Animal Control Officer’s

Job Reinstated

By Kendra Bobowick

 “That’s the smile that I missed on my mom,” said Melissa Mason.

At ten minutes past 3 pm on Wednesday, June 17, former animal control officer Carolee Mason’s friends were out of their seats applauding, and soon reaching for Ms Mason, who will return to work on Monday, June 22. The announcement of Ms Mason’s reinstatement came during a brief special meeting of the Board of Selectman held in the library.

“I was so nervous for her,” said Melissa, “But I got here and heard clapping and started crying right there.”

First Selectman Joe Borst, on advice from his human resources director and the chief of police, had fired Ms Mason effective April 1.

She had said she would fight the firing. She and her attorney Henry Murray did fight, and won.

After a public, monthlong employment hearing that gathered more than 11 hours of testimony, Selectmen Paul Mangiafico and Herb Rosenthal faced Ms Mason’s family, among others, on Wednesday, and offered their decision: Despite “serious” and “significant deficiencies” in her job performance that testimony and documents had made clear, the selectmen agreed that she may return to work.

 “Upon deliberation, I move that the decision of the first selectman to terminate the employment of Carolee Mason as municipal animal control officer be modified, and that Carolee Mason be reinstated,” Mr Rosenthal read on behalf of himself and Mr Mangiafico. “The motion speaks for itself,” Mr Rosenthal said.

The selectmen, who had made their decision during an executive session 24 hours earlier, then voted to modify the first selectman’s decision to terminate Ms Mason.

The meeting lasted less than ten minutes but prompted emotion among attendees. Canine Advocate Eugene Rosen’s shoulder shook and he reached to squeeze his fingers against his eyes. Beside him Animal Center President Monica Roberto reached out a hand to reassure him. Soon, Ms Mason was smothered as supporters wrapped their arms around her, smoothing her hair with an absent-minded gesture of comfort and speaking to her with encouragement.

She had said several times, “I can go back to my dogs.” Ms Mason told another friend, “Now, I can sleep.”

After losing her job as of April 1, Ms Mason hired attorney Henry Murray, and they soon appealed the first selectman’s decision. The hearing that ensued — with sessions on May 20, May 28, and June 4 — brought out witness testimony, police department investigation reports, and involved 11 hours of testimony that continued from one week to the next for a month, concluding the hearing’s evidentiary portion June 4. Selectmen had 15 days from that date to uphold or modify the decision to terminate Ms Mason.

During the hearing, close scrutiny fell on Ms Mason’s actions regarding paperwork, adoption fees, clarification of rabies certificates, handling wildlife, stray dogs, and cats. Discrepancies arose regarding her reports and police reports and Ms Mason’s testimony at time conflicted.

The selectmen spoke of concerns that she did not enforce the necessary rabies inoculations for pound personnel.

Also coming under question was the chain of command — who was Ms Mason’s boss, Mr Mangiafico had asked several witnesses, and who should have supervised her actions? How was she fired, what type of training did she receive, what steps were taken in the termination procedures, and how was the personnel matter handled are all questions that left Mr Mangiafico with concerns.

The points of argument that the selectmen shared during Tuesday’s executive session, and the reasons behind their decision, were not specified Wednesday.

Mr Rosenthal read for the record their one-page conclusion and six stipulations. The testimony and documents presented during the hearing showed “clear, serious, and significant deficiencies in her performance of a broad range of duties and responsibilities …

“Despite that, upon deliberation, I move … that Ms Mason be reinstated subject to the following conditions …”

The selectmen have specified that Ms Mason receive training from her supervisors. She must demonstrate clear, significant, and sustained improvement of her responsibilities, the letter continued. The discipline imposed on Ms Mason was reduced. In effect, the letter states that rather than termination, her personnel record will reflect three weeks without pay. For the other three weeks not covered in the period between April 1 and June 22, she should receive back pay at her regular rate, less any amounts that she received through unemployment compensation.

Any further incidents shall make her subject to discipline, as the first selectman may deem appropriate, up to and including termination. The selectmen also indicated that any payment made to Ms Mason from the town’s pension plan is subject to repayment. Lastly, Ms Mason’s participation in the town’s benefit plans following her reinstatement is subject to the terms and conditions of the plans.