Please join us and attend the School Committee meeting on Wed., November 13, at 6pm, at the John Zon community center and online over Zoom (link TBD), and give public comment if you can. Here is our situation: 

• Our elected School Committee is the target of a campaign to force them to bring cops back into the schools.
• This campaign was kicked off by Police Chief Dodge with the help of Mayor Desorgher, but the effort is mainly waged by a relatively insular group of town conservatives who spend a disproportionate amount of their time on Facebook.
• The Public Safety Commission is trying to railroad the School Committee. The PSC is another group that is disproportionately Republican, most of whom have ties to the police, and all of whom were appointed by former Mayor Wedegartner in 2022-2023 to help her deflect community outrage about Chief Haigh and GPD.
• Our schools can definitely do better to provide safe environments! The superintendent has not done well with communication with families—nor with the School Committee—and has not made any steps toward implementing restorative justice or other best practices for promoting school safety, some of which are eligible for special federal funding.

As we come together at the November meeting, we will succeed if we can:

• Show strong appreciation and support for the majority of the School Committee and their commitment to holistic safety practices beyond policing and punishment.
• De-escalate the bullying and rage and accusations that some people are bringing.
• Steer the conversation back to what matters—we have really good resources for making our schools safer and more inclusive, and we need the superintendent and GPS leadership to work towards that goal with us. Without cops.

If you are not able to give public comment, you can submit written comment ahead of time by email to SchoolCom@gpsk12.org.

Your physical presence makes the most difference—committee members need support, and the “only police make us safe” crowd are aggressive and hostile. We can’t let these folks bully the School Committee, especially since these elected officials are working hard to build real safety in the schools.

Please share this call with like-minded friends and neighbors.

Read on for the background on how this “debate” has progressed so far, and why we need a strong showing to support our School Committee, our students and teachers, and the democratic process. See below for resources and evidence on school safety programs, as well as Paul Jablon’s op-ed on school culture and safety.

There has been much debate, and lots of heated emotions on and off of social media, about the issue of whether to bring cops back to Greenfield public schools. The short version of the story is that a small but activated group of conservative, cop-loving Greenfielders are trying to railroad the School Committee to bring cops back to the schools, supposedly to make students safer. But there’s little evidence that police make schools safer, and there’s lots of evidence police cause lots of harm, especially for vulnerable students.

Background

The Greenfield School Committee ended the “School Resource Officer” (SRO) position in 2020 in response to community advocacy. They did so on firm footing—SROs have been deployed to many, many schools, so there is lots of evidence about the harms they cause and the minimal benefits they offer, if any. As the Center for American Progress notes:

[T]he presence of school resource officers has been linked to increased arrests of students for noncriminal behavior, as students are often referred to law enforcement for typical behavior and small infractions such as theft and vandalism as well as nonviolence behaviors such as dress code violations. This school-to-prison pipeline is particularly devastating for students with disabilities and students of color.¹“Debunking Myths the Gun Lobby Perpetuates Following Mass Shootings,” Center for American Progress, 2022. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/

CAP also cautions:

Schools, districts, and the government should exclusively allocate funding to programs and strategies that are proven to make schools safer. After a tragedy occurs, there is an understandable push for investments in stringent security measures. Those investments add to a blossoming school security products industry that funnels money into private companies, but those funds should go toward supporting students with evidence-based programs…

For example, modifying school climate to facilitate better communication and more positive interactions among staff, educators, and students has been found to be more effective than using coercive disciplinary practices. Additionally, positive-behavior support, increased teacher training, and peer mediation interventions are important educational and therapeutic approaches to promote a sense of physical and psychological safety in schools. There are also research-based social and emotional skills that can help students address mental health needs, learn to discuss their feelings, and feel more connected to their school community so that they are less likely to engage in negative and harmful behavior.²“Smart Investments for Safer Schools,” Center for American Progress, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/smart-investments-safer-schools/

Our School Committee did the right thing and committed to building safe learning environments in exactly these holistic ways, rather than out-sourcing safety to the police department and giving in to false notions of what keeps us safe. This decision happened well before we all learned so much about the misconduct at GPD, in the course of the Buchanan lawsuit against former Chief Haigh and the City of Greenfield. Haigh may be gone now, but police still have all the same systemic problems they had when he was chief, and our schools still need to do better developing their own in-house capacity for fostering safe learning environments.

Backlash, 2024 version

At the recent September School Committee meeting, Mayor Desorgher, pushed by her new Chief of Police Todd Dodge, asked the committee to revisit the question of having an SRO in Greenfield schools. Dodge has been fear-mongering about the risk of a mass casualty event at a school, despite the fact that unarmed school staff have been much more successful stopping such violence than any school police officer. At the October meeting, the majority of the committee respectfully declined to reopen the 2020 debate, citing the high quality evidence behind the current policy. That’s when the cranky Greenfielder rage machine kicked into gear, especially on Facebook.

Then a terribly unfortunate incident occurred in October, right before the next School Committee meeting: a high school student was assaulted by a peer and sustained a concussion, supposedly over a dispute about a pair of shoes. School officials and staff were nearby and unable to prevent the injury.

Some residents came to the October meeting, including the victim’s parents, to express outrage over the incident and call out the School Committee for being supposedly out-of-touch and negligent about school safety because they chose not to have a cop in the schools. The incident is certainly upsetting—interpersonal violence is a serious matter, and the district administration has been pretty bad at communicating with parents, the public, and the school committee about when incidents happen. The current superintendent, like the previous one, has also failed to implement or support the kind of restorative justice programs that are a key tool for creating safer schools without severe punishment or arrest.

The School Committee has stood firmly on the evidence, but the October meeting did not persuade this angry crowd, nor did it convince the cesspool that is Greenfield Facebook. One thing should raise red flags right away—a lot of folks in this crowd seem to believe that police are the ONLY way to make schools safe, when all the evidence points in the other direction. A number of people wrote op eds in the Greenfield Recorder making their case for school police, rehashing many of the blinkered arguments that form the common sense for endlessly expanding the role of police in our society and relying heavily on propaganda promoted by the police themselves.

According to this thinking, we are supposed to believe that spreading one cop across 5 schools is going to somehow immediately stop bullying, fights, risk of mass violence, and any other bogeymen people want to worry about. Some people claim that school police are friendly role models, while others clearly want the police in school to impose harsh discipline. These contradictions show the magical thinking these folks are relying on.

Safety is complicated. We need to approach this as the complex problem that it is, using the best tools for the job, and thankfully our School Committee is seriously pursuing this goal.

The School Committee entrusted committee member Ann Childs to do outreach, assess how safe (or not) people feel in the schools and why, and bring back a summary of research with recommendations to address our school community needs. Committee members have already strongly encouraged the Superintendent (and her predecessor) to pursue restorative programs in order to help defuse conflict before it turns violent, with no results yet. This is our best hope for building the safe school environments our kids, teachers, and staff deserve.

