The City of Minneapolis withheld details on how a government contractor is spending more than $1 million as part of the city’s effort to reform its police department.

In March, 5 INVESTIGATES submitted a public records request asking to review expenses submitted by Effective Law Enforcement for All, or ELEFA.

The city signed a contract with ELEFA to serve as the independent monitor overseeing the court-enforced settlement agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

The group of out-of-state attorneys and policing experts evaluate the police department’s progress on the years-long, court-ordered reforms. They bill the city for their services and regularly travel to Minnesota for meetings with officials and the community.

But when 5 INVESTIGATES received the more than 200 pages of invoices in April, big black boxes covered up the descriptions that would show how ELEFA spent taxpayer money.

The redacted portion of the documents cited a Minnesota statute that governs the release of information related to “pending civil legal action.”

In a statement, the Minneapolis City Attorney’s Office said the settlement agreement is considered “pending litigation,” which makes the details on the invoices “confidential or protected nonpublic data” under the law.

But government watchdogs are troubled by the heavily redacted documents.

“The immediate response I have is, what are they trying to hide?” said Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “The public has a right to know where its tax dollars are going, and not just amounts, but how that money is being spent.”

Kirtley said the statute cited by the city gives the city attorney wide discretion to not only decide what is pending civil legal action but also allows the government to make any confidential data accessible to the public under certain circumstances.

“This is not a mandatory exemption,” she said. “It’s subject to the discretion of the lawyers that are involved.”

Minneapolis City Attorney Kristyn Anderson denied repeated interview requests but a spokesperson eventually answered questions over email.

Her office maintained that some of the data in the invoices is not public under the law, but did agree to release more information to 5 INVESTIGATES.

“We strive for transparency every day. It is the basis for the work we’re doing with ELEFA and MDHR,” the statement said in part. “We also need to stay within the law of what’s public and what’s not public for the sake of all parties involved.”

When asked about the redacted invoices, ELEFA president and lead monitor David Douglass said as a contractor, he did not have the authority to release the records to 5 INVESTIGATES.

During a recent interview, Community Safety Commissioner Todd Barnette reiterated the city’s position on the status of the settlement agreement, but said officials are pleased with ELEFA’s work so far.

“I don’t think there’s anything that they’re doing that I would have any skepticism about,” Barnette said.

Editor’s Note: Hours before this story was set to air and after three days of all-day promotion, the city released the invoices without redactions.