On Wednesday evening, 2/25, new 11th Ward Council Member Jamison Whiting held his first Town Hall meeting in the Auditorium of Washburn High. I attended, and I learned a lot.
I had been attending most of retired Council Member Emily Koski’s Town Hall meetings over the last four years, so the first thing I noticed was the size of the crowd—at least five times, perhaps ten times, the numbers she typically drew to the meeting space at Pearl Park, a space this crowd would have in no way fit into. I expect the “Operation Metro Surge” events of the last two or three months accounted for most of the interest, although CM Whiting has done a great job of communicating with residents both while he was running and since his election, so at least a part of the interest in this meeting may have been curiosity to be at his first one.
CM Whiting brought along as guest speakers Michelle Rivero, the Director of Minneapolis’ Office of Immigrant & Refugee Services; 3rd Precinct Inspector Jose Gomez of MPD; Dr. Emily Palmer, the Principal of Washburn High; and two parent volunteers from “Washburn Cares.” Each of these spoke and answered questions from the audience.
The audience learned (I already knew!) that CM Whiting is doing something new with his constituent communications. If you sign up for his e-newsletter, within it is a link to what he is calling the “Scorecard” for any recent City Council meetings. (You can also access it directly from his city website.) In the Scorecard, he not only informs you of everything the Council voted on and how he voted on each item, but also tells you WHY he voted the way he did. This is the first time I have ever seen any of my elected representatives do anything this comprehensive.
The way he does it is also pretty slick. Though he lists them all, he doesn’t get bogged down with each of the things passed unanimously—he concentrates his writing effort (and our reading effort) on the things that get debated and voted on. If you’re interested in knowing what your CM is voting for (and against) and WHY, you should check it out. One warning: being a member of a deliberative assembly is not simple and straightforward. Be prepared to read that some issue that “passed” was actually debated in, for example, three versions, and that he supported, say, two of them, but not the other one. Regardless, he shares his reasoning for all of it. As CM Whiting said in the meeting, if an office-holder is going to vote on the people’s business, he should be willing to share openly not only how he voted, but what his reasoning was behind all the votes. I wish more office-holders did this! It’s a GREAT idea!
One of the first things I learned from his presentation in the meeting was something I have wondered about before, but never bothered to research. There are limits on Minnesota cities’ legal authorization to make grants (that is, give away money for some purpose to an entity or individual). What those limits are is complicated—a matter of state laws and the city charter. But have you ever wondered what is going on when you read that the city has made one or more “forgivable loans”? Essentially, that’s the work-around. I’ve always wondered why they DO that… I’m sure there are rules and regulations relating to that, too, but the short answer to “Why make ‘forgivable’ loans?” is, “Because we’d need to amend the Charter or do work at the Legislature (or both) to just do this thing we want to do via grants.” Good to know.
I also learned that just as ICE operations and the responsive actions of our citizenry have often turned into a “game” of ever-changing (and sadly, ever-escalating) tactics, so too have the operations that folks have launched to help members of the community who are sheltering in place. The parent representatives of “Washburn Cares” were there to tell us a little about the things they are doing and how they are doing them—but Dr. Palmer politely asked the audience not to share too many of the details on social media or elsewhere in print, for fear that the Feds, apprised of the “what, who, and how,” might try to engage in tactics aimed at making the things they are doing even harder to do. Makes sense. So I won’t say more here. Suffice it to say that this organization, AND others, are doing a great job of cleverly getting good things done in tough circumstances and sharing what they know with other like-minded groups.
I learned (sadly) that there are still people in our community who do not understand that getting things done involves costs and trade-offs—sometimes unexpected ones. One questioner related a sad story of an immigrant neighbor who needed legal representation for an issue unrelated to the ICE operations and, even with the help of a small army of friends and neighbors, could not find any local attorney or law firm with availability. When we functionally “dared” the truly nasty Trump administration to make an immigration enforcement “example” of Minneapolis (see next paragraph), that turned out to be a costly trade-off. One that perhaps no one (other than perhaps local lawyers) could have foreseen, yet also one that did not actually require ICE to act lawlessly—hundreds of perfectly lawful arrests could have provided that same unfortunate result. There have been myriad such trade-offs involved here, and I think it’s good to keep them well in mind. If one doesn’t focus on them (because, for example, to do so seems too much like an argument for not acting at all), one cannot avoid or minimize them.
Finally, I learned that there are still people in our community who do not understand that when there are folks on “the other side” of any issue, they get to move a piece on the chessboard after each of “our” moves. This is especially true if those other guys actually got themselves voted into office. To me, it has been painfully obvious that after the federal operation last June at “Las Cuatro Milpas,” and the MPD response that day to 911 calls, and the community response demanding still more limitations on the MPD under the “Separation Ordinance,” the “princes of darkness” within the Trump administration said to themselves, “HERE is a situation we can exploit!” There were people at the Town Hall who complained bitterly that the MPD has already been allowed to run through their overtime budget for the YEAR, but that, as one put it, “…they’ve done nothing to keep any of us safe!”
