Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

KC topics that don't fit anywhere else.
User avatar
alejandro46
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by alejandro46 »

Riverite wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 12:52 pm
alejandro46 wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 12:49 pm
Goonies wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 12:11 pm Looks like the police board is taking this to court. Any idea if they might win? I voted for Lucas and I'm a fan of his. While I support this move part of me wonders how much of a stunt it is because hes getting a lot of attention from it and I know he has higher political ambitions.
I believe the Police Board has just taken the initial steps to hire attornies to research their strategy on litigation. I am not really clear on the statute or claim that they are filing under, and I dont think they are yet, apart from that KCMO must provide a minimum % funding to KCPD, which they are still doing. This type of thing typically takes a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the state legislature changes the law somehow to invalidate the ordinace/own the libs.
How would that even work though, you can’t retroactively claim laws
Not retroactively, they would have to update it have the minimum amount higher, which would then invalidate the Council's ordinance and make the lawsuit moot.

I didn't go to KU law, but I know people who did and they liked QL a lot. He is not dumb and I am sure did his homework before doing this. I do not think any filings or claims have been made public yet, at least I haven't been able to find anything after a few minutes of googling.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by FangKC »

It's ironic that the Republican legislature would legislate that way since Republicans have always been about local control -- that government is best done on the local level. But we aren't talking about the old-time Republican Party anymore, so anything is possible.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by shinatoo »

Conservatives just want local control of where they live. They are in favor of parental laws because they believe black, brown, and red people don't have the capacity to govern themselves.

And if you don't think that true just look at the medicare expansion they overturned and Clean Missouri. Those votes were carried by urban voters.

My assumption is that QL's plan is playing out as he conceived it. That ultimately this will go all the way to the SCOMO or SCOTUS in the hopes that they will rule state control of local police forces is a violation of something. Not a lawyer.

Maybe voter sovereignty?
User avatar
im2kull
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by im2kull »

shinatoo wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 5:09 pm Conservatives just want local control of where they live. They are in favor of parental laws because they believe black, brown, and red people don't have the capacity to govern themselves.
And extremists like you paint everyone with one large brush. Get out of your fantasy world and live in the real world. People aren't "Conservative" or "Liberal". There's more to it than that you pinhead.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by shinatoo »

im2kull wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 12:15 pm
shinatoo wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 5:09 pm Conservatives just want local control of where they live. They are in favor of parental laws because they believe black, brown, and red people don't have the capacity to govern themselves.
And extremists like you paint everyone with one large brush. Get out of your fantasy world and live in the real world. People aren't "Conservative" or "Liberal". There's more to it than that you pinhead.
That's a bit harsh. Hard to express a nuanced point of view online without getting into the TL;DR territory. But I am generally speaking abut the extremes of either of those points of views.

Thanks for the feedback though. And for the fresh coat of paint you put on me with your brush.
User avatar
Chris Stritzel
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by Chris Stritzel »

Goonies wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:42 pm Holy shit if big if true:

https://heartlandernews.com/2021/05/29/ ... ate-law-2/
The State Statute linked in that article makes it seem true, but it's one of those laws that some may have forgotten about up until that story was written.
84.860. Interference with enforcement of sections 84.350 to 84.860 — penalty. — Any officer or servant of the mayor or common council or municipal assembly of the said cities, or other persons whatsoever, who shall forcibly resist or obstruct the execution or enforcement of any of the provisions of sections 84.350 to 84.860 or relating to the same, or who shall disburse any money in violation thereof, or who shall hinder or obstruct the organization or maintenance of said board of police, or the police force provided in said sections to be organized and maintained, or who shall maintain or control any police force other than the one herein provided for, or who shall delay or hinder the due enforcement of said sections by failing or neglecting to perform the duties therein imposed upon him, shall be liable to a penalty of one thousand dollars for each and every offense, recoverable by the board by action at law in the name of the state, and shall forever thereafter be disqualified from holding or exercising any office or employment whatsoever under the mayor or common council or municipal assembly of said cities, or under said sections; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with the punishment, under any existing or any future laws of this state, or any criminal offense which shall be committed by the said parties in or about the resistance, obstruction, hindrance, conspiracy, combination or disbursement aforesaid.
--------
(RSMo 1939 § 7654, A.L. 1943 p. 727 § 7655)
kboish
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3258
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by kboish »

