22 Recommendations for the Labor Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis
The page numbers shown in parentheses refer to page numbers in the current Police Federation contract.[9] Recommended additional language is in bold; recommended language for removal is in strike out. Citations are provided both through hyperlinks and Additional Resources
Recommendation 1 / Training Decisions As Managerial Rights
Article 5 Management Rights
Why a Change Is Needed: Section 7.3 of the City Charter[10] outlines management rights held exclusively by the City, including rights to appoint and discharge employees. Managerial rights also extends to trainings. Despite this, the Police Federation leadership has tried to override this right by attempting to provide banned training to officers, including the notorious fear-based Bulletproof Warrior training. Such trainings do not comport with values in the MPD Policy And Procedures Manual, including “Sanctity of Life,” and “Do No Harm.”[11] Further, free trainings are a contribution, and “possible conflicts of interest,” thus “may require authorization from the City Council.”[12]
Language Change: Article 5 – Management Rights (P. 3)
“The Federation recognizes the right of the City to operate and manage its affairs in all respects in accordance with applicable law and regulations of appropriate authorities. All rights and authority which the City has not officially abridged, delegated or modified by this Agreement are retained by the City, including but not limited to appointing, training, and discharging employees.”
Recommendation 2 / Prohibiting Personal Time Indemnification
Article 9 Legal Counsel
Why a Change Is Needed: Article X of the Minnesota Constitution[13] allows for the collection of taxes for the furtherance of a public purpose and prohibits taxation for a private purpose. Minnesota statute 466.07[14] requires indemnification of officers only when acting in the performance of the duties of the position; and when not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. This prohibition is outlined in Douglas v. City of Minneapolis[15] and other court cases. Despite this, the City provided Officer Michael Griffin a $75,000 reimbursement[16] for defense attorney fees for engaging in criminal conduct on personal time. This amounts to a tax-free bonus at the taxpayers’ expense.
Language Change: Article 9, Legal Counsel; Section 9.01– Legal Counsel (P. 5)
“The City shall provide legal counsel to defend any employee against any action or claim for damages, including punitive damages, subject to limitations set forth in Minnesota Statutes §466.07, based on allegations relating to any arrest or other act or omission by the employee provided: the employee was acting in the performance of the duties of his or her position; and was not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty or bad faith. Notwithstanding the above, the City shall not indemnify employees for the cost of legal counsel for criminal or civil actions and liabilities that occur during non-duty personal time.”
Recommendation 3 NEW / Race And Gender Equity Plan
Article 10 Non-Discrimination And Harassment Prevention
Why a Change Is Needed: In the current 2020-2022 contract,[17] Juneteenth was added as a paid holiday, which we fully support. However, it is a tangible benefit for officers without any real commitment to remedy the department’s patterns and practices of racism and gender bias. In June 2020, MDHR filed a Charge Of Discrimination to investigate “race-based policing[18],” and within one week a temporary restraining order[19] against the City and MPD. Less than a year later, in April 2021, the US DOJ announced its investigation into “discriminatory policing.”[20] Police Federation contract negotiations were underway, yet between the prior and current contracts the only addition to non-discrimination was one statement: “The Union supports the City’s efforts to advance race and gender equity.” The City touted this an important new contract concession,[21] but no meaningful implementation plan was outlined. Platitudes without action are meaningless. A meaningful guide for the City is the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board’s 2021 MPRB Racial Equity Action Plan. (See Additional Facts 2, p 22.)
Language Change: Article 10, Non-Discrimination & Harassment Prevention (P. 6)
“The Union supports the City’s efforts to advance race and gender equity. This includes a comprehensive race and gender equity action plan to be jointly developed and implemented by the Employer, with input from residents and the Union, to address past Minneapolis Police patterns and practices of racism and gender bias, consistent with any future consent decrees. At least, one public annual meeting per year shall be held to report on progress made. To that end, the Employer and the Union shall continue to develop and refine policies that prohibit harassment and abuse in the workplace by any employee, manager or supervisor by endorsing preferences for hiring, retention, seniority and promotion for Black, Indigenous, People Of Color (BIPOC), and Women candidates.”
