[0:14] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS JASON CHAVEZ AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER OUR [0:19] REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2025. BEFORE WE BEGIN THE MEETING, I WANT TO OFFER A FRIENDLY [0:25] REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC, THAT THESE [0:31] MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER PARTICIPATION. THESE BROADCASTS INCLUDE REALTIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER [0:37] METHOD TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY OF OUR PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY. THEREFORE ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF THEIR [0:43] SPEECH SO THAT OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY CAPTURE AND TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. [0:49] WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THE SPEED AND CLARITY OF THEIR [1:05] COMMENTS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER PAYNE IS [1:11] ABSENT. OSMAN. >> PRESENT. >> CASHMAN. >> PRESENT. >> JENKINS. [1:17] >> PRESENT. >> CHUGHTAI. >> PRESENT. >> KOSKI. [1:22] >> PRESENT. >> PALMISANO. [1:28] >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR CHAVEZ. [1:34] >> PRESENT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE A QUORUM. FIRST WE'LL TAKE UP OUR CONSENT [1:43] AGENDA. ITEM ONE IS POLICE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ORDINANCE RELATED [1:49] TO OVERSIGHT. NUMBER TWO WAS NOT READY IN TIME FOR THE CLIMATE AND [1:54] INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING ON JUNE 26TH AND IS HERE BEFORE US NOW. THIS ITEM IS APPROVING A SOUND [2:04] PERMIT FOR EAT STREET CROSSING EVENT JULY 12 THROUGH [2:09] AUGUST 1ST. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? [2:14] I'LL PASS IT TO COUNCIL MEMBER PAYNE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. [2:20] I WANTED MY COLLEAGUES AND THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THE ITEM BEING BROUGHT FORWARD ON NUMBER [2:26] ONE FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT. JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, [2:32] DURING ONE OF THE TRIFECTA LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS, THERE WAS [2:38] A STRENGTHENING OF CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT IN STATE STATUTE. I ORIGINALLY OPENED UP THE BOOKS TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE [2:44] STRONGER PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, WE DID LEARN THAT THERE WAS A BIT OF A CONFLICT WITH THE [2:50] CITY CHARTER AROUND HOW I WANTED TO STRENGTHEN IT. [2:55] HOWEVER, THERE WAS STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO CCPO AFTER A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT [3:03] SESSIONS, BOTH WITH COMMISSIONERS AND THE BROADER PUBLIC. AND IN WORKING WITH OUR [3:09] PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT INCREASING THE [3:15] CAPACITY TO MOVE THROUGH CASES AND NAVIGATING SOME OF THE COMPLEXITIES NOW THAT WE HAVE A [3:21] DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS BODY IS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION. SO MORE TO COME WHEN WE GET TO [3:27] THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT LITTLE BIT [3:34] OF HEADS UP. >> THANK YOU. THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYBODY [3:39] ELSE ON QUEUE. I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCIL [3:46] MEMBER WONSLEY. AND WITH THAT, SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL MOVE TO SET THE ORDINANCE FOR THE PUBLIC [3:52] HEARING FOR JULY 22nd AND APPROVE THE SOUND PERMIT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? [3:57] >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THE AYES HAVE IT. [4:03] AND THOSE MOTIONS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. NOW I WILL TURN THIS MEETING [4:10] OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER PAYNE. [4:20] >> WE HAVE TO RECEIVE AND FILE A [4:26] MEMORANDUM WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT. MADAM ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU LIKE [4:32] TO SPEAK MORE ABOUT THIS ONE? >> I CAN BRIEFLY GO THROUGH MY MEMO. [4:37] THE REQUEST FOR THE MEMO WAS WHAT IS THE PROCEDURAL PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE SETTLEMENT [4:45] AGREEMENT. THERE ARE THREE SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REGARDING [4:51] DEADLINES, MOVING DEADLINES THAT ARE IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. [4:58] SO SORT OF BRIEFLY THERE'S AN [5:03] INTERNAL PROCESS AND AN EXTERNAL PROCESS. THE INTERNAL PROCESS IS NOT FORMALIZED BUT IT'S GENERALLY [5:10] RESULTING AS A RESULT OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CITY STAFF IN CHARGE WITH IMPLEMENTING THE TERMS OF THE [5:16] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE EXISTING TERMS THAT PRESENT A BARRIER TO [5:21] SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION AND SHOULD BE CHANGED AS A RESULT. EXAMPLES OF THE CHANGING OF [5:27] DEADLINES IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT [5:32] WHERE ONE WAS CHANGING DEADLINES FOR HIRING THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR. THE OTHER WAS CHANGING DEADLINES [5:39] FOR WHEN THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR WAS IN PLACE THEY HAD A DEADLINE FOR COMPLETING AN [5:44] EVALUATION PLAN THAT WAS TOO SHORT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH. AND THEN THE THIRD WAS ONCE THAT [5:51] EVALUATION PLAN WAS FINISHED, THEN WE SOUGHT COURT APPROVAL OF [5:57] CHANGING THE DEADLINE SO THAT INSTEAD OF THE DEADLINES RUNNING FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE [6:03] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF WHICH WAS THE DATE OF COURT [6:08] APPROVAL, INSTEAD IF THOSE DEADLINES RAN FROM THE DATE OF [6:13] RETENTION AND ONBOARDING OF THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR SO THAT THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR ACTUALLY HAD A FULL YEAR'S WORTH [6:20] OF DATA TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW IN THEIR FIRST YEAR. [6:30] SO THAT'S AGAIN THE CHANGES REALLY ARE SURFACING FROM THE [6:36] CITY ADMINISTRATION STAFF THAT ARE PART OF IMPLEMENTATION. AND THEN THERE'S ALWAYS A REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON [6:43] ANY DESIRED MODIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUPPORTED AND CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE [6:49] COURT FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE THIS AGAIN, IT'S A COURT ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT. THE COURT HAS RETAINED [6:56] JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF OVERSEEING THE AGREEMENT. AND SO ANY CHANGES THAT WE WANT [7:02] TO MAKE HAVE TO ACTUALLY PASS MUSTER FOR COURT APPROVAL. AND FOR OUR JOB, WE ARE BOUND BY [7:08] THE MINNESOTA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ONLY TO MAKE REQUESTS OF THE COURT THAT HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS AND LAW [7:14] IN FACT. SO ANYTIME AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE [7:19] PROPOSED IT WOULD TO GO THROUGH OUR OFFICE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THE IN DEPTH LEGAL AND FACTUAL ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE [7:26] WHETHER THERE IS IN FACT A LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS TO PRESENT THEM TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. [7:31] SO THAT'S KIND OF THE INTERNAL [7:40] PROCESS. EXTE EXTERNALLY WOULD INCLUDE A COUPLE OF PARTS. ONE WOULD BE NEGOTIATION WITH [7:46] MDHR. AND THE SECOND AGAIN WOULD BE COURT APPROVAL. SO IN TERMS OF NEGOTIATION WITH MDHR, IT WOULD BE A NEGOTIATION [7:51] BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. IF AGREEMENT IS REACHED TO JOINTLY SEEK COURT PERMISSION TO [7:57] AMEND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THAT AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE FORM OF A STIPULATION WHICH IS BASICALLY A FORMALIZED [8:04] PLEADING THAT THE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT INDICATES THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTY AND THE [8:09] WHY. WHAT'S THE LEGAL BASIS, WHAT'S THE FACTUAL BASIS OF MAKING THE [8:15] REQUEST. THAT STIPULATION AGAIN IT'S A FORMAL PLEADING THAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. IT'S SIGNED BY THE STATE'S [8:22] ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY AND BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE [8:28] MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPRESENT ITSELF [8:33] IN COURT. THAT'S ALWAYS DONE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THE STIPULATION AGAIN WOULD [8:39] EXPLAIN THE AGREED UPON CHANGES, THE BASIS FOR THE CHANGES SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ALONG [8:45] WITH A PROPOSED ORDER FOR COURT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND THEN FINALLY, ANY STIPULATED [8:51] CHANGES CAN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNLESS THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE COURT BY A COURT ORDER. IF THE COURT SIGNS AN ORDER [8:57] APPROVING THE CHANGES, THEN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS SO AMENDED TO THE EXTENT OF THAT [9:02] COURT ORDER. