Poll: Thoughts on Local Control of the St. Louis Police?
The controversial idea of returning control of the St. Louis Police to local officials rather than with the state in Jefferson City is again a hot issue. A recent editorial in the St. Louis American got me thinking this would make a good poll question:
Given our determined opposition to the proposed elimination of the city earnings tax and of the state income tax, both promulgated by billionaire ideologue Rex Sinquefield, and the many times we have questioned the leadership and motives of Mayor Francis G. Slay, we can understand why it raises suspicions to see Sinquefield helping to fund the latest effort to put St. Louis city government in control of its own police force, with Slay stumping for it heartily. Sinquefield has ponied up $300,000 to fund a ballot initiative for local police control in St. Louis and Kansas City, and Slay – so often silent when needed – has been very outspoken in favor of passing local control this session.
We certainly agree with critics of Sinquefield and Slay that they may have ulterior, and even sinister, motives for supporting local control, which for years has been a rallying cry for the African-American and progressive communities in St. Louis. Furthermore, we have a long-standing criticism against the form of local control currently provided for in the St. Louis City Charter, which would become the governing document should the state Legislature pass new legislation that ends the current system of administration by a police board appointed by the governor. The City Charter provides for a single police commissioner who reports to the director of Public Safety (a mayoral appointee) and who could be fired by this mayoral appointee – or the governor – “with or without cause.” Plainly, this would make the police commissioner helplessly vulnerable to both city and state politics. (full editorial – recommended!)
State Representative Jamilah Nasheed (D-60) has introduced House Bill 71 which “Allows the City of St. Louis to establish and maintain a municipal police force completely under the city’s authority.” There are no shortage of opinions on this issue, here’s mine.
If I were to organize city government from scratch I would do many things differently. Â Local control of police is logical. Â We don’t live in the Civil War era anymore. Â That said, there are many officers who have risked their lives for years that have earned their pensions, soimething they fear they might lose under local control.
I’m no expert on union contracts & pensions but hopefully those that are experts can find a way to make this happen, it is time.
As always the poll this week is located in the upper right corner of the blog.
– Steve Patterson
Steve, FYI Local control of the Police Department does not affect the pension system which is protected by Federal and State Laws. There are specific clauses in each bill that leaves control of the pension system with the current state board, governed by the officers themselves. The only way for the city to get their hands on that money is for Mayor Slay and Joe Keaveny to actually rob the bank(s) that hold any funds.
The officers I've talked to think differently. I don't know whether their union is giving their members bad info or if your information is incorrect, but the general consensus among the rank and file is that it's power grab by the city, to get their hands on the money in the pension fund. My gut says that you're probably right, and that the union leadership is just more comfortable negotiating with the current board (the “devil” that they know) than they would be with someone else (the “devil” that they don't know), who is more closely tied to the city's budget realities and elected leadership.
Personally, I see little real change from either scenario. The reality is that someone or some small group will appoint the chief, who will serve at the appointing entity's pleasure. Below the chief will be a command staff that is either identical to or little changed from today'[s structure, and protected by civil service regulations. The only difference is the ego and “power” part, as in who's the decider when it comes to vetting and appointing the (next) chief. I'm sure the mayor would like to have exclusive control, but I don't see where the current state board is doing a bad job, given our finite and limited resources.
People would point to crime disparities in North/South St. Louis.
Do you really believe that a lack of resources is why there are high-crime areas in the city?! Crime happens because there are criminals, opportunities and victims. Police resources are always concentrated where crime patterns become evident. No chief in their right mind would concentrate resources where they're not needed!
A much bigger predictor of crime is poverty, followed by societal and social issues like a lack of respect for the law, single-parent households and educational non-achievement. Plus the other half of the equation is the prosecution side (courts and jails), where limited resources there result in too much “catch and release” by the police . . .