How Should Lancaster Choose Its Next Police Chief?

By the end of this year, Lancaster City will be hiring its fourth police chief in less than five years. Four leaders, four approaches, four promises — and still, the same unease.

Chief Richard Mendez is retiring in December. The city has said it will appoint an interim chief to serve in the meantime, which means the next permanent police chief will likely be chosen by Lancaster’s next mayor after the new administration is sworn in.

That kind of turnover raises a simple but serious question:

How are we choosing our police chiefs — and is that process working for the people of Lancaster?

The mayor holds the power to appoint the next chief. But what matters most is how that decision is made.

Does the mayor use best practices, rooted in data and transparency?

Does the process include broad community input?

Does it begin with a clear public safety vision that residents can evaluate and respond to?

Or are we repeating the same insular process that’s already produced four chiefs in five years — each one taking the reins in a department that continues to struggle with trust, accountability, and consistency?

This isn’t about any one mayor or any single chief. It’s about a pattern — a system that keeps resetting without ever truly changing.

Let’s be honest about the stakes.

The police department makes up over half of Lancaster’s annual city budget.

The police chief earns more than the mayor.

And unlike any other city office, this one commands force, oversees armed personnel, and makes decisions that can alter lives in a single moment — from citations to imprisonment to deadly force.

This is not just another department head.

It’s a position with profound power and responsibility.

So when Lancaster chooses its next chief, the community deserves more than a press release. We deserve a process. A public one. A thoughtful one. One that reflects the values of a city in the 21st century — where public safety is about partnership, trust, and fairness, not just enforcement.

Lancaster can’t afford to get this wrong again.

We need leadership that reflects who we are — and how far we’ve come.

Let’s start by rethinking how we make this decision.

There are models across the country that show what a community-centered approach can look like — grounded in trust, transparency, and accountability.

It’s time for Lancaster to take a serious look at what public safety should mean in the 21st century.