A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to public comments, where speakers from various organizations voiced their dissatisfaction with the current state of police oversight in Minneapolis. Kim Milliard from the Racial Justice Network criticized the Chief of Police’s hiring practices, particularly the employment of Tyler Timberlake, who had a documented history of excessive force. Milliard accused the Chief of misleading the public regarding his knowledge of Timberlake’s past actions. Following this, another speaker highlighted the continued employment of an officer involved in the death of Lucas Bellamy in Hennepin County Jail, calling for greater accountability and for these incidents to be considered in the Chief’s performance review.

The commission faced further scrutiny over its handling of Allison Lucier’s case. Lizzy Palmer, representing the Twin Cities Coalition for Justice, criticized the commission for a lack of transparency regarding a memo sent to the City Council about Lucier’s case. The commission’s limitations and inability to provide clear information prompted calls for a Civilian Police Accountability Commission with greater oversight powers. Alyssa Washington from Wrongfully Incarcerated Minnesota echoed this sentiment, expressing disappointment over a recent decision by the Audit Committee to deny action on Lucier’s case, describing it as a betrayal of community trust.

The meeting’s tension escalated as stakeholders discussed a $500,000 contract awarded to the city before the settlement agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Concerns were raised about the contract’s potential use for a mandated community survey, with worries about data protection and the Minneapolis Police Department’s (MPD) ownership of collected information. A commissioner clarified that the survey’s management falls under ALEFA and is separate from the city contract. However, the discourse revealed fears about overlapping responsibilities and the adequacy of existing oversight mechanisms.

A major point of contention was the proposed ordinance to expand the commission’s membership. A commissioner expressed frustration at the lack of stakeholder involvement in the ordinance discussions, highlighting a perceived bypassing of community oversight. Questions were raised about the qualifications of Civil Rights Commissioners to participate in review panels and why discussions might have occurred behind closed doors. This sentiment of exclusion extended to the broader community, with members demanding transparency in decision-making processes.

The commission also addressed logistical issues concerning upcoming meetings and the policy review process. A motion was proposed to cancel the April 7th meeting to prioritize case reviews, which passed despite concerns about reducing public engagement opportunities. The commission emphasized the importance of public input, noting the need for clear communication and regular reviews to align with the settlement agreement requirements.