A united message — a rarity for the group — emerged from the Minneapolis City Council in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death: It’s time to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.
It’s a powerful statement. For many, it’s also unclear exactly what it means.
Uncertainty, argue some council members, is baked into the proposition of creating a new public safety system. Even so, during its June 26 meeting, the council voted to send a proposal to the Minneapolis Charter Commission that would amend the city’s charter — essentially, its constitution — to allow for the dismantling of the police department.
It’s the first step in the process of giving Minneapolis voters a say by putting the amendment on the ballot this November, a timetable that would hurry the usual process for amending the city charter. And on Wednesday, the desire to move quickly was greeted with intense questioning during a meeting of the city’s charter commission, with commissioners echoing Mayor Jacob Frey’s concern that the plan is too vague about what comes next.
But if the meeting served as an opportunity for charter commissioners to ask council members questions about the proposal, it also allowed the council members who wrote the amendment to further explain why they think their plan is necessary — and how it might work. Here, then, is everything we do (and don’t) know about the city council’s proposal so far:
First, what does it mean when city council members say they want to “dismantle” the police department?
The Minneapolis city charter requires that there be a police department and that it is funded and staffed based on population figures. The charter also currently says the mayor has the authority “to make all rules and regulations” for police. Under the current system, a key aspect of police reform efforts — disciplinary matters — are handled by the police chief, a position hired by the mayor that’s approved by the council every three years. Yet disciplinary decisions are finalized after binding arbitration, which regularly reverses firings and other punishment.
The new proposal would amend the charter to allow the city to disband the police department, do away with other charter mandates regarding city policing (like the funding requirement), and put a new public safety department under the supervision of the city council. If the amendment goes on the ballot and passes, changes would go into effect on May 1, 2021, giving the council time to consider community input and data in order to start the process of creating a new public safety system. As written, the proposal allows the new department to include a division of licensed, traditional peace officers.
Minneapolis council members say they don’t know, exactly, what that new department will look like, though members say they are committed to a detailed, year-long engagement tour to determine the most equitable way to create a new public safety department.
The city council proposal says the new department will be charged with providing safety services but will be public health oriented. And that the head of the department will have “non-law enforcement experience in community safety services.”
Council members say amending the charter, and thus establishing a new public safety system, is necessary to enact wholesale change in city policing. “We can’t continue to tinker,” said council member Alondra Cano during Wednesday’s meeting. She added that city leaders “must change the charter in order to give life to all the ideas our community residents believe make a difference.”
The five Minneapolis City Council members who wrote the charter amendment proposal — Council President Lisa Bender, Alondra Cano, Steve Fletcher, Jeremiah Ellison and Cam Gordon — point out that no American police department has ever been razed with the explicit intention of rebuilding a new public safety division in its stead. “We want to take a department that is an anomaly and bring it under city council control with mayor and charter cooperation,” said Gordon.
Ellison said putting public safety decisions through the city council is a more transparent process, which he said is better for clarifying reporting and accountability, even while council members are not interested in the day-to-day management of police. “We’re interested in passing policies that police have to follow.”
Why is the charter commission involved?
In order for the city council to put something on the ballot, state law requires that ballot language is reviewed by the Minneapolis Charter Commission, a 15-member body of volunteers appointed by the Hennepin County Courts and charged with providing the council with recommendations. The charter commission can take up to 150 days to review the proposal, which would eclipse the Aug. 21 deadline for placing items on the November ballot, but it’s trying to move quickly. The commission will hold two public meetings on July 15 and July 21 to give the public a chance to offer feedback on the measure.
Where did the idea to dismantle the police come from?
Police abolition has been prevalent in and a consistent part of various civil rights movements for decades. During an early effort to end Jim Crow in the late 1940s, the idea of abolishing prisons and police gradually became central to desegregation campaigns across the south. At the height of the civil rights era, as television footage showed police beating Black civil rights protesters, calls to disband police altogether grew louder still.
The abolish movement was carried into modern-day by Angela Davis, a prominent radical philosopher and activist, and Ruth Wilson Gilmore, a prison scholar at the City University of New York, while police abolitionist scholars trace the exact origin of the chant-ready, not-always-literal catchphrases “dismantle police” and “defund police” to the late 1980s.
