Motion on police discipline prompts Slay’s move to oust Civil Service commissioner

St. Louis Civil Service Commissioner John Clark received two letters from Mayor Francis Slay this month. The first letter on September 4 asked for his resignation, and the second came Tuesday, September 15 to inform him that Slay had scheduled a hearing for Clark’s removal. Slay appoints all members of the commission.

Clark said the letters were a direct response to the item he put on the agenda for Tuesday’s commission meeting – to make more changes to the “Rule 19” law regarding how police discipline appeals are handled.

This is not the first time Slay asked for Clark’s resignation. On January 8, the Civil Service Commission voted 2-1 to allow some police officers the right to the same disciplinary appeal process that all other city employees have. Now police officers are able to come before the commission to appeal any disciplinary cases – as long as the officers’ disciplinary action is for more than 15 days. Although the majority of the discipline cases are for less than 15 days, Clark said it was all he could do at that time.

Days before the January public hearing, Slay’s office asked Clark for his resignation.

The commission’s decision went against what Slay’s office and the police union had proposed to the commission – that the police department keep its own internal hearing process when employees appeal discipline or corrective actions. Both the mayor and union opposed the commission’s decision, and the city attorney’s office threatened to take the commissioners to court. The commission’s decision has not yet been legally challenged.

Clark argued it was past time for the police department to operate under the same procedures that all city departments do. On Tuesday, Clark moved to amend Rule 19 again and allow any police officer with a disciplinary action of 10 days or more to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

“The Rule 19 is what caused all of this,” Clark told The St. Louis American, regarding Slay’s letters. “I really believe we are at a crossroads here. If we don’t set the tone that we want to move in one direction, it’s never going to happen. We’ve got 150 years of culture here.”

Local control and police discipline

Before the commission’s January vote, the police department was handling discipline internally – as it did for the 150 years the department was under state control. An internal three-member “summary hearing board” listened to officers’ appeals to disciplinary action. In this process, the board cannot question the validity of the employee’s charge, which comes from the police chief. Board members could only modify the discipline to a lesser degree if they believe it’s warranted.

When Missourians voted for local control in November 2012 through a ballot initiative, the commissioners thought they would gain the authority to hear appeals from police officers. However, in the fine print of the local control state law, it says that the commission only has the authority to hear appeals of those who face disciplinary actions of more than 15 days. Yet, most of the department’s discipline measures are for minor offenses with punishment of less than 15 days.

The commissioners said that they never saw this passage in the ballot initiative. In the January meeting, Commission Chair Steven Barney said that it makes him question the process of how the initiative was drawn up. In 2012, the local control initiative faced much criticism for being a closed-door process between the police union, Slay’s office and Rex Sinquefield’s employees at A Safer Missouri.

The mayor’s office said the police’s internal discipline process was negotiated as part of their collective bargaining agreement with the city.

So in January, Clark proposed an amendment that keeps the police’s summary hearing board intact, but also allows employees to come before the commission if they do not get relief – in the cases of those who face discipline of more than 15 days.

The commission passed it. However, since January, not one police officer has come forth to appeal a disciplinary decision. Clark said he thinks it’s because police officers don’t want to “break rank.”

Commissioner Stanley Newsome Sr., a retired firefighter, told The American that firefighters have a similar disciplinary appeal process as the police. They’ve also always been allowed to come before the Civil Service Commission for further appeals, and many opt to do so. But police have a different “culture,” Newsome said.

Barney said the firefighters’ internal process is consistent with all other branches of city government. The police department’s is not.

“The police came to us with their own system,” Barney said. “Turns out, the disciplinary process is more shielded from public scrutiny.”

In Slay’s September 4 letter to Clark, he said that Clark is unable to perform his duty as “an unbiased, objective arbiter.” Slay alleged that Clark said in a May meeting that “I will not vote in favor of anything that supports the police department.”

Clark said that was not true.

Regarding Tuesday’s motion, Clark said he doesn’t believe it will have any impact.

The police department is “a very militarized close-door, good-old-boy network,” Clark said. “They got a system that they like, why would they want to get into a public system? They don’t see the value that I see in it – that if you have a public body outside of the police department looking at these appeals, it gives them a hell of a lot more credibility.”

The commission will hold a public hearing in October regarding Clark’s proposal.