WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=o-yb0elOv2c

Part: 1

1
00:00:06.560 --> 00:00:21.840
Good evening. My name is Lata Reeves and 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

2
00:00:21.840 --> 00:00:38.239
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 [snorts] ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of

3
00:00:38.239 --> 00:00:53.360
their comments. Additionally, before we proceed with our roll call, I'll note that we have new commissioners with us today. Ayan Wasami, Jeff Pharaoh, and Naomi Wilson. If my colleagues would indulge me, I would think we should do a quick round of introductions as a

4
00:00:53.360 --> 00:01:08.960
welcome. Commissioner Wasam. Yes. Hi, how are you? My name is Ayan Orsome. Nice to meet you all. Uh I am here representing W 6. >> Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Jeff Froll. >> Hey everybody. Uh Jeff Favro. I'm here

5
00:01:08.960 --> 00:01:24.479
representing Ward 12. >> All right. Thank you. And then Naomi Wilson. Hi. Um good evening everyone. I am Naomi Wilson and I am here representing W 9. >> All right. Thank you. Welcome everyone. At this time, I'm going to call to order

6
00:01:24.479 --> 00:01:40.079
the regular meeting for Monday, August 3rd, and ask the clerk to call the role. >> Commissioner Melhenny >> here. >> Shanfield >> here. >> Newman absent. Clement absent. Orami >> here. >> Baker

7
00:01:40.079 --> 00:01:55.439
>> here. >> Stewart is absent. Wilson >> here. >> Kennedy >> here. >> Barts >> here. >> Fabil >> here. Williams Johnson is absent. Smith >> present.

8
00:01:55.439 --> 00:02:10.399
>> Vice Chair Olsson >> here. >> And Chair Reeves >> present. There are 11 members present. >> Thank you. Let the record reflect. We have a quorum. Commissioners, the agenda for this 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

9
00:02:10.399 --> 00:02:26.080
commissioners. I would like to move for one amendment to the agenda and that would be to change item number four which for public comments from two minutes per person to three minutes per person. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Is a motion and seconded. Any

10
00:02:26.080 --> 00:02:40.560
discussion for expediency? All those in favor please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Any objections? Thank you. All right. Any other additions to the agenda?

11
00:02:40.560 --> 00:03:00.400
All right. Clerk, please call the role. >> Commissioner Mahoney. >> I. >> Shanfield. >> I. >> Newman is absent. Clement absent. Uh, Warsami. >> Hi. >> Baker. >> I. >> Stewart is absent.

12
00:03:00.400 --> 00:03:16.239
>> I'm right here. >> Oh, sorry. Stewart for the agenda. >> Uh, candidate. >> Hi. Oh, Barts >> present. >> Uh, it's for the >> Oh, sorry. I >> agenda. Okay. Uh, favor.

13
00:03:16.239 --> 00:03:31.680
>> I >> Williams Johnson is absent and Smith >> I. >> Vice Chair Olsen >> I. >> And Chair Reeves >> I. >> There are 11 eyes. >> Madam clerk, for the purpose of the minutes, what I realized I forgot to do

14
00:03:31.680 --> 00:03:47.440
was ask for a motion to approve the adopted amended agenda. So, for the purpose of the minutes, can I get a motion and a second to approve the amended agenda? >> I. >> Okay. And is there a second? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> There we go. So, you have a motion and

15
00:03:47.440 --> 00:04:02.560
second for the agenda even though we already took the vote. >> I'm Who said I? >> Stuart. >> Stuart. Sorry. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank [laughter] you. All right. Next, we have a set of minutes to accept from our July 6, 2026 meeting. And may I have a motion and second to accept these minutes? >> Smith so moves.

16
00:04:02.560 --> 00:04:18.479
>> All right. Is there a second? Second. >> All right. Any discussion? All right. See none. Madam clerk, please call the role. >> Commissioner Mechahy. >> I. >> Shanfield. >> I. >> Newman is absent. Uh, Warsami. >> I. >> Baker.

17
00:04:18.479 --> 00:04:34.320
>> I. >> Uh, Stewart. >> Hi. >> Wilson. >> I. >> Kennedy. >> Hi. >> Barts. >> Hi. >> Favor. >> I >> Smith. >> I. >> Vice Olsen. I

18
00:04:34.320 --> 00:04:50.800
>> and Chair Reeves >> I. >> There are 12 eyes. >> Thank you. The eyes have it and the minutes have been accepted. Next, in the order of public comments, we'll open the floor to any comments from the public, giving each speaker three minutes to address the commission. We'll be taking speakers in the order that they register. If you wish to address the

19
00:04:50.800 --> 00:05:07.199
commission tonight and haven't already done so, you may register with the clerks at the side of the deis. If any speaker 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

20
00:05:07.199 --> 00:05:25.919
tonight's comment session. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the commission tonight and we have a timer to assist speakers in monitoring their use of time. First up we have Maline Esh. Hey, good evening everyone. Good to see

21
00:05:25.919 --> 00:05:43.600
you again. Uh my name is Maline Esh. Uh I wanted to say uh at the July 6th meeting, I asked about the city's plans to expand behavioral crisis response with EMTs and um mental health experts and what it would take for Minneapolis

22
00:05:43.600 --> 00:05:58.560
to develop one of the country's leading civilian crisis response programs. I was told that the question would be referred to city staff and that staff could return with an answer at this meeting. Could staff please provide that response tonight. But specifically, I would like

23
00:05:58.560 --> 00:06:14.240
to know whether the city plans to expand BCR staffing, the number of response units available, or the categories of 911 calls it can receive. The city's current website says two BCR vehicles operate citywide, while an earlier city

24
00:06:14.240 --> 00:06:30.639
report said three vans were operating. How many units are actually available now? And how often are mental health calls sent to police because BCR units are unavailable? The current Canopy Routts contract is scheduled to expire on August 15th as the city determines

25
00:06:30.639 --> 00:06:48.000
the program's future. Is it considering additional responders, vehicles, eligible call types, or other capacity improvements? And last, if that information is not available tonight, could the commission please identify which department is responsible for responding and establish a specific date

26
00:06:48.000 --> 00:07:03.280
when the answer will be provided? Expanding because expanding effective non-p police crisis response is directly relevant to police reform because every appropriate call diverted to BCR is an intervention that does not unnecessarily

27
00:07:03.280 --> 00:07:21.360
require an armed police response and police are kind of expensive right now. But that's all I got. Thank you. [laughter] >> Thank you. Next up is >> Chuckan. Cherry. >> Yes. >> Just quick question just for the person

28
00:07:21.360 --> 00:07:36.000
who was just speaking. Would you be able to provide your comments in writing? That way we can put them in the notes. >> I'll email it to you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hi. Uh first welcome to the new members. I just have a couple of suggestions for

29
00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:52.000
you. Uh unlike many boards or some boards and commissions in the city of Minneapolis, the work on this board can become overwhelming. So I would suggest you try not to get don't let yourself get burned out uh with putting too much

30
00:07:52.000 --> 00:08:08.479
time into this this board. Not that you shouldn't, but u and the second comment I would make is that don't feel you uh don't hesitate to make comments. I've noticed, especially on civilian oversight boards, sometimes the newest

31
00:08:08.479 --> 00:08:23.759
members have the freshest insights. So, speak up. Don't uh defer to the veterans. Uh the comment I would like to make is one that I made at the community engagement committee meeting. I think it was in May. It might have been in June.

32
00:08:23.759 --> 00:08:40.080
I think it was probably in May. And it's a comment that I made to you before. No one has said it's a stupid idea or bad idea. Uh, until I hear that, I guess I'll keep making it until you do it. Uh, [clears throat]

33
00:08:40.080 --> 00:08:55.760
there's not a lot of public engagement with this with this commission. Maybe when there's a high-profile incident and people organize a group, you get a lot of uh public comment at your meetings, but that that happens only rarely. And

34
00:08:55.760 --> 00:09:13.040
as far as I as far as I am told, you don't receive emails regularly from anyone but the Communities United Against Police Brutality on policy uh drafts. And other than that, I'm the only individual that writes here

35
00:09:13.040 --> 00:09:29.440
regularly. And it seems to me that when this com book commission was first formed, you had [snorts] 150 people apply for it. And if you want to engage the community or indicate to

36
00:09:29.440 --> 00:09:45.440
the community that you value those opinions, you might have asked those 150 plus people if they're willing to have the portion of their applications that is not made

37
00:09:45.440 --> 00:10:01.680
public. The answers to the questions, why do you want to serve on this board or commission? And the answer to what issues do you think this commission should take up? My suggestion is that you ask the clerk if the clerk would be

38
00:10:01.680 --> 00:10:17.360
willing to send if it's possible to send those 150 people or or anyone who has applied for this commission over the years an email asking them if they'd like or they'd be willing to have their answers to those questions available to

39
00:10:17.360 --> 00:10:33.519
the commission and to the public on an anonymous basis. If they wanted to have their name attached to it, fine. Otherwise, on an anonymous basis. There'd be two benefits to this. You would be outreaching to people who have demonstrated an interest in police

40
00:10:33.519 --> 00:10:59.040
oversight. And second, you might get a a treasure trove of ideas for things that this commission ought to do. Thanks. >> Thank you. Next up is Andrew CL. Hello. In March of this year, Chief Aar addressed this board and made the

41
00:10:59.040 --> 00:11:16.320
statement that federal agents have a different standards for use of force. This is incorrect. The standard is Graham v. Connor. It covers the entire nation. Thus, the statement was patently untrue, but this seem group seemed willing to accept O'Hara's lie. This was

42
00:11:16.320 --> 00:11:33.360
shocking. How can you judge panels if you do don't understand use of force and the legal definition of excessive force? We don't see this as a fault of the board, but as the inadequate education you must have gotten from the city. In April, we watched as you learned that

43
00:11:33.360 --> 00:11:50.320
there was zero money set aside for you to attend Nikhole. That's when we put our heads together and whispered that we felt it was important that you regularly attended Nikhole because that's your best chance at getting the education you need to serve the community. in review panels.

44
00:11:50.320 --> 00:12:07.680
We decided that Capb would donate $12,000 to fund uh to allow some of the CCPO members to attend Nicole. We contacted the city in May to arrange that gift. We were told that such a gift is unethical. We first got this answer

45
00:12:07.680 --> 00:12:25.600
from W3 policy aid Robert her then Mr. Fu Fuji Sawa and finally deputy city attorney Dan Abson. The specific ethical challenge is that it may give the appearance of preferential treatment to CAPB members

46
00:12:25.600 --> 00:12:42.079
by this board in the future. The reasons given for this conclusion are we or I submitted a complaint in April around the unprofessional conduct of the chief and what he shouted at a person during public comments and as that is still

47
00:12:42.079 --> 00:12:57.440
pending that could give the appearance of undue influence. Second, our president, Michelle Gross, is listed as a witness to complaint EVVT1818, but she has not agreed to be a witness in any complaint, and we are unsure what

48
00:12:57.440 --> 00:13:13.600
that complaint actually is. I apologize for not making my complaint anonymously. I was not aware that my identity as a filer of the complaint would be used for purposes beyond investigations and resolving that complaint.

49
00:13:13.600 --> 00:13:29.680
Additionally, we should be able to donate to allow you to go to Nicole. We would be allowed to donate to allow you to go to Nicole except we filed complaints against the police and now we can't. We are being treated differently because we made complaints against the

50
00:13:29.680 --> 00:13:45.279
police. We are being denied the ability to do what people who have never filed complaints against the police would be allowed to do. we are being retaliated against because we filed complaints against police officers. The policy

51
00:13:45.279 --> 00:14:00.880
being used to deny us making a gift is a policy about you soliciting gifts from us, not us independently offering you a gift. Finally, it should be noted that the city has been able to accept gifts from Skidio to allow police to attend

52
00:14:00.880 --> 00:14:17.560
drone trainings in Arizona and various others. Unlike the people who are selling, we don't gain any financial benefit if you find our complaints have merit. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up is Michelle Gross.

53
00:14:23.279 --> 00:14:38.959
>> Good evening, Chair Reeves and Commissioners. My name is Michelle Gross and I am um a W seven resident as well as president of Communities United Against Police Brutality. Um, I'd love to continue what uh what Andrew was talking about, but I actually have something different to talk to you about tonight. And that's this. Um, I'd love

54
00:14:38.959 --> 00:14:54.160
to talk to you about the history of civilian oversight in this city, which is a very long and rich history, but in two in three minutes, you can't do it. So, what I do want to talk about is in the period from 1992 to 2002, we had a real civilian oversight. Um, it was it's

55
00:14:54.160 --> 00:15:09.199
called the civilian review authority, and it was an independent agency outside of any other city agencies. It was freestanding. Though it was freestanding, it was never fully funded and uh they were never able to hire the number of investigators mandated by the ordinance. And that's

56
00:15:09.199 --> 00:15:24.800
because the mayor deliberately starved them to death. Still, during that period, the agency had a 15% sustain and discipline rate. 15%. Nothing like what we see today. In 2001, the city convened a redesign workg group for the civilian

57
00:15:24.800 --> 00:15:39.839
review authority, and I was on it. Um the city basically put us in put us to work for about a year and then at the end ignored all of our recommendations in order to be able to put the civilian review authority under the civil rights department in order to control it more.

58
00:15:39.839 --> 00:15:55.199
And then every iteration of so-called civilian oversight ever since has seen its powers diminished. Then in 2012, cops in the legislature got a provision added to Minnesota statute 626.89 89 subdivision 17 that rendered civilian

59
00:15:55.199 --> 00:16:10.639
oversight essentially dead. Um or at least that's what the city attorney said. It gutted the ability of civilian bodies to make findings of facts and made any recommendation regarding the merits um of a complaint advisory only and it prohibited discipline uh recommendations.

60
00:16:10.639 --> 00:16:26.320
So this nonsense we fought and fought and fought and finally in uh 2023 we got rid of it. So now the city could give you more power. They could choose to, but so far they haven't. And again, every iteration of civilian oversight

61
00:16:26.320 --> 00:16:43.040
that the city takes on with their ordinances. Every time they revise the ordinance, it's to shrink your power, not to expand it. Um, including things like, um, we think that you all actually need, um, I'm sorry, I'm lost my train of thought. I'll leave that. Um, at any

62
00:16:43.040 --> 00:16:57.920
rate, the bottom line is that is this. Under our city charter, it gives the mayor the power to determine discipline for officers and it indicates that the mayor can delegate that power and it doesn't say to whom. So the mayor could choose to designate that power to the OPCR,

63
00:16:57.920 --> 00:17:14.799
but he won't. Um, and so the reason I'm telling you all of this is that every time at I'm at one of your meetings, I see you having to ask your city attorney designate for permission to do what this group ought to be doing. I see you having to take orders from the cops, city staff, and city officials. You

64
00:17:14.799 --> 00:17:31.280
know, I remember that whole brewhaha over workg groupoups or whatever that nonsense was what a couple years ago. And the bottom line is it means that you really only get to do what they want you to do. I think you should look at your ordinance and I think you should look that look at the powers in 626.89

65
00:17:31.280 --> 00:17:56.240
subdivision 17 and you should find ways to take more power. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next up is Mike Uh, just a few things. Um, I I swear I see two meetings a month on here, but I can't find one of them to view them. I can't stay at these things, so I tend to

66
00:17:56.240 --> 00:18:12.000
watch them. Um, the other thing is, uh, when Chief Herodando was here, he said that we needed 1,000 to,00 officers to meet a per capita sort of standard. Um, I'm wondering how being at just north of

67
00:18:12.000 --> 00:18:31.600
600 affects the ability to punish because I would think it it would it would greatly reduce the ability to punish an officer. Um, I uh I looked at a lot of these things and it seems like a lot of it's related

68
00:18:31.600 --> 00:18:50.640
to professionalism. Um, and I'm I don't know, just being in the the the shoes of somebody who's answering 911 calls. If somebody makes a complaint against me for using colorful metaphors or being rude

69
00:18:50.640 --> 00:19:08.080
after I'm in a police department that apparently up until the fast program happened, they can't even investigate attempted murder. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe professionalism. What are you going to do? Going to get rid of bodies.

