HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-10 Board of Selectmen Handout - Part 3Kp KOPELMAN AMn PAIGE, P.c. Bo Arch Street
Boston, MA 02110
The Leader in Municipal Law T: 617.556.0007
F: 617.654.1735
www.k- plaw.com
May 7, 2014 Lauren F. Goldberg
Igokibergak- plaw.com
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Re: Response to Request for Proposals for Town Counsel Services
Dear Mr. LeLacheur:
The law firm of Kopelman and Paige, P.C. is delighted to have the opportunity to be
considered to provide legal services in response to the Town's Request for Proposals. We believe
that the enclosed response demonstrates that our firm is uniquely qualified to serve as Town Counsel
to the Town of Reading. The response includes a detailed description of our approach to Town
Counsel services, the varied areas in which we have expertise, and the several services we provide at
no cost to our client communities. These complimentary services are designed to inform and
educate our client communities about constantly changing legal requirements. Choosing the firm as
Town Counsel ensures that a small team of stellar municipal lawyers with expertise in virtually
every area of municipal law will oversee, coordinate and undertake legal services needed by the
Town in a cost effective, efficient manner.
Please bear in mind that should the firm be appointed as Town Counsel, there would be no
charge for "transition time" so that the firm can best ensure continuity of legal services. In that
regard, the Town's proposed legal team, Attorneys Lauren Goldberg as primary contact and Mark
Reich and Darren Klein as back -up, would meet with the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager, as
well as key Town boards and staff, to plan the transition and provide for review of relevant
background and case file materials about ongoing litigation and other matters.
We look forward to an interview and the chance to explain in greater depth how Kopelman
and Paige, P.C. can deliver excellent, cost effective legal services as requested by the Town. In the
meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me on my direct line at 617- 654 -1759 if you require
additional information.
Respectfully submitteq,
Lauren F. Go dberg
LFG/kaw
Enc.
4977091KOPE/0005
Boston • Worcester • Northampton • Lenox s33-1
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Mik & mr Law
RESPONSE TO
TOWN OF READING
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR TOWN COUNSEL SERVICES
SUBMITTED BY:
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Lauren F. Goldberg
101 Arch Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: 617 -556 -0007
Toll Free: 800 -548 -3522
Fax: 617-654-1735
E -Mail: lgoldberg@k- plaw.com
BOSTON • WORCEtTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.K- PLAW.COM
50 _-
nrvn
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
TAmz OF COPCMN S
Response to Request for Proposals for Reading Town Counsel Services, including:
Tab A Response to Request for Proposals for Town of Reading Town
Counsel Services
Exhibit 1 Attorney ResumesBios:
Lauren F. Goldberg
Mark R. Reich
Darren R. Klein
Exhibit 1(A) Attorney ResumesBios:
Jonathan D. Eichman
David J. Doneski
Jackie Cowin
Exhibit 2 Copy of Professional Liability Insurance
Exhibit 3 List of Municipalities Represented by:
Lauren F. Goldberg
Mark R. Reich
Darren R. Klein
Exhibit 4 List of Town Counsel or City Solicitor & Years of Service
Exhibit 5 Full Range of Municipal Law Services Provided
Exhibit 6 Lists and Examples of Complimentary Communication to
Clients Including:
Recent Memos to Clients
E- Updates
Webinars
Exhibit 7 List of Popular Complimentary Seminars & Workshops
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • www.K-PLAw.com
563 -3
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
The Leader in 11mblic Sector Law
Exhibit 8 Comprehensive list of Litigation Matters handled by K &P
Tab B Response to Request for Proposals for Town of Reading for
Town Counsel Services:
Financial Information — Fees and Expenses Response Sheet
Tab C Municipal Law Experience Checklist
(Completed by each team member)
Tab D Statement of Litigation Experience
(Completed by each team member)
BOSTON • WORCEwwR • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • YVWW.K- PLAW.COM
5d3 -q
1 \Il
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
The Leader in Public Sector Late
RESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TOWN COUNSEL SERVICES
ATTACHMENT A
CONTACT NAME: Lauren F. Goldberg, Esq. President
BBO #: 631013
FIRM NAME: Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
ADDRESS: 101 Arch Street, Boston, MA 02110
TELEPHONE: 617 -556 -0007
FAX NO: 617 - 654 -1735
EMAIL: lgoldberg@k- plaw.com
WEBSITE: www.k- plaw.com
Firm Overview
Kopelman and Paige, P.C., is the Commonwealth's most experienced municipal law firm. We
have approximately 40 years of experience in public law, with over 98% of our practice devoted
primarily to representing municipalities and public agencies. The firm's 40 attorneys provide a
wide spectrum of legal services to the largest municipal client base in the Commonwealth,
including all the services identified in Section III of the Town's Request for Proposals. We are
Town Counsel or City Solicitor to approximately 120 municipalities in Massachusetts. We also
represent another approximately 100 municipalities as Labor Counsel or Special Counsel. The
experience gained through serving a particular city or town inevitably proves useful, and creates
opportunities for cost savings, in others. We take pride in the fact that more than 50 percent of
our clients have been with the firm for over 15 years. Our goal is to establish a level of client
satisfaction with each and every client that leads to a successful long -term relationship.
The firm's reputation in public sector law is exemplified by the ratings and accolades it has
received from independent industry sources. Martindale- Hubbell Law Directory has assigned
the firm an AV rating and includes us in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. The "A"
signifies a firm of the highest level of legal ability, and the "V" denotes "very high" adherence to
professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability, and diligence. The Bar Register only
contains the few AV -rated lawyers that Martindale- Hubbell believes are preeminent in their
field. Additionally, Kopelman and Paige's attorneys have been named to the Massachusetts
Super Lawyers list in the area of Govemment/Municipal Law. Super Lawyers are chosen by
563-0
ElRESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
their peers and undergo a rigorous multiphase selection process. Less than five percent of
attorneys in the state are selected to the Massachusetts Super Lawyers list. The culture of
excellence and dedication to municipal clients is exemplified by all the attorneys of the firm.
Kopelman and Paige attorneys are active in the legal and municipal communities, frequently
serving on committees, presenting seminars and writing publications. Our involvement includes
membership in associations such as the Massachusetts Bar Association and Massachusetts
Municipal Lawyers Association. We frequently author articles and chapters for various
publications, including, for example, the Massachusetts Municipal Association's Selectmen's
Handbook and Finance Committee Handbook, and Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education
publications, including the Massachusetts Municipal Law Manual and Massachusetts Election
Administration, Campaign Finance and Lobbying Law, as well as the Massachusetts Law
Review. Our attorneys consistently present at seminars and trainings, including, for example, the
Massachusetts Municipal Councilors Association, Small Town Administrators of Massachusetts,
Massachusetts City and Town Clerks Associations, the Massachusetts Treasurers and Collectors
Association, and the Massachusetts Association of Health Board.
1. Please identify by name (and BBO #, address and phone number if different than
above) the proposed Town Counsel, and if applicable, lead counsel as well as
members of a team, and each proposed back -up counsel.
It is proposed that Attorney Lauren F. Goldberg (BBO# 631013) serve as the Town's primary
contact attorney, with Attorney Mark R. Reich (BBO# 553212) and Attorney Darren R. Klein
(BBO# 567354) serving as back -up.
As detailed in Question 8, Attorneys Goldberg, Reich and Klein may utilize other Kopelman and
Paige attorneys from time to time in areas in which they have particular expertise.
2. Please attach resumes or curriculum vitae for each attorney identified above.
Resumes for the proposed primary contact team, Attorneys Goldberg, Reich and Klein, are
attached as Exhibit 1.
3. Do each of the attorneys identified above meet the minimum bar admission
requirements of the RFP? If other than "yes", please explain.
Yes. Attorneys Goldberg, Reich and Klein are members in good standing of the Massachusetts
Bar and of the Federal Bar for the District of Massachusetts. Note further that the firm has
Professional Liability Insurance in the amount of $3,000,000, and a copy of the certificate of
insurance is attached for your information as Exhibit 2.
5d3 -7
® RESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
4. With respect to each attorney identified, please list each and every Massachusetts
municipality represented by the attorney within the past ten years, the years of such
representation, and the name, address and phone number of at least one contact
person in each municipality with knowledge of the attorney's representation.
A list of municipalities represented as lead counsel by Attorneys Goldberg and Reich, with
contact information, is attached as Exhibit 3. Attorneys Goldberg and Reich provide legal
counsel in other municipalities in connection with their areas of expertise; should you so request,
we can provide additional references. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a list of municipalities
represented by the firm.
5. Please describe each identified attorney's experience in municipal law.
No other Massachusetts firm can match the length, scope, and depth of experience Kopelman
and Paige offers our public clients. Since our founding approximately 40 years ago, we have
chosen to dedicate ourselves to serving the public sector. As indicated above, we serve as Town
Counsel or City Solicitor to approximately 120 municipalities and as special counsel to another
approximately 100 municipalities. We have represented most of these municipalities for at least
five years, and have represented more than half of them for over 15 years. We also serve as
counsel to various public entities and instrumentalities such as school committees, tax collectors,
fire and water districts, regional transportation districts, and sewer districts. We are absolutely
devoted to providing the municipalities we represent with the highest quality legal services at a
reasonable price.
The firm's major practice areas are discussed in detail in Exhibit 5. The range of our practice
ensures that we have some level of experience with virtually any issue that may arise, or have
experience in a similar matter from which we are able to draw upon to provide practical legal
advice. The firm's attorneys are all municipal generalists, although each attorney has also
developed particular areas of expertise based upon their individual experiences and interests.
Attorney Lauren F. Goldberg, the firm's Managing Member, is proposed to serve as your
Primary Contact Attorney and as such would be responsible for delivering and coordinating
responsive, highest quality legal services to the Town in all areas of municipal law. Her
practice has a strong focus on general municipal law issues, including municipal finance,
conflict of interest, public records, and open meeting laws, as well as Town Meeting. In
addition, Attorney Goldberg's practice regularly involves issues related to forms of
government, transitions from one form of government to another, and drafting, reviewing and
interpreting by -laws and ordinances, charters, and special legislation. Lauren assists numerous
towns with town meeting matters, including drafting warrant articles and motions, reviewing
annual and special town meeting warrants, meeting with moderators and other key town
officials at pre -town meeting conferences and moderators' meetings, and representing towns at
both open and representative town meetings. Lauren also has significant experience helping
towns navigate the complicated financial and administrative processes implicated by the
Community Preservation Act. Formerly Legal Counsel to the State's Elections Division,
Lauren has extensive experience representing municipalities with respect to all aspects of
election law, including recounts, challenges to voter registration, and litigation in connection
with election issues.
3
56 3 -8
RESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
Attorney Goldberg is a frequent presenter at the Massachusetts Associations of City and Town
Clerks and the Massachusetts Selectmen's Association and presents seminars throughout the
state on such diverse topics as the Open Meeting Law, Public Records Law, Conflict of Interest
Law, municipal finance law, and state and local election issues. She is an author of four
chapters in the foremost publication on election law in Massachusetts, and the author of two
chapters in the Massachusetts Municipal Law Manual. Prior to joining our firm, Attorney
Goldberg served as Legal Counsel to the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth,
Elections Division, and as a staff attorney in the Public Records Division. Born and raised in
Brookline, Massachusetts, Lauren now lives with her family in Needham, Massachusetts..
Attorney Mark R. Reich is proposed as the Town's back -up contact attorney. With over 25
years of experience in municipal law, Attorney Reich serves as the primary contact for several
cities and towns. In this capacity, he advises in the areas of Open Meeting Law, Public Records
Law, Town Meeting, and City and Town Council meetings; procurement, contracting, and
construction; drafting special legislation; and analyzing and interpreting by -laws, ordinances, and
charters. Attorney Reich specializes in environmental law, including prosecution of property
contamination claims; representation of municipal clients with respect to the reuse and
rehabilitation of contaminated property; compliance with G.L. c.21E and the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act and federal Superfund law; and regulatory and enforcement actions by
local conservation commissions and boards of health. He also has extensive contract experience,
including drafting complex agreements, intermunicipal agreements, and construction documents.
Prior to joining the firm, Attorney Reich served as Assistant City Solicitor to the City of Everett.
Originally from the Bronx, New York, Mark went to law school in Boston and settled in North
Andover with his wife and two children.
Attorney Darren R. Klein is proposed as the Town's back -up attorney and main contact for
school related issues. For over 18 years, Attorney Klein has been providing municipalities and
school districts with counseling and assistance in all facets of employment and labor law,
school law, collective bargaining, and general public sector law. He represents clients before
state and federal courts, labor arbitrators, retirement boards and numerous administrative
agencies on such issues as employment discrimination, wrongful termination, organizing
petitions, unfair labor practices, employee discipline, and contractual grievances. He has also
appeared before the Joint Labor Management Committee regarding police and fire fighter
union negotiations. Attorney Klein assists his clients at many different stages of negotiating
collective bargaining agreements and individual employment contracts, including serving as
the lead negotiator for employers in a wide range of union negotiations. He also advises his
clients on managing and maintaining cost - effective health insurance and employee benefits.
Attorney Klein provides proactive counseling, including drafting and implementing policies
that assist with the creation and maintenance of a diverse, non - discriminatory and efficient
workplace, encouraging optimal job performance and production. He has negotiated
approximately 35 general government municipal labor contracts from start to finish in the past
five years. Attorney Klein lives in Marblehead with his wife and three children.
Additional information about each member of the Town's proposed primary contact team is detailed
in their resumes, attached as Exhibit 1.
4
5d 3 -9
47
RESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
6. Please describe how you propose to satisfy the Accessibility and Accountability
requirements of the RFP.
With our main office in Boston, and many of our attorneys living in close proximity to Reading,
including Attorney Reich in North Andover and Attorney Klein in Marblehead, we are available,
and look forward, to working directly with elected and appointed officials. As requested, we are
prepared to be present at all sessions of the Annual Town Meeting, and any other Town
Meetings held throughout the year. We will also be present at such Board of Selectmen or other
board or committee daytime or evening meetings as may be requested.
