Lawsuit argues that Kansas City police should be immune from any real oversight

Kansas City’s police department is immune from any democratic supervision.

At least, that’s the view of the unelected Board of Police Commissioners expressed in the lawsuit filed last week against the elected members of the City Council.

A hearing set for Tuesday was canceled. Instead, Judge Kevin Harrell ordered the city to file its response in two weeks, and continue paying the department’s bills until the dispute is settled.

His order should end, for now, the vicious and unsubstantiated claim that police officers are in danger of losing their jobs. The KCPD already has more than enough money to pay the bills.

Most of Kansas City would likely prefer avoiding a costly, lengthy legal fight over the city’s most important service. Normally, we’d like that too.

But the cost of skipping that fight is too high. The Board of Police Commissioners clearly believes it is exempt from oversight — a dangerous, antidemocratic view the courts must overturn.

The commission’s initial filings reveal the depth of its contempt for the political process. The police board claims the city can’t use its fiscal authority to provide a check on whatever excesses the department wants to pursue.

“Once the Board adopts its budget based on the City’s appropriation, the City cannot claw that money back or control how it is spent,” the commission says, including any appropriations above the 20% of the general fund required by state law.

This seems absurd. Apparently, the police department could spend $42 million of taxpayer money on chocolate and cheese and its elected representatives could not intervene after March or April, when city budgets are typically approved.

This rule doesn’t apply to any other city function. The City Council adjusts spending all the time, as circumstances dictate. If it doesn’t snow, for example, public works dollars can be spent on other needs. If it does snow, extra funds can be spent.

The police department adjusts its budget, too. Two years ago, Police Chief Rick Smith disbanded the department’s horse patrol unit, using the money to hire additional homicide detectives, which made sense.

Now, though, adjusting the police budget seems out of the question if the City Council is involved. The new reform ordinances added $3 million for a class of new police recruits. Is that additional spending illegal, too, since it was not approved last spring?

Flexibility is critical in a city where homicides remain a major problem and the department’s clearance rate is so poor. The board’s lawsuit would deny that flexibility.

“State law … prevents the City from using its power of the purse to circumvent the Board’s control,” the lawsuit says. “The City cannot appropriate money for another police force, for example.”

So what would happen if the board decided to disband the police force entirely? Under its own theory, the city would have no say in the matter.

Finally, the board’s lawsuit says the time for the city to object to police spending is during the budget process. If this view is upheld, the City Council’s response is obvious: an ordinance prohibiting any expenditure for the department above the 20% mandated by state law. Let the Board of Police Commissioners figure out a way to come up with the difference.

Do the people run their police department, or the other way around? The courts will provide the answer.