CITY COUNCIL OF SPRINGFIELD vs. MAYOR OF SPRINGFIELD
Ruling
On February 22, 2022 the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Springfield City Council has the power to establish a 5 member Board of Police Commissioners to be responsible for the hiring, firing, discipline and promotions within the Springfield Police Department. According to the ruling, “Under this structure, the board performs an oversight function for the department but not a daily managerial function as would be performed by a police chief (MA. SJC. 2022-13154 City Council of Springfield vs. Mayor of Springfield).”
Next Steps
I have received numerous phone calls from residents who are interested in serving on the Police Commission, which is exciting news and brings me great pleasure that people have been paying attention and are genuinely concerned about the state of our Police Department. However, as I have said all along and Judge Kafker reiterated in his opinion, Mayor Sarno according to our City Charter has unilateral control over who serves as heads of departments and on municipal boards. The City Council can change the structure of the Police Department, which we were successful in doing, but we have no say over who the Mayor selects to serve on the Police Commission.
With that said, this does not exclude any organization or resident from demanding that Mayor Sarno have a process where citizens can formally apply to become a Police Commissioner and have that process be transparent so that faith and trust can be restored in our Police Department and even more importantly, the administration that oversees it. I encourage people to inundate Mayor Sarno’s office with emails and phone calls (msarno@springfieldcityhall.com or 413-736-311) calling for a process that vets potential commission members to ensure that they have the commitment, ability and courage to transform a police department that has been marred with controversy for years. The Board of Police Commissioners, as stated above, has significant responsibilities and we all need to do our best to ensure that those individuals who serve understand their role and the impact that over-policing and poor policing has had on communities of color in the City of Springfield.
Judge Kafker made it clear in the opinion he wrote on behalf of the MA Supreme Judicial Court, that true police reform extends beyond the misconduct of the police officers to those governments who supervise them. He all but said that the allegations of discrimination and abuse in the Springfield Police Department since 2004 in conjunction with the scathing Department of Justice Report, were the direct result of poor governance by a Mayor who falsely believes that the City Charter gives him the power to control everything, including the Police Department. Judge Kafker recognized the role that the City Council should be playing by confirming our right to establish a Board of Police Commissioners, which provides checks and balances over the control of police department. The City Council has succeeded in its legal battle to create a structure for effective oversight of the police department and now it is up to Mayor Sarno to complete the process. If he chooses to appoint a sham police commission who is beholden to the will of the Mayor, (similar to what he did when Judge Hodge recently ordered him to appoint the Residency Compliance Commission) then he will continue be answerable to the voters of Springfield for the performance of the Police Department when he runs for Mayor again in 2023.
How did we get here?
In 2016, the Springfield City Council passed an ordinance to establish a 5 member police commission in the City of Springfield. That ordinance stated that the Mayor had the ability to appoint the members of the police commission, but that the appointments would be subject to City Council confirmation. The Mayor vetoed this ordinance, which was subsequently overridden by the City Council. However, the administration refused to implement the ordinance arguing that City Council confirmation of police commissioners infringed on the Mayor’s unilateral power to appoint the police commission under the city charter.
Recognizing that the City Council may have overstepped its authority, in 2018 the City Council passed similar legislation to establish a 5 member police commission, but eliminated the clause that called for the City Council to confirm the Mayor’s appointees to the commission. Mayor Sarno vetoed the legislation once again and the City Council voted to override the Mayor’s veto. Unfortunately, Mayor Sarno refused to implement the ordinance, which led to the City Council retaining Attorneys Thomas Lesser and Michael Aleo to represent them in Superior Court in October of 2020 to establish the validity of the ordinance.
In April of 2021, Superior Court Judge Francis Flannery ruled that Mayor Sarno must “without further delay and in good faith endeavor to identify and appoint qualified individuals to serve on the board (Police Commission).” Disappointed with the ruling, Mayor Sarno appealed the Superior Court decision forcing him to implement a police commission. The MA Supreme Judicial Court agreed to direct appellate review of the case.
It is important to note that the City Council established a police commission in the City of Springfield in 1902 and it remained in place until 2005 when the finance control board abolished the commission in favor of single police commissioner. The control board was only able to do this because the state legislature vested in the finance control board the powers of both Mayor and the City Council due to the poor financial state that the City of Springfield was in at the time.
Breakdown of the Ruling
- The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the Springfield City Council that it has the power to reorganize any municipal department. Judge Kafker looked at the plain meaning of the language in the city charter to determine that the City Council power “clearly encompasses changing the structure of the department, including how it shall be overseen.” Hence, if the City Council wants the Springfield Police Department, or any other municipal department for that matter, to be governed by a Board of Commissioners, then the Council possesses the power to make such a change.
- The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the Mayor’s argument that giving the City Council the power to reorganize municipal departments conflicted with his power to appoint and remove all heads of departments and municipal boards. Judge Kafker reiterated that the Mayor does not have the power “to determine the structure or number of the heads of departments or boards, but rather the identity of the people who will fill them.” In short, because the City Council removed the language in the 2016 ordinance that called for City Council confirmation of mayoral appointees to the commission, the ordinance no longer infringes or conflicts with the Mayor’s unilateral authority to appoint board members serving on the police commission.
- The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the Mayor’s argument that the City Council ordinance was invalid because it conflicts with the Mayor’s authority to enter into an employment contract with a police chief. Judge Kafker succinctly pointed out that the person performing the duties of the police chief, irregardless of title, will be expected to have an employment contract. And, the appointing authority, will be expected to enter into a contract with that individual eliminating any potential conflict.
- The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the Mayor’s final argument, which stated that allowing the City Council to impose a Board of Police Commissioners usurped his ability as the Chief Executive Officer in a Plan A form of government to decide that the best structure for the Police Department is a single Police Commissioner who reports to the Mayor. Judge Kafker made clear that:
Rather than give the mayor essentially complete authority over the police department as he claims here, the statutes provide the city council with the legislative power to reorganize the department to determine its oversight structure while the mayor retains the executive power of appointment over the commission the council establishes. The result provides some checks and balances regarding control over the police department. It also recognizes that both the mayor and the city council are answerable to the voters of Springfield for the performance of the police department.