Our attorneys are accessible in person, by direct and toll -free telephone, voice mail, fax, e-mail,
and cell phone. Our telephone receptionist is available from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on business
days. After hours, we are reachable by e-mail, direct -line access at the office, and mobile or
home phone numbers. As a firm of town counsels and city solicitors, we understand that your
work does not start and end during "regular" business hours, and expect that we will be called
upon at any time. For that reason, designated Town officials will be provided with the cell,
home, and office direct dial telephone numbers of each of the primary contact attorneys proposed
for Reading's legal team.
We understand the Town Manager's Office manages requests for Town Counsel legal advice and
we are committed to efficiently responding to inquiries. All attorneys who work with the Town
will return calls/emails promptly, and certainly within 24 hours, as you require. Similarly,
attorneys who work with the Town will respond to requests for written opinions promptly, within
one week as requested by the Town, unless the circumstances of the opinion warrant a shorter or
longer time frame for response. We believe legal services require collaboration, and will seek to
ensure that we understand your expectations, and, in turn, that you are informed of any
circumstances that would result in the need for additional time to prepare a well- researched,
responsive, written opinion. We will also provide, at no cost to the Town, a written monthly
summary of all legal activity and a report for the Town's Annual Report. In addition, we will, of
course, provide interim comments and/or a status report concerning the progress on any matter.
7. Please describe how you propose to satisfy the back -up requirements of the RFP.
The firm utilizes a primary contact attorney system to coordinate the delivery of services and
afford a single point of contact. A secondary primary contact attorney, or "back -up" attorney,
works closely with the primary contact attorney to ensure there is never a gap in coverage. The
firm prides itself on providing consistent and comprehensive representation to its clients. As
primary contact attorney, Attorney Goldberg, at no cost to the Town, would keep Attorney Reich
advised as to open matters and other issues facing the Town. It is anticipated that a significant
portion of matters referred to Town Counsel would be handled directly by Attorneys Goldberg
and Reich, and therefore, that Attorney Reich would be involved in advising the Town on many
of the matters referred to counsel.
5
5d 3- 10
F07i
RESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
8. If services are to be provided by a team of lawyers, describe how the team approach
would work For example, will specific attorneys be assigned to specific cases or
subject matters. Will the specific attorney remain the contact throughout the case
or matter?
In general, as noted, it is anticipated that many of the matters referred to Town Counsel would be
handled by Attorneys Goldberg, Reich and Klein. As proposed, Attorney Goldberg would be
responsible for overseeing general municipal matters, including: municipal finance laws, the so-
called "sunshine laws ", Open Meeting, Public Records and Conflict of Interest Laws, all aspects
of Town Meeting, and local legislation, and elections. Attorney Reich will provide back -up to
Attorney Goldberg in the core areas of municipal law, and will advise on matters involving
procurement, contracts, and environmental issues. Attorney Klein would also be available as
back -up, and will be the Town's primary contact for school - related issues.
Attorneys Goldberg and Reich will draw on the expertise of other attorneys in the firm as
needed, striving to use people the Town is familiar with in particular areas. For example, in the
event a complicated real estate transaction were to arise, Attorney Jonathan D. Eichman's
experience with drafting, negotiating and reviewing purchase and sale agreements, deeds, leases,
easements, licenses, conservation and preservation restrictions, condominium documents, and
loan documents would be called upon. Should the Town become involved in complex litigation,
Attorney David J. Doneski, or another of the firm's litigation practice group, such as Attorney
Jackie Cowin, would assist the Town. Resumes for Attorneys Eichman, Doneski and Cowin are
attached for your information as Exhibit 1(A).
The firm's primary and back -up attorney approach, combined with subject matter experts, allows
us to provide the Town with exceptionally efficient legal services specifically targeted to the
Town and its needs.
9. How would you conduct or oversee litigation, including administrative proceedings
in which the Town and its boards are involved in their official capacity, to the extent
such legal services are not provided by the Town's insurance carriers or outside
counsel?
Attorneys Goldberg, Reich and Klein would be responsible for representing the Town in
litigation or administrative proceedings, or for assigning and supervising the same. Our general
approach to staffing such matters is to have a senior level attorney be responsible for the
complete matter, supported by other attorneys as is necessary or appropriate.
As noted in Question 8, there are subject matter areas in which particular attorneys have
significant experience and are recognized expertise. In such cases, that attorney would be
assigned to the matter. For example, Attorney Cowin has an established history of representing
municipalities in litigation of varying types. If the Town were involved in a construction
dispute, Attorney Doneski, who has particular expertise in litigating construction disputes, would
be called upon to assist the Town.
With respect to whether to bring a lawsuit, or to defend litigation against the Town, the firm
believes it is imperative that the Town have sufficient information about possible risks and
6
5d 3 -11
® RESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
benefits of litigation, outright settlement, or other possible resolutions. We regularly provide
advice with respect to these preliminary matters to appropriate staff, boards, and ultimately the
board of selectmen, and firmly believe such information is a necessary component of any
litigation decision. Therefore, the litigation strategy for any matter, whether in an administrative
or judicial forum, and including assignment of the most appropriate attorney, would be discussed
with the Town in each instance and a collaborative decision made as to how best to proceed. Of
course, once the Town has made a strategy decision, we are committed to attaining the outcome
selected by the Town.
10. Are you available to review and approve as to form and content all contracts to
which the Town is a party?
Yes. We review and approve as to form contracts for all of the municipalities for which we
serve as Town Counsel or City Solicitor. As a result of our review of similar contracts for other
municipalities, we are often able to negotiate inclusion of provisions more favorable to the
Town. Attorney Reich has significant experience drafting, reviewing and negotiating contracts.
11. Do you provide regular updates on regulations, legislation and court decisions
affecting municipalities and, if so, would this be a separate expense?
The firm provides its municipal clients with several services at no cost, designed to keep our
cities and towns abreast of the latest developments. These include the following:
• Memoranda to Municipal Clients — These advisories are provided as a complimentary
service for our clients in order to present detailed legal analysis of relevant issues, such as
amendments of statutes or regulations and the steps needed to comply with the same, or
important administrative or judicial decisions and the implications thereof.
o A list of recent memoranda and examples may be found in Exhibit 6.
• eUpdates — These electronic advisories are intended to provide our clients with more
immediate, practical updates on important cases, legislative actions, and other
developments of interest to municipalities, also at no charge. eUpdates generally address
matters of a critical or urgent nature, and provide necessary information in an easily
accessible, timely format.
o A list of recent eUpdates, and several examples may be found in Exhibit 6.
• Webinars — These internet -based electronic seminars are provided on timely topics, in a
format which allows interaction by our clients. Recent webinars include,
• "Public and Private Ways: Navigating Your Way through the Laws on Highways
and Byways" addressed the complicated laws applicable to laying out, accepting,
discontinuing and abandoning public ways.
• "There's a New Game in Town: What Municipalities Need to Know about the
New Casino Legislation " provided contemporaneously with the adoption of the
new gaming legislation.
7
5d 3 -101
ElRESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
12. Do you provide training in legal obligations and compliance for elected, appointed,
and compensated town employees on issues such as conflict of interest, ethics, open
meeting law and harassment, and if so, would this be a separate expense?
We take great pride in our comprehensive on -site seminar program offered at no charge to our
municipal clients. Ensuring that elected and appointed officials and staff know about, and
understand, the requirements of existing and new laws, as well as relevant court and agency
decisions, helps municipalities avoid incurrence of costs in several ways. First, it ensures that
Town officials and employees are provided with the same information, at the same time,
reducing multiple legal requests and responses. Second, it provides critical information that may
reduce the likelihood of costly litigation.
We have found that trainings in sexual harassment prevention and general municipal law issues,
such as the Open Meeting, Public Records, and Conflict of Interest Laws, are in particular
demand for newly elected and appointed officials and new employees, as well as those who are
veterans in their positions. We would work with the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager to
develop suitable seminar topics for the Town based upon its unique needs. A list of some of our
more popular seminars and workshops is attached as Exhibit 7, and includes:
• Open Meeting and Public Records Law
• Avoiding Sexual Harassment
• Administration of the Family and Medical Leave Act
• Changes in the Conflict of Interest Law
• Disciplining Public Employees with Due Process
How to Conduct a Public Hearing and Write a Defensible Decision
Additionally, as discussed in detail in response to Question 11, the firm utilizes a number of
means to ensure that our clients are kept apprised of changes in municipal law, regulations and
rulings relevant to our clients and their activities, as well as other noteworthy developments, and
in connection therewith, provides training in legal obligations and compliance for all town
officials and employees. For example, in addition to explanations of important matters in
eUpdates, Memoranda to Municipal Clients and Webinars, we develop subject matter cards with
relevant guidelines, checklists to ensure compliance with complicated laws, and outlines of
processes needed to comply with various statutory requirements. All of these are services
provided free of charge to our clients.
13. Please describe your suggestions for the transition from current town counsel.
The firm does not charge for "transition time ". If we were appointed Town Counsel, we would
meet with the Board of Selectmen, Town Manager, current Town Counsel as appropriate, and
key Town boards and staff, and review existing background and case file materials.
Additionally, it would be useful to review prior status reports provided by Town Counsel to have
an overview of the types of matters Town Counsel regularly addresses. During this time we
would collaborate to ensure that the team members proposed herein are most appropriate for the
Town's needs, and adjust accordingly, if needed.
8
5d3- i3
ImRESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
rom
14. Please describe any complaints with the Board of Bar Overseers or suits against
each identified attorney and how the complaints or suits have been resolved.
No such complaints or suits have been made or filed.
15. Please identify any past or current clients that may give rise to a conflict of interest
as a result of representing the Town of Reading.
This is to confirm that it is the firm's standard practice, when serving as town counsel, to forgo
representation of clients: in any suits or claims against the Town; in matters before boards,
commissions, or officials of the Town; or, in non - official matters involving Town employees or
officers. We have no knowledge of any present circumstances, legal issues, or court cases that
would constitute a conflict of interest or otherwise limit the firm's ability to represent the Town
of Reading. We frequently represent communities that abut one another in shared or related
matters where there is no actual conflict of interest, after disclosure and consent to such
representation. We know of no circumstances presently requiring such disclosure or consent.
16. For each Town you, and if applicable, members of your firm have represented,
please list those cases where municipal litigation has been undertaken (do not list
special ed or appellate tax board cases).
The firm is truly unsurpassed in the breadth and depth of its experience and expertise to represent
the Town of Reading, its officers, and employees before every court and administrative forum in
the Commonwealth. As previously indicated, the firm represents a significant number of
municipalities, and, as such, represents clients before various courts of the Commonwealth on a
daily basis.
Courts in which our litigators have distinguished records on behalf of clients include: the
Superior and District Courts, Land Court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Judicial Court; and the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the U.S..
Supreme Court. Our litigation attorneys routinely appear before such administrative agencies of
the Commonwealth as the: Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission; Appellate Tax Board;
Department of Environmental Protection; Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination;
Housing Appeals Committee; Civil Service Commission; and others with jurisdiction over
matters involving municipal interests.
Though it is not practicable to provide a comprehensive list of the multitude of litigation matters
we have handled, please see a listing of representative matters the firm has successfully handled
on behalf of our municipal clients attached as Exhibit 8.
5d ) — I i
Conclusion
RESPONSE TO TOWN OF READING
As the state's preeminent municipal law firm, we are confident that we can provide timely,
accurate and cost - effective legal services to the Town of Reading, coupled with our unparalleled
commitment to excellent, personalized service. In selecting Kopelman and Paige, you can rely
on a team of the highest - quality lawyers with specific expertise in the matters you are facing,
with the value added by our record of four decades of success on behalf of our municipal clients.
The Kopelman and Paige difference is our dedication to our municipal client base.
By my signature, I certify that the information contained in this Response to Request for
Proposals is complete-and 2ccurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
G
Signed, . Date: �J
uren oldberg {
10
56 3 -15
avn
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
Experience
LAUREN F. GOLDBERG
Member
E -mail: Goldberg@k-plaw.com
Phone: 617.556.0007
Practice Areas: General Municipal, Litigation
Attorney Lauren Goldberg has over 15 years of public law experience advising clients on municipal
governance, finance and administrative law, including the Public Records Law, Conflict of Interest
Law, and Open Meeting Law. She has extensive experience reviewing, drafting, and revising
municipal charters, and assisting municipal clients in interpreting and implementing charter
provisions. Attorney Goldberg advises municipalities concerning the Home Rule Procedures Act
and the Home Rule Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, drafts special legislation, and
assists clients in the legislative process, including testifying on behalf of clients before joint
committees of the General Court. She also specializes in drafting by -laws and ordinances and
advocating on behalf of clients before the Attorney General with regard to approval of by -laws.
Attorney Goldberg also provides advice, drafts opinions and litigates on behalf of municipalities
relative to recalls, recounts, and other elections questions, as well as conducts recounts of municipal
elections.
Attorney Goldberg joined the firm after serving as Legal Counsel to the Office of the Secretary of the
Commonwealth, Elections Division. In this capacity, she drafted amendments to the state election laws
and regulations and assisted city and town clerks in implementing state election laws.
Representative Matters
• Review and revise annual and special town meeting warrants for over 30 towns on an annual
basis and represent various towns at town meeting.
• Represented the Town of Georgetown in high - profile recount of the 2007 Annual Town
Election results for a Proposition 2 '/z ballot question.
• Successfully represented the Town of Hubbardston Board of Health in an investigation by
the District Attorney regarding allegations of Open Meeting Law violations.
• Drafted special legislation for the Town of Wareham authorizing untimely vacancy in the
office of Selectman to appear on the ballot at 2007 Annual Town Election and assisted Town
with enactment of legislation. See Chapter 18 of the Acts of 2007.
5d3 -1�
Lauren F. Goldberg
❑ Page 2
Prior Experience
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Boston, Massachusetts
Legal Counsel, Elections Division, August 1997 to April 2000
Provided legal advice and guidance to Secretary of the Commonwealth, state and municipal
officials, candidates, legislators, elections staff, and general public about all aspects of election
law. Drafted and reviewed election legislation and regulations, and designed and implemented
statewide training program on polling place accessibility. Served as legal counsel to the State
Ballot Law Commission, the state agency that decides matters relative to access to state ballot.
