By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, September 05, 2007 at 6:00 AM
A recap of Mayor Francis Slay's week...
On Friday, Francis jabbed the American for "bad reporting".
Then Francis said he'll support Police Chief Joe Mokwa even if his officers won't.
And yesterday, Francis said Fire Chief Sherman George better get busy with those promotions, or else.
Oh, and let's not forget last week when he blindsided National Park Service officials with a request for local control of the Arch grounds.
Priorities, priorities.
How about local control of our police department first? After all, that is where about a third of our city's annual budget goes. But then, why should city folks have any say over how one out of every three of our dollars is spent?
Perhaps Mayor Slay could be calling for local control of our schools — even mayoral control. No, wait. That's right, he was the one pushing for the state's Republican governor to take control of our $450 million-per-year school system.
Well, it's not like crime or schools have anything to do with the quality of life here in the city — at least not like the Arch grounds anyway!
As a matter of fact, we're so out of practice with controlling our own destinies around here, if the U.S. government did give up control of the Arch grounds, they should probably just turn it over to the State of Missouri.
At least that'll keep Hizzoner from building a parking garage or a Walgreens on it.
20 Comments:
True, the Governor appoints the Police Board; but the Department's budget must be approved by both the Board of Aldermen and the Board of E&A.
9/05/2007 1:13 AM
This is one of those moments when Slay and PubDef agree. Slay has supported both mayoral control of the public school district and local control of the police department.
Neither, though, seems likely.
9/05/2007 6:57 AM
Funny, I don't recall ever seeing Mayor Slay lobbying the halls of the State Capitol for either of those things — like he did for the new Cardinals Ballpark.
9/05/2007 7:29 AM
And to Anonymous #1, please don't patronize. Approving the budget is not control.
Control is when an elected and accountable public official (I'd support the mayor having this power) is able to fire the police chief after crime rises 20% or his department gets caught deliberately underreporting the number of rapes.
9/05/2007 7:35 AM
I think we should tear down the Old Courthouse to build a parking garage even bigger than the one where the Century Building used to be! We can do it, Francis!!!!!!!
9/05/2007 7:48 AM
this blog is turning into a one sided, mis-information joke, worse than the post-dispatch, i'm outta here.....i'm going to read a REAL blog, urban review!!
9/05/2007 7:51 AM
LOL. "Steve Patterson: Fair and Balanced."
9/05/2007 8:38 AM
Mr. French have you ever been to Jefferson City? Do you have any knowledge of politics or government? Well, besides being a "journalist" while receiving $15K from a certain campaign. Seriously, you seem to be very one sided and misinformed on a regular basis. You seem to do more harm than good to the people of St. Louis City. You should worry more about helping the City than in pumping up your own ego.
9/05/2007 9:14 AM
What is Lizz Brown's role in northside real estate development?
She was shown lots of deference at the meeting about the McKee project.
Other than City Channel 10 and some bloggers, was Lizz Brown the only member of the media in attendance at that event?
9/05/2007 10:09 AM
Anony 1, the only say the Board of Aldermen or the Board of E&A have over the police department is whether to fund it or not.
WHAT ELECTED OFFICIAL WOULD EVER SUPPORT NOT FUNDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?
I agree with Antonio. The real control is in oversight and hiring and firing the chief.
MOKWA MUST GO!
NO CONFIDENCE!
NO CONFIDENCE!
NO CONFIDENCE!
9/05/2007 10:12 AM
The original post strongly implied that with local control "city folks [would have a] say over how one out of every three of our dollars is spent."
I simply pointed out there exists local control over the purse strings.
Antonio, if you believe local control is desired in order to give the Mayor more power, i.e. the ability to fire the Police Chief, then I'm really confused because your post seems to criticize the Mayor for, among other things, supporting the Chief.
Anony #1
9/05/2007 10:30 AM
^ Anony, I support local control — of the police department, of the schools, and even of the riverfront Arch grounds.
I would support the Office of the Mayor being responsible for hiring and firing the police chief and even the superintendent of schools. Under that system, the buck stops with one person who is able to be elected, voted out of office, or even recalled early.
Under the current systems, the people of the City of St. Louis — unlike all of our neighboring cities and counties — have no one to hold accountable when our police department fails us or when our schools fail us.
