Woodman family, City of Boston settle civil claims for $3M

BOSTON – The family of David Woodman, the 22-year-old Southwick man that died from injuries sustained during his arrest following the Boston Celtics victory two years ago, announces they have reached a $3 million settlement of their civil claims with the City of Boston. David Woodman was arrested by Boston police on June 18, 2008, shortly after the Celtics won the NBA championship. Witnesses reported that police officers slammed David to the ground. He suffered a cardiac arrhythmia and brain damage. David died at the hospital 11 days later. The family does not wish to speak to the press. However, Jeff and Cathy Woodman offer the following statement on behalf of their family:

“David Woodman, our son and brother, suffered a cardiac arrhythmia while he was in the custody of Boston police on June 18, 2008. David passed away 11 days later as a result of the actions of the police officers. It was our hope that those responsible for his death would be held accountable, but they were not. Now, two years later, we have settled our legal claims with the City of Boston. This is not a satisfactory resolution; rather, it reflects our choice not to allow anger to affect our family any further. In settling his claims, we look forward to honoring David’s life and carrying on the work that he started. David was active within Boston, tutoring young students and being a friend to those who lived on the streets. He cared deeply about people who are poor, homeless or looked down on by society. The foundation started in his name will continue David’s work by providing empathy, compassion and support to people who are often ignored in this world.”

The family’s attorney, Howard Friedman, said: “The City has properly accepted responsibility for David Woodman’s tragic death. We hope there will be no similar tragedies. If another incident occurs, we hope it will be investigated quickly, thoroughly and fairly.”

Reynolds Advances to New England Race, Places 11th at Open

Suffield High School senior Chris Reyonlds has advanced to the New England Cross Country championship after placing 11th at the State Open Race Friday afternoon at Wickham Park in Manchester.

He finished with a time of 16:25, 20 seconds later than his course run of 16:45 last week at the Class M State race. Reynolds will participate in the New England race on a date and time to be determined at Wickham Park.

The Suffield High School girls cross country team sent seven runners to the open race. Chelsea Bishop was Suffield’s top finished with a time of 21:01 and placed 95th over all in the race.

Public officials to contend with open meeting law changes

By Matthew Bernat
Staff Writer

REGION – Requiring the Pledge of Allegiance, the right to address a public board, advertising a meeting through print, television or mail – all fallacies people attach to the Open Meeting Law.
Earlier this year, legislators revamped the law and July 1, 2010, marks the first day town boards face new rules regarding email, enforcement and record keeping.
The recent emergence of Attorney General Martha Coakley in the missing email investigation involving a top aide to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino only highlights how seriously the judiciary regards the law. Public officials, take heed.
Attorney Lauren F. Goldberg, of the municipal law firm Kopelman and Paige, P.C., led an information session held in Sturbridge Sept. 30 to inform the region’s officials of the statute as it stands, and what can be expected come July.
She began by addressing common misconceptions.
“The Open Meeting Law says nothing about the pledge of allegiance, but believe it or not many district attorneys receive complaints from individuals who complain about the pledge not being recited,” Goldberg said. “It’s not a violation.”
Regarding the public’s right to address a board: It doesn’t exist. Goldberg said citizens could address a board or committee in open meeting only if recognized by the chair. The law does not compel a chair to recognize anyone, she said.
Posting a public meeting must be done 48 hours before it’s scheduled, but the notice doesn’t have to be in a newspaper, on television or mailed. The law stipulates the posting be in a public place accessible to all, Goldberg said.
The heart of the session focused on the law’s intent, which seeks to eliminate secrecy around deliberations on public policy by forcing those talks into the open.
It does that by prohibiting board members from making decisions on public affairs outside of posted meetings.
While members cannot schedule to meet outside of posted meetings, a clause allows chance or social meetings between members. During a chance meeting members are not prohibited from discussing public business, however it is illegal to reach a decision.
Goldberg said though the law allows discussion at these chance meetings, the better practice is to not have that conversation.
“Kopelmam and Paige says, no discussion, please avoid it, it leads to bad results, much better to leave public business for the public forum,” she said.
According to Goldberg, discussion extends to email and social media such as Facebook and Twitter. She noted, for the purposes of the law, receiving a message on policy constitutes discussion, even if there is no reply from the recipient.
Should board members or public officials discuss policy or other decisions from home-based email accounts, or social media, those correspondences would be subject to disclosure upon request.
To comply, some towns draft policy to avoid officials or employees improperly deleting emails, Goldberg said. According to the law, public records must be kept for seven years before disposable. Some municipalities copy emails to a town hall employee, or mandate employees outside of town hall print emails and bring them to the office weekly for storage.
Those who violate the law must now contend with sweeping changes in its enforcement.
Currently, citizens must file an Open Meeting Law complaint with the district attorney’s office, which would then contact the town. Local officials then respond to the district attorney. In July, the attorney general’s office will be granted greater authority in dealing with complaints.
“I think this is very significant. It’s really putting the attorney general in a very powerful position,” Goldberg said.
Under the revision, complaints will be filed with the town, which has 14 days to forward the grievance to the attorney general. Towns must report if remedial action was taken.
If a violation is discovered the attorney general will have authority to void action a board or committee took during the breach.
Also, the attorney general can reinstate an employee without loss of compensation, seniority, tenure or other benefits, if the law is violated.
Goldberg described the latter as, “a pretty extraordinary remedy.” She noted such action was previously handled by the Superior Court.
The attorney general’s office will also have the authority to impose a civil penalty upon a public body of not more than $1,000 for each intentional violation.
But, if a board recognizes a violation beforehand, and addresses it, the attorney general will take that into account if a formal complaint is filed.
“One of the ways that you fix an open meeting law violation, or potential violation by having a full and fair discussion of the issues on the record at the next properly posted meeting” she said.
The best action for public officials, Goldberg said, is to keep debate transparent, in keeping with the spirit of the law.

