City Council March 31, 2023   3/31/2023

Good morning.

Councilmember Vetaw?

Present.

Goodman is absent.

Wonsley?

Present.

Johnson is absent.

Osman?

Koski is absent.

Chaughtai.

Present.

Vice President Palmisano.

Present.

Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum.

And so, Council Members, yesterday we received a briefing on the litigation matter of the state of Minnesota.

by Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights versus the City of Minneapolis.

And I will now call on the City Attorney, Kristin Anderson, to provide a summary of the proposed settlement agreement.

Thank you, Council President, Council Members.

Today I want to present to you the Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement that has been negotiated between the Department of Human Rights and the City of Minneapolis and present it to you for a vote today for approval of the agreement.

I want to start my presentation with a little bit of background, how we got to where we are today, and then I want to actually walk you through the sections of the agreement to give you a very, very high level overview of what's in the agreement.

So as you all know, and we had this presentation before the subcommittee patterns and practices subcommittee about a month and a half ago, but I'll just go back to some of the things that we talked about.

So in the summer of 2020, the Human Rights Department filed a charge and launched an investigation into Minneapolis policing practices.

Some of those practices dating back to 2010 were under review.

The MDHR investigation,

continued for a period of time with full cooperation from the city, the city producing witnesses and documents to the Human Rights Department.

And then in April, April 27, 2022, the Human Rights Department issued its probable cause findings report, finding that the city and MPD engaged in a pattern and practice of racially discriminatory policing.

So beginning that summer, we entered the city and MDHR entered into a joint statement of principles that was signed by Commissioner Lucero, Mayor Frey, and Council President Jenkins, setting forth principles that would govern the negotiations of the court enforceable settlement agreement.

That is what I'm presenting to you here today.

and we took great pains to distinguish in that document between the court enforceable settlement agreement that would be this agreement in state court versus a federal consent decree which is the legal document that is potential to come with the Department of Justice and ensure that there is not conflict between the state settlement agreement and a potential future federal consent decree.

After that point in time, the city and MDHR negotiated the settlement agreement that is before you today.

Since August of 2022, over 30 times of almost all full day in-person sessions, the parties negotiated in good faith.

Our negotiations have concluded with a settlement agreement that is on the agenda for approval.

I have heard some concerns raised that community has not gotten an opportunity to weigh in on the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement is a legal document that resolves a legal claim for which the city is the defendant.

These are the terms that MDHR negotiated with the city in order for the city to avoid being sued and litigating taxpayer litigation against MDHR.

So taxpayer funded litigation.

While the community obviously could not be at the negotiating table, and the negotiations were confidential as all legal negotiations are,

and we're not in a position to go back to MDHR and renegotiate the terms based on public feedback.

I think it's important for everyone to know that community input was absolutely taken into account in the agreement itself.

The Human Rights Department conducted multiple engagement sessions with both community and officers and community will see terms in the agreement that reflect their feedback.

The terms are cognizant of the needs of the community and the needs of the officers, and I think it's important to mention that MPD leadership was also present during most of the negotiation sessions.

The agreement was thoroughly negotiated, intentional, thoughtful, and responsive on part on the parts of both the city and the Human Rights Department.

Additionally, community and officer engagement are really baked into the agreements requirements going forward, particularly as it relates to MPD policy, which I will touch on more later.

Also important to note that if the council votes to approve the settlement agreement today, the parties will sign and the document will be posted publicly on the legislative, the LIMS site.

The settlement agreement is the first of its kind in the state of Minnesota and is the first in the country to have

a settlement agreement at the state level.

We may be the first city who will have an agreement both at the state level and at the federal level, although that has not yet come to fruition.

While the city has already implemented many of the changes in the agreement, the agreement codifies

the commitment of the city to both support our officers and our community and continue to reform the way we do policing.

Under the agreement, we will be required to demonstrate compliance to an outside entity called the independent evaluator in the agreement, ensuring accountability.

So I just want to very briefly step through the provisions in the agreement itself.

There are 13 parts to the agreement.

Part one, it's the introduction, has the legal provisions that are found in every settlement agreement, acknowledges that MPD has undertaken important changes to its policies and the agreement is intended to build on those changes.

The agreement states that the parties did not undertake to identify every paragraph where MPD's current policies or procedures reflect the requirements of the agreement,

and the inclusion of a requirement in the agreement does not necessarily mean that the MPD is not currently satisfying the requirement.

The provisions of the settlement agreement are wide ranging and reflect the city's and MPD's broad approach to a strong public safety system and reflecting our goals for increased accountability and transparency and providing officers with the training and support that they need.

The second part of the agreement

is the process for reviewing and updating MPD policy.