Recommendation 4 / Disciplinary Oversight – City Charter Compliance
Article 12 Discipline; Section 12.01 Just Cause
Why a Change Is Needed: the Labor Agreement with the Police Federation must be comport with all current law, including the Minneapolis City Charter[22]. Requiring the Police Chief to oversee discipline, as stated in the current contract, violates the City Charter which mandates this to be a function of the Mayor. Our recommendation brings the contract into compliance with Section 7.3 of the Minneapolis City Charter, which states:
“Except where the law vests an appointment in the department itself, the Mayor appoints and may discipline or discharge any employee in the department (subject to the Civil Service Commission’s rules, in the case of an employee in the classified service).” (Emphasis added.)
Language Change: Article 12, Discipline; Section 12.01 Just Cause (P. 12):
“The City, through the Chief of the Minneapolis Police Department Mayor or the Mayor’s designee, will discipline employees who have completed the required probationary period only for just cause, based on the discipline matrix included in the Minneapolis Police Department Policy and Procedures Manual.”
Note: The additional language change in this article specifically addresses the need for consistent discipline through use of the discipline matrix. This is one of four articles that needs to be changed to comport with the City Charter. (See also Recommendation 8, p. 9; Recommendation 15, p. 14; and Recommendation 19, p. 16.)
Recommendation 5 NEW / Eliminate Disclosure of Person Requesting Data
Article 12 Discipline; Section 12.03 Personnel Data
Why a Change Is Needed: New and very disturbing language was added to the current contract requiring MPD to notify officers when their data is requested by the public, including the name of the person making the request. This is an invitation for officers to retaliate against persons requesting data, and may discourage people from requesting public information they are entitled to. As a matter of public policy, this language must be removed. Currently, the City allows people to request data anonymously. However, this is not sufficient to protect people’s rights under the MN Government Data Practices[23] Act (MGDPA), because the City cannot clarify an anonymous data request if they have questions. MPD officers already have the right to request the City tell them about any data they have released on them. The City should not be contractually required to automatically notify the officers. It serves no viable public interest.
Language Change: Article 12, Discipline; Section 12.03, Personnel Data (P. 12)
When a data practices request has been made for an Officer’s public personnel data, the MPD will notify the Officer via email of the data requested and the requestor, if known. [Remove this language in its entirety.]
Recommendation 6 / Eliminate “48-Hour Rule” For Critical Incidents
Article 12 Discipline; Section 12.04 Investigatory Interview
Why a Change Is Needed: The contract section for taking formal statements from officers has been misinterpreted to create a so-called “48-Hour Rule” barring statements after critical incidents, such as police assaults and killings. The “48 Hour Rule” is not a rule per se, but has become a practice. There is no state law that prohibits a police officer from being interviewed within 48 hours of a critical incident. Allowing this delay enables officers to create a false narrative to justify their conduct, instead of ensuring statements are taken when recollections are most fresh and do not become tainted. The vague language of “impractical due to the immediacy” must be replaced with a clear standard that no such 48-hour rule applies to interviews of officers after a critical incident. These interviews are strictly for employment purposes. Officers are protected by the United States Supreme Court, under the Garrity rule[24] from having anything they say in these interviews used against them in any future possible criminal prosecutions. There is simply no reason to give officers additional rights under a fictitious and self-serving 48-hour rule.
Language Change: Article 12, Discipline; Section 12.04 Investigatory Interviews 12.04 (Pps. 12-13): “Before taking a formal statement from any employee, the City shall provide to the employee from whom the formal statement is sought a written summary of the events to which the statement relates. To the extent known to the City, such summary shall include: the date and time (or period of time if relating to multiple events) and the location(s) of the alleged events; a summary of the alleged acts or omissions at issue; and the policies, rules or regulations allegedly violated. Except where impractical due to the immediacy of the investigation A statement regarding a critical incident must be taken within the first 6 hours following that incident, and all officers who are subjects or witnesses must ensure their body cameras are continuously in operation from the time of the critical incident until the statement is taken. In all other matters, the summary shall be provided to the employee not less than two (2) days prior to the taking of his/her statement. If the summary is provided to the employee just prior to the taking of the statement, the employee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to consult with a Federation representative before proceeding with the scheduled statement.”
Recommendation 7 / Discipline Standards And Matrix
Article 12 Discipline; Section 12.06 Discipline Matrix
Why a Change Is Needed: All employees deserve a fair and consistent process for discipline. This is best served with a discipline matrix that sets out clear standards, including circumstances that can reduce or enhance discipline, known as mitigating, extenuating, and aggravating factors. Failure to maintain consistent discipline has resulted in disciplinary decisions being overturned during arbitration[25] for poor past practices, managers unaware of investigations[26], lack of progressive discipline, and inconsistent enforcement of extenuating circumstances. Just between 2013 and 2016, the Office of Police Misconduct Review received 2,013 complaints, but “only about 1.5% resulted in suspensions, terminations, or demotions[27],” far below the national average[28]. Embedding this language in the contract will delineate a break with past practices, a process known as disciplinary reset.
