Back to Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes
January 13, 2009
Regular Session 7:00 pm
Mr. Riley, Ms. Burns, Mr. Rabuffo
Voted - to sign a contract with Kevin Paicos for services as Town Administrator
The Board heard the following budgets:
Building Department
Town Clerk/Elections
Planning Board
Conservation Commission
Bare Cove Park
Board of Appeals
Historical Commission/Districts
Mr. Morgan explained the function of the Building Department and noted the impact of the proposed salary reduction in the delivery of services such as permits and inspections.
Ms. McCracken suggested that the Board consider allowing the polls to close at 6 pm rather than 8 pm for Town Elections.
Ms. Lacy advised that she would prefer to have funds available for consulting rather than to expend the dollars for the clerical services. The intent of the consulting time is to look at a master plan for the South Hingham area.
Mr. Prentiss noted that the Conservation Commission had requested money from CPC for conservation purposes. In order for the Commission to accept property it is necessary for them to have some funds in order to perform the necessary due diligence prior to such acquisitions.
The Bare Cove Park Committee submitted a budget that was slightly lower than last year’s budget. The Committee received $3,700 in donations from the road race. The Friends of Bare Cove Park also help support the biodegradable doggie waste bags.
Ms. Letizia Eddy said that the proposed budget for the Board of Appeals would still allow the office to be staffed on a full time basis. The time budgeted for hearings should also be fine. Although the permits are down and applications are reduced from last year, the applications are on track for the same volume as FY2007. The Board of Appeals and Planning Board have been investigating the administrative functions for the two offices in hopes of finding savings in combining that function.
The Finance Director recommended taking some money out of salary in the Historic Districts budget. Ms. Burns noted that everyone is aware that Ms. Young puts in more hours than that for which she is compensated. Mr. Riley remarked that it may be time to consider a filing fee for those homeowners applying for permits. Ms. Young said that most applications that come through her office are requests for a certificate of non-applicability (approximately 200 annually). There are approximately 5 requests per month that require hearings. The Historical Commission may consider fees for demolition permit reviews. Dr. Eldredge suggested that any newly created historic district have a 10 year grace period before any filing fees would be required.
Voted - to adjourn to executive session for purpose of discussing a real estate
matter and to return to open session at approximately 9:00 pm.
Mr. Rabuffo – yes
Ms. Burns – yes
Mr. Riley – yes
The Board resumed open session at 9:00 pm.
Mooring Fees
The Harbormaster and Assistant Harbormaster recommended that the Board consider an increase in the mooring fees. Mr. Souther and Mr. Corson presented a survey of mooring fees charged by other coastal towns. Most towns have gone to a single rate rather than a two tiered, resident/non-resident, rate structure. An increase in the rate would significantly increase the amount of money available to put toward the periodic dredging of the harbor. The Board took the matter under advisement noting that any increase in fees would have to be voted prior to February 1.
Voted - to grant request for counsel as submitted by the Harbormaster
Deliberation and Decision on the Lt. Kris Phillips Hearing
Mr. Riley announced that the Board would publicly deliberate on what discipline, if any, should be given to Lt. Phillips. He noted that the Board had heard from the Department, the victim, the witnesses and the lieutenant at the hearing this afternoon. Mr. Riley remarked that this was the most difficult situation he had encountered during his time on the Board.
Ms. Burns said that in the time between the conclusion of the hearing this afternoon and this evening’s meeting she had been reviewing the information presented and thinking about the matter before the Board. She noted that Lt. Phillips’ attorney said that if there was misconduct then it was necessary to establish a motive, to determine there was intent to harm and to conclude that assault and battery occurred. Ms. Burns said that she feels that the Board is not qualified to decide if assault and battery occurred, that is for a court of law. Nor does the Board need to consider motive or intent. Violence that causes pain to citizen is sufficient to require discipline. The standard is what represents proper behavior for a superior officer. It is incumbent on an officer to bend over backward to not give the impression of intimidation. She noted that the superior officer sets the standard for the entire police force. The focus, then, is on the behavior. There are three questions: was there misconduct, does it deserve punishment and, if so, what punishment?
Ms. Burns said that in her review of the information she concluded that there was misconduct - a blow was struck and a citizen suffered pain. This behavior reflects badly on force and left the recipient feeling he was target of aggression. She also felt that the behavior was deserving of punishment. While there is strong element of guys being guys and the role of police officer being a tough job in a tough environment, it is one of the highest responsibilities of police officer to make sure that innocent bystanders do not feel threatened. An officer must make sure a situation does not appear threatening or frightening to those he or she is sworn to protect. Ms. Burns noted that a previous incident of “officer on officer” aggression did result in punishment. The matter currently before the Board is deserving of punishment because the victim was a member of public and police officer should be setting a tone of respectful behavior.
