Appeals Court sides with open government group in fight over Minneapolis police ‘coaching’ records

The Minneapolis Police Department may be required to make public far more records detailing misconduct by its officers after the state Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s ruling this week.

At issue is whether the public should have access to records of Minneapolis police officers who receive “coaching” for misconduct.

Under state law, police misconduct records are public when officers are disciplined. The Minneapolis Police Department argues “coaching” isn’t discipline but rather an internal performance management tool.

The city of Minneapolis has said it’s only used for minor infractions, but records show coaching has been used for allegations involving excessive force, failure to provide protection, discrimination, and police retaliation and harassment, a 2020 Reformer investigation found.

The Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, now known as Minnesotans for Open Government, brought the case in June 2021 after Minneapolis denied its request for records related to the use of coaching in the disciplinary process for police officers.

“Coaching is not discipline and has never been discipline,” the city wrote in its denial letter.

Among the records requested were those involving higher-level code of conduct violations — such as those defined in the department’s conduct manual as involving ‘unnecessary or not reasonable’ use of force — where coaching was the only corrective action taken.

Minnesotans for Open Government, which is represented by attorneys at Ballard Spahr, alleged in court filings that over 70% of misconduct complaints that result in discipline are referred to coaching. (The Ballard Spahr attorneys also represent the Reformer.)

Subsequent disclosures in court proceedings of internal communications revealed that city staff have on multiple occasions referred to coaching as “discipline.” An attorney for the city argued in a 2023 court filing that those mentions had no bearing on “a process the relevant parties uniformly treat as non-disciplinary.”

Hennepin County District Court Judge Karen Janisch sided with the city in 2024, holding that the “clumsy and imprecise” use of the word “discipline” did not change the nature of the coaching process.

The dispute arose in part because the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act fails to precisely define “discipline” or “disciplinary action.”

In the ruling, Appeals Court Judge Jeanne Cochran appeared to accept Minnesotans for Open Government’s position that a broader “dictionary definition” of the term — covering its claim that coaching records are subject to disclosure — should apply.

Barring another appeal by the city, the Appeals Court decision sends the case back to district court for a possible trial over access to the coaching records.

Matt Ehling, Minnesotans for Open Government treasurer, told the Reformer that his group was “very gratified” by the reversal.

The ruling “reaffirmed Minnesota’s commitment to open, transparent government and brought us one step closer to rightfully getting these police discipline records released to the public,” Ehling said in an email.

City spokesperson Jess Olstad told the Reformer that Minneapolis is assessing the opinion and its legal options, but its position remains the same.

“Under the Data Practices Act, coaching records would only be public if coaching is ‘disciplinary action.’ MPD does not use coaching as discipline. All the city did in this situation was follow the law,” she said in a Tuesday email.

The text of the most recent collective bargaining agreement between the city and the police officers’ federation is consistent with the city and police union’s position. It defines a disciplinary action to include only a written reprimand, suspension, demotion or discharge.

Paul Ostrow, a former member of the Minneapolis City Council, wrote in a June 2024 op-ed for the Reformer that the language in the contract — which had not been ratified at the time — was “sleight of hand” and the latest instance of an ongoing campaign by the city and MPD to shield police misconduct from public view. That campaign has been counterproductive to MPD’s efforts to repair its image and restore its depleted roster of sworn officers, he wrote.

The Minneapolis City Council approved the collective bargaining agreement the following month in an 8-4 vote. Ward 2 Council Member Robin Wonsley, one of the four dissenting votes, said that the city had changed its position on whether the collective bargaining process was an appropriate venue to negotiate significant reforms of officer discipline, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Ward 9 Council Member Jason Chavez also voted against the contract. In an email to the Reformer this week, he said his concerns about the city’s use of coaching have not gone away.

“Coaching is not about reform, and it most certainly is not about transparency,” he said. “It’s a slap on the wrist that prevents officers from being held accountable.”