Readers: City, Not State, Should Control Police
Last week readers overwhelmingly voted to support local control of the St. Louis Police, Missouri has controlled the police since the Civil War.
Q: The issue of local control vs state control of the St. Louis Police is a hot topic, thoughts?
- St. Louis should control the police but with changes to the local charter 47 [40.52%]
- St. Louis should control the police with no changes to the local charter 23 [19.83%]
- The police should stay under the control of Missouri. 18 [15.52%]
- Police pensions need to be protected 10 [8.62%]
- Police need to accept concessions 9 [7.76%]
- Really? The Governor controls the city police? 6 [5.17%]
- Other answer… 3 [2.59%]
- Unsure/no opinion 0 [0%]
The three other answers were:
- Mayor Slay should become a Police Officer
- Not sure whether charter should change, but the city should be in control
- all police forces should be controled at the state or county level
The last one above confuses me since St. Louis is both a city and a county. The St. Louis Police Officers Association has this to say:
Local Control advocates say that the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept. (SLMPD) will be more accountable to the City. They further contend that Police, Fire, and Civil Service pension systems will bankrupt the City; therefore, Local Control will make the City more financially sound.
This Is Not True. Please consider the following 7 Facts:
- FACT #1: The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) is already accountable to the City.
- FACT #2: The City’s real problem is poor fiscal management; Local Control is a ruse.
- FACT #3: Local Control will result in unnecessary political influence over SLMPD.
- FACT #4: The St. Louis Police Pension System is a victim of the City’s poor fiscal management.
- FACT #5: Local Control will subject SLMPD to the City’s overly-burdensome bureaucracy.
- FACT #6: The St. Louis City Police operate much more efficiently without City intervention.
- FACT #7: The hidden agenda behind Local Control is an unfair money grab.
Hard to argue with their points, but I’ll give it a shot. control of a police force belongs at the local level regardless of local incompetence. Changes to the city’s charter are likely necessary to establish a modern structure for governance. Frankly, I’d like to see a major restructuring of the city charter as a condition of local control of the police.
– Steve Patterson
If you want to “see a major restructuring of the city charter as a condition of local control of the police”, then you probably won't see local control of the police in your lifetime – you know how well changing the charter has gone in the recent past! A much more likely scenario is the city pushing the state to pay their “fair share”, as defined in the 1982 (?) court case, and the state saying, “here, you take it”, not wanting to pay the $100+ million a year that continued state control will require . . .
i like how the SLPOA presents their assertions as FACTs. because, of course, if you say loudly that something is a fact, it is.
Exactly, I wouldn't buy one argument as a homeowner, and therefore a taxpayer, if the City of Shrewsbury police officers wanted a contract negiotiated under a state appointed board instead of the city government.
I wish people would know the difference between fact and opinion. Facts 2,3,4 and 7 are opinions, not proven facts. Name me one city where a mayor, alderman, friend of the police chief, etc has not asked for a “favor”. Name me one city where a citizen or group has been not been dissatisfied and claimed fiscal mismanagment. The Pol Assoc needs to get better facts to convince me.
Ideally, I am in favor of returning control of the police department to the people of Saint Louis. I don't, however, believe that city government as currently structured is efficient and effective. Some would argue that our system easily lends itself to corruption. Kansas City, which is also under state control, successfully lobbied the state to return local control of its police in the early 1900's. The corrupt administration of KC at the time used the police department to achieve its corrupt political goals, so much so, the people of KC lobbied the state to retake control of the department.
I would completely support local control of the police department if it were connected to true government reform. Business as usual is not working!
Any system lends itself to corruption if the people who are elected or hired under the system want to pursue as such. Could the city reduce the number of alderman and increase efficiency, yes. But this claim that St. Louis is more corrupt then other cities or local governments is a poor argument.
My example, I voted for a new Shrewsbury mayor at the last election. The previous mayor signed off on a severence deal with the outgoing City Manager that got approval from the city council prior to the election. The new mayor and city council cried foul after learning the amount of the severance package after the election. My whole problem, first, the new mayor was on the city council and was aware of the deal. So why didn't she ask how much? why wasn't the number discussed? If it was discussed, it was behind closed doors. which only leads to more questions. At the end of the day, was it incompentency? if so, on whose part. Was it simply a good negiotiation on the out going City Managers part? was is it corruption? This is happened in a small tight working class suburb outside of the supposedly corrupt big city. Not only does this happen with severance and pension deals. But the muni bond and finance market is about getting connections to politicians.
