Bring the public safety committee to order.

Roll call, please.

Committee members Coleman here.

Johnson, Joast.

Here, Kim here.

Acre.

Yang here.

Chair Bowie.

Here.

Five presidents, two absent being members Naker and Johnson who are excused.

Well, welcome to our second public safety committee meeting of this year, and happy Black History Month, everyone.

So we are light but mighty with our topics.

So that was supposed to be on this uh month's agenda.

Um, we want to just give the new administration some time to present to us a comprehensive plan.

So that would be um um coming along.

But nevertheless, if you have any items that you wish to review in the public safety meeting, please share those topics with me or the chief of um our policy officer, uh, Tim as well.

So moving on to our agenda, I just want to share with you all that I'm so glad to invite our exec our postboard executive director, Eric Missel.

Um, and he, like I mentioned, being the executive director is here to discuss the standards process and procedures in educating the council, particularly around their jurisdiction and their role.

Um topic has came about in the aftermath of the ICE process um that took place on November twenty-fifth on Rose Avenue on the Payne Phelan um neighborhood, and council unanimously voted to do three things um on December tenth, which was to conduct the analysis, including a public discussion on the ordinance um four three sixteen.

Um, also to work with the post board to conduct a thorough investigation into SPPD's use of force during the November 25th incident.

And the third thing was to direct the Office of Financial Services to perform an audit of SPPD personnel, operations, equipment, and supplies, which we have received.

So last month we had a chance to hear from PCR, particularly around their process and how they took a vote to authorize an investigation.

So we now have here the executive director to review not the specifics of the um investigation in our resolution, but to talk about their role and their function as a board and to ask any questions, particularly around the process.

So nevertheless, we're gonna just read into the record um their agenda item and also welcome um Mr.

Missal to the to the stand, you might read it.

Okay.

Okay, so as our two of the post board and investigation process.

Welcome, Mr.

Mistel.

Okay.

Um I'm told I don't need to touch the mic, so I'll leave them alone.

Um little shocked, it's not a full gallery.

I thought this was gonna be the huge topic of the week, but uh nonetheless, um thank you for having me and give me the opportunity to um talk about the board, talk about what we do, and most importantly, uh kind of set the um set the ground level uh assessment, if you will, of what we do and what we don't do, what we can do and what we can't do.

So that's my purpose, and then of course, to answer any questions you you have.

Um I just need to be clear about one thing uh before I get started.

I cannot um speak about any ongoing investigations.

I can't speak to any complaints we may or may not have received uh or their status.

That is all private data, um, which I'll talk about a little bit in the presentation just so you know.

Um the only time we can talk publicly about uh such issues are when and if uh there's final discipline issued by the board.

So um thank you for that.

Please just uh yeah, keep that in mind.

Okay.

So uh very quickly, I won't spend a ton of time on this, but just to give you some background.

Um we the post board itself was created in 1977 by legislation.

Um as I understand it, one of the first licensing boards for police officers in the in the country.

Um so we're very similar to uh, as you'll hear many times, uh nursing uh board, the bar, um uh medical practice, cosmetology, you name it.

So we're purely a licensing board uh in that respect.

Um many states use certification as their uh baseline, not licensing.

So uh Minnesota's a little bit unique in that in that regard.

Um 626.84 is our enabling legislation.

If you ever wonder what authority the board has or what we do or why certain policies um are required, it's all in 626.84.

Um that's everything, uh both the limits and the uh scope of what we can do.

Uh chapter 214 of uh Minnesota statutes governance licensing boards uh generally um and administrative procedures.

There is a section in there on the that where the post board is called out specifically, the majority of it applies to all licensing boards in terms of how investigations are done and so on and so forth, including the provision for due process under the administrative procedures act.

Um chapter 6700, that is our administrative rules, just like the DNR and just about any other um government agency out there.

Um we have a set of administrative rules.

The statutes, as you'll read in 626, are fairly broad, and they'll say things like the board shall promulgate rules in this area, and then we do the rules uh from there.

Um we're comp we did a comprehensive review, or I should say update of the rules, particularly as they were um pertain to officer misconduct um in 2023.

Um, and you can imagine why that was.

That was of course post-2020 and George and the George Floyd murder and so on.

Um right now, our rules package is dealing with pre-service education.

So what is it?

We are we're again a licensing regulatory agency.

We're a part of the non-cabinet member, but a part of the executive branch of the state government.

Members are appointed by the governor, including the appointment of the chair uh of the board.

Um we oversee these five areas: pre-service education, uh testing, um, licensing, continuing ed, and um violations of standard of conduct and licensure.

So you can see the parallels between us and again some of the other uh licensing and regulatory boards out there.

Members, uh we have 17 uh appointed by the governor, they're due four-year staggered terms.

Um you can see the list there.

I won't read it to you.

There's uh clear for obvious reasons that have your representative of of law enforcement, uh, both uh management and uh union level.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

And uh I I have a question about um Mr.

