By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, November 27, 2006 at 10:07 AM
READ IT HERE FIRST Labels: Alderman_Races, Exclusive
The city's only Republican alderman got an unexpected challenger this morning, former St. Louis City police officer Matt Browning.
Browning, who lost his legs in October 2004 after being pinned between two cars on a routine traffic stop, filed to run against 12th Ward Alderman Fred Heitert this morning in the March 2007 Republican primary.
Check back later for video...
UPDATE: Here's that video we promised. In it, Browning says one of the reasons he decided to run was the terrible state of many of his ward's sidewalks. He said they make it hard -- even dangerous -- for pedestrians, especially wheelchair-bound residents such as him, to move around the ward.
Heitert, the city's longest-serving alderman, filed shortly after Browning. He told KWMU's Tom Weber this morning that he'd like four more years representing the 12th Ward in City Hall.
"I enjoy serving the people in the 12th ward and I just want to continue," he told Weber. "They've had me for 28 years - I feel I've served my people well. I wish Matt the best."
19 Comments:
On the chance of Browning winning, some Dems should file too.
11/27/2006 10:36 AM
Maybe Matt should wait for Fred to hand it over to him...Fred has done a great job over the years and continues to do so, I am sure this will be the last run for Heitert.
11/27/2006 10:42 AM
Public office is not something to be passed down whenever the incumbent determines they are ready. That is so un-democratic. If Mr. Browning feels this is his time to become more involved as a citizen then nobody should tell him to wait. Let the voters determine, not Mr. Heitert, whom they want to represent the at City Hall.
11/27/2006 11:30 AM
Did Heitert file today? If not, perhaps Matt filed with Heitert's blessing.
The first anonymous may underestimate the voter appeal of the sympathetic, articulate disabled cop in a ward where lots of cops live. The 12th turned Democrat more than a decade ago (Talent got less than 37% there earlier this month), and there are only two kinds of Republican candidates who can hold it: a revered incumbent and a hero with celebrity status. Fred has kept the seat by being the first, and Matt certainly fills the bill as the second.
11/27/2006 1:18 PM
Also, the general election's dynamics will likely bring out conservative voters in the 12th. The School Board election will be for seats of one or both remaining members of the mayor's slate, and backlash over the actions of the new majority (who will be perceived as responsible for Veronica O'Brien no matter how much they try to distance themselves from her) will bring out the conservatives.
11/27/2006 1:24 PM
competition is good for democracy.
11/27/2006 1:24 PM
Fred Heitert has been a great alderman for our area of the city. Voters in this ward are lucky to have a man with a proven record of putting people before politics. I wish Mr. Browning nothing but the best, but it would not be in our best interest to replace Alderman Heitert at this point.
11/27/2006 4:11 PM
I don't want to be a sour-sport, but running on one issue, sidewalks, is not the best platform.
One issue candidates do not last long if they don't meet their goals or if they fix the problem and have no other issues on their agenda.
I wish him the best and I hope he elaborates further.
11/27/2006 5:08 PM
Doug, he said one issue was sidewalks, not his only issue was sidewalks.
11/27/2006 5:26 PM
Yes and I look forward to hearing what else is on his agenda.
Ask him how he feels about local control and the police residency requirement.
11/27/2006 5:29 PM
If anyone would like to ask questions about my stance on the various issues concerning the City of St. Louis I would be more than happy to discuss them. I have followed this blog for quite sometime and I would appreciate any insight or criticism that the posters here might offer.
11/27/2006 5:38 PM
Thanks for the response!
I wonder if any other candidates will be posting.
Ok, what is your stance on the police residency and local control of the police department?
SLPS?
Urban Planning?
Transit?
11/27/2006 8:13 PM
Hmmm. An unusual Republican primary in a ward where Shrewsbury is expected to run strong in the Democratic Primary and where there are usually lots of Republican crossovers. For more speculation:
http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2006/11/brownings-filing-could-affect-contest.html
11/27/2006 9:35 PM
Oracle:
Once again, you've made an in-depth analysis of the political scene; however, some of your supposition is off-base because your supporting facts are not correct. First, Richard Callow is in the employ of neither Lewis Reed nor the campaign. But more importantly, the conspiracy theory that the campaign would endorse, support or encourage candidates in other races for the sole purpose of affecting the President's race is a complete fabrication.
