re Docket Number Filed 2712024 2.27 PM Superior Court Worcester E-FILED COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WORCESTER, $8. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO.2485CV00140D_ ROBERT BELSITO ) Pl ) ) af ) ) CITY OF WORCESTER, CHIEF STEVEN ) SARGENT ) Defendants ) COMPLAINT 1% INTRODUCTION The Plaintif®, Officer Robert Belsito brings this action seeking redress for substantial violations of his rights by the above named Defendants under the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, M.G.L. C. 149, § 185, by retaliating against him for reporting, objecting to, and filing complaints about ongoing violations of law in the City of Worcester. These complaints include, but are not limited to, Officer Belsito’s previous and recent complaints of harassing, retaliatory and physically threatening conduct of Chief Sargent, including Defendant Sargent’s attempt to use his Worcester Department issued vehicle to threaten and intimidate our client on or about April 15, 2023. Asa result of his complaints and objections, Officer Belsito has been subjected to multiple adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, subjecting him to an overtly aggressive and hostile work environment, physically assaultive and threate: behavior, and removal of his License to Carry (LTC), and being placed on administrat leave without cause. Additionally, Officer Belsito seeks redress under the Massachusetts Civil Rights as well as violations of the common law. PARTIES ‘The Plaintiff, Officer Robert Belsito, is an individual residing in Worcester County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,Dato Filed 2112008 227 PMN Superior Cour.- Worcester Dosket Number 2. The Defendant City of Worcester is a municipality duly incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all times relevant to this case, the employer of the Plaintiff. 3. The Defendant, Chief Steven Sargent (Hereinafter “Chief Sargent)” or “Sargent”), ‘was employed by the City of Worcester, and previously held the title of Chief of Police. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Robert Belsito (hereinafter “Officer Belsito” or “Plaintiff”), is employed as a Worcester Police Officer for the City of Worcester (“the City”), for approximately 22 years and has worked in Service Division, Community Impact Unit, Alcohol Unit, Court Liaison Unit. 5. Plaintiff is, and has always been, a dedicated, energetic, and hardworking employee. He is a respected member of the Worcester Police Department and has been an active participant within his community at large. 6. Officer Belsito is a Master Sergeant with the 157th Medical Group in the Air National Guard, attached to Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire. He is a Medical Administrator and works out of Medical Group Detachment 1, which is a ster response unit for the Medical Group. He is also the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) for exercises and activations. 7. Prior to the underlying events, Plaintiff has never received any discipline as a member of the Worcester Police Department. 8. Defendant, Police Chief Steven Sargent, has been employed by the City of Worcester in its Police Department for approximately 35 years and had served as its Police Chief for nearly 5 years, before resigning in 2023. 9. On or about August 11, 2020, Officer Belsito filed his initial complaint regarding ongoing bullying, intimidation, discrimination (military status) and hostile work environment against Defendant Chief Sargent. 10. On or about August 27, 2020, the complaint was forwarded to the law firm of Mirick ‘O’Connell for investigation, Susan P. Mitchell, Esq. was appointed the Investigating Officer to conduet an independent investigation of the formal complaint filed by Plaintiff. 11. The investigation evaluated a number of allegations and complaints brought forward by Officer Belsito. A copy of the investigative report and the conclusions reached by Attorney Mitchell is attached hereto and incorporated for all purposes.Date Filed 27172024 2:27 PM ‘Superior Coun - Worcester Dooket Number 12. Based on the Findings of Fact in her report at page(s) thirty-seven (37), Attorney Mitchell made the following conclusions regarding Defendant Chief Sargent’s conduct, 13. “The Police Chief insists he has no “ill will” towards Officer Belsito, but his actions belie his statement. The Chief, for example, has ordered administrative actions (counseling) against Officer Belsito for email violations that he has excused in other members of the Department. Additionally, he ordered the assignment of Officer Belsito to the Records window, on or about April 10, 2020, ostensibly for an email violation, Additionally, the Chief has been witnessed staring through the Service Division window at Officer Belsito, gesturing outside the window to get Officer Belsito’s attention, and walking through the Lobby calling, “Hello, hello” as he approached the window.” (Exhibit 1 - Mitchell Investigative Report) 14, The investigator further concluded: “Moreover, the Chiel’s interaction with Officer Belsito outside the Police Department on May 24, 2020, which was eaptured on security video, was entirely inappropriate. A Police Chief - who has all the power — should not engage a patrol officer, who has no power, in a “showdown,” particularly in a public setting. As well, the Chief's description of the May 24 incident was not credible and very much at odds with the security video.” Id. 15, Attorney Mitchell also found: “Additionally, the Chief's agreement to transfer Officer Belsito to the Court House, but only on a 4/2 schedule instead of the customary 5/2 schedule (the Court House is only open Monday through Friday), was further evidence of his campaign against Officer Belsit. 16. The conduct of Defendant Sargent with regard to Officer Belsito’s military leave was found by the investigator to be “Particularly troubling,” Specifically, the report found; “Particularly troubling was the Police Chief's call to Officer Belsito's Air National Guard Unit, ostensible because he did not have Officer Belsito’s completed military paperwork. ostensibly because he did not have Officer Belsito's completed The Chief's explanation for the call was not credible for the following reasons: (a) As a threshold matter, the Chief referred to Officer Belsito’s paperwork in the voicemail message he lef with Officer Belsito’s Unit (“He just put in his paperwork and did not wait for an authorization.”) Clearly, the Chief was aware that Officer Belsito had submitted his paperwork, and more than likely had it in his hands when he placed the call (b) Moreover, the Chief stated in the voicemail message that Officer Belsito may be AWOL from the Department. As a military veteran himself, the Chief knows that “AWOL” is a serious charge and was fully aware that such an allegation could put Officer Belsito in a bad light with his Unit. (©) Though the Chief said he did not realize when he called Officer Belsito’sDate Fed 2172024 2:27 PU ‘Superer Coutt- Worcester Docket Number Unit that it was in New Hampshire and, therefore, fell outside the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts National Guard, the Chief's statement was not credible for the following reasons: ‘+ Officer Belsito has been attached to Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire for the last 10 years. The Police Chief keeps the Department's personnel files, including military orders. A quick review of Officer Belsito’s file would have shown the Chief that Officer Belsito is # membor of the New Hampshire Air National Guard and not the Massachusetts National Guard, * The voicemail message left by the Chief with Officer Belsito’s unit said that Officer Belsito was an essential worker “in the state of Massachusetts” and that “most of the National Guard here in Massachusetts have not been called up.” The fact that the Chief distinguished himself as being “here in Massachusetts” indicates that he knew he was calling out-of-state and, therefore, even if he did not recognize the area code (“603”) as New Hampshire’s he had to have known at the very least that he was not calling a unit in Massachusetts and, therefore, the Massachusetts National Guard's restriction did not apply. ‘+ Further, the Chief signed the paperwork the day after he called Officer Belsito's Air National Guard unit — without having spoken to anyone from Officer Belsito’s Unit - and faxed it to Human Resources (April 24) for approval. Clearly, he was not concerned about Officer Belsito’s “status,” as he signed and submitted the paperwork without having spoken fo anyone from Officer Belsito’s Unit to determine his status. 