Minneapolis
Police-Community Conflict
Prospective
Resolutions
JPST
470: Conflict Resolution
Dr.
Cris Toffolo
May
2004
Elyse
Rau
Liz
Stone
Maggie
Sweeney
Conclusion……………………………..………………………...23
Bibliography………………………………..…………………..24
Introduction
The Minneapolis police-community conflict
is one that involves and impacts an extensive number of individuals,
organizations, and institutions. It is
a conflict that demands a comprehensive and multifaceted approach to its
resolution or transformation. In order
to best identify the key components and efforts in such a resolution, it is
important to recognize the main aspects and problems at the heart of the
conflict. While police misconduct is often and necessarily closely associated
with the conflict, and is what has brought much attention to Minneapolis, there
is much more that needs to be addressed.
Police brutality is a component of the conflict that functions to
highlight the systematic and long standing problems that must be addressed in
any resolution. It is an area of great
concern that must be addressed, both in the immediate present as well as in a
long-term perspective that will identify and address the underlying issues at
play and perpetuating the pattern and culture of violence that persists. We have identified a few main categories
that exemplify and encompass the problems that need to be addressed and
included in any comprehensive conflict resolution.
The lack of trust and understanding
between members of the community and members of the police force is central to
the roots and perpetuation of the conflict.
If police officers do not trust or understand some of the basic
challenges and mentalities of the members of the communities they patrol, there
is more of a chance of them feeling threatened or defensive and using excessive
force or taking inappropriate and unnecessary measures. Furthermore, the community will not feel
that the officers really have the best interest of the community in mind as
they have not expressed or acted with any understanding of the true concerns or
fears the community has. If the
community members do not trust or understand the challenges and
responsibilities of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), the officers will
not have the respect needed to carryout their job. If the community members have a clear understanding of how to
behave in an encounter with a police officer and what limitations and powers
the officers have, it is possible to minimize the likelihood that excessive
force will be used or that they have the information needed to take the most
effective action.
The building of trust and understanding
leads to new and beneficial relationships allowing people to identify shared
interests and work towards a resolution of mutual gain. It helps to move away from the mentality of
“us vs. them” and a zero-sum game where only one party can win, and where
success comes with the defeat or loss of the other. Growing in understanding of
the other side and the resulting relationship helps to recognize the humanity
of all involved and to thus bring some balance to an asymmetrical power
situation. Building a level of trust
between the community and the MPD is not an easy task to accomplish. The history of this relationship, involving
violence, abuse, and mistrust, is very much still present and has never been
alleviated by an apology or recognition of fault. According to Gleason Glover of the Urban League, “The whole issue
of police brutality is nothing new to the city of Minneapolis. It almost gives
the impression that if you are black and poor, it doesn't really matter if you
lose your life. The police did not say 'we are sorry.' There was no remorse at all!”[1]
This lack of understanding and trust is
exacerbated by the lack of accountability and the fact that if, as some argue,
there are only a “few bad apples,” they often remain or return to the force
with little to no punitive actions.
There are currently many loopholes in the existing systems that are
intended to hold police officers accountable to both department policy and
human rights standards. If and when officers
are disciplined, the decisions are often reversed in an appeal and arbitration
process. In a 1998 Human Rights Watch
Interview with former Chief Olson, he stated that the arbitration process was
perhaps the greatest barrier he faces in his efforts to hold police officers
accountable for misconduct.[2] The institutions for receiving complaints
of police brutality, such as the Civilian Review Authority and the Internal
Affairs Unit of the MPD, are neither very effective nor well trusted. There is also a lack of MPD leadership
holding the officers accountable. Human
Rights Watch states in their report on police brutality in Minneapolis that,
“There is no substitute for police leadership to make clear to new as well as
veteran officers that human rights violations are not acceptable. The highest-ranking commanders must also
hold to account superior officers who are found to have ignored or tolerated
abuses committed by officers under their command.”[3] Altering structural obstacles to peace, such
as accountability and official policies, as well as personal obstacles
generated by lack of trust and understanding are important to keep in mind when
looking to develop a conflict resolution proposal.
Applying a theoretical perspective of
conflict resolution to the particular characteristics of this conflict is also
important as it provides a framework with which to analyze and lay out a
proposal towards building peace. A
theoretical understanding of this conflict's dynamics also helps to define the
challenges and strengths of the current situation and allows us to place it in
the context of the range of conflicts that have drawn attention and analysis as
the field of Conflict Resolution develops.
Recognizing the strengths and benefits of
a multi-track approach to diplomacy and conflict resolution, we find this a
critical and necessary approach to the Minneapolis police-community
conflict. A resolution, or even the
process of conflict transformation, must encompass actors and actions on all
levels, as it is a conflict that comes from and is influenced by all levels of
society.
