Egremont Zoning

Egremont has something called a zoning bylaw, but it isn't really.  It's what lawyers call a land use bylaw, because it doesn't create any zones, but rather just says what you can and can't do with land in Egremont.

Several years ago, the planning board proposed a rewrite of the bylaw that was rejected by the voters at a town meeting because it made too many changes, including some controversial ones that didn't go over well.  That proposed revision didn't even try to create zones.

Now the planning board is proposing major changes in the bylaw that will create zones and make other changes.  There's a public hearing on it scheduled for December 9.

New Marlborough very recently went through the same process.  That process culminated last week in the voters soundly rejecting it - by an overwhelming margin -  apparently for two primary reasons:  it made too many changes for townspeople to accept; and it wasn't adequately "sold" to the townspeople through the meetings, publicity and hand holding that are critically necessary for this type of action.

The Egremont planning board has a long history of proposing changes that fall flat with the townspeople. The planning board too often has come across as an imperious, "we know best" group that is viewed by townspeople as trying to inveigle them into creating more power in the planning board under the guise of protecting something.  In my opinion, that reputation is deserved. 

Perhaps that has changed.  And perhaps the planning board will learn from the New Marlborough experience.  The planning board needs to really reach out to townspeople - all of them - to discover what they think and to make changes to their proposal reflecting what they learn, even if that means dropping it completely or making changes that the individual members of the planning board don't agree with.  Holding a few public hearings isn't enough.  The people whose voices need to be heard include the ones who don't come to public hearings.

Town government has become increasingly cloistered in recent years.  The town hall denizens too often listen to themselves and their friends and make little or no effort to reach out to the citizenry.  Let's hope that doesn't happen for the zoning bylaw proposal.  

The Flynn Campaign Against Laura Continues

Flynn sent the following email to Laura, with copies to Bruce and Mary, after this Monday's meeting:

"Madame Chairman

 

I and other members of the Egremont Board of Selectman  were disappointed that you were not in attendance at last night’s meeting of the Board.  This was especially disconcerting considering that Mr. Tom Scanlon of the firm Scanlon and Associates was at the meeting to brief us and the community on the results of the recently completed audit his firm performed on the Town of Egremont finances for fiscal year 2012.  You being chair of the Finance Committee, I would have expected that you would have been there with your entire committee to hear his report and the factual discussion of the Management Letter, the Significant Deficiencies, and other matters.  However and fortunately, the Finance Committee was well represented by Tom Berkel, Ed Scarbro, and Ralph Noveck.

 

For your benefit and that of the entire town,  Mary will post the official management letter and accompanying report on the town’s website on Wednesday or Thursday when it is received as the Board of Selectmen released it officially to the public last evening as prior to last evening it was only an unofficial draft. 

 

Lukewarm Regards

 

Charles Flynn"

 

Laura sent the following email response to Flynn, with copies to Bruce, Mary and the finance committee members:

 

Your snotty e-mail to me of 11/5/13  is further evidence of your never ending campaign to force me off the finance committee.  You might spend your time more profitably doing your homework before taking hasty and often ill-advised actions at selectboard meetings.   My very best contributions to the town take place in the long hours I spend evaluating and making recommendations about town actions and in actions by the selectboard and others, not in attending selectboard meetings, especially if ill.  In my opinion the town would be better served if you attended fewer of them.

 

 

 

 

 

The Police Collective Bargaining Agreement

At the recent special town meeting, four of the six members of the finance committee voted no on the proposed collective bargaining agreement.  Their reasons included that the agreement was unclear in many areas, including the most important area:  What do the police officers get paid and what raises do they get?   Here's why.

Below is the actual page from the agreement.  You might think there was language following the table explaining how it is to be applied.  You would be wrong.

How do these numbers apply and to whom?  There's no explanation. What's the meaning of "Hiring Level A" or any of the others?  There's no explanation.  Do these specified levels mean  officers can only be hired (and paid) at one of the specified salaries?   It would be easy to just say that, but it doesn't.  There's language on the next page that reads "The Board of Selectmen reserves the right to hire experienced part-time officers at level C as long as they do not exceed part-time employees on the seniority list, and the Board also reserves the right to place new full-time experienced officers at a pay scale appropriate to their level of experience up to Level C."  I've read that sentence 25 times and still can't make sense out of it.  Does its existence mean that the numbers in the table only apply to new hires, not to existing officers?  And if the Board "reserves the right" to hire part-timers at level C, the clear implication is that they can't hire part-timers at any other level.  Is that what it means? Or does it mean "no higher" than level C?  It could have said that but it doesn't.  For full-timers, does it mean that level C is the highest level they can be hired at?  It could just say that but it doesn't.

