Back To News | Back To Standard News
Standard News
Law enforcement merger worth exploring
May 17, 2010
WHILE THIS IS an opportune time for the city of Columbia to explore merging its Police Department with the Richland County Sheriff’s Department, it must carefully weigh the merits of the proposal and not act on impulse.The decision to merge can’t be based solely on the fact that the city just lost its police chief or how it would help ease Columbia’s financial crunch. The idea must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that the safety and security of city and county residents come first and that it doesn’t lead to negative unintended consequences.
That said, this is a good a time to explore a merger. The police chief position is vacant, and there is no active search under way. The city would be wise to hold off on any search until it deals with the merger question. Launching a search in the midst of talks that could either eliminate or diminish the job of police chief would scare off candidates.
Two appealing aspects of this idea are that it would move us toward greater consolidation of city and county services and it would increase accountability, which is lacking throughout city government.
The recent firing of Chief Tandy Carter is but the latest example of what happens when accountability is lacking. Despite Mr. Carter’s stubborn refusal to relinquish the investigation of the car crash involving Mayor-elect Steve Benjamin, no one acted quickly to bring correction. By the time they decided to take action, the damage had been done. It is the diffusion of power in the city’s unaccountable council-manager form of government that creates indecision and delay.
If the elected sheriff is given control of city police, voters would know whom to hold accountable when it comes to law enforcement. But there is a potential drawback for city residents. Columbians willingly pay a higher level of taxes than county taxpayers in order to get a level of police protection not provided by the sheriff. But constituents outside the city outnumber those inside and have greater influence at the ballot box. In effect, city voters would have less say in choosing who runs their police department than voters in the unincorporated areas.
If the city moves forward with this idea, it must carefully spell out exactly what it wants, and take precautions to preserve the extra level of protection city taxpayers pay for. That includes making sure municipal ordinances are properly enforced and determining whether police officers serve at the will of the sheriff as deputies do.
Although Sheriff Leon Lott is an elected official and runs his own department, City Council has wisely asked to meet with County Council to discuss this matter. County Council funds the Sheriff Department. For his part, Sheriff Lott has said he’s open to discussing anything to improve the lives of citizens.
One thing city officials must do is take care not to base their decision solely on the personality of the sitting sheriff. Mr. Lott is a trusted, proven, dependable law officer, but he won’t always be sheriff. The question is whether allowing the elected sheriff to oversee police protection in the city would be more efficient, preserve a high-quality service and provide accountable leadership long-term.
It makes all the sense in the world for the city and county to have this discussion. Even if they don’t fully merge departments, this could lead to an increased level of cooperation that would improve safety and security in this community.
Posted on Fri, May. 14, 2010 in The State Paper.