WESTFIELD – The Fire Commission will hold its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6 p.m. on Monday at the Little River Fire Station following last Monday’s decision by Hampden County Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney to fine the commission $1,000 for actions taken in an executive session that she said was held in violation of open meeting law.
The case is Rebecca Boutin, Kyle Miltimore, David Kennedy, and Marianna Theodorakis (plaintiff-employees), vs. Albert J. Masciadrelli, Patrick Olearcek, and Carlo Bonavita as they constitute the Westfield Fire Commission (defendants). The decision by Judge Sweeney stated that the Fire Commission was aware that they had violated open meeting law when they entered executive session. The decision added that they are not excused from “Their knowing and intentional violation of the Open Meeting Law,” even though they entered the executive session at the advice of the city’s lawyers and the City Solicitor.
The executive session, which took place on Aug. 6, 2018, was held to “discuss strategy with respect to litigation related to alleged misconduct,” and that, “an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position,” according to Sweeney’s decision.
Albert Masciadrelli, the Chairman of the Fire Commission who has served on the quorum for nearly 20 years, was the only one of the named defendants to testify on their behalf during a hearing in September, said Sweeney’s decision. It states that he and the other defendants, Commissioner Olearcek and former commissioner Bonavita had voted to enter the executive session to discuss the “reputations, characters, and mental health of the plaintiff-employees and to discuss the dismissal of the plaintiff-employees.”
Sweeney added that neither the plaintiff-employees nor their legal counsel weren’t given the right to be present at the executive session. According to her, Masciadrelli testified that he was aware that Open Meeting Law requires that an employee may be present if their own reputation, character, or mental health are being discussed.
“Remarkably, he insisted that he did not know that the reputations, characters, and mental health of the plaintiff-employees were going to be discussed,” Sweeney said in his decision. “Despite having provided advanced notice of the executive session to the City Clerk for posting and despite convening and presiding over the closed meeting, the sole purpose of which was to discuss the reputations, characters, and mental health of the employees.”
During the Fire Commission meeting on March 4, Fire Captain Rebecca Boutin and Firefighter Kyle Miltimore, two of the named plaintiffs, filed grievances claiming they had been harassed and discriminated against for making complaints of sexual harassment within the Fire Department. They both alleged in their grievances that they had discovered photos of themselves edited to depict their heads decapitated from their bodies. They said that the photos had been placed in public view of the living quarters of the fire station. Acting Fire Chief Patrick Egloff denied the grievances, saying that that there was no evidence of harassment or “anti-union activity” as alleged in the complaints. Because Egloff denied it, Boutin moved the grievance up before the Fire Commission, who chose not to act on the matter because they said they did not know enough information. This brings the grievances to the Mayor to hear the matter.
Maurice Cahillane, the attorney representing Boutin and Miltimore, said during the March 4 commission meeting that a major issue with the situation is that the Fire Commission has never heard from the two about what happened or about the nature of the investigative report done in the commission’s name. He repeated the claims made in the grievances that they had been ostracized and harassed within the fire department. They cited notices of termination that were voided by the Superior Court, that had never been rescinded by the department.
“These individuals are being discriminated against and harassed because they made a truthful report to the state police,” said Cahillane. “They cooperated with the state police the way any citizen or public employee should.”
He added that Boutin and Miltimore were being blamed and attacked for holding meetings to decide what to do with information they knew about a ‘high official’ in the fire department. City attorney Jeffrey Krok responded by reiterating to the commission that any action they took during the meeting could be used against them in an active lawsuit.
In the decision by Sweeney, it was said that Masciadrelli had knowledge of “some type of investigation” into the Fire Department. He testified that he did not, however, know any details of an internal Fire Department investigation of the named plaintiffs, including the identity of the targets of the investigation. This is despite the fact that, as the chair of the Fire Commission, he is responsible for the oversight of the department, according to Sweeney. Masciadrelli also claimed in his testimony that he did not know who had hired the investigator for the internal investigation.
According to Sweeney, the executive session minutes show that the three commissioners met with City Solicitor Susan Phillips, her assistant, and the city’s Personnel Director. They apparently discussed the report authored by the department’s investigator. Sweeney said that in a summary by Phillips of the investigator’s findings, there were “claims that attacked the plaintiff-employees’ reputations and characters and brought into question their mental health.” Sweeney determined that Masciadrelli’s testimony was not credible. Masciadrelli testified later in September that “it was clear to him that the city solicitor was trying to keep the subject matter of the meeting ‘secret.’ ”
After Phillips gave her presentation, according to the judge’s decision, the commission voted unanimously to issue notices of termination to the plaintiff-employees. The plaintiffs were immediately placed on administrative leave pending a termination hearing. Their termination was denied by Sweeney later that month.
When reached for comment, Masciadrelli said, “We are following the direction of the Mayor’s office and the city’s law office. It is a complicated situation.”
In a statement, Phillips said that she disagrees with the court’s decision, but that they understand the court’s authority to make such a decision. She noted that options are being weighed in regards to appealing the decision.
“However, the memorandum accompanying its order delved into issues which were not before the Court as they are well beyond the scope of an open meeting law complaint and have not been adjudicated, including the employment status of any Westfield Fire Department employees,” Phillips said. “The Court’s memorandum and order on its own are not reflective of the entire matter.”
She added that a Westfield City Councilor had posted the court document on social media “without accurate context.”
At-Large City Councilor Matt Emmershy posted the judge’s four-page decision in its entirety on his Facebook page on Thursday.
“Vindication! Unfortunately the Legal Dept and the Fire Commission knew they were breaking the law and residents will be left paying for it,” Emmershy said in the Facebook post. “Residents have already paid the $47k bill for the investigation which failed to investigate the original complaints. I have been saying since day one that we need to do things differently. In this case a Superior Court judge has also stated that the City is conducting itself inappropriately.”
Emmershy added that the $1,000 fine is the maximum amount allowed by Massachusetts General Law.
At the end of the agenda that was posted for the April 1 Fire Commission meeting is a section for executive session. It said, “The Chairman will ascertain a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the physical condition or mental health of Captain Rebecca Boutin based on the results of an independent medical exam received by the City Personnel Office.”
In a note on the agenda, it adds that the commission will return to open session to authorize any administrative actions as a result of the conversation in executive session. There are no items on the agenda that directly address the fine issued by Judge Sweeney. However, a member of the public could discuss the matter during the section of the meeting dedicated to public participation.
