It’s rare these days to see our aldermen publicly stand up to our mayor. But last night Aldermen Ted Hess-Mahan, Vicki Danberg, Amy Sangiolo, Greg Schwartz, Marcia Johnson and Deb Crossley voted against approving the ten individuals Mayor Warren and an aldermen subcommittee selected for the police chief search committee.
Those objecting said there weren’t enough women on “a committee charged with finding a new police chief after the previous one was fired for making inappropriate and offensive comments to female employees,” Chloe Gotsis reported today on WickedLocal.
Attorney Laura Holt and Seanna Gaherin of Dunn-Gaherin’s are the only two women on the committee.
How important do you think gender diversity is in selecting our next chief? Or might last night’s “no” votes also (or really) be about wanting a committee that’s willing to look outside of the Newton Police Department for candidates?
This politcally correct stuff continues to go TOO FAR! Don’t we all want the most qualified individuals on the search committee not just 3 men, 3 women, 3 Asian-Americans, 3 African-Americans, 3 Latinos, 3 Italian-Americans, 3 Irish-Americans.
QUALIFIED COMMITTEE MEMBERS – not based upon their race, creed, or gender!
These votes seem very reasonable considering recent events.
However, chartering the item would have had a more substantial impact. It would have given the community and the mayor time to re-think the gender distribution.
I think one of the reasons this committe is light on women is that at least four have some police connection, and police departments are predominantly male, so it’s a bit circular.
Did the committee have to be from Newton? If they wanted a retired judge, there are plenty of women. I do feel well-represented by Nathan Phillips. Does anyone know who Darrell Settles is?
It’s rare to hear Ted Hess-Mahan criticize the mayor? You’ve got to be kidding. He objects to every move the Mayor makes. It’s just expected at this point no matter what the issue is.
If the Mayor had a history of not appointing women gender, it might be an issue, but that’s not the case. That being said, I don’t want or expect a BOA that votes 24-0 on every issue. We should expect diversity of opinion on the Board we elect to represent a reasonably diverse community.
@Jane: I don’t think the issue is about the mayor’s appointment history but the recent history of unbecoming behavior inside the police department, including the treatment of women in ways that should not be tolerated inside any organization.
Then it’s a question of whether or not (a) one is concerned about that past patten and (b) one wants to make sure the next chief is more sensitive to those issues than his/her predecessor and (c) whether or not one believes that female members of the committee are better suited to weeding out the Neanderthals.
I’m more concerned about how the city approaches hiring/firing as a whole than with any given appointment, and feel confident in the Mayor’s decisions up to this point.
As for your last comment, the stereotype of men as Neanderthals is pretty dated. We’d object if someone said we need a search committee that can weed out airheads, a common stereotyped descriptor for women.
But Jane, our police department does not appear to have ever been run by airheads.
The process for selecting a police chief in Newton is unnecessarily complicated, and should be revamped. The mayor should be able to select a new chief from within the department. If the mayor wants to look outside the department, he or she should appoint a 3 person committee to seek out and recommend suitable candidates. Instead we have this ridiculously large committee that has to first be approved by an aldermanic committee, before then being approved by the full BOA. And that’s just to seat the search committee, before they even begin their work. The process is so typical of what’s dysfunctional with our government in Newton. Instead of doing simple things simply, we have committees to select other committees.
My preference would be to hire someone from within the department, but also look outside to make sure we end up with the best possible chief. Since it appears we’re preparing to look at outside candidates, and given the recent history of the department, I think we should be looking at qualified female candidates first.
And the chief who behaved inappropriately was fired.
@Jane, your gratuitous ad hominem attacks on me are tiresome and petty. Moreover, in this particular case, you do not even know what you are talking about, to boot. This was not a criticism of the Mayor, at least not on my part. The selection committee members were nominated by both the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen. By my count, the Mayor nominated two women, the Board of Aldermen nominated zero women. So, my beef is not with the Mayor.
Rather, my vote was motivated less out of a concern that there were not enough women nominated to serve on the selection committee (I do not support a strict quota) than by the process that was followed in approving the nominations. Specifically, I was dismayed to learn that, according to one of my colleagues who sits on PS&T, the issue of whether there was sufficient female representation on the committee never even came up. To me, that is remarkable–and not in a good way. Given the recent, highly publicized investigations of sexist behavior in the NPD and the dismissal of the previous chief of police for treating female employees inappropriately, I think it would have made a lot of sense to at least take the number and kind of female representation on the selection committee into consideration.
