Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 8/3/2022
SPRINGFIELD – The city continues to incorporate new staffing positions as a part of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) consent decree established this year for police reform. Following the appointment of Attorney Kevin Murphy as an attorney for the Police Department’s Internal Investigations Unit, the City Council opted against an order that would fund Murphy’s appointment during their July 25 meeting.
Deputy City Solicitor Kathleen Breck introduced the item as a part of a $550,000 budget transfer from the city’s stabilization account to the Springfield Police Department. The budget transfer includes $50,000 dedicated to Murphy’s salary while the remaining $500,000 is tied to a compliance evaluator for the DOJ consent decree.
City Councilor At-Large Justin Hurst said the city gathered “some really qualified firms” for the compliance evaluator position, but expressed concern with the appointment of Murphy. Hurst detailed several issues, including that the position being addressed without a competitive process and Murphy not residing in Springfield. Hurst also previously discussed his grievances during a July 21 Finance Committee meeting.
“They didn’t advertise the position…There was no one from the community that was involved in the hiring of this position. In addition, Attorney Murphy does not reside in the city of Springfield, which means he’s going to have a very difficult time relating to the individuals that are actually filing these complaints,” said Hurst.
Hurst described Murphy as a “hand-picked” selection. He said Murphy has spent a majority of his legal career working in defense of police officers, including his involvement in two Springfield cases that concluded with settlement agreements. Hurst considered his past defense of the Police Department as a “conflict of interest” because of Murphy’s new role in internal investigations.
“When you start to look at it all, it’s extremely frustrating...If anything, it just doesn’t look good from an optics standpoint. It is far, in my opinion, from transparent and it just seems like a disingenuous effort from the administration to fill a very important position,” said Hurst. Ward 8 City Councilor Zaida Govan aired similar grievance against the ethics of the appointment.
Ward 5 City Councilor Malo Brown considered the process “disheartening” due to the council not having a voice in the decision. The councilor took greater issue with the streamlined process rather than the appointment itself.
“Some of the City Council should have had a little more hands-on ability to select it. [I am] not saying that I don’t agree with the actual selection, I just hope we can work a lot better when it comes to selecting people,” said Brown.
City Councilor At-Large Tracye Whitfield took issue with the position being addressed without a process. She called the appointment as a part of the “good old boys club” approach that lacks tact in terms of diversity and inclusion.
“This is not equitable. We are supposed to be changing the process of how we do things and live in the city of Springfield, especially when a majority of folks that live in the city are people of color. Yet, the same old processes and procedures are going to continue happen,” said Whitfield.
Ward 6 City Councilor Victor Davila inquired if the city was required to post the position to the public. Breck explained that there were no formal requirements despite posting most positions for the public.
“Typically, the Human Resources Department has us post the positions, but it is not a requirement. Most of our positions we do post,” said Breck.
The deputy city solicitor shared the city implemented a similar appointment process with City Council Attorney Ken Shea this year. Breck also explained that the decision to appoint Murphy received approval from Police Superintendent Cheryl Clapprood.
“It was Superintendent Clapprood’s decision that he was the right fit for the job,” said Breck.
After debating whether to vote against the item or send it to a subcommittee meeting, the council ultimately voted against the budget transfer in a 9-1 vote. The item is expected to be split into two separate orders that will be addressed in a future subcommittee meeting.