Second Ward, Minneapolis

This is the public policy forum of Minneapolis Second Ward (Green) City Council Member Cam Gordon and his staff. We use this space to talk about some of what Cam’s working on, explain his positions, and share a little of what life in City Hall is like. Please feel free to comment on posts, within certain ground rules. See our disclaimer, including ground rules, here:

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Possible Changes to the Staple Foods Ordinance

I’ve recently been hearing concerns about the staple food ordinance I was proud to author back when it passed the Council unanimously in 2014. Specifically, those concerns have to do with dairy and other animal products, and cultural practices and personal preference about those specific food items.

I’ve asked City staff to continue to give stores the flexibility to meet the intent of our standards with culturally-appropriate foods, as they have been in enforcing the ordinance to date. It’s important for everyone to know that in the last three and a half years, according to inspection records, no store has received a citation for failure to stock dairy or cheese (only two fines have been given so far, both for failure to provide cereal), no Asian ethnic market has been given a violation notice of any kind, and over half of the 28 violations since April of 2016 have gone to large corporations like CVS, Walgreens, SuperAmerica, Holiday, and various dollar stores.

But despite that, I plan to tweak the ordinance to codify the flexibility staff are already showing. Staff will be coming forward in the next few months with an update on the ordinance's implementation and impact, and I plan to use that opportunity to tweak the ordinance to include a provision that would allow a form of alternative compliance for stores that choose not to carry specific animal products, but provide customers with products that add up to a balanced diet.

This is in keeping with my intent in adopting this ordinance. That’s why we added so much flexibility in what Minneapolis adopted, compared to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) standards for stores, on which our ordinance is based. For just a few examples: we allow milk alternatives (like soy, almond, etc.) in place of cow’s milk, allow plant-based meat alternatives in place of meat, allow any whole grain rather than requiring bread, and don’t insist on very specific foods being present (like bananas and peanut butter). You can find the whole list of WIC requirements here:  The intent of the Minneapolis ordinance is to ensure that all licensed grocery stores are places where people can find enough whole, healthy foods to achieve a balanced diet and avoid diet-related diseases that we know impact some communities more than others, and to do so in a way that allows more flexibility to provide culturally appropriate foods.

There are two things I’d like to note.

First, I continue to be proud of my work, in collaboration with public health professionals, intense engagement with businesses and with the support of many activists from a variety of communities throughout the city, to adopt this progressive, equity-based, ordinance to address persistent health disparities in our city. When we held the public hearing on this ordinance in 2014, many advocates  – including those who may identify as African American, East African and Asian American – stepped up to speak in favor of it, and none spoke in opposition. You can see that public hearing here.

The second is that I want to be realistic with everyone about the fact that this tweak to the Minneapolis staple food ordinance will not remove all requirements for Minneapolis grocery stores to carry dairy and meat. Essentially every grocery store accepts Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP – still often referred to colloquially as “food stamps”). It is a good thing, in my opinion, that stores accept SNAp and I hope they will all continue to do so. But SNAP has its own requirements for stores, and they include stocking at least three varieties of products in each of four categories – two of which are dairy and meat. You can see more about these standards here: Even if the City allows alternative compliance to not carry these kinds of food products, stores will likely still be required to do so by the federal government. So this ordinance tweak may have less real-world impact – but I am willing to move forward with it, because I agree with the concerns that requiring eggs and diary is not necessary for people to be able to maintain a healthy diet and actually perpetuates certain potentially unhealthy Euro-American centric biases about what makes up a healthy diet.

Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Unexpected Mayor and Council Salary Increases

This Star and Tribune editorial comes pretty close to reflecting my view on what may have been one of the more disconcerting and disturbing votes I took in 2017 as a Minneapolis City Council Member. Moving forward I will be proposing and pushing for a new ordinance that will require future Council and Mayoral salary increases to go through a formal and public committee process. This will likely include the establishment of an appointed commission, similar to that set up for the state legislature, to make recommendations.

For now, though, I would like to share some of my thoughts about the Mayor and Council Member salary vote taken this December.

