Spring 2010

Communication Breakdown:
How Kristin Died
Paul A. Fagin
An analysis of the issues surrounding the murder of Kristin Lardner in May of 1992. Based
on the book “Public Administration: Concepts and Cases,” the details of the Lardner case and
several key decisions made by public administrators and street-level bureaucrats are
examined. Several recommendations are proposed to aid the Massachusetts Court System
with future cases, similar to that of Ms. Lardner. 


PSAA 634-PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

 COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: HOW KRISTIN DIED

On the 30th of May 1992, Kristin Lardner was stalked to the corner of Commonwealth Avenue
and Harvard Street then shot to death by her ex-boyfriend Michael Cartier. In his lifetime, Michael
Cartier amassed a three-page rap sheet that included brawling, breaking and entering, attempted arson,
animal cruelty, assault and battery, and probation violation. From an early age Cartier displayed the
symptoms of a conduct disorder: cruelty to animals, cruelty to people and attempted destruction of
property (“Conduct Disorder”). At age seven he was sent by his mother to live in a treatment home for
troubled children. Cartier remained in various state-supported treatment centers until he was released
into the care of his father at the age of sixteen. After dropping out of high school, Cartier joined a
skinhead gang and compiled multiple criminal charges throughout the state of Massachusetts. His
relationship with women would mirror the deviant and violent behavior he displayed towards society.

Before Kristin Lardner, Cartier dated Rose Ryan and their relationship turned violent soon after
it began. Cartier became physically and mentally abusive to Ryan and threatened her safety on numerous
occasions. After ending their relationship, Ryan filed a restraining order against Cartier—already on
probation—and his probation officer sought a warrant for his arrest. Cartier was arrested and sentenced
to one year and three months in prison, but completed only six months. He continued to harass Ryan
while in prison and further violated the conditions of the restraining order. After he was released, Essex
County officials arrested him again for a previous violation of his probation, but he was once again
given a shortened sentence. The relationship between Kristin and Cartier followed the same abusive
pattern seen with Ryan. Kristin sought protection through the police department and the criminal justice
system. However, Kristin’s safety was jeopardized through a series of poor decisions from multiple city
and county agencies using their own standard operating procedures.

The case note for How Kristin Died details several key decisions made by public administrators
and street-level bureaucrats. There were several examples of Cartier being arrested for violating his
probation, but receiving lenient sentences. Lack of communication among various county offices
allowed Cartier to manipulate the system and evade harsher sentences. In particular, the failure of the
Boston Municipal Court to check the status of Cartier with the Brighton Probation department allowed
him to evade further psychological evaluation. When Cartier was eventually imprisoned, the criminal
justice system sent him back on the streets because of prison overcrowding problems. In many ways the
criminal justice system failed in their mission and goals. I will approach this case from an advisory role
and prescribe several recommendations to the agency head of the Massachusetts Court System regarding
collaboration between district and county courthouses—specifically, Suffolk County.

Recommendations
Increase communication within the criminal justice system. The primary lesson to be learned
from the case note for Kristin Lardner is that poor communication within bureaucratic agencies can have
a greater impact than loss of efficiency. Lack of communication can cost someone his or her life. I
would recommend that bi-monthly meetings be setup between the chief justices of the major courts to
discuss issues such as probation monitoring, court-ordered psychiatric counseling, and probate and
family court issues. This meeting would allow agency heads to talk with one another about the
effectiveness a various programs they have ordered and discuss new techniques they have implemented
for monitoring offenders. Intra-departmental meetings would serve as a symbolic approach towards
greater communication and collaboration within agencies. Moreover, these meetings will assist in the
push for greater cross-agency communication between various departments.

