STLPR0%

Budget brouhaha: St. Louis alderman calls police raises 'undemocratic' 31%

By Kavahn Mansouri59%

6/22/2026, 7:25:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 153 hits. Analysis detected 1,176 faulty-reasoning hits from 773 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.6% and a BS Rank of 31% (14,681 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.30% of the article peer group.

The mood was mostly jovial as the sun rose over St. 
Louis City Hall on Monday, with aldermen, budget officials and others meeting to put final touches on a city budget more complex than usual. 
But for Ninth Ward Alderman Michael Browning, there wasn’t much to be cheerful about. 
From the Central West End alderman’s perspective, the city was about to pass a budget he believed to be “undemocratic,” a move that would effectively see the city capitulating to a nonelected Board of Police Commissioners and put the city in choppy financial waters. 
“I find moving this board bill forward to be very problematic,” Browning said. 
“If we acquiesce to what the Board of Police Commissioners have done at the 11th hour, at the last minute, we are giving up our freedoms, giving up our autonomy and putting ourselves in a position where we will have to make cuts in the future to the departments that serve our city and our people.” 
For months, Mayor Cara Spencer and the Board of Aldermen have clashed with the Board of Police Commissioners appointed by Gov. 
Mike Kehoe over the budget process. 
The state-appointed board, which acts independently of the city, approved raises of up to 22% for police lieutenants, captains, majors and lieutenant colonels last week, a move that Spencer, who sits on the board, voted against and lambasted as a decision that didn’t take city finances into consideration. 
It was the latest move in the ongoing battle between the board and the commission that took control of the city’s police department last year, a move that has led to financial battles, uncomfortable meetings and lawsuits between city leaders and the commission. 
Late last week, the city’s fiscal oversight board amended the budget to take $1 million from police funding to meet a pay parity requirement that applies to city police and city firefighters, a move that keeps St. 
Louis’ budget at the same amount  roughly $1.4 billion. 
But on Monday, as the board moved to a second reading and perfection of the budget that could be approved at the end of the week, Browning wasn’t alone in his objections. 
In huddles throughout the day, Browning and other aldermen gathered to discuss the beleaguered budget, with several rising to declare a no vote on the bill. 
Several questioned how the bill might affect the city’s financial future. 
“We are headed into choppy financial waters,” Browning said after reading a list of news headlines highlighting other municipalities in the region that are facing financial issues. 
“It does not matter what budget tricks we did this year to fix the problem; it will create an ongoing problem that will hurt our city in the future.” 
At one point, several members, including Browning and First Ward Alderwoman Ann Schweitzer, huddled in a room outside the aldermanic chambers in discussion with Spencer and Budget Director Paul Payne. 
The discussion, Browning said, revolved around the pros and cons of voting against the budget. 
In total, five aldermen voted against the bill: Third Ward Alderman Shane Cohn, Fourth Ward Alderman Bret Narayan, Fifth Ward Alderman Matt Devoti, Twelfth Ward Alderwoman Sharon Tyus and Browning. 
Devoti said he voted no because the raises approved by the police commissioners and the parity pay that will go to firefighters aren’t for rank-and-file officers and firefighters, but for high-ranking members of both agencies. 
“Let’s be crystal clear on this, we are not here today because of a raise of pay of the rank and file,” Devoti said. 
“If that's what we were here today (for), I’d have a hard time standing up in opposition.” 
After the meeting, Browning again took aim at the Board of Police Commissioners, calling the effects of its decisions on the city budget undemocratic and dangerous. 
“I’m not looking to scuttle the city or impact anybody, but I think we have to take a stand,” Browning said. 
A few blocks over, at police headquarters, Mitch McCoy, St. 
Louis Metropolitan Police Department director of public affairs and information, told reporters after the meeting that the commission is monitoring the Board of Aldermen's vote. 
“We do believe that we are one step closer to that legal clarity, and we will continue to search for solutions with all of our stakeholders at the table and making sure that we are the best police department that we know that we can be,” he said. 
Perfection of the budget was approved 10-5. 
The full Board of Aldermen will take a final vote on the budget Friday. 
St. 
Louis Public Radio's Rachel Lippman contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 7.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion7.2%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias6.2%This article: 14.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias14.5%This article: 19.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias19.8%This article: 2.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority3.2%This article: 8.3%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma8.3%This article: 7.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope7.2%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 3.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 12.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 2.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal5.7%This article: 2.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.2%This article: 13.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.5%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.7%This article: 0.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.8%This article: 4.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice4.1%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

773 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers41%attributed speech454writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Browning • 13 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Browning • 56 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Browning • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Browning • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Browning • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Devoti • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Devoti • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Devoti • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Browning • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMitch McCoy • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMitch McCoy • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Public Radio • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Browning

91%flagged-word coverage
161 attributed words50% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote+8.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Michael Browning: 8.1%8.1%Biased Writer Voice-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Michael Browning: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Michael Browning: 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.