The lawsuit filed by unnamed health care workers seeking to overthrow the COVID-19 vaccination mandate is not only outrageous but immoral ("State health care workers sue over mandate," Sept. 29). After all, my fellow workers have sworn to do no harm, but in fact are vectors in spreading a worsening pandemic. They cite various reasons for their narcissism, but they do not have the courage to make their names known.
It seems obvious that the public should know their names and where they work, in order to lessen the risk of becoming infected. If they will not do this voluntarily, why not the state licensing boards? Or a counter-lawsuit?
I am not asking that they give up their principles, but only that they have the courage to acknowledge them publicly, and let their patients choose whether to seek care elsewhere.
Charles E. Dean, Apple Valley
POLICING
Vote 'yes' for flexibility, creativity
Our current system of public safety does not address the harm caused in our communities, and it's unfortunate our city has operated this way for over 60 years ("Vote 'no' on police charter change," editorial, Sept. 26). Currently, police are expected to handle all of our problems, even the ones they aren't equipped to handle. I'm voting "yes" on City Question 2 so the mayor and City Council can create a public-health-focused Department of Public Safety by nominating a department commissioner and using a data-driven community engagement process to establish the exact number and type of qualified professionals needed — including police officers — as well as the budget associated to support them. The same politicians who are spreading disinformation about this process have failed to bring us the change we need. City Question 2 is the plan to move past a police-only model to one that keeps all of us safe, by investing in preventive, compassionate solutions.
Kari Rueckert, Minneapolis
•••
As a resident of north Minneapolis I am disappointed with Attorney General Keith Ellison's faulty analysis of the upcoming public safety charter amendment ("Let the amendment start a conversation," Sept. 27). He stated: "I haven't heard from any [people] who want to eliminate the police entirely." On the contrary, several activists have stated in the Star Tribune and in other media that their ultimate goal is to eliminate the police entirely. He also states that "Nothing in the actual language says that [the Police Department will be eliminated]." The problem is that the amendment provides for police officers, "if necessary." In other words, employing peace officers will be optional. That's like an amendment that provides for a fire department, "if necessary," to put out fires. I'm for police reform, but not change that relies on twisted logic.