A Cult of Silence in Gaslight City, Worcester MA

This piece is the second part of a series that will examine the response to the U.S. Department of Justice pattern and practice investigation report on the City of Worcester, some of the biggest factors within the Worcester Police Department that led to the need for the investigation, and the near total inaction of the controlling majority of the Worcester City Council and administration officials to initiate real reforms.

See Worcester, MA: Gaslight City, USA, Part 1, the first of the series.

This piece will look at the mechanisms used within city government, by both the administration and the city council, to silence a commission with a mandate created by ordinance, a councilor in the minority of the two blocs in the city council, and residents, including me. These mechanisms enable the city to control narrative and stifle debate about police issues.

Since the release of the Department of Justice report of its investigation of the Worcester Police Department and the City of Worcester, those in power in the administration, the majority of the city council, and the law enforcement community in the city have engaged in a campaign best described as gaslighting.

According to Merriam Webster, gaslighting is “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

Silencing the Human Rights Commission

As This Week in Worcester previously reported, in November 2023 City Manager Eric Batista sent a memo to the Human Rights Commission instructing it to focus on work related to the restructure of the city’s Executive Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.  He asked the commission to support:

• The creation of a Worcester Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and a revision of the Affirmative Action Policy;
• Pay equity for City of Worcester employees;
• The creation of education materials on topics such as fair housing, workplace harassment prevention, and addressing implicit bias; and
• Addressing reported patterns of discrimination and harassment against Worcester Public Library staff from members of the public, including residents who are unhoused, dealing with mental health issues, and/or substance abuse issues.

The Human Rights Commission met the following week, where commissioners were informed of an October 2024 meeting between the city manager and the Commission Chair Ellen Shemitz, Vice Chairperson Elizabeth O’Callahan, and Commissioner Guillermo Creamer. In that meeting, the commission members said that Batista told them that due to the Department of Justice Investigation pattern and practice investigation, the commission reviewing cases of police misconduct would be redundant.

While the city manager appoints the members of the Human Rights Commission, the city council created the commission by ordinance, which are local laws. That ordinance enables the Human Rights Commission to set its own priorities within its jurisdiction, which includes the review of departmental polices and disciplinary actions.

Along with instructing the Human Rights Commission to change its priorities, Batista also denied the commission access to documents it requested related to police misconduct, hate crimes, and payments made to settle allegations of civil rights violations.

The members of the commission voted to continue its work related to policy and disciplinary actions within the police department.

In December 2023, after city councilors discussed Batista’s decisions during a city council meeting, Batista issued a statement clarifying his position. He agreed to publish some of the documents the commission requested, “in the spirit of transparency. Batista also wrote that the commission’s responsibilities “does not include investigations on City employees or departments,” despite the language in the ordinance.

As I said in the first piece of this series, they are transparent. Just ask them.

Two Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decisions in the 1970s reaffirmed the powers delegated to the Human Rights Commission. In Bloom v. City of Worcester (1973),  the court affirmed the validity of the city ordinance that established the commission. In Human Rights Commission of Worcester v. Assad (1976), the court affirmed “the commission is thus entitled to the enforcement of its subpoenas .”

After Batista continued to deny access to the documents requested by the commission well into 2024, the Human Rights Commission discussed retaining an attorney to assert the rights provided to it by ordinance. In the commissions October meeting, members voted to authorize the commission to retain an attorney who agreed to take the case pro bono (as a volunteer).

However, unlike in the 1970s, the ordinance now says that, “in all civil matters the commission shall be represented solely by the city solicitor.”

The city solicitor is the leader of the city law department and an administration official appointed by the city manager. The solicitor serves at the pleasure of the city manager.

Obviously, the solicitor isn’t going to file a civil complaint against her boss, leaving the Human Rights Commission without a way to seek enforcement of its rights under city law.

With access to required documents denied to the commission, anything that resembles police oversight in Worcester ended. While the administration says oversight of the police department is the purview of the city manager, oversight comes from an external source, not from within an organization. The city manager is the top of the chain of command of all city agencies, including the police department.

As This Week in Worcester previously reported, the Worcester City Council Committee on Public Safety hasn’t had an item related to disciplinary actions at the police department before it over the entire tenure of City Councilor Kate Toomey. Mayor Joe Petty first appointed Toomey as chair of the public safety committee in 2016. The year 2025 is her 10th year as chair of the committee.

Restrictions Increased Around the Release of the DOJ Report

In the latter half of  2024, as the expected release of the U.S. Department of Justice pattern and practice investigation report drew near, the city manager’s administration enacted new restrictions on the Human Rights Council.

City officials did not have notice of when the DOJ would release its investigation report until a few days before its release, but the Worcester Regional Research Bureaau found that previous investigations typically ended around two years after they were announced.

The DOJ released its report on the Worcester Police Department on Dec. 9, 2024.

Through a public records request, This Week in Worcester received numerous emails between Human Rights Commission Chair Ellen Schemitz and Patricia LaFore, Esq., the Director of Human Rights and Accessibility within the City of Worcester Executive Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. LaFore acts as clerk of the Human Rights Commission and is the city staff liaison to the commission.

A June 20, 2024 email from Schemitz to LaFore and Human Rights Commission Vice Chair Elizabeth O’Callahan discusses items to remove from the agenda of the next commission meeting “in order to keep the meeting at no more than three hours (which is our commitment).”

On Dec. 11, 2024, LaFore sent a memo to Schemitz and O’Callahan which said that, “we discussed several months ago that we would observe a one week cut off for any materials being added to a meeting.” LaFore added that “we must begin to monitor our time at these meetings and conform ourselves to observe a two-hour maximum.”