70
00:19:08.080 --> 00:19:26.320
An understaffed police department is an expensive police department. I saw a council woman beg her people at a town hall meeting, please come down to these things. Say you want more cops. Say you want

71
00:19:26.320 --> 00:19:42.320
this. Say you want that. Where are they? They never come down. It's always the same people that come down here over at that city council that is hostile to police. It's one clown show after another in there.

72
00:19:42.320 --> 00:19:59.600
They take away every tool that the cops have. They want to get rid of drug paraphernalia. Are you kidding me? Every tool you want you get rid of quality of life laws and you wonder why the quality of life disappears in your city. Um, people who answer 911 calls, I

73
00:19:59.600 --> 00:20:21.520
tend to be uh pro them. >> So, I I just want to know whose responsibility it is that there's 600 police officers and for a while attempted murder wasn't being investigated. So, that's what I'd like to know.

74
00:20:21.520 --> 00:20:37.760
>> Thank you. Seeing that there's no other people set up for public comment, uh we've completed all public comments and we'll close the public comment period. The next order of business is reports. We will start with the Minneapolis Police Department's internal affairs update. I will ask Lily Hastings, a senior project

75
00:20:37.760 --> 00:21:14.559
manager in internal affairs to give the bimonthly report and we've allocated 10 minutes. All right. Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Lily Hastings. I am the senior project manager in our MPD internal affairs division.

76
00:21:14.559 --> 00:21:31.679
Uh so tonight I'm going to do a brief uh staffing update, do a update on our historical backlog, and then go over our statistics and trends. Uh so moving on to staffing. Um in our unit, uh for those of the new commissioners, our unit investigates

77
00:21:31.679 --> 00:21:46.720
internal complaints of misconduct. Uh OPCR investigates external complaints of misconduct. Uh so we are uh sister agencies is what we like to refer to them as. In internal affairs, uh we are a mixture of both sworn and non-sworn

78
00:21:46.720 --> 00:22:02.720
employees. We have 16 full-time positions in internal affairs. Um of those positions, we have one deputy chief. Um if it is a civilian, it is called a bureau chief, but it is an equal rank position. We have one uh

79
00:22:02.720 --> 00:22:17.919
commander, one lieutenant, uh one senior project manager, um myself. We have three sergeant investigators, seven civilian investigators, and two admin support specialists. Uh currently, right now, we do have four internal affairs

80
00:22:17.919 --> 00:22:34.320
members on uh various leaves. Uh the start dates of those leaves range between uh 421, 2026, and June 9th, 2026. Uh so that leaves us at 12 full-time positions um available at the moment.

81
00:22:34.320 --> 00:22:52.159
Moving on to moves. Um, as of 524 2026, we did receive a new uh IIA lieutenant as a replacement for a um IIA lieutenant that was getting transferred to another unit. Uh we did also receive a new IIA deputy chief um as a replacement again

82
00:22:52.159 --> 00:23:10.000
from an IIA uh bureau chief on June 17th, 2026. Uh we received a new IIA civilian case investigator on June 29th, 2026. This was filling a vacant spot that had been vacant uh since the beginning of this year. Uh we had one of

83
00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:25.600
our IIA civilian case investigators uh get transferred to another unit as of July 12th, 2026 and we had that position replaced with a new IIA civilian case investigator as of July 27th, 2026.

84
00:23:25.600 --> 00:23:40.720
Moving on to our historical backlog. Um, in internal affairs, uh, the definition that we use for the historical backlog is any case that is 180 calendar days old. As of AIFA, our court monitors, uh, for the settlement agreement start date,

85
00:23:40.720 --> 00:23:58.400
which was March 17, 2024. Um, our snapshot as below from uh, today shows that we have six open investigations as part of the backlog. Uh the last time that we were here, we explained that that was due to expedited dispositions

86
00:23:58.400 --> 00:24:14.080
that were previously in supervisor review or in chief's office that were declined by the focus employee. Uh those were then sent backwards uh to step one uh to do a full admin investigation. Uh most of those cases are in their

87
00:24:14.080 --> 00:24:30.559
final stages of wrapping up the investigation. So we hope that this will be at zero or close to zero by the next time that we do a report uh with you. Uh we have 54 historical backlog cases in our supervisor review queue. We have one case uh that is currently with the

88
00:24:30.559 --> 00:24:45.840
review panel, 20 cases with the chief's office, two cases that are in grievance status, and then the far right two columns, these are the uh winner columns. We need to get everything to the closure. Uh so the two far right

89
00:24:45.840 --> 00:25:02.480
columns are what we um what is uh shown as the cases that have been closed from our historical backlog. Uh so 46 cases went through an admin investigation or an expedited disposition went to a review panel uh if it was an admin investigation and went

90
00:25:02.480 --> 00:25:19.679
to chief's office and had a final decision rendered. Um, of those 46 cases, 34 were sustained with disciplinary findings and 12 were closed with no discipline. Um, and then the last column here is 82. This represents

91
00:25:19.679 --> 00:25:36.559
cases that were closed uh via coaching, non-disciplinary corrective action, um, training as non-disciplinary corrective action, dismissals, and referrals. Uh so we have a grand total of 211 historical backlog cases. 128 of them are closed

92
00:25:36.559 --> 00:25:53.840
with 83 remaining open. Uh which equals to about 61% of our historical backlog has been completed. Moving on to our statistics and trends. Uh for our intake unit uh we have 23 complaints right now. 14 of them are

93
00:25:53.840 --> 00:26:09.919
under the 30 days uh settlement agreement uh compliance standard and we have nine that are above the 30-day settlement agreement compliance standard. Year to date so far we have 234 complaints. I do want to um note

94
00:26:09.919 --> 00:26:26.480
that that is 62 cases that have come in in just two months. Uh that is uh something that me personally out of the three years that I have been here I have not seen uh numbers that high. Um and we are also uh going to surpass last year's

95
00:26:26.480 --> 00:26:41.520
year-to-ate complaints. Uh last year we had a total of 251 complaints. Um and obviously this year we are already uh very close to that number. Uh moving on to our year-to- date incoming complaints. Uh again, you're

96
00:26:41.520 --> 00:26:57.120
just uh seeing a increase here from last year. Uh what we can attribute this to at this point um is the new policies that have been put into place over the last year. Uh almost t almost all of the cases that we are seeing are in relation

97
00:26:57.120 --> 00:27:14.480
to a very very new policy. Uh moving on to our incoming cases per month by our complaint source. Uh, one of the things I want to call out here is we are seeing an increase in cases that are coming from what we call compliance checks. These are um, audits conducted

98
00:27:14.480 --> 00:27:30.000
by MPD's implementation team as they have uh, been able to stand up their audits and uh, work through a few more different types of audits. Uh, we are also seeing an increase in complaints reported by MPD employees. These largely

99
00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:46.799
attribute to duty to report notifications under MPD uh policy and procedure 2-101. Um these are things you know such as an employee uh witnesses misconduct um or they observe you know during their use of force review uh that there was

100
00:27:46.799 --> 00:28:01.200
misconduct that occurred either with the use of force or something else. Uh moving on to our intake data by precinct. Uh these are the cases currently in our intake queue. Uh right now they're pretty equally split amongst

101
00:28:01.200 --> 00:28:19.360
all of our precincts. Uh for our intake routing decisions, uh these are how we have routed cases within our unit each month. Um I will call out that there is an increase uh so far in 2026 for a coaching uh routing.

102
00:28:19.360 --> 00:28:35.520
Uh the reason and the correlation with that is uh most of these coachings are coming either from preventable accidents uh with uh no damage or minor damage under one uh $1,000 which is part of um the one of the last slides that you saw.

103
00:28:35.520 --> 00:28:51.360
And then also from our compliance unit with our audits. Uh we have a significant amount of audits that came from failure to activate BWC or late activations of BWC bodywn camera. Um, and as long as there is no use of force, no stop, search, and arrest that was

104
00:28:51.360 --> 00:29:09.279
done, uh, those are coachable cases. Moving on to our investigation unit, right now for our admin investigations, we have 52 cases. Six of those cases are part of our historical backlog, as I previously mentioned. uh 28 of those cases are part of our

105
00:29:09.279 --> 00:29:25.360
non-compliant uh cases which means that they have become over 180 days old since AIFA's start date and then 18 of those cases are current. Uh one of the things that we wanted to show that's a new slide for this month

106
00:29:25.360 --> 00:29:40.559
is to show the breakdown of cases that our investigators are holding. Um, as you will see, uh, there are three investigators within our admin investigation unit that are currently on leave here. So, they are not, uh, you know, holding weight with cases. There

107
00:29:40.559 --> 00:29:55.679
is one case, uh, that an investigator on leave had, uh, that just needs, uh, some minor fixes, uh, before it can move on to the supervisor review. Um, you will also see three investigators in training. Two of those are our civilian

108
00:29:55.679 --> 00:30:12.000
staff. uh one is the one that started in June and the other one is the one that started a week ago. Uh so as we get them a little bit more up to speed, you'll start to see numbers increase there. And then we also have a sergeant investigator in training uh that previously trained in our intake unit

109
00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:28.559
and has now switched over to our admin unit. Uh the blue uh cases here are primary assignments. We do our cases with two investigators. Uh so a primary assigned case uh they take the primarily

110
00:30:28.559 --> 00:30:43.520
um they're primarily responsible for the case file. They do most of the duties. Uh secondary assignments sit in on interviews. They do peer reviews of reports and act as kind of a sounding board. Um right now it is typically

111
00:30:43.520 --> 00:31:00.000
about 10 cases as a max for both of those things. So you will note uh due to you know some of our staffing um leaves here we do have several of our investigators that are nearing uh their close maximums at this point. Moving on

112
00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:20.720
to investigation data by incident date. Uh so our admin investigation cases primarily >> so close so close. >> Is there a motion to extend? Somebody need to make a motion for time. >> I motion to extend for do you need how

113
00:31:20.720 --> 00:31:36.720
much time? Five minutes. >> Yeah. >> Five minutes. >> Second. >> Motion second for 10 minutes. All those in favor please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Miss Hastings. >> All right. Uh so our investigation data

114
00:31:36.720 --> 00:31:54.480
by incident date. Uh primarily most of our cases are made up of 2026 incidents and 2025 incidents. Uh we do still have some lingering cases uh from 2020 up till uh 2024. Um our 2020, 2021 and 2026 uh primarily

115
00:31:54.480 --> 00:32:09.919
make up those historical backlog cases uh that we're hoping to get finished up here by our next reporting period. Uh moving on to our investigation data by incident precinct. Uh similarly again uh most of our precincts are equaling

116
00:32:09.919 --> 00:32:28.720
out. Um so just a new trend that we're seeing right now uh given everything that's in our queue. Moving on to supervisor review. Uh this includes both our admin investigation cases and our expedited disposition cases. We have a total of 261 cases. Um

117
00:32:28.720 --> 00:32:44.399
of those uh 53 cases makes up our historical backlog. and 93 uh make up our non-compliant cases and 15 are current cases. Moving on to chief's office. Uh so for

118
00:32:44.399 --> 00:32:59.840
our new members on the board, uh OPCR is responsible for getting both internal affairs and OPCR cases through the review panel. IIA is responsible for getting both OPCR and IIA cases through the chief's office. Um so for right now

119
00:32:59.840 --> 00:33:16.880
there are eight IIA admin investigation cases at chief's office and there are 20 OPCR admin investigation cases. Our snapshot as of today shows that we have four IIA and 14 OPCR uh cases in the chief's memo drafting phase. Uh moving

120
00:33:16.880 --> 00:33:33.679
on to our pending Louderdermill completion phase. We have two OPCR cases that are waiting for this Louderdermill hearing to be done. We have one OPCR case uh that's currently waiting for uh completion of a city attorney review. We have two IIA cases uh that are uh

121
00:33:33.679 --> 00:33:49.279
receiving uh revisions to the chief's memo at this point. We have one OPCR case that is pending chief's decision and we have four uh two IIA and two OPCR cases that are pending uh chief's signature. Uh he's currently out. Uh so

122
00:33:49.279 --> 00:34:06.559
we're waiting for these to get signed when he gets back. Moving on to grievance and arbitration. Um as of 728 2026, there are seven cases that are currently in discipline related grievance and we have 11 cases that are in a discipline related arbitration.

123
00:34:06.559 --> 00:34:22.159
Uh moving on to our disciplinary decisions. Uh you'll see um we had 12 cases recently since the last uh report that we did uh that were recently published to the discipline dashboard. Anything that's marked with an asterk is something that went through this uh

124
00:34:22.159 --> 00:34:39.359
review panel. Um so uh please make sure that you uh are able to view those decisions as well. Anything without an asterric is something that went through expedited disposition which skips the review panel and just goes straight to the chief's office. Um, another new slide here just shows

125
00:34:39.359 --> 00:34:55.359
the disciplinary decision publication process. Uh, so right now we have one IIA case and three OPCR cases that are uh getting prepared to uh get into the redaction phase. Uh, we have five OPCR cases that are pending redactions with

126
00:34:55.359 --> 00:35:12.320
city clerk's office. We have two IIA cases and one OPCR case uh that are pending completed city attorney review and we have zero uh IIA and zero OPCR cases that are pending publication on the website. Um and lastly here moving

127
00:35:12.320 --> 00:35:28.240
on to just averages. So um we wanted to provide some insight as to how long these take. The settlement agreement standard is that they are promptly made available. Um and we are working on ways to decrease this amount of time. Uh right now redaction review with city

128
00:35:28.240 --> 00:35:45.119
clerk's office is taking on average 72 days. City attorney review uh post redactions is taking on average 3 days. Uh publication onto the website by our MPD business technology unit and our city IT is taking on average one day.

