Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.07.24 CHCM1 Minutes of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission Meeting on Thursday, July 24th, 2025 Called to order by Chair Leino at 6:32pm Interim Secretary Bourque called the role. Present: • Stanley Leino Chair 2025 • Lee Bak • Julie Bourque • Donald Bumgarner • Gretchen Enger Public Relations Chair 2025 • Andrew Johnson • Jeff Lewis • Robert Marvin • Toby Phillips Vice Chair 2025 • Brian Smith Absent: • Arvid (Bud) Sorenson – Excused • Steve Shold Audit Chair 2025 - Excused • Gail Ebert – Absent, Chair indicated he had not been given notice or reason for absence *Of note: It was shared during the role that Commissioner Jerzak has indicated he will not be re- applying for his position that expires this month and has effectively resigned. Earlier in the month an email was received from the former Secretary Kathryn Ellgren that she was resigning due to the potential conflict of interest for her as she was moving into a new position with the city as the Deputy City Clerk. This accounts for the two missing members in the role for this month. Guests: • Alexander Koenig – Planning Commission Chair • Nahid Khan, Cultural and Public Arts Commission Chair • Shannon Pettit, City Clerk • Arvid (Bud) Sorenson – On-Line Via Zoom Adoption of Agenda: Chair Leino requested to amend the agenda. Chair Leino requested to entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Motion made by Commissioner Marvin, seconded by Commissioner Bak. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously. Agenda was Adopted as modified. Adoption of Minutes: 2 The April 24th, 2025, minutes were adopted with a motion made by Commissioner Marvin, seconded by Commissioner Enger. No discussion. Motion carries. Old Business: a. Requested City Clerk’s presence and/or City Manager’s presence to explain housekeeping changes proposed for City Charter Chapters 2, 4 and 5. Postponed until October23,2025 – see discussion below. Discussion: Chair Leino noted that the new City Clerk would like more time to prepare to address this request. Commissioner Enger asked if this was going to get done, noting it has been pushed out twice. Chair Leino noted it has actually been pushed out more than that and noted that the City Clerk has strong intentions to bring to the October agenda after having time to work with the City Manager, Dr. Edwards. Motion made by Commissioner Marvin, seconded by Commissioner Enger to put this on the October agenda. No discussion. Motion carried. b. Any Report from Sub-Committee regarding advertising of vacancies Discussion: Chair Leino provided opportunity for Interim Secretary Bourque to provide an update. Interim Secretary Bourque shared that the sub-committee, including herself, Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Smith had met once and did discuss changes and landed on language for most of it, but there was a miscommunication, so the materials were not ready for distribution at this meeting. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that Commissioner Johnson had offered to put the text together and some questions needed to be addressed regarding a discrepancy in what was discussed versus how it came out in the final text. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that most of the language was put together, but one section needed to be discussed further. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that the section was around the re-appointment process. Chair Leino noted that we cannot change how the state tells us to do the appointments, so need to be careful of that. Interim Secretary Bourque noted Commissioner Johnson’s awareness of that. Chair Leino asked if Interim Secretary Bourque would like to share what was discussed. Chair Leino also asked if the changes were to the Charter or the Bi-Laws. Commissioner Johnson noted in regards to advertising, there were some items in both, but primarily in the rules and procedure. Interim Secretary Bourque noted there was a re- appointment piece in both. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that there is a sentence that the subcommittee was looking to add under Boards and Commissions that talks about how it is advertised. Interim Secretary Bourque noted concern about outdated language. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that the section of the Charter was 2.02. Interim Secretary Bourque read the proposed language to add to that section of the Charter. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that the other proposed pieces pertain to the bi-laws. Commissioner Marvin noted the difference between Charter and other commissions and noted that this is the only commission appointed by a judge versus the other commissions 3 that are appointment by the Mayor. Interim Secretary Bourque asked if this would change the advertising method. Commissioner Marvin noted that he did not think that it would and noted that it is nice to advertise openings, but historically there have almost always been openings. Commissioner Marvin noted that at last meeting, there were 15, but now the commission is down to 13 again. Commissioner Marvin noted that Commissioner Sorenson or Chair Leino have been there the longest, but that there are almost always openings and that there was difficulty at times to meet quorum. Interim Secretary Bourque noted the importance of advertising to be able to fill openings and noted that even if people are being proactive, the current website does not reflect any openings on this commission. She continued noting that anyone outside of the Commission or meeting would not know that there were resignations. She noted that to be inclusive it is important for people to be aware of those things. Commissioner Enger shared that openings are usually on the city website and the commission pages, so people need to do their due diligence to find the information as well. Interim Secretary Bourque agreed, but pointed to the contrary information shared the last meeting regarding re-appointments not being automatic and noted there is no way for people to know and noted that the information shared at the last meeting was not correct regarding people not being automatically re-appointed. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that Commissioner Jerzak’s term expired, but no one would know that his seat was open because the bi-laws say that if someone wants their seat, they are automatically re-appointed. Interim Secretary Bourque asked about the resistance to advertise things and ensuring that people have access to the space. Commissioner Enger noted she did not think there was a problem with advertising, but that there was an expectation on how people want something pushed towards them and noted that things are advertised. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that it is not advertised. Commissioner Smith noted that two things can be true at the same time. He noted that we can deal with them separately and not conflate them. As a commission are can we feel it is our duty to advertise open spots and advertise them with enough time for people to look at them. The second part is that people should be proactive and looking for it if they want to be involved in something. Suggested that things be done from both ends. He noted that as civic leaders in this instance, it is incumbent on us to do our part to make sure that happens. Noted that sometimes he has tried to be proactive and hasn’t found things and at other times has found more than he was seeking. Commissioner Smith noted we make sure on any platforms that we have that the public is notified and in a reasonable amount of time. Commissioner Smith noted that we keep things separate and that if we want to chastise people for not being aggressive as we think they should be, but it doesn’t have a place here, we need to be talking about this language and the time that we are going to give people and the platforms. Commissioner Marvin noted that advertising is great, but does not feel it needs to be put in the requirements that we advertise something and people have 30 days to apply. He noted he thinks advertising positions is good. He then noted that the judge decides who gets appointed and people can apply for positions even if there are not openings, and if they project there might be an opening, noting for example Commissioner Jerzak’s open spot. He noted that normally there are always openings. He said he didn’t know how the judge handles that and that normally the judge receives it and holds onto it for a certain amount of 4 time and when an opening comes up and then likely throws the applications out. Chair Leino noted he thought it may be a year, but was not certain. Chair Leino then noted that back in the time when there was enough commissioners, back like 20 years ago, there was a stack of applications at times there was a stack always sin the judges file and sometimes there were none and he just let that process play out. Commissioner Enger requested point of clarification asking if language is specific to Charter commission or if this is commissions as a whole. Chair Leino noted his understanding that it was for all commissions and that it was going to include Charter. Interim Secretary Bourque noted the smaller portion being proposed is under Our Form of Government and Boards and Commissions and is talking about the advertising piece and would be applicable to all commissions. Commissioner Enger requested that portion be read into the record so she has access to it. Interim Secretary Bourque asked if she was asking for what was read earlier and noted it had been read. Chair Leino asked Commissioner Smith to read it again. Commissioner Enger noted she thought it was proposed language. Chair Leino clarified that there was no language being brought in tonight and that it was just what was being considered. Commissioner Smith clarified that it is not about the judge or who the judge appoints but that this is about a 30 day notice to the public and does not have anything to do with what the judge does or who they choose to put on the commission. Smith noted that it has nothing to do with the applications they get, that it is just about giving 30 days for people to apply. Here is the language: “All board or commission vacancies, including the Charter Commission, must be clearly advertised and posted publicly on the City's official website, official city newspaper, City Hall bulletin board, and other appropriate digital platforms at least thirty (30) days prior to the closing date for applications.” Commissioner Smith noted that once we had settled, it will be given to the chair and then given to the commission as a whole. Commissioner Marvin noted the thirty days thing concern is it being presented to the judge and the judge not being able to appoint anyone. Chair Leino noted that it binds the city to fulfilling this window of time and noted understanding that we