Does "repeal and replace" ring a bell to liberals in Minneapolis? This was the Republicans' slogan to get rid of Obamacare. The big joke about repeal-and-replace is that the Republicans had no plan to replace Obamacare. We give it up … for what?

Fast-forward to Minneapolis, 2021. We have an amendment on the ballot to abolish the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety. (Most recent developments: "Trio of residents seeks emergency hearing on new Minneapolis policing ballot language," StarTribune.com, Sept. 8.)

What is the Department of Public Safety? It is yet to be determined. Will it include police? Yet to be determined. Who will be in charge? Yet to be determined. Who will oversee the Department of Public Safety? Thirteen city council members and the mayor — we know how well they all get along. And who will be developing the plan after we vote on it? We don't know, because every single City Council seat, and the mayorship, is up for grabs in November.

I'm not ready to vote yes for a plan that is yet to be developed by people who have yet to be elected. And where is all that community-wide input that the City Council pledged to obtain over the year? Where is the summary and analysis of all that information? Is that also waiting until next July, when the firm the City Council hired from Maryland (no suitable local firms, really?) will release its recommendations on how to reform our Public Safety Department?

Elizabeth A. Peterson, Minneapolis

•••

As a 50-year resident of south Minneapolis, a senior citizen and an involved community member, I am concerned about the speed with which the City Council is pressing the amendment to be on the ballot this year to redo the Minneapolis Police Department. Why the rush? There is no plan of action, and many of the current council members may be replaced in November. What if the new members don't approve of the proposed "plan"?

I agree that reform is needed in the MPD, but that can happen without this amendment. Begin reform now and take time to plan for perhaps a new revised safety plan — but with community input, not just the brainstorm of a few council members.

Marcy Tollefson, Minneapolis

•••

Kudos for the fine editorial Sept. 8 regarding the ballot language discussion ("Judge made right call on ballot language"). Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson's decision that the language proposed by the City Council was "erroneous" and "vague and ambiguous to the point of misleading voters" is clear. Her decision should spur City Council members to demonstrate some sense as they attempt to govern our city. Transparency is the first principle necessary in government if it is to be government "by the people."

Among the recent antics of the majority, the idea that the mayor should share governance responsibility with all 13 council members stands out as particularly nutty. Honestly! Have these people ever worked in any organization? During my years at General Mills, if I had to check with 1 bosses, I would never have been able to get work done.

And the entire proposal, which voters are expected to consider in the coming weeks, still lacks a plan for any new configuration — at least, a plan that has been shared with the public and approved by the court.

Unless, by some miracle, a cogent argument is suddenly presented to the public by the City Council, I plan to vote no on city reorganization.

Judith Koll Healey, Minneapolis

Having read the Star Tribune's Aug. 31 editorial and follow-up letters (Sept. 7) about blood donation, I wanted to give a shout-out to all the life-saving, hard-working employees who make donating possible. Phlebotomists who staff temporary blood drive locations often load, haul, unload and set up those "fabulous" chairs. They screen donors, take medical histories, calm first-timers, tend to fainters and draw that vital blood competently and efficiently. Like other health care workers, they suffered from a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the beginning of the pandemic. While their work is obviously front-line, they are not particularly well-paid.

In appreciation of their vital service, let's encourage our state decisionmakers to include them in the upcoming allocation of federal funds for front-line workers.

Thank you for the article by Satyan Devadoss about math in school ("Back to school, back to math and, maybe, back to the joy of wonder," Sept. 4). I am in the unique position of having worked in the business world for 22 years with IBM, then switching careers to teach math. I saw the frustration that so many students have with math and I thought I could possibly help. It is refreshing to read another perspective besides the common rhetoric about the need to learn math because you will use it the rest of your lives. The math you learned by sixth grade is what you will need in life. The biggest problem is that so many institutions of higher learning look at math grades to determine the intelligence level of students. This adds to the frustration of those that believe "that they are just not math-minded." In conclusion, the higher math classes should be an elective, like music, for those who truly enjoy it.

Perry Reinhardt, Burnsville

As a former school bus driver, I have two pieces of advice for school bus providers ("More students shifted to transit," Sept. 8, and other articles about a school bush driver shortage).

One: Pay well enough to have a larger pool of drivers.

Two: Put monitors on buses. The driver should not have to both watch traffic and disruptive students.

Regarding the Sept. 7 front-page headline "Until we bleat again": What a sheep shot. Seriously, ewe nailed it.

Thank you from the baaa-tom of my heart. Made my day!

Barb DeGroot, Minnetonka