What Actually Happened

 There's been a lot of rumors and false information going around the Department about the case involving Officer Jones and Sergeant Allison and many people questioning why I've come out so fervently in their defense, so I'm going to set the record straight and back it up with facts.

At the heart of the issue is the accusation by the Town that Officer Jones tried to get paid for hours on a road job that he wasn't entitled to, and that Sergeant Allison somehow assisted him in doing so. This assertion is not true. Lieutenant Don Olson who was the author of the warrant wrote on pages 4, 5, 7 and 15 of his affidavit that because Officer Jones arrived on the job site at 1045 and worked until 1530 that he was only entitled to be paid for the 5 hour minimum because he had only actually worked 4.75 hours. Per our contract if an employee works a private job  they are paid a minimum of 5 hours just for showing up, and if they work in excess of 5 hours, then they are then paid for a minimum of 8 hours thereafter. 

This job in question however was not called in for an Officer to work ahead of time, it was called in while the job was in progress. As Every EHPD employee knows, the long standing past practice for overtime jobs in progress or "call ins" is that we get begin getting paid from the time we receive the phone call to come in to work and accept the job. NOT the time that we actually arrive at the Police Station, and NOT the time that we arrive on the job site. Lt. Olson even admits this fact on page 5 of the warrant when he wrote "However, occasionally Private Duty jobs are ordered at the time of the job due to an emergency, a change in the job date or environment, or in some cases the contractor simply forgot to hire an Officer. In these cases, the Officer is paid from the time they are called, accept the Private Duty job and are prepared for duty." However, despite admitting this fact, Lt. Olson later contradicts himself in the warrant by saying the start time should have been the time Officer Jones arrived at the job site, when by his own admission this is not the practice in every other instance of a job like this.

Based on his warrant, Lt. Olson NEVER attempted to obtain phone records, or check the call logs of the hiring Officer to ascertain what time Officer Jones received the phone call to come in and work the job which would've been the actual start time of the job for payment purposes. This information is critical because had Lt. Olson included it in the warrant it would've shown that Officer Jones was actually entitled to claim in excess of 5 hours of overtime which under our contract would result in him automatically being paid for 8 hours of overtime which would disprove the claim that he attempted to get paid for hours he wasn't entitled to. However this information was either never looked for, or was known and never included in the affidavit.

However, even without the information from the call logs, Lt. Olson should've still been able to deduce that Officer Jones was entitled to claim time worked prior to 1045. On page 11 of the warrant Lt. Olson writes that he obtained security camera footage of Officer Jones arriving at Police HQ at 1031, and then leaving in a Department vehicle at 1042 to go to the job site. Now any reasonable person would agree that if Officer Jones is seen arriving at the Police Station at 1031 to work a job he was just called in for, that it is highly likely that he was called in at some time prior to 1031. Now remember, because his end time was 1530, a start time prior to 1030 would've entitled him to 8 hours of pay, not the 5 hours that Lt. Olson has claimed. This fact should be especially apparent to a trained and experienced investigator, however this information wasn't included in the warrant. Had it been included as it should have, I think it's highly likely that this warrant would have never been signed by a Prosecutor or Judge and these Officers never would've been arrested.

On page 15 of his warrant, Lt. Olson admits that Officer Jones never turned in the overtime slip in question because he knew the company had raised an issue over it at the job site and he didn't want any trouble. Officer Jones handed this overtime slip to Lt. Ficacelli when he was notified that a complaint was filed. This is contrary to Lt. Olson's previous claim on page 12 of his warrant that it was "intercepted." Officer Jones never turned the slip in to payroll or attempted to get paid for the job as the warrant claims.

So why was critical information withheld or not searched for? That's the million dollar question (literally). Was it done out of malice, error, or ignorance? Obviously there are several processes ongoing that will eventually find an answer to that question. And to be clear I'm not putting all the blame at Lt. Olson's feet, this warrant and process went though several layers of Supervision all the way up to Chief Sansom who was ultimately pulling the strings. It's now obvious to us why when we asked to see a copy of the warrant when it was issued I was told by Lt. Olson that per Chief Sansom it was to be withheld, even from the arresting Officers. They were hoping to keep these facts secret for as long as possible so they could push through a bogus IA before we saw what they were being accused of.

This simple complaint should have been handled administratively, like every other complaint of this nature has been historically, contemporaneously, and concurrently. Instead the Administration chose to make a mountain out of a molehill, arrest 2 innocent cops, and then send out the most detailed Press release I've ever seen to the entire state's media to publicly humiliate them.

Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. What happened here is abhorrent and none of us should stand for it, as Union members, as Cops, as Citizens, or just as Human Beings. So if you're still wondering why I'm standing up for these guys as strongly as I am, just know that if you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in a similar situation, I'd be doing the same for you.

No December Meeting

 As expected, we're not going to be able to have a meeting this month due to ongoing meeting restrictions. As always, if you need anything feel free to call, text, email, or see an Executive Board member.

More Rungs on the Same Ladder?

At last week's Town Council meeting, Mayor Leclerc proposed a new Administrative position within the Police Department that she wants to call "Assistant Chief." We currently have four Deputy Chief positions (Two of which are vacant after DC Chris Davis' recent departure.) who report directly to the Chief and sit above the Lieutenants in the chain of command. The new proposed position will sit above the Deputies and just below the Chief. You can find the new proposed job descriptions by clicking this link and skipping to page 24. You can also watch the proposal being made at the Town Council meeting by clinking this link and skipping to 22:33.

Reading the job description, it appears as though this new Assistant Chief is going to absorb most of the higher functions currently assigned to the Deputy Chiefs and will become the only person who deals directly with the Chief. So it seems logical to assume that Deputy Chiefs will be getting pushed down the ladder to make room for this new rank that's going to be absorbing some of their job duties.

Where I think this is going to cause a problem is that we are already in a position where our Lieutenants and Sergeants have basically become redundant, especially in patrol. This redundancy has been the subject of several grievances, infighting, and other issues in my tenure on the Executive Board, as Sergeants and Lieutenants fight over their overlapping job functions and related pay. The Department currently treats Lieutenants and Sergeants as completely interchangeable and only defines them for Patrol purposes as "Supervisors" rather than individual ranks with unique functions, responsibilities, and staffing levels. In fact over the last few years we've seen squads run only by Lieutenants with no Sergeants, and also squads run entirely by Sergeants with no Lieutenants. What's the point of having multiple ranks if they can both do the same job?

So if you have this problem of two overlapping ranks, it's seems counterintuitive to add yet another rank to the mix. If you add an Assistant Chief and push Deputy Chiefs down the ladder, they will naturally encroach on the higher job functions currently performed by Lieutenants, effectively becoming "Super Lieutenants." This in turn will push Lieutenants further down into the realm of Sergeant's duties and make them even more redundant, exacerbating the problems we already have. In a sense you're cutting more slices from the same pie, without making the actual pie itself any bigger. We're not adding any divisions to the Department or increasing in size, in fact we're smaller now than we used to be. 

This issue of redundancy was not always the case. If you look back to the tenure of Chief Mark Sirois, he ran the Department with just two Deputy Chiefs, half of what Chief Sansom has had. At that time you had one Deputy Chief manage the outside functions of the Department, i.e. Patrol, and the other manage all of the internal functions. He managed to do this by utilizing his Lieutenants as what they should be, upper management. Lieutenants in that era had more responsibility, independence, and a more clearly defined role in the Department. Lieutenants could run individual units and had Sergeants beneath them who managed the actual day to day operations of the Officers and Detectives.

