Lakewood police chief following model of outside accountability | Opinion

The Tacoma News Tribune’s recent framing of the Lakewood police chief as “ignoring” misconduct complaints is not only misleading, but it also overlooks a critical fact: the chief sought an independent investigator to evaluate the allegations. In any modern, professional law-enforcement organization, independence is not neglect — it is the gold standard of accountability.

Let’s be honest about what is actually happening. The issue is not that the chief refused to address complaints. The issue is that the police guild appears deeply uncomfortable with oversight that doesn’t originate from within its own ranks. The guild wants the authority to police itself, interpret its own rules, and reach its own conclusions without the presence of an impartial voice. That is not accountability — it is self-protection.

When a police chief deliberately brings in an outside investigative body, it sends several important messages:

Transparency matters

The chief’s decision demonstrates an understanding that public trust cannot be maintained if misconduct allegations are processed behind closed doors, by the same people who work alongside the officers being investigated. Sealed or destroyed records and private arbitration mean the public often doesn’t know what’s happening “behind closed doors.” This is one of the reasons people are afraid to report bad police officers.

Fairness matters

An independent investigator is not beholden to the department, the guild or the chief. The findings are based solely on the evidence and the truth, free from internal politics or peer pressure.

Credibility matters

In an era of heightened scrutiny of law enforcement, credibility is everything. By outsourcing the investigation, the chief ensured that both the complainants and the officers involved would have the benefit of a neutral entity. This shows that even at the city level, there’s an awareness that current arbitration and contract rules (which often stem from union influence) need reform.

Local Political Pressure Against Reform

According to Lakewood’s City Council policy manual, the city supports reforming “binding interest arbitration” because the current structure leads to “many unintended consequences, particularly in regard to disciplinary processes.” Unions have strong negotiating power, but community members (especially marginalized groups) usually don’t have equal input in shaping those contracts.

Ironically, the guild’s objections raise bigger questions than the complaints themselves. If external review is so threatening, what does that say about the guild’s confidence in its own processes? If transparency is resisted, what message does that send to the community the department serves?

The Lakewood City Council’s 2025 State Legislative Policy Manual explicitly calls for reform of binding interest arbitration, citing that current statutes are “out-of-date and inflexible” and have “unintended consequences … particularly … in regard to disciplinary processes.”

In their 2024–2025 contract cycles, the city is signaling that arbitration (which is often heavily influenced by union-negotiated terms) is a barrier to accountability. True accountability requires that oversight comes from outside the organization — not from those who have a direct stake in the outcome.

Firefighters do not investigate their own arson cases. Judges do not preside over cases involving their own relatives. And police unions should not determine the fate of investigations into officer misconduct without independent verification.

By suggesting that the chief is “ignoring” complaints simply because he refused to rubber-stamp an internally controlled process, critics are twisting the facts. The chief’s approach is not only reasonable; it is responsible. It reflects the type of leadership that recognizes the importance of objectivity in maintaining legitimacy and community confidence.

In truth, the guild’s pushback reveals a deeper tension: whether law enforcement agencies will move toward modern, professional standards of transparency or cling to outdated systems where the institution investigates itself and insists the public “trust the process.” Those days are over. Communities expect accountability that is real, visible and independent.

Rather than criticizing Chief Patrick Smith at every turn, we should be recognizing that he took the step that many communities have been demanding nationwide — removing internal bias from the investigative process. That is not ignoring misconduct. That is confronting it head-on, with integrity.

Julius W. Brown Jr. is chairman of the Lakewood African American Police Advisory Committee.