Police crowd City Hall to plead case
A long-simmering dispute between Waltham police officers and their leadership erupted into public view this week as more than 85 officers appeared before the City Council after a march from St. Mary's Catholic Church, several blocks away.
Monday's demonstration was a show of support for a sergeant who has been barred from returning from sick leave, but union officials said it also served to release frustration that has been building in the year since an outside investigator, hired by the city, filed a report sharply critical of the department's management.
The council's longest-serving member, Kathleen McMenimen, said such a display was "unprecedented" in her 34-year tenure.
Members of the Superior Officers' Union and the Waltham Patrolmen's Union attended the meeting wearing navy-blue jackets and shirts embroidered with their union's insignia. Their numbers filled the council chamber's seats and spilled into the hallway.
"We are here today to show our support for a member of the Superior Officers' Union who has been grievously mistreated by the top two managers in the Waltham Police Department," said Susan Horwitz, a lawyer representing the union. "We have received numerous documents corroborating this horrific mismanagement of this officer's case, all of which has been ignored by the two top managers of the Police Department."
Horwitz was allowed to address the council after Councilor Paul J. Brasco obtained his fellow members' unanimous consent to resume discussion of the Rutherford report, as last year's police probe is informally known.
Mayor Jeannette McCarthy hired consultant Warren J. Rutherford early last year to review allegations of wrongdoing within the department. Police Chief Edward J. Drew and Deputy Chief Keith MacPherson were criticized in the report for giving preferential treatment to relatives on the force, namely Drew's two daughters and a son-in-law, and MacPherson's daughter.
McCarthy said she forwarded the report to the State Ethics Commission for further investigation. But the commission, in keeping with its policy, would not confirm or deny that it is investigating the matter.
Horwitz noted that although both unions cooperated in Rutherford's investigation, they had yet to be contacted by the Ethics Commission.
"Our patience is wearing thin," she continued. "We cannot stand idly by and await the constant delays. The lives of our members cannot continue under this cloud."
After the meeting, the Patrolmen's Union lawyer, Bryan C. Decker, said the treatment of the sergeant was the final straw after a year of inaction over the Rutherford report.
"In general, the atmosphere and the morale in the department is commensurate with how out of whack this is," said Decker. "I've never seen a department that's so out of whack in my 15 years of doing this."
No one at the meeting revealed the names of the officer who had been mistreated, but a check of court documents showed that Sergeant Timothy Maher filed a discrimination lawsuit in May 2006. It alleges that Drew and MacPherson barred him from returning to work after a sick leave. The city is also named in the lawsuit, which states that "numerous medical providers" had examined Maher and judged him capable of returning to work. City doctors disagreed.
According to documents filed in Middlesex County Superior Court, Maher suffered a stroke in April 2000 and spent about three weeks on medical leave. He then returned to work, "performing his job capably," his lawsuit states, until he again went on medical leave in June 2003 for depression. Two years later, Maher was told he would not be allowed back to work because of "alleged neurocognitive deficits related to his stroke and/or depression," according to the complaint.
The filing goes on to say that Maher's doctors, in examinations conducted since 2003, have determined that he is capable of returning to duty.
The civil lawsuit is asking for $120,000 in lost wages and $400,000 in punitive damages.
A key element in Maher's case is based on another allegation outlined in court documents -- that the city, Drew, and MacPherson inconsistently applied policies relating to medical leave.
"In several instances, Chief Drew and Deputy Chief MacPherson have allowed other individuals to return from medical leave or even not to be put out on medical leave at all, after medical conditions much more serious than Mr. Maher's. One example of this is Deputy Chief MacPherson himself, who was not required to go out on medical leave and was kept on full duty, despite a serious medical condition," according to a motion made by Maher's lawyers.
In a deposition taken from MacPherson on Jan. 30, he acknowledges that he had an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or ICD, implanted in his chest. The device is used to monitor and correct heartbeat abnormalities.
According to the Massachusetts Fire and Police Initial Hire Medical Standards, implantation of such a device is a category A condition, which means that it would "preclude an individual from performing the essential job functions of a municipal police officer, or present a significant risk to the safety and health of that individual or others."
The City Council agreed to hold an executive session with the mayor and the police chief at its next meeting, May 7, to discuss the unions' concerns.
"For the first time since all this has happened, the City Council and I are on the same page," McCarthy said after the meeting. "Let's get together and resolve the problems."
Stephanie V. Siek can be reached at ssiek@globe.com. 