Former Hopkinton Police Sgt. Tim Brennan will face the state’s police disciplinary commission at a hearing this Friday that will probe into the circumstances surrounding his controversial firing earlier this year.
Brennan had been working as a Milford Police Department patrol officer for about a month when the Peace Officers Standards & Training (POST) Commission suspended him Aug. 15. He was placed on unpaid administrative leave by the POST Commission pending the outcome of the hearing.
“A suspension hearing for Timothy Brennan is scheduled for Friday, Aug. 30, at 10 a.m.,” stated POST spokesperson Alia Spring in an email Tuesday evening. “The presiding officer is determining whether the hearing will be open to the public.”
The suspension frustrated Milford Police Chief Robert Tusino, who told the Independent he had received approval from the POST Commission before Brennan was hired. Brennan also had completed all of the requirements for certification after receiving conditional certification from the POST Commission upon his hiring. He was sworn in on July 22 by the MPD.
In Brennan’s suspension notice, the POST Commission stated: “The Commission finds by a preponderance of the evidence that suspension of the Respondent’s [Brennan’s] certification is warranted and is in the best interest of the safety and welfare of the public.”
The POST Commission is an agency created in 2020 as part of criminal justice reform legislation. Its intention was to repair the public’s trust in the police as well as to certify officer and investigate allegations of officer misconduct.
Commission to review Hopkinton case
The POST Commission decided to suspend Brennan after looking into his firing in February by the HPD. Police Chief Joseph Bennett recommended Brennan’s termination to the Select Board during a contentious Loudermill Hearing process, with the Select Board voting 4-1 in favor of firing Brennan for violating departmental policy.
Brennan, Bennett said, failed to report information about alleged sexual assaults by a colleague, former Deputy Chief John “Jay” Porter, relating to when Porter was serving as the school resource officer and the alleged survivor was a Hopkinton High School sophomore nearly two decades ago. Porter pleaded not guilty to three counts of child rape in May 2023 in Middlesex Superior Court.
Brennan explained that he was prioritizing the confidentiality and safety of the alleged survivor, who placed her trust in him. He said she told him she would invalidate his claim if he made her information public. Brennan also raised issues about department policy during the hearing.
Porter’s trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 9.
The Loudermill hearing originally began Jan. 19 with a contentious public session at the Hopkinton Senior Center. As the Select Board neared a vote to dismiss Brennan, representatives for Brennan and the town asked for a continuance so that they could discuss a possible solution.
The ramifications of this decision have created a division in town. Staunch advocates for Brennan have pushed for his reinstatement to the HPD as well as for a recall election to remove the Select Board members at that time. They showed their support at the Annual Town Meeting in May with a nonbinding vote calling for Brennan to be reinstated.
Residents in support of Brennan and the alleged survivor continue to appear at virtually every Select Board meeting to question the actions of the Select Board at that time as well as Bennett. Their chief complaint was that an improperly redacted report released immediately after the Loudermill hearing made two references to the alleged survivor that revealed identifying information.
Because of the consequences of releasing the improperly redacted report, the Select Board will consider at Tuesday night’s meeting a draft policy on redacting records which are the subject of requests received pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
Brennan’s case against the town is in arbitration.
The fact remains that he was a mandated reporter. The assault was a crime that should have been reported. A minor is not equipped to make that decision. It was put into to place so that the offender would not be able to harm another victim. It is not a question of whether he is a nice man or not. An officer of the law cannot pick and choose which laws to obey.
As has been stated multiple times, he was NOT a mandated reporter at the time he became aware of the incident, as the incident had happened years before and the victim was an adult at that time. Instead, he was required only by police department policy to report up the chain of command, with one in that chain being the alleged perpetrator.
I feel that we, as residents of Massachusetts, would be better served by the POST Commission focusing on changing reporting requirements so an alternative was available. Of course it is rare that a senior (or any) officer would act criminally but no officer should be required to report to their own department in such a case, particularly in a fairly small department (like most in the state). They should be able to report to an outside agency who can then better guide next steps, ensuring the privacy of the victim and the safety of the public at large.
Well said Peter. I absolutely agree.