Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOS EXEC. MINUTES 1984( 1984 EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES BOARD OF SELECTMEN MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION FEBRUARY 22, 1984 PRESENT: Chairman Dunn; Selectmen Wills, Police Chief Earls r ICI 92 FEQ 26 P 1 3: If2 LO i'ttJSf lT� D'Onofrio, McNair; Town Manager; The Town Manager opened the session with a summary of the Public Works negoti- ations. The Union will present their proposals tomorrow, and the Town Manager advised the Board that anything new will be discussed. The big hang -up with the Fire Department negotiations is language concerning sick leave. Chad feels they are trying to "bend us ", with delays, but that until there is some evidence of "bending" on their part, the Town's best stand is to do nothing. With mediation the Dunlop Committee's only interest is in settling the case, not interest in the quality of the contract. The Town Man- ager advised that Chief Sliney had been to a hearing regarding the suspensions; there has been no results yet. The other main problem concerns night men replac- ing permanent firefighters; the Union has brought action with Civil Service to eliminate using night men. The Town Manager advised that both he and Paul Kenney feel it is important for the Town to take a firm stand. The Town Manager then reviewed the February 13th meeting with the Mansfield Police Association regarding collective bargaining, at which the Town presented its proposal. His discussion followed the Confidential Memo as presented to the Board, outlining the Town's proposal after mutual discussion with the union (Memo attached). The Town would like to eliminate the night differential; Sel- ectman Wills suggested giving additional points for night duty; $1000 per man per year was suggested. The union has asked for an additional personal day instead of a point for unused sick leave. It was suggested giving a point for each three month period of unused sick leave. The Town Manager feels for the first year the Town should maintain the night differential, and recommends Concept 2, but not with the 5% increase in base pay; then go to the incentive /point system in the second year. It was felt that a 2 -year contract was necessary. Chief Earls ex- pressed the feeling that the best plan was to give them the money up front, in the first year. The objective is to encourage the officers to earn points and advance. Selectman D'Onofrio felt it important to know the financial impact for the years ahead, with Concept 2. The Board asked Chief Earls to present the impact for FY -86, but was advised that Chief Earls has a meeting with the union tomorrow; he said they want numbers. He said this concept is a departure from the usual way of handling the situation, and the men are nervous about it because they haven'e seen it before. Before closing the session the Town Manager advised the Board that he had received a notice of a hearing for Earl Weeman, just the day before. He reviewed the sit- uation to date; i.e., Weeman had been turned down by the Retirement Board, the Town had then notified Weeman that he would be put on his unused sick leave. Wee - man has appealed to the court to be returned to Injured -on- duty status, which is the purpose of the hearing February 24th. The Town Manager said this could mean he would receive 72% of his pay for life. MOTION: To go out of Executive Session. McNair /Wills VOTED:: 4 -0 MINUTES APPROVED: _lam / Mc� /. Nom _.. z//, /" Clerk V I., Date signed MEMORANDUM TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Town Manager DATE: February 22, 1984 RE: Police Department Negotiations 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 On February 13, 1984 we met with the Mansfield Police Association regarding collective bargaining. The purpose of the session was for the Town to present its proposal af�d discuss it in detail with the union. Based upon the discus- sions the following is the language that is presently in the Town proposal as clarified through mutual discussion with the union: Article XI - Delete Section B in its entirety, relative to pay for night shift differential, and substitute in its place "The rates of compensation for each employee covered by this agreement shall be determined in accord- ance with, and shall conform to, the salary schedule and other rates of compensation as set forth in this agreement. The Chief of the Mansfield Police Department shall determine, in accordance with provisions of this section, the salary schedules and other rates of compensation for each member of this agreement. Each member shall be placed on a salary schedule in accordance with his education, training, experience, duties and employ- ment record. For purpose of this agreement, the following definitions shall apply: a) Education shall mean courses taken by a police officer in a recog- nized and approved college or university for formal courses in law enforcement; for the purpose of point value summarized below: 1) A course or courses towards a Law Enforcement Degree shall receive full value; 2) Courses taken not for a degree, not in law enforcement, shall receive 50% value. 3) In addition, education shall mean receipt of a certified EMT certificate. b) Training shall mean specialized courses taken by a police officer in improving his skills and proficiencies beyond their basic train- ing. The approved training courses shall be taken from the Syllabus of the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council. The Chief of Police shall approve all training. 