The St. Louis Board of Aldermen took steps this week to rein in Sheriff Alfred Montgomery’s office, approving a measure to redefine his duties and tighten oversight of his spending — a move Montgomery’s attorney says sets a dangerous precedent.
The board cited concerns about transparency and accountability, but Montgomery’s attorney, retired Circuit Judge David Mason, argues the move is unlawful overreach — interfering with the authority of an independently elected county officer and preempting an ongoing court case that will determine Montgomery’s fitness for office.
Thirteen of the board’s 15 members, including President Megan Green, voted in favor of the legislation, with one member absent. The measure requires Montgomery to submit expense requests, with written explanations, to the city comptroller and provide monthly expense and contract reports to the board’s public safety and budget committees.
Alderman Matt Devoti, who sponsored the bill, said the board is on “extremely solid ground” with the new rules. But Montgomery’s allies argue that while the sheriff’s office is funded through the board, it is a county-level position not subject to city regulation.
Mason told The American he was stunned by the board’s actions and plans to ask a judge to block the measure.
“What the board is essentially saying is they can take control of the financial monitoring of any independently elected county officer, assessor and so on … that they can add duties to those officers that are not in any statue,” Mason said, adding, “and to make it worse, they think they have the power to put anyone of these elected officials on probation. Are you kidding me? The bill, on its face, is absolutely silly.”
Alderwoman Sharon Tyus was the only member to oppose the measure, saying the board has no authority to impose duties on county-level elected officials. “We don’t have the ability to put in a board bill that the state statute provides something when it doesn’t,” she told St. Louis Public Radio.
Montgomery already is facing a legal challenge. In June, former state Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a 90-page lawsuit alleging that Montgomery engaged in illegal arrests, misused the sheriff’s office for personal gain, practiced nepotism and mismanaged funds. The type of suit Bailey filed questions whether someone is legally entitled to hold office; such suits traditionally are not used to address alleged misconduct.
Mason argues the board and Democratic Mayor Cara Spencer are compounding the problem by acting on unproven allegations made by a Republican official.
“Instead of waiting to see how the [lawsuit] plays out, the board has gotten it into their heads that they have to write a bill to create that duty,” Mason said. “Why? Well, it’s because they know that [the suit] has a real chance of going down on this issue.”
Although the bench trial in Circuit Court has been set for Nov. 10, Mason already has challenged several of Bailey’s claims, such as the nepotism charge, the claim that he ordered his deputies to pick his children up from school and if it’s his office or the city’s responsibility to transport detainees to hospitals.
Mason said federal courts have long held that the responsibility for inmate healthcare falls on the entity with “care, custody and control of the prisoner,” not the one that transports them. In his view, that makes the city — not the sheriff’s office — responsible for transporting detainees to hospitals for medical treatment.
Spencer and other city officials argue Montgomery is breaking with precedent. They note that the two previous sheriffs handled detainee transport.
“Should Mayor Spencer be held accountable for what other mayors have done in the past? No,” Mason said. “Just because a sheriff has done it for a while or has been willing to do it doesn’t mean anything if the board isn’t willing to finance it.”
Montgomery’s request for extra funding to cover medical transport was denied by the budget committee amid questions over his office’s spending. Alderman Rasheen Aldridge said he disagreed with the provision assigning medical transport duties to the sheriff’s office, but he still supported the overall bill.
“When you are making almost a mockery out of an office and having a lot of situations that happen, you got to be real,” Aldridge told St. Louis Public Radio. “Regardless of what department you’re in, this Board of Aldermen is serious about transparency, accountability and making sure that government runs as efficient as possible.”
Mason maintains the board is acting prematurely and unfairly.
“They literally want the sheriff to report on everything he’s spending like he’s a kid — something they haven’t done with any other independently elected county official,” Mason said. “So, they disagree with how the money is spent … so what? Take it to the people, and let them decide at the polls.”
Sylvester Brown Jr. is the Deaconess Foundation Community Advocacy Fellow.