I set the bar ridiculously low: all I want is a City Attorney who issues
rational decisions and understands English.
At Ms. Segal's past two reappointment hearings, I requested that Council
members ask her about an opinion she issued in response to a request from the
Civilian Review Board. The ordinance at that time said that when the CRA panel
had sustained a complaint, "the chief's disciplinary decision shall be based on
the adjudicated facts as determined by the civilian review authority board." If
the chief issued no discipline in a sustained case, he or she was required to
submit a written explanation to the CRA Board. In such situations, Chief Tim
Dolan routinely wrote that his decision was based on his "disagreement with the
facts as adjudicated by the CRA board."
For people who understand the English language, Chief Dolan's explanations were
clearly a violation of the ordinance. In fact, the words he used were probably
designed to say that he was not bound by the ordinance. He was thumbing his
nose at the CRA Board, at the City Council, and at the ordinance.
In her opinion, Ms. Segal found no inconsistency between the ordinance's words
and the Chief's explanations. I had a standing bet with now retired Deputy City
Attorney Peter Ginder that he couldn't find a single attorney in the city of
Minneapolis who didn't work in the City Attorney's office and who would agree
with her opinion. He asked if that could include his brother, who was an
attorney, and I said "Fine." Mr. Ginder never found such an attorney, not even
his brother.
My opposition is not because, as then Council Member Frey said two years ago, I
feel the reappointment decision should be based on agreement with every
decision or opinion ever issued by Ms. Segal. That was a typical political red
herring, something a Council Member would say only if he had his eye on the
Mayor's office. No, my problem was that absent some further explanation, the
opinion was not simply unreasonable; it was irrational.
This will be at least the third appointment of Ms. Segal where I will seek that
further explanation. It may simply be possible that Ms. Segal made a mistake.
Or it could be there were other political motives at play. I have no idea what
the explanation may be. But I do know that the opinion issued to the CRA Board
was, for anyone who understands the English language, utterly non-sensical.
Ms. Segal did try to weasel her way of that non-sensical decision by telling me
through an Assistant City Attorney that the ordinance needed to be read as a
whole, in the context of the next phrase that prohibited "de novo reviews" by
the Minneapolis Police Department. Bur her reading would violate a principle of
statutory construction she learned in her first month of law school, the Rule
Against Surplusage, which says that statutes (and ordinances) are to be read so
that no words will be seen as superfluous. Her reading would have wiped out the
"shall be based on the adjudicated facts as determined by the civilian review
board" phrase entirely. On her reading, the ordinance would have the same
meaning if those words weren't there.
She knows better. There has to be some reason for her opinion other than
elementary statutory construction or basic understanding of English. This is
not a matter of interpreting the law, where rational people might disagree.
This is a matter of a reading of the ordinance that simply is not rational, and
that must either be a mistake or the result of some other motivation.
Despite my ridiculously low bar of 1) an ability to understand English, and 2)
issuing opinions that meet the test of ratinality, no City Council member --
none, not the most liberal ones, not a Green, not an opponent of Ms. Segal --
has ever in a public forum asked Ms. Segal for an explanation of that decision
from several years ago.
Maybe things will change on March 1, but I'm not holding my breath.
Chuck Turchick
Phillips