The Board of Selectmen met this evening with Chairman Jeffrey Tufts presiding. In attendance were William Hardin, Frederick Clark, Patricia Hunt, Patricia Webster and Town Adm. Kevin Paicos.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to table General Minutes dated 9/29/97.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted 3-0-2 to approve General Minutes dated 10/6/97. Hunt, Tufts abstained.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hunt, the Board voted unanimously to support the previous year’s process with adding "taxes in arrears" to the letter.

Tufts read the request.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to approve a yard sale for the Temple Chayai Shalom to be held on 10/26/97, from 9:00AM to 3:00PM.

Tufts read the request.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve waiver of the permit fee for a temporary sign.

On Hunt’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to discuss sign requests on another agenda, to discuss the Town Adm. taking over this issue.

Chief Bates, Officer Parker, H. Bell, D. Brabants, P. Bergland, L. Welch in attendance.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of the crime today as a direct result of domestic violence. Paicos noted that a group of employees came forward to discuss this issue. Paicos noted that at the same time the Community Council has been working on the same issue. The Community Council and the Task Force came together to try to address the problem. The goals is complete and total rejection of family/domestic violence in the Town of Easton. Paicos noted the Task Force members present as well as the Community Council members. Paicos noted this is the most comprehensive policy in the State and that Labor Counsel has reviewed this. Paicos stated that Collins noted this is one of the best he’s ever seen in the field of domestic violence. Bates noted that the number of hours spent on domestic violence cases is staggering. Bates noted the need to increase the standard of all employees with this policy. Parker read a prepared statement RE: domestic violence in our community. Parker noted that if an employee comes forward the liability to the Town is great, to be sure that the employee and other co-workers are safe. Parker noted that several big companies as well as the State itself now have policies. Parker gave the stats on Retraining Orders for the years 1994-1996, and gave the Board copies of these stats. Parker noted that there have been at least 4 murders in Town in the past 20 years. The Police Dept. spends a minimum of 30% of its time handling domestic violence issues i.e. serving restraining orders etc. Each call is an average of 2-4 hours for 2 officers. Parker noted that if an arrest is made, which happens in 30% of the cases, more time is involved in particular with the hospital run and booking. Parker noted that tying up two officers for so much time leaves the safety of other officers in question as they attempt to address all the other issues in the Town during that time. Bates noted that the Town has a grant that employs a domestic violence advocate for the Town, part-time. Bates noted that early intervention is the key to alleviating the problem. Tufts read a prepared statement from Task Force member S. Meehan.

Hunt noted she agrees essentially with eradicating domestic violence, and feels we are on the way to that happening. Hunt noted that not long ago it wasn’t looked at as a real crime by police departments and society then demanded it be treated as such. Hunt noted that recently we are realizing this is a real crime and it is extremely important that victims know they can be safe and that violence won’t be tolerated. Hunt questioned if the policy is being adopted as the Town of Easton employer or as a Town? Hunt expressed concern that the policy does something other than what the Task Force wants to do. Hunt expressed concern with inexperienced, untrained people being listed on the policy rather than have the Police/Advocates be listed. Hunt expressed concern that the Town needs a policy that deals with employees who commit crimes in general, not just domestic violence which doesn’t cover enough of the potential crimes. We need to educate people of their rights and have general policy RE: peoples rights and various crimes being made. Hunt noted that it doesn’t seem this policy, from an employer perspective, will handle what is intended. Hunt noted that the intent is great but she would rather see the State’s policy. Hunt would rather institute a policy RE: all violent crimes. Parker noted the hope is a victim may read the policy and it will reinforce the fact that they don’t need to be abused. Parker noted that many people don’t want to go to the Police, or to have the batterer arrested and if an employee could go to a member of the Task Force for further information, they could offer referrals. Bates noted the need for Selectmen of the effort, and if the policy needs to be re-written, we are willing, but we need support. Hunt noted again that the intent is great but the document needs work. Tufts noted that a policy could be set up that would alleviate the problems and deal with the victims, i.e. establishing safe houses, distributing literature. Tufts noted he is concerned by not addressing equally heinous crimes. Tufts noted he doesn’t want to single out one type of criminal activity only. Paicos noted the need for a policy on this issue, and then having another policy for the Town at large. Paicos noted he doesn’t disagree that other crimes need a policy as well. Paicos noted the focus on this policy was to address a particular problem currently being dealt with by the employee population. Paicos suggested setting up this policy and then having Labor Counsel draft a more comprehensive policy on other criminal activity. Paicos noted it is unusual for the employer to say that if convicted of domestic violence, employees will be terminated. This policy has been through many drafts with experts in domestic violence/police/law, and they have blessed it. It is not perfect but adequate in its task it is trying to do. Paicos also noted that Labor Counsel noted that impact bargaining will have to be done and the Board could approve this with the caveat of being subject to impact bargaining. The policy will be modified during negotiations. Tufts noted that the EAP help line could be listed in the policy. Hunt noted she would rather have the policy stating conviction of a misdemeanor or felony is subject to dismissal. Hunt’s motion, to table this policy to meet with Labor Counsel RE: various issues, did not receive a second.

