Executive summary of ‘Southborough Eight’ investigation released

An executive summary of findings from the ‘Southborough Eight’ investigation was released today by the town. I haven’t gone through it will a fine-toothed comb yet, but I know many of you are interested in reading it for yourselves, so here it is.

Of note is that while the investigation may have been triggered by a comment at Uno’s, it was much bigger than just that. According to the executive summary, there were four incidents under scrutiny.

  1. An incident at Uno’s where it is alleged that various people spoke in a demeaning and inappropriate way about another Town employee;
  2. An incident at Town Hall where it is alleged that various people were overheard speaking in a demeaning and inappropriate way about another Town employee;
  3. Other incidents where there is alleged to have been conduct which undermined the authority of a Town employee;
  4. Actions concerning the custody of a laptop use by an employee

The report found there was no evidence to support any of the four allegations, and all town employees were exonerated. The executive summary is a bit challenging to wade through because it doesn’t name names, but you can get the gist. The summary also never says what the comments at Uno’s were.

But the executive summary does indicate that the timing of the alleged incidents was important. The comments made at Uno’s, which were reportedly aimed at then Interim Police Chief Jane Moran, happened in September, which was during the time Moran was in the running as a finalist for police chief.

According to the executive summary:

Underscoring the seriousness of the matter was the fact that the incident involved a key Department Head. In particular, aside from possibly adversely impacting the effective and orderly operation of one of the Town’s Departments that provides essential public service to the community, the Town was literally in the middle of the selection process for a key Department Head position. The situation was fraught with risk of, if in fact there had been inappropriate conduct, of tainting the selection process. If that had happened, not only would that have created liability to the Town, but it could have invalidated the selection process.

Today’s Metrowest Daily News has reaction from some of the town employees who were being investigated. According to the MWDN article, the employees spent an estimated $15K of their own money defending themselves. A lawyer for two of the employees said he plans to push the town to pay for his clients’ legal bills.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Truth is coming out
13 years ago

Some critical facts from the published executive summary of the objective, outside investigation of the Uno situation:

1. “It was appropriate and necessary for the Board to undertake a review of this situation.” Also, “When the Town was made aware of the situation, it took appropriate action.” (both direct quotes from the outside investigator).

2. While the conduct of the investigated town employees “did not rise to such a level of deficiency that any significant or other discipline is warranted” (direct quote), it was clear to the outside investigator that there was conduct in this situation by these town employees that “was not appropriate or consistent with the Professional Conduct Policy or the training provided to employees” (also a direct quote).

3. The comments by the town employees in question “could also be viewed as contrary to the Town’s Professional Conduct Policy.” (direct quote)

So, it looks as if (a) the BOS acted within its professional obligations, as stated by the investigator, and that (b) while the conduct of the town employees didn’t “reach such a level of deficiency” as to warrant significant discipline, being cleared of legal or other serious culpability is different than being “completely exonerated.” The investigator clearly judged that the comments and the approval of them by these employees were at best awkward, and at worst careless, irresponsible in possibly putting the town at risk, and possibly in violation of the Town’s Professional Conduct Policy.

Anyone who has been calling this investigation a “witch hunt” directed by the BOS (or any specific members of the BOS) at these town employees now needs to first read the key excerpts of the executive summary below, then read the entire executive summary, and then give it a rest with the accusations against the BOS.

If anything, the only “witch hunt” that has been going on here has been by a small number of residents and posters to this blog, directed at one or more members of the BOS, with innuendo and pre-set agendas and not facts.

