Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutexec min of light 11/6/2000 , , r . EXECUTIVE SESSION LIGHT COMMISSIONERS NOVEMBER 6, 2000 I- , ~ .'-' ; - 1'. "n i ! I. ,; ) Present: Commissioner Chairman, Brad Wills, Dave McCarter, LoU;J\morusQ, Dan- Donovan ' ,,' - ..' 'i~TTS Town Manager: John D' Agostino Director, Light Department, Jack Beliveau AttorneyLeonard H. Kesten, Attorney/Consultant Richard Condit The Richard's building next to the electric building has been offered to the Director of the Light Department with first option to buy which would provide necessary space for the Light Department. This would open new horizons for the Light Department i.e. Cable, Internet, etc. Also more space is needed and the garage could definitely be used. The decision should be driven by what we see for the Light Department in the next 5 or so years. He would like to get an appraisal done to see if the price is within reason. Because it is unique under procurement statute and a town assessment the consensus was three appraisals were not necessary. (' Motion: To have the Director of the Light Department seek an appraisal on the Richard's building to establish a value of what the property is worth. McCarterlDonovan, all in favor. (4-0) Motion passed. John Larch Law Suit The Director advised the Commissioners that Ms Gissels's attorney (Stephen Fanning) has been in contact on several occasions indicating he has until November 15th to file a federal lawsuit. and has asked to settle. He said it might be civil rights, it might be whistle blowing might be state or federal court. When asked what he wanted to settle he stated $100,000. The Director advised until he files a lawsuit and knows what he is accused of it is hard to settle a suit. He did come down to $35,000. Feels he is trying to get a payday for himself and get out. The Director feels it has impact on Larch case and visaversa. Jack feels some things could be criminal charges between Ms Gisselle and Mr. Larch. . r Attorney Kesten introduced to all present Richard Condit! Attorney/Consultant from Washington, DC. Mr. Condit presented his background. He has had a lot of experience working on this type of case. Because of his experience he is very knowledgeable of what each side is thinking and how they conduct their strategy. He has been on the winning and losing side. This statute is fairly untested in terms of language and would provide significant precedent in the state in terms of how it is interpreted. In reviewing the material he has seen so far it seems Mr. Larch is really taking great advantage of what is supposed to be protection for a legitimate type of disclosure. He stated he would be r Executive Session Page two November 6, 2000 John Larch (cont) pleased to try to undo him. The other part is looking at what he has done because you do not want to create an environment where people think you are ripe for the picking. Need to focus to do what you can. There is a way to fight without draining coffers of the town. Attorney Kesten said we have lost in court but we are going to appeal. We have resolved what the number will be; wages from July 1st and pension money. He also advised there were disagreements over the attorney fees and start date of the interest. We will file a notice of appeal. Attorney Kesten has already ordered transcripts of the whole proceeding. You are appealing the law. Then we have to identity the issues. Judges will probably argue the case. It may go to Federal Court. It is about a MA law. They may say the Supreme Court of Massachusetts will review by a judge. Everyone is entitled to the panel of three judges if you are unhappy with a jury decision. Someone will interpret for the first time the Whistling Blowing Law. We will at the minimum have a review by three judges. Because statement was made of mismanagement (Madan) that implicates a Federal Civil Rights Act. If you fire someone for and during course of termination and say something publicly about that person it becomes Civil Rights. The final number judgment of October 20th $607,977 in awards plus $168,498.84 in interest. $776,475.84. is total. Aware of attorney fees $119,265 and cause $8,523. Interest rate is 12% per year. (' The judge with the initial case did not read the information and never dug into it at all. He did not look at a thing we found. The initial complaint was two selectmen were not residents of the town and their vote should not count. They were searching for a theory. The second judge rarely reviews the first judge. The appeals court does not care what this judge did. They will make their own decisions. The jury found the vote not to hire Michael Forbes was linked to the non-renewal of Larch's contract. To have selectmen testify against the town is not unique. It boils down to factions. The selectmen got involved in a hiring faction. It was the consensus of the Board to follow this to the end. Attorney Keten advised that it is mandatory to attend the Appeals Court mediation Program. At this mediation they will try to solicit to resolve the case. The Commissioners will meet again with the attorneys before the mediation. r The Director advised the Commissioners he would like to have a possible study to consider the idea of Mansfield having their own cable TV station. He felt this would also give leverage with AT&T Broadband and their negations if they felt the town could have their own. He felt the study might cost about $20,000. This will be discussed in_open session at a later date. f r -.. .. 1 Executive Session Page three November 6, 2000 John Larch (cont) Motion: To adjourn to open session. McCarter/Amoruso 4-0 All in favor. Motion passes. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted Deborah A. Button ~t7.~ ~ I :L/lI-/ 0' I \('Ytf?' ~ .1 I.