Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.09.22 CCM STUDY9/22/25 -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 SEPTEMBER 22, 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 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Teneshia Kragness, Dan Jerzak, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Shannon Pettit, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Mayor Graves asked for any agenda questions or miscellaneous discussion items. Dr. Edwards stated there are two items: Resolution Authorizing Brooklyn Center Staff to Execute All Necessary Documents to Ensure Participation in the Multistate Settlements Relating to Opioid Supply Chain Participants, to be added to Council Consent, item 6d., which we had previously participated in; as well as add a Closed Session discussion to the Regular Agenda, item 11. Councilmember Jerzak asked for clarification on the Code of Respect since the only one on the agenda was for Commissioners. He asked if the Council Code of Respect is considered done. He also noted that he did not find any changes to the Commission Code of Respect, other than what was requested by Council. Dr. Edwards said in principle yes, there are minor tweaks, but there is no structural fundamental change, and some clarification to draw some distinction between the role of Councils and Commissioners, but that is pretty much it. Mayor Graves said there has not been any discussion on the Decorum yet, but that would happen. Councilmember Jerzak said he thought a thorough vetting was appropriate, but he would like to move the Code of Respect along. Mayor Graves said there has not been a chance to discuss after receiving feedback on the Code of Respect, but that it would happen. 9/22/25 -2- CITY COMMISSION CODE OF RESPECT AND ETHICS DISCUSSION Mayor Graves asked Dr. Edwards if he could give an overview of the feedback and minor tweaks that were made on the Code of Respect and Ethics. Dr. Edwards said he could, and by the time he is finished, he hopes City Attorney Siobhan Tolar will be there because she was the principal author, but he can speak to the changes that were made and the rationale behind them. Dr. Edwards explained that the Code of Respect was sent out to Commissioners for feedback and asked for more time at the last Council meeting. A few additional comments did come in from the Financial Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, the Culture of Arts, and Sister Cities Commission. He explained that the responses were very similar across Commissions, with three primary concerns being brought forward. One issue was the possibility of infringement upon First Amendment rights, primarily freedom of speech, in particular, and modifications were made to the Code of Respect that he would address later. The second was the process being used unfairly to dismiss a Commission member, meaning if a Councilmember did not like a perspective or a particular individual, the process would be used in a way to easily dismiss that Commissioner without due process. The third issue raised was the prospect that the Council adopt the Code of Respect, execute it, and model the behavior that the Council wants to see prior to the Commissioners adopting the Code of Respect. Dr. Edwards said he would now address what is being done regarding the three concerns raised by Commissioners, and then City Attorney Siobhan Tolar would discuss the changes, as she is the principal drafter. Regarding First Amendment rights, while it was not felt that the document infringed on First Amendment rights, it should be made clear, and some additional language was added to the document on page two, which states, "these guidelines are meant to establish professional boundaries between Commissioners. And are in no way meant to be a restriction on speech. Decorum rules governing the conduct are essential to the smooth operation of public meetings." This clearly states up front that First Amendment rights are not intended to be infringed upon by this policy. In addition, there was a section taken out of the policy that related to the context of private conversations Commissioners could have within their homes or privately with citizens, because it was not applicable and confusing. This policy applies to elected officials, and Commissioners do not operate in the same way as elected officials, so this policy would only apply to Commissioners when they are acting in a role at a City-sanctioned event or meeting. The City has no authority over Commissioners to govern behavior or conversations a Commissioner has as an individual citizen. Dr. Edwards continued that he wanted to speak to the issue of concern that a Commissioner could be dismissed easily and in an unfair way. There is a three-step process at a minimum, with aspects of the process that would mitigate the dismissal in an unfair way. Nothing is ever 100 percent fail- safe; however, Dr. Edwards believes that the process outlines the steps, particularly beginning with the restorative process, which lends itself to being able to protect someone from being targeted. If conflicts were to arise, there is an opportunity for Commissioners to address and resolve them prior to anything being punitive. In the event there is a complaint filed after the restorative process has occurred, there is an investigation that would take place, which would also prevent the process 9/22/25 -3- from being abused. The results of that investigation would be provided to the Council in a blind way, with no names provided that would identify the individual, again to make sure that there was no bias, and the process could not be abused to dismiss anyone unfairly. Dr. Edwards reiterated that this process is intended to be restorative in nature and that adults may resolve conflicts amongst themselves. If there is a complaint, there is a due process and investigation with blind results provided that could then hopefully be resolved through mediation, if not, the Council could make an appropriate decision. Dr. Edwards asked City Attorney Siobhan Tolar if she had anything to add regarding the concerns about the Code of Respect or changes that were made. City Attorney Siobhan Tolar stated that Dr. Edwards is correct, there is a