No police accountability in new contract

After years of negotiations, led by three different city labor relations directors, with strong community opposition, and a lengthy debate on March 24, the Minneapolis City Council voted 8 to 5 to approve a new contract with the Minneapolis Police Federation, that represents all Minneapolis police officers up to and including the rank of lieutenant.
The previous agreement expired in 2019. The new one ends this December and covers 2019-22. It includes $7,000 bonuses for new officers and current officers who stay on the job until the end of the year, as well as retroactive salary increases of 1% for 2020, 1.5% for 2021 and a 2.5% for this year. There is also an additional 2.5% “market adjustment” wage increase beginning Jan. 1, 2022, and another 1% starting Dec. 31, 2022.
This increases department expenses by $9 million in 2022 to cover the retroactive pay increases and half of the bonuses.
The agreement also includes a new mental health screening requirement following a critical incident, greater authority for the chief in making officer assignments, and a statement supporting race and gender equity, that were asked for by the city. The city agreed to the federation’s proposal for a proactive email notification of data requests that would include the identity of the person making the request, unless it is done anonymously.
Once the details became public many felt the results fell short of expectations for something better.
That was the case for the community coalition called, Mpls For a Better Police Contract (MFBPC), that, in 2019, crafted a set of recommendations for the agreement and met with the mayor and council members to discuss them. These included limiting overtime, mandatory mental health screenings, and explicitly referencing the discipline matrix of the department’s policy manual in order to strengthen management’s ability to discipline officers and have such action supported by a state arbitrator.
That was just before the federation requested, and the city agreed to closing future meetings to the public.

RAISED EXPECTATIONS
Mpls For a Better Police Contract (MFBPC) includes representation from the Racial Justice Network, Our Revolution Twin Cities, and Communities United Against Police Brutality. The coalition filed a lawsuit in June of 2021.
Micala Tessman, attorney of record for MFBPC, said, “There are clear violations of Minnesota law that exists for the benefit of the public’s right to know. The city failed in its obligation both under the Data Practices Act and laws governing public employee collective bargaining to provide timely notice of negotiation sessions when they were occurring. MFBPC and the public had every right to attend these sessions.”
MFBPC member Ryan Rantanen stated, “The enthusiasm by a vast majority of the city council for our recommendations was gratifying after all the hard work to present common sense advice. But it has been incredibly frustrating that the mayor and city have completely obstructed our right to view what they are doing.”
In June 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, then police chief Medaria Arradondo held a press conference to announce that he was ending his involvement in contract negotiations with the federation. He said that he wanted a contract that makes it easier to fire problematic officers, after multiple instances in recent years where officers terminated for misconduct had been reinstated after union appeals and arbitration decisions.
That same month Mayor Frey appeared on national television in an interview on Good Morning America. “I am for massive, structural and transformation reform to an entire system,” he said. Frey added, “Let me be very clear, we’re going after the police union, the police union contract.”

COMMUNITY FRUSTRATED
In March of 2022, details of the negotiation were finally made known when a tentative agreement emerged.
In response, Communities United Against Police Brutality put out an action alert, declaring, “Not a single recommendation by the community was incorporated but a new provision (Section 12.03, paragraph 3) requires the city to report the name of anyone who requests data on an officer to that officer – an invitation to harass data requesters.”
The chair of the city’s own Police Conduct Oversight Commission, Abigail Cerra, along with coauthor and former council member Paul Ostrow, wrote in a letter to the mayor and all council members, “We have reviewed the language…. and have grave concerns that it does not address serious flaws in the city’s disciplinary process. Perpetuating this flawed system would be unconscionable in the wake of universal calls for reform.”
A group of 23 nonprofit organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, Black Lives Matter Minnesota, Black Lives Matter Twin Cities, Black Visions, CAIR Minnesota, Center for Victims of Torture, Families Supporting Families Against Police Violence, ISAIAH, Jewish Community Action, Legal Rights Center, Minneapolis NAACP, Minnesota Youth Collective, Racial Justice Network, Reclaim the Block, Safety Not Surveillance, SWOP Mpls, TakeAction MN, Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar and Voices for Racial Justice and more, sent a letter urging the council to delay its vote.
“We are troubled by the lack of any changes around discipline in this contract,” they wrote. “The city shouldn’t sign off on a contract until it contains a mechanism to escape the cycle of being tied to past disciplinary practices.”
The also expressed concerns, shared by others, about why “the city is focused on paying officers more, rather than putting money into public safety for all.”
According to the staff report, following “years of bargaining sessions beginning in 2019” and months of mediation, in December of 2021, negotiations stalled. At that time the decision was made to go to “interest arbitration.” Staff, under the leadership of labor relations director Holland Atkinson, recommended approval of the contract and warned that relations with the federation “would be damaged severely by a city council unwilling to accept a new labor agreement that has been expired since 2019.”
In defense of the pay increases, city staff stated in a supplemental report, “In order to attract and retain police officers, the city must maintain a competitive compensation package.” They noted that several nearby police departments offer hiring bonuses, including the University of Minnesota at $5,000, Brooklyn Park at $5,000, Brooklyn Center at $6,000, Hopkins at $2,500 and Roseville at $10,000.

COUNCIL DIVIDED BUT APPROVES CONTRACT
Minneapolis City Council President Andrea Jenkins (Ward 8) said she preferred to accept this now and prepare for more changes next time. “We’ve been at this table negotiating with this union for over two and one-half years. Many of the items that led to the impasse, that put us into mediations, were the recommendations, desires, and hopes and dreams that we heard from community,” said Jenkins. “If this goes to arbitration, we absolutely know we won’t gain anything from it.”
Ward 2 Council Member Robin Wonlsey Worlobah disagreed. “We were told by many, including some of you who ran on police reform and by the mayor, that this contract would be an area to create new standards of accountability,” she said. Her motion in committee to table the vote to allow time for taking public comment was defeated on a 3-3 tie vote.
Wonlsey Worlobah disagreed. She said, “I’m seeing shifting goal posts. In 2020, Mayor Frey went on Good Morning America and said, ‘We have a hard time terminating and disciplining officers… the elephant in the room is the collective bargaining agreement.’ Now we’re saying, no, it’s the opposite. This also does not set us up to attract qualified candidates. We’re telling potential officers, we’ll pay you more and you will not have to face any discipline,” she said.
Those voting against approval on March 24 were council members Payne, Wonsley Worlobah, Ellison, Chavez, and Chughtai.
“The lack of community input and transparency, a requirement to email officers who made a public data request about them, and the shortfall of accountability and discipline was enough for me to vote no,” explained Ward 9 council member Chavez in his latest e-newsletter.
“With this now settled,” wrote council member Linea Palmisano in her e-newsletter, “we can begin negotiations for a forward-facing contract that will cover a broader range of negotiations and cover years 2023-25.” She added, “Negotiating a contract that allows for more discretion by the chief – to impart discipline and build out additional, mandated, training and expectations around de-escalation, cultural competency and anti-racism – would be one positive outcome.”