I don’t normally post on the weekend, but this seems like one you should know about.
The Metrowest Daily News has uncovered details about an internal investigation launched by Southborough selectmen against a collection of town employees. My own investigation (limited as it has been) backs up the MWDN story.
The investigation stems from a gathering of town employees at Pizzeria Uno in Westborough after the special town meeting last September. Reportedly Town Administrator Jean Kitchen, Assistant Town Administrator Vanessa Hale, Public Works Superintendent Karen Galligan, then-Town Planner Vera Kolias, Town Accountant Carla McAuliffe, Fire Chief John Mauro, Town Recreation Director Doreen Ferguson, Town Finance Director Brian Ballantine, and then-Assistant Town Clerk Dawn Michanowicz all were there.
Sources told me Selectman Bill Boland later showed up.
The allegation is that disparaging remarks were made against Police Chief Jane Moran at that gathering. One of the town employees who was there reportedly told selectmen about the remarks. Selectman Sal Giorlandino called an emergency executive session in October to discuss the matter with the town employees who were at Uno’s that night.
According to the Metrowest Daily News article:
“We were told by Sal (Giorlandino) that disciplinary action was being considered,” the employee said in an interview conducted on Wednesday. “Sal asked us if we heard any disparaging statements made about Moran while we were unwinding at Pizzeria Unos following the special Town Meeting on Sept. 29.
“We gave him a resounding ‘No.”‘
The source went on to say that the person who reported the remarks “couldn’t even remember exactly what was said or who said it … only that it had something to do with Jane Moran, the Special Town Meeting, and the new police car voters decided in favor of.”
Giorlandino did not return calls from the MWDN. Nor did Selectwoman Bonnie Phaneuf. Selectman Bill Boland said he couldn’t comment on issues discussed at the executive session. The MWDN reporter said Chief Moran hung up on him when asked to comment.
It’s not known what this is costing the town. The investigation has reportedly been ongoing since October. One town employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity told me they were interviewed by town attorneys for at least three hours. Another said they had spent countless hours responding to requests related to the matter.
The MWDN article says the selectmen have hired three lawyers as part of the investigation – town counsel Aldo Cipriano, special counsel Barry Bacharach, and Hingham attorney and Hull town counsel James Lampke.
You can read all the details in the MWDN.
Okay, I guess I’m new to this whole small town thing, but could someone please tell me whether this action is as insane as it sounds? “Disparaging remarks”? Is police chief Moran made of glass? Oh, shoot, I think that was a disparaging remark. Did I just cost the town hundreds of hours in legal fees?
It sounds to me like the town employees were on their own time. If the selectmen wouldn’t have launched a town-funded investigation had the same remarks been said about me, my neighbor’s 5-year-old, or any other citizen of Southborough, it seems to me that this is a waste of town resources, an offense against privacy, and an abuse of power. It also seems to me that we could surely have cut the town’s legal budget by 26 hours’ worth and not lost a minute of recouping unpaid taxes.
I find myself a bit dumbfounded at this revelation. Aside from the obvious waste of our tax dollars I am deeply troubled by the BOS’s attempt to throw its weight around silencing any opposition to its choice for Police Chief. I have locked horns with a few of the “Southborough Eight” over the years but in this matter I wish to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They were very badly treated.
1. Disciplinary action is a serious thing and it appears that their due process rights were not observed in provision of timely notice and perhaps their rights to counsel.
2. I doubt that there can be any consideration of insubordination if indeed there was a negative comment since the police chief is not responsible for supervising any of the 8.
3. The performance of a public official and how they do their job is fair game for free speech.
4. I am particularly concerned about treatment of Ms. Ferguson, who I believe is a town resident and by extension a Town Meeting Member and should not be harassed for her views on town affairs.
From where I sit this just looks like another, clumsy, heavy handed attempt to silence opposition and dissent. The Town owes the Southborough Eight an apology for dragging their names through the mud. I doubt the BOS who have “Lawyered Up” will have the courage to do so.
Even if the “Southboro Eight” did make negative remarks about Moran, why should they be silenced, investigated or punished for speaking out against the Police Chief. I for one speak out against the present governor every day and he is not trying to silence me. And who is going to look into golf course comments by at least one member of the BOS who annointed Moran as Chief before the job was even posted. You know whats going on here folks….the real truth is close and the BOS is doing everything in their power to shut off the truth sayers.
Jane “I’ll sue you” Moran should step down and so shouldn’t the entire board. This makes the town look like the laughing stock of the state ! Good Luck folks. You own an unqualified, undignified chief for a long time. At least you have the opportunity to send one madman packing come election day !
I’m a little confused I think, so maybe someone can clarify. It sounds like there was a town meeting, afterwards various town employees went out for a drink and there was some trash talking about Chief Moran. Someone at the meeting told Sal about it. Sal called an exec. session to discuss it and a bunch of lawyers were hired to “investigate” it. My question is: What was there to discuss at the exec. session and what was there to investigate? I’m not being sarcastic here (really). What rule or law was violated? Does the gathering of town employees constitute a “meeting”? Are there legal restrictions on what town employees can say at a “meeting”? Is this considered an “ethical” matter vs. a legal matter? In short, where’s the perceived illegality here? I don’t get it.
My understanding is that the Open Meeting Law applies to boards and committees such as Advisory, Library Trustees, School Committee or Selectmen or sub committees appointed by these bodies and the like. I believe that meetings among and between town employees are specifically exempted. Imagine if the DPW super wanted to meet with the Fire Chief and had to post a public meeting notice and record minutes.
I am baffled as well. Frankly I am having a hard time understanding the justification for an Emergency Meeting (Less than 48 hours notice) since the employees in question were supposed to receive 48 hours written notice.
Sue,
I agree.
snobs, town full of them…
I am glad we feel we can all comment about something we don’t have the facts on. Clearly there is more to this than we know. I don’t think the BOS are trying to spend money on something that is not valid. Maybe Moran was not the only one effected by the slander? It seems that somehow the information was “leaked” to the news in order to stir up trouble.
This is actually what I was trying to get at in my “is this totally insane?” question. I’ll try to be more clear:
Is there any conceivable information (any possible collection of facts, information about town bylaws that I don’t know, etc.) that would make this action a reasonable one? Who could have possibly been “affected by the slander” that would be worthy of this kind of community expense to stamp out a blemish on their name that occurred among a small group of people winding down?
