Police Chief Offers Last Word

On Animal Control Case

By Kendra Bobowick

Police Chief Michael Kehoe’s letter this week to police commission members tells the story, “soup-to nuts,” regarding his department’s “involvement in the recent events” pertaining to the animal control officer position.

The commission — a body with supervisory and managerial responsibilities over the police department — may have “heard and read various opinions” about past months’ activities surrounding the animal control officer and “to your credit you have remained silent and supportive” of what the chief believes to be a “substantial investigation …” he wrote.

At issue was fired, then rehired Municipal Animal Control Officer Carolee Mason — publicly an emotional issue which, from the police chief’s point of view as displayed in his letter, involves less visible elements such as police investigations, questions of procedure and training, protocol, and proper chain of command.

His letter ends with an appeal.

Carrying over to four pages, he concludes: “I would recommend to the commission that they take steps with other elected officials to rectify a flawed system where police personnel do not have full supervisory responsibility over other town employees … the clear lack of chain of command combined with flawed supervisory responsibilities compromises our ability to properly oversee the [animal control officer] position and its responsibilities.”

An arguing point during Ms Mason’s hearing, current animal control supervision is split between the first selectman’s office and the police department. Was Chief Kehoe seeking all or less supervisory responsibility? He said this week, “I won’t comment either way; there just needs to be a clear chain of command.” Disliking a split in supervision, he explained, “I have a piece, the first selectman has a piece. The chain of command should be clear.”

Hearing the phrases from the chief’s letter for the first time Thursday morning, First Selectman Joe Borst “can’t comment” about questions pertaining to chain of command, or whether the system needs improvement. “I would have to see the letter and talk to [the chief].”

Fired by the first selectman in April on the chief’s and Human Resources Director Carole Ross’s recommendations, Ms Mason was ultimately rehired after a weeks-long hearing where Selectmen Paul Mangiafico and Herb Rosenthal reinstated her with stern warnings and stipulations including, as the chief indicated in his letter, her “clear, significant and serious deficiencies” in her duties reaching “a broad range of responsibilities” in her work as Newtown’s animal control officer. The selectmen’s decision also came with a mandate to guide and train Ms Mason “as deemed appropriate by her supervisors.” Later paragraphs also highlighted the selectmen’s directives indicating that “Holding to the ‘spirit and intent’” of such charge and returning to work an employee with such deficiencies without “sustained improvement” could lead the town to civil liability or charges.

The chief’s letter also quoted from the selectmen’s decision that “[Carolee Mason’s] training was based on accomplishing educational goals … until such time as [she] showed ‘clear, significant, and sustained improvement…’” Ms Mason was reinstated by the selectmen as of June 22, and returned to the pound as of August 28. Does Chief Kehoe feel Ms Mason is sufficiently trained and ready to return to the pound? Has she demonstrated those “clear and sustained improvements?” He said Wednesday, “You’ll have to ask the first selectman.” He explained that although he serves a supervisory role, he is “not the boss.”

Mr Borst said Thursday that he “doesn’t know if training is complete or not.” He simply was “was not happy” and felt “this had gone on long enough.” He believes Ms Mason has shown “some improvement.” He reasoned, “We had to put her back to work to see if she can handle it or not. Put her out in the field and see how she does. I told her we’re here to help.”

Ms Mason returned last week to the dog pound as animal control officer after a period of training provided by the police. She had been at Town Hall South, using meeting rooms there adjacent to the Social Services and Parks and Recreation Departments.

The chief clarified several other points raised in his letter. Because Ms Mason is a popular and well-liked person, her firing and ensuing personnel hearing brought out strong emotions from her supporters. His letter, in part, seeks to clarify and misperceptions. “It is unfortunate … that I have to publicly address this matter because of disparaging and intimidating statements, gossip, ill-informed comments, and falsehoods directed at the [police department]” The situation is a personnel matter in which the police had been professional “in spite of criticisms, innuendos, rumors, and fabrications of the facts.”

He explained this week that public opinion is a concern. “As I stated, there is a lot of misinformation out there.” He stressed that despite things the commissioners may have heard, his letter represents the “facts and circumstances” of the case, which was “important for them to understand. A lot of good effort went into what we did.”

Related to matters raised in Ms Mason’s personnel hearing regarding what police noted as deficiencies, errors, or poor job performance — at times referred to as willful — a criminal investigation ensued. When Ms Mason returned to the department for training, detectives there were still conducting this investigation. Chief Kehoe this week said that case is now closed. Will Ms Mason be charged with criminal activity? “The case has been closed,” the chief stressed. “Charges? No.”