1) Each officer shall not receive more than three courses in any one calendar year for which he will receive credit in that year. c) Job Experience shall mean the specific duties that a police officer is assigned to perform in addition to his regular work load, such as: Training Officer, rape investigation, photography, finger print- BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEMO 1 February 22, 1984 Page 2 ing specialist, motorcycle officer, detective, crime prevention officer, and safety officer. In addition, each officer shall be given one point for each year of continuing service. d) Work Performance shall mean the attendance record of the employee, his driving record, his safety record, and disciplinary action. Point Totals Education: Bachelor Degree - 60 pts. Associate Degree - 30 pts. EMT + maintain certificate 10 pts. Each college course - 1 pt. Training: Specialized training course 1 pt. - 3 courses may be taken in any one year; additional courses credited to the following year. Job Experience: Five years of continuous service - 5 pts. Work Record: One year perfrect driving record - I Pt: One year perfect attendance - One year non - disciplinary action - 1 pt. Delete from Article XI sub - Section C in its entirety; this section relates to longevity payments. As a result of that meeting we have summarized the actual cost of the proposed union contract for the various options; these are summarized on Table A. Table B summarizes the proposed Pay Plan which includes night differential and non -night differential. Table C summarizes Concept One and how it could possibly affect individual mem- bers of the department. It should be noted that these figures, as they may per- tain to an individual, are subject to review by the individual members of the bargaining unit prior to ratification. The names of the individual police officers will not be discussed with the Selectmen. Table D summarizes the concept provided for a 5% increase for both the day shift officers and the night shift officers. Table E summarizes a recent survey of area communities and their base cost for police contracts. N LO lf) OOO OOO ID p I OOO OOO LON m' Y LO C) 1 C) (D W 00 O 1 a Ol N OlOd' Cl 00 In �l0 U � O1 N M � O M CD (D tO M V NM V U a) r p O OOOOOOOtn Ln O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N N Y to CD (D tO M V NM V a) d' cF Ln U O ' r 1 OlC �ONLn r M r O C Cl) O U Ln p m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N J Q Ln 0 La O 01 O0O O O O Ln �� Y C OV 00000 MN ^ O W L n N V N L O t n d' N l n E O W W r W C Z � C W Liz 1\ LO d a- O N O U O O O M � W ct Q O O N N Y N M Ln C W N co O a) r- z o °I ^ E O O M to U r U Y Z C v3 CD r $ Z O O n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O1 \ N a Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O N to Ln N LO n Ln M W d' N I fu Mod- M W m 0 p M r CO M r N M r t6 (n C N ^ n lT r 5- J O� Q C L O La Q O O N CO Iz r u) L N O. 01 C) m ON OOOO O OO p� O OLn OOO OOOO N M n L LO C> C> CD CD CD C) M r b� N O W Ln O ° \° .Ct Y n O O r r r N � _ •O S b Y a O C C W LO Y 4- OO O M L 0 a) i Ln W O1 Y ° \ i N C t n O Ln n n Ln Y a) a) Y U U 3' '—' CL 0 to 3 0 1_ Y Y r C Y Y C 6 C C E Uo(D E n-P Y O Y N N C S- Y � O a) C rt 0 S- 04- •r 1 1 C t o � 11 O Y r N 41 C Y II O 4141 / Q U >� Y C U O. O. l cF LO m Y O N Ld N c al a1 O 11 I > E Y Y C O) t6 a/ M S- S-C C o ^ O tO to TO•� ai E1— o Z c 0 0 7 C o \ \° O O N Y� rn w O1 O > b •r Y J •r O. F-- M N M u N aJ 'D Y V Y Y C- N N N N M.— (a a) . 5- S- ' r C Ol r X X C r U> U W O Z b L X X C v d l0 Ot J S> r+ fn O N N N � lt1 r Table 8 PROPOSED PAY PLAN Step Police Officer Sergeant 1 $20,150 $23,300 2 20,450 23,600 3 20,750 23,900 4 21,050 24,200 5 21,350 24,500 6 21,650 24,800 7 21,950 25,100 8 22,250 25,400 9 22,550 25,700 10 22,850 26,000 S- r (6 O O Cl cF N O Ol � b O r t0 v N N 1 61 .{-� M N N r O N r N r r m M m M O Cl Cl O 0 O O O O O CIL N M N O i d cY N d' M N N 1- N N E 4- O N C O Y U 4-- c C O' O 'O N C > rtt > OJ (n L Y O Y O d Y U 0 N o •n .o 3 N 1/1 S- 5 Y C >1 E (0 41 C i •r rt5 E � r O N S U1 r O C O_ O N "O L N Y (6 m 0 O r (6 O N Cl cF N W Ol O O r t0 n N N 1 .{-� M N N r O N r r r m M m M r M 1 N Ol 0 d' M M V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N t0 O I� t\ O M M n n n n n M n n C O O r r r O O O O O r O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E-= r N 1- N N E 4- O N C O Y U 4-- c C O' O 'O N C > rtt > OJ (n L Y O Y O d Y U 0 N o •n .o 3 N 1/1 S- 5 Y C >1 E (0 41 C i •r rt5 E � r O N S U1 r O C O_ O N "O L N Y (6 m 0 O r (6 O N Cl cF N W Ol n n r t0 n N N 1 .{-� M N N r d' r r r m M m M r M 1 0 N U C E-= r N N N r r r N N r N N N N r N N 1 1 O z. fn N W O_ N Q w U Z N 1 H N N O N O dl l0 t\ d' d' N co M V Cl) M N 1 1 d Y r r N r LLJ F- O N w O w tT J Q C r N O N N N Cl) N N M N N N N N N N N N 1 (n a r r r O d S- O S K F- O_ C O (d N O I 1 O N 1 1 Ib O N 1 1 M 1 I O 1 1 V M I I M 1 1 M r I I 1 1 M 1 I -o w O ° O N ko N OJ r N O � N VI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OI O N O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O (6 m M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ N N N N " N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O CD O W m I3 M l0 O ( j d' W CD CY) M M / _ _ m _ N _ _ <t N N � cY d' m ct d' d' N d N V V S_ i� n Ql Ol N tO N t0 N l0 l0 t0 LO N l0 l0 to N N i. N .. N M M I O 01 M O O O M O . O O Ol O Ol O O U U N N N N N r r N N N r N N N r N r N N N 10 F-. Y T _ _ Y In d N 1- N N E 4- O N C O Y U 4-- c C O' O 'O N C > rtt > OJ (n L Y O Y O d Y U 0 N o •n .o 3 N 1/1 S- 5 Y C >1 E (0 41 C i •r rt5 E � r O N S U1 r O C O_ O N "O L N Y (6 m 0 O IT N to N N M N r N N N N N N r N r N N� n co M n n n M n n M n M n t\ Ol G t0 kc Cl N N t0 l0 (0 t0 w N t0 t0 ^ O O r r N r r r r O r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to 00 0) n n r, t\ t0 t\ t0 N I �t r r M Cl) r Cl) 1 r r r N N r N N N N r N N 1 I I 1 I 1 Ol Ol l0 � V d' In M M V M M N 1 i In M N N co N Ln N N N N N N N p to I I N O m I I M I I O I 1 M I 1 Cl) r 1 1 I I Cl) 1 I to n W Ol M N r r N N N r N N N N r N N n M M n n to M n 10 to M w co to w t0 O l0 l0 l0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 l0 t0 t0 101 0 C) r r r O r r r O r O 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O to l0 V O t0 t0 t0 w t0 M a In In v v Ln v �t <t to .4t Ln It 'r w t0 l t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 (0 t0 w t0 O 0) C O O O O� O O O 0) (D rn C O N r r N N N r N N N r N r N N E y 11 Cl) N ct N N d' N 0) n O n O W m M N S- (3) E E E 4- O N C O to U 4- ro O C Q O V N C •r C > N rn S- r_ O r Y O d Y U 0 N O a -0 3 N N .j i Y C 1T E 10 Y C S- 0 •r b E a v r O v i- al O. U b O N a) r N Y N CO f 0 l] O IOI O � L V b Cl) Ln N 00 ro M F- W r d Ol In r O O Cl N s d r O d N ct to to O N N N � E 2 IT N to N N M N r N N N N N N r N r N N� n co M n n n M n n M n M n t\ Ol G t0 kc Cl N N t0 l0 (0 t0 w N t0 t0 ^ O O r r N r r r r O r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to 00 0) n n r, t\ t0 t\ t0 N I �t r r M Cl) r Cl) 1 r r r N N r N N N N r N N 1 I I 1 I 1 Ol Ol l0 � V d' In M M V M M N 1 i In M N N co N Ln N N N N N N N p to I I N O m I I M I I O I 1 M I 1 Cl) r 1 1 I I Cl) 1 I to n W Ol M N r r N N N r N N N N r N N n M M n n to M n 10 to M w co to w t0 O l0 l0 l0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 l0 t0 t0 101 0 C) r r r O r r r O r O 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O to l0 V O t0 t0 t0 w t0 M a In In v v Ln v �t <t to .4t Ln It 'r w t0 l t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 (0 t0 w t0 O 0) C O O O O� O O O 0) (D rn C O N r r N N N r N N N r N r N N E y 11 Cl) N ct N N d' N 0) n O n O W m M N S- (3) E E E 4- O N C O to U 4- ro O C Q O V N C •r C > N rn S- r_ O r Y O d Y U 0 N O a -0 3 N N .j i Y C 1T E 10 Y C S- 0 •r b E a v r O v i- al O. U b O N a) r N Y N CO f 0 l] O IOI O N m V Y Cl) Ln N r• F- W U C E r N N N o 4- i V) N w a N¢ w z Ln H V •r ^ O to O n. 4J r N r H N K O C Q •C N O N N fn r r ° ro O L K H d C O Y t0 Ln O 1 1 U Cl) 1 1 7 V W O C CO N ct d' Ol C1 N r r O O O N d T r CL In { pp N N N N d O W M M Ql Y C t0 t0 � r O -3 C\, N N N N r .O F- Y IT N to N N M N r N N N N N N r N r N N� n co M n n n M n n M n M n t\ Ol G t0 kc Cl N N t0 l0 (0 t0 w N t0 t0 ^ O O r r N r r r r O r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to 00 0) n n r, t\ t0 t\ t0 N I �t r r M Cl) r Cl) 1 r r r N N r N N N N r N N 1 I I 1 I 1 Ol Ol l0 � V d' In M M V M M N 1 i In M N N co N Ln N N N N N N N p to I I N O m I I M I I O I 1 M I 1 Cl) r 1 1 I I Cl) 1 I to n W Ol M N r r N N N r N N N N r N N n M M n n to M n 10 to M w co to w t0 O l0 l0 l0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 l0 t0 t0 101 0 C) r r r O r r r O r O 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O to l0 V O t0 t0 t0 w t0 M a In In v v Ln v �t <t to .4t Ln It 'r w t0 l t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 (0 t0 w t0 O 0) C O O O O� O O O 0) (D rn C O N r r N N N r N N N r N r N N E y 11 Cl) N ct N N d' N 0) n O n O W m M N S- (3) E E E 4- O N C O to U 4- ro O C Q O V N C •r C > N rn S- r_ O r Y O d Y U 0 N O a -0 3 N N .j i Y C 1T E 10 Y C S- 0 •r b E a v r O v i- al O. U b O N a) r N Y N CO f 0 l] O Table E OWN Mansfield Easton Norton Attleboro North Attleboro Plainville Foxboro Sharon Pay Weekly Night Personal Max, Account Differential Days Sick Leave Vacation Schndnln PTL, SGT. $378.00 $438,00 5% 2 158 $409.00 $471.00 5% 4 -12 0 Unlimited Same as ours 9% 12 -8 with Holyoke $341,00 $424.00 9% 2 Unlimited 3 yrs = 3 weeks 10 yrs = 4 weeks i $360,00 $413,00 8% 0 960 1 -7 yrs = 2 weeks 8 -12 yrs = 3 weeks 13 -20 yrs = 4 weeks Over 20 - 72 days Holyoke $380.00 $430,00 7% 0 120 Same as ours except 5 weeks after 25 yrs, $351.00 $393,00 10% 1 Unlimited 1 yr = 2 weeks 5 yrs = 2 weeks 10 yrs = 3 weeks 15 yrs = 5 weeks $380,00 $420.00 10% 1 260 Same as ours with Holyoke $362.00 $434.00 3% Earn Time 150 Same as ours z day me. * with Holyoke 6 days yr. BOARD OF SELECTMEN MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Ii2 MARCH 7, 1984 92 FEB 26 ��� 3' I `i 1USETTS PRESENT: Chairman Dunn; Selectmen Levine, Will 1s; d`b Wrio; McNair; Town Manager; Town Counsel; Dianne Royle and Stuart Sweet of the Con- servation Commission. Dianne Royle, Chairman of the Conservation Commission started the meeting with an apology that only two members of the Commission were present. The Clerk then read a letter, addressed to Chairman Dunn from Dianne Royle, asking for an Executive Session, with Town Counsel present, to explain the contents of the Complaint he had filed regarding Leon Grant's pond violations, and why he had listed the Building Inspector as the Plaintiff, rather than the Conservation Commission. She also asked for explanation as to the course of action. She said she just wanted assurance that the direction Town Counsel took will be suc- cessful; that all bases have been touched and covered, because this has been going on for two or three years nova. Dianne explained that Sunday Grant was digging the pond; Monday the Commission issued a Cease and Desist, which Grant immediately threw into the mud. Grant is working without a permit; his 90 day extension was up August 31, 1983. Town Counsel said the suit was filed under the Building Inspector's name because it concerns two zoning violations; and to file it under the Conservation Commis- sion entails seven names and, thus, more expense. His feeling was that the pur- pose of the suit was to have Leon Grant complete the pond. The Cease and Desist gives him until March 26, 1984 to submit plans and file an application for a new Wetlands Hearing; then a new Order of Conditions would have to be