EAST LONGMEADOW – East Longmeadow Town Manager Mary McNally hired Karen Korpinen to fill the position created in the fiscal year 2022 budget to help McNally with her office’s duties. McNally gave her the title of deputy town manager.

Councilor R. Patrick Henry asked why Korpinen was given that title without the approval of the Town Council. He stated that the title is “dangerous” because department heads could infer Korpinen has “a great deal of authority.” He also said that there was no deputy town manager called for in the town charter and giving someone that title would create confusion.

Fellow Councilor Kathleen Hill reminded Henry that the position was part of the budget approved by the council and the Financial Oversight Committee left the title up to McNally. She noted that there is no deputy superintendent of Public Works in the charter, but the position was created when the need arose.

Councilor Thomas O’Connor agreed with Henry and said the position was described by the Financial Oversight Committee as a “project manager/grants manager.” He said the situation undermines the ability of the council to veto and remove someone from the position if need be.

Council President Michael Kane asked for a job description, which would be more clear than just a title. Councilor Marilyn Richards agreed. Kane also noted that a “succession plan” or hierarchy of authority had been determined by the Finance Oversight Committee.

McNally asked to address the issue.

“I think, as the town manager, I have the right to designate and hire whom I choose. I wrote a four-page memorandum and discussed it at length with the Finance Oversight about a succession plan and about the duties that person would assist me with and, contrary to Mike [Kane], there is, in fact, a job description of several pages in length,” McNally said. “The woman is responsible to me and only me and she does exactly what I ask her to do, which for the time being, is to assist the Planning Department in the implementation of the master plan.”

She went on, “Karen is watching this meeting and this is her first exposure to our Town Council and if you want to beat up the manager because you don’t like the name that was given...I don’t think I’m bound by what you want to call a particular job.” McNally cited Article Three of the town charter and her right to delegate. She then stated she was willing to “check out of the meeting.”

Kane moved on from the topic, saying the discussion wasn’t on the agenda.

The Norcross House inquired about liquor licensing since they have begun renting out the property’s carriage house to host events. Hill explained that the Norcross House, which is owned and operated by the Friends of the Norcross House, is marketing rental of the carriage house for showers, book clubs and the occasional small wedding to generate revenue to fund their cultural education program and maintain the buildings.

Council Vice President Ralph Page asked if the nature of the Norcross House was changing from a non-profit cultural organization to a commercial enterprise and suggested the memorandum of understanding with the organization may need to be reviewed.

Richards assured Page the building is in a residential neighborhood and the events were similar in scope to what any residence might have. The carriage house only accommodates about 40 people. If the organization doesn’t generate some revenue, she said, it can’t stay open.

The requirement of having a Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) certified individual to serve alcohol creates a hardship, argued Donna Martinez, president of the Friends of the Norcross House. “It’s cost prohibitive,” for a small gathering to secure a TIPS-certified bartender, she said.

Hill proposed waiving the TIPS certification for the Friends of the Norcross House on one-day liquor licenses providing the event consisted of fewer than 40 people and it did not run afoul of state law. Richards agreed with the motion and Town Clerk Jean Quaglietti added the non-profit had a liquor liability on record with the town.

Page expressed concern that the council would single out one organization to make an exception. He said there are many non-profits in town that host events with alcohol. He also said 40 people drinking is “a lot.” Henry agreed.

While it was suggested the council table the discussion until more research on the issue could be done, Councilor Connor O’Shea and Richards said no more research was needed since the motion was contingent on state law. Hill said delaying the vote would eat into what is left of the Norcross House’s season.

The council voted 4 to 3 against the exception.    

The council approved $120,870 for a new boiler at the Pleasant View Senior Center. The project had been on the Capital Planning Committee’s list, but wasn’t considered a priority by the Financial Oversight Committee for the FY22 budget season. When the boiler failed this summer, it was estimated that repairs would cost more than $30,000 and the equipment would still need to be replaced soon.

Henry commented the Financial Oversight Committee also chose to wait on the town’s core network and the infrastructure failed shortly thereafter.  The committee, “should look very hard at being too tight,” he said.

The office for Veterans’ Service Agent Michelle Bartlett at the Pleasant View Senior Center is “unsuitable,” McNally said. Bartlett is working “in what is effectively a closet,” and some veterans in wheelchairs can’t get over the door threshold. McNally said  Council on Aging Director Erin Koebler and she were looking for more suitable accommodations.

After a second required reading, the council approved the zoning bylaw amendment allowing “cottage food operations” from home kitchens. The businesses would require a valid residential kitchen permit and compliance with all local and state Health Department regulations.

Another bylaw change that was discussed was the adoption of the stretch energy code. This more stringent criteria for new building construction would require the creation of energy efficient plans and testing at various steps in the building process. The building process would cost more up front but the structures would be designed for energy savings. The bylaw subcommittee recommended the adoption on a 3 to 2 vote.

O’Connor expressed concern that the provision to automatically accept updates to the code was akin to signing “a blank contract,” relinquishing the ability to disagree. O’Shea noted that the existing code has been updated and changed over the years without the ability for towns to refuse.

When Henry questioned whether the new high school will have to follow the stretch energy code, Hill responded, “Make no mistake, the MSBA [Massachusetts School Building Authority] is not going to give you 10 cents on reimbursement if you don’t use the stretch energy code.”

A public hearing on the issue has been scheduled for Oct. 12.