Time for an Independent Police Panel.
By Jim Conley • Nov 2nd, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Here’s the internal police investigation into the May 24th Brawl at Town Hall [read it here].
Word from Arthur Conquest is that he will appeal the findings of this report to the Brookline Selectmen. I guarantee readers this, the appeal hearing will be another mob rule affair akin to the January 2006 hearing when Selectman Michael Sher wanted to look into the internal workings of the Brookline DPW.
This report is an insult to the people of Brookline.
It apparently finds all witness testimony deriving from those not on the town payroll as irrelevant. And it’s tone is disgusting, with police officers making statements that citizens were “butting in” and the like. Worst of all, it lays bare that Zoning Board of Appeals member Lawrence Kaplan misled police on the evening of the 24th, and an assault charge on Arthur Conquest was sought based on those misrepresentations.
But according to the (internal affairs) investigating officer, Lt. Stephen J. Burke:
“Mr. Kaplan did come behind the podium area in his interaction with Mr. Conquest. However, it does not minimize the actions of Mr. Conquest. Additionally (sic) an argument between Ruthann Sneider, a Town meeting member (sic) and Mr. Kaplan does not justify Mr. Conquest’s behavior either. Also as pointed out by Ms. Dopazo (sic) the route was the only way out of the hearing room.”
An assault charge comes down to this? Conquest intervenes on behalf of a five foot grandmother who registers her disapproval with a decision reached by an official board (a decision they later reversed); and then Kaplan, who has a history of popping off, is in a state of fear (according to Burke in the preceding passage). So, Kaplan’s nephew and another officer bring an assault charge against Conquest because he was not “justified” in his behavior. As a matter of binary reasoning, Kaplan is apparently justified in his behavior, though.
Please God, take me now.
And someone call the fire marshal; because according to the Town’s top lawyer, there’s only one means of egress out of the sixth floor hearing room.
It’s another low watermark day for Brookline. And it seems to me that an independent panel - selected by the Massachusetts Attorney General - needs to be formed to investigate the politicization of the Brookline Police Department.
It’s that bad. And only through the involvement of an outside authority will there be any hope of professional and uncompromised leadership among the upper ranks of our police force.
Update: I’m thinking I need to set up a contingency fund, in case I have to make bail anytime soon. Please consider donating to On Brookline by using the form to the right.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
This 30 page report is a very interesting read. Perhaps the Fox Network might be able to use it to develop scripts for its “COPS” series.
The most sensible statement in the report concerns the interview of a civilian witness, a Mr. Franklin, an attorney, on pages 15 and 16, which ends as follows:
“Mr. Franklin told me [Lt. Burke] he is an attorney and although he has not practiced criminal law in quite a long time he recalled in incidents like the one between Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Conquest the following would occur. The police would interview both parties, file a report, and advise the parties they could seek action on their own in court if they wanted. Based on this knowledge, Mr. Franklin formed his opinion that the officers sided with Mr. Kaplan because of the ‘town affiliation’ as a member of the ZBA.”
I think most attorneys, especially those who do practice criminal law, would agree with this, as this was from the beginning a “he said/he said” matter that was NOT witnessed by the police and there were no visible injuries or blood on clothing or the floor. In addition, the decision of the police regarding a complaint against Conquest was made after the police investigation on the Sixth Floor of Kaplan’s version without the benefit of hearing Conquest’s side. Wonder why? Read the report.
Sometimes in reviewing a report, especially involving an internal review, it is appropriate to read between the lines. On page 9 of the report on Conquest’s Citizen’s Complaint, there appears a summary of the investigator’s (Lt. Burke) interview of Lt. Harrington. Keep in mind that the Town Hall Brawl occurred in the evening on May 24, 2007. Conquest filed his Citizen’s Complaint on June 7, 2007.
“Lieutenant Harrington:
“He reviewed the application for complaint and P.O. Ford’s incident report in his function as the court prosecutor. Mr. Conquest came to the court the morning after the incident along with Ms. Sneider and indicated to Lt. Harrington that he wanted to take out a cross complaint against Mr. Kaplan. Lt. Harrington informed Mr. Conquest that he did not think that was a good course of action and suggested things could be worked out between him and Mr. Kaplan without any criminal complaints being brought before the court. The following Tuesday (May 29), Lt. Harrington contacted Mr. Conquest and set up a meeting at the court for that Thursday (May 31) with Mr. Kaplan. During that conversation Lt. Harrington also made it clear to Mr. Conquest that the Town was not putting any restrictions on him concerning his attending ZBA hearings. The meeting was held between Mr. Conquest and Mr. Kaplan on May 31 at the courthouse. Mr. Conquest and Mr. Kaplan discussed the incident of May 24th, vented to one another and worked things out between themselves. Lt. Harrington was present but had minimal input as Mr. Conquest and Mr. Kaplan talked. No criminal complaints were brought before the court.”