Worcester City Manager Eric Batista said on April 30, related to transparency of the city related to the Human Rights Commission, that the city is transparent and all meeting minutes are online for the commission.

It is true that meeting minutes for the commission are on the city website, but the documents considered by the commission are not linked to the agenda as they have been previously, including during previous administrations.

On Dec. 12, 2024, the day after the email related to the length of meetings was sent, LaFore sent a memo to Schemitz and O’Callahan which said that the long-standing practice of adding links to documents related to items on the commission’s agenda would end. Hours later, Schemitz and O’Callahan objected to the new policy in emails to LaFore.

LaFore responded, saying:

 “I appreciate your opinion but as stated in the memo, the documents will not be added. Also, please note that as stated in the memo, in no instance are documents to be included with the agenda and also as noted in the memo, documents relied upon at a meeting become subject to retention and public record requests.”

The city council and the agenda of some boards and commissions include links to supplemental information. By removing these links, access to these documents requires filing a public records request with the city.

The Massachusetts Public Records Law provides for up to 15 business days, with a 10 business day extension, for any public agency or municipality to provide requested records. The law also requires some specificity in requests for documents, which requires knowing the specific case, for example.

The public records office of the City of Worcester is significantly understaffed, which often leads to delays in document processing and release by the city.

Removing access to these documents from the commission’s agenda delays access to this information by the public. It is the opposite of transparency, which the city consistently claims it is dedicated to being.

Council Prohibits Discussion on $1.5 Million Transfer

On Febuary 11, City Councilor Khrystian King sought reconsideration on an item from the previous meeting that authorized the transfer of $1.2 million from a city account to its account for paying court judgements. The item read:

“Communication of the City Manager recommend that One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars And No Cents ($1,200,000.00) be transferred from Cost Center #CC1072-610100, City Manager’s Contingency, and be appropriated to Cost Center #CC1033-610100, Court Judgments.”

Councilors passed the item unanimously during the previous meeting.

While it is fair to say King should have spoken on the item when it first appeared before the council, the city council typically votes to approve all finance items on its agenda with a single vote, very quickly. These items are most commonly transfers from one account for another to fund overtime pay for a city agency, to pay an invoice, or similar items. Finance items rarely draw scrutiny.

King clearly realized after the fact that he had comments or questions on the transfer and asked the council to reconsider the item, so he could address it.

Six members of the city council, Councilors Moe Bergman, Donna Colorio, Candy Mero-Carlson, George Russell, Kate Toomey, and Mayor Petty voted to reject reconsideration, silencing and discussion about the item.

While a court judgement payout could be for many reasons, including something as simple as a city employee involved in a vehicle crash, $1.2 million is a large sum for a court judgement unless related to a civil rights violation.

Six councilors decided we don’t get to know what the city is doing with taxpayer money. The police unions wouldn’t like that, and it’s an election year.

But they are transparent. Just ask them.

City Solicitor Shuts Down a Tough Vote for Councilors

The City Solicitor is the top legal counsel for the administrative branch of city government, who also leads the legal department.

The city council is the legislative branch of city government. Earlier this year, the city council asserted its independence from the administrative branch, preventing the city’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from investigating allegations that a councilor used a slur for transgender people in reference to Council Thu Nguyen, who is nonbinary.

The city council has previously voted against hiring its own legal representation, and relies on the city solicitor, an administrative branch official, to create the ordinances it considers, and for other legal services.

It remains unclear to me how one attorney can represent two independent clients in the same matters which they may have conflict over. American Barr Association rules appear to prohibit such practice.

After attending an extremely frustrating meeting of the city council public safety committee meeting on April 15, where Chief of Police Paul Saucier spoke for 35 minutes about the flaws the department identified in the DOJ report.

Incensed, I came home and submitted a petition to the city council, which asked it to:

“schedule and hold a public forum and request the City Manager request the Chief of Police to appear to present allegations within the Department of Justice pattern and practice investigation report which the department has determined are accurate. Further, request the city council ensure the venue where said public forum is held have the functionality to display video, and that the video evidence of the two cases cited by the Department of Justice for which video has already been released to the public be displayed and analysis requested to be provided by the Chief of Police.”

Over five months, city officials have talked endlessly about what they see as flaws in the DOJ report. No one has spent a single second addressing what is indisputably true in the report. So I asked them to address it.

Make no mistake, this would never pass. Those who rely on support from the police unions would have voted to file this item in a flash, which means it goes in the trash. However, it’s tough to vote against addressing facts because they don’t find them convenient.

We never had an opportunity to see how that vote would turn out, because the city solicitor prohibited the petition from reaching the agenda. The city clerk’s office passed the following reasoning to me, provided by the solicitor:

“The power of the city council is generally said to be the power to make “sweeping determinations of municipal policy”, Gorman v. Peabody, 312 Mass. 560 (1942), or “to make new law” as opposed to the execution of laws already in existence. Moore v. School Committee of Newton, 375 Mass. 443 (1978). The legislative power is exercised by the adoption of orders, ordinances and resolutions. (city charter, §1-7(d)). Section 3-1(a) of the charter states the city manager “shall be the chief administrative and executive officer of the city responsible for the administration of all city agencies whether established before the adoption of this charter or thereafter, except that of the city clerk, city auditor, or any official appointed by the governor or any body elected by the voters of the city.”

If you are thinking “huh” right now, you’d be correct. It’s not you. This makes absolutely no sense, unless you think the administration now has the power to determine in what contexts councilors can speak to the people they represent.

In reality, it’s a tough vote for councilors. The city manager doesn’t want that vote passing, or that event happening.

If councilors don’t have to vote, it can’t go wrong for the manager, her boss. No petition, no vote, no problem.

