Tuesday, June 21st, 2022 — The Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (“POST Commission”) is charged with a responsibility to honor the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions and the statutory guidelines of An Act Relative to Justice, Equity and Accountability in Law Enforcement in the Commonwealth.
However, in the short period of time since its first official meeting on May 13, 2021, the POST Commission has repeatedly demonstrated a consistent disregard for these sacred responsibilities. The Act obligates the POST Commission to determine whether 10,000 law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth have good moral character and fitness for employment.
There is probably no issue more fundamental to the legitimacy of the POST Commission than its development of a clear definition of this standard, and consistent application of it. Instead, the POST Commission delegated this core statutory responsibility to nearly four hundred (400) individual police departments. For months, nearly 400 departments have been separately and independently evaluating their officers’ “good moral character” for recertification with no standard or guidance provided by the POST Commission.
This passing of the buck likely has resulted in many different definitions of “good moral character and fitness for employment.” Only after many inquiries and our lawsuit, the POST Commission finally defined “good moral character” on June 8, 2022. Many police departments at the time were in the middle of fulfilling their role in the recertification process, to be completed by June 30th. With little discussion and no public input, the POST Commission adopted language from the International Association of Chiefs of Police “Code of Ethics” as a standard of “good moral character.” The Code includes the following passage:
“…I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession… law enforcement.”
The adoption of clearly religious language as part of the POST Commission’s ethical guidelines is inconsistent with the principles of sound policing practices, and potentially violates the right of every officer – and every American – to have the rules and regulations governing their employment be free of religious bias. The adoption of a 1957 “Code of Ethics” is troubling on a number of levels, and not just Constitutional. First, the POST Commission is tasked with modernizing policing, not pushing it back to the 1950s.
Second, the Code was referred to as the “Gold Standard” by POST Commissioners during their limited deliberations. Many would disagree with the notion that 1957 is a period that we should revisit to improve policing. Last, it was perfectly obvious that many POST Commissioners were unfamiliar with the document and had never read it. Yet many voted to approve the Code as a standard to certify police officers in the Commonwealth. For those that did read it – that they accepted the “dedicated myself before God to my chosen profession” language is confusing and troubling.
Additionally, as alleged in “Hovsepian v. POST Commission” (SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action No. 2284CV00906), the POST Commission has engaged in repeated violations of the Commonwealth’s Open Meeting Law, by conducting much of their critical work in secret. Through the deployment of illegal subcommittee meetings, a broad range of policy materials were produced, and rubber stamped into formal policy by the POST Commission. These policies were established with zero input from members of the law enforcement profession, and no scrutiny from the public.
These policies include – among other things – a series of highly invasive, improper, unfair, and irrational questionnaires to be administered to both new and existing law enforcement officers. At least four questions clearly violate an officer’s Constitutional rights – or other legal protections – if they are required by the POST Commission to answer as a condition of certification. The questions improperly involve matters of free speech and free expression, religious affiliation and religious beliefs, private and personal financial information, and a request for overly vague and undefined personal assessments. They also violate core privacy interests of law enforcement officers.
The Massachusetts Coalition of Police (MassCOP), the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation (BPSOF), and the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society (BPDBS) – the organizations of the three plaintiffs in “Hovsepian v. POST Commission” – along with our consolidated plaintiff partners from the NEPBA and IBPO, filed for a preliminary injunction and presented numerous arguments in Suffolk Superior Court on Friday, June 17th about the propriety of the questions. The matter was taken under advisement, and we are hopeful the Court will rule that the Commission’s questions are poorly designed, invalid, and/or likely violations of the Constitution we are sworn to uphold.
We hope for a favorable ruling to preserve the rights of our police officers and the members of the public. We have been and continue to be supportive of police reform, and we expect it to be done in a legal and thoughtful manner that honors Constitutional obligations.
Signed:
- Officer Scott Hovsepian – President, Massachusetts Coalition of Police (MassCOP)
- Sgt. Jeanne Carroll – President, Boston Police Superior Officers Federation (BPSOF)
- Det. Donald Caisey – President, Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society (BPDBS)
