Only in a very limited capacity, I guess. IMO the important result of this legislation is that it helps align the incentives of the police department with that of the public they are supposed to serve. That means a department will be more likely to reform practices and policies which would cause frequent lawsuits instead of simply instituting policies to optimize for arrests or convictions. Asset forfeiture is another police policy which places the interests of the police at odds with that of the public. In many places the assets claimed by asset forfeiture can be used to directly fund the department's budget and there is no need to charge anyone of a crime to do so.

How does spending a greater amount of other people's money incentivize a police department or any other public body?

They already hypothesized one possibility in their comment:

> That means a department will be more likely to reform practices and policies which would cause frequent lawsuits instead of simply instituting policies to optimize for arrests or convictions.

One proposed tactic has been that either cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund.

This already happens.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712606977/how-the-insurance-i...

> cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund

The insurance idea is stupid. It will just end up being bought by the union, removing the individual incentive component, and added as a line item the next time pay negotiations come up.

But underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same. If they are deemed too risky, it doesn't matter if the union is backing their premiums or not -- if they don't have insurance, they can't work (or can't do fieldwork or something).

The union could adopt an "all or none" policy with the insurance company, and then if an individual officer is barred by the insurer, the union will be telling all officers (and management) "sorry, insurance won't cover us, can't come in to work until it is sorted."

> underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same

They don't need to, but that's not how insurance is sold. Unions collectively buy and negotiate benefits for their members. And a requirement from the union would be, no doubt, universal coverage and pricing.

Yes. Talk to your local representatives

Step #1 is get rid of cop unions. They look out for the worst of the worst, and prevent anything from improving.

getting rid of unions is also a problem, maybe limit the powers of public service unions.

They are allowed to work for pension increase, wages, vacation time, but not allowed to touch disciplinary situations?

Police unions are much worse than other public unions. If other public unions take illegal action, the police can arrest them. When the police union does something illegal, no one is going to do anything about it.

as a normal rule the illegal actions I associate with unions are stuff like leadership skimming from the pension funds which would probably get them arrested.

the negative actions I associate with police unions is stepping in to protect corrupt or violent cops from disciplinary actions / firing / arrest.

> When the police union does something illegal, no one is going to do anything about it.

Cant the Feds step in?

Unions in public service are allowed to create de-facto rules and policies that would otherwise get lawmakers voted out or initiatives voted down.

MUNI is a dysfunctional mess because the Union has the power to shut down a public service if their every demand isn't met.

Don't vote for mayor/governor candidates that glorify the police.

Choose ones who want to divert paramilitary funding to other social safety net services.

Become mayor or governor.