Readers Write: Minneapolis leadership and police

In a letter published on Sept. 2, a proponent of the public safety amendment assures us we need not worry about the problem of the Police Department having 14 bosses if the amendment passes. After all, he writes, this same condition applies to all the other city departments, and they "all manage to function just fine."

Well, no.

Since the current City Council was seated in 2018, three city coordinators, who typically stay eight to 10 years, have come and gone. During this council's tenure at least a dozen other directors have left — unusually high turnover of senior staff. A Charter Commission interview of department heads found major dysfunction in the "14 bosses" model, with great cost to city effectiveness and efficiency.

So let's defeat the public safety amendment. While we're at it, let's pass the government structure amendment, which will result in the City Council being a legislative, not operational, body, same as virtually every major city in the United States.

David J. Therkelsen, Minneapolis

•••

I wish I could vote for the charter amendment to create a new Department of Public Safety. But I can't. If this concept — and it is only a concept — had substance, if it had emerged organically from a thoughtful process that engaged city leaders and the affected parties, including citizens, the police and other affected city departments, that would be one thing. It would have addressed issues like recruitment and training of cops, accountability (to whom and for what), sanctions, and weaving public safety officers into an overall system. There is none of that.

Even if the amendment is passed, it says nothing, nor can it do anything about, some of the most pressing issues surrounding policing, e.g. the qualified immunity officers have that can shield them from prosecution from criminal acts, the toothless review board, and the role of the union in protecting and usually succeeding in getting reinstated lousy cops who get suspended, then rehired.

Give me a proposal with some substance and explanation and I can vote on it with some confidence that I know what I am voting for or against. The charter amendment proposal is a promise to make everything better when it comes to "public safety" without one iota of explanation about how that will happen. In good conscience, I cannot vote in favor of a concept that, if it passes, will be so consequential and covers the waterfront (a good thing) of relevant public safety concerns, yet says nothing. The City Council owes us more than what it has presented.

Josh Gruber, Minneapolis

•••

With all due respect to U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar ("Charter change on public safety is needed," Opinion Exchange, Sept. 1), the issue is not whether or not the Minneapolis Police Department needs to change or if the Minneapolis Police Federation has gone to significant lengths to cover for bad cops — or good cops, for that matter. The issue is that there is no plan for this new Department of Public Safety.

There is NO PLAN for the Department of Public Safety.

There has been a great deal of hand-waving and chest-thumping, but the text of the ballot proposal has no details and a good many "weasel words." It does not present any sort of plan. Nor is there a timeline. Were this proposal to pass as written, the City Council could disband the MPD and then take two or three years to design the new department. Maybe the city could survive that long with vigilantes patrolling the streets and exacting "street justice" on whoever they perceived to be a criminal. I'll stay out of such a place.

Some will say "Oh! They'd never do that!" The point is that there is nothing to stop them. Such people are trusting to the wisdom of people who spouted a catchphrase instead of a solution — people whose only solution is to tear down all in the hope they can stumble onto a plan that works.

And now they're trying to make their catchphrase into the city charter.

Daniel Beckfield, New Brighton

I'm wondering why we haven't brought the climate crisis into our discussions of policing and public safety. Clearly, the MPD needs drastic changes. We can't allow it to continue its racism and violence. But we also need to consider what we might be in for as the climate crisis worsens: Mass migration to our city from places that have become unlivable, like from a drought so bad that the Mississippi can't provide enough drinking water, disruptions in the food supply chain, or a wobbly economy that leaves many out of work. Would we then need more armed officers? Highly developed community policing? Both? Something else? If we are fearful about our safety now, it might be that we sense the rumblings of what is to come.

Mary Jean Port, Minneapolis

•••

In case you are on the fence about whether to support the Yes 4 Minneapolis charter amendment, consider this: State law requires a charter amendment to go into effect within 30 days of the election. So if the amendment passes, the MPD will have to be dismantled by the first days of December.

That means Minneapolis would be without any organized law enforcement from the beginning of December until the council conceptualizes, designs and creates a new Public Safety Department — a process that would take months. But you won't learn this from the language the City Council voted to put on the November ballot.

Mary Pattock, Minneapolis

•••

Ilhan Omar, in her commentary on charter change, does what we all do when trying to make a case for a point of view: skate past inconvenient details.

Earth to Ilhan: Hello. First, George Floyd had his life taken from him not by multiple officers but by one officer, Derek Chauvin, who has been tried and convicted. We do not usually convict people in this country before their trial — which has yet to happen for the other three officers on the scene.

Next: Bob Kroll is gone. Get over him. With any luck the police union will change or, in the future (my personal wish) will merge with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and start to behave. I don't know about "warrior policing," but in case you missed the burning and destruction of the Third Precinct and the trashing of numerous small shops and businesses (many owned by immigrants) on Lake Street following George Floyd's murder, there was no protest. There was a full-on riot with physical destruction of a large part of our city.

And finally: Your statement that the current ballot initiatives would have nothing to do with "funding" for public safety startled me. Are you kidding?

I voted for you in the hope of rational representation for the residents of the Fifth District in Congress. Maybe you should consult with a broader segment of your constituents. Thanks for listening.

Judith Koll Healey, Minneapolis