It's the qualities of the lead dog that counts

by David Grand
February 13, 2008

On March 1, 1000 dogs and some 25,000 spectators will gather to celebrate the ceremonial start of the 1,049-mile-long annual Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. It begins in Anchorage, and the hearty dogs and their trainers (called mushers) race across frozen tundra and rugged mountain ranges to the finish line in Nome.

Perhaps the biggest factor in determining who the ultimate winner will be are the qualities possessed by the lead dogs that steer the rest of the team and set the pace. They are selected for that position based on their intelligence, initiative, common sense and the ability to find a trail in the worst of conditions.

In reading about that upcoming race, it occurred to me that those are the same qualities of leadership we should look for in selecting a person to head the county's law enforcement arm, and not settle for less.

At the public hearings I've attended on the subject of the commissioner's creating a county police force, those who stood at the microphone were nearly unanimous in praising the performance of the sheriff's office, while at the same time questioning the need for a police force. And no one heaped more praise on thrice-elected sheriff than the commissioners themselves, which I took to mean that he'd be their role model in filling the police chief's job.

But that's easier said than done. For no matter how wide of a net they throw out nationwide to find someone to head the police department, finding a person of his caliber would be difficult at best. And no matter how scrupulously they evaluate his or her background and credentials they could still end up with a loser. One need not look any further than Baltimore City to see how the trust and confidence placed in a police chief can backfire. When then Mayor O'Malley appointed Edward Norris as chief in 2000 (later as police commissioner) he had every reason to believe he picked the right man, since he'd been a high-ranking member of the New York City police department and played a major role in developing and implementing the policing strategies that sharply reduced the Big Apple's crime rate.

He got off to a roaring start in Baltimore in his first nine months, by reducing the city's crime rate by 13 percent and going out into city neighborhoods to sell his crime-fighting strategies.

But then pop went the balloon when he was indicted and found guilty of spending between $10,000 and $30,000 of taxpayer's money to finance his affairs with numerous women and pay for luxury hotels, expensive meals, clothing and gifts from Victoria's Secret. (And talk about gall. He is seeking a presidential pardon for his 2004 felony conviction in order to return to work in law enforcement.)

His fall from grace was hardly a aberration, however. Among other police chiefs directly involved in scandals, who were forced to resign and/or indicted for crimes, were: New York police chief/commissioner Bernard Kerik,  Miami police chief John Tamoney,  San Francisco police chief Earl Sanders, Albuquerque police chief Gilbert Gallegos, and  Los Angeles police chief Bernard Parks.

So that begs the question, as to why the commissioners would want to embark on a nationwide, fishing expedition to find a person to lead a police department, with the attendant risk of hooking a Charlie Tuna, when no more than a 100 yards from the COB there's a fully functioning policing operation that has proven itself to be every bit as capable of providing the same services a police department would, due in large part to the exemplary leadership of the sheriff?