Former commissioner John J. O’Brien and two top deputies, Elizabeth Tavares and William Burke III, may the ones being called to answer in federal court for a rigged hiring scheme at the state Probation Department, but even those brought in to clean up the damage had their own issues with using the agency as a family jobs fair.

Ellen Slaney, a 39-year veteran of the department who rose to acting commissioner after O’Brien was fired in the wake of the scandal, admitted she pushed to get her niece hired as a probation officer even though she was rated at or near the bottom in the interview process.

On the witness stand Friday in the corruption trial of her former boss, Slaney, who retired a year ago, painted a picture of her attempts to defend the integrity of the department’s hiring process against the encroachment of what she saw as blatant politicization of the duty to hire the best and the brightest.

But on cross examination, Slaney, who says she was the subject of retaliation by O’Brien for balking at doing his bidding in hiring, admitted recommending her niece for a job as a probation officer in Brighton, Newbury, or Essex Superior courts.

“I thought she was a good candidate,” Slaney said under questioning by O’Brien defense attorney Stylianus Sinnis.

But then Sinnis produced records of her niece’s interview results that showed she did not impress the judges who sat on the interview panels in all three courts, including being listed in the rankings as 11th in Essex and 14th in Brighton. Only the top eight candidates are supposed to have their names forwarded to the next round for consideration. Slaney’s niece, though, did get hired, and Slaney said she got a visit from Tavares.

“She came down and told me I should thank Jack [O’Brien],” Slaney said.

Slaney said she balked at the push by O’Brien and Tavares to hire the drug-addicted son of former state senator William “Biff” MacLean for a job as a probation officer, as well as place the name of one of O’Brien’s and Tavares’ favored candidates for the assistant chief probation officer in Bristol County at the head of the list. Slaney testified she thought another woman who was vying for the post was the best qualified candidate. She said Tavares told her that sometimes “the political thing had to be done” and she thought her choice should not be passed over in favor of someone with connections to the Legislature.

“I have a problem with influencing the process,” she said.

But, as Sinnis pointed out, Slaney’s choice for promotion to the post, Mary Viera, had listed then-state representative John Quinn as a reference. In fact, Sinnis had Slaney look over the applications of five of the eight candidates for the post and they all had listed lawmakers as references. The court then recessed until Monday.

A separation begins

It was subtle but the lawyer for Tavares got Slaney to admit that Tavares may have been doing no more than carrying out her boss’s orders, the potential to lay the groundwork that Tavares’s actions are separate and different from O’Brien’s.

Attorney Brad Bailey, following up on the prosecution’s assertions that Tavares would regularly call Slaney with recommendations for interviews, said Tavares never called with her own list of names, instead placing the onus on O’Brien.

“[Tavares] would say, ‘These are the names that the commissioner wants to move forward.’ She never specifically told you which ones she wanted…You were never told, ‘These are the names I, Elizabeth Tavares, wanted,’ were you?” Bailey asked. “You can’t say, can you, that she had any more information than you did. You never asked her why the commissioner wanted those names did you.”

“No, I never did,” Slaney responded.

Laying that foundation could help Bailey, and in turn Tavares, convince the jury that she was only following orders and any intentional manipulation of the system was done without her. In addition, it could undercut the charges of conspiracy, which require knowing criminal intent and an affirmative action on the part of two or more defendants. If the jury accepts that line of reasoning, it not only could help Tavares’ defense but also make it difficult to prove there was a conspiracy if no one other than O’Brien was actively involved.

Words to remember

It’s a good bet that O’Brien’s attorney Sinnis has shaped the message he wants the jury to remember. “Good hire by Jack, right?”

Sinnis repeated that phrase at least a half dozen times regarding probation officials who were highly regarded by Slaney and others. Each time he brought up the name of a probation employee who is not listed in the indictment as part of the racketeering, mail fraud, or conspiracies charges, Sinnis would repeat what is sure to become an earworm for jurors and observers.

“Good hire by Jack, right?”

What’s next

The trial will resume on Monday at 10 a.m. with Slaney still undergoing cross examination by the defense and likely redirect questioning by prosecutors.