11/28/2006 8:51 AM
Travis,
What about Ribaudo is a previous race, for Mayor I believe? He was a stalking horse that helped Bosley into office.
Back to Browning, I too would like to hear his position on local control of the police department.
Browning was interviewed on the radio where he said that the police don't think City Hall "has their back".
Well, think about, the police don't answer to city hall, do they?
I'm less interested in the impact a Browning candidacy might have on the Board Prez race, than the opportunity it presents to air issues related to the police department in an aldermanic race.
Also, isn't it interesting that Browning is a republican, the repubs in Jeff City led the way to end city residency for police officers, and it's the city cops in general who oppose local control of the St. Louis police department? I bet most cops, especially the white southside ones, are republican.
Listen to city cops talk about city government, and most of what you hear is flat out negative hostility directed at the entire institution.
Then Browning quips, "cops don't think City Hall has their back".
This will be classic.
11/28/2006 9:36 AM
City hall does not have their back.
I agree.
City hall, as stated, does not have control, therefore how can they represent the interests of either the Police or the Citizens?
It cannot.
11/28/2006 1:49 PM
Wow, thank you for taking it easy on me!
I suppose I should field the obvious question first. I am against residency requirements but I find the current rule (optional after 7 years) a fair compromise of both sides of the argument. As a retired police officer that was subject to residency requirements, there are many reasons why I take this stance. One reason, tying into your question about the public schools, is the state of the SLPS. Many of the officers that I worked with maintained secondary employment for the sole purpose of putting their children through private schools because of this. To require officers working for the SLMPD to reside in the city places an additional burden upon them when you consider that the same city is unable to provide the single most important service expected of it (education). Secondly there are special circumstances that exist in requiring a police officer to live in the same area that he patrols. Officers do, on occasion, encounter individuals that they have arrested while off duty. I am not sure that someone who has not experienced this would understand, but that is an additional self imposed stressor that I personally feel is unreasonable to force upon someone. Finally, I believe that the SLMPD would be better able to find qualified, dedicated, and quality officers if no such restriction existed, and those that it did attract would be less apt to leave.
My current opinion on home rule is tied to the above explanation. St. Louis is the only city that I am aware of that has a residency rule, and those in power seem to favor this rule. Should the city be given control over the police department I fear that one of their first actions would be to rescind the more flexible requirements in favor of residency. Another factor is the fact that the city of St. Louis is behind on its obligations to the Police Retirement System to the tune of several million dollars. Why would anyone within the police department feel comfortable with City control given our recent battles with City Hall to recover what is owed to the Officers? All in all I feel that the City of St. Louis and the SLMPD are better served, at least at this point, under the current system that governs the SLMPD. The current “separation of city and state” that covers the SLMPD prevents local politics, at least to a degree, from interfering with the functions of the police department in a way that I personally feel is beneficial to the citizenry. (I felt the need to explain the above positions, please forgive me for being wordy).
As for the SLPS, which in all honesty is, at least in my opinion the single greatest obstacle that the city currently faces, I am completely open to ideas. The city has tried several times in recent years to “shake things up” and has met with little observable success. Assistance from the state may be a good move, but I do not feel that it is a solution. The SLPS should remain under local control, but it should take advantage of any and all help afforded it by the state. Sometimes an outside perspective can be invaluable. That being said, education should be the #1 priority in the city. A better educated citizenry would go a long way toward combating other problems faced by the city such as poverty and crime.
I hate to sound like a politician and speak at length without giving an actual answer, but the fact is there are so many different aspects to this problem, I can think of no straight forward solution. An outside evaluation that is considered thoroughly, and without bias, and restructuring that relies upon the input of the teachers would be a step in the right direction. Input from those that are actually teaching the classes would be paramount. Who better to evaluate the shortcomings of the system than those who are on the front line, so to speak?
As for Urban Planning and Mass Transit, both are issues that I have no experience with and as such would be uncomfortable taking a stance on. I will get back to you on these issues once I have spoken with others more knowledgeable than myself and I have established an informed opinion.
In response to anonymous,
You are correct that most police officers, at least in my experience, are republican. I would also like to point out that this political affiliation is not contingent upon race. Most police officers regardless of race and geographic location are conservative.
In regards to the perception that City Hall is not behind the police department I can give several examples.
