CM Andrew Johnson

Official blog of Minneapolis City Council Member Andrew Johnson, who represents Ward 12.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

How I voted on public safety at budget markup

Monday, December 7th’s markup of the 2021 budget included a series of complex votes related to the “Safety for All” plan, so I wanted to share specific details beyond the headlines, so you understand where I landed on these.

Below I share the key question(s) at play for each of the substantive motions in my own words; to see all motions in their full language and detail, click here.

I voted against a substitute amendment that would have used one-time funding rather than on-going funding for mental health response. This was due to my understanding that one-time funding would make it really hard to launch the responder program, thus harming the work. (Substitute failed 6-7)

I voted for the underlying motion to establish a mental health responder program, launch other alternative responses beyond policing, and increase funding for violence prevention. (Passed 11-2)

I voted to keep $5m in additional overtime funding for MPD in 2021, which I’ve been sufficiently convinced will be needed. This was done by backfilling the ongoing funding, originally proposed, with one-time funding. (Passed 10-3)

I moved to keep the Early Intervention System, which would have helped to identify problematic officer behavior so it could be addressed. I believed this was a higher priority than 2 additional positions in the Office of Police Conduct Review. (Failed 6-7)

I voted to move the Community Navigators in MPD to the Office of Violence Prevention. This was the overwhelming preference of community, as determined through engagement sessions. (Passed 10-3)

I voted to move Crime Prevention Specialists in MPD to the Neighborhood and Community Relations Department, where I believe their work will be better supported. (Passed 13-0)

On the motion to have the Police Chief come back to Council to seek approval for the 2nd and 3rd recruit classes in 2021, I voted for a substitute motion to strengthen reporting while also dropping the language that funds not be released without Council approval each time. I believe the substitute motion would have resulted in greater transparency, eliminated uncertainty that would impact hiring, and prevented deferral of decisions which procedurally should be made during the budget process. (Substitute failed 6-7)

On the underlying motion, my colleagues moved to cut off discussion before anyone could speak to it. This was an unprecedented suppression of debate during a Council meeting. I abstained on the motion in protest. (Passed 9-3-1)

I voted against the motion to amend the five-year financial plan to reduce officer staffing levels to 750 because the decision lacked any basis in data. I believe that over the next few years we will be able to move towards a smaller police force as we stand up alternative ways to respond and make upstream investments that help prevent crime. We also cannot say right now with any accuracy where those numbers should be given several large variables that are currently unresolved but which we expect to have clarity on mid-year 2021. Given that, I do not believe we should have touched this one way or another at this time. (Passed 7-6)

These amendments led to an additional $5 million being added to our public safety system.

My votes maximized the transformative work envisioned in the “Safety for All” plan, while also ensuring that MPD has the resources in place for 2021 as they grapple with an attrition crisis and as our city faces a significant increase in violent crime which requires a police response. I do my best to tackle these issues in a thoughtful way while listening to the many different voices in our community; to approach this work with an open-mind and an outcome-driven mentality.

To everyone who weighed-in along the way, I greatly appreciate all you have shared, which I carried with me into the decision-making process. Thank you, and I look forward to the many more conversations ahead as we continue this work.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

The future of policing and community safety

Let’s talk about the future of policing and community safety. First, to dispel any misinformation or misunderstanding right up front: No, the City Council did not vote to abolish the police department. No, there have not been any decisions made on budget cuts. No, we cannot have lawlessness or anarchy. And yes, there are still emergency calls which will require armed law enforcement to respond. Two weeks ago, the world watched in horror, disgust, and anger as George Floyd was murdered by police officers in Minneapolis. For nearly nine minutes he was slowly asphyxiated while he and citizens around him pleaded for officers to stop. We know George Floyd’s murder was not an anomaly. There is a pattern across our nation tracing back 400 years to when Africans were kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and forced into labor through violence. Subjugation didn’t end with slavery. And the disparities we see today in our city run unbroken from the actions and decisions from this past to our present. When I first ran for office, I had a perspective of our police department that many of you have had. I figured there were some bad officers that shouldn’t be in their jobs (much like any other profession), but otherwise the institution was mostly a public good that could use some reforms here and there. Once elected I learned a lot more and realized it wasn’t so simple. I witnessed more than one Mayor and Police Chief work hard to implement reforms. They improved and expanded training, tightened up use of force policies, implemented body-worn cameras, and pushed cultural change that was centered around values we all share. Yet despite these efforts, and the decades worth of efforts that came before them, we were still seeing many problems. Over the past six years I have voted to pay tens of millions of our precious tax dollars to victims of police violence in settlements that would have likely cost taxpayers far more if they proceeded to trial. I watched many videos of this violence and heard time and again about officers with lengthy histories of complaints and payouts against them who were somehow, inexplicably, still on duty and interacting with the public. When Mayor Frey and I moved to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, we later found out that police continued to make arrests and 46 of 47 (97.8%) arrested were black people. Reports continued to come out of big racial disparities in policing. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights just last week opened an investigation into MPD for patterns of racial discrimination and civil rights violations. I have also listened to many residents in our community who are black, indigenous, or people of color who have said that they do not feel safe around today's MPD and shared with me painful personal experiences. There are many more examples of problems. We read about the 3rd Precinct (our precinct) being a “playground for renegade cops” (even after different leaders at the helm were tasked with fixing it). And I have heard from many of you about your disgust with the police union (whose role it is to speak for rank and file officers) smearing the reputation of a murder victim and continuing to show contempt for civilian oversight of law enforcement (a basic tenant in our republic). Ironically, despite all of this, Minneapolis has often been praised as a model for police reform. I believe it’s fair to say that these experiences and observations point to a larger problem than just a few bad apples. It paints the institution of MPD as broken. It is important to reconcile this with the truth that there are many officers who truly do serve with compassion and care. Viewing the institution as broken is not an attack on those individuals who swore an oath to protect and serve. I take responsibility for my part in underestimating the extent of dysfunction within the institution. As a Council Member I have also been frustrated and stymied trying to push for reforms over the years. The City Charter gives the authority over police operations and policymaking to the Mayor. Given our limited authority, the Council has three primary tools available to us: budget approval (top-line numbers), an up/down vote on the appointment of the Chief, and an up/down vote on the police union contract. We used these in ways we felt we could and pushed in many other ways for change.  We made investments in groundbreaking violence intervention work to disrupt the cycle of violence in communities. We funded many of the reforms sought by the Mayor and Chief. We eliminated some laws that, upon analysis, were used to inappropriately target residents while not actually reducing or aiding in the reduction of crime. I led the effort to establish a workgroup that analyzed what calls currently handled by police officers could be better addressed by other trained professionals (and free up time for officers to focus on calls where they were needed). Heck, we even tried to put a City Charter amendment on the ballot for voters to decide if the Council should have some authority in police policymaking so that we could better help with reform efforts (but that never made it onto the ballot due to opposition from some council members). It is with this history, the experiences and voices of community members, and the shortcomings of past reforms that we must ask what to do next. Some may think that the path forward is to keep trying more reforms as has been done for decades. That maybe this time it will somehow be different, and we will get the changes in results we would like to see. I personally don’t think that will be enough. We have seen black leaders and youth rally in this moment and lead the call for change. They have made the request that we join a community-led effort to re-imagine public safety and an alternative to MPD as it exists today. I support their call and stand in solidarity of bringing community together in this work over the next year. The language some use around this makes me uncomfortable, and I know it makes some of you uncomfortable or scared: disband, defund, dismantle, abolish. Some in the media seized on those terms to sensationalize or even mischaracterize the effort. To be clear: no one has been advocating that we simply end MPD without an alternative public safety department to replace it. We cannot have a vacuum where there is no law enforcement, and we know that there will still be a need for armed law enforcement for some emergency calls. We cannot allow anarchy or a wild west situation. Many of you are also exhausted from having to be on high-alert in the aftermath of recent civil unrest and feel that law enforcement is needed more than ever. We also know that there are many calls currently being handled by police that can be handled in a better way. For instance, the crimes that touch our ward the most are property crimes. Right now, rather than having two armed officers come fill out a report after a theft has happened, what if we had someone come out to not only fill out a report but also to proactively: offer a home security audit and connect homeowners with resources? Determine if your block has a leader and if not help establish one? Provide communication to neighbors about this crime and recommend actions they could take? Help gather community impact statements for consideration by judges? Better utilize restorative justice to help break the cycle of crime? (Effectively an expansion of the Crime Prevention Specialist role). These are just some ideas, and I know you all have many more on the ways we can achieve better outcomes that make our community safer. The commitment yesterday to start the process of engaging with community over the next year in re-imagining what a new public safety department could look like is an effort to bring us all together and put every idea on the table. We will need to develop a sound and thoughtful plan if it is to be implemented. We will need community buy-in. We will likely need it to go on the ballot in November 2021, as well as some changes in state laws. And importantly, we will need to be confident that it will result in greater safety for all residents. It’s a bold and challenging undertaking, but if this is not the time to try and consider what we as a community want public safety to look like, then when is? This effort should not hamper immediate actions to implement change to MPD, some of which have already been taken (such as the further tightening of the use of force policy last Friday), and some of which will soon come. I believe it will be important to collaborate with the Mayor and Police Chief in this work, both of whom see the problems and are genuinely committed to change. I also believe we can make some changes in the upcoming budget (no decisions have been made yet) to better invest in proven violence prevention efforts and other community-based strategies for safety. And not lost in all of this are the inequities and instabilities in our communities that result in many of the crimes that occur and must be addressed as well. Some of you are likely skeptical or concerned about this effort to re-imagine public safety and an alternative to MPD as it exists today. I get it. You want to feel safe in our community and maybe believe this is pie in the sky thinking that is unrealistic. But I ask that you keep an open-mind and participate once community engagement efforts are launched. Let’s work together over the next year in this community-led effort to see if we can put together a plan that makes sense, is thoughtful, and will result in a safer community for all. More to come.