Missiles, I got a question about the licensing and regulation that would have existed before 1977 for peace officers.

Could you talk about what that looked like before the post board?

Well, first off, I was 11 years old, so and I didn't live here.

Um, but as I understand it, it was um very limited.

Um it was just I don't know if they did certification or what to be honest.

Um I know licensing came into being in 77, but it was primarily my understanding is prior to that.

It was mostly um it was called in fact the training board.

I think that the POT board, which is I think not probably the one acronym they wanted, the pot board.

Um so it's peace officer training.

So they were focused on training.

I think the licensure piece came and says I understand it in 77 to increase the professionalism and could require an actual license.

Oh, thanks.

And then um just so if there were peace officers that you know had the training, or if there was some type of certification for 1977, were some of them kind of grandfathered into the license in that situation, or did they have to go through the entire process like anyone else?

I honestly have no idea.

I don't know what happened back when that transition took place.

I do not know.

Thanks.

Sort of a great question.

We have a question from CP Kevin.

Sure.

Yeah, just a quick one.

Um so this is for um can you um sorry to describe who falls under a peace officer, right?

So is it it's police officers and sheriffs and their deputies?

It's anyone that what is the license, like who falls under that definition here in Minnesota?

So we regulate only licensed sworn peace officers in the state.

That includes elected sheriffs, um, your police chiefs, your deputies, and uh police officers.

It does not include corrections personnel.

Um it does not include.

I'm trying to think of what some other states do.

Uh primarily corrections is often the question.

They are not in our jurisdiction.

So state troopers would be peace officers, DNR wardens are peace officers, uh, tribal officers are peace officers, um, the ones that have a compact with the state.

Okay, that sounds great.

And so just to clarify, um, so it's sheriffs and their deputies, correct?

Correct.

Okay, perfect.

Now the sheriffs might tell you a little different story because they're the chief law enforcement officer and they're elected, but they are in fact under our jurisdiction.

Thank you.

And I have a follow-up question to that.

Is there um an even um jar um geographic um disbursement of these chiefs?

Like, for example, I can imagine that you know some of the priorities are the issues that uh inner city chief will do it versus uh rural Minnesota.

Can you talk about the is if there's like geographic requirements for these appointments?

Yeah, so good question.

Um that lies entirely with the governor's office, and I'm not privy to the decisions they make um regarding who they pick.

I get the sense I can tell you as a practical matter, it appears they do pay attention to geographic um spread, if you will.

Um, for instance, our two police chiefs, one of them is um down in uh Scott County, Shakapee, and the other chief is from Alexandria, so further out state.

Um, and then sheriffs, uh same way.

We have issue.

I'm I'm sorry, did I say uh chiefs?

I was wrong about that.

Uh the sheriff is Scott County Shakapee.

The other sheriff is out in um Douglas County, so also Alexandria, chief from Alexandria, the other chief is from Duluth.

So they do, I I think in essence, in practice as a practical matter, they try to pay attention to that.

But again, um they just tell us who is appointed.

And one last question, just because I want to just make sure it's relative to the city of St.

Paul.

Do we have anyone from the city of St.

Paul um appointed to this board?

You do.

Okay.

Um, I think he's a commander now.

He's promoted uh in Western District, he's an investigations commander uh Jim Yang.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Um sorry.

And then Council Member Johnson, sorry.

Yeah, no worries.

Thank you, Chairboule.

I have a quick question just on the 17 members appointed.

Are there any vacancies at the time or the full capacity?

Do you know?

Are there any vacancies now?

Yes.

Yes.

Which are the vacancies?

So the one vacancy we have is one of the uh peace officer positions.

Um that's the last one uh that needs to be filled.

The um law enforcement office, former law enforcement officers, current faculty members, one of those was vacant until like a week ago, and that was just filled.

So we have one vacancy currently.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

That's a great question.

And then it seems like this follow-up.

Yes, and then just uh the the thought process around the elected official appointee at the bottom, is that because usually like the with a town that small, um, is it due to capacity that that's given to a seat there?

Or could you elaborate a little bit on the elected official position?

That's outside of the metro, but that's been around 5,000 people.

You're talking about the rationale behind that.

Yeah, that's been the case since I I came to post in 2017.

That's been in the um uh statute for as far as I know ages.

I don't know what the original rationale was for that.

I assume it was to get some outstate representation, but you know what they say about assumptions.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

And just point of clarity the legislation or the legislator actually are the ones that define or determine who with the makeup of this board, the board is a good idea.

It is in statute, correct.

Statute, okay.

Yep.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So uh to talk uh generally, and I think this is one of the your concerns are one of the things you want to know about uh more importantly, um, as far as jurisdictions when it comes to misconduct of peace officers uh in the state.

There are two basic areas that we have jurisdiction over.

One clearly is criminal convictions.

