In Part 1 of this series I offered several possible definitions for police misconduct and discussed several of the more general aspects of the topic.
In Part 2 I listed a few specific examples of prior incidents of misconduct at the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) as well as some attempts to quantify and analyze police misconduct throughout the nation.
In the final part of this series I suggest some ways to improve police-community relations, generally, and propose some ways civilian police oversight in Long Beach may be improved.
Improving police-community relations
Police-community relations are very good in some places and very poor in others. Where they are good, little is heard (or written) about it. It is only when the relationship is poor that people take note and begin to demand change and constructive action. Poor police-community relations can be said to occur, persist, and worsen due to challenges in three main areas: Command, Control, and Communications.
Command
When the top executives in a police agency fail to establish -and model- high standards of professionalism and ethical behavior for department employees, some employees tend to perform poorly in these areas and their relationship with the community necessarily suffers. Command also relates to the People’s constructive command over their government, which includes their police agency. When the People fail to participate actively in their elected government (voting intelligently and consistently, remaining actively engaged and informed, imposing consequences for policy failures, etc.) then appointed police executives are less likely to run police agencies in ways that are more compliant with the Public’s preferences.
Control
When the public perceives that there is insufficient enforcement of professional and ethical standards (i.e. that department executives are failing in their responsibility to properly or consistently discipline employees for failures, etc.) the agency’s relationship with the community necessarily suffers. Control also relates to the People’s constructive control over their government, which includes their police agency. When the People fail to exert effective control (i.e. by demanding the removal of poorly-performing appointed executives or by removing from elected office, those who appoint the executives) then professional and ethical policing standards tend to erode.
Communications
When the police and the community do not communicate with one another in productive and constructive ways, the agency’s relationship with the community necessarily suffers. Policing agencies must maintain constructive communications with the public they serve. Similarly, the public must communicate constructively with their police agencies. Constant complaints without reasonable suggestions for improvement is not an example of constructive communication on the public’s part.
When a failure in, or a neglect of, one or more of these three critical dynamics exists -in either direction- there will almost always exist poor police-community relations to some extent.
Improving civilian police oversight in Long Beach
Civilian police oversight in Long Beach occurs in three main ways: Through the elected Council and Mayor, through the appointed Civil Service Commission, and through the appointed Citizen Police Complaint Commission (CPCC).
Council and Mayor
Voters elect the Council and Mayor who then appoint a City Manager who then appoints a Police Chief, subject to the Council’s confirmation. The Council also convenes a Public Safety Committee composed of three sitting Council Members. As fewer and fewer voters participate in Long Beach’s elections, fewer citizens in the community enjoy much in the way of influence over who is appointed to lead the police department or who sits on the Council’s Public Safety Committee. If the citizens in Long Beach desire a greater degree of control over this type of police oversight, more citizens who are qualified should participate in the city’s elections.
Civil Service Commission
The Council and Mayor appoint the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Department manages the initial testing, screening, and ranking of police applicants. The Civil Service Commission also has the power to overturn or modify some disciplinary decisions by the Police Chief. The Commission’s ruling on such issues is final. If the citizens in Long Beach desire a greater degree of control over this type of police oversight, then more citizens who are qualified should participate in the city’s elections and make their preferences known as to the appointment of Commissioners.
Citizen Police Complaint Commission
The Council and Mayor appoint the Citizen Police Complaint Commissioners (CPCC). Broadly speaking, the CPCC receives and investigates some allegations of police misconduct with emphasis on excessive force, false arrest, and complaints with racial or sexual overtones. CPCC has its own investigators, can hold hearings, and has limited subpoena powers.
Despite that the Mayor and Council appoint this important police oversight Commission, CPCC does not typically answer to them but, instead, to the City Manager. The City Manager also appoints CPCC’s Executive Director and Investigators.
I think these were critical policy mistakes when the Commission was created in 1990.
If the CPCC is to be truly independent, it should answer only to the elected City Council, rather than to the appointed City Manager. CPCC should report directly to the Council’s Public Safety Committee each month and to the full Council each quarter. CPCC should appoint its own Executive Director and Investigators, outside of City Manager influence. These important changes would remove an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy from between the citizens and their police oversight rights and responsibilities.
Among other things, CPCC is supposedly required to “submit to the Mayor and City Council an annual written report of its activities during the past year.” If this occurs, it does not appear that the public is notified of it. CPCC publishes “annual” reports on its website but the most recent report available there is from 2012. If CPCC is required (and it is) to provide such a report to the Mayor and Council “by December 31st of each year,” then the report should be available for public review no later than the end of the following month each year.
Finally, CPCC often works in conjunction with the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (LBPD-I.A.) Insofar as CPCC can maintain its independence, this is reasonable. However, LBPD-I.A. answers to the Police Chief, who answers to the City Manager, while CPCC should not and should never be perceived to do so.
Because CPCC should answer directly to the Council, LBPD-IA should report to the Police Chief and provide a monthly summary of its activities to the CPCC. CPCC should then review any aspects of LBPD-I.A.’s activities it chooses or which the Council directs. In this way citizen oversight through the CPCC remains truly independent of appointed Department *and* City Managers.
Substantive changes in the way CPCC operates could markedly improve police- community relations in Long Beach and greatly enhance the independence and effectiveness with which the public monitors its police department and holds it accountable to them.