This is where community engagement will be seen in a major portion of this settlement agreement as it's being implemented.

Community engagement is a critical part to complying with the settlement agreement.

When MPD has, at the beginning, there will be a review of MPD policies, MPD will have a webpage that will actually take in

Community Comments, NMPD is going to be required to take into account and consider all community feedback on important policies relating to non-discriminatory policing, use of force, stop searches and arrests.

And also, we'll be required to present those policies to the community in three different meetings in three different locations of the city.

Annually, the MPD will conduct a review of the policies and any future policy changes will require a repeat of this website and three community meetings in different areas of the city.

Part three is non-discriminatory policing.

Pretty straightforward, prohibits discrimination, prohibits retaliation, and protects all protected classes under the law.

Investigation from MDHR was a racial discrimination patterns and practices investigation, but we all thought it was important to make clear that all legally protected classes are protected from discrimination and retaliation.

Part four of the agreement talks about uses of force.

It limits the types of force that can be used.

It emphasizes de-escalation tactics.

It requires a duty for all officers to intervene and report unreasonable uses of force, which of course is already required, and institutes a two-layer review process, first by the first level supervisor out in the field when there are level two or level three uses of force, and then by another reviewing supervisor.

Lots and lots of data will be recorded when uses of force occur.

so that we can capture this information and do high level data analysis to be able to spot trends and know when we have to adjust training and policies.

Part five deals with stops, searches, and arrests, places limitations on these things to ensure constitutional nondiscriminatory policing, requires supervisory review, data collection, and data analysis, including collecting demographic data so that nondiscriminatory policing can be enforced.

Part six of the agreement talks about body-worn cameras and in-car cameras, requires functional equipment, and requires use of this equipment.

Part seven talks about training, requires a comprehensive training plan to be developed that will actually be reviewed and authorized by the independent evaluator.

It requires enhanced training, both development, delivery, and evaluation.

requires training for officers, for field training officers, for supervisors, for investigators, and for 911 dispatch, and even provides for trainees to give feedback evaluating their trainers.

Part eight of the agreement talks about officer support and wellness.

Requires a needs assessment to be done to ensure that the facilities and equipment that our officers use are up to speed and to provide a schedule and plan for updating and increasing any equipment or technology needs that are there as well as facility needs.

and also provides for enhanced mental and behavioral support for our officers.

Part nine, mental and behavioral health crisis support in the field.

The agreement requires an adequately resourced behavioral health crisis response team and provides limits on hours worked by officers.

Part 10, works together with the

Community Commission on Police Oversight Ordinance that this body passed very recently to create an updated framework for accountability and oversight.

This section provides protocols and deadlines for investigations done by internal affairs, by the Office of Police Conduct Review, and also human resources.

Part 11 talks about data systems, analysis, and transparency.

The city will require a large investment in data systems in order for us to show our work, to show the public that we are in fact adhering to the terms of this agreement.

MPD leadership also must constitute a review panel that will review quarterly all of the data that's input into the system and be able to actually publish summary data on a public website.

Part 12 talks about the independent evaluation and implementation of this agreement.

The agreement requires MPD to have an implementation unit.

and the kind of the key to all of this is the independent evaluator.

The settlement agreement provides the selection process for the independent evaluator, which will involve a presentation by the finalists to the community, at least at two public meetings.

The independent evaluators term under the settlement agreement is four years.

Cities around the country have not achieved full compliance in that amount of time, and frankly it would be highly atypical if we did, but we need a deadline and a goal to strive for.

At the point of four years, there will be a comprehensive evaluation by the independent evaluator, who of course is going to be evaluating us throughout and posting that information on the independent evaluators website.

But at the four year mark, we'll be doing a comprehensive evaluation to determine whether we are in full and substantial compliance.

If we're not, if we can show that we are in full and substantial compliance with some things, then those portions of the agreement could be terminated.

But until we are in full and substantial compliance,

We will keep going with this work, and this work needs to last beyond this agreement.

To achieve full and effective compliance, not only must we show that we have changed our policies, but we also have to train relevant personnel and also hold folks accountable for carrying out the requirements in practice.

The City will be responsible for providing necessary and reasonable financial resources to the City's departments involved in implementation of the agreement to fulfill MPDs and the City's obligations under the agreement.

This section also accounts for the possibility that we may have a consent decree with the Department of Justice If that happens then MDHR and the city have agreed to modified this settlement agreement if necessary So there are not conflicting provisions between this agreement and a DOJ consent decree so that the city can comply with both in addition MDHR and the city have agreed to

that there will be only one person or entity, one monitor, one independent evaluator to evaluate compliance with both this agreement and any DOJ consent decree.

And the last section is definitions of simply a glossary of terms.