(Emailed to constituents June 8th, 2020)

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

Statement on systemic changes to policing and community safety

I have received thousands of emails and calls about the future of policing in our city, along with many questions from constituents. Responding to the state of emergency was all-consuming and left no time to get a statement out, nor have much needed conversations with my colleagues on next steps. As the situation has been improving though, I am now able to share some immediate thoughts with you. These are not complete and only the beginning, but in doing so I hope you will better understand where I am at and my approach on what comes next.

First, I want to say that I think it’s telling that former mayor Rybak and former police chief Harteau have spoken out about what a barrier the Police Federation has been to change, and that the AFL-CIO and the former Chief have even called for the resignation of Police Federation leadership. I agree with them.

What we as a City Council will be doing is working with the Mayor, State, and community to turn over every stone and consider every idea to make deep and lasting systemic changes to policing and community safety. There are legitimate doubts over whether cultural and systemic policing problems can be resolved through reform or anything less than a fresh start with a new organization or new approach. I support exploring this option and others, and I have begun reviewing potential solutions.

A frustration I have had as your Council Member is the limited authority under our City Charter to make changes to policing. Given those limits, the primary tools available to us are threatening budget cuts, confirming the appointment of the Chief, and approval of the police union contract (currently expired and under negotiations). I supported a Charter amendment that would have empowered the Council to make policy changes within the Police Department, but that failed to get enough votes to advance. I led efforts to form a workgroup that evaluated what work could be transitioned away from police; the results from this workgroup will be very helpful in the days and weeks ahead. I co-authored a budget amendment for an independent staffing study to scrutinize how officers are operationally deployed, which includes analysis on better strategies to benefit community safety and improve interactions with the public (this work has yet to be complete). And I am proud of the violence prevention initiatives we have pursued and support expanding upon them.

The Mayor has used his authority under the City Charter to implement many police policy changes and reforms in a short period of time, and I thank him for this work, as well as the work of our Chief who was critical to these efforts.

We also know that trust in police has never been lower and incremental reforms will not be enough.

The many state laws that tie the City’s hands and make both accountability and transparency difficult need to be changed, and those changes must be centered in the upcoming Legislative special session (along with rebuilding our community and ensuring access to essential goods and services in the interim).

Later this month the Mayor and City Council will be making amendments to this year’s budget due to revenue shortfalls from the pandemic. We must make deep cuts to the budget, and I expect there will be deep cuts to the police department. In making cuts, it is critical that we do not allow the results of cuts to unintentionally make the problems worse. For instance, we must have assurances that diverse classes of recently hired officers, who have the deepest training in community response and de-escalation, are not lost.

Residents should know I am not one to rush to a solution. I know we need something fast, but with so much at stake we also need to get it right. That means evaluating all options rather than just jumping to the first that has steam. That means engaging community and expanding buy-in. Yesterday’s actions by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights will help immensely. They will be taking immediate steps, possibly as soon as tomorrow, to implement interim changes as the larger work of what comes next in community safety and policing begins.

I have to say, normally my approach is to have one-on-one conversations with constituents over policy. Whether at my weekly open office hours (suspended due to the pandemic), or through back-and-forth via email or a conversation on the phone. I really enjoy that aspect of my role and pride myself on being accessible and responsive. Given the thousands of emails and calls I have received about needed systemic change, that approach is simply not possible. Yet, more than ever, we need community engagement, input, and buy-in to shape this work. Your thoughts and ideas are critical to ensuring that we move in the best direction. Therefore, I am discussing with colleagues and organizers how to best engage you, the community, in a way that is impactful and scalable. There will be more to come on this front.

I know that there are also some who are skeptical when it comes to the need for serious change. I am asking you to be patient and open-minded. We know that when violence occurs there will still need to be someone to respond who can de-escalate and hold those responsible to account. We know that there will still be crime that must be addressed. We also know that *everyone* deserves both safety in their community and safety when interacting with those sworn to serve.

Thank you to everyone who has reached out to me on these issues. In the past week we have seen our community come together to support one another. It has been amazing to witness the generosity and compassion from countless residents, along with their love of our city. These are steep challenges before us, on many fronts, but it is this same spirit you all have shown that will get us through to a better place.

More updates to come. In the meantime, please take care.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

An alternative to adding 400 additional patrol officers

A recent headline in the StarTribune stated that our Police Chief wants to increase the number of patrol officers by 400 (from 600 to 1,000) over the next four years. It’s an astonishingly large number, especially when I have previously heard interest for only small increases in staffing from him. The rationale for increasing the number of patrol officers is that nearly four high priority dispatch calls per day on average must wait for a squad car to become available for assignment, which can significantly delay response times. But in the discussion, a small yet important detail drew little attention: the Minneapolis Police Department dispatches two officers paired together to almost every call, which constrains staffing capacity by nearly 50%.

I wonder if this policy decision that cuts capacity by nearly half could be responsible for the concern that capacity is nearly half of where the Chief would like it to be. And if so, does it still make sense to have officers paired up for almost every call, or for should a majority of officers be riding one to a squad? Given that I am not an expert in law enforcement, I figured the quickest way to get a sense of this would be to call other police departments in major cities around the nation to see what they were doing. It is important to note that this was not a scientific or exhaustive survey. My office reached out to more than a dozen departments and were only able to connect with five. But of the five, none were sending two officers to a majority of calls.

Perhaps most telling was Fort Worth, which is part of the metroplex that experienced the deadliest police ambush in United States history. On July 7th, 2016, five police officers were killed in neighboring Dallas. It was a national tragedy. And Fort Worth reacted by sending two officers to every call. But now, even as Fort Worth officers continue to deal with the trauma of this heartbreaking attack, they have returned to dispatching squads with one officer rather than two. There are caveats for Fort Worth: if an officer is dispatched to a secluded area, they may request another officer accompany them for safety, and for hot spot areas they sometimes pair officers up. In Denver and Colorado Springs, they too dispatch a single officer to most calls, as does Raleigh. And in Cleveland they have a mix – dispatching squads with two officers to high priority calls and hot spots, and single officers to all other calls.