I don't recall saying Saint Louis was more or less corrupt than anywhere else. I'm sure there are governments in St. Louis County that far more corrupt than the city. But to deny that there are problems with the structure of city government would be a mistake. Also I don't care what happens in Shrewsbury.
Saint Louis County and its many many municipalities is the poster child of inefficiency. That said, I am not convinced that simply reducing the number of aldermen would magically increase efficiency. The problem is not just with the BOA but is with the system in general. I believe that the political machine that the 1914 Charter set out to dismantle is still operating. I believe that often jobs with city government are given to people connected to the machine. I believe that LRA is a completely ineffective agency that certain elected officials use to build their own personal wealth.
I don't understand how a local politician can on the one hand be in favor of the state taking control of a locally elected school board and on the other blast the state for mismanaging the police department. If the state is so bad at running things in the city why just a few years ago was this same politician in favor of handing over several arterial roads to MODOT? But I digress.
I guess my general point is that without government reforms I'm reluctant to hand over what is potentially the largest source of patronage jobs to the mayor's office.
My point about Shrewsbury is even though I might elect an official who could be corrupt and hand out favors or be the largest source of patronage jobs I still get my vote the next election. My point is why do you think reform will change anything in your decision, I assume your a city resident, to at least have a more direct impact or say on the oversight of your local police department. I do understand that one man's vote is limited.
But still, city residents at the end of the day are at the mercy of all the state residents and their desire for who should be governor for whatever reasons. It might be a governor from rural town of DeSoto who doesn't care much for what happens in the city or even how big a bill that city residents should foot when it comes to the police pension plan. So I guess from your response that I shouldn't care much about the city since you really don't care what other voters think in other cities. Too bad, because state residents in some ways, such as the police board, have just as much say over running St. Louis city as the residents themselves.
I'm sorry that you are upset about the city being at the mercy of out-state legislators. Unfortunately, that is not likely to change. I suspect if the city controled the legislature this wouldn't even be a discussion. The governance of the police department may return to the city one day soon, but it will only happen with the help of those rural legislators that you seem to hold in contempt. Remember Dillion's Rule- Cities are Creatures of the state in which they reside.
And I still don't care about Shrewsbury 🙂 Perhaps when the city rejoins the county Shrewsbury can be annexed. Only then will I care about Shrewsbury.
The problem is not the structure, the problem is the culture. Rewriting the charter but keeping the same cast of characters will yield (nearly?) identical results. We get the government we get because the majority of us keep voting for the machine and its candidates. Until we expect and demand better, mediocre is the best we can expect . . .
Based on their supposedly facts, State legislators should be falling over themselves to make all police departments under state control.
Second, police departments at the end of the day are city employees and the city of St. Louis no matter what your opinion is on the politics or its charter should have the sole right to negiotiate a contract with their own employees. This is not the case and Slay is showing exactly why the state is responsible for costs negiotiated by a state appointed board.
I have been by that now vacant building many times, It did not strike me until I saw this picture that it really looks like a Police HQ. Was this a Southwestern Bell office bldg. at one time or AG Edwards? Either way they seemed to have penned the most perfect candidate for the soon to be home of St. Louis' finest.
Polititions cannot fullfill thier dutys in congress how on GODS earth do they think they could run anything else? Were already a policed nation. Citizens are smothered with laws and bills and criminals could care less, so why limit good people from thier GOD given constitutional rights any further? Re-institute the fudamentals of which this(once great nation) was founded. Only way to correct this situation is to return to which it began. Under God! When mans laws contradict Gods Law it is written to abandon mans laws and to persue Gods Law at all cost! Our goverment is on the threshhold of anarchy, all the libertys that have been taken from us without truly knowing until their new policies are implemented. Mercy on us all.
To which god are you referring? I personally like Ra. He's such a busy god…
Thank you!