Minneapolis Star Tribune, Dec. 6
After a promising start at DHS, Minnesota’s largest state agency, there’s heavy lifting ahead
After smart fixes at human-services agency, major reforms merit consideration.
Minnesota’s new Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead came to her 90-day legislative check-in on Monday with charts, data and a clear, crisp overview of the practical changes she’s made and what fixes still lie ahead.
But the moment that most inspired confidence about Harpstead’s leadership was her handling of a tense exchange with Rep. Barb Haley, R-Red Wing. Haley’s lengthy part-statement, part-question reflected Minnesotans’ frustration with a state agency that’s made news for all the wrong reasons for most of 2019: overpayments, leadership churn and accusations of whistleblower retaliation.
These problems predate Harpstead, who took over in September. But Haley wanted to know why the public should believe that yet another leadership change will lead to the reforms the agency so clearly needs. Harpstead’s quiet but powerful response: that she has to earn that trust, and that she intends to do so through results. “The only way to build trust is to be trustworthy,” she said.
Minnesotans should hold Harpstead to her word in the months and years ahead. But she’s earned the benefit of the doubt after a solid first three months in a job that many believe is the most challenging in state government. DHS is the state’s largest agency and has an annual budget of $17.5 billion. Among its sprawling responsibilities: the state’s sex offender treatment program and administering public medical assistance programs.
Harpstead is a former Medtronic executive who led Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota before Gov. Tim Walz tapped her to clean up DHS. In her first appearance before the state House on Monday and during an interview with an editorial writer on Wednesday, she outlined the pragmatic fixes she has put in place. They include stronger financial controls and oversight, implementing quality-improvement processes frequently used in the private sector, bolstering communications with those served by the agency, and bringing in new leadership to strengthen struggling divisions.
These nuts-and-bolts changes aren’t glamorous work, but they reflect well on Harpstead’s leadership. This is what an experienced manager would and should be doing - taking a thorough, methodical approach to identifying problems and quickly making operational improvements.
Harpstead has also smartly sought guidance from respected Minnesota leaders. She has formed an independent advisory council and recruited Bill George, Medtronic’s former CEO, to serve on it. While some have questioned the need for the panel, it’s smart to seek out quality feedback.
Monday’s hearing fell short of addressing all concerns about the agency’s operations. There are still unsettled questions about whether adequate improvements are underway in one especially troubled program - child care assistance. The Star Tribune Editorial Board would also like a deeper evaluation of whistleblower policies to see if improvements are necessary.
But it’s also time for lawmakers and the governor to think about broader reforms. After months of hearings and controversy, it’s time to formally consider splitting DHS into smaller agencies. A reasonable first step: hiring outside expertise to outline benefits and drawbacks. A recent commentary on these pages raised concerns about the unique role counties play in delivering human services. A report on restructuring could also address this.
Harpstead isn’t the only one with heavy lifting ahead. While the new commissioner is making immediate operational fixes, Walz and legislators need to move forward with a deep, expert look at DHS’ structure. At the core of the agency’s mission are vital services to the poor, disabled and elderly. Ensuring the state can deliver these supports efficiently for decades to come is one of current policymakers’ most important responsibilities.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, Dec. 5
Sprinklers: Don’t rush to retrofit old apartments
Why it matters: The tragedy last month in a Minneapolis high-rise has spurred calls to require older apartment buildings to be retrofitted with sprinklers.
Five people died the day before Thanksgiving in an early-morning fire that ravaged the 14th floor of a public housing high-rise in Minneapolis. The grief of this tragedy has, understandably, led to calls to require that older apartment buildings be fully retrofitted with sprinkler systems.
We’ve no doubt that, had the Cedar High Apartments had such a system last month, lives would have been saved. We do doubt the economic wisdom of mandating the addition of sprinklers to older apartment buildings.
This space has written often about the growing need, in this region in particular and in the state in general, for affordable housing. Forcing landlords to go to the expense of retrofitting older buildings would certainly increase fire safety, but it would also make those living quarters more expensive and less accessible to the people who need them.
Minnesota has for about 40 years required sprinkler systems in new buildings of more than three stories or more than 15 housing units. In the 1990s, the state’s building codes began to require sprinklers in all multi-family buildings. But the State Fire Marshal’s Office estimates that only about 10 percent of Minnesota’s apartments have sprinklers.
That is an intriguing set of facts that suggests that much of Minnesota’s stock of apartments is aging. It is tempting, but probably too simplistic, to draw a connection between the sprinkler mandate and the decline in apartment construction. It is, however, quite likely the expense of including such systems - a builders trade group told Minnesota Public Radio that sprinklers add about $10,000 to the price of a single-family home - has helped chill such projects.
It is a painful balancing act: safety on one side and affordability on the other. A legislator who represents the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis promises to push for a sprinkler mandate, and certainly the Legislature should examine the issue. But we see a greater downside to a mandate than a gain.
___
Minnesota Daily, Dec. 4
Romanticizing reality
If not handled correctly, the retelling of past tragedies and experiences can be dangerous for today’s society.
Netflix’s original drama, “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile,” stars the once teen heartthrob Zac Efron. The network also produced a docu-series titled, “Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes.” Both follow the life and murders of the infamous serial killer Ted Bundy. But when you picture Efron’s tanned face, sparkling eyes and killer smile, do you think of a serial killer who took the lives of over 30 women throughout the 1970s? While most people think that these productions are just a retelling of a horrific era in history, people have started to romanticize these figures based on how they are portrayed today.
During the 1960s, America saw a surge in serial killers targeting everyday citizens. At the time it sent shock and fear into the homes of every American. Being over 50 years ago, this era of fear may seem far away and detached from our minds. Today, our fear is not rooted in serial killings, but different kinds of senseless acts. We are more accustomed to mass shootings and acts of terror rather than individual, vengeful crimes against other humans.
But while scrolling through our Tumblr dashboards, we are bombarded by pictures of poodle skirts and milkshakes that are supposed to remind us of the “happier days” of the 1950s. Thinking of aesthetically pleasing images and idealistic forms of life are an easy eraser of the abundance of racism and sexism at the time.
Scott Stroud, a researcher for the University of Texas’ Center for Media Engagement, found that romanticizing people of this era, specifically nefarious killers like Bundy, may have irreparable effects on our society. In her piece “The Problem with Romanticizing Serial Killers,” Suzanne Moore explains how dangerous it is for us to fall into this falsely romanticized world. Based off of her conclusion, Stroud writes, “… romanticizing the egregious serial killer Bundy in the new biopic might be dangerous for women and how it could demean what it means to be a victim.”
It is ridiculous to assume people need to be reminded not to idolize murderers and previous decades, but it’s evident that young people today are fascinated by these romanticized depictions. Twitter and other social media platforms alike have become home to a new community of fan accounts about serial killers and terrorists throughout history. Thomas Hobbs from New Statesman America reasons that some fans of true crime find it interesting to deduce what drove these people to commit these crimes, while others play the role of devil’s advocate. People have created profiles depicting themselves as “fans” of Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson and Ted Bundy himself. In a tweet from @Theblackpinkwak, they post “Charles Manson started a social revolution. Your fave could never.”
We need to look at history and see people, behavior, and incidents for what they actually were and not attribute them as pop-culture icons that we’ve seen on late-night crime television or in history books. If one day the generation after us paid homage to Jeffrey Epstein or any recent mass shooters, we’d be abhorred. These crimes may have been committed over 30 years ago, but it does not remove the significance of the heinous actions committed - nor does it mean that it is OK for us to humanize these people in ways that make us forget about the survivors and victims.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.