129
00:35:45.119 --> 00:36:01.040
And then the total process start to finish from the day that the chief's memo is signed to the day that it is published up on the dashboard is taking on average 98 days. All right, I am done. Thank you. Uh is there any commissioners that have any

130
00:36:01.040 --> 00:36:16.400
questions? >> Commissioner Baker, >> I I'm We have 193 non-compliant and 15 compliant cases. Um, and it it feels like it's sat roughly that proportion for the the year I've been on the

131
00:36:16.400 --> 00:36:32.720
commission. What's the plan to get every case into compliance in the future? >> Yep. Um, so we've we've started off with giving our investigators 180 days when they're assigned. We've been incrementally moving them down to what

132
00:36:32.720 --> 00:36:48.400
we call 120 calendar days, which is what uh we refer to as our sweet spot. So, as our investigators start kind of accomplishing that goal, we've been moving uh the timeline down for them. In terms of our supervisor review, um we are working on getting the other

133
00:36:48.400 --> 00:37:04.480
supervisors in the unit up to speed. Uh when we do have three supervisors working on this rather than just one, um it will make the process go ex much much smoother and it will you know bring some expediency to those reviews. Uh we've

134
00:37:04.480 --> 00:37:21.680
also been working with Alifa on a staffing analysis to see how many additional supervisors we might need to keep up with this um with the standard to get those cases reviewed in 15 calendar days and then just generally with the increase in complaints that

135
00:37:21.680 --> 00:37:38.240
we're seeing this year. Um and we're also working with uh the office of community safety on uh and the mayor's office on any potential staffing requests. >> All right. Thank you. Seeing no one moment. Uh we have ran out of time and

136
00:37:38.240 --> 00:37:54.160
so we do have a question from Commissioner Pharaoh. I'm going to make sure I say it right. And so can we have a motion to extend time for a couple minutes so that he can answer his question. >> Move to extend the time for five minutes. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second.

137
00:37:54.160 --> 00:38:09.599
>> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Commissioner Favro. Uh yeah uh you had mentioned that there was a policy a new policy in particular that had generated a lot of complaints recently. Could you

138
00:38:09.599 --> 00:38:26.240
uh give us more information on that policy? >> Yeah, so there is a new policy that went out towards the beginning of this year uh regarding use of force. um the policy by the time that internal affairs kind of sees the effect of what a new policy does. It usually takes um a few months

139
00:38:26.240 --> 00:38:42.960
uh just to see you know typically we don't get a case you know even a week after the incident happens. Sometimes we don't get it you know for 6 months to a year. So that's primarily a big one uh for us right now that's impacting things. Um and we do have a series of comp uh new policies as the

140
00:38:42.960 --> 00:38:58.320
implementation unit will explain to you shortly uh where we anticipate to see some uh similar uh increases in complaints later uh either this year or next year. >> Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, I'll ask the clerk to receive

141
00:38:58.320 --> 00:39:29.599
and file that report. Uh our next update is from the Minneapolis Police Department's implementation unit. I will ask Commander Bryce Robinson to come up and present for us. And we have allocated 10 minutes. Thank God you set me up. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm uh Commander Robinson,

142
00:39:29.599 --> 00:39:45.839
Minneapolis Police Implementation Unit. Thank you for having me tonight. We're going to start with our community engagement slide here. Um, at the top are the community engagement sessions. I've uh presented on uh Metro Urban Indian Directors uh committee, Sheridan

143
00:39:45.839 --> 00:40:02.480
Neighborhood Organization, Logan Park Neighborhood Association, and we recently held our implementation units uh large community engagement meeting on July 22nd and I some of you guys uh attended that. So, thank you for showing up. uh some of the coming uh upcoming

144
00:40:02.480 --> 00:40:16.880
meetings that I'm I plan on presenting at uh I won't go through them all, but uh the one uh that's coming up is on 8:18. It's a Lindell Neighborhood Association. Uh one of the requests I believe was from a community member or one of the commissioners uh earlier they asked when

145
00:40:16.880 --> 00:40:33.280
we hold our uh community MSTA meetings. Uh we plan on having the next one October 1st um between 6 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the Annunciation Church. And for those that don't know what MSAT is, it's uh where uh the department reports on their

146
00:40:33.280 --> 00:40:56.000
statistics. Um typically it's crime related. Um this one will be mostly about uh precinct 5 and the crime that's related to that. Uh this is a slide about our community engagement meeting that was on the 22nd. Um approximately 40 people attended. um

147
00:40:56.000 --> 00:41:12.160
we presented uh kind of did a an in-depth depth dive of what we do in the implementation unit. We had a question and answer session um for community members that were in the audience. And this year we had interactive stations um we wanted to give a taste um and a sample of what we do in the

148
00:41:12.160 --> 00:41:27.839
implementation unit because a lot of people don't necessarily know all that we do, right? A lot of people think it's just policy. Um uh so some of the feedback that we received regarding that uh meeting uh a lot of people liked it. It was uh different.

149
00:41:27.839 --> 00:41:44.560
Um one of the things is uh they requested that we post the the PowerPoint online from our presentation which we're working on. Uh some of the other feedback was the location wasn't uh convenient for the community. Um there wasn't the greatest parking. Um also getting more advertising out there

150
00:41:44.560 --> 00:42:00.000
uh to people so we get more people next year. Um, also one of the other things was uh potentially providing uh some sort of child care uh for parents that want to want to see this or some kind of online uh view, you know, some kind of like teams link or something so that people

151
00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:16.079
can watch this um from the comfort of their homes and also not being afraid to present uh negative things. You know, sometimes we don't always meet our goals or we're a little late. Um don't be afraid to put that sometimes that negative stuff out there um and show what's really going to going on. Uh we

152
00:42:16.079 --> 00:42:34.319
also one of the stations for the interactive stations uh we did uh our first showing of a public dashboard. It's our new force dashboard. Um and so the next slide will go over some of the stations that we had during that event. So like I said earlier, a lot of people

153
00:42:34.319 --> 00:42:49.359
think the implementation unit is just policy and a major portion of that is policy right now because we're setting up the foundation of uh police reform, right? So we have to start somewhere. Um so our first thing is here is policy. We had our uh policy team set up computers

154
00:42:49.359 --> 00:43:06.160
um and show people who are interested in how to search policies on our new policy resource hub um and also give uh feedback on our policies. Uh we had a a station on training. So we had a virtual reality station set up. Um

155
00:43:06.160 --> 00:43:21.920
the department's getting a little bit into into that looking into training our officers that way. And so we are showing the community of some of the tools that we have at our disposal. Uh we also had our compliance team set up a mini audit. So we did a mock traffic stop and we filmed it and then

156
00:43:21.920 --> 00:43:37.599
we had sheets passed out and then people could go up there and and do a little mini audit. So I was one of the actors in the the traffic stop. I didn't do all the things that were required and so people were able to check off and said, you know, you didn't do what you're supposed to. So, um, just shows kind of how complicated some of the audits can

157
00:43:37.599 --> 00:43:53.680
be, um, when they're when they're going through that. We had a data, uh, section. We touched briefly on that where, um, we had our new use of force dashboard. Um, so community members could see what we're, uh, what we're going to be putting out in a few months.

158
00:43:53.680 --> 00:44:10.880
Our current use of force dashboard, it's very basic. Um, shows the different use uses of force um, throughout Minneapolis. Our new one is going to have that goes even deeper and breaks down the specific types of force. It also um breaks things out into demographics, gender, all that stuff.

159
00:44:10.880 --> 00:44:26.240
And also you can look up see when certain policies were put into effect and how that affects the force reporting. Uh we had a community engagement table that was where we just had some uh basic questions we wanted to answer just to kind of pull the community. And we had

160
00:44:26.240 --> 00:44:43.680
our officer development and wellness station where we talked about uh the therapy that we provide our officers and that wellness app that we have for officers. Jumping to the wellness slide. Uh we uh are doing a uh internal

161
00:44:43.680 --> 00:44:59.280
facility assessment. It's required by the sun agreement once a year. It's basically going out to the facilities and checking to see what needs to be replaced. Um every 3 years it's a requirement. We do ex have a company that's hired to do an external facility assessment and we also put out an officer wellness

162
00:44:59.280 --> 00:45:14.960
survey um to see how that we're doing, how the therapy is doing um so we know if what we're doing is actually working with officers uh our policies. So all these listed are listed here are uh AIFA approved policies. Now just because something's

163
00:45:14.960 --> 00:45:31.520
approved doesn't mean it's effective yet. So all these policies have to be or not all of them but most of these policies have to be trained um to be effective. So just to touch on a few of these um you know they're they're they're really important to the community. Um like uh

164
00:45:31.520 --> 00:45:47.280
stop searches citations and arrest. That's one that's uh pretty extensive. It's anytime an officer uh stops somebody, searches them, citations arrest. It's basically that but um that's like 72 pages long. So it's not just like one page or a paragraph. Uh these are actually pretty complicated

165
00:45:47.280 --> 00:46:04.000
like use of force. You see that that's over 100 pages long. So we went over this specifically in our uh last community engagement meeting, but um it just I think it it shows that it's actually a little more complicated than it really is. Our policy resource hub um currently we

166
00:46:04.000 --> 00:46:18.800
have supervisors duties and responsibilities out for public feedback. So uh any of the members here uh community members in the audience, they can give their feedback until August 7th. Uh we recently put out force trends analysis. Um that is for those that don't know what that is, it's the

167
00:46:18.800 --> 00:46:34.000
department pulls data with force trends uh citywide and we look at what's happening in the different precincts and the command staff uh gets together and they figure out what's going on and if the uh there's something that officers need to be trained on more, if there's equipment or anything like that um to

168
00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:50.160
help prevent force or even possibly replicate certain things if it uh helps with limiting the use of force. Uh so that policyy's out right now. You can give your feedback until September 4th. Uh let's see here. Uh coming up for feedback, we have uh the corrective

169
00:46:50.160 --> 00:47:06.800
action ma matrix. It's going to be reposted because we made some significant changes. So uh we want to get that back out to the community and make sure [snorts] they have opportunity to give feedback on that. Critical incident policy. We're hoping to get that out for feedback sometime late August, early September. Uh that

170
00:47:06.800 --> 00:47:22.800
involves officer involved shootings. Uh authorized use of canines. It's anytime a dog. So, we have a So, we have the K9 policy out for use of force, but this one's specifically for searching. So, how we use dogs to search uh chemical testing that involves kind of DWIS. I

171
00:47:22.800 --> 00:47:37.520
believe that one was actually put out last week. So, this this deck's a little old. Uh in workshopping right now, we have engaging with minor policies. So, anytime an officer deals with uh minors, it's the policies surrounding that. Our foot pursuits policies that was set for

172
00:47:37.520 --> 00:47:53.920
approval from AIFA. It was just recently approved by AIFA. um I believe it was last week and so we have to work on training for that. Uh and eventually that'll be posted for the website as well. So um the previous slide all those policies were posted on our website. Um

173
00:47:53.920 --> 00:48:10.280
we had some community feedback and people said hey we want to see the policies that we're working on. We are originally waiting to post our policies because we wanted to wait for those policies to be trained on. Um but based on feedback that we received we posted them and we just made it clear that not all these are effective.

174
00:48:10.640 --> 00:48:26.079
Uh so policy and training the the main uh portion of the side you probably want to focus on is the training and development. Um we're working on limitations on ours worked uh misconduct use of force refresher uh CIT intervention training uh crisis

175
00:48:26.079 --> 00:48:41.760
intervention training uh stop search of citations and arrest. That's a really big training. It's probably a 5-day training um and supervisor force review. And the one of the new policies that we recently uh the training that we have been approved was or that was recently

176
00:48:41.760 --> 00:48:57.839
approved was the body warn camera incar camera uh training policy. And I believe that's probably what uh Lily was referencing over there with possible um future violations coming because that's a big policy as well. Data systems I mentioned earlier we're

177
00:48:57.839 --> 00:49:14.400
working on uh revising our new use of force dashboard. Uh we also have quarterly review panels. So we held uh so far this year two quarterly review panels. The last one we did is pedestrian stops. Very similar to force trends analysis. We pull uh data from pedestrian stops and we look at

178
00:49:14.400 --> 00:49:32.040
those data. We present it to executive staff and they look at things that we can replicate if it went well or look at policy changes or training or equipment that we can provide officers uh to make the situation go better um based on what they see. Uh some

179
00:49:32.319 --> 00:49:49.040
>> thank you. [laughter] I was catching the right bill talking. Is there a motion to extend? >> So moved. >> And for time 10 minutes. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? Commander Robinson.

180
00:49:49.040 --> 00:50:04.400
>> Thank you. Um I thought I talked fast, but okay. Uh so that uh some of requests we've received from Alifa to pull some information was on coaching uh training officers have received and completed and firearm display.

181
00:50:04.400 --> 00:50:20.480
This is actually our last slide. We like to end on uh something positive. So, [clears throat] this slide is a little different than a lot of the other slides that we typically post. Um it's been edited um for privacy reasons. Um and

182
00:50:20.480 --> 00:50:37.760
but I think it's a really good example of showing officers using the training that we they received. So within the last month or so, officers responded to somebody that was uh it's a life or death situation where somebody was going to jump off a bridge and they responded with the fire department, EMS, and uh

183
00:50:37.760 --> 00:50:53.040
they deescalated the situation. They used their crisis intervention training and they were able to talk that person off the bridge without using any force and getting them onto an ambulance to where they could go to a hospital and receive help. And so it's an example of officers using the training that they

184
00:50:53.040 --> 00:51:10.160
were given and uh a positive outcome came out of it. Um and one of the other reasons we wanted to put this on is um it reduces a stigma around mental health. Um it's okay to not be okay. And you know if there's a crisis or emergency, you know, call 911. We're

185
00:51:10.160 --> 00:51:25.680
going to show up and help. Um possibly be the BCR that shows up depending on this what the call is. Um but there's also we put the suicide uh uh hotline on there. uh 988. Um it's if it's not emergency, um it provides free confidential 247 support for people

186
00:51:25.680 --> 00:51:41.839
experiencing emotional uh distress and a suicidal crisis. >> Uh thank you. You have any questions? >> All right. Thank you. I'll just say thank you to the officers that were able to help the resident in crisis. It's good that they were able to use their deescalation skills. Any questions from commissioners?

