On the warrant next month, Town Meeting voters will get to decide whether or not to reimburse town employees the $14K they spent in legal fees during a town-led investigation of alleged remarks made at an after-hours gathering at Pizzeria Uno.
It’s a topic the Advisory Committee discussed at length earlier this week. They ultimately decided to support reimbursement. The Metrowest Daily News reports today Selectman John Rooney also supports reimbursement, arguing that if the town had handled the investigation properly, the employees would not have had to seek legal counsel in the first place.
Town employees say they were “blindsided” by an emergency executive session called in October 2009 to discuss the matter, and that’s what ultimately led them to seek counsel. But resident Nancy Vargas said the employees knew more than they’re letting on.
Vargas said she has evidence, however, that the employees were sent an email detailing what would be discussed prior to the meeting – a notion disputed by Recreation Commission Director Doreen Ferguson.
“I was in that (executive session), and we were blindsided,” said Ferguson, who was one of the eight employees at Pizzeria Uno in Westborough that night. She was not investigated.
Regardless of what the Advisory Committee or Board of Selectmen recommend, voters are the ones who will ultimately decide whether to reimburse the employees. So what do you think? Register your (unofficial) vote in the poll below. (Note: If you’re reading this via the My Southborough daily email, you’ll need to visit the blog to vote or see the results.)
Update 3/27: In the comments below, several of you reference specific findings from the Southborough Eight investigation. Here’s a link to the executive summary of the investigation for those who want to read more.
I am sorry to hear that the town is thinking about providing reimbursement to these employees. I am even sorrier that these employees were not reprimanded or fired for their clear breach of employee conduct and lack of judgment. I learned early in life that when you play in the sandbox of gossip and innuendo, Karma is unkind in the long run. I am a long time resident and am embarrassed that this incident reflects poorly on Southborough’s image! I am much more careful about what I say or do at the Town House, knowing it may be a source of gossip by the same employees that should safeguard our interests as part of their job description.
I’ve lived in the good Town of Southborough over 60 years and am familiar with town politics. These miscreants ( a word taught me by Miss Mary Finn) clearly breached their responsibilities and childishly gossiped about what they should not have. PAY THEIR EXPENSES, I think not, we should fine them, boot their pizza eating carcasses to the curb and elect some grown-ups who don’t play “telephone” at recess. A Grown Up
Suzan,
Perhaps you could run a poll that asks:
Have you ever discussed or commented favorably or unfavorably
about your boss or supervisor?
Let those that have not throw the first stone.
Mr. Boiardi, they were not discussing their boss or supervisor, they were high-level employees ridiculing the professional performance of another high-level employee in public, in front of town residents, in front of a subordinate of the employee in question and in front of a candidate for the same promotion as the employee. They were doing so on the eve of the promotion selection process short list generation. They were doing so in violation of the town’s professional conduct policy to which they agreed to abide when they agreed to work here. Most importantly, they were opening up the taxpayers to a huge liability risk by doing so.
As a town official you should be getting and disseminating more accurate information.
Resident
First of all I did not make a statement, I posed a question.
What public forum is there when employees have dinner and participate in private conversation. It was not a patron of the resturant that reported the discussion, it was another employee. There is such a thing as free speech.
Please reference the specific language that says that an employee can not express their opinion privately among friends?
Resident,
P.S. Check out Susan’s poll regarding payment of the legal fees. It appears that I am not the only one sympathetic to payment.
I was a late-comer to this discussion when it was in full force, and I’m far less acquainted with town politics than many. However, I followed the issue with interest and read what material was available, and I cannot agree with the above statements that places the blame on the employees. From what I understand, a fairly innocuous conversation prompted an absurd over-reaction followed by gross mismanagement that ended up bearing little resemblance to responsible government. If I recall correctly, we ended up paying external counsel to conduct an investigation which had as it’s chief finding something akin to “Grow up”.