Who in Minneapolis supports it?
Last month, nine of the 12 Minneapolis council members pledged to dismantle the police department: Bender, Andrea Jenkins, Cano, Phillipe Cunningham, Ellison, Fletcher, Gordon, Andrew Johnson and Jeremy Schroeder. (The June 26 vote to send the language to the charter commission was unanimous.)
There are also several groups like Black Visions Collective, a local advocacy group that is committed to “dismantling systems of oppression and violence,” and Reclaim the Block, an organization that has been inundated with donations and support since Floyd’s death. Both organizations say they want the city to use money that currently goes to the police to fund other public services.
Another effort is MPD150, a group of local organizers, artists, activists and researchers that started in 2017 — the 150 year anniversary of Minneapolis police — and strives for the “devolution” of the Minneapolis Police Department and a “police-free” future.
But there isn’t a clear sense of how much support there is in the general Minneapolis public.
Public opinion is shifting on police nationally and locally, with national polls showing a sizable dip the level of trust people place in law enforcement. A recent Guardian/Opinium Research poll found nine out of ten Americans say racism and police brutality are problems, and nearly 70 percent of respondents over 55 see racism as a serious problem. But that shift hasn’t translated into widespread support for dismantling police departments. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll analyzed by FiveThirtyEight, for example, found 58 percent of respondents opposed dismantling police.
Who doesn’t support it?
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, for one. Frey would lose power over city policing should the council create new public safety services, at least as the amendment is now proposed, and the mayor has criticized plans to dismantle the MPD as shortsighted and ill-prepared.
Also expressing reservations about the plan are several members of the Charter Commission, who echoed some of Frey’s concerns on Wednesday. Commissioner Gregory Abbott suggested a slowed-down alternative to the council proposal in which the city could undertake a two-year pilot program so it has enough time to generate information on the best way to form a new public safety plan — or on more effective ways of reforming the existing police department.
Abbott added that making changes to the charter is an arduous process. At the end of it, the city could have a rushed charter amendment that it’s stuck with for some time. He also noted that the council proposal strips the mayor of power over police and places it with the council, which he didn’t see as a necessarily better alternative.
Outside of city officials, there have also been prominent civil rights activists who have expressed reservations. Law professor-turned-activist Nekima Levy Armstrong expressed weariness at the thought of completely breaking-up Minneapolis police. “If they want to disband the police,” she told the New York Times, “they need to come up with ways and methods to keep our people safe.”
Minneapolis has seen a spate of shootings in the weeks since Floyd’s death, spurring community members to speak against the police force, as they know it, disappearing. “We cannot have bullets continue to fly in our community,” Lisa Clemon, a former law enforcement officer and currently an activist with the Minneapolis-based A Mother’s Love initiative, told WCCO.
Steven Belton, president and CEO of the Urban League Twin Cities, has also questioned the timing of the council’s proposal, telling the Star Tribune: “Why now, when you have an African American chief who is highly regarded and trusted in the Black community?”
Has this been tried anywhere else?
There aren’t any examples of an American city rebooting its police department in the name of justice. The most often cited example is the city of Camden, New Jersey, which dismantled its department in 2012 and built a new one. But that was done to address reports of corruption and high crime rates. And though crime is down in Camden, Black, native and other communities of color say the issue of systemic racism and police violence were not priorities in forming the new department. One lifelong Camden resident, minister Ojii BaBa Madi, told CNN that he feels his relationship with police has not changed.
Minneapolis leaders are well aware of the Camden experiment and don’t want Minneapolis to replicate that model. “It’s not an example I would go to prop up,” said Fletcher, noting reports of Camden’s still ongoing issues with systemic racism.
But there are examples in other countries where police have lost standing with civilians, often after those departments have been enlisted to enforce the will of a dictator or of a powerful minority over an oppressed people. “The police can very quickly lose legitimacy,” said Christopher Rickard, a researcher on policing and politics in Northern Ireland, to the New York Times. “It’s very hard to regain it.”
