Residents at Minneapolis police‑oversight hearing press for faster MDHR implementation, clearer discipline data and better response to immigration and domestic‑

Residents and commissioners at the Minneapolis Community Commission on Police Oversight (CCPO) public hearing on May 11 urged faster implementation of reforms tied to the MDHR enforceable settlement, clearer public discipline data and better MPD responses to immigration‑related incidents and domestic violence.

The hearing, convened by Chair Latanya Rees, collected five registered public comments and multiple commissioner responses. Speakers asked CCPO to pass community concerns to MPD leadership and to pursue additional study and outreach as needed. The commission approved procedural motions including a temporary extension of a presenter’s time, doubling the per‑speaker public comment allotment to four minutes for the evening, and adding an item at the next meeting to plan another public hearing with improved publicity.

Why it matters: CCPO’s work informs review panels and policy recommendations to the mayor, City Council and the police chief. Public speakers said delays in finalizing and implementing required policies weaken accountability and public trust.

What commissioners presented and heard PPRR (Police Policy Research and Recommendations) told the commission it had taken deeper dives this year into several priorities, including the early intervention system (EIS) and the discipline matrix, and had reviewed other cities’ approaches. The committee emphasized that implementation — how policies are applied in practice — matters as much as written language.

Commissioners and PPRR noted procedural facts for the record: the CCPO is constituted by ordinance with 15 members (13 council appointees and two mayoral appointees) and typically meets more than the required minimum; CCPO review panels in 2025 convened about 105 times, and year‑to‑date panel activity is lower in 2026, which presenters attributed in part to MPD staffing demands.

Complaints about transparency and the discipline dashboard Jim Krasitzki (Ward 3) told the commission he discovered what he believes is an omission on the city’s police discipline decision dashboard: he said a mayoral reprimand of former Chief Medaria Arradondo from October 2021 is not represented and asked CCPO to pursue adding that reprimand and any similar omissions to the dashboard so public records accurately reflect discipline actions.

“Once I became aware that the city created a dashboard, I noticed that the mayor's reprimand of former chief Arredondo is not represented on the dashboard,” Krasitzki said. He said Internal Affairs has told him it is waiting for guidance from the City Attorney’s Office before updating the dashboard.

Calls for faster MDHR settlement implementation A commenter introduced as Andrew criticized the pace of implementing the MDHR enforceable settlement, saying policy drafts, training and discipline‑matrix work had moved slowly since the settlement was opened in March 2023. He said several policy areas have been delayed and recommended that CCPO request a study into the causes, including possible staffing or expertise gaps.

“Police [are] unacceptably slow implementing the MDHR enforceable court settlement agreement,” Andrew said.

Residents describe missed MPD response in an immigration‑related incident and in domestic‑violence calls Ethan O’Brien (Ward 1) described an incident he said occurred Jan. 24 in which he told commissioners an ICE vehicle caused a two‑car crash, removed a neighbor from a car and left the scene; O’Brien said multiple neighbors called 911 but no MPD officers arrived. He asked CCPO to examine whether MPD followed policy 9‑401’s notification, supervisory coordination and public‑safety assessment requirements.

“That policy requires notifications, supervisory coordination, verification of circumstances, assessment of public safety risks,” O’Brien said, adding that the policy intends to ensure immigrant communities can access police services without immigration status impeding response.

Lauren George (Ward 5) gave a separate domestic‑violence account in which a friend called 911 on her behalf; dispatch allegedly advised her to stay inside and wait but no officer arrived, she said. George said she missed work and remained afraid in her apartment building for weeks afterward.

“No one showed up,” George said.

Questions about the duty to intervene and data recording Speakers from community organizations pressed CCPO for clarity on whether officers are consistently recording interventions and whether policy language on duty to intervene is actionable when federal law‑enforcement officers are present. Connor Wells, a member of Community United Against Police Brutality, said the relevant policy can appear “performative” if legal or practical barriers make intervention impossible.

Commissioners’ response and next steps Commissioner Sheffield summarized key themes for follow‑up: concerns about the discipline dashboard’s data integrity, how public hearings are publicized, the speed of implementing MDHR‑related reforms, and several accounts of MPD not arriving when called. Commissioners committed to placing planning for another, better‑publicized public hearing on the next agenda and to bringing some of the testimony back for further discussion and potential research requests.

CCPO also announced near‑term opportunities for public input: a community engagement meeting is scheduled for May 19 (Public Service Building, Room 100C), the next CCPO meeting is set for June 15, and the PPRR committee meets June 22. An Alifa community survey related to Minneapolis police is available through June 7.

The commission closed the hearing after commissioners thanked participants for their testimony and confirmed plans to review the comments and prepare questions for MPD leadership.