Shadows in the Selection Process: The Hazards of Keeping Police Chief Applicants Secret in Louisville, Kentucky

In contrast to the release of the names of all the applicants for police chief in Fort Myers recently[i], Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg has refused to release the names of any of the nineteen applicants for police chief of the Louisville Police Department. [ii]

Instead, various Louisville officials argue they cannot release the names of the applicants because of privacy concerns and past decisions by the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office stating that candidates not chosen deserve protection. [iii]

However, is this the best decision for the community of Louisville?

In May, I wrote an extensive article that listed the pluses and minuses for police chief candidates’ when their names are released as part of the hiring process. You can read the full article here.

This article will not focus on those same concerns. Instead, the focus will be on the community’s perspective.

Transparency Expectations

One of the most critical expectations of government is that it is transparent and accountable. That it doesn’t operate in secret. Citizens expect their government to be transparent. All 50 states have passed open records laws that require specific records to be available to the public. [iv]

Even in Louisville, Mayor Greenberg had recently restructured their Open Records Department and pledged to be more transparent. [v] According to a recent article, Greenberg said, “One of the most fundamental ways we establish trust is by sharing information about what we’re doing proactively and in response to open records requests.”

Of course, the announcement by Mayor Greenberg came shortly after a lawsuit was settled over access to complaints against officers with the Louisville Metro Police Department. [vi]

Despite the lawsuit settlement and Mayor Greenberg’s commitment, the names of all 19 applicants for police chief will not be released.

Broken Trust

When citizens perceive the government hiding information, trust will be negatively impacted. According to Louisville NAACP President Raol Cunningham, the NAACP deserves to have the names of the candidates so they can adequately vet each of them. [vii]

Cunningham points out that the history of distrust between the City of Louisville, the LVMPD, and the community, combined with the report findings of the Department of Justice, makes being transparent even more critical. [viii]

By withholding the names of police chief candidates, the government creates a trust deficit with the community. Citizens naturally question why the government would conceal this information and wonder if there is something to hide. This secrecy fosters a sense of skepticism, leading to an erosion of trust in the government’s ability to act in the community’s best interest. It undermines the perception that decisions are made openly and democratically, further alienating the public.

Potential for Bias or Discrimination

Without public knowledge of the applicant pool, detecting biases or discriminatory practices in the selection process becomes challenging. Transparent access to applicant names allows the community to identify potential patterns or imbalances that may hinder fair representation and equal opportunities within law enforcement.

Limited Diversity of Applicants

Concealing the names of applicants inhibits the ability to assess the diversity and experience of the candidate pool. Without visibility, it becomes difficult to ascertain whether the selection process is truly open to individuals from diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, and experiences, potentially perpetuating existing disparities in law enforcement.

Missed Opportunity for Collaboration

When the names of applicants are not disclosed, community organizations, advocacy groups, and stakeholders cannot effectively engage with the candidates or contribute to the decision-making process. Collaboration between law enforcement and the community is crucial for building trust, fostering understanding, and developing effective policies that address local concerns.

Despite the concerns mentioned above, Mayor Greenberg would likely argue that he has sought input into the process from the community and has community stakeholders involved in the selection process.

Advisory Committee

To overcome the negativity associated with not publicly releasing the names of the police chief candidates, Mayor Greenberg appointed seven members to an Advisory Committee. [ix] This committee will interview the candidates and provide a recommendation to Mayor Greenberg.

Mayor Greenberg also solicited input into what kind of police chief citizens thought they needed through an online survey. [x] Over 1,200 citizens responded. A dozen focus groups were held, plus two virtual town hall meetings. [xi]

Non-Disclosure Agreement

In an unusual twist, Mayor Greenberg has instituted a requirement for advisory committee members to sign non-disclosure agreements. These NDAs effectively prevent committee members from publicly discussing the specifics of the candidates, their qualifications, or the committee’s deliberations. Proponents of this decision argue that it maintains confidentiality and prevents external influences from compromising the selection process. [xii] The NDAs further contribute to the shroud of secrecy surrounding the police chief search.

