Thanks to the anonymous reader who sent me this article from CommonWealth magazine. If you’re interested in the fate of pigdog magistrate Robert E. Powers, you’ll want to READ THIS:
Reigning supreme
Clerk-magistrates, with lifetime tenure and no mandatory retirement age, rule the roost in Massachusetts courthouses.
Ronald Arruda is the clerk-magistrate of the Bristol Juvenile Court, which is a little like saying he is the king of his court.
He was appointed to the job by former Gov. Edward King in 1982 and, while six governors have come and gone since then, Arruda hasn’t budged. The 66-year-old clerk-magistrate can keep earning his $110,000-a-year salary as long as he wants because the job is the only one in state government that comes with lifetime job security and no mandatory retirement age. Some of his fellow clerks work into their 80s; some even into their 90s.
Arruda’s 20-person kingdom may be small, but he has practically absolute control over it. Arruda, who has six assistants, has used that power to hire into assistant clerk positions Angelo Ligotti, the son of Hingham District Court clerk-magistrate Joseph Ligotti, and Susan Correia, the daughter of former House majority leader and Fall River mayor Robert Correia. He also hired Mark Tobin, the son of longtime Quincy District Court clerk-magistrate Arthur Tobin, who has since transferred to Norfolk Juvenile Court in his hometown of Quincy.
Arruda says it’s “just a coincidence” that he hired relatives of fellow clerks and politicians. A former probation officer himself, Arruda says there is no similarity between the situation at his office and the widespread patronage hiring at the Probation Department that has spawned numerous task forces and law enforcement investigations. “There is no problem here,” he says. “We don’t have that situation like they do in Probation.”
Yet there are remarkable similarities between the oversight of Probation and the clerk-magistrate offices across the state. At Probation, the Legislature in 2001 gave the commissioner exclusive authority to hire, fire, assign, and discipline within the Probation Department, which employs 2,000 people. Less well known is the fact that the Legislature at the same time took away from judges the power to hire assistant clerks at the court and gave that authority to the 82 clerk-magistrates. The clerk-magistrates now have the power to convey lifetime job security on their 400 assistant clerks. They also oversee thousands of other clerical staff.
“It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” says Linda Carlisle, a former member of the Court Management Advisory Board, which advises judges on the best way to operate the court system. “There’s virtually no way whatsoever to get them out of the office…They have, pretty much, little fiefdoms.”
The keys to these kingdoms tend to go to politically connected people. Despite an increase in the judicial powers given to clerks, there is no requirement that a clerk-magistrate or the assistants have a law degree—or any college degree, for that matter.
There are 72 clerk-magistrates across Massachusetts who have been appointed by governors and another 10 acting clerks who have been appointed on a temporary basis by each court division’s chief justice. Of the 72 gubernatorial appointments, 25 percent have political ties to the Legislature or the executive branch. At least six are themselves former representatives or senators, three are related to current or former reps or senators, six are former legislative aides, and three are former administration officials.
“People who serve in the public office respond to their constituency,” Tobin says unapologetically. “The legislators feel it’s part of their job…It goes on in private industry, too.”
Tobin admits “there might be a couple people” in his own clerk’s office who got jobs through his intervention when he was in the Legislature more than three decades ago, maybe a few others who have since retired. Tobin will not say if he influenced the hiring decision of his son, Mark, or his transfer from Bristol to Quincy. But he recalls a conversation with former Patriot Ledger publisher Prescott Low about his ascension to the top position at the paper.
“I said to him, ‘Do you think you’d be the publisher if your father didn’t own the paper?’” Tobin says. “It’s part of life. It’s the same things in unions, where people get jobs for brothers or nephews or cousins. I never did it for a stranger.”
Never want to leave
Clerk-magistrates are like Energizer bunnies. They keep going and going and going, even if perhaps not quite as vigorously. It’s not unheard of for clerk-magistrates and their assistants to serve well into their 80s and beyond. The record is probably held by the late John E. Flaherty, the legendary South Boston District Court clerk-magistrate, who was coming up on 60 years in office when he died at the age of 94 in 2005.
The oldest current clerk is 82-year-old Thomas Noonan, the Worcester District Court clerk-magistrate, who was appointed by Gov. Michael Dukakis in his first term. The longest-serving clerk is Henry H. Shultz, who was just 31 years old when Gov. Francis Sargent appointed him clerk-magistrate of Newton District Court. He’s been in that job 40 years.