Let's say the intention of the agreement is to provide for minimum and maximum pay levels for officers and to provide for each officer to be paid one of the specified amounts.  (Of course, we have to imply that because the agreement - rather astonishingly - doesn't say it.) And let's suppose that there is an existing officer who was paid about $39,000 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.  Presumably he is to get a raise up to $39,839 for FY 2014, but how does he know, or anyone know, that he's in "Hiring Level B"?  Maybe there's a record somewhere that he was designated to that level when he was hired, but the levels in past agreements were designated by numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.), not letters, so there won't be any such record.  And even if there were a clear record, the agreement uses the word "hiring" for each level, indicating the schedule is only for new officers, because it would have been easy to just leave out that word if the idea was to name each existing officer to a specified pay level. 

And what's the point to these specific numbers, rather than just minimums and maximums?  Do they mean the selectboard can't hire an officer at, say, $42,000 exactly?  What's the point of that?  What if an officer wants to forego, say, the uniform cleaning allowance in exchange for an extra $300 in wages?  That can't be done under the agreement?

The sentence following the table is a real mystery.  The first part of the sentence says an officer will get a raise each fiscal year by moving laterally (meaning from left to right) - which incidentally leaves no room for any merit raises.   But then the sentence uses the word "and." So does that "and" mean the officer moves laterally only if he also gets an acceptable annual performance rating?  (As you might suspect by now, there's nothing in the agreement telling you when the annual performance review takes place, who does it, or what an "average rating of 3 or better" means.)  If that was the intention, it should have said "but only if," not "and."  The alternative meaning is that the officer gets two raises, one on July 1 and one on getting an acceptable performance rating.  But that can't be right, because there's only one specified dollar amount for each fiscal year.  So does the sentence mean that if an officer doesn't get an acceptable performance review, he stays at the old fiscal year wage?  If so, what happens the next year?  If he gets an acceptable review, does he then leapfrog up to the 2016 wage rate? 

No lawyer worth his or her salt would allow these ambiguities in a contract, especially in the most important provisions, namely the wage schedules.  The voters should have told the selectboard to go back and get it right.

Special Town Meeting

Now that they've fired Reena, the hottest item on the warrant - $42,000 more for an interim chief - will likely not be moved by the selectboard.  That leaves far less controversy for the meeting and may tempt many people not to go.   If you're one of them, please reconsider.

The other item on the police budget is still there.  I suspect when the selectboard moves it, they'll leave out the part about more money for the chief's salary:  whoever they hire to replace Reena, presumably Shaw, will get a lower salary than Reena, so there's no reason to increase that amount. 

That leaves the increase in the secretary's salary - which I suspect will garner very substantial support - and the increase in what's labeled "collective bargaining."    There are two ways to approach that item. 

First, the voters level funded the police department at the May meeting.  That's a perfectly appropriate way to decide budget matters.  For example, the voters could say to the highway department "we think we should spend no more than $[          ] on highways; now you deal with spending that amount whatever way you think best, but don't exceed it."  That approach works equally well with the police department, since vacancies can be filled or not filled, hours can be arranged, part time versus full time officers can be used for specific tasks, etc.  Most people in the private and public sectors are required to follow that kind of mandate.  If they come back later in the year and say "well I spent too much, so I need more, please give it to me," they get their heads taken off.

Someone might say "yes, but unexpected items can't be budgeted at the beginning of the year, and the new collective bargaining agreement with the police unexpectedly raises their compensation."  But everyone knew a new agreement was in the offing, and the town has often had to estimate police compensation pending a new agreement.  In fact that's what we did in May.  So if the new agreement is too costly, turn it down.  (To illustrate the point, what if the selectboard negotiated an increase of $100,000 in police compensation.  Would the voters just go along?)

Equally important, the dollar increase being requested is pretty much a seat of the pants number.  It assumes certain staffing that may or may not be what actually happens.  And the contract itself is filled with ambiguities.  When the finance committee asked for explanations from Bill Tighe, he had to admit that there were ambiguities.  I've read the contract.  It's unclear on some very basic money matters.  And it says it's not even in effect until July 1, 2014, which means the old contract still controls.  So rather than just bless it, why not say to the selectboard "go back and fix it, and live with what we gave you in May"?

The Police Debacle Goes On

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.  The selectboard voted 3 to 0 tonight to terminate Reena effective immediately.  There should be an article in the Eagle tomorrow, and if it quotes any of the selectmen, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the quotes will just tighten the noose around their necks some more.  If you're selling your Egremont property, do it fast because your tax bill is going to go way up.  As a federal taxpayer, you owe a big chunk of your future to the Chinese.  As an Egremont taxpayer, you're going to owe a big chunk of your future to Reena Bucknell.

If any of you have the ear of any selectman, talk to him or her about thinking just a little bit before saying something that makes things worse.

I haven't been to recent selectboard meetings, but I went tonight.  I can report that, sadly, things have only changed for the worse.

First, Turner announced at the start of the meeting that he was banning any recording of it because the recording people hadn't indicated they were going to do so BEFORE the meeting, as opposed to at the outset of the meeting.  They read outloud the wording in the open meeting law, which does say "before," and by God we selectmen are going to enforce it against these disrespectful citizens who only want to trap us with our own words! 

There followed a rather bizarre discussion about Robert's Rules of Order, with the selectmen at first indicating they were going to follow it, but, well, not all the time.  When Weigle asked which edition of Robert's Rules they were going to follow, they admitted they didn't know there were several editions.  Pollard tried to bail them out with a rambling speech about how meetings should be (must be?) conducted, but was not terribly persuasive. How can you be persuasive when the real purpose of the selectboard's actions is to shut the citizenry up (at least those citizens who the selectboard doesn't like)?

Cumsky presented a letter outlining a conversation he'd had with an Assistant AG indicating that the open meeting law required that members of the public be able to hear the proceedings and that the selectboard must provide a room with adequate seating for the expected audience. Here it is:

That prompted Pollard to do a song and dance about how his prior contrary advice wasn't really to the contrary.  I can't wait to compare the transcripts.

What's so really, really bad about all this?  The selectmen have moved completely into the bunker, so the usual useful interplay between the citizens and the board - known as democracy - has been eliminated.  And pity poor Mr. Pollard, who has to defend the selectboard in implementing these attacks on the way democracy should work.

Then Brazie announced that one of the selectboard's ploys - to raid unused community policing grant money to pay for an extension of the temporary chief's tenure so they wouldn't have to ask the taxpayers to pony up at the special town meeting - probably wasn't going to work.  The finance committee had made inquiries at the state level and was told that that unused  money couldn't be used in that way because it probably had to be paid back to the state.   That really upset Flynn, who demanded to know if the nosy finance committee had put discussing that matter on their agenda!  Flynn apparently thinks it's okay to spend money illegally if you can just slip it by. 

Flynn then used that problem to launch into a tirade about Reena, and demanded to meet on what to do about her - i.e., let's fire her - by the end of this week.  He found it damnable that Reena hadn't spent the grant money and therefore put us into this terrible situation.  Of course, he overlooks that if she had spent the money it wouldn't be available, now would it?  (And he thinks a town employee should be criticized for NOT spending money?) It's the selectboard that applies for grants and is supposed to monitor them, not town employees; that's called accountability.  And there were several specific discussions with THIS selectboard about using that grant money for radio upgrades at the new police station, so they can't plead ignorance.  How wrong headed can you get? 

A bit of sad news is that Jim Fountain, the long time dump attendant, is quitting.  Much sadder is the selectboard's reaction.  Brazie announced that there was no need to advertise the position because a number of people had already indicated they were interested.  The fact that someone who is an outsider might be a better choice seems to be of no concern to this selectboard.  Cronyism reigns.  Indeed, when Cumsky asked what the board's policy was about advertising open positions, the response was that advertising was done only when there weren't people on the inside who were interested in the job.  I admire the honesty, but this is a really stupid way to do business, and the result is predictable.  It just worsens the "us against them" mentality that permeates town hall.  And there's no reason to hope that it's going to get better.  There's only one way to accomplish that.

 

Bucknell Matter Resolved? Redux

The answer to the question in the title to this posting is obvious.  Not on your bippy.  But here's a little twist on the subject:  At tonight's selectboard meeting I handed the reporter from the Record a note saying the Record had reported that a deal had been struck between the selectboard and Reena, quoting Brazie and Turner to that effect, and yet people who have talked to Reena report that it's news to her.  Where's the truth, I asked the reporter.  I expected him to bite into that tidbit like a bulldog.  What was his response?  "Call the paper," he said;  "I didn't write the story."  I guess the reporters don't talk to each other.

Bucknell Matter Resolved?

The Berkshire Record reported this week that an agreement had been reached between the selectboard and Reena Bucknell, citing statements from both Bruce Turner and Mary Brazie.  Don't believe it.  There's no agreement.  Why are Turner and Brazie saying so?

Recalls

Recalls of elected officials are permitted in Massachusetts.  Many years ago, Egremont went from a system of electing all three selectmen for one year to a system with rolling three-year terms.  Since that meant the town could be stuck with a bad choice for three years, David Campbell proposed adding a recall provision to the town bylaws.  It generated insufficient interest and did not get the required two-thirds vote at the town meeting at which it was proposed.  (I voted for it.)

