solved Answer Primary post question 250 words each. Respond to 3

Answer Primary post question 250 words each. Respond to 3 Classmate 250 words each.Primaary Post: Also remember these comprise what is referred to as the “primary post”, i.e., these should be posted in a single post with one response on top of the other. Each should be numbered to clearly show where the response to #1 ends and the response to #2 starts.What are some of the common organizational barriers to the communications process? Who is responsible for removing these barriers? Why so?Defend whether or not citizen oversight committees have had a positive impact on law enforcement, to include police accountability. As part of your response briefly include common pitfalls related to citizen led oversight committees of law enforcement and your solutions for avoiding those pitfalls.Classmate 1 Max: What are some of the common organizational barriers to the communications process? Who is responsible for removing these barriers? Why so? The communications process seems particularly susceptible to obstruction; while the nature of these barriers are varied, organizational ones can be significant and difficult to overcome. ThrouDefend whether or not citizen oversight committees have had a positive impact on law enforcement, to include police accountability. As part of your response briefly include common pitfalls related to citizen led oversight committees of law enforcement and your solutions for avoiding those pitfalls.Due to current events and social sentiments, Citizen Oversight Committees have gained a significant amount of awareness with the public, but in truth they’ve been a tool for government accountability for almost 100 years. Though stood up sporadically over the years, they quicklu gained traction in the world of police accountability. For example, in 1980 there were 13 oversight agencies established and by 2000 there were more than 100 situated in almost every large city in the United States (Walker, 2001). That being said, not all oversight systems operate the same. Generally speaking, there are four main types: citizens investigating allegations of police misconduct and then recommending a finding to the head of the agency; officers investigate allegations, develop findings, and then the citizens review and recommend that the head of the agency approve or reject the findings; complainants appeal findings already reached by the agency and citizens review the appeals and make recommendations to the head of the agency; and an auditor investigates the process an agency uses and completes a report that is presented to the agency and community. Any of these formats may be followed, or even a combination of several, depending on the setup of each committee (Finn, 2000). That all being said, do they work? It seems an unfortunate reality that any oversight committee will be viewed as a contentious and threatening prospect to police officers because with these committees come the potential of harsher punishments and anti-police members. While the current social climate certainly lends credence to those beliefs it’s important to remember that many law enforcement administrators have observed several positive outcomes from having oversight committees implemented in their agency. For example, they’ve found that it improves buy-in from the community and the agency’s image; the quality of a department’s internal affairs investigations; and even the amending of policies and procedures. The recurring theme seemed to be that citizen reviews bring a fresh point of view and questions that actually improve long-held practices that aren’t best suited for today. In fact, in some cases the suggestions of these committees have made punishment less harsh and changed policy to reflect a more flexible and reasonable path (Finn, 2000). This seems intuitive as well, as I’ve seen firsthand how things are often done merely because “that’s how it’s always been done.” So there’s a real benefit to be had in facilitating change that would otherwise not be done because of its inherent discomfort. Furthermore, while it can be difficult and messy to correct a single officer’s misconduct, by integrating citizen feedback into policies and training, the culture of a department can be molded to create a widespread change commensurate with the times.Ultimately, I think citizen oversight is an essential component of a healthy and functioning government. How they’re implemented is just as crucial to their success, however, and it’s important to address certain concerns. Referencing the previously mentioned types of oversight committees, I think it’s most important to have the fourth type that reviews the entire process in and of itself so that it can report to the community that the process is fair and appropriate. I think this takes priority because it ensures that the agency investigates the cases properly while also removing citizens without any police experience from assessing actions and assigning punishment. Beyond that, having well-educated and common sense members on a committee can have positive effects on a department as they provide a different point of view and problem solving skillset. Key to this is the administration taking the bull by the horns, though. Rather than having an oversight committee thrust upon them despite their protestations, they need to accept and welcome the committee and take an active role in selection and then communication with the new committee. The antagonistic nature of these setups has been mentioned, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be overcome and positive benefits can’t be reaped from this new relationship. References: Finn, P. (2000). Getting along with citizen oversight. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69(8), 22-27. Retrieved from https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/trade-journals/getting-along-with-citizen-oversight/docview/204136079/se-2?accountid=8289Walker, S. (2001). The History of the Citizen Oversight. In Police accountability: The role of citizen oversight (pp. 1–10). essay, Wadsworth.Classmate 2 Robert: What are some of the common organizational barriers to the communications process? Who is responsible for removing these barriers? Why so?The leader should set the tone for the team by establishing some basic guidelines for effective communication. Consistent communication with the team is important and determining the best way to communicate the ideas with the team and that modes of communication may change for different ideas based on the complexity of the information and the team’s familiarity with the subject (Hill, 2013). To alleviate the ambiguity caused by new or complex ideas, the leader can introduce background information about the topic beforehand (Volkema and Niederman, 1996). In addition, the leader can provide the clear goals for the team and give the team expectations of what they are expected to do with the information provided (Hill, 2013). As the team processes the information, they may require more time to fully understand the information. The leader can take this time to seek feedback on the information and provide any additional clarification to the team (Hill, 2013). Remembering that people process information differently is important and the leader needs to have patience with those team members who ask questions or seem resistant to the idea. The team member may not be resisting the idea or information but be struggling with not having the necessary details to complete the task. Often providing the “why” will alleviate those barriers and focus the team members. One way to remove barriers in the communication process is to improve the meeting process by publishing an agenda before the meeting and distribute any supporting documents prior to the meeting for team members to review. This includes any presentations for the meeting, especially more complicated or large presentations. Providing this information prior to the meeting offers team members that chance to read the information and prepare questions, conflicting or supporting information to bring up during the meeting (Volkema and Niederman, 1996). The leader could reinforce a process that focuses meetings on the predetermined topics that should remain the focus of the meeting. Other issues that come up during the meeting should be by exception or emergent issues that require immediate attention. The leader should determine if the unscheduled topic should be discussed in the current meeting or tabled until later to ensure the appropriate people are in attendance and release those team members who would not benefit from sitting through the discussion. By minimizing sidebar or other non-scheduled items of discussion, the leader is reinforcing the idea that the team’s time is a valuable resource. (Hill, 2013). Within the meeting, the leader should ensure all attendees know their roles especially supporting team members versus supported team members. Those assigned supporting roles need to understand their function is to support operational section leaders who are leading the main effort of the organization. In other words, is the supporting staff providing the required resources to the organization’s main effort? If not, the leader should interject where appropriate to provide guidance and resources to the effort.Summarize the meeting by having a scribe or leader restate the topics discussed, who is assigned those tasks, what the expectations are for that assignment and the deadline for delivery. This is more effective when done as a summary before adjourning the meeting, so all team members hear who is assigned which task. Then afterwards, the leader should ensure a written summary is sent to all team members in attendance for their review. For the next meeting, this summary can be used as an agenda item for the next team meeting to update the team on outstanding issues (Volkema and Niederman, 1996).Using relationship power over positional power is an effective way to build trust within the team. Since positional power is granted by virtue of the leader’s position in an organization, tasking team members parallel the chain of command. In that case, the leader-team member relationship requires little effort on behalf of the leader. The leader, by virtue of position, directs the team to perform a task. However, by using relationship power the leader asks team members to do an assignment and thanks them for their efforts. By investing time in the team member and showing respect, the leader is building trust within the team (Blanchard, Fowler and Hawkins, 2005). Blanchard, K., Fowler, S & Hawkins, L (2005) ) Self leadership and the one-minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational self-leadership. New York, NY. HarperCollins PublisherHill, L, (2013) Overcoming the ten most common barriers to effective team communication. Retrieved from https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/ 1458618907?pq-origsite=primo&accountid=8289Volkema, R & Niederman F. (1996) Planning and managing organizational meetings: an empirical analysis of written and oral communications. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.apus.edu/ login?url=http://search. ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=790924&site=ehost-live&scope=siteDefend whether or not citizen oversight committees have had a positive impact on law enforcement, to include police accountability. As part of your response briefly include common pitfalls related to citizen led oversight committees of law enforcement and your solutions for avoiding those pitfalls.In general police oversight committees have had and a positive impact on law enforcement, at least from the standpoint of opening the law enforcement discipline process to public scrutiny by removing the secretive internal affairs process (Wilson and Buckler, 2010). Holding public hearings on law enforcement discipline issues helps restore public trust by opening up that process. Proponents seeking civilian oversight of police departments cite that knowing a civilian committee will review complaints against the police may serve a deterrent to police misconduct and is considered a positive move by minorities (Ochs, 2009). However, some common pitfalls to citizen oversight committees are lack of familiarity of law enforcement procedures, policies, and the application of case law, especially as it applies to use of force, consistency in recommending discipline against officers, enforcement of that discipline, acceptance of law enforcement administrators to accept the recommendations of those boards and ensuring board members are adequately prepared to assume that role (Ochs, 2009). A way to orient committee members to police work is holding citizen police academies that afford committee members the opportunity to get a glimpse of police training. Training simulators that introduce “shoot/no shoot” scenarios present the timelines that officers face in the field when having to make split-second decisions on use of force (Finn, 2000). However, those training simulators themselves are not providing adequate preparation to investigate use of force incidents. Typically, a “use of force” expert will review these incidents from several perspectives: firearms, defensive tactics, less lethal weapons, training and policy and officer-subject factors and understand how all of these aspects coalesce with respect to each incident. Obtaining all of those certifications takes years to obtain and would not be practical for committee members to obtain. A way to provide subject matter expert advice to the board is by appointing an independent monitor to review the use of force cases and provide the committee recommendations or answer questions about the case (Worden, Bonner and McLean, 2018). As a result of highly publicized use of force cases, vocal members of the community and the media may influence the objectivity of civilian board members (Wilson and Buckler, 2010). The politics of the incident may sway committee members towards more punitive measures despite the officer not violating policy, state and federal law and the civil rights of the victim or suspect. An officer under investigation is permitted due process and is restricted to whom he can tell about the incident while under investigation. Once the decision is made to pursue criminal charges, the officer may be subject to a grand jury hearing and then the internal affairs investigation. Information about investigation that is made public prior to the trial can taint the objectivity of potential jurors.I think overall, a citizen oversight committee has had a positive effect on the law enforcement profession and participation shows a willingness of law enforcement administrators to collaborate with the community to rebuild trust. The real challenge is to determine the best working relationship between the committee and law enforcement leader. Additionally, that leader should focus on restoring or maintaining the integrity of the department and openly communicate with the committee and the community (Wilson and Buckler, 2010). Ochs, H (2009) Public participation in policing: The impact of citizen oversight on the incidence of lethal force over time in the largest U.S. cities. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.apus.edu/ login?url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3818/JRP.11.2009.105Wilson, S. & Buckler, K. (2010) The Debate over Police Reform: Examining Minority Support for Citizen Oversight and Resistance by Police Unions. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true…Worden, R., Bonner, H., & McLean, S., (2018) Procedural justice and citizen review of complaints against the police: structure, outcomes, and complainants’ subjective experiences. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1177%2F109861…Classmate 3 Stephanie: Class,Some of the common organizational barriers to the communication process are misunderstanding, misinterpretation, misinformation, lack of communication altogether, etc. (Ochs, 2009) The person responsible for removing these barriers is everyone involved in the communication chain and most importantly, the leaders. (Ochs, 2009) This is because no one person can be responsible for end-to-end communication accuracy and the key to building relationships is keeping the communication flowing in all directions. Leaders can show this behavior from the top down and the team will see the communication efforts given from all members. This also promotes trust and brainstorming giving that team more leverage and a better chance at success than a team which does not communicate. (Ochs, 2009)Citizen oversight committees have had an interesting impact on law enforcement, to include police accountability. (Worden, et al, 2018) This has changed in a positive way by holding officers more publicly accountable and ensuring there is no abuse of authority. This has also impacted in a negative way as police are now scrutinized for their every move, even when the tough decisions they make are the right ones. Common pitfalls related to citizen-led oversight committees of law enforcement are lack of understanding of the police mentality, policies, laws, interpretation of the laws, etc. (Worden, et al, 2018) My solutions for avoiding these pitfalls related to citizen-led oversight committees of law enforcement are to have more interaction within these organizations and the police officers they have oversight of. (Worden, et al, 2018) This would also be an opportunity for the public to learn more and understand the lives of officers and the stresses they are faced with every day. (Worden, et al, 2018)Reference:Ochs, H (2009) Public participation in policing: The impact of citizen oversight on the incidence of lethal force over time in the largest U.S. cities. http://ezproxy.apus.edu/ login?url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3818/JRP.11.2009.105Worden, R., Bonner, H., & McLean, S., (2018) Procedural justice and citizen review of complaints against the police: structure, outcomes, and complainants’ subjective experiences. https://doi-org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1177%2F109861…