How would you vote on Minneapolis Question 2?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is legitimately the first time in my life I've been undecided on a ballot measure that actually mattes and does something of importance.

First the actual text as it'll appear on the ballot:

Question: "Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made a part of this ballot?"

Explanatory note: "This amendment would create a Department of Public Safety combining public safety functions through a comprehensive public health approach to be determined by the Mayor and Council. The department would be led by a Commissioner nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. The Police Department, and its chief, would be removed from the City Charter. The Public Safety Department could include police officers, but the minimum funding requirement would be eliminated."

An explanation:

Right now Minneapolis has a requirement for a certain per capita number of police officers written into its city charter (equivalent of a constitution.) This is pretty unusual and most major cities do not have this. This would both abolish that minimum and replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new "Department of Public Safety" that would be an umbrella organization including non-police as well but also still employing police "if necessary" (aka it'll still employ police.) And then the City Council will determine the exact functions and how it'll handle its duties.

The pro argument is of course that the Minneapolis PD culture is incredibly toxic and the entire department needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, and the minimum staffing requirement does not belong in the City Charter, and would also allow for public safety issues to be responded to by people like "mental health professionals" and social workers instead of armed police and also that any reform now is being hamstrung by the police union. Basically the "defund the police" argument without the horrifically awful slogan (which to their credit, the organizers backing this have not ever been using and trying to distance themselves from.)

Now the con arguments:

-While the minimum staffing requirement in the city charter is unusual, it's also not particularly high. It equals about 1.7 officers for every 1000 residents. This is about half the per capita police rate of most major cities. But furthermore: The city is already below this minimum as is due to the massive leaving after George Floyd. And things are not going well. So while it's probably true the minimum staffing requirement doesn't belong there, it's not really a big issue.

-Chief Medaria Arradondo, while very far from perfect, is probably as good as big city police chiefs get. He's actually been making strong pushes for reforms even pre-George Floyd, and of course assisted in helping convict Derek Chauvin. This would effectively put him out of a job. Now the organizers argue that he could be reappointed to head the police division of this new department and that the police union has been trying to block or undermine a lot of his reforms and that his term is set to expire at the end of 2021 anyway and he'll need to be reappointed regardless. But this also leads us to the next point of...

-Under the current system, the police chief directly answers to the mayor. The mayor appoints the chief for a three-year term, and can fire them before the end of the term for any reason. The result of this is that getting rid of a problematic police chief is very easy and they're also easy to hold accountable. Under the new system, the police chief would report to the "Director of Public Safety" who would have to be approved by the City Council and appointed for some indeterminate length of time the City Council would have to later work out. This means if there's a really problematic police chief and the Director of Public Safety refuses to fire them...well the only way to get rid of them would be a Saturday Night Massacre style thing of firing the DPS, which would require a majority of the City Council to do instead of the mayor just taking action. Another layer of bureaucracy basically. And furthermore....

-Anyone who seriously expects the Minneapolis City Council to be particularly competent or effective at anything is quite the fool, and the percentage of Minneapolis residents who expect this ever is statistically effectively the same as 0%. The Minneapolis City Council could consist of 13 clones of Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema and it might be more effective. The organizers are arguing that the current culture is the result of the current system of being answerable only to the mayor, but while Minneapolis mayors lately have not been particularly great, it's a lot easier to replace a bad mayor than it is to get the Minneapolis City Council to actually be an effective body. Also what happens when the City Council consists of 5 quasi-police abolitionists, 5 generally pro-"law and order" Democrats and 3 political opportunists and weathervanes? (Not predicting this exact breakdown, but it's a possibility.)

-I haven't heard any actual argument about how this would bust the current police union, and Badger seemed pretty confident in emphasizing that union contracts can't be undone just by reforming the department.

-And of course, the risk of a "blue flu", the police are barely doing their jobs now, what happens if this passes? Even if almost all are guaranteed jobs under the new department and any vetting would just be aimed at eliminating the remaining Derek Chauvins, we could have a pretty rough transition period.

So I'm not entirely convinced this will do anything but effectively rename the Minneapolis PD and add an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of it. However...any previous effective attempts at reform have been blocked by the City Council and the unelected "Charter Commission", like requiring police to carry liability insurance in the past. So yeah some sort of reform is needed and this is the only option for now. I'm hearing on local forums things like "Yeah it doesn't immediately solve all the problems but it's the only logical first step."

And FAQs from the main groups in support and opposed:

Support: https://yes4minneapolis.org/?page_id=707
Oppose: https://www.allofmpls.org/vote-no-to-eliminating-the-mpd

And remember I'm legitimately undecided! So your arguments if well made might sway me!

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

No.

[PSOL]

Yes

[Farmlands]

Definitely not. I'm actually kind of surprised that you seem to be undecided on effective groundwork to abolish a police force for a major city, while at the same time outlaying all those very valid counter-arguments. A domestic violence call should not be answered to by social workers before law enforcement.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

no, I think it's better to reform the system than completely demolish it. Seems like there's already moves to reform from what you've said.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Are they moving current public health & social work functions into this department as well?  Or will those be duplicative?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Is this not essentially how the Camden PD was "abolished" (read: reformed) years before the Floyd murder? It was successful there, so I don't see why it wouldn't work in Minneapolis. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Schiff for Senate]

No.

Yes

You both did read the part where BRTD said this, right?

And remember I'm legitimately undecided! So your arguments if well made might sway me!

Anyway, no. I don't see any reason for abolishing the Minneapolis Police Department, honestly. I can see the Minneapolis City Council politicizing it somehow or abusing their power or something. The vague language isn't helpful, and your numerous points against it are valid (whereas you had just one point in favour of it). It doesn't reform or address anything but completely shuts down an integral organization and replaces it with a larger, unnecessary organization with less independence that operates with vague limits and objectives.

[Ferguson97]

I would vote no.

There are drastic overhauls that are desperately needed in every police department in the country, but based on the information you've provided I am not convinced that this would lead to better outcomes for the people of Minneapolis. 

In general my problems with the defund movement are that I have not heard a convincing argument for how an unarmed social worker would be better equipped to deal with a domestic violence call. Police responses to this aren't great but I don't see how sending a 5'6" 50-something woman with a clipboard to respond to a domestic violence call involving a 6'2" ex-marine beating his wife is going to produce a better outcome for anybody.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Are they moving current public health & social work functions into this department as well?  Or will those be duplicative?

That basically falls under this:

with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance;

Basically up for the City Council to determine, along with if the fire department and medical services also fall under it.

[CEO Mindset]

all they needed to do was double the police budget, get rid of internal affairs and make filming cops a felony

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Is this not essentially how the Camden PD was "abolished" (read: reformed) years before the Floyd murder? It was successful there, so I don't see why it wouldn't work in Minneapolis. Maybe I'm missing something.

Not exactly. What Camden did was abolish the municipal PD and replace it with a nominal county-wide department that municipalities could buy into. However so far only Camden proper has, effectively making it just a Camden proper only department, but it was able to rebuild the institution and get past many of the issues deep in the old Camden PD. I would prefer something like that, because I trust the Hennepin County Commission that would run it far more than I do the Minneapolis City Council (which is no stirring endorsement of the Hennepin County Commission. As I alluded to earlier, I would trust a panel co-chaired by Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema over the Minneapolis City Council.)

[Cokeland Saxton]

This is an easy no vote

[H. Ross Peron]

No for small "c" conservative reasons-this ballot measure would simply introduce too many uncertainties.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Looks like it might be moot anyway: https://twitter.com/TommieMedia/status/1438206916040216585?s=19