Direct excerpts from the outside investigators’ executive summary:

“It was appropriate and necessary for the Board to undertake a review of this situation. A key management employee had come forward and expressed concerns that the employee had observed certain conduct which raised issues of whether other employees, also being key management employees, had conducted themselves in a manner that was contrary to training Town employees had received a few short months before and could create a liability situation for the Town.
Underscoring the seriousness of the matter was the fact that the incident involved a key Department Head. In particular, aside from possibly adversely impacting the effective and orderly operation of one of the Town’s Departments that provides essential public service to the community, the Town was literally in the middle of the selection process for a key Department Head position. The situation was fraught with risk of, if in fact there had been inappropriate conduct, of tainting the selection process. If that had happened, not only would that have created liability to the Town, but it could have invalidated the selection process.
Members of the Board were also aware anecdotally of possible other incidents involving the way that the employee was treated.
The Town also has a Professional Conduct Policy and has held at least two management summits and/or training programs for key employees. This is relevant as the Professional Conduct Policy and the information presented at the seminars sets forth certain standards of conduct which the Town has established for employees to observe. These are designed to ensure a proper work environment and to help reduce the possibility of employees engaging in conduct which may be inappropriate and may in certain instances subject the Town to liability.”

Later in the document:
“When the Town was made aware of the situation, it took appropriate action. The Town notified the employee who was the subject of certain comments of the situation Page 5 Town of Southborough Executive Summary
and initiated a response. Under the circumstances where the Town was informed of the Uno’s incident and taking into consideration the other matters that the Board members had heard of, it was appropriate for the Town to seek to find out what happened at Uno’s and develop a course of action. This was particularly appropriate because at this time employee was involved in a selection process. If there was some interference with the employee receiving fair consideration in the selection process, that could have resulted in the selection process being challenged and possibly overturned. In addition, depending on what actually happened, certain conduct if it occurred could expose the Town to liability. More importantly, it was apparent to the Board members that given the level of rumors and incidents, it was important to address this so as to better ensure an appropriate workplace for the Town employees and residents.”

Still later in the document:

“While in certain contexts, such statements would not have been a matter of concern, here it appears that the statements were being made in the presence of non-Town employees who the subject of the comment has to deal with and also in the presence of a person who was competing for a position. There were at least 3 such persons present while these statements were being made.
Whether they heard the statements or not is not critical. The fact is that the statements appear to have been made and were critical of a key Department Head that they had to work with. Also, one of the persons was also a candidate for a position in the Town government.

In addition, a subordinate of the employee was present.

It was at best awkward for those persons to hear other key Department Heads making or laughing at derisive comments about another employee. Here key administrative officials of the Town were listening to these statements or at least appeared to some to be in a position to hear these statements. It clearly would send a wrong message to those present that other Department Heads and the administrative officials were tolerating the comments.

The comments could also be viewed as contrary to the Town’s Professional Conduct Policy. That policy for example provides that “[e]mployees and officials should respect and treat each other in a professional and positive manner; maintain a constructive, creative, and practical attitude; a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant; recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all people and seek to improve the quality and image of public service.
Speaking negatively about a fellow employee at a gathering of fellow local employees and officials, especially when there were also present citizens and more especially a subordinate of the subject of the comments and a competitor of the subject for a key position is contrary to the language, spirit and intent of the policy.”

Michael Moore
13 years ago

It’s important to remember that the writer was not investigating the BoS, though it does speak about their actions quite a bit. Actually, this was one of the things I found somewhat peculiar about this document. It seems to spend a considerable amount of time justifying its own existence, rather than addressing itself to its purpose.

I assume that this is just typical legal boilerplate (“this is why our investigation was necessary”). However, people should bear this in mind: the document cannot justify the decisions of the BoS, since the decisions of the BoS led to the employment of the writer of said document and that person cannot be said to be impartial in that regard.

Actually, considering the points you make “Coming Out”, it does seem quite odd how much of the report is devoted to justifying the actions of the BoS. Can anyone with a legal background tell me whether that’s normal?

The Truth is coming out
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

So you’re basically saying that you want to have it both ways – either the BOS does nothing to respond to an officially filed complaint and you and others would accuse them of irresponsibility and sweeping things under the rug (and maybe the complaining employee escalates things to a legal level) or, what you would find worse, the BOS performs its own investigation and is accused by people of having an agenda and pursuing a biased investigation. So then when they meet their obligations in a responsible way by appointing an independent outside investigator, you say that that investigator is so beholden to them that he can’t possibly do an impartial or credible job.