I personally think it is an indictment of Mayor Francis Slay's leadership to not publicly and repeatedly demand control of both. Instead, he seems resigned to the fact that, collectively, nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money is spent every year in the City of St. Louis on police and education without much input from any St. Louis elected official or the voters.
I would have liked to see the mayor lobby as hard for those two things — which would have huge impacts for decades to come — as he has for things that, frankly, are of lesser consequence.
But that's just my opinion. It's still okay for a man to express his opinion on his own blog, right?
9/05/2007 1:48 PM
Antonio, you can certainly express your opinion on your blog. It's a great blog. I check it at least once daily. In some instances, you and I are totally in accord; in some, we're not. In any event, I enjoy reading not only your point of view, but the comments of others as well. I didn't mean to be patronizing, and if I sounded that way, I apologize.
-Anony 1
9/05/2007 2:12 PM
Does some of this work as a huge
distraction from funding the pensions of Firefighters and Police Officers? I know the mayor
really supports public employees
way deep, deep, deep, down in his heart.
9/05/2007 3:42 PM
RE "[Slay] was the one pushing for the state's Republican governor to take control of our $450 million-per-year school system."
The governor did not, and could not, take control of the school district. The takeover was the action of the state board of education, a majority of whose members were appointed by Blunt's Democrat predecessors. And, as correctly pointed out on this blog, the legal status of one of Blunt's few appointees (former Democratic state rep Derio Gambaro) is in dispute. The 3-member appointed board consists of one Blunt appointee (Sullivan, whose status is in question), and two appointees of elected Democrat city officials.
9/05/2007 5:07 PM
alleluia, Antonio. Finally someone (who people listen to) says it:
Under the current systems, the people of the City of St. Louis — unlike all of our neighboring cities and counties — have no one to hold accountable when our police department fails us or when our schools fail us.
I personally think it is an indictment of Mayor Francis Slay's leadership to not publicly and repeatedly demand control of both
The Arch grounds thing--the Danforth Report--is the final stroke for me. Slay justified the BJC lease and handing the maintenance of the Soldier's Memorial over to the Feds because the City is too poor to maintain its parks. And now he's suggesting we tap the public pockets to support more public land? How is that logical?
9/05/2007 8:01 PM
Instead, [Mayor Slay] seems resigned to the fact that, collectively, nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money is spent every year in the City of St. Louis on police and education without much input from any St. Louis elected official or the voters.
Hmmmmm.
I seem to remember a series of public meetings discussing changes to the City Charter. This campaign culminated in a series of ballot proposals that (if I recall correctly) would have moved us to more of a "strong mayor" sort of system. But it was (quite democratically) voted down.
Maybe we should have a state takeover of the whole of city government like they had across the river in the other St. Louis some years back. Governor Blunt could impose an "accountable" system of government. Would that make everyone happy?
t
PS: Machiavelli was right.
9/05/2007 10:50 PM
Hey Lisas,
When did the feds take over Soldier's Memorial? I have never seen a federal person there. Last time I took my kids there there was no federal folks. They do have some new people working there now but they both were wearing the St. Louis City ID badges. Also, not to get off topic, what is the construction going on there? Are they repairing the building? I hope they are installing some air conditioning finally.
9/06/2007 9:00 AM
anon 9:00--
My bad.
The article in the paper (in June?) made it sound like a fait accompli, but apparently it passed the House of Representatives and probably won't pass the Senate.
Here's a link to the Senate Report:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(sr106)
Does anyone know why Lacy Clay has made this motion two years in a row?
Even without that example, the original logic of my post stands: if the City is so strapped that it must lease park land in order to maintain our existing parks, we have no business taking on more land and facilities that require maintenance.
9/06/2007 4:20 PM
as for the construction, we'll let Mayor Slay speak for that:
To replace the broken wheel chair lift — and to restore access to their own Memorial to veterans with mobility disabilities — Board of Public Service president Marjorie Melton is coordinating construction of a new, permanent ramp.
The cost of this single construction project is considerable — nearly a quarter million dollars. Much, much more could and should be done to the building itself. But the ramp is a very necessary first project and it would not be possible without the generous private assistance I will acknowledge at a ceremony tomorrow.
The ramp will be finished in August — not a moment too soon.
It's on his blog, June 6.
9/06/2007 4:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home