Time for an Independent Police Panel (2).
By Jim Conley • Nov 8th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
If we didn’t need to worry about the politicization of the Brookline Police Department, we do now.
The Brookline Police Executive Board has an op-ed in today’s TAB responding to last week’s column by Arthur Conquest concerning the Brawl at Town Hall. With this, there’s now ample reason for an independent investigation into the affairs of that department.
The police officers call Conquest’s allegations “baseless and outrageous.” Maybe. Maybe not. But you can’t read today’s screed from the officers and come away convinced that quality policing is job-one on that squad.
Say they:
The officers of the Brookline Police Association are outraged and angered by these accusations.
Any call for an unknown disturbance puts officers on alert. A disturbance at the Town Hall, an open public building, elicits an even greater response in this day and age. In this case, due to the unknown nature of the disturbance, more officers took it upon themselves to respond, all thinking that the cause of this disturbance could be a person who made threats at the Town Hall in the past and had acted violently toward police.
Fellas, you may want to take a closer look at the cause for outrage. Based on the 911 calls made to the dispatcher, it was clear who was involved in the so-called altercation - Arthur Conquest and a ZBA member. The nature of the “disturbance” was known to the dispatcher but not the officers responding? In this day and age? Wow.
It’s some kind of union board that is indignant over reports on the response as excessive and not the fact that officers, according to their account, knew not what they were walking into, though they could have easily been informed.
And then there’s this gem:
We can only assume that [Conquest] is the one who has racist attitudes. Sometimes a confrontational, arrogant person is only a confrontational, arrogant person, and nothing else. Race plays no part in it.
Was it because Arthur Conquest was “confrontational and arrogant” that Brookline Police pursued an assault charge against him? Or was it because there was a basis in the evidence? In the internal investigation report, several non-town-affiliated witnesses all pretty much say the same thing - Conquest was singled out and treated poorly. Some even report that they feared for Conquest’s safety.
But the statements from those on the Brookline payroll are all over the place. Looks to me like the charge was aggravated arrogance masked as assault. And the fact that the supervising officer on the charge is nephew to the complaining witness is just a happy coincidence.
Seems to me the only crime committed was when that same said complaining witness, a sworn official of town government, made a false report to police.
It’s time for an independent police panel to look into the politicization of the Brookline Police Department. The Chief is running clandestine investigations into public officials. A police lieutenant - Richard Allen - serves both as an investigator on the force and “of counsel” to the law firm of his brother (Selectman Robert “The Mensch” Allen), a law firm that advertises a specialty in criminal defense work. And now this circling of the wagons.
What’s next?
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
In the days before homogenized milk, cream rose to the top. In carefully sorting through the 30 pages of Lt. Burke’s internal affairs report, court prosecutor Lt. Harrington seems to be the cream with his Solomonic wisdom in quickly diffusing the situation before it got too far out of hand. Perhaps he should be next in line for Chief.
By the way, it should be noted that in the report Town Counsel’s call to the police was described as a “911″ call whereas in her interview for the report she stated she called the main “2222″ police line, which is a non-emergency line. And the transcript of her call has her mentioning Conquest specifically by name. She requested, with this non-emergency line call, that “a” police officer [singular] be sent over. Likewise Polly Selkoe with her call used the singular request for “a” police officer. (I wonder if Polly and Town Counsel were surprised as to the response to their calls?) If this had gone before the court, can you imagine what would have been brought out based upon what appears in Lt. Burke’s report? And what about the fact that the verbal “no trespass” order was dropped on May 29th without providing any reason? (Lt. Harrington’s wisdom again?)
Lt. Burke’s report does not include interviews of any of the members of the Brookline Police Executive Board responding to Conquest’s commentary. Presumably they did not witness the events that took place at Town Hall on the evening of May 24th that Conquest had complained of. Did these Board members, or any of them, read in its entirety Lt. Burke’s 30 page report? If so, do they discount the interviews of the non-Town related witnesses that were interviewed? If they had read and understood the report, they would have known that in filing his Citizen Complaint Conquest was not claiming that he had been racially profiled. So why do the Board members in their response focus upon racial profiling? Do they understand that there can be racial bias without racial profiling? If not, then perhaps the Chief should address this.
Have any of the Brookline Police Executive Board members responding to Conquest’s commentary walked in similar minority shoes as has Arthur Conquest in the Town of Brookline or in any neighboring community? If so, details would be appreciated.
Did the Chief review and/or approve the Board’s commentary in advance of its publication? Did he encourage it? Does the Chief, after publication, approve its contents?
Imagine Brookline governance in the city format with a mayor and a council. Imagine how a mayor might promptly address civil rights issues regarding the police department. Compare this to the current five part-time Selectmen with their busy day jobs, meeting once a week under kleig lights for a few hours (MAKE UP! MAKE UP!) and the political interplay that can and does take place regarding promotions within the department. A mayor just might have been in a better position to avoid the Town Hall Brawl incident from getting out of hand with prompt action as compared to the inability of five Selectmen to get together to promptly address the matter.. Fortunately, Brookline did have the benefit of the Solomonic wisdom of court prosecutor Lt. Harrington. Hail to the Chief! I mean the Lieutenant.
Brookline’s five Selectmen also serve as the Town’s Police Commissioners - and they have badges to prove it by displaying when necessary and/or appropriate, or not. I wonder if the Chief occasionally gets calls from one or more of these Police Commissioners. If so, I wonder if public records are maintained of such calls. Also at times might such calls concern conflicting views of calling Police Commissioners that the Chief has to weigh and consider the political implications of (e.g., views of the majority)? With a city form of governance, such calls might be from the mayor, the top honcho, and not five Selectmen serving dual roles as Police Commissioners. Might a change to city governance reduce the political pressure on the Chief?
A better understanding of Lt. Burke’s internal affairs review and report on Conquest’s Citizen Complaint would require release of notes, recordings, transcriptions, written witness statements, drafts of the report, including to whom circulated and their responses, and the like, together with a chronology of the events and steps taken in the course of the review beginning with the June 7th filing of the Complaint to October 10, 2007, the date of the report.
The Chief, with the support of Town Counsel’s office and other Town officials, may decline such release under the investigative exception to the public records laws. But would such declination serve justice or provide cover?