Wait I didn't realize the kid wasn't charged, I just thought his uncle got him out of jail so he didn't have to spend the night.Grover wrote:^^ Wait. You seriously think that it's OK to break the law and not suffer any consequence simply because you were fortunate enough to be born to someone who was born to someone who got appointed to a police board?
- 8,924
I was being sarcastic.FloPoErich wrote:It's a shame that you think that would work.
What I'm ticked about is they let the 47 year old "good boy" off without a ticket AND drove him to Tony's. When the hell did the city cops become a taxi service for the well-connected? Or is he above walking a few blocks?
1. If arguments say the City already has control by the residents who serve on the board and the mayor... then it shouldn't matter, and therefore the control should be OFFICIALLY handed over to the city.
2. Pension? I thought the bill stated that there would be no transfer of the pension and that the state will still control that for the officers. Am I wrong?
2. Pension? I thought the bill stated that there would be no transfer of the pension and that the state will still control that for the officers. Am I wrong?
- 424
According to 2 of the 3 bills the pension funds would be untouched for the time being, however, whenever asked about city control of the department, the police pension fund is just about all the aldermen keep talking about. Their true goal in all of this is to gain access to the pension fund.zink wrote:1. If arguments say the City already has control by the residents who serve on the board and the mayor... then it shouldn't matter, and therefore the control should be OFFICIALLY handed over to the city.
2. Pension? I thought the bill stated that there would be no transfer of the pension and that the state will still control that for the officers. Am I wrong?
To the above poster about pensions going away, the SLMPD's pension is one of the few benefits the department has over others. The beginning salary of a City cop is $34,700. One can go to Florissant and start at $42,000, go to Chesterfield and earn $43,000 or St. Charles and start near 45,000. In order to get respectable, qualified applicants, an employer has to earn benefits. If there is no worthwhile pension system in the city, you are going to see a much higher turnover rate, which ultimately will increase costs anyways due to new training and what not.
- 11K
^^ You're correct, but I understand that the fear is that the city's ultimate goal is control the pension and that this is just a first step in their diabolical machinations.
FloPO - I really don't mean to be a dick, but why, if, as you say, STL City police officers love their city and want to stay, if only the state retains control of their pension, is residency such an issue? As reported by various news outlets, a main concern by police officers is that with City control residency requirements may change, that is, STL City police officers could be required in live in STL City for longer period.
By the way - thank you for being part of the conversation here. It's very important and informative to hear from someone who is very directly affected.
By the way - thank you for being part of the conversation here. It's very important and informative to hear from someone who is very directly affected.
It's possible the pension may change to some extent due to economic realities, but it would not be changed radically for the reasons you mention -- maintaining competitiveness. As we see throughout our lives, the pendulum always has a way of finding equilibrium. I hope we can reach greater understanding to help quell this prevalent fear regarding the pension for those that help keep St. Louis safe.FloPoErich wrote:According to 2 of the 3 bills the pension funds would be untouched for the time being, however, whenever asked about city control of the department, the police pension fund is just about all the aldermen keep talking about. Their true goal in all of this is to gain access to the pension fund.zink wrote:1. If arguments say the City already has control by the residents who serve on the board and the mayor... then it shouldn't matter, and therefore the control should be OFFICIALLY handed over to the city.
2. Pension? I thought the bill stated that there would be no transfer of the pension and that the state will still control that for the officers. Am I wrong?
To the above poster about pensions going away, the SLMPD's pension is one of the few benefits the department has over others. The beginning salary of a City cop is $34,700. One can go to Florissant and start at $42,000, go to Chesterfield and earn $43,000 or St. Charles and start near 45,000. In order to get respectable, qualified applicants, an employer has to earn benefits. If there is no worthwhile pension system in the city, you are going to see a much higher turnover rate, which ultimately will increase costs anyways due to new training and what not.
