For a police chief, having the ability to hire, discipline and fire employees is paramount, Police Chief Dan Isom said at a public forum last week.
Yet none of that is defined in the “Safer Missouri” ballot initiative for local control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.
At the Board of Aldermen’s March 1 local control forum at Harris-Stowe State University, Isom expressed concern about who was going to determine the structure and controls of the department.
“In this ballot initiative, the Civil Service Commission determines that – not the chief, not anyone else,” Isom said. “So who are those people going to be? Those are the things that concern me but haven’t been talked about.”
Only three groups were involved in deciding how to write up the ballot initiative for local control: Mayor Francis G. Slay’s office, the St. Louis Police Officers Association and A Safer Missouri – a group funded by Rex Sinquefield, the billionaire conservative policy activist. The language they created will appear on the November 2012 ballot if the signature-gathering effort funded by Sinquefield succeeds.
Community organizations and the Board of Aldermen – who have been fighting for local control for years – were not at the deal table for the ballot language.
Over the past 150 years, the police department has gone through ups and downs in terms of establishing rules that create order, Isom said. However the ballot initiative does not address which of those rules is going to transfer over.
“And when we are talking about transparency, how is that going to be any different than what we are doing right now?” Isom asked. “That’s where a civilian review board comes in. Civilian review is a good thing for the police department.”
Civilian review, he said, builds public trust.
“This is an issue of building more trust in our police department – which is ultimately going to help us to do a better job,” he said. “If we don’t achieve that with local control, what have we really accomplished? If we lose control of our police department, what have we really accomplished?”
Civilian review under review
The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri (ACLU-EM) and the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression (CAPCR) testified that they will fight the ballot initiative, though both groups have long pushed for local control.
This initiative, they claim, would make it more difficult for the public to access records on police who are under investigation for wrongdoing and to establish a civilian review board.
John Chasnoff, an ACLU-EM staffer and longtime CAPCR activist, points to a clause in the ballot language that hinders this authority: “The civil service commission of the city may adopt rules and regulations appropriate for the unique operation of a police department. Such rules and regulations shall reserve exclusive authority over the disciplinary process and procedures affecting commissioned officers to the civil service commission.”
The ACLU-EM has filed a lawsuit challenging the initiative because the ballot summary approved by the Missouri Secretary of State fails to inform voters of this provision, as well as another that creates an exemption to the Missouri Sunshine Law, which protects citizens’ rights to public records.
In fine print not summarized for the voter, the initiative states that records prepared for disciplinary purposes shall be “confidential, closed records available solely to the civil service commission.”
The Police Officers Association has adamantly opposed local control for more than 20 years. They helped write the Sinquefield-funded local control initiative and support it, yet continue to oppose civilian review.
“I want to be very clear, we oppose civilian review boards,” said Jeff Roorda, spokesman for the association.
Ward 18 Alderman Terry Kennedy asked Roorda if civilian review ever came up while they were drafting the initiative.
“Yes, I wondered aloud if we should put provisions in the legislation to outright outlaw them,” Roorda said. “And I talked myself out of it.”
Alderman Craig Schmid told Roorda, “It seems [the initiative] circumscribes civilian review – just as how you hoped it might.”
