Appeals judge to Janey: You may proceed to fire the police commissioner now

A single justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that Acting Mayor Kim Janey can hold the short hearing she's required to before she fires Dennis White as police commissioner.

The ruling by Judge Vickie Henry today upholds a decision by a Suffolk Superior Court judge on Tuesday that Janey has the right to fire White, that she does not have to hold a prolonged trial-like hearing to do so, and that there is no legal reason to give White an emergency order blocking his removal.

In a statement, Janey said she will proceed to schedule the hearing, required by state law, to listen to any last-minute arguments by White before she fires him because of an outside attorney's report on two domestic-violence reports in the 1990s. Janey has said that it's not just what happened then but the way White declined to say anything and the way that a number of BPD officers refused to cooperate with the investigation that convinced her White cannot continue to serve as commissioner.

White has denied that he attacked either his ex-wife or his niece and says no other police commissioner has ever been subject to such scrutiny after he was hired. Then Mayor Marty Walsh appointed White as police commissioner after then Commissioner William Gross suddenly retired earlier this year - but then removed him from duty just two days later after the Globe reported on one of the alleged incidents.

In her ruling, Henry wrote that it's up to the mayor, not a judge, whether an appointed city official should continue in office. She said that does not preclude White from continuing his suit after the fact, just that the courts will not stop Janey from acting now.

The Commissioner does not dispute that he was presented with detailed written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the City's evidence (a full unredacted copy of the investigator's report), and offered an opportunity to present his side of the story. Finally, I note that the City has stated its intent to "within 48 hours of the Court's decision . . . renew its offer to Commissioner White (and his attorney) to meet with the Acting Mayor to provide any information he wishes her to consider before making her final decision." The City's actions to date, offer to hold a hearing if a preliminary injunction does not issue, and assurance that a final decision has not yet been reached and will not be reached before the hearing, in combination, satisfy the requirements of the Removal Provision and the process due to the Commissioner.

After review of the petition and supporting documents, including the Superior Court judge's thoughtful and detailed memorandum of decision and order, I discern no error of law or abuse of discretion in the denial of the preliminary injunction.