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. DO COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONS OR [9:09] COMMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE. [9:14] I ACTUALLY WANT TO START WITH OUR ORIGINAL MEMO THAT WAS SHARED WITH COUNCIL REGARDING [9:21] THE LEGALITY OF THE STAFF DIRECTION, BUT ALSO IT'S THE ONE THAT WAS WAIVED VIA OUR VOTE. [9:31] SO FIRST, I WANT TO DIVE A LITTLE BIT INTO THE FIRST SECTION OF THAT MEMO WHERE I'M [9:40] SEEING THAT THE CAO OUTLINES THAT THE OUTLINES TO NEGOTIATE [9:45] THE MDHR SETTLEMENT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE SAME PROCESS THAT ANY OTHER CONTRACT THAT THE CITY PURSUES. [9:50] AND THAT PROCESS ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO RENEGOTIATE OR [9:56] RENEGOTIATE ALL CONTRACTS AND COUNCIL'S ROLE IS TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THOSE CONTRACTS. [10:02] WHICH THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH. [10:11] AND I WANT A LITTLE MORE CLARITY AROUND THIS PIECE, THERE'S A STATEMENT IN THE MEMO THAT SAYS [10:17] NEITHER THE COUNCIL NOR THE MAYOR MAY GIVE THE CAO A DIRECTIVE THAT INFRINGES ON THE [10:23] PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CAO AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ACT WITHOUT [10:28] REGARDS TO ITS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 15200 [10:34] OF THE CITY'S ETHICS CODE. SO MY QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY IS IS THIS ESSENTIALLY [10:40] A GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION OR IS IT THE OPINION OF THE CAO THAT IT'S [10:46] THE MAYOR WHO HAS THE SOLE [10:53] AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS? AND THAT ESSENTIALLY WILL BE FOR [10:58] ANY RENEGOTIATIONS AROUND THE [11:04] MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK IN THIS [11:10] PARTICULAR MEMO, I TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE DIRECTIVE [11:15] TO MODIFY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE. THE REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT [11:21] POINT ABOUT THAT, AND I [11:27] MENTIONED IT IN THE PUBLIC MEMO THAT I JUST READ FROM, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A COURT [11:34] ENFORCEABLE, COURT APPROVED DOCUMENT THAT THE COURT IS STILL RETAINING JURISDICTION OVER. SO THIS IS NOT LIKE A NORMAL [11:41] CONTRACT WHERE THE PARTIES JUST COME TOGETHER AND WHATEVER THEY [11:46] AGREE TO IS FINE AS LONG AS IT'S NOT LIKE OVERTLY ILLEGAL. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE IN [11:52] ORDER TO GET ANY CHANGES TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IT HAS TO GO TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. [11:57] AND THAT PUTS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE POSITION THAT WE FRANKLY ALWAYS [12:04] HAVE AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT. SO WHEN WE ACTUALLY MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT, SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT, [12:14] WE ARE BOUND BY OUR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES, BY OUR [12:23] LICENSES, TO ONLY MAKE MER [12:34] MERITORIOUS CLAIMS. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAYOR WANTS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS TO DO OUR INDEPENDENT LEGAL ANALYSIS, [12:42] FACTUAL ANALYSIS ABOUT WHAT AMENDMENTS HAVE A LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS IN ORDER TO BRING [12:48] THEM TO THE COURT. [12:54] I HAVE DONE THAT LEGAL FACTUAL [13:00] ANALYSIS AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT THAT THERE IS NOT A LEGAL BASIS TO ASK THIS COURT, IT'S JUST A [13:07] DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO PARTIES, MDHR AND THE CITY, AND WE HAVE COMPLETELY RESOLVED THAT DISPUTE [13:14] WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IN ORDER TO GO TO THE COURT AND ASK THE COURT TO INCREASE THE [13:20] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY ABOUT A THIRD, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS TO DO [13:26] THAT. AND I DON'T HAVE THAT. I CAN'T MAKE THE REPRESENTATIONS I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT THESE [13:31] NEW TERMS ARE SOMEHOW NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT WHICH IS THE DISPUTE [13:36] BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETELY RESOLVED. THESE ARE TERMS WE NEGOTIATED WITH A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT [13:42] PARTY TO RESOLVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LAWSUIT IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FORUM. WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL OR [13:49] FACTUAL BASIS TO GO TO COURT AND ASK THE COURT TO EXPAND ITS JURISDICTION JUST BECAUSE WE [13:54] WANT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN ASK THE COURT TO DO THAT. THE COURT JUST DOESN'T ACT JUST [14:01] BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO. WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY PRESENT TO THE COURT THAT THESE TERMS ARE [14:07] ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO RESOLVE A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES BEFORE IT, MDHR AND THE CITY. [14:13] AND IT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. WE'VE ALREADY RESOLVED THAT DISPUTE WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. [14:19] SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I KNOW AGAIN IN OUR MEMO WE HAVE A LONG EXPLANATION OF THE ROLE [14:24] OF COUNCIL AND THE ROLE OF MAYOR AND WHO GETS TO DO WHAT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WHO GETS [14:30] TO DO WHAT WITH NEGOTIATION OF CONTRACTS. BUT THIS IS SUCH A SPECIAL SITUATION WHERE WE ARE TALKING [14:39] ABOUT A COURT, AND OUR SPECIAL ROLE AS ATTORNEY AS INDEPENDENT, [14:44] FRANKLY, OFFICERS OF THE COURT THAT CAN ONLY MAKE GOOD FAITH LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND FACTUAL ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT. [14:49] SO THAT'S WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT, CITY [14:56] ATTORNEY. I DO THINK THE ULTIMATE PIECE OR THE BASIS OF MY QUESTION WAS NOT NECESSARILY ANSWERED AND I THINK [15:02] IT GETS REITERATED IN THE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT'S ADDRESSING [15:08] THAT SAME MEMO. WHERE IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT OR STATES THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEWS ANY DESIRED [15:15] MODIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUPPORTED AND CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. [15:20] SO AGAIN, THE BASELINE IS AND THIS IS WHERE THE DIRECTIVE CAME FROM BECAUSE I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT [15:26] FOR SIX MONTHS IT WAS THIS BODY'S UNDERSTANDING FROM CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT PURSUING [15:33] MODIFICATION, THAT'S INCLUDED NOT ONLY IN THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BUT ALSO THE CONSENT [15:39] DECREE TERMS ALLOWS A STIPULATION FOR US TO JOINTLY COME TOGETHER TO MODIFY. [15:45] ESSENTIALLY WHO GETS TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THAT AND I THINK IT'S HONING IN ON YOUR SECOND MEMO [15:51] WHICH I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE DON'T HAVE AN INTERNAL PROCESS FOR THAT WHEN WE DID [15:56] HAVE AN INTERNAL PROCESS FOR THAT IN 2023 TO GET INTO THE MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? [16:03] AND AT THAT POINT IT'S SAYING THAT THE MAYOR AUTHORIZED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GO IN THE PROCESS. I'M ASKING IF THAT STILL STANDS. [16:09] WHO SUBMITS OR AUTHORIZES THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE A REVIEW OF MODIFICATIONS [16:16] TO THEN APPROACH MDHR? [16:22] >> COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAVE INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY TO [16:28] REPRESENT THE CITY. WE ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CITY BY CHARTER. [16:33] I DON'T NEED TO GET A DIRECTIVE FROM ANYBODY TO DO LEGAL REVIEW. THAT IS MY JOB, THAT IS WHAT I [16:40] DO ALL OF THE TIME. AND THAT IS WHAT I DID HERE. I WAS HOPEFUL THAT THIS WAS A [16:46] PATH FORWARD, BUT THEN I DUG IN AND DID THE LEGAL RESEARCH AND TALKED TO