As for the information being leaked in order to stir up trouble, it seems more likely that it was leaked because it’s newsworthy. By which I mean, this all seems really strange.
still new, still confused,
“Is there any conceivable information (any possible collection of facts, information about town bylaws that I don’t know, etc.) that would make this action a reasonable one?”
To answer your question there is a very good likelihood that there is, but also that it is protected by privilege and none of us will hear it any time soon. So, unfortunately, what you will hear most in a case like this is speculation, much of which might not quite make sense. Low and behold, exactly what you are reading on this board. The BOS is responsible for withholding privileged information, as you would expect, especially if it were about you – gossip mongers and anonymous or named political opportunists are not.
“As for the information being leaked in order to stir up trouble, it seems more likely that it was leaked because it’s newsworthy.” I respectfully suggest that this is a very naive statement. In my experience, the way this has gotten out is precisely the earmark of an offensive counter attack when the likely outcome is unfavorable. Just look at the timing. This has been going on since October and yet now, a couple of weeks before the election this “leaks.” How very convenient.
Admittedly, my thoughts are just speculation, but that is all we have right now.
What a proud day for us, guys. I mean, really. I can’t even say this is “unbelievable” because it no longer is.
It was bad enough when Sal decided to trample the First Amendment by targeting an anonymous poster to this blog (and make the blog owner’s life miserable while he was at it), all while spending your tax dollars to do it.
But now it is UNCONSCIONABLE that he has turned his tools of intimidation on our own Town employees, most of which I personally know to be above reproach, and certainly deserving of much better treatment and respect. The cherry on top is that he does so at YOUR expense. The phrase “Who does this guy think he is?” was invented for Sal.
This town needs to start repairing itself on May 10th. I emphasize “start” — there is more bath water to throw out than just Sal, but we may have to wait a year to do that. But Sal is where it must start.
No offence Mr./Ms. People… but I am not going to take your word for it. A credible complaint and three legal consultants tells me that something more than what we know was going on. Do you actually think the BOS would undertake this kind of thing on a whim? I have to imagine it is no picnic for any of them.
I am proud of our BOS for taking such a serious step for our town. If our employees are “beyond reproach” as you say, that will come out. Chances are, some are and some are not. That would be sad news but let’s sort it out, do what needs to be done and move on. A little check and balance every once in a while is not a bad thing. If no one has done anything wrong, then the BOS looked into a complaint (there was obviously a complaint) and did their jobs. Would you prefer they ignored substantive complaints?
The problem is that they all work for the town. Mass Open Meeting laws state that no more then 4 people that work on the the boards and/or for the town can be together without posting a meeting. The town has alot of little “clicks” and this group happened to get caught.
Dave
I think you are misinformed. Mass Open Meeting law applies to quorum of a governing body and says they can’t deliberate on a matter under their jusidictions outside of a public meeting. For the Selectmen the quorum would be 2 for Advisory it would be 5 for example.
Also, these folks are Town employees. They are typically not members of boards or governing bodies to which the open meeting law applies. They advise boards and committees and carry out the policies that are defined by those committees but the are are not member with voting privileges. I do not believe they are covered under the open meeting laws but even if they were there is a specific exemption in the regulations for social gatherings.
The employees went out after work and were having something to eat and drinks. A comment was made and SAL had lawyers hired and an investigation was launched. First Sal tried to muzzle Ms. Fitzgerald. He spent my and your money (I believe the number was $1000) to have the town lawyer write a letter demanding disclosure of privileged information concerning a statement that was nothing more than opinion. If this was not enough, he then hires 4 to 5 more lawyers to investigate 8 employees because of after hour discussion at a Pizza place. The employees had to get their own lawyers! It must be a great place to work in town hall. Do they have recording devices placed in strategic locations? How many moles does Sal have working for him around the town?
If he is reelected then it will tell an awful lot about the people who vote. On May 10 we are very, very, very lucky to have a contested election. But, there is no choice at all. How can anyone even consider voting for Sal, someone who launches internal investigatons on his own employees at his whim? Isn’t anyone concerned that if we keep the same bos we will certainly continue to lose valuable people this town needs, like Vera; and, we will surely loose Ms. Kitchen, Ms. Hale, Chief Mauro, Ms. McAuliffe, Ms. Galligan, Ms. Ferguson and Mr. Ballantine, along with their employees that support them. A clearing house, of sorts. Sal should just do the right thing and withdraw. I feel that he has done much damage, lost any trust and respect of valued town employees, and his continued service is not in the best interest of this town.
And what about our Chief, the one Sal is so proud of and so supportive of that great committee? The Chief is alleged to have verbally attacked everyone in the room. And then, when asked for comment, she hung up! Then, neither Sal nor Bonnie will return any messages? Maybe they are hiring another 4 or 5 lawyers.
This is not only wrong but embarrasing. I am feel as if I am about to get physically sick.
And not only am I physically sick, but the town and our bos are a joke to non Southboro residents. Just look at the MWDN comments at
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/top_stories/x53547844/Southborough-town-workers-investigated-for-comments-about-police-chief
WAKE UP SOUTHBORO
Is it just a coincidence that our bos hired the same attorney that the Hull bos use? Take a look at this article and comments in the patriot ledger. It talks about opposing greater public access in government. This is getting more troubling.
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1637474682/Communities-oppose-changes-to-Open-Meeting-Law
My first comment, but I just couldn’t take the BOS’s lack of leadership and judgement any longer!
Seriously, is there an issue here or not? An investigation which began in Oct, based on some weak comments, should at this point in time be resolved (especially considering the legal expertise hired). Now, I understand why the BOS was being so hush, hush about current investigations when the debate came up about Legal Counsel spending at the TM. If this information was available during the meeting, the discussion would have gotten real interesting.
No member of this current BOS will get my vote in the future. BOS, our legal counsel is not your legal counsel. On May 10th I will proudly vote for John Rooney. The unknown is better than this bull.
I think that we should gather the facts before we jump to conclusions. The town employees are certainly not above reproach and there is definitely a lot of politicking and positioning and gossiping going on within the town house. I have seen and experienced it first hand with a select few of the employees safe in the arms of the BOS. It is time to really look at how things are done in this town and not keep our heads in the sand. I do find it interesting that so many can comment on the BOS, yet very few of the commentors actuallly go to any of the many town meetings. Go to the meetings and ask questions. Participate and hold people accountable!!
