What matters here is (A) How the chief is dismissed and why and especially (B) How the new chief is hired.
If the new chief is hired after a typical search and replacement scenario it will do no good. IF, however, the new chief found and hired with the mandate "You are being hired to restore community trust and respect in the police force" then it will make some difference. Job postings should state explicitly that the position requires someone who can face accountability before the public and restore that trust. Many candidates will not want the job under those circumstances. They will say, "I can't do my job as a law enforcement officer with my hands tied." Yes, there are contradictory job requirements but that's the way it is. Now, as to why the Chief is the one responsible? I think the best example is the ISAG protest non-event. Chief Olsen spent hundreds of thousands of dollars expecting a war that didn't happen. That is a very dangerous frame of mind. It can be self-fulfilling. By many accounts, the events in Seattle prior to ISAG were as much the fault of the police as the protesters. Whenever a crowd gathers in Mpls I expect to see armored police, and I usually do. In contrast, in Dublin on St Patrick's day, I saw a few unarmored police wearing flourescent green vests (targets?). The attitude is different, the culture is different and thus the results are different. The chief sets the tone and the culture of the department. In this case, the chief must go. Robert Schmid Central David Brauer said: > I want to agree with Tamir, up to a point. Tamir writes: > >> Wizard makes an excellent point about changing police >> chiefs. Although I support the buyout of Olson's >> contract it's important to remember that this won't >> make much of a difference in terms of the avarage >> rank-and-file cop being rude to, beating, or even >> killing the Black/Somali/Hispanic/long haired/spiked >> haired (etc.) resident. > > I have only reported on, not witnessed, incidents of alleged police > brutality. Since I will be reporting on police issues again, I am going > to be less-than-certain about Olson's staying and the police > department's actions. > > However....I think Tamir hits the nail on the head on how the problem > seems to be blamed on one man - Olson - without some acknowledgment, > that if there is a problem, it has to be broader than the chief. > > Yes, the Chief is the top person and thus bears significant > responsibility as a leader. But I am concerned that while RT has warred > with the chief - his predecessor's choice - in public and apparently > private, he has not mentioned other leaders or potential offenders in > the department, who endorsed him through the Police Federation. > > I think we overdo the Great Man theory of history, and I worry we are > overdoing the Poor Leader theory if there is a problem in the > department. It seems logical that this is bigger than one guy. Our > leaders should tell us why he is the sole offender, and if it's bigger > than that, what they will do beyond criticizing the chief. > > David Brauer > Kingfield > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn > E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
