If I were helping a city hire its next police chief, I wouldn’t be comfortable making a recommendation based on a résumé, a good interview, and three references the candidate picked himself. I’d want to know quite a bit more about the person who was about to take charge of the department.

A police chief has authority over hiring, discipline, training, policy, and the daily decisions that determine how a department operates. In a small town, the mayor and council may have little direct knowledge of police operations. They’re going to depend heavily on the chief to tell them what’s happening, explain problems, and recommend what needs to be done. That requires a level of trust that couldn’t be established during an interview.

I’d start with the candidate’s employment history, particularly why he left his previous positions. Retirement, a better opportunity, termination, and resignation under pressure are different circumstances. I’d want to understand each move, especially if it involved a separation agreement, an investigation, or a dispute with the city.

I wouldn’t assume somebody did something wrong because he left under difficult circumstances. Police chiefs serve in political environments, and sometimes the relationship with elected officials simply stops working. A chief can make the right decision and still lose his job over it. He can also make a series of poor decisions and leave before the city gets around to holding him accountable. I’d want enough information to tell the difference.

I’d talk to people outside his reference list

If I’m applying for a job, I’m probably going to give you the names of people who think highly of me. I don’t see anything wrong with that, but I wouldn’t expect a hiring committee to stop there.

The ICMA/PERF handbook for selecting a police chief recommends a thorough background investigation that goes beyond references supplied by the candidate. I’d want to talk with former supervisors, elected officials, and officers who worked under him. I’d also want to hear from people who disagreed with him or had to deal with him during difficult situations.

I’d ask how he handled discipline, whether he made decisions consistently, and whether employees could bring him a problem without worrying about retaliation. I’d want to know if he dealt with problem employees or allowed everybody else to carry the extra work. A candidate can give an impressive account of his leadership during an interview. The people who worked under him can usually tell you how that leadership affected their jobs.

I’d also look at the department he left behind. If several experienced officers or supervisors resigned during his tenure, I’d want to understand why. People leave departments for all kinds of reasons, including pay, retirement, family, and better opportunities. Turnover alone doesn’t establish poor leadership. But when people in different positions describe the same problems, particularly if their departures occurred around the same time, I’d have more questions.

In a small department, losing three or four experienced officers can change the entire operation. I’d want to know whether those departures reflected circumstances outside the chief’s control or problems he contributed to and failed to address.

I’d examine the complaints, not just count them

Lawsuits, grievances, disciplinary investigations, and public controversies would be part of my review. I wouldn’t automatically disqualify somebody over them, either.

Anybody who spends enough time making difficult personnel decisions will eventually make somebody unhappy. A chief may have to fire an employee, enforce an unpopular policy, or refuse a request from an elected official. Some of those decisions lead to complaints or litigation, even when the chief acted appropriately.

But I wouldn’t dismiss complaints simply because the candidate says they came from disgruntled employees. I’d want to examine the available records, understand the allegations, and determine what actually happened. A lawsuit may contain serious allegations without establishing that the allegations are true. A settlement doesn’t necessarily establish wrongdoing, either. I’d look for findings, supporting records, and independent accounts rather than treating the existence of a complaint as proof.

I’d pay particular attention to repeated problems. One employee accusing a chief of favoritism might reflect a legitimate complaint or a disagreement over discipline. Several employees independently describing inconsistent discipline, retaliation, or similar conduct would warrant a closer examination.

And I’d give the candidate a chance to respond to what I found. I’d want to hear his explanation, particularly if the records were incomplete or the circumstances were disputed. He may have information that changes how I understand the situation.

That opportunity shouldn’t be a formality. If I’m going to consider negative information when deciding whether somebody should lead a department, I owe him a fair opportunity to address it. I also owe the city an evaluation that doesn’t stop simply because the candidate has a convincing explanation.

Experience has to go beyond the résumé

I’d certainly consider education, certifications, command schools, and executive training. I’ve never had a problem with somebody investing in professional development. But those credentials don’t tell me whether he can manage a department when things aren’t going well.

I’d want to know what responsibilities he’s actually held. Has he supervised officers, handled personnel problems, managed budgets, dealt with staffing shortages, and worked through serious incidents? Has he made decisions that weren’t popular and accepted responsibility when something went wrong?

I’d also want to understand his relationship with the people who supervised him, particularly elected officials. A chief needs to work with the mayor and council, explain the department’s needs, and recognize the authority they hold. He also needs enough independence to give them an answer they may not want to hear.

If a candidate has spent his career telling his bosses whatever they wanted to hear, I’d be concerned about what happens when the department needs him to stand behind an unpopular but necessary decision.

The same applies to a candidate who seems unable to work with elected officials at all. Disagreement is sometimes necessary, but constant conflict isn’t evidenceInformation or an item that may help prove or disprove a fact in an investigation or court case. of strong leadership. I’d want to understand how he handled those relationships rather than accepting either side’s description at face value.

Before the city makes its decision

The mayor and council don’t need to investigate every disagreement a candidate has ever had. They do need to know whether there are serious questions about his judgment, conduct, or ability to lead that a reasonable background investigation could uncover.

Once the appointment is made, the situation becomes much harder to correct. Employees begin adjusting to a new chief, the city may have contractual obligations, and elected officials have publicly committed themselves to the decision. Discovering a significant problem afterward can leave the city choosing between defending a hire it no longer trusts and admitting it didn’t ask enough questions beforehand.

Even a thorough investigation can’t guarantee that somebody will be a good police chief. People can perform well in one department and struggle in another. Circumstances change, and hiring decisions always involve some uncertainty.

But if I were sitting with a mayor or council before that appointment, I’d want to be able to answer the questions I would expect them to ask me after something went wrong. What did we know about this candidate? What did we check? Who did we talk to? Were there warning signs, and if so, how did we evaluate them?

If we can’t answer those questions before the vote, I don’t think you’re ready to make the hire.