Lt. Harrington was not one of the officers who arrived at Town Hall on May 24th in response to the two 911 calls. As noted in the quoted portion above, he functioned as the court prosecutor. I assume that following Mr. Conquest’s appearance before him on May 25th, Lt. Harrington may have spoken with some of the officers who responded to the 911 calls before calling Mr. Conquest on May 29th, some four days later, for the May 31st meeting with Mr. Kaplan at the court. I don’t know if Lt. Harrington is an attorney but he surely is well versed in the criminal law process in his role as court prosecutor. Perhaps Lt. Harrington recognized the incident as a classic “he said/he said” and with his quiet Solomonic skills the matter was resolved without the need for either or both Mr. Conquest and Mr. Kaplan going before the court. Kudos to Lt. Harrington. If such skills had been present at Town Hall on the evening of May 24th, there would have been no need for Lt. Harrington’s involvement. And the end result was along the lines of Mr. Franklin’s legal experience as noted in the prior comment.
P.O. Ford filed his Incident Report on the Town Hall Brawl of May 24th prior to Conquest’s Citizen’s Complaint on June 7, 2007. In the report on Conquest’s Citizen’s Complaint, the investigating officer, Lt. Burke, does not address any discrepancies in statements made by the witnesses he interviewed from the contents of the Incident Report.
Example 1. The Incident Report makes no reference whatsoever to Sgt. Campbell’s revelation to P.O. Ford on the elevator ride from the sixth floor to the lobby that Larry Kaplan was his uncle. The interviews of P.O. Ford (p.p. 2-4) and Sgt. Campbell (p.p. 5 & 6)do make mention of this revelation and Lt. Burke goes on in his report to strongly focus upon this revelation and its timing. If the relationship was considered to be so significant, why wasn’t it disclosed in the Incident Report that was prepared much closer in time to the Town Hall Brawl than the interviews Lt. Burke conducted after June 7th? Had there been any public disclosure of this relationship before Lt. Burke began his investigation? Did Lt. Harrington know of this relationship prior to the May 31st meeting he arranged with Conquest and Kaplan at the court (as a result of which no complaints were brought before the court)? If he did, was it disclosed to Conquest?
Example 2. In the Incident Report it is stated that it was Town Counsel who “informed Sgt. Campbell that she did not want Mr. Conquest to be allowed to attend any further zoning meetings where Mr. Kaplan would be present. Sgt. Campbell informed her that he would advise Mr. Conquest of this verbally, and Dopazo [Town Counsel] stated she would follow up with something in writing thereafter.” Later, in the lobby with Conquest “Sgt. Campbell then advised Mr. Conquest that he was no longer allowed to attend zoning board meetings, and that Town Counsel will be forwarding a No Trespass notice to him.” Lt. Burke’s interviews of Sgt. Campbell (pp 5& 6) and Town Counsel (p.p. 21 & 22)appear to be somewhat different.
Example 3. In the Incident Report, “Mr. Kaplan stated that he was running the zoning board meeting and that they were discussing a property on Somerset Rd. The Board came to a split decision. This split decision upset one woman and she stood up and stated that was a lousy decision. Mr. Kaplan stated that this woman made this statement while the meeting was going on …. This disrupted the meeting and Mr. Kaplan stated to the woman that was enough.” Based upon Lt. Burke’s interviews, it does not appear that Kaplan was “running the zoning board meeting” and there was no “split decision.” The decision was unanimous. It was clear that the zoning board hearing was over and thus not disrupted when the Town Hall Brawl occurred.