cannot bind the hands of the judge. So the judge can pass a valid application through regardless of a city rule. Commissioner Enger noted that one thing to keep in mind is that it is in regards to all commissions and noted that it is up to her, as the PR Chair, to advertise. She noted she should be advertising for two positions since Commissioner Jerzak and Commissioner Ellgren’s terms ended. Chair Leino noted that she should be advertising for any and all openings on Charter. Commissioner Enger noted she just found out, but also noted she needs to put that on her “to-do” list. Chair Leino noted in the past he would work with Barb, the former City Clerk to put it on the website. He said back in the day, the PR Chair would fax something to the newspaper or bring it there. He advised her to type up a one paragraph thing noting the Charter Commission is seeking members and then it will probably direct them to get an application from the City Clerk and she would likely be sending it to the Chief Judge. Chair Leino noted that he often sent his 5 directly to the judge himself via email and did not go through the city clerk. He clarified it is not her responsibility to direct them to do that, and he was just notifying that there is an opening. Commissioner Enger clarified if she needs to specify about the opening. Chair Leino noted it should specify how many openings exist. Commissioner Marvin noted that Commissioner Jerzak resigned and asked if PR Chair is supposed to pay attention to terms ending and ask them if they are going to renew or not. Chair Leino noted it is not her job and noted that he usually gets an affirmative statement from an outgoing commissioner that they are not going to renew. Chair Leino noted that Commissioner Sorenson was re-appointed. He took the affirmative step to notify Chair Leino that he was getting it notarized. Chair Leino again noted that it is not the PR chair’s job to do that. Commissioner Enger asked Chair Leino if he would notify then and he confirmed that he lets the City Clerk know at the same time and it filters to the judge. Commissioner Marvin noted there is a duty for the PR chair to send it to the newspaper and asked if there are fees and if that comes from the Charter Budget. Chair Leino noted that there is not a fee for that and that it is only sent to one newspaper, the official newspaper. Commissioner Enger clarified she only does that for the Charter commission. Chair Leino confirmed she is not responsible for other commissions. Commissioner Enger noted the other ones are in the newsletter that is physically mailed to our house and is in email. Commissioner Marvin asked if this would be in the newsletter as well eventually if the opening was still open. Chair Leino noted if we get desperate it would go in the city newsletter. Commissioner Enger noted that’s where all the other commission openings are but also noted that it has been a while since they have been in this position. Commissioner Marvin confirmed it has been a while. Chair Leino noted they have not had to do a lot of begging for commissioners recently and noted that is a good thing. Interim Secretary Bourque clarified for the record that all residents don’t receive the newsletter at their house and shared that she didn’t know that until a couple of years ago. Chair Leino noted that it is a whole other story that people who only live in an apartment or travel a lot may not see everything. Commissioner Marvin noted that some people don’t get the Sun Post. Chair Leino acknowledged that and noted that people can go on the website and look there and noted that he doesn’t feel the subcommittee is asking that we spoon feed people information but that it has to be more accessible. He went on to clarify that a Bi-law change takes the supermajority and that we do not have to have the council’s blessing on any of that stuff, but if there was a change to charter that it would have to be approved by the Commission as a supermajority and has to go to the council and if doesn’t pass unanimously then the commission would have to entertain the possibility of a referendum. Chair Leino noted they are similar, but one can be more work than the other one. Commissioner Enger point of clarification on final wording for it. Do we need to be very specific? It was kind of open ended, with newspaper or city hall, how specific do we need to be with the wording? Chair Leino noted he keeps drawing an analogy to the constitution, that if you make it too vague it is porous and if you make it to rigid then people find a way to get around it. He noted he cannot answer it for her. He went on to note his “lay” opinion is that 6 what was presented about the Charter change is that it strikes a pretty happy medium between there and noted that Commissioner Bumgarner has been with him on Subcommittees trying to hammer out language and have wrestled with that often around how specific they want to get and it’s hard. Another commissioner (Secretary could not identify the voice) noted they felt that the information is out there already now and doesn’t think the commission needs to go too much further if at all. Chair Leino noted when they come back with the report we can talk about that. Chair Leino also noted that the commission does not have to rubberstamp what they come back with and noted that we can tweak the language when they come back, but noted again a supermajority is needed to be considered approved. Commissioner Enger asked for