Minnesota already operates a relatively lean state government. When compared with other states and number of employees per capita, Minnesota ranks 15th-lowest — meaning our state manages a lean workforce per the number of people served.

The timing of Mark Haveman's May 3 commentary "The value of Minnesota government: Cost is one issue; quality, quite another") was quite interesting. If one were a cynic, one might think he was trying to divert attention from the Minnesota House and Senate leaders who are trying to fleece Minnesota workers and their families so their wealthy friends and corporations can have huge tax breaks.

If budgets proposed by our Minnesota House and Senate leaders become law, thousands of vulnerable seniors and persons with disabilities living in nursing homes and home health care settings won't get the quality care they need or deserve. Funding will be cut for hospitals and clinics serving low-income residents. These so-called leaders also want to make draconian cuts to education: Our kids won't have access to high-quality elementary and secondary schools or pre-K programs; and the cuts to higher education will make it difficult for Minnesotans to attend local colleges and universities, particularly in Greater Minnesota. Roads and bridges across the state are crumbling, but our GOP leaders apparently don't care about safety, or about how Minnesota workers and students get to their jobs and schools because of inadequate transit funding. Budget cuts to the Department of Corrections could mean safety risks to both citizens and correctional workers.

Perhaps Mr. Haveman should concentrate more on how much Minnesotans value the services provided by their government as well as the state employees providing them.

Chet Jorgenson, Shoreview

The writer is president of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees.

• • •

I was stunned to hear recently that legislators have slipped in language that would eliminate the Office on the Economic Status of Women. This one-person nonpartisan office has provided useful information to the Legislature and the public for over 40 years. It issues reports, holds listening sessions around the state, and in many ways represents the interests of over half the population in Minnesota.

Eliminating the office on women was never introduced as legislation and was never the subject of public hearings. It is part of a large omnibus bill that funds state government, and only appeared in a Republican "strike everything" amendment in the closing days of the session. When objections were made about not funding the one staff person, wording about providing support to an advisory committee was made. What? An advisory committee to a nonexistent office?

We've heard a lot from the Republicans about "transparency" in government, but this underhanded legislative action is an insult to the general public.

Nina Rothchild, Mahtomedi

The writer is a former state employee relations commissioner.

• • •

It is with great disappointment I see the Legislature is again failing Greater Minnesota on local government aid. Since 2002, LGA funding has been sporadic at best. Cities with low to moderate property values and lower median incomes have, in an effort to provide essential services to their residents, depended on LGA to help relieve the additional property tax overburden that would be needed to provide police, fire, streets and other necessary services the their citizens.

Of course, legislators representing high wealth, higher property value cities see no need to have equity throughout the state. It seems as though some legislators think Minnesota ends at the outer ring of the metro area.

However, my biggest disappointment is the lack of strong leadership from the large number of legislators who formerly represented cities — as councilpersons or mayors — who depend on LGA that now seem to forget the reasons it is needed. What happened, is it party pressure? Please help me understand how you can fight for your city while in elected city government and abandon the cause as a legislator.

We started the year thinking that an LGA increase back to 2002 levels was possible at an additional $45 million. Now it appears $6 million might happen, a serious disappointment.

Alan Oberloh, Worthington, Minn.

The writer is a former mayor of Worthington and current member of the City Council.

CHANGING LAKE NAME

'Hard to pronounce' is a bad argument against

There are many reasonable arguments that have been presented in the Readers Write section regarding changing Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska. But one May 5 letter was ironic, beyond silly, and suggests a very limited and insensitive worldview. The writer asked: "How do you even pronounce Bde?" Certainly, there is daily evidence that we Minnesotans constantly adjust our tongue to pronounce names that on first sight seem difficult to pronounce. For example, Minnesota Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt has a sequence of consonants similar to Bde. How do you pronounce Hrbek? Indeed, this particular letter writer has two sequences of four consonants in his last name (Schwartzbauer), but no one is suggesting that he change his name so it more easily rolls off the Midwestern tongue. There is likely a great deal of history behind the name Schwartzbauer, and I for one am pleased that as with Bde Maka Ska, I have learned how to pronounce it and, if given the opportunity, can honor whatever positive traditions it represents.

Gerald Matykowski, Minneapolis

• • •

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Park used to be called Nicollet Park. Loring Park was originally called Central Park. Lyndale Avenue used to be Maple Street. Names change and we move on. We could get used to Lake Maka Ska. And of course we will remember that it used to be called Lake Calhoun.

Ann Lynch, Minneapolis
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

About that leadership …

The May 4 editorial page featured a letter from a reader who praised the decision of the University of Minnesota administration to spend $166 million on phase one of the athletes village. It should also be noted that in fiscal year 2016 the administration spent a staggering $289,878,000 on "leadership & oversight" (itself) and an additional $47,081,000 on administrative "consulting and professional services." See the Expense Summary of the Administrative Cost Benchmarking Report presented to the Board of Regents in December 2016.

In a May 3 e-mail to alumni, the president tells us that the administration may raise tuition (yet again) and reduce programs if the state fails to act favorably on the request for an additional $147 million in state appropriations. We need an administration that will use the substantial resources of the university for the right priorities. We also need to start to imagine a different way to operate and to finance higher education.

Michael W. McNabb, Lakeville
OBAMA'S POSTPRESIDENCY

Just criticisms, no compliments?

There has been a fair amount of tut-tutery, as evidenced by the "Other Views" item from the Raleigh News & Observer (May 4) about President Barack Obama's acceptance of $400,000 from Cantor Fitzgerald for a speech. Let's see if the announcement last Wednesday that the Obamas will personally donate $2 million to provide summer jobs for young people in Chicago next summer gets the same coverage and commentary.

John Sherman, Moorhead, Minn.