So, Mark, you think we should just “gather the facts” on this, do you? I presume that you mean IN ADDITION to the myriad of facts already reported by Evan Lips in the MWDN? Because there were plenty of facts in that story, were there not? Are you suggesting that there may be more facts to be learned that might explain away this travesty? Could be.
On the other hand, maybe it is as clear as it seems (which is frightening, by the way). Maybe it is as simple as our current BOS gift wrapping the Police Chief job for Jane Moran via an indefensibly un-objective process, and then reacting like Stalinist suppressors whenever that process of its outcome is questioned. Maybe it is just that simple. In that scenario, by the way, you’d expect stuff like the following (as reported by MWDN) —
“Giorlandino did not respond to messages.”
“Cipriano could not be reached for comment.”
“Selectman Bonnie Phaneuf also has not yet returned two messages left Friday on her home answering machine.”
And the best one of all —
“When reached by phone and asked to comment, [Police Chief] Moran hung up.”
So, Mark, let the rest of “the facts” start rolling in!
————————————————————–
Meanwhile, seriously, Folks, these people work FOR YOU. If you are not appalled by this you are not paying attention.
On May 10th, this Town can start to reclaim its dignity.
People…
Your first mistake is assuming anything you read in the newspaper is “fact,” especially the MWDN.
Second are you surprised that members of the BOS refuse to comment? They are held by law and a sense of responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the investigation, not engage in speculation and gossip like people on this board and, it appears, like some of those being investigated.
As for Chief Moran “hanging up” on the MWDN, I won’t believe it until she substantiates it. There is no reason to “hang up”on a reporter when simply stating you have no comment and thanking them for calling is sufficient and standard practice for a police chief being asked for an opinion on an ongoing investigation. I think it was actually one of the questions that were asked at the interviews!
You people are rising to political bait and that is what makes our town look undignified, not the BOS cracking down on employees run amock. I think Mark hit it on the head. Certain employees have enjoyed the protection of the BOS and been allowed to take liberties with their authority. An obvious change occurred when Mr. Gioladino became chair and all of a sudden there is a political war against the man. Some in this town don’t like being held accountable, like the faction that continues to descriminate against Jane Moran for the law suit she won against the town. That suit was their disgrace, not hers. And she continues to be made to suffer for it which in and of itself is against the law.
Smarten up people and think for yourselves. Can any of you actually claim to have enough of the facts to judge this situation? I know I don’t.
KenG,
I agree with some of what you say. It’s hard to know exactly what’s going on when much of this is behind the wall of Executive Session. And I also agree that we probably don’t have enough facts to completely judge this situation, but as I see it, the BOS had the town attorney attempt to intimidate this site’s founder into revealing an anonymous poster, and may have initiated an investigation concerning a private, social conversation among several town employees.
Absent any comment by the BOS, and they may well be unable to respond, the townspeople will draw their own conclusions. The BOS members may suffer the impact of doing what they felt was right.
I have no idea what you mean by “certain employees have enjoyed the protection of the BOS” and that the BOS is cracking down on “town employees run amock(sic).” Could you please specifically elaborate? If not, please avoid dangling the sort of unsubstantiated “political bait” about which your post complains.
I agree with you Mark. No one should be throwing out unsubstantiated claims and I am uncomfortable doing so, however, I am equally uncomfortable being more specific. I can – but I choose not to. I didn’t make the rules, I am just playing by them.
Sorry for the extraneous “c” in “amok.” Fast typing and a notoriously bad speller. Killer combination.
Mark, sorry for the short answer above. I would like to clarify and possibly correct.
First, my comment about town employees “run amok” was meant to be hyperbolic. I should have written “if they are running amok.” I was responding to the seeming severity of the BOS investigation.
In the second comment I was agreeing with the other Mark’s estimation of the current “environment” at the town house. I don’t want to elaborate any more than that.
Your points are well-taken.
I’m having trouble reconciling your advice with itself. How do I think for myself while simultaneously accepting that I don’t have enough facts to consider the issue? You do make a good point (the first in the bos defense that I’ve heard) that the newspaper article might not be accurate. The only problem is that this is the only side of the story we’ve heard. If the bos won’t give us any information, we can only work with what others say. It is simply unreasonable to expect people to hear uncontested, damning information and assume that some political shadow war justifies it.
I don’t know anything about the southborough eight. I know nothing about the histories of the cliques and their liberties to which you have alluded. I’m new to the town, and I don’t even know most of my neighbors yet. Yeah, I’m clueless. But I really don’t expect a town to be run like a high school prom committee.
I have yet to hear any scenario where the actions taken by the bos (as described in the article) are not wasteful, ill-conceived and immature. I can think of no such scenario on my own. I don’t need to know every last detail to know that something’s gone very wrong in the leadership of this community. The fact that nobody from the bos is (openly) commenting on these issues, and the fact that their supporters are all leaning paranoid and encouraging blind trust of them is, to say the least, disquieting.
I hate to be the new person who wants to drastically change things, but I’m becoming quite interested in superfly’s suggestion of recalling the board.
If it helps any, I share your frustration. We all want answers and I hope they come soon.
At the risk of sounding sarcastic, welcome to you and your family.
Well Said!
For the record, the “Mark” above is not me. I do find all of this most troubling–and hope that a reasonable explanation can be made.
From the formation of the Police Chief Search Committee, when volunteers for that committee with law enforcement experience were passed over, to the naming of Chief Moran as an “automatic” finalist, to the apparent less-than-optimal use of the consultant assessment company, to Mr. Rooney’s resignation, to the appointment many felt was from the outset a fait accompli, to the legal threats to the author of this site and to the “Southborough Eight,”–and the undoubtedly huge legal expenses of same– to the suggestion by the Selectmen that we ignore a negotiated contract provision and pay the Police more than we need to and to the attempted protection of the Police details under the guise of cleaning up the language…
I’ve probably left some things out. I certainly hope there’s some means of explaining all of this. Trouble is, much of it might be protected under Executive Session–which given the recent article is a leaky boat–if no explanation can be forthcoming than all we as townspeople can do is look at the facts as best we can and make decisions as to what our next steps should be, starting with the upcoming election.