Records indicate 10 of the appointed clerks are more than 70 years old, the mandatory retirement age for judges. At least six clerks have occupied their positions for 30 years or more and were in their 30s when they were appointed.
In addition to administrative duties, clerk-magistrates can issue search warrants and arrest warrants, set bail for criminal defendants, handle arraignments for misdemeanors, rule on uncontested motions, and hold hearings for moving violations and small claims. They are the local courts’ traffic cops, working behind the scenes to ensure an orderly flow of cases.
Unlike judges, whose positions are mandated by the state constitution, clerk-magistrates are a statutory creation of the Legislature. In Massachusetts, there are elected clerks in the county Superior Courts and appointed clerks in the district, housing and juvenile courts, as well as an appointed land recorder. The duties and responsibilities are fairly equal, as is the pay, but over the years the Legislature has expanded the powers of the clerks and shielded them from oversight by the judiciary—and nearly everyone else.
While the Trial Court’s Chief Justice for Administration and Management, known as the CJAM, is the titular head of clerks, in reality, they are their own bosses. The law states that the powers of the CJAM, the chief justice of the district court, and the first justice of each district court “shall not include the authority or power to exercise, supersede, limit, prevent the exercise of or otherwise affect any of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the clerks or registers of probate in any general or special law, including laws authorizing or governing the selection and appointment of personnel.”
Many clerks are attorneys, but it is not a requirement. In fact, judges grumble that there are no background requirements at all for clerks even though they deal with the law on a daily basis, including issuing rulings in small claims cases valued as high as $7,000. A couple years ago a “mini-law school” was organized for the clerks to brief them on legal issues they needed for their jobs.
Forty of the 72 appointed clerk-magistrates have law degrees, while 27 have a bachelor’s or master’s degree in non-legal disciplines as their highest level of educational attainment. Five of the current clerk-magistrates have no four-year degree at all.
Of the 32 clerks that had no law degrees when they were nominated, 21—or nearly 66 percent—either had lawmakers testify on their behalf at their confirmation hearing or write letters of recommendation. In contrast, of the 40 who were lawyers, only 17, or about 42 percent, had lawmakers stand up for them, and that included seven nominees who were themselves either former legislators or aides.
The job of clerk-magistrate comes with some attractive perks. For those who started as clerks before 1987, the six-figure salary comes with 30 days of vacation and 30 sick days per year, which can accumulate up to 180 days and is paid out of retirement. Those who started after 1987 get 20 days of vacation to start, increasing to 30 days after nine years. They also receive 15 days of sick time, and unused sick days can be carried over year to year without limit. Court spokeswoman Joan Kenney said each clerk’s office maintains their own attendance and payroll records.
Clerks can also make money on the side by setting bail for defendants arrested after court hours. The bail fee is $40 per case, which nets the clerks as a group about $2.5 million a year.
A number of current and former elected officials have had family members on the payroll, some of whom started as assistants and rose to clerk-magistrate. The most infamous was John “Jackie” Bulger, brother of former Senate president William Bulger. Jackie Bulger retired as clerk-magistrate of the Suffolk Juvenile Court, but was stripped of his pension for lying about contact with his fugitive brother, Whitey Bulger.
Brian Kearney, husband of former state representative Marianne Lewis, is clerk-magistrate in Natick District Court. Margaret Albertson, daughter of former state representative and Boston Municipal Court Judge Michael Flaherty, is clerk-magistrate of the South Boston Court.
Clerks also hire their assistants, many of whom are top-notch administrators. But the clerk and assistant clerk ranks also include people with strong political connections. Stephen Leduc, who represented Marlborough in the Legislature, is now an assistant clerk in Marlborough District Court. Raymond J. Salmon Jr., whose namesake was a clerk-magistrate in Clinton, is First Assistant Clerk in Leominster District Court. Robert Tomasone, clerk-magistrate in Somerville District Court, is the brother of retired Suffolk County assistant clerk Anthony Tomasone.
