In a lengthy civil case exposing how the police department uses a , secretive process known as” coaching,” attorneys for a government watchdog group asked a judge to rule on Wednesday that the city of Minneapolis violated state data laws by withholding records of police misconduct.
Leita Walker, the attorney for the nonprofit Minnesota Coalition On Government Information, gave copies of some internal words to officers officers in a Hennepin County court that made explicit references to training as a form of “discipline.” One contained the expression:” As control for this event, you may get coaching”.
The letters, signed by former police chiefs, contradict the city’s longstanding position that coaching — a gentle form of one- on- one corrective action — does n’t amount to real “discipline”, and therefore is n’t a matter of public record, Walker said. When she claimed that the police department views coaching as nondisciplinary, which means it does n’t have to make the records public, she claimed Janisch claimed the letters are just one piece of a “mountain of evidence” that the city is being dishonest.
The Minneapolis Police Department’s attorneys requested Janisch to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the Minneapolis Police Department has a proven track record of viewing training as a non-punitive “managerial resource” that falls outside the definition of true skill. Former police chiefs, according to city attorney Sarah Riskin, claimed they did not write the letters because they did n’t mean to include any language that referred to coaching as “discipline.”
” The leaders did not intend to punish, restrict or self-control”, she told the jury.
Beyond the constitutional discussion, the lawsuit has opened a window into the city’s complicated coaching process, which is the most frequently turned around for officers who were found to possess broken department policy. The Star Tribune , reported in May , that documents released as part of the legal action, including transcripts of under- swear depositions, reveal that best Minneapolis officials have formally misrepresented how they use training.
City and officers officials said they only use training to handle small policy violations —” called A- category” infractions — like no wearing a seatbelt or a problem in writing a report after the murder of George Floyd and were being question about transparency in the coaching process. However, the court records reveal that the MPD has used training to address issues about excessive force in addition to more serious breaches.  , The area has slowly coached officers , for mishandling a firearm and firing into the corridor wall, failing to report a colleague’s use of force and letting a K- 9 off leash, allowing it to strike a human, according to court records.
In court and legal motions, the city acknowledges the police department has used coaching for the more serious” B- category” violations in the past, but says it “only happened 13 times” and there were “zero instances” of coaching on more serious infractions, called C- category violations. However, Walker informed Janisch that she recently discovered records that show more officers have been trained than the city claims.
Additionally, records reveal that the city has coached at least one crime into the C-category when the police department first started out. An unnamed officer was disciplined by former Chief Medaria Arradondo for violating department policy regarding access to confidential records. This was a” sustained” C-category violation that occurred in 2017. After the police union grieved the discipline, Arradondo agreed to downgrade the misconduct to a B- category and coach the officer, making records of the misconduct private, according to the document.
The Star Tribune questioned several city officials about whether this agreement contradicts their claims that they never handled such a serious, C-category offense. City spokesperson Greta Bergstrom, speaking on behalf of the city attorney’s office, said this occurred one month after the time period being debated in the lawsuit. She did not respond to a subsequent inquiry into whether the city has continued to coach these higher-level violations.
The , lawsuit, filed in 2021, stems from a public records request filed by MNCOGI asking for coaching documents, which a city clerk summarily closed without providing any data.
In court motions, the city contends that MNCOGI made an errorful attempt to “make this case about police accountability” when the legal argument boils down to a question about whether coaching records are public records and discipline. The motion says coaching is intended to be” supportive”, and not “punitive”, and the city has been consistent in its position for many years.
In a prior statement, City Attorney Kristyn Anderson stated that” this case is about whether data on coaching is private personnel data.” The City is not legally permitted to provide public access to private personnel data if it is, as we believe it to be.
MNCOGI has accused the city of using coaching as a rhetorical stumbling block that keeps records of serious misconduct obfuscated from the eye. The civil lawsuit claims Minneapolis intentionally erred by defining coaching records as private data in the state’s public records laws. This practice has promoted a culture of secrecy, allowing MPD to operate without accountability to the people it serves, according to the , civil complaint. According to a court motion, the city has “taken the untenable position that a government’s public statements are beyond reproach — and that members of the public are not entitled to see internal documents that contradict those’official ‘ statements,” according to the all-volunteer public records group’s attorneys.
Leita Walker and Isabella Salomão Nascimento, of Ballard Spahr, and the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, are representing MNCOGI. Walker has also represented several local media organizations, including the Star Tribune, in cases related to public records and the First Amendment.
Indictments of high-ranking city officials for the lawsuit, which included thousands of hours of deposition transcripts, illustrate how police in Minneapolis struggled to define exactly why coaching does not constitute discipline and is not a matter of public record.
Even though the latter is considered public data, former Deputy Chief Amelia Huffman and Assistant Chief Troy Schoenberger could n’t explain the distinction between coaching and a verbal warning in separate depositions.
Yet both maintained it was in fact different, somehow.
Is n’t it true that you and Ms. Huffman essentially testified that a warning is different from coaching because the City claims it is? Schoenberger was contacted by Walker earlier this year.
” Yes”, concurred Schoenberger.
In court Wednesday, Janisch did n’t give a clear signal as to which way she planned to rule, but she asked several times why the fact that police chiefs referring to coaching as “discipline” in formal letters should n’t carry weight.
Riskin claimed that the chiefs did not actually sign the letters, noting that all three have since signed affidavits claiming they do not adhere to the rules of coaching. ” It was n’t the chief sitting down and writing out the letter from scratch saying,’ Okay, I’m thinking about every word that I put on here.'”
” Are n’t they tied to it if they sign it”? the judge interjected.
” Well, I do n’t think so, because the unrebutted facts are that they did n’t prepare it”, replied Riskin. They acknowledge that they were focused on the outcome. They admit they were n’t looking at the specific words. These were administrative staff templates that were created. They claim that they were administrative errors.
” ( Why not ) correct how you do the letter”? Janisch later asked.
” Look, it would’ve been ideal to correct how the letter is done”, Riskin acknowledged, noting that at one point those records were updated with new language. But, between changing police administrations, the “disciplinary” verbiage slipped back in.
” These are prepared by administrative folks who come and go”, Riskin continued. ” You have other people, they’re working from some template documents, boilerplate documents. Humans are humans, and that’s where human error comes in”.
Riskin has made the argument that the plain language of coaching letters is unimportant. Intent was what mattered, she said – and top brass have always maintained that coaching was not discipline.
A newly proposed Minneapolis police labor contract,  , ratified by the union , last month, attempts to codify the city’s longstanding position on coaching. Without using the word ‘ coaching,’ the , tentative agreement , specifies that discipline refers exclusively to written reprimands, suspensions, demotions and discharges.
That accord still , requires approval , by the full City Council.
Janisch anticipates making a decision in the next 60 to 90 days.
___
© 2024 StarTribune
Distributed by , Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