clarification of supermajority. Chair Leino noted that 2/3 of those in attendance, no less than 8. Commissioner Enger noted remembering that they had gone over that. Chair Leino clarified that it isn’t a simple majority. He went on to note that if it is council approved, it has to be unanimous there for a Charter change, but not for bi-laws, noting again that bi-laws are our own business. He noted it still has to be a supermajority and for a referendum, it would have to be 51 percent of voters that voted at election time. Commissioner Marvin noted that he wanted to refer back to the committee so they could finish. Chair Leino noted he would give plenty of time for them to do that. Chair Leino went on to ask about the potential changes in the bi-laws. Commissioner Smith noted he would rather wait to talk about any further changes, but did note that all the red lines in the bi-laws would be going away. Chair Leino agreed that it would be ok. Commissioner Johnson noted clarification that the language that was read does not conflict with anything in the current state statute. Commissioner Johnson noted section 410.05 Subdivision 2, Upon expiration of each term the chief judge shall appoint new or re-appoint existing commission members within sixty days, so noted it does not conflict with that. Chair Leino noted he had mentioned that as a cautionary note, as if there was a conflict, the judge is going to do what they would like. Chair Leino noted that his concern was noting any requirement from the judge. Chair Leino asked if subcommittee had anything else they would like to note. Commissioner Smith noted that he would like to bring up a concern regarding openings. He reflected about the statement made about it being hard to fill this commission in the past and said if his term is up, he would not want to sit in a position where he could, or the commission could just automatically speak on his behalf and just forward something to the judge and then he is just always on, and noted that he thinks it should be that when his term is up, the position is open. He went on to say if there are other candidates that the judge decides to put on that is fine. He noted it appears to him that what has been happening, and noted that maybe it is because of a lack of people interested or a combination of a lack of interest and advertising not 7 being the best, but it is like people could stay on the commission forever and it would seem strange that there were other people interested and from 2025-2045, he could just stay on there every time his term is up if there are no other people interested or candidates. He noted not knowing what that has been a result of, but noted that we have seen a lot of people stay on over and over and over again and noted that there was an instance of that now and noted that if we had a commissioner that just left and we had ten people apply for the openings that were available when he came on, he noted he didn’t know the process and asked if the judge just appoints the two that were open and throws the rest in the trash and then starts over again. He noted we just had a commissioner whose time was up and they were reappointed right away, so what does that do for other people who are interested in being on the commission? He went on to ask if we are setting ourselves up to be in a position where we can just stay around as long as we want? Chair Leino noted he wasn’t sure how to answer. He said he could note some anecdotal stuff and some past history. Chair Leino noted he cannot get into the head of the Chief Judge. He noted some you just call and they say, we got your application and you ask if they are going to approve it and they say yes and hang up. He said the prior chief judge, before he went to his work for the city of Minneapolis, he had a Zoom meeting with the judge. He said they had some very pointed questions in there, so it wasn’t an automatic. He said he thought Commissioner Lawrence Anderson had to go through that hazing process from the judge. He noted they all have different litmus tests. He went on to say he can say this, which lends some credence to the commissioner’s argument, that it has been his experience, not just in Brooklyn Center, but in other, any type of volunteer body whatever checkmarks they have as they are going through these applications, they look at this person’s turnover and may say it is the opposite of what they are looking for….. He noted an example using commissioner Marvin, noting that he applies for re-application, another person is out there, he bets the judge would look and say that a person has been there 14 years and would need a compelling reason to change things. He noted he wasn’t saying that was right, but was guessing that is what their thought process is in that. He noted the commissioner is right in the sense that it doesn’t really give the introduction of new members an opportunity, which he says is why every year when some nice person nominates him to be Chair person, he always says he wasn’t for a period of time when Commissioner Goodell was Chair, he always says, are you sure you don’t want some new blood leading this thing. He noted one year Mark stepped up and said he would do it and he noted that was fine with him. Commissioner Smith noted that clarified most of it, but noted that it sounds like we can also put our hand on the scale. He asked who communicates with the judge when a term is expiring and is it then said this person is gone, do we want