The St. Louis Board of Aldermen voted on Friday to define Sheriff Alfred Montgomery’s duties and place his office under financial monitoring for the next year.
Thirteen of the 15 board members (including President Megan Green) voted in favor of passing Board Bill 33. 12th Ward Alderwoman Sharon Tyus opposed the measure. 13th Ward Alderwoman Pam Boyd was not present for the vote.
Montgomery and his office’s spokesperson John Gieseke sat in the gallery during the vote.
"I think what we did today is we removed any dispute about what the sheriff shall do and what he should not do, and I think that's a major step forward,” said 5th Ward Alderman Matt Devoti, who sponsored the legislation. “We are not creating a new responsibility or a new duty. What we are doing is we're clarifying that responsibility.”
Montgomery came under fire last June when the board’s budget committee found his office was facing a deficit of more than $600,000 — much of it tied to firing many of his predecessor’s long-time employees and having to pay out their accrued PTO. Montgomery continued spending, purchasing gold-plated badges, additional attorneys and a new takehome Chevrolet Tahoe. His office argues the expenditures fall within his authority and are needed to modernize operations.
The new bill requires the sheriff to submit requests for necessary expenses — with written explanations — to the city’s comptroller and provide monthly expense reports to the board’s public safety and budget committees.
It also addresses the heart of the dispute between the sheriff and the city: making transporting detainees from the city jail to the hospital part of the sheriff’s official duties. After last summer’s budget hearing, Devoti vowed to introduce the legislation that requires Montgomery’s office to transport jail detainees for medical and psychiatric care.
Some are skeptical of the bill because the St. Louis Sheriff’s elected position is a county-level role, not a city-regulated one despite the office receiving its budget from the Board of Aldermen.
"We have different offices that don't report to the Board of Aldermen. They don't report to the mayor. They don't report to a lot of people,” said 12th Ward Alderwoman Sharon Tyus, the lone member to oppose the bill, the week ahead of its passage. "We don't have the ability to put in a board bill that the state statute provides something when it doesn't."
14th Ward Alderman Rasheen Aldridge said he didn’t agree the board should have inserted language that states the sheriff’s office has to transport medical detainees — a point of contention in the Missouri attorney general’s efforts to oust Montgomery from office — but said it was necessary to act.
"When you are making almost a mockery out of an office and having a lot of situations that happen, you got to be real that you know it's going to cause a legislative body to respond," Aldridge said. “Regardless what department you're in, this Board of Aldermen [...] is serious about transparency, accountability and making sure that government runs as efficient as possible.”
Board Bill 33 now heads to Spencer, who is expected to sign it into law. There is an emergency clause included in the bill, so it will go into effect immediately once signed.
David Mason, Montgomery’s attorney, said last July the office planned to sue the city if the measure advanced.
“There will be a discussion as to whether or not the board has the authority to shift those duties over,” he said at a press conference last July. “I can tell you one thing: I don’t think the sheriff’s just going to sit there and let the Board of Aldermen or the mayor start writing out: ‘You are going to do this, or you’re going to do that.’”
Gieseke, the St. Louis Sheriff’s spokesperson, confirmed on Friday that Mason’s comments still stand and the office plans to file a lawsuit against the city once Mayor Cara Spencer signs it into law.
Devoti said the board was on "extremely solid ground" inclusion of the sheriff's medically transporting of detainees in city statute, but Aldridge isn’t so sure.
“I think it is a waste of time, knowing it's going to get sued,” he said of including that portion in the bill. “I would have rather us [...] wait to see what plays out between the sheriff and [...] the new AG."
