By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW... Labels: Board_of_Aldermen, State_Senate
JEFFERSON CITY -- As St. Louis Police Chief Joe Mokwa and Police Board President Chris Goodson roamed the halls of the state Capitol today lobbying against a senate bill calling for a return of local control of the St. Louis Police Department on an unrelated issue, a group of city lawmakers were lobbying to return local control to the city police department
At this moment, several St. Louis aldermen are in the audience as the bill is being heard before the committee. Aldermen Terry Kennedy, April Ford-Griffin, Jeffrey Boyd, Kacie Starr Triplett, Frank Williamson, Marlene Davis, and Sam Moore are here in support of the bill.
Senator Maida Coleman is handling sponsoring the bill in the senate and Rep. T.D. El-Amin will be handling the bill on the House side.
The bill is SB 785.
UPDATE: There was a tense exchange between between Alderman Boyd, speaking in favor of the bill, asked Senator Harry Kennedy, a member of the committee who seems to oppose local control, if he feels elected officials are "incompetent." Kennedy, who is also a city committeeman, said he was offended by the question. The commiittee chairman quickly ended the exchange.
30 Comments:
God help us all if our police department comes under local control. This city can't even run our public school system.
1/30/2008 5:19 PM
Local control needs to happen now. I am extremely happy to see this occurring.
1/30/2008 5:44 PM
I think for Chief Mokwa and Board President Goodson on the eve of a Tax Increase on the Ballot to lobby against local control of the St. Louis Police Department reflects disdain for the St. Louis Community in our efforts supporting Civilian Oversight of our Police Department.
1/30/2008 6:25 PM
How does the city benefit from local control?
To me it seems there will be even more fingers in the pie regarding transfers and promotions.
1/30/2008 7:01 PM
concerned citizen--hey genius, the City doesn't run the public school system. The state does now, before that it was the Teachers Union, I mean the Elected Board.
1/30/2008 8:04 PM
Hey genius, the state doesn't run the schools, Slay, Reed and Blunt do through their political appointees.
Clinkscale, Archibald, Jackson O'Brien and Schoemehl were pawns of the teacher's union? Boy, they hid that well!
1/30/2008 8:31 PM
Great. Now all the policemen that are worth a sh!t will probably leave for greener pastures, be it federal or county, leaving behind the idiots that couldn't solve a crime if they tried. Just what this city needs..... another department to f*ck up. What a waste.
1/30/2008 9:31 PM
So people on this blog are arguing that St. Louis, unlike all other major cities in the U.S., is incapable of running it's own police department??? Anyone with that kind of hatred for the city should be banned from commenting!
1/30/2008 10:25 PM
Maybe with local control Mokwa can be forced to disclose what happened to the $40,000+ stolen from the evidence room and why there weren't better controls and records of who had access to the money!
1/30/2008 11:26 PM
Its clear the elected officials of St
Louis are indeed unable to work effectively for the betterment of the city. Just look at Jeff Boyd's ward 22 with 600 city owned buildings, a murder rate, and a lead epidemic he does not even understand. This is who you want to run a police dept. with a third of the city's budget?
1/31/2008 6:45 AM
Can any of you anounymous smart people give cause to support 100% a Police Department that will not allow citizen input at public Board Meetings; and pray tell me would'nt it be something for the police department to have public hearings over issues concerning the police department????
Why has'nt the inept FBI been brought in to investigate the missing monies-If the Public Safety Director can call them in to investigate the hanging monkey in the Fire Department-then whynot investigate police who monkey with the money..............
1/31/2008 7:49 AM
I thought readers might be interested in some Q&A which supporters of Local Control (myself included) have been circulating. Pardon the length, but it contains history, background etc. which should be interesting.
-------
Local Control Of Police
A Step Forward
What is local control of the Police?
Local control means that cities control their own police departments. This is the normal state of affairs in the United States. St. Louis and Kansas City are the only two cities in the country which do not control their police. In these two cities police are operated by the state, in that the governor appoints the police board and state legislators determine pay raises etc.
Why did Missouri move to state control in the first place?
The idea of state control was actually a reform movement in the mid nineteenth century. At that time mayors controlled police and doled out policing jobs as political patronage. In St. Louis, for example, the mayor appointed police officers, with the approval of the City Council, to one or two year terms. These jobs changed hands when administrations from different parties were elected. As a result, police had a vested interest in helping mayors stay in office. The result was political corruption and police involvement in tainted elections. States took control with the rationale that their politicians were more disinterested and would minimize corruption.
