The St. Paul City Council has been without a seventh voting member since Feb. 5, when former Council President Mitra Jalali stepped down from her Ward 4 seat.

After two months without a council member representing Hamline-Midway, Merriam Park, St. Anthony Park and portions of Como and Mac-Groveland, many voters expected the council to appoint a temporary replacement on Wednesday. For the second week in a row, the council did not, though not for lack of trying.

“This process is not what I had hoped it would be,” said Council President Rebecca Noecker, at the end of a lengthy and sometimes emotional discussion about the behind-the-scenes politicking and lack of transparency that derailed an appointment process now likely headed to the mayor’s desk.

“We all have a lot of reflecting to do,” Noecker said. “The decision, in this case, would go to the mayor.”

Deadlocked, failed votes

Early in Wednesday’s meeting, Noecker made a motion to suspend the rules and introduce a special resolution to sponsor Lisa Nelson as the interim Ward 4 member, but the council deadlocked, 3-to-3, on whether to allow the motion to move forward.

Without majority support, the motion failed.

Council members Anika Bowie, Cheniqua Johnson and Saura Jost voted against the motion, with Jost participating remotely from San Diego. Noecker, HwaJeong Kim and Nelsie Yang voted for the motion.

Jost later made a motion to introduce her own resolution, under suspension of the rules, sponsoring Matt Privratsky as the interim Ward 4 council member. That motion also failed 4-2, with only Jost and Johnson voting yes.

Later in the meeting, the council called a recess, and members exited the chamber for an extended period. Some returned visibly emotional. Soon after, Kim introduced yet another motion to suspend the rules and reconsider the previous vote, drawing strong remarks of frustration from Johnson.

“This process has been anything but the standard we’ve operated under,” said Johnson, calling the behind-the-scenes politicking “painful” and embarrassing. “When we left the room today before the recess, we didn’t have a (majority). … That discussion that happened after the recess was not transparent.”

After further remarks from other council members, Kim’s motion failed, 3-to-3, with Kim, Noecker and Yang voting to support it and Bowie, Johnson and Jost voting against.

Mayor may have to step in

Without majority support for a new council member, the seat remains empty, raising the likelihood that St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter will have to appoint someone this month to fill the Ward 4 vacancy through the Aug. 12 election. Under the city charter, the council has 30 days to fill a vacancy, and Jalali officially left city employ on March 8. The next scheduled council meeting is April 9.

If no one is appointed by April 7, the mayor would then have 10 days under the city charter to appoint “a qualified voter of the ward.”

Council members acknowledged the stakes are high. The new appointee may cast tie-breaking votes on a variety of issues, including looming budget questions and what’s likely to be a hot-button discussion over the future of the city’s voter-approved rent control ordinance.

At the mayor’s urging, Noecker and two other council members plan to introduce an amendment this month eliminating rent control protections for residential properties constructed after 2004. In a trade-off of sorts intended to soften the blow for renters, Johnson plans to sponsor a series of tenant protections, to be introduced around the same time.

“We have big votes before us,” said Bowie, criticizing “us playing a game of chess” to fill the council vacancy. “It’s very important who is in this seat.”

A sticky process

Efforts to fill the Ward 4 seat since Jalali’s departure have proven procedurally sticky. Jay Willms, who was recently named chief of council operations, screened 20 applications. After conferring with city clerk Shari Moore and others at City Hall, he whittled the pool to four finalists.

With the goal of filling the vacant seat by early April, the council interviewed the four finalists in mid-March, including Nelson, a former art conservator turned neighborhood advocate, Privratsky, a lobbyist for the clean energy industry who had previously served as Jalali’s legislative aide, artist and community organizer Sean Lim and nonprofit consultant Melissa Martinez-Sones.

Noecker was on bereavement leave and unable to attend the meeting on March 26, when the council was initially scheduled to vote on an appointee. Over the objection of Kim and Yang, Jost took the opportunity to offer an amended resolution in favor of Privratsky, with the stated expectation the final resolution would be voted upon by the full council later that week.

Instead, during a special convening of the council last Friday, Noecker withdrew the resolution from the agenda, closing the meeting in three minutes without a vote. By that time, Martinez-Sones had withdrawn her name from consideration.

