Tag Archives: Gary Gemme

Body Cameras for the Worcester Police

lily(1)
Walking the beat

By Gordon Davis

Several years ago, Worcester Police Chief Gary Gemme, now retired, announced that the Worcester Police Department was investigating the policy of the use of body cameras for on-duty patrol officers. Like with most “policy” issues in the City of Worcester, the investigation was conducted in secret.

Advocates of the policy of using body cameras pointed out that body cameras protect both the public and the police officers. The information provided by the video is considered indisputable, unlike oral testimony.

With body cameras the actions of a member of the public is clearly shown, and this protects police officers from false or unsubstantial complaints. Also, the actions of the police are clearly recorded, protecting the public from poorly trained police officers or officers who are abusive.

Body cameras are used in at least 42 large police departments nation-wide and many more smaller police departments. Boston is initiating the use of body cameras on a trial basis this year. Leicester (MA) and Brookfield already use them.

The overall results have been that the number of complaints made by the public are down and the number of arrests is also down. Both statistics point to a reduction of frivolous activity by the public and police. Such interactions over what many of us would call “frivolous” often lead to escalations.

The Worcester City Council has essentially abrogated it duty and responsibility to set policy for the Worcester Police Department. The City Manager and City Council are just rubber stamps for whatever the Police Chief and his cronies tell them.

There is no transparency in terms of complaints by the public.

There is no significant external oversight over use of funds.

Several Worcester City Councilors have passed resolutions in effect saying “support the cops – right or wrong.”

A group of residents are petitioning the Worcester City Council to have public hearings on changes to Worcester Police Department policies.

The petition will be given to the Worcester City Council at the August 16, 2016, Worcester City Council meeting.

Hopefully, if approved by City Council, the public hearings will be real and honest.

The public hearings should not be like City Manager Ed Augustus’ Department of Justice hearings in 2015 during which the police chief did not appear and the notes were lost!

The ACLU has come up with a set of rules, a policy for the use of body cameras by the police. The Boston Police Department has adopted 80 percent of the ACLU’s proposals.
These proposals include when the cameras should be turned on or off, who gets access to the videos, verification of the cameras’ operation, etc.

These proposals certainly could be used as a basis for the Worcester City Council establishing a body camera policy for the Worcester Police Department. The City Council should also conduct an audit about any money received via grants for a pilot program for body camera use.

I have been to a lot of City Council meetings and seen a lot of citizen petitions describing good policies for the City of Worcester. I have seen most of these petitions “filed” or thrown away. The petition regarding changes to Worcester Police Department policy is too important to be ignored.

Given the tensions between the public – especially people of color and the poor – and the police, there is a real need for the protection of our rights.

In Worcester government, Discrimination = Disparate Impact

carter
Dr. Carter – Worcester’s Chief Diversity Officer

By Gordon Davis

Disparate Impact discrimination is the legal term that describes discrimination without animus.

It usually is found as a policy that results in an adversely negative impact on a protected class based on a so called neutral or nondiscriminatory policy.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that criminal records disclosures can be considered disparate impacts.

It and other organization have created new policies to ensure that people who have been formerly incarcerated or arrested will get at least a chance for an interview when applying for work.

Another example of disparate impact is the so called School to Jail Pipeline which many people consider racist because it affects a disproportional number of Black Latino and poor students. The institutional mechanism and policies of the School to Jail Pipeline negatively affects all students.

The School to Jail Pipeline’s policies are racist, not because it is based on any negative animus but because it has a disproportional negative impact on Black, Latino and other students.

The solution to the disproportionally negative impact is a rewrite of policies. For Massachusetts the change has seemingly come in M.G.L. Chapter 222.

The opponents of the efforts to reform the policies leading to disparately negative impacts sometimes use the pretext of colorblindness.

We have seen this use by a local columnist to defend a lack of effective programs, the Worcester Police Department and people working in the Worcester Public Schools. In her recent column she said that white teachers are the victims.

A good teacher is a good teacher regardless of protected class or race. We should instead look at the policies that have the negative impact on our children.

It has been pointed out to me that the recent promotions of City of Worcester and Worcester Public School officials could be an example of Disparate Impact:

The present Commissioner of the Worcester Department of Public Works, Mr. Moosey, was, before he was appointed, the next in line to replace then DPW and P Commissioner Mr. Moylan.

Ms. Ledoux, the present Worcester City Clerk, was next in line when she was promoted and replaced her boss, David Rushford who recently retired.

The new City of Worcester Chief of Police, Mr. Sargent, was next in line when he was promoted to replace the retired Chief Gary Gemme.

All the people mentioned above are white and they were all well qualified for their experience and promoted to the top positions with in their respective departments.

There was one exception to this apparent policy of promoting the employee next in line: The Assistant Superintendent of our Worcester Public Schools was passed over in favor of a less qualified candidate. In this particular case the Assistant Superintendent is Latino and the less qualified candidate – now School Superintendent – is white.

In terms of unlawfulness this might not be disparate impact. The hiring process of department heads was not the same or similarly done, as was the hiring of the Worcester School Superintendent. The Worcester School Committee made the decision regarding the Superintendent. The aforementioned city department heads were appointed by either Worcester City Manager Ed Augustus or elected by the Worcester City Council.

Our School Suprintendent is hired by the Worcester School Committee.

However, the hiring of Maureen Benienda as School Superintendent certainly was not in compliance with Affirmative Action policies of the City of Worcester or their intent.

The policies were written to ensure that when a person in a protected class has the same or better qualifications as a candidate not in the protected class, the person in the protected class would be hired.

This Affirmative Action policy has worked very well for the Worcester Police Department for the protected class of armed forces veterans. One hundred percent of police cadets are veterans.

Is there animus in Worcester’s hiring practices?

Maybe there is.

Is there an adversely negative impact in Worcester’s hiring policies?

Yes, there is, as seen in the statistics.

All of the promotions to department heads have been white. The better qualified Latino candidate for School Superintendent is Latino and he was passed over.

Dr. Carter, the recent hire for the newly created Worcester Chief Diversity Officer position, does not seem to have any power to do anything significant.

I believe she is a good person in a position requiring moral courage.

Unfortunately, this was predicted during last summer Department of Justice “dialogues on race.”bThis writer said those “dialogues“ are a joke and that the position of Chief Diversity Officer would be just a token or crumb for “minorities” to fight over.