Intuitively we want to believe that two officers per squad increases safety, but the opposite may be true. Take the work of psychologist Clifford Stott, which demonstrated that “hooligans” are far more likely to escalate conflict with law enforcement when law enforcement sends signals of greater or disproportionate force; in other words, when there is a single officer encountered, they are more likely to be viewed as an individual fellow human being in a position of authority, but when multiple officers are encountered (especially when clad in more gear), they are more likely to be viewed as an institution and a threating force. The idea that presenting (or signaling) more force would trigger a stronger fight or flight response in individuals who law enforcement interacts with shouldn’t surprise us. It also likely changes officer behavior. If an officer is facing an uncooperative individual, having no additional support changes the equation over whether to use physical force or to continue working to de-escalate and control the situation through non-physical means. Even when it comes to simple communication, moving from one officer to two changes the dynamics from interpersonal to small group communication, which can result in a diffusion of responsibility, conflicting commands, and other deficits. We must also consider what signal it sends to officers about the environment they work in when they are paired up for nearly every call. Clearly there are moments when multiple officers are needed, but it seems the choice to pair up for almost every call may inadvertently lead to less cooperation, greater likelihood of escalation, and an increased risk to safety for both officers and the public they interact with. It’s a fascinating area of social science that warrants more exploration.

We want officers and all City staff to be safe as they perform their duties. It also seems that if other major cities facing similar issues as ours are mostly having one officer respond to each call, then perhaps the current MPD policy needs to be rethought; particularly given that this could resolve the concerns about capacity which led the Police Chief to call for such a dramatic increase in patrol officers. The City Council does not have authority over MPD operations, so only the Mayor and Police Chief can make this policy change – which they could do immediately. For these reasons, the City Council should be cautious about approving additional patrol officers without a compelling reason as to why MPD continues a consequential policy that many others do not practice or have moved away from.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

Response on Bergan’s site development

Below is my response, posted April 5th, on a widely-viewed thread on NextDoor.com related to a proposed development at the Bergan’s site. I am posting the response to my blog for reference. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to email me at: [email protected] 

Council Member Andrew Johnson here. I want to make sure you all have accurate information on this proposal and the land use process. 

It is my understanding that the Bergan family decided to privately sell this site to a new owner. That new owner is interested in building a five-story mixed-use building that will include a grocery store (the grocery store brand has not yet been publicly announced). There will be an upcoming community meeting hosted by the Standish-Ericsson Neighborhood Association (SENA) on this proposal, but a date has not been set yet. 

Because of Federal and State laws (including the Constitution), property rights in our nation are strong. Therefore, the new owners have a right to build on their land. This does not mean they can build whatever they want, but given the current zoning, they are allowed, as a right, to build a multi-story mixed-use building. This has nothing to do with the 2040 Plan, as the zoning code has not yet been updated after the 2040 Plans passage. It's worth noting that even if the zoning code had been updated by now as a result of the 2040 Plan, it wouldn't substantially change the scale or height of what is allowable on this parcel.

Regarding the proposed five stories, the current zoning for this site allows five stories in height with conditions (what is known as a conditional use permit). Whether to grant the conditional use permit (and any other land use questions) will be decided through a quasi-judicial proceeding involving the Planning Commission. They legally have a narrow scope when considering these matters; in other words, given that it involves property rights, it is NOT a popularity contest and must be decided via a careful weighing of laws, code, policies, precedent, etc. Unless decisions by the Planning Commission are appealed, they will not come before the City Council. (Note: Because of the quasi-judicial nature of land use decisions, I am not allowed to weigh-in on this proposal, as it may come before the Council where I would then be acting essentially as a judge.) 

The proposal includes apartments which the developer intends to rent at market rate. Once the 2040 Plan is codified, it will require some affordability in every project (a policy known as Inclusionary Zoning), but given that it is not yet codified (and the interim IZ policy is narrow in scope), this project will not be required to make a percentage of units "affordable" at <60% of the Area Median Income. 

The City's Public Works Department is requiring the developers to conduct a traffic study. The results will be used to require changes to the design or layout to mitigate impacts.

For those interested in learning more and sharing their opinions, the next step is to show up at the community meeting. The best way to know when it gets scheduled is to connect with SENA either via their Facebook page or website. You can also call or email them as well. Once the owners submit their final land use application, it will then trigger the formal process where notification is sent out to nearby residents, a public hearing will be set before the Planning Commission, and City planning staff will analyze all the land use questions and compile a report with recommendations for the Commission. If you have any additional questions about this process, email me at: [email protected] 

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

Proposed “Neighborhoods 2020 Plan” risks falling short in achieving desired outcomes

Later this year the City of Minneapolis will be deciding on the future funding of neighborhood associations. These 70 organizations have been active for decades in work across our communities. They have advanced projects in every category – affordable housing, crime and safety, environment, transportation, community engagement, senior support, etc. They have been incubators for community leaders, laboratories for ideas that have later been adopted across the city, a voice for residents, and have helped fill in service gaps.

Neighborhood associations are also not immune from criticism. Over the years I’ve heard complaints that some organizations are intentionally excluding portions of their population, such as students or renters, making poor financial decisions, or simply not doing much of anything. It’s important to recognize that neighborhood associations also have criticisms of the City. For instance, that they are micromanaged or treated in a paternalistic manner. That the influence they have on City decisions often is proportionate to the level of respect their respective Council Member(s) have for them. That their funding has been reduced by 75% over the years, and at one point a large amount was taken back and repurposed (eventually to be returned years later). As the City considers the future of funding for neighborhood associations, being mindful of addressing these concerns, and avoiding the history of City slights that have bred resentment and undermined collaboration seems critical. While well-intended, I believe some of the recommendations made in the proposed Neighborhoods 2020 Plan fail to achieve their desired outcomes, so I want to post some initial thoughts on how we might better achieve those.

Despite all the successes of neighborhood associations, I believe there is a general lack of awareness over their existence and what they do, along with the fact that residents can and should participate. I believe this is the root cause of many symptoms that manifest themselves for neighborhood associations, from a lack of diversity among board members, to long-serving “sleepy” boards that could use some turnover. Unfortunately, some of the proposed recommendations seem to focus on the symptoms rather than treating the root cause. For example, mandating term limits for board members is well-intentioned: in theory it creates space for new members to step up and bring fresh energy, ideas, and perspective to a board (a healthy thing that can even be transformational for an organization). But when there is often little to no competition for board seats in the first place, the missing element is an abundance of new participants who bring a different perspective, etc. That’s why it’s not surprising to see open board seats filled by previous board members, those who have long-participated with the neighborhood association, or sometimes even folks who simply fill a seat because no one else is interested.

Another similar symptom of the same root cause is lack of diversity among board members. Diversity of any organization is important. Yet board members for many neighborhood associations tend to be older, whiter, and more likely to be homeowners than the population they represent. When this happens, decisions are skewed, perspectives absent, and faith in the organizations diminished. Some organizations have even had a history of even being intentionally exclusionary, which is completely unacceptable. But in many cases, a primary cause of this symptom lies directly in root cause of a lack of awareness and participation. As we consider the proposed Neighborhoods 2020 plan, where under one recommendation some neighborhood associations would face losing all their funding if they do not develop a diversity plan and meet its goals within 18 months, it seems ripe for failure to achieve the desired outcome of greater diversity. There is no doubt that greater board diversity requires intentional effort, and indeed a plan, but it should be incorporated as part of the larger systemic issues, otherwise it’s likely to not be successful and to result in unintended consequences, such as tokenism.