Public Safety Commission officially trolls the School Committee

After the School Committee meeting, the reactionaries that form Greenfield’s Public Safety Commission decided to engage in a little political theater to ramp up the pressure on the School Committee. Much like they did in the months after the police budget was cut in 2022, the PSC devoted their October meeting to a propaganda fest, hurling angry comments and allegations in the School Committee’s direction. They also sought to promote the benefits of school police by interviewing two SROs from neighboring school districts.

Interestingly, when these SROs talked about what they do, they talked about facilitating restorative justice circles and mentoring students. There’s nothing wrong with those things—they’re great, and they definitely help with school safety! And those practices will help build safe learning environments that much more when they are implemented broadly by school district personnel with clear administrative support, rather than being out-sourced to law enforcement officers, who increase the risk that vulnerable students will be arrested, expelled, or scared away from school.

Note that the Public Safety Commission is unelected, unlike the School Committee. The current members were appointed by former mayor Roxann Wedegartner during the period when she was most intensively trying to deflect criticism from herself, Chief Haigh, and GPD. Most of them have ties to law enforcement or were police themselves. All but one of the 5 members is Republican—hardly representative of Greenfield, where Republicans make up only 8% of registered voters³Courtesy of the official voter rolls: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/enrollment_count_20221029.pdf, and where the recent Medicare For All ballot measure won in every precinct.

You can help

Please attend the School Committee meeting on Wed., November 13, 6pm, at John Zon or over Zoom, and help our School Committee to do the work we elected them to do! If you can’t attend, please send public comment to SchoolCom@gpsk12.org before the meeting.

Great resources on school safety from the Center for American Progress

• How To Make Schools Safer Without Additional Physical Security Measures (2022). “The newly enacted Bipartisan Safer Communities Act can help schools and districts create safer learning environments without resorting to implementing measures that harden schools.”
• Debunking Myths the Gun Lobby Perpetuates Following Mass Shootings (2022). “Putting more guns in schools in dangerous and ineffective.”
• Smart Investments for Safer Schools (2018). “To ensure safe and healthy learning environments, policymakers and schools must invest in evidence-based solutions—not reactionary spending that only makes the public feel safer.”

See also “When Schools Increase Police Presence, Minority Students Are Harmed Disproportionately,” Jack Denton, Pacific Standard, 2019 and We Came to Learn: A Call to Action for Police-Free Schools, The Advancement Project and the Alliance for Educational Justice, 2018.

• 1
  “Debunking Myths the Gun Lobby Perpetuates Following Mass Shootings,” Center for American Progress, 2022. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/
• 2
  “Smart Investments for Safer Schools,” Center for American Progress, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/smart-investments-safer-schools/
• 3
  Courtesy of the official voter rolls: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/enrollment_count_20221029.pdf

The following op-ed is written by our friend and colleague Paul Jablon and explains why we need a holistic, culture-based view of school safety, rather than the “magical thinking” that school police fix all problems.

Over the past two weeks there have been articles and letters in the Recorder, and much discussion on social media about safety in Greenfield schools. Although there was talk about physical fights and bullying, and reference to national gun violence, little was focused on what school safety really means, and virtually no reference to how schools achieve it. As an educator of 46 years let me speak about safe schools.

In a school with a safe environment, bullying is rare. There are few, if any, physical confrontations. Many conflicts are avoided, but students who get into them have the skills to resolve the conflicts in a responsible way. Students know there is at least one adult who feels personally responsible for them, and that other students will also not be passive bystanders if bullying occurs. If a student does harm another student, there is a process in place in which a trained adult will sit with the two students and work toward proactive relationship building, and restitution if needed, rather than punishing them. This is a culture where there is buy-in from students, teachers, parents, staff, and administrators. This is a positive proactive process of creating safety, rather than a reactive after-the-fact punitive method, so students attend and learn.

How does a school or district create this culture? In the first school where I taught, I couldn’t even imagine such a place. We had a school resource officer (SRO) and teachers on hall patrol, but there was constant bullying and many violent outbursts. I then transferred to another high school where, early on, I saw two students about to fight in the hallway. About five of their peers pulled them apart and said, “We don’t do that here.” Somehow the administration and teachers had empowered the students.

But what about the school shooting possibility? A 2019 Secret Service analysis of 41 school shooting incidents found that 80% of the 35 attackers whose behavioral histories were reviewed, had been bullied by classmates. 57% of those were bullied for weeks, months, or years. A recent study by The Violence Project suggests that armed guards in schools don’t reduce fatalities. There were armed police officers in at least 25% of the 133 cases studied and these had no reduction in rates of injuries. Unarmed bystanders have stopped more shootings than armed guards or police ever have.

The students had the desire to stop the fight because they had been equal partners in creating the culture of the school that opposed harmful behavior. Teachers and administrators were also given continual professional development so they could acquire the understanding and expertise necessary to help students learn the skills to peacefully resolve conflicts and become effective active bystanders. Everyone agreed that 20 minutes each day would be set aside for an “advisory” period where one adult would meet with about 15 students to deal with social and emotional issues that affected student learning at home and school. One adult, usually a teacher, would be with the same students for all four years. In that time they would run well-planned activities so that students could learn various conflict resolution skills.

They’d learn to de-escalate conflicts, deal with anger, use “I” messages, find win-win resolutions, utilize “really needs” vs “demands”, and acquire negotiation and mediation skills. Over the years, students began to appreciate diversity, understand clout, culture, prejudice and scapegoating. They’d also learn effective and safe strategies to not be a passive bystander, but rather how as a group to have each other’s back when bullying appears, either in person or online. Each adult was trusted and accessible, and when conflicts occasionally occurred, all the adults in the building were trained to sit with the students (and sometimes teachers) who were in conflict to work towards a socially just solution that was agreeable to both parties. All of these strategies are part of a restorative justice program that serves the students well in their personal, family, and professional interactions as adults.

If we want to hire someone to make our school culture safe, we would want someone who is professionally a social worker or counselor who’s been trained in bystander anti-bullying programs, peaceful conflict resolution programs, and restorative justice practices. They need to have experience in staff development so the faculty, guidance staff, and administration become able to run activities themselves that empower students with these skills. This is not the expertise of police officers, even trained SROs. Wielding authority against each other doesn’t keep us safe, building community from the ground up does.

Paul Jablon is a retired public school science and advisory teacher and university faculty who has helped create safe school communities. He resides in Greenfield.

Mayor Wedegartner has submitted a budget to the Greenfield City Council that falls far short of funding the negotiated raise for the teachers and aides at Greenfield Public Schools. But this raise comes after years of frozen wages and working without a contract, even while inflation has been surging at the highest rates in decades. Residents of Greenfield deserve and need strong schools, and that means adequate pay for teachers.

