The charity’s approach will include introducing hardy cattle and Welsh mountain ponies to the land, with ancient breeds of pigs to follow. Their grazing and roaming will support habitat restoration. Peatland rewetting and natural water retention across the site over the next five to ten years means the project will contribute to increased biodiversity, cleaner water, healthier soils, improved carbon storage and reduced flood risk for downstream farmland. It is hoped these actions will create conditions to boost various species, with the potential for red squirrels, pine martens, polecats, curlews and hen harriers to return. The charity also aims for much of the work to be carried out by local tradespeople. Community participation will also help uncover and share stories of those who lived and worked across the site’s 55 historic stone landmarks, from Bronze Age cairns to traditional upland buildings.
The house was built in 1745 for Peter Legh after he married heiress, Anne Wade. The building was extended in 1845 by his grandson, Peter and remodelled in 1858 into an Italianate style by Edward Habershon for John Legh, a nephew of Mr Legh. In 1917, the Legh family auctioned the hall and estate. .... Historic England says it was listed for ‘demonstrating fine craftsmanship in the brickwork and stone detailing’ of each phase. Special features include the unusual and well-preserved first floor conservatory with a curved glass roof. The good survival of interior features and decoration from all three building phases using high quality materials and a high degree of craftsmanship.
In 1927, Bobby and his queer working-class friends gathered in his Fitzroy Square flat. Though surveillance documents, we can learn about these vibrant gatherings, the people involved and the passionate, intimate letters that survive. These records offer a rare insight into queer lives of the time.
***
How Not To Do Heritage, we feel (guy has quite rightly been getting crapped on on social media): History professor finds huge Iron Age hoard: 'The collection will be auctioned at Noonans in Mayfair on 4 March as part of a coins and historical medals, external sale.'. Observe the guy's creepy smirk in the photo.
I’m off for the holiday, so here’s an older post from the archives. This was originally published in 2016.
A reader writes:
I’m currently interviewing for a new position with a company that works remotely. Over the past two weeks, I’ve had 10+ video calls with every member of the small team, along with a bunch of unpaid work tests that have included everything from client proposals to personality tests. It’s starting to feel like a full-time job just interviewing with them. I was willing to do all of this because the company is one that I know well with a social mission that I really believe in. I was even willing to accept that they are paying a good $20k below what is normal.
I was told that it was down to me and one other person and they were planning on making a decision this week. Today I got an email asking me to send one to two references in each of five categories. One of those categories is “coworker(s) that you didn’t get along with.” They say they want all of these references to get a complete picture of who I am and how I work, but this feels like a weird ask to me. There haven’t been many coworkers that I’ve had problems with and most are far in the past (5+ years) and were fired from their jobs. They aren’t people I’d want talking to a potential future employer on my behalf, even if I did have a way to contact them and ask if they’d be willing. I have plenty of great “normal” references and a solid work history with a portfolio to prove it, which seems like plenty to base their decision on in addition to the many phone calls and tests.
Am I off-base for feeling uncomfortable with what they’re asking of me? Is there a way that I can provide standard references and address my concerns of feeling uncomfortable without turning them off too much? I’m worried that I might have wasted a lot of time with this whole process.
What the actual F.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. 10 video calls over two weeks is absurd — it’s disrespectful of your (and their) time, and it’s indicative of a company that has no clue how to hire — and not even enough of a clue to realize that Something Doesn’t Seem Right About What We’re Doing. And now five to ten references, over five different categories? And names of coworkers who you didn’t get along with?
No. That is not reasonable.
References are valuable. And sure, in theory I’d love to be able to talk to a dozen people who worked with a candidate, with a whole bunch of different vantage points. I’d also like to have a video reel of the highlights of their last two years of work, a transcript of every time they got frustrated with a manager or a coworker, and a live blog of their last performance review meeting.
I can’t have those things because hiring doesn’t work that way. You will never know absolutely everything that you could know about a candidate. You do your best, based on a reasonable number of interviews, work samples, observations, and discussions with a handful of references. If you don’t feel like you have enough to confidently move forward with someone after doing that, they’re probably not the right candidate — or you need to seriously revisit your hiring practices. It’s not okay to put the burden of weak hiring practices or shaky confidence in your own judgment on to the candidate, and make them pay the price in the form of dozens of hours of interviews and exercises and tests, or to ask them to place an unreasonable burden on people they know.
You can never look under every single rock. Asking to be put in touch with coworkers who you didn’t get along with is just … ugh, it’s just not okay. They have to know it’s going to cause you a tremendous amount of discomfort (and the coworker too, I’d assume), and since they have no way of judging what happened between the two of you, they have no way of knowing how much weight to give whatever that person might say to them.
And really, it’s so very unreasonable that it’s worth you refusing. This is not a company you should continue placating. I’d seriously consider telling them, “This seems like overkill to me. This is exponentially more information than I’ve ever been asked for before by an employer. We’ve already had 10+ video calls and I’ve completed numerous tests for you. These aren’t reasonable demands to make of job candidates. I was very interested in working with you, despite the below-market salary, but I’m alarmed enough by these practices that at this point I’m withdrawing my application.”
But if you are absolutely committed to continuing, then I suppose you could say: “Hmmm, I’ve never really had any significant problems with coworkers, but I’m providing names and contact information for a variety of people who can speak to my work.”
(Or maybe you can just give them my contact info as one of your references so that I can give them a piece of my mind? No? Fine.)
An underground site uses facial recognition to reveal the site a camgirl streams on, potentially letting someone take a woman’s photo from social media, then use the site to out their sex work.
The site presents a serious privacy risk to sex workers, some who may not want stalkers, harassers, or employers to discover their profiles. The site’s creator claimed to 404 Media that millions of searches are done each month on the site.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey spoke forcefully against ICE at a January 29 press conference, announcing a new executive order and legislation that she said were aimed at “protect[ing] the people of Massachusetts.”
“Federal agents,” the governor said, have been “instigating, antagonizing and, yes, causing violence in communities. People have been killed. … We’ve seen mothers and fathers ripped out of cars and from the arms of their children. United States citizens have been stopped, arrested and detained. Their homes broken into without a warrant. Citizens have been threatened with being put on a domestic terrorist watch list simply for holding a cell phone and filming ICE agents we’ve seen assault peaceful protesters.”
