Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.07.28 CCM STUDY7/28/25 -1- 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 JULY 28, 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 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Dan Jerzak, Teneshia Kragness, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember Moore requested that item 6c., Resolution Identifying the Need for LCA Predevelopment Funding and Authorizing for Grant Funds for Amani Construction & Development, LLC for Townhomes at the 540 Block of Brooklyn Blvd, be moved from the consent agenda and added to the Council agenda. She stated that item 6c. Resolution Identifying the Need for LCA Predevelopment Funding and Authorizing for Grant Funds for Amani Construction & Development, LLC for Townhomes at the 540 Block of Brooklyn Blvd is regarding the Livable Communities Act (LCA) funding for the townhome Center Northport, and she does not believe that the Council has had enough information as a consent agenda item. Mayor Graves asked if there were other Councilmembers who agreed, or if questions could be answered during the Work Session. Councilmember Jerzak agreed with Councilmember Moore and expressed his concerns over an item regarding this type of policy and the implications. He said that there was a thorough work study, as he had several pages of questions regarding the topic. Dr. Edwards said this item is just a grant application on the Consent Agenda, and that is why it is on the Consent Agenda. Staff is unable to be in the Chambers but can be online to answer questions. Councilmember Moore stated she did not cite her reasons for pulling it from the Consent Agenda, but the grant application is related to the affordable housing component of the proposed townhomes, and there are other reasons, as Councilmember Jerzak mentioned, at least to the Work Session, if there is time. 7/28/25 -2- Mayor Graves asked if the Staff is online now. Dr. Edwards confirmed the Staff is online. Mayor Graves suggested the Council open this issue up for discussion right now. Councilmember Jerzak stated he was not opposed to that, but he had a few other Consent Agenda items that he would like to discuss, which could be brought up later. Mayor Graves said to go through those items first. Councilmember Moore stated she has a motion and a second to pull item 6c from the Consent Agenda, and asked if it needed to be voted on. Mayor Graves said she did not hear a motion made. Councilmember Moore moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to move Item 6c. Resolution Identifying the Need for LCA Predevelopment Funding and Authorizing for Grant Funds for Amani Construction & Development, LLC for Townhomes at the 540 Block of Brooklyn from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Session. Mayor Graves voted against the same. Motion passed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she had two corrections for the minutes for the Study Session on July 14; on page six, in the seventh paragraph, North Park should be Northport. On page three, in the second paragraph, it stated that Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if City Staff approves the minutes, and she did not understand the wording. Mayor Graves said that it was a little bit confusing, but she thought it was asking if City Staff was proofreading the minutes for the correct titles, prior to sending the minutes to the Council. She remembered there was a conversation about a third party that prepares the minutes. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she thought the wording should have been City Council not City Staff. Mayor Graves said that when you read it with the paragraph before it in mind, it makes a little bit more sense. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that City Staff does not approve the minutes, though she stated it was not a big deal, but the statement was confusing. Councilmember Jerzak stated that this is more about the process of the Mid-Season review for Dr. Edwards. He received the review for Dr. Edwards late Wednesday morning with a deadline of five o'clock. There were no attachments, and he could not rate or do anything. He immediately notified Dr. Edwards and Janice from Common Sense, as he knew he would not meet the five o'clock deadline. He requested an appointment with Janice and was informed there were no appointments available in July. In his one-on-one meeting with Dr. Edwards on Thursday, he brought this to Dr. Edwards' attention and his concerns that this is not a fair process. Councilmember Jerzak stated he did participate but did not understand the implications of having to assign points. He thought it was more of a check-in to see if he and Dr. Edwards were on the same page or needed a course correction. Councilmember Jerzak discussed his concern over the points assignment with Dr. Edwards as well. He continued that he wants to be fair to Dr. Edwards, and a lot of the goals in the review are fluid in the timeline over time and by year-end. He stated that he was finally able to make an appointment with Janice tomorrow to discuss his concerns. Councilmember Jerzak stated that he completed the Mid-Year review, and it is in the queue, but he wanted to bring this up because he did not receive the Mid-Year review in a timely manner. He asked if anyone else on 7/28/25 -3- the Council had the same experience. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she also had technical difficulties, her tablet is worthless, and her phone does not have Microsoft Word; she could not do it. She alerted Janice at Common Sense and let her know why she could not complete the Mid-Year review on a device. She stated that Dr. Edwards is going to give her hard copies. Councilmember Moore stated that she replied to Dr. Edwards and Janice as well, that she never received the template to do a Mid-Year review or a reminder a day before it was due. She stated that Janice told her that the Council had discussed this last week. Councilmember Moore explained that without the template, she does not have anything to complete the Mid-Year review. She agreed with Councilmember Jerzak that the Mid-Year review is a touch point in the entire year of performance, and it would not be as lengthy for her if it were to wait until the end of the year to look at goals and accomplishments. Mayor Graves said she had no problems accessing documents, but she did see that it came in on Wednesday, and it had to be turned in by five o'clock on Thursday, which she was able to do, but she had a few problems because she was using a different device. She did complete it and turned it in. Councilmember Kragness did have some issues because she was sick for a couple of days. She discussed those issues with Janice, who informed her that the Mid-Year review was postponed, so it was okay, but she did get the attachment. Mayor Graves said the point is that the Council needs to identify a new date to come together as a Council. She thought August 11 had previously been suggested. Dr. Edwards stated that the last time the Council tried to align with Council meetings, the Council had a scheduled meeting on August 11, where the Mid-Year review could be done at that time. He knows that representatives from Common Sense are flying in and will be able to come to Council Chambers on August 11. Looking at August 11, the Council has also established a meeting on August 25. He explained that this will be a two-step process, and a meeting will happen for the Council to have conversations about the Mid-Year review on August 11. On August 25, Dr. Edwards would meet with the Council to get their feedback on his Mid-Year review. Mayor Graves asked if those meeting dates would work for all the Councilmembers. Councilmember Jerzak asked if those meetings would be at five o’clock. Mayor Graves confirmed they would be at five o’clock. Dr. Edwards stated that some of the Councilmembers have challenges getting there at five o'clock, so it was suggested that the meeting be from 5:30 to 6:30, and that the study session should be decreased to thirty minutes to accommodate that. Mayor Graves confirmed that it would just mean a shorter Work Session for that day. 7/28/25 -4- Councilmember Jerzak said he was in agreement with those dates and asked if the Council could get calendar invites for those meetings. Mayor Graves asked if there were any other agenda items Councilmember Jerzak wanted to discuss. Councilmember Jerzak said it had all been addressed. Councilmember Moore stated this is probably the only opportunity to address the resident concerns she has received about activities in the City. She stated everyone on the Council received an email regarding Northport Park activities over the weekend, and she believes that Dr. Edwards will be responding to the appropriate Staff regarding that. She stated that this is an ongoing challenge at Northport Park, and she knows that the Council has talked about bringing this up in a Work Session in terms of permits and consequences. She also noted this past weekend was the Liberian Independence Day function, and she received multiple messages regarding trash, the size of the gathering, and other concerns. This was a City-sponsored function, and she is not sure what happened in terms of planning, but it was quite concerning regarding crowd size, trash, and other related concerns. Dr. Edwards was made aware of those concerns and is following up with the appropriate Directors. Councilmember Moore continued that because the Council is discussing strategic priorities, she wanted to call attention to a request made for the Finance Commission to discuss purchasing policy, which has not been brought back to the Council in light of the audit findings. She noted that the Council will continue following up regarding that. She stated that she is hoping that, in terms of strategic priorities, although it is important, it has been on the Work Session agenda and other meeting agendas many times, and there are other things the Council can discuss besides strategic priorities, and maybe those agenda items need to change moving forward. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said the Council used to have all pending items on the Study Session agenda, and that practice fell off at some point. Mayor Graves asked if she meant the pending Work Session items. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said yes and asked Dr. Edwards if, perhaps, at the next meeting, he could bring those pending items so the Council could rank and prioritize them. Dr. Edwards stated at the beginning of the year that he had come to the Council and adopted all the items that the Council wanted to, and the Council was provided with priorities and a list that was individually ranked. He stated that the Council has been working through that list, and he actually just looked through the prioritized list and reported to the Council on those items. He and City Staff have started putting the items that remain in the weekly update. He stated that the Council has ticked through three-quarters of that list, but he can bring that list back to the Council and revisit items that they feel need more discussion. He stated that the Council had also indicated that not everything on that list needed to be discussed, but could be provided in the weekly newsletters. He reiterated that he will provide that list to the Council in the weekly update, as well as an update on every item that has been brought to the Council via presentations. Councilmember Jerzak stated that one of the Work Session items that has come up is the lettering 7/28/25 -5- mandate, which would be a new agenda item. The pet ordinance was also a new agenda item. He asked about a meeting that was scheduled for June 1, where Dr. Edwards was supposed to present about compensation for the City Council and Mayor, and asked if that had been completed. Dr. Edwards said there has been a presentation on compensation for elected officials. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson recalled that there is a deadline, and three or four years ago, it was missed, and therefore, there was no increase in compensation. She stated she knows there is a hard deadline, and if the Council does not act on it, then they have to wait a year. Dr. Edwards stated he would follow up on that issue. Councilmember Kragness said that since the Council is doing a Work Session about the Liberian Independence Day Parade and celebration, she wanted to note that she was in attendance at that event with Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, and that is the first time it has been held in Brooklyn Center. She has not personally received any complaints about that event, and she thought it was a very honorable activity to be a part of. The event was live-streamed back to Liberia, and it was an honor to be a part of that and to have it hosted in Brooklyn Center. She stated that Councilmember Moore got some complaints about it, but she did not receive any complaints. She was in attendance, and it was an amazing and beautiful experience. Mayor Graves said she did not get any complaints about the event via email or phone call, and walked through the park today to check it out. The park had a couple of things here and there, but noted it could have been significantly worse, considering the size of the event. She stated that the only thing she noticed was that one of the permanent outhouses needed to be cleaned up, but as she was leaving the park, she saw Staff coming to do that. She thanked Councilmember Kragness for sharing her experience and for stepping in to play Mayor Pro Tem that day and being part of the celebration. She explained that she already had commitments that day and could not attend. Dr. Edwards stated there are a couple of debriefing sessions that Staff are doing, and following those debriefings, either this Friday or the following, can put an update in the weekly report on the event with lessons learned and how the City can do better. Mayor Graves thanked Dr. Edwards for that update. Councilmember Jerzak said that he also received complaints about the event, and he forwarded everything to Dr. Edwards, who had already responded appropriately to him. He stated there might have been some confusion about whether there was police action in Brooklyn Center or Brooklyn Park. He forwarded all that information to Dr. Edwards, and Dr. Edwards indicated that the information would be in the update provided. Mayor Graves thanked Councilmember Jerzak for that information. Dr. Edwards stated that one change he would like to make is to switch items 7a. Mid-Year Crime Reduction and Strategy Update and 7b. Parliamentary Procedures and Robert’s Rules of Order Review on the Regular Agenda. 7/28/25 -6- Mayor Graves said the Council has 35 minutes left in the Study Session, and the Council has already voted to remove it from the Consent Agenda, so she suggested that the Council move into the Study Session items. COMMISSION CODE OF RESPECT Dr. Edwards stated this item started over a year ago, and the Council at one point approved it and then repealed it. Council had the foresight to revamp it from a Code of Conduct to a Code of Respect for Councilmembers. This was an intent to have a policy that identifies the intended behavior of the Council and demonstrates respect for one another, City Staff, and the public. This Code also outlines behavior that the Council wanted to model, and it adopted the Code of Respect. He noted that the second important thing to note is that this Code identified restorative pathways for conflict, whereas the previous Code of Conduct focused on a more punitive approach. In the Code of Respect, the Council wanted to outline a restorative process to resolve conflict, and if resolution is not available, then that conflict can move through other avenues. He noted that this was a creative process that the Council came up with, and if he is meeting with City Managers across the state, he suggests this Code of Respect be modeled by other City Councils, as it is something he is very proud of. City Council had suggested that this Code of Respect not only apply to Councilmembers but also to Commissioners, so he has worked with City Attorney Siobhan Tolar, who would present on the item. Ms. Tolar stated this is a draft version that can be revised as the Council sees fit, and walk through it so the Council can get a sense of what the Code of Respect looks like. She explained that it is similar to the Council's Code of Respect but has been revised to fit City Commissioners more thoroughly. She stated she will be taking notes as they go through it, so if the Council sees things that they would like to change, let Ms. Tolar know. She started with the table of contents for the Code of Respect, and stated that it starts out with Commissioner conduct with one another, public meetings, and private encounters, then goes on to Commissioner conduct with City staff, with the public, and public meetings. The public meetings include meetings with public hearings, such as the Planning Commission. The table of contents continues with