CRA Redesign Action Group Outcomes Subcommittee Recommendations

The Civilian Review Authority (CRA) was created in 1990 as a way for community members to file complaints about police brutality with an agency outside of the police department. However, over time, the community has lost faith in the CRA. Through a series of community meetings, the following concerns with the CRA were identified:

• People were unaware of the existence of the CRA and/or did not know how to file a complaint.
• People filing complaints did not see clear outcomes, with some stating that reporting was a waste of time since nothing appeared to happen in 90% of cases.
• Some cases appear to have "fallen through the cracks."
• Incomplete investigations, with witnesses not being contacted, etc.
• Cases took too long to process.
• The CRA didn't have enough power to do its job, i.e. did not have subpoena power, could only recommend discipline, etc.
• The standard of proof for CRA complaints was too high.
• The CRA did not seem to track trends in complaints against specific officers or precincts and report them.
• The CRA had no input on police policy and practice. They only processed complaints but could do nothing to reduce the incidents of police brutality and misconduct. This approach was reactive, not proactive.

Clearly, what is needed is an effective means for accepting and addressing complaints as well as a system for providing feedback to police management and providing policy input and oversight.

Our Definition of a Community Oversight Body
An independent way for trained community representatives to receive and investigate complaints of police misconduct, to make recommendations on corrective actions, and to provide oversight and policy input to improve police culture and practices.

In considering concerns raised by the community regarding both the CRA and policing in Minneapolis, we have formulated the following general desired outcomes.

Note: Throughout this proposal, the term "body" refers to the office of the ombudsman/community oversight body. The term "Chier" refers to the Chief of Police.

Independence	The body should operate autonomously from police. The body should perform its duties from a neutral standpoint, representing the interests of neither "side" but seeking truth and solutions. Training for investigators should be conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Community Relations Division. Initial term of the head of the oversight body should be for six years.
Accessibility	Individuals should be empowered to accept complaints in a number of locations including homeless shelters, community centers, etc. Complaints should be accepted via the internet. Complaints should be accepted via a hotline. Complaints should continue to be accepted from witnesses of incidents. Interpreters need to be available to assist with the complaint process. All materials should be available in multiple languages. Community forums, media work and other forms of outreach should be undertaken to raise awareness of availability and process for filing complaints.
Powers	Power to investigate complaints independent of IAD. Subpoena power to enable the body to secure information from sources other than the police. Police officers should continue to be required to fully cooperate with the process under Garrity. Non-cooperation would be reported to the Chief. Possible perjury would be reported to the County attorney. The body should have access to all personnel records of the officers involved in a complaint, including disciplinary documents and information on complaints, both sustained and unsustained. After initial investigation, the body would conduct hearings as appropriate. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the body would determine discipline, based on the severity of the infraction and the past history of the officer involved. Discipline would include points being assigned to the officer (see Tracking below). Alternate proposal: In sustained complaints, the body would recommend discipline to the Chief. In cases in which the Chief chose not to follow the recommendation, the Chief would submit a report on his/her disciplinary determination to the Mayor and to the body. The body would track recommendations that were not followed and provide reports the general public. If hearing results warrant it, the body would refer the case to the County Attorney for possible prosecution.
Standard of Proof	The body should use the preponderance of the evidence standard
Openness/Transparency of Process	Open all processes to public scrutiny to the extent allowed under Data Practices act. Complainant and witnesses should be allowed to be present during the hearing. Allow for easy appeals if a complaint is found to be without merit or is not sustained. In cases in which the complaint is sustained, allow public access to hearing transcripts, investigation reports and disciplinary determinations. Follow up with complainants and witnesses to determine if retaliation/retribution has occurred as a result of the complaint. If complainants or witnesses believe it has occurred, investigate in the same manner as an original complaint. Report regularly to the community on the work of the oversight body. Send email newsletters, regular newsletters, press releases and other communications regularly. Report on the status of cases in a way that respects the confidentiality of the complainant but that allows the public to understand what has happened in the case. Develop an overall communications strategy.
Graduated Means of Handling Complaints	See attachment 1. Complaint processing procedure varies depending on elements of complaint. Provides for "on the spot" service recovery for minor complaints. Develop deadlines for timely completion of various steps of the complaint processing procedure. Mediation available throughout process, but not to usurp investigations and other parts of the process. Documentation kept on all levels of complaint and throughout all parts of the process, to facilitate trending and reporting as well as public disclosure of sustained complaints.
Tracking and Discipline	If a complaint is sustained, the officer(s) involved would be assigned points based on the severity of the complaint. Additional points would be assessed for failing to cooperate with the complaint process. Points are cumulative and reaching a certain number of points would result in termination. Points are tracked by the oversight body and reported regularly to the Chief of Police. Restorative justice is available as disciplinary option. If police officer agrees, fewer points are assessed.
Reducing Incidents of Police Brutality, Misconduct and Abuse of Authority	Reward police officers who act professionally by developing a structure of incentives. Incentives would be rewarded to officers not accumulating points during the year. Incentives could be funded from the pool of money budgeted for settlements and judgements related to police brutality/ misconduct incidents. If money is left at the end of the fiscal year, officers with no points that year could receive a monetary bonus, time off or other incentives as negotiated by their union. The oversight body should track the nature and types of complaints received, the officers/precincts on whom these complaints are received, the locations of incidents, and the ethnicity of people making the complaints. This information should be analyzed and compiled into reports that are given to the Chief of Police and each precinct Captain. The oversight body should regularly examine police policies and procedures that contribute to incidents of brutality and misconduct and make recommendations for changes in policies or procedures or for new policies to the Mayor and City Council for consideration. The oversight body should freely make recommendations for changes in hiring, training and other areas that would have an impact on preventing future incidents.
Accountability and Ongoing Process Review	Ongoing evaluation, with results tied to budget. Surveys of complainants, witnesses and police officers Other evaluatory instruments. Periodic audit by an outside agency to determine timeliness, effectiveness and appropriate handling of complaints as well as carrying out of other duties and responsibilities.

