Once again, the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor Jacob Frey have dealt a blow to representative government: the council voted on the recent consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice, which will require more millions of dollars spent on various police reforms, before releasing the document to the public. A similar procedure was used in passing the settlement agreement on police reforms with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights on March 31, 2023. Then, too, the agreement was not made public before the council voted on it.
At the time that MDHR agreement was approved, the rationale given was that it could not be amended: it was either an up-or-down vote. This made no sense for two reasons. First, it certainly could be amended. If the council recommended that negotiations be reopened to consider some changes, there is no way the MDHR would have refused and opted to spend millions of dollars on the alternative — a lawsuit, which probably would have lasted several years. Second, an up-or-down vote still has two choices, and Minneapolis residents should have been given the opportunity to weigh in with their opinions on how their council members should decide between those two choices.
With the latest consent decree, we have repeated that mockery of representative government. Fundamental to representative government is that constituents know what their representatives are voting on. This is all the more so when what is being voted on will cost those constituents millions of dollars in a years-long — up to 20 years in some cities — reform effort.
Mayor Frey and Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara claim there is widespread buy-in on this consent decree among elected officials, city residents and police officers. That may be true for the elected officials; they read the document. But without any opportunity to provide feedback on a then-secret document, how do we know that’s the case for residents and for police officers? We don’t.
Police officers, whether they are city residents or not, are in the best position to frustrate the implementation of the consent decree’s reforms. That could be why some cities and their police departments have been under similar consent decrees for as long as 20 years. At the time the MHDR agreement was approved, Chief O’Hara and Minneapolis Federation of Police Officers President Sherral Schmidt assessed very differently the level of police officer buy-in of that agreement. O’Hara lauded officers’ buy-in; Schmidt was much more skeptical.
Without an opportunity to read that agreement and to read the more recent consent decree, to weigh in on it, to provide feedback to council members and the mayor, buy-in by both residents and MPD officers is likely diminished, and certainly cannot be assumed.
Good representative government and good, timely results in implementing these reforms required transparency. Given Minneapolis’ history, this is especially true on police-related matters in this city in 2025. The council and the mayor have failed Minneapolis’ residents and MPD officers in this regard.
Chuck Turchick is a Minneapolis resident who has been following civilian oversight in the city since it was established in 1990.
