A Question of Power: The Appointment versus Civil Service debate

The Somerville News reported March 2 that Mayor Joseph A Curtatone had submitted a home rule petition to the Board of Aldermen that would remove the office of police chief from civil service and make it an appointed position.  Mayor Curtatone cited accountability as the rationale for submitting the request.

The Mayor argued a chief needs to be held to the same performance standards as everyone else and a chief needs to know he or she can be removed if those standards are not met. 

Among the questions that will be put to the board of aldermen will be: how much power should the mayor have to remove the police chief?

For those unfamiliar with what the civil service really is, it is important to know that the civil service seeks to protect efficient public employees from partisan political control, and not to prevent the removal of those who have proved to be incompetent or unworthy.  [18 MAPRAC § 321]
In order for Mayor Curtatone to remove a police chief, assuming the chief has attained tenured status, he must remove only for just cause and in accordance with procedural safeguards in the civil service law.  [M.G.L. c. 31, § 41] 

When determining whether there is just cause to remove a civil service employee the appropriate inquiry is whether the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of the public service.  [Murray v. Justices of Second Dist. Court of Eastern Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 514-515 (1983)]

Under the aforementioned just cause test, if the police chief is not meeting so-called performance standards as set forth by the mayor, an argument could be made that the police chief is also guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of the public service.

While I argue that Mayor’s justification for the proposal is flawed because the Civil Service system can be used to terminate a Police Chief who is asleep at the wheel, the spirit of the proposal is sound assuming that the following are included.
First, the police chief should be not be exempt from § 2-310(a) of the Municipal Ordinances.  Section 2-310(a) reads:

Every person first employed by the city on or after July 1, 1978 shall, within six months, become a resident of the city and shall not cease to be a resident of the city during his or her employment by the city.

Pursuant to § 2-310(h), the mayor, with the approval of the board of aldermen, can exempt the office of the police chief from the residency requirement.  The head of the police department should reside within the city to assure that he/she has a personal stake in assuring that our streets remain safe.

Second, a review process should be implemented if the mayor seeks to remove the police chief above and beyond merely requiring the approval of the board of aldermen.  An independent board, free from political pressure, should be created so that the police chief is protected from partisan political control.
This seems to be enough for now.  Lastly, as a matter of legislative prudence, the board of aldermen should consider inserting a sunset provision within the home-rule petition so that there will be an automatic review of the mayor’s appointment power of the police chief.