STLPR0%

St. Louis uses police department lawsuit settlement fund for fire department raises 24%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

6/18/2026, 4:09:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 18.1% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 604 faulty-reasoning hits from 487 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.8% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,694 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.30% of the article peer group.

St. 
Louis will use $1 million it had set aside in its upcoming budget to help pay for settlements in cases against the police department to fund required raises for the Fire Department. 
Members of the city’s fiscal oversight board, Estimate and Apportionment, approved the changes to the proposed budget on Thursday. 
The raises for higher-ranking firefighters were triggered Wednesday when the Board of Police Commissioners approved double-digit pay hikes for officers at the rank of lieutenant and above. 
That left the city scrambling to find about $1.4 million in the budget that begins July 1. 
“We have been in such an unfortunate position having to at the very last minute try to find these funds for raises that we were blindsided by just two weeks ago,” said Mayor Cara Spencer. 
“While we were able to pull these funds together, these are not long-term funding sources.” 
At a meeting earlier this month, the state-appointed police board voted to set aside $5 million in savings it had found in its current budget to help cover the cost of future legal judgments against the St. 
Louis Metropolitan Police Department. 
The city had included $1 million for that purpose in the fiscal 2027 budget that takes effect July 1. 
The thinking, city officials said, was if the police department already had $5 million set aside for a legal fund, it did not need another $1 million. 
The remaining $400,000 comes from a special fund within the Fire Department budget. 
Police department spokesman Mitch McCoy said: "It is important to collaborate when decisions involving public safety funding are being considered. 
The SLMPD was not made aware of this transfer in advance, despite multiple requests for meetings and coordination. 
Unfortunately, this is another example of funding originally allocated for public safety being redirected elsewhere without meaningful discussion with the SLMPD." 
The $1.4 million only covers the cost of the salaries for one year. 
It does not include pensions or other benefits, or the ongoing costs of the raises. 
Board of Aldermen President Megan Green said she was worried about the long-term consequences of the police board increasing salaries for its officers without any concern for the impact on the city. 
“We ultimately got to a good place with the budget this year and do that work that the community asked us to do,” Green said, including funding for programs like right-to-counsel for people facing eviction. 
“This will not be sustainable long-term if year after year the police board is coming back to us with raises of this magnitude.” 
The Budget and Public Employees committee will meet Monday to approve the fiscal 2027 spending plan. 
The Board of Aldermen will then hold a special meeting to take two of the three required steps before giving it final approval next Friday. 
This story has been updated with comment from the police department. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias7.2%This article: 18.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias18.1%This article: 18.1%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.5%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 4.7%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope4.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.5%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal7.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote11.3%This article: 7.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.2%This article: 17.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice17.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

487 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers59%attributed speech201writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageEstimate and Apportionment • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBoard of Police Commissioners • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageCara Spencer • 35 words • 100.0% coverageCara Spencer • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMitch McCoy • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMitch McCoy • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMitch McCoy • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBudget and Public Employees committee • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBoard of Aldermen • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cara Spencer

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words17% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+70.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cara Spencer: 70.0%70.0%Quote-first Misdirection+70.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cara Spencer: 70.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.9 ptsWriter: 29.9%Cara Spencer: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.