Amendment is a Trojan horse for defunding, disorder

It sounds so simple: Let's create a new Public Safety Department in the city of Minneapolis and we will have public safety reform.

The City Council has had well over a year since George Floyd's death to propose public safety reforms. None have come forward; only a proposal to create a new department.

A real solution is far more complicated than that. Organization scholars tell us that reorganizations are rarely successful. The reason is that true reform comes from changing the culture of the organization, in this case the Minneapolis Police Department.

How would Minneapolis City Question 2 — creating a Public Safety Department — improve the culture of the police department? Changing culture is hard work and must come from within an organization led by strong advocates. The City Council or a new Public Safety Commissioner would not be able to dictate reform.

In many ways the proposal is a Trojan Horse. Creating a Public Safety Department may seem reasonable, but what does it really do?

The City Council and the "defund the police" petitioners don't want us to know what they really intend. Through the amendment, the charter's requirement for adequate number of police officers in the city is eliminated, a non-sworn official could oversee sworn officers, and even the requirement that there be a police department is eliminated.

The City Council has already cut the budget of the police department so that we have 600 officers rather than the 880 the charter requires, and which we need. What is next? No new police classes? No officers investigating crimes?

No wonder citizens from the North Side are asking the courts to enforce the police officer count.

The most significant weakness of the proposed Public Safety Department is something else the City Council doesn't want you to know. In the future, the Department of Public Safety would report to the City Council for day-to-day management, not the mayor. Thirteen bosses controlling the police officers (if there are any), managing community crime prevention efforts and directing the office of violence prevention.

Any management direction, like abandoning a precinct, would have to be decided by the 13 council members, not the mayor. How does that work? Does the council president, elected by only 34,000 residents, decide? Is a City Council meeting called? Where is the line of authority that is so critical in policing?

Do you know that three council members were giving specific instructions to police officers during the demonstrations last year, even though the police currently report to the mayor? Where is the accountability for all Minneapolis residents?

The mayor represents the entire city, 435,000 residents. That is where the accountability resides today and where it should reside going forward.

The dysfunction and acrimony in Minneapolis city government is so great today that police officers and other public safety personnel have been, and are, leaving. One crime prevention specialist summed it up best: "Currently my values and beliefs no longer align with the city of Minneapolis." This specialist will be doing the same work for another police department.

The City Council has not accomplished any reform. Contrast that with Police Chief Medaria Arradondo's efforts to reform the police culture:

There has been a spike in homicides, gun violence and property crimes in Minneapolis this year. Now is not the time to lessen our public safety efforts. Now is also not the time to risk losing Chief Arradondo.

Now is the time to support the chief's efforts in changing the culture of the police department to create true reform.

I'm voting no on City Question 2 because I want Chief Arradondo's culture change efforts to continue.

Jay Kiedrowski is a senior fellow at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. He was the Minneapolis budget director, 1978-'82.