Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Significant pushback has been levied against the proposed Minneapolis police contract from some community and City Council members who believe the pact doesn't go far enough to hold cops accountable and earn additional pay.

Dozens of citizens attended a Minneapolis City Council committee meeting last week to express both support and opposition to a deal with the police union that would grant officers historic wage increases. The pact has been approved by the city's administration and police union and ought to receive City Council approval as well.

There remain some policy reforms that must be enacted if the city is to continue to build trust and confidence in the department following the 2020 murder of George Floyd by an MPD officer. As the Star Tribune Editorial Board has argued previously, those concerns can and must be addressed through administrative action or by adhering to requirements of an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and provisions in a federal consent decree that is expected this year.

The proposed contract would guarantee a nearly 22% pay raise for veteran officers by next summer and boost starting salaries for rookies to more than $90,000 a year — putting Minneapolis, with Minnesota's largest population and a violent crime rate three times higher than the state average, among the top five highest-paid departments in the state. The contract would grant officers a 5.5% pay increase starting July 1, a 2.5% raise on Jan. 1, 2025, and another 3.5% jump next summer. It would also provide prorated back pay, for a total 21.7% increase over three years for veteran cops. That's because officers have been working without a contract since the previous one expired at the end of 2022.

And, importantly, the labor agreement would also expand managerial oversight of the force, whose numbers stand at about 516 — the lowest level in four decades. It would considerably broaden the chief's managerial powers by providing more discretion in how to assign officers; remove the 70/30 clause, which sets minimum staffing levels for certain positions, and expand the number of civilian investigators.

It also eliminates decades of side agreements between the city and the union that often tied the hands of city leaders trying to make changes.

Opponents of the contract plan, including Communities United Against Police Brutality, a grassroots police reform group, criticize the pact as a "budget-buster" that would raise property taxes and provide back pay to current and former officers, including those who cost the city millions in excessive force settlements. According to figures supplied by the administration, the new deal is expected to cost an additional $9.2 million in the city's 2025 budget as well as an estimated $5.5 million in back pay, which can be covered in the current budget.

Critics also say the raises need to be earned, and that more pay might not attract better cops. They add that the administration said for years that contract provisions stood in the way of change but has now shifted to say those things shouldn't be in the agreement.

Yet Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the city operations officer, rightly said "both things are true about the history of contracts over 30-some years." She told an editorial writer that she has taught negotiations and that getting rid of many of the "letters of agreement" helps restore the managerial flexibility that can drive reform. If some of the reforms were embedded in the contract, the administration might have to reopen the contract to fulfill requirements of the federal consent decree.

During last week's committee meeting and hearing, Council Member LaTrisha Vetaw pointed out that many of the reforms community groups call for have been addressed or are in the works through actions taken by the chief and administration.

The full council had originally planned to vote on the contract last month but put off that vote to hold two meetings with public testimony. Now it is expected to vote on Thursday. It should approve the proposed agreement with the MPD without further delay.


Editorial Board members are David Banks, Jill Burcum, Denise Johnson and John Rash. Star Tribune Opinion staff members Maggie Kelly, Kavita Kumar and Elena Neuzil and intern Aurora Weirens also contribute, and Star Tribune CEO and Publisher Steve Grove serves as an adviser to the board.