Reasons to Recall Winchendon Selectman Burton Gould

The following emails document many of the reasons why Burton Gould should be recalled:

Undue influence on day-to-day town operations contrary to law and charter

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. [mailto:manager@town.winchendon.ma.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:48 PM
To: jacksonblair@gmail.com; bhunt@mackprototype.com; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: Selectman Gould Memo dated July 4/Received July 7

Dear All

Chairman Gould writes the following regarding the firefighter/paramedic appointment that I made on July 1, 2010. He “has two problems”:

1. “I prefer a local person.” I can make no lawful requirement that such a consideration be primary. I do, however, when all else is EQUAL, give the nod to any local candidate. Further, even if this were to be your appointment such a criteria would not be allowed. I draw your attention to your voted policy:

400-10: BOARD RULES AND ETHICS:
E. In all appointments, judge all candidates only on merit, experience, and qualifications .

2. “I have been made aware of problem with this applicant…” Please rest assured that the Chief is a fine manager and I fancy myself somewhat as much as well. This candidate was vetted, thoroughly, prior to appointment. The issue referenced by the Chairman and that “other members of the BOS are also aware of” was known to the Chief and I prior to appointment, was previously addressed by the Chief to my satisfaction and was deemed inconsequential. I would be happy to speak in more detail to it, to the extent that the law allows, if requested.

Jim
James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
978.297.0085

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

---

Disregard of agreed-to board policies for personal vendetta

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. [mailto:manager@town.winchendon.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:21 PM
To: jacksonblair@gmail.com; bhunt@mackprototype.com; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: Selectman Blair

Dear Jack,

As you observed earlier, your written request to have the matter of seeking a Board vote to solicit opinions of town counsel on questions surrounding the 5 year contract between us and the evaluation tool did in fact make the written agenda. Further, the agenda was approved by vote of the Board at the meeting.

When that item came up, however, the Chairman passed over it. I asked to speak and was recognized. I stated that I felt an obligation to have the matter addressed as you had directly sought, in writing and through me, to have it acted upon tonight. The Chair would hear none of it. I cited one of the Board’s new policies, specifically 400-20, in which it is stated that any member of the Board or the Town Manager (for that matter) has the right to have a matter placed upon the agenda. Again, no luck with the Chair. He stated that the matter required a full Board. I interjected that you were the maker of the request and you were fine having the Board address it in your absence. You were the only member absent. Once again, no dice.

No one else challenged the Chairs position and the matter was passed over.

I just wanted you to know that I took your request to me seriously and made my best effort at meeting your objective.

Jim
James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
978.297.0085

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

---

Disregard of agreed-to board policies for personal vendetta

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. [mailto:manager@town.winchendon.ma.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:08 PM
To: jacksonblair@gmail.com; bhunt@mackprototype.com; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: BoS Meeting for Monday, June 28, 2010

Dear Board,

I am respectfully seeking guidance.

I am advised today that the Chairman has called for a meeting of the Board for Monday night.

There are a number of outstanding issues that require the Board’s attention. They include, but are not to be limited to:

1. My now one month old request for an executive session re: my complaint against Chairman Gould (see email from me to you dated May 20, 2010 @ 12:06 pm)

2. Your recently voted policies as they relate to the voter approved Charter (see our Town Counsel’s letter dated May 25, 2010)

3. The Headmaster Kerney Letter/Selectman Blair’s public records request (see email dated June 10, 2010 at 2:10 pm)

4. The matter of the Robinson Broadhurst grants/letters re: the Fire Department (see email dated 6/5/2010 @ 3:44 pm)

5. Ongoing Open Meeting Law Concerns of mine, and finally

6. A solar project update of some import

I have been further advised by the Chair, albeit indirectly through Mrs. Daigle, that these items are not welcome on the agenda this Monday and that “the Manager doesn’t need to be there Monday either.”

These matters require your attention and my understanding from communications either at the last meeting or in subsequent emails, or both, was that we would be addressing at least items 1-4 “at the next Board meeting.”

Thoughts anyone?

Jim
James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
978.297.0085

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

---

Illegal BOS executive session meeting. Illegal BOS policies costing town money

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. [mailto:manager@town.winchendon.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 4:34 PM
To: jacksonblair@gmail.com; bhunt@mackprototype.com; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: FW:

Dear Jack,

Please accept this as my respectful reply.

