Good Governance Requires Hopkinton To Take Action Against Sgt. Tim Brennan
A function of a stable society requires trust in both individuals and systems. One of the ways which individuals can build trust in systems is through setting rules by which the systems function. Organizations which set these sorts of rules allow everyone to be treated equitably. Most of the time, we talk about corporate governance structures. We talk about financial reporting rules, such as Sarbanes–Oxley. We talk about securities laws and how corporations and individuals need to comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have the FDA, the FCC, FCPA, and other compliance structures which require internal governance in corporations.
In public service, we have the same thing. For example, we have the Constitution of the United States. This gives the rules which the Federal Government runs. We might have a disagreement on interpretation, but there are rules. The same thing happens with state constitutions. Even local governments have governance rules – Hopkinton has the Town Charter.Â
>> RELATED: Timeline and Commentary on the Porter/Brennan Controversy
>> RELATED: Local Resident Creates Petition for Brennan
The Hopkinton Police Department also has a governance structure. The rules for the Police Department are laid out in the Hopkinton Police Department Rules and Regulations. The governance structure lists a number of things which are cause for removal. These have been documented in both an investigation by the Internal Affairs department and the investigation by Kroll.
Sergeant Brennan failed to report the alleged rape of a minor on August 21, 2022. Even though this was to be brought to the District Attorney, Sergeant Brennan failed to report this to the Hopkinton Police Department or other law enforcement agency as per department policy. The fact that Sergeant Brennan did not report the knowledge of the alleged rape of a minor on August 21, 2022 is not in dispute.
Sergeant Brennan knew of an alleged sexual assault on a minor in 2017 and did not report it to the Hopkinton Police Department or other law enforcement agency. While I understand the difficulty that Sergeant Brennan might have faced based on the relationship to the alleged perpetrator, it was still his duty to report it to the Hopkinton Police Department or other law enforcement agency based on the information available. The fact that he did not report this in 2017 is not in dispute.
Sergeant Brennan knew that the victim was pursuing a criminal investigation and was concerned about her safety. Department policy states that this should be immediately reported to the Hopkinton Police Department or other law enforcement agency. The fact that he did not report the safety concerns is not in dispute.
Sergeant Brennan knew in 2015 that the victim had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the alleged perpetrator, who was also a member of the Hopkinton Police Department. Failure to report this sort of inappropriate relationship is in violation of Hopkinton Police Department policy based on the information available. The fact that this was not reported is not in dispute.
Sergeant Brennan engaged in inappropriate conduct with a student while a School Resource Officer. While this may not be a criminal offense, it is still a violation of the regulations for a School Resource Officer and Hopkinton Police Department Policy. The fact that there was inappropriate conduct is not in dispute.
None of the facts are in dispute. Sergeant Brennan does not dispute the facts that have been presented. Sergeant Brennan signed and agreed to the rules and regulations. Sergeant Brennan knew these actions were in violation of policy and regulations. We can have a discussion about the severity of the disciplinary actions, but none of the facts are in dispute.
While there might be questions to the exact policies which Sergeant Brennan violated, it still falls within conduct that can be seen as unbecoming to a police officer in Hopkinton – a violation of the Code of Ethics which was agreed to in the Hopkinton Police Department Rules and Procedures from 2007.
Good governance requires that an organization ignore emotional considerations and apply the rules and regulations based on the facts. The facts are clear; Tim Brennan neglected his duty to follow the agreed rules and regulations for the Hopkinton Police Department. This conduct calls for dismissal from the position.
I urge the Select Board to ignore pleas for emotional considerations and look solely at the facts.
A. S., Hopkinton
A.S., Hopkinton not really sure how a violation of department policy requires termination. You obviously don’t understand progressive discipline in policing. These violation of policy usually start with a reprimand and move forward from a verbal warning to written warning, suspension and last resort termination. Sergeant Brennon’s actions would in no way require being fired from if he was working in any other law enforcement agency.
A.S. Thanks for letting us know what we already knew.
What you fail to grasp or perhaps refuse to understand is how ridiculous these charges are. Let me help you.
As stated in a previous article, 2 of the 3 charges leveled against Brennan were for policy violations that were put into effect AFTER the fact. You can’t change the rules (or enact new ones) and then retroactively apply them. Please let me know if you need me to explain why. These charges are bogus and should never have seen the light of day.
Regarding the third charge: Brennan failed to report the incident on 8/21 because he KNEW it was bring reported in less than 24 hours. If it wasn’t going to be reported in a few hours and he hid it I would be screaming from the rooftops to fire his a** and take his pension too! But he didn’t. Ok. It was reported hours later. Is that technically a policy violation? Yes, we know it is. But does it rise to the level of besmirching this man, ruining his career and ability to provide for his family? Are you that callous? Or are you just perfect?
