Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief outlines plan to add deputy chief role; council asks for measurable outcomes and cost clarity
Summary
Chief Stevens proposed a departmental restructure to strengthen leadership and oversight — including adding a deputy‑chief role and reallocating staff — and said the change will require an ordinance amendment; council members sought measurable outcomes and discussed estimated incremental costs (base pay increase, pension implications).
Chief Stevens presented a proposal to the Committee of the Whole on Jan. 12 to reorganize the Washington Police Department’s administrative structure to better manage modernization, procedural justice, supervisory development and evidence systems. The plan would reallocate existing FTEs and add a deputy‑chief rank; the change would require amending the city code.
Stevens said the base salary change to create a deputy‑chief from a patrol rank would be about $32,000 annually (the figure was presented as a base‑salary differential and assumes a 3% raise), and he cited an example incremental pension liability of roughly $10,400 drawn from a May 2025 pension fund report (he said about half of that reflects accrued unfunded actuarial liability). Stevens told council the city would therefore see a combined annual cost in the range of what council members described as about $40,000 when salary and related pension effects were considered.
On performance measures, Stevens said the office would implement written performance plans for 100% of sworn and civilian members, track completion of state and federal required policies and mandated training, and make evidence systems audit‑ready; he said he would return with measurable outcomes in 6–12 months. Several alderpersons voiced support for the structural change while asking for clarity on how results would be measured and whether the ordinance could be written to make positions permissive rather than mandatory so the city could adjust staffing if needs changed.
Why it matters: The proposal carries personnel and budget implications and would require a code change. Council members were generally supportive but asked the chief to provide concrete performance metrics and cost breakdowns before a final ordinance.
Next steps: The proposal would require an ordinance amendment and return to council for formal consideration. Stevens said the ordinance could be written to allow the city flexibility in filling deputy‑chief positions rather than mandating a permanent fill.