And I certainly understand why the Selectmen pushed so hard to keep the legal budget fully funded. Yowza, we’re hiring lawyers left and right!
And none of the above should be construed as a critique of the Chief, which isn’t the point of this post at all.
Mark
Great post!
It just gets thicker!
Once again, I am embasrrassed to be from Southborough. I am fearful that it won’t be long before this hits the Boston papers and media. This second attack on first amendment rights could end up on national news!!!
If I say I don’t like someone, is that libel or slander?
This could have been avoided if handled as an HR matter, don’t you think?
Maybe the voters should consider recalling the entire Board of Selectman. Starting over fresh would be so much easier than the mess we now find ourselves in as a Town. Research on the process of recall is being conducted now.
We need new leadership ASAP. This is not just about Sal G. There is a Board of three. Each of them bears responsibility for this decision to engage counsel and spend an undetermined amount of our precious tax funds. Can’t wait to find out how much this cost! How will this story end?
Since the town employees are alleged to have been dishing the dirt about Moran at the Uno Chicago Pizza, I say we aptly call any anonymous source that comes forward “Deep Dish.”
@dean dairy – best comment on this article!!!
BTW,
I meant I am embarrassed, not embasrassed, although the proper spelling might be embassrassed to be from Southborough with all of the missteps taken by the Town Fathers of late. Is the Town of Soughborough becoming the Kingdom of Southborough? Are we being ruled or represented?
While discussing the projected property tax increases with my wife, I said that well, if the town needs the money then taxes are going up–just as long as the town isn’t wasting the money. Thank you to the town for wasting our money.
Voter action is now obvious. don’t vote for anyone that is currently on the BOS. They cannot be trusted with our money. This sounds like a MANAGEMENT issue rather than a legal issuie. I suppose that one must be resigned to the fact that public servants cannot manage.Maybe this goes back to why on earth Moran was appointed in the first place. A good manager earns respect through their actions, not that of lawyers. My confidence in these spendthrifts who seem to have caught the federal government disease is zero.
So from reading everything, it is my opinion that everyone seems to agree that the only defense to the BOS is if the MWDN is inaccurate. That would also mean that Ms. Fitzgerald, who indicated that she conducted a limited investigation, is also inaccurate.
From my quick reading of the article, this is what the BOS needs us to believe:
– The gang of eight, rather than going out after work like regular employees do, were actually holding a meeting under the Open Meeting Law at a table at Uno’s.
– Something was said by someone that was such grave importance concerning the operation of town government that a secret investigation was necessary and in fact urgent.
– The gang of eight were given only about 24 hours because of the critical time issue. There was no time for them to get a lawyer to help them out.
– At the meeting, which we the town was able to get hire and have present a number of lawyers, the Chief did not scream at anyone hyserically, but calmly said for no one to talk about her.
– Each of the gang of eight decided to get a lawyer but they did not need one, in fact it was laughed off, even though they were examined for hours and hours and hours by how many town lawyers?
– It was nothing more than coincidence that the best town planner this town has seen in a long time decided to resign last week.
– We spent the taxpayers money on this because ___________________ Help me fill in this, please, anyone?
– We have ignored formal requests about this investigation because we were in executive meeting and you don’t get to know that.
– The chief did not hang up the phone when the reporter called. The connection just went dead and when the reporter called right back, the connection was now working and went right into the chief’s voicemail.
– Neither Sal nor Bonnie have ignored repeated messages from the reporter. They just have not got around to returning calls from last week.
– This type of investigation makes the town operate better because it causes employees to be paranoid and work harder.
– We spent the taxpayers money on this as it was more important than trying to use the money for other less important things like teachers, the library and keeping taxes down.
KenG I agree we need to get all the facts out and no one should be able to hid behind a privilege in this matter. It is too important and I am sure you agree. I am sure you also agree that we need to learn about how much of our money was spent and will be spent on this investigation and then suing the MWDN.
Mr. Lips, time to lawyer-up as I am pretty sure the town has multiple new slander lawyers working around the clock.
Sal,
If you don’t want to be absolutely clobbered at the polls on May 10, something must be said to us.
A small percentage of the town is withholding judgement because of their distrust of the press and their fervent hope that there must be some valid, rational reason for the BOS to initiate the action that it did.
Right now, though, the conversations are all leaning in one direction…
There’s still time between now and May 10 to make your case … but not much time.
Resolve this, release meeting minutes or something. Somehow provide full disclosure.
The MWDN just posted an update. The only update I can see is this paragraph:
“When reached by phone on Friday and asked to comment, Moran says she went into an area with no cell phone reception and the call from the reporter was cut off. In a conversation Monday, the chief said that, if the call had not been cut off, she would have said, “This is an ongoing internal investigation and no one can comment.””
Well that certainly clears things up.
The update link is
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x53547844/Southborough-town-workers-investigated-for-comments-about-police-chief
OK. Lets do some homework here. Whats Moran’s cell phone number and who is the carrier. The cell records will either make her out to be telling the truth OR she will be the next one in executive session.
While her statement does not provide the kind of information most of us are looking for it does tell me something about the spirit of the MWDN article.
You call a town employee on their cell phone to ask about a highly controversial subject and the line goes dead. You call back and your call goes to voicemail. (Correct me if I am wrong but my calls go immediately to voicemail when I am out of signal range, they ring several times before going to voicemail when I am ignoring the call). Instead of trying a land line, or at a later time when the phone might have a signal, you go to press with an article on the weekend – a Sunday – to your entire readership that the person hung up on you??? Finally, I just went online and Moran has a listed land line under just her first and last names at her residence. How difficult would it have been to call her at home that evening?
In my opinion, this speaks directly to the level of journalistic responsibility. Not only that, it is mean-spirited and unfair.