Healey’s executive order bans federal immigration agents from making civil arrests in non-public areas of state facilities without a judicial warrant or using state property like parking lots and parking garages for staging immigration-enforcement activities. And her legislation, if adopted, would ban federal immigration agents from making civil arrests at schools, childcare centers, churches, hospitals, health clinics, and courthouses without a judicial warrant.
However, neither of Healey’s initiatives will stop state and county officials from continuing to work directly with ICE to remove people from the state. Healey said at the press conference that she supports the Massachusetts Department of Correction’s 287(g) agreement to assist ICE with deportations. And her legislation would not prevent Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald from continuing to jail people whom federal officials have accused of civil immigration violations.
Jonathan Cohn, policy director of Progressive Mass, said the group was “glad to see that Governor Healey is finally being more vocal about ICE’s abuses.”
“However, it is disappointing to see that she still refuses to terminate the only existing 287(g) collaboration agreement in the state,” he added. “This agreement uses our state employees to do ICE’s work. It is unconscionable to think that Massachusetts is doing anything to make ICE’s work easier when they are acting like a rogue agency of death squads.”
In a statement, Rev. Annie Gonzalez and other leaders of the Boston Immigration Justice Accompaniment Network called Healey’s new initiatives a “win.” “It’s a win because people have pushed Healey to do something which is a good sign for our political strength,” the BIJAN statement said. “It is also not nearly enough.”
However, the group questioned whether Healey’s executive order and legislation are enforceable.
“We will have to see how it plays out,” the statement said. “Will ICE just wait outside courthouses and hospitals instead of going inside? Or will they totally ignore the law about warrants and just do whatever they want as they have been doing?”
BIJAN also criticized Healey for refusing to end the DOC’s 287(g) agreement and for not doing anything to stop the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department from assisting ICE.
“This does little to actually limit ICE’s access to our state’s resources,” the group said.
As The Boston Globe reported in August: “The pact … empowers DOC staff to alert ICE that an inmate may be wanted for deportation, and to interrogate anyone who is detained at a DOC facility and is believed to be here undocumented about their right to remain in the United States. It also allows for such DOC officers to process immigration violations of deportable or undocumented immigrants, prepare charging documents, and issue immigration detainers.”
During her more than three years as governor, Healey has left the DOC’s 287(g) agreement in place and touted her participation in the program.
“We have an agreement when people are getting out of … prison here in Massachusetts and they are here unlawfully, notice goes to ICE,” she said during a June interview with WBZ. “We have a regular working relationship with ICE.”
At her January press conference, Healey said she was “prohibiting state agencies from entering into any new 287(g) agreements unless there is a clear and imminent public safety need.” But that part of her executive order contains so many caveats as to be completely meaningless. By only prohibiting new agreements, Healey is keeping the existing one.
“I actually support that agreement,” she said. “When you’re incarcerated under … the custody of the Department of Correction, that means you’ve done something pretty bad.”
Healey’s executive order also includes a vague “public safety” exception, which leaves her the option of entering into new agreements while claiming that she’s still following the order.
“If there is an instance of imminent threat to public safety, then my secretary of public safety will certify that’s appropriate, and that may happen,” she said.
According to the Globe’s story from August: “Under the agreement, Massachusetts officials turned over 164 people who were in DOC custody to ICE in 2023 and 2024, the vast majority of whom—more than 95 percent, state officials said—had been convicted of ‘serious’ drug crimes or violent crimes.”
However, a spokesperson for the Healey administration did not respond to The Mass Dump’s questions, including a request for data on what specific crimes, if any, people whom the DOC turned over to ICE were convicted of and whether the governor believes ICE is respecting those people’s civil rights.
“Governor Healey’s own clemency guidelines acknowledge that our criminal legal system is marked by stark racial disparities, and that migrants face unequal treatment,” said Leah Hastings, an attorney at Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts. “ICE’s 287(g) program takes people from that system and funnels them into a deportation machine with no right to appointed counsel, minimal due process protections, and horrid conditions. … We urge the governor to end it.”
Healey only included the prohibition on new 287(g) agreements in her executive order, not in the proposed legislation. That means that even if her bill becomes law, she or a future governor could still rescind the 287(g) restriction at will.
The executive order does not prevent sheriffs or local law enforcement from entering into 287(g) agreements. That would require legislation—and the bill proposed by Healey does not include such language.
“That’s a county issue”
Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald has played a key role in ICE’s ability to detain people and transport them out of Massachusetts.
McDonald’s department has a collaboration agreement to jail men accused of civil immigration violations on behalf of ICE that runs until September 29, 2029, according to a spokesperson for the sheriff’s department. The sheriff’s department also transports ICE detainees to Hanscom Field airport so that they can be flown out of state.
In exchange for holding the ICE detainees, the sheriff’s department bills the federal government, the spokesperson said, adding: “Since 2010, we have returned $209 million to the Commonwealth’s General Fund for appropriation by the legislature. In FY25, we returned $33.5 million.”
In December, Healey sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the acting ICE director Todd Lyons, demanding that they “immediately stop” using Hanscom Field to remove ICE detainees from the state. In January, Healey sent a second letter to the executives of two airlines, GlobalX Airlines and Eastern Air Express, calling on them to stop assisting ICE with the flights.
“Flying these residents out of state—often within hours of arrest—is intentionally cruel and purposely obstructs the due process and legal representation they are entitled to,” Healey said in the second letter. “By contracting with ICE to execute these flights, you are profiting off these anti-American tactics and facilitating the obstruction of due process.”
However, Healey’s proposed legislation would not prevent McDonald or other sheriffs from assisting ICE. When someone asked her about McDonald’s agreement at the conference, she was dismissive.
“Well, that’s a county issue,” she said. “It’s not a state issue.”
The Plymouth County jail has 526 beds for ICE detainees, according to a spokesperson for McDonald. The spokesperson provided numbers showing that between January 2025 to January 2026, an average of 500 beds were in use on the first day of each month. They did not provide the total number of people the sheriff’s office has jailed for ICE during that time period.