The mayor claims there’s no money to pay for the raises, but Paul Jablon shared the following suggestions of how to find adequate funding to cover the negotiated wages of our school personnel. Paul shared his budget analysis in an email he circulated, and we reprint it here as a guest post:

How Greenfield could get more money for their schools in the 2024 Budget

Greenfield has two parts of our city government that we elected, the mayors office and the City Council. Those parts should work hand in hand with one another. The way that the mayor’s office sets up the budget can either allow the city council some leeway and input into how Greenfield is spending its money next year, or it can place immovable impediments in the way of the city council having any say of where money should go. In my looking at the current 2024 budget suggested by the mayors office, it appears to be stopping the city council from having any substantial input. I have consulted with a few others on the facts and figures presented here, and they agree that this is an accurate statement. 

I am attaching to this e-mail the 2024 Budget RECAP presented by the mayor where the levy capacity the way it is currently figured leaves the City Council with only $17,504 to add to budget items.

First let’s examine the “Cherry Sheet Estimates.” These  are the best estimate of the amount of state aid and assessments provided annually by the MA Commissioner of Revenue.

As you can see from the attached, the Cherry sheet estimates are published on the 2024 RECAP from the Greenfield finance director as $20,656,992. The February 2023 estimated from Maura Healy’s office is actually  $21,010,769.  

That is additional revenue of $353,837.

Now let’s look at the “local receipts” line item. As you can see from the additional years budgets that are part of this spreadsheet, the local receipts have exceeded estimates for the last 4 years:

The 2022 estimate was $4,504,000. The actual local receipts was $5,606,015.

In 2023 the estimate is $4,760,300. Obviously the actuals are not in yet as fiscal year 2023 is not over. Some folks have spoken with the treasurer and we appear to be definitely on track.

On the recap sheet, we decreased the estimate for local receipts by $190,412. We should have added to that figure because we were 1 million over last year. Local receipts estimate was $3,869,888. It should be conservatively $4,220,000. 

That is additional revenue of $350,112.

The next area is “free cash.” This is the term used for the portion of a community’s fund balance that is available for appropriation by city government.

The balance is listed as $595,521. I am told we must subtract a transfer of $206,850 which will be sent to the public schools to fund the retro contract payments. This leaves a balance of $388,671. Recently the mayor changed the funding source on two orders that were given to the capital improvement committee. When they were given to the capital improvement committee, the funding source was listed as capital stabilization. This makes sense as we currently have over $2 million in capital stabilization.

One was the Legion Avenue parking lot repaving for $55,000. Then the mayor requested a change from capital stabilization to free cash for funding this. The second is an overhang and stair replacement at the police department for $30,000. The mayor also requested a change from capital stabilization to free cash for funding. Both these items appear to be necessary, and should not be voted on from free cash in my opinion. 

If money is taken from capital stabilization for these projects, the balance will be $388,671.  If money is taken from free cash to complete those projects, the balance is $303,671 (leaving $38,000 roughly for an emergency). We have over $5 million in stabilization accounts currently so if there is an emergency we certainly can find it.

That is additional revenue of  $350,000. 

The total additional revenue of those three calculations would change the Levy limit in a positive way by slightly over $1 million instead of the currently figured $17, 504.

This would allow the two parts of our government to work in a coordinated way with one another. I voted for my city councilors in addition to my vote for a mayor. I would like both of these aspects of Greenfield Government to weigh in on what we allocate to the services in our city. 

We could reallocate almost a million additional dollars into our school budget so we wouldn’t have to lay off teachers, Special Education personnel, and other much needed assets in a school system that has been underfunded for over 2 decades. 

I am asking the mayor to submit an alternate budget as noted above, or at least one that honors these principles. 

If you agree, I suggest that you do the same, and likewise forward this to others in your life, or organizations to which you belong.

Paul Jablon, Greenfield

Use these links to contact the mayor and city council.

Today we share some Greenfield news which surprisingly has not been reported on in the press. The storyline we share has been confirmed as factual, although the story is still developing. Also note that City Council meets this Wednesday, March 15, 6:30pm, in person at John Zon Center & over zoom. Agenda & zoom link here.

Long story short: Greenfield police chief Robert Haigh is on leave and seeking “injured on duty” status because of “stress.”

This news follows two weeks in which Haigh skipped two important meetings without notice to anyone, including one meeting he personally called. The first meeting was on March 3, called by state senator Jo Comerford to discuss shift coverage and other issues relating to GPD. This meeting included state rep. Natalie Blais, colonels of the state police, a representative of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety, Greenfield Police Deputy Chief Bill Gordon, and the mayor. Haigh was supposed to attend but did not show up, taking part only briefly by speakerphone when Deputy Chief Gordon called him.

The second meeting Haigh skipped was Monday, March 6. The chief had called an urgent meeting of the statewide association of chiefs of police, purportedly because he had some questions for them (we don’t have confirmation of the reason for the meeting). The meeting convened but again Haigh was absent with no notice to anyone, including Deputy Chief Gordon. The president of the association asked Gordon where Haigh was, and Gordon didn’t know. The president told Gordon to get Haigh on speakerphone. When Gordon did reach Haigh, Haigh encouraged Gordon to handle the meeting himself. The president objected and said Haigh should stay on the line. Haigh said that was not possible because he was getting on a plane to Florida.

Apparently without informing either the mayor or Deputy Chief Gordon, Haigh tried to put himself on injured on duty status. This was news to everyone, although rumors have circulated since January’s city council meeting that Haigh was planning on quitting in March. Supposedly the mayor and chief worked out an arrangement Haigh will be on vacation/leave for the month of March, during which time he will go through the state-level board process and get the three separate medical evaluations required to be considered for IOD status. If he is approved for IOD status, Haigh is likely to retain his current salary, paid for by Greenfield’s taxpayers, without having to work.

Takeaways

This turn of events is ironic but unsurprising, considering that Haigh has attempted to play the victim ever since the jury issued its verdict that he committed racial discrimination. As we’ve seen across the board with police, Haigh continues to find ways to try to avoid responsibility for the harms he has caused. Anyone would agree–it’s probably very stressful to have lots of people calling for you to face accountability for your harmful actions! But that doesn’t make Haigh the victim, and he certainly could have made it a lot less stressful (though less lucrative) if he had resigned earlier.

There is so much to say at this point that it’s hard to know where to begin. We’ll close with a couple of our own takeaways from this on-going saga:

• After a year-long saga of on-going litigation in the Buchanan lawsuit, a three-month paid leave for Haigh, and now likely some kind of large payout to Haigh, this city is spending absurd amounts of money on this police department–all money that could have been spent on non-police programs that actually keep folks safe and meet people’s needs: housing, civilian crisis response, harm reduction programs, peer support programs… (Did we mention that Haigh also gets paid a “body camera stipend” on top of his $150k base salary, even though he’s the chief and unlikely to ever wear a body camera?)
• Haigh was the “good liberal cop” who always talked about “community policing”…until he wasn’t. People complained in private about his bullying and other toxic behaviors for a long time, and now we’ve gotten to see them on full display, not least at the January council meeting where he gloated that he was ending the midnight shift (an obvious stunt to get revenge on city council). Haigh’s shapeshifting performances provide a good reminder that even “good liberal cops” are part of an institution that reserves for itself the right to punish, hurt, and exact control over the public.