For the moderator:
Can weplease not publish comments without people’s names. I think that it is likely we will have better debate if all are out in the open. It will also insure courtesy.
my top ten reasons for not using my real name when posting to this blog:
10. Because newspapers always misspell my name.
9. Because I might be a town employee and I need this job.
8. I can’t handle critizsm about my poor spelling.
7. My wife won’t let me use my real name.
6. I like trying to think up clever names.
5. Bill
4. Bonnie
3. I can’t afford a lawyer right now.
2. Sal
and the number one reason:
1. Because I don’t want to continue this discussion when I run into you at Starbucks in the morning!
Just my two cents worth…
I’ve heard from several townspeople, including twice from KenG on this post, that they know something we don’t that would make us not look like reactionary idiots but that evidently we are not “in” enough to hear what’s going on. KenG says he has to play by the rules so can’t say what’s up ( “I can – but I choose not to. I didn’t make the rules, I am just playing by them.”) Spare me. Put up or shut up and while you’re at it, grow up (I know something youuuu don’t knowwwww). And that goes for “insiders” and the rest of us alike. Yes, “Still Confused,” it would appear we’re being run by a prom committee indeed. And unless you’re in the homecoming king’s court, we’re supposed to just speak only when spoken to and otherwise just watch with awe and envy. I urge anyone with any real information to enlighten the rest of us. Please.
Hello Sue,
And thanks for using your real name! It’s nice to put a face with a post.
If you’ve read my replies over the past couple of days, you know I’ve laid out what I think any “outsider” sees. I may not have been clear with my earlier comments, but I have a hard time imagining what set of circumstances makes the BOS actions reasonable–though there might well exist such a set of circumstances.
I know the BOS works hard with what they believe to be the best interests of town at heart–and my disagreements with that board lean more towards the disposition of the Stabilization fund, police cruisers, Library support, and the like…all well publicized. No “insider politics” here, since I’m so far out I’m nearly in again.
I agree with the mysterious KenG (and wonder if he can hold a long flute note, too…) It’s hard to imagine the BOS taking this weird leap and exposing themselves to all of this rancor, which they surely must have anticipated.
So I guess this is a plea…we know Sue protects the posters to this blog (not that I need it, but thanks!)…could someone sketch a fictitious scenario which would be protected by Executive Session which might account for all this oddity? It would help.
And a p.s. to Ken–sorry for the grammatical (sic). An old editor’s habits dye(sic) hard, and it seems you and I are actually quite close on all of this. I wish you posted under your name!
*sigh*
Is this small “d” democracy at work? Kind of disheartening.
Hi Mark,
In reading your posts, I don’t think that you and I are in disagreement. Actually, I don’t even have an opinion on this matter yet (as opposed to my opinions of some of the posts and their authors), since I still can’t figure out what the heck is going on, and no one yet has provided an answer. I wouldn’t imagine anyone from the BOS or any other official involved in this matter would be inclined to post an explanation here, and reasonably so (I wouldn’t if I were in that position). If someone has actual information and wants to shed some light, I’m sure it would be appreciated (anonymous or not, although I’m with you that it’s nice to see some real names of real people with real comments they aren’t afraid to stand by). Basically, I’m just befuddled. I guess, like you, I would like to give the BOS as a whole and individually as well as our police chief the benefit of the doubt that they can’t actually be this off the mark and something much more is afoot. After the efforts to squeeze Susan for ID of the elusive “Marty”, I do have to wonder where their limits of abuse of power will lie…
yes, disheartening indeed…
Here is what I think we know for certain:
1. There was a dinner
2. There was an Executive Session where the Southborough 8 were “called on the carpet” for something that might have been said at the dinner.
3. This happened in the same time frame as the Marty incident but there is no information to indicate if they are or are not related.
4. The investigation has been going on since Oct (6 months)
5. This matter and the Marty matter are related to the Police Chief Selection process.
It is difficult not to have a modicum of sympathy for the Selectmen as I am certain they cannot talk about this and defend their actions. However, whatever pain they are feeling appears to me to be largely self inflicted.
6 months is a long time for an investigation. 6 months is a long time to have Lawyers talking to other Lawyers at our expense. 6 months is a long time to leave employees twisting in the wind. 6 months is a long time not to come to a definitive conclusion.
The employees have been left in a Kafkaesque limbo right out of “The Trial”
In life we make our decisions based on the best available information. It is often not complete and may not be unbiased. We need to understand the bias and incompleteness but in the end we have to make our decisions. We will have to do this on May 10.
Al, I was with you right up to your last sentence. May 10 is related, but not entirely, to this situation. Let’s be clear, on May 10 we have the choice to elect ONE member of the BOS. Here’s my objection to your continually bringing it back to the election.
#1 – It is unfair to lay this entire situation at the feet of one member of the BOS. A change on May 10 may not have the effect you are proposing (misleading readers maybe) that it will have. There will still be two members who were involved in this “investigation” and last time I checked that was a majority.
#2 – On top of that, since we don’t know the entire rationale behind this “investigation” there is no guarantee that a change in one member of the BOS is going to change anything at all. A new member of the BOS might very well support such an action once he has all the facts, which none of us, including you Mr. Hamilton by your earlier admission, have at this time.
#3 – Do you have some sort of crystal ball? How does anyone know how any new member of the BOS will perform? Let’s be clear about this, Mr. Rooney is an unknown entity in this town and, except for a few friends and supporters who are campaigning more “against” Mr. Giorlandino than they are “for” Mr. Rooney, we have no idea if he will help or harm the current make-up of the BOS.
I, for one, am trying to evaluate this “breaking news” as best I can and every time someone inserts “Mr. Rooney on May 10” into their comment I begin to suspect ulterior motives. Did one of Mr. Rooney’s supporters “leak” this news? Am I, Sue G, “still new”, and Mark who all seem to be wrestling with the facts, few that they are, being manipulated? Is someone using scandal tactics to encourage us to vote in one direction when the real motivation for a change in the BOS is quite another and one I might not agree with?
I can see how a change in the BOS this year could be the beginning of a new BOS and is peripherally related if you are SURE that the current BOS is acting inappropriately. But I am not sure and I don’t think there is enough information out there for anyone to be sure. You yourself admit to being “a bit dumbfounded at this revelation” and “baffled as well.” So why are you comfortable encouraging people to draw a conclusion and take the monumental step of voting on speculation?
One thing I do know is that there is no guarantee that change will be a change for the better. Voters beware. Voting “against” one candidate instead of “for” another is a very dangerous use of our voting privileges.
So there is no misunderstanding I have endorsed Mr. Rooney.
As for your contention “Here’s my objection to your continually bringing it back to the election.” in fact the post you refer to was my first reference to the election in this topic.
You are correct this election will not fully resolve the issue. Until the executive session votes are released (and they must be at some point) we can’t know if 1 of the 3 Selectmen voted against these follies. Based on their statements and conversations I have had I don’t think so but I think the burden is on them to say if they supported this action or not. That is not a state secret.
