Does EHPD Really Have a Lying Problem?

 In the past 11+ years that I've worked at EHPD, up until a little over a year ago I had only seen one non-probationary employee terminated, and I can't remember hearing of anyone being found guilty of lying. Yet somehow, in the last 15 months or so we've had five members investigated for "lying" and four terminations. So what's changed? Let's look at a brief overview of some of these cases of alleged "lying" and see if we can figure it out.

In one case we had an Officer with over 20 years on the job, who stated in an Internal Affairs interview that he was escorting a lost motorist to the highway. He was asked where he began the escort and at first wasn't sure, but after being pressed for an answer eventually gave a location. The IA Investigator went to multiple businesses along his route and asked to view their security cameras. Two of the businesses complied, one near where the Officer claimed he began the escort, and another near the end. The camera near the starting point didn't show the vehicle the Officer described behind his cruiser. However, the camera near where the escort ended did in fact show the exact car he described as the very next vehicle on the road a short distance behind the cruiser. 

Now any reasonable person would take that information and figure that perhaps the Officer was mistaken about where exactly the escort began, but clearly the escort did occur based on the second camera confirming his story. However this wasn't enough for our IA division, they still accused the Officer of lying about the escort, and Chief Sansom terminated him. 

Then we had another case that has been detailed here before, where two 20+ year veteran Officers were accused of making statements to members of a construction crew on a job site during a conversation. There was no evidence other than the statements from four workers, who actually contradicted each other on some points, and one of whom even admitted that he was on a different job site in another part of Town when the conversation in question occurred, and didn't actually witness anything first hand. However when the Officers denied the accusations against them, they were also charged with lying simply because they disagreed with the people who were accusing them. By this standard, you're not even allowed to defend yourself against an allegation without being called a liar. Apparently due process isn't a thing we do in East Hartford any more.

Lastly we have the most recent case involving a car chase of an armed felon in a stolen vehicle that ended in a crash. Here again the Officers were asked numerous questions about exactly where they were at precise times during the incident, over two months after it happened. Prior to the interview IA had already pulled surveillance footage, and GPS data from the cruisers. But IA didn't allow the Officers to view any of this information before answering their questions. Some of this data was actually pretty inaccurate however, and months later when the Officers were finally allowed to see it after the investigation was over, they found that it seemed to show one of the cruisers in different locations at the same time, and at one point even shows a cruiser moving backwards. Note that at the time this incident occurred we did not yet have body cameras.

Despite all of these inconsistencies in the evidence, when the account the Officers gave put them a couple hundred yards away from where IA thought they were based on videos and GPS the Officers were never allowed to see, they were still charged with lying by IA. Keep in mind that even based on the evidence from IA, the Officer's cruisers were still so far away from the suspect vehicle that they would have been out of visual contact with it well before the crash even occurred. So really their exact position on the road was kind of trivial to the substance of the case itself.

This is a pretty dangerous standard to have for an investigation in the era of cameras being everywhere, including on our bodies. In this case the Investigator has all of the footage and evidence, but you're not allowed to see it. But if the answers you give to the questions solely from your recollection don't match up perfectly with what's on the video that you can't see, then you're branded a liar. This doesn't make sense. 

The IA Investigator goes on to claim in his report that Police Officers are special in that they should have the ability to perfectly recollect everything that occurs during "stressful" and "chaotic" incidents without error. This is simply and obviously untrue. Police Officers are regular people, we get tunnel vision when we're stressed, and sometimes the exact order of events gets crossed up. We've all been through the trainings where we saw Officers who were interviewed after critical incidents and incorrectly recollected how many shots they fired, or where exactly people were at a given moment, etc... Scientists have even studied this phenomenon in first responders specifically and found that even in those who are expected to handle it, stress still causes the impairment of memory.