That said, I never felt that we should be paying for the expenses incurred independently by the employees. We already wasted a lot of money and by our own over-reaction. The over-reaction of others seems like more than we can reasonably be held accountable for. Extending them an apology for the stress caused is one thing. Accepting responsibility for their decisions to retain unnecessary counsel is quite another.
I’m coming to sympathize more with the opposing point of view, due largely to sentiments like those posted above. We spent more than money in this fiasco, we also lost a lot of good will. The rancor and misdirection of such sentiments creates a poisonous atmosphere that could keep us from moving forward. I can understand the desire to send a message that we will hold ourselves responsible beyond what is strictly required, and the attempt to simultaneously buy back some good-will. I don’t know how successful this effort can be, and money is very tight right now, but when I see continued viciousness against people who (as far as I can tell) did nothing to warrant it, it makes me more receptive to the attempt.
An over reaction by the BOS pulled in the town lawyers. The employees, once they heard this, got their own lawyers on an issue that should have been no more than a personnel department issue (reprimand, warning). This started with a flawed process to pick the next police chief. If I am wrong on all of this, then know that the only BOS member who was not a part of this supports paying the legal fees. This does not dismiss what might or might not have happened – only the process that was mismanaged.
This whole event and the current budget process speak loudly for a new form of town government (Town Manger). Otherwise the tail will continue to wag the dog.
How about the town pays for the pizza and we call it even?
There is no way the town should even be asked to vote on this reimbursement (and I mean at Town Meeting, not in polls like the above, which are an interesting curiosity but are generally not representative of the larger voter pool), without the prior release of the un-redacted minutes of the Executive Session and the full 140-page report from the independent investigator. To ask the Town to vote at Town Meeting without this information is irresponsible.
But, if we must vote at Town Meeting, there’s also no way the town (i.e. taxpayers) should have to pay the legal fees for these individuals. These weren’t entry level people with limited professional training and limited knowledge of the Town’s Professional Conduct Policy; they were and are highly paid town employees who clearly should have known better than to act in a way that “was not appropriate or consistent with the Professional Conduct Policy or the training provided to employees” (direct quote from the executive summary of the investigator’s report).
It wasn’t just about ‘griping about one’s boss’ as some people have said. It was a 20-minute bad-mouthing session of a candidate for a high-level public position (police chief), the day before the short-list of final candidates was to be voted on by the Board of Selectmen (BOS), in front of one of the BOS members, a competitor for the position, and people that the selected individual would have to work with regularly. It was also an incident of the same nature as one that occurred in the Town Hall during a work day. This could have subjected the town to a lawsuit that could have made this current situation look like a cheap walk in the park.
In this tough economy, we’re talking about cutting vital town services, and yet we are being asked to pay the legal fees of 4 high-level, highly paid town employees who acted with questionable judgment at best, knew better, and retained counsel by their own choice, to address an issue that they brought on themselves? There is no way the taxpayers of Southborough (because it’s not “the Town” that’s paying, it’s you, through your taxes) should be held responsible for this and forced to pay these fees.
People in support of repayment talk about ‘putting this behind us and moving on.’ This would have been over and ‘put behind us’ a year ago, if the 4 people involved would have considered themselves fortunate that they weren’t disciplined, and left it at that.
We can put it behind us now. Vote no on the poll above, but more importantly, vote no at Town Meeting on April 11.
Common Good,
Where did you get the information you refer to in your third paragraph? Do you have the unredacted minutes of the Executive Session or the 140 page invesstigators report? If you do please share it?
Regarding Mr. Crowell’s point about the tail continuing to wag the dog, the way that that will happen will be if the town sets a precedent and demonstrates that it will continue to allow high-level town employees to act contrary to the town’s Professional Conduct Policy and not hold them accountable.
For example, the town is about to begin a process to hire a replacement for our retiring fire chief. It would not be surprising at all if good candidates for this position bypass this opportunity in Southborough if it becomes clear through the vote on this issue at Town Meeting that Southborough is a place where the town not only allows high-level administrative employees to violate the Town’s written Professional Conduct Policy and undermine senior public safety officials with impunity, but also actually pays the legal fees of employees who do so, when they voluntarily retain counsel to defend thier irresponsibility and lack of judgment.
