urbanSTL

Was at the Southampton Neighborhood Association Meetings last night. Mayor Slay was there go over some topics, one being Local Police Control.

He stated that the main reason that the city wants police control is that he believes that the police department should have to answer to the citizens and city officials like all other departments rather than a board in Jeff City. He said that there is lack of accountability for the department to their citizens. We pay for the department, but the department doesn't report to us. It reports to an out of city board. The board makes the decisions, but we pay for them.

He brought up some other points.
-Some people believe that the city wants to go after police pensions. He said that they can't legally do that and have no intention/desire to.
-He said he think the actual officers do a great job, but the department is managed poorly.
-We're a city with one of highest number of policemen to city residents, but one of the lowest in regards to citizens reporting crime.

The Board is comprised of St. Louisans and the Mayor. Most of the decisions are made by them. Yes, they are under control of the Governor, but pretty much all Police business is handled by them. I think there needs to be a compromise by both parties. Maybe have Police Board members be elected by the citizens. The pension is definately an issue, it has been brought up by alderman and the Mayor in attempts to persuade the state to hand over control to the city.


All things considered, I don't think it'll be as big an issue as both the Police and the politicians are making it out to be. Some things will change, and there will be, guaranteed, way more meddling by alderman and other local politicans in the goings on of the PD, and not in a good way.

STL88 wrote:Maybe have Police Board members be elected by the citizens.

I hope it doesn't go this route. We already have too many elected positions in local governments, I don't understand the push for more. The average voter can't be expected go in depth into the positions of all the candidates and positions up for election. At this point, having more elected positions doesn't result in more accountability of the government to the people, it just diffuses the blame.

pat wrote: -Some people believe that the city wants to go after police pensions. He said that they can't legally do that and have no intention/desire to.

As STL88 mentioned, this is absolutely an issue and has been used to persuade the state to hand over control.

pat wrote: -He said he think the actual officers do a great job, but the department is managed poorly.

This is where Mayor Slay lied straight to your face. The state is not going to hand over control of the department for this reason. The problem is not with the department. Our police dept. is very well respected nationally, and internationally for that matter. The CITY is not. Every time the police department goes to the city with a request for something that the department needs, (anything you can think of that would make our force better and more efficient) it is vetoed by Mayor Slay. I don't know what his agenda is, but the Mayor is the one holding our police department back. The state knows this, and as long as Slay is in charge, they will not turn control over to the city. The state also understands that our own officers are against the city taking control, and that threw up a red flag in Jeff. City. Basically, the state is going to side with the officers. The Governor is not a fan of Slay and the city government, and in this case I am glad to hear it.

^ How is the Mayor holding the department back?

I would imagine that the reason a lot of stuff gets vetoed (which I think you mean vote against, i don't believe he has the power to veto) is because he thinks the city can't afford it. I don't think the Mayor is some baffoon who does know what he's doing. I think he is trying to make sure the department is fiscally responsible which he is arguing hasn't been the case for some time. Obviously, the city doesn't have a great track record either, and I think that city needs to address some issues like the amount of aldermen which would ease concerns that a lot of people have.

Progress. Amazing how much work it takes just to be normal.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8a670911,0

Update with a little more detail on the compromise and the next steps to take...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 71a94.html

If it's gonna happen, I'm glad it's like this. Hopefully the rank and file agree to this takeover before it goes to the state wide ballot, in which case they will not get to negotiate anything. I'm also extremely happy to see this:

• Elected officials who "impede, obstruct, hinder or interfere" with police work, according to a draft of the bill, would be fined $1,000 and could lose their office.

Bring it on Boyd.

Mark Groth wrote:I like the fact that new officers hired would have to live in St. Louis.

There would be a few changes, however.

• Officers hired after the city gains control would have to live in the city, as already required of other city employees by law.

• Discipline hearings would keep police rules but shift from the Police Board to the city's Civil Service Commission, which currently handles discipline for city employees.

• Elected officials who "impede, obstruct, hinder or interfere" with police work, according to a draft of the bill, would be fined $1,000 and could lose their office.

Currently, until they have 7 years on they must live in the City.

The deal hinders on giving the SLPOA collective bargaining rights. I would not be surprised to see something with residency addressed in the deal.

Now that the city may have control would it be possible to implement the "No Tolerance" policy as done by Guiliani in NYC? I think it's time to press for a crackdown on everythng.

^I agree! Apparently we have one of the highest number of cops per number of citizens in the country (as told from the mayor at a neighborhood meeting, can't say whether its true). So we should be able to accomplish a lot. If anything, it would give a good impression to those outside the city. Something to publicize a lot.

Isom might be out soon. Word is he's being heavily considered in Chicago. Has he done that fantastic of a job in his short stint so far? I know he is not popular among many in the rank and file but he certainly has some nice credentials.

I wonder how a new chief would play in with the city regaining control of the PD.

"Sly James supports local police control in St. Louis"

Kansas City Mayor Sly James has sent a letter to St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, indicating support for the statewide ballot measure that would give St. Louis local control of its police department.

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/sl ... -st-louis/

Let's try this. Sorry about starting a new thread. Being a newcomer here, I didn't know about this existing one.

Anyhow, read through the old thread, and it seems nearly the entirety of the discussion was about working conditions for cops and their pensions. Wow. Anyhow, very little of it had anything to do with actual reform of how policing in the city might work with local control. So here are a few questions along those lines:

----------------------------

It's long overdue, and perhaps not structured in a way that the most ardent civil rights activists would like, but nonetheless, St. Louis is finally getting control over its own police department.

What sorts of changes to the force would you like to see? Apparently, they are already talking about redrawing the police district boundaries. Will that move place officers into higher crime areas?

Are there ways neighborhoods and the police working together might be able to better prevent crime than they are today? Does local control create a different level of transparency and accountability to the citizens of St. Louis?

