While we applauded the city for investigating how the fire inspector’s name was omitted from the police log when police arrested him in January, the report released by the city last week was a disappointment.
Conducted by City Solicitor William Dale, the report is at times unclear, inaccurate and contradictory. The problems with the report undermine its final conclusion that no one intended to hide the arrest of Fire Inspector Chuck Jarrett, who is no longer facing any charges because the district attorney decided to dismiss them.
The report cites several “mundane” reasons the arrest never appeared in the log. First, it was deemed “sensitive” because of the nature of the charge and concern for Jarrett, by Police Chief Paul McCarthy. Police were also trying to keep the impending arrest quiet so that Jarrett wouldn’t be tipped off.
It’s unclear how exactly this “sensitivity” affected what ultimately appeared in the public log. The report doesn’t explain. At the very least, Jarrett seems to have been afforded consideration other members of the public don’t get.
The report goes on to say the arrest didn’t appear in the log because it took place in Windham and the arresting officers called it in by cell phone rather than radio. It doesn’t explain whether these were routine or unusual actions and whether they could lead to other arrests being omitted from the public log.
Do police routinely go into other communities to arrest people? If not, why did they do so in this case? If so, are other arrests conducted this way omitted from the public log? Do police routinely call in arrests by cell phone? If not, why did they do so in this case? If so, are those arrests also omitted from the log?
The report also says the police records secretary had not processed the paperwork “for a variety of routine reasons” when an American Journal reporter came in to get the police log two days after the arrest. When the reporter returned a week later, the report went back only seven days and therefore did not include the arrest.
This leads us to question how many arrests have fallen into this gap in the past. This is the one reason that is addressed specifically in the report’s recommendations – going back 14 days, rather than seven, when the log is printed out each week.
The report also cites another instance in which an American Journal reporter, Charlie Smith, was denied access to information about the arrest. The report says, after learning of the arrest independently, our “relatively new reporter” made a “technical error” when he asked for an “arrest report”- a detailed report that isn’t public. Instead, he should have asked for an “arrest sheet.”
The trouble is, our reporter didn’t call the police station. He went in and asked to see the last two months of the police log. When he saw what he thought might be the arrest, he circled it and asked for more information, as he does routinely every week when he’s reviewing the log. In this instance, the records secretary punched in the number, and, when she saw what came up, she left and went to talk to the chief. She returned and said we couldn’t have any information on it.
That account doesn’t appear in the report because Dale didn’t contact Smith or me, as editor of the paper. When Smith called him for a comment on one of the stories he’s done on this matter, Dale didn’t return his call.
Smith doesn’t recall exactly what terminology he used when he was in the police station that day. And, it’s really beside the point. Any member of the public should be able to walk into the department and request information. Reporters don’t have special privileges. We’re there as representatives of the public.
The report does go on, in its conclusion, to call this denial of information “inappropriate.” That assessment comes after Dale goes out of his way to say that he “truly believes” none of the individuals involved intended to hide this arrest.
The stories and editorials we’ve written, which McCarthy has said prompted him to ask for the investigation, were never really about “individuals.” The Westbrook Police Department has plenty of fine men and women working in it. Police Chief Paul McCarthy is a good man, who we’ve always found to be well intentioned, whether we agree with his actions or not.
The stories and editorials were not about assigning blame. They were about defending a principle. That principle is this: In this country, we don’t arrest people and try them secretly. We do it publicly to protect the rights of the accused, no matter who they may be.
For all of its legal citations, this report doesn’t seem to take that principle very seriously, and that’s, ultimately, what’s most disappointing about it.
We understand there is a desire to restore public “confidence in the system” – a phrase the report refers to in its summary. However, the only way to do that is to take a hard look at what happened here, fix any systemic problems and make sure everyone understands the importance of the public’s right to know, so that this never happens again.
Brendan Moran, editor
Send questions/comments to the editors.
