One question has been popping up a lot lately in Minneapolis’ public safety amendment debate: Will the Minneapolis Police Department really be gone in 30 days if the ballot measure is approved by voters?
“I get asked this question routinely,” said Minneapolis City Clerk Casey Carl. “More than once a day now.”
Campaign mailers distributed by All of Mpls, a political committee that is opposing the amendment, have said that approval of the measure “would remove the police department 30 days after the election with no timeline or plan for its replacement.”
The same mailing also says the ballot measure “would dismantle the police department 30 days after the election with no timeline or plan for its replacement.”
Is that really true?
“On paper,” this is correct, notes Carl. The state law governing charter amendments says that, if passed by voters, “the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment.”
That would mean the city would have a Dec. 3 deadline to “remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety,” as stated in the ballot question.
What that means in practice is more complicated, though. While the city has to officially begin the transition by the deadline, everything in a charter amendment doesn’t have to be achieved by then, said Carl.
“It is impossible for any group of policymakers to have a transition plan to be done by Dec. 3; that is not a realistic thing. It just can’t be done,” said Carl. “But what the law says is that the question becomes ‘effective,’ it doesn’t say in the law that we have to have the entire thing implemented.”
There would be other real-world complications from implementing the amendment, noted Carl. Minnesota law requires that certain law enforcement services provided by a city be conducted by peace officers, which are traditional police. Until a new public safety department would be able to handle all that goes into handling such scenarios, Minneapolis police would carry out those responsibilities.
There’s also the matter of the city’s police union, the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, and its labor contract. Though the most recent union contract expired on Dec. 31, 2019, “the terms and conditions of that contract continue to apply, pending a new contract that is yet to be negotiated and ultimately approved by the Mayor and Council,” said Carl.
Carl also said that any peace officers within a new public safety department would likely be represented by the federation.
“There is not a black and white answer,” said Carl. “The paper world would be changed, effective Dec. 3, for sure, but the real world is not as clear-cut. We would still have police officers on our payroll. We would still have law enforcement functions that would need to be provided in the city under state law. We would still have an obligation as an employer to those employees.”
As a possibility, a way to “bridge the paper and real world,” Carl said the mayor and City Council together could name a public safety commissioner on Dec. 3. The city would then take action to ensure that the holder of the position would be the legal successor to the police chief once the new department is established.
Creating a new role at that level, said Carl, often takes six or seven months. “And that’s the government moving fast,” Carl said, and he would not venture to estimate how long it could possibly take to stand up — or tear down — an entire department.
Asked about the recent campaign literature, All of Mpls campaign manager Leili Fatehi noted that the mailers specifically say that the department will be dismantled, not that all law enforcement functions will cease. “There’s nothing in that that makes the claim that all cops disappear,” in 30 days, said Fatehi. “But the police department, as an artifact that exists by nature and consequence of the charter saying it exists, will have those provisions struck from the charter.”
Fatehi said that reading anything more into All of Mpls’ claims is intentionally misreading the mailer language.
Fantastic, a giant void to be filled by who knows what. The article basically says if a yes vote on the amendments, you will get something, not sure what but something. I will be shocked if this passes but I’ve been shocked before by Mpls voters.
So they want to pass a charter amendment without any real plan on how to go forward after it passes?
Maybe someone can explain to me how “That would mean the city would have a Dec. 3 deadline to “remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety,” as stated in the ballot question.” means that they just have to start the transition and not actually remove the Police Department. That seems to be a contradiction.
Minneapolis should abolish the police department 30 days after the passage of the amendment per state law. Let’s see what happens. Any guesses?
“Fatehi noted that the mailers specifically say that the department will be dismantled, not that all law enforcement functions will cease. “There’s nothing in that that makes the claim that all cops disappear,” in 30 days, said Fatehi. “But the police department, as an artifact that exists by nature and consequence of the charter saying it exists, will have those provisions struck from the charter.”