the Commissioner's conduct with the public in unofficial settings and with other public agencies. The next section moves on to the poor conduct and accountability measures, and this section will look different than what it looks like for the City Council, mainly because the City Council members are all elected officials, and it is the public who elects and removes Councilmembers, not the Council itself. She noted that in this instance, the Council would be able to remove as a final sanction any Commissioners who had conducted themselves poorly. She noted that the next section is the Code of Ethics, which the Council is all familiar with because it is in their Code of Respect as well. Ms. Tolar moved on to the actual document itself on page two, the Commission Code of Respect and Ethics. She stated she would not read it out to the Council verbatim because the Council had already agreed on the conduct that should be modeled in public meetings. This section also talks about the Commissioners' interaction with each other and the fact that Commissioners agree to practice civility, professionalism, and decorum in discussions and debate. Behaviors such as shouting or physical actions that could be construed as threatening will not be tolerated, and 7/28/25 -7- further, discuss how Commissioners are supposed to behave in a meeting. In the event of deference to order, Commissioners agree to honor the roles of Commission leadership, including the chair and co-chair, by maintaining order by deferring to their direction and guidance. It is the responsibility of the chair and co-chair to keep the Commission meetings on track during meetings. It is also the Commissioners' responsibility to set a positive example and to achieve those goals. Commissioners agree to avoid comments that personally attack other Commissioners. If a Commissioner is personally offended by the comments of another Commissioner, the offended Commissioner will make notes of the actual words used and may call for a point of order to challenge the other Commissioner to justify or apologize for the language used. These points are also in the Council's Code of Respect, and this is something that the Commissioners also have. Commissioners must also agree to collaborative problem solving, timeliness, no political endorsements, professional courtesy, and avoid personal attacks. Ms. Tolar asked if the Council had any questions about this section of the Code of Respect. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said he read the section on personal attacks thoroughly and thinks there is no concrete definition. She gave the example of saying something that inadvertently offends someone, and she is worried about that. She stated that everyone should conduct themselves above reproach, but she has concerns that if it were volume or tone of voice, it could be interpreted subjectively. She has no issue with anyone who is serving either as an elected official or a volunteer, and everyone should hold themselves to a higher standard; she is just concerned about the subjective wording. Councilmember Moore concurred with Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson and brought this up during the Council's Code of Conduct meeting as well, and stated that this wording is subjective. Having a raised voice or animated gestures could be construed as disrespectful or disparaging by someone else. She commented on item 1A. regarding slanderous or disparaging comments, it is stated that they can again be subjective. She used the example that she could be disparaged during a Commission meeting on social media or a public event, and asked if that is not subjective as to what she believes is slanderous or disparaging in terms of her reaction. She asked if Ms. Tolar could respond to that question and if it is specific enough. Ms. Tolar responded that these provisions may be subjective, but are meant for all the Council and Commissioners to work together. If there is a situation where there is shouting or physical intimidation, that is something that, as adults, Commissioners need to work through, whether or not that behavior is appropriate. She noted that Councilmember Moore is correct in that it is subjective, but taking it out of the document would not accomplish what the Council is trying to accomplish. She stated that she thinks the Council is trying to set a baseline for how people should act and then figure out how to do that together. She gave an example that if she did something offensive to Councilmember Moore, it is incumbent upon Councilmember Moore to tell Ms. Tolar that what she did was offensive. She stated that Councilmember Moore cannot control what is offensive to another person, and the only thing that anyone can control is how they respond and react, and that is the foundation of this section of the Code of Respect. She stated that if the Council would like to remove these words, this is the Council's Code of Respect determined for 7/28/25 -8- the Commissioners, but it is also an agreement that is meant to be a social contract among all of them that this is the way all of them should behave. Councilmember Kragness thanked Ms. Tolar for clarification, and she believes these words are necessary to hold people accountable. If people knew how to act, it would not have to be put in writing, so she believes that once it is in writing, it holds everyone accountable, and she is not opposed to the language at all. Councilmember Jerzak stated that initially, he had wanted to remove this section, but after reflecting, this is what he was hoping to accomplish, and he and Councilmember Kragness had previously discussed this. He does not think there is anything wrong with recognizing and