The council’s debate on whether to waive attorney-client privilege centered on a legal memo linked to a settlement agreement with the MDHR. Acknowledging the unprecedented nature of their situation, Councilmembers expressed concerns about the potential implications of waiving privilege. The city attorney advised against such action without full comprehension of its consequences, emphasizing that the council was in an unparalleled position with no historical precedent for their current challenges.

Councilmember Wonsley articulated frustrations about the lack of clarity from the city attorney’s office, noting that despite multiple closed sessions, the council had not received a clear path forward. Wonsley stressed the need for transparency and accountability, particularly regarding police reforms, stating, “We need a legally binding agreement” to ensure compliance with constitutional law. The debate underscored tensions between the desire for transparency and the legal complexities involved in disclosing privileged communications.

Vice President Chughtai sought to dispel notions that the motion to waive privilege was an attack on the city attorney’s integrity. Councilmember Ellison also contributed to the discussion, highlighting the need for empathy toward the city attorney and recognizing the challenges of navigating uncharted legal territory.

The council ultimately voted to postpone the decision until after a scheduled closed session, with members expressing a need for further deliberation and collaboration.

In addition to the consent decree discussions, other topics addressed during the meeting included a joint powers agreement (JPA) involving law enforcement services. Concerns were raised about the potential use of the JPA for crowd control and its implications for community relations, particularly with immigrant populations. Councilmembers questioned whether the JPA might enable immigration enforcement by state patrols, prompting Deputy Chief Kingsbury to clarify that their role would be limited to supporting the Minneapolis Police Department at the city’s direction.

Councilmember Osman emphasized the importance of maintaining relations with state law enforcement while respecting community concerns. The debate revealed a split among councilmembers, with some advocating for the JPA as a necessary public safety tool and others urging caution due to its potential impact on community relations.

The council also discussed various honorary resolutions, including recognitions of Juneteenth and Djibouti Independence Day. The Juneteenth resolution, presented by several councilmembers, emphasized the significance of the holiday in commemorating the end of slavery in the United States and acknowledged systemic challenges still faced by Black Americans. Councilmember Jenkins highlighted the city’s efforts in promoting racial equity and commemorating African American heritage.

Moreover, the council approved a Great Street Loan for the Latino Center for Community Engagement and addressed amendments to the 2025 License Fee Schedule. Councilmember Cashman successfully motioned to postpone a specific item related to sauna establishments, aligning it with a previously postponed sauna registration ordinance.

Discussions also touched on the implications of integrating a Federal Consent Decree with local agreements, with Councilmember Rainville expressing hesitations due to a lack of legal expertise. Councilmembers debated the merits of waiving privilege, referencing a past incident in 2021 when the council had waived privilege on a legal memo, which informed their current deliberations.