On January 25, 2008 American Legion Unit #172 sponsored an event honoring selected members of the Rochester, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township police and fire departments. At this event, the American Legion presented these officers with the American Legion Americanism Award.

As part of that event, two Rochester public safety officers were honored for their achievements.

The Oakland Press has an editorial in today’s edition suggesting that the City of Rochester should revisit the issue of contracting for police services with the sheriff’s department. Essentially it says: “There were big problems with the management of the department, and this is evidenced by the Nottley Report and the resignation of the police chief”. They go on to suggest that these are reasons to consider disbanding the local police and contracting with the sheriff.

Their conclusion is totally wrong. The community outrage at the suggestion to replace the local police, coupled with the city council input into the Nottley Report and the ultimate resignation of the police chief, is precisely the direction the city needs to head. Although he is still bucking the city council, I think that the city manager’s position is also in jeopardy.

At the June 11, 2007 meeting of the Rochester City Council city manager Ken Johnson announced that he had accepted the resignation of police chief Ted Glynn, effective June 30, 2007. There will be no special retiree health care benefits extended to the chief other than the standard package received by all city employees.

City Manager Chastises the City Council

The city manager then proceeded to chastise several unnamed council members. He suggested that the entire police study was undertaken with the ultimate goal of reflecting poorly on the police chief. Furthermore, he referred to recent council actions as a “witch hunt” and suggested that council’s inquiry into the cost of fully vested health care for the police chief was a questionable tactic that was improper.

An article in today’s Oakland Press, written by Laurie Puscas, highlights once again how critical the city council was of the steps taken by Chief Glynn to implement the police consultant’s report. I think Laurie does a fine job of touching on some of the major points made by city councilpersons at the meeting of May 29, 2007. In addtion, I think Laurie’s assessment of city manager Ken Johnson’s actions are spot on as well:

…[Johnson] remained quiet with pursed lips and no eye contact through much of the discussion…– Laurie Puscas, The Oakland Press

At the end of that council meeting, I was allowed to address the city council. I told them that in my opinion, Chief Glynn was effectively put on probation by the council and that the report they had just received was his first effort to get off of probation. If I considered myself in a probationary status, I would make certain that my first report would have knocked the socks off the council. Instead, they received a report that was clearly lacking by any reasonable measure, and the majority on the council pointed this out.

On May 29th the city council received a report from the police chief on steps he is taking to implement the items outlined in the now infamous Nottley Report. At least four of the seven council members expressed disappointment with the report, and said so on the record at the council meeting.

This is a very simple issue in my opinion. The police chief, despite his efforts, is not able to provide forward thinking or direction for the police department because his leadership skills are not strong enough. Regardless of the reason for the leadership skill situation, the very fact that there is a “Nottley Report” and that it needs to be “implemented” is the result of twenty years of insufficient police department leadership. Perhaps it’s the city managers fault. Maybe the police chief is to blame. But does it really matter whose fault it is? The citizens of Rochester deserve better.

Do you think it would be a good idea if the police department organized and advertised an open house? This would allow the citizens to get a better idea about the inner workings of the police department. I think this would be a good way to begin to open up the department to the community, particularly in light of the controversy that has recently been surrounding the department.