Sending it back to PS&T seemed futile to me, since the process for nominating members, to my mind, seems fundamentally flawed. So I voted against it in the hope that the Mayor and Board of Aldermen would start the process over. I for one need to be assured that the selection committee has sufficient experience and expertise in matters concerning hostile work environments, particularly for women, and that all of the members are at a minimum cognizant of the issues relating thereto. But I also think that the participation of a woman who has served as a police officer in a male dominated department (even if it is in another community) would bring a much needed perspective as well as send a message to candidates that this is an important issue. This may happen yet, since I am informed by the clerk’s office that an alderman who previously voted in favor of the item (and who also sits on PS&T) has filed a motion for reconsideration. I also learned that the selection committee has already started meeting, which I think was premature before the board’s approval became final.
Kudos to Alderman Marcia Johnson (whose day job is providing training in human resources) for pointing this out and speaking up at last night’s meeting.
@Alderman Hess-Mahan: Thanks for your post and for clarifying how this committee was nominated. I have corrected my original thread to add that it was both the mayor and a board sub-committee that made the committee selection.
@Jane..
that was precisely my point
As Chloe Gotsis notes on the TAB blog, Newton is exempt from civil service appointments (presumably under a home rule petition) for police chief but the state law specifying the makeup of Newton’s police search committee selection says…
Oh and the same state law says the committee should have nine members.
But, Greg, you were the one who used the term and I have to say it surprised me (that’s meant as a compliment). As a mom of three sons, I never allowed the term to be used in my home because in a funny sort of way, it seemed to excuse a certain kind of behavior.
In the final analysis, isn’t the intent here to have a committee that will focus on all relevant search criteria? And won’t this brouhaha at least increase the emphasis on behaviors toward women within the police force that a solid new hire will make sure are appropriate.
Men can be sensitive to an even playing field, and many are, for all employees. I’d urge the two women that are on the committee to do what they can to not let this issue get lost in the process but and selection criteria for the committee members themselves ought to have taken that into account.
Is anyone saying that one or more of the men selected are NOT gender sensitive?
Dan: All excellent points.
But aren’t you concerned that the law recommends there be at least four women on the nine member committee?
@Greg, Personally, no. Isn’t the operative word, “recommends?”
If the BOA were concerned, wouldn’t they have felt some obligation to make sure it’s candidate was a woman?
Dan: That’s pretty much the point. Turns out the board didn’t even discuss this in committee even though one hopes they would have read the law before deliberating.
The plot thickens. In 2010, the board approved the following home rule petition, which would have increased the number of committee members from nine to eleven:
The search function on the “new” Newton city website still does not work very well (after three years), so I have had a hard time figuring out what happened after that, but I am checking with the clerk’s office. I did check the state legislature’s website, however, and cannot find any reference to this home rule petition having been filed, let alone acted upon, since 2010.
I do not know who, if anyone, dropped the ball on this, but I think it is important to find out what happened to this special legislation to increase the size of the selection committee before any further action is taken. If it was passed, then we could add voting female members to the committee. If not, I would like to know what happened to this special legislation. Either way, I would very much like to know why the committee is neither nine nor eleven voting members.
Dan and Greg: the law does not “recommend” that the committee have 4 female members. Rather, it states that “every effort shall be made” to ensure that “at least” 4 members of the committee are women. Since it was not even discussed in committee, I have no idea whether “every effort” was made to include at least 4 women on the committee. The responsibility for complying with this statute falls on both the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen and, respectfully, it appears that both branches may have fallen down on this one. the Board only gets two appointees, so this is a shared responsibility. I appreciate that the Mayor has the final say on who the next chief is, but if the appropriate and legally mandated process for vetting the candidates is not followed, it casts a shadow on the result. And the city does not need that right now.
The plot does indeed thicken. Appreciate the update Ted.
Arguably, if it was never discussed in committee “every effort” was not made. But how binding, legally, is such a phrase? Who is the decider when it comes to judging “effort”?
Let me answer your question this way, Greg: If it turns out that neither the Mayor nor the Board of Aldermen made at least some effort to make sure there were at least 4 women on the selection committee, I would argue that every effort was not made and that the statute therefore was not complied with. If it was not even discussed by the people who nominated the members, I would say the same thing. If a token effort was made, well, okay we can say at least some effort was made. Whether that constitutes “compliance” would be a subjective determination as to which reasonable minds could, I suppose, disagree. Since it was never discussed, of course, there is no way to know for sure.