issued. The Cease and Desist is asking him to file a new Order of Intent; his Order of Con- ditions expired two years ago, and the plan he originally submitted does not match what is on -site now. If he does any further digging between now and March 26th, Town Counsel can have an injunction issued, then a hearing 7 days later. If he persists after the injunction, a Contempt and fine, then jail would be the course taken. There was discussion during which Dianne said the area of the pond is less than originally planned and allowed, which is fine; the setback and slopes are not correct. Chairman Dunn asked if it was clear what the terms and conditions are that Grant has to comply with; if he presents a plan by the 26th, where does that leave us; can the Conservation Commission reject the plan based on past experi- ence. Chairman Dunn also felt the Town /Conservation Commission should insist on a control device, and if the court allows a permit, they should set a time limit. Dianne said Grant had not been seen working on the pond since she and the Health Agent delivered the Cease and Desist. Consensus was that the action taken was justified and suitable. Dianne Royle seemed satisfied and would watch developments. MINUTES APPROVED: Clerk V Date signed TO BE READ IN EXECUTIVE SESSION February 29, 1984 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Mr. John Dunn Board of Selectmen Town Hall, 50 West Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Chairman Dunn: On February 13 we received the complaint submitted by Town Counsel regarding Leon Grant's pond violations. We are concerned that the plaintiff is the Building Inspector and not the Conservation Commission. It was understood by members of the Commission present at the last Executive meeting between us and the Board of Selectmen that the complaint would be filed under the Conservation Commission, the reason being that the Building Inspector could only enforce zoning, namely, the violation of the 50 foot setback. The Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over the 50 foot setback, enforcement to com- plete the pond, and enforcement over the Order of Conditions. Please note former Town Counsel Charles Mulcahy ruled that Mr. Grant was exempt from zoning under an agricultural use. If possible, we would appreciate Town Counsel present at an Executive Session meeting on Monday, March 5 at 7:00 p.m. before the bi- monthly meeting commences to explain the contents of the complaint and course of action. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION f Dianne Royle Chairwoman DR:bjw TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS March 5, 1984 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 CONSERVATION COMMISSION John Dwyer, Esq. Town Counsel Town Hall, 50 West Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Dear Jack: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on Sunday, March 4, 1984 at which time you stated your opinion to issue a Cease and Desist Order to Leon Grant, 440 Were Street. As I stated to you, Mr. Grant himself was excavating the pond on March 4. I spoke with him on his property, and he said he was digging the pond and did not know whether or not he was going to finish it. We had no further discussion and when I arrived home I telephoned you with that information. Very truly yours, MANSFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION Dianne Royle Chairwoman DR:bjw CC: Board of Selectmen Form 9' - -_ Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEQE Fite No. E211- 2 (To be provided by DEQE) city/To,nMansf ield Appl,wt Leon & Patricia Grant Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 From Mansfield Conservation Commission ussuingAuthoriN To Patricia & Leon Grant, 440 Ware Street, Mansfield, MA Date of Issuance _ March 5, 1984 Property lot/parcel number, address 440 Ware Street, Mansfield Extent and type of activity: Excavation of a pond. Mansfield Conservation Commission T!�e, has determined that the activity described above is in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40, and the Regulations promulgated pur- suant the,eto 3100MR 10.00, because: 0--'Said activity has beends being conducted without a valid Order of Conditions. 0 Said activity has beenlis being conducted in violation of an Order of Conditions issued _ dated File number , Condition number(s) 0 Other (specify) The Mansfield Conservation Commission hereby orders the following: he property owner, his agents, permittees and all others shall immediately cease and desist from further activity affecting the wetland portion of this property. ( 0 Wetland alterations resulting from said activity shall be corrected and the site returned to its original con- dition. 9.1 Completed application forms and plans as required by the Act and Regulations shall be filed with the M�zlsfield Conservation Commission on orbeforeMarch 26, 1984(date), and no further work shall be performed until a public hearing has been held and an Order of Conditions has been issued to regulate said work. Application forms are available at: -!