Your 1/25/21 DRAFT of a new Section 7.3 of the Minneapolis Charter (see
attachment), which was presented at the introduction and first reading of your
Charter amendment proposal during the January 29, 2021, Council meeting, was
embarrassing.
First, calling something a "reading" when the proposed language changes in the
Charter were yet to be presented makes a mockery of the word "reading." How the
entire Council didn't immediately delay this until the language was ready for
an actual reading is hard to understand.
At the February 4, 2021, Public Health and Safety Committee meeting, when there
was a motion to set this item for a public hearing, Council Member Palmisano
asked whether public hearings on such matters have been held in the past when
the language has not yet been presented. City Clerk Casey Carl responded that
that has been done in the past. If this is consistent with past practice, that
practice ought to be stopped immediately. Otherwise, the Council's meaning of a
"reading" is grossly inconsistent with what the ordinary meaning of that term
is to Minneapolis residents who speak English.
Second, nowhere in the Charter are there are sections or subsections where
there is an A section and no B section, or a 1) and no 2), or an a) and no b),
or a i) and no ii). This is consistent with an elementary principle I learned
in writing outlines. Your "DRAFT" (see attachment) has an isolated (a) in three
places. Moreover, to be consistent with the lettering throughout the Charter,
the second and third instances of your (a) should have been (A). But none of
the three should appear in isolation. If there is only an (a) section under
Section 7.3, it should be included in the title of the section itself, i.e., in
the "Section 7.3" portion, without the "(a)." Similarly, the other two "(a)"
labels should also be deleted.
Third, had the authors of this amendment proposal simply followed the
description provided by the City for a Council-proposed amendment of the
Charter, they would have seen that the first step in the process is described
as follows:
"1, Council Member(s): A Council Member (or Members) wishing to propose a
charter amendment works with the City Attorney to draft the specific proposal
in the form of an ordinance."
Had that been done, I am assuming the City Attorney would not have approved
those three isolated (a) sections. While this description of the first step in
the process is not an ordinance or a Council rule, it does give practical
guidance that would have been useful in enabling compliance with the "reading"
requirement upon introduction of the proposed amendment. (See step two on that
same link, which concerns the "formal introduction and first reading.")
It's not as if Council members were rushed in proposing this Charter amendment.
You have been thinking about this at least since last summer when you made a
similar proposal in a belated attempt to get it on the November 2020 ballot.
And Council Member Gordon introduced a related Charter amendment almost three
years ago.
This is sloppiness to the point of embarrassment. We residents of the city of
Minneapolis deserve far better. A Council that was serious would have deferred
this to the next Council cycle, and a Public Health and Safety Committee that
was serious would have deferred this to the next meeting of that committee. So
you three are hardly the only ones at fault for this sloppiness. Regrettably,
you have too many willing enablers on the Council as well.
Keep safe and stay healthy.
Yours,
Chuck Turchick
Ward 6
Chuck Turchick
Phillips