This same solicitor permitted a petition from police union officials which asked the city council to request the DOJ to release the names of the individuals in the cases it cited in its report. Federal law clearly states that information gathered within pattern and practice investigations is for statistical purposes and shall not identify victims or law enforcement officers.

In other words, the petition from union officials sought the city council to ask the federal government to break the law. That’s apparently legitimate, but asking councilors to hold a public forum after gaslighting the residents of this city for five months is, somehow, prohibited.

Welcome to Gaslight City, USA. Where access to petition your local government is highly dependent on who you are.

During the city council meeting on Tuesday, April 29, the city presented to the council the chief’s nearly 5,000 word statement on what the city objects to in the report.

Councilor Khrystian King filed the order which requested the report from the chief. The administration only fulfilled part of the request. It failed to, as King’s order requested, “include instances when the account of the DOJ have been confirmed by the city.”

The administration said it intended to provide said report. Don’t expect nearly the level of detail in that report as was in the one presented on Tuesday.

The order of these reports tells the story. Dealing with the problems in the department is secondary from continuing to complain the department is the victim.

I really don’t know who they are trying to reach with this messaging. Both extremes on the issue, both those that will support the police under all circumstances, including the worst of the worst with its ranks, and those that will never support anyone within the police department, aren’t going to be moved.

From what I’ve seen and those I’ve talked to, the city does itself no favors with the rest, the persuadable, with this messaging.

The residents of this city harmed by bad cops that are coddled and protected comes in a distant second place to the collective denial the city has about its police department.

The department has been horrible well for over a half century. It never recovered from the years organized crime played a prominent role in the city government during the middle part of the last century.

Yet the current government seems determined to continue to stay in denial. Admitting that problems exist, presenting a substantive plan to fix it, and displaying bold leadership to implement that plan would be too… reasonable.

Ironically, they’d have to be better at actually fixing the problems than they are at this five-month long incompetent propaganda campaign.

For the love of God, just shut up and fix it.

DESE Announces Strategy for AI in K-12 Schools in Mass.

EVERETT – The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) announced a multiyear strategy to integrate artificial intelligence into K-12 schools on Tuesday, April 29.

The DESE says the strategy developed by the DESE AI Task Force seeks to integrate AI in ways that enhance learning and teaching. The task force consulted educators, school leaders, and technology specialists in creating the strategy.

“Massachusetts has long been a global leader in both technological innovation and education,” said Governor Maura Healey. “This strategy will help equip students with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in tomorrow’s economy and to engage thoughtfully with these powerful tools.”

DESE says it will create AI resources over the next several months to help schools in three areas:

1. Building a shared understanding of AI: Provide resources to help students, educators, and families develop a foundational understanding of AI, how it works, and its potential uses and limitations.
2. Training: Offer professional learning opportunities and implementation support to school staff about data privacy and how to effectively integrate AI into schools.
3. Policy alignment: Review and revise policies to address AI-related issues, such as AI literacy, data privacy, and responsible use.

“As AI rapidly transforms industries and everyday life, it is essential that Massachusetts schools are equipped to prepare students for the future,” said Education Secretary Patrick A. Tutwiler. “These recommendations provide a thoughtful and structured approach to help schools harness the benefits of AI while safeguarding educational equity and student privacy.”

Details about the DESE AI strategy and the full report of the task force can be found on DESE’s website.

See the Neighborhood Meetings This Week in Worcester

WORCESTER – The Worcester Police Department is encouraging residents to attend their neighborhood watch meetings to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in their neighborhoods and to share any concerns or questions they may have. Representatives from the city also regularly attend these neighborhood meetings.

There are over 50 Neighborhood Watch Groups in Worcester. Meetings are held regularly — often once a month in various locations in the city.

Contact the Worcester Police Department’s Neighborhood Response Team at (508) 799-8664 for more information.

Here are the neighborhood meetings this week in Worcester.

Monday, April 28

• Green Hill Neighborhood Meeting, Saint Bernard Church, 236 Lincoln St. – 6:30 PM

Thursday, May 1

• Lincoln Village Neighborhood Meeting, Victoria Building, 116 Country Club Blvd. – 4 PM
• Webster Square Neighborhood Meeting, Our Lady of Angels Church, 1222 Main St. – 7 PM

WRRB announces Five 2025 Pubic Service Award Winners

WORCESTER – The Worcester Regional Research Bureau (WRRB) announced the winners of its 37th annual Thomas S. Green Public Service Awards on Friday, April 25. It will hold a ceremony to present the awards on Thursday, May 29, at 5 PM, at Mechanics Hall.

Green co-founded the WRRB and worked as a vice president at Norton Company in Worcester. He died in 1987. The WRRB began established the awards in his name the following year.

The awards honor five public employees who made outstanding contributions to public service based on the following ideals:

• Exceptional competence and efficient handling of all assigned responsibilities;
• Enthusiastic performance of tasks above and beyond the call of duty;
• Cooperative, helpful, and friendly attitude toward the public and fellow employees; and
• Community involvement outside the scope of job-related responsibilities.

