Here’s a novel idea: Pay problem officers to go away. KC’s done it before | Opinion
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas is one of five members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners — the only commissioner not appointed by the governor’s office. Here is a novel idea for all of them to consider: Simply pay problem officers to go away.
When Lucas announced a proposal to use the city’s legal expense fund to pay out police department settlements, the measure was touted as a creative approach to holding the department accountable to taxpayers.
State statute requires Kansas City to give KCPD 25% of its general revenue budget, which police use now to pay out lawsuits and settlements. Under the mayor’s plan, the city would use its legal expense funds to help offset these claims, essentially providing the department more money than required by law.
Instead of using more public funds to settle civil claims made against officers, the money should come from the department’s yearly budget as it does now. Any money owed to members of the public and their attorneys must be pulled from KCPD’s coffers and not siphoned from other sources.
To me, that is what true accountability looks like.
But back to paying troubled cops to leave. I’m thinking around $50,000 should get the job done. That’s what KCPD paid to former officer and repeat offender Blayne Newton recently. When the department announced a separation agreement with the former lawman, the precedent was set.
Why move away from that framework?
Police commissioners and Chief Stacey Graves should offer any officer with a bad rap to turn over their badge and gun with a nice little incentive package to leave like the one given to Newton, a former cop with a propensity for violence. Over a five-year period beginning in 2020, Newton shot and killed three people, injured another with gunfire, brutalized two women and was on the scene when officers beat on a teen.
On the low end, even if KCPD has 20 bad apples like Newton on the force — God, I would hope not — the tally would amount to $1 million, the annual amount the state of Missouri provides to defend Kansas City officers under its purview.
That approach would be much cheaper than paying out $10.9 million in settlements as the department has this budget cycle.
If the cost of these legal settlements means implementing a hiring freeze down the line or putting a pause on officers’ overtime pay, so be it. Until police officials here start getting rid of problem officers, costs associated with these civil suits will continue to mount. Kansas Citians already contribute hundreds of millions of dollars per year to keep the city safe.
Why should they be on the hook for even more because of bad behavior by wayward cops?
Millions in budget request
In the 2025-26 fiscal year that ends in April, the 25% of general revenue devoted to policing totaled more than $343 million. According to Graves, the police chief, the department expects to be over budget by about $3 million.
Despite the city expecting about a $100 million shortfall, KCPD sought about $417 million in its latest budget request. In his annual State of the City address, Lucas proposed a police budget of $363 million, about a 5% increase from the previous year.
Lucas’ rationale for transferring settlement costs out of the police budget and into the city’s legal fund makes little fiscal sense to me.
If approved, the ordinance would require any legal settlements above the 25% threshold to come from the city’s legal expense fund. City Manager Marco Vasquez would then have to negotiate with the police board on the settlement amount and the City Council would have final approval of any agreement.
It sounds good on paper, but in practical terms, this conversation should be dead on arrival, as other city services would suffer if the measure is approved.
Any money spent beyond the city’s statutory contribution to the police board “could have a negative fiscal impact on the city’s general fund or other funds depending on the source(s) identified by the city manager,” a memo attached to Lucas’ proposal reads.
I asked the city manager’s office if Vasquez supported this proposal. In an email, press secretary Sherae Honeycutt wrote: “The city does not publicly support or oppose proposed ordinances. The city acts as directed by the City Council through legislation.”
The ordinance has been held in committee since last week. In the name of public safety and real accountability, the proposed legislation should remain on the cutting room floor.
This story was originally published March 5, 2026 at 5:09 AM.
