Some Analysis of the Court's Decision

Pulling some of my own stuff out of the transcript yesterday's injunction decision by the Honorable Donetta Ambrose, U.S. District Court Chief Judge.

[Catherine McNeilly's] e-mail and the attached disciplinary action report were sent to inform city officials of her belief that the nominee for the position of Public Safety Director had improperly interfered with her attempt to discipline a police officer, who was the brother of the woman with whom Regan lived, and her concerns that Regan because of his improper interference was a poor candidate for the high-ranking position of Public Safety Director, which position would give him supervisory authority to control police officers and the entire Police Department, among other things. This was clearly a matter of public concern.

Of course I must also consider whether Plaintiff did this in good faith. Was her belief a good faith belief? Well, I just want to review what Plaintiff knew that led her to this belief. She knew, for one thing, that Regan had interfered with Commander Brackney's attempt to cite Duke's Tires, and that Regan had told Commander Brackney that Duke's Tires had friends in the Mayor's office, and that Commander Brackney would be walking a beat if she did not cooperate.

She knew that Regan had interfered in the discipline of another police officer who, through the chain of command, received termination that was later overturned.

She knew that Regan had interfered in the Police Department by ordering Chief Costa to promote Rende to detective even when Costa knew Rende did not have a record meriting promotion to detective; specifically, that Rende had an extensive disciplinary history and had, in fact, once been fired and then reinstated.

After examining Rende's file, she knew and found multiple instances where Rende had abused the Police Department's sick leave policy to an extent that far exceeded any other instance she had seen in her opinion.

At this stage, Catherine McNeilly began a series of actions to discipline Rende for his abuse of sick time. The Judge's comments, which detail a timeline of reports, enquiries, e-mails, discussions, and meetings on Ms. McNeilly's part, are already detailed and illuminated quite well over at The Burgh Report. This sequence of events culminated in September, when Ms. McNeilly was told by then-Chief of Police Dom Costa that, "... she just didn't understand everything that was at play. No one told Plaintiff at that time that Regan had nothing to do with Rende's disciplinary action report. Rather, she was told by the Chief that she just didn't understand..."

So in other words, she knew Regan's history. She knew that he had a history of interfering with police matters. Including disciplinary matters. And especially including disciplinary matters concerning Officer Rende. Then, when her disciplinary report about Rende falls into a virtual black hole, she is told that she "... just didn't understand everything that was at play...", by Dom Costa himself. This is the same Dom Costa who testified, under oath, that he was ordered (not requested, or even recommended) to promote Rende to Detective by Mr. Regan.

The judge concludes that Ms. McNeilly had a "... a good faith belief that Regan had improperly interfered in Police Department matters...". I guess judges have to put things in relatively sedate terms. That's why I'm not a judge.

Here's how I would put it. It is a lock-solid certainty, an absolute truth, and a clear and unmistakable fact that Dennis Regan improperly interfered in Police Department matters, and that he did so more or less based only on his own particular whims at any given moment in time. Therefore, he did do things that were wrong, possibly even illegal. Therefore, the Mayor's "investigation" into Mr. Regan's conduct -- if we ever get to see it -- is nothing more than a steaming pile of fetid horseshit.