So what's changed in the past year or so, have veteran EHPD Officers just gone nuts and decided to start lying about minor details en mass? I personally don't think so. You see, this sudden flip of a switch from Internal Affairs where everyone is suddenly lying, coincided with a change of personnel running the division, namely Lt. Joe Ficacelli, who is the lead IA investigator. His name has come up here before, where we mentioned how he himself was terminated from his former employer, the Hartford Police Department, while he was in the Academy after they found some "inconsistencies" in the information he provided during his background check surrounding his steroid use and car crashes (click here for story). Is he looking for some kind of redemption for his past by making these accusations against others? I don't know.

What I do know however, is that Lt. Ficacelli was asked about his past with Hartford back in December of 2020 while he was testifying under oath in a hearing before the State Labor Board. But when the Union attorney began asking him about what happened to result in his termination, according to the transcript Lt. Ficacelli stated that he was "vindicated" in civil court. He then went on claim that he believed he had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the City of Hartford that would preclude him from speaking about the matter in the hearing. The Hearing Officer then stated that if he was the subject of an NDA then he couldn't be required to answer the questions about his termination.

So naturally this piqued my curiosity, and we made a few phone calls to the Hartford Police Department and filed an FOI request. After some time they were able to dig up the agreement that Lt. Ficacelli had cited to get out of answering the questions during the hearing. Upon review of the document we found that the City did not admit to any wrongdoing in terminating Ficacelli, and even had it clearly written that they were only agreeing to the settlement to avoid paying further legal costs fighting his lawsuit. The City merely agreed to sponsor Ficacelli to attend the POST Academy on the explicit condition that once he completed his training, the City would NOT employ him as a Police Officer, and he'd have to seek employment elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't describe signing an agreement that states you're not going to get a job from an employer who terminated you, as being "vindicated." 

Additionally, paragraph 5 of the settlement clearly states that while Ficacelli is not allowed to speak of the details of the agreement to the general public, he is allowed to discuss it if compelled by "compulsory process of law." Such as testifying under oath in an official proceeding before a body such as the State Labor Board. So he actually shouldn't have been allowed to refuse to testify, and mislead the Hearing Officer.

So using the standard that Lt. Ficacelli has applied to the people his office has investigated, wouldn't these inaccurate statements that he made, under oath, also qualify as lies? Perhaps he mis-spoke, or mis-remembered some of the details? Well that reasoning didn't seem to resonate with him when he was the one doing the investigating. What we know is that he hasn't been investigated, or even written up, so I guess it's not lying when he does it, just everyone else? Seems like a bit of a double standard.

Not Even Pretending Anymore

 Early Thursday morning an armed car burglary suspect opened fire on two East Hartford Officers and a citizen complainant while fleeing from the scene of the crime with his accomplice. Fortunately by sheer luck nobody was struck by the bullet, however the suspects managed to escape (Click here for the full story). This incident seems to be part of an escalation that's occurred over the last few years and has really ticked up over the past 12 months. We've seen things like car break-ins, thefts, and shootings increase in frequency, as well as more suspects fleeing from Officers trying to stop them, both in cars and on foot. Now we're seeing suspects responding to Officers with deadly force for daring to try and stop them from stealing a few bucks out of someone's cup holder.

This escalation is most likely related to the current anti-Police attitudes embraced by our State politicians who emboldened criminals with their Anti-Police "reform" bill that they forced through along party lines last summer. Our hands have been tied and our members have been demonized by rhetoric pushed for political gain, and the bad guys know it. 

But we've written about this problem before, and we warned of it along with numerous other Unions and Police groups before the law's passage. Now those ominous predictions are coming to fruition. But I think we all hoped that even with the national media and the politicians turning on us and using the Police as scapegoats for their failed policies, that we'd at least have support from our Administrators who used to be cops themselves way back when. But that hasn't been the case. 

When that shooting occurred Thursday morning Chief Sansom was out of State on vacation, so he had left his number two man Deputy Chief Hawkins as Acting Chief in his absence. When DC Hawkins was called in the early morning hours and informed about two of his employees being shot at, he never came in to work to see the scene for himself or check on his guys, or even just show his support. Instead he made a few phone calls and then presumably went back to bed. As if that wasn't bad enough, when the members on scene requested he send the Detective Bureau out on overtime to help collect and process evidence so we could try to identify the suspects before they catch another Officer off guard, DC Hawkins actually pushed back and questioned why we needed Detectives to come out before eventually relenting and allowing only one Detective and an Investigator to come in. This behavior just further shows that this Administration is beyond maintaining even the mere appearance of giving a damn about their employees' wellbeing. 

