Police Chief Tenure

[Gooseman]

Question for all the folks in LE... my city has had THREE police chiefs since 2018. It seems like police chiefs just do not stick around very long. Curious if this is generally true or something 'unique' to my city.

The only thing I can come up with to explain this is that by the time someone becomes the chief he/she has quite a few years on the job. I know that after twenty-ish years on the job (this is in CA) you get to a point where it doesn't make much sense to keep working, your pension gives you 90% of your salary. I expect that most police chiefs are in this sort of situation.

This is one of those things I've always wondered about. Much obliged.

[p7m8jg]

All of these guys became politicians during their career, that's how you get to be a chief.

They all have their aspirations and often take a chief's position somewhere they're not really excited about hoping that it will springboard them to a Chief's job somewhere else.

We've had a number of Chiefs in the last 10 years. They come from somewhere else and don't stick around like those who move up in the department and were born here.

[hermosabeach]

Look at city council and city management

They pick the chief and the chief serves them to the largest degree.

[sawman]

[P5Ret]

There is no real one size fits all answer here. I've known and worked for chiefs who had been at the agency as the chief for 10+ years.

I see a lot of departments hiring interim chiefs these days too, hell my agency did that when the chief that hired me retired in 99. In the 5 years before the disability forced me out we went through 1 hired chief, 1 public safety director, and 2 interim chiefs. There were a few more interim chiefs after I left until the city went to a contract with the SO.

Where I live I believe we are on our 4th chief in about that time frame. I think most of the problem here is that they keep hiring retired sheriff's staff, well that and our previous city manager was a incompetent micromanaging @#$hole.

There are many variables that make it really difficult to say one way or the other why or what the reasons are for going through chiefs in a short time frame.

[RickD427]

It's not unusual at all. Several years ago, my city went through three Chiefs of Police in just a few months.

There's several factors involved, but central to all is that the Chief's position is not covered by civil service, politics play a big role. Chief's tend to be transient between agencies more often than promoted from within. Cities don't often fully vet their selections, and a lot of incoming Chiefs don't fully vet the cities. It's real important to have congruity of management style between the Chief and the city.

Here's a summary of some of the key things that I've seen cause a lot of turnover in the position:

1) Someone wanted a Chief's position and didn't fully do their homework before accepting it. Once they realize what they got themselves into, they resign. They reality is that if they resign while their "shoes are still clean", they still have "Chief of Police" on their resume and can typically get another job. If they wait too long and get soiled shoes, then it's more difficult to impossible to get another job and the smart ones know it.

2) The City Manager relied on a contract outfit to background their candidates. There's too many legal, and risk-management based, limitations on how a formal background can be conducted. The hiring official really needs to visit their candidate's current agency and do the "walk and talk" thing before hiring. I closely followed one court case while serving on my city's Civil Service Commission where a Chief was about to be fired from his agency and he negotiated a "Departure Agreement" where the agency promised not to disclose any unfavorable information about him. The state (not California - I fled from California when I retired) has a law that requires agencies to report acts of police misconduct to the state which then has the ability to withdraw the officer's peace officer powers. State officials learned of the misconduct and queried the city as to why no report had been made. The city replied that such notice would have violated their agreement and the state sued. The court held that statute trumped agreement an that the notice was required. In the meantime, the Chief found a new job with a different city that didn't do a proper background.

3) There was a lack of clear understanding of objectives. Some cities expect their Chief to "walk on water", "part the Red Sea" and "heal all who are sick", then fire him/her/it/other the first time their shoes get wet.

4) Mr. Murphy attacked (the namesake of Murphy's Law). When this happens, sometimes the needed impetus for change is the firing of the leader (regardless of culpability).

5) Personality conflict. As I pointed out above, you need to have congruity of management style between the Chief and the city. Even if you get that with the current City Manager and Chief, there's gonna come a time when the City Manager moves on and there's no guarantee that the next one will have the same style. I see a lot of Police Chiefs move on soon after a change in City Managers.

Like a lot of my colleagues, I've been approached by "Head Hunters" looking for Chief applicants, and I seriously considered going down that avenue at the mid-point of my career, and decided firmly against it. It just wasn't a good match for my skills and values. But one thing that I took away from the process was that it's real important to have your retirement and finances locked in before taking a Chief's position. You can't back yourself into the position of being forced out while still being reliant on the paycheck. At the same time, you need to be able to say "I resign" if the position becomes untenable, or that otherwise becomes the honorable thing to do.

[Gooseman]

The amount of knowledge on this site is amazing. Thanks for all your insights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pacrat]

In many instances a perfectly competent Chief. Is publicly skewered for the bad, or perceived bad, actions of a single officer in a sizable agency. Or the lack of acts whether real or imagined.

And what should be fallout directly onto the culpable officer. Winds up with a Chief resigning. Due to upstairs political pressure deflection onto them. Due to BLM, Antifa type public protest.

After all, who in their right mind would hold ONE person liable for another persons misdeed, far down the chain of command?

Oh, Right! ............. Politicians do, when it suits their own aspirations or agenda. And the chief becomes a sacrificial scape goat.

Outside opinion based on long term observations. Not any form of first hand knowledge.

[SVT-40]

Cops don't get a 90% retirement after working for 20 years. The 3% per year retirements were 3% per year worked with a minimum retirement age of 50.

So working for 20 years at age 50 would get you a 60% retirement.

But your right once you've maxed out at 90% there isn't much reason to stay. Plus after 30 years your body is pretty beat up.