PART I

—-By Frederick A. Hurst—-

I’ve had all I could do to stay quiet in the face of one of the most abominable events in recent Springfield history, which is the return to active duty of five police officers who remain under indictment for violating their sacred duty to defend and protect the public and the rule of law.

The five are among 14 officers indicted and suspended without pay for their involvement in a physical confrontation at the Nathan Bill restaurant on Island Pond Road between White off-duty officers and Black patrons, who the city of Springfield has already paid $850,000 to settle their resulting civil case. The five officers were reinstated with full pay and assigned to street duty without any input from the public or the City Council. The resulting outrage from the community, led by Springfield city councilors was justified, necessary and heartwarming for many reasons.

Nothing has been more disturbing to me than the cavalier attitude of responsible public officials – elected and appointed – who endorsed the bizarre notion that staff shortages in the police department resulting from the coronavirus pandemic somehow justified a decision to put rogue cops back on the streets with the dystopian excuse that they only covered up crimes in their official capacities committed by their fellow officers (rather than directly participating in the crimes)…as though aiding and abetting after the fact of a crime is some kind of small matter, which it definitely is not – morally or under the law – and, for that matter, under the Springfield Police Department’s own rules of behavior.

And the fact that Springfield’s newest police commissioner, Cheryl Clapprood, felt that she could make such a weighty decision on her own without community input and with the full support of Mayor Domenic Sarno is a sad reminder that Springfield still has a long way to go.

I held back from reporting on Clapprood’s decision and expressing my opinion on it in the May issue of Point of View because the full scope of what had been done was still unfolding and responsible public officials were publicly protesting and calling for the facts, including demanding to know where the indicted cops were being assigned, an essential fact which Commissioner Clapprood initially refused to divulge, probably because she knew assigning them to street duty most likely would provoke an uncomfortable level of justifiable outrage.

And it did.

As City Council President Justin Hurst pointed out in a passionate rebuke (full disclosure: he’s my son) and City Councilor Tracye Whitfield followed up on in an equally passionate press release, reinstating the officers was a blow to the public’s confidence in Springfield’s police department and assigning them to street duty was not only grossly insensitive and an insult to the Black community but, also, legally foolish. (See full press releases by Councilors Hurst and Whitfield on page six.)

Hurst and Whitfield pointed out (an obvious fact that should have been clear to Commissioner Clapprood and the Mayor) that, as indicted potential felons, the officers could not testify as witnesses in a court of law against anyone whose arrest they might become involved in because their credibility as witnesses would be worthless. And they pointed out the equally obvious fact that if any one of the indicted officers participated in any violence against any citizen while on street duty, their previous lies, their cover-ups and their indictments (and possible future convictions) would be evidence against them and the city in civil law suits. Big money would be on the line in addition to the hundreds of thousands the city has already paid in civil penalties for the same actions for which the officers are under criminal indictment!

These are not small considerations but, rather, grave matters that should have been thoroughly considered by city officials before making such a foolish decision. Although the mayor was quoted in the April 23rd article in The Republican that “…reinstatement has been reviewed and approved by the city’s law and human services departments,” the aforementioned concerns expressed by the two city councilors and subsequent circumstances proved otherwise.

I don’t mean to make light of things but I must admit to a feeling of amusement when it was announced on May 3rd that both the FBI and the state attorney general advised city officials that putting indicted potential felons on the street with guns is illegal even if the potential felons are indicted police officers.

From that announcement until now, it has been downhill for the city’s credibility. Responding to the public rebuke from the top law enforcement in the state, Commissioner Clapprood tried in vain to publicly defend her actions by suggesting that the opposition somehow colluded to bring in the higher authorities. She said with more than a little bit of transparent petulance, “I guess they thought for more than a week and this is the best they could come up with.” Clapprood simply could not admit the obvious fact that she had made a bad decision that had been rationally shredded to bits by city councilors and other local opposition and reported in the media for all to see including state and federal authorities, who were wise enough to step in on their own.