So I want to shift to what our next steps will be.

So the first, of course, is to put this agreement to vote by this body.

If this body does approve of the agreement, the signatures will happen, it will be fully executed, and MDHR will actually file a new lawsuit in court.

At the same time, we'll file the settlement agreement and a joint motion between the Human Rights Department and the city for the court to approve the settlement agreement.

This new lawsuit, it will look weird.

But it is simply a necessary part of the process for the settlement agreement to be approved by the court, making it this court enforceable agreement as we all agreed to in that joint statement of principles that we entered into way back in July.

There are no new allegations in the lawsuit.

It contains allegations based on the MDHR's previous investigation and probable cause determination from April of 2022.

So once all of these documents are filed, the court process takes over.

I assume that there will be a court hearing.

I don't know when it will be.

That is all in the hands of the court.

It will all, the process and what that looks like and the timing will all be up to the court.

Thank you, Madam City Attorney, and I will move the settlement of all claims asserted in the State of Minnesota by Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights versus the City of Minneapolis, as set forth in the statement agreement.

further that the City Attorney's Office is authorized to execute and file any documents necessary to effectuate this settlement.

This motion has been seconded by the Council Vice President and we have a few of my colleagues in queue for comment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Good morning.

Yesterday we spent a lot of time in our closed sessions to understand what this settlement is.

To communicate with my residents and the people in Minneapolis, this settlement highlights that how MPD has discriminated

Many of our citizens, many people have suffered this ugly practice that the state has highlighted.

And also this, I see this settlement as a learning process, a mistake that we have to fix.

This shows us that a way and a path to move forward and to correct the mistakes we have made and the MPD have made.

I believe that residents deserve to be treated with respect, with dignity, and feel that they are part of every society that lives in the city of Minneapolis.

The way we do policing has been wrong.

Hopefully this teaches us a lesson to correct and serve our residents with dignity.

I do believe the process.

I do trust the new leadership and the way we head into when it comes to policing.

But it's going to cost us a lot of money.

It's going to cost the city a lot of money.

But what I rely on the most is this independent evaluation we talked about and these monitors to keep us continue working to do the right thing.

I think we're heading to the right and I'm glad the state has stepped in and I'm glad the federal government is also working to correct our mistakes.

I just want to say that I hope that we, each responsible city employee in city of Minneapolis has an obligation to its citizen.

There are many communities that have suffered, that are feeling like

They have been mistreated, especially people of color, minority, and I hope that this settlement shows us the pathway to move forward.

I will be supportive in this, and I will be working alongside with the city leadership to make sure that we're highlighting the mistakes we made, admitting the mistakes we made, at the same time continue to improve in many years to come.

Thank you, Councilmember Osman.

Thank you, Madam President.

Councilmember Osman, you're correct.

We did have a very long session yesterday.

We spent about six hours answering questions, asking questions, getting answers.

And in particular, I want to thank City Attorney Anderson and Attorney Latham, who are in the room today, and Assistant Chief Amelia Huffman,

It's very clear that you spent a lot of time.

This is a well thought out agreement and I thank you for representing the city's interests and the citizens interests as the settlement took shape.

So thank you for your hard work.

It's acknowledged.

What you've done is allowed us to have our citizens protected and then allow for when the Department of Justice comes in.

with the consent decree and we can merge those two.

But most of all, what you have through your hard work and what I will vote on today is that we're going to move forward and we're going to heal this city and we're going to have 21st policing that respects everybody, that provides safety for all.

And I'm so proud of your work and I'll be voting for this today in the affirmative.

Thank you, Council Member Rainville.

Thank you, Madam President.

Just wanted to echo some of the thank yous that some of my colleagues have handed out.

There was a very good question for those at home written in the audience.

Did you guys read this entire document?

And I just want to say that in a pretty short turnaround, our attorneys made sure that every single body, every single member of this body did read the entire document.

which is usually there's not so much hand-holding but our attorneys took it upon themselves to say hey look we have to know how we're moving forward and we have to know this body has to understand what this document contains and so I want to thank our attorneys for that.

I want to thank the team for making sure that the entire council does have a good sense of what is in this document and was able to have all of our questions answered about this.

I also want to say that there have been a lot of folks reaching out to members of the council saying, hey, look, this thing's moving really fast.

There needs to be a public hearing.

I agree there needs to be a public hearing, but I don't think that this body is the one to hold that public hearing.

We would not be able to effectuate any input we got from community here.

We wouldn't be able to add anything.

and so this is litigation.

While I do believe in this work and I do think that this is gonna result in something really good, this is not the result of, this is not something good that we're doing.

This is the culmination of bad things that the city and the police department have done.