As I did for Bob’s most recent email, I am replying to your email by copying yours and supplying my comments in bold text.

As per your suggestion I will forward my recent communication with Bob, which he copied only to you, with the full Board.

After receiving Bob's email I suggested to him, and I suggest to you, that these exchanges be shared with our colleagues on the BOS as they have received all the "chatter" between you and I on this subject.

As you wish. I would caution, however, that the District Attorney and now the Attorney General view serial communication via email, by a quorum of a public body, as an open meeting law issue.

I would add Jim that we are not so naive as to accept your position that we ask you to betray the trust or violate the law.

I do not suggest you to be naïve at all. And for the record, it is not “my position” that you and other members of the Board have asked me to break the law. It is fact that Mr. Gould has done so as follows:

Mr. Gould convened an illegal executive session and demanded that I participate. When I declined and advised him and you all of the illegal nature of the undertaking he yelled, repeatedly, at me to “Shut up.” He further declared that “[I] will answer [his] questions.” Even going so far to say that I would be insubordinate for failing to do so.

And at a minimum it lends itself to the appearance of you having done so as follows:

You, in your email of June 14, 2010 @ 7:07 pm, after having been advised of the cost of the production of the voluminous public records request that you personally made, similarly declared that “the answers to [your] questions will be provided to [you] without charge.” You even went as far as to state that I would have to deal with “attorneys” if I did not provide you the documents without charge.

Different people have different interpretations of what the law means. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine. I think you too often use that canard in defense of positions you take.

This troubles me. According to Webster’s canard means- “false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report b : a groundless rumor or belief.” Do you really believe that the two instances cited directly above represent canards?

It makes a great soundbite but I don't think should a challenge ever be mounted legally that you are likely to prevail. Perhaps we shall see as time goes on.

None of this is intended to be soundbite material. I am saddened to have my sincere efforts at upholding my legal duties as such. Having said that, however, my hope would be to be able to perform my legally required functions without having to be sued, particularly by another agent of the town, but I stand convicted in the righteousness of my positions based upon my education, training and some twenty years of experience directly on point.

In the meantime, it would be nice if you would take our suggestions and concerns, as the duly elected body and your evaluator and supervisor, and spend less time trying to find ways to distract our sincere efforts.

This confuses me. Please cite an instance where I have neglected to respond to your sincere efforts and/or concerns. Candidly and respectfully, regardless of your duly elected position(s) as my supervisor and evaluator, while I will always respond, I will not do so in any way that is out of square with the law.

As for individual meetings with you, I think it should be evident especially since you rely so heavily on what your legal responsibilities are, that we like to have things in written form.

I will work with what I am given.

As a matter of information, could you tell me what the legal opinion of the Selectmen's Policies cost the town?

Certainly. In the most recent billing from our town counsel there is a total of 7.6 hours dedicated to the matter for a total of $654.00.

As for my request for information, the one you wanted to charge me for, I think we shall be able to summon a majority of votes to get that information in written form for our evaluation. Please ask that Chairman Gould put that request on the agenda for the next BOS meeting.

Not to be a stickler, but, there is a distinction between “the one that [I] wanted to charge you for” and “that the law requires you to pay for.” In an effort at best serving your wishes, in what form should such “request” be provided to the agenda? Does your original request via email cover it?

Hope you are having a decent June.

Thank you. In fact, I am. My step-son graduated high school and will be off to Lasell College this fall, my daughter “graduated” from pre-school and is off to full day K in the fall and my eldest step-daughter just gave birth to my first grandson yesterday. So, all things considered, my June has been a blessing.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
978.297.0085

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

---

Verbal assault by Burton Gould called "school yard behavior" by BOS member

From: Jackson Blair [mailto:jacksonblair@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:07 PM
To: James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Subject: question

Jim:

I just read the Gardner News article about the Fire Chief and Burt. Nothing good will come of that kind of school yard behavior. We need to work these things out amongst ourselves. I know Bob feels the same way and I think you do too, based on our conversations.

What is the best way forward in this?

You mentioned hearing that Bob had gone to Boston about you and your job. I told you I thought that unlikely. I have since talked with Bob and the only thing he can think of that might have caused someone to say that to you was that he did visit with the ethics people to get a read on Ed Bond's situation.

