In the
previous legislative session, the St. Louis Police Officers
Association for the first time supported a bill that would have
returned governance of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department
to city government, as opposed to the current Board of Police
Commissioners appointed by the governor. The POA was motivated, in
part, by fear – fear of a ballot initiative funded by Rex
Sinquefield that presumably would be less subject to the
association’s political influence than the standard legislative
process.
“font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Verdana;”>The local control bill failed, and the POA’s fears were ungrounded. The local control statutory amendment being pursued by Sinquefield through a ballot initiative for the November 2012 ballot clearly has been tailored to the POA’s concerns. Many of these provisions in the detailed 5,000 word-plus amendment are commendable, such as protections of current employees and police pensions during the transition to local control.
“font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Verdana;”>However, the amendment contains two unacceptable provisions that are not included in the ballot language of less than 150 words. These provisions, and the fact that they are not summarized for voters, are the subject of a law suit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri with which we wholly agree.
“font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Verdana;”>The amendment grants “ “EN” xml:lang=”EN”>exclusive authority over [police] disciplinary process and procedures” to the civil service commission, which would render unconstitutional a proposed Civilian Review Board of the police that has long been pursued by the ACLU, this newspaper and community activists. It also provides that police “records prepared for disciplinary purposes shall be confidential, closed records available solely to the civil service commission and those who possess authority to conduct investigations.” Given the nature of police work and the local police department’s poor record for policing itself, particularly regarding use of deadly force, it is unacceptable that any such records be rendered “confidential” and “closed” by ballot amendment – particularly when this provision, of such vital public interest, is not summarized for the voters making a decision on this matter.
“font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Verdana;”>“We’ve always been proponents of having St. Louis control its own police department,” says ACLU-EM Executive Director Brenda Jones, “but we shouldn’t have to sacrifice open records, open government, or independent civilian review of police to get it. That’s what this initiative will do if it passes, and the summary does not make that clear to voters.” lang=”EN” xml:lang=”EN”>We wholly agree. The Missouri Secretary of State should not have accepted this ballot amendment as written, and certainly the stipulated sealing of public records should have been summarized in the ballot language once the amendment was accepted.
“font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: Verdana;”>“We have fought for years to insure that St. Louis police abide by the Missouri Supreme Court decision that investigative reports are open records if they stem from allegations of criminal conduct. The ballot initiative would allow local police to avoid significant portions of that decision,” said ACLU-EM Legal Director Tony Rothert. The amendment is, for this reason, unacceptable. We urge the court to serve taxpayers’ interests where the Secretary of State failed them on this initiative. This amendment should not go before voters – and certainly not as currently summarized.
