Spann v. Minneapolis City Council
| Docket Number | A21-0931 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 2022 |
| Parties | Cathy SPANN, et al., Appellants, v. MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Douglas P. Seaton, James V.F. Dickey, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley, Minnesota, for appellants.
Peter Ginder, Acting Minneapolis City Attorney, Gregory P. Sautter, Brian S. Carter, Caroline M. Bachun, Assistant City Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondents.
Joseph A. Kelly, Kevin M. Beck, Rebecca Duren, Kelly & Lemmons, P.A., Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis.
This appeal requires us to determine whether the Minneapolis City Charter imposes a clear legal duty on the Minneapolis Mayor and the Minneapolis City Council to employ and fund at least 0.0017 sworn police officers per resident. In the fall of 2020, a group of north Minneapolis residents sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Mayor and City Council to employ and fund this minimum number of officers. The district court issued an alternative writ of mandamus, concluding that the Minneapolis City Charter creates a clear legal duty to employ and fund 0.0017 officers per resident and that the Mayor and City Council had failed to do so. The court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals held that the Mayor does not have a clear legal duty to employ a minimum number of officers and that the City Council is satisfying its clear legal duty to fund 0.0017 officers per resident. On June 20, 2022, we filed an order that affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding that the Mayor has a clear legal duty to employ 0.0017 officers per resident and that the City Council is meeting its clear legal duty to fund at least this many officers. Our opinion explains the reasons for our decision.
In August 2020, eight residents—Cathy Spann, Aimee Lundberg, Jonathan Lundberg, Don Samuels, Sondra Samuels, Julie Oden, Audua Pugh, and Georgianna Yantos—filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Mayor and City Council to employ and fund at least 0.0017 sworn police officers per Minneapolis resident. The residents argued that sections 7.3(a) and 7.3(c) of the City Charter impose an "unqualified duty" on the Mayor and City Council to employ and fund these officers. The first provision, section 7.3(a), describes the Mayor's power over the police department:
Police department . The Mayor has complete power over the establishment, maintenance, and command of the police department. The Mayor may make all rules and regulations and may promulgate and enforce general and special orders necessary to operating the police department. Except where the law vests an appointment in the department itself, the Mayor appoints and may discipline or discharge any employee in the department (subject to the Civil Service Commission's rules, in the case of an employee in the classified service).
Minneapolis, Minn., Charter § 7.3(a) (2022). The second provision, section 7.3(c), describes the City Council's obligation to fund a police force:
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).
Minneapolis, Minn., Charter § 7.3(c) (2022).
The residents further supported their position that the Charter places a minimum force requirement on the Mayor by pointing to language in prior versions of the Charter. The residents noted that the Charter was amended in 2013 and that those amendments became effective in 2015. When discussing the powers of the Mayor, the 2013 Charter stated:
The personnel of the police department shall be established and maintained at a ratio, or as closely thereto as is possible within the limits of section 2 hereof, of not less than one and seven-tenths (1.7) employees per one thousand (1,000) of population of the city according to the latest United States official census.
Minneapolis, Minn., Charter ch. 6, § 1 (Dec. 15, 2014 version). The residents pointed out that this language was first proposed to be included in the Charter in 1961 and that this language was intended to actually increase the size of the police force, not just to increase funding.
Based on their reading of the Charter language, the residents argued that the Charter required the City to employ and fund 743 sworn police officers in 2020 and that the Mayor and City Council were not complying with this duty.1 The residents alleged that at the beginning of 2020, the City employed approximately 825 officers but that due to retirements, medical leave, and disability leave there were fewer than 743 officers at the time of the petition. Because of a hiring freeze and the City's decision to cancel its August 2020 police academy, the residents claimed that the City would be unable to fill these vacancies. The residents argued that this lack of police was contributing to a surge in violent crime. The residents asked for a peremptory writ requiring the Mayor and City Council to immediately comply with the City Charter or an alternative writ requiring the Mayor and City Council to show cause why they were not complying with their obligations.
In April 2021, the parties reached a stipulation of facts and exhibits governing their dispute. The parties agreed that there were 743 sworn police officers in the Minneapolis Police Department as of April 10, 2021, down from 879 in early January 2020.2 By June 1, 2021, the number was projected to be down to 690 officers and remain under 700 officers for at least a full year. This decrease was due to "an unprecedented departure of sworn police officers" following George Floyd's death on May 25, 2020, and the aftermath. Specifically, 169 officers had left the department, almost four times the normal rate of attrition.3 An additional 70 "then-known or suspected PERA Duty Disability applicants" had not yet left the department. Despite the loss of officers, the 2021 city budget "provide[d] actual funding for an average of 770 sworn officers on payroll."
The stipulation also addressed what was being done to fill vacancies in the department and future employment projections. The parties agreed that "[h]iring new sworn police officers is a resource intensive process" and that "[t]he pipeline of potential sworn officers has shrunk considerably within the last several years." Specifically, all new officers attend a 3-month long police academy "to onboard and train." Three such academies were scheduled for 2021 and were expected to add 110 new sworn police officers to the department. While it was still early in the 2022 budget process, the parties agreed that the Mayor's proposed 2022 budget would likely include training for at least 160 additional officers, the most the department believed that it could train in a year. Based on this information, and assuming a "return to normal attrition after the current group of disability claimants leave the [department]," the department projected that the number of officers would hit a low of 637 in April 2022 and then begin to climb up to 757 officers by the end of January 2023.
After a hearing, the district court issued an alternative writ of mandamus in early July 2021.4 In its order, the district court defined "police force" as "all sworn police officers currently employed by the" Minneapolis Police Department, whether "on leave or on the ground." The district court concluded that the City Council and the Mayor "cannot indefinitely rely on the 2010 Census number to determine how many sworn officers must be employed," despite acknowledging that the City Charter "is clear and unambiguous" that "any reference to population or other enumeration refers to the latest decennial federal census." Instead, the district court imposed an obligation "to keep up with projected census numbers as each 10-year period approaches" and concluded that "[t]he City must be proactive." Ultimately, the district court determined that the City must fund 730.33 officers based on the 2019 population estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts. In a footnote, the district court stated without citation to the record that "[t]he parties do not dispute that ‘to fund’ also requires the City ‘to employ.’ "
After addressing these preliminary matters, the district court concluded that the residents had "established the essential elements required for the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus": "(1) the failure of an official duty clearly imposed by law; (2) a public wrong specifically injurious to petitioner; and (3) no other adequate specific legal remedy." The district court reasoned that the Mayor and City Council failed to perform their official duties clearly imposed by law because the parties’ stipulated future employment projections fell below the required 730.33 sworn police officers. In concluding "that the failure to [adequately] fund a police force ... constitutes a ‘public wrong’ that is specifically injurious to" the residents, the district court determined that there was a causal link between the increased crime that the residents were experiencing and the failure to adequately fund the police. Finally, the district court concluded that the residents "cannot seek legislative and/or position changes through the political process ... because [the residents] are not seeking ‘change’ or a ‘fix.’ "
The alternative writ of mandamus issued by the district court commanded the Mayor and City Council "to immediately ... take all necessary action ... to fund a police force of at least ... 730.33 sworn police officers or a number of sworn police officers equaling 0.0017 of the 2020 census population when published ..., whichever is higher."5 The alternative writ further commanded the Mayor and City Council "to make a...
To continue reading
Request your trial