Oh, so the artifact ceases to exist but the police continue on… nothing deceptive about that logic.
it is not “intentionally misreading” their flyer to come to that conclusion, and you really should have pressed Leili harder on this. It is an obvious fear tactic, and hopefully one that fails. Between the officers sitting at home claiming PTSD, the payouts to police victims, the ongoing police abuse and infamous toxic culture of MPD, and whatever comes out of the ongoing federal investigation, we cannot afford to leave things as-is, or rely on the kind of mild “reform” efforts that are a rehash of everything that has already been attempted (and failed). Frey, Arradondo, and the charter requirement must all go. (Jacob, don’t @ or call me.)
In your universe, how should residents of Minneapolis who are being attacked by a armed criminal respond? Call 911 and request police assistance. Buy a gun and DIY? Public safety is just that – it prevents, addresses and punishes violence. Simply criticizing the status quo without proposing workable solutions is worse than useless.
It isn’t intentionally misleading at all. Its just accurate.
If its confusing, that is because the amendment is a vague mess, and the proponents have been lying and changing their story about what the amendment does and doesn’t do.
‘Claiming PTSD’? Do you realize how hard it is to get that approved? And to second guess someone else’s trauma comes from a place of privilege.
Look, this is a city council who messed up the co responder model and if this passes they will be in charge. You do not need this amendment to make changes such as having traffic patrol work 24.7 or more social workers. Chief Arradondo outlined a well thought out approach without the amendment.
The other issue is how are you going to pay for duplicate services that the county already has?
You know what would be a great way to reduce PTSD? Stop having fellow officers execute black people in the street, necessitating the need for protest and unrest. A pity for the officers affected that so many feel the need to zealously defend that practice.
The opposition to police department reform is universal among MN Republicans, probably because they have not been victims of police malpractice in the first place.
The opposition to all issues brought by our Black and Brown communities is similar to the opposition to wearing masks and getting vaccinated. Policing cannot be made better for all of us without doing so for those who suffer at the hands of the police.
If Republican know this, they must be aware they are also politicizing skin color. Why would a political party choose to favor the white community when policy is clearly aimed at the whole body politic? Won’t this action make race itself political?
Where is the conservative CONSCIENCE?
Richard, a Gallup poll of 30,000 adults showed 80% of black adults want the same or more police presence in their community. It is a total fallacy that black or brown people want less policing. In any community that experiences crime (black, white, brown), safety is the major factor in the voters mind.
Nowhere did I say the affected communities want “less policing”. You disagree with something I didn’t convey.
My post is about the blanket Republican resistance to reform locally and in D.C.
If I’m wrong about Republicans politicizing the need for police reform by ignoring the history of their actions in those communities, tell me why.
You seem to think the Rs have some principled point to make. What the heck is it? What is their proposal for fixing the horrific pattern and practice of policing Black and Brown people. Defend the Republicans if you can.
The biggest opposition to this is Minneapolis’s black residents. The ones who bear the brunt of most of the violence. Where is the conscience of the privileged white people behind the amendment?
I think the Black residents of MPLS want and deserve police reform, and I think you agree. Why are you against it? My remark about CONSCIENCE is being made directly at the conservatives in power– not the Council, or Mayor, or Chief.
What are you opposing / proposing, Republicans?
Good luck. They haven’t anything to propose, because nothing they’re willing to try has ever worked. As always, the hope is for everything to “blow over” so they can return to the comfortable status quo that gives them the “order” they seek, while harming people they don’t need to care about.
I do want police reform, as do the black residents of Minneapolis. The problem is that this ballot question isn’t police reform – its vague, dangerous nonsense. I oppose this, as many people who oppose this do, because I want actual police reform.
Please name that “reform”. Be specific, and tell us why it will work now, when many of the things you’ll cite never have. It’s the standard you hold your opposition to, so please hold it to yourself as well.
Body cameras, bans on warrior training, prosecution of bad cops, non-prosecution of small drug crimes and certain traffic stops. There have been a lot of reforms that have made a difference. And there are other things that are blocked by having a Republican Senate.
There is no easy solution, and the vague nonsense of this ballot measure sure isnt one. There is this fantasyland that social workers are going to be confronting people wielding knives and guns.
Make the MPD a larger and more diverse entity; let’s rename it while we’re at it, maybe call it the Minneapolis Department of Public Safety.