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.
User avatar
im2kull
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by im2kull »

kboish wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 1:03 pm 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.
A judge doesn't have a "Crystal Ball" and won't make the jumps to conclusions that you have. The judge can only judge the complaint and grievance at hand. They'll simply enforce the law as is, and with black and white fact. That said, it seems pretty black and white that Lucas and the Council members DID do exactly what state law prohibits. This should be an easy case at the lower court levels, which is why Lucas is vowing to fight it all the way to the supreme court (Because he knows it won't go in their favor at the lower levels). Pretty cut and dry.
User avatar
alejandro46
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by alejandro46 »

im2kull wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 3:16 pm
kboish wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 1:03 pm 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.
A judge doesn't have a "Crystal Ball" and won't make the jumps to conclusions that you have. The judge can only judge the complaint and grievance at hand. They'll simply enforce the law as is, and with black and white fact. That said, it seems pretty black and white that Lucas and the Council members DID do exactly what state law prohibits. This should be an easy case at the lower court levels, which is why Lucas is vowing to fight it all the way to the supreme court (Because he knows it won't go in their favor at the lower levels). Pretty cut and dry.
Definitely not cut and dry. The council allocated the funding as set forth by law. They wanted in good faith to enter into a contract with the police for the additional funding from the previous year.

You are incorrect in saying that the council is directly overseeing the police department. E.g they are not directly commanding officers or doing things that are against the letter of the law, such as that statute may have been intended to prevent back in the Pendergast days. Their obligation under the law is to fund the police department at the 20% mark.

Beyond that, the City has no obligation (at least based upon my limited research here). Unless somebody can point me to a statute that says the city has to fund the department at a certain amount, I think there definitely is a case where the city can withhold additional funding unless the money is spent as they want. If KCMO wants more parking enforcement downtown, they can enter into a contract for more parking enforcement downtown. Which KCPD gladly accepted.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by flyingember »

kboish wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 1:03 pm 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:


84.60 seems to be the one that really gives them their juice. I'll edit it down to the important stuff

84.60 is only relevant to St. Louis
It's in the big title at the top of the section

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=84


That said, this statue is a bit of a mess.

If KC's population passed 500k officially from the Census more statutes apply because way back the state set the rules based on population
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by flyingember »

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... d=4031&hl=

There's a lot of clauses, so we split on the commas to find the minimum full sentence. I bolded this section.
The board is going to lose hard.

If you want to see something fun, the city can fund streetlights and debt payments out of the police budget.

The city is in a strong legal position because they can legally go below 20% of the general fund based on how much debt payments the city has
The governing body of the cities is hereby required to appropriate the total amount so certified, payable out of the revenue of the cities after first having deducted the amount necessary to pay the interest on the indebtedness of the cities, the amount necessary for lighting the city, and any sum required by law to be placed to the credit of the sinking fund of the cities, and if the board shall be required to call out extra police force and the expense thereof shall not have been contemplated in their estimate for the fiscal year during which the extra police force is called out, it shall immediately certify the expense of such additional force, and the additional amount so required shall be appropriated for that purpose, except that in no event shall the governing body of the cities be required to appropriate for the use of the police board in any fiscal year an amount in excess of one-fifth of the general revenue fund of such year.
User avatar
alejandro46
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by alejandro46 »

flyingember wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:58 am https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... d=4031&hl=

There's a lot of clauses, so we split on the commas to find the minimum full sentence. I bolded this section.
The board is going to lose hard.

If you want to see something fun, the city can fund streetlights and debt payments out of the police budget.

The city is in a strong legal position because they can legally go below 20% of the general fund based on how much debt payments the city has
The governing body of the cities is hereby required to appropriate the total amount so certified, payable out of the revenue of the cities after first having deducted the amount necessary to pay the interest on the indebtedness of the cities, the amount necessary for lighting the city, and any sum required by law to be placed to the credit of the sinking fund of the cities, and if the board shall be required to call out extra police force and the expense thereof shall not have been contemplated in their estimate for the fiscal year during which the extra police force is called out, it shall immediately certify the expense of such additional force, and the additional amount so required shall be appropriated for that purpose, except that in no event shall the governing body of the cities be required to appropriate for the use of the police board in any fiscal year an amount in excess of one-fifth of the general revenue fund of such year.
Tbh installing LED streetlighting across the city may be a pretty good crime deterrant.
kboish
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3258
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by kboish »

flyingember wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:39 am
kboish wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 1:03 pm 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:


84.60 seems to be the one that really gives them their juice. I'll edit it down to the important stuff

84.60 is only relevant to St. Louis
It's in the big title at the top of the section

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=84


That said, this statue is a bit of a mess.

