Second Ward, Minneapolis

This is a public policy forum that was established in 2006 by Minneapolis Second Ward (Green) City Council Member Cam Gordon and his policy aide Robin Garwood to share what they were working on and what life in City Hall was like. After serving 4 terms Cam lost his relection in 2021 but has continued to be involved in local politics and to use this forum to report and share his perspective on public policy. Please feel free to comment on posts, within certain ground rules.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Lessons from Mr. Smith's Time in City Hall

 

Part 1 - Mr. Smith Goes to City Hall

Last year, the city saw an exodus of staff in two of its newest divisions, the office of race, equity and inclusion and the office of performance and innovation, now called The Department of Performance Management and Innovation. Both lost all their staff in 2023.

One of those who left in 2023 was Brian K. Smith.

In 2016 Smith went from being an outsider fighting city hall to becoming the Director of the new city division aimed at innovation and equity, started by then-mayor Besty Hodges.

That ended last year, following a controversial city coordinator appointment, a discrimination complaint, and a lawsuit he and others filed against the city.

On July 7, 2023, just a few weeks after retiring from his position working in City Hall, I met with Smith and talked with him about his experience there. 

He didn’t expect to get the job when he was hired by Hodges.  

“She knew me just like most of the other council members,” said Smith. “Which is why I was surprised when I actually got a job because I would be down there harassing council members for the most part on behalf of community members about policies and practices.”

“I knew people but based on the pushing and fighting for folks in neighborhood and residents,” said Smith. “I had no idea that when they came and asked if I would be interested in that job that I would actually get it.

Smith also served as an alternate to the community mediation team helping oversee the first federal agreement with police department and as a program director with the Bridge for Run Away Youth during a controversial, but ultimately successful, expansion.   

He stepped into the position at a challenging time for the division.  “At that time the office had gone from a team of 7 down to a team of one,” he said.

They functioned as an in-house consulting team that, according to the city’s website “helps the City address complex and pressing challenges that lead to racial disparities,” and to “develop new solutions that move the dial toward equity in Minneapolis.”

They managed a minimum wage study which ultimately led to the city setting its own minimum wage, started a small business navigator program, led with the redrafting of a “conduct on premises” rental license ordinance and helped establish the Behavioral Crisis Response teams as a fourth response to emergencies.

What follows is the first of two columns dedicated to telling Smith’s story, in his own words.

Building A New Division

“I'm proud of everything we did.” Said Smith. “I think there are some things that stick out more than others because of the impact that it may have had for residents that people can see touch and feel. That was the small business team that was created out of our work, that was the Behavioral Crisis Response Teams (BCR), the conduct on premises rental license ordinance amendments.”

“Internally I think we did a lot to help people understand how to use data, how to make strategic plans, how to constantly look at your program and evaluate whether your living up to your mission and vision of your department or your division and to actually come to the innovation team or other people if you have a contract that you can do with other people, to say how can we make something that we had a person who was smart enough to do but nobody listened to I don't want and one aspect and that's continuous improvement which is Jodie who is actually pretty brilliant and hard-working but nobody listened to.”

“We were able to set a culture in the city, to a degree, where people would constantly look at their performance in their department and we built a performance management process which the city never had and we had results which was a good attempt and a start, but as we took that we had that evolved into a more robust performance management system when you tied goals city goals, department goals to attempting the tie it to the budget and things like that but really making people look at training people and working with people so that they could a look at the mission and vision of their department and division and then see whether or not they’re measuring up.”

Being Trusted and Objective

“The good thing about the way I think it worked in the beginning was, we didn't get stressed out with staff directions or overwhelmed with staff directions.  We didn't get overwhelmed with Betsy, when she talked to me she just said, “Hey, we trust that you are able to do the job, we trust that your staff are really smart and hard-working and so we just want you to just look at the policies and practices around the city, listen to community members, mostly residents of the city, and if there's things that you find are things that people are interested in, take deeper dive into it and see if it grows into something and just keep me informed.”  

“She wasn't heavy-handed,” said Smith. “We knew what her policy objectives were and what her platform was, but she trusted us to look at those things that you guys had as council, that she had as a mayor and listen to residents to see what will be the most pressing thing that we needed to address.  Not what was more politically expedient.”

“Sometime some council members would ask for some stuff and it would ruffle some feathers of other the council members, or ruffle feathers of the department heads, because we did our very best to be objective.” Said Smith, “Our job we thought was to find information, inform people so they can make it informed decisions and then it lands where it lands because we're human too and we have a lot of ideas about how things might turn out or how things should turn out, but what we had to do was follow the prescriptive method that we adopted and some of the stuff that we developed to make sure that we didn't let our attitude, our opinions and you know our own experiences get in the way of what actually needed to happen to serve residents better.”

“The only time it would get extremely challenging is when there were people on the inside who had way more authority than us, who wanted to dictate to people how things should be, as opposed to listening to and working with them. By people I mean the residents, like I know what's best for you so we had some electric officials who like them and we have a mayor who's like that now, so it made it extremely difficult for us because people were trying to guide our work or ask the question and guide us towards the answer that they wanted us to have.  That’s why we wouldn't use certain researchers because there are some researchers in town who you can tell them what you want the outcome to be and they will gladly take your money and give you that outcome. So that also presented a challenge sometimes because some elected officials were used to holding things as a genuine question like they had genuine interests, but they already had their mind made up and if we didn't go along with it, it was hell for me to pay.  I protected my staff, but it was hell for me to pay from time to time.”

“Everybody felt a little bit of relief in knowing that this was this new body of folks in the city that weren't completely caught up in the everyday politics of everything and actually took pride in just been as objective as they possibly could in giving the information.”

