More on Mesa Police and Accreditation

Thoughts on Mesa has issued a follow up post to his story about Mesa Police losing their accreditation. He makes two good points that I agree with:

1. The Police Department, just like any other government entity, should desire to gain the trust of the public and work in an open and honest manner.

2. Citizens are able to vote for County Sheriff, whereas they are not allowed to vote for City employees making the accountability to the citizens less direct.

To be clear, I don't think the story hit a sore spot with me, I just thought it created more questions than answers. His report gives me the impression that the directives of the Mesa Police are now done through word of mouth and policies are not standardized. If that is, in fact, the case, there would be a major problem that must be addressed.

My question, however, is if there is some level in between that the police are achieving? I would assume if I applied for the academy and ended up as a Mesa Police trainee, I would receive some sort of formal training and a policy pamphlet of some sort. Otherwise, how would they get me to sign one of those, "I have read and I understand" statements that seems to be all the rage these days? If its something I need to sign for a library book, I am assuming it would be something that I would have to sign before wielding a gun at people in the name of Mesa.

Secondly, not too long ago, Mesa clarified their immigration policy. Am I to believe that it wasn't written down anywhere? Perhaps I am having some sort of disconnect on exactly what he is talking about. On one hand, I see procedures in place, and on the other hand, he is talking about investigation squads targeting whomever they like. Is that really an accredidation issue or is that something that should be looked into by the independent auditor. I am just having trouble seeing how the two are connected.