McDonald defended his collaboration agreement with ICE in a letter to the Plymouth Select Board in December, saying that the Plymouth County jail “has a documented track record of humane care and custody, and people are safe and secure.”
“We do not have a role in immigration policy,” he wrote. “By having a contract with ICE, we can keep people in Massachusetts and closer to their families and attorneys.”
From January 20, 2025, through May, McDonald’s department transported 545 men to Hanscom Field airport so they could be flown out of state and detained in other ICE facilities, according to WBUR. McDonald told WBUR in June that he did not know where the detainees were being taken.
McDonald declined to tell the Dump whether he believes ICE is respecting the civil rights of detainees in the out-of-state facilities where he is sending them.
“Transfers are a core part of the violence of the ICE detention system,” said Hastings, the attorney with Prisoners’ Legal Services. “Allowing Plymouth County and Hanscom to continue operating as integral parts of the detention and deportation pipeline undermines the protective intent of this legislation. Massachusetts should do everything it can right now to reduce the number of people being taken into detention.”
“Call it whatever”
In recent months, Americans have watched as lawless ICE agents have abducted children, used chemical weapons on legal observers, and executed two US citizens in the street. As a result, the idea that the agency should be abolished is now a mainstream position supported by a plurality of US citizens.
According to a YouGov poll from January 30 to February 2, 46 percent support getting rid of ICE while 42 percent are opposed. The poll found that 79 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of independents favor abolition.
But Healey has made it clear that she wants the agency scaled back, not eliminated.
“Massachusetts is not a sanctuary state,” Healey said. “I’ve said this time and time again. People can buy in and continue with the absolute bullshit rhetoric out of the Trump administration on this.”
At the press conference the following day, Healey said: “My real hope right now is that Donald Trump [will] call a timeout, get [ICE] back out of communities. Right? Fix this agency that is so desperately broken.”
She added: “State and local law enforcement continue to work with federal agencies in investigating and prosecuting crime in this state. That hasn’t changed.”
“Customs and Border Patrol and ICE have had an important mission,” Healey replied. “I support them, what was the mission of CBP and ICE. What I don’t support is what ICE is right now in its current iteration. It is not fulfilling the mission it was set to fulfill.”
After Braude pushed her on whether she supported reform or abolition, Healey said: “What needs to happen is that ICE needs to be pulled back right now and needs to be fixed. Call it reform. Call it whatever.”
Luis Perez waited 53 and a half years to be freed from prison. When his day finally came, on Jan. 16, 2025, he could practically feel the warmth and quiet of his daughter’s guest bedroom, where he planned to live after his release, and he could practically taste the home-cooked yellow rice and fried pork awaiting him. He was 73 years old, a lifetime removed from the murder he committed as a teenager after moving from Cuba to Massachusetts.
In prison, Perez became a licensed minister and earned a community college degree. He mentored hundreds of younger prisoners in whom he saw the same societal failures that led him to prison in the first place: “Broken homes,” he said. “These were kids who got involved in gangs, who did drugs, who did robberies. No one wants to go to the root of the cases, but it’s not cut and dry.”
Just prior to his release, Perez has gotten a glowing review from the state parole board, which, he says, unanimously supported him, and made him feel as though he’d cleared every possible hurdle to freedom and had nothing more to worry about. His pre-release plan, which called for him to move in with his daughter, was approved at the prison.
The day he was set to leave, he said goodbye to incarcerated friends and spent some final, heavy moments in his tiny cell. He walked out to the fence at the edge of the prison yard. “I wanted to look at it because I thought that was the last fence I was ever going to see,” he said.
Prison staff came to show him out: “They said, ‘Are you ready to go?’ I said yes. I was happy,” he said. “After so many years, it was going to be something different for me.” On his walk from the cell block to fresh air and freedom and family, he was ushered through a doorway, on the other side of which stood three men he’d never seen before: ICE officers. They handcuffed him and drove him in a van to a detention facility in Maine.
He spent 10 days in Maine, he said, before ICE put him on a plane bound for Texas, where he spent almost seven months in detention, before being ordered into a van that drove him, over three days and more than 1,000 miles, to Tabasco, Mexico, a place he’d never been before, and where he knew no one. There, at last, he was released. He bought and ate his first mango in decades.
Thanks for reading! As always, if you’d like to keep The Mass Dump running, please consider becoming a financial supporter either by signing up for a paid subscription to this newsletter below, becoming a Patreon supporter, or sending a tip via PayPal or Venmo. I rely on your support to keep doing this work, and a monthly subscription is just $5!
The Plymouth County jail in #Massachusetts has 526 beds for ICE detainees, but Maura Healey hasn't tried to stop it with legislation and has dismissed it as a “county issue,” so it's interesting that she's weighing in on happenings in other states.
Here are the media reports of alleged law enforcement misconduct in Massachusetts that I’ve tracked during the last two weeks.
