By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 11:45 AM
The Police Board voted this morning to lift the residency requirement for civilian employees who have been with the department for seven continuous years. Labels: Mayor, Police, Video_Reports
Mayor Francis Slay had made a motion to table the vote until after the Nov. 7 non-binding referendum in which voters would let their preference be known in the matter, but the mayor's motion was not seconded by any other board member.
Video later...
UPDATE: Here are some clips from today's meeting. BTW, the final vote was 3-2 with Slay and JoAnn Freeman Murrow voting against -- though interestingly, Murrow did not second Slay's motion to table the vote.
13 Comments:
How did the vote break down?
9/20/2006 12:19 PM
Look for the police officer residency requirement to be removed soon. I wouldn't put anything pass Jefferson City. It is time the residents of St. Louis take action and regain control of their police. This is completely abhorrent. Police power should be controlled by the jurisdiction which it serves. In the words of Terry Kennedy, without local control we are being occupied.
9/20/2006 12:35 PM
Doug,
The police residency has already been addressed. They also have a 7 year requirement.
Hunter = Yes
Quinn = Yes
Goodson = Yes
Freeman-Morrow =No
Slay = No
9/20/2006 1:42 PM
Michael, the vote was 3-2 with Slay and JoAnn Freeman Murrow voting against.
9/20/2006 1:44 PM
Anon, yes I know this yet couldn't this be overturned? Can't the police board overrule its past decisions?
9/20/2006 1:46 PM
why didnt my last comment post? antonio???
9/20/2006 2:34 PM
Why should the city of St. Louis, the Mayor, the Comptroller, and the Board of Aldermen vote to give taxpayer subsidies to Goodson's projects in the city of St. Louis, if Goodson is going to thumb his nose at city elected officials and city voters?
9/21/2006 7:31 AM
If we're going to force everyone who works in the city to live there it's going to get out of control. I mean, it's an artificial line really between the city and county. Not to mention the lack of affordable housing. Police need to be able to get to a crisis quickly. Teachers do not (I am not a teacher or related to one, so I'm not personally biased about this).
Wonder if they figure the low voter turnout in city elections means that waiting for a vote on the issue is a waste of time? Everyone start exercising your hard-won right to vote, and then the results might start meaning something to people!
9/21/2006 1:23 PM
"If we're going to force everyone who works in the city to live there it's going to get out of control."
Not IN the city, but FOR the city. It is not unreasonable to demand people who draw a public paycheck to live in the city they serve.
Aren't elected officials supposed to live in the places they represent? Don't City Hall employees live in St. Louis? The firefighters? Board of Elections workers?
This rule was in effect when every one of these police department employees applied for their jobs.
9/21/2006 1:40 PM
Having made a smooth transition in voting machines and tallying the results early, Ed Martin is the most qualified person to run the Board of Elections. But now, Martin is moving to Jefferson City to work for Governor Blunt. If you take the SLPOA's argument that residency requirements restrict the labor pool, shouldn't we lift the residency requirement on our Board of Elections employees, if not the governing Board itself?
I find it funny that one board (SLMPD) appointed by the Guv is allowed to lift residency while another (BOE) isn't? Where will it end? Will the Police Board members themselves be exempted from residency requirement? We could always use more qualified members than those currently on our Police Board. Heck, if these City resident appointees are already ignoring the wishes of City voters, non-City residents may not be any more unresponsive.
9/21/2006 2:35 PM
I do not think teachers are required to live in the city!!!!
9/21/2006 3:12 PM
Yeah, I think it can get unreasonable to demand that people live in the city in which they are employed. I'd like examples of other local areas where this is an issue. County employees can live whereever they want.
9/22/2006 5:05 PM
Brian and Anon, we already can't find enough teachers. If we require city residence, we will be out of compliance with No Child Left Behind's requirement that all teachers be "highly qualified" by 2006. Oops! We are already out of compliance, even with the allowance that non-residents can teach in the city. What do you propose we do now?
9/23/2006 11:25 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home