Spann v. Minneapolis City Council
| Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-0931 |
| Citation | 973 N.W.2d 321 |
| Parties | Cathy SPANN, et al., Respondents, v. MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
James V. F. Dickey, Douglas P. Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley, Minnesota (for respondents)
James R. Rowader, Jr., Minneapolis City Attorney, Brian S. Carter, Gregory P. Sautter, Caroline M. Bachun, Assistant City Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellants)
Joseph A. Kelly, Kevin M. Beck, Rebecca Duren, Kelly & Lemmons, P.A. (for amicus curiae Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis)
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.*
This appeal requires us to determine whether the district court properly granted the extraordinary legal remedy of mandamus. Appellants, the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor Jacob Frey, challenge a writ of mandamus issued by the district court that requires appellants to hire additional sworn police officers. Appellants assert that the district court erred by interpreting the city's charter to impose a clear duty on appellants to continuously employ a minimum number of sworn police officers and by using mandamus to control the mayor's exercise of discretion in hiring officers. We conclude that, although the city charter imposes a clear duty on the city council to continuously fund a police force with a minimum number of officers, it is the mayor who has the duty to employ officers and there is no clear duty under the charter for the mayor to continuously employ that same minimum number of officers. Rather, the charter vests the mayor with the duty to establish and maintain the police department—a duty which, by its very nature, is discretionary. The district court therefore erred when it concluded that appellants have a clear duty to continuously employ a minimum number of officers and by granting mandamus on that basis. Accordingly, we reverse.
The following facts are derived from the stipulation of facts and stipulated exhibits on which the parties agreed to have the district court decide this matter.
The number of sworn police officers employed by the City of Minneapolis has fallen substantially since early 2020. At all relevant times, the targeted number of sworn officers—the number the mayor and police department hope to have employed—has been 888. The city's 2020 budget funded 888 sworn officer positions. On January 4, 2020, the city employed 879 sworn officers, 25 of whom were on continuous leave, meaning that they were on leave for 78 or more hours during an applicable pay period. By April 2021, the number employed had fallen to 743, and the number on continuous leave had risen to 92—netting just 651 actively working sworn officers. And the police department projected further declines in the number of sworn officers employed, with that number falling below 700 during 2022, but increasing to 757 sworn officers by the end of January 2023.
The recent decline in the number of active sworn officers employed by the city was preceded by two unusual events. First, in mid-2020, the city faced significant revenue shortfalls because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the city implemented budget cuts. The budget cuts did not result in any layoffs of sworn officers. But the police department canceled a 2020 police academy. It also laid off all its community service officers (CSOs), many of whom were working toward completing Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training licensure requirements. Police academies and the CSO program are important sources of new hires to offset attrition of sworn police officers. Second, later in 2020, an unprecedented number of officers went on continuous leave and/or left the department following the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd and ensuing civil unrest in the city. The police department usually anticipates about 44 sworn officer departures annually, but 169 sworn officers separated from their employment with the department between May 25, 2020, and April 15, 2021.
In 2021, the mayor and police department took steps to increase the number of active sworn officers, including holding three police academies and recalling CSOs. But the city was still suffering revenue shortfalls attributable to the pandemic. The city's 2021 budget funded only 770 of the targeted 888 sworn-officer positions.
At the same time the number of sworn officers on the force was falling, the rate of violent crime in Minneapolis was climbing. According to police department records, from 2019 to 2020 the city suffered a 70.8% increase in homicides and a 105% increase in the number of shooting victims. These increasing violent-crime levels disproportionately affected diverse communities, including those in the city's fourth precinct in north Minneapolis.