Former House majority leader and Fall River mayor Robert Correia, who has a daughter working as an assistant in the Bristol Juvenile Court, also has a daughter-in-law working as an assistant clerk in the Southeast Housing Court in Fall River. Two of the current acting clerks, who are typically drawn from the assistant ranks, also have familiar names. Jody Menard-Parece is the acting clerk in Taunton District Court. She is the daughter of former state senator Joan Menard of Fall River, who is now an administrator at Bristol Community College. Charles Ardito II, the acting clerk of Orleans District Court, is the son of a retired judge.
There is nothing illegal about any of this, nor is it a violation of rules and procedures. Once appointed, a clerk-magistrate has total control over his or her assistants according to statute. The chief justice has 21 days after being notified to veto an appointment and, if no action is taken, the hiring is permanent.
Since assistant clerks have no mandatory retirement age, newly appointed clerk-magistrates often have to wait a long time before hiring an assistant. In Boston Municipal Court, for instance, Clerk-Magistrate Daniel J. Hogan says the average length of service for his assistants in the criminal division is about 28 years.
“I inherited all of his people, some of whom are extraordinary employees, some of whom are not extraordinary employees,” Hogan says of the staff hired by his predecessor. “I had assistant clerks that had been here 50 years.”
One of the assistants was Rosemary T. Carr, whom Hogan knew well. While serving as an assistant clerk and attending law school after his parents retired and moved to Florida, Hogan and another sister lived in the three-family South Boston home of Carr and her husband. Carr is now Hogan’s first assistant, earning $92,000 a year. “The Carrs took us in and we’ll be forever grateful,” Hogan says.
Getting rid of them is impossible
Once someone is named a clerk or assistant clerk, it’s nearly impossible to remove them from the post. The last—and only—time it happened was in 1992.
A court advisory report last year described the process for removing a clerk as onerous and likely only if the individual had been convicted of a crime or official malfeasance. Any clerk removed for cause must have his or her case heard by an advisory committee made up of judges and clerks and also be given a hearing before the Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court, which in turn must decide whether or not to refer the matter to the Supreme Judicial Court for action.
“The process is rarely tested and these positions (as noted by the Monan Report) are tantamount to a system of lifetime tenure,” according to a report issued last year by the Court Management Advisory Board. The Monan Report refers to a study issued in 2003 by a group headed by Rev. J. Donald Monan, the former president of Boston College.
According to records at the committee on professional responsibility, only six appointed clerks-magistrates or assistants have been the formal targets of removal over the years, with no action against one, three resigning or retiring before the hearings were concluded, one being reassigned, and only one being removed for cause.
In the fall of 2000, longtime Framingham District Court Clerk-Magistrate Anthony S. Colonna Sr., then 85 and in the clerk’s job for 37 years, was charged with assaulting a female court employee, Denise Fiandaca. Fiandaca filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and later filed suit in court saying court officials knew about Colonna’s behaviors for years and did nothing.
A judge ruled Colonna, a former state representative, incompetent to stand trial on the charges but he did not retire until five months later when he was again charged with assault, this time for an alleged attack on several family members with a knife. He had been placed on paid leave but no move was made to bring him before the committee on professional responsibility. He died in October, 2001. The Trial Court made a confidential settlement with Fiandaca in 2004.
In 2007, Fox 25 reported that Roxbury clerk-magistrate Michael Neighbors had a spotty attendance record. Then, in a follow-up report, the television station obtained an internal report that showed the clerk’s office in total disarray, with restraining orders not being served, warrants that were cleared not being removed from the system, phones not working in the office, and the number of backlogged cases being misreported. Despite being a no-show for months on end in the Fox investigation and the organizational mess in the office, Neighbors continues to hold his job with no report of public action taken.
In 1997, West Roxbury District Court Clerk Michael McCusker, a one-time racing commissioner appointed by Dukakis in 1990, was shipped to Brockton District Court after he was accused of making threatening statements to a judge and, at another time, waving a gun in his office. McCusker had charges filed against him by the committee on professional responsibility but retired with his pension intact in 1999 before his case was heard.
The ability to remove assistant clerks is equally difficult. Short of criminal conviction, as in the 2009 case of Chelsea District Court assistant clerk James M. Burke, who was fired for soliciting sexual favors from two prostitutes, assistant clerks can be removed only for cause.
Just what “cause” means became the focus of a lawsuit filed by James M. Whalen, an assistant clerk in Springfield District Court. Budget cutbacks forced the layoff of Whalen in 2002, but he was returned to his post in 2004. Whalen sued, claiming people with less seniority were not subject to the layoff, a distinction that to him meant he was let go “for cause.”