Our multi-pronged approach is compatible
with the multi-track diplomacy theory, except rather than global, regional, or
local organizations, we are dealing with formal state and city institutions and
neighborhood groups. We can liken federal or state policy with first track
diplomacy, as it entails formal political processes and has the ability to
create legal, binding arbitration. This might also include regular government
services such as the Citizen Review Authority or the department of Internal
Affairs, as these are both legitimate institutions within the existing
organizations of City and Police. The federal mediation may also be considered
first track diplomacy as the mediator was originally from the federal
government, but could also be considered second-track since any agreement
settled upon has not been officially considered binding.
Second track diplomacy could be
considered the court system that is currently being used in the federal
mediation case and perhaps will continue to be used in other cases. The courts
are a good example of this, as they are not bound by some of the political or
economic pressures that hamper the city or police action. They are also considered
a non-affiliate, unbiased (theoretically) third party.
Third-track diplomacy is evident in the
community organizations that have sprung up around this issue including the
most prominent group working on the issue, Communities United Against Police
Brutality, though there are also numerous other groups are involved at a
variety of levels. These grassroots groups all sprang out of neighborhood
activists seeking to improve police conduct or the general livability of
Minneapolis. They are composed, for the
most part, of people who have either been directly involved in the conflict,
i.e. a victim of police brutality, or those who have witnessed misconduct or
experienced it secondhand. These people have direct knowledge of the community
and are more in tune with general neighborhood sentiment.
Understanding the power structures at
play in this conflict is another key to being able to formulate the most
efficient and fitting resolution.
Specifically, it is important to recognize the significant asymmetry of
power that exists between the community and the police force. This asymmetry is also found in the
relationships between individual members of the community and individual
officers when there is an encounter in the streets or neighborhood. The MPD not only has the power of being an
organized and official city department, but it also has the power of
intimidation, force, and political clout.
The power of the community, organized greatly around issues of police
brutality, is dominantly grassroots and though it is highly motivated, it is
still lacking the formal organization and recognition that the MPD holds. The community is working against established
regulations, processes, and practices greatly upheld by the system and parties
in power. It is important to
acknowledge this power structure and we will address methods of balancing and
redistributing power in order to make significant steps in transforming or
resolving the conflict.
The “Interdependence Gap” outlined by
John Paul Lederach in the book, People
Building Peace, is another relevant theory to apply to enhance an
understanding of the relevance of fostering different types of
relationships. Lederach looks at the
power structures that exist and identifies the importance for building
relationships in both a vertical capacity (across divisions that exist between
groups with different levels of power), and in a horizontal capacity (across
divisions within groups and with similar levels of or access to power). Lederach argues that there is a greater lack
of vertical capacity in most peace building efforts. However, we would pose that there is both a need for improvement
in vertical capacity as well as horizontal.
The vertical capacity can be seen in police officers attending a variety
of meetings and gatherings in different communities and partaking in community
activities on occasion. Emphasizing a
continuation of building and improving these relationships and partnerships
across levels of power is beneficial, as “no one activity and no one level will
be able to deliver and sustain peace on its own”[4]
Equally significant to the peace building
efforts in Minneapolis is the gap of horizontal capacity. Critical to numerous aspects of the conflict
is a lack of “constructive understanding and dialogue across the lines of
division in a society.”[5] As we learned, this division is one of the
greater challenges that faced the community in the process of the Federal
Mediation. There are great divides
within the community, as well as within the MPD and the city officials,
regarding which demands need to be met, how the conflict is seen, and what is
the best way of accomplishing or achieving an end - a resolution. Furthermore, the lack of horizontal capacity
can be seen in the gap between practices and official policies of the MPD. By increasing the horizontal capacity of the
groups involved in this conflict, many obstacles could be challenged that are
challenging the peace building efforts being made.
Lederach identifies and lays out another
insufficiency in the typical peacebuilding framework that he calls the
“Process-Structure Gap”. This gap
points out the tendency to see peace agreements and settlements as ends, rather
than a means. Lederach argues that we
need “to conceptualize peace as process-structure,” so that we can move away
from “a myopic focus on agreements and events and toward a commitment of
embracing the permanency of relationship building…when relationship becomes the
center what remains permanent is not a given form but the capacity to encounter
and adapt.”[6] After the signing of the Federal Mediation
Agreement early this year, it is important that it not be forgotten and that
people recognize the agreement is only a beginning step in a long process
towards transforming the conflict and building peace, not the end goal or
success. “Peacebuilding requires us to work at constructing an infrastructure
to support a process of desired change, and change is permanent.”[7] The mediation agreement is a means to help
encourage, facilitate, and demand the systematic and infrastructure changes
that are necessary.
There are many obstacles to be faced by
the parties and individuals involved in this conflict. However, despite all of the tension,
conflict, and opposition that may exist, there is an underlying similar
interest held by most anybody involved: the improvement of life, increased
safety, and respect between Minneapolis communities. Police officers, city council members, and community members of
racial minorities or majorities all would benefit from decreased crime, more
livable neighborhoods, increased understanding, and improved relationships and
services. The theory of principled
negotiation, with a focus on interests and mutual gain is a key to the settlement
of this conflict. There is much to be
said for facing the problem and not each other, because when you look at the
problem, the common ground that is shared among the different parties is more
apparent and can be used to everyone’s advantage. Though the party lines are strictly defined in the view of many,
there is a gray area as police officers and city officials are often also
members of the community. The greater
this overlap is - increased, for example, through proposed new recruiting
methods and diversification of the MPD - the easier it will be to overcome the
lines of division and to recognize and work for mutual gain.