Respondents are residents of north Minneapolis neighborhoods who filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in August 2020, seeking to compel appellants to hire additional police officers. The petition was based on sections 7.3(a) and 7.3(c) of article VII of the city's charter. Minneapolis, Minn., City Charter art. VII, § 7.3(a), (c) (2022).1 Section 7.3(a) addresses the mayor's functions with regard to the police department. It provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he [m]ayor has complete power over the establishment, maintenance, and command of the police department." Id. , § 7.3(a). Section 7.3(c) addresses the city council's duty to fund the police department, providing:
Funding. The City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident, and provide for those employees’ compensation, for which purpose it may tax the taxable property in the City up to 0.3 percent of its value annually. This tax is in addition to any other tax, and not subject to the maximum set under section 9.3(a)(4).
Id. , § 7.3(c). Respondents contended that sections 7.3(a) and 7.3(c) together require appellants not just to fund but also to employ a minimum number of police officers at all times and that appellants have failed to do so. The petition asserted that "[t]he [m]ayor has no discretion to employ fewer than 0.0017 employees of the police force per resident." According to the petition, based on the number of residents in Minneapolis in 2020, the city council was required to fund, and the mayor was required to employ, 743 officers.2 Appellants opposed the petition, asserting that the charter requires the city council to fund a minimum number of police force employees, but does not impose a duty on the city council or mayor to employ a minimum number of officers. Appellants also asserted that the city council had remained compliant with the charter by continuing to fund the minimum number of positions required by section 7.3(c) of the charter despite a decline in the number of sworn officers employed.
The district court granted the petition. It determined that appellants had conceded that they were required to both fund and employ a minimum number of police force employees. Because the police department projected that the number of sworn officers in its employ would drop below the required minimum calculated by the district court, the district court concluded that appellants had "failed to comply with [s]ection 7.3(c) of the Minneapolis City Charter to fund and employ at least 0.0017 sworn police officers per resident of Minneapolis." And the district court ordered that:
[The mayor and city council] shall immediately take any and all necessary action to ensure that they fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident, which will total either 730.33 sworn police officers or a number of sworn police officers equaling 0.0017 of the 2020 census population when published later this year, whichever is higher.3
The district court further ordered appellants to comply with the requirements of the writ by June 30, 2022, or to show cause for their failure to do so.
This appeal follows.
Did the district court err by granting mandamus?
"Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy." Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights , 708 N.W.2d 162, 171 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted). The writ may issue "(1) to compel the performance of an official duty clearly imposed by law [or] (2) to compel the exercise of discretion when that exercise is required by law." Id. ; see also Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (2020). To warrant judicial interference to compel performance of a clearly imposed duty, the "duty must be positive, not discretionary, and the right must be so clear as not to admit of any reasonable controversy." State ex rel. Schwartzkopf v. City Council of Brainerd , 121 Minn. 182, 141 N.W. 97, 99 (1913) (quotation omitted). When a duty involves the exercise of discretion, mandamus may issue only to set that discretion in motion or to require a new exercise of discretion because of arbitrary and capricious conduct. State ex rel. S. St. Paul v. Hetherington , 240 Minn. 298, 61 N.W.2d 737, 740 (1953).
Respondents sought mandamus based on their view that the city charter imposes a clear, nondiscretionary duty on the city council to fund and the mayor to employ a minimum number of sworn police officers at all times. To be entitled to mandamus on that basis, respondents were required to demonstrate that (1) both the mayor and the city council failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law; (2) respondents suffered a public wrong and were specifically injured by the failure; and (3) respondents have no other adequate legal remedy. Breza v. City of Minnetrista , 725 N.W.2d 106, 109-10 (Minn. 2006). Appellants challenge only the first of these elements in this appeal. And, because the district court's determination of that element turns on legal issues, we undertake de novo review. See In re Welfare of Child of S.L.J. , 782 N.W.2d 549, 553 (Minn. 2010) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spann v. Minneapolis City Council
...[they] have not done so, on or about June 30, 2022."The court of appeals reversed the issuance of the writ. Spann v. Minneapolis City Council , 973 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Minn. App. 2022). The court of appeals identified the "central legal issue" as "whether section 7.3 of the city charter clearl......