Minneapolis police probably don’t like being compared to police state regimes of South Africa and Myanmar. But researchers say Minneapolis and American police have dug themselves a similar hole in the eyes of many residents. In fact, in order to study life in a heavily policed American city, researchers from Johns Hopkins and Yale Universities set up large containers, or portals, in six cities where people could talk about their experiences. By listening to people’s experiences and analyzing data, the Portals Policing Project found that heavily policed American cities resemble an “authoritarian enclave.”
What’s next?
Next steps for the Charter Commission are the two public hearings, on July 15 and 21. Due to the sped-up process, fueled by the desire to get the charter amendment on the ballot this fall, the two meetings may be the only opportunity for residents to provide city leaders with feedback on the measure.
[cms_ad:x104]If the proposed amendment makes the ballot and passes, the department can be dissolved. From there, the council says it will begin the process of replacing MPD with a new department, starting with thorough community engagement. Changes to the charter would take effect on May 21, 2021.
If the amendment proposal goes on the ballot and fails, or if the proposal never makes it to the ballot, many advocates and city leaders say they will continue to work on police reform. “I am not afraid of the question not passing in November,” said council member Cano during the charter meeting. “That is a communal decision as a community. If that is the answer, we’ll make a separate set of decisions.”
Correction: This story has been updated to reflect the fact that nine of the 12 Minneapolis City council members pledged to dismantle the police department in early June, and that proposed charter language allows but does not require the new department to include licensed, traditional peace officers.
I thought the call was to “defund” (divert SOME funds to other programs, not waste police officers by using them in high schools, or non-essential roles) and not “dismantle” or “abolish” the police department…
James you might have slept in on Sunday June 7, the day that 9 members of the city council spoke to protestors and Mpls residents in Powderhorn Park and said they were going to “begin the process of ending the police department.”
Or maybe he just saw one of the other times when council members was saying defund. They have been all over the map with this nonsense.
I think the Trump/Republican ads have been focusing on the abolish and ending parts. This half-baked plan is (fortunately) probably going nowhere, but not before providing a lot of help to Republicans.
Do you have any polling data to suggest that this is “helping Republicans”? I remember the old adage, with friends like these who needs enemies?
Give the City council credit they voted 12-0 for something. What other city council or legislature have you seen speak with one voice lately? Plus there are two trans women on the council, so don’t tell me they don’t care about enforcing laws against sexual violence (per your other comment below)
Solomon, can you answer a question about the Charter Commission?
What is their charge? Are they supposed to be evaluating the policies that would be created were the Charter amended, or evaluating whether the proposed Charter Amendment language is legal and appropriate to be voted on by the city’s electorate?
Great question, Janne. The Minneapolis City Charter is a tool that can be overridden at will by the state legislature, but only when it is about funding NFL stadia. Hell the Minneapolis City Council can violate it at will, as long as the state courts have their back. When it is about police reform or black lives, the Minneapolis Charter Commission is a serious impediment.
Cities are essentially corporations under state law, except with security officers licensed to kill. The charter is their bylaws, worth about as much as the pixels it is written on.
I have read the proposed amendment. It is short on ideas and makes no reservation for a director or chief having law enforcement experience or understanding of law enforcement; the clause citing the necessary number of officers, per population count, is missing. I am with the Mayor and the others who don’t agree with the current proposal.
It is highly irresponsible for a body such as the Minneapolis City Council to put together a very loosely worded proposal without providing a strong sense of what should be accomplished in the end. The vague notion of what is to be expected is an egregious error on the part of the City Council and lends to my concern that even the highly benevolent and esteemed Cam Gordon has gone awry (see the link at the end of this comment which brings out retired federal law enforcement officer John Mattsen’s experience at the federal level, and which also provides a link to the proposal in one of my comments).
The City Council must go back to the drawing board. They need to come to an understanding that violent crime does exist and that both Black and other races are at the bottom of the violent crime that goes on here in Minneapolis.
Please know that I am the adoptive father and grandfather of nine young adults and children from Ghana, West Africa, and that I have a long history of acceptance of people from all racial backgrounds. While in boarding school in Norway, I was involved in the anti-apartheid movement and met Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu, of South Africa, who helped bring an end to racist rule in South Africa and with whom I later corresponded. My comments about Black individuals often enough being part of the problem of violence and other crimes in our city are not racist: they are based on real data.
