On April 23 the Minneapolis City Council considered the mayor’s veto related to the council’s prior action on the mayoral nomination of Todd(rick) Barnette for Community Safety Commissioner. Under charter procedure the mayor’s written objections required automatic reconsideration at the next meeting and the council took a roll call vote to determine whether to stand by its prior rejection.
The clerk explained that a two‑thirds majority (nine votes) was required to override a mayoral veto. The roll call resulted in fewer than nine affirmative votes, and the president’s veto was sustained; the council did not overturn the mayor’s action.
Immediately after the vote, several council members debated a memorandum that had been placed in the legislative file under the heading of the Council President. Some members objected to language in the memo and argued that the memorandum appeared to speak for the council even though it had not been adopted as a formal council position. Council Member Palmisano moved to remove the memorandum from the file on the grounds that it was submitted without authorization; that motion failed (6–7).
Members who opposed removing the document said the memo reflected views of members who had opposed the nomination and that any member or group of members can submit material to the legislative file. Members who supported removal said a document labeled as the council’s vision should only appear as a collective, adopted council position.
Outcome and next steps: With the veto sustained, the nomination status remains unresolved per charter procedure; the incumbent could remain in a holdover capacity for a statutory period and the mayor may submit another nomination or appoint an interim. Council members directed staff and the clerk’s office to note the differing opinions in the file; the debate underscored internal council concerns about process, authorship and how majority or minority positions are publicly represented.