St. Louis Core is designed to promote and encourage discussion of issues affecting the St. Louis region.  Control of the St. Louis Police Department has long been an issue of great debate and discussion.  With that in mind, our argument for local control of the St. Louis Police Department…

St. Louis and Kansas City are the only two cities (of their size and financial means) that have state controlled police departments.  All other American cities have locally controlled and citizen influenced processes to select their municipal police boards or commissions.  St. Louis and Kansas City, specifically, have a Governor controlled process of selecting the municipal police board.

In this article and future articles on this subject, we will examine why we have a state controlled police force and what our thoughts are on how to change this archaic system.

In this article, we will examine the history behind state control of the police; the reasons why the state controlled police board was established and why those reasons do not apply today; the political climate at that time in both the State of Missouri and the entire country; why the citizens of St. Louis City should want a locally established and citizen influenced police board; and the concerns of the local police department members regarding the pension fund.

We make the argument for local control and against state control.

The Historical Context of the State Commissioned Boards – Nationally

Municipal government functions first began to grow in the mid 1800′s.  The organization of the first disciplined municipal police force in the country was in 1845 in New York City-other cities established police forces, fire departments as well as locally run waterworks and sewer systems.

There was a general movement away from council government as the municipal tasks rapidly expanded.  This was the case in most of the larger cities in the country. The decade of the 1850′s serves as a measuring point of more control being exercised by state legislatures over municipal functions.  Up to this time the police in American cities had been entirely under the control of local officials. In 1856, the New York State legislature, for the first time, made changes to the annual tax bill submitted by New York City.  In the following year, a state park commission was established along with a state metropolitan police board for New York City, Brooklyn and adjoining counties, supplanting the city departments.  In 1860, Maryland established a State police board for Baltimore.  In 1861, the Illinois legislature reorganized the Chicago police force and placed it under a board, the first members of which were appointed by the Governor.  In 1865, the Detroit police was placed under a state commission.

In all of these instances the state commission had not only complete control of the detailed administration, but also determined the general policy to be carried out in their departments.   The system of state appointed police boards was at one time very commonplace in large American cities.  Most were abolished before 1900.  Only St. Louis and Kansas City remain.

These systems of state commissions were said to be the result of bad administration and mismanagement on the part of local authorities.  Much of this bad administration was very much true, but it is not clear how the State commissions alleviated the problem.

Did these commissions provide an impartial and effective check on wrongdoing? It seems not.  Were the state commissions about more efficient government or a political party advantage?

With the expansion of municipal activity the number of positions in the large cities available as rewards to the party which controlled the local government was greatly increased, and this made each of the large cities a strategic point, the possession of which was of great importance to the national parties in their struggle for the control of the federal government. This situation was responsible, in large part, for the creation of state commissions and much of the detailed legislation for cities.

In Chicago, different laws were formed at the state level regarding the police board when different political parties were in power.  The length of the term of a commissioner was often manipulated to give preference to the political party in power.  If it was the board your party appointed, you wanted the terms to be longer, and vice versa.    This was all about political party advantage.

After 1870, there was movement against the wave of partisan and special legislation for cities, which may have been due to the calmer tone of national politics, but, on the other hand, may have been simply the inevitable push back against bad legislation.

(All information derived from Fairlie, John. “Essays in Municipal Administration” (1908))

History of St. Louis state police board

In 1861, almost one hundred and fifty years ago, the St. Louis City police department board of commissioners was formed as a state agency.  This action went along with the general national trend, national politics, geographic location, and pro and anti-slavery sentiments of the day.  These different elements played a major role in the how the St. Louis police board is comprised today.

St. Louis City had more of an anti-slavery sentiment, while the state government (although still a member of the Union) had pro-slavery sentiment.  This difference, along with its location on the river and its great arsenal, made St. Louis City of particular importance in the time leading up to and during the Civil War.  Extreme partisan measures were being taken on both sides of the slavery issue to secure control of this strategically significant city.

The St. Louis Arsenal was one of the most important in the whole country. Those were the days of river transportation, it must be remembered. The St. Louis arsenal was the supply depot of war material for the entire West. It occupied fifty-six acres of ground, was surrounded by a massive stone wall, except upon the river frontage. Within the enclosure were four great stone buildings forming a square. In January, 1861, the St. Louis arsenal contained estimates up to 60,000 stands of arms rifles. In the entire South, there were only 150,000 muskets. In addition to these rifles the arsenal contained estimates of up to 1,500,000 cartridges, 90,000 pounds of powder, several siege guns, the field pieces to equip a number of batteries, and a large stock of equipment of various kinds. There were ordnance shops and machinery for the manufacture of war material. (Stevens, Walter B., “Centennial History of Missouri (The Center State): One Hundred Years in the Union, 1820-1921.” (1921)

If state troops controlled by a secessionist governor could get those arms, the Federal power in Missouri would be overthrown.  Gaining control of the local police department was key to gaining control of the arsenal.

The strife over slavery, the Civil War, and reconstruction definitely had something to do with the extreme measures that were taken with St. Louis and some other cities during this time period.  But these issues are settled and the  times long since passed, leaving most Saint Louisians asking “why cant we have control over our police department”.