17. The investigation of Defendant Sergeant concluded; Simply put, if the Chief called Officer Belsito’s unit simply to determine his status, he would have waited to speak with Officer Belsito’s military command before signing and submitting the paperwork. If he had legitimate questions about whether or not New Hampshire was activating its National Guard in response to COVID, he would have spoken to someone in Officer Belsito's military command. The Chief, however, did not do so. Instead, he recklessly said in the unidentified voicemail message he left with Officer Belsito’s Unit that Officer Belsito was considered AWOL from work, and then signed Officer Belsito’s paperwork and submitted it to the City’s HR Department the following day, without ever having spoken to anyone in Officer Belsito’s military command. Based on the above, I conclude that the Police Chief called Officer Belsito”s unit for the sole purpose of putting him in a bad light with his military chain of command, perhaps as “payback” for what the Chief perceived to be Officer Belsito’s “disrespect” towards him.” (emphasis added) 18. Asa consequence of this investigation, Chiefs conduct was found to ‘constitute a pattern of bullying and intimidation that has interfered with Officer Belsito’s ability to do his job. While the Chief’s actions may not rise to the level of unlawfulDate Fated 21172024 2:27 Pit Supanar Coun - Worcester Dosxet Number discrimination or harassment, itis apparent that he has been engaging in @ campaign of reprisal against Officer Belsito, which is antithetical to the Departments values and a violation of its Code of Ethics. 19. Lastly, the investigator found “,..the evidence shows that the Police Chief, who has all the authority, has engaged in pattern of inappropriate behavior towards Officer Belsito. While the Police Chief demands respect from Officer Belsito — and is quick to point out that the Department is a paramilitary organization in which one must respect superior officers — the Chief's campaign against Officer Belsito undermines his ability to command respect. Hopefully, this issue can be resolved within the Department. As noted in footnote 46, there may be an issue of retaliation here based on military status as a protected category, in violation of M.G.L. c. 151B. 20. Despite the clear conclusions drawn by Attomey Mitchell in her investigative report, and the City’s assurances that Defendant Sargent would be disciplined for his overt retaliation and discrimination, the City refused to take any disciplinary action. 21. None of the above information or Attorney Mitchell's report were sent to the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, as required by law. 22. This failure by the Defendant City was particularly problematic, given the nature of the findings regarding Defendant Sergeant's credibility and truthfulness. 23. On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff met with City ofticials who inaccurately stated that the Chief had been ‘disciplined’ for his conduct toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff requested a copy of the report, but was summarily denied access to the document on multiple occasions. Plaintiff was only provided with the report years later after the City was ordered to provide the document as a result of a public records request. 24, Despite the significance of Defendant Sergeant’s conduct, the City issued a letter of counseling (Exhibit 2) to Defendant Sergeant. Contained within the City’s correspondence to Chief Sergeant outlining his inappropriate behavior toward Officer Belsito, it was claimed that a “Failure to improve will result in serious disciplinary action up to and including termination.” 25. Despite the City’s warning that further misconduct would result in “serious disciplinary action up to and including termination”, the Defendant City has failed to follow through on that warning and as a result of the City’s lack of any remedial action, Defendant Sargent continued in his retaliatory and discriminatory campaign against the Plaintiff. 26. On April 15, 2023, Chief Sargent attempied to use his Worcester Department issued vehicle to follow the Defendant from the police station, and thereafter threaten and intimidate Officer Belsito. The series of events leading up to the assault conduct are as follows:Dato Filed 212024 2:27 PA ‘Suporte Coun- Woccester Doeket Number 27. On April 15, 2023, at approximately 11:30 am Officer Belsito went to the Worcester Police Station to pick up a cruiser to work a paid detail. Officer Belsito observed Chiof Sargent’s vehicle at the vacuum area in the cruiser parking lot but did not have any contact with him. 28, Offficer Belsito subsequently entered his police cruiser and drove ftom the parking to retrieve his police equipment from his personal vehicle. Officer Belsito then parked the cruiser next to his personnel vehicle and began loading his police equipment into the police cruiser. 29. After doing so, Officer Belsito parked in an adjacent aisle in the lot waiting for another officer to start his detail. While waiting for his partner, Officer Belsito noticed the unmarked cruiser assigned to Chief Sargent enter the employee parking, lot in the center aisle. 30. Officer Belsito then called his partner to inform him that he was leaving the parking lot because he was concemed and wanted to avoid confrontation with Chief Sargent. 31. Officer Belsito simultaneously kept his partner on the phone and told him what was transpiring in real time during this incident. 32. Officer Belsito then observed Chief Sargent's cruiser stop and turn into the aisle Plaintiff was located in. 33. As Officer Belsito started to travel from his parking aisle into the center aisle, Chief Sargent immediately began to follow Officer Belsito until Officer Belsito exited the parking lot onto Goldsberry Street toward East Central Street. 34. Chief Sargent then exited the parking lot behind Officer Belsito. 35. At the traffic light at Thomas Street, Chief Sargent tuned into the right lane and passed Officer Belsito at a high rate of speed and proceeded to switch two lanes and positioned himself to be in front of Officer Belsito's police cruiser. Defendant Sargent's cruiser was now positioned in the “left turn only” lane at Summer Street and East Central Street. 36. As Officer Belsito approached the traffic light, he noticed Chief Sargent's passenger window go down. Officer Belsito slowed the police cruiser and greeted Chief Sargent by stating “Good morning, Chief.” 37. Chief Sargent became angry and accused Officer Belsito of “Not wanting to shake his hand today.” Officer Belsito responded by stating, “What are you talking about, what, is wrong with you, leave me alone.” When the traffic light tuned green, officer Belsito proceeded straight on Summer Street.Date Fed 21/2024 2:27 PM Superor Cour Worcester Docket Number 38. Chief Sargent then, from the left tun only lane proceeded to drive straight at an accelerated speed toward Officer Belsito’s cruiser causing Officer Belsito to divert his police cruiser to avoid a collision with Chief Sargent’s vehicle, 39. Chief Sargent’s actions were aggressive, reckless, malicious, and dangerous to Officer Belsito and other vehicles on the roadway. 40. At that point there was a second verbal confrontation in which Chief Sargent yelled at Officer Belsito, “Who the fi#ck do you think you are?” 41. After a further exchange, Chief Sargent then proceeded to do a U-tum and travel back in the direction of the station. Officer Belsito drove away from Chief Sargent to avoid a further incident, 42, Shortly after this incident, Officer Belsito reported the assaultive behavior of Defendant Sargent to Deputy Edward McGinn and Lt Joseph Ashe. 43. In direct retaliation for his complaints of the Chief's assaultive conduct, Defendant Sargent ordered Deputy Sean Fleming to place Officer Belsito on paid administrative leave immediately and to immediately have the Plaintiff's License to Carry (LTC) suspended. 4, Specifically, Plaintiff was wrongfully placed on administrative leave and his LTC was suspended on April 15, 2023 with no legitimate cause through May 8, 2023. 45, Plaintiff's department issued firearm was seized and his personal weapons and ammunition were also removed from his possession, The occurrence of these events were widely known throughout the Department and otherwise, causing the Plaintiff extreme embarrassment and humiliation within his Department and the law enforcement community at large. 46. The Defendant City subsequently failed to provide Plaintiff with any paperwork regarding the reinstatement of his LTC. Additionally, during this same time period, Plaintiff was formally ‘trespassed’ from appearing at all police department locations. 47. To date, neither the Defendant Sargent, nor the Defendant City ever requested or required the Plaintiff to undergo any form of so-called fitness for duty evaluation. The Defendant Sargent simply ordered his License to Carry suspended, 48, To date, neither the Defendant Sargent, nor the Defendant City ever provided any explanation for the suspension of Plaintiff's LTC. 49. Asa direct result of the emotional distress caused by Defendants, Officer Belsito Grove himself to St. Vincent Hospital, where he sought treatment for chest pain. 50. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a second complaint against Defendant SargentDate Filed 2152004227 PM Superior Cout- Worcester Docket Number regarding harassment of April 15, 2023 by Defendant Sargent. 