The Worcester DOJ Report
Finding = pattern of practice of systemic misconduct identified by the Department of justice
Apparently this was the first time they have breached “this kind of Finding” and they encouraged people to leave if needed as it may be triggering.
You can read the full report here
The opening speaker was Megan Marks, Deputy Chief of Special Litigation
Two goals
Share little bit about the investigation
To get our ideas (Via breakout groups)
They referenced the coverage of the city council meeting, saying they were sure many people had heard about it.
They Asked if people had read the report. It seemed like half the room had their hand raised, it may have only been a third.
Someone raised the concern about a rumor that WPD was there and going to DOX people who showed up, and asked if they’d have police officers identify themselves, and the people from the DOJ said they would not.
They informed us that the report is available online, and had a small number of print ones there. Halfway through, this stack was mostly still there, but I did see a few people with one.
At one point a reporter from the Telegram asked if there would be a time for questions from the press, she offered to put him in touch with their media contact, who was not there that night. (So no. )
They talked briefly about the background of the people who conducted the investigation, describing them as “Several career investigators attorneys and support staff” that have spanned “Multiple administrations” with “extensive experience in criminal justice”.
They assured us that this investigation was comprehensive and based on extensive evidence, many sources (150 interviews), and that it was “Fair thorough and comprehensive”
They clarified that this was a “Civil pattern practice investigation” and that while they did have a process to “ “refer” criminal conduct theirs was entirely “Separate work from criminal justice”.
They additionally clarified this was not an investigation into any one officer, but a finding of a broader pattern or practice of behavior.
They stated that any criminal process is handled “separately and independently” and they “Can't comment on whether there are any criminal investigations” as a result of their findings.
She addressed “Misinformation circulating”.
It sounded like they had been accused of rushing it (to be released before Trump gets elected) but also for releasing it too early, and at least one social media post discussing an investigation they did in a fictitious New York Town.
She said how this was a “Two year long investigation that was not rushed”, and that the team that worked on it had addressed “police matters over Several different administrations, including Springfield Massachusetts.
She again clarified that this was the announcement of the RESULTS, that they had found reasonable cause to believe in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitution
She elaborate, ensuring people knew it wasn’t just violating women engaged in the commercial sex trade or being exploited through prostitution, it was excessive force through tasers, police dogs, and head strikes.
Additionally Worcester police were found to use “More force than necessary” on people with “Behavioral health disabilities” or who “were experiencing mental health crises”
The Deputy chief of special litigation elaborated on the term “Areas of concern” for things there was not a discernable pattern found of, but they did receive multiple credible reports of, such as “Sexual contact during undercover operations”
She says the findings are not based on any one instance or event, “instead they exist due to longstanding issues with training supervision and accountability. The pattern of practice of unlawful conduct compromises worcesters ability to provide public safety services constitutionally effectively
They gave some lip service to people who support police, saying that “Most serve hard and honorably”, but quickly went on to say that there were patterns found that have done “serious real harm”
They said they need to hear from us, “the officers and members of the worcester community” (Distinctly two separate groups, because it’s common knowledge many of them do not live here) specifically mentioned “command staff” and “union leaders” who were present last night but nowhere to be seen this evening and said they are always open to talk with the city to discuss the report and steps going forward.
They ask us to flip to the back of the report and review the recommended legal measures, and then we get into smaller groups based on where we were sitting in the audience. Each group had a pretty great mix of people, but were pretty large.
They told us we would “Break into small groups” which turned out to be thirds, based on the columns of chairs we’d chosen to sit in - they had us circle up, and it kinda worked but not really. It was auditory processing hell, but functional. The DOJ people partnered up in groups of two and one took notes while the other picked people and listened.
Liz Grajales spoke as well, saying that as an unhoused person in Worcester the police simply are not a safe resource. She spoke about how they take care of each other “figuring it out with twenty dollars in their pocket” and advocated for the petition she’d filed in city council yesterday, regarding a shelter owned and operated by Project Priceless. Jenny Baez spoke, saying that Project priceless wants a shelter that is both owned and operated by the members of the community.
Hector Pinero, a local attorney with a well documented track record against the city of Worcester, my LTC hopefully to soon be on that list, said that there should be questions as part of every report when they’re processed. He said that people should be asked “Are you sick injured” or “if they’d like to report Illegal conduct” or the way they were treated and that each one should be reviewed by the chief of police, something that doesn’t currently happen. He spoke about the importance of documenting injurieswhen they happen, how there should always be photos to go along with use of force reports.
