The Globe’s Deirdre Fernandes takes a deeper dive into allegations of vulgar and unprofessional behavior by former Newton Police Chief Chief Matthew Cummings that lead to his removal by Mayor Setti Warren in August. She also reports that the city is now investigating a second official, Police Captain Christopher Marzilli, for allegedly making “numerous inappropriate and sexual offensive comments” to a female officer while she was pregnant.
Here’s what Marzilli’s attorney told the Globe…
“[Marzilli] certainly does not make a practice of going around making any kind of statements as those alleged in the footnote.”
While Marzilli investigation is ongoing, Cummings dismissal hearing is set for Oct. 10.
Cummings is accused of calling his secretary a “bitch” and telling her see looked ” like a whore.” His secretary is accused of calling the chief an “idiot” for missing an appointment. His lawyer (and others, including those who protested outside Mayor Warren’s reelection launch last week) say it was all part of the fun banter that took place at Newton Police Headquarters.
“I don’t think the [political correctness] requirements of our society have gotten to the point that people can’t have a sense of humor even in the workplace,” Cummings’ attorney said.
What do you think? Is this a case of political correctness going too far? A horrifying discovery of neanderthals in our midst? Or something somewhere in the middle?
If anyone thinks it’s appropriate for a leader to do a public firing in front of the press and to release sensitive personnel files, then they are effectively saying that Mayor Setti made very egregious mistakes by not doing anything similar in the case of Ettinger. No public outrage. No access to personnel files. This Mayor needs to park his political ambitions in these situations and be a better administrator.
Whoa there Hoss: David Ettlinger was arrested following a federal investigation. He plead guilty to federal felony charges related to his participation in a global child pornography network. You want to see documents related to the federal investigation go talk to the U.S. government, not Mayor Warren.
The documents related to Newton’s Police Chief was an investigation conducted by the city into allegations involving a public official. The mayor did not release the chief’s personal files, he released a taxpayer funded investigation.
All that aside, the point you’re trying to make it totally ridiculous. It was absolutely correct for the city to investigate an employee complaint and to release the results of of the investigation. If the chief had been dismissed without the report being made public I’m sure you’d be among those arguing how unfair it was to do so without telling the public why.
Wicked Local has posted the full report here and published a story last week that I’m just seeing now.
I agree totally with Greg’s interpretation of this. Totally different circumstances.
The general concept tough is surely that employees’ personnel records ought to be guarded from public view unless there’s a damn good reason.
What I wonder about is how vulnerable is former chief Cummings on the issue of his own personnel files becoming an open book during the course of a public hearing? Anyone know?
There was an “if” and a “then” in what I wrote.
IF it’s appropriate to use a public relations moment in the case of a chief law enforcement officer accused of labor violations and fraud;
THEN it’s moreover appropriate to show the same outrage and transparently into an internal investigation of a school teacher charged with child molestation.
I didn’t choose the public relations moment, the mayor did. So where’s the internal investigation on the employment of the accused child molester? If there was no such investigation on the employment environment in the schools, the kids remain vulnerable.
Either keep internal matters internal — or go the other way. Don’t avoid the toxic stuff and jump on the soapbox for other stuff (on the same day as announcing a candidacy no less)
I agree that the Mayor should never have used this as a “soapbox” moment but the TAB article does say the Chief’s attorney requested the investigation to be released to the public.
I agree that the P.C. police are taking this very far – this is not a classroom, this is a police station. Also, this is not a Chief from the outside – he has worked with some of these people for 20-30 years, they must of built some sort of comfortable relationship with one another and if the Chief behaved differently when he took control it might have impacted the culture of the department or his ability to lead/maintain the trust of subordinates. It also speaks volumes that the office ran very efficiently with him in charge and not only did Mooney participate in this banter, these issues did not come to light until after she was caught stealing.