Well, you can’t have it both ways. Additionally, I find it interesting that all of the people pointing at the BOS in this matter find everyone’s actions to be so underhanded and questionable – the BOS, the investigator, etc., and yet they are so absolutely certain that every single one of the town employees are “above reproach” as a matter of blind faith.

Finally, when people turn every piece of information, even completely opposing facts, into a “the BOS must have done wrong so they must go” message, that tells me more about the people doing the accusing than it does about the BOS.

Michael Moore
13 years ago

Dear anonymous, well-informed, obviously invested poster.

A statement by a lawyer that says their client’s actions are justified is not sufficient evidence that their client’s actions are justified. You should really understand that.

You have written a short missive explaining that this report means that the BoS has done everything exactly right. That is disingenuous at best. Since you obviously care very much about the reputation of the current selectmen, let me say this clearly: I believe that the current BoS has made serious errors in judgment. The absolute worst of these errors, in my opinion, is that they refuse to recognize or acknowledge that they’ve made mistakes. I do not believe, nor have I ever claimed that they are bad people. However, touting the word of their own lawyer as proof that their actions were the right ones does not reassure me that their inability to take personal responsibility for their mistakes is changing.

Frankly, I’m getting a little tired of these anonymous posts that claim that anyone who has a problem with the way the BoS has been handling things is irrational or involved in a conspiracy against them. Why don’t you come out and talk to us directly. I’ve heard that Mr. Giorlandino used to be a great campaigner against anonymous posting. I don’t think I’m the one trying to have it both ways.

Are you kidding. . .
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

How can you wonder why “The Truth… ” or any other poster would post anonymously after reading a 20-page report documenting that the employees of our town act like vindictive children toward anyone they don’t “like.” In addition, it looks like we are stuck with them regardless of their lack of maturity and professionalism. We all still have to live in this town. Anonymity need not affect the dialogue. Would you respond any differently if you knew my name or are you just using that as an excuse to marginalize my views because they disagree with yours?

Michael Moore
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

“Are you kidding”:

Actually, what I would typically do if I disagreed with an anonymous post is to state my disagreement as clearly as I could. I would probably not even reference the anonymous post, unless they brought up something I found interesting or worthy of further discussion.

If the anonymous poster were than to level a personal attack against me, say they accused me of having an agenda or intimated that I only disagreed with them because of some deficiency in character, than I admit I might get testy. I would probably restate my position, and if they were (by some chance) writing in the defense or as an outright advocate for someone who has disparaged the use of anonymous posts, I might call attention to the inherent hypocrisy of that fact, depending on how annoyed I was.

For example, see above.

In general I support anonymous posting in a forum such as this. Of course anything that you post anonymously will be given less weight than something which has either your real name or a consistent pseudonym indicating that some entity is willing to stand behind the words. If you want to call that marginalization, I suppose it’s not completely inaccurate. However, I agree with you in this: the dialogue is what’s important. I’ll try to keep it civil, and I hope you will do the same.

The Truth is coming out
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

Mr. Moore,
Let me correct a few misunderstandings and/or misstatements in your reply.

First, this wasn’t just “a statement by a lawyer” stating that his client’s actions were justified. It was a statement, yes, but it was a summary statement after a full investigation of the situation. Remember, that’s one of the things I believe you and some others are so upset about – that this has taken a while. I actually agree that the process took longer than anyone would have liked, but that’s part of what happens when a board requests an objective, outside reviewer – the board can’t then force them to do it on the board’s timeline, or people would then accuse them of manipulating the outcome (not that some haven’t already done so with little or no evidence). Also, the BOS is not “touting the word of their own lawyer…” Your characterization of him as “their own lawyer” is, in my opinion, an unfair one – they have to select someone, and it was indicated that he had had prior experience in such matters for other towns, but I suppose someone with a particular agenda might try to imply that he was “their lawyer.”

