The Minneapolis Charter Commission decided in May to not put a controversial package of charter amendments on the ballot for voters in November this year.
The commission voted 8 to 7 to send its lengthy set of amendments back to a committee after listening to mostly critical comments for over an hour of testimony at its May 6, 2026 public hearing.
The parts of the proposal that met the most criticism would have reduced the number of staff appointments requiring City Council approval, and put into the charter a requirement for the two newest high-level administrative positions of city operations officer and community safety commissioner that were established through ordinances.
The council would no longer be required to approve the appointments of the assessor, and heads of the departments of Civil Rights, Emergency Management, Health, Regulatory Services and 311.
“This proposal weakens the separation of powers and the council’s ability to carry out its legislative function,” said Charter Commissioner Eric Prindle, who lives in South Uptown, “further shifting power from the council members who represent diverse neighborhoods throughout the city to the office of the mayor.”
Prindle also said the City Charter Commission is proposing a government structure for Minneapolis through this amendment.
“This proposal dictates a specific government structure and organizational chart via the charter, which I do not consider to be its proper purpose,” Prindle said. “The charter should set the overall ground rules, and the council and mayor should be able to evolve the exact organizational structure, through the normal legislative process, to meet the needs of the moment.”
Charter Commissioner Samantha Holquist, a Powderhorn resident, advocated for the changes and supported moving them forward in April 2026.
“Over the past two years, we researched a better path forward for staff appointments and City Council confirmation,” said Holquist after the hearing. “Grounded in the research, we proposed the option that we think best serves Minneapolis and meets the needs of both the mayor and the council.”
But in May, Holquist joined the majority voting against advancing the amendment to the ballot this year.
Civil Service Commission changes
Public testimony also raised concerns about changes suggested in a charter amendment that would impact the City’s Civil Service Commission.
Several labor organizations (including the Minneapolis Professional Employees Association, the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation and LiUNA Local 363) objected to the pages of changes rewriting much of the City charter’s Article VIII regarding officers and employees.
The Article VIII amendments that were most concerning during public testimony regarded how the Civil Service Commission would handle vacancies for nonappointed, unionized or “classified,” employees. Union representatives at the hearing objected to those proposed changes.
President of MPEA Lindsey Silas, which represents roughly 700 city employees, said that the amendments would weaken the Civil Service Commission’s ability to provide independent oversight of the City’s Human Resource department and “strip workers of basic rights against unfair treatment.”
Established in 1920, the Civil Service Commission is a panel of three people, appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council, charged with ensuring a fair and effective merit-based system of personnel administration.
The commission maintains standards for hiring, promoting, and retaining qualified people for all the City’s classified, or union represented, positions and is responsible for classifying jobs based on their contribution to the City’s goals.
City elected officials weigh in
Mayor Jacob Frey spoke out in favor of reducing the council’s power to confirm appointees in April.
“One of the concerns that I have as mayor is using the process not to determine whether the individual before the council is qualified or not to do the job, but the decision ends up being more of a political one where there are disagreements about the government structure which these appointments did not create,” Frey said.
Council Members Elliott Payne, Jason Chavez, Michael Rainville, LaTrisha Vetaw and Robin Wonsley all made individual public statements against the charter amendments.
By the time of the May hearing, 11 council members signed a letter opposing the amendments.
Southwest’s Ward 7 Council Member Elizabeth Shaffer and Ward 13 Council Member Linea Palmisano were the only two council members who did not sign the letter.
In a letter to the Charter Commission in April, Palmisano expressed support for requiring council confirmation for the city attorney, the city operations officer, and the community safety commissioner.
“I do not support extending confirmation to other department heads,” Palmisano wrote. “I fear that the hyperpolitical and adversarial environment that too often defines the confirmation process may deter qualified candidates. And I fear that it also poses reputational risks, both for nominees and the City.”
Shaffer said that she is still gathering information about the changes that she sees resulting from the “strong mayor” charter amendment passed in 2021.
“In my mind, their motivating desire is primarily to have the charter align with our code changes,” Shaffer said. “I hope the council can honor their investment of time by thoughtful discussion and process as we work through these decisions.”
What happens next?
The set of amendments now return to the Charter Commission’s workgroup committee which is open to all charter commissioners, including Josh Ney who was appointed in 2024.
“I was glad the commission added the directors of Public Works and Community Planning and Economic Development back to the list of council confirmable appointments,” said Ney, who is the only Northside commissioner. “I moved to add Civil Rights and Health back, too.
Unfortunately, those motions were not adopted. I hope we can revisit including at least these two highly constituent-engaged departments that, by nature of the work they do, require a high level of public confidence in their leadership.”
Holquist said the public is owed a clearer case for why the city charter needs to be amended and how it will benefit the city.
“We also need more opportunities to refine the language and the structure, including the possibility of adding offices the public wants to see go through nomination and confirmation,” Holquist said.
The next full Charter Commission meeting isn’t scheduled until Sept. 2. The next opportunity for charter amendments to be on a municipal ballot is 2028, unless there is a special election.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here