Friends and neighbors,
As many of you know, in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee I have convened a series of hearings to investigate several aspects of the state’s response to riots, looting, and lawlessness that took place in Minneapolis at the end of May and beginning of June. These hearings are being conducted jointly with the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.
Last week, the committee met to investigate capitol security and property damage.
As you recall, protestors tore down a statue of Christopher Columbus on capitol grounds on June 10. These protesters announced their intentions 6 hours ahead of time. Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington was asked about it at an afternoon press conference 90 minutes before it happened. The destruction caused $153,000 in damages, and the actions took place in front of cameras from every news outlet, yet no arrests have been made and nobody has yet been held accountable.
A portion of the hearing was spent recapping the timeline, which KSTP has helpfully laid out. You can also watch a brief review of what transpired here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmMiW30og4. The video is also embedded at the bottom of this post.
Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Columbus, we cannot have a functioning society when a small percentage of the population determines among themselves which laws to follow and which can be broken. Minnesota has rules governing the removal of statues and artwork, and those rules were disregarded last month. Today’s hearing aimed to discover what decisions ultimately led to the destruction of this capitol property – what did individuals in charge know, when did they know it, who gave the orders to have the state patrol stand down, and how come no arrests have been made when we know who was involved.
During the hearing we heard testimony from both Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington and Colonel Matt Langer, chief of the Minnesota State Patrol.
Both Commissioner Harrington and Col. Langer had substantially similar reviews of recent events: first, that they received a credible threat against the state capitol during the height of the May and June riots. Specifically, there was a threat that rioters planned to burn the capitol down. In response, the State Patrol beefed up their manpower and erected a large fence to prevent damage. Ultimately, the threat never came to pass.
Second, Col. Langer and Commissioner Harrington told us that when the State Patrol received warnings that protesters planned to destroy capitol property they began developing two plans: Plan A, as they described it, was de-escalation – troopers would go out to meet with the protesters to explain the law and the troopers’ role in protecting property. Plan B was to stage about 35 troopers in protective gear and have them ready to go if Plan A failed. Those plans were developed by State Patrol leaders and approved by Commissioner Harrington.
As we know, Plan A did fail, but the Patrol was not swift enough in implementing Plan B to protect capitol property. By Col. Langer’s and Commissioner Harrington’s account, only a few minutes passed between the failure of Plan A and the destruction of property.
Both leaders acknowledged that criticisms of how the Patrol handled the situation were fair. At multiple points during the hearing, both leaders allowed that they may not have acted quickly enough, and that they significantly underestimated the protesters’ ability to tear down the statue.
There were two particularly interesting questions that the committee wanted answers to: first, why have there not been any arrests yet; and second, what would they do differently in the future.
To the first question, Commissioner Harrington noted that they made a tactical decision to focus on building a conspiracy case against a larger number of people. They have identified the leader and two others who were involved, and they are interested in two others.
Interestingly, Commissioner Harrington also told us that he probably would not have changed his approach much if he had it to do over again. He felt sending out a significant number of troopers in protective gear was too provocative, and that sending a small number of troopers to talk to the group ahead of time would still be the right decision.
Certainly, there should be some amount of latitude given to decisions made with limited information and under particularly volatile situations. But those decisions also need to be fully and clearly examined. As my colleague Senator Lang said during the hearing, we don’t demand perfection, but we do demand effectiveness. Minnesotans are rightfully confused by the response to the destruction at the state capitol: there was virtually no attempt made to stop the destruction of property, and no arrests have been made to date.
Other states have faced similar threats to public property and have been able to stop them with a strong law enforcement presence. The lack of clarity from Commissioner Harrington about the errors made last month makes one wonder if the state is truly prepared to handle similar situations in the future.