City of Minneapolis Police Personal Insurance Charter Amendment (2016)
| Minneapolis Police Personal Insurance Amendment |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
| Not on the ballot |
| Topic: |
| Local law enforcement |
| Related articles |
| Local law enforcement on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in Minnesota Hennepin County, Minnesota ballot measures Local ballot measure elections in 2016 Notable local measures on the ballot |
| See also |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota Hennepin County, Minnesota |
A City of Minneapolis Police Personal Insurance Charter Amendment ballot question qualified for the ballot for Minneapolis voters in Hennepin County, Minnesota, on November 8, 2016, but was removed from the ballot by a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling.
| A "yes" vote would have been a vote in favor of amending the city charter to require all police officer to carry personal liability insurance for instances of citizen complaints or lawsuits, similar mal-practice insurance for those in the medical field. |
| A "no" vote would have been a vote against amending the city charter to require police insurance, keeping the city responsible for any lawsuits against police officers. |
The Committee For Professional Policing (CFPP) collected signatures to qualify this initiative charter amendment for the ballot. The measure was designed to require all city police officers to carry personal liability insurance comparable to malpractice insurance for those in the medical profession. The amendment, upon approval, would have allowed the city to pay for base insurance rates covering all officers, but police would have been individually responsible to pay for any additional insurance premiums caused by improper, overly violent, or "risky" conduct.[1][2]
The group tried to qualify the initiative for the election ballot on November 4, 2014, but did not collect the required number of signatures by the deadline for that year.
According to the CFPP website, the city had spent $20 million to cover successful lawsuits against police officers over the seven years preceding 2014. Dave Bicking, the Chair of CFPP, spoke about the current city policy saying, “Right now, the city covers pretty much all acts of misconduct by police officers, but it's not actually required to do so.”[1][3]
Michelle Gross, President of CUAPB said, "Statistics about police brutality [are] not collected by the police. No cities keep this data in any real way. The FBI is mandated to keep this data, but no one really does it. So it's this big problem that everyone knows about, but nobody wants to quantify.”[1]
Text of measure
Full text
| Voting on Law Enforcement |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
| Local Measures |
The full text of the proposed amendment is below, with italics indicating the text to be added to the city charter:[4]
| “ |
Section 7.3(a)(2) Police Officers. Each peace officer appointed in the police department must be licensed as required by law. Each such licensed officer may exercise any lawful power that a peace officer enjoys at common law or by general or special law, and may execute a warrant anywhere in the county. Each appointed police officer must provide proof of professional liability insurance coverage in the amount consistent with current limits under the statutory immunity provision of state law and must maintain continuous coverage throughout the course of employment as a police officer with the city. Such insurance must be the primary insurance for the officer and must include coverage for willful or malicious acts and acts outside the scope of the officer’s employment by the city. If the City Council desires, the city may reimburse officers for the base rate of this coverage but officers must be responsible for any additional costs due to personal or claims history. The city may not indemnify police officers against liability in any amount greater than required by State Statute unless the officer’s insurance is exhausted. This amendment shall take effect one year after passage.[5] |
” |
Support
Supporters
- Committee For Professional Policing (CFPP)[3]
- Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB)[6]
Arguments in favor
Michelle Gross, President of CUAPB, said, “This is not an anti-cop deal by any means. It is a way to get rid of the bad officers and keep and protect the good ones.”[1]
"The city literally budgets for police brutality," Gross said, “The beauty of it [the initiative] is that it provides huge incentive for police not to engage in that conduct."[7]
Gross stated that about 150 out of the 850-strong Minneapolis police force had at least five complaints on record. She said, “We really see [misconduct as] centered around certain particular officers, and it’s a shame because in our meetings, we literally know the names of these officers.”[7]
Bicking stated, “We've been frustrated with the fact that the city politicians, the police chief and the union really have no interest in disciplining officers or holding them to account for their conduct. All that's been effective is lawsuits. While those are important to get some kind of compensation to the victims, they do very little to solve the underlying problem of preventing future problems, because the payments are made by the taxpayers.”[1]
Bicking said, "If you're a really, really bad driver, it becomes too expensive to drive or even own a car anymore. Similarly, some officers would become uninsurable, and that would finally get those officers off the force.”[2]
Opposition
Lt. Bob Kroll, president of the Minneapolis police union, opposed the initiative and argued that it would be impractical and could result in hesitant or overly cautious police officers. He also said that the proposal violates state law and police contracts.[7]
Arguing that the complicated system would require different insurance rates for officers with different tasks and responsibilities, Kroll said, "To some, it may seem like a great idea, but when you drill down into the feasibility … it’s not very well thought out. Officers … incur different amounts of liability. Basically, your 911 patrol officers would be the most expensive to insure, and that would go up by the frequency of contacts." He said that many insurance companies might be unwilling to participate in such a program.[7]
Kroll also argued that the additional anxiety caused by the insurance would make officer cautious of doing their job and applying force when needed, resulting in a less effective police force and potential safety hazards for both the police officers and the public. Kroll stated, “They’re going to be very, very hesitant to involving and engaging in anything. Officers that don’t do anything aren’t going to get complaints. Officers that are the ones that are out there digging and doing aggressive police work are going to get complaints.” He said the amendment would inhibit “good police protection.”[7]
Kroll stated that the police union would likely file for an injunction against the initiative arguing that it violated state law. He also announced that, if the measure remained on the ballot in November, the union would put a lot of money behind a campaign to urge voters to reject the initiative.[7]
Path to the ballot
Members of the CFPP needed 6,869 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the city's ballot. The CFPP validated signatures as it worked on the signature gathering campaign to ensure it acquired enough valid signatures. The deadline to submit signatures was on July 5, 2016. The group submitted over 14,000 signatures, and, the city clerk verified that 7,054 of the submitted signatures were valid, qualifying the measure for the ballot, provided the city council decides that the measure constitutes a proper and legal charter amendment.[8][9][7]
Lawsuit
On August 31, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that said this charter amendment violated state law requiring cities to back city employees in legal matters. The court ruled that the measure could not go before voters, removing the charter amendment from the ballot.[10]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Minneapolis Police Brutality Insurance Amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Basic info
Support
- Committee for Professional Policing-Minneapolis, MN website and Facebook page
- Communities United Against Police Brutality website, Facebook page and Twitter
- Insure the Police website
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Twin Cities Daily Planet, "Police brutality cause for Minneapolis ballot issue," January 10, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The Spokesman-Reporter, "New campaign to end police brutality," December 11, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Committee For Professional Policing, "Home," accessed August 13, 2015
- ↑ Committee For Professional Policing, "Details," accessed August 13, 2015
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Communities United Against Police Brutality, "Home," accessed January 14, 2014
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Minnesota Daily, "Police accountability petition advances," July 13, 2016
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer Josh Altic, "Email correspondence with CFPP Board Member Eric Bauer," August 12, 2015
- ↑ Minneapolis Elections Office, "Citizen Petition to Amend City Charter," accessed August 13, 2015
- ↑ Star Tribune, "Minnesota Supreme Court blocks $15 minimum wage, police insurance from Minneapolis' ballot," August 31, 2016
| ||||||||||
