By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, February 12, 2007 at 5:42 PM
State Senator Maida Coleman and State Representative Robin Wright-Jones have introduced legislation that would return control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to the people of the City of St. Louis, ending nearly 150 years of state control. Labels: Police, State_House, State_Senate
"We think the local representative democracy, the Board of Alderman, should decide how the police department should be managed," said Coleman in a press release today. "St. Louis would be one of the last cities to return to local control of the police department of the cities where the state took control of the police during the Civil War era."
During the early days of the Civil War, the State of Missouri, like many other states, took control of its major city's police department. By the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, local control of police departments returned to most cities like Baltimore, Atlanta, and others, but the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department remains governed by a board appointed by the Governor to this day, just as when the state took control in 1861.
Senate Bill 486, proposed by Coleman and Wright-Jones, gives authority to create a police department to the St. Louis Board of Alderman. It would be up to the Board of Alderman to decide how the police department is managed. The legislation also preserves the salary and rank structure of the current police department to ensure a smooth transition.
"There is no reason why people from Joplin to St. Joseph have a say in how we run our police department," said Wright-Jones.
28 Comments:
I just want to say to Senator Maida Coleman and State Representative Robin Wright-Jones that this bill is right on time and I hope that is passes. We need local control of the St. Louis Police Department and we need it right away.
For right now as you two already know, we need powerful lobbying of all rural elected officials to get this bill passed. Hopefully, the immediate St. Louis region State Representatives and Senators can come together for this bill.
The relationships between the police and some local elected officials are becoming tense, and hopefully with accountability through this bill being transferred from the State of Missouri to local elected officials that will change.
We need to ease the tension between the police officers, citizens, and elected officials in the City of St. Louis and work together for the betterment of our communities.
By the way, the forum held at Northwest Middle School this past weekend was an excellent start to beginning that change, Kudos to State Representative Connie Johnson, former Alderwoman Irene J. Smith (moderator), Principal Valerie Carter-Thomas, the St. Louis Police Department/Commissioner, other elected officials, and the powerful 500+ citizens that turned out to voice their concerns. The forum allowed good dialogue.
"We must be the change we want to see."
Peace & Love,
Joe Palm
2/12/2007 8:05 PM
I think your right Joe in that the City as a whole needs to ease tension between the police and the citizens. All too often we hear charges of racism and excessive cruelty and then on the other side we hear about soft sentences, futility in arrests, citizens don't care.
Just in my neighborhood, we've had a recent heated chat about when and when not to call 911 and how the police catagorize the calls.
Local control (with accountablity and citizen input) will go a long way to easing those tensions
2/12/2007 9:13 PM
It should be noted that Kansas City at one point DID return the Police Department to local control. It didn't take long for the citizens to vote to return it to the present system...i.e., a board of local citizens appointed by the Governor.
2/12/2007 9:46 PM
State Legislatures are biased against Cities and have been for many decades. Historically, Thomas Jefferson proposed an agrarian society without Cities as he saw them as the source of Europe's corruption. Henry Ford once said in order to solve City problems one should leave the City. During the Great Depression most States provided little to no aid for Cities. Carter abandoned urban programs and then Reagan said people should vote with their feet. Matt Blunt said Democrats only live where no one wants to. Clearly there is a precedent against Cities and this is an extremely general summary.
Decline partially stimulated through policy has occured, yet the core problems remain even though they are far from the agenda of many. Individuals sit in their exclusionary outer ring suburbs watching the news content that their de jure and physically gated communities are far from blight. This is the reality of our situation.
What we need is community control over our urban problems without the interference of rural interests. Local control over the police department is much overdue. We need to maintain control over the school system for the same reasons. Regionally much more cooperation and consolidation should occur, however the police and the schools must remain in direct control of the local stakeholders. For our Cities to have any change, it must be from the bottom up as urban problems clearly are no longer on the national agenda.
We have common interests with our inner ring suburbs, yet I do not believe that rural Missouri and the affluent suburbs will support local control anytime soon. This simply is not in their interest as the success of the City of St. Louis only decreases their power in the Legislature. I commend Senator Coleman and Representative Robin Wright-Jones, however this will be quite the political battle. Clearly many coalitions must join for this to be successful.
I cannot wait to see what the G. Man has to say about this.
2/12/2007 10:50 PM
Placing control of the Police Department in the Board of Aldermen is a ridiculous notion that will have the inevitable result of introducing even MORE racial polarization and politics to an already volatile situation. Aldermen will play games with "their" police officers the same way they do with block grant money, dumpsters, eminent domain, and everything else they touch. Where are the proponents of "charter reform" who criticized the Board over its dysfunctional parochialization of EVERY local issue? If you think Aldermen see themselves as demi-gods of their wards now, just wait until they get an armed contingent of "enforcers" under their command.
2/13/2007 5:46 AM
If you feel that way about an Alderman then vote them out of office.
2/13/2007 7:13 AM
Usually I'm all for local control but in this situation it is unwise and rather frightening. The people of StL has proven year after year that they are incapapble of electing anything but the same old liberal leaders lacking in common sense and judgement. The SLPS is just one example of many.