- 424
Alot of city officers (among many others) don't have faith in the City Schools and since they live in city are forced to send their kids to private school. Since this is so expensive, by living outside the city, they are able to send their kids to other schools. Some others like living in the out in the country, but still care for and about the city.Grover wrote:FloPO - I really don't mean to be a d*ck, but why, if, as you say, STL City police officers love their city and want to stay, if only the state retains control of their pension, is residency such an issue? As reported by various news outlets, a main concern by police officers is that with City control residency requirements may change, that is, STL City police officers could be required in live in STL City for longer period.
By the way - thank you for being part of the conversation here. It's very important and informative to hear from someone who is very directly affected.
The Springfield Missouri city council recently had an issue with funding pensions and failed to do so... I'm not totally sure of the particulars but I will post when I find out what they are.innov8ion wrote:It's possible the pension may change to some extent due to economic realities, but it would not be changed radically for the reasons you mention -- maintaining competitiveness. As we see throughout our lives, the pendulum always has a way of finding equilibrium. I hope we can reach greater understanding to help quell this prevalent fear regarding the pension for those that help keep St. Louis safe.FloPoErich wrote:According to 2 of the 3 bills the pension funds would be untouched for the time being, however, whenever asked about city control of the department, the police pension fund is just about all the aldermen keep talking about. Their true goal in all of this is to gain access to the pension fund.zink wrote:1. If arguments say the City already has control by the residents who serve on the board and the mayor... then it shouldn't matter, and therefore the control should be OFFICIALLY handed over to the city.
2. Pension? I thought the bill stated that there would be no transfer of the pension and that the state will still control that for the officers. Am I wrong?
To the above poster about pensions going away, the SLMPD's pension is one of the few benefits the department has over others. The beginning salary of a City cop is $34,700. One can go to Florissant and start at $42,000, go to Chesterfield and earn $43,000 or St. Charles and start near 45,000. In order to get respectable, qualified applicants, an employer has to earn benefits. If there is no worthwhile pension system in the city, you are going to see a much higher turnover rate, which ultimately will increase costs anyways due to new training and what not.
Why would the City want to control the pension fund? I have never analyzed a pension fund before, but it seems like the fund is currently $300 million underfunded.
http://www.stlouisprs.org/PDF/MarketVal ... 312009.pdf
http://www.stlouisprs.org/PDF/MarketVal ... 312009.pdf
- 104
When any critical system (mechanical, political, electronic, etc.) is broken the standard course of action is to implement a workaround while you devise a long term fix. The state took control of our broken system, the city-run PD, a LONG time ago but never followed through with a fix. The original circumstances and cast of characters related to the state transition are over, done, dead and buried. It is time to restore this system to its original design.
Four appointed (read: well-connected) citizens hardly seems representative of the population, no matter how you spin it.
For the police assn. to say that they fear corrupt politicians leaves me little confidence that they can stand up to corruption on the street. I've yet to meet the officer who feels they are paid enough for their job. When the assn claims that its members can valiantly turn down money from armed and organized drug dealers to look the other way when on patrol, yet are cowering in fear at the thought of an uncomfortable phone call from an alderman, the argument seems a bit thin.
We all know this is about money. If 'hundreds' of officers are going to leave, let them. We'll use the ensuing crisis to grab some of the next round of stimulus money to make things right and attract police officers who are interested in making things right in our city rather than running from the problem(s).
Four appointed (read: well-connected) citizens hardly seems representative of the population, no matter how you spin it.
For the police assn. to say that they fear corrupt politicians leaves me little confidence that they can stand up to corruption on the street. I've yet to meet the officer who feels they are paid enough for their job. When the assn claims that its members can valiantly turn down money from armed and organized drug dealers to look the other way when on patrol, yet are cowering in fear at the thought of an uncomfortable phone call from an alderman, the argument seems a bit thin.
We all know this is about money. If 'hundreds' of officers are going to leave, let them. We'll use the ensuing crisis to grab some of the next round of stimulus money to make things right and attract police officers who are interested in making things right in our city rather than running from the problem(s).