“We could be that liaison, we could be that technical assistance provider, we could be that support not only for residents but also for departments and elected leadership in the city.  And I didn't know what would come of it, but I knew that's what I was going to go there and try my best to do. Maybe it was timing, but it seemed like that's what a majority of elected officials wanted.  Residents definitely wanted it.  Department heads were more leery than people think, partly because it would have been the first time where somebody would be telling a story about that shot other than them,  but I would say over the years we got to a place where the majority, not a heavy majority, but a majority of the departments in the city knew that our would do nothing but help them, even though some of them still feared a process sometimes pulled the cover off of things in order to shed light on it, not embarrass anybody, but to shed light on it and so that we can see where we need to make improvement and for some people that was extremely scary. Scary because they knew it would mean change, some scary because they were doing some shit they shouldn't have been doing, and they thought it would create a level accountability, that just didn't exist in the city for departments.”

What A Difference A Mayor Makes.

In 2017 Hodges was not reelected. Jacob Frey became mayor and, said Smith, “for the most part the appreciation of the work was gone and I never met with Jacob once.  I met with Betsy every 2 weeks.  …but the only time I ever met with Jacob was one budget meeting and whenever I was bringing a national conference into town where he would be speaking. I've never had one meeting with Jacob about our work in five years, not one, he wasn't interested.”

 

 Part 2 Mr. Smith Leaves City Hall



In the fall of 2022, Smith seemed to be thriving in his role as Director of the Office of Performance and Innovation (OPI) for the City of Minneapolis. In October he had won a Pollen 50 over 50 “disruptor of the status quo” award for his work as one of the “most inspiring and accomplished leaders from across the state.”

In the award announcement, and elsewhere, he was noted for helping transform public safety in Minneapolis. The work he led examining the city’s 911 emergency response resulted in the establishment of the acclaimed unarmed Behavioral Crisis Response (BCR) program that has received national as well as local recognition. Smith and his team also created an overnight parking enforcement program so that police didn't have to respond to parking calls at night and a change to transfer theft and report-only calls from 911 to 311.

Smith resigned 7 months later after he had testified against the appointment of a City Coordinator, formally complained about discrimination within the city, and filed a lawsuit against the city.   

Through the settlement discussion over the lawsuit, the city offered to pay him to leave. He agreed, and resigned effective June 23, 2023.

“I was about to go anyway,” said Smith. “I was tired. I had other options.” He said that the work had gotten so stressful that he took an unplanned leave because of “how toxic the place got.”      

“I knew I wasn't appreciated. I knew our work wasn't appreciated,” he said. “It was just a bad environment for people who really wanted to serve residents. It was a super bad environment for black people.”  

“All of the black folks who were in any position of leadership, those who went along with the status quo, as well as those who didn’t, are gone,” said Smith. “Anybody who was trying to do anything to change the status quo and make the city live up to what it says and writes on paper but doesn’t do, they’ll all gone.”

Concerns, especially among black employees, became very public in May of 2022 when a group of former and current staff from the city coordinator’s office held a press conference opposing the appointment of Heather Johnston, who was interim City Coordinator at the time, for a 4-year term.  Many of them were supervised by Smith, who was himself supervised by Johnston.  Johnston has since also resigned.

In a letter shared at the time, 17 current and former city staff, many who worked in the division Smith directed, outlined concerns and a “toxic, anti-Black work culture that has been perpetuated by past and current City Coordinators, both Interim and appointed, for several years.”  “City leaders,” they wrote, “claim to uphold values of racial equity and justice and acknowledged racism as a public health crisis. However, these claims have failed to result in tangible actions that substantially support employees, especially Black employees.”

“To be a director, your job is not only to supervise, give your staff the resources and the tools they need and support they need to do a great job, it’s also your job to make sure that they come to work and be their full selves,” said Smith. “So, when they took the time to organize, to speak out and to do all those things, to have no black folks in leadership at the city say anything, what do you think that says for that group of people? How vulnerable and long-suffering do we expect people to be? To have no director stand up would have been pretty much everybody in the city's saying, you’re on your own.”

“I wasn't planning on going up there.” He added, “I did it because everything they said was true and I experienced it daily.”

“I felt compelled to get up and say this is really happening, this is very personal. You have people getting sick, scared at work, feeling like they are going to be retaliated against, not getting raises, not getting promotions, getting fired, getting disciplined.”  

Despite being assured publicly at the hearing that there would be no retaliation against anyone who testified, when asked if there was retaliation, Smith said “Yes, constant. They did it.  I got a letter of reprimand maybe 2 months after and it included all the stuff from when I spoke out.” 

Concerns about racial discrimination were perhaps most evident in the work he and his team did with 911 which ultimately resulted in the discrimination lawsuit Smith and Gina Obiri filed against the city.  Obiri worked with Smith in the OPI.

Many complaints focused on Kathy Hughes, the 911 director at the time, who has since resigned her position with the city.

“When we were building the BCR, she refused to let us meet with her staff. She refused to give us any data. She refused to cooperate at meetings,” said Smith. “She would make racist statements directly to us, she would make them directly to other white people about us and the city about us, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.”

The lawsuit argued that “Beginning in late 2019 and for well over a year, Hughes, a White woman, discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their race, treating Plaintiffs with hostility and denigration, falsely accusing Plaintiffs of lying, criticizing and undermining them in front of City staff and residents, refusing to meet with them, and refusing to provide them access to information necessary to perform their jobs….Hughes treated White employees in a dramatically different, respectful fashion.

In one example, the lawsuit states that Hughes “demonstrated anti-Black bias, including openly questioning whether the majority-Black staff on the OPI team would be able to pass a criminal background check.”