51. Despite the seriousness of the complaint filed by Officer Belsito and the presence of video tapes confirming Plaintiff's allegations, the City did not place Chief Sargent on administrative leave, 52. Asa result of the City’s failure to act Defendant Sargent remained in his position without restriction and continued to use his authority to perpetuate his retaliatory agenda against Officer Belsito 53. By way of example, Chief Sargent made efforts to disband the Worcester District Court liaison positions, one of which is currently being filled by Officer Belsito. ‘54, The overt and brazen retaliatory conduct of Chief Sargent has gone unfettered by the Defendant City. 55. The City of Worcester’s decision to condone Chief Sargent’s actions and refusal to place him on administrative leave despite the clear unlawful nature makes the City of Worcester complicit in Sargent’s unlawful conduct and has significantly added to the negative cmotional impact that Officer Belsito continues to suffer today. 56. The history and the pattern of behavior toward Officer Belsito from Chief Sargent is ‘well documented. ‘The pattern of retaliatory behavior on the part of Chief Sargent was allowed to escalate to dangerous actions toward Officer Belsito. To date the City has failed to take any disciplinary action against Chief Sargent, 57. On May18, 2023, Counsel for the Plaintiff sent correspondence to the Defendant City of Worcester, pursuant to the requirements of M.G.L. 149, § 185, the Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act. (Exhibit 3) 58. In his correspondence Officer Belsito provided written notice to the City of Worcester ofhis intent to pursue a claim pursuant to the Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act as well as Massachusetts and Federal Civil Rights statutes for retaliation for objecting to and refusing to engage in activities protected by state law and for reporting and/or objecting to matters that he reasonably believed to be violations of law or threats to public safety 59. On or about September 4, 2023, Chief Sargent retired from his position as Chief of Police for the City of Worcester. 60. As a result of his complaints and objections, Officer Belsito has been subjected to multiple adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, subjecting him to an overtly aggressive and hostile work environment, physically assaultive and threatening behavior, removal of his License to Carry (LTC), and being placed on adininistrative leave without cause.Date Filed 2112024 227 PM ‘Superior Coun Worcester Docket Number 61. Itis patently clear that the retaliation and hostile treatment inflicted on Officer Belsito was done as a direct consequence for his ongoing complaints about and rofusals to be a part of what he reasonably believed to be, at a minimum, criminal, unethical and illegal conduct in violation of the City of Worcester and the Worcester Police Departmental rules and regulations. COUNT ONE - WHISTLEBLOWER (M.G.L. ch. 149, § 185) y. CITY OF WORCESTER 62. The Plaintiff incorporates herein the previous allegations set forth in this Complaint, 63. Plaintiff, through various means and measures, reported, objected to, filed written complaints and reports about ongoing violations of law within the Worcester Police Department, the City of Worcester and/or Human Resources Department including, but not limited to, illegal conduct and violation of Departmental Rules and Regulations by Defendant Sargent. 64. The Defendant, individually and collectively retaliated against Plaintiff for disclosing, objecting to and/or refusing to participate in an activity, policy or practice which Plaintiff reasonably believed was in violation of a law and/or a rule or regulation promulgated by law, in violation of the Massachusetts Whistlcblower statute, G.L.c.149 §185. 65. Plaintiff has been retaliated against for reporting and objecting to Defendants’ actions and as a result of raising these issues was subsequently subjected to disparate treatment, unwarranted investigations, a hostile work environment, retaliatory acts, and denial of promotion, loss of income and other benefits from his employment. 66. Asa consequence of the Defendants’ actions as stated above, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages, including, but not limited to: loss of income, loss of employment benefits, other financial losses, loss of professional opportunities, loss of personal and professional reputation, loss of community standing, and emotional and mental distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against the Defendants on Count J, plus interest and costs of this action, and reasonable attorneys? fees as provided under G.L.c.149, Section 185. COUNT TWO - MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL RIGHTS (M.G.L. ch. 12, §§ 11H, 1) v. Defendant Sargent in his official and individual capacities 67. The Plaintiff incorporates herein the previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 68. Defendant Sargent, in his official and individual capacities, and under color of law, attempted to interfere with, and did interfere with Plaintif’s exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and theDale Fes 21/2004 227 PM ‘Superior Court- Worcester Docket Number constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, by threats, intimidation and coercion, including his right to free speech and Due Process and continued employment free from coercion and retaliation, including loss of his License to Carry, false allegations of misconduct and placement on Administrative Leave with loss of compensation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant on Count II, plus interest and costs of this action, and reasonable attomeys" fees as provided under M.GL. c, 12, Section 111. COUNT THREE - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS v. Defendant Sargent in his individual capacity 69. The Plaintiff incorporates herein the previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 70. The conduct of the Defendant towards the Plaintiff was extreme in degree and outrageous in character, resulting in the intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress upon plaintiff. 71. Defendant Sargent intended to inflict emotional distress on plaintiff or knew or should have known that emotional distress was a likely result of defendant's conduct. 72. Defendant’s conduct as alleged above was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and was utterly intolerable, 73. The outrageous actions of the Defendants were the cause of plaintiff's distress and the ‘emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff is of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. 74, Asa result of the outrageous actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff was caused to suffer emotional injuries and damages. COUNT FOUR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS. RELATIONS, Against Defendant Sargent 75, The Plaintiff incorporates herein the previous allegations set forth in this Complaint. 76. Plaintiff had a business relationship with the City of Worcester which provided economic benefits to Officer Belsito. 77. The Defendants knew of Officer Belsito’s business relationship with the City. 78. Defendants unlawfully interfered with Officer Belsito’s employment relationship with tie City with the improper motive and subjected to Oificer Belsito to multiple 10Date Fed 2172024 227 Pat Superor Court Wioroster Doeket Number adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, subjecting him to an overtly aggressive and hostile work environment, physically assaultive and threatening behavior, and removal of his License to Carry (LTC), and being placed on administrative leave without cause 79, Asa result of the Defendants’ intentional interference, Officer Belsito suffered substantial emotional and economic harm, including loss of wages and benefits. THE PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS. Respectfully submitted, For Plaintiff, By his attorney, (s/ Timothy M. Burke Timothy M. Burke, BBO #065720 Law Offices of Timothy M. Burke 117 Kendrick Street, Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494-2300 Dated: February 1, 2024 (781) 455-0707 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that this document filed through the Massachusetts Electronic Filing system will be sent electronically to the registered participants. Dated: February 1, 2024 {s/ Timothy M. Burke uDate Filed 2/2024 227 Ph Sepetior eestor superior Docket Number Exhibit 1Date Fed 27/2024 2:27 Pat Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number Confidential Memorandum TO: Dori\Vecchio, Director, Human Resources City of Worcester, Massachusetts: FROM: Susan P/ Mitchell, Investigating Officer DATE: January 72024 RE: JNVESTIGATIVE REPORT (Complaint 2020), 1. intropuction, ‘On or about September 15, 2020,.1 was appointed as’ Investigating: Officer’to ‘canduct: an independent investigation of a. formal complaint made by Patrol Officer Robert Belsito {Officer Belsito”),. alleging! bullying, intimidation, ‘discrimination (rifitary. status) ‘and hostile: work environment by the Chief of Police (the “Complaint”).. Officer Belsito is assigned to the Service Diisfon, which Js part of the Support Services Division of the Worcester Police Department (the “Department” or"WPD").! ‘The following is a summary of my-investigation. Tl, FORM OF HivESTIGATION AND SUMMARY oF EVIDEHICE! A. INTERVIEWS! ‘As partof the investigation, | interviewed the following individuals, including those identified by Gfficer Belsito as witnesses to:the complained of conducts? © Aesyere 0 ae Pesoner Processing! & ‘Transportation; “Coutt, Union's Recon ‘Atteridaits/Matrons, Plait Enginering & Matiteiance; Service Division (affice); c ‘anid Vehicle Fleet Maintenianéa. Ail interviews but one: were conducted in'personat the offlas of Mifick@'Connell, 100:Front Street, ‘Worcester, MA.. Fach person interviewed was advised that a confidential complaint had been mail regarding the Police Department, and that he/she was being interviewed as part of ah independent investigation of the ‘complaint All were advised that ft was a sensitive matter and that thelr responses would be kept confidential ‘to'the extent permitted by law aid the review process. They were dlsttold that they should not diseuss:tha ‘matter with any other person. Additionally, all were advised that retaliation for having participated incthe Savestigation was probibted by faw-and Chy policy. Page 1ofas (Gro: Woncesren ‘Confidential wwesteATWE REHORT {Complaint 2020)Date Fed 21/2024 2:27 Pat ‘Suparor Cour - Worcester Docket Number 1. Officer Robert Belsito (Complainant) __— . a a aT 7 Police Chief Steven Sargent (Respondent) B. Document Review As part of my investigation, | reviewed the following documentation: 1. Complaint with exhibits, along with the disc of video recordings? and voicemail message (ATTACHMENT 1); 2. Electronic Mail Policy that is part of the City’s Computer Usage Policies and Procedures; 3. Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Worcester and the New England Benevolent Police Association (NEBPA), Local 911, representing police officers; 4, Worcester Police Department Rules and Regulations; 5. Worcester Police Department Policies and Procedures, including but not limited to No. 05, Code of Ethics; 6. _ Relevant portions of The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA 38 U.S.C. 4301-4335) and documentation related to same;* 7. Military Orders (April 17, 2020 ~ May 17, 2020) of Officer Robert Belsito (Arracument 2); 8. Citizen’s complaint, dated February 28, 2019, and related documentation (Arracumenr 3); 9. Personnel file of Officer Robert Belsito;? and 10. Officer Belsito’s Officer Incident Card (Arracument 4) The video recordings do not include audio, Such documentation included: VETS USERRA Fact Sheet 3, “Job Rights for Veterans and Reserve Component Members® under The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemaloyment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA 38 US.C. 4301-4335), nt .dol gov/agencies/vets/orograms/userra/userra fg; Your USERRA Rights as an Employee (Office of U.S. Special Counsel), httoss//ost,zov/Services/Panes/USERRA-Employeeaspx; Your USERRA Rights as an Employer (Oifice of U.S. Special Counsel), https://osc.zov/Services/Papes/USERRA. Emoloyer.aspx; “What You Need to Know About the USERRA Military Leave Policy,” httos://mww.oatriotsoftware.com /blog/pavrol/userra-mltary eave-policy/. ‘The personnel file of Officer Belsito contains multiple commendations and military orders, but contains no iseipine Page 2 of 35 ‘chy oF Woncesten Confidential wvesrcanive RexoRT (Complaint 2020}Date Filed 212026 2.27 PM ‘Suponor Court- Worcester Docket Number WL, Summary oF EVIDENCE AL Intenviews 1, Officer Robert Belsito (Complainant) On Thursday, September 24, 2020, | interviewed Officer Belsito. This is what he sald: 1. Officer Belsito stated that he has been with the Worcester Police Department for nearly 20 years. He was appointed as a regular, full-time officer in 2001. He bid on, and was assigned to, the Service Division, in 2014. He works primarily in the Service Division office, Which is adjacent to the Lobby on the first floor of Police Headquarters. He works a 4/2 schedule, days (7am-3pm}, 2. Officer Belsito is a Master Sergeant in the New Hampshire Air National Guard, attached to Pease Air Force Base. 3. January 18, 2018, Email. Officer Belsito said that the alleged “bullying, harassment, intimidation, discrimination and hostile work environment” by the Police Chief started after he sent an email on January 18, 2018, to police officials and police officers regarding the dropping of weights in the gym on the second floor. (2) Officer Belsito’s email read: “The dropping of the weights is out of control. Per the Chief no dropping weights.” (See ATTAchenr 1 at Extuair 4).” Officer Belsito said he included “per the Chief” in his email based on an email sent by SGT Gary Quitadamo, dated December 13, 2016, which included a statement that said, “Per the order of Chief's Office, please do not drop the weights on the gymnasium floor during workouts until further notice.” (Exuisit 1), Officer Belsito said he was trying to defend the Chief's directive; however, he acknowledged that he did not attach SGT Quitadamo’s email to his email of January 18, 2018, or make reference to it (b) The Police Chief responded to Officer Belsito’s January 18 email that no fone should be putting “per the Chief” in any correspondence without his approval. He said further that email was not the place for complaints, and that appropriate channels should be used going forward.® (Ext 5). | earner pr re re NN sp 012 to Officer Belsito about his “per the Chief” st assignment to the Service Division (2014 to the present) his assignments were, as follows Service Division from 2001-2008; Community Impact from 2004-2009; Alcohol Enforcement and Licensing ‘from 2008-2011; and Community Impact from 2011-2018, All “exwier references are to those attached to the Complaint at ATTACHMENT 1 Officer Belsito had previously asked INH to have a conversation with other units about the weight dropping in the gym, but the noise continued. (Exier 2.) Page 3 of 35 cv oF WoncesteR Confdentia mvesrcatW= Rzvoer (Complains 2020)Date Filed 27172024 2:27 Pat Supertor Coun Woreasior Docket Number email, and memorialized their discussion in an email, also dated January 18, 2018. (Exxieir 6).? Officer Belsito was not disciplined for sending the email and nothing was documented in his Personnel file about it. (c) Officer Belsito said after sending the January 18, 2018, email and throughout 2018, the Chief would “intimidate” him by staring him down when he (the Chief] would walk into the Lobby. Officer Belsito said at times the Chief would walk by the Service Division window and, upon seeing him in the office, would come back and stare directly at him and not at anyone else in the office. In his complaint, Officer Belsito sald “This was continuously done over the next year.” When the Investigator asked how often this actually occurred, Officer Belsito said 4 to 5 times within the year. {d) Officer Belsito said he spoke to his Union about these incidents, but they decided to leave it alone and hope that the interactions and intimidation would go away. At some point, he said the Union president (Dan Gilbert] told him not to be alone with the Police Chief. 4, February 9, 2019, Citizen Complaint. (2) On February 9, 2019, a citizen complaint was filed against Officer Belsito by an individual who came into the Lobby saying he was a victim of a crime and needed information from the Detective Bureau. The complaint alleged discourtesy, failure to give identification and taking the complainant’s phone. A Commander's Investigation was conducted, and the Chief issued his findings on June 7, 2019. (Exhisir 8). Two of the three allegations ~ failure to give 1D and taking the phone — were sustained. The allegation of discourtesy was not sustained. Administrative action was taken (i.e,, Officer Belsito was counseled), and the matter was closed. {b) Documentation of the counseling is not included in Officer Belsito’s personnel file. Rather, his file includes a summary of the citizen’s complaint, which indicates ‘that a Commander's Investigation was conducted and that administrative action was taken. Documentation of the counseling is attached to the Citizen’s Complaint, in the file kept by the Bureau of Professional Standards ("BPS") (ArracHienr 3), along with an “Officer Incident Card” that reflects any complaints made against Officer Belsito and the disposition of same (arrachvaenr 4). ‘email sald the “other guy involved here” would be spoken to, as well. His reference was to Officer Tom Hastings whose response to Dificer Belsito's email read, “To Everyone the Dropping of the weights bothers, GET OVER IT! WE HAVE A GYM ON THE SECOND FLOOR” When the Investigator asked MR £126 hac, in fact, spokon to Officer Hastings NNN said the Police Chief said he would take care of speaking to Officer Hastings. KN cid not know whether the Chief did so. In a follow-up email to Officer Belsito, the Investigator askad how often the staring actually occurred. Officer Belsito responded “four to five times within the year.” ‘The Investigator was advised that discipline is kept separately by the BPS, Page 4 of a5 Cchvor WorcesteR Confidential nuesrcarwe REPORT (Complaint 2020}Date Fed 21172024 2:27 PM ‘Superior Court- Worvester Docket Numbor (©) According to Officer Belsito, he asked the Chief through his Union for a meeting to discuss the findings, but the meeting never occurred.” Officer Belsito did not grieve the Chie?s findings. 