JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

You might be wondering why KC Police Chief Rick Smith is hanging on to his job — insisting that he leave on his own terms and his own timetable, sort of — when his support among police board members has ebbed and the news about him gets worse all the time.

The latest news, in case you haven’t heard, is that shortly after Det. Eric DeValkenaere shot and killed Cameron Lamb in Lamb’s garage, Smith, who had responded to the scene, got on his police radio and said: “Everyone is good, house is clear. Bad guy’s dead.”

That choice of words plays right into criticism from civil rights groups and The Kansas City Star’s editorial board. The paper and civil rights leaders have insisted for the last year or so that Smith has never seen a police shooting of an unarmed Black man he didn’t think was justified. It’s like a knee jerk reaction: The cop was right, the “bad guy” had to be shot.

Within the criminal justice system, though, that attitude is being upended. Recently, of course, a Jackson County Circuit Court judge found DeValkenaere guilty of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in the 2019 killing of Lamb after DeValkenaere and another detective barged onto Lamb’s property on suspicion of possible wrongdoing and DeValkenaere shot the 26-year-old Black man, who was probably unarmed.

That conviction cost Smith the support of Police Board President Rev. Mark Tolbert and apparently dented the support of at least one other police board member. That was enough for Tolbert and Mayor Quinton Lucas, a police board member, to meet with Smith last week and demand that he step down.

That’s when Smith started dancing on the polished, wood floor. He said he’d leave sometime next year just like he planned to do all along. (Yeah, sure.) If it was up to Lucas, Smith would have been gone within a week. But he’s only one of five police board members. The others are much more forbearing with Smith and allowed him to set his own timetable. As a result, we have to put up with this guy until mid-April.

It’s galling, but at least he’s on the way out, and he’s in for a lot of bad press and public flogging until he goes. Which is why I raised the question in the first paragraph: Why does he choose to stay on.

Ego is part of it, but not the biggest part. The main reason is financial. The longer he stays, the bigger his pension checks will be. He’s already earning close to $200,000 a year, and he’ll probably be getting more than $100,000 – possibly way more — after he retires.

I tell you, it’s been the same old story with virtually every chief we’ve had during the past 50 years. One insider succeeds another, time after time, and in almost every case their main goal is not to improve the department or make necessary changes but to serve a few or several years, long enough to enjoy substantial pay raises and boost their pensions. Most of these chiefs serve about five years and then leave smiling after a pizza and sheet cake party.

Unlike most of the desk-warming chiefs we’ve had, though, Smith ran into a buzz saw, and yet he’s decided he’s going to let the bleeding continue another few months so he can say he left on his own terms and also run up his pension.

The truly unfortunate part of this for Kansas City is that this once-proud and outstanding department has diminished considerably under a long string of chiefs whose main aim is to keep their powder dry. This includes the only Black chief KC has ever had, Darryl Forte, who snuck out the back door after a massive scandal surfaced in the children’s division.

On Forte’s watch, several officers in the children’s division decided they’d really rather not work. Instead they stuffed evidence in their desks and sat on cases, ignoring them for months, while children who had been the victims of crime, and their parents, were left hanging.

Eventually, seven officers in the children’s unit lost their jobs. Several others were transferred, some were busted and put back on patrol duty.

Now, Forte is Jackson County sheriff, drawing a big salary there, while also drawing his fat KCPD pension.

I cite Forte’s case only because it’s the most obvious one I know of where a chief stood by while a division disintegrated.

**

There are still a lot of great officers on the force — tons of them, some of whom I know and some whom I’ve had interactions with — but the department hasn’t had bold leadership in 50 years.

With any luck, things may be about to change. Even with this boot-licking police board — two or three of them being boot lickers, anyway — it’s almost certain that the next chief will be a Black person from outside the department. It has to be. We need someone in that office who can break out of the go-along-get-along rut, make significant policy changes, start to change departmental culture and begin to win back the confidence of non-Northland residents, particularly minority residents.

I would prefer that the next chief be a Black woman. Why? Because there’s a better chance a woman will not be looking at the job as a way to boost salary and pension but to do what has to be done to start righting the listing ship. For the most part, in my experience, women administrators are superior to men. They tend to take their jobs more seriously, perhaps because they feel they have more to prove, and many tend to listen better and make less impetuous decisions, with less ego involved.

That’s just my opinion. Do I think a Black woman will be hired as chief? Unlikely. A board majority is probably capable of doing one revolution off the high board but not two.

This much is clear, though: if the board hires a Black man from outside the department, it can start to build a better relationship with Kansas Citians living south of the river. But if the board is insensitive enough and stupid enough to hire another white man — whether from inside or outside the department — the police department’s relationship with the minority community will remain where it is with a majority of KC residents, rock bottom.