Years ago I met a Black man who had been in prison for numerous felony convictions. I asked him why he lived a life of crime. He said that due to the box on past applications for employment which asked whether applicants were ever convicted of felonies, he couldn’t get a job and that he needed to support himself. He noted that he got involved in crime at the age of fourteen years and didn’t know another way.
I told the man that my dad was an attorney and that his first partner, The Honorable Spencer Sokolowski, was a judge in Anoka County. I shared with him the presence of a Minnesota Bar Association organization called AMICUS. AMICUS assists, or assisted, ex-convicts back into a life of honorable citizenship and serve(d) to help ex-cons develop the confidence and communications skills necessary to find lawful work. I have contacted the Minnesota Bar Association, an association of judges and lawyers, but their point person for AMICUS Society was on vacation. Hence, I don’t know if what was in place forty years ago, when I learned of my dad’s activities, is still in place now. My dad is not available for conversation at this time, so I am unable to learn from him, a retired attorney, whether the program is still running.
Needless to say, people who engage in crime are often from families which have had difficulties — regardless of race. Attacking the notion of a police department without getting to the foundational problems associated for why there is crime, is only a half answer.
Again, I am deeply disappointed in the naive and incomplete manner in which the Minneapolis City Council has chosen to work with this issue. They don’t seem to have explored the full range of problems associated with crime in our city, and they jumped too quickly into providing half an answer, which is neither reasonable nor professional.
I expect more from my City Council and hope, going forward, that they will indulge in extensive thinking toward how to resolve a problem which is decades old and which involves not only the the Minneapolis Police Department, its good and bad officers, but also the union and state laws which interfere with sound training of officers and getting rid of officers whose presence in uniform is no more than a sizzling malignancy and another problem waiting to happen.
Our city is dependent on citizens and visitors, and absentee business owners, sharing ideas on how to better manage our law enforcement community as well as re-draft laws to provide a better and more enlightened understanding and captioning of what is needed to reduce deaths and disfigurements from officers whose mentality or need to control suspects has created reasonable angst toward members of our community in uniform who operate with weapons
Here is John Mattsen’s article; it is highly insightful and worthy of consideration; the link to City Council’s proposal is embedded in one of my three or four comments:
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2020/07/obvious-doable-solutions-for-obvious-problems-in-the-minneapolis-police-department/?unapproved=1927788&moderation-hash=30b46101b56fd06739712550fdae7f4a#comment-1927788
Slow down Barry, you just said a mouthful. The city council is committed to a 12-month listening tour. Maybe you should too?
The article clearly states that changes would go into effect on 5/21. The proposal in unequivocally the backwards way of doing things – setting a date to make changes without even knowing what changes you’re going to make. It’s a sign of poor management and people who are more interested in showing that they are doing something (performative) than they are in actually addressing the problem. This is my issue, frankly, with a lot of efforts.
It’s like saying your going to buy a house in a month, no matter what, without even having begun looking at houses. People don’t voluntarily do that. The council is locking themselves into doing “something” but they don’t know what that is.
I sometimes take a technical project manager role as part of my job. In IT, we often have hard deadlines due to regulations or End of Life systems. When you have a deadline, there are compromises you have to make due to the limited time that you have to work with. The council is proposing an artificial deadline and in light of the seriousness of the issue, I would think this is one area where you wouldn’t want to make compromises – this is something that needs to be done right, even if it takes a little longer than what people hope for or expect.
I reject your assertion that the council’s plan is “unequivocally the backwards way of doing things.” With respect, your experience in IT may be actually distorting your perspective of how things work in social change or, even, behavioral economics. We are talking about people here — check the evidence based methods of social systems change. Finally, I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but a 12-0 vote of duly elected representatives of the people that MPD polices should be afforded some deference.
For a real-world example, see the Minnesota Constitution’s requirement that the Legislature adjourn by third week in May every year. Maybe you don’t end up with a perfect budget, maybe sometime you get shutdowns but in poker sometimes, you need to raise the big blind artificially or you get nothing done.
I think the council should be listening to people like Barry. But they are so out of touch, I don’t think they will.