5. Deskin Lobby. On February 12, 2020, the Police Chief notified the WPD by email that a desk would be placed in the Lobby of the Police Station, to be manned by an officer from the Service Division, for the purpose of taking reports and vetting individuals coming into the building. (Exwsrr 9). Officer Belsito claimed the Chief did this to “punish” the Service Division for complaining that the Lobby was not secured and that the Department needed to be made safer following police shootings in New York. (The Service Division had only recently been given bulletproof glass.) He said the Union complained that the desk, which was placed in the open Lobby, was unprotected and vulnerable. It was removed from the Lobby within a day of being placed there. The desk was never manned. 6. February 18, 2020, Meeting with Police Chief. Officer Belsito said that the Police Chief confronted him at the Records window in the Service Division on February 18, 2020, saying “you dor’t like me, and you always disrespect me.” He said the Chief told him they should have @ meeting and walked away, but then came back to the Records window where Officer Belsito was working, and said, “In my office, now.’ Officer Belsito said he then contacted his Union representative, Officer Joseph Vigliotti, who accompanied him to the meeting."? Officer Belsito said the Chief was upset that Officer Vigliotti was with him. Officer Belsito said the Chief started the meeting by saying “This is an In-Service lesson for you,” and that Officer Belsito was not going to disrespect him. The Chief said Officer Belsito disrespected him by not waving and by turning his back on him. (Officer Belsito stated to the Investigator that he has never turned his back to the Police Chief, and has never failed to acknowledge him when he has encountered him. Officer Belsito acknowledged that he tries to avoid any interaction with the Police Chief by leaving the Service Division window before the Chief appears in the Lobby because the interactions are intimidating and uncomfortable.) Officer Belsito said he explained to the Chief during the meeting that ever since he sent the email in January 2018, the Chief would walk to the Service Division window and stare at him (and no one else) for 5 to 10 seconds and then walk away. Officer Belsito said the Chief said he was waiting for Officer Belsito to wave. Officer Belsito pointed out that he has had three complaints in the entirety of his 20-year career with the \WPD, and that the frst wo (July 2022 and January 2018) were unfounded, Both were prior to Chief Sargent’s, tenure as Police Chief Officer Belsito said after his email of January 18, 2018, the Police Chief started coming to the Service window ‘and staring at him while he was siting at hs desk. He sald the Chief dié not look at anyone else, only him, He said the Union president told him he should not be alone with the Chief, which is why he asked for a Union rep to accompany him to the meeting, ‘There are monitors in the Service Division office for security cameras that record activity in the parking lot {including the Pelice Chief's parking space), the front entrance to the building, and the Lobby, Officer Belsito ‘cen monitor the cameras on his computer, 2s well Page 5 of 35 caw oF WorcesteR Confdentio! mvesrxive Rot {Complaint 2020),Date Fed 21/2024 227 PAE Superor Court-Worcaster Docket Number 7. Escalation. Officer Belsito said the incidents with the Chief escalated after the meeting of February 18, 2020. He recounted the following events as examples of the alleged escalation: (a) February 1, 2020. Officer Belsito stated that the day after their meeting, he waved at the Chief when the Chief walked into the Lobby with another officer. Officer Belsito said the Chief looked away from him and ignored his greeting. He provided a video clip of the incident.5 {b) March 25, 2020, Email. Officer Belsito said on March 25, 2020, he posted an email to all Police Officials and Police Officers on pet items that he was giving away. (EwilarT 11). He said he then received a call from JNM that the Chief said he had violated the email policy. Officer Belsito stated that it had been a past practice to send information through the email system to Department members regarding events, items for sale and other information. (He presented for my review multiple emails sent by various Department members, dated October 2017, through September 2020.) (©) April 10, 2020, Assignment to Records Window. Officer Belsito said on April 10, 2020, another individual sent an email regarding a truck for sale and posted Information and pictures. Officer Belsito responded, “Wow. Thanks Tom.” (Exni6iT 12). Officer Belsito said the same day (April 10, 2020), he received a call that he was to be “permanently assigned to the service division window” (i.e., the Records window}. He sent an email to his official N.6, KN sic that the City just rolled out for isin the process of rolling out) a system to make reports available on-line. Due diligence must be done, however, to make sure the requesting party has a right to the report (e.g, the victim of domestic abuse may obtain the report, which contains personal contact information, but not the individual who committed [or allegedly committed] the abuse), 2 (nN follow-up email to Officer Belsito of January 18, 2018 said the “other guy involved here” [Torn Hastings] would be spoken to as well. (Exwrr 6). The Investigator asked mm (fg hac spoken to Officer Hastings. NNN Sigg spoke to the Chief about the incident and it was fj Understanding that the Police Chief was to speak to Officer Hastings: however did not know whether that actually occurred. 5 ina follow-up call to MMMM. the Investigator asked about the March 25 email. NNN sail was working 2 detail that day, and the Police Chief called jg to tell him that Officer Belsito had violated the email policy. NNN then spoke to Officer Belsito about it. The Investigator askad If the counseling was documented. I said nothing was documented bylgglor the Chief. Page 20 of 35, ccivor Worcester Confidential WwesricarveReroxt (Compaint 2020)‘ate Flea 212026 2:27 PAA Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number after Officer Belsito’ vigorously: lobbied for’ ballistic glass. forthe Service Division window, verbally-and vie errsil I said the Police Chief may have been upset about this because Officer Belsito did not always.go through the:chain of command., 12. MN fas ‘never personally observed officer Belsito: fall to acknowledge the Police Chief. 13, When-asked if the Chief hed ever ordered any other J SII. or ahy other Division official to:discipline someone in their commatid for failing to acknowledge the Police Chict, NN said, not tog knowledge: 14, When.asked if the Chief had ever ordered any other J INE. or any other Division official to discipline someone in their command for violating the email policy, RE 5214, ror tolmmknowiedge, 25. RENN bas never personally observed the Police Chief behave in.a ‘harassing manner or a “bullying” manner to‘any officer the Service Division. ee ere approximately. 25: members with military status iy the Department presently lMsaid in the Service Division there is one person who: hasbeen on military duty for two years and is iow living in Washington:D:Cyggy said'a Sergeant in Operations (aiso:an-attorney) is in the Naval reserve and is-at the We lege now. (The WPD currently has 54 sergeants.) m. a heard the'Police Chief say he'hadicalled Officer Balsito's Air National Guard unit in’ New Hampshire to. check on ‘his stat i knowledge, the Police Chief has:never done that for anyone else| ‘two péople'on mili jave fora year Who are’at the War College (whi 18, ENE s2id the Police: Chief (a veteran himself) is generally provet gy said the Worcester Police Academy offers a 16-ivéek academy (instead of 26 weeks) for individuals inthe NationslGuard or Reserves Who watit to become police officers. (They caf enter the ‘Academy by virtue-of their military status and are nat required to take the civil servicesexam.) 19, ENN s0ia that the Department does not do performance evaluations Igy said they used to doa probationary evaluation, butjj does not think they even do that anymore. Page 21 oF 35 Creve Woncesren ‘Confdeil nesroat Revo (omelet 2020)Date Flea 27/2028 227 Pat Superior Court - Wercestor Docket Number 8. Police Chief Steven Sargent (Respondent) ‘On Monday, November 30, 2020, | interviewed Police Chief Sargent. This is what he sald: 1. Chief Sargent said he has been with the WPD for nearly 35 years. He started as a patrol officer and worked his way up through the ranks. He was made Police Chief nearly 5 years ago. His father, a Lieutenant in the WPD who passed away two years ago, was with the Department 33 years. The Chief’s son isa police officer with the WPD, as well 2, The Police Chief said he is a “hands on” person, and gets involved in the day-to- day operations of the Department (which has 500 employees, including civilians), When asked about daily duty assignments within @ division, the Chief said the Captain should be doing them. 4, When asked about discipline within a division, the Chief said that all discipline goes through him — if it is documented, he knows about it. He said that Captain Davenport, Bureau of Professional Standards ("BPS"), speaks for the Chief. 5. The Chief said that counseling sessions are considered “discipline,” but are not always documented 6. The Chief said that personnel files (“201" files) are kept in his office, which contain everything but discipline (commendations, military orders, transfers, etc.). He said the BPS keeps the files with discipline.