Readers Write: State government, farming, Minneapolis police contract

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

A recent Evan Ramstad column (”Easier to assess for-profit business than government,” June 23) on the difficulty of evaluating government except for “whether things are getting done,” was well taken. Many of us can say that taxes are too high and services (say, policing or street maintenance) are declining, but this may seem subjective. But how about fraud? House Speaker Melissa Hortman wants to remove the supermajority constitutional check on bonding, while some of us think it should be extended to taxes and spending.

Why? Because our government has spent the entire $17.5 billion surplus and still increased taxes by $10 billion, while at the same time “losing” at least $450 million of taxpayer money to fraud in the Feeding Our Future and front-line workers’ programs. Does this mean if we have more bonding and more taxes, that Minnesota government could break the billion-dollar fraud mark? We all know that government can’t do much well, at least if private entities can do the job.

Why? Because — despite having many good people — government simply has no competition, no profit measure for efficiency, plenty of political temptations to look the other way while the “shrinkage” benefits political cronies, and no sanctions for laziness and negligence, to mention the most obvious. Private entities can’t tolerate these things. Don’t listen to the permanent taxpayer-funded politicians and bureaucrats who tell you they could do wonderful things if they only had more taxing or bonding authority. These are people who’ve never run a lemonade stand, and it shows. They’ll hit that billion-dollar fraud mark and more if you listen to them.

Douglas P. Seaton, Edina

Minnesota’s agricultural prowess is a point of pride, and our farmers are the hardworking heroes behind it. But as a recent commentary lays out, the White Earth Nation’s confusing and redundant attempt to regulate water threatened to pull the rug out from under our farmers’ feet (“Farmers deserve clarity on regulatory authority,” Opinion Exchange, June 12, and “Band pauses water rules on nontribal land,” June 23). Regulatory certainty is essential for agricultural planning and prosperity. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is uniquely positioned to provide the careful and consistent oversight of our water resources, as it has done for decades. Let’s denounce any attempts to muddy the waters and call for a clear reaffirmation of the DNR’s authority, for farmers’ sake.

The writer is a farmer.

Recently the Star Tribune ran a story about a Montana cattle rancher who joined with a few others to create a company that sells meat directly to select restaurants and by subscription to private clients (”A ‘scary time’ for U.S. beef ranchers,” June 23). A secondary line in the story implied that there was satisfaction in not selling beef to Cargill and other companies — the largest suppliers to the retail market. The story left the impression that this Montana consortium was a radically new way for producers of protein animals to sidestep their traditional dependence on the biggest processors and distributors.

News bulletin! Farmers in Minnesota and throughout the Midwest have been working directly with their consumers for decades! My family has bought beef, chicken, lamb, pork and eggs from Braucher’s Sunshine Harvest Farms (in Webster, Minn.) for at least 20 years. Sometimes we meet workers at the Mill City Market, but other times they drop off our order on their way to a commercial client. Other such farmer-driven enterprises whose products we buy include Thousand Hills Cattle Co. Years ago it started grilling burgers at the Wedge Coop, offering samples saying that this is what its workers feed their children. And there are examples all over the state!

These producers also keep alive the rural community meat processors, many of whom have their own secret recipes for spices for kielbasa or porketta. And thanks to President Joe Biden’s initiative to put substantial resources into the national network of smaller community meat processing facilities, more Americans will be able to buy and eat meat that was raised closer to their homes by farmers they know and trust. Thank you, Joe Biden, for recognizing that this critical piece in the chain from producer to consumer needed assistance!

Thank you, farmers and ranchers, who we love and look forward to seeing in the market every week. You are our heroes!

The Star Tribune article published June 26 regarding the Minneapolis police contract misstates the issue of “coaching” (”Council weighs new Mpls. police contract”). The article claims that the contract “cements the city’s longstanding position that coaching ... does not constitute discipline.” To the contrary, the city itself is not taking this “position” but is merely reflecting the fact that “coaching” is widely recognized in the world of employment law as an important nondisciplinary tool for addressing minor infractions. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights settlement agreement explicitly recognizes that “coaching” is not “discipline,” and neither the St. Paul Civil Service rules nor the AFSCME contract with state employees includes “coaching” as discipline. Moreover, both the Office of Police Conduct Review and MPD policy manuals explicitly limit coaching to minor “Level A”-type violations. Thus the issue with “coaching” is not a police contract issue, but rather, as the article says, the fact that the Minneapolis Police Department has “at times used this corrective measure to address instances of serious officer misconduct.” This misuse of coaching violates both OPCR and MPD policies and absolutely must stop (if it hasn’t already), but mislabeling “coaching” as “discipline” in the union contract would not only contradict widespread common practice (and common sense), but any attempt to properly use this valuable tool would then be subject to the interminable state-mandated grievance and arbitration process.

John Satorius, Minneapolis

The writer is a co-chair of Plymouth Church’s Reimagining Community Safety Group.

•••

The article in the Star Tribune on June 26 regarding the proposed police contract said that one opponent of the contract argued that it would be “‘unconscionable’ to give double-digit raises to a department that has cost the city more than $71 million in police brutality settlements since 2019” and that such a pay increase “should be reserved for a police force that shows an appropriate level of service and accountability to the community.” Officer Jamal Mitchell was just such an officer, giving his life for our community by showing immediate compassion and giving aid at a violent crime scene. We are not paying for the police force of the past, but for the police force of the future, embodied by Mitchell’s heroism. The answer to police brutality is not to reject this pay raise but to continue the transformation of police culture under the consent decrees (state and federal), Effective Law Enforcement for All (our consent decree monitor) and Chief Brian O’Hara.