apologizing in a softer and collaborative approach. He said it is okay to apologize and explain that a statement was not meant to be offensive to someone. He added that he is really uncomfortable with section F with the endorsement of candidates and does not think there is any place for politics in Commission meetings, and this is part of the Council’s rules of decorum and should be consistent throughout. He said he hopes his colleagues agree. Mayor Graves said she did not read section F that way, because it says it is inappropriate to mention endorsements during Commission or other official City meetings or functions. She noted that, as individuals who happen to voluntarily be on the Commission, she did not think the Council could tell Commissioners that they do not have the right to do so. She asked if Councilmember Jerzak is asking if he does not want the language in that section. Councilmember Jerzak said he wants clarity so no one takes liberty with that policy, and he understands that people go to all kinds of conventions, but he does not want it to bleed into City business. Mayor Graves stated that if it were not in writing, someone could technically try to endorse someone during a Commission meeting or a City meeting and use their role to accomplish undue influence; this policy states that it is inappropriate and a violation of the Code of Respect. If someone started doing that and it was not in the Code of Respect, there would be no grounds to hold them accountable. Councilmember Kragness suggested removing the first sentence of that section. Councilmember Jerzak stated he does not disagree with Mayor Graves' statement and understands what she is saying, but he does not want someone to use their position as a Commissioner as an inappropriate use of power. He noted that if the rest of the Council wants that wording, then he will agree to it. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson agreed and said that if the first sentence is removed from that section, it would provide more clarity. She also noted that the section is well-written but very wordy and redundant. Councilmember Kragness suggested that the policy reads that individuals have the right to endorse candidates, but when in a position, it is inappropriate during certain times. Councilmember 7/28/25 -9- Lawrence-Anderson emphasized the word individual. Councilmember Jerzak agreed with both Councilmembers regarding their input. Ms. Tolar asked if the Council wanted her to clarify the language for that portion and note the individual resident, or delete the entire sentence. Councilmember Moore responded that the sentence should be removed. Councilmember Kragness asked how that policy is written for the City Council. Ms. Tolar said the language is identical; it just says Commissioners instead of City Councilmembers. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson clarified that Councilmembers cannot endorse a politician from the podium but can do so as individual residents. Mayor Graves asked if there was agreement from the Council on how the policy should read, and if the first sentence should be removed or just changed to " Commissioners to individuals. Councilmember Moore concurred with Councilmember Jerzak and Councilmember Lawrence- Anderson and said to strike the first sentence. Councilmember Kragness noted that she was actually the one who suggested striking the first sentence. Councilmember Moore said she was not trying to overlook Councilmember Kragness, but agreed with whoever suggested deleting the first sentence. Mayor Graves noted there was consensus now on deleting the first sentence. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that the bylaws indicate that to be a Commissioner, they have to be a resident, which is already in the first sentence, so she thinks the first sentence is fine. Ms. Tolar asked if there were any other comments on this section. She moved on to private encounters and respectful workplace values, where Commissioners agree to continue to model respectful behavior in private, and the same level of respect and consideration of differing points of view that is deemed appropriate for the public should be the same in private. Data practices are pretty self-explanatory; they are the same policy that is in the Council's Code of Respect and are a requirement for all people who work for the City, whether they are volunteers, elected officials, or Staff. Commissioners should be cognizant of the communications sent back and forth. Public- private considerations note that even private conversations can have a public presence. City officials are always on display; their actions, mannerisms, and language are monitored by people around them whom they may not know. Lunch conversations could be overheard, or parking lot debates may be watched, and casual comments between individuals before and after public meetings may be noted. This policy states that Commissioners should be aware of their surroundings and the things they say while representing the City. Commissioners are to agree to refrain from making personal comments about other commissioners. It is acceptable to disagree, but unacceptable to make derogatory comments about other Commissioners' opinions and actions. Ms. Tolar asked if the Council had any comments about this section. Mayor Graves said there were no questions. Ms. Tolar moved on to Commissioner Conduct with City Staff and said this policy is similar to what the Council has. Commissioners must agree to uphold workplace values and agree to limit 7/28/25 -10- City Staff contact. She noted that Commissioners have even more limited City Staff contact than the Council does. Commissioners must agree to refrain from Staff