restorative component in this, but that complaint comes first. A sanction or restorative measures are how the complaint is addressed, and the complaint goes to the City Manager or to the Mayor. From there, the complaint would be investigated, and from there it would be determined what type of addressing the situation needed, and would begin with restorative measures, where the two parties would begin mediation. If one person is uninterested in mediating, then it would move to sanctions depending on the severity of the offense. Once the restorative process has played out, and if nothing has been resolved, then the sanction process would begin, which is the most severe punishment, and would be a blind process for the Council. The Council would not know which Commission, or Commissioner, the sanction pertained to, only the facts of the situation to determine if that warranted dismissal from the Commission. Councilmember Moore thanked Dr. Edwards and Ms. Tolar for that summary. She asked about the process to initiate the complaint and where in the policy it details the complaint process. Ms. Tolar said it stated on page seven, under section three, which details the complaint and reporting process. Ms. Tolar explained that the City Staff member may bring a potential Code of Respect violation by a Commissioner to the City Manager or the Human Resources Manager. Councilmember Moore said she got lost because that page started with conduct with other public, and then poor conduct and accountability measures, and then the process is in there, but she could not find it at first. Ms. Tolar explained that the policy is structured basically the same way the Council’s Code of Ethics is and describes the code, and the process if the code is violated. Ms. Tolar said if there were suggestions on reordering the way it is written, she and Dr. Edwards would be happy to hear them. Councilmember Moore said she would go with the consensus of her colleagues on that, and has read this code quite a few times, but still could not find the complaint- filing process in the code. She continued that if everyone else is clear on the process, and the Commissioners did not bring it up, then it must not have been an issue for anyone else. Councilmember Kragness asked how freedom of speech is being balanced, and gave the example of someone making derogatory comments on social media or participating in bad behavior that reflects poorly on the employer; the employee could be let go. She noted that employers do not want to be connected to bad behavior, even if the employee is participating in bad behavior when 9/22/25 -4- they are not on the clock with their employer. Ms. Tolar said that is a very good question, and that the First Amendment law is very much influx right now, but there are laws regarding employment with clear guidelines to what an employee can say and how the City can respond, as well as a principal called First Amendment retaliation, but it is a very fine line on what people can and cannot say, and would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. She reiterated that the government cannot limit one’s speech, and the City has to be careful. Mayor Graves thanked Dr. Edwards and Ms. Tolar for incorporating the feedback from the Commissions into the Code of Respect, and making changes to differentiate Councilmembers and Commissioners and how they are all held accountable, and adamantly stating that their Code of Respect is not meant to infringe on anyone's freedom of speech. MEETING DECORUM DISCUSSION Mayor Graves said she has been reading this document since shortly after taking office as Mayor, and some things in the document felt culturally insensitive to her. Some parts of this document are also around the freedom of speech, as well, and the City Attorney has not looked through this document, but she advised that the City Attorney does so to ensure that the Council is not overstepping boundaries with the Decorum. She stated that the first paragraph of the Decorum is just boilerplate policies to ensure meetings are conducted in a professional and courteous manner. Mayor Graves discussed the Decorum for persons who attend meetings and must conduct themselves in a manner not to disrupt, interfere with, or disturb the speaker, and are only allowed to speak under Council rules and after being recognized by the presiding officer, with a time limit. Public testimony must be addressed to the presiding officer and not other Councilmembers, Staff, or others in attendance. All elected officials shall be referred to by proper title and surname. Public comments should avoid personal accusations, profanity, or other improper content for a public meeting. Intimidating behaviors, threats, hostility, or actual violence are disallowed. All demonstrations intended to disrupt the meeting should be avoided, including stomping feet, snapping fingers, clapping of hands, and other conduct that may be intimidating or threatening to others. Mayor Graves said clapping and cheers only seemed like a problem when it had been a more contentious topic. The other item she would like to discuss is the portion regarding holding, displaying, or placing banners, signs, objects, or materials in any way that endangers others or prevents the free flow of individuals within the chamber. She said she does not have an issue with this part of the policy as long as signs are still allowed, unless the sign was derogatory or inappropriate. Mayor Graves continued that the policy stated that the presiding officer shall request any person who disrupts, interferes with, or disturbs the meeting to cease the conduct, and as necessary, the presiding officer will issue an oral warning to the individuals found to be in violation. If the individual is persistent, the presiding officer may have the individual removed or, under appropriate circumstances, temporarily clear the gallery. If the presiding officer fails to take such action, a majority vote may be substituted for action by the presiding officer to maintain order and 9/22/25 -5- Decorum over the proceedings. She stated that she does not have a problem with this either and would be more likely to clear the gallery than order an individual to be removed. Mayor Graves said the main