Second Ward, Minneapolis

This is the public policy forum of Minneapolis Second Ward (Green) City Council Member Cam Gordon and his staff. We use this space to talk about some of what Cam’s working on, explain his positions, and share a little of what life in City Hall is like. Please feel free to comment on posts, within certain ground rules. See our disclaimer, including ground rules, here:

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

"Minneapolis" Group Pushes for Photo ID Voting Requirement

There was a flurry of short stories in various metro media today on a group of "Minneapolis" activists pushing for a photo ID requirement in Minneapolis elections. Some of the stories did not even identify this "Minneapolis" organization, but a few did. As you can see here, this is a cooperative project between the Minnesota Voters Alliance and a group called, vaguely and innocuously enough, "Citizens for a Better Minneapolis." Who doesn't want a better Minneapolis, right?

There are a few holes in this story. The first is that the Minnesota Voters Alliance is suburban-based, right-wing organization whose main purpose has been, in my opinion, to oppose democratic empowerment of Minnesotans, mostly at the municipal level. They are the group that sued the City over the constitutionality of ranked choice voting and failed dramatically at the Supreme Court, handing the City an unambiguous ruling that ranked choice voting is indeed constitutional. They have long opposed nonpartisan primaries, wanting to have a Republican to vote for on every general election ballot. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "Minneapolis" group.

So that leaves "Citizens for a Better Minneapolis." I take them at their word that they're a group of Minneapolis residents. However, it's pretty clear that they came into existence specifically for this antidemocratic ballot initiative. Here's my evidence: the Secretary of State's records indicate that their initial filing was exactly one week ago, 3/23/30.

On the other hand, at least they're trying to make it appear that this is a grassroots "Minneapolis" effort. The organizations behind the similar St. Paul and Duluth initiatives appear to just be the Voters Alliance and the anti-tax group Citizens for Responsible Taxation.

One other interesting note: the guest speaker at the kickoff event for their Minneapolis effort is Republican ex-Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, who lives in Big Lake and was thrown out of office by Minnesota voters in favor of pro-democracy SOS Mark Ritchie. Just for laughs, I thought it might be fun to figure out Kiffmeyer's level of support in Minneapolis. As far as I can tell she lost every single Minneapolis precinct in her reelection bid in 2006 by more than 10 points. Why would they choose her as their kickoff spokesperson?

Questions about the sponsoring organizations aside, what they want to do is profoundly antidemocratic and a terrible idea. This proposal will make it much harder for Minneapolis residents to vote, especially poor people, old people, young people who don't yet have a drivers' license. I say this as someone who has worked as an election judge in a precinct (2-10, to be specific) with a large population of elderly citizens who do not speak english as a first language and who do not have drivers licenses. This will make it harder for these residents to exercise their constitutional right to vote, but it goes beyond them. It will make it harder for everyone in Minneapolis to vote; longer lines, more inconvenience, less congeniality between voters and election judges. I am convinced that this is the proposal's actual intent. All of the arguments about "protecting" legitimate votes are a ruse. These organizations don't like it when Minneapolitans vote, because they typically don't agree with us on matters of policy.

I have one other question about the proposal, raised by Minnesota Voters Alliance spokesperson Andy Cilek in his interview with MPR. He states that "their plan would make photo IDs available to those who couldn't afford them." How? Does he pay for this out of the Minneapolis general fund? He clearly can't get his plan passed at the state level, so it's unlikely that they'll fund these IDs. So in addition to having to spend more on election judges, we'll also take on paying for poor people's IDs?

These "Minneapolis" citizens groups are welcome to spend their money and time putting this antidemocratic proposal on the ballot. I am confident that the actual voters of Minneapolis, in their wisdom, will see through the rhetoric and the "we're local!" smokescreen and vote this terrible idea down.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Openings on City of Minneapolis Boards and Commissions

There are a number of interesting vacancies this spring. Please consider applying. These boards and commissions can be enormously helpful in making Minneapolis a better city. Applications are due April 2nd unless otherwise noted.