All members will belong to the union. All members get to vote for the union president, not just the members that carry a sidearm.
Dilute the votes of the bad apples, so that they (70%) cannot keep voting in another Bob Kroll.
That sounds great. Unfortunately, what you are discussing bears no resemblance whatsoever to the charter amendment.
You said, and I totally agree:
“Body cameras, bans on warrior training, prosecution of bad cops, non-prosecution of small drug crimes and certain traffic stops. There have been a lot of reforms that have made a difference. And there are other things that are blocked by having a Republican Senate.”
Excellent goals.
But then Jason made another, excellent goal:
” Make the MPD a larger and more diverse entity; let’s rename it while we’re at it, maybe call it the Minneapolis Department of Public Safety.
All members will belong to the union. All members get to vote for the union president, not just the members that carry a sidearm.
Dilute the votes of the bad apples, so that they (70%) cannot keep voting in another Bob Kroll.”
I think you not diss Mr. DeFlorin’s good idea just to oppose a procedural action. (an amendment)
My addition to both of your lists of goaIs would include both of the posts.
One goal would add a working citizen review structure with subpoena power.
Someday the idea of qualified immunity will be junked– not a day too soon.
The fantasy is that a world full of people wielding knives and guns is necessary and unavoidable.
Maybe its avoidable, but getting rid of cops won’r make it happen. And in the meantime, the world is full of people with knives and guns. And social workers cant deal with those people, but cops can.
Actually Nekima Levy Pounds came out against this amendment as have a number of north siders.
I’m with her.
So you are voting against the charter amendment?
““On paper,” this is correct”, the point us folks have made for months, there is no plan other than de-fund the police dept! Come on folks, lets all “jump out of a perfectly good airplane” W/O parachutes, and hopefully we’ll figure something out before we hit the ground!
Hyperbole in jumping out of airplanes does not contribute to a discussion on reform. It merely opposes reform and inserts fear of death as a metaphor for change.
Hyperbole or analogy? Is there a plan, NO! Are people already dying because of this de-fund movement, probably yes, will that number increase if the de-funders get their change, probably yes again. Reality kind of sucks doesn’t it?
PS: And do think a promise that everything will be better with this new no-plan plan isn’t hyperbole?
De-fund? It appears you are using the phrase to discredit any attempts at reform.
Give the mayor, council and police Chief a chance.
We have adequate evidence that in Minneapolis, and indeed around this entire country, police have violated the public trust with their horrific treatment of certain groups and communities.
Either you support change or, like every Republican who speaks out, you want nothing but to instill the fear that we will all suffer if we try to get a better police department for ALL.
I guess it will end as always, with an intransigent police union protecting the worst of their members while seeking more money and more resources, not for the communities,. but for the police who do not deserve the public trust.
Did you read the resolution on the ballot? “Remove the police department” “could include licensed police officers” there is nothing I added to hyperbole anything. Looks like you are the 1 trying to hyperbole and say it doesn’t say what it says!
Defund is what the supporters came up with. Its what people like Ilhan Omar say. These people have no credibility. The Republicans will sweep this state next year if this passes.
You can support change, without supporting counterproductive nonsense like this.
Well it seems Republicans will “sweep the state” in your view if Democrats address racial injustice in any manner except arresting and incarcerating more minorities. Sinnce doing any of the other reform measures you claim to suggest would make them “too liberal” and also subject to said sweeping, we might as well just give up then, huh?
The charter amendment, which is opposed by a majority of Minneapolis’s black residents, does nothing to achieve racial justice. Its a worthless joke that will end up hurting racial justice reforms at the state level. I oppose the amendment because I want racial justice. Because I respect what the black residents – the ones who are victimized by the violence in the city – more than the whites in safe neighborhoods who think they know better.
People have died, demonstrably, in public view, under the current system. In your desperate fight to prevent change you’ve yet to propose anything to change that situation. Everything suggested has been tried before, with no success. Why would your proposals do anything differently THIS time. As yet, I’ve yet to receive an answer to that question from anyone on the opposition side of this issue, this can only lead one to the conclusion that folks of that persuasion are perfectly comfortable with the system in place. To put it simply, I find that position reprehensible, particularly for those who claim to care about the plight of minority citizens in any capacity.
