Police Accountability: “Who Watches the Watchers?”
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Thomas E. Poulin
June 20, 21
For some time, calls to, “Defund the police,” have been heard. The slogan is not truly a call to eliminate the police, but more a demand for greater accountability of law enforcement. The challenge for public administrators is real, and if left unchecked the concern is likely to grow. The challenge is not new. Millenia ago, Roman poet Juvenal asked, “Who watches the watchers?” Communities created law enforcement agencies, empowering them to protect the community. These communities have the right to ensure the authorities granted are applied in an effective, efficient, ethical and acceptable manner.
This challenge is exacerbated by the structure of law enforcement; it is not monolithic. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports over 12,000 general function law enforcement agencies in the United States, not including specialized investigatory or regulatory agencies. Individual agencies are led by either appointed police chiefs or agency heads, serving at the pleasure of elected officials, or sheriffs elected directly by the community. Consequently, there is no formal overarching structure to reform.
There is some level of standardization across federal agencies, and minimum state training certification requirements are the same across state and local agencies. However, each agency has their own policies and procedures beyond the minimums. Each agency head, appointed or elected, has their own vision and style reflected in their agency’s operations. Law enforcements is not a single structure – it is a loose coalition of agencies, each with its own leadership and organizational culture, which complicates approaches to accountability.
Some accountability concerns might be viewed as global, such as the militarization of law enforcement subsequent to the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout. Responding to a robbery in progress, local police encountered criminals heavily armed with automatic weapons, protected by body armor. Reacting to this new threat, police began adopting military style equipment and tactics, with training provided by current or former military personnel. An unanticipated consequence has been the mental transition from guardian to warrior, contributing in some instances to dysfunctional law enforcement cultures viewing the community as a potential threat—an enemy to be wary of, not citizens to be protected.
Law enforcement agencies work in a unique environment. When enforcing laws, they might be viewed negatively. When responding to investigate a crime, they might be considered negligent for failing to prevent it. When the use of force becomes necessary, there will be questions concerning its use. In response to these concerns, legal protections such as qualified immunity and labor contract disciplinary provisions expanded. Taken too far, there have been instances of police officers remaining employed after numerous, credible complaints, protected by laws and policies making them virtually immune to discipline by their employers.
The vast majority of law enforcements desires, “To serve and protect,” but dysfunctional environments have developed. A state police training officer, acting in a manner anomalous to the agency mission, advised trainees to adopt a, “Warrior mentality,” prepared to use, “Ruthless force,” to maintain order. A local police chief, suing for wrongful discharge, noted while she administratively reported to the city manager, she was not subordinate to him. In a well-publicized trial, senior police officials testified that there were operational policies in place for emergencies, but officers were fully empowered to comply at their discretion, effectively invalidating the policies.
Public opinion on this is spread across a wide spectrum. However, in some communities where complaints have been made, police accountability may be viewed as:
Law enforcement, in response to a complaint made concerning law enforcement conduct, investigated law enforcement against the standards and perceptions of law enforcement, deciding law enforcement had acted properly, vindicating law enforcement through facts obtained solely from law enforcement, which may not be shared with anyone outside of law enforcement.
Clearly, this is an extreme example, but it does illustrate a basic truth related to accountability. Law enforcement is a public agency, which must be accountable to the public. If law enforcement is not transparent in response to community complaints, it is resisting the accountability each community has the right to expect from public agencies.
The leadership and organizational culture of all law enforcement agencies must stress the following, which does not reflect differences from the expectations for any public agency. If the agency fails in this, communities should change the leadership of these agencies:
- Law enforcement agencies are public agencies—they must be accountable to the public.
- Law enforcement agencies must be as transparent as possible to the public—transparency is fundamental to accountability.
- Law enforcement has no right to use force, but instead the authority to use force in a manner acceptable to the communities which grant the authority.
- Law enforcement agencies should continue efforts to educate the public, the media and elected officials concerning the unique challenges and risks of their work, developing and sustaining support. They must accept they are not, and never shall be, equal players in a public debate. They are public employees, and employees must work within the expectations, authorities and limits created by their employers.
Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, MS(HRM), MS(I/O Psych) is an independent scholar and HRM Consultant. Previously, he served in local government for over 30 years, teaching in various areas of public administration for over 15. He currently serves as President of the Hampton Roads Chapter of ASPA, and may be reached at [email protected]
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
Police Accountability: “Who Watches the Watchers?”
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Thomas E. Poulin
June 20, 21
For some time, calls to, “Defund the police,” have been heard. The slogan is not truly a call to eliminate the police, but more a demand for greater accountability of law enforcement. The challenge for public administrators is real, and if left unchecked the concern is likely to grow. The challenge is not new. Millenia ago, Roman poet Juvenal asked, “Who watches the watchers?” Communities created law enforcement agencies, empowering them to protect the community. These communities have the right to ensure the authorities granted are applied in an effective, efficient, ethical and acceptable manner.
This challenge is exacerbated by the structure of law enforcement; it is not monolithic. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports over 12,000 general function law enforcement agencies in the United States, not including specialized investigatory or regulatory agencies. Individual agencies are led by either appointed police chiefs or agency heads, serving at the pleasure of elected officials, or sheriffs elected directly by the community. Consequently, there is no formal overarching structure to reform.
There is some level of standardization across federal agencies, and minimum state training certification requirements are the same across state and local agencies. However, each agency has their own policies and procedures beyond the minimums. Each agency head, appointed or elected, has their own vision and style reflected in their agency’s operations. Law enforcements is not a single structure – it is a loose coalition of agencies, each with its own leadership and organizational culture, which complicates approaches to accountability.
Some accountability concerns might be viewed as global, such as the militarization of law enforcement subsequent to the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout. Responding to a robbery in progress, local police encountered criminals heavily armed with automatic weapons, protected by body armor. Reacting to this new threat, police began adopting military style equipment and tactics, with training provided by current or former military personnel. An unanticipated consequence has been the mental transition from guardian to warrior, contributing in some instances to dysfunctional law enforcement cultures viewing the community as a potential threat—an enemy to be wary of, not citizens to be protected.
Law enforcement agencies work in a unique environment. When enforcing laws, they might be viewed negatively. When responding to investigate a crime, they might be considered negligent for failing to prevent it. When the use of force becomes necessary, there will be questions concerning its use. In response to these concerns, legal protections such as qualified immunity and labor contract disciplinary provisions expanded. Taken too far, there have been instances of police officers remaining employed after numerous, credible complaints, protected by laws and policies making them virtually immune to discipline by their employers.
The vast majority of law enforcements desires, “To serve and protect,” but dysfunctional environments have developed. A state police training officer, acting in a manner anomalous to the agency mission, advised trainees to adopt a, “Warrior mentality,” prepared to use, “Ruthless force,” to maintain order. A local police chief, suing for wrongful discharge, noted while she administratively reported to the city manager, she was not subordinate to him. In a well-publicized trial, senior police officials testified that there were operational policies in place for emergencies, but officers were fully empowered to comply at their discretion, effectively invalidating the policies.
Public opinion on this is spread across a wide spectrum. However, in some communities where complaints have been made, police accountability may be viewed as:
Law enforcement, in response to a complaint made concerning law enforcement conduct, investigated law enforcement against the standards and perceptions of law enforcement, deciding law enforcement had acted properly, vindicating law enforcement through facts obtained solely from law enforcement, which may not be shared with anyone outside of law enforcement.
Clearly, this is an extreme example, but it does illustrate a basic truth related to accountability. Law enforcement is a public agency, which must be accountable to the public. If law enforcement is not transparent in response to community complaints, it is resisting the accountability each community has the right to expect from public agencies.
The leadership and organizational culture of all law enforcement agencies must stress the following, which does not reflect differences from the expectations for any public agency. If the agency fails in this, communities should change the leadership of these agencies:
Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, MS(HRM), MS(I/O Psych) is an independent scholar and HRM Consultant. Previously, he served in local government for over 30 years, teaching in various areas of public administration for over 15. He currently serves as President of the Hampton Roads Chapter of ASPA, and may be reached at [email protected]
Follow Us!