Struggling for better Police Practices Resolution

Last Wednesday, the Public Safety committee voted unanimously in favor of what I agree is a disappointing compromise on the police policy resolution. I thought it might be helpful for people to understand the context and effort that led me to this compromise. Here is some more detailed history on the issue:

On May 21 at the Public Safety and Regulatory Services (PS&RS) committee meeting I presented a substitute resolution on police practices to larger one proposed by CM Ostrow that also included a section of registering public assemblies. It didn’t pass. The Ostrow resolution passed, without my vote, and went forward to the Council on June 6.

On June 6th, with the help of other like-minded Council members, we successfully divided the police policy section from the public assembly registration section. The registration section was amended and passed (without my support) and the police policy section was referred back to the PS&RS committee after CM Johnson introduced and then withdrew a motion to amend it to supersede a 2000 action dealing with police practices.

Since I supported many of the provisions of the 2000 action, I quickly set the goal of getting as many of the useful items from the 2000 action into the police policy resolution so as to minimize the possible negative effects should the amendment to have it supersede pass.

On June 11, when this came up at the PS & RS Committee I attempted to make several changes, many based on the 2000 action. The following 4 amendments passed.

• That MPD officers shall not infiltrate public assemblies or gatherings held to plan such assemblies, except in compliance with constitutional standards.
• That MPD officers taking enforcement actions against participants in a public assembly will use the minimum level of force required to effect such enforcement actions.
  That the MPD shall provide written notice identifying information on the Civilian Police Review Authority and Internal Affairs Unit to each person arrested in connection with a public assembly who requests such information. The notice shall also identify all officers involved in effecting the arrest of the arrestee.

That the MPD shall not take enforcement actions against participants in a public assembly, or order participants in a public assembly to disperse, unless the MPD determines that the threat to public safety posed by not taking enforcement action is significantly greater than the risk associated with taking enforcement action, and that before such action is taken, an MPD incident commander shall be designated and the MPD incident commander will document the reasons for this determination.

At the following Council Meeting I was still concerned about what good provisions we were losing, however, and offered a series of additional amendments taken directly from the 2000 action that included the following:

• The ban on plastic bullets and the requirement that less-lethal projectiles and pepper spray only be used when use of force is necessary
• The requirement that MPD presence at public assemblies be commensurate with the size of the assembly

The prohibition on confiscating, tampering with or destroying cameras

It was clear from Council Members’ comments that these would not be passed but I was able to get them referred back to the committee. Remembering that some of these items had already been rejected by the committee I determined that my best hope for getting anything additional added at the committee level would require some kind of compromise.

Because I believe these are extremely important protections to put back in place, I worked on an amendment to the resolution, and brought it before last week’s PS&RS. To ensure that some protections would pass, I convened a meeting with members of the MPD leadership and CMs Ostrow and Samuels, whose votes I needed to get the measure passed. We came up with a watered-down compromise resolution that left me disappointed. It does not explicitly ban plastic bullets, though I have been told that the MPD has never used and has no plans to use rubber bullets, and does not plan to use beanbag rounds. I believe that it’s more important to put some protections in place than to dig in my heels and get nothing.

On Wednesday, the PS&RS committee passed this compromise resolution unanimously. Here is the exact text:
1) That MPD presence at public assemblies will be based on legitimate public safety concerns and not be based upon intent to chill First Amendment rights.
2) In concurrence with state law, and city ordinance, MPD officers will not use pepper spray, tear gas, or similar substances, or projectiles except in situations where the use of force is reasonable.
3) That MPD officers shall not confiscate, destroy or tamper with cameras or other recording devices being used to document public assembly activities or MPD enforcement actions. This shall not apply to situations in which a) cameras or recording devices are to be used as evidence, or b) MPD officers arrest an individual in possession of cameras or recording devices.

I am still working to see if further improvement might be possible before the full Council meeting next Friday.

National Night Out

This year, on August 5, more than 60,000 Minneapolis neighbors will gather for the 25th Annual National Night Out, celebrating and building community across the city. Advance planning makes it easier for everyone to have a good time, share the work and make things go smoothly on NNO. Last year, over 900 groups planned their parties in advance. Some events will be as simple as neighbors sharing food and conversation on a front porch; others will close off streets and provide music, face painting, chalk art, potlucks, dancing, games, and piñatas. So start your planning early and join the celebration.

It’s Free and It’s Easy to Register Your NNO Party and to Close Your Street for NNO
One process makes it possible to register your NNO event and apply to close your street. Visit here or, if you don’t have Internet, call 311 or 612-673-3000. If you register by July 22, you’ll be eligible for a door prize drawing. It’s not essential to close your street to have a successful NNO event. Many groups meet in yards, parks, vacant lots, or inside. Closing your street is FREE if you apply by July 22. From July 23-July 31, there is a $100 late fee. Applications for street closure will not be accepted after July 31.

If you have NNO or Planning Week questions visit or call 311 or 612-673-3000.