Additionally, since the Mayor has the authority to hire/fire and not the Chief, I wonder if the Chief reported Mooney’s abuse of overtime hours and harassment towards Nguyen to the Mayor and the Mayor refused to act – which is why the Chief felt he had to protect Nguyen and might of caused a riff between the Mayor and Chief (or b/c the Department filed a criminal complaint against Mooney without the Mayor’s approval) which resulted in the Mayor acting so abruptly when given the opportunity to do so.
The fact that the former chief’s lawyer isn’t denying the incidents but is only saying they were all in good fun, tells me all I need to believe the mayor did the right thing.
This kind of workplace behavior isn’t just unfortunate, it’s illegal. How could our chief executive allow the person most responsible for enforcing the law engage in unlawful behavior?
If you don’t like the workplace harassment laws, don’t blame the mayor. Work to change the laws.
If the purpose of the City Hall speech was to command a collegial work environment, that speech should have been made in 2010 or 2011, not after being sued. But how do you command collegiality through this kind of public humiliation?
Have Newton officials declared immunity from personal suits in public matters, or is the Mayor personally vulnerable when someone sues? I believe you need to declare immunity
This is not criminal and the law is not that black and white on employment discrimination. I know this blog is very bias towards the mayor but it is pretty naive to believe that this does not occur in every department in the city (including City Hall). Yes it is inappropriate in any working setting but any employment lawyer would agree that the threshold for just cause was not met, especially since there is zero evidence of the Chief creating a hostile working environment or of the Chief having history of inappropriate/bad conduct. By comparing this case to other just cause proceedings issued by the AAA or BNA, the Mayor’s actions are unjustified.
There are presently about one dozen contributors to this blog. None of them had to pass any sort of bias or other litmus test to become participants. They do, however, have to post using their actual names.
But I digress. It is never OK to call an employee a “bitch” or a “whore.” Nor should it be considered “fun”
Yes, I agree with you Greg, that it is never ok to call an employee a “bitch” or “whore”, however, I find nothing in the report to support that the Chief did say those comments. These specific words were not heard by anyone other than Mooney-and until her case is done, I do not know how credible she is as a sole sitness to these remarks. I guess I was hoping for a slam dunk in the report, to justify the Mayors dramatic public firing, and I do not think we got one. My question is this: If Mooney is officially convicted of larceny, will we still think her accusations against the Chief are credible? I don’t know.
@Jake: As I noted above, the fact that the former chief’s attorney isn’t denying it but is instead relying on an “ah shucks folks this is just the way they have fun down at the station” defense, lead me to that conclusion.
Excuse me, has Ms Mooney been convicted of anything yet? Its my understanding that the allegations are being made by a person who has been allready convicted or plead guilty to charges. Also this person could easily of been used because of his issues. Why is it assumed that Ms. Mooney is guilty, you asking us to take stock in the chief because of his almost 40 years of service to the city, which is important, but Ms Mooney has almost the same service to the city, why would we not afford her the same. I agree with Greg, you want the PC police to be tamped down, work to change the law if you see fit. But in this case, the horse has left the barn
Maybe I am wrong, but I took his attorney’s comments to be regarding the shoe kicking incident-which is the only thing the Chief admitted to doing in the report, I haven’t heard him confirm or deny the bitch and whore comment in public, but did deny it in the report it seems-but maybe we will know more at the hearing. But again, I am solely focusing on the call the Mayor made based on the report. I feel uneasy that the most detrimental comments (written in all the papers, etc-bitch and whore) where based solely on Mooney’s accounts. Greg-pure curiosity….would a guilty charge for Mooney change your opinion of the situation? Or if the bitch and whore comments were not a factor, do you think the kicking incident and the pregnant comment are grounds for a public hanging? I just don’t know.
