Central to the meeting was the discipline matrix used by the Minneapolis Police Department, which was widely criticized for its complexity and perceived ineffectiveness. Public comments were dominated by a notable example involving a man, Randy Russet, who died from an overdose after police allegedly refused to administer Narcan despite bystander requests. This tragic incident was cited as emblematic of broader issues within the department, with speakers arguing that the current disciplinary system fails to ensure accountability or justice. They advocated for a thorough revision of the matrix, emphasizing that it falls short when compared to disciplinary standards in other jurisdictions.

The commission’s discussion was heavily focused on how Minneapolis’ discipline matrix compares with those of other cities such as Portland, Newark, and New Orleans. Commissioners noted the clarity and conciseness of Portland’s matrix, contrasting it with the 24-page Minneapolis draft, which they described as overly complex and difficult to navigate. They highlighted that while the current draft includes detailed definitions and directions, its length renders it unwieldy.

New Orleans’ discipline matrix was also discussed as a potential model for Minneapolis due to its simplicity and efficiency. A commissioner shared insights into New Orleans’ process of reform following a Department of Justice investigation, pointing out that the city’s matrix categorizes violations into seven levels with clear consequences, making it easier for users to understand and apply. The emphasis was on learning from these examples to create a more effective disciplinary framework for Minneapolis.

The commission explored the need for greater transparency and clarity in the decision-making process of the Police Chief, as current practices were deemed insufficient. The lack of guidance for review panels in assessing disciplinary outcomes was a particular concern, with commissioners arguing that the existing matrix does not adequately serve the needs of these panels. The absence of specific documentation and the inclusion of non-disciplinary outcomes were seen as obstacles to achieving true accountability and transparency.

A point of contention was the classification of medical aid violations within the matrix. The proposed disciplinary measure of a 30-hour suspension for an officer’s failure to render necessary medical assistance was deemed inadequate by commissioners, who argued that the penalty did not reflect the gravity of the offense. This sparked broader discussions on the proportionality of penalties and the need for a more structured approach to categorizing and penalizing violations.

The role of the Community-Centric Policing Oversight Panels was another focal point, with commissioners stressing the importance of equipping these panels with comprehensive information. The current practice of providing case files limited to specific incidents was criticized for not allowing panels to consider an officer’s history of violations, potentially undermining the integrity of their recommendations.

To address these concerns, commissioners suggested revisions to the ordinance governing the discipline matrix. They called for simplification and clarification of the matrix to improve its usability for both the Police Chief and the public. Proposals included creating different versions of the matrix, incorporating educational-based discipline alternatives, and ensuring that documentation of the Chief’s decisions is accessible and transparent.

As the meeting concluded, commissioners agreed on the necessity of synthesizing their discussions into a formal document to be submitted to the relevant policy review body. They emphasized the importance of ongoing feedback and collaboration in refining the disciplinary matrix to better serve the Minneapolis community and ensure fair treatment of officers.