After years of negotiations, led by 3 different city labor relations
directors, with strong community opposition, and a lengthy debate on March 24, the
City Council voted 8 to 5 to approve a new contract with the Minneapolis Police
Federation, which represents all Minneapolis police officers up to and including
the rank of lieutenant.
The previous agreement expired in 2019. The new one ends this December
and covers 2019-22. It includes $7,000 bonuses for new officers and current
officers who stay on the job until the end of the year, as well as retroactive
salary increases of 1% for 2020, 1.5% for 2021, and 2.5% for this year. There
is also an additional 2.5% “market adjustment” wage increase beginning Jan. 1,
2022, and another 1% starting Dec. 31, 2022.
This increases department expenses by $9 million in 2022 to cover the retroactive
pay increases and half of the bonuses.
The agreement also includes a new mental health screening requirement following
a critical incident, greatwe authority for the Chief in making officer
assignments, and a statement supporting race and gender equity, that were asked
for by the city. The city agreed to the Federation’s proposal for proactive
email notification of data requests that would include the identity of the
person making the request, unless it is done anonymously.
This contract has been the focus of attention, and high expectations
for more than 3 years under 3 different lead negotiators for the city. Laura
Davis worked on the negotiation as labor relations director until the end of
September 2020 when she left city employment. Then, Valerie Darling took over
as the labor relations director until she left in May of 2021. At that time,
Holland Atkinson, who is still with the city, took over.
This contract has likely had more public involvement than any City of
Minneapolis labor contract in recent history. Many are disappointed and even some
of those Council members who voted for it, hope to see more accomplished in the
next contract.
Raised Expectations
Prior to the contract’s expiration in Dec. 2019, a community coalition
called, Mpls For a Better Police Contract (MFBPC) that included the Racial
Justice Network, Our Revolution Twin Cities, and Communities United Against
Police Brutality, crafted a set of recommendations for changes to the agreement
and met with the Mayor and each City Council member to discuss them. The
recommendations included changes aimed at eliminating officer fatigue,
mandatory mental health screenings, ensuring that training decisions remain a
management right and explicitly referencing the discipline matrix of the department’s
policy manual in order to strengthen management’s ability to discipline officers
and have such action supported by a state arbitrator.
Shortly afterwards, that same December, before any meaningful
negotiations could be held, the federation requested, and the City agreed to
enter into closed meetings. A letter from the Police Federation’s attorney to
the City’s Director of Labor Relations noted, “We have learned that there has
been a request from members of the public to attend our negotiations,” This led
to the coalition (MFBPC) filing a lawsuit in June of 2021.
Micala Tessman, attorney of record for MFBPC said about the lawsuit,
“There are clear violations of Minnesota law that exists for the benefit of the
public’s right to know. The City failed in its obligation both under the Data
Practices Act and laws governing public employee collective bargaining to
provide timely notice of negotiation sessions when they were occurring. MFBPC
and the public had every right to attend these sessions.”
Ryan Rantanen, a member of MFBPC, “The enthusiasm by a vast majority of
the City Council for our recommendations was gratifying after all the hard work
to present common-sense advice. But it has been incredibly frustrating that the
Mayor and City have completely obstructed our right to view what they are
doing.”
That meant since Dec 2019, -- before the pandemic, the murder of George
Floyd, the civil unrest, so-called racial reckoning, and the last election with
intense attention on police policy, ---any and all negotiations were held in
private with few people knowing the terms of the negotiations.
But after the events of May 2020, some City officials were not silent
about the contract in general. This
included then police chief Medaria Arradondo who, in June 2020, held a press
conference to announce that he was ending his involvement in contract
negotiations with the federation. He said that he wanted a contract that makes
it easier to fire problematic officers, after multiple instances in recent
years where officers terminated for misconduct had been reinstated after union
appeals and arbitration decisions.
That same month Mayor Frey appeared on national television in an
interview on Good Morning America and said, “I am for massive, structural and transformation
reform to an entire system,” and that “We need a full cultural shift in how the
Minneapolis Police Department, and department across the county,
functions.” Adding "Let me be very
clear, we're going after the police union, the police union contract."
Reality Check
It wasn’t until March of 2022, that details of the negotiation were made
known when a tentative agreement emerged. When it did, many were disappointed.
Communities United Against Police Brutality, put out an action alert, declaring,
“Not a single recommendation by the community was incorporated but a new
provision (Section 12.03, paragraph 3) requires the city to report the name of
anyone who requests data on an officer to that officer--an invitation to harass
data requesters.
The Chair of the city’s own Police Conduct Oversight Commission, Abigail
Cerra, along with coauthor and former Council Member Paul Ostrow, wrote in a
letter to the mayor and all Council Members, “We have reviewed the language….and
have grave concerns that it does not address serious flaws in the City’s
disciplinary process. Perpetuating this flawed system would be unconscionable
in the wake of universal calls for reform.”