In 2018, MPD had a discipline matrix[29] that was clear, including: direct references to policy numbers in the MPD Policy and Procedures Manual[30], identifiable discipline based on number and severity of violations, and factors for mitigating and aggravating circumstances. However, in 2022 the MPD scrapped the 2018 version, and replaced it with a vaguely worded discipline matrix that makes no direct references to the MPD Policy and Procedures Manual. MPD then issued its 2023 discipline matrix[31], again without references to the carefully crafted policies in the MPD Policy and Procedures Manual, which is the necessary authority for any disciplinary process. The current discipline matrix makes it nearly impossible for officers to know what conduct will result in discipline, and whether discipline will be uniformly applied towards all officers. (See Additional Facts 3, p. 24.)
Additionally, MPD does not consider coaching to be a disciplinary action that is subject to public disclosure. An officer who commits a particular offense may be subject to disciplinary sanctions while another officer committing the same receives leniency with coaching. As a result, “the city of Minneapolis contrived a way to conceal police misconduct[32] from the public by calling it ‘coaching’ instead of ‘discipline.’” This means “the most common consequence when an MPD employee is found to have engaged in misconduct—is not discipline,” which has led to calls for legislative reform, and is the subject of a current lawsuit[33] against the City.
Language Change: Article 12 Discipline; NEW Section 12.06, Discipline Matrix, Discipline Standards And Practices (INSERT AFTER 12.05, P. 13):
“The use of a discipline matrix is a best practice. Therefore, effective 120 days after contract ratification, a well-defined discipline matrix that includes policies by number, with specific mitigating, extenuating, and aggravating factors, will be included in the Minneapolis Police Department’s Policy and Procedures Manual. This matrix will include a disciplinary reset statement. This matrix shall be used as the basis for disciplinary decisions going forward, to ensure consistency in the disciplinary process and for levels of discipline. Further, coaching shall not be used for any offense greater than an A-level offense without an aggravating circumstance.”
Recommendation 8 / Hiring Process, City Charter Compliance
Article 13 Salaries; Section 13.08; Subd. 1 Hiring Process
Why a Change Is Needed: This language change is needed for the contract to comport with Section 7.3 of the City Charter[34]. The City Charter specifically grants power to the Mayor to hire City employees, and this includes police officers. Yet, the current contract with the Police Federation improperly gives this power to the Chief of Police, and thus is in violation of the following City Charter language:
Section 7.3 of the Minneapolis City Charter states: “Except where the law vests an appointment in the department itself, the Mayor appoints and may discipline or discharge any employee in the department (subject to the Civil Service Commission’s rules, in the case of an employee in the classified service).” (Emphasis added.)
Language Change: Article 13 Salaries; Section 13.08, Subd.1 Hiring Process (P. 16): “Notwithstanding any provision of the Civil Service Rules to the contrary, the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee Chief may, upon the prior advice and consent of the Chief Human Resources Officer, use the following process to make offers of employment for the job classification of Police Officer to applicants with prior sworn law enforcement experience.”
Note – This is one of four articles that needs to be changed to comport with the City Charter. (See also Recommendation 4, p. 6; Recommendation 15, p. 14; and Recommendation 19, p. 16.)
Recommendation 9 / Officer Hiring In Alignment With MPD Values
Article 13 Salaries; Section 13.08; Subd. 1 Hiring Process
Why a Change Is Needed: Veteran officers may come from other departments with training that is contrary to the expectations, values and practices of the MPD. This includes fear-based training, unauthorized chokeholds, or other practices that conflict with the MPD Policy and Procedures Manual, the present MN DHR consent decree, and future decrees. Understanding MPD policies cannot be left to police agency guidelines or individual interpretations. The contract must ensure that these new officers have trainings to know MPD policy regarding “sanctity of life,” “do no harm[35],” and other expectations.
Language Change: Article 13 Salaries; Section 13.08 Subd.1(d) Hiring Process (P. 17): “The Chief may determine the nature and extent of training necessary for a candidate hired under this section to become a sworn employee of the Department. The training need not be the same as the training provided to a newly hired Police Officer without prior law enforcement experience. However, all officers hired under this section shall receive training in the expectations and values of the Minneapolis Police Department as required in the MPD Policy and Procedure Manual, and other City and MPD directives.”