Despite raising the issue to her supervisors and the city’s human resources department through what Smith calls “constant emails,” he said, “nobody did anything for almost a year.”

Smith concluded that many people in City Hall think that “Black people are expendable.”  “Everybody thinks we are built for long suffering, and they are so used to seeing people suffering they just think that that’s the way it is.”

“My size ended up in my 360 [work performance] review,” he said, quoting from memory one of the comments, “Brian has to realize that he is physically intimidating to some people, he’s a larger black man so he should learn how to….”

“Oh, it’s real,” Smith said of a racist, toxic work environment in City Hall. “If the pressure that came after George Floyd being murdered and other murders after that, the DOJ [Department of Justice], State Human Rights, 100 million dollars in lawsuits, and the pressure that has built up in this community, if that is not enough to make change, I’m not sure what will.” 

About the BCR service he helped create, Smith said, “what they need to do is to continue to let the innovation team manage it until they straighten out the things they need to straighten out in the office of community safety and the police department. To put it in precincts would be a huge mistake.”

“Alternatives should be built, the same way we built the last one.  They should be piloted, and they should be set up in a way that shows that people are serious about transforming public safety.”

Looking ahead, Smith said, “My concern inside the city is that people who truly want to be public servants will continue to leave, which means the level of service that the residents deserve and pay for, will go down.”

“My concern is for residents.  It can take a long time to undo some of the prejudice that is at play.  The stuff that is embedded in our culture about race, about class, about who deserves service and who doesn’t, that’s so embedded it takes years to try to get at it.”  

“The people in this city have dealt with enough pain and deserve better.”  



Note: - a version of this was also published in the Southside Pride newspaper.

 

Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Finding a Green Way to Govern

 

 Here is a video someone just shared from a presentation I did for Greens on how to govern. 


It might be of interest to some of you.  


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldh9LAP-2lA 

Hiawatha Golf Course and Historic Registration

 The future of Hiawatha Golf Course took an interesting turn this January when the city’s historic preservation commission and the park board weighed in on its past.  Both formally responded to a nomination submitted last year to add the golf course to the National Register of Historic Places.

The Minneapolis Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted to support the nomination of the 140-acre site located at 4553 Longfellow Ave.  The Park Board approved a letter expressing both support and concerns.

The nomination was submitted last year by the Bronze Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports preservation of the 18-hole golf course, who hired Hess, Roise and Company to draft the nomination. The Bronze Foundation also manages the Bronze tournament, formerly called the Upper Midwest Bronze Amateur Open, that has been held regularly at the course since 1954.

The application was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on November 4, 2022. They will submit their findings to the State Historic Preservation Review Board’s on February 7. If it is determined eligible by the board, the matter will go to the National Park Service for a final determination and placement on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Charlene Roise, from Hess, Roise and Company, said that she is “very confident” that the effort will be successful. “The nomination makes the case that the property meets National Register criteria,” she added.

“I believe the property has a strong case for designation,” said Clair VanderEky, one of the HPC commissioners who voted in support of the nomination, “though I think including the native history would make it stronger.”

Kathryn Kelly, who learned to golf on the course and whose mother still a house across from it, said she is also “confident that it will go through.” In a letter Kelly submitted supporting the nomination, she wrote, “I grew up across the street from Hiawatha Golf Course during the height of the Bronze tournament in the 1960's and 1970's. I saw the importance of Hiawatha Golf Course to the Black community. The Bronze Tournament was, by far, the largest event of the year at Hiawatha golf course.”

Hess-Roise’s 129-page nomination focuses on the social, cultural and ethnic history from 1952-1972, including the struggle to integrate the clubhouse that was segregated until 1952 when Solomon Hughes, a Black golfer, was finally admitted after years of trying. In 2021 the clubhouse was named in his honor. The nomination application concludes that the course “is locally significant under National Register Criterion A, in the areas of Entertainment/Recreation, Social History, and Ethnic Heritage: Black, as a significant site for civil rights in Minneapolis.” 

Following submission of the application, the SHPO requested comments from both the Minneapolis HPC and the park board. 

“Our (the Commission’s) mandate was to offer support, or non-support, of the nomination with the added opportunity to provide some comments to accompany our letter,” said VanderEky. “The HPC voted in favor of supporting the nomination and asked that SHPO consider extending the period of significance to include Native history.”

The parks board’s response was shaped by the master plan for the area it approved last September.  That plan attempts to improve water management, reduces the golf course to 9 holes, adds other amenities and restores part of the area to wetlands. The park board letter, signed by board president Meg Forney, notes the history of the area prior to the creation of the golf course and the changes made to then Rice Lake (Bde Psin). “Though the MPRB largely agrees with the history represented within the Bronze Foundation’s application,” it says, “there are other histories on this site worth sharing, including Indigenous histories extending back thousands of years. The master plan represents a balance of nature and recreation, and a balance for Black golfers, where the golf course is modified but retained, and Indigenous peoples, where a process of healing and restoration is proposed to reestablish, as best as the MPRB is able, the ecology of Bde Psin.” 

If the nomination is successful and the course is put on the national registry, it is unclear what benefits it will bring and how this will impact future changes to the area. National registration typically offers few protections, but is associated with preservation incentives, including rehabilitation tax credits that could be used by private property owners.

“The National Register of Historic Places creates a written record of the history of the site, which I think is very valuable for future reference,” said VanderElk. “It also adds a layer of potential consideration if or when proposals of redevelopment or major renovations occur. The listing does not preclude changes, but it allows an added layer of oversight, which I believe will benefit the process and ensure a better, more holistic approach to any future changes.”

Kelly served on Community Advisory Committee for the Hiawatha Golf Course Master Plan and is now a member of the SaveHiawatha18 group who is trying to keep the 18-hole course. “Our hope it that the Park Board would think twice about what they are doing,” she said. “We are trying to save all 18 holes.”