Finally, as was pointed out in discussing
the process-structure gap, building peace in this conflict situation is a
process, and may be best identified by conflict transformation rather than conflict resolution. Before any
final settlement takes place, there needs to be a transformation of the
conflict: context, structures, institutions, actors, issues, and personal and
group opinions need to be changed if we are able to work cooperatively and
constructively on resolving the conflict.
As it currently stands, there are many underlying issues that need to be
addressed before we can meet at the table to discuss a resolution.
To begin to resolve the Minneapolis
Police-Community conflict, it is necessary to understand what steps have
already been taken. We will first
consider three approaches that are currently being undertaken in the conflict:
federal mediation, pursuit of a civil suit against the City of Minneapolis, and
community partnership initiatives in existence. We will examine how these efforts are working, and will analyze
them in light of some theories entailed in conflict resolution as outlined earlier. After examining these three current efforts,
we will then outline some proposals for further action and discuss how these
strategies might be implemented to help resolve this conflict.
As discussed
earlier in our paper, a federal mediator was invited into the community to help
arbitrate an agreement between the police department and the community. The local team involved in the mediation
included members of the community representing a range of organizations, police
administrators and officers, and a city council member. The idea behind this gathering was to allow
all parties involved to have an equal say in the creation of a document
outlining changes within the police department, creating an equal partnership
and allowing for a more symmetrical power between the police and the
community. This symmetry of power is
important in resolving conflict as it allows for all parties to take part on an
equal basis. The federal mediation to
some extent also exemplified the idea of multitrack diplomacy, as elected
officials sat alongside citizens, and police officers communicated directly
with chiefs.
This gathering
was controversial, however, in that it could not include all interested
parties. Allegations of city influence
in the choice of community participants meant that not all who wanted to be
involved were, essentially continuing the sense of powerlessness that some
community members have felt in the conflict.
Although this mediation was attempted to bring both parties to an
agreement, its effect was less than hoped for by some members in the community
due to exclusion.
Communities
United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB) is one group that felt particularly
left out from the agreement. Their work
to combat police brutality is extensive, and it is not unexpected that they
would have a major role in the federal mediation agreement, since they are
currently the only community organization that is dedicated specifically to the
issue of police misconduct. Through “community
meetings and canvassing”[8]
they developed a list of community members’ concerns that should be address and
resolved in the mediation. To their
disappointment, “people on the community team were either unaware of the
extensive list of demands from the community or chose not to include those
demands in the final agreement.”[9]
Aside from
omission of community groups and some specific demands, another challenge to
the implementation of the agreement is funding. At the time of writing, there were no particular means of
financing the agreement, so any extra trainings or attempts to “institute an
active recruitment and retention program”[10]
targeting minorities are currently not funded by the regular budget. To counteract this, the Minneapolis Police
Department (MPD) and the Police Community Relations Council will “seek funds
from the City Council, grants, or other sources.” [11] These efforts, however, are not guaranteed
to provide sufficient finances to fulfill the agreement, effectively allowing
the MPD not to fulfill this agreement due to lack of funding. Another issue with the final agreement is
the fact that compliance is voluntary in that there are no direct, immediate
consequences for failing to implement the agreement: “If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute on their own,
any party may contact the Community Relations Service (CRS) of the United
States Department of Justice and request that the CRS convene mediation
facilitate a resolution of the dispute.”
This failure to
include any means of reinforcement for the mediation has the potential to
transform the federal mediation from a binding document into a community
relations agreement with no real power other than personal interest on the part
of the police chief. This lack of
formality to the final agreement means that the symmetry being sought is not
found in the document – communities are not allowed much more power as they
lack sufficient avenues to enforce the agreement.
This does not
mean that the federal mediation is necessarily a failure; only that it will
require continued oversight and advocacy if it is to be an effective tool. It is also acknowledged that this agreement
is only one step of the process. As one
participant in the process said, “I believe that the mediation agreement is a
positive step in the right direction…the mediation agreement is not perfect,
but it is certainly better than nothing. I say let's give it a chance to work
before criticizing it.”[12]
The
Federal Class Action Lawsuit
Feeling that the federal mediation
agreement fell short of community expectations, activists and members of
Communities United Against Police Brutality are working to create a class
action lawsuit against the Minneapolis Police Department. Led by Minneapolis attorneys Jill Waite and
Jill Clarke, community activists hope to reach the goals that were not obtained
through federal mediation. Some of the
many problems the Communities United Against Police Brutality found missing
from the federal mediation resolution include the lack of neutral investigations
of police brutality, police accountability for time and activities, independent
investigations of situations in which deadly force was used, adequate training
for making stops based on actions rather than general characteristics, and the
failure of police to take cross complaints[13].