Separate task forces should be established to identify repeat offenders. One of the failures
witnessed in the case study was a lack of communication between the probation departments of the
greater Boston Municipal Court Department and the Brighton division. Both departments were
following their individual standard operating procedures. With a minimal amount of effort the Boston
Municipal Department could have identified Michael Cartier as a repeat offender and ordered a full
psychological evaluation. Along with bi-monthly meetings, I would recommend that agency heads ask
their probation departments to create a task force to assemble data regarding incoming and existing
offenders. The data should be compiled in an easily viewed spreadsheet format and distributed to
probation departments in adjacent counties on a bi-monthly basis. When offenders are ordered to attend
psychological counseling—or entered into the system—probation officers should cross-reference the
offenders name in the spreadsheet to identify their past activities and determine their threat level.
 Collaboration with nonprofit organizations, state mental health centers, and the criminal
justice system should be increased. It would be unrealistic to ask the nonprofits organizations or state
mental health centers to compile data for probation departments. However, probation-department heads
can meet with the directors of various nonprofit organizations that counsel abusers and those suffering
from abuse. Increased communication between these organizations may facilitate reports of abuse to
probation departments. Furthermore, meeting with state mental health centers would further the external
network of probation departments.

Recommendation
Increase Communication within the criminal justice
system.
Increase Communication with probation departments
among different agencies.
Increase collaboration with nonprofit organizations, state
mental health centers, and the criminal justice system.
Implementation
• Setup bi-monthly meetings with agency heads.
• Discuss implementation techniques for
monitoring offenders.
• Establish a task force within probation
departments.
• Task force assembles data on offenders.
• Data shared with departments in adjacent
counties.
• Probation department heads meet with
nonprofit organizations and state mental health
centers to establish external networks.

Justification
In the Stillman reading, Max Weber describes the advance of bureaucracies as a result of their
“technical superiority over any other form of organization” (58). Weber goes on to describe
bureaucracies as precise, speedy, and unified (Stillman 2010). The case note clearly illustrates a
situation in which a bureaucracy is inefficient, slow, and uncoordinated. The probation department was
not shirking its duties, but was trying to accomplish them with an ever-increasing caseload. Regular
communication among different probation departments was not a standard operating procedure because
probation officers felt it would further backlog their caseload. Nevertheless, communication was needed
to fulfill the goals of the organization. Author William Waugh in his piece, “Collaboration and
Leadership for Effective Management,” describes coordination efforts between federal emergency
management agencies—like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and state and local
emergency management agencies. For the DHS to coordinate disaster relief efforts, they have to work
with states and municipalities to manage hazards and reduce risks. Waugh states, “The capacity to
collaborate effectively…is essential” (132). Lessons on collaboration can be applied to the probation
departments in Suffolk County. Increased collaboration can help the departments to ensure public safety
through a more precise monitoring of offenders.

“The Effective Public Manager,” discusses innovation tools are discussed as a means of
improving productivity and efficiency within an organization. Quality management is an approach to
self-evaluation that involves reflection, customer input, and incremental changes within the agency. At
the heart of quality management is the requirement of rapid changes in the standard operating
procedures and constant training (151). Quality management focuses on production, worker
participation, and communication to improve the work processes. The establishment of bi-monthly
meetings with the chief justices of the major courts would facilitate a top-down approach towards
agency collaboration. Communication at the top level could lead to rapid changes in the standard
operating procedures within the probation department. Moreover, quality management emphasizes
worker participation and staff empowerment. Discussing implementation techniques may inspire agency
heads to seek greater feedback from the street-level bureaucrats that enforce policy.

Setting up a departmental task force to compile offender information would help to improve the
information flow into the department. Today, agencies are constantly inundated with information, but
the challenge becomes enhancing the amount of quality information an agency receives. As Steven
Cohen describes, “Governments across the board need to develop well-defined SOPs for maintaining the
flow of information” (206). The current organizational structure of probation departments is not
designed to for cross-departmental collaboration. Rather, they resemble individual silos that have their
own system of bottom-up communication. The creation of an individual task force would also address
the problem of information breakdown. Information breakdown occurs when staff people do not receive
information essential to perform their jobs. When information breakdowns happen outside of the
organization, this can be attributed to an inadequate external network (213). A task force would help to
foster the external network of the Suffolk County court system and probation department.
 The death of Kristin Lardner was a tragedy that might have been prevented had there been cross-
departmental collaboration. In “Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box,” author Ann Marie
Thomson describes the process of collaborative administration. When organizations collaborate they due
so “because they intend to achieve a particular purpose. To achieve the purpose that brought the
organization to the table…some kind of administrative structure must exist” (Stillman 2010, 292). The
purpose behind collaboration between probation departments would be to identify offenders that remain
a danger to themselves and others. The task force would create an administrative structure to facilitate
communication throughout the Suffolk County court system.