And, in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, Commissioner Clapprood stumbled into some verbal thin ice by referring to the officers as “kids” after earlier pointing out, in response to criticism from Black leaders, that two of the indicted officers are Black.

First of all, referring to the indicted officers as “kids” is as insulting as referring to them as “boy” or “girl.” They are adults who are responsible for the consequences of their actions. And, second, their color under the law is irrelevant. They were indicted because there was probable cause to believe they broke the law and they were properly dismissed without pay pending their trials. And, for Clapprood to suggest otherwise in a rambling and clearly defensive statement to The Republican is insulting to those who stood up in the defense of the law and the rights of the people who were victimized by it and it raises a whole new set of questions about Commissioner Clapprood and the corrosive culture the Black officers felt they needed to adapt to – at their own peril as it turned out.

It is that very culture that is at the root of the rot in the Springfield Police Department that our current mayor insists must be led by a local White person he alone chooses – time and again – from the ranks of the same crop of officers who have continued to promote the ancient culture that has been corrosive to police-Black community relations. And Black officers, who choose to become fawning followers of the rotten culture, rather than opting to change it, are just as bad as those who created it and perpetuate it and they deserve the same penalties that Black folks are demanding of White-run police communities in Springfield and across the country. And folks are getting many of the changes they are demanding, often because the mayors (more and more often who are Black) are more sensitive and responsive to the communities that elected them as are more of the top cops who also are now much more often Black.

That the victims are Black is, of course, relevant. Their blackness is precisely what generated the appropriate reaction from a cross-section of Black leaders and organizations and caused Commissioner Clapprood to arrogantly say to the media in a May 1st article, “I’m disappointed that the councilors who drafted press releases nor Mr. Thomas ever asked me for my reasons to reinstate, never asked to meet with me or asked the circumstances of the cases. I’m saddened by their efforts not to get the facts. I stand by my decision.”

Correct! Her decision! A certifiably bad one at that! Forgive my language but I can only think to say “Who in the hell does Commissioner Clapprood think she is!” She may report to the mayor but she remains answerable to the city council and the people in the community whom she serves. She was appointed commissioner not czar. She and the mayor are not running a plantation even though he often acts as though he is. Clapprood’s behavior and words only show how little she understands about Black history and the Black condition, which is more reason she was obligated to reach out to Black folks for input before making such a weighty decision. It was not their responsibility to reach out to her, especially since they didn’t know about the decision until it was already made.

The strangest part of the entire Clapprood affair is that, after the FBI and state attorney general intervened, Mayor Sarno went mute and left the commissioner to her own devices. He conspicuously appeared to abandon his early vocal and public defense of her actions although his top lawyer committed to challenge the federal/state interpretation of the law that caused the intervention. Since then, after the officers were removed from the street and placed on desk duty without guns, all three chastened city officials have been strangely silent (probably wisely so) on this unnecessary crisis of their own making while the five indicted officers, who they claimed were so necessary, continue to be paid on the taxpayer’s dime to sit in the office solely, it seems, to lend legitimacy to a bad decision by city officials that shouldn’t have been made in the first place.

My bet is the mayor will wisely continue to back away from the issue and the city solicitor will not follow up in search of a pyrrhic victory under the law since, by now, both should have heard enough to understand the jeopardy to the city of putting indicted officers on the street with guns even if they still don’t understand the depth of the insult to the Black community. And I bet Commissioner Clapprood will think twice before taking actions that impact the Black community without allowing it input.

Of course, I won’t bet the house or the bank account. But it’s worth risking a dollar or two just to have some little reason to hope that city officials might abandon some of their less attractive ways.