And so there will be opportunity, I believe, and maybe our attorneys could speak to this, for the public.

will be a possibility for the public to give some kind of input to the courts is my understanding.

And so if it's appropriate to sort of spell out what those opportunities could be, I would invite our attorneys to spell that out.

But I just wanted to let the folks in the room know that we agree that the public should have input, but since this body would not be able to

Council President, Council Member Ellison, Council Members, we don't actually know what the court process is going to look like.

That really is in the hands of whichever judge is assigned.

We don't actually know which judge will be assigned to the matter, but the court will have to determine what the process looks like.

Can't imagine that we won't have a hearing on this.

Obviously, all court hearings are public.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you, Council Member Ellison.

Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. Anderson, can you please approach the dais?

Thank you very much.

Just wanted to follow up really quick on Councilmember Ellison's question.

I understand that we have and neither party has any say or any control over the process that the court sets up.

Is there a way for us as one of the parties in this

Council President, Council Member Chughtai, I think the parties would have to make some sort of joint motion.

Yeah, I appreciate that we would want to move with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

I see that the Commissioner from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Commissioner Lucero, is here, and a lot of the decision-making body is here too, and so just for people who are in the audience, for people who are watching along,

I would hope that we would want to ask the court to hold some sort of public hearing to allow for public testimony.

I understand that neither party right now has the ability to make any changes to this document.

But perhaps when it's in front of a judge, there is some room for the court to, as they're finalizing this order, am I understanding this legal process correctly?

So, Council President Jenkins, I don't think that the court can make changes to the agreement.

Got it.

Understood, thank you.

And then just one more question going back to your presentation earlier.

And I, you know, I really agree that the changes we see in this settlement agreement where we are requiring

the Minneapolis Police Department with every policy change they make to do an extensive community engagement process everything from allowing 45 days of comment period for any resident to share feedback and then to hold community meetings accessible in multiple languages if I'm remembering correctly

at accessible times of day for residents.

Those are really significant changes and it's a way of doing community engagement that we at the city don't have a lot of skills around and I think we often receive criticism from

from residents in the city on all, from all perspectives telling us, you know, you're not really good at listening to people.

You're not really good at doing community engagement and whether we think it's fair or not, that is a fair way for residents to feel.

So I know that we as a city didn't conduct community engagement in a formalized setting.

before we started negotiating the terms of this agreement.

But I do understand that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights did.

I went to one of the sessions that was held in my ward and found it to be very thorough and very

Very, like a good experience for the community members that showed up too.

Council President and Council Member Chauntai, MDHR continues to have a role with the city in partnership with the city really throughout the term of the settlement agreement.

For example, policy changes and to be clear, the policy changes that we're talking about are on use of force.

non-discriminatory policing, stop searches and arrests, and then on the mission, vision, values, and goals of the MPD.

So those policies will be, you know, whenever we make policy changes, MDHR will get to weigh in on those policy changes, and very, very importantly, the independent evaluator.

is at the end of the day the one who will say yes or no on whether the policy changes comply.

So that's true with a training plan that we come up with.

You know, training is a huge piece of this.

Again, it's about

Policy change is about training and it's about accountability.

So that training plan that the city will have to come up with, again, will be weighed in upon by MDHR and by the independent evaluator for ultimate approval.

So MDHR will be, you know, we will be in partnership and, you know, we really have established a relationship of mutual respect.

throughout this process.

And I assume and believe that that relationship will continue.

We will be working together to make sure that we are in compliance.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Chughtai.

Thank you, Madam President.

So for decades, residents have told the city of Minneapolis that MPD was an abusive and racist police force.

Last year, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights affirmed this that for at least 10 years, MPD had committed brutal and systemic acts of racism, misogyny, and violence.

A decade of leadership in City Hall ignored residents' pleas for accountability and allowed that brutality to persist.

This is what the state human rights investigation tells us, and I do not deny these findings.

And it's quite shameful that city leadership wasn't proactive about acknowledging and correcting this reality until the state legally mandated us to do so.

This legal settlement agreement is a legal tool that forces the city to finally get MPD into compliance with human rights law.

The legal settlement that is before us this morning is also, as our city attorney highlighted, an unprecedented opportunity to complete an overhaul of MPD, which again, for over 10 years, MPD and city leaders have consistently deferred responsibility for the inhumane actions of MPD.

The lack of political will to take responsibility for MPD is why we are in this position today.

This legal settlement formally and legally prevents city leadership from deferring that responsibility anymore.

And I hope this settlement is a wake-up call for city leaders who the public has watched rubber stamp poor labor contracts, have signed off on endless misconduct settlements, and then struck their shoulders when residents asked them why we have a dysfunctional police department.

