A HopNews reader requested we publish Select Board Chair Muriel Kramer’s entire remarks from Police Chief Bennett’s performance review on February 27, 2024, during which she called for an independent investigation.

Chief Joseph Bennett (00:00):

Any questions?

Select Board Chair Muriel Kramer (00:03):

I’m happy to go first unless somebody else would like to.

So Chief, I take zero pleasure in this, but I have had concerns that I have articulated since as far back as November of 2022. And part and parcel of having this opportunity is we don’t, I have been working as the chair trying to support and improve the situation for the police department, for the town, and have not brought this forward in a public forum because I was hoping not to be doing that.

So when we considered extending your contract in 2022, I did my own SWOT analysis at the time. SWOT analysis, as you know, is Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. And I really was thinking about it in terms of the department because everything we do here and everything that we decide and everything you do has to be sort of on behalf of the town and on behalf of the police department.

(01:17):

So I had concerns about your performance, but not about you or your character or about your dedication to your profession or this town. I’ve lived here a long time and as long as I’ve lived here, you’ve been serving this town with dedication. The concerns really are about your ability to execute as a leader and as the chief.

So I identified at the time the strengths were community support and confidence, a generally safe external environment invested in well-trained officers, new standards and accountability in the new union contract that we had just finalized. Some of those strengths are no longer strengths in my opinion.

I identified weaknesses at the time that there was a non-existent succession planning or obvious action plan to address your succession. The internal promotion strategy was weak and oversight and insight for management purposes is extremely challenging for us on the Select Board.

So candidly, you appeared to be struggling with your job responsibilities and you did not have leadership support at the time.

(02:33):

Opportunities included your pending contract renewal, an influx of new staff, dedicated and seasoned officers at the sergeant, detective and patrol level, and a new contract for the union staff with better paying benefits. So it was more attractive and we would hopefully have an easier time recruiting and retaining people.

Threats included the external political environment pending criminal investigation that we still face and again, the lack of direct pathway for oversight and control by the select board.

I identify needs as well, and I’ve been very upfront about this over the last year and a half. There has been no lieutenant since October of 2021. For a long time you couldn’t have a deputy in there, but since May of 2023, we could have seen that.

(03:36):

We needed a process to investigate and learn from mistakes to drive better policy and processes and we needed better insight into the day-to-day functioning.

In December 2022 at the Select Board meeting, your strategic priorities were reported as community engagement and building trust. Social media team was part of that and body-worn cameras was part of that. And officer wellness, wellness programs, recruitment retention, body-worn cameras, staff development, comprehensive training and cross training technology, the ProPhoenix and drone program policy standards, the post and MPAC standards. The deadline was 2024 – March 2024 for accreditation. I understand that we have now gotten an extension to December 2024. Candidly, we do not on the board have good line of sight into how we’re doing. We know what you tell us when you come before us, but we don’t really know how we’re doing. We don’t still have the structure to support the work that really needs to be done. Again, you mentioned under that getting the body-worn cameras or we might lose the community’s trust and the command structure or succession planning.

You said at the time I can’t be the only one who knows something nor the deputy nor the lieutenant. I don’t have the structure to support the work that needs to be done.

(05:12):

So that’s still the case.

(05:19):

You at that time reported that you had put forward sergeants, you were all set, the tests had been done, the interviews had been done, your evaluation had been done, and you would have sergeants in front of us by February of 2023. I know that I held that process up when they came before us the first time in September, but September was a long way past February of 2023.

You also said at that time that you would have a lieutenant by May of 2023. I regularly revisit this particular concept and no progress has been made. The lieutenant slot has been open since October 2021 and you requested our support at that meeting December 6th, 2022, and we gave it to you, and I find frustratingly that you again asked me for that support in January of 2024 and there’s still been no progress.

(06:21):

I at the time agreed to extend your contract because I thought that we would be even more badly positioned due to the lack of the lieutenant and a deputy at the time. The new three-year contract was executed in April. I think it was April. I didn’t double check that date. And we hoped at that time to provide supports to help you be successful going forward. At the time of the contract, you were asked to procure an independent review of your department in part to identify needs and strengths as well as develop succession planning strategies. We hoped it would help us provide necessary supports. We asked about it in July. There had been no progress in October. We asked about it again and you said at the time that you had reviewed a scope and services and spoken to a couple of vendors, but we have not seen any progress.

