Loading...
Investigative Summary for CouncilDate: November 30, 2022 To: Golden Valley City Council Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Maria Cisneros, City Attorney From: Surya Saxena Greene Espel, PLLP Re: Final Investigative Memorandum Regarding Allegations Against Certain Golden Valley Police Officers. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I.Investigation of Human Resources Complaint and Potential Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Violations. The City of Golden Valley retained Greene Espel to investigate multiple alleged violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“MGDPA”), the City of Golden Valley’s Employee Handbook (the “Handbook”), and the City’s Professional Conduct of Peace Officer’s Policy (the “Professional Conduct Policy”). This memorandum summarizes Greene Espel’s investigative process and findings.1 Greene Espel considered allegations against eight current and former Golden Valley officers. Prior to Greene Espel being retained, a City employee (the “HR Complainant”) submitted a formal Human Resources complaint (the “HR Complaint”) alleging a toxic and inappropriate work culture. Additionally, prior to Greene Espel being retained, the City had identified evidence suggesting that officers may have violated the MGDPA and related 1 This memorandum does not include every detail that has been considered, or every conclusion reached by Greene Espel in connection with this investigation. Certain facts and details are provided in summary form to protect information classified as private or confidential under the MGDPA. The City has been provided with additional findings, conclusions, and legal advice with respect to the allegations described in this memorandum in separate, non-public memoranda. 2 Handbook and Professional Conduct policies pertaining to confidential information, the appropriate use of City computer equipment and devices, and other similar policies. The City had determined that an MGDPA investigation was necessary pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.055 subd. 2. Although Greene Espel initiated investigations regarding eight officers, under the MGDPA, only the details regarding one of the investigations are public.2 The public information regarding the remaining seven complaints is stated in lines two through eight in the table below. Employee Existence of Complaint Status of Complaint Discipline Last Date of Employment Officer 1 Yes Closed Yes 08/02/2022 Officer 2 Yes Closed No 09/16/2022 Officer 3 Yes Closed No NA Officer 4 Yes Closed N/A no longer employed 07/12/2022 Officer 5 Yes Closed N/A no longer employed 06/19/2022 Officer 6 Yes Closed/Incomplete N/A no longer employed 04/15/2022 Officer 7 Yes Closed/Incomplete N/A no longer employed 07/21/2021 Officer 8 Yes Closed/Incomplete N/A no longer employed 09/12/2021 Based on its investigation, Greene Espel recommended that one officer (“Officer 1”) be terminated in part because they committed serious violations of the MGDPA. These MGDPA violations are detailed in a separate Minnesota 2 Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(4)-(5) (“the following personnel data on current and former employees, volunteers, and independent contractors of a government entity is public. . . (4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; (5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body”). 3 Government Data Practices Act Investigation Report dated contemporaneously with this memorandum, which is incorporated by reference (the “Data Practices Act Report”). The breaches of the security of data cased by Officer 1’s MGDPA violations resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of private personnel data regarding at least 26 City employees to fellow employees, including supervisory staff, members of the public, and to media outlets. Greene Espel further recommended that Officer 1 be terminated based on serious Handbook and Professional Conduct policy violations, which included Officer 1 making racist and offensive statements that were captured on Officer 1’s recording of a May 13, 2021 staff meeting. Additionally, Officer 1 used a pseudonym to engage in unauthorized discussions with members of the public regarding the City’s police chief hiring process, a process that Officer 1 participated in as part of their employment. The City ultimately terminated Officer 1’s employment based on Greene Espel’s recommendation. II.Recommendations Regarding MGDPA, Social Media, and Respectful Workplace Training. As the result of the investigation, Greene Espel recommended that the City expand its existing training for all City employees regarding their obligations under the MGDPA. Greene Espel concluded that certain officers did not have a strong understanding of the types of data treated as private personnel data by the MGDPA, nor did they engage in appropriate efforts to safeguard such data. Additionally, we recommended that the City provide its employees with detailed social media and respectful workplace training. III.Reframing the City’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Work With the Police Department. Greene Espel was also retained to provide recommendations on how the City can most effectively advance its goal of improving equity in policing. As part of the investigation, Greene Espel considered the City’s efforts to provide officers with information about the City’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) work and engage officers in discussions a focused on antiracism and structural inequities. Greene Espel concluded that many of these meetings were scheduled on a reactive 4 basis, and they were presented as open dialogues with officers or “listening sessions.” The sessions were ultimately counterproductive, seemed to enhance resistance to concepts regarding systemic racism, and caused further backlash against City management. These efforts were counterproductive in part because multiple officers vocally