Hearing Testimony On Animal Control Officer’s Firing Concludes

By Kendra Bobowick

Their faces tired and arguments exhausted, attorneys, witnesses, and the curious who gathered for former animal control officer Carolee Mason’s employment hearing could at last see an end to proceedings, which had stretched out over three days of testimony on May 20 and 28, and June 4.

The long review of Carolee Mason’s April 1 firing may be over next week as selectmen deliberate Ms Mason’s termination on Wednesday, June 17, at 3 pm in the C.H. Booth Library. Unlike past week’s hearings that adjourned — often midtestimony from various witnesses — last Thursday heard attorneys’ final closing words. Selectman Paul Mangiafico then said, “The next step, Mr Rosenthal and I will gather all our thoughts about everything, testimony, transcripts — sometimes memory fails — and we’ll have a decision.”

First Selectman Joe Borst — acting on the advice of Police Chief Michael Kehoe and Human Resources Director Carole Ross — had fired Ms Mason, effective April 1. By pursuing a hearing, the burden of decision to uphold, alter, or reverse the first selectman’s action falls to the Board of Selectmen.

Marking the last minutes of more than 11 hours of testimony, Mr Mangiafico instructed, “Before we conclude … the two attorneys have five minutes — five minutes — for summation of points for the [Board of Selectmen] to consider…”

In the moments following Mr Mangiafico’s prompt, attorneys Henry Murray, representing Ms Mason, and the town’s attorney Fred Dorsey narrowed hours of testimony and argument into their sharpest points: Mr Murray argued against the town’s arbitrary procedure in firing the animal control officer, while Mr Dorsey questioned Ms Mason’s character and cast suspicion on her actions.

Mr Mangiafico asked that Mr Murray speak first.

Ms Mason’s Case

A primary point of argument for Mr Murray was to question the means by which the first selectman fired Ms Mason.

“I think Ms Mason has made clear that she may not have been the best record keeper, but there is no evidence that anyone in a supervisory capacity, the police department, or first selectman ever said, ‘Carolee, there is something wrong with the reports, you have got to pay better attention.’ There is no evidence other than [Chief Kehoe’s] comment that the sergeant told him …”

Earlier that day the police chief offered testimony, reading aloud reports of witness statements from police sergeants and personnel who had interviewed people associated with the dog pound.

Mr Murray later referred to chief Kehoe’s testimony: “The point I am trying to make, all the documents contain alleged statements given to the police, but none of those people are here to say under oath that what is in the report is true.”

Mr Murray continued, “No one in a supervisory position told her about problems with record keeping.” He turned to the town’s employee handbook: “It was completely ignored by the administration in handling the termination,” he said. The handbook specifies a pretermination process for all employees. “The document is clear,” he said. “The town ignored it.” He repeated points he made in past days: Ms Mason should have been informed of a problem, should have received something in writing, should have been notified that she has a right to counsel.

“None of that happened,” he said.

In prior testimony, Ms Ross stated that she followed the charter, not the handbook. Mr Murray said Ms Mason received no substantive notice of allegations, nothing in writing, “none of that happened,” he said again. “I think it’s a serious due process flaw in the entire process.” Again Mr Murray took aim at the administration: “At no point did anyone in human resources or anyone else, the first selectman or [police] chief, say, ‘You know, things are not operating the way we want, so we’re putting you on notice regarding the deficiencies, we’ll give you time to correct it … none of that happened.”

Faulting the town’s case where it concerns filing forms with the state, for example, Mr Murray said, “I think what is placed before you is evidence of discrepancies of dates and addresses.”

Criticizing the town’s argument, Mr Murray said, “You have a record that she could have done a better job. Does [this] rise to the level of termination? We submit that it doesn’t. We point to gross violations of due process that she is entitled to per the handbook.”

