The debate about governing the city of St. Louis' police department is all about power but is more complicated than simply state versus local control. What began a century and a half ago as a Civil War gambit to shift the city's militia from Union sympathizers in city government to Confederate allies in Jefferson City has spread into several political sand boxes. The interests in play include the executive and legislative branches at both levels as well as the police officers themselves.

Appointing police commissioners modestly adds to the governor's authority arsenal, but it is not necessarily a complete plus. Any single gubernatorial term typically means two nominations to the five-person board (the mayor is an ex-officio member). Those seats, in turn, can be useful bargaining chips for policy deals that help advance a governor's statewide agenda. At the same time, however, it can involve the governor in intramural city fights that are best avoided by a statewide official, especially when racial tension is lurking at or near the surface.

The governor's nominations must be approved by the state Senate. Given the Senate's practice of deferring to city of St. Louis senators on these appointments, that makes the two senators (Joe Keaveny and Robin Wright-Jones) whose districts are wholly within the city key participants in the process. One major reason Mayor Francis Slay supported Keaveny as Jeff Smith's replacement last summer was to give the mayor a strong advocate for shifting control from the state to the city and, failing that, to have at least one senator's ear for influencing future commissioner appointments.

In January, Keaveny went for the whole banana, introducing legislation (Senate Bill 643) to transfer control to the city effective Aug. 28, 2010. In a state imbued with the Jeffersonian philosophy of governing locally and now 145 years past the end of the Civil War, who could oppose such a move?

The answer: city police officers. Why? If you have existed and advanced under one set of rules, including the existing governing arrangement, changing them makes life uncertain and therefore uncomfortable. It is far easier to imagine how things would become worst rather than get better. That's why most officers actively oppose local control.

The Missouri Revised Statutes have more than 30 sections dealing exclusively with the Police Department of Metropolitan St. Louis. Many represent hard-won political battles waged by the police rank-and-file. Section 84.170, for example, specifies the promotion process from patrolman through chief. Section 84.140, to take a more bread-and-butter issue, outlines paid vacation benefits (e.g., three weeks after one year of service, four weeks after 12 years, five weeks after 21 years).

These and other provisions would be obliterated if SB 643 passes. That legislation states that "current state statutes concerning the St. Louis police department shall expire upon the effective date of the establishment of a municipal police force by ordinance" and that the municipal ordinance would control such matters as "compensation and benefits of officers." Pension issues are, however, basically left as they are now.

The advantages that local control have for the city's elected officials collectively is straightforward: Power shifts to them. But who are "them"?

The legislation is presently silent about how city control would be shared among its executive and legislative branches, stating only that this would be determined by an ordinance. As the mayor and the board of aldermen debate that ordinance, they will need to tackle such issues as whether appointing the chief is a mayoral prerogative or must also require legislative approval and whether, as is the case in St. Louis County, there should also be a local police board and, if so, what its role should be.

Even if the state of Missouri exits the St. Louis Police Department stage, the battle for control will continue.