Animal Care & Control Advisory Board
The Minneapolis Animal Care & Control Advisory Board was created by Minneapolis Resolution 2008R-526 on November 21, 2008. The Advisory Board is being created to assist the Animal Care & Control (ACC) with policy and community outreach activities.
For additional details about the Advisory Board, please review a copy of the resolution that can be found at:
Staff Contact: Dan Niziolek, 612-673-6250,

Latino Advisory Committee
The Latino Advisory Committee to the Mayor and City Council was created by Resolution 99R-443 on 12/23/1999 to advise the Mayor and the City Council on issues and needs confronting Spanish speaking people in the City, provide assistance in evaluating City programs as they pertain to the Latino community, offer input to the City’s long-range planning, promote economic, cultural and social development for the Spanish speaking community, and serve as a referral to assist Spanish speaking people secure access to City agencies and programs. The committee is comprised of 15 voting members serving two-year terms. Two of these positions are reserved for youth between the ages of 16 and 22
Staff Contact: Roman Gonzalez, 612-673-2272,

Minneapolis Advisory Committee on People with Disabilities
The Minneapolis Advisory Committee on People with Disabilities was created by resolution 76R-009 on 1/19/1976 to expand opportunities for all children and adults with disabilities throughout Minneapolis, without regard to disability or other protected class status, work to improve life’s opportunities by resolving conflicts involving persons with disabilities and protect their right to fully participate in society.
Staff Contact: Ruth Kildow, 612-673-3567

Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Committee (HPC) was created by Minnesota State Statute 471.193, Chapter 34, Code 1960 to recommend to the city council buildings, lands, areas or districts to be designated or described for heritage preservation in the city. The commission consists of ten (10) members, each of whom shall reside in Minneapolis. Nine (9) members are appointed by the city council, and one (1) will be a representative for and appointed by the Mayor. At least two (2) members shall be registered architects, at least one shall be a licensed real estate agent or appraiser, at least one shall reside in or own a landmark or property in a historic district, and (if available) at least one (1) shall be a member of the Hennepin County Historical Society.
Staff Contact: Jack Byers, Planning Supervisor, 612-673-2634,

Minneapolis Workforce Council
The Minneapolis Workforce Council was created to provide policy and program guidance for all activities under the Job Training Partnership Act in the City of Minneapolis. There are 19 members appointed by the Mayor, to a two-year term, with a list of appointees submitted to the Governor for certification. Ten (10) members must be business representatives – at least half should represent small business, including minority business; additional members must be chosen to represent the public employment service (1), labor (2), education (2), community organizations (1), vocational rehabilitation organizations (1), economic development (1) and public assistance agencies (1). The chair of the council must be from the private sector and shall be appointed by the Mayor. Applicants may not have active contracts with METP. Applicants must be City residents. The residency requirement may be waived for an officer or director of an organization that pays property taxes to the City of Minneapolis.
Minneapolis Employment and Training Program
Staff Contacts: Matt Kruger, 612-673-6236, or Deb Bahr-Helgen, 612-673-6226,

Public Health Advisory Committee (PHAC)
(open until filled)
The Public Health Advisory Committee (PHAC) was created by MN State Code 145A.10, subd 10, Resolution 76R-089, 3/26/1976, and subsequently amended by Resolution 200R-438, 8/5/2005. The role of the committee is to advise the City Council and the Department of Health & Family Support on policy matters affecting the health of Minneapolis residents, and to serve as liaisons between the City and the community in addressing health concerns. In this role, PHAC shall make every effort to ensure that the concerns addressed and represented reflect the diverse viewpoints and interests of the Minneapolis community as a whole.
Staff Contact: Emily Wang, 612-673-2144,

