New City Gov. Structure, Pass or Fail?
Is it possible that the city’s new Executive Mayor – Legislative Council charter change is making it harder for our city government to function well?
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.
Is it possible that the city’s new Executive Mayor – Legislative Council charter change is making it harder for our city government to function well?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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
(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)
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.
(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.
(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.