So, what would help address these concerns? Rather than a punitive approach, neighborhood associations need support in their efforts to reach out to underserved communities and to increase overall participation and engagement. This could take many forms. For instance, 1) the City could mail all residents an annual report informing them how their respective neighborhood association spends money, explaining how residents can participate (including serving as a board member), and providing other important information and contacts. Such a report would be similar to the Truth-In-Taxation notices that many residents already receive and would go a long way towards increasing awareness and participation. This information could also be delivered via other mediums, such as social media, email, and direct outreach. 2) To help neighborhood associations meet diversity goals and better represent their entire community, the City could provide additional funding, training, and outside expertise to help develop and implement diversity plans. This would bring best practices in outreach and authentic engagement to the frontlines and help ensure capacity is available to do that work. 3) Surveys on board demographics could be augmented with context on general membership participation, board election metrics, and outreach results to reveal the whole picture and better identify opportunities to improve the pipeline and ultimately the level of diversity within organizations. 4) Neighborhood associations can be empowered to further develop partnerships with other organizations focused on addressing racial disparities and advocating for renters by shifting some grant funding decisions from the City to neighborhood associations. These are just several ideas that should be considered, and I will be working over the coming months with our Ward 12 neighborhood associations and my colleagues to come up with additional ideas and determine which would be most effective at improving outcomes from our neighborhood associations while also respecting all the good work they have collectively done and continue to do.

To learn more on Neighborhoods 2020 and to share your feedback, check out the project page here.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

USPS delivery issues

I've recently heard from a number of constituents about problems with their mail delivery being missed, late, or incorrectly delivered (and experienced these myself).

I have been in ongoing conversations with the Postmaster regarding these problems. He let me know that they have been having operational issues affecting multiple local branches. He says there are two big issues in particular affecting delivery in our city:

There are currently 27 postal carriers who are out due to injuries from the ice and snow. We wish them a full and speedy recovery! It's also a good reminder to think of your postal carrier when it comes to shoveling and applying sand/salt.

There are 85 open positions for carriers and they have been having trouble getting folks interested in these jobs. I've personally posted the position in my newsletter to help get the word out, but also hope members of our community consider applying or sharing with others who may be interested in applying: http://about.usps.com/careers/

Because the Postal Service operates at a Federal level, I have also reached out to the offices of our Federal elected officials (Representative Omar, Senator Smith, and Senator Klobuchar) on these issues and asked them for help; all three are actively looking into these issues.

I don't expect that problems will be resolved overnight, but they are taking active steps to address the issues. If you personally continue to experience problems, it is important for you to contact the offices of our Federal elected officials, and feel free to include me as well on such emails.

Last but not least, it's a good moment to reflect on the value of this service and the workers who perform it. When mail is consistently delivered on time, it's easy to overlook the many workers that start their shift while most of us are still sound asleep, and who trudge through deep snow and freezing cold to our doors. I am grateful for all the people who provide this vital service we rely on, and as much as customers feel the pains of operational issues, the workers no doubt feel them too.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

The Comprehensive Plan (2040)

Every ten years, the City of Minneapolis is required under state law to update its Comprehensive Plan – a document that guides land use and hundreds of policies. For years, City staff and policymakers have been preparing for this latest update, and will spend years after an updated plan is passed working on setting specific details and implementing components of the plan; in this way, the Comprehensive Plan is part of a continuous cycle of policy work.

Given the monumental challenges before us – climate change threatening our way of life, some of the worst racial disparities in the entire United States right here in our city, and an affordable housing crisis devastating families across Minneapolis – we wanted more than a light refresh of the Comp Plan, we wanted to revisit all policy areas and seriously consider the causes of the problems we face today and how we might work to address them during this next cycle of policy work. This work was informed by a wide-variety of open houses and input sessions to gather a diverse range of feedback from across our city. What our staff produced is a well-written draft, which you can find here. I encourage you to read it.

The initial draft of the plan, released this spring, was meant to be bold and start a conversation – that it did. That first draft proposed allowing property owners up to four units of housing (through new construction or conversion of an existing home) on what are today single-family home lots. Many residents, myself included, had concerns about the impact of this for a variety of reasons, and it became the focal point of criticism of the plan; in many ways that was unfortunate, as it overshadowed so many other important policy suggestions – most of which are also bold and would have widespread support if they received more attention. Public input on the initial draft plan was gathered over months, and with more than 10,000 comments received, staff went to work updating and releasing a final draft which was unveiled this fall. This final draft reduced the maximum allowable housing density for today’s single-family house lots from four units to three, downzoned many corridors from what was initially proposed, and added more detail and supporting information throughout the plan.

Since the initial release, I have held four meetings in Ward 12 in partnership with our three neighborhood associations (LCC, SENA, and NENA) to share information, answer questions, and most importantly, hear from constituents. Beyond these meetings and the emails and phone calls I have received, I have also been intentionally asking residents what they think at block parties, neighborhood meetings, and community events for the better part of the year. While meetings, emails, and phone calls have been fairly split between those that are supportive of the draft plan or have significant concerns (along with a handful of individuals who think it does not go far enough), I have found that most residents I approach and ask about this in the community are aware of the Comp Plan and think it’s fine. Where people have been opposed, I have sought to understand what their specific concerns are to see if they are being addressed or consider how we might address them.

After carefully reading the draft Comp Plan multiple times, spending hundreds of hours listening to thousands of opinions, and doing a ton of research, I brought forward more than 40 amendments to the plan which successfully passed (more than any other Council Member). These ranged from implementing technology solutions along Highway 55 (Hiawatha Ave) which will improve signal timing and relieve traffic congestion, to analysis of property tax trends on burdening homeowners and developing plans to mitigate those impacts (particularly for those with low or fixed incomes). Other amendments of mine included improving our recycling efforts and working to ensure every resident has access to high-speed fiber optic internet, to significantly improving snow and ice clearance from sidewalks and going further in supporting our locally-owned small businesses. On the land use maps, I worked with residents who expressed concerns to build consensus among neighbors and amended the proposed zoning to better fit the neighborhood.

With such a truly comprehensive effort, there are inevitably parts of both the plan and the process around it which I have mixed-feelings on. While every home in the ward received information on their doorstep about the Comp Plan and meetings through multiple editions of our local community newspapers, and while we worked to get notice out via many other channels (such as my e-newsletter, e-Democracy, NextDoor, social media, and of course traditional news media), I am disappointed that mailed notice was not included in the City’s communication strategy – something I had pushed for internally. I also disagreed with the decision by staff to hire a PR firm to counter misinformation, which seemed not only wasteful when the City has a Communications Department that could have been leveraged, but destined to entrench critics.

As for the most controversial element of the plan – allowing up to three units of housing on a single-family lot – after extensive consideration, I do not expect our community to see much change as a result. Property owners on a typical single-family lot who wish to take advantage of this will still be restricted to the existing height and setback limitations (in other words, they can’t build anything bigger than what is already allowed). And the economics for the most part are just not there, at least for rentals, to justify duplex or triplex development. But sometimes there are other reasons to build when the economics don’t make sense. Take Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which the City Council legalized for all single-family lots back in 2014; the same can be said of ADUs - that there is not a good economics case to be made for building them. Yet we have seen nine ADUs built in Ward 12 over the past three years. In many if not all cases, there was some personal or family reason to do so. As many residents in our ward continue to age, it is undeniable that there exists a case for multi-generational households to consider building duplexes or triplexes. For individual with declining mobility, new construction is often a necessity – putting a bathroom and living quarters on the main level, along with bringing the washer, dryer, and utility access up from the basement. And having family just a floor away not only provides critical support, but obvious social value. The desire for seniors to continue living independently within our neighborhoods and the lack of housing options that help facilitate this need cannot be overlooked. When we legalized ADUs, we knew the vast majority of property owners would never build one (just 9 of more than 11,000+ homes in Ward 12 have), and I am confident that the same is true of this added flexibility for converting existing homes to multi-family or building new; our charming community with its quiet streets comprised mostly of single-family homes, a community I fell in love with just as so many of you have, will continue to be charming, quiet, and mostly single-family homes. Development of new housing units will predominantly continue to be focused along Hiawatha Avenue, where transit access, commercial amenities, and economically-sound opportunities for new construction are abundant.

Whether increased market-rate housing supply will help ease the affordability crisis is of debate and concern with the plan. In addition to the record levels of funding for affordable housing as part of Mayor Frey’s 2019 budget (more than $40 million), the City Council also passed an inclusionary zoning policy tied to the Comp Plan. This policy requires most developers to make at least 10% of their units in new projects available at 60% or less of Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 20 years, and offers incentives to make 20% or more units available at 50% or less of AMI for 30 years. Like the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, there will be regular reporting on progress towards achieving these goals, what if any unintended outcomes we may be seeing, and opportunities to adjust policies and even the plan itself along the way.

