Chiefs of police have one of the most difficult jobs in society. They must direct the city's crime prevention and control efforts and at the same time do their best to maintain the approval of major stakeholders, including the police association. But sometimes those relationships sour and the police association decides to air their grievances.

One of the ways they do this is with so-called "votes of no-confidence." "Votes of no confidence" are often derided by management as a cheap union trick, but the truth is these votes are deeply rooted in the parliamentary form of government. Even the U.S. Congress has used no confidence votes.

In 1952, Congress voted "no confidence" in Secretary of State Dean Acheson and recently attempted a vote of no confidence in former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Bill Berger, a chief and former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) explained to his members that the ultimate goal of a vote of no confidence is to discredit and/or remove the chief or to enhance the union's bargaining position.

My recent study on votes of no confidence went directly to the source - police associations which had conducted a vote of no confidence. Forty-six surveys were sent to associations in the U.S. and Canada. Seventeen were returned (37 percent). The purpose of the study was to find out what prompted associations to take a "vote of no confidence" and more importantly see if there were ways to resolve these problems before they devolved into a public, destructive  war between the association and chief.

Research Results The Contract: Only 18 percent of association leaders believe the vote was related to contract negotiations. One association president explained, "Negotiations don't work that way. Contracts are negotiated between the union and the city, not between the union and the chief." He went on to explain that chiefs are a non-entity in contract negotiations.

Leadership: One hundred percent of responders attributed a "vote of no confidence" in part to poor leadership. The complaints about inadequate leadership included complaints about  inflexibility, autocratic self-absorbed demeanor, condescension, deception, manipulation and politically driven behavior. While there may be understandable disagreements between officers and the administration, respondents said that everyone wants to believe the chief is "their kind of guy" and that to take a vote of no confidence is mostly done when other options are exhausted.

Integrity: Eighty-two percent of responders attributed a vote in part to integrity failures by the chief. Accusations ranged from not going to work, to sexual harassment, fraternization with felons and theft.

Policies: Seventy-six percent of responders attributed a "vote of no confidence" in part to poor policies and procedures. Union leaders explained that many new policies are not well thought out, resulting in unintended consequences including compromised officer safety. Many believed their department was too top heavy at the expense of fundamentals such as keeping cruisers on the road. There were only two people who reported that discipline policies prompted them to take a "no confidence vote."

Use-of-Force: Fifty-eight percent of respondents attributed a vote in part to the chief's failure to support officers after a critical use of force incident.  One union strongly believed that was the key reason for the vote. They believed the vote caused the chief to be more circumspect in his public statements after a critical incident.

Considerations Votes of no confidence are not causally associated with contract negotiations, although there does appear to be some linkage. They seem to go together like hair and eye color, but there is no causal relationship. The real causes lie in rank-and-file's perceptions of poor executive leadership, non-caring, lack of integrity and poor policies.Votes of no confidence are essentially votes of censure that indicate pervasive feelings of disapproval and condemnation.

They are not a badge of courage or honor but a symptom of serious organizational problems. While they are non-binding, the message to the chief  should be clear - "you have alienated your officers," and there are undoubtedly multiple issues to resolve. Chiefs who are handed a vote should think deeply and honestly about the vote which explains how the officers perceive the chief. What are they trying to say by taking the extreme action of a no confidence vote?

The chief needs to ask if the vote reflects the attitudes of the troops or simply disgruntled union leaders at the top of the organization. The chief should ask these questions: o Does the vote target only one action by the chief, e.g., failure to support officers in aftermath of critical use of force? o Do the complaints include critical leadership elements such as lack of concern, poor integrity and/or ill-thought policies? One chief told me that being the target of a vote caused him a great deal of personal anguish.

Despite his angst, the chief demonstrated tremendous courage and self-discipline to set aside ego and become introspective. He remains chief of that major city to this day. Officers want to take pride in and follow their chief.  They can be very forgiving if they think the chief is honest with them; respects them; is concerned about them; will stand up for them; and now and then will say "job well done."

Ted Hunt is a consultant to police organizations specializing in organizational development, planning and budgeting. He is an expert in training systems including policy analysis, training needs analysis and curriculum development. He retired last year from the LAPD where he served for 32 years. You can reach him by email at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Poollice Chief Lincoln Rhoor irrelrevant info. Alsoo many time es higher ranking officers have de Island retired
written by Robert Kells, May 24, 2010

Is a vote of no confidence a first amendment right to have What judicial recouse does a chief have to disprove accusations, many made up in many cases and the chief has no knowledge of the vote coming until he reads about it in the local papers.S
Suggestion How to resolve the issue
Example have a judicial hearing officer by law listen to both sides allow the hearing officer throw out disproved accusations.

Higher ranking officers in many situtaions with an agenda influence over the lower ranking officers telling them hey I going to be here for fifteen yesrs how are you going to vote,whem the national average for a chief in that position is three to five years .etc much to think about its time for national chiefs association to steps up instead of leaving the chief under the bus

.

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Please note: comments must be approved by the moderator and may not appear immediately.

Add Comment