expressed resistance to the DEI concepts addressed during these sessions. A different approach is needed to foster a more courteous, productive dialogue regarding the City’s DEI work and to work toward the elimination of any racial disparities in policing. Based on its assessment of the City’s efforts to involve officers in DEI discussions, Greene Espel recommends that the City shift the primary focus of its equity-in-policing efforts away from reactive meetings and “listening sessions.” The City should focus instead on identifying objective, data-driven goals for its DEI work with the police department and on implementing specific policy changes designed to accomplish those goals. Additionally, Greene Espel recommends that the City continue employing its “Racially Conscious Collaboration”3 approach for all City employees to continue on a pathway to fostering positive cross-racial dialogues among all City employees and external stakeholders and community members. This program may be more successful than previous efforts at providing a framework for cordial cross-racial dialogue about the City’s DEI work. SCOPE AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Greene Espel reviewed the following categories of materials in connection with its investigation: 1)Email collected from the City’s journaled back-up for certain user accounts 4; 3 https://www.raciallyconsciouscollaboration.com/ 4 Greene Espel received a copy of certain emails from Officer 1’s City email account on or about April 20, 2022. In early October 2022, the City and Greene Espel determined that the initial production of Officer 1’s email from the City to Greene Espel was incomplete. Greene Espel received a revised production of Officer 1’s email on October 19, 2022. Certain additional relevant emails, including this April 16, 2021 email, were identified from that revised production. 5 2)Cisco WebEx meeting attendance data; 3)Former Officer 1’s City internet browser history; 4)Publicly available information regarding subjects of the investigation, including on the Facebook social media platform; and 5)Video recordings made by Officer 1; 6)Microsoft Outlook meeting attendance information; and 7)Applicable City Policies. Greene Espel also conducted interviews of the HR Complainant and other employees with relevant knowledge. Officer 1 refused to participate in an interview. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS I.MGDPA Violations and Related Policy Violations. Greene Espel’s investigative findings regarding MGDPA violations are detailed in the Data Practices Act Report. In summary, Greene Espel concluded that Officer 1 committed serious violations of the MGDPA that warranted the officer’s termination from City employment. Specifically, Officer 1 created surreptitious and unauthorized recordings of City staff meetings that contained private personnel data and disseminated those recordings both inside and outside the City’s secure computer network for personal, non-governmental purposes. Officer 1 recorded an April 15, 2021 staff meeting that was not open to the public. The meeting was attended by members of City leadership and police department staff. During the meeting, attendees engaged in a discussion of work- However, Greene Espel determined that the revised production was still incomplete. Subsequently, on or about November 15, 2022, Greene Espel learned that the City’s productions of Officer 1’s emails were incomplete as the result of an email system migration conducted by the City’s IT staff and vendors. Greene Espel received a complete production of Officer 1’s emails for the period January 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022 on November 15, 2022. 6 related topics, including a discussion of equity in policing, workplace morale, and specific policing incidents. Officer 1 stored the recording of the April 15, 2021 meeting on the City’s “G: drive”, a computer network storage location, and notified several of her fellow officers of the existence of the recording in an email. The text of the email ridiculed the views and statements of certain City leaders that participated in the meeting. Officer 1 then disseminated the recording both inside and outside the City’s secure network to advance Officer 1’s personal views. As the result of Officer 1’s dissemination of the recording, on October 12, 2021, an individual publicized the existence of the recording on the City’s G: drive by referencing the recording on the Facebook group “Everything Golden Valley.” Additionally, based on public reporting, it appears that the recording was ultimately shared with at least one media outlet.5 Officer 1 also secretly recorded a virtual May 13, 2021 staff meeting that was not open to the public. This meeting was the second of two sessions designed to address certain Equity and Inclusion topics with police officers and non-officer staff members. Additionally, Officer 1 secretly recorded a November 18, 2021 in-person staff meeting with the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, superior officers, and fellow officers by concealing a recording device (likely a smart phone) in a bag or purse during the meeting. The meeting was not public and only work-related topics were discussed. Greene Espel confirmed that Officer 1 first sent an email on April 16, 2021 to coworkers, including supervisory staff that contained a link to the recording, and then on July 28, 2021, sent another email containing a link to the recording to Police Department command staff. On at least two occasions, Officer 1 disseminated these recordings outside the City’s secure computer network by saving the recordings to a Drobbox.com cloud storage site, and sharing a link to that site using her personal cell phone with an individual also using their personal cell phone. Officer 1 also used Dropbox to 5 See https://alphanews.org/new-golden-valley-police-chief-has-history-of-suing-his-employers/ 7 share the recordings with individuals, including