Their sole concern these days seems to be cutting the budget and pinching every penny they can. That is unless of course we're talking about raises for themselves where Chief Sansom just took a $30,000 raise (sorry, "market adjustment") for himself and Hawkins is proposed to get an $11,000 bump with the new, unnecessary Assistant Chief position that's being created for him. Meanwhile their employees continue to be some of the lowest paid in the region and that shows no signs of changing.

This Administration's policy of slashing costs with no regard has helped put us in this hole we're in today. Our pro-active unit has been completely dissolved, our Detective Bureau is rarely ever allowed to come in and do details to target crime hot spots and other issues, and even several members of our Traffic Unit are being required to do double duty by also performing Patrol functions. And on top of that any Officer who tries to do pro-active work has to worry about having IA come after them even if something completely out of their control goes wrong. 

A Police Department isn't a business, we don't sell anything and we don't make money. Our job is to stop and prevent crime, but we don't control the criminals, or when or where the crime happens. When crime goes up you need to put guys on it, and that costs money, but that's just the price of having a good Police Department.

Personnel Appeals Board Update

 We were scheduled to resume the PAB hearings virtually last night after nearly a year's delay due to COVID concerns, with another hearing scheduled for tonight. Unfortunately one of the panel members didn't show or wasn't aware of the hearing and it was cancelled. Tonight's hearing was also cancelled due to some miscommunication about scheduling that we thought had been ironed out. It's very disappointing and ridiculous that this process has been unnecessarily dragged out this long while our members have patiently waited. 

Even the Mayor chimed in during the hearing to voice her displeasure with all of the delays. But we'd like to point out that this process could have and should have been wrapped up over a year ago had the Town not insisted on pursuing their gag orders to block the people involved from publicly speaking about what actually happened with the test scores. Or they could've just not done what they did that caused our members to file appeals in the first place. Of course we can't disclose what happened here due to said order, but needless to say people don't usually pursue gag orders to cover up totally legitimate behavior, so read into that what you will.

So this process drags on further, we have new dates scheduled though the end of next month now. Remember this test was initially given back in the Spring of 2019. The Town has been unable to fill these Sergeant vacancies since then, and in fact more vacancies have opened as more Sergeants have since retired. I can't imagine how many tens of thousands of dollars (or more) the Town has spent paying overtime to existing Sergeants to fill in for the vacancies that should have been filled by these candidates over the last 2 years. Nor can I calculate how much income the candidates have lost out on due to the actions of the Town in this matter. Hopefully someone can do that math and find a way to make these members whole.

So What Did All That Cost?

 It was brought to my attention the the Chief took offense to one of our previous posts ( click here ) where we discussed how he was having our Officers do constant "security checks" on the personal property of local Politicians who have routinely demonized Police Officers, on the taxpayer's dime. Apparently at the root of the Chief's frustration is that he felt I incorrectly implied that he was giving favorable treatment to these individuals because of their status as Politicians. So I did a little research to see if I was wrong to characterize it as I did, here's what we found;

From January 16th through January 20th (5 days) EHPD dispatched 289 "Security Checks" to the homes of 4 local Politicians including John Larson, Jeff Currey, Henry Genga, and Jason Rojas. Yes you read that right, two hundred and eighty nine. That's about 58 times each day that an Officer was pulled from their regular duties and dispatched to check on these politician's homes. 113 of those checks were just for John Larson, that's about 23 times per day. Mind you that during that entire time, Mr. Larson was actually in Washington DC, so we were sending Officers to check on an empty house 23 times a day.