Recommendation 10 / Clearer Conduct Expectations
Article 13 Salaries; Section 13.09 Performance Management
Why a Change Is Needed: It is standard practice across all agencies and industries to have language that clearly outlines performance expectation and responsibilities for employees. Employees are poorly served by vague language about expectations for their conduct. MPD officers must acknowledge the standard of conduct expected of them. Effective discipline requires that employees annually acknowledge awareness of and accountability to performance expectations in the MPD Policies and Procedures Manual. This is also essential to the disciplinary reset process (See Recommendation 7, p. 8.)
Language Change: Article 13 Salaries, Section 13.09 Performance Management 13.09 (Pps. 18-19):
· First bullet point: “Assuring that employees perform their jobs consistent with written policies and procedures as outlined in the Minneapolis Police Department Policies and Procedures Manual as well as the expectations and values of the Minneapolis Police Department and the City of Minneapolis.”
· Second bullet point: “Communicating reasonable performance expectations prior to April 1 of each year, and for documenting and notifying employees of inappropriate conduct as soon after the conduct as possible, and giving the employee guidance and time to correct behavior.”
· Add a fourth bullet point: “Ensuring that employees sign an annual affirmation that they have read the Minneapolis Police Department Policies and Procedures Manual and are responsible for knowing and abiding by its contents.”
Recommendation 11 / Supervisory Staffing Levels
Article 16 Job Classification And Assignment Of Personnel; Section 16.02 Classification Staff
Why a Change Is Needed: The current 23.25% sergeant staffing requirement is an unreal expectation by the Police Federation when we consider its cost to Minneapolis taxpayers. This represents one-quarter of the entire department. Currently, no other labor agreements with the City specify supervisory percentages. Rather, other labor agreements, including the Fire Chiefs Unit[36], state that "adequate and appropriate staffing and supervisory levels" reside squarely within the City's rights as the employer. The City must reclaim its management right to set supervisory staffing for police. To avoid demotions, attrition should be used to reduce the number of sergeants to the City's preferred supervisory percentage over time. The City will gain significant cost savings, and make more officers available for patrol and call response. Further, funds would be available for piloting alternate public safety measures.
Language Change: Article 16 Job Classification and Assignment Of Personnel; Section 16.02 Job Classification Staffing (P. 23):
“The number of sergeants in the Department shall not be reduced below twenty-three and one-quarter percent (23.25%) of the greater of the total authorized strength of all sworn personnel of the Department; or the actual number of sworn personnel, as determined on July 1 of each year. The City recognizes the need to maintain adequate staffing and supervisory levels. To this end, the City will ensure that properly qualified supervisory staff are assigned to all shifts, balanced by the need to respect the employee’s need to be away from the job and the organizational need to provide growth and development opportunities for the purpose of advancement. Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted to abridge the Employer’s right to ensure adequate and appropriate staffing and supervisory levels.”
Recommendation 12 NEW/ Ceasing Police Response To Non-Emergency Calls
Article 16 Job Classification and Assignment Of Personnel; NEW Section 16.08 Non-Emergency 911 Calls
Why a Change Is Needed: Calls have been made for many years to have non-police responses in situations where other skilled professionals would be more adept at ensuring the safety of the community by defusing conflict, and addressing individual needs. These calls increased dramatically after the torture and murder of George Floyd in 2020. The City of Minneapolis website indicates Alternatives Responses[37] as one of its three focus areas for Community Safety with four pilot programs outlined.[38]
· Pilot 1: Use mobile behavioral health crisis response (BCR) teams (active).
· Pilot 2: Train 911 dispatch to assess behavioral health calls (active).
· Pilot 3: Embed behavioral health professionals in 911.
· Pilot 4: Train non-police City staff to take theft and property damage reports (active).
City officials and activists have “All expressed optimism that the City is giving the unarmed response pilots a chance. But there were concerns[39] over whether the City would invest in unarmed response programs long-term.” Although Minneapolis seems to be going in the right direction, the investment and commitment are not nearly sufficient. The City continues to experience police escalating situations, resulting in unfounded arrests, assaults, and killings. It is time for the City to fully commit to alternatives to police responses as promised with the 2020 Powderhorn Pledge[40] and by the Mayor’s own pledge to work with the community and Chief of Police "to dig in and enact more community-led, public safety strategies on behalf of our City.”[41]
The City’s Director of the Office of Performance and Innovation has stated, “There are a ton of responses that don’t require an armed officer to show up.”[42] The City could well start with the modest 28 responses in the Alternative Response Proposal[43] called for by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for the Los Angeles Police Department. This proposal addresses, “long-term, chronic understaffing, which leads to delayed emergency response times, increased neighborhood crime, diminished community policing, lower crime clearance rates, as well as the erosion of officer morale.” Having police cease, “to respond to certain non-emergency calls would allow MPD police officers to more swiftly respond to other emergencies, improve neighborhood safety, engage in community policing as it was originally envisioned, increase crime clearance rates, and improve police/community outcomes.”
