Report: General Membership Meeting (3 of 3)

Following Chief Baker, member Ed Denmark (retired Harvard MA Police Chief and national policing consultant) provided his insights about the national effort at police reform.   He began by citing what he referred to as “disconnects” in many agencies across the country between stated purpose and actual performance.  Ed noted that there are wide gaps between what police agencies have been actually constituted to achieve and what their members, including their leadership, actually believe they are trying to achieve. 

He noted that desired outcomes can be canceled out by overly rigid procedures.   Policies are established but too often the accompanying procedures is so rigid it overrides the intent of the policy.  He offered an example of a policy requiring defendant’s to be handcuffed behind their back.  He cited a case where an officer forced a man with an injured shoulder to comply with that procedure, causing the man needless pain and possible injury. 

He characterized policing in many sectors as being driving by policy and procedure generated by bureaucrats, who craft them in such detailed that it is impossible for officers to remember or know each nuanced provision.  This typically leads to situations in which officers will make decisions, a controversy erupts, and then management breaks out the policy to use it to insulate themselves.  He said that he has challenged police leaders to describe their policies in detail and many cannot do this.  He has continually reiterated the professional responsibility for police managers and supervisors to ensure their subordinates understand what is expect of them.

To rectify this situation, Ed emphasized the need for police agencies and oversight boards such as POST to pay close attention to a critical continuum.   This continuum begins with (1) the setting of expectations. (2) It then moves to the crafting of policy which formalizes the expectation, (3) The procedure or method for achieving the expectation must be specified. (4) Then comes training, which demonstrates the method for meeting the policy for the officers.  Ed noted that methods for achieving outcomes established by policies must be taught and mastered and this should be regarded as a fundamental leadership responsibility.  He asked the rhetorical question, “who vets the training ? “  He gave a personal example of training that involved incorrect information, when the error was brought to the attention of trainers,  it was dismissed because there was a reluctance to change the program.

Finally, Ed commented on what he described as “leadership fatigue”. This involves supervisors letting critical performance issues slide because no harm was done.  He said this can lead to major problems down the road. Habits must be developed to perform correctly, when they are not or have lapsed, serious issues can result. He concluded by saying that the police service needs to be self-critical so that the disconnect between outcomes and processes is constantly on everyone’s mind.