Where things stand

The truth is that one way or another, Haigh is likely to get a payout, in addition to his already significant salary. He’s also unlikely to return to duty now that he’s on leave, so his tenure as chief may be drawing to a close. *sigh*

The mayor continues to support and enable Haigh. The mayor has only appointed public safety commissioners who have loudly supported Haigh and opposed the city council’s cuts to the police budget.

The mayor and Chief Haigh will not be at the March city council meeting this Wednesday, March 15. The mayor is reportedly undergoing a medical procedure.

As always, if you have questions or concerns about this turn of events, we encourage you to make your voice heard at the city council meeting or by emailing councilors. Just make sure to email the mayor too.

After the gross falsehoods and misrepresentations shared by Acting Chief Gordon the last time GPD presented to City Council, we thought we would share some context ahead of time, so that people can more easily follow the claims that Chief Haigh will inevitably make. Please join the meeting tonight if you can! 6:30pm @ John Zon Center and online. Link to agenda, with zoom link, here.

Also, this little quote from GPD’s application for a DOJ grant might be of interest, as you follow along with the discussion tonight:

First, a little disclaimer: we do not like to focus on the term “crime,” since that term cedes too much to a criminal legal system that is oppressive and deeply harmful. A better approach is to focus on harm, especially since that helps us identify how the criminal legal system itself is more often a cause of harm, not a remedy. However, sometimes we have to engage the police on their own terms–so let’s talk about “crime data.”

Crime stats

Why is crime data misleading? Crime rates don’t accurately represent rates of violence because (1) MOST crimes are nonviolent offenses, and (2) MOST crimes, and especially violent crimes, are not reported to the police. (There are other important reasons too–see links below.) Crimes that aren’t reported are not counted in published and publicized “crime rates.”

Crime rates are also created and reported by police, who routinely manipulate them for political purposes, both up and down depending on exigencies of the moment.

Even the FBI itself warns in their report “Caution Against Ranking,” comparisons of crime rates “provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular state, county, city, town, tribal area, or region” and “lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents.”

What gets reported to police? Not what you might think.

For more guidance on understanding crime stats, we recommend:

• A Journalist’s Guide to the FBI’s 2021 Crime Statistics, Center for Just Journalism
• FBI Crime Data is Out. Here’s What You Need to Know. The Appeal
• Cops Don’t Stop Violence, Community Resource Hub & Interrupting Criminalization. Stats above are documented here. Thorough, with lots of background and specific talking points. Highly recommended.
• What About the Rapists? On sexual violence and police abolition, Mariame Kaba

As The Appeal points out, crime stats are useful for some things:

The FBI publishes historical crime data going all the way back to 1975, which can provide essential context for understanding how year-to-year changes in crime rates fit into longer trends. The increase in homicides during 2020 was one of the largest jumps in decades, but even so, homicides remain well below their peak in the 1980s and early 1990s.

FBI Crime Data is Out. Here’s What You Need to Know.

For some of that longer-term perspective on Greenfield, here’s a chart. Contrary to Deputy Chief Gordon’s claims last summer, no, crime is not as bad as he’s seen it in decades.

This is a timeline of known harms and malfeasance committed by the Greenfield Police Department. This is a working document which we will expand as additional information becomes available. This is NOT an exhaustive list but focuses on those incidents verifiable through public records and newspaper articles.

Why share this list publicly?

• Nowhere else is this information compiled in one place, and it is very hard to find many of these stories. Compiling this information helps us, the public, to identify and acknowledge patterns of misconduct, rather than rely solely on the word of public officials.
• The Mayor and the police department never admit past wrongdoing. Instead they use vague language to talk about ‘community trust’ and very occasionally ‘learning from mistakes.’ How are we supposed to ‘move forward’ as a community if we’re not allowed to talk about what they supposedly learned–those things the police supposedly aren’t going to do anymore?

We present this information in a good faith effort to facilitate community dialogue about policing in Greenfield. We welcome corrections and information on additional incidents. We know there are additional lawsuits and settlements not included here–can you help us find them?

1980s – Officer Susan Heath wins a sexual discrimination lawsuit against GPD. (She wins a second sexual discrimination lawsuit against FCSO in the 1990s.)

1997 – Police Chief David F. McCarthy (Officer Dan McCarthy’s father) appoints his son as a K-9 officer, a position which includes a pay raise. The town manager warns Chief McCarthy that this decision violates state ethics rules which require officials to recuse themselves from decisions that affect the finances of relatives. The town manager warns McCarthy that he cannot participate in any promotional process in which his son is a candidate.

1999-2000 – Chief David F. McCarthy yet again violates state ethics rules by pressuring senior GPD officers and select board members, against their opposition, to support his son to be promoted to sergeant in the next round of promotions. Dan McCarthy is promoted to sergeant in August 2000. In 2002, the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission finds that Chief McCarthy violated ethics rules in his son’s promotion and fines him $4,000, but Sgt. Dan McCarthy retains his promotion.

2004-2011 – Capt. David Guilbault is promoted to Chief of Police. During his tenure he promotes an aggressive use of force policy, resulting in a number of lawsuits and settlements. Increasingly frequent and expensive lawsuits lead to pressure to replace Guilbault.

2010 – Officer Scott West tases driver Oliver Rich of Hatfield seven times, including directly in the groin. Rich is arrested but all charges are dropped. Rich sues GPD in federal court claiming assault and battery and a civil rights violation. In 2013, the city settles out of court for $87,500.

2010 – Sgt. Todd Dodge and Officer Chad Sumner arrest activists who were lawfully filming police and correctional officers, charging them with trespassing, resisting arrest, and wiretapping. The activists are held overnight without access to blankets or pants. They are found innocent on all counts in a 2011 jury trial. Around this time these same activists record Sgt. Dan McCarthy following them around Greenfield, filming their second encounter with him and the mayor. In 2013, one activist files suit against GPD for wrongful arrest, also alleging that while he was in jail overnight his mobile home was towed and searched out of retaliation. In 2015 the city’s insurance settled out of court for $32,500 (more info at CopBlock’s site here).

May 2011 – Capt. Gary Magnan circulates a photo during roll call depicting a woman simultaneously smoking a cigarette and giving oral sex to a man. Magnan would become Provisional Chief from September 2011 until his sudden retirement in May 2012. (See Laura Gordon v. Greenfield court documents.)

2012 – Officer Laura Gordon sues the town of Greenfield for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for filing complaints about this treatment. While serving in GPD, she was demoted seemingly without cause and denied personal use of cruisers, a privilege offered to every other (male) detective. Complaints in court documents include that male officers regularly viewed pornography while on duty and in meetings and told lewd jokes. After filing her original complaint in 2011, Gordon was subjected to retaliatory disciplinary investigations and actions and denied privileges offered to male officers, such as light duty after an injury. Court documents also note that, shortly after Mayor Martin congratulated Gordon on winning the “permanent position” of court officer, Martin hired his brother-in-law to replace Gordon while she was away on vacation. The case is settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. (See Franklin County Superior Court case 1278CV00117.)