Pedestrian Advisory Committee
The Pedestrian Advisory Committee was created by Resolution 2006R-636 on December 22, 2006 to advise the Mayor and City Council on policies, programs, and actions for improving pedestrian safety, mobility, accessibility, and comfort; for promoting walking for transportation, recreation, and health purposes; and for strengthening the linkage between the pedestrian environment and public transportation. The board is composed of 18-24 members of the public and city and partner agency staff including: 5 community residents representing city residents, city business owners, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, students, child/school advocates, walking/transit advocates; 1 member of the Minneapolis Senior Citizen Advisory Committee to the Mayor and City Council; 1 member of the Minneapolis Advisory Committee on People with Disabilities; 1 member of the Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee; 5-8 members representing City Departments; and 5-8 members representing partner agencies.
Staff Contact: Anna Flintoft, 612-673-3885,

Senior Citizens Advisory Committee
The Senior Citizen Advisory Committee to the Mayor and City Council was created by in 1976 to advise the Mayor and City Council on concerns relating to senior citizens & to recommend actions to solve such concerns, to act as a liaison for the senior citizen community, and to advise and suggest programs and activities of value to senior citizens and the City of Minneapolis.
Staff Contact: Ruth Kildow, 612-673-2272,

Zoning Board of Adjustment
The Minneapolis Zoning Board of Adjustment was created by Minneapolis Zoning Code 1960, Chapter 525.110 to hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Zoning Administrator under the Zoning Code; to hear and act upon applications for variances from the terms of the Zoning Code; to hear and recommend on all matters referred to it by the Zoning Code.
Staff Contact: Shanna Sether, 612/673-2307,

Friday, March 26, 2010

Communty Meetings on Health Department Goals

As the City Council is moving forward with new (or re-newed) 5 year goals, departments are doing the same as part of also drafting new 5-year plans and the the Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support is updating goals for the next 5-year period.

They are seeking community input as part of the information that will be used to update goals for the department.

There are two dates/times/locations they will be holding community meetings, you may attend either or both meetings.

April 6, 2010, 6:00 -8:00 pm, Sabathani Community Center, 310 East 38th Street, Minneapolis

April 7, 2010, 10:30 – 12:30, Minneapolis Urban League, 21 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis

For more information you can contact :
Hattie Wiysel
City of Minneapolis
Department of Health & Family Support

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Xcel Energy Hiawatha Transmission Line

Xcel's Hiawatha Project that proposes to put high voltage powerlines along the Midtown Greenway continues to move forward. It is now entering the "contested case hearing phase" in which an administrative law judge will hear comments on the proposed route.

You can get more information on the project at the Public Utilities Commission website

You are also welcome to attend the contested case hearings- April 5th & 6th, 2pm & 7pm, Plaza
Public comments concerning the proposed route alternatives must be received at
this office by 4:30 p.m. on May 11, 2010. The comments may be sent by e-mail,
by fax or by United States Mail.

Please note that a new e-mail box has been set up to receive public comments in
this proceeding. The e-mail address is:

The mailing address is:
Beverly Jones Heydinger,
Administrative Law Judge
P.O. Box 64620
600 North Robert Street
Saint Paul, MN 55164-0620
The fax number is: 651-361-7936

Please be sure that any notice you provide about the opportunity to submit public
comment includes the correct addresses.

Also, for smoother processing, it would be helpful if the public comment would
include the PUC Docket Number – E-002/TL-09-38, and the OAH Docket
Number – 15-2500-20599-2.

The following are my comments related to the Draft Environmental Impact statement (DIES) for the proposed Xcel Energy Hiawatha 115kV Transmission Line Project.

"I commend you on drafting a significant report that takes a good first step towards assessing the environmental impacts of this project. I hope my comments will be helpful.

I also know that the City, and many others, will be providing additional and more comprehensive comments that I expect to be carefully reviewed and taken into consideration. With that in mind, I offer the following select comments that I feel warrant special emphasis.