 

 Recall provisions in town bylaws often result from special statutes adopted by the legislature that expressly permit a town to adopt such provisions, which are often set forth in detail in the special statute itself.  That process normally occurs when a town asks its elected state representatives to introduce legislation and shepherd it through the legislature.   Some people believe that procedure is necessary for a recall provision to be valid.  Others believe that the "home rule"  provisions of state law empower a town to adopt a recall bylaw without specific state authorization.  I'm not certain what the state attorney general's position is.  A town could always adopt a recall bylaw and then see if the attorney general approves it.   I think that's the approach David Campbell was taking.

 

 

 

 

 

A Conversation Between A and Z (Richard Allen and Kevin Zurrin) About the Police

RICHARD:  Are you going to Reena's hearing on Monday, Kevin?   KEVIN: I’d only miss it if there were tire tracks across my chest. It'll be entertaining to say the least, and we'll finally hear Reena's side of the story.  I’m pretty sure she’ll want the hearing be open.   RICHARD:  That’s what I hear.  And I think there'll be lots of fireworks, maybe more than at Tanglewood on the fourth of July.   KEVIN:  I’ve heard that Charlie and perhaps the BoS has been out to get Reena for quite awhile.   RICHARD:  At least two of the members have been.  Maybe Turner not as much.   KEVIN: The more I look into this matter, the stranger it looks.  For instance, the story that the BoS wasn’t aware of the February 19th “mutiny” until the officers showed up in full regalia is nonsense.   RICHARD:   I agree. If you read the transcripts of that meeting and a later one – both posted on my blog – there are some glaring inconsistencies.  And there are too many other things that just don’t add up.    KEVIN:  YA THINK? I remember Charlie saying to me at a BoS meeting, when I quoted what he had said; “Do you have those notes written down somewhere?” and “I mean, if you can give me the exact recording of what I said I’m happy to stand up to it.” What isn’t heard on the recording, for whatever reason, is my saying I would testify to it in a court of law, which prompted Turner to say “that’s a no.”   RICHARD:  He’s not the only one whose stories have changed.  I can’t wait til Monday.  There may be lots of juicy revelations.   KEVIN:   I don’t know what you think will happen at the hearing on Monday; but don’t get your hopes up. The BoS has been running this game for a long time.   RICHARD:  I’m not sure what procedure they’ll try to use.   KEVIN: Neither are they, but be assured that they’ll make it up as they go.   RICHARD:  I think there may be lots of folks there, but remember, at your “lynching” they weren’t allowed to speak.   KEVIN: To be fair Richard, some people were allowed to speak; including you, right after you were verbally assaulted by Charlie.  But seriously, aren’t the views of townspeople important, especially in a small town where the police are supposed to be neighborly?   RICHARD:  I think so.  And Charlie has said “We’re still willing to have a public meeting with the chief.  If the chief chooses to do that, we will be more than happy to have that public meeting so that she can address each and every one of those charges.  We want this to be, and what we have tried to do, is keep this whole process as open and honest as we possibly could.”   KEVIN: That means people will be allowed to speak if Reena allows it, doesn’t it?   RICHARD:  Yes, if you believe Charlie means what he says.   KEVIN:  REALLY RICHARD!  Did you not see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek?  What people have to understand about Charlie is that the operative phrase is “as we possibly could,” not “open and honest”. Charlie thinks my lynching was as honest and open as he possibly could. Eye witnesses are quoted as saying “That pathetic excuse for a purported hearing was pre ordained - It was a mockery of a hoax of a sham of a hoax cloaked in a tissue of lies”   RICHARD:   Do you know anything more about the Pilone firing?   KEVIN:  A bit. Jeremy and I have spoken a few times since the “hearing.”  But I’m not talking much about it until I see what happens on Monday. I’ve heard rumors that the chief and Jeremy may join forces. You know the old saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?   RICHARD:  I’d like to know what standards the selectboard is applying.  They fired Pilone but didn’t fire Carlson, even though the acting chief said to fire both.  What was the difference?  How do they decide?  And how are they going to apply whatever standard it is to Reena?   KEVIN: Richard, you are making the mistake of applying logic.  The BoS acts arbitrarily and capriciously.  I don’t think they know or care about logic. If they applied logic they would be a little more consistent in their inconsistencies.   RICHARD:   Yeah, you got that right. By the way, have you found out anything about the evidence locker story?   KEVIN: Yes Richard, and contrary to Mary’s claim, my sources say it did in fact happen and there is a lot going on that we will not hear about from the BoS or the EPD. However, baseless claims are not fact. Evidence is fact and when the facts come out the BoS may have a lot to answer for. I asked for the police report and was told I can’t have it because it falls within the exemption clause of the Massachusetts Public Records Law.   RICHARD:  Another glaring example of our selectboard’s “transparency.”   KEVIN:  So the really big question here is this:  If the BoS lets Reena go, what will she do?   RICHARD:  I’m pretty sure she’ll sue.    KEVIN: With my best deer in the headlight look I say, I’m shocked to hear you say that Richard.   Richard: Yes and when she does it’s going to cost the town a pretty penny.    KEVIN: The Selectmen are probably thinking, so what. The insurance will pay for it; and whatever isn’t covered, the taxpayers will just have to pay.   RICHARD:  Our town insurance is “experience rated.”  That means the insurance may pay it today but our premiums will go up – maybe way up – to pay for it later.  There’s no free lunch. I think that folks who go to the hearing should remind the selectmen that there’s likely to be a BIG cost to letting Reena go.    KEVIN: Yes, but that’s only if they’re allowed to speak. Face it, once the BoS embarked on this journey they were committed. Handling the thing correctly would have been dicey enough; the way the BoS handled the situation they have no way to even save face.    RICHARD:  Probably not.   KEVIN:  So correct me if I’m wrong, Richard, but this is the pattern: the selectmen create a big mess, they mishandle it from the get go and expect the taxpayers to bail them out?   RICHARD:  Unless they do the right thing and pay it themselves.  Fat chance.  And when they don’t volunteer, I’ll be thinking tar and feathers.   KEVIN:  You may be thinking tar and feathers, but like Jack Muskrat, I think the BoS will get off without any consequences. The town has not yet been sufficiently horrified by the BoS’s behavior.    RICHARD:  Time will tell.

