This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Jan. 24, 2011 - Multimillionaire Rex Sinquefield, who bankrolled the campaign that could end the St. Louis earnings tax, has put up seed money that could lead to another fundamental change in the city's government: local control of the police department.
A group called A Safer Missouri, funded with an initial gift of $300,000 from Sinquefield, filed papers Monday with the Missouri secretary of state's office for an initiative petition drive to give St. Louis and Kansas City control over their police departments, which are now under the direction of Jefferson City.
The petition -- which would achieve the same goal as legislation filed in the Missouri House and Senate, though the effect would be broader -- is aimed at putting the issue on the November 2012 ballot.
It says that as of Jan. 1, 2013, "all municipal police forces or departments shall be controlled by the governing body of the municipality in which such police forces or departments are located, subject to any charter provisions of such city. The governing body of any city whose municipal police force or department was controlled by a board appointed by the governor which, after the effective date of this section, is controlled by the governing body of the municipality shall not alter the terms of any existing pension plan for current or retired officers or current or retired employees of such police force or department who commenced their employment with such police force or department at any date prior to Nov. 6, 2012."
That last section is important, said Nancy Rice, spokeswoman for the petition campaign, because it is addresses one of the major objections of the biggest opponent of local control: the St. Louis Police Officers Association.
The association came out strongly last November against Proposition L on the city ballot, an advisory referendum on local control that passed with 69 percent of the vote.
Mayor Francis Slay and others who favor local control have pointed to that result as a reason that the issue should move faster and further in Jefferson City this year than it has in the past.
Noting that the petition does not affect existing pensions, one of the biggest issues for the police officers association, Rice said it should address the group's concerns, though she's not sure it would go far enough to win its support.
"It grandfathers in the pension and everything else for all existing officers," she said. "The legislation leaves control of the pensions with the state.
"I'm really reluctant to speculate as to what would work for them. Last year, I'm told, the police officers association turned down collective bargaining with binding arbitration. So I just don't know what would bring them around on this issue. I'm not saying nothing would; I'm just saying I don't know what it is."
No one at the police officers' group could be reached for comment. But in a column before November's vote on the advisory referendum, the association explained its opposition this way:
"City politicians call it 'Local Control'; we refer to this sham as 'LOCAL POLITICIAN CONTROL.' As usual the city politicians are attempting to deceive the residents of this city, claiming they need control of the Police Department to better manage it, make it more accountable. One needs to look no further than what our city politicians are doing to the Fire Department to see what a catastrophic effect 'LOCAL POLITICIAN CONTROL' would have on our Police Department."
Rice said her group's effort is another angle from which the issue is being addressed, but if legislation establishing local control wins approval in the General Assembly, the petition effort would be dropped. Otherwise, she said, "we will absolutely" pursue the initiative option.
The legislative option
A Safer Missouri is calling on backers of local control to rally in Jefferson City on Wednesday, when a hearing is scheduled on the bill filed by state Sen. Joe Keaveny, D-St. Louis.
After reading the language of the initiative petition, Keaveny said Monday that he would rather see the issue handled with his bill, which he says "treats police officers much better than this petition." He noted that it gives them collective bargaining rights and delays local control to 2013, so city voters could change provisions of the city charter if they want.
"It makes the transition much smoother," Keaveny said.
Keaveny and Sinquefield are hardly opponents on the issue. Among Sinquefield's many political contributions last year was $30,000 to Keaveny's primary campaign. Sinquefield has also contributed to the St. Louis Beacon.
And Keaveny said that even though he prefers his approach, he would still urge people to sign the petition that could put the question on the statewide ballot next year.
"For people outside St. Louis, say in Branson, I'm not even sure they're aware of the issue," he said. "If nothing else, it raises the public's awareness."
The police association has called for a show of support against the Senate bill on Wednesday. In an e-mail to backers Monday, it said:
"There are over 70 freshman legislators that are unaware of our stance and concerns regarding this bill. We need to explain to them how local 'politician' control not only affects our pensions and benefits, but also affects the ability of the St. Louis Police Department to effectively and efficiently perform our duties to the residents and visitors in St. Louis. City government needs real reform before we can even consider allowing them to control the police department."
In the person of his lobbyist, Travis Brown, Sinquefield also backed a House bill on the issue, sponsored by Rep. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, but also supported by House Speaker Steve Tilley, R-Perryville. The bill won committee approval last week and was advanced to the full House for debate.
Asked about the petition drive for local control, Nasheed said:
"I believe you always have to have a Plan A and a Plan B, but I do believe that in this case, Plan A will work and there will be no need for Plan B."
She also said she had never received any donations from Sinquefield.
That movement continues the momentum that local control gained last year, when it failed to win final passage but moved ahead further than it had in the past.
Rice, the spokeswoman for a Safer Missouri, said she could not say whether Sinquefield planned to donate more money to the campaign. She did say that other contributors have committed their financial support, though she would not say who they were, how much they have said they would donate or what the effort's ultimate financial goal is.
Because Proposition A passed in November, voters in St. Louis will be voting in April on Proposition E, whether to retain the 1 percent earnings tax. Sinquefield donated about $11 million to last year's effort, which won big statewide but was defeated in St. Louis.
Sinquefield could not be reached for comment. His spokeswoman, Laura Slay, said in an email: "Rex's commitment to advancing a particular policy initiative comes from his belief in the idea that individuals should be given the freedom to determine what is best for themselves and their families.
"Proposition A (which raised the issue of letting voters decide for themselves about local earnings taxes) won overwhelmingly around the state and in Kansas City. This is a great example of how the belief in self-determination can guide policy changes and development.
"The issue of local control also is about a community's ability to determine its own future.
"There in lies the connection and his support of both."
In his efforts to persuade city voters to keep the earnings tax, Mayor Francis Slay has often said that the money the tax brings in is roughly equal to the police budget each year. Asked whether favoring local control but opposing the earnings tax put Sinquefield into a strange, contradictory position, Rice said that there was no real friction between the two issues.
"Both of them evoke people's thinking about their governing and their thinking about how the city is going to provide public safety and all the other services to people who live and work in the city," she said. "This issue is important, and there are a number of people who have been talking about this for a long time. You can't talk very long about revenue and spending before you bump up against something that takes up 36 percent of your budget. That's how we got to where we are now."
"In that perspective, all of these things are synergistic. My observation is that change is in the air. People are interested in bringing St. Louis to the next level."
She said that they are also ready to bring control of the police department back to the city, which lost it in the wake of the Civil War.
"People want to be able to talk to somebody who is accountable to them about the crime in their neighborhood."