Leaders of the federal class action
lawsuit against the Minneapolis Police Department hope to bring accountability
to Minneapolis Police and reduce the amount of abuse police officers get away
with. They are not after monetary
compensation; instead their focus is to bring about social change. Michelle Gross, a leader in Communities
United Against Police Brutality, is very hopeful in the success of the federal
class action lawsuit, believing that it may be more effective because, unlike
the federal mediation agreement, it is in “an arena
that the city cannot control.”[14] The city cannot influence who is able to
participate as they did in the federal mediation. They also have less power in the consequences or ruling of the
lawsuit.
There are people
working on many levels of the community to resolve the conflict between the
Minneapolis community and the Minneapolis Police Department. The federal class action lawsuit attempts to
find justice through legal terms. This
is an example of how multi-track diplomacy is used to try to combat
conflict. Communities United Against
Police Brutality is trying to bridge the gap between the people and the
government through the federal court system.
With similar goals, different people of the community attempt to find resolution
to this painful and enduring conflict.
The federal class
action lawsuit will have many consequences regardless of its success or
failure. Jill Waite and Jill Clarke
argue that there are positive implications whether or not the lawsuit is successful.[15] The lawsuit, which hopes to collect more
than five hundred affidavits, is an effective tool for empowering the people of
Minneapolis. Victims of police
brutality seldom have the chance to tell their story. Through the affidavits, victims are listened to and play a vital
role in the future of Minneapolis communities in regard to the way they are
treated by Minneapolis police. The
lawsuit also brings further attention of the police brutality problem in Minneapolis
to the federal government, the public, and the media. Whether or not the lawsuit is successful, the spotlight will be
on Minneapolis and the people will be heard.
The federal class
action lawsuit is one way Minneapolis communities are attempting to bridge what
John Paul Lederach defines as the “interdependence gap.” The problem with the federal mediation
agreement was that the community felt they were inadequately represented in the
communication between both sides.
Although some communication occurred between grassroots leaders and higher
level leaders, these discussions did not necessarily turn into lasting
relationships. CUAPB argues that the
city chose which groups would be allowed to play a role, and as a result the
agreement lacks vertical capacity.
In order to maximize the amount
of understanding between the community and the Minneapolis Police Department,
there should be an effort to build relationships on multiple levels. The federal class action lawsuit attempts to
bridge this gap. It allows grassroots
leaders to play a role, and it also includes leaders from a federal level,
surpassing what the mediation agreement did on both ends of the spectrum. Although it does provide for more vertical
capacity, the act of suing the City of Minneapolis in order to force reform on
the MPD may actually inhibit understanding between the two sides. This is where Lederach’s “process-structure
gap” plays a role. All those involved
in the conflict must understand that peace is both a process and a
structure. The federal class action
lawsuit attempts to change the structure of the Minneapolis Police Department,
but changing the mental aspects of the conflict will be a process based on
relationship building and understanding.[16]
There is some new information
and definite signs of hope in the conflict between the Minneapolis community
and the Minneapolis Police Department.
Leaders of Communities United Against Police Brutality met with
Minneapolis Police Chief McManus about three weeks ago. Although they did not agree upon any
specific compromises, the McManus agreed to meet with them quarterly. This is a very large step in the
communication process between the Minneapolis Police Department and the
community. Although communication is
increasing, Communities United Against Police Brutality has seen little or no
improvement in the issue of police brutality in Minneapolis. They still receive several new police
brutality cases every week and are continuing to work hard at supporting these
victims.[17]
There are also some new
breakthroughs in the federal class action lawsuit. The federal judge recently granted the community’s request to add
four more named plaintiffs, bringing the total amount of named plaintiffs to
nine. According to Jill Clarke, this is
very good news because it allows her to expose a wide variety of police
malpractices that go far beyond the use of excessive force. In the federal class action lawsuit, the
community will be able to uncover the following corrupt practices in the
Minneapolis Police Department: the overall practice of excessive force, the
attempt by police to file false charges against victims of police brutality as
a way of avoiding accountability, inadequate system of reviewing police
brutality complaints, the lack of punishment for officers who perpetrate the
use of excessive force, and the practice of intimidation as well as retaliation
in victims’ efforts to file police brutality complaints.[18]
In addition to this new
ability to expose the police, there has been good progress on neighborhood
canvassing and writing affidavits.
These are intricate but important parts of the federal class action
lawsuit. The lawyers and leaders of
Communities United Against Police Brutality are now more hopeful than ever in
regards to the federal class action lawsuit.
They hope the federal courts will force accountability on the
Minneapolis Police Department and pave the way for structural adjustment within
the department.
While there are efforts being made
and actions being taken on federal and state levels, the conflict between the
Minneapolis Police Department and the civilian community is also being
addressed on a local, grassroots level.
These efforts address the problem from a more preventative and proactive
angle that focuses on the building of relationships and ownership within the
community as well as the improvement of relationships, communication and trust
with the MPD. These relationships, in
turn, center their efforts greatly on the common interest of improving the
safety and livability of their neighborhoods.