Pinero raised concerns that a deputy chief who he believed may be the next chief had stated under oath that in 2023 there were zero excessive use of force claims sustained, to which he said “No city should be batting for zero.“ remarking how unnatural it was for a city, nevermind one of our size, to not have found merit in a single use of force claim.
Someone brought up a concept I was previously entirely unaware of, called the 30-30 initiative and that a “Private room to report in” was needed , saying that reporting everything in a large room with everyone else is unsafe and discourages people from coming forward.
Kevin Ksen rose to address the police union showing up in force last night saying that this isn’t new, “Intimidating the public has been their number one playbook” and that “If you look back at Telegram records, you’ll see they lined the front of city hall with police cars”. Apparently after he’d filed a complaint police showed up at his office, not following up on the complaint itself but asking why he was filing the complaint, as if asking “why did he care about those people”.
He pointed out that since this conversation has been going on for a very long time that the solutions have already been put forward, but “Every time we make progress it gets dismantled” and referenced the Human Rights Commission being understaffed and recently having its transparency attacked.
The end of this was abrupt, but we got a few extra minutes to hear people be reminded that they were just here to talk about the police after that.
They let white men with varying degrees of deflective ideas drone on, but cut off people who were advocating with Project Priceless in the middle of some pretty solid points.
They gave us a few minute warning, took a few more suggestions, and then announced it over the mic until people quieted down.
I was mid interview with GBH when they called us back, and we stopped and sat back down but it was a solid 40 seconds until the speaker could continue. Fred Taylor, VERIFY of the NAACP shouted once, and about ten seconds later the din was gone.
Sometimes at events hosted by the The Village Sha-Asia Medina VERIFY LINK does that “Clap once, clap twice” thing that I think is typically done with school children but it works wonderfully everytime and this moment felt like the eight time this week I was thinking about how efficient a method it is, that other groups should do it.
The person to speak after the breakout session was a trial attorney in special investigation from DC
To be honest, this wasn’t extremely inspiring. It was one of the worse organized listening sessions I’ve seen.
I don’t love listening sessions, they can systematically steal ideas from impacted communities, and often serve to make as many people feel heard as possible rather than aggregate solutions but the digital equity audit recently completed by CMRPC went excellently. I was at the first meeting - and actually had a conflict with them over recording (story for another post) and while I still don’t entirely trust the concept of quasi-governmental agencies they ended up giving me a bit more hope in and a lot of the good ideas from the community got through and were eventually passed through city council.
But this wasn’t a good one. CMRPG had actually small circles, and large notepads for each group. We got the attention of people who could actually do something about these problems in a format where many people struggled to hear and be heard - literally, we couldn’t hear each other, and the basketball court acoustics didn’t help.
There didn’t appear to be a plan for the next meeting, but they did indicate at multiple points this was going to be the “first of many”.
When someone asked about a place where we could see a list of ideas from the night - and maybe also track progress on them and it turned into a “sign up for email notifications” conversation
Someone talked about getting the city on the same page, and the person from Washington referenced the report saying that we should read the “Recommended remedial measures” because they were saying the same thing as many of us. Maybe they were right but it was still dismissive.
Police weren't there anywhere close to the level they had at city hall, but pretty much at all from what I could tell. I didn’t see a single iron-on badge polo shirt, nevermind a uniformed officer.
It’s notable that the only city councilor present was District 4 representative Etel Haxiaj (I believe King and Nguyen had a meeting) and Sue Mailman was the only person from School Committee.
Michael O. Moore, as well as state Reps. Daniel Donahue and Mary Keefe were there as well as of course Robyn Kennedy.
The DOJ can be contacted on this matter at community.wpd@usdoj.gov
Contact them with your concerns/additional things to report and Invite them to your community to hear input
Neighborhood groups
Community centers
Churchs?
My Takeways
The people are on the same page. The governments can’t get it’s shit together. The federal government doesn’t know how to organize either.
This was an investigation into the City of Worcester AND the Worcester Police Department, not just the Worcester Police Department
WPD showing up last night was an intimidation tactic not an attempt to be heard
Next steps
Organize ourselves. We can keep talking about solutions without the DOJ asking us.
Donate to Project Priceless via Venmo @BuildWYC CashApp $PowerWYC and put “PP” on the note/memo line.