Skip to content




SHIRLEY — Alfreda Cromwell is back on the job, with a promotion but a cut in wages.

The agreement between the town and the police lieutenant also provided a $45,000 settlement. A redacted copy of the settlement agreement was obtained through a public records request.

Cromwell returned to the department effective Aug. 10 with the rank of lieutenant. She was fired in November, a week after being demoted from sergeant to patrol officer.

As lieutenant, she is a Grade 11, step 1 employee on the town’s wage scale, Town Clerk Bill Oelfke wrote in an email.

Her salary is $63,865 per year, Town Administrator Patrice Garvin said. The position is not in the police union.

Before she was terminated, Cromwell made $32.94 per hour, Garvin wrote in an email.

That works out to over $68,500 per year for a 40-hour week.

The $45,000 settlement includes $22,000 to pay Cromwell’s attorneys and to Cromwell. $15,000 representing wages and $8,000 for liquidated damages and emotional distress damages.

Of that, $30,000 will be covered by insurance. The town will be responsible for the remainder and has not yet determined which budget line it will come from, Garvin wrote.

Cromwell, on the force since will retain seniority. She was hired as a police officer in 2007.

In the agreement, Cromwell and the respondents; the town, Goulden, and department members Craig LaPrade and Peter Violette, denied wrongdoing. They agreed to withdraw all MCAD complaints and grievances with prejudice.

With prejudice indicates the complaint will not be refiled, according to several online sources.

Cromwell filed complaints with the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination and the Equal Opportunity Council. The union submitted a grievance. Information about the grievance was redacted.

Thomas Goulden, who was police chief at the time, recommended to the Board of Selectmen that they demoted Cromwell. A week later, he recommended her termination.

When Cromwell was demoted, the selectmen found she did not follow instruction given by the chief. The next week, they agreed with Goulden that she lied during the first hearing and terminated her.

An investigation done by Jean Heartl of Safety and Respect at Work, LLC in 2016 found there was evidence to support Cromwell’s claim that she was mistreated by Goulden and others.

Goulden is no longer employed by the town. After the two selectmen who voted to terminate Cromwell were recalled, the board, with two new members, hired another investigator to look into allegations of wrongdoing by Goulden.

The board placed Goulden on paid administrative leave in February. He never returned to duty.

The investigator, Paul White, found that Goulden used poor judgment by asking an officer to photograph a recall petition and by failing to take appropriate action when a dispatcher carried a gun.

Neither incident involved Cromwell.

One selectman who was initially elected at the recall election, Jim Wilson, spoke against placing Goulden on leave and later against terminating Goulden.

In July, Goulden resigned effective June 2018. He and the town agreed to separation terms. A joint statement between him and the Board of Selectmen said the resolution of the employment differences was in the best interest of the town.

Wilson resigned a month later, a few months after he was re-elected, without giving a reason.

Goulden, named in the agreement with Cromwell, saw the final version. He stands behind his recommendations to discipline Cromwell and denied any discrimination.

“Any interaction with employees, whether for positive or negative, was completely just associated with job performance,” he said when reached by phone.

Cromwell did not respond to a voicemail left at the police department.

Follow Anne O’Connor on Twitter @a1oconnor.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.