Good evening. My name is Lata Reeves. I'm the chair of the Community Commission on Police Oversight. Before we begin, I want to offer a friendly reminder to all members, staff, and the public that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. These broadcasts include
real-time captioning as a further method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to
moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. At this time, I'm going to call to order this regular meeting on Monday, June 15th, and ask the clerk to call the role. >> Commissioner Mlehenny, >> present. >> Shanfield, >> present.
>> Newman is absent. Clement is absent. Baker >> present. >> Stewart >> present. Kennedy is absent. Barts >> present. >> Andre is absent. Williams Johnson is
absent. Smith >> present. >> Vice Chair Olsson >> present. >> And Chair Reeves >> present. >> There are eight members present. >> Thank you. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. Commissioners, the agenda for the evening's meeting is before us. I'm not aware of any proposed
amendments to the agenda. So, let me ask if there are any amendments to the agenda from commissioners. All right. Seeing none, may I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? >> Smith. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> All right. The motion is second. Any further discussion? >> All right. Cler, call the role, please. >> Commissioner Mhaney, >> I. Shanfield >> I >> Baker >> I >> Stewart
>> I >> Barts >> I >> Smith >> I >> vice Charlson >> I >> and Chair Reeves >> I >> there are eight eyes. >> Thank you. The eyes have it and the agenda is adopted. Next we have one set of minutes to accept from our April 13th
regular meeting and the May 11th public hearing. May I have a motion and second to accept these minutes? So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. The motion is second. Any further discussion? >> All right. Clerk, if you can call the role, please.
>> Commissioner Mlehenny. >> I. >> Shanfield. >> I >> Baker. >> I >> Stewart. >> Hi. >> Barts. >> Hi. >> Smith. I
>> uh vice chair Olson >> I >> and chair Reeves >> I there eight eyes. >> Thank you. Motion passes. Next in the order of public comments, excuse me, comments. We'll open the floor to any comments from the public giving each speaker two minutes to address the commission. We'll be taking speakers in
the order that they've registered. If you wish to address the commission tonight and haven't already done so, you may register with the clerks at the side of the deis. If any speakers has printed materials, please give those to the city clerk. We also invite folks to submit written comments using the forms available from the city clerk to be
included in the public record as an alternative to speaking at tonight's comment session. Each speaker will be given two minutes to address the commission. We have a timer to assist speakers in monitoring their use of time. With that, I'll open the public comment period and our first speaker is Michelle Gross.
Good evening, Chair Reeves, Vice Chair Olsen, and um commissioners. My name is Michelle Gross and I am president of the organization Communities United Against Police Brutality. Um I want to talk to you tonight a little bit about what's going on with both the um police chief
situation as well as the Alifa report that was just issued this afternoon. But first about the police chief, um as you know, we have had a little uh revolving door of police chiefs for the last few weeks now. And um we think that's really a problem. Um, we know that selection of
the police chief isn't necessarily part of your um, ordinance, but I do think you should consider some kind of a study or something, whatever those things are called, that you all are able to engage in because here's the bottom line. Our mayor is a terrible picker of police
chiefs. He doesn't have the skill set and he needs to sit this one out. Our organization is calling on the uh the city to step back and involve the community in a deep way in the selection of the next chief, including at the level of interviewing potential
candidates. You know, don't wait and do what you did last time with O'Hara where you brought one candidate forward and then you had a few meetings around the community and everybody got to say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." Because there was no alternative. Don't do that again. Next time, give us some choices. let us be
higher up in the um you know in the stream of the selection process. And so this is what our organization and several other of our coalition partners are saying and we hope you'll say that too. We think that's very important. Um the second thing I want to talk about quickly is the Alifa um the new Alifa
report. Um I I had the fortune of being able to get a look at it um pretty early in the process and the um I think the report for a change is a little bit more realistic about what's actually happening in the city. We are now approximately 3 months into year three
of the consent decree and we have not even finished everything from year one. So the city is obstructing. We cannot allow it and you all need to be involved. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next speaker is Chuck. If you believe you have a complaint
against a police officer in Minneapolis, the process is a joke. The process is a joke. Who do you think said that? If it was some If it were some crazy person like me, that would be one thing. But it wasn't me. It was the vice chair of the
Minneapolis City Council's public health safety and equity committee, Council Member Saurin Stevenson. That's the committee that has legislative oversight over the OPCR. Here's what Council Member Stevenson said during the council's committee of the whole meeting
on May 19th of this year. Quote, "What we need is we need accountability for officers." And just as a note, I was looking into past complaints. Somebody showed me the dashboard of past complaints for the police department and I thought, "Oh, I should look up the officer who shot me. He has one
complaint. It's not from me." I realized later that I actually never submitted a complaint and that's because, to quote my lawyer, "The process is a joke." Now, this was in a discussion about the proposed MPG's training and wellness center. So maybe council members were
focusing on that topic, but still no council member contradicted Mr. Stevenson when he said the complaint process is a joke. Of course, it was the city council and the mayor who created that process in the form of the OPCR and the review panels you sit on. The OPCR
budget is roughly $2.5 million. So I hope that when the council passed the budget, Mr. Stevenson strongly objected to funding a process that's a joke. I also hope that he's working hard on whatever it will take to make that process something other than a joke. And
finally, I hope that he's been in contact with this body as a part of that effort. If not, the CCPO certainly ought to contact him to find out what he's doing as the vice chair of the public safety committee to remedy that
situation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up, I believe it's Nasim Tajik. Apologies if I got it wrong. Good evening, CCPO members. We bring up the following issues before you because this is the only official place the community has to criticize police.
Despite being in the third year of the consent decree, the progress made thus far is not enough and not where it was expected to be. Therefore, we are calling on Alifa to be more assertive in this process of uncovering the barriers ex police chief O'Hara caused and for you, the CCPO, to be a vocal partner.
The most pressing areas right now have to do with the incomplete discipline matrix, the field training officer standard operating procedure and the internal affairs/OPCR case backlog and concerns of culture within the department. We want to stress how much weight the discipline matrix holds in
changing stagnant MPD culture. The discipline matrix is an essential part of quickly and accurately correcting department culture. Even if policies are in place and there is associated training, without appropriate and effective correction action, there will be a continued lack of adherence to the
policies and sluggish cultural shift to meet the elements laid out in the consent decree. The CCPO must be at the forefront of finding a new police chief because we need a chief who sees a completed discipline matrix as foundational to a cultural change. and Mayor Frey has proven to not hold this
priority. A reset of the disciplinary matrix now seems imperative in order to move forward. The delay in having a proper discipline matrix itself adds to the dismissal of toxic culture which is quite counterintuitive to the purpose of the consent decree itself and perpetuates
resistance to change even when the change has been court-ordered. The field training officer standard of practice is an area that has shown little progress and a concrete structure is necessary for downstream training and for effective implementation of the settlement agreement requirements. To
allow delay here is putting the cart before the horse and preventing core elements for training and cultural shift to solidify. We need a police chief who will set this issue as a top priority. Thank you. >> Thank you. Connor Wells is up next.
Hey, afternoon everybody. Um, just follow up real quick on my associates's recent statements. Um, there's a few more delays that she mentioned as well and also behavioral issues that are relevant to AIFA uh that we need to address. Uh, in this as well, um, as you all are aware, um, and as
people have mentioned, the OPCR IIA case backlog is absolutely unacceptable. Um, it's a thorn in the side of cleaning up loose ends. And there's little meaningful progress here. As the LEFA report has shown, timely response and discipline is necessary for effective accountability and ensuring that that cultural shift we're looking for in the
police department actually happens. Um, and while there have been attempts to try and fasttrack the review, um, all these plans to try and make improvements here, they need clear deadlines. Constantly putting off the main deadline with general vague notions of what a plan is to improve things doesn't mean
anything for community members. These small steps need associated deadlines and we need to push Alifa to be doing that. Now thankfully one obstacle O'Hara is gone and as the Alifa report pointed out um he was taking four times the allotted 30-day period to review IIA
cases which is unacceptable that causes a significant increase in the backlog and he is part of the problem and he's gone thankfully. Um but it's important to note that we should have been aware of this earlier. Alifa should have made us aware of this much much earlier. um they are in much closer proximity to the
police chief and the department culture um they should have made aware that he was being an obstructionist to important critical progress here. Had he not been fired, would we have even seen the information about O'Hara being an obstructionist from Alifa? I don't know if we would have. So that's important to
consider. Um it's concerning to me that independent groups such as Capb appear to be more attentive to the timeline and cultural issues within the police department um that begin to build up than the actual monitoring group. And there needs to be a lot more pressure on them communicating those things not
after they've been a significant issue but as they're being a significant issue. The purpose of the CCPO is to be more than disciplined panels to provide a forum for the public to have meaningful engagement in police oversight. We bring up these issues to you because you are relevant in connecting us with the police.
>> Please help us advocate for this. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh next up is Jana Williams. >> Hi. Um thanks for having me again. Uh I'm standing before you today to say something pretty simple. I was right.
For the past two years, you have heard Allison's story and watched it unfold before your eyes. You have been part of a story that this performative committee attempted to silence. What I'm here to tell you is that we all witnessed the Minneapolis Police Department and Chief
O'Hara scandals and efforts to cover up his own private affairs. Yet few of you are talking about the cover up surrounding what happened in Allison's case or how his department allowed one of the central figures in that case, Sergeant Michael Hire, to retire without accountability
under the watchful eye of the city auditor and in full view of the people of Minneapolis. And even now, accountability continues to be delayed. After more than a year, the OPCR is now only circulating circulating back to investigate Sergeant Hire's failures in
Allison's case. More than a year later, they still have not completed their report. That delay raises serious questions about whether this process is intended to deliver accountability or to simply run out the clock until public attention fades. What many of you also
do not know is that the murders of my first niece, Ariana Buckanaga, now have finally been charged. And that only happened because of the relentless public pressure from our family and our community. Justice is not did not move on its own. It was forced to move. Today, Todd Barnett will be sitting in
this room preparing to provide an update on how the city intended to address the chief's past complaints. I want everyone here to understand the negligence and the corruption that may be disguised as accountability when those updates are presented. Know this, Mr. Barnett was
aware of Chief O'Hara's cover-ups and continued to support him. So did the mayor. Know this, Mr. Barnett knew that MPD allowed Sergeant Hire to retire without being interviewed by the city auditor. And know this, Mr. Barnett, he is part of the systemic problem within
this department. Most importantly, Mr. Barnett has yet to acknowledge the role in he in the cover up of Allison Lucer's case. Until that happens, any promises of transparency and accountability ring hollow. The people in this room deserve the truth. Allison deserves the truth,
and Minneapolis deserves the truth. Justice for Allison and justice for Mariah Samuels. Thank you. Next up is Andrew. At the April 13th session of the CCPO, there is a report from OPCR from Mr. Fukisawa and Mr. Harland on the intake
process. The presentation started with all investigations begin with intake. The intake can end in among other options mediation or non-disciplinary corrective action such as coaching. This was explained away as the discipline matrix had carveouts for low-level
violations. But it struck me as very odd that these were bypassing the review panels and we didn't know if this was a case of a wrinkled uniform or something more serious. So what does the actual law say? 172.40.
All final and approved investigative reports shall be forwarded to a review panel for the purpose of deliberating and making recommendations regarding the merits of the complaint to the police department. Note, all investigative reports shall be forwarded to review
panel. Is the 341 an investigative report? Well, it's done by an intake investigator. It doesn't stop as at identifying jurisdiction and the policy. It includes gathering of evidence and interviewing of witnesses. In fact, during the presentation, Mr. Harland
mentioned leaving the specific policy more broad so there's room for more investigation. He also stated that some are dismissed because we've looked at all the evidence and the evidence proved otherwise. That's an investigation and a conclusion. I don't see how it can be
argued that the process labeled intake isn't actually an investigation and therefore needs to be going through a review panel. The panel gets to decide whether the evidence proves that there was or wasn't a policy violation. There's a second part to the law 172.50
disciplinary decisions. Upon conclusion of the panel review process, the civil rights department shall forward investigative files and panel recommendations to the police department for disciplinary determination. This tells us that disciplinary
determination only lawfully happens upon the conclusion of the panel review process. A decision to not give discipline is still a disciplinary decision. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other speakers? Nope. All right.
>> Thank you everyone. We completed all public comments and we'll close the public comment period. The next order of business is reports. We will start with the civil rights department's 2025 annual report and future action planning report. I will invite interim director
Kayla McCunnan De'Ra I always get it wrong to come up and present for us. I can't roll my arms. >> No problem at all. Thank you so much Chair Reeves and CCPO members um for allowing us to come speak today. Um I'm going to go over a variety of different
things including our annual report and um our future action planning. Um but I do want to before I do that uh introduce two other members of our team, some of whom you've maybe met before and maybe not. um to tell you a little bit about the work that they do for the civil rights department and how that might interface with your all's work on the
CCPO. So, I'm going to turn it over to Kevin Carile first to introduce himself to you all. >> Good, excuse me. Good evening, everyone. Uh my name is Kevin Carile. I'm the manager of grants and community engagement for the civil rights department. Um my job is basically to
make sure that we're letting the community know what resources that we provide. So what I try to do is make connections with the neighborhood organizations, the people in the community as well as businesses and visitors that come through. Also being raised in North Minneapolis, I know a
lot of lot of people and how to make the connections and also I can understand what a lot of people go through growing up in Minneapolis. Uh the other part of my job is also working with neighborhood organizations that we have grant contracts with. So making sure that they stay in compliance as well. I won't take
up too much of your time. I'm also on the CCPO community engagement with Commissioner Stewart over there as well as uh I will say it's been a pleasure to be on and we learn a lot from each other. Thank you. >> Short and sweet
>> and then I'll introduce Ann Gavin and invite her up. >> Hi, good evening. Ann Gavin. Uh I am manager of compliance at quality assurance, a new role for the civil rights department. uh came from the federal office of inspectors general for
department of health and human services. So excited to be here back in Minnesota and um working a lot in the settlement agreement and other uh areas of quality assurance within the department. So excited to be here. Thanks.
