Law and order

Worcester's new top cop, James L. Gallagher, says it's the simple things
that can make the biggest difference

By Chris Kanaracus

When he was officially sworn in as Worcester's new police chief on Friday, November 17, James L. Gallagher, 54, inherited a department that has seen its share of controversy in recent years. Gallagher, a 30-year veteran who grew up in the Main South area, is taking over for Edward Gardella, who is now a criminal justice instructor at Anna Maria College in Paxton. The new chief has experience. In 1970, after abandoning a career as a draftsman, Gallagher started as a night-shift foot officer on Main Street and worked his way up through the ranks. He has a bachelor's degree in sociology from Worcester State and a Master's in criminal justice from Anna Maria and has served in a variety of departmental roles, including as commander of the WPD's detective bureau.

Personality-wise, Gallagher and his predecessor seem to be polar opposites. Gardella, who led the force for eight years, is known for his jocular, glad-handing manner. He even performs in local plays. By contrast, the even-tempered Gallagher -- while not averse to cracking the occasional joke -- comes across as efficiently pragmatic.

Gardella often wore a liberal face -- he once even marched in a gay-pride parade -- which won him many friends within the community. Gardella also introduced innovative crime-fighting techniques, like a Zero Tolerance program that targeted suspected drug houses with a decided scorched-earth approach, and he revived the concept of community policing during his watch.

In the waning days of his tenure, though, Gardella's affable nature strained relationships between the chief and some of his officers. In March of 1999, he was disciplined by city manager Tom Hoover after allegedly sticking his hand into the pants pocket of police Captain Gary Gemme at a downtown Dunkin' Donuts. In another complaint, four high-ranking officers charged that Gardella's attitude had created a hostile work environment. One veteran sergeant even alleged Gardella had endearingly pinched his cheek. Ouch. A short time later, the formerly accessible Gardella appointed Sergeant Donald Cummings as the department's media liaison -- a development local reporters derided as an effort to ensure that only one official version of a given story would be provided.

Gardella also presided over some of the rockiest periods in the Worcester Police Department's history. In 1993, Cristino Hernandez, a mentally impaired Hispanic, died of injuries he suffered during his arrest by two Worcester officers. The incident torched relations between police and the city's minority communities, sparking years of protests. The case came to a head earlier this year when Hernandez's family received a $400,000 settlement from the city, which gave the affair some sense of closure, though Hernandez will not soon be forgotten.

Like many communities, Worcester has recently clamored for closer scrutiny of police behavior and even debated the merits of appointing a civilian-review board to address complaints.

In 1999, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) held a series of public forums on police/community relations. The first one, held in Great Brook Valley, was a raucous affair marked by impassioned testimonials from mostly minority Worcester residents concerning alleged abuse at the hands of police.

The civilian-review board idea is essentially dead, but the notion of public oversight has been kept alive in other ways. In 1999, the Telegram & Gazette filed suit for the release of a number of WPD internal-affairs files. The city maintains that releasing the records is a bad idea, and the case is pending before the state Appeals Court, but the struggle has only fueled the WPD's image as a secretive institution.

Yet while the department's image is a little battered, Worcester's looks pretty good. Among cities of its size, Worcester consistently ranks below the national average in the frequency of such crimes as murder, robbery, and auto theft. But low crime or not, Gallagher will definitely have his hands full in the coming years.

Worcester's new top-cop spoke with the Phoenix at his Lincoln Square office.

Q: What kind of philosophy will you bring to leading the department, and how is it different from your predecessor's?

A: Well, I don't know if our philosophies are all that different. But I think the way we deliver it is different. I believe in strict discipline, and I don't mean being unreasonable. I mean you have to have a strong chain of command. You have to know what everybody's about. Another pet peeve of mine is appearance. It's important you maintain a neat, professional look. The public and the department have a right to expect that people will go out there looking sharp. If you make it a point to look good, you feel good about yourself. And if you feel better about yourself, you act better. Look sharp, feel sharp, be sharp. That's the old Gillette commercial. I like to use a lot of silly little adages, but wherever those came from, they came for a reason.

But that's just the package. If we can spiff up the package a little [we can] get the officers to feel a little more pride about what they do -- being service providers, not just catching the bad guys. You can go out and catch a murderer. And people will say, you know, that's nice, but they forget about that. But if you're the guy who comes down after they complain about an abandoned car that's leaking oil in front of their house, or some nuisance problem like that . . . if you're the person that can take care of that, that's what people remember. I listen to what people complain about today at all these neighborhood groups, and it's just like 25 years ago when I was a sergeant. The two biggest complaints are the same: prostitutes on the street and trash. The same complaints.

Q: Which events most stand out during your time with the force?

A: I've had a lot of big cases, but I don't consider any more exciting than others, you know? It's more doing the simple things that stand out in my mind, that I recall doing as a regular route patrolman. . . . We basically were taught that our job was to go out there and serve people, and there wasn't as much emphasis on protecting yourself and violence and all of that. Certainly we covered that, but not as intensely as it seems to be focused on today. And that's part of what we have to change. We have to go back to stressing more of a service model.