Based on my experience while these checks were going on, each one took roughly 15 to 20 minutes for the Officers to travel, check on the home, and clear. When you add that all up, it equals up to about 96.33 man hours spent over those 5 days conducting these 289 security checks. Multiply that by the hourly top step wage of an East Hartford Officer and it comes out to approximately $3,690 spent over the 5 days. That's not an Earth shattering amount of money, but it seems like quite the expenditure for an Administration that has made a habit of not even sending Detectives out to shooting calls, or put together details to target the epidemic of car break in's and thefts because they supposedly can't afford to pay the overtime to do these necessary Police functions.

To validate further however, I wanted to see if these security checks are something that the Department routinely does for all citizens regardless of their status as Political figures. So we checked to see how many security checks the Department has dispatched over the course of the last five years prior to January 16th 2021. Unfortunately, we found zero, not a single one. Based on these pure and simple facts, I don't see how Chief Sansom can deny that these Politicians received treatment not afforded to the run of the mill East Hartford resident.

Now we all understand, we're Cops, and we routinely have to do things we don't like and put our personal feelings aside and just do our jobs. But to strip on duty Officers from their regular duties patrolling the Town to act as security guards for Political figure's private property just seems wrong. We have private businesses in Town who request Officers to provide extra security for them on a regular basis. In those cases the Department doesn't pull on duty Patrol Officers, instead they have the business hire an Off Duty Officer at their own expense and pay them overtime to provide the business with the security they need. Even the Town has done this in the past to have Officers watch over the site of fairs and events (i.e. Riverfest, Dragon Boats etc...) the night before. Isn't that what should've happened in this case?

 I'm not even going to get into how the Administration never shared with the membership why we were doing these checks or what we were supposed to be checking for, or if there was any threat to us in doing them. But I'd just like to point out the fact that the way that they did this whole thing just shows how completely out of touch Chief Sansom is with the people who work for him, and he doesn't seem to care.

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.

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.

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.

HR Director Santiago Malave Out? UPDATED

One of our members noticed today that the job of Human Resources Director had been posted a week ago on the Town's website, you can find the posting at this link. Though we haven't seen any confirmation, we can only assume this means current HR Director Santiago Malave, who's at the center of the current Sergeant test scandal, and previously the Fire Department promotional exam scandal, is on his way out.

The timing of his departure is intriguing since we're less than a week a way from a hearing in Superior Court where we will argue for the forced release of the evaluator notes and score sheets from the Sergeant's exam that he's been fighting tooth and nail to keep hidden. Of course he could be leaving for any number of reasons, perhaps he's jumping ship before the documents come out and reveal something he or his subordinates did, or the Mayor could be forcing him out, or maybe he just found a better job elsewhere that'll pay him more than the $105,622 salary East Hartford gives him.

Either way Mr. Malave's potential departure is a great thing for our Union and every other Town Union. Aside from his botching of multiple promotional exams, he has acted as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Chief's decisions during the grievance process where he's supposed to be a neutral arbiter. During my involvement with the Union since 2014 Mr. Malave has never once sided with our Union in any of his Step 2 grievance decisions, instead agreeing with the Chief every time. We've appealed almost all of his rulings to the Labor Board which has overturned Malave's decisions one hundred percent of the time. That's right, every single decision he's ruled on that we've appealed has been overturned. This includes one ruling where he told me to my face after the hearing that he agreed with the Union's position, but then issued his ruling in favor of the Town because I assume he was afraid to go against the Chief of Police.

Mr. Malave's refusal to grant a fair and impartial hearing has wasted hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars of both taxpayer and Union funds by forcing us to take grievances before the Labor Board that could have easily been resolved at the HR level had he done his job properly. We can only hope that whoever replaces him will do the job correctly and give the Unions a fair hearing when we go before him or her so we're not constantly running over to Wethersfield. It would be a huge plus if they know how to run a promotional exam without getting dragged to Court too.

UPDATE: We're hearing Malave is out mid-January before the decision from Superior Court should come down. The line we're hearing from the Admin/Town Hall is that this departure has been planned for at least a year. Of course this makes no sense at all, if you know a critical Department head is on his way out for a year, why would you wait until one month before his departure to post for his job? Don't you think they'd want ample time for qualified candidates to apply, and be interviewed and vetted before the spot goes vacant rather than doing it at the last minute? File that one under "not buying it."