Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Although I'm an eager reader of Dennis Anderson's writings about Minnesota's conservation resources, his Jan. 6 Star Tribune column left me questioning ("Walz pledge doesn't add up"). To provide adequate oversight of state resources, he recommends that "control over the state's resources" should be "wrested from the governor's office and the Legislature." His alternative? Follow the model of the state of Missouri's citizens council, which has the authority "to hire and fire their resource leader, and to set the state's conservation policies." A cursory review of the makeup and activities of the Missouri Conservation Commission is far from promising. Missouri's alternative, when carefully examined, would not serve Minnesota well.

First, consider the makeup and charge of this "citizens council." According to the website of the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Conservation Commission shall be "a 4-member body," not elected, but "appointed by the governor," each for a six-year term (the Missouri governor serves a four-year term). Member qualifications (which seem inadequate) are as follows: "They shall have knowledge of and interest in wildlife conservation."

Second, the commission's activities, as presented on the Department of Conservation website, are equally concerning. Here's a small sample from several pages of conservation codes and 2021 meeting agendas, wide-ranging items set forth as either under the Missouri Conservation Commission's permanent jurisdiction or recently approved by the commission: 1) administration of wildlife, 2) recent personnel recommendations, including hiring and promoting, 3) potential real estate transactions and 4) suspension of hunting and fishing privileges for those persons not in compliance with child support law and regulation.

In effect, the Missouri Conservation Commissioners are not only selecting conservation department leaders and setting policy; they are micromanaging the entire state wildlife resource system. Without regard to whether or not Gov. Tim Walz and the Legislature are offering a hopeful future for "Minnesota kids," Anderson's Missouri model is not a promising alternative. No matter who provides it, leadership advocacy for Minnesota's natural resources must offer guidance, not intervention.

Judith Monson, St. Paul

Anderson's recent column appropriately notes, among other things, the increase in the number of impaired waters in Minnesota. He fails to mention that the Biden administration Environmental Protection Agency recently issued revisions to the nation's rules defining which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act; this action repealed industry's dream rules from the Trump era. Waters know no political boundaries, flowing from one state to another, from one country to another. The new EPA rules hold polluters accountable. Many elected officials do not. Witness U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber, R-Minn, who complained about the new EPA rules as "a regulatory headache for economic drivers like farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, miners, and more." Too many legislators like Stauber kowtow to industrial interests and revel in their campaign contributions, enabling the polluters and causing the costs of pollution to be passed on to the American people. Until we refuse to elect pollution enablers like Stauber, smart administrative actions like the revised Clean Water Act rules will be at risk of being gutted by industry-captured politicians.

Becky Rom, Ely, Minn.

The writer is national chair, Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters.

•••

"Walz pledge doesn't add up" isn't a surprise to anyone who takes a bit of time to explore how Minnesota describes the "success" of our natural resource management programs. Far too often success is measured as dollars spent rather than tangible outcomes like the number of lakes and rivers with better water quality or, better yet, public benefit. Do you know what proportion of Clean Water Legacy Act dollars are dedicated to on-the-ground activities to improve water quality? It's easier for politicians, the media and citizens to blissfully assume that because we're spending money, our natural resources are improving. It's a nice narrative: "Hey, we are spending money on natural resource programs, so something good must be happening!" The Legislature has failed in its obligation to ensure Legacy Amendment dollars are used primarily to realize tangible natural resource outcomes.

Dave Hutchinson was required to be reinstated at the Metro Transit Police, at higher pay, despite his astounding failures to serve the people of Hennepin County as sheriff, including rolling his official vehicle while well beyond the legal limit for intoxication ("Ex-sheriff back as Metro Transit sergeant," Jan. 11).

So many things are wrong with this outcome.

First, driving while intoxicated while serving as Hennepin County sheriff. If we lived in a rational society that held people accountable for their actions, then Hutchinson should have been forced, under state law, to resign from his elected position. Such a rule should have been put in place decades ago to demonstrate that elected leaders do indeed have a higher standard of performance in society expected of them.

Second, the Minnesota Board of Police Officer Standards and Training (POST Board) suspended his law enforcement license for a ridiculously short time. He should have lost his license, permanently, as a result of his behavior, for he demonstrated a complete breach in the special trust and confidence afforded him as a law enforcement professional by the people of Minnesota. Why does the POST Board even exist if its willingness to hold Minnesota's law enforcement professionals to the highest standards of performance and behavior is absent?

Third, police union contracts that force Minnesota taxpayers to reward a law enforcement officer who is such a failure can and should be addressed by the Legislature — immediately. This is a wrong that can and should be righted as part of an effort by the state government to dramatically improve the quality of law enforcement officers to whom we give a badge, a gun and the license to kill our fellow citizens.

Jon Olson, Webster, Minn.

Christmas arrived late this year for Donald Trump, and it came in the form of a get-out-of-jail card from President Joe Biden. Recent disclosures indicate that classified documents were removed from the White House and retained by Biden when he left his post as vice president six years ago ("Secret papers found at 2nd site," Jan. 12). This raises the obvious question: How to proceed in light of the investigation by the special counsel who Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed to look into possible criminal charges against Trump for removing classified documents and retaining them at his Mar-a-Lago residence?

While it is true the Biden documents found in November have been voluntarily returned to the National Archives, while Trump's documents had to be subpoenaed, that is a distraction without a difference, because all the elements of the crime of unauthorized removal and retention are present when the documents are removed and retained. Trump's failure to return all of the documents voluntarily raises the possibility of an obstruction charge, but has no bearing on the criminal charge based on removal. At the same time, voluntarily returning the documents is not a defense, any more than it is when an embezzler offers to return the money wrongfully taken. Garland has no choice but to apply the same rules to the Biden case that he has applied to Trump. That means appointing a special counsel to investigate Biden's removal and retention of classified documents, as he has done, and being consistent in his decision on bringing criminal charges.