Sunday Poll: Should Police Chief Dotson Resign Since He Is Running For Mayor?
On October 5th police chief Sam Dotson entered the race for St. Louis mayor, but the current mayor had something to say:
Dotson, who has long been rumored to be considering a mayoral run, announced his candidacy in a statement playing up his status as a “full-time police chief” and “not a career politician.”
But as Mayor Francis Slay sees it, launching a mayoral campaign while still in uniform could make Dotson a part-time police chief.
In a statement released shortly before Dotson’s announcement, Slay said Dotson should focus on running for mayor or being the police chief, but not both. (Post-Dispatch)
Dotson has indicated he doesn’t plan to resign.
So here’s the poll question for today:
The non-scientific poll will be open until 8pm, but will be closed sooner if I detect a spike in traffic in an effort to alter the outcome either way.
— Steve Patterson
Until all the other candidates resign from their respective positions to run, as well, no. This seems like a knee jerk response to undermine what appears to be a strong, surprise contender.
Don’t know about “strong” contender. The only thing that would make him a contender is if the rest of the candidate all form a circular firing squad and Dotson is the only one left standing. If Harmon is any indication, St. Louis doesn’t have a very good track record of ex-police chiefs serving as mayor. They are automatically a divisive persona. A white police chief in North St. Louis isn’t going to win a lot of friends.
It’s all about the man–the person–not the office he previously held. And Sam Dotson seems to have his act together. But certainly having served as police chief shouldn’t necessarily disqualify a person to serve as mayor…..unlike a Jewish Rabbi campaigning to become the Pope!
Interesting last sentence about winning friends. Would it be OK to admit that a black police chief in South and West STL isn’t going to win a lot of friends? Probably not!!!
A black chief would likely have broader appeal in a majority black city than a white chief.
Until we get past the politics of race, we’re going to be stuck being a racist city. It shouldn’t matter what race a candidate is, what should matter is their qualications to do the job and the ability to build a consensus to achieve their goals!
When pigs fly. Getting “past the politics of race”, sounds good. But until there’s perceived equity in our society, it won’t happen.
Reality check – there will always be inequity in our society! Whether one wants to blame it on race, education, effort, luck, parenting, personal choices, location, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation is their choice. But making race a qualifier (or disqualifier) in politics does nothing to break the cycle of racism!
But maybe it helps to break the cycle of inequity!
St Louis isn’t a majority black city anymore. According to the 2015 numbers from the Census Bureau the city has more white residents than black. The number of white residents is only going to grow as more parts of the city gentrify.
Harmon, who is black, carried south and west St Louis when he was elected Mayor.
Dotson doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected.
Dotson’s chances of getting elected isn’t the issue. The issue, as I read it, is whether he should resign from his current position as police chief in order to run for mayor. My thought is that what’s good for the goose is good for…..
in 96 or 97, Harmon ran against incumbent Mayor Bosley, who is also black. Since both candidates were black, maybe south and west St Louis chose between the lesser of two evils…..but who knows for sure? It’s possible that, if Harmon had run against a white guy, South and West STL wouldn’t have supported Harmon. Just Sayin’, not sure. But in any case, the first sentence of your post is a non-issue. And the second sentence is off-topic.
I just viewed the current poll results, and many are of the opinion that Chief Dotson should resign while he’s running for mayor. Interesting!
Any particular reason why he should resign and why the others should go on their own merry ways in their current city positions? Seems like another double standard to me.
Being alderman is a part time job.
Being mayor is full time. Slay ran multiple times for Mayor, while he was mayor. Being President of the Board of Aldermen is full time. Reed doesn’t have to resign. Being Collector of Revenue is full time. Daly doesn’t have to resign.
Which night carry more weight if there weren’t multiple radio interviews out there where Dotson state’s that being police chief is a 24/7 job.
It’s possible that being police chief IS, in fact, a 24/7 job. But he’s only being paid for 40 hours a week. So what he does with the other 128 hours is up to him.
“Being alderman is a part time job.” Then I hope each and everyone is clocking in and filing overtime each week!
