Reilly's stonewall

The new attorney general sets a disturbing precedent by refusing to order the release of police-misconduct records

Few abuses of power are more frightening or corrosive of public trust than police misconduct. From the petty graft of the neighborhood cop on the take to the far deeper problems revealed by the cover-up of the vicious beating administered to Boston undercover officer Michael Cox, corrupt policing undermines the social compact. Our only protection is that, ultimately, the police are accountable not to themselves but, through our elected officials, to us. Consider, for example, the recent incident in New York in which four cops pumped 41 bullets into an unarmed immigrant. Though the city's response has come under some criticism, the fact is that the officers are already being investigated by a grand jury. The message: we, the people, are in charge.

Which is why a ruling issued this week by the state's new attorney general, Tom Reilly, is so disturbing. On January 11, the state's supervisor of public records ordered Worcester officials to turn over to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette records on investigations of police misconduct -- including the names of the officers involved. When the city did not comply, the newspaper asked Reilly's office, which is responsible for enforcing the public-records law, to step in. Reilly refused -- or, as he put it in a letter announcing his decision, he "declines enforcement action."

Reilly added, helpfully, that the Telegram & Gazette can appeal his decision to superior court.

Reilly has not explained his legal reasoning for declining to enforce a valid order. His press secretary, Brian Heffron, says, "There's nothing we really can say. Whatever information we put out would be bound to be used by either side in any future court proceeding."

The attorney general's contemptuous refusal to act in the public interest has Jack Authelet fuming. A former newspaper publisher who now tracks open-records and open-meeting issues in Massachusetts for the Society of Professional Journalists, Authelet sees Reilly's action as a sign that Reilly will not only continue the less-than-forthcoming policies of his predecessor, Scott Harshbarger, but that he may also represent a turn for the worse.

Authelet is particularly upset by Reilly's suggestion that the Telegram & Gazette should take the matter to court, noting that what the AG is saying, in effect, is that the paper must spend its own money and put up with further delays to obtain information that has already been ruled a matter of public record. "That's outrageous," Authelet says. "This is an affront to every citizen." And though Authelet says Harshbarger had his own shortcomings (according to the secretary of state's office, Harshbarger declined to take enforcement action on 10 occasions last year), he does give him credit for working behind the scenes to get public information released, and for using the power of his office to remind local officials of their obligations under the public-records law. Reilly, by contrast, has taken a public-be-damned stance before he's even settled into his new office.

"All law-enforcement agencies in this state take their lead from the attorney general," says Authelet. Clearly, the lead set by Reilly is not a good one. The danger is that local cops and politicians, always loath to turn over information that makes them look bad, will study Reilly's letter and decide that stonewalling is an act without consequences and, thus, is a risk well worth taking.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.