So I'm going to be supporting this legal settlement because it is just one, one powerful tool to stop MPD from operating as though they are above the law.

And completing the terms of this settlement will take years.

But I want to acknowledge that it's really just to get us to the bare minimum.

And residents deserve more than the bare minimum in our public safety system.

While we complete this legal settlement, Council do have a couple of things that they can do, such as continuing to create and champion comprehensive, unarmed safety services like the Behavioral Crisis Response Team, traffic enforcement, and violence interrupters.

This settlement, as also our City Attorney highlighted, also affirmed that these efforts have positively impacted our current public safety system.

So Council has the opportunity to continue supporting these programs and ensure that we're reducing the outsized role that NPD has played in our public safety system.

The terms, because I know this is the biggest piece of contention, that the public has not been able to see this settlement in its full entirety.

And I'm hoping, as City Attorney mentioned, that it will be made readily available to the public once we take the vote on this and the mayor puts his John Hancock on it.

I know community members will have a lot of questions about it, and one thing that I want to name clearly is that the terms of this agreement does not mean a blank check to MPD.

Working class taxpayers have footed the bill for $1.5 billion of MPD's budget over the last 10 years, and that's just the budget.

We have to also consider the hundreds of millions of dollars in misconduct settlements in addition to more than $25 million in PTSD settlement claims by officers.

And what have these dollars got in residence?

A department that systematically violates human rights.

And MPD has thus demonstrated clearly that money alone cannot fix something that is broken.

They have proven that more dollars do not correlate to more public safety.

By allowing MPD to operate recklessly for over a decade, we have effectively enabled MPD to essentially defund the city.

And we as a city need to be transparent about the cost, who will bear it, and clearly outline what residents should receive as a benefit.

Taxpayers have made it very clear that they are fed up with footing the bill for MPD's misconduct.

There will be costs associated with completing the terms of this settlement agreement, but I want to ensure that we are managing those costs in a way that minimizes the amount that working class people have to pay to correct the city's failures.

So when we talk about resources,

and what MPD will be coming to us asking in order to get into compliance with this settlement agreement.

We need to make sure this body is doing this in a fiscally responsible way in consideration of our residents.

So for these reasons, I'm letting the public know I will be bringing a legislative directive to the April 11th COW meeting so that council members and the public can have the crucial information they need to make informed decisions about the next steps and actions around the settlement agreement.

Every single person in leadership in this city should take this work extremely seriously.

The agreement that we are voting for today as City Attorney highlighted will impact the lives of our residents for years to come.

So I'm going to conclude my comments with saying that I don't take this lightly.

And I am committed, as I've demonstrated throughout my first term,

Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to first highlight several people who have done a great job of getting us here where we are today.

First, I want to thank Assistant Chief Huffman, who's done a lot of work behind the scenes, who's taught my office.

a great deal about these type of agreements.

She's put a lot of these, a lot of the things that we need to do in place already.

A lot of things behind the scenes folks don't know about.

Assistant Chief Huffman had began last year and so I really want to thank her for her brilliance in this process.

and the work that she's doing to get the department on the right track.

Also, I want to thank the Unity Community Mediation Team who has worked alongside Chief Huffman and who highlighted a lot of the changes that we need to make years ago, decades ago,

and have been working behind the scenes to make sure that we get there.

And then just our city staff.

This has been a long process.

You all have done great work to get us to where we are today.

That's even outside agencies who've provided input.

on this process and where we need to be today.

So thank you all so much.

There's a lot of work ahead of us.

I'm going to be supporting this today.

I think the citizens of Minneapolis deserve better.

A lot of the work has been done.

and our department is on board for getting this work done.

I trust that the people who are here today want this.

We all want better policing in our city.

We all want better outcomes for the residents of Minneapolis and the people who visit Minneapolis.

I haven't witnessed any resistance to this, so I'm proud to say that, that we're all on board.

We want better.

We want this four years from now.

We're in this particular agreement for four years.

Four years from now, we want to be able to say we did better.

We were in a challenging time.

We weren't doing great.

And now we are.

So I'm grateful to the leadership in the city at the MDHR who acknowledged that we have to do better.

And I'm looking forward to working with everyone who wants to work on this, including community members who don't feel like they're being heard in this process.

There are so many opportunities for people to be heard in this process moving forward.

That is a part of the work we have to do.

We have to make sure

that the community

It's out there for everyone to see.

So thank you to my colleagues.

We're here today.

This is an unprecedented time for our city, and I'm looking forward to moving forward.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you, Councilmember Vetaw.

Thank you, Madam President.

Council President, Council Member Payne, if this body were to not approve the agreement, I don't know, but I imagine that MDHR will move forward with filing that lawsuit in any event.

