Hoping for steadfast resolve and focus on public safety

As anti-police rhetoric halts crucial safety initiatives at City Hall, Minneapolis needs a council majority willing to separate true accountability from obstruction.

Two recent mass shootings in Minneapolis demonstrate all too clearly that concern for public safety in the city is decidedly not in the rear-view mirror. Two recent debates and decisions about important initiatives, both of which failed at the City Council dais, demonstrate that necessary action in response to safety concerns is decidedly not assured – as of yet – at City Hall.

The incidents occurred over the course of a recent Sunday. Fourteen people were shot, with one fatality. I’ve written before, most recently in reference to last year’s documentary “A Precarious State” it’s important to resist sensationalizing and generalizing specific instances of violence. The overall trend toward less crime is clear and bodes well for Minneapolis.

But it’s equally true public confidence is shaken when high profile events do occur.  Citizens look to our municipal elected leaders, whose foremost responsibility is to address safety concerns, for signs of steadfast resolve and focus.

That’s not the signal a sharply divided City Council, in opposition to Mayor Frey on many public safety related topics, is sending. Examples from the last several weeks illustrate the point.

The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) is on a path to achieving important reforms, guided by an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and provisions in a federal consent decree abandoned by the Trump Justice Department but embraced by the City. Officer training and wellness are at the heart of many needed reforms. Unfortunately, current facilities for these activities are woefully inadequate. Providing a modern setting for such important purposes is encouraged in the agreement and decree.

Seemingly, a consensus had been reached to move forward with a new building to serve MPD and all the city’s first responders, and to involve the state as a funding partner.  That apparent consensus crumbled quickly in the face of loud opposition which, in a fit of plagiarism, borrowed the epithet “COP City” from elsewhere to demonize the plan. A divided City Council rejected Mayor Frey’s request to appropriate funds to secure a site. I’m hopeful this much needed facility can move forward in another form and different location at a future date, but for now its dead.

More recently, a proposal for a pilot project to expand the use of drone technology to help provide enhanced safety and livability in North Minneapolis was rejected. This despite the fact drones are already utilized by MPD, subject to internal guidelines and state law governing their use to safeguard privacy and address other concerns. Many other communities in Minnesota also employ drones as a public safety force multiplier, which is especially important in Minneapolis given the reduced number of officers on our streets in recent years.

Again, an apparent consensus to move forward was abruptly derailed by a small but vocal cadre of opponents. A central argument in opposition revolved around the prospective vendor, which provides drones used throughout the nation and overseas including by Israel in Gaza. Emotional comments at a council public hearing about the fate of families and children in that war-torn part of the world were moving, but ignored the direct responsibility Minneapolis officials have for the safety and well-being of families and children living on the Northside which the pilot program would have addressed.

As in the case of the training and wellness facility, I am hopeful expanded use of drones and other technologies which contribute to a multi-faceted approach to safety for our community will resurface and be embraced. That’s why I started my comments with the caveat needed actions on safety in Minneapolis, as of yet, are not assured. Hope springs eternal!

But that hope will not be realized until a working majority of Council Members recognize and find the resolve to overcome opposition to policing generally and MPD specifically rooted in anti-law enforcement and police abolition ideology which is alive and well, held by a small but vocal crowd. It surfaced in the two examples cited above, and will continue to surface during public safety related debates which lie ahead.

This crowd has and would forever hold MPD in the penalty box as a core belief. To them, past and perceptions of continued transgressions justify their stance. To me, and I believe most people who live in Minneapolis, accountability for police conduct is essential and must be a continual priority.  But opposition to and denial of tools and resources for improved public safety results masquerading as accountability is not what we need.

Even with overall crime trends moving in the right direction, we can expect more incidents like those of recent days to occur. This is not a new phenomenon, or unique to our city. What remains to be seen is if the steadfast resolve and focus needed in response will emerge from City Hall, specifically by a committed majority of Council Members. Not yet, but I remain…hopeful.