Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.01.13 CCM STUDY1/13/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 13, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor April Graves at 6:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Barb Suciu, Deputy City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2024-138 – COMMUNITY SAFETY COMMISSION City Manager Reggie Edwards asked if the items could be brought to a future Work Session. A new policy would be required to allow an item to be moved to a Work Session or Study Session. Councilmember Moore pointed out Work Sessions are an opportunity for Council to discuss an item, but no action can be taken. A Study Session, however, an item can be moved to the regular agenda. Dr. Edwards stated there is no written policy dictating the procedure. Councilmember Moore noted many of the topics have been extensively discussed, and she has participated as a resident. She stated she would like to vote on Resolution 2024-128. Mayor Graves stated it hadn’t been the Council’s practice to move an item from a Work Session or Study Session to the Regular Session without an overwhelming majority agreeing to do so. Anyone could bring an item to a Study Session and subsequently request the item be voted on in the Regular Session. Councilmember Moore explained the item was taken at the end of a previous meeting, which included a lame duck Councilmember. She agreed the topic had been thoroughly discussed. The two items on the current Study Session agenda were previously voted on, but she did not vote on them. There was dissent in the vote, and there was not a consensus. She should have the option to move an item to the Regular Session as well. 1/13/25 -2- DRAFT Mayor Graves requested the existing policy be presented to the Council to ensure they abide by their own rules. Dr. Edwards stated that the present Study Session format was a pilot format requested during a past Council retreat. Therefore, there isn’t a policy in place. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated an item could be moved to the Regular Session when Mayor Wilson was on the Council. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out Mayor Graves previously expressed openness to continued conversation on the topic. He would like to seek out further consensus. The previous vote seemed like a last-minute push. Also, the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution was not fully reviewed, which was requested multiple times. It was also problematic that the Council received the documents at the last minute. Mayor Graves confirmed she would be open to continued conversation. Councilmember Kragness noted if an item has been voted on, it should not be reconsidered. This is a principle previously expressed by Councilmember Jerzak when items were presented related to the Implementation Committee. There shouldn’t be a precedent set to vote again on items that have been decided on, especially when there is a new Councilmember. Councilmember Jerzak agreed he usually disagrees with revoting an item. The difference in this situation is the lack of transparency through the document-sharing process and the lack of thorough review of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Overall, the process was unfair and rushed. Councilmember Jerzak stated there are several concerns with the documents such as the introduction of bias by requiring members to have past interactions with law enforcement, meddling with existing processes, and overall lack of clarity. Policies should only be made by the Council. He stated he would be open to further discussion. There is already an issue with obtaining a quorum on existing Commissions. Also, the proposed group is not intended to be punitive but to build community. Councilmember Moore added the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution has been discussed for quite a while. A final vote on the future of the Resolution has not been held. Plus, the fifth item in the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock- Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution has not been discussed and refined by the Council. Mayor Graves stated staff was directed to edit the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution based on the discussions held by the Council. The Council received a presentation from staff, but the Council was not open to starting the process while the Implementation Committee was still working. Multiple departments and staff members have contributed to the proposed structure of the group. There are the same if not more details for the Community Safety Commission in comparison to other Commissions. Any 1/13/25 -3- DRAFT policies suggested by a Commission still require approval by the City Council. All voting members are residents. Mayor Graves reviewed the details of the Community Safety Commission and read from Resolution 2024-138. “The scope of activity of the Commission shall consist of advising the City Council and other City advisory commissions and committees regarding matters relevant to Community Safety and Violence Prevention functions. “In accordance with the Act and the findings set forth above, and in fulfillment of its purpose, the Commission’s duties and responsibilities of the Commission include, but are not limited to, the following: develop, advise, recommend, and upon adoption by the City Council, monitor the execution of a comprehensive plan and recommend amendments to the plan as warranted relevant to community safety and violence prevention matters in the City, including the Act, advise and assist the City in the adoption of policies and procedures by the City Council responsive to changing diverse community needs and concerns in matters of community safety and violence prevention, annually report to the City Council regarding accomplishments toward fulfillment of such comprehensive plan and recommend amendments to the plan as warranted, advise and assist the City in reviewing and discussing community safety and violence prevention policies for the City, and make recommendations to the City Council concerning community safety and violence prevention in the City, work with City staff and other Commissions on matters regarding community safety and violence prevention in the City, review current community safety and violence prevention initiatives, practices, and policies, work with neighborhood committees to understand the community safety and violence prevention needs of each area in