Council Members question Dolan’s appointment as Chief and lack of accountability in police department

BY ED FELIEN

At the end of September, Council Members Elizabeth Glidden, Betsy Hodges and Cam Gordon sent a letter to Mayor R.T. Rybak raising questions and concerns about the appointment of Tim Dolan to Chief of Police. They said he sent incorrect data to the FBI which made the City look bad; he failed to communicate with community groups prior the to SAFE CITY initiative; he returned an officer to active duty before the minority community was satisfied with the resolution of the problem; there has been poor communication about the use of cameras at Cedar and Riverside; he has not been active in fighting redlining; he supported the proposed alley ordinance ahead of Council action; and there has been unsatisfactory progress in dealing with complaints against the police as recorded by the Civilian Review Authority (CRA) and a refusal to discipline officers for the use of excessive force as determined by the CRA.

Although they credit Dolan with years of good service to the City, they question his commitment to genuinely reform the MPD. Their proposals for reform include: separating managers from rank and file in the Police Federation; support for subpoena power for the CRA; a more clear and accountable system for disciplining officers; a commitment to diversity; and an end to racial profiling and increased accountability for supervisors.

Last week the Mayor responded with his own memo. He agreed with their proposal to separate managers and rank and file in the Police Federation. Although he says he supports a credible CRA, he does not say he supports subpoena powers for the CRA, and he insists that the Chief retain final discipline authority. So, he supports a CRA that talks the talk, but cannot walk the walk. If you have a CRA that cannot compel police officers to testify and cannot award damages or discipline officers, then all you have is an empty forum.
The MPD lobbied effectively 30 years ago to get the Police Department removed from the purview of the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission. Now, the CRC can investigate any violation of a person’s civil rights except when that violation is committed by a member of the Minneapolis Police Department. The CRC has the power of subpoena and can award damages. The MPD much prefers dealing with the Civilian Review Authority, also known as the CRA (where the most that can happen is they might get their fingers slapped) rather than the CRC where they could face criminal prosecution.

Generally, Rybak agrees with most of the other proposals. He believes the MPD is making progress on diversity and ending redlining. He supports making supervisors more accountable.
Other Council Members were generally supportive of the ideas in the original letter.

Scott Benson said the letter was “thoughtful and good. We need to know the answers to those questions.” He’s not sure he supports subpoena power for CRA, but he was unaware that the CRC does not have the power to investigate the MPD. He said he didn’t understand why the MPD was exempted.
Sandy Colvin Roy was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Gary Schiff has long supported subpoena powers for CRA. He generally agreed with the ideas in the original letter, but he found it curious that they criticize Dolan for supporting one legislative proposal and they ask him to support another. It seems a little like they’re trying to micro-manage the department, Schiff said. He would support letting the CRC investigate the police if that were the only way to insure an investigation had authority and credibility, “Either way would be great!”
Robert Lilligren said, “I support their interest in seeking reform within the department. I don’t support every point their memo outlines.” He agreed, “It has been difficult to show accountability by the Mayor and his actions.”