Hardin noted that his only concern is impact bargaining, and stated that currently in MA there are child abuse statutes where various people must make referrals RE: child abuse. Hardin noted they don’t have specific training i.e. teachers, clergy, scout leaders etc. Hardin noted the need for people to be available to make referrals, and they don’t have to be experts. Having some employees available is good to offer information and referrals. Hardin noted there is a shelf full of books with laws in MA and this is one step towards addressing one thing and is a good step. Hardin further noted it needs a little re-working which will happen as part of impact bargaining. Hardin noted he would like to see this first step go forward. Webster questioned where the Town stands on hiring someone already convicted. Webster noted RE: the discipline statement, if it could be spelled out RE: steps for discipline. Paicos noted that the decision section will be hammered out during impact bargaining. Paicos noted another draft, following bargaining will come back to the Board. H. Bell noted that it is important that the Town set the example for all employers in the Town. H. Bell noted that to have acceptance of a policy will lead other employers in a direction they ought to go. Hunt questioned what "safe guarding a known victim" means, and stated that Town employees would be required to do this or be subjected to discipline. Hunt also noted the policy requires any employee served with a Restraining Order or Complaint to inform the Town "Task Force". this is true even if it’s a false complaint. But victims are not required to inform the Town if they have a Restraining Order against someone else. Also, this policy if voted is effective, flaws and all, against non-

union employees immediately. Hunt noted the message is good that the Town doesn’t tolerate domestic violence, but this policy is flawed. Hunt’s motion, seconded by Tufts, to table this policy for a discussion with Labor Counsel, was not voted at this time.

Parker noted that this policy is to get us started to get the message out there that the Town is here to help victims and won’t tolerate batterers. Parker noted that notifying the Task Force helps all know there is a domestic violence situation in Town employment. This knowledge will help us keep victims safe at work, with as many precautions as possible. Parker noted we need to get the word out there that there is help for victims and batterers through the EAP. Clark noted he supports this but has problems with the legality. Clark asked for an explanation on the 300 restraining orders. Parker explained the difference between a police officer serving an order or those served at the courts. Clark questioned if school employees will be involved, and if any of the 300 orders involve current employees. Parker noted the hope that school employees will be involved, especially in light of the date rape crisis. Parker noted there are active orders on employees in this Town. Clark questioned if the employee lives out of Town, what the effect of this is. Bates noted the need to know any/all information on potential victims/batterers. Clark expressed concern with false accusations and wants Labor Counsel to meet with the Selectmen first. Clark noted he has many questions RE: discipline, EAP access, etc. Paicos noted there are answers to all the questions raised, but he needs direction from the Board as to how to proceed to define this. Tufts noted this is a huge problem and asked if there is some campaign as a Town that can be done to make more people aware. Tufts asked how can we increase awareness. Tufts asked if there are programs the Town can run or is there a regional program Easton can join. Tufts noted he is concerned with legal issues, and suggested maybe establishing a Domestic Violence Task Force similar to the Fair Housing Committee in Town. Bates noted that a vote of confidence in our intent is important. Hunt noted this is a two pronged approach. She would rather have a separate policy for general intolerance in Town, and another as an employer policy. Webster suggested having the Board adopt a position that the Town of Easton will not tolerate domestic violence in Town, in its employees, and to encourage Easton businesses to do the same. Hardin noted the need for something with some teeth in it for our employees and how we will handle domestic violence with them. Hardin noted that statements RE: townspeople and other businesses have nothing we can do, other than to distribute educational materials. Hardin noted we need to do something that we have a direct impact on, our employees, and this policy is a great first step. Paicos suggested 1) prepare a broader policy that addresses domestic violence in general for the Town, and 2)Develop a separate policy as the Town of Easton employer.

On Hardin’s motion, seconded by Hunt, the Board voted unanimously to support the concept of a domestic violence policy for the Town of Easton and will work out the details.

At this point in the meeting Paicos announced that the Police Dept. obtained another Community Policing grant in the amount of $42,000. Paicos noted the total from 1/1/93 to present is in excess of $832,000.

A. Krajcik, Stan Bates in attendance.

Bates noted that this is one of the most important decisions he will make. Bates recommended A. Krajcik as Deputy Chief noting his high mark and fantastic performance. Bates gave a brief explanation of the duties. Bates noted this wasn’t an easy decision.

Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, to appoint Allen Krajcik as Deputy Police Chief, was not voted at this time.

Hardin noted that he knows all three candidates, but knows Krajcik the least, but he believes that the person in charge should have the person they want as their assistant. Hardin noted that in all reality we are appointing the next Police Chief and he knows Krajcik will do a great job. Hunt noted that the three candidates when Stan was appointed Chief were as excellent as these three currently. Hunt noted that it has been a pleasure to make Police Dept. appointments. Webster noted there have been many difficult votes as Selectmen, but she is proud to vote for Krajcik. Clark and Tufts also noted how proud they are to make this appointment.

Clark noted that he asked for this to be on the agenda. Clark read his memo dated 9/9/96. Clark questioned what the criteria is for merit pay, is it because someone comes in early, doesn’t take sick time etc. Clark noted the Selectmen haven’t gotten the information to date. Paicos noted he sent a memo dated 9/26/96 to the Board with a copy of the Non-Union Merit Plan attached. Paicos noted this gave an explanation for each question asked. The generic form gave an explanation of the categories, and he thought he had answered the Board’s questions already. Clark noted he wants individual information, employee by employee. Hunt noted that her understanding of Clark’s request was that a Selectman requested names of those getting merit for a fiscal year, and when Clark was denied he put in a public records request, which hasn’t been given. Hunt noted she feels the public has the right to know where all the money goes, but will defend to the death that evaluations are not for the public to see. Hunt noted that Town Meeting has the right to know the dollar amount of merit pay to an individual. Hunt noted that working for a public employer you have diminished rights to privacy because it is public money used, and Clark needs an answer to his questions. Tufts noted that it is in the budget, and asked what is being asked for beyond that. Paicos noted there are two separate issues. 1) a member of the Selectmen has a request for public records; 2) the majority of the Selectmen asking for merit information. Paicos noted that if ordered to expose names, amounts and evaluations by the Secretary of State’s Office, he will ignore it. Paicos noted that he doesn’t think the public has the right to the nature of work performance of employees of the amount of merit review money. Paicos noted the base salary of every employee is already public, but exact amounts of merit pay is not subject to public information requests. Paicos noted the rights of majority members of the Board are different. Paicos noted that one member doesn’t have the right, but majority does. Paicos noted that if a majority of the Board sends the Town Adm. the same request, he will respect the Board’s vote. Paicos noted he does not agree but will respect this. Paicos noted he doesn’t think the Board is entitled to confidential employee information of an evaluative nature, and he is trying to protect both the employee and the Town’s rights. Paicos noted that the TA has a liability if confidential information is divulged, and that as of tonight he has no official request from the majority of the Board. Paicos noted he doesn’t want to supply this information and will not do it without a formal vote. Paicos noted his concern with the results of the merit reviews. Paicos noted either it is to determine if evaluations are done properly, but the Board doesn’t see people daily, or to determine the TA’s adequacy of doing the evaluations, but again the Board doesn’t witness operations day to day to be able to do that. Paicos noted that the by-law says the TA will conduct these evaluations for that exact purpose. Since this system is working so well, why tinker with the system working and put it in any kind of jeopardy. Clark stated he hasn’t pushed this issue with public records request. Paicos stated that he felt once the information was given to the Board of Selectmen, it would be made public anyway. Hunt noted that the Board of Selectmen has access to confidential information weekly in Executive Session and does not make it public. Webster stated she was offended at the suggestion that the Board of Selectmen would disclose privileged information Webster noted that the Board of Selectmen was well aware of the difference between public and confidential information..

Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, to get a list of each person by name, how much they receive, how often, does it roll over year to year, and a copy of generic way the TA computes a persons evaluation for the years FY’94, 95 and ‘96, was not voted at this time.

Tufts asked if the form submitted with the categories is enough to drop the 5th request. Clark stated no, because he wants to know if consideration is given to attendance, sick leave, attending to duties with an above normal attitude is considered. Tufts again noted that the Board already knows where the money is spent, it is in the budget. Clark agreed to drop the 5th request. Tufts questioned what the motivation is for the request. Clark stated he wants to know where the tax payers money is being spent. Hunt stated why should the Board have to sit with a calculator to figure this out. Webster noted it is frustrating when someone on the Boards asks for information and doesn’t get it. Webster noted this became a campaign