-Q 11 Hall U The property owner shall take every reasonable step to prevent further violations of the act. D Other (specify) Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for legal action. Massachusetts General taws Chap- ter 137. Section 40 provides: Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dol!ars or by imprisonment for not more than six months or both. Each day or portion thereof of continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense. Questions regard;ng this Enforcement Order should be directed to: Chairwoman Dianne Royle _U59_-_6C81)--- _ - -_ - -- Issued by _( 22 �� "Z CHAIR%IOMAN v Signature(s) - - - - -- - - -- — — — - - -- n (SignaturVorive7person or certified mail number) P (i I C�! - �E ( gv- Y 9 -2 RECEIVED BOARD OF SELECTMEN 10 ,V N 0 F 1`41AfISFIEt D MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION JUNE 20, 1984 92 FEB 26 PH 3: 42 FIELD H 13 PRESENT: Chairman Wills; Selectmen Dunn, D'Onofrio, McNafr4Te,6.fii6USfg6,$ Manager Selectman Dunn informed the Board that he had had a meeting with Town Counsel, John Dwyer, on Monday to discuss his own feelings concerning inadequacies on the part of Town Counsel; he cited the Grant's Pond issue and APR specifically, both of which he had had an active part in, along with Town Counsel. His feel- ing was that Town Counsel takes too long to come in with requested reports. He advised the Board that at one point he had asked Town Counsel for criteria for a Town Counsel; to date he has never seen that information. Selectman Dunn summed up his concerns by saying he would like to look for other proposals for Town Counsel services; that he wants a town counsel who takes a strong position for the Town, which Dwyer does not, he feels, and he wants a town counsel he can feel comfortable with based strictly on professional perform- ance. In the discussion which followed, Selectman Dunn said Town Counsel Dwyer had called him on the phone tonight, asking him to request an Executive Session that he, Town Counsel, may learn the Board's position concerning this, because he does not want it to look like he was being "booted ".; if the Board's posi- tion indicates desire for a new Town Counsel, Jack Dwyer will resign. John Dunn said he asked Town Counsel if this matter was reason for an Executive Session and Town Counsel's answer was "Yes ". Chairman Wills said he did not think the Board should take a formal vote, but the members could express their position. Selectman D'Onofrio stated he is not surprised, and feels there is a political reason, which was refuted. He feels the Conservation Commission tied Town Counsel's hands in'the Grant's Pond case, and feels enforcement officers should have been responsible for gathering data in the APR case, not Town Counsel. Chairman Wills said he feels the Town is overpaying for legal service and would like to see if we can do better, and the Town ought to seek a new Town Counsel. Selectman D'Onofrio said he prefers to give his opinion in open ses- sion, but he feels Jack Dwyer has impartiality and independence, cannot be in- fluenced to one side or another, but calls them as he sees them. He feels he is a "book attorney ", giving excellent written opinions, but is not strong on his feet. (At this time Selectman McNair left the meeting). Selectman Levine said she has felt John Dwyer is a weak Town Counsel from the beginning. No vote or decision was made. MINUTES APPROVED: —Clerk Date signed RECEIVED BOARD OF SELECTMEN ?!f! ( ?t= jl ,, ?;'E�F� D MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 92 FEES 26 PH 3: 42 Hi A H 'Q (E L© P1€�SSAJQS�TTS PRESENT: Selectmen D'Onofrio, McNair, Levine, Dunn, own anage Selectman D'Onofrio asked for clarification concerning a letter from Joseph Curran, Business Representative of AFSCME, to Paul Kenney regarding the Public Works employees proposal to the union, prepared by Paul Kenney. The point of question is whether or not the determination to grant or not grant step in- creases rests solely with the employer and will not be subject to the griev- ance and arbitration procedure. There was contention as to whether the lang- uage was the same as that contained in the Light Department contract. The Town Manager said he understood this was put on the table and it was never said whether it was or was not an article, and that it was decided that the Town would not accept any language that said that; performance evaluations are a managerial right. Selectman D'Onofrio then asked about the situation with Joseph McKenna, brought up by the two letters from Gay and Gay, attorneys which Joe McKenna has re- tained over an incident which occurred between Joe McKenna and Joe Zeneski in June 1984. The Town Manager immediately advised that it is not appropriate to discuss this in Executive Session because there are two employees involved and they have the right to be present in an open meeting, and it should not be dis- cussed here because it is a management right; it is a personnel matter relat- ing to a bargaining unit; therefore, the Town Manager said he would not dis- cuss it, and that Paul Kenney is involved in it. Selectman D'Onofrio said he feels if the Town is going to get into litigation, then Town Counsel should be informed. MOTION: To refer the correspondence D'Onofrio /McNair FAILED: 2 -2 MINUTES APPROVED: Clerk- Date signed regarding the matter to Town Counsel. RECENT-0 BOARD OF SELECTMEN O H OF A !C FIELD MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION 92 FEB 26 PHI 3 }2 DECEMBER 5, 1984 HAHI, �F IELID PRESENT: Chairman Wills; Selectmen Dunn, Levine, D'OnofrVbAPkAA4Q0) 0T1NS Manager The Town Manager called this session to discuss the Ash property and Walter Bogdanchik property, and to ascertain how the Board wants him to proceed with land acquisition, which he feels of paramount importance. It is important be- cause of the possibility for development in the area of both properties, so if the Town is to acquire one or both properties, it should not be delayed. For the Ash property, the Town has acquired access to the site from Walter Millett. He said it is also important to acquire a piece of Morse .property to bring the Ash property to a 400 foot radius. The Town was offered a 99 year lease, and they would build the well; the Town said no. There is no money to take it by eminent domain. To buy it would cost $7 - $800,000, with Ash re- taining the mineral rights; this involves