Date: 3/17/2016
It is with great dismay that I read about the machinations of two members of the East Longmeadow’s Board of Selectmen to discredit Chief Douglas Mellis and the their attempts to manipulate the search for his replacement.
In 2007, I vacated my seat on that same board, and vowed that I would refrain from criticizing the decisions of future boards. I realize what a difficult job they have. However, these recent events and the unscrupulous behavior of two board members have forced me to break that promise.
We live in times of incivility, of blustery political rhetoric and backroom deals. No, I’m not referring to presidential politics. Just pay close attention to the sophomoric attempts of two members of the town’s Board of Selectmen as they attempt to hoodwink the citizens and award the Chief’s position to the highest bidder. Equally as troubling are the feeble explanations and the finger pointing of Mr. Gorman and Ms. Thorpe as they attempt to rewrite history.
Mr. Gorman publicly made the claim that he possessed a document that would prove that the board that hired Mellis (of which I was a member) had rigged the process. This document allegedly indicates that Mellis was ranked twelfth in the selection process. Gorman suggested that the board hired a chief who should not have even been considered for the position. Mr. Gorman ignores the fact that in 2004, the Board of Selectmen was the third step in the three-step process. Once a private consultant vetted the candidate’s applications (step one), an independent selection committee made up of citizens pared the list to three finalists (step two). Those names were then forwarded to the Board of Selectmen (step three). The consultant followed our strict instructions to not reveal the committee’s rankings, but to merely provide us with that list of three finalists. Mr. Gorman apparently overlooked those facts when he made his public denunciation of the process. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
In a Reminder article on 03/09/16, Mr. Gorman ups the ante in his criticism of Town Counsel for “allowing” a severance clause (Sec. C-3) to remain in Chief Mellis’ contract. He suggests that Attorney Donahue didn’t “look at (the contract).” But he ignores the purpose for such a clause and the protection it affords a chief of police. In municipalities that grant civil service protection to police chiefs, uninterrupted tenure is the norm. Absent civil service protection, this severance clause serves to grant a degree of insulation from elected officials who might attempt to influence the workings of the police department. Granting a chief of police this type of protection insulates him from an elected official who might try to exert undue influence over the chief in an effort to “strong-arm” a favorable decision. In short, Section 3-C is negotiated into the contract of a non-civil service chief to protect that chief from the likes of Mr. Gorman. I was a part of the board that negotiated that clause in Chief Mellis’ original contract. We were well aware of the potential effect of that clause. Recent events tell me that we were correct in negotiating that language.
Ms. Thorpe also sheds light on exactly why the Board should put the brakes on the selection process. In her comments to the Reminder regarding one candidate’s prior dismissal from the West Springfield Police Department, she says, “It is my understanding that he was not the person who did this (taped a prisoner’s mouth shut).” She goes on to say it was one of O’Brien’s subordinates who did this and he “stood up and took responsibility.” That’s fine Ms. Thorpe…but it is not accurate. The facts were established in an independent investigation commissioned by the West Springfield Police Department. The acting-Town Administrator knows that. Ms. Thorpe, you do not get to re-write history. You owe it to Chief Mellis and the taxpayers of East Longmeadow to get the facts straight.
Both Gorman and Thorpe then show their unfamiliarity with the Police Career Incentive Pay Program (PCIPP) – the so-called Quinn Bill – and it’s place in contract negotiations. These benefits are typically negotiated into the contracts of police officers of all ranks. In this world of evolving technology and civil liability, citizens deserve to have educated police officers. The goal of the Quinn Bill was to do just that – encourage an educated police force. While some may argue that the Quinn Bill has outlived its usefulness, it is foolhardy to think that someone without the level of education mandated by the Quinn Bill could navigate the waters of modern policing with any degree of success. My dad used to say, “When you pay peanuts, you hire monkeys.” The Quinn Bill was (and still is) the standard.
But perhaps the most troubling aspects of this side-show is the cavalier attitude that both Mr. Gorman and Ms. Thorpe have shown while attacking Doug Mellis. I’ve known Doug for many years. I knew him as an eighteen year-old cadet with the Springfield Police Department in the 1970’s and as a police officer, detective and sergeant with the Longmeadow Police Department in the 1980’s. I knew Doug as the Chief of Police for the Town of Hampden in the 1990’s and more recently, during my tenure as Director of the Municipal Police Training Committee’s Western Massachusetts Police Academy. I worked closely with the members of the Western Mass. Chiefs of Police in providing training to our police officers. Chief Mellis is among the most admired and respected police chiefs in the Commonwealth. His professionalism and honesty is unmatched.
I’ve also known Doug Mellis as a husband and father, a son, a son-in-law and a brother. I have known him as a friend. Doug Mellis is an honorable man and you, Mr. Gorman and Ms. Thorpe, have exposed yourselves as petty and reckless. In light of your recent missteps, perhaps you might do the taxpayers of East Longmeadow a favor and re-think your future political aspirations.
John M. Claffey
Wilbraham
