“Those supporters are then flooded with social media content they pass along to like-minded friends and neighbors. The result is often a message of solidarity against compromise. Any compromise is treated as weakness or a lack of moral character, rather than what it often is: serving residents as well as possible.”
Yet another example of the Horseshoe Theory. I first noticed the behavior in the far right, but the far left has definitely caught up. Maybe and then some.
I’d love to go through the budget and scrutinize every position and every spend. It’s hard for me to believe there isn’t a metric effton of fat. Yes, even MPRB. I’ve seen that one firsthand.
Hopefully, through this budget process this year, we will be replacing many of these "services," as we start to use our OWN city employees, these ambassadors, that Frey mentioned, as a way of preserving funds, AND improving public safety and accountability.
City audit warns of fraud and favoritism in Minneapolis violence prevention programs
During a March committee meeting, Council Member Pearll Warren said she’d rather spend money on police and firefighters than on violence interrupters she’s seen in her north Minneapolis ward.
She has worked in youth outreach and called the violence interrupters “21 Jump Street cops,” alluding to them being rookies, and said they look like a “parade of Skittles” doing nothing in the streets.
Yes, Warren has a colorful way of describing things. The Neighborhood Safety program has been plagued with issues since the start. Like the state, there is always a rush to do “some good” and they leave out the crucial follow up, oversight, and results requirements. It leads to fraud, waste, and abuse.
A couple of years back, St Paul started to move away from using these non profits as much, as they brought this work IN HOUSE. That allowed for more control and improved accountability. Mpls may FINALLY be starting to do that too.
Project PEACE team members say their unique status — full-time City employees, reporting to the Office of Neighborhood Safety — helps them overcome that reluctance and earn the trust of the people and families it’s their mission to support. “If your city cares about you, they’ll put the money and effort into helping you,” says Dominique. “Nonprofits have empathy and caring, but when it’s the City — it brings that heart work into government,” as part of the democratic process.
Bringing violence prevention in-house has allowed Saint Paul to recruit and retain exceptional staff from the community with both professional and lived experience. Being part of local government gives the team unique insight and reach, allowing them to lead collaborative efforts while connecting people and families with trusted community-based organizations that provide programs, supports, and vital connections. “Our office helps legitimize this work,” Faith says. “We have strong connections with Saint Paul Parks & Rec, Saint Paul Public Libraries, SPPD, local schools and legal institutions. That coordination allows us to respond quickly, share critical information across systems, and align resources to better support residents and prevent violence. That’s why we’re part of the City structure.”
Project PEACE: Meet Saint Paul’s Violence Intervention Team
Compromise is how things get done in government. Unfortunately, the mayor and many city council members have become a bit too inflexible with some of their positions. And while the parks department should be a high priority for an increase, the MPD needs to take priority. If people’s perception is that it’s not safe to live in or visit Minneapolis then revenue will continue to decline, making compromise that much more difficult.
All this discussion is only half of the equation. The MPD’s efforts (and budget) will be wasted if the Hennepin County attorney’s office doesn’t support the arrests by prosecuting the alleged perpetrators. And along with that, judges need to actually put those found guilty behind bars, not just suspend a sentence, leaving the guilty parties free to pursue more criminal activity.
I do not live in Minneapolis, but have lived in the metropolitan area all my life (I am 66 years old). I understand that the city has become much more diverse in the past thirty or so years than it was before the 1990’s. But all of that is relative. Minnesota has long had a reputation as a great place to live and raise a family. Its citizens have always demonstrated a strong and valuable work ethic as well as a generous spirit. I cannot help but feel some segment of society is taking great advantage of our societal generosity at great public expense.
Such a relief to see Mayor Frey taking charge of how our City staff time is being used, as he tries to preserve OUR employees for the real work that they have been brought on board to do. We have seen, with a specific voting block on the council, them salivating as they work at finding ways to discredit, and even abuse the admin staff, and our other employees, particularly those working for the MPD in public safety.
Over these years, especially since 2020, we have allowed a hostile work environment to take hold. Mayor Frey is trying to change that. 👏
Excerpt.. In her letter to Frey on Tuesday, Johnston seemed to recall the ordeal — and swiped at unnamed members of the council. "I simply could not legitimize moving through the Council's public hearing process that puts politics before professional experience and allows abusive, untrue comments to be made about people who have dedicated their careers to service, systems change, and improving people's lives," she wrote.
She also voiced a sentiment previously expressed only quietly by some city employees about the tenor of some on the council, contending "staff who have spent years working for the City do not want to present their work to Council because they believe they will be embarrassed, belittled or have their expertise questioned. This is simply not okay in any workplace, let alone one that values inclusivity.