And so there'd be a good chance that this would have to go in front of a jury trial.

Council President, Council Member Payne, I don't know.

The beauty of a settlement agreement is the known.

And having a say, frankly, in our future.

When the court process occurs, we don't know.

The court could determine that some of the claims don't have merit and we'd wind up with something less.

It's possible that the court would decide something more.

I mean, it's an unknown, and again, the reason why entities settle legal claims is to get the known and start the work.

Frankly, my biggest concern is the work has already started, but we need to start in earnest.

We can't get that independent evaluator up and running.

There's no point to it unless we have a settlement agreement.

And obviously we've got a process with DOJ that may be coming, but we don't know when.

No, it does.

And I actually share your concern because this is actually the easiest part of this process.

And as somebody who has read all 100 plus pages of it,

I'm having a hard time imagining stronger provisions than what has been negotiated to this point.

And even if we could theoretically turn this agreement down, sue it out in court, have a judge that felt more aligned with stronger provisions and a jury that agreed with that.

we still would need to get to work and that would add additional time to doing that work.

And so thank you for providing that clarification.

And like I said, this document is a starting point, but for us to really deliver on this, it's gonna take not just the commitment of this body, but it's gonna take the commitment of the administration and frankly, the entire city to support a better future around policing.

So,

Thank you, Councilmember Payne.

Thank you, Madam President.

Sorry, I'll keep my next remark short just because I said a couple of thank yous, had a bit of a question, but I did want to thank the MDHR team who's here today for initiating this.

And I also just wanted to, you know, as I'm sitting here and, you know, this document's making me reflect on kind of how we got here.

Obviously, there's a whole

decades worth of information of how we got here.

But for all of the thank yous that we could give, that we should give to our staff and to MDHR for finalizing this agreement, I want to point out that, you know, a major person, a major reason that we're where we are today is because of the actions of Derek Chauvin.

is because of the murder of George Floyd.

And I don't think that that, you know, it's not a criticism because I spoke earlier as well, but I don't think that that's been mentioned so far here in this chamber and I think that it needs to be mentioned when we talk about this.

This didn't, this litigation did not manifest out of nowhere.

It came out of that space.

And to Councilmember Wonsley's point, and to several of my colleagues' points, it's a conversation that needed to start well before that, but that's what started this.

You know, while I'm proud of the work that our staff have done to get us here, proud of the work that the MDHR team has done to get us here.

And while I think this document would do a lot of good, it's hard for me to say that I'm proud of this document because it's a reflection of just how wrong things have been in our city for so long.

So just wanted to ground us in that, remind myself of that and and hopefully

As we think of this, we can think of it less as a good thing we're doing and a necessary thing that we should have really started a long time ago.

So, that's all.

Thank you Councilmember Ellison and thank you for lifting up the name and this is the legacy of George Floyd and hopefully many more to come.

Council President Jenkins, I want to begin by thanking our city staff for their work on this and to the MDHR team for pushing us to be a better city, but most importantly to the community for never ever giving up.

I'll start by talking about how we got here today and taking us a few steps back.

For decades, our community members have been asking for an accountable, responsible, and dignified police department, one that respects the lives and humanity of all our residents, and one that is meant to truly protect and serve our constituents.

We cannot talk about moving forward without acknowledging our past and asking for forgiveness.

Part of this consent decree states that the City and MPD did not admit to MDHR's findings.

You want to know who would disagree with that?

The victims of those who were killed by the Minneapolis Police Department.

Phuong Lee, Jamar Clark, Justine Damon, George Floyd, Omer Locke, and the countless others that will never be forgotten here in the city of Minneapolis.

If we as a body will not admit guilt, I am here to say that our city should be on their knees begging for forgiveness.

In the summer of 2020, the whole world saw the murder of George Floyd in the Ninth Ward, days that traumatized my constituents.

It was followed by journalists being arrested, the largest deployment of the Minnesota National Guard since World War II, peaceful protesters being shot and harmed, and the East Lake Street corridor being burned to flames.

And yet, it was left to fend for itself.

This led to Commissioner Lucero filing a charge of discrimination against the city and MPD.

On April 27, 2022, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights found probable cause that the city and NPD engage in pattern or practice of race discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Here's some findings that I want to read to the public that they found.

racial disparities and how MPD officers use force, stop, search, arrest, and cite people of color.

MPD officers use covert social media to surveil black individuals and black organizations unrelated to criminal activity.

MPD officers consistent use of racist, misogynistic, and disrespectful language.

MPD officers, supervisors, and field training officers receive deficient training, which emphasizes a paramilitary approach to policing that results in officers unnecessarily escalating encounters or using inappropriate levels of force.

