City Control of the SLMPD

flopoerich · PostFeb 17, 2010#12010-02-17T18:34+00:00

As many of you know the Mayor and Aldermen are attempting to take over control of the police department. The Board of Police Commissioners, a board made up of four city residents and the mayor currently run the department. The city wants to do this in order to have access to the department's pension fund. The city has fought for this for a while, all with the pension in mind.
The problem I have with the city's fight is that they are telling lies and using innuendo and fear to get people on their side. City control of the police department will not enhance or better the police department, only make it worse. I have sent my state representative and senator as well as the governor a letter urging them to oppose this bully maneuver by the city.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 17, 2010#22010-02-17T18:38+00:00

I understand and appreciate your point. But on the face of it, it simply doesn't make sense for the state to control our city's police force. Do you know if any other major city's police force is run by their respective state? It's archaic and arbitrary. Perhaps some benefits exist from the current arrangement, but that doesn't make it right. Perhaps many in the state wish to retain the current arrangement as their understanding is that the Civil War isn't over, just on pause.

mill204 · PostFeb 17, 2010#32010-02-17T18:57+00:00

If state control of the city's police department is such a great thing, why have none of the other 90+ municipalities asked the state to take over their police departments?

flopoerich · PostFeb 17, 2010#42010-02-17T19:01+00:00

The Kansas City police department is run the same way. The city petitioned for control at one time, only for corruption to take hold and control go back to the state, who still holds control.
As it stands now, city residents run the department via the board of police commissioners, with the mayor acting as the fifth and deciding member. The city also already sets the department's budget. The lone reason they want control is to have access to the officer's pension fund. All you have to do is ask Ald. Quincy-Troupe, who blamed the police and fire pensions for the fact that the city is broke, never mind the fact that the officers and firefighters contriubute more to the fund than the city.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 17, 2010#52010-02-17T19:09+00:00

Are police and fire pensions one reason that the city's in the red? I really don't know.

flopoerich · PostFeb 17, 2010#62010-02-17T19:20+00:00

Could it be one of the reasons, possibly. However, another reason could be the fact that the aldermen now have their meetings transcribed. The transcribing service costs $1,300 for a four hour meeting. Mind you, the city is "45 million short". Who's to say what the cause is...
The amount the city puts into the pensions funds is a static amount that should be planned and budgeted for... The below is from the Police Officer's Association regarding city control...

Mayor Francis Slay and St. Louis City politicians are not genuine in their attempt to gain control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD). They cite that the Police Department will be more accountable to the City of St. Louis, and that the City will be more financially sound, if the City takes control of the Police Department. However, the slanderous campaign organized by Mayor Slay, his political allies and his supporters is misleading and its purpose is to create a false sense of panic among the citizens that live and visit St. Louis, and sway STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.

· The Mayor is an Ex-Officio member of the Board of Police Commissioners. The mayor has input into every decision made. The remaining four members are prominent St. Louis City residents.

· St. Louis City government has direct fiscal oversight of the SLMPD; it sets the Police Department’s budget. In fact the City of St. Louis reduced the Police Department’s budget last year, which directly forced the Police Department to reduce manpower by over 100 officers.

· The hidden agenda of Mayor Slay, his political allies and his supporters is to gain control of the SLMPD Pension System. They claim the pension system, along with the Fire Department and Civil Service pension systems, will bankrupt the city. They claim that city employees do not contribute to the pension systems. While this is true for the Civil Service system, Firemen contribute 8% and Police Officers contribute 7% of their salaries. WE DO CONTRIBUTE. In fact it is quite apparent with the recent ballot initiatives filed, in essence by Mayor Slay, that their true intention is to obtain control of our pension system.

· Mayor Slay, his political allies and his supporters cannot answer our one simple question: “How will City control make the SLMPD a better department”? The fact is crime was reduced this past year and has decreased each of the last three years. St. Louis City politics will interfere with the day-to-day operation of the Police Department. The mayor, 28 alderpersons, and other appointed and elected officials, will have direct influence on the daily workings of the Police Officers.

· The structure of St. Louis City government has not adapted to the decrease in population of the City. The structure, which has been in place for over 100 years, continues to mandate the same number of Alderpersons today with roughly 350,000 residents as opposed to when this government was first formed with twice the population.

· St. Louis City government has grossly mismanaged most, if not all, departments under its control, as determined by State Auditor Susan Montee. The audits of The Department of Public Safety, The Streets Department, and Lambert International Airport, to name a few, all have serious monetary discrepancies and procedural inefficiencies.

· A financial analysis of the City of St. Louis conducted by PolicePay.net demonstrates the financial constraints of the City of St. Louis are caused by the poor fiscal management of Mayor Slay and City Politicians and not influenced by the SLMPD. The audit clearly shows that police protection for the City of St. Louis is not a priority of the Mayor. The audit cites:

“Police Expenditures, per capita, are up 12.45% during the last 13 years when adjusted for inflation. Total expenditures per capita have increased 52.91% over the last 13 years. Most of this growth is by design. It is not being caused by uncontrollable forces.”