THE EXPERTS WITHIN MY [16:53] OFFICE AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NOT A LEGAL PATH FORWARD. >> AND I THINK THAT'S THE PIECE. I GET THAT YOU SAID THAT THE [17:00] SCOPE OF AUTHORITY THAT YOU'RE FINDING AND I THINK WE ASKED [17:05] THIS IF YOU CONSULTED MDHR ABOUT YOUR FINDINGS. BECAUSE THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS IN THAT CONSENT DECREE, THERE'S [17:11] BEHAVIOR RESPONSES THAT OVERLAPS WITH COMPONENTS IN OUR MDHR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. [17:17] THAT'S NOT RELATED TO CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING OR CONSTITUTION AT ALL. [17:22] SO THERE'S SO MANY PROVISIONS IN [17:27] THERE THAT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD APPLY OR TRANSFER OVER. WE'RE ALSO HEARING FROM OTHER LEGAL EXPERTS, INCLUDING THE [17:33] FORMER CITY ATTORNEY, WHO SAID THERE IS AN ABILITY AND THEY WERE HELPING US INITIATE THE FIRST PROCESS. [17:39] SO I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS THAT LEGAL BASIS. I GET YOU'RE SAYING IT'S UP TO THE COURT. [17:45] BUT THIS PROVISION ALLOWS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND MDHR TO DO THAT [17:50] JOINT REVIEW OF WHAT TERMS COULD BE BROUGHT OVER TO THEN PRESENT TO THE COURT TOGETHER AND THEN [17:57] LET THE COURT OR THE JUDGE PRESIDING JUDGE MAKE THE DECISION. IT SEEMS IN THIS CASE THE CAO, [18:03] AS YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING, IS ACTING INDEPENDENTLY AND SAYING WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO [18:10] DO THE REVIEW. >> MADAM CITY ATTORNEY. >> COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO I DID DO THE REVIEW. [18:15] I DID DO THE REVIEW. AND I HAVE THOUGHT DEEPLY ABOUT THIS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, [18:20] WHATEVER MDHR WANTS TO DO IT, WHETHER WE WANT TO DO IT, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE [18:27] REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT IN GOOD FAITH THAT THESE TERMS ARE ACTUALLY NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE [18:34] CITY. AND THEY'RE JUST NOT. WE'VE ALREADY FULLY RESOLVED THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE [18:41] CITY. THERE IS NOT A PATH FORWARD. THERE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT I CAN MAKE THAT IN FACT IT IS [18:47] NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO TAKE OVER JURISDICTION OF THESE OTHER TERMS THAT WERE NOT PART OF [18:53] RESOLVING THE ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE CITY AND MDHR. [18:59] SO I, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, HAVE TO BE ABLE TO IN [19:04] GOOD FAITH MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT AND I CAN'T IN THIS SITUATION. [19:09] >> JUST GOING BACK TO THIS OTHER PIECE OF SO WHY DID YOU INCLUDE [19:16] OR WAS IT THE PURSUIT OF BOTH PARTIES, THE CITY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN [19:22] RIGHTS, TO INCLUDE IN BOTH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE CONSENT DECREE THE BASIS FOR [19:28] MODIFICATIONS? YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR MEMO, THE PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW IS AROUND -- [19:37] PRECEDENT RIGHT NOW IS AROUND DEADLINES AND TIMELINES BUT WE'RE ALSO IN UNPRECEDENTED TIMES. IN READING THIS PROVISION IT [19:43] DOESN'T SAY IT'S LIMITED TO DEADLINES. SO ESSENTIALLY, ARE YOU SAYING [19:52] THAT THIS PROVISION OF BEING ABLE TO DO MODIFICATIONS ON BOTH AGREEMENTS THAT WERE NEGOTIATED [19:57] BY BOTH PARTIES IS ESSENTIALLY MOOT. IT WAS JUST AROUND THE ABILITY [20:04] TO DO DEADLINES, NOT TO PURSUE OTHER SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. [20:10] ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT THIS HAPPENED BEFORE THE D.O.J. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THERE [20:15] WAS THE ASSUMPTION THAT CHANGES WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IT'S UNCLEAR IF YOU ALL KNEW [20:21] THAT IT WAS NOT LEGALLY VIABLE NOW, WHY WOULD YOU INCLUDE THIS PROVISION IN THE FIRST PLACE? >> MADAM CITY ATTORNEY. [20:27] >> SO COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE AMENDMENT PROVISION IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A PRETTY [20:33] TYPICAL THING TO INCLUDE IN CONTRACTS. AND NO, IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO [20:39] INCLUDE MAJOR SCALE ADDITIONS. AGAIN, FOLLOWING THE CONSENT [20:44] DECREE TERMS, IT WOULD INCREASE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY ABOUT A THIRD. AND AGAIN TERMS THAT WERE NOT NEGOTIATED WITH MDHR, WERE NOT [20:53] REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WITH MDHR. IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED AT LEAST BY ME AND I WAS IN THE [21:00] NEGOTIATIONS AS SOON AS I GOT HERE IN LATE SEPTEMBER OF 2022, [21:07] I SAT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT MY [21:13] CONTEMPLATION THAT THAT AMENDMENT TERM COULD BE USED TO INCREASE BY A THIRD SOMETHING [21:18] THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED. WE DID IN THE SETTLEMENT [21:24] AGREEMENT ACCOUNT FOR IF THERE WERE DIRECT CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CONSENT DECREE TERMS AND THE [21:31] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TERMS THAT WE WOULD GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE THOSE THINGS. THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT [21:36] NOW. THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CONSENT DECREE AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE CONSENT DECREE [21:43] IS NOT ENFORCED BY THE FEDERAL COURT. THE REASON WHY WE INCLUDED THAT [21:49] IS BECAUSE WE ASSUMED THAT THERE WOULD BE A FEDERAL COURT INVOLVED AND FEDERAL LAW ALWAYS [21:55] TRUMPS STATE LAW SO WE AGREED WITH MDHR THAT WE WERE GOING TO MODIFY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY CONFLICTS [22:01] BETWEEN THE TWO. BUT WE NEVER DISCUSSED MODIFYING [22:06] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FROM THE CONSENT DECREE UNDER ANY TERMS, [22:12] WHETHER IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL AGREEMENT NEVER HAPPENED, OR BECAUSE THE FEDERAL [22:18] AGREEMENT DID HAPPEN. WE NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT. IT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. [22:23] AND AGAIN, WE RESOLVED ALL OF MDHR'S CLAIMS. WE COULD HAVE LEFT THINGS OPEN [22:30] FOR ADDITIONAL NEGOTIATIONS, WE DID NOT. WE COMPLETELY SETTLED ALL OF [22:35] MDHR'S CLAIMS. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION, AGAIN, TO ASK THE COURT TO EXPAND ITS [22:41] JURISDICTION TO INCLUDE TERMS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR [22:46] AND THE CITY. AND I CANNOT REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT IT IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT. [22:52] >> SO JUST WALKING AWAY FROM THIS WHOLE PIECE WHERE AGAIN THE GOAL, I THINK, AND THIS IS A [22:58] SHARED GOAL IS WE WANT TO SEE A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT UPHOLDS [23:03] THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ITS RESIDENTS AND TO HAVE A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT THAT ENFORCES THAT. THAT RIGHT NOW IS ABSENT WITH [23:10] THE DISMISSAL OF THE DOJ CONSENT DECREE. [23:15] IN LIGHT OF THAT, IT'S UNCLEAR THAT RIGHT NOW, AND THIS IS WHERE WE GOT TO THE DIRECTIVE [23:22] FOR THE CAO, WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THE CAO HAS MADE THE INDEPENDENT DECISION OF ITSELF [23:28] TO NOT EVEN PURSUE A PATHWAY FOR EXPLORATION. BECAUSE YOU'RE NAMING TO NOT [23:33] BRING CLAIMS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S AUTHORITY. WHAT I'M NOT HEARING IS THERE [23:39] HASN'T EVEN BEEN CONSIDERATION OF WHAT TERMS COULD BE INCLUDED. AND THOSE HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN [23:45] BROUGHT FORWARD. SO YOU'RE SAYING THE CAO IS [23:50] INDEPENDENTLY MAKING THE DECISION TO NOT PURSUE THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION REGARDLESS [23:55] OF THE DIRECTION OF THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL? >> COUNCIL MEMBER, AGAIN, WE [24:01] HAVE DONE THE LEGAL ANALYSIS AND THERE IS NOT A BASIS FOR ME TO GO TO THE COURT AND MAKE [24:08] REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT THAT ADDITIONAL TERMS NEED TO BE ADDED IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE WITH MDHR BECAUSE IT'S [24:15] ALREADY RESOLVED. I CAN'T MAKE REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE NOT IN GOOD FAITH. [24:20] THAT IS JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO UNDER MY RULES OF [24:26] PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FRANKLY, BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED, IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE FOR [24:33] YOU TO DIRECT ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU IN THE EXERCISE OF MY PROFESSIONAL [24:38] JUDGMENT I CANNOT CONSISTENT WITH MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES DO. I HAVE DONE THE ANALYSIS, I HAVE [24:45] NOT FOUND A LEGAL PATHWAY. [24:55] WE DO HAVE A SHARED COMMITMENT TO MAKING THE REFORMS. THE MAYOR MADE AN EXECUTIVE [25:01] ORDER THAT IS BINDING -- >> LEGALLY BINDING? >> IT IS BINDING UNTIL THE NEXT MAYOR REVOKES IT WHICH I THINK POLITICALLY WOULD BE A VERY, [25:08] VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR ANY MAYOR TO DO. I WISH I COULD GET YOU A COURT [25:13] ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENT. I WORKED SO, SO HARD, NIGHTS, WEEKENDS, TRYING TO GET THE [25:19] D.O.J. CONSENT DECREE NEGOTIATED AND SUBMITTED IN TIME SO THAT WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN COURT [25:25] APPROVAL. I DID EVERYTHING THAT I COULD IT DIDN'T WORK. I WISH THAT IT DID. [25:32] BELIEVE ME, OF ANYBODY WHO HAS SKIN IN THIS GAME, IT'S ME. [25:37] AND I TRIED MY HARDEST, AND IT DID NOT WORK. WHAT I CAN'T GET YOU, WHAT I [25:43] CAN'T GET THE MAYOR, IS A COURT TO ENFORCE THESE TERMS. THERE IS NOT A PATHWAY FOR ME TO [25:50] DO THAT CONSISTENT WITH MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. AND NO, I'M NOT GOING TO GO TO [25:55] THE COURT AND SAY WELL I DON'T REALLY HAVE A LEGAL BASIS TO DO THIS, BUT WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME [26:00] WHETHER WE CAN DO IT OR NOT. I HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL BASIS, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT AND [26:06] I CAN'T. >> AND COULD YOU DO A MODIFIED MEMO THAT REFLECTS THAT? [26:13] BECAUSE I DON'T, AGAIN IN YOUR MEMO YOU TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE [26:18] GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE COMPONENTS, YOU REITERATED THAT. IT IS STILL NOT CLEAR IN WHAT [26:23] TERMS YOU DID THE REVIEW THAT YOU'RE SAYING ALL 4400 PROVISIOS [26:31] FROM BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TO CHAIN OF COMMAND, THOSE PROVISIONS, THINGS ALREADY UNDER [26:37] THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR, YOU'RE SAYING NONE OF THOSE COULD BE FOLDED OVER INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT [26:43] THAT COULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE. AND THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU SETTLED THAT YOU CANNOT REOPEN [26:51] RENEGOTIATIONS. AND THAT JUST DOES NOT SEEM CLEAR IN THE FACT THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM OTHER LEGAL EXPERTS [26:56] THAT THERE COULD BE A PATHWAY AND FOR SIX MONTHS WE'VE HEARD ALSO FROM THE CAO, YOUR OFFICE [27:02] THAT THERE WAS A PATHWAY. THIS JUST DOES NOT SEEM -- IT [27:08] DOESN'T SEEM SOLID. AND THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON YOU, KRISTIN ANDERSON. >> I MEAN, HOW IS IT NOT? [27:15] TRULY. >> NO, KRISTIN. >> LET'S STICK WITH TITLES. [27:21] >> CAO ANDERSON, THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON PERSONAL. YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN YOUR MEMO [27:28] THAT THE CAO OFFICE HAS THE PUBLIC GOOD IN MIND. [27:33] PUBLIC GOOD IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT THAT GETS OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH [27:41] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. THAT IS A PUBLIC GOOD. A PUBLIC GOOD THAT I KNOW YOU [27:46] ADVICE US AROUND LEGAL RISK IS TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE PAYING [27:52] FOR SETTLEMENTS BECAUSE OF VICTIMS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS [27:57] BEING VIOLATED. AND RESIDENTS HAVING TO PAY OUT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THAT OR PTSD SETTLEMENTS [28:05] BECAUSE OFFICERS ARE ALSO PUTTING THEMSELVES IN COMPROMISING POSITIONS. SO THAT IS THE BASIS. THIS IS NOT REFLECTIVE ON ANY [28:13] PERSONAL DYNAMICS AT ALL. IT'S WE WERE ADVISED BY THE OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS THAT THIS [28:19] IS VIABLE AND WE'RE ASKING HAS LITERALLY EVERY AVENUE BEEN [28:25] EXHAUSTED BECAUSE TO GO FROM SIX MONTHS TO LITERALLY IN ONE DAY A COMPLETELY 180. AND WE'RE GETTING VERY CLEAR, [28:31] YOU'RE SAYING THE COUNCIL CANNOT DIRECT YOU, BUT MY QUESTIONS WAS HAS THE MAYOR EVEN MADE AN [28:38] EFFORT TO ALSO MAKE THE DIRECTIVE? BECAUSE I'M GOING FROM THE ORIGINAL MEMO WHERE YOU SAID THE [28:44] MAYOR IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY TO SETTLE CONTRACTS. AND JUST GETTING CLEAR ON THAT [28:51] CHAIN OF COMMAND THAT WAS NOT FULLY FLESHED OUT IN THE SECOND [28:58] MEMO. >> I HAVE ADVISED THE MAYOR JUST LIKE I HAVE ADVISED YOU THAT THERE IS NOT A LEGAL PATHWAY [29:05] FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. I KNOW THERE ARE LOTS OF LEGAL EXPERTS OUT THERE THAT ARE OUT THERE SECOND GUESSING. [29:10] I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW FOR 28 YEARS. I'VE BEEN A PUBLIC SECTOR LAWYER [29:15] FOR 24 YEARS. I AM AN EXPERIENCED LITIGATOR, I HAVE AN OFFICE FULL OF [29:20] EXPERIENCED LAWYERS WHO I CONSULTED WITH. I'VE DONE THE RESEARCH AND I KNOW ALL OF THE FACTS. [29:26] I AM CONFIDENT IN MY LEGAL OPINION. I WAS EXPLORING, AND I WAS DOING [29:32] IT IN GOOD FAITH, EXPLORING THIS AS AN OPTION. AND IT WASN'T JUST IN A DAY THAT I CHANGED MY MIND. [29:39] I DID LEGAL RESEARCH, I DID LEGAL ANALYSIS, I CONSULTED WITH THE EXPERTS IN MY OFFICE. [29:45] AND I LEARNED THAT IN FACT THIS IS NOT A LEGAL PATHWAY FORWARD. I WISH THAT IT WAS, IT IS NOT. [29:53] AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU DIRECT ME OR THE MAYOR DIRECTS ME, I CAN'T DO IT CONSISTENT WITH MY PROFESSIONAL [30:02] RESPONSIBILITIES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. >> NO, YOU'VE PROVIDED GOOD [30:07] CLARITY IN TERMS OF ONCE AGAIN I ASKED FOR THE FORMAL PROCESS WHICH WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN THIS [30:13] MEMO THAT WAS REQUESTED OF THE CAO. AND BEING CLEAR ON WHAT THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND WAS. BECAUSE CITY ATTORNEYS ALSO [30:20] RAISED CONCERNS DURING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEN WE WERE FIRST ASKED TO START THAT [30:27] PROCESS. BUT THE MAYOR ALSO OPPOSED IT. BUT THIS BODY AND THAT BRANCH OF [30:32] GOVERNMENT EVENTUALLY GOT ON THE SAME PAGE AND SAID WE WANT TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT IN SPITE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S [30:39] OFFICE RAISING CONCERNS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF THE MAYOR'S DIRECTION AT THAT [30:45] TIME, WE ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS. SO THAT'S WHY CAO ANDERSON, IT'S [30:52] A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING TO HEAR OUR CITY ATTORNEYS SAY THAT THEY ARE HOLDING THE FULL [30:58] RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT EXPLORING WHAT PROVISIONS COULD BE INCLUDED AND ARE NOT EXPLORING [31:05] ANY FURTHER A LEGAL STRATEGY THAT GETS US A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT WHEN WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE IN SOME WAYS. [31:11] AND THERE WAS A PATHWAY THAT WAS ADVANCED. BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT TRE IS [31:16] OTHER COLLEAGUES IN QUEUE. YOU'VE PROVIDED A LOT MORE CLARITY TO THE PUBLIC THAN I [31:22] THINK HAS BEEN IN THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS THAT WE'VE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS AROUND HOW DO WE DO A PLAN B AND GET A LEGALLY [31:28] BINDING AGREEMENT. SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT, BUT I WILL PASS IT OVER TO [31:33] THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES. >> MADAM CITY ATTORNEY. [31:39] >> COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE POSITION THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS [31:45] COMPLETELY DISTINCT THAN THE POSITION WE WERE AT WHEN WE WERE NEGOTIATING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BEGIN WITH. [31:51] AGAIN, WE WERE NEGOTIATING LEGAL CLAIMS, WE WERE SETTLING LEGAL CLAIMS. WE'RE DONE WITH THAT. [31:56] WE ARE NOW IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE A FULLY SETTLED DISPUTE BETWEEN US AND MDHR. [32:04] IT WOULD BE AN ETHICAL VIOLATION FOR THE MAYOR TO DIRECT ME TO DO [32:11] SOMETHING THAT I HAVE SAID IS AGAINST MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES JUST LIKE IT IS FOR YOU. [32:16] SO I DON'T EXPECT THAT THE MAYOR IS GOING TO DIRECT ME TO DO SOMETHING IN VIOLATION OF MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. [32:21] I HOPE THAT HE TAKES THE ETHICS CODE SERIOUSLY AND WOULD NOT DO THAT. [32:29] >> I PUT MYSELF IN QUEUE BECAUSE I DO WANT TO TAKE THE [32:35] TEMPERATURE DOWN A LITTLE BIT. I'VE GOT