Response to Consultant's Strategic Intervention Recommendations

George F. McLean

November 23, 2004

Dear Mayor Curtatone:

I am writing this letter as an initial response to Attorney Scott Harshbarger's correspondence dated November 12, 2004. Because I was on vacation from November 11 - 18, 2004, this letter constitutes a preliminary response and I will be submitting a more detailed response when I have access to data maintained at the Police Department headquarters.

As you are well aware, Attorney Harshbarger was engaged in April 2004, at your direction, to review the Police Department's actions in response to the Management Study of 2000 commissioned by a prior administration.

I agree with Attorney Harshbarger's premise that as the Chief of Police, I am legally and professionally responsible for the leadership of the Somerville Police Department. I have tried, and will continue to strive, to provide leadership and direction to the police officers employed by the City and to fulfill my job responsibilities ethically, professionally, and to the best of my abilities. Since you were elected Mayor, I have tried to respond to your requests and directives in a professional manner, consistent with my sworn responsibilities to the citizens of Somerville. Although we have not always agreed upon the department's priorities, policies and funding requirements, I have nevertheless considered our relationship to include personal and professional discussions.

I disagree with Attorney Harshbarger's contention (and yours) that the Police Department has been unable to identify crime trends or to respond quickly and decisively to changes in crime patterns. Our efforts to be pro-active have, in many respects, been dismantled by fiscal reductions and decreased staffing patterns. Nonetheless, we have reacted in a comprehensive manner to crimes involving illicit drugs, gang activity, and most recently, to the spate of breaking and entering crimes committed in certain sections of the City.

I strongly disagree with Attorney Harshbarger's recommendation that the City remove the position of Chief of Police from the Civil Service system. Although any change in the selection process would not apply to me personally, I believe that the Civil Service system was designed for, and continues to provide, a means for ensuring the integrity and independence of the Chief of Police to fulfill all of the functions of that role, without relation to changing city politics. Although larger cities like Boston and Cambridge have chosen to do away with the position of the Chief of Police from the Civil Service system, those cities have the resources to recruit nationally for law enforcement leaders with experience relating specifically to large urban criminal activity. In contrast, Somerville has consistently been able to meet its law enforcement objectives by promoting competent professionals who know the City well and have lengthy periods of experience in addressing the specific needs of our community.

(Please be advised that my perspective that the position as Chief of Police should remain as part of the Civil Service system is different from my recommendations that the positions of Superintendents or Deputy Superintendents should be filled outside the Civil Service system. I make this recommendation so that any and all future Chiefs of Police will have the flexibility and advantage of selecting the most intelligent, competent, motivated deputy administrators to further the goals and objectives of the Police Department.)

I am concerned that Attorney Harshbarger's perceptions of the inner workings of the police department have been unfairly clouded by the negative comments made by union representatives. With regard to the allegation that every action made by me in my role as Chief of Police is determined by whether the employee is perceived to be "with me or against me". Promotions are decided upon the civil service scores attained by each test applicant. Although I am able to provide you with my best professional recommendations, the ultimate decision relative to promotions remains your exclusive province. To the best of my memory (and without access to specific departmental records), I believe that there have been approximately six promotions to date during my tenure as Chief. Each of the candidates scored within the top three scores on the Civil Service test and my recommendations were consistent with the applicants' academic standing.

Disciplinary sanctions are implemented based upon similar factors and are consistent, with the principles of progressive discipline ranging from verbal warnings or re-training requirements to recommendations for termination. The nature of the offense is uppermost in my professional discretion, and it continues to be my intention to discipline officers swiftly, justly and fairly whenever the need arises. I am also committed to ongoing professional training to avoid officers making mistakes which could arguably have been prevented.

Relative to the allegations that "picks" are influenced based on favored relationships, I deny this strongly. Currently, due to fiscal constraints and reduced staff, there are no "ninety day chief's picks". There are relatively few "chief's picks" - and these positions are filled based the officer's area of expertise, interest in a sub-specialty of police work, and general abilities to communicate with his/her fellow officers.

Because there has been very little available funding, our training efforts have been seriously curtailed. When specific training opportunities have been requested by an officer, the officer's supervisor reviews the request and a recommendation is made to my office. The criteria I use in approving these requests for training is based upon the officer's current assignment (patrol versus a special interest unit), the likelihood that the training information can be put into use immediately, and the correlation of the topic of training with the then-identified areas of focus for law enforcement efforts in our community.

In addition, our department secured a $97,000 grant from the Department of Homeland Security for specialized training responding to critical incidents, crowd control, and anti-terrorist activity. NIBRIS (National Incident Based Reporting Information System) training was an important component of this training. At the present time, nearly ninety-five percent of all officers of the Somerville Police Department have attended this training. I anticipate that the remaining members of the department will complete this training by the end of the current month. Lt. Paul Trant coordinated this training and DNC training and received an overwhelmingly positive written response to this training opportunity by the officers who have attended thus far.

