During the Worcester City Council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 16, an order by Councilor Etel Haxhiaj requested the City Auditor conduct an audit of the Worcester Police Department (WPD) Bureau of Professional Standards (BOPS) records to ensure the accuracy of: 1) all officer information cards; and 2) annual data compilations of investigations.”
As Haxhiaj said during the meeting, this order originated with me.
Earlier this year, Mayor Joe Petty went full Belichickian and claimed he had previously misinterpreted the rules. The new interpretation of his unilateral declaration, in practice, prohibits residents from petitioning on any issue that may not be in the political interests of elected officials to vote on. Parking spots, speed bumps, and such are fine. Any resident who seeks the council to address any other issue must turn into a lobbyist and beg one of the elected elites to put the item on the agenda.
I asked Haxhiaj to put this item on the agenda as I recently discovered two issues with records related to internal misconduct investigations at the WPD.
The department maintains a document for every officer called an officer information card. This document lists all the internal investigations of an officer and the findings of each investigation.
The officer information card for the current president of the NEPBA Local 911, the union that represents patrol officers, Thomas Duffy II, lists 28 investigations that include 57 allegations, with 17 of those allegations of unreasonable force. I received this document through a public records request to the city. At the bottom, it says the city produced the document in May 2025.
As should be expected, when his coworkers investigated him, they found him not responsible for all 57 allegations. As implausible as that is, some self-proclaimed moderates (as I recently wrote, they aren’t moderate at all) are demanding this same system riddled with conflicts of interest stay in place.
Recently, I received a copy of an internal investigation report from a resident completed and signed in 2023, which included new allegations against Duffy. Surprising no one, his coworkers also cleared him of these three allegations against him, bringing the total to 60 consecutive allegations cleared.
This investigation did not appear on the officer information card for investigations into Duffy’s alleged misconduct.
Earlier this year I requested a data compilation of internal investigations from 2000 to 2024. I hoped to analyze the results of internal investigations over a long-term period.
I received documents from 2017 to 2023. The public records office said the department didn’t have this data compiled prior to 2017.
Both a lack of accurate documentation and the lack of documentation shouldn’t be acceptable. In normal cities, it wouldn’t be. In the punchline of a city government in Worcester, these records being correct is even more pressing with a city council that refuses to police its own law enforcement employees.
When this item came up for the council, I expected a race among the majority to kneel at the altar of loyalty to the union to enter a motion to file (throw it away). Instead, Councilor Kate Toomey used a more nuanced approach and asked for a legal opinion from the city solicitor if the city auditor could perform this work.
Yes, the city council needs a legal opinion to determine if the auditor can audit.
That may seem like a delay, but it’s likely lost forever in the abyss of information requests from the council. That’s exactly as intended.
In the antiquated and useless system of government in Worcester, councilors conduct no oversight of the executive branch. Rather than demand answers under their responsibility to conduct legislative inquiry, they request information from the city manager. Nearly all information that councilors acquire is filtered through the administration. The volume of requests enables the administration to select which requests it fulfills. Naturally, they respond to the requests that are in its interest.
Despite the unanimous support of the council, the administration has no responsibility to respond.
That’s why Toomey made the motion she did. Staying true to form, any analysis of anything at the police department is unacceptable. It is another example of most of the council screaming to police officers in this city that they can do anything they want. A majority of the council has “got their backs.”
Thankfully, most officers have ethics. A minority are thrilled to take that message from the council majority and run with it. The cover provided from the council majority encourages more officers to join the free-for-all minority.
That a legal interpretation of the city auditor’s ability to audit requires a legal opinion is peak Worcester. I recall no other time the domain of the auditor came into question.
Here are some other orders that appeared on the city council agenda this year that didn’t require a legal interpretation:
- Sept. 9 – COMMUNICATION of the City Auditor transmitting an informational communication auditing construction progress reports completed or not completed, information related to street selections, as well as
- Aug. 19 – Request City Auditor provide City Council with a report detailing all data from the past eighteen (18) months between Dispatch and the Worcester Police Department (WPD) concerning the Main South area.
- Jan. 28 – Request City Auditor conduct an audit of city’s sign creation processes that includes: 1) completion timelines; 2) installation timelines; and 3) compliance/noncompliance issues related to said process
- Jan. 14 – Request City Auditor organize and conduct a performance audit relative to the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Investigation of the Worcester Police Department (WPD) and the City of Worcester, Massachusetts that includes a review of WPD body camera footage and reconciles any disparities provided in the DOJ report. Further, request City Auditor include in said performance audit whether oversight occurred and whether any subsequent disciplinary action took place.
Like the order requesting the police department provide a written report of the aspects of the DOJ report which it confirmed as accurate, don’t hold your breath for any attempt from the city council to set an expectation of accurate information from the police department.
Don’t expect the Public Safety Committee to bring anything related to this topic up. As Toomey once said in response to a resident petition for hearings on systemic racism in that committee, which she chairs, they have crime stats to look at.
A majority of elected officials will not only do absolutely nothing on oversight of police misconduct, a de facto encouragement of it, but residents who seek information to inform themselves can’t count on that data to be accurate.
The message is loud and clear: Worcester residents are on their own.
