http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/09/16/news/news12.txt
And as a side note, it looks as though the natives are getting restless:
http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/09/08/news/news07.txt
Judge rules against store owner; Says chief had right to deny firearms license
By CHRISTOPHER WALKER
The Patriot Ledger
QUINCY - A court upheld Quincy Police Chief Robert Crowley’s decision to deny a downtown sporting goods store a license to sell firearms in a case that further riled gun advocates already frustrated by the chief’s policies on granting permits.
Superior Court Judge Wendie Gershengorn ruled that Crowley was within his authority to deny a license to sell guns to Ronald Hidalgo, the owner of the Sportsman’s Den on Southern Artery, because of a 20-year-old assault charge and a 6-year-old restraining order.
Both cases were ultimately dropped, but a state law giving police chiefs broad discretion in deciding who is qualified for a gun permit doesn’t contradict Crowley’s reasoning, the judge ruled.
Hidalgo, who has owned the store for 10 years, filed the lawsuit last year, asserting that the chief was abusing his authority essentially because he could.
Hidalgo has a Quincy-issued licensed to carry a handgun and earned approval from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to be a gun dealer before he was shot down by Crowley.
‘‘Somebody has to explain to me how I can be perfectly suitable to carry a firearm, but I can’t sell one. I just can’t wrap my brain around that,’’ Hidalgo said.
‘‘He’s hurting me financially, taking money out of my pocket just because he wants to be the guy in charge. It’s ridiculous,’’ Hidalgo said.
Hidalgo said he doesn’t think he’ll appeal the court ruling because he has already spent $20,000 and doesn’t think he can afford to take the fight any further.
He said he’s now considering moving his business out of Quincy because of the financial strain.
Crowley’s original denial was backed by State Police, and Hidalgo filed his lawsuit challenging that ruling.
Both the State Police and the judge acknowledged that there was nothing in Hidalgo’s background that would automatically eliminate him from obtaining a gun dealer’s license. But in her ruling, Gershengorn noted that Hidalgo didn’t surrender his firearms as required by law when the restraining order was issued in 2000.
While Hidalgo testified that he didn’t know he was supposed to give up his guns and that he didn’t have any in his possession when he was served with the restraining order, the judge ruled that he had an obligation to find out what was required of him.
The restraining order expired eight days later, but Hidalgo’s actions left enough gray area to let Crowley make a decision either way on the permit, the judge ruled.
Hidalgo’s license denial last year came months after the chief angered gun advocates with a tightened policy on issuing licenses to carry firearms.
Essentially, Crowley said that residents needed a better reason than just self-defense before he would issue a license to carry handgun.
The mandate sparked outrage from gun rights advocates, hearings at the city council and a handful of lawsuits filed against Crowley in Quincy District Court.
The city has not yet lost a case involving gun permits, said First Assistant City Solicitor Robert Quinn.
‘‘The chief has to make very tough decisions on a day-to-day basis, and the courts have ruled that he’s made the right decision time after time after time,’’ said Quinn said.
Christopher Walker may be reached at [email protected].
And as a side note, it looks as though the natives are getting restless:
http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/09/08/news/news07.txt
Cops don’t back chief
By CHRISTOPHER WALKER
The Patriot Ledger
QUINCY - The city’s police patrolmen declared they have no confidence in Chief Robert Crowley with a vote that widens an already deep schism between police brass and rank-and-file cops.
About 90 percent of the roughly 200-member Quincy Police Patrol Officers Association turned out for the no-confidence vote yesterday, and the result was a ‘‘resounding, overwhelming’’ majority in favor of the largely symbolic measure, said union president Bruce Tait.
Tait refused to provide the tally of the vote, saying officers thought that detailing even that much publicly would risk the vote’s anonymity.
‘‘This sends a clear message to the public and city hall that we’re not happy with the leadership of the department,’’ Tait said. ‘‘In his two years as chief, he’s created a climate where the young guys come to work afraid to do their job, and the older officers just come to work angry and disenchanted.’’
Even before ascending to the chief’s office in 2004, Crowley’s relationship with the patrolmen’s union was strained, a fact seen by his supporters as a sign of a no-nonsense leader unafraid to rock the boat in a department historically lax on order and discipline.
Crowley, who could not be reached for comment on the no-confidence vote last night, offered officers a simple equation for what he expected from them when he took the job: ‘‘Eight hours of work for eight hours of pay,’’ Crowley said at the time.
Nonetheless, the list of grievances grew steadily, culminating in the no-confidence vote yesterday that marks the most serious public criticism of Crowley to date, and the first time any such move has been made against a Quincy police chief.
Critics describe the chief as an overbearing authoritarian too quick to take sides against officers, a micro-manager to a level bordering on the bizarre, and an administrator whose reluctance to pay for overtime poses a safety risk to officers and the public.
The union’s problems were largely confined within the department’s Sea Street headquarters until the last several months, when union leaders started to become much more vocal with their complaints.
Tait railed against Crowley for recommending the firing two officers who were ultimately cleared of drunken driving charges and for spending $25,000 to hire a private investigator to track officers suspected of abusing sick and injured leave.
Tait has even become a prolific blogger, relaying stories sharply critical of the chief on the union’s Web site.
Mayor William Phelan offered a diplomatic tone, saying that ensuring that the police department is doing its job protecting the public is his primary concern. To that end, the department is ‘‘working at its highest level in years. So I’m very satisfied with the work of Chief Crowley as well as the work of the men and women who patrol the city every day,’’ Phelan said.
Phelan acknowledged the rift between the patrolmen’s union and Crowley, saying he believed it stems from a breakdown in communication that clearly needs to be repaired. While management-labor rifts aren’t uncommon, especially in high stress jobs, Phelan said he could be doing a better job to bridge the communication gap.
‘‘It’s incumbent on my office and myself to mend those relationships. To the degree that they have deteriorated to the level they have, I take responsibility for that,’’ Phelan said.
Emphasizing that the no-confidence vote wasn’t just the product of disgruntled union leaders, no members of the union’s executive board voted yesterday or pushed the issue at a previous meeting last week, Tait said.
Union leaders also stressed that the vote had nothing to do with money or with trying to angle for a better negotiating position in ongoing contract talks with city hall.
‘‘For me personally, I think this was long overdue,’’ said Officer Peter Curley, the union’s treasurer. ‘‘There is an absolute atmosphere of fear, and the chief has treated us with nothing but contempt.’’
Christopher Walker may be reached at [email protected] .