Drafted Commission decisions.
Staff'Attorney, Public Records Division, August 1996 to August 1997
Drafted administrative appeals decisions and advisory opinions regarding the application of the
Public Records Law and Public Records Access Regulations to records held by government
agencies. Provided legal opinions and guidance to records custodians and the general public
regarding availability and disclosure of public records.
Bar & Court Admissions
• Massachusetts Bar
• U.S. Court of Appeals
• U.S. District Court
Education
Boston University School of Law
Juris Doctor, 1995
Boston University Law Review
G. Joseph Tauro Scholar
Trinity College (Hartford, CT)
Bachelor of Arts, with Honors, 1991
Honors: Faculty Honors List
Chinese Language Achievement Book Award
Speaking Engagements
• Frequently conducts municipal seminars on a range of topics including: Public Records Law;
Conflict of Interest Law; Open Meeting Law; Adoption and Amendment of a Municipal Charter;
Adoption and Implementation of the Community Preservation Act; and Campaign Finance Law
• "Town Meeting from Soup to Nuts," Massachusetts City and Town Clerks' Associations, Fall
Conference, September 2009
• "Freedom of Information and Public Records Law in Massachusetts," Massachusetts Continuing
Legal Education Panel, June 2009
• "Initiating and Responding to Public Records Law Requests," Third Annual Public Law
Conference, Massachusetts Bar Association, June 2009
53 -1g
w Lauren F. Goldberg
Page 3
• "The Mysterious World of Municipal Finance," Massachusetts City and Town Clerks'
Associations, Winter Conference, February 2009
• "What about Recounts ?," Massachusetts City and Town Clerks' Associations, Winter
Conference, February 2007
• "Conducting an Election Recount," Massachusetts City and Town Clerks' Associations, Winter
Conference, February 2007
• "Hot Topics and Trends in the Open Meeting Law," Massachusetts Bar Association Brown Bag
Lunch Series Panel, December 2006
• "Town Meeting - Legal Issues in Preparation of the Warrant, Conducting Town Meeting, and
Resolving Last Minute Issues," Massachusetts Moderators Association Conference, March 2005
• "Criminal Offender Record Information — Revised Regulations and Implementation Thereof,"
Small Town Administrators of Massachusetts, September 2005
• "Driver Privacy Protection Act," Massachusetts Treasurers and Collectors Association
Conference, May 2004
• "Timeline of a Town Meeting," Massachusetts Town Clerks' Association Winter Conference,
February 2003
• "Election Law Administration," Massachusetts Continuing Legal Election Seminar, February
2000
Publications
• Author, "Municipal Election Administration and Campaign Finance," Massachusetts
Municipal Law, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, 2002
• Author, "Insurance Coverage for Municipalities," Massachusetts Municipal Law,
Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, 2002
• Co- Editor, Massachusetts Election Administration, Campaign Finance and Lobbying Law,
Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, 2000
• Author, "Voter Registration," Massachusetts Election Administration, Campaign Finance
and Lobbying Law, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, 2000
• Author, "Nominations, Caucuses and Primaries," Massachusetts Election Administration,
Campaign Finance and Lobbying Law, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, 2000
• Author, "Election Day Administration," Massachusetts Election Administration, Campaign
Finance and Lobbying Law, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, 2000
• Author, "Related Federal Laws," Massachusetts Election Administration, Campaign Finance
and Lobbying Law, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, 2000
5d 3-19
a�
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
MARK R. REICH
Member
E -mail: mreich @k- plaw.com
Phone: 617.556.0007
Practice Areas: General Municipal, Environmental,
Contracts & Procurement, Litigation, Green Communities
Experience
Attorney Mark Reich has 25 years of experience in municipal law. He specializes in environmental
law, contract and construction law, board of health regulation and enforcement, and general municipal
law. Attorney Reich is also an experienced litigator representing municipal boards, public agencies,
and officials in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies on environmental and
contracting issues.
Attorney Reich's environmental law experience includes prosecution of property contamination
claims, representation of municipal clients with respect to the reuse and rehabilitation of contaminated
property; compliance with G.L. c.21E and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and federal
Superfund law; and regulatory and enforcement actions by local conservation commissions and boards
of health. He also has extensive contract experience, including drafting complex agreements,
intermunicipal agreements, and construction documents.
In the area of general municipal law, Attorney Reich serves as the primary contact for several cities
and towns. In this capacity, he advises in the areas of Open Meeting Law, Public Records Law, Town
Meeting, and City and Town Council meetings; drafting special legislation; and analyzing and
interpreting by -laws, ordinance, and charters.
Representative Environmental Matters
• Town of Aver v. Eastern General Contractors Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Won summary
judgment on the Town's claims for breach of contract against the defendant. A settlement was
reached requiring full payment of the bid security, plus interest, in the total amount of $142,000.00.
• Waste Systems International Oxford Transfer Station, Inc. v. Town of Oxford Board of Health,
et al. Successfully represented the Town of Oxford Board of Health on appeal in its decision to
deny a major site assignment modification request.
City of Woburn - Industriplex. Advised the City with respect to the implementation of
remediation measures at the Industriplex Superfund Site.
0 3-)0
.�. Mark R. Reich
Page 2
• Town of Norton — Shpack. Advised the Town with respect to the terms of a consent decree and
property disposition with respect to the Shpack landfill Superfund Site, resulting in the transfer
of remediated open space property to the Town.
• Town of Kingston - Winthrop Street Well. Represented Town in claims against Exxon under
G.L. c. 2 1 E for damages to the Town's water supply resulting in a settlement in the amount of
$475,000.
• Advising numerous municipalities and transportation authorities on liability issues and
resolutions regarding the Beede Waste Oil Federal Superfund Site.
• Negotiating Administrative Consent Orders with the Department of Environmental Protection.
• Advancing and defending against claims for property damage and response action costs under
G.L. c. 21E.
Prior Experience
City of Everett, MA
Assistant City Solicitor (1990 -1998)
Drafted and reviewed contracts for design and construction services and oversaw procurement
procedures. Developed land use strategies for the reuse and redevelopment of Brownfields.
Negotiated Tax Increment Financing Agreements. Counseled planning department and worked
with prospective developers on strategies to optimize development and open space use and reuse.
Provided legal opinions and interpretations of the City Charter and Ordinances. Drafted
ordinances and special legislation. Represented the City and its boards and departments in diverse
litigation before federal and state courts and agencies. Prosecuted enforcement actions on behalf
of the Board of Health and Building Inspector with respect to sanitary and building code
violations. Handled claims brought against the City under G.L. c. 84 and c. 258.
Mayor's Administrative Assistant (1989 -1990)
Liaison between Mayor and City department heads. Negotiated with local businesses and
developers in planning and implementing strategies for future city growth. Provided advice on
numerous executive and legislative initiatives. Drafted and interpreted ordinances and Charter
provisions. Represented the Mayor before the City Council. Mayor's designee on regional boards
and committees.
Bar & Court Admissions
• Massachusetts Bar
U.S. District Court (Mass.)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Education
Boston University School of Law
Juris Doctor, 1988
Cornell University
Bachelor of Arts, 1985
5d 3 -c2l
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE
The Leader in Public Sector Law
DARREN ROBERT KLEIN
Member
E -mail: dklein @k- plaw.com
Phone: 617.556.0007
Practice Areas: General Municipal, Employment & Labor,
School/Education, Litigation
Experience
Attorney Darren Klein provides municipalities and school districts with legal representation, counseling
and assistance in all facets of employment and labor law, school law, collective bargaining, and general
municipal law. He represents clients before state and federal courts, labor arbitrators, retirement boards
and numerous administrative agencies on such issues as employment discrimination, wrongful
termination, organizing petitions, unfair labor practices, employee discipline, and contractual grievances.
Attorney Klein also assists his clients at many different stages of negotiating collective bargaining
agreements and individual employment contracts, including serving as the lead negotiator for employers
in a wide range of union negotiations. He also advises his clients on managing and maintaining cost -
effective health insurance and employee benefits. Attorney Klein provides his clients with proactive
counseling, which includes drafting and implementing policies that strive for maintaining a diverse, non-
discriminatory and efficient workplace that encourages and allows for optimal job performance and
production.
Attorney Klein is also the primary contact for several town counsel clients assisting them in a full array
of general municipal issues, including town meetings, municipal charters and by -laws, conflict of
interests, public records, the Open Meeting Law, and municipal finance.
Representative Matters
• Negotiate collective bargaining agreements with numerous public employee unions including
teachers, school administrators, police, fire fighters, public works, and library, over employment
contracts and benefits. Actively involved in negotiations involving increases in employee health
insurance contribution rates, co -pay amounts, and other health insurance plan design changes
aimed at providing and maintaining affordable and effective health insurance.
• Advise and negotiate non -union employment contracts on behalf of employer with school and
municipal officials and managers.
• Represent municipal and school employers before numerous administrative agencies and
retirement boards, such as the MCAD and the Civil Service Commission, on matters involving
such subjects as employee discipline, employment discrimination, and health insurance benefits.
• Represent clients in numerous labor arbitrations on issues of contract interpretation, employee
discipline, and benefits administration. Also assist clients in processing and/or settling
grievances at pre - litigation stages.
5d 3 -)J
Darren R Klein
Page 2
Counsels clients on maintaining compliance with numerous federal and state labor and anti-
discrimination laws and regulations.
Provides formal training and seminars to clients on areas such as sexual harassment, disciplinary
due process, public sector conflicts of interest, and employment discrimination.
Select Reported Decisions
• Employment/Handicap Discrimination: City of New Bedford v. MCAD, 440 Mass. 450
(2003). SJC reversed MCAD's decision to affirm arbitration award in favor of police officer,
who claimed that decision to remove him from City's SWAT teams was based upon unlawful
handicap discrimination. In case of first impression, SJC adopted federal courts' definition of
"handicap" in ADA cases for purposes of claims under G.L. c.151B.
• Employment/Handicap Discrimination: Brienzo v. Town of Acushnet, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 917
(2004). After plaintiff's claims for alleged handicap discrimination were dismissed by the
MCAD for lack of probable cause, the Appeals Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to
review by the Superior Court in the nature of certiorari.
• School Law /Civil Service/CORI Checks: McCarthv v. Town of Burlington/Burlington School
Committee, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 914 (2004). After Civil Service Commission held that employer
improperly considered criminal offender record information (CORI) to bypass a provisional
employee who was seeking an appointment to become a permanent school building custodian,
the Appeals Court overturned the decision of the Civil Service Commission and held that the
town and its school committee could consider the custodian's criminal offender record
information.
Prior Experience
AFSCME Union - Council 93, Boston, MA
Staff Counsel (1995 -1997)
Represented members of statewide public sector union in all areas of employment and labor law.
Duties involved employment litigation, counseling on all labor issues, and collective bargaining.
Argued before various courts, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Labor Relations
Commission and National Labor Relations Board. Caseload included employment discrimination
charges, wrongful terminations, organizing petitions and unfair labor practices.
Memberships & Affiliations
• Massachusetts Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section
• Chaired bipartisan committee for the Massachusetts Bar Association that drafted resolution on
affirmative action and served on committee which revised Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination handicap regulations.
Bar & Court Admissions
• Massachusetts Bar
• U.S. District Court (Mass.)
5d3-Q3
u Darren R Klein
Page 3
Education
Rutgers University School of Law
Juris Doctor, 1994
University of Rhode Island
Bachelor of Science, 1991
Speaking Engagements
• ,The Impact of Rising Health Insurance Costs on Collective Bargaining," Joint Conference,
Massachusetts Association of School Committees and Massachusetts Association of School
Superintendents, November 15, 2007
• "Labor Law Update," IPMA Tri-State Conference, March 2007
• "Representing School Districts ", Joint Conference, Massachusetts Association of School
Committees and Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, November 2005
5d� -a4
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
JONATHAN D. EICHMAN
Associate
E -mail: jeichman@k- plaw.com
Phone: 617.556.0007
Practice Areas: General Municipal, Land Use,
Real Estate, Litigation
Experience
Attorney Jonathan Eichman's practice focuses on general municipal law, land use, and real estate law.
In the municipal law area, he assists clients with a variety of issues, including town meetings, ,
municipal charters and by -laws, conflict of interests, public records, the Open Meeting Law, and
municipal finance. In the area of land use, Attorney Eichman counsels municipalities on the
interpretation and application of zoning by -laws, subdivision control regulations, and wetlands statutes
and by -laws, with particular emphasis on the analysis and handling of zoning nonconformities and the
statutory protection afforded religious and educational uses. In the area of real estate, Attorney Eichman
focuses on assisting municipalities with all aspects of eminent domain takings and laying out public
ways, together with negotiating and drafting purchase and sale agreements, licenses, leases, and a wide
array of easements and restrictions. He represents municipalities in zoning and real estate matters before
all levels of the federal and state courts, including the United States District Court, the Massachusetts
Appeals Court, and the Massachusetts trials courts.
Representative Matters
• Rehabilitative Resources, hic. v. Ginger Peabody, et al., Worcester Superior Court, C.A. No. 03-
1474C. Utilizing an argument that had yet be applied in the reported cases, convinced the
Superior Court to uphold a denial of an educational user's application to expand its use of an
already- overcrowded lot on the grounds that the user failed to show that it could not find a
conforming location elsewhere.
• Cotton, et al. v. Cedar Lake, LLC, et al., 67 Mass.App.Ct. 464 (2006). In a case of first
impression, the Appeals Court affirmed the authority of the municipality to create by charter a
seven member zoning board of appeals, and rejected the appellants' arguments that G.L. c.40A
requires a 4/5's vote of a seven - member board before the board can act,
• Maimone, et al. v. Town of Georgetown, et al., 58 Mass.App.Ct. 1105 (2003). The Appeals
Court confirmed that a municipality's repair of a private way does not require the municipality to
maintain the way for six years following the repair.
56 3 -cl(�
R Jonathan D. Eichman
Page 2
Prior Experience
Massachusetts Land Court, Boston, MA
Judicial Law Clerk to the Hon. Karyn F. Scheier (1998 -1999)
Professional Memberships
• Massachusetts Bar Association
• Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts (REBA)
Bar & Court Admissions
• Massachusetts Bar
• U.S. District Court (Mass.)