I still can’t get past council president Bender’s statement that concerns about crime are simply privilege. I wonder if she thinks that applies to the women and children who were sexually assaulted in the
When the council, directly elected by the people of Minneapolis, votes 12-0 on something I place great weight on that. A jury, coincidentally, also consists of 12 peers — and not even democratically elected at that.
Well, the mayor does not, to his credit, and once the charter vote fails, I expect some council turnover.
I’m not sure 12 council members would stick their necks out if they didn’t think they had political cover from their constituents. The mayor is the one race in 2021 where I expect turnover but, we shall see. Stay tuned!
The 12-0 vote to which people keep referring was a procedural vote, whether or not to put the charter amendment on the ballot. Council members who did not support the original “dismantle the police” were supporting putting the amendment to a vote, not necessarily supporting the amendment itself. I think this was entirely appropriate.
So many times have I heard this refrain go unchallenged, so if you’ll allow me Pat, the “privilege” has nothing to do with the ability to have law enforcement take measures to abate crime (though I would take issue with the assertion that law enforcement does much to prevent crimes of passion like rape and spontaneous murder anyway). It has to do with the fact that white folk, like you and me, never need consider the fact that calling the police, when WE are the victim of a crime, might lead not to the apprehension of the criminal, but to our (or someone dear to us) arrest, or our (or someone dear us) death. THAT is the privilege to which Councilwomen Bender’s commentary speaks.
Never say never. There are plenty of white people who know, you never, ever call the police unless there literally is no alternative. Because police can easily afflict a trauma as bad or worse than the crime.
Thank you, Nathan. I am also concerned that I write more than most people are willing to read. I am passionate about several subjects, and this is one as I have family, friends, and acquaintances who have been law enforcement officers from the local to international levels, now mostly retired. I have also seen a few pretty putrid examples of human beings who have been local and federal officers, among those who have been exemplary human beings.
The last three mayors have attempted reforms to the MPD and we still have one of the only police forces in the nation that allows choke holds. A leader of the police union that promised to personally fund “warrior” training after it was banned by the mayor.
20+% of 911 calls go completely unanswered.
MPD officers are allowed to work unlimited moonlighting security shifts and this isn’t tracked in any way.
There is no disclosure of brutality cases against officers.
Basically there is no community involvement in resolving police brutality charges.
Why do you think the Police force will make any changes when they haven’t in decades?
I’m not so sure that it was right or wise of me to reference Council Member Cam Gordon. Cam and his office staff have been helpful in many ways over the past years, and I have had contact with him durimg my time as a member of a board representing Ward 2, prior to the change in ward boundaries making Ward 6 a reality.
I deeply respect Council Member Cam Gordon, although we are not members of the same political party. Cam has been a tireless advocate for this area and has deep maturity. I brought Cam Gordon’s name into my comment as I was surprised that he would vote to change the City Charter without having the Council think thoroughly through their efforts. He is one member of the City Council and can speak for himself as to why he voted as he did. I am not a mind-reader, but can say that I have respect for the Council Member.
Barry Peterson, Cam Gordon does speak for himself on the city’s website:
http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/ward2/index.htm
The critics point to shootings and other events under the current policing set-up to try and justify why we can’t make a change? From where I sit, the current department isn’t stopping any of these crimes, or keeping the community safe. (see Floyd, George). And the current department has serious problems with arrogance and racism. So why not re-imagine from the ground up?
Crime goes up and down; it has gone up lately and many would argue to other factors than the polie. No doubt there needs to be real reform. There are numerous problems with this charter amendment. For starters there is no real plan–you have to know the specifics to make a plan and it does not seem like most of the council know the specifics. Fletcher mentions a number of groups–those groups have been around for years–predating most of this council. You also have state, federal laws and county departments involved. So merely waving a wand is not going to work. For example–state law states who has to respond to a crisis. Part of the problem from what I see is many of these programs whether they be city, county or state tend to be half done programs vs fully develeoped. This state has vested more in workgroups than the actual work. Seriously, the though leaders like to tell others, but where are those who do the work? For the most part police are reactionary, however they also do outreach. There are lots of county programs–please do your research–programs that work with people with lower level felonies in jail to assist in finding housing and other supports, mentoring programs by police, crisis responders, crisis nursery, parenting programs, housing programs, etc..This is the same council and mayor that failed to make changes in the MPD policies(and yes Kroll and the union bear some of the responsibility) and now they want to be in charge of a new department?