First, here are the incidents involving federal law enforcement, including immigration agents:
“A federal judge in Boston [on February 4] ordered the [Trump administration] not to immediately deport an Ecuadorian man - three months after another federal judge ordered ICE to immediately release his wife, whom they’d stuffed into the basement of their Burlington garrison after first shipping her off to a Texas prison. … The couple's lawyer … said his arrest was obviously retaliation for his wife’s release.” (Universal Hub)
After a man said ICE agents arrested him in June even though he’s a lawful resident, took him to a cemetery, and beat him: “US Magistrate Judge Jennifer Boal held [a] hearing [on February 2] seeking an answer to [the] question — what happened to [Alejandro] Reyes Aguilar’s wallet? — but the hours’ long proceeding also served as a portal into the inner workings of an immigration arrest that had been sharply criticized by Lynn officials at the time, for the way it was carried out outside an elementary school during morning dropoff time.” (Boston Globe; paywalled)
“An Irishman living in the United States for more than 20 years has been held by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officials since being arrested [in] September. Originally from Glenmore, Co Kilkenny, Seamus Culleton is married to a US citizen and owns a plastering business in the Boston area. He was arrested on September 9th, 2025, and has been in an Ice detention facility in Texas for nearly five months, despite having no criminal record, ‘not even a parking ticket.’ In a phone interview from the facility, he said conditions there are ‘like a concentration camp, absolute hell.’” (Irish Times)
“An immigration judge terminated removal proceedings against Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was detained for over a month [in 2025] as part of the Trump administration’s effort to target and deport international students and activists involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy, her lawyers said [February 9]. … The move comes after recently unsealed court documents showed the federal government didn’t have any evidence that Öztürk had been supporting terrorist activity when she was arrested, and that her visa revocation and arrest were because of an opinion article she wrote containing criticisms of Israel.” (CNN)
“The number of people in Massachusetts contesting their detainments after masked men and women seize them off the streets has risen sharply over the past year. On [February 12], U.S. Attorney Leah Foley reported a staggering 12,000% surge in habeas corpus petitions filed in Massachusetts federal courts in 2025. These lawsuits allow individuals to challenge the legality of their detention. Foley said 850 cases were filed over the past year, compared with just seven in 2024.” (MassLive)
“A federal judge [on February 13] ordered an immediate bond hearing for a woman whom ICE grabbed in October, moved from its Burlington garrison to prisons in Vermont, Texas and Louisiana and put on a plane to the Dominican Republic, then admitted it made a mistake and paid for her to fly back to Boston - where she was promptly re-arrested by ICE agents and locked in a room at the airport.” (Universal Hub)
“A college student deported to Honduras while traveling for Thanksgiving in November must be returned to the United States within two weeks, a federal judge in Boston ruled [on February 13]. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns issued an order that required the return of 19-year-old Babson College freshman Any Lucia Lopez Belloza by the end of February.” (NBC10 Boston)
And here are the stories involving state and local law enforcement:
“Dylan DaSilva, 32, a former Lowell Police officer who joined the force in 2023, abruptly resigned and The Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission immediately suspended his state law enforcement certification on November 20th. Multiple sources allege that DaSilva was investigated for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl. While sixteen is the legal age of consent in Massachusetts, the circumstances of their meeting have raised ethical alarms.” (Boston 25 News)
“Lawyers for Matthew Farwell moved to dismiss the indictment against the former Stoughton police officer accused of killing Sandra Birchmore, arguing in a court filing that the indictment is vague and unspecific.” (MassLive)
“A federal judge says a man arrested on gun charges by officers responding to a report of somebody shooting a gun outside Boston Medical Center can continue his excessive-force and negligence suit against Boston Police and several officers because cops shouldn't be breaking the arms of people who are complying with their demands as they're being arrested and because the man plausibly argued they did so in part because of a ‘blue wall of silence.’” (Universal Hub)
“The state’s highest court heard arguments [February 4] focused on a 2024 drunken driving arrest that has raised questions about the use of body-worn cameras at sobriety checkpoints. … [The defendant’s lawyer] said the key issue for the court is to clarify how body-worn camera footage [interacts] with the state’s wiretapping laws, which prohibit one-party ‘secret’ recordings.” (MassLive)
“Donovan Goparian was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Marie Martin, whose body was found in a burning car in Worcester in November 2015. On [February 4], his bid for a new trial took a key step forward when a judge set an evidentiary hearing for two days in May. … Goparian’s lawyer, Merritt Schnipper, first filed a motion for a new trial in February 2023[.] … Judge Daniel Wrenn … eventually denied the motion in May 2024. But Schnipper appealed the denial to the Supreme Judicial Court, which found that Wrenn should have allowed an evidentiary hearing after the defense brought forward evidence that prosecutors suppressed evidence implicating someone other than Goparian in the crime.” (MassLive)
“A former Gloucester police officer has been sentenced to four years in prison in connection with possessing child sexual abuse material. Alexander Aiello, 34, was sentenced Jan. 23 in federal court after pleading guilty in October to one count of possession of CSAM.” (MassLive)
“Suffolk County prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into a suspended state trooper who was allegedly drunk in December 2023 when he crashed into a van carrying a disabled man, who died the following month, according to officials and legal filings. The criminal investigation into State Police Sergeant Scott Quigley, more than two years after the head-on crash, was disclosed in a legal filing in a pending murder case that he investigated in Essex County.” (Boston Globe; paywalled)
Related to the previous story: “The timing of when prosecutors learned that a key State Police investigator in the Phan brothers’ murder case was allegedly under the influence of alcohol during a fatal on-duty crash emerged as a central issue during a hearing [on February 9] in Middlesex Superior Court. The issue surfaced as defense attorney William Dolan renewed his motion to dismiss the charges against his client, Channa Phan, stating that newly disclosed records and inconsistent statements from the State Police and prosecutors suggest the [Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office] may have been in possession of exculpatory information about Sgt. Scott Quigley for nearly two years.” (Lowell Sun)
“The four members of the Massachusetts State Police facing charges in the death of Trooper Enrique Delgado-Garcia have been relieved of duty as they face the department's disciplinary process amid the allegations. Lt. Jennifer Penton and Troopers Edwin Rodriguez, David Montanez and Casey Lamonte have been indicted on grand jury charges of involuntary manslaughter and causing serious bodily injury, with Penton also facing a perjury charge. After the charges were announced on [February 9], the state's Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission ordered that they be suspended.” (NBC10 Boston)
“A Brockton School Police officer must pay the schools $2,500 in restitution to resolve charges that he faked timecards. Darnell Campbell, 35, agreed to one year of pre-trial probation, according to Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz. … Prosecutors said Brockton Police brought the charges based on video evidence plus overtime and timecards filled out and signed by Campbell.” (Enterprise)