A judge ruled Whalen should have been granted the hearings required under the law for dismissing someone for cause. State officials agreed to a settlement in the case and last year, Whalen was paid more than $190,000, more than twice his $84,870 salary. The extra money represented back pay under the agreement for the time he was laid off, according to a court spokeswoman.
Power connections
With their connections to the Legislature combined with regular contributions to campaign coffers, clerk-magistrates have been successful in expanding their earning power, increasing their autonomy, and beating back restrictions on their authority and pocketbooks.
Since 2001, individual clerk-magistrates and their assistants and their advocacy organization, the Association of Magistrates and Assistant Clerks, have combined to contribute more than $140,000 to candidates around the state, many of them Beacon Hill’s most powerful members such as past and present governors, speakers and Senate presidents, judiciary committee chairmen and ways and means chairmen from both chambers. The generosity has apparently not gone unnoticed by lawmakers.
Clerks’ salaries have traditionally been tied to the pay of judges, with clerk-magistrates earning 75.4 percent of a court’s chief justice’s salary, while assistant clerks made 71 percent of a clerk-magistrate’s salary. For the fiscal year 2006 budget, legislators passed a 15-percent boost in judge’s salary to nearly $131,000, meaning clerks received about an $11,000 hike.
But during deliberations in November 2005 on a supplemental budget for FY2006, and without a recorded vote, an amendment was quietly introduced in the Senate that increased the salary for clerks to 81.6 percent of judges’ pay, meaning clerks got a total raise of $22,000 to more than $110,000. Assistant clerks received an increase to 77 percent of their bosses’ salaries, to $84,870 a year. There was no author identified in the records.
A few years ago, as budget deficits began growing, a move was made to direct to the state coffers some or all of the $40 fees clerks can make from setting bail for defendants arrested after court hours at night or on weekends. The proposal went nowhere in the face of heavy lobbying from the clerks.
In 2008, the Legislature was considering a bill to decouple the clerks’ salaries from judges, a move that could mean lower pay. Again, it was successfully defeated by strong lobbying and campaign contributions of at least $25,000 to lawmakers from clerks and their association that year.
The clerk-magistrates are also very sensitive to any encroachment on their authority, no matter how minor. Last year, Mulligan, the chief justice of administration and finance, issued a directive that all early releases of clerk and other court employees during weather or other emergencies had to be cleared through his office as a way to ensure adequate staffing coverage at courthouses.
Hogan, the Boston Municipal Court clerk-magistrate, serves as president of the state’s professional association of clerks. With the unanimous backing of his group, Hogan protested that only clerks had the statutory authority over the personnel in their offices. Mulligan subsequently revised his directive to say that first justices at courthouses could make decisions about employees during emergency shutdowns but only “after consultation” with clerks.
One former member of the Court Management Advisory Board said the power of the clerks is formidable. “When we were talking with probation officials, even they expressed their envy for the power of the clerks,” says the official, who asked not to be identified.
What should be done?
The 2003 Monan report identified lifetime tenure and near-total autonomy as the biggest impediments to effecting change in the courts, a charge that has been made countless times by a number of panels studying court management.
“There are also obstacles to good management within individual courthouses. First Justices often are armed only with moral suasion in their dealings with probation officers and clerks,” says the report. “Clerks who are appointed for life openly feud with the judges they are supposed to support.”
Some judges and clerks say the animosity referred to in the Monan report has lessened in recent years, in part because the courts are now using metrics to gauge the performance of each court and the judges and clerks realize cooperation is key to keeping those metrics high.
Both the Monan report and last year’s Court Management Advisory Board report call on the Legislature to revamp the structure of the appointed clerks’ offices, giving judges more power to hire assistants and making clerks more accountable to the judges in their courthouses. The Monan report did not specifically recommend a mandatory retirement age but pointed out the pitfalls of lifetime tenure. Last year’s advisory board report cited eliminating lifetime tenure and instituting a retirement age as one of its seven core recommendations.
State Rep. Daniel Winslow, a former judge and Romney administration official, has introduced a bill calling for a mandatory retirement age of 70 years old for clerks and assistant clerks, the same as the mandatory retirement age for judges.