But focusing on whether this requirement is legally enforceable, I think, misses the larger issue, which is the purpose behind the statutory requirement to promote gender diversity on the selection committee. The city has been sued by two former female employees alleging a hostile work environment, seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. I believe those lawsuits are still pending and that the city is exposed to liability. The Mayor’s office conducted two investigations into these allegations and found that there was sufficient evidence that the former police chief made at least some of the comments alleged. The Mayor then took it upon himself to terminate the previous chief of police because of conduct unbecoming involving remarks made to a female employee. If only a token effort was made to comply with the law requiring that “[e]very effort shall be made to include not less than four women on the selection committee,” it creates at least an appearance of indifference to the circumstances which led to the termination of the former chief and the search for a new one.
Let me state the obvious, which is that even with a gender diverse selection committee, there is no guarantee that the successful candidate will be any more or less qualified or better at his or her job. Nevertheless, putting aside technical issues of “enforceability,” IMHO, the optics of this situation are not good. That is why Ald. Johnson raised the issue on the floor of the board. Frankly, I was taken aback by this and gave her my support by voting against the formation of the committee as constituted. I have subsequently heard from several members of the Public Safety & Transportation Committee who were completely unaware of the statute, so I am not sure that the committee was to blame for not discussing it. If it failed to do so, the Mayor’s office should have at least brought the statute to the committee’s and the board’s attention.
After all the police department and the city have been through with this situation, I believe that we owe it to everyone to make sure we are diligent about doing things right moving forward.
The basic home rule was passed as part of the dynamics of the appointment of the fourth Chief back by the third Mayor back. In view of the language of the law, I understand the possiblity of re-consideration is attractive. However, it would delay further the appointment of a permanent Chief to bring stability to the department. I think the Search Committee members should be commended for their eagerness to get down to work rather than condemned for jumping the gun. The most expeditious way to proceed would seem to be recruit women who are willing to serve in some of the designated categories and ask the Committee members in those categories to step aside gracefully and allow these new designees to serve. It would also make sense for the replaced members to continue to participate in the process but without votes.
By the way, to answer Julia Malakie’s question, Newton resident Daryl Settles is a member of the Newton Economic Development Commission who was cited on Channel Five as one of the most prominent restauranteurs/impressarios in Boston’s Black Community.
For those wondering here’s the members of the Public Safety Committee. We’ve hear from Alderman Hess-Mahan, who is not on the committee and Alderman Yates, who is. It would be great to hear from other aldermen as well, but especially those on the committee.
Chair: Ald.Ciccone
Vice-Chair: Ald. Harney
Members: Ald. Johnson, Swiston, Yates, Schwartz, Fuller, Kalis
And to finish the thought on Daryl- Not only is he a member of the Economic Development Commission, but he is the only nominee to chair that organization when my term expires in March. He is a successful entrepreneur, and is exceptionally civic minded.
I think he will serve the search committee well, but I share the concerns on makeup of the Comittee and process expressed above. Does not reflect well on us for a situation that has already had more than its fair share of “oops” moments recently.
I could help but smile when I read that we have modified [tried to modify?] the size of this committee from 9 to 11. I think the more appropriate number would be 24, don’t you think?
Seriously, though, if the true number is 11, must we not add to members, and can’t we make sure they are women?
Dan, I am not into delaying the process, just making sure it is done right so we can move forward. I was actually hoping that we could appoint additional female voting members under the home rule petition amendment as a way of resolving the issue. Unfortunately, it looks as though, if it was filed, it was never acted on by the legislature.
PS: “24” is not the answer. The answer, of course, is “42.”
There’s too much focus on the gender of committee members. The focus should be placed on actively soliciting female applicants for the chief’s position. That can be accomplished by Mayor Warren instructing the committee accordingly.
Here’s a hypothetical for you:
Let’s say it’s 2015 and our new chief finds himself (or herself, it doesn’t really matter) involved in situation with a female employee who is alleging a hostile work environment. (And let’s note that it doesn’t even matter if it’s true.) Imagine what that case will look like when the attorney representing the employee is able to point out that the city (which now has a history of such allegations) didn’t adhere to its own standards when selecting the selection committee.
Why would any business or municipality want to leave itself vulnerable to that?
@Mike: The issue is not female candidates. The issue is having a selection process that is sensitive to issues where the department has been vulnerable.
Again, as Dan points out, men are capable of being sensitive to these issues and not all male managers (or chiefs) are Neanderthals (hi Jane!). We don’t have to pick a female chief or go through the charade of having having female candidates but why not follow the guidelines?
A few comments:
1. I, too, was taken aback by Marcy’s comments and embarrassed that this did not come up in committee. (especially as a member of the committee) Would it have been helpful to know the statute or see it in hand? Absolutely, but that is no excuse for the oversight.