>> Thanks very much to both of them for introducing themselves and you guys are good to go have a unless you want to stand up here the whole time. Um, so the first thing I want to draw your all's attention to is the 2025 annual report for the civil rights department that you should have in front of you. Um, instead of doing a presentation, since you all
have this in front of you, I just want to call your attention to a few different pages and different things that I'd like you um to take a look at. So the first is on page six. We have our mission, vision, and values statements. Um these have been uh developed as a
whole team within the civil rights department to make sure that they really spoke to all of the work uh that is being done across the department whether that's in police oversight or in other areas like anti-discrimination work, labor standards and contract compliance. Our mission in the civil rights department is to protect and advance
human rights through enforcing civil rights protections with accountability and impartial investigations to empower community. The vision for the department is as the people's investigator, we strive to eliminate civil rights violations in the city of Minneapolis by
rooting ourselves in service, justice, and community and working to remove systemic and institutional barriers that cause harm. Uh, and then the values that we've established as a department that we're really holding kind of up the most are integrity, equity, accountability,
justice, and trust. Next, I'll call your attention to page six, um, where you will see some familiar faces. That's where we highlight, uh, the boards and commissions that we, uh, or sorry, page 10. Did I say page six? Page 10. Sorry about that. Um, where you'll see
familiar faces. Um, some of you all are in this photo and also highlighted with a description of the community commission on police oversight, as well as highlighting our other two uh boards and commissions we support as a department, which are the civil rights commission and the workplace advisory committee. Um, as always, thank you so
much for the work that you do on boards and commissions um with us as a department. We truly appreciate all the time, effort, and contributions that you all make to the work that we do every day. Next, I will call your attention to page 15. Um, this is a really important
highlight, I think, of the work of the department as a whole in 2025. And that was in the creation of three new protected classes. Uh, so these are new protections, anti-discrimination protections where you cannot be discriminated against in the city of Minneapolis based on these parts of your
identity or these elements of your identity. and they are housing status which protects individuals experiencing homelessness, height and weight which addresses appearance-based discrimination in a variety of different areas and justice impacted status which
ensures fair consideration of individuals with a criminal history in a variety of different areas. There were additional expansions of our civil rights ordinance as well. Uh expanding the definition of race to for instance um include hair texture and style. Uh similar to the crown act at the state
level. Uh there are additional um requirements regarding accommodations for religious observances. So, we no longer just bar discrimination based on a person's religion, but we also require that there are accommodations made for a person's religious observance and a
variety of other um things that really helped bolster the protections that we have in our civil rights ordinance and allow us to provide um the the protections that we need to for all of the residents of the city of Minneapolis. And then if you just turn the page one
time to page 16, uh we have a list of division key outcomes. This breaks down a lot of the numbers of what has been accomplished um in our different divisions in 2025. You all are very uh familiar, I think, with our office of police conduct review numbers, but in
our labor standards enforcement area, that's where we enforce uh the city's sick and safe time, wage theft, and minimum wage laws. Uh we completed 188 cases and recovered $550,000 for workers um who have faced uh
violations of those labor standards. And we also provide a lot of technical assistance in that particular area. We also have uh numbers on our contract compliance division. That's our division that ensures equity in city contracting. Uh and in 2025, 79% of city contracts
met or exceeded goals for minorityowned business inclusion. 73% met the goals for womenowned business inclusion. and through our investigations in that area recovered $172,000 uh on behalf of workers. And then in our
complaint investigations division, this is our group that does anti-discrimination work and does discrimination investigations. Uh 65 cases were completed in 2025. 21 cases resolved through mediation, which is something we use very regularly in this
area, and uh recovered $170,000 in monetary settlements to victims of discrimination. And then on the other side of the same page, accessing civil rights services. You all are very familiar with this information, but we want to call it out anytime we can that if you are talking
to folks who have experienced any of the violations that we can address. So whether that's a police misconduct concern, a discrimination related concern, a workers rights or labor standards related concern, or issues in city contracting, we want them to reach out to us. We can't take any action if
we don't know what's occurring. Um, and we want to make that as accessible as possible to folks. So, if it's easier to do it on your smartphone, you can do it online at our website, minneapolis.gov/civil rights. Um, but if you're not as comfortable maybe online or don't have access to that, you can call 311 and you
can talk to a person right on the phone who will assist you and fill out that complaint form on your behalf. And then we also accept walk-ins at our office um for folks that would like to talk to somebody in person and have that in-person assistance when filing a complaint.
And then the last page I'll draw your attention to is page 21. Um, which gives kind of a department highlevel overview of impact and outcomes uh in the civil rights department in 2025. Uh, I'll highlight that across all of our different enforcement divisions, we
received more than a thousand complaints and inquiries. Uh, and we recovered uh close to a million dollars in settlements, back wages or damages. Um, and in addition to those monetary settlements where which are of course very important in their own right, we also want to ensure that we are
restoring justice and doing kind of more than just making the individual whole who experienced a potential civil rights violation, but also trying to prevent those violations from happening in the future. And so we really focus on making sure that folks are also receiving training, making policy changes that
move us in the right direction. um moving on from any particular case. And I would encourage you all, those are the the pages that I'm going to highlight today, but I would encourage you all to take the time to dig in um and certainly uh reach out to us with questions or concerns. And I'm happy to take
questions on the annual report now, and then I'll move on to our uh our next part of the presentation. >> Are there any questions from commissioners? >> Commissioner Baker, >> thank you for going over the report. a request if in the future you could bring a PDF of it and put it on the screen for those joining online. Um I know people
watch and that way they have access to it as well easily. >> Absolutely. Thank you so much. I appreciate that suggestion. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> All right, director. Interim director. >> All right, I am going to pull up our presentation here. Okay. Are folks able to see that?
>> Not yet. >> Is it coming? >> Okay, great. Okay, so the civil rights department future action planning. So, as many of you may remember, and let's see, uh, as many of you may remember, because
you were asked to participate in this, the department underwent a 360 review in December of 2025. Um, and as a part of that review, uh, we did ask that all board and commission members participate by completing surveys about the work that we do and provide input as to how
you see that going in in your commissioner role and then also as, uh, just members of the public. So as a part of that we interviewed 13 individuals um and when I say we we had an external consultant that conducted this. So they uh interviewed 13 individuals and conducted 50 surveys regarding uh the
department and that was with leaders in the department, staff in the department, board and commission members uh stakeholders and community partners that we interface with a lot as well as other folks across the city, the city enterprise to get their input as to how they saw the department moving, the work that we were doing and recommendations
that they had as we move forward. And so we wanted to make sure, you know, I am a firm believer that we should not uh engage folks, ask them to take their time to submit surveys and to engage in interviews if we're not actually going to do anything um with the outcomes. And so what we really want to demonstrate is
that we heard you all and we heard many of the other people who engaged in that review. Um and so what we did was we took uh everything that we heard and I'm going to go through some of the things that we heard and we addressed all of those things with our leadership in the civil rights department. We presented
those findings to our staff. We got input um on how folks felt about it. And then we jumped right into action planning of what are we going to do with the outcome of this 360 review. We developed a framework for our future actions and for accountability for those actions. We established a routine
leadership check-in to monitor progress. And we're sharing findings with survey respondents and other folks that participated in the process, which of course includes you all. So these are the department's strengths that really were highlighted in the 360 review. Uh the department is recognized
as a key protector of fairness, accountability and public trust. There was also a lot of recognition for the staff commitment and professionalism views that sta staff are thoughtful, valuesdriven and responsive and deeply committed to doing the right thing even
under pressure and capacity constraints. Um, I want to highlight that as having the privilege of um of leading this group of staff that I just believe that so truly in my heart that really that is one of the absolute key strengths of the civil rights department is the dedication of our staff and I'm so
grateful for the work that they do every day. Um, and then organizational progress. So noting the improved structure, clearer direction and increased reliability over time that the department has been demonstrating. So, we want to make sure that we build on our strengths. Yes, we want to
address areas for improvement, but we also want to own the strengths that we have and make sure that we're building upon them. So, we're committed to amplifying the department's role as a fairness and accountability safeguard here in the city of Minneapolis. We want to expand outreach at community events,
increase publications, which this is a very good example of, is our annual report. Um, and then strengthen storytelling through outcomes Minneapolis, which is where we do a lot of data reporting and it's a part of the budget process here within the city of Minneapolis.
We also want to continue to build on the strength of staff commitment and professionalism. Um, and it's really key for us to be recognizing the work that our staff do and retaining our staff and teams so that we really keep that commitment in house, keep that institutional knowledge inhouse. um which is really key to ensuring that we
can do the the work that we need to do in the civil rights department to the best of our ability. Um we want to highlight achievements through regular recognition of staff. Um and we have launched uh monthly staff recognition on Instagram. So if you follow us on Instagram and if you don't I encourage you to do so. Um but that's a place
where we really highlight the staff that we have across all of our different divisions who all do a variety of different work um but do it very well and accomplish really meaningful things for the public. We also want to build on our organizational progress. We want to
continue to share our story of uh improvement, our department's improvement story. We want to use data and metrics to demonstrate progress. And we want to highlight trends and comparisons on our website um through the outcomes Minneapolis uh process as well as in presentations that we're
doing out in community areas for improvement. So, one thing that I'll note before I go through these is one thing that I think me and and a lot of our uh leadership team really felt when we looked at the areas for improvement is that they were a lot of the same areas we had also internally identified as areas for improvement. So,
there was definitely a positive feeling of one, we're on the right track. We're kind of sensing the right things and we were already taking action in a variety of these areas. So, that really felt um quite positive. Um but the areas for improvement that were identified were
transparency uh that there's opportunity to improve timelines and responsiveness. This is of course not a surprise um to you all on the CCPO with the amount that you've been able to track kind of the timelines of uh particularly police misconduct cases. Another area is
consistency across divisions. Um so there was some noted variability in processes leading to different experiences. So as I said we have four different divisions. They all do kind of their own niche work within the civil rights realm, but it's important for us
to be able to uh be as consistent as possible while taking into consideration the differences, the valid differences that are there in our different case processes. Another area of improvement was awareness and understanding. So, we really want to amplify what it is the
department does, how you can access services both internal to the city enterprise and also of course with the public. So highlighting um some of the actions that we're planning to take are taking and planning to take in regarding uh improving the transparency of our
office. So our goal is to build trust through clear, consistent and timely communication. Um and that's particularly with folks that are going through our case and investigative processes. And one way we're doing that is standardizing case timelines. So again, you've heard a lot about timelines, particularly with our office
of police conduct review, but we want to standardize these as much as we can across all of our different investigative divisions. Um, so we have an expectation departmentwide that uh there's five we have five days to respond to individuals who file complaints so that they know we received them. We're taking them seriously. We're
taking next steps in whatever they may have submitted to us and completing cases within one year. Now, I know in the police misconduct realm, we want to do it even faster than that. Um but across the board the expectation is throughout the whole department that uh cases are completed within one year. We
want to strengthen intake communication including alignment with 311. As I said 311 um can take complaints. We want to make sure that we're fully on the same page with them and being consistent in all of our processes around that. We want to increase uh process transparency through tools like informational videos
which we've already done um some amount of but we want to keep doing that. We know that videos can be a really important way to communicate with folks. um and hold people's attention to really understand um some of the intricacies of our process and what to expect. And we want to provide regular proactive status
updates to complainants. So even if their case is taking some time um that they know that we continue to work on it, we continue to take it seriously and that we will you know move it forward um in an appropriate way so that they are able to reach an outcome.
Uh so to that end, I'll just highlight our response timeline policy. um talked about this a little bit, but we're developing these types of policies to be departmentwide. Everyone knows what the expectations are and then really holding staff to those expectations. Improving consistency across divisions.
So, we want to ensure a consistent and responsive experience across all of our different divisions. We are centralizing intake coordination and general inquiry handling. So, again, we're all on the same page and we can kind of triage and transfer cases as needed depending on where they come in. Strengthen intake
group structure with standardized script and processes. Develop standard operating procedures as a single source of truth for each division. Much of this work has already happened for the office of police conduct review but is in process for our other uh divisions and then increase crossdivisional awareness
through quarterly presentations and recorded trainings on all the different work that we do. Uh improvement highlights. So, I already noted this, but we have a new intake coordination group which brings together all of our intake staff across all of these different civil rights areas to
make sure that we are all on the same page, learning from each other, um, and using each other as a resource. And then improving awareness and outreach. So, our goal is to increase understanding of the office's role and value. We want to in improve our own
internal city communication um to make sure that the folks who work for the city of Minneapolis and interfaced with members of the public on a regular basis really know about the services that are available in civil rights and how to access them. And then of course we want to expand uh public outreach and are doing that through an outreach calendar,
centralized materials, increase staff participation at community events. Um we saw uh a doubling of community engagement events from 2024 to 2025 and we're very much on a trajectory to continue to increase them in 2026. And then we want to strengthen stakeholder
engagement. Um so that we're doing through quarterly meetings with our neighborhood and community relations uh department, particularly their community specialists who are out in community a lot and can direct folks our way and other folks that have a lot of interface with with people that may want to make
complaints with us such as housing inspectors who are maybe hearing about uh housing discrimination for instance. And then improvement highlight. We've already talked about this, but we completed the annual report for 2025, and we plan to continue doing annual
reports into the future. And I just want to say thank you again for all of the work that you all have put in um your survey responses that helped us um get these results from the 360 review, but also your continued engagement in this work that really uh informs all of the action steps that
we're taking. Um, and I'm happy to take uh any questions. I also too want to just highlight and thank all of the staff that put in a lot of work to both uh the action planning around the 360 as well as the actual production of the annual report and those that staff was led by Kevin and Ann who you just met.
So um thank you again for for listening and I'm happy to take any questions. >> Madam Chair, >> thank you Commissioner Smith. >> Director, thank you so much for this presentation and and I at least as one commissioner I want to express gratitude for your staff and the support they
provide for our work. um your comments before about their depth of commitment is it I sincerely feel it. Um at our April 13th meeting, we adopted a motion asking you to come today to present on the department's budget. >> Yep.
>> And specifically the ability to fund attendance at the Nicole conference uh which has been an important part of building our capacity. Uh but it also I think we're interested in the total budget of support for CPO's work and
understanding what is the 2026 budget and what will next year's budget look like. So um I've since been told that the city budget doesn't provide for any out of town conference attendance for any staff. So that's sobering. Um but I
hope that you could respond to our request. >> Yes. Thank you so much and I appreciate you bringing that up because I had intended to address that when I was here today. Um so thank you for the question. First I want to acknowledge that I very much see the value and I and all of us in civil rights see the value of you all
being able to attend something like the Nicole conference and so this is by no means a reflection on not seeing the value of that. Um the current situation for training budget within the civil rights department, which is generally where uh any training budget would come
for members of the CCPO, um is $8,000 for 2026. Uh that's for all our boards and commissions as well as our 48 full-time staff. Um so it is very small. Um I can tell you that because it's so small, no one is traveling to anything.
