GEORGETOWN – A simmering feud over the last few weeks at the top of town government has been kicked upstairs to the state Attorney General.
The issue is whether Town Administrator Orlando Pacheco exceeded his authority in his abrupt firing of conservation agent Michele Grenier without asking the approval of the SelectBoard.
Selectman Mike Donahue filed an Open Meeting Law complaint with the Attorney General when the SelectBoard, headed first by Robert Hoover and last week by Doug Dawes, refused to hold a meeting on the process Pacheco used to fire Grenier. Both Hoover and Dawes have made it clear they are reluctant to question the administrator’s authority.
Pacheco fired Grenier, claiming he had the authority, although the state and town laws maintain that he must ask for SelectBoard approval. He hired an outside counsel that is not the town’s usual legal counsel to render an opinion on his authority to hire and fire employees.
The opinion has thus far not been disclosed to Georgetown residents.
The law firm, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, was subsequently hired as the legal council for the Georgetown School Department.
In a special meeting last week, Dawes read a lengthy response, prepared by KP Law, the longtime Georgetown counsel, to oppose Donahue’s complaint.
“The Complaint alleges that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by suppressing public discussion on the Town’s personnel Bylaw Chapter 105-3; a ‘coordinated effort’ by the Board and Town Administrator to avoid transparency with respect to a personnel matter.”
Donahue’s complaint also alleges that the SelectBoard violated the Open Meeting Law when then chair Robert Hoover refused to put on the agenda a discussion of the process Pacheco followed in firing Grenier. The board had voted/agreed at its March 26 meeting to put the issue on the agenda for a future meeting.
The Selectman proposed as a remedy that the Board “immediately place the full agenda item on an emergency meeting” to review the termination process of the Conservation Agent; require KP Law to attend the meeting; conduct an open public discussion and roll-call vote; publicly acknowledge the violation and take corrective action; and direct KP Law to render a formal written legal opinion on the correct interpretation of the Town’s Personnel Bylaw.”
Dawes called an emergency meeting last week, but only to get the approval of the law firm’s letter, not to discuss the issue. When Donahue asked to offer a rebuttal to the K&P Law letter, Dawes did not allow him to comment. He said Donahue should file it as an appeal with the attorney general.
The SelectBoard voted three to one, with Donahue opposing and Hoover on leave of absence, to send the letter to the Attorney General stating that the town believes it did not violate the Open Meeting Law.
Not mentioned in the KP Law letter to the Attorney General is an e-mail issued by the former chair instructing members not to discuss the matter. The e-mail and subsequent actions by the former chair constitute a form of deliberation outside of the public eye, in violation of the Open Meeting Law, Donahue has stated.
Although Chair Dawes and former chair Hoover apparently believe they have found a legal way to prevent disclosure of the firing process (arguing that technically an open meeting violation did not occur), the issue remains: Why is the board spending so much time and taxpayer money conspiring to prevent disclosure of the firing process?
To date, Hoover, Pacheco, and now Dawes, Laura Repplier and newly elected selectman Ed Dobie have united to deny a review of the firing process.
As previously reported, the fired employee has placed the town on legal notice and she has placed one or more Freedom of Information requests to the town seeking copies of e-mails exchanged in this matter in which she was apparently denied the rights granted in the town’s employee handbook and bylaws. See related ConCom story in this issue.