City employees and at least one member of the public, using Officer 1’s City email account. Officer 1 also collected and disseminated, both inside and outside the City’s secure network, court records regarding a candidate for employment with the City. Greene Espel concluded that Officer 1 did so to advance the officer’s personal views about the most qualified candidate the position, and not for any authorized government purpose. Officer 1’s only reason to collect the material was to attempt to discredit a specific candidate. Officer 1 collected the court records using her City-issued computer network account. Contemporaneously with Officer 1’s collection of court records regarding the candidate, Officer 1 used a Facebook alias (i.e. a username that did not identify Officer 1 as the user of the account) to post comments regarding the City’s hiring process. Officer 1 ultimately deleted the Facebook alias account the night before Officer 1 disseminated the court records to members of City leadership, a media organization, and to personal email addresses, outside the City’s secure computer network. Officer 1 disseminated the court records using the email addressed assigned to a City scanner, which did not identify Officer 1 as the sender of the materials. Greene Espel concluded that Officer 1’s conduct was in violation of the MGDPA and the City’s Handbook and Professional Conduct Policies. Greene Espel concluded that Officer 1 violated City policies by disingenuously claiming that they recorded the April 15, 2021 meeting “for retention purposes” when in fact the recording was used to ridicule members of City leadership and advance Officer 1’s personal views. Further, Greene Espel concluded that Officer 1’s secret recording of staff meetings, use of an alias Facebook account to discuss City issues, anonymous dissemination of court records regarding a candidate for employment, and contradictory statements in emails and interviews with her superior officers regarding her intentions, all exhibited a lack of trustworthiness that would tend to discredit Officer 1. Additionally, Officer 1 used City property, including a laptop and a City- owned multi-function printer, in a manner that compromised the City’s standards and values, in violation of the City’s Handbook policy. Officer 1 also used their personally owned cell phone in a manner that was inconsistent with City policy. 8 Officer 1 was terminated from her employment with the City in part as the result of these MGDPA and City policy violations. Additionally, as detailed in the Data Practices Act report, Greene Espel investigated violations of the MGDPA violations related to unauthorized acquisition of private personnel data. II.HR Complainant’s Allegations Regarding Offensive Remarks During the April 15, 2021 and May 13, 2021 Meetings and that the Dissemination of the April 15, 2021 Meeting Recording Was an Intimidation Tactic. As part of the above-referenced HR Complaint, the Complainant alleged that Officer 1’s secret recording of the April 15, 2021 meeting, and the disclosure of the existence of the recording were, at least in part, intimidation tactics designed to make the HR Complainant feel unsafe. We did not have sufficient information to determine whether Officer 1 intended to intimidate anyone by making the aforementioned recordings, or that anyone had such an intent in disseminating the recordings. As described below, Officer 1 refused to participate in an interview with Greene Espel as part of this investigation. However, we did find that Officer 1’s conduct of surreptitiously recording staff meetings and causing the public disclosure of the recordings could fairly be interpreted by any attendee at the meetings as intimidating. III.Offensive Comments Identified by Greene Espel Made During Meetings. While viewing the recordings, Greene Espel observed additional examples of racist or offensive comments. For example, an officer typed a racist and offensive comment into the chat window of WebEx software during the virtual April 15, 2021 meeting. The statement referenced the personal background of an individual who is Black to support the officer’s argument that systemic racism does not exist. The officer suggested that because a particular Black individual, seemingly had a comfortable life and had enjoyed certain privileges, that Black people in the aggregate are not in fact disadvantaged by any systemic inequities. The statement was offensive and racist because it suggested that the experience of all Black individuals can be generalized based on the privileges that the officer believed a single, specific Black person experienced. 9 Additionally, Greene Espel identified certain statements made by Officer 1 on Officer 1’s recording of the May 13, 2021 meeting that were offensive and racist. These offensive statements were not referenced in the HR Complaint. As described above, Officer 1 disseminated this recording containing the offensive comments outside the City’s secure computer network. First, Greene Espel considered certain statements captured on the recording during a discussion regarding inequitable health outcomes for Black women, including the fact that “Black women are the most likely to die during childbirth,” which was used as an example of how systemic racism manifests itself in society. After a few minutes of this discussion, at approximately 9:14 a.m., Officer 1 unmuted and stated “[w]ell, we know statistically that Black people have instances of anemia more than white people. Is this more of a biological issue than a racist issue? I mean it seems hard pressed to put racism on it [sic].” While muted on the WebEx virtual meeting, Officer 1 can be heard laughing on the video recording while it was explained that aforementioned information about inequities in childbirth suggests that there is a “predictability based on race.” Officer 1 unmuted to say “that’s circle talk though.” Officer 1 continued to laugh while on mute as the group