approximately 25 acres. The Town Man- ager advised that this property is surrounded by excellent land for development. Selectman Levine asked about a gravel problem on the Morse property (too much had been removed, she believed); the Town Manager confirmed that this was still an issue. The Ash property has been State approved. Concerning the Bogdanchik property, this has not been approved and would require State approval of the water supply. The Town Manager reviewed Bogdanchik's former offer of $900,000, which included the Town building a road in and his keep- ing 4 lots for development. Now there is a developer who has bought a parcel of land at both ends of the Bogdanchik property and the developer is trying to talk with Bogdanchik about his property. The Town Manager advised that the developer want to negotiate with Bogdanchik, then sell back a parcel to the Town. The Town Manager asked for the Board's direction. After some discussion, the con- sensus was to open as many fronts as possible. The Board asked to obtain the possible capacity available from the Bogdanchik property; also the mineral rights on the Ash property. MOTION: Open negotiations on both properties and with the developer, Kovich, as well (developer next to Bogdanchik property). McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 5 -0 The Town Manager was cautioned to proceed carefully with pursuit of the Bogdan- chik property from two sides. MOTION: To go out of Executive Session. D'Onofrio /McNair VOTED: 5 -0 MOTION: To adjourn, at 11:10 P.M. D'Onofrio /McNair VOTED: 5 -0 MINUTES APPROVED: (R�wx<. tom, —� _ Jerk 11� Date signed t * BOARD OF SELECTMEN MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION DECEMBER 12, 1984 n [7 C i` LD 92 FEB 26 Pill 3:1.2 f'< PRESENT: Chairman Wills; Selectmen Dunn, Town Manager Nancy Eames, of Robert Eames Insurance Agency, and Town Counsel, Jack Dwyer, came before the Board to discuss a claim for contractual violation against International Surplus Lines, insurance carrier for public officials' liabil- ity. This insurance carrier is refusing to pay for services of the Town's attorney (who is Alphonse Query in this instance), for defense of the Town's Police Chief for the Clemmey case. However, they notified the Town last April they were removing Atty. Query from the case and replacing him with another attorney. They have subsequently refused to pay any fees to Attorney Query. Atty. Query has filed a claim against the Town for this action; the only way for the Town to force International Suprlus Lines to pay these bills is for the Town to bring action against the insurance company for breach of contract. Mr. Dwyer has prepared a third party complaint for Atty. Query's bill in the amount of $22,000. The issue centers on the policy stating that the Town can hire its own attorney. MOTION: To institute the suit. McNair /Dunn AMENDED MOTION: To be careful that our suit does not suffer because we are supporting the amount of the fees themselves. VOTED: 5 -0 The Great Woods Trust has filed a petition in the Land Court asking to have thrown out the Special Permit requirement as a. zoning amendment by the Town Meeting for the Gray property prior to Great Woods Trust interest in the prop- erty. Town Counsel explained that the Board can agree to the suit and no other points of the Covenant will be affected. * MOTION: To authorize Town Counsel to enter an agreement to sign a stipula- tion with the court to have the court make an order to remove the re- quirement for a Special Permit, and it will only affect this property. McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 5 -0 The Town Manager wanted to advise the Board that the Town of Norton and the Flatley Company have been negotiating with the City of Taunton to allow them to bypass the Mansfield Wastewater Treatment Plant to connect directly into Taunton. The Town Manager had spoken to Taunton's Mayor Johnson and was told Executive Session December 12, 1984 Page 2 if all details could be worked out, the connection would be made; he also said the connection was being endorsed by the Dukakis administration as a means of improving economic development in southeastern Mass. The Town Manager went on to advise he feels the Town should be prepared to take legal action against the State, as well as the City of Taunton and Flatley Co. if this connection is approved. The basis for the action is: a) The connection requires approval of the Commonwealth DEQE. b) A connection through to Taunton is in violation of the approved Taunton River Basin plan. c) Construction of the Mansfield facility was mandated by the State to receive wastewaters from the Town of Norton. d) The Commonwealth has an investment of more than 2 million dollars in the Mansfield facility, and a connection with Taunton would be con- trary to the intent by which the Commonwealth expended money on the Mansfield facility initially. The Town Manager said Norton already has the Town Meeting vote for Flatley to tie into Taunton. Chairman Wills suggested talking with the Norton Board of Selectmen; Selectman Levine says sue Norton for the length of the interceptor, delay in time; Select- man D'Onofrio expressed the need to do something to get Norton's attention. Town Counsel advised that Norton could be sued for irreparable harm and dam- ages. The Board does not want the Town Manager to be quiet or slow in taking action; pursue all legal steps; if an agreement is signed between Taunton and Norton, then the Town can file a Cease and Desist. MOT1ON: For the Town Manager to go forward. McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 5 -0 MINUTES APPROVED: A Clerk Date signed TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Se e me DATE: December 12, 1984 FROM: W. Chadwick Ma' Jr. RE: Executive Se sion Following are the items that will be discussed in executive session with Town Counsel. 