“The chief justice of the state’s superior courts denied a motion filed by lawyers for North Andover police officer Kelsey Fitzsimmons seeking the recusal of Judge Kathleen McCarthy-Neyman, deeming it moot. In a brief endorsement on the motion, Justice Michael D. Ricciuti wrote, ‘The judge is scheduled to sit in another session during the period of the remaining pre-trial and trial of this case, and was not specially assigned to this matter, as the motion inaccurately assumes.’” (MassLive)
“The head of the state public defenders organization is calling for the Massachusetts attorney general to appoint an independent investigator to probe an in-custody death at the Suffolk County House of Correction late [in 2025], saying there are inherent conflicts of interest with the current investigators.” … [The Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services] wants [the attorney general] to use the office’sauthority ‘to ensure the appointment of an independent investigative body’ to examine the death of Shacoby Kenny, who died Dec. 8, hours after he became unresponsive following a fight with correctional officers at the facility, located in Boston and commonly called South Bay.” (Boston Globe; paywalled)
“The Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department is investigating after a brawl involving several correction officers broke out at Suffolk County House of Correction in Boston [on February 7]. … In a statement, the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department said no inmates or detainees were present at the time.” (WHDH)
“Former Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor is fighting an effort by Norfolk County prosecutors to turn over more of his phone records to Karen Read’s civil defense lawyers, calling it an invasion of privacy. … ‘To the extent that there may be inappropriate messages that may be racist or homophobic, or may show a bias to others, those alleged messages are not relevant to the criminal prosecution of Ms. Read, who is ... a white, heterosexual female,’ the motion reads.” (MassLive)
“Lawyers representing defendants whose cases were investigated by former Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor on [February 12] asked a judge for an additional 60 days to review the information pulled from his phones. Attorneys Rosemary Scapicchio and Joseph Krowski Jr., who between them represent four defendants facing murder charges in cases worked on by Proctor, told Judge Sharon Donatelle they were dealing with an ‘overwhelming’ amount of data from the devices.” (MassLive)
“Three Boston police officers testified [on February 12] at a meeting of the city’s civilian watchdog agency, which recently issued its first subpoenas after long complaining about a lack of cooperation from the Boston Police Department. They were among nine department employees subpoenaed to appear [on February 12] before Boston’s Office of Police Accountability and Transparency, or OPAT; the other six didn’t show up. They had all been summonsed to appear for interviews about misconduct allegations against them.” (Boston Globe; paywalled)
“Two members of the Framingham Police Department are off the job following a monthslong internal affairs investigation into alleged misconduct in Sept. 2025. According to a department spokesperson, officer Kyle Pursell resigned from his position and officer Reece Black was terminated. … While no criminal charges have been filed, a department spokesperson said an internal affairs investigation found that both Pursell and Black had violated department rules and policy. Police would not say which policies were violated.” (WCVB)
“A man who had his first-degree murder conviction for a fatal 2018 shooting in Mattapan overturned - after he’d spent five years in prison - [on February 12] filed a wrongful-conviction suit against the state. … In his suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, [Dewane] Tse said … he just happened to be driving in the wrong place at the wrong time … and he was wrongly singled out for involvement, even though there was no evidence the actual shooter was ever in his car.” (Universal Hub)
On a note related to that last story, I’ve previously written about how difficult it is for people who have been wrongfully convicted in Massachusetts to get compensation from the state, how state law severely limits that compensation, and how advocates want to change that.
Massachusetts Auditor Diana DiZoglio filed a lawsuit [on February 10} with the state’s high court to force the Legislature to hand over financial documents as part of an audit into lawmakers' businesses.
Voters handed DiZoglio the power to audit the Legislature in 2024. But Democrats who lead the House and Senate have refused to cooperate with her probe, arguing that any investigation into the body's inner workings violates separation-of-powers principles in the state constitution.
Paroling rates have risen in Massachusetts, and the new chair of the Parole Board doesn’t see the increase as a negative.
“Our paroling rates are up, and we have a lot more lifers being released. We also, our staff — like I mentioned — we redistricted, so 35 to 50 is the average caseload,” Parole Board Chair Angelo Gomez said on [February 9].
“So it looks like we’re up about 3.5%. And that has to do with various factors: mandatory release, medical releases, paroling rates. So our numbers are going up, but it’s not a negative,” he added.
Governor Maura Healey spends millions on ChatGPT subscriptions (MassLive):
[On February 12, Sam] Altman appeared via video to help [Governor Maura] Healey announce that Massachusetts will be the first state to roll out OpenAI’s ChatGPT software to all 40,000 employees of the executive branch of government. …
The state signed a three-year agreement with the company … and will pay $108 per employee per year, totaling about $4.3 million annually.
Thanks for reading! As always, if you’d like to keep The Mass Dump running, please consider offering your financial support, either by signing up for a paid subscription to this newsletter below, becoming a Patreon supporter, or sending a tip via PayPal or Venmo. Your support pays for this aggregation project and original investigative reporting. A monthly subscription is just $5.
Even if you can’t afford a paid sub, please sign up for a free one to get news about wrongful convictions, police misconduct, public records, and stuff like that—and please share this article on social media.
You can follow me on Bluesky and Mastodon. You can email me at aquemere0@gmail.com.
Anyway, that’s all for now.
The @bostonglobe.com opinion page this morning is headlined by white supremacist Richard Hanania, whose racist views have been smoothed over in recent months by centrists
Bob Nilsson captured the scene at the Public Garden the other day when Mrs. Mallard and her brood, on the way to a Bruins match, were grabbed by ICE, but they were still able to quack it's time to release all the Epstein files.
You'd think the last thing we'd need right now is more snow, but eight tractor trailers will be loaded with 150 tons of machine-made snow at Loon Mountain tomorrow to be dumped at City Hall Plaza for a Red Bull-sponsored "street snowboarding" event on Saturday.
No word if Red Bull is bringing in Marty Walsh to open the event by yelling "This IS Loon Mountain!"
The Boston Licensing Board last week approved a license for a restaurant at 210 Hanover St., near Cross Street in the North End, that would serve "all day breakfast and pizza" from its opening at 5 a.m. till its closing at 10 p.m.
Through his attorney, owner Charles Terrill said he would not be seeking a liquor license for the two-story eatery, which would have 30 seats on the first floor and 40 on the second.
The space was formerly home to Taranta, which closed in 2020. Terrill did not specify the name of the restaurant; his LLC is named Dolvero.
Terrill will now go before the Zoning Board of Appeal for permission to offer takeout.
The Boston Licensing Board last week approved a liquor license for Tiki Cove, a restaurant that would replace the shuttered Loyal Nine, which replaced the shuttered Sons of Boston at 17 Union St. near Faneuil Hall.
