A Deeper Level of Transparency is Prevalent

By Michael K. Browne, Director – Office of Police Conduct Review

tumblr_lh10blhgy81qfnbr6o1_1280The level of transparency and access with respect to the civilian oversight process has been highly apparent since the creation of the Office of Police Conduct Review in September 2012. In efforts to maintain and promote this level of transparency and to ensure that civilians are embedded in every stage of the process, the Police Conduct Oversight Commission will review summary data on a monthly basis. The data will consist of approximately 126 case synopses throughout a given year and approximately 36 case summaries. The case synopses will be presented to the Commission monthly and are randomly selected from cases closed by the OPCR within the past three months, excluding those that did not involve the Minneapolis Police Department and those that contained no allegations of misconduct. The synopsis briefly illustrates the events leading to the complaint and the process utilized by the OPCR to resolve the complaint. Moreover, to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), identifying information has been removed to ensure that all case synopses are available to the public.

tumblr_lctg4kwkpw1qfnbr6o1_1280

To provide a higher level of transparency, cases will be selected for summary by the Commission from the monthly case synopses. Case summaries contain the details of a complaint from the date of the incident to its closure. They provide the Commission an in-depth look into a complaint to allow for a robust discussion of police practices and procedures. Case summaries will also have identifying information removed to ensure that they remain available to the public. As time progresses, the Police Conduct Oversight Commission may continue to expand transparency through various methods, which includes (but not limited to): programs of research and studies made available to the public, outreach activities and reports.

The Commission’s use of summary data will not be an attempt to redefine the concept of transparency to narrow its meaning and application. Instead, it is acting in accordance with its own enabling legislation as well as the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act with a focus on broad-stroke policy issues. The summary data format will not leave unanswered any questions the public may have regarding the conduct and discipline of the officers involved or the process of the police conduct oversight ordinance in general. Nevertheless, just like other government institutions that handle sensitive information, an appropriate balance must be achieved. A comparable comparison is the educational system with regards to student discipline. Similar to a parent’s concern about the disciplinary action bestowed upon an alleged act of misconduct by a student at their children’s school, the public is concerned as to what actions are being taken regarding police misconduct. Although the principal has a duty to inform the parents, his or her duty is limited by the confidentiality s/he must uphold towards the students and teachers.

It is true that civilian oversight agencies in Minnesota operate with a certain level of discretion, but with that authority, comes great responsibility; and our responsibility is to

“promote adherence to the highest standard of police conduct and foster mutual respect between the Minneapolis Police Department and the community it serves.”

Photography courtesy of Ryan Patrick. Do not use without permission.
This entry was posted in Civil Rights Department, Office of Police Conduct Review, Police Conduct Oversight Commission and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A Deeper Level of Transparency is Prevalent

  1. Chuck Turchick says:

    This article begins with this claim: “The level of transparency and access with respect to the civilian oversight process has been highly apparent since the creation of the Office of Police Conduct Review in September 2012.”

    To many of us who have followed the OPCR since it was planned and developed in secret meetings not revealed even to the then-existing Civilian Review Authority board, this claim has been refuted by numerous examples. From never answered questions asked at community meetings preceding passage of the new ordinance; to questions recently submitted in writing by a City Council aide that were “answered” much like lawyers who try to reveal as little as possible to opposing counsel; to unanswered questions from members of the City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights and Health Committee; to discontuing the practice of recording board meetings; there is much to question about the OPCR’s level of transparency.

    I apologize if I misconstrued the intent of this post. If it was a parody, it simply was way over my head.

  2. Chuck Turchick says:

    This article begins with this claim: “The level of transparency and access with respect to the civilian oversight process has been highly apparent since the creation of the Office of Police Conduct Review in September 2012.”

    To many of us who have followed the OPCR since it was planned and developed in secret meetings not revealed even to the then-existing Civilian Review Authority board, this claim has been refuted by numerous examples. From never answered questions asked at community meetings preceding passage of the new ordinance; to questions recently submitted in writing by a City Council aide that were “answered” much like lawyers who try to reveal as little as possible to opposing counsel; to unanswered questions from members of the City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights and Health Committee; to discontinuing the practice of recording board meetings; there is much to question about the OPCR’s level of transparency.

    I apologize if I misconstrued the intent of this post. If it was a parody, it simply was way over my head.

  3. Chuck Turchick says:

    Why are replies that offer a different perspective not being allowed to be posted?

    • Good morning Mr. Turchick,

      You will be pleased to see your comments have been posted!

      We understand there was some concern when your comments did not immediately post to this blog entry. Unfortunately, due to the amount of spam and malicious links we receive on a weekly basis, all comments received by the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights’ blog are subject to approval. Because your comments came through while no staff were here during the holiday weekend (mentioned on our Facebook page) the comments were not approved until staff was back in the office. We apologize for any inconvenience, and we can assure you that no comments are rejected unless they contain offensive and derogatory language, or solicitation.

      • Chuck Turchick says:

        My mistake and my apologies. As someone who was attending classes at the U of M on Monday, It didn’t occur to me that it was a holiday until I got home and saw there was no mail.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s