Five myths to beware on City Question 2

Recent Minnesota Poll results demonstrate the seriousness of concerns about safety in Minneapolis, especially among residents of color living in neighborhoods most affected by rising crime.

The same poll revealed mixed and somewhat confounding results about the debate swirling around a possible change to the city's charter, a change that would remove the Minneapolis Police Department and chief of police, putting the City Council in charge along with the mayor with no plan for what comes next.

Early votes are being cast and Election Day is fast approaching. This is no time for magical thinking about City Question 2. Here are five misleading assertions to be wary of when considering your vote:

1) Eliminating the police department and chief of police is needed to enact reforms. Based on my experience, adding an undefined bureaucratic layer (a new commissioner of Public Safety, duties to be determined), and putting 14 people in charge won't help the cause of reform. Exactly the opposite. And eliminating Chief Medaria Arradondo's position as head of a charter department is a step backward. It will undermine his work to change the culture of MPD and improve training and policing practices.

Transforming an organization doesn't happen by changing the name on the front door, which appears to be as deeply as Yes 4 Minneapolis has thought about this critical topic. And that is likely true because their real game plan regarding MPD is to see the department continue to wither, contrary to the wishes of residents who want more and better policing, not no policing.

2) Eliminating the police department and chief of police is needed to add mental health and other helping professions to the mix of safety responses. This couldn't be less true. Services that complement law enforcement by offering alternative responses to situations that arise in our community exist today. More programs are in the works. The charter is not a barrier to building a needed comprehensive, multifaceted public safety response system.

The barrier we have seen recently to building such a system is inadequate planning and consultation by city officials with practitioners and other governmental bodies that have expertise and responsibility for mental health and other crisis services. Charter change won't solve this problem. In fact, if City Question 2 is adopted the problem will be exacerbated by further confusing and complicating decisionmaking authority for public safety.

3) Eliminating the police department and chief of police is needed to get rid of the Police Federation and union contract. Changing the charter does not invalidate federal and state labor laws that protect all unionized workers. Minneapolis has in recent decades been friendly to organized labor, and even unions supporting adoption of City Question 2 would oppose the unilateral curtailing of duly negotiated rights.

There is no simple solution to the challenges presented by the city's relationship with the Minneapolis Police Federation, provisions in their contract that impede required reforms, and established worker protections like arbitration that too often thwart the removal of officers not fit to serve. Yes 4 Minneapolis doesn't have a magic wand. Instead, clear-eyed and resolute negotiations are the only route forward. The business community is already on board, offering pro bono support to enact contract changes and win arbitration cases.

4) Eliminating the police department and chief of police is needed to prevent excessive spending on police staffing. It's true there is a minimum staffing formula in the charter. Given the dramatically depleted state of the police force, it's untrue this provision has any effect on current staffing levels or will anytime soon. Our police department, on a per capita basis, is now at the bottom of rankings for major cities. It will take several years of investment in recruit classes to build the sworn force up to the required staffing level. Focusing on that provision in the charter under these circumstances, as Yes 4 Minneapolis does, is a distraction that obscures the real issue. Minneapolis simply has too few police.

5) Eliminating the police department and chief of police is needed to help MPD. A recent Steve Sack cartoon captured the ever-changing messaging from Yes 4 Minneapolis about the role of law enforcement in our community very well. This is the most curious evolution of all. From its police abolition roots to now arguing City Question 2 will help law enforcement by defunding MPD to add other services, this argument rings hollow. I have no doubt a well-designed safety program that integrates law enforcement and beyond policing approaches will in fact help make the work of officers more effective, trusted and just, while keeping our community safer for everyone. But it's both/and, not either/or.

The stakes for Minneapolis in this election couldn't be higher. It's clear the people of our city want reform, and they want policing. City Question 2 will deliver neither. As you consider your vote, beware of opting for a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Steve Cramer, of Minneapolis, is president and CEO of the Minneapolis Downtown Council and a former City Council member.