Police Commission Meeting March 8, 2021

Police Commission Meeting March 8, 2021

I would like to congratulate the eight Officers that passed the Sergeant’s exam.

At the last Police Commission Meeting, February 8, 2021 I forwarded my concerns to the Police Commission to be read aloud during the Public Audience section of the meeting agenda

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act I received the Simsbury Police Department Internal Investigation of a Vandalized Footlocker.

Many officers were questioned under the Garrity Warning that lying would lead to termination.

The only officer, when questioned whose face turned red and used profanities was allegedly Sgt. Thibault.

Sgt. Corcoran’s report states: “I have overheard or personally had conversations with every patrol sergeant about this incident, including you (Lt. Sifodaskalakis) and Lt. Sheehan. The only sergeant who has not said anything in regards to this incident, even when the conversation has been had in his presence, was allegedly Sgt. Thibault.

Sgt. Thibault is in line for a promotion to Lieutenant.

Lt. Sifodaskalakis was tasked with investigating the Vandalized Footlocker. It is alleged that Sgt. Thibault is a boyhood friend of Lt. Sifodaskalakis.

It is alleged that Sgt. Thibault’s Footlocker is in close proximity to the Vandalized Locker.

The conclusion of Lt. Sifodaskalakis’s Investigation states, “I am unable to show who dumped the garbage in the footlocker. There is no evidence which would identify the responsible person. All of the officers who were told if the person responsible is identified and are one of the officers whom gave me a statement I would recommend termination for lying to me. All of the interviewed officers told me that they understood and still signed and swore in a statement under the Garrity Warning.”

One of the Officers lied.

How can the investigation be inconclusive?

Why wasn’t an outside neutral agency tasked to investigate?

Chief Boulter stated under oath that lying is grounds for termination.

I am asking the Police Commission to task Chief Boulter to reopen the investigation into the Internal Investigation of the Vandalized Police Officer’s Footlocker and report their findings to me and the full commission as a Citizen Complaint.

Chairman Jenna Caufield read my comments and then when questioned about the role of the Police Commission stated, “I am here to read the comments” with nobody questioning whether the Investigation should be revisited.

On February 20, 2021 I received a letter from the Police Commission stating that the Police Commission is always interested in citizen input.

They should have said we will follow-up on issues that meets our narrative, that Chief Boulter is untouchable and that by approving Boulter as Chief, they will protect him by ignoring any issues that paint Chief Boulter as a liability.

Not one investigation was conducted by an outside agency, with the end justifying the means…protection for Chief Boulter. Chief Boulter has investigated himself and conducted hearings with the conclusions predetermined by him.

It is nice to know that Chairman Jenna Caufield can read, and passed one of the qualifiers for the Police Commission.

The Commissioners are: Chairman Jenna Caufield, Mike Long, Terry Fogarty, Tenesha Grant, Travis Schweitzer

I must assume that the Commissioners can read and received a copy of my comments but chose not question the integrity of the report or ask for an explanation. I consider my comments a Citizen Complaint.

Are the Commissioners interested in overseeing the Police Department or are they just inept or political hacks?

Do any of these Commissioners understand the State Statute that they are tasked to uphold?

Commissioner Mike Long has been on Boards and Commissions for decades and as an Attorney knows the law and the responsibilities of the Police Commission.

The Commissioners chose not to question Chief Boulter or investigate a failure in the Police investigation of the Police Officer’s Footlocker to find the responsible party.

If Chief Boulter cannot conclude as others have that they know the responsible party, how can the public feel comfortable with the Police Department’s investigative techniques?

It was Chief Boulter who stated that the Police Department cannot tolerate untruthfulness.

Are the Commissioners more interested in protecting Chief Boulter than getting to the truth?

If the Police Commission cannot assume their responsibilities, an outside agency should be approved to come to an unbiased evaluation of the Internal Investigation of the Vandalized Footlocker and bring their findings to the Commission.

When MaryRose Bpysen at Public Audience on June 5, 2020, asked the Police Commission questions, those comments were immediately forwarded to Chief Boulter.

My comments were not.

Chief Boulter attended the Police Commission meeting, why was he not asked to initiate an investigation that I brought to the Commissioners attention?

It appears that protecting Chief Boulter is more important than protecting the integrity of the Police Department.