VS: Local control great for democracy

Is it time for St. Louis to take control of the police force from the state? IS IT TIME FOR
LOCAL CONTROL?

BY JAMALA ROGERS AND JOHN CHASNOFF

What is the purpose of local control and what are the obstacles hindering it? In a city where the relationship between the police department and the broader community is strained (especially concerning the African-American community), local control could mean greater accountability and ultimately greater trust between the police and the citizens it pledged to serve and protect.

It is a little known fact that St. Louis is one of only two cities in the entire country that does not have control over its police. The St. Louis Police Department is controlled by the State of Missouri and that has been the case since 1861. At that time state control was a common reform measure. In St. Louis, the mayor appointed each individual officer to a one or two year term. The result was police involvement in elections as officers sought to preserve their patronage positions. It was believed that state control would take the politics out of policing. This was not the case. City politics simply became state politics. As this reform proved ineffective, cities around the country returned to local control. A second reform movement attempted to professionalize policing, instituting training regimens, licensing standards and merit testing for promotions. It was this reform, not the ineffective move toward state control that finally resolved some of the more serious corruptions commonplace until that time.

Since the current system is now obsolete, basic democratic principles should hold sway in its stead. When citizens have a problem with police, it is not practical for them to travel to Jefferson City for relief. When there, they too often find outstate legislators who do not know the situation in St. Louis and will not be held accountable by their constituency for their decisions. Local officials are far more reachable and inclined to understand the issues.

Currently, St. Louis pays the police billwhich is approximately 25 percent of the entire city budget. Should we not have a greater say in how this money is spent? Some neighborhoods would like to see two officers in every car. Alderpersons have concerns that the department is too top heavy with civilian personnel. They believe we could reduce response times by shifting to more officers on the street.

Practically every other city has these abilities. Shouldn’t St. Louis?

The vast majority of St. Louis would answer a resounding “Yes!” The Board of Aldermen recently passed a resolution favoring local control by a vote of 25-2. Alderpersons of all stripes and from all parts of the city were in favor. All three members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment -- Mayor, Comptroller and President of the Board of Aldermen -- support local control. A large majority of St. Louis State Senators and Representatives also are in favor. This broad coalition succeeded in March in getting a bill (HB 2117) for local control out of committee in the Missouri House of Representatives for the first time.

This bill contained provisions to reassure those who fear disrupting the status quo. Rank and file police fear that their pension might be put in jeopardy by a cash-strapped city. The bill took this issue off the table by insisting that the pension fund would still be controlled by the State. The bill further provided that all employees would keep their jobs at current salaries and with no change in benefits.

Perhaps it was in recognition of this balanced approach that the Board of Police Commissioners took a neutral position on the bill despite the fact that they are beneficiaries of the current system.

There is one other important aspect to the current bill for local control -- perhaps its most exciting feature. Were local control to be approved by the State, it would not go into effect until the Board of Aldermen passes an ordinance reconstituting the Police Department, therefore permitting community input. This is a rare opportunity for all of us to engage in an extensive debate to decide how we want our policing to be organized. Do we want a Police Board at all? Some cities believe that the Police Board provides a crucial buffer to minimize political interference. If so, how should the Board be chosen? By the mayor? We would advocate a broader system of power-sharing, which would grant some say to alderpersons and perhaps even direct elections of some commissioners (as long as all city demographics are represented fairly).

Perhaps this time around we could design a system of Civilian Review which is not encumbered by State requirements. A more rational and streamlined Police Review Board could increase police accountability while strictly protecting officers’ rights.
Other cities have found the balance which allows for a Police Department which is transparent, responsive, and politically neutral so that it can provide equal justice to all. We must insist that Missouri return to us what is rightfully ours.

John Chasnoff and Jamala Rogers
Coalition Against Police Crimes & Repression