A battle is under way at City Hall over who should provide security at Kansas City International Airport.
High-level bureaucrats are defending their fiefdoms and flooding elected officials with propaganda.
In one corner: Mayor Mark Funkhouser and Police Chief Jim Corwin.
They argue that city police officers should be on duty at KCI to replace the current private officers there.
“There’s no question security would be better under the Police Department,” the mayor told City Council colleagues last week, than under “second-level cops, not real cops” now at the airport.
Corwin emphatically told council members that he didn’t have good communication with the airport’s police or the leaders of a KCI force that included what he called “armed guards.”
And over in the opposite corner: City Manager Wayne Cauthen and Aviation Director Mark VanLoh.
Each vehemently opposes any change. Their message: The system ain’t broke, the airport’s security forces are exceptionally well trained, and the airlines like the quality (and price) they pay for public safety right now.
“We simply cannot charge the airlines any more money,” VanLoh told council members Wednesday, noting the industry’s current problems.
In a letter to Corwin on July 2, Cauthen wrote that putting city police at KCI would cost an additional $1.3 million a year.
And the winner should be….
The Police Department.
In the post 9/11 world, I’d rather have the city’s officers on duty at KCI, especially if the costs are comparable.
The city police would provide comprehensive services to travelers and airlines, backed up by a 1,300-member force and the latest in crime-fighting techniques.
But let’s face it: This is really a political battle, full of behind-the-scenes maneuvering among Funkhouser, Cauthen, Corwin, VanLoh and elected officials.
Fact is, there’s no overwhelmingly “right” way to handle security at the nation’s airports.
Of the 25 busiest airports, airport police are in charge at eight and city police departments in charge at six. The rest are served by port authorities, a county or state law enforcement agency, or combinations of the city and the county police agencies or the city police and airport police.
So Corwin and VanLoh each can claim they command a superior security force, but this issue will likely hinge on political decisions made at City Hall.
For example, council member Ed Ford looks like an opponent of the move, based on his statements Wednesday. Why? Because the Police Department is under control of a state police board, he pointed out, not City Hall.
I agree; that is an outdated arrangement. The General Assembly needs to let the city control the cops.
But for now, our “state-run” police agency already serves 450,000 citizens of Kansas City. There’s nothing wrong with having it serve the city-operated airport, too.
Council members have pledged to take a much-needed closer look at this potential move. Cathy Jolly’s public safety committee already has held two weeks of hearings, with more on the way.
Colleague Deb Hermann’s finance committee then will review the dollars-and-cents aspect of the competing plans.
Here’s what needs to happen, no matter what.
The police and KCI officials need to communicate better about what they are doing to run a safe airport.
Jolly said Wednesday that she was “very nervous” to hear about the tense relations between the Police Department and airport security.
Ford added that, “Whatever the problems these two agencies are having, they need to get resolved.”
Excellent point. Out of the blue, on a day like any other, any lack of communication or professionalism by these agencies could have disastrous consequences for KCI and its passengers.
Join the discussion
Share your observations and experiences about news. Lively, open debate is the goal, but please refrain from personal attacks or comments that are racist, vulgar or otherwise inappropriate. If you see an inappropriate comment, please click the "Report as violation" link to notify a KansasCity.com editor. Thanks for your feedback.