Ms. Burns said that whether the punishment should be termination is a more difficult issue and she is looking forward to discussing this with her colleagues. She said did not believe they needed to consider whether or not the request for termination was part of a pattern of retaliation against Lt. Phillips for anything he might have said or done, as suggested by the defense. The Board need only consider whether there was misconduct and what is the right consequence for that misconduct. She remarked that she is not convinced that this rises to a level to be cause for termination, although she had not made up her mind. This would end a 21 year career with no significant blemishes and no previous concern about violence. This appears to be the result of an act of thoughtlessness - the officer was not thinking about his duty. Ms. Burns noted that Lt. Phillips has not done himself favors in this process – his description of what happened has changed over time. In his initial statement he stated he had turned around to walk away and, in an act of horseplay, snapped his fingers at Mr. Sherwin’s midsection. That does not jibe with what was said this afternoon. This is disconcerting. Ms. Burns said she is of the opinion that he would be better off if he had said his behavior was wrong - even if only realized that in retrospect. She also noted that Mr. Riley asked several questions that were valuable. When asked if superior officers should be held to a higher standard, there was a long pause then Lt. Phillips replied “I guess so”. Ms. Burns said this should have been an instant response. The second question that Ms. Burns referenced was Mr. Riley’s inquiry as to whether Lt. Phillips felt that the Light Department employee was on the receiving end because of the stress the Lieutenant was under. Lt. Phillips indicated that he did not feel that was the case. Ms. Burns said that she was not sure that Lt. Phillips knows why this happened and that, if he doesn’t, why it won’t happen again. In spite of all of the foregoing, Ms. Burns said she was still unsure if one such incident is a career-ender. It may be worthy of significant loss of pay and suspension and if he were to be found guilty of assault & battery in a court of law it would be a different matter.
Mr. Rabuffo said he also agonized over this. As far as the question of misconduct – while there seems to be some disagreement over what occurred there was no disagreement over a piece of one body touching another in a manner that was unbecoming an officer. If it is a lieutenant who is in charge of detail, there is a standard of behavior that should be upheld. Should this be punished – yes.
Mr. Rabuffo expressed concern as to how the charge was first made. Lt. Peraino did not report the incident until well after the event. The event occurred and it should be punished. It is conduct unbecoming an officer. As far as termination, Mr. Rabuffo said he worried more about a senior officer being back on the force after having performed such an incident. What guarantee is there that it won’t happen again, what signal is being sent and what is the impact on the force and on the town? He commented that this was an officer in the ranks that was not living up to the standards expected and that he leans towards termination but would be willing to discuss further.
Mr. Riley said that the questions he had directed to Lt Phillips are those that he thinks about when giving that rank to begin with. He said his feelings of trust have been violated. Mr. Riley also noted that there are many great officers on the force and he is very proud of them and proud of his part of the selection process. He commented that his concerns are similar to those voiced by Mr. Rabuffo - the power of example is first and foremost with a superior officer. He said that he had lost his trust and faith in Lt. Phillips. If this were something the Lieutenant did not think about before he acted how are we to be assured going forward that something like this or greater could not happen that would put the town at a disadvantage. It is a concern going forward if we feel that we cannot trust in an officer to make the decisions that are difficult to make. Mr. Riley said he wanted to be assured that when the Board appointed someone to a position of authority, that person would always act in the best interest of the town. He also noted that he had known the leadership of this department for years and believes that these people want us to do the right thing. The request is legitimate; the reason is to keep the department to the standard and glory that it should have. He said his feelings toward termination are greater than those for suspension or suspension without pay.
Ms. Burns asked what message would be sent to the police force if Lt. Phillips were not terminated. If the Board determined that the proposed punishment did not fit the crime, then you send the message that the punishment will not be arbitrary. She warned that one does not want to send the message that you are stepping off the cliff with the first misstep. Mr. Riley replied that in the case of a patrolman or a sergeant if an incident were to occur to they might lose a promotion. When it someone is at the level of a superior officer there is no room for failure or regrets. Ms. Burns noted that everyone makes mistakes.
Mr. Rabuffo said that the issue is not that one doesn’t make mistakes but there was no remorse or regret until today. The second issue is that if the Board were to allow an officer to remain on the force what signal is being sent to other members of the force. He expressed concern that it might lower the standard to which police officers are kept. Police officers have selected this career. It is not as if someone made a mistake on a form. The potential for more serious harm is there. Mr. Rabuffo also asked how one could trust Lt. Phillips with the inconsistencies in the reports noting that he was not willing to gamble with the credibility gap.
Mr. Riley agreed that the public trust had been violated. This incident rises to a different level than the one that occurred behind the police station. This was a member of the public and he did not think it was a joking matter. He said it is important to be as supportive of our chief and structure of the department as possible. The Chief considers this behavior not becoming of an officer and suggests to us that it required termination. Mr. Rabuffo noted this is not an easy position that people elect as a career. This is the standard that they accepted when they made the decision to go in this career. He concluded that this behavior is not a risk he is willing to take in a lieutenant.
Mr. Rabuffo moved that Board approve the recommendation of the Chief of Police that Lieutenant Kris Phillips be terminated because of his behavior on April 30, 2008. So Voted, a unanimous vote.
Meeting adjourned 10:05 pm.
Betty Foley, Interim Town Administrator