Eric, notably, police officers cannot be everywhere at one time, and they are not omniscient. Without strong parenting and community support, kids often resort to violence and other crime, as they have no idea of the best path to take. Often enough, their parent have not been supported by strong parenting, themselves, and so the problem becomes generational.
Your idea of re-imagining the department from the ground up is interesting, however, and I hope you will contact your city council member and the Office of the Mayor to share constructive and well-thought ideas for what you believe can be done.
Eric, I 100% agree with you. I was struck recently by a quote that perhaps our white friends on the other side of the aisle might enjoy:
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.”
-Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand was a fraud who lived off of government handouts.
Way to completely miss the point of my comment, Pat.
If I were Mayor, I would still be pro-union and anti-corruption.
You can within limits negotiate pay, benefits, hours and duties collectively.
You need not negotiate arbitration of misconduct to avoid investigating if the misconduct was a misdemeanor as well as a policy violation. As Mayor, I would say policy violations that are clearly not-criminal will be punished by the police chief or the mayor, period. There should be a Code of Behavior and a reporting requirement policy.
If the accused violator wants the union’s support, they can request an open mitigation hearing with an option that the case might be changed to a criminal complaint. The public needs to be assured nothing is swept under the carpet or omitted from training.
The County Attorney and the Court need to be diligent and agree to the Code as applying to not-criminal actions only.
If this can only result from a Chartr change, so be it.
One of my concerns is that the City Council seems somewhat out of touch with the community at large, has not cast a very wide net of listening.
A second question. Are there any portions of the Police Department and/or current policy that they might want to retain? Have they thought about soliciting input from the current Police Chief? It seems to me that it would be helpful to have access to someone who, given years of experience, might also have some thoughts worth listening to. Another example. What kind of input have they solicited from the mental health community?
Also, there seems to be no recognition of the possible reaction of the police union. Does anyone truly imagine that Kroll and his membership are going to take this dissolution lying down? Can we not expect the union to marshal its considerable resources to keep this from happening. Possible litigation? This could get very ugly — and expensive!
Why the rush? Five months (come November’s election) after George Floyd’s death — is that enough time to put something together thoughtfully? There seems to be lots of attention on the “dismantling.” What, in specific, will be built in its place? Two public hearings by the Commission, is that enough to hear from an entire city? How about a hearing in each Council person’s district?
Finally, having the 12-member City Council body be in charge of this new department seems unwieldy if not unworkable. One person, not a committee, is going to have to run this department day to day. And by what means will that person be accountable to a committee of 12? Will that person be appointed? Elected? And will the Mayor be a rubber stamp?
The City Council has worthy ambitious goals, but what about the nuts and bolts of how it would actually work? There are so few clues.
Here is the link to the Minneapolis City Council’s proposal to amend the City Charter. Please comment on this forum, and to your city council members’ offices if you have ideas which can further improve their first start at resolving the problem of malicious policing:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/3886/MPD%20Charter%20Amendment%20Articles%20VII%20and%20Article%20VIII.pdf
Reading the piece the other day on metro transit police has got me thinking about this. I stopped riding the train because it wasn’t being policed enough. My worst experience was having to deal with homeless people using trains as a toilet, but I know people who have experienced violence.
I look at the disaster going on in Minneapolis parks and the disaster in the Seattle police free zone, and the reality is that we need police. Crime is a real problem, not some white privilege issue as council president has said.
The police, in Minneapolis and a lot of other places, are broken. The department is full of bad cops. The department is full of racists. It needs to be fixed. Majorly overhauled. But this defund/abolish police business is nonsense.
How do you plan to fix it, without starting over anew. The incremental approach, which I know you’d prefer, has done nothing, over the course of decades, to address the problem.
