It's hard to understand opposition to Chief Diaz for being an insider
Mayor Mike McGinn picked John Diaz as police chief from within the department. We should be thankful the force has good leaders, and get back to making the Seattle Police Department as good as humanly possible.
City of Seattle
As newly appointed Police Chief John Diaz awaits confirmation by the city council, a curious suggestion has been publicly aired, calling on the council to challenge, perhaps reject, the mayor's "inside pick." The reasoning advanced for such a move is as flawed as the suggestion.
Ostensibly, so the argument goes, Seattle could use new leadership from outside, with the implication that an outside chief would deal with the "culture" of the department as well as put an end to the kind of regrettable police-citizen clashes that have occurred in the city recently — as though whatever problems the department presents stem from insiders in the administrative ranks.
The call for an outside appointee is quite beyond comprehension. An outside chief is exactly what Seattle has had for, at least, the past 30 years!
Pat Fitzsimons came from New York City, Norm Stamper hailed from San Diego, and Gil Kerlikowske arrived from Buffalo. Seattle enjoyed an era of remarkable professional police leadership under these three chiefs but none of their tenures was unmarred by police-citizen clashes. Several of those, in fact, were far worse than anything that's occurred on Diaz's watch.
One among a number of their collective accomplishments was the identification and promotion of young officers like Diaz who demonstrated the qualities one would wish to see in positions of departmental responsibility. A department without leaders who come up through its ranks is a department in serious trouble. The fact that the Seattle police department has a generally good reputation, even among its critics, is a sign not only of leadership at the top but also skilled and able commanders in its ranks.
As to the recent police-citizen clashes, no department or police chief — outsider or insider — has found a way to prevent them from occurring. Every such incident is to be deplored; each has its own seriousness.
But I happen to be writing from Berkeley — the town just north of Oakland, a California city that is still roiled by the fatal shooting of a 23-year old by a transit policeman on New Year’s Eve, a year and a half ago. And the city of New York finds itself having to pay out over $7 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the family of another 23-year old fatally shot by the police in 2006, on what would have been his wedding day.
We should hope fervently that Seattle never encounters "incidents" of this latter kind. When examined alongside the assassination of Seattle police officer Timothy Brenton last October and the murder of four Lakewood police officers a month later, we are reminded soberly of how tragically violent this business of policing can be, for citizens and police officers alike.
Rather that spurious speculation about the merits of an outside vs. an inside appointee, the city would be best served by the confirmation of Chief Diaz, so that he can get on with the critical task of seeking to provide the best police service possible for our community.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!











Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jul 29, 1:05 p.m. Inappropriate
The 'insider' vs. 'outside argument seems to be pretty subjective, and as far as the City Department leadership goes is being applied on a case by case basis. HSD's former insider pick was recently replaced with someone outside of the department...but an insider was picked to lead the SPD.
Both Diaz and Smith appear very qualified competent and motivated. (It should be noted that Diaz was,and may still be, the departments top representative to the citywide Race & Social Justice Initiative.)
It will be interesting to see how SPD/Diaz and HSD/Smith compliment the Mayor's vision & philosophy, which continues to unfold.
Posted Fri, Jul 30, 10:32 a.m. Inappropriate
This article is very casual in its dismissal of problems of police accountability at the SPD, perhaps because its author is not aware of them?
Yes, every police department in the country is going to face moments when there are questions about excessive use of force, racial profiling, and illegal surveillance among other issues.
The test of a good police department is not just whether these things happen, but how they're handled. Can a police department impose discipline on those officers who step over the line? Or must it always be captive to police officer unions, and exonerate every officer's conduct no matter how illegal or egregious?
Here in Seattle, there is a culture of impunity in the police department. When data showed that there was disproportionality in traffic stops, Mayor Nickels and Chief Kerlikowske teamed up to put the kibosh on the Racial Profiling Task Force in order to preserve the status quo. After a vote of no confidence by the police guild (for writing a letter of reprimand to an officer criticizing his aggressive language toward Asian teens he accosted for jaywalking in the ID), Chief Kerlikowske refused to punish any officer in the unlikely event that the SPD-controlled OPA found an officer guilty of excessive use of force or violating citizens' civil rights. In lieu of SPD discipline, citizens regularly sue the city for hundreds of thousands in damages for civil rights violations.
Is this the status quo Seattle politicians want to maintain now that Nickels and Kerlikowske are gone? Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.
Posted Sat, Jul 31, 12:22 a.m. Inappropriate
Sorry Trevor, but "disproportionality in traffic stops" and "aggressive language" do not by any stretch of the imagination constitute a problem police force. Or to put it more succinctly: QED.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.