Chief Sansom changed this arrangement by having Deputy Chiefs running individual Divisions of the Department, like one who just manages the Detective Bureau, one just managing Dispatch, and another who only manages IA with a few ancillary duties thrown in. This setup just adds more layers of bureaucracy to the chain of command and in my opinion impedes our efficiency. Our Lieutenants are more than capable of carrying out these duties with minimal Supervision, they don't need to be micromanaged by a swarm of Deputies.

I think a better solution is keep us at two Deputy Chiefs as we currently have, who report directly to the Chief. Then utilize Lieutenants as actual managers, and give them a clearly defined role and the ability to make more decisions on their own. On the Patrol front give unique, clearly defined job descriptions to both Sergeants and Lieutenants and corresponding individual minimum staffing levels for each job. They are separate ranks for a reason, they should not be considered interchangeable, or made to do each other's jobs.

The proposal is not all negative however, the Mayor does mention that she wants to open up the new, neutered Deputy Chief rank to Union members. I know some members will disagree with my assessment because they want the opportunity to get the Deputy Chief's position themselves or have another Union member get it. However, I'd argue that while this appears to be a positive on the surface, they will still be locking our members out of the top two positions in the Department. There's no reason for this, and in fact prior to Chief Sansom's tenure it wasn't the case. Both Chief Sirois and Deputy Chief Vibberts came from within our ranks as did several other previous Chiefs. The decision to lock us out was an arbitrary change made by Town Hall, and if they wanted to they could undo it just as easily and open up the opportunity to ascend all the way to Chief up to our members once again. In fact I think that's what they should do and it's what I've been arguing should happen for the last year and a half.

Reach out to me and let me know what you think.

Lawsuit Against EHPOA Withdrawn

 We're happy to announce that the suit filed against EHPOA that we detailed in an earlier post (click here) has been voluntarily withdrawn via a motion to withdraw filed last Thursday by the plaintiff former Officer Courtney Desilet. We'd like to congratulate Ms. Desilet on reaching her settlement with the Town and wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors.

No November Meeting

 Due to COVID gathering restrictions we are unfortunately going to be unable to hold a Union Meeting this month once again. As always if anyone needs anything, has any questions, or needs any rumors dispelled please call, text, email, or talk to one of the Executive Board members in person and we'll be glad to assist. I'm also going to try to attend some lineups to address members in person to try and make up for the lack of in person meetings.

Meeting Cancelled

 Sorry folks but the weather forecast Friday morning doesn't look very good for an outdoor meeting with temps in the 30's and freezing rain so the Executive Board has made the decision to cancel the meeting. We'll monitor how things are progressing and will try to hold a monthly meeting as soon as practical. In the meantime feel free to reach out to any Board members with any issues you're having.

In other news we did get dates in December for the rest of the outstanding grievances we have to be conducted remotely, some of them had been on hold since before everything got shut down, so it does seem like the Labor Board is back up and running which is a big positive for us.

Watch this space for updates.

Monthly Meeting MOVED

 Due to COVID concerns our October meeting is being moved outside, see fliers in the building for the new location. Same date and time, hopefully the weather cooperates. We'll keep monitoring how things are going but with winter coming it may be difficult to hold meetings outdoors so we may have to go back to suspending some future meetings. Stay safe everyone.

Racial Disparity In How EHPD Internal Affairs Cases Are Handled

Since I've been involved in the Union Executive Board I've noticed trends in how Chief Scott Sansom's Administration has handled disciplinary matters in our Department. Some trends are easier to spot than others. In one case that you may have heard of there was a dispute between two of our members and a contractor, Paramount Construction who was doing work for MDC in our Town. The dispute stemmed from the fact that when the contractor hired for the job in the morning they had said they were going to pay whichever Officer was hired from a certain time in the morning. But by the end of the job a different foreman was on site who refused to pay the Officer who worked the job the hours that the morning foreman had said they would before the Officer was hired. The Officer who worked the job called his Supervisor who had spoken to the morning foreman and there was a verbal disagreement. Ultimately the Officer's overtime slip was signed buy the Contractor, but the Officer decided he was not going to submit the slip to payroll for payment because he knew there was some disagreement over it and he didn't want to cause a problem, meaning he effectively worked the job for free, he was never paid. The Supervisor in this case did not work the job and never claimed or demanded, or attempted to collect any payment for himself.

Disputes over hours worked are not out of the ordinary here at EHPD, we can cite several examples of similar complaints. However in this particular case the Department took the extraordinary step of putting the employees involved on Administrative leave and initiating a criminal investigation. This investigation took nearly 2 months of going back and forth between the Department and the State's Attorney's Office while they tried to figure out what they could charge these Officers with until they finally settled on Attempt to Commit Larceny 2nd, despite the fact that neither one ever attempted to collect any payment. We don't know the specific details of the allegations because the Department has refused to show the warrant to the Officers or their attorneys at the direction of Chief Sansom.

Contrast what happened in this case to what happened in a similar case just a few months earlier at EHPD. The case number for this is PSB 2020-18. In that case one of our members filled out an overtime slip for one and a half hours that the employee was found to have not actually worked, except in this case the employee actually submitted the overtime slip and attempted to get paid for the unworked hours. During the course of the IA Investigation it was also found that this employee had left work early and come into work late several times without prior authorization. In this case however there was no criminal investigation, nobody was put on Administrative leave, and there were no warrants completed, and the State's Attorney's Office was never even consulted or made aware of it. In fact despite the IA complaint being sustained and the allegations being more serious than they were in the other case we discussed, the only discipline issued in PSB 2020-18 was Verbal Supervisory Counseling, they were basically told "hey don't do that again."

Why is there such a disparity in how these two parallel cases were handled? The only difference we can see is that the two Officers who got criminally investigated are both African American, while the Officer who was given verbal counseling is White. This raises another question though, which course of action was the appropriate one? Did the White Officer get the standard treatment for this type of offense while the Black Officers got screwed over, or was the treatment they got the standard procedure while the White Officer was "hooked up?" Historically when we look back at other people who've been investigated at EHPD for similar offenses, they all seemed to have gotten treatment similar to what the White Officer got in PSB 2020-18, which implies that the Black Officers are being treated especially harsh.

We can go back a few years and find several other examples of White employees being written up and investigated by IA for the same exact allegations of inaccurate overtime slips, and not a single one of them was put on Administrative leave, or criminally investigated.

Our Internal Affairs division is headed up by Deputy Chief Chris Davis formerly of Manchester Police, and most of the investigations including these two, are conducted by Lt. Joe Ficacelli, the disgraced former Hartford Police recruit who was fired from that Agency. Are they the ones influencing the disparity between how these cases are handled with their recommendations? Or does the responsibility ultimately fall at the feet of Chief Scott Sansom who has the final say over what discipline will be issued after a case is completed?

We saw this pattern again in another IA case last year where an African American member was being investigated for a routine citizen complaint stemming from a traffic stop by Deputy Chief Chris Davis, but DC Davis missed the contractual timeline to complete the investigation (180 days). This issue had happened not long before with a White Officer, and in that case Chief Sansom was obligated to close the investigation due to them going over the timeline. However when the same exact issue occurred with the Black employee a short time later, Chief Sansom stated that "the timelines don't matter," and proceeded to issue discipline to the employee anyway in violation of our collective bargaining agreement. That matter is currently under appeal at the Labor Board, but it's another prime, contemporaneous example of Chief Sansom and Internal Affairs handling disciplinary matters for African American employees more harshly than they do for White employees, even to the point of breaking the contractual rules to exact punishment.

