Many thanks to Michael Friedman for his commentary pointing out the lack of transparency in the citizen complaint resolution policies of the Minneapolis Police Department ("The blackout incentive," Opinion Exchange, June 24). It's worth noting that the transparency problems Friedman describes are baked into the labor agreement between the city and the Minneapolis Police Federation. The Police Department is presently working under the terms of a labor contract that expired at the end of 2019. Wouldn't it be interesting to know if Minneapolis is seeking to change the terms of this contract to make it easier to get rid of bad cops? To steal a phrase from Friedman, "Trick question. There is no way for you to know." In fact, according to KSTP, an advocacy group called Minneapolis For A Better Police Contract (of which I am not a member) filed suit to allow the public to have access to the contract negotiations, after previous requests for information were stymied.

Our city leadership talks a good game about transparency and accountability, but it has frozen the residents of the city — the people who put them in office and who pay the costs of employing police — out of any information about whether it is using this golden opportunity of labor negotiations to force concessions on police conduct issues.

City elections are coming up. Before I vote for anybody, I want to know whether any or all of my elected leaders really mean it when they talk about holding any potential Derek Chauvins accountable before an act of police brutality gets another Minneapolitan killed or injured.

Richard G. Carlson, Minneapolis

•••

Friedman leaves out the important consideration of "Brady lists." In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the Supreme Court ordered prosecutors to turn exculpatory evidence in their possession to the defense. This evidence can include the record of officers; if the officer is a bully or a liar, the defense must be informed.

Prosecutors are expected to keep "Brady lists" of unreliable officers. What Friedman is describing is the prosecutor's workaround to avoid giving this information to the defense. The defense attorney doesn't officially know anything about corrupt cops because the police didn't discipline them; they merely counseled them.

Any debate concerning road fees ("A fee for miles driven would be hard to impose," Opinion Exchange, June 24) has to include the weight of electric vehicles. On average, EVs weigh 20% to 30% more than a gas vehicle of similar power output. For instance, the weight of a Ford F-150 can vary from 4,000-5,000 pounds. The weight of the upcoming Ford F-150 EV comes in at 6,500 pounds. The difference for many smaller vehicles is around 1,000 pounds. In the end, that added weight will take a toll on roads already filled with patched potholes.

Having said that, I'm all for EV vehicles on our roads, but I don't believe we should put all our eggs in one basket. I'm also a proponent of hydrogen vehicles, and I wish our federal government would offer tax breaks for an expansion of HVs in local trucking fleets, and for the technology to be used as a power source for heating and cooling larger, corporate buildings. That would give hydrogen a foot in the door that might lead to an increased presence of HVs on our roads.

Dale Jernberg, Minneapolis

•••

Peter Orszag argues that a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) fee would be difficult to impose. True. This is also true of other emission regulations and cap-and-trade programs aimed at curbing our CO2 emissions. Yet he refers to a carbon tax, the simplest and most effective way to decrease our consumption of carbon-based fuels, as "politically impractical." Why?

Many a "politically impractical" idea has come to pass if enough voters get behind it. We need to let our legislators and president know that CF&D is a good idea, and get our friends and neighbors to do so as well. Climate change is all too real and requires serious, simple and effective action ASAP.

Cathy Ruther, St. Paul

•••

A vehicle-miles-traveled fee is a good and fair way to tax for road and bridges. Why should it be bogged down by a perceived need for new technology? Cars and trucks are licensed, tracked and regulated. All the data needed to report and audit how far they are driven in a year exists. A new electronic device built into or installed in a vehicle would be complicated, costly and intrusive and only serve to take money from drivers and enrich carmakers and technology providers.

Cars have odometers already. They start at zero and go up. A couple lines on a tax form is all that's needed; one to record the vehicle identification number (VIN) and another the mileage on Dec. 31. On year one, or whenever you sell a car, you record the Jan. 1 or date-of-purchase mileage on one line and Dec. 31 mileage on the other.

As for equity, electric vehicles should pay for using roads, but they will still pay much less if a VMT is eased in over the gas tax. If you decide to tax for vehicle weight or luxury status, you have the information needed already through the VIN.

If privacy is a concern, nothing in this proposal tells the government or industry what they didn't know already. It doesn't tell anyone where you've been. Look at electronic device proposals. These often include GPS as the method for tracking mileage.

Start using VMT now with a couple lines on the tax form.

John M. Widen, Minneapolis

The June 24 editorial ("An elegy for the amateur athlete") seems to make the mistaken assumption that there are only Division I college athletics. Division III schools, including many liberal arts colleges, do not allow any athletic scholarships. Students at these schools who participate in any athletics, whether varsity or intramural, are students first and foremost.

It is possible for amateurism to flourish in college athletics, but I suspect that is incompatible with the lure of big money. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that the NCAA rules for Division I athletes exploited them, while others reaped financial benefits. Colleges, universities and their students need to make choices that are fair to all. I, for one, much prefer the option of Division III athletics.

Thomas Q. Sibley, St. Joseph, Minn.