Kelly sees bigger risks to the restoration project and about how possible changes to managing storm water may affect the homes in the area, and hers in particular.  “My main goal is to save my family’s house,” she said. “Lots of the golf courses flood and there are other solutions. The watershed district could do more than just dump water in the creek.”  

“I see no reason the registration will impact the master plan,” said VanderEyk. “NRHP nominations are honorary and symbolic. They do not afford protection of the nominated property. Local historic designation is the process with which communities can protect historic properties with specific design guidelines.”

In Minnesota, local historic designation is made through a city’s heritage preservation commission under rules spelled out in a city ordinance. Minneapolis’ ordinance is clear that a nomination may only be made by an HPC commissioner, a member of the city council, the mayor, the planning director or a person with a “legal or equitable interest in the subject property.”  

When asked if she thought that some or all of the area might qualify for local designation, Roise had no doubts. “Yes,” she said, “virtually anything that qualifies for the National Register qualifies for local designation.”

Roise, Kelly, VanderEyk, and city HPC staff all reported that there are no plans they are aware of for local historic designation at this time.

 

 

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

(former) CM GORDON AMENDED DRAFT (AUGUST 20, 2021) of CHAPTER 172. - POLICE CONDUCT OVERSIGHT

As the Council is considering a more recent proposal to amend the police conduct ordinance, I humbly offer this work product from last year, which I drafted with the help of some key community advisors and with input from city staff.  The underlining indicates new language and the strikethrough marking indicates language to be removed. I hope that it might be helpful. 


Former CM GORDON's AMENDED DRAFT, AUGUST 20, 2021

 

CHAPTER 172. - POLICE CONDUCT OVERSIGHT[3]

 

Footnotes:

--- (3) ---

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2012-Or-061, § 1, adopted September 21, 2012, amended the title of Ch. 172 from "Civilian Police Review Authority" to "Police Conduct Oversight." See also the Code Comparative Table.


172.10. - Police conduct oversight system established.

For the purposes of (1) assuring that police services are delivered in a lawful and nondiscriminatory manner, (2) assuring that effective accountability for policing is supported through appropriate supervision and management (3) contributing to the Mayor receiving early warning information regarding potential future risk of civil liability (4) providing to the public meaningful participatory oversight of the police and their interactions with the citizenry and (35) investigating complaints of misconduct on the part of officers of the Minneapolis Police Department and making recommendations regarding the merits of such complaints to the Mayor chief of police, there is hereby created an office of police conduct review and a police conduct oversight commission, with duties and authority as described in this chapter. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 90-Or-188, § 1, 7-27-90; 2003-Or-028, § 1, 3-21-03); 2012-Or-061, § 2, 9-21-12)

172.80.20 - Police conduct oversight commission.

(a) Composition. The police conduct oversight commission shall be comprised of a minimum of seven (7) members, four (4) of whom shall be appointed by the city council, and three (3) of whom shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to the approval of a majority of the city council. If more than seven (7) members are appointed to comprise the pool of commission members, the city council shall appoint the eighth member, the mayor the ninth member, subject to approval by a majority of the city council and alternating thereafter. All commissioners shall be appointed in conformance with the open appointments as outlined in Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Title 2, Chapter 14.180. In order to stagger the expiration of terms, the original appointments of commissioners shall be for terms of one (1) or two (2) years, as determined by the city clerk. Thereafter, appointments shall be for two (2) years. A chairperson and vice-chairperson of the commission shall be elected by a majority of the appointed members. In order to stagger the terms of the chairperson and vice-chairperson, the initial appointment of the vice-chairperson shall be for one (1) year. The vice-chairperson shall only have chairperson duties in the absence of the chairperson. In the absence of a chairperson or vice-chairperson, the chairperson or vice-chairperson may designate an acting chairperson to serve until the next board meeting or until a chairperson is duly appointed. If the chairperson or vice-chairperson are unable for any reason to designate an acting chairperson, the commission shall appoint an acting chairperson to serve until the next board meeting or until a chairperson is duly appointed. The acting chairperson shall have full authority to conduct actions of the chairperson. All members shall continue to serve until their successors have been appointed. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum. Minneapolis Police Department employees shall not participate in any manner in the selection of police conduct oversight commissioners.

(b)  Qualifications. All members shall be residents of the city. Residents currently or previously employed by the Minneapolis Police Department are ineligible to serve as members of the commission. The office of police conduct review may establish additional required qualifications.

(c)  Minimum training requirements.

(1)  All members must participate in an annual training session as arranged by the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights.

(2)  All new members must complete training in the following subject areas as arranged by the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights: police use of force, Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Open Meeting law, the Minnesota Public Employee Labor Relations Act, ethics and conflict of interest.

(3)  Within two (2) years of appointment, all new members must complete the portions of the Citizen's Academy as determined by the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights. Members will be compensated fifty dollars ($50.00) for each Citizen's Academy session attended.

(d)  Removal. Any member of the commission may be removed, by vote of a majority of the city council and approval of the mayor, for incompetence, neglect of duty, misconduct or malfeasance, or failure to participate in and complete minimum training requirements. Any vacancy occasioned by resignation, death, or removal of a member shall be filled for the balance of the unexpired term by appointment by the mayor subject to approval of the city council.

(e)  Compensation—Limitation. Each member shall be paid fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day when the member attends one (1) or more meetings, and shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of duties in the same manner and amount as other city boards and commission members. The total amount of per diem and reimbursable expenses payable under this section shall not exceed the total annual budget allocation for such costs.