If your standard is that we must be absolutely certain of very bad behavior before we unseat an incumbent then I freely admit that this high bar may never be met. I would not send someone to jail based on what I know but I know enough to believe that we need new leadership. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck and —– like a duck that is enough for me.
Regardless, the only decision we voters have is before us is the choice for who to vote for May 10 and we are not likely to know all the facts by then and will have to make our decision based on imperfect information.
I hesitate to enter this “fray”, however, I would like to clearly state that I was the person who requested that this issue be put on the last week’s Planning Board agenda, the audience of which contained a newspaper reporter and others. My action was merely an attempt to advocate for the BOS’s prioritizing removing the “cloud” from the name of a departing Town employee and to offer a motion to of support to her, who had provided superb service and professional and excellent assistance to Southborough and its officials and residents during her tenure.
Go on….. This gives a bit more info, which I appreciate. I did hear rumors about Vera leaving under some sort of cloud. But what’s that all about? And how is it related to Chief Moran? and the October surprise? and Aldo’s name arising again and again?
This “hidden reasons” theory is almost certainly invalid, and Mr. Giorlandino specifically, not just the Board, is impeached in my view. Here’s why.
First regarding the unknown events. By definition, if the executive has nearly all of the senior managers under investigation, the executive function has failed. Occasionally a single genuinely fine senior manager will make a serious error. However, when an entire senior management team is hiring lawyers, there is no way – no way- for the controlling executive not to be at fault. One of its main jobs is to keep high quality, satisfied senior teams performing at a high level. At this point the unknown details are irrelevant. This is an unacceptable situation that the BOS has somehow allowed to occur. If a CEO of a company said to its board that all the company’s VPs were under investigation, the board would immediately look for a new CEO. Something should have been handled differently so that this unacceptable result did not occur. If such extreme measures as these were “necessary” to defend the police chief from her peers, then that should have been considered before the appointment. So, the only thing we are unclear about now is exactly what the BOS errors were that led to this mess, but, if you have all your senior managers retaining lawyers, you have failed as an executive.
Second, what about Mr. Giorlandino? This is not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of bad judgment. A month ago it came to light that the Board of Selectmen sent a constable to the owner of this site with a letter from Town Counsel demanding the name of an anonymous poster. The demand was toothless prattle. However, it was cruel, and tended to intimidate free speech. Mr. Giorlandino was then quoted in the Metrowest newspaper saying that the action of the poster will have “financial consequences” but that he was “not looking to get wealthy”. I presume from this he was speaking about a possible claim of libel. If he was, since libel can only be a personal action, never a municipal action, Town Counsel’s letter, and the $1000 or so the Town spent on it, was a misappropriation of Town resources, as if Town Counsel and Town money had been spent on the first tasks of a divorce, or a home sale. Nevertheless, the worst of this sad episode is the terrible judgment and controlling temperament it displays. If he had said instead, “I apologize to Susan and the people. I voted against this terrible decision” then I’d be defending him now and blaming the other two. He said the opposite, and shortly thereafter we had all our senior employees hiring lawyers. In 25 years of serving the Town I have never seen such a mess.
Unfortunately, Mr. Giorlandino must be thanked, and then shown to the door by the voters. I have only met John Rooney once. He seems like an even-tempered, reasonable person and has a good track record in the private sector. Given the abject failure we have on our hands, that is enough. New blood can only help. We must start, even it is only the first vote of three. Later, it is true, some more executive housecleaning may be needed. We have no recall provisions respecting the others. It is up to the voters now to do their duty, unless Mr. Giorlandino should show the good sense to resign before that.
(I encourage the use of real names. I believe that anonymous attacks are cruel, but that plain speaking and real names helps to build a strong community.)
Maybe Al or John B. can chime in on these questions……….or anyone else who may
have a handle on Town Governing laws.
1) What do we have the right to know about this chain of events within the confines of this specific town government? ( Especially since we seem to be footing the bill.)
We all seem to be hanging in the wind here…. speculating and guessing
about all these events. Some (Struggling and Suspicious) are even throwing out conspiracy theories about a “Mr. Roony supporter” possibly leaking this news……. really?
Let’s not get out of hand here… let’s not play the game that most likely got everyone into
this mess in the first place. Let’s stop the gossip, the cheap thrill guesses and the easy
target practice. Let’s stop trying to guess “who knows what” and whether or not it’s
credible based on using a real name vs. being anonymous.
Here are my other questions:
2 ) As tax payers, we are footing the bill for the lawyers that were retained 6 months
ago, are we not? ?
3) Is there a time line on this kind of action/procedure?
and here’s a good one:
4) Can we petition to put a stop to legal spending on this specific matter
until more is known?
5) Could this drag on for months and we’ll just be told the door is closed for rights of privacy?
Frankly, if the door is shut until action is taken (or whatever reason) then, by town law, the door is shut. I don’t want to spend the next 6 weeks or 6 months in a heated back and forth on this public blog perpetuating rumors, rehashing old issues, guessing and speculating. That will only continue the ugliness. Ever play “telephone” with a bunch of little kids?
Let’s find out what we have a right to know and go from there.
1. I believe that we have the right to know how much money has been spent on this matter. I think that Evan Lips has made the formal request for that information. I am not sure if we are entitled to see the work product produced by the lawyers even after it is resolved as that may be privileged and relates to personnel records.
2. We most certainly are footing the bill for the lawyers.
3. I don’t know if there is a time line.
4. The only petition that you could possibly consider is to call a special town meeting (I think it requires about 100 signatures) with the intent of restricting the use of the legal budgets or other such actions. A STM will cost us money. I think it is on the order of $10k and does take time.
5. Yes.
I have to say that the piece “Struggling & Suspicious wrote just awhile ago HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD” as far I am concerned he has Mr. Hamiltons logic figured out if thats possible. I did see that Mr. Hamilton supports Mr. Rooney which is his right. however this is a note to Mr. Rooney If you get elected he will be after you because for years he has critized the Board of Selectmen so watch out
I have been watching Mr. Hamilton for years at town meeting and I can tell you this as fact he doesn’t have all the facts at town meeting just as he doesn’t have all the facts regarding this investigation It doesn’t matter as long as he can blame someone for something he knows nothing about. Good job Struggling & Suspicious Buzz
Struggling & Suspicious
Given the fact that the story got legs from a planning board meeting, I assume your new handle is now “Struggling.” Also, though you remain anonymous, I also assume that you care as much about this town as the rest of the people who post and will offer an apology for your bogus allegation.