Second, I never said (in my ‘missive’ or at any other time) that the BOS “has done everything exactly right,” – those are your words, not mine. I am not a blind supporter of any one of the BOS members and I care more about justice than I do about blindly supporting anyone. If the evidence as I see it pointed to serious misdeeds by the BOS in this or any other area, I would be on the side of pushing for an appropriate response to them. However, in this case I just don’t see it. All I was pointing out to the ever-more shrill group calling for action against the BOS was that the appropriately-appointed outside investigator found that the BOS was justified in its response and that, while perhaps not serious enough to warrant significant discipline, the town employees in question did act in ways that may be in conflict with their code of professional conduct.

Finally, as to your jab about anonymous posting: I can’t speak for the reasons of others, but as for me, being aware that town employees have been known in the past to have enacted petty or vindictive agendas against residents who disagreed with them, and further, seeing some confirmation of that type of activity in the very report we are discussing, I don’t choose to make it easy for anyone to do so should they disagree with my positions on this issue.

Michael Moore
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

Another short word on identity: You have asked whether I am trying to marginalize your views because they disagree with mine. I would suggest that while you probably don’t know my views, you certainly know them better than I know yours. Perhaps you share the views of “coming out”, or correction, or confused, or or maybe. Maybe these are all you, and if they were it would give me a good idea of your views and I might ask you questions about them. However, I have no way of knowing who they are, so I have to treat these as if they are people who wrote once or twice, than disappeared, swallowed up by the earth.

If you’re interested in a dialogue, you have to maintain some kind of consistent identity. This doesn’t have to be something that can be associated with the “real you”, but it has to allow me to attach a set of views across multiple posts. Single-use handles have their place, dialogue is not it.

The Truth is coming out
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

Mr. Moore,
Your points about identity are generally fair, but I also think that points about there being room for anonymity, so long as consistency is maintained, are fair too.

For example, you state that using one’s own name results in one’s posts carrying more weight than those from anonymous posters. However, it is just as easy to make up a name like Michael Moore as it is to make up a name like “The truth is coming out.” Please don’t misunderstand – I’m not accusing you of anything, and you have been consistent in the thoughts and positions I’ve seen you express, my only point is that, unless someone has a name that is very well-known to many in this town, no one on this blog can really know if the names that may look like real names actually are, anyway. When I first saw your name in relation to a post, I actually thought that maybe someone was having an ironic or sarcastic play on Michael Moore, the filmmaker. Further, I suppose some 3rd party could even post calling themselves Michael Moore, pretending to be you (again, not insinuating anything, just giving a hypothetical).

Bottom line, it’s not really the handle that determines anonymity or identity, and I agree with you that either way, consistency of presence and thought/position on a particular issue is the responsibility of all posters. I have done so and I believe you have too.

Are you kidding. . .?
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

A very interesting side conversation.

Mr. Moore, I guess I could as easily be one of the personas you mentioned as you could be “bob a” or “perhaps they should…” or “outsider…” I see your point, but I would not respond any differently to you if you were. Though I have changed my name from time to time when I post, I have never done so to muddy the waters and, unfortunately, changing one’s moniker across conversations and subjects is another way of preserving anonymity. Maybe some of us feel we have more to lose or are just less trusting of our fellow man. I credit you for choosing to post by your name or maybe I envy that you feel free enough to do so.

I would like to clarify two things. First there are anonymous posters on both sides of this discussion and, more generally, in support and opposition to both candidates.

Second, I think you are misrepresenting the facts in this statement: “if they were (by some chance) writing in the defense or as an outright advocate for someone who has disparaged the use of anonymous posts, I might call attention to the inherent hypocrisy of that fact, depending on how annoyed I was.” I will drop the “hypothetical” phrasing you have used and be clear. What Mr. Giorlandino “disparaged” was not anonymous posting but the anonymous posting of slanderous accusations of criminal activity aimed at town residents volunteers who were serving on a town committee. To say his concern was about anonymous posting is a gross oversimplification and misses the important issue. Were the posts in question anonymous? Yes. Was that entirely what Mr. Giorlandino was objecting to? No. It was only a small factor. Does Mr. Giorlandino object to ALL anonymous posting regardless of the content? I don’t know, but I would ask him before calling him ” a great campaigner against [implication “all”] anonymous posting.” It would also be fair to note that the posts in question have been removed at the request of their author who, one might reasonably conclude, came to agree that they had overstepped their bounds. Also, that the author did post a statement to that effect as well as an apology.