to open the process again and it doesn’t sound like that is what’s happening. He went on to say that it sounds like this person’s term is expiring and they want to be on again. Chair Leino noted putting your thumb on the scale is maybe equalizing the scale. Commissioner Smith questioned how. Chair Leino noted what he was asking and noted there is an incumbency advantage here. Commissioner Smith noted we have all seen some incumbents that we wish would go and noted he is not judging anyone because he doesn’t know anyone but that just because someone is around doesn’t mean they should be. Chair Leino expressed understanding and noted that he thinks there is some 8 validity to his point. Commissioner Smith noted that as a commission, regardless of the judge’s thoughts, what are we doing and what do we think our responsibility is in that. Do we say we know this person, lets let them do it again or do we say, the term is ended, let’s open the process again and see what happens. Chair Leino expressed understanding. Commissioner Smith went on to note that he is asking what we think we should be doing. Chair Leino noted that he thinks the language being proposed was to address that concern. Commissioner Smith noted that we are doing that. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that the portion of the language addressing this topic is the portion of the language that the subcommittee still needs to clean up. Commissioner Marvin noted that he was not sure what people are supposed to do, but noted he was under the impression that if you want to stay on that you fill our another application. Chair Leino confirmed that you do. Commissioner Marvin went on to say he has always done that and has had some of the interviews with judges over the years and besides the first one, he didn’t feel it was hazing himself and noted he felt the judge to be amicable. Chair Leino agreed noting it is a vetting process, whether you are all laughing on the call or not. Another commissioner noted that it depends on the judge. Commissioner Marvin noted the last one asked him good questions and they scheduled a half an hour. Chair Leino also noted he had a well rounded conversation with the chief judge as well. He then turned back to Commissioner Smith’s point, and noted two things. One, were anecdotal and noted that he has had re-appointments where they have picked up the phone and said we got your application and we are approving it and that was the end of the conversation. He said he thinks Commissioner Smith is noting that the person leaving knows when their term is ending and has a preliminary period in which to get a head start on everybody else. He then asked Commissioner Smith if that is what he was saying. Commissioner Smith noted he is saying that and everything else he stated. Chair Leino noted that the judge is also saying, well they have experience, and it’s sort of like the Teamsters used to be that you couldn’t join if you didn’t have experience and how do you get experience if they don’t let you in. Commissioner Smith noted that we are presenting some language that took us about 2.5-3 hours to go through it and didn’t quite get it done. He acknowledged the work Commissioner Johnson did in using technology to help with the language and that it was still not enough to get it completed. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that part of the reason we are clarifying the procedure is due to the lack of clarity in the procedure as far as it is explained on the website because on the actual application it notes to send it to the city clerk, not to the judge, so somebody outside of the commission may not know that. She went on to note there is not contact information for the judge and shared that she tried 9 to send hers directly to the judge when she applied and she couldn’t figure out the logistics of that because the Hennepin County website is not a friendly website. She noted she works in human services and is on that website all the time and so noted that we are also trying to ensure that things are accessible if people are interested and ensuring people are not getting too far along in the process and then not knowing what to do because the process is confusing. She went on to further note that we need to take into account that we have a diverse suburb and the only way we will diversify spaces is if we make things more accessible. She went on to note that she sees that differently than “spoon feeding” them, noting she still expects that people do their due diligence, but if the information isn’t accessible that is tough. She also noted that she hears often that this is a volunteer space and if people want to serve they will show up, but said there can be a lot of barriers in that. Commissioner Marvin noted he thinks the reason we give it to the city clerk is probably because it says it in the language but also because the judge rotates every year and they wouldn’t know what judge to give it to. He noted that there was four of them that rotate. Commissioner Smith noted there is only one head judge. Interim Secretary Bourque noted that she is hearing that people are submitting it to the judge, which is where her confusion was coming in. Chair Leino clarified that the times that he interacted with the Chief Judge he was covering both bases and sent it to both spaces, but noted to Interim Secretary Bourque’s point that he also knows how to navigate the judicial branch website to get it to the clerk. Chair Leino noted that judges in Hennepin County generally have two clerks and interns. Another commissioner noted that if someone has questions they should contact the city clerk. Chair Leino noted he wished he could remember what the process was previously. He said re- appointments have been very different. Chair Leino noted that there doesn’t need to be a motion and this will be added to the next agenda. Interim Secretary Bourque apologized for not having the language ready this evening and noted feeling confident it will be ready at the next meeting. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification of the dates. Noted he would be absent at the next meeting. Chair Leino moved onto new Business. New Business a. Housekeeping Chair Leino started with a housekeeping one first. He noted that Commissioner Ellgren left and wished her congratulations. Chair Leino noted he asked if anyone would fill in as Secretary and Interim Secretary Bourque volunteered. Chair Leino noted he did it once and it was one of the worst jobs he had in his life. Chair Leino asked Interim Secretary Bourque if she would be willing to be secretary for the remainder of the year. 10 Interim Secretary Bourque asked to take materials home to be able to finish and noted she would not have them done overnight. Chair Leino asked for a more formal process to appoint. Motion made by Commissioner Marvin, seconded by Commissioner Bak. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously. b. Charter Appreciation Chair Leino noted the other item was Charter appreciation. Chair Leino noted that anyone who has served on the Commission for more than a year can receive a plaque out of our budget. He noted the commission has to approve that as a body. He noted there are two outgoing members, Commissioner Ellgren and Commissioner Jerzak. He noted as an aside that they have had people say keep the money, we don’t want the plaque. He also noted an example of a previous commissioner who was 85 years old when she left the commission noted she had enough plaques and didn’t need anymore. Chair Leino noted it is a nice gesture. He noted he recommends it, but wouldn’t be surprised if they turn it down. He noted Commissioner Ellgren would be a no-brainer just because of the length of time she took notes for the commission. Motion made by Commissioner Marvin, seconded by Commissioner Phillips to reward the two outgoing members with the honorary plaque. Chair Leino asked for discussion. Discussion: Commissioner Phillips asked who does what in terms of making the plaque happen. Chair Leino noted he instructs the city clerk and she sends it out for engraving. She will notify him when it is ready and he asks them to come in and the either present it there or he can bring it to them. He noted he still has one for someone who never picked his up. He noted some don’t want to go in front of council. Chair Leino noted some who didn’t take one. Commissioner Enger asked if we clarify if they want it before spending the $50 for it. Chair Leino noted he confirms they want it before it is made. Chair Leino noted it comes out of the budget. Voted and moved. Motion passed unanimously. c. Miscellaneous New Business Chair Leino asked about any other new business for tonight or to add to the next agenda. Commissioner Enger noted the City Clerk will be presenting next meeting. Chair Leino noted we are on Zoom tonight. He noted the commission authorized the broadcast a couple years ago, but it didn’t come to fruition. He noted that was partly because the previous City Clerk left and was going to do it. He noted the new City Clerk reached out the day before and 11 agreed to get things going. Chair Leino shared that Charter was one of the few commissions that didn’t have this capability. Chair Leino clarified that if you want to present or make an appearance at a future meeting, you have to contact the Chair and there are rules about it, and if there is a debate, one person goes 10 minutes and the other person goes 10 minutes, so cannot have one person filibustering for hours on end. Chair Leino noted it is preferred it be sent in an email to notify. Commissioner Marvin noted Commissioner Sorenson will ensure we follow Robert’s Rules of Order. Chair Leino noted that Commissioner Sorenson has accepted his oath and will be joining the commission next time. Secretary Bourque asked to take a sample of the room about people’s intentions for their seats given there are seats expiring between now and October and if they plan to renew. Chair Leino noted we could have informal discussion about it and noted it may help him and Commissioner Enger do their jobs, but with the understanding that we can say the date it will be effective, but we can’t mislead people that it is opening right now. Secretary Bourque asked noted Commissioner Bak’s term is expiring next. Commissioner Bak noted he has submitted his application to be re-appointed. Secretary Bourque reviewed the recent and upcoming expirations and noted that Commissioner Sorenson was re-appointed, along with Commissioner Lewis and that Commissioner Jerzak has resigned. Chair Leino noted that when someone leaves before their term expires, the person appointed is only appointed for a partial term, however Commissioner Jerzak’s term will be filled for a full term. Adjournment Chair Leino stated she would entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Marvin moved, seconded by Commissioner Enger. Motion carries. Meeting Adjourned.