Sunday editorial: The chief departs
Of Joseph J. Mokwa’s decision under fire Friday to retire as chief of the St. Louis Police Department, several things must be said:
First, it was the correct decision. The issues raised by his adult daughter’s use of cars from a favored police towing company — and what and when Mr. Mokwa knew about it — had compromised his ability to lead the 1,300-officer department. Public confidence in the department had been shaken. The rank-and-file officers must have no doubt that the command staff is held to the same strict ethical standards demanded of them.
Second, for seven years, Joe Mokwa was in most ways a good, arguably even an excellent, chief of police. He worked diligently to build relationships with neighborhood and community leaders throughout the city. He mentored and promoted black and female officers, knowing that the department should more closely mirror the city it polices. He instituted computerized crime-data tracking, giving district commanders more autonomy and holding them accountable for results.
He understood the special problems of policing in a city with large numbers of underemployed, under-educated and under-parented youths. In many ways, his forced retirement at 59 is a great loss to St. Louis.
Third, the investigation into the precise nature of the relationship between Mr. Mokwa and various entities of the S&H Parking Co., including Metropolitan Towing Co. and Parks Auto Sales, must continue. The Board of Police Commissioners has asked the U.S. attorney’s office here to look into it.
Too many unanswered questions remain: When did the chief know that his troubled daughter, Aimie Goodrich (from whom he is estranged) and her husband (a former city police officer) were getting the free use of cars and deep discounts on purchasing them? Did other police officers and/or their family members get similarly favored treatment? The Board of Police Commissioners has cancelled the contract with the firm, but what exactly were its terms?
Fourth, the Police Board itself must account for the abysmal way it has handled this situation. So far it has hired its own private lawyers, added extra public relations staff and held its deliberations in secret — no substitute for full transparency. Who decided to outsource the initial investigation to two lawyers from the Armstrong Teasdale law firm? Why did the report have enough holes in it to drive a tow truck through? What did the report cost? Can city taxpayers get a refund before Armstrong Teasdale moves its offices to Clayton?
Why did Police Board President Chris Goodson decide two Fridays ago, reportedly on his own, to declare that the investigation was closed? Post-Dispatch reporters Jeremy Kohler and Joe Mahr had been investigating the S&H story for three months. Why did Mr. Goodson feel the need to hire private lawyers instead of calling in outside law enforcement investigators?
Of the five Police Board members, only Mayor Francis Slay recognized the threat this story posed to the department and its reputation. Perhaps that’s because the mayor has better political antenna, or because he’s running for reelection next year, or because he demoted a black fire chief, Sherman George, last summer and could not be perceived as going soft on a white police chief. Whatever the reason, Mr. Slay took these allegations seriously and acted promptly.
Fifth, the severance package offered to Mr. Mokwa in return for his retirement was excessive. As a 37-year veteran of the department, Mr. Mokwa is immediately eligible to draw a pension based on the $106,439 salary he has been earning as chief. Like other city employees, he also is entitled to be paid for nearly a year’s worth of unused vacation and sick leave.
The Board voted 4-1 to pay an additional $100,000-plus in severance and agreed to pick up his legal bills. You could put almost two extra cops on the street for a year for $100,000. Mr. Slay was the only “no” vote.
Mr. Goodson and Police Board members Todd Epsten, Julius Hunter and Vince Bommarito owe the public an explanation for their actions before they deserve to be entrusted with the job of choosing a new chief.
You are wanting transparency to make a decision, good or bad. I suggest your editorial board read “The Ode to a Louse,” (Burns)
I have no opinion about the Police Chief’s decision to retire. That is his privilege for whatever reason he chooses.
For Gawd’s Sake He was hired to be a police chief, not to be the father of a derelict daughter.