Bob Kroll is gone but his shadow lingers.
Putting police conduct into question, making public safety a ballot issue for which a State deadline existed with Council majority and Mayor Frey at issue over ballot wording. Strib reports -
City officials faced intense pressure from all sides as they raced to meet an 11:59 p.m. deadline for finalizing the wording — or risked being held in contempt of court. It was the first time in at least 35 years that the council convened three times in one day.
The council's debates centered on a question of how much detail it needed to give voters so they could make an informed decision and how much could be construed as a "cautionary note" that might sway voters.
The proposal to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new public safety agency has become a central issue in the November election, and the precise wording that appears on the ballot could have implications for its chances of passing or failing. National and local groups are donating to political committees seeking to sway voters. The vote will play a large role in determining how Minneapolis seeks to transform public safety in the wake of George Floyd's murder by a police officer.
The proposal would remove the requirement for Minneapolis to keep a department with a minimum number of officers based on population. The city would then be required to create a new agency responsible for "integrating" public safety functions "into a comprehensive public health approach to safety."
The proposal also would strike language from the charter that gives the mayor "complete power" over police operations, a move that likely would grant council members more sway over officers.
Frey and the council would decide how to design the new department and whether — and how — to employ police.
Last month, city officials approved ballot language asking voters if they want to "strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach, and which would include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety." It referred voters to a 198-word note providing more details about the proposal.
[An active citizens group on the issue proposing change] Yes 4 Minneapolis sued over the note. Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson granted their request to remove the note, saying the particular wording that officials chose was "problematic." She said the city, though, had authority to write a new one.
On Friday morning, the Council voted 9-3 to use the original question without a note attached. It was the outcome Yes 4 Minneapolis previously hoped to get from the courts.
Frey decried the language, saying it failed to inform voters about key parts of the proposal. He thought they should mention that it removed the minimum staffing requirements for police, removed the mayor's "complete power" over police operations and deleted a line referencing the police chief's job.
The mayor issued his first veto around noon Friday. Activists sent notes on social media asking people to call their elected officials urging them to pass fair language. Elected officials swiftly tried to negotiate, having already rejected the mayor's first attempt at compromise language.
City staff rushed behind the scenes to keep tabs on the latest developments. The clerk's office, meanwhile, worked on sending ballot language on two different proposals pertaining to government powers and rent control off to county officials for printing on the ballot this fall.
When the council returned about 3:30 p.m., it voted to sustain the mayor's first veto. Council President Lisa Bender, Vice President Andrea Jenkins and Council Members Andrew Johnson and Jamal Osman then presented a new version. It asked if the charter should "be amended to strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety which could include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, with administrative authority to be consistent with other city departments to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety."
The fight over an explanatory note was done, but elected officials still fiercely debated which parts of the proposal should be listed on the ballot. "Why? Why are we afraid to share the language that this petition clearly states and that would clearly be removed from the charter?" Frey asked in the meeting.
Johnson said he believed their wording did reflect the fact the minimum staffing requirement would be eliminated. "I think that is reflected in this, about 'including licensed police officers if necessary.' It is right there in 'if necessary,' " he said.
The mayor and council members, who were divided on the issue, debated what the implications would be for removing the line in the charter that references the police chief's job — and what they could say without misleading voters.
Frey suggested they change the language to say there would be "shared authority by the mayor and City Council." Council Member Cam Gordon said he thought about similar wording, but also believed the language covered that by saying authority would be "consistent with other city departments."
Mayoral powers under the ballot proposal would be curtailed, something Frey, as mayor, opposed - despite a clear majority of the Council thinking differently.
The opinion at Crabgrass, a good win for the Council, with Frey's judgment not being sound after events following George Floyd's murder by cops.
Frey was protecting the power of his office, but also seemed to not be as appalled as the rest of the world over Bob Kroll and over Floyd's murder. Again, that is opinion.