Additional Facts - Introduction

Good, Not Good Enough, and Ugly Of the Current Police Federation Contract

Good - Background Checks

Article 25 Leaves Of Absence Without Pay; Section 25.05– Background Check for Employees Returning to Work After Extended Absence (P. 61)

A requirement was added that employees returning from a leave of 6 months or more must have a new background check. Now that this has been adopted, it provides the precedent for other recommendations, such as yearly mental health screening, and anabolic steroid testing in addition drug and alcohol testing. This all supports officer safety and protects the safety of the community.

 

Not Good Enough - Separate Police Federation Unions

Most unionized workplaces have separate unions for management and line staff to avoid inherent conflicts that occur when a staff member challenges discipline issued by a front line supervisor, who is also a fellow union member. This also avoids a difficult conflict for supervisors, who are expected to be loyal both to the employer and the union. These conflicts are a barrier to accountability and meaningful discipline. The City maintains certain exclusive managerial rights as the public employer of the employee officers, sergeants and lieutenants represented by the Police Federation. This means that some needed changes necessarily are not negotiated within the contract, including separating the Police Federation into two separate collective bargaining units.

In 2022, the City finally filed a petition with the Bureau Of Mediation Services (BMS) to separate the Police Federation into two separate collective bargaining units - one for MPD officers, and one for MPD sergeants and lieutenants. This was an action led for many years by MFBPC coalition member Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB). BMS did not grant the petition, poignantly noting in its decision [65] that the City astonishingly took the exact same position as the Union:

“Had the City or Union submitted to the Bureau for a determination regarding the supervisory employee status of the positions, a supervisory determination would have disqualified the Sergeant and Lieutenant from remaining within the unit. Instead, the parties continued to include them within the unit …. the parties have entered into the record the Police Sergeant and Police Lieutenant positions do not meet the definition of supervisory employee under Minn. Stat. §179A.03.” (Emphasis added.)”

This must be rectified with a further petition that shows sergeants and lieutenants are in fact supervisors.

Psychological Evaluations

Article 26 Administrative Leave; Section 26.03, Subd. 3 – Return to Work Following Critical/Traumatic Incident (Pps. 63 & 64)

There is now a requirement that all employees involved in a critical or traumatic incident must engage in a two-step process before returning to work, which includes meeting with a psychologist for evaluation. This is a welcome change. However, an officer can resume all off-duty employment and Buy Back assignments with no ability of evaluating psychologists to determine if this is in the officer’s and community’s best interests. (See NEW Recommendation 18, p. 16). 

Mental Health Screenings

In 2021, MFBPC recommended a change to the Police Federation contract to require any officer previously employed by another law enforcement department hired by MPD to undergo mandatory mental health screening. That recommendation was not passed across the table. However, the Board of Peace Officers Standards And Training (POST) passed new provisions for Minimum Selection Standards [66] that provides:

 “An applicant identified by the board as eligible to be licensed or a peace officer currently licensed in Minnesota may apply for a peace officer position with a law enforcement agency. Prior to employment, the law enforcement agency must establish and document that the following minimum selection standards are met by the applicant. The applicant must:…. have passed a psychological screening.”

There is no exception for an officer coming from another police department. However, what is still missing is a requirement for mental health screenings every year for every MPD officer. (See Recommendation 21, p. 18.)

Ugly - Revealing Names Of Residents Who Request Police Data

Section  12 Discipline; 12.03 – Personnel Data (P. 12)

This is a disturbingly regressive provision that the City agreed to during negotiations. It requires the MPD to notify an employee whenever members of the public request public data on police officers. This is an invitation for officers to retaliate against anyone who requests their data, and could well prevent residents from requesting public information they are entitled to. (See Recommendation 5, p. 7.)               

             

Additional Facts - Recommendation 3

Insufficiency of Article 10 - “Non-Discrimination and Harassment Prevention”           

Despite the torture and murder of Mr. George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the current contract includes only superficial language to address equity (see bold & italicized contract language below.) Moreover, the City has yet to show exactly what progress it made in its continuing efforts “to develop and refine policies that prohibit harassment and abuse in the workplace” (see underlined contract language below.) Instead it just repeats the same language from the previous contract, which suggests little – if any progress – has been made. The new contract will be negotiated under the specter of the pending consent decree from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigation, and one that will be coming from the U.S. Department of Justice. A real commitment must be shown in the new Police Federation contract to end MPD’s culture of violence and to promote equity.