criticism, political solicitation, comments about other Commissioners, and personal attacks in front of Staff. She asked if there were any questions about this section. As there were no questions, Ms. Tolar moved on to the next section. Ms. Tolar noted she would skip the Commissioner Conduct with the Public sections because it is really only for the Commissions that have public hearings, and they are to conduct themselves identically to the City Council during public hearings. In unofficial settings, Commissioners should not be making promises on behalf of the Commission. Commissioners may be asked to explain a policy or recommendation about an issue as they meet to talk with constituents and in the community. It is appropriate to give a brief overview of City policy and to refer to City Staff for further information. It is inappropriate to overtly or implicitly promise Commission or Council action or to promise City Staff will do something. Commissioners agree to refrain from making personal comments about other Commissioners to constituents. This section is all about how Commissioners act amongst the Staff, the public, and themselves, as well as public and private conversations. Ms. Tolar asked if there were any questions about this section. Ms. Tolar moved on to the next section about the Commissioner's conduct with public agencies. When representing City or personal interests if the Commissioner appears before another governmental agency or organization to gave an statement on an issue, they must clearly state that his or her statement reflects personal opinion or is the official stance of the City and whether that is the majority or minority opinion of the Commission and when they are representing the Commission they must support and advocate the official City position on an issue, not a personal viewpoint. Councilmember Moore stated that the Council's conduct with public agencies is to act or speak on behalf of the City Council, as consensus is not allowed, and that has been the policy for the last few years. She noted that typically, the Mayor is the speaker for the consensus of the Council. In her opinion, this policy should not even be part of the document, as the Commissioners should not ever be making comments about City Council business, and if they have questions, they should be contacting the City Manager. As residents of Brooklyn Center, Commissioners could have an interview with a TV station, but should not identify themselves as commissioners of the City. She noted that, just like the City Council, those comments should be deferred to the Mayor and City Manager. She asked for clarification from her colleagues. Mayor Graves asked her what the question was. Councilmember Moore reiterated that the policy should clearly state that Commissioners cannot make any statements. She noted that the policy states that Commissioners can make a statement that reflects their personal opinion, when in reality, Commissioners should not be making any statements. Dr. Edwards stated that there may be times when the City desires a resident to speak with one of the Commissioners in the legislature, or there may be an elected official and appointed individual, 7/28/25 -11 - just to bring a voice of a resident to the meeting. While that could happen, those instances are few and far between, so the Code of Respect probably would not lose anything if that section were cut out. Ms. Tolar stated that the only other caveat would be if a Commissioner were doing some type of cross-functional meeting with another governmental agency, like a Brooklyn Park Commissioner or other public agencies, this policy could apply. Councilmember Jerzak stated he could go either way on this policy, but a sister City might be an example of two Commissioners coming together cross-functionally, but this policy is not a hill he is willing to die on, and he will go along with the majority, as he has other concerns. Mayor Graves said she does not have a problem with it, and it outlines how to best handle that situation if it should arise. If it allows people to show up and follow the guidelines, she would prefer to keep the policy. Councilmember Moore said that in light of the fact that this is a Code of Respect and collaborative, if a Commissioner was talking out of turn, it would be called out on behalf of the City, and then the Mayor and City Manager could address that. She noted that she thought there was a process for restorative strategies. She stated that she did not want Commissioners to make comments that would reflect the consensus or majority of the Council. She stated she wants those comments to come from the Mayor or City Manager. Ms. Tolar moved on to the next section, which is poor conduct and accountability measures. Commissioners who violate the Code of Conduct or Respect will be subject to accountability measures. Any violation that potentially constitutes criminal conduct should be handled by the criminal justice system. Factors that will be considered in determining an appropriate restorative measure or sanction include, but are not limited to, the seriousness of the violation and the number of preceding violations. Commissioners will also have a restorative process. It differs slightly from the Council's restorative process, where the Commissioners agree to engage in a restorative measure prior to initiating sanctions for violating the Code of Respect. The restorative measures include, but are not limited to, a private meeting between the Commissioner and the City Manager, informal mediation between involved parties, and a mediator who would issue recommendations such as training, a public apology, or perhaps even suspension from a meeting, depending on the