Accountability systems that are insufficient and ineffective at holding officers accountable for misconduct.

and that former and current city and NPD leaders have not collectively acted with urgency, coordination, and intentionally necessarily to address racial disparities in policing to improve public safety and increase community trust.

These are just some of the few things that were in the findings.

In June of 2023, the City of Minneapolis returned to the negotiation table after skipping out on meetings to advance this consent decree today.

I want to let my constituents know why I'm voting for this.

I'm voting for this because we are guilty.

We are guilty of having a police department with a history of racist and discriminatory practices that lacks accountability and discipline.

I'm voting for this to ensure that we take a step forward in gaining more accountability so we can start to rein in the department.

But we will need to go beyond this piece of paper that we have today to actually structurally change and transform our police department.

There are some few key provisions that are a victory to our community in here, but we need to understand, like I said earlier, that we need to go beyond that.

The limitations of pretextual stops, the prohibition of questioning or requiring passengers to produce identification, the prohibition of MPD from searching a car or individual based on the smell of marijuana.

Those are big things that our community has been asking for decades and centuries.

And I'll end it with this.

I'm glad that we are forced to enact change in our police department because without this document today, there would be no reform.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you Madam President.

I would be remiss, I noticed Commissioner Lucero in the room and I want to thank you for coming down today to help us move forward.

I know your staff has worked very hard and your presence here is very meaningful.

So thank you for helping us start this journey towards healing our city.

Thank you Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just had a couple of questions for staff, probably the city attorney on this one first.

Great, thank you.

And then this would probably be a question for Commissioner Alexander.

Good morning, Madam President.

Good morning, sir.

Councilmember Johnson, thank you for your question.

Unfortunately, Chief is not here this morning, which he should be, but let me say this.

It is my understanding it's about 27 FTEs that will be required for this work to be done.

So it's going to be quite intensive.

We're looking forward to it.

He's looking forward to it.

That's the charge he's been given to make sure that we move this process along in a way that's going to be equitable and fair to this community and across this entire enterprise.

In the comments, certainly I've heard from each one of the council members this morning.

I'd like to thank you for your commitment.

And I think it's also important that everything that you said has been heartfelt.

And we're gonna do everything certainly that we can with support of counsel in this community and personnel within our police department as well to make sure that we all move together

together to correct the wrongs that certainly and clearly have been evidenced in this community over time, long before many of us have taken the positions we're in now.

I look forward to this and where we're going with it because I think it's an opportunity, Councilmember Johnson, with these 27 FTEs and the enthusiasm that we all are going to proceed with to make sure that this city

Thank you.

Thank you.

I really appreciate that and I just want to thank everyone who worked on this.

I know it was a monumental effort from our Minnesota Department of Human Rights to our City Attorney's Office, the Police Department, the Coordinator's Office, staff all throughout the enterprise.

There were a lot of community engagement along the way as well and asking community for their thoughts and so many interviews with both current and former

Around any sort of suggestion of a delay,

I understand the reasoning and the rationale that has been communicated.

I do personally, though, think this is a pretty unique case.

This is just an up or down vote.

And given the good policy in this, I don't imagine anyone voting no against this whole package of good policy.

And we've also had multiple checks and balances along the way and will continue to as well through the court system.

as it comes to implementation of this.

I also want to acknowledge something that Commissioner Alexander said around this 27 FTE in order to implement this.

I think that's a great thing.

Those are folks that are going to be tasked with ensuring that MPD is consistent in their operations, is implementing best practices, and that all personnel within MPD are performing at a high level.

I do have some regret that

those personnel doing that work were not put in place years ago under a previous police administration.

But I wanna thank Commissioner Alexander and Chief O'Hara for their leadership and to the administration for their leadership around this issue of changing the way that we're managing the department because I think that that's gonna be what we need to ultimately change MPD and transform it into what it needs to be for our city.

and lastly I want to say now it's on us to resource and support these efforts in this agreement and I am committed to doing so and I hope we can continue to support leadership in implementing these changes because today while it is the end of

Coming to a consent decree, it is the beginning of the work that is all contained within it.

So thank you again to everyone who is a part of this.

Thank you, Councilmember Johnson, I do want to just

Correct.

That last statement.

This is an enforceable agreement, not a consent decree, but it is, as you stated, the beginning of a journey that we all should be on.

Thank you, Madam President.

So before thanking any of our staff or our partners, I just want to start with a sincere apology to victims of police brutality and police violence in our city, in our community, their families.

and our community broadly that have all experienced so much trauma over the last several decades at the hands of our city and of our police department.

I'm really, really optimistic that we have a document that has some teeth to it.

That's going to hold us accountable, and not just our police department, but everyone in this city accountable.