2. Given my displeasure, I considered Reconsideration, but after speaking with the Mayor, did not pursue that avenue. I cannot speak on behalf of the Mayor, but in sum he let me know that also on the Committee were three women from city staff (including Maureen Lemieux) and that he would seek to add a few more non-voting women. He also explained that his approach will be for the committee to discuss, meet with him, each make their recommendation, and then he will make the final decision.
3. In sum, I am now comfortable that we will have good gender representation, and look forward to the committee getting to work
@Ted, well we can’t really have a committee like this be larger than the BOA, so I guess you’re arguing to expand the board?
It’s just my opinion, Greg, but I think the gender guidelines for the selection committee are discriminatory and irrelevant to the selection process. That’s why the quota is a recommendation and not a requirement. There is simply no logical basis for it, given that Newton has no history of gender discrimination in the formation of official City committees.
Again, just my opinion, but I believe affirmative action is acceptable in cases where a specific history of discrimination exists. The facts that Newton has never had a female Chief, the highest ranking female officer is a Sargent, females are dramatically under-represented on the force, and there has been an apparent lack of gender sensitivity within the department, all lead me to conclude that an emphasis should be placed on soliciting qualified female applicants for the Chief’s position. If the Mayor were to make that a requirement of the selection committee, the gender makeup of that committee would be of no consequence. So I’m somewhat mystified by the call for more females on the selection committee, when those same people are not calling for more female applicants for Chief.
I’m stuck on trying to figure out what these two particular females bring to this search process. The members with law enforcement background and a retired judge are easy, but a pub owner and inactive attorney/pto mom – not so much.
@Lisap: What Whole Truth said.
It is totally appropriate for a business owner to be included. BTW (and disclaimer) Seana Gaherin is executive vice chair of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce (which means she’s partly my boss).
@Ted,
To the best of my knowledge, the two females you mention are not “former” employees. Mrs.Sweeney-Mooney and Off.Macnair are both still employed by NPD.
@Lisap,
Seana seems to be a very good choice IMO. She is a community activist and a business owner. I am sure she would very much want to choose a Chief that was both community minded as well as supportive of local business needs and concerns.
We have really serious issues facing this city – issues that will affect the quality of life in the city for every student, every family of all generations, our professional school staff, for many years to come. But some how, you guys continue to focus on the make up of a search committee? You’ve got to be kidding.
This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. We tend to have a lot of those in Newton, but to have this one go on and on when we have an election in the city – in just 7 weeks! – that will determine whether our school system can accommodate the surge in population of students, whether we will continue to have two school facilities that are ranked in the bottom 2% of schools in the STATE, is really quite stunning to me.
If you want to take a look at a really serious serious problem in the city, go to the Newton Public Schools website, click on the link under District News and watch the 16 minute video that the conditions at Angier, Cabot, and Zervas Schools. Watch young children who eat their lunch in hallways (5:20), sitt in classroom in jackets (3:35), how Angier School deals with frequent flooding (1:55), how hallways are used as storage space (8:23), the use of outdated modulars at Cabot (8:20), the inadequate/inappropriate spaces spaces at Cabot (10:00), education-by-modulars at Zervas (12:40), the lack of auditorium at Zervas (14:30). Then talk to me about problems.
I see the names of some people who are in quite a dither about this search committee who haven’t lifted a finger to improve the lives of the youngest students in our school system. Leadership is about setting priorities; unfortunately, some of the official and unofficial leaders in our community are letting us down.
@Jane: Village 14 has asked for permission to embed that video.
So, I guess this is a dead letter. I would still prefer a Mulligan but there is nothing more to be done for it. At the risk of using a mixed metaphor, I think this casts a shadow that could come back to bite us.
TWT, thanks, I believe you are correct.
@Greg – Where in my post did I suggest that it is not appropriate to have a member of the business community on the search committee? (Hint: no where – I didn’t.) What I am trying to find out is what makes these two individuals, other than their gender, particularly knowledgeable and qualified to evaluate the candidates for chief? While I agree with Jane that issues relating to the schools are the most pressing issues we are facing, I do also think that the choice of our next chief is of utmost importance, particularly in light of the “Animal House” atmosphere which was permitted to exist under the former chief. This isn’t just a change of behavior but a change of police culture and if you do not know anything about police culture, about the “them vs. us” mentality that is endemic in the philosophies of police training and practice, then you aren’t in a position to understand how to find a leader who can rectify that.
