During the early morning hours of Tuesday, Aug. 18, first responders discovered the body of Kurt Solomon, a 30-year veteran of the Worcester Police Department, at his home on Wildwood Avenue. Police continue to seek the location of his wife, Karen Solomon.
The widespread speculation about the case online won’t stop, but it should.
This is an obviously devastating time for the family and friends of the couple, the breadth of which is incomprehensible to those of us who haven’t experienced it.
Many at the Worcester Police Department are also hurting. Most of us have experienced the pain of losing a long-time friend or colleague. Few of us will ever experience the unimaginable toll of being assigned to an investigation into the death of a friend or colleague.
It’s a tragedy all around. No one would argue with that.
One would expect politics to take a backseat, especially on the day the tragic death occurred. Not in the Worcester City Council.
When Cherry-Picking is Good
The Worcester City Council is on its “summer schedule,” where over a nine-week period, from July 7 to September 1, it meets just twice.
During its last meeting on July 21, the report submitted to the city council by City Manager Eric Batista’s administration recommending that the city not establish a civilian review board appeared on the agenda. Councilor Khrystian King held the report, which brought it back to the agenda on Tuesday, Aug. 18.
The Worcester Police Department reportedly received the report that led to the discovery of Officer Solomon’s body at around 5:30 AM. The case became the top local news story throughout the morning. The Worcester County District Attorney’s office held a news conference, with it broadcast on its Facebook page. That live stream began at 3:21 PM. Mayor Joe Petty appeared at that press conference.
At 4 PM, Mayor Joe Petty’s Facebook and other social media pages released the following statement:
“At the beginning of tonight’s City Council meeting, I intend to make a motion to hold Item 23f regarding a Civilian Review Board. In light of the unfortunate circumstances that occurred today involving the Worcester Police Department, I believe this is the appropriate and respectful course of action. I respectfully ask that there be no public participation on this item tonight. This important discussion should take place at a time when it can receive the full attention and consideration it deserves.”
The first reason this is objectionable: cherry-picking one item to hold out of “respect” and calling it the “appropriate” thing to do paints police oversight as offensive. The foundation of the American government, three co-equal branches, is in itself oversight. To find oversight offensive is to find the United States Constitution offensive. Rescheduling the meeting in its entirety would have been the far more appropriate action.
The second reason this is objectionable is far more insidious.
The city council meeting on Tuesday started at 6 PM, as the council schedules its summer meetings half an hour earlier than most meetings for no discernible reason. Despite this being the biggest news story of the day, and Petty being at the news conference 40 minutes earlier, this announcement came just two hours before a meeting that advocates for a civilian review board organized over the last four weeks.
This was an obvious trap. Paint hearing the item on police oversight as disrespectful and inappropriate in a public notice issued with as little lead time as possible, then sit back and wait for someone to come in and say something that can be used to paint all advocates with a smear.
The tactic failed spectacularly. Just a few speakers appeared for public comment after rapid organizing by a coalition group advocating for civilian review.
A councilor raised a motion to suspend the meeting soon afterward. The council’s response defies decency.
When Cherry-Picking is Bad
See the motion by City Council Vice Chair and Councilor At-Large Khrystian King and the response from City Councilor At-Large Moe Bergman, running 2:33 combined.
King’s motion was entirely appropriate. Enabling the council to vote only on items required for city operations, like its financial matters, which are typically approved without discussion, is a reasonable response to the circumstances.
Bergman’s question of whether or not a city agency requested the meeting cancelled is just plain odd. Doing the decent thing doesn’t require the permission of a city agency.
Similarly, Bergman’s concern about council orders, which are almost always non-binding with no force of law, is strange. If there were individual items of importance, there was a willingness to enable those items to be taken up before adjourning.
No councilor proposed the idea of coming to work any time before its next meeting on Sept. 8. Coming to work only appears to be a theme when politically convenient.
King’s motion to postpone the meeting required eight votes to pass. It failed, with Councilor John Fresolo and the nexus of the anti-oversight wing, Councilors Berman, Jose Rivera, and Kate Toomey opposed. When King asked for reconsideration on the item later in the meeting, the same four voted against it again.
The council observed no moment of silence for Kurt Solomon, nor was the tragedy referred to by anyone but King. It refused to adjourn after only the necessary items on its agenda out of respect for those involved. It refused to exhibit common decency.
But oversight? Well, that’s just offensive.
Image courtesy of City of Worcester