The 2025 Thomas S. Green Public Service Award winners are:

• Maribel Cruz, Director of Housing & Development, Fitchburg Community Development & Planning
  • Born and raised in Fitchburg, Maribel has has revitalized Main Street, expanded affordable housing opportunities, cultivated small businesses, and fostered community partnerships in her role in Fitchburg.
• Arian Machado, World Language Spanish Teacher, Worcester East Middle School, Worcester Public Schools
  • Adrian is a dynamic educator who pushes his students to reach their full potential but as a person and serves as a mentor, coach, and advocate for them.
• Rebecka Mailea, Community Outreach Officer, Worcester Police Department
  • Before joining the Worcester Police Department, Officer Mailea and her family organized The Giving Tree in 2006 and since then has provided over 8,000 Worcester children with wish-list gifts. As a police officer, she’s visited every classroom in Worcester, started the New Migrant Family Education Program, began “Talk with a Cop” and “Don’t be scammed” programs,  and organized the National Night Out event
• Linnea Sheldon, Community Relations & Communications Manager, Worcester Public Library
  • Linnea is the mind behind “March Meowness,” the viral sensation that landed Worcester Public Library (WPL) on the international stage for its innovation in librarianship. WPL.
• Mohammed Siddiqui, Senior Software Developer, Information Technology Department, Worcester Public Schools
  • Mohammed has developed several systems at Worcester Public Schools, including an Education Student Information System, a Translation Services Database, a guest sign-in tracking system, and a referee payment system

Rep. Jim McGovern Announces Death of Daughter, Molly

WORCESTER – The Office of Rep. Jim McGovern, announced the death of Molly McGovern, the daughter of Rep. McGovern and his wife, Lisa, on Thursday, April 24.

The announcement included a joint statement from the parents and their son, Patrick. Find the full statement, below.

According to the statement by the family, Molly died while travelling in Italy. Other details, including her age, were not provided.

Molly received a diagnosis of a rare form of cancer in or around 2019, according to an interview in May 2024. Lisa McGovern, Molly’s mother, is the executive director of the Prevent Cancer Foundation’s Congressional Families Program.

Voters elected Jim McGovern to serve as their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 1997, in what was then the Massachusetts Third District. After redistricting, McGovern has served as the federal representative of the second district since 2013. The district currently spans from the western part of the border of Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the south, Southborough and Ashland in the east, to northern Worcester County in Leominster, and to the northern border with New Hampshire in the western part of the state. The district spans as far west as Chesterfield and Ashfield, and includes parts of both Franklin and Hampshire Counties.

The full statement from the Rep. McGovern, his wife Lisa, and their son Patrick:

“Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming smile—full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal, and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone feel special, because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She treated people with compassion and kindness—always standing up for the underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went. Her love for the Boston Bruins was fierce, but it was no match for the love she gave so freely to her family and friends. If you ever met Molly, you carried a piece of her light with you. She had that kind of effect on people.

“Even as she faced a rare cancer diagnosis, she did so with relentless courage, optimism, and tenacity—refusing to let her illness slow her down. She had just finished a semester abroad in Australia. She passed away unexpectedly in Italy while visiting a good friend and his family.

“Molly will always be the soul of our family. We are so proud of her, and so glad that so many people were touched by her incredible life. We love you, Molly. We miss you already.”

Two Men Arrested in Worcester for Drug Distribution

WORCESTER – Police arrested two men after witnessing a drug transaction inside a vehicle in the parking lot of a Main Street business on Wednesday, April 23.

Police approached the vehicle and removed Jose Salvador-Santana, 28, of New York, from the passenger side. As officers removed him, they saw a digital scale, covered in what officers believed was cocaine near the front passenger seat. Officers also located a bottle with 25 pills inside, which they believed was Oxycontin, and a significant amount of cash.

Upon a search of Salvador-Santana, officers located one Oxycontin pill in his pocket.

As police removed the driver, Wilson Salas-Reyes, 26, of Worcester, officers found four pills they believed to be Oxycodone, cash, and a double-bladed knife near the driver’s seat. During a search of Salas-Reyes, officers discovered a knotted baggie with what appeared to be fentanyl inside.

Inside the trunk of the vehicle, officers discovered a stolen license plate

Police allowed a female inside the vehicle with the two men to leave the scene. Police did not charge her.

Salas-Reyes faces charges of Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class A Substance, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class D Substance, Possession to Distribute a Class B substance, Carrying a Dangerous Weapon and Trespass.

Salvador-Santana faces charges of Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class B substance, Possession of a Class B Substance, Receiving Stolen Property and Trespass.

Editor’s note: The information provided in this report is based on recent events as described by the police. The claims within are allegations by police, which may be challenged by the accused in court.

Worcester, MA: Gaslight City, USA, Part 1

This piece is the first part of a series that will examine the response to the U.S. Department of Justice pattern and practice investigation report on the City of Worcester, some of the biggest factors within the Worcester Police Department that led to the need for the investigation, and the near total inaction of the controlling majority of the Worcester City Council and administration officials to initiate real reforms.

There are many people in Worcester’s city government that I like very much, both in the city council and in the administration. That includes leadership in both. My personal political views are more aligned with the minority of the 6 to 5 split in city council, but I have good relationships, maybe even better relationships, with some in the majority. I have also been vocal about my support for Chief of Police Paul Saucier, who I also believe is a good man who wants to do what he sees as right inside the police department.

Despite those personal feelings, I accepted a responsibility to the people of this city to bring them the truth to the best of my ability. When faced with “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object,” silence is betrayal.

Since the release of the Department of Justice report of its investigation of the Worcester Police Department and the City of Worcester, those in power in the administration, the majority of the city council, and the law enforcement community in the city have engaged in a campaign best described as gaslighting.

According to Merriam Webster, gaslighting is “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

The Launch of the DOJ Investigation

On Nov. 15, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an investigation into the Worcester Police Department and the City of Worcester to determine if the department engages in patterns or practices that violate the civil rights of residents. A report by the Worcester Regional Research Bureau showed that at the time the DOJ announced its investigation of Worcester, it had conducted less than 80 of these investigations since creation of these investigations in the 1994 federal crime bill.

Through public statements, we learned that the inquiry or pre-investigation into the city and its police department began, at latest, in Dec. 2021.

With the pre-investigation work going on that long, any idea the DOJ was going to investigate for two years and come back with nothing is ridiculous.

