Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-09 RMLD Board of Commissioners MinutesReading Municipal Light Board 230 Ash Street Reading, MA 01867 October 9, 2001 Start Time of Regular Session: 7:30 p.m. End Time of Regular Session: 8:50 p.m. Attendees Commissioners: Messrs. Ames, Pacino, Hughes, Swyter, and Halloran RMLD Staff: Mr. Rucker, Ms. Foti General Counsel: Mr. Alan Posner, Rubin and Rudman Counsel: Mr. Jack Baccari, legal counsel for Mr. Hughes ED CLERrK :gin MASS. 2001 DEC Y- 3 p 1: L, q Mr. Pacino noted he strongly objected to starting the meeting in Executive Session. The meeting should be in Open Session so the matter can be aired out completely in public. Mr. Ames called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Ames noted that the appropriateness of Executive Session will be considered as the meeting progresses in Open Session. There may be times when the Commission and/or counsel may suggest entering into Executive Session. Mr. Ames went into the first aspect of this incident. On Tuesday morning he was apprised, by the General Manager, of an incident in the RMLD parking lot. The incident was reported by Ms. Theresa Jamieson to Ms. Marianne Baker. Mr. Ames subsequently obtained more information and realized that this incident involved Mr. Hughes. As a result he wanted Mr. Hughes to apologize. Once Mr. Ames knew the incident involved Commissioner Hughes, and that Mr. Hughes had declined to apologize, he called Ms. Jamieson. Mr. Ames objected to the behavior observed and believes it is far beyond the scope of the authority of a Board member. Mr. Ames would like the meeting to establish an accurate picture of the events that transpired and then address these at this meeting. The three items to be addressed are: 1. Customer's complaint on Mr. Hughes, 2. Mr. Hughes' wishes to raise issues on Mr. Rucker based on the facts raised by Mr. Rucker, and 3. The General Manager's (Mr. Rucker's) complaints on Mr. Hughes. Mr. Ames then stated that the next major consideration is whether or not the Commission should enter into Executive Session or remain in Regular Session. The past practice of the Commission has been that items involving discussions of the reputation or character of an individual have been addressed in Executive Session. Mr. Posner noted that M.G.L. Chapter 30A provides that, if an individual who could be subject to an Executive Session under that statute elects to proceed in an Open Session; it is permissible to do so. Mr. Hughes noted he would like to get the opinion of his attorney. Messrs. Hughes and Baccari stepped out of the meeting at this point. Upon returning to the meeting, Mr. Baccari stated Mr. Hughes would like to conduct this meeting in public. Mr. Ames inquired of Mr. Rucker relative to the third item on the agenda and whether he preferred Open or Executive Session. Mr. Rucker replied he would prefer to contemplate this for now. Mr. Ames noted the meeting would remain in Regular Session until the third item is addressed. Mr. Ames then inquired of Mr. Rucker, "before Mr. Hughes proceeds, _do you, want this to remain public or private, as it_is your reputation?" Messrs. Rucker, Ames, and Posner stepped out of the meeting at this point. October 9, 2001 Upon returning to the meeting, Mr. Rucker stated he would like the discussion to be in Regular Session. Mr. Hughes presented his issues with the General Manager: a. Mr. Rucker prevented RMLD employees from picking up Mr. Hughes' dry cleaning b. Mr. Rucker interfered in Mr. Hughes' attempt to solicit a clock from a RMLD vendor c. Mr. Rucker did not allow Mr. Hughes to purchase cross arms for his personal use through RMLD's purchasing processes d. Mr. Rucker does not adequately protect handicap spots after the RMLD's normal work hours have ended. Extensive Board discussion ensued. No Board action occurred. Mr. Hughes complained that he has never been elected Board Chairman. Mr. Pacino wished the record to reflect that he did on two occasions second Mr. Hughes' motion for Chair. Board discussion ensued. No Board action was taken. Mr. Ames directed the meeting, to proceed with discussion of The Nimble Thimblers event, and directed the General Manager to go over the chronological events regarding the customer complaint. Mr. Rucker referred the Commission to the items contained in the Board package. He stated that he had no first hand knowledge of the incident but that the written employee statements reflected their direct knowledge of the incident. At this point Mr. Rucker requested the Commission items be given to Mr. Baccari so he could follow along. Mr. Rucker stated that he believes there is enough corroboration that Mr. Hughes did indeed do this. Mr. Rucker stated that Ms. Marianne Baker received a call from Ms. Theresa Jamieson and that Mr. Rucker had asked Ms. Baker to prepare contemporaneous notes relative to her phone call with Ms. Jamieson. Ms. Jamieson noted that an RMLD employee entered their meeting to say that a person at the RMLD was concerned that their members were inappropriately parking in handicap spots. Subsequently, two individuals actually went out to the parking lot. Once in the parking lot, one of the participants was upbraided loudly by a person in the parking lot for not having a handicapped permit, and was threatened with revocation of any handicapped permit in place. When this information came to him, Mr. Rucker exercised the same protocol as he would on any customer concern or complaint. He found out the name of the group that was in during this time. It was The Nimble Thimblers. He contacted the Chief Engineer, Station Supervisor, Troubleman and Station Operator to ask for more information. The Station Operator and Troubleman identified Mr. Hughes as the individual issuing the complaint, and standing in the parking lot with the women. Mr. Rucker finds this to be believable since Mr. Hughes has historically made an issue of handicap parking. Mr. Rucker then proceeded to call the Chairman, again consistent with standing protocol especially when a Commissioner is involved along with RMLD employees. Mr. Rucker contacted Mr. Hughes and left a phone message stating the facts, as he knew them, and also Mr. Ames' request that Mr. Hughes issue an apology. Mr. Rucker noted to the Commission that he, in his capacity as General Manager, had immediately apologized to this group verbally and in writing. Mr. Rucker then played the phone message he received from Mr. Hughes as a result of his phone message: "Yeah, about ten o'clock, Commissioner Hughes calling for the GM. There was a movie years ago, "Tora, Tora, Tora." You have in fact awakened a sleeping dog. I don't know who the fuck you think you are, going off half- cocked with your information unfounded accusing me of this, accusing me of that, but it is going to be aired out on the godamn table - me, you and the Chair. This bullshit is getting too aggravating for me. I don't know what your game is but its over with, believe me. Take it any way you want, save this tape, do whatever you want with the tape, but the three of us are going to meet at the table and its going to come to air. Remember, I am not one of your employees, I am an employer - I think you know what I mean. You'll hear from the chair concerning our meeting --A 9...........:71 :...1°......... Y1,..