discussed predictability based on race and resistance to the concept that systemic inequities exist in society. Later, attendees were shown several videos on YouTube prepared by “Race Forward” a national nonprofit organization focusing on “systemic analysis and an innovative approach to complex race issues to help people take effective action toward racial equity.”6 One of the videos focused on providing statistics regarding racial wealth disparities. At approximately 9:40 a.m., the presenter on the video states “If you’re like most Americans, you probably say to yourself all the time, systemic racism, is that really a thing?” Immediately thereafter, Officer 1 says audibly to him/herself, while muted on the WebEx, “no.” The presenter on the YouTube video went on to say “Did you know that in 2010, Black Americans made up 13% of the population, but only had 2.7% of the country’s wealth[.]” While muted on the WebEx, Officer 1 audibly stated to him/herself “because they don’t work.” Immediately, thereafter, when the presenter states the medium net worth of white families (and a graphic shows the 6 https://www.raceforward.org/about. 10 net worth of white families being higher than the net worth of other racial groups), Officer 1 states audibly, but quietly to him/herself, “because they work.” Shortly thereafter, Officer 1 audibly scoffs when Black household wealth is discussed. Later, during a video referencing the unemployment rates of Black Americans with college degrees and studies regarding hiring bias, Officer 1 typed a message into the chat window stating, “I would like the citations to those figures.” However, after waiting over one minute before sending the message, Officer 1 ultimately edited the chat message to state “I would like the citations to those figures of these goofy claims,” and sent the message to all attendees of the meeting at 9:44 a.m. The moderator of the discussion responded to the chat message by providing a link to the sources of the information presented. The moderator then reminded everyone attending the meeting to be respectful. In response, Officer 1 said audibly to him/herself “fuck you” while muted on the WebEx. Immediately thereafter, after the presenter on the Race Forward video stated that U.S. immigration policy focuses on South American and Central American undocumented immigrants because of systemic racism, Officer 1 said audibly to herself while muted on the WebEx, “oh my god.” Greene Espel concluded that Officer 1’s comments violated City Handbook and Professional Conduct Policies because they were racist, derogatory toward Black Americans, and offensive. Further, the comments showed a lack of integrity and tended to discredit Officer 1. Officer 1’s comment suggesting that Black families “don’t work” was particularly egregious. Further, Officer 1’s discourteous manner of communicating with his/her co-workers, including by calling information “goofy” and by stating that a co-worker was engaged in “circle talk” were in violation of the City’s respectful workplace policy. These policy violations further supported the decision to terminate Officer 1. IV.Officer 1 Refused to Participate in a Mandatory Interview. Greene Espel made multiple attempts to interview Officer 1 in connection with the allegations against him/her. The City required Officer 1 to participate in an interview with Greene Espel as part of Officer 1’s employment with the City. Ultimately, Officer 1 refused to participate in an interview. Officer 1’s refusal to 11 participate in an employer-compelled interview further supported the City’s decision to terminate Officer 1. RECOMMENDATIONS I.Data Practices Act Training. The investigation demonstrated that all employees, including supervisory and command staff, could benefit from education about their obligations to safeguard protected information under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, particularly with respect to private personnel data. City employees should be trained in more detail regarding the broad scope of data classified as private personnel data under the MGDPA. An effective training module should include a test or quiz, and training should be repeated regularly to prevent further breaches in the security of private personnel data. Additionally, Supervisory staff should be trained on how to identify possible data breach issues, when and how to report concerns to the City’s responsible authority, what role supervisors play in data breach investigations, and what to do if they require legal advice regarding data breach questions. Finally, command staff should also be trained on liability issues and risk mitigation strategies related to data management and data breaches to inform higher level policy decisions. II.Social Media Training. Greene Espel found that a City employee discussed City issues, city policies and other non-public information classified under the MGDPA on social media. With the presence of social media, and the presence of active, community-based pages for the Golden Valley area, Greene Espel recommends the City provide training to all employees regarding the data risks under the MGDPA associated with social media use. The City should provide all of its employees with further training regarding the City’s social media policy, to ensure that employees do not cause breaches in the security of data via social media posts. Further, employees should be reminded that the City’s social media policy is designed to ensure that the City speaks with one voice on social media, and that a centralized communications team handles public messaging through social media. It should be made clear to employees that community members may mistakenly be led to believe that City employees are speaking on behalf of the City when they make unauthorized social media posts about City policies and issues. Employee social media posts may 12 undermine the police department and the City’s credibility, create mistrust between the department