Um felonies in this state are automatic uh revocations, there is no hearing, there is no uh due process, it's an automatic revocation of license.

Um now there are other crimes, uh criminal convictions um which we do take action on, and many do end up in revocation um typically uh for for criminal convictions, um, but those are handled through the I'm sorry through the um uh the due process and the uh procedures act.

Um the other piece, and and one thing I'll say about this very briefly, one of the reforms that was done in 2023 allows the board to take action in and engage use an engaged in standard versus just a conviction.

Prior to 2023, it was only convictions.

Uh we can we have cases now, and this is uh part of the reasoning behind it, where for instance uh a person gets an officer gets arrested for domestic violence, they go through the court system and they plea it down to a disorderly conduct or something like that.

Under the old rules, because there was no conviction of one of our standards of conduct, we could not take action.

Now, depending on the egregiousness of it, the board has the authority to use the engaged in standard, in other words, get all the paperwork and stuff from the from the court case and course case itself, even though they pled to a lower uh charge, a lesser charge, and still take action because they're considered to have engaged in domestic assault.

Um it's always one of the things from 2023.

Violation of standards of conduct.

I had sent that link to you at some point here.

That is really the key in the crux of what we do.

Um there are uh it's a whole list of things uh in there.

Um, and basically, if the for the board to have jurisdiction and take licensing sanctions, action against a license holder, it has to fall either under the criminal statutes, again a criminal conviction, or within 6700.1600.

And the example I use is often is if you have an if there's an officer with an agency that is just uh for lack of better term, a terrible employee, they're always late, uh they don't show up for they get subpoenaed for court, they don't show up.

Um none of that is in our jurisdiction.

Um we are deal with misconduct not being a terrible employee.

Now, of course, the agency can fire them and shall fire them and take whatever sanctions they want, but from a licensing standpoint, that's outside of our purview, to give you kind of an example.

Um policy violation, yes.

Yep, console uh BPM VPC.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, how often do licensing violations conflict with police contract contracts?

So if you were to like unlicense someone, how often does that come into conflict with the union's ability to do like I don't, you know, not sanctions, but just like punish them, follow their sort of like recourse.

So our our jurisdiction in terms of discipline, again, because there is this, there are two silos here.

There's the employer employee relationship, and then there's a license, the regulatory board licensee relationship.

Those are separate channels.

Um the union will hate me for this, but we don't really care what your contract says, it's irrelevant to us because we deal with licensure issues.

If it falls within our licensure jurisdiction, now it doesn't say there's not due process, there is under the uh administrative procedures act and 214.

There is a way we have to conduct it, they get due process in front of the court of administrative hearings.

If it goes that far, there's all kinds of due process, but it has nothing to do with contracts.

Contracts is between the employer and the employee.

Is that up?

Take care of it.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Yep.

Um, so policy violations, and I'll talk a little bit more about this in a second, but basically, they can only be enforced against the CLEO, not the individual officer.

And I'm gonna talk a little bit about those differences in policy.

Um before we get that, as far as remo reporting misconduct, um, we get misconduct reports a couple of ways.

Um, again, part of the uh police reform legislation, uh chiefs are now required uh to report through misconduct reporting system, anything any time they um find a violation of either standards of conduct or model policy violation.

When I talk model policies, I'm talking about just the one that's pro post promulgates.

We have about 20 of them, sixteen are mandatory for optional, depending on whatever conditional.

Um so those um so that we get them in a variety of ways, but the the key of what we need in order to take a complaint to the complete investigation committee, which I'll talk about, is that the complaint has to tell us what misconduct the complainant, the person believes the officers engaged in.

What standard of conduct violation do you believe happened?

Um we review it, uh we take a look at it, it gets some everything gets submitted to the complaint investigation committee committee, which is a double they have delegated authority from the board to take in complaints, review them, decide how they want to proceed.

And I'm I'm very much surface level, so I understand if there's questions.

Um, and then but anything they decide goes before the board for final decision, either if they recommend discipline at the conclusion of looking into it, um the board can decide either yes, we accept what you said, or no, it's not enough, go back, or we don't think there's any violation here at all, and they dismiss it.

Um so it's totally up to the board.

Um council member Colvin.

Thanks, Chair, so much for being here.

Could you go back to you said that um is that SF 2023 that chiefs police chiefs are required to report violations?

Well, actually, I'm sorry, that was 2021.

2021, okay.

So 20, yeah, my thank you for catching that because that was not a rule change, that was a statutory change.

So since 2021, they have had to report misconduct.

And have you all noticed um I'm curious how that change has played out?

Have you all noticed a significant increase?

Are there kind of trends that you can speak to and reports that have come in as a result of that?

Um for sure.

I mean, there's no there's no question that the volume has our volume has increased quite a bit.

Our volume has also increased uh from the public, from the general public, I can safely say that.

Um, because quite frankly, and I I don't feel bad saying this because I've said it in public and I've said it to the face of law enforcement.

