Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Given recent coverage of the Minneapolis Community Commission on Police Oversight (CCPO), I felt compelled to give a little insight into the work of our commission outside the usual political din (“Mpls. cop oversight in turmoil once again,” front page, March 2). We are foremost residents of our city volunteering for the duty and privilege of serving in this capacity. I write on my own behalf and not on behalf of the CCPO.
Part of our duty is to review complaints brought either by the Office of Police Conduct Review (OPCR) or Internal Affairs. At first, civilians and police approached each other warily, unsure of how our relationship would play out. From what I have seen, our work has been valuable. We have had areas of broad agreement, as well as sharp disagreements and some critical conversations. Panels are productive and cordial, and discussions are respectful. Police input to these deliberations has been valuable in providing operational insight, and civilian perspectives have helped officers better understand our expectations as residents. Despite all the barriers, I am hopeful that we can continue to build an atmosphere of trust, as any relationship must be built upon mutual respect.
I believe that our relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department should be critical, but also constructive. In our criticisms we offer new solutions and policy ideas to help bring about improvements. We do not tell the police “how to do their job” — we make judgments on those policies put in place by the police themselves. Commissioners are not out to hammer police officers simply for being police officers, and the police are not out to throw everything under the rug. I sense a sincere desire to work something out across the divide, considering longstanding problems. While skepticism is appropriate and trust must be earned, the simple fact is that we must make this work regardless. We can endlessly design new systems and stay firmly attached to a whiteboard of ideas and blueprints; yet someone must get the ball rolling, with whatever system we have.
I fear the term “oversight” is the source of a lot of our issues today. We all know that the CCPO lacks any legal authority or “hard power,” so oversight is a bit of a strong term for what we do. We should probably be called the civilian guidance commission. While previous incarnations of police oversight wrestled with the limitations inherent to state law, there is opportunity in our limitations. If we can build soft power, through hard work and influence, our powers as a body have the advantage of being community-based, rather than simply legal. Soft power in many ways can supersede hard power, by its nature as an invested quantity earned through unofficial efforts. Soft power can more effectively extract political leverage and costs, the more our influence is based outside of City Hall and not in it.
Amid all these competing stakeholders, we must not lose sight of the reality of the violence and injustice suffered by Black, brown and Indigenous peoples throughout our common history. First, we should center equity and justice, given our past. While our power to address past wrongs is limited, our best work can be done by reducing future harm.
The CCPO is tasked with the dual purpose of building relationships with MPD and the community — something no one else has ever been given the opportunity and challenge to accomplish. How do we balance the two? How do we build credibility with the MPD and not lose the community?