None of our paid staff are traveling to anything unless they are invited to come present um at a conference or something like that. Um you may ask and I know this has been discussed as to what was the difference from 2025 to 2026 which is a very reasonable question. Um in
2025 we did have a one-time budget allocation of $100,000 for training uh for the civil rights department. And so we did have a lot more flexibility last year um to send many of you to NLE but also to send staff to to different trainings and conferences um around the
country and that just simply isn't available in 2026. Um I certainly value the um the need for training, the need for staff development. I think that's a need that's really important, yes, for you all on the CCPO, but also members of our civil rights commission, our
workplace advisory committee, as well as, of course, our professional staff who also need to ensure that they are up to date on all of the best um best practices around the work that we do. So, just know that that is something that I am absolutely uh prioritizing. I do not have anything to share about the
2027 budget at this point in time, but thank you for the question. >> Are there any other questions, Vice Cheryl? sort of related. Um I've done just some very superficial uh looks at other uh oversight agencies and other
compar comparable cities and a lot of them have um substantial staff devoted to to a commission like ours. Um could you tell me what what is the level of like how many FTEEs right now are
devoted to our commission? Yeah, thank you for the question. Um, I would say at this point in time in the civil rights department, there are two FTEEs that are largely committed to the CCPO and that's of course uh Linda Jang and then Chenise Watts. Both folks that I think you all work with uh on a regular basis.
>> Thanks. >> Can someone answer for me? In the last couple years, there was conversations about the budget and I believe that there was an allocation for training for two at least two CCPO commissioners. Is
that correct? Am I remembering that correctly? >> Someone maybe >> you went the first year, didn't you? You went to Chicago. >> My my my concern is there's a $ 1.4 $4 million allocation for a strategic plan
for the council members to learn how to get along with the mayor's office. It would have been nice to see some of their dollars allocated to CCPO for training. I think this is very important and the committee members are here. They're saying this is they want us to be on our best. Uh can we have a motion
to extend the time, please? >> I move to extend the time five minutes. >> Five minutes. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Thank you. So, >> Madam Chair, this this also includes the
the uh OPCR report, the CAD validation report. So, I'm wondering if we should extend it longer than 5 minutes. >> Let me just say my comment then we'll ask that. Thank you. So, I guess my concern is I really like the city to put prioritize the training for CCPO um if they're going to spend $1.4 $4 million
over three years to for as the start to even put it I think couples therapy. I don't know if that was the right word. But I I do want to recognize it's important that our city council get along with our mayor 1.4 million if we're not going to prioritize the training of the folks that spend so much
time on this commission. I will vouch for there is a lot of hours for this work and we want to make sure that folks are trained. I just did my training. I spent five hours doing training. >> Um I don't get paid for that, right? And I and I love doing it because I want to do it the best of my ability. I want the
city to prioritize the work that we're doing. They can cut off a little bit of that budget for CCPO to make sure that you get what you need to do what we need to do on CCPO is just kind of my thoughts. Is there any other comments or thoughts? >> Commissioner um director is it possible
um to look into some technical assistance that we didn't receive that we were promised from Nicole a couple years ago. It might have been before your tenure. Um I don't know if that money is available to us still or is that if that is convertible um into training but they were supposed to
provide they did provide some training for us. They came here to do that and then they were supposed to provide additional training. Um would it be possible to find out if that money exists? >> It certainly is something we could look into. Absolutely. Could I add one additional comment too? as of as of
right now, monitoring the budget and being um you know, of course, good stewards of the city's money. Um I need to to pay close attention to how the the budget is developing. If there is a way for us to fund members of the CCPO attending the Nicole conference closer
to the conference um date, that is certainly something that I will prioritize. It's just not something that I can commit to today. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. So, we have a report for that's an extra 25 minutes or
do you need other motion? I'm sorry. Just to make sure. Okay. We need a motion to extend the time for the CAT report. >> At least 25 minutes. >> How much time do you think he'll need? >> Not 25. >> Okay.
>> 10 minutes. >> I move we extend 10 minutes. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. All right. Any discussion? >> All those in favor? Why don't we do it a little longer and then if we have to cut it short we can but we don't have to do this again. >> Move for 15 >> 15 >> 15 minutes. Okay.
>> Is there a second amended? Okay. All those in favor? >> I I >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? All right. >> We have a a CAD report from assistant associate director Fujisawa. Thank you. I'm just struggling because it's not
advancing currently. So, I might need 13 minutes. Um, good evening. Russell Futisawa, associate director of the Office of Police Conduct Review. I'm here this evening to talk about OPCR's um, CAD data validation report. Um, a number of
months ago at a CCPO commission meeting, a member of Ward 12 was asking about and expressing some concern around response times in Ward 12, specifically from precinct 3. Um a as a result OPCR
um requested calls for service data over the past six years which is um the retention schedule of calls for service data with MECC and 9 uh excuse me and MPD. Um so we worked with both of those agencies to um obtain the calls for
service data. Um so if we step back still it's not working. Um but if we step back what is the CAD system? What is what are we talking about here? And so a CAD is a computer aided dispatch system. Um and that is the incar system
that connects um public safety personnel to dispatch. Um that's in its simplest terms the agencies using this system um MPD um the Minneapolis fire I don't it's moving without me even touching it.
Minneapolis Fire Department, um EMS, UMPD, the University Police, um as well as the Henipin County Sheriff. So, a number of agencies using this system. Um what we specifically looked at as after we obtained um you know, it's roughly
900,000 calls over a six-year period. Obviously, it's not practical to uh conduct a a comprehensive data analysis on that. So we took a subset of uh 250 calls for service over that period of time and uh specifically narrowed down
on a number of fields still down um including time call first assigned um time unit was in route, time unit arrived at scene and time call cleared as well as call disposition.
All of the CAD data in those fields that I just listed was then verified or um you know we tried to confirm the accuracy using the AVL data which is another uh incar or or squad system that
is the automatic vehicle log and that uh sort of tracks time and location of squads of MPD and so by matching up those those data points across those two systems conceivably we are confirming the accuracy of those calls for service
data. Um through that uh through that analysis of those 250 calls um again over approximately 900,000 calls over that six-year period um we identified three
main categories of issues. Um those are threats to validity uh misuses of the CAD system and then just straight errors. um looking specifically maybe if we can look specifically it just seems to be frozen uh at threats to
validity. So threats to validity uh these are not explicit entry errors um but instead may be a result of issues with this system um but do have an impact obviously on um the validity of the data that's being used the analysis
that's conducted with that data. Examples of threats to validity are mismatched call assignment times. Um units assigning to multiple calls multiple times. Um slow close as in uh you know left the scene and then closed
a call. Um as well as a mismatch between comments and behavior. Um that represents the largest uh proportion of errors. Um that's 87 cases out of 250 or roughly 35%. The next is misuse of CAD.
Um this group was about 68 cases um or about 27%. Um these issues are issues that appear to be caused by MPD user entry errors um and entering data in the way that CAD was not intended to be used. And that's
stuff like failure to close a call while on scene. Um also failure to assign before traveling to a call or failure to begin traveling after assigning to a call. The final category of issues was errors. And so these are issues that are, you
know, very clear and obvious data errors. Um again leading to um having an impact on um any type of analysis or reporting that comes out of CAD data. Um and that includes arrival timestamp does not match the actual arrival time. Um
self-initiated calls are incorrectly coded as 911 calls. Um and then we have calls that are picked up and ended at the same time. Um and so there are many things happening there, right? We have self assigned calls are a thing um in
which a time stamp is reported as zero. That doesn't mean that this is a misrepresentation. It's just how the system works in terms of a unit assigning while on scene or while observing something that they wish to assign themselves to. Um
so what does this all mean? Um I I think the biggest uh the biggest findings from assign from assessing these 250 calls is really that there needs to be some standardization. Um and uh some some
cleaning of the data. Um, you know, we need to establish clear CAD data, CAD usage, CAD system, uh, guidelines so that officers and sworn have a better understanding of what their data entry
in terms of code disposition, um, time on arrival, time on closure, how that impacts, um, you know, reporting of response times, of disposition that's handled, um, of their timeliness. um we need to you know periodically
check for and correct the errors that are generated by the system. So timestamps that just are illogical or erroneous errors. Um we need to uh we need to fix those mismatched or
unmatched timestamps that just are wrong. again system issues that are generated by multiple agencies using this CAD system in in ways that maybe it wasn't initially designed or intended to. Um, and I think it's
worthwhile to note that uh and I wish I could pull this up. Still can't. But in terms of the analysis that it took to review these 250 calls, I think it took somewhere around like 25 hours u of manpower time
um within OPCR to to clean the data to identify these errors um and to sort of make sense of the categories of issues that we're seeing. And right this is not that um this system is being intentionally misused or improperly
used. It is just that there are many factors that are outside of the control of sworn and units um that are out on the streets. All right, here we go. So, can you go to the end? Yeah. And so, yeah. And so, thank you
everybody for the help on that. Um but so, yeah, as you can see, a 250 call review. So this this project took roughly 25 uh 25 hours to conduct and it uncovered you know some pretty substantial findings in terms of the CAD system and
its usage right and this is not unique to MPD right there are many agencies in the public safety sector that are using this system and to refine it to tailor it to to make sure that it is standardized and that there is accuracy instead of you know the the sacrifice
for specificity is accuracy. And so I think we need to strike an appropriate balance here in terms of rethinking disposition codes, ensuring that there is accuracy and consistency in that entry to make sure that the systems are talking to each other
properly um so that we have meaningful data and findings that come out of it that can help inform um all of these agencies, but specifically MPD in terms of optimization um accurate reporting out in terms of what what we're actually
seeing um by sworn born on the streets. So, I appreciate everybody's patience as we navigated the tech issue, but um any questions >> by Charlesson? So
it seems to me and you can I'm I'm struggling just with the overall big picture um that you went into the project to uh get data on response times and so forth but we're but now we're reaching conclusion you can't even do that because there's so many problems
with the CAD system. Not not quite. U we just aren't that that is a future report that we are finalizing the response time report that specifically looks at um you know response times across this same period. But to do so right we need to
establish this context that it's not that we can't uh use this system or use these findings. It's just that this data cleaning needs to be done either prior to us and it is what we have done um prior to us pro uh publishing that
subsequent response times report. Um but you also need to understand all of the cleaning that that must be uh that must be done prior to any meaningful analysis for us to report out on what our findings are using that data. Um and so that's that's the
challenge, right? and we could uh keep grinding through 900,000 calls and we'll probably still find errors. That's just natural with data. There is no such thing as perfect data. Uh but these trends that we're identifying are trends that could potentially impact response
times and the reporting out of that. But it also we can see in the immediiacy impacts things like uh these errors that we were talking about in terms of you know unintentional misuse um you know data not matching up uh where it should
in terms of timestamps um that we know that we have information on based on AVL and CAD reports as well as MECC dispatch. It's just that prior to us publishing that response time report, it's important that we understand sort
of the limitations of CAD so that we can have that in the backdrop as we discuss that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Any other questions, >> Commissioner Baker? I >> I'm surprised it's more than half of all of these reports have some error. That
feels awfully high and it feels like we are not taking care of some of the very basics of documentation if half of the the logging has errors. >> And so
I think that that's why it would have been helpful to have this up as we were going through. So not all of it. So one, not all of it is going to directly impact that that what you're expressing concern around, you know, should we have a an error rate or a threat to validity
rate that is that high? No. But is it impacting half of or more of the the calls for service that we have? It's not likely. Um and and just in terms of the types of errors that we have here, they're going to they're going to have some will have disproportionate impact
on call for service or on a response time. Others will have a negligible impact. So it's it's not as black and white as that. Yes, it is a concern. We do need to have this cleaned up and that's part of our assessment here in our analysis. But um I I don't think we
can jump to that conclusion that because h more than half of these calls for service had some type of error that it impacted the actual service that was delivered. >> Commissioner Stewart, >> I have a question for you. Um, when you
speak about CAD and you think about us being inside of what operation safe summer and we're talking about Pride and Taste of Minnesota, the Aquatine Parade, etc., etc., etc., where
there's really large events. How then do you guys cross communicate when you've got multiple agencies that use this? And how do you know which agency is going to be held, god forbid, something happens,
but how do we then know who's responsible when everybody's using the same system? How does it cross communicate? >> And that is not a question I can answer just because we don't operate in the CAD system. We just have, you know, taken a look at the data and and done some
analysis on it. I would obviously defer to colleagues in the police department, the fire department, EMS, um, and those other agencies in terms of how they coordinate, uh, the usage of the system and, um, and response of different agencies.
>> Okay, any other questions? I'll just say thank you for this report and thank you to the W 12 member who came here and kind of brought this up over and over again. appreciate that cuz it's good information to have and it'll be interesting to see how the new interim chief uses the information once
your report is done to make response times faster. >> All right, seeing no other Commissioner Stewart, >> I do have one more question. Sorry. So, maybe you can't answer this. I don't know if this is a question for maybe it's a question for um Mr.
But how then does the CAD system communicate with neighboring jurisdictions when they're out and about during Operation Safe Summer? Like how does Henipin County and State Patrol cross border when it comes to emergencies? How does
that You probably don't know that answer. >> I don't know that answer. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh since our time is up, we'll ask the clerk to receive and file that report. Um, the next up is an update from the Minneapolis Police Department's Internal Affairs Division. I will ask Lily
Hastings, senior project manager, to present. And we have allocated 15 minutes for this report. I know the computer on the desktop. Oh, there we go. All right.