And, to Mr. Moore’s comment about ‘viciousness,’ I don’t see or hear a lot of ‘viciousness’ from those advocating non-payment of the fees; certainly no more ‘vicious’ than anything that apparently was said by the people requesting legal repayment (but we’d probably know more about this if the full report would be released before Town Meeting). The main point is that things were not handled as well as they could have been by both sides, and that’s exactly why this should have ended a year ago and why these 4 individuals should not expect the taxpayers, who were really the only people not at any fault in this, to pay any more for it.
Regarding your last sentence, I could not disagree more. It will not serve to choose a form of government, elect representatives, and then cry “It wasn’t me!” with regard to the actions of those representatives. I’ll admit, I didn’t even vote for town positions until last year. That doesn’t excuse me, if anything it makes me even more culpable.
This is our government. We need to take responsibility for it.
Let me repeat that I do not think that repayment of individuals legal fees is necessarily part of that responsibility. Also, allow me to clarify my comment about people being “vicious”. As near as I can tell, the current conversation should have nothing to do with the character or actions of the so-called “Southborough Eight”. Their part in all of this was played out a year ago, and no fault was found (something you chalk up to good fortune, I can’t see being subjected to a baseless investigation in those terms). The current conversation is entirely about ourselves, that is our government, and how we will recognize our responsibility. When we drag these individuals back into the conversation, insisting that they should have been punished or impugning their character, I call it vicious. I also call it a meaningless distraction.
This isn’t about them, it’s about us and how we are going to govern our town.
Respectfully, I suggest that “CommonGood” is foolish to be worried that good candidates for the Fire Chief position may “bypass this opportunity in Southborough if it becomes clear … that Southborough is a place where the town not only allows high-level administrative employees to violate the Town’s written Professional Conduct Policy and undermine senior public safety officials with impunity, but also actually pays the legal fees of employees who do so.”
[*** Unrelated irony alert *** : the Fire Chief was at Uno’s that night.]
On the contrary, we need to be much more worried that candidates for Town jobs will bypass this Town because we are a place that fails to recognize and act when our government makes a foolhardy mistake, i.e., like when a Selectman launches a multi-month investigatory odyssey over a simple matter that could and should have been wrapped up in a few days. [That’s right, a simple matter — don’t confuse the severity (or not) of the allegations with the ease of dealing with them.]
“Michael Moore” has it exactly right. This warrant article has never been about whether the conduct of the 4 employees was good or bad, because the interminable investigation on that has concluded. We need to clean up a mess created and fostered by the former administration. Simple as that.
Oh yes, and three people who HAVE read the entire, unredacted investigative report — Bonnie Phaneuf, Bill Boland and John Rooney — all have publicly endorsed reimbursement.
BSM
P.S. Dean Dairy, this is a serious discussion, but you made me laugh.
Correction BSM. FOUR people have read the investigation report. ONLY TWO support reimbursement; Mr. Boland who was at the incident in question and whose presence there was probably the reason this turned into an independent investigation, and Mr. Rooney who has no first-hand knowledge of what went on leading up to the decision to go to an independent investigation. The other two have come out publicly against reimbursement.
‘Resident’s statement above is accurate. Of the group of four who have read the full report, only Mr. Rooney and Mr. Boland support reimbursement. In my opinion, Mr. Boland’s credibility on this issue is particularly dubious, since:
(a) He was there with the group at the time of the incident (see the minutes linked in the April 8 post “Selectmen release Southborough Eight Executive Session Minutes”).
(b) He neglected to disclose this fact to the other BOS members until late in the executive session meeting, and until after allowing several members of the group in question to initially deny he was there (see the same minutes and my comment under the April 8 post “Selectmen release Southborough Eight Executive Session Minutes” for more on this).
