HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/10/27 - ADMIN - Minutes - Charter Commission - RegularOFFICIAL MINUTES
Charter Commission Meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
October 27, 2025
5:30 p.m. – St. Louis Park City Hall
1. Call to order.
Chair Dwyer called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. Roll call and attendance.
Members present: Jim Brimeyer, Deb Brinkman, Gary Carlson, James de Lambert, Terry Dwyer,
Julie Huber, Marjorie Kennedy, Andrew Rose, Henry Solmer, Tucker Theide
Members absent: Lynne Carper, Sheila Glancy Letscher
Others present: Melissa Kennedy (city clerk), Amanda Scott-Lerdal (deputy city clerk)
Brief introductions were made by each commissioner to share their reason for serving on the
Charter Commission, helping new and returning commissioners become more familiar with one
another.
3. Approval of minutes.
a. March 10, 2025 Charter Commission meeting
It was moved by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Rose to approve the minutes
of March 10, 2025. The motion passed 9-0, Commissioner Brimeyer abstaining.
b. September 30, 2025 Charter Commission orientation
It was moved by Commissioner Brimeyer, seconded by Commissioner Carlson to approve the
minutes of September 30, 2025. The motion passed 10-0.
4. Old business.
Chair Dwyer asked the commission if there was any old business to consider.
Commissioner Brimeyer clarified that the most recent updates to the St. Louis Park City Charter
were made in 2021. Ms. Kennedy confirmed that those changes consisted of updates to include
gender neutral language and housekeeping edits; no further updates are pending.
5. New business.
a. Review and consider proposed amendments to commission bylaws
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report and the proposed amendments to the commission’s
bylaws. The commission reviewed the proposed amendments.
Charter Commission meeting minutes -2- October 27, 2025
Chair Dwyer proposed removing “of” from section 2, resulting in the language “shall constitute.”
Commissioner Rose agreed to add the change.
Regarding a reference of “mailed notice” in section 4, Commissioner Carlson asked if it had
been past practice to mail meeting agendas prior to Charter Commission meetings. Vice Chair
de Lambert recalled that prior to widespread use of electronic methods, agendas were
delivered to commissioners’ home addresses by a community service officer.
Chair Dwyer clarified section 3 regarding public comment period during commission meetings. If
a member of the public has a comment to share, the proper sequence is to bring their proposal
to a commissioner and then to the chair. They would be invited to speak as deemed appropriate
by the chair.
The commission discussed section 9b. Commissioner Brimeyer asked if the annual meeting was
traditionally held in the spring.
Chair Dwyer observed that in years when multiple meetings are held, then the “annual
meeting ” should be defined.
Regarding section 10, Ms. Kennedy described the past practice of election by motion;
commissioners speak to offer their service for a position.
Commissioner Rose requested thorough proofreading of the commission’s bylaws for
consistency, such as the number of spaces after periods.
It was moved by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Brimeyer to approve the
proposed amendments to the commission’s bylaws. The motion passed 10-0.
b. Discuss implementing regular review of peer city charter commission activities
Chair Dwyer gave background on the proposed item. The Charter Commission typically
functions as a reactive group that takes up action items at the request of the city council. This
has resulted in periods during which the commission had little to no substantive activity, and
this lack of work might have contributed to periods where the commission membership
numbers lagged. To stay consistently engaged in productive work, Chair Dwyer proposed that
the commission consider undertaking the ongoing activity of observing the work that charter
commissions of select peer cities are engaged in. Chair Dwyer proposed that such observations
could assist the St. Louis Park Charter Commission to get ahead of issues, while noting that this
type of work could also be challenging to implement effectively. Chair Dwyer suggested that the
commission could vote to make a change in practice, decide to think about it and come back to
a vote, or choose not to make this a standing activity of the commission. He specified that the
outcome of a vote would not prohibit individuals from pursuing this type of work.
Chair Dwyer outlined the following structure for how charter commissioners might review the
work of peer charter commissions:
1. Identify peer cities.
Charter Commission meeting minutes -3- October 27, 2025
2. Review the work, actions and meeting content of peer cities’ charter commissions by
reviewing their adopted meeting minutes.
3. Focus on the potential value and relevance of other commissions’ work to St. Louis Park.
Chair Dwyer gave examples such as considering whether an action was eventually taken to
amend that city’s charter, what prompted the change; whether that change has relevance
to St. Louis Park’s charter.
4. The St. Louis Park Charter Commission would then meet and launch discussion with an
understanding that evaluation of other cities’ actions does not guarantee or necessarily
warrant change to the city’s charter.
Chair Dwyer asked for the commission’s feedback on the proposed idea.
Commissioner Brimeyer recalled that a past discussion about possible updates to the city’s
charter focused on whether there was a need for additional oversight of the provisions related
to council interference with city staff. He noted several representatives of the commission
discussed with the council and heard questions about the need for change and lack of clarity
around what was being proposed.
Ms. Kennedy asked the group to keep in mind that there are very specific paths to amending the
city’s charter as provided in statute, and any amendment by ordinance would also require
unanimous approval from the city council. She noted the commission has, in the past,
recognized the value of having a well-written charter that has not prompted the need for
frequent substantive changes.