Those who believe police are a problem in our society should not be taken seriously. They should be ignored. Can you imagine how the criminals would behave if they knew they would not be apprehended ? If we endeavor to fix the problem, we should identify the root cause of criminal behavior. Things like lack of quality parental involvement in children’s lives, lack of interest in education, lack of respect for others, belief in victimhood status, etc.. are the real problems. Why can’t we talk about these things ? They seem patently obvious. Why is more tax dollars from hard working citizens the answer to these problems ? I believe the intentions of the people who want to dismantle are good, but I also believe they are emotional in nature and will not fix the problem. Spending more money on things that won’t work is wrongheaded.
Actually, no. Its people who don’t think cops are a problem should not be taken seriously. Abolishing the police is indeed a terrible idea, but the motivation behind it comes from a legitimate place. As an attorney, I have seen officers perjure themselves and engage in blatant racism. Fighting crime needs to start with getting the criminals out of police departments.
“Spending more money on things that won’t work is wrongheaded.”
That sounds like an argument for defunding the Minneapolis Police Department.
There is nothing you can do to force people to live their lives in a manner you’d prefer. So knowing that, how do you plan to address the concerns you’ve listed? If they cannot be addressed, how do you plan to effect meaningful progress toward any stated goal?
Here is a link to the a site which City of Minneapolis City Council provides to learn how to contact the City Council. At this time, there is a place where writers can provide ideas about how to transform policing in Minneapolis:
http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/council/index.htm
““We want to take a department that is an anomaly and bring it under city council control with mayor and charter cooperation,” said Gordon”
He actually just said it will be run by committee with a little advice from the Mayor.
I think there is great opportunity to change things for the better. Unfortunately, the City Council is telling us:
“We really do not know what law enforcement will look like in the future, but we do know one thing for certain: We’re in charge, trust us”.
Unbelievable hubris. The behavior of these 13 mostly neophytes really makes me question my support for term limits.
Do you understand how corporate Boards work in Corporate America, Edward? Do you understand that many cities use a Council-Manager form of government? You talk about unbelievable hubris and yet you live here in America and choose to ignore how most of our public and private sector corporations are actually run.
Solomon Gustavo, great report! In my opinion, as good as any report written by the New York Times or the Washington Post. Thorough, factual, non=partisan, and smoothly written.
Consider this if you will. Those who are for de-funding and dismantling are at their core on the same side as those who are against it. At their core, the difference between the two sides can be summed up in three words: reason for hope. Those who are for de-funding and dismantling have no reason for hope, that trying to fix the MPD by conventional means has any chance any at all of bringing about “real change”. This is a very rational perspective. History has proven them to be right.
Those who are opposed to de-funding and dismantling may or may not have any reason for hope that the problems in the MPD can be fixed. But as a practical matter, they view de-funding and dismantling as a knee jerk, emotional, drastic, panic attack measure without vision. I mean, that’s just plain true.
The thing that is missing from this picture is Door #3, through which both sides can pass as partners. If proceeding by conventional means has no chance of success, then proceed to bring about change by unconventional means, but do it with dutiful purpose!
De-fund and dismantle is like a single mother of five quitting her job without having any idea where her next paycheck is going to come from….quitting her job because she hates her boss, and thinks that by quitting, that she is going to hurt him. What could possibly go wrong with this plan?
Quitting your job with no plan can also be a radical act of hope. I reject that hope is on the side of the people who want to reform MPD. I actually think that position comes from a place of deep fear of what a city without MPD looks like. Just look at the age demographic split on this issue — are young people really afraid and are older folks really hopeful? You’re a thoughtful writer and, with respect, I believe your framing is exactly backwards.
Most would agree that transformation is needed, and a more integrative public safety approach with a broader array of expertise is warranted. However, this article incorrectly states a requirement that the new department include law enforcement. That is not true. The proposed charter states “the Council may maintain a division of law enforcement services, composed of licensed peace officers” (emphasis on MAY; not shall or will). When the Charter Commission pressed the Council on this topic they responded in the following: Cano, “no one is claiming the (MPD) dept. would go away tomorrow”; Ellison stated the desire to “move monopoly on public safety away from the police department”, and Fletcher, “the option is on the table to abolish” MPD, to which Cano agreed. None answered directly, but did not deny that they intend to get rid of MPD- including a respected Chief – and outsource and/or privatize it. This does nothing to address systemic racism in policing, it just switches out the entity and gives control to the Council – there is little that is innovative or transformation about that approach. Same thing, different people. They also stated that they can no longer work with MPD on making improvements, and yet this very council voted against Chief Rondo’s requests for Community Navigators, an LGBTQIA liaison, and sexual assault investigators. Aren’t these the very types of resources they are now saying they need as part of this new office? The council continues to reject everyone’s ideas except their own, and that should be cause for concern.
