If the point of the defeated city charter amendment on police reform in Minneapolis was to rein in bad cops in the Police Department, its failure may not be as significant as the nasty scrap over it between liberals and progressives in Minneapolis leadership seemed to suggest.
Charter fight over, let's get to work on real reform
Repealing a single state law would make police accountability a real possibility.
By Richard G. Carlson

Reining in bad cops starts with thorough civilian control over the MPD. Specifically, civilians need to have at least some power in the disciplining and ultimate firing of bad cops. At the moment, they have none. Had the charter amendment passed, they would still have had none.
The city charter provision that the mayor of Minneapolis, a civilian, has "complete power" over the MPD is misleading at best, because the mayor has no power at all over disciplining or firing bad cops. Short of a successful criminal prosecution of a bad cop by civilian prosecutors, a la Derek Chauvin, only Chief Medaria Arradondo has that power.
The vehicle for asserting civilian control already exists. It is the Office of Police Conduct Review, the city's most recent version of a police conduct review board. But it is only an advisory body, and therefore toothless, just as all its Minneapolis predecessors have been.
Curing this problem is beyond the power of the city of Minneapolis. The defeated city charter amendment would not — could not — have changed it.
The reason why is summed up in an obscure Minnesota law, Minnesota Statute 626.89, subd. 17. Subdivision 17, part of the 1991 Peace Officer Discipline Procedures Act, which should have been at the heart of the police reform movement in Minneapolis, but was completely ignored by both sides in the bitter argument over the failed charter amendment. It reads as follows:
"A civilian review board, commission, or other oversight body shall not have the authority to make a finding of fact or determination regarding a complaint against an officer or impose discipline on an officer. A civilian review board, commission, or other oversight body may make a recommendation regarding the merits of a complaint, however, the recommendation shall be advisory only and shall not be binding on nor limit the authority of the chief law enforcement officer of any unit of government."
Could the Legislature have made it any clearer that the only thing a bad cop has to fear, outside of criminal prosecution, is the judgment of another cop? How's that been working for you lately, Minneapolis?
Subdivision 17 is a state law. It applies in Minneapolis, Pipestone, Koochiching County and everywhere else in the state, and it trumps all lesser laws, including city charter amendments. As long as it remains in force, there will be no civilian control over the most important weapons against routine police misconduct — suspension without pay and firing.
In at least the last two Minnesota legislative sessions, DFL legislators, including Aisha Gomez in Minneapolis and Carlos Mariani in St. Paul, have introduced bills that would have amended or repealed Subdivision 17. Both efforts fell by the wayside from lack of support.
Liberals and progressives in Minneapolis may live to rue the day that they decided to engage in a circular firing squad over the failed charter amendment. Maybe they can make amends by joining together in a push at the state Legislature to repeal Subdivision 17.
Richard G. Carlson, of Minneapolis, is a retired assistant Hennepin County public defender.
about the writer
Richard G. Carlson
Counterpoint: The optimism of emerging nonprofit community newsrooms is not ‘cruel,’ it’s ‘intentful’
In each of our communities, local people researched, discussed and decided on a nonprofit model to rebuild newsrooms from the ground up.