Tiki Cove will be "a pan-Asian restaurant with also Hawaiian flare, specializing in small plates," owner So Lim Ting's attorney, Carolyn Conway, told the board. Unlike the two bars, its appeal will be for "tourists, families going to events at the Garden and also for neighbors in the North End," she said.
She added that Ting will be renovating the interior - which will have a 17-seat bar - "to reflect the fare that is being offered and to make sure it is a transformed into a restaurant all the time." She said Tiki Cove would serve a full menu until midnight, with a smaller list of dishes available between midnight and 2 a.m. She added that the restaurant will have security at the door at all times.
Ting currently owns Jiang Nan, 177 Tremont St. downtown, Nan Xiang Express, 1750 Washington St. in the South End and Friendship BBQ, 103 Brighton Ave. in Allston.
If also approved by the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, he will buy the liquor license from 17 Union's owner, Cypress Realty Group of the North End, which acquired the license from Loyal Nine after that bar shut in 2024.
ARGH, the box where I stashed a bunch of pharmacy receipts has vanished into thin air and I cannot imagine where it is, nor can I persuade myself I would have thrown it out! This apartment is not large. I cannot remember the last time I saw it, but this doesn't say much.
I have made progress on the jeans I am repairing, except that there is a new spot that has worn out. It feels positively Sisyphean. Jeans of Theseus. Well, it keeps me from doomscrolling.
Steaming potatoes before browning them continues to be one of the great discoveries of my adulthood: it's so fast! and tidy! and produces perfect potatoes! I do need to acquire bamboo steamers for better steaming of fish and various Asian dishes and whatnot, but first I gotta figure out where would I put them? I have a tiny kitchen and a lot of equipment but I swear I use pretty much all of it (I would use the pasta roller more if eggs were affordable, but that really is the only thing I look at and wince, trying to justify the space). Semi-relatedly, the attempt to make the trash situation less horrible seems to be working: a small trash bin forces me to take it out more often, before the contents get gross. I should've gotten a foot-pedal model, but that is really the only flaw in the system, and I do like that the legs elevate it so I can clean under it easily. It's almost embarrassing how easy this dose of shame was to hack, but better late than never, I guess.
Last fall, I left a beloved job and assisted them in hiring two people to replace me. One was an internal hire, the other required an outside interview process. We received over 50 applications, narrowed it down to 13 phone interviews, then seven in-person interviews, and finally made a very satisfying hiring decision.
At each step along the way, I sent out polite rejection emails to those who didn’t make the next level. It was very professional, and all candidates but one reacted very well. However, one gentleman who was not granted an interview wrote back saying that since he was “clearly overqualified for such a position,” he “would have at least appreciated an interview.” In fact, he had no qualifications for the position: he’d never done the work of the role, worked in our industry, nor had any background in our field. I never responded, but he tracked me down and has asked me several times why he wasn’t interviewed. He is clearly well educated and has an interesting work history, but nothing on his resume was even remotely connected to our field, and frankly, he came across as condescending. That said, we are community-based and try to be friendly, kind, and helpful to all.
I’m still peripherally involved in the organization, but no longer an employee. In fact, I moved across the country and took another job. Do I have any obligation to write him back? And, if so, how honest should I be? Apparently, he’s written to the organization, too, and they refuse to deal with him. If I write him back, might he leave them alone? A small part of me feels as if he’d benefit from knowing the truth, but I also feel like maybe it’s none of my business. I recognize that if I respond to him, it would not be in any way official. What should I do?
I answer this question over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here.
I’m off for the holiday, so here’s an older post from the archives. This was originally published in 2020.
A reader writes:
I’ve worked for four years in a research laboratory and my supervisor is an associate professor. Her husband is a professor and a director of the research group (and that’s how she easily got her position). As part of standard procedure, the university requires all employees to complete what is called a performance development review.
In our meeting, she highlighted two development goals. One was to improve individual conflict management skills by reflecting on all instances of conflicts and how those can be handled better. The second was to improve my skills in communication and dealing with feedback from other colleagues, especially staff members who are on a higher academic and professional level than myself, and to write and reflect on all instances where inappropriate responses were provided to queries by other staff members.
I replied that I disagreed that these should be listed in the development goals on my personal form, as the conflicts are common and have largely resolved by various means. Also, the conflicts were a thing of the past and I do not want to recall them. I agree that they can be improved on, but I do not want this to be on my permanent record, as it reflects badly on a HR record. For the second point I replied to her saying that I would have appreciated if private feedback was provided at the time rather than only bringing it up during the performance development review. (And to keep a long story short, I didn’t agree that my response was inappropriate. My [negative] response was based on the decisions made at that time.)
This was her response:
The development objectives will stay recorded in the PDR system because they are areas that I as your direct line of manager has identified that you need to DEVELOP in. The activities are activities created by me to make you reflect on some of these instances and identify ways you can mitigate future conflicts. They do not go into the online talent system. At the next PDR meeting, the report by me will be “have you achieved the goals set out by me pertaining to the activities or not?”
You can choose to go through with this PDR process set out by me as your direct line manager, or you can choose to ignore it. At the end of the day, I submit a report and that goes on the record.
My conflict management strategies in the past pertaining to all the complaints against yourself have been to work out the entire situation by listening to all parties, set up meetings and work it through with everyone including yourself. The example provided is just an example and not an isolated incident, nor is it only coming from a particular individual. It is simply the most recent example.
I just felt that it was very insensitive and bossy response, not to mention her already insensitive way of putting such items as “development goals.”
Oooooh, no.
You need to do what your manager is asking.
She’s clearly saying that if you don’t, it will be insubordination and likely have serious consequences for you.
When your manager tells you that you’ve had multiple conflicts with coworkers and you need to reflect on those incidents and figure out how to handle them better in the future, you cannot dismiss that by saying those conflicts are in the past and you don’t want to have to think about them. She’s saying clearly that she has determined that, in order to succeed in your job, you do need to recall them and work on alternate strategies.