Q: Why is there still a fear of the police out there?

A: Part of the reason for that, I think, is that neighborhoods were different [a few decades ago]. Neighborhoods were pretty homogenous. Most people that lived in the various three-decker neighborhoods had lived there, oftentimes, for generations. . . . And in many neighborhoods it was the same ethnic group. There were neighborhoods were it was all French-Canadian people, all Irish. But I think what you find today is that that's not the case. Neighborhoods are more broken apart. And you have a lot more folks coming in who are, you know, Hispanic people that don't speak English well, and I don't think the police departments -- and I mean other departments, too, or government as a whole -- have necessarily adjusted to that. There's a very large Vietnamese population, and presently we have only one officer on the department who speaks it. We have no others. During this next [recruit] class we'll attempt to get three more.

Q: There are certainly some cultural barriers there.

A: Yes. Not only the Vietnamese, but with many cultures that come in from different countries. They come from places where the law-enforcement agencies are oppressors, rather than law keepers. Maybe they represent a dictator or something. . . . I don't know if that's what [immigrants] expect, but that's what people recognize when they see the uniforms and the guns and everything. They flash back, I'm sure, to the kind of treatment they may have gotten in the land they came from.

And I know in the Vietnamese community, particularly, we have to train officers. When you go to a Vietnamese home, it's very, very strict as far as the only person a visitor is supposed to speak to is the male head of the household. And if you begin a conversation with someone else, that's a sign of disrespect to the father of the house. Before, officers would not know that. But over time, that's become common knowledge, and now we stress to officers to make sure they at least begin by addressing that person. If you insult the head of the household, it's not likely you're going to get help from anyone else there.

Q: People who live here are constantly scrutinizing the police. What's it like from the other side of the fence?

A: Worcester has a lot to be proud of. From a law-enforcement or crime perspective, if you compare Worcester to most other cities our size, almost without exception, we're very close to being the best as far as [low] rates of violence, homicide, arson. Certainly, the police can take some credit for that -- we'd be foolish not to. But it can't be only the police. The citizens of Worcester have to look at themselves and say they deserve some credit for making it a safe and peaceful place. There are a few areas of town that aren't too good, but that's not the people living there for the most part. Most people do the right thing, and the police strive to help them, although some people get frustrated with the police. They think we not doing as much as we could, and in some instances they may be right. Maybe there are pockets of areas where we could be better, but we try to use what have to serve everyone.

Q: The relationship between the police and minority residents has become less hostile in recent years. When things were tense -- especially during the Cristino Hernandez crisis -- what was it like for you?

A: It was tough. It was tough for all police officers. Because we basically knew and believed that the two officers . . . the way they handled that call was not with the intent of hurting or killing Mr. Hernandez. It was a situation that was exacerbated by facts that the public really wasn't aware of. One point we have to take into consideration is that while the officers used pepper spray on Mr. Hernandez, they were also under the effects of the same pepper spray, and they had fought quite hard with Mr. Hernandez before they were finally able to get him under control. It was a bad situation, but the way it ended up wasn't with any ill intent. . . .

Perhaps a couple of signs were missed, that if they had noticed, it would have turned out better. The effect it had on the community was terrible. It polarized both sides against each other. Occasionally, you'll hear it brought up today. But again, that's when people are frustrated. It's almost like when you have an argument with someone and you want to say something to really hurt them? It'll come up again. I don't know that it will ever go away completely. I know it will be a sore spot that hopefully we can continue to work through.

Q: Where do you stand on the T&G's effort to get records of internal affairs investigations?

A: I respect the other side's position. But as far as opening up all the records, I don't think that's a good idea. A lot of the complaints that we receive are not necessarily a complaint about the officer. It's a complaint about a rule, about the system. It's "I don't think that light was red"; "I shouldn't have got a ticket for taking that left hand turn." Everybody that comes in and complains, that goes down as a complaint against the officer.

Sometimes all we have is a complaint that says the officer was "rude." Well, that can be hard to define. If you're getting a ticket, and you don't think you should be, and the officer is abrupt, you might take that as rudeness. But maybe he's not getting in a conversation with you because he thinks you want to argue. . . . All those things [that] are in-taked through internal affairs, [they] get listed against the officer, and then we have to sort it out. We discipline officers quite often. But I'm not so sure that that should be public knowledge when an officer gets disciplined, particularly for an internal offense. As for the complaints that come in from outside that are truly about an officer being abusive or acting improperly, for those I think we've opened up a very good line of communication with the Human Rights Commission.

Q: What are relations like between the police and the Human Rights Commission?

A: I remember when the original Human Rights Commission was formed, back in the 1970s, it was very adversarial. It was butting heads. There was no cooperation between the two. Under Chief Gardella, a new initiative was started to become more open and have a new working relationship. [HRC head] Shirley Wright is a very nice woman. She comes over here quite often. We sit down. We meet with the members of the HRC. The city manager has also formed the Bias Crime Task Force. It's not a group that is going to investigate anything, but if something happens with the potential for a lot of trouble, this group will be ready to step in and help to quell things down and keep everyone on an even keel.