All right. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Again, my name is Lily Hastings. I am the senior project manager in the internal affairs unit. Uh, so tonight, we've just got a couple of quick updates for you. I'm going to do a IIA overview. Um, we're going to
give a quick update on our IIA historical backlog and then we're going to do our normal statistics and trends update. Uh so quickly on the internal affairs bureau um we have noticed that there you know there is confusion internally
within the city. There is confusion externally uh with members of the public uh just in general of where internal affairs sits. Unfortunately we kind of have a duplication of terms here. We have the internal affairs bureau that houses three specific units inside of
it. uh the candidate investigations unit, the force investigations team, otherwise referred to as FIT, um and the internal affairs unit. Um so we know that this has been kind of a point of confusion, especially um it's been brought up to the city council as well.
Uh so we just want to clarify um what each of these units does individually. Uh so our internal affairs bureau, like I said, we have three specific units. Each unit operates independently of each other. Candidate investigations does our
background investigations for prospective employees. The force investigations team or FIT uh handles quality assurance reviews of any reportable uses of force by MPD employees. Um and internal affairs handles misconduct investigations
pertaining to allegations of policy violations. Uh so each specific unit has its own role. FIT does not do uh misconduct investigations. That has been a point of confusion. The only unit inside of the bureau that does misconduct investigations is the
internal affairs unit. Uh moving on again to internal affairs. Like I said, we are the only unit inside of the bureau that does misconduct investigations. Uh IA handles internal complaints uh as our counterpart OPCR
handles external complaints. Internal Affairs. Internal complaints is made up of uh several categories. It's complaints made by MPD employees, complaints made by city of Minneapolis employees. Typically, this includes like city attorney's office, um you know,
traffic, uh any other uh branches, emergency branches under the office of community safety. Um and we also have another category called MPD, internally generated referrals. Uh you will notice one of the uh units listed in here is the force
investigations team. That is, you know, one of our units in our bureau, but they do a referral over to the internal affairs unit if they see that there is a potential policy violation. Other examples here would be our pursuit review committee, our accident review committee, um compliance checks. This is
things that are coming from audits of uh that the implementation unit is conducting. And then the quarterly review panel as well. Uh we also wanted to provide kind of a a guided tree of where things go. Um so
we've uh our first step obviously is we receive a complaint. Uh we've talked about this before. We will take a complaint any which way that we can someone can get a hold of us. They can do email, phone, um you know, in person. If somebody's making a complaint on social media and we get tagged on it, we
will do it. Any way that uh someone can get a hold of us. uh similar to I believe a comment mentioned earlier this evening, every single case goes through intake. Um and then this is really where it branches off for us. Um and then depending on where you branch off,
there's different steps all the way through. Uh this chart, uh we started using it about maybe a month, two months ago, and it's been really helpful just to understand the level of work that's associated with each of these different routing. um and kind of where like
different groups of people that work throughout this misconduct investigation uh process are housed. Uh moving on to our historical backlog update. Uh so as of 610 2026,
uh we have 87 cases that are still remaining open. Of our 213 historical backlog cases, 126 of them are closed. Uh so on this chart here we are moving from left to right. Uh the left side is the numbers
that were presented at the last uh CCPO meeting. The right side is uh the most current numbers. Uh within the chart itself we are trying to move from left to right. So the two columns on the right uh chief's decision rendered and other closure dispositions mean that the
case has been fully completed and closed. Uh so these are the two categories where we need the rest of those five columns to land into. Uh so like I said we have 213 backlog cases. 87 of them are still remaining open. Um
but 126 of them have been closed. Uh which equals to about 59% of our backlog being closed and completed. Uh moving on to our statistics and trends for our intake unit. Uh same thing. The left side of the screen is the numbers presented at the last CCPO
meeting. The right side of the screen is our most recent numbers. Uh so as of 610 2026, we had 24 complaints in our intake queue. 11 of them are within compliance, meaning that they're under our 30 days that are granted to us within the
settlement agreement. Of those 11 complaints, nine are assigned and two are unassigned. Um and for complaints out of compliance, meaning that uh they are taking over 30 days in our intake queue, uh we have 13, 11 of them are assigned and two are unassigned.
Year-to- date complaints, uh we are seeing a a very very large increase of complaints uh this year in our unit. Uh we are now up to 172 complaints. Uh the next screen will just kind of show you the general breakdown of when
we have been seeing those uh this month. uh across 2025 and 2026. Um so you'll notice the start of the year uh was a pretty pretty heavy three months of a lot of complaints received in our uh unit. Uh we are continuing to monitor to
see if that trend continues through the rest of the year. Um this next slide here gives you kind of a breakdown now of all those cases that came in per month. Where did they come from? Uh you will notice a pretty large amount of cases came from our accident review
committee in the first three months of the year. Uh we are also seeing a large increase of complaints coming from MPD employees that started in March and went to about May. Uh it's those are pretty abnormal numbers for us. Those are stemming from duty to report
notifications of uh potential misconduct that's been observed uh by MPD employees. And then we also are seeing uh increased amounts of numbers coming from our compliance checks. Again, those are the audits that are conducted by the implementation unit
um as they get their procedures kind of up and running. Uh and the last one we want to note is fit. Uh we have as antic as we did anticipate we have seen an uptick in referrals from our force investigations team and that uh heavily correlates with when the new use of
force policy uh was put into place. our intake data. Um, so again, as of June 10th, uh, this relates to all of the cases that are currently in our intake queue. Uh, the highest percentage of cases was precinct three, uh, meaning that the incident occurred in precinct
3, uh, with precinct one as a close followup. Uh, moving on to intake routing decisions. Uh so this is each month when uh you well each week we hold a weekly meeting and uh where the supervisors
have a panel and we decide where cases are routing um after intake like those uh options that we showed earlier on the misconduct uh process tree. Um so what this will do is for the month of January we did so and so many cases. This is
where they routed. Um, this does not necessarily correlate to the amount of intakes or complaints that we got in that month. So, I just want to make that clear um because we might get some in, but we might be able to we might already have had a backlog um of cases. So, um
we do want to note the 33 cases that went to coaching in March of 2026. uh almost all of those correlate to the amount of cases that we saw come in from the accident review committee which were firsttime preventable accidents with
minimal damage to no damage and no uh injuries. Uh for our investigative unit uh as of 610 2026 we have 52 cases that are currently in an open admin investigation. Uh five of those cases are part of our historical backlog. four
are assigned and one are unassigned. Uh the question I am sure is on everyone's mind is why is that increasing? Uh unfortunately uh we did have a number of expedited dispositions that made it to chief's office. Um and so they were already completed. They went through
supervisor review. uh they went to chief's office and uh the focus employee um declined to go through the expedited process any further which means that the case uh goes all the way back and restarts at admin investigation. Uh so
those cases are just now being reassigned out uh to work on. Uh we for our non-compliant cases we have 29 cases 25 are assigned four are unassigned and our current cases uh less than 180 days we have 18 13 of them are
assigned and five are unassigned. Uh moving on again to our investigation cases. So these are the open admin investigations. Um just kind of the general spread of the incident date of those incidents. I know in previous months uh we had gotten rid of most of
those 2020s and those 2021s in our previous CCPO reports. Again, those correlate with our cases that are coming in um coming back through expedited disposition that have now been rerouted uh back for our admin investigation.
Um showing this slide again, this is uh of our cases in the open admin investigations. This is our spread by incident location. Um just want to note that earlier our intake uh we saw precinct 3 was our highest but as we get into our admin investigations it does
kind of tend to equal out uh amongst everything. Uh for anyone that uh is wondering outside of Minneapolis means it occurred outside of our boundaries. NA is typically things uh where there isn't a physical location. Uh meaning if someone sent someone a rude text or
something like that, there isn't necessarily a location that's correlated with that. uh supervisor review again um I know you guys have heard this from us this is the uh majority of our backlog uh as of 610 2026 we have 248 cases in our supervisor
review queue uh from the historical backlog that is 55 cases of our non-compliant cases it is 172 and of our current cases it is 21 cases uh moving on to chief's office uh just to give A little bit of an overview
here. Uh, as of 610 2026, we had 21 admin investigations that are in the chief's office queue. Um, of those cases, five are uh, IIA cases, 16 are OPCR cases. And then the graph on the right is um, a newer graph that we are
um, developing to kind of show where things are exactly in the stages of the chief's office. Um in a previous um report here, we kind of explained that there's a lot of steps that encompass the chief's office process. So this is just trying to give a visual to where
things are. Again, uh the cases are moving from left to right. So once we get all the way to the right, uh pending signature is our last step, meaning we have to get the chief's signature, we have to get the focus employees signature, and the focus employees uh uh chain of command signature. Once we get
all those signatures, it moves off this chart and goes into our completed bucket. Uh, grievance and arbitration statistics. As of 610 2026, we have 10 cases uh, between I and OPCR that are in
a discipline related grievance status. Uh, we have six cases that are in a discipline related arbitration status. Uh for our review panelists, uh we do have a number of cases that were recently published uh since our last uh
report in March. Um any of the cases marked with an asterk are cases that uh did have a review panel. The cases marked without the asterk are expedited dispositions. Um so those should be up on the dashboard and we do have a number of cases that we are still working on
getting up uh within the next couple of weeks here. All right. That is it. >> Thank you, Miss Hastings. I do have a question. Um, the LEFA report talks about the IE backlog that seems to be a significant concern for AIFA at this moment. Based on what you presented
here, what's the plan to address what they've put in the report and what's the reason? Obviously, you have cases and I know this staffing was an issue previously, but just curious to know what the plan is to address that in the LEA report. >> Yeah, I I don't know that I can touch uh too heavily on that. We we have uh been
working with Alifa and up through our city partners um all the way up the chain of command to the highest level that we can uh to talk about uh staffing to talk about u deadlines and how we're going to move cases forward. I know at a previous um uh CCPO session we also
talked about an RFP to help us uh move cases through the supervisor review backlog. Uh we're still in that process. Uh we actually just conducted interviews. Uh so we're working on trying to explore every avenue that we have uh to get these cases out of that queue for us.
>> Thank you. Any qu Commissioner Baker? >> Somewhat building on that. It is frustrating as a resident to see this number sitting. I mean, I understand new ones are coming in, but we haven't really tackled it when police
spending it. Like, this seems to be the only area where we actually are concerned about meeting our budgets and not going over budget. And so, while Commissioner Barnett is in the room, I just want to point out it's frustrating that the police department got Harley's
but can't finish their investigations. Why did they buy motorcycles instead of actually doing their consent? >> No. >> Oh. All right. I'm assuming that was just a comment. That was a comment. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions?
>> I do have one. >> All right. Our time is expired. Is there a motion to extend for her to answer a question? >> Motion to extend five minutes. Is there a second? >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions?
Commissioner Shamp. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Hastings. Um, were you in the room when the public comments were happening? >> Yes. >> Um, would you be willing to address the comment that said that um the chief was taking four times the 30 days um for the IIA cases?
>> Yes. Um, we can do that. Um, I actually have the statistics that we just uh provided to Alifa uh very shortly. Um, I was taken off all duties for about a week uh to see uh if we could get our data uh cleaned and up to date here. Uh
so for our chief's office processes um we did that that is a true uh case. Uh what I will say is it's not the IIA ones, it's mostly the OPCR ones. Um so between our I and OPCR cases, the full process, meaning from the day that uh
the um OPCR director sends the case to the chief to the last day um that notice is provided uh to the focus employee and their chain of command on the outcome of that case. Uh for IIA cases that is an average of 98 days at this point. Um and
for OPCR cases, that is an average of 128 days. Uh we do see a large amount of cases that get stuck in the louder mill process and a large amount of cases that get stuck in a memo review process. Um the louder mill process on average um is
taking about 14 days and the memo review on average is also taking 14 days. Uh which obviously that right there takes up about our entire 30-day uh window. And of those two case of those two statuses, uh the chief has not even seen
it yet at that point. So, uh we're working on trying to find ways to streamline those. Uh both of those processes are not uh parts uh like those are parts where we need external buyin. Like our louder mills are done by the
focus employees uh chain of command. We ask them to be done within 7 days. Uh we cannot control whether or not they are done within 7 days. We are working on trying to find a way to be able to get those done within a shorter amount of time. And same thing, our memo review
process, uh, that is also done with our city attorney's office. Um, and which, uh, is just as, you know, understaffed as we are at this point. So, we're working on trying to find some ways to do that as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
>> All right, Commissioner Baker. I I realize you can't comment on a specific case, but we have Allison Lucer's aunt here and it's been a year and there's no public movement. Justice delayed is justice denied and it
really hurts the community and the people involved when these things just sit and there's no it's radio silence. And I realize, well, I I assume you can't comment on the case, but like when when we have to wait, that
doesn't build confidence in the community. >> Yeah, we we do understand. Um we 100% echo your sentiment. Like we are, like I said, we are exploring every avenue that we can to speed up the process. Uh we are working with all of our city
partners all the way up to the highest level uh to help us get some staffing to help um you know figure out are there any ways that our process is holding us up. Is there any way that we can streamline any any step of the process? I mean we are talking as little as
drafting an email if there's ways that we can automate those emails to how do we move cases through uh the chief's office. So it does not take 128 days like we are exploring absolutely every part of the process right now. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Seeing no other questions. Thank you. We'll ask the clerk to receive and file that report. Next we have an update from the Minneapolis Police Department's implementation unit. Uh we'll welcome Commander Bryce Robinson to present for us. We have a lot of 10 minutes.