and the community, and interfere with the department’s ability to provide public safety services to all community members. Further, violations of the City’s Social Media Policy may result in employment-related consequences. III.Shifting Focus Regarding the City’s DEI Work and Policing Goals. Greene Espel found that in 2021, as part of the City’s commitment to enhancing racial equity in policing, the City devoted a significant amount of its DEI resources to holding reactive DEI-focused sessions and fostering open dialogue with police officers regarding DEI-related issues. To be sure, providing structured, DEI professional development for City employees, including police officers, is consistent with the City’s commitment expressed in its Government Alliance on Race and Equity (“GARE”) Equity Plan and its 2017-2018 GARE Workforce/Racial Equity Plan. However, in response to the officers’ negative reactions to City-wide messaging about police involved killings in neighboring communities, the Police Chief requested that City leaders attend several ad hoc meetings, or “listening sessions” before officers had received more formal DEI training. These meetings appeared to have the following goals: 1)To help officers understand City leaders’ public statements characterizing the killing of Daunte Wright and the murder of George Floyd and other police-involved incidents involving BIPOC individuals as examples of systemic inequities in policing and as emblematic of broader structural racism; 2)To hear officers’ candid opinions about the City’s efforts to acknowledge prevailing community opinions about racism in policing in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro Area, their own morale, and their concerns about the challenges they faced as police officers; and 3)To provide officers with information about systemic racism and systemic inequities. 13 In these discussions, City leaders relied on the City’s Equity Plan, which addresses several forms of racism, including personal, interpersonal, institutional and systemic.7 City staff explained racism consistently with the City’s PEACE commission bylaws, in regard to the inequitable effect of historical racist policies and practices in the United States, which has created a racist society that itself propagates racist behaviors and beliefs.8 Before the first meeting, however, City leadership learned that some public safety employees had concerns about the City’s definitions of systemic racism and antiracism. City leadership learned that the use by City leaders of the term racism (from a systemic perspective) in connection with policing resulted in unease with employees. Specifically, the concept of racism was interpreted by some to refer to the concept of personal animus against another person because of their race and discriminatory intentions within the department. These interpretations contributed to employees’ negative responses to the listening sessions. Greene Espel confirmed that City leaders received significant feedback about the meetings, both internally, and via public discussion on Facebook. The investigator, upon review of the meeting, concluded that during the meeting employees criticized City policing policies and the DEI concepts being discussed and expressed resistance to the City’s existing DEI work. Additionally, at the beginning of the meetings Officers were told that they were free to speak their minds and provide their opinions as part of an open forum format for the meetings, and this seemed to embolden officers to criticize City policing policies and the premises of the DEI concepts they were presented with. 7 The City’s Equity Plan contains the following defined terms: •Personal: thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes about yourself, coworkers, supervisors, customers, residents, etc. based on their social identity. •Interpersonal: negatively expressed words and actions based on social identity •Institutional: Golden Valley (or other agency) enforced practices, policies and procedures that create barriers to resources and opportunities •Structural/systemic: Golden Valley (or other agency) enforced practices, policies and procedures created by larger entities (local, state, federal government and agencies) 8 The PEACE Commission Bylaws define “Racism” as “The normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics – historical, cultural, institutional, and interpersonal – that routinely advantage Whites while producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.” See racialequitytools.org 14 The result of the dialogue appeared to be a deepening of disagreements between management and officers about police reform, racial inequity, and how best to improve public trust in the police department. Psychological studies regularly conclude that attempts to persuade individuals who have already expressed a contrary belief and resisted early attempts at persuasion become increasingly resistant to stronger and repeated efforts at persuasion in the future.9 Unfortunately, this type of “digging-in” and backlash regularly results from diversity-focused training and pro-diversity organizational messages.10 Training regarding systemic inequities has similarly been found to cause backlash among white training recipients.11 Research has demonstrated that “because systemic racism suggests that White employees have benefited from a personal characteristic over which they have no control, systemic racism is difficult for many of them to acknowledge. As a result, calling out systemic racism provokes defensive behaviors that undermine efforts promoting change and make them more difficult and divisive.”12 Given the City’s laudable commitment to mitigating racial inequities in policing and to increase public trust in the police department, particularly among 9 See, e.g., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002), What doesn't kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1298–1313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1298 10 See Frank Dobbin & Alexandra Kalev (2018), Why Doesn't Diversity Training Work?, The Challenge for Industry and Academia, Anthropology Now, 10:2, 48-55, DOI: 10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf (“hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that anti-bias training doesn’t reduce bias, alter behavior, or change the workplace”); Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Diversity Training Does Not Work and Policies to Combat Bias in the Workplace More Effectively,” The Economist. 