OUR NIMS TRAINING PRINT [32:41] OUT IN FRONT OF ME. AND ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS MANAGING BY OBJECTIVES. [32:47] AND I THINK THAT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY IS TRYING TO GET TO IS AN OBJECTIVE OF A POLICE [32:53] DEPARTMENT THAT IS OPERATING CONSTITUTIONALLY. AND I THINK WE ARE JUST ALL VERY CURIOUS ON HOW WE CAN BEST [33:02] ACHIEVE THAT OUTCOME. AND THE MEMO THAT WE HAVE [33:10] PRIVILEGE ON, WHEN I FIRST READ IT IT WAS VERY CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE IT HAD A LOT OF [33:15] GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE CONCERNS AND AUTHORITY OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES ALSO BUNDLED UP WITH [33:20] OUR QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL POLICE FORCE THAT [33:26] IS REFORMED. AND SO I KIND OF WANT TO JUST BREAK SOME OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE MEMO DOWN JUST SO I HAVE A [33:32] BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF IT. I THINK THE CLEAREST [33:38] UNDERSTANDING IS COUNCIL AS A BODY HAS CERTAIN AUTHORITY, THE MAYOR HAS CERTAIN AUTHORITY. [33:44] THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS [33:51] THE SOLE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF THE INSTITUTION DOESN'T JUST WORK FOR THE COUNCIL OR THE [33:57] MAYOR BUT HAS TO HAVE THAT BROADER PERSPECTIVE. SO WHEN CITY COUNCIL IS DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE ARE DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY [34:05] TO ACCOMPLISH TASKS THAT ARE WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY. AND WHEN THE MAYOR IS DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY, IT'S ONLY [34:12] TASKS THAT ARE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR. I THINK WHERE A LOT OF US ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE [34:18] CONFUSED IS IT BECOMES CLEAR [34:25] THAT UNDER THAT FRAMEWORK OF WE ONLY GET TO DIRECT THE CITY [34:31] ATTORNEY WITHIN WHAT'S IN OUR AUTHORITY, CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS [34:36] ARE NOT WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY. [34:44] BUT IT DOES SEEM THAT THE MAYOR DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE IN CONTRACTS. [34:50] AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD UNPACK TWO QUESTIONS. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY, THIS [34:56] CONVERSATION IS HAPPENING IN PUBLIC SO THAT WE'RE BUILDING A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING FOR OUR [35:01] COMMUNITY AND THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE COUNCIL AS A BODY. THAT IS NOT THE NATURE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. [35:06] THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO OPERATE IN PUBLIC IN THE SAME WAY AND HAVE THESE DEBATES AND CONFLICTS IN PUBLIC. [35:13] THOSE DEBATES AND CONFLICT CAN HAPPEN IN MEETINGS THAT ARE NOT BROADCAST ON YOUTUBE. [35:22] SO JUST TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS ALL UNCHARTED TERRITORY. [35:27] NO ONE PERSON IN THIS INSTITUTION IS GOING TO KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER ON THE SPOT, INCLUDING YOU. THIS HAS TAKEN A LOT OF TIME TO [35:35] NAVIGATE. OUT THE GATE, WHEN YOU SAW THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS COMING INTO OFFICE AND [35:41] ANTICIPATING THAT THERE COULD BE THIS RISK OF IT GETTING [35:46] WITHDRAWN, OUR VERY FIRST MEETINGS WERE ABOUT HOW UNIFIED WE WERE. ALL 13 OF US, AND THE MAYOR. [35:52] EVERYONE THAT WE STILL WANT TO DELIVER ON THIS CONSENT DECREE [36:01] PROVISIONS. AND THIS IS ULTIMATELY OUR GOAL, HOW DO WE BEST ACHIEVE THAT. DID THE MAYOR SPECIFICALLY ASK TO INCORPORATE THE FEDERAL [36:08] CONSENT DECREE PROVISIONS INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? WAS THAT EVER A FORMAL ASK OF THE MAYOR THAT YOU ALSO HAD [36:14] TO -- WE DID IT IN PUBLIC, IT'S ON OUR AGENDA RIGHT NOW AS A [36:20] DIRECTION. AND WE'RE LEARNING ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT. DID YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS [36:25] EXACT SAME EXERCISE WITH THE MAYOR? DID HE ALSO ASK YOU TO [36:30] INCORPORATE THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE INTO THE STATE PROVISIONS AND YOU HAD TO ALSO GIVE HIM A [36:36] SIMILAR TYPE OF LEGAL EXPLANATION? >> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, SO WE HAVE [36:42] ALL HAD CONVERSATIONS WHERE YOU ALL, ALL 14 OF YOU, HAVE [36:47] EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THIS IDEA. ALL OF YOU. [36:53] >> I'M ASKING DID THE MAYOR FORMALLY MAKE A DIRECTION TO THAT END THAT YOU HAD TO KIND OF [37:00] EXPLAIN THAT THAT WAS NOT WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY TO DO OR DID THAT NOT HAPPEN? >> SO THE WAY THAT THE MAYOR AND [37:07] I WORK IS NOT BY HIM ISSUING ME FORMALLY DIRECTIVES. FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS [37:13] BODY IS ISSUING ME FORMAL DIRECTIVES WHETHER THAN HAVING A [37:19] SOUND ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ME. THE MAYOR AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS. AGAIN HE EXPRESSED INTEREST AS [37:25] ALL OF YOU DID AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM WHEN I CONCLUDED THAT [37:30] THERE WAS NO LEGAL PATHWAY FORWARD. I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THERE WASN'T A LEGAL PATHWAY FORWARD [37:35] AND WHY. AND HE DID NOT PROCEED TO TRY TO DIRECT ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT [37:40] IS AGAINST MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. >> I'LL SAY THAT WE DO FORMAL [37:46] DIRECTIVES SO THAT OUR COMMUNITY CAN FOLLOW ALONG WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE GOAL OF THAT. [38:06] SO I THINK THAT WAS MY MAIN QUESTION. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION WAS, BUT I [38:12] SEE OTHER FOLKS IN QUEUE AND I'LL CALL ON COUNCIL MEMBER [38:17] CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. [38:24] THANK YOU, CAO ANDERSON. THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE I'M [38:29] TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER CLARITY ON IS JUST [38:36] LOOKING AT SECTION 438, IT PRETTY CLEARLY STATES HOW MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENT TO [38:41] THE AGREEMENT ARE MADE. PARTIES MAY JOINTLY STIPULATE [38:47] CHANGES SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL AND THERE'S NOT ANYTHING THAT ARTICULATES A [38:53] NECESSITY TO HAVE A DISPUTE. SO COULD YOU KIND OF EXPLAIN [39:00] THAT DEPARTURE IN HOW WE'RE ABLE [39:05] TO. IT SEEMS THAT WE ARE JUST ABLE TO WORK WITH MDHR TO MAKE THE [39:12] MODIFICATION AS IT HAS HAPPENED TWICE. >> COUNCIL MEMBERS, THIS IS [39:21] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. THE COURT CAN ONLY TAKE JURISDICTION WHEN THERE IS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY. [39:28] IN THIS SITUATION, THE IDEA OF [39:34] INCREASING AN ALREADY SETTLED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY A THIRD, ADDING ALL OF THESE NEW TERMS, [39:40] WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE COURT AND BASICALLY SHOW THE SAME THINGS THAT WE HAD TO SHOW TO GET COURT APPROVAL OF THE [39:47] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BEGIN WITH. WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT IN [39:53] FACT THE NEW TERMS ARE NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. [39:58] I CAN'T REPRESENT THAT. IT'S NOT TRUE. THEY AREN'T NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE [40:05] CITY. WE'VE ALREADY RESOLVED THE DISPUTE BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT [40:10] THE FEDERATION TRIED TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [40:17] WAS FIRST APPROVED. I CAN APPRECIATE YOU ALL SAYING WELL WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY IT [40:23] AND SEE WHAT THE COURT DOES. THE FEDERATION ABSOLUTELY WILL [40:28] BE RIGHT THERE TO OBJECT. AND AGAIN, I DON'T FEEL THAT I [40:34] HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO MAKE THOSE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. THE COURT CAN'T JUST EXPAND ITS JURISDICTION JUST BECAUSE THE [40:40] PARTIES WANT IT TO. THE COURT HAS TO ALWAYS HAVE A CASE OR CONTROVERSY THAT IS [40:47] BEFORE IT. AND THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY, IT'S [40:52] A VERY SIMPLE LAWSUIT BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY HAVING TO DO WITH CLAIMS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION AND ALL OF THOSE [40:58] CLAIMS WERE ALREADY SETTLED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WHAT YOU'RE ASKING HERE IS [41:05] SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY, INCREASING BY A THIRD, TERMS AND [41:11] ADDING THEM TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BETWEEN THE TWO [41:16] PARTIES. INCREASING THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. THIS IS ABOUT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND WHAT THE COURT [41:22] CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER. THE DISPUTE AGAIN BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY HAS BEEN FULLY AND [41:27] FINALLY RESOLVED. SO TO GO TO THE COURT AND SAY COURT, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO [41:32] HAVE JURISDICTION, I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU THAT THESE TERMS ARE NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BEFORE [41:39] YOU WHICH IS THE LAWSUIT BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY, I CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. [41:51] >> COUNCIL MEMBER PALMISANO. [41:58] >> THANK YOU. I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID ALL THAT'S NEEDED TO BE SAID HERE, SO I'LL REMOVE MYSELF FROM QUEUE NOW. [42:04] >> I ADDED MYSELF BACK IN QUEUE BECAUSE I REMEMBERED THE SECOND [42:12] PART OF MY QUESTION WHICH WAS I'VE BEEN TRYING TO LEARN WHAT'S [42:17] THE TECHNICAL TERM CASE OR CONTROVERSY BECAUSE I THINK IT HAS MORE MEANING THAN JUST WHAT [42:22] OUR LAYPERSON'S UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THOSE WORDS ARE. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, AND I KNOW WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE OF USING THE [42:32] MODIFICATION PROVISION FOR ADJUSTING TIMELINES. BUT WHAT WOULD BE MAYBE AN EXAMPLE OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY [42:38] THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THE NEED TO MAKE A MODIFICATION ON THE SUBSTANCE ON SOME PROVISION AND [42:46] SOME SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH. WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT? AND JUST RECALLING WHEN I WAS [42:51] WANTING TO AMEND THE CCPO [42:56] INITIALLY, THERE WAS, I VAGUELY REMEMBER A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT COULD REQUIRE GOING THROUGH THIS [43:03] KIND OF SOPHISTICATED MODIFICATION PROCESS. AND THAT WAS VERY EARLY IN THE [43:08] PROCESS. I DON'T THINK IT'S REQUIRED OF US AT THIS TIME. BUT WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF US, WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR US [43:15] TO SAY OH OKAY, I SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE'RE TRYING [43:20] TO ACCOMPLISH BY INCLUDING THESE FEDERAL PROVISIONS AND WHAT THIS VERSION OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY [43:25] IS THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE LEGAL MODIFICATION? DOES THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE? [43:31] >> NOT COMPLETELY SURE. AGAIN, THE ISSUE HERE IS EXPANDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY A THIRD. THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY [43:38] CASE OR CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THESE ADDITIONAL TERMS THAT WERE NOT NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES [43:44] WERE NOT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THIS LAWSUIT BETWEEN MDHR AND THE CITY. [43:50] THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A NECESSITY, [43:57] A CORRELATION BETWEEN THOSE TERMS AND THE NEED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CITY AND [44:02] MDHR WHICH WE CAN'T DO BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY RESOLVED. SO IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THOUGH, [44:10] COULD THERE BE TERMS IN THE [44:17] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT ARE NOT WORKING THE WAY THAT THE PARTIES THOUGHT THAT IT WAS [44:22] GOING TO WORK, AND WOULD THAT JUSTIFY GOING TO THE COURT FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH [44:27] WHAT THE PARTIES ACTUALLY INTENDED? POTENTIALLY, I WOULD HAVE TO SEE [44:34] WHAT THE EXACT SITUATION WOULD BE. >> MAYBE I CAN USE A SPECIFIC [44:40] EXAMPLE. SO WE HAD A BIG SECTION IN THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE AROUND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND [44:46] JOURNALISTS. AS WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT THERE ISN'T AS DIRECT A BASIS FOR [44:51] INCLUDING THOSE IN THE STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT'S UNDER STATE JURISDICTION [44:57] AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT WOULDN'T APPLY IN THAT CASE. [45:02] HOWEVER, SOME OF THOSE PROTECTIONS FOR JOURNALISTS HAD SPECIFICS AROUND USE OF FORCE [45:08] WHICH WOULD BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A STATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. [45:19] AND PERHAPS OUR USE OF FORCE SECTION WE HAVE AGREED TO IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ISN'T AS [45:25] EXPANSIVE AS SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE. [45:31] AS AN EXAMPLE, OUR USE OF FORCE TRAINING IS NOW BEING QUESTIONED IN SOME SCENARIO, WOULD THAT [45:37] KIND OF US NOT MEETING THE [45:43] EXPECTATION OF THE STATE BE A [45:49] BASIS OF CONTROVERSY THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A MODIFICATION. [45:55] >> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME TOTALLY FOLLOWING THE HYPOTHETICAL, BUT I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. WE'VE ALREADY SETTLED THE CLAIMS [46:01] ABOUT USE OF FORCE WITH MDHR. WE'VE ALREADY SETTLED THOSE CLAIMS WITH THE TERMS THAT ARE IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. [46:08] WE WOULDN'T HAVE A BASIS TO ASK THE COURT TO ADD ON BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS [46:15] ADDING ON TERMS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH JOURNALISTS THAT WERE NOT [46:20] PART OF THE LEGAL CLAIM BETWEEN US AND MDHR. THAT LEGAL CLAIM, AGAIN, HAVING [46:25] ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY SETTLED. [46:35] >> COUNCIL MEMBER CHUGHTAI. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY ATTORNEY ANDERSON, I'M [46:44] TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO PRESENT [46:51] TO THE COURT ANY TERMS THAT DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN EXACTLY AS IT EXISTS TODAY OR [46:56] WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT. [47:01] SO I DO REMEMBER, I MEAN THERE [47:07] WERE SEVERAL TERMS WITHIN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT LEAD TO A POTENTIAL FEDERAL CONSENT [47:16] DECREE. I REMEMBER IN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION WITH OUR COMMUNITY [47:23] THAT SEVERAL TIMES THE CITY HAS AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF [47:30] HUMAN RIGHTS BOTH HAVE EXPLICITLY TALKED ABOUT THE [47:36] INTENT OF MAKING SURE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE [47:42] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A POTENTIAL CONSENT DECREE. BUT BOTH PARTIES WERE ALWAYS PLANNING FOR THERE TO BE A THIRD [47:48] PARTY INVOLVED AS WELL. IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT YOUR OFFICE AND YOU CONSULTED WITH [47:55] THAT THIRD PARTY A COUPLE OF TIMES WHEN CERTAIN LANGUAGE WAS BEING FINALIZED, I REMEMBER [48:01] HEARING ABOUT THIS. [48:07] SO IS THE INTENT THAT THERE WERE EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE [48:12] MODIFICATIONS MADE TO ALIGN WITH A THIRD AGREEMENT OR A SECOND [48:20] AGREEMENT NOT ENOUGH OF A LEGAL BASIS? I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. [48:25] I'M SURE YOU CONSIDERED THIS AS A PART OF YOUR LEGAL REVIEW. >> YES, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I DID CONSIDER THAT. [48:33] AGAIN, WE DID ACCOUNT FOR A CONFLICT AND THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED THAT. WE NEGOTIATED IF THERE WAS A [48:38] CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE [48:45] THAT AND THAT TERM IS EXPLICIT AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT. AND IF THAT WAS THE SITUATION, [48:51] WE WOULD HAVE A LEGAL BASIS TO GO BACK TO THE COURT WITH HEY, THESE TERMS ARE CONFLICTING. [48:56] HERE'S THE NEW TERM THAT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE. [49:02] BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR WHAT'S NOW HAPPENED [49:07] AT ALL. [49:13] I WISH, HINDSIGHT BEING 20/20, WE COULD HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR IT. WE DIDN'T. AND INSTEAD WE FULLY SETTLED ALL [49:20] OF THE LEGAL CLAIMS OF MDHR. SO THERE IS NOT A LEGAL BASIS FOR MDHR TO COME BACK AND SAY [49:26] WELL THIS THING THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT HAPPEN WON'T HAPPEN SO [49:32] PSYCH, NEVER MIND. WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLVED DISPUTE. WE HAVE FULLY AND FINALLY RESOLVED THAT DISPUTE. [49:45] >> I AM NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. SO I WILL DIRECT THE CLERK TO [49:52] RECEIVE AND FILE THAT MEMO ON ITEM 3.1. WE STILL HAVE TO DISPOSE OF ITEM [49:58] 3.2 WHICH IS THE STAFF DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE MEMO THAT [50:04] WE RELEASED PRIVILEGE ON. AND I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. [50:11] >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE. AGAIN, APPRECIATIVE OF HAVING THE DISCUSSION BEFOREHAND AND AS [50:16] YOU HIGHLIGHTED HAVING A PUBLIC DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF COURSE WE HAVE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS THE [50:23] SHARED DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROVISIONS THAT WERE IN THE CONSENT DECREE ALSO BE LEGALLY [50:29] REINFORCED. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REGROUP OR REGROUND THIS CONVERSATION IN THE FACT THAT WE [50:35] APPROACH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS WITH THAT [50:40] SAME INTENT OF FINDING A PLAN B AND WERE INFORMED THAT IT WAS VIABLE AND WHEN SOMETHING THAT [50:47] WAS SHARED AROUND THAT IT WASN'T JUST A DAY, 24 HOUR DECISION TO [50:53] HAVE A CHANGE IN LEGAL OPINION. I WILL NOTE, WE HAD A CLOSED [51:00] SESSION AROUND MID-MAY WHERE WE WERE STILL UNDER THE SAME [51:05] ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS STILL A PURSUIT IN COLLABORATION WITH MDHR. AND THEN LITERALLY A WEEK LATER, [51:11] WE HAD A SMALLER GROUP MEETING WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHERE [51:17] WE FIRST LEARNED OF THIS VERY DIFFERENT OPINION. AND IT WAS A 180. [51:22] SO IT DID PRESENT ITSELF AS [51:28] SUDDEN CONFLICTING INFORMATION. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC OURSELVES. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A [51:35] COHERENT BASIS AS TO WHY THE PUBLIC WILL NOT SEE THE CITY PURSUING A PATHWAY TO MAKE SURE [51:42] THAT THERE'S LEGAL CODIFICATION OF THESE 300 PLUS TERMS THAT [51:49] COULD ENSURE THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT GOT INTO COMPLIANCE [51:56] WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. AND I GET THE REITERATION OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AND SAYING THAT [52:01] WE'RE DOING IT ANYWAYS. BUT QUITE FRANKLY AND WHAT IS [52:09] HIGHLIGHTED EVEN IN THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS FOR THE MDHR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS THAT THE CITY COULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT ANYWAYS FOR [52:16] SEVERAL YEARS AND IT DID NOT. AND THAT HAS CAUSED A ROAD OF HARM FOR SO MANY OF OUR [52:23] RESIDENTS AND HAS PUT THE CITY IN FISCALLY PRECARIOUS POSITIONS [52:34] TOO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO EVERYTHING WE COULD TO MAKE SURE WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS. [52:41] THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, WE WERE AFFIRMED THAT THIS WAS A [52:51] VIABLE PATHWAY AND EARLY JUNE WE WERE TOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT'S ALSO CONCERNING TO BE IN A [52:57] POSITION TO SEE AN ARTICLE RELEASED TODAY THAT HAS YOUR FORMER CITY ATTORNEY SAYING THAT [53:03] THIS IS ALSO POSSIBLE OR SEEING THE ACLU CITY ATTORNEY SAYING IT'S NOT REALLY A COMPLICATED [53:08] LEGAL THING. OR SEEING AGAIN ADDITIONAL LEGAL [53:15] EXPERTS HIGHLIGHT THAT ■THERE I A WAY FORWARD AND IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE [53:21] WALKING AWAY FROM THIS PROCESS, WE'RE NOT LEAVING ANYTHING ON THE TABLE. [53:26] BUT I WILL HIGHLIGHT ONE THING THAT THE CAO REFERENCED THAT US [53:33] TAKING ACTION ON THIS ITEM WILL HAVE POTENTIAL ETHICS VIOLATION [53:38] ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL SHOULD THE MAYOR OR EITHER PARTY DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO NOT LEAVE [53:45] ANYTHING ON THE TABLE AND TO FIND A LEGAL PATHWAY, TO FIND WHATEVER POSSIBLE TO SEE ARE WE [53:52] MISSING ANYTHING. AND WHILE I THINK AN ETHICS VIOLATION IS COMPLETELY WARRANTED IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT [53:59] IF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT A RISK THAT COLLEAGUES NECESSARILY WANT [54:06] TO MAKE AND NOT THE MAYOR. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE EXPLORING ALL OPTIONS AND [54:12] NOT JUST LEAVING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO BE THE ONLY MECHANISM FOR SUPPORTING ACCOUNTABILITY [54:17] WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING. BUT IN LIGHT OF THAT, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO REFER THIS MOTION [54:22] BACK TO ME AS THE AUTHOR, SO I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION AND ASK FOR A SECOND. >> SECOND. [54:28] >> BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO REGROUND THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE AGAIN THERE HAS BEEN THE [54:33] INCLUSION OF THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK OR THIS IS VIOLATING [54:38] INTEGRITY. AND IT'S LITERALLY BEEN A SHARED BASIS FOR OVER SIX MONTHS THAT I THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS ON THE SAME [54:45] PAGE AND WE SAID WE'VE ALL BEEN ON THE SAME PAGE AROUND GETTING LEGALLY BINDING ENFORCEMENT [54:51] BEHIND THE FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE TERMS. AND IT SEEMED AS IF WE ALL WERE [54:57] MARCHING TOGETHER TOWARDS THAT GOAL AND THEN SOMEONE GOT OFF THE PARADE IN JUNE. [55:05] AND SO WHILE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS MOTION SIGNAL TO THE [55:10] PUBLIC THAT COUNCIL IS BACKING AWAY FROM ITS COMMITMENT TO DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO GET [55:16] A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT, AND I DO THINK THERE IS STILL A [55:21] PATHWAY EITHER THROUGH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FIGURING OUT A WAY TO DO SO AND I WANT TO SAY [55:27] THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE, FOR ISSUING THAT LETTER THAT STILL PUTS THE OFFER ON THE TABLE FOR [55:32] THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO WORK WITH COUNCIL TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE DO THIS WORK STILL. BUT I AT LEAST WANT TO NOTE THAT [55:39] IT DOES NOT FEEL LIKE ALL HOPE IS LOST. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT ASPECT WITH OUR CITY [55:44] ATTORNEYS. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND IT'S SOMEWHAT THE BASIS FOR THIS [55:50] MOTION, IT'S NOT IN OUR AUTHORITY TO DIRECT YOU. AND ON THAT BASIS, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. [55:56] BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY BUY THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO FIGURE OUT A LEGAL STRATEGY TO PURSUE [56:02] THAT LEGAL BINDING PATHWAY. SO WITH THAT, I'LL ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE [56:08] MOTION. >> COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY HAS [56:13] MADE A MOTION TO RETURN TO AUTHOR? AND THAT'S BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? [56:21] I CAN'T EITHER. [56:27] COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU, I CAN'T GET IN THE SPEAKER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU, [56:33] CITY ATTORNEY ANDERSON, FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH ALL OF US THROUGH THIS. IT'S BEEN QUITE AN ORDEAL. NONE OF US ARE ATTORNEYS, YOU'RE [56:39] THE ATTORNEY. NONE OF US HAVE THE EXPERTISE YOU DID. AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING ALL [56:44] OF THE TIME AND EFFORT TO THOROUGHLY RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [56:50] >> AND IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTED TO GET IN QUEUE AND HAVE PROBLEMS WITH SPEAKER [56:57] MANAGEMENT? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY, FOR BRINGING UP THE LETTER. [57:03] IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I HAD COLLABORATED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON AS WE WERE REALLY [57:09] TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS OUR PATH. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR AND IN [57:14] THE SPIRIT OF ACTUALLY STILL MOVING US TOWARDS THAT SHARED GOAL, I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE [57:20] NOW THAT WE'RE DISPOSING OF THESE ITEMS FOR US TO REALLY GET [57:26] ON THE CALENDAR, MAYBE A SMALL GROUP OF US, PLUS THE MAYOR, PLUS THE CLERK, COULD AT LEAST [57:34] BRAINSTORM ABOUT WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO US TO GET TO THAT SHARED GOAL THAT WE HAVE ALL EXPRESSED. [57:40] THAT THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A LOT OF CONFLICT AROUND, I BELIEVE. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S [57:46] GOING TO BE ANY QUEUE, SO I'LL [57:52] JUST ASK THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RETURNING THIS BACK TO AUTHOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. [57:58] >> OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THE AYES HAVE IT. THAT MOTION CARRIES. [58:04] AND NOW I WILL RETURN THE CHAIR BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER CHAVEZ [58:11] FOR OUR STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT PAYNE. WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE [58:18] ADMINISTRATION & ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WONSLEY. [58:24] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT FOR [58:30] CHAIRING OUR LAST AO COMMITTEE. SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE 29 ITEMS THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD. [58:37] THE FIRST IS A GIFT ACCEPTANCE [58:45] FOR TWO MINNEAPOLIS POLICE EMPLOYEE. TWO IS FROM THE CITY COUNTY [58:51] HEALTH OFFICIALS. THREE IS A GIFT ACCEPTANCE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS OF AIR FARE, [58:58] LODGING, GROUND TRANSPORTATION, AND PER DIEM. FOUR IS A GIFT ACCEPTANCE FROM [59:03] LOCAL PROGRESS FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES. FIVE IS MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATION GRANT TO SUPPORT OFFICE OF [59:09] COMMUNITY SAFETY INTERNS. SIX IS A CONTRACT WITH STANTECH [59:15] SERVICES CONSULTING INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN [59:20] SERVICES. A CONTRACT FOR SPEED AND RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM. EIGHT IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS [59:27] VENDORS FOR THE 2025 THROUGH 2028 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY [59:32] DEPARTMENT SERVICE PROVIDER POOL. NINE IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS ARTISTS FOR THE NEW NICOLETTE [59:39] PUBLIC ART DESIGN PROJECT, PHASE TWO FABRICATION. TEN IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR SENIOR [59:46] SERVICES AND SENIOR COMMUNITY NAVIGATOR SERVICES. 11 IS CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS [59:51] ORGANIZATIONS FOR PARTNERSHIP ENGAGEMENT FUND PROJECTS. 12 IS CONTRACT WITH FIRST-PERSON [59:57] RESPONDER LLC FOR MEDICAL CONSULTING SERVICES. 13 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH [1:00:05] ROOFING COMPANY FOR THE STATE PARKING RAMPS AND SKYWAYS ROOF RESTORATION PROJECT. [1:00:13] 14 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR THE BANCROFT POND PROJECT. [1:00:20] 15, CONSTRUCTION FOR THE MEETING ROOMS REMODEL PROJECT. [1:00:26] 16 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR RENTAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 17 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH [1:00:32] GRAY MATTER SYSTEMS LLC FOR GE DIGITAL SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND [1:00:38] DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SUPPORT FOR THE WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION [1:00:44] DIVISION. 18 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR UTILITY BILLINGS, INTERACTIVE [1:00:50] VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM, 19 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH TOUCH [1:00:55] OUTREACH FOR DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES. 20 IS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH [1:01:01] FORMATION HILLING ARTS FOR THE TRANSEQUITY SUMMIT. 21 IS A SUMMIT FOR CATCH BASIN [1:01:08] AND MAINTENANCE HOLE REPAIRS. 22 IS A BID FOR SHINGLE CREEK [1:01:15] PLUS 88 PEDESTRIAN RAMP IMPROVEMENTS. 23 IS A LEGAL SETTLEMENT CLAIM [1:01:20] OF JOSEPH LEVAK. [1:01:26] 24 IS A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM. 25 IS A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM OF GRETCHEN ROSS. [1:01:36] 27 WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM. 28 IS LEGAL SETTLEMENT WORKERS' [1:01:41] COMPENSATION. 29 IS A LEGAL SETTLEMENT OCTAVIA [1:01:47] MARSHALL V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE THE BUDGET [1:01:55] COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY VICE PRESIDENT CHUGHTAI. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE [1:02:01] BRINGING FORWARD ANY ITEMS FOR APPROVAL. WE'VE RECEIVED A REPORT RELATED TO ESTIMATED REVENUES AND [1:02:09] EXPENDITURES FOR THE 2026 BUDGET OR THE CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE THE BUSINESS [1:02:15] HOUSING & ZONING COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OSMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. [1:02:20] THE BUSINESS HOUSING & ZONING COMMITTEE IS BRINGING FORWARD 15 ITEMS. ITEM ONE IS PROVING THE STREET [1:02:28] CAFE LICENSE. ITEM TWO IS PROVING LIQUOR LICENSE. ITEM THREE IS A PASSAGE OF [1:02:34] ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE -- DEALERS. ITEM FOUR IS PROVING [1:02:41] MULTIHOUSING FAMILY BOND. ITEM FIVE IS APPROVING 180 DEGREES FOR HOST APPROVAL OF TAX [1:02:49] REVENUE. ITEM SIX IS APPROVING THREE LIQUOR LICENSE. ITEM SEVEN IS APPROVING 51 [1:02:55] LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS. ITEM EIGHT IS ACCEPTING [1:03:00] WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY GRANT FOR TRAINING SERVICES. ITEM NINE IS AUTHORIZING AN [1:03:06] INTERDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EXISTING GRANT AGREEMENT. [1:03:12] ITEM TEN IS AUTHORIZING AT 1200 LAKE STREET EAST TO -- [1:03:18] PROPERTIES. ITEM 11 IS AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH MET COUNCIL FOR [1:03:26] WATER GRANT PILOT PROGRAM. ITEM 12 IS A PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING SUPPORT FOR HIAWATHA LAKE BRIDGE PEER [1:03:36] PROJECT. ITEM 13 IS AUTHORIZING A LOAN AT 2828 HENNEPIN AVENUE. [1:03:43] ITEM 14 IS AMENDING DEVELOPMENT TERMS WITH THE PORT OF MINNEAPOLIS. [1:03:48] AND LASTLY, ITEM 15 IS APPROVING [1:03:54] AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO -- I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. [1:04:00] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NO ONE IS ON QUEUE. SO NEXT UP WE HAVE THE CLIMATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE [1:04:07] CHAIRED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR CHAVEZ. CLIMATE & INFRASTRUCTURE [1:04:12] COMMITTEE IS BRINGING FORWARD TEN ITEMS. ITEM ONE, APPROVING THE PROJECT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE [1:04:19] FULTON RESURFACING PROJECT. ITEM TWO IS AMENDING PROVISIONS RELATED TO CONCERTS AT THE UPPER [1:04:25] HARBOR COMMUNITY PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. ITEM THREE IS APPROVING A LARGE BLOCK EVENT PERMIT FOR THE [1:04:32] SOMALI AMERICAN DAY FEST. ITEM FOUR IS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CEDAR LAKE ROAD BRIDGE OVER THE [1:04:39] BNSF RAILROAD. ITEM FIVE IS ACCEPTING A BRIDGE INVESTMENT PROGRAM OVER [1:04:47] MINNIEHAHA CREEK PROJECT. ITEM SIX AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE BRIDGE OVER THE MINNIEHAHA CREEK [1:04:54] REHABILITATION. ITEM SEVEN IS AUTHORIZING YEAR-END BUDGET PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL BUDGET DISTRICTS. [1:04:59] ITEM EIGHT IS AUTHORIZING AN M.O.U. WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO [1:05:05] RECEIVE VEGETATION FOR OUR CITY PRODUCTION. ITEM NINE IS AUTHORIZING A PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE CPKC FOR PERMISSION TO [1:05:17] INSTALL A STORM SEWER PIPELINE BENEATH THEIR RAILROAD TRACKS. AND ITEM TEN IS AUTHORIZING A [1:05:23] PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH CPKC FOR A STORM SHARE PIPELINE [1:05:28] CROSSING ON 21st AVENUE NORTH AND 4th STREET NORTH IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. I'LL STAND FOR QUESTION ON THESE [1:05:35] ITEMS. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY VICE CHAIR [1:05:41] CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. [1:05:46] WE ONLY HAVE ONE RECEIVE AND FILE AND THAT'S RECEIVING AND FILING AN UPDATE OF FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS EFFECTING THE CITY [1:05:53] OF MINNEAPOLIS. NOTHING TO MOVE FORWARD TO FULL [1:05:58] COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE WITH [1:06:04] THE VICE CHAIR COUNCIL MEMBER [1:06:09] WONSLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE IS BRINGING FORWARD THREE ITEMS. [1:06:15] THE FIRST IS ACCEPTING A FOURTH JUDICIAL DRUG COURT GRANT AWARD [1:06:20] FOR RESEARCH AND MONITORING SUPPORT. TWO IS AMENDING THE GRANT PERIOD FOR THE PROMISING PRACTICES [1:06:26] PROGRAM FOR CULTURALLY SPECIFIC FAMILY HOME VISITING SERVICES. THREE IS APPROVING APPOINTMENTS [1:06:32] TO THE COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON POLICE OVERSIGHT. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. [1:06:38] >> THANK YOU. [1:06:43] COLLEAGUES, WITH THAT, WE CONCLUDE ALL BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE COMMITTEE TODAY. HEARING NO OBJECTION, I WILL [1:06:49] DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.