A new wording for the ballot to remove the police department

[question everything]

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?

https://www.startribune.com/text-of-minneapolis-policing-ballot-question/600094781/

====

How can any ballot be so convoluted? I suspect that not many will read it - and than gulp air - that most have already made up their mind regardless of the wording.

[empedocles]

1. Far better than 'defunding'.

[Ocelot II]

2. It's still too vague. There's no plan.

I'm all in favor of a public safety agency - or whatever you want to call it - that includes police officers (who don't abuse or kill black people as a matter of routine), plus social workers and psychologists who are trained to deal with incidents where people with mental illness or substance abuse problems are causing a disturbance or a danger to themselves or others. The cops too often just arrest, tase or shoot those people because they don't know what else to do about them. But before I can vote for a major change I need to know more about how that agency will be managed, what it will consist of, who will be in charge of it, how funds will be allocated to its branches, etc. This ballot doesn't do that, so I'll be voting against it, with the hope for a more concrete proposal in the future.

[Mawspam2]

3. They need a well reasoned plan...

...before making blank check changes.

For example, the Minneapolis DPS should include both police and fire fighters where they cross train and rotate between functions every two years. Department senior management may be exempted.

In this way, police relearn that not every person they meet is a criminal perp that needs to be killed. By rotating new personal in every month, current officers will never know who might be a whistle blower, thus will be less reckless. Police and fire unions will hate it. Good, I don't care. Any of the rank and file who don't like it are free to move on and good riddance.

[iemanja]

4. This gets rid of the union

and sets up a number of units that take responsibilities formerly done by police.
Police won't come where I live anymore, and the mayor doesn't make them do their job. I'm voting for this. The status quo certainly isn't working.