Justice Department threatens legal action against Ferguson

FERGUSON, Mo. — The Justice Department said Wednesday it is exploring "legal actions" against the city of Ferguson, hours after the city council in the St. Louis suburb called for several revisions to a tentative agreement to revamp its police department and municipal court operations.

Ferguson's city council voted late Tuesday to approve the settlement, known as a consent decree, on the condition that the Justice Department agree to revisions to the deal reached last month.

The Justice Department rebuked the move and could file a civil rights suit against the city to enforce the agreement. Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department civil rights division, said in statement that the department will take "necessary legal actions to ensure that Ferguson’s policing and court practices comply with the Constitution and relevant federal laws.”

“The Ferguson City Council has attempted to unilaterally amend the negotiated agreement," Gupta said. "Their vote to do so creates an unnecessary delay in the essential work to bring constitutional policing to the city and marks an unfortunate outcome for concerned community members and Ferguson police officers."

Ferguson sparked a national debate over police relations with the African-American community after the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen killed by a white police officer.

A St. Louis County grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson, the officer involved in the incident, and the Justice Department said it would not pursue federal civil rights charges against him. But the incident and subsequent protests in the community led the Justice Department to conduct an investigation, where it concluded the city's police and municipal court unfairly targeted African-Americans in the community.

The effort to amend the deal comes after Mayor James Knowles and council members raised concerns about the costs of implementing it. City officials estimated it could potentially cost the city nearly $10 million over the next three years.

"In order to make sure this is a successful decree, we got to make sure that this something we can implement, something we can afford," Knowles said.

Ferguson's city council wants the Justice Department to make several changes. City officials say the agreement should have no mandate that could lead to an increase in police officer salaries and no provisions on staffing levels at the city jail. The council also wants Justice to cap federal monitoring fees the city must pay at $1 million, and change deadlines set in the tentative pact.

Many residents at the council meeting Tuesday greeted the move with jeers and predicted Justice would scoff at reopening negotiations.

"This is not going away. We have to pay," Patricia Cowan, 54, told council members. "We need to think about where we’re at, and we need to move forward."

Proponents of the agreement said the reforms are necessary to ensure fairness to the city's African-American residents, who make up about 70% of the population, and heal long-festering wounds in the community. The Justice Department concluded in a report last year that racial bias was an endemic problem in the city's police department and municipal court.

Other residents said agreeing to the decree will cripple the city of about 21,000 that has a budget of about $14 million and roughly $2.8 million in debt. Much of the deficit came from police overtime and lost tax revenue from businesses damaged during unrest following the shooting death of Brown.

"My fear is that with your vote that Ferguson will cease to exist," said Susan Ankenbrand, 73, who has lived in the city for 41 years. "I would rather lose our city by fighting in court than losing it to DOJ’s crushing demands."

The tentative agreement reached last month calls for Ferguson to pay the cost of a Justice Department monitor for at least three years and purchase software and hire staff to maintain data on arrests, traffic stops and use-of-force incidents. It calls for a revision in the police department's training with an emphasis "toward de-escalation and avoiding force — particularly deadly force — except where necessary."

Ferguson would be required to recruit a more diverse force. Currently, only a handful of officers on the more than 50-officer force are African-American.

Knowles was particularly concerned about a provision in the agreement aimed at boosting Ferguson's ability to compete for top law enforcement candidates. The requirement would force the city to increase officer compensation by as much $14,600 per year in salary, pension and payroll costs, according to a city estimate. Knowles says the city's contract with Ferguson firefighters requires parity in pay with the city's police officers.

Residents will vote on ballot initiatives in April that would raise property and sales taxes in Ferguson, but even if they are passed, layoffs and deep budget cuts may be necessary, city officials warn.

The NAACP dismissed cost concerns raised by Knowles as a tactic that has been used "since time immemorial" — including during desegregation battles in the South — by state and local officials trying to elude civil rights mandates.

“We reject this argument out of hand as an affront to democracy," said Sherilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. "All public institutions, including police departments, must operate in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

Bob Hudgins, a local activist who supported signing of the decree, said the resistance by Knowles amounted to "white supremacy's last stand in Ferguson."

But Hudgins, who like Knowles is white, said Ferguson residents shouldn't bear the entire costs of implementing the agreement.

"There's got to be block grants out there, money from the feds that can help Ferguson," said Hudgins, who is running for a spot on the Ferguson city council in the April elections.

Follow USA TODAY reporters Aamer Madhani and Kevin Johnson on Twitter: AamerISmad and @bykevinj