~«...~......,3 11 October 9, 2001 v Mr. Hughes stated, " I did say this." Mr. Baccari returned the Commissioner book as it had privilege/confidential/attorney work product in it. Mr. Baccari stated he did not view this document. Mr. Rucker then handed out a letter received today sent by Ms. Theresa Jamieson. Mr. Rucker noted he did not identify Mr. Hughes in the original apology letter sent to the two women involved. The Chair noted that he also apologized by phone. Mr. Rucker criticized Mr. Hughes' behavior towards customers. Mr. Rucker understood that one of the women involved is eighty-one years old and she was a guest speaker. Mr. Rucker stated that he believes the information provided by the employees and customers is "deadly accurate." Mr. Ames asked of Mr. Hughes, "did you or did you not do this"? Mr. Hughes replied, "yes". Mr. Hughes then explained the situation from his viewpoint. Mr. Hughes came in to prepare for the cable/TV to televise Board meetings, as he is the Chair for this Subcommittee. He was drafting notes on the meeting of the 15`h. He went to park in the parking lot by cable television but it was jammed, the parking lot adjacent to the building was jammed and his normal spot was not available. He then went to look at the Handicap Spots as he parks in Handicap. He looked at two vehicles. The first car he approached did not have a placard or Handicap Plates. The second car had the placard displayed on the mirror. Mr. Hughes noted he is not allowed to park in the back adjacent to the building. Mr. Hughes went to the Station Operator at the open window and stated, "where the hell does someone park." Mr. Hughes was going to work on the presentation but wanted to check with who owns HP placard vehicle. He said the employees offered to find out who was parking in the parking spots. He in turn came out with two women from the deck, the second women was from the second car which had the placard in it, the other woman said I have a handicap placard and am authorized to have one. She pulled it out under eight or nine cards on the dashboard it was covered up. Mr. Hughes illustrated this in the meeting by using papers and a Boston parking ticket as how the placard appeared. Mr. Hughes said to the women, "these are hung up in the rear view mirror." Mr. Hughes stated she flared up at him and said, "are you the handicap parking police officer?" Mr. Hughes noted he is from the city, he replied he is just a person entitled to a handicap spot. He told them to stay and have a good time. Mr. Hughes then parked by cable TV and walked back to work on his presentation homework. Mr. Hughes noted he knows the boundaries for customer and Commissioner. He then noted that for over fifty years he has had a masculine voice manner, he is neither priestly nor churchly, you do not yell at a person, she flared up at Bill Hughes, handicap-parking policeman, entitled to a handicap spot. Mr. Swyter inquired if Mr. Hughes disagrees with the statements received in the Commissioner package for the meeting. Mr. Hughes replied there are portions he disagrees with. Mr. Swyter stated this situation warrants a public apology. Brief Board discussion ensued. Mr. Swyter noted Mr. Hughes has demonstrated behavior unbecoming to a Commissioner. Mr. Pacino asked for Mr. Hughes' resignation. The Chair directed discussion of Item Three. Mr. Rucker stated that it is absolutely incorrect for any Commissioner to direct employees. The Board serves over the General Manager and that the General Manager serves at its pleasure but that all other employees are directed by the General Manager. He stated that this is very clear in the statutes and a number of prior court decisions over similar issues. October 9, 2001 He believes that Mr. Hughes explicitly and implicitly directed employees to perform inappropriate actions like leaving their work stations, picking up his personal laundry, etc., He stated that this is not appropriate behavior, clear, emphatically and precisely. He pointed that out that Mr. Hughes has previously left very threatening messages for the General Manager. Mr. Swyter inquired if Mr. Hughes had received a reply from the state on a previous Ethics Commission request about his behavior? Mr. Hughes answered in the negative. Brief Board discussion ensued. Mr. Pacino stated to Mr. Hughes that apologizing to Ms. Jamieson is not enough. A full apology to the General Manager for blowing his stack and being out of control; a full public apology to the every citizen, ratepayer for the legal costs of this event, and then an apology to each member of the Commission. Mr. Pacino stated Mr. Hughes' behavior is unbecoming of a Commissioner and absolutely calls for his resignation from this Commission. Mr. Swyter stated he would use the same exact words as Mr. Pacino. Mr. Ames polled the Commission for any further discussion. Mr. Pacino stated that at the next meeting, he would offer a motion to publicly admonish Mr. Hughes. Mr. Baccari questioned the authority of such a step. Board discussion ensued as to actions available to them. The Board understands that any actions it takes in this matter are political. Mr. Swyter wanted to go into Executive Session. Mr. Pacino moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Halloran seconded the motion. Mr. Ames acknowledged that in order to follow Robert's Rule of Order adjournment takes precedent. Motion to Adjourn At 8:50 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Pacino seconded by Mr. Halloran the meeting was adjourned. Motion carried 4:1:0. Mr. Swyter opposed. A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes as approved by a majority of the Commission. David M. Swyter Secretary RMLD Board of Commissioners