Unfortunately we've also seen this trend in other areas of the Department. A few months ago Chief Sansom decided to shake up the Traffic Unit. He removed an African American Officer from the Traffic unit, and when that Officer asked why he was being removed and if it was due to his job performance he was told that it was just because he had been in the unit for a long time and they wanted to give other employees a chance at that position. However at the same time the Black Officer was removed from the Traffic Unit, Chief Sansom allowed a White Officer who has been in Traffic nearly twice as long to remain in the unit. So is there one timeline for "too long" for Black Officers and another separate, longer timeline for White Officers?

We see it once again in the case of another African American Officer who was terminated years ago inappropriately, and eventually had his termination overturned by the Labor Board. When he was re-hired several years later he signed an agreement with the Administration stating that they would do everything in their power to help him get re-certified as a Police Officer. Recently when this Officer had his hearing before the Board, the only thing they required from Chief Sansom was a letter stating that he endorsed the employee being re-certified. Chief Sansom refused to write the letter or make any recommendation on the Officer's behalf in violation of the agreement he signed, that issue is now the subject of a lawsuit.

Chief Sansom's Administration has previously been the subject of multiple lawsuits by his employees for discriminating on the basis of disability and gender, one of which is pending, and the other was resolved via a settlement. So it's not surprising that we're now seeing a pattern of potential racial discrimination as well.

As a Labor Union we demand equal treatment for all of our members, regardless of race, gender, or any other reason. The fact that our Administration appears to be giving preferential treatment to certain employees over others is deeply troubling, especially when it appears to be based on race.

Negative Effects of Connecticut Anti-Police Bill Already Being Seen

 After an especially violent weekend in Hartford, the HPD Police Union put out a press release tying the violence to the recent passage of the Democrat sponsored Anti-Police Bill. You can read that press release below:

We agree with the statements made by our friends across the river, and in fact we warned this would happen before the bill was passed. The Courant reached out to us yesterday for a response to this statement (you can read the story here.) Unfortunately they chose not to publish the entire quote I gave them, which is a huge reason why we started this blog in the first place, so that we could get our voice out there, unfiltered. So here is the quote in it's entirety:

"I think it's obvious to anyone just looking at the numbers, car break ins and thefts are out of control, and nobody is doing anything about it. The bars and nightclubs being closed due to COVID is probably actually helping the violent crime numbers stay down, if those were open I bet shootings would be off the charts, just look at what's happened with the few unsanctioned large gatherings we had this summer, they almost all ended in violence.

Let's be clear though, Officers aren't intentionally stepping back just to make a point. It's happening organically because we have to protect ourselves, our careers, and our families. Even if you do everything right you can still end up in a bad situation purely by chance and have the mob calling for your head, and now the Democrat politicians who run this state are on their side. They're making us out to be the bad guys to help themselves get votes, and the only examples they can cite as to why we're so terrible are things that happened a thousand miles away."

As you can see the second paragraph gives a lot more context to the first, and I think that context is important. Many of our Officers still have a strong desire to go out there and fight crime, we enjoy chasing down bad guys and bringing them to justice, that's why we signed up in the first place. But when the politicians and the media have put us in a position where there is too much personal risk for us to do our jobs, it's a lot more palpable to just sit back and wait for the call and become totally reactive.

This is personal to me, I grew up in a bad neighborhood in Southwestern Connecticut in the 80's and 90's, and like many people who grew up in that time period I remember how bad things were back then. You were taking a risk every time you went outside, violent crimes were committed with impunity, gangs ran the streets, and drug addicts were roaming the neighborhoods conducting their transactions in the open with money they got from pawning stolen property. If something wasn't bolted to the floor or locked up it was getting stolen. 

What changed things was the introduction of Proactive Policing, getting Officers out there in the community stopping crimes before they happen. All these tactics that people today badmouth were what really turned the tide and gave us the relatively peaceful and safe society we have in this state today. I know they made the difference because I witnessed it first hand in my own neighborhood and it's what inspired me to become a Police Officer.

Today you have people in this state living in safety because of the actions of those brave Officers who worked in literal warzones 30 years ago, criticizing what those men and women did to create the comfortable, safe world they now have. How quickly people have forgotten where we came from as a State and a Nation. This bill and others like it across the Country will lead us back down the crime ridden road to where we were in the 80's and 90's. Criminals now have the upper hand, backed by the Democrats who are running our State into the ground.

To our members, stay safe, stay out of trouble.

October Meeting

 Our October regular meeting will be held on Friday October 30th at 0830 in the usual place. Hope to see you there.

If At First You Don't Succeed...

 You may remember back in October of last year we posted here that one of our members had filed a baseless CHRO complaint against our Union. Well we are pleased to say that back in May we got notice that the CHRO agreed with us and chose to dismiss the case after an initial review without even holding a hearing because they felt the complaint had no cause. You can read the dismissal letter here:

Unfortunately about a month ago we got notice that the complainant had re-filed the same exact complaint that had just been rejected by the CHRO in the courts. While this will be waste of ours and the Court's time we're confident that this process will yield the same results as the CHRO process, with a dismissal. If a panel like the CHRO that exists solely to hear these types of allegations rejected the case due to a lack of cause, then we can't reasonably see the general Courts coming to a different conclusion. However with the Courts being what the Courts are, and the additional delays to the legal process caused by COVID, it will be quite some time until we get any resolution in this matter. In fact it is probably likely that the Sergeant's test issue at the heart of this complaint will probably be resolved before this complaint is which would ultimately make it moot anyway.

If you wish to know our thoughts on the complaint you can go back and read the post from a year ago as they haven't changed since it's the same complaint as it was back then. Thank you everyone for your patience as we navigate this matter.

September Meeting

We will be holding our regular monthly meeting on Tuesday the 29th at 0830 in the usual spot. We should have a pretty packed agenda to try and fill everyone in on what's been going on since we last met.

Who's Next?

Does anyone have a friend at the FBI or SDNY??? Wonder if they'd be interested in our Sergeant's test situation.

On a completely unrelated side note, has anyone heard from former HR Director Santiago Malave since his sudden departure just as the shit was starting to hit the fan? 😆

Informative Links Regarding the Anti-Police Bill

Thanks to everyone who attended the meeting we held, please pass on the information you got to everyone who wasn't able to attend. Here are a few links you might find useful.

Bill analysis by Senate Republicans

Bill analysis by House OLR

House Voter Roll

Senate Voter Roll

Text of Bill 72 pages

If you read all 72 pages of the bill that's 72 more than most of the people who voted on it.

Flip-flop - Sergeant's Test Debacle Update

We've been busy lately and haven't been able to update promptly so apologies there, but last Monday we finally had a hearing for the Sergeant's Test grievance at the Labor Board. The hearing was held virtually via Zoom, this was our first time having a remote hearing and we have some bugs to iron out for the future hearings but I think we've got a grasp on it. It definitely doesn't work nearly as well as in person hearings though.

As you may remember, back in November of 2019 before we began the hearings the Town challenged the arbitrability of the grievance and the Union won the decision unanimously, you can read about that here. This means the entire 3 member panel, including the Town's advocate, agreed that the matter could legally be arbitrated and a binding decision issued, and we then proceeded to have hearings until the shut down happened.