In Missouri, the governor in 1861 was pro Confederacy and St. Louis was pro Union. The governor therefore used this reformist idea of state control, attempting to gain control over St. Louis and maintain his hold on the governorship.
Why have other cities returned to local control?
Times have changed in 145 years. Some cities, such as St. Louis in 1914, enacted “weak mayor” systems of government which spread out municipal powers to control corruption. Policing became more professional--a career requiring training and standards rather than a temporary patronage job. Police Boards like those currently in St. Louis and Kansas City were created to provide a limited firewall between police and politicians. Election laws and other anti-corruption measures have also been tightened.
Most cities returned to local control by the late nineteenth century. Boston regained municipal authority in 1962 and Baltimore followed in 1976. That left only Missouri with its antiquated system.
Why would local control be better?
First of all, local control is a basic democratic principle. The United States has always sought to decentralize militias to protect the citizens from their power. This country emphasizes the rights of citizens to have a say over those who govern them. Legislators from outstate Missouri have no concerned constituency to whom they are accountable when they make decisions regarding St. Louis police. They have no intimate knowledge of the forces at
play. Therefore, they naturally tend to be disconnected and out of touch--more likely to
wheel and deal on these issues since they have no real stake in them.
A study of St. Louis history shows that state control did not solve problems. Patronage simply shifted from one group of politicians to another. In the early twentieth century St. Louis was still rife with police corruption and involvement in influencing elections. It was only in 1905, when reforms began to professionalize the police with requirements such as merit testing for promotions, that some of the most rampant abuses were lessened.
Why has Missouri lagged behind?
After the improvements accomplished by the movement toward professionalism, state control lingered due to inertia for quite some time. Local St. Louis interests have been unable to overcome the desire of outstate legislators and the governor to hold on to power.
There was an unsuccessful attempt to return to local control in Kansas City, beginning in 1932. Unfortunately, many reforms had not taken root in Kansas City at that time, and the
city was controlled by the notorious Pendergast machine. The ability to hire individual officers was in Pendergast’s hands, not the Chief of Police. Pendergast was finally convicted
on various corruption charges, some involving the police, in 1939. The city returned to state control. Fortunately, the era of the big city boss has since been largely curtailed.
In more recent times, police rank and file have feared that their pension funds would be raided by cash-strapped cities under local control. The current bill to establish local control maintains the pension funds under the control of the state.
Has there been any movement toward local control in Missouri?
Twenty-five years ago, state legislators gave St. Louis aldermen the ability to approve the police budget, thereby returning some control. The question remains--why should a city which gives one third of its budget to police continue to have little say in how the department is run?
In the 2006 state legislative session, the decision was made to allow the St. Louis Police Board to determine the extent of a pay raise. This was another move toward local control.
What is the current bill for local control before the state legislature?
The proposed bill allows the city of St. Louis to take over the operations of the police department. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen would “establish a municipal police force” through legislation before the transfer of powers would take place. The bill stipulates that the initial ordinance make provisions for hiring all current officers and employees with no changes to residency requirements, current salary structure or benefits. It also mandates that the police pension fund must remain under state control.
As part of the legislative process the aldermen, the mayor, and the city as a whole would decide what characteristics the police department should have. They could decide whether
to continue the current Police Board system, who would appoint any Police Board members, how the Chief of Police would be selected, etc. Reforms such as giving the Chief a multiyear contract to partially isolate him from undue influence could be considered. In all, the city could determine the proper balance between responsiveness to the community and political pressures on the one hand, and the consistent and impartial administration of justice on the other. Indeed, if the proper balance is found, we believe that greater community input and the pursuit of justice will be seen to go hand in hand.
Produced by
~The Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression~
1/31/2008 8:01 AM
I am posting below a commentary which I have written, connecting the dots between Local Control and the need for police pay raises. It urges police to support Local Control in their own interest.
-----
St. Louis has rightly been focused recently on issues related to the Fire Department. But under the radar is a developing crisis with the police. City officers are severely underpaid, and we are losing police to surrounding departments with more competitive pay. The result is low morale, high turnover, and a higher percentage of younger, less experienced officers. St. Louis can ill afford to pay for the training and early supervision of police whose career future is elsewhere. Even worse, an inexperienced police force is less likely to be able to keep itself out of harm’s way, and more likely to exacerbate dangerous situations for the citizens it is charged with protecting.
Police Chief Joseph Mokwa recently lectured the Police Board about this growing problem. The city is currently 10%-12% behind St. Louis County in its salary scale, and the gap is growing. The Commissioners sympathized but claimed that they can not get pay raises through the Board of Aldermen. The Mayor also spoke in support the officers, but blamed lack of funds.
