Daley Reiterates Stand On Chief of Police Decision

From Common Council member Gerry Daley

Since most of the media reports about Monday night’s decision to reject the appointment of Patrick McMahon as Chief of Police have portrayed the decision as purely a political squabble between the Mayor and Council Democrats,   I want to reiterate my reasons for not supporting the Mayor’s nomination:

1.       The selection process was not open and transparent – in my opinion, the Mayor manipulated the process by having several committees (seemingly due to the fact that two candidates were rated higher than Mr. McMahon by the professional assessment center panel the City hired and paid for) and then in the end admitting that Mr. McMahon was who he planned to nominate all along;

2.       While Mr. McMahon has done some good things as Acting Chief, as evidenced by the support he received from some members of the public at Monday’s meeting  – particularly his involvement in community activities, especially in the North End, I disagree with a number of his decisions – stationing police officers in the hallway of the Board of Ed offices which in my mind wasted $11,000 of taxpayer money, recommending a labor settlement that would have resulted in officers receiving 17 extra paid days off, naming more acting sergeants than were allotted in his budget, etc.;  also, under his supervision a number of inappropriate police actions have occurred, such as the arrest of two Middletown High School coaches for which the charges were subsequently dismissed in court;

3.       Mr. McMahon has a flawed employment history – his separation from his previous employer is subject to a Stipulated Agreement that provided him with pay in consideration of his agreement to release all other potential claims against the City of Groton and never seek employment with Groton again (to me this is a huge red flag and was a major factor in my decision to vote against his nomination as Deputy Chief in 2007 - and by the way he did not answer my question about this factually on Monday night) – in fact prior to this agreement that he be separated he had been suspended for making an angry face and an ethnic slur (by the way, the City of Middletown has a zero tolerance policy for such discriminatory conduct);

4.       The threshold and determining factor for me is Mr. McMahon’s failure to comply with the City Ordinance that requires residency for the Deputy Chief and Chief of Police.  Ordinances are the laws of the City that the Common Council, as the legislative body enacts and which only the Common Council can waive or amend. It is true he has purchased property and is active in many community activities (some would argue he has complied with the spirit of the law) but the hard fact is he has not complied with the letter of the law – in addition, in his remarks on Monday night he essentially said Middletown schools were not good enough for his children – how can we accept an individual who does not honor the letter of the law (i.e. the City residency Ordinance)  as our chief law enforcement officer?  He should have asked the Council for a waiver of the Ordinance before he accepted the Deputy Chief position – he accepted the job knowing that the law required him to be domiciled in the City and he has circumvented that law.  He knew what the Common Council, and more importantly the law of the City, required.  Instead, he chose to abide by what he and the Mayor agreed constitutes “close enough” compliance.  There are many laws that we disagree with, but we still must comply with them.

These four factors led to my decision to vote against the nomination.  You may disagree with me and feel that positive aspects of Mr. McMahon’s performance outweigh these considerations.  And I respect your opinion.  But I also hope you can respect mine – the position of Chief of Police is an appointment that is very difficult to reverse.  At Mr. McMahon’s age, if his nomination had been confirmed it is likely he could hold the position for ten or fifteen years.   As a member of the Common Council, I have a responsibility to ensure that confirmation of such an appointment is only granted to someone in whom I have confidence to be well suited for the position, someone who has an impeccable record and employment history, someone who has little if any “baggage”.  I do not believe Mr. McMahon meets that test.

Many feel Monday night’s decision was nothing but politics at its worst.  I do not deny that politics is an element of most of the decisions made by the Mayor and Common Council – after all, we are political officials.  I hope and believe that while political considerations may be an element of my decisions, I do not put political considerations ahead of what I believe to be in the best interests of the City.  If I did, I would not have voted against Mayor Serra’s nominee for City and Town Clerk in 1995, nor would I have publically disagreed with Mayor Holzberg when I was Majority Leader, and nor would I have disagreed publically with Mayor Thornton when I was Deputy Mayor – but I did.  It’s easy to attack my vote as political   - but I urge you to give consideration to the concerns I outlined above and respect their legitimacy, even if you still disagree with how I voted.

At this point, I call upon the Mayor to spare the taxpayers from the expense of another selection process and nominate one of the other three candidates who were deemed qualified by the assessment center process and his citizen interview panels.  The Mayor should ensure that any individual he nominates has an impeccable background and employment history and will fully comply with all City Ordinances.    It’s the Mayor’s choice as well as his duty and responsibility.   If he nominates such a candidate, he will have my support and my vote for confirmation.  If he tries to circumvent the Common Council’s authority to confirm or reject his nomination and retain Mr. McMahon as Acting Chief, I will oppose him.   Not due to politics, but because it is my duty and responsibility and I take it seriously.