187
00:51:41.839 --> 00:51:57.920
>> Commissioner Sheffield, >> you called on me before I even raised my hand. Appreciate you. Thank you, Terry. Um, uh, Commander Rabbison, thank you so much for your presentation tonight. Um, thank you so much for posting the policies. Um, it's a big deal. There's the QR code people could see, um, those

188
00:51:57.920 --> 00:52:13.359
policies and just to remind people that those are the ones that have not been trained on and so they're not active, but they are approved by AIFA. And so that's a standard by which we want to start uh in our minds holding people to so that when they are um, trained on that that will be the new standard. Um, so thank you so much for making that

189
00:52:13.359 --> 00:52:30.079
happen. Um, the other uh thing I wanted to thank you for is the 45day window for the supervisor policy that made a huge difference. You'll see tonight we were able to talk about it at the large body meeting, go back to PPR, and now we're able to bring back our recommendations to the full body. So hopefully, um,

190
00:52:30.079 --> 00:52:45.599
you'll see a difference in the quality as well. Um, and it will be helpful. So, thank you so much for that opportunity. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? >> Sorry, there was one more question. Yes, it said iceberg policy iceberg. What does that mean? Uh so that is so part of our

191
00:52:45.599 --> 00:53:02.160
presentation was showing how complicated it is to get um policies basically approved and what the process is regarding that and the comm you know you guys know it's it takes a lot of work and a lot of time some of these policies you know it doesn't give it justice when we say oh we we completed the use of

192
00:53:02.160 --> 00:53:19.359
force policy some people think that just one paragraph it's actually over 100 pages that people have to cipher through and give their feedback and we have to find subject matter experts and we have get and make sure it actually aligns with the settlement agreement. We just can't make all this stuff up and then eventually that goes to kind of fast

193
00:53:19.359 --> 00:53:35.040
forward um technical assistance. Alifa has to look at that see okay does it match up with that they give it back to us and then it goes eventually uh it goes to the feedback stage 45 30 days so that's one of the reasons the timeline is so long we get that back we have to

194
00:53:35.040 --> 00:53:50.559
incorporate that feedback so for instance like use of force if I'm remember right we had over a thousand comments for feedback um we have to look at every single comment um from there we have the officer feedback we take their comments too we look at that then it

195
00:53:50.559 --> 00:54:06.400
goes to workshopping shopping. We work with MDHR, Alifa, the city attorney, our unit, and we try to create the best policy based on the settlement agreement, what best what's best for the the community. From there, eventually once everybody agrees with the scheduling and all that stuff, we make all the uh the

196
00:54:06.400 --> 00:54:22.720
adjustments. Eventually, we agree. We submit it for approval. They read it one last time, and they say, "Nope, there's one or two more things we want to change." They send it back to us, and we have to go through the not the whole process again, but we have to work through the document. It's not a huge deal because we want the best policy

197
00:54:22.720 --> 00:54:38.880
obviously, but it does take time. So, sorry that was a long spiel, but >> Okay. Thank you very much. I'll ask the clerk. Oh, >> Commissioner Kennedy, >> one other question. Uh, thank you, Commander. So, you mentioned at the

198
00:54:38.880 --> 00:54:55.520
stations that you had set up for the public education night that you role played in a compliance scenario. Uh, tell me if I'm looping the wrong things together, but in Miss Hastings presentation, um, she was talking about the increase in IIA complaints that

199
00:54:55.520 --> 00:55:10.319
they're seeing related to the new policies, and there was a a chart that showed compliance checks, I think, is what it said. Am I understanding that the new policies have I guess part of my question is, is this a new process where

200
00:55:10.319 --> 00:55:25.920
uh, some type of compliance review is done on these policies and can you tell us more about that? Yeah. So, we we do some basic audits to especially before we even put these policies out, we look at doing some basic audits to kind of prep to see, okay, how are the officers

201
00:55:25.920 --> 00:55:41.280
are they doing this already? And sometimes they are and then the policy comes out and yeah, we audit. So, like we an example of an audit we do is startup checks. So, in the body warning camera policy, it's required that officers do body war and camera startup checks. It's like you say your name, your badge number, and the squad you are

202
00:55:41.280 --> 00:55:58.000
in. Well, if an officer gets trained in that, then you can hold them accountable for that, right? Um, but sometimes you get trained and you just forget or maybe you don't want to do it. So, we audit that and we find people that it just does sometimes doesn't happen and that's when uh things eventually go to internal

203
00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:16.319
affairs. >> Any other questions? All right. I ask the clerk to receive and file that report. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our final two reports are from the our community engagement and police policy research and recommendations committees. I'll start with an update from this community engagement committee and ask chair

204
00:56:16.319 --> 00:56:32.480
Stewart to speak and we've allotted 10 minutes. Thank you chair Reeves. So the community engagement committee we have developed a toolkit to support each of our individual community engagement efforts.

205
00:56:32.480 --> 00:56:48.079
It includes frequently asked questions, community engagement expectations, and a PowerPoint presentation. Once approved by the full commission, commissioners may use the toolkit as needed. For example, you don't have to

206
00:56:48.079 --> 00:57:04.240
present the entire toolkit when you're out and about. Hopefully, you guys start engaging at your neighborhood associations or even when you're just out and about. Remember that you cannot speak on behalf of our committee. Only

207
00:57:04.240 --> 00:57:20.240
our chair is the spokesperson that can do that if you're asked by media. But this toolkit will help you engage and help us keep our messaging unified. So yeah, once we vote to see if this

208
00:57:20.240 --> 00:57:36.160
toolkit is approved or not, we'll be able to use it. >> So I do I would like to make a motion for us to vote and see if we're going to do this >> to approve the >> to approve the toolkit. >> Okay. Is there a second to the motion to approve the community engagement toolkit?

209
00:57:36.160 --> 00:57:50.559
>> Second. >> All right. Is there any further discussion? >> Just Yes. Um I love the idea here. This is what's in the packet, correct? >> Yeah. Awesome. Um, could you just talk a little bit more about how you'd envision us using it, what you'd like us to do, what are our next steps?

210
00:57:50.559 --> 00:58:07.520
>> Sure. So, how we would like for you to use it is basically while you're out, if you're at example at an MSTEP meeting, you have the toolkit available and if someone comes and asks you while you're out or even if you were at the last implementation meeting, you are able to

211
00:58:07.520 --> 00:58:22.880
actually reference the toolkit. So, we all again have the same unified messaging and we're not popcorning our message, but it's unified. >> I'm also wondering if we could approach our city council members um and share it

212
00:58:22.880 --> 00:58:39.680
with them if that would be if I'm for my ward if I would be responsible then for Yes. >> communicating with my city council person. >> Absolutely. Share. We encourage you to share it with them so they can put it on their website within their weekly newsletter or monthly newsletter, however your city council ward rep does their information. But yes, we

213
00:58:39.680 --> 00:58:57.280
absolutely would encourage that >> along with your neighborhood associations. >> Might be helpful for city staff once approved to send it as well to the neighborhood organizations as well as city council. Any other discussion? Seeing none. Oh, clerk, can you call?

214
00:58:57.280 --> 00:59:16.400
Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Wasami. So, is this a does it just apply to all neighborhoods? cuz I don't think every community and every neighborhood or every neighborhood association has the same issues or the same need or things to talk about.

215
00:59:16.400 --> 00:59:33.520
>> No, it's very it's it's for you to use within your ward that has your issues. You would be able to in a like for example, ward 8 does not have the same issues as ward 7, right? But you could use this again as a unified message tool. So, we're all saying the same

216
00:59:33.520 --> 00:59:48.799
thing >> just as a this is strictly a reference piece. >> Okay. >> For you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Any other questions? >> All right. The motion has been made. Clerk, can you call the role? >> Commissioner Melhenny.

217
00:59:48.799 --> 01:00:04.160
>> I. >> Shanfield. >> I. >> Forsami. >> I. >> Baker. >> Hi. >> Stewart. >> I >> Wilson. I >> candidate. >> Hi >> Barts.

218
01:00:04.160 --> 01:00:20.799
>> Hi >> Fabro. >> I >> Smith. >> Hi >> Vice Chair Olsson. >> I >> and Chair Reeves >> I. >> There are 12 eyes. >> All right. The motion passes. Thank you very much. Uh finally we will hear from the PPRR committee. Chair Shanfield will

219
01:00:20.799 --> 01:00:35.920
give us an update and we've allotted five minutes. >> I wasn't done. >> Excuse me. I did not know that you were done. Go ahead. >> Sorry. Sorry. Sorry, we have two more items that I just want to touch on. It'll I'll be very brief. Um, we are also working just because we have heard from the public um at our last two

220
01:00:35.920 --> 01:00:52.640
meetings that we need to do more. So, we are working with city staff to have a unified message that gives us an opportunity to be on the radio, the city's cultural programming radio. So we have an opportunity to talk about our

221
01:00:52.640 --> 01:01:09.200
next special meeting that is coming up and also discuss what we are doing currently. And then the last thing is is the tracker form. Um our community engagement has come up with the tracker form that we would like for you guys to

222
01:01:09.200 --> 01:01:25.040
start using. It's just a piece. It's not required. It's just a simple thing that lets us get back a measurable so that we can show this is what we have been doing. Are we out in community every quarter? So if you did, for example, this meeting does not count as a quarter

223
01:01:25.040 --> 01:01:40.720
meeting, quarterly tracker engagement. But if you do anything outside of this meeting, you're able to go online, fill out the form, and then we'll be able to collect the the data and be able to share back to the public how much community engagement we are

224
01:01:40.720 --> 01:01:58.559
participating in. That's all I have. All right. Thank you very much. Finally, we'll do the PPRR committee report. Commissioner Champfield. Thank you, Chair Reese. Uh the PPRR has also been hard at work. Um in our last meeting, we

225
01:01:58.559 --> 01:02:14.720
looked at our work plan which we developed last July. Um proud of some progress we've made. Um and we've added uh an a a protocol um an agreement to that. Um each of the items on our agenda now have an action item attached to

226
01:02:14.720 --> 01:02:30.559
them. Uh we're doing our best to make sure that um concrete uh next steps come from each thing we discuss at PPRR. So please come join us. Come listen, come bring your thoughts. Um special shout out to um Commissioners Baker and Kennedy and Olsson for expedient

227
01:02:30.559 --> 01:02:46.799
follow-up from our last meeting. You'll see things on the agenda this afternoon or this evening um that directly came out of our meeting on July 20th. So the turnaround was really quick um and time is of the essence. So people have been hustling hard and really appreciate that. Um the two one other thing I

228
01:02:46.799 --> 01:03:03.040
wanted to or other thing I wanted to mention was committee membership for the new folks here. Really glad that you're here. Um this is the shopping period where you get to think about committees you'd like to join. Um they are optional but we do have an extra seat right now on the police policy research and recommendations committee. So um we

229
01:03:03.040 --> 01:03:19.200
would love for you to shop around and come join us. Um we can take at least one new person. And um like I said and um I'd like to recommend um for uh all of us that we in fact do a formal vote in September around committee membership so that people have um a month to figure

230
01:03:19.200 --> 01:03:35.920
out where they might fit and then we can um update our rosters that way. Um in the meantime um uh any committee member is welcome to or commission member to come to the meeting. So our next meeting is April 17th. Um we're hoping to look at the discipline matrix then. So, it'll

231
01:03:35.920 --> 01:03:51.760
be quite juicy unless uh assuming it's out by then. Um and uh we would love yeah for for people to come participate and come listen. Um and uh also just an FYI around policy to the new members. You can always submit policy feedback to

232
01:03:51.760 --> 01:04:07.520
the email address police feedback at Minneapolis.gov on your own on on any thoughts that you have on policy. So, you don't have to wait for the body to do that. We do it as a formal body as well, but you're welcome to do that anytime. Just wanted to remind you of that. Um, in fact, let

233
01:04:07.520 --> 01:04:23.039
me give you the dates for our committee meetings moving forward in case you'd like to look at your calendars. August 17th, September 28th, October 19th, November 30th, and December 21st. So, the uh rest of the PPR agenda items that

234
01:04:23.039 --> 01:04:39.920
we've discussed will appear later this evening. So, I will uh wrap it up there. Um, yeah, cheers to the momentum. Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners on most report? Seeing none, thank you. I'll direct the clerk to receive and file those reports.

235
01:04:39.920 --> 01:05:10.960
Our next order of business is discussion. First up, we have the shot spotter report given by associate director Russell Fujisawa. And there are 15 minutes set aside for this item. Good evening. Uh my name is Russell Fujisawa. I'm the associate director of the office of police conduct review.

236
01:05:10.960 --> 01:05:26.960
Here tonight to discuss uh OPCR's Shot Spotter um system evaluation. Um I'll try to stay under time tonight. Um so Shot Spotter, what is it? It is an automated gunshot detection system that

237
01:05:26.960 --> 01:05:44.640
works via an array of sensors that conduct audio triangulation um to determine the location of potential shootings um within a sensor area. Um sensors were stood up in the city uh starting in 2007 and and cover areas in

238
01:05:44.640 --> 01:05:59.920
precincts three, four, five or the sensors are placed in areas in three, four, and five but cover the entirety of the city. Um, looking at chasput, I'm sure people have heard uh a number of things about chots butter either from the media or other

239
01:05:59.920 --> 01:06:16.160
studies. Um, there is a a decent body of literature out there right now um that looks at contested claims, claimed benefits, claimed costs. Um, and and obviously these are all in different municipalities and all different situations. But some of the claimed um

240
01:06:16.160 --> 01:06:32.240
some of the contested claims that you know you may see in the literature um look at either increase or decreased response times for officers in those municipalities. Um you may see uh discussions of whether or not the system

241
01:06:32.240 --> 01:06:50.319
actually does reduce crime. Um oftentimes it is framed as a crime reduction tool when really it is a crime response tool. um claim benefits. Um you know, we see things that Shot Spotter uh decreases response times and identifies

242
01:06:50.319 --> 01:07:07.039
shootings that otherwise would not have been uh you know, witnessed, heard, and subsequently called into 911. Um and you know reasonably um a conclusion from that is that shot spotter could potentially lead to um lives being

243
01:07:07.039 --> 01:07:22.160
saved, evidence being collected that leads to uh convictions and charging etc. Um but again these are it's very dependent on the the situation, the city, the coverage network, um the number of shootings in a given

244
01:07:22.160 --> 01:07:36.880
municipality. So it's been a challenge to sort of lift and fit any of the literature um to have it perfectly fit here in Minneapolis. Um similarly, there are claimed costs that is discussed in some of the literature uh specifically

245
01:07:36.880 --> 01:07:54.240
looking at overpolicing or using shots activations um to disproportionately harass or overp police uh marginalized communities in which there are um or have been more a disproportionate number of shootings. Um

246
01:07:54.240 --> 01:08:10.559
so taking a look at what OPCR um did in terms of evaluating shots sputter it's it's fairly narrow um for a number of reasons of which we'll discuss but the four phases of our research looked at um so phase one was a review of body warn

247
01:08:10.559 --> 01:08:26.560
camera footage of primary on onseene officers for 100 shot spotter activations in the month of August of 2025. [snorts] Phase two looked at 250 random computer aided dispatch or CAD uh records for shooting calls uh in the

248
01:08:26.560 --> 01:08:42.719
shot spotter coverage area from 2020 to 2025. Phase three looked at an analysis of shots spotter call displacement. Um call displacement is the idea that um in the presence of shot spotter sensors in a given area uh there is potentially a

249
01:08:42.719 --> 01:08:58.719
decrease in the number of 911 calls for sounds of shots fired. Um, so the idea that the the thing is reducing the need to call in 911 when you hear shots. Um, phase four was an analysis of the demographics of the shot spotter