Clearly, the system is not working to pay officers adequately or to maintain a quality Police Department. What is wrong?
1)Studies show that police pay goes up when management must do more than simply confer with officers and reject their requests. Why shouldn’t police have the right to organize (with provisions outlawing strikes) like other workers? Rank and file officers recently won collective bargaining rights in the courts, but this victory is meaningless without the right to binding arbitration. If the Chief and Police Board truly support the police person on the streets, they will back full union rights.
2) Perhaps police officers would fare better if structural decisions such as this were made at the local level. The city is one of only two in the country which does not have final say over its own police department. Though the city provides all funding, St. Louis Police are controlled by the State of Missouri. So far the St. Louis Police Officers Association[SLPOA], the largest group representing rank and file, has supported this status quo. But there is absolutely no sympathy for collective bargaining in the Republican controlled State legislature. The SLPOA would be acting in its own interest to throw its weight behind the current bill for Local Control of the Police, sponsored by Senator Maida Coleman and Representative Jeanette Mott Oxford. This highly Democratic city should be more responsive than the State on issues of workers’ rights. Perhaps a formal Memorandum of Understanding signed by city leaders could guarantee binding arbitration if Local Control were to pass. We could use this opportunity to heal racial tensions as well, if the Memorandum also envisioned a union structured in such a way that all the rank and file feel represented.
3) Local Control would create a two-way street between the Department and the community. This could only increase each side’s responsiveness to the other’s needs. City government, if it had some influence over the running of the Department, might be more willing to fund its operations. A community which feels it has some input on issues such as a Civilian Review Board, or allocation of police resources, would support alderpersons who fund a quality Department.
Under such an arrangement, we would need to create firewalls which keep the police from becoming politicized by close association with local government. We would have to find the right balance between police union demands and a tight urban budget. These things are done successfully and to better effect around the country. Why shouldn’t we do them here?
John Chasnoff
1/31/2008 8:05 AM
Do you really want the board of alderman in control of a third of the St. Louis budget? Take a look at ward 22 and 6 years of Jeff boyd leadership. 600 city owned buildings
a recall attempt that had 1,100 valid
votes signing, a murder rate climbing, and a lead epidemic he does not remotely understand.
1/31/2008 8:34 AM
Kansas City, a larger city than St. Louis, does not control its police department. Both cities have departments governed by state boards.
I am surprised that supporters for local control in St. Louis haven't hooked up with any KC supporters.
1/31/2008 8:40 AM
Dear John Chasnoff, I have to disagree with your posting. First and foremost you are a U-City Green party member and an outside influence in city politics.
I fear the St. Louis board of Alderman in control of the police. When you understand the political misuse of power in North st. Louis, Please determine why on earth I would support local alderman in control of police. The board of Alderman have passed a number of laws extending police powers of the N.S.O.'s and the building division threating our right to exist in the City of St. Louis. We are always under threat of Eminent domain and losing everything we worked for. Your brand of influence has damaged the Green party movement in the City and I challenge the U-City greens in a debate on how to move the city forward, The first item on the agenda will be to remove u-city influence over St. Louis city Politics.
Don De Vivo-Green Party, St. Louis city
P.S Our City Platform is clearly behind a civilian oversight board, However,only members that live in St. Louis city need apply
1/31/2008 8:58 AM
Before Sherman George fiasco: local control is a good idea.
After Sherman George fiasco: no way in hell.
1/31/2008 9:04 AM
If the state wants to control the city police department, it should cover a substantial portion of the cost. Under our current system, city residents are being taxed without representation. Taxation without representation is a violation of the US Constitution.
1/31/2008 9:13 AM
Quite frankly, the majority of our elected politicians aren't qualified to be an assistant manager at a McDonalds, much less have the say in how a city is run. They do such a terrible job with the departments they already do control.... the fire department case an point.
Lets face it, reguardless of what side you are on about the whole Sherman George fiasco, the situation should have never been allowed to get out of control to the point that it has.
And with all do respect, John, I don't know that you should be speaking on behalf of the SLPOA. You make some good points, but do you really think that in a city where police officers are reguarded the way they are here that they would pay us beeter if they had control? Whatever ends up happening, lets just let those "dumb cops" form their own opinions.
1/31/2008 9:31 AM
nothing will heal race relation in St. Louis while this war on the poor continues.
1/31/2008 9:32 AM
The main people opposed to local control are cops and their friends, and the main reason is because they fear a return of the residency requirement. Speaking of the residency requirement, why are city public school teachers and city library employees exempt? City residents pay their salaries too.
1/31/2008 9:49 AM
Why are city school teachers exempt?