(f)  Authority. The commission shall meet once every month at a regularly scheduled time and place for the purpose of conducting any business necessary to the operation of the commission, and to assign panels for the subsequent month. The commission may meet at such additional times and places deemed necessary by its members, or on the call of the chairperson. The commission may:

(1)  Conduct programs of research and study, in conjunction with office of police conduct review staff appointed by the director of the office of police conduct review. Research and study includes programs that analyze Minneapolis Police Department practices, internal controls, compliance with applicable law and regulation relating to police policy and procedure and other related matters, to ensure that police services are delivered in a lawful, effective, and nondiscriminatory manner for the purpose of ascertaining how the objectives of this chapter may be attained and sustained. For this purpose, all members of the police conduct oversight commission must have access to all private data which they determine may be relevant, including but not limited to data classified under the MGDPA or other authority as "private", "confidential", or "non-public that is generated by the office of police conduct review.

(2)  Collect, review and audit summary data and compile aggregate statistics relating to programs of research and study such as patterns of behavior related to complaints of police officer misconduct, and present results of such analysis on a periodic basis to the public safety subcommittee of the city council, mayor, and/or chief of police.

(3)  Make recommendations to the city council, mayor, and/or chief of police relating to Minneapolis Police Department officers, practices, internal controls, compliance with applicable law and regulation relating to police policy and procedure and other related matters contained within a program of research and study, or for purposes of potentially providing early warning of risk of civil liability.

(4)  Facilitate outreach and training as a result of the research and study process.

(5)  Regularly meet with the Mayor so as to establish communication about: a) the goals of police oversight generally, b) the impacts of discipline decisions on effective oversight, c) potential civil liability, and d) for  Ccontributing to the performance review appraisal of the chief of police.

(6)  Create and implement a community outreach program and coordinate outreach activities with the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights.

(7)  Submit periodic reports to the public safety subcommittee of the city council regarding the activities of the commission.

(8)  Establish, amend and repeal rules and procedures governing its own internal organization and operations in a manner and form consistent with this Code.

(9)  Form subcommittees to assist in fulfilling its duties and responsibilities.

(10)  Request from the mayor and city council the appointment of such staff as is necessary to carry out the duties of the commission.

(11)  Request from the city attorney the appointment of an independent attorney when the city attorney may be in conflict due to its handling of all civil liability legal defense cases.

(g)  Facilitation of research and study. The director of the office of police conduct review may designate one (1) or more analysts to facilitate the police conduct oversight commission in programs of research and study. The analyst may:

(1)  Conduct periodic research and study directed by the police conduct oversight commission.

(2)  Establish a follow-up process to monitor the disposition of results communicated to the police conduct oversight commission and appraise the commission on the effectiveness of corrective actions taken or the acceptance of the risk of not taking action.

(3)  Submit an annual report to the police conduct oversight commission, mayor and city council indicating research and study projects completed, major findings, corrective actions taken by administrative managers, and significant findings which have not been fully addressed by management.

(4)  Conduct special reviews and programmatic reviews at the request of the mayor, city council, internal auditor, city departments or boards and commissions.

The analyst for the office of police conduct review shall organize and administer programs of research and study to operate without interference or other influence that might adversely affect an independent and objective judgment of the analyst. In the event of alleged or suspected impropriety, fraud, or misappropriation or misuse of city funds, the analyst for the office of police conduct review shall seek advice from the city attorney, the joint supervisors director of civil rights, and, as appropriate, conduct an investigation and report any suspected criminal activity to appropriate law enforcement authorities. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2003-Or-028, § 9, 3-21-03; 2012-Or-061, § 9, 9-21-12; Ord. No. 2017-076 , § 1, 12-8-17)

(h) Independent Counsel. In order to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest, the City Attorney shall appoint an independent counsel to advise and support the OPCR and PCOC. There shall be a firewall between the independent counsel and the City Attorney's Office.



172.20.30 - Scope of authority, office of police conduct review. (moved to come under Commission)

The office of police conduct review shall consist of a civilian unit be established under the authority of the director of civil rights, and will not employ any persons with duties that currently are, or formerly were, supervised by the Minneapolis Police Department. and an internal affairs unit under the authority of the chief of police. For duties outlined in this chapter, the director of civil rights, and not the chief of police, shall be construed as to hold Mayoral delegation authority with respect to the city charter. The office shall receive complaints that allege misconduct by an individual police officer or officers involving any of the following:

(1)  Use of excessive force.

(2)  Inappropriate language or attitude.

(3)  Harassment.

(4)  Discrimination in the provision of police services or other discriminatory conduct on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, disability or age or sexual orientation.

(5)  Theft.

(6)  Failure to provide adequate or timely police protection.

(7)  Retaliation.

(8)  Any violation of the Minneapolis Police Department's policy and procedure manual.

(9)  Criminal misconduct. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2003-Or-028, § 2, 3-21-03; 2006-Or-064, § 1, 6-16-06; 2006-Or-114, § 1, 10-20-06; 2012-Or-061, § 3, 9-21-12)


172.30. - Complaint filing, preliminary review and investigation.

(a) Complaint filing. Any person who has personal knowledge of alleged misconduct on the part of a Minneapolis police officer may file a complaint with the office of police conduct review by submitting said complaint by means of any readily available method approved by the office. The office shall endeavor to facilitate the complaint filing process by providing multiple and accessible avenues for the filing of complaints. Absent extenuating circumstances deemed sufficient to warrant untimely filing, no person may file a complaint if more than two hundred seventy (270) days have elapsed since the alleged misconduct. Complaints may be filed anonymously.  The office of police conduct review may initiate its own complaint when investigation is warranted and no other complainant has filed.