The Town’s Case

Mr Dorsey argued. “If [the employee handbook] is the be all and end all, you have to look at the whole thing. Let’s start at page 1.” The handbook “does not constitute a contract,” and either the employee or the town “can terminate at any time.” Mr Dorsey added that the handbook also refers to “at will” status and termination can take place “for any reason.” He argued, “She is an ‘at will’ employee and can be terminated at any time.”

He then countered Mr Murray’s claim that Ms Mason is not the best record keeper.

“We don’t have a faulty record keeper, we have a person here who files false records,” he accused. Claiming “incontrovertible evidence,” he next suggested that she took in cash without recording certain $5 fees. “There is no record” as far as his witnesses confirmed, he reminded the selectmen.

Part of Mr Murray’s’ defense stipulated that Ms Mason did not receive proper training, which would have helped with her job performance. Mr Dorsey again referred to Chief Kehoe’s testimony, “He assigned people to help train her,” he said.

He reminded selectmen that Ms Mason’s filings and dates when a dog entered the pound, for one, were at times several months off. His conclusion? “It’s not hard to know this is not shoddy record keeping — that’s hiding something.”

During the course of testimony several point of contention arose — Ms Mason was at one point overcharging for adoption fees, which she corrected after state Animal Control Officer Ray Connors noted the problem. She also had taken in dogs that came from Guilford. Testimony was not conclusive regarding her reasons for overcharging adoption fees, yet Mr Murray asked if the town administration had not discussed the increased fee with Ms Mason for a particular purpose.

Regarding a Rottweiler from Guilford, Mr Dorsey stressed, “She is hired to provide animal control for the town of Newtown, not Guilford. This is not a welfare institution, it’s animal control.”

Implying that Ms Mason showed intent especially in paperwork, he stated, “This is woefully inadequate at best, but it looks purposeful, trying to make records correspond to what she wanted and not what is.”

Pointing out yet another central argument, that town ordinance regarding animals at the pound does not include cats, Mr Dorsey recalled testimony regarding a count of 36 cats at one point. He said that the cats were not on the record. “And we call it shoddy record keeping? That’s hiding something.”

Ms Mason testified that she reported some, but not all, cats, indicating that she was not sure if she had to fill out paper for them. Mr Dorsey asked her how many cats she recalled during a particular period, and she remembered far less than the investigation revealed.

Making a last remark, Mr Dorsey insisted: “This is not the kind of employee you need in Newtown. If it’s the kind you have, you should get another one.”

A Few Final Questions

With a glimpse into what may be weighing on selectmen’s minds as June 17 approaches, Mr Mangiafico posed several last questions before the attorneys closed. With Chief Kehoe still under oath, Mr Mangiafico inquired about the chain of command, hoping to clarify a point that nagged him since the hearing’s first day.

To Chief Kehoe he asked, “Who is Ms Mason’s boss?”

“Her boss was the first selectman,” Chief Kehoe said.

Mr Mangiafico: “I take it from your testimony and hers … I take it there was a duality … you also had responsibility for her, correct?”

“Correct.”

Mr Mangiafico wanted to know if the chief and first selectman ever had conversations about Ms Mason’s pay increases that took place during her time as the animal control officer. Per their dual function, did the chief and first selectman collaborate? Mr Mangiafico asked, “Any conversation with the first selectman as her bosses in respect to performance increases?”

Chief Kehoe: “I don’t believe we had conversations.”

Mr Mangiafico: “Would you remember those conversations?”

Chief Kehoe: “I should.”

“Did you give her performance evaluations?” asked Mr Mangiafico.

“No,” said Chief Kehoe. He did recall conversations with prior first selectman Herb Rosenthal, however, regarding Ms Mason.

“[Mr Rosenthal] has been out of office for a year and a half,” said Mr Mangiafico. “So in the last year and a half, no consult between you and the first selectman regarding her performance evaluation?”

“Correct,” Chief Kehoe stated.