I don’t want to end on a contentious note. I appreciate the comments you have made about ongoing dialog and consistency. Though I will continue to post anonymously, I will be consistent in the same conversation, as I have been, and will hope that others will not object to my choice as long as I do not use it as an excuse to comment irresponsibly.

Michael Moore
13 years ago
Reply to  Michael Moore

I’m going to address both posters together. i hope you don’t mind, but I think this thread is running rather long.

Many of the points you make may be completely correct. The document reads rather oddly to me, but I do not have a legal background. It seems to me that the BoS was not the subject of the investigation, and therefore there is no guarantee of impartiality with regard to their actions, but I may not understand the details of the scope of the investigation. Certainly I am happy that the report is out. I am very pleased that we’re learning more about what happened and why. I do have concerns about the inferences that people may draw from the report, and my posts above reflect those concerns.

Specifically, I want to discredit the BoS claim that they could not have acted differently. My reason is simple: if the investigated employees did nothing warranting discipline, and if the BoS could not have acted differently, than it seems to me that, necessarily, this exercise must be the proper way to run a town and we should expect to repeat it every year or two. I cannot accept that.

It is not my hope that Mr. Giorlandino will lose over this, but that the members of the BoS will learn from it.

I hope that, regardless of who wins the election, the BoS will issue an apology for mistakes made and a vow to better discharge their responsibilities in the future.

And yes, my second post was snippy, for which I apologize. Remember folks: don’t post angry.

Al Hamilton
13 years ago

This is a lawyer defending his client (BOS) at our expense, nothing more.

When you get to the end of the 20+ page document you find page after page of recommendations on changes in policy and management practices. This work is clearly beyond the scope of any investigation that could be reasonably be authorized in Executive Session.

I can accept the notion that an investigation of employee behavior is properly undertaken under the cloak of Executive Session and the work performed must be strictly limited to the investigation and only the investigation.

However, the lawyers report extends beyond the proper bounds of an investigation and extends into the area of policy. Policy discussions should be authorized only in public discussion and any authorization that was made under the cloak of Executive Session is, in my opinion a clear violation of the Executive Session privilege.

We should refuse to pay for any time spent on this activity and if it was in fact authorized by the BOS a serious investigation into the abuse of the Executive Session privilege should be started.

Enough of this BS

Kelly Roney
13 years ago
Reply to  Al Hamilton

Oh, please, that’s nonsense. “Page after page” is three pages and ten recommendations.

The investigation was rightly started – as by law it must be – in executive session.

It would nonetheless be within the power of the BoS to contract for a legal opinion of the policy that led to the investigation, which might well need the confidential fact basis of the investigation. Frankly, I’ve agreed with your comments that the current policy is too broadly drawn, and this was a perfect opportunity to review it. While the current policy would not be unusual in the private sector, government bodies have additional restrictions and responsibilities that the policy is too broad to meet.

In any case, recommendations of counsel are a normal outcome of an investigation.

Enough of the BS indeed.

Are you kidding. . .?
13 years ago
Reply to  Al Hamilton

Mr.Hamilton, your bias is clearly showing. This pounding out of the same tired message is wearing very thin. After 20 pages of documentation of town employees exhibiting very poor judgment at best, behaving like cruel and petulant children at worst, both in the Town House and out, the most you can offer is that portions of the investigation should not have been handled in executive session? ‘

Sounds to me, now that we have the details, like it was about time certain individuals at the town house were brought down a notch before their behavior became more serious and we had one or more expensive law suits on our hands. That our town administrator participated in the behavior and/or condoned it by her silence and then had the nerve to go on record demanding an apology, I find particularly infuriating. Similarly, I find the suggestion that the town reimburse these individuals for their legal expenses appalling. They should be glad that they were taken to task before their behavior rose to the level of legal culpability and disciplinary action. Honestly, we pay these employees near or over six-figure salaries each and they can’t be trusted to use good judgment in their day to day interactions with each other? Instead they have established social cliques that exclude and bully others?