severity of the issue. The Commissioner and or involved parties would follow the recommendations, and if they chose not to follow those recommendations, then the process moves to sanctions. It would only be in the case that the Commissioner was unwilling to engage in restorative measures of all of these types that there would be a sanction. The sanction would be the removal of the Commission for failing to engage in restorative measures or continuing violations of the Code of Respect. The process would involve a Commissioner reporting a potential Code of Respect violation by another Commissioner by bringing the matter to the attention of the official of their choice, either the Mayor or the City Manager. A Brooklyn center Staff member may report a potential Code of Respect violation by a Commissioner by bringing the matter to the attention of the City Manager or Human Resources Manager. If the potential 7/28/25 -12- violation involves the Mayor, it should be brought to the attention of the Mayor Pro Tem, City Manager, or City Attorney. A Community member may report a potential code of respect violation by a member of the city commission to the Mayor, City Manager, or any other member of the Council. The investigation process would include a triage; the Mayor and the City manager would gather initial information and consult with the city attorney if necessary, and decide how to move forward. There would be a fact-finding process, and if necessary, the matter would be referred to the criminal justice system if it was serious enough. The Mayor and the city manager will determine whether to pursue independent fact-finding or internal fact-finding. The possible outcomes after an investigation include the City manager, in consultation with proper Staff, determining if the complaint is substantiated or unsubstantiated, and the restorative solution being sought prior to moving to a sanction. Ms. Tolar continued that if the complaint is substantiated the Commissioner will have a consultation with the City Manager and if that is unsuccessful then the parties move to a graduated resolution process which includes informal mediation with the harmed individuals and a City designee, an HR manager or someone of the like to mediate and issue recommendations to the Commissioner and involved parties. Commissioners and involved parties are to follow the recommendations. If the Commissioner refuses to follow the recommendations, then the process moves to sanctions, and this is the last resort. Ms. Tolar explained that in the process of removal, the City Manager would compile a redacted report for the Council to review. The names of the individuals, the Commission that they serve on, and other identifying information would be removed from the report, so it would be a blind evaluation by the Council. After review of the circumstances and recommendations, the Council will use a standard form provided by the administration to communicate the vote on whether or not this person should be removed from the Commission. The administration will provide the Council forms to the Mayor, and the Mayor will vote on the record. The Council will vote on the record about whether or not this person will be removed from the Commission. If the Commissioner is removed from service, the Commissioner will receive a letter of removal from the Council. Commission removal results in an automatic bar from Commission appointments for two years. Ms. Tolar stated that if the claims are unsubstantiated, the City Manager will work with the City Attorney to determine the resolution that is compliant with the Minnesota Governmental Data Practices Act. She noted that there are policies regarding conduct during meetings, but those policies are very similar to the Council's processes in their Code of Respect. Ms. Tolar asked if the Council had any questions for her about this process. Councilmember Moore asked about the terms of reporting a Code of Respect violation and asked why the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is involved in that investigation, and not human resources (HR) and the City Manager only. Ms. Tolar stated this policy mirrors the City Council’s process. Councilmember Moore said she had concerns about that same area in their Code of Respect as well, and asked why the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem had to be a reporting individual or part of the investigation. Ms. Tolar explained that, outside of the reason that this policy already exists within the City Council Code of Respect, there was no other reason. She stated that if Councilmember 7/28/25 -13- Moore would like it removed, she should speak with her fellow Councilmembers, and it can be removed. Councilmember Moore continued that she had brought this up during the Council’s Code of Respect as well, and did not know if she had the majority in terms of being against the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem leading both the process and the investigation. Councilmember Jerzak stated that it is by charter that members are appointed and voted on by the Council, and he feels that should remain the same. If a member of the Council is appointed as a Commission member, then a Councilmember should be part of removing or questioning that Commissioner if an issue arises. He noted that this is a friendly rebuttal to Councilmember Moore's question, that it is the Mayor's responsibility by charter, and that he is a stickler when it comes to the rules of the process. Mayor Graves asked if any other Councilmembers wanted to weigh in. No one wished to speak. Mayor Graves agreed with Councilmember Jerzak and stated that if she is the one who is making the appointments, it is her responsibility