Charter revision missteps would have been costly

By Ronald A. Clark
Special to the Southwick Suffield News

Congratulations to the Suffield Board of Selectmen for rejecting the Charter Revision Commission’s town administrator recommendations. This could have been a legal and financial disaster for the town of Suffield. In 1996, the town of Naugatuck, Conn., passed a budget bifurcation town charter amendment. The Naugatuck Board of Education challenged this at both the trial and appellate court level before losing a Connecticut Supreme Court Decision in 2004. This meant that the Naugatuck taxpayers had to pay for both sides of an eight-year legal struggle before ending up where they started in the first place. All this was for something that didn’t affect the day-to-day running of the town.
What the Suffield CRC attempted was much worse. Connecticut General Statutes 7-193 provides that each municipality shall have only one chief executive officer, not a first selectman who has 80 percent of the authority and a primary assistant who has the other 20 percent. A prolonged court battle could have paralyzed Suffield’s ability to hire, supervise, evaluate and replace municipal employees for years.
Suffield taxpayers do have a serious need for Town Charter reform. To understand this better, let us compare Suffield and Town “X” (and its outstanding Town Charter), during teacher contract negotiations. Both school boards offer their teachers a 2 percent raise, but the similarities stop there. In Town “X”, the BOE and the teachers’ union actually sign a contract, but the Town Charter of Town “X” requires a referendum vote on teacher contracts. The citizens vote it down 60 percent to 40 percent. CGS 10-153d(b) specifically allows this. The Town “X” BOE now offers 1 percent, but its teachers want to go to arbitration for 2 percent. The two Republicans on the three-member BOS publicly announce they will vote to reject an arbitration award over 1 percent. CGS 10-153f (c)(7) authorizes this. The arbitrator doesn’t like to overrule an official public vote, he doesn’t want the Town “X” selectboard to reject his decision, and he certainly doesn’t want a three-member Binding Arbitration Panel to agree with the BOS. The arbitrator decides to give the Town “X” teachers 1 percent.
In Suffield, the BOE offers the teachers 2 percent, but the teachers want 3 percent. This despite the fact that each teacher in Suffield already gets paid many thousands of dollars more than the teachers in Town “X.” The same arbitrator gets this case, too, and studies the current Suffield Town Charter before making a decision. He sees that the public never votes on teacher contracts in Suffield. Maybe they like high taxes. He notes that Suffield has a five-member BOS. He knows that the five-member BOS option was put into the Connecticut General Statutes by big city union lawyers back in the day when most rural Republican politicians still milked their dairy cows by hand. CGS 10-153f (c)(7) authorizes the rejection of teacher arbitration awards, but only by a two-thirds majority. CGS 9-167a authorizes up to four members of the same political party on a five-member card, but CGS 9-188 specifically limits a five-member BOS to a maximum of three members of the same political party. The arbitrator knows the three Republicans on the BOS are only 60 percent of the total, not 2/3.
The arbitrator awards the Suffield teachers 3 percent confident he will not be overruled by either of the Democrats on the BOS joining the three Republicans. Suffield is one of the few towns in Connecticut that has, in effect, through its current Town Charter, constitutionally prohibited itself from rejecting expensive teacher contractor arbitration awards! What more could possibly need to be said?
Greenwich, Conn. has over 60,000 residents and is one of the most admired municipalities in the world, with the finest public library between New York City and Boston. Greenwich has a full-time first selectman CEO elected to a two-year term of office, and the same three-member BOS it has had for over the last 300 years. Greenwich also has a town administrator advisor to the first selectman. The first selectman, not the school superintendent, is responsible for negotiating all Board of Education employee contracts, except teachers. All of this saves millions and millions of dollars for Greenwich taxpayers. Suffield’s current Town Charter puts us in the middle. Career bureaucrats like town managers and school superintendents waste money, elected full-time CEO first selectmen save taxpayer dollars. If Suffield does what Greenwich does, taxes will go down and the quality of services (including education) will go up. If Suffield were to replace the first selectman with a town manager, services would go down and taxes would go up.
Citizens interested in lower taxes and better municipal and education services should read Connecticut State Board of Labor Decision #3232 (American Federation of School Administrators/Newington, CT) and Connecticut Supreme Court Decision Local 1186, AFSCME, et al. v. Board of Education of the City of New Britain, et al., 182 Conn. 93 (1980). Both of these discuss in depth Town Charter/education legal issues.
It doesn’t matter whom you vote for in the November BOS elections, as long as you vote for a candidate that pledges to immediately create a new, fair, competent, bi-partisan Charter Revision Commission. Three members from the same party on the new BOS pick seven. The remaining two members and their Town Party Chairman also pick seven. Each sub-committee elects a chairman, who then transfers two members to the other sub-committee. CGS 7-191(f) specifically allows for multiple choices. A new Democrat, a new Republican and the current Charter should be on a September 2011 referendum. If either of the new choices gets a majority vote, then that choice becomes the brand new and improved Suffield Town Charter.