(c ) He has not recused himself from any votes on this issue, such as the vote to not release the full investigation report (his in favor of not releasing) and the vote by our currently 2-member BOS as to whether to support the reimbursement article at Town Meeting (his in support of the article).
There are some who are basing a fair portion of their support for reimbursement on the fact that the current BOS has voted to support the article at Town Meeting. Anyone with this position and/or relying partially on this fact should keep in mind that of our current two-person BOS, one of them, Mr. Boland, has the conflicts of interest listed above. People should be very cautious about putting too much stock into the guidance of the BOS as it is currently constituted, regarding this issue.
Read the Executive Summary regarding the entire matter. You will find that of the 4 points investigated 2, (Items 3 and 4), of the report concerned ” being left out of the loop on emails regarding meetings and concern over a laptop computer” The emphasis has been what has been said by the employees. Little has been said about the 50% of the lawyers findings regarding what I consider the real issue or complaint— the emails.
I have concluded that, on balance, we should pay these expenses.
The question before us is not the question which the Board of Selectmen had outside counsel spend seven months investigating: Was there an infraction that merited punishment? That question is settled. The outside counsel, and the Board of Selectmen that initiated the investigation, concluded that there was no infraction that merited any punishment whatsoever. They concluded that not even a written reprimand was justified. In effect, the plaintiff concluded that the plaintiff had no case.
After concluding that the actions of the employees did not warrant any punishment, the Board of Selectmen then wanted to ensure that the process did not cost the employees the $14,000+ in legal fees that they incurred. They felt that $14000 would be unfair. However, last summer, when they tried to pay the fees, they found that they lacked the legal authority to do so without an appropriation from Town Meeting. The Board of Selectmen are therefore asking us to make the appropriation via this warrant.
In effect this request by the Board of Selectmen is a kind of confession that the prior Board made a significant error here. The error is pretty obvious, I’m afraid. In managing a situation like this you need to calmly match the management process to the surface facts, applying some sensible judgment. That wasn’t done. If the surface facts looked like you were going to need to fire three or four senior employees, then an outside counsel investigation might be justified. When the surface facts point to less consequential outcomes, then you get advice, talk to people, offer instruction, try to calm things down. You don’t, in that case, start a process that costs multiple tens of thousands of dollars in order to conclude the obvious, that not much happened. Also, you never, ever, let matters like this drag on for seven months. A seven month investigation benefits only the lawyers and violates every sound management practice. The process choice, an investigation by outside counsel, was a big mistake, letting it drag on, a huge one. Those were Board decisions.
In summary the Board has recognized that the big error here was not the conversation over the pizza, but the spending of all this time and money investigating something that didn’t merit any punishment. That error was their error, but it cost the employees.
It would be best if we now recognize that our elected representatives do sometimes make mistakes. When they want to correct them, we should support them. We should close out this sorry chapter by supporting the Selectmen, and not leaving these employees holding its largest remaining burden. Lets move on, and not leave bad feelings to fester, potentially besmirching the reputation of our Town for fair treatment. We have larger issues that require our collective attention not be distracted by divisiveness and ill will over the past.
I agree with John’s analysis. In the end after we spent all that time and money the finding was that there was no cause for action against the employees. In effect, there was a finding that nothing wrong (at least in a legalistic sense) was done.
Some folks argue that it is unseemly for town employees, to grouse about the performance of one of their peers. Indeed it is. But it is also not germane. Comments about the performance of public officials in their duties are highly protected free speech rights we all enjoy. There might be some question about whether they should make derogatory comments about a direct supervisor or someone who works for them but that is not the case here.
Some also cite the so called Professional Conduct Policy. I have read this document. It is, in my opinion, unenforceable, feel good, politically correct pablum not worth the paper it is written on.
So:
1. There was no finding of inappropriate behavior.
2. The investigation lasted months longer than necessary and resulted in far too much money being spent by the the town and the employees.