My first concern relates to the overall scope of the project. As the DEIS explores alternative routes and locations for substations, there seems to be no study of the alternative of a no-build option. What other actions could be taken to manage the increased demand on the grid through conservation? What kinds of alternative technology, including smart grid, co-generation, geothermal and solar energy, could be used at large properties like the Midtown Exchange building, Allina, Wells Fargo and the Children’s Hospital, to reduce demand and reliance on Xcel’s energy sources? Similarly, what alternatives could be used throughout the area for energy storage, production and conservation?

How do we know that this is not a phase of connected actions? During the DEIS period we heard repeatedly of Xcel Energy’s plans for power line extensions to both the east and west. Some even referenced drawings and maps. I, along with many others, am not convinced that this project is not part of larger connected or phased actions. The DEIS states that there are “no connected actions associated with the project,” yet offers no evidence or for this assumption.

This question only gets more perplexing due to the fact that, in section 3.5, there is a discussion of “future options to accommodate future expansion.” The DEIS states that Xcel Energy does not have “current plans” for expansion, but then admits that expansion may be necessary. Were past plans turned over and reviewed? What discussions and future plans have been revealed that would lead one to conclude an expansion would be necessary, and why then wasn’t a full investigation done about how this project may or may not be one phase of connected activities in the future?

In discussing the applicant’s preferred route and throughout the DEIS there is an assumption that a double line is needed. There is no study of a single line, or the alternative of having this line go through the area further east and/or west to connect other substations. If the line was longer, one of the substations may not be needed. This alternative could have been studied.

The DEIS looks at above ground and underground substations, although only an analysis of one of the Hiawatha substations appears to have been conducted and addressed. What is the feasibility of undergrounding the station at all the proposed locations and alternatives?

Furthermore, no study of fully enclosing the substations appears to have been done. Full enclosure would be much more in keeping with the design and building guidelines of the area and should be more fully studied.

I share the concerns expressed in the City of Minneapolis comments about the understatement of the fall impacts. Unless an above-ground line is built specifically to withstand cascades, they are a possibility, and the failure of any one transmission tower is likely to impact the surrounding community not only through its own fall distance, but that of the conductor and the adjacent towers, unless they are dead end structures.

While there is some discussion about electromagnetic fields, the DEIS does not appear to give this serious concern enough consideration. The research in this area points to some health impacts that have few findings to support them, and some that have robust and significant research to back them up, yet the DEIS fails to make any distinction. Research also indicated that within this area there is significantly greater risk of cancer among certain populations, including pregnant women, newborns and young children. The DEIS provides little or no information about the approximate number of pregnant women, newborns or young children in the area at any given time, including hospitals where mothers give birth, child care centers that serve infants, toddlers and preschoolers, elementary schools or secondary schools, and agencies like the YWCA that serve young children and families on a daily basis. This information is necessary to truly assess the risks of the different power line and substation alternatives.

Finally, I want to note that I share concerns that the DEIS as written does not adequately analyze the data about the surrounding community through the lens of environmental justice. Placing this facility in this location impacts several of the principles laid out in Executive Order 12898, due to the fact that the surrounding community clearly has a high rate of both “minority” and “low income” populations. The DEIS does not currently demonstrate that the project has done what is necessary to “avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human and environmental effects.” Indeed, this project, especially if the above-ground option is chosen, will be a good example of siting a facility with disproportionate negative impacts in a low-income, minority community with few meaningful mitigations of any kind. More analysis of this project in regards to this Executive Order is required."

If you want more information let me know. You can also visit here for good up to date information.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Dolan Reappointed

The Council has voted 8-5 to reappoint Police Chief Tim Dolan. The votes are as follows:

In favor of reappointment: CMs Reich, Hofstede, Johnson, Samuels, Goodman, Schiff, Quincy and Colvin Roy.

Opposed: CMs Lilligren, Glidden, Tuthill, Hodges and myself.

