Ferguson Approves Changes to Police Reform Deal With DOJ, Drawing Criticism

FERGUSON, Mo. — The Ferguson City Council has asked the U.S. Department of Justice for seven changes to a deal to reform the city’s courts and policing systems, a move that drew swift criticism from both the department and many residents.

In a unanimous vote, the council on Tuesday night moved to amend the proposed settlement the city had spent seven months negotiating with the DOJ. The consent decree is meant to correct problems identified in a DOJ investigation that followed the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer. The DOJ found unconstitutional and discriminatory practices across the police force and municipal court system.

Councilman Wesley Bell proposed the changes, several of which are intended to reduce the cost of implementing the deal officials worried could bankrupt the St. Louis suburb. The council signed off on the rest of the settlement, and Bell said he was confident the DOJ would agree to the changes.

“I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable,” Bell said.

But Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement the council’s vote marks “an unfortunate outcome.”

It “creates an unnecessary delay in the essential work to bring constitutional policing to the city, and marks an unfortunate outcome for concerned community members and Ferguson police officers,” Gupta said.

If the Justice Department doesn’t go along with the changes, a civil rights lawsuit is possible, potentially costing Ferguson millions of dollars in legal fees.

Gupta didn’t specifically address whether a lawsuit would be filed but said in the statement the department will take “the necessary legal actions” to ensure Ferguson’s police and court practices comply with the Constitution and federal laws.

The council’s biggest change removes a requirement that police salaries be raised. City officials believe meeting that provision would also require fire department salaries to rise, potentially costing $1 million annually.

Related: Will New Law Solve Ferguson’s Problems?

Another provision states parts of the agreement won’t apply to any other governmental entity that could potentially take over duties currently provided by Ferguson. That means, for example, that St. Louis County would not be beholden to the agreement if it eventually takes over policing in Ferguson.

The council’s vote came at the end of an often-boisterous meeting that had been moved to the Ferguson Community Center because of the crowd of around 300. The vast majority of speakers supported the original agreement.

Karl Tricamo, 32, shouted out as the council approved the amended deal, wondering why it wasn’t announced until the end of the meeting.

“I don’t think the DOJ is going to go for this,” he said.

Ferguson has been under scrutiny since the fatal police shooting of Brown, whose father stood quietly at the back of the meeting Tuesday night. The black, unarmed 18-year-old was fatally shot Aug. 9, 2014, by white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson during a confrontation on a street. A St. Louis County grand jury declined to charge Wilson, who later resigned. He was cleared of wrongdoing by the Justice Department.

The shooting was a catalyst in the Black Lives Matter movement and helped prompt a national dialogue about police use of force.

The agreement requires hiring a monitor, instituting police diversity training, and buying software and hiring staff to analyze records on arrests, use of force and other police matters.

A city analysis determined the city’s cost would be up to $3.7 million for the first year alone, and $1.8 million to $3 million in each of the second and third years.

Some who spoke at the meeting said the cost of the original agreement was simply too high for a city with a $14.5 million budget and already facing a $2.8 million deficit that largely stems from such costs as overtime for police during protests, lost sales tax revenue from businesses damaged in fires and looting, and legal expenses.

“I would rather lose our city by fighting for it in court than lose it by giving into the DOJ’s crushing demands,” said Susan Ankenbrand, a 41-year resident of Ferguson.

But others said the agreement is important, regardless the cost.

Kayla Green said injustices were tolerated for too long in Ferguson. “Cost should never be the reason not to do what’s right,” she said. “It is time to prioritize justice no matter how much it costs because justice is priceless.”

You can read the original article here.