I still think it’s laughable that this, a major American city — or one that aspires to again be one — has a “part-time” legislature at a $37k salary. Good luck pulling in smart, driven and honest candidates with that set-up!
Current salary in Denver for City Council is $91,915, with Council President making $103,000 and the Mayor making $171,000 . . . I’m not sure if better candidates are being elected, but it sure does make it possible to “serve”, so more people are running, which, when combined with term limits, certainly increases the “gene pool” . . .
Not a fan of municipal term limits, myself — I subscribe to the theory that it’s up to the voters to determine its representatives, whether those are newcomers or have been there for 20+ years. If voters are confident in who they have, great! If not, and they still vote him/her in, well that’s on them. Term limits just free the voters of their responsibility.
I do think the problem come back almost entirely to the salary — why would a viable candidate who can make double (or more) of that working in the private or nonprofit sector of community development and planning (for shorter hours and more manageable workload, no less), take such a drop in quality of life in the name of “public service”? Unless you’re independently wealthy or have a cush job, or…as many suspect… lucrative side deals, it just isn’t feasible.
That’s the main reason why you see so many aldermanic contests go unopposed. And that, in turn, has discouraged voters so much that a coalition of 400 or so voters is all you need to win even a contested ward election most times!
Term limits do cut both ways – it gets rid of the dead wood but it also forces out some people who should be able to stay in. In reality, many of the term-limited folks just move on to other offices . . .
Treat yourself to an entertaining afternoon! Sit in on one of their Aldermanic meetings. You’ll soon realize the benefits of your $37,000. x 28.
Ha! I watch them online as often as possible and…well, yes, we get what we pay for (full disclosure: I don’t live or work in STL, so I don’t pay a lick)! Only a handful seem to have taken the time to even read and understand the rules of order, if they even bother to vote/show up at all.
Would a higher-salaried, full-time qualifier change this? I suspect it would. Or, at least, those who don’t (looking at you, most senior aldermen…) would experience a much harder-fought re-election than in years past.
It might help if the alder-people just paid attention during any presentations. It’s a common courtesy and one that I would insist on if I were the aldermanic czar.
I wonder if a higher salary would make much difference. The problem with STL is that 1)a candidate won’t get elected unless he wears a D on his shirt pocket; 2) a candidate who has a shared blood relationship with another political family is perceived to have earned a PhD in STL politics; 3) and, really, just look at the typical alderperson serving today. Would you hire him or her to run a lemonade stand in your driveway?
Full disclosure: I too don’t live in STL…been there, done that. And I work there maybe 15 days a year.
We’ve had a couple of recent instances where an Independent either won or was competitive. Of course, those were pretty much just independent to get on the General, and switched back to the “D” after election…
There certainly is a lot to unwrap in why our municipal elections — and their victors — are the way they are. The salary issues is one, I believe, and the affiliation stranglehold is another BIG one, you’re right. Nixing the single-party primaries in favor of an open primary + runoff may open the doors to second or third parties (or it may just cause the Democrats to circle their wagons and pre-select a single candidate to avoid splitting the vote).
The “family name” issue is one that you’ll see at all levels of government, but in St. Louis — where outsiders are often viewed with fear or disdain, and larger worldviews and experiences often outright dismissed — it’s particularly noticeable. I don’t prescribe to the “change for change’s sake” philosophy myself, but while misguided, I think it has resulted in positive push back against local political dynasties, refreshingly.
Until demographics change, St Louis will always support a Democratic party rule, ever since in the early 20th Century, when Democratic policy shifted from a party that supported slavery to a party that embraced minorities, civil rights and women’s suffrage. Dems have adopted sweeping social and welfare programs that have changed the landscape of American politics and altered the role of government in the life of everyday citizens. It is my opinion that, all the while and in the process, the Dems have destroyed personal initiative and especially personal responsibility among the targeted citizenry. Take a look at other “demo-ruled” cities and you’ll see the same thing. It’s the closest social, economic and political statement that describes “communism” without using the C word.I suppose only time will tell whether the recipients of this benefaction will learn to recognize the difference between a hawk and a handshake.
Curious if 60 percent of ur poll responders also think the constitution should altered to only allow one term a presidents since they campaign while in office?
Good point!