250
01:08:58.719 --> 01:09:15.679
coverage area. Um, really to see if shot spotter coverage uh correlates with race um when controlling for shooting volume. Looking specifically at phase one um with our BWC review. Um, and right off

251
01:09:15.679 --> 01:09:30.400
the bat, there is no evidence that Shot Spotter was less effective than 911 calls at determining the sounds of gunfire. Um, 15% there was a 15% evidence collection rate for both Shot Spotter activations and 911 calls. Um,

252
01:09:30.400 --> 01:09:48.159
only 40% of Shot Spotter activations had a 911 call. um and only about roughly 12% of singleshot activations had a 911 call compared to roughly 2/3 um of uh activations with three or more shots. Um

253
01:09:48.159 --> 01:10:05.520
the calls for the responses for MPD officers are generally very short. Um usually less than 4 minutes and uh about a third of the time officers are are not exiting the vehicle um to do any because there is no apparent evidence collection

254
01:10:05.520 --> 01:10:20.080
that is needed. And that really speaks to the idea of a shot spotter activation leading to that disproportionate um you know harassment or unnecessary engagement of community members in those uh disproportionately high shooting

255
01:10:20.080 --> 01:10:38.719
areas. Um of the BWC review there was not a there was not an observed stop search or detention. Um similarly, this is that this is the evidence that we're seeing in this sample that there has not been um utilization of the tool to um quote

256
01:10:38.719 --> 01:10:55.600
unquote overp police those areas. Uh moving to phase two, uh we looked at 250 total shootings in that 2020 to 2025 period, of which there were 188 that were qualified. um that to be qualified, we determined that they needed to be active in the coverage area. Um not

257
01:10:55.600 --> 01:11:11.360
happening while an officer was already on scene or an indivi or an individual was on the phone with dispatch reporting that call reporting that shooting and then that this was actually a real shooting happening in the city of Minneapolis. Um of the 188 qualified, uh

258
01:11:11.360 --> 01:11:26.320
66 of those had no mention of Shot Spotter in the computer aided dispatch notes. This does not mean that there was not an activation of Shot Spotter. Instead, um, Shot Spotter activations need to be manually appended um to the

259
01:11:26.320 --> 01:11:41.440
subsequent 911 call. Um, so if nobody checks that a shooting had a shot spotter activation, it won't be paired up with that uh with that 911 call.

260
01:11:41.440 --> 01:11:59.280
Um, looking at that CAD data, we had 82% of the qualified shootings uh with a shot spotter check had a shot spotter activation. Um, I'm going to skip this middle bullet and then I'm going to come back. Uh, but 79% of activations alerted police more quickly than 911 calls. um

261
01:11:59.280 --> 01:12:15.679
15 of which had a shot spotter alert um resulted in uh uh excuse me 15 shootings had a shot spotter alert more than 2 minutes prior to any 911 call. Going back to that second bullet. So there were five shootings um and I understand this is

262
01:12:15.679 --> 01:12:32.400
over the period of you know five plus years and we're only looking at 250 calls but there were five activations of Shot Spotter that had no subsequent 911 call. So conceivably if Shot Spotter was not activated, no one would have been

263
01:12:32.400 --> 01:12:48.159
aware um at least from a a city standpoint, from um an OCS sort of infrastructure standpoint, nobody would have been aware that these shootings had occurred. Um so I I want you to remember that uh that data point. Um as we

264
01:12:48.159 --> 01:13:07.679
continue uh moving on to phase three. Um as I discussed, several papers in the literature discuss called displacement. And this is again the idea that the existence of a shot spotter sensor in a given area will ultimately discourage a 911 call um if there are shots fired. Um

265
01:13:07.679 --> 01:13:24.000
a problem that we ran into in in terms of our analysis is that again with CAD um the computer aided dispatch and it's its coding of sounds of shots fired. The issue is that CAD is designed to only have one problem incident code uh per

266
01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:40.880
incident. meaning that if shot spotter activation had a 911 call um it is coded only as a shot spotter activation. It can't be both shot spotter and 911 or you know 911 and something else. So there are limitations on the system but

267
01:13:40.880 --> 01:13:57.679
our BWC review suggests that uh 40% of shot spotter activations had a 911 call. So what we were doing when we were reviewing reviewing the BWC of those officers responding um it we were able to determine whether or not those calls had a shot spotter activation. Um but so

268
01:13:57.679 --> 01:14:13.920
uh 40% of those shots spotter activations had a 911 call. So the total number of shots the sounds of shots fired calls in the shots patter coverage area is the total number of sounds of shots fired calls plus 40% of the shots spotter activations.

269
01:14:13.920 --> 01:14:29.840
that that's the long way of saying is that I mean this is how we're sort of accounting for the fact that not all uh activations or 911 calls it's hard for us to sort of parse out but what we observed was that 40%. So that's what we

270
01:14:29.840 --> 01:14:46.480
what we're using in terms of um you know looking at call displacement any any potential impact that sensors have on that. Um continuing on that uh so additionally what we did is we compared uh census

271
01:14:46.480 --> 01:15:02.640
tracks with at least one shot spotter sensor to census tracks with zero sensors on the number of adjusted sounds of shots fired per shooting. Um and you know what we essentially what we're seeing is that shot spider appears to correlate with an increase in 911 calls

272
01:15:02.640 --> 01:15:19.600
in Minneapolis. So, you know, we have more activations in areas where we have more um where we have more calls for sounds of shots fired. So, we're not seeing that that displacement trend is essentially what this boils down to. Phase four, again, we were looking

273
01:15:19.600 --> 01:15:35.440
trying to look at uh any racial disparity. It is uh near impossible for us to um to make a determination on this because sensor placement in Minneapolis began in 2007 and the network has expanded um

274
01:15:35.440 --> 01:15:53.280
over that time. Additionally, we only have calls for service data from 2020 moving forward. Um and then we're using the census tracked uh demographic information from the 2010 census. So we're really limited in a number of ways. Um and additionally with some

275
01:15:53.280 --> 01:16:08.960
caveats, you know, the census tracks don't neatly fit along the shot spider boundaries. Um you can though determine how closely the current network tracks um to shooting patterns in the city or in that broader area. Um

276
01:16:08.960 --> 01:16:25.040
moving on. Um what we did find though in terms of uh the disparities question is that you know the percentage of census tracks identifying as black or African-American is correlated correlated with an increased likelihood of shot spotter

277
01:16:25.040 --> 01:16:39.840
coverage in 2023. This is not I want to be very clear. This is not evidence of discriminatory placement as sensor placement occurred in 2007 um more than 15 years prior. You know, we're coming up on two decades

278
01:16:39.840 --> 01:16:57.760
almost. And so um it it may indicate the need to rework uh or reconsider some alignment of the of the existing network of the sensors. that would likely carry some additional costs on top of the regular maintenance.

279
01:16:57.760 --> 01:17:13.440
Um, but again, it's really hard for us to make that determination o in OPCR based on what we have ready access to um and what we observe to say that there is any discriminatory placement in the sensors.

280
01:17:13.440 --> 01:17:30.880
Um so just to conclude um you know Shot Spotter really is a broadly effective tool in terms of evidence collection. It is um approximately as effective as 911 calls for sounds of shots fired in terms of evidence collection.

281
01:17:30.880 --> 01:17:46.560
We we did not observe that shot spider was being used as a tool to profile or over police communities. Um did not initiate stops, searches, detentions. Um and oftentimes they're not even getting out of the vehicle. Um the interactions

282
01:17:46.560 --> 01:18:02.560
that we did observe with um in which officers were um interacting with community members, it was usually a question of are you aware of any shootings? Um usually it's a very brief conversation and they drive along. Um

283
01:18:02.560 --> 01:18:18.560
Shot Spotter does consistently detect shootings and leads to a faster response time to most to shootings most of the time. I mean, we had a number of calls in that subset of qualified shootings that we had a response time of uh that was 2 minutes faster than any 911 call

284
01:18:18.560 --> 01:18:35.520
that came in. [snorts] Um, and then this last point again going back to those five shootings in that sample size that were only detected by Shot Spotter um and had no subsequent 911 call. And you know, this goes back to the the

285
01:18:35.520 --> 01:18:53.040
potential for a faster response to either um have a faster police or EMS transport for a victim um or to gather evidence that would lead to charges and conviction. Um it does show that there is a faster response time in our sample

286
01:18:53.040 --> 01:19:11.760
that we reviewed um and that we analyzed. So with that um one minute, a little bit more for questions. All right. Are there any questions from commissioners? >> Commissioner Mhennaney. >> All right. I'm just going to point out

287
01:19:11.760 --> 01:19:27.360
some areas that I was kind of confused by the statistics on here. On page 15, we reference both that 15 calls um happened 2 minutes or 2 minutes faster or more than um the calls coming in the

288
01:19:27.360 --> 01:19:43.440
Shot Spotter activations. We also on the same page say 20 and then we extrapolate that to the assumption that 60 over the total time being assessed. So kind of to that if we're basing on 15 in a period

289
01:19:43.440 --> 01:19:58.560
or 20 in a period versus 60, this is kind of like the math like I'm just kind of curious. >> It's not wildly off but like worth paying attention to. >> No, 100%. And I I might call on um Joe McCullof who was our management analyst

290
01:19:58.560 --> 01:20:15.920
that ran some of the analysis of this to uh if he's able or we could provide a written response if that's more helpful. >> I think that's probably healthier. >> Okay, fine. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we do have a couple more questions. So, if the commissioner can

291
01:20:15.920 --> 01:20:30.960
make a motion to extend. >> I move to extend for five minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Second. All those in favor? >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Commissioner >> Wasabi. So

292
01:20:30.960 --> 01:20:46.320
>> when the shots are >> Hi, thanks for that presentation. Um when shots are fired comes in normally on a call, police come really extremely very locked and loaded and ready to fire obviously to either deescalate the

293
01:20:46.320 --> 01:21:02.800
situation or to protect themselves. So what prevents that or for and what does this have an opportunity for officers to come in and assess the situation before getting ready to shoot >> and and I I >> it doesn't give details right it just

294
01:21:02.800 --> 01:21:20.239
says shots are fired there is >> right in terms of the shot spotter activation >> yes >> yeah and I I I'm not going to speak to you know MPD operations and their tactical response this is mainly just OPCR's observation using the data that we have um and then conducting some you

295
01:21:20.239 --> 01:21:37.280
know BWC review on scene. Um so I I I don't want to speak to MPD's tactical response for sounds of shots fired. >> So since this was here since 2023, were there any casualties? Were anybody shot >> in with shot spotter activations? >> Yes.

296
01:21:37.280 --> 01:21:53.600
>> Um I would have to confirm. I believe so, but I would have to confirm. >> Okay. And and can I actually are you talking about a victim or an interaction with police? >> Police officers came and just started shooting. >> Oh, I I I don't I don't I don't believe that that was the case, but I also don't

297
01:21:53.600 --> 01:22:09.600
want to I I don't want to confirm. I can again get you that answer in writing, but I don't believe so. >> I would really appreciate it. >> Y >> Commissioner Wilson. Okay. So, I have two questions. Um so, my first question. Um, you mentioned that on these um,

298
01:22:09.600 --> 01:22:26.960
calls that you reviewed through BWC, officers only left the car a third of the time. So, am I correct to conclude that they're just driving to the shot the scene of a shot spotter um, activation? They're not seeing anything and just driving away.

299
01:22:26.960 --> 01:22:43.600
>> That's that's what we observed. Um, I mean the Shot Spotter activation will provide a an extremely it's sort of remarkably specific location um for where that sound was produced. And so, you know, officers will patrol the vicinity. Um, and we observe, again,

300
01:22:43.600 --> 01:22:59.760
it's approximately a third of the time they get out of the vehicle, but they're still patrolling the area to look for any evidence or signs of a shooting. >> Okay. Um and then I guess um my second question um in the longer paper that you sent to us, you noted

301
01:22:59.760 --> 01:23:15.760
that um like there's um most of the officers to the best of our knowledge are not actually using the Shot Spotter app that they have access to. Do we have a timeline for officers to get trained on that? I don't. I would have to defer to MPD

302
01:23:15.760 --> 01:23:32.480
training um and just their overall guidance on utilization because I I I know there is an app but they generally when they're dispatched to those calls with Shot Spotter activations if it is appended right they get the details from the activation. Um so it is dependent on

303
01:23:32.480 --> 01:23:47.679
the situation but I I can't speak to their utilization of the app and those uh those tools. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Stewart, >> is this information shared across um

304
01:23:47.679 --> 01:24:03.600
departments? So, is it shared with like NDS and city council? >> It is public. Uh so, I mean it's published out there on limbs. Um and we do depending on the body of work and where it's initiated, we do some cross-d

305
01:24:03.600 --> 01:24:20.320
departmental work and highlighting of you know this is a research study that we have. Obviously one of the main departments that we work with and and discuss our research with is Minneapolis Police Department. Um if there are implications or things would warrant sharing with other departments, we

306
01:24:20.320 --> 01:24:36.159
absolutely would do so. Um, are you thinking specifically about uh that phase four and looking at the racial disparities? >> No, I'm specifically looking at this information being shared across with city council and with neighborhood

307
01:24:36.159 --> 01:24:51.440
associate the neighborhood association keeping on my brain because I just left that meeting. Sorry. um with the neighborhood department of safety, okay? Especially when it comes to the public and asking for a summer safety plan and

308
01:24:51.440 --> 01:25:08.159
not being transparent with a summer safety plan and then us ending up with multiple shoot multiple mass shootings within a 20our time span and then multiple shootings just every single weekend. I think that this information would be very helpful to other

309
01:25:08.159 --> 01:25:24.480
departments and I think that it would be critical that we start communicating not just with MPD but across the board. There's got to be some type of communication >> shared. Yeah, 100% that we could um we

310
01:25:24.480 --> 01:25:41.440
could be more active in sharing this with specific and more intentional with sharing this information um with other departments and other groups across the city. Yeah, because just having it out on limbs, I think they would have to be intentional about finding it, but if it's given to them, they would know that

311
01:25:41.440 --> 01:25:56.880
there's a purpose behind it. >> But thank you for this. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> All right, time is up on this agenda item. >> I'd like to move for two more minutes. >> Um on chat spotter. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I.