>> Oh, wait. This button is working. >> Thank you. Good evening. Thank you guys for having me. My name is Bryce Robinson. I'm the commander of the implementation unit. So, we're going to start off by giving you uh an update on what we're doing for
community engagement. Uh we've done three of our eight uh community community engagement sessions. Um our fourth one is going to be on August 18th at the Lindale Neighborhood Association. Uh a big one you can mark your calendars
for is our July 22nd uh implementation unit community engagement session. Um, we're going to be having that at the PSB. Um, we're hoping to have some uh interactive stations there as well. So, it's going to be kind of a unique uh unique session and I hope you guys uh
show up there. Uh, we also uh are going to distribute uh hopefully soon our second uh implementation uh newsletter uh trying to give updates on what we're doing uh throughout this process, not just at these meetings.
uh community MSET. I think that was a question that just came through. I don't remember if it was from uh CCPO or if it was from one of the community members. Um but uh the last one was on May uh 21st. Um we should have one uh coming up this uh early fall. Um I don't have the
location or the time or date, but once I do um we will be reporting on it and let you guys know. uh Alifa put out their survey uh to the community and we also put one out uh to the officers to get their feedback on how this whole process is going. Um the
Alifa report um was released today and our community uh uh engagement team was trying to rebuild that up um by hiring a manager and uh a project uh lead uh officer wellness and support. Uh we
did our winter tour uh for 2026 and what that is is we have our wellness team. They go around to the different precincts and different areas where uh the civilians work that work with law enforcement and uh they sit there for hours and they just talk about the services that are available to uh the
employees like different therapies or the peer support team. Um touching on that the peer support team we stood that up in January 2026. We have a total of 29 members both consisting of sworn and civilian. Um I know they responded to
multiple uh tragic incidents or uh incidences. Um uh the enunciation shooting um some other mass shootings. Um they respond they talk to uh the officers that are involved um witnesses um just to kind of debrief the situation
and also provide information on therapy and different services that are available uh to employees. Uh just touching on the training and wellness annex. Um the training facility and wellness center wasn't approved by city council. Um and we're just exploring different
ways u to make sure our officers get training. This slide isn't new. It's a policy resource hub. Um just touching base on this again. Uh it's a great uh a great program that we we built in our implementation unit. Um it's like Google. Uh the officers love it. Uh
we're getting great feedback on it. Um I from what I've heard uh people in this uh on this commission uh they've used it and they seem to like it as well. Um the QR codes there um if you want to scan and go to it kind of tells you how to use the the system there.
Uh policies some recent policies that were approved by Alifa. the internal uh internal affairs misconduct policies, limitations on hours worked, stop searches, citations, and arrests in in uh searches, involuntary transport holds. Um you know, just kind of
touching on what some of these mean. Um stop searches, citations, and arrest policies. I know there's some people on the um the policy committee here. They know that's a huge policy. Uh impacts uh officers and the community. um it does kind of a disservice just to say stop
search citations and arrests, but that's basically any kind of uh interaction with law enforcement. Uh that's a policy involved with that. So uh thank you guys for your feedback on that and um that's a big one that's coming on and we're uh developing training for that. Uh
limitations on worked. Um again that's a really important one because um you know if officers are working super long hours that can kind of affect their behavior if they're you know their a interactions with people and so uh we kind of want to monitor that. Um so I just want to touch
on a few of these that just kind of bring uh a human element to to it and show uh um that these policies really do matter. They're not they're not just words on a piece of paper. uh policy and training updates. Uh so uh critical incident policy um we're about
to send that for technical assistance to Alifa. Um we're currently workshopping engaging with minors. Uh social media investigations. Foot pursuit policy. Uh field training officer policy. Uh you can mark this one down. The
supervisor's duties and responsibilities. Uh I would say in a week or two we're about to put that out for community feedback. Um, so that'll be on the website. Um, anybody can log on and give uh read it and give feedback on that policy. And
just a reminder, anybody can log in at any time to give feedback on any of our policies. Um, and when we revisit that policy, um, we look at that feedback, but the active ones is are the ones that we're actually using when we're developing the policy uh that we're incorporating your guys' language. And
then, uh, the corrective action matrix that's in workshopping phase as well. uh the training and development uh limitations on hours worked misconduct use of force training CIT early intervention stop search citations and arrests uh supervisor force review um
all these take a lot of time they're not you know it's it's easy to say we're just developing a training but we have to find the right people to train we have to go through the same process of uh developing the training looking at the policy and then uh getting that approved through AIFA and uh MDHR so
That's a huge process that we have to go through and then we have to work on scheduling that throughout the year through all the other trainings that the officers have to do and manage doing that with 500 people that work different shifts. So, just kind of want to point that out. Um and then uh the the
policies that were approved uh with the training use of force uh refresher and uh the crisis intervention training uh refresher. Uh data systems uh we publish an RF uh P for data augmentation. Um and then we have a publish RFI for
data modernization and uh uh the record management system. And I'm going to end it with this. Um, we like to kind of try and end it on a positive note here. This came off a recommendation from one of the the commissioners uh that's no longer here.
Um, just try to include something positive that officers are involved in. Um, cuz that's ultimately kind of what we want here, right? And and building a relationship with the community, coming up with great policies. Um, just shows um officers were on patrol and they ended up I think they were on a call and they were just leaving and they end up saw seeing some boys playing some
football. They just jumped in and started playing catch. Um, I edited the the kids out so there was no no minor or anything like that or case numbers involved or anything like that, but I'm just trying to get officers involved with the community out of their squad cars and interacting with the community and not just enforcing uh laws.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions from commissioners? >> All right. We'll ask the clerk to receive and file the report. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. Next up, we have two final reports from our community engagement and police policy research and
recommendations committee. I will start with an update from the community engagement committee and ask Chair Stewart to speak and we've allocated 10 minutes. Sure. I will be brief. I just want to let the community and the public know that we heard you at our last
public hearing meeting. We took it back to our community engagement committee and we are looking to host another public hearing on Tuesday, September 22nd.
If we are able to um take a vote on that date, that would be great. Um the full body needs to let us know if that date works. We're willing to forego our community engagement meeting on September 22nd to
be able to host another public hearing. >> It's um we do not have a space available for that room um or for that date. We would have to have it in this building as the public service building doesn't have broadcast capabilities anymore.
>> Um so there is a night meeting that day already. >> Okay. >> Um >> I'll I'll reconnect. We'll we'll talk about it at our next community engagement meeting and put out some new dates. Okay. >> To see if that works. >> Yes, that'd be great. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions for Commissioner Stewart?
All right. Thank you. Next up, we have the report from the PPR committee. Chair Shamfield will give us an update and allocated five minutes. Thank you, Chair. Um the community or the um policy uh the PPRR
uh committee um did not meet in May. Our schedules did not align, but we are meeting next week. We invite everyone to join us. Um, next week we'll be looking at a new report on the chief uh disciplinary decisions and um look digging into some data there. We're also
going to be talking about the Alifa report that just came out today um using that to do our planning for the next six months around policy review as well as what kind of practices um and and recommendations uh we'd like to be working towards. Um, we also planned to
look at the afteraction reports of Allison Lucer and Davis Matory and uh uh discuss the the coaching uh case and any recommendations uh that we have moving forward um within our within our
uh guidelines within our ordinance. Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks. Um oh the meeting is on Monday uh June 22nd at six o'clock. Please come join us. >> Okay. Thank you. Any comments or questions for Commissioner Shampoo? All right, seeing there's no questions,
we'll ask the clerk to receive and file those reports. Thank you. Our next order of business is discussion. First up, we have a presentation on the police chief's complaint process. I will invite Commissioner Barnett to explain this process for us, and we've allocated 10 minutes for this item. Excuse me, 20
minutes for this item. >> Good evening. I'm Todd Barnett, Commissioner of Community Safety. Um, I'll start off by saying I just got this request, so I don't have any slides or anything like that to present to you on
such short notice, but hopefully I can clear up what the process is for uh the chief complaints because it's different for the Reich and file officers. Um, so normally a complaint on the chief
would go to OPCR. That's normally what happens. They would get the complaint and then they would get it to the office of community safety. Gets a number. It gets on the dashboard. That's I would say that's the normal process. And I
I'll talk about what happens after it gets to to the Office of Community Safety, but that's normally how it goes. Sometimes there are complaints that will land in internal affairs, right? Someone might
file it in internal affairs. Either in that case internal affairs, they don't do anything, no investigation, no nothing. That would they would more than likely send it to OPCR and then it would come to us.
There are times when um there can be a complaint that ends up in HR, complaint that ends up in a different um city department. uh one that came up
uh since I've been here went to the auditor's office and um sometimes those complaints will be directed uh either to OPCR or they'll come directly to the office of community safety. So there's even though someone
might not file the complaint in the right department or the right area, uh it will make its way to the office of community safety. Once um it gets to and there's some things that happens before that but just
to keep the process clean here uh once it gets to our office um there are points where we might make some decisions on investigations. Um but in those cases we're in close
contact with the city attorney's office because right now they hold the contract for investigations. So it could be that a case needs to be investigated uh whether that's internally or externally. Um and then from there uh we would get
that report. Um ultimately in the situation with the chief uh because this is an appointed position by the mayor uh the mayor really has the ultimate decision when it comes to
discipline. Um, so I would look over to our city attorney to make sure I didn't miss a step there or something. Uh, as far as the process is concerned. >> Uh, nope. I think you got most of it.
>> All right. So that I mean that's essentially it um for that. If there's any questions about uh the process, you know, I'll try to answer those questions. But just to know, especially when I see there's a little some time left for me. Commissioner Stewart, I could answer
your questions about either planned events or unplanned events and what happened. I wrote down some notes. I could be brief on that if the chair allows me to do so. >> Yes, sir. >> So, I didn't know if there was any questions about the process. Chair,
>> do we have any questions regarding the first part? Not commission maker. >> Not exactly the process, but the timeline as it laid out. >> You the city got the Alifa report, a
preview of it May 11th. So David Douglas has shared that the city got the ILA report May 11th. >> We re the mayor renominated O'Hara May 7th. I am just really confused why we would
move forward with a renomination before we got the third party review statement of how has I mean from my perspective the most important thing we're asking for the chief right now is to reform the police department and to
jump the gun by 4 days as a resident to see in the start tribune as a resident and a member the CCPO to see in the Star Tribune um both David Douglas and uh Commissioner
Lucero saying, "Oh yeah, O'Hara was holding up reform. He was the problem was very frustrating to hear when days earlier we were being told by the city he is the re we need him to keep reform
going." It felt like a 180 pivot and I like I'm frustrated and confused why we would do that without reading the damn report. Sorry to curse through the chair um
commissioner Baker the nomination process for any of the appointed positions within the city of Minneapolis. That's the mayor's responsibility to do that. He makes that decision uh whether uh to move forward
with an appointment. Right now, I think most of you have seen we're going through that process because we even though the mayor was uh the mayor uh before he got reelected. So now all of the appointed positions through that the
charter has identified uh those department heads are going uh through that um nomination process. As far as the decision uh whether and when to um nominate uh Chief O'Hara, I think the
mayor mayor Fry has talked about that publicly in different ways. Um, and so I'll just leave it to him to make any further comments on it. >> Any other questions? >> All right. And if you could answer Commissioner Stewart's question.
>> Yes, I I wrote down some notes, so hopefully I I did it briefly because I I didn't know how much time I would have. So, um, this body has probably heard, uh, us talk about we went through, uh, FEMA
training out east. And so part of that training was what we call uh within that training there's something called the NIMS which is the national incident um management system right and so um all I
would say the majority of your your community safety agencies are trained in NIMS and they have different the 100s and 200s we don't have to go into that but NIMS is so that whether It's EMS,
fire, police, the sheriff's, all of them are using the same terminology when they're talking, right? And so when you have an event, the simplest way to say is that down in 911, they will open a channel so that
everyone can talk, right? So you have right now the sheriff, Henipin County Sheriff's has their own dispatch. They have a dispatch system. We do. There's a couple of different places that have it, but they're able to communicate
under one radio channel if they need to. And uh remember that came about since the bridge collapse, right? And so um two other or maybe three other concepts to taking place is there's something
called a incident commander or incident command system that there's there's one person in charge on how this all works. So if MPD is responding to an incident and they're the I'm just going to say the main ones there and there's no one else. we just think incident commander
when we expand out you start to get into this unified command for all of the agencies right and so uh whether there's a when you have a planned event you plan all of this out right um things like the
taste of Minnesota the state fair uh all those things are planned out well in advance um when you think of unplanned incidents we've trained to do these things And that's the best way. And also, you probably heard the word J,
which is the joint information center where they push out information. So hopefully that helps. >> Okay, thank you. Any other questions? >> No, thank you. I I'm I'm familiar, but I know that a lot of people when they were listening to this presentation, they
were very unfamiliar, and I'm only familiar because I was a firefighter, right? So, I'm very familiar with different systems. And I think it's very important for us to be transparent when we're talking to community so they can understand what we're talking about
because one of the biggest things that I believe we're missing from the city of Minneapolis is we're not bringing forth awareness andor education when it comes to systems. Most people don't even understand or have ever even looked at the charter to even understand that that
is the mayor's job. That is not your job. So, I would highly recommend for those that are listening and watching and or are tuned in, it is also our job as community to learn our systems. But thank you for that answer. I appreciate
it >> through the chair. Uh, Commissioner Stewart, I did not know you were a former firefighter >> for seven years. >> Jack of all trades over there. So, yeah. >> Anything else shared? >> No. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Well, you receive and file that
report. Uh, next I will invite attorney James Cook. Did he just walk out the door? I thought I saw him walk past. >> Nope. There you go. Uh, I'll invite attorney James Cook to present his opinion on this matter, but I'll let me
back up a little bit. Uh, we have two external speakers who will be giving their expert legal opinions on police officers duty to intervene while working in the presence of federal agents. And then first up, you know what? Actually, we have Kevin Reich first, but if Kevin does I didn't see Kevin in here, so we'll start with Mr. Cook.
>> Okay. >> Oh, look. There he goes. >> Here's my suggestion to the commission that we start with Mr. Cook because he has a presentation. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Oh, >> Mr. Cook. Uh, >> we'll have you up first because you have a presentation. Thank you very much.
>> Hey, thanks a lot, folks. Um, so yeah, my name is James Cook and uh I'm an attorney that sues police and uh you know, municipalities, that type of thing. Just want to make sure everybody can hear me. Also wanted to make sure so
so recently um me, my my co-consel, our firm, we uh announced uh the class action against ICE. All right. So we're filing on behalf of uh you know, plan of sight against ICE. So, I I just wanted to make sure that you understood that
and that you met Trish Poland uh who is sort of our local liaison. Um just a few uh words about my background. I don't I mean I can't really I'm not sure. >> Have someone help with the >> I might need help with the uh
>> we'll have someone come assist you. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, you can you want to help me out? Cool. All right. All right. So, I go back and forth. My my firm is in California. You want me to take it down a little bit? >> Can you make sure to speak into the microphone?
