This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 18, 2010 - It's a rare issue that puts the Republican-controlled Missouri House and the state Democratic Party on the same side. But that unusual alliance highlights the current political climate surrounding the 150-year-old debate over who controls St. Louis' police department.
The state House voted overwhelmingly Thursday afternoon, by a 123-34 majority, to give first-round approval to a bill restoring City Hall control of the police department, which has been governed by the state since the Civil War. The bill now goes to the state Senate, where opponents hope to block it.
Last Saturday, the Missouri Democratic Party's executive board voted by voice vote in favor of granting local control -- the first time the party is known to have weighed in on the subject. And its support for local control put party leaders at odds with their de facto political boss, Gov. Jay Nixon, a fellow Democrat.
Nixon already has been feeling the heat since he publicly observed last week that -- like his predecessors -- he wasn't too keen on giving up state control of the police operations in Missouri's two largest cities.
What's different this time, both sides say, is that the city's Democratic officials -- led by Mayor Francis Slay -- have succeeded in persuading the state's Republican leaders that it's time to relinquish legislators' public and private influence over St. Louis' law enforcement. Those supporters include state House Speaker Steve Tilley, R-Perryville.
This morning in St. Louis, Republican legislators or their aides joined Slay and dozens of other city officials and civic leaders at a news conference highlighting their common view. "I am surprised that so many people all over the state have come forward to support this issue," said Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed.
"It's the right thing to do," said state Rep. John Diehl, R-Town and Country, who was among today's attendees. "It's not about the Civil War or who gets what patronage. It's about the people."
State Rep. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis and the sponsor of the House bill, in turn used her time at the microphone to single out Tilley for praise. She called him "truly a man of his word."
The bipartisan change in legislative mood is credited, in part, to the retooled arguments of St. Louis' top officials that appear to be swaying some lawmakers -- especially this year's large new crop hearing about the dispute for the first time.
"We've been laying the groundwork for four to five years," said Slay chief of staff Jeff Rainford.
The crux of the city's pitch, as Rainford explains it: "If state control is so great, why doesn't the state control every other police department in the state?"
St. Louis officials also point to last year's strong approval of Proposition L, an advisory referendum backed by 70 percent of St. Louis voters, that called for local control.
But most recently, the city has been pressing another angle potentially more expensive to the state. The city is threatening to go to court to assert that the state should pay at least some of the police department's bill -- particularly any spending increases since 1980, when voters approved the Hancock amendment, which restricts state spending and income increases made without the public's approval.
A fourth element in the city's favor is wealthy financier Rex Sinquefield, a low-tax enthusiast who has, within the past five years, become the most generous political donor in the state. Although he's at odds with St. Louis officials over the earnings tax, he has embraced their local-control argument.
Aside from giving generously to certain legislators, including Tilley, Sinquefield has bankrolled a political group -- A Safer Missouri -- that has filed papers to conduct an initiative-petition drive to get a pro-local control proposal on the 2012 ballot if the General Assembly fails to OK the idea.
On the other side stands the most politically powerful rival group committed to maintaining state control: the St. Louis Police Officers Association. The group's representatives have been lobbying legislators for decades -- and, until recently, with success.
The police group maintains that political meddling from City Hall -- if it won local control -- would be worse than whatever clout is wielded by those in Jefferson City.
The association also fears that St. Louis officials are out to control, and possibly curb, police pensions, an assertion the officials generally deny.
Ed Clark, the association's recording secretary, discounts the city's Hancock amendment argument by citing earlier court decisions that he says back up the view that the city of St. Louis -- not the state -- is on the hook for the department's expenses.
"Our argument always has been the same, while (the city's) has shifted," Clark said. "We're hoping that the state legislature sides with us."
But the pro-local control state House sent an ominous message Thursday when it tacked onto its local-control bill a provision that appears to be a slap at the police group. The provision would bar police or the association's representatives from wearing uniforms when they're in the state Capitol lobbying on issues.
How It All Began
When it comes to the city's police department, St. Louis officials' generally have been airing the same beef for decades. Although St. Louis foots the department's bill, state law governs everything from police pay and promotions to vacations and pensions. The governor names four of the five members of the Board of Police Commissioners who run the department.
The arrangement has been generally the same since the 1860s, when state officials -- who sided with the Confederacy -- seized control of St. Louis' police force because it was deemed to be pro-Union. In the 1870s, the state did the same with Kansas City's police department.
During the past 30 years, legislators have gone along with a few changes that do give St. Louis officials a bit more say -- but not a lot -- over the department's spending, which makes up roughly a third of the city's annual budget.
In the 1990s, then-Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. persuaded lawmakers to require that the Board of Police Commissioners submit more detailed financial information when it presents its budget requests to the city's Board of Estimate and Apportionment -- a fiscal body that makes most of the city's financial decisions. The mayor, comptroller and aldermanic president make up its members.
The police board also is now required to get the Estimate Board's approval if money is transferred after the city budget is approved.
Clark with the police association said that police might be more receptive to the local-control push if City Hall also would be willing to make some changes.
In particular, the association would like to see Slay set up a public safety commission -- made up of five or six mayoral appointees -- who would oversee the city's police and fire departments, and ambulance operations.
The association also believes that the city's 28-member Board of Aldermen needs to be scaled back, Clark said. "We'd like city government to be a little more streamlined."
Representatives of the association last met with the mayor's staff last year, he added.
Issue Poses Political Threat for Nixon
All sides privately acknowledge another key factor that has affected the change in legislative mood: term limits.
Over the past 15 years, the state's legislative term limits have removed veteran lawmakers who once were major behind-the-scenes forces in internal police affairs. As a result, some of those former legislators were happy to defend the status quo. The newer legislators generally have less interest in getting involved in internal St. Louis politics.
But city politics could affect Nixon, who is running for re-election in 2012 and -- like all Missouri Democrats running statewide -- will need huge pluralities of St. Louis votes.
Nixon has had strained relations with city Democrats since the early 1990s, when as attorney general he sought to phase out state involvement -- and spending -- in the city's court-ordered school desegregation program. Nixon and Slay also have a cool relationship, stemming from disagreements on other issues -- most notably the state's historic tax credits that Nixon wants to curb and the mayor wants to preserve.
The local-control issue also puts the governor at odds with a close personal friend, U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, who has been an advocate of local control for decades.
A spokeswoman for the governor said this week that Nixon had nothing more to add to last week's observations. He also isn't commenting about last weekend's vote by his own party or Thursday's House vote.
Some activists in both camps privately assert that the governor is hoping that the state Senate will kill the local-control bill so that Nixon won't be forced to sign or veto it.
Said Clark with the police association: "We're hoping that it never makes it to the governor's desk."
Meanwhile, Slay said this morning that he was optimistic the state Senate would send the measure on to Nixon. "When that bill lands on the governor's desk, I believe the governor will do the right thing,'' the mayor said.
Slay added that he also could promise Nixon one thing. If the city regains control of the police department, the mayor said, "we will not use our department against the Confederacy."