While in attendance at a community
meeting in Minneapolis, the Hawthorn
Huddle, a member of the community took the opportunity to introduce himself
and his perspective on the root of the problems facing their community. In rhetoric and a voice more powerful than
can be reproduced or captured here he stated that, though improving, there was
a great lack of ownership and belonging in the community: Do you ever wonder why people walk out of a
store or along the street and drop litter or vandalize in other ways? Why are kids shooting at each other on the
streets? He challenged everyone to
acknowledge that even with all the work being done and services being offered
in the community, there are people who it is not reaching.
Addressing these basic needs and
improving the livability of the neighborhoods in Minneapolis is the focus of a
number of already existing organizations and institutions. Whether directly or
indirectly, in a large or small way, these organizations have had and continue
to play a role in the Minneapolis police-community conflict and in building of
relationships among those involved.
Examples of such organizations include
the Neighborhood Revitalization Project (NRP), which empowers and enables local
community members to make decisions and design a neighborhood action plan to
address issues and concerns in their community. These plans are used for things such as meeting their community’s
“housing, safety, economic development, recreation, health, social service, environment
and transportation needs. They build a foundation for their future by
organizing residents, gathering information, prioritizing needs, brainstorming
solutions and implementing the Neighborhood Action Plan that they develop.”[19] Another example of such an organization is
one of the city’s community outreach programs, Community Crime
Prevention/Safety for Everyone (CCP/SAFE).
This organization is based on teams of MPD officers and crime prevention
specialists who “provide educational materials and programs, develop working
relationships with the community and assist residents in reducing the
opportunity for crime and in solving problems in the community.”[20]
Meetings also take place in different
neighborhoods or precincts that involve both police officers as well as
community leaders and residents. The Police-Advisory Council meetings that take
place monthly in each precinct offer a place and way for community members to
voice concerns as well as to hear updates and concerns of the MPD. These meetings not only create working
relationships between members of the community and the police force, but they
also help to create space for each side to gain a better understanding of the
challenges and main agendas of the other.
Finally, there are dozens of neighborhood
groups that gather and organize community events of all sizes and scales as
well as share concerns and information among neighbors. These community groups, though not reaching
all of the members of the community, are a good start to creating the sense of
ownership and belonging that is argued to be necessary in making crime levels
go down and livability increase. The
Hawthorn Huddle is one of these community groups for the Hawthorn neighborhood
in Minneapolis. It is an impressive
example of the potential that community groups and organizing can have as it
networks and connects concerned neighborhood professionals and community
leaders together to build a coalition working on numerous different levels and
initiatives to make their community a better place to live.
While there are currently a good
number of organizations and efforts that intentionally or unintentionally
foster positive relationships and trust among the communities, police
department, and city, there is more that could be done. Keeping in mind the restrictions and
limitations of funding and people’s time commitments, it is most logical to
expand these efforts using already existing organizations or initiatives.
One means that could be utilized is
the recently established Police Community Relations Council (PCRC) that
according many is the core of the Federal Mediation Agreement. “At the heart of the agreement is the
creation of a 30-member Police Community Relations Council, which will include
18 members selected by the citizen's group, plus 12 members appointed by the
police chief. The committee will work
directly with the department and will become its major link to the 'diverse
communities' in the city, leaders said.”[21] As outlined in section 14 of the Mediation
Agreement, the PCRC is made up of members of both the community and police
force and is assigned with functions that will provide “a forum for ongoing
communication between MPD and the community regarding matters of public safety
and the public’s faith and confidence in the MPD.” These forums and dialogues resulting from the activity of the
PCRC would be a place at which both the MPD and Unity Community Mediation Team may
present information covering topics such as race, ethnicity and other forms of
diversity, the use of deadly force, and questions or concerns of the public
regarding specific incidents.[22]
These forums would follow the model and
example presented in the mediation process: the sharing of personal or group
feelings, fears, perceptions, perspectives and challenges that helped to build
understanding and relationships that resulted in an unexpected and surprising
camaraderie, and eventually agreement.
“At one point that afternoon, while the City Council's Public Safety and
Regulatory Services committee was considering approval of the 24-page document,
street activist Spike Moss and MPD union leader John Delmonico stood arm in arm
in the council chambers.”[23]
Information
regarding the forums could be spread through the existing neighborhood groups
and organizations concerned with related issues. The more the community is aware of the existence and function of
the PCRC, the more involvement will increase and the function and effectiveness
of the PCRC can improve. Additionally,
information regarding the Mediation Agreement, the PCRC and its forums can be
provided through the existing complaint processes, as this will reach an
audience of people that will have direct insight and input on the situation and
conflict. Information, particularly
regarding rights and responsibilities in situations of arrest and in the use of
force, should also be distributed and shared through other means. Doing this
will reach the greater population and members of the community that may not be
aware of these rights or responsibilities (of both the MPD and themselves) or
those who would not be likely or able to attend PCRC meetings or forums. Use of
churches, community centers, and bus stops are options to place available literature
and summaries.
Another strong way to improve and build
community-police relations and to focus together on the problem and mutual
interests is through community policing.