That Chief said in the report he did not recall (which is completely understandable since it happened over 2 years ago) but said he certainly would of remembered if he said it maliciously and Chief’s attorney was merely stating that the allegations did not even warrant a dismissal if true. The attorney also discussed how it was unlikely to occur due to his record and the fact no one in the room (other than Mooney – who is (whether guilty or not) obviously not a credible witness since the Chief put her on administrative leave) heard him say the alleged comments. Absolutely nothing can be taken by the attorney’s comments or the Chief’s comments in the report as an indication of an admission of guilt.
Nonantum resident-I find your post a bit confusing. Maybe I am just reading it wrong. Who has been convicted and charged? As far as people involved in this story, the Chief is not convicted or charged of any law breaking, same goes for the other officers, the detective, or witnesses? As far as I know, Mooney is the only person who has been officially charged with a crime based on sufficient probable cause in an independent court.
on a side note, anyone know how I can confirm my name so that Greg knows I am a real name and person!?!?
Greg Reibman — Were the issues this clear-cut for you when you heard about Monica Lewinsky?
Hoss has just jumped the shark.
I’m out.
Based upon the comments i am reading above, it seems that some on this blog have allready convicted Ms Mooney. I have not seen that, as you know the basis of probably cause is extremely low compared to conviction,and its my understanding that the main witness is the same person who in the report has stated on his own that he on his own went out and followed her cause he did not feel like he was getting enough overtime from his supervisor, Ms Mooney. Plus he has credability issues regarding his own conduct which is not been discussed and only sparsely reported. All i am saying is it seems there is alot more here than others are claiming
@Nonantum Resident: The stuff about Stop & Shop with Nguyen? That would be completely inadmissible character evidence of a witness. On the other hand, the fact Mooney was placed on administrative leave prior to the allegations would be admissible as evidence of bias towards the Chief.
Also, it also does not matter whether or not Mooney gets convicted, the city only needs probable cause to terminate if she is accused of theft. The District Court already established probable cause for the criminal complaint.
Mooney’s case is also very different from the Chief proving just cause because she is accused of theft. The city does not need to weigh the conduct with Mooney’s disciplinary history and whether the conduct can be remedied- theft severs the trust aspect in any employment relationship. As long as the city (which the clerk agreed) has probable cause the Mooney stole, that termination is justified.
As for the Chief, given the complete lack of evidence from anyone other than a bias witness, it is unlikely that the city can establish probable cause that the Chief said “whore” or “bitch”. Furthermore, given his clean 32 year record with the city and since office banter can be remedied (if the Chief did conduct in this banter, I highly doubt he would do it again given what it has done to his reputation) – the city can not terminate him. Therefore, if the Rooney does terminate the Chief during the hearing (which will certainly happen because the decider is someone who works for a Mayor that already said publicly that he is going to terminate the Chief), the Chief is in line for a big payday through the court system at the taxpayers’ expense.
Yikes. NEyman….I would love to have you represent me if I ever needed it. Too bad the Mayor has already made his bed, and this will drag out in court for many years to come.
Too many assumptions for most people looking at this Sorry your arguements just do not pass the sniff test
I normally do not post on blogs but something said in these comments has really begun to upset me and I had to say something. This case seems to have many unsolved and unfounded issues do I really can’t say who I think is right or wrong but what I can say us that I am infuriated that my tax dollars are being spent to investigate a case that seems to be petty and stupid. Cummings accused mooney of stealing and she got mad and accused him back…is the mayor seriously spending my money to investigate this high school nonsense! The more I read about the mayor and the timing of his campaign annnouncement the more I see how this was a political move and not an educated decision. And I agree with some of the cpmmmeners, Cummings will fight back and with evidence only based on a statement from mooney he will win and one again there goes the tx payers money ! How are not more people upset about this?
@nonantum-your response makes it appear like NEyman totally blew you out of the water. Perhaps it was a bit over your head?
@George-AMEN!!!! This case is petty he said she said and the Mayor played right along. This is far from over, and we are going to be paying for this long after Warren has left Newton for “bigger and better.”