The post board is a paper tiger for probably 40-50 years.

Um we even knew who we were.

A lot of officers didn't know who the post board was, other than they issued their license, you know, every three years.

Um so it's been a really a sea change, a fundamental shift in the paradigm of what postport exists, why it exists, and this board is much much different, and these rules are much much different than they were for 40-50 years, relatively unchanged.

So all of that, perfect storm, us kind of rising to where we're now uh a known quantity by the public because of George Floyd primarily.

So whether I can, you know, as my stats professor would say, whether I can point to a significant that this particular statute led to that rise, I don't know that I have that data.

But it we're definitely up.

Can I ask one follow-up question on that?

And it might be that you don't have this data, but I'm curious about um reports that end up resulting in revocations of a license.

If you've noticed as the number of total reports coming in has increased, are we seeing a comparable rise in licensure revocation, or is it that many of the new reports are coming out to be unfounded?

And I'm also curious if there's a difference in kind of percentage of reports that lead to revocations based on the so the initial source of the complaint, whether it's coming from a fellow law enforcement officer versus the public.

Um please keep in mind one, this is anecdotal.

I do not have data.

Um these are my observations since coming to post in 2017, and some idea of historically what what has been the case.

Um my sense is that the and I'm not sure this is this what you gave, but this is my sense of it.

If with regard to the egregious violations that, and we're when we talk about revocation, we're talking about pretty egregious stuff generally, right?

Um I don't know that those have increased or decreased.

What I will say is the post board is to the chagrin of some much more active than they used to be.

So and that can be for a number number of reasons, but I would say overall the accountability is exponentially higher than it was.

Has the beh has there been more bad behavior out there?

No, I wouldn't, I I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that.

I would say the post board has changed in terms of the action they take on things.

Not only that, there were, and and when I say this, and I'm I'm careful to say that my predecessors, the people that were on the post board, public members, law enforcement, etc.

Um, I don't this isn't about blame, it's just an observation.

They weren't expected.

The expectations that they had back in those days were not anywhere near what they are today.

So the postboard is a shift with expectations, and thus you end up with more action.

Again, whether that's quantifiable to more bad behavior, I don't believe so.

Um I just think that there are some things that weren't in jurisdiction back then.

The criminal conviction is a good example.

When I started in 17, there were cases where that came forward, and I was looking at them, I'm like, why aren't we going after this person's license?

Well, we couldn't because there was no criminal conviction under the statute we needed.

So that has changed substantially as well.

Does that help answer your question?

Definitely thinking.

I have a question from VP Kim.

Um, uh comment and a question.

I have to imagine that as I'm looking through some of the Minnesota rules and the printout that we have, you know, one even includes maintaining membership or participation and activities of a hater extremist group as defined or criminal gain is defined, right?

So I'm sure in the way we're like the let's say the progress of our policies and lawmakers, right?

Um, who run rules our judiciary committee right up at the state too.

Um I think it's just like um a very sort of telling like evolution of this as well.

Um I think that's such a great point that you're making, uh, Councilmember Coleman.

The question that I also have is um, and it's okay if you you don't know this offhand, but I I sort of wonder around the same standards of conduct and how closely they mirror or different from federal standards.

Are they exact?

Because I see some here around um driving while under the influence of alcohol.

And um that seems to be like a pretty universal one that maybe the federal government would have a standard for.

Can you speak a little bit to sort of how these might be different than federal standards?

Um are they close, are they different?

Uh is every state you know varying varying in their standards, or is it pretty universal?

Um unfortunately, um I'm the wrong guy to ask.

I'm not familiar with federal standards.

Um just gonna leave it at that.

Um what I will say this is this the um what I see here in Minnesota, and for those who don't know, I came from a different state.

I came from next door from Wisconsin.

I did my 30 years there.

you know varying varying in their standards or is it pretty universal um unfortunately um I'm the wrong guy to ask I'm not familiar with federal standards um yeah I'm just gonna leave it at that um what I will say this is this the um what I see here in Minnesota and for those who don't know I came from a different state I came from next door from Wisconsin I did my 30 years there um and I considered Wisconsin Minnesota a lot of our midwestern states to be some of the most professional police um uh services in the country especially from what I've seen across the country and sometimes when I travel and go to conferences so I would I would say this um the and I think that's again I don't want to I I have to be careful not to get off on a tangent here but I think part of the outrage and concern that we've seen from community is because we are all used to a certain professionalism a certain level of police that we have all experienced and we should expect and experience and what we're seeing is not the case that's as much as I can say I I appreciate that just then a follow up question with your experience in Wisconsin then are these sort of standards of conduct different in different states then again just based on my experience just two states yeah I think a lot of them are a lot of them are the same I I'm heavily involved with uh my my colleagues across country um there's wide variation I can tell you in terms of what both support post boards can do do um one of the things as an example is Wisconsin was very is very heavy on the training side of things they have a standardized use of force they have instructor development they have all that kind of stuff uh the state actually puts on training there they have academies they are not so strong on the certification licensing end as we are here so you'll but you that's what you'll find you'll find that variation some are really focused in one area others are focused in a much different area we are not involved in training which I was going to mention to you the way that say Wisconsin is but we are much more heavily involved in the regulation and policies training uh required mandatory training for CEs and so on a question from council member Johnson I guess my question is really just to kind of understand some of the what sparks the you know the formal complaint process for some of these I you know these um standards and things that are outlined here my assumption would be that right if someone's brought up on these charges that there's communication happening and that like an actual person or officer wouldn't have to go through and fill out a formal complaint if they're but I'm wondering about the communication piece on the back end for example we did have you know I can think of a few uh one incident in my ward where an officer ran into a property in my ward and there was reports of potential use of alcohol I'm just wondering and it's not like our officer but I'm just wondering like what exactly what does that look like is that something that's triggered automatically do people have to go back through and like actually fill out a formal complaint to get the post board to respond or is it something that the post board just watches.