Town to consider rolling trash fees into taxes

By Lisa J. Coatti
Staff Correspondent

SUFFIELD – The Board of Selectmen is considering rolling the trash collection fee into the real estate taxes.
Heavy debate occurred at Wednesday’s selectboard meeting as the pros and cons of changing the trash fee structure were considered. An ad hoc trash fee subcommittee was formed last June to study the inclusion of the trash fee in the mill rate. The six member committee, consisting of members of the Board of Finance, Board of Selectmen, Public Works and a town resident, was created to determine whether the town would receive more money from the state if the trash fee was included in the tax rate, and what the impact would be on town taxpayers.
Trash fee subcommittee Chairman Justin Donnelly, chairman of the town’s Board of Finance, attended Wednesday’s meeting to answer questions about the committee’s submitted report. Other members of the ad hoc committee include Tom Frenaye, James Lennon, Selectman Brian Fitzgerald, Guy Boccasile and Wilfred Roy. Frenaye and Boccasile were also present at the meeting.
Currently, town homeowners pay an annual trash pick-up fee of $206. The fee does not apply to businesses, apartments or condominium owners as they pay for their own commercial trash pick up. The fee is mandatory to homeowner with only a few (15) exceptions.
The committee reported that billing and record keeping for the trash fee is managed by the town tax collector at a cost of around $10,000 a year. The town pays $491,900 for residential trash collection, done by USA Hauling. The town also pays $374,500 to the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority (CRRA) for trash delivered to them in Hartford for processing.
Suffield is unique in its trash collection fee as many neighboring towns, including Enfield, Granby and Windsor Locks, include trash pick up with their taxes. First Selectman Scott R. Lingenfelter said he supports the current system.
“It is a pay to use system,” he said. “It is probably the fairest tax we will have.”
If the trash fee is rolled into residential taxes, the town would receive an increase in state grant money from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program. The PILOT program is based on taxes that would have to have been paid by the state for property located in the town. Such property includes the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Facility and Bradley International Airport. The town also receives money from the state casinos. The grant dollar amount is based on the total town budget. Adding the trash fee would increase the town tax budget
The subcommittee reported that last year, had the trash fee been included in the town tax base, it would have received an additional $135,000 in grant money and saved $10,000 in administrative expenses.
Selectman Timothy Reynolds pointed out that if the fee were included in the taxes it would affect businesses.
“Business taxes will go up,” he said. “When we’re trying to attract businesses to the town, that’s a negative.”
Selectman John Smith agreed.
“What would really benefit tax payers is bringing the business taxes up to 20 percent,” he said.
Currently, the town collects between 8 and 9 percent of taxes from businesses. The report states that commercial businesses would incur a tax increase of 2.4 percent if the fee structure was changed.
Boccasile said the change would be more expensive for some homeowners. Residents with a property value greater than $536,000 would experience an increase in cost. About 25 percent of town residents would see this increase. The report states that 75 percent of the town’s homeowners would see a decrease in total costs. Under the proposed policy, a property valued at $300,000 would save $90.50 a year if the fee were rolled into their property taxes.
“The benefits outweigh the other concerns weighed,” Fitzgerald said. “Small changes make a big difference. You’re throwing away $100,000 to $140,000 if you don’t do it.”
Selectman Tim Reynolds asked Donnelly to share his personal opinion on rolling the fees into the tax base.
“I abhor taxing people for services that they don’t get,” Donnelly said.
No action was taken at Wednesday’s meeting. The proposal was tabled until a future meeting.

