Don’t waste chance at police reform on haste

In the aftermath of the Memorial Day killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and other similar deadly incidents, advocates have stepped up the pressure to reorganize or eliminate municipal law enforcement agencies they believe perpetuate systematic racism in their treatment of minorities.

For its ardent supporters, it has become a national crusade. They apparently want to take a broad brush to a problem others perceive as one colored with hues of nuance, which requires a thoughtful, inclusive approach in order to attain a comprehensive, long-term solution.

Our state Legislature has responded like many others across the country by formulating legislation intended to right the racial wrongs practiced by police departments in the commonwealth’s cities and towns.

The Senate — with the end of the formal legislative session fast approaching — seeks to fast-track a sweeping police reform bill that includes limits on qualified immunity, a doctrine that prohibits civil rights suits against government officials, including police, where unconstitutional conduct had not been clearly established as illegal at the time it occurred.

Senate Republicans, who support the majority of the bill’s language but oppose the repeal of qualified immunity, delayed debate on the measure three times last week on procedural grounds.

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, said he believes a less-expansive bill that focuses on areas of agreement is more likely to yield “timely action.”

In their haste to ratify beat-the-clock legislation, Senate Democrats, including Senate President Karen Spilka and Sen. William Brownsberger, D-Belmont, apparently neglected to enlist the input of one group that could provide a unique view into the problem they seek to redress.

So, on the eve of the Senate’s likely resumption of debate on its police-reform bill, black and Latino police officers plus community leaders gathered on the steps of the Statehouse to express their concerns with the bill — including the qualified-immunity provision — and their exclusion from the conversation.

“As a member of an organization that represents advocates for officers of color and as a Black man, I have insight that is necessary to the issues in this bill,” Boston Police Sgt. Eddy Chrispin, president of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers, told the assembled media.

Chrispin, while “wholeheartedly” agreeing that systemic change is needed, took issue with what he called the Senate’s hurried approach.

Added Patrolman David Hernandez of the Latino Law Enforcement Group of Boston: “Let’s stop putting BandAids on … let’s take our time,” a sentiment mirrored by the Rev. Eugene Rivers.

“We were not invited to the table,” said Rivers, who believes the current Senate bill risks squandering an opportunity to enact laws that hold police officers to high standards.

Chrispin said rather than rushing, it’s more important for the reform legislation to be done “right.”

“We are not Minneapolis; we are not Ferguson … to judge us by those standards is unfair and unreasonable,” he said.

We believe Boston Police Commissioner William Gross — along with Lowell Police Chief Kelly Richardson and Fitchburg Top Cop Ernest Martineau — share Chrispin’s frustration with being lumped in with some clearly dysfunctional police departments nationwide.

Maybe now that the sentiments of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers have been publicized — thanks to the Boston Herald, which led its Monday edition with this story, unlike that liberal bastion of Boston journalism, which buried it pages deep in its Metro section — the Senate will rethink the pace and content of its bill.

This subject deserves a robust, all-encompassing debate, not a rush to judgment.