I recently wrote about Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross’ response to a viral video showing his officers making a trespassing arrest after a complaint by a Starbucks manager. Ross’ initial statement was clear and unequivocal: the officers had done nothing wrong. However, the ink was barely dry on my commentary when it was marred by skid marks from Ross backpedaling all over it.
I still believe that Ross’ initial response is a good model for police administrators to follow when the facts seem clear. Ross’ second statement leaves the public with the idea that the officers were wrong even though Ross blamed himself for bad messaging and misunderstanding the situation. While Starbucks was taking the heat for its role, Ross put his cops back on the front burner.
A media statement such as the Commissioner’s press conference can fail both the public and the department. Could there be an effective approach that better serves the public and the line officer accused of poor judgement? Perhaps a priority-based model would work better. The emphasis in constructing a response would be on Mission, Officers and Public, in that order.
First priority is the mission
The mission never results in an outcome that pleases everyone. The very fact that police were summoned proves that a system has failed already. When a water heater bursts, we don’t blame the plumber just because they are in the same room with the broken vessel, but somehow the public sees the police where there is trouble and blames the trouble on the police. This blaming, for whatever sociological or psychological reasons, comes about because of how the police mission is perceived by the public.
One possible approach to public statements after a controversial event that calls police discretion into question is to state what the mission was, and why the police were the entity called to respond to it. The questioning public needs to be forced to ask itself if it values having armed government agents to call upon, or whether situations should be handled by social workers, firefighters, or probationers doing mandated community service. Such a response could refocus attention on the crucial social, cultural and legal origins of the event.
Second priority is the officers
Sadly, there are many departments where the officers are not respected, not heard and not appreciated. In these agencies it would never occur to management to consult line officers as public statements are being drafted. Line officers will naturally be fielding questions about the event from members of the public in informal settings. It seems wise to equip those officers with information useful in engaging the public rather than having the public hear it for the first time from the media.
Wouldn’t it make sense to consult some representative line officers to get their thoughts about the event and potential public backlash before a public statement is made? This could provide valuable information and feedback that can prevent a short-sighted statement being released to unintended consequences.
Third priority is pleasing the public
Eleanor Roosevelt famously said, “I can’t tell you how to succeed, but I can tell you how to fail: Try to please everybody.” Maybe our press conferences don’t have to be a dead-end street where accusatory questions are met with apologetic answers.
One skill that is frequently absent from police spokespersons, including chiefs, is the ability to reject assumptions made by reporters in asking questions. One of the questions Ross got about the Starbucks arrest was why so many officers were present. Wouldn’t it be great if the conversation had gone this way:
Reporter: Commissioner, why were there seven officers at the scene?
Chief: Does your question imply that there were too many or too few officers?
Reporter: Seems like a lot of officers.
Chief: Perhaps you can help us by suggesting what the best number would be.
Reporter: Uh, well, I’ve heard criticism of the number.
Chief: This came out as a disturbance call, which is second only to domestic disputes as the type of call associated with officer deaths. The first officers arrived at 4:41, a supervisor and backup was requested 3 minutes later. The arrest was over by 4:57. The number of officers created a safe and efficient response.
Whether there are any chiefs of public information officers who are willing to try the MOP priority approach remains to be seen. I think it has promise.
