US. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

 

Office of the Assistant Attorney Genera! Washington, D. C. 20530

March 4, 2016
Mayor James W. Knowles 111 Dan K. Webb
Ferguson City Councilmembers Winston Strawn LLP
110 Church Street 35 W. Wacker Drive
Ferguson, MO 63135 Chicago, IL 60601

Re: United States v. City of Ferguson (4:16-cv-00180)

Dear Ferguson City Council and Counsel:

We write in response to your recent communications, in which questions continue to be raised
regarding the potential costs of implementing the proposed agreement initially negotiated in this
case. That agreement was the product of several months of negotiations, during which the cost
concerns expressed by your team were taken seriously, fully considered, and negotiated. The
resulting agreement sets forth a framework for effectively and ef?ciently protecting the
fundamental rights of all Ferguson residents and promoting public safety. The United States will
not accept the modi?cations that the City of Ferguson (?the City?) unilaterally made to the
agreement on February 9, 2016, or any re-opening of the long process of negotiation that led to
the agreement. We are fully prepared to litigate this matter. Should the City wish to avoid the
litigation process, we submit that the alternative is to sign the agreement as negotiated between
the parties in good faith an agreement that provides the framework for the reforms necessary in
Ferguson.

You will recall that our negotiations were extensive and considered cost concerns throughout the
process. As we do in every case, we committed during our negotiations to COOperatively address
concerns about costs or other challenges that may arise during the implementation process, and
our commitment to that cooperation has not changed.

First, as with all of our police reform settlement agreements and as we made clear during our
negotiations, the precise contours of implementation of the agreement would be developed over
time in close coordination and consultation with City of?cials, the Department of Justice, the
independent monitor, and the court. The Department has a strong interest in ensuring the
sustainability of the reforms in our consent decrees and we understand that sustainability often,
as a practical matter, requires attention to the ?nancial condition of the local jurisdiction during
the implementation stage. It is not uncommon for ?nancial or staf?ng challenges to arise in the
course of implementation of our consent decrees. Provided those challenges are genuine,
approached in good faith, and not pretexts for non-compliance, we are committed to working

1

with jurisdictions to overcome these challenges. The Department has a demonstrated record of
working cooperatively with jurisdictions to ensure that implementation of consent decree
provisions remedies constitutional de?ciencies while supporting and enhancing the capacity of
law enforcement of?cials to carry out their mission of protecting public safety.

Second, as you know from our negotiations, the provisions of the agreement requiring the City to
develop a recruitment plan, including a plan to ?offer salaries that will place FPD among the
most competitive of similarly sized agencies in St. Louis County,? were speci?cally negotiated
with the City to address concerns about low of?cer retention rates and the need to attract and
retain a highly quali?ed workforce following the City?s investment in training its of?cers. We
have always been clear that the salary provision neither requires any speci?c salary increase nor
prohibits increases from being implemented over a reasonable time period. Nor is the
recruitment plan required to address salary increases for any City employees outside FPD. As
with many other aspects of the agreement, the recruitment plan provisions set requirements that
the City must implement over time.

Third, as we do in many jurisdictions as part of our efforts to advance and support constitutional
policing, the Department of Justice has provided signi?cant technical assistance and other grant
support to the City, with this support increasing after August 2014. As we discussed during our
negotiations, should the City commit to the successful implementation of the agreement, we
would expect this technical assistance and other support to continue until such implementation is
complete, and would continue to work with the City to identify additional opportunities for
federal support.

We continue to believe that the City of Ferguson can expeditiously bring about constitutional
policing and municipal court practices through implementation of the negotiated

agreement. Should that commitment be made, we would remain committed as expressed
throughout our negotiations to working with the City towards the reforms that would inure to

the bene?t of all of the citizens of Ferguson.

Vanita Gupta
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

cc: Kevin M. O?Keefe
Curtis, Heinz, Garrett O?Keefe RC.
130 Bemiston Ave., Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63105

Stephanie E. Karr
Ferguson City Attorney
Curtis, Heinz, Garrett O?Keefe P.C.