THE CLAPPROOD AFFAIR 

Part II

But a good thing emerged from all of the chaos. In response to a “call to arms” by City Council President Justin Hurst, a significant cross-section of the Black community united in opposition to the officers return to duty. Councilor Tracye Whitfield, who has never shown a shortage of courage, wrote a compassionate press release that began with, “When something is wrong, it’s just wrong…” and her mother, Jane Maye, made a point of expressing how pleased she is “of the work (Justin and Tracye) are doing together!!” She said, “Keep it up” and she’s “praying (Tracye and Justin) make real change for the city.”
Ms. Maye’s sentiments are not uncommon in the Black community which, when combined with the Brown community, makes up the majority of the city, a fact that should be an important reminder to White public officials who often, in fits of arrogance, forget who they represent, a fact that was not lost by the many Black radio hosts at WTCC who joined in the outrage on the air, as they often and reliably do against injustices that too many of our more prominent Black political leaders let slide, the two aforementioned not included.

Somewhat surprising was the response of the Urban League of Springfield and its President and CEO, Henry Thomas, who has tended to take a more low-key profile in his later years. The Urban League’s board voted to oppose the reinstatement of the officers while stating in a written release: “For the police commissioner to take this action, in our opinion, is short-sighted and an exercise in poor judgment.” The release, which is printed in full on page seven, was signed by Henry Thomas and Board Chairman, Reverend W. C. Watson, pastor of Canaan Baptist Church of Christ.

Henry followed up with an inspirational, personal message to Justin that went directly to the heart of the issue of unity in the Black community. He said: “Hey Bruh―This was something good!!! Justin, you courageously open the door, you call for reinforcements and we came. Congratulations. This is the beginning of something new and Good! Continue to Stay Brave, Stay Strong, Stay safe.”

Although I fully agree with Henry’s personal message, I view the united actions as a long overdue “renewal” of decades past when Black folks regularly and spontaneously pulled together in a common voice against injustice.

And I can’t leave out Greater Springfield NAACP President Bishop Talbert Swan who hosted Justin on his WTCC radio program and made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he is personally in full support of the opposition to Commissioner Clapprood’s decision to reinstate the five indicted officers. Bishop Swan subsequently asked for the support of his board in making a formal NAACP response which was readily forthcoming in the form of a comprehensive press release that somehow failed to make the mainstream news – maybe because by the time it came out on May 8th, Commissioner Clapprood was under siege from the FBI and the state attorney general or maybe the mainstream media simply decided that the she and the mayor had suffered enough self-inflicted humiliation. We don’t share the sentiment.

The following words in the NAACP press release best reflect the feelings of many Black folks: “We hereby, unequivocally denounce the decision to reinstate five indicted officers in any capacity, whether on the streets or working within the department, and call for their immediate suspension, pending the results of their criminal trials. To do anything less is disrespectful to the citizens of Springfield, a disservice to the officers who perform their duties with honor and integrity, and a brash determination based on arrogance and disregard for police-community relations, which have suffered long enough under the weight of such reckless decisions.” (Emphasis added) (See full text of NAACP news release on page eight.)

What may be the most important comment came from Herman Paul Cumby, the most seriously injured Black victim of the unprovoked Nathan Bill attack by White cops against him and his cousins. He wrote in part to Councilor Hurst: “Wanted to say thank you for speaking up and showing you’re not scared to fight for what you think is right. I really feel no one cares about what happened to me and my cousins but seeing you speaking your mind to the police commissioner gave me a little hope.” (See full statement on page seven.)

Even though some obvious folks within the Black community should have spoken up in protest, they didn’t―some because they remain afraid for reasons that continue to baffle me and others because they have been purchased and personally rewarded for their silence and yet others because they are just plain old Uncle Toms. But many more who feel like Herman Paul Cumby simply don’t have the platform, which is primarily why Point of View felt obligated to air the full scope of the “Clapprood Affair” in the current issue rather than allow it to simply fade away as though it never happened. We simply could not, in good conscience and in the name of justice, allow that to happen to Black folks in Springfield, yet again.

And, of course, we felt it important to remind people who would dare to take the Black community for granted that there remains a base of united Black voices in Springfield that will speak out when it counts. Just being able to do so gives us a warm feeling of power. ■