Example 4. The Incident Report made no reference whatsoever as to Kaplan’s wishes regarding a complaint against Conquest. But in Lt. Burke’s interview, P.O. Ford (p.p.2-4) “recalled Mr. Kaplan not being too much interested in pursuing charges but Mr. Kaplan asked that the incident be documented.” According to Lt. Burke’s interview of Sgt. Campbell (p.p. 5 & 6) “After obtaining information on the interaction between Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Conquest and discussing the incident with Sergeant Kelliher it was decided a report should be made.” This decision was made before P.O. Ford “was called to the sixth floor to further interview Mr. Kaplan and obtain information for the report.” In Lt. Burke’s interview of Kaplan (p. 12) “The issue of charges against Mr. Conquest was discussed with the police and Mr. Kaplan indicated to them that it was his preference that charges not be brought against Mr. Conquest.” Why weren’t similar references made in the Incident Report. After all, the police did not witness the incident and there was no blood on the floor or anyone’s clothes. Did Lt. Harrington know of Kaplan’s preference when on May 29th he set up the meeting at the court on May 31st (as a result of which no complaints were brought before the court)? If so, was Conquest made aware of this at the time?
An interesting sidebar of the internal affairs report is Lt. Burke’s interview of Frank Hitchcock (p.p. 12-13):
“Mr. Hitchcock said that he was at the ZBA hearing representing the Building Department. He informed me the ZBA usually requests that the building department provide a representative in matters of appeals hearings such as the one being held that night.”
The ZBA decision on One Somerset Road was filed on July 2, 2007. The hearing began on May 3, 2007 (ZBA decision p.p. 2-10) at which Mr. Hitchcock spoke. The hearing was continued for a site visit and also for a response from Town Counsel to a legal question. The hearing resumed on May 24th (ZBA decision p.p. 10-16) at which, curiously, Mr. Hitchcock did not speak. The appeal before the ZBA was from a decision of the Building Commissioner who was not present on May 24th (nor on May 3rd). Why didn’t Mr. Hitchcock speak up since he was representing the building department? (Mr. Hitchcock’s name came up during the testimony of the developer who said he requested that Mr. Hitchcock be the inspector assigned to his project as he knew he could count on Hitchcock to do more inspections than usual.) Why didn’t members of the ZBA panel (all three of them attorneys) ask any questions of or call upon Mr. Hitchcock on May 24th to respond to the developer’s challenges to the Building Commissioner’s decision that was being appealed? Perhaps if the ZBA members had done so, they might have rejected the developer’s appeal. The hearing was reopened at the request of the Building Commissioner who personally appeared before the ZBA panel (ZBA decision p.p. 16-25) on June 21st and gave testimony resulting in the ZBA panel reversing its decision on May 24th (and thus upholding his decision) that had apparently triggered the Town Hall Brawl. Apparently the ZBA panel found the Building Commissioner to be more persuasive than Mr. Hitchcock’s silence on May 24th.
Lt. Burke’s internal affairs report fails to adequately comment on P.O. Ford’s Incident Report which listed, in addition to Conquest, only Dopazo and Hitchcock (both Town employees) as witnesses and Kaplan (a member of the Town’s ZBA) as victim, whereas P.O. Ford and other police at the scene knew that there were a number of other witnesses to the incident. (In fact, Lt. Burke interviewed some nine or so such witnesses.)
In Lt. Burke’s interview of Sgt. Kelliher (p.p. 4 & 5), “Sergeant Kelliher and Sergeant Campbell [together on the sixth floor] obtained information about the incident and, based upon this information, they decided that an incident report was necessary.” P.O. Ford was summoned to the sixth floor to interview witnesses. But apparently Sgt. Kelliher left to escort a man in a wheelchair out of the building. Then in the lobby, Sgt. Kelliher “told Mr. Conquest that there was a criminal investigation ongoing concerning the incident on the sixth floor of Town Hall. He further advised Mr. Conquest not to say anything until they found out what information came from the inquiry.”
[Conquest does not appear to have been under arrest so it was not an appropriate time for a Miranda warning. So why did Sgt. Kelliher so advise Conquest? Did he know at the time that an assault complaint might or would be made against Conquest by the police? Assuming by “they” Sgt. Kelliher meant the police, in particular P.O. Ford and/or Sgt. Campbell, shouldn’t there have been inquiry by the police as to Conquest’s version and that of witnesses for purposes of a compete investigation? The report continues:]
“Mr. Conquest told Sergeant Kelliher that he had his own witnesses. Sergeant Kelliher told him that was fine and if the matter went to court he could bring them in on his own behalf.”
In effect, the criminal investigation was completed on the sixth floor and apparently the police were not interested in obtaining Conquest’s or his witnesses’ versions in the lobby. Keep in mind the police did not witness the incident and there were no visible injuries on the alleged victim nor any blood on anyone’s clothing or on the floor.
By the way, when Sgt. Kelliher was on the sixth floor with Sgt. Campell (as they “decided that an incident report was necessary”) did he know or learn that the alleged victim was Sgt. Campbell’s uncle? This is not revealed in the interview summary of Sgt. Kelliher in the report.