*> 7. The Chief said he knows that the Service Division window is a tough job. He said ‘a number of those who work there transferred in to have a more stable working environment and then ended up having to deal with difficult people. Nevertheless, the officers must be courteous to the public and provide good service. | explained to the Chief that a confidential complaint had been filed that included allegations of bullying, intimidation, discrimination and harassment by him, and that | was interviewing him as part ofan Independent investigation of those allegations. | explained that he had the right to respond to the complaint, and that our ‘meeting was to give him the opportunity to respond to the allegations made. | reminded the Chief that under the law there can be no retaliation against @ person for having filed @ complaint, or against anyone who has jarticipated in the investigation of the complaint. | explained that | was going to ask ‘questions to gather the facts of this matter. The Massachusetts Personnel Records Statute (M.G.L. 149 5. 52C} (the "Statute", requires an employer to include in an employee's personnel file any “documents relating to disciplinary action.” Moreover, under the Statute, “[a]n employer shall notify an employee within 10 days of the employer placing in the employee's, Personnel record any information to the extent that the information Is, has been used or may be used, to negatively affect the employee's qualification for employment, promation, transfer, additional compensation ‘or the possibility that the employee will be subject to disciplinary action.” Apparently, the Department is not ‘complying with the Statute, as discipline is not included in personnel files but rather is being kept separately by the 8°5. Neither, apparently, isthe required natica to employees being given. Page 22 of 35 Ccrvor Woncesren Confidential WwuesriasiveRerowT (Complaint 2020}Date Filed 2/1/2024 2:27 Pat Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number 8. The Chief said he would not tell someone to work the service window, or even give such an order through the chain of command. He said he might tell someone NOT to work the service window (through the chain of command) because they were not good at it, but would not assign them to it, 9. The Chief said the Department is a paramilitary organization and a patrol officer cannot disrespect him or other police officials. He said this does not apply just to Officer Belsito —he has told others, as well. 10. The Chief said that Officer Belsito has been disrespectful to him for at least a year. He said he heard that Officer Belsito was going to run for a Union position and that Belsito started going to the Union president [Dan Gilbert] (with whom the Chief said he gets along) about bulletproof glass. The Union president then went to the Chief. The Chief told the Union president the glass was in the budget, but it was a process ~he'd have to get bids for the purchase and installation of the glass. The Chief said it was at approximately that time that Officer Belsito would look at the Chief, and then look away without acknowledging him. He said at times, Officer Belsito would sort of look up and barely raise his hand (as if someone had told him to wave). He said this went on for a year, at least. He said he spoke to Jam 2200: 11. The Chief said he wanted no problems with Officer Belsito — he said In nearly S years, he has had only one grievance (which, he said, he almost did not pursue because he “came on the job with the kid").°° He said he has had a few Civil Service hearings over bypasses. The Chief said he tries to be consistent. 12. The Chief said he never worked with Officer Belsito ~ that he did not even know who he was before Officer Belsito sent the email in January 2018 regarding the weights (“per the Chief”). The Chief sald he did not ask anyone to discipline Officer Belsito over the email, but Just tell him not to send such emails in the future. 13. The Chief said he has never come to the Service Division window and stared through it, nor has he come to the window shouting “hello, hello” to anyone. He said he has never stood there and waited for Officer Belsito to wave. He said if he had business there, he would go to the Service Division window. Otherwise, he would not. 14. The Chief said he goes into other Divisions on a daily basis. With respect to the Service Division, he said he mostly just passes through the Lobby and says “hi” to people. He said he goes into the Service Division maybe once a month. | assume the Chief was speaking of the grievance {ie< > II pee eS Page 23 of a5 Conv or Woncesten Confidential esse Reroet (Complaint 2020)Date Fed 21/2024 2:27 PM ‘Supanor Coun - Worcester Dooket Number 15. The Chief had good things to say about a civilian employee, Jodi (LNU), who works in the Service Division. He said she has been there nearly 30 years, has worked everywhere and can do anything that the police officers can do [within the Service Division). He said she is “phenomenal,” 2s ‘s a 16. Email Policy. The Chief said no one has ever been disciplined for violating the email policy. He said if an email comes to his attention that has been sent without prior authorization, he will tell the employee's supervisor to tell the employee to “knock it off,” but not to discipline him. 17. The Desk, The Chief spoke briefly about the desk in the Lobby. He said It was to be a 12-hour shift, that he spoke to NNN about it being staffed by someone from the Service Division (who would be armed and have a bulletproof vest). He said the desk was never manned and was withdrawn. He said he then told SNM] to have “someone in the window” but never named Belsito. The Chief did not understand the upset over the desk. He said the officers assigned would be armed and wear bulletproof vests. He said when COVID first hit and all public buildings were closed, JINN had two officers stationed in the foyer (.e., between the outer and inner double-doors) to answer questions and direct people. He said that went on for a least e month. 18. Assignment to Records Window. The Chief said he did not tell anyone to assign Officer Belsito to the Reports window. He said that JINN told him about the email [between Officers Tom Ferraco and Bob Belsito] ~ asking whether the Chief had seen Tom and Bob’s email? The Chief said [MN was to speak to Belsito about the email and the Chief would speak to Tom. The Chief said Tom apologized to him about it. (He said Tom isa friend of his)27 19. Call to Military Unit. With respect to the Chief's call to Officer Belsito’s Air National Guard Unit, the Chief said the following: (a) He said just a day or two before his call, he attended an EOC [Emergency Operations Center] meeting at which a staffing plan review was conducted relative to COVID. At the meeting, which was also attended by a WPD Sergeant (who is a Colonel in the National Guard), he was advised that the Massachusetts National Guard would not be calling up any municipal “mandatory” [essential] personnel in response to the COVID pandemic. {b) The Chief said at the time, | ‘who had been working remotely and coming in only occasionally, told him about Officer Belsito’s email email to Officer Belsito, dated April 10, 2020, states thai] was “advised through the CChie’s Office” to assign him to the Service Division [Records] window. In a follow-up cal t MERE ic not recall exactly who in the Chie'’s Office directed, but gg guess would be that it we MR > 2 coll to NNN. acknowledged that the Chief instructed gl to assign Belsito to the Records window. Page 24 of 35, chy or WorcesrER Confidential nvesncave RDORT (Complaint 2020)‘Date Fld 21/2024 2:27 PM Superior Court - Worcestor Docket Number concerning his deployment, and that there was no paperwork on her desk for it.2® He said Ij insisted jj did not have it. The Chief said he then went downstairs to the Service Division to see if he could locate the paperwork? He said [IJ wes gone by the time he came back upstairs.“ (c)_ The Chief said ordinarily he would have had IM) call Officer Belsito’s Unit, but was gone so he made the call himself, He said when he realized Officer Belsito’s Unit was in New Hampshire and not Massachusetts, it became a non-issue. (¢) When asked where he had gotten the phone number of Officer Belsito’s unit, the Chief said he could not recall where he got the phone number. When asked if the area code gave him any indication of where he was calling, he said he could have been calling “the Pentagon” for all he knew. The Chief did recall that the paperwork from which he obtained the number said if he had any questions to call, so he did.