the City, identify high-priority areas for community safety and violence prevention in the community and analyze methods of fulfilling these needs and interests and presenting alternative recommendations for actions to the City Council, provide opportunities for the citizens of Brooklyn Center to voice their concerns and opinions regarding community safety and violence prevention matters, recommend new and innovative concepts in community safety and violence prevention for the City, advise, review and make recommendations for the City’s response to protests, review the current collective bargaining agreement between the City make recommendations prior to final approval to the City Manager, and periodically make any other recommendations to the City Council related to initiating programs or policies to improve community health in the City. “The Commission shall be composed of a Chairperson and six voting members and four non- voting advisors, all of whom shall be appointed and serve as set forth below. All voting members of the Commission shall be residents with direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems. Or have had direct contact or expertise with one or more of the public safety, judicial or public health systems. All non-voting advisors shall be appointed and serve as set forth below. All non-voting advisors shall have direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems or have had direct contact or expertise with one or more of the public safety, judicial or public health systems.” 1/13/25 -4- DRAFT Mayor Graves pointed out the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution and the Community Safety Commission is in response to the killing of Duante Wright by Brooklyn Center police. The Community Safety Commission also derives from the settlement with the family. The goal is to improve public safety for all residents of Brooklyn Center. The only other item that may need review is the collective bargaining agreement. However, the agreement is a public document, and any resident may provide input to Dr. Edwards. Overall, any issues with the Community Safety Commission are unclear. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted she is disappointed the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution was not rewritten prior to the initiation of the Community Safety Commission, which is why she voted against the Community Safety Commission at the previous meeting. Mayor Graves stated the Council has discussed the fifth section and Resolution 2024-138 was created by staff to encompass said discussion. Mayor Graves asked what objections Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson previously had to the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson pointed out the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution calls for a Commission with a “majority of whose members must be City residents with direct experience being arrested, detained, or having other similar contact with Brooklyn Center Police.” Mayor Graves stated the membership was edited to say, “All voting members of the Commission shall be residents with direct experience or contact with the public safety, judicial or public health systems.” Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated staff made the changes. Mayor Graves agreed staff made the changes based on the discussion and concerns expressed by the Council. Councilmember Jerzak stated there wasn’t an opportunity for a complete discussion of the fifth item. He asked why there is a requirement for the membership to have interactions with law enforcement. Mayor Graves stated the document calls for a majority of membership with experience with various legal systems. It means much more than people who have been arrested. Councilmember Jerzak stated experience with various legal systems creates an implicit bias. Mayor Graves stated nearly everyone has had experiences with public safety, judicial, or public health systems. It is hardly exclusionary. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted the Council never had a work or Study Session to review the differences between the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution and Resolution 2024-138. Mayor Graves explained the purpose of the previous meeting was for comparison. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated the conversation was too rushed. 1/13/25 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Kragness stated she is unsure why there is an issue with Resolution 2024-138. Every concern expressed by the Council was incorporated into Resolution 2024-138, and the document is a fair compromise. Councilmember Moore pointed out she was present in the audience for the meeting. At 10:00 p.m., Mayor Graves extended the meeting until 10:30 p.m. At 10:29 p.m., Councilmember Butler called the item to a vote, and the vote was split 3-2. For Councilmember Butler to call an item to a vote one minute before the end of the meeting is disconcerting. Councilmember Jerzak reiterated he has issues with the protests and the collective bargaining agreements. He asked if there is a Council consensus to set a 45-day freeze on implementing the Community Safety Commission. He wants to work something out. Alternatively, he offered to make a motion to revote the item. Councilmember Moore noted her agreement with Councilmember Jerzak. She asked Dr. Edwards if a 45-day freeze is an option and if the timeline would work out by other scheduled topics. Dr. Edwards stated a Study Session is an opportunity for the Council to discuss whatever they would like. Therefore, it is the Council’s purview to determine the time frame for a freeze. Mayor Graves reiterated her openness to further conversation. However, the details of concern remain unclear. She requested staff draft a new version of the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution reflecting past discussions. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she wants to review the original Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution before rewriting anything. The item needs to be discussed. She voted against the Community Safety Commission because she needed more time to consider the item. Mayor Graves reiterated the remaining concerns are unclear. The process being rushed is not a sincere concern with Resolution 2024-138. She suggested Councilmembers are being bogged down by concerns with the original Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution rather than offering solutions. Councilmember Moore stated Mayor Graves shouldn’t correct the feelings of others regarding the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Mayor Graves stated she is not saying anything about the feelings of Councilmember Lawrence- Anderson. Councilmember Moore stated Mayor Graves is not Councilmember Lawrence- Anderson’s therapist. Mayor Graves stated Councilmember Moore doesn’t need to stand up for Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Councilmember Moore stated she would be a defender of all of her colleagues. 