Both Noecker and Jost then attempted to introduce their favored candidates on Wednesday, without success.

Separate from the interim appointment process, candidates also are organizing campaigns to run for the seat this summer. At least three candidates have come forward to seek the Ward 4 office, and the winner of the Aug. 12 election will serve through 2028.

Related Articles

Former legislative aide sues Council Member Anika Bowie, city of St. Paul

St. Paul mayor declares state of emergency on trash collection

St. Paul City Council convenes but doesn’t appoint new Ward 4 member

Divided St. Paul City Council recommends new Ward 4 appointee for Friday vote

Jason Adkins: Measuring the economic impact of the Catholic Church in Minnesota

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The sweeping new tariffs announced Wednesday by U.S. President Donald Trump were met initially with measured reactions from key trading partners, highlighting the lack of appetite for a full-fledged trade war.

The fact that the tariffs fell most heavily on parts of the world sleeping through the night appeared to at least temporarily delay some of the potential outrage.

President Donald Trump holds a signed executive order during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Trump presented the import taxes, which he calls “reciprocal tariffs” and range from 10% to 49%, in the simplest terms: the U.S. would do to its trading partners what he said they had been doing to the U.S. for decades.

“Taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years,” he said. “But it is not going to happen anymore.”

The president promised that “Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country.” He framed it not just as an economic issue, but a question of national security that threatens “our very way of life.”

‘Nobody wants a trade war’

Shortly after Trump’s announcement, the British government said the United States remains the U.K.’s “closest ally.”

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the U.K. hoped to strike a trade deal to “mitigate the impact” of the 10% tariffs on British goods announced by Trump.

“Nobody wants a trade war and our intention remains to secure a deal,” said Reynolds. “But nothing is off the table and the government will do everything necessary to defend the U.K.’s national interest.”

Related Articles

US revokes visas of Mexican band members after cartel leader’s face was projected at a concert

Watch: Trump announces new ‘reciprocal’ tariffs in financial and political gamble

Netanyahu says Israel will establish a new security corridor across Gaza to pressure Hamas

Today in History: April 2, Pope John Paul II dies at 84

Scientists release plans for an even bigger atom smasher to address the mysteries of physics

British officials have said they will not immediately retaliate, an approach backed by the Confederation of British Industry, a major business group.

Italy’s conservative Premier Giorgia Meloni described the new 20% tariffs against the European Union as “wrong,” saying they benefit neither side.

“We will do everything we can to work towards an agreement with the United States, with the aim of avoiding a trade war that would inevitably weaken the West in favor of other global players,” Meloni said in a Facebook post. “In any case, as always, we will act in the interest of Italy and its economy, also by discussing with other European partners,” she added.

Little to gain

Spared for the moment from the latest round of tariffs were Mexico and Canada, so far as goods that already qualified under their free trade agreement with the United States. Yet, the previously announced 25% tariffs on auto imports were scheduled to take effect at midnight.

Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum said Wednesday she would wait to take action on Thursday when it was clear how Trump’s announcement would affect Mexico.

“It’s not a question of if you impose tariffs on me, I’m going to impose tariffs on you,” she said in a news briefing Wednesday morning. “Our interest is in strengthening the Mexican economy.”

Canada had imposed retaliatory tariffs in response to the 25% tariffs that Trump tied to the trafficking of fentanyl. The European Union, in response to the steel and aluminum tariffs, imposed taxes on 26 billion euros’ worth ($28 billion) of U.S. goods, including bourbon, prompting Trump to threaten a 200% tariff on European alcohol.

As Trump read down the list of countries that would be targeted Wednesday, he repeatedly said he didn’t blame them for the tariffs and non-tariff barriers they imposed to protect their own nations’ businesses. “But we’re doing the same thing right now,” he said.

“In the face of unrelenting economic warfare, the United States can no longer continue with a policy of unilateral economic surrender,” Trump said.

Speaking from a business forum in India, Chilean President Gabriel Boric warned that such measures, in addition to causing uncertainty, challenge the “mutually agreed rules” and the “principles that govern international trade.”

Ultimately, Trump announced Chile would face the baseline reciprocal tariff of 10%. The U.S. is Chile’s second most important trading partner after China.