“ {e}__ The Chief said he wanted to find out from Officer Belsito’s unit whether Belsito had been ordered to deploy or whether he had requested the deployment. When reminded that it made no difference with respect to Officer Belsito’s entitlement to military leave, the Chief simply responded that he had no paperwork and as far as he was concerned the leave had not been “authorized.” (f) When asked to explain why, as a veteran himself, who knows that being AWOL is a serious offense, he would use that term both internally when looking for Officer Belsito’s paperwork in the Service Division and again when he left the message at Officer 3 Officer Belsito notified I 2° Am by email, dated April 22, 2020, 8:40am, that he had been deployed to New Hampshire for COVID 18 and that his finished paperwork w2s in I Dox RINE "ec on April 23, 2020, 12:52pm, saying that I did not yet have the paperwork, and that the Chief was asking lj 10 provide 2 point of contact for the deployrn=nt. TE relied to MRE #122307 the same day thasgyy had placod the paperwork ing Miltary Folder on the counter ‘om the other side of desk at approximately 11:30am that morning, (Exo 13) ‘According to Sergeant and the Officer who were on duty in the Service Division that day, the Chief came in looking for military paperwork for an officer who was “AWOL” from the Department. The Sergeant said the Chief did not mention Oificer Belsito by name, but they knew who the Chief meant since Officer Belsito was the only one from the Service Division who had recently put in for military leave. They knew Officer Belsito \was taking his own time until he went on leave fram the City, but were not sure they mentioned this to the chief. “© | spoke with MMM by telephone on or about December 3, 2020, to see what recalled about the submission of Officer Belsito’s military paperwork in April 2020. ET really did not remember anything about it, and that Officer Belsito was usually “squared away” with his paperwork, Notably, the Memorandum from the New Hampshire Air National Guard, dated April 22, 2020, attached with his Orders to Officer Belsito’s request for leave, aso dated April 22, 2020, includes the following statement: "if you have any questions, please feel free to contact the unit at (603) 430-2340.” (ArvAchMenT 2). Pease Alt National Guard Base, New Hampshire, is in the heading. Moreover, the area code for New Hampshire is "603." Notably, in the voicemail message left by the Chief (in which he did not identify himself by name, but only that he was calling from the Chief's Office of the WPO), he said “here in Massachusetts” [that the National Guard had not been called upl, thereby indicating that he knew he was calling outside of ‘Massachusetts, Page 25 of 35 ‘crv oF WorcesTeR Confidential aves ReroRe (Complaint 2020)Date Filed 2712024 227 PM Superior Cour - Worcester Docket Number Belsito’s Air National Guard Unit,“? the Chief repeated that he had no paperwork and the leave had not yet been authorized, so as far as he was concerned, Officer Belsito was absent without leave. (Notably, the voicemail message the Chief left with Officer Belsito’s Unit said, “He just put his paperwork in and did not wait for an authorization, so as far as we're concerned, he could be AWOI from our department.” See FN 19, Based on that message, itis clear the Chief knew that Officer Belsito had submitted his military paperwork.) {g) When asked why he had not returned the calls from Officer Belsito’s Air National Guard Unit, the Chief said he had not received the messages - that no one told him about the calls (h) When asked to explain what he meant when he said (in his response to the CMSgt's May 4, 2020, email) that Officer Belsito’s paperwork had been “tied up in the chain ‘of command,” he said it had been ~ that he did not have the paperwork when he called. When the Investigator pointed out that it was submitted by Officer Belsito one day (April 22) and ‘turned into the Chief's office the next (April 23), the Chief smiled and said something like, “Yes, if it actually was,” as if he did not believe it. The Investigator explained that there was an email {rom TS 0 MME, sent at approximately 1:15pm (April 23}, stating that the paperwork had been in jj folder since 11:30am that morning. The Chief had no response. pap ()) The Chief said that most people take “furlough” (ie, use their own time) before going on military leave. When the Investigator told him that Officer Belsito had, as well, the Chief said that nobody relayed to him that Officer Belsito was on “furlough.” () The Chief said that JE wes a wonderful person but a bit of a “stickier” who kind of drove other staff members a little crazy. The Investigator asked how much of a “stickier” Ig) could be when jg was apparently unable to find the military paperwork placed in gigj own folder and did not find out that Officer Belsito was using his own time before going on military leave from the City. The Chief had no response. {k) When asked if he had ever called any other member's military unit to find out their status, the Chief responded, “I never had to.” 20. The Chief said that Officer Belsito has a problem with him and that he has twice tried to speak to him to find out what the problem is. He said the first time was on February 18, 2020, when he called Officer Belsito to his office. He said Officer Belsito insisted on having a Union rep there, even though he told him it was not a disciplinary matter. He said the second ‘time was on May 24, 2020, when Officer Belsito was returning from military leave, and Officer Belsito was totally disrespectful to him. ‘The Investigator asked the Chief about his own military service. He said he had been in the Army, and served in the military police. He went to basic training and to the military police academy at Ft. McLellan In Alabama He was deployed to Frankfurt, Germany, and then served in the reserves before getting out. Page 26 of 35 wor WoncesteR Confidential ves Reroxt {Complaint 2020)Date Fted 27/2026 2:27 Pmt Suparer Court - Worcester Docket Number 21. May 24, 2020, incident, The Police Chief described the events of May 24, 2020, as follows: (a) The Chief said he had just returned from a run and was feeling good. He said he saw Officer Belsito, who was just returning from a 30-day military leave, ahead of him and called out, “Welcome back.” The Chief said when Officer Belsito did not respond, he called ‘out “Welcome back” a second time. When Officer Belsito still did not respond, he said he came closer and said ita third time, and may have been a bit “sarcastic” when he said it a third time, (b) The Chief said Officer Belsito was on the telephone and told the person with whom he was speaking, “I've got to get off the phone, someone’s here,” or words to that effect. The Chief said Officer Belsito said it in an irritated manner. The Chief said he never told Belsito to hang up the phone. {c]__ The Chief said Officer Belsito became upset and said, "What's your problem?” The Chief said Belsito kept walking towards the door and would not engage. The Chief said he then got in his cruiser and drove away. {d) The Chief said he did not recall calling Officer Belsito back out of the building, but may have still been talking to him.‘ (e) When asked if he had spoken to anyone about the incident afterwards, the Chief said he spoke to NNN and said, “The kid's got to show respect,” and that he wanted [NNN to speak with him, The Chief said the WPD means everything to him and it must be respected. He said if it was “personal,” he would have disciplined Officer Belsito allong time ago. (f) When asked if he had spoken to anyone else about the May 24" incident, the Chief said he wanted Captain Davenport to do a full investigation, but then dropped it. He said he did not talk to BPS, but to MN. He said he might have talked to im HE 201 it and he might have talked to the City Manager, becouse they discuss things like that. ‘The videos of the incident show the Chief following Officer Belsito to the entrance of the building, Officer Belsito entering the building, the Chief following Officer Belsto through the double doors of the building and gesturing for him to come back outside. The Chief's body language is aggressive trom the start of the ‘encounter, and its apparent that Oificer Belsito Is anxious to get away from the Chief. (See Videos 2-10), Page 27 of 35 ‘chy oF WorcesTeR Confidential vesmcarive RexOxr (Complaint 2020)Date Filed 212024 2:27 Pat Superior Court - Worcester Docket Number (g) The Chief said he just told “therm” NNN to talk to him. He s2id NNN counseled Officer Belsito.“* (h)__The Chief said he spoke to [NNN about the incident of May 24, 2020, and NNN said would take care of it. He said MMMM asked him not to Fequest an investigation by BPS over the incident.*® ())__ The Chief said he has “no ill will” towards the complainant. He said he is “old schoot” and just likes to “talk it out.” He says he “talks with [his] hands.” 22, The Chief said that the Union came to the Chief about a [hardship] transfer for Officer Belsito to the Court House. He said he agreed give him one on a 4/2 schedule, but not \M-F because there was no opening. He said he told the Union that if a M-F opening came up, Officer Belsito could bid on it. 23, The Chief said he believes the complaint has been filed to retaliate against him for not agreeing to a 5/2, M-F schedule for the complainant's requested transfer to the Court House, but that he would not be “bullied” into agreeing to a schedule he could not support. He said the Union told him that Officer Belsito may file a grievance over it. The Chief said, so be it. Officer Belsito did not file a grievance 24. The Chief said repeatedly that the WPD is a paramilitary organization and that he must be shown respect. He said again that if this were “old school,” Officer Belsito would have been terminated for disrespect. IV. FINDINGS oF FACT Based on the evidence, | find the following: 1. __ Officer Belsito has been employed by the City of Worcester as a Patrol Officer for nearly 20 years, and has worked in the Service Division for approximately 5 years. 