One: I'm glad the Mayor is taking a stand on the proper use of staff time. In most work environments, his stance would be "common sense" and not at all controversial. I'm retired from a career in a Fortune 500 company, and vividly remember when there was actually an initiative from "the top" to get all employees to DECLINE MEETING REQUESTS, even from their own chain of management, if the request did not clearly state the agenda/objective and specify an amount of time that was *appropriate* to that bit of work. And to report any retaliation for having done so. And THAT was largely an effort just to get people at all levels to stop making ALL meetings precisely one hour (or two, or a half-day) as "default", and to let folks know what, exactly, to prep for. That city staffers are sometimes summoned to all or most of a many-hours-long meeting to *maybe* answer one or two questions is absurd. And if one is not just trying to play "gotcha", yes, a written response to a specific question should often suffice, and sometimes be preferable.
Two: I "get" where the consultant-speak dictate not to "assume intent" is coming from, but it is still misguided. It's a blunt implement where a precision tool is required - an oversimplification. In any human interaction involving disagreement or conflict, requiring, ultimately, negotiation toward compromise, it is best for each side to understand the other's intent. And frequently that begins by assuming intent, because, for any number of reasons (many of them quite valid), an individual my not voluntarily state their intent. The real issue is that when one "assumes intent", there needs to be a conversational rule-of-thumb that, as the lawyers say, the presumption is *rebuttable*. Can the WAY in which one communicates one's assumption of another's intent be problematic? - Wow, it sure can! It can be done in the form of name-calling, or in any number of ways that amount to thinly veiled attempts to preclude rebuttal. But presuming an adversary's intent (when not clearly stated) - and then allowing *and listening to* rebuttal of the presumption is an indispensable part of moving toward some kind of compromise.
Impressed you got him on your pod. Less impressed with his message; we should feel better, given his historically higher budget, because it could have been even bigger. I think he made a big mistake by messing with the Park Board. It unified people against him.
“Those supporters are then flooded with social media content they pass along to like-minded friends and neighbors. The result is often a message of solidarity against compromise. Any compromise is treated as weakness or a lack of moral character, rather than what it often is: serving residents as well as possible.”
Yet another example of the Horseshoe Theory. I first noticed the behavior in the far right, but the far left has definitely caught up. Maybe and then some.
I’d love to go through the budget and scrutinize every position and every spend. It’s hard for me to believe there isn’t a metric effton of fat. Yes, even MPRB. I’ve seen that one firsthand.
Hopefully, through this budget process this year, we will be replacing many of these "services," as we start to use our OWN city employees, these ambassadors, that Frey mentioned, as a way of preserving funds, AND improving public safety and accountability.
City audit warns of fraud and favoritism in Minneapolis violence prevention programs
https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-violence-prevention-audit-neighborhood-safety/601887756?utm_source=gift_email
Excerpt..
During a March committee meeting, Council Member Pearll Warren said she’d rather spend money on police and firefighters than on violence interrupters she’s seen in her north Minneapolis ward.
She has worked in youth outreach and called the violence interrupters “21 Jump Street cops,” alluding to them being rookies, and said they look like a “parade of Skittles” doing nothing in the streets.
Yes, Warren has a colorful way of describing things. The Neighborhood Safety program has been plagued with issues since the start. Like the state, there is always a rush to do “some good” and they leave out the crucial follow up, oversight, and results requirements. It leads to fraud, waste, and abuse.
A couple of years back, St Paul started to move away from using these non profits as much, as they brought this work IN HOUSE. That allowed for more control and improved accountability. Mpls may FINALLY be starting to do that too.
https://www.stpaul.gov/news/project-peace-meet-saint-pauls-violence-intervention-team
Excerpt...
Project PEACE team members say their unique status — full-time City employees, reporting to the Office of Neighborhood Safety — helps them overcome that reluctance and earn the trust of the people and families it’s their mission to support. “If your city cares about you, they’ll put the money and effort into helping you,” says Dominique. “Nonprofits have empathy and caring, but when it’s the City — it brings that heart work into government,” as part of the democratic process.
Bringing violence prevention in-house has allowed Saint Paul to recruit and retain exceptional staff from the community with both professional and lived experience. Being part of local government gives the team unique insight and reach, allowing them to lead collaborative efforts while connecting people and families with trusted community-based organizations that provide programs, supports, and vital connections. “Our office helps legitimize this work,” Faith says. “We have strong connections with Saint Paul Parks & Rec, Saint Paul Public Libraries, SPPD, local schools and legal institutions. That coordination allows us to respond quickly, share critical information across systems, and align resources to better support residents and prevent violence. That’s why we’re part of the City structure.”
