Go back to homepageWatch PubDef VideosAdvertise on PubDef.netA D French & Associates LLCContact Us
 

Watch PubDef.TV


"Best Blogger"
St. Louis Magazine

Featured on
Meet the Press and Fox News

Watch our Meet the Press moment

"One of the Most
Influential People
in Local Media."

STL Business Journal


SUPPORT PUBDEF.NET

Your $7.00 monthly contribution will go a long way to helping us expand the coverage and services you enjoy.


GET THE LATEST PUBDEF NEWS 24/7:

Name:
E-mail:




ABOUT PUB DEF

PUB DEF is a non-partisan, independent political blog based in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Our goal is to cast a critical eye on lawmakers, their policies, and those that have influence upon them, and to educate our readers about legislation and the political processes that affect our daily lives.

CONTACT US

Do you have a press release, news tip or rumor to share?

editor@pubdef.net
Fax (314) 367-3429
Call (314) 779-9958

Tips are always 100% Confidential


Subscribe to our RSS feed

Creative Commons License


 

 

 

 

 

POLICE BOARD TO VOTE ON CIVILIAN RESIDENCY -- BEFORE VOTERS GET TO

By Antonio D. French

Filed Monday, September 18, 2006 at 11:15 AM

On November 7, city voters are scheduled to vote on a non-binding referendum that would again let their feeling be known about the police department's residency requirement. But it appears the state-controlled police board won't be waiting to hear what voters have to say.

St. Louis Police Board President Chris Goodson has scheduled a vote this week on lifting the requirement for civilian employees to live in the City of St. Louis. The vote will be Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. at the department's headquarters, 1200 Clark Avenue.

We have requested comments from Goodson and board member Mayor Francis Slay, who told PUB DEF last month that he hoped the police board would wait until after the citizens were allowed to vote in November.

Slay said that referendum vote would be a "more accurate representation of what the people of St. Louis want" than the series of public meetings held by the board over the past few months.

Developing...

Labels: ,

Link to this story


5 Comments:

Blogger Doug Duckworth said...

It’s nice to see that St. Louis residents really do not have control over their police department. This is a slap in the face to democracy and community policing. It is undeniable at this point that reform must take place. It is completely unfair that an alien board is able to usurp the needs of St. Louis residents. It is only fair that St. Louis have local control over its police department. This is a practice that many other municipalities across the State and Nation have and only due Civil War policies do we have our current system. I think it’s about time we made the police under the control of the City and its residents. The foremost stakeholder is being neglected.

9/18/2006 12:35 PM

 
Blogger Travis Reems said...

Regardless of where one falls on the issue of residency, either for the Police officers or their civilian bretheren, this pre-emptive vote is another prime example of why the residents of the City of St. Louis need greater controls over the Board of Police Commissioners. As it stands, the Police Commissioners do not answer to the residents of the City, and as such do not serve the will of the people.

9/18/2006 7:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many Democratic Governors and Democratic lead Senates and Houses passed on this? This has been since the Civil War. Some one out there thinks that this is still a good deal. If it is not a good deal, then who is to blame for being asleep at the wheel. Please don't blame Republicans. They don't give a rats rear end about us.

9/18/2006 9:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Travis, if the Police Board was not appointed by the Governor but rather by the Mayor, do you think the Commissioners would then "answer to the residents of the City" or would they merely answer to the politicans responsible for their appointment?

Are those fostering "city control" of the Police Department really concerned with accountability to the residents, or with accountability to local politicans? I have to think it's the latter--especially since the Mayor, who failed to obtain majority support of the city school board, is now publicly calling for STATE control of that board!

It's interesting the "city control" argument was recently used when the Mayor tried to gain appointive powers over the "county" offices of the City, e.g., the Recorder of Deeds, License Collector, Sheriff, etc. It was funny because these positions ARE answerable to the residents who can vote them out if they choose.

I'm for continued state control of the Police Department. I don't recall any reports, let alone scandals, resulting from political interference by state politicans (Democrat or Republican) in past decades.

9/18/2006 11:11 PM

 
Blogger Travis Reems said...

Anonymous:

Having the Mayor appoint the Board of Police Commissioners is only one option to exert resident control over our Police Board. You will note that I did not propose any specific option in my previous comments. But it is clear that the current system does not create an environment where the Police Commissioners answer to the residents of the City, and thereby serve the will of the people. So, we need to seriously investigate all the options to place control of the Police Board in the hands of the residents of the City.

9/19/2006 11:25 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

The 23rd Annual Wine and Roses Ball

The 23rd Annual Wine and Roses Ball

PubDef.net is looking for cameramen.



The Royale Foods & Spirits

Visit the PUB DEF Store



Advertise on Pub Def

 

 

 

Google
 
Web www.pubdef.net