312
01:25:56.880 --> 01:26:14.080
>> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Commissioner Wilson, did you have additional questions? Yes, I did. So, I wanted to push back a little bit on the idea of sensors not being placed uh not there's not being discriminatory placement. Um, and the reason is there's

313
01:26:14.080 --> 01:26:30.560
um a MinPost article um and in 20 2023 when there was the big MPS data leak um there was um it came out that there's a lot of shot spotters located on the roofs of North Side Public Schools um and that shots um MPS was involved in

314
01:26:30.560 --> 01:26:47.600
the contract and I think if you're familiar with our North Side public schools they are very racially diverse and so I do I think that we can push back a little bit on the topic of discrim placement just because we have the MPS data leak showing that in like starting

315
01:26:47.600 --> 01:27:03.440
in 2014 we were placing shot spotter sensors on the roofs of schools in north side. >> Yeah. And I think if I misspoke um or if I just need to correct but I I was just saying that there is correlation right

316
01:27:03.440 --> 01:27:18.000
to the to the number of shootings that we're seeing based on you know where those sensors are. I I I don't know if I I guess I want to say that we can't confirm or refute that sensor placement was discriminatory at the time or is in

317
01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:33.840
an ongoing basis. Um just because we don't have that level of data and what goes into the placement. Um obviously we see correlations but I I don't want us to jump to say that this is causal because we just don't have the information within OPCR to make that

318
01:27:33.840 --> 01:27:49.520
determination. Any additional questions? >> All right. >> Or one one more question. >> Is uh is in the future do we plan to review and see if any injuries were part

319
01:27:49.520 --> 01:28:05.600
of these? And if there like is there were there any lives saved through this? >> We can continue to review. Again, it was uh I mean you saw the sample size numbers. Um, so we could expand that or as time moves on we could incorporate

320
01:28:05.600 --> 01:28:22.000
new calls for service data that has shot spotter activations and sounds of shots fired calls and do a similar evaluation. Obviously we'd need enough time or enough events to occur um so that we can have a meaningful analysis. >> Okay, thank you.

321
01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:37.360
>> Thanks. >> All right, time is up on this item. Thank you. And we'll ask the court to receive and file that report. Next up is discussing the community's involvement in the new police chief's appointment. Uh the mayor's office sent out a newsletter on June 23rd announcing the timeline to select the next police

322
01:28:37.360 --> 01:28:54.000
chief. Commissioner Shamfield has drafted a resolution with recommendations on how the community can be involved in the with the chief's appointment process. Commissioner Shanfield. Thank you, Chair. Um and just a quick followup with uh Commissioner or Vice Chair Olsen and um and Chair Reeves. Uh

323
01:28:54.000 --> 01:29:08.639
we did ask the mayor or someone from the mayor's office some questions and ask them to join us tonight. Did we hear back from them? >> We did not. Okay. Okay. Um so in lie of that because we know that time is of the essence. Um we had a robust conversation

324
01:29:08.639 --> 01:29:24.320
on July 20th uh at the PPR meeting about the what it might look like to have community involvement. So um after the shot spotter report in your packets is a resolution and I'll give you just a couple highlights and then I'm hoping for a good discussion here as well

325
01:29:24.320 --> 01:29:40.719
tonight. Um the rationale on the first page and the top of the second page um is that we sit on review panels. Um so we are uh you know making recommendations to the chief. Um we uh are empowered um through our ordinance

326
01:29:40.719 --> 01:29:55.360
to contribute to the annual performance review of the chief of police and um uh through our powers uh we also uh have like I said uh uh responsibility to make recommendations for policy as

327
01:29:55.360 --> 01:30:11.520
well. Um and so given all of this um we would like to recommend to the mayor and to the city council that there be um community involvement in the chief's appointment appointment process in multiple ways. Um we would like CCO CCPO

328
01:30:11.520 --> 01:30:26.880
involvement but we really think it's most important for the community to be involved at large. So what I have done here um just for ease of this discussion is um you'll see a chart the mayor's timeline is on the left. This is what he has published that chair Reeves referenced. So these are the phases that

329
01:30:26.880 --> 01:30:43.520
the mayor has said um are part of the process. You'll see that only in on the last box. So after phase six um is there any date uh that that says October, November, but that's why we believe that if all the other phases are completed before then um that again time is of the

330
01:30:43.520 --> 01:31:00.800
essence and um then on the right hand uh side is a place for us to put some recommendations. I started and added a few based on our discussion um so that we didn't have a blank paper in front of us. So I'll talk through those briefly and then I'd really invite people to push back on those or to add to those or

331
01:31:00.800 --> 01:31:15.760
um add their own. Um we'll take notes. I would love your help taking some notes during the discussion so that we can amend the um resolution uh in in real time. That'd be a super. Um so at the at the beginning um for phase one, we have the opportunity with our special meeting

332
01:31:15.760 --> 01:31:33.199
to gather public feedback. Um and so that why it says 917 there on the right hand side. Um the other opportunity um uh uh we could easily offer is um a survey amongst ourselves um uh that of

333
01:31:33.199 --> 01:31:49.520
the characteristics and the qualities that we believe would be important for the the new chief to have in phase two. Um perhaps there is an A or B recommendation. uh under C um we would like uh at a very minimum an update here on the process around the applications

334
01:31:49.520 --> 01:32:07.040
and the numbers. Um and then uh I think it'd be important so I said to add uh a bullet point D which is some type of um interview rubric. We'd like to know what the city's going to ask the chief um and what they're going what criteria by

335
01:32:07.040 --> 01:32:23.199
which they're going to use um in the interview. So maybe that's something we could ask for. Uh there's opportunities in phases three and four uh in in phase five here. Um I think the interview panel uh perhaps should include the CCPO chair um should she be amendable to

336
01:32:23.199 --> 01:32:40.480
that. And then um in addition maybe we could make some recommendations on community organizations that should also be at the table. Um it's important for us to use our platform uh as we have it. And then um something that also came up at PPRR for phase 5 letter C was that

337
01:32:40.480 --> 01:32:57.040
there could be um a community Q&A session for the finalists so people could get to know them and meet them much like we did for the Alifa um uh uh finalists or the monitor finalists. And then um two empty boxes here too for phase six and the final. I would love

338
01:32:57.040 --> 01:33:13.360
people's recommendations. Where do you think we could be involved? Where do you think the public could be involved? Um, what ideas do you have and what questions do you have? >> Okay. Any comments, questions from commissioners? Commissioner Kennedy,

339
01:33:13.360 --> 01:33:28.560
I'll just offer two brief comments. [clears throat] I was part of the PPRR discussion on this. Um, first, the the resolution notes this, but I just want to highlight why I think it's appropriate for CCPO to have a role in

340
01:33:28.560 --> 01:33:43.760
the process. And I particularly agree with the idea of having um the chair as part of the interview panel. The um ordinance that we operate under gives the CCPO power to participate in the chief's performance review on an annual

341
01:33:43.760 --> 01:33:59.679
basis. And in the normal course of an employment relationship, usually your annual review would be by your supervisor. It would be by somebody who was probably involved in your hiring. So I think that ordinance provision connects us as a body to um a role to

342
01:33:59.679 --> 01:34:15.120
play at the beginning during the hiring. And um second just as kind of a an answer to something that I am imagining could be um said in response to this proposal as to why this isn't realistic.

343
01:34:15.120 --> 01:34:30.480
Um I think a lot of things could be said about public um you know data practices laws and open meetings and all kinds of complications in this process and we can't involve other people. Um when we were talking about this I was thinking

344
01:34:30.480 --> 01:34:46.560
of school superintendent searches which are also done in public processes typically are done through open meetings etc. And I just Googled. I don't have any of this information in front of me, so feel free to do this yourself, but um I looked at three or four in the last

345
01:34:46.560 --> 01:35:03.199
year or two Minnesota school processes. I read their documents and I looked at what they did and I think every one of them that I looked at included one or two uh excuse me, not just one, I think two or three finalists brought in front of public groups where they were asked

346
01:35:03.199 --> 01:35:22.800
questions and this was done in public. It wasn't just a final decision presented at the end. And so I think we can certainly do that for our police chief. >> Any other ones, comments, questions? >> Commissioner Baker. >> I would propose that we have a little

347
01:35:22.800 --> 01:35:38.880
broader participation in phase five than just our chair, maybe two or three members of the board, the commission. And following on to that, um perhaps in phase four as well, I I think the 4B um

348
01:35:38.880 --> 01:35:56.560
contemplates interview panels with um you know, city employees plus the the police union. Um I think if the unions involved, it's important to have um people from the public involved. >> So I would suggest, you know, adding

349
01:35:56.560 --> 01:36:15.440
some sort of CCO participation at that phase as well. Okay. Anyone else? >> I've got a couple of um suggestions that people can consider for um just having more transparency. Um in phase one where

350
01:36:15.440 --> 01:36:33.040
they talk about developing the uh police chief position profile and recruitment materials. Um I would like those to be published and posted available to the public, available to this commission. um any kind of selection criteria or

351
01:36:33.040 --> 01:36:49.840
goals that that they are setting out I think would be um it could be useful for us to review them at a meeting and add additional suggestions. Um and the same thing at in phase three.

352
01:36:49.840 --> 01:37:05.920
Um the um the search report and presentation of candidates. It doesn't say who gets that report and who is presented the candidates. Um I [snorts] would think it

353
01:37:05.920 --> 01:37:22.560
would be a good opportunity to include CCPO in that. That's all I've got right now. >> Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Shan, I particularly like uh phase five in terms of the community Q&A session with Alifa. I think that was

354
01:37:22.560 --> 01:37:38.239
very effective when people got to come and ask questions of the independent monitor, the I think it was two finalist groups. Um I think that's very very appropriate and community really should be involved at that process um to have more agency into who our next police chief is. Hopefully we can learn from

355
01:37:38.239 --> 01:37:58.239
past mistakes. Um anyone else? Oops. Commissioner Barts. >> Oh, thank you, Chair. [clears throat] Um, yeah, I'd just like to uh reinforce phase 2 um review candidate interview rubric developed by the city and maybe

356
01:37:58.239 --> 01:38:13.119
strengthen that language a little bit and um emphasize that we have an opportunity to add a question or two to the to the interview guide. Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you. Any other comments?

357
01:38:13.119 --> 01:38:30.719
>> I think maybe instead of interviewing any police chief separately or having being part of that CCPO maybe should be given an opportunity to actually invite the candidates here and we can all ask questions and maybe pick who we think

358
01:38:30.719 --> 01:38:46.800
might be better fit based on the history of the city of Minneapolis and its residents. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other >> quick just clarification sorry clarification thank you chair um quick clarification which phase do you think

359
01:38:46.800 --> 01:39:03.360
we could do that in would be best >> it is probably the phase three it's like conducting and candidate evaluations >> completing initial screening interviews so let's say they decide to go with it's between three candidates that perhaps all three candidates can come here and

360
01:39:03.360 --> 01:39:18.560
present why they should get this job and why we should support them >> great great >> what distinguishes them do how How does their community engagement and practices apply to the city of Minneapolis? >> Great. Thank you and welcome. >> That might also fit in in four as well because they're looking at the semi

361
01:39:18.560 --> 01:39:35.440
violist in four as well. Commissioner Wilson. >> Uh so, Commissioner Seffield wanted to thank you and the committee for your work on this. I think it's really great. Um I just had a question. Do you have a timeline for when we would choose which

362
01:39:35.440 --> 01:39:50.960
um community leaders we would want present in interviews? Just because I'm thinking this is all coming up pretty quick. >> It is coming up quick. So names and organizations are welcome to be said out loud. >> Okay. I was thinking cuz there were just a few people off the top of my head. I

363
01:39:50.960 --> 01:40:07.760
would love to see Janelle Austin from Rise and Remember um represented. I would love to see someone from MUID like Ruth Buffalo. Um I would love to have maybe some of the indigenous protectors.

364
01:40:07.760 --> 01:40:25.840
Um like maybe Rachel Thunder um and just um have people um specifically having people who um are from overpoliced communities um come so that we can have them present for the interviews and involved.

365
01:40:25.840 --> 01:40:42.080
All right, Commissioner Baker. >> I would add CUAPB and Minnesota Justice Reform to that list of organizations I would love to have represented. Um, and I would suggest I think screening interviews might be a little early for

366
01:40:42.080 --> 01:40:59.840
the to bring everybody here because I would think they're going to be screening a broader number and that would maybe fit better into four or five. >> Yeah, >> phase four or five. >> Yeah. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Commissioner Shafield, for

367
01:40:59.840 --> 01:41:17.280
the work on on the committee. Um, I was wondering if we could have the city attorney speak to the nature of the data practices uh uh subject matter here. My understanding is that until there are finalists declared, the the process

368
01:41:17.280 --> 01:41:33.600
would not be public. Uh, in terms of candidates, I I just think it'd be helpful that we all operate with some guidance. I I may be wrong, but I think it might since the attorney's here, it might be helpful. >> I believe you are correct in saying that, but I can confirm as well with my

369
01:41:33.600 --> 01:41:48.880
office. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? >> Commissioner Shan, a few I'd like to add to your list would be the NAACP in Minneapolis or or St. Paul if you're doing something broader. I'm not sure.

370
01:41:48.880 --> 01:42:04.719
Just focus on Minneapolis. the youth council, um the YMCA, potentially the Urban League, um UCMT is doing a lot of work around this. So those groups as well. All right, Commissioner Stewart. >> Agape movement as well. >> Commissioner Stewart,

371
01:42:04.719 --> 01:42:19.840
>> um I believe that you should really get a lot of the stakeholders involved like Sabathan. >> Um I think that you should also involve NAS >> um >> uh achievement zone. I think that North

372
01:42:19.840 --> 01:42:34.800
Side Achievement Zone should absolutely be involved. When we speak about overpolicing, I think that we should be very mindful of who we are inviting to the table. Um, a lot of people love to speak on behalf of those that are

373
01:42:34.800 --> 01:42:50.000
overpoliced and have never experienced it themselves. So I would ask for this body to be very mindful because we are representing on behalf of a whole community, not just our personal interest.

374
01:42:50.000 --> 01:43:10.560
Good. All right. Anyone else? Seeing no further comments or questions, Commissioner Shamble, did you have anything else? >> Um, yeah, just a quick followup for Commissioner Smith. Um so what I think I heard you say around the data practices act is that we would want to invite the finalists um uh to the new

375
01:43:10.560 --> 01:43:26.320
commissioner's point um the finalists to come present to us share kind of pitch why they think they are the right fit um share their background share what they would do things like that and then also um people also liked the idea of doing a

376
01:43:26.320 --> 01:43:42.560
community session outside of this room inviting finalists and kind of trying to help facilitate that. Is that right, M? >> Madame Chair, that sounds good to me. >> Great for the community engagement committee.

377
01:43:42.560 --> 01:44:00.000
>> Yes. Um, any other questions? All right. Nice timing. All right. Um, permission. >> Commissioner Sher, would you like to make a motion real briefly to to approve the resolution? >> I would. Um, could I just take a couple minutes? Could we just take a couple

378
01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:16.280
minutes to review the changes or the additions? >> If you could make a motion to extend time for We have five more minutes to extend the time. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? Commissioner Stampfield. >> Okay.