 

PREVIOUS CONTRACT

January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019

CURRENT CONTRACT

January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022

In the application of this Agreement's terms and provisions, no bargaining unit employee shall be discriminated against in an unlawful manner as defined by applicable City, State and/or Federal law or because of an employee's political affiliation or membership in the Federation.

The Employer and the Union reaffirm the Employer’s obligation to maintain a work environment which is hospitable to all employees, managers and supervisors. 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. The Employer agrees to investigate all allegations of violations to that policy. Upon finding that a violation of the policy has occurred, the Employer shall take appropriate remedial and/or corrective action.

In the application of this Agreement's terms and provisions, no bargaining unit employee shall be discriminated against in an unlawful manner as defined by applicable City, State and/or Federal law or because of an employee's political affiliation or membership in the Federation.

The Union supports the City’s efforts to advance race and gender equity. The Employer and the Union also reaffirm the Employer’s obligation to maintain a work environment which is hospitable to all employees, managers and supervisors. 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. The Employer agrees to investigate all allegations of violations to that policy. Upon finding that a violation of the policy has occurred, the Employer shall take appropriate remedial and/or corrective action.

Excerpts / 2021 MPRB Racial Equity Action Plan

The 2021 MPRB Racial Equity Action Plan [67] by Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board provides useful guidance on a real equity policy for MPD, including “community input.”

“The Racial Equity Action Plan is an internal working document that guides the organization’s racial equity agenda. This plan is for 2021 and serves as a bridge to the 2022-2023 plan. While this is a one-year plan, the intent is to update the plan every two years based on ongoing collaborative staff and community input. The Racial Equity Action Plan is designed to be the heartbeat of its racial equity work at MPRB…. a lens that establishes priorities, timelines, accountability, and performance measures. The MPRB has five goals to guide its racial equity work….” 

A. MPRB is committed to creating/developing/fostering a culture that values and advances racial equity.

B. Minneapolis residents view the MPRB as an effective and inclusive government that engages all communities.

C. MPRB workforce reflects the diversity of community across the breadth and depth of the organization.

D. MPRB investments in contracting and procurement benefit the diversity of the community.

E. The MPRB provides programs and services that are responsive and reflective of community needs.

                  

Additional Facts - Recommendation 7

Discipline Matrix Model & Current Inadequacy Of MPD Matrix

Best Practices For Discipline Matrix And Reset 

Professional Conduct And Disciplinary Practices[1]

Expectations for professional conduct are conveyed in written policies. Similarly, consequences for policy violations are also conveyed in written disciplinary practices and procedures. Together they make up a disciplinary process that is part of an overall infrastructure of effective personnel management. In an ideal situation, police officers understand and act within expectations, and avoid the disciplinary process altogether. In that environment, discipline becomes the last - and seldom used - option. However, as in all organizations, there is a wide range of employee ability and willingness to meet expectations. When violations occur within MPD, officers have a right to expect known, consistent, and even-handed consequences, and the public has a right to expect that consequences will be imposed to ensure safety both for members  of their communities and for police officers.

 

Issue:  Disciplinary Actions Overturned At Arbitration

A significant percent of terminations and other disciplinary actions against MPD officers have been overturned by arbitrators. Much of this stems from a lack of disciplinary action for similar offenses by past administrations. When there is misconduct, MPD may impose a consequence that is harsher than prior consequences. However, when appealed, the arbitrator is compelled to reduce or dismiss the discipline imposed because it is not consistent with past practice. When the discipline does not “stick,” the Chief’s authority to discipline MPD employees is undermined. The dilemma is that current discipline becomes impossible due to lack of effective past discipline.

 

Disciplinary Reset Mechanism And Discipline Matrix

Effective discipline begins with a new Discipline Matrix that provides a known, consistent, and uniform set of consequences based on offense, severity, and past violations. A Disciplinary Reset Mechanism creates a point going forward that lets MPD employees know police administration will treat violations in a consistent manner. Adopting a new reset date breaks the cycle and constraints of past practices, allowing new disciplinary actions to be upheld. Police administration can create a new and greater culture of accountability to improve policing overall.