During the shut down the Town filed a motion to reconsider the arbitrability back in June, the panel did not even respond to their motion at that time as the matter had already been decided in November and we'd already begun hearings. When we commenced the virtual hearing on August 17th, the Town again asked the panel to reconsider the arbitrability based on the same exact argument the panel had rejected back in November and June, but this time with a new twist. This time the Town threatened to appeal the panel's decision to Superior Court regardless of the outcome of the hearing. Faced with the prospect of being dragged into Court and possibly having their decision overturned, the panel quickly called for a private caucus. 15 minutes later they returned and stated that they had now unanimously decided that their previous unanimous decision to grant arbitrability was actually incorrect, and they were now declaring that the matter cannot be arbitrated, even though we had already held hearings, submitted evidence and heard witness testimony. So they effectively dismissed the case without a decision.

We were all left shocked since we believe this situation is unprecedented for a panel to overrule themselves halfway through a case. Either they weren't confident in their decision, or they just didn't want the hassle of being sucked into a Court battle and decided that a little bit of corruption on a promotional exam is acceptable if it means they can skip a Court date. The whole situation is a joke and really shakes our confidence in the integrity of the Labor Board. We've lost cases there before, and we can accept that as long as we're given a well reasoned, thoughtful decision, even if we disagree with it. But this was nothing more a punt plan a simple, they just didn't want to deal with the hassle so they sent us on our way. We hope this doesn't set a precedent for future cases where either side can just threaten to inconvenience the panel so much that they toss the case just to avoid dealing with it.

This isn't a huge setback however, the Labor Board was always just a secondary venue for this case. The primary focus is still assisting the members who have appeals of the test before the Personnel Appeals Board. However we still haven't heard anything about when, or how the PAB hearings will resume. So the process will still remain on hold until those hearings conclude and we get a decision there.

Despite last week's outcome, the Labor Board process did have significant value since it helped us get all of the test documents made available to all of the candidates so they could see what really happened. Getting those documents out there served to strengthen the resolve to get answers and a better process that's less prone to corruption in the future.

We'll update further when we know more.

Anti-Police Bill Working It's Way Through Legislature

Many of our members have reached out to us over the last few days asking about the Anti-Police bill that was approved by the State House of Representatives the other day. People have asked what we're doing related to it, what they can do, and how or if, they should be doing their jobs, so we'll briefly try to respond here directly and honestly.

First and foremost, this bill is not yet law. It has only been approved by the House, it must still go to the Senate where they can approve or reject it as is, or they can pass it with provisions added or removed and then send their version back to the House for approval. Once a final version is passed it goes to the Governor for approval or veto. While I assume some version of this bill will pass, we're not going to offer any guidance or make any decisions until we see what the actual final language that gets passed is and what it means for us. Unfortunately the Legislature seems to be fast walking this bill without giving it the debate it deserves so they can go on vacation sooner. You can click this link to read the text of the bill and see how each Legislator voted.

As for what we've been doing, our attorney has been in contact with the Legislature on behalf of us and other Police Unions he represents, check your work email for more information. Additionally our Union Vice President wrote letters to several State Representatives on our behalf. Unfortunately there's not much more that we can do. As a labor Union, the only thing of value we have to offer to politicians are endorsements and campaign contributions, and right now the Democrats who are pushing this bill see us as the enemy and want nothing to do with our endorsements or our money. In fact they'd probably prefer we endorsed their opponents so they can show the mob driving them how anti-Police they are. So we just don't have much, if any political sway in this situation.

As for what you can do, you can click this link to find your State Legislators for your home district and East Hartford and write them an email or call their office to express your feelings on this bill. My only advice is if you're contacting a Democrat, it's probably best not to identify yourself as a Police Officer and rather present yourself as a concerned citizen, otherwise they may write you off immediately.

We don't have a crystal ball to look into to tell you what effect of the final bill will be until it's passed and we have time to analyze it. But if it goes through in it's current form it's highly destructive to our profession and we'll probably never be able to hire a qualified person again unless our salary is doubled. But for the time being, keep your cool, go to work, and let's see what happens. But just to be safe if you have 15 or more years on and you're still on the street you should probably take a look at your numbers and start thinking about heading for the exit IF we get the worst case scenario. Similarly if you have less than 5-7 years on you may want to start seriously looking at what your out-of-state options are if you wish to continue in Law Enforcement. We're not sounding the alarm just yet, and I'm hopeful the Senate will fix this mess of a bill before it passes, but I think people should start having these discussions with your families now so you have a plan if you need to go that route.

We'll post further updates on this as needed.

EHPD Glocks Not Shooting Straight

Over the last few months since our last Department wide firearms training session in the fall of 2019, word has gotten out that a large number of the Gen 4 Glock 17 models that our Officers are currently carrying have a serious flaw. The flaw is that when the trigger is pulled the bullets don't go where the gun is pointing, instead they tend to go a bit to the left. From what we've learned the problem seems to get worse with more use, and a quick internet search shows that this has been a known issue with these guns for at least the last 10 years and Glock still hasn't fixed it. Our firearms staff has run this issue up their chain of command and has been in touch with representatives at Glock and the only solutions they have offered is to tell them to instruct our members to compensate by aiming to the right of the target, and moving the sights on some of the guns so far to one side that they're hanging off the slide. They also suggested that our Officers just don't know how to shoot Glocks and were simply holding the guns wrong.

This isn't the first time we've had issues with Glocks, when I first started working here we had the older Gen 3 Glock 22 that we had to get rid of because the firing pins were falling out of the guns. Granted these guns were older and had a decent number of rounds through them before they started falling apart, but it's still not what you expect from a brand that markets it's guns as having "unsurpassed reliability." When we were going to replace those guns our Department considered the then new Gen 4 Glocks. But during testing they noticed several of the guns had jamming and lock back issues which Glock at first denied, but later admitted to and instructed our armorers to use a dremel tool to modify the guns to make them work, voiding the warranty in the process. Due to that issue, our Department instead went with the Smith & Wesson M&P 45, which we carrier for several years.

The Smiths ended up having defective magazine springs shortly after we got them, but unlike Glock, Smith admitted to the problem and replaced the defective magazine springs free of charge like you'd expect from any reputable company. So when we switched back to Glock a few years ago I was personally surprised that we were doing business again with a company that we had several quality issues with in the past.

We did some testing with my gun, which was one of the defective ones a few months ago. My gun was shot from a fixed position on a bench from about 5 to 7 yards. This gun only had about 300-400 rounds through it at the time as I'd never shot it outside of a Department sponsored training session. You can see on the photo below the top red dot was the target we were shooting at and the entire grouping is 1 to 2 inches to the left. This isn't a huge deviation, but this is also a relatively close range, as you get farther away the shot will be farther and farther off target. I've also been informed that members who have put a lot more rounds through their guns are seeing much larger deviations since the problem seems to get worse with use.

The lower red dot in the photo is a brand new gun right out of the box shot in the exact same way by the same person. As you can see that gun is dead on target, the shooter even managed to put multiple rounds through the same hole. This pretty much blows their excuse of our Officers holding the guns wrong right out of the water.

This problem isn't limited to us or just to Police, if you do a Google search you'll find a plethora of posts on gun forums from private owners complaining of the same issue with these guns.

As I stated earlier, we've known about this issue for a few months but we've kept quiet on it because I wanted to give Glock and our Administration time to remedy the problem. But it seems at this point that there is no remedy coming, Glock has no interest in making it right and our Administration has no interested in forcing their hand or replacing the guns. As of right now these guns are still on the street being carried by our Officers. If one of our members were to be involved in a shooting tonight where something or someone gets hit that wasn't supposed to and the Department was aware that the guns weren't shooting straight and did nothing about it, who's going to take the fall? My members have guns with sights cocked to the side and are being told to aim to the right of what they want to hit, this is completely unsafe and unacceptable and should've never been allowed to happen.

