Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
It was dismaying to read about the behavior (or lack of it) of Minneapolis Community Safety Commissioner Cedric Alexander in “A year in, public safety change is slow” (July 2). I had serious doubts when he was first hired, when he spoke rudely and dismissively to others. Now he is all excuses and “I don’t remember,” etc. For someone being paid more than our city and state’s top executives, he certainly comes across as ineffective. I hope Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey recognizes his error in hiring him and lets him go before he completes building his empire of PR people. We need someone with a clear focus and commitment. Alexander isn’t that person.
Sheryl O’Connor, Minneapolis
•••
Alexander needs to resign or be let go immediately. The Star Tribune’s account of his first year, holding the highest-paid job in city administration, would be a good example of absurdist humor if it weren’t so shockingly matter-of-fact. Supposedly tasked to foster productive community/city collaboration in the effort to reform policing and public safety, Alexander comes across as a skilled purveyor of do-nothingism, gaslighting, blame-shifting, shambolics and arrogance. He not only fails to work with important and informed players on the municipal team — he avoids meeting with them at all. He forgets their names. The plans that his office was supposed to — at the very least — refine and share with the public seem to be nonexistent. These are the results of a year’s work? I will say this: Alexander is good with excuses. But that’s not really going to help move forward the mayor’s — or anyone’s — reform agenda.
Henry Gould, Minneapolis
MAYOR JACOB FREY
Regarding “Frey should have said ‘I’m sorry'” by Myron Medcalf (July 2): Really? How many times is one expected to say “I’m sorry” for the very same thing? Will every new generation be expected to express “I’m sorry” over and over, an endless amount of times for the sins of those that have gone before us? It’s like crying wolf — soon the cry means nothing!
“I’m sorry” doesn’t move us forward. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey did the very right thing by moving beyond what had been said many times, by many people, in many ways, making an absolute commitment to change/action.
David V. Viland, Minnetonka
•••
Medcalf’s July 2 column has the right headline: Frey ought to have apologized.
That same column provides a good clue regarding one item the apology should include when moving from acknowledgment of individual responsibility for past harm to a pledge of specific personal action to redress the harm.
Medcalf regrets that Frey didn’t “briefly pause his perpetual campaign for another term — or an elevated office.” But that perpetual campaign is no mere temporary distraction from the act of apologizing. It is a cloud that hangs over Frey every time he makes a difficult judgment about what is in the city’s best interest. We always have to wonder: Might he be too inclined to see the city’s interests as aligned with his own?
None of us will consistently agree with Frey regarding the best course of action. That’s what it means for him to be mayor, not us. But with the city facing such serious challenges, Frey should leave us no doubt that his actions are entirely directed toward that goal, unalloyed with his own ambition.
He ought to announce that at the end of his term, he will be returning to private life, not running for re-election or another office. This wouldn’t be a backward-looking act of penance or accountability. It would be a forward-looking move to focus all energy on addressing the city’s problems.
That focus would make the apology more than just another apology.
Max Hailperin, Minneapolis
RURAL CHURCHES
The demise of rural churches is a familiar story (“Rural community needs a savior for their church,” front page, June 25). In their 1980 Statement on Land Issues (“Strangers and Guests”), 72 Catholic bishops of the heartland eloquently named the forces — and the needed responses — to the dramatic transformation of the rural Midwest. “We have seen people leave the land, churches and schools emptied, and communities condemned to decay,” they declared. In spite of their voices and those of other religious communities that sought to stem the demise of the countryside, the powerful economic and political forces that dominate it have all but assured that even more rural church buildings will be compelled to shutter in the days ahead.
For generations the land has been emptying of its peoples, spurred by public policies that have benefited wealthy individuals, families and economic interests relentlessly accruing fields and farms, processors and packing plants, and concentrated political power. While even 19th-century rural church leaders raised concerns about this slowly unfolding reality, its impact on the land, communities and churches was dramatically magnified by the farm and rural economic crisis of the 1980s. Coupled with the economic and political clout of metro areas and the significant decline of religious affiliation across the country, rural churches face daunting challenges in the years ahead.
Long ago the prophet Isaiah warned about “those who add field to field until there is no one but you left to live alone on the land,” mirroring the dilemma of our own time. Perhaps instead of struggling over the fate of beloved buildings long-serving as churches, members and leaders might step back and envision what life as a diminishing yet creative and faith-filled community — church, if you will — might be like in the coming years, and do all in their collective power to make such a vision real in new ways. This will not be easy. But there is little choice. As the heartland bishops and many others have declared, we must work together to bring about a renewed heartland and a spirit of encompassing community in spite of the looming challenges before us.
The Rev. David Ostendorf, St. Paul
The writer is a minister with the United Church of Christ and a lifelong rural organizer.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Tom Horner’s June 26 commentary (“Minnesota Miracle or Minnesota Mayhem?” Opinion Exchange) made the reasonable request that state government demand measured outcomes for the money it is spending. What was shocking in his comments was the amount of money that will continue to be spent year after year when the surplus is consumed. According to Horner, the state will be spending 28% more money annually.
That means that our elected representatives will need to find an additional $14.56 billion in revenue during the next legislative session (given the state’s 2022-23 budget of $52 billion). The usual political response to this problem is to “make the rich pay their fair share,” but almost everyone will have to pay more taxes to fund an increase that large.
I am asking the Star Tribune to provide a series of in-depth analyses explaining where the increases are occurring and what the money will purchase. Like Horner, I agree that voters may ask legislators to disband some programs or make them more efficient. Our citizens may decide to continue paying for new programs as well, but without clear information to make those decisions the average voter is helpless to be an involved citizen. The Star Tribune could fill that gap.
In the meantime, the state government continues to spend money on the assumption that there will always be more. The new $20 minimum wage and the accompanying 5.5% pay increase for state employees did not require legislative approval and weren’t in the recently passed budget. Where will that money come from?
Voters need information. Will the Star Tribune help?
Lee Newcomer, Wayzata