>> Oh, I got Okay. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Um I'm moving around. All right. So, my my firm is in California, the the um Bur BNCL Law Firm. Um but I actually go back and forth between uh Minneapolis and in San Francisco, the Bay Area. Uh but I
but I grew up here. Um consider myself a Gen X80s person. um grew up, you know, went to Southwest High School, uh which at the time we were one of four black families, all right? So, there weren't, you know, there weren't a lot of people that looked like me. I went to Audabon
Elementary, went to Anne Watton, uh Junior High School, uh where I met one of my best friends who's also a commissioner, um who's sitting up here with you guys right now. And I also went to Southwest High School. Again, not a lot of black families. Uh but you know,
uh as a young black kid in Minneapolis in the especially in the 80s, uh interactions with the police were a right of passage. So, you know, and I'm giving you my background to to make sure you understand where my recommendations are coming from. And then, uh so, so you
know, I had I had a few of those and I think um led to me led me to where I am today. Uh, in terms of my academic journey, uh, Southwest High School, like I said, I went to Howard University, which is one of the H.B.CU. I'm a very proud graduate of H.B.CU. Um, and
definitely of Howard University, uh, Colorado, University of Colorado Boulder for graduate school. And that that was kind of a culture shock after coming from Howard, right? But, you know, you guys talked to me about that offline. Um, and then I went to law school in San
Francisco. But before I got to law school, I was uh I was on the fight circuit and that's um what everybody you guys saw what happened at the White House yesterday. So I was one of those guys, the precursor to to kind of that. So that was kind of my journey. But again, formative experiences during all
this time. Uh 360 kind of degree journey. Uh police interactions in uh Minneapolis and all the other cities that I lived in were a right of passage. Uh, and just so you know a little bit about my firm, the founder of my firm,
his name is John Burrus. He uh, he became famous for, and I, you know, for the people that are old enough to remember, but in in in the 1990s, I think a lot of people may be too young to remember, but the seminal case for police misconduct was Rodney King versus
City of Los Angeles. My the founder, my boss is the one who litigated that case. Okay. And then subsequent to that there were a number of cases other cases um you know he represented Tupac and you know uh if anybody remembers Tupac he
was he was a rapper that was big back before he died. Another one Oscar Grant that was kind of a seminal case. Um and they they made a movie about that called Fruit Veil. Um, so that that's where I'm coming from and that's the firm that I work for. And like I said, we we just uh
did the ICE class action case. And then some of the things that I got going on is um you know, I I got a big one in Pocutello, Idaho, where they shot a kid um autistic kid who uh had a knife and they kind of formed a firing squad and and blew him away. And one of the things
again that especially with Mr. Burrus is that we're going for policy changes. And I think that's part of why, you know, I'm here today. We and we just finished a major class action in the Bay Area called Allen versus Antioch where a number of officers, you know, they're
they're um they are uh uh you know, framing people, bragging on their text messages about how they, you know, one one of them was really egregious. Hey, I kicked that guy in the head and exploded like a watermelon. Like very egregious things. So, you know, uh we sued him,
made him pay. Uh so if you want to just go forward. So that's that's where I'm coming from. So in order to talk about I I felt that it was necessary for you to know my background before uh I talk about some of my um recommendations and conclusions. Um so I put up some
threshold questions. Uh the city attorney knows that we love threshold questions. That's what we're taught in law school and before we take the bar. And so one of the first ones is what are what are the legal boundaries and limitations of how uh the state or municipal governments can can limit or
control federal bad actors, right? Like our ICE agents in Metro Surge. Two, the historical context. I'm not going to I'll try not to put anybody to sleep, but the but the fact of the matter is is the historical context sort of informs the law. All right? And and sort of our legal
decisions. Um what are my personal observations uh about you know my experiences regarding the interplay between MPD and ICE uh with it which actually led us to file the class action and then what are suggested approaches in trying to limit ICE. Can I Thank you.
So, um, when when you talk about limitations on on on federal bad actors, right, there's there's some some things and and I'm kind of given a a high level view and and um, you know, sort of the analysis that we go through, but first thing, you
know, that always comes to mind for me as you talk about the Bill of Rights, right? The first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Um, and you want to kind of, you know, determine what the, uh, what the violations are, right? First amendment, we see that all day over a whipple, right? For instance, uh, we're
not dealing with the second or third amendment really here, but, you know, uh, fourth amendment, unreasonable searches and seizures, people get taken into custody in their, you know, uh, take their phones, I mean, you know, that that type of thing, and say, "We're going to keep them for some type of, uh,
you know, we're going to search him for for evidence." Did they have probable cause to do that in the first place? Right. And and really did you have probable cause to arrest someone because they were engaging in a first amendment activity? Um and so you know I always look at that but also there's the 10th
amendment right which is what we're talking about here which is the city the municipality has the right to pass laws you know for the purposes of the the health and welfare of its citizenry. Right? So that's, you know, a boundary that we have and there's toms written
about that. But the the 10th amendment gives us a little bit of wiggle room to make policy and and move forward. But then, you know, and then some of the other things that come into consideration under the 14th amendment, due process clause, equal protection clause, and you know, those types of
things, which we'll get in, but those those are the things that I think about when I start to intake and do a new case. Okay. Um, but ultimately what we're talking about here is what are our limitations and how can we as as a
municipality as as the state government or the the the the municipal government limit the actions of bad actors. Okay. And really, you know, the thing that comes to mind is the supremacy clause, right? Article six, clause two, right?
Um, and basically in a nutshell, uh, I I I picked it up and and read the book from law school. I, you know, it's kind of dusty, but you know, um, bottom line is I I'll interpret it for you. The federal government has the final say, right? Federal federal law trumps state
law. There's no way around it. I mean, I I can't, you know, uh, there there's a lot of wiggle room and there's limitations, but that's what it comes down to. If you can move forward to the next slide. So, and I'm sorry, these are this is my alarm uh telling me that I
need to uh um eat or something like that. So, sorry about that, folks. So, so again, what we're really talking about is whether or not the Minneapolis police can interfere with ICE in certain uh you know, in certain respects. And really
what it comes down to is is and and again, I I just want to let you guys know I I didn't go through like Alexis or or West Law Search. I just wanted to bring in some some cases and references that people can find online on Google, that type of thing. So, that's that's
what I'm using here, but there's there's probably other cases if you shephardize it, you could you can find some better law. But, but the main thing is that they can't interfere, right, when the agents conduct necessary and proper to perform their duties. Okay, so that's
that's number one. Um two uh there's there's um you know the they they state actors state police for instance MPD if they interfere with
federal agents in their duties they can be arrested they can be jailed they can be imprisoned so you know imagine your situation your Minneapolis police office you you know you you have to make a decision all right in this particular case, can I interfere and I'm am I going
to risk, you know, my livelihood? Am I going to risk going to prison? Um, especially in this particular climate where there's, you know, to me it feels very vindictive a lot of things that have happened. For instance, some of the people that we represent with the city's church, that type of thing. So, they can
be jailed, they can be in prison, a lot of things can happen. And it seems even more vindictive what what what happens these days, right, in the last six months. Um, there's an excessive force exception, right? The officer sees
excessive force. There may be an uh a point where they can interfere, but there's still limitations on that. And when we talk about excessive force, you know, I I want to make sure that everybody understands there excessive force is it's on a continuum. Okay.
uh the the the case law of Graham Graham versus Connor uh Tennessee versus Garner, they you know in in those cases they identify a number of factors to determine whether or not you know whether or not the the force was excessive. Okay, but it's a continuum.
Remember we I get a lot of calls, our office gets a lot of calls, officers use force um you know they stop me, they search me, but remember officers they can use force. They can detain you for as long as necessary to determine whether or not you've committed a crime.
All right? Uh and in some cases they can use force and sometimes and this is in my practice they they kill you and then you know they get off on what's called qualified immunity. Everybody remembers that from the George Floyd when when all that was going down, right? Um everybody's talking about all
of a sudden everybody's an expert on qualified immunity, but that is real in motion practice. And I've had cases where I was very invested in and the officers got released in a 12B6 action. That's your very first motion. Qualified immunity. Okay. Or summary judgement I
should say. So um then you also have that the the limitation or the or the you know that that that the case even if a state does charge a municipal officer that they can just remove it to federal court. So it takes it out of our hands.
Right. a case that you think is really egregious, it gets removed to federal court and we we have we have nothing. Okay. So, like for instance, this came up, you know, I'm thinking that this is what's going to happen with the case that uh Morardi, you know, they they sued one of the officer. I think he pointed a gun or, you know, there was
some issue like that. But eventually, I would imagine that that's going to get moved to federal court. I've had many of those. I had one case where an FBI agent shot a gentleman, right? shot him in hate Ashberry point blank, right? The
guy luckily didn't die. You know, he's in the hospital for a while, but you know, he didn't die. Um, agents shot him and, you know, thought we had a pretty good pleading. Everything was going as planned. They removed it, you know, the federal court and cases out of our
hands. So, here I am standing before you, frustrated civil rights litigator. Okay. Thank you. So, one thing that I think I should touch on is is is there is some history behind states suing federal bad actors. Okay. Slavery.
All right. in terms of slavery, like there's there's been a lot of cases where um states like for instance this one in Wisconsin where you know they they arrested the enslaver and then again, you know, uh this is one of those where where the the feds step in and
then they they get they get the person released, right? Order the person back into slavery. Okay. And I'm trying to say dismiss. I thought I dis Okay. Same thing with desegregation, right? I mean, you know, well before our time, but J James Meredith was going to was going to
integrate University of Mississippi and you know, uh the um the this time the state was actually trying to prosecute the federal agents for making that happen, right? Um and then again, uh got got sent to uh the the federal
government dismissed the charges. So, Ruby Ridge, not a lot of people here old enough to remember that. I do. All right. Um, uh, the guy, you know, this is Mr. Weaver, but Idaho, white
supremist, uh, you know, Mormon camp, something like that. You know, they went to serve a warrant, big standoff, and then, you know, they, uh, the agent shot his wife, and then there was long litigation, but basically that case actually got allowed to proceed. All
right. Um and uh you know but the the a new prosecutor um I'm I'm sorry the state charges were allowed to proceed but the new prosecutor ultimately dropped the case. All right. So the point in saying all that is that there's mixed basically like mixed you know mixed
outcomes right there's nothing solid that says oh you know this is the way to do it. Like if you're part of the state this is the way to do it. So that's what I'm thinking of as I give my recommendations. All right. So again, here's a slide just showing what I think is the full analysis. You got the
constitution of course. um you always consider in a particular state the duty to intervene if there's any law regarding that. And then, you know, we had two people that came up that, you know, the the the gentleman before the the officer before, I think it was Bryson Robinson where he talked about
the general uh orders, the policies and procedures, and then I always look at um post training uh you know, post is the police officer standard uh and and that type of thing. And then the training documents that that the commissioner um afterwards talked about. So, uh, but
yeah, my conclusion about all this is you got to take it case by case basis when you're talking about policy in terms of determining how you're going to deal with federal bad actors. Can you go for it? All right. So,
so before I make the recommendations, I just want to say this about myself. All right. I want to give you full disclosure. I I live at 15th in Franklin. that's near the uh Native American Center, right? Um and you know,
basically pretty improver area. Has always been an impoverished area. You know, I live there. Um and you know, really since after George Floyd, uh I I feel like there's there's been a containment of of sort of the the the
issue of, you know, crime and and and sex trafficking, drugs. You know, on the one hand, you know, there's there's one side that says, "Hey, homeless issue here. The other side, you know, my side has become gone from the homeless compassion issue to open air drug market, you know, that type of thing."
And it's a problem, right? And the people that live in that neighborhood, a lot of them look like me. Uh tend to be, like I said, impoverished. Uh represent all racial groups, but you know, it tends to be a huge cluster of Somali uh Latinos. Um
and we're hard hit, really hard hit by by ICE. But I have to say, when it first started, I was all for it. I was like, "Yeah, bring in ICE. Bring in some type of law enforcement. We need law enforcement. So many instances where, for instance, my
neighbors, right? Somebody, you know, you break into one of their houses or break their windshield, that's catastrophic. They can't fix it. They don't have enough money to fix it. And and you guys know how cold it is in Minneapolis. Or, you know, there's there's there's, you know, somebody breaks, you know, the apartment building
near my house that broke in, you know, guy raped a little girl. You know, like like horrible things have happened there. and it seems like it's contained there. So, I was all about it. I'm We need law enforcement. You know, I'm I'm fighting people in the alley every day like, "Hey, man. You know, I really wish
it wouldn't shoot up or pitch a tent in my driveway." So, I was all about it. One of my stories is that there was a particular neighbor that I always used to get into it with. I had to, you know, literally physical fights. Got in a fight with him once because of something
that he was doing. held him down, called the cops, and you know, cops came, arrested him, and then, you know, I'm gonna, of course, go represent him, right? I mean, you know, he is my neighbor, by the way. But yeah, I mean, literally, luckily, nothing happened with it. But that was and then he was
the first guy that got picked up by ICE. So, my neighbors come and say, "Hey, you you know, you're a lawyer. Go get this guy out of, you know, so I go to Whipple." That's back in like, I don't know, August or September last year. Get him out. Then um you know he gets
arrested again later on right like more towards like after Thanksgiving then he gets he gets deported. All right. Um and I was still kind of on the fence about which way I want to go. And then um after going back and forth to Whipple like by December January where they're
deporting people like within eight hours of picking them up. I'm like you know first of all that was problematic. a lot of them my neighbors but also um I think when I saw somebody get ripped saw a guy get ripped from his child and the child was beside himself that's when I threw
myself into this you know fully that is the ice cases cuz that is a devastating thing to see even thinking about it now it's hard to talk about it so that's where it came for me okay so um but
here's the problem there's nuance There's nuance. My neighbors, they're wary of police, but they're always the victims of crime, all types of crime, even petty crime. And and and it affects everything. Um again, nuance number two,
you know, the systematic barriers like there's always a language barrier, language, racial, economics, you know, that keeps them from wanting to exercise their rights. Like I said, Trish Poland over here who's doing a lot of the immigration going to Whipple, you know, I mean, I feel like twice a day, you
know, every week. Um, but a lot of people that would be subjected to ICE, they don't want to sign up. They don't want to step forward because they are afraid even though their rights have been violated. You have rights as a citizen to be here under the 14th
amendment, you know, whether or not you've you've you've done your process or not. Okay. So, they don't want to exercise their rights. So, there's that. Um, you know, a lot of people want to self-deport. And again, uh, my my neighbors, they're they're they're wary.