YMCA awarded childcare contract

Town ends longstanding partnership with Boys and Girls Club of Greater Westfield

By Gregory A. Scibelli
Staff Correspondent

SOUTHWICK – The Parks & Recreation Commission on Monday voted 3-2 to recommend that the service contract for its after school program be awarded to the Greater Westfield YMCA, a move the Board of Selectmen backed later that evening.
Debate was hatched two weeks ago when the Parks and Recreation Commission was forced to reconsider its longstanding partnership with the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Westfield, which for the past seven years has operated an after school program on the lower floor of Town Hall.
“Previously, we never had anyone else bid on the contract for after school care,” said Parks & Recreation Chairman Kelly Magni.
When it came down to a decision, it was money versus quality programming – the YMCA program is licensed by the state, whereas the Boys and Girls Club program is not.
Parents who do not qualify for financial assistance will have to take a nearly 400 percent hit, paying $65 per week for after school care through the YMCA. The Boys and Girls Club charged $64 per month for its program.
The commission heard presentations from William Parks, executive director of the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Westfield, and Michelle Anamisis, child-care coordinator at the Greater Westfield YMCA, last Thursday, Aug. 6, but the commission tabled its vote after parents objected to the change.
“Why are you leaning toward the YMCA?” parent Laurie Emond asked. “What does the YMCA have that the Boys and Girls Club can’t offer?”
Logistics played a role in the decision. The Boys and Girls Club program costs the town $15,800, which accounts for about one-third of the Parks and Recreation Department’s budget. About $7,000 of those funds are paid to the Southwick-Tolland Regional School District for transportation. In addition, the state-mandated YMCA program provides one staff member for every 13 children; the Boys and Girls Club program has one staff member per “room” regardless of the number of children occupying the room.
Emergency Management Agency Director Charles Dunlap, whose offices are located on the lower level of Town Hall, said attendees of the Boys and Girls Club after school program are often unsupervised and “unruly,” forcing him to speak to staff members on numerous occasions.
In approving the contract with the Greater Westfield YMCA, selectmen recommended the contract bid be moved up to June to allow residents a chance to vote on it at town meeting. The selectboard is expected to sign the contract at its next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, Aug. 24.
Anamisis said the YMCA offers payment plans and reduced rates for those who qualify.
“We have not – and will not – turn anyone down,” she said.

