I have serious reservations about returning local control to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. Senate Bill 23 is the latest effort to turn control of the city’s police department over to the mayor. It may sound good in theory, but the devil is in the details.
My opposition to SB 23 is based on two issues: whether or not we can trust the mayor and the Board of Aldermen to do what is right for the men and women in uniform who risk their lives every day to protect the citizens of our City; and whether or not the pensions that our officers have earned will be protected.
Let me start with Mayor Slay, who testified in support of SB 23 during a recent committee hearing. It’s hard for me not to question the mayor’s motives because of his close relationship to billionaire financier Rex Sinquefield, who is bankrolling the effort to kill the earnings tax in St. Louis and Kansas City. Eliminating the earnings tax will certainly benefit wealthy people like “his Rexiness,” but it would be devastating to the citizens who rely upon city services and programs.
I asked the mayor why he did not fight the initiative petition to kill the earnings tax, and he responded that he was keeping his powder dry to promote retention of the earnings tax in the April election. In truth, I believe the mayor is simply doing Sinquefield’s bidding because of hefty campaign contributions.
I also fear the mayor will gain too much control over the police department if this bill passes. Right now the mayor is one of five people serving on the board that oversees the police department. The other four members are appointed by the governor. Under SB 23, there would be a single commissioner, who would be appointed by and would answer to the mayor. I fail to see how this new arrangement would create a balanced approach when it comes to work conditions and collective bargaining.
My other major concern is protection of the police pension system. These dedicated officers do not pay into Social Security – their retirement is largely self-funded by contributing seven percent of their salaries to the pension fund. The fund has approximately $600 million and is 90 percent funded by officer contributions. As one officer testified, “I want to know what is going to be done to my pension.”
She and the other officers are rightly concerned about the impact SB 23 will have on their retirement security, despite assurances from supporters that their pensions will not be affected. However, under SB 23, the mayor gains even more control over the pension board than he has now.
In 2008, voters approved a sales tax increase (Proposition S) to put more money into the police fund, but we have already seen diversions of these dollars to recreation and parks. What assurances do we have that pension funds won’t be diverted to fill other gaps in the city budget? Will future retirees have retirement security? All I asked of the mayor was a guarantee beyond his word.
Senate Bill 23 eviscerates Chapter 84 of Missouri state statutes, which provides a premium standard of employment terms and benefits for St. Louis city police officers. It provides guarantees to police officers that they will receive education reimbursements, a buy-in rate for spouses of officers killed in the line of duty, life insurance, health insurance, medical and disability coverage.
By gutting Chapter 84, SB 23 removes these statutory guarantees and instead leaves these important decisions in the hands of politicians. I am not willing to gamble that those politicians will always have the best interests of police officers in mind.
Until these questions regarding guarantees and trust are answered satisfactorily, I will continue to fight efforts to turn control of the city’s police department over to the mayor and his political cronies.
Â
