Jordan defends handling of Black officers’ complaints

Civil rights director under fire for ‘dismissive’ response to claims of MPD discrimination

By Anna Pratt (December 19, 2007)

Originally published in The Spokesman-Recorder

At the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission meeting on Monday, December 17, vigorous dialogue took place between commissioners and Michael Jordan, the executive director of the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights (MDCR), about how he intervened when five Black police officers privately voiced to him that they were being discriminated against on the job.

Last week, those officers — Lt. Medaria Arradondo, Lt. Donald Harris, Sgt. Charles Adams, Sgt. Dennis Hamilton and Lt. Lee Edwards — filed a federal lawsuit against the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) and Police Chief Timothy Dolan. In the 38-page complaint, they allege six different counts of racial discrimination, stating that the MPD and Dolan have violated various local, state and federal laws.

They claim the disparate treatment they have endured follows an extensive history of racial discrimination on the force. Today, they say, tensions have become especially pronounced, specifically with Dolan at the helm, with major implications for the culture it is fostering both internally and within the broader community. The officers are suing for compensatory damages amounting to over $75,000.

One of the issues the complaint lays out pertains to how their testimonies have been received, including how it was handled by the City’s civil rights executive director.

On September 11, Jordan met with four of the officers to talk about their plight at the Minneapolis Urban League on the city’s North Side. A month later, a clandestine meeting took place at the Monte Carlo Restaurant in downtown Minneapolis, a political hotspot well known as a backdrop for back-door deals. Jordan, Edwards, and civil rights investigator Ron Brandon were present.

Although it’s unclear exactly what was said in either of the meetings, or what impression Jordan had given the cops or vice versa, Jordan admits they had suggested he file a “director’s charge” against the MPD, which has the clout of a class action lawsuit, according to some insiders. But seeing nothing materialize over several months, the downtrodden officers turned to legal counsel.

In the complaint, they assert that Jordan was “dismissive of their concerns,” and that he never followed up with them. At one point, it states, the director characterized them to an unidentified party as “disgruntled cops near the end of their careers,” which Jordan eschews as a fabrication.

Over the three months, Jordan asserts he wasn’t doing nothing; “I was doing some investigation,” he said.

Some civil rights commissioners, who were not alerted to the goings-on, criticize Jordan for circumventing the department’s regular protocol for accepting complaints. Describing it as political, they say his unconventional actions run counter to their goals for transparency while also tainting his objectivity as a neutral fact-finder.

Commissioner Vladimir Monroe said he was concerned about how things were handled and questioned why the commission hadn’t been involved before the officers’ concerns rose to the level of a federal court case. “It sounds like a pre-charge investigation to determine probable cause,” said Monroe, pointing to it as something the Civil Rights Ordinance doesn’t provide authority to do.

“It doesn’t make sense,” Monroe said. “If our job is to be a buffer, to provide a voice, [then] to determine that that there’s not enough for [a formal] investigation circumvents the whole process.”

But Jordan insists that his actions were well within his bounds as the civil rights director. During the city council’s Health, Environment and Energy Committee meeting on December 10, city council members moved to support the Executive Committee’s recommendation to reappoint Jordan with no mention of the recent activities regarding the lawsuit.

Jordan’s reappointment is to be forwarded to the full city council for review on Friday, December 21.

City Councilmember Cam Gordon (Ward 2) and other council members spoke up in support of Jordan, saying that he and other City officials have generally been satisfied with his work. “I’m supportive of this recommendation based on limited time with Jordan. His willingness to work with council members…will be much appreciated in the future as in the past,” he said.

City Councilmember Diane Hofstede (Ward 3) echoed his sentiments, saying Jordan had demonstrated strong leadership and had been “engaged with the community” and “hit the ground running.”

To charge or not to charge

Even though he said at the commission meeting that “there is no evidentiary hurdle” for “director’s charges” to stand up to, Jordan said he was unsure the officers’ claims warranted his signature and that his inquiry could span an indefinite period of time (until he was certain about it).

Part of his reasoning was that, “You ought to have a firm foundation for why something is being charged,” he said in a phone interview, citing only two or three other incidences when a “director’s charge” had been issued in the past decade.

Nevertheless, “I didn’t reject filing a charge,” he said. “I was still thinking about it. The fact that I didn’t do it within three months is not in my mind a significant issue.”

After all, he was the one who instigated a conversation with the Black officers in the first place, he said. It was a commentary from Spokesman-Recorder columnist Ron Edwards, who attended Monday’s commission meeting, that initially caught Jordan’s attention.

“I was looking into it without there being anything filed in a less formal fashion,” he said. “I listened to them seriously. Arradondo sent me a thank you. There was significant follow-up,” he remarked.

When asked by a commissioner why he chose to pursue the matter without any kind of complaint first being filed, he answered, “Because I wanted to,” later adding, “It was for my own interests about a ‘director’s charge’ and the appropriate path to follow.”

As for possibly placing the officers in harm’s way, Jordan said he didn’t disclose anything about their meeting to Dolan. Instead, it was the reverse: “The chief told me that I had met with the officers. If there were any retaliatory actions — and it’s not clear to me that there were — there were other sources the chief could’ve learned from about the meeting,” he said, pointing to a Ron Edwards column that ran the following day (September 12, about the so-called “historic meeting” as Edwards put it). Edwards has been privy to these issues through the Police Community Relations Council (PCRC).