2. I NE MR escribe him as “very knowledgeable,” “trustworthy,” “dependable,” and “accurate.” They say he gets along well with others and deals well with the public. 3. There are several commendations in Officer Belsito’s personnel file, There is no documentation of any discipline. 4. Officer Belsito is a Master Sergeant in the New Hampshire Air National Guard. 5. Police Chief Steven Sargent has been employed by the City of Worcester In its Police Department for approximately 35 years. He has been its Police Chief for nearly 5 years. “See Counseling Session, dated May 26, 2020. (Exist 17) ‘© As the Investigator understands it, NNN advised the Chief not to requast a 8PS investigation because he cannot be the “victim” and the final arbiter. Page 28 of 35, Conv or Woncesren Confidential bavesrcatv Roar (Complaint 2020)Dato Fed 2/1/2024 2:27 PM ‘Superior Coun - Worcester Docket Number 6. The Police Chief served in the U.S. Army in the military police before joining the ‘Web. On or about January 18, 2018, Officer Belsito sent an email to all Police Officials and Police Officers about weights being dropped in the gym on the second floor, which invoked the Chief’s name ("Per the Chief, no dropping weights”). The Chief took exception to the email and (NNN spoke to Officer Belsito about it. There is no documentation of this in Officer Belsito’s personne file. 8. In February 2019, a citizen’s complaint was filed against Officer Belsito, alleging that he had taken the citizen’s phone, failed to give the citizen identification as requested, and was discourteous to the citizen. A Commander's Investigation was conducted. The Chief's Review sustained two of the three allegations against Officer Belsito. The allegation of discourtesy was not sustained. Officer Belsito was given a Counseling Session, and the matter was closed. Documentation of the counseling was kept with the citizen's complaint, but not placed in Officer Belsito’s personnel file. 9. Officer Belsito had two prior Citizen’s Complaints, in July 2012 and January 2014, respectively, prior to Chief Sargent’s tenure. An “unfounded” determination issued in each instance. 10. Following an email from the Police Chief, dated February 12, 2020, a desk was briefly placed in the Lobby of the police station, which was to be manned by an officer from Service Division to take reports and vet individuals coming into the building. The desk was removed from the Lobby within a day or two of being placed there and was never manned. 11. On or about February 18, 2020, the Police Chief ordered Officer Belsito to a meeting in his office, at which time the Police Chief told Officer Belsito that he was not going to disrespect him and that he disrespected him by not waving and by turning his back. No documentation of the meeting was placed in Officer Belsito's personnel file. 12, On March 25, 2020, Officer Belsito posted some pet items that he wished to give away via email. The same day, MMMM called Officer Belsito, at the Chief's request, to tell him that he had violated the email policy. There is no documentation of an email violation in Officer Belsito’s personnel file 13. On April 10, 2020, Officer Belsito responded to an email sent by another patrol officer (“Wow, Thanks Tom.”), The same day, Officer Belsito was permanently assigned to the Service Division [Records] window at the instruction of the Police Chief as punishment for responding to the email. The officer who sent the email was not disciplined. 14. Several emails were sent by other Department members offering items for sale - both before Officer Belsito’s March 25, 2020, email and after his April 10, 2020, email, response. No other Department member was ever disciplined for email policy violations. Page 29 of 35 crvor Worcester Confidential Ives GkW= REPORT (Complaint 2020)Dba Files 2/2024 2:27 PM Docket number perior Court - Worcester 15. On April 22, 2020, Officer Belsito, a Master Sergeant in the New Hampshire Air National Guard, submitted his completed paperwork for a 31-day military activation, The paperwork was placed in i! czilbox. 16. On April 23, 2020, at approximately 11:30am, SM placed Officer Belsito’s completed military paperwork in the military folder kept by a EB 90 tiicc INN by email at 1:23 that had done so. 17. On April 23, 2020, the Police Chief, apparently having been told by am that lj did not have the paperwork, went to the Service Division office to look for it. The Chief indicated to Officer Belsito's co-workers that Officer Belsito may be “AWOL” from work. 18. At approximately 2:00pm, on April 23, 2020, the Police Chief called Officer Belsito’s Air National Guard unit in New Hampshire and left @ voicemail message. He did not identify himself by name, and said only that he was calling from the “Chief's Office” of the Worcester Police Department.” He stated that Officer Belsito had put in his [military] paperwork but did not wait for authorization, and “as far as we're concerned, he could be AWOL from our department.” 19, The Police Chief has never called the military unit of any other member of the Worcester Police Department to check on their status. 20. On April 24, 2020, Officer Belsito’s military paperwork, as signed by the Police CChief, was faxed from the Chiefs office to the City’s Human Resources Department. 21, The Chief Master Sergeant in Officer Belsito’s Air National Guard Unit left messages for the Police Chief on three occasions in an attempt to resolve any concerns the Department may have had about Officer Belsito’s status, but never received a return call from the Police Chief. 22. On May 4, 2020, the CMSGT confirmed to the Chief by email that Master Sergeant Belsito was placed on a 31-day order beginning April 17, stating MSGT Belsito was “an exemplary member of the organization and represents your Department and the Citizen Soldiers of New England with honor and pride.” 23. The Police Chief responded to the CMSGT by email on May 4, 2020, stating “After contacting your office, Officer Belsito’s paperwork was signed off on” and that “The Paperwork was tied up within his chain of command at the WPD.” 24. Officer Belsito has been observed by his co-workers acknowledging the Chief on multiple occasions. 25. Officer Belsito has never been observed by his co-workers or by his officials failing to acknowledge the Chief when he has encountered him, or turning his back to him, 26. The Police Chief has been observed walking through the Lobby yelling “Hello, hello, hello,” and stopping in front of the Records window where Officer Belsito was working. Page 30 of a5 Cchv.or WorcesreR Confidential vesncarve RePoxr (Complaint 2020)Date Filed 2/1/2024 2:27 PM Supenor Cour - Wierester Dookat Number 27. The Police Chief has been observed standing in the Lobby facing the Records window and waving his arms as if to get Officer Belsito’s attention. 28, The Police Chief has been observed staring through the Service Division window in Officer Belsito’s direction with a “mean look” on his face. 29. It is common knowledge in the Service Division, and perhaps throughout the Department, that the Police Chief has a problem with Officer Belsito. 30. Officer Belsito now tries to avoid the Police Chief when he sees the Chief pulling into the parking lot or walking towards the building. 31. The Police Chief agreed to transfer Officer Belsito to the Court House on a 4/2 schedule, but not on the usual 5/2 (M-F) schedule. No other officer has ever been assigned to ‘the Court House on anything other than a 5/2 schedule. V.— Conctusions Based on the Findings of Fact, | conclude, as follows: A. Police Chief 1, The Police Chief insists he has no “ll will” towards Officer Belsito, but his actions belie his statement. The Chief, for example, has ordered administrative actions (counseling) against Officer Belsito for email violations that he has excused in other members of the Department. Additionally, he ordered the assignment of Officer Belsito to the Records window, on or about April 10, 2020, ostensibly for an email violation. Additionally, the Chief has been witnessed staring through the Service Division window at Officer Belsito, gesturing outside the window to get Officer Belsito’s attention, and walking through the Lobby calling, "Hello, hello” as he approached the window. 2. Moreover, the Chief's interaction with Officer Belsito outside the Police Department on May 24, 2020, which was captured on security video, was entirely inappropriate. A Police Chief - who has all the power ~ should not engage a patrol officer, who has no power, in @ “showdown,” particularly in a public setting. As well, the Chief's description of the May 24 incident was not credible and very much at odds with the security video. 3. Additionally, the Chief’s agreement to transfer Officer Belsito to the Court House, but only on a 4/2 schedule instead of the customary 5/2 schedule (the Court House is, only open Monday through Friday), was further evidence of his campaign against Officer Belsito. Page 31 of 35, ‘cry oF WorcesteR Confidential vesmcaTWe REPORT (Complaint 2020}