If KC's population passed 500k officially from the Census more statutes apply because way back the state set the rules based on population
I meant to write 84.460....which is what the link i posted takes you to.

but regardless and totally not anything to do with the point i was making- 84.600 falls under the statute applicable to KCMO
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by FangKC »

New York City has begun city-wide reforms.

Social workers, EMS — not NYPD — to respond to non-violent mental health calls citywide

https://pix11.com/news/local-news/socia ... -citywide/
User avatar
im2kull
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by im2kull »

Keeping in line with what I forecasted a few posts prior.. a District Court judge, has ordered the city to pause Luca's buffoonery and to fully fund KCPD as previously agreed to until further notice. The judge has ordered the city 14 days to respond to the suit in writing and make their written argument. Like I said, the police boards argument is an easy one. This is a cut and dry issue. The law is what it is. You cannot remove public funds that have already been obligated. There's no chance KC/Lucas wins this suit. Lucas again vowed today to fight this endlessly, so hope ya'll enjoy his wasting of your tax dollars on endless litigation. Literally the definition of insanity.

https://fox4kc.com/news/judge-orders-fu ... arguments/




And before you go there, I'm not a "Trumpet". I voted for Bernie. Twice.

I'm just not a blind idiot who backs someone purely for their political affiliation.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by flyingember »

im2kull wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:20 pm Keeping in line with what I forecasted a few posts prior.. a District Court judge, has ordered the city to pause Luca's buffoonery and to fully fund KCPD as previously agreed to until further notice. The judge has ordered the city 14 days to respond to the suit in writing and make their written argument. Like I said, the police boards argument is an easy one. This is a cut and dry issue. The law is what it is. You cannot remove public funds that have already been obligated. There's no chance KC/Lucas wins this suit. Lucas again vowed today to fight this endlessly, so hope ya'll enjoy his wasting of your tax dollars on endless litigation. Literally the definition of insanity.

https://fox4kc.com/news/judge-orders-fu ... arguments/

And before you go there, I'm not a "Trumpet". I voted for Bernie. Twice.

I'm just not a blind idiot who backs someone purely for their political affiliation.
The court’s argument isn’t that you can’t remove the money. They’re doing the right thing, requiring both sides to present their arguments and maintaining the status quo until one side prevails. If it was the opposite, where the police demanded more money I would expect to maintain the status quo there as well.

From the article-
The judge is giving both the police board and the city 14 days to present written arguments, either in support of the city’s funding changes or for maintaining the status quo.
The argument that the city can’t de-obligate funda doesn’t hold water in a general sense. It did just that in 2020 with department support.

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/kc ... o-covid-19
August 2020
On Thursday, the City Council authorized cuts across the city of 4.5%. Cuts to the police and fire departments were capped at 2.25%. Those cuts will save the city $23.6 million.
The city has the power to reduce budgets partway through the budget year. It must have this power since the budget is approved prior to all taxes being paid.
kboish
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3258
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by kboish »

Yea, nothing was ruled on today. They kept status quo until arguments can be made. Thats a reasonable thing to do.

I know how i see it, but I definitely concede that I really have no idea how this will shake out.
Riverite
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by Riverite »

Goonies wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:34 am Just saw on nextdoor KCPD posting about getting people to attend the back the blue rally (the same one calling for Lucas to step down) oof I like the mayor and agree with him on the issue though it seems perhaps hes overstepped his bounds legally. This move really threw gasoline onto a fire and see it as creating a larger divide.
The kcpd cos not allowed to promote political positions, but of a dumb move on their part
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by flyingember »

Riverite wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:54 am
Goonies wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:34 am Just saw on nextdoor KCPD posting about getting people to attend the back the blue rally (the same one calling for Lucas to step down) oof I like the mayor and agree with him on the issue though it seems perhaps hes overstepped his bounds legally. This move really threw gasoline onto a fire and see it as creating a larger divide.
The kcpd cos not allowed to promote political positions, but of a dumb move on their part
Not true.

The force isn't allowed to use officially owned equipment to promote political positions through the posting of stickers/signs on said equipment.

Nothing in that law has been updated to disallow using social media for the same
TheSmokinPun
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:39 am

Re: Restoration of City Control Over KCPD

Post by TheSmokinPun »

Doing this while trying to go after him legally can't help their case, haha. What a joke this state is.
Post Reply