Policy experts are weighing in on whether a Boston police administrator should have been demoted for accepting a position on a state-level commission.
Deputy Superintendent Eddy Chrispin joined the Boston Police Department in 1999, eventually being promoted to a command staff rank by former superintendent William Gross. In May, he received an appointment to the state POST commission. He was allegedly ordered to resign from the POST by the current Boston Police commissioner, Michael Cox. When he refused, he was demoted and removed from the commissioner’s command staff.
Various groups have voiced opposition to the decision. Many of the groups appear to be race- or ethnicity-related, such as LLEGO Boston, the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers (MAMLEO) and the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers. Chrispin once served as the MAMLEO president.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu supported Commissioner Cox’s right to choose who serves on his own command staff and to decide whether they should be on the state’s POST Commission.
“The mayor fully supports the commissioner’s judgment on how best to build his command staff as the most effective senior leadership team for the department and the city,” a spokesperson for Wu told WBUR.
Cox’s office suggested that “conflicts of interest” stemming from Chrispin’s service on the panel would disqualify him from serving on Cox’s staff. However, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who appointed Chrispin to POST, pushed back on that concern.
“Deputy Superintendent Chrispin has served Boston’s communities for 25 years, where he has advocated for better community policing and greater opportunity for officers of color and women,” she said in a statement. “After a thorough vetting process, I was proud to appoint Chrispin to the POST Commission, an appointment that was entirely consistent with the state conflict of interest law.”
Tim Nolan, a criminologist and former Boston Police lieutenant, stated, “It could pose a huge challenge to the public having trust in this commission — and certainly call into question the level of political influence in these appointments.”
While it’s impossible to know what’s really going on behind the scenes, the situation does illustrate an interesting dilemma in the law enforcement profession. Every police department has an official chain of command with clear lines of authority and responsibility. In larger departments, the sheriff, chief or commissioner will often have an even closer group of individuals on their “command staff.” These individuals are responsible for helping the chief implement their vision and department policies. As such, the chief often has a wide range of discretion in selecting this close-knit group of administrators. Outside of the department’s clearly defined rank structure, though, very real power structures exist. Organizations, professional groups and unions often wield political power that could work in opposition to what the chief is trying to accomplish. On a more personal level, a person holding power through one of these organizations might be able to leverage it against the higher-ranking people in their chain of command.
This is especially true of POST commissions. In most states, POST commissions make incredibly important decisions that affect the ability of law enforcement officers to even work. They often make decisions that could have profound consequences for agencies in their states.