Yep.

So there are there are a couple things at play there.

One is since 2021 the chief so we're talking about St.

Paul the chief or his designee would have to and and assuming that officer was arrested for DUI then they would have to report that because that's a potential violation and they report it through their system.

Now they have an online system because they're doing it obviously way more and and we were trying to get away from paper.

You know same case let's say for some reason and the chiefs don't they they are um uh religious in reporting this stuff um say for some reason it wasn't reported but a citizen says so and so on I know as an officer and was arrested for DUI last night and they send that to us then we would uh monitor it now here's the difference here's the one thing you have to keep in mind um if there is a criminal case pending even if it's a misdemeanor say basic first defense DWI we are we do not take action until this is resolved okay and the reason for that is for a lot of reasons but among them is one the evidence is going to be developed over here under criminal procedure the blood alcohol the so on so forth this and that um and if we start poking around and I order an agency to do uh investigation they can compromise the criminal case because licensees have to cooperate with us they don't get a and over here you have the Fifth Amendment right to self you know to not self-incriminate.

So is there something with house and the post board where after a criminal procedure or conviction or sentencing, um, is there a trigger in terms of like is there some type of alert?

I guess um, because you mentioned that you know, obviously they wouldn't self-incriminate and report themselves, but as the chief okay, yeah, we track it.

Um a standards coordination unit, they're the ones who do the compliance reviews of agencies, they had they take they're the intake for complaints, um, they run that whole process and they track it.

So we'll get word from the chief.

Officer such and such got arrested last night for DUI.

We put it in our tracking system, and then not only that, these days, because there is a self-report mandate under our rules for licensees, they have they have to report it themselves.

And typically what happens is we will get a letter from the law enforcement labor services, their union reps, uh, an attorney saying I represent so and so, he is he or she is reporting this possible violation of standards of conduct.

So they also inform us, and then we track it.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Any other questions?

Um, I'm gonna just finish up this slide and and uh try and get how we doing on time.

Okay, okay.

I'll make it quicker, I guess.

Um the one thing I do want to emphasize, and I think this came up uh when uh council member Bowie and I talked.

Um we're not the internal affairs investigation for the state uh agency.

We are just not um we personnel investigations, that kind of misconduct, the things like I talked about with the officer doesn't show up, yada yada.

Um that is a local agency and your governing bodies such as yourselves.

That is not in our jurisdiction.

Um violations of agency policy, um that is not in our jurisdiction.

That's for uh in your case, Chief Henry to uh do his internal investigation of the officer that allegedly violated violated the the policy, the department policy, and take whatever uh disciplinary actions are appropriate.

Um so they're and as I said in this in the slide, they're implemented and forced by the agency.

We do not have jurisdiction over those local policies.

We do have jurisdiction over those.

I mentioned the mandatory model policies, and I want to point out that the reason we have jurisdiction over those is not because the post board decided one day, hey, we should have a policy on professional misconduct, and all of you agencies have to follow it.

It ended up that way because the legislature gave us that authority, they put it in statute.

So if you look at 66, you'll see pursuit policy, you'll see use of force policy, all that kind of thing.

Um that's where we get our authority.

We don't independently have that on in terms of policy.

Um and this in this case, if someone does violate one of the mandatory uh model policies, that again lays lay with the employer, uh, the chief, the sheriff, uh, to discipline that where our authority comes in on these model policies is whether or not the chief law enforcement officer, the CLEO, as we call them, adopted the policy, whether their policy is same or similar to the one that was promulgated through statute.

And that's what we do during compliance reviews in part.

Our officer or our um standards coordinators that go to these agencies and they say we want to see your policies, these 15 policies, and as long as they are same or similar to the post board policies, they're good to go.

Now, if a chief or sheriff would be, and they they don't, but if they would say, I don't like your policy, I think it's garbage, and I'm gonna put this one out there, and we determine it's not, then they can be disciplined.

