Former Police and Fire pension director John Keane asks council to reject a forensic report and clear his name

John Keane, a retired firefighter and former executive director and administrator of the Police and Fire Pension Fund, addressed the Rules Committee on Feb. 3 and asked the council to adopt a resolution rejecting a previously circulated investigative report and clearing him and the pension board of its findings.

Keane told the committee he “categorically deny[s] every allegation and insinuation of wrongdoing” and disputed multiple assertions in the report, calling several of the report’s numbered “findings” inaccurate or misleading. He disputed claims the board lacked transparency, had paid excessive investment fees, or had concealed commission recapture funds, and said the pension fund ultimately profited on certain investments when liquidated.

Keane spoke for roughly the allotted time and asked the council to adopt a resolution to clear his name. Council President Donna Deegan White (referred to as council president in the meeting), Councilman Carlucci, Councilman Peluso, Councilwoman Pittman and other members publicly praised Keane’s long service and said they would support a resolution. Randy Wise, a past president of the firefighters’ union, and other union representatives also spoke in support of Keane and urged the council to act.

Keane described the history behind the earlier inquiry: a 2015 appropriation for an investigation and subsequent public discussion of a report that included recommended actions. He repeatedly said the report’s numbers and inferences were “not factual” and that prior reviews (including a review by the council auditor) had not produced evidence of criminal conduct. Keane urged the committee to reject the report’s conclusions and to pass a resolution clearing both him and the Police and Fire Pension Fund.

Committee members responded with statements of support on the record. Council President White said she would cosponsor a resolution to clear Keane; Councilman Carlucci and others said they would co-sponsor or support the measure. The Rules Committee did not vote on a resolution at the Feb. 3 meeting; members said they expected one or more resolutions to be introduced before the legislative deadline later in the week.

What happened next: several members signaled they would introduce or cosponsor a resolution, and staff told the committee of the approaching legislative filing deadline. No formal committee vote or binding action to reject the earlier report was recorded during the meeting.