Police to File Grievance Over Review Board Action

Cambridge's two police unions will file grievances against the city over the civilian Police Review Board's practices, spokesmen said at a meeting of the board last Thursday night.

Both the Police Patrol Officers Association and the Police Superior Officers Association contend that the civilian-run Police Review Board--New England's only such panel--does not have the right to question officers.

After several legal challenges, the four-year-old board compelled five patrolmen to testify about their conduct for the first time on Thursday night. Superior Court Judge Joseph Mitchell confirmed the panel's right to subpoena in August.

According to attorney Douglass I. Louison, who represented the officers at the review board hearing, the police unions are not sure "whether their rights are [being] violated by this new form of discipline."

A provision of the patrolmen's contract "supercedes the [Police Review Board] ordinance," said Robert Wise, lawyer for the Police Patrol Officer's Association. Wise argued that the civilian board's actions contradict a "bill of rights" in the contract that governs officer interrogation.

City Councillor David E. Sullivan responded that "the City Council has some legislative powers not subject to collective bargining" and added that he did not think the unions' claims will be very successful.

Lieutenant Harold Murphy, president of the superior officers' union, said his organization would also file a grievance with the city because the "review board's actions don't uphold the [officers'] contract."

Wise said the patrolmen's union would ask the city manager's office to void the ordinance that created the Police Review Board. But, Wise added, "I don't think they'll do that." More likely, he said, the question will be submitted for arbitration.

Sullivan agreed, noting that "nothing other than a court can void a City Council ordinance."

William A. Golon, executive secretary of the Police Review Board, said he "hadn't seen anything in writing" about the unions' grievances. Golon said he did not think the officers' interrogation by the civilian board conflicts with their city contract. "The city solicitor signs the subpoenas, so the legal department at City Hall doesn't think it's true," he added.

Asked if the superior officers' union would file a civil suit in addition to the grievance, Murphy said he doubted the members intended to do so. Wise also said the patrolmen's union had not discussed filing suit. Louison added that "nothing has been determined yet."

Golon said he was not worried about the union grievances because "whenever a new review board begins anywhere, they receive challenges from unions."

"Maybe they [the police officers] don't like citizens looking over their shoulders too closely," Sullivan said. But he added, "I would hope they'd understand the importance of public scrutiny."