It is clear to me that sending a message about our expectations of professionalism came at exactly the right time. And, in my opinion, at a bargain price, especially since it makes recommendations on how we can move forward, adjust policy and see that this never happens again. My only regret is that the very people who had the courage to take a painful action on behalf of the town have been made to suffer for it. If this were a private sector matter, these employees would be looking for new jobs. That they have this level of job security during such troubling times, are paid as well as they are and are being given the opportunity to correct their behavior in the future, is their great fortune and our burden. That some residents of this town might condone this kind of behavior and suggest that the four are due an apology, I find nauseating.

Harold Raez
13 years ago

We can agree to disagree all we want on the issues. An editorial in the MWDN, hits the proverbial nail on the head about the underlying problem in town. We can argue about specific examples of conduct regarding each candidate, King Giorlandino’s ruling temperment, Rooney’s resignation from the committee. All these relate to past issues and do nothing to advance the common good of the town. Read the editorial and reflect on how to advance rather than digging holes deeper.


bob a
13 years ago

I have a pothole at the end of my street that needs to be fixed?

Whats Happened Here?
13 years ago

Our little town has made national news. A simple Google search shows dozens of articles and commentatires on what has happened in Southborough over the past few months.

A few links that might be of interest for those who have been embarrassed and disillusioned about the way business has been conducted on our behalf.

Two from the Aspen, CO newspapers:


There’s even an award that has been granted to some of the players!


Al Hamilton
13 years ago


I have no problem with the fact that the investigation was started in executive session. I think that this method of resolving the issue showed poor judgment but given that it was the approach taken it was completely proper to do so in executive session.

However, executive session is supposed to be used only for very narrowly defined tasks. The task at hand was to determine if any of the 4 had transgressed town policy. Essentially a guilty of a specific act or not guilty and only that, nothing else.

The report goes on to make policy recommendations. I think the proper question is “Did the BOS ask the investigator to make policy recommendations as part of the investigation?” I hope they did not.

If they did not then we should thank the investigator for his observations but we should refuse to pay for the time required to make them as it exceeded the narrow confines of tasks which can properly be authorized in executive session.

If they did then I am afraid that requesting that policy options be developed in executive session is, in my opinion, an inappropriate use of the executive session privilege.

We need to have a very serious discussion about how to get out of this morass and this discussion needs to happen in public.

John Rooney
13 years ago

Despite intimations and direct statements by my opponent about my actions, I have been an infrequent visitor to this site and I have never asked, encouraged or suggested that anyone express my thoughts or opinions through the use of their name or with anonymity. If I have something to say I will say it directly. And now, I do have something to say.

My disdain for politics is well known and the race between me and Sal exemplifies the reason so many good people never choose to participate. The focus should be on our differences and should not transcend into personal attacks that cut to the core. Our points of views and approaches to leadership are not the same, and you can either agree or disagree on the importance of those differences.

At the debates, I tried to focus on and point out the distinctions between the candidates, and certainly brought a focus on the past. But now it is time to focus on the differences with a forward looking perspective. It will do no good to go back and forth, again and again, over matters that occurred and can no longer be undone. There is an old saying: The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets.

I hope we all agree on one very, very important thing, that we love this Town. The healing needs to start and I would suggest it begin prior to a single vote being cast. Whether you support me or not, please do not lose sight of the big picture. Now is the time to focus on the future of Southborough. Please vote on May 10, 2010.

Thank you.
John Rooney

Roger Challen
13 years ago

When I sat down to read the recently released 24 page Executive Summary of the Internal Affairs Investigation that was authorized by our Board of Selectmen, (if you don’t have a copy, please email me at rog@datadist.com, and I will forward it to you) I had genuinely hoped to learn what could have possibly justified putting this Town through what we have been through… the anger, mistrust, embarrassment, expense, and months of months of subjecting our senior operating staff to a hostile work environment – which by the way, certainly will continue, even going forward.