MODEL A: 1) City Council serves as a commission to oversee police (similar to the role they play with MCDA). Makes policy changes Search committee for police chief (with executive committee having final say) Approves police department budget Approves promotions Refers cases to the County Attorney for prosecution as appropriate 2) Ombudsman Office deals with complaints. Accepts complaints Investigates Holds hearings Determines discipline and assigns points Recommends appointment of special prosecutor Tracks and reports complaint trends to City Council, Police Chief, Precinct Captains Outreach to community	ADVANTAGES: Commission members would be elected and, therefore, accountable to the community. May require less in the way of charter and legislative changes to put into place. Ombudsman's office removed from politics. DISADVANTAGES: City Council members would be burdened with a sizeable new set of duties. Separation of powers may make it harder for Ombudsman's office to do its job.
MODEL B: Commission on Police Accountability serves as both the oversight body and complaint processors. Commission members elected from each precinct with the chair elected as an at-large member. Investigators and office staff work for commission. Commission would serve all of the functions listed above.	ADVANTAGES: All functions under "one roof" Elected, therefore accountable to the community. Election by precinct allows communities to be fairly and evenly represented and allows the commissioner to form a mutually beneficial relationship with the precinct captain to address precinct-specific problems. Commission could focus specifically on police issues rather than these issues being part of a number of other responsibilities. DISADVANTAGES: Expense involved in additional elections (could be mitigated by holding elections the same time as other city elections are held). May require more changes in the law.
MODEL C: 1) City Council or a separate commission to oversee police. 2) Civil Rights Department investigates complaints.	ADVANTAGES: Advantages as listed above. Since the Civil Rights Department has investigators on staff, there may be less expense involved in complaint processing. DISADVANTAGES: The Civil Rights Department would be taking on a significant new set of responsibilities. This would require a change in the mission of the CRD. There have been concerns expressed in the community about the effectiveness of the CRD in meeting their existing mission.