(b)  Complaint review. All complaints shall be jointly and collaboratively assessed and preliminarily reviewed by supervisory staff of the office from both the civilian unit and the internal affairs unit. A Subject to reconsideration, a complaint may be declined dismissed with no further action required pursuant to the authority and discretion of the office if, on its face, it fails to allege a violation within the purview and jurisdiction of the office. A complaint may also be referred to another more appropriate governmental agency or, in the case of allegations which rise only to a potential "A" level infraction under the police department's adopted discipline matrix, may be referred to a program of mandatory mediation instituted by the office of police conduct review or directly to the officer's supervisor for coaching. Such complaints may also, pursuant to the authority and discretion of the office, be referred for formal investigation pursuant to subsection (c).

(c)  Complaint investigation. All other qualifying complaints shall be formally investigated by the office. through assignment to an investigator or investigators from the civilian unit and/or the internal affairs unit. The office shall endeavor to complete any reviews and investigations as promptly and efficiently as possible. Any complaint alleging criminal misconduct by an officer shall also initially be referred to the internal affairs unit of the Minneapolis Police Department, which will only investigate the criminal charge – directly or through an independent police agency – and, if no charge will be filed, immediately returned to the office of police conduct review for resumption of the personnel misconduct investigation. Complaints not alleging criminal misconduct may be assigned to the civilian unit at the formal request of a complainant. The investigative report shall be in a format designated by the office and all final reports shall be reviewed and approved by supervisory staff. of the office from both the civilian unit and the internal affairs unit. The investigative report shall not include any recommendation or conclusion regarding the merits of the complaint.

(d)  Procedural discretion and decision making. Any procedural issue related to the duties and authority of the office for which supervisory staff from the civilian unit and the internal affairs unit is unable to reach agreement upon shall be referred to the director of civil rights and the chief of police, who shall jointly determine the matter. In the event the director and the chief are unable to resolve the issue, a designee of the mayor may mediate, and if necessary resolve, the issue.

(ed)  Mediation and Restorative Justice. Upon the joint direction of supervisory staff of the office of police conduct review from both the civilian unit and the internal affairs unit, a A complaint may be referred to mandatory mediation or restorative justice, subject to the agreement of the complainant and respondent, and in accordance with administrative rules established by the POLICE CONDUCT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION. upon preliminary review of the complaint or at any other time in the course of investigation when deemed to be appropriate. The mediation shall proceed according to procedures adopted and instituted by the office of police conduct review.  To reflect their professional role as neutral, no Mmediator and or restorative justice facilitator shall be neutral trained mediators unaffiliated with the office of police conduct review, the police conduct oversight commission, the civil rights department, the police department, or[GCA1]  any other department of the City of Minneapolis. 

(fe)  Firewall. Information from investigations shall be shared only with staff assigned to the office of police conduct review and police conduct oversight commission, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2003-Or-028, § 3, 3-21-03; 2003-Or-112, § 1, 9-12-03; 2004-Or-068, § 1, 6-18-04; 2009-Or-029, § 1, 3-27-09; 2010-Or-022, § 1, 4-16-10; 2012-Or-061, § 4, 9-21-12)


172.35. - Reserved.

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2003-Or-028, § 4, adopted March 21, 2003, repealed § 172.35, which pertained to compensation—Limitation. See the Code Comparative Table.


172.40. - Review panel procedure.

All final and approved investigative reports shall be forwarded to a review panel for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the merits of the complaint to the chief of police. Mayor.

(1)  Each review panel shall be comprised of four (4) three (3) panelists. Two (2) of the panelists shall be from the pool established in 172.60 (below),  sworn officers of the police department holding the rank of lieutenant or higher assigned by the chief of police or the chief's designee members of the and two (2) the third panelists shall be civilians a member of the police conduct oversight commission, who will serve as the panel’s chair, and be responsible for submitting the written findings adopted by the panel. 

(2)  All panels will be assigned by the director of civil rights or the director's designee. chair of the police conduct oversight commission under parameters and timelines established through administrative rules.The panels shall be scheduled on an as-needed or regular basis by the office of police conduct review. Each panel shall appoint a chair, although the office of police conduct review shall designate whether the chair of each panel shall be a civilian or officer member on a rotating and equal basis.

(3)  The panel shall review and discuss the investigative report but shall and may take no testimony from witnesses or parties unless a request from the panel is specifically approved by the office of police conduct review.

(4)  The panel shall issue its recommendation within three (3) seven (7) business days of the panel review, which shall be returned to the office of police conduct review and promptly forwarded to the Mayor chief of police. The recommendation shall be in a format jointly approved by the office of police conduct review and the police conduct oversight commission, shall be signed by all panelists, and shall include a recommendation as to whether each allegation is supported or not supported by a preponderance of evidence and whether discipline is warranted or not warranted along with reference to the investigative evidence which supports the recommendation. And a The recommendedation may include considerations for range of discipline, including whether transparency goals warrant that discipline should be imposed to ensure a public record of the disposition. Discipline may include all actions taken in response to a sustained complaint, including terminations, suspensions, letters of reprimand, warnings, and coaching terminations, or any other action that is taken in response to the complaint.  Alternatively, the panel may return the investigative report with a request for additional information, which shall be identified with particularity.

(5)  The recommendation shall include the votes of each panelist, and in the event the panel is evenly divided on any recommendation, such division shall be noted may include explanation of internal disagreement.

(6)   The standard of proof necessary to recommend that an allegation be sustained is preponderance of the evidence, which is the same evidence standard applied by civil juries in lawsuits against the city for police misconduct, and therefore supports an early warning process for liability risk. Preponderance of the evidence means that the greater weight of the evidence supports the decision.