379
01:44:16.320 --> 01:44:31.760
Does it make sense for me to do this for you to do this? Do you have >> I don't think I caught all of them. So, if you want I can >> Will you fill in? >> Yeah. Great. >> Okay. So um for phase one um we wanted to the A and B were fine and people wanted for A also to add published and

380
01:44:31.760 --> 01:44:47.920
posted and available to the CCPO and the public um for review and feedback [clears throat] um that the criteria uh and the and the position profile for phase two. Um we wanted to add not only that we review the rubric but that

381
01:44:47.920 --> 01:45:03.920
we had the opportunity to provide some feedback. Did I get that right Baker? >> Okay. uh and people wanted to keep the one add for phase three um we would like uh phase 3 C to presented directly to the

382
01:45:03.920 --> 01:45:19.920
CCPO and then we moved either to phase four or five probably five um this idea of inviting the candidates to present to us so probably five here based on what you've said in phase four we would like to include CCPO members um especially if

383
01:45:19.920 --> 01:45:34.000
the union is at the table which they in 4B uh for five >> clarification. I believe phase four we wanted CCPO members and community organization members. >> Oh, thank you.

384
01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:51.679
>> especially impacted. Um and could I also add could we maybe suggest that the community meeting we have one on the north side and one on the south side so that we have it kind of in some of the most impacted communities and make it accessible rather than downtown.

385
01:45:51.679 --> 01:46:07.199
just if that makes sense. >> Um I will defer to the attorney um to and the clerk to know if that's even possible, but I think it's a great idea. >> It needs to be in a city- owned building >> with with

386
01:46:07.199 --> 01:46:24.719
>> Yeah. with with Yeah. with so we can publish it. I'm sorry. Uh broadcast it so we can you know all all of that. Um it also needs to be ADA compliant. Um, so that's part of the problem, too. >> Would be possible, Madam Clerk, to or

387
01:46:24.719 --> 01:46:40.800
the attorney to get a list of locations in South and North Minneapolis that would fit the bill. Potentially, maybe the democracy center if it's I don't even know if it's open. Whatever space that might accommodate in the city outside from downtown, is there any space so that we can at least know if there's any space that can accommodate?

388
01:46:40.800 --> 01:46:57.280
>> That's a great idea. Not one location anywhere else besides >> I don't know any where off the top of my head. Okay. >> Um I would have to ask what I I guess I'm not sure what all we own. [laughter] >> Okay. >> So um I I would have to get back to you

389
01:46:57.280 --> 01:47:12.560
on that one. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Champion. >> Okay. Great. Great. No, thank you. This is a helpful discussion. Um and for the the um uh racial justice organizations, is that phase four and phase five? Am I hearing that right? That people would like people Yeah. Community. I have a

390
01:47:12.560 --> 01:47:29.840
list um of the organizations you've said today. I think in the in the interest of time and so I don't forget anyone. I think I we would say organizations such as um and list those and say not limited to. Does that sound okay? >> Okay. Um and then so that's phase four.

391
01:47:29.840 --> 01:47:47.040
Phase five, we would add the community Q&A session for the finalists and and to at CCPO meeting. And then I heard someone else say um the interview we would like to suggest not only chair reads be part of the interview panel but perhaps another member or two of CCPO. Is there anyone

392
01:47:47.040 --> 01:48:04.400
opposed to that idea? Madame Chair, >> Commissioner Smith, >> I just want to reiterate the point that until you're at phase six where finalists have been declared, all of the applicants are private data and and that

393
01:48:04.400 --> 01:48:21.280
the public can't participate in interviewing or I'm quite I'm not the attorney for this body, but I'm quite sure that's the law. Yeah, I think under 134 and3 uh subdivision 3, you are correct.

394
01:48:21.280 --> 01:48:38.639
>> How could the union be a part of it? >> Great question. I will find out. >> [laughter] >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Kennedy, >> my interpretation of this issue is I think part of what we need to figure out is when one person or more than one

395
01:48:38.639 --> 01:48:54.639
person will be considered a finalist and if that has been determined upfront as part of setting up this process because obviously you can design a process where there's one finalist and the public finds out when that is announced. You can also set up a process like those school board processes I mentioned where

396
01:48:54.639 --> 01:49:10.719
you have two or three finalists. Those are all public and that is what's open. And so I think one question that I don't think we know the answer to is if the process was set up with that answer known that they were only going

397
01:49:10.719 --> 01:49:27.440
to have one finalist or more than one finalist. >> It's a good question. I'll just add real briefly since I know we're out of time. the previous uh panel for Chief O'Hara had community members involved before we even knew who the the person was. So, at some point the community was involved

398
01:49:27.440 --> 01:49:42.480
because several community members that sat on his his and others um determine who they wanted to pick as the chief to make it to the final round. So, at some point there is a time for community to be involved. We just need to know when that is based on law. And since they've done it before, they've had community

399
01:49:42.480 --> 01:49:59.040
involvement. I think they can figure out a way to squeeze us in whichever is appropriate in terms of the steps stages. >> Jerry, did do ahead. >> Go ahead. Commission. Did you um think that that process was effective? Is that something we should dig up and model after? >> I was not on that panel. I just know

400
01:49:59.040 --> 01:50:15.600
several people that were on the on that whatever they called it, >> Commissioner. >> Um and so I just know that there was a time when we didn't know who the finalists were and that community members knew who it was. So there was a time that that happened. Commissioner Stewart. >> Um, I can kind of speak to that. Um,

401
01:50:15.600 --> 01:50:32.080
yes, it was effective. Um, but there were a lot of downfalls that several of us that participated in that process could speak to. Um, and I I do believe that there is, as Commissioner Kennedy has said, until

402
01:50:32.080 --> 01:50:48.960
we know how they're going to roll out the carpet on this hiring process, if it's based on one or if it's based on three, we really are putting the horse before the cart. >> Cart before the horse, whichever way it goes. I don't know. But we're doing it

403
01:50:48.960 --> 01:51:04.159
kind of backwards a little bit. Um, until we have the the answer. It's good to be prepared because we should um definitely be involved. I know that previously the mayor did have um several different

404
01:51:04.159 --> 01:51:19.600
appointees that he had from community. That was part of the process. Um, I did not believe that it was a fair process because you're telling the public after it's already pretty much

405
01:51:19.600 --> 01:51:35.600
sealed and this this is basically who you get. These are your choices. >> Okay. >> And so I think that that could be a possible recommendation that we should add into it is that we would like to know who the entire pool is and not just

406
01:51:35.600 --> 01:51:52.320
these are your final three. >> Okay? if possible. >> I love that idea. Based on what the attorney has been saying, it sounds like it's um maybe not possible. But um what I think I can do it, it sounds like based on this discussion just now is that for phase six, we should say it is

407
01:51:52.320 --> 01:52:08.400
our recommendation there be at least two finalists, not just one, so that there is some opportunity um for involvement in the community. Otherwise, that negates the whole idea of community involvement if if the finalist, as you're saying, Commissioner Stewart, is just presented to you. So, um I would like to make then make a motion. Uh I

408
01:52:08.400 --> 01:52:23.360
would like to make the edits that we've discussed tonight, but I would like the body's permission um to have this as a motion so that we can get it. We don't have to wait another month. So, I'd like to put that up for a vote, an amended version of this to be voted on tonight. >> Is there a second? >> Second. [snorts]

409
01:52:23.360 --> 01:52:40.800
>> Any further discussion? Clark, if you can call the role on the motion to amend this document to what has been included this evening and present it. Commissioner Mlenny. >> Hi, >> Shan. >> Hi, >> Warsami.

410
01:52:40.800 --> 01:52:56.480
>> I >> Baker. >> I >> Stewart. >> I >> Wilson. >> I >> Canada. >> I >> Barts. >> I [snorts] >> Fabil. >> I >> Smith. >> I

411
01:52:56.480 --> 01:53:11.040
>> vice chair Olsen. >> I >> and Chair Reeves. >> I >> There are 12 eyes. >> Thank you. The eyes have it and the resolution is adopted. Item 11 is the city's legislative agenda. Commissioner Kennedy will begin the discussion. Commissioner Kennedy.

412
01:53:11.040 --> 01:53:26.719
>> All right, everybody. The next item in your paper packet has a title page that looks like this. And it's a 23page document that uh is called 2026 legislative agenda and policy positions. It looks like I am an expert on it and

413
01:53:26.719 --> 01:53:42.080
I'm here to present it, but I'm not in any way. There is a single bullet that we care about within this document, but I need to give the perspective. Um, I'm first going to say this is the best segue in CCPO history because the

414
01:53:42.080 --> 01:53:57.040
statute that just came up that governs the personnel data for the hiring of the police chief is private until they're a finalist is Minnesota statutes section 13.43. That is what we're going to talk about.

415
01:53:57.040 --> 01:54:13.840
And a a suggestion to change that. And so these two items fit together, uh, very well. So, um, the other preface I'll give is you're going to see a resolution on this at our September meeting. So, this conversation is to

416
01:54:13.840 --> 01:54:29.920
give you a chance. We're going to have I'll try to be 5 minutes or so, a quick conversation to explain this. It's going to give you a chance to provide any um, thoughts on this tonight. And we know this is off the top of your head, but that will be helpful to us because we're going to develop a resolution and you

417
01:54:29.920 --> 01:54:45.280
will see that in September and I will not give this entire background again in September. So it helps to listen now. Um, so again, I'm not an expert on this document, but I've accepted it at face value. So I'm just going to point out a couple of things aside from the single

418
01:54:45.280 --> 01:55:01.360
bullet that we care about. The title page says as updated by the Minneapolis City Council, February 5th, 2026. I've accepted that at face value. I will do more research before you see the resolution. But as far as I understand this 23-page document, this is approved.

419
01:55:01.360 --> 01:55:17.360
So this is not aspirational. We're not starting with a proposal and we're not, you know, going taking step one and saying we want the city to do this. We're starting with the city's proposed legislative agenda. If you look at page four,

420
01:55:17.360 --> 01:55:34.239
the very first um two sentences of this document, the 2026 legislative agenda includes the highest priority items from the city of Minneapolis. The city will actively advocate for these positions with the Minneapolis legislative delegation and the legislature. So

421
01:55:34.239 --> 01:55:51.280
again, as far as I understand it, we already have an agreement that this is something the city is supporting. All right. So if you turn to page 11 of this document, this is the section that we actually care about,

422
01:55:51.280 --> 01:56:07.679
the data practices section has um three different bullets on this page that address section 1343, which is the one I mentioned about personnel data. I think it's the seventh bullet. says

423
01:56:07.679 --> 01:56:23.920
uh amending section 1343 to classify as public data all data related to a complaint when the complaint is sustained against an officer regardless of whether or not corrective or disciplinary action is taken

424
01:56:23.920 --> 01:56:39.199
that would allow um data to be released in the um cases where coaching is imposed. So I'll relate this to the report from OPCR that we heard about I think last

425
01:56:39.199 --> 01:56:57.040
month um which I think it's roughly half of the complaints where the findings are sustained coaching is imposed and so that data is never public the way that it currently works. This would change that and allow that to be public.

426
01:56:57.040 --> 01:57:14.800
So to keep it short um I would just like to invite anybody to provide any comments. will be drafting a resolution as I said for next month. But obviously this would increase transparency into the disciplinary process. It would um allow more data that is relevant to the

427
01:57:14.800 --> 01:57:30.960
complaint process to be released to the public. And looking at the numbers in that report, I think it would roughly double the amount of data that had been made public during the period that was looked at if we had been able to release the coaching data. So this would be a significant change. So with that, I'd

428
01:57:30.960 --> 01:57:46.560
open it up to any other comments. >> Any comments or questions for commissioners? Commission. >> And so generally the idea is we're going to come up with a resolution that would um put the C CCPO's emphasis on the

429
01:57:46.560 --> 01:58:03.760
importance of that change and strongly encourage the city to make that a top priority or some I don't know what kind of language, but that's that's basically what we're doing. We want the city to emphasize this. >> Well said. Um, and I would um, look, I closed my document,

430
01:58:03.760 --> 01:58:19.599
so I can't hold it up, but if you look at that report, I pointed you to that one bullet. There are 321 other bullets in this report. I count it [laughter] because that's going to be in the resolution. That's the whole point. That's why there's value for us to

431
01:58:19.599 --> 01:58:36.480
contribute here because we can point out to the city council why this is important to the complaint process, to the part of the process we see. we can encourage them to develop specific proposals. I mean, the legislative staff in the city who are tracking 322 proposals in there may not have been

432
01:58:36.480 --> 01:58:55.440
tracking why we think this one should be at the top of their list, and this is our chance to elevate it. >> Okay, any other questions, comments? >> All right, sounds good. We'll direct the clerk to receive and file the report. I look forward to the

433
01:58:55.440 --> 01:59:11.679
resolution in September. Um, our next item is a discussion on the review panel composition. Commissioner Smith will lead this discussion. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Commissioners, our [clears throat] community engagement committee discussed uh the report that

434
01:59:11.679 --> 01:59:29.280
Miss Young presented at our last meeting uh reviewing all of the information about uh the review panels, including the survey of participants in review panels. One of the issues that was highlighted in some of those comments was noting the change in composition

435
01:59:29.280 --> 01:59:46.000
pursuant to the city council's ordinance from about a year ago to change from a five member panel of three civilians and two sworn members to now three member panels of two civilians and one member and we discussed this as a committee and

436
01:59:46.000 --> 02:00:02.560
did not come to a strong conclusion uh didn't don't have a recommendation to bring but we felt strongly that the full body here should have the same discussion and come to a judgment. Um the the rationale for the ordinance change was to deal I think in part with

437
02:00:02.560 --> 02:00:20.719
a large backlog of past old complaints that needed to be addressed and a committee a panel review panel of three members uh can move more expeditiously. We can have more panels than if we require five members. Um

438
02:00:20.719 --> 02:00:37.840
there were some comments from sworn panel members in the survey that they felt uh that percentage-wise they were down from 40% representation of sworn officers now down to 33%. Uh and so that's something that was

439
02:00:37.840 --> 02:00:52.719
suggested. My own thought is that it would be ideal if we had panels again of five members in those experiences that I had. You're getting more perspectives to review all

440
02:00:52.719 --> 02:01:09.199
of these uh cases and I think it's a higher quality process though three members have been adequate. Um but to make a change it would need to go back to the city council and uh I think there's some reasons not to do this.

441
02:01:09.199 --> 02:01:24.560
We're not done with the backlog yet. For one, uh scheduling three members uh on a panel is a very big staff challenge and a five member panel scheduling effort is is even more significant. So there's

442
02:01:24.560 --> 02:01:40.960
staff resources to consider. And finally, it was suggested maybe we should think carefully about picking our battles. Which are the aspects of our ordinance that we want the council to attend to? And is this the highest priority? or do we want to take some time and consider other potential

443
02:01:40.960 --> 02:01:56.320
changes to the ordinance and have this discussion in that context? So, we're bringing it to you to put these issues here for your feedback and discussion and and u I'd be happy to have my fellow committee members augment whatever I'm

444
02:01:56.320 --> 02:02:13.840
saying here to make it complete. >> Commissioners, anything to add or >> I do. Um when we were discussing this in our committee meeting, we did kind of come to a conclusion that we were all in favor of the 32 um keeping it at the 3-2

445
02:02:13.840 --> 02:02:31.599
panel just because it does have a more relevance of having the different perspectives on what it means to really dig deep into that complaint um and giving it more value. But like

446
02:02:31.599 --> 02:02:46.960
Commissioner Smith said, we really didn't want to make that call for the full body. We wanted to have the body's feedback on it, and that's why we brought it back here. If it was up to us, it would still be 32. >> Okay.