There’s no option here to just say, “No, I don’t want to.” Or rather, it’s an option, but it means you’ll be putting your professional standing and your job in jeopardy. If you worked for me, that would put you far along the path to getting fired.
The multiple conflicts themselves are already a serious problem. Refusing to work on it when asked is a real F-you to your boss … and really reinforces that you’re a problem for the team. (In fact, it reinforces the very feedback she’s giving you.)
And make no mistake, based on your boss’s email to you (both the actual content and the clipped, frustrated tone), she already thinks of you as a pretty big problem, and she sounds ready to to act on that.
Now, should she have addressed issues with you as they came up? Yes. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have standing to address it now, and if you fight her on that rather than addressing the problems themselves, you’re going to look like you’re deflecting, missing the point, and continuing a pattern of combativeness that’s already been flagged as a problem. You’ll have much more luck if you first do what she’s asking and then later say you’d like to receive feedback in a more ongoing way, rather than hearing about problems for the first time in a formal review.
I’m not sure why you thought her response was insensitive (it was certainly direct, but in a context where that was necessary) or bossy (she is in fact your boss), or why you find framing this stuff as “development goals” to be insensitive. These are development goals, and there’s nothing weird or insulting about calling them that. It also seems to be the terminology your organization uses. Personally, I think it’s rather soft; I would call them “performance requirements” because they would be!
The best thing you can do is to drop your instinct to push back or defend yourself and just … do what she’s asking you to do: reflect on the past conflicts and how you could have handled them differently. That’s a reasonable thing for a manager to ask, and it sounds like it’s based in real necessity here.
I’m off for the holiday. Here are some past letters that I’m making new again, rather than leaving them to wilt in the archives.
1. My coworker calls me his “work wife”
A couple of months ago, I joined a new team at work, in a role that is somewhat isolated from the rest of the group. So I was glad when another junior staff member who had joined the team a bit earlier reached out and showed me the ropes. As we grew more friendly, we also started sitting next to one another (our office has open seating with no assigned desks), and chatting occasionally during the day. Our remarks were always casual, and though they were not strictly work-related, we never discussed deep or personal topics. So, I was surprised when one day, he began referring to me as his “work wife.”
At first, it was simply in reference to that fact that someone had sat at the desk I usually claimed, breaking up our “marriage.” But in the next few days, he repeated the comment a couple times, once to another colleague. The term “work wife” makes me uncomfortable as it overstates our relationship, and may have a dubious connotation. As a young woman, I worry that it may undermine my professionalism. On the other hand, this colleague uses the term so casually that I don’t think he means anything by it. He is also on my level and does not work on any of the same projects as me, so there is no threat to my performance here.
Am I right to find the term “work wife” strange or is it actually commonly accepted? Either way, how do you think I should proceed here? I don’t want to alienate one of my only friends on my team by bringing this up as some kind of big problem or having a serious talk, but I would rather not deal with these comments.
It’s a common enough term (along with “work husband” and “work spouse”) to refer to someone at work who you’re close with and get along with uncommonly well (and can be same sex or opposite sex), although it sounds like he’s using it where the relationship doesn’t really warrant it. Either way, though, you don’t have to like it and you’re allowed to tell him to stop.
It would be fine to say something to your coworker like, “Hey, I don’t love that term. Let’s just say ‘coworkers.’”
2. Can I talk to my boss about how she’s treating my coworker?
A colleague of mine — let’s call her Sarah — just got promoted to the level of supervisor, moving above myself and two other colleagues. This was a bit of a surprise to us all. Sarah hasn’t had any management experience, and she’s clearly trying to feel out her role. We all used to be very good friends when we were at the same level, but now that she’s a supervisor, she’s doing her best to be an appropriate and respectable authority. I’m not new to a change like this, so I’m trying to give her the gravitas she seems to crave at the moment.
However, one of the people still at my level — let’s call her Heather — is really struggling. She is relatively new to our office and for most of her time here, she and Sarah have been good friends, and now the power dynamic has changed. Additionally, Sarah is coming down hard on Heather. I’m not privy to their conversations, but it’s very clear that Heather is just not doing anything right by Sarah, and Sarah is hounding Heather about every finite detail of her work. It’s really creating animosity in the office.
Is there any way to speak to Sarah about this? I value Sarah’s work and her effort — she does a good job, and she deserved to get this position. But by puffing her chest and trying to establish herself as an authority, her subordinates (me included) are losing faith in her actions. Is there a way to speak with Sarah, on the level, and let her know that she needs to find a new approach?
Well … it’s actually possible that there are real problems with Heather’s work, and that Sarah’s oversight and feedback to her is appropriate. That’s something you wouldn’t necessarily know.
But it’s also true that it’s common for new managers to struggle with authority and be either too lenient or too hard on people. Of course, talking about that might not go well with someone who’s already getting hung up on “I’m now the boss and demand respect.”
But if you have pretty good rapport with Sarah, you might be able to frame it not as “hey, you’re being too hard on Heather” (because you don’t actually know that) but as “this is being perceived in a way that’s freaking people out.” For instance: “I’m glad you got this promotion; you deserved it. I want to let you know that I’m getting the sense the team is starting to worry about what’s going on with you and Heather because it seems like you’re coming down really hard on her. I know we don’t know everything that’s going on, but the pieces that we can see are making people worry that you’re being too harsh. I’m not suggesting that you need to change that; for all I know, it could be perfectly warranted and that’s not information I would be privy to. But I wanted you to know how it’s being perceived, in case you didn’t intend that or don’t want that.”
When you say this, your tone shouldn’t be “you need to change this.” You want it to convey “I respect you and this is your call; I’m just giving you information that might be helpful to you.”
3. Two employees don’t want to share anything from their continuing education classes
I am the director of a department over approximately 15-20 individuals who almost all hold professional licenses. These licenses have to be renewed annually (typically 20 hours or so of CEUs). We have a policy in place stating that we are happy to pay for your required CEUs, but ask that you give a brief overview of your course/ seminar upon your return.
Two of my employees have scoffed at this and asked that we remove the policy. They state that they do not have the time do get a presentation together and present it on top of their regular work. I stated that we aren’t asking for a PowerPoint presentation, just a brief “please tell your colleagues (not the entire organization, only a handful of people) what the conference/ seminar was about and how it might help us at this organization.” I stated it could be nothing more than a few minutes either during the weekly meeting or maybe a lunch and learn type thing.
