Way to go chief. Keep up the great work. Soon you will get Hooksett recognized nationally for our second time.

I think the Chief needs to attend a "Re-training session". When you have to nit pick to find a reason to get rid of an employee, and this isn't the first time (Just ask all the other Officers who have left Hooksett PD). It's time to get rid of the "Nit-pickers".

Boy, I think that Jay Defina is going to be a millionaire when this is all said and done. This is how they do it to run someone out of town. Stay strong Jay and don't be afraid to sue and not only the town but sue them individually as they are acting outside of their jobs!

Its the same old story over and over... The faces change but its still all the same complaints.. Obviously the problem isn't with the men and women but in it's leadership. It is very clear the Chief is on the way out the door now, he just doesn't know it yet. He should have been fired many years ago...

All I know is David Pearl needs to get a life and get out of his basement more often! Get him some training on life skills.

All I know Jim is that you really need some anger management training yourself. You're always barking alot but there's no bite.

As a resident of Hooksett and an observor of this situation, I am troubled by how this is starting to "boil over"; many citizens are making very personal comments at each other in various forums which takes us away from the issue at hand. Albeit that in my opinion David Pearl is a rabblerouser (remember the front page of the Union Leader regarding the computers in the schools? "Hooksett Official, etc...), if it does truly come out that there are problems of such a serious nature as stated, then David (and others) should speak up as long as he states his comments and opinions in an appropriate manner. I do think that David is trying to make the effort to be forthright, however he has gotten caught up in the moment. At this point, it is very hard to have confidence in the leadership at the Police Department because of the negativity. *(At this point the worst thing that could happen is if the citizens committe to remove the Chief is formed. What purpose will it truly serve the Town of Hooksett? Grind more axes? To what avail?) For the most part we have only been privy to one side of the story. What we need is for all of this to be laid out on the table. The Chief has stated that if the circumstances could be revealed then we would all understand. In order to expedite this situation to a much desired conclusion by all parties I propose that Officer Defina release any and all of the contents of his personnel records in order to clear this matter up. If Officer Defina is truly being targeted, and has until now a "spotless" record, then let's see it-the proof is in the pudding. At this point it is the same old stuff, just repackaged, so if this is all true then bring something new to the table and prove it. Otherwise, it's time to drop it and let our elected and appointed officials handle the situation.

Hello JD,

I think it would be better to have the Chief un-seal and release the investigation report from 2005.

As for the Chief's comments about "if you saw their personnel file, you would think different" - well, that itself needs investigation, since it is a violation of privacy and conduct unbecoming.

Personnel files and reprimands are not supposed to be used as a RAP sheet to control or suppress dissent from an officer, those reprimands are to identify to that officer and to his manager where that officer needs training or support.  Reprimands are the last resort, not the first resort:  These things are so that an officer can work on specific skills and better understand procedures and policy.  As for dissent in the form of protect speech; well that should not be punished, it is a means to understand the frustrations of the systems in place, or that the officer is suffering from external pressures - i.e. family, health,etc.

The fact the Chief and the Commission continually use personnel file comments as a means to create doubt on the officers competency is tantamount to "Jury Rigging".  

Sorry JD, a sign of good leadership is someone who picks people up when they fall and helps them complete the mission.

What is also very clear at the hearings - there is such a breakdown in communication (Gagnon mentioned this the other day) that officers have had to resort to "Post It" note Diplomacy - imagine if Defina had said "I would appreciate notice of articles about my job in the paper" directly to his superior, would that be crimes against the state!

That leads me to the fact that the Chief might have lacked candor when he instigated this issue on his own accord.

The Chief did not bring up the SRO program because it was a bad program or that it wasn't working or that the school was not following the laws on reporting - as he explained the other day at the Commission meeting.  He is consistantly chanigng his reasons, seeking scapegoats along the way.

His quote and specific words at Commission meetings, to the Banner and as shown below to the Union Leader as follows:

[Union Leader Reporter] "Defina's position as the town's school resource officer has been the center of controversy in recent months after his full-time hours in Hooksett's three public schools were cut from eight hours to only two hours per day.

Remember the Chief was allowing Defina to stay for 2 hours a day - it doesn't sound like the Chief had a problem with his job performance.  This is where your argument falls apart JD.

[Direct Quote from the Chief] Agrafiotis said it was necessary to alter Defina's schedule so that he could serve as a temporary patrol officer to compensate for department staffing shortages.

If Defina was such an incompetent, why was he given the job of SRO in Late April of 2008 - and if he was such a delinquent, why was he so critical to support patrol operations?  If Defina was such a bad police officer, why was the hours cut to two hours instead of just removing him or replacing him?  You say these questions are not justified, I am sorry they are either blatant lies or they are failure in Candor that are unbecoming of a Chief of Police.

This has the classic retaliatory traits and it is the Commission's job to provide oversight and protect these officers from this type of abuse.

So, you want Defina to show his "Personnel File"?  Why, so the Chief can justify his failure to protect peoples privacy.  I can only hope he did nt let the commission see it already or hope he did not talk about specifics in non-public sessions without the officers having represtnative present.

JD's perspective on things is misdirected and in the end, the people who have stood up and challenged this commission and Chief are justified.