Before the release and availability in late October of Lt. Burke’s October 10th internal affairs report on Conquest’s Citizen Complaint, information on the May 24th Town Hall Brawl incident was limited to reports in the Brookline TAB and OnBrookline as well as anecdotal commentary from witnesses that circulated. The Town, at the direction of Town Counsel’s office, kept a tight lid on things.
The ZBA panel decision on One Somerset Road filed July 2, 2007, included no reference whatsoever to the Town Hall Brawl on May 24th. (Keep in mind the ZBA hearing commenced on May 3rd, was continued to May 24th, and subsequently reopened and concluded on June 21st.)
The Town’s tight lid continued as the Citizen Complaint was undergoing internal review following its June 7th filing. There were of course rumors floating around.
Then the “mass resignations” of five (5) ZBA members and associate members in late September and early October were reported in the TAB and OnBrookline, together with Larry Kaplan’s letter of resignation dated October 2nd.
Subsequently in late October the police released the May 24th Incident Report, followed by Lt. Burke’s October 10th report of some 30 pages dated more than four months from the time the Citizen Complaint was filed on June 7th. While there may be disagreements as to Lt. Burke’s findings and conclusions, the report reveals quite a bit of detail regarding the May 24th ZBA meeting and its aftermath Town Hall Brawl incident.
While it had long been known that no court action was taken regarding the assault complaint initiated by the police against Conquest, Lt. Burke’s interview of court prosecutor Lt. Harrington (p. 9) disclosed that Conquest had sought a cross complaint against Kaplan but that the matter was mutually resolved at a May 31st meeting between Conquest and Kaplan with no complaint going before the court.
Interviews of witnesses, including Frank Hitchcock of the Building Department, clearly indicated that the May 24th ZBA hearing had concluded before the Town Hall Brawl incident. Some witnesses noted that Ruthann Sneider, following the decision, first complained to ZBA Chair Gordon and then to ZBA panel associate member Geller. Apparently neither Gordon nor Geller responded to Ruthann and they promptly exited. (Lt. Burke’s report does not reference any interviews of either Gordon or Geller or whether they were contacted to determine if either of them witnessed the incident or regarding Ruthann’s complaints to them.) Ruthann then complained to ZBA panel associate member Kaplan. (The report well documents what Ruthann and Kaplan said to each other based upon several witnesses interviewed by Lt. Burke.) Their “conversation” attracted the attention of Conquest who went to Ruthann’s defense. Kaplan reacted to Conquest, followed by back and forth between them, with Kaplan requesting that the police be called.
The interview of Lt. Harrington in the report does not disclose the substance of the referenced venting between Conquest and Kaplan at their May 31st meeting at the court arranged by Lt. Harrington that resulted in no complaints being pursued in court. But the interview of Kaplan by Lt. Burke (p. 12) somewhat later is quite revealing as “it was his preference [in his discussion with the police, including his nephew Sgt. Campbell] that charges not be brought against Mr. Conquest.” The interview continues:
“Referring to the incident, Mr. Kaplan stated ‘this one got out of hand.’ He said that he was more upset with Ruthann Sneider for the comments she made to him following the decision than he was with Mr. Conquest.” [Query whether Kaplan had mentioned this to Conquest when they met on May 31st at Lt. Harrington’s behest? Or whether he had mentioned this to the police, including his nephew Sgt. Campbell, before the police made the decision to have Conquest charged with a complaint for assault? Continuing:] “He did note that the actions and words of Mr. Conquest in his defense of Ms. Sneider caused him to fear for his own safety and prompted him to request that the police be called.”
If perhaps Kaplan had been as nimble afoot as his fellow ZBA panel members, there would have been no need for Conquest to come to Ruthann’s defense. Perhaps Kaplan’s fear was based more upon Conquest coming to Ruthann’s defense than for his own safety, realizing that it may have been appropriate as well as reasonable for Conquest to intervene on behalf of this 5 foot tall 60ish grandmother under the circumstances. In fact, the situation may have been quite embarrassing for Kaplan.
On the evening of May 24, 2007, were there operational security cameras (systems) in the lobby of Town Hall? On the sixth floor? There is no mention of security cameras in the Police internal affairs report. Perhaps there was not such a system in place or if there was, it may not have been operational. Is there a law against having such a system in a public building? Or is it Town policy not to have such systems in Town facilities? If so, are there privacy concerns? The privacy of the public or of the employees?