Only after that, Jordan said, did he discuss it with Mayor R.T. Rybak, a staffer in the Human Resources Department, and some city council members.

Some commissioners seemed uncomfortable with Jordan’s actions, and at times the meeting was contentious. Commissioner Amy Johnson asked him, “[Did you] listen to your own language? You said, ‘I didn’t think it justified a director’s charge,’ but when asked if it was unwarranted, you said, ‘There’s been no determination.’ You did a complete 180.”

Commissioner Nick Pladson said to Jordan, “Do you understand the chilling effect of that, of saying, ‘Don’t do this’ and ‘You’re at the end of your careers’ and ‘Don’t ruffle any feathers’? It might prevent people from coming forward.”

Jordan’s response: “I don’t think so.”

Much smoke indicates fire

The five Black police officers claim that discrimination has fueled decisions to demote them, impede their advancement, and take strict disciplinary action against them. They add that African Americans are often weeded out long before they ever get an MPD job.

The complaint states that the Chief Dolan has fired, demoted or transferred every African American male officer who was in a captain, inspector or higher-ranking position, replacing them with less qualified candidates. Only one non-Black officer has been demoted under his leadership, the complaint reads.

In the case of Edwards’ demotion from the title of inspector in the 4th Precinct to the area of 1st Precinct Property Crimes, Dolan appointed Lt. Mike Sauro, who is White and has a long history of civil rights violations. Ironically, his precinct is one that is largely populated by minorities.

Sauro has been a party to one of the City’s biggest police brutality settlements ever.

In January of last year, Sgt. Giovanni Veliz brought a federal lawsuit against the MPD with allegations that are akin to those of the officers’ above, saying that he was denied transfer to the Minnesota Strike Gang Force in December of 2005. That was two months after he had filed a complaint for employment discrimination with the MDCR.

Veliz said in a phone interview that he couldn’t comment on the case because it is still in litigation stages. However, then-civil rights executive director Michael K. Browne found Veliz’ complaint had “probable cause.”

“Probable cause” means that there is reason to believe discrimination has been involved in an act, while a “director’s charge” is meant to protect a complainant from retaliation, according to a post on the City’s website.

Minneapolis attorney John Klassen, who is representing the policemen and Veliz, disagreed with Jordan’s assessment of the situation. The case holds great magnitude for the African American community, the police force and citizens, he said. “There seems to be a disturbing number of issues being raised by police officers of color. Experience tells me that when there’s this much smoke, there’s usually fire.”

By contrast, “My experience with Mr. Browne [former interim executive director of MDCR] is that he would’ve taken great interest and action,” he said. “His work product was excellent, as good as anything out of a civil rights department in the U.S. It was top-notch.”

Jayne Khalifa, deputy city coordinator, who led the civil rights department prior to Browne, said she couldn’t answer how she would have dealt with the police officers’ concerns. “I don’t know what they told him [Jordan],” she said.

However, when it comes to appointments like that of civil rights director, in general, she said, “You serve at the will of the appointing authority. Race is not a factor. There’s no protection in an appointed position at any time.”

Civil Rights subservient to mayor?

This “no protection” may especially apply to Jordan’s position. Although all 17 City department heads are appointed, the director of civil rights and the chief of police are the only two that report directly to the mayor. Every other department leader falls under the city council’s purview (via the city coordinator).

When someone believes they have been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or ancestry, among others, they can make an appointment with the civil rights department to talk to an intake officer, while also learning about the right to file a charge under the Civil Rights Ordinance.

The intake officer determines from that initial meeting whether to file a charge of discrimination. After the complainant signs off on it, the charge is sent to the discriminatory party. Intake officers and investigators do not “represent or advocate for either party and cannot offer legal advice,” according to the Civil Rights Ordinance. Only when a charge is filed does the department investigate whether “probable cause” exists to support the complainant’s allegations.

If the director or review committee finds “probable cause,” they attempt to “appropriately address the discriminatory conduct through conciliation,” the Ordinance reads. “If a settlement is not reached, the Director refers the case to the Commission for a public hearing.” The commission and civil rights director are expected to be neutral.

Anita Urvina Davis, who chairs the commission, criticized Jordan’s protocol. “I would hope the department would be in the forefront of not just this issue, but every one that is questionable, and that it would react and act to every situation…especially those in the protected class that call out concerns,” she said.

Likewise, “The mayor is an elected official. He too represents everyone in the city… If something is wrong, he certainly has the same obligation to investigate or ask for an investigation. This is not a situation where you can say personally, ‘I don’t think this is true.’”

Davis said the commission would look into the matter further if a private citizen asks them to. However, the scope of their power is debatable.

“That’s one of the dilemmas of the commission,” said Davis. “We do have an obligation to advise the City and mayor, but they aren’t obligated to get back to us. The [Civil Rights] Ordinance doesn’t say what kind of follow-up we should do.”

Whether there will be any kind of additional investigation into these issues is contingent upon a private citizen asking the commission to do so, according to Davis. At this point, it’s difficult to say how it would proceed, considering the legal process is already underway, she said after the meeting. Looking around the room, she added, “I think there are still a lot of questions.”