They are still rebelling. They stated that they would rather pay for the CEUs themselves and take a vacation day than have to give any presentation. I’m inclined to still enforce the policy and pay for the classes 1) out of consistency to everyone and 2) because their work (intellectual or otherwise) does technically belong to us. Am I being too stubborn? Isn’t it fair to ask any employee to briefly tell their boss what they learned at a seminar? These employees between work 8-4:30 Monday through Friday. They are rarely asked to work over or on the weekends. Both are good at their jobs, but never go above or beyond.
No, you’re not being too stubborn. What you’re asking for is reasonable and really normal, and you’re entitled to hold firm on it. But first, talk to them and see if you can find out more about what’s at the root of their objections. Make sure that they understand that you’re just asking for an informal few minutes at a regular meeting, and that it shouldn’t require more than a few minutes of prep time. If they do understand that, say this: “I’m having trouble understanding why you object to this, since it isn’t a significant time commitment. Can you help me understand what you find objectionable about this?”
If they still don’t want to do it and can’t explain why, it’s reasonable for you to say, “This is something that we ask of all employees who do CEUs, and it’s part of collaborating with colleagues. So I do want you to do it, but if you have trouble figuring out what you’d like to share, let me know and we can brainstorm together.”
My workplace recently put up these posters around the office in an attempt to… Well, I guess their hope is to improve morale in the long run. I find it condescending, but I’m not sure if that’s fair or if the generally low moral here is clouding my judgment.
The posters say: “The No Complaining Rule: Employees are not allowed to mindlessly complain to their coworkers. If they have a problem or complaint about their job, their company, their customer, or anything else, they are encouraged to bring the issue to their manager or someone who is in a position to address the complaint. However, the employees must share one or two possible solutions to their complaint as well.” Then there’s a graphic of two people holding a sign that says “stay positive.”
What are your thoughts?
Yeah, it’s ridiculously inept and a bit patronizing. If there’s a morale problem where people are doing a lot of complaining, you fix that by addressing whatever the underlying causes are, not by trying to silence people. And I’m on board with “hey, you should talk to people who can actually change the thing you’re complaining about,” but the effective way to convey that to people is by talking to them one-on-one and showing you’ll giving them a fair hearing, not by posting juvenile signs. (And really, you can’t ask employees to act like adults while simultaneously posting childish signs to communicate with them.)
I’m also a fan of encouraging people to share solutions to problems, but not every problem can be solved at the employee level.
On top of all that, this runs afoul of the National Labor Relations Act, which makes it illegal for employers to prohibit employees from talking to each other about working conditions.
5. Does a fast rejection mean I did something wrong?
I’m a freelancer who’s been struggling to transition back to more traditional employment. I have a lot of anxiety about my employability —my field is very competitive. But I’m proud of the work I’ve done.
I recently applied to a dream job. It’s for a company I’ve done freelance work for. I have a good relationship with the person I’ve done work for there. I know and respect a lot of people at the company. I know I’d be great at the job. I asked around to make sure it wasn’t a job they already had someone in mind for but had to post an ad for anyway. It’s not the first time I’ve applied to this same company — it’s somewhere I’d really like to work. So I thought I’d covered all of my bases.
I got a rejection email three days after submitting my application. The job posting only went up less than two weeks ago, and it’s still up. I’ve gotten a lot of rejections over the years, but this was by far the fastest. The position didn’t get filled.
I feel like I must have done something horribly wrong to have been rejected that quickly. I have no idea what it could be. Is there some way I could find out? A rejection is a rejection — I have no interest in challenging it. But if I did something in my application bad enough to warrant such an immediate response, I don’t want to do it again. Does this mean I shouldn’t apply to the company again? What can I do? What should I do?
Some rejections do get sent that quickly and it doesn’t mean that you’ve done anything wrong or that you’re horribly unqualified. Sometimes there’s just a particular qualification they’re looking for where you’re not as competitive, and that’s not always clear from the ad. Sometimes the person doing the initial screening isn’t as aligned with the hiring manager as they should be about what they’re looking for. Sometimes they’ve screened you previously and determined you weren’t quite right then, and are sticking with that decision now even if they shouldn’t. And sometimes it can even be a mistake. (But on its own, three days doesn’t mean anything. Employers typically know if they’re rejecting you within about a minute; rejections take longer simply because they’re not reviewing applications daily or they wait a polite amount of time before sending the notice.)
But since you know people there and have worked with them before, there’s no harm in sending a note to a contact who you’d talked to about the job, saying something like, “I wanted to let you know I did end up applying for the X position. I got a note pretty quickly saying I wasn’t being considered, which is disappointing but I’m sure you have lots of great candidates. In any case, thanks for talking with me about it!” That way, if the person feels strongly you should be given more consideration, they have the opportunity to raise that internally.
Title: To lead and to be led Fandom: Ooku - The Inner Chambers Characters: Iemitsu Tokugawa centered, Arikoto and Kasuga Rating: M Summary: So she’s just like this horse. Existing solely for the sake of breeding and unable to even choose her mate. Iemitsu reflects on her life and what it means to be shogun - even if not by choice.
Title: Stuck Rating: R Warnings: No Warnings Apply Fandoms: S.W.A.T., 9-1-1 Relationships: Donovan Rocker/Molly Hicks, Evan Buckley/Tommy Kinard Tags: Rocker & Tommy Are Twins, Soulmate AU Summary: Getting stuck in an elevator with your soulmate could be worse. Word Count: 1,741 Author Notes:
I find it trying when it's 17° indoors (63), but manageable (with sweaters and wool socks etc) for the most part. But right now it's 14° (57) in the warmest room in the house.
It's too cold to knit, or sit writing or using a keyboard for very long, because all those things require my hands being outside the blankets. The only things it's not too cold to do are being inside a cocoon of blankets, or moving around so briskly that it warms me up temporarily. That's tough, though, because I hate the part before you warm up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oursin
![[syndicated profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/feed.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