3. The employees were off duty engaged in the sort of informal office discussions that take place from the shop floor to the board room all the time.
4. The employees were engaged in an activity that is protected under the Constitution in my opinion.
We, did wrong, we need to make it right. Reimbursing the employees is the right thing to do in this case.
The more relevant question in my view is not “Was there an infraction that merited punishment?”, but, was the investigation justified?
From the Executive Summary: “The results of this Internal Affairs investigation leads the undersigned to conclude that, while certain conduct was not appropriate or consistent with the Professional Conduct Policy or the training provided to employees, it did not rise to such a level of deficiency that any significant or other discipline is warranted.”
If the investigation was warranted, why should the taxpayer shoulder the burden of how these employees chose to react to that investigation?
I’m not suggesting that this could not have been handled better, only that given a history of legal settlements for inappropriate behavior, it was necessary to address the allegations in a manner that reflected the seriousness of the alleged unprofessional conduct.
We live by the choices we make and these employees made the choice to engage in the conduct that required the investigation, and also a choice to secure legal representation.
That we as taxpayers should be asked to pay any more to address a situation they created hardly seems right to me.
Entitled,
I agree with you that the only proper question is “whether the investigation was justified.” But, respectfully, I can’t understand at all how the sentence you quoted from the Executive Summary above just automatically leads you to the conclusion that it was. In fact, nothing the employees were alleged to have said or done “required the investigation” — as you state. Rather it was a very frightful overreach by a well meaning but misguided BOS.
The reference concluded that:
“while certain conduct was not appropriate or consistent with the Professional Conduct Policy or the training provided to employees”
A coworker alleged unprofessional conduct.
The BOD took that seriously.
Employees in the past have received significant legal settlements for the unprofessional behavior of other town employees.
Are you suggesting that given what appears to have been a valid allegation of unprofessional behavior by some of our most senior employees that the BOD not take the allegation seriously?
That the unprofessional behavior upon further investigation did not rise to a level that demanded additional action is beside the point.
How does a BOD independently assess how unprofessional the behavior was without engaging an outside party? One of the BOD members was at the pizza party…. I assume all of the BOD members at the very least lacked a perception of independence as they ultimately appointed the Chief of Police who was the target of the bad mouthing or whatever it was that resulted in this.
Absent the actions of the deep dish 8, none of this would have happened and perhaps the BOD could have done something more useful with their time and our tax dollars.
Mr. Hamilton, I strongly disagree. There are many professions/jobs which require that an individual agree to limitations on their rights of completely free expression. Whether is it a confidentiality agreement, a do-not-compete clause, a dress code or simply the hours you are required to work, almost every job comes with a list of things you are required to, or prohibited from, doing. The good news is that, if a particular job’s requirements are unacceptable to you, you don’t have to agree to employment.
The Town has a Professional Conduct Policy. Though you seem to discount it, I do not. Along with the policy came training sessions which were very long, offered numerous examples, even handouts and gave everyone the opportunity to ask questions if anything was unclear. The town’s message was indisputable – if you take actions which are illegal, unethical, contrary to the town’s policies and procedures and/or open the town up to liability, the town WILL NOT SUPPORT YOU. The issue of payment for legal defense was specifically discussed. The conclusion; do any of those things and you are on your own.
Even a child will tell you that ridiculing a coworker in front of other coworkers and town residents is the exact opposite of “Employees and officials should respect and treat each other in a professional and positive manner.” They did so in a public place and in the Town House during business hours. On top of this, the co-worker about whom they were speaking was currently in the middle of a public selection process for a high-visibility senior position with the town which could have opened the town up to a costly lawsuit. This makes their responsibility for adherence to policy even greater. Add to all this the fact that the independent investigation found them in violation of our Professional Conduct Policy and their culpability is clear.
The facts are that the Town’s policy was made very clear to them. They had every right to decline employment with our town if they found the policy unacceptable. They did not. Having violated one of those policies on more than one occasion, they are responsible for the consequences.