“This is very rare, most cities since the 1990’s have spent more in terms of growth on public safety and police then all expenditures as a whole. St. Louis is the total opposite as all expenditures have increased at over 4 times the growth rate then Police expenditures. It is clear that the City of St. Louis has many other main priorities then Police Protection.”

· Local control of the St. Louis Police Department and the Police Retirement System will negatively impact the City’s ability to recruit and retain quality police personnel, as well as other City staff.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 17, 2010#72010-02-17T19:33+00:00

^ But the city has also lost population and jobs since the early 1990's. So doesn't it reason that spending on police may not match spending on other items. Without knowing more, it's difficult to judge. Clearly the city could spend less in a number of places, but it's difficult to see any real lavish expenditures. The city, in general, is trying to maintain aging infrastructure and manage a deeply struggling urban area. The one place big cuts should be made is in government itself. We're burdened with a city government designed to serve 1,000,000 people.

flopoerich · PostFeb 17, 2010#82010-02-17T19:35+00:00

Grover wrote:The one place big cuts should be made is in government itself. We're burdened with a city government designed to serve 1,000,000 people.

I agree with you there... I think it's ridiculous we still have 28 alderpersons...

innov8ion · PostFeb 18, 2010#92010-02-18T01:50+00:00

Here's another reason why the city should control its own police department. Vincent Bommarito, a local restauranteur on the five member state-controlled panel, took it upon himself to abuse his power in springing his drunk-driving nephew out of jail. Interesting article here.

Said Bommarito: “Any uncle would do the same thing.” Sorry Vince, but you ain't my uncle. Three million St. Louisans don't have the privilege in having a corrupt relative on the state-controlled police board.

The Police talk a good game about keeping politics and corruption out of law enforcement but at the end of the day they're just scared about what a change in control could mean for the pension. Call me an idealist, but it would be nice to see a greater conversation regarding this issue between the key stakeholders.

lukethedrifter · PostFeb 18, 2010#102010-02-18T03:29+00:00

innov8ion wrote:Here's another reason why the city should control its own police department. Vincent Bommarito, a local restauranteur on the five member state-controlled panel, took it upon himself to abuse his power in springing his drunk-driving nephew out of jail.

If you think city control would eliminate this sort of thing you are incredibly naive.

innov8ion · PostFeb 18, 2010#112010-02-18T04:42+00:00

lukethedrifter wrote:
innov8ion wrote:Here's another reason why the city should control its own police department. Vincent Bommarito, a local restauranteur on the five member state-controlled panel, took it upon himself to abuse his power in springing his drunk-driving nephew out of jail.
If you think city control would eliminate this sort of thing you are incredibly naive.

That's true, but at least under city control we can vote out those that are unscrupulous. We sure as hell can't vote out Bommarito -- he's appointed by the governor.

We all know the crux of this issue isn't corruption. You know it. I know it. It's about the fear of change and potential impacts to the pension. I can't profess to being well-versed in this issue. Maybe fears are warranted -- maybe not. The truth is that all St. Louisans have made sacrifices. Why should the fire and police departments be exempt from this possibilities?

Perhaps we are due to let go of the past. I mean, the Civil War ended 144 years ago. Isn't it time that St. Louis joined every other city in America and got its own police department? Would it help if we promise not to use it against the Confederate Army?

flopoerich · PostFeb 18, 2010#122010-02-18T08:20+00:00

I agree with Luke here, if the city takes control, I think the above story will occur more frequently than it does now.
And off the subject, I do not condone what Bommarito did, however, I believe that almost anyone who has the power to get a relative out of trouble would do the same thing he did.
And I am curious as to how we would vote out the unscrupulous. Less than two years ago we passed Prop S., which was aimed at hiring more officers, getting officers raises and updating equipment. The officers received a minimal raise, which was negated by raised insurance costs. New equipment was never gotten due to the funds being used by various aldermen for their pet projects. 2 or 3 alderpeople "developed" programs that ate away at the newly developed fund and left little for the police department.
On the flipside, you have K.C., who run a similar system to St. Louis. They actually increased the budget for the police department, by nearly 10 million dollars.

innov8ion · PostFeb 18, 2010#132010-02-18T13:26+00:00

FloPoErich wrote:I agree with Luke here, if the city takes control, I think the above story will occur more frequently than it does now.

Just to be transparent, you are a policeman and Luke is a firefighter. Thank you both for your service to our community.

FloPoErich wrote:And off the subject, I do not condone what Bommarito did, however, I believe that almost anyone who has the power to get a relative out of trouble would do the same thing he did.

