Would local control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police reduce corruption?
When St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was sworn into his third term last year he mentioned local control of the St. Louis Police as a priority. For those readers not aware of the back story, during the Civil War pro-Confederate Missouri took control of the police in pro-Union St. Louis. The state has yet to return control of the police to the local citizens. Four out of five police commissioners are appointed by the governor, the 5th is the current mayor.
Last week we learned that Police commissioner Vince Bommarito made a phone call and his nephew was released from police custody after he was arrested.
On Thursday Democrat Jamilah Nasheed asked Governor Jay Nixon to take the action following news that Bommarito used his influence to have his nephew freed from jail Saturday following an arrest on suspicion of drunk driving.Nasheed is sponsoring a bill that would return the St. Louis police department to local control after a century and a half of state oversight. (KWMU: State Rep. wants police board member removed)
I support local control of the St. Louis Police but I don’t think it will lesson any potential corruption. It may, in fact, increase it. But problems big or small need to be handled from within, by the people we elect to represent us. Yes, the Missouri governor represents us, but the rest of the state as well. Maybe the state will make a deal — give us back our police if we reform our own city charter? The current city structure would do no better a job with the police than the state government. The state has an interest in seeing the city revise it’s outdated city charter. The ransom demands might include eliminating an excessive number of elected offices, cutting out wasteful partisan primary elections, and doing away with the Board of Estimate & Apportionment.
The poll this week asks how local control would change corruption. Please vote in the poll in the upper right corner and share your thoughts on the topic below.
– Steve Patterson
Does anybody really care about local vs. Jeff. City control of the police? It seems to me that we are so buffeted with abuse of power, favoritism, pay to play, etc., that local control is just going to add to the pig pile of abuse, rather than abate it. Those blasts of hot air from Bommarito, Slay and the pole-ese chief reveal one thing: this Mardi Gras thing with the nephew is just the tip of the iceberg. It was nothing compared to what St. Louis wrecking activities are going on, day after day.
The ransom demands you mention sound too good to be true. Why not also throw in rejoining the county and municipal taxation? While I enjoy singing karaoke with my alderman after Mardi Gras, I know we could do with a lot less of them. I know I harp on this all the time, but why does a city of less than 400,000 people need more employees than can fit in that huge City Hall?
I also love the police unions stomping down to Jeff City to lobby against local control. Retirees don't want their pensions run by the city. Current officers don't want local control because they fear residency requirements will be reinstated. Anyone worried about corruption need only look at the department today and realize state control isn't the solution either. The police need to be directly accountable to the people they protect no matter the consequences. That's the way democracies work.
Again, St. Louis City political leaders are misleading its citizens with rhetoric about the need to control firefighter pensions so the city can balance its budget.
The problem is not firefighter pensions. The problem is abysmal fiscal management by city leaders.
Like police, firefighters only have their pensions at retirement. They do not get Social Security.
Like police, firefighters contribute to their pensions; 7 percent and 8 percent of pay respectively.
Like police, firefighters could earn higher salaries in nearby communities. They look to their pensions as a partial equalizer.
Like police, the firefighter pension system has a history of being ignored by the city. From 1992 through 2002, the city contributed nothing to the police pension system. A private employer with a comparable number of employees during that period would have had to contribute, at a minimum, nearly $50 million in Social Security and Medicare payments, but the city contributed nothing.
The courts have ordered that the police pension system must be made whole; the city must pay the money it held back. Don't blame the pension systems; blame city mismanagement.
Eighteen months ago, the state auditor found serious monetary discrepancies and procedural inefficiencies and determined the city had grossly mismanaged most of its departments, including the Department of Public Safety, which controls the Fire Department.
Instead of addressing these problems, the city is proposing furloughs; health benefit cuts; cuts in overtime, sick leave, vacation time, shift and holiday differential; layoffs; and “modifications to the firefighters pension system” — all targeting the average employee.
What about the city's top-heavy management? Where are their cuts? Why do we need 39 elected city officials when other cities our size are managed with far fewer? Why do we continue to prop up a system that “grossly mismanaged” most of its departments?
The city pins a target on “controlling pension costs” in the hopes that its citizens will focus there instead of mismanagement by elected officials.
Pension systems are legally (per the courts), morally (per employee contribution) and ethically a benefit to those who have and who will continue to put their lives on the line. The city needs to reset its sights.
Tom Walsh • President, St. Louis Police Officers Association
From 1992 to 2002, I wasn't living here (I moved to the city in 2005). I find it hard to believe that no contributions to pensions were made for a decade, but I also feel no responsibility for making up that shortfall now. The time for both the union and the city to “fix” this was ten years ago. I'm willing to pay for what I'm receiving now, but I feel no responsibility for “making up” for some decade (and apparently decades) old shortfall. If police pensions are as important as you say, then it does look like the only option IS “furloughs; health benefit cuts; cuts in overtime, sick leave, vacation time, shift and holiday differential; layoffs; and “modifications to the firefighters pension system” — all targeting the average employee.” The brutal reality is that the city and its citizens have finite financial resources; we simply can't fund everything we want or we should. Headcount, pay and benefits are all variables that can be looked at, but there's only so many dollars available in the budget for “Police” and “Fire” (and “Streets”, “Libraries”, “Parks” and “Social Services”). We can't print money and we have limited options for new taxes, with the new trash “fee” being the latest. You have a job to do (advocating for your membership), and you're doing it well. But I also have to look out for my own interests, and that includes keeping a lid on tax and fee increases. Bottom line, no one is forcing any of your members to stay with the city (outside of the golden handcuffs the pension creates). If you find the terms of employment, in today's economy, too onerous or unfair, feel free to look elsewhere . . .