Minneapolis oversight commission faults draft MPD discipline matrix as unclear, forwards group feedback to policy committee

The Community Commission on Police Oversight on Aug. 19 reviewed the Minneapolis Police Department’s draft discipline matrix, heard public comment urging a complete rewrite, and voted unanimously to refer compiled feedback to the Police Policy Research and Recommendations Committee for synthesis and submission.

At the outset, Chair Latanya Rees reminded attendees that the meeting was being broadcast and opened the public-comment period specific to the discipline matrix. Former Civilian Review Authority member David Bekking urged commissioners to abandon the current draft and return to earlier Minneapolis matrices, saying, “there is no hope of saving it. It needs to be discarded and started over.”

Commissioners spent the bulk of the meeting comparing the draft to discipline matrices used in other cities and identifying practical problems with the draft. Commissioner Schanfeld, chair of the Police Policy Research and Recommendations Committee, said the commission was reviewing the draft in part because “the settlement agreement mandates changes to the discipline matrix.” Commissioners and staff repeatedly raised three recurring concerns: the draft’s length and formatting, inconsistent linkage between example violations and specific MPD policy numbers, and the matrix’s limited utility for civilian-staffed review panels.

Several commissioners said the 23-page draft is difficult for panelists and the public to use. Commissioner Bartz and others pointed to shorter city matrices — notably Portland and New Orleans — as models for clearer presentation. At least one commissioner noted that New Orleans attaches a concise penalty schedule that maps each defined violation to a presumptive penalty and argued that approach improves consistency and usability.

Vice Chair Olsen criticized a nondisciplinary “category A” in the draft, saying it undermines transparency. “I don’t think that it is consistent with, transparency and accountability to have a category that is secret,” Olsen said, noting that some nondisciplinary outcomes are protected from public disclosure under state data-practices rules.

Commissioners repeatedly raised process questions about the role of review panels. Several panelists and commissioners said panels receive case files limited to the incident before them and do not receive prior-offense histories, which means panels cannot reliably factor first, second or third-offense treatment into their recommendations. Staff confirmed prior-offense information is not provided in the panel case file and is typically considered later by the chief and by arbitration processes.

Members suggested changes to improve clarity and consistency: link every example violation to a specific MPD policy number, provide a concise two-page public-facing table (with an annex for detailed explanations), adopt a presumptive-middle penalty with stated mitigating and aggravating factors, and remove or rework nondisciplinary categories that are not transparent. Commissioners also recommended documenting any downward departures from presumptive discipline in a way that can be tracked.

On a motion by Commissioner Shanfield, seconded (second not specified in the record), the commission voted to refer the collective notes and the meeting video to the Police Policy Research and Recommendations Committee (PPRR) for synthesis and submission on behalf of the full commission. The clerk called the roll; the minutes record 10 ayes and the motion carried. The commission’s staff liaison, Miss Zhang, will circulate the compiled document to the body for information only; the chair said it will be attached to the meeting minutes.

Practical next steps recorded during the meeting: public comments on the MPD draft are due Aug. 29 (via a form or to policepolicyfeedback@minneapolismn.gov), and PPRR will meet at 6 p.m. Monday, Aug. 25, in the Public Service Building (new building) to continue work on the matrix.