This is an example of the value of people putting their true identity down to protect against false accusations. Lets follow the advice of Sue G. and forget about making wild and ridiculous statements on this matter which have a political objective as this is a matter of extreme importance.
Harlold, get over the name thing. I and many people on this site, will not post their real names.
I owe no one an apology as I accused no individual of anything. I said the manner in which this has been handled makes me suspicious. That is a fact not an allegation. I ennumerated my suspicions, sure, but was clear that they represent my suspicions. As for Ms. Hynes’ post, I know her to be a very nice person and a valuable official of our town. I credit her for her concern and interest in the truth. However, I didn’t see any mention of the Planning Board being involved in the internal investigation, so she found out about it somehow.
Also, my “suspicion” about how it was “leaked” and why was only part of the curiosity. How it has been reported, portrayed and commented upon on this blog also makes me “suspicious.” I offer you this, when everyone starts apologizing for their speculation, I will do the same.
Lastly, I agree with you 100% Harold, no one should be “making wild and ridiculous statements on this matter which have a political objective as this is a matter of extreme importance.” I promise not to engage in any more “speculation” as long as others do the same.
This story “got legs” long ago when the town decided to fill the Police Chief’s position ! If there was transparency throughout the process, and it was done right, there would be no story. With elections coming soon, you are right; this is important. Only a fool makes the same mistake twice. As one post put it, thank Mr. Giorlandino and show him the door. The town is so lucky that none of the applicants who never had a shot at an interview did not sue the town, as in my eyes it was a discriminitory process and boy did it ever backfire !
My first time weighing in on this thread, but have been following the issue.
Something that I don’t think anyone has made note of yet (including, surprisingly, the Metro West Daily News); let’s remember that at the time of the alleged Pizzaria Uno incident, Jane Moran was not the Police Chief, and she wasn’t just the Interim Police Chief. She was also a candidate for the Police Chief job, and in the middle of the interview and selection process.
For a group of town staff and town officials, including one member of the BOS – the body tasked with making an objective decision about the candidates – to be allegedly bad-mouthing any one of the candidates anywhere, much less in a public place, potentially loudly enough for others to hear (and the simple fact that town staff and officials were allegedly having this conversation during the selection process is the bigger issue), brings up significant ethical, and possibly legal issues. If this is the case, it would seem reasonable to me for the other members of the BOS to do their duty of looking into the complaint and determining if anything improper was done. I’m sure that none of the other candidates, nor any of us, would want town staff and officials bad-mouthing our candidacy for a public job while we were still in the middle of the interview and selection process.
This incident has been characterized by others as employees “winding down,” but I don’t get that. If the content was disturbing enough to prompt a town employee to lodge a complaint against eight department heads and a member of the BOS, it seems to me there’s got to be more to it. That is a big risk for a town employee to take.
If there was no impropriety then that’s where it will end; if there was, then next steps might need to be taken. But bottom line, it seems to me, is that the BOS did what was in their responsibility given the situation.
As for the fact that this is coming out now, when the incident occurred in October, I too find more than a little coincidental.
Just to clarify one point you made. In the conversations I’ve had about this, none of my sources indicated that the complaint included a member of the BOS. The MWDN article doesn’t suggest that either.
“As for the fact that this is coming out now, when the incident occurred in October, I too find more than a little coincidental.”
The incident may have occurred in Oct. but the investigation appears to be ongoing 6 months later.
Are you arguing that we as citizens would be better off not knowing what is going on in town hall? A reasonable person might conclude that the Selectmen are acting appropriately, as you have, or inappropriately as I have, but we can’t even have the discussion unless we have some inkling about what is going on. That is the roll of the press.
Is the timing of these revelations political? Maybe. That does not change the facts and it has been announced in time for there to be vigorous debate as to whether this action should be supported or not and for voters to make up their minds.
Something to add wrote,
“brings up significant ethical, and possibly legal issues.”
Just how long have you been following this issue. I have been following it since the Chief’s position was posted and so far everything I have seen and heard about the “Southboro Eight” IS protected by the First Ammendment. Enlighten all of us and eplain what may be illegal or unethical. If I was one of the eight, I would be more than just a little upset at how the whole process of hiring a Chief smelled like three day old fish from day one. You want to be upset with someone or look at unethical behavior, look no further than the BOS (you know that group charged with making an objective decision about the candidates). I would stiill like to see the Badgequest final report and who the paid expert recommended.
Something to add (like your name)
Tell me where free speech ends. You have six town employees, none of them elected officials, therefore there was no need to post a meeting take minutes, or be restricted in expressing their personal feelings. They expressed their opinion about the candidates for chief. What law could they have broken? If they wispered they comments would that have been alright with you? Let the first person who has never expressed misgivings with their boss, subordinates, candidates, etc. bring the lawsuit on. It would be full employment for lawyers.
It seems to me that the First Amendment ends for town employees when something they say or do conflicts with their employment contracts with the town. Do town employees have employment contracts? I can think of lots of hypothetical situations where a general taxpayer could do or say one thing and a town employee might be bound by their contract not to. Someone should request a copy of a standard town employment contract, if there is one, and maybe that would tell us something.
A blanket statement that they are entitled to say ANYTHING based on the First Amendment doesn’t cut it with me. If they were, the BOS and Town Counsel would have politely listened to the complaint, explained that there was nothing they could do and shown the complaintant the door. The more I read and think about this the more I am sure of two things:
1. There is much more to this than meets the eye.
2. Dumping this on the BOS is a political ploy related to the upcoming election.
IF, and I say again IF, there are employees who are acting against the town and/or contrary to their employment contracts, I am all for paying legal fees to find out about it and purge the town house of any offenders. It’s a small price to pay.
I also think this incident and the incident concerning susan cannot be assumed to be related.
