St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay may have company from two of his predecessors -- former Mayors Freeman Bosley Jr. and Vincent C. Schoemehl Jr. -- for tonight's first-ever legislative hearing in Jefferson City on a bill to return control of the St. Louis Police Department to City Hall.

The word is that Bosley (1993-97) (below, left) and Schoemehl (1981-93) (below, right) may also travel to Jefferson City, or send some sort of written statements, in support of local control -- quests that both failed to achieve during their tenures.

Schoemehl said in a telephone interview while driving to Jefferson City that he planned to make brief remarks emphasizing the importance of returning control of the police department to City Hall. When a mayor is at a neighborhood meeting, Schoemehl said, he often hears about concerns of needed street repairs, trash-collection problems and police protection -- but can do nothing about the latter.

Missouri has had control of the department for 150 years, hailing back to the Civil War. As a result, city police officials have generally looked to Jefferson City for influence when it comes to promotions and internal office politics.

Although City Hall continues to pay the bills, the Board of Police Commissioners actually controls the police department. Although the mayor is one of five members, the governor names the other four.

Tonight's hearing, say advocates of local control, signals their success in getting St. Louis area legislators to align themselves with Slay and his mayoral predecessors, who have fought for decades to win back control of the police department.

One issue is financial: St. Louis mayors going back at least to James F. Conway (1977-81) have contended that the city's budget is unfairly hampered by the lack of City Hall control over the police department, the city's biggest single expenditure.

Before legislative term limits, such local legislative support was lacking -- in part because of the clout veteran legislators used to wield over the police department. For decades, through the 1990s, then-state Sens. John Scott and J.B. "Jet" Banks, both Democrats, were particularly powerful behind-the-scenes players when it came to the police department. So was then-U.S. Rep. William L. Clay Sr., D-St. Louis.

But now, state Rep. Jamilah Nasheed (left), D-St. Louis is among the city's new crop of legislators who believe that department officials and Jefferson City often ignore their concerns about the police. They believe that they could have a stronger voice if City Hall and whoever is mayor is the ultimate arbiter of city police matters.

She is chief sponsor of the House bill, HB1601, that will be heard this evening. She is joined in the Senate by new state Sen. Joe Keaveny, D-St. Louis and a Slay ally, who has made local control of the police department one of his top issues since taking office a few months ago.

Nasheed said in an interview that she wants to emphasize that her bill would not affect the police department's pension system, or the "seven and out'' rule that allows police to reside outside the city limits after seven years on the job.

Nasheed added that she has been struck by the broad coalition in favor of the bill, ranging from local civil-rights activists to former mayors. Also slated to be in Jefferson City for tonight's hearing is city Aldermanic President Lewis Reed and political activist Eric Vickers.

UPDATE --

Here's the text of Slay's prepared remarks, slated for delivery during the hearing:

"I am here today to testify in favor of HB 1601. I would like to thank Chairman Hoskins for giving me this opportunity, and Rep. Nasheed for sponsoring -- and Rep. Tilley for co-sponsoring -- this important legislation.

"The City of St. Louis has one of the largest per capita police departments in the entire country. The men and women who patrol our neighborhoods in St. Louis – and the men and women who supervise and direct them – do an extraordinary job.  That is fortunate, because very much is demanded of them.

"My testimony to you today touches these men and women. I’d like to better pay, train, and utilize these good officers to reduce crime in St. Louis . I’d like to fix the police pension fund without crippling the department or unduly burdening our residents and businesses. I’d like to move police commanders to the most cost effective headquarters space that meets their needs. And, I’d like to explore the notion that we could make our city and the St. Louis region safer with some sort of common public safety discussion with St. Louis County . But, none of these decisions is up to me. Nor to our other elected officials. Nor to our residents. Nor to our businesses.  Ultimately, these decisions are up to the Governor – and to this Assembly. You actually have the final say on crime fighting, better officer compensation, pensions, and – even – the location of police headquarters in our city, because the City of St. Louis has not had control of our police department since 1861. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to put the Missouri ’s history back on course after a one hundred and fifty year detour.