The chief can be disciplined.

Make sense.

I got a question from the Consumer Joseph.

Thank you, Chair.

I I just want to make sure I'm understanding.

So it's similar to what you said about your like the license licensing agency on behalf of the profession, more so, and these are employer, basically employer policies, employer employee policies.

Is that kind of a correct analogy?

Yes.

How these are being determined.

Okay, yes.

Okay.

Now the exception uh for what it's worth, and we had just had a case where um an officer uh continued a pursuit, um, end up ramming the car.

It was in the oncoming traffic, it was uh, and I say it because it is a public uh public document now.

Um, and that's a violation of the pursuit policy in most cases, right?

But in this case, our jurisdiction fell in because it was unauthorized use of deadly force, or we determined the board determined that it was and revoked the license.

Now that person went through due process, went through the court of administrative hearings, lost there, went to the appeals court, lost there, and that's where it sits right now.

Um but there's a case where yes, some mandatory policy was violated, but the behavior itself was something different, it fell under the standards of conduct.

Okay.

All right.

Um very quickly, uh I think there was uh talk about the training.

Do we offer training?

We do not, as I mentioned earlier, some states do.

Um all we do is set broad learning objectives.

That's what our authority is.

Um the uh legislature starting in 2018, there was use of force and there was pursuit uh prior to that or emergency vehicle operation, then they added the additional um bias, you know, um uh implicit bias, uh cultural diversity include implicit bias, um, conflict management, de-escalation, and that um then crisis intervention training, um then uh most recently was investigating crimes of bias, and need at least an hour and a three-year cycle, blah blah blah, so on so forth.

Okay, those are determined by by legislature, by the legislature, and we of course enforce that.

When an officer comes up for their license renewal, our system automatically checks to see if they've got these mandatory learning objectives as part of their 48.

If they don't, they can't renew, and the chiefs are primarily responsible for getting that done.

A question from Consumer Joseph and seems like oh just really quick.

Um, so the 48 hours, um thank you, Chair.

Um, the 48 hours is that's over a three-year cycle, so that's 16 hours per year, basically.

Roughly, yep.

Um I just asked that question because it um basically the state would have to modify if they wanted more or less.

I know other licensing um uh licenses require more continuing education than that breeder.

There is uh again wide variation across country.

Um Wisconsin had 24 hours a year, so 72 in a three-year, but they don't run a three-year cycle because they're not licensing.

So you'll get these variations.

Not only that, take Wisconsin for instance, they don't define what those 24 hours are in.

Whereas Minnesota is much more clear-cut on it has to be this, this, and this.

So there's give and take, there's pluses and minuses, pros and cons to both.

Okay, thanks.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, so I'm just gonna close very quickly uh with regard to our license, our data.

Um, thinking again that we're an employer that we somehow um are involved in that relationship.

As I mentioned, two silos, we are not.

We are a licensing board, and so our data, the data we have on officers or on licensees generally, um, comes under 13.41.

Everything that you guys have with your city and stuff is 13.43 personnel data.

Um, and then sub again disciplinary procedures are subject to 214.

So tried to wrap it up.

Wonderful.

Well, thank you so much for that overview and just uh clarification, particularly around our roles.

I do see a question from uh BP Cam, and I have some questions as well.

Just look for my colleagues ask any questions or make any comments.

Yeah, um, just like cursory Google search for folks, a tier three um uh Minnesota educator license requires 75 hours every three years.

So it's just to offer that up as a little tidbit of information.

Um the question I have is around submitting complaints.

Um, so you know for a millions of viewers at home, like what does that look like, right?

We're encouraging folks to like try to get an identification of an officer, if you can to videotape it so that officer's behavior or actions are are clearly connected to that person.

What does a good submission look like?

What sort of um what meets its muster when you're looking at you know good submissions, and is it required to connect an agent with the activity, or if you can't, how is that determined later?

Like if you aren't able to identify the officer and you submit the complaint, you know, does that impact the complaint?

Or is it best practices to have the agent identified and you submit with the act activity?

Yes, and um by agent, I hope if you're sorry, I mean no, I just want to be clear.

Yes, uh, any any peace officer, thank you.

Okay, yes.

Um, and that's why, as I mentioned in the one slide, we need we need specificity.

We need a who we we were talking about what claim what uh do you think they've violated?