(07:16):

In January when I spoke with you and John Moore, a former police chief that we brought in in July to provide executive level support, John was asked to deliver in Q1 – quarter one -January, February and March, and there’s been no progress to date. And in fact, until this week, my repeated emails for statuses have gone unanswered. I do have a meeting with you on Thursday about it, but we are two thirds of the way through quarter one, almost fully a year passed when we first asked you about it at that time.

Also, we reminded you that you were responsible for implementing the new union contract for the officers, which includes – but I don’t know that these are the only two items that are lagging – drug testing and body-worn cameras. These are long past due and not yet reported as being meaningfully underway. In July 2023, you reported that the drug testing was in its final stages. To the best of my knowledge, we’re not there yet. If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected.

(08:28):

So in July 2023, we brought in retired police Chief John Moore for support. On August 31, I asked about the lieutenant, the departmental review; no progress reports on other work streams, but no concrete completion status.

And we did at that time establish a review process for the Select Board to consider promotions or hires. That was not without its controversy, but I think that we made progress there.

In August or September, Norman and myself and the attorneys were made aware that your sergeants had all signed a letter expressing concern, or no confidence, or something in between and sent it to you, signed by all of your sergeants in the April time frame. You were asked to produce the letter at that time, but we have not seen it.

On December 20th, the chief, Mr. Khumalo, Ms. Lazarus and I were to meet to discuss all the work streams and missed deliverables over the past year and more. That’s when I hoped to have this conversation privately, but I’m not sure privately is the best way to do it at this point. And you were not able to stay at that meeting, and you excused yourself before the meeting had really begun.

(09:52):

(sighs) This is the hard one. In January, improper disclosures of protected information have apparently led to an investigation by the DA of the incident and of you. The disclosure of protected information is its own kind of calamity. But I do think that this board needs to really consider, as the public has been asking us, what we do while that investigation transpires. That is not something we can decide tonight. As I said at the beginning, any decisions about disciplinary action, we have to afford the employee the opportunity to do that in Executive Session.

According to the POST certification standards (you told us actually) an officer under investigation must be reported to POST within 48 hours. Has that been done?

Joseph Bennett (10:59):

Could you clarify the question?

Muriel Kramer (11:00):

Yeah. Any officer under investigation must be reported to the POST commission within 48 hours.

Joseph Bennett (11:08):

I had this conversation with your legal counsel and that would be the duty of the district attorney’s office.

Muriel Kramer (11:17):

Recent departmental protocol holds that Chief Bennett ought to likely face disciplinary action, which we would have to discuss, as I remind you, in Executive Session, unless he himself opts for a public meeting. At a minimum the chief ought to be, and we ought to consider, paid administrative leave while the investigation plays out with the DA and we complete our own independent investigation of the inappropriate release of information.

In February, Mr. Khumalo, myself and the chief had another status meeting and the chief refused to discuss the inappropriate information document release because he is being investigated. He reported at that time that his entire day is spent responding to public records requests and that he can’t trust others to do the redactions appropriately. But I ask you to consider whether or not our processes are in place and where the fail safes are in that situation.

(12:30):

We have not had any cooperation or progress on the departmental review, which is necessary, but probably something else is more needed now.

The chief says that they are selecting vendors for posting the sergeant process upcoming. So another sergeant process upcoming, which we understood. He told us that was coming, but the lieutenant position still stays open.

The body-worn cameras. There was no detailed update but it is progressing. John Moore has interviewed all the officers as part of a strategic planning update. I asked for the data with de-identified data. That is the feedback that he received from the officers. And chief told me at that time that there is no data to share.

So in my opinion, we have to right this ship, and this is on us.

We need an independent investigation of the events that led to the improper disclosure of protected information. We have to hold ourselves accountable and others as well as we correct processes for the future to the community. I have personally investigated the events and the timeline that led to the improper disclosure of information myself, and I have documented that. I will be sure that any independent review or investigation is faithful to the facts, to the best of my ability.

(14:15):

So that’s what I came here to say tonight.