First let me say that I have always felt that my compensation for working as a Council Member has been fair and generous.  I am grateful for the opportunity to do this work and have always felt that I was, and am, well compensated for it.

The increase that was approved this year was not my idea or my initiative. This came from Council President Johnson and I do not think this was not done well at all. It did not follow a healthy, open or transparent process. 

Generally, I do not like having to vote on my own salary as an elected official, or the salaries of my elected colleagues, but understand that there may be no better alternative. It seems awkward and difficult because there is an inherit conflict of interest in such a decision. Still it is one that I have been willing to make and I have been comfortable with making based on the formula developed by a previous council and used to set the salaries for the Mayor and Council Members during the previous terms I have served. 

This year, I knew that we would have to do something before the end of 2017 because it is required by the state law that authorizes the Minneapolis City Council to set the annual salary of the Mayor and each Council Member prior to the terms to which they have been elected. 

Here is that 1971 law:

Chapter 744, Sec. 3. “MINNEAPOLIS, CITY OF; ALDERMEN'S AND MAYOR'S SALARIES. Commencing June 1, 1971 the annual salary of the mayor of the city of Minneapolis shall be $21,800 and the annual salary of each alderman of said city shall be $16,400. After July 1, 1973, the city council may by resolution adopted prior to July 1, 1973 and prior to the first day of January for each year thereafter, fix the annual salary of the mayor and the annual salary of each alderman. Such salaries shall be paid in the same manner and at the same time as other salaries paid by the city and shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which such officer has been elected.”
When a salary resolution didn’t come up through the Ways and Means committee, as had occurred in 2005 and 2009, I was expecting to see it as New Business at the last Council meeting of the term as I had in 2013.  In all three of those years the salary increase was based on the average of recently approved labor agreements.  I was expecting and counting on the Chair of Ways and Means or the Council President to be taking the lead on this, as they had through my first terms. 

Here is a bit more information about the process that was used for the last 3 terms:

On December 13, 2013 it was brought up as new business at the last City Council meeting of the year. It was posted as new business on the printed and public agenda, so it was not “walked on” or added to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting as was done this year.  It was listed as “New Business 1.  Salary Schedule for Mayor and Council Members:  Passage of Resolution setting the Salary Schedule for 2014 through 2018 for the Mayor and Council Members.”

The resolution stated, “That the salary schedule for the Mayor for the four year term commencing January 2, 2014, and ending January 1, 2018, and for each Council Member for the four year term commencing January 6, 2014, and ending January 1, 2018, shall be set in the following fashion: for the initial year of the term and for each succeeding year of the term, the percentage salary increase for the Mayor and each Council Member shall be the average annual across the board percentage salary increase, inclusive of step increases, of the collective bargaining agreements approved by the City Council in the preceding year.”

On December 14, 2009 it was considered at the Ways and Means committee and then amended and approved by the Council on the 19th and said basically the same thing and also approved a $400 a month car allowance. 

In 2005 the Ways and Means Committee had it on their December 19th agenda and recommended a 2% raise for 2 years and then an average based on all labor contracts. This, along with a car allowance was approved by the Council on December 23rd.

I was expecting something similar to be presented to me and my colleagues to be voted on at the last Council Meeting of the term on December 15.

I first learned about this year’s different proposal was on December 14th when I returned a call from Council President Johnson who then informed me that she planned to add a resolution to the agenda that would increase the salaries of the Mayor and Council by $10,000 in a one-time adjustment for 2018 and then inflation based on average annual collective bargaining agreements for the rest of the term. Since then, I did recall that this fall, she had mentioned at one committee meeting that she was concerned that Council salaries were not keeping pace with the rising salaries of other city employees and she was interested in looking into that. Since that time there had been an election, Barb was not reelected and I had heard nothing of the idea since, so I assumed she was not planning on bringing anything out-of-the-ordinary up. During the phone call, she explained a little of the rationale for the increase and then answered by question about support telling me she was sure she had the votes to pass it.  