"It is likely that there are state historians in this room who know more about the Home Guard of 1861 than I do, more about the Six Months Militia, more about the Missouri State Militia. It is even likely that the efficacy of these 19^th Century fighting units once required the state to take over the St. Louis police department. I can only say this.  Whatever this Assembly feared from the St. Louis Police Department in 1861, the threat today has abated considerably. We no longer have any intention of deploying our police department to protect a federal arsenal in St. Louis nor to seize the state capitol.

"May we, therefore, please have our police department back, so that the residents of the City of St. Louis – like every city in the entire country outside Missouri – control our own police department?

"I am not supporting this bill because I doubt the dedication of the current Board of Police Commissioners.  I know them – and as an ex officio member of the Board of Police Commissioners – I know their generally good intentions. But not one of them – nor many of their predecessors – brings to the Board enough administrative qualification, law enforcement experience, or credibility in the wider community to make up for the fact that they – and the governor whose patronage selects them and most of the senators who confirm them – have no real accountability to the taxpayers who pay the department’s bills nor to the voters who rely on the department’s competent deployment.

"I support this bill because the people who pay the bills and rely on the service ought to control the department, just like they do where you live. All other American cities have locally controlled and citizen influenced processes to select their municipal police boards or commissions. Only St. Louis and one other city do not.

"I have reviewed this Assembly’s history. I know that bills like this one have been introduced in the recent and in the not-so-recent past.  I also know that these previous bills have gone nowhere, victims of “unexplained bad luck and accident.” The best detective in the St. Louis police department and the cast of CSI could not track the culprit who killed these bills. Yet, outside of the expressed concern of lobbyists for the St. Louis Police Officers Association and the Police Retirement System there is no coherent and publicly stated opposition to the return to local control of the St. Louis Police Department. And only a reluctance to make a change in the face of that lobbyist opposition has held back this bill in the past.

"This year, though, there is a very different dynamic in play.  Voters are asking elected officials to examine every aspect of government and find the resources to deliver services well, fairly, and efficiently.  And voters are watching carefully to see who is paying attention. The opportunity to combine duplicated civilian administrative functions and eliminate unnecessary ones could save the City and the department millions of dollars. Reductions in reimbursements from the state’s Legal Expense Fund could result in state revenue savings up to a million dollars a year.

"A recent audit of the entire St. Louis government found the usual sorts of small deficiencies that such examinations usually uncover. In the departments under my administration – and in those under the administration of our county officers – it was clear who taxpayers and voters could hold responsible to make the changes suggested by the auditors. As locally elected officials, we serve directly at the pleasure of our constituents.  You can bet that we will be making those changes.

"The most scathing state audit of the batch, however, was for the St. Louis police department.  Should the police department choose not to accept the recommendations, to whom should city taxpayers turn? Who should they hold accountable?  It should be me or the Board of Aldermen, but that would do no real good. Several years ago, I spoke to the president of the police board about the need for the department – which makes up a third of the city’s operating budget -- to control its administrative and management costs better. The board president told me that the city should approve the amount of money they were demanding, or he and his colleagues would simply cut the number of police officers and blame City Hall. That is a direction that passage of HB 1601 will eliminate.

"Let me be clear what HB 1601 will not do.

"It will not change the current pension system. Passing this bill will leave the police pension system under state control. That is not the best public policy and not my preference, but nothing in this bill changes the current pension system.

"It will not remove the city police department from any state supervision. Passing this bill will require the city police department to enforce state law; and to meet the same state standards and be subject to the same state inspections and oversight as it currently is.

"What passing this bill will do is vest primary control of our own police department in the people of St. Louis . And it will end the practice of making appointments to the St. Louis police board the political spoils of an incumbent governor.  Think of this change as one like – but more important than – the reforms to the system of awarding license fee offices.  Since the current governor supported that change, I expect him to support this one if you send it to his desk.

"I know that most members of this Assembly support the theory behind this bill. Municipal representatives should be elected by the electorate of the municipality or appointed by municipal authorities.  Your actions in a hundred other instances have proven your adherence to this general principle of local control.  And I know that you have less interest than any of our residents in the number of police officers on patrol tonight in the City’s Soulard or Hyde Park neighborhoods.

"In the absence of any strong case for the state to maintain the city’s police department and because of the moral power of the principle of local control of local government, I respectfully ask you to consider – and to support – legislation that will return to the citizens of St. Louis the same voice in their own public safety that your constituents currently enjoy."