This could involve empowering community members to police their own
neighborhoods. This has already taken
form in activities such as the “Watch Force” in existence. In the past, this effort has mainly relied
on neighborhood observation and reporting of suspicious activities directly,
but now efforts with new technology are revolutionizing this tactic. Use of the internet and email has allowed
citizens to receive and report on recent crimes and is more likely to be used
since it allows for anonymity for tipsters.
Citizen
Observer, a Minnesota-based firm, is leading this technological innovation to
integrate police and community members in about 130 communities around the
Midwest and in Florida. Fairmount, MN
Sergeant Corey Klanderud is supportive of this new initiative, reporting “This
technology is going to help us have more eyes and ears in the community."[24] Aside from website reports, direct email is
also being used and has shown to be effective in Medina, WA. Two years ago
there chief of police Michael Knapp “acted on an idea from a resident to start
up a Community E-Lert program which send e-mails to 1,200 subscribers. ‘It changes policing because we involve the
community in a partnership - in addressing the criminal problems of our city…
When you do that you're going to become more efficient.’"[25] What’s more, this approach of building
police-community cooperation and collaboration has the potential to be
free! “Often, the service costs local police little or nothing, because a
community business will routinely cover the costs in exchange for promotional
considerations and links on Web pages.”[26]
Aside from
informal relationships, moves have been made in some departments to
“civilianize” the police force. This
entails “hiring civilians to do the jobs cops formerly did so as to free patrol
officers to work the streets.”[27] By empowering the citizens, you make the
conflict more symmetrical – the police force is made to share the power and
responsibility of policing the community by assisting the community in its
self-policing tactics. This would
require cooperation between the force and the citizenry, where citizens could
receive training and officers could build relationships with citizens. This best represents a combination of track
two and track three diplomacy, due to the formal nature of the police
department and their relationship with local nonprofit or established community
organizations, but also these efforts may include the grassroots movement of
citizens to increase their own personal level of involvement. This also helps close the process-structure
gap as community policing efforts highlight the matter of the communities'
interdependence and encourages collaboration across party lines. These efforts would likely have to originate
from the department itself, simply because it may require formal training of
community members, but allowing the police department to hold responsibility in
this effort will allow them to work more effectively, as they know best their
resources, strengths, and abilities.
This type of operative may require what could be considered track one
diplomacy, meaning city officials may have to earmark funding or support for
the effort, but it is still more local efforts which will make it work.
Administrative
reform is another method available for changing police behavior. Rather than working from within the
community or lower ranks of the police department, this approach focuses on
top-down influence to reshape the department.
Transformation of the conflict is often necessary to be able to
formulate a resolution:
"In
the view of the committee, the road to police reform is largely an internal
one, featuring training, supervision, internal inspections, performance
measures, and policy making. At this level, controlling police behavior is a
management problem…We have emphasized internal management efforts
because ultimately processes have to be put into motion inside the organization
to make those changes. In the end,
these processes make up the “transmission belt” by which external pressures
translate into internal change, and in our judgment, they should be the central
focus of reform efforts. Without engaging these, most externally imposed
solutions to lawfulness problems will not be very effective."[28]
This reform could be a vital part of
changing the department in the way it can affect both written and unwritten
policies. An effective change in the
department has the potential to transform the culture and institution of the
police force. This administrative
reform can come through elected leaders or through administrators within the
police department.
One drawback
that elected officials have in their efforts to reform the department is the
fact that these officials have limited power, and their reforms are only as
lasting as their tenure; following administrations can easily undo any
advancements accomplished. At the turn
of the 20th century the United States was struggling with a number
of police departments whose legitimacy suffered from outstanding records of
misconduct. In some instances, elected
officials strived to enact change, but “attempts to straighten out the police
lasted only as long as the municipal administrations,” which in many cases was
only one term – certainly not long enough to enact lasting reforms.[29] Political officials’ distance from the
department also means that they may be unable to “institutionalize [their]
ideals,” and as a result are unable to significantly affect the police culture
that allows for and accepts police misconduct.[30]
Those within
the administration of the police department or force are really the people who
have an impressive amount of power.
They hold a lot of influence in the department and can decide whether or
not to set new guidelines, change trainings, enforce regulations, or tolerate
corruption. In the 1960’s New York City
plainclothes officer Frank Serpico began to report on police misconduct. Receiving no response from city officials,
he took his story to a reporter for the New York Times. The ensuing publicity pressured the city and
ultimately resulted in the replacement of the Police Commissioner with NYPD
veteran Patrick Murphy. “He rewarded
cops who turned in corrupt or brutal colleagues and punished those who,
although personally honest, looked the other way when they learned of misconduct…Murphy
used his three and a half years in office to create an environment that loudly
and clearly condemned abusive police conduct, those who engage in it, and –
equally important – those who tolerate it.”[31]
This new
ideology in the department lasted much longer than Murphy’s term, evident when
one of his successors, Commissioner Benjamin Ward, responded to a 1985 episode
in which police had injured a suspected drug dealer: “Ward summoned 327 senior officers to police headquarters in
lower Manhattan. He read them the riot
act, then fired the entire chain of command involved in the incident…”[32] These two examples show how having a
reformer working at the top level in the department increases the likelihood
that the department will be able to change as they redraw the boundaries of
acceptable behavior and influence the culture through this behavior. Their actions last longer than their
personal presence as successful reform of ideology persists even without their
presence. These administrative
reformers cannot act alone, however; they are dependent on the support and
influence of outside actors to strengthen their voice, most notably public
officials or even the public itself.
