Photography by Matt Marcinkowski
Jeff Rainford was chief of staff for Mayor Francis Slay for 14 years. During that time, many St. Louisans saw him as the most powerful person in City Hall. Rainford was not averse to confrontation, though he was also known for his effectiveness. He left the job on February 6 to form Rainford & Associates, with offices in Clayton. He plans to continue living in the city, though he’s moving from St. Louis Hills to an apartment overlooking Forest Park, where he often walks, bikes, and plays golf. Shortly after leaving City Hall, Rainford sat down to discuss the past, present, and future.
When news broke that you were leaving, some wondered what it meant for the city. Some people saw you as the go-to guy and Mayor Slay as more of the “ceremonial head of government.”
What Walter Metcalfe is doing at CityArchRiver, I could not do. But I could work for Walter, help him deal with the politics, the budget, the communications. What Dave Peacock is doing with the stadium, I could not do. If they handed me the reins 90 days ago, we’d be nowhere. But I could help Dave get it done. It’s the same with Francis Slay. If you made me mayor, the city would be in the toilet right now. But if you pair me up with Francis—a guy who can lead the city; who can articulate a vision; who is not a Jimmy Carter, where he’s going to understand every detail, but he’s going to know what is going on and lead the city—I can work with him and do what I did for him.
How would you respond to critics who say you were more concerned about image, given your media background?
That was part of my job. When you’re chief of staff, you are responsible for everything—everything. You are certainly responsible for making sure the potholes get filled, that the police are doing their job arresting criminals and firefighters are putting out fires. But you’re also responsible for making sure the mayor’s message was cohesive and articulate, and that voters liked him and re-elected him… Most of the things I am proudest of are on the policy side. When the mayor took office, 21 percent of kids in the city tested positive for dangerous levels of lead in their blood; now, we are down to 3 percent. That wasn’t a big message thing; a lot of people don’t know about it. They did know about all of the trouble that we went through for three years to reform the firefighters’ retirement system. There was an element of communications in that when the firefighters say, “The mayor is gypping us.” We had to say, “No, we’re not, and here is why we are doing it.”
A previous administration was offered control of the city’s public schools and declined. Was this ever an option for Mayor Slay?
It was. When William Danforth and Frankie Freeman were appointed to make recommendations, they came to see Mayor Slay. The mayor, [then–Deputy Chief of Staff]
Robbyn Wahby, and I had a long discussion with them… The mayor said, if you make a recommendation that the mayor be responsible for appointing the superintendent, I will gladly do it. We told them why we thought it would work. Ultimately, they recommended a three-person appointed board. We were disappointed. We wanted control… Did he know that it would be hard and probably nightmarish? Yes, but he was willing to step up.
You achieved local control of the police department. Will there be a political downside to that?
From the first day that Francis Slay was in office, most citizens held him accountable for crime. It took us eight years to get local control. The reason we pushed for it—and of course, we thought about issues like that—is “Heck, we’re getting the blame. We might as well get the control.” The idea that the mayor could schloff this off on the police board was never a reality. People have this idea—and I think it’s right—that the buck stops with the mayor… Everybody wants to know when they walk outside their door, they’re not going to get robbed or hurt. The mayor’s being held accountable for this, so why not give him a chance to do something about it?... I cannot imagine going through the post-Ferguson issues and crime sprees in the fall and have the chief telling you, “I may or may not do something,” or “Leave me alone; go talk to the police board and the other four bosses.” I do think the situation is better now with local control, both in doing something about crime after it happens and doing things in a preventive way. In the short run and long run, it’s far better for the people of St. Louis. It will result in less crime and a more efficient and effective police department.
Why haven’t more people run for mayor?
It’s a hard job. I’ve said that the mayor and I would have been really good at the Alamo. We love lost causes. The mayor went into this for the right reason. He had a good law practice. He still could have a good law practice and make a lot more money, but he continues to do this because he wants to make the city better.
There’s been a racial divide in the city, particularly on election day. Has that improved? The nadir was when the [former Fire Chief] Sherman George thing happened. That was something we tried to avoid for four years. We were put in a position where we couldn’t do anything else. Clearly, that was the bottom. Jamileh Nasheed led the recall against the mayor during that period. When she ran for state senate, the mayor was one of her strongest supporters. Lacy Clay is one of the mayor’s strongest supporters and vice versa. There’s no doubt it’s better today. The mayor and his administration have grown. I think I’ve grown. I think we are better at communicating with people and understanding people’s differences and what they expect from city government.
Why are you leaving now?
I’m 55, and I have time for one more career. I hope to continue to be involved with the stadium. I really think, as a region, we have to focus on downtown. There is no region in America that is operating on all cylinders that has a downtown that is less than ideal. We have a good downtown—we need a great downtown.