2013 – Mayor Martin hires Robert Haigh, Jr., of Orange PD as Greenfield chief of police.

2014 – GPD posts mugshots and names of people arrested for drug possession on Facebook, publicly shaming people who are merely arrested, not convicted, and struggling with addiction.

2015 – Sgt. Dan McCarthy’s neighbor complains that his young son, who is Black, is disturbed by seeing the large Confederate flag that McCarthy has hanging in his open garage. Public outrage leads to vigils and protests. Despite widespread concern and demands for accountability, Haigh never opens an internal investigation into McCarthy for “Conduct Unbecoming to an Officer” or for any other charge. Haigh had appointed McCarthy as police liaison to the Human Rights Commission, but in light of the controversy HRC stated they would deal directly with Haigh. Haigh refused, keeping McCarthy as liaison through 2019. Throughout the incident and continuing to the present, McCarthy keeps the flag in his garage but keeps the door closed more often. The parents who originally reported the flag to the public are subject to intense homophobic harassment on Facebook and on internet hate sites. This episode, among others, is a key point of evidence in Officer Patrick Buchanan’s discrimination lawsuit against the city of Greenfield, although the City’s lawyers claim that it has no relevance or bearing on the case.

2016 – Anonymous, targeted racial and sexual harassment of city councilors leads to further controversy in Greenfield. Councilor Penny Ricketts, who is African American, receives anonymous demeaning, threatening racist images and messages, causing great personal distress. When city council president Rudy Renaud defends Councilor Ricketts publicly, Renaud also receives nearly identical demeaning, threatening homophobic images and messages. Despite the controversy over McCarthy’s political views and affiliation with the Confederate flag, Chief Haigh assigns McCarthy as the investigator for these incidents of hate and harassment. The investigation finds nothing.

2016 – Officers Soto and McDowell enter the home of a Baystate Franklin nurse and arrest her in her shower (officers claim to be following up on a potential OUI, but no charges were ever filed against her). The nurse later reports that officer Soto threatened her with calling DCF on her family (DCF was in fact called by Soto, found nothing of concern, and reportedly told the nurse that she could sue the City and GPD). Once released, she calls the police station to express anger at Officer Soto for how he treated her. The call is recorded and Lt. Dodge plays it for Chief Haigh, who then tells the hospital that the nurse has made threats against police officers. Baystate fires her. At this point she files a complaint with the PSC. The PSC, which has no legal or administrative support of its own, is concerned about Greenfield’s probable legal liability and refers the case to the Mayor’s office and town counsel. The complaint is “investigated” by Deputy Chief Mark Williams, who finds no evidence of wrongdoing–but the investigation does not claim to address Haigh’s own actions in calling the woman’s employer, suggesting that the City consult their own legal counsel in preparation for a probable lawsuit. No further action is taken.

2016 – Detective Todd Clark over the course of 3 months has 3-4 incidents in which he is found to be inebriated on duty, including a December 16, 2016, incident in which he is dismissed from the courthouse. During these incidents Clark operates a police cruiser and is in possession of a gun. Clark receives only a verbal warning from Chief Haigh and is reassigned from court officer duties. (See Buchanan court documents.)

2017 – In response to Haigh’s repeated, inappropriate assignment of Sgt. McCarthy to civil rights roles, the City Council passes a law ordering the creation of a position of Civil Rights Officer within the Greenfield Police Department, who would be responsible for receiving specialized rights-oriented training, handling civil rights investigations, and serving in key civil rights roles in Greenfield city government. In direct violation of this municipal law, Haigh refuses to appoint a Civil Rights Officer for almost 5 years, only eventually appointing officer Laura Gordon as CRO in 2022. As noted above, McCarthy continues to serve as liaison to the city Human Rights Commission for almost 3 years after this law passed.

2017 – Sgt. James Rode [who had the nickname of “boom boom” for his reckless driving] drives 83mph down High Street to intercept a reckless driver reported elsewhere in Greenfield, even though other units are closer. Rode’s cruiser crashes into a car pulling out of Sanderson St., killing the driver and causing serious injuries to the passenger. Rode is placed on “injured on duty” status (still getting paid) and faces no discipline until later in 2018 when he is finally indicted and found guilty of vehicular homicide. At the same time that he is arraigned on charges of vehicular homicide, he files a lawsuit against a driver he crashed into in 2015.

2017 – Officer Patrick Buchanan files a discrimination lawsuit against Chief Haigh and the City of Greenfield. His co-plaintiff, Lt. Todd Dodge, also alleges whistleblower retaliation for his supporting Buchanan’s complaint as his union representative. The complaint had previously gone before an arbitrator, who decided in favor of Buchanan. (See Hampshire Superior Court docket 1780CV00033, Buchanan v. Haigh & City of Greenfield.)

2017 – Sgt. McCarthy, while on duty, accosts a young man who had had a romantic relationship with McCarthy’s adult daughter and seizes the young man’s phone. When the young man states he will call the police, McCarthy responds “I am the police.” McCarthy says he doesn’t recall if he deleted compromising photos of his daughter from the cell phone. GPD initiates an internal affairs investigation which is dropped after McCarthy’s daughter refuses an interview if her father is not present. (See Buchanan court documents.)

2017 – Baystate Franklin hospital as usual hires GPD to police an authorized nurses’ strike and threatens the arrest of union nurses to prevent them from meeting with their union members who are finishing their shift before a lockout. Baystate uses GPD officers to escort union leaders out of the building. This is in direct violation of federal labor law, but officers follow Baystate executives’ instructions anyway.

2018 – Baystate Franklin hospital yet again hires GPD in the lead up to an authorized nurses’ strike to prevent nurse union leaders from accompanying their union nurses out of the building before a lockout, in flagrant violation of federal labor law. This time, Sgt. McCarthy physically grabs the MNA bargaining unit senior chair Donna Stern at the orders of a Baystate hospital executive. GPD is yet again a willing and eager accomplice in Baystate’s disregard for federal law.

2019 – Greenfield PD receives approval from City Council to leave Civil Service. Plaintiffs in Buchanan v. Haigh & Greenfield asserted that Chief Haigh had sought advice on how to avoid promoting Buchanan, who had scored highest on a civil service promotional exam.

2021 – Chief Haigh requests $5m over 3 years for improvements to the police station. In his request the chief provides very little information about the work being requested. The mayor, Capital Improvements Committee, and Ways & Means all approve this vague request. When members of the public and the full City Council question the high cost and vague and shifting explanations for the work requested, Chief Haigh accuses members of the public of wanting the police to “fail.” The council rejects the capital request and suggests that the Chief and Mayor develop a more detailed plan before re-submitting the request.