1/13/25 -6- DRAFT Mayor Graves pointed out Councilmember Moore hasn’t been recognized by the presiding officer to speak. Councilmember Moore stated she raised a Point of Order, so she will be recognized. Mayor Graves asked the City Attorney if it was a proper Point of Order. Councilmember Moore stated it is a proper Point of Order in her opinion. Mayor Graves explained she meant no offense toward Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she understood. She pointed out the Council didn’t participate in rewriting the section in question. Instead, staff provided a rewritten version. Mayor Graves noted that is the usual process of the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson explained she is worried the documents will be co-mingled. She didn’t initially support the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution due to the short time frame. Mayor Graves agreed she had concerns with the original document, but those have been reviewed by the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like to review each section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution and create a new document. Mayor Graves noted they had already reviewed the sections. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she didn’t remember having a discussion on the fifth section. Mayor Graves directed staff to gather minutes and dates from all previous discussions the Council has held regarding the refinement of Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution. Councilmember Jerzak asked if he should make a motion or seek a consensus about freezing Resolution 2024-138 pending further discussion. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated a motion would be the appropriate action. Councilmember Jerzak moved Councilmember Moore seconded to end the discussion because they are going in circles. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Kragness asked if Councilmembers Jerzak and Lawrence-Anderson need more time to review the document. She also asked if they would still need more time if Councilmember Butler were on the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated they needed more time to review the fifth section of the Daunte Wright and Kobe Dimock-Heisler Community Safety and Violence Prevention Resolution before forming a Commission. 1/13/25 -7- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak asked if Resolution 2024-138 was frozen. Ms. Tolar explained the only motion made was about ending the discussion. Councilmember Jerzak moved Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson to suspend implementation of the Community Safety Commission for up to 45 days until the Council has the time to review Resolution 2021-73. Councilmember Kragness and Mayor Graves voted against the same. Motion passed. DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2024-128 – CODE OF CONDUCT Mayor Graves asked Councilmember Moore to start discussion of the item as she requested it be on the agenda. Councilmember Moore asked if Dr. Edwards or the Mayor were supposed to provide an overview of the item. Mayor Graves explained because Councilmember Moore requested the topic, she should speak on the item first. Councilmember Moore reiterated Resolution 2024-128 was passed at the last minute of a late meeting. While she served as a Commissioner, she received a complaint about her conduct without receiving any information about the content of the complaint. She participated in a review process, so a process is in place. The item was voted on by a lame duck Councilmember, and the item won’t apply to her. Councilmember Moore noted another member of the Council was willing to wait to vote on the item until a new Council was set. However, it wasn’t reflected in her vote. Additionally, the vote was split showing a lack of consensus. Councilmember Moore pointed out that the bulk of the Code of Conduct is a copy of Brooklyn Park’s policy. The policy has the potential to be weaponized against any Commissioner, Councilmember, staff member, or resident. Councilmember Jerzak explained he has not been supportive of the item. Resolution 2024-128 references City Charter Section 14.04(A), but no such section exists. He pointed out that the document would be weaponized against Councilmembers. As they are elected officials, they should rely on the public vote to determine their place on the Council. There is ample policy in place such as in the Charter to address conduct. Based on a recent memo on which he is not allowed to comment, he would be open to a future conversation on the memo regarding freedom of speech. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson added the censure process has not been clearly determined. There is an overall lack of clarity. She supports ethical conduct. There is an existing code, and the two documents need to be compared. 1/13/25 -8- DRAFT Councilmember Kragness noted the purpose of the Code of Conduct is to promote accountability. She confirmed she previously stated she was willing to wait to vote until there was a new Council in place. However, she changed her mind based on comments made by Councilmember Moore during the public comment. There was a lack of professionalism and the role of the Mayor was not honored. Mayor Graves has a high tolerance of disrespect. As Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember Kragness stated she would not have such a high tolerance of disrespect. Councilmember Kragness added the amount of pushback on the document shows the need for an accountability measure. If the Council wants to hold the public to certain conduct standards, then the Council itself must also be held to a high standard. Ultimately, she doesn’t have an issue with the document because she is not disrespectful or unprofessional. Mayor Graves explained the effort to create a Code of Conduct derived from multiple complaints she had received. While there may be an investigative process, there is no