Hogan, who was appointed to his position in 1999 at the age of 34, says members of the clerks’ association would be open to a mandatory retirement age—in exchange for a better pension classification. Hogan says some members would support a mandated retirement age if they could get a Group 2 or Group 4 pension classification, the same as public safety jobs such as state or local police, firefighters, and some sheriffs’ positions.
The change would allow them to collect far more generous retirement benefits at a younger age. A clerk who retired at the age of 55 with 20 years service in Group 1, which is what clerks now get, would receive about 30 percent of his or her salary. If the retirement was under Group 2, they would get about 40 percent, or if Group 4, about half their salary. And they could max out their benefits at an earlier age in either of the higher categories.
Hogan, who could retire at age 70 with 80 percent of his salary no matter what category he was in, makes clear he does not support the pension-retirement age swap. “I could name several judges who have reached the mandatory retirement age at 70 but who are in better shape than I,” Hogan says. “I think it’s a very dangerous, dangerous proposition for some of my colleagues to say, ‘We’ll take retirement if we get Group 2 or Group 4.’ If you’re not cutting it, it’s something your family should say, ‘Hey, maybe it’s time to do something else.’”
Mulligan, the trial court’s chief justice for administration and management, told CommonWealth last year that everyone in the court system should have a term and serve at the pleasure of his or her superior. His own position, he noted, and those of department chief justices and the jury commissioner all come with five-year terms. Even Supreme Judicial Court justices have a mandatory retirement age of 70.
Yet when asked after a February panel discussion on hiring controversies in the Probation Department about the lifetime appointments of appointed clerk-magistrates, Mulligan begged off. “They have certain autonomy, there’s no question about that,” he says. “But at this point we have enough to take on without taking on the issue of what autonomy clerks should have.”
But it appears a panel appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court to investigate court hiring will look into clerk-magistrate offices. Former attorney general Scott Harshbarger, who heads the panel, says he has heard stories about the insular clerks and their ties to the Legislature. But he says he has no empirical evidence about the clerks, only anecdotes.
“We had the Ware report,” Harshbarger says of the SJC-commissioned study of the Probation Department. “So in effect the facts had been found for us there. One of the issues with the court officers and the clerks is we don’t have that kind of detailed investigative fact-finding. Our mission is to figure out whether we need to do that kind of factual review to determine whether or not in the past there have been inappropriate influences in hiring and promotion practices.”
John Klimm has been hired as Town Administrator by the town of Portsmouth RI.
Looks like a fairly easy commute.
With only seven town councilors, John should have an easier time doing his thing. Seems like a good fit for him and Portsmouth.
I’m glad he found a job out of town. Out of sight out of mind, I hope.
Time for EVERYONE to move on!
Yeah he’s out of town with $286,000 dollars of our money in his pocket!! Recalls of Fred Chirigotis, Jan Barton, and Janet Joakim are looking better and better everyday!! The buyout should have been rescinded as soon as the “new” council was first seated!!! I know Klimm signed the agreement but the council works for us and just let the buyout money fly right out the window!!!!
I have no problem with John Klimm wanting to work elsewhere just not with a fat check from the taxpayers in Barnstable!!!!!
RECALLS — RECALLS — RECALLS!!!!!!
Thanks to Hank Farnham, Jim Crocker and Jim Munafo. You can’t recall them. Barnstable citizens already did.
Yeah but Chirigotis and Barton should have rescinded the deal as soon as Farnham, Munafo, and Crocker were gone. Not doing was so simply gross negligence on the part of Barton, Chirigotis, and Joakim. The votes were there once the new councilors were seated but Chirigotis, Barton and Joakim decided public comment at council meetings was a more important issue then $286,000 tax dollars!!!!!
Joakim was very active behind the scenes in putting the spin on “the Crocker Six”. She is as evil as the day is long, and shame on anyone who ever turns their back on her.
Voters don’t seem to understand it, but what they really want is a mayor. They want a central figure with a pleasant personality to lead the town. Since council presidents generally serve a two year stint, it was kind of natural that voters saw Klimm as the town’s top official. It didn’t hurt that John knows how to work it.
I saw a professionally printed sign in the little grass island going into Ostervile (from C’ville) that said “Support John Klimm” in big letters, and something like, vote out all incumbents beneath it in smaller letters. Voters just didn’t seem to understand the nature of a town manager’s position because John did such a good job acting like a mayor!