I appreciate all of the insightful comments that my colleagues on both sides of this vote made this morning. It's clear that this was not, to any Council Member, a simple issue. I am hoping that the Chief takes the vote this morning as a signal that the Council values the work he has done to reduce crime rates, but that there is room for significant improvement on issues such as police accountability (including the relationship between the department and the CRA), relations with the community, and control of the department's budget. I look forward to seeing progress on these issues in the years to come, and take all of my colleagues at their word that they will help the department continually improve.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Performance Reveiw on the Safe City Resolution

Today we had a lengthy and clearly divided public hearing on the reappointment of Tim Dolan as the Chief of Police. Clearly he has many supporters and people throughout the city who appreciate the work he has done. In the end, however, I did not vote to support his reappointment in the committee. In doing so I tried to outline areas where had hoped to see, and will expect to see in the future if he is reappointed, more improvement.

To prepare for my decision I drafted the following:

Performance Review of the Police Chief on the “Safe City Resolution,” 2006R-542, Endorsing a leadership and accountability framework for ensuring Minneapolis is a Safe Place to Call Home.

By Cam Gordon, Council Member, Second Ward

When the City Council approved Mayor Rybak’s appointment of Timothy Dolan as Chief of Police in 2006, we unanimously passed a “Safe City Resolution,” laying out an accountability framework for the new Chief. I committed myself to “evaluate the performance of the Chief of Police” based on the following ten key indicators. I took this commitment seriously, have tracked the performance of the Police Department on these indicators over the last three years, and will base my decision on whether or not to reappoint the Chief in large part on these indicators. Below are my own personal assessments of the Police Department’s and Police Chief’s performance on each indicator.

1) Incorporate the City’s strategies of “Guns, Gangs, Graffiti Gone” and “Crime Reduction: Community Policing, Accountability & Partnership;” into the Department’s five-year business plan.

Assessment: Good. These strategies have been incorporated into the Department’s business plans.

2) Commit to working collaboratively with the Civilian Review Authority (CRA) to reach a shared goal of 100% MPD discipline of sustained CRA complaints and report jointly to the Council on a quarterly basis the number of IA and CRA complaints received, sustained, and the level of discipline imposed.

Assessment: Unacceptable. In February of 2006 the City Council created a work group that included 6 Council Members, a Policy Aide to the Mayor, the Interim Director of the Civil Rights Department, the CRA Manager, the Deputy City Attorney, the CRA Board Chair, the city’s Chief Labor Negotiator, a representative from the Minneapolis Police Federation and the Assistant Police Chief. The Civilian Review Authority (CRA) Working Group was established to address the recommendations in the report, A Study of the Policy and Process of the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority. The Working Group met 15 times from mid-April through August 2006, and held two sessions for public comment. The group made significant and substantial improvements to the CRA practices, to its relationship to the Police Department and to the CRA ordinance itself. It clearly outlined a path for a more successful and effective Civilian Review Authority that was committed to and dependent on collaboration with the Police Chief and the Department.

Regrettably, the most recent CRA report makes very clear that the shared goal of 100% MPD discipline of sustained CRA complaints has not been met, and that the responsibility lies with the Chief.

In fact, the discipline rate has been unacceptably low. The case has been made by the Chief that this is due to a number of complaints having been “beyond the reckoning period,” but this strikes me as a confusing and inadequate response. The MPD Complaint Process Manual defines the “reckoning period” as:

“…the period of time in which a previous infraction may be considered for increasing discipline in a current disciplinary action. Also, if a complaint if filed on an employee and the reckoning period for the complaint would already be expired even if the complaint was sustained, the Internal Affairs Unit will not open a formal case on the matter. The complaint will be closed as a preliminary case with the notation ‘reckoning period expired prior to complaint being filed”. The reckoning period is set by the Minneapolis Police Department.”

