A Minneapolis City Council committee has advanced a proposal to abolish the city’s Office of Community Safety, setting up a final vote on a move that has exposed sharp divisions over how public services should be organised.
The ordinance was approved by nine votes to three, with one abstention, following a heated hearing at City Hall. The full council is expected to consider the measure on Thursday, October 29.
Minneapolis Office of Community Safety faces dissolution
Established in 2022, the Office of Community Safety brings together the police and fire departments, 911 services and mental health response under a single administrative structure.
Supporters of the office told councillors that it had helped improve co-ordination, contributed to quicker 911 response times and supported the expansion of community safety programmes.
Senior officials responsible for 911, emergency management and neighbourhood safety also argued that their departments operated more effectively under the current arrangement. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has written to the council in support of retaining the office.
The office’s creation followed concerns about fragmented responsibility for public safety. The city has said other authorities, including New York, are examining similar umbrella models.
Robin Wonsley, one of the proposal’s authors, argued that the Office of Community Safety had failed to deliver and should be removed. Opponents said dissolving it would weaken the city’s focus on non-police responses.
Jamison Whiting, who opposed the measure, warned that eliminating the office could leave traditional law enforcement with greater influence over the city’s wider public safety strategy.
“We are removing the one piece of work, the one body that specific focus is to move the public safety ecosystem outside of just traditional law enforcement,” Mr Whiting said.
Mayor Jacob Frey has also criticised the proposal, saying the council had not set out a clear plan for transferring the office’s responsibilities. It remains uncertain whether the mayor’s office or existing city staff would take over the work if the ordinance is approved.
“Those who are bringing this proposal both don’t understand what it takes to run safety departments of a major city, nor do they have any plan for how these essential services should be delivered under their new proposal,” Mr Frey said.
