Affirmative Action for Older Cops--and Other Nonsense

Just when we thought we had seen everything....along comes the Boston Sunday Globe's weekly North section with an article about Chief Mazzie, and his contract extension.

We recognize that the mayor is new and all, but you have to wonder what Mr. Hanlon was thinking when he responded to Katheleen Conti's questions concerning the chief and the contract. In the article, Mr. Hanlon insists that "he doesn't have a problem with Mazzie's performance during his three-year tenure as chief of the 93-officer department." If that's the case - then what is Mr. Hanlon's problem? When Ms. Conti questioned Mr. Hanlon about his "reservations," Mr. Hanlon responded, "He's very young." "There are older guys in the force who are saying, "We'll never be police chief now." What? Are we really going to start an affirmative action program for ....older police officers? Talk about actionable! Are we going to discriminate against the Chief....because of his age?

You have to give Chief Mazzie credit for his class and professionalism. When questioned by Ms. Conti on what surely had to be a sore subject, Chief Mazzie responded with customary grace, refusing to comment on his temporary status, and pointing out the strengths of the department despite "a tough budget."

Another area in which Mr. Hanlon wades into trouble is with his statement, "I want [a department] with a good morale, that can work together, that all the men can work together." So, Mr. Hanlon...what about the women on the department? Given that you claim that you "haven't really investigated the Police Department...and don't want to...." can it be that you're not aware that there are women working there, too? Luckily for Everett, Board of Aldermen President Frank Nuzzo managed to shine with a number of well-thought out statements, keying in on the Chief's "hands-on approach" and his activities with the youth in the city. Lowell Police Superintendent, Edward F. Davis, president of the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Association also supported Chief Mazzie, stressing the importance of stability.

Although Mr. Hanlon stressed that there was "nothing behind" his decisionmaking on the Chief...the Globe article makes mention of the drug bust at the bar owned by former Alderman and Hanlon supporter, Michael Marchese. What's odd is Mr. Hanlon's intention to create a "personnel committee...not the city, but some of my supporters." "They have no ax to grind." Really? Michael Marchese would appear to be a supporter with an ax to grind. But perhaps Marchese isn't a member of this "supporter advisory team"? We don't know, because the Mayor refuses to identify these people.

So to recap: Mr. Hanlon will have a personnel committee, made up of - not human resource professionals to make this important personnel decision -but political supporters. Come again? Political supporters will be making decisions on the police chief, a taxpayer funded position? And you don't want to reveal their names....because you want to protect them from phonecalls? As taxpayers....don't we want to know who will be making these decisions with taxpayer funds? Earth to Mr. Hanlon. You promised during your campaign that your decisions would never be political....so try explaining this one to the taxpayers. It's either affirmative action for older cops or it's political. It's either age discrimination or you're taking care of one of the boys.