something I have always been curious about

[jeremiahhawks]

I was hoping that some of you L.E.Os could shed some light on a question I have always had but seems more relevant in light of the recent protests.

How much authority does a Mayor or City Manager have when it comes to utilizing their L.E.A's?

I was always under the impression that aside from the budget, it was up to the chief of police to dictate how and where resources are used.

It would be interesting to know. The relationship that the two offices have. I was under the impression that L.E.A's had sole discression on the use and locations of resources, (as it should be with since elected officials rarely have the understanding or know how to dictate utilization.)

Then I realized that police chiefs are usually appointed by mayors and that got me wondering how extensive there authority is a department?

Thanks in advance for the info. Also, I'm not interested in political party bashing or L.E.A. bashing. I'm just asking for info on how the relationship works and what, if any, powers mayors or city managers have in L.E.A's

[yzErnie]

Depends where you work. Some places I have worked the Mayor or City Manager had a lot of influence. Thankfully, where I work now there is very little involvement.

[Steveo8]

Depends where you work. Some places I have worked the Mayor or City Manager had a lot of influence. Thankfully, where I work now there is very little involvement.

Hell, where you work now I don't think they even have a city council, they barely have a city out there in the tumbleweeds

[jeremiahhawks]

So, is it more of a courtesy or do the mayor or city manager actually have any power in the departments?

I ask again because if the mayor is an elected official then they might be swayed, especially in an election year, to use the departments for political agendas.

As a hypothetical, mayor of City B was to show the contituants that he/she is tough on crime. So, they tell the police chief that they want bigger arrests and to over saturate resources in problem areas.

Again I find it interesting on many levels
1) a police chief, with budget cuts and lower levels of man power, would know best on how to distribute his resources to his or her city.
2) I would hate to think political pressure has anything to do with L.E.As. As political agenda has no place in Police affairs.

3) Finally in liberal California, I would hate to think that political outcry from the public could potentially hamstring L.E.Os. another hypothetical example would be Group X starts complaining to the mayor about police procedures. The Mayor wants group X's votes so they tell the police chief to change their procedures involving contacts with Group X.

[yzErnie]

I'm in a unique position as I work for the Sheriff's Department who is contracted for law enforcement services in the community I work. A Mayor from City X has no bearing nor can invoke change on my departments policies and procedures.

[jeremiahhawks]

Thanks for the info yzernie. Does anyone have info about big cities and what there policies are?

[TRICKSTER]

In some cities, the Chief serves at the pleasure of the Mayor or City Manager. This is why in many cases, the Chiefs position does not represent that of the rank and file.

[SVT-40]

It really matters little what a mayor wants. Each individual cop makes his own independent decisions.

I cannot remember one instance in my 30 year career where I even thought about what a mayor wanted. When I was POA president I got into a big fight with our chief over some issues which the chief thought the field troops were doing wrong. When I pointed out the guys were observing the department orders to the letter he had nothing to say... In the end he backed down and the troops continued on as they had been doing.

It may be of some interest to those here who are not LEO's. Chiefs are what you call "at will" employees. In other words they can be fired by a city manager usually with the backing of the majority of the city's council without cause.

Regular cops on the other hand have civil service rights and can only be fired for "cause". Which usually means a significant or a pattern of violations of a departments rules or regulations.

When acting as the president of the officers association. The president is allowed wide latitude and cannot be disciplined for disagreeing with a chief.

It's part of the checks and balances which protects both the officers as well as the people they serve.

[ak_in_ca]

The mayor can't direct where resources or used or how they are used. However he can inderectly cause some issues for the department if they go against his recommendations though. The mayor can change budgeting for special teams, coverage etc... so generally in the interest of self preservation it seems that most departments will acquiese to the requests of the city council or mayor unless it poses a saftey concern for officers or is against department policy

[Falconis]

think of it this way as well. mayor or council can't tell the police what to do, but when the chief's contract comes time for renewal, they can say yay or nay. that holds influence with some lesser individuals.

[ksleo204]

There are alot of political issues invovled in that scenario. It should/would also depend on policy/procedure. All in all, the answer is probably no, but pressures can be brought to bare if one doesn't get what one wants! Every department will be in a different situation, but I would think that if the mayor/manager wants to run the department, then they should be certified law enforcement, but that's just me.