With regard to the perceptions that I have influenced overtime policies, this is purely incorrect. Overtime is distributed, pursuant to the language of the contract, in a fair and equitable manner. Overtime opportunities are based upon the officer's availability and number of previous overtime hours. Any deviation from the contract policies would result in a grievance; to the best of my knowledge there have been few grievances in this area and they were the result of inadvertent errors by the commanders that have been addressed and remedied in an equitable manner.

I specifically deny that there are no uniform policies and procedures in place in the Somerville Police Department. Policies and procedures are accessible on our departmental computer system, and each officer has access to the departmental network at any time. Moreover, Somerville Police Department has been seeking accreditation from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but our efforts have been hindered by our critical shortage of personnel.

With regard to staff meetings, I have convened staff meetings twice per month. Command staff officers (both captains, the day division commander, the oncoming night division commander, the traffic commander, the sergeant and lieutenant assigned to professional standards and the detectives commander) are required to attend these meetings. All other members of the department are invited to attend these meetings, but are not required to do so. Invitations have been extended by posting the announcements on departmental bulletin boards and via email. Records of attendance are maintained for each meeting. To the best of my memory, representatives of the superior officers' union have attended only a couple meetings over the past year and representatives of the patrolmen's union have attended sporadically. I welcome the input of the union representatives at these meetings, as there is vibrant, meaningful discussion, which occurs at each meeting relative to the direction and goals of each department, as well as problem identification and problem solving on the day-to-day operations of the police department.

Relative to Attorney Harshbarger's recommendation that you convene one or two informal sessions with union representatives and myself, I agree with and support that recommendation. I am willing to further refine the format of these meetings; I believe that it may be helpful to have a couple sessions whereby several representatives of each union, representatives of my command staff (including myself), and you schedule the sessions with members of the Board of Aldermen to address a previously-agreed upon agenda of issues to be discussed. This will allow each attendee to be fully prepared for the session, and to consider, in advance of the session, potential creative solutions to the problem areas raised. I would also be willing to consider sessions with a neutral professional mediator.

Based upon the eight findings (determined by the Management Study of 2000 when my predecessor was in office), I respond as follows:

1. I strongly disagree that the Police Department does not utilize its existing resources effectively. In fact, the resources of our department have been stretched so thinly, that each officer has had to make significant personal and professional efforts to support the daily operations of the department. In previous memoranda to you, I have highlighted the problems caused by staff reductions, failure to hire new employees, limitations on implementing existing personnel in new areas, and the high cost of weekly overtime just to fill the shifts mandated by the collective bargaining agreements.

2. I strongly disagree that the Police Department exists and operates exclusively in a reactive mode. I have had to make difficult choices, in light of budget cuts and decreased staffing, which have resulted in some of our previous efforts (such as community policing) to be more proactive. Nevertheless, we try to anticipate changing trends and patterns and to plan our resources accordingly, in addition to doing the day-to-day police work required to keep our citizens safe.

3. I agree that the police officers are suffering from diminished morale. This is the result of many factors, including: limited opportunities for training and professional development; limited opportunities for transfer to different assignments within the department; limited promotional opportunities; and working in a building that has been deemed unfit by the state. Despite these negative influences, I strongly disagree that the department has suffered from low productivity. Our search warrant, arrest and conviction statistics demonstrate an ongoing level of commitment to professional policing, rivaled by none of our neighboring police departments of comparable size and demographics. I believe it is a distinct credit to each officer of the department that we have worked so diligently under less than optimal conditions, and the success in our law enforcement efforts is directly attributable to these men and women who do their jobs, day in and day out.

4. I strongly disagree that the Department has not engaged in effective community outreach. Examples of our strong commitment include Cops and Kids Program (in conjunction with the YMCA), our adopt-a-school program, adopt-an-elderly center, RAD (Rape, Aggressive Defense) Training, and regular attendance by officers at multiple community meetings. Officers assigned to particular wards, based upon the availability of manpower for any given shift, continue to identify problems and interact with various segments of the community assigned. Due to decreased staffing, I have not been able to assign officers to specific wards on an ongoing basis; however, our officers continue to do more work with fewer resources.

5. Community policing, as a philosophy, has been fully integrated at every level of the department. Although we have had to reduce the number of officers assigned to the Community Policing Unit per se, patrol officers, detectives and command officers make individual contributions in all segments of the community through various board memberships, volunteer activities and other personal contributions.

6. Internal communications within the Department are effectuated through twice monthly staff meetings, daily manifolds communicated by email and at roll call, and alerts are also communicated through email and hard copies. Traffic officers and detectives attend roll call daily to share information with patrol officers. Moreover, I maintain an "open door" policy for all members of the department whereby any person can communicate any concern at any time.

7. I strongly agree that, due to budget cuts, professional training opportunities are inadequate. I welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with your staff to explore new grant opportunities as well as other collaborations with industry to provide professional training for our officers.

8. I agree that the institution of a Comstat-like system would be optimal for the Department. As you know, this would entail budgetary expenditures to provide training needed to implement the system. Further, we will need to look closely at the language of the current collective bargaining agreements as the current terms and conditions seriously limit my ability to make officer/shift assignments or to create job responsibilities to meet new demands.