After a very painful foray into utter dysfunction and turmoil at the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board over the last few years, good governance prevailed in Tuesday's election ("Women take over on Park Board," front page, Nov. 5). When we the people pay attention and educate ourselves about candidates, we win.

The people of Minneapolis recognized the importance of voting for steady candidates to represent us. The park system is vital to the health of our city and has a huge impact on our daily lives, so serving on the Park Board is no trivial matter. The parks have been trampled on due to the conduct of a number of commissioners who've governed with a shocking level of bullying, obstruction and silly parliamentary tricks and pursued actions far afield from the board's mission to permanently preserve, protect, maintain, improve and enhance its natural resources, parkland and recreational opportunities for current and future generations.

In a rather astonishing turnaround, only two incumbent commissioners remain on the board after the election (four of the incumbents decided not to run for re-election). And suddenly, we move from a heavily male-dominated board (six men, three women) to one that will consist of two men and seven women. None of the disruptive, grandstanding commissioners will be serving another term.

The board now has the opportunity to start fresh and leave behind the chaos of the past few years, and we can hope for a more collaborative, sensible and, yes, kind board. Let's watch closely as the commissioners perform their important responsibilities.

Congratulations and good luck to the newly constituted Park Board.

Cindy Greenlaw Benton, Minneapolis

•••

Lake Hiawatha is not a true lake, for Minnehaha Creek runs through it. It has one of the highest water pass-throughs in the state. On the north and the west, the city is directly piping in untreated, unfiltered stormwater from about 1,200 acres. Cleaning Lake Hiawatha's water will require cleaning the stormwater dumped into Minnehaha Creek and the Chain of Lakes throughout the watershed. This is beyond the power of the Park Board. We need elected officials at city, state and federal levels with vision and tenacity to make this happen.

Shawne FitzGerald, Minneapolis

The writer is a member of Minneapolis Park Watch.

Indeed, it is time for Mayor Jacob Frey to lead ("Frey survives and now must lead," editorial, Nov. 4). I suggest it is also time for the new Minneapolis City Council to fully understand its responsibilities and abilities resulting from the adoption of City Question 1. I fully agree that this was the most important change, both for near-term action and for long-term progress on all fronts. That change brings more clarity to accountability.

Events, policies and governmental actions in Minneapolis have an impact throughout Minnesota. The murder of George Floyd radiated that influence nationally and internationally. I'm grateful that Minneapolis voters focused squarely on their lives, their communities and their city and said no to Question 2.

Cultural change means hard conversations; ask any woman who was a part of the anti-sexual violence and battered women's movements. Police and sheriff's departments in 1973 were steeped in rank sexism, high in bravado and testosterone — rape victims were liars, incest was a family problem, and women who were beaten were asking for it and would just go back anyway. Myths and stereotypes ruled.

It is that deep and surprisingly wide practice of holding onto myths and stereotypes about people of color, Indigenous people and poor people that needs to be stopped. The good news is this vein of thought has been exposed, and it is time for radical surgery to remove it. It seems the first job for every Minneapolis City Council member is to devote time and energy to conversations with the police officers who patrol and staff their wards, especially those who they believe need to change.

Rosemary Rocco, Maple Grove

I think ranked-choice voting has much to recommend it in comparison to plurality voting. I also think those advocating for it need to be clearer about its limitations. One claim often given for ranked-choice voting is that the winner gets a majority of the votes. More accurately, the winner has a majority of the remaining votes. In the recent mayoral election, Frey won 49.1% of all the votes cast, not a majority. This is because there were over 18,000 exhausted ballots. (These are ballots from voters who didn't choose either of the two top vote-getters among their three candidates.) I think this is not a serious issue for this form of voting, but I also think it is important for advocates to be clear.

There is a deeper issue that applies to all voting systems: Voters need to consider what is called strategic voting — possibly voting other than your actual preferences in order to achieve a preferred outcome. Some 70 years ago, Arrow's theorem proved mathematically that this can happen in every democratic voting system. In the recent election, it is possible that among the people with exhausted ballots, there could have been enough who would have ranked Knuth over Frey to give the election to her. But they could only list up to three choices, so perhaps Knuth was their fourth choice.

Thomas Q. Sibley, St. Joseph, Minn.

The writer is a retired mathematics professor.

I was saddened to learn that Dick Youngblood passed onto the big news huddle over the horizon. Neal St. Anthony's fitting obituary ("Dick Youngblood, business editor, columnist," Nov. 2) did the newspaper veteran and fellow North Dakotan proud. But it also rekindled some fond memories. Like a good but demanding journalism teacher, Dick always marked up press releases and pieces of any media kit sent his way for coverage consideration in his consistently well-written and well-read business column. While it probably mortified many of my fellow flacks, I was always grateful to see one or two red pencil marks, and occasionally hear him say, always with a twinkle in his eye but even with a client in the room, "Keller, what the hell does this mean?!" That gentle scold meant he actually read the material.

Rest in print, kind sir. I hear there ain't no editors up there in the new place.

Martin Keller, Minneapolis