Education
Boston University School of Law
Juris Doctor, cum laude, 1998
University of Colorado
Master of Music, 1982
University of Iowa
Bachelor of Music, Special Honors with Distinction, 1980
563 -Q.-�
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
DAVID J. DONESKI
Member
E -mail: ddoneski @k- plaw.com
Phone: 617.556.0007
Practice Areas: Contracts & Procurement
General Municipal, Litigation
Experience
Attorney David Doneski has 25 years of experience representing clients in municipal matters. He
specializes in municipal procurement, contracting, and public construction. Attorney Doneski works
closely with building committees and awarding authorities in selecting project architects and engineers
and ensuring compliance with the state's designer selection law, drafting and reviewing bid and contract
documents, providing general project support, and representing the interests of the public project owner
in disputes with contractors. He is an experienced litigator and has tried numerous cases on behalf of
municipalities in the District Court, Superior Court and Land Court departments of the Massachusetts
Trial Court.
Attorney Doneski is also an authority in general municipal law and has extensive experience in matters
of municipal governance, including Town Meeting, drafting of by -laws and regulations, licensing and
local administrative proceedings. He previously served as Assistant Town Counsel for the Towns of
Danvers and Sudbury.
Representative Matters
• Defended the Town of Mashpee against a claim of an improper tax taking of land that had been
designated as the Town Forest and obtained an Appeals Court ruling permitting the Town to
retroactively assess back taxes for the 50 years between the date of the taking and the date of the
Land Court judgment, ultimately allowing for the Town to retain the land through a global
settlement.
Nashoba Communications Ltd. Partnership No. 7 v. Town of Danvers, 893 F.2d 435 (Vt Cir.
1990). Briefed and argued successful appeal, on jurisdictional grounds, on a complaint by
Town's cable television operator that sought a declaratory judgment against Town's enforcement
of a rate freeze provision in the cable license.
Board of Selectmen of Sudbury v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 25 Mass. App. Ct.
470 (1988). As Assistant Town Counsel to the Town of Sudbury, Attorney Doneski was part of
the team that litigated the case in which the court effectively invalidated so- called "pocket"
liquor licenses.
5d 3-J8
David J. Donesld
Page 2
Emanouil Brothers v. Town of Watertown. Middlesex Superior Court, C.A. No. 04 -4241 (2008).
Successfully defended town against construction contractor's additional compensation claim and
obtained $250K+ judgment on town's counterclaim for deficient performance.
Flowers v. Town of Groton. Land Court Case No. 08 MISC 383623 (2011). Obtained summary
judgment for town on landowner's claim that Town had not properly discontinued public way
and landowner was entitled to municipal services provided for town ways.
Successful defense of numerous construction bid protest claims before the Attorney General's
Fair Labor and Business Practice Division and contract claims in Massachusetts' courts.
Prior Experience
Towns of Danvers and Sudbury, MA
Assistant Town Counsel (1986 -1993)
Represented all Town departments and boards in matters of municipal law and civil litigation,
including review and drafting of contracts and planning and zoning documents; drafting of by -law
amendments and Town Meeting warrant articles; and preparation of advisory opinions and
explanatory memoranda.
Memberships & Affiliations
• Massachusetts Bar Association, Public Law Section
Bar & Court Admissions
• Massachusetts Bar
• U.S. District Court (Mass.)
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Education
Boston College Law School
Juris Doctor, 1985
Clinical Placement Director and Articles Editor, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review
University of Notre Dame
Bachelor of Arts, with Honors. 1982
5d 3 - aq
avD
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
JACKIE COWIN
Associate
E -mail: jcowin @k - plaw.com
Phone: 617.556.0007
Practice Areas: General Municipal, Litigation
Experience
Attorney Jackie Cowin represents clients in civil rights litigation matters. In this capacity, she provides
counsel to municipalities on issues related to police misconduct, and represents police officers, police
chiefs and municipalities in civil rights suits before the state Superior Court and federal District Court.
She also represents municipalities and their employees in common -law tort claims. Additionally,
Attorney Cowin assists clients with a variety of municipal law issues, including town meetings,
municipal charters and by -laws, conflict of interests, public records, the Open Meeting Law, and
municipal finance.
Prior Experience
Federal District Court Judge Patti B. Saris, Boston, MA
Intern (Spring 2002)
Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA
Intern (Fall 2001)
The Boston Globe, Boston, MA
Staff Reporter (2000 -2001)
The MetroWest Daily News, Framingham, MA
Assistant Sports Editor (1999 -2000)
Bar & Court Admissions
• Massachusetts Bar
• U.S. District Court (Mass.)
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Education
New England School of Law
Juris Doctor, 2002
Barnard College
Bachelor of Arts, 1994
5d 3- 30
CNA
MASSACHUSETTS
LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICY
DECLARATIONS
encv: Branch: Polite umber. Insurance is provided by Continental Casualty Company
737723 _Qj? 268008930 333 S. Wabash Ave. Chicago IL 60604.
A Stock Insurance Company.
1. NAMED INSURED AND MAILING ADDRESS:
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
101 Arch Street
Boston, MA 02110
NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS:
This is a Claims Made and Reported policy. It
applies only to those claims that are both first made
against the insured and reported in writing to the
Company during the policy period. Please review the
policy carefully and discuss this coverage with your
insurance agent or broker.
2.
POLICY PERIOD:
Inception: 06/212013 Expiration:
06212014
at 12:01 A.M. Standard Time at the address shown above.
3.
LIMITS OF LIABILITY: Each Claim:
$3,000,000
Inclusive of Clabns Expenses Aggregate:
$3,000,000
4.
DEDUCTIBLES: Aggregate:
$100,000
Inclusive ofClalms Expenses
S.
POLICY PREMIUM:
$54,673.00
Includes Net Protect Premium, see coverage endorsement lfapplkabk
6.
FORMS AND ENDORSEMENTS ATTACHED AT INCEPTION:
G- 118011 -A20 (Ed. 12010), 0-11 80 1 2-A20(c2) (Ed. 1=006), G- 118024 -A20 (Ed. 0120101 G- 121011
-A20 (Ed.
012010). G- 145184 -A (Ed. 062003), 0SL- 11512 -XX (Ed. 10/2008)
7.
WHO TO CONTACT: To report a claim:
CNA Specialty Claw
P.O. Box 8317 Chicago, IL 60680 -8317
Email: LPLNewClaims®cna.com
Fax: 866 -419 -6308 / Online: www.cna.comiclaims
Lawyers Claim Reporting Questions: 800 -540 -0762
06/10*013
Countersignature Date Authorized Representative
Date
G- 118012 -A20 (c2) (Ed. 12/06)
Page I
563 -3a
11497669
Town of Reading— Proposal for Town Counsel Services
References for selected municipalities currently represented or represented in the past ten years as
Primary Contact Attorney by
Attorney Lauren Goldbere
MUNICIPALITY
CONTACT NAME
YEARS
OF SERVICE
Dedham
Ms. Nancy Baker
1 Year
26 Bryant Street
Acting Town Manager
Dedham, MA 02026
Tel: (781)751 -9100
Norton
Mr. Michael Yunits
11 Years
70 East Main Street
Town Manager
Norton, MA 02766
Tel: (508) 285 -0210
Oakham
Ms. Donna Couture
7 Years
2 Coldbrook Road
Administrative Assistant
Oakham, MA 01068
Tel: (508)882 -5549 ext. 300
Topsfield
Ms. Kellie A. Hebert
11 Years
8 West Common Street
Town Admnistrator
Topsfield, MA 01983
Tel: (978)887 -1500
Upton
Ms. Blythe C. Robinson
5 Years
1 Main Street, Box 1
Town Manager
Upton, MA 01568
Tel: (508)529 -6901
Wales
Ms, Kaye Worth
10 Years
P.O. Box 834
Administrative Assistant
Wales, MA 01081 -0834
Tel: (413)245 -7571 ext. 100
Weston
Ms. Donna S. VanderClock
10 Years
P.O. Box 378
Town Manager
Weston, MA 02493
Tel: (781)786 -5020
Winchendon
Mr. James M. Kreidler, Jr.
10 Years
109 Front Street
Town Manager
Winchendon, MA 01475
Tel: (978)297 -0085
5d3 -34
Town of Reading— Proposal for Town Counsel Services
References for selected municipalities currently represented or represented in the past ten years as
Primary Contact Attorney by
Attorney Mark Reich
MUNICIPALITY
CONTACT NAME
YEARS
OF SERVICE
Amesbury
Hon. C. Kenneth Gray
12 Years
62 Friend Street
Mayor ofAmesbury
Amesbury, MA 01913
Tel: (978)388 -8121
Ashby
Mr. Robert Hanson
6 Years
895 Main Street
Town Administrator
Ashby, MA 01431
Tel: (978)386 -2501
Ayer
Mr. Robert A. Pontbriand
12 Years
One Main Street
Town Administrator
Ayer, MA 01432
Tel: (978)772 -8220
Blandford
Mr. William Levakis
12 Years
One Russell Stage Rd., Suite 1
Chairman, Board of Selectmen
Blandford, MA 01008
Tel: (413)848 -2782
Freetown
Mr. Richard Brown
10 Years
P.O. Box 438
Town Administrator
Assonet, MA 02702
Tel: (508)644 -2201
Heath
Ms. Kara M. Leistyna
13 Years
One East Main Street
Town Coordinator
Heath, MA 01346
Tel: (413)337 -4934
Lancaster
Mr. Orlando Pacheco
10 Years
695 Main Street
Town Administrator
Lancaster, MA 01523
Tel: (978)365 -3326
Millis
Mr. Charles Aspinwall
8 Years
Memorial Building
Town Administrator
900 Main Street
Tel: (508)376 -7040
Millis, MA 02054
Newburyport
Hon. Donna D. Holaday
3 Years
60 Pleasant Street
Mayor of Newburyport
Newburyport, MA 01950
Tel: (978)465 -4413
Oxford
Mr. Joseph Zeneski
8 Years
325 Main Street
Town Manager
Oxford, MA 01540
Tel: (508)987 -6030
5d3 -35
#497714
Town of Reading— Proposal for Town Counsel Services
MUNICIPALITY
CONTACT NAME
YEARS
OF SERVICE
Sheffleld
Ms. Rhonda LaBombard
2 Years
P.O. Box 325, Main Street
Town Administrator
Sheffield, MA 01257
Tel: (413)229 -7000
Watertown
Mr. Michael J. Driscoll
11 Years
149 Main Street
Town Manager
Watertown, MA 02472
Tel: (617)972 -6465
Turners Fall District
Prudential Committee
13 Years
Board of Water Commissioners
Ms. Eileen Tela
226 Millers Falls Road
District Accountant
Turners Falls, MA 01376
Tel: (413)863 -4542
Lowell Regional
Mr. James H. Scanlan
7 Years
Transit Authority
Administrator
12 Olive Street, Suite 1
Tel: (978) 459 -0164
Greenfield, MA 01301
Merrimac Valley Regional
Mr. Joseph Costanzo
8 Years
Transit Authority
Administrator
85 Railroad Avenue
Tel: (978) 469 -1251
Haverhill, MA 01835
Worcester Regional
Mr. Stephen F. ONeil
4 Years
Transit Authority
Administrator
60 Foster Street
Tel: (508) 453 -3500
Worcester, MA 01608
5 3 - 3,0
Town of Reading— Proposal for Town Counsel Services
References for selected municipalities currently represented or represented in the past ten years as
Primary Contact Attorney by
#497716
Attorney Darren IGein
MUNICIPALITY
CONTACT NAME
YEARS
OF SERVICE
Acushnet
Mr. Alan G. Coutinho
15 Years
122 Main Street
Town Administrator
Acushnet, MA 02743
Tel: (508)998 -0200
Burlington School Committee
Dr. Eric Conti
13 Years
Burlington Public Schools
Superintendent
123 Cambridge Street
Tel: (781)270 -1801
Burlington, MA 01803
North Reading
Mr. Greg L. Balukonis
15 Years
235 North Street
Town Administrator
North Reading, MA 01864
Tel: (978)664 -6010
Rockport
Ms. Linda Sanders
12 Years
34 Broadway
Town Administrator
Rockport, MA 01966 -1537
Tel: (978)546 -6786
Tyngsborough Town Hall
Mr. Michael P. Giileberto
12 Years
25 Bryants Lane
Town Administrator
Tyngsborough, MA 01879
Tel: (978)649 -2300
5d3 -3-7
Kp
TOWN COUNSEL AND CITY SOLICITOR
Abington, 6 years
Acushnet, 23 years
Amesbury, 25+ years
Amherst, 6 years
Ashby, 13 years
Ayer, 17 years
Becket, 3 years
Belchertown, 25+ years
Berlin, New in 2013
Blandford, 25+ years
Boxborough, 25+ years
Boxford, 18 years
Brimfield, 25+ years
Brookfield, 12 years
Buckland, 25+ years
Burlington, 25+ years
Carver, 20 years
Chademont, 17 years
Chelmsford, 18 years
Chesterfield, 23 years
Clarksburg, 11 years
Colrain, 25+ years
Dalton, 22 years
Dedham, 23 years
Dennis, 25+ years
East Brookfield, 14 years
Eastham, 21 years
Essex, 14 years
Florida, 23 years
Freetown, 15 years
Georgetown, 25+ years
Goshen, 25+ years
Granville, 25+ years
Great Barrington, 20 years
Groton, 25+ years
Groveland, 25+ years
Hadley, 25+ years
Hardwick, 25+ years
Harwich, 17 years
Heath, 21 years
Hinsdale, 17 years
Hopedale, 21 years
CLIENT LIST
Hubbardston, 25+ years
Huntington, 25+ years
Lakeville, 14 years
Lancaster, 23 years
Lanesborough New 2014
Lenox, 1 year
Leominster, 20 years
Leyden, 25+ years
Lincoln, 11 years
Lunenburg, 21 years
Manchester -by- the -Sea, 25+ years
Mattapoisett, 10 years
Methuen, New in 2013
Middlefield, 18 years
Millbury, 25+ years
Millis, 25+ years
Montague, 20 years
Montgomery, 25+ years
Mount Washington, 18 years
Nantucket, 3 years
New Ashford, 14 years
New Braintree, 21 years
Newburyport, 10 years
New Salem, 17 years
Norfolk, 3 years
Northborough, 22 years
Northbridge, 25+ years
North Brookfield, 20 years
Northfield, 25+ years
North Reading, 25+ years
Norton, 23 years
Oakham, 10 years
Oxford, 25+ years
Pelham, 19 years
Pembroke, 25+ years
Peru, 20 years
Petersham, 19 years
Phillipston, 12 years
Plainfield, 12 years
Plainville, 8 years
Plymouth, 25+ years
Plympton, 18 years
Provincetown, 25+ years
Rockport, 12 years
Rowe, 10 years
Royalston, 20 years
Salisbury, 25+ years
Sandwich, 25+ years
Seekonk, 14 years
Sheffield, 2 years
Shirley New in 2014
Southampton, 25+ years
Sterling, New in 2013
Stoughton, 25+ years
Sturbridge, 18 years
Sunderland, 13 years
Sutton, 16 years
Swampscott, 18 years
Tisbury, 19 years
Topsfield, 20 years
Townsend, 12 years
Upton, 12 years
Wales, 11 years
Walpole, 25+ years
Warren, 10 years
Watertown, 21 years
Webster, 21 years
Wellfleet, 15 years
Wendell, 9 years
West Boylston, 19 years
Westford, 5 years
Westhampton, 22 years
Westminster, 4 years
Weston, 23 years
Westport, 17 years
West Stockbridge, 18 years
Whately, 16 years
Williamsburg, 14 years
Williamstown, 23 years
Winchendon, 12 years
Winthrop, 4 years
Worthington, 1 year
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWWA- PLAW.COM
5d3 -5�
KOPELMAN AND PAIGE
The Leader in Public Sector Law
FULL RANGE OF MUNICIPAL L,AW SERVICES
Airports
Americans With Disabilities Act — Building
Compliance, Discrimination
Appellate Tax Board/Assessors
Board of Health, Site Assignments, Title 5
Cable Television License Renewal and
Negotiations
Casinos and Gaming
Chapter Lands 61, 61A, SIB (Forestry,
Agriculture, Recreation Land)
Chapter 91 Permitting, Tidelands
Charter Commissions — Establishment and
Revision
Civil Rights Complaints
Coastal Zone Management/Harbor
Regulation
Community Preservation Act
Comprehensive Permits c. 40B — Affordable
Housing
Conflict of Interest (State Ethics)
Conservation and Preservation Restrictions
Discrimination Law (MCAD)
Districts
Economic Development and Tax Incentives
Elections and Campaign Finance
Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings
Environmental Law
Facility Siting /MEPA
Firearms Licensing and Revocation
Forms of Government and Reorganizing
Departments
Harbormaster /Shellfish Constable
Industrial Development and Redevelopment
Insurance Defense and Coverage
Intermunicipal Agreements
Internal Investigations
Labor and Employment Law— Including Sexual
Harassment Prevention Training and Health
Insurance
Land Bank Issues
Licensing and Leasing
Litigation and Enforcement
Local Legislation — Bylaws, Charters,
Regulations, Special Legislation
Municipal Finance and Prop. 2 1/2
Open Meeting Law and Public Records
Parks, Commons, Conservation Land,
Playgrounds
Police Misconduct
Procurement — Contracting
Public and Charitable Trusts
Public Construction — Designer Selection
Public Utility Law
Public and Private Ways
Real Estate Transactions
Regional Agreements
Renewable Energy Projects
School Law
Smart Growth, c. 40R and c. 43D
Stone Water Managment
Subdivision Control
