Follow-up coverage of some events yesterday in Springfield, including the start of demolition for a South End apartment building, can be found on the wires today.
Regarding the demolition: CBS3 has a report by Anne Ebeling, in which the charming grey skies add an air of moody contemplation to the proceedings; and Peter Goonan has a brief article in today’s Republican, in which the owners deny that they were owners of the place.
Regarding the new Community Complaint Review Board: 22News has a report by Lynn Barry offering a sense of how well-attended yesterday’s announcement was in City Hall; MassLive.com’s Kristen Beam has a podcast with Mayor Ryan yesterday afternoon in which there is discussion of the announcement; and Peter Goonan has an article in today’s paper outlining additional details.
According to Goonan’s report, the new review board members are H. Edgar Alejandro, the Rev. Amos L. Bailey, Theodore C. Brown, Joseph O. Campbell, Carol J. Caulton, Jose Luis Claudio Sr., William A. Hurley Jr., Robert C. Jackson, and Fernando E. Mendoza, all headed up by new full-time coordinator Melinda A. Pellerin-Duck, who has been a city public school educator for many years.
The review board’s announcement yesterday was dramatically upstaged by the breaking news about Police Commissioner Edward Flynn’s candidacy, among a total of eight individuals, for a job in Milwaukee. Mike Plaisance covered that news for the Republican; Matthew Campell did a report for CBS3; Julie Tremmel reported for 22News; and ABC40 provided an unattributed report online.
In spring 2006, not long after Commissioner Flynn was hired, the Republican published an article by Peter Goonan about his five-year contract, which it also later made available online—now available here as well (PDF). At the time, the article focused on Flynn’s sick leave and vacation days. Now a spotlight is evidently going to be trained on the notion of what may happen if Flynn leaves the job before the contract is up. It may be premature to give this much attention, but at the same time, at the height of an election season in the city, when public safety is receiving tremendous resources and energy both politically as well as fiscally, the role of the “top cop” is more than critical. It’s vital.
News of the Milwaukee candidacy apparently broke when an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was made available online. From the article, by Greg Borowski:
Flynn was a late addition to the Milwaukee selection process and had not been identified publicly until Wednesday. His name was kept confidential while he caught up with the other remaining candidates in the application process.
David Heard, executive director of the [city’s police and fire] commission, said the panel met with Flynn on Tuesday and agreed he should remain in consideration. Flynn will undergo the same psychological and management review that the other candidates faced.
The panel is to meet Friday [October 12] and make a final cut of the candidates. Those who survive will be part of a public interview session scheduled for 6 pm October 24 at City Hall.
The panel is moving to replace Chief Nannette Hegerty [pictured], who is retiring when her term expires next month. ?The remaining internal candidates are Deputy Inspector Denita Ball, Deputy Inspector Ramon Galaviz and Capt. James Harpole. The other outside candidates are Ralph Chiczewski, assistant deputy superintendent with the Chicago Police Department; Thomas McGuire, a former deputy chief of police with the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department; Leonard Supenski, a former chief of police with the Ypsilanti (Mich.) Police Department; and Louis Vega, a former assistant chief with the Miami Police Department.
Flynn’s name was among those submitted to the panel by consultants George Kelling and Robert Wasserman, who are working on a review of the Milwaukee Department. The two will interview Flynn before Friday’s commission meeting. They also talked with the other finalists.
The article called Flynn a “mystery candidate,” and a blog for the local paper appears to be trying to understand more about who he is and why, as an “outsider,” he might be considered for the job. One post mentions the guesswork of trying to figure out the mystery candidate’s identity, and another, from September 21, says Flynn’s name was added (without being named) to the candidate list—at the consultants’ recommendation—within the previous week or so. From that post, also by reporter Borowski:
Asked if the other candidates should interpret the late addition as a sign the commission, appointed by the mayor, is unsatisfied with the field, [Mayor Tom Barrett’s chief of staff Patrick] Curley said: “I think that would be jumping the gun and a mistake. This candidate has to be vetted and has some catching up to do.”
The new candidate has submitted a resume and cover letter, the first step in the process the other eight finalists—four from inside the department, four from outside the department—went through. Officials have not released the candidate’s name, because they say he has not been deemed a finalist—and will not be deemed one—until he has gone through the same process, including responding to written questions and undergoing a management and psychological evaluation.
Officials say the addition should not delay the naming of a new chief, with a mid-October date remaining as the target. However, it will push back the planned public interviews with the finalists from the week of October 1 to the week of October 8.
“It is an unusual step,” Curley conceded. “But it’s not being done for any other purpose than to get the best possible candidates.”
It’s great to know Flynn may be among the “best possible candidates,” but not as great to imagine what that might mean for Springfield’s prospects to hold onto him at a time when the city needs his experience and capacity. According to the contract, it appears that Flynn may voluntarily leave the job with 30 days written notice, and simply receive no severance pay. The question might be asked, does he wish to leave the job, or has he been added to the list of Milwaukee candidates for some reason other than the realistic pursuit of a change of employment? Do the Milwaukee consultants have some other aim in mind; for instance, comparison and contrast? If so—is that a common practice among consultants?
Meanwhile, buried somewhere in all of this, is the fact that a huge candidates’ forum happened in downtown Springfield last night. A complete surprise to me, I found coverage only in today’s paper, reading like a bizarre laundry list and I can’t tell the candidates apart. Is there coverage elsewhere of this important event?