Charter revisions mishandled by the Board of Selectmen

By Ernest J. Petkovich, Sr.
Chairman, Charter Revision Commission

During the July 15 Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting, all of the recommendations made by the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) were rejected and none will be submitted to the electorate for approval. Although there were questions at the June 3 BOS meeting regarding the town administrator (TA) position, the number of signatures required for a referendum and whether to add section 1212 for definition of the Annual Town Budget, it seemed the BOS was okay with the rest of the recommendations, which basically were included to provide clarification of processes in the Charter. Now in a reversal of these earlier thoughts, all recommendations were rejected.
The decisions made by First Selectman Scott R. Lingenfelter, and Selectmen Brian Fitzgerald and John Smith regarding the recommendations made by the CRC are disappointing, frustrating, and quite frankly, unbelievable to the members of the CRC. It makes no sense that the named members of the BOS could disregard all of the time, effort and thought over an 18-month period put into the CRC recommendations and, after cursory review, decide not to send any recommendations on for a vote by the electorate.
Selectman Tim Reynolds provided the only realistic viewpoint by speaking in favor of sending all the recommendations forward and stating he was not sure what the downside would be if voters were given the opportunity to express their choices.
In the charges given to the CRC by the BOS in January 2008, commission members were asked to look at six specific areas of the Charter in addition to any other recommendations we might have. In all, the CRC reviewed 107 suggested changes to the Charter and, of our final eight recommendations, there were five of them that directly addressed the Charges identified by the BOS.
Over the past few months, many concerns regarding the authority level recommended for the TA position have been expressed by citizens, members of the CAPS organization and the BOS as well as CRC members, so it is not surprising that this recommendation was subject to rejection by the BOS. The rest of the CRC recommendations were focused on improving the democratic process regarding referendums and improving clarity in the Charter.

 CRC members firmly believe that the current requirement of over 800 signatures to petition for a referendum almost assures that no petition will ever be submitted due the huge effort required to secure this many signatures, therefore effectively eliminating a democratic process. Our compromise recommendation of 400 signatures would have assured only major items would garner enough interest for a petition while making it realistic for citizens to get enough signatures if they felt strongly enough about an issue.
The remaining CRC recommendations were included to provide clarification of processes in the Charter. The BOS, for reasons unclear to most observers, felt that none of these were worthy of consideration by the electorate.
 As asked for in the BOS charges, the CRC recommended clarification language regarding the appointment and removal process for town counsel. We also added clarification regarding the use of outside counsel.
 As asked for in the BOS charges, the CRC recommended clarification language stating that the terms for Administrator of Social Services, Superintendent of Public Works, Tree Warden and Dog Warden will be four (4) years, which aligns them with other appointed positions in the Charter.
 The CRC recommended a standardization of the process and number of days for call for a referendum with the express purpose of avoiding a situation such as occurred last year regarding the referendum for a new library.
 There are over 60 occurrences of the terms “budget, town budget and annual town budget” in the current Charter with all really meaning the same “Annual Town Budget” amount. There are three sections of the Charter regarding emergency funds, acceptance of grants and transfer of funds, which use a percentage of the “Annual Town Budget” amount as a basis. The CRC recommended that all of these should be changed to the common term of “Annual Town Budget” for clarification throughout the Charter and that a definition of the term should be provided.

In addition to doing a great disservice to CRC members and the electorate of Suffield, the BOS by rejecting all of the CRC recommendations, has also set the stage for making it very difficult to find qualified candidates for any future CRC given the lack of support that can be expected for any suggested changes.
Hopefully this unfortunate situation will serve as a wake-up call to members of the BOS that they do not always have all the answers; and to many of the “uninformed voters” of Suffield to remember how little value some members of the BOS place on rights of our citizens to determine the content of our Town Charter as well as being given the opportunity to vote on other matters.

