By Jean Godden

"Defund  Police" signs and cries pepper the George Floyd marches. In response, nine members of the Minneapolis City Council have voted to defund the police. Councilmembers say that, after a history of racism, the city's police force cannot be reformed. They have pledged to create "a new system of public safety."

The idea of defunding the police is problematic. Certainly "Defund Police" is a catchy slogan. It fits easily a protest sign. It matches protesters' sentiments. But it is still hard to imagine how such a simplistic solution could be accomplished.

Defunding a police force has been done on rare occasions. In cases cited -- Camden, New Jersey, and Compton, California -- abandonment of the local force involved leaving the field, turning the job of policing over to a larger jurisdiction's uniformed force.

However, that solution has some inherent risks. Placing public safety in the hands of the bigger region means that local residents have less to say about specific police priorities. That means less oversight, potentially making in-city neighborhoods more dangerous.

Protesters' cries to abolish the police likely are not meant to be taken literally. Rather these are demands to rethink law enforcement systems and to grapple with issues like use of force and police misconduct. Some of these specifics have been partially dealt with in places like Seattle where we've seen some reforms in years since 2012 when Mayor Mike McGinn signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Justice.

Earlier this year the city asked for release from the DOJ consent decree, but, afte pressure from protest leaders, Mayor Jenny Durkan and City Attorney Pete Holmes have rescinded that request. The mayor agreed to other demands, including a promise to redirect some police funds to community-based programs, ordering body cams turned on during protests, removing mourning bans from police badges and scaling back use of national guard troops.

These are the right steps but stripping the police department of funds -- some want to cut 50 percent -- would jeopardize programs such as training in de-escalation and protection of civil rights. Since the bulk of police funding goes to salaries, slashing the police budget means firing officers, likely the young, newly trained professionals. Then there is the naive notion that policing can be left to "self policing" by the community. That sounds ideal but also risks vigilante justice.

Rather than "defunding," it would be better to work harder and smarter for police improvements. For example, in Eugene, Ore., a medic and crisis worker with mental health training are routinely dispatched to emergency calls. Given this enlightened way of responding, it is no wonder that some leaders -- people like Democratic candidate Joe Biden -- are calling for increased police spending, rather than wholesale reductions.

What needs to happen are recommended reforms like updating use of force policies and dogged enforcement of bans on choke holds. Transparency too is critical -- the public needs to know where police budgets are spent. It matters that citizens can find out if bad officers are continuing to serve. Police unions rightfully protect members, but they also have a responsibility to the public.

Demilitarization must be at issue as well. Police departments have received federal grants enabling them to acquire military hardware. If they've got weapons, they'll likely be used. It's instructive that the Obama administration limited the flow of that equipment, something that Donald Trump has since overturned.

Defunding police does not seem like a sensible course; but listening to protesters and their concerns is an imperative. We must take protesters' complaints seriously, address and reform police systems, involve local communities in finding solutions. It's a difficult route to travel, but we have no choice. We must forge a pathway for equality and equal rights for all. There should be no question that Black Lives Matter.