447
02:02:46.960 --> 02:03:01.920
Commissioner Barts. >> Uh thank you, Chair. Um I'd like to support that view. Um, right after I started on the commission, I had an opportunity to be on one of the last 32 uh panels and I

448
02:03:01.920 --> 02:03:18.719
so my next one was a a 2-1 and I so I had a kind of a stark contrast and I I really did feel that the 32 panel was um more effective and to be fair well to be fair to the officer's point about representation

449
02:03:18.719 --> 02:03:34.080
I can I can acknowledge that but also um the officers don't always agree with each other. I mean completely at least. So two officers will give it an opportunity to get a diverse a more diverse perspective from from the sworn members. Thank you.

450
02:03:34.080 --> 02:03:52.960
>> Thank you. Anyone else? >> I agree. I I preferred the the uh five member panels to the three in in just in the the way they operated and and the value of the discussions. Some of the downsides are that it takes a lot longer

451
02:03:52.960 --> 02:04:09.599
during your meetings. Um the other the other thing though I I would like to know I I am concerned about staff resources and would like to get thoughts from um OCPC whatever it is um on on

452
02:04:09.599 --> 02:04:29.360
what what the impact would be and what their recommendation would be from going back to five. >> Any thoughts from CE? Oh, here comes Linda. >> I'm like Linda's coming. >> There you go. >> I can answer that.

453
02:04:29.360 --> 02:04:45.280
>> Thank you. >> Um, when we had a fivep person panel, we would schedule around two to three panels a month. Right now with a threeperson panel, we're able to schedule anywhere from five to eight panels a month. And so we're able to review two to three times as many cases

454
02:04:45.280 --> 02:05:03.440
with a smaller panel. And it's not just staff resources, but it's really difficult to coordinate between five schedules with two of them being sworn who are often working different shifts and then volunteers as well. Linda, what I've noticed though in the

455
02:05:03.440 --> 02:05:20.800
the different panels composition is that it seems to be less cases coming through. When we had the 32, we would do two cases. I'm seeing a lot more one cases. So that could also help too if we're doing the three two um going back to doing two cases at a time as opposed

456
02:05:20.800 --> 02:05:37.520
to just the one is kind of my thought and I've seen that in the panels that I've been on. >> Yeah, right now at this time we are we're seeing like a slower influx of cases >> coming into the review panel. However, I can confirm that and I think that the presentations from OBCR and IIA confirm that there is a large influx of

457
02:05:37.520 --> 02:05:53.760
complaints coming in at intake, which means that they're going to filter through the whole process, go through administrative investigations, and then come back to you all. So, we may be like experiencing a lull right now, but that might that might that will not be the case always. >> Okay. Any other comments? Commissioner

458
02:05:53.760 --> 02:06:10.400
Champfield? I really appreciated this discussion and I feel torn as well. Much like many of the other members, I had a better experience on the three too. There's a more diversity of experience. It's a more robust conversation. Um and I think we came to better conclusions. People ask better questions. Um, Commissioner

459
02:06:10.400 --> 02:06:25.679
Smith, to your point about um, timing perhaps that I think that's the recommendation that I would like to co-sign is that we be really thoughtful about when we ask to make this change back and if there are if it if it does rise to the level of importance, which it might um, as the, you know, primary

460
02:06:25.679 --> 02:06:44.480
reason or change we want to make to the ordinance. So, I guess the wondering I have is when would we want to be suggesting changes to the ordinance? Um, and we should figure that out before we go further. You guys have an idea or is it like in

461
02:06:44.480 --> 02:07:05.599
the calendar year? Is it our CCPO year which starts what? July. [laughter] >> Madam Chair, I I guess my thought is um the world's our oyster. We have the calendar's our oyster. we have we can bring suggestions to the city council about changing the ordinance. Uh they'll

462
02:07:05.599 --> 02:07:22.000
have their schedule and I think they felt like they dealt with it about a year ago and I'm I'm betting they don't have an appetite to take it up, you know, in the immediate future. So, I think if if one of our committees or a task group would sit and and and think

463
02:07:22.000 --> 02:07:38.400
about our ordinance, maybe in light of the comments we continue to receive from the public and identify if maybe there's a handful of other changes that we should explore and then evaluate them as a full commission and come back. Uh I would think if we did that even early

464
02:07:38.400 --> 02:07:55.760
next year, it'd still be timely. I don't think we would be off the council's schedule unless perhaps our city attorney and the implementation process might set other openings up for that too. I don't know.

465
02:07:55.760 --> 02:08:10.880
>> Meaning what? [snorts] >> Meaning you might be aware of other ordinance changes in the works considering chapter 172. >> No, not and I'm not aware of changes [snorts] to your ordinance right now. So yeah, I think your timing makes sense. Okay.

466
02:08:10.880 --> 02:08:29.119
>> All right. Commissioner Baker, >> I I have admittedly not participated in any of the 32 panels and so I don't have a comparison. It does seem like we have not yet dealt with the backlog or all of the cases and

467
02:08:29.119 --> 02:08:47.119
to add a further bottleneck seems like it would delay resolution of cases further as well as if we have an opportunity to go to the city council. I know we're not limited on how much we go to them, but it consumes political capital to go to

468
02:08:47.119 --> 02:09:02.880
them and ask for this change. Is this the change that we feel like would help us get the settlement agreement implemented more so in the city of Minneapolis than anything else we could go to the city council with?

469
02:09:02.880 --> 02:09:20.159
>> Commissioner Kennedy, >> I just want to offer a quick comment on something outside of the 32 versus 21 uh dynamic. The I wasn't part of the community engagement discussion. And so this is my own I my own um thought here.

470
02:09:20.159 --> 02:09:38.000
Um my memory of the presentation of the comments from the officers that I think spurred some of this discussion was it complained about being a single officer on the panel representing that viewpoint alone. I think it also complained about being in the minority compared to the

471
02:09:38.000 --> 02:09:53.440
civilian panelists. And so I'm bringing that up because I think if we choose to do anything, if we choose to say anything on this, I think it's important for us to besides addressing the hypothetical uh change back to 32, for

472
02:09:53.440 --> 02:10:11.199
example, make clear that the um the current setup with civilians having the majority of the panel isn't important. It's a feature, not a bug. Right? those comments can make it look like it's the cause of a problem that the city council needs to fix or that

473
02:10:11.199 --> 02:10:27.840
they could make the panel equal, right? Um or something else, something that hasn't been tried. But I just I think it's important that we're the voice of the civilian majority on that panel being a feature of our current process and that that's important. That isn't what we're focused on. I just don't want

474
02:10:27.840 --> 02:10:43.280
us to lose sight of the fact that it could be reconsidered if this is opened up. Um what I'll just add to that discussion is I can appreciate um that the officers had the opportunity to do the survey along with the commissioners uh to bring their position forward and I appreciate community engagement saying you know

475
02:10:43.280 --> 02:10:58.079
we're taking the survey. We're looking at a potential solution or at least uh bringing an idea forward. However, it's definitely appropriate that civilians outweigh sworn. No need to change that that would go against the ordinance in all its forms. But I think because we

476
02:10:58.079 --> 02:11:15.840
started with 32 I have been on the panels for I don't know three years um been on many many many many panels and the 32 works better in my opinion um than the 21. I do enjoy the diversity of opinion and I

477
02:11:15.840 --> 02:11:30.639
think it's important to have more than one sworn officer's opinion on a case. Um they're the ones doing the day-to-day operations and going through these policies. So it's interesting to hear their perspective even if we don't agree. is interesting to hear more than one officer. So, I definitely am a proponent for the 32 while understanding

478
02:11:30.639 --> 02:11:46.159
there's staff resources involved in that. Um, but I think it better serves the focus officer to have um more than uh three opinions on uh potential discipline. Anyone else? Vice Chen,

479
02:11:46.159 --> 02:12:02.719
>> would it be helpful to get a more formal um analysis from OPCR? um not denigrating Miss Shang's presentation tonight, but get a more formal analysis because it does it does resonate with me that we don't have a don't seem to have

480
02:12:02.719 --> 02:12:20.480
a huge number of sworn panelists available. I don't know how many lieutenants and above participate, but we I see the same few regularly. Um, and if if if that's the case, if it's a small universe of

481
02:12:20.480 --> 02:12:37.119
potential panelists, that would, you know, cause more delays. Um, and uh I I would just wonder if it would be helpful to have a more formal analysis of memo from them or something. >> Sam's gonna

482
02:12:37.119 --> 02:12:53.199
>> Yeah. So, I'll just make a note that on the city's website, we have all of the review panelists listed. It lists a civilian uh pool that's available. It also lists a sworn pool that's available. But one thing that I want to note is that it says three things about sworn. Number one, a sworn member cannot

483
02:12:53.199 --> 02:13:10.560
be a member of the panel if they have a sustained violation of D or higher. Two, if they have a sustained policy violation of C within 5 years of the panel date, and three, if they have a sustained policy violation of a level three use of force. They also cannot sit on panels if they have any open case at

484
02:13:10.560 --> 02:13:25.440
all. So, as you can imagine, for a variety of reasons, that does limit the available eligible pool. So, that is a significant consideration. We've been talking tonight about the amount of officers that exist. That is a significant portion of it. But, OPCR and

485
02:13:25.440 --> 02:13:42.239
IIA also made note of how large their supervisory reviews are and the cases that are going to be coming through. So, even if you seain like a lull in the last couple weeks, you're not going to see that for long. So, there will be a lot of panels seeing two cases or more. So, just want to put that on your radar

486
02:13:42.239 --> 02:14:03.599
as some information that's on the the city's website under the tab called police conduct review panels, review panel membership. Okay. Any other comments or questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you. We look forward to some more information

487
02:14:03.599 --> 02:14:19.040
coming up soon. Item number 13 is discussion on policy 2-602 force trends analysis policy. As chair of the police policy research and recommendations committee, Commissioner Shanfield will begin the discussion. Commissioner Shanfield.

488
02:14:19.040 --> 02:14:33.840
>> Thank you, Chair Reeves. Um and in light of the hour um what time it is, I mean right now um what I would love to do is to invite um this was just posted. It is um the window uh is September 4th. So we will not reconvene as a full body before

489
02:14:33.840 --> 02:14:51.679
that. However, PPR will convene and we'll discuss that policy on the um August 17th meeting. So, what I'd like to do is make a motion that to allow the PPR to submit comments on behalf of the body and invite anyone here to email me in the meantime if you have comments. Um

490
02:14:51.679 --> 02:15:08.480
also welcome them uh tonight if there are. But um that that is my recommendation. >> So moved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All right. Is any discussion? >> What's the date?

491
02:15:08.480 --> 02:15:25.119
>> It is due on the 4th >> for the your meeting. >> The meeting is the 17th. Yes. Yep. So, anytime before the 17th, that would be great. >> Okay. The motion on the floor is to have PPR compile recommendations and submit them forward. There's been motion and seconded. No further discussion. Clerk,

492
02:15:25.119 --> 02:15:41.760
will you call the role on that motion, please? >> Commissioner Mhennaney. I >> Shanfield. >> Hi >> Forsami. >> Hi >> Baker. >> I >> Stewart. >> Hi >> Wilson. >> I

493
02:15:41.760 --> 02:15:57.040
>> Canada. >> Hi >> uh Barts. >> Hi. >> Fabil. >> I >> Smith >> I. >> Uh Vice Chair Olsen >> I. >> And chair Reeves. >> I. >> There are 12 eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes.

494
02:15:57.040 --> 02:16:12.800
Commissioner Chample, do you have anything else? I just wanted to check the one other policy that was just released. I'm just I'm checking with the um city attorney about >> what is it? >> So, we're going to need to do that one, too. I'd also like then to ask for uh

495
02:16:12.800 --> 02:16:29.119
the same motion but for policy 7605 that was just released. >> Um >> Sam, could you name the policy? >> Yes. >> 7605 is chemical testing driving violations. It's four pages. It's Yeah. Um, and the policy number again,

496
02:16:29.119 --> 02:16:47.519
>> it's 7605. 7-605. >> Thank you. >> And it's due 9:14. >> Okay. >> Which is before our next meeting. >> One day before. Okay. Any um discussion on nine or 7605. >> Commissioner Shample, you want to

497
02:16:47.519 --> 02:17:03.960
formalize the motion? >> Sure. Um the I'd like to make a motion to approve submission of recommendations um on behalf of CCPO from PPRR's next meeting on policy 7605. >> Is there a second?

498
02:17:05.120 --> 02:17:20.800
>> Motion and second. Any further discussion? Clerk, if you can call the role in that motion, please. >> Commissioner Mahoney. >> I. >> She. >> Orami. >> I. >> Baker. >> I. >> Stewart. I >> Wilson >> I

499
02:17:20.800 --> 02:17:35.519
>> Kennedy >> I >> Barts >> I >> Fabro >> I >> Smith >> I >> vice chair Olsen >> I >> and chair Reeves >> I >> there are 12 eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. The final item on today's agenda is reviewing the

500
02:17:35.519 --> 02:17:51.120
recommendations the PPR committee put together for 1-406 uh responsibilities and duties of supervisors. Commissioner Baker will start us off. >> Sure. So, we took comments at the previous meeting and then we discussed

501
02:17:51.120 --> 02:18:10.319
it uh at PPRR. Uh we ended up with a list of 11 different recommendations for revisions. Um I can give people a moment to kind of scan through if there's any they would like to discuss. Happy to discuss them.

502
02:18:10.319 --> 02:18:32.800
Okay. Any com any comments? discussion. >> See none, Commissioner Becker, do you have anything else? >> I would like to move that we uh submit these on behalf of the full body. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. So, motion second. Any further discussion?

503
02:18:32.800 --> 02:18:48.719
>> Sh. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Just wanted to say thank you to Chair um Commissioner Baker for compiling the recommendations. Um and a really huge um thank you for the whole body because this is the result of the work of multiple times. So when we do have 45 days to review the policy, we're able to come back to the full body and

504
02:18:48.719 --> 02:19:05.519
to do this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Clerk, if you can call the role on the motion, please. Commissioner Melhenny. >> Hi, >> Shanfeld. >> Hi, >> uh, Warsawi. >> I >> Baker, >> I >> Stewart, >> I

505
02:19:05.519 --> 02:19:21.439
>> Wilson, >> I >> Canada. >> Hi, >> Barts. >> Hi, >> Fabro. >> I >> Smith >> I, >> Vice Chair Olsson, >> I, >> and Cher Reeves. >> I There are 12 eyes. >> All right, that motion passes. And with

506
02:19:21.439 --> 02:19:50.679
that, we've completed all items on our agenda for this meeting. Without any objection, the commission stands adjourned. Have a good evening everyone. >> Can I just make