- 11K
Just wanted to mention that I generally think that police officers and fire fighters are vastly underpaid. I'd support more of my tax money going to those who serve the public good and put their own lives in danger to do so.
- 3,807
Regarding City control of the STLPD, I would be for it, only if the City is not allowed to borrow against pensions of the PD and FD. I can understand the concern of the PD & FD. That is their future and what they have risked their lives for. If I had been on the force or Dept, I'd want my retirement protected. My understanding of things is that the City would be able to borrow on the pension fund. If they default, the fund is fair game. I do not agree with that. It is hard enough to employ good people in the City. Now you want to threaten their retirement?!
Not right.
Not right.
Like crime is not bad enough in the City. Let's create an environment that makes quality officers flee to higher paying munis. Good luck attracting quality officers when your incentives are less than cities a fraction of the size.We all know this is about money. If 'hundreds' of officers are going to leave, let them. We'll use the ensuing crisis to grab some of the next round of stimulus money to make things right and attract police officers who are interested in making things right in our city rather than running from the problem(s).
Last year, over 5 houses were broken into on my street(just the ones I know of), my neighbor was murdered (at a relatives house not on my street, but in the City), a murder/drug deal gone bad occurred in a nearby alley and my catalytic convertor was stolen. This is in a very 'safe' neighborhood, not known for crime. This is not the time to weaken or shake up the STLPD. Officers need to be added, laws made tighter, corrupt judges removed and incentives added to attract quality officers. I saw a piece on the news the other night about constant vehicle breakins in the Skinker-DeBaliviere neighborhood. One resident said he has to get out of there, but can't afford to move out of the City right now. Great promo for our fine City. Take a drive up to the MLK Blvd and Kienlen area. You going to tell me we don't need more Police presence. Sit at that stoplight and you'll see deals going on, grown men roaming the streets, hanging out doing nothing. It is sad. Right now, there are not enough jobs, even if criminals wanted them. Police presence may be the only way at this point.
^ Scare tactics are overrated. How do you feel about people that attempt to persuade you with emotion rather than an objective look at a given situation?
With all due respect, more police is not the answer. If you had no money, you'd likely be desperate and apt to break the law as well. These downtrodden areas need leadership to help spur change in neighborhoods, families and individuals.
With all due respect, more police is not the answer. If you had no money, you'd likely be desperate and apt to break the law as well. These downtrodden areas need leadership to help spur change in neighborhoods, families and individuals.
- 3,807
^Obviously nobody is stepping up to take on those roles, at least on the levels needed to turn things around. It also makes it so much harder when good jobs are not available. Our manufacturing base has been decimated. Creating more law enforcement jobs would also help in that respect. Mybe some of these experienced criminals can put their backgrounds to work. In all seriousness, I can't say I've heard of too many poor drug dealers. Believe me, I am all for grass roots change starting with family, community leadership and programs. I have become jaded to the point where I almost feel as if this method is pie in the sky, at least on a large scale.
Drug dealing gang members start poor. Some may have some dough, but many end up dead or in jail after living the fast life too long.DOGTOWNB&R wrote:^Obviously nobody is stepping up to take on those roles, at least on the levels needed to turn things around. It also makes it so much harder when good jobs are not available. Our manufacturing base has been decimated. Creating more law enforcement jobs would also help in that respect. Mybe some of these experienced criminals can put their backgrounds to work. In all seriousness, I can't say I've heard of too many poor drug dealers.
- 3,807
^The reason they get into this activity, is usually a product of a broken home, lack of discipline/direction and lack of good education. I agree, start to fix those grassroot issues. However, once hardened, it is real difficult to change a lot of these individuals who have developed the criminal mind, lost respect for life and care nothing about authority and law. You think the thugs that murdered my neighbor(Lasalle Park home invasion murder) could have been reformed? I don't think so. Could they have been steered in another direction at a young age, yes, but how do you reach each and every one of those kids. I don't see the masses stepping up to do this. In turn, violent crime will continue in this City at a staggering rate. Our City will continue to get tagged as the 'murder capital' (or close to it) and the efforts of us proud city residents will be fruitless. That is the mindset of many, if things do not change drastically for the better. The great migration away from the City will resume, if things do not get better. No scare tactics, reality!