Uh, then there's the issue of, you know, the activists versus sort of the the the people that are speaking for him versus the people who are not. Like, a lot of times, and and again, this is anecdotal, right? This is this is my neighborhood
where, you know, it's like, who are these people speaking for us? Like we we need the cops. We just need them to do their job properly. All right. So why are these people out here, you know, yelling, shouting, like this type of thing, engaging with the cops? So I I had I have one story that I that I have
to tell. So Alex Prey gets shot. You guys all remember the day. Then there's a big huge riot uprising over 26 in Nickel. You know, I go up there, you know. Hey everybody, I'm James Cook. I will represent you for free. holding up my
number if you get arrested but don't engage with the cops and I'm saying this I'm telling people guy comes up to me right I think he was I I I don't know for sure what he's doing but came tab me on the back hey man don't tell people not to engage with the cops we want to
engage with them now I get it but right then that says a whole lot right I'm black if you guys haven't noticed right I'm a walking billboard for repar operations. I'm black. I don't care.
Like, take off the tie and the suit. I'm still a black man. So, I'm not trying to engage with the cops because I know that my black ass will get shot, right? At least that's in my mind. But this guy's not.
He's got the privilege to think that. He's got the privilege to act that way. I don't. It's not going to matter at the end of the day, right? if I'm dead. Right. This guy doesn't think he's not thinking like that. At least that's that's what I'm thinking. Like if if you want to engage
with these ICE agents that you know that shot Renee Good and Alec Alex Prey who are white, you think they're not going to shoot me? So that that's what's going through my mind. But that's one of those conversations that needs to be had.
There are people with privilege who are speaking with me and or telling me, "Hey man, don't tell people not to engage with the cops." I'm just trying to tell people out here like, "Look, I appreciate what you're doing. Exercise your First Amendment rights and I will
represent you for free and this dude, but please don't engage with the cops. Please don't get killed. I it makes it much more difficult for me to represent you. If you throw ice, if you're if if you're you know, whatever you're doing, if you're throwing
snowballs or whatever you're doing to represent you, I'll still do it. But, you know, so the the the privilege quotient is a is a big thing for me. Okay? And we can talk about that more. If you could go to the next slide. Thank
you. So, here's with all that in mind, here's some of my suggested approaches. All right. Um, so the first thing is civil suits. I mean, here I am, right? Trisha's here and again doing the intake on the immigration cases and you know,
civil suits. That's one way to get a hold of these guys, right? Um and and what we found and and we've represented a lot of the plaintiffs like in from the city's church to the to the uh um you know to the hotel protest everyone you
know people at Whipple like we have a lot of clients right and we've you know appeared in court most of them get off like the prosecutors I don't think have their heart in it right and and and and I I'll say like even one guy took us aside and was like you know like really hey I got to do my job here but you know
I appreciate what you're doing So that's the sentiment everybody from the court on down I believe feels the same way. Um we can try to implement some municipal policies, right? Some type of long arm statute for the for the for the uh for the lawyers in here. But like something
that says, you know, we're going to have a policy that's going to prosecute, you know, ICE agents when they, you know, when when they do this. But, you know, we have to know that that again there's limitations and uh you know, a lot of these can be removed to federal court.
But Mori Arti is, you know, she kind of led the effort with that. Regardless of what you think with about her and what she's done, she did do that and I think that that that's a good start. Um, again, we got the community organizing like with us, you know, we we not only
used, you know, our ring cameras, like strung them all together, you know, we already had that in place for for the crime that was taking place in in our neighborhood, but, you know, then we started to use it for the ICE ages to give everybody heads up. And again, I'm near I'm like two houses down from POW grounds, which I think was the heartbeat
of the resistance to ICE. Um, citizen patrols, you know, that type of thing. uh what we've seen in San Francisco and LA by the way again my firm's in in in San Francisco I spent a lot of time in LA is they're talking about you know environmental controls like traffic
water you know traffic tweaks you know regulating lodging and utilities you know um sort of a backend discrimination against ICE agents I mean I don't I don't know if that'll work you know if somebody tries to do that but that's that's one way but and then then you got
you know legislative lobbying efforts in both federal court and state court. And I think that Clolobachar and one of the other uh and and some of the others have have talked about bivvens claims, right? You got FTCA, which are the federal claims, the
original thing that you file with the police. And then you also have that. So, so that's if you don't know their identities, but also you got biven claims, which allows you to sue. If you know the identity of the federal agent that caused the harm, then you can sue him in federal court and you can get a jury quad. But with a FTCA claim, you
can't. So the they're talking about like trying to make it so that um you know you can still get a private a jury trial, which is really the threat uh in federal court. I don't know that that's going to
happen, but hey, at least people are talking about it. But the most important one that I think is deescalation tactics. Like maybe there can be a policy that recommends deescalation tactics and training for MPD officers in terms of ICE. And this is why I say that
one of the times that I went to Whipple, right? I came around, this is in the winter, it's cold as hell. I'm in my truck with another lawyer, Chase Iron Eyes, another guy that's that's that's in the class action suit with us and and a and a reporter. We come around to the
guard shack. We push guard shack. There's like 50 60 agents. Boom. Guns on us right there. Right. And I'm like, "Hey, you guys get your hands up. Get your hands up. Please get your hands up." You know? Uh, and it was the one
Minneapolis police officer who said, "Hey, you guys, these guys are lawyers. I see him every day. Real calm, like, could you guys please put your guns down?" They put their guns down. So, you know, and I've seen a lot of
these kind of h, you know, humanistic humanity acts with the with with MPD cuz, right, this is their community, too. And so that type of thing is what really holds true with me is again deescalation tactics. The Memphis project I think somebody mentioned it.
Tactical time, tactical use of time, distance, you know, repositioning and communication. And that is one of those things that we can talk about like using these tactics to deescalate him anytime there's an ice
encounter. Um, and that's, you know, that's one of the big things. I had some other notes as we were going through. I'll just go through those real quick. Um, you know, some of the things that can help the
civil suits like data collection. I think there was some discussion about that that allows for the attorneys in in the city attorney. They they know, you know, Minnell claims Minnell versus um Department of Social Services in New York, but allows you to go up the chain and sue somebody in the higher in the
chain, you know, for failure to train and supervise that that type of thing. So, data collection does it and I think they touched on that with the IIA interview. Um, I know there's been a lot of controversy over overtime, but I mean this just just occurred to me while I was sitting back. There's like, you
know, we we have this case of and I Allison U Leier and and Mory, but like we're get a lot of calls about people saying they have not properly investigated my case. So, I'm thinking, you know, is there a way to give
officers overtime to investigate cases? Is that one thing that we could do? um you know, especially investigations like this where the people don't have closure. Um can we give officers overtime to do deescalation patrols with
ICE? I would like to see that. Um, then the other thing is I I got to say is I also represent police officers, firefighters, first responders of all kind, but a lot of police officers, especially officers that, you know, they
they mostly they've been on patrol 20, 30 years, been getting shot at. You know, it's a thankless job. It's political, that type of thing. And they want to come up with a reason to get rid of their ability to get their pension. So, you know, they call us, we go get their pension, make sure that they get
paid, all right, and that they can, you know, live a life after that. Um, got a lot of officers. The way that we get a lot of officer like information in some of these cases is whistleblowers, need whistleblower protections, whether it's, you know, internal or or or even
ICE. And that, you know, brought that up because of the uh the uh IIA reviews. So, those are some of my recommendations. I mean, you know, they aren't great, but I mean, you know, or maybe they are, maybe you like them, but if you want to go to the last side. So, I'm James Cook, attorney of law. I'm
with Trish Poland. You see my number there. Please feel free to take it down, take a picture, call me anytime if you just want to chat, talk it up, talk about the Constitution. If you want to argue with me about what I said today, feel free to call me. I don't I don't care. And then Trish
Poland, if you don't mind, her name is Trish Poland, 612 85976881. She's had a lot of creepos call her. We've been um really uh sort of doxed by the right wing, you know, uh a lot um
and and by people on the other side. But, you know, that's fine. She's she's learned how to deal with it. Um that's sort of what happens if you're a black civil rights attorney. you know, we we you know, nuance and and getting docks. Uh we've been here before all throughout
history. Um and that's uh yeah, call me anytime. Feel free to chop it up. Uh we also do investigations for you know, internal affairs like employment investigations like you know that type of thing and and we can consult on you on the cases. But really, I would like
to be here to educate people and let them know really what their rights are and not have like unreasonable expectations and really talk about this issue of privilege versus the nuance reality that I have to deal with, right? Web Dubois, the souls
of black folks. I see people smiling. They know exactly what I'm talking about. Code switching. That's why I'm here. Thank you folks. Appreciate you guys. I want to say thank you for that report and I ask the commissioners to if you have any questions to reach out to him because in the interest of time we have the capture
to 9:00. We want to make sure that Kevin gets his opportunity to come up and speak and then we have a few other agenda items. So Mr. Reich, thank you Mr. Cook. I appreciate you. Mr. Re, if you >> Sorry about that, Kevin. >> Good evening. My name is Kevin Rich. I'm an attorney in town. I practice um
primarily in the areas of civil rights and criminal defense and most of my criminal offense work in federal court although I do do some state court work. Uh I was pretty heavily involved in defending folks who were arrested by ICE because they were protesting
um working to protect their communities, protect their neighbors, that kind of thing. Uh I'm just going to touch on a couple things. Mr. Cook gave a great presentation, covered a lot of ground. I just want to couple hit a couple high points from my perspective. Um I took a
look at the city's policy um related to immigration enforcement interactions between ICE and and the police. I I think one thing that struck me from looking at that policy was that it's very heavily focused on when the
officers can provide assistance to ICE agents um and when they need to intervene if they get called by immigration enforcement whether it be ICE or CBP was another agency that was pretty heavily involved here. I think something that could probably use some
um refinement in the policy is when officers are authorized to arrest a federal agent. And really, as everyone knows because it's been the news a lot, that is kind of where the rubber is meeting the road here in our community.
Um when ICE is committing a crime, when a federal agent is committing a crime, what can a Minneapolis police officer do? The answer, the very simple answer is you can arrest them. The law protects you if you're a police officer. If a
federal agent is committing a crime in front of you, it's just like anybody else. You can arrest them. Whether or not a prosecution will be successful is something that we're all going to be finding out about in the very near future. As Mr. Cook indicated there's a
federal removal statute that allows a federal agent to take their case if they're being prosecuted in state court and move it to federal court. Um if they're acting in it's called the the language in the statute is if they're acting in the color of their office, they're being prosecuted for an act they
took in the color of their office, they get to remove it under the statute to federal court once they're in federal court. And Mr. Cook um touched on this in his presentation as well. Um the there's a f federal immunities that apply and essentially it all comes down
to as a as a federal agent, are you acting within the scope of your duties when you're engaged in the conduct that has brought you into the context of a criminal prosecution. We're all going to find out what that means as these prosecutions um brought by the county
attorney move forward. As most of the members of the commission probably know, we are in the eighth circuit court of appeals here in Minnesota. And the eighth circuit court of appeals is traditionally hostile to civil suits brought against law enforcement at any level. And my guess is they're going to be especially hostile to lawsuits
brought against federal law enforcement. One of the um cases that I'm involved with is Tiner V. Gnome, which was a an injunctive case that got brought in December by legal observers against ICE. We went up to the eth circuit uh on that case because we got an injunction from a
federal judge saying ICE, stop beating people up. And we went up to the eth circuit and they flipped it right around and said, "ICE, go ahead and beat people up essentially." And I my guess is whatever comes out of these prosecutions that the county attorney brings, when it
gets up to the eighth circuit, they're going to take steps to affirmatively curb the ability of a prosecuting authority to bring those cases. However, this is not the question that is before this commission and it's not the issue that needs to be addressed with respect
to the policy. The question is when can a Minneapolis police officer step in and the answer is whenever a federal agent is committing a crime. If you have probable cause that federal agent is committing a crime, arrest them. Now, obviously
a policy, the law, those are easy things to articulate, especially in this room and not out on the street when it's happening. There are a whole host of practical considerations that I don't need to get into about when a police officer is going to be feel comfortable
taking the step to arrest a federal agent who they believe is committing a crime. And I I think to the extent that that this commission and that the management of the Minneapolis Police Department can
encourage officers to take that step, to train officers to take that step, to discipline officers who don't take that step when it needs to be taken, and articulate policies that when a federal agent commits a crime, you must do your
duty to the community and arrest them. Again, I harbor no illusions that that's going to happen on a regular basis. And it's not just the Minneapolis Police Department. We saw throughout our community, the Henipin County Sheriff's Office, uh other local law enforcement
agencies, and continuing to today. I still get calls people who are being arrested by municipal police departments at the behest of ICE or CBP. So, this is something that's an issue with all law enforcement agencies, but
this the Henipin County is taking the lead nationally on taking steps to protect citizens from federal abuse and federal crimes committed by federal agents. The city of Minneapolis is at the epicenter of that kind of activity
in Henipin County. So, I strongly encourage you to look at the policy that's in place and and create language in there, uh, promulgate language that ends up in that policy that will hopefully help somebody in the heat of
the moment when the time come to step in and prevent the kinds of misconduct and criminal activity that we saw in our community. And I'll leave it at that unless anybody has any specific questions for me. >> Thank you very much. Any questions, Commissioner Baker?
So, we discussed the policy 9-41 quite a bit back in November and explicitly asked about what would happen, you know, in a Chicago style, you know, operation, but they had um Midway Blitz a few weeks
before, a few months before. Um and then when the chief was here, he said, "Oh, we didn't train our officers on how to intervene with the federal for excessive force, and that's complicated. we wouldn't do it. And as somebody who took three weeks off work to full-time do
community defense and had several of my associates have guns pulled on them and have ICE show up in their driveways or in their back alleys when they were trying to take their kids to work and we had to send other patrollers there to
try to drive them off. It was so immensely unsatisfying to hear a chief who in a press conference said if they don't intervene we will fire them then just say oh well it's complicated and we
don't have any rights to do that. So I would like just a as clear as an answer as any lawyer can give understand local law enforcement has a legal right to enforce
laws and arrest people who shoot innocent bystanders. >> Yes. >> And whether or not that qualified immunity can is adjudicated in the court. But they have the legal right to intervene. >> Yes.
I don't think our police department believes that and it frustrates the it frustrates me. I mean the >> I think they're scared >> where Mr. Cook rightly brought up the issue of nuance and at the risk of
becoming a lawyer uh as opposed to an advocate for the policies that I want to see put in place. you have to concede that obstructing a federal agent who is lawfully conducting their duties is a federal crime.
