Dear Former Police Chief John Martin;
How are you? You may not remember me. Twenty-five years ago you unexpectedly walked out of the back door of the Municipal Center in the middle of the night and by sheer chance did not see me. As a member of the Town Finance Committee when the WSESU was located on the second floor just above the Police Department, dumpster diving for typewriter carbon paper was the only way we could find out what was happening in the secret school board meetings held in the basement of the Burlington Savings Bank on Main Street.
I really dislike the expression “I told you so” but on June 13, 2007 in an opinion piece entitled Nine-One-One on iBrattleboro, I correctly predicted your employment demise six months before it happened. Without commenting on those aspects of your lawsuit against the town about which I know nothing, I finally made the time to carefully read one piece of evidence against you, the report entitled Brattleboro Police – Data Gathering Project, written by Tad Dwyer. These are my conclusions that may or may not be of any interest to you.
If you were discharged from town employment because of the recommendations in this “data gathering study” by a college professor from Keene, then the amount of the settlement you will receive from the town will be enormous. Why? Mr. Dwyer’s conclusions at best could be described as tentative.
“It does not seem to me that the majority within the department have faith in the current Chief’s and Patrol Captain’s abilities to resolve current issues and set the stage for future success.”
Do you know what the Vermont Department of Employment would do to a private employer in Brattleboro if they told an employee that they are being terminated because an outside consultant believes he or she can not solve issues that will set the stage for the future success of others? The discharged employee would end up owning the company. It’s obvious that the four named defendants in your lawsuit do not understand the definition of “just cause” which is the burden of proof in discharge cases. You can not fire someone just because you do not like them. That is discrimination.
What is also interesting about Mr. Dwyer’s report, aside from the twelve grammatical errors, is his use of nouns and pronouns. In the entire study the name John Martin, Police Chief, or Chief is used a total of seven (7) times. The pronoun I (Dwyer) or Me (Dwyer) is used a total of forty-one (41) times. This study is more about the strained rational of Mr. Dwyer to justify his recommendations than the job performance of the police chief.
Actually, this study does not even define the job description and responsibilities of Chief Martin. How can you recommend that a town employee be discharged for job performance issues without defining the parameters of the job? Unfortunately, there is a serious disconnect in this study between college classroom theory and real world employment issues.
What makes even less sense is that the findings in this report are diametrically opposite from the conclusions and recommendations made in the December 2004 Matrix Report that is far more detailed than Mr. Dwyer’s. No where in the Matrix Report is there a hint of a morale problem in the police department. If the current Selectboard felt there was self-esteem issues, then why not ask the Matrix Group who has the baseline data to return to Brattleboro to find out what happened?
When you carefully analyze the discrepancies between Matrix and Dwyer, it certainly appears that the Dwyer study is the result of a fabricated “lets get him” crises instigated by three Selectboard members who have a history (i.e., post Remillard severance agreement) of vindictiveness. This is borne out by several inconsistencies in the Dwyer Study.
“It is clear to me (Dwyer) that no one person, or even few people, created the current situation nor the system within which it works.”
“I would compare the abilities and quality of police work conducted by this team of Officers against any in the state” were reiterated consistently during interviews. Several respondents referenced statistics backing up their assertions of the high quality of work produced by the department.”
Evidently, by a 3 - 2 vote, the Brattleboro Police Chief was discharged because no one created the situation and the town has one of the best police departments in Vermont.
“The book The One Minute Manager Builds High Performance Teams …… In the case of BPD’s patrol unit I suggest the leadership within the department adapt a “coaching” style.
If you take the time to read this book by Blanchard, this specific recommendation is incredibly naive. Why? The formula for the successful management of employees in the private corporate sector can not be uniformly applied to the public sector especially in a mega stress related profession like police work.
When the issue is successfully managing employees, one size fits all does not work. For example, years ago the Selectboard hired a new town manager whose supervision techniques were very successful in running Golden, Colorado, but when implemented in Brattleboro the result was an unmitigated disaster. When the Selectboard promoted the Police Chief to Town Manager because of his managerial success in the police department, those same managerial techniques used at the town level resulted in his premature death from a stress induced heart attack. The successful management of employees is a constantly moving target dictated by constantly changing priorities and how the various personalities interact with each other. If in fact there are morale problems, the “coaching” of employees will not even begin to solve the problem.
Mr. Martin, I have absolutely no idea, nor do I want to know, the status of your lawsuit against the town. However, after carefully reading and thinking about the Dwyer study, I will make several predictions.
The three Selectboard members and Town Manager named in your lawsuit are in for a very unpleasant experience when they are forced to defend their decision in a deposition hearing. You will be sitting directly across from them while they are questioned for hours by your attorney aggressively tearing apart every one of their answers. What I find very amusing, however, is their miscalculation that they can win an employment discrimination lawsuit by a former town employee who has spent the last thirty years of his professional life conducting investigations and collecting evidence.
My hunch, and it is only a hunch, is that your entire case will turn on the original draft of the Dwyer study presented on August 29 and then revised on September 18. What changes were made from the original document? Who instigated the changes? Why were they made? What was their motivation? These deposition questions will have to be answered by all parties involved under the penalty of perjury.
When the Selectboard members and Town Manager sign off on their deposition transcript - that is when the town will reach a huge financial settlement with you. Why? Because if their depositions ever become public during a trial, it will absolutely blow the lid off of what really goes on during their executive sessions which they will not let happen under any circumstances.
When you strip away all the shame, pretense, and double talk, the real issue regarding your discharge Mr. Martin is how much money this screw-up by three Selectboard members and a Town Manager will cost Brattleboro property tax payers.
RLElkins