policy that she has an issue with is number six, the portion regarding people clapping or snapping fingers, because while the Council does not want people purposely disrupting the meeting, she also does not want to get to a place where sometimes people are allowed to clap or snap their fingers and other times they are shut down because that shows favoritism. In situations like that, people could argue that the Council is stifling free speech that the Council does not agree with. Mayor Graves asked for other Councilmembers' opinions on that. Councilmember Jerzak stated under section A1, he would like to offer, instead of the presiding officer, that the Council may establish time limits for speaking, but there are already established time limits. He stated that the Mayor already gives good leeway for speakers when they are discussing something important, she lets them continue over the time limit for a little while, but as a general rule, the Council should also be able to establish a time limit. He understands her concerns with number six, and he does not have a problem with residents having signs as long as they are not inappropriate or derogatory, and he does not want a disruption of freedom of speech, but those things need to be determined in a case-by-case situation. He stated he would go with whatever the Council consensus is, but he sees these as bookends and guidelines. Councilmember Kragness said she would recommend taking number six out and not reading it aloud as a rule of Decorum. She stated that snapping fingers is a way of showing agreement without disrupting the meeting, but it is not equivalent to shouting. She stated that anytime this has happened during a meeting, it has been momentary and is not continual, and she does not have a problem with it. She stated this goes along with First Amendment rights, as they have been discussing tonight, people have the right to speech, so number six should be removed entirely. Mayor Graves asked which policy already covers how to handle a disruptive person. Councilmember Kragness said that with section A, and as long as clapping or snapping is not disrupting the meeting, it should not be called out as it is culturally insensitive. She said if the Council is going to start labeling every type of disruption, it goes beyond the scope of what the Council is trying to achieve at this moment. Councilmember Moore said she would agree with Councilmember Kragness regarding section A of the Decorum, but asked Ms. Tolar to weigh in on free speech and if snapping, stomping, clapping, or humming are considered free speech, as well as signs or banners. Ms. Tolar said that signs fall under free speech, conduct is something she would have to research, but she would err on the side of yes because it is a way of demonstrating physically versus verbally, because some people are non-verbal. Councilmember Moore said she would be fine taking out both sections six and seven of the rules of Decorum. Her main concern is that the presiding officer, whoever that is, should be following the rules of Decorum consistently, and if there is snapping or clapping, it should either all be allowed or none at all. She stated that in her opinion, none of it should be allowed because the Council is conducting a business meeting regarding the affairs of the City. She said that if a banner is part of free speech, what is or is not appropriate, and who makes that determination. She 9/22/25 -6- continued that there are a lot of symbols and words in other languages, that she does not know what they mean, and would not know if a sign using those would be inappropriate or offensive to any group or individual, and if it was, how that determination would be made. Ms. Tolar said she does not know who would be responsible for making that determination, but these meetings are a public forum for people to come in and speak, and in some forms that can be limited, and in other forms it cannot. She stated she does not love giving legal advice on the record, but she would research this issue a little bit to give the Council a more definitive answer. She noted that the First Amendment law is very much in flux right now, in terms of what is considered offensive and not offensive, and what is allowed and what the government can and cannot do. Traditionally, hate speech is not protected by the government, but again, First Amendment rights are in flux, and who gets to decide what is hate speech, and a lot of these issues are litigated in court. In some ways, this would be a best judgment call, and this conversation is very productive, but she does not think the Council will be able to come to a decision today, only because the Council needs more legal guidance and guidelines, and she cannot give that to them right now. She noted that the Council should keep in mind that the First Amendment does protect all speech, whether the Council likes it or not, and could be almost anything. Councilmember Moore said she agrees with Councilmember Jerzak that the Council has established the two-minute time limit rather than the presiding officer. She asked Mayor Graves about her statement regarding clearing the gallery rather than an individual and asked for clarity on what point or level a person can get to before the Mayor would ask someone to leave. Mayor Graves said she would ask someone to leave, but she is not comfortable with ordering someone to be removed. Councilmember Moore said that language might need to be softer then and wants it to be clear on clearing the gallery versus an individual, and what the tipping point is for the presiding officer, whoever that may be, to determine that the individual needs to be removed. She asked if an individual needs to be removed, who removes them, and if that has ever happened before. She stated she does not know the history, but would like the policy to be clearer for anyone who is in that position on how to handle that, and if anyone knows what the threshold is to remove someone. Councilmember Kragness said the policy states that removing an individual is based on the presiding officer's discretion. If the presiding officer does not feel that it is at the level of threatening or needing to have that person removed, then it is the presiding