Control over PD to Be Decided by Mass. Supreme Judicial Court

SPRINGFIELD, MA—The decision on whether the governance of the Police Department will remain in the control of a single person or be returned to a five-member commission is now in the hands of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Lawyers for Mayor Domenic J. Sarno and the City Council made oral arguments before six members of the state’s highest court on Monday.

Arguments delivered by attorneys for both sides came down to a clash between the executive powers of the mayor and the legislative powers of the City Council under the provisions of the city charter.

Attorney Michael Angelini, of Worcester, representing Sarno, said the mayor’s powers to appoint a single police commissioner to oversee the department, Cheryl C. Clapprood, is “unchecked” under the charter’s Plan A “strong mayor” form of government in Springfield.

The mayor, by charter, is the chief executive officer of the city, and “is the appointing authority and appoints all heads of departments,” Angelini said. “What’s at issue in this case is the efficacy and legality of an ordinance passed by the City Council of the city of Springfield.”

He added, “(The council) cannot minimize or dilute the mayor’s power to appoint who is head of the Springfield Police Department. They cannot determine who the head of the department is and constrain the mayor.”

Attorney Thomas Lesser, of Northampton, representing the City Council, said the council acted within its rights and legislative powers to restore the five-member Police Commission in 2018 by adopting an ordinance that is the focus of the legal action.

Section 5 of the city charter “gave the City Council the right by ordinance to reorganize, consolidate or even abolish the department,” Lesser said.

The 2018 ordinance was a reorganization of the Police Department, by replacing the single commissioner with the five-member commission, he said.

The mayor, added Lesser, “still has the ability to appoint the five-member board (and) has the ability to revoke their membership on the board. He has ultimate power to determine those five persons. There is no conflict.”

Angelini had argued that the ordinance has to be consistent with the state’s general laws, including multiple sections giving the mayor appointment authority. Lesser said it was consistent.

A Superior Court ruling in March upheld the council’s ordinance calling for the appointment of the unpaid citizen commission. Sarno, who has refused to appoint the five-member commission since 2018, appealed the ruling to the state’s highest court. There was no indication during the hearing on when the court may issue a ruling.

Lesser stated that the mayor’s power to appoint all five members of the commission preserves his executive powers to appoint department heads.

Lesser said the appointment of a citizen Police Commission “is not a radical idea,” saying it had been in effect for 100 years before being eliminated in 2005 by the state-appointed Finance Control Board, as was within its powers. “Basically, the City Council went back to what was done for 100 years,” Lesser told the justices.

Some Supreme Judicial Court justices questioned Angelini how executive powers are infringed if he still has the authority to appoint the five-member commission.

Angelini said that council-set standards for the members, such as being unpaid, does circumvent Sarno’s executive powers since the mayor has the power to enter contracts with municipal personnel.

Lesser, however, countered that the issue of paid or unpaid members was not an argument at the Superior Court level.

_______

Visit masslive.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.