Did The Boston Globe give Commissioner Davis a Pass for Costly Termination of Wrongly Accused Police Officer?

The following letter to the editor from Attorney Patrick N. Bryant was submitted to, and unpublished by, The Boston Globe.

A neutral independent arbitrator, well respected by management and labor advocates alike, has concluded that Police Commissioner Ed Davis could not support his claims that Police Officer David Williams used excessive force or lied in his dealings with a drunken individual charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. Davis’ errant decisionmaking in this case alone has cost Boston taxpayers upwards of $2 million.

A police officer being reinstated after an independent factfinder concludes that he did not use excessive – and after the City paid more than $1.4 million to someone found to be a liar – is extraordinary. It should be cause for the community and the media to re-evaluate what decisions Commissioner Davis made that lead to taxpayers being stuck with a hefty bill for an unfounded claim. Was this miscarriage of justice due to the Department’s unclear rules about use of force? A lack of adequate training? A faulty, inadequate investigation by internal affairs officers who waited years to interview the principals and who placed more credence in an inebriated liar who violated the law? And/or errors by the Department’s legal team in settling the civil rights case while pursuing the termination in the face of shoddy evidence? Arbitrator Ryan’s thoughtful 44-page decision, issued after the City had opportunity to present multiple days of testimony, provides considerable reason for taxpayers to be concerned about the competence and costliness of Commissioner Davis’ administration.

The Commissioner’s case hinged almost entirely on the testimony of an individual who attempted a hit and run on a vehicle operated by a federal law enforcement agent. The “victim” denied drinking much that night, a transparently implausible claim given that he admitted spending at least five hours at Boston’s most popular pub (where he regularly scored free drinks) during a St. Patrick’s Day celebration. Other witnesses also characterized him as inebriated. As any novice detective knows, inebriation undermines a witness’ memory and credibility. There also was very little evidence to corroborate his claims of police abuse. He never claimed during his time at the police station that Officer Williams assaulted him. He said he had a cellphone video of part of the confrontation but never produced it at the hearing (He claimed that he no longer possessed the cell phone, despite it allegedly containing key evidence in support of his legal claims). His childhood friends who witnessed this alleged beatdown did not testify in support of the City or their lifelong friend. Police mug shots did not support his claims. The only evidence that potentially supported allegations of abuse was medical records – completed after the “victim” told doctors that he had been assaulted by the police.

The Commissioner’s primary witness also had an obvious motive to lie. He admitted to being very concerned about the impact of the events on his job as a correctional officer and his pending application to Special Forces. To make matters worse, the Department waited nearly two years after the purported victim filed a complaint to interview Officer Williams. No arbitrator or union contract forced the Commissioner to pursue the case in so dilatory a manner.

Instead of trying to determine what errors his administration made that led to unnecessary expenditure of millions of dollars, Commissioner Davis, abetted by Globe columnist Lawrence Harmon (see his June 29, 2013 column, Do Arbitrators Give Violent Cops a Pass?), is doubling down on Davis' poor decisionmaking with taxpayer money. Commissioner Davis has promised to appeal the arbitrator’s decision -- even though he basically admits that such an appeal is frivolous. His appeal not only will force taxpayers to fund pointless litigation, but runs the risk that taxpayers will be forced to reimburse the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association's legal fees for defending against such a frivolous challenge. The only people who should be encouraged by Davis’ actions here are individuals trying to wrangle substantial sums of money from the Department under vague claims of “police abuse.”

Commissioner Davis’ handling of Officer Williams’ case is not, unfortunately, an anomaly. There have been many cases under Davis’ leadership where Davis’ decisionmaking has been proven to be wrong and costly. Just this past April, an arbitrator concluded that a superior officer terminated for sexual harassment did not, in fact, commit sexual harassment or any other improper conduct. The officer was reinstated at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay, not to mention the City’s considerable legal fees.

A few years ago, Commissioner Davis made a media circus out of claims that four superior officers defrauded the City on details. He publicly sought termination and criminal proceedings against all four officers. Yet, Davis quietly agreed nearly a year later to let one officer retire and two others accept relatively-meager suspensions. One superior officer, Jacqueline Creaven, refused to go quietly. So Davis suspended her for six months on the basis of nearly 120 charges. Two years later, an independent arbitrator threw out every single one of the charges by the Department against her. After all of Davis’ hubris and fanfare, his unsubstantiated claims of fraud and detail abuse forced taxpayers to waste tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars in legal fees and damages.

Police accountability advocates should rejoice, not recoil, at the recent reinstatement of Officer Williams. They should demand reform -- at the top of the Boston Police Department. Faced with an independent factfinder’s conclusions that Officer Williams told the truth and the alleged victim did not, Harmon and Commissioner Davis are asking people to express outrage at an experienced arbitrator – part of an elite group that hears Boston police arbitration cases. The outrage is better focused on Davis, who continues to tarnish the reputations of officers for doing what is expected of him. Davis insists Officer Williams “choked this guy out and lied about it. He shouldn’t be allowed to be a police officer.” Perhaps it is the individual who costs taxpayers millions of dollars on frivolous cases and promises to spend more on pointless legal appeals who shouldn’t be a police officer. Let alone a Commissioner.