I'm just suggesting that having extra police officers in a force that already has the highest level of officers per capita in the nation wouldn't have stopped that ghastly crime nor that of others.DOGTOWNB&R wrote:^The reason they get into this activity, is usually a product of a broken home, lack of discipline/direction and lack of good education. I agree, start to fix those grassroot issues. However, once hardened, it is real difficult to change a lot of these individuals who have developed the criminal mind, lost respect for life and care nothing about authority and law. You think the thugs that murdered my neighbor(Lasalle Park home invasion murder) could have been reformed? I don't think so. Could they have been steered in another direction at a young age, yes, but how do you reach each and every one of those kids. I don't see the masses stepping up to do this. In turn, violent crime will continue in this City at a staggering rate. Our City will continue to get tagged as the 'murder capital' (or close to it) and the efforts of us proud city residents will be fruitless. That is the mindset of many, if things do not change drastically for the better. The great migration away from the City will resume, if things do not get better. No scare tactics, reality!
It is the role of the city to ensure that total pay and benefits for officers stay competitive to maintain a quality force. I trust this will be done, because St. Louis citizens can and will hold our elected officials accountable at the ballot box.
Now, is it not time for us to be like every other city in the nation (but KC) and govern our own police department? I think so.
- 104
I've seen this argument made several times in several places and it needs to be called out for its short-sighted and shallow foundation. In any other profession, and in law enforcement though you might choose to overlook it for the sake of your argument, individuals who are getting a start on their career weigh several factors - not just money. And, in every other profession, the large companies who have more to offer in the way of on-job experience and name recognition (think resumes here) will pay much less than their smaller competitors for entry-level positions. Job seekers know that the trade-off in pay at the larger company is well worth the experience they'll gain, the connections they'll make, the opportunities for growth and specialization, and the value of having a large company on their resume.FloPoErich wrote:The beginning salary of a City cop is $34,700. One can go to Florissant and start at $42,000, go to Chesterfield and earn $43,000 or St. Charles and start near 45,000.
So now, I suppose we'll hear something about how dangerous it is to be on the city force and how you just plain have to pay people cash to put their lives on the line in a place like St. Louis, intangible incentives be damned. People are aware of the dangers when they get into law enforcement. People know that some assignments are more dangerous than others. However, it is my experience that many officers are adrenaline junkies and would be bored to death in a small municipality. Have you ever considered that perhaps the small municipalities pay more because they have to? They don't have much to offer in the way of upward mobility, excitement, or a broad range of experiences beyond traffic duty and domestic disturbance calls.
If St. Louis PD raised their starting salary $45k, there can be no question that the smaller PD's would be forced to raise theirs even higher and this argument would drag out in perpetuity.
^ Interesting perspective, Jason. Of significance, the vote is today.
http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/100628/314/
http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/100628/314/
State Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, said Saturday that the push to give St. Louis and Kansas City control of their police departments "has more momentum now than it ever has had" in the Missouri Legislature.
"My gut would say, in the Senate, it has the votes," Shields said during an interview while attending the state GOP's Lincoln Days festivities in St. Charles.
Still, the Senate leader said the local-control effort has, "at best, a 50-50 chance" of becoming law. Shields predicted that a handful of senators who oppose local control may try to filibuster such a bill..
- 424
From the Post... sounds kind of shady...
JEFFERSON CITY – After the dust settled in a raucous meeting of a House committee, a bill that would return control of the St. Louis Police Department to the city took a step closer to the House floor.
Rep. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, sponsors the bill that calls for the police chief to report to a public safety director, appointed by the city’s mayor. Currently the police chief reports to a board, made up of the mayor and four gubernatorial appointees.