Skipping to another topic, Mr Mangiafico asked, “Did anyone ever sit down with Ms Mason and say, ‘You know Carolee, I need to talk to you about how you’re performing your work, it’s not acceptable, reports are not on time, accuracy is not correct …”

“Yes,” stated Chief Kehoe. “Sergeants indicated they reviewed and explained what they expected … they talked to her about being late with reports several times.”

“Are those reports submitted exhibits?” Mr Mangiafico asked.

“At this point in time, they are not,” said Chief Kehoe.

“So, you’re referring to something this board is not seeing,” Mr Mangiafico confirmed.

Mr Kehoe: “Correct.” His sergeants had conversations with Ms Mason, which the chief reviewed, Mr Kehoe said.

“Do you think those reports were significant to warrant written discussion about the need to improve?” asked Mr Mangiafico.

“I relied on my sergeants experience to inform me …”

Noting a March 19 meeting with Ms Mason, Ms Ross, Mr Borst, and Chief Kehoe, Mr Mangiafico asked, “Did you feel her deficiencies were serious enough that it warranted termination?”

Quiet for a moment, the chief said, “On that date?”

“Yes,” Mr Mangiafico replied.

“I had grave concerns,” the chief said. Ensuing conversations regarding the internal investigation led the chief to testify on June 4 that he had public safety concerns.

Mr Mangiafico questioned the chief about the employee handbook. Had he ever seen the termination procedures in the past? Had he seen it since Ms Masons’ case arose? Did he feel it applied to him?

Chief Kehoe answered, “I have a contract, state law that would supercede that.”

Quickly, Mr Murray again called his client to the stand. Did Ms Mason recall a sergeant speaking to her about her performance? “No,” she said.

Did she recall conversations regarding her record keeping? “No,” she said again.

Did they mention problems with cash receipts, problems with incident reports? “No.”

Did they provide her with suggestions about completing reports? “Yes.”

Mr Rosenthal wanted to know: had Ms Mason checked if an adoption ad ran before signing a report? Did she think, that as pound supervisor, she would check if particular reports were correct? “No.”

Had Ms mason asked a kennel keeper to place ads for her? “Yes.”

After additional questions from Mr Mangiafico regarding her authorization to pay for advertisements, Ms Mason admitted, “You’re right, I didn’t check.” She had not checked to be sure ads were published.

Mr Dorsey spoke next. Did Ms Mason ask a kennel keeper to place ads or to fill out portions of reports. Ms Mason had made these requests.

“Neither thing is in [the kennel keeper’s] job description,” he said. “Correct,” Ms Mason replied. “It was my understanding that I could tell her to do something …”

“That’s not my question,” Mr Dorsey stated. “They are not in her job description?”

“No,” Ms Mason agreed. The description suggests personnel can do things “related to” their job descriptions.

“What related things are in [the kennel keeper’s] job description regarding ads and narrative reports?” he asked rhetorically. “Caring for animals, house keeping ... how related to ads?”

“We helped each other with our job descriptions,” Ms Mason offered. When she was kennel keeper, did she place ads for the animal control officer?

“No,” Ms Mason said.

Police Chief Kehoe

Was her termination just? More than 11 hours of testimony aimed at finding that answer concluded June 4 after Chief Kehoe testified for several hours.

Michael Kehoe’s 30 years in law enforcement have included eight as the chief, which Mr Dorsey prompted Chief Kehoe to clarify.

“As chief, you are responsible for the animal control officer?”

“Yes. I monitor, observe, and evaluate the animal control officer in her duties and assign a supervisor to her,” Chief Kehoe said.

“Did there come a time when you felt it necessary to investigate?” Mr Dorsey asked.

“Yes, an employee of the town came to Carole Ross and myself regarding operations at the pound … I opened an investigation to determine the extent of violations, if any,” Chief Kehoe said. In his opinion, Ms Mason “violated state statute and our policy regarding operations.” He said “a lot” of information led him to recommend termination. “We felt she falsified records, compromised public safety,” he said. Chief Kehoe also noted that Ms Mason mismanaged or mishandled operations.

