Senate committee hears arguments for giving police control back to city of St. Louis

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 | 10:25 p.m. CST; updated 11:12 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011

JEFFERSON CITY — The St. Louis Police Department, one of only two departments in the nation not directly controlled by the city it polices, might be governed by the city if some folks have their way.

The Missouri Senate Progress and Development Committee heard testimonies Wednesday about allowing the city of St. Louis to take control of its police department from the state government.

St. Louis and Kansas City are the only two cities in the nation that lack direct control of their police departments.

In 1932, the Kansas City City Council approved a home-rule ordinance that brought its department under the city's control, according to the Kansas City Police Department's website.

Only seven years later, though, then-Attorney General Roy McKeltside targeted rampant corruption in the city's government fueled by political boss Tom Pendergast. Then-Gov. Lloyd Stark responded by returning control of the department to the state. 

More than 100 people sat in on Wednesday's hearing while an overflowing group watched the events unfold on a TV in the hall. Four people spoke in favor of the proposition, including St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay.

Slay said local control would make the police department more effective, allowing it to save millions of dollars by merging departments and being accountable.

The president of the city's Board of Aldermen, Lewis Reed, called attention to the history behind the state control of the police department. He said in 1861, Gov. Claiborne Jackson created the local board of police commissioners and turned over the arms of St. Louis to the Confederacy.

Redditt Hudson from the ACLU of Eastern Missouri took Reed's history lesson one step further.

"Legislatively, the intent of the guys who put this in place was to disenfranchise the people of St. Louis, and the people that wanted to do that were Confederate sympathizers," Hudson said.

Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, opposed the bill. Her arguments against it focused mainly on Chapter 84.160 of the Missouri Constitution, which would be eliminated should the bill pass. The chapter serves as a written guarantee of benefits to widows and children of police officers, as well as maimed police officers.

Nadal's concerns were echoed by Joe Steiger, the vice president of the St. Louis Police Officer Association, as well as a few other active and retired police officers.

"The single most dangerous part of this legislation is the risk that city politicians, as they have done in the past, will turn their backs on the very people who lay their lives on the line every day," Steiger said.

He also defended the status quo, praising state government control.

"State control makes us a much more efficient and effective police department," Steiger said.

James Gieseke, president of the St. Louis Police Officer Association, clarified the argument against giving the city control.

"The current system, however it was born, has been amended and corrected over the years to be what it is now for the governance of the St. Louis Police Department," he said. "It works. Sometimes it stumbles, sometimes it falls, but it works and we make things happen. There can be more cooperation. We don't need to change Chapter 84 to make that cooperation happen."

Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, said legislators and witnesses would need to consider which parts of the bill would have to be modified to give it a chance of passing. These changes are expected to be discussed as early as next week when the committee votes on the bill. A similar bill failed in March 2010 by a margin of 86-63.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.