Tax Collectionlfax Title
Telecommunications
Transit Authorities
Historic District Commissions Water /Sewer /Drain e — Supply, ppty, Compliance,
Housing Authorities Permitting, Financing, Betterment Assessments
Human Resources (FLSA, FMLA, COBRA, Wetlands
HIPAA, etc.) Zoning /Planning/Land Use
HOWON • WORc=rKR • NORTHAMPTON • LXKox • www.K- PL^w.coM 444548v2
" KKoPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.C.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
OVERVIEW OF PRACTICE AREAS
Kopelman and Paige attorneys are seasoned advocates and skilled negotiators providing cities and towns
with a level of in -depth knowledge and expertise that only municipal specialists attuned to statewide
trends can provide. All of our principals are experts in general municipal law including town meetings,
elections, municipal charters and by -laws, conflict of interest, public records, the Open Meeting Law,
and municipal finance. To serve the specialized needs of our clients, we are also organized into broad
practice groups:
LITIGATION
Our litigation practice is unsurpassed in the Commonwealth in breadth and depth of experience and
expertise in all aspects of litigation involving municipalities — including specialty areas such as land use,
labor and employment, real estate, environmental, Appellate Tax Board, and contracts. In addition to
representing our large municipal client base, this group provides defense for public employers for a large
public sector insurance company. This client insures approximately 125 Massachusetts cities and towns;
200 public and private schools; and 150 public sector agencies, from water districts to public housing
authorities and various commissions. The coverage includes defense of the full range of issues facing
municipalities. This representation requires a complete understanding of a client's insurance coverage
and availability for financial participation in the defense and/or payment of claims.
Our litigation practice also serves as defense counsel for the Boston Housing Authority, providing
defense of personal injury and property damage claims. These include premises liability, "slip and fall"
cases, as well as cases involving alleged defective building components, elevators, playground
equipment, assault, negligent security, and the presence of toxic substances.
LAND USE
Our land use attorneys are expert in all aspects of land use law, including zoning, subdivision control,
historic districts, affordable housing (G.L. c. 40B), Title 5 and wetlands protection. The group provides
a full range of legal services to planning boards, zoning boards of appeal, building inspectors, boards of
health, and conservation commissions. All of the attorneys in the land use practice possess considerable
and relevant practical experience. Some have served as town planners, others as members of planning
boards and conservation commissions. Our land use, zoning, and planning services routinely include:
• Providing opinions on land use matters such as Form A (ANR) requests and subdivision plans.
• Reviewing, prior to final issuance, various decisions of the Planning Board, Conservation
Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals.
• Representing Building Inspectors and Health Agents with enforcement actions.
• Assisting communities in adopting the newly enacted Chapter 431).
• Reviewing and drafting by -laws and regulations.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWWA- PLAW.COM
56 3 -�}�
iNP "" KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Pribdic Sector Low
CHAPTERS 40B & 40R — AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The high cost of housing in Massachusetts is cited as one of the major factors inhibiting economic
growth. As a result, the Commonwealth has put increased pressure on municipalities to provide greater
opportunities for the construction of affordable housing through the use of Chapter 40B. At the same
time, however, new legislation offers incentives to municipalities to permit development of affordable
housing through use of Chapter 40R (Smart Growth Zoning). Kopelman and Paige is a leader in all
areas of affordable housing, from assisting towns with developing tools for their affordable housing
initiatives to providing counsel to local boards that have denied projects for failure to address local
concerns. Our services include:
• Assisting with the creation of community -based affordable housing trusts, affordable accessory
unit and inclusionary zoning by -laws, and transfer of municipal land for development of
affordable housing.
• Assisting in all stages of the G.L. c. 40B process, including: review of applications; attendance
at hearings of Board of Appeals; coordination of expert consultants; negotiation of project
revisions; drafting of decisions; and, if necessary, representation before the Housing Appeals
Committee, as well as before the Land Court, Superior Court and Appellate Courts.
• Assisting in negotiating and obtaining the approval of smart growth overlay districts under the
new Chapter 40R. including two of the first three districts approved by the Commonwealth in
North Reading and Plymouth.
• Assisting in post- approval review and enforcement of affordable housing conditions, including:
the drafting of regulatory agreements and use restrictions; coordination with subsidizing
agencies; and auditing of project costs and revenues.
REAL ESTATE
Kopelman and Paige's real estate practice is diverse and highly sophisticated. It encompasses every
aspect of real estate, including purchases, sales, leases, eminent domain, easements, and financing. Our
real estate practice group has carefully developed legal strategies and techniques to assist our clients
with achieving their goals. Our lawyers not only understand real estate law, but also strive to realize our
clients' goals with innovative solutions. We work closely with our firm's other practice groups (such as
land use and litigation) to bring the right combination of experience and skills to the project.
CONTRACTS & PROCUREMENT
This practice includes attorneys who regularly provide legal services for Massachusetts public
construction projects. All attorneys in this practice group are thoroughly familiar with the requirements
of Chapters 30 and 149 of the General Laws that govern the bidding procedures for public building and
public works construction projects, as well as specification standards for construction materials and
payment to contractors and sub - contractors. This group also represents municipal building committees
and designer selection committees on all aspects of designer selection. We have extensive experience in
the areas of general procurement of supplies and services under the Uniform Procurement Act, Chapter
30B, and local procurement requirements, including design/build procurements. The group is well -
versed in municipal finance requirements, town meeting procedures, and Proposition 2' /s issues.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • www.K-mAw.com
56 3 -q3
NKOPPELMAN AND PAIL E, P.c.
The Leader in Pis6 is Sector Law
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW
This practice area has been providing a full range of services in labor, employment, discrimination, and
related litigation to public sector entities since the firm was founded. We are the largest provider of
public sector labor services in the Commonwealth. We provide collective bargaining, labor relations,
and employment discrimination legal services to numerous communities and county type governments
and agencies, as well as to state agencies. Within labor and employment law, several attorneys
specialize in employment discrimination law and the representation of clients before the Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and other venues.
ENVIRONMENT
In addition to providing wetlands protection- related services, the firm has several attorneys who are
eminently qualified to provide other environmental law services such as water and wastewater
permitting and compliance, solid waste management and disposal, site assignment, and 21E liability.
The firm is currently serving as Special Counsel to the Central Massachusetts Resource Recovery
Committee that has negotiated, on behalf of 34 central Massachusetts communities, a long -term solid
waste disposal agreement with Wheelabrator Millbury, Inc.
SCHOOL LAW /EDUCATION
Experienced in the unique issues arising in the school environment, such as students' rights, collective
bargaining, Special Education, and the hiring and firing of school personnel (including teachers),
Kopelman and Paige can meet the complete legal needs of school committees and school districts.
Through periodic bulletins, we keep our clients up to date on the latest case law, statutory changes, and
employment trends impacting schools.
CABLE TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Kopelman and Paige is a leader in cable television licensing. We have successfully represented over
20% of the cities and towns in Massachusetts in all phases of license renewals, including negotiations,
consultations, evaluations, rate increases, and execution of contracts and have negotiated with all
Massachusetts cable providers, including Verizon. We have guided many communities through the
complex process of license renewal negotiation and competitive initial cable television licenses and are
familiar with the major issues confronting licensing agencies during the renewal process. We have
conducted and overseen public hearings, offered advice and direction about the ascertainment process,
advised about and conducted compliance hearings, and drafted and negotiated many cable renewal
licenses. We have also advised and assisted in license transfer proceedings, and in the establishment of
not - for -profit cable access corporations.
Our telecommunications team likewise possesses extensive experience and expertise with the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC requirements, and issues currently and previously litigated
concerning Personal Wireless Service Facilities. We have assisted various committees, planning boards,
town meetings, and zoning boards of appeal in developing and/or amending by -laws that satisfy the
federal law while protecting the community's interest to the maximum extent possible. In addition, we
have significant experience successfully defending numerous municipal clients in the state and federal
courts and agencies with jurisdiction over telecommunications and related matters.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • L aNOX • www.Kq"w.COM
5d3- qq
jNpj %\1' KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
TRANSPORTATION/TRANSrr AUTHORITIES
As general counsel for several regional transit authorities we are fully familiar with their unique
operations, regulations, and funding. Our attorneys have extensive knowledge of Chapter 161 B and are
well - versed in the funding, purchasing, and grant administration of the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation. We have the in -depth
expertise that is needed to handle the increasingly complex laws and regulations governing transit
authorities today, including:
• Grants, agreements, contracts and certifications
• Competitive procurements
• Public hearings, open meetings law, compliance with local mandates and by -laws
• Real estate and property acquisition and transfer
• Employment and labor
• Litigation
CONTACT US
For more information, please contact:
Lauren Goldberg
(toll free) 800 -548 -3522, ext. 1759
(direct dial) 617 - 654 -1759
(e -mail) loldberg@k- plaw.com
Or visit us online at www.k- plaw.com
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • L-ENOX • www.K-PLAw.COM
53 -MI5
I!Kpi
March 11
February 3
January 31
CLIENT ZUPDATEB
2014 E4JPDATES
Webinar: What Municipalities and Public Entities Should Know about CORI Reform in
Massachusetts
2014 Massachusetts Municipal Association Annual Meeting Handouts
New State Ethics Commission Regulation
January 7 Webinar: Public and Private Ways: Navigating Your Way Through the Law on
Highways & Byways
2013 EAJPDATES
September 19 Upcoming Deadlines for Requirements Under the Affordable Care Act
July 31 Regulation of Medical Marijuana - Related Uses: Last of a Three Part Series
July 31 Regulation of Medical Marijuana- Related Uses: Second in a Three Part Series
July 31 Draft Model Medical Marijuana Overlay District Bylaw
July 31 Regulation of Medical Marijuana- Related Uses: First in a Three Part Series
July 19 Amendment to G.L. c.30B
June 26 Updated Sexual Harassment Policy and Sample Anti- Discrimination Policy
May 3 Expanded Gaming Act Update
March 25 Use of CPA Funds Appropriated Prior to July 1, 2012, for Acquisition of Artificial
Turf
March 21 Webinar: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Town Meeting but Were
Afraid to Ask
March 14 Medical Marijuana Update — Attorney General Approves Moratorium and
Disapproves Ban
February 6 Emergency Legislation Authorizing Rescheduling of Certain Municipal Elections
February 4 United States Court of Appeals Vacates $14 Million + Verdict
BOSTON - WORCESTER - NORTHAMPTON - LENOX - WWW.K- PL.AW.COM
5d 3 9�
CURNT ErUPDATRS
February 4 Medical Marijuana Update - Status of Department of Public Health Regulations
January 25 First Community E- Update for 2013
January 3 Medical Marijuana Update - Temporary Zoning Moratorium (w/ attachments)
2012 ErUPDATES
December 14 Holiday Greetings from Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
November 14 New Medical Marijuana Law
November 6 Legal Assistance Available for November 6, 2012, Election
October 3 New Veterans Tax Work Off Program
September 6 New Alcoholic Beverages License for Caterers
August 29 Revisions to Permit Extension Act
April 27 Taxation of Telephone Company Poles and Wires
March 9 High Court Rules on Quinn Bill Statute
January 18 Webinar: There's a New Game in Town - What Municipalities Need to Know About
the Casino Legislation
January 13 A Friendly Reminder of Upcoming Events
January 9 Appeals Court Invalidates Cap on Class 2 Licenses
2011 E4JPDATES
December 23 Holiday Greetings from Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
December 6 Collective Bargaining 'Evergreen Clauses" Validated by New Statute
December 6 Gender Identity Law to Take Effect July 1, 2012
November 15 Attorney General Releases New Regulations for Remote Participation
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.K•PLAW.COM
5 3 -qg
CLIENT "PDATE8
November 8 Appellate Tax Board — Comcast
September 15 Changes to Municipal Health Insurance
September 15 Potential EPA Penalties for Failure to Submit Annual Stormwater System Reports
September 9 Appellate Tax Board — Sprint
August 26 Natural Disasters - Relevant Statutes and Agency Info
August 22 Appellate Tax Board - Sprint Spectrum and Nextel, 08/22/11
August 10 Appellate Tax Board - New Cingular Wireless
2010 EWPDATES
November 10 "Evergreen Clauses" No Longer Valid in Municipal Collective Bargaining
Agreements
August 6 Land Use Permit Extensions
July 9 Changes to Alcoholic Beverages Pouring License Statutes Allowing Sunday
Morning Sales
June 25 Effective Date of Revised Open Meeting Law Not Postponed
June 24 Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, et al. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of
Harwich
June 3 Willowdale LLC v. Topsfield Board of Assessors, ATB Nos. F288893 and
F297036 (Appeals Court No. 2010 -P -0605)
May 27 "Quinn Bill" Arbitration Ruling in Town's Favor
May 14 MASSPCSCO v. Commissioner of Revenue, City of Woburn, et al, F283510 and
F293338
April 26 CJD Real Estate Limited Partnership v. Board of Assessors of the Town of
Chelmsford, et al., Appellate Tax Board Nos. F298316 & F304236
457919v4/KOPE/0005
BOSTON - WORCESTER - NORTHAMPTON - LENOX - WWW.K- PLAW.COM
5d3 -q?
