Termination as Moral Responsibility, Not Administrative Task
One of the most difficult decisions I made as a chief of police was not tactical. It was not political. It was personnel.
Termination is often treated as an administrative process. Policies are reviewed. Documentation is assembled. Legal counsel is consulted. The decision is framed in terms of liability exposure and compliance with civil service rules. All of that matters. It protects the municipality. It protects due process.
But termination is first and foremost a moral decision.
Every termination carries consequences beyond the individual being dismissed. It affects families. It sends a message to the department. It shapes how city leadership is perceived by the community. When handled poorly, it erodes trust. When avoided unnecessarily, it corrodes culture.
Early in my tenure, I learned that avoiding termination when it is warranted does not demonstrate compassion. It demonstrates hesitation. And hesitation in leadership often shifts the burden of dysfunction onto others—onto supervisors who must manage around the problem, onto officers who carry the workload, and onto a municipality that assumes growing liability.
The hardest cases are not the clear violations. Gross misconduct, criminal behavior, and egregious policy breaches demand decisive action. The more difficult decisions involve patterns—declining performance, repeated lapses in judgment, resistance to supervision, or a steady erosion of standards.
Those cases tempt leaders toward incremental discipline without resolution. We hope improvement will come. We convince ourselves that more training, another warning, or reassignment will correct the issue. Sometimes it does. Often, it delays the inevitable.
Termination should never be impulsive. It requires documentation, fairness, and adherence to policy. But once the facts are clear and the pattern is established, prolonging the process becomes its own failure of leadership.
Municipal leaders should understand that chiefs do not take these decisions lightly. A termination reflects not only on the employee, but on the leadership that hired, trained, supervised, and retained that individual. It is, in part, an admission that something has not worked.
Yet there is a greater responsibility at stake.
Public safety agencies operate on trust—trust within the ranks and trust with the community. When an officer’s conduct consistently undermines that trust, retaining the individual out of discomfort or political caution does not preserve stability. It signals that standards are negotiable.
For city managers and council members, support during a termination decision is critical. Chiefs must ensure the process is defensible. Municipal leadership must ensure that the organization’s standards remain intact. When both roles are honored, termination becomes not a reaction, but a reaffirmation of values.
No chief seeks to end someone’s career. But there are moments when failing to act does more damage than acting decisively.
Termination is not merely paperwork. It is a statement about what the organization will protect, what it will tolerate, and what it will become.
Leadership is measured not only by who we promote, but by what we are unwilling to permit.
Bibliography
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Police Officer Discipline and Termination: Legal Considerations and Best Practices. Available at: https://www.theiacp.org
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). ICMA Code of Ethics and Guidelines. Available at: https://icma.org/code-ethics
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy. Available at: https://cops.usdoj.gov
Lexipol. Disciplinary Procedures and Risk Management for Law Enforcement Agencies. Available at: https://www.lexipol.com
Walker, S., & Archbold, C. A. The New World of Police Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
