|
 |
Greg Nickels, Mayor
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
R. Gil Kerlikowske, Chief of Police |
July 14, 2006
Statement given by Chief Gil Kerlikowske to
City Council Committee on Charter Amendment
Good afternoon and thank you for providing me this opportunity to speak about the proposed change to the City Charter that would require the position of Chief of Police to be reappointed and reconfirmed every four years by the City Council.
Let me state for the record that this issue is not one that is personal to me since I am clearly in the twilight of my career. The issue is, however, one of far greater importance and significance to the community and to the functioning of the Seattle Police Department.
There is no appointed position in big-city government that attracts more scrutiny, controversy, or contention than that of Chief of Police. Several years ago the cover story in Governing magazine entitled the position; "Mission Impossible." The New York Times has written about the lack of applicants for chief's jobs around the country because of the pressures surrounding the position. And more recently the Austin American-Statesman in its Sunday editorial regarding the search for a new chief advertised as follows:
Wanted: Police chief and high-wire juggler.
The editorial continued, "The job isn't simply managing budgets and people - it's juggling on a high wire without a net."
With this as a backdrop I recently surveyed sixteen large cities, from Miami-Dade to San Jose, and not one of them has a reconfirmation process for chief . In Nashville, Columbus, and Cincinnati the chief is actually a civil service employee. Additionally, here in Washington, the Washington State Patrol, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Vancouver do not have a reconfirmation procedure.
As it has been explained to me, the purpose of this proposed charter change is to increase accountability. The fact is that this change would decrease accountability for the following reasons:
- Under the current Charter the Mayor can dismiss the chief but is required to state the reasons in writing to the City Council. Under the proposed change the Council could merely vote not to reconfirm without providing an explanation or reason to the public.
- Under the current system accountability for policing is simple, direct and transparent. The Charter gives the Mayor responsibility for public safety and with it, the authority to appoint the chief of police. A council committee is intimately involved in screening the nominee and the full council votes to confirm or not confirm. This provides for legislative branch involvement and participation in the selection process. However, once a chief has been approved, it is the Mayor to whom the chief is directly accountable and who is responsible to ensure performance.
- The chief needs immediate and direct accountability to the Mayor for timely public safety decisions - decisions that often must be made in a short amount of time and with incomplete information. Such decisions, while deliberate, do not conform easily to the deliberative and consultative style of legislative bodies where policies may be developed over weeks and months. Nor is it appropriate for public safety decisions to be undertaken with an eye toward the eventual outcome of shifting legislative majorities.
- A police department is a para-military structure with clear lines of authority. The reason for this structure is that policing services are regularly delivered under exigent and quickly evolving circumstances. Those providing these services on the front lines as well as those managing these services need a single chain of authority whose dictates can be clearly understood and communicated. Requiring the chief to be reappointed and reconfirmed every four years, introduces a level of ambiguity and uncertainty into that structure that ultimately would undermine it.
- The Chief of Police of any city is looked to for his or her opinion and advice on matters of public safety. The proposed amendment could hamper or stifle a chief's ability to share expertise candidly. For example, using an evidence-based foundation and a reasoned approach, I have spoken directly about the need for:
- Common sense gun laws
- The negative consequences of using local police to enforce federal immigration laws
- If, however, as a regularly reconfirm-able chief I was aware of a majority of council members supported by the gun lobby or sympathetic to the position advocated by the Minutemen organization, I can tell you that while this would not affect my position on these issues, it would certainly give me significant concern in deciding whether to state a position that in my experience is best for this community or whether to remain silent. I do not believe that is what this body or the people of Seattle expect and yet that is the direct effect a reconfirmation process would have.
- Finally, the proposal for reconfirming the chief of police every four years will have negative consequences when the city advertises and selects a new chief by reducing number of qualified applicants both within the organization and outside. This is because such applicants will have many other opportunities in other big cities across the nation and in our state where this is not a requirement.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Charter amendment.
|