Because a sitting Council cannot change its members’ salaries and no one else has the authority to set the Mayor’s or Council’s salaries, a postponement in order to get more input seemed impossible.  There were no more committee meetings scheduled and getting support for an additional special meeting was clearly very very unlikely. I was convinced (and remain so) that the decision to increase our salaries like this could and should have been part of a committee discussion and our budget approval process. Now I felt cornered and conflicted.  My options were to vote no, abstain, or vote yes. I felt if I voted no and then kept the increase it would be hypocritical. If it passed and was deemed to be justified (which I was assured it would be,) not taking it also seemed unfair to my family and myself. I listened to Barb’s rationale and I ended up voting yes but I still have mixed feelings about my vote. 

Here is the basic rationale as I understand it:

One of the things that seemed to be motivating Barb the most was the noticeable gap in salaries forming between some other mid to high level "managerial" staff positions and the Council salaries.  In the City we grade jobs based on responsibilities and other factors.  Our professional Human Resources staff had determined that a grade of 10 -12 seems close to the work of the Council and that the Council’s compensation had fallen behind a comparable group of managers, union and appointed (grades 10 to 12) in the City.  In 2017, the Council members’ salary is $88,695. A comparable City of Minneapolis management group is over $98,000. Ten years ago, the Council and the comparable group were both at approximately $74,000.

To better understand this staff looked within the City organization itself to identify non-elected official jobs where functions, duties or responsibilities’ overlap with the work of the elected officials.  Because the Council Member job is not exactly like any other single job they developed a “basket” of jobs comprised of many jobs that together they felt reflected the type of work that a Council Member does. This comparison looks at internal equity within the organization. Through this analysis, they created a basket of senior professional jobs with some of the supervisory and managerial functions that council member work requires.  The average compensation rate for this basket of jobs in 2017 was $98,994. 

When they looked at a longitudinal study of how Council Member compensation compares to this same “basket” of jobs over time, the internal equity relationship showed change.  Below is the summary data. Also, more details below.

2008 Annual Rate
2012 Annual Rate
2016 Annual Rate
2017 Annual Rate
Average “Job Basket”

Council Members

% difference of averages

Human Resources staff also did a market comparison by looking at how other similar businesses/jurisdictions compensate similar jobs. Understandably, Council Member jobs are difficult to measure in the broader market. The roles and responsibilities assigned Council Members including full-time/part-time expectations, and local-political philosophies about to what extent the elected officials are compensated commensurate to the work performed in non-elected jobs that require similar knowledge sets, like tasks, duties and responsibilities, etc., complicate comparisons. Still, our staff identified a sample of cities that had full-time city councils, and found that in 2017 we were below the average of those by approximately $3,000, with the range being $60,000 - $120,000.     

Generally, this increase puts the Council on par with other full-time Councils in Denver and Boston and will still be approximately $20,000 less than Portland and Seattle. In St. Paul, a “part-time” Council member is paid approximately $63,000 in 2017. The increase to the Mayors salary from $116,528 to $126,526 will match the City of St. Paul Mayor’s salary for 2017 of $126,000.

With this rationale, in the time frame I had, I ended up voting with my colleagues in support of this. It was a close call for me.  It is not a close call for me, however, to be determined to make sure this poor process is not repeated in the future.  So, in the weeks ahead I will be working with Council Member Andrew Johnson, City staff and others to draft and approve an ordinance that will outline a more transparent, public and consistent process for future City Councils to use and make sure that this kind of last minute and closed process is never used again to determine the salaries of elected officials in Minneapolis City government.

Below is more information about the basket of internal jobs used as an internal reference:

Monday, October 02, 2017

Letter from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Cooperation with ICE

In September I received a very disturbing letter dated September 21 from the Hennepin County Sheriff, Richard W. Stanek outlining the County's close cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division. It appears to confirm some of our worst fears about what has been happening at the County Jail for decades now and I believe it should give us cause to reconsider, renegotiate and potentially terminate the contract we, the City of Minneapolis, has with them to serve as our jail.