Finally, let me offer this: if cost wasn’t an issue and we could send Kroll associates into 10 random police or fire stations in 10 random towns you don’t think they’d find a 100 policy violations in every station house? Of course they would. These men and women are not infallible but they are braver than you or me for the work they do and the risks they take and they deserve both the benefit of the doubt and a second chance ESPECIALLY when the infraction is so minor. Again, less than 24 hours. If you expect perfection from every civil servant then guess what, there won’t be many left to do the job.
This town is lucky to have Brennan and it would be shameful to dismiss him over something so trivial…as a few hours.
James –
I understand that the charge in 2015 may be unclear due to an inappropriate sexual relationship. This can be a murky area with the inability to read General Order 2018-0004 and the information surrounding other General Orders which might discuss. I will let the Select Board look into this and decide accordingly.
The 2017 charge is much different, and I do not believe that it would only fall under General Order 2018-0004. Sergeant Brennan heard a complaint regarding another officer which included conduct that occurred while Porter was the SRO. Porter drove the victim to a ‘side street’ near the police station in an official police vehicle. After this, Porter allegedly sexually assaulted the victim.
Sergeant Brennan did nothing wrong with not reporting the crime of sexual assault on a minor. I applaud Tim Brennan’s understanding and empathy for the victim. It is hard to hear all of that, know that it should be reported criminally, and not report it. I agree that Brennan did the right thing by accepting this.
Still, Tim Brennan violated Internal Affairs policy and procedure by not reporting this conduct. He heard/saw a complaint about a fellow officer. In the rules and procedures included within the Internal Affairs document (Policy & Procedure No. 4.01, Issued 5/11/2011), an officer must “Investigate all complaints, including anonymous complaints, against the department or a member of the department, regardless of the source of such complaints, through a regulated, fair, and impartial Internal Affairs Program;” According to MPAC, hearing of misconduct like this by another officer, even if one or both of the officers are outside official duties, is a cause for officer who heard the complaint to file an Internal Affairs investigation.
It is not Tim Brennan’s job to determine criminal culpability. Tim Brennan is responsible for reporting complaints about fellow officers. Tim Brennan, as an officer, would make the complaint that someone told him the stated facts.
Here is the thing – you can’t stand for victim’s rights AND willingly violate the ethical standards for police officers. A police officer has a duty to report actions which are in violation by other police officers, according to all the law enforcement documentation I’ve read. It is Brennan’s duty to protect the public, not other officers. Ignoring the duty to report this conduct, even without the victim’s statement, is a violation of the Internal Affairs standard.
Tim Brennan was put in a difficult ethical position. I seriously applaud Tim Brennan taking the victims rights stand. There are probably many officers who would have not taken a stand FOR the victim and might have completely ignored the victim’s wishes. The difference is that I am not a police officer. I do not have the duty to report police misconduct. Sergeant Brennan did have that duty to report misconduct by other officers. Tim Brennan knowingly violated Internal Affairs policy. This is a breach of public trust by Tim Brennan and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
I do not know Tim Brennan. I do not know the victim. I am taking the position that this sort of violation REQUIRES action be taken. The circumstances, while tragic, should not enter into the decision. There were written rules and policies. These were violated and breached the public trust.
You can sling all sorts of hate at my position and I understand the emotional reactions to the circumstances. What Jay Porter did has shaken the trust in the police for the town. Tim Brennan has been caught in those circumstances by nature of not reporting the actions when required. To restore trust in the institution, it is necessary to take appropriate action.
Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the constitution. Just saying.
You do know that Chief Joseph Bennett, best friends with Jay Porter, knew about the inappropriate relationship Jay had with the minor well before anyone else? Or maybe you didn’t know that…
Anonymous –
I see that you have mentioned this in a few different places. If you have evidence that Chief Bennett knew that Jay Porter was engaged in this conduct before others, there would be many people who would find that interesting.
If there is evidence for this, I would call for Joseph Brennan’s removal as well. However, I have not seen anything that would make me believe that is factually true.
A.S. Joseph Brennan? How can you get the facts straight when you can’t even keep the names straight! No wonder you don’t want to identify yourself.
Dear “A.S.”,
Nice how you refuse to use your name. If you are going to judge and besmirch the reputation of such a good man as Tim Brennan, have the courage and the decency to identify yourself. How easy it is to throw stones when you hide behind some initials. What a coward.
Claire –
I have my own personal reasons to not state my name publicly. It is not cowardice – I am not trying to be a public figure, just someone who is presenting a different view.
I am not besmirching the reputation of Tim Brennan. I do not know him and have had zero interactions with him in the past. From what others have stated and from his actions, I believe he is probably honorable. I believe that he has done nothing morally wrong.
I am not judging his morality. I am not judging his character. I have taken a look at the law, the rules and procedures, and the obligations that Tim Brennan agreed to as a police officer with Hopkinton. This is a factual perspective, not an emotional one. If we are looking for ‘justice’, you have to take the emotions out of the conversation.
Tim Brennan violated the rules and procedures which govern public trust. Hopkinton doesn’t seem to have many options beyond dismissal for this conduct.
Do you feel that having individual law environment decide when to follow the law and when not to is acceptable?
A.S.
Thanks for making me laugh. You are pathetically and insufferably funny. What a joke you are. Thanks again!
James –
Can you explain why you find this funny?
I do not understand why you are deciding to personally attack me based on my ideas of good governance. I disagree with your position but I am not insulting you. I think you are in the wrong with your position, but I am not directly stating that you are a bad person for believing what your are stating.
I find it interesting that you aren’t actually bringing anything to the conversation. I am willing to discuss the facts and ideas. Are you willing to do the same?
You keep defending yourself.
It’s simple. For all of your legal and theoretical smarts you fail to identify one simple thing.
Judgement.
Tim Brennan used his judgement to protect a woman dealing with a decades old rape by someone wearing the same uniform as him.
Imagine the trust, empathy and faith this young woman had to have in this police officer. It was a decades old case, the victim a new young mother herself. Imagine the level of trauma this victim was dealing with personally.
I see how your legal mind is trying to offer a point of view as to the offenses in a cut and dry perspective. How about you realize that this Police officers job is to Protect and Serve this community, not his assistant chief the rapist or his chief ( friend of the rapist).
Tim used his judgement to protect a member of your community and yet you keep arguing he broke a rule.
I think you need to reassess your view and stand in Officer Brennan’s shoes.
In my opinion your arguments lack the proper judgement this situation deserves. It’s not black and white, this situation is all different shades of grey.
Whatever the outcome. You should say Thank you.
I will. Thank you Tim.
A.S.
I’m not personally attacking you but rather your silly and pathetic (and extremely long winded and boring) argument. I’m not surprised that you would immediately take anything you disagree with personally and cry foul. I wouldn’t expect anything less. You choose not to identify yourself but you are glaringly recognizable.
I already obliterated your ridiculous position last week. Time to move on.
Here’s a little advice, for free too: get a thicker skin and do us all a favor and take the hour(s) you use to contrive your seemingly never ending and extraordinarily boring/empty responses and go do something productive. You will be doing us all a favor.
But if you must respond, then please do. I’ll be sure to start reading it when I get in bed. At least I’ll have no trouble at all falling asleep.
You are pathetically and insufferably funny. What a joke you are.
I’m not going to argue with a bully. I hope you feel good about your argument and your conduct.
Have a great day!
A.S. In a world where everything is black and white in terms of the right and wrong thing to do according to department policy your opinion makes sense. However, reality is a lot different. As has been said in many posts, when Sergeant Brennan was first made aware of the sexual assault, and a long time after that, the victim said she would not come forward and would deny the allegations if Sergeant Brennan reported it. What purpose would that have served. The victim and Porter would have both denied it and there was no proof the assault ever happened. If you think Sergeant Brennan would have been protected from retribution from Deputy Chief Porter, think again. Porter is a known bully and best buds with Chief Bennett. Porter had a reputation of being vindictive to anyone who crossed him both in the department and the community. More than likely, Porter would have tried to make sure Sergeant Brennan was forced out of the department. Porter has a reputation of bringing complaints and violations against officers who crossed him. If Porter was successful in getting Sergeant Brennan terminated, Sergeant Brennan would have lost his career and his pension. But I suppose in your view you think Sergeant Brennan would at least be able to sleep at night knowing he didn’t violate department policy. Sergeant Brennan has been on administrative leave for 8 months. He has lost a considerable amount of money in duty pay. He has had to hire an attorney and incurred a lot of legal fees. He is facing termination and losing his pension and reputation. He has paid for his mistake. Sergeant Brennan is a great cop and an asset to the department and town. We need him back on active duty and a lot more cops like him in the community. Just for the record, Porter is sitting home collecting his pension while he awaits trial.
A.S. I just had a great idea:
If Sgt Brennan is reinstated I will start another petition and this time will ask for donations. We can use the money to help you buy a house in another town.
All of you are presuming and deciding that John Porter committed a crime. Keep his name out of your mouths.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. The victim changed her story twice, each time casting Porter in a worse light. The 1st time she told the story was only after he allegedly told her that he had no use for her. There may be corroborating evidence but if there isn’t this man’s life is ruined anyway. Amazing how many people convict without a trial…