2021. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/dobbin_kalev_economist_5-21- 21.pdf; Tessa L. Dover, Brenda Major, Cheryl R. Kaiser, Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 62, 2016, Pages 58-67, ISSN 0022-1031, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.006. 11 Rosalind M. Chow, L. Taylor Phillips, Brian S. Lowery, and Miguel M. Unzueta, “Fighting Backlash to Racial Equity Efforts,” MIT Sloan Management Review, June 8, 2021. 12 Id. 15 Black and other minority residents, Greene Espel recommends that the City begin to modify its approach to achieving its equity-in-policing goals. The City has already begun this shift by adopting a “Racially Conscious Collaborators” approach that takes a step back from training employees regarding systemic racism and other broader DEI concepts, and focuses first on ensuring that employees are capable of having a productive, cordial cross-racial dialogue with their colleagues and community members. This program shows promise in establishing a framework for continued DEI conversations and for beginning to reduce resistance to Equity and Inclusion concepts. Further, the City should move toward developing empirically-based initiatives designed to mitigate any inequities in policing. The following steps will advance the City’s ability to develop such initiatives: 1)collecting and aggregating accurate police encounter data (consistent with the City’s 2022 Pohlad Family Foundation Grant Agreement); 2)using the data to set detailed goals aimed at mitigating any identified inequities; 3)propose and implement policies intended to meet identified goals; and 4)if possible, prioritize policy changes that not only reduce inequities, but which are perceived by officers to benefit public safety and officers themselves. This approach of developing data-driven goals and implementing specific policy changes – without focusing significant effort on persuading officers of the need for such changes before the data is collected and analyzed – is founded on the idea that policy changes themselves often drive significant shifts in opinions and behaviors, rather than the reverse.13 13 See, e.g., Eugene K. Ofosu, Michelle K. Chambers, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Eric Hehman, “Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 15, 2019, 116 (18) 8846-8851, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806000116 16 The City can best encourage officer acceptance of any policy reforms by prioritizing reforms that are perceived to benefit officers. After identifying data- driven goals and policy ideas, the City should consider conducting an information gathering survey of officer opinions regarding the policies and may want to consider using “motivational interviews” to determine whether opinions regarding equity in policing are malleable.14 Further, the City can best persuade officers of the need for police reforms by presenting them with straightforward data. Evidence has shown that a direct, pedantic approach has not created consensus about police reform. However, a simple presentation of data may be more effective. Many potential police reforms designed to mitigate inequities may prove to be palatable to officers. For example, community policing policies might be supported by officers, because they may reduce the number of calls to respond to and the number of reports to be written, and may help officers feel safer during more shifts. Further, a policy deemphasizing enforcement of identified low-level offenses might also lighten officer’s workload and allow them to focus on more important enforcement priorities. This approach assumes that the City would establish a committee, including members of the PEACE Commission’s data committee, and experts regarding community policing, violence disruption, and DEI staff, to ensure that it is collecting accurate and detailed police encounter data and setting DEI goals based on that data. The committee would also ideally need to assess empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of proposed policy reforms before proposing the implementation of any policy. IV.Respectful Workplace Training. As noted above, the investigation concluded that disrespectful comments were made during staff meetings in violation of the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy. Upon review of the recording, the investigator found that the candid conversation structure of city staff meeting resulted in individuals expressing 14 Rubak S, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Christensen B, “Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Apr;55(513):305-12. PMID: 15826439; PMCID: PMC1463134, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1463134/ 17 opinions in a manner that was not mindful of workplace norms and values set forth in the Respectful Workplace Policy. The City should, therefore, provide employees with detailed respectful workplace training to emphasize the types of behaviors and comments that are in violation of the policy. Further, the City should consider training employees and officers to vet their opinions and feedback through their supervisory chain of command before sharing such opinions directly with City management or with members of the community (including the media). Individual supervisors should be reminded that they share responsibility with City leaders to enforce the Respectful Workplace policy.