Charter Commission defers technical and government-structure charter changes after packed public hearing

The Minneapolis Charter Commission on May 6 closed a long, often tense public hearing on proposed 2026 amendments and voted to send disputed technical changes to the Civil Service provisions and the broader government-structure package back to work groups for further study.

The hearing, held at Minneapolis City Hall and broadcast with real-time captioning, drew a steady stream of residents, union representatives and city employees. Chair Peter Ginder opened the meeting, reviewed the commission’s decade-long work on the charter and explained the two-step decision the commission faces: whether to place combined or separated amendments on the 2026 ballot or to send them to the city council. "These hearings are being recorded and broadcast," Ginder said as he opened public testimony.

Many speakers urged the commission not to treat sweeping civil-service changes as "technical." Lydia Boulder, a Ward 5 resident, told commissioners that the ballot language must be explicit. "The ballot language cannot hide behind vague phrasing," Boulder said, urging the commission to plainly state whether the amendment would "remove the city council's authority to confirm the mayor's department appointments." Lindsey Silas, president of the Minneapolis Professional Employees Association, told the commission the proposed civil-service revisions "would strip workers of basic rights and protections," including just-cause, appeal rights and seniority protections.

Union leaders, labor attorneys and front-line city workers repeated those concerns throughout the hearing. Jim Michaels, a labor attorney representing multiple unions, argued the Civil Service Commission has provided a merit-based hiring system for more than a century and said the proposed changes would "radically change the scope and authority of the commission." Several speakers, including Michelle Gross of Communities United Against Police Brutality, warned that removing council confirmation on key appointments would reduce public input on positions such as the police chief.

Assistant City Attorney (identified in the hearing as "Miss Nefebvre") described three drafts before the commission: a combined government-structure and technical package, and two separated drafts that isolate the government-structure provisions from technical edits. She told commissioners the separation was intended to avoid inconsistencies if one package passed without the other and to keep removal provisions together. "The changes to the Civil Service Commission provisions are intended to simplify a level of detail that's quite extensive," the city attorney said, adding that the drafts do not change existing labor agreements.

Commissioners spent the remainder of the meeting debating process and next steps. Commissioner Doherty moved to send both the government-structure and technical amendments back to the working group for additional work and public hearings. Commissioner Kozak offered an amendment to the motion: refer only the technical amendments to the working group while leaving the government-structure amendment in process. After debate, the commission approved the Kozak amendment and then approved the amended motion, sending the technical amendments back to committee. Later, on a separate motion, the commission voted 8–7 to return the government-structure amendment to the work group as well rather than advancing ballot language now.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to adopt the day's agenda: passed (voice vote recorded by chair). - Motion to accept minutes from prior meetings (with clerical correction): passed (motion seconded and approved). - Motion to refer the technical amendments back to the working group: passed (roll-call vote recorded; commission announced vote counts in the meeting record). - Motion to refer the government-structure amendment back to committee: passed 8–7 (roll-call vote).

Why it mattered

Public testimony centered on two core concerns: clarity for voters and protections for city employees. Many testifiers said the seven-word ballot descriptor the commission had circulated did not capture the scope of changes and would mislead voters. Union representatives and workers warned that removing longstanding civil-service protections would reduce transparency and erode worker rights; they urged the commission to treat those changes as substantive rather than 'technical.' Several residents also said holding the public hearing at 4 p.m. reduced participation and asked for additional hearings at times and locations that would be more accessible.

What’s next

The commission sent both packages back to work groups and instructed committee chairs to schedule further meetings and at least one additional public hearing. Chair Ginder noted that to meet county ballot deadlines this year would be "a squeeze" and that, absent a special election, the practical window for a ballot question may be 2028. The commission’s next steps include drafting revised language, convening stakeholder sessions with the city council and mayor’s office, and holding additional hearings across the city.

The public record for this meeting — including written comments that were provided to commissioners in advance — will remain part of the official file under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.