St. Pierre discussion cut short

Selectmen chairman caps ‘unproductive’ meeting

By Gregory A. Scibelli
Staff Correspondent

SOUTHWICK – A discussion to address the non-criminal citation issued to Selectman David St. Pierre for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana ended abruptly on Tuesday, as board members criticized the embattled politician for comparing media reports about the incident instead of sharing his side of the story.
Accompanied by his attorney, Richard Maggi, St. Pierre requested the discussion be held in open session during Tuesday’s regularly scheduled selectmen’s meeting, which was attended by approximately 30 residents. Selectmen Chairman Art Pinell terminated the 13-minute discussion after he and Selectman Nicholas Boldyga agreed St. Pierre was not addressing the events of June 3 in his own words, but simply the media reports that had surfaced over the past two weeks.
“This is not a back and forth about what was reported in the various media,” said Pinell.
“The public is here,” added Boldyga. “We want to know about what happened from you.”
According to police reports, a Springfield police officer patrolling the Walgreen’s parking lot at the corner of Armory and Carew streets in Springfield spotted St. Pierre sitting in his truck rolling a blunt – a slang term for a cigar that has been hollowed out and filled with marijuana – around 2 p.m. on June 3. St. Pierre was issued a non-criminal citation and fined $100. He has since filed for an appeal.
At a selectboard meeting on June 15, Boldyga motioned for the board to go into executive session at its next regularly scheduled meeting to discuss allegations of additional misconduct. St. Pierre has denied any wrongdoing.
He maintains the drugs belong to a 22-year-old West Springfield man that he and his wife have been mentoring for the last two years. The individual was with St. Pierre when he was cited.
“This is a young man that has had a lot of challenges in life and has made some bad choices,” said St. Pierre.
St. Pierre said he and his wife are trying to steer the young man away from drugs and get him back into school.
The meeting turned sour as St. Pierre repeatedly referenced media coverage of the June 3 incident in an attempt to clear up rumors that have been circulating about him.
“There have been a lot of rumors and personal attacks against me that have been completely inappropriate,” he said.
St. Pierre accused Boldyga of going straight to the media when the story broke, as opposed to contacting St. Pierre directly to discuss the situation, which St. Pierre called an “unfortunate misunderstanding.”
Boldyga countered by querying St. Pierre as to why he did not contact his fellow board members when the incident first happened. At that point, the exchange became a bit heated and Pinell terminated the discussion. The move angered some St. Pierre supporters who felt he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. Doreen Goyette-Crowley, chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, said the committee backs St. Pierre “100 percent.”
Senior Center Director Jeanne Margarites said the senior citizens in town who voted for St. Pierre deserved to hear an explanation.
Boldyga expressed his disappointment over the less-than-productive discussion.
“I apologize to the residents of Southwick who were looking for an explanation from David St. Pierre and did not receive one,” he said.

Live Notes from the June 30 Board of Selectmen Meeting

POST MEETING NOTES

Approximately 20 or 30 people gathered at the meeting tonight with it appearing that the majority were there to support David St. Pierre or support his right to explain himself in a fair manner. As previously reported on the live blog, the discussion was terminated after approximately 13 minutes by a motion from Nicholas Boldyga. Art Pinell, chairman, stated specific rules for the discussion to take place. Among them was that the discussion was focus specifically on explaining the report of the actions that took place on June 3 where St. Pierre was issued a marijuana possession citation. St. Pierre was given the opportunity to speak first and was cut off several times because his explination focused more on what St. Pierre viewed was inaccuracies by various members of the media. A few times, Pinell asked St. Pierre to simply say what happened that day in St. Pierre’s own words. After several minutes of referencing media reports, Boldyga motioned for a close of the discussion.

Other things that happened during the discussion included St. Pierre admitting he received a citation for possession of marijuana. St. Pierre accused Boldyga of going straight to the media instead of calling him and asking what was going on. Boldyga asked why St. Pierre did not contact his fellow selectmen after the incident occurred. St. Pierre addressed various rumors and attacks against his character as “inappropriate.”

Residents supporting David St. Pierre left with some “choice words” for the other Selectmen, who voted to terminate the discussion and continue with the next agenda item.

At the time discussion was closed, St. Pierre excused himself from the meeting and held court outside the Town Hall auditorium and was interviewed by several members of the media where he gives his story of what happened on June 3. Those quotes and much more will come in the full-length story to be published in this week’s Southwick-Suffield News.

The Board returned to regular business following the discussion. St. Pierre remained for the length of the meeting and the meeting was adjuorned for the evening at approximately 7:50 p.m.

A full-length story will be available online in the near future and a story will be printed in this week’s Southwick-Suffield News with more details on the discussion between the Board of Selectmen.

POST DISCUSSION – 6:55 p.m.

Discussion ends with several frustrated residents leaving the room.

OPEN SESSION DISCUSSION – 6:40 p.m.
St. Pierre requests that the session be held in open session. Ken Albano, Town Attorney, this is not a disciplinary or public hearing. The motion by Boldyga is simply a period of discussion. No decisions being made tonight, just a session to allow St. Pierre to address. If no objection, floor will not be cleared. Boldyga made the motion to make the meeting in open session. The discussion will take place in open session.

Chairman Art Pinell explains the rules of the meeting. The reason for the discussion is to discuss the incident of June 3. The intent to allow St. Pierre to explain his situation and address the issue. Pinell agreed the discussion must be held in open session. Boldyga and Pinell were privy to documents of June 3. The documents raised awareness that an incident took place.

Discussion at this table will only take place at the table, no public interaction. This remains a fact-finding process. It’s not a trial. We’re not here to assess blame or guilt or make accusations. Pinell requests the discussion must stay on point.