I do want to take a second, though, to thank our city attorney, Kristin Anderson.

When you came into this role, you just took bringing us to the negotiating table with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights really seriously, and you kept us there, and you kept making progress, and we wouldn't have gotten to this moment without your tireless work.

Thank you so, so much.

and then to our Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero for first believing the people of Minneapolis when they said there is a pattern of racism within this department and then for investigating it and for publishing it so thoroughly.

In your report last year, the most common piece of feedback I heard from residents in Minneapolis was, yeah, we've known this for years, but finally someone is believing us.

Thank you for doing that.

I've read this entire 144-page document.

It's been a really long couple of days.

And there are some really important

and frankly life-changing, life-saving things in this consent decree, in this court enforceable settlement agreement.

First, there's an end to the police department searching a car or an individual based on the smell of marijuana, an end to pretext stops like broken taillights and tinted windows, an end to training on excited delirium.

and a requirement to do community engagement on changes to policy in the areas that our city attorney outlined earlier.

The ability for the people in Minneapolis to have input in selecting the independent evaluator that is going to come in, which inherently, I believe, builds in accountability for that monitor with residents in our city.

And frankly, I think this document is a shift in the power dynamic that exists right now where we have just one or two people who are truly

in charge and have decision making power over our police department and instead bringing in other experienced and independent and empowered decision makers with legitimate decision making power and ability to make these critical changes in our city.

So I'm really excited to support this item today and really thankful to colleagues for all of our hard work over the last couple of days.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to share a couple of follow-up things.

So I know Councilmember Johnson just raised staffing and Commissioner Alexander spoke to it.

I do want to name yesterday that Chief O'Hare did

State that he was then counsel and hopefully that gets uploaded to him to our fully updated staffing chart so that the public can see what staffing levels will look like in consideration of the implementation team and all of the divisions that fall under

MPD.

So I'm hoping that he will follow up and get that to all of us and also update what's already on limbs from the presentation that he gave to Cal a couple weeks ago.

Second, I also want to know around further engagement on this body, around this process.

I have asked Council President Jenkins and Council Member Jeremiah Ellison, who both co-chair the patterns and practice subcommittee,

to bring forward a plan for us to have regular updates around this.

That's also I'm going to have conversations with the city attorney to make sure that the independent evaluator is also going to be held to account to be part of those conversations.

That way, again, the public is not exed out in how we do these next steps.

So I've gotten support or

Her support from council president and council member Ellison around making sure that our patterns and practice committee is very robust in how we talk about this and have discussions of how this council is going to approach that process and making sure we meet the provisions that's outlined in this agreement.

I also wanted to highlight, again, the fiscal analysis piece.

That's something that I'm absolutely going to be bringing forward because folks do not need to

I think we keep hearing about, yes, we need to fund what is listed in this agreement.

But again, that does not mean we need to continue to bankrupt our city for just one department.

We need to make sure that we're approaching this in the most fiscally responsible way and making sure that we're evaluating existing resources and if there's a way in which this process can fit within those existing resources around public safety.

So I just want to highlight those key factors that

We discussed during our briefing yesterday and that I'll be continuing to follow up with our colleagues to ensure that the public is engaged.

Thank you, Councilmember Wonsley.

I put myself in queue and I'm not sure if I can add any more to what has already been stated.

I want to echo the thank yous to all of the

the folks that have worked diligently to bring this document to fruition.

I want to acknowledge the harms that have been done to our community, not only in this community here in Minneapolis, though this is what we're talking about here, but all throughout the country.

And so, you know, the comments from council members, Wonsley, Chavez, Chaughtai, Ellison are all accurate and correct.

But this is a roadmap to correcting some of those problems.

And it's a historic day, a historic vote.

Councilmember Vetaw?

Aye.

Rainville?

Aye.

Wonsley?

Aye.

Johnson.

Aye.

Osman.

Aye.

Payne.

Aye.

Choughtai.

Aye.

Chavez.

Aye.

Vice President Palmisano.

Aye.

That item passes.

And with that, we have completed our business for today.

Before I adjourn this meeting, I do want to just acknowledge that today, March 31st, is International Transgender Day of Visibility.

And I'm proud as the president of this body to say that transgender lives are affirmed, respected, and honored in the city of Minneapolis.

And with nothing further to come before this council and without objection,

I will declare this meeting adjourned.

Thank you everyone.

Family to me is, I mean, I got guys that I can count on.

I know if I'm down in a hole, I got guys that are up above, making sure everything's fine, checking on me, making sure I'm fine, and making sure everybody on the crew's safe.

If you don't have a construction background, don't be scared to apply.

You definitely will learn everything you need to learn on the job.

Every day, it's something new.