President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Analysts say there’s little to be gained from an all-out trade war, neither in the United States or in other countries.

“Once again, Trump has put Europe at a crossroads,” said Matteo Villa, senior analyst at Italy’s Institute for International Political Studies.

“If Trump really imposes high tariffs, Europe will have to respond, but the paradox is that the EU would be better off doing nothing,” he added.

Villa also noted that retaliation would certainly be a further “blow” to the United States, but it would hurt Europe even more, as the EU bloc depends more on exports to the U.S. than vice versa.

“On the other hand, Trump seems to understand only the language of force, and this indicates the need for a strong and immediate response,” Villa said. “Probably the hope, in Brussels, is that the response will be strong enough to induce Trump to negotiate and, soon, to backtrack.”

AP journalists around the world contributed to this story.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has banned Woodbury attorney Kristi McNeilly from practicing law in the state, three years after she was convicted of theft by swindle for stealing $15,000 from a man who hired her to defend him in a drug case.

The high court’s opinion, rendered Wednesday, upheld a referee’s decision, which found that McNeilly “committed a criminal act that reflected negatively on her honesty and trustworthiness,” according to the opinion. “She stole $15,000 from a client by telling the client that the money was needed to bribe government officials to dismiss pending drug charges.”

The referee recommended McNeilly, who waived her right to an evidentiary hearing, be disbarred, and the court agreed.

“Misappropriation of client funds ‘is a breach of trust that reflects poorly on the entire legal profession and erodes the public’s confidence in lawyers,’” the opinion states.

She also was ordered to pay $900 in costs related to the case, the court’s opinion said.

McNeilly did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

McNeilly, a criminal defense attorney, was sentenced in Hennepin County District Court in 2022 to 180 days in the county workhouse after being convicted of theft-by-swindle two months prior. She also was ordered to pay back the $15,000 to her client.

She was hired in May 2018 to represent a 39-year-old Minnetonka man suspected of keeping illegal drugs in his home. The drugs were discovered during a search by the Southwest Hennepin Drug Taskforce, according to the criminal complaint. Although the man was a suspect, Her client was not immediately charged with a crime.

In November 2018, McNeilly told her client that she had spoken with the lead investigator and prosecuting attorney in his case, and that it could be resolved if her client made a payment of between $35,000 and $50,000 to a police union.

McNeilly’s client was able to collect only $15,000, which he handed over to McNeilly. Three days later, her client changed his mind and asked McNeilly for his money back, but McNeilly said she already forwarded it to the police union, according to the complaint.

After McNeilly’s client hired a new lawyer, police discovered that McNeilly had never been in contact with the lead investigator or the prosecutor, and that she spent a portion of her client’s money on mortgage and credit-card payments, the complaint said.

Related Articles

Charges: Woodbury HS student had replica gun in backpack, ran from school

Forest Lake ‘career offender’ gets 12½-year prison term for swindling businesses, homeowners

Report of student with gun at Woodbury HS leads to search, apprehension

‘Like having a bunch of nice friends’: Volunteer phone line for positive messages marks 30th year

Oakdale celebrates 50 years of Arbor Day tree giveaways

The director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against McNeilly in connection with the case.

McNeilly, who was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 2004, had twice been previously disciplined by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. She was publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for three years in 2015 and admonished in 2016, the opinion states.

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER and PAUL WISEMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — After weeks of anticipation and speculation, President Donald Trump followed through on his reciprocal tariff threats by declaring on Wednesday a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries and higher tariff rates on dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the United States.

Related Articles

Democrats demoralized by Trump get a boost from Wisconsin voters and Cory Booker’s speech

Social Security’s acting leader faces calls to resign over decision to cut Maine contracts

US revokes visas of Mexican band members after cartel leader’s face was projected at a concert

Kennedy remains quiet on 10,000 jobs lost at the nation’s top health department

Law firms fear Trump orders could affect security clearances of lawyers who are military reservists

In announcing the reciprocal tariffs, Trump was fulfilling a key campaign promise by raising U.S. taxes on foreign goods to narrow the gap with the tariffs the White House says other countries unfairly impose on U.S. products.

“Reciprocal means ‘they do it to us and we do it to them,’” the president said from the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday.

