The Chief Puts Together a Review Panel.
By Jim Conley • Mar 4th, 2008 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
A few days ago I made a Public Records request to Brookline Town Administrator Richard Kelliher on the increasingly embarrassing police review panel now showing. The first surprise came in Kelliher telling me that the entirety of documents generated while assembling the panel are two e-mails on whether assistants to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley can participate.
Coakley has allowed one AAG to participate; but said no on another lawyer from her Civil Rights division. Sources tell me that Coakley balked due to a “potential conflict of interest” should that office get involved in Civil Rights complaints against the department.
But who did Coakley confer with at the local level to make this decision? Kelliher? The Brookline Selectmen? No. In the e-mail forwarded to me, Kelliher says that Coakley discussed the matter with Brookline Police Chief Daniel O’Leary.
What the..?
Here’s what Kelliher writes to two of Coakley’s assistants on January 30, 2008:
“Attached is a draft charge for the committee. Attorney General Coakley spoke with Chief O’Leary this morning and also asked him to send her the charge. While we’re doing our best to keep the both of you involved, we understand Patty that this is likely impossible for you. Bernard, we’re doing everything we can to keep your candidacy viable.
The Chief is sending this draft to the A.G. directly. We’ll see where this all ends up.”
I asked Coakley’s press office to comment on the conversation between she and the Chief, and they’d prefer not to. Not even a “she wanted to better understand what the panel was about.” I simply got a no comment. Which sounded to me a lot like the response you get when you ask about an investigation.
I’m not saying there is an investigation underway. But if Martha Coakley listened to Chief Daniel O’Leary’s version of events in the Conquest matter at all, the question becomes: Why isn’t there one?
But here’s the more troubling question. Why was the Chief working to populate this panel? He should have no substantive role in assembling its members, mostly because he’s going to be subject to its policy recommendations.
Can anyone now believe it’s coincidence that a lawyer who represents Brookline police officers in these matters was appointed to the panel [see previous post]? Can it be accidental that a member of the search committee that appointed the Chief to his position is now sitting on this new panel? Isn’t it obvious that town meeting member Martin Rosenthal, who has been an apologist for the Chief in the Conquest matter, serves no useful purpose but that?
I guess this explains why the Chief is going to be the panel’s first witness. It’s his show.
In this one e-mail, any scintilla of credibility this panel had is gone. The chief’s involvement confirms what I’ve believed all along - this is a show that will result in no meaningful change. The Brookline Selectmen let Kelliher and O’Leary go to work on the panel just like they went to work on Gil Hoy back in September [see previous post].
Folks, what they’ve done to this town’s government is a tragedy.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
THE CHARGE!
Who drafted the “charge” referenced in Kelliher’s Email to the two AAGs? Was it Kelliher? Was it the Chief? Was it the Selectmen? Was there compliance with the open meeting law?
What, if any, was the Chief’s role in the selection of potential panel members?
And keep in mind that it is the AG’s Office that has the authority to enforce the State’s Whistleblower Statute. See my Blowing the Whistle series, in particular Open Letter to Attorney General Coakley (which she never responded to).
I think it’s time for the Village People to serenade our Town officials with a modification of their hit “Y - M - C - A” to
“A - C - L - U”
in hopes of unscrambling this political omelet.
They seem to be intent on avoiding even the appearance of propriety.
Surely there must be more of a “paper trail” than just two Emails. Selectmen DeWitt and Daly were copied on the Email linked to. Did they constitute a “committee” of the Board to address the matter? Why weren’t Hoy, Allen and Mermell copied? Did DeWill and Daly exchange Emails? Were there discussions at Board meetings reflected in minutes prior and subsequent to the 1/30/08 Email to two AAGs? Shouldn’t all this have been transparent? Was the draft Charge vetted with Town Counsel’s office? Or was this another instance of a wink and a nod, avoiding a paper trail? Were the Town Administrator’s communications with others (than the two AAGs) designated for the panel of experts oral only? Perhaps the frugality of a paper trail is attributable to the Town’s belt-tightening as we proceed into the override season.
MORE PAPER TO BE TRAILED?
The 1/30/08 Email to the two AAGs from Town Administrator Kelliher included as an attachment “Citizen complaint revise 4.unmarkeddoc.doc” suggesting at least four (4) revisions as of 1/30/08. Who prepared these revisions? To whom were they submitted for review and comment? And what were the comments, if any, and by whom? How many further revisions were there before the “Charge” was finalized? If there is no “paper” there must have been a lot of “winkin,’ blinkin’ and nods.” That’s transparency?