Also, some time ago he he asked me to accompany him in September for a briefing on the charter and charter revision. We do plan to go to Boston for that briefing.

I hope this puts your mind at ease.

In the meantime, good luck with tomorrow's Town Meeting. It seems to me that it should be uneventful and productive. At least I hope that is the case.

Jack

---

Convenes illegal BOS meetings contrary to open meeting law

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM, James M. Kreidler, Jr.. wrote:

Dear Board,

The Town Clerk advises that the soonest the special ballot election can be held is 35 days after the date on which you vote to call the special election.

Therefore, if you meet next on the 8th of June, which would be your regularly scheduled meeting, the soonest date for the election would be 35 days later on Tuesday July 13th.

Please let us know in the office what your wishes are in this regard.

Also, in the short time that this Board has been convened I have expressed some concern to you regarding the open meeting law and the Board’s adherence to it on at least two occasions---the day after election when Burt, Ed, Jack and Bob scheduled to meet together in the town hall office of the Board and discussed Board business and again in the last executive session when an item that did not have any legal privilege was introduced and discussed over my objection.

I now have concerns regarding what has been described as a “social” visit of the same four Board members at the Winchendon School at which time town business was also discussed.

I strongly suggest that you call a meeting, or at a minimum that you meet with me in sub-quorum groups, to go over the open meeting law and its applicability to each of these situations. Part of my job is to advise the Board on these types of matters and I must stress that there is more to this law than my appear at first blush and I truly believe that my twenty years of experience would serve to benefit you.

I trust that you take no offense to me attempting to perform my duties under the law.

Jim
James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
978.297.0085
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

---

Convenes illegal BOS meetings contrary to open meeting law

On May 6, 2010, at 2:22 PM, "James M. Kreidler, Jr." wrote:

Dear Board,

I have just been presented with a hand drawn, black flaired, seating plan depicting where I am going to be directed to or allowed to sit during Board meetings.

Of course it unfortunately goes without saying that this was not communicated to me directly but rather through Mrs. Daigle from Selectman Gould.

This seating plan shows me being moved across the room directly opposite where I have sat for the past seven or so years.

When queried about the plan Mr. Gould stated that “the Board had decided that this is how it’s going to be” and that I was being moved either in whole or in part because “Zbikowski doesn’t want to sit next to me.”

Now, I don’t mind where I sit as I am certain that I can and will be equally effective in my support of the Board from either side of the table, but this issue presents another potential problem entirely.

I am advised that on Tuesday morning at 10:00 am a super majority quorum of four members of the Board met together in the Town Manager’s/Board of Selectmen office. One member, who is also a town employee who is regularly scheduled to have been working during this time, knew in advance of this meeting such that he requested the time off from his supervisor in order to be in attendance. Any suggestion of this having been a “chance” meeting could be clearly cut against by such a fact.

I am advised that at this meeting of the Board that town business items were discussed. Items of discussion included, but were not limited to, how agenda packets are going to be handled from this point onward, when the bi-weekly agenda will close, how and by whom matters will now be allowed to be placed on the agenda, policies and procedures of the Board as they exist and as they are going to be changed/deleted and planned actions for the upcoming May 10, 2010 Selectmen meeting relating to the Town meeting warrant.

Whether one or none of you wish to speak with me or care for me either personally or as your town manager is irrelevant against the obligations that you each have to uphold the requirements of the open meeting law. More to point, as per section 4-2 intro and (g) of the Winchendon Home Rule Charter, I have an obligation to see that all General laws are ‘FAITHFULLY CARRIED OUT, PERFORMED, EXECUTED AND ENFORCED.”

I am further advised that just today a quorum of three members were in the office again.

These two meetings, when detailed by the nature of the matters discussed and when added to by the stated “board’s decision” vis-à-vis the seating plan, strongly lend themselves to what appear to be violations of the Open Meeting law.

I wish to assure you all that I mean no disrespect in sending this email. Quite to the contrary I would suggest that it demonstrates a respect for the Board, for my duty to advise it and to uphold the laws.

While I am not certain of all that lies ahead of us as we work together for the benefit of all of the residents of town, one thing I can assure you of is that I will continue to take my obligations under the charter very seriously, as well I should. I would hope that you would agree.

Jim
James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
978.297.0085
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

These emails were obtained from the town of Winchendon by public records request