Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Governance And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates HB 3066: who pays for St. Louis police liabilities and who controls budgets
Summary
House Bill 3066 would change how the Board of Police Commissioners for St. Louis handles budgeting and litigation responsibility. Supporters say the bill clarifies gaps and permits efficient internal transfers; opponents — including city representatives and civil‑rights groups — say it could shift costs to the city, weaken local checks and reduce accountability. The attorney general’s office provided background on the legal expense fund.
Representative Brad H. Crist presented House Bill 3066 as a cleanup and clarification measure affecting the Board of Police Commissioners, saying the bill addresses litigation responsibility dating back to the years between state and local control and clarifies budgeting procedures for the board once apportionment percentages are certified.
The hearing featured sharply contrasting perspectives. Chris Gravel, general counsel for the Board of Police Commissioners, said the board has worked with the City of St. Louis on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) since July to resolve civil‑liability disputes and that the bill is a contingency in case that MOU fails. Gravel told the committee there are roughly 80 civil liability cases predating state control and said the board wants the ability to move budgeted funds internally to operate efficiently.
City officials and allies urged caution. Jackie Barger, a registered lobbyist representing the City of St. Louis, testified in opposition and said the city hoped the MOU would resolve these matters at the local level without legislative interference; she warned the bill could create a significant financial burden for the city and erode the transparency provided by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment (ENA).
Opponents raised two fiscal concerns repeatedly: (1) whether the state would be shielding decision‑makers from the financial consequences of policy choices by capping liabilities or shifting costs, and (2) uncertainty over the percentage of general revenue the board would require. Committee members referenced a disputed roster figure (some participants referenced a proposed 30–35% share; board counsel challenged that higher figure and said the final percentage depends on the city’s certified general revenue numbers). Joe Steiger (St. Louis City Police Officers Association) supported the bill and said it would restore authority inadvertently removed last year that affected overtime compensation for lieutenants.
Deputy Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan offered informational testimony on the attorney general's historical role: the AG's office often represents boards in litigation and manages reimbursement from the legal expense fund in lawsuits and judgments, but the AG historically has not served as the boards' general counsel. Morgan estimated legal‑expense liabilities in recent years in the mid‑$20 millions and described how the fund is drawn from various sources before general revenue is used.
Several legislators recommended waiting for the MOU to be finalized; others said the bill provides necessary contingency planning and clarifying statutory language. The committee concluded the hearing on HB 3066 with no recorded committee vote in the transcript.
