TexasCHLforum.com

I have read some pro's and con's of electing or appointing police chiefs.
One argument FOR an elected Chief could be that he/her would be more influenced by the needs and desires of the citizens, instead of the political beliefs of the "officials" that appointed the Chief.
One argument AGAINST an elected Chief may be that law enforcement officials should not be politicians. This has some irony in light of the lobbying, press comments and legislative testimonies that occur in Austin.
I'm sure there are many more arguments out there.

Elected.

suthdj wrote:Elected.

In Texas, ELECTED has worked well for sheriffs and judges.

oljames3 wrote:In Texas, ELECTED has worked well for sheriffs and judges.

Well, in most places. Exceptions being the prog strongholds.

Appointed, he/she will still be answering to elected officials. If elected he may know nothing about running a police department. If elected and does not know police work and is a political creature that seems like a moral killer for the officers in the field who we will be interfacing with directly. I would prefer to be stop by a smiling office and not a grumpy one. Actually not stopped at all.

prog strongholds = ????

I am clueless on that...

Mike

mcscanner wrote:Appointed, he/she will still be answering to elected officials. If elected he may know nothing about running a police department. If elected and does not know police work and is a political creature that seems like a moral killer for the officers in the field who we will be interfacing with directly. I would prefer to be stop by a smiling office and not a grumpy one. Actually not stopped at all.

prog strongholds = ????

I am clueless on that...

Mike

"..Appointed, he/she will still be answering to elected officials..."
Yes but one argument there is, especially in large cities, the elected officials who appoint Chiefs are elected on a platform with a scope that might be too broad to focus on law enforcement issues.

The larger cities like Dallas, Houston, etc., have an official list of qualifications that the Chief must meet or exceed before being approved for the appointment, which triggers the argument, how would that process work if they were "elected"? I suppose a look at how that works for elected Sheriffs, Constables, Judges, etc. might help

In San Antonio the chief is appointed by a non elected city manager and approved by the city council. I believe he also reports to the city manager.

mcscanner wrote:Appointed, he/she will still be answering to elected officials. If elected he may know nothing about running a police department. If elected and does not know police work and is a political creature that seems like a moral killer for the officers in the field who we will be interfacing with directly. I would prefer to be stop by a smiling office and not a grumpy one. Actually not stopped at all.

prog strongholds = ????

I am clueless on that...

Mike

Prog (progressive = democrat = socialist = antigun) strongholds = Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin…….

I personally think the elected sheriff and the appointed Chief ends up working fairly well. Being as we are human nothing can work perfect but I really don't think we would get some major improvement under any of the mentioned changes.

I'm thinking one improvement might be, if an official is elected by the people, then there might be a swifter remedy to an unsatisfactory score card - like changing your vote next time. With an "appointed" official, you have a much more complex route up the political ladder to fix things.

K5GU wrote:

mcscanner wrote:Appointed, he/she will still be answering to elected officials. If elected he may know nothing about running a police department. If elected and does not know police work and is a political creature that seems like a moral killer for the officers in the field who we will be interfacing with directly. I would prefer to be stop by a smiling office and not a grumpy one. Actually not stopped at all.

prog strongholds = ????

I am clueless on that...

Mike

"..Appointed, he/she will still be answering to elected officials..."
Yes but one argument there is, especially in large cities, the elected officials who appoint Chiefs are elected on a platform with a scope that might be too broad to focus on law enforcement issues.

The larger cities like Dallas, Houston, etc., have an official list of qualifications that the Chief must meet or exceed before being approved for the appointment, which triggers the argument, how would that process work if they were "elected"? I suppose a look at how that works for elected Sheriffs, Constables, Judges, etc. might help

In our county the Sheriff is and has always been an elected position. You get mostly good ones because in a small rural area, the candidates are almost always locals who have been working in the LE field for a number of years and the voters have a pretty good idea of how they do things and what their policies and procedures will be. The Police Chief's in the towns are all appointed by the City Council. It's not uncommon to get applicants from outside the area who are wanting to relocate to a smaller rural area to raise their family, so the people wouldn't have any background info to consider. As a City Council member, we do an extensive background check on all applicants, talk to Mayors and Council Members from their previous position, etc... to get a good picture of how they actually did things rather than just basing it on their interview answers. That usually works well, but not always. A few years ago we had an extremely well qualified Chief from a larger town that we hired. Everyone we spoke with at his previous location loved him and hated to see him go. Things worked well for a few months, then he started implementing more "vigorous" traffic enforcement policies, campaigning to get the council to pass an 11:00pm "curfew" for teenagers to be off the streets, and so on. As a Council we instructed him to curb the stricter ticket writing and told him there would be no curfew statute. He continued to push for both and started making statements in other forums about having his hands tied by the Council. We gave him an ultimatum, and he did not comply, so we accepted his resignation. If he had been elected to the job, we would have had to live with it for two years minimum. We replaced him with a local officer who had previously worked as LEO for us. He understands the small town philosophy that the departments goal is to "take care of" the local citizens...not punish them or try to see how much revenue can be generated from them. He has instructed each of our patrol officers that at the end of the month, they should have issued more warning citations than actual tickets because we do not want to be known as a speed trap. we've had excellent results and almost every month the city receives a couple of letters from out of town people that were stopped by one of our officers and given a warning telling us how impressed they were by the politeness and friendly attitude they encountered.

K5GU wrote:I'm thinking one improvement might be, if an official is elected by the people, then there might be a swifter remedy to an unsatisfactory score card - like changing your vote next time. With an "appointed" official, you have a much more complex route up the political ladder to fix things.

While more complicated it could be much quicker than to actually have to wait for the next election to make a change.

EEllis wrote:

K5GU wrote:I'm thinking one improvement might be, if an official is elected by the people, then there might be a swifter remedy to an unsatisfactory score card - like changing your vote next time. With an "appointed" official, you have a much more complex route up the political ladder to fix things.

While more complicated it could be much quicker than to actually have to wait for the next election to make a change.

Yep. It could be. Depends on some things like who makes the appointments, how well the process is managed and how big the city is. Each city can (and does) have its own method of government. I think in some cities the retiring police chief can actually appoint the new chief. All across Texas is a patchwork of different city and county governments, which can cause some confusion on well the process works for the average citizen.

Appointment makes sense to me. Chief of the police dept is a very powerful & critical position. He has to fit the community. His actions & policies expose the city to liabilities.

By appointment the city can conduct a proper search employing professional consultants who can validate the candidate's credentials.

As an employee the chief would be more responsive to corrective measures and promptly held accountable for his actions.

Politics opens the door for corruption.

Appointment would counter the curse of low information voters. (Inept candidates are too often elected.... obama, I rest my case. )