St. Pierre speaks first. He presented a drug test taken 48 hours after incident. He believes it is well known that he and his wife have been working with young individual with certain challenges. He believes the officer reacted naturally.

He said a lot of things took place and a lot of the attacks took place that were not appropriate. Pinell stops St. Pierre and says he is getting into a back and forth about what is in the various media. St. Pierre believes only the Republican provided accurate news about the situation. St. Pierre said what he’ll tell you is pretty much that there were a lot of media is but the Springfield Republican took the time to ask me about the incident. St. Pierre admits he was issued a citation. He said the background of the situation leads to the individual he has been mentoring.

Boldyga interjects. He said the public is here. He and the public wants to know what happened from St. Pierre himself. He said he has not heard from him in a month. He criticized St. Pierre for not coming to them about the issue. St. Pierre accused Boldyga of going to the media without going to him first.

Voices were being raised and at that time, Pinell chose to terminate the discussion. Boldyga motioned to end the discussion.

A resident then spoke about hearing what David has to say. He accused Pinell of cutting St. Pierre off during what he had to say.

MEETING OPEN – 6:30 p.m.

Meeting opens up with St. Pierre not in attendance at the exact time of the meeting.

Roger Cataldo is first to speak on public comment. He questions Nick Boldyga. He asked about rescinding the dock permit vote. Boldyga responded saying he received an e-mail from Suffield First Selectmen Scott Lingenfelter about his not being on board with the program. Not wanting a lengthy legal battle, he requested the vote rescinded. Cataldo criticized the board rescinding the vote.

Doreen Goyette asks what Boldyga meant by residents fear to come forward. Boldyga elaborated his statement about residents. He claims he stood up for the residents who came forward to him. Goyette prefers better representation in the newspaper.

David St. Pierre enters the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Jeanne Margiates said the senior center supports St. Pierre and he deserves a chance to hear his side.
Updated: 6/1 – 10:00 a.m. CORRECTION: Senior Center Director Jeanne Margarites said the seniors of the town who voted for St. Pierre deserved to hear an explanation. The Southwick-Suffield News apologizes for the error in misquoting Margarites.

Neilda Henke requests the meeting be held in open session. Requests St. Pierre be innocent until proven guilty.

PRE-MEETING – 6:20 p.m.

Hi everyone and welcome to tonight’s special blog-cast of the June 30, 2009 meeting of the Southwick Board of Selectmen. Tonight’s special blog-cast is to give Southwick-Suffield News readers and residents of the town the opportunity to get up-to-date first-hand news of a very controversial topic that has marred Southwick politics and government for the past couple of weeks.

A discussion is scheduled to take place amongst the Board of Selectmen to discuss the alleged misconduct and behavior of Selectman David St. Pierre. The discussion was requested by fellow Selectman Nicholas Boldyga.

Currently, the discussion is scheduled to be an executive session held at 6:40 p.m. per Boldyga’s motion at their June 15 meeting. However, St. Pierre has told the Southwick-Suffield News last week that he will “probably” ask for the discussion to happen in open session in order to clear up rumors going around town about him.

Coming up at 6:30 p.m., tonight’s meeting will open with public comment. There will likely be members of the public who may speak for or against St. Pierre and we’ll bring that to you here online.

If the discussion at 6:40 p.m. occurs in open session, then I’ll update the blog every few minutes to give you an idea of what’s happening at the meeting.

If you want some live commentary and have questions, you can IM me, Southwick-Suffield News Correspondent Greg Scibelli at GScibelli0726 on AOL Instant Messenger. I can also be reached at gscibelli@turley.com. I’ll do my best to answer your questions and comments as soon as possible. The meeting is coming up shortly.

Special Blog-Cast of Tuesday’s Board of Selectmen Meeting

Attention Southwick-Suffield News readers and blog visitors. If you can’t make it to Tuesday night’s meeting of the Board of Selectmen, our Greg Scibelli will be there. If the executive session to address Selectman David St. Pierre’s alleged misconduct is held in open session, he will blog live from the meeting to present up to date information. He will also provide results from the public comment portion of the meeting if members of the public speak on the issue.

If the meeting is closed to the public, the blog-cast will conclude at the conclusion of public comment. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. with the executive session currently scheduled for 6:40 p.m.

We invite you leave comments, ask questions, and Greg can be reached on AOL Instant Messenger at GScibelli0726 and can chat with you live from the meeting. Thanks, and we hope you check us out tomorrow night.