Um and that's why as I mentioned in the one slide we need we need specificity we need a who we we were talking about what claim what uh do you think they've violated um I I can tell you that we get thousands of complaints from citizens about I don't like how he he or she did the report they lied about me in the report they um you know um they said I was resisting and I wasn't uh that kind of stuff um uh even about the judges and um all of those you know quality of service that sort of thing quite frankly probably 80 percent of those I'd say 90 percent of those are we do we look at the body camera we look at whatever information we have are absolutely baseless um but just as a general rule those those complaints about quality of service do not fall in jurisdiction and they will be in all likelihood dismissed unless something else is uncovered um that applies to the standards of conduct but by and large having the agent's name or badge number with the activity is the is the most important like submission and and very and what area do you believe they violated that falls within our jurisdiction because again you can have a name you can have a badge number and they were you know quote unquote rude um we don't enforce rudeness um I should yeah we don't enforce politeness I think is probably the proper way to say it so they have to um cite cite which standard of conduct they didn't need correct okay yep thank you yeah and the follow-up question to that um also is uh what is the information that's provided to that complaint um after their case have been dismissed because I imagine that you know there's other alternative avenues for accountability for them so um two things one one in terms of a complaint that goes through us and then gets dealt with we we follow up with a letter now in the more egregious ones it's even like say where there's actual discipline then the person obviously anybody has access to that final discipline revocation suspension whatever it is because that's all public um but as far as getting um getting back to the person we again send a letter we let them know uh that either it was in jurisdiction it wasn't or that it's closed no for no further action one of the things because we do run into so many of these where it's a complaint about quality of service and so on so forth one of the first things we ask people and tell them to do is have you started with the agency itself did you file a complaint with St.

Paul PD about how this officer treated you because that's really the majority of those things are going to fall within that relationship um not into a licensing issue because of the narrow scope of our jurisdiction got it thank you so much and then um following up from your last slide about continuing education can you share what are the um because I I know we can uh do a Google search here but since we have you here what are these like the main learning objects objectives and how have they changed over time um so as it pertains so in pre-service meaning before they even become officers um we have 410 some learning objectives and they cover all these different areas um that's what we're doing under rulemaking right now plus we're revamping all of that set that aside C is very similar um many of these learning objectives are set by statute so as the statute changes then we have to adjust the learning objectives promulgate that out to the vendors uh whether it's Legal Minnesota cities other ones that provide a lot of uh training then they have to adjust their courses to meet these learning objectives all courses if you're gonna get post credit particularly in the mandated areas must go through us and then we review them to make sure they're meeting the bulk of the learning objectives in some cases they have to meet every single learning objective because that's what the statute says and then as long as they do then they get approved and then when the officer the licensee takes it they get credit for that mandatory learning objective.

Got it and then for a point of clarification you said all the courses that an officer takes to apply to their um number of hours um needs to be approved from the post board by the post board first.

Correct okay um and I I just asked that question because I remember this was some years ago but there is a lot of controversy particularly with the city of Minneapolis around a warrior style training that was provided.

It's not prohibited yeah and in so uh but was that in the aftermath or like did was that not approved or if there are some trainings I'm sorry I you should respond so I can be able to understand you.

You said so the warrior style the this the prohibition warrior style training came out uh again during that whole time frame around George Floyd's murder, where um they're all the it was part of the reform.

As I recall, I don't all the sessions, legislative sessions start to run together, so I kind of forget which one it was, but but that's in statute.

So, like right now, and in fact, you may have there was a dust-up probably two years ago with an outfit out of New Jersey where I denied their ability to teach officers in the state because of comments and whatnot that uh they had made at a conference in New Jersey, which was clearly warrior style uh trash, but far as I'm concerned.

Um so we suspended their courses as far as getting credit and told them you have to come back and show us that your course content does not actually violate the statute regarding warrior style training, which ironically they never did.

So wonderful.

Thank you so much for um clarifying that question.

So um thank you, Chair.

That just made me think of uh like because you said that you since you approve the continuing education that the licensees are allowed to submit, then you can say certain courses are not acceptable, and that's basically what you did in in that situation.

Um but their courses would be acceptable like anywhere else, it's just that for our purposes they are not.

Correct.

So um, yeah, long story short, if they want post credit in this mandatory learning area, we look at their course, are they meeting the learning objectives?

If they are green light, you're good to go.

If they're not, and there's a there's a back and forth the process, um, we have an online system, so they send it back and say you're missing these objectives, or you're not describing how you're going to meet this particular learning objective.

And there's so there's that back and forth interplay.

But at the end of the day, if they don't respond or they say, um, I don't, you know, I don't have any of that, we'll just say, well, then you're no good for you don't get approval for mandatory learning objectives.

Now they can some vendors will do this where they'll say maybe it's it's in use of force, but we say we're not gonna give you credit for a mandatory use of force course because you're not covering this, this, and this.

They'll say, Well, that's fine, we don't really care.

We'll just put it in for general ed.

And that's fine, they can do that as long as this law because general ed is far more broad as long as it's law enforcement related.

But it can't violate warrior style training as an example, it can't violate anything else, but if they just want to get general ed, that's fine.

But then the officer, the chief, whoever, when they send their people to that, they then understand, and in fact, this is an ongoing battle where we continue to we're finding ways to better inform them.

If you send your officer to this for three credits, do not think that this is three credits that's gonna give them credit towards their renewal.

It's just gonna be general ed because the vendor did not meet the criteria.