The Comprehensive Plan was passed by the City Council today 12 votes in favor to 1 opposed (CM Palmisano). For such a comprehensive rewrite of such a comprehensive plan to receive this near unanimous level of support is noteworthy and helps illustrate the level of thought and care that went into this update, the overall widely-supported policies within it, the compromises made, and the many checks and balances in place to ensure that it moves our city and our community in a positive direction – enhancing the neighborhoods we love while helping address the most pressing challenges that face us. I will continue working hard over the coming years to listen to our community and represent it well in the fine-tuning of detailed regulations as they relate to this plan. Thank you for everyone who shared your thoughts on this with me and I hope you will continue to stay engaged in our policy work together over the coming years.

(If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact me or stop by my weekly open office hours).

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

$15 Minimum Wage in Minneapolis

A city-wide $15 an hour minimum wage phased-in over five years for large businesses and seven years for small businesses was passed last Friday by the Minneapolis City Council by a vote of 11-1. This comes after several years of listening, debate, and analysis (including an attempt by advocates to place the question on the ballot). This action will benefit an estimated 71,000 workers in our city who are currently paid the state minimum wage, and will disproportionately help people of color at a time when our city faces serious racial inequities. While opponents predict job loss whenever efforts take place to increase minimum wage, meta-analysis of seven decades of increases suggests no correlation with lower employment levels. Many proponents also argue that $15 an hour is still not enough, see: Even at $15 an hour, Twin Cities renters must work overtime for a decent apartment.

Personally I believe that Minneapolis should have a higher minimum wage than the exurbs and rural areas of Minnesota because the cost of living here is substantially more. I believe that if someone works 40 hours a week, their employer(s) should pay them enough to live a modest life. As a former small business owner, I have approached this issue with sensitivity to the many challenges of running one’s own business, and the risks that come with adding more. I also believe a regional approach is ideal, and absent state leadership, it starts when the largest city takes the lead.

Remarkably, of the approximately 170 people who spoke at the public hearing, only 3 were against increasing the minimum wage. While most (including tipped servers and bartenders) spoke in favor of “one fair wage” of $15, a good number who showed up to the public hearing spoke in favor of amending the $15 minimum wage proposal to include a “tip credit”.

The idea of a tip credit might sound reasonable at first. For restaurants which tend to operate on thin margins and where many servers and bartenders receive a majority of income from tips, why not count tips towards what otherwise is the employer’s responsibility to pay in wages? In other words, if a server doesn’t make $15 an hour on average, then the employer would “backfill” their wages to ensure they take home at least $15 an hour, but otherwise if they average, say, $28 an hour after tips, then the employer would only have to pay the state minimum wage (less than $15 an hour).

A number of servers and bartenders (along with restaurant owners) have advocated for a tip credit. For these tipped workers, the big concern is that without a tip credit, their employers may either change the operating model (i.e. switch from full-service to counter-service – a substantial loss of jobs) or eliminate tipping in favor of adding a 20% service charge to each check which would then be used by the employer to cover their increased labor expenses as a result of complying with a $15 minimum wage (a substantial reduction in income for said workers). Thus, the intent of a tip credit can be viewed as a way to maintain the status quo for these tipped servers and bartenders, or to create a de facto exemption from the minimum wage increase (considering that advocates of a tip credit self-report tipped workers making on average $28.56 an hour).

I spent a lot of time listening to both sides on this and carefully considering the issue, and I was open-minded through the listening sessions held by the City. At the end of the day though, I could not support the proposed tip credit for the following reasons:

When servers said they want to keep their tips, I agree. With a tip credit, from a simple accounting standpoint, a customer can give a server $1 but that server will not bring home any additional income, instead their employer will save $1 (have $1 more in their pocket). A tip credit fundamentally changes the act of tipping by allowing the value to be redirected to another party than originally intended, and without required consent or knowledge.

Covering the cost of a minimum wage increase without a tip credit can be accomplished by raising prices on average less than 5% over 7 years. This is according to the economic study commissioned by the City Council and conducted by the University of Minnesota. This intuitively makes sense if you consider this question: what is the average sales revenue per server per hour? Most times when I asked servers this I was told ~$200/hr. If that is the case, seven years from now (when $15 is fully phased-in) restaurants will need their prices adjusted to at least $205.50 to cover this wage increase for what they are currently charging $200. $200 -> $205.50 is a 2.75% price increase (this doesn't include back of house nor other associated labor costs, which would help explain why the study suggests a ~5% price increase on average). Again, this is over seven years. Owners I spoke with who support a tip credit did not dispute that they can make this work by adjusting prices gradually over time. There are of course arguments to be made for a tip credit and/or against a minimum wage increase, but hyperbole that menu prices will double and businesses will be forced to move to counter-service or eliminate tipping is just that: hyperbole, with no demonstrable basis.

Introducing a tip credit poses a serious risk that servers would face a wage cut. Servers benefit today from our state not having a tip credit, unlike neighboring Wisconsin where employers can pay servers as little as $2.13 an hour. This is despite threats over the years that employers would do away with tipping en mass should the wage go up (it did, they haven’t). But if Minneapolis endorsed a tip credit, I really do believe we would see it passed into state law, which would mean the $9.50 wage floor that servers enjoy today would drop (and income along with it). While some respond to this by saying “a minimum wage cut has never happened”, it just did in Missouri.

 While I did not support the proposed tip credit, I have worked with small business owners on amendments to more gradually phase-in the minimum wage so that they have a smoother adjustment, to treat local restaurant owners with a few locations as small businesses (they are and should be), and I also authored a staff direction to begin creation of a matching grant program to help small businesses with two massive costs they often face – SAC fees and ADA compliance. This is on top of my work as a leader on business support, including the elimination of dozens of regulations and formation of the Small Business Office.

I genuinely listened to both sides, did a lot of research, and kept an open mind throughout most of the process. It hasn't been an easy issue, and reasonable minds will disagree. While I personally do not believe this minimum wage increase is a panacea, I do believe that overall it will be more beneficial for our society than not, and I will be closely monitoring the results and am willing to make adjustments as necessary. As several surrounding cities work to pass minimum wage increases as well, I extend my support in working together to ensure a cohesive regional approach through municipal leadership.

Finally, a special thank you to all my constituents who weighed in over the years on this! I read each email carefully, reviewed your petitions, listened throughout our countless hours of in-person conversations, and valued your thoughts and ideas. Whether you were in support or opposed, your voices helped shape my views and work on this issue over time, and I have been honored and humbled to represent the diverse perspectives across our ward throughout this process.

Footnote: Days before passing the wage increase, a study from Seattle was released and cited by some as evidence of negative outcomes from their $15 minimum wage implementation. There have been many responses to this study pointing out its flaws, which you can read here, here, here, here, and here. Regardless, this illustrates the need for careful and close monitoring as the wage increase is phased-in so that adjustments can be made as necessary.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

Small business budget amendments

I was happy to lead the effort during the recent 2017 budget process to create a small business office, using existing resources, and pass a number of other comprehensive reforms. This was much needed and built on previous work to make Minneapolis a more friendly city for small businesses and entrepreneurs who do so much to add to the richness and character of our neighborhoods and our economy.

Thanks to all who helped make this happen through their partnership and hard work, especially Mainstreet Alliance, MetroIBA, Jewish Community Action, CM Frey and CM Goodman, and Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde.

Both motions passed unanimously.

Motion #1

Establishing a small business support team of 3.0 FTE to directly help small businesses navigate city processes across the Enterprise (particularly in the Business Licensing division of CPED, Health and Regulatory Services). This team will have the authority to identify, document, and help implement opportunities to make the City friendlier for small businesses.

The team is to report directly to the City Coordinator’s Office and will be comprised of the following:

$105,000 and 1 FTE in CPED for a Navigator position and $25,000 in additional outreach funds as proposed in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.