The chief’s hours of testimony focused on some of the hearing’s central arguments. Had Ms Mason received proper training?

Mr Dorsey asked, “Did you do anything when she took her position [as animal control officer] to help her transitions [from kennel keeper]?”

“Yes. I did. I assigned Sergeant [John] Cole.” The sergeant showed Ms Mason her procedures and practices, explained Chief Kehoe. “Sergeant Cole visited with me and said she was doing a good job …”

The chief and his attorney talked at length about paperwork and records, and dates regarding two Rottweilers that had been at the pound, then adopted out. Kehoe testified about what particular witnesses had said based on information in a report signed by Sergeant Cole.

His means of testimony prompted a quick objection. Ms Mason’s attorney argued that the witness cited in Sergeant Cole’s report was not in the room to “swear to the truth of the statement.”

Mr Dorsey responded: “[Sergeant] Cole swore the person in and took the statement.”

The chief noted that his sergeant’s reports reflected questions about rabies certificates, adoption papers, accurate information regarding dogs either picked up or adopted, and conflicting information about what one witness or kennel keeper said. He spoke of statements from one pound volunteer who “had knowledge of a phone call” about the Rottweilers in questions.

When discussing rabies certificates or receipts for adoptions, the chief noted “inaccuracies in reporting methods.” He talked about a phone call that came in regarding a raccoon that the caller had indicated could be rabid. His testimony raised questions about Ms Mason’s actions. Had Ms Mason handled the call properly by chasing the raccoon into the woods? Should Ms Mason have kept wildlife, such as wounded animals, at the pound? Where were the adoption receipts? Why was Ms Mason’s paperwork inconsistent with what witnesses told investigators? Was it proper for Ms Mason to instruct one resident to sign her dog over to the pound until that resident could raise funds for an operation for the pet? Should Ms Mason have had cats at the pound?

When the chief learned that one employee had not received a rabies vaccination, he was “concerned,” he told his attorney. After asking his sergeant to “review vaccinations of all employees,” Chief Kehoe stated, “Some were vaccinated, and others were not … an even split.” He asked that his sergeant schedule vaccination appointments.

After a break at almost 6 pm on June 4, Mr Murray took the chief through lengthy testimony. Countering arguments against Ms Mason for keeping cats at the pound and responding to wildlife, Mr Murray asked Chief Kehoe, “In your 30 years [of law enforcement] were you aware that people dropped off cats?”

“I was aware they occasionally dropped off cats,” Chief Kehoe said. “As an officer I dealt with possible strays.” Did he also deal with wildlife? “Yes, I did,” replied Chief Kehoe.

On redirect questioning, Mr Dorsey asked if Chief Kehoe ever brought wildlife to the pound. “No, never .. it could be dangerous,” Chief Kehoe replied.

They went through licensing, fees, invoices, and clarifications about whether or not the animal control officer reported to him or the first selectman.

Mr Murray noted that certain people were not at the hearing. “I understand [witnesses] supplied you or an officer with statements. Did you or the town request they be here?” “No,” said chief Kehoe.

Mr Murray also focused on ads that were supposed to have been placed in a local paper announcing adoptions. The chief was clear that Sergeant Cole reviewed the papers for ads. “He reviewed to the extent that he asked the News-Times for copies of all advertisements …”

The attorney and Chief Kehoe talked further about a call for a raccoon, the location of a rabies vaccination certificate, veterinary bills, and adoptions procedures. Did Ms Mason ask a kennel assistant to falsify records? Was Mr Kehoe’s witness’s statement signed? Did a complainant have an official position in Newtown?

The afternoon’s testimony raised questions that Mr Mangiafico and Mr Rosenthal will have to weigh as the June 17 meeting approaches. What arguments or testimony will sway their opinions and ultimate decision will become clear next week.