“A recent study
of two precincts in the Bronx shows that tough policing and increased
complaints don't have to go hand in hand. Rob Davis and a colleague at the Vera
Institute of Justice, a criminal- justice think tank, studied the 42nd and 44th
precincts. Both experienced the same dramatic drop in crime as the rest of the
city did, but saw a drop, instead of an increase, in citizen complaints.
Researchers concluded the key reason was the two precinct commanders, who put a
premium on respecting the community and took complaints seriously enough to
discipline officers.”[33]
Probably one of
the strengths about administrative reform is the financial aspect. Most of the components or techniques
necessary to institute reform are already in place and just need to be enacted
or applied – internal review, for example, or training and hiring
standards. These just need to be strengthened
in many cases, although other times a restructuring of the department is called
for, and this may take a significant budget increase, but overall this strategy
is one of the more cost-effective. This
reform will likely result in a transformation of the police department –
perhaps its official policies but eventually will create a shift in the
officers’ attitudes themselves. This
attitude shift will lead to a behavioral change as well, and tensions between the
community and the police force will almost certainly decline. The Minneapolis Police Department has
recently undergone a change in administration, with new police Chief McManus
replacing Olson. While it may be possible
that McManus will be able to reform some of the departmental policies, such as
the internal review process, further observation is needed to see how effective
this current change is.
“Media power is political power.” [34]
The media has an extremely large
amount of power over the people in the United States. They present people with stories about what is going on in the
world. Like in any other country, the
stories they show are affected by their own perceptions and biases in each
situation. This is inevitable as anyone
who tells a story will always present it based upon their own perceptions. It only becomes a problem when the spectrum
of perceptions and opinions is limited.
In 1983, fifty companies controlled ninety percent of the mass media in
the United States. The mass media
includes newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations, books, records,
movies, videos, wire services, and photo agencies. The situation was much different in the year 2000, in which only
six corporations owned and operated ninety percent of the media in the United
States.1
In his book The Media Monopoly, Bagdikian argues that media power is political power because it has
control over the minds of the public.
Because the media is such an effective tool to get a point across to a
large number of people, it would work to the Minneapolis communities’ benefit
to target this as an important means of promoting police accountability and
peace. Although the mainstream media is
controlled by corporate giants, the way to get coverage would be to first target
other sources of media and then persistently force the community’s perspective
on the mainstream media. Other sources
of media may include local newspapers such as The City Pages and radio stations not owned by large
corporations. An increase of protests,
lobbying, and public events would help attract attention to the problems of the
Minneapolis Police Department via the media.
More coverage in the media would
affect the conflict greatly. Although
many in the police department feel that the media is too critical of the
police, little is shown in mainstream media about situations of police
brutality that do not result in death.
An increase in coverage would put pressure on Minneapolis police
officers to treat people with respect and refrain from using excessive
force. Through the use of negative
publicity, the police officers would be coerced into acting respectful. Although the ultimate goal is conversion,
coercion is still a large step in resolving the conflict.[35]
In addition to the media being used
as a scare tactic to brutal police officers, it would also serve as a tool to
help balance power between the Minneapolis Police Department and Minneapolis
communities. Currently, the Minneapolis
Police Department has complete power over the communities, and a more objective
and revealing media would provide some power to the people. A change in power structures may result in
the Minneapolis Police Department being more willing to negotiate goals that
the community feels are important to the resolution of this conflict.
In
conclusion, we found that although a number of efforts to resolve this conflict
are currently being undertaken, these efforts fail to address all of the issues
surrounding successful conflict resolution, and do not address the
transformation of the conflict, one of the issues we identified as crucial to
resolving this particular conflict.
Without including further strategies that consciously address these
underlying theories it is likely that the Minneapolis Police-Community conflict
will continue. It is our suggestion
that further action is taken in a multitude of areas - not only do behaviors
need to be addressed, but structures and institutions themselves need to be
reshaped. In our opinion this cannot be
done with punitive measures, but only with proactive cooperation and
collaboration involving all parties involved.
Websites
CUAPB.
“Community Demands to be raised in Federal Mediation” - Draft 3, 10/12/02, <http://www.charityadvantage.com/CUAPB/images/Federal%20Mediation%20Community%20Demands.pdf>
CUAPB. “An Analysis of the Minneapolis Federal
Mediation Agreement.”
<http://www.charityadvantage.com/CUAPB/AnalysisofFedMedAgree.asp>
Human Rights
Watch: “Shielded from Justice, Police Brutality and Accountability in the
United States.” June, 1998.