The differences between today’s Police Officer and those of the mid 1800′s

Current requirements, testing, and training for St. Louis police officers include: Completion of a 36 page application, Passage from the Police Academy Training Class, and  Passage of a minimum of thirty credit hours from an accredited university or college within 24 months of being sworn in.  This is why we have such a great police force.  Positions are not handed out like candy or political spoils.  Candidates are tested on physical abilities, deductive reasoning and problem sensitivity unlike our 1800′s force when officers were akin to political henchman

During the mid 1800′s, as in most municipalities, political connections were important to joining the St. Louis police force; formal requirements and standards for recruits were limited.

During the time state control was instituted, local officials handed out police officer positions to whomever they chose without a testing or training process.  In the State’s point of view this led to local corruption.  Since the 1800′s the civil service system was established removing politics from the hiring process. Today’s  police officers fall under the guidelines of the civil service system..

Because of the Civil Service System, Police officer positions do not come by political appointment as they did in those days.  Officers must pass written, physical, psychological testing, and a polygraph.  Officers don’t lose their job when there is a change in political parties. Our police officers earned their positions and do not owe their jobs to politicians.  This takes away the ability for politics to corrupt the rank and file of the police department the way it did back then.

Current State and Recent History of the St. Louis Police Board

Today, the St. Louis Police Board is comprised of a five member board consisting of the Mayor of the city of St. Louis and four appointees of the Missouri State Governor.  The appointees serve four year terms.

The qualifications are established by Missouri Revised Statute 84.350.  This statute states that the only qualification of being an appointee is to have been a resident of the City of St. Louis for four years preceding appointment to the board.

Missouri Revised Statute 84.090 lists the duties of this police board, which include; preserve the public peace, prevent crime, arrest offenders and protect the rights of persons and property.

In 2004 through 2008, our police board was appointed by a Governor,  that did not get the majority vote of St. Louis City. This stands in stark contrast to other cities across the state and the country where the elected officials have greater accountability to the tax payers and voters of the city, county or district they represent.

Why It is important that St. Louis Gain Local Control of the Police Department

For the above reasons and many more, it is important that the primary control of the police force be vested in the people of St. Louis. At the same time, however, it is equally important to recognize that the public nature of police authority fully warrants the state government in establishing a large measure of supervision over the municipal police. The state, constitutionally, has a mandate to require the local police to enforce the state laws, and, for this purpose, to establish a system of inspection and oversight in those regards.

But, our police board  should not be a political spoil to be handed out . Everyone who believes in the Democratic Process should believe in local control for St. Louis’ police department.

Governor Jay Nixon ended his State of the State speech with “The solutions to our problems are within reach. And the only thing that can stop us is the same thing that always stops progress: a failure to listen, a failure to compromise, or a failure to walk a day in someone else’s shoes. Two weeks ago, I officially put an end to the antiquated system that allowed Governors to give away license fee offices to their political allies. It was a system reminiscent of the political machines and the smoke-filled rooms of the past. Those days should be long behind us.”

Governor Nixon should be commended and he is one hundred percent correct, those days are long behind us.  If we can get the state legislators to listen and walk a mile in our shoes, we will put an end to this archaic system of state governance and political spoils.

Municipal representatives should be elected by the electorate of the municipality or appointed by the authorities thereof.  We are all Missourians, but geography, among other things, makes life in St. Louis City different from life in rural Missouri.  Should the urban dweller in St. Louis city be able to affect the laws regarding farming in rural Missouri?  Should the farmer in rural Missouri determine the number of police officers on the street in St. Louis city?

St. Louisans’ local municipalities must have the largest possible latitude in dealing with local issues.  Any decision St. Louis city makes with the police would still have to fit the framework of the State Constitution.

Proponents of state control say it protects the city from political corruption, but since the start of the Civil Service system local elected officials no longer play a role in the hiring process.  The police department and the police board are no more likely to be corrupt on the local St. Louis level as it is to be corrupt at the state Jefferson City level.  And if it is corrupt or ineffective at the local level, citizens have a greater ability to change things.

We wonder, outside of the expressed concern of police officers and their pension fund, what is the real voice of opposition to local control?  Has it ever been articulated in a coherent, reasonable, and persuasive fashion?  Or is it merely a result of political fear and pressure being put on the members of the state legislature?

The state legislature is the body that would ultimately have to vote to pass any local control measures.  The citizens of St. Louis cannot affect the political career of a legislator from outstate Missouri.  Special interest groups and political machines can

No real case has ever been made in favor of state control, only against local control.  We ask the question – why shouldn’t state legislators entrust  the citizens of St. Louis city with the affairs of its own police department like cities all across the state?

Ultimately, it is our opinion that a stronger form of local control is necessary and that the reasoning behind state control is no longer relevant or applicable. Any concerns that are still contemporary are not justified by state control.

Over 150 years have passed, the Civil War was fought and ended and the great debate of the legitimacy of slavery is over.  New York, Chicago and every city across this nation have long since reversed these archaic laws, the Civil Service system was established, and the Arsenal stands as a vacant abandoned property void of any weapons, a reminder of days long past, but St. Louis taxpayers and voters still don’t have control over their Police Department. The question remains…why?