1 FTE created in CPED using the $70,000 increased appropriation to the Communications Department as proposed in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. Finance is directed to reflect the full ongoing cost of the position in the Five-Year Financial Direction.

$145,000 and 1 FTE in the City Coordinator’s Office currently recommended in the 2017 Budget for “Strategic Management and Continuous Improvement.”

The small business support team will report back to the Community Development & Regulatory Services Committee no later than March 31, 2017, submitting a report detailing their work plan, including how the team will effectively operate, how they will measure their success, regularly report progress, and what, if any, additional operational or budgetary impacts are contained within said work plan.

All departments are to assist this team as requested, working with their respective leadership, the City Council, and the Mayor’s Office to advance these goals.

 Motion #2

Directing the City Coordinator’s Office to establish a small business workgroup that includes the staff team that has been working together as part of the City’s Business Made Simple initiative as well as members of the City’s Innovation Team. This workgroup shall review existing efforts, programs, and initiatives focused specifically on the small business community to determine how best to align and/or reorganize small business touch points across the enterprise. The workgroup will be co-chaired by Community Planning & Economic Development and the City Coordinator’s Office in coordination with other City departments (particularly the City Attorney’s Office) as needed.

Specifically, staff is asked to build off the continuous improvement work that has already been initiated to streamline and simplify processes for the business community and:

Review programs and business lines within CPED to determine how best to reconfigure workflows [and/or business lines], in order to accelerate small business efforts. [This review to be facilitated by an external consultant with organizational design experience.];

Review and finalize work on an online portal for the business community;

Finalize development of business guides and supportive checklists for businesses;

Identify and address gaps in processes and service delivery, including the need for additional staff training and other strategies aimed at increasing alignment with the small business community;

Research best practices for innovative strategies such as business acceleration programs, development of a municipal design center, cluster-based small business development, creation of entrepreneurial incubator spaces, development of customer service express lanes for basic services, small business recognition programs, micro-lending programs, and others.

Staff is further directed to formalize an external small business advisory council to work alongside staff in this review, and to assist in developing recommendations aimed at increasing small business opportunities, resources, and areas of process improvement.

The workgroup is charged with bringing forth a comprehensive report of their review and ensuring recommendations, including those put forward by the small business advisory council, along with any organizational and budgetary impacts or recommendations that stem from this review by no later than May 15, 2017.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

Statement on Nokomis East Post Office

For over a year I’ve been working with neighbors, the Postmaster General, and NENA to address various quality of life issues stemming from the Nokomis East Post Office on 34th Avenue. These include property damage to nearby homes from delivery trucks and the unwanted use of private driveways to make deliveries feasible.

These issues have largely stemmed from the change in operations of the USPS as their business model has shifted due to online deliveries, especially from Amazon; this means large third-party delivery trucks coming in at 2am and 3am and being unable to make the same turning movements in this relatively tight location as the historically smaller USPS trucks. After careful work to understand and address these concerns, it became obvious that the location of the Post Office was not suited to today’s operational needs, putting unnecessary burden and hardship on neighbors that went beyond what one would reasonably expect from a nearby business. Therefore I formally requested USPS move the operational component of the Post Office to the airport while maintaining the retail component at the existing location so that our neighborhood would not lose the convenience of service. I also offered to work with the Postmaster General to find a more appropriate location for their long-term operational needs, such as along Highway 55 in an industrial zoned area. After carefully considering this request, USPS agreed with pursuing these changes. A date for implementation is not certain yet, but I would expect it to happen sometime this spring.

This is a win-win-win: alleviating the issues for neighbors, maintaining the convenience of retail postal service for the neighborhood while decreasing traffic and parking congestion, and improving operational efficiencies for the postal service. I am appreciative of the Postmaster General for his responsiveness to these concerns, to neighbors who have shown great patience and a willingness to work constructively towards a solution, and to NENA for helping facilitate discussions and advocate for residents. This news was not publicly shared sooner at the request of USPS so that they could inform the appropriate parties. I expect more formal information will be coming from them ahead of implementation. As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions: 612-673-2212 and [email protected]

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

Cuts to Greater MSP

In response to StarTribune Op-Ed: Minneapolis should restore funding to Greater MSP

I agree with the need for metro collaboration when it comes to economic development, but let's be clear here...

This is an organization, funded in part by taxpayer dollars, which pays their CEO close to a *MILLION* dollars a year.

They pit cities against each other to see who can shell out the most in taxpayer subsidies.

They take quite a large amount of credit for landing investments where they played what seems like quite a minor role.

There are a number of organizations that do similar and overlapping work. DEED. Meet Minneapolis. CPED. The Minneapolis Chamber and Minnesota Chamber. So what are they doing that others are not? What makes them more than just part of the entourage?

They do have a pretty website, though.

Despite my criticism, I am open-minded to restoring funding. I am open-minded because I *want* a damn good metro-wide economic development organization. But it's hard to understand the value proposition for a 22-person organization which pays their CEO more than the Mayor, Governor, and President combined when they don't even do a good job informing those who help fund them what it is that they actually do, and when their own website lacks the transparency that an organization receiving public dollars warrants.

So in other words, how can Greater MSP make an effective pitch for the metro region when they haven't even made an effective pitch for themselves? I look forward to meeting with them and hearing their answer.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

What it’s like serving on the Minneapolis City Council

I’m three years into a four-year term on the Minneapolis City Council and want to reflect a bit on the role and my experiences, especially since I'm often asked what it’s like.

Despite many more gray hairs, I love the job. It’s also very stressful and the hardest you’ll ever work. From the former Council Members (CMs) I’ve talked with, they all agree on those three points.

For a typical day, mine broadly looks like this:

 Around five hours in Microsoft Outlook reading and responding to e-mails (mostly from constituents) and usually under an hour on the phone

Several hours of meetings, either 1) formally of the Council, committees, or external boards, 2) with staff or third parties regarding various projects and efforts, or 3) community or constituent meetings/events (mostly in the evenings)

An hour or two reading, researching, or reviewing information related to issues or things I’m working on

The days vary, for instance I just got beyond ten days in a row of working sixteen hour days, but that was pretty unusual. Most weekends I work one day for around eight hours, combining multiple events and a bit of email work. None of this includes political expectations to door knock for other candidates, attend political meetings, host fundraisers, etc. It also doesn’t include many miscellaneous things, such as catching up with colleagues or working on my newsletter. Hearing divorce stories from former CMs, they recommend being intentional about making time for family. As a newlywed I do this, but it’s still difficult. I honestly can’t imagine having multiple kids and being a CM, but some of my colleagues do and are, and do a great job, so it’s clearly possible. The work itself is very challenging and demands full attention. It’s important to be a self-starter and to have a real thirst for learning… I earned my degree in Communications with a 4.0 GPA and I swear I learn more in a day of being a CM than I did in a week of college.

When I think about the heavy workload of constituent service, I think back to my days at Geek Squad doing customer service (along with fixing computers). That’s a huge part of what the role is, a glorified customer service representative. It can be quite rewarding in this regard, working to problem solve issues affecting residents and improving their quality of life through doing so. The City damaged your new sod and replaced it with grass seed? Let’s see if we can get them to put down some sod instead. A nearby manhole cover vibrates every time a car drives over it? Let’s see if we can get a new seal put on it. MNDOT forgot to mow their parcel and now it’s overgrown? Let’s see if we can get them out yet this week. Crime, business problems, inspections, problem properties, neighbor disputes, mental health issues, speed bumps, stop signs, drinking fountains, trees… out of it all, I’ve had more contacts regarding parking than any other issue by far and spent probably a solid month of my life on the subject. Parking is a fascinating topic, by the way.