April 2022 – Chief Haigh requests $1.9m for improvements to the police station, according to a detailed plan developed with Pacheco-Ross Architects (under a no-bid contract). Members of the Greenfield People’s Budget raise a number of issues with the proposal: in particular, $980k, more than half of the proposed expenditure, is to construct a permanent three-bay “sally port” which includes two wash bays, even though there is a carwash directly across High Street from the police station. Chief Haigh is late for his scheduled appearance at the council meeting because he is at a bar. In the end councilors approve half of the capital request–minus the amount for the sally port, with some councilors suggesting that the Chief explore cheaper ways to provide that function.

May 6, 2022 – Jury finds that Chief Haigh and mayors Martin and Wedegartner of Greenfield discriminated against former officer Patrick Buchanan because of “racial animus,” awarding Buchanan $450k plus interest and legal fees, bringing the total to over $1m (as of the date of the verdict; the award will continue to accrue interest if an appeal is ultimately unsuccessful). When the verdict is announced, Mayor Wedegartner places Chief Haigh and Lt. Todd Dodge on paid administrative leave, for reasons that supposedly have nothing to do with Buchanan vs. Greenfield but with additional explicit instructions for Dodge not to leave his home during his normal shift hours, due to claims he is “under investigation” for lying in the case. Dodge is the only GPD officer to testify on behalf of Buchanan in the case. The judge in the trial later refuses Greenfield lawyers access to sealed testimony out of concern that the city will use it as a basis for retaliation against Dodge. Wedegartner is quoted in The Greenfield Recorder that she believes Haigh will be “completely exonerated” after appeal.

May 2022 – Greenfield City Council votes to reduce the Mayor’s requested FY2023 budget for GPD by $425,000, with some councilors explicitly stating that they wish there to be accountability for officers Haigh and McCarthy for their role in the actions that spurred Buchanan’s lawsuit. The cut is roughly equivalent to the salaries of Haigh and McCarthy. The Fraternal Order of Police union sends a letter to Mayor Wedegartner threatening legal action if she does not veto the council’s reduced budgetary allocation to GPD. (The mayor is not able to veto the council’s budget decisions.) Additionally Acting Chief Gordon posts deceptive/manipulative claims to the department’s official Facebook page, stirring up public fears and leading to threats made against councilors. Also shortly after the budget vote, on 5/31, then-Sgt. David Rice files a public records request (22-225) for all police responses to the homes of four city councilors, with no explanation and with unclear intent.

July 2022 – The Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST Commission) flags two Greenfield officers for review pending further investigation, including Chief Haigh. Out of many thousands of police up for recertification by the POST Commission, only 75 officers were flagged for investigation or decertification. Officers must be certified by the POST Commission in order to serve as sworn officers in the state, although decertified officers are allowed a grace period during which they can appeal.

The recently formed state-level Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission is tasked with evaluating the worthiness of police officers to serve as sworn officers. They are empowered to revoke officers’ certification, thus preventing said officers from serving as police anywhere in the state of Massachusetts. Please read our official complaint regarding Chief Haigh and consider signing below. We will not publish your name or address online, but they will be visible to the Massachusetts POST Commission in the official complaint.

To the Members of the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission:

We, the undersigned, submit this formal complaint of Unprofessionalism (Policy or Procedure Violations/Conformance to Laws; and Conduct Unbecoming) for your review and hereby request an official investigation of the worthiness of Chief Robert Haigh, Jr., to be a sworn officer of the Greenfield Police department.

Attached please find the following documents: 

• Plaintiff’s court filing (Buchanan v. Greenfield & Haigh, Hampshire Superior Court) regarding expert testimony on the Greenfield Police Department’s misuse of the Internal Affairs process and unequal application of discipline
• An historical complaint filed with the Greenfield Public Safety Commission in 2016 by a Greenfield resident, with related responses to the complaint by city officials, acquired through public records request

See also links to news articles in the incident narratives below.

We believe that these documents provide substantial evidence of poor judgment, mismanagement, and willful neglect on the part of Chief Haigh. We note in particular:

• Haigh’s unwillingness to apply appropriate disciplinary measures following serious misconduct by subordinate officers, showing a lack of any effective oversight, which is his duty as chief;
• Haigh’s obvious poor judgment in various cases:
  • in knowingly assigning an officer with a reputation for bigotry to investigate harassment and civil rights violations;
  • in refusing to cooperate with other city officials seeking to remedy said officer’s inappropriate assignments, going even so far as to violate a newly passed city ordinance;
  • in enabling his officers to violate federal labor law during multiple authorized union strike actions by nurses; and 
  • in directly causing a resident to be fired by her employer, when she lodged legitimate grievances regarding mistreatment and misconduct at the hands of Greenfield officers.

Some of these incidents have only recently become widely known to the residents of Greenfield, and Chief Haigh has lost the confidence of the Greenfield community. We present each of these issues/incidents in greater detail below.

We have additional serious concerns related to a jury’s findings of “racial animus” in personnel decisions made by Chief Haigh (Hampshire Superior Court case Buchanan v. Haigh and City of Greenfield), but we understand that as this case is currently under appeal the Commission is not yet able to consider the jury’s verdict for purposes of their investigation.

We submit these incidents below in good faith and in our best understanding of the facts as represented in the public record. We request the POST commission consider our complaint and its associated documentation and offer prompt resolution regarding the worthiness of Chief Haigh to serve as a sworn officer.

Sincerely

The undersigned residents of Greenfield and Franklin County

Unwillingness to apply discipline following serious misconduct by subordinates

Ancillary evidence from the Buchanan case demonstrated that Haigh neglected to impose disciplinary action against officers for a range of serious offenses:

• While on duty, Lt. Scott Daniel McCarthy apprehended a young man on the street who had previously had a relationship with his daughter, failed to properly identify himself as a police officer, seized the young man’s cellphone, and forced him to unlock it so McCarthy could search it. The internal affairs investigation into the incident was broken off after McCarthy’s daughter refused any interview if her father was not present.
• Lt. McCarthy also seized drugs and cash and failed to turn them in to the police department for 8 weeks. Haigh responded with only a ‘verbal warning’ for McCarthy.
• Det. Todd Clark was known to be inebriated on duty multiple times with no disciplinary action, despite having operated a cruiser and having a gun. He received only verbal warnings from Haigh.
• Sgt. James Rode was well known to be a poor driver, and in 2017, Rode crashed into another vehicle while driving his cruiser 83mph in a 35mph zone, killing the driver and seriously injuring the passenger. Despite this incident, Rode remained on payroll for months and months (injured on duty status) with no disciplinary action of any kind. Rode was finally fired only when he was convicted of vehicular homicide in 2018.

For reference, see especially Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure (Document #67) regarding Chief Haigh’s misuse of the Internal Affairs process and unequal application of discipline. See these court documents for a fuller and more detailed account of the incidents described above.