I also invite you let us know here where your gathering will be and what you will be doing that evening. I know a lot of things are happening in the ward and I am going to try to make it to some of them.

West Bank Safety Walk

Please join me and West Bank residents and business owners for the first West Bank Safety Walk tomorrow, June 24th, at 7pm. We will meet at the Brian Coyle Center.



This sort of proactive neighborhood organizing is especially important in the wake of the murders of Joe Sodd III and Abdullahi Abdi on the West Bank this year, and a number of non-fatal shootings. Thanks to the West Bank Safety Committee who, with help from the First Precinct, have organized this walking group.



I hope to see you there.

Lurking Repeal Fails

Well, we got to within a single vote.



Joining me in voting to repeal the Lurking ordinance were Council Members Benson, Glidden, Hodges, Remington and Schiff. I thank them for taking this courageous stand with me to repeal this bad law.



Voting to keep it were Council Members Colvin Roy, Goodman, Hofstede, Johson, Lilligren and Samuels. CM Ostrow was not present, but voted against the repeal in committee.



I thank all of my colleagues for investing time and energy into this valuable public discussion. I'm proud of the good points that we raised, and the elevation of the citywide conversation about racial and economic disparities in general and in our criminal justice system in particular. I also believe that Lurking will be used more sparingly and carefully in the near future, as both the MPD and the Attorney's Office know that it is under the microscope.



Perhaps we'll get there next time. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing the UN Special Rapporteur's report on whether the Lurking ordinance violates international law.

Joe Sodd III

As you've likely heard, there was a tragic murder of a young man, Joe Sodd III, on the West Bank earlier this week. I know that he was a close friend to many people in our Ward and our City. His death is the second time this year a young man was killed in City Riverside and I hope we can all offer support and sympathy to the family and the community for the grief, pain and fear that they are feeling.

There is more about how friends remember Joseph Sodd III here.

There will be a public memorial event to Joe Sodd III this Sunday, at 3pm at Augsburg College's chapel followed by a gathering at Murphy Square Park at 4:00. There is also a memorial between 6th and 7th Streets S on 19th Ave S, where neighborhood volunteers and people who know and love Joe brought flowers and left sidewalk chalk and ribbons that people can write messages on. Everyone is welcome at the the memorial and also to visit the plaza and express your wishes for peace and safety in the neighborhood, especially for our youth.

Commentary on Lurking Repeal

I recently crafted a statement on the lurking repeal which served as the foundation of a commentary in tomorrow mornings Star Tribune. Since they did not have room to publush the entire piece I decided to share it here. In it I have tried to capture what I think are the most important points and relevant facts. It will also serve as the basis for the comments I will make at the City Council meeting Friday where this will be considered.

---------------
Since the Brooking Institute’s Mind the Gap report first made headlines in 2005, Minneapolis has done a lot we can be proud of to help close the significant racial and economic disparities the report identified as detrimental to the region’s future economic well being.

When the new City Council took office in 2006, it pointed the City in a new strategic direction where “all Minneapolis residents will have a better quality of life and access to housing and services.” It called for “one Minneapolis” where “there will be living-wage jobs or entrepreneurial opportunities for everyone” and we will “close the race and class gaps” in “housing, educational attainment and health.”

Later in 2006, the City and County plan to end homelessness was unanimously approved and called for us to “change the paradigm from managing homelessness to ending it, from funding programs to investing in the community, from serving people to partnering with people to achieve self-sufficiency” and to “eliminate panhandling and other livability issues through providing prevention and outreach services.”

In 2007, the City approved an ambitious multi-year Blueprint for Action to curb youth violence in Minneapolis. It called on us to change “our mindset from focusing solely on punishment” and to re-connect “youth exhibiting risky behavior with quality education and employment opportunities.”

This spring, when faced with the facts that 43% of Black Minneapolitans live in poverty, compared to 11% of Whites, and that the unemployment rate for Blacks it is nearly 14%, compared to 4% for Whites, we created a new Minneapolis/Hennepin County Racial Disparities Steering Committee to help focus on disparities in poverty, education and employment.

Now, on June 20, the Council has the chance to take another step to build on this record of redefining our approach to public safety and public policy by attacking the real causes of crime and violence and by addressing the persistent and costly disparities that exist in our City. We will consider the repeal of our lurking ordinance. This ordinance is short and states in its entirety: “Lurking. No person, in any public or private place, shall lurk, lie in wait or be concealed with intent to commit any crime or unlawful act.”

While on its face this law is clearly vague, overbroad and possibly unconstitutional, its connection to race and class disparities may be a little harder to see.

Consider the following:

Of the 167 people arrested or cited for lurking in Minneapolis in 2006, 133, or more than 80%, were people of color. In 2007, of the 231 people arrested in lurking incidents 70% were people of color.