September 21, 2017

City Hall, Room 331
350 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Dear Mayor Hodges and Councilmembers,

A number of representatives from cities in Hennepin County have made inquiries about immigration issues and about proposed sanctuary city resolutions. I welcome the opportunity to address these issues and write to provide information about the Sheriff’s Office operations and a county law enforcement perspective on the question of sanctuary cities.

Immigration is a federal issue, and immigration violations are civil in nature, not criminal. Accordingly local law enforcement officers in Minnesota do not enforce immigration laws­ only federal law enforcement officers are empowered to enforce immigration laws. The Sheriff's Office makes no determination of a person's immigration status during resident contacts, at the time of jail booking, or while an inmate is in custody.

And because immigration violations are civil and not criminal, the Sheriff’s Office has no legal authority to detain an inmate once their criminal charges have been resolved by the Courts. This is why we cannot honor ICE detainer requests- the Courts have been very clear: to do so would violate an individual's 4th Amendment Rights. Accordingly, there is not one inmate in the Hennepin County Jail being held solely on immigration violations.

I'm sure you may have heard me say it: there is no sanctuary for criminals anywhere in Hennepin County. Here's specifically what I mean by this, especially in the context of a proposed sanctuary resolution:

Every arrestee brought to our Jail is alleged by a law enforcement officer or judge to have connnitted a criminal act, so we are required to book and maintain custody of the arrestee until they are released or transferred pursuant to an order of the Hennepin County District Court, or
some other court.

RooM 6, CouRTHousE             350  SoUTH S111 STREET             MINNEAPOLIS  MN  55415                 www.nENNEPINSHERIFF.ORG                              612-348 3740

The vast majority of the arrestees who come to our Jail prior to criminal charging have been arrested by local police departments, and not the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office. Please see
the enclosed chart which shows the 2016 arrests made by law enforcement agency and by type of arrest. The Sheriff’s Office made approximately 26% of the arrests leading to booking in 2016, and 90% of our arrests were made pursuant to a court order. The other 74% of arrests leading to booking (23,247 of31,537) came from other agencies operating in the County.

At the point of booking, Minnesota law requires that we ask each arrestee their "place of birth." Every inmate also is fingerprinted, the prints are sent to the BCA, which sends them to the FBI and then to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. ICE's District Office in Bloomington conducts an independent review based on the information from booking, based on interviews,
and based on its own records and databases. We do not assist ICE in this process, but we do cooperate with ICE officers to the fullest extent of the law. If an arrestee voluntarily discloses that they were foreign born, or a non-U.S. citizen, HCSO makes this information available to ICE, arranges a call to ICE, and offers the arrestee the option of speaking with an immigration agent. In 2016, we arranged approximately 2700 of these phone calls, and the majority of the calls resulted in inmates voluntarily speaking with ICE agents. For most (80%), this call assisted them in resolving questions concerning their legal status.

We notify ICE when an inmate is released only when ICE previously has served a Request for Notification. In 2016, we received 267 "Requests for Notification" (for 0.85% of inmates) and ICE actually picked up 68 inmates after their release (0.2% of all inmates booked in the Hennepin County Jail). We do not decide which inmates ICE picks up, and ICE never reports back on the status or result of their immigration proceedings.

The above process is followed every time an officer in your police department makes an arrest and brings an individual to our Jail. Should your city decide to adopt a sanctuary city policy, the process at our Jail will remain unaffected, because the state and federal mandates for our Jail will continue. The only way to adopt a true sanctuary would be to instruct your police
department to either not make arrests, or to cite and release all suspects.

While I take no position with respect to a sanctuary city policy for your city, and respect your authority as a policymaking body, as the chief law enforcement officer in the county, I hope that you will consider the public safety consequences of any policy adopted in a city that would limit in any way the law enforcement officers in your police department from fulfilling their duties and abiding by their Oath of Office.

Finally, because immigration is a federal issue, please consider joining with me in calling upon our Minnesota Congressional Delegation to address the many concerns of our constituents and work toward making the policy reforms that can only be addressed at the federal level.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about these matters or any other. Thank you for your public service to the residents.


Richard W. Stanek
Hennepin County Sheriff