A group of 23 nonprofit organizations, including the American Civil
Liberties Union of Minnesota, Black Lives Matter Minnesota, Black Lives Matter
Twin Cities, Black Visions, CAIR Minnesota, Center for Victims of Torture,
Families Supporting Families Against Police Violence, ISAIAH, Jewish Community
Action, Legal Rights Center, Minneapolis NAACP, Minnesota Youth Collective,
Racial Justice Network, Reclaim the Block, Safety Not Surveillance, SWOP Mpls,
TakeAction MN, Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar and Voices for Racial
Justice and more, sent a letter urging the Council to delay its vote and saying
that, “We are troubled by the lack of any changes around discipline in this
contract,” they wrote and “the city shouldn’t sign off on a contract until it
contains a mechanism to escape the cycle of being tied to past disciplinary
practices.” Adding that “if no changes
are made to the police contract, then we urge Minneapolis City Council members
to Vote No. This contract proposal is simply unacceptable, and Minneapolis
residents deserve better.”
They also expressed concerns, shared by others about why “the city is
focused on paying officers more (a $7,000 bonus plus raises), rather than
putting money into public safety for all.”
In defense of the pay increases, city staff offered in a supplemental
report that “In order to attract and retain police officers, the City must
maintain a competitive compensation package.” They noted that several nearby
police departments offer hiring bonuses, including the U of M at $5,000,
Brooklyn Park at $5,000, Brooklyn Center at $6,000, Hopkins at $2,500, and
Roseville at $10,000.
Divided Council Says Yes
When the agreement came before the Council for discussion many members
shared the community concerns. “We were
told by many, including some of you who ran on police reform and by the Mayor,
that this contract would be an area to create new standards of accountability.”
Said Ward 2 Council Member Robin Wonlsey Worlobah whose motion in committee to
table the vote to allow time for taking public comment was defeated on a 3-3
tie vote at committee.
According to the staff report, following “years of bargaining sessions
beginning in 2019,” and months of mediation, in Dec of 2021 negotiations stalled.
At that time the decision was made to go to “interest arbitration.” To do so, a
list of the unresolved issues needed to be drafted and certified. They were and
apparently included few if any of the issues raised by community members. Staff
wrote that “those remaining issues were primarily economic.”
They also noted that even if the Council voted against approval of the
agreement, adding new issues at this point is prohibited by state law. City staff recommended approval of the
contract and warned that relations with the federation “would be damaged
severely by a city council unwilling to accept a new labor agreement that has
been expired since 2019.”
Council President Andrea Jenkins preferred to accept this now and
prepare for more changes next time.
“We've been at this table negotiating with this union for over 2 1/2
years. Many of the items that led to the impasse, that put us into mediations,
were the recommendations, desires, and hopes and dreams that we heard from
community,” said Jenkins before casting her vote of approval. “If this goes to arbitration,
we absolutely know we won't gain anything from it."
Wonsley disagreed, “I’m seeing shifting goal posts. In 2020, Mayor Frey
went on Good Morning America and said ‘we have a hard time terminating and
disciplining officers…the elephant in the room is the collective bargaining
agreement.’ Now we’re saying, no, it’s the opposite. This also does not set us
up to attract qualified candidates. We’re telling potential officers, we’ll pay
you more and you will not have to face any discipline,” she said before caster
her no vote.
Andrew Johnson representing Ward 12, was also unsuccessful in passing a
motion he made for a two-week delay. Before voting in favor, he said, “The
contract, while it is important, and it does matter, is also way too often used
as a scapegoat for failures of management and failures of leadership to hold
officers responsible for their bad behavior in a consistent way."
On March 24, the Council voted 8 to 5 to approve the contract. Those voting against approval were Council
Members Payne, Wonsley Worlobah, Ellison, Chavez, and Chughtai.
Chavez, (Ward 9) summed his rationale in this way in his latest newsletter
to his constituents, “The lack of community input and transparency, a
requirement to email officers who made a public data request about them, and
the shortfall of accountability and discipline was enough for me to vote
no.”
“With this now settled,” Council Member Linea Palmisano, who voted yes,
wrote to her constituents, “we can begin negotiations for a forward-facing
contract that will cover a broader range of negotiations and cover years
2023-25.” Adding later, “Negotiating a contract that allows for more discretion
by the Chief - to impart discipline and build out additional, mandated, training
and expectations around de-escalation, cultural competency and anti-racism -
would be one positive outcome.”
The fact that there was some debate and a divided vote on the Council
will likely send a message to those who will be involved in future negotiations.
The fact that it passed in a way that appears to be so favorable to the
federation, however, may send a different message. We will have to wait to see what impact, if
any, this has on negotiations in the future.