<http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/index.htm>
Neighborhood
Revitalization Project <www.nrp.org>
City of
Minneapolis: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/outreach/
“Federal
Mediation Aggreement”
<http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2003-meetings/20031215/docs/01_Mediation_Memorandum_Agreement.pdf
>
Articles
Anderson, Jr.,
G.R. “Agreement at last,” City Pages. (12-10-03). <http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1201/article11724.asp>
Hawley,
David. “Police, public agree to pact”
Pioneer Press. (12-05-03). <http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/7417349.htm>
Hodges, Booker
T.. “What happened in federal mediation?” Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder.
1/21/2004
<http://spokesman-recorder.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=37548&sID=13>
Marks,
Alexandra. “NYPD as lab for reducing
police brutality.” The Christian Science Monitor May 13, 1999.
Paton,
Dean. “New police tool: neighborhood
watch by Web.” The Christian Science Monitor May 05, 2003. May 14, 2004 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0505/p01s03-ussc.html>.
Skogan, Wesley
G., and Meares, Tracey L.. "Lawful
Policing." The Annals for the
American Academy. May 2004
Skolnick, Jerome
H., and Fyfe, James J.. Above the Law:
Police and the Excessive Use of Force.
New York: The Free Press, 1993.
Books
Bagdikian, Ben H.. The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition. Beacon Press,
2000.
Lederach, John
Paul. People Building Peace. “Justpeace - The Challenge of the 21st
Century.” The Netherlands: European Centre for Conflict Resolution, 1999.
Sharp,
Gene. The Dynamics of Nonviolent
Action. Gene Sharp, 1973.
Return to the Table of Contents for this Project
[1] Human Rights Watch: “Shielded from
Justice, Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States.” June,
1998.
<http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/index.htm>
[2] HRW: Shielded from Justice
[3] Ibid
[4] Lederach, John Paul. People Building Peace. “Justpeace - The Challenge of the 21st
Century.” The Netherlands: European
Centre for Conflict Resolution, 1999. (p 30)
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid, (p 35)
[7] Ibid, (p 34)
[8] CUAPB. “Community Demands to be raised in Federal Mediation” - Draft 3, October 12, 2002, http://www.charityadvantage.com/CUAPB/images/Federal%20Mediation%20Community%20Demands.pdf 5/10/04
[9] CUAPB. “An
Analysis of the Minneapolis Federal Mediation Agreement.”
http://www.charityadvantage.com/CUAPB/AnalysisofFedMedAgree.asp 5/10/04
[10] Unity Community Mediation Team and the Minneapolis Police Department. “MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.” December, 2003. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2003-meetings/20031215/docs/01_Mediation_Memorandum_Agreement.pdf 5/10/04
[11] ibid
[12] Hodges, Booker T.. “What happened in federal
mediation?” Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder.
1/21/2004 <http://spokesman-recorder.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=37548&sID=13> 5/10/2004
[13] Communities United Against Police Brutality, “An Analysis of the Minneapolis Federal Mediation Agreement,” <http://www.charityadvantage.com/CUAPB/AnalysisofFedMedAgree.asp> 5/2/2004.
[14] Hawley, David, Pioneer Press. “Group Takes a New Tack in Dispute With Police,” <http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/5668613.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&ERIGHTS=426231053097034405twincities::elyse_333@hotmail.com&KRD_RM=0nlllojpkmkgggggggghngmjgg|Elyse|N> 5/2/2004.
[15] Interview: Jill Clarke and Jill Waite (March 2004).
[16] People Building Peace
[17] Interview: Michelle Gross (May 2004).
[18] Interview: Jill Clarke (May 2004).
[19] Neighborhood Revitalization Project
<www.nrp.org>
[20] City of Minneapolis: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/outreach/
[21] Hawley, David. “Police, public agree to pact” Pioneer Press. 12-05-03. <http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/7417349.htm>
[22] Section 14 of the
“Federal Mediation Aggreement”
<http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2003-meetings/20031215/docs/01_Mediation_Memorandum_Agreement.pdf
>
[23]
Anderson,
Jr., G.R. “Agreement at last,” City Pages. (12-10-03). <http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1201/article11724.asp>
[24] Paton, Dean. “New police tool: neighborhood watch by Web.” The Christian Science Monitor May 05, 2003. May 14, 2004 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0505/p01s03-ussc.html>.
[25] ibid.
[26] ibid.
[27] 255, Skolnick, Jerome H., and Fyfe, James J.. Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force. New York: The Free Press, 1993.
[28] Skogan, Wesley G., and Meares, Tracey L.. "Lawful Policing." The Annals for the American Academy. May 2004
[29] 173, Skolnick, Jerome H., and Fyfe, James J.. Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force. New York: The Free Press, 1993.
[30] 176, ibid.
[31] 180, ibid.
[32] 181, ibid.
[33] Marks, Alexandra. “NYPD as lab for reducing police brutality.” The Christian Science Monitor May 13, 1999.
[34] Ben
H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, Beacon Press, 2000.
[35] Sharp, Gene. The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action, Porter Sargent Publishers, 2000.