officer's responsibility to determine that, and if not, then the policy also states that the majority can step in. She stated that Councilmember Moore’s questions are answered within that portion of the policy. She noted that the policy states that the presiding officer may have the individual removed, but it does not say that the presiding officer has to. Mayor Graves said she does not feel comfortable removing someone and will not do it, even if she may. Councilmember Moore asked that if this did come up, would it be a motion from a Councilmember and then a consensus to have the person removed, and then a process, or how would it work? She stated she just wants to ask the question, and she does not necessarily want a presiding officer to be the one making that call to remove someone, but it does allow the Council consensus as well. Mayor Graves said some type of action would have to be taken, and someone would have to make 9/22/25 -7- a motion, a second, and then at least three votes in favor to have them removed. Mayor Graves continued that if someone is being disruptive or rude, that is one thing, but if someone was being physically violent, she would hope that the majority of the Council would agree to remove that person, and that is not the type of situation she was originally referring to. Councilmember Moore asked Dr. Edwards, under Freedom of Speech, at what point is the threshold to remove someone from a meeting. Dr. Edwards said there have been similar conversations in other jurisdictions about this, which have had to remove individuals from their meetings. He explained that first, the threshold to remove someone is significantly high, meaning the individual is an imminent threat or danger to City Staff, or a crime has occurred. He explained that he would not be comfortable asking anyone on City Staff other than a police officer to remove someone from a meeting. He acknowledged that having a police officer remove someone creates challenges because it may exacerbate the problem, so in that instance, it may be better to clear the gallery as opposed to escalating the situation. He said that in some cases, some people come to the meetings with the intent to escalate and create a situation, so he advised the Council to do their best not to engage in those circumstances. Councilmember Jerzak said the more he thinks about the policy under number six regarding snapping and clapping, the more he questions how to control a spontaneous reaction. He noted that the guide should always allow more speech. He stated he concurs with Mayor Graves about removing people, and it is better to de-escalate or shut down. Mayor Graves said clapping or snapping is mildly disruptive for a short amount of time, and it does not seem productive to try to stifle that because it may create a bigger issue. Councilmember Jerzak said it would be like telling a kid not to do something, and then they do it twice. Mayor Graves said as long as the clapping or snapping is not continually disruptive to the meeting, she lets it go, but if someone is constantly talking in the back of Council Chambers and is distracting, she would ask them to take their conversation outside of Chambers. She noted that it is more about recognizing that if you want to have conversations in the middle of a Council meeting, that would be the place to do it, and it is not good manners. Dr. Edwards said if someone is talking in the background, he would be comfortable asking City Staff to ask them to step outside and escort them, but that is different than removing someone from Council Chambers. Mayor Graves said she does not feel like the City Attorney needs to go back and do additional editing of the Decorum, and that there is enough consensus from this conversation to remove sections six and seven as they are both thoroughly covered by the first paragraph in the Decorum around avoiding conduct that interferes with or disturbs the conduct of the meeting, or the ability of the attendees to observe and participate as appropriate. She also said she has no problem changing the time limit for speakers being established by the Council. Councilmember Moore said that individuals who are talking amongst themselves during the meeting and whispering are no different than someone clapping, stomping, or snapping their fingers. Individuals who do this are engaging with the Council in a way, and to her, she would 9/22/25 -8- rather the presiding officer not squelch people who are talking about something that may have been discussed by the Council. She stated she also does not want to squelch speech, which could include a variety of things. Mayor Graves said she understands what Councilmember Moore is saying, and she is not trying to squelch anyone's speech either, but if someone is being disruptive, then that is a different scenario. Councilmember Moore said she thinks she and Mayor Graves are in agreement, and is in favor of removing sections six and seven, and asked if the Decorum rules should also include section B, or not. Councilmember Kragness said that section B. should be kept because it reminds the audience each time what the expectation is, instead of assuming it is known, it is clearly stated. Mayor Graves said Section B. speaks to the consequences of not following the rules of Decorum and is important to keep, hopefully, as a diversion to prevent any bad behavior from happening. Mayor Graves asked if the Council wanted to wait until there is a new edited version of the Decorum and then put it on the next agenda. That way, Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson could also be present to vote. The Council unanimously agreed. Dr. Edwards said, based on the conversations they had tonight, he thought the Council was clear on the direction, and it would come under the Consent Agenda. Mayor Graves stated she was fine with it being on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Graves asked if there were any other miscellaneous items for the Council to discuss. The Council had no other issues it wished to discuss. Mayor Graves asked if there were any Work Session items to discuss. Dr. Edwards said there were no Work Session items on the agenda. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 6:49 p.m.