Readers Write: Minneapolis police contract, nursing home funding, the presidential race

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

•••

Anyone who read Minneapolis City Council Member Robin Wonsley’s commentary from July 12 (”Contract must include permanent, robust reforms,” Opinion Exchange) could be forgiven for believing that no significant Minneapolis Police Department reforms have taken place in the last four years. Unless, of course, you even minimally follows our city’s politics, in which case you know that’s false.

But if by chance you need a refresher, you’re in luck. The city of Minneapolis’ website has a page titled “Police reforms since June 2020.” Just Google that title, and it comes right up.

So easy! And the list is impressive; here are a few highlights:

Prohibition of “Maximal Restraint Technique.” Restrictions on pretextual traffic stops. No-knock warrant restrictions. Restrictions on crowd-control tactics and weapons. Changes to the police training curriculum. Improvements to the citizen complaint process. All that and more — check it out.

Certainly Wonsley is well aware of these many and significant reforms, so why would she write a commentary demanding “robust reforms” and fail to mention even a single one? I hope that’s a question Wonsley’s constituents will be asking her soon.

Steve McCauley, Minneapolis

•••

$90,000 for a rookie! Pay raises of 22% for veteran officers!

I am a retired professor at Normandale Community College. I have a Ph.D. and 30 years’ experience teaching college. I have never made $90,000 a year, and lived with 1.5% to 2.5% raises per year. When I was teaching, every law enforcement student was required to take at least one class from me.

The vets in my class were mature, motivated and excellent students, and I suspect they made great cops. The average 18-year-old rookie couldn’t wait to get issued a gun and considered a fishing trip to Canada as “international experience.”

I recognize that police officers face risks that I don’t, but that is a huge raise for a troubled department that has paid out millions for excess brutality in lawsuits. I would suggest a lower raise and fines levied on the department that are not covered by insurance be covered by police retirement funds rather than taxpayer largesse. Maybe the department would be responsible for keeping its “rogue” cops in line.

Linda L. Green, Woodbury

•••

What is harming Minneapolis most at the present time is City Council members who aren’t qualified to hold their positions and certainly have no understanding of labor contracts and negotiations. Council members have been told repeatedly, and we all know this, that reforms are being addressed and will continue to be addressed by virtue of the consent decree and Effective Law Enforcement for All’s involvement with the MPD. Council members reject evidence of improved relations between the MPD and communities, as shown in recent public hearings on the MPD contract. What has been explained over and over again is that by not having reform or discipline in the MPD contract itself, but rather in the consent decree-settlement agreement, there is more flexibility to implement reforms and change approaches if something isn’t working (”Why I’m voting yes on the proposed police contract,” Opinion Exchange, July 16). If reform or discipline provisions were placed in the MPD contract itself, everyone would have to go back to the union every time an issue came up. If the goal is to have reform and reform quickly, that certainly isn’t the way to go.

We can have a contract, and we can have reform, and these two agreements can exist side-by-side. I urge council members to stop the blather, do their homework and get on board. The council is gaslighting residents of Minneapolis and this just has to stop. Approve the MPD contract and approve it now.

Jacqueline Williams, Minneapolis

Nursing home and assisted living closures like in Arlington, Minn., are a sad state of affairs for the elderly, disabled and staff who worked so hard to keep things going (”Many factors stressing nursing homes,” July 14). Do I think that the Legislature can fix all the issues to make nursing homes and assisted living facilities succeed? Hahaha — no!

Nursing home funding has been a problem for many, many years. Probably close to 50 years ago, I spent time at the Capitol in St. Paul to bring attention to some of problems that have plagued the industry. Low pay, lack of benefits, long hours, exhausting physical work and low reimbursement to the facility were problems back then. What we got was from the Legislature was a continuance of same old, same old. I was determined back then that I wanted to stay working at the nursing home (in Arlington) until I could take care of one politician who did nothing to help us. When I got to retirement age and never saw one politician walk into the nursing home, much less use our services, I decided to say “screw it” and retired. My years working in the industry made me appreciate our residents, though, as they had gone though the Depression years and the era of drought during the 1930s. Their attitude of how they took care of their neighbors and strangers alike was admirable. I learned so much from them! There are rewards to this line of work, but they are hard to reap due to the workload.

Nursing homes and assisted living facilities are incredibly expensive, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we are taking care of people, people who have lost their independence. We still owe them dignity and quality care. The Legislature has ignored these problems, kind of the norm these days. Our Legislature has lost the perspective that its members work for the people, and the people make their paychecks good. The benefits legislators get for part-time work should be possible for all. They don’t even have to accomplish anything and they still get paid. Amazing, isn’t it?

Ruby Nagel, Henderson, Minn.

JD Vance is the perfect running mate for Donald Trump (”Trump picks political shape-shifter for VP,” editorial, July 16). Eight years ago he called Trump a possible “American Hitler.” Now, he lionizes Trump as a new American Caesar. Trump likes people who are willing to abandon their ideals and reverse their position on everything just for him. At least Mike Pence tried to remain true to his ideals for the most part during Trump’s first term, which is certainly why he is no longer on the ticket. Autocrats recognize and crave people around them who are easily compromised.

Stephen Kriz, Maple Grove

•••

I am not weighing in on the current debate about whether or not President Joe Biden should remove himself as a candidate for the 2024 election. And I’m not weighing in on whether Biden or Trump is the better candidate. However, I do wonder why the Democratic National Committee has not, apparently, been considering other options for a Democratic candidate for the 2024 election. No one, whether a current president or any of us voters, gets old overnight or at one public event. Regardless of a current president’s age, surely the DNC should have been searching for possible other candidates, whether for the 2024 election or the one in 2028, before the disastrous debate put Biden’s age and health center stage. I would expect the DNC and the Republican National Committee to be identifying candidates on a regular basis, to screen them and to have a pool of possible candidates for president in the queue at all times. Too much for us voters to expect?

Rebecca Fuller, Woodbury