There’s a key distinction between public employees and private sector employees: The 1st Amendment covers public employees, while private sector employees enjoy no such rights. If your boss at Dunder Mifflin,say, doesn’t like your politics, s/he can fire you. If your boss at Town of Southborough doesn’t like your politics, s/he can’t fire you, with some very limited exceptions. So unless employees said something so egregious so as to undermine their job function or otherwise undermine the function of the Town system, they’re covered by 1st Amendment. This does not mean that a Town employee can be assaultive, or insubordinate, or not do his/her job, or interfere with someone else doing a job. But is does mean s/he can say, for example, “Jane Moran is a buffoon who should never be a police chief,” and not get fired for it, unlike a private sector cohort.
No, I don’t suppose we have to assume that “Deep Dish” and “Martygate” are related. On the other hand, it’s almost worse to think that the BOS is attacking the 1st Am. on two separate fronts rather than one big one…
According to the MWDN, the bos hired a special lawyer and spent $3,100 on the ridiculous “Marty” investigation. If a lawyer’s bill is by the hour, and lets say they got $150 per hour, then they spent over 20 hours writing a letter to Susan F. in an effort to trample free speech. No one can attack the MWDN for false reporting here, folks. The numbers are the numbers.
How much time has been spent on the half dozen lawyers the bos has hired to investigate the Southborough 8 that has been going on since October? We will find out soon according to the MWDN.
Now it makes sense why the bos voted against funding for the K-8 technology update as well as other important town service items.
The lawyers definitely get much more than $150 an hour (even me, and I’m the least expensive lawyer I know). More likely $250-350. Thus, 3 lawyers (at my last count) on this whole “Deep Dish” saga (that moniker is a keeper!), with at least one person being interviewed by all 3 for 3 hours…cha-ching.
Sue,
Our town attorny receives $105 per hour. That equates to nearly 30 hours spent on Pizzagate.
But hasn’t outside counsel been retained? x 2?
Dear Please enlighten all of us,
We will only see the badguest report if it supports the bos even though we paid for it. In my opinion we will never see it.
Short and sweet Mr. Raez,
I’d gladly ask for it, but I know I’ll never see it. I can see the list of lame excuses and legal challenges. My educated guess is that Moran was not the top choice.
If the town paid for the badgequest report, it must make it into the public sector sooner or later.
Maybe another Freedom Of Info request?
Whew!!
I can’t believe I spent time wading through all this crap. Why don’t all you [redacted]
posters with time on your hands smarten up, get a life, cease acting like a bunch
of children? (Talk about embarrassments).
Send the first graders to lunch detention with Mrs Ryan….oh wait we are talking about the BOS or better yet teach them that “Sticks & stone may break their bones but names will never hurt me”
Struggling and Suspicious,
What information do you have that this story is any way related to the upcoming election? Give us facts because all we know is as follows:
1. The incident occurred in October
2, The investigation began in October and continues to the present
3. The planning board held a hearing right before Town Meeting that was initiated by planning board member Ms. Hynes
4. The MWDN reporter was at that meeting and obtained the Uno investigation material during that public meeting
5. The story ran shortly thereafter in the MWDN
So where are the politics? Are you saying that the planning board timed the disclosure of the information? Are you saying that the MWDN delayed disclosure? Give us facts rather than unsupported nonsense.
And, if you are so sure that “There is much more to this than meets the eye” then what is it and why has it taken since October to discover it? Give us facts, sir, facts.
Could someone please fill me in ? I have to admit that I haven’t been following news in my town as closely as I should. Is this whole UnoGate incident even remotely connected with a lawsuit from long ago involving a female police dispatcher?
First, a disclaimer: Sal is a friend of mine, but he hasn’t revealed anything to me about this. That would be at least an ethical breath and probably illegal. I’m sure he wouldn’t reveal anything confidential even if I asked, which I haven’t.
The Baldelli case is legally final. The only sense in which it could be related that I can think of is if there was a similar allegation to the BoS that the gripe session at Uno’s might contribute to a hostile work environment, this time for the Chief. Jane Moran’s support for Katherine Baldelli at the time of her complaint is well known and could of course have come up in that conversation.
An allegation related to a hostile work environmen, like most personnel matters, would of course demand an executive session of the BoS, and only some sort of investigation to determine the facts of the matter would start to protect the town from potential liability for another case.
But this is all speculation on my part.
Does anyone know if the MWDN has received the legal bills referenced in the article? Does anyone know where that stands?
I haven’t seen anything reported as of this morning’s paper… I think the town was required to comply by today… but then the story needs writing/editing.. maybe chase down some principals for comment, etc
Prior to the Deep Dish investigation and the Marty investigation, I thought things in town were operating smoothly. Even though no one on the bos is very impressive, I was content to keep rolling along. Then my attention was drawn to these two inexcusable events and I became confused on what to do with the upcoming election. I have listened to Mr. Giorlandino and read his comments and quite frankly I do not trust him at all. I understand that the entire bos is to blame for reliance on the published policy, bbut if you take the time tor read that policy, which I am sure the bos was hoping people would not, I see nothing that supports the emergency executive session that continues to drag on today. In a prior post Mr. Moore said it correctly, the choice we have all comes down to how we want the town to be led. I do not believe it can be led if there is distrust which surely there must be since 8 employees have had to hire their own lawyers.
I was waiting to write this post until we all got Mr. Giorlandino’s explanation for the investigation. The explanation is hollow and not supported by the very document he says it is. The town is spinning out of control as the very people who we need to rely upon are under investigation, an investigation that we still do not know how much it has cost us. I am saddened by the report that all three members of the bos voted in favor of this extended investigation, and have come to the realization that they all must be replaced. I know they have done a lot for the town and commit countless hours on everyone’s behalf. But they have lost the one thing they need, and that is the trust of the residents.
I do not know Mr. Rooney other than having met him recently at the senior center. He is certainly an very intelligent young man who listened to me rant about just about everything. I have done my homework and read his reasons for resigning from the searh committee and the way he reached out to people thereafter. I have read his position paper and talked with people in town that know him. He has been successful in business and successful in managing a business. That success obviously requires trust and confidence of all of his employees. I was also just given a list of people in town who have endorsed him. The list is very, very impressive and encompassing. I know many of his supporters, and though I have never always agreed with all of them, I have always respected those I know.
I have made up my mind and it was not a very difficult decision. I have made my decision without being negative toward anyone, and by doing my homework. I would urge everyone to do their homework on what has been happening in our town before making any decisions. Yes it takes a bit of effort and time, but your time will be worth the effort if you are trying to make a decision as I had been,