In 2006, the Council on Crime and Justice published a report, “Reducing Racial Disparity While Enhancing Public Safety,” that examined the complex, sometimes subtle but often far reaching effects of racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Minneapolis’ lurking law was highlighted: “The racial disparity is larger for low level offenses where police officer discretion is greatest. In 2001 the equivalent of one out of four Black residents were cited for such low level offenses as disorderly conduct, loitering and lurking. For whites, the number was one in 60.” The report articulated the connection between arrest records (even when charges were dismissed or people were acquitted) and the long lasting obstacles to employment and housing that they often create.

Unsuccessful prosecution seems to be the norm for our lurking cases. Of the 136 adults arrested for Lurking last year, only 77 cases (or 56%) went on to be tried by the City Attorney's Office. 19 of these individuals were convicted. That means there was a successful prosecution rate of 25% and an overall conviction rate resulting from the 136 arrests of 14%. In other words, 85% of adults arrested for lurking in 2007 have not been convicted. This is the worst conviction rate of any of our so-called “livability crimes,” and is a far cry from the City’s goal of increasing the conviction rates on livability crimes to 65%.

The costs of these unsuccessful prosecutions are harder to measure. Two nights in jail cost tax payers $230 per person. Since 2003 we have spent at least $184,000 just processing the tickets involved and no one has even begun to estimate the much higher costs to the police department, attorney’s office, pubic defenders and community corrections.

While the lurking ordinance rarely leads to conviction and consumes precious public safety dollars, it also does something more subtle and more costly to the future health of our City: it increases the racial and economic disparities that plague us. Having a lurking arrest on their record increases the barriers that keep our fellow Minneapolitans locked in poverty and homelessness. It makes it harder to get a job, harder to find a home and less likely that one will get the educational and health services needed to be a successful and productive participant in society.

The convincing case that the Lurking ordinance is necessary to public safety has not been made. In a study of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. we found that 87 do not prohibit lurking at all. Five prohibit it only with concealed weapons, two refer to it in their loitering ordinances and only two (Grand Rapids and Minneapolis) have distinct “lurking” ordinances. It is easy to see how most cities do without it. Police already have numerous alternative ordinances they can use and the ability to question any person if they suspect criminal activity in order to determine if there is probable cause to make an arrest.

I believe it is time to repeal Minneapolis’ lurking ordinance, and I am not alone. This effort is formally supported by the following: Access Works!, African American Family Services, African American Men’s Project, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, Barbara Schneider Foundation, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Church of St. Stephen’s, Council on Black Minnesotans, Communities United Against Police Brutality, Elim Transitional Housing, Homeless Against Homelessness, Human Right to Housing Committee, Integrated Community Solutions Inc., Jewish Community Action, Legal Rights Center, Metrowide Engagement on Shelter and Housing, Minneapolis Urban League, Minnesota Association of Black Lawyers, Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless, National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Our Savior’s Outreach Ministries, Peace House, Sabathani Community Center, Salvation Army, Simpson’s Housing Services, St. Stephen’s Human Services, The Advocates for Human Rights, Twin Cities Community Voicemail, White Earth Urban Office, Women Planting Seeds and 180 Degrees, Inc.

By taking the step Friday of removing this ineffective law, we can continue to build on our powerful and positive record of the past few years. We can be a national leader by following the lead of our plans to reduce youth violence, end homelessness and reduce racial disparities. We can move closer to creating a system of community-centered policing and social services that deal effectively and constructively with the underlying causes of crime as we attack the racial and economic disparities outlined in the Mind the Gap report, and not only make our region more economically competitive but safer and more just as well.


=======

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan - Open House

The City's open house to get public input for the new Bicycle Master Plan is today. I wish I could make it but it looks like I will be too busy elsewhere.

The 2008 plan will include goals, policies, and design guidance in addition to a map of future facilities. It focuses on what folks are calling "the 6 E's of making a city bicycle friendly:" Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Encouragement, Evaluation, and Equity.

The plan reportedly includes a prioritized list of projects and initiatives. Public ideas and suggestions will be solicited at this event. A brief presentation will be given at 5, 6, and 7 p.m. Members of the City of Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee will be present to answer questions. The open house will be held from 4:30 - 8 p.m. in Room 319 of the Minneapolis City Hall.

If any of you get to go I would love to hear some feedback directly about what you think.

University on Board for Central Corridor

It looks like we've finally achieved a sense of unity on the Central Corridor LRT project that has been eluding us for months: the University is moving towards support for the Washington Avenue alignment. U President Bob Bruininks is quoted to say that "the university does not want to be in the position of bringing this project to a grinding halt or jeopardizing its possible future."



I'm glad to see the University taking this position, after the data on their preferred Northern Alignment clearly indicated that it couldn't meet the federal funding formula. The City, County and University are making good progress on a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the mitigation that should be done as part of the project, betterments to the area that should be done outside of the project, and issues about design control on Washington Avenue. In the months ahead it will especially important for the City, County and University to work with neighborhoods to be sure the line serves the residents and business closest to it, as well as the larger region.

I'm hopeful that when we apply for federal funds this fall, we will have the full support of all of the project partners, making much more likely that this vitally important project will be built.