Everyone knows who runs the NYPD today — Commissioner Ray Kelly. You may have seen him with Mayor Bloomberg yesterday, breaking the news that the Tsarnaev brothers had planned to hit Times Square in New York City next.
But a year from now, it may be much tougher to say who’s in charge of the city’s police.
I recently wrote about the circus atmosphere that will prevail if the next mayor allows, or can’t prevent, a division of responsibility for policing among several officials. Now I’ll provide advice to those interested in running the NYPD, based on my studies of a number of US cities where wars for control over the police have been fought out.
The first post in which power can be exercised is, of course, police commissioner. But the next mayor’s pick for the job may have to carry out irresponsible measures favored by various pressure groups, such as cutting back on proactive policing like stop, question and frisk or counter-terrorism work.
But if crime starts to zoom up or bombs go off — and sites like Times Square always seem to be on the terrorists’ radar — the commissioner will get the blame. And even the mayor’s support can’t keep him safe from inglorious dismissal — by law, the governor can also remove the police commissioner.
For those who prefer power without responsibility, there are other possibilities. One is to become the New York City criminal justice coordinator. The job, around since the 1970s, has been held by competent individuals, some of them also carrying the title of deputy mayor. None tried to boss the police commissioner, but the next one might want to try. Let me warn anyone who’d try that: The commissioner’s post is an historic, prestige-laden one; the coordinator post is virtually unknown. In a struggle between the two, the latter would probably be crushed.
An even more desirable position, likely to be created soon, is as inspector general over the NYPD. Though highly touted by advocates, the job is as yet undefined and its power will depend upon the desires of the mayor and the ambitions of the appointee. A police IG may be able to blow minor derelictions into major scandals, so as to garner headlines and impose his own policies; this will win applause from those who are now carrying on what’s been called “a political war against the police.”
But that trick won’t work for too long. Consider how the events in Boston have temporarily stopped New York’s cop-bashers from complaining about police “spying” or questioning possible terrorists.
When the facts come out about the Marathon Bombers, we may learn that law enforcers did not vigorously pursue investigations of the Tsarnaev Brothers because they feared being accused of treading on the suspects’ civil rights. This is what happened before 9/11. Then, despite receiving reports about Middle Eastern gentlemen learning to fly, but not land, jetliners, federal officers bent over backward to avoid “profiling.”
Perhaps the most desirable position for a would-be police czar may be that of court-appointed federal monitor over the NYPD. There’s no limit to the amount of money the monitor will be able to charge, as long as the judge who appoints him or her is willing to approve the bills. The monitor will be in an ideal position to compel the scrapping of successful anticrime or anti-terror programs.
But, again, it may not last. In 1985, based on suits from a handful of supposedly aggrieved parties, the NYPD was required to submit to monitoring that limited its ability to investigate possible security threats. When the unwisdom of this became apparent after 9/11, a federal court scrapped the requirement.
The struggle for power over the NYPD will affect average New Yorkers — a lot. If it ends up handcuffing cops, the public may become angry and frightened enough to throw out the mayor, or carry their protests to the governor, the White House or the Supreme Court.
Thomas A. Reppetto is the former president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and author of “American Police, 1945-2012.”