Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.

Civil Service calls practices into question

Date: 3/27/2012

March 26, 2012

By Chris Maza

chrism@thereminder.com

EAST LONGMEADOW — The recent promotion of Sgt. Daniel Bruno puts to bed a recent conflict between the longtime East Longmeadow police officer and the town, but the circumstances surrounding his case has cast a shadow as the Civil Service Commission called into question the Board of Selectmen's ability to adequately follow guidelines.

In response to an appeal filed by Bruno after he was passed over in favor of Steven Manning for an open sergeant's position in 2011, Civil Service Commissioner Christopher Bowman determined that Selectmen James Driscoll and Jack Villamaino violated civil service laws during the interview and selection process.

Manning was chosen for the sergeant's position by the Board of Selectmen on Feb. 8, 2011 by a 2-1 vote with Villamaino and Driscoll issuing the affirmative votes.

Bowman made serious accusations following his investigation — which included 28 exhibits of evidence including a recording of the interviews that took place on Feb. 8, 2011, as well as the testimony of Bruno, Driscoll, Villamaino, Selectman Paul Federici and Town Administrator Nick Breault. He stated that, "Mr. Villamaino and Mr. Driscoll engaged in a post-hoc effort to create non-selection reasons that did not exist" to deny Bruno the promotion, going so far as to open his conclusion by stating, "There is something seriously amiss here."

Because of his findings, Bowman placed restrictions on the Board of Selectmen regarding the promotion of sergeants that would take effect on March 9, unless the town and Bruno reached an agreement prior to that date.

Bruno was promoted to sergeant at a March 8 Board of Selectmen's meeting and will be officially sworn in on April 3.

Driscoll and Villamaino both denied Bowman's assertion of any intentional wrongdoing on their part.

"We had a very difficult decision to make," Villamaino told Reminder Publications. "We had two cops with the same hire date, seniority and education. When two candidates are that similar, the differences are going be the little things. In my opinion, Steve [Manning] gave better answers, specifically when it came to personal responsibility.

"[Manning] said he believed that as sergeant he would be ultimately responsible for what happened on his shift and that was what I was looking for," he continued.

A 16-page document outlining Bruno's appeal indicated that the town argued that Driscoll and Villamaino independently reached their conclusions that Bruno's answers to the 16 interview questions posed to both him and Manning "... included negative and critical comments about the police department and fellow officers; ... raised concerns over his ability to be an effective police sergeant;" and that Bruno acknowledged that "he would treat officers differently depending on their tenure" and he would have an "'aggressive' style of leadership."

However, Bowman stated following his investigation that it was "not plausible or probable" that those conclusions could have been drawn at all from Bruno's answers, or that Villamaino and Driscoll came to those conclusions separately.

"They appear to have grossly mischaracterized responses from [Bruno] during the interview and taken words out of context to create a grossly unfair and inaccurate picture of a police officer who is allegedly willing to disparage his department and fellow officers," Bowman said. "In doing so, they have impugned the integrity of a veteran police officer with a stellar record of performance. In terms of equity and good conscience, they owe [Bruno] a public apology," he continued.

Villamaino said the Board of Selectmen made no negative comments toward or regarding Bruno at any point in the proceedings and only produced reasons for their decision in writing when required by the Civil Service Commission.

"It is not, and has never been my policy to disparage someone's reputation,"  Villamaino said. "We never said anything derogatory about [Bruno]."

The document supports Villamaino's claim, stating that neither Villamaino nor Driscoll made any mention of concerns regarding Bruno's answers at the time of the interview. When Police Chief Douglas Mellis commented on the quality of both officers after providing the candidate's resumes and letters from their personnel files, Driscoll concurred, stating, "Absolutely, both outstanding individuals."

Villamaino also refuted what he perceived to be an accusation by Bowman of a conspiracy to keep Bruno from obtaining a position as sergeant. Bowman indicated in his decision that Villamaino and Driscoll both voted against Bruno the last time he was being considered for sergeant, when he lost out to Sgt. Jeffrey Dalessio in 2006. Villamaino pointed out that he did not win a seat on the Board of Selectmen until Jan. 23, 2007 when he defeated William Gorman in a special election.

Bowman also found the town in violation of civil service laws which require the town provide Bruno with acceptable reasoning for not receiving the promotion.

According to Bowman's findings, the only correspondence regarding Bruno's bypass was a letter sent by the Board of Selectmen on Feb. 9 that read, "I regret to inform you that the Board of Selectmen did not promote you to the position of sergeant for the town of East Longmeadow Police Department. The Board of Selectmen appreciated your interest in the position and thanks you for your participation in the process."

Bowman said, "In regard to civil service laws and rules, the town has failed to provide valid reasons for the bypass and intervention by the commission is warranted."

Driscoll acknowledge that error to Reminder Publications, stating it was the only miscarriage of the process that occurred.

"The only misstep was a technical one through the Civil Service process. The Civil Service process can be a complicated one and support for those going through that process from the commission can be very unresponsive," he said. "After our decision, we received notification that we did not notify in writing the officer who was not promoted the reasons why he was not chosen. It had nothing to do with a misstep in the interview process."

Because of this, Bruno was asked to appear before the Board of Selectmen a second time at an April 26, 2011 meeting, which was convened due to what Driscoll called a "Civil Service snafu," at which the board again voted 2-1 to promote Manning.

The day after that second meeting Driscoll sent separate letters to Breault listing his concerns regarding Bruno's responses and the reasons for Manning's promotion.

Driscoll testified to the Civil Services Commission that he and Villamaino were the sources of the points of view stated in the letter and that both men "either met in Nick Breault's office or spoke via telephone to draft" the letters.

However, Villamaino testified that he did not have a conversation with Driscoll regarding the bypass of Bruno for the position or the promotion of Manning.

Bowman's conclusions also state that the reasoning provided in Driscoll's March 27, 2011 letter to Bruno was not adequate.

In addition to their alleged concerns about Bruno's answers, Villamaino and Driscoll both pointed to Manning's advanced training as the reason for his promotion.

Driscoll reiterated that point to Reminder Publications.

"The thing that singled out Officer Manning was his additional training, including training for Internet crime prevention," he said. "Internet crime, such as Internet harassment and the like, has become a huge issue in today's society," Driscoll said.

However, evidence exhibits showed that both officers were appointed to the Police Department on the same date in 1998, and Bruno and Manning have both completed 226 training courses with Bruno completing 2,655 hours of training while Manning completed 2,494 hours. Driscoll and Villamaino both testified they did not know the number of hours of training each man had logged.

Driscoll and Villamaino also testified that they chose Manning because of his experience as a School Resource Officer, however, neither of them could testify that they were aware that he had served only 72 hours, or 18 four-hour shifts, in the schools during the previous three years.

Bowman also criticized Bruno for stating it was "troubling" that Bruno tried to "tilt the scales in his favor" when he had Western New England University President Anthony Caprio call the Selectmen individually on his behalf.

"This was an error in judgment that should not be repeated," Bowman said.

However, Bowman felt Bruno's poor decision making did not affect his conclusions regarding the Selectmen's actions.



Bookmark and Share