Chief Sansom and DC Hawkins have been aware of this issue for months and could have used their leverage as a members of the State and National Chiefs of Police Associations to pressure Glock into making the situation right. Or brought the issue before Town Council to get funding to replace the guns with something else that works. Instead they've done nothing and left the defective guns in our holsters. Our Officers deserve to have a weapon that's reliable and works properly, we've been failed in this case by both the manufacturer and our own Administration.

In Policing, most of us will never have to fire our weapons outside of training throughout our entire careers. But when we do it's because we're in a high stress situation and lives are on the line. Shooting in these circumstances is instinctual, it needs to be point and shoot, we can't be worrying about trying to aim to the right or any other bullshit "fixes" to compensate for defective equipment.

I'm not personally a big "gun guy," I'm not a fan of one brand over another, so I don't care what we change to. But I'm calling on our Chief to dump Glock and their defective guns and find us something else that's reliable, easy to use, and most importantly, hits what we're aiming at. Also consider whether or not it's backed up by a company who stands behind their products and takes responsibility for it's errors. It isn't just our safety on the line here, but also that of the citizens we're sworn to protect. Let's avoid a needless tragedy and get this problem fixed NOW.

EHPOA Contract Extension Passed

Back in January our Contract Negotiating Committee opened negotiations with the Town on a successor agreement to our Labor Contract expiring June 30th, 2020. We held several productive meetings with the Town's committee and had put together a few tentative agreements. Unfortunately when the meeting size restrictions went into effect it became extremely difficult for us to hold further meetings. We tried waiting it out for a bit but eventually it became clear that it would be an excessively long time before we could hold a meeting, and should arbitration be required with the delays and backlog at the Labor Board, we wouldn't have a settled contract for quite some time.

As a result our committee proposed to the Town's committee a one year extension to our current contract with no changes other than a 2% general wage increase, which should serve to keep us in line with inflation. Our membership ratified the extension and the Town's committee agreed to the deal and brought it to the Town Council with their recommendation of passage. Today the Town Council passed the extension.

This extension will get us to January when we will have to re-open negotiations, hopefully by then we will be able to hold in person meetings without restriction and we can pick up where we left off. For this reason we will probably keep the same committee so we won't have to start from scratch.

Thanks to the Town Negotiations Committee and the Town Council for helping get this agreement done.

Starting back up soon?

We just got word the other day that the Labor Board will be aiming for July 15th to begin hearing cases virtually. We have five pending cases right now, some of the more intensive ones like the Sergeant's test will probably be more difficult for us to effectively present remotely but the other side will have all the same challenges we do. This isn't our optimal solution as we'd much prefer in person hearings, but we're being told those may not begin until the fall, so this is our best chance to get things rolling again in a reasonable time frame. We don't have any dates yet, and I'm sure there are a lot of people waiting in line, but we'll update those involved once we know.

Our usual meeting spot is opening back up, but I assume they want to keep the capacity down for now so we're going to hold off until September to start having regular meetings again. If there's anything going on that needs our attention please reach out to anyone on the executive board.

More Delays

We just got word today that the Labor Board is cancelling hearings scheduled for July and is now scheduling into August. This means our hearing for the Sergeant's test grievance that was scheduled for July 2nd will be postponed to a later date.

Additionally we haven't heard anything about rescheduling the Personnel Appeals Board hearings yet so we don't have a timetable for that resuming yet.

Vote Results

Vote passed 80 yes to 1 no. Thanks to all for participating.

Union Vote Coming Up

Reminder to anyone who isn't aware, there's a vote coming up on June 16th, see your email for details. Show up in the break room from 0630 to 1630 to vote or contact Secretary Napolitano for an absentee ballot.

May Update

Quick update here, nothing much has changed since we last posted. All hearings at the Labor Board are still on hold, as well as the Personnel Appeals Board. We do have a July date scheduled at the Labor Board for the Sergeant's Test grievance that hasn't been cancelled yet so we're hopeful we will actually get a hearing on that date.

Our contract negotiating meetings were also cancelled, but we may be getting those going again towards the end of this month.

We're not going to hold a monthly meeting for May due to current gathering restrictions and also there just isn't much to update everyone on. We don't normally hold meetings over the summer but we're going to try to have one in June to make up for the last few we missed and hopefully we will have some new info to pass on by then. Check back here for dates.

As always if you have any concerns, feel free to give one of us a call. Stay safe and look out for each other.

Update to the Last Post

Just wanted to update that it's been a week since our last post on here and EHPD is still diligently checking employee's temperatures with a known faulty thermometer. I just personally finished my work week and never checked in above an indicated 93 degrees, and one day even came in as low as 89 degrees. So unfortunately the Administration's game of pretending they're looking out for us continues.

Security Theater

A few weeks ago Chief Sansom put together a "COVID-19 task force" that meets several times a week to come up with ways to help safeguard our employees. At first a few productive and helpful things came out of these meetings such as getting disinfectant wipes in the cruisers, closing the lobby to the public, answering minor calls over the phone and limiting unnecessary contact between squads as we wrote here in an earlier post. However like most of these types of efforts go, after the initial batch of helpful ideas came out the pressure was still on them to come up with new ideas. So they started delving deeper to justify their existence with new, less helpful ideas.

When we first met with this task force the first thing we noticed was that of the six people on it, three Deputy Chiefs and three Lieutenants, not a single one of them is directly involved with the Patrol Division. Patrol are of course the only ones actually on the front lines out dealing with potentially sick people in the public. So it just seems like common sense to bring someone into these meetings who's actually involved day to day and has some perspective on what those employees are going through and need. But instead Chief Sansom picked six people who all work upstairs far removed from the street, this seems like an odd choice to us.

Here are some of the measures the Union presented that were shot down; as we previously wrote about on here we proposed that employees who had a potential exposure or fell ill be given Administrative leave and/or covered under Worker's Compensation instead of being forced to use their own accrued time off, which the Chief refused. Fortunately for us President Trump and Congress stepped up with legislation to help give us some extra time off specifically for Coronavirus related issues as of April 1st. While we're really glad the Federal Government is helping us out, it's still disappointing to know that our own Chief and Mayor refused to do anything to help us without being forced to by the Feds. Of course even with the Feds forcing their hand the Town still had to take a swipe at our Union by telling people that if you did use any of that Federally guaranteed time off they would count it against your earned days. They just can't help themselves when they see an opportunity to screw over their employees.

Another idea we brought to the Chief was to allow anyone in a public facing position who falls into a defined high risk group due to medical condition or age, to have the option of voluntarily going on Administrative Duty temporarily so they can work in house and potentially reduce their risk of exposure. As far as we know this was never put into effect, probably because it would incur overtime costs, though probably not much as I don't think we have too many people who fall into these risk groups.

One of the task force's ideas that got put into motion last week is the checking of temperatures at the beginning of your shift and sending people home if they have a fever. This is ineffective for a few reasons, the most obvious one being that the thermometer they bought for doing this task is wildly inaccurate. Most of our employees are being checked in with temperatures in the high 80's and low 90's, some as low as 83 degrees. Of course if that was anyone's actual body temperature they'd be dead of hypothermia long before the virus got them. Knowing how the Town of East Hartford works I wouldn't be surprised if they just walked across the street to Dollar Tree and picked this piece of junk out of the clearance bin with the 3 for $5 DVDs so we can save money to buy more laptops for non-essential employees to work from home.