@Lisap:
Here
The obsession with this search issue at a time when we need to focus on the despicable condition of our elementary schools, just 7 weeks before an election that will determine whether we fix our schools (or we don’t), is quite unbelievable. The condition of these schools is an major problem that’s long since come back to bite us.
Greg-I hope you can embed the video in V14 – it’s very illuminating. But if not, I’ve listed the times in the video in my previous post that illustrate the disgusting conditions we’ve considered acceptable for our students for too years.
I still remember the day in 2006 when an Aldermen told me in anger that “The elementary schools can wait!”. Well, wait we did and look where that got us. It’s time to focus on priorities. A bit of discussion about various issues around the city is one thing, but this carrying-on about a search committee when we have very serious concerns at hand goes too far.
@ Ted & Greg: I heard that Cummings’ contract allowed him to appeal the mayor’s decision in front of a neutral arbitrator and he planned on exercising it. Did he lose/drop the appeal or is it still ongoing? With the findings from the Marzilli investigation, I am very curious to hear what the arbitrator has to say.
Furthermore, if it’s still ongoing, what would happen if the arbitrator overturns the city’s decision? Is the new appointment being postponed until those results or would the city be stuck buying one of them out of their contract? If cleared, I would hate to see him forced out for no reason.
I agree we need to create stability in the department, but if the appeal is ongoing, the city should definitely take its time and reconsider the committee make up. Taking time would allow the city to settle issues with committee diversity, insure all candidates are properly evaluated, and avoid the potential mess if the arbitrator reinstates Cummings.
Lisap – I’m not objecting to putting considerable time and energy into choosing a new police chief. That very important issue should concern every citizen in the city. I’m objecting to making (step 1) the choice of who’s on a search committee that (step 2) will recommend three candidates to the Mayor (step 3) who will make a final decision into a major controversy. That election is a 1 step process that will determine the quality of the entire school for years to come.
7 weeks and counting. The stakes are very high.
@Greg, Please don’t impute a hasty generalization to what I posted. Questioning a specific owner (e.g. one who owns an establishment serving alcohol, which establishments are often subjected to greater police scrutiny than others in the community) is not the same as questioning ALL business owners. If that’s all you’ve got then you’ve clearly got nuthin.
I didn’t know anything about this home rule law until Chloe Gotsis wrote about it. Silly me, I thought we were having a search committee because it was a nice thing to do. (We’re Newton, Committees-R-Us.) The fact that we’ve got a committee of 10 not 9, and 2 women not 4, makes me wonder if no one else knew about/remembered the law either. (Including—correct me if I’m wrong—the two people on this blog who were at the Tab the last time around?) I can’t remember what year Cummings was appointed , but it’s been a while since we did one of these, and at least there’s no financial implication, like overlooking the sprinkler law. But now that everyone knows there is a law, why not just follow it? It just doesn’t seem that hard. Jane and others may be worried about this discussion distracting from the override discussion, but I think what would continue the distraction would be not following the required process.
I appreciate David Kalis explaning his reservations and how they were resolved, and maybe whether a committee member can vote or not won’t really make that much difference, but reading about all these non-voting women reminded me of last Sunday’s Downtown Abbey, where Edith is saying that women should have the vote, and Lord Grantham says, well, they almost do (referring, apparently, to a proposal to give the vote to women over 30 and property owners, neither of which applied to Edith).
Thank you also, Brian and Chris, for answering my question about Mr. Settles! I had Googled Darrell Settles, which is how the Tab article spelled his name, and found plenty of them, but they all seemed to be in places like Oregon, not Massachusetts, so it was a bit puzzling. Having now Googled Daryl Settles (it looks like it’s really Darryl), I am embarrassed that I did not know who he was (although the name sounded vaguely familiar). Gotta get out of my green silo more.
And, in a city like Newton with a plethora of lawyers including Assistant District Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, state and federal public defenders as well as litigators GALORE, the individual they choose to fill the slot of “one attorney” is an individual on INACTIVE status according to the Board of Bar Overseers. I think the intent of the statute is that there be an actively practicing member of the bar on the committee.
I second Ted’s call for a Mulligan.
Yes, Julia, I’m very worried about how difficult it is for Newton to focus on a set of priorities. Priority #1 for the next 7 weeks for anyone concerned about the future of our school system is addressing the conditions of our elementary schools. If the overrides lose, there will be no Committees R Us – merely a school system in disarray.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be concerned about other issues in the city. But let’s be very clear – a discussion about the composition of a search committee will appear irrelevant (if not silly) after March 12 if we find ourselves sending pink slips to young teachers and canceling modulars.