Amazingly many continue to wonder why so many fled and blame their problems on others' attitudes. One characteristic that is abundant in StL region is the willingnes to blame "others" (whether it be other leaders or the weather) instead of accepting responsibility. These attitudes continue to compound existing problems, leading to greater instability, which become a never-ending loop.
People worldwide continue to swell the population of cities as they offer jobs and attractive lifestyles. Until StL can create an economic climate which fosters job growth, the electorate will not change significantly enough to break the burdens of the loop.
Democracy only works when the public is properly educated and fully informed. Neither condition is evident in StL ...shameful but true. Major reform is needed but how can you educate people who refuse to acknowledge the truth?
2/13/2007 7:44 AM
^ What does any of the above commentary have to do with returning control of the SLPD back over to the City of St. Louis? Please try to be relevant.
2/13/2007 8:14 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
2/13/2007 8:20 AM
Instead of turning away local control of the Police Department, why don't you yourself run for the Board of Aldermen? If you are tired of the feudal lords along with accompanying sycophants, then fight.
Like any other ordinance this would require the signature of the Mayor, assuming it gets out of the State Legislature. Section 84.010, if I am correct, is repealed thus this Bill does not specify the exact structure of the new proposed Police Department. Rather than have the Board of Aldermen control the Police Board, this authority should be placed in Room 200. Maintaining order should be the responsibility of the Mayor not a politically divided board in which accountability is blurred. This, of course, would require Slay to lobby for mayoral control first in the State Legislature and in the BOA. Given he vetoed Board Bill 69, I wonder how this will play out, especially with the Black Caucus. Things are getting interesting for 2009.
2/13/2007 9:17 AM
To those advocating placing the control of the Police Department under the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor:
Be careful what you ask for!
2/13/2007 10:59 AM
The rumor on Coptalk is that Southside Rep's Daus and Villa will work behind the scenes to kill Wright-Jones's bill.
2/13/2007 1:42 PM
Any city legislator in the pocket of the police department is a SELL-OUT!
2/13/2007 1:45 PM
Hey Antonio, why does your pal Reed advertise on Coptalk? Is Lewis hiding his stance against residency requirements and/or local control for our police?
http://members.boardhost.com/stlouiscoptalk/
2/13/2007 2:01 PM
The fact that the SLPOA has chosen not to endorse the incumbant when they have a "friendly incumbant" rule speaks volumes. So, now not only is there a vote of no confidence among the Aldermen for their current President, but obviously among the city employees: police, fire and retirees. Are there any other meaningful endorsements that Shrewsbury could possibly lose as the incumbant with 20+ years as a career politician?!?!?
2/13/2007 2:23 PM
You should see the number of Lewis Reed signs around St. Raphael parish. They are all over the place. There must be ten Lewis Reed signs to every one Jim Shrewsbury sign.
I saw one sign in front of the home of a veteran member of the Fire Department.
Are most of the Lewis Reed signs in Southwest City in front of the homes of firemen and policemen, while most of the Jim Shrewsbury signs are in front of the homes of little old ladies?
Who is Jim's base?
2/13/2007 2:33 PM
Reed seems to have a pretty good contingent of "little old ladies" in his corner. So, I too wonder who Jim's base is.
2/13/2007 3:54 PM
So is Lewis a sellout or Jim an incompetent?
2/13/2007 5:01 PM
A possible/probable base for Jim might be the 6th ward...where Reed was well (un)known to voters. Before he decided to run for prez of the board of aldermen, he only answered the phone or his mail if it was a developer calling or writing.
2/13/2007 5:08 PM
Alderman Reed is not only well known in his community, but well respected and liked by community leaders who are all supporting his campaign. The 6th ward is a sea of blue and yellow Lewis Reed signs. And, whenever I have called Lewis' office, I either get him or his staff, which he has to pay for himself because Alderman Shrewsbury hords all the Aldermanic staff and doesn't give the Aldermen but one secretary per five Aldermen! And, when I talk to the Alderman's staff, I always get a call back from Alderman Reed quickly.
2/13/2007 6:51 PM
SINCE WHEN DO YARD SIGNS VOTE AND IF SO HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THEY ARE A DEVELOPE,REFORMER, OR JUST A CONCERNED CITIZEN?
2/13/2007 9:39 PM
It is nice to see that The Governor is in his office and working at 7:44 AM a full 16 minutes before he clocks in for the work day.
Anonymous-
2/13/2007 7:44 AM
Doug, do not miss your chance to ask these fine people why they are not in favor of local control of the police department. I have never seen so many not in favor of local control of the police.
While I agree that our Alderpeople could not legislate themselves out of a moist paper bag. I cannot find that as a reason to oppose local control. For that reason to be valid, you would have to be accusing them of malice instead of just incompetence. Are you?
As far as the signs voting in elections...do you think that it is a coincedence that they are always hanging out at the polling places? HMMMMM....