 

Clearly Defined Offenses With Minimum and Maximum Penalties

The use of a clear and defined discipline matrix is considered a best practice. It provides necessary details and a visible outline of offenses that result in a range of penalties. It must be straightforward, so there is an understandable connection between offense and consequence. It is critical that the discipline matrix have a direct connection to a police department’s policy and procedures manual that every officer is expected to follow. Offense categories or classes are created based on increasing severity with specific references to the policy and procedure manual. Discipline must be proportional to the gravity of the offense, with minimum and maximum consequences, and taking into account mitigating, extenuating, or aggravating circumstances. It also provides for Progressive Discipline, which increases the penalties based on repeated violations.

  • Mitigating circumstances include: length of service, good performance record, prompt admission, sincere contrition, and willingness to improve.

  • Extenuating circumstances include: poorly communicated directives, inadequate training, and insufficient staffing.

  • Aggravating circumstances include: record of misconduct, malicious intent, belligerence, failure to tell the truth or cooperate, and unwillingness to accept responsibility.

 

The following Discipline Matrix was designed by the Vancouver (Washington) Police Department.[68] It provides an example of a simple and well-defined discipline matrix chart with specific ranges for first, and subsequent offenses.

Reset Statement

A new discipline matrix must be accompanied by a date that indicates going forward the police department will change prior disciplinary practices, and that violations of policy expectations will be applied consistently. This is what initiates the reset mechanism. An example of the appropriate wording:

With the establishment of the ______ policy and/or disciplinary practices and/or discipline matrix dated ______, employees are on notice that the Department intends to change any prior disciplinary practices and the discipline outlined in this policy is now the standard of discipline for the Minneapolis Police Department, effective with its issuance.

 

MPD Discipline Matrix

In the past, MPD and the Police Federation created an effective disciplinary policy and matrix. In 2018, the discipline matrix was revised, providing identifiable and effective links between policy and disciplinary consequences if that policy was violated. The chart above is page one of the four-page discipline matrix [69]. This matrix included: specific reference to the MPD Policy And Procedure Manual policy numbers, an “Example/ Result in each policy, and a baseline consequence with lesser penalties for “mitigating” circumstances, and greater penalties for “aggravating” circumstances.

In 2022, Minneapolis[70] Mayor Jacob Frey dismissed this admirable 2018 discipline matrix, criticizing it for “basically look[ing] like the ‘Da Vinci Code’ or something you’ve got to crack.” Instead, he touted a vague new discipline matrix that leaves both officers and the community without identifiable and reliable language to know what constitutes policy violations. 

The new 2023 discipline matrix[71] has some admirable sections, including:

  • offenses delineated by “category”

  • a general “description” of conduct that may result in discipline

  • descriptions of discipline by “level,” and

  • a date of January 30, 2023 for a reset. (However, it remains to be seen whether MPD will abide by the reset date. MPD failed to do so with the 2009 and 2018 discipline matrixes that also had reset dates. Instead, the same past practices caused discipline imposed by the department to be defeated.)

What the current 2023 discipline matrix does not do is provide any specific reference to the MPD Policy and Procedures Manual. Instead, vague and short “descriptions” replace the actual – and needed – reference to policy numbers. It is said that ‘ignorance of the law is no defense to a crime.’ Here, officers are made ignorant of the exact policy that can result in identifiable sanctions. This creates the risk of officers escaping disciplinary consequences based on vagueness when they demand arbitration. 

Although there is a section on Mitigation and Aggravating Circumstances, they are both lumped together. It is unclear what constitutes a mitigating factor and what constitutes an aggravating factor. This poses the risk that these factors will be imposed in an arbitrary and capricious way, with similar circumstances causing additional consequences for some officers, but not others.

There are also no minimum or maximum consequences for the five categories of offenses described other than the numbers of hours an officer can be suspended. Three of the five categories only allow for suspension. Just as troubling, there are no specific guidelines for greater consequences for officers with prior violations. This leaves it to the discretion of the department to use past violations to enhance penalties, or to ignore them and turn a blind eye. There must be certain consequences for past violations as demonstrated in the Vancouver model. Anything else is unfair to both police officers and the community.

