Scott Vreeland suggests that this discussion would be better if we had some facts to focus on. I agree. Here are some of the facts I could gather:
The Park Police budget is approximately 4.5 million dollars, there are "38 sworn peace officers. They are assisted by approximately 27 non-sworn Park Patrol agents who work on a seasonal basis (MPD website)." These constitute "the equivalent of just 10 percent of the Minneapolis Police Force (Fine, 1/12/05)." "16 to 17 (Russell)" of these folks serve as school liaisons. "Mayor R.T. Rybak and others have suggested merging the park and city police as a cost-saving move. The merger would save at least $1 million said Laura Sether, a mayoral aide, and Rybak has offered to give it to the Park Board (Russell)." Opponents (on this list and elsewhere) to merging the Park Police and MPD cite the following arguments: 1) The Park Police are uniquely suited to the type of enforcement required in Parks, which is different from other policing. 2) The Park Police's dual role as school liaison and park enforcer brings them into contact with kids/juveniles, making them uniquely valuable. 3) Merging the Park Police and the MPD would lead to a decreased emphasis on park patrolling, since the resources would be siphoned off to other priorities. 4) Why not just have a state police or the CIA take over? I won't even address #4 (a la David Shove's post) since it is so clearly a poor argument. Practically every city except for Minneapolis in the nation does just fine with one police department. Suggesting the same for Minneapolis is not the same as advocating the centralization of all police functions in the state or federal government. "Uniquely suited" Is crime lower in the Parks? Sure, but I can come up with a number of more parsimonious explanations for that than the inherent superiority of the Park Police. Such as: 1) There are no (or few) permanent residents of the Parks. 2) Areas surrounding parks tend to be higher income and lower crime areas. I can't really say with certainty that Scott Vreeland is wrong when he claims that the MPD has a "paramilitary" organization in contrast to the kinder, gentler proactive policing of the Park Police, but I think that smacks of overgeneralization. Like all police forces, the MPD has a variety of approaches and functions. The CCP/SAFE program is very different in function and purpose than the SWAT team, for example. There's nothing essential in the organization of the MPD that prevents a park unit or beat that doesn't adopt similar or identical approaches to what already exists. Such an enforcement approach could be preserved in a merged department. "Dual Role" A number of claims have been made, such as by Bob Fine in the 1/12/05 Southwest Journal, where he claims that the Park Police were the only agency capable of dealing with a gang problem at Armatage Park, since they "...went to homes in the area to investigate and handled it well." He then poses the following question: "How can a merger with the city's Police Department keep our children as safe as the present Park Police system?" I don't have definitive answers to this question, but the logic that underlies this implies that MPD is incapable of investigating crimes well, and in particular, that the "unique" dual role of the Park Police as school liaisons makes them uniquely suited to park enforcement. However, this arrangement is recent (2003); does this mean that the Park Police have only recently become "well suited" to address this problem through the dual role? Does that mean that previously the MPD was "uniquely" suited to conduct such an investigation? And am I wrong in assuming that the Armatage Park investigation that Mr. Fine speaks of predates the school liaison program? I have asserted earlier that many of the officers currently serving as school liaisons transferred from the MPD to continue as school liaisons after the Park Police assumed that role. I've been trying to track down a source on that claim, and have been unable to. Can anyone tell me if that is correct? If it is, it seems to undercut the logic of both the artificial division between the police forces (both of whom are represented by the same union) and the unique role of the Park Police created by their dual role. "Resource siphoning" This seems to me to be the most important argument made by advocates of preserving the Park Police as an independent entity. Certainly the independence of the Park Police preserves the MPRB's ability to direct enforcement resources to maximize park safety. But other cities without independent Park Police, such as St. Paul, preserve park safety while maintaining a balance between park enforcement and other public safety needs. The idea that a merger would leave Minneapolis parks without police coverage is clearly a strawperson argument. But I find myself asking many of the same questions as other listmembers, such as "would it be so bad to shift some of the personnel to higher crime areas that are currently underserved?" For every anecdote provided by advocates of independence, there are other stories, such as those about the value of one officer in the Franklin / Bloomington area. The potential benefits of a merged police force include: 1) An estimated one million dollars in savings that previously Mayor Rybak's aide stated would be directed to the Park Board. I think that any savings should go to the MPRB and be used for programming, etc. That's not a small amount of money. 2) The ability to balance enforcement priorities in Minneapolis as a whole. 3) And this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that the REAL threat to the independence of the Park Board will come from the refusal to consider cooperative arrangements like this one rather than through some slippery slope of cooperative arrangements leading to the eventual "swallowing up" of the Park Board into the city. What I mean by that is that the current push (who knows what "legs" it has, as of yet) to revisit the Minneapolis governance struture will be more likely to threaten the independence of the MPRB if voters perceive the current arrangement as wasteful and inefficient. If property taxes are going up (and they are), the demands for "reform" will grow stronger. A strong antidote to a push to subordinate the MPRB to the City government will be evidence that the current arrangement protects Parks while at the same time moving toward greater financial efficiency. I freely admit that I am no expert on such matters. But given the posts I've seen so far, evidence for the status quo consists of questions (Bob Fine's letter), anecdotes (Scott Vreeland's post), and assertions. Despite Scott Vreeland's call for data, I've seen very little to justify the current arrangement. Given that it is very different from the way virtually every other city in the U.S. does park enforcement, I think the burden of proof lies on advocates of independence, and not the other way around. aaron klemz cooper Sources: Bob Fine, "Park Board: Keep it Independent," Southwest Journal (on line), 1/12/05, http://www.swjournal.com/articles/2005/01/05/opinion/opinion02.txt City of Minneapolis, "Facts about the Minneapolis Park Police," no date, http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/about/park-police.asp Scott Russell, "Parks Cops May Also Serve Schools," P.L.E.A. (Park Law Enforcement Association) News, no date, http://www.parkranger.com/parkpoliceinschools.htm ===== +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aaron Klemz, Minneapolis, Minnesota [EMAIL PROTECTED] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