Accepting the policy and then arguing that it is invalid it once you are found guilty of violating it, is just further nonsense. They did wrong. They need to take responsibility for their actions.
A big AMEN to “entilted” whose name is perfect for this dicussion by the way.
As for Mr. Boland being “at the pizza party” how is it that he is the one withholding public records from the taxpayers and voting on any of these issues? See susan’s recent post from yesterday. I thought public officials were supposed to recuse themselves from issues in which they are personally involved. How is the town supposed to sit in judgement of the professional behavior and performance of employees whose unprofessional behavior is not only condoned but shared by the chairman of the BOS and who obviously enjoy the personal protection of the chairman of the BOS? Now the BOS are supporting a warrant article to put more taxpayer money into these individual’s pockets? Was Mr. Boland brought before the independent investigator concerning his involvement? Did he hire personal legal counsel? Are we going to be asked to pay for that next year? This is insane and it stops with us on Monday night. If people don’t like the outcome they can seek employment elsewhere. Personally I think our town would be better for it.
I have been following this and I am amazed at how messed up the situation was, how poor the information that we have is and the interpretations that people are coming up with from these same pieces of information. There is a 100-something page report that no one has seen, and my understanding is that the employees haven’t seen it either, and we don’t know what is in there and we should.
We do know some things though. Out of the information that has been released I have not seen anything that says that there was a 20 minute bad-mouthing session at Unos. Maybe Susan could repost the documents that have been released.
The Executive Summary says that there was a comment about a truck and a response. The truck comment is innocuous and the response is just a response. Neither seem aimed at the Chief but rather at the Selectmen. The comment is certainly not something worthy of a meeting with the Board of Selectmen, a Town Attorney and a group of your peers.
Also, as John Boiardi pointed out, the Executive Summary gets into issues that have nothing to do with anything that happened at Unos and that turned out to be unfounded. There is no mention of these issues in the minutes of the first meeting. When did this happen?
I remember that there was something about the employees saying they would be open to mediation if the town wanted to. Contrary to some people’s belief, mediation is not an admission that someone did something wrong, but is two parties recognizing that they need to come together to work out issues. It seems that all of the issues, Unos and beyond, could have been worked out through mediation.
This investigation was mis-handled. Issues (misunderstandings, miscommunication, hurt feelings) between employees are not handled with the executive board and the company lawyer where I work and I would dare say at most companies. The employees, all of them, do not deserve to be hung out to dry again over this poorly handled issue.
Both John Butler and Al Hamilton have clearly explained the issues and have concluded that the employees should be reimbursed.
I agree.
To address a few key points made by various posters above:
1. To Mr. Boiardi’s question about where the information in paragraph 3 of my original post came from, it is all in either the redacted minutes of the executive session or the executive summary of the investigator’s report. I have not seen the un-redacted information or the full report, because as I mentioned, they have not been released. They should be. Additionally, ‘who was there’ has pretty much become common knowledge by anyone who has paid attention to this issue – see at least one other post elsewhere in this thread.
2. Mr. Moore and Mr. Hamilton make a particularly flawed argument on one point above. They claim – or at least imply – that when we vote for public officials we must take responsibility for all of their actions. First of all, in this situation, the independent investigator found that the BOS acted appropriately and within their authority. Second, even if one chooses to disagree with that finding (although conveniently putting great stock in the investigator’s other findings – more on that shortly), and proceeds with the position that we must all take responsibility for their actions because we elected them, that is a highly flawed argument. By the reasoning Mr. Moore and Mr. Hamilton describe, which voter(s) or taxpayers(s) should do the jail time or pay the fine when some elected official commits a crime?
3. Regarding the comments of “Beware Selective Memory:” you mention “. . . when a Selectman launches. . .” You should probably be reminded that it wasn’t “a” selectman (i.e., one); the entire BOS voted to undertake the investigation (which, again, was found by the investigator to be appropriate given the circumstances). Perhaps you are too fixated on one of the BOS members from that time period.