One of the other jobs which I believe left me well prepared for the role was working at Target Corporate for eight years. I got used to meeting culture and process there, learning to navigate what is and isn’t important to focus on, quickly shifting gears, juggling many projects at once, cross-department collaboration and consensus building, and knowing how to work within the Enterprise to get things done. A lesson I learned early on at City Hall is that if you want something to happen, work within the existing processes to do it. From the outside I think this can be frustrating, but with roughly 4,000 City employees, fourteen elected leaders, dozens of appointed leaders, a handful of other agencies that impose requirements or have a stake in much of the work, and most importantly, more than 400,000 residents all with different opinions and needs who we serve, process becomes absolutely essential to prevent chaos. On the flip side, existing policies and process can also make it harder to react in a timely manner, can result in less accountability, and can even on occasion hurt the outcomes of our work. This is where I struggle, as I have a healthy impatience and find it difficult that it often takes many months for simple common-sense changes. Another example… it’s hard to watch problem properties impact neighbors for years because the property owner(s) have so many options to delay, appeal, and overall avoid their responsibilities. Process improvements become essential in this regard, along with creative thinking on how to find faster resolutions while working within the system.

Things seem more nuanced to me now. Even the simplest issues often have many layers of complexity which need to be understood and considered. Listening is so important. Not jumping to conclusions, essential. Keeping an open-mind. Considering unintended consequences. Seeking balance.

All my colleagues are each unique. They have their strengths and weaknesses. I genuinely enjoy working with each as I’ve gotten to know them over the past three years. We definitely don’t always agree, nor always get along, and I work more closely with some than with others. It can be hard when you feel strongly about a certain issue to see someone else working in the other direction, but the diversity of perspective is very important among the body as a whole and I have come to really appreciate it. It has been a learning process for me to not carry resentment over outcomes, but it was an important learning because that’s democracy, and you can’t let a loss get in the way of far more work ahead, nor let the occasional disagreements pile up into a wall that makes it difficult to work with colleagues (and ergo difficult to be effective and accomplish the changes you seek). This does not mean you need to “go along to get along”; I always vote for what I believe is the right thing to do based on the information I have, but I find it important to be diplomatic and respectful when disagreeing. It’s interesting to see how we work as a team, where each CM has different interests and skill sets, and as a whole we pursue a lot of different policy work based on these; for example, I don’t focus as heavily on transit or city-wide affordable housing because a number of other CMs are already on it, yet my background both as an IT professional and small business owner have made me a leading voice in these arenas.

There’s a lot to enjoy about the role, but what I enjoy most about it is probably the proactive work across the ward. There are a number of projects or improvements I know wouldn’t have happened without working hard to ensure they did… I don’t need a pat on the back, I just know at the end of the day that I left the ward better than I found it and that is what makes me happiest.

Of course none of the work happens in a bubble. I have two amazing staff (Suzanne and Kate) that serve as my eyes and ears and help in countless ways on this work, especially extending my capacity. We have so many great City staff that are essential in all this work as well, and not to mention the countless residents who contribute through their neighborhood associations or otherwise. It’s a privilege and pleasure getting to work hard as can be on behalf of my constituents.

There is no “Finally,“ to this post because there is much more to share, but this is a good start and I hope this provides insight for those who are curious to know what it’s like being this particular council member.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

Response to burglary concerns

I live about a block from where a number of robberies have recently occurred, and I personally share your concerns over the recent uptick in crime. If a burglary or theft happens on your block, it’s personal and the impact is really directly felt.

I have worked with the Police 3rd Precinct to ensure additional patrols in the neighborhood over the past few weeks. I have also met with crime victims, co-hosted a crime and safety meeting this week in Nokomis East (and am working to set one up in Longfellow), support hiring 15 additional police officers (as recommended in the Mayor’s budget), and sent out crime alerts via my newsletter. I also know that investigators are working hard to try and identify suspects and have meticulously collected evidence to help build case(s) for prosecutors. These efforts do appear to be paying off, as we have seen the related robberies cease over the past two weeks, however we still have burglaries to contend with which are up compared to this time last year.

While all of this may make it sound like crime is running rampant in our neighborhood, that’s not the case. Of the thousands of homes in Howe, we have had eight burglaries in the past two weeks, compared with six over the same time period last year, and the majority of these burglaries involve unlocked doors and windows. Of course eight burglaries are still eight too many and each results in real victims who face loss and trauma, and no one should be burglarized regardless of whether they left doors and windows unlocked. It is however to say that precautions can be taken to reduce the risk of burglary, and that overall our community is quite safe and the individual risk to residents is very small (though it doesn’t feel small, nor is it, if it happens to you or a neighbor).

 You can play a role in addressing crime in a number of ways. For instance, is your block organized and do you have a block club leader? This is an important way to keep neighbors in the loop on suspicious activity and to be aware of recent crime trends. There are also a number of easy steps one can take to help prevent crime (check out our tips and resources here) and we offer home security evaluations through the precinct. It’s very important to always call 911 when you see suspicious activity (if you hesitate, that means you should call it in.) Other tips include making improvements to your exterior lighting, locking car doors at night even when there are no valuables inside so that thieves are not attracted to your block, locking doors and when not home locking windows, and keeping valuables out of sight.

 I hope this helps explain what we are doing and how you can help. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or thoughts.

~ Andrew

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

"Insure the Police” Charter Amendment

As mentioned in my blog post on the 15 Now ballot measure, residents have the ability to bring forward proposed amendments to the City Charter, which is the legal document that governs how the city is structured and administered as an organization.

On Friday, the City Council voted 10-3 to not put the question of police insurance on the ballot.

Given that the Insure the Police campaign had collected the requisite number of signatures, the *only* question before the Council was whether the Charter amendment would be legal if passed. Each Council Member therefore had to weigh this question of legality. The City Attorney’s Office provided an opinion that it would not be a legal amendment. The organizers also provided an opinion that it was legal. I carefully weighed these opinions and looked at state laws to make my own judgement.

I want to acknowledge that the petitioners had little time to respond to the City Attorney’s opinion, and by the time I received their response I did not have enough time to review it ahead of last Wednesday’s Committee of the Whole vote, so I abstained on voting until Friday’s final vote so that I could review their rebuttal and consider their arguments when making my decision on how to vote.

During my statements on Friday, I acknowledged that I have concerns over this proposal in terms of how it would be technically implemented, potential conflicts with laws that would inhibit its effectiveness, unintended consequences, and the likelihood of success. However, my job is not to determine if the proposed Charter amendment would be a good or bad change, but merely to determine if it would be *clearly* illegal and therefore ineligible to be placed on the ballot, or if it could move forward. As I shall outline below via several specific points, I have reached the conclusion that this proposal does not clearly conflict with state laws and therefore should be placed on the ballot.

Unlike the 15 Now proposed Charter amendment, there is no clear conflict with Statute 410.07, which limits city charters to define structure and administration of the organization; any requirements of employment with the organization is clearly a matter of administrative function, such as requiring professional insurance.

The City Attorney argued in her opinion that because the City is required under Statute 466.07 to legally indemnify and defend employees performing their duties unless they are willfully negligent, requiring police officers to buy their own insurance would violate this statutory requirement by forcing officers to pay for defense and indemnification which is the City’s responsibility to pay for. While I agree with the City Attorney that the language proposed by the petitioners could be more clear and seems fairly expansive at first blush, it in no way appears to actually require any additional coverage aside from cases of willful negligence and those arising from off-duty incidents, both of which fall outside the City’s legal obligation to defend and indemnify; therefore it does not appear to be in conflict with this particular state statute.

The City Attorney argued that the proposal is also in conflict with PELRA Act regarding union contracts, that because the current union contract with the Police Federation requires the City to pay for the insurance of officers, such a unilateral action to require officers to purchase insurance would violate our duty to negotiate with the union in good faith under Statute 179A. Upon review of the statute and in consideration of both legal opinions, I believe the spirit of the statute is to prevent anti-union ordinances or charter amendments which would broadly prohibit negotiations with employees. I do not believe that the statute is so overly-slanted as to prevent managerial policies from being imposed. Subsequently, I agree with the petitioners that it is not the requirement itself which would need to be negotiated, but rather the details, such as how much the City would pay as a base rate to officers in order to compensate them for buying their own insurance.