Language Change: Article 16; Job Classification And Assignment of Personnel; NEW Section 16.08 Non-Emergency 911 Calls
The following types of 911 calls for service shall no longer be responded to by sworn police officers unless an emergency arises after initial deployment of non-sworn and unarmed responses. Nothing in this article prevents providing a sworn police response to calls that initially are non-emergency, but rise to an emergency need. MPD may respond as needed after the initial non-sworn response has been deployed.
1. Non-criminal and/or non-violent homeless and quality of life related calls.
2. Homeless Encampment Clean-Ups, unless officers are requested or pre- scheduled.
3. Non-criminal mental health calls.
4. Landlord/Tenant Disputes.
5. Non-violent youth disturbance or youth beyond parental control, such as refusal to attend school.
6. Calls to schools unless the school administration is initiating a call for an emergency police response or making a mandatory reporting notification.
7. Public Health Order violations.
8. Welfare checks and non-criminal courtesy requests from medical personnel or hospitals.
9. Non-violent calls for service at City parks.
10. Under the influence calls (alcohol and/or drugs) where there is no other crime in progress or immediate danger.
11. Non-Fatal Vehicle Accidents that are non-DUI and non-criminal, involving only personal or City property damage, or verbal disputes involving non-injury traffic collisions, and refusing to share ID at traffic collisions.
12. Parking violations.
13. Driveway tows.
14. Abandoned vehicles.
15. Persons dumping trash.
16. Vicious and dangerous dog complaints where no attack is in progress.
17. Calls for loud noise, loud music, or ‘party’ calls that are anonymous or have no victim.
18. Loitering/Trespassing with no indication of danger.
19. False Alarm Responses (except 211 silent alarm).
20. Syringe disposal.
21. Department of Transportation stand-by for road, highway, and other transportation events.
22. Panhandling.
23. Illegal vending, or alleged use of counterfeit money.
24. Illegal gambling.
25. Fireworks.
26. Defecating/Urinating in public.
27. Drinking in public.
28. Investigation of a dead body where there is no indication of foul play.
29. Immigration status or checks.
Recommendation 13 / More Flexible Staffing
Article 17 Hours And Scheduling Of Work; Section 17.02 Bid Assignments
Why a Change Is Needed: Greater flexibility is needed for management to meet community exigencies and the needs of the department. It is a management right for the City to select the appropriate officers for assignments based on skills, experience and conduct. Currently, 70% of officers can choose their assignments, which can hinder police management’s ability to respond to community and department needs. A reduction to 30% strikes an appropriate balance.
Language Change: Article 17 Hours And Scheduling Of Work; Section 17.02, Subd. 1(A) Bid Assignments (Pps. 27-28):
“The Chief will notify each Inspector as to the number of Eligible Employees and Bid Assignments that will be allocated to each Precinct for the upcoming bid. The total number of Bid Assignments for employees in the rank of Police Officer shall be not less than seventy percent (70%) thirty percent (30%) of the number of employees in the classification of Police Officer as of the date of posting. The number of Eligible Employees as of the posting date shall be reasonably related to the number of Bid Assignments.”
Recommendation 14 NEW / Scheduled Days To Eliminate Officer Stress & Fatigue
Article 18 Work Schedules; Section 18.02 Work Schedules
Why a Change Is Needed: The consecutive number of both days and hours officers work must be taken into account when addressing manageable work schedules for police officers. This is especially urgent as the current Police Federation contract has no daily limitations for shift hours and overtime hours (See Recommendation 16, p.14). When officers work too much in a day, over a week, or longer of period of time, it can directly cause stress and debilitating fatigue that affects the quality of their work and the safety of the community. In general, fatigue is a stressor that affects performance: “Fatigue can slow down reaction times, reduce attention or concentration, limit short-term memory and impair judgement. High levels of fatigue can affect any worker in any occupation or industry with serious consequences for worker safety and health.”[44] For officers who carry a number of potentially lethal weapons, and must make snap judgments, fatigue can cause poor decisions and harmful consequences for members of the community. It is notable that the International Association of Chiefs of Police[45] has stated that, “Mitigating the harmful effects of fatigue is paramount, especially in workforce populations where mistakes can make the difference between life and death,” and that “those affected often suffer from the inability to perform the following functions: •comprehend complex situations • perform risk assessment and accurately predict consequences…• control mood or behavior [and] • communicate effectively.”