Well, as CM Whiting pointed out, in large part that is because local police cannot legally arrest federal agents who are nominally doing their jobs (not even if they are doing them wrong…). But I would add that, also in large part, it is because we’ve instructed the MPD NOT to do many of the things they would normally do in order to limit public risk during a time of unrest—not if it even looks like the police activity in question would make ICE activities easier for them. One can’t have it both ways.
CM Whiting pointed out that there was one ICE agent cited for drunk driving. Some folks then advocated for MPD to be ticketing ICE agents for all the motor-vehicle-related laws they routinely break. Again, there seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of some that the other guy gets to move his chess pieces too. Should MPD ticket ICE vehicles that are, say, illegally parked? (Actually suggested.) I guess that might be an option. How about MPD pursuing, with intent to ticket or arrest, the ones that are running red lights or driving 60 mph on city streets? (Also, actually suggested.) Hmmm. What would be THEIR “move” in response? Since they behave lawlessly anyhow…? I don’t think having TWO official vehicles driving down, say 34th Ave. S., at bat-outta-hell speeds, would make ME feel more safe…
Deciding locally not to cooperate with federal enforcement of valid federal laws is both legal under the Constitution and, it turns out, really complicated in practice. Especially when one factors in a truly awful presidential administration and all the unintended consequences of local actions that are changes from “normal” and thus prone to unintended consequences. I came away from the Town Hall meeting feeling that our elected and appointed city government folks, and a lot of volunteers in organizations both formal and informal, are doing a pretty good job under the circumstances. It’d be great if they were universally thanked, and if suggestions for how they can do better were made thoughtfully and graciously.
Watching CM Whiting take two abstention votes this past week on the Eviction Notice Ordinance underscores the dilemma this new policy maker is going to have to face sooner or later. The political divide between moderates on the Council that respect capitalism with all its flaws and limitations vs. the DSA-affiliated socialists who disdain capitalism and all it stands for is an insurmountable divide. Much like your predecessor learned, neither side will trust you, if you can’t articulate what you stand for.
I had a colleague on the City Council back when I served ( seems like before electricity) who always thought he could offer “the solution,” to the dilemmas of the day. His complicated legislative gymnastics produced tortured compromises that inevitably failed to satisfy either side, nor solve any problem. He was also a lawyer, so he thought he was endowed with the education and training to leads disparate groups out of chaos into enlightenment. After two years of that nonsense, his colleagues dumped him as Council President for a practical politician whose common sense led to majorities without the torture. The bottom line… pick a side and stand for something.
Steve Minn – Thanks for your comment. I enjoyed reading it. I read your first paragraph as a critique of how CM Whiting is attempting, and how CM Koski had attempted, to exercise a degree of independence from the two major factions that have evolved on the Council. I’ll start by agreeing with you that CM Koski did it all wrong – so wrong, in fact, that I continue to be unconvinced that simply coexisting with the two factions, without truly belonging to either (or belonging to both?), was even what she was trying to do. I think there were other motivations. Enough said.
Regarding CM Whiting, though, I’d again (as I did in the article itself) encourage you to read the “Scorecard” that he is providing us after every meeting, in this case the one for the March 5 meeting. In it, he gives a rather detailed explanation of his thinking. Without even venturing into whether or not I agree with his reasoning, I’ll point out that it has nothing to do with the underlying values of the two major factions, but speaks to the merits and the shortcomings of what, specifically, was being voted on. And it DOES express what he was standing for in abstaining – well-constructed policy with “unintended consequences” thoroughly considered. Kind of refreshing, actually.
I agree with you, though, that those underlying differences in values between the two main factions are likely insurmountable. Good compromises are almost always possible when individuals or groups share fundamental principles, yet differ on what the best ways of moving forward in service to those may be. That’s why back when you and I were younger, Steve, and many complained that the biggest problem with American democracy was that there was “almost no difference between the two parties”, the U.S. Congress could actually pass legislation. [For any youngsters reading this – Folks really DID say this back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. If it really WAS a problem, suffice to say that we HAVE “fixed” it…] What we have on Council at present are two groups which, as you point out, do NOT share fundamental principles. In that scenario, for much progress to be made, one side needs to prevail, and the other needs to be trivialized. Once that is accomplished, the ascendent group will almost always return to disagreeing amongst themselves over the fine points, but compromises can be found. We’re not there right now. One of these two factions would have to get to 7, preferably 8, even better 9 CMs who VERY broadly shared values (with extra emphasis on “VERY” if there were only 7). And they’d have to be values shared by the veto-wielding Mayor. The “Moderate” faction is close but not quite there now, and the same was true 4 years ago. The “Progressive” faction was in “close, but no cigar!” territory two years ago. No one has solidly “been there” since we truly came to recognize these two factions as “a thing”.
Regarding your second paragraph: A quick check on the genders of the Council Presidents while you were on Council, and soon thereafter, would indicate that you’re talking about Paul Ostrow, and, again, I don’t disagree with you. Layering complexity upon complexity is probably not an optimal way to negotiate a path through deep disagreements. Further, I agree with you that it’s important to “stand for something”. I do not agree that doing so requires one to “pick a side”. Perhaps “over the long haul”, or “on average”, or… (pick you own cliche…!). But it does not have to be the same side on each and every issue. If we each did that, all nuance would be lost. I don’t think we’d be happier with that.