 

 

(7)  The office of police conduct review shall provide written notice to the officer of the review panel's recommendation. The office shall provide written notice to the complainant of any allegation not sustained in the review panel's recommendation. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2003-Or-028, § 5, 3-21-03; 2012-Or-061, § 5, 9-21-12)


172.50. - Request for reconsideration by complainant.

(a) Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of notification of either 1) a dismissal, or 2) the review a panel's decision recommending that a complaint not be sustained, a complainant may submit a written request for reconsideration to the office of police conduct review.

(b)   Reconsideration of a dismissal will be reviewed by the chair of the police conduct oversight commission (or delegate), who will have discretion whether to bring the matter to a vote of all members of the police conduct oversight commission.

(bc)  Any request for rReconsideration of a panel decision, shall be jointly and collaboratively reviewed by supervisory staff of the office of police conduct review and the chair of the police conduct oversight commission (or delegate). from both the civilian unit and the internal affairs unit. If the review determines that the request for reconsideration alleges newly discovered and relevant evidence or information not previously available to the complainant panel, the complaint may be remanded for additional investigation by office staff and reconsideration by the designated review panel. The review panel may sustain, reject or modify its prior recommendation regarding the complaint. Alternatively, the complaint and new evidence or information may be forwarded directly to the chief of police pursuant to section 172.70.

(cd)  The office of police conduct review shall provide written notification to the officer of the request for reconsideration and its outcome. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2003-Or-028, § 6, 3-21-03; 2012-Or-061, § 6, 9-21-12)


172.60. - Review panel civilian appointments.

(a) Composition. The pool of civilian review panelists shall be comprised of a minimum of seven (7) members, four (4) of whom shall be appointed by the city council, and three (3) of whom shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to the approval of a majority of the city council. If more than seven (7) members are appointed to comprise the pool of civilian review panelists, the city council shall appoint the eighth member, the mayor the ninth member, subject to approval by a majority of the city council, and alternating thereafter. All civilian review panel members shall be appointed in conformance with the open appointments as outlined in Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Title 2, Chapter 14.180, except as provided in this section. In order to stagger the expiration of terms, the original appointments of civilian panelists shall be for terms of two (2), three (3) or four (4) years, as determined by the city clerk. Thereafter, appointments shall be for four (4) years. Minneapolis Police Department employees shall not participate in any manner in the selection of review panelists.

(b)  Qualifications. All members shall be residents of the city. Individuals currently or previously employed by the Minneapolis Police Department are ineligible to serve as members of the pool. The office of police conduct review may establish additional required qualifications.

(c)  Minimum training requirements.

(1)  All members must participate in an annual training session as arranged by the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights.

(2)  All new members must complete training in the following subject areas as arranged by the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights: police use of force, Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Open Meeting law, the Minnesota Public Employee Labor Relations Act, ethics and conflict of interest.

(3)  Within two (2) years of appointment, all new members must complete the portions of the Citizen's Academy as determined by the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights. Members will be compensated fifty dollars ($50.00) for each Citizen's Academy session attended.

(d)  Removal. Any member of the review panel pool may be removed, by vote of a majority of the city council and approval of the mayor, for incompetence, neglect of duty, misconduct or malfeasance, or failure to participate in and complete minimum training requirements. Any vacancy occasioned by resignation, death, or removal of a member shall be filled for the balance of the unexpired term by appointment by the mayor subject to approval of the city council.

(e)  Compensation—Limitation. Each civilian member shall be paid fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day when the member attends one (1) or more meetings or panel reviews, and shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the performance of duties in the same manner and amount as other city boards and commission members. The total amount of per diem, payment for file review, and reimbursable expenses payable under this section shall not exceed the total annual budget allocation for such costs. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2003-Or-028, §§ 7, 8, 3-21-03; 2012-Or-061, § 7, 9-21-12)


172.70. - Disciplinary decision by the Mayor.

Upon conclusion of the panel review process, the office of police conduct review shall forward the investigatory file and panel recommendation to the Mayor chief of police for the Mayor’s determination of discipline, which shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt, subject to the following exception: if the subject employee could be subject to discipline that requires a pre-discipline hearing, and that employee is on statutorily-protected leave for any period during the thirty (30) days following receipt of the panel recommendation, the deadline is tolled during the time that the employee is on statutorily-protected leave. Once the statutorily-protected leave ends, the chief must make a disciplinary decision within thirty (30) days of the end of statutorily-protected leave. The Mayor, upon making his or her determination of discipline, shall return the determination and file to the office of police conduct review. For any allegation which the review panel recommends to be supported by a majority vote, the chief shall notify the review panel and the office of the reasons for such determination through issuance of a written memorandum explaining the basis for the decision, including the relevant facts, policies and law supporting the decision. To the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.43 and other applicable law, the police department shall make the decision and memorandum immediately available to the public via a departmental or city website and shall make copies available for physical inspection. If the disciplinary determination required pursuant to this section is not timely issued the complainant shall be entitled to a remedy from the police department consisting of a two hundred dollar ($200.00) penalty payment, with such penalty doubling in amount upon each subsequent thirty-day delinquency. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2012-Or-061, § 8, 9-21-12; Ord. No. 2020-045 , § 1, 8-14-20)

172.85. - Confidentiality.

The members, staff, and contractors of the office of police conduct review and the police conduct oversight commission shall comply with all of the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes. All members and contractors, paid and volunteer, shall sign a contract agreeing to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, currently Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes. In return, the city will afford to such member or contractor the same legal protection that any other agent or employee of the city receives who performs duties within the scope of employment. (2006-Or-114, § 2, 10-20-06; 2012-Or-061, § 10, 9-21-12)


172.90. - Requirement of cooperation by the Minneapolis Police Department and all other city employees and officials.

