What goes around comes around
Jul. 27th, 2020 11:42 amOops. Meant to post this earlier. Another Southwest Journal has arrived on my doorstep since ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
minnehaha 's article on Minneapolis policing appeared. I have a copy in hand because I save them. But even if you don't have the July 9-22 issue in hand, you can read it online. And you really should, especially if you live in Minneapolis. First, because it is extremely relevant to what's going on right now. And also because it's really fun to read, starting with a typically great minnehaha lead line: "In the history of corrupt Minneapolis city politics and terrible policing, every local historian’s lodestar is Albert Alonzo Ames, four-time Minneapolis mayor." Who doesn't love another story about the notorious Doc Ames? Not to mention the entire uproarious era of Gilded Age politics, which is pretty much the only thing that can make today's political atmosphere seem kind of tame by comparison.
But what really struck me about this article was a little background detail that was not particularly stressed. In the course of the decade or so covered by this story, the portion of the Minneapolis City Charter that deals with the question of "who controls the police" was amended twice, and clearly at least one more time before Doc Ames's final infamous term to put the mayor firmly back in charge of the police force. And at least once more since then, I assume, since I'm pretty sure that the current charter does not give the mayor enough control to unilaterally appoint his brother as police chief. I take a couple of different things from this. 1) Amending the City Charter is not like calling a new constitutional convention. It's been done many times in the past, and doing it again isn't a life or death matter and 2) The question of who should control the police force is a perpetual problem that nobody has found quite the right solution to. It's not surprising that we are still wrestling with it.
And that's REALLY what the proposed charter amendment is about. It's not whether the police force should be utterly dissolved and replaced by a corps of social workers. Whatever happens, we'll have some kind of armed law enforcement organization. The question is who should control it: a single (potentially corrupt) elected official, a gang of (potentially blitheringly incompetent) city council members, or some compromise between the two. Clearly, there is not one easy and obvious solution. Personally, I'm in favor of putting the amendment on the ballot, but still haven't decided how I would vote on it.
minnehaha , I wouldn't mind seeing an entire article on the history of City Charter amendments, but I suppose that's probably too wonky for general consumption. But if you know how many times it's happened, or specifically how many times the policing part of the charter has been changed, I'd love to know.
minnehaha 's article on Minneapolis policing appeared. I have a copy in hand because I save them. But even if you don't have the July 9-22 issue in hand, you can read it online. And you really should, especially if you live in Minneapolis. First, because it is extremely relevant to what's going on right now. And also because it's really fun to read, starting with a typically great minnehaha lead line: "In the history of corrupt Minneapolis city politics and terrible policing, every local historian’s lodestar is Albert Alonzo Ames, four-time Minneapolis mayor." Who doesn't love another story about the notorious Doc Ames? Not to mention the entire uproarious era of Gilded Age politics, which is pretty much the only thing that can make today's political atmosphere seem kind of tame by comparison. But what really struck me about this article was a little background detail that was not particularly stressed. In the course of the decade or so covered by this story, the portion of the Minneapolis City Charter that deals with the question of "who controls the police" was amended twice, and clearly at least one more time before Doc Ames's final infamous term to put the mayor firmly back in charge of the police force. And at least once more since then, I assume, since I'm pretty sure that the current charter does not give the mayor enough control to unilaterally appoint his brother as police chief. I take a couple of different things from this. 1) Amending the City Charter is not like calling a new constitutional convention. It's been done many times in the past, and doing it again isn't a life or death matter and 2) The question of who should control the police force is a perpetual problem that nobody has found quite the right solution to. It's not surprising that we are still wrestling with it.
And that's REALLY what the proposed charter amendment is about. It's not whether the police force should be utterly dissolved and replaced by a corps of social workers. Whatever happens, we'll have some kind of armed law enforcement organization. The question is who should control it: a single (potentially corrupt) elected official, a gang of (potentially blitheringly incompetent) city council members, or some compromise between the two. Clearly, there is not one easy and obvious solution. Personally, I'm in favor of putting the amendment on the ballot, but still haven't decided how I would vote on it.
minnehaha , I wouldn't mind seeing an entire article on the history of City Charter amendments, but I suppose that's probably too wonky for general consumption. But if you know how many times it's happened, or specifically how many times the policing part of the charter has been changed, I'd love to know. 