1. Claim for contractual violation against International Surplus Lines. Internationa Surplus Lines, the insurance carrier for the public officials' liability, is refusing to pay for the services of the Town's attorney in defense of the police chief on the Clemmey case. However, they notified us last April that they were removing ��7\ Attorney Query from the case and replacing him with another attorney. They have subsequently refused to pay any fees to Attorney Query. Attorney Query has filed a claim against the Town for this action, and the only way that the Town can force International Surplus Lines to pay these bills is for the Tom to bring action against the insurance company for breach of contract. 2. The Great Woods Trust has filed an action in the land court for an interpretation of the process by which the zoning was amended by the Town Meeting for the Gray property. The Town Counsel will discuss the response that the Town will be making. 3. The Flatley connection to the Taunton sewer system. The Town of Norton and the Flatley Company have been negotiating with the City of Taunton to allow them to bypass the Mansfield Wastewater Treatment Plant to connect directly into Taunton. Last week I spoke with the mayor of Taunton, and he advised me that if all details could be worked but by the Flatley Company and the City of Taunton, then an agreement would be entered into. He further advised me that this connection is being endorsed by the Dukakis administration as a means of improving economic development in southeastern Massachusetts. Later I spoke with Mr. Raines of the governor's development office and he advised me that his office was in support of the Taunton connection. Board of Selectmen December 12, 1984 Page 2 I think that the Town of Mansfield should be preparing to take legal action against the state as well as the City of'Taunton and the Flatley Company if this connection is to be approved. The basis for the action is as follows: WCM:mc (a) The connection requires the approval of the Commonwealth D.E.Q.E. (b) A connection through to Taunton is in violation of the approved Taunton River Basin plan. (c) The construction of the Mansfield facility was mandated by the state to receive waste waters from the Town of Norton. (c) The Commonwealth has an investment of more than $2 million in the Mansfield facility, and a connection with Taunton would be contrary to the intent by which the Commonwealth expended money on the Mansfield facility initially. HASKELL A. KASSLER CURT R. FEUER KENNETH B. HOFFMAN ROY A. CRAMER ROBERT WEINSTEIN DANIELJ• FINN JEFFREY R. COHEN MICHAEL S. ROSEN BARRY H. FIELD BURTON S. KLIMAN KASSLER AND FEUER COUNSELLORS AT LAN 85 DEVONSHIRE STREET BOSTON, DIASSACHUSETT'S 02109 October 17, 1984 Mr. Chad Maurer Town Manager Town of Mansfield 52 4lest Street Mansfield, Massachusetts 02048 Dear Mr. Maurer: TELEPHONE 227 -4800 AREA CODE 617 The purpose of this letter is to restate our unde "rstandings with the Town and JDC, Inc. in connection with the Land Court complaint that was filed on behalf of Norman A. Gray and Catherine Gray, Trustees of the Gray Realty Trust and JDC, Inc. on October 9, 1984. As you are aware, at some point in the development process for the Great Woods Performing Art Center we will be called upon to render a zoning opinion to a financing institution and to the owners of the property. Most lenders and owners are interested in whether all the provisions of the zoning by -law have been complied with, all required permits obtained, and that the property may be used for the intended purpose. Normally, we are able to review the zoning by -law of the town and give an opinion based upon the provisions of that zoning by -law. However, in the case of the Gray land, the certificate of title contains a reference to a covenant with the Town citing a special permit not addressed in the Mansfield zoning by -law. Thus, we are faced with determining whether the special permit requirement set forth in the covenant is a zoning permit which the Town is authorized to issue and the owner required to obtain. This is a technical legal issue which in no way changes the tenor of the proposed KASSLER AND FEUER fir. Chad Maurer October 17, 1984 Page 2 development nor the agreements reached with the Town of Mansfield regarding the other aspects of the covenant with the Town. In particular, the developer is willing to comply with and perform each and every requirement of the covenant, including the special permit requirement, if it is determined by the Court that such a permit is required. While it is necessary to join the Town as a defendant in order to reach a resolution of the zoning issue, the purpose of the action is solely to clarify the zoning requirements on this parcel. It is to the mutual advantage of both the landowner and the Town to have the Court determine the applicable zoning for this parcel so that the Town will know what action is required of it, if any, in order to fulfill its duties under the Town By -Laws. If you or Town Counsel has any question with respect to this pending action, please feel free to give me a call. KBH/ smm Very truly you s, Kenneth B. Hoffman c 0 C d c v'm •c 10 O > n, L d O� E E� R� U � 0 :t N � L a� c E i' «a O N c C 0 U C C N '- C d A .E N$; a T mo n >, n n N O O U c � &2 C =V i' E zE E no LL 0 t w O > I 000 wow V TJ d Z« 'w l- Suffolk )1 '1 t Norman A. Gray and Catherine E. Gray, Trustees of Gray Realty Trust u /d/t , Plaintiff's) dated December 30, 1976 and JDC, Inc. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT � Lg MY" OCT 1 6 1984 TOWN ELl' 5K CIVIL ACTION No. 114819 V. Town of Mansfield, Massachusetts SUMMONS To the above-named Defendant: You are hereby summoned and required to serve , Defendant(s) Kenneth B. Hoffman plaintiff's attorney, whose address is 85 Devonshire St., Boston,MA 0210an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Recorder of this court at Boston either before service-upon plaintiff's attorney or within a reasonable time thereafter. Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action. Witness, WILLIAM I. RANDALL, Esquire, at Boston, the October , in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 12 eigh _ day of four (1984) ' !R ER • RECORDER NOTES. 1. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. When more than one defendant is involved, the names of all defendants should appear in the caption. If a separate summons is used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant. 3. TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: PLEASE CIRCLE TYPE OF ACTION INVOLVED (1) WRIT — (2) EQUITY — (3) OTHER LC S -4 1 M 2.84 FILED' COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK r SS. LAND r 0 U RT LAND COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE-TRIAL COURT CASE NO. Norman A. Gray and ) Catherine E. Grayr Trustees ) of the Gray Realty Trust u /d /t ) dated December 30, 1976, and JDC, Inc., ) Plaintiffs } COMPLAINT VS. ) ) Town of Mansfield, Massachusetts, Defendant ) FIRM-Mr-319 .o 1. This is an action by Norman A. Gray and Catherine E. Gray, Trustees of the Gray Realty Trust under Declaration of Trust dated December 30, 1976, recorded with Norfolk Registry of Deeds in Book 5298, Page 341 (the "Trust ") and JDC, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business in Dorchester, Massachusetts ( "JDC ") for a determination of the extent to which the zoning by -law of the Town of Mansfield affects a proposed use, enjoyment, improvement or development of a certain parcel of land situated in the flown of Mansfield (the "Town "). 1 parties, T risdi tion and•Venue 2. The Trust is the record owner of certain unimproved land in the Town containing 105.7 acres, as more particularly described in Certificate of Title No. 6822, a certified copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A ", the boundaries of which . are shown on Land Court Plan No. 38175A dated September 13, 1977 (the "Land ") 3.• JDC is the purchaser of the Land under a Purchase and Sale Agreement between it and the Trust dated April 2, 1984• 4. The Town is.an incorporated town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to General Laws Chapter 185, Section 1(j 1/2) and Chapter 240, Section 40A. 6. The zoning map of the Town_of Mansfield entitled "Zoning Map, Town of Mansfield, Mass." ( "Zoning Map ") indicates that the Land is situated in an "Industrial Zone ". A copy of the Zoning Map certified by the Town Clerk of the Town,of Mansfield as a. true copy is annexed hereto as part of Exhibit 7. The zoning by -law of the Town of Mansfield entitled "Zoning By -law Mansfield, Massachusetts adopted February, 1953, Revised March, 1961 Reprinted June, 1982" ( "Zoning By -law ") permits (subject only to site plan approval pursuant to Section V -K of the By-law) as of right in an Industrial Zone, among 2 other uses, "8. Theatres, Museums, and Places of Commercial Amusement and Recreation." A copy of the Zoning By -law certified by the Town Clerk as a true copy is annexed hereto as part of Exhibit "B ". 8. JDC proposes to establish on the Land a use described and coming within use category number 8 of thq Zoning By -law, i.e., a theatre and place of commercial amusement, and has obtained site plan approval from the Town. 9. The Memoranda of Encumbrances annexed to Land Court Registration Certificate number 6822 discloses the existence of a document filed with-the Bristol County Registry District of Land Court as Document number 21274 entitled "Covenant to Town of Mansfield Board -of Selectmen" (the "Covenant ") which purpo ts, a }c g other things, to subject the Land, with respect to certain uses permitted in Industrial Districts "to the provisions of Section V,M= Special Permit Requirements [of the Zoning By -law] as applied to the Special Business District %. A copy of the Covenant is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C ". 10. The Covenant was not contained in any warrant submitted to or adopted by a Mansfield Town Meeting. The covenant was not submitted by the Town to the Attorney General's office for approval as is required with respect to zoning articles by M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5 and M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 32. The Covenant is not contained in the Zoning By -law of the Town as certified by the Town Clerk. 3 S' WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the Court to determine and decree: 1. That the zoning regulations of the Town applicable to the Land are solely contained in the Zoning By -law. 2. That. paragraph number 3 of the Covenant does not constitute or form a part of the zoning regulations or requirements of the Town. 3. That JDC or the Trust may use the Land for any purposes permitted by the Zoning By -laws in accordance with and subject to the By -law without regard to paragraph number 3 of the Covenant. 4. That _ "special permits as applied to the Special Business Dlstrct of the Zoning By -law is not required by virtue of the Covenant for uses permitted in Industrial Districts in the Town of Mansfield. 5. Such other relief as the Court deems meet and just. JDC, Inc. and Norman A. Gray and Catherine E. Gray, Trustees of the Gray Realty Trust By their attorneys: Kassler and Feuer 85 Devonshire Street Boston, MA 02109 (6 7) 227 -4 0 Kenneth B. HoVf sq . Dated: 4