See also:

• https://www.recorder.com/Greenfield-officer-to-be-arraigned-in-connection-with-fatal-accident-19028958
• https://www.recorder.com/Jury-finds-Rode-guilty-in-vehicular-homicide-trial-32280370

Inappropriate assignment for civil rights investigations and duties, willful disregard of community concerns, and willful violation of legislative ordinance relating to civil rights

In 2015, then-Sergeant Scott Daniel McCarthy was discovered to be displaying a large Confederate flag in his garage. McCarthy’s neighbor brought this fact to the public’s attention because his young son, who is Black, was disturbed and fearful because of the Confederate flag at the residence of a sworn officer. Public outrage over McCarthy’s flag led to vigils and protests, while McCarthy’s neighbor was subject to intense homophobic harassment out of retaliation for reporting the flag to the public. Despite widespread concern and demands for accountability, Haigh never opened an internal investigation into McCarthy for “Conduct Unbecoming to an Officer” or for any other charge, instead taking the position that the flag was within McCarthy’s private rights of free speech.

Chief Haigh had previously appointed McCarthy as police liaison to the Greenfield Human Rights Commission, an appointment that already raises concerns given McCarthy’s personal political inclinations and reputation in the community. In light of the flag controversy, the HRC considered it inappropriate to communicate with the police department through Sgt. McCarthy and asked to communicate directly with Haigh. Haigh refused this request and in fact kept McCarthy as liaison to HRC through 2019.

In 2016, anonymous, targeted racial and sexual harassment of city councilors led to further controversy in Greenfield. Councilor Penny Ricketts, who is African American, received anonymous demeaning, threatening racist images and messages, leading to great personal distress. When fellow city councilor Rudy Renaud defended Councilor Ricketts publicly, Renaud also received nearly identical demeaning, threatening homophobic images and messages. Despite the controversy over McCarthy’s political views and affiliation with the hateful icon of the Confederate flag, Chief Haigh assigned McCarthy as the investigator for these incidents of hate and harassment. The investigation found nothing.

In direct response to Haigh’s repeated, inappropriate assignment of McCarthy to civil rights roles, the City Council passed a law ordering the creation of a position of Civil Rights Officer within the Greenfield Police Department, who would be responsible for receiving specialized rights-oriented training, handling civil rights investigations, and serving in key civil rights roles in Greenfield city government. In direct violation of this municipal law, Haigh refused to appoint a Civil Rights Officer for almost 5 years, only eventually appointing officer Laura Gordon as CRO in 2022. As noted above, McCarthy continued to serve as liaison to the city Human Rights Commission for almost 3 years after this law passed.

For additional references, see:

• https://www.recorder.com/Archives/2015/12/Greenfieldchiefsvisitboy-GR-120315
• https://www.recorder.com/Archives/2016/01/IntheArena-GR-011516
• https://www.recorder.com/editorial-latest-attack-emails-3864881
• https://www.recorder.com/Greenfield-Hate-Crime-Ordinance-public-hearing-3849649
• https://www.recorder.com/Greenfield-Town-Council-passes-Civil-Rights-Officer-Ordinance-10171870
• https://www.recorder.com/Rod-Hart-appointed-to-Human-Rights-Commission-4289694

Enabling officers to violate federal labor law

In both 2017 and 2018, Baystate Franklin Medical Center hired GPD officers for special detail assignment in the lead up to an authorized nurses’ strike. On each occasion, in flagrant violation of federal labor law, GPD officers threatened the arrest of union nurses to prevent them from meeting with their union members who were finishing their shift before a lockout. Despite this recurring violation of labor law by GPD officers under his charge, Chief Haigh has not intervened in any way or sought additional training for officers regarding the law or their responsibilities under the law.

For additional references, see:

• https://theshoestring.org/2018/04/30/which-side-are-the-police-on/

Retaliating against a complainant

In 2016, GPD officers entered the home of a Greenfield resident with no warrant and only on suspicion of a previous OUI. The resident was in her shower at the time. Officers forced her to exit her shower and dress in front of them. She was never charged. In her official complaint, the nurse listed damning details of the behavior of GPD officers, including calling DCF on her out of retaliation. When she phoned the police station and angrily complained to the officer who arrested her, Haigh informed her employer, leading directly to her termination. The resident’s complaint was investigated by Deputy Chief Mark Williams, but because Haigh was his superior officer Williams declined to address Haigh’s own actions in calling the woman’s employer and getting her fired, suggesting instead that the City consult their own legal counsel in preparation for a probable lawsuit. No further action was taken. To our knowledge there was never a disciplinary or legal review of Haigh’s actions which resulted in the resident’s being terminated from her employment.

See accompanying documents from the Public Safety Commission complaint for a more complete narrative.

By signing below, I add my name to this complaint and express my concerns about the fitness of Robert Haigh, Jr., to be Chief of Police of Greenfield.

Note: We will not share your information with anyone other than the POST Commission, but information we submit to POST will be subject to public records laws. We will only contact you regarding the progress of this complaint, unless you are already signed up for our email list.

Councilor Marianne Bullock has proposed a “City/Community Public Safety Task Force” with a long-term vision of creating a “community engagement process for defining a transformational vision for public safety that shifts resources from enforcement and punishment to prevention and wellness into subsequent budget cycles.” We like the sound of that–and the devil’s in the details.

Community task force vs. independent audit

The community task force proposal is in part a response to the Mayor’s proposed audit of GPD following the racial discrimination lawsuit against the city and Chief Haigh and the ensuing public outcry. The task force will be run by volunteers. The audit will be performed by hired professional consultants.

The audit can address policies and stated procedures of the Greenfield Police Department, but as Councilor Bullock’s proposal already states, any community task force should not focus on GPD. We already know that most of the calls directed to the police could be better handled in other ways. We know that the kind of safety many community members urgently need cannot be delivered by law enforcement. We know, per the American Public Health Association (here and here), that the best ways to reduce the racialized harms of the criminal legal system are to reduce people’s contact with police and invest in community support and prevention. That’s why we are calling for the task force to focus on addressing our community’s safety more broadly.

Councilor Bullock’s proposal is framed that way. But who’s going to steer this task force? The mayor? The police? The mayor holds final say over how this task force is structured. That makes us very concerned.

Our demands

The task force must prioritize addressing the material needs of our neighbors, especially those most harmed by policing and by shortfalls in essential services.

In order for our group to support the City-Community Task Force, the following changes must be made:

• No police or public safety commission members on the task force (See all of our reasons here). Include police and other officials and professionals in the process through a non-voting advisory board to avoid conflicts of interest and reduce the currently excessive number of proposed seats on the task force.
• The mayor must agree to appoint the members that the city council recommends.
• Fund administrative assistance for the task force.
• Provide meaningful stipends; participants can opt out of a stipend if they choose but should be encouraged to take stipend if it’s helpful for their participation, with no explanation needed.
• The task force must be able to make recommendations on a rolling basis before 18 months, as they see fit.
• The scope of the task force’s work must include community needs assessments, as well as feasibility studies for the implementation of best-practice programs like housing first and non-police crisis response. Feasibility studies are necessary if the task force’s recommendations are to have a clear pathway to implementation.