4. Several posters above, including Mr. Moore, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Butler, and Beware Selective Memory show some reliance on the findings of the investigator’s executive summary that no significant discipline was warranted (despite its recognition of actions by the individuals that were counter to the Town’s Professional Conduct Policy), but then they claim that the BOS was clearly unjustified in its actions. I believe it is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst, to choose to embrace the investigator’s findings that the employees’ actions did not reach a level requiring disciplinary action on the one hand, and then to discredit the investigator’s findings in the same report that the BOS acted appropriately, on the other.
5. Finally, regarding the various versions of ‘the investigation took too long’ as part of the rationale for payment, a few thoughts: First, there may be more information in the un-redacted minutes of the executive session or in the 140-page report that might clarify why it took so long. I don’t know if there is or not, but we should all be allowed to see what those documents report. Second, and more importantly, think about what would have been said – likely by many of the same people complaining about the length of the investigation – if the then-BOS members would have pressed the investigator to complete the investigation more quickly. They would have been accused of either trying to tamper with the investigation process or of trying to railroad the employees in question.
The then-members of the BOS were put into a no-win situation by the poor judgment of several high-level members of town staff, and acted appropriately given the circumstances, as judged by the investigator. The taxpayers of Southborough should not be the ones to pay for any of this.
Common Good
You certainly make the case for those that believe the reimbursement is not appropriate.
No one would accuse me of advocating frivolity with the taxpayers monies but in this case I believe reimbursement is the right thing to do.
1. The so called policy is impossibly vague leaving the definition of inappropriate behavior so arbitrary that it might as well have been modeled on Kafka’s “The Trial”
2. The free speech rights of public sector employees are, I believe, different than those of the private sector. Let me give you an example. A few years ago one of the unions in town (I think it was the DPW), picketed one of the Selectmens home over the lack of progress in contract negotiations. These employees, on their own time, expressed very public displeasure with the performance of their supervisors supervisor. I am sure that the Star Chamber could, looking at the “policy” could infer a violation of the “policy”. Should they have been subject to discipline for exercising their free speech rights? The example is no different from the one in question in my mind.
When you become a public employee you have to accept public scrutiny, your pay is public, and your performance is fair game for the application of every citizens free speech rights. What you don’t check at the door when you become a public employee is your right to free speech.
3. The length of the “investigation” or “witch hunt” (which ever you prefer) was, in my opinion, so long as to have been punitive in it self without proper due process. This matter should have been resolved in days or perhaps just ignored for the meaningless incident it was.
4. I dare say that a majority of the people reading this blog have at one point in their lives sat around a table after hours with co workers and engaged in shop talk that eventually drifted to the performance of some other group, or division. This sort of gossip is human nature. The resulting pogrom in this case was a tempest in a teapot.
So, for me, it is a matter of simple fairness. I believe in this case the employees were treated unfairly and because of that I believe we need to make amends. In the coming years we have to have some big, unpleasant discussions with our workforce about their work expectations and our ability to pay for them. We do not need these sorts of distractions poisoning the the well before we start.
I would not want to be treated the way that the employees were treated given the facts on hand so I believe that we should reimburse them for their legal expenses. Reasonable people can disagree on this point and we will resolve this on the floor of town meeting.
Commongood,
You are very articulate regarding your position on reimbursement of the town employees even though I don’t agree with you.
I would be interested in your explanation (and right) to remain anonymous in your posts.
I can’t very well not respond to this, but I will try to keep it brief.
With regard to to point 2: I consider it absurd to say that members of a democratic community bear no responsibility for the actions of their elected representatives, I take an opposing view in strong terms. However, I don’t believe this is an effective forum for debate of political theory, and the question is in some sense moot. Whether or not we _should_ bear the burdens for the mistakes of our representatives, it cannot be easily denied that we _do_. The current discussion should be about how to mitigate the problems that have been created and not add to them. What I earlier implied and now will say outright is that pretending that government is somebody else’s problem is not an effective way to address such issues.