Language Change: Article 18 Work Schedules; Section 18.02 Subd.a.(5) Work Schedules (P. 34):
“Except in an emergency as declared by the Mayor, an employee shall may generally not be scheduled to work more than five (5) up to six (6) days consecutively including regular work hours, overtime, and all approved off-duty work as covered by this contract. If an employee is scheduled to work six (6) consecutive days. In all cases in which an employee works five or more consecutive days due to a declared emergency, they must generally be scheduled to have at least two (2) consecutive days off before they are scheduled to return to work. An employee’s commander shall have the discretion to deviate from the maximum number of consecutive days of work or the minimum consecutive days off.”
Recommendation 15 NEW / Declaring emergencies, City Charter Compliance
Article 19 New Hires And Promotions; Section 19.03 Promotional Exams
Why a Change Is Needed: The language change in this article is needed to comport with Section 7.3 of the City Charter[46]. Under Minneapolis Ordinance 128.50[47] only the Mayor can declare an emergency. This is further codified in MN Stat. §12.29[48], which requires all emergencies to be declared only by the Mayor of a municipality.
Language Change: Article 19 New Hires And Promotions; Section 19.03 Promotional Exams (P. 39)
“...the City shall grant reasonable time off to take the examination except in emergencies as declared by the Chief of Police and the Mayor of Minneapolis."
Note - This is one of four articles that needs to be changed to comport with the City Charter. (See also Recommendation 4, p. 6; Recommendation 8, p. 9; and Recommendation 19, p. 16.)
Recommendation 16 / Scheduled Hours To Eliminate Officer Stress & Fatigue
Article 20 Overtime; Section 20.01 Overtime
Why a Change Is Needed: There are currently no limitations on the number of hours – or days (See Recommendation 14, p. 13) - that can be worked by officers in either the collective bargaining agreement or in the MPD Policies and Procedures Manual. Studies show that officer exhaustion impairs judgment in ways that lead to increased squad car accidents, increased use of force and ethical breaches, less ability to control biases, and other public safety and officer wellness issues. The Office of Justice Programs[49] within the U.S. DOJ noted: “fatigue can: • impair an officer's mental and physical ability • create a cycle of fatigue • limit job performance [and] • damage an officer's health” that is impacted by “work-related factors,” including “excessive overtime.” Further, these issues increase workers comp and liability claims.[50] Alarmingly, “some research suggests a positive association between number of hours worked by an officer and their likelihood of perpetrating domestic violence.”[51] If working excessive hours presents a greater risk of domestic violence by police officers, common sense tells us that working excessive hours also presents a greater risk of violence by officers against persons in the community. Although, police officers are exempt from Minnesota overtime laws[52], the harm that excessive hours can cause officers and the public demand that limits be put in place.
Language Change: Article 20 Overtime; Section 20.01 Overtime (P. 39):
“This Article is intended to define and provide the basis for the calculation of overtime pay or compensatory time off, as applicable. Nothing herein shall be construed as a guarantee of overtime work. All employees may be required to work overtime. Except in an emergency as declared by the Mayor, employees shall not be required or permitted to work greater than 50 hours per week, including regular work hours, overtime, and all approved off-duty work as covered by this contract.”
Recommendation 17 NEW / Eligibility To Become Field Training Officers
Article 20 Overtime; Section 20.03 Special Overtime Practices; Subd. 6 Field Training Officers
Why a Change Is Needed: Field training officers provide “in the street” orientation to new police officers. They have significant influence on these new officers and the culture of the department. Their conduct must be exemplary. We applaud the City and Federation for referencing “good standing” as a requirement for Field Training Officers. However, the contract does not define this term, especially in relationship to complaints or disciplinary action. One third of MPD officers have five or more complaints, and should not be field training officers. Had this definition been in place at the time George Floyd was tortured and murdered, Derek Chauvin with his 32 misconduct allegations[53] - including four deadly force[54] incidents - would never have been a field training officer.