issue. Webster noted this is public information and she doesn’t know why Clark wants it, but it doesn’t matter, a Selectman asked for this. Webster noted she doesn’t consider this a substantial effort to do, this is a simple question. Webster questioned if step increases add to base. Paicos gave an explanation of the merit pay vs the one-time pay. Webster questioned if anything like this was done prior to 1990. Paicos noted yes but he can’t find anything in writing, it was strictly base pay, no one time bonus pay. Paicos questioned if this request is pursuant to the public records law request of a request by the majority of the Board of Selectmen. Paicos again noted he will not give this if it is pursuant to the public records request, but if it is a request by the majority of the Selectmen to the TA, he will obey that request even if he disagrees with it. Hardin noted that it sounds good to say that the public has the right to know where the money goes but there are a number of instances where the public doesn’t know where their money goes, i.e. SPED. Hardin noted the public right is the $42,000 spent on SPED, but they have no right as to who got this money. Hardin noted this is protected by law. Hardin noted that Paicos’ position is solid legally, and the Board only needs to know the total amount for merit, not individual by individual. Paicos noted that under the public records request the holder of the records can’t ask the motivation. Paicos noted he is opposed because of the motivation and that it will lead to the destruction of the system. Paicos noted this system will be destroyed if politics plays any part or even enters into this. Politics will lead to interference and destruction of the system. Paicos noted that he hasn’t been as impassioned about a single issue prior to this issue. Paicos noted he wants the public records request to be answered by the Secretary of State’s Office. Hardin asked that those Non-Union employees in attendance state their views. Bates noted that if the information was public it would make a person look bad to the public and would embarrass a person if they didn’t receive merit. Blye noted the system is always based on the goals and objectives and that most of them must be accomplished to get merit. Blye noted he feels the system is fair and a good system. Paicos asked that if the Board passes this motion, that they consider a motion as follows: 1) indicating that the Board’s receipt of this information doesn’t mean the Board will become involved in the process further; 2) the possibility of submitting this change to the by-law to be voted on at the ATM RE: disclosing information at the end of the merit process each year, and it won’t be made public by any Selectmen. Tufts stated that it is no question that the amounts paid are public record, but this became a nice buzz word during the campaign. Tufts again questioned why this is still being discussed when the information is already out there in the budgets. Tufts noted he was asked over and over why this was not on the agenda, and the Board has wasted lots of time on this item when more important issues are still waiting. Tufts noted this isn’t just a public records thing because the information is out there already. Tufts noted that he would vote against the motion, and stated that he will probably hear this some day that Tufts voted against public information release.

Vote on the amended motion which included 1) name of each person; 2) how much received; 3) does the amount roll over year to year; 4) for the fiscal years of FY’94, ‘95, ‘96, was voted 3-2. Tufts, Hardin opposed.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted 3-2 to meet with Labor Counsel to discuss whether this is public information or not. Tufts, Hardin opposed.

Paicos noted he will call the Secretary of State’s Office and ask for an opinion and they will likely consult with our Labor Counsel and it will cost. Hunt noted that something is wrong with Labor Counsel if the majority of the Selectmen disagree with him. Hunt’s motion to stay the execution of the vote until the Board had another discussion on the matter did not receive a second.

Hunt’s motion, seconded by Clark, to send a letter to the Secretary of State stating that it is the opinion of the Board of Selectmen that information as to who gets merit pay is public was amended by same, to state to inform the Secretary of State’s office that the Board voted to make information public as to who receives merit and the Board needs an opinion as to whether that is public, and was voted unanimously.

unt’s motin

On Hunt’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted 4-1 to approve the Goals and Objectives dated ‘98-’99 subject to changing Section I - B the word "review" to "notification". Clark opposed.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call, to appoint Susan Harrington to fulfill the unexpired term of Paula Peterson. on the Cultural Council.

Hunt - Harrington, Webster - Harrington, Hardin - Harrington, Clark - Harrington, Tufts - Harrington.

Paicos gave a brief explanation.

On Hardin’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Payroll authorization subject to changing the Lt. to the Deputy in the Police Dept.

Webster questioned why the PFSC is not longer than a year. Paicos noted the Charge does not suggest an on-going committee but rather an ad-hoc committee. Webster noted this should be on-going. Tufts reviewed the memo from Paicos. (see attached) Hardin questioned why the Ames Pond Committee and the Main St. Parking Committee wasn’t listed. Paicos noted those committees haven’t met in at least 4 years. Paicos noted that the Annual Town Report will drop any committees not functioning. Clark noted he is opposed to disbanding the Veterans Memorial Committee. Paicos suggested re-charging the committee and put out a new notice for members.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted 3-2 to approve the list, amending the Veterans Memorial Committee by re-charging and re-advertising for members, changing the PFSC term to 2 years, and to notify current members on Veterans Committee as to whether they are still involved with the committee and want to continue. Tufts, Hardin opposed.

At 9:50PM, on Hardin’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call, to go into Executive Session for the purpose of Real Property, not to return to Open Session.

APPROVED____________________________

DATED_____________________________

OCTOBER 20, 1997ardHa