Note to opinion editors: Published by Star Tribune Opinion letter Readers submit their articles online and in print every day. To submit an article, here.
•••
Anyone who read Minneapolis City Council Member Robin Wansley’s July 12 commentary ( “Contracts Must Include Permanent, Strong Reforms,” Opinion Exchange ) would be forgiven for believing that no significant reforms have been made at the Minneapolis Police Department in the past four years. Of course, anyone who follows city politics at all would know that’s wrong.
But if you need a refresher, you're in luck: The City of Minneapolis has a page on its website titled “Police Reform After June 2020,” which you can easily find by doing a Google search.
It's that easy! The list is impressive. Here are some highlights:
Banning “maximum restraint techniques.” Limiting pretextual traffic stops. Limiting no-knock warrants. Restricting crowd control tactics and weapons. Changing police training curricula. Improving the citizen complaint process. All of these and more. Take a look.
Surely Wansley is well aware of many of these important reforms, so why does she write a commentary calling for “strong reform” yet not mention any of them? Let's hope Wansley's supporters ask her that question soon.
Steve McCauley, Minneapolis
•••
New recruits get $90,000! Veteran officers get a 22% raise!
I am a retired professor from Normandale Community College. I have a PhD and 30 years of college teaching experience. I have never made $90,000 a year and have lived on 1.5% to 2.5% raises each year. When I taught, all law enforcement students were required to take at least one class.
The veterans in my class were mature, motivated, and good students who I think will make great future police officers. The average 18-year-old recruit couldn't wait to be issued a gun and considered a fishing trip to Canada as “international experience.”
I know police officers face different risks than I do, but this is a huge raise for a troubled police department that has paid millions of dollars in lawsuits for excessive brutality. I would suggest that the raise be reduced and that any fines levied against uninsured police departments be funded with police retirement funds rather than taxpayer generosity. Perhaps police departments would be responsible for controlling their “rogue” officers.
Linda L. Green, Woodbury
•••
What hurts Minneapolis the most right now are City Council members who are not qualified to serve and have no understanding of labor contracts or negotiations. City Council members have been told repeatedly, and we all know, that reforms are and will be addressed through the consent decree and Effective Law Enforcement for All’s involvement with MPD. City Council members deny any evidence that MPD-community relations have improved, as shown in recent hearings on the MPD contract. It has been explained many times that putting reforms and discipline in the consent decree settlement agreement, rather than in the MPD contract itself, gives them more flexibility to implement reforms and change their approach if something goes wrong (“Why Vote Yes on the Proposed Police Contract,” Opinion Exchange, July 16). If reform and discipline provisions were in the MPD contract itself, everyone would have to turn to the union every time there was a problem. If the goal is to reform quickly, that is simply not the right approach.
We can get a contract and we can make reforms and the two agreements can co-exist. I ask City Council members to stop the chatter, take a look, and get on board. The City Council is gaslighting the residents of Minneapolis and it must stop. Approve the MPD contract. Approve it now.
Jacqueline Williams, Minneapolis
Elderly care home closures
Not a new problem, but a bad one
The closure of nursing homes and assisted living facilities like the one in Arlington, Minnesota, is sad for seniors, people with disabilities and the employees who work so hard to keep the facilities running (“Many Factors Put a Strain on Nursing Homes,” July 14). Do you think the state legislature can solve all the problems and make nursing homes and assisted living successful? Hahaha, no!
Funding for nursing homes has been an issue for many years. Probably nearly 50 years ago, I was at the state capitol in St. Paul drawing attention to some of the issues that have plagued the industry. Low wages, lack of benefits, long hours, hard physical labor, and low compensation for facilities were issues at the time. What we got from the legislature was the same old stuff. I decided at the time that I would continue working at a nursing home in Arlington until I could take care of one politician who did nothing to help us. When I reached retirement age and never saw a politician visit a nursing home, much less use our services, I decided, “enough is enough,” and retired. But in my years in the industry, I grew to appreciate the residents, because they lived through the Great Depression and the drought of the 1930s. Their willingness to care for neighbors and strangers alike was admirable. I learned a lot from them. The job is rewarding, but the workload makes it hard to get.
Nursing homes and senior housing are incredibly expensive, but we must never forget the fact that the people we care for are those who have lost their independence. We have an obligation to provide them with dignity and quality care. Legislatures have ignored these issues, which is commonplace today. They lose sight of the fact that they work for the people, and the people earn their salary. The benefits that lawmakers get from part-time work should be available to everyone. They don't have to achieve anything and still get a salary. Isn't that great?
Ruby Nagel, Henderson, Minnesota
Presidential Election
Trump Loves the Convert
J.D. Vance is the perfect running mate for Donald Trump (“Trump picks political protean for running mate,” editorial, July 16). Eight years ago, he called Trump a possible “American Hitler.” Now, he calls Trump the new American czar. Trump likes people who are willing to abandon their ideals and reverse their positions on everything for him. At least Mike Pence tried to stay true to his ideals for the most part during the first term of the Trump administration. That's surely why he's no longer a candidate. Dictators recognize and want people around them who are easy to compromise with.
Stephen Kriz, Maple Grove
•••
I will not enter into the current debate on whether President Joe Biden should recuse himself from the running for the 2024 election. I also will not enter into whether Biden or Trump is the better candidate. However, I do wonder why the DNC is not considering other options for the Democratic candidate for the 2024 election. Nobody, be it the incumbent president or us, the voters, ages overnight or in one public event. Regardless of the age of the incumbent president, the DNC should have looked for other possible candidates, whether for the 2024 election or the 2028 election, before Biden's age and health were brought to attention in a disastrous debate. I think the DNC and the RNC should regularly identify and vet candidates and always have a shortlist of potential presidential candidates ready. Isn't that too much for us, the voters, to expect?
Rebecca Fuller, Woodbury
