Sunday, July 22, 2012

Police Union - Chief Not Concerned With Issues In Department

As The O’Zone has reported for over a month, the vast majority of officers in the Southbridge Police Department are seriously dissatisfied with the leadership of Chief Daniel Charrette.

Of the 29 members of the Southbridge Police Association, 24 voted in favor, 4 opposed and one abstained on a motion that stated, among numerous concerns, that “The level of morale within the department is very low and it is our opinion that Chief Charette is not concerned with the issues within the Police Department.”

As reported earlier, a letter expanding upon these issues has been sent to all town councilors and the town manager.

The text of the letter follows:


  1. Way to lead, Danny Boy--you would have been great leading the Bataan Death march. With leadership like yours, you should be fired and charged with incompetence. So much for doing favors for your friends on the council and in FOS! The chickens finally come home to roast for this bully. No more taking advantage of your pulpit to charge citizens on behalf of councilors. Sayonara, you boob!

  2. The letter says "28 current members of the SPA" with 24 voting in favor, 4 in opposition and 1 abstaining. Where do you get 29 Ken? Someone in the union can't count, apparently...but those union hacks know more and are smarter than a 30 + year veteran Chief who has garnered respect at local, state and national levels throughout his career. (Not on this poor excuse for a blog, but in every other respected forum that is tells both sides of a story).
    Maybe next time the union will do it's research before perpetuating blatant lies and browbeating rookies into such foolishness.

  3. It seems like the SPA is advocating for resources the chief just can't deliver. I can't speak to the issue of morale but it seems most of the complaints are a result of the towns tight finances. My experience with the chief was that he was a strong advocate for the department but he was realistic about the financial constraints the town operates under. Maybe his officers think a new leader would be able to convince the council to increase the department's funding but I don't think this would happen. The chief has always shown me to be a man who cares deeply about Southbridge. It would be a shame if he became a casualty of the towns finances.

    1. Rich, thanks for your comment. I don’t disagree that the bulk of this letter is devoted to matters far more appropriate to a contract negotiation. I think that was a tactical mistake and dilutes the message that the officers were trying to send.
      However, the level to which they have taken matters is symptomatic of far deeper problems. Certainly the rate of turnover and early retirements in the department bespeaks problems that go beyond simple contractual matters. In addition the thinly veiled hostility that comes through is not something to be dismissed lightly.

    2. I respectfully disagree with my friend Rich. I have been on the receiving side of Chief Charette's favoritism. When I had to go to court (and won twice, by the way), I could tell that the officer I dealt with wanted nothing to do with it. He knew it was a joke, but an unnamed officer who was friends with an unnamed former councilor, got Charette to do what he wanted. His abuse of the system in that instance wasn't an anomoly.

      When it came to the Rave and Charette's insistence that it would take NINE months to get test results for drugs/fertilizer from the son of someone he knows all too well, what happened? It was silently dropped. No idea what they found, because he is unwilling to tell me, through a FOIA request. He says it's up to Johnny to tell me, since it's part of a CORI background. Untrue. He would no doubt give out information on Juan Perez if I asked, but not on friends and family.

      Furthermore, when his own cop stole money, a felony, he TOLD the DA he wasn't pressing charges. Didn't ask, TOLD. Would he afford this to you and me? Hell no.

      He has outlived his usefulness. When members of the SPA go to this degree, primarily, from what I understand, for his using his power to demote those that won't do his bidding, he's lost his ability to run this department.

      I don't care how much he supposedly "cares" about Southbridge. How about the police that serve the town? If he was in the military, and this is a paramilitary orgainization, he would be relieved of his command.

      He should be, but I doubt this council will have the courage to do anything, as usual. I don't agree with all of their issues, but the lack of leadership is something no one should turn a blind eye to.

      The officers want someone that they can respect, something he won't ever get a second bite of the apple on. He's lost it, and until a new chief can be named, he should be replaced by the State Police.

      Why no talk from the friends of Carlos Dinghui, who I understand was key in this letter, as to whether they support him or the chief? Dinghui is a good cop. Who do you believe, Carlos, or Charette?

      The Town Manager, his friend, has the ability to terminate him, but he won't.

      It's not who you know...

  4. That letter is a joke. If anyone with half a legal-brain reads it, they would throw it out. There are too many unsubstantiated claims and opinions. There is nothing about the actual workings of the department and how the Chief's action actually impact the ability of the department. Sounds like a whole lot of complaining without the chief telling his side of the story, if he even feels that officers deserve a retort.

  5. Turnover and early retirements? What exactly is the rate? Over what period of time? And what information do you have that links any retirement or transfer to Chief Charette?

    Rich Logan hit the nail on the head.

  6. Ken, You might want to follow up on some of Dennis' claims since there are at least 3 lies perpetuated in his comments. Once again, Dennis has NO IDEA who the so-called "friends & family" are. He would be quite surprised that they are not who he thinks they are.