With that knowledge, both the administration and the city council gave no sign they saw this as a red flag. They gave no indication that it understood the magnitude of what this meant: the federal government was stepping in because the local government failed on a massive level.

That was the beginning of the gaslighting campaign. Nothing to see here folks, this is normal.

It isn’t normal. There are 15,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States. To be one of the 80 investigated means the city is a class of just 0.53 percent. It is an abysmal level of failure by city government, including several iterations of city council and multiple city administrations.

Did city officials express alarm, contrition, lay out a plan of action, express bold leadership and begin a robust reform plan when the DOJ announced its investigation? No. We were told we must wait for the results of the investigation and anyone who expected the city to take action wanted them to interfere in the investigation.

More gaslighting.

The federal investigation covered between 2018 and 2022. Nothing prevented the city from taking action in all of 2023 and 2024. Instead, it waited, and made the decision to enable any unethical or unlawful activity to continue, knowing it would likely be two years before that investigation concluded. Anyone harmed during this time of inaction: too bad for you.

 The Release of the Report

After the city avoided all things related to the police department like the plague for two years, the DOJ released the report on Dec. 9, 2024, predictably Two years and 24 days after it announced its investigation. Its two primary findings:

1. “WPD uses excessive force that violates the Fourth Amendment. Officers unreasonably deploy Tasers, use police dogs, and strike people in the head. Officers rapidly escalate minor incidents by using more force than necessary, including during encounters with people who have behavioral health disabilities or are in crisis.”
2. “WPD engages in outrageous government conduct that violates the constitutional rights of women suspected of being involved in the commercial sex trade by engaging in sexual contact during undercover operations. This violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.”

The gaslighting began hours prior to the release of the report, when the attorney representing the city in the DOJ investigation, Brian Kelley, a partner at the law firm Nixon Peabody, and former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts for 23 years, released a statement to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette. See the details of this statement in a previous piece.

Kelley said the DOJ rushed the release of the report. That is false. This Week in Worcester learned that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland mandated the delay of many reports, including the report on the Worcester investigation, until after the November election. The report was ready for release weeks earlier.

Kelley also made a series of other claims that were not credible. For example, he criticized the DOJ for citing the case it included in the report anonymously.  That’s true of every pattern and practice investigation report DOJ ever produced. Kelley presented these factors as controversial, with the obvious intent to confuse and mislead the public, while claiming the real victim is the City of Worcester. Again, more gaslighting.

Nothing about the investigation in Worcester differed from any other pattern and practice investigation the DOJ has conducted. A 23 year federal prosecutor, like Kelley, knows that.

Kelley also demanded that the DOJ release the names of the officers involved in the cases in the report. This became the demand of many city officials and led to a petition to the city council by police union leaders making the same demand.

The section of the 1994 crime bill that created pattern or practice investigations is just over 200 words. You can find it at the bottom of page 277 of the bill. In federal law, they are:

34 U.S. Code § 12601 – Cause of action
34 U.S. Code § 12602 – Data on use of excessive force

(Note: The provisions related to these investigations have been reclassified in US code, so the citations in the original text of the bill are now incorrect.)

In the second section, under § 12602 (b), the law says the following:

“Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.”

These demands call on the federal government to break federal law. They won’t do that. Obviously. The city calling on the DOJ to do something the city knows it won’t do, while laced in moral indignation as if the city is the victim and being persecuted, is yet another attempt to make the public question both reality and what your eyes read in the report. Gaslighting.

Despite the petition calling for the federal government to break the law, which is clearly outside the purview the city council cared so much about last October, six councilors voted to forward that petition to the Public Safety Committee.

Five Months of Gaslighting

Since the release of the report, the manipulation hasn’t stopped. It’s been a long, infuriating campaign of the city crying that it’s the victim. Big, tough guy police personnel, whining that they are the victim. If you question this narrative, they say you hate the police and are pro-crime and pro-criminal.

There has been no substantial mention of the survivors of sex crimes and those who have been the subject of clear violations of the department’s use of force policies.

The attacks on the report continue.

City officials are reveling in pounding away at the federal government. Yet they’ll only appear in carefully orchestrated or safe environments, where they control everything. In five months, no one has held a press conference. When they open themselves up for questions, the time is very limited and they’ll only answer the questions they choose to answer.

The gaslighting moved into another phase on Tuesday, April 15, during a meeting of the City Council Committee on Public Safety held 29 months, to the day, after the DOJ announced its investigation.

The Bureau of Professional Acquittals

During this meeting, Chief Saucier spoke for nearly an hour, as This Week in Worcester covered here. He talked about the changes the department has made for over 20 minutes, but none of it because of the report. Instead, the chief says the department completed or began all these changes before the release of the report.

On Friday, the police department released a nearly 5,000 word rebuttal to the report.

In other words, the report wasn’t necessary, everything is fine, nothing to see here.

In the five months since the release of the report, no city official has publicly acknowledged a single word of the report it true.

This is a common gaslighting technique. Although there are cases mentioned in the report where video evidence of the incident exists, your eyes lied to you. Maybe you are just too stupid to know what your eyes see, because you hate cops and love criminals. Gaslighting 101.

The Beer Garden

Let’s look at one of these cases which occurred outside the Beer Garden on Franklin Street in 2019.

A young man, Christopher Ayala-Melendez, asked a police officer a question: can I pass through this area to go home? The interaction lasted less than four seconds before officer Shawn Tivnan grabbed him from behind and pulled him into the police canine he was handling, which attacked and bit Ayala. The officer then arrested him.