Well perhaps you haven’t been listening, or don’t want to listen. Seems some folks are so seeped in hatred they can’t open their eyes much less their mind.
https://apnews.com/article/police-us-news-minneapolis-mn-state-wire-police-reform-303d325dd838938fb4f86f9f7aa1d977
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=381013636215744
https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-chief-arradondo-speaks-to-friendly-crowd-about-hopes-for-future-of-department/600103102/
https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-police-trials-minneapolis-racial-injustice-05238dd1e95668fae8ef6629fbb077ca
You aren’t paying much attention if you are unaware of the reform efforts. And the concern about the minority population would seem more genuine if it reflected the fact that minorities are the strongest opponents of this.
All of Mpls’s mailers are plainly deceptive, but intellectual integrity and politics rarely go hand in hand. Nonetheless, I give them credit: nothing has more effectively blocked real progress in American history than mobilizing white fears.
They don’t hold a candle to the deceptiveness and dishonesty of those supporting the amendment.
And mobilizing white fears? Its the black community that is most opposed to this. They are the ones whose kids are getting killed by gun violence.
Its the pro-amendment side that is mobilizing white privilege and white saviorism.
I’m not saying all pro-amendment stuff is honest and reliable, but this is definitely deceitful fear mongering… you gotta be a lawyer to argue that it isn’t.
It’s funny to see people trying to use Gallop polls here… where is a voice from the actual community in N. MPLS? Levy Pounds isn’t necessarily the voice of the community, remember a while back when people surrounded the 4th precinct and wanted to shut it down? Obviously there’s some support for kind of change in policy here.
Paul, I live near dead center in N Mpls 37 years! Don and Sondra Samuels live off Broadway and Irving, also near dead center N Mpls 26 years . You could say pun not intended but taken. Seems a lot of folks suggesting we know not what we are talking about. Like a younger resident said a few weeks back, we have enough murder memorials to make it look like a cemetery, and these aren’t from police shootings!
The police response to gang violence is not new.
It is clear the police are expected to react and resolve, to problems far more complicated and historic in their origins (like gangs form where insecurity rages).
Let’s look at some realistic approaches.
I’m hoping for some progress.
There are many facets to public safety reform, but I haven’t ever seen consideration of what seems perhaps the most fundamental one: Particularly within a society in which authoritarianism is ever more legitimized and cultivated by those in power, is it possible to have a police department that does not have a critical mass of those who are authoritarian, racist, interested in dominating others by force, and in the profession precisely because it allows free play for those impulses? Put another way, how does a department recruit for “protect and serve,” and maintain that ethos?
Good stuff by S. Gustavo as usual.
I’ll be voting YES on question #2. Like most of us commenting here, I realize it won’t be the end of police in MPLS at all if it passes.
More like a nudge to make them more accountable. Why this is so scary to so many people, I do not know.
Why so many non – MPLS people feel the need to weigh in, I definitely don’t want to know. Please don’t tell.
Like most of us, I want to feel safe. I want to be able to call for help if something goes wrong.
I’d like it if officers with authority to kill anyone in sight wore identifying badges & other options to consider before grabbing weapons.
I have multiple police in my family. No one can call me a hater. I want the quiet officers, the “good ones”, to have a better work environment.
I’ve only been here in MPLS since the 90s, but I don’t think the police will change without this little push.
Maybe I’m wrong – maybe the police will change on their own.
“More like a nudge to make them more accountable. Why this is so scary to so many people, I do not know.”
I know why its scary. Because Minneapolis is seeing an epidemic of violence. It is being opposed by Minneapolis’s black residents, because they are the victims of most of the violence.
This does nothing to make anyone more accountable. Its just pure white privilege. Its a fantasy that puts the victims of violence in even more danger.
I guess folks have been so busy arguing this point that no one has noticed the police have self defunded themselves: a 40% plus reduction in police numbers and they seem to be impossible to replace because no one wants the job.
Better line up those social workers because there is no easy alternative…
the key to police reform is REFORM; not defunding.