Police Commissioner Kelly thinks he can’t, or at least in response to the Sean Bell shooting. “I can't afford to have a visceral reaction” is what he literally said. To me, this is an example of deflective, evasive and non-committal communication that won’t benefit the process of debate. But in an interesting discussion following a presentation I just held on this topic, a different vantage point emerged.
Nick Ragone pointed out: "It makes sense – he is representing the rank-and-file. He can’t be critical. Moreover, he is bound by legal restrictions. The Mayor, on the other hand, represents all New Yorkers, and it makes sense he will seek conciliation."
It made me think. Yes, there is definitely truth in this. But still...is it smart for the Police Commissioner just to ‘represent’ the police and therefore say ‘I can’t have a visceral reaction’? To me, this won’t improve police-community relations, and moreover, it will be detrimental to the morale of the rank-and-file who have such a profound presence in the community and will have to deal with negative responses. My opinion: If you want the community to respond well to the police – not only in the political arena of debate, but also on street level – then yes, you not only have to communicate to them, but also with them. Moreover, isn’t it a challenge to find ways to communicate effectively within the legal restrictions and work towards conflict resolution?
I would love to ask him this myself – Next week more on my mission to interview some stakeholders here!!
I agree - it's a "cop out" (sorry for the poor pun) for him to say he can't say what he feels - as if he is a victim of his emotions.
ReplyDeleteHe could say something like: " I am aware of the many varied emotions and reactions to this tragedy from all the parties concerned. I wish to say as a human being I share the sorrow the family members feel for the loss of Sean Bell's life. In my role as Police commissioner I will work with all parties to bring out the facts of the situation. I ask everyone to be calm as we seek to discover the whole truth."
Robert Burnside
Met interesse gelezen en ik kan me helemaal in jouw analyse en in die van de vorige commenter vinden.
ReplyDeleteEmmy
Hi Michelle,
ReplyDeleteI agree to your analysis of the deflective and even less empathies reaction of Police Commissioner Kelly. But, what I don't understand is that you draw a great distinction between the Mayor and the Police Commissioner in their line on the debate. Both governmental representatives are serving the public interest and objectives. They both have the duty to create a secure feeling for all communities / citizens. They have to represent all New Yorkers. I don't know - by lack of knowledge in the local situation in New York - how Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly will realize this in other situations and other incidents. But maybe they can take an example by the Mayor and Chief of Police in the capital Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Mayor Cohen and Chief of Police Welten are mostly communicating together a powerful message how to restrain violence, discrimination and other feelings of anxiety. They are organised in the so-called 'sub-triangles' to govern the capital Amsterdam: Mayor, Chief Public Prosecutor and Commissioner. They communicate a common - and hopefully inspiring - message to its citizens. So I am wondering why a Mayor and Police Commissioner in New York communicate in different lines and has other starting-points. Or am I wrong? Maybe you can ask some stakeholders to this during your interviews? Kind regards, Joost