Trump’s higher rates would hit foreign entities that sell more goods to the United States than they buy. But economists don’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for tariffs since they’re a tax on importers that usually get passed on to consumers. It’s possible, however, that the reciprocal tariffs could bring other countries to the table and get them to lower their own import taxes.

The Associated Press asked for your questions about reciprocal tariffs. Here are a few of them, along with our answers:

Do U.S.-collected tariffs go into the General Revenue Fund? Can Trump withdraw money from that fund without oversight?

Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected when foreign goods cross the U.S. border by the Customs and Border Protection agency. The money — about $80 billion last year — goes to the U.S. Treasury to help pay the federal government’s expenses. Congress has authority to say how the money will be spent.

Trump — largely supported by Republican lawmakers who control the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — wants to use increased tariff revenue to finance tax cuts that analysts say would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Specifically, they want to extend tax cuts passed in Trump’s first term and largely set to expire at the end of 2025. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, has found that extending Trump’s tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 to 2034.

Trump wants higher tariffs to help offset the lower tax collections. Another think tank, the Tax Policy Center, has said that extending the 2017 tax cuts would deliver continued tax relief to Americans at all income levels, “but higher-income households would receive a larger benefit.’’

How soon will prices rise as a result of the tariff policy?

It depends on how businesses both in the United States and overseas respond, but consumers could see overall prices rising within a month or two of tariffs being imposed. For some products, such as produce from Mexico, prices could rise much more quickly after the tariffs take effect.

Some U.S. retailers and other importers may eat part of the cost of the tariff, and overseas exporters may reduce their prices to offset the extra duties. But for many businesses, the tariffs Trump announced Wednesday — such as 20% on imports from Europe — will be too large to swallow on their own.

Companies may also use the tariffs as an excuse to raise prices. When Trump slapped duties on washing machines in 2018, studies later showed that retailers raised prices on both washers and dryers, even though there were no new duties on dryers.

A key question in the coming months is whether something similar will happen again. Economists worry that consumers, having just lived through the biggest inflationary spike in four decades, are more accustomed to rising prices than they were before the pandemic.

Yet there are also signs that Americans, put off by the rise in the cost of living, are less willing to accept price increases and will simply cut back on their purchases. That could discourage businesses from raising prices by much.

What is the limit of the executive branch’s power to implement tariffs? Does Congress not play any role?

The U.S. Constitution grants the power to set tariffs to Congress. But over the years, Congress has delegated those powers to the president through several different laws. Those laws specify the circumstances under which the White House can impose tariffs, which are typically limited to cases where imports threaten national security or are severely harming a specific industry.

In the past, presidents generally imposed tariffs only after carrying out public hearings to determine if certain imports met those criteria. Trump followed those steps when imposing tariffs in his first term.

In his second term, however, Trump has sought to use emergency powers set out in a 1977 law to impose tariffs in a more ad hoc fashion. Trump has said, for example, that fentanyl flowing in from Canada and Mexico constitute a national emergency and has used that pretext to impose 25% duties on goods from both countries.

Congress can seek to cancel an emergency that a president declares, and Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, has proposed to do just that regarding Canada. That legislation could pass the Senate but would likely die in the House. Other bills in Congress that would also limit the president’s authority to set tariffs face tough odds for passage as well.

What tariffs are other countries charging on US goods?

U.S. tariffs are generally lower than those charged by other countries. The average U.S. tariff, weighted to reflect goods that are actually traded, is just 2.2% for the United States, versus the European Union’s 2.7%, China’s 3% and India’s 12%, according to the World Trade Organization.

Other countries also tend to do more than the United States to protect their farmers with high tariffs. The U.S. trade-weighted tariff on farm goods, for example, is 4%, compared to the EU’s 8.4%, Japan’s 12.6%, China’s 13.1% and India’s 65%. (The WTO numbers don’t count Trump’s recent flurry of import taxes or tariffs between countries that have entered into their own free trade agreements, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that allows many goods to cross North American borders duty free.)

Previous U.S. administrations agreed to the tariffs that Trump now calls unjust. They were the result of a long negotiation between 1986 to 1994 — the so-called Uruguay Round — that ended in a trade pact signed by 123 countries and has formed the basis of the global trading system for nearly four decades.