It's also been well documented and well known at this point in the pandemic that a person can carry and spread the virus without having a fever and many people are in fact completely asymptomatic. And even when you do show symptoms you may not have a fever until you're several days in, so a fever is hardly the defining symptom. Checking temperatures makes sense at a store or other public facility where you have unknown people walking in and out, but in a workplace with the same small group of people every day it really accomplishes nothing other than annoying your employees and creating an atmosphere of distrust. This is especially true when you're doing it with a broken thermometer that gives laughably inaccurate readings. Most people can feel when they have a fever and our members are trustworthy enough that they wouldn't come to work knowingly sick and put their co-workers and their families at risk.

The task force has also gone so far as to put up occupancy limit signs in certain rooms in the building like the report writing room, gym, and Watch Commander's office and putting obscure tape markings on the floor. We understand what the intent is with this but the reality is we're all sharing cars, touching the same door handles, railings, car books, keyboards, keys, paperwork, phones. And then once we're out on the street we're going to calls together in cramped apartments and stairwells, sometimes we even roll around on the ground with suspects together. Close contact and cross contamination between employees is inevitable in our line of work. Trying to put these restrictions in place inside the building just creates an awkward work environment and puts more stress on people during an already stressful time.

Of course none of this is about being effective or actually accomplishing anything. It's security theater meant to make it look like something is being done, similar to what the TSA does at airports. In the case of the TSA they at least accomplish the goal of creating an intimidating process that acts as a deterrent. But viruses don't get intimidated or deterred, you either have it or you don't. We think the better approach is to trust your employees and work with them instead of treating them like suspects or idiots. We hope the task force will consider next time they come up with an idea, how effective will it actually be and realize that sometimes you've done all you can for the time being and can take your foot off the accelerator. Don't just do things because you feel like you need to do something or because someone else is doing it.

Overall we think all of our members are doing a great job handling this situation so far with common sense and caution while still doing effective Police work. Hopefully we'll all be through this soon and back to our regular routines.

EHPOA Fundraiser on Hold

We've asked our fundraising company to suspend their phone and mail operations on our behalf for the time being with so many people out of work. We invite anyone who wants to help us out to instead donate new, unused PPE (Masks, gloves, gowns, face shields etc...) if you have any extra that you can part with. You can bring it to the Police Station, the lobby is currently closed to the Public but if you call the non emergency line (860-528-4401) they can have someone meet you in the parking lot. Thank you.

Department Measures Related to the Corona Virus [UPDATED]

Information has been a bit scarce and there seems to be some confusion going on around the Department. We're just putting up this post wth the little that we currently know so that folks can utilize the comments section to share their concerns and comments about the measures the Town has taken so far.

Originally we had heard that if any employees got sick that it would be covered under worker's comp no questions asked to encourage people not to come to work sick and possily spread it. But the Mayor's email yesterday stated that if employees get sick they'd have to use their own accrued time off and provide proof to the Town that they were sick, we assume in the form of a doctor's note. I think that's a bad idea as people may come to work anyway to avoid using up their time off. Or they will be going to the doctor unecessarily even though they have mild symptoms as most with the virus do just to get a note, which could cause unnecessary traffic at Doctor's offices who should be focusing on more critical patients.

I'd like to see, at least for first reponders, that we just get covered under worker's comp if we get sick for the duration of this issue. Of course if you can prove you got sick at work you should be covered anyway, but I don't see how anyone can definitively prove that. Especially in a Town where they're so aggressive about worker's comp cases that they tried to deny coverage to employees who got run over by cars on duty by claiming they had pre-existing conditions.

The Mayor also stated that all Town buildings would be closed to the public, but as of today the lobby of our building is still open to everyone. We're not sure if that policy will apply to us or not.

We've seen other area PDs instituting policies of allowing Officers to take reports for minor complaints over the phone instead of sending an Officer to someone's home unnecessarily. I think this is a great idea as it limits exposure in people's homes and is something that larger Departments do even under normal circumstances. So far we haven't heard anything about EHPD implementing this kind of policy.

We have been issued some PPE kits and there's disinfecting wipes in all the cars. Obviously this is a rapidly evolving situation and we expect the Admin is still working on getting more done in the coming days. We know they read this blog, so use the comments section to relay your opinions and concerns about what you think they're doing right, and what more you think they can do.

UPDATE 3-20-2020......

In the past week we've seen the Chief authorize Officers to respond to non emergency calls via telephone like many other Departments. We think that's a great move to limit exposure. The lobby at our Headquarters has also been closed to the public which is especially important at EHPD where our building layout requires crossing the lobby to get from one end of the building to the other unless you use the basement or second floor. We'd like to applaud the Admin for taking these measures.

Unfortunately the Admin refused to cover time off for employees who have been exposed saying that they will have to use their own accrued time for any missed work or be docked pay if they don't have any accrued time. Their opinion seems to be that they shouldn't have to cover you for free because if you get sick that's your problem. While we agree that under normal circumstances folks should use their own time, these are not normal circumstances and the Department should be doing everything they can to encourage employees who may have been exposed to voluntarily come forward and stay home without worrying about a personal cost to prevent the potential spread of sickness through the Department and community we are in contact with. This seems like trying to pinch pennies when one slip up could end up costing thousands, it just doesn't seem worth it.

The Chief did say that when this was all over they'd try to seek Federal or State reimbursement to get people their time off back, but that's not a sure thing and seems unnecessary when he could just choose to put anyone on Administrative leave without any red tape and then seek reimbursement for that later on. Of course that means the Town has to come out of their own pocket initially instead of ours and they'd take the hit if they cant get reimbursed down the line.

That's all we have for now. Stay safe out there everyone.

Personnel Appeals Postponed Indefinitely

We just got word yesterday that the three PAB hearings we had scheduled over the next 3 weeks have all been postponed indefinitely due to the Mayor closing Town Hall to evening meetings (Because we all know viruses only come out at night.). We were hoping to be able to wrap this issue up with these three hearings and have a decision by the end of the month, but now we may be pushed into June or even July depending on how long this goes on. I'm sure once Town Hall is re-opened there will be a lot of people vying for time to reschedule all sorts of hearings. Obviously we'd like to get this wrapped up as soon as possible, but that may be out of our hands at this point. We'll keep everyone updated when we find out more.

March Meeting [CANCELED]

Our March regular meeting will be held on Monday the 30th at 1630 in the usual spot. We will discuss updates to the Sergeant's test process as well as the latest with contract negotiations. Our second set of proposals should be exchanged by then so we will have new information. We have a PAB meeting afterwards at 1730 so we will be keeping the meeting brief and to the point. Hope to see you all there.

UPDATE: The Executive Board has decided to cancel this month's meetings. All of our contract meetings have also been canceled as well as PAB and pretty much everything else we're working on so there wouldn't be much to share anyway. We'll use this blog and lineups to keep people in the loop for the time being.

Postponements and Reschedulings.

Just to update everyone since we've been quiet on here for a couple weeks. The PAB meeting that was scheduled for February 20th was cancelled about 2 hours before it was supposed to start because Town Hall realized they had failed to post notice of it as required by law. The irony here of course is that the hearing was going to closed to public due to the "confidential" documents anyway. But they still are required to post notice to the public that there was going to be a hearing that they wouldn't be allowed to attend because the Town doesn't want anyone, especially the voting, tax paying public, to know the truth about what happened with the Sergeant's test. Of course we shouldn't be surprised that a Town government so incompetent that it can't manage to administer a simple promotional exam without it being mired in scandal and legal action also can't manage to adhere to it's own rules on public meeting notices.

The next PAB meeting isn't scheduled until March 19th at 1730. Again that meeting will most likely be closed to the public.