accountability process. The intention was for the document to apply to both Council and Commissions. There was little to no pushback on the guidelines as they would apply to Commissioners. There is pushback from Councilmembers likely because they have been the subject of a complaint. Mayor Graves noted she has served on the Council for ten years and received one complaint from another Councilmember. She sat down with the Councilmember and apologized for the contention, and they were able to work together well. She supports the Code of Conduct in place because she isn’t concerned about her actions being disrespectful. Also, if she had been the subject of recent complaints, she would make the decision to abstain from the vote as it may have been a conflict of interest. Mayor Graves pointed out the same issues keep coming up. The initial reason for pushing back the item was because Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson wasn’t present, and Mayor Graves was flexible and waited to vote until all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Graves added there is hypocrisy because the Council wants to hold others accountable but not hold themselves accountable for their own actions. She previously expressed concern about waiting to vote on the item as the opposition was awaiting more votes to support their perspective. Mayor Graves read a portion of the minutes from the previous meeting: “Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson explained she thoroughly read the minutes of the previous conversation on the topic. She noted there is no definition for what constitutes a censure. She had requested clarification, but she has not received a response. The only issue she has with the document is the unclear accountability measures. “Mayor Graves stated the first step is a verbal warning, then a written warning, and then the Council would have to agree to censure a Councilmember. There has also been a discussion on the accountability process for Commissions. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would write legal clarification of what offenses would warrant a censure. 1/13/25 -9- DRAFT “City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated a violation of the policy could result in an accountability measure. The document includes relationships between Councilmembers and various entities such as the public, staff, and other Councilmembers. The first step is a verbal warning, the second is a written warning, and the third would be a vote to censure. “Ms. Tolar explained Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson previously asked for a definition of a censure. A censure is a public admonition by the Council that declares an individual has violated the Code of Conduct. “Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she agrees with much of the document, but she does agree with points made by Councilmember Jerzak. This is not an item that should be handled at the final meeting of the year. “Ms. Tolar added the proposed resolution includes a provision for potential future amendments. The Council has the opportunity to revise the resolution as needed. “Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson pointed out that the Charter also addresses conduct and ethics. Mayor Graves stated the Charter doesn’t include any accountability measures. “Councilmember Jerzak moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to table the Resolution Adopting a City Council Code of Conduct of Ethics… Motion failed.” Mayor Graves stated ultimately, some members of the Council do not agree with being held accountable for their actions. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson agreed the Council should be held to the highest standard. There is an existing document related to conduct, and it needs to be compared to the proposed version. Mayor Graves stated the existing document was reviewed step by step with the City Attorney, though Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson may not have been present. Nonetheless, the minutes are available to read through. The primary difference between the existing documents and the proposed one is accountability measures. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like to understand what would constitute a censure. Mayor Graves stated publicly defaming staff or Councilmembers would require some accountability measures. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would like examples spelled out. Councilmember Kragness stated if someone doesn’t want to be censured, then they should follow the Code of Conduct. Councilmember Jerzak explained he is open to accountability measures. However, the proposed changes don’t account for half-truths or lies. He is not allowed to speak about his personal experience with the complaint process, but it doesn’t feel good. The policies may be used against those with opposing political ideals. Overall, he has been professional. Especially considering 1/13/25 -10- DRAFT freedom of speech, people need a thick skin. He reiterated the voters can decide whom they want to lead the community. Councilmember Moore asked if defaming social media posts and being berated during Open Forum has any consequences. Dr. Edwards previously told her there is no recourse for such actions. Councilmember Moore pointed out she doesn’t recall Mayor Graves saying she felt disrespected. She holds the Mayor in the highest esteem. She apologized if any of her comments were disrespectful, and she requested Mayor Graves speak to her directly about any issues. Councilmember Moore noted her agreement with Councilmember Jerzak. The policy will be weaponized against Councilmembers. She added Council comments are being used as weapons against her. Councilmember moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to repeal Resolution 2024-128. Councilmember Kragness and Mayor Graves voted against the same. Motion passed. Mayor Graves stated the rest of the agenda would have to be handled after the Regular Session. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out there wasn’t an opportunity to discuss miscellaneous items. Mayor Graves stated they would return to the Study Session should time allow. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET DELIVERY DATE DISCUSSION This item was discussed after the Regular Session, Work Session, and Economic Development Authority Work Session were completed. RECESS STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Mayor Graves recessed the Study Session meeting at 7:08 p.m. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION The Brooklyn Center City Council reconvened the Study Session at 9:08 p.m. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET DELIVERY DATE DISCUSSION Dr. Edwards introduced the item. He explained Departments submit their materials on a Monday for Dr. Edwards to review and revise on Tuesday and Wednesday. The goal is to distribute packets 1/13/25 -11 - DRAFT by Thursday preceding a Council meeting. In 2021, the Council requested the packets be available by Wednesday. At that time, the conversations were contentious and the request was not operationally reasonable. Overall, the packets have never been available on Wednesdays, so staff is requesting the policy that says the packets be made available on Wednesdays be reversed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated the Council received the packet on Wednesdays up until Mayor Elliott served on Council. Dr. Edwards stated the past policy was for Thursdays and the shift in 2021 was to Wednesdays. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated there is a lot of information for the Council to review. Thursday is hardly enough time to review the packet thoroughly before the weekend. The packets are delivered on Fridays sometimes, and there is no time to refresh between reviewing the packet and the Monday meeting. Dr. Edwards’ predecessor delivered the packets on Wednesdays. Councilmember Jerzak pointed out the most recent packet was 244 pages, and he reads every page. Staff has asked that no there be no surprises at Council meetings, but there isn’t a chance to review the packet and email back and forth with staff if the packets aren’t ready until late Thursday or Friday. He asked for details about what is operationally unachievable. He wants to be well- prepared for meetings and to engage with community members. Dr. Edwards stated the policy is not operationally achievable consistently. The policy asks for Departments to submit their documents on Monday then it is reviewed on Tuesday. Any items that require edits or more information from departmental staff are handled on Wednesday. If the packets were sent out on Wednesday, the information would be incomplete or disorganized. They also have to gather information or documents from external entities. To deliver the packet on a Wednesday, the staff would need to submit their information the week before. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the staff ’s deadline could be pushed back to allow for the Wednesday packet delivery. The agendas are lengthy, so pushing back less important items wouldn’t be bad for the agendas. Dr. Edwards explained they have already attempted to adjust the submission date. The request has not been operationally achievable for years. When the policy changed, he spoke with his predecessor about its unfeasibility. Staff is already challenged with the existing timeline. Councilmember Kragness added Council has complained multiple times about missing or incomplete information in the packet. In light of that, asking for the packet sooner doesn’t seem reasonable. She doesn’t have time to review the packet until the weekends anyway. Councilmember Moore noted a Deputy City Manager was hired. She asked if the new hire would speed up the process. Dr. Edwards stated the information needed to generate the packet comes from Departments which hasn’t changed. He is responsible for reviewing the submissions. Councilmember Jerzak asked Dr. Edwards if staff believes the request would be burdensome. 1/13/25 -12- DRAFT When he was on staff, he had to submit information to the Directors by a deadline. They didn’t miss deadlines back then. Dr. Edwards pointed out he is part of the staff. It is not operationally achievable. He understands the implications for all staff. Mayor Graves noted her agreement with Councilmember Kragness. She also doesn’t have time to review packets until the weekend. She added there is a lot of background work that goes into simply putting a topic on the agenda. Councilmember Moore noted her support of the staff ’s request. Mayor Graves explained there was a previous discussion of the Wall of Fame in City Hall. It was founded in 1988. There hasn’t been another induction since 1998. Several of those recognized were Councilmembers. The first recognition was for Mary Jane who operated the Brooklyn Center Post. The purpose is to recognize and identify people who made a significant contribution to the community and its development. She asked when Brooklyn Center last added someone to their Wall of Fame. She requested images of the current Council be posted somewhere in City Hall to be more recognizable to community members. She also requested the Wall of Fame and any potential updates be assigned to the Cultural Arts Commission. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson suggested the Wall of Fame be moved to the Heritage Center. Councilmember Jerzak noted his agreement with the suggestion. The photos of current Councilmembers should be hung in its place. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the Council has a room within the Heritage Center. Mayor Graves stated it was in a church. Parks and Recreation Director Cordell Wiseman explained a building that used to be a stable has historical photos in it. Councilmember Kragness agreed with the comments of Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson and Councilmember Jerzak. Councilmember Moore also agreed. Councilmember Jerzak requested any historical items go to their rightful owners such as the Historical Society. Also, he doesn’t want to dump items on the Heritage Center if they don’t have a space available. Dr. Edwards stated the Council will be reviewing the list of pending Work Session items at the next Study Session. Councilmember Jerzak asked if Councilmembers may send ideas for Work Sessions to Dr. Edwards. For example, he wants to update the Council Policy as it is years old. Mayor Graves confirmed ideas may be submitted to Dr. Edwards. 1/13/25 -13- DRAFT Councilmember Moore pointed out each Councilmember is only allowed to submit one item to Dr. Edwards for each meeting per the Council Policy. Councilmember Kragness noted her appreciation of the page numbers throughout the packet. She requested the agenda have page numbers of the relevant packet pages. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded adjournment of the Study Session at 9:34 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.