The session’s most pressing topic was the Police Accountability Ordinance. The council considered multiple amendments aimed at strengthening civilian oversight of the police department. Discussions centered on the federal consent decree requirements, which mandate that the police chief notify the Civilian Review Panel within 30 days of deviations from suggested disciplinary actions. This amendment highlights the ongoing challenge of aligning city ordinances with existing regulations without overstepping the city charter.

Council members intensely debated the composition of the Civilian Review Panel, which was proposed to be reduced from five members to three. This change, recommended by the Civil Rights Department, aims to enhance the panel’s efficiency and address backlog issues. The reduction is part of broader efforts to streamline civilian oversight, although it simultaneously underscores the limitations posed by the city charter in implementing substantial police reforms.

Additionally, concerns were raised about the Civilian Review Panel’s perceived authority. A new commissioner expressed the need for the panel to have more substantive power. This sentiment aligns with comparisons to other cities that have amended their charters to grant more authority to civilian review bodies, illustrating a desire within Minneapolis for similar reform.

The council also examined the role of the Civilian Review Panel in influencing police policy changes and whether the panel received timely updates from the police department. Transparency in communication between the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) and the panel was questioned, as feedback from the panel was not always directly communicated to the public. The council discussed maintaining a civilian majority within review panels, with suggestions to include professionals from the Office of Community Safety instead of sworn officers to mitigate conflicts and staffing challenges.

To conclude the discussion, it was clarified that compensation for panel members would be per case rather than per session, allowing for more efficient handling of increased workloads. The ordinance, with the proposed amendments, was approved in a vote, although a brief recess followed due to technical issues affecting meeting proceedings.

In a separate, yet equally discussion, the council addressed the removal of a council member from standing committees, prompted by new obligations requiring their absence from the city. This decision sparked considerable debate, particularly concerning its impact on representation for North Minneapolis. Several council members expressed strong objections, emphasizing the importance of having representation from all city areas, especially where community interests are heavily impacted.

Concerns were voiced over the decision-making process, with some members arguing that Northside council members were not adequately consulted. The significance of maintaining representation in key committees, particularly those addressing business, housing, and zoning, was a focal point. Council members highlighted past practices where swift replacements were secured for vacant positions to ensure continued representation, contrasting it with the current situation, which leaves Northside residents without representation in crucial committees.

The conversation culminated in a proposal to forward the resolution without a recommendation, allowing for further discussion and consideration. This approach was supported by several members, recognizing the need for a comprehensive dialogue on committee representation and its implications for the community.