No. Not if they have an ounce of integrity in their bodies and take the public's trust in them seriously. A more apt response comes from Police Chief Dan Isom who spoke broadly against what has occurred in this letter. I no longer trust Bommarito and the state panel governing the St. Louis police force. And today I have less trust in our police force than I did before this incident.

FloPoErich wrote:And I am curious as to how we would vote out the unscrupulous. Less than two years ago we passed Prop S., which was aimed at hiring more officers, getting officers raises and updating equipment. The officers received a minimal raise, which was negated by raised insurance costs. New equipment was never gotten due to the funds being used by various aldermen for their pet projects. 2 or 3 alderpeople "developed" programs that ate away at the newly developed fund and left little for the police department.

A general description of this could ring true for a great number of St. Louisans in the corporations/bureaucracies we serve. While it doesn't seem fair, it is real life. If anything truly unscrupulous occurs, it is the role of the media to uncover and expose it so that accountability may take place.

We're all aware after taking civics in high school that checks and balances more greatly enable accountability. If it wasn't clear to us before, it is clear now that the state panel governing our police force is not accountable to St. Louisans. Accountability can only return as control of the police force shifts back to its rightful heir -- the citizens of St. Louis.

Is it going to be perfect? Is anything? No, but it will be better overall.

zink · PostFeb 18, 2010#142010-02-18T14:35+00:00

FloPoErich wrote:And off the subject, I do not condone what Bommarito did, however, I believe that almost anyone who has the power to get a relative out of trouble would do the same thing he did.

Ouch. There is a difference if that relative did something wrong... like DWI. Remember, you hold the position to protect the public's interest, NOT YOURSELF.

Plus if Bommarito was smart he would have gotten someone else to do it. It just shows that he is so cocky that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

It is like someone stealing money from a company, you never hear people protect the person that stole because, "He didn't get a raise this year, so yea he should be able to steal" Just doesn't happen.

I respect the police, but when they act as if they are above the law, well, then that is the day we no longer need them.

brickandmortar · PostFeb 18, 2010#152010-02-18T14:42+00:00

The City should control its own police department. Period. What year did reconstruction end, like 1877? You don't see Union troops in Mobile, Alabama still because the time is over. I think it's safe to say that Johnny Reb won't be taking over the arsenal anytime soon and it's time to disband the last vestige the Confederate-sympathic Missouri government from the early 1860s.

Either way you slice it there'll always be issues, but like others said at least you can vote out the fools if the city is in charge.

dweebe · PostFeb 18, 2010#162010-02-18T15:05+00:00

zink wrote:
FloPoErich wrote:And off the subject, I do not condone what Bommarito did, however, I believe that almost anyone who has the power to get a relative out of trouble would do the same thing he did.
Ouch. There is a difference if that relative did something wrong... like DWI. Remember, you hold the position to protect the public's interest, NOT YOURSELF.

Plus if Bommarito was smart he would have gotten someone else to do it. It just shows that he is so cocky that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

It is like someone stealing money from a company, you never hear people protect the person that stole because, "He didn't get a raise this year, so yea he should be able to steal" Just doesn't happen.

I respect the police, but when they act as if they are above the law, well, then that is the day we no longer need them.

I going to go into Tony's and get a business card from the host. Then any time I get pulled over by a city cop I'll shove it in his face claiming to be related to Colonel Bommarito and that I'm "a good boy" can do whatever I want.

flopoerich · PostFeb 18, 2010#172010-02-18T16:16+00:00

It's a shame that you think that would work. It's also a shame that a board member tries to use his influence to affect how the police do their job. It's also a shame how other political members attempt to do this. But beyond all of that, it's a shame that everyone else's credibility seems shot, although half of us have never met the guy, talked to him or anything. My biggest fear of city control is not just the potential interference, or even the loss of my pension. It's the fact that hundreds of great police officers are ready to leave, with no replacement in sight.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 18, 2010#182010-02-18T16:19+00:00

Wait - police officers would leave because their own city controls their own police force?!?! I'll take all the criticisms of such an arrangement at face value and ignore any shortcomings created by state control. And yet I'll still say that it only makes sense for a city to have control over its own police force - for better or worse.

innov8ion · PostFeb 18, 2010#192010-02-18T16:20+00:00

FloPoErich wrote:It's the fact that hundreds of great police officers are ready to leave, with no replacement in sight.

Can you elaborate? In this economic climate, it's interesting to discover that hundreds of police officers would truly be ready to leave. Ask yourselves. Does this attitude of, "it's either my way or the highway" not sound childish? One would hope its not the prevailing view among police officers...

moorlander · PostFeb 18, 2010#202010-02-18T16:24+00:00

lukethedrifter wrote:
innov8ion wrote:Here's another reason why the city should control its own police department. Vincent Bommarito, a local restauranteur on the five member state-controlled panel, took it upon himself to abuse his power in springing his drunk-driving nephew out of jail.
If you think city control would eliminate this sort of thing you are incredibly naive.

