Jim Graham comments: "Measures on the police are easier to see. How many
police officers do we presently have compared to the when the Mayor took
office? What is happening with the crime rate? How effectively is our police
department being used, and its morale? These are things we can measure and
things that are directly attributable to the Mayor. Anyone want to answer
those questions?".
Prior to the 2001 mayoral election, the total MPD budget was approximately $98
million dollars. Today in 2005, the total budget is $102 Million dollars; a 4%
increase. Reported 2001 crimes stood at 27,202 events. The final number of
2004 Part I Crimes is 25,457 reported events, or a 6.4% decrease in reported
crimes. This was accomplished while Department staffing fell from 896 sworn
officers in 2001 to 788 sworn officers at the beginning of 2005, a 12% decrease
in officers. Bear in mind, as the number of Minneapolis Police officers fell,
the number of Minneapolis Park Police and MTC Polices increased. Both
department hired many "retired" MPD officers.
It has been suggested that the department needs 150 officers to handle the
present crime patterns. This number would bring the Department back to its
1997 high of 938 authorized officers. However, is it the right level of
staffing? Is it an effective use of officers? Or does the Department need
flexibility, which more officers will bring, tempered with imagination and
innovation? Otherwise, police services may be more of the same, just with more
officers. Unfortunately there is not precise means of determining how many
cops are needed. Crimes per hundred thousand citizens, number of cops per
thousand people, or increase or decreases in crime, take your pick. See Feb.
28, 2005 Skyway News article for further discussion on this very issue:
http//www.skywaynews.net/articles/2005/02/28/news/news01.
If you want to increase the MPD by 150 officers, come up with an extra $11.25
million dollars a year, or $75,000 per FTE. Before the last election , the
City benefited from a significant number of cops funded via federal dollars
("Clinton Cops"). However, even with federal dollars, you don't always get
what you want. See the April 10th USA article on the pitfalls of accepting
federal funding
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-10-cops-cover_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
.
Regardless, this funding source is gone and any such federal monies are now
diverted to homeland security, no less important than neighborhood policing.
Unless local legislators can piggyback an added public safety sales tax to the
proposed stadium deal, it seems unlikely that a new funding source can be
identified for increase policing.
What other options are available?
Greg Reinhardt
Excelsior
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