Is there a Mr. Butterfield (of Nixon Watergate Senate hearings fame) out there?
What led to court prosecutor Lt. Harrington in his conversation with Conquest on May 29th making it clear “that the Town was not putting any restrictions on him concerning his attending ZBA hearings”? (p. 9, Lt. Burke’s report, Lt. Harrington interview.)
According to P.O. Ford’s Incident Report on the May 24th Town Hall Brawl incident: “Based on the behavior of Mr. Conquest, Town Counsel Jennifer Dopazo informed Sgt. Campbell that she did not want Mr. Conquest to be allowed to attend any further zoning board meetings where Mr. Kaplan would be present. Sgt. Campbell informed her that he would advise Mr. Conquest of this verbally, and Dopazo stated that she would follow up with something in writing thereafter.” That was on the sixth floor. Later, in the lobby of Town Hall, “Sgt. Campbell then advised Mr. Conquest that he was no longer allowed to attend zoning board meetings, and that Town Counsel will be forwarding a No Trespass notice to him.”
Lt. Harrington had reviewed the Incident Report by the time he told Conquest on May 29th that there would be no such restrictions. Did Lt. Harrington make this decision on his own or did he first consult with P.O. Ford, other police officers/officials, Town Counsel’s office, and/or other Town officials? Was there an analysis of the legal basis for such restrictions? How, if at all, had Town Counsel Dopazo followed up on this? The interview of Lt. Harrington does not provide answers. This decision was made BEFORE (1) the May 31st meeting between Conquest and Kaplan arranged by Lt. Harrington (as a result of which no criminal complaints were brought before the court) and (2) BEFORE Conquest filed his Citizen Complaint on June 7, 2007.
Interestingly, Lt. Burke’s interview of Sgt. Campbell (p.p. 5 & 6) indicated: “Sergeant Campbell also brought up the matter of advising Mr. Conquest on trespass at future ZBA meetings due to the incident. He was not certain Mr. Kaplan had the authority to request a trespass order against Mr. Conquest at the meetings due to the fact they are held at town hall. The issue was discussed further between the group in which they concluded Mr. Conquest would be verbally notified that night by Sgt. Campbell and follow up would be made by Ms. Dopazo.” This differs from the Incident Report.
Lt. Burke’s interview of Town Counsel Dopazo (p.p. 21 & 22): “The next officer to arrive was Sergeant Campbell. Ms. Dopazo briefly told him what happened. Mr. Kaplan expressed concern over Mr. Conquest attending ZBA hearings that he would be at. Sergeant Campbell stated words to the effect of ‘On our authority we can do a no trespass order.’ Ms. Dopazo told Sergeant Campbell, ‘Do what you normally would do after you speak with Mr. Kaplan.’ She also told Sergeant Campbell, ‘Send me the written report and we’ll (Ms. Dopazo and associate Town Counsels) review it to see if anything should issue from my office in writing.’” This is closer to Sgt. Campbell’s interview that to P.O. Ford’s Incident Report on the subject of a “no trespass” order. (Query: At the time, who in the group other than Sgt. Campbell and Kaplan knew of their relationship?)
Lt. Burke’s interview of P.O. Ford (p.p. 2-4) reveals that after P.O. Ford arrived at the sixth floor “ … the issue of trespass was discussed and it was concluded that Mr. Conquest would be told he had to vacate the building when they went back down to the first floor. A trespass order was discussed. Officer Ford recalls Ms. Dopazo indicating that she would follow up on the issue of a trespass order the following day after she reviewed the police report.” This differs from P.O. Ford’s Incident Report and somewhat from Lt. Burke’s interviews of Sgt. Campbell and Town Counsel Dopazo.
So why were the restrictions on Conquest dropped on May 29th? Lt. Burke’s report does not provide answers. Is it possible there was no substantial legal basis for the verbal no trespass order from Sgt. Campbell on the evening of May 24th?
Lt. Burke in his report (p.p. 28 & 29) addresses the matter of the verbal no trespass order but only in general terms, providing no reasons or rationale for the restrictions on Conquest being dropped. Lt. Burke concludes this section of his report: “There were no ZBA hearings between May 24th and May 29th. Essentially, the issue of a trespass order was moot.” But Conquest had the weight of the verbal no trespass order to think about from May 24th to May 29th. He had never received any writing of the sort he had been told by Sgt. Campbell would issue. And apparently he was not informed of the reason why he was no longer being restricted. Moot? Hardly. The damage to Conquest had been done.