EAST LONGMEADOW – The East Longmeadow Town Council voted to deny the request set forth by a petitioner which called for the non-renewal of Town Manager Denise Menard’s contract at the Feb. 26 meeting.

At the Dec. 11 Town Council meeting, resident Jeffrey Bosworth, along with his business partner John Mazzarino, brought forth a petition which called for the non-renewal of Menard’s contract as well as a suggestion that Councilors not give Menard a salary increase. Keeping in line with standard procedure, the Town Council scheduled a public hearing for the petition at the Council’s Jan. 22 meeting, whereby the Council voted unanimously to take the petition under advisement.

At the Jan. 22 hearing, Council members discussed whether or not signatures were legitimate. While the petition that was given to the members had 111 signatures, two of the signatures were found to be redundant, and nine were deemed invalid, either because the signers were not registered voters or the signature was illegible. While the petition still was valid as it had the required 100 signatures, Council members questioned whether or not members of the community realized what they were signing, as a few councilmen related stories of noticing their friends signatures on the document and upon questioning, the friends had not realized what they had signed.

During the public comment portion of the Feb. 26 meeting, petitioner Mazzarino explained that he wanted to address some of the comments that Council members had made during the public hearing in the month prior.

“One of the Council members brought up the idea that some signatures on the petition we filed weren’t valid. The Town Clerk and many others spent a lot of time validating those signatures,” Mazzarino said, continuing to state that if the Council needed more signatures they could have done so. “I spent a lot of time doing what I did, and the signatures on there, I’ve been assured in writing that they were valid. The indication that they were not is something I want to get on record now.”

Mazzarino explained that he felt that as petitioners, he and Bosworth were attacked.

Later on in the meetings agenda, the Council discussed the petition, and Council member Paul Federici chose to “defend himself” against Mazzarino’s comments regarding the signatures.

“I was one of the vocal people about the signatures, so just to sort of defend myself...I never said, at least in my comments that the people signing the petition were not taxpayers. My contention was because one of my friends was one of the signers is that he, and this is his fault granted, he did not know what he was signing. He did not know the gravity of it, and he just thought he was signing a basic petition regarding changes in town government,” Federici explained.

He continued, “I know the gentleman, Mr. Mazzarino, said he could’ve gotten more signatures, but we had the signatures that we had that night and I did notice a duplication in signatures.”

Town Council Chair Kathy Hill added that despite the two duplicate signatures and nine invalid signatures, the Council was prepared to still go forward with the hearing if the number of signatures had fallen below 100 in the interest of transparency.

“I said it last time and I’ll say it today, just because you have the means to do something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best course of action,” Town Council member Joseph Ford stated. “In essence, that point you’re saying that we should not rehire someone or give them a raise that has 14 months remaining on their contract...so it would be horribly ill advised for us to adopt something like that knowing that person’s still going to be in that position.” Ford continued to add that it would be “extraordinarily irresponsible” to vote to not renew the contract at this time, especially if the individual had performed admirably during the time up until the contracts expiration.

“I just don’t think it was the right venue. There’s other ways to work out differences with people, to find middle ground, to collaborate with them, and find a better way to improve processes,” Ford said. “When townspeople have issues, to essentially attack somebody in that manner is not the best venue as far as I’m concerned.”

The Council voted five to one to deny the request of the petitioner, with Council member Thomas O’Connor being the one individual voting against the motion. Council member Kevin Manley was not present at the meeting and therefore could not vote.

The meeting continued on to discuss the Town Manager’s compensation as well as the 2019 goals. The evaluation subcommittee put together a list of six goals for Menard to adopt over the course of this year. The following goals were listed:

“•Manage the budget process to ensure council direction and votes are carried out and adhered to by the town manager’s office and all departments committees and boards.

•Work with Town Council in a much more collaborative way.
A) Follow through on direction given by the town council in a timely manner. If this is not possible, inform the council immediately.
B) Manage the budget process, enterprise and revolving funds to ensure council direction and votes are carried out and adhered to by the town manager and all departments committees and boards
C) Communicate to all council members on all issues in news releases affecting our town and residents in addition to top or middle management level personnel changes before they occur

•Issue an RFP for town attorney prior to next fiscal year. Recruit a candidate with demonstratedmunicipal background and competitive fee schedule.

•Return clerk’s office and finance operations to original locations.
Comment: Currently, the set up is not customer friendly.

•Take care in hiring key staff. Surround yourself with people that want to be here and care about our community.

•Begin to develop and implement a succession plan for department heads, this plan will ensure there is a smooth transition in the event that employees leave their positions either through promotions, resignations or retirement.”

At the close of the goal listings, Ford explaining that he did not recall goal number four being discussed as written. O’Connor disagreed, stating he did recall it being discussed as written. After a brief disagreement, Hill interjected that she did not believe the wording of the fourth goal is in concert with the language in the town’s charter in terms of the town managers powers or responsibilities.

Menard added that she believes it is within the Council’s purview to state that there are issues within some departments and suggest that she look at ways to alter and improve the current state of affairs in the Town Hall.

“I think returning offices to certain spaces is not the best way to write it, that’s not a directive that should be coming my way but rather address space needs that have been, I don’t know, pointed to me as being customer unfriendly,” Menard said.

In the interest of time, the Committee voted to accept five of the six goals, not accepting the fourth goal so that the Committee would have time to put together the proper language for the fourth goal.

In regard to Menard’s compensation, Hill stated she is advocating for a zero percent increase in the interest of fiscal prudence, which she stated, in no way reflects performance. Federici explained that he felt this discussion was important enough that there should be a full Town Council present, to which Town Council member Donald Anderson and Vice President Michael Kane agreed. The members moved to discuss Menard’s compensation at the March 12 Town Council meeting, provided it is attended by all Council members.