The bill advanced Monday amid protests from opponents, who were prevented by the committee chairman from offering any amendments.
Moving control of the city’s police force away from the appointed board has been a hot topic recently amid controversy in the city’s police department, including the resignation of one police commissioner.
House Majority Floor Leader Steven Tilley, R-Perryville, called the bill’s movement out of committee a victory for local control.
“If I’m not willing for the state to run my own police department, why would I want them to run the St. Louis Police Department,” said Tilley, who is a co-sponsor of the bill.
A committee substitute of Nasheed’s bill passed out of committee by a 5-3 vote, with one member voting present. The bill would not alter administration of the police department’s $600 million pension fund.
Joe Steiger, vice president of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, called the vote “infuriating” and said the fight was far from over.
The St. Louis Police Officers Association has opposed the bill, and members plan to travel to Jefferson City tomorrow to testify at a Senate hearing on a similar bill proposed by Sen. Joe Keaveny, D-St. Louis.
Opponents of the House bill said they were dissatisfied with the way Rep. Ted Hoskins, D-Berkeley, conducted the hearing as the committee’s chair.
Rep. Jason Brown, R-Platte City and Rep. Jeff Roorda, D-Barnhart, said Hoskins seemed determined to railroad the bill through with little consideration of amendments offered.
Brown offered several amendments – including one that would require St. Louis to consolidate its city government system and slash the number of aldermen from 28 to 12.
Hoskins ruled that amendment, and all others proposed during the committee meeting, as out of order.
Roorda said the committee passed a “winner take all” measure that he believes is dead on arrival on the House floor.
“This represents an assault on the St. Louis Police Department,” said Roorda. “It’s outrageous that we’re even considering this bill without an amendment.”
Rep. Vicki Englund, who was on the committee until last week, watched the proceedings from the audience. Englund, D-St. Louis County, said she was removed from the committee by House Speaker Ron Richard.
“I think the vote definitely would have been different had I been a member of the committee,” Englund said. She said she opposed the bill.
Newly sworn-in Rep. Hope Whitehead, D-St. Louis, has been added to the committee. Whitehead voted in favor of returning control of the police force to the city.
Tilley, the floor leader, said he plans to take up the bill as soon as it passes the Rules Committee and is placed on the House calendar by the speaker.
Not really, pretty much standard operating procedure in politics, and everyone knows it. And I probably would have ruled the amendment out of order no matter what I thought of the situation. It was pretty ridiculous.FloPoErich wrote:From the Post... sounds kind of shady...
As an aside, always nice to see both parties working together to achieve something, lol.
BTW, would you mind editing your post to only quote a couple paragraphs and provide a link to the original article. Fair use only allows for quoting and you have to provide proper attribution. I'd hate to see you breaking the law.
^^ The one problem I have, is that I have no read WHY people dont want the city to control the police. Saying things that MIGHT happen like, "No because they will take our pension or they are worse than the state, blah blah blah." None of those reasons are valid.
1. They arent taking the pension. So just shut it. You can complain when that bill comes around until then, that is a mute point.
2. The City is worse? Really... because I dont remember having them have control of the Police this or even last century. So once again, mute point.
According to these anti city control groups, you can argue against ANYTHING by making up fake scenarios or "what ifs."
1. They arent taking the pension. So just shut it. You can complain when that bill comes around until then, that is a mute point.
2. The City is worse? Really... because I dont remember having them have control of the Police this or even last century. So once again, mute point.
According to these anti city control groups, you can argue against ANYTHING by making up fake scenarios or "what ifs."
This is also important from a liability perspective once we begin advertising. It'll be nice to offset the fixed and variable expenses in operating urbanSTL.MattnSTL wrote:BTW, would you mind editing your post to only quote a couple paragraphs and provide a link to the original article. Fair use only allows for quoting and you have to provide proper attribution. I'd hate to see you breaking the law.