That could be a momentary lack of judgement. That night, multiple fights occurred at the Beer Garden on Franklin Street, which led to a rare call for all officers on duty to respond. Officers intervening in fights became the subject of attacks themselves. It was a terrible, and I’m sure frightening, situation.

However, Ayala had nothing to do with that scene. He wasn’t there. He simply lived in a building on Franklin Street and was walking home when he came upon the scene. Despite the area being closed off by police, an officer allowed Ayala to enter the area. The Worcester Police Department, to date, has refused to identify that officer.

They are transparent, though. Just ask them.

However, Tivnan made another decision that was not a momentary lack of judgement, but a premeditated, deliberate attempt to wrongfully incarcerate Ayala.

Tivnan filed a host of charges against Ayala, including charges of assault on a police officer. The Office of Worcester County District Attorney accepted and began pursuing those charges until Ayala presented video footage of the incident, captured by cameras outside a nearby building.

Here is what actually happened.

Worcester Police Department policy 1503.1 Unnecessary Force reads: “Using more physical force than that which is reasonably necessary to accomplish
a proper police objective.”

The official BOPS report on the incident related to the arrest of Ayala, filed in March 2020, which considered the video footage above, exonerated Tivnan on the allegation of unreasonable force. The report says that, “after reviewing all reports, policies, and videos, it does not appear that excessive force was used to affect the arrests,” referring to multiple arrests that took place that night, including the arrest of Ayala.

The proper police objective accepted by the BOPS investigation was Tivnan’s claim that he announced lawful orders to Ayala three times. Other officers at the scene corroborated Tivnan’s statements.

As the department does not dispute that Ayala wasn’t at the scene prior to coming into the frame of the surveillance video, it is plainly obvious this is a lie.

The BOPS report completely avoids the obvious fact, as seen in the video, that Ayala committed no crime and presented no threat.

The official position of the Worcester Police Department internal investigation: what you see in that video is not an unreasonable use of force, and police officers treating you this way in Worcester is perfectly acceptable.

The BOPS investigation found a policy failure related to the department’s policy on canine handling, saying, “It is recommended that Policy NO. 401 be reviewed and updated. Currently, the policy is deficient in clarity. It does not currently state what certification course is required prior to deploying a K-9 team on patrol.”

Months later, in August 2020, only after public controversy about the case, then-Chief of Police Steve Sargent reopened the file to add a finding that Tivnan violated department policy on submitting reports.

Tivnan did much more than violate policy. He broke the plain language of Massachusetts Law in Ch. 268 § 6A, which says:

 “Whoever, being an officer or employee of the commonwealth or of any political subdivision thereof or of any authority created by the general court, in the course of his official duties executes, files or publishes any false written report, minutes or statement, knowing the same to be false in a material matter, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

As far as This Week in Worcester is able to determine, Tivnan never appeared for arraignment on that misdemeanor. Even if charged and convicted, a misdemeanor conviction does not result in termination. Only a felony conviction may result in termination.

I contacted and met Ayala in 2022, something no city official has ever done. He told me that Tivnan said that he “felt betrayed by the department” for being found responsible for lying on an incident report. This is a great example of how broken the culture is inside the Worcester Police Department. While that sentiment isn’t held by all officers, a contingent, including Tivnan, apparently believe that whatever conduct they engage in should be considered appropriate and/or legal by virtue of them doing it.

That conclusion is the product of learned behavior.

Years of BOPS acting as the official misconduct cover up unit within the department has conditioned officers to believe that they can do the what is easy because there will be no consequences, rather than do the hard thing because it is right. This is a critical component to the breakdown of discipline within the department that residents have endured for many years and a critical factor that led to the DOJ investigation.

Tivnan falsified a police incident report to file charges against a city resident for crimes they never committed. Without the surveillance video, Ayala would have faced a trial of his word against Tivnan’s and the testimony of other officers, which echoed Tivnan’s plainly false testimony in the internal investigation. Ayala being convicted for crimes he never committed was a plausible, if not likely outcome, if the surveillance video never existed.

The BOPS investigation had the video available to it at the time of their investigation.

Tivnan lied to internal investigators, saying he issued three commands to Ayala before attacking him. It is plainly obvious that such a thing does not happen on the video inside the under four seconds Ayala engaged with another officer, before being attacked from behind. The department doesn’t dispute that Ayala was not at the scene before walking into the frame of the video.

Nothing prohibits officers from lying to internal investigators, nor is there a penalty for doing so.

All those officers, including Tivnan, remain employees of the Worcester Police Department.

“Personnel Issues” and Transparency

It is not clear what discipline Tivnan faced other than reassignment out of the canine handling team. Sources tell This Week in Worcester the department since reassigned him back to the canine unit.

The city calls this a “personnel issue” which prohibits disclosure. That’s their policy, that’s not the law. Nothing legally prohibits disclosing discipline sanctions for a law enforcement officer. While they say “can’t,” the reality is they won’t.

During the city council meeting on March 25, the administration appeared to indicate it cannot disclose the employment status of a city employee. Nothing in the law prohibits the city disclosing if an individual remains employed or is no longer employed by the city. The city releases a list of compensation for every city employee every year. We can find who no longer works for the city by comparing lists from year to year. No law prohibits more timely disclosure of the same information.

Employment references are commonplace for any employer. Disclosing the position title and dates of employment in response to an employer inquiry is commonplace.

The city confirmed the termination of a police officer as recently as 2022.

But they are transparent though, just ask them.

Accepting No Responsibility

When two parties settle a lawsuit out of court, the defendant typically has no obligation to admit wrongdoing. This is legal speak, and part of the benefits to a defendant when settling a case they are unlikely to win. This occurs in each of the civil rights lawsuits for police misconduct the city settles.

City officials tell us that these settlements are practical decisions, as the cost of litigation can exceed the cost of settlement.