All those letters to the editor, including some from people who know better, like Mimi McConnell, reinforced the idea that Klimm was the “leader” of our town, and that he was fired. I attempted to speak with McConnell about her misrepresentation of the charter in one of her letters, but she played dumb, and a more important call came in so I let it go.
Folks around here don’t care about reality. They just want what they want, and they’re used to getting it. We need a new charter, but who has the time?????
The question is should we the voters allow Joakim’s kind of behavior to continue until 2013??
So the grounds for her third recall would be what?
Klimm signed the agreement, a legally binding contract. How could the council turn around and legally “rescind the deal”?
From the police log Wed. Jan 18th:
2:34 pm – Fraud was reported at 206 donegal Cr., Centerville, report taken.
(206 donegal is Joakim’s house)
Is she still writing bad checks?
From Tuesday, Jan. 24th:
8:21 pm – A domestic verbal argument was reported at Donegal Circle, Centerville, report taken.
Trouble in paradise?
“Taryn Thoman | January 26, 2012 at 20:03 | Reply
So the grounds for her third recall would be what?”
Fiscal irresponsibility and failure to protect the taxpayers from financial harm would be a good start.
“Tommy | January 26, 2012 at 20:19 | Reply
Klimm signed the agreement, a legally binding contract. How could the council turn around and legally “rescind the deal”?”
The buyout deal did not start until 12/15/11 the council could have and should have voted to begin negotiations with John Klimm on 12/1/11, which was the first meeting of the “new” council”. The motion to do this could have included language that nullified the buyout as voted on 6/23/11. Yes Klimm signed the agreement but the start date was the key to the whole thing.
Has the contract been published anywhere? I’m aware that Klimm had an option to renegotiate after the election, but I didn’t see where that was a two way street.
Too bad “being a dispicable person” isn’t grounds for recall. Unless Joakim shoots her unarmed husband in their living room, she’s not going to be recalled between now and when she terms out in less than two years. Hell, in this town she probably wouldn’t even be prosecuted!
The start date for payments under the agreement was 12/16/11 and he received $47,000 dollars in unused vacation time on that day. The agreement Klimm signed had him employed by the town but on a leave of absence from 9/30/11 to 12/15/11. This why Tom Lynch was only appointed as interim Town Manager for three months because The pro Klimm side of the council expected Crocker, Munafo, Farnham and Canedy to be gone after the election and the new council would then reinstate John Klimm.
But for some unknown reason Fred Chirigotis was asleep at the wheel and was not able to make John’s reinstatement happen.
John Klimm’s new duties per the Portsmouth Home Rule Charter:
304. Duties. The Town Administrator shall have the power and shall
be required:
a. To submit to the Council, not later than April 2 prior to
the start of the next fiscal year, a proposed budget of
receipts and expenditures and an explanatory budget message.
For such purpose the Town Administrator shall obtain from the
head of each office, department and agency except the School
Committee, estimates of its revenues and expenditures and such
supporting data as he/she may request. In preparing the
proposed budget, the Town Administrator shall review the
estimates and may revise them as he/she may deem advisable.
The budget as proposed by the Town Administrator shall show all
anticipated revenue and all proposed expenditures except those
- 13 -
for school purposes, and the total of such expenditures shall
not be greater than the total of anticipated revenue. The Town
Administrator shall request from the School Committee its
budget of estimated expenditures and revenues for transmission
to the Council. He/She shall incorporate the total of these
expenditures and revenues with the total he/she has arrived at
for general Town purposes. He/She shall file one (1) copy of
the recommended budget with the Town Clerk to be available for
public inspection.
b. To see that the laws and ordinances are enforced by all
departments and boards under his/her jurisdiction.
c. To appoint all department heads and other officers provided
for in this Charter, in applicable state law, or established by
ordinance, whose appointment or election is not otherwise
provided for; all such appointments are subject to approval by
the Town Council and to appropriate personnel policies; to
recommend to the Town Council the removal of any department
head or official he/she appointed pursuant to the provisions of
this section.
d. To recommend the compensation of all officers and employees
under his/her jurisdiction subject to the approval of the
Council.
e. To assign additional duties as needed to offices, agencies
or departments established by the Charter; provided, however,
that any duties assigned by this Charter to any specific
office, agency or department may not be discontinued nor may
they be reassigned to a different office, agency or department
without the approval of the Town Council. (Amended November 2,
2004; eff. date same.)
