Joseph K. Does Brookline.
By Jim Conley • Dec 8th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
At the risk of adding to the pile of trite that is used to describe an ordeal with the agents of authority, it’s fair to say that Arthur Conquest’s odyssey with the Brookline Police is Kafkaesque. And now, with news that the Clueless Five (i.e., the Brookline Selectmen) will next week address whether to grant him a hearing on his treatment by police during the May 24th Brawl at Town Hall, we’re at the penultimate.
On Tuesday, Conquest was told that the Brookline Selectmen were going to hear from the police chief in public session, in order to decide whether an appeal ought to be heard. Conquest learned of the board’s intention by accident, as he was not going to be allowed to address the board (nor was he going to be notified of the chief’s appearance).
Conquest sent a letter objecting to the proceedings on Thursday and was informed of next week’s agenda item yesterday at 4:30. (With a typical profile in courage, Town Administrator Richard Kelliher had his secretary call with the news.)
Now, I’m not familiar with a review process that allows the party under review to appear before a review board…prior to a vote on whether to hear an appeal of a written report made by the party under review. Nor is it clear to me why the selectmen would deny the complaining party the same opportunity to plead his case.
Crikey, with so many lawyers on the payroll at town hall (and on the board of selectmen) the principles of due process sure are lacking.
The selectmen have the report from the police department’s internal investigation and Conquest’s rebuttal. Have they read any of these materials? Are they unable to see the anomalies in the internal investigation and/or the statements given by witnesses? Wouldn’t these discrepancies alone be enough to warrant a hearing on appeal?
Not in Brookline; the institutional corruption runs too deep. We know where Selectman Robert Allen will take this - into the realm of mis-placed blame. And the two weaklings that always crumble under his bullying - Selectmen Nancy Daly and Jesse Mermell - will join him in quashing an appeal.
Franz Kafka would be inspired. But Brookline residents should be afraid.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Is Conquest’s rebuttal available as either a public record or as a courtesy from him (without violating any rules regarding his appeal)? If so, I would be most interested in reading it.
Regarding Selectman Mermell, wasn’t she the PAX candidate (at least informally)? If so, shouldn’t she have a strong interest in individual rights, as should PAX? PAX’s silence is deafening.
Arthur Conquest’s 6 June 2007 letter to the Selectmen with the attachment setting forth his Citizen Complaint linked to in an earlier post on this Blog starts off by describing the ritual of Representative Town Meeting with TMMs and activists orchestrating attendance at agency public meetings/hearings that conflict with each other. This goes on all the time. Even in Brookline (or perhaps especially in Brookline) the decisions made at these meetings/hearings are not necessarily outcomes that these TMMs and activists desire. They can get contentious. Voices may be raised. Yet it is rare, extremely rare, that the police are called. Here, the ZBA decision was contentious. Some people spoke up, as is their right, since no public meeting was in progress at the time. Someone (we know who he is) yelled out “Call the police.” And two people present called the police. Each of the callers, Town employees, requested that an officer be sent over to the Sixth Floor. Well, the police responded not with one officer, but many. Conquest’s Citizen Complaint and Lt. Burke’s internal audit report contain the bulk of the episode that the Selectmen are now to consider.
If the Selectmen fail to recognize the seriousness of Conquest’s appeal and request for a public hearing, then the Selectmen may be sending a message to TMMs and activists to walk on eggshells when they attend public meetings/hearings. What would such a message mean to open democracy in Brookline? Might TMMs and activists be intimidated with concern that a board member or Town employee might pull a Chicken Little? Perhaps TMMs in particular should be concerned that the executive branch in Brookline may be stepping on the legislative branch’s air hose. To my knowledge, only a few of the 240 TMMs have show solidarity with Conquest. I wonder why?
If there is a question as to who and how many of us are in agreement with Mr. Conquest, perhaps a letter/questionnaire could come from the TMM ‘board’ to each and all of us:
1. stating the facts as known
2. outlining the issues
3. asking our position and/or agreement or disagreement or abstaining
4. asking what action we would like to be initiated
This could and should be done asap - next Town Meeting is too far away.
Assuming a majority one way of the other on the outcome of the poll/vote, immediate action could be taken (or not, if the majority say ‘no’)
Since we as TMMs theoretically run this town - and NOT the selectmen and not the Administrator - and not the police - we could then request/demand appropriate action -
and begin to end this painful situation.
Does this make sense to anyone else ?
Via this Blog, a TMM or anyone else interested in this matter can download Conquest’s 6 June 2007 letter to the BOS (with the attached statement of his Citizen Complaint) and the October 10, 2007 internal affairs report of Lt. Burke. There may be available via the Brookline TAB archives its several news reports, Op-Eds and letters on the subject. This Blog includes accessible posts by Jim with a number of comments, many by me, on the Town Hall Brawl. There is available from the Town, perhaps via the internet, the Town’s procedures on Citizen Complaints regarding the Brookline Police (referenced in Marty Rosenthal’s TAB Op-Ed several weeks ago). What is not available as yet is Conquest’s rebuttal to Lt. Burke’s report.
A review of these materials may be helpful. Just as beauty (as well as ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder, the “facts” can be subjective; but keep in mind that “facts” are not necessarily equivalent to the truth.
I am not in any way suggesting a referendum of TMMs by their board as a collective body. Rather, what Conquest was doing the evening of May 24th in Town Hall is what TMMs and activists have been doing in Town Hall for years. This was a situation that got out of hand. The issue is, how did the police and the Town handle the response to the incident and its aftermath? A TMM or anyone else interested in reviewing the materials can make up his or her own mind. But, if the issue is not fairly addressed, then Conquest would be denied justice in a community that prides itself on its diversity, openness and fairness. Perhaps a postive conclusion to all this may be the setting up of an independent civilian review procedure for complaints against the police.
I’m not sure it’s correct to say that town meeting runs the town - the selectmen are the executive and because of that Richard Kelliher is really (by charter) nothing more than their secretary.
The numerous ethical lapses by one of the selectmen are, at least in my mind, conflicts of interest given the power vested in the board. You can’t have hiring and firing authority over a building commissioner and then serve as corporate attorney to developers who have overbuilt a structure. At a minimum this needs to be disclosed but it’s not.
On the matter of TM’s taking action, it should be recalled that the brawl happened a few days before town meeting held its annual session. Many TM’s did want to address the matter then.
But as usual, Moderator Sandy Gadsby allowed no discussion on the matter when the police chief appeared before the group.
If you want to give power to the TM’s, you can start by electing a new moderator.