Still Under Investigation—

Animal Control Officer Back At Work

By Kendra Bobowick

Animal Control Officer Carolee Mason is back to work and in training “until such time as her instructor is satisfied she is doing her job properly,” said First Selectman Joe Borst Wednesday. On advice from his staff, Mr Borst had fired Ms Mason as of April 1. She fought and won an appeal in which Selectmen Paul Mangiafico and Herb Rosenthal reduced her termination to suspension for three weeks without pay. She returned to work on June 22 and is now working with Sergeant Chris Vanghele.

Still open is the police department’s criminal investigation regarding the actions that prompted Chief Michael Kehoe and Human Resources Director Carole Ross to advise Mr Borst to fire Ms Mason.

Both Chief Kehoe and First Selectman Borst are following closely the words in the selectmen’s motion for reinstatement. “If you read the decision there is a clear course of action,” Mr Borst stressed this week. First is a stipulation for “training from supervisors as may be appropriate.” The motion concludes, “Carolee Mason must demonstrate clear, significant and sustained improvement in her performance of all [her] duties and responsibilities … If there are any further incidents of deficient job performance … she shall be subject to such discipline as the first selectman may deem appropriate, up to and including termination.”

Mr Borst insisted Wednesday, “It’s my feeling that she was given training …” Leaving those thoughts, he chose to speak strictly about the motion: “The first paragraph of the decision was apropos.”

That paragraph reads: “The testimony and documents presented …  showed that there were clear, significant, and serious deficiencies in her performance.” Like Mr Borst, Chief Kehoe turns to the selectmen’s motion, “The document speaks for itself. It’s a mandate so to speak.”

As the hearing stretched from May 20, to May 28, to June 4, and produced more than 11 hours of testimony prior to the selectmen’s decision on June 17, Paul Mangiafico had raised several questions. Primarily, who was Ms Mason’s boss? He learned that supervision is a dual effort between the first selectman’s and police chief’s offices.

Neither the chief nor Mr Borst specified if supervision would change. Chief Kehoe explained: “There really won’t be chain of command changes unless the first selectman or [Board of Selectmen] feel a need for changes.” The chief also “would refer back to the selectmen’s decision.” He added, “The document speaks for itself.” Regarding supervisory practices, he said, “We need to set up a system helpful for everyone.”

Another point of contention throughout the hearing was the termination process as specified in the employee handbook. That process had not been followed. Questioning the handbook this week, Mr Borst argued, “The handbook was never approved by the selectmen.”

“Someone could raise those issues,” regarding questions of language in the charter or handbook agreed Mr Rosenthal.

Would the selectmen officially discuss solidifying a termination procedure for use in the future? Mr Borst said, “We’ll have to work on that.” He is not aware of any upcoming discussions among selectmen regarding how to handle personnel matters.

Mr Rosenthal is not aware of any upcoming discussion. Referring back to the motion to reinstate Ms Mason, he said, “At the time of the hearing we made the specific statement and we’ll let it stand for itself. I still feel that way.” Selectmen did agree that “she did do things wrong,” but Mr Rosenthal did not wish to discuss the reasons behind his and Mr Mangiafico’s decision to reinstate her. He stressed however, “Some people may feel she did no wrong — I think that’s an overstatement.”

Just as long and intense as the personnel hearing was public speculation. What really happened, who is making accusations, is anyone acting against someone else?

Mr Rosenthal realizes that people had concerns about Ms Mason’s performance, “and rightly so,” he said, but added, “I viewed a lot more material than the people in the audience.” Aware that hearsay and speculations may continue, Mr Rosenthal was firm: “I saw no evidence of malicious intent by anyone — by pound employees, by groups like Canine Advocates of Newtown.”

Regarding anonymous comments in reference to a daily newspaper’s online article, he said, “There were some vicious things said, totally unfounded.” He insisted, “There are no villains in this. I don’t think any [town] employees were out to get Carolee. I think some members of [The Canine Advocates of Newtown] were falsely accused.”

Mr Rosenthal said, “I saw no maliciousness.” Concerned enough to stress his point again, Mr Rosenthal stated, “I won’t go into why we made our decision … people can disagree over the severity of her actions, or ours, but no one should feel anyone was trying to do something to another. There was no malicious intent … we took the action we took, obviously she should not have been terminated, she did receive discipline.”

Selectman Mangiafico also pondered whether officials would formally clarify termination procedures. “I don’t think we will,” he said. The first selectman “could certainly bring it up,” Mr Mangiafico said. Regarding comments posted online accompanying news articles of Ms Mason’s personnel hearing, Mr Mangiafico said, “People take all kinds of positions.” Often they will “dig their heals in.” Accusations may be “ill informed.” What can selectmen do? Mr Mangiafico is not sure they “could or should do” anything to address comments.

His opinion? “I sensed no malicious actions,” he said regarding the people involved or named during the hearing testimony. “I didn’t get a sense of maliciousness in anything.” Mr Mangiafico agrees that he would not want to see any town employees at the dog pound or elsewhere further damaged by Ms Mason’s case. “Hopefully [Mr Borst] has something to somewhat ensure that we get on with business and no recriminations. But, that’s up to him.” Mr Mangiafico stressed, “I would certainly give it strong consideration.”

The reasons Ms Mason lost her job include failure to enforce laws relating to control of rabies, failure to investigate cases of lost, stray, stolen, or injured animals, failure to keep accurate records, failure to maintain and manage the shelter, failure to supervise kennel keepers and assistants, failure to prepare reports properly, failure to keep records of complaints and activities, falsifying town and state documents, failure to maintain records.