Finally, and perhaps most convincingly, the City Attorney argued that lawsuit settlements are often made as a result not of any wrongdoing on the officer’s part, but because it is far cheaper to pay a “nuisance settlement” for a few thousand dollars than to spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting a lawsuit in court even if we are sure to win, and that if an officer’s insurance premiums go up based on “claims history” from such settlements that were not due to any misconduct on their part, it would violate our duty to pay *all* costs associated with their defense and indemnification. I was very sympathetic to this argument. I have sat through a number of settlements and have seen good officers accused of misconduct even though witnesses and evidence prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt; nonetheless we settle because it would cost far more to go to trial, and the court system and judges actually pressure both sides to settle to spare the far greater cost on the judicial system of a trial. In these instances it would be wrong for those officers to face higher insurance premiums and would seem to be a violation of our legal responsibility to cover the costs of indemnifying them. However, I was reminded that officers are asked whether or not they will agree to such a settlement. If they face higher premiums when choosing to settle, there is little doubt that many officers will be more reluctant to settle and will instead exercise their right to go to trial, a much larger cost which will be paid for by taxpayers (an unintended consequence of such an individual insurance requirement). Most importantly to this question, in refusing to accept “nuisance settlements”, officers will be able to control their claims history, via trial, from unjustly affecting their premiums. This would ensure no conflict with our duty to pay all the costs of defense and indemnification. Thus, I see no clear conflict with our legal obligations under state statute. (I am happy to have brought this point to light.)

The proposed charter amendment requiring police officers to buy insurance may be found by a court to be illegal. However, I could find no clear violation of laws and therefore it is, to quote from the City Attorney’s opinion, “the [City Council’s] ministerial duty to place the measure on the ballot.”

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

“15 Now” Charter Amendment

The City of Minneapolis is legally incorporated via a charter, and under state law, residents have a right to propose amendments to the City Charter by collecting signatures and having their proposed amendment added as a question on the ballot during an election for residents to vote on. A group, 15 Now, brought forward a proposed amendment to require a minimum wage of $15 an hour in the city. On Friday, the City Council voted 11-2 to not place the proposed amendment on the ballot.

It is important to note that the Council passes *ordinances* which regulate businesses and set laws within the city using the powers granted to us in the Charter. The term “ordinance” will be used later.

Given that 15 Now had collected the requisite number of signatures, the *only* question before the Council was whether the Charter amendment would be legal if passed. Each Council Member therefore had to weigh this question of legality. The City Attorney’s Office provided an opinion that it would not be a legal amendment. The organizers also provided an opinion that it was legal. I carefully weighed these opinions and looked at State laws to make my own judgement.

In the end, I joined the majority of my colleagues in voting against putting this question on the ballot because I believe the proposed amendment *clearly* violates MN Statute 410.07, which limits the scope of a City Charter to that of the structure and administration of the city as an organization. From the statute: “Subject to the limitations in this chapter provided, [a charter] may provide for any scheme of municipal government not inconsistent with the constitution, and may provide for the establishment and administration of all departments of a city government, and for the regulation of all local municipal functions, as fully as the legislature might have done before home rule charters for cities were authorized by constitutional amendment in 1896.”

My friend and colleague, Council Member Cam Gordon, one of two who voted to put the question on the ballot, said that he believed it would be legal because “scheme of government” could be broadly interpreted as meaning anything the government “schemes up.” I disagree with his interpretation. My interpretation is that this means "form" of government, such as the legal form of incorporating a jurisdiction, the particular "scheme" by which the government unit was incorporated. This is further evident in that other cities explicitly create a mechanism for ordinance by petition and ballot route... it would be unnecessary to create such a mechanism if "scheme" was so broadly interpreted as to mean any policy decision which the governing body makes could also be made via petition. Further undermined as well by the petitioner's own case that their amendment is legal due to the City's “general welfare” powers... because those are *already* defined in the Charter, which enable ordinances such as paid sick leave. And of course in no way does the proposed amendment seem related to the section it was proposed for (see screenshot below), nor conform to basic guidelines for city charters, such as that written by the League of MN Cities. This is why I feel so strongly that it was not legal.

This is no technicality, no trivial matter. Moving forward this amendment when it seems to so clearly violate Statute 410 would result in the petitioners campaigning for this ballot measure with the strong likelihood that a court of law would invalidate it at the slightest challenge. Ergo, it is not just a duty and responsibility to the law, but also to the petitioners to give this a fair legal assessment.

The petitioners have since appealed the Council’s decision to a court over the legality of their proposed Charter amendment. They have every right to do this, and if they are successful and the measure is found legal, I will apologize to them; if I had doubts on it not being legal, I would have erred on the side of democracy and moved it forward to the ballot.

So what now?

In the same meeting that we voted not to put this question on the ballot, the Council voted to pass a staff directive starting the process of developing a minimum wage ordinance in our city. Many supporters of 15 Now have been critical of this action, as it does not commit to a specific wage and will take approximately half-a-year before a draft ordinance is before the Council.

On the first point, the results of the City’s analysis of a minimum wage increase will not be complete until at least September. This will help inform via data, specific to the city’s economy, how to reduce unintended consequences and maximize benefits of any minimum wage increase. It is worth noting that I have been unable to find links to studies on the 15 Now website as of the time I write this, so I am unsure how they came about this specific proposed wage.

On the second point, I understand the frustration with waiting and the uncertainty over specifics. It is important to remind folks that this was the same case with the paid sick ordinance we have since passed. At the time the workplace partnership was formed around the issue, many supporters decried that decision and demanded an immediate vote on a paid sick leave ordinance; had we done so, it would have failed and the issue would be dead for years to come. Instead, a partnership was formed that took the time needed to engage stakeholders and hammer out the details. Because of this process put in place, we ended up with one of the strongest paid sick ordinances in the nation, which was also passed unanimously; the unanimous passage in particular gave confidence to local elected officials in other cities across Minnesota to pursue a paid sick ordinance of their own, which we have since seen in cities such as St. Paul and Duluth. It is now likely that we will see in the coming years the State pass a paid sick leave law as a result of the leadership Minneapolis has shown on the issue.

To many people, the topic of raising minimum wage is a moral question about how we treat our fellow humans and what quality of life is available to all residents no matter their disposition. This can be an emotionally-charged issue and the importance of it is not lost on me.

When I ran for office, I knew I would need to take an Oath of Office to uphold the laws on Minnesota if I wanted the job. I took that Oath and I honor it every day. I also knew I would need to listen to the diverse voices in Ward 12 which I represent, and to work with colleagues to find compromise and ultimately get needed legislation passed. That is exactly what I have been doing and will continue to do.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

What have I been doing on police reform?

I am thankful for our police officers and all of the selfless (and often thankless) work they do to protect and serve. We have a responsibility to make sure they are trained well, serving all residents with equal care and compassion, building trust, making our communities safer, and to hold accountable those who do not meet our high expectations of integrity and service that come with wearing the uniform.

Lately I have recently had a number of constituents ask what I have been doing in regards to police reform. Below is a list of specifics. Please note that this does not include my additional efforts related to racial equity. Please let me know if you have any questions on these and if there is anything else in particular that you would like to see me tackle.

Leading Restorative Justice expansion, including successfully working with the Mayor to triple funding via the 2016 budget

Co-authored 2016 budget amendment to fast-track implicit bias and procedural justice training for police officers

Co-authored 2016 budget staff directive to create website for     increased transparency and accountability of these initiatives

Co-hosted Northside forum with CM Yang in the aftermath of Ferguson to examine community/police relationships

Appointed to Department of Justice subcommittee on improving Minneapolis community/police relationships (recommendations currently being finalized)

Pushed on HR, Legal, and MPD (with CM Yang) for greater action on racial disparities in officer hiring, and later co-hosted a public forum

Laid out a strong case for repealing the lurking and spitting ordinances, and co-authored decriminalization of marijuana

Called for an independent federal investigation into the death of Jamar Clark and stood with the community

Successfully pushed for a “Quality Assurance” team in the MPD to provide random reviews of body camera footage in order to proactively improve officer interactions through performance feedback

Strong advocate of using data to create an “early intervention system” to identify and address concerning behavior as soon as possible before it escalates