 

 

Officer Pilone and the Selectboard

After the June 12 selectboard meeting that resulted in Officer Pilone's ouster, Selectman Turner spoke about it to the Berkshire Eagle.  That was a mistake.   Here's why:

 

And here's the

And here's the selectboard's response:

 

 

Another day, another lawsuit.  Some people should learn to keep their mouths shut.

 

 

 

 

More on the Selectboard's Mishandling of the Police Situation

Many of us have had suspicions about the explanations from members of the selectboard about how the police debacle unfolded.  Here's the transcript of a meeting that came after the suspension of the chief in which various citizens questioned what had happened.  There are discrepancies between what's said at this meeting and what was said at the suspension meeting. 

Also interesting is Selectman Flynn's attempt to elevate policeman Pilone to the chief's position by, among other things, saying how great he is.  How quickly things can change.  Would you like to explain Mr. Flynn?  I won't hold my breath.

Here's the transcript:

Mr. Swanson:            The complaint that was a petition that was filed with the Select Board that lead to the removal of Reena Bucknell, will that be made public?

Selectman Turner:            Well, there wasn’t really a petition, that was a vote of no confidence by the police officer.

Mr. Swanson:            So, it’s an oral—

Selectman Brazie:            No, it was written.  And it’s already been made public.  It was attached to the minutes that, so, would you like a copy?

Mr. Swanson:            And the second question is, once this petition was submitted, what was the process that the select board went through that led to the decision to suspend Ms. Bucknell, Chief Bucknell, with pay?  Was there a review, a discussion with Bucknell, was there, are there files or documents?

Selectman Turner:            She wasn’t attending at, present at, that meeting.

Selectman Brazie:            Right.

Mr. Swanson:            Did you decide in the meeting?

Selectman Turner:            Yes, we did.

Selectman Flynn:            Yes, we did.

Mr. Swanson:            Okay.  Why did you not go through a more formal process that would be [Inaudible].

Selectman Turner:            What would have been the formal process?

Mr. Swanson:            Pardon me?

Selectman Turner:            What would have been the formal process?

Mr. Swanson:            Well, normally, in, in—

Selectman Turner:            We initiated an investigation at that time.

Mr. Swanson:            After suspending her.

Selectman Turner:            Yes, and that’s the formal process that—

Mr. Swanson:            Why did you decide to suspend her based on a complaint from her employees rather than discuss it with her?

Selectman Brazie:            ’Cause it wasn’t a single complaint, actually.  There were several complaints.

Mr. Swanson:            Presented simultaneously?

Selectman Brazie:            Yes.

Speaker:            Mm hm.

Speaker:            Yeah.

Selectman Brazie:            Along with the vote of no confidence.

Selectman Turner:            I think we had the full there—

Mr. Swanson:            She thought that was the full story [Inaudible].

Selectman Turner:            With a full group of officers it was, it was either we had a police department or we had a chief.  I don’t think there was a, and I think it was a—

Mr. Swanson:            So, the people, the officers who presented the petition, the vote of no confidence were ready to resign their positions?

Selectman Turner:            I think they were.

Mr. Swanson:            They made that clear?  Explicit?

Selectman Turner:            Explicit.

Mr. Swanson:            Explicit.

Selectman Turner:            They were here that night in force.  Every member of the police department.

Mr. Swanson:            So, it was a simple, “If you don’t suspend her immediately, we’re resigning our positions”?