Additionally, supporters of the non-disclosure requirement argue that it protects the candidates’ privacy. By maintaining confidentiality, prospective candidates may be more willing to apply, knowing that their personal information and candidacy details will remain secure from public exposure or potential retaliation.

However, imposing non-disclosure agreements on the advisory committee has sparked widespread criticism. Opponents argue that this move undermines transparency and accountability, making it difficult for the community to assess the integrity of the selection process. The lack of public visibility and discussion surrounding the candidates and their qualifications raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the decision-making.

Middle Ground

Many cities have found a middle ground between releasing all police chief applicants’ names and releasing none.

The middle ground is achieved by releasing the finalists for the position. The number of finalists varies by city from two or three to upwards of ten.

By releasing the finalists’ names, the hiring authority protects the privacy of the candidates not being seriously considered for the position while providing more transparency in the process.

The firm selected to assist the City of Louisville with the search for a new police chief, Public Sector Search & Consulting, recommended that the names of the candidates who were finalists be publicly released. They also recommended a “meet the candidates” public forum with the finalists be held. [xiii] Neither of those recommendations was followed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision by the mayor of Louisville to implement non-disclosure agreements for the advisory committee conducting police chief candidate interviews, as well as withholding the names of the applicants, has sparked significant controversy and raised valid concerns about transparency, accountability, and community engagement.

While there may be genuine intentions to protect candidate privacy and ensure an unbiased selection process, these measures risk undermining public trust and participation. Transparency is essential for fostering trust between law enforcement and the community they serve and promoting accountability in the decision-making process.

By withholding the names of the police chief applicants, the mayor limits the ability of the community to evaluate the qualifications, backgrounds, and potential biases of the candidates. This lack of information hampers public scrutiny and the capacity to hold the mayor and the candidates accountable for their choices.

Furthermore, the absence of applicant names inhibits community input, preventing individuals and organizations from providing valuable feedback and insights that could inform the selection process. Collaboration between law enforcement and the community is vital for building trust, addressing concerns, and developing effective policies.

Moving forward, the mayor of Louisville must strike a balance between confidentiality and transparency. The selection process should prioritize openness, accountability, and inclusivity, ensuring that the community can participate, voice their concerns, and hold those responsible to account.

[i] https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/lee-county/city-of-fort-myers-announces-155-applicants-for-police-chief-position

[ii] https://www.lpm.org/news/2023-07-05/19-people-applied-for-louisville-police-chief-but-officials-wont-say-who

[iii] iBid

[iv] https://www.ncsl.org/cls/public-records-law-and-state-legislatures#:~:text=Resource%20Public%20Records%20Law%20and%20State%20Legislatures&text=A%20Resource%20is%20information%20to%20better%20inform%20your%20work.&text=To%20help%20increase%20transparency%20and,be%20open%20to%20the%20public.

[v] https://www.lpm.org/news/2023-05-25/mayor-greenberg-to-restructure-louisvilles-open-records-department

[vi] https://www.lpm.org/news/2023-04-19/lmpd-490-project-settle-lawsuit-over-access-to-complaints-against-officers

[vii] https://www.wlky.com/article/louisville-naacp-transparency-search-lmpd-chief/44497576

[viii] iBid

[ix] https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/mayor-craig-greenberg-advisory-committee-louisville-police-chief-lmpd/417-4f029bff-84ac-4a73-94b4-b03382348e13#:~:text=LOUISVILLE%2C%20Ky.,that%20choice%2C%E2%80%9D%20Greenberg%20said.

[x] https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/louisville-metro-police-survey-chief-lmpd-qualities-urban-league/417-3cae7510-c0a2-4b4d-8831-75c2deeba8a0

[xi] https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/louisville-metro-police-department-permanent-chief-qualities-town-hall-discussions/417-b3016d5a-52ed-43e6-b735-0279f89ff1f2

[xii] https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2023/07/07/craig-greenberg-using-secretive-policies-in-lmpd-chief-search/70385314007/