPolice Oversight. We had things passed and rammed through that we should nothave. We did not have the public comment. We did not get people out likeyou did tonight. We did not have a chair who keeps asking people, "Do you want toget up and have public comment?" We got cut off as commissioners. If we spokefor more than 2 minutes on a subject, we could not speak anymore. That's what gotrammed through. So, you're doing it right. That said, let me just saynobody was blaming you for the technical amendment.When you are told, "Does this hurt workers?" and you're told, "No."I would go forward with it. I would think it was just a matter of technicalpunctuation 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, anexplanation, and as a member of the public, we need an answer. How were youtold 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 asif it's just de minimis. It's obviously not. So, please, when you go back to theworking committee, come up with a different name so we're not in anOrwellian dysfunctional double speak. And thenlastly, again, I just want to say thank you. You have aYou'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 votedon 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 andfor all of you who are on the side of getting it right, and I believe all 15of you are, even if you differ on how to get there, thank you. Please state your name. Hello again. Myname is Lydia Boulter, Ward 5. Umfirst of all, um someone a one commissioner mentioned that we weremaybe conflating issues and starting to talk about timingum being separate from these amendments. And I would argue that they arevery much intertwined. Um asuh Chair Gender mentioned, this has been going on for several years now and onlynow did you have 26 public comments and a full hearing room and a full overflowroom 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 isgetting to the public. Um and so, I do appreciate this time.Uh I do appreciate any further considerations you have about moving thetime of this meeting or at least having alternative public hearing options sothat the public can know a little bit more about what's going on or at leastthat information is being delivered to them. Thank you. Seeing no other public comment, umum thank you, commissioners, um for the thoughtful discussions today. Iappreciate it. And with that, we're adjourned.