Again, City Council: Pass the police contract

Opinion Editor’s Note: editorial reflect the opinions of the Star Tribune editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.

•••

There is significant opposition to the proposed Minneapolis police contract from some community and city council members, who say the pact does not go far enough to hold police officers accountable and provide them with additional pay.

Dozens of citizens attended a Minneapolis City Council committee meeting last week to voice their support or opposition to a deal with the police union that would give officers historic pay raises. The pact has been approved by the city administration and the police union and should also receive City Council approval.

Some policy reforms still need to be implemented if the city wants to continue to build trust in the department following the murder of George Floyd by an MPD officer in 2020. As the Star Tribune editorial board has previously argued, these concerns can and must be addressed through administrative action or by complying with the requirements of an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the terms of a federal order expected this year.

The proposed contract would guarantee experienced officers a nearly 22% raise by next summer and raise starting pay for newbies to more than $90,000 a year — putting Minneapolis, Minnesota’s largest city with the highest population and a violent crime rate three times higher than the national average, among the state’s five highest-paying police departments. The contract would give officers a 5.5% raise starting July 1, a 2.5% raise on Jan. 1, 2025, and another 3.5% increase next summer. It would also provide prorated back pay, giving experienced officers a total raise of 21.7% over three years. That’s because officers have been working without a contract since the previous contract expired at the end of 2022.

And, importantly, the contract would also expand management control of the police force, which currently numbers about 516 – the lowest in four decades. It would significantly expand the chief’s powers by giving him more discretion in assigning officers. It would also eliminate the 70/30 clause that sets minimum staffing levels for certain positions and increase the number of civilian investigators.

It also eliminates decades-long bargains between the city and the union that have often tied the hands of city leaders in their efforts to bring about change.

Opponents of the contract plan, including Communities United Against Police Brutality, a grassroots police reform group, criticize the pact as a “budget buster” that would raise property taxes and provide back pay to current and former officers, including those who have cost the city millions in excessive-force settlements. According to the administration, the new deal is expected to cost an additional $9.2 million in the city’s 2025 budget, plus an estimated $5.5 million in back pay that can be covered in the current budget.

Critics also say that pay rises have to be earned and that higher pay does not necessarily attract better police officers. They add that for years the government has claimed that collective agreements stand in the way of change, but has now moved to the view that these things should not be included in the collective agreement.

But Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the city’s administrative officer, rightly said, “Both are true of the contract history of the last 30 years.” She told an editorial writer that she taught negotiation and that eliminating many letters of agreement would help restore the flexibility of the administration that could drive reforms. If some of the reforms were written into the contract, the administration might have to rewrite the contract to meet the requirements of the federal order.

During last week’s committee meeting and hearing, Council Member LaTrisha Vetaw pointed out that many of the reforms requested by community groups have already been initiated or are currently in the pipeline through actions by the chief and administration.

The full council had originally planned to vote on the contract last month, but postponed that vote to hold two sessions of public hearings. The vote is now expected to take place on Thursday. The council should approve the proposed agreement with the MPD without further delay.

Members of the editorial board include David Banks, Jill Burcum, Denise Johnson and John Rash. Star Tribune Opinion staffers Maggie Kelly, Kavita Kumar and Elena Neuzil and intern Aurora Weirens also serve, and Star Tribune CEO and publisher Steve Grove serves as an adviser to the board.