Commissioner Huber stated that one motivation for her to join the commission is its nature. She
highlighted the importance of working relationships among the commissioners so that in times
of duress, they do not feel like strangers. Commissioner Huber asked the commission to
consider whether being a reactive body was negative, describing the charter as tidy.
Chair Dwyer offered that during “dormant” periods, observation and evaluation may be
worthwhile work. He shared that he sees the proposed idea as an organized exercise of
reflection on what is possible regarding the charter commission, the community and
relationships with the city council.
Commissioner Kennedy noted that the proposed idea was aligned with her own thinking as a
new commissioner. She supported commissioners being proactive by observing peer groups.
Commissioner Theide offered that sharing evaluations could be a standing item on the agenda
for Charter Commissions going forward, creating a space to share information as commissioners
have time to complete evaluations while avoiding undue pressure by assigning the work.
Chair Dwyer agreed with Commissioner Theide that the structure of evaluation did not
necessarily require task assignments; pacing and interest could be specific to the individual
performing the work. He suggested that evaluation should still adhere to the proposed criteria
of whether a charter amendment was proposed, and what the outcome was.
Charter Commission meeting minutes -4- October 27, 2025
Commissioner Rose reflected that when he first joined the commission, the city was in the
process of adopting ranked choice voting. He shared that the pace of the commission’s work has
been “less exciting” since then. He added that he had enjoyed the civic engagement aspect of
the ranked choice voting work.
Commissioner Brimeyer stated that gathering baseline data would be interesting, such as a
standard list of questions or topics to follow during an evaluation. This data could give the
commission an idea of how other charter cities operate.
Chair Dwyer noted that St. Louis Park’s city charter is well-constructed and robust. It is possible
that the review process will include actions taken by other cities to make their charters more
like ours.
Commissioner Carlson stated that some cities have adopted poorly constructed amendments
that resulted in unintended limits, cautioning against language.
Commissioner Rose agreed with Commissioner Carlson; learning what not to do is also
productive work.
Commissioner Carlson informed the group that the League of Minnesota Cities has an attorney
who specializes in city charters. The attorney may have additional insight on State Statutes 410
and 412 to help St. Louis Park remain aware.
Chair Dwyer shared that he felt the downsides of pursuing the proposed evaluations are clear,
and the practical benefits are less so. He theorized that evaluation information would be for the
purposes of discussion the vast majority of the time, rarely resulting in proposals for action.
Ms. Kennedy asked that the commission be mindful as they consider possible needs or
outcomes when asking for additional staff time or the city attorney’s time.
Chair Dwyer offered that his proposed idea would not assign work to the city attorney or staff,
as this work need not be a formalized task for the commission. Any member could complete
this work under their own initiative.
Commissioner Theide asked for tangible examples of the proposed project.
Chair Dwyer outlined reviewing Class 2 cities such as Duluth, St. Cloud, Brooklyn Park, Edina and
Roseville. He noted that charter commission agenda packets are typically posted to the public
with context. The goal of reviewing their agenda packets would not be to bring about a change,
but to notice any gaps that might compare with the City of St. Louis Park. He stated there was
no need to vote to adopt the project, but that he would put together materials if commissioners
were interested in reviewing peer cities. He asked commissioners with interest in this review to
contact him in preparation for the next Charter Commission meeting in the spring of 2026.
Commissioner Brinkman suggested Minnesota Cities for Clean Elections as another research
topic. She noted that the organization focuses on publicly funded campaigns for candidates for
Charter Commission meeting minutes -5- October 27, 2025
city council and mayor. From an equity perspective, being self-funded may be a barrier to
candidates who are otherwise interested in running for election.
Commissioner Brimeyer asked if there was appetite for the commission to bring back further
ideas to consider at the spring 2026 charter commission meeting.
Chair Dwyer confirmed this and asked commissioners to contact him beforehand, along with
supporting materials for review.
Ms. Kennedy reminded commissioners to propose any new ideas through the chair and vice-
chair so that coordination with staff around agenda preparation can take place.
Vice Chair de Lambert voiced pride in the current position and attitude of the commission. He
noted that this commission is ready, willing and able to take charge of the issues before it. He
stated that the commission’s appointments and re-appointments indicate that it is an attentive
group with good intentions. Vice Chair de Lambert shared that he is proud to be part of a
commission that is prepared and able to respond.
Chair Dwyer summarized the discussion by stating that the general consensus of the
commission was not to adopt such reviews as a formal, ongoing activity due to the challenges
noted in discussion, and that therefore it was not necessary to refine and vote on a proposal.
6. Future meetings.
The commission discussed whether to set the next meeting or poll commissioners for their
availability.
It was moved by Commissioner Rose, seconded by Commissioner Brimeyer to set the next
meeting date and time for Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. The motion passed 10-0.
7. Communications.
8. Adjournment.
It was moved by Commissioner Brimeyer, seconded by Commissioner Rose to adjourn the
meeting. The motion passed 10-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk