This is all very interesting. This has never been tested so we ultimately don't know how this law will be applied. but, lets think through some things to see how PD's position is pretty silly. Here is all of
Chapter 84
Here are some of the key clauses:
84.420
Section 2. The board shall determine the policy and in fulfillment of the duties and responsibilities herein provided and to this end shall
(and then it goes on to list some things they should do) The most important of them being:
(1) Adopt rules and regulations not inconsistent herewith governing the conduct of such police department;
(2) Appoint a chief of police who shall be responsible to the board for the proper execution of the policies, duties, and responsibilities established or the administration of the police department;
(3) Act as a board of review in personnel disciplinary cases as provided in section 84.430;
84.60 seems to be the one that really gives them their juice. I'll edit it down to the important stuff
Board of police — exclusive management and control of police force. ... ... From and after the first meeting aforesaid, the whole of the then existing police force in such city shall pass under the exclusive management and control of the said board, and be subject to no other control and entitled to receive neither orders nor pay, except arrearages then due, from any other authority, and shall so continue, subject, however, to removal or suspension, at the discretion of said board, and with the power in said board to fill vacancies, until said board shall publicly declare that the organization of the police force, created by sections 84.350 to 84.860 is complete.
Upon such public declaration, and from the time thereof thenceforward, all ordinances of such city are hereby declared null and void, so far as they conflict with sections 84.350 to 84.860 or assume to confer upon the mayor, chief of police, common council, or any other person or persons, the power to appoint, dismiss, or in any way or to any extent, employ or control any police force organized or to be organized under such ordinances, or any of them, and from and after such public declaration as aforesaid, the police force organized, or which may be organized under such ordinances, or any of them, shall cease to exist, and its functions and powers be at an end.
So here is what seems to be the argument from some (from that heartland article):
“It is clear that the eight council members, the mayor, and the city manager illegally interfered with the Police Commissioner’s sole legal right to disburse police funds that were appropriated to them,” said Liberty Alliance USA Executive Director Chris Vas.
This claim seems to be, once the council "appropriates" money to them, they cannot reduce that amount. They use the word "disburse", but the city does not disburse $240 million to PD on May 1. So thats one point. Another point is that the council JUST LAST YEAR reduced amount appropriated to PD midyear during the pandemic. They did that to the entire city. What was PDs response? Not to claim the the council
couldn't reduce their monies, but to lobby to have their reduction lessened. (which they were successful at). So this claim is silly.
The next more serious claim, I think, is whether the council is overstepping its role by requiring PD to negotiate/enter into a contract for the the ~$40 million in question. The main part of this claim is that the PD Board is solely responsible for overseeing the Department. So this contract alledgedly interferes with their ability to do that. Really? PD Board ALREADY has side contracts with the city for ADDITIONAL funds beyond those from the general fund...mainly, through a Parking fund that helps provide extra monies for parking enforcement downtown. So when the PD Board (with their lawyers reviewing it i assume) signed that, they had no issues with contracts for money. The council/manager did not reduce the Board's Control and Management in this situation, in fact, they seemed to acknowledge the Board's Control and Management of PD and thus entered into a contract with them. So that seems a silly claim.
I guess the point could be made that the other contracts PD Board has entered into with the city were illegal, but i doubt it. And if you really, really think about it, is the city interfering with Visit KC, Port KC, the EDC (all legally controlled by their own boards) when they enter into contracts with them? No. of course not. You enter into a contract with someone who controls the entity. So that is a silly argument.
So what would constitute interfering with the running of KC PD? I'd say hiring your own police force to go arrest the board members would qualify. Passing a local law not to work with PD. outlawing their meetings. and other direct affronts on them actually doing their role. This does not seem to be that. This SEEMS (and again, who knows how it plays out) to be actually asking them TO DO their role.... but i'm no lawyer. so we shall see.