The Commission

Understanding the importance of repairing the damaged trust many people feel toward public institutions, we made openness and transparency cornerstones of the Commission’s work. Commission meetings have been open to the public and the media, and subject to the Sunshine Law. Notes, resources, transcripts, and video from Commission meetings have been openly shared online following each meeting.

Appreciating that the challenges we examined were not unique to our region, we sought the perspective and expert testimony of practitioners from around the country who could present new ways of seeing the evidence we were examining and provide new ideas and best practices from other communities that should be considered.

Similarly, we aspired to develop a work process that could serve as a model to other communities struggling with similar challenges, and to develop best practices that communities across the country could adopt locally.

Most importantly, we have embraced as our charge helping the community chart a new path toward healing and positive change for the residents of the St. Louis region.

Who Makes up the Commission?

The 16 volunteer members of the Commission come from a variety of backgrounds and represent a diversity of communities, experiences, and opinions. The Rev. Starsky Wilson and Rich McClure have led the Commission as co-chairs. A full list of Commissioners is available in the “Acknowledgements” section of the report and their biographies are on our website.

In addition to the 16 Commissioners, hundreds of citizens volunteered their time and expertise throughout the process, serving on Commission working groups, participating in open meetings, and making possible the numerous community events that were held in an effort to further engage the region.

A Commitment to Community Engagement

And so we listened. At open community meetings all across the region, we invited people to speak. We had the opportunity to hear from people from communities throughout the region, from a variety of diverse backgrounds, of all ages, from all walks of life. When citizens stood up to share their thoughts and experiences, their remarks were unscripted and honest. From these frank discussions we heard about the challenges of daily life and the frustrations and struggles that many St. Louisans face every day.

While we also listened to experts from across the country, to researchers and scholars, to clergy and legislators, and to business, non-profit, and civic leaders, our commitment to listening to and honoring the voices of the people was the common thread running through our work.

This commitment to community engagement meant that we consistently got a raw view of what life was like for people in neighborhoods like Ferguson, and that we never forgot about the people who our policies were meant to serve.

Over the course of 17 full Commission meetings, which were open to the public and held in various neighborhoods around the region between November 2014 and September 2015, almost 2,000 people participated. Each of these open meetings included opportunities for open public comment, presentations from local and national experts on a wide variety of subjects, and, at several meetings, facilitated discussion in small breakout groups.

CITIZEN-LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATIONS

Working Group Co-Chairs:
Commissioner Dan Isom
Commissioner Brittany Packnett

Desired Changes:
Design accountability measures and policies that ensure law enforcement agencies serve and protect all citizens based on principles of:

• Trust;
• Mutual respect;
• Transparency;
• Cultural competence; and
• Justice

Topics Explored:

• Use of Force
• Civilian Oversight
• Anti-Bias & Cultural Competency
• Accreditation & Accountability
• Community Policing
• Public Demonstration
• Special Prosecution
• Officer Wellness
• Use of Technology

Review the full list of calls to action from this working group in the “Calls to Action” section of the report.

Supported by Research

The Governor’s Executive Order directed the Commission to “take testimony and gather information, and […] engage the scholarly and research expertise necessary to help inform the commission about the issues …”

With that in mind, we reviewed dozens of previously published research reports from government agencies and non-profit organizations at the local, state, and federal levels. We also heard testimony and presentations from more than two dozen subject matter experts from the region and across the country.

In addition, the Commission contracted with the Institute of Public Policy, a division of the Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri, for research support.

In the Calls to Action section of the report, you can explore some of the reports and documents the Commission reviewed in its work.

How did the Commission Determine Priorities?

Since the Governor’s appointment, the Ferguson Commission convened regional leaders, subject matter experts, and community members to produce 189 calls to action. These calls to action identify specific policy recommendations that the Commission believes can better our region. Each call to action identifies specific accountable bodies—individuals and organizations whose cooperation and effort will be needed to make each call to action a reality.

Once the calls to action were developed, the Commission identified those calls we believed should be prioritized.

Three criteria were considered when determining the priority calls to action:

Transformative. Is the policy call to action innovative? Will it create an impact or cause positive change?

Urgent. Will this policy call to action address pressing issues?

Unflinching. Does the policy present cause-driven solutions that call out core issues in the region?

The calls identified as signature priorities are organized into three primary categories: Justice for All, Youth at the Center, and Opportunity to Thrive.

Not long after the Commission began its work, people began asking what was going to be in the report. The Governor had commissioned us to produce a report, and our specific recommendations, as directed, would be included in that report. Understandably, people were interested in what that report would say, and what those recommendations would be.

But those involved in the work quickly came to understand that those calls to action, and this report, would not be the only products of the Commission’s work. As we met, discussed, listened, and investigated, another—perhaps more important—product was being produced: our process.

Process as Product

From the beginning, we committed ourselves to abide by several adopted guiding principles: transparency, sustainable and enduring action with urgency, equity and fairness, civic engagement, diversity and inclusion, and integrity.

We believed these were sound principles for guiding our efforts. Considering the serious circumstances that led to the Commission’s creation, and how much was at stake in our work, we believed we had a duty to adhere to them.

As we listened, it quickly became clear that people in communities all across the region not only wanted to talk about these issues, and needed to talk about these issues, they also wanted to do something about these issues.

What had been missing was a forum—and a process for engaging all that pent-up energy, frustration and vision.

By providing a space and an opportunity to talk honestly about these issues that have plagued our region for generations, and by consistently demonstrating to people that their concerns would be heard, the Ferguson Commission became a catalyst for citizen engagement and involvement.

By calling on community leaders and experts from different sectors from across the region, people gathered who had never sat together before to come to what became the region’s “kitchen table” to explore these issues with a wide range of expertise, experiences, and perspectives. As those people came to the table, they listened to each other with patience, curiosity, and respect. Conversations that in the past might have been heated and contentious have been conducted with a sense of purpose, obligation, and resolve.