Project PEACE: Meet Saint Paul’s Violence Intervention Team
stpaul.gov
Compromise is how things get done in government. Unfortunately, the mayor and many city council members have become a bit too inflexible with some of their positions. And while the parks department should be a high priority for an increase, the MPD needs to take priority. If people’s perception is that it’s not safe to live in or visit Minneapolis then revenue will continue to decline, making compromise that much more difficult.
All this discussion is only half of the equation. The MPD’s efforts (and budget) will be wasted if the Hennepin County attorney’s office doesn’t support the arrests by prosecuting the alleged perpetrators. And along with that, judges need to actually put those found guilty behind bars, not just suspend a sentence, leaving the guilty parties free to pursue more criminal activity.
I do not live in Minneapolis, but have lived in the metropolitan area all my life (I am 66 years old). I understand that the city has become much more diverse in the past thirty or so years than it was before the 1990’s. But all of that is relative. Minnesota has long had a reputation as a great place to live and raise a family. Its citizens have always demonstrated a strong and valuable work ethic as well as a generous spirit. I cannot help but feel some segment of society is taking great advantage of our societal generosity at great public expense.
Great interview! We are fortunate in Mpls that Mayor Frey AND Terry White landed here.
Not so lucky though, that last November Mpls ended up with 6-7 council members that should not be on a city council anywhere.
Such a relief to see Mayor Frey taking charge of how our City staff time is being used, as he tries to preserve OUR employees for the real work that they have been brought on board to do. We have seen, with a specific voting block on the council, them salivating as they work at finding ways to discredit, and even abuse the admin staff, and our other employees, particularly those working for the MPD in public safety.
Over these years, especially since 2020, we have allowed a hostile work environment to take hold. Mayor Frey is trying to change that. 👏
Case in point...
https://www.startribune.com/frey-names-margaret-anderson-kelliher-for-city-operations-officer-a-major-cabinet-heather-johnson/600319701?utm_source=gift
Excerpt.. In her letter to Frey on Tuesday, Johnston seemed to recall the ordeal — and swiped at unnamed members of the council. "I simply could not legitimize moving through the Council's public hearing process that puts politics before professional experience and allows abusive, untrue comments to be made about people who have dedicated their careers to service, systems change, and improving people's lives," she wrote.
She also voiced a sentiment previously expressed only quietly by some city employees about the tenor of some on the council, contending "staff who have spent years working for the City do not want to present their work to Council because they believe they will be embarrassed, belittled or have their expertise questioned. This is simply not okay in any workplace, let alone one that values inclusivity.
Good interview, Terry. Two things arise for me.
One: I'm glad the Mayor is taking a stand on the proper use of staff time. In most work environments, his stance would be "common sense" and not at all controversial. I'm retired from a career in a Fortune 500 company, and vividly remember when there was actually an initiative from "the top" to get all employees to DECLINE MEETING REQUESTS, even from their own chain of management, if the request did not clearly state the agenda/objective and specify an amount of time that was *appropriate* to that bit of work. And to report any retaliation for having done so. And THAT was largely an effort just to get people at all levels to stop making ALL meetings precisely one hour (or two, or a half-day) as "default", and to let folks know what, exactly, to prep for. That city staffers are sometimes summoned to all or most of a many-hours-long meeting to *maybe* answer one or two questions is absurd. And if one is not just trying to play "gotcha", yes, a written response to a specific question should often suffice, and sometimes be preferable.
Two: I "get" where the consultant-speak dictate not to "assume intent" is coming from, but it is still misguided. It's a blunt implement where a precision tool is required - an oversimplification. In any human interaction involving disagreement or conflict, requiring, ultimately, negotiation toward compromise, it is best for each side to understand the other's intent. And frequently that begins by assuming intent, because, for any number of reasons (many of them quite valid), an individual my not voluntarily state their intent. The real issue is that when one "assumes intent", there needs to be a conversational rule-of-thumb that, as the lawyers say, the presumption is *rebuttable*. Can the WAY in which one communicates one's assumption of another's intent be problematic? - Wow, it sure can! It can be done in the form of name-calling, or in any number of ways that amount to thinly veiled attempts to preclude rebuttal. But presuming an adversary's intent (when not clearly stated) - and then allowing *and listening to* rebuttal of the presumption is an indispensable part of moving toward some kind of compromise.
Impressed you got him on your pod. Less impressed with his message; we should feel better, given his historically higher budget, because it could have been even bigger. I think he made a big mistake by messing with the Park Board. It unified people against him.