I thought you knew!
Why is it that city school teachers who live in the city get no help with housing, however, CANT TEACH FOR AMERIKKKA, and other recruitment programs offer housing assistance for outsiders who come to the district.
1/31/2008 12:37 PM
To me, the issue is not so much, "Do I like what the aldermen have done" on this or that issue. I don't like everything the aldermen, or mayor, have done. I like the State legislature even less. But the real question is accessibility and accountability. We have better access on the local level--more ability to have input and to change the representatives we don't like. On the other hand, we now have people in Jefferson City making decisions about the St. Louis police whose constituents don't care and who are therefore not accountable on these issues.
The issue should be decided on questions relating to the structure of good government, not on the basis of specific individuals currently in power.
1/31/2008 10:29 PM
My fellow activist, I did not mean to personally attack you. My post came on late, I assumed it was flagged and deleted. However, John your viewpoint is now public as is mine. I will be standing against local control, your argument does stand up in my opinion to the larger issue of city politics. Until all issues are dealt with at the same time in the same manner, we as city residents will suffer.
John, what are the 10 most important issues concerning city Politics? If you answer that question you will see the problem with St. Louis government is the Board of Alderman, and the real culprits are the democratic board of alderman you are working with. It takes a city person to understand how poor of a job these 28 people have done. Working with them on a serious issue like local control while they ruining our government, undermines our efforts to reform city government and get a handle on the board of alderman's actions. I have a famous saying John, we are stuck in a war in Iraq because of our inability to handle a mere $32,500 a year alderman. Tell me I'm wrong and come walk the streets of Ward 22 Ward 18, Ward 4, and a number of other North side wards. What you will see is a mini Iraq, same tactics, same result. How do we move forward on this issue John? Do you ignore my viewpoint, bearing in mined I live in the city, work in the city, and have the background and desire to run for local public office. What do you offer beside a U-city Green party viewpoint on how to move the city forward?
Don De Vivo
Green Party - City of St. Louis
2/01/2008 8:21 AM
Most of the politicians ain't worth smit! Don't make a difference on a national, state or local level. People are going to die and keep getting killed because most of the politicians, community leaders, church leaders, school leaders, business leaders, and you name it, ain't worth smit!
Most of these dastards are money grabbing, media whores, and symbols without any mothersucking substance.
Improve yourself, and stop depending on these mothersuckers!
2/01/2008 10:03 AM
John, some of my postings are not getting through, again I disagree with your post. It was a nice history but does not give a reason to support your viewpoint. Without taking into consideration that Boyd and Griffin were under recall in their last terms and tried unsuccessfully to change the recall procedure to protect them
selves from a second recall from unhappy residences, you are ducking the fact we have a failed government in the city. their were half a dozen recalls, which at least 3 were about eminent domain and the others poltical. On top of that the current recall of Mayor slay would of had a 6-month limit if the bill protect your alderman had passed public muster. John, no local control and no tax increase Feb. 5, where do you stand on my city taxes?
Don De Vivo
2/01/2008 11:19 AM
Florida actually introduced the bill which would place a time limit for recalls. It was defeated.
2/01/2008 4:48 PM
Moreover, with local control there would me direct accountability. Since the Mayor and Aldermen would be in charge, if they failed then that is one more reason to replace them. The more control they have the more they are under scrutiny. Right now they can simply, rightly, blame the State. But when its their task they cannot fail. If they fail then that's a good campaign slogan.
2/01/2008 4:51 PM
"Speaking of the residency requirement, why are city public school teachers and city library employees exempt? City residents pay their salaries too."
The fact is the SLPS had a very hard time finding enough teachers (I don't know the situation with library employees). When I was hired by the SLPS there was a severe shortage of teachers. We still have shortages of long-term substitutes and maybe other areas, too.
You want my job go for it, I have just about had it with this district anyway. Working in the city schools is HELL and there are not enough city residents qualified/willing to do it.
That is why there is not a residency requirement.
2/02/2008 8:44 AM
Doug Duckworth, That is a fact if you have research it, however I was in the hearing room and was the only that spoke and challaneged the members of the hearing committee on what they were purposing. The original bill had a three month time limit for the recall, which would of eliminated a city recall attempt and made it extremely hard for a ward recall. I stood and faced the democrats at the table and the time limit was changed to 6-months for recall attempts. This would of made city wide recalls basically out of reach. The reason I stood tall was
in the political world 6 months is long enough to recall a $32,500 a year local elected office holder. I still had my doubts about city wide office holders but I was alone. I then went home and voted against the bill'
Don De Vivo
2/02/2008 8:53 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home