Language Change: Article 20 Overtime; Section 20.03, Subd.6 Special Overtime Practices (P. 43): Subd. 6 Field Training Officers
“An employee who serves as a Field Training Officer (FTO) shall receive compensation for the duties associated with the FTO assignment, in addition to the employee’s regular compensation. . . .An FTO in good standing with the Field Training Program will receive additional compensation of $2,500 each year ….The FTO Program Coordinator will approve the quarterly payments by providing a list of Field Training Officers, who have remained in good standing with the program ….”
(1) Definition of Good Standing. An FTO in good standing is defined as one who does not have any open or unresolved complaints that likely would result in any discipline higher than a letter of reprimand, criminal charges that are pending or have resulted in conviction, civil lawsuits with outcomes favoring the plaintiff, or has had less than one complaint per year of service arising out of their police employment.”
Recommendation 18 NEW / Off-Duty Work And Buy Back Assignments
Article 26 Administrative Leave; Section 26.03 Return Following Critical or Traumatic Incident
Why a Change Is Needed: Officers returning from a critical or traumatic incident must have a psychologist’s evaluation to determine their fitness to return to on duty assignments. An opinion may be rendered that an officer is fit or not fit to return to work. However, this evaluation presently does not explicitly allow the evaluating psychologist to render an opinion about off duty work and Buy Back assignments. Buy Backj wages are those paid by MPD and are subject to reimbursement by the business or entity contracting for the services. The evaluating psychologist must have latitude, including whether to authorize a return to regular work assignments while limiting overtime for a specified period of time to prevent a returning officer from being overly burdened.
Language Change: Section 26.03, Return Following Critical Or Traumatic
Incident, Subd.1 Psychological Evaluation for Return to Work (P. 63)
“Additionally, each Involved/Witness Officer will be required to attend a return-to-work meeting with the Employer’s contract psychologist for evaluation. Following that meeting, the psychologist will render an opinion regarding fitness for duty, including off-duty employment and Buy Back assignments (see Subd. 3), and send that document to the Deputy Chief of Professional Standards to determine the suitability for the employee to return to work. If the Employer’s contract psychologist renders an opinion that the impacted employee is not fit for duty, the officer will be placed on IOD status. From that point, the Officer’s rights and return to work shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of Article 31. The Employer’s contract psychologist may render an opinion that includes allowing an impacted employee to return to regular assignment, while limiting off-duty employment and Buy Back assignments for a set period of time.”
Section 26.03, Subd. 3 Off-Duty Employment; Buy Back (P. 64) –
“Upon the return to work, the employee may return to any approved off-duty employment and may work Buy Back assignments with the approval of the Employer’s contract psychologist conducting the evaluation per Subd. 1.”
Recommendation 19 / Misconduct Decisions, City Charter Compliance
Article 26 Ad. Leave; Section 26.06 Ad. Leave Pending Investigation Of Allegations Of Misconduct
Why a Change Is Needed: The City Charter[55] specifically grants power to the Mayor to discipline or terminate City employees, and this includes police officers. Yet, the current contract with the Federation improperly gives this power to the Chief of Police, and thus is in violation of the following City Charter language:
Section 7.3 of the Minneapolis City Charter states: “Except where the law vests an appointment in the department itself, the Mayor appoints and may discipline or discharge any employee in the department (subject to the Civil Service Commission's rules, in the case of an employee in the classified service).”
Language Change: Article 26 Administrative Leave; Section 26.06 Subd.1 Administrative Leave Pending Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct (Pps. 66-67):
“The Chief or their designee may place an employee on a paid administrative leave of absence or limited duty status pending allegations of severe misconduct. The Chief shall speak with a representative of the Federation regarding the basis for the decision, if practical, prior to placing the employee on leave. . .The Chief shall cause the investigation of the allegations to be investigated as promptly as possible without compromising the thoroughness of the investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Chief Mayor or Mayor’s designee shall make a prompt decision as to whether discipline will be imposed and if so what level of discipline and notify the employee.”
Note - This is one of four articles that needs to be changed to comport with the City Charter. (See also Recommendation 4, p. 6; Recommendation 8, p. 9; and Recommendation 15, p. 14.)