TAND K &P KNOWLEDGE IS PRomptnON
-r11P FR66 SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS FOR CUENTS
TOPICS INCLUDE:
Public and Private Ways: Navigating Your way through the Law on Highways and Byways
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Town Meeting but Were Afraid to Ask
Massachusetts Casino Law
Community Preservation Act
Writing Sound Decisions for Planning Boards, Zoning Boards of Appeal, and Conservation Commissions
Drafting Reasonable Wetlands By -laws and Regulations to Withstand Successful Challenge
Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law
Pre - existing Nonconforming Residences
Street Layout Process
Comprehensive Permits
Discrimination/Harassment Avoidance Training
The Effects of Technology on the Public Records and Open Meeting Laws
How to Conduct a Flawless Public Hearing
Disciplining Public Employees with Due Process
Conflict of Interest
Show Cause and Disciplinary Hearings
Land Use Law and Procedures
Procurement and Contracting
Betterment Assessments
Private and Public Ways — Municipal Duties and Liabilities
How to Conduct a Liquor License Hearing
Municipal Tort Claims and Street Defects
Effective Enforcement for Zoning, Planning, Health Boards, and Conservation Commissions
Cable TV — License Negotiations in the Age of Competition
Acquisition and Disposition of Land, Leases, Easements, and Restrictions
Avoiding Unfair Labor Practice Charges
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.K- PLAW.COM
5d3 -5(
�ll KOPELMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
REPRESENTATIVE LITIGATION
Joel B. Bard
Burnham v. Town of Hadley, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 479 (2003). Established that a
Zoning Board of Appeals which makes its decision within the statutory 100 -day
deadline may issue its decision after that deadline if it is within fourteen days of
the 100 -day deadline; also, court deferred to the Town's discretion in determining
that a home occupation is not an allowable accessory use.
Mieczkowski v. Board of Registrars of Hadley, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 62 (2001).
Successfully argued in favor of the Town's interpretation of its Special Act
allowing recall of elected officials.
FIC Homes of Blackstone v. Conservation Commission of Blackstone. 41 Mass.
App. Ct. 681, rev. den. 424 Mass. 1104 (1996). Defended the defendant
Conservation Commission against a challenge to its decision denying a wetlands
order of conditions and successfully argued that the denial of the landowner's
right to build on one lot in a subdivision was not a regulatory taking under the
U.S. Constitution.
T.D.J. Corporation v. Conservation Commission of North Andover 36 Mass.
App. Ct. 124, rev. den., 418 Mass. 1103 (1994). Established that the Conservation
Commission had the authority under a town by -law to regulate activities in a
wetlands buffer zone and to protect wetlands interests in addition to those in state
law.
Jeffrey T. Blake
Town of Wellesley DPW. et al. v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection. Norfolk Superior Court Civil Action No. 08- 00174. Represented the
Towns of Harwich, Manchester -by- the -Sea, North Reading, Millis, and the City
of Brockton in a successful challenge to the authority of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection to condition a Water Registration
Statement renewal.
Paulino d/b /a Wareham Laundry Center v. Town of Wareham, Barnstable
Superior Court, Civil Action No. 07- 00020. Successfully defended the Town in a
challenge to its method of calculating sewer user fees.
Thore v. Howe, U.S. District Court, C.A. No. 03 -CV- 11999 -NG (2006). Assisted
in the representation of defendant in a police excessive force case involving
numerous allegations of civil rights violations resulting in a favorable defense
verdict on summary judgment.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • L-ENOX • WWW.K -PLAW.COM
5d 3 -53
QRepresentative Litigation
Page 2
Barbara Deighton Haupt Trustee of BD Really Trust v. Town of Wareham, et al.,
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts C.A. No. 05- 11745 -RWZ (2007).
Assisted in the defense of the Town in this eminent domain action securing a
verdict that reduced the plaintiffs claimed value of the taken property by $1.5
million dollars.
Patricia A. Cantor
Zaskev v. Town of Whately, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 609 (2004). Court upheld a 19th
century vote to discontinue a public way.
Durbin v. Board of Selectmen of Kingston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2004). Court
established standards applicable to appeals in vicious dog case.
Fragonoulos v. Rent Control Board of Cambridge, 408 Mass. 302 (1990). Court
affirmed the authority of a municipal agency to grant conditional permits and
upheld the constitutionality of a city ordinance.
Gregg J. Corbo
Walker v. Town of Essex, Essex Superior Court, C.A. No. 2012 -02221 (2013).
Superior Court ruled in favor of Town in class action lawsuit in which a class of
over eighty tenants on Town -owned land claimed that the Town violated a special
act of the legislature by charging them rents that exceeded the fair market value of
the property.
• Successfully defended the Town of Essex in a similar class action lawsuit
involving over eighty tenants on Town -owned land known as Conomo
Point. Again, the Court ruled in favor of the Town.
Charles F. McCoy, Jr. v. Town of Kingston. 68 Mass.App.Ct. 819 (2007).
Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld Superior Court's ruling in favor of Town on
indemnification dispute.
Thore v. Howe, 466 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2006). First Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld District Court decision granting police officer's motion for summary
judgment on excessive force claim arising out of officer's decision to shoot at a
moving vehicle to prevent imminent bodily harm to himself and others.
Padden v. Town of West Boylston, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 120 (2004). Massachusetts
Appeals Court reversed a Superior Court finding that a Board of Health
mandatory sewer connection regulation was invalid and entered judgment
upholding Board of Health regulations.
David J. Doneski
Barr Incorporated v. Town of Holliston, 462 Mass. 112 (2012). The
Commonwealth's highest appellate court confirmed that municipal construction
contract awards are not confined in all cases to the lowest bidder, and that awards
may be based on other information in addition to the bidder's certification file
maintained by DCAM and the information listed in the bidder's own update
statement submitted with its bid.
BOSTON • WORCESTER - NORTHAMPTON - LENOX - WWW.K- PLAW.COM
5fl_5q
FKp Representative Litigation
Page 3
• Nashoba Communications Ltd. Partnership No. 7 v. Town of Danvers, 893 F.2d
435 (1st Cir. 1990). Briefed and argued successful appeal, on jurisdictional
grounds, on a complaint by Town's cable television operator that sought a
declaratory judgment against Town's enforcement of a rate freeze provision in the
cable license.
• Board of Selectmen of Sudbury v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 25
Mass. App. Ct. 470 (1988). As Assistant Town Counsel to the Town of Sudbury,
Attorney Doneski was part of the team that litigated the case in which the court
effectively invalidated so- called "pocket" liquor licenses.
Darren R. Klein
Employment/Handicap Discrimination
• Brienzo v. Town of Acushnet, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 917 (2004). After
plaintiffs claims for alleged handicap discrimination were dismissed by
the MCAD for lack of probable cause, the Appeals Court held that
plaintiff was not entitled to review by the Superior Court in the nature of
certiorari.
• School Law /Civil Service/CORI Checks
• MCCarthv v. Town of Burlington/Burlington School Committee, 60
Mass.App.Ct. 914 (2004). After Civil Service Commission held that
employer improperly considered criminal offender record information
(CORI) to bypass a provisional employee who was seeking an
appointment to become a permanent school building custodian, the
Appeals Court overturned the decision of the Civil Service Commission
and held that the town and its school committee could consider the
custodian's criminal offender record information.
Lauren F. Goldberg
Mieczkowski v. Board of Registrars of Hadley, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 62 (2001).
Successfully represented Town against challenge to recall process as established
under Special Act.
George X, Pucci
Regis College v. Weston, et al.. 17 Mass. Land Court Rptr. 79 (2010). Obtained
summary judgment for the Town of Weston and Weston Zoning Board of
Appeals, affirming the denial of the plaintiff s proposal to construct 362 luxury
residential units for senior citizens on its Weston Campus along with other
educational facilities spread among eight buildings, on the grounds that the
proposal would not constitute an educational use protected by the Dover
Amendment since its dominant purpose was not educational. The proposal would
have required elderly residents to take four college courses a year and to pay a
one -time fee of $700,00041 million, 900/9 refundable upon leaving the facility,
with a monthly service fee of $4,000. The Court (Sands, J.) accepted the Town's
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • www.K-PLAw.com
5d3- 55
aRepresentative Litigation
Page 4
summary judgment argument that the financial components of the project
"dwarfed" any educational components, that the entrance and service fees were
far in excess of the cost of the educational programs provided, that two -thirds of
the square footage in the project would be dedicated to housing, and that the
seriousness of the academic component was questionable given its lack of any
matriculation requirements and the fact that the courses were not designed to help
the residents attain independent living.
• Plymouth v. Boston Edison Co., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2008). Successfully
appealed an adverse summary judgment decision ruling that an easement which
was granted to Boston Edison in the 1960's to allow construction of lines for the
transmission of electricity, including lines for "communication, signal and control
purposes," entitled Edison's successor, NSTAR, to lease space to wireless
telecommunications carriers on infrastructure located in the area of easement.
Ultimately reached a mutually beneficial settlement agreement with NSTAR, by
which the Town agreed to amend the easement to expressly allow the continued
operation of wireless telecommunications facilities in the area of easement, and
NSTAR agreed to pay the Town a specified percentage of all past and future
revenue derived from its leases with wireless telecommunications carriers
operating out of the area of easement.
• Winchendon v. Dillon Investments, LLC, Lawyers Weekly No. 14- 147 -08 (Land
Court, Scheier, C.J., October 30, 2008). Prevailed at trial of the Town's claim
seeking specific performance of an option to purchase more than 700 acres of
valuable forestry land under G.L. c. 61. Defeated the defendant/developer's
arguments that 1) the Town waived its specific performance rights by accepting
the developer's payment of roll -back taxes and re- classifying the property as
unrestricted land after the developer's purchase of the property, and 2) that if the
Town were to prevail on its specific performance claim, the land had a fair market
value of $1.8 million, versus the $1.2 million dollar purchase price which was
tendered by the Town.
• Middleborou h v. Freitas. Successfully litigated a vigorously contested Chapter
61A agricultural land case as special counsel for the Town of Middleborough,
arguing that an owner's "indicia of intent" to convert protected, agricultural land
for future development as a residential subdivision was enough to trigger the
Town's specific performance rights under G.L. c.61A. Ultimately reached a
favorable settlement which enabled the Town to partner with The Nature
Conservancy and the homeowner, in order to preserve an historic agricultural
landscape along the Nemasket River in Southeastern Massachusetts.
• Winchendon v. Bovd. Obtained $583,706 in settlement of a contested Land Court
foreclosure action, including 16% interest and attorneys' fees, after defeating the
defendant/developer's summary judgment argument that a flaw in the Town's
original notice of taking voided any foreclosure action against subsequent
purchasers until the tax taking process was initiated anew.
• Adams Road Trust v. Grafton Board of Appeals. Successfully defended the
Grafton Zoning Board of Appeals in a seven day trial of a developer's appeal of a
G.L. c.40B comprehensive permit decision. Obtained a ruling from the State's
Housing Appeals Committee upholding the validity of the Board's denial of
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.K- PLAW.COM
5d 3 - 5(p
Representative Litigation
Y
Page 5
extension of Town water to the proposed 40B development on the grounds that
the proposed extended water line would result in an increased likelihood of
development through an area where the Town had intended to preserve rural
character for open space purposes and natural resource protection, and that local
needs thus outweighed the need for affordable housing with respect to the water
line issue.
