Dear Editor,

I’m Kevin Narbonne of Hopkinton. I filed a complaint with the Select Board in fall 2024 regarding the Hopkinton Police Department’s response to a critical incident on October 1, 2024.

>> RELATED—Letter to SB: School Unsafety in Hopkinton

>> RELATED—HPD: Response to Public Comments 

Understanding the Real Issue: Protocol Preparedness, Not Call Identification

My complaint was not about the HPD’s ability to identify a swatting call. Rather, I raised concerns about the Hopkinton Police Department’s lack of preparedness to execute well-developed emergency protocols. These protocols should already have been written by the HPD and drilled with the Hopkinton Fire Department, the school district, and trauma centers.

The FBI Review: What Was Actually Examined

I found it concerning to read the November 7th press release (published November 14th, 2025) from Scott van Raalten, serving as the HPD’s Acting Chief. Van Raalten’s language suggested the FBI had conducted a comprehensive after-action review of all HPD actions on October 1st, 2024. He stated: “That case was reviewed by FBI Special Agent Brian LeBlanc at our request as part of an after-action review.”

However, this characterization is misleading. The phrase “that case” implies a thorough review, but FBI Special Agent Brian LeBlanc did not examine the entire case as van Raalten suggested.

What the FBI Special Agent Actually Reviewed

Special Agent LeBlanc confirmed, both by phone and in email, that his assessment was limited to reviewing the recorded call itself — not the comprehensive “case” that van Raalten referenced.

LeBlanc’s analysis examined

The call’s specific characteristics, including:

• Caller ID information
• Phone number called
• Language and patterns used, if any
• Other indicators of a hoax call

Based on these call characteristics, Special Agent LeBlanc confirmed the HPD correctly identified the call as a swatting incident. However, LeBlanc’s review ended there. The FBI Special Agent had no additional information about that day.

The Critical Gap: What an After-Action Review Should Include

A comprehensive after-action review of the October 1st incident logically would examine numerous operational elements:

Call Management and Response Timeline

• How many swatting calls were received that day?
• Which personnel received each call and on which lines?
• At what specific times did each call come in?
• What actions did the first point-of-contact personnel take?
• How long did the calls last?

Personnel and Command Structure

• Which officers were on duty that day?
• Where were on-duty officers positioned when the swatting call came in?
• Where was Scott van Raalten at the time?
• Where was Police Chief Joe Bennett?
• Was Chief Bennett consulted by van Raalten or other HPD personnel? If so, how many times, by whom, and for what purpose?

Emergency Response and Threat Assessment Protocols

• What emergency response protocols were in place and referenced that day?
• How many pages comprise these protocols?
• When were they drafted initially and by whom?
• When were they last updated and by whom?
• When was the last training drill for this type of situation?
• Were protocols being followed on October 1st?

Communications and Coordination with Other Agencies

• How many times did personnel request information or direction via radio?
• How many times did the HPD respond to these requests?
• How many times did the HPD fail to respond?
• How much time elapsed between the first call and HPD notification to the Hopkinton Fire Department?
• How much time elapsed before HPD notified the school district?
• How much time passed before HPD determined the call was a hoax?
• When HPD provided directions to the HFD and school district, how much time had elapsed since the initial call?

Field Response and Officer Actions

• Which HPD officers were deployed to Hopkinton schools by van Raalten?
• Of those officers, which ones had received on-site training at Hopkinton schools that led to familiarity with each school’s floor plan?
• What time was each officer ordered to each location? (And which locations?)
• What specific actions did each officer take upon arrival?
• What instructions did van Raalten give officers regarding individuals on school grounds?
• What actions did officers take when encountering people on school perimeters?
• Fire Department Coordination and Protocol Development
• Why wasn’t the Fire Department officially released that day? Why were they left without direction or notification that it was okay to leave?

Just after attending the Fall of 2023 “Executive Chief Fire Officer Training,” Fire Chief Gary Daugherty requested that Police Chief Joe Bennett and Deputy Chief (and sometimes Acting Chief) van Raalten develop a robust multidisciplinary integrated response protocol for active shooter situations.

Questions Related To The Requested Integrated Response Protocol

• Before October 1, 2024, how many times had Fire Chief Gary Daugherty requested this?
• When, specifically, did Chief Daugherty make these requests?
• How many protocols have been added, edited, or deleted since October 1, 2024?
• How many pages do current protocols contain? (And how do those total page numbers compare with those of past protocols?)
• Which disciplines are included in the multidisciplinary protocol (police, fire, EMS, trauma centers, law enforcement partners, counselors, school staff, students)?

Accountability Gap: Questions the Select Board Should Have Asked

In retrospect, these are the very questions the Hopkinton Select Board should have raised a year ago—on December 3, 2024—during its special meeting with the Hopkinton Police Department regarding the department’s October 1 response.

Instead, the Select Board added the discussion at the end of its biannual performance review of Police Chief Joe Bennett. Many Hopkinton residents looked on with frustration as board members lobbed softball questions to HPD and district leadership, giving the exchange a scripted and superficial feel.

Concerns About Transparency and Accuracy

Van Raalten’s November 7^th letter (in the November 14, 2025, press release) also stated: “The Hopkinton Police Department remains committed to transparency.” When you understand the limited scope of the FBI’s review, the irony of that transparency claim becomes apparent.

Furthermore, van Raalten stated that I had been “inaccurate” in telling the Select Board that no member—past or present—had ever contacted me after my October 16, 2024, letter, which expressed grave concerns about Hopkinton’s emergency preparedness for school safety.

Van Raalten’s statement is false. None of the Select Board’s Members ever contacted me after I sent them my October 16, 2024, letter. Those Select Board Members (some of whom still serve on the Select Board) all knew that van Raalten’s claim was inaccurate—except for Mr. Kizner, who recently joined the Select Board.

The Select Board should request that both HopNews and the Hopkinton Independent print a retraction of van Raalten’s false statement. The Board should also publicly acknowledge that no Select Board member has contacted me regarding my October 16, 2024, correspondence regarding emergency preparedness.

Van Raalten has once again proven he lacks the caliber of truthfulness and competence our Town deserves in its taxpayer-supported police department. Deputy Chief van Raalten’s November 7^th letter falls short of the transparency and accountability that Hopkinton residents deserve from their municipal leadership.

Respectfully,
Kevin Narbonne
Hopkinton

Letters to the Editor: The views expressed in this letter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of HopNews. Letters may be edited for clarity, grammar, and length.

Comments: HopNews welcomes comments as long as they contribute to the discussion and are respectful. Anyone can criticize ideas or disagree with opinions, but personal attacks won’t be published.