There are major problems with using the reckoning period as a reason to not discipline CRA complaints:

1) the purpose of the reckoning period is not to be a “statute of limitations” on infractions, but a period for which a previous infraction may increase the penalty for a subsequent infraction
2) the CRA ordinance does not authorize the Chief to refuse to discipline based on the reckoning period and in fact makes no mention of it whatsoever
3) the fact that the reckoning period is used to guide the decision about whether or not IAU would open a formal case on a given complaint has no bearing on the Chief’s responsibilities under the CRA ordinance for dealing with complaints that have been investigated and sustained by the CRA

If the Police Chief had followed the recommendations of the CRA work group in a timely and effective manner, and more carefully followed the procedures outlined in the amended CRA ordinance, we could be celebrating a new level of trust and confidence in the department today. Instead, the City’s network of Police oversight and the effectiveness of Civilian Review Authority appear to be as ineffective and disregarded by the department as it was prior to the enormous investment of resources put to reforming it in 2006.

In the final analysis I have concluded that the Chief’s performance on this measure has been unacceptably poor.

3) Review and report findings and recommendations to Public Safety & Regulatory Services regarding the MPD’s early warning system to ensure it reflects best practices for identifying officers who may be having problems on the job, intervention systems for those officers, and post-intervention monitoring of identified officers. This early warning system should centralize data from a range of performance criteria that includes but is not limited to resident complaints.

Assessment: Unsatisfactory. According to the Chief’s own documentation, this system is still being developed, three years after the Safe City Resolution was adopted. The Chief’s response refers to working on this system for the past two years, which begs the question: why did MPD wait for a year after the adoption of the Safe City Resolution to start work on this system?

4) Adhere to the Council-adopted plans to diversify the MPD workforce through hiring, promotion and appointment, and retention policies, including as described in the Federal Mediation Agreement.

Assessment: Fair. The MPD is now more diverse than it has ever been, as a result of major recent increases in the diversity of recruits.

However, there are still concerns in the Department about promotions and how the Chief has anticipated, handled and faced these issues head on. The actions, or lack of actions, that necessitated that the City pay out a $740,000 settlement to a group of Black officers who sued over discrimination in promotion is a case in point. It is clear that much work has been done here but more work must be done to ensure that officers of color, once they are recruited and hired, are given fair promotion opportunities.

5) Commit to end racial profiling as described by the Federal Mediation Agreement by continuing to collect data, adopt explicit policy and procedure to end racial profiling, provide anti-racism training for officers, and set goals for racial profiling tracking and reduction which shall be reported to Public Safety & Regulatory Services.

Assessment: Fair. Explicit policy on ending racial profiling has been adopted. Goals for racial profiling tracking and reduction have not been communicated to a Council committee.

6) Implement a community policing plan and set long-term policy and practice changes to improve police-community relations with all communities, which includes working with the Council and Mayor to determine funding for the plan and presenting periodic reports on the plan to Public Safety & Regulatory Services.

Assessment: Fair. We have made significant strides in this area. The designation of Sector Lieutenants and liaison officers to serve particular communities has helped. Neighborhood policing plans have been created, although the resident often don’t know about, feel their input is valued or embrace these as fully as they could. In many cases, these plans are written not by or in coordination with neighborhood stakeholders, but by MPD employees. The plans do not yet have a significant impact on the allocation of MPD resources.

Additionally work that MPD is doing to improve relations with some communities, including work with ex-offenders and specific outreach to East African youth is commendable.

However, there have been some actions taken by the Chief have sent the wrong message and have worsened the relationships with some communities of color, This includes the decision to award the officer who shot a young person and the officers who opened fire in the home of an innocent Hmong family, without the appropriate level of sensitivity about how this could be interpreted. These missteps have contributed to a growing, not diminishing, gap between these communities and the MPD and City as a whole.

7) Adopt department performance measures and outcomes that aren’t solely about crime rates and reflect these in the Department’s business plan. Such performance measures should include:
• Case clearance rate goals
• Arrest rate goals
• Goals for number of cases charged
• Develop performance measures to improve city and neighborhood livability as it relates to crime

Assessment: Good. These measures have been included in Results Minneapolis reporting.

8) Utilize, evaluate, and improve risk management practices to reduce city liability for police misconduct and other issues.

Assessment: Unacceptable. According to Finance Department documents, the MPD has paid out $8,738,999.37 since 1/07. This averages out to $2,912,999.79, which is a substantial increase from the historical yearly average of $1,848,672.75 in the 2003-2006 period. The Chief’s claim that “[t]he department has reduced payments in settlements and lawsuits during the last three years” is therefore demonstrably and clearly false.

The Department may argue that not all of the incidents for which payouts occurred in the 2007-2009 period occurred since Chief Dolan became interim Chief. This is true. Only $889,163.12 has been paid out based on incidents since he became interim Chief. However, there are clearly incidents that have occurred on his watch that have not yet resulted in a settlement as well. From the data we have to base a judgment on, the Department has not made any significant progress on this indicator.

The Chief notes that “[t]he Early Intervention System discussed earlier is also an effort to identify and reduce problematic actions by employees at an early stage,” in an attempt to control liability. However, as noted above, this system is not yet operational, three years after the Council identified it as a performance measure for the Chief.

9) Complete all items in the Federal Mediation Agreement and continue to provide regularly scheduled progress reports to Public Safety & Regulatory Services Committee.

Assessment: Unsatisfactory. Not all items in the Federal Mediation Agreement have been completed. Depending on whether one uses the Department’s tally or the community’s tally, either 16 or 55 of 119 items remain unresolved. Since the agreement was allowed to end there appears to be no effort to monitor or complete the remaining items.

10) Honor the Chief’s commitment to ongoing communication with the Minneapolis City Council by attending the Public Safety and Regulatory Safety Committee as able and requested.

Assessment: Unsatisfactory. The Chief has displayed a willingness to come before Council committees and engage in constructive dialogue. However, MPD has not complied with a number of staff directions and requests from the Council. On several occasions, MPD has responded late or not at all to a Council committee direction or request. Examples include:

- On April 1, 2009, the PS&RS committee directed MPD to “report back to PS&RS no later than July 22nd with a report on the current procedure for changing the Police Policy and Procedure Manual; and propose a process for including input from the City Attorney’s Office, Police Federation, MPD Staff, the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Board, City Council and Mayor’s Office.” MPD reported back not on 7/22/09, but on 9/2/09, and the report was not responsive to the committee’s direction, as it did not include a proposed process for including input from the listed stakeholders.

- On September 11, 2008, Mayor Rybak and Council President Johnson requested by letter that the MPD “Conduct an After Action Review and produce a report on the RNC, to be completed by the end of October 2008 and provided to the Mayor and Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee. This report will focus on the major incidents that occurred in Minneapolis: the Critical Mass Ride, the Media Party, the Liberty Parade, and the Rage against the Machine Concert. It will also evaluate how downtown security worked overall. It will evaluate how well operations and training protocols were implemented, identify what worked and what did not, and recommend if necessary any policy changes.” [Emphasis added]. MPD has not complied with this request. The After Action Review has never been presented to the PS&RS committee, and was made available to committee members only after repeated requests.

- In January, 2009, the PS&RS committee directed MPD to “report back at the February 25th PS&RS Meeting with an update, and then on a quarterly basis, on progress made toward implementing the 28 Police Executive Research Forum recommendations and to track progress toward implementation through Results Minneapolis.” This report was not presented on 2/25/09, but more than a month later on 4/1/09. Quarterly reports have not been made to committee on “progress made toward implementing the 28 Police Executive Research Forum recommendations.”

- On July 25, 2007, PS&RS directed MPD to “explore the creation of a “Bait Bicycle” program to catch and deter bicycle thieves in the City of Minneapolis, with a report back to the PS&RS Committee in no less than two months with an analysis of the costs involved in such a program and recommendations for Council action.” No report on a bait bicycle program has ever been presented to a Council committee featuring “an analysis of the costs involved in such a program and recommendations for Council action.”