Not to hijack the thread but I have absolutely NO problem with this. Perks of the job IMO. Police officers do this every day by not writing tickets to family of their own.

flopoerich · PostFeb 18, 2010#212010-02-18T16:39+00:00

innov8ion wrote:
FloPoErich wrote:It's the fact that hundreds of great police officers are ready to leave, with no replacement in sight.
Can you elaborate? In this economic climate, it's interesting to discover that hundreds of police officers would truly be ready to leave. Ask yourselves. Does this attitude of, "it's either my way or the highway" not sound childish?

I don't think it's a case of my way or the highway. It's more of a case of them not trusting the city if they have control. Everyone "fighting" for city control has come out and said a different reason why the city wants control, however none have been able to say how it would help the city or the department, other than by using the police and fire pension. There are numerous officers, who have enough time on to retire and collect their pension, but still work as they love the city and their job. If the city takes control, their pension is automatically threatened. Their pension is very important to them so they will take the pension and leave.
We're not trying to act like if we don't get our way, we are taking our ball and going home, it's just that with the way that other city departments are run, we are worried about how the police department will be affected.

The same goes for the fire department. The city is currently attempting to privatize EMS and subcontract through ambulance companies. I myself believe we have one of the finest Fire Departments and some of the best paramedics. On the flip side, I've seen some of the medics from the private companies and shudder at the thought of them taking care of the entire city.

The problem is that they mayor and aldermen seem so worried about cutting costs that they are willing to do it at the expense of the safety and well being of the residents of St. Louis.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 18, 2010#222010-02-18T16:40+00:00

^^ 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?

Anyway, several have expressed concerns about the City's motives for wanting to control the City police department. But what is the motive for the state to retain control? What benefit do they accrue? Power? Access to the pension fund? The good feeling of paternalism?

flopoerich · PostFeb 18, 2010#232010-02-18T16:48+00:00

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?

Anyway, several have expressed concerns about the City's motives for wanting to control the City police department. But what is the motive for the state to retain control? What benefit do they accrue? Power? Access to the pension fund? The good feeling of paternalism?

The state receives no benefit. That's why the Board of Police Commissioners was enacted. The department is governed by the four city residents on the board and the mayor.

That's what bugs me about this whole thing is the media and aldermen have not looked into how the department is run and has no idea how things are set up. The mayor is the fifth and possible deciding member of the board. They are going around saying that the city has no control over the department, but they do. State Rep. Tishaura Jones wrote "The Mayor is an ex-officio member of the Commission, which means he doesn’t have a vote or a voice. We spend our tax dollars on a department that we have no voice? Isn’t that the same as taxation without representation?" This couldn't be farther from the truth. An ex officio member is a member of a body (a board, committee, council, etc.) who is part of it by virtue of holding another office. The term is Latin, meaning literally "from the office", and the sense intended is "by right of office"; its use dates back to the Roman Republic.
On the same token, the mayor will sometimes "miss a meeting" or not vote on a issue that has political ties... how is this right?

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 18, 2010#242010-02-18T17:02+00:00

FloPoErich wrote:The state receives no benefit.

So why does the State want to retain control?

innov8ion · PostFeb 18, 2010#252010-02-18T17:05+00:00

FloPoErich wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
FloPoErich wrote:It's the fact that hundreds of great police officers are ready to leave, with no replacement in sight.
Can you elaborate? In this economic climate, it's interesting to discover that hundreds of police officers would truly be ready to leave. Ask yourselves. Does this attitude of, "it's either my way or the highway" not sound childish?
I don't think it's a case of my way or the highway. It's more of a case of them not trusting the city if they have control. Everyone "fighting" for city control has come out and said a different reason why the city wants control, however none have been able to say how it would help the city or the department, other than by using the police and fire pension. There are numerous officers, who have enough time on to retire and collect their pension, but still work as they love the city and their job. If the city takes control, their pension is automatically threatened. Their pension is very important to them so they will take the pension and leave.

We're not trying to act like if we don't get our way, we are taking our ball and going home, it's just that with the way that other city departments are run, we are worried about how the police department will be affected.

If the city regains control, their pensions are threatened? I'm sorry, but the reality is that their pensions and that of many Americans are already threatened by the economic realities we face together. Please, take a look at these recent articles describing pension shortfalls throughout the world.

Therefore, handing the police force back to its rightful heir -- St. Louis citizens and taxpayers -- will not change the reality of our pension troubles. It's time to stop playing pretend and start facing reality. Oh, and reality is such that everyone is making sacrifices. We should all be aware of the difficult, yet necessary, budget-cutting exercise in St. Louis that affects each and every one of its citizens.