The second civilian review board, I refer to it as “second” because decisions about misconduct fall on the Board of Police Commissioners, all of whom are appointed civilians residing here in St. Louis. Why does the Department require 2 levels of civilian oversight?
Residency, does anyone else know of a police department that has such a requirement? As mentioned above police officers fall in to a unique category when it comes to such issues. The general response of a citizen to the question, should police officers be required to live in the city is “yes, it makes me feel safer”. As a police officer I had a “duty to act” when I encountered a situation that required police service on or off duty. Given the pay of the average city police officer, is it fair to force them to reside in the city so that they can police their neighbors 24/7?
Pay. Look at the pay disparity between St. Louis City and St. Louis County. Look at the disparity between St. Louis and most of the surrounding municipalities. The St. Louis Police Department is probably the hardest working law enforcement agency in the State of Missouri, yet they are asked to live where they work, they are paid less than they deserve and they are generally not given the support they require to handle the job they are expected to do. (The above statements apply to the Fire Department as well)
I am an open minded individual and I thoroughly enjoy debating such issues, that being said I welcome any contrary point of views that might be offered. Please feel free to post additional questions and I will attempt to reply as quickly as possible.
11/28/2006 2:05 PM
Wow. I would simply like to say "thankyou" to Matt Browning for making such a detailed, prompt, issue-focused reply.
Matt, best of luck in your campaign. You make many good points, but some I think are worthy of debating.
Regarding the quality of public schools as being unfair to police officers, what about the rest of the city workers, including the fire department?
They all have a residency requirement. Are you advocating for a lifting of residency requirements for all city employees?
That might get you elected in the 12th ward, but I'd be afraid it would turn into a lonely place, what with the number of city employees living in that area!
Personally, I favor residency requirements for all city workers. You collect a paycheck here, it's a condition of employment, the city is a good place-live here with the rest of us!
As far as other cities having residency requirements, there are quite a few. I can't give you a list, but they are many.
Here's a question for you:
What do you think of the (republican controlled) police board lifting the residency requirement for police officers (and civilian employees of the PD too?), against the wishes of 2/3 of city residents?
Do you think city residents are justified in believing that they are the equivalent of second class, disenfranchised citizens in that they do not have local control over their own police department?
And here's one last question for you:
Are there any other home rule cities (of over, say, 100,000 in population) that do *not* have local control over their police department?
The Civil War was almost 150 years ago. It's time for the State of Missouri to return control of the St. Louis Police Department to the City of St. Louis.
11/28/2006 5:21 PM
You certainly do like to ask the pointed questions don’t you? My previous statement in regards to residency focused on the Police Department solely because that is the area of the argument that I have the best understanding, naturally. I am against residency in general, the idea of telling someone where to live as a condition of employment has never set well with me. When I became a police officer this requirement was not an issue for me. I was born and raised in the city and I love it here. In my neighborhood I have 4 grocery stores in walking (wheeling) distance. Where else could I live where everything is in such close proximity? I love the homes in the city, granted they are not as large as the homes that one finds in the outlying areas, but the city and its homes have character, something the outlying areas cannot offer.
I do not believe that the removal of residency would cause a mass exodus of city workers. When residency was lifted for the police department many police officers did move, but a majority of them stayed where they are. This issue has never been about the police wanting to flee the city, this issue has always been about choice.
As for the Board of Police Commissioners that rescinded the residency requirements, that decision was spearheaded not by Republican appointed commissioners, but by one of the remaining Democrat appointees. The issue as decided by the Board was not based on partisan politics, it was based on what those individuals believed was proper and in the best interests of the Police Department. The fact that 2/3 of voters expressed their wish that Officers be required to reside in the City was obviously a hard pill to swallow. In a democratic society, the vox populi should be supreme and if/when the city is given control of the police department, their voice will/should be paramount on this issue.
The hardest question posed, is I suppose the most unavoidable. Home Rule. To my knowledge the SLMPD is the only local Police Department that is governed by the state. The fact is the City of St. Louis should have control over the SLMPD. As stated in my previous post, I understand why the SLMPD prefers to be under state control, and their reasons are quite valid. Even so I can make no argument nor find precedent to support an argument against the City’s desire to control the SLMPD. That isn’t to say that I support home rule, I have serious reservations about the repercussions of City control, I simply cannot defend the position of State governance outside of my personal belief that the SLMPD is better off under the current arrangement.
11/28/2006 10:21 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home