Strengthening Law Enforcement – Taking a “Third” Side

Strengthening Law Enforcement – Taking a “Third” Side

Emergency Management Once Removed

August 23, 2024

By Jim Mullen

The national dialogue on police accountability continues. It, sadly, won’t be long before another community-polarizing incident occurs, somewhere.

“Talking without listening” characterizes much of the debate about police performance these days. Police unions far too often react as if the entire police profession is diminished when individual error/misconduct is alleged. Those aligned against police misconduct often stomp on a potentially valid message by failing to manage the conduct of some of their adherents, thus alienating many that might otherwise be receptive.

Listening to people doing the actual work improves overall performance. From 1975-1981 I worked for the Seattle Law and Justice Planning Office LJPO). Seattle Police Department (SPD) performance was controversial then, too – early 1970’s scandals had rocked SPD. Located within the Mayor’s Office of Policy Planning, LJPO designed several police operational and system improvement programs that received National Exemplary Project recognition (the Community Crime Prevention Program or Block Watch, the Rape Reduction project, and Youth Accountability Bureaus).All LJPO demonstration projects underwent exacting evaluation during their ”trial” periods. Measurable results illustrating effectiveness preceded any pronouncement of success by LJPO. The above programs, and many others, were developed in concert with line police officers – their suggestions, often previously ignored by their departmental hierarchy,
were instrumental in fashioning successful project designs. LJPO listened, and as an Executive Office of the Mayor, had access to federal grant funds that circumvented the tired old “we do not have the resources” excuse so often employed to discourage innovative ideas in government.

Years later, midway through my tenure as Director of Emergency Management for the City of Seattle, my office was transferred into SPD. That was not exactly a day at the beach: I experienced firsthand Department leadership’s negative reactions to the slightest questioning of police tactics or policies from outside the “thin blue line” – even civilian managers – like me – within SPD were among those considered “outside” that line. Ironically, SPD’s defensiveness mirrored the reaction of their most virulent critics in the community when their tactics were questioned. Yet during events like 1999’s World Trade Organization riot, while departmental commanders and senior city officials dithered, I marveled at the restraint shown by a vast majority of Seattle police officers on the line despite egregious behavior by many protestors.

Few in government service, sworn or civilian, get up in the morning intent on doing a bad job. Thoughtful proposals from the community aimed at making cops more effective in dealing with those they protect, if initiated, should be rigorously evaluated to measure success, or failure. It is essential that critical, well-intentioned “outsider” voices be heard, but “line” cops themselves are essential “insider” voices – if you don’t believe me, ask them – you might be pleasantly
surprised at their contributions to the discussion, because they, too, like most public servants, want to do a good job (and when we need them, we’re grateful). And try to implement meaningful change in policing without them having their say, I dare you.