While that is a plausible reason for settling a lawsuit, when we look at the volume of cases settled and the finding in each of these cases by the internal investigation, the trend is quite clear.

During the nine-year tenure of former Chief Sargent from May 2016 to August 2023, internal investigations by BOPS found a Worcester Police officer responsible for the unreasonable use of force zero times. Never. Not once.  In nearly a decade.

A report provided to the city council in July 2023 shows all litigation settlement payments from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2023, all years which. Sargent served as chief of police. The city settled 12 lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by the Worcester Police officer over those four fiscal years, paying $1,103,500.

Although the BOPS investigation reports are public records, the city only releases them in response to a request under the Massachusetts Public Records law. A person requesting these files must know a case exists to request records on it. Knowledge of these cases often comes from lawsuit filings or video captured and released by members of the public.

But the city is transparent. Just ask them.

Some lawsuits for events that took place during Sargent’s tenure are still ongoing. Rev. Joseph Rizzuti, Sr.’s lawsuit remains open, as does the lawsuit  related to the police department’s response to protests on Main Street in 2020, which alleges 44 violations by Worcester Police officers.

A judge found Rizzuti not guilty of all charges, and Worcester County District Attorney Joe Early Jr. dropped all charges filed by Worcester officers in the Main Street protests. Both civil cases are not likely to end well for Worcester taxpayers.

Each city administration takes the same position through the process of the litigation of these cases. First, it says it cannot comment on ongoing litigation. Once they reach a settlement, they then refuse to comment. In January 2021, the state made it illegal to include confidentiality agreements in civil settlements related to police misconduct, unless requested in writing by the plaintiff. Until that time, most settlements included confidentiality agreements.

I have called on the city to unilaterally release all individuals subject to confidentiality agreements in these cases. People harmed by officers in Worcester should be encouraged to speak out, not gagged under threat of lawsuit. The first-hand experiences of those who choose to speak out should be informing policy and be an important part of a healing and reconciliation process.

When I called on the city to release those individuals from those confidentiality agreements, the silence was deafening. The city doesn’t want better policy or healing. These cases are politically inconvenient for some elected officials, and we are in an election year. They want it to go away, now.

They are super transparent though, just ask them.

I have a theory. I think in the official glossary of terms for the City of Worcester, there was an administrative error that swapped the definitions of transparency and gaslighting. They constantly tell us how transparent they are, while providing very little transparency. However, the gaslighting over the last five months, since the release of the DOJ report, has been constant.

Future pieces in this series will examine the Natale Cosenza case and just how indifferent city officials are to wrongful convictions and incarceration, and how tolerant it is of bad cops it knows are bad cops. It will also look at the recent claim by Chief Saucier that the sexual assault claims in the report may be the product of individuals fraudulently presenting themselves as police, and just how completely void of any understanding of behaving in a trauma-informed way the police department and city government really is.

Worcester Man Arrested for Armed Robbery on Main Street

WORCESTER – Police arrested a local man in the early morning of Saturday, April 19, for armed robbery.

Officers responded to a report of an armed robbery at the 711 store at 1326 Main St. at around 3:25 AM. Upon arriving at the scene, officers learned that a man entered the store, refused to pay for items he took, then showed the clerk a knife and stole money.

Officers reviewed surveillance video oif the incident at the store.

Shortly after leaving the store, officers located Charles Yawn, 30, of Worcester, on Main Street. Yawn matched the description of the man in the video.

As officers conducted a pat down, Yawn struck one officer with his knee. Officers took him down and placed him under arrest.

A search of Yawn revealed a pair of scissors in his possession.

Yawn faces charges of Armed Robbery and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer. He also had an outstanding warrant.

The Power of Platforms, Library Merry Go ‘Round, Tax the… Colleges!!!

Three Things I Think I Think About Tuesday Night In The Esther Howland

Mayor Petty returned, but before City Council got started, we had a Public Safety Meeting!

The Power of Platforms

Before the City Council meeting, The Standing Committee on Public Safety scheduled a meeting for five o’clock. There were two items, both related to the DOJ report, and both involving presentations from Chief of Police Paul Saucier. I was looking forward to this meeting, hopeful that a more comprehensive time frame would allow direct access to the chief in public.

The chief spoke for almost an hour, setting up a very small-time frame to engage him. His commentary was expansive, but almost all focused on undermining the report. Two things stuck out: first, he indicated that he had personal knowledge that an intern from Harvard edited the DOJ report. This is interesting, as it violates the DOJ’s policy which governs signatures and accreditation on reports. If an intern did edit that report, the Chief is a mandated reporter, and should report this to the U.S. Attorney’s office. Former acting U.S. Attorney Josh Levy would be subject to censure, and even license revocation if this is true. I intend to follow up with the Chief on this accusation.

Second, he never once acknowledged the incidents in the report that we have video evidence for, and the city has either settled, or is in the process of settling. This is a new behavior from the chief publicly, who to all knowledge has been a breath of fresh air since he took over for the former chief. It is a stark difference from his appearance at the city council just two weeks ago where he admitted that multiple Worcester officers are on the Brady List (the list of officers prosecutors do not allow to testify because they have a demonstrated record of dishonesty) and that there were changes needed to create a healing of the public’s relationship with the police.

I got the chance to ask the chief about his willingness to engage with victims of sexual assault, a crime that is the least reported of all crime categories. He responded positively.

I read this as a setback, and there was definitely a few upset people there. I notice that the current protest movement had no representatives there, despite many invitations. The meeting was postponed to another day. Hopefully dialogue will continue.