Dedham v. Home Depot. Obtained $178,548 for the Town of Dedham in
settlement of a breach of contract claim in order to fund engineering analyses to
determine the extent of roadway and infrastructure improvements necessitated by
a box -store commercial development.
Hopedale v. Alderman & MacNeish, Inc. 2001 WL 544024, 13 Mass.L.Rptr. 91
(Mass.Super.2001). Obtained $140,000 in settlement of an architectural
malpractice claim after a successful summary judgment ruling in which the Court
accepted the Town's argument that the defendant architect was subject to a six
year statute of limitations governing contract actions for breach of express
warranties, versus the three year limitations period ordinarily applicable to
professional negligence claims, based upon the architect's acceptance of a higher
standard of care than that contained in the standard AIA contract.
Michele E. Randazzo
• Carleton v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 447 Mass. 791 (2006) (amici brief)
• Mad Maxine's Watersports, Inc. v. Harbormaster of Provincetown,
67 Mass. App. Ct. 804 (2006)
• Aulson v. Blancher 83 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996)
• Martinez v. Wolferseder, 997 F. Supp. 192 (D. Mass. 1998)
Brian W. Riley
• Tedeschi Food Shops, Inc. v. Abington Board of Selectmen, PLCV2011 -01383
(2013). Successfully defended a Board of Selectmen's denial of an underground
storage tank license for a proposed service station, based on public health and
safety concerns.
• Town of Holden v. Wachusett Regional School District Committee, et al., 445
Mass. 656 (2005). Defended a small town from an amendment to a regional
school agreement that would have overcharged the town for its share of the
budget, in violation of the Education Reform Act.
• Sullivan v. State Police and Chief of Police of Pembroke, et al., 57 Mass. App. Ct.
10 (2003). Defended Chief's interpretation of state law prohibiting the sale of
firearms from a residential structure, notwithstanding the structure's separate
entrance for business area.
• North and South Rivers Watershed Assoc. v. Town of Scituate, 949 F.2d 552
(1991). Successfully defended town from a suit pursuant to the Federal Clean
Water Act.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.K- PLAW.COM
5d3 -57
Representative Litigation
Page 6
Jonathan M. Silverstein
Civil Rights/Tort
• Rocheleau v. Town of Millbury, 115 F.Supp. 173 (D.Mass. 2000). Federal
District Court awarded summary judgment to the Town and Town
officials on various civil rights and tort claims against the Town and police
officers, arising out of a pretrial detainee's alleged injuries while in a
Town lock -up facility.
• Marinelli v. Stoughton Board of Selectmen, NOCV2008 -00121 (2008).
Superior Court dismissed equal protection and due process claims arising
out of the Board of Selectmen's vote to discontinue maintenance of a
private road. Plaintiff claimed that he was treated differently from others
similarly situated and suffered damages as a result of the Board's decision.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff's request for a judicial review of the
Board's vote to discontinue maintenance.
Comprehensive Permits/Enforcement
• Town of Boxborough v. Boxborough Meadows, LLC. In the settlement of
the first -ever action by a municipality to enforce the profit limitation
imposed upon recipients of comprehensive permits for affordable housing
projects under G.L.c.40B, the developer agreed to pay $1.2 million to the
Town, to be used for affordable housing purposes.
Constitutional/Licensing
DHL Associates v. Town of Tvnesborough, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 254 (2005).
In a case of first impression, the Appeals Court held that Article 16 of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not afford broader protections to
adult entertainment than the First Amendment.
• Employment/Handicap Discrimination
• City of New Bedford v. MCAD, 440 Mass. 450 (2003). SJC reversed
MCAD's decision to affirm arbitration award in favor of police officer,
who claimed that decision to remove him from City's SWAT teams was
based upon unlawful handicap discrimination. In case of first impression,
SJC adopted federal courts' definition of "handicap" in ADA cases for
purposes of claims under G.L. c.151B.
• Education
Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Stoughton 437 Mass. 1 (2002). In the
first case to interpret student - discipline provisions of G.L. c.71, §37H' /z
part of the Education Reform Act, the SJC upheld the decision of the
Town's Superintendent of Schools to suspend a student charged with a
felony that took place off school premises and during the summer break.
This decision reaffirms the broad discretion of school officials with
respect to student discipline and safety.
Environmental
• Town of Sturbridge v. Mobil Oil Company. $1.6 million settlement in
groundwater contamination action, pursuant to G.L. c.21E.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • www.K- PLAw.COM
5d 3- 58
FK�j Representative Litigation
Page 7
Municipal/Presentment
• Antonio v. City of Peabody, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 655 (2001), MLW June 4,
2001 (opinion digest). Appeals Court reversed denial of City's motion for
summary judgment on grounds of inadequate presentment and ordered
that judgment enter for City.
Municipal Finance
• Iacobucci v. Town of Amesbury, 77 Mass.App.Ct. 1109 (1:28 Decision),
further appellate review denied, 458 Mass. 1104 (2010). Appeals Court
held that debt authorization for capital expenditure (library renovation
project) was not subject to referendum process under municipal charter.
Court also held that plaintiffs' Open Meeting Law claim and mandamus
claim (seeking enforcement of various chater provisions) were properly
dismissed.
Open Meeting Law
• Paicopolis v. Dartmouth School Committee, 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1117,
further appellate review denied, 452 Mass. 1109 (2008). Appeals Court
rejected a claim that the School Committee held improper executive
sessions and also rejected a claim that the School Committee breached
obligation of good faith and fair dealing with the public by considering
various employment and contract matters in executive session.
Junk Yard/Contempt
• City of Woburn v. Alfred V. Fraumeni, Jr., Inc., MICV 1998 -1437 and
MICV2001- 1231 (2006). After trial, Superior Court entered a Contempt
Judgment against owner of property being used for storage of
approximately 160 junk and disused vehicles. Court ordered repayment of
City's costs and attorney fees and provided for appointment of receiver (at
property owner's expense) if all vehicles, debris and equipment were not
removed by set deadline.
Real Estate (Registered Land)
• Town of Sandwich v. Panciocco, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 556, finther appellate
review denied, 431 Mass. 1105 (2000). Appeals Court affirmed summary
judgment for plaintiff Town in right -of -way case involving inconsistencies
between confirmation plan of defendant's property and registration plan of
plaintiff s property.
Real Estate (Right of Reverter)
• Faneuil Investors Group v. Board of Selectmen of Dennis, 458 Mass. 1
(2010). Supreme Judicial Court held that Town could enforce right of
reverter to void sale of municipal land to housing authority, based upon
housing authority's failure to obtain permission of selectmen prior to
granting mortgage on property. Mortgagee/Bank claimed that mortgage
was not "conveyance" sufficient to trigger reverter clause.
Sewer Connection
•
Lemansky v. Charlton Water & Sewer Commission, WOCV2004 -01107
(2005). Summary Judgment rejecting the claim of property owners that
they were improperly denied connections to municipal sewer for a large -
scale development based upon a narrow strip of land connecting the
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.K- PLAW.COM
aRepresentative Litigation
Page 8
development site to a public way in which municipal sewer line was
located. Court also upheld sewer connection moratorium as valid exercise
of Commission's authority.
Subdivision Control
• Wine v. Planning Board of Newburyport. 74 Mass.App.Ct. 521 (2009).
Appeals Court upheld denial of definitive subdivision approval and
rejected property owners' claims that: (1) compliance with current
subdivision rules and regulations was not required due to prior approval of
subdivision plan for the same property; and (2) that the Planning Board's
denial of a waiver requirement for centerline offset was motivated by an
improper attempt to prevent further subdivision of the property in
question.
Subdivision Control/Damages
Arello v. Town of Auburn, WOCV2008 -02542 (2009). Superior Court
dismissed claims for damages and to remove cloud on title, arising from
filing of conditions of subdivision approval approximately fifteen years
after the original decision of Planning Board and seven years after the
plaintiff purchased subject property.
Zoning
• Kennard v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Eastham. 52 Mass.App.Ct. 1005
(2001), MLW July 23, 2001 (opinion digest). Affirming judgment after
trial upholding a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny plaintiff
a special permit for the enlargement of a preexisting nonconforming
structure and rejecting plaintiff's argument that denial of a special permit
for "de minimis" enlargement was abuse of discretion.
• Perotti -Cyrus v. Town of Sandwich, BACV2004 -0767 (2009). After trial,
Superior Court upheld a zoning enforcement order against the use of a
cottage that was unlawfully sold into separate ownership from remaining
cottages in a former seasonal cottage colony.
Joseph L. Tehan, Jr.
• LaFrenier v. Town of Townsend, et al.. U. S. District Court, C.A. No. 04-40114 -
FDS (2007). Obtained summary judgment in U.S. District Court in a police
excessive force case.
• Garrison v. Sergeant Souza, et al., Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No. 03 -0121
(2007). Received defense verdict in Barnstable Superior Court in a police
excessive force case.
• Paton v. Norfolk County Sheriff's Office, et al., U.S. District Court, C.A. No. 03-
12048 -PBS (2006). Received defense verdict in U.S. District Court in a malicious
prosecution civil rights case.
• Thore v. Howe (City of Fitchburg), U.S. District Court, C.A. No. 03- CV- 11999-
NG (2006). Obtained summary judgment in U.S. District Court in a police
excessive force case; affirmed by First Circuit Court of Appeals.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOx • www.K•PLAw.COM
5d3 -60
K i T Representative Litigation
Page 9
Jonathan D. Eichman
• Rehabilitative Resources. Inc. v. Ginger Peabody, et al., Worcester Superior
Court, C.A. No. 03- 1474C. Utilizing an argument that had yet be applied in the
reported cases, convinced the Superior Court to uphold a denial of an educational
user's application to expand its use of an already - overcrowded lot on the grounds
that the user failed to show that it could not find a conforming location elsewhere.
• Cotton, et al. v. Cedar Lake. LLC, et al., 67 Mass.App.Ct. 464 (2006). In a case
of first impression, the Appeals Court affirmed the authority of the municipality
to create by charter a seven member zoning board of appeals, and rejected the
appellants' arguments that G.L. c.40A requires a 4/5's vote of a seven - member
board before the board can act.
• Maimone, et al. v. Town of Georgetown, et al., 58 Mass.App.Ct. 1105 (2003).
The Appeals Court confirmed that a municipality's repair of a private way does
not require the municipality to maintain the way for six years following the repair.
John J. Goldrosen
Chiancola v. Board of Appeals of Rockport , 65 Mass. App. Ct. 636 (2006).
Appeals Court upheld the denial of a variance that had been sought to allow the
construction of a driveway across private rights of way to access a parcel that
lacked usable access across the parcel's frontage. Court also held that the variance
denial did not constitute a regulatory taking.
Brian M. Maser
Successfully defended the City of Leominster in a termination grievance
arbitration case filed by the Leominster Patrolmen's Union, MassCOP Local 364,
which challenged Mayor Dean J. Mazzarella's termination of an officer as being
without just cause.
Jeffery D. Ugino
• Town of Winchendon v. Bovd. Recovered $583,706 in unpaid taxes, including
16% in annual interest and attorneys' fees from an out -of -state developer after the
Land Court issued judgment in favor of the Town for possession of subject
properties.
• Pelletier v. Town of Southbridge. Secured judgment against building supply
company ordering removal of warehouse impermissibly built in residential zoning
district.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • www.K- PLAw.COM
Representative Litigation
Inpi Page 10
Brian J. Winner
• Noto v. Town of Weston. Successfully defended a challenge to the validity of the
Zoning By -law's "Substantial Irregularity" provision and to the Zoning Board's
denial of a variance thereof.
• Hennessey v. Lancaster Building Commissioner. Successfully defended Town in
an action brought by a residents group aimed to thwart a proposed `Wal -Mart'
development.
• Southend Farm, LLC v. Millis Conservation Commission. Successfully defended
a challenge to a $22,265.00 fine issued by the Conservation Commission for the
unpermitted relocation of a portion of an intermittent stream.
• Town v. Apple D'Or Tree. Inc., et al. Prevailed in lawsuit to shut down a tree
stump grinding and soil processing business operating in violation of the Town
Zoning By -law.
• Sheehan v. Town of Wareham. Successfully defended lawsuit challenging the
Town Wetlands Protective By -law and the Conservation Commission's denial of
permit to construct a pier on Buzzards Bay.
• Melnik v. Goshen Board of Health. Successfully defended Board of Health's
denial of an application for a variance where applicant sought to develop a parcel
.02 acres below the Board's local lot size requirement.
• Town of Chelmsford v. Kaminski. Successfully pursued action enforcing Zoning
By -law and collected $45,517.19 in penalties and attorney's fees.
• Dias v. Freetown Conservation Commission. Successfully defended the
Commission against a complaint brought by an abutters group seeking to compel
the Commission to undertake enforcement against a developer.
• Reyes v. Boston Housing Authori1y. et al. Obtained dismissal of claims against
the BHA where third -party contractor was allegedly negligent in replacing
insulation on hot water pipe causing burns to tenant's child.
Other Significant Firm Victories
Plainville Asphalt Corp. v. Town of Plainville, 83 Mass.App.Ct. 710 (2013): the
Appeals Court ruled that an ongoing commercial operation could not be
grandfathered through from an amendment to the Zoning Bylaws to allow the
termination of legal pre - existing nonconforming uses not only upon abandonment,
but also upon the mere discontinuance of the pre - existing nonconforming use. In
doing so, the Appeals Court rejected the plaintiff's request to extend to
commercial uses the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in Rourke v. Rothman . 448
Mass. 190 (2007) that residential lots could be protected from amendments to the
grandfathering provisions of local zoning bylaws.
Coscia v. Town of Pembroke, 659 F.3d 37 (2011). The Court of Appeals (Souter,
J.) reversed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts and ruled that individual Pembroke police officers did not violate a
young man's right to due process under the U.S. Constitution. The young man had
expressed suicidal thoughts while he was in custody. The police kept him safe in
custody. The day after he was released from custody, the young man committed
BOSTON - WORCESTER - NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.KPLAW.COM
5d3 -(Do
Fits Representative Litigation
`i Page 11
suicide. His family sued, claiming the police should have sought medical attention
for him while he was in custody and the failure to do so resulted in his suicide.