    1. I always laugh when gutless people such as you complain about others who post anonymously, and then do so yourself. My name is attached to what I write. Sorry if your " guessing game" isn't working, but you need better detective skills...pun intended. Tell us who you are and why I'm wrong? It's not a lie because a gutless, anonymous phony says so. Let me see, the officer who committed a felony, that got a pass...the son of the owner who ran the rave, who got a pass, the son of a councilor, who lost a job, and the brother of a councilor who's bar was closed due to drugs, but was able to sell his license instead of forfeiting iwho detective Mikey and his bluff squad, with Dan giving legal advice. That's five proven situations. Your turn, but I'll only listen if you have the guts to put your name on it. Otherwise, you're all the same person, anonymous. BTW, what person would talk about how respected Danny is? Hmmm, give me a second to figure that out. Monique, where are you on this? Pretty quiet it seems. See, anonymous/gutless, I work for a living, and as much as I like Ken, I have more things to do than pretend to be other people. That's what you're here to do, apparently.

    2. Oh, by the way, "Anonymous", please, enlighten us with the THREE lies. I'd love to hear them, and glad to respond to them...but only if you have the nuts to put your name behind your words. No? Didn't think so.

  7. Laughing hysterically every time I read this blog...July 24, 2012 at 1:30 PM

    Lie #1: "Demoting people who won't do his bidding". Who got demoted?
    Lie #2 : he "told the DA he was not pressing charges" REALLY? You think he (or anybody else) tells Joe Early what to do?

    Lie #3 "unnamed officer who was friends with an unnamed former councilor got Charette to do what he wanted". Self explanatory BS.

    Also, where in the blog posts here does it say you're "pretending to be other people"? I must have been absent that day...

    It's killing you that you're not quite sure if I'm Monique, or in your words..."friends or family". I'm not gutless, just really, really getting a kick out of your reactions. Maybe I'm your ex-friend Marketti! Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants. Funny Dennis, I have gotten to be middle-aged without having weekly drama about friends I've lost or aren't talking to me anymore, blah blah blah.

    Most people who get past age 13 do.

    1. I won't presume to speak for Dennis, but there's no way you're Monique. As much as I may disagree with her she is in no way as venal and small a smudge as you.

    2. Dear Gutless:

      Since I know who you are, I find it hysterical that you keep trying to hide your name. Step forward, you coward. You used to post on my site all the time, and no, you're not Marketti. I know you're not Monique. The question to Monique was separate, sort of like your mind.

      But, in the interest of answering your lies, here goes:

      1. Ryan Ruettger.

      2. Yes. From a FOIA request, I have it in Danny boy's own words that he TOLD the DA he wasn't pressing charges.

      3. Not self-explanatory BS. From the horses mouth, I was told that a cop, related to a sitting councilor, was asked to get involved. He recused himself, to have Ryan Ruettger do the investigation. Ryan's a nice guy.

      It's killing you that you're so scared to actually tell the people who you are, because then you'd look like the ultimate fool, now, wouldn't you?

      You're blah blah blah gave it away. You are so predictable.

      So when are your going to get past 13?

      If you don't step forward, this is the last waste of my breath to you, ... well, we both know who you are, and you know who I am, because I have the guts to step forward.

      If you do, I'll gladly provide the paperwork to back up all of your libelous statements, that show that what I'm saying is dead on...and you know it.

      Get your head out of Danny's ass. Then you might be able to see clearly.

      I did notice you didn't mention the Rave...why is that? That's right, because Danny had the charges dropped last December (got that from court), and no mention of drugs, which is why the CORI story is bullshit.

    3. Thanks Dennis. This clown can go back to the Worcester Telegram comment section where they belong. As far as I'm concerned, they're merely blog pollution.

    4. I agree with you, Ken. Some of these stupid anonymous posters like this one, think they know everything, claim to have proof, and yet, they have none! It's best in my opinion to keep the blog pollution off your site, since people can easily figure out who the poster is, and quite frankly, without their name, they bring zero credibility to what they have to say. I remember seeing on Dennis's site the report from police chief Charette stating that charette did not want to prosecute his police officer. Officers Dingui and Rucker, I understand, have both been demoted. I love people to claim that the facts are wrong, when in fact they're absolutely dead on. This anonymous poster has proven nothing !!!!!

  8. Old time councillorJuly 24, 2012 at 9:46 PM

    lets not forget the demotion of sgt. Haggerty another one of charettes gutless acts because Sgt Haggerty doesnt kiss ass! Chief give it up if you love Southbridge so much, Oh by the way whats your new adress CEDAR LAKE STURBRIDGE????? Dont forget to wear a life preserver Danny!

  9. I don't care for charette, I've been in the town for almost ten years And have gone to him with problems that were totally ignored! I have. Needed southbridge police before and when they come they treated me like a criminal, Charette isn't helping things at all, I think he should be valet parking at u-mass. As for haggerty ya it sucks he got demoted but, he isn't the nicest guy I've ever met. Get. Charette out of this town, the problem is with small towns you go from a sergeant to a chief, compared to other towns and city's you go in rank officer,sergeant,lieutenant,captain,deputy chief even acting chief til another one if found or promoted. He belongs an officer not in the commanding rank.


All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.