Recommendation 20 / Testing For Anabolic Steroids
Article 30 Drug And Alcohol Testing; Section 30.01 Purpose Statement
Section 30.04 Reasonable Suspicion Testing
Why a Change Is Needed: As early as 1989, the Drug Enforcement Administration, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and other organizations recognized abuse of anabolic steroids as a serious and growing issue. The problem has continued to worsen, largely because police departments fail to routinely test for anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroid abuse is harmful to the health of officers and the use of these Class III drugs can also cause psychological changes that endanger the community. Testing[56] for these dangerous drugs must occur under the same reasonable suspicion circumstances as other drugs.
Language Changes: Article 30 Drug and Alcohol Testing; Section (P. 79) /
Section 30.01 – Purpose Statement
“This Agreement establishes standards concerning drugs and alcohol, including anabolic steroids, which all employees must meet and it establishes a testing procedure to ensure that those standards are met.”
30.04 A. Reasonable Suspicion Testing
“The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing, including testing for anabolic steroids, if the Employer or any supervisor of the employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences draw from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee.”
Recommendation 21 / Mandatory Annual Mental Health Screenings
Article 31 Fitness For Duty; Section 31.02 Circumstances Requiring Fitness For Duty Examinations
Why a Change Is Needed: Since 2020, a number of officers have left the department under claims for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder[57] (PTSD), and the cost to taxpayers is now over $22 million for these claims. Further, there are actual costs to recruit, hire, and train new employees, along with the intangible costs when experienced officers leave the department. Regular mental health screening may identify interventions that help officers stay in their careers with MPD. The City has also incurred $120 million[58] in legal settlement costs in cases of police excessive force and abuse. Officers who are not appropriately disciplined, and are also not screened for mental health can become hazards in our neighborhoods and liabilities to the City. How much more might be paid out in future years for abuse going on now in MPD that could be prevented with these recommendations?
The contract between the City and Police Federation explicitly acknowledges, “that the performance of law enforcement duties is inherently demanding and that such duties are sometimes performed under dangerous conditions and/or in a stressful environment[59].” The contract further commits to “identifying and diagnosing officers of the Department who may suffer from medical, psychological or emotional conditions which impair their ability to perform their job duties satisfactorily.”
Studies indicate that suicides[60] are the single highest cause of death for police officers, far outranking line-of-duty deaths. Yet, there is no provision for yearly psychological testing Officers who patrol the community with guns and other lethal weapons while suffering from their own mental health issues poses a public safety risk for the community. Ongoing evaluations conducted by employment psychologists could determine mental health issues.
We fully support the “goal of the City of Minneapolis to have healthy and productive employees and to facilitate successful treatment for those employees experiencing debilitating health problems,” and the commitment “to promote rehabilitation[61], rather than discipline.” If mental health issues are found, officers cannot be stigmatized, but the issues cannot be swept under the rug. The contract provides laudable support for treatment, and detailed mandated procedures for removal from active duty when warranted.
Language Change: Article 31 Fitness For Duty; Section 31.02 Circumstances Requiring Fitness For Duty Examinations (P. 92):
Add the following new paragraph:
“(f) Every year.”
Recommendation 22 / NEW Legal Orders And Consent Decree Obligations
Article 32 Savings Clause; NEW Section 32.02 Legal Orders And Consent Decree Obligations
Why a Change Is Needed: MPD is the subject of a consent decree, otherwise known as a court enforceable action, contained in a 144-page MDHR Settlement Agreement And Order[62] in the case, State of Minnesota by Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights v. City of Minneapolis, signed by the City and MDHR on March 31, 2023, and signed by the presiding judge on July 13, 2023. This was preceded by the 72-page DHR report, Investigation[63] into the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department, Findings from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, April 27, 2022. Additionally, the United States Department of Justice[64] issued its Investigation of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department. Parties must be barred from altering the contract, MPD Policy and Procedures Manual, MPD Discipline Matrix, and all other documents to propose policies, procedures or other actions that conflict with any court order or consent decree. In signing any consent decree, the City is using its managerial rights to guarantee that the contract will not undermine or contradict any consent decrees. Similarly, under its managerial rights, the City must ensure that any judicial order will be followed even if opposed in any way by the Police Federation. (Section 32.01 has additional language for clarity only.)
Language Change: Article 32 Savings Clause; New Section 32.02 Prevent Conflict With Consent Decrees (P. 96):
Section 32.01: Any provisions of this Agreement held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction, from which final judgment or decree has been entered, and no appeal has been taken within the time provided by law, shall be void. All other provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 32.02: No portion of this contract shall contradict or conflict with any imposed state or federal legal orders, negotiated settlements, consent decrees, or court enforceable actions, including but not limited to those of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the United States Department of Justice.