By Executive Director Lee Reid
I recently read an opinion column in the New York Daily News, “Leaving Us the Tab: $13 million NYPD Settlement is the Product of Unaccountability.” It made me think about a conversation with a citizen during a community outreach event. As I introduced the ACRB to him, he stated he did not need the ACRB information because he has never had an issue with police and does not believe he will ever have an issue because he follows the law. He gave several examples of his compliance with the law and being a “good citizen,” e.g., keeping his car registered, keeping car insurance, obeying traffic laws, being respectful toward officers when he has had encounters with them, and that he does not engage in criminal activity. He stated that if more citizens listened to officers and stopped breaking the law, they would not have bad experiences with police officers.
I asked the citizen if he was a taxpayer. He said, “Yes.” I asked him if he ever had a problem with a teacher, coach, or customer service representative that required the help of someone else to resolve the problem. He said he had and went on to explain his situation with a customer service representative and a service technician involving expensive car repairs. As he talked about his situation, he remembered how upset he was about the rudeness and frustration in dealing with the representative. He stated that it was not until he was able to contact the representative’s manager and the regional manager stepped in that he could resolve the issue to some satisfaction. I explained that is what the ACRB does…helps people with situations that they cannot settle on their own, just in a police service capacity. I said, while in his situation, management addressed the concerns adequately; there are times when management fails to address situations, what then?
I then told him that officer accountability is not only about assisting citizens with their complaints about bad officer service. It is also about protecting taxpayer funds from costs associated with officer misconduct (bad service), and as a taxpayer, money diverted to address officer misconduct can be reduced and minimized through effective oversight. The citizen responded that investments in training does the same thing. I acknowledged his point but explained that training provides a foundation for proper actions IF followed and IF the training is adequate. However, when training is not followed or inadequate or when police departments fail to hold officers accountable and citizens are harmed, the potential for taxpayer costs associated with the officer’s action, increases. That resonated with him because he said taxes are already too high. He said he could understand that because had he not been able to resolve the issue with his car, he would have had to pay another mechanic to repair the damage and sue the first dealership costing him more money and frustration. I said, “yes, that was your what then.”
While oversight cannot end all officer misconduct, it can, when taken seriously by all involved, help modify questionable officer behavior and encourage departments to follow the practices that motivates better policing, which can reduce the likelihood of payouts of taxpayer dollars related to bad policing.
He said he never really thought about the costs to taxpayers like that. He took the agency’s information and said he was glad to have the conversation.