Advertisement
Culture

Police in Seattle should embrace fed review

The ranks of the Seattle Police Department are filled with outstanding, dedicated people. But there's clearly something behind the weakening public confidence.

Police in Seattle should embrace fed review

by

Tim Burgess

Repuplish

The ranks of the Seattle Police Department are filled with outstanding, dedicated people. But there's clearly something behind the weakening public confidence.

I served as a Seattle police officer and detective in the 1970s,  admittedly a very long time ago. Policing has changed dramatically  since my time on the street.  We didn't have portable radios in my first  year as a patrol officer, DNA-based investigations were a figment of  our imagination, and crime scene specialists were only seen on Hill Street Blues.

But, one thing I witnessed every day way back then was the dedication  and commitment of police officers and detectives to serve our city with  honor and distinction.  I still witness that today.  The women and men  of the Seattle Police Department have half-a-million contacts with  people every year; almost all of these encounters are handled  professionally and we never hear a peep about them.

In fact, a recent report from the police department showed that in  2009 Seattle officers used force at a rate far below the national  rate — 0.12 percent compared to 0.88 percent of all police-public encounters.  Even when  these encounters resulted in an arrest, Seattle officers used force to  effect the arrest in only 2.4 percent of the incidents.

But despite the reality that most of our officers do exemplary work  on our behalf, something is clearly wrong.  Recent incidents have tested  public confidence in our police department, to say the least. Many  wonder if there is a larger, more systemic or cultural problem in the  police department. It is this concern that I want to address here.

What is it that fosters a police culture of "us versus them"? What is  it that prompts an officer to write in his union newspaper disparaging  and very damaging words about the "enemy," a very clear reference to the  elected leadership of the city? Why is it that union leaders appear  incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that officers sometimes make  mistakes? What have we done — as individuals and as a city government — to  contribute to this cultural crisis? These questions do not have simple  answers. (If you are interested in reading more about this issue, I  suggest you start with the research of New York University professor Jerome Skolnick, one of the country's leading authorities on police culture.)

Seattle faces another important question: How can we respect and  affirm the difficult work of our officers while creating an internal  police culture that affirms the highest values of professionalism and  fairness and allows the voices of our best officers to be heard loud and  clear?

Here are some practical steps and thoughts we might consider.

First, the chief of police and other commanders need to be  more outspoken about the work of our officers, the good work — and the  mistakes and misconduct.  Stories can be powerful tools to  nurture and affirm good behavior and correct bad behavior.  This type of  transparency will build public confidence and encourage the vast  majority of officers who want to do the right thing and cringe when  their colleagues mess up.

Second, officers of all ranks throughout the department,  including union leaders, should proactively embrace the special review  the Department of Justice has announced.  This review will be  conducted by law enforcement officers from the federal  government—experienced professionals who are committed to the highest  standards in policing. Their goal is to improve the department, not  embarrass it.

Third, union leaders — and all of the members — should remember that they are police officers first and foremost.  They took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and state of Washington and the Charter and ordinances of the City of  Seattle.  Taking this oath isn't just some ceremonial exercise.  It  means something.  It embodies the essence of what we want from our  police officers — professional conduct, reverence for our constitutional  protections, fair treatment of everyone.

Fourth, first line supervisors, the sergeants and lieutenants  who are on the street guiding, training, encouraging and coaching  officers, need to more fully appreciate the critical responsibilities of  their position.  These supervisors — second only to the mayor  and the chief of police — set the parameters and tone of the policing  environment.  Their words and interventions could re-set the culture  almost overnight. And getting the culture right is very important.

Fifth, we should have a robust discussion about our  philosophy of policing.  How do we enforce the law and uphold our  constitutional protections at the same time?  What's the difference  between a "command and control" philosophy of policing and one based on  "maintaining the peace”? Why does this distinction matter? Are  there emerging trends in policing that we can discover from the  experience of other cities and the literature of policing?

Sixth, those inside and outside the police department must focus on constructive criticism, not destructive criticism. Denigration of the police will only turn our officers away from this effort and we need them as full participants.

Seventh, it would be a mistake to believe that a tweak of  process or new rules or even new training can somehow be a panacea that  will resolve all the public's concerns.  There might indeed be  necessary changes, but focusing only on these typical solutions may  distract us from the more fundamental issues I'm highlighting here.

For me, it's all about what the internal culture of the police  department will either tolerate or condemn.  I've seen a  cultural-turnaround happen before in the police department, albeit under  very different circumstances than those we face today.

When I became an officer in the early 1970s the city was reeling from  a massive system of corruption at City Hall and deep in the police  department.  The culture back then silenced the good cops and allowed  the corrupt ones to line their pockets with bribes and graft.  Good  people turned a blind eye; the cultural pressures were too strong.  But  that corrupt system was vanquished when good officers broke their  silence by standing up and telling the truth.

Today’s police department is staffed with many good people who do  their jobs extremely well. I hope we soon begin to hear the proud voices  of wisdom and professionalism inside the department.  These are the  voices Seattle needs to hear.  These voices belong to the  hundreds of officers, detectives and civilians who do it right every  hour of their workday, week after week, month after month, year after  year.  When these voices are loosed, cultural change will happen very  quickly indeed.