Should St. Louis begin its own version of stop and frisk? Should the police department present an annual action plan for citizen review, and then be required to report back to the public on progress according to plan goals?

St. Louis citizens finally have local control over our own police department. Now what do we do with it?

Northside Neighbor wrote:Let's try this. Sorry about starting a new thread. Being a newcomer here, I didn't know about this existing one.

Anyhow, read through the old thread, and it seems nearly the entirety of the discussion was about working conditions for cops and their pensions. Wow. Anyhow, very little of it had anything to do with actual reform of how policing in the city might work with local control. So here are a few questions along those lines:

NBD, it's just nice to keep one thread going so there's one-stop-shopping on a topic.

I think the discussion centered around the pensions and working conditions because those were the main concerns of officers in opposition to local control.

It's passed and happening so bringing up where to go from here is a great thing to bring up for discussion.

I hope the new flexibility leads to more nimble efforts which can go away if they aren't working and enhanced if they are. I think reducing and redrawing the districts leads to a better allocation of resources.

Wish there was some way to delete that other thread, and collapse those comments here. Anyhow...regarding:

I hope the new flexibility leads to more nimble efforts which can go away if they aren't working and enhanced if they are. I think reducing and redrawing the districts leads to a better allocation of resources.

Let's get specific. What might be some of those more nimble efforts?

For starters, how about a series of meetings across the city to solicit citizen input and participation on neighborhood safety and the police department?

And then what about requiring the department to develop an official action plan for public safety, with public comment, that is then followed and reported back to citizens?

To change the atmosphere/rapport between the police and the "policed", it sure would be nice for the citizens of St. Louis to have the feeling that the police department is really working for them.

The old ways need to change. Under state control, there never was a feeling of accountability and transparency between the police and the citizens. Getting that in place should be our number one priority.

Skinker DeBaliviere has monthly safety meetings where police and residents discuss what's going on, what to do about it, etc. Do other neighborhoods do something similar? If your neighborhood doesn't have something like that, I guess just ask.

The one cop at a neighborhood meeting talking about local crime issues is pretty much how it's always been done.

We didn't need to go through all the trouble of getting local control to continue focusing our public safety approach one neighborhood at a time.

We need bigger strategies for public safety that connect neighborhoods and a full city wide strategy for increasing public safety that engages residents.

For example - does anyone know if there is any one place to go to learn what the city's plan is for improving public safety?

Under our new emphasis on "sustainability" it seems this should be a pretty transparent plan of action. And if we don't have something like this, why not work to get it? Collaboratively, with the police department, City Hall, neighborhood groups, businesses, academics, etc.

^ Exactly. There'll be time enough to fine-tune the community response, but for now, I'm comfortable letting the STLPD do the job it and its officers are paid to do. We'll see soon enough what +/- comes out of the transition to local control (My guess is more pluses).

Also, more times than not, these community meetings turn into s**t shows, with the attending public basically blaming the attending officers for all their individual problems. "A drug deal went down right in front of my house..." ; "I called the police four times and nuthin'!" "Why aren't there more beat cops on-foot in my neighborhood..." That kind of stuff. There is, of course, merit for both sides to these public meetings (I think they can be important toold in building support/assistance) but too often the incivility of the attendees leaves a sour taste in everybody's mouth.

And on a non honor/duty note, I'm excited to see them move into their new digs on Olive. That building just screams "THIS is the St. Louis Police Headquarters. We are here to Protect and Serve."



Hopefully they can get a cool, blue STLPD shield situated midway up those central panes.

Hmmm. Not real comfortable with that response.

It's not okay to armchair quarterback the cops, but it is okay to armchair quarterback pretty much every development project, transportation project, form of government structure, etcetera ad nauseum in St. Louis?

Why should the cops get a free pass, especially now that we finally have local control over our police department, when all other matters of public interest in these forums is subject to intense scrutiny?

What's the difference? The cops are pros and the citizens are amateurs?

Here's one example of where it seems to the amateur observer, the cops do a horrible job - traffic control. If any of you work downtown, then you doubtless have seen the cluster$%*& around the Old Court House about 5 pm.

With two to three officers stationed at strategic intersections during that one hour or so rush hour, traffic would flow much better. But for whatever reason, they are never around.

Wouldn't it be nice for St. Louis to have some cops helping direct rush hour traffic, just like they do in big cities? Wouldn't that be an easy way to improve the quality of life for lots of people in the downtown area?

I don't think the point is that we shouldn't keep an eye on how the department runs and how it could be improved. But rather that right now they have enough going on with the transition.

To use a really poor analogy, when the Rams brought in the new coaching staff, it really wouldn't make sense to get in Jeff Fisher's ear and tell him what he needs to do now that he's in St. Louis. Instead, you let the professional get adjusted and bring in his system. And after a period of time you evaluate the results. And at that point, maybe you begin offering input. (Which is pretty much where that analogy breaks down, but oh well.)

Really? What is really changing? The only change I have heard about is the possible redrawing of police boundaries.

So I guess the first question I'd have about that is why? Why are they changing the boundaries and why now? Was this something they have been planning all along, or does this reflect a new strategy by the police department under local control?

The police department is often misunderstood and mistrusted. It has not had to operate under much local scrutiny at all. It has enjoyed that rather detached status for over a century.

So when we talk about a transition, what is even changing? Anything besides district boundaries? And let's talk about things outside the political process. Presumably there will be new approaches to approving the budget of the police department, but what about things going on day to day in the neighborhoods?

Are there going to be changes in service due to the transition to local control? The people should be informed in advance. The cops were throwing around all sorts of scare tactics in the build up to the city regaining local control. Were those all empty threats? Where are we now as a city going forward with our police department? The people need to know.