October 14, 2010

Mr. Wayne E. Phaneuf

Executive Editor
The Republican Newspaper
1860 Main Street
Springfield, MA 01103

Dear Mr. Phaneuf:

I am writing in response to recent requests to this office from the Republican for information
concerning the hearing on the citizens’ complaint concerning an incident which occurred during the
arrest of Melvin Jones.

An employment disciplinary hearing against four members of the Springfield Police Department was
held by five of the seven members of the Community Hearing Police Board over the past few weeks. I
have spoken to Board Chairperson, Attorney Cynthia Tucker, who has reported to me that the meetings
were held in Executive Session pursuant to the provisions of the State Open Meeting Law and
consistent with past practice in the Springfield Police Department. Attorney Tucker has also reported
to me that the Board spent 3 nights, from approximately 4:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M., holding a hearing on
the multiple disciplinary charges involving four police officers.

As you know, the complaint had been the subject of an internal investigation, which was undertaken in
cooperation with state and federal law enforcement authorities. I had previously released to your
newspaper a copy of the letter sent to me by the local FBI officer handling the investigation indicating
that they were deferring to the state and local authorities at that time.
Mr. Wayne Phaneuf
The Republican Newspaper
October 14, 2010
Page two (2)

There are applications for criminal charges pending in Holyoke District Court, and the incident
continues to be the subject of an investigation by the District Attorney which could result in criminal
charges. Although the City had initially postponed scheduled hearing dates on the employment case at
the request of the DA, it has now moved forward in bringing the employment charges to a resolution as
this incident has been of great interest and importance throughout our community.

I am thankful to the members of the Board, representing a diverse cross section of our community,
who volunteered their time to act as the Police Commissioner’s official designee under state Civil
Service law, for their service.

Attorney Tucker has informed me that the Board heard testimony from numerous witnesses which
included both police and civilian witnesses, and that attorneys were afforded the opportunity to cross
examine witnesses in a trial type hearing.

Attorney Tucker has also reported to me that the Board agreed on recommendations as to the
disposition of each charge and each officer and as Chairperson she is currently working with legal
counsel to prepare a report of their recommendations, as well as the basis of their recommendations, to
the Police Commissioner. Attorney Tucker expects to have the Board’s written report to the Police
Commissioner by early next week. At that time the Police Commissioner has seven days to make a
final decision as to the outcome of the disciplinary charges.

Once the decision is made and all parties have received proper legal notice of the Commissioner’s
disposition of the charges, access to the police department internal affairs documents which are public
records will be made available pursuant to the provisions of G.L. Chapter 66.

To date, the Board has carried out their duty throughout this long process with integrity and the City
will continue to provide public information which can be made available with due consideration to the
public right to know, and the need to respect the privacy of the core categories of personnel
information that are useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, as well as
investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other
investigatory officials, the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of
effective law enforcement, that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.

Respectfully,

Domenic J. Sarno

cc: Peter Goonan

Stephanie Barry