2/14/2007 2:49 PM
To Doug and Joseph Palm,
You seem to be misinformed about the real issues that face the City and the Police Department. There is mention of relationships between the police and elected officials being tense. I would like to tell you that if this bill passes those relationships will be destroyed and you will be looking at a defeated Police Department. You will see moral at an all-time low. The reason that we are seeing a rise in the crime rate is the fact that the City cannot keep seasoned officers because of low pay or attract the best candidates because of the same problem. The Police Department is grossly underpaid and undermanned and that is because of City Hall. Now you want to take away the only people who have been essential in keeping the current number of officers on the street, the STATE OF MISSOURI, and place it in the hands of those that have been unable to find enough money to fully fund the Police Department.
A recent study found a growing economy that can absorb pay increases as well as an “uncommon trend” – “total expenditures have grown much faster than safety expenditures since 1991.”
We can ease tension by better training our officers and by hiring better candidates. By placing the Police Department under local control you will see a political struggle and you will see the position of police officer all the way on up to the Chief become a patronage job. I am sorry but I do not want police officers to be a patronage job. That is when you have officers violating rights of individuals both verbally and physically.
It is funny how the Police Department has shrunk to an all-time low while much of City government has stayed the same, i.e. Board of Alderman. This is because politics is involved. If you give control of a crucial element to the City you will get more politics and more in fighting. You will develop 28 different police departments with 28 different strategies and 28 different modes of operation with one main theme - 28 FAILURES. We do not have to look far at what the City has produced when it has tried to become intimately involved in the operation of a Board. The City schools are a shamble because of this Mayor and this City government. The Mayor lobbied on behalf of individuals who later became arguably the worst Board members in the history of the school board and then supported a move to a private entity to oversee the operations which only cost the school district a few million and left it in worse shape than it started. You now want to give more control to this Mayor and to this government.
I have more faith in the State of Missouri as a whole deciding on the structure of the Police Department rather than 28 INDIVIDUALS.
2/14/2007 6:51 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
2/14/2007 8:56 PM
If you have more faith in a group of rural and suburbanites, who washed their hands of our urban problems long ago, then I fear for the future of our City.
The reason we have crime is due to the exodus out of our City.
If we had a higher tax yield then the police could be paid at a higher rate. Since we have a surplus of urban poor and City owned slum properties, well that acts as a barrier! We can't tax government property and the have nots tend to require more services, while paying less than the haves.
Our City, like many across this Country, have higher poverty and crime rates while the affluent are isolated in their fortress communities without any concern for our problems. Their entertainment is the sensational anti-City media who prey on our misfortune. This is why they shouldn't be running our Police Department.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. They left the City, don't pay taxes, therefore shouldn't be determining how our services are delivered!
2/14/2007 9:02 PM
Doug,
You must be a Mayor Slay supporter. This is something that sounds like what he or what Jeff Rainford, his aide, would say. The reason that we don't have the tax base to increase and better city services is because we tax abate anything and everything. Just look at the recent Busch Stadium deal or the Ballpark Village deal or the chance to bring in 3.8 million dollars a year to support our parks that we lost. There goes another couple hundred million a year down the drain not counting all the development tax abatements on rehabs, new buildings or just about anything else in the City.
The reason that we don't have a tax base is because of the ultra liberal government structure that we have. Yes I do believe that people outside this City can run it better than the current elected representatives and they reflect better on our City than many alderman. Would you rather have a well educated well respected state representative or an alderman that urinates in a basket or an alderman that supports public flogging in our new stadium? I will take the one that is respected in the community and not laughed at.
2/15/2007 6:30 AM
Ultra Liberal? The practice of issuing subsidy occurs in many Cities across the US, as well as many municipalities in St. Louis County, which I would consider ultra conservative. This is not a partisan decision, its about finding some solution to our depopulation. They believe that by subsidizing various construction projects, suddenly many suburbanites or out of town business, will relocate to the City. Obviously there is evidence for and against this practice.
Given our crime disparity pointed out by Mr. Antonio French, which seems to correlate with African American residency, I believe that local control is a possible solution. They, being our African American brothers, need a stronger voice in policing. They are the majority in our City.
Atlanta's first African American Mayor, Maynard Jackson, increased African American representation within the Police Department and incidents of brutality fell. In effect, confidence in the Police rose. I believe local control, thereby giving community stakeholders more say in the policing process, may have the same positive outcome. Clearly rural control is not doing the job.
2/15/2007 10:00 AM
2/15/2007 6:30 AM -
"You must be a Mayor Slay supporter." is the same thing as saying that "I don't agree with you. I just don't know why I disagree with you" Come on! Ultra Liberals would have given everything to Larry Rice instead of the Cardinals. Rent a set and come up with a valid argument as to why Doug is wrong. (other than he quotes text books too much and his Jeffersonian ideal is a little naive) Truth be told, you don't like someone telling you where to live and You are tired of all of your hard work being undone by the system letting offenders off. Well, you signed up for the system and nobody said it would be easy.
2/16/2007 1:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home