Q: Even after the citizen-complaint process was streamlined recently, some people feel that they're not kept up to date on the status of their complaints.

A: Under the process we have, every complaint is assigned to an investigator. If these people say they file a complaint and then it goes into a black hole, I think it depends on the type of complaint. If they complain an officer kicked them or slapped them, or something like that, they undoubtedly will be contacted by an investigator who will take their statement. It may be at the station, it may be at their home; we'll go anywhere to assist someone.

Where they say it goes into a black hole is because the response we give them wasn't necessarily explained. . . . We send them a letter that may say the officer was found [culpable] of what it was you complained about and was disciplined. Well, we're not going to explain what the disciplinary process is, what the officer underwent. But there [are] a number of findings. One may say there wasn't enough evidence to sustain the complaint. And you might not be satisfied with that. You can then go seek a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, MCAD [Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination], the district attorney.

Q: So, if people want to know all the ins and outs, you say "no."

A: Well, we can't give all the details of the investigation. If they're not satisfied with that letter, they can always call back to the internal affairs division, and maybe we can provide them with more information. We may not be able to provide them with all the names of the witnesses that were interviewed, for example. That's part of the problem with protecting [the integrity] of the investigations. Much like criminal investigations, most people don't want to be identified as coming forward and giving information.

The other side of the coin is that someone who may come forward saying the police did wrong is afraid to [identify themselves], because if the police officer in question finds out who they are, then that policeman might try to get back at them. As much as we don't tell the citizens, we [also don't] tell the police officers all the details. And many people only come forward after they're given assurances their identity won't be exposed. You know, they figure, he'll [the officer] give me tickets, or they'll be looking to get even with me. Because that's the impression people have. I'm not saying it hasn't happened.

Q: What's happening with the agreement by police to collect data from all road stops, as a way of looking at the issue of racial profiling?

A: We're still in the planning process of how we're actually going to do that. . . . Basically, I think all we're going to look at is race, but we're going to have to go on the good judgment of the officer. We don't want officers to have to go up to someone and say "What race are you?" It's going to have to be on the honor system. Basically we're going to count numbers, but I don't know if that's going to provide any usable data. I'm not sure what the numbers are going to show.

Q: People we've talked to say the presence of beat officers and community policing in general has declined in recent months. Is this the case?

A: I'm not sure we've ever clearly defined community policing here in Worcester. . . . What we have to do is redefine the definition. We've gotten caught up in the idea that community policing is just "stuff" -- dogs, bicycles, et cetera. Not the attitude. It was like, now we've got dogs and bicycles, hey, we've got community policing. That's just a different method of delivery.

Again, what I go back to is a change in an officer's attitude from "go out and catch the bad guys, that's all I'm out there for," to giving people whatever service they need -- even if it's not your job, to direct someone to a person who can help them. I don't think we've stressed that to our own people. In the past 20 years or so, police training has gone strictly to the shoot-em-up, car stop, this-that, good guys against the bad guys. . . . We've let the service part of it fall back. Ninety percent of what you do is service. . . . We have to shift our focus. We have to train our guys how to protect themselves, but we also have to train people how to be nice, to converse with people, not to consider everyone out there as a threat, like everyone's a bad guy.

Q: Zero Tolerance for Drugs was a high-profile and successful program. Where did it go? Will it come back?

A: It worked out well four, five, six times. But we'd be in an area for two weeks, and then we'd have 20 other areas of the city who hear about this, and want it. People would request we come in. Before you know it, we were responding to requests one after the other. It was, like, put them on the list. But in theory, you're supposed to set this up in areas where statistically it is needed . . .

All we had were the eight officers. So we had all these areas lining up, wanting the Zero Tolerance team to come to their area, and then by the time we finished going through a few others after theirs, the problems would come back. The Zero Tolerance program simply as a drug-enforcement unit still exists. But as far as the overall participation from other city departments, no, I don't believe that program exists any more at all.

Q: Gardella was a fairly public figure until those scandals broke last year. Can we expect the same from you?

A: I don't want to compare myself to him. My style is my style. I'm out there, but people may not be as aware of that as with him. I go to the Pickle Barrel quite often. That's my stomping ground. That's my neighborhood. I know that neighborhood. I may not know all the people that live there now, but it's still my neighborhood as far as I'm concerned. It's human nature to go back where you came from. When I go out in my cruiser, which I do often, I still go on calls occasionally.

Q: What's the last call you went on?

A: Ah, I don't know, probably backing up a cruiser or something, although I caught a murderer once. I don't know if you remember the Clark University professor who got murdered about seven years ago. We were looking for the guy about five days after it happened, down on Hitchcock Road. He had broken in to steal a computer or something, and she [the professor] had come back home during it and he strangled her. Well, I spotted a guy that looked like him, and it was. It was just shit luck. That's a big case, but the way it ended was just routine. Just a guy doing his job. It makes you feel good to do that.

Chris Kanaracus can be reached at
ckanaracus[a]phx.com.