The Court determined that the police officers could not be held responsible for
actions taken when the young man was no longer in their custody and therefore
did not violate the young man's right to due process. The U.S. Supreme Court
later denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari.
• Thivierae v. Amesbury (2010). Defense verdict in a federal jury trial in which the
plaintiff alleged that the Town of Amesbury had violated his right to free speech,
assembly and petition for redress of grievances under the Constitution and the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights after banning him from the Amesbury Public
Library for one year and restricting his access to other town facilities after staff
made numerous complaints that the plaintiff had engaged in sexual harassment
and other misconduct. The verdict was later affirmed by the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit (C.A. No. 10-1389).
• Walsh v. Town of Lakeville. 431 F. Supp.2d 134 (D. Mass. 2006). Court granted
summary judgment to all defendants on a complicated claim of a violation of a
property owner's right to equal protection of the law, as well as a defamation
claim against a member of the Board of Selectmen.
• Amberwood Development C2M. v. Board of Appeals of Boxford, 65 Mass. App.
Ct 205 (2005). Successfully argued to the Appeals Court that a property owner
cannot pursue a G.L. c.240 § 14A challenge to a local by -law or ordinance without
demonstrating that the application of such by -law or ordinance caused harm to the
owner's property interests.
• Tanner v. Board of AMeals of Boxford. 61 Mass.App.Ct. 647 (2004). The
Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the Land Court that a veterinary hospital
was not protected by the agricultural exemption of G.L. c.40A §3 merely because
the use of a veterinary hospital involves the caring for animals.
• Nextel Communications of Mid - Atlantic. Inc. v. Town of Hanson, 311 F.Supp.2d
142 (D. Mass. 2004). Successfully defeated an attempt by a telecommunications
company to argue that the denial of a building permit for a telecommunications
facility that did not comply with the requirements the Massachusetts Building
Code violated an earlier Agreement for Judgment with regard to a denial of
zoning relief for the same facility, as well as the federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996.
• Stone -Ashe v. RoclwoM 68 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (2007). Court upheld and
clarified lower court ruling that an easement grant created a public right of foot
passage over coastal property.
• Connell v. Board of Selectmen of Harwich. 215 F.3d 1311 (2000) (Unpublished).
Upheld dismissal, as outside the statute of limitations, of suit against municipal
officials alleging a conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their civil rights in
connection with the approval and permitting process for operation of a lodging
house and restaurant. The Court rejected a theory of "continuing violations"
reaching back to the pre- limitations period.
• Aulson v. Town of Geor etg own, 83 F. 3d.1 (1st Cir. 1996). Court affirmed district
court's dismissal of case, in which plaintiff alleged civil rights violations,
including conspiracy based upon plaintiffs' political viewpoints.
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTMAMPTON • LENOX • WWW.K- PLAW.COM
5d 3 -�3
Representative Litigation
Page 12
• National Amusements v. Town of Dedham, 43 F. 3rd 731 (1st Cir. 1995), cert
denied, 115 S. Ct. 2247. Court upheld a town by -law prohibiting late night film
shows in movie theatres against a First Amendment challenge.
• Freeman v. Planning Board of West Boylston, 419 Mass. 548 (1995), cert denied,
516 U. S. 931 (1995). Court reversed jury verdicts in favor of civil rights
plaintiffs and entered judgments in favor of a town and individual members of a
planning board.
• DeCota v. Town of Stoughton 23 Mass. App. Ct. 642 (1994). Established right of
town to set off unpaid taxes and other obligations against funds paid out by
municipalities.
• Barlow v. Town of Wareham, 401 Mass. 408 (1988). Court upheld
constitutionality of town regulation restricting commercial harvesting of shellfish
to residents or taxpayers of town.
• Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65 v. Planning Board of
Lawrence. 403 Mass. 531 (1988). Court upheld judgment for Emerson College,
its president and City of Lawrence dismissing civil rights suit and upholding
legality of Urban Renewal Plan based upon relocation of Emerson College to
Lawrence.
• Alexopoulus v. Board of Selectmen of Stoughton, 13 Mass. App. 1101 (1982).
Court upheld rollback of entertainment and liquor licenses of nude dancing
establishments against constitutional challenge.
#483151
BOSTON • WORCESTER • NORTHAMPTON • LENOX • www.K- PLAw.COM
563- �q
M KOPEj�
LMAN AND PAIGE, P.c.
The Leader in Public Sector Law
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TOWN OF READING
TOWN COUNSEL — FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT B
Fees and Expenses Response Sheet
1. Please list the name and hourly rate for proposed Town Counsel and for each
attorney intended or likely to serve as back up.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C. proposes that Attorney Lauren F. Goldberg serve as primary contact
attorney and Attorney Mark R. Reich serve as back -up to Attorney Goldberg. Additionally, the
Town's primary contact team would include Attorney Darren R. Klein for school- related matters.
It is proposed that the Town Counsel services listed in Section III of the Request for Proposals be
provided to the Town at the single, blended hourly rate of $175.00. We also provide two
seminars free of charge.
Were we appointed as Town Counsel, we would also work collaboratively with the Board of
Selectmen and Town Manager to outline and implement a transition process, at no charge to the
Town.
2. If you propose to bill for services provided by paralegals, clerical staff, or other non -
attorney personnel, please list by title and by hourly rate each position for whom
you may bill.
We do not charge for work by clerical staff, or other non - attorney personnel, with the exception
of paralegal time, which is charged at one -half the attorney rate, or $87.50/hour.
56 3 -(��
3. Please provide a complete listing of all charges for expenses you intend to impose as
incurred (Le., any and all copy charges, telephone charges, fax charges, mileage
charges and the like, but excluding any fees for stenographers, court fees, service
fees and the like).
Mileage is charged at the rate allowed by the Internal Revenue Code. As noted above, we do not
charge for time by clerical or other administrative staff. Our costs for items such as recording
fees, deposition and transcript fees, photocopying and landline use or other out -of- pocket
disbursements on Town matters are charged at cost with no mark up.
4. In what hourly increments do you intend to bill?
We bill in 1 /10x' hour increments.
5. Do you bill out attorney time out of the office on a portal -to- portal basis or some
other basis? Please describe.
We will bill travel time on a portal to portal basis from our Boston office to the Town, or such
closer location actually travelled by the attorney. Please note that many of the courts and
administrative agencies in which the Town may have matters pending are within a short walking
distance of our Boston office, and many of our attorneys, including Attorneys Reich and Klein,
live in close proximity to the Town of Reading, reducing travel time expenses.
6. Please describe any proposed alternative fee arrangement.
In the alternative to the "straight" billable hour proposal set forth above, Kopelman and Paige
proposes to provide all legal services as described in Section III of the Request for Proposals as
follows. General Town Counsel matters would be provided for the hourly rate of $170. Any
matters adversarial in nature, such as litigation, administrative proceedings (such as hearings
before any state or federal agency including, for example, the Alcoholic Beverages Control
Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Civil Service Commission,
etc.), collective bargaining, disciplinary actions, or the like, would be billed at the hourly rate of
$180. Similarly, legal services paid for by other parties, including but not limited to assistance
with permitting matters for which the applicant pays for legal services, street acceptances for
which the developer pays for legal services, or insured claims for which fees are paid by the
insurer would be billed at the hourly rate of $180.
Finally, over 98% of our firm's work is municipal legal work. We are thus keenly aware that our
revenue derives from public sector funds. We understand the cost constraints and service
expectations facing municipalities. The firm draws heavily on the economies of scale stemming
from our depth of experience and expertise to limit the costs of our services. We pride ourselves
on the fact that our clients can utilize our services for just what they need, when and as they need
them. While this fee proposal was developed based on our understanding of the Town's needs
and expectations, we are available to discuss alternative arrangements that may prove more
beneficial to the Town in managing its resources.
2
56 5 -5
AUTHORIZED RESPONDENT'S SIGNATURE AND ACCEPTANCE FORM
I hereby certify that: (i) I am an authorized representative of the Respondent herein; and (ii) the
statements made in this Fees and Expenses Response Sheet, offered in response to the Request for
Proposals for Town of Reading Town Counsel, which Fee and Response Sheet shall be incorporated by
reference into Kopelman and Paige's Response to said Request for Proposals made of this same date,
including all attachments and exhibits, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Respon4
0
Name:
Title: President, Koolman and Paige, P. C.
Date: May 7, 2014
5d3 -(09
Lauren F. Goldberg, Esq.
ATTACHMENT C
MUNICIPAL LAW EXPERIENCE CHECKLIST
(To be completed for each team member)
Rate your experience in the following areas of municipal law using the scale below
1. No experience
2. Limited experience
3. Moderate experience
4. Advanced experience
S. Extensive experience
5 General Municipal Law
5 Municipal Finance
5 Town bylaws and regulations
5 Open Meeting, public record, executive session, and conflicts of interest law
3 Zoning G. L. c. 40A and land use
4 Real estate issues: acquisitions, sales, eminent domain, easements, leases, tax taking
5 Town Meeting: drafting and review of warrant articles and motions, advice on Issues before and
at Town Meeting
5 Drafting and monitoring special legislation
4 Public Bidding, Construction Law and Municipal Procurement Law
3 Chapter 405 Affordable Housing
3 Subdivision Control Law
5 Community Preservation Act G. L, c. 44B
3 Wetlands Regulation (State and Local)
2 Oil & Hazardous Waste Contamination G. L. c. 21E
_5 Elections Law
4 Uquor Licensing
3 Municipal Labor Law
3 Chapter 32B
Mark R. Reich, Esq.
ATTACHMENT C
MUNICIPAL LAW EXPERIENCE CHECKLIST
(To be completed for each team member)
Rate your experience in the following areas of municipal law using the scale below
1. No experience
2. Limited experience
3. Moderate experience
4. Advanced experience
5. Extensive experience
5 General Municipal Law
5 Municipal Finance
5 Town bylaws and regulations
5 Open Meeting, public record, executive session, and conflicts of interest law
3 Zoning G. L. c. 40A and land use
5 Real estate issues: acquisitions, sales, eminent domain, easements, leases, tax taking
5 Town Meeting: drafting and review of warrant articles and motions, advice on Issues before and
at Town Meeting
5 Drafting and monitoring special legislation
5 Public Bidding, Construction Law and Municipal Procurement Law
2 Chapter 408 Affordable Housing
2 Subdivision Control Law
5 Community Preservation Act G. L. c. 44B
3 Wetlands Regulation (State and Local)
5 Oil & Hazardous Waste Contamination G. L. c. 21E
4 Elections Law
4 Liquor Licensing
2 Municipal Labor Law
2 Chapter 32B
"15d3 - -71
Darren R. Klein, Esq.
ATTACHMENT C
MUNICIPAL LAW EXPERIENCE CHECKLIST
(To be completed for each team member)
Rate your experience in the following areas of municipal law using the scale below
1. No experience
2. Limited experience
3. Moderate experience
4. Advanced experience
S. Extensive experience
5 General Municipal Law
5 Municipal Finance
5 Town bylaws and regulations
5 Open Meeting, public record, executive session, and conflicts of Interest law
3 Zoning G. L. c. 40A and land use
3 Real estate issues: acquisitions, sales, eminent domain, easements, leases, tax taking
5 Town Meeting: drafting and review of warrant articles and motions, advice on Issues before and
at Town Meeting
5 Drafting and monitoring special legislation
3 Public Bidding, Construction Law and Municipal Procurement Law
2 Chapter 40B Affordable Housing
2 Subdivision Control Law
4 Community Preservation Act G. L. c. 44B
2 Wetlands Regulation (State and Local)
Oil & Hazardous Waste Contamination G. L. c. 21E
4 Elections Law
4 Liquor Licensing
5 Municipal Labor Law
5 Chapter 32B
56 3 - -7a
Lauren F. Goldberg, Esq.
ATTACHMENT D
STATEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
(To be completed for each team member)
Rate your experience practicing with the following Courts, Boards and Commissions based on the scale listed
below.
1. No experience
2. Limited experience
3. Moderate experience
4. Advanced experience
5. Extensive experience
3 Trials before State Courts (District, Superior, Land Courts)
1 Trials before Federal District Courts
3 Appeals before Massachusetts Appeals Court
3 Appeals before Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Civil Service Commission
1 Arbitration Proceedings
1 Mediation Proceedings
1 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board
3 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
2 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
1 Administrative Proceedings before the ABCC
2 Administrative Proceedings before the Housing Appeals Committee
2 Administrative Proceedings before Division of Administrative Law Appeals
5d 3 -7q
Mark R. Reich, Esq.
ATTACHMENT D
STATEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
(To be completed for each team member)
Rate your experience practicing with the following Courts, Boards and Commissions based on the scale listed
below.
1. No experience
2. Limited experience
3. Moderate experience
4. Advanced experience
5. Extensive experience
5 Trials before State Courts (District, Superior, Land Courts)
2 Trials before Federal District Courts
4 Appeals before Massachusetts Appeals Court
1 Appeals before Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Civil Service Commission
1 Arbitration Proceedings
_ 4 Mediation Proceedings
3 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board
5 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
2 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
3 Administrative Proceedings before the ABCC
1 Administrative Proceedings before the Housing Appeals Committee
4 Administrative Proceedings before Division of Administrative Law Appeals
5d3 -75
Darren R. Klein, Esq.
ATTACHMENT D
STATEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
(To be completed for each team member)
Rate your experience practicing with the following Courts, Boards and Commissions based on the scale listed
below.
1. No experience
2. Limited experience
3. Moderate experience
4. Advanced experience
5. Extensive experience
5 Trials before State Courts (District, Superior, Land Courts)
4 Trials before Federal District Courts
5 Appeals before Massachusetts Appeals Court
4 Appeals before Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
5 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Civil Service Commission
5 Arbitration Proceedings
5 Mediation Proceedings
1 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board
1 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
5 Administrative Proceedings before Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
3 Administrative Proceedings before the ABCC
2 Administrative Proceedings before the Housing Appeals Committee
_ 5 Administrative Proceedings before Division of Administrative Law Appeals
56� -TO