Jesse Mermell’s Political Expediency.
By Jim Conley • Dec 12th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
I suppose that there is more than one story line coming out of last night’s decision by three Brookline Selectmen - Nancy Daly, Jesse Mermell and Robert “The Mensch” Allen - not to hear more evidence on alleged police mis-conduct from May’s Brawl at Town Hall.
There’s the all-in-the-family angle with the sergeant nephew being a cause of concern for Selectman Gil Hoy. But hey, the town lawyer handling the case - Joslin Murphy - is wife to a Brookline police officer. In a well run community, a review board would see this as a problem and Murphy would have been benched. This is Brookline, though.
The dust-up between Selectmen Robert Allen and Gil Hoy will generate a fair amount of chatter. Allen’s motive was pretty clear when he accused Hoy of having ulterior motives in pressing for a hearing. Allen’s personal attack was his principal contribution to the proceedings (save a few idiotic points which were slapped down by Hoy).
With Betsy DeWitt having recused herself for some unknown reason (When will people in town government get the idea that you need to disclose the nature of the conflict at the time of the recusal?), Hoy needed one additional board member to join him in bringing a disciplinary hearing forward. That wasn’t going to happen and the show was pure political performance art.
Except that it wasn’t artful. It was trompe o’leil meets abstraction and it was a mess. Mostly because it frames for us the other lamentable event from May - the election of Jesse Mermell to the Brookline Board
of Selectmen.
To call Mermell a political opportunist is an insult to the people who can balance their design on elected office with the public interest. To call her vacuous assumes that there is an energy force of some type at work between the ear drums. To call her shallow would indicate that there is a depth that can be measured.
When the political establishment deemed the May election to be “Jesse’s turn”, they cited her creativity as a qualifying factor. I’ve never seen it. And until last night, I could laugh off her smarmy soliloquies centered around the obvious.
But in the course of three minutes last night, Mermell laid bare her political ethos. And it happened so fast that I couldn’t look away once the horror set in. But it did, and it hasn’t escaped me yet.
The Cliff Notes version is that Mermell wasn’t about to cast a “politically expedient vote on the back of an individual.” Though many told her she ought to vote for a disciplinary hearing, she was going to stand firm and not allow one to go forward. Besides, she’s really anxious to participate in Nancy Daly’s “White People’s Symposium on Race Relations” at some undisclosed time. And she just couldn’t see how the facts warranted an appeal of the matter…because she read the report twice and then once again that afternoon (oh, you mean three times?).
Folks, when someone tells you they aren’t about to cast a politically expedient vote, they are about to cast a politically expedient vote. (This is the problem with the Brookline Selectmen serving as the police review board - the process becomes politicized.) Mermell tried to turn her vulnerability into political courage, but it was so maladroit and transparent that it had the effect of casting her motive as nothing but self-serving.
See, no one was asking Jesse Mermell to be the fact finder. The issue last night was whether a hearing into the matter - to evaluate the allegations - should proceed. How could a reasonable person listen to the bumbling presentation by Police Chief Daniel O’Leary and not come away with questions on the department’s objectivity? How could anyone with a few neurons in play not agree with Hoy that there is more to look into than the behavior of one officer?
When your view is informed only by platitude (e.g., “I want to thank everyone involved for helping to raise this issue in the community”), you’re likely to become incapacitated by reason. And that’s the case with Mermell. She’s a dream come true to the town administrators who need an $8 million bailout for their mismanagement and overspending. And a useful tool to her campaign chair, Bobby Allen.
But the price the rest of us pay is a politicized police force, an inept town administration and Enron-style board oversight of a $200 million enterprise (town government).
All brought about with great expedience.
An aside: If this site has proven anything it’s that when Nancy Daly speaks, the collective IQ drops. But last night’s reference to the abortion clinic shootings of years back and the police response to the Brawl at Town Hall flat-lined it.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Was it coincidental that the December 2007 issue of “OUR TOWN BROOKLINE” the monthly magazine was in the mail yesterday with (drum roll) Chiel O’Leary, full face, on the cover as its feature on “The Challenges Facing Brookline” so that those residents on the mailing list (just about everyone in Town?) would have it on the same day as the Board’s consideration of Conquest’s appeal? There was no mention in the interview of the Chief of the Town Hall Brawl. So perhaps this was not a challenge that Brookline faced; and Daly, Allen and Mermell agreed. Perhaps the fact that Chief O’Leary is a “home-boy” and Conquest isn’t was a factor. In the interview, the Chief makes reference to a national award for Brookline’s policy against racial profiling, which is commendable. But Conquest had made it clear in his Citizen Complaint that his complaint was NOT based on racial profiling.
Residents of Brookline must speak up now and protest. If we don’t, then maybe next time it will be one of us they will come for. (Is this warning familiar to anyone in Brookline?)
COINCIDENCE OR PUBLIC RELATIONS?
A careful review of the interview of Chief O’Leary (see comment 1 above) fails to disclose the date conducted. It is possible, but doubtful, that it took place as far back as prior to the May 24, 2007 Town Hall Brawl. From the context of the interview, it would appear that the interview took place before October of this year since the Chief states: “I’m going to New Orleans in mid-October to collect the [national] award for the department.” If the interview took place after May 24th, the Chief would have been aware of the Town Hall Brawl, and if after June 7th , Conquest’s Citizen Complaint as well. If so, apparently Conquest was a mere blip on the Chief’s radar screen, assuming it was turned on. So, was the timing of publishing the cover and the interview a PR accommodation? One might think that the December cover would normally focus on the holiday season in Brookline to attract readers to local advertising that pays the bills for this monthly magazine.
Speaking of ulterior motives asserted by Bobby Allen of Gil Hoy, isn’t that like the pot calling the kettle black? I can’t believe that Betsy DeWill had reasons for recusing herself greater than Allen whose brother and law firm of Counsel member is a Lieutenant on the BPD. Tell us, Betsy, why you recused yourself. Or was this (excuse the pun) a cop-out?
I wonder if among the many who told Jesse Mermell she ought to vote for a disciplinary hearing there were PAX members, including her mentor(s) at PAX. Did some PAX members tell her she should vote against a disciplinary hearing? The silence of PAX is deafening at its home base in North Brookline. Have the “usual suspects” taken a vow of silence on this issue? How can a civil rights group such as PAX expect funding with its silence? Some leaders of PAX do not seem to care about the “Stinkin’ Facts.” Others are Mugwamps. (You know who you are.)
The “Dust-Up” between Bobby Allen and Gil Hoy may be attributable to legal beagles in competition with each other, a legal cat-fight. That’s the problem with Representative Town Meeting governance with part-time Selectmen, especially for those whose day jobs are in their local law offices. Yes, attorneys do compete for clients, some even by advertising. Some clients may perceive that they may obtain an edge in Brookline by retaining an attorney-Selectman. But what happens when there is more than one attorney-Selectman on the Board? I don’t know if Chair Daly is in the competition as yet; she may be focused more on next May. But only a couple of years ago all five Selectmen were attorneys. Now we’re down to three. I expect it will be down to one after next May, leaving Bobby Allen as the King of the Legal Beagles of Brookline. All Hail!