Selectman Flynn:            What we did is we took the information that the officer provided to us.  We had some information already that we thought was pertinent including a most current eval and we had also consulted with our attorney to determine if—

Mr. Swanson:            Before you suspended her?

Selectman Flynn:            Yes.

Mr. Swanson:            Okay.

Selectman Flynn:            We consulted with our attorney and determined that the best process to follow was to suspend her with pay pending an investigation.  Which is exactly what we did.  Mary had spoken with counsel during the day or maybe it was me that spoke with counsel.

Selectman Brazie:            I think it was you.  I was—

Selectman Flynn:            It was me.  Because I had heard that something like this would take place, and I asked counsel as to the best process to follow and that’s what counsel suggested.  And that’s the process that we followed.

Mr. Swanson:            From a business perspective, it’s an extremely peculiar process.

Selectman Flynn:            This is not New York State.  This is the State of Massachusetts.  This is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Mr. Swanson:            My experience is not in New York State.

Selectman Flynn:            Let me finish.

Mr. Swanson:            Yeah.

Selectman Flynn:            You’ve had your chance to talk.

Mr. Swanson:            I don’t know why you say that.

Selectman Flynn:            Let me finish.  This is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and what we try to do is afford her every opportunity, including the opportunity to be at that meeting.  She chose not to be at that meeting.  For whatever reason, we do not know.

Mr. Swanson:            I’m wondering why you assume that my business experience was in the State of New York.

Selectman Turner:            Okay, this is not a conversation—

Selectman Flynn:            We’re not having a conversation about this.

Selectman Turner:            This is between us and the board, and the board made a decision.

Selectman Flynn:            I realize you like to carp about things, as you have accused me in the past, okay?  But we’ll talk about it afterwards, okay?

Mr. Swanson:            Okay.

Selectman Turner:            It was a decision the board—

Selectman Flynn:            We made it as a board.

Selectman Turner:            The board made it based on issues that culminated that night with a vote of no confidence.  There have been some issues prior to that, it was, there was—

Mr. Swanson:            Just to be clear, I’ve never met Reena Bucknell.  I don’t know anything about her.

Selectman Turner:            Okay, well, there was a lot of behind the scenes stuff that not a lot of people are aware of that we were, that culminated that night with that.  It wasn’t just that night that we decided to do it.  There was, there was—

Selectman Flynn:            Fourteen years and sixty officers.

Selectman Turner:            Not only that, but we had—

Mr. Swanson:            Compared to what?

Selectman Turner:            We had just hired two new officers that were extremely qualified or had been on the job for three or four months and we’d had a meeting prior to that night in which we tried to iron out some of the issues and found it kind of tense, at best.

Mr. Swanson:            Yes.

Selectman Turner:            And then a lot of things fell into place after that, that resulted in what we did.  I think there’s a lot more to it than just the vote of no confidence that night.  There were some other things that were happening behind the scenes.

Selectman Flynn:            When we tried to get close to particular facts and particular situations, there was a tendency of the chief to want to change the subject or move on to something else.  And we got close to some issues that really should have been discussed and she was more anxious in closing the meeting and moving on to a training session.  I think every effort was made to give the chief an opportunity to discuss it, and we’re still willing to have a public meeting with the chief.  If the chief chooses to do that, we will be more than happy to have that public meeting so that she can address each and every one of those charges.  We want this to be, and what we have tried to do, is keep this whole process as open and honest as we possibly could.  It’s a tough thing to do, but I think one of the things that this board has done is we made that report available as soon as we possibly could.  We went through to three counsels in order to ensure it got done.  We went to the district attorney, we went to our own attorney, and also we went to the attorney general to ensure it was something that we could release because we felt it was something that the town and the community needed to know.  Now we’re going on to the next step.

Selectman Turner:            So, anybody else?  Yes.

Male Speaker 4:            I was there at that meeting where all the officers were there and the complaints were issued and Charlie himself made statements that you could not get in contact with the chief so she was not available for being there.  Where’s the inconsistency there?

Selectman Flynn:            Do you have those notes written down somewhere?

Selectman Turner:            That’s, no.  It was an open meeting and she could have attended that night.  We did not know exactly what was going to happen that night, nor did we orchestrate what happened that night, but that’s, you know, that’s—

Male Speaker 4:            Charlie did know, he said.

Selectman Turner:            Maybe Charlie knew but—

Selectman Flynn:            [Inaudible] to be at the meeting.  That’s the only thing I can tell you.

[SEVERAL PEOPLE TALKING AT ONCE.]

Male Speaker 4:            After everybody else went away, you were here [Inaudible].

Selectman Turner:            Yeah, okay, we’re not here to discuss that.

Selectman Flynn:            We’re not here to discuss it.  I mean, if you can give me the exact recording of what I said.

Selectman Turner:            I mean, this is, this is—

Selectman Flynn:            I’m happy to stand up to it.

Selectman Turner:            This is an issue that we dealt with.

Speaker:            You want evidence.

Speaker:            You got it.

Selectman Turner:            We dealt with that night the best we thought we could and, and we’re, and we’ll—

Speaker:            Otherwise [Inaudible] will be okay.

Speaker:            You do that pretty well, Mr. Zorick.

Speaker:            We’re not here to discuss it, fair enough, but you are here to answer citizens’ questions.

Selectman Turner:            Yes, we are.  And we are working our way through the process here, and we made a determination that night that that was the best interest of the community to do what we did and I think that it will bear out that that was, in fact, the case.  And that’s what we get elected to do.  You guys have anything, town officials?  No town officials?  I’ve moved on to town officials.

Selectman Brazie:            Oh, you did?

Selectman Turner:            He didn’t raise his hand on time.  Are you a town official?

Male Speaker 5:            I just have one question, though, and that’s how long a process is this going be, take until it’s finished?

Selectman Turner:            It’s going to take until it’s finished.  I don’t know how long the pro—

Male Speaker 5:            We retain the acting chief and keep going on and paying—

Selectman Turner:            We are going through due process, and due process sometimes takes time.  And it’s not a cheap deal.  But we’re going to come out of this with the proper result in the best interest of the community.  And that’s all I can say right now.  We’ve released the report and we’re moving forward.  You guys have nothing?

Speaker:            I don’t have anything.

Selectman Turner:            Don’t have nothing.

Speaker:            For once.

Selectman Turner:            Okay.  Part-time officers.  We have a couple of guys you’ve brought before us to appoint.

Selectman Brazie:            We did.  Bill Tighe asked me today, though, if we would hold off on this.  He has been unable to verify some references.

Selectman Flynn:            I move to defer the appointments.

Selectman Turner:            Until our next meeting.  Are we meeting next week?

Selectman Brazie:            We are scheduled to meet next week, yes.

Selectman Turner:            Okay.  Let’s meet next week.

Speaker:            Sorry.

Selectman Turner:            Police department issues.  We already discussed them.

Selectman Brazie:            Well, yes and no.

Selectman Turner:            What have we got, Mary?

Selectman Brazie:            Well, as you know, Bill Tighe and myself and a full time officer interviewed a couple of possible candidates for an interim part-time administrative acting police chief and somewhere, did he send you, did Bill Tighe send you an email?

Selectman Turner:            Yes, he did.

Selectman Brazie:            So, I interviewed the two, and, and I guess, you know, one question is, does the board feel that two are enough?  More than two people, these two people, actually, were not contacted by the town.  They contacted the town and expressed their interest, but people that have been contacted by the town for various reasons are walking away.  So, now we’ve done these interviews and we have these two candidates and the first question that I would ask is, is the board ready to act on this, or do you want more follow-up on it?

Selectman Flynn:            Okay, I put my foot in my mouth all night long so I might as well not stop, huh?

Selectman Brazie:            Sure, why not, Charlie?

Selectman Flynn:            My feeling is that when we suspended the chief we appointed an officer in charge and then we engaged in a management study.  What we’ve gotten for the first time in about 14 years is some real, we’ve got some morale.  We look like we have a police department that’s working together and currently the officer in charge, acting chief, whatever he is, is making patrolman’s pay, he’s getting paid patrolman’s pay to do the job.  Of the two people that were interviewed, I’ve seen the evaluation based on that and Bill Tighe sent to me, and I find, you know, I like Brian Shaw.  You know he’s local, and I think he’s good.  But again we’re talking 20 hours a week at $20 an hour.  And what are we going to ask that person to do?  Are we going to ask that person to run the department?  Are we going to ask that person to follow through on the management study?  What is a role that person’s going to fill?  We have an officer in charge already who is taking steps, I think, to correct some of the issues that have been cited as problems in the management study.

So, the question I think we have to ask ourselves, if we’re going to hire somebody new, or somebody that’s not currently on the police department, what is the specific guidance that we’re going to provide to that particular person?  Are they going to be an acting chief?  If they’re going to be an acting chief, what are they going to do?  And then the next question is, who or what or how do we address this management study that we paid $10,000 for but gave us additional work to do?  Who’s going to take care of that?  And then who’s going to report to the select board and then ultimately to the town?  Because I really believe that we owe it to the town to tell them not only what the issue was, but then how we’re going to address that issue.  And then I think the third process down the line is, what is our plan for the future police department?  We were, in a sense, told one thing in November by our current chief, Bucknell, about the cost of hiring additional officers.  And it turns out that that may not be the case.