With regard to point 4, you and I disagree in fairly fundamental terms. Given everything I know about the case (and my knowledge is limited by what has become public), addressing this issue with an internal investigation makes as much sense as trying to control malaria by attacking mosquitoes with a sledgehammer. A statement by a lawyer that hiring him was a good decision is not going to change that opinion. Further, it is not the case that I believe that the report proves the innocence of those investigated. What it does is fail to find anything worthy of disciplinary action. While failure to demonstrate guilt is not the same as proving innocence, it’s enough to convince me that our time is better spent on other matters.
As for your defense of the BOS as the real victims in this matter, perhaps you’re right. I have no inside knowledge of the case, I don’t know what sort of pressures they were under, and I cannot comment as to their motives or reasoning. All I can say from what I can see is that the way in which they handled the case was exceptionally poor, that it has left us with issues that will require honest self-assessment to resolve, and that I hope that we can learn enough from the process to avoid such incidents in the future.
What a mess.
But I am leaning to the side in opposition of reimbursement. People who feel they have been wrongfully terminated hire attorneys and deserve reimbursement of legal fees if it’s determined that they were wrongfully fired.
In this case, the town initiated some fact finding based on an employee’s allegation. Once the various department heads all obtained their own attorneys, the entire process was doomed to run longer and cost more. I think I need to agree with those who say that these individuals should have waited to understand what ( if any ) punishment was headed their way before complicating the entire affair with additional attorneys. If every employee feels they can be reimbursed for legal representation in all of their interactions with their boss because the consequences might be harmful to them, we’ll be broke in no time.
Hmm. I seem to be the only non-anonymous person who is not in favor of reimbursing. John, Al, I always appreciate your insight. Maybe you can help alleviate some of my lingering misgivings.
I seem to remember that the vast bulk of the legal fees were incurred by one or two people. This, to me, suggests that the decision to retain legal counsel was not forced on those investigated and that those who did seek such counsel should therefore be responsible for the decision to do so (i.e. they should pay their own bills). This is probably the single biggest hurdle for me right now. I don’t see why one person who was subjected to the investigation should be recompensed for (pulling figure out of thin air) $8k or legal fees while others should get nothing.
The worst of this is that, if it’s true that those who did obtain legal counsel were over-reacting by doing so, we’re effectively encouraging over-reaction by future employees. It seems to me that this has the potential to cause more problems than it solves.
Mr. Moore,
Not sure I understand your making a distinction about those who have posted here anonymously on this issue, but you and I are in agreement on reimbursement, and my vote at Town Meeting will count the same as yours. [By the way, on this issue I may be posting anonymously, but on other issues on this blog I have posted under my own name. Either way, the quality (or not) of any post should speak for itself, anonymous or not.]
I find troubling the attitude of others that “only guilty people hire lawyers” or words to that effect. These people were told in an “emergency” executive session that teir jobs were in jeopardy. Quite the opposite of overreacting, hiring a lawyer BEFORE YOU GET FIRED (NOT AFTER, SOUTHSIDER) over something so frivolous only makes sense. But don’t take my anonymous word for it — go to Town meeting and listen to those who have read the entire report (and/or lived through it). For pete’s sake, 2 of the 3 members of the BOS that initiated the investigation now support reimbursement — how do those who oppose reimnbursement discount that fact, especially without knowing the facts themselves? I agree that the entire freport should be released, but in the absence of it we need to base our decision on a rational view of what we know.
BSM
Sorry BSM, I didn’t mean to make less of your opinion or devalue your contribution. My comment regarding anonymity had to do with a certain apprehension of being the sole identifiable dissenter to the majority opinion in a heated issue. It was meant lightly, but my wife says that if our house gets egged in the next few weeks, it’s my fault for posting on such volatile issues.
In any case, I think you’re correct. The best course we can take at this point is to listen to informed opinions in town meeting and keep an open mind.