Office of police conduct review staff shall have full, free and unrestricted access, to the extent authorized by law, to the records of the Minneapolis Police Department in order to conduct investigations of police misconduct; facilitate research and study projects for the police conduct oversight commission; and conduct special reviews and programmatic reviews at the request of the mayor, city council, internal auditor, city departments, or boards and commissions. The failure by any official or employee of the Minneapolis Police Department or by any other City of Minneapolis employee or official to comply with lawful requests for information or access shall be deemed an act of misconduct. (90-Or-043, § 1, 1-26-90; 2003-Or-028, § 10, 3-21-03; 2012-Or-061, § 11, 9-21-12; Ord. No. 2017-076 , § 2, 12-8-17)


172.95—172.190. - Reserved.

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2012-Or-061, §§ 12—23, repealed §§ 172.95 through 172.190, which pertained to Civilian Police Review Authority. See also the Code Comparative Table.


 [GCA1]

Monday, July 25, 2022

City Government Restructuring On the Fast Track

 The mayor and city council are moving quickly to restructure city government.  Perhaps too quickly.

Substantial ordinance amendments, which have yet to be shared with the public, could be approved by the end of August. The timeline presented by Mayor Jacob Frey in June called for the public hearing on August 4 and approval on August 20.

Some of it is already underway.

On June 30, the Council approved two new executive positions: a Community Safety Commissioner and a Chief Operation Officer to replace the City Coordinator

Ordinances amendments were approved to create the position of City Operations Officer, with a salary of $269,943 to $320,000 and the position of Community Safety Commissioner, with a salary of $295,250 to $350,000. Both salaries exceed the cap of $192,144 imposed by state law and will require a waiver. Both positions will report to the mayor. 

The City Operations Officer will oversee the proposed new Office of Public Service which would include the 311/Service Center, City Assessor, Civil Rights Department, Communications, Community Planning & Economic Development, Finance & Property Services, the Health Department, Human Resources, Information Technology, Intergovernmental Relations, Minneapolis Convention Center, Neighborhood & Community Relations, Public Works and Regulatory Services.

Then, on July 7, Mayor Frey announced his nomination of Cedric Alexander for the new position of Community Safety Commissioner.  As proposed, the commissioner would oversee the new Office of Community Safety, which would include the fire and police departments, 911, the office of emergency management, and a new office of neighborhood safety that will replace, or possibly include, the office of violence prevention now housed in the health department. Alexander will be considered for the position by the City Council at their August 4 meeting following a hearing on the 2nd. 

The Council also approved adding a City Auditor position to the Audit Department and increased the department’s budget by $75,000 to do so.

When Frey announced his selection of Cedric Alexander for the safety commissioner, he said that government restructuring is “the most important thing I will probably ever do as mayor.”

Council Member Linea Palmisano (Ward 13) has given notice that she is authoring the restructuring amendments to repeal Chapters 17, 21, and 25 that relate to the offices of City Attorney, Internal Auditor, and City Coordinator and adding new chapters to “provide for the government structure and its Executive and Administrative Departments, including the offices of Public Service, City Attorney, and Community Safety” consistent with the mayor’s plan.

Presently, and historically, 10 departments have reported jointly to the Mayor and Council. The proposed reorganization reduces the number reporting directly to the mayor to 4 and limits the departments reporting directly to the Council to two. The City Attorney is one of the 4 who will report to the mayor but their relationship to the council is unclear.  

Some council members are concerned. 

Council Members Elliot Payne (Ward 1) and Jeremiah Ellison (Ward 5) said that they are concerned about a lack of resources to support the work of the city council as the legislative body.  Council Member Jason Chavez (Ward 9) said he “still believes the pathway forward is through a charter change.” Council Member LaTrisha Vetaw (Ward 4) said that she “is afraid some departments, like health, will be lost.” “We have to be mindful that council still plays a role in approving department heads and that we don’t have a dilution of financial oversight.” Council Member Andrew Johnson (Ward 12) said. He wants to ensure that there is no change in the level of financial authority currently held by the council.  

“Question one has been implemented for nearly 7 months, there is no reason to rush this process,” said Council Member Robin Wonsley (ward 2), who was the lone “no” vote on approving the new positions. “I know the public wants to be involved in charting a path forward for our city.”

At the June 18 council meeting, she asked the mayor about community engagement on the proposal, and he highlighted the 2021 campaign and his work group. That work group was established in late 2021 without a single current, or newly elected, Council Member serving on it. None of its meetings were open to the public.  In 2021 Question #1 won with 52.4% of the vote and was defeated in 6 out of the 7 wards.

“The Mayor could take the time to work with Council and the public to shape an equitable transparent restructure package, instead he is rushing through an ordinance process to avoid public scrutiny,” Wonsley wrote following that meeting. “The current proposal lacks robust programs and resources on the legislative side that Council needs to best serve constituents.”

About lack of public participation, she said, “For comparison, the city did a multi-phased engagement process for the city’s Transportation Action Plan that received thousands of comments and created a process that allowed the public to see how their feedback shaped adjustments in the proposals,” she said. “The guiding principles of this government structure were offered by the Mayor’s Government Structure Work Group and the public safety plan was based on recommendations from the Mayor’s Public Safety Work Group. Both Work Groups were handpicked by the Mayor and met behind closed doors with little to no opportunity for public comment. This is not how elected leaders should be making decisions when credibility and public trust is at an all-time low, the public deserves better.”

Wonsley also raised concerns about the lack of any independent legal counsel to advise Council Members.

Given the many concerns raised by council members, the potential significance of this restructuring to further divide and eliminate checks and balances in our government the council could decide to take a slower and more inclusive process going forward.   If not, it could be written, approved, and enacted into law by the end of the month.