This is a thorough and well-considered piece. I would expand on the first recommendation to add that in a perfect world urban police officers would receive on an ongoing basis both training in the social dynamics of aberrant psychology and access to a forum where they can discuss and work through issues arising out of difficult public encounters.

In recent decades we have, in our collective wisdom, dismantled most of our institutional capacity for isolating and treating serious mental illness. The inevitable result of this decision was to dump the mental health problems of lower income citizens (now often exacerbated by alcohol, drugs and petty criminal behavior) onto the streets and into the laps of police officers who are ill-prepared to handle the challenge. Police departments should provide their officers with at least the rudimentary skills and resources necessary for managing conflict when dealing with the mentally ill.

Very good piece, Kent. I think if #3 were implemented the other three suggestions may not be necessary. You are right to emphasize just how tough that job is.

I would also add a further discussion of issues of race in Seattle policing. I know as a gray-haired white man that I will always be treated with deference by SPD, as that's been my experience in 40-some years in this city. I can drive for months with a license-plate light burned out and never be stopped by SPD.

I also know that my black male friends, and other minority males also, don't enjoy that same relationship. A burned-out light bulb is red meat to some officers when a person of color is driving, that can easily result in a traffic stop, a "license, registration, and insurance" check, a citation, a warrant check, and so forth.

I also know I could be stopped for investigation of robbery and not be stomped on and cursed at regarding my ethnic heritage (German, Scottish).

I also know that I could carry my 3" whittling knife and carving stick down the street and not be yelled at and shot dead by a SPD officer after four seconds' hesitation.

I'm eager for your follow-on piece, Kent.

All good stuff. But as with all good ideas, they would require participation. My experiance with SPD, from the patrolman, to the sargeant, to the Mid level officers, to OPA, to Nick Licata and Tim Burgess: They just choose to intimidate and ignore me. Good luck though.

If John T. Williams, who was simpy walking across the street minding his own business, was shot because "The cops have every reason to be on edge", I'm afraid that most of us need be concerned when walking Seattle streets.

Buster G.

Very informative article on the specific structural problems interfering with good or fair policing. For the most part I agree with Kent's solutions. However, I'd reiterate that public outcry against the police is not simply the result of the John Williams incident, but also the Shandy Cobain incident and the perception (which I certainly believe is correct) is that behavior unbecoming of cops is not an issue of simply having a few sour apples, but rather is a systemic problem. In this regard, I feel that Kent’s solutions are somewhat insufficient.

The problem is not simply dealing with the excessive use of violence by officers in remotely (or very) dangerous situations, but the use of violence in completely safe situations (i.e. Shandy Cobain), and, more importantly, the cover up of these egregious acts by other officers and the department as a whole. In essence the problem is that officers aren't just too testy but that there is also a sect of police who have little to no sense of what appropriate, fair, or professional justice means. R on Beacon Hill's examples and initial police cover up of the Shandy incident are evidence of this point.

Although dealing with R on Beacon Hill's problems has no simple fix, making sure individual officers don't cover up for other officers bad behavior can be addressed through new rules. Beyond Kent's suggestions for increased independence for the groups that hold police accountable, individual accountability must be preached as an ideal and enforced through specific rules, such as video monitoring of police behavior and equal accountability for police offenders and bystanders. Only this sort of solution will address the full ramifications of officer accountability and should be considered on top of Kent's solutions dealing with police testiness in potentially violent unfamiliar situations and the accountability issues present in the John Williams case. Indeed, these solutions would be useless without Kent’s mechanisms for improving police accountability to the chief, the OPA, and the government.

R on Beacon Hill makes the case for mandatory tinted windows on all Seattle vehicles. Hence, equal opportunity discretionary stops with unknown racial identity of driver. Liberal Seattle probably wants a police force with no white cops. Guess what? Minority 'community leaders' would still seek fault and blame of the SPD. The best remedies for all the 'unrest and turmoil' are to always patrol in pairs, to have scofflaws on the loose strongly urged to turn themselves in, and to have a 24/7/365 effort to truly clean up the city's streets, buses, housing projects, illegal worksites, illegal encampments, etc. Repeat offenders are a real drag on police morale.

Re #4: The OPA has shared the power to determine guilt since established in 2001. Since 2007 the police chief must explain in writing in each case when he doesn’t follow the OPA Director’s recommendation. The police chief has never had the final say on discipline, because officers can either appeal to the Public Safety Civil Service Commission or grieve the disciplinary decision to an arbitrator under the labor contract. In recent years the commission – all civilians, and 2 of 3 appointed by the Mayor and City Council – has routinely undercut the chief’s disciplinary decisions. The commission is created by the state.

Re #3: State law gives the union the right to binding arbitration on its contract. This includes working conditions, which include disciplinary procedures. Perhaps you should make these recommendations to the governor or legislature?

And maybe next time a little fact checking would be in order?

Re point 3:

Working conditions are normally part of a collective bargaining agreement. That is true for cops, clerks and truck drivers. How discipline is to be administered is also usually detailed in a labor agreement. It is a common practice to establish an appeal process. The makeup of the appeal board is usually spelled out in the agreement as well.

In private enterprise a board of adjustment is usually convened to hear the dispute. Both management and the union appoint individuals to serve on the temporary board convened soley to resolve the dispute. For public employees the situation is somewhat different. The Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) board serves as the final arbiter of disputes for public employees of state and local government with the exception of commissioned law enforcement officers.

While city councils often "cave" to police guild or union wage demands, they often engage in hard bargaining over working conditions. If you doubt that, review the history of the City of Tacoma's bargaining with Police Local 6. Cities can successfully change even long-standing policies if they employ skillful negotiators and are willing to take their case to the public.

My spouse is a retired union negotiator who represented both private and public sector bargaining groups. I've proofread more bargaining agreements than I care to remember.

Buster G, most of us do not need to worry about simply walking City streets, or driving City streets either. Williams was a Native American; most of us are not, nor are most of us guilty of the common crime of Driving While Black. One thing is fairly obvious from the highly-public episodes of misbehaving City cops: there is endemic racism within the SPD.