Opinion editor's note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The Star Tribune has recently published several letters and commentaries from Minneapolitans frustrated with our political leadership ("Don't agonize. Organize," May 1, and "There's something rotten in Minneapolis politics," April 28, Strib Voices). I get it. We have plenty of problems that need to be tackled, but our officially "strong" mayor is anything but, and our City Council bickers about things beyond its control.

I agree that too much outside money is part of the problem. But, as another writer notes, overturning Citizens United is the only solution to too much money. And yes, our "one-party system" doesn't help, but it's hard to imagine Republicans resurging in Minneapolis with President Donald Trump in the White House.

But blaming our caucus system doesn't make any sense to me. Some writers have suggested that the caucus system is "exclusionary," but I've been attending caucuses since 1968, first as a student, then as a working dad and now as a retiree, and no one has ever turned me away. One writer suggested that online caucuses would be better. Better for millennials maybe, but not for seniors. And this suggestion ignores the real beauty of caucuses: meeting your neighbors, old and new, and having a chance to understand their views — even if it consumes a bit of your precious time.

Some writers suggest that the real problem is that caucuses are dominated by radicals and extremists, and one writer even dug up a Joseph McCarthy accusation of "fellow travelers." (Really?) I suspect that the real, unspoken beef is that some of the folks at caucuses don't look like us. Or dress different, or have difficult accents. And sure, it's dumb when people ask me what my pronouns are. But I think that's called political engagement — which we need more of, not less.

The anti-caucus writers want to turn the reins of government back to "real" Minneapolitans — those who don't attend caucuses? Guess what else they don't do? The majority don't vote in primaries. And a lot who do vote don't understand how ranked-choice voting works. Of course our caucus system could be improved, but eliminating caucuses won't improve engagement, it will reduce real engagement, and give even more power to those with obscene amounts of campaign money.

John Trepp, Minneapolis

•••

Nice try, Josh Martin ("Don't agonize. Organize."). He wants us to believe that the ongoing "fierce, sometimes ugly disagreements" in City Hall are merely "because [Council Members are] representing constituents, and yes, interest groups." He wants us to believe that "disagreement isn't 'dysfunctional.'" He wants us to believe that outside money is necessary to mount a successful campaign. He wants us to believe that the only issues with the caucus system are accessibility and length. He wants us to organize and get involved, but only within the current system. He wants us to believe that his Democratic Socialist candidate for mayor (state Sen. Omar Fateh) would cure the dysfunction because the mayor is the problem. He is wrong on all counts.

The ugly disagreements stem from a council majority of activists who fervently favor their outside-money-supported goals and desires (not the needs of the overall citizenry they were elected to represent) and a mayor who seeks to temper their worst impulses. Eliminating caucuses and outside money would level the playing field and give us a range of potential views and visions from which to select for a council and mayor who can work together to solve our city's problems. Electing Fateh or one of the other activist candidates would result in less discord in City Hall because it would be an echo chamber with no reasonable check. As Martin suggests, I got involved for the first time this year and organized my neighbors to attend the April 8 caucus; we were disappointed with the current system and lack of diversity in thought, experience and talent among all candidates (except our Ward 13 incumbent).

We should organize to eliminate caucuses and avoid the outsize influence of the vocal minority in league with their well-financed activist incumbents and candidates. In conjunction with a level campaign-finance field, we would enable a broader array of potential candidates with better qualifications to address the city's problems and its residents' needs.

Daniel Patton, Minneapolis

•••

My take on the Minneapolis DFL is simple: The contours of who is a "real" DFLer can't be different in even-numbered years compared with odd-numbered years.

If the tent is big enough to win statewide elections, then it is big enough to serve no useful function in Minneapolis elections. There's simply no meaningful opposition outside that big tent.

The city has a ranked-choice voting method that accommodates truly nonpartisan contests. We should accept that and skip the DFL endorsement process entirely for the municipal races.

The only other consistent alternative is to settle on a small-tent version of the party, which would render it meaningful at the municipal level but surrender ground when the rest of the state is in play.

Max Hailperin, Minneapolis

TARGET

Commit to those values, for real this time

Dear Target CEO Brian Cornell and other CEOs who have appeared in the Star Tribune CEO pay watch:

Congratulations on your extraordinary salary (at least compared with me and my friends). Now it is time for you and all the CEOs who make this kind of salary to step up and care for the rest of the community by providing much-needed large donations to all the nonprofits that are being denied money they were promised and expecting: Second Harvest Heartland and Meals on Wheels and others that help to feed those who can't afford to feed their families and also pay rent, Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative and others that are working to end homelessness and nonprofits that care for children and teens. There are so many opportunities. Each CEO needs to choose a favorite nonprofit and make a difference, please!

Susan Lampe, Bloomington

•••

So, Cornell thinks that Target is "still the Target you know and believe in" and that its values of "'inclusivity, connection, and drive' are 'not up for debate'" ("CEO email: We're 'still the Target you know,'" May 7). The obscenely large donation to Trump's inauguration says otherwise. Match that $1 million by supporting organizations for Black and Indigenous people and people of color and LQBTQ organizations and businesses — in addition to what the Target Foundation currently gives — and your former "guests" might believe you.

Emily Johnson, Minneapolis

STUDENT BEHAVIOR

This is cruel, ineffective punishment

Having read "Legislature is poised to move backward on a terrible tool for handling students" by Laura Jean (Strib Voices, May 7), I find it hard to accept that the Minnesota Senate, through an omnibus bill, is looking to allow the use of seclusion to be written into a student's Individualized Education Program.

We are living in a political climate that is regressive, cruel and vicious. I have felt at least partially protected by virtue of the fact that I live in Minnesota, a state where common sense prevails, at least some of the time. And now there is this!

This bill wants to lock children with disabilities (and mostly students of color) in a 6-feet-by-5-feet room with the expectation that this will help? Who will it help? I can tell you who it will traumatize. While the amendment would require parental consent, many families would have difficulty disagreeing with a teacher recommendation. And, sadly, there are some parents who truly think their child simply needs more discipline.

We are better than this. We are smarter than this. We have come further than this. Are we really going to stick 5-, 6- and 7-year-olds in a locked room so they can improve their behavior? Does anybody really believe that? Are we back to "spare the rod and spoil the child"?

This provision needs to be stricken.

Gail R. Maudal, Vadnais Heights

The writer is a retired clinical and forensic psychologist.