 Library Merry Go ‘Round

The library board of directors has a round-robin vote that has to take place publically. Who knew? Many candidates came out for their shot on the panel that offers advice to the Library’s Executive Director. Jason Homer, the current executive director, is far and away one of the most spectacular municipal employees I have ever met. His willingness to engage with anyone and everyone is amazing, and his work in the city library system is a crown jewel.

I don’t know why they subject this particular volunteer panel to a vote-a-rama, but they did. It was weird, and the energy was strange. Mayor Petty voted for both eventual nominees in the end, but also voted around the horn in the early rounds. These are the kind of municipal things that probably would be different if we had more engaged people.

Tax the rich…,er no, the Colleges!!!

We had the series of orders from Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson this week that had been held over from the week before. Here they are to remind you:

12a.    

ORDER of Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson and Mayor Joseph M. Petty – That the City Council place before the voters at the November 4, 2025, Municipal Election the following non-binding ballot question: Do you support requiring our private colleges and universities to invest 0.5% of their endowment annually into a community impact fund to be administered locally to help finance needed housing, economic, and community development projects? (Tabled Under Privilege – King April 8, 2025)

12b.     

ORDER of Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson and Mayor Joseph M. Petty – Request City Manager consult with the Worcester Regional Research Bureau (WRRB) and Greater Worcester Community Foundation to research examples of local community impact funds or loan pools currently in existence and their manner of operation within the United States. (Tabled Under Privilege – King April 8, 2025)

12c.     

ORDER of Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson and Mayor Joseph M. Petty – Request City Manager meet annually with each president and board chair of the city’s private colleges and universities, in an effort to create a more open dialogue between the city and its colleges and universities. (Tabled Under Privilege – King April 8, 2025)

12d.    

ORDER of Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson and Mayor Joseph M. Petty – Request City Manager work with the city’s private colleges and universities to establish representation of a City of Worcester resident on their boards. Said representatives are to be appointed by the City Manager with approval by the City Council. (Tabled Under Privilege – King April 8, 2025)

The big one being the first, to get a nonbinding question onto the ballot in the fall asking voters if they want the colleges to pay a .5% tax on their endowment into a fund that would help with housing, economic and community development projects. I wrote last week that this would generate around $19 million dollars annually if instituted.

Councilor Mero-Carlson railed against the lack of help from the schools, and there was a lot of talk about the PILOT in Providence, which of course included a massive contribution from Brown University. The councilors seemed enamored by that amount, in which Providence received a total of $223 million over 10 years, with $46 million of that from a special separate agreement with Brown. Taking our estimate of $19 million a year, over 10- years, Worcester could see a deal around $190 million.

It is interesting timing, and many of the grievances that the EDCC had given out in their letter last year slamming the hotels WPI acquired were rehashed. To me, this is something that probably should have been worked out years ago, and I find the timing to be disingenuous from the majority.

The same group of councilors has done nothing to hold Charter Spectrum accountable as they have stolen from our seniors and disabled is now going hard after one of the bigger economic engines in the city.

I am a Clark graduate myself, and have wondered why they do not support the city more. They are now crying poor to many of the alumni after huge construction investments in the new gaming studies building, and the acquisition of the old Diamond Chevrolet property. Knowing their investment portfolio, I know that they could reduce tuition, pay the $20 million and throw wild parties daily if they felt like it. Their board prefers their compensation packages, and that is the conundrum.

Councilor Mero-Carlson did bring up a very interesting topic in her statements that of the total board members of the private schools only 6 are Worcester residents. That is something there should be push back on. I wouldn’t mind sitting on the Clark board and questioning the varied administrators on their decision making. That aside, I think it needs to be a voluntary thing, so maybe one of the presidents reading this will reach out.

Lastly, Fred Nathan, local staple at City Hall, brought me cookies for my birthday. I will happily accept all sweets if you care to join me on Tuesdays as I think things.

Worcester Schools Superintendent Rachel Monárrez Steps Down

WORCESTER – Superintendent of Worcester Public Schools Rachel Monárrez, Ph.D., will step down at the end of June. The 2024-2025 school year is her third as superintendent.

The Worcester Public Schools released a statement announcing Monárrez’s departure on Thursday, April 17.

In a letter to families and staff members, Monárrez said she accepted a position as superintendent in California, where she lived before moving to Worcester to lead the city’s public schools. Monárrez added that her husband “is retired, and this next chapter in our lives will allow us to spend more time together with our family and friends in our home state of California.”

Monárrez lauded her team for its rollout of the five-year strategic plan, titled “Our Promise to the Future,” and its “Vision of a Learner” plan, which the Worcester Public Schools website describes as “a roadmap for our collective efforts to create a school district in which every student is equipped to visualize and create their own future.” She also credited her team for adding strengthened specialized programming options, expanded inclusionary practices, and for remaining steadfast in keeping scholars in school.

“Through it all, the greatest privilege of my time here has been elevating the brilliance of our scholars,” said Monárrez. “Their achievements, creativity, and resilience inspire me daily.”

She also committed to ensuring a smooth transition to a new superintendent.

Worcester Mayor Joe Petty said:

“Dr. Monárrez’s three years have had their ups and downs, but ultimately I have trusted every decision she has made, no matter how difficult a choice was ahead of her. Most recently, I felt like I was able to have an open, honest conversation to discuss the option of becoming a declarant in a lawsuit opposing the defunding of the Department of Education. Last year, Dr. Monárrez did an incredible job at making careful decisions about the 2025 budget. There has never been a doubt in my mind that the Superintendent has always believed in the investment of our scholars and their environment. She has tried her best to communicate information with transparency and kindness, while working to build trust within the community. Personally, our conversations have always been considerate and honest. I know that I have always been able to rely on Dr. Monárrez to be thoughtful about her approach to different issues.”