So, we have to ask ourselves, what are we going to present to the town, to the people of the town, in terms of what is the makeup of our department going to be, and then how much is it going to cost the taxpayers to have that particular type of makeup.  So, I think we’ve got a couple of issues that we really have to address, because just appointing somebody and not giving that person any guidance as to how we want to proceed we really have not done anything.

Selectman Brazie:            I agree that we need to come up with some clear delineation of the roles, but do we agree that we need to have some sort of an acting chief here?

Selectman Flynn:            Oh, I agree.

Selectman Brazie:            Oh, okay, because I thought I might have been hearing—

Selectman Flynn:            No.

Selectman Brazie:            —hearing something different.

Selectman Turner:            So, it sounds to me like we’re not really ready to do anything tonight.

Selectman Brazie:            So, when are we going to be ready, because here we are now, you know, two months out from making this move and—

Selectman Turner:            Let’s take a time this week to come up with what we think is a job description, a description of duties that we’d like this person to perform.

Selectman Brazie:            And do we do that on our own, or do we get together and meet and do that.

Selectman Turner:            Well, I would recommend that you and Bill get together and, [Inaudible] to delegate.  And then fire it off to us and then we can [Inaudible], because I think we really need to do, you know, let them do the upper level stuff.  I’m not sure, you know.  Maybe manage the investigation but not necessarily have to do all the day-to-day management of the department.  I think we have people capable of doing that right now.

Selectman Brazie:            I agree.

Selectman Turner:            And I really don’t want to interfere with that too much with what’s going on there right now.  That’s my thought.  I don’t know, what you think, Charlie?

Selectman Flynn:            Well, let me just throw this out, okay, because I really agonized over this, I’ve thought about this a lot.  That I may be the lone wolf of the group.  There’s been a lot of misinformation that’s circulated through town about what the current police department is doing.  I’ve had comments made about the humvees, the assault rifles and everything [Inaudible].  And let me clarify that a little bit.  We were offered an opportunity to partner with the state police that has access to certain military surplus items which the town can choose to take advantage of or not take advantage of.  And that ultimately is a decision that’s make by the select board in an open meeting.  It’s not made by the police department, but it’s made by the board of select and that’s part of the whole process.  It is something where military-issue items are made available to the state police, and the state police then screen them out to the various police agencies throughout the state.  Those police agencies then go through their boards of select and the select members either say yea or nay and then if they go back in and it’s on a first-come-first-serve basis.  What I’ve seen since this whole situation started is that each and every one of our police officers act with the utmost, utmost professionalism and courtesies towards everybody in town, and if they haven’t, I would like to know about it.

We have Officer Palone, who’s been acting as the officer in charge, and, essentially, been functioning as the interim chief and what I would like to propose before the selectmen and I don’t think we need to decide upon this but I’m going to throw this in tonight, is that we consider appointing Officer Palone as the Interim Chief at his current salary and then appointing Officer Carlson, in addition to his normal duties, as Chief Investigation Officer of the management report, because he is a certified detective, and also a certified trainer in the State of Massachusetts, to investigate and report to the board of selectmen on a weekly basis or at each and every one of our meetings until such time as we have been able to resolve the issues that have been identified within the management report.  Again, it’s not a motion, it’s just a suggestion.

Selectman Turner:            Yes, sir.

Speaker:            I recall that this issue of appointing an interim chief came up at a select board meeting, and the impression I got, and I didn’t take notes, was that this was the suggestion or request of one or more of the outside agencies that had been consulted, the District Attorney, or the Attorney General, or somebody of that ilk.  Now, I, I’ve just, if that’s the case, then wouldn’t their reasons for making that suggestion constitute the heart of a job description for such a person and, if that’s not the case, I’ve got it all wrong, then I wonder why, then, you should consider an outside person at all.  I mean, I can see why the state might make such a recommendation, but I’m not 100% sure in my own mind that they did.  I may have misheard them.

Selectman Brazie:            No, actually a state office did make that recommendation as well as the consulting firm that did our management study and our legal counsel.  All three of them made the same recommendations for very valid reasons, I feel.  So, we’ll go from here, I guess, and—

Selectman Turner:            I think we’ll—

Selectman Brazie:            —pull together—

Selectman Turner:            I hate to say it, but let’s put together some job descriptions and duties and responsibilities and be ready to do things.  And if we can find nothing against the two that we interviewed but if somebody else pops up, I’d like to interview them, too.  Okay?

Selectman Brazie:            Mm hm.

Selectman Turner:            Okay, with you, Charlie?

Selectman Flynn:            Works for me.

Selectman Turner:            Then we’ll do, deal with that next Monday.

Selectman Brazie:            Okay.

Selectman Turner:            Do we have any selectmen’s items?

Selectman Brazie:  I do.  May meetings, as you know it’s town meeting, it’s the first week of May, right?