Before the demotion of Fire Chief Sherman George, when the office of Mayor Francis G. Slay still communicated with this newspaper, Slay’s Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford objected to an invidious comparison often made here. We often compared Slay’s blanket support for Police Chief Joe Mokwa, regardless of the scandal, to his persistent willingness to question and even undermine Chief George’s leadership. Rainford said the comparison was pointless, because the mayor had authority over the fire chief but not the police chief, who reports to a State-appointed board under State law.

The limits of the mayor’s authority over the fire chief are under legal review in a suit filed by George, and we believe Rainford downplayed the extent of the mayor’s de facto power to influence the leadership (and public perception) of the police chief. But he did state a fact about State control of the City police department. This has long been a sore point for the grass roots, especially in the black community.

Returning local control to the City police is once again before the Legislature, with a hearing on the matter yesterday. The Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression, which has kept the public conscience on this issue, supports the legislation and testified on its behalf. The coalition notes that the Board of Aldermen passed a resolution supporting Local Control by a vote of 22-1 and the great majority of state legislators from the city also support it. Slay, whose support for Local Control in the past has been non-existent or unconvincing, also appears to stand behind the current bill, for reasons that surely include the need for a populist win in the black community.

We strongly encourage the Legislature to pass a version of this bill that genuinely returns control of the City police to City government. However, the language of the bill must leave the final form of local governance to the jurisdiction of local government, the Board of Aldermen. The final form of authority over the City police must be determined locally, by locally elected legislators. This necessary reform must not be subverted in the final language of the legislation.

If Local Control is granted by the State, it would be rational for the mayor’s office to attempt to maximize mayoral control of the police. Other struggles may lie ahead, to be won or lost. Even if the outcome of Local Control were a City police department largely under the authority of the mayor’s office, then at least the mayor could no longer justify his treatment of the police chief by saying the matter is out of his hands.

The final language of Senate Bill 785 and House Bill 2117 is crucial. The new State legislation should not lock in any new form of City authority; it should leave it to City legislators to work out the new governance structure. The new form of Local Control should be defined by the Board of Aldermen, and the Legislature should pass that authority to the City body in this session. The eyes of the public must be watching its legislators, in the City and State, to see that their interests are served in this reform effort.