Details emerge in police inquiry

Actions taken by two top officers in the Waltham Police Department have been referred to the State Ethics Commission for investigation, according to information obtained by the Globe.

An independent fact-finder hired by the city recommended that Chief Edward Drew and Deputy Chief Keith MacPherson be investigated for engaging in nepotism and favoritism.

The report was filed in May by municipal consultant Warren J. Rutherford , but only a copy with names deleted was released to the press. The Globe has since obtained a copy showing the names.

Drew and MacPherson have both filed statements denying any wrongdoing.

Rutherford was hired by Mayor Jeannette McCarthy after she reported receiving numerous phone calls and letters, many of them of them anonymous, alleging police misconduct. At the completion of Rutherford's three-month investigation, the mayor followed his recommendation to submit several issues to the State Ethics Commission for review:

Did Drew improperly intervene in the February selection of a sergeant, a position sought by his daughter and her husband, Danelle and Patrick Hart? Paul Juliano , then a deputy chief, said that he was asked by Drew to call the city's personnel director, Brenda Capello , and tell her the ``shortcomings" of the other candidates. Juliano, who retired in March, told Rutherford that he refused to do so. Neither Hart has made sergeant.

Did a second of Drew's daughters, Jennifer Vadnais , benefit from preferential treatment when she was hired in 2002 as a reserve police officer? MacPherson, who was responsible for filling the position, was given a list of the 35 people who scored highest on a civil service test. He asked the state for more names, citing ``an insufficient number of applicants." Vadnais appeared at the top of the next list he was given, and was appointed on Nov. 21, 2002.

Did Vadnais receive special treatment when she was selected to be a permanent patrol officer just a few days after being named a reserve officer? Rutherford said that MacPherson had failed to follow procedures that called for hiring the 16 people who ranked highest on a list of those who had indicated they would take the job. Vadnais was 20th on the list.

Did Vadnais benefit again in 2005, when the department was seeking an officer to perform background investigations on patrol officers? Juliano, the former deputy chief, selected three candidates to perform the duty. He told Rutherford that Drew then phoned him about the selections. ``Deputy Juliano indicated it was very clear to him that the chief wanted him to change his mind and select Jennifer as one of the background investigators," the report states.

Did Vadnais benefit a fourth time, when she was named general investigator/backup prosecutor this year? On Feb. 1, the cutoff date for applicants, Drew told Juliano that Vadnais was interested. Ten minutes before the 2 p.m. deadline, Vadnais submitted her application .

Did Drew's daughter and her husband receive preferential treatment in scheduling? Juliano told Rutherford the chief had requested that he put Danelle and Patrick Hart in the same work group at the station, meaning they would work the same hours.

Did Drew fail to comply fully with state conflict-of-interest law regarding relatives on the payroll that he supervised? Rutherford said that when Drew was appointed chief on Feb. 14, 2000, he should have immediately notified then-Mayor David Gately that his daughter and her husband were on the force, so Gately could determine whether it posed a potential conflict. On July 11, 2002, Danelle Hart was placed under MacPherson's supervision. Until then, Drew had been in a position to influence allocation of details, overtime, and other privileges, although Rutherford said, ``There is no record indicating the chief's involvement or not" (Rutherford's emphasis). Vadnais was placed under MacPherson's authority on June 21, 2002, when she was a candidate for reserve officer.

Did MacPherson's daughter, Kaitlyn , receive special treatment when she was appointed as a permanent reserve police officer? She was in Ireland on an internship when the position became open. Her father signed her name for her, adding his own initials next to the signature. While not saying that MacPherson broke any rules, Rutherford recommended that the ethics commission investigate .

Among Rutherford's recommendations was that the city establish a nepotism policy. McCarthy last week said that the policy was still under review.

In line with another of the report's recommendations, the police no longer use the civil service reserve list for selecting officers. Candidates on that list have passed the civil service exam and meet the requirements to become a reserve police officer -- that is, an officer who may be called in as backup if the department is short-staffed. When hiring from the reserve list, officials are not obligated to pick by the highest scores.

Rutherford contends that Drew and MacPherson used the list to hire relatives ahead of other qualified candidates. Drew said in a June interview that the city had relied on the reserve list periodically over the last few decades, most recently beginning with his predecessor, Stephen H. Unsworth. Drew said the list allowed the department to fill vacancies quickly, rather than wait for the next civil service list.

McCarthy would not comment when asked if she still had confidence in Drew's leadership. In Waltham, police chiefs may remain in their post until they resign or are removed by the mayor.

Rutherford's report also raised questions about the propriety of other personnel actions taken by MacPherson and Drew.

The consultant noted that Kaitlyn MacPherson had failed the physical agility test four times out of six attempts before being hired as a reserve police officer. She passed it initially, but had to requalify because six months had gone by before a position was available. Rutherford said Drew held the position open for her while she repeated the test, passing over qualified candidates.

Besides questioning hiring decisions, Rutherford's report cited health-related matters. Several concern Deputy Chief MacPherson's return to work after having a medical device implanted on Dec. 20 (the name of the device was blacked out in the report given to the Globe). The report said that Drew allowed MacPherson use of a department car, although state law forbids anyone to operate a car for six months after such surgery.

The report also said that MacPherson had not submitted to a required medical exam before returning to work and that he had failed a firearms test because as part of his recovery he was not allowed to raise his arms over his head. He had been working on ``light duty" since Dec. 22, two days after the surgery, the report said. He has since passed the test.

In a May 25 memo to McCarthy responding to Rutherford's findings, Drew said he and MacPherson had been unaware of the driving restriction and that once they learned about it, the deputy chief surrendered his license.

Drew further stated in the memo that MacPherson did not take time off to have the operation and so was not subject to sick leave regulations. The chief said that he decided not to order an independent examination after MacPherson's personal doctors said he could return to work on light duty.

``In the past, other officers have been treated the same way as MacPherson," Drew wrote. ``When a person voluntarily returns to work on light duty after a relatively routine procedure, we only require [an independent exam] upon their physician's authorization for the return to full duty."

Drew disputed the report's characterization of MacPherson's having failed the firearms test. Rather, Drew said, the deputy chief delayed taking it until he had received his doctor's OK.

In another medical matter, Rutherford questioned why Danelle Hart was allowed to stay out longer than ``the normal maternity leave period" without submitting to an exam by a city doctor.

In a statement accompanying Drew's May 25 memo to the mayor, MacPherson acknowledged that the department's practice regarding sick leave ``is inconsistent," but denied favoritism.

``Requiring an employee to submit to an examination by the City Physician is optional," he wrote. Hart ``provided medical documentation throughout the course of her sick leave."

Officials with the state ethics panel would not comment on the Waltham case, citing its policy of making public reports only if it finds there has been a violation.

In June 2005, the commission fined a former Salem police captain, Paul R. Murphy, $6,000 for asking his chief to delay the appointments of three full-time officers until after his daughter completed academy training. Murphy also asked another employee ``to obtain medical information that would allow [Murphy's daughter] to attend the police academy," according to the commission.

``While the conflict of interest law doesn't prohibit family members from serving in the same police department, it does create bright lines prohibiting senior police officers from being involved officially with subordinate family members' careers unless the appropriate disclosures are made and permission to participate is secured," the ethics panel's executive director, Peter Sturges, wrote. ``In this case, there was a pattern of failure to recognize the clear and common-sense boundaries embodied in the law."

Stephanie V. Siek can be reached via e-mail at ssiek@globe.com.