f. To recommend the establishment of new, or the combining of
existing offices, agencies, or departments to the Town Council.
g. To have prepared and submitted to the Council, no later than
six (6) months after the close of the fiscal year an audited
report as provided in Section 905 of this charter that reflects
the financial activities of the Town for the most recent fiscal
year, and to print and make available to property owners,
qualified electors, and other interested parties a copy of the
audited financial statements. (Amended November 2, 2004; eff.
date same.)
h. To perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this
Charter or required of him/her by the Council.
i. To cause the personnel policy to be reviewed and revised as
necessary. (Amended November 2, 2004; eff. date same.)
j. To evaluate yearly all department heads under his/her
jurisdiction and submit written evaluation reports to the Town
- 14 -
Council. (Adopted November 7, 1972; as amended November 8,
1983; eff, date January l, 1984.)
So what? This doesn’t explain why you think the council could “rescind the deal”. The contract was a written agreement, signed by both parties. You can’t just change the terms after a contract is signed.
As I said the key was the date the agreement started which was 12/16/11 this is why Tom Lynch was only given 3 months as interim manager. Chirigotis, Barton and Joakim were telling everyone who would listen that if Daley, Cullum, Cote, Rapp Grasetti and Hersey were elected that John would be brought back.
John Klimm was still a town employee from 9/30/11 to 12/15/11 which means the council could have and should have reinstated John on 12/01/11. In fact there was a discussion on 12/15/11 about extending Tom Lynch’s appointment as interim Town Manager. That agenda item could have been modified to instead reinstate John Klimm but that wasn’t done.
The entire council new the financial harm the buyout of John Klimm was going to do based on Mark Milne’s report back in September. Mark Milne pegged the combined costs of the buyout and hiring of a new manager at more the $600,000. That single fact was used by Joakim and others including BCFG to gather support for all of the challengers to the incumbent councilors.
The election results gave John Klimm a 9-2 majority of council support which is what he said he wanted. The problem here is that Fred Chirigotis as councilor leader should have moved much more quickly to resolve the John Klimm issue before the start date of the agreement. I realize that he had to wait for the new councilors to be sworn in but after they were, he still had more then two weeks to deal with the Klimm issue.
One special meeting with John Klimm in attendance to answer the question once for all about returning would have settled the matter. Again the election gave John Klimm what he wanted, but Fred dropped the ball in resolving the issue from the council side.
Chrigotis is a lawyer AND a pal to John Klimm. Don’t think for a minute that he doesn’t know how to seal a deal with taxpayer money for his friend.
You’ve made some broad assumptions about support for Klimm to waltz back into his throne. There are more than two councilors who felt, as I did, that once John Klimm accepted the deal, there was no point in coming back.
Besides, by mid-December John was already well on his way to a new job.
Klimm’s high buy out was nothing new for Barnstable, although I hope those sorts of deals become a thing of the past. One look at the former police chief and school superintendent’s exit deals will prove the point.
The whole mess demonstrated the need for a mayoral charter. Should one be voted in, I wouldn’t be surprised if John Klimm throws his hat in the ring. Unless that happens, Klimm is gone and so is the money. Time to move on.
I recommend you read Anne Canedy’s vision of the new manager’s position. ”http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=34&Itemid=50
“Chirigotis, Barton and Joakim were telling everyone who would listen that if Daley, Cullum, Cote, Rapp Grasetti and Hersey were elected that John would be brought back.”
Never, ever believe anything Joakim says, ever. Did you not notice that the scheme to elimate half of public comment was killed by “the new council”? Joakim promised that would happen, too.
Oh, and don’t forget those $150K per household sewer betterments!
Tom Lynch is quoted in this weeks edition of The Barnstable Enterprise as saying he only asked for a three month appointment as interim Town Manager because he believed that John Klimm was coming back. He was appointed as interim TM in September which means John Klimm’s return was being discussed eight weeks or so before the November elections.
If Tom Lynch expected John Klimm to be back then so did many others on the inside at town hall.
I recommend you read Anne Canedy’s vision of the new manager’s position. ”http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=34&Itemid=50
I read Ann Canedy’s column however she put several horses before several carts in her belief that there will even be a search for TM. The most likely scenario will be for Tom Lynch to be made town manager while a search is conducted for assistant town manager which is a less expensive position to fill.
