Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
"Royal Trappings": Those things that make someone look or seem "royal". What the heck is "royal"? Dictionary.com defines (7th definition)
royal as
appropriate to or befitting a sovereign; magnificent; stately.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, there is a news item this morning that made me think about it and as I considered my more than two decades of law enforcement experiences and interactions I thought this topic might be of interest.
As the "Big 3" automobile manufacturers plead with Congress to give them $25 BILLION in bail out money they are represented by the company Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Those CEOs flew to Washington DC on corporate jets. The news makes a big deal out of this because the whole corporate jet thing makes it obvious that the companies are wasting money. I fly coach. YOU fly coach. Who are these people, claiming to have companies that are growing broke, that fly in the
company's jet?
Set that particular news item aside for a moment though but don't let go of the concept, that being those CEOs are wrong for allowing money to be spent on them and their travel simply because of who they are. They are simple company employees. Sure, they carry large responsibility and they get big paychecks (along with other nice perks) but in the end, they are employees. They have a job to do. They get paid for that job. I believe our (we the people) issue starts when we see
employees being treated in a manner not equivalent to other employees.
What do I mean? The corporate jet is a perfect example. If those CEOs
really wanted to make a point that their companies are going broke, don't you think they'd have flown commercial coach? Heck, I bet they could have gotten away with first class and not caused so much of a ruckus.
How does this apply to law enforcement? Well, let's think about this for a few moments (and to all the Chiefs I'm about to anger, I apologize up front):
How much of a Chief of Police's day is spent patrolling? In some places quite a bit, especially if it's a small department and the Chief is part of the working manpower. In larger agencies, NONE AT ALL. So if the Chief is in that "none at all" category, why does he (or she) need a full size luxury sedan? The honest truth is that he doesn't
need it at all. But how many Chiefs do you see driving to and from work and arriving at serious crime scenes in mid-size sedans? Sure, some cars like the Ford Taurus seem to be accepted, but how many Chiefs, if given the choice, would choose an Impala over a Crown Vic?
I'm not trying to be insulting; I'm trying to make a point. The car chosen by the Chief, paid for by the governmental entity, is often not chosen based on the
needs or requirements but instead on how it will make the Chief
look. After all, a Chief can't appear less than Chiefly.
In some big cities or counties, the Chief even has an assigned driver. Now if the reason for the "driver" is because the governmental entity perceives a threat to the Chief (and one probably exists in some way in most large cities/counties) then I completely understand "the driver" (bodyguard) being assigned. However, if that driver is there simply to make the Chief look more Chiefly as he (or she) is driven around, comfortably sitting in the back seat reading the paper, drinking coffee and eating a Danish, then I see a problem. That's money being spent to support an image; an ego; not a
need.
Now I know I'm probably stirring a bucket that exists only in my imagination, but I've seen the change happen in the past. I've known and worked with Chiefs who earned high levels of respect from their officers because of how they acted. Most of it was that they still
worked in amongst the officers, didn't have big egos, and didn't "put on airs" or "act royally". Those same Chiefs, in some cases, gradually learned from their peers that they were hindering their career growth and potential by NOT acting in a more Chiefly fashion. By doing so they were potentially hurting how ALL the other Chiefs in the area were treated. Why is that?
Well, if your city council is paying X dollars to your Chief and giving him A B C benefits, but the Chief in the next city over gets X dollars and only A B benefits, then why are the C benefits necessary? What makes THIS Chief deserve more than THAT chief?
Look, I'm all for people getting paid what they're worth. If you're a CEO (and Chiefs / Sheriffs are for their agency) then you get a bigger paycheck. You SHOULD NOT get any benefits that the rest of your officers don't typically get. Sure, you need a travel budget because you have to go to seminars, events, etc. But that should be part of the agency travel budget. Absolutely you need a take-home car with relative unlimited use, but that should come out of the same line item as every other car in the fleet. And where your detectives are driving Impalas, the Chief certainly should be too. Having a larger fancier unmarked car just because you're the Chief isn't a wise investment of tax payers' dollars: it's a support to your ego and your image.
In case we (all of us) haven't realized it, our economy is in trouble. Public Safety is the one part of our society (along with education) where we can't afford to cut spending - but you know we will be told to do exactly that. I submit to you that one method is to do away with everything that supports ego instead of job performance. Whether or not you "look Chiefly" honestly doesn't depend on what kind of car you drive; how much scrambled eggs are on your ball cap, or how many yellow brades you have around the sleeves of your dress uniform. That's all facade; image; perception. What really matters is how you perform; how you lead; how you treat your troops. They aren't stupid - anymore than the American people are when we see "financially challenged" companies flying their CEOs around in corporate jets. You can't cry poor mouth to explain why your officers didn't get a well-deserved pay raise and then drive everywhere in the biggest car in the fleet filled with gas the agency pays for while you attend social functions.
Just my two cents worth and quite possibly not worth that. I'd love to hear comments, criticisms, outlooks, opinions (agreeing or otherwise).
Stay safe!
