Anchorage wrestles with a tough issue: How best to keep police accountable?

Like other cities across America, Anchorage has a problem on its hands. It’s a balancing act: We must make sure police have the resources they need to keep peace, act as a force for justice and keep themselves safe, but we must also keep them from applying their powers unequally, using force improperly or becoming corrupt. On Tuesday, the municipality took a step toward addressing that issue, as the Anchorage Assembly passed a measure that will require that the Anchorage Police Department notify the Assembly — and thereby the public — of policy changes. It’s a small step, but one taken in the right direction.

The resolution passed by the Assembly on Tuesday had the support of APD and Mayor Berkowitz, requiring quarterly reports on policy changes. It was a dramatically scaled-back version of Assemblymember Meg Zaletel’s original ordinance, which would have required Assembly approval of such changes. It was clear the original measure didn’t have the support necessary to pass, and rightly so. There were legitimate concerns about its value — it’s good to have a theoretically neutral party overseeing the police, but it’s not appropriate to hand that power to a group with its own political considerations and little expertise about what is necessary to do good police work.

Anchorage has so far managed to avoid the sort of incident that has sparked unrest in towns across America this year, and we should count ourselves lucky — but we should not delude ourselves into believing that such an occurrence can’t happen here. Anchorage could be Kenosha. Anchorage could be Louisville. The elements necessary to provoke such an event are present nearly everywhere.

So what can we do to prevent it? The surest answers are accountability and de-escalation.

De-escalation

The past decade has seen increased militarization of local police forces, a phenomenon that has given tools to police departments that were formerly the sole province of soldiers in war zones — body armor, armor-protected vehicles, military-style semiautomatic rifles. The problem with tools like that is they have been used, many times, against members of the communities the officers are sworn to protect. And although their intended purpose is to keep officers safe, they have the practical impact of escalating confrontations between police and suspected criminals — and, more troubling, between police and protesters. The responsible choice for our law enforcement agencies is to take inventory of the gear, weapons and vehicles being used and only keep using what is truly required for policing — our police should never resemble an occupying army on our own streets. As for the gear that is deemed necessary, policies should dictate it only be used when truly needed.

Policing is a hard job, as it requires excellent judgment in life-or-death situations. To make matters worse, we’ve made our law enforcement officers a catch-all for dealing with broken aspects of our society, often in situations well beyond the scope of their training. Police aren’t mental health professionals, nor should we expect them to be. One of the best ideas to emerge from this summer’s discussion about police powers is the expansion of mental health services to deal with situations that are better handled without the possibility of escalation to deadly force. Anchorage should devote effort and funding toward mental health services to deal with situations in which Alaskans are in crisis and need support, not arrest.

Accountability

Another key to avoiding use-of-force incidents is strong oversight and accountability of the department. Inexplicably, APD continues to drag its feet on the purchase and implementation of body-worn cameras, a key tool in establishing some form of more objective record of contacts between police and the people they serve. The department should quit slow-walking plans for the cameras and enter the 21st century, as many similar departments have.

Accountability also means being open with the community and giving the public the information it needs to be sure that officers are doing their jobs well. This doesn’t mean bureaucrats outside the department should have to sign off on every arrest, tactic or policy. But it does mean the department should be forthcoming with information about its policies and the reasoning for them, as well as report to the public when officers fall short of expectations. The Assembly’s recently passed ordinance is a good step down this path, with the department giving regular updates on policy changes and providing an opportunity to weigh in.

There is no silver bullet when it comes to crafting a better, more accountable police force — if it were a simple problem to solve, we would have done it by now. But small measures such as the Assembly’s latest are concrete steps in the right direction, providing more accountability without tying officers' hands as they go about their police work. It’s the kind of work that’s essential to building and maintaining trust between law enforcement officers and the community they serve.