While we're on the topic of Town Officials shooting themselves in the foot with their own incompetence, at the last PAB hearing before the meeting was closed to the public it was accidentally revealed that the Town showed the "confidential" documents to the lawyer that's representing them in their CHRO defense. This was a point of contention when we were arguing the language for the protective order over the test documents. The Union asked to also be allowed to use the documents in our CHRO case but the Town threw a fit and opposed that saying that these documents weren't relevant to that case (even though the test results are clearly mentioned in the affidavit). The judge decided that the documents could only be used in the PAB hearings and if either party wanted to use them in another venue we'd have to come back and negotiate another order for that specific venue. So by showing these "confidential" documents to their other lawyer that's representing them in the CHRO case, the Town most likely violated the protective order that they asked for in the first place. You really can't make this stuff up, East Hartford must have hired it's attorneys at a job fair when Ringling Brothers went out of business.

On another note we were also scheduled for mediation in our CHRO case for February 25th but that was cancelled by the plaintiff at the last minute, though we were never notified of the cancellation so we showed up anyway. We're not sure right now what or when the next step in that process will be and we don't currently have anything scheduled at this time.

During this process we were made aware of an email from one of the Town's attorneys to the CHRO where she blames the Union and the PAB appellants for causing delay to the process by exercising their legal rights to an appeal and the Union's right to a grievance. These are complete lies as the Union has made several efforts to expedite this process so we can get the Department back to functioning like normal, a desire that the Town should share if they weren't desperately trying to hide what really happened. As we've documented here over the last several months, the Town has done everything in it's power to intentionally delay and draw out this process unnecessarily long. Just last week we made another offer to try and expedite the grievance which the Town again refused. And as I just wrote above, the most recent delay was caused by the Town failing to post the meeting notice, so trying to put the blame on the Union for the delays is a ridiculous proposition.

We are currently scheduled to begin the grievance process for the Sergeant's exam at the Labor Board on March 11th but that may be getting postponed as well as we're still waiting for a decision on the MPP that relates to it.

Otherwise we have a few contract meetings scheduled with the Town over the coming weeks including the first one tomorrow. We have received the Town's initial proposals and shared them at the last meeting. We can't post them here due to a provision in the ground rules but if any member wants to know what they are feel free to ask any member of the committee which is posted on the board in the break room. Please refrain from referencing them in the comment section as we agreed to keep them private during the negotiations process.

We'll keep this space updated but since we're limited in what we can speak about on multiple ongoing matters it may be a while. In the meantime try to attend the meetings as we will be able to discuss more there particularly in regards to contract negotiations.

Update on PAB Hearings

Our next PAB hearing is scheduled for February 20th at 1700 at Town Hall. As of the last hearing the confidential portion has begun so from now until I assume the end of the process the hearings will be closed to the public so our members who aren't witnesses or appellants will no longer be able to attend. We'll keep members updated as best we can without violating the agreement.

February Meeting

Our February regular meeting will be on Thursday the 20th at 1600 at the usual spot. We have a PAB meeting immediately afterwards at 1700 so we're going to keep the meeting brief and will just go over the latest items we've been working on.

Personnel Appeals Board Hearing February 10th

We have another PAB hearing this Monday at 1700. It's looking like the Town will use their court order to close it off to the public so none of their dirty secrets get out. So unfortunately our members who aren't a party to the order will be unable to attend, and neither will members of the media who have come to a few of the hearings.

The first portion of the hearing may be open to the public while DC Davis testifies, but after that we think it will be closed. So if you want to attend for that portion you may be able to, but we can't guarantee it.

Union Meeting Tomorrow

Just a reminder that our monthly meeting is tomorrow at 0830 at the usual spot. We have a lot to cover so if you're interested and/or have questions feel free to attend.

EHPOA and Town Open Labor Contract Negotiations

Yesterday the EHPOA Negotiating Committee had our first meeting with the Town to open negotiations for a new labor contract to replace the current one set to expire on June 30th 2020. This meeting was just to set the ground rules for negotiations and set future meeting dates, no actual contract items were discussed.

One of the ground rules both sides agreed to is that we will conduct all negotiations in private. This means we will not be able to post anything regarding what is being negotiated on this blog since it's a public forum. We are free to discuss all the details with our members at our meetings and at lineups however. So if you want to know what's going on with negotiations, you're going to have to come to the monthly meetings where we will be giving updates. We'll get a list of committee members posted on the Union bulletin board in the Patrol breakroom as well.

If you have any ideas that you'd like addressed in negotiations and haven't already passed them on to the Union Vice President, please do so by February 4th.

Summary of January 22nd Personnel Appeals Board Hearing

Thanks again to everyone who came to the hearing to show their support for our members. This hearing picked up where the last one left off with the Appellant's testimony. The second Appellant testified to his reasons for filing his appeal which were pretty much in line with the first Appellant who testified at the last hearing. He went over his experience and test preparation, but otherwise there wasn't anything new revealed.

The Appellants also called a Lieutenant from our Department as a witness. He testified that when he took a Sergeant's exam several years ago he too had questions about the reasoning behind the low passing score he received on his oral board exam. In that case he contacted HR Director Santiago Malave and asked to see his score sheets, which he was allowed to do without any questions or having to file any official requests. He also testified that he learned he could do this from another Sergeant who told him that she had been able to see her oral board results and suggested he do the same. This of course stands in stark contrast to the experience the three Appellants had in this case where they were lied to and then denied the ability to review their paperwork, even after filing the official paperwork as instructed by Mr. Malave.

Because we were limited in time at this hearing, that's all we were able to cover. There is another hearing on Monday the 27th at 1700 were the Appellants should be able to wrap up their initial case and the Town will begin theirs, but at this time we don't know if that hearing will be open to the pubic or not.

After the hearing the Appellants, the Union President and Vice President finally received copies of the documents that we've been seeking regarding this matter. We haven't had time to review everything in depth yet since there's a large number of pages, but we'll be working on getting that done and meeting amongst ourselves in the coming days. As we detailed in a previous post we are prohibited from disclosing the contents of the documents to anyone not involved in this process due to a court order. But we can say that after what we've seen so far in a brief overview of the documents, the Union absolutely intends to continue to pursue our grievance on this issue and our assistance to the Appellants for all the reasons we've previously stated here and at our meetings.

Personnel Appeals Board Hearing January 22nd

The next PAB Hearing is Scheduled for Wednesday January 22nd from 1700-1900. We have a fixed end time due to another group using the room after us. This hearing will still be open to the public as we will not be using the "confidential" documents at that hearing since we may not have them yet and/or will not have had time to fully review them, so members are still free to come to observe and show their support if you wish.

EHPOA Wins Limited Release of Sergeant's Oral Board Documents in Superior Court

As most of you are aware we have been fighting with the Town over viewing the documents related to the contested Sergeant's test for 7 or 8 months now in multiple venues. The Union has consistently argued that if we were allowed to see the documents and everything appeared legitimate as the Town claims it is, then this issue would go away and we could move forward with promotions. Instead the Town has fought us tooth and nail and spent tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep these supposedly benign documents hidden from anyone's view despite past practice of transparency. In the meantime the custodian of the documents suddenly put in for retirement which has further raised suspicion that maybe they're not so benign after all.

One of the venues we've been fighting in is Superior Court where we filed a motion to release the documents for use the Personnel Appeals Board hearings. Last week when the attorneys went before the judge there was no question on his part that the candidates should be allowed to see these documents and use them in their appeals. But he wanted to come up with some sort of protective order over the documents to satisfy the Town's desire to keep them shrouded in secrecy. Yesterday we received the judge's decision on the matter which is as follows;

The Union's attorney, President, Vice President, and the three appealing candidates will be allowed to view all documents related to the test unredacted.