Call or Email the Mayor and Council ASAP

The Mayor’s final proposal for a task force must include these provisions in order to take meaningful steps toward re-envisioning public safety in Greenfield. Please reach out to the mayor and city council to make these demands. Please email them ASAP, because the task force proposal is getting written right now. Then please join us to make these demands at the August council meeting, August 17.

Police have run local government for far too long. Let’s change that.

We demand that any community task force on public safety be composed entirely of civilians, with no members of the police or public safety commission. Why?

• Confidentiality. If the task force seeks to gather community testimony that may feature negative experiences with the police and harm caused by the police, including police officers in the task force is a gross breach of confidentiality and ethics and endangers community members. People who have had negative experiences with the police have every reason to be afraid of retaliation–it happens all the time, and the same people who have historically been targets of police abuse are also most vulnerable to retaliation. Excluding cops is not enough to guarantee confidentiality or safety, but it is a necessary first step. Note also that in other communities task force members themselves have been targets of documented police retaliation.
• Independence. The initial move to audit the police department came from a need for an independent investigation into misconduct and discrimination which cannot successfully be carried out by anyone in the department. 
• Trust. Community members will need to have trust in the task force before even considering sharing negative experiences.
• Oversight. The task force is being created out of a recognized need for better civilian oversight of the police. It makes no sense, and it is a complete conflict of interest, for police to literally oversee their own department.
• Unnecessary. The police will be deeply involved in shaping the task force’s recommendations, regardless of whether they are represented directly among voting members of the task force.
• Experience. Task forces in other towns and cities have routinely excluded police for all the reasons listed above and still created meaningful ways for police to participate in the process. Additionally, over-policed communities, especially people of color organizing to change policing and prisons, have very clearly demanded that police be excluded from such task forces.
• Cost vs. benefits. There are simple ways to make sure that police can meaningfully participate and be represented in the task force proceedings without including them as members in the task force (see alternative proposal below). However, the potential costs of including police in the task force are grave, as noted above. Why risk harm and undermine trust when there are better, safer options of ways to include police ready at hand?

Alternative proposals:

• Create an official advisory board to the task force. This will help the task force have ready access to specialist knowledge, experience, and data, while reducing the total number of members (which offers other practical benefits to the process, too). The advisory board should be non-voting and should include all of those officials and professionals listed in Councilor Bullock’s proposal. There are good reasons for this beyond our desire to limit the undue influence of the police: it’s inappropriate to place employees of social service agencies in voting roles as part of their professional duties because it is a conflict of interest–these agencies could potentially acquire contracts to provide services that the task force recommends, and all agencies have pre-existing relationships with the police which they have to maintain.
• Instruct the police department and fire department to each appoint a liaison to the advisory board (to be confirmed by majority of the task force or by city council), for the purpose of providing information, facilitating communication, and representing the position of the departments and experiences of their members. This should be a non-voting position, and the task force should be able to conduct its business independently of the police.
• Instruct the task force to interview officers and include their points of view and professional opinions in their report.
• Ensure there will be rigorous public outreach included in the task force’s duties: this will include interviews with stakeholders from every relevant city department including the police.

It’s that time again–Greenfield city council meets this Wednesday, July 20, at 6:30pm, in person at Jon Zon and online over Zoom. Agenda here, zoom link here.

On the docket is the mayor’s request for $175k for an audit of the Greenfield Police Department. UPDATE 7/19: Ways & Means voted to table the mayor’s audit proposal until August. (Albany spent $78k on their audit, so $175k is probably more than the council will approve.) Councilor Bullock proposes to modify the mayor’s proposal, instead creating a volunteer, civilian task force to conduct a review of public safety in Greenfield, with a professional consultant working under the supervision of the community task force rather than the mayor. This item will be the subject of public hearing.

Because the audit has been tabled until August, we can use public comment this Wednesday to voice our concerns and hopefully influence whatever final proposal Councilor Bullock brings forward.

Public Safety Task Forces

There have been many public safety task forces, especially since the uprisings following the murder of George Floyd. We highly recommend reading the report from Interrupting Criminalization on Navigating Public Safety Task Forces. Long story short: it’s very hard to get real transformative solutions out of this kind of process, and they can have unexpected outcomes and risks of police retaliation against community members who take part. This is especially true when police and their political allies are able to commandeer or obstruct the process.

Abolitionist organizers who have navigated these task forces in the past recommend skipping straight to transformative solutions that you already know you want–such as community-based, non-police programs that build real safety–rather than getting bogged down in a long, messy process. From our discussions, though, we’re not sure folks in Greenfield are ready to support those types of changes without a sustained public conversation, and maybe a task force can provide a venue for that. Maybe we can steer this process to convince more of the public by highlighting the failures of policing and focusing on proven solutions, such as harm reduction. How do we do that? Well…

Please consider volunteering for the task force.

There’s a good chance a task force like Councilor Bullock’s proposal will be approved. If a task force is going to succeed, it’s going to need good people steering it. In Councilor Bullock’s proposal, there will be positions for one person from each precinct plus positions reserved for people with lived experience with the criminal legal system, plus a range of people in specific professions. Please reach out if you’d like us to keep you in the loop about volunteering, and reach out to friends and neighbors who you think are good candidates.

OUR DEMANDS FOR A TASK FORCE

If we’re going to have a public safety task force, here are a few things that would make it more likely to succeed:

• The task force has to consider not just what the police do, but what they shouldn’t do, and who else could do a better job meeting community needs. The task force has to be about more than just police procedures and policies–it has to be about acknowledging our needs and building our community capacity to meet those needs. (That’s why the mayor’s audit is not enough to address the community’s concerns.)
• No cops and no public safety commission members on the task force. If the task force does any community listening sessions, we must make every effort to protect people from retaliation. That is not possible if the police are involved.
• Task force members should be appointed by City Council, not the Mayor.
• Appointed members should have a demonstrated interest in studying evidence and making evidence-based recommendations. Unfortunately, most policies around public safety ignore all evidence and are justified only with fear-mongering and propaganda.
• Offer stipends to task force members. If we want a more diverse task force, we have to address barriers to participation–and that means offering to defray expenses like childcare during meetings.
• The task force should have subpoena power to get the information they need, and they should investigate and document all institutional obstacles to getting effective civilian control over our police force and accountability for wrong-doing.
• Along with any task force, Greenfield should commission feasibility studies for “best practice” programs that we already know we would benefit from, such as civilian mobile crisis response (a la CAHOOTS) and housing first (low-barrier permanent housing for people in need of shelter, with optional supportive services). It takes time to build new programs, so let’s not kick these cans down the road any longer.
• The Mayor must commit to following the recommendations of the task force.

If you agree, please reach out to your councilors and the mayor to make these demands, and join us at Wednesday’s meeting to push for a process we can maybe, hopefully, be proud of, after a lot of hard work and muddling through.

FURTHER READING

• Navigating Public Safety Task Forces by Interrupting Criminalization

There have been many similar task forces in our region:

• Burlington, VT: see the official reports from their review processes and a recent update on their process (VT Digger)
• Brattleboro, VT community safety review
• Northampton: policing review commission final report and a story on their process