to vet if problems were to arise. She stated she understands Councilmember Moore's concerns, but ultimately, the final decision will come to the Council, which would negate any concerns around bias by the Mayor. Councilmember Moore stated respectfully that Mayor Graves was correct. Ms. Tolar moved on to the next section, which involved Ethics and Open Meeting law. She noted that everyone on the Council was aware that Commissioners are subject to the Open Meeting Law, so she was not going to go into too much detail. Minnesota Statutes 13D is the law that states City Commissioners cannot accept gifts from someone who has an interest in any matter involving the City. This law also pertains to elected officials and is pursuant to 471.875 in Minnesota Statutes as well as City Charter section 1404a. and section 22.95 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Policies. In addition, Commission members cannot have a personal financial interest in any sale, lease, or contract with the City, and the same goes for elected officials. The Commissioner cannot participate in matters in which the Commissioner's own personal interest, financial or otherwise, is so distinct from the public interest that the Commissioner cannot be expected to fairly represent the public's interest when voting. She reiterated that this is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.875 and is also part of Brooklyn Center's policies. Mayor Graves asked if any Councilmembers had questions regarding this. She also asked for thoughts about bringing back both Codes of Respect, as she knows that the Council had wanted to vote on both at the same time. Mayor Graves stated she was curious about whether the Council wanted to give a little bit of time to share the Council's Code of Respect with Commissioners, as well as allow them to review the Code of Respect for Commissioners and give feedback if needed. She stated that there could be a meeting for formal feedback from the Commissioners on it, but she is hesitant to do so as it could open a can of worms within the Commission. She stated that her thought was really just to share it with the Commissioners, and if they wanted to have a discussion, then the Council would discuss it with them, but not to necessarily give that directive. 7/28/25 -14- Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that she thinks the Code of Respect should go to all of the Commissions for review, and if there is any particular feedback, it could be sent to Dr. Edwards. If there were any questions, Commissioners could contact Councilmembers. She noted that overall, the Code of Respect is very thorough and common sense. Councilmember Jerzak agreed with both Mayor Graves and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson; his only recommendation is that Commissioners who have already been appointed deserve to see the Code of Respect because it is a change in policy. He noted that this Code of Respect should also be included in the packet when someone new comes aboard any of the Commissions, and any objections could be directed to Dr. Edwards via email and discussed with the Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that if and when the Council approves the Code of Respect, she thought it would be appropriate on each of the Commissions tabs on the website where an application is filled out that the Commissioners read and accept the terms of the Code of Respect, because otherwise they may not know what they are getting themselves into. Mayor Graves agreed with that statement. Dr. Edwards stated that the Council could come back to this on August 11 or August 25 with Council consideration and any feedback from the Commissions. Mayor Graves stated it should be on August 25 to give everyone a little more time. Councilmember Moore stated that the Council makes the final decision regarding the Code of Respect, and agreed it should be shared as the Council should receive any suggestions from other colleagues. She noted that Councilmember Jerzak also wanted the Council Policies and Procedures all considered at the same time, because there is some overlap between the Council policies and procedures and the Council and Commission Code of Respect. She asked if the Council wanted to separate those two discussions around policy and procedures. Mayor Graves asked if Councilmember Moore was talking about a different document, because it was noted before that the Council wanted to vote on both of the Codes of Respect for the Council and the Commission. Councilmember Moore stated she was talking about the other agenda item regarding Council policy and procedures, as well as Robert's Rules of Order. Councilmember Jerzak stated that he thinks those are two separate issues. He recalled that conversation previously, but he would like to vote on both the Commissioners' and the Council's Code at the same time. He noted that there are 311 pages of Council policies and procedures, and there is no way it can all be gone through by August 11. He suggested bringing both Codes of Respect back for discussion on August 25. Councilmember Moore thanked him for the clarification and agreed with the timeline. Dr. Edwards requested that the Regular Session Agenda be modified: add the Study Session Item Strategic Planning Update and Reporting. He added that Council salaries were set for 2026 in July of 2024. The ordinance 2024-06 states that the salaries for 2027 need to be set before the election in 2026. 7/28/25 -15- There was no objection from Council. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS STRATEGIC PLANNING UPDATE AND REPORTING This item was moved to the Regular Session Agenda. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 7:05 p.m.