“.new public safety department under the supervision of the city council.”
Well this provision alone should doom this hastily thrown together potpourri of half-baked ideas.
Yes god forbid, we put police oversight power in the hands of 12 directly elected representatives of the people of Minneapolis.
So is the mayor, of course. And that position is actually more directly responsive (and accountable) to all residents of the city, since it’s the municipal position all Mpls citizens get to vote on.
One would have thought that interface with the mayor is the sort of day to day function that works most efficiently for a police chief (or a new “security department” head.)
It’s a fair point but, just like at the federal level, 1) the executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch through oversight and 2) a veto proof majority (not to mention a unanimous legislative body) trumps the executive in our American system of checks and balances.
If we weren’t talking a 12-0 vote here, I might say the mayor has a better claim of representing all voters but, you guys really can’t seem to wrap your minds around the power and cache of a 12-0 legislative body
Courts that find themselves in the similarly unpleasant situation of taking over a corrupt public institution appoint a special master. No reason the city council can’t do the same thing until the mayor is ready to show that she or he or they can do it
Dear MinnPost,
I think quite a substantial portion of your readership would benefit from a (re-)reading of MLK Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail:
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Warm regards,
A sad but loyal reader
Less eloquent, but just as timely, is former Mayor Hodges’s opinion piece in yesterday’s New York Times.
I fully support a new vision for public health and public safety. We need to parse out those calls that are better handled by other than the police and create the resources to have handle them. That said, I have issues with the proposed charter amendment as written. First, the author of the article is incorrect in stating that it requires a law enforcement department. The amendment says it”may” create one , not must or shall create one. It is important to note that the council could begin today to gather input on creating a public health/ safety approach. They do not need a new charter to do so. The council could also reduce the size of the. Current MPD and redirect those dollars without a charter amendment. The charter amendment as written is a poorly disguised power grab of authority from the office of the mayor and the chief of police.
In response to those comments that give the amendment credibility because it was a unanimous vote,, I know of at least one council member who only voted yes with the caveat that it be accompanied by a plan which as we know is non existent. I think the same is true of others on the council. The five ring leaders, Bender, Cano, Gordon, Ellison and Fletcherhave raised the possibility that they will outsource the law enforcement portion of the public safety plan. This just moves the accountability for dealing with the systemic racism in the department to another entity that they can blame as they blamed the mayor and chief at the charter commission meeting. In addition, an outsourced department does not give us the community policing that we need or the investment in Minneapolis.
I cannot support the amendment as written.
Thank you for stating the obvious; I put my house up for sale last week and am moving. The city that I love has moved so far to the left that a normal person can’t live here and feel safe anymore. It’s so expensive to live here, ( property taxes in the city) that the people that have lived here for years can’t afford it anymore.
Good luck with affordable housing for all, there will be many houses for the city to buy once everyone has moved out
Betsy what municipality is your house located in? Dollars to donuts it ain’t Minneapolis.
Well, judging by the quite substantial stack of business cards advertising her services as a for-hire PGA pro, conveniently located at the driving range directly across the street from the NE motor’s favorite former gated community, I can venture a guess…To think, we’re almost neighbors!
The Minneapolis Council could reduce the police force by 100+ officers and still meet the City Charter mandate (the force has more officers than the charter’s formula requires). The Council can start now to “defund” the police department and transition to alternatives. Instead of rushing the charter amendment, take a year to study the issue and propose changes on the 2021 ballot, when the mayor and council are up for re-election.
Agreed, they have everything they need to do what they think they want to do, except the common sense to understand what a big hole they are choosing to step into! Lets call it the dumb leading the dumber, to see if they can find the dumbest, fair enough?