Creating an informal relationship between nonprofit organizations that counsel abusers and
probation departments could have several positive benefits. Foremost, this collaboration will help to
develop the external network for the department. In the case note, the organization Emerge—a nonprofit
abuse counseling organization—was visited by Michael Cartier. Cartier was going to attend Emerge
counseling sessions, but he backed out when he was asked for the name of his probation officer.
Communication with organizations like Emerge will help the public to feel more comfortable calling the
probation department or recommending others to call the probation department. Increased
communication with these organizations will help probation departments know if offenders are attending
their court-ordered counseling sessions. Moreover, public-nonprofit collaboration will help probation
departments locate past offenders that are seeking counseling for routine habits.

In the case note, Cartier’s admittance to the Boston mental health center went unnoticed by the
Boston Municipal Court. He was sentenced to attend a once a week class at the courthouse called
“Alternatives to Violence.” Chief probation officer John Tobin admitted that the class was not for
batterers, like Cartier, but for “people who react to stress in violent ways” (Stillman 2010, 68). Cartier
even stopped attending his classes, but was permitted to reenroll in the course. Had the Boston
Municipal Court known of his hospital admittance or his reliance on lithium to control his manic-
depression, he would not have been allowed to attend the Alternatives to Violence course. If the
probation office for the Boston Municipal Court had been in contact with the city’s mental health center
or if they had contacted probation officer Tom Casey in Brighton, they would have been informed of
Cartier’s history. This oversight demonstrates a need for the organization to go beyond its current
standard operating procedures and locate the information it needs to fully achieve its mission. Steven
Cohen tells of the aggressive pursuit of information as “getting out from behind your desk, and
encouraging your staff to get out of the office, too” (200). Building a relationship with ancillary
organizations requires a pro-active effort towards communication.

Consequences and Drawbacks

Setting up a bi-monthly meeting between the chief justices of the major courts may not be
feasible. Chief justices have busy schedules and a court to oversee. Taking the time to meet with other
justices is a luxury that some can’t afford. There is also a question of how comprehensive should these
meetings be and whether judges throughout the state should attend. If this were the case, then at the
minimum I would encourage a yearly regional meeting. By regional I mean a gathering of clustered
jurisdictions, for example, western-central or eastern-central. An alternative to meetings would be to
develop a best practices newsletter, which would illustrate the various implementation techniques being
used throughout the state. A newsletter may also be more economical for the state and counties. Travel
expenses for a meeting would most likely fall under a work expense. There would also be a question of
what type of venue should host the meeting and where.

Establishing a task force could prove costly to the organization. To create the offender database,
workers will be required to take on more assignments or retrain for this particular assignment. Other
probation departments may take longer to setup a task force, and this would lead to asymmetrical
information flow. The most obvious question is “How much will this cost?” Without looking into
similar pilot programs I cannot answer this questions. If financial considerations would prevent a task
force from being formed, then I would recommend that chief probation officers (public administrators)
try informal measures to reach the same results. Probation officers should take the time to call other
departments when they have a suspicious feeling about an offender. Chief probation officers can
encourage their subordinates to use the same amount of discretion and gradually these external networks
will take shape.

Concluding Thoughts
The public is the ultimate evaluator of the criminal justice system, and they have an omnipresent
criterion: ensure public safety. Kristin’s death illustrates a failure of the mission and goal of the criminal
justice system. Michael Cartier knew how to manipulate the system and the lenient punishments he
received emboldened him. Lack of communication and collaboration between bureaucratic departments
facilitated Cartier’s actions. It has been said that the wheels of justice move slowly, but in this case they
moved too slow to prevent an offender from striking again. A rapid change in the standard operating
procedures for the probation department is a course of action that could prevent this type of situation
from happening again; thus, facilitating the organization’s mission.
Works Cited

Cohen, Steven, William B. Eimicke, and Tanya Heikkila. The Effective Public Manager: Achieving
Success in a Changing Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Print.

Stillman, Richard Joseph. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Boston, Mass.: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning,, 2010. Print.

"Conduct Disorder." University of Virginia Health System. Web. 24 Mar. 2010.

<http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/UVAHealth/adult_mentalhealth/condis.cfm>.

Waugh, William L., and Gregory Streib. "Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency
Management." Public Administration Review (2006): 131-40. Print.