-- which addresses disciplinary reviews -- will continue under the current
ordinance. Having consulted with the City Attorney's Office on this point, it's
my understanding that the work of the PCRP [Police Conduct Review Panel] is
what is truly critical to the work of the function of police conduct oversight.
That work will continue as we look to implement reforms in the next few
months."
The PCOC makes policing policy and practice recommendations to the MPD, the
Council, and the Mayor. To suggest that this is not "truly critical to the
work...of police conduct oversight," that it's not a problem if PCOC
appointments are put on hold for all of 2022, a period during which significant
changes in Minneapolis policing are being considered and implemented, is
laughable. Not only is it laughable, it is insulting to the current members of
the PCOC, who have volunteered their time and energy and then are told they're
not "truly critical" so they can sit on the sidelines. How insulting!
Since October 2021, the PCOC has been asking about what's happening with the
process of appointing new PCOC commissioners. Civil Rights Department staff
gave them several stories about the delays, but never were they told that the
appointments had been put on hold. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights
wrote in its findings report that City officials don't trust the PCOC. Far
worse than that, you don't even respect the commissioners -- the commissioners
you yourselves appointed -- enough to show them the common courtesy of telling
them the truth why new appointments aren't being made.
I too have been asking for several months whether these appointments had been
put on hold. No Civil Rights Department staff person, no OPCR staff person, no
Council member, no aide to any Council member or to the Mayor has ever said
that was what was happening. Either all of those people were out of the loop or
they were lying. This at a time when all of you proudly proclaim how
transparent Minneapolis City government is. In her email, Jenkins wrote that
the "goals of this overall reform include ensuring the alignment with City
goals and priorities." Maybe I'm being too cynical, but that language suggests
to me you want these boards and commissions filled with yesmen and yeswomen,
people who won't raise issues, ask questions, or make suggestions that are
outside of the box, i.e., not in "alignment with City goals and priorities." If
you elected officials really wanted valuable advice from these boards and
commissions, I'd think you'd want the opposite. You'd want new ideas, new ways
of thinking, and new proposals that elected officials might consider. If you
only want advice that is in alignment with what you've already decided, you
should save the money you spend on these dozens of boards and commissions.
Finally, the Jenkins email, in describing the pending reforms to the PCOC and
to the oversight process, mentions "feedback from past and current members,
professional staff, and the community over the past few years and, more
importantly, the findings in the MDHR report which specifically addressed the
PCOC and police oversight more generally." She also wrote:
"I have met with the professional team in the Civil Rights Department as well
as the City Clerk and representatives from the City Attorney's Office to review
their recommendations for reforming the PCOC and the PCRP. I believe their
recommendations will address the criticisms, concerns, and other issues we know
exist."
I know lots of activists in the community on police accountability issues. None
of them have been consulted or asked for feedback on these reforms. I know a
recent chair of the PCOC who has not been consulted. This looks too much like
the process that resulted in the current oversight system, a process that was
conducted entirely in secret, behind closed doors, and then presented to the
public, with Civil Rights Department Director Velma Korbel saying she welcomed
the input, but no substantive changes would be made in the proposal. That
proposal came from Korbel, Police Chief Tim Dolan, and City Attorney Susan
Segal, and was developed in non-public discussions with people in the City
Coordinator's office over a period of about six months. No one, not even the
members of the then existing civilian oversight body, the Civilian Review
Authority Board, knew that process was even taking place.
When that secret proposal leaked, community people raised every single
criticism that is now included in the MDHR findings -- every single one of
them. And City officials ignored that nearly unanimous community input and went
ahead with what they wanted to do all along. Now, ten years later, I fear that
Minneapolis elected officials, who often act like elitists, not like
representatives, are going to do the same thing again.
See ya in ten years, probably with a similar email.
Chuck Turchick
Ward 6
Chuck Turchick
Phillips