So what um I guess the question have you had a situation where a licensee did submit that for credit and then ended up um having to submit something else, or do you I I guess I know you said you can revoke licenses, but if you you know, if you don't renew on time or don't meet the requirements, is there some type of a suspension or something?

Um well, we're in a we're just at the front end of renewal right now.

Every year it's about this time of year, they have to do it by June 30th.

Right.

So we are every day constantly sending out emails, reminders that we give them uh connect, they go into their portal, they can see which of their officers are due for renewal, which ones have all their credits that they need in the right areas, ones that don't.

And again, the system will not allow them to renew these that don't.

They could renew these if they want.

So they have X amount of time to get it.

Um our biggest problem, quite frankly, is we have thousands and thousands of courses.

We have lots of vendors, and not all the vendors, as you can imagine, because you're just dealing with a large population, um, are as good as others at um uh you know complying to they'll say, for instance, they'll title a course emergency vehicle operation, and then the chiefs unknowingly send their officers to this immediate emergency vehicle operation, but they don't check close enough that it's not post-approved.

It's covering some other stuff, and they think they've met that burden, they haven't.

In which case, more often than not, we tell them, well, you got about 30 days to get them into a course that complies.

And if any licensee expires because they did not renew in time as of midnight in January 30th, or I'm sorry, July 1st, it would be um whatever 31 or 30 days.

30, I think.

Anyway, whatever.

They do not have a valid license, they cannot work until they get their renewal in I'm sorry, I talk with my hands.

I swear to God, I'm half Italian, but I'm not one more quick question.

If their license is revoked for that reason, or just for any reason, that's that's public information on your post.

Any final discipline is public information.

In fact, if you haven't been on our website, you can go to the public search.

Um you can, if you know of an officer in your jurisdiction, punch his or her name in and it will come up.

And anything that's public will be there.

Um, you know, their training that has been submitted to post.

Now, as you uh alluded to earlier, they may have a take another training through the agency that's not reported to post because they don't care if we have it or not, that wouldn't be there.

Thank you.

And I have a question I I know I I hedged at it uh earlier when we were um speaking in preparation for this meeting, um, but I just want to just share that you know the um council have passed a separation ordinance or in the process of strengthening our separation ordinance, understanding that the required training is um really mandated through state statute in a um scenario where um our our current legislation um particularly passes some um uh statute to strengthen or require uh a separation ordinance or require some level of change in behavior in terms of um how officer should operate, particularly in the midst of a federal arrest.

Um do you um based from your experience um have you seen that there's like um training providers for that?

Has there been uh any requests for your input, particularly around you know, with the evolution of our of our laws, you know, being strengthened to make sure there's clear distinction between federal agents and our police officers.

Can you speak a little bit to that?

I know um you know we're kind of uh imagining, right?

Um, but I do think you know, based off of our St.

Paul delegation, you know, the impacts from ICE has been just very um expansive, and we anticipate seeing some some level of changes in that statute.

Yeah.

Um as I mentioned, um as you now understand, I mean, our everything we do has statewide impact.

So um that's one.

So if you do that locally within and you have those policies for your PD on how they interact with ICE and so on and so forth, absolutely that's you know that's obviously your purview, and you'll do that.

Um, but it wouldn't fall into us.

The only way that that could be applied statewide for example is if the legislature says it, puts it in a bill and tells us you're gonna provide guidance or you're gonna provide a policy that everybody has to adopt in this man, then it's subject to the to our jurisdiction.

Um to your first part of the question, this is new for all of us, um, as far as uh what people are I I'm sure that as just like we're having this conversation here, I'm sure that's happening across country in different states, but I personally don't know of any training or that's ever been an issue about how locals interact with uh federal law enforcement because it's never been a problem before.

This is something new for all of us.

Um so unfortunately I don't I don't have any um input or guidance on that.

Yep, yeah, appreciate that um that feedback.

Um also you know, we've covered a lot here, so we are unless there's any other questions or comments to be made.

I just want to say thank you so much, um, Director Miso for your time today and just walking us through this process.

I've learned a lot um, particularly around the jurisdiction and authorities.

Um I feel like this has been really helpful to just help clarify, you know, any of our actions or any of our um policy um um uh agendas, particularly at the state and at the local level.

So I also want to just thank my colleagues um for for being here and just bringing some thoughtful questions.

If there is any um you know policy-related, you know, items that we want to further explore, or you have any questions, I can also share the contact with Mr.

Eric with you all so you can um relate that to him.

But um, thank you so much, Director.

You are excused and um I appreciate everyone's participation today.

Um, and so with that, um, we will be adjourned soon.

I just want to let people know that we will be moving forward every fourth Wednesday at 10 a.m.

For some people who are used to the 1 p.m.

Moving forward, we'll be having this meeting at 10 a.m.

So again, if you have any questions, just bring to my um bring to my office either through Polly or me.

So thank you, everyone.

Take care.