JD,

  Here in lies the problem...  The officers have been complaining for years about how things in thier files are not fair. Furthermore, unlike most agencies, Hooksett keeps EVERYTHING in their files, straight from day one. I know people have suggested that there is a grievance procedure.. Well, first most write-ups that end up in someone personnel file are non-disciplinary write-ups, in other words not grievable. Second, who do you grieve to? This Commission? Please, you see the way they handle things! Henry Roy doesn't even know what they are voting on half the time and he is going to vote on an officer discipline....  What needs to happen is a FULL AUDIT of that department!

In response to "Legal Eagle": The majority of your response doesn't have a whole lot to do with what I initially posted, so I disagree with you that my argument has fallen apart. To get beyond this problem the town needs closure, and it is time to produce real evidence to achieve that end goal. Instead of the citizens bickering back and forth (as we are doing, actually) it is time for the two parties involved to resove the matter. My question to you is why suggest that only the Chief open his files? What light would a four year old inquiry shed on the reassignment of an officer? To imply that the Chief is totally in the wrong is premature at this point. At this point only the Chief and Officer Defina know the truth. Also, it would not be a violation of privacy for Defina to voluntarily provide the information, which is what I was suggesting. It would seem to me that as a "Legal Eagle" you would know that you cannot accuse someone of violating your privacy when you divulged the information. Therefore, I really am not as "misdirected", as you stated. This whole mess that we (the town) are getting ourselves into is supposed to be about solving the problem, not about conjecture and throwing insults at someone simply because their point of view differs from others. I have never stated or suggested at any time or in any forum that questioning what has occured was unjustified. I among many others in town want to know the truth, but I don't want a witch hunt which is what this problem is now evolving into. Citizens are supposed to question what is going on in their government, and at every level. However, there are two sides to this story. So why shouldn't Officer Defina reveal his records? If it is innapropriate and a privacy violation for Defina's records to become known, then it is just as innapropriate for the Chief's records to be revealed. You can't have it both ways.

To JD: I respect that you are conducting this debate in a fair attempt to discover the truth. Everyone wants that. I also appreciate that you are focusing on the facts, and not attacking those discussing them. As you claim, opening up both files should occur. The chief should request from the commission that the investigation be unsealed and opened, as it was sealed from 2005, yet still refuse to release it publicly. If the investigation exonerates the chief as he claims, then why not unseal the report and make it public? Officer Defina's file is not sealed, just private, and that is a big difference. The sealed investigation is not the chief's private personnel file, so it should be public record, at least at this point after years of being sealed, except that they sealed it in perpetuity, presumably to hide something in it. Officer Defina's personnel file is still active and accessaable to the chief, to add more disparaging remarks to it, as the chief is currently doing daily. I guess both you and Legal Eagle want the same thing - the transparent truth. I would then think that a full independent department audit would accomplish both your goals. A full audit should unseal and open the 2005 investigation, and examine department practices on both sides.

The Chief has had his own witch hunts for 10 years (ask those that have left), so now its wrong he is on the other end? Like JD says, Lets have it both ways, lets open the Steve files from 2005, and include the part where they actually interview all these so called "bad apples" that have left. Then open Jay's, and lets see who the problem is! Its all pointless banter as Steve would never open that door, as he knows exactly what lies behind it. Time for him to put his money where his mouth is. Leadership starts at the top, don't infer Officers have "bad files" unless your prepared to open your own for review. But then again, thats a "lead by example concept" which Steve has no concept of. Maybe if he stopped hiding in his office and actually took some time to "talk" to his employees, they might have some respect for him. Here's a quote from the Chief "perception is realiy". Well, Chief, the perception is that you are doing are HORRIBLE job. So based upon your own philosophy, that MUST be reality! He has created this circus, and at the end of the day, even if Jay is gone, the Circus will continue. In less than 10 years, he has hired 33 Officers. How many FT Officers make up the ranks? He started @ 21, and now he's budgeted for 28? Any way you look at it, thats equivalent to over a 100 percent turnover. Jay is 1 person. How many times have we read it, "a fish rots from the head down!" Its time people understand what that means.

WE LOVE SRO DEFINA. we want him back.!

Gosh people need some silly sence slapped into them. SRO defina is amazing at his job and connects with the kids so well. I really hope that he is put back into the schools :)

The purpose of SRO Defina is to be present in OUR children's school lives. To offer them support, to educate them, and to ulimately "do the right thing". How sad it is that politics have taken over, and placed the children on the back burner!

To think that this all started with a letter to the editor. The pen IS mightier than the sword, and should be weilded accordingly. Innocent people are often damaged by reckless rhetoric and rumors. Please think before typing, consider before convicting and pray before posting.

No Mogabe it all started when the police chief was caught in his lies about the severity of the safe school reports, and when it was discovered that there were more incidents than the chief wanted to admit once the truth came out. His lies caused damage to certain reputations of School Board members, a major rift between both agencies, and distrust in town.

Well, the actual "Safe School Reports" were not in the numbers nor severity reported in the letter... In fact, if you watch the video provided by Mr Pearl, (thank you so much David) and pay attention, you'll see and hear the truth. The use of some plurals in the "letter" were unfounded. The reports were there and none were missing. "Knives, drugs and guns..." Sorry, but that sounded like reckless speech, and appeared to be malicious and motivated by ulterior motives to me, considering the actual facts. Creating the appearance of Cawley being so unrealistically unsafe was unfair to Cawley and to our police department as a whole. With all that has been said and done, it is unavoidably apparent that the SRO position turned into something it wasn't intended to be and became too personal and then was politicized because of unrestrained emotions. It's too bad that so many have been damaged by all of this.