The seven non-appealing candidates will be allowed to view all documents pertaining only to their own individual tests unredacted.

Witnesses and outside experts may view only the content of the documents pertinent to their testimony.

All parties allowed to view the documents will have to sign a confidentiality agreement to not disclose the information contained in the documents to anyone not listed in the above paragraphs. They must also agree to only use this information for the PAB hearings and may not use them for any other hearing without going through this court process again. Additionally once the hearings are over we must return the documents to the Town for destruction, never to be seen again.

The last main point, which was a point of contention between the Union and the Town, is that when these documents are being discussed in the normally public PAB hearings, the hearing will be made private with only those given access to the documents allowed to be in the room. The Union has pushed for these hearings to remain open to the public and members of the Department because we believe the only cure for corruption in Government is transparency, without it nobody can be assured that the process is fair. The Town unfortunately doesn't share this belief and made a big push to close the hearings to the public and the judge ultimately sided with them.

There's been a lot of speculation over the last few months about what these documents will show, fueled by the Town's irrational grabbing at straws to hide them, and now we'll finally have the answer. Whether they reveal corruption or nothing at all really doesn't matter at this point, the damage has been done. The employees here at EHPD have lost all faith in our Town's HR Department to conduct a competent, impartial, and transparent exam and promotional process. Whenever a new HR Director is finally appointed they're going to have a real challenge on their hands to rebuild trust and fix the complete mess Santiago Malave has made of the Department.

We are also still arguing for the release of these documents through an MPP for use during the grievance process since this order only allows us to use them in the PAB hearing. we have a hearing scheduled for that at the labor board later in the month.

The next PAB Hearing is Scheduled for Wednesday January 22nd from 1700-1900. We have a fixed end time due to another group using the room after us. This hearing will still be open to the public as we will not be using the documents at that hearing since we may not have them yet and/or will not have had time to fully review them, so members are still free to come and show their support.

January Meeting

Our January meeting will be held on Thursday January 30th at 0830 at the usual spots. Due to a packed schedule with PAB Hearings, Superior Court dates, grievances, training, and the opening of contract negotiations we are unable to do it in conjunction with a common day like we usually try to.

On the Agenda will be updates on the Sergeant test appeals/grievance, opening of labor contract negotiations, Appendix F issues, and any other issues that may arise. As always we will have an open floor for members to bring up their own issues.

If you're a Supervisor I encourage you to attend as we've recently had some productive discussions with the Chief about how to resolve the constant Appendix F disputes in contract negotiations and I'd like input from those it affects most.

Summary of Jan 8th PAB Hearing

Thanks again to everyone who came and sat in on the hearing last night. Unfortunately it got off to a rocky start with confusion over the start time so we didn't get started until around 1730, and once we did there were a few Administrative motions by board members. Based on the language of the motions and the support from two of the three Board members, it seems to me as though the majority of the Board agrees with the Appellant's position that the Town should be open and transparent with test results to get this rather simple issue cleared up instead of muddying the waters with deception and unnecessary secrecy.

Once we got the hearing started Attorney McEleney began by submitting all the documents he was going to be referring to in his case to the Board as exhibits. The Town's attorney Meredith Diette objected and insisted that the entire 58 page FOI packet the Town gave me months ago including the letters to the examiners and candidates be entered as 58 separate exhibits instead of as one whole document. So we all sat there while all 58 pages were individually numbered and entered. This set the tone for the rest of the hearing with Attorney Diette objecting to almost every document submitted by the appellants after that, including one that was just a chart listing all the candidates and their grades, and relevant emails between the candidates and HR Director Malave.

Both Attorneys then gave their opening statements with Attorney McEleney using his time to simply lay out the facts of the case and reasons for the appeals as we've laid out on here previously. Attorney Diette then gave her statement which continued the Town's theme of "nothing wrong happened but we're not going to prove it you, and you need to stop asking." During her statement however she repeatedly stressed that the one candidate with the perfect score and 28 point gap to second place was female, bringing it up over and over again with a strong verbal emphasis. It was obvious to everyone there that Attorney Diette was trying to make the implication that this appeal was only happening because the appellants had some sort of sexist bias and not because everyone else who took the test either failed or just barely passed with a minimum score. Not only is her implication unfounded and offensive to our members, but it seems pretty stupid to accuse your client's employees of sexism against a coworker while your client is actively being sued by that same coworker for sexism in the workplace. I'm no lawyer but that seems like a pretty bad legal strategy to me. Chief Sansom complains about morale being low among the ranks, why not try telling your lawyer not to make completely unfounded implications of illegal behavior by your employees in a public hearing as a morale booster?

In fact when the first appellant, began his testimony the first thing he did was call out Attorney Diette on her offensive comments to which she had no response. He then went on to detail his extensive preparation for the tests, the test questions and his feelings on them, his discussions with other candidates and employees about his answers and his lack of understanding of his score. He also described how after the scores were released, he was mislead by Human Resources.

The Officer explained that he went to HR and asked Suzan Kyeremateng how he could view his test results to help understand his score and she told him he would have to wait 15 days after the posting to look at them, but he would be able to. A short time later he learned that in order to file a PAB appeal he only had 14 days, so had he taken Suzan's advice he would have missed the window to file an appeal. Either she isn't familiar with the processes of the Department she works in, or she intentionally mislead the Officer to prevent him from filing an appeal. After realizing this he emailed HR Director Malave and asked how he could view his test results, Malave responded that he would have to file an FOI request, but implied that after that he'd be able to see them. Several days after filing the FOI Malave responded that it was denied and refused to show him anything. This whole exchange was captured via email, when a copy of the email was submitted as an exhibit Attorney Diette objected and was able to keep it from being seen by the Board members. Fortunately during a blunder later during cross examination she accidentally opened the door to the email and it was allowed to be submitted to the Board.

This seems like a recurring theme with HR where we never can quite tell if they're simply incompetent, or if they know exactly what they're doing and are just lying. Either way our members should take it as a warning for future interactions with them that you cant believe anything they tell you. You're going to have to look things up for yourself.

We had a scheduled stop time of 2000, and during her cross examination of the first Officer Attorney Diette seemed to be asking a number of repetitive or irrelevant questions while repeatedly looking at the clock. It seemed to me and others watching that she was simply trying to waste time  and run down the clock to prevent Attorney McEleney from calling another witness that day, and she succeeded in running just past 2000. Fortunately for us, the PAB, perhaps noticing Attorney Diette's tactic, allowed McEleney to call one more witness before adjourning.

Attorney McEleney called one of our members who took the Detective's exam in 2018. That member detailed how she questioned her oral board score and requested of Mr. Malave that she be allowed to view her score sheets. Mr. Malave not only allowed her to see the sheets, but he didn't request that she file an FOI or take any other additional steps. It was a completely different exchange to the one Officers had with this test. Of course this exchange was also captured in an email chain which Attorney McEleney tried to give to the Board members but Attorney Diette again objected to it.

The hearing was adjourned after that. The next hearing will be in two weeks on Jan 22nd at 1700, unless they change it to 1730. We expect that the Appellants will proceed with the rest of their witnesses on that date.

PAB Hearing this Wednesday January 8th

The Personnel Appeals Board hearing for this Wednesday is going forward. The plan is to have the appellants and other witnesses on our side testify at this hearing. The hearing will take place at 1700 hours in Town Council Chambers at Town Hall. If you're free and would like to attend to show your support or just learn more about what's going on with the process, the hearing is open to the public and we encourage you to attend.