Finally, MPD greatly increased coaching over 10 years ago, but presently does not consider coaching[72] to be part of the disciplinary process, and thus actions taken on the complaints are not public. The MPD disciplinary process must clearly state when a complaint results in an officer undergo coaching it is a disciplinary action that is subject to public disclosure. Further, if officers who were subject to coaching are subjects to other substantiated complaints, then that should be an aggravating factor for increased disciplinary action. The consequences are serious for using coaching to hide police misconduct and disciplinary actions.

“By defining “coaching” as “not discipline” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and his police administration keep secret most sustained police misconduct complaints. The magnitude of this loophole is breathtaking. It was reported in 2013 that during the first two years following its implementation, no Minneapolis cops were disciplined after 439 complaints. According to data in the MNCOGI litigation, for the past decade, approximately 90% of sustained violations result in coaching and are therefore nonpublic, i.e., secret.”[73]

In the past, MPD and the Police Federation created an effective disciplinary policy and matrix. In 2018, the discipline matrix was revised, providing identifiable and effective links between policy and disciplinary consequences if that policy was violated. The chart above is page one of the four-page discipline matrix[69]. This matrix included: specific reference to the MPD Policy And Procedure Manual policy numbers, an “Example/ Result in each policy, and a baseline consequence with lesser penalties for “mitigating” circumstances, and greater penalties for “aggravating” circumstances.

In 2022, Minneapolis[70] Mayor Jacob Frey dismissed this admirable 2018 discipline matrix, criticizing it for “basically look[ing] like the ‘Da Vinci Code’ or something you’ve got to crack.” Instead, he touted a vague new discipline matrix that leaves both officers and the community without identifiable and reliable language to know what constitutes policy violations. 

The new 2023 discipline matrix[71] has some admirable sections, including:

  • offenses delineated by “category”

  • a general “description” of conduct that may result in discipline

  • descriptions of discipline by “level,” and

  • a date of January 30, 2023 for a reset. (However, it remains to be seen whether MPD will abide by the reset date. MPD failed to do so with the 2009 and 2018 discipline matrixes that also had reset dates. Instead, the same past practices caused discipline imposed by the department to be defeated.)

What the current 2023 discipline matrix does not do is provide any specific reference to the MPD Policy and Procedures Manual. Instead, vague and short “descriptions” replace the actual – and needed – reference to policy numbers. It is said that ‘ignorance of the law is no defense to a crime.’ Here, officers are made ignorant of the exact policy that can result in identifiable sanctions. This creates the risk of officers escaping disciplinary consequences based on vagueness when they demand arbitration.

Although there is a section on Mitigation and Aggravating Circumstances, they are both lumped together. It is unclear what constitutes a mitigating factor and what constitutes an aggravating factor. This poses the risk that these factors will be imposed in an arbitrary and capricious way, with similar circumstances causing additional consequences for some officers, but not others.

There are also no minimum or maximum consequences for the five categories of offenses described other than the numbers of hours an officer can be suspended. Three of the five categories only allow for suspension. Just as troubling, there are no specific guidelines for greater consequences for officers with prior violations. This leaves it to the discretion of the department to use past violations to enhance penalties, or to ignore them and turn a blind eye. There must be certain consequences for past violations as demonstrated in the Vancouver model. Anything else is unfair to both police officers and the community.

Finally, MPD greatly increased coaching over 10 years ago, but presently does not consider coaching[72] to be part of the disciplinary process, and thus actions taken on the complaints are not public. The MPD disciplinary process must clearly state when a complaint results in an officer undergo coaching it is a disciplinary action that is subject to public disclosure. Further, if officers who were subject to coaching are subjects to other substantiated complaints, then that should be an aggravating factor for increased disciplinary action. The consequences are serious for using coaching to hide police misconduct and disciplinary actions.

 “By defining “coaching” as “not discipline” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and his police administration keep secret most sustained police misconduct complaints. The magnitude of this loophole is breathtaking. It was reported in 2013 that during the first two years following its implementation, no Minneapolis cops were disciplined after 439 complaints. According to data in the MNCOGI litigation, for the past decade, approximately 90% of sustained violations result in coaching and are therefore nonpublic, i.e., secret.”[73]