Mr. Lampke does say that the BOS “was well warranted and professionally obligated to take action to review” the matter. But even if you believe this, nowhere does Lampke suggest that the BOS were justified in embarking on a 7 month effort, turning the entire process into a full fledged legal investigation, using outside counsel to it… an approach that has caused damage to this Town that will not be repaired, as long is this BOS is in power.

Clearly, even adequate leadership would have handled the upset “employee” situation quickly, internally, and with sensitivity and moved on, and this is what Lamke recommends. He says, “A protocol should be developed so that employees who believe a problem exists.. can address the concerns in a prompt way, and on a local level.” and goes on to specifically site the kind of concerns that he has been dealing with are the kinds that can be handled in this way.

In a nutshell, the summary of the report is that there was no wrongdoing and no disciplinary action warranted… for anything, and the Town should learn to handle this at the local level. And we now find that this cost our employees $15,000 (see the MetroWest news on Thursday) out of their pockets for their legal fees, plus untold sums of your taxpayers’ money spent by the BOS on legal fees.

Unfortunately, the final recommendation (number 10. on the top of page 24)… “The relationship between certain Departments and the general government (i.e. Town Hall) needs to be improved”… will never occur under this Board of Selectmen.

You have an opportunity to begin to change this folks… please do it. Vote for new leadership, for John Rooney on Monday.

Just a thought....
13 years ago

BOS has an obligation to every employee to review a complaint brought to their attention. If I were an employee of the Town and had a complaint I would expect some kind of action. I do not fault the BOS for this meeting. However, executive session or not I can’t help but wonder how the initial meeting was conducted. Clearly these employees felt threatened or they would not have lawyered up. Maybe if the first meeting was run differently by the BOS Chair this whole mess could have been avoided.
Bob a – sorry to hear about your pothole but LMAO!! I needed a little humor after reading through these blogs. Perfect timing.

Or maybe. . .
13 years ago

Perhaps they felt they needed professional advice because they realized they had overstepped their bounds. If they were comfortable that they did nothing wrong they would not have felt the need to “lawyer up” as you say, so immediately.

perhaps they should be investigated...
13 years ago
Reply to  Or maybe. . .

…oh wait, they already were. No discipline warranted. Well, I’m glad we sorted that out. They must have been unnerved by being dragged into an antagonistic emergency meeting and harangued, than put under an investigation by an antagonistic and unresponsive board of selectmen.

Imagine that.

outsider lookin' in
13 years ago

After reading all of these posts on this blog and the MWDN, my conclusion is that it is not whether or not the BOS should have conducted an investigation, it is HOW they did it. It appears that the Chair is heavy handed and lacks managerial common sense. It appears he treated this strictly as a legal issue rather than a management issue. If his primary concern was the legitimate fear that Ms Moran may sue again, then why didn’t he try to put this issue to rest shortly after the appointment. At this point, I don’t see a “kumbaya” any time soon. I don’t know Mr. Rooney so I don’t know if he would serve the community any better but I believe that for the good of the community, Sal G. should resign and move on with his private life. It would be best for him and our community.

Town Elder
13 years ago

I’ve heard much about the search committee process and even received something stuffed in my mailbox. The mailing, authored by a Ms. Murphy, states “The Police Chief Selection Committee was perhaps the best committee I have worked on….” Look at the composition. Mostly all Giorlandino supporters. No one with any law enforcement experience. And a chair of the committee who sells adult toys out of her house. (See post of “ConcernedSouthboroughite” at Breaking news: Town employees cleared of all wrongdoing). If that is the best the town could do, then we should have gone outside the town and gotten members of a committee. It was an embarassment and anyone who thinks it was the “best committee” has a very different view of the world than I.

  • © 2024 MySouthborough.com — All rights reserved.