About Whiting…moved over from another piece…
https://minneapolistimes.com/pre-eviction-ordinance-veto-message-from-council-president-elliott-payne/
In response to this by CM Payne..my comment on that today..
“The expected response from CM Payne, which was probably co written by CM Wonsley.
Just an idea…how about the Wonsley/ DSA/Chugley voting block actually does the WORK and puts forth proposals where they can actually get to a nine council member support, which REQUIRES working with OTHERS outside of their voting block, and working with OUR mayor and OUR staff.
Otherwise, this voting block is just burning up staff time, wasting money, ( which is all ours) and not serving their constituents.
Happy to see though, that this has been resolved for now. Also, very relieved to see that CM Whiting, who the Chugley/ DSA voting block was hoping to claim as one their own, may actually have been much more aware, ( of all of the issues in this complex situation) so was more qualified to do the job of city governance, as opposed to anyone in THAT voting block.
A thank you to Mayor Frey, his staff, and all the CMs that supported this approach, ( and for all the hard work that went into it) and especially to CM Whiting, for doing the job…all of it.
Well, he’s still a bleeding heart liberal which Minneapolis does not need.
I just can’t imagine you would be making the same argument against say, gangs, driving recklessly or illegally in Minneapolis. I would personally love to see ICE attempt to, what, evade local arrest? You can’t advocate for “law and order” except when it comes to federal agents. You’re advocating for a lawless Minneapolis which is shocking
Not shocking, but the new normal for lawless Minneapolis.
WADE3690 – Actually, I’m not arguing for lawlessness at all, far from it.
I’ll just respond to the item you chose to emphasize – gangs driving recklessly. I am not advocating for ANY change on how we deal with that. We ALREADY heavily discourage police from responding to that by doing “chases” – unless there is some additional really compelling reason, like a hostage, to do a chase – because it results in crashes and can get innocent people killed. That’s why I chose that example. If, after watching the ICE debacle of recent months, you think that they would NOT have evaded attempts at local arrest… well, I’m not sure what you would base that conclusion on. Of COURSE they would have engaged in evasion. After Alex Pretti was killed, they refused to honor a valid Court Order presented by local authorities…! They were NOT going to let a pair of MPD officers to pull them over for speeding on their way to the Whipple Bldg.
My point was not that “lawlessness” is OK, nor that it is somehow OK for Federal agents. It was that expecting heavily outnumbered local authorities to attempt to exercise authority they do not even have over Federal Agents is not reasonable, and that, ironically, it was made even less reasonable by the fact that we (Minneapolis) made it unlawful for our local law enforcement agents to engage the Federal agents in any way that might appear to be “coordination”. I chose “hot pursuit” as an example of something I did NOT want to see only because it is one of the few actions I can think of that might not have LOOKED LIKE “cooperation” for at least a little while at its start, and because it was actually suggested by some seated near me in the crowd in the meeting. I thought, and still think, that those suggestions were based on unreasonable expectations and lack of consideration for possible bad outcomes. We had enough bad outcomes as it was.
Whiting seems talented, diligent, and reasonable. I really like the scorecard, though I wish it were not a write-up in a long council agenda PDF. Maybe he can turn them into easier-to-digest Instagram or Facebook posts? Unfortunately most people (especially rabid DFL caucus-goers) will absorb inaccurate/biased/misleading Bluesky posts much easier than a detailed analysis in an official email.
3rd Precinct Police Station Plans – City of Minneapolis
https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/community-safety-centers/south-mpls-community-safety-center/3rd-precinct-station-plans/
Excerpt from the City’s link….key phrasing…” do not have…”
The need for a 3rd Precinct building
Officers from the 3rd Precinct are now operating out of a downtown building. Because of this, people within the precinct’s geographic area do not have the same level of access to community safety services compared to those in other areas of Minneapolis.
See past work and background
What a police precinct provides
24-hour walk-in access to get community safety aid and referrals for other services
Community use of the building space for a variety of needs
A police building based within the community helps to build a connection and community partnership. It also makes it easier for people to access City services.
What I do hope CM Whiting does do, now that he has this position, and now that things have settled some with ICE and CBP, is work with a group on the council to make sure that, almost six years later, the 3rd Precinct Police Station moves into the S Mpls Community Safety Center at 2633 Minnehaha, and no later than this fall.
There are at least five, plus, on the City Council, who we refer to as the Chugleys, this DSA endorsed/aligned voting block, that have been very much anti police and therefore not a bit inclined to a see a problem with the missing 3rd Precinct for those 26 neighborhoods served.
If CM Whiting wants to be known for something, this would be a good place to start, by taking this 3rd Precinct issue on, and aggressively so.
* The continuing concern for AND about Whiting is that he was very much supported by this DSA/ anti police faction in our city, through out his campaign and this election season, so we are all watching…closely. But, Whiting can actually do something today, that would actually matter.