Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />:1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />ment management firms. Such outside investments <br />should not be limited to specialized portfolios <br />such as real estate, but should permit a full ran§e <br />of investment by each fund manager, to permit a <br />valid comparison of investment performance. <br /> <br />' V. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY <br /> <br />V-l. Fire Personnel Standards (B) <br /> <br /> Fire suppression has traditionally been a unique- <br />ly local function in Minnesota. Not only are fire- <br />fighting problems vastly different from one com- <br />munity to another, but well over ninety percent <br />of Minnesota communities rely primarily on volun- <br />teer firefighters for fire suppression. Because local <br />governing bodies are best equipped to determine <br />the nature of local fire risks, the level of local fire <br />prevention efforts and the practical availability <br />of firefighting personnel, and because power to <br />conduct training on a multi-municipal basis, under <br />the Joint Powers Act, exists and is being used, <br />the League believes that the following principles <br />should govern any state or federal efforts to im- <br />p rove firefighti ng capabilities. <br /> <br /> 1. No governmentally established mandatory <br />or suggested physical, physiological, educational, <br />or compensation standards for recruitment or <br />continued employment for firefighters should be <br />created except at the level of the entity actually <br />employing firefighting personnel. <br /> <br /> 2. [f any state or federal attempts are made <br />to upgrade the quality, skills and ability of fire- <br />fighting personnel in Minnesota, they should be <br />effeetuyed by increased financial assistance to <br />provide improved programs, or by direct employ- <br />ment of specialized personnel at the state or <br />federal level with such personnel made available <br />to assist local units of government. <br /> <br />V-2. Issues in Law Enforcement Personnel (A) <br /> <br /> The state government has been involved in po- <br />lice training for a number of years during which a <br />strategy has emerged directed at homogenizing <br />law enforcement in the state without regard to <br />the markedly different circumstances and social <br />environments which exist in Minnesota. At the <br />1978 legislative session this threat culminated in <br />a uniform state licensing requirement which was <br />unprecedented within the United States, which <br />mandated minimum standards for recruitment, <br />training, and conduct, and which significantly <br />impinged on the prerogatives of local govern- <br />ment. Steps were taken at later sessions to amelio- <br /> <br />rate the impact of state licensing by permitting <br />employment of a lesser trained class of police <br />employees, to allow upgrading of part-time police <br />officers to fully licensed status and to provide fei' <br />two elected city officials to represent cities on <br />the POST Board. <br /> <br /> A major effort should be made by cities, the <br />legislature, and other concerned parties to develop <br />a rational response to a complex situation, with <br />the League initiating action wherever appropriate. <br />In developing legislation, the following guide- <br />lines are recommended: <br /> <br /> 1. Since cities increasingly employ specialized <br />law enforcement personnel, including part-time <br />officers, reservists and paraprofessionals, they <br />should clearly have the authority to establish their <br />own standards for such personnel who are not <br />authorized to carry firearms except in emergen- <br />cies. <br /> <br /> 2. There should be consideration of the finan- <br />cial impact of any state rules and regulations on <br />the cost of law enforcement to. cities. Fol' example, <br />uniform minimum recruitment standards may lead <br />to minimum wages. Mandatory citizen complaint <br />processing procedures on polic9 officer conduct <br />and behavior may dictate extra cost to produce <br />manuals and train personnel in their use. The <br />state should subsidize any such extra costs. <br /> <br /> 3. Enforcement of standards of conduct and <br />performance, and any other disciplinary matters, <br />should not bypass normal city personnel proce- <br />dures. Nor should state objectives be allowed to <br />unnecessarily complicate local personnel prac- <br />fives which have worked well in the past. Legis- <br />lation authorizing the Peace Officers Standards <br />and Training (POST) Board to establish minimum <br />standards of conduct for police officers should be <br />repealed. Standards judged by the legislature to <br />be important and meaningful should be written <br />directly into statutory law. <br /> <br /> 4. Special attention should be placed upon law <br />enforcement problems in rural areas and in small <br />cities where conventional approaches may not be <br />practical. The state should provide variances for <br />political subdivisions having particular difficul- <br />ties in complying with licensing standards to per- <br />mit phased compliance. Variances should be <br />granted by the state POST Board. <br /> <br /> 5. The composition of the POST Board should <br />not be altered further so as to dilute city represen- <br />tation on the Board. <br /> <br />-21 - <br /> <br /> <br />