So on top of all the practical issues with in the inter relationships in law enforcement where you've got police officers especially in management interacting on a daily basis with their federal counterparts with their counterparts at the US attorney's office
with the FBI agents with DHS. Um, on top of that, you've got the justifiable fear, especially given our current political environment, that if you step in to affirmatively prevent a federal agent from doing something because you think they're
committing a crime, you are stepping out on a limb. And no policy is going to alter that reality. I think at the end of the day there may be no way to change that.
There may be no way to change the culture so that a person in that position and I've certainly cast no aspersions on people who have to make these decisions. I mean police have a very difficult job and the everyone in here this room knows that way better than I do but I it's obvious and especially in the kind of high tension
environment that we're talking about. Um, but somebody's going to have to step up and do it and set aside their concerns about the risk themselves. Just like when you were out there doing community fence defense, you were taking risks. >> I was out there with a whistle.
>> Yeah. And and you know, everybody's got to make their own decision about what they see in front of them and how they respond um and what they can live with and includes the police. But I think clearly articulated policies and maybe some training from the city attorney
that reinforces that you don't have to stand by while a federal agent commits a crime maybe will be the first step towards helping to change that. >> So just make sure my comment question then Commissioner Stewart just make sure I'm clear. So they have a legal duty to
arrest if they see a crime, but in the same situation, they could be arrested for federal charges on doing arresting someone with a legal obligation to do so. So what you're saying is that they should just take the risk because it's
for the greater policy of arresting someone because they see a crime. So that's kind of that's a just want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly. >> I mean, that is my personal viewpoint. >> Okay. >> Right. And it all these situations, Mr. Cook very uh aptly pointed this out.
It's on a case-byase basis. And that doesn't help anybody when you're creating a you can't create a policy on a case-by case basis. >> But um >> I do have to suggest >> there may be scenarios where it's obvious that a crime is being committed in that case then the officers to feel
comfortable that they can step in. >> There probably won't be that many situations like that, but there probably will be some. Okay. Commissioner Stewart, >> I'm you guys know that this this is something that I'm going to bring you back to May 25th of 2020 at 8 something
at night on 38th in Chicago, which the world loves to call George Floyd Square. We going to keep it real. It's the intersection of 38th in Chicago. There were two rookie officers
and two veteran officers, one of which is still in federal prison and the rest have been released. They had a duty to intervene. I've said this to you guys multiple times. I've said it to community. I've said it to this body.
I'm going to say it again. We did not land here because of ICE and federal law enforcement. We landed here because MPD has failed to intervene
when it comes to humanity. Are we honestly asking a department who has landed us to report by Alifa? Are we asking ourselves to give this any more time? Because if we are and we're
going to continue to overlook how we got here as a body, I'm going to have to step down because I'm not going to allow for you guys to continue to sit here and act like we landed here because of immigration. We landed here by patterns
of practice against black people, descendants of slaves, indigenous people. Mr. Cook calls it nuances. I'mma call it what it is. racism that lives inside a culture,
a culture called MPD, a culture called any other kind of police department, law enforcement agency you want to call it. But let's stop it on this body and let's get to a place of where we need to be. Let's stay focused. Let's not get
distracted because as this man just pointed out, if you put yourself in a position with this federal government, you will be arrested and then you going to have to call Mr. Cook and pray to God he can
come and get you out because he didn't already told you. If you do anything that makes him to defend you on a different level other than standing there using your first amendment right, which
is your voice, not a bottle of ice, not a whistle, not nothing else that is interfering with their job because they have a job. Just like it is our job as community
members to be an alternative to police, to ask them, to stand up, to demand that they do their jobs. I can't keep doing this with y'all. I'm sorry. This is something that truly
triggers me as a black woman to continue to hear you guys go over and over and over and over about immigration. We landed here because of May 25th of 2020. We landed here because Minneapolis Police Department continues
to attack the black community. We landed here because we have many people using their voice and institutions thinking that they can speak up on what is best for the black community.
Ask us how we feel cuz this ain't it. We are out of time and I know we have just 25 minutes left because the captioners leave at 9:00. And so if there's no pressing comments and questions, I would ask that we reach out to Mr. Rich by email and by phone, which
we have. Um, so I'm not seeing any other Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Bars, you did have your hand up before I made that statement. Did you want to make your question real quick? >> Uh, yeah. Thank you, Chair. Just quickly, um, if you can just expand on Mr. Cook's comment about on his own
experience at Whipple, um, it seems to me that within these this legal complexity and and the risk involved for for MPD, um, depending on the form of intervention really kind of dictates the risk
involved for the officer. I mean, that was an officer verbally, calmly, verbally intervening in a potential deadly force situation. and he did did so very uh effectively. Can you just talk about maybe levels of risk for different types of
intervention for MPD? >> Thank you. >> Well, just briefly because I know that this Madam Chair is um I'm out of time. If I can answer that question, I'd also be happy to speak offline. Yeah, whatever you >> real quickly, you can answer the question. >> Okay. So,
>> um Commissioner Stewart, I would ask you to come and speak to her real quick. We have quorum. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, so obviously
verbally interacting with a federal agent who's engaged in the course of their duties is going to put you at less risk of being accused of interfering or impeding with the federal officer. There is a federal statute though 18 USC 1111 which criminalizes impeding or interfering with a federal officer
lawfully carrying out their duties. However that gets interpreted is what your level of risk is. And we're still in kind of a gray area about how severe the ETH circuit's going to be about that, how severe our district is going to be about that, and how aggressive the federal government's going to be about going after people they consider to have
taken that step. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. All right. I'll ask the clerk to receive and file those reports. Um, and thank you both for coming. We really appreciate it and get this perspective to help us in terms of our policy drafting. Um the next item on the agenda
is a public hearing update. As you all know, we had our public hearing on May 11th. Um we have we were going to present those questions to the chief. Now we need to present those questions to the new interim chief. Um he obviously been the job for a short period of time. So we would like to
compile some questions and come to our next meeting in July with questions from the public hearing for the chief to respond to. Commissioner Stewart. >> Yes. I would like to file a motion for the community engagement to draft questions at our next meeting on June
23rd for the next public hearing that we can then send over to uh Linda and city staff and the city attorney to get those over to the entry chief. Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion?
>> For the purposes of time, all those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Is there any opposed? Any abstensions? All right. So, we have a motion that's been approved to draft the questions in the community engagement committee and have them prepared and given to the interim chief for him to answer and when
he can come to the next meeting. All right. Item number 13 on our agenda is receiving and filing comments related to the appeals court reverse ruling on Minneapolis police coaching records. Um, before I open up to the commissioners for a brief discussion, I do want to note that this is active litigation by the city. It is not the role of CCPO to
make recommendations as to the city's litigation strategy or to provide our statutory interpretation of data classifications. However, it is within our powers to make recommendations to the city council, the mayor, or the chief of police about the policies, practices, and procedures of MPD. Thus,
I'll open it up for comments on the topic of MPD's coaching policies, practices, and procedures. Commissioner M madame chair, commissioners, uh appreciating that the moment is before us because of a court of appeals decision. I totally recognize that it's
not our jurisdiction to address litigation strategy or to offer statutory interpretation of the data practices act. But we are charged with looking at MPD policy and practice and procedure. and we are charged with
gathering data to research how uh its policies are implemented and recommend changes. And it seems to me the use of coaching in the history of this department goes very much to Commissioner Stewart's recent comments and uh a variety of other concerns in
the community. So, um I think the Alifa audit Alifa is reviewing this issue as well. And and I am the first to recognize that implementation of early warning detection systems might identify problematic behavior. And having that
addressed and coached and trained offline is a good part of a good practice to change police uh uh practice and impose accountability. But when we have cases of misconduct complaints that are filed and are now going through the
investigation process and those complaints are sustained, uh the idea that uh coaching is going to be a way that that's disposed of I think raises very serious policy questions setting aside the legal questions. And I also recognize that employees have
privacy rights uh in this process and it is long-standing union practice. But I would think going forward this body should take a very hard look after research and study at uh calling this into great focus and really discouraging
the idea that sustained complaints are going to be disposed of with something like coaching and that that gets pushed aside. Um, so I would move that this commission directs our PPR committee, our uh, police policy research
recommendations committee to review MPD policy and practice and all available data on the use of coaching, especially in cases of sustained complaints of misconduct and bring recommendations back to the full commission by our
August meeting. >> Second. All right. Any further discussion? Chair, if if we do have the I apologize. I wasn't on microphone. Apologies. Motion in second. Commissioner Champfield. Thank you. Um yes, here to third if we needed a third. Um but I
also would like to hear from folks about some things you'd like us to look into. We would love to do that. And if there's some discussion we can have tonight and ongoing about what in fact um you know, what what would we want to be looking for? um data research questions. There
is a study that was done by the former body in um the PCOC in 2014 or 15, I think. So, we can look at that. I mean, my if I had to do it today, I would want to redo that. Um they had some really thoughtful research questions in there.
I can pull that up if that's helpful. Um think it might be helpful to share that report and specifically maybe looking at the the B level or higher which may have got a coaching. I'm hopefully there's no C level or higher that receive coaching but particularly B level if we can get
that data and if there was something higher than that just knowing what that looks like that's a great >> other um comments vice cher >> I think this uh can dovetail with uh ongoing discussions of the discipline
matrix because the the there's I mean there there's a lot of ways to get to the um to the result that Commissioner Smith was talking about and that is if there's sustain sustained complaint, it's got to be made public. I mean, it
whether you redefine levels or you redefine um when you apply the levels at the at the complaint stage like the plaintiff in the in the the court of appeals case was defining it or you define it later as a result. There's a
lot of nuances and I think the discipline matrix works into this and I'd love for us to take a look at that too. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? >> Maybe that's a good place to start and then also with the PC uh research questions if that's helpful. Do do we
have a sense of the discipline matrix? Someone brought that up in public comment tonight too. Um we we met about it months and months ago. Um, do we know or who who might we ask um about the status of that? >> Sam, >> uh, through the chair. My understanding
is that it's possible there may be a draft being posted for community feedback again in the near future. Um, I don't know exactly when. Uh, we would have to have Commander Robinson confirm that for sure. >> Oh, he's not here. >> Uh, one other question, Chair, if I may.
>> Yeah. Um, I was curious what uh if anyone had any thoughts about um cases that change um uh let me formulate that thought. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> All right. So, the motion's on the floor
and there's been some discussion. Um if there's nothing else, clerk, can you call the role on that motion, please? Commissioner Mlehenny >> I >> Shanfield >> I >> uh Baker
>> I >> Stewart >> I >> Barts >> I >> Smith >> I >> Vice Chair Olsson >> I >> and Chair Reeves >> I >> there are eight eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. All right. Next up with the ple there was
nothing else. Commissioner Smith just to make sure. Nothing else. Just making sure. Okay. With the police chief resigning, the CCPO would like to renew its commitment to police reform and implementation of the settlement agreement and would like to actively work with the interim police chief Peterson and the city enterprise
to fulfill this commitment. We have made a resolution to solidify this commitment. Commissioner Smith, are you going to read the resolution? Thank you. >> Madam Chair, I don't know that you'll work. Madam chair, commissioners, uh perhaps in the interest of time, I maybe
not need to read the whole resolution, but I think those of us discussing this have felt that there have been some jarring events with the chief's departure and that we are at risk if we're not all careful in this community of losing momentum, whatever momentum
we've had in the cause of reform. And it is important for every part of the process uh the system to refocus redouble efforts. And so what we're in charge of is us. And so I feel like it's appropriate for this body to call
attention again to as Commissioner Stewart impassionately invoked our focus on the cause of reform and accountability. uh we need to make our voice heard and uh we should speak from our own experience and part of our experience is on disciplinary panels 132
cases with hundreds of hours of uh police conduct uh review body warn camera review and disciplinary recommendations um and reflections on that process to date are I think it's a legit process and we need to share more
with the public about what's going on in that process and we need to keep striving for improvements in that process. We've also engaged in intensive policy review to the point where I think we can see our comments making an impact. We need to continue to redouble that effort. Um I think it'd be a
mistake to feel like it's time to rest. And so to me, the point of this resolution, especially in this moment where we are in leadership transition and it may take time to get to permanent leadership of the department again, we all need to just shine bright lights on
on this work and pledge uh to um renew our commitment to reform and the settlement agreement um and work actively with Alifa, with Chief Interim Chief Peterson and all the parties to fulfill that commitment. We need a deeper commitment to community
engagement. We need to do a better job of a public hearing and ask the city enterprise to join with us in doing a better job of a public hearing. And finally, we need to use this resolution as a way to establish an ongoing dialogue and relationship with the interim chief and for that matter. Um
because I think we maybe gained a sentence or two in their monitoring report, but my hope is their next report has more to say about our work. And with that, I'd move the resolution. >> Is there a second? >> Second. All right. And just to add for the public that can see the resolution
online, but just for purposes of saying it out loud, the last resolving clause be further resolved that the CCPO request that a copy of the resolution be provided to interimm chief Peterson as an open and ongoing invitation for him to engage with CCPO and to ensure that
continuation of reform initiatives is prioritized and supported. Uh there's no further discussion on it. Vice Olson, >> I just want to highlight one one thing that um was important to some of us. The there's three uh aspects of the resolution and Commissioner Smith did a
great job summarizing them, but um the second one is particularly important to me and uh in recognition of our uh coming second public hearing, we hereby request that the city enterprise provide critical communications and engagement
staff support. What we're I to me, we're asking for help. Thank you. All right. If there's no further discussion, clerk, if you call the role on that motion. >> Commissioner Mahoney. >> I. >> Shanfield. >> I. >> Baker.
>> Nay. >> Stewart. >> I. >> Barts. >> I. >> Smith. >> I. >> Vice Olsson. >> I. >> And Chair Reeves. >> I. >> There are seven eyes and one nay. >> All right. Thank you. That motion
passes. Uh, next up, Effective Law Enforcement for All or AIFA will be meeting on June 24th, 2026 from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. It will be at the Brian Coyle Community Center located at 42015th Avenue South in Minneapolis. The purpose
of this meeting is for the community to learn who they are, their role, as well as updates on the implementation process. With that, if there's no others, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you very much. And we made it.