Anne has the respect of most of her village, and the town. I agree with her on most provisions of the charter, although she was off base about the recall provision at the time of Joakim’s recall.
Ann appears to be acting in good faith that there will be a fair process that will hire the next town manager. I don’t know whether or not Tom Lynch would be a good town manager, but no one should just be handed the job.
Promotion from within is how the position was filled when Warren Rutherford left in 1997. The then Finance Director named James Tinsley (no relation to the current councilor with the same name) was named interim/acting town manager and then full time town town manager. He held the full time position from mid 1997 through late 1999 when John Klimm became available. John Klimm was actually considered as early as 1997 but was unavailable as he was serving a term as a state rep in Boston. He was hired when that state rep term expired in 1999.
Promoting Tom Lynch and then filling the less costly Assistant Town Manager position will be one option available to the town council. I was a little upset when Ann Canedy said she had no problem spending money on a search for a new Town Manager. I think this whole mess has already cost us enough and it’s time to as responsible as possible.
That’s just RIDONKULOUS! We want someone who won’t follow in John’s footsteps. Someone who understands the reality of the town manager position, and doesn’t try to pit half the council against the other half. This town blows a ton of money on far less important items. Hiring the right person will save us tons of money in the future. After all, look at all the land grabbing that went on during Klimm’s tenure. Does the town need to own every other property or pay ten times its value? We need to spend the money and find the right person. I’m afraid Tom Lynch might see the position as Klimm did.
For the record Tom Lynch as done an about face from when he said he did not want the Job back in September. He is currently expressing an interest in the position and he has to be viewed a serious candidate.
By promoting him to full time town manager and filling the vacant assistant town manager they will save $30,000 in salary, which is the the difference between the two salaries.
Right now Tom Lynch appears to have more then enough council support to win the day.
There is no guarantee that hiring the right person will in fact save us in the long run. After all we went from $160,000 per year Patty Grenier to new almost $200,000 school superintendent. In fact the new superintendent’s current salary of $180,000 for this year is already $50,000 more then she made doing the same job in another town last year. If the school committee had problem giving someone a $50,000 raise to run the schools, do you really trust the council when it comes to hiring a new town manager?
I don’t with Joakim, Barton, Chirigotis, on board so in this case it might just be better to play it safe with Tom Lynch until December 2013. At that point Joakim will be gone for sure and hopefully so will Chirigotis and Barton and maybe even Rugo.
“Right now Tom Lynch appears to have more then enough council support to win the day.”
You often say things like this, when I hear differing opinions. Also, the school committee and the council are two different animals. Your reasoning always sounds so manipulative.
Saving $30K is very little incentive to rubber stamp a guy who learned to manage under Klimm’s style of management. I’m leery of this rush to hire Lynch without a proper (and fair) search. In fact, I’m not even sure it’s legal.
I will repeat that Warren Rutherford was replaced with Finance Director James Tinsley in 1997 without a search of any kind. Mr. Tinsley made it clear when he was made full time town manager that was going to retire in 1999 which was when John Klimm became available for the position. So yes the council can and one past council did hire a town manager without a search of any kind.
My point about the school committee verses the council is that Patty Grenier was already making more then Klimm when she retired. Her replacement was hired at more then both Patty and John were making at the time. It is my opinion that the highest paid position in Barnstable Town Hall should be the town manager followed by the school superintendent and then the police chief. Those are three most important positions and functions in our town government.
My reasoning is not intended to be manipulative in any way it’s just that I know how things have happened in Barnstable’s past.
I don’t trust Chirigotis, Barton or Joakim when it comes to searching for a town manager. The only one on the council with any experience in hiring a town manager is Tom Rugo. He was an original town councilor elected in 1989 as part of the council that hired Warren Rutherford.
Do trust Joakim with being part of such an important task as hiring a town manager? Remember her absence on June 23, 2011 made stopping the buyout from passing impossible for Chirigotis. Had she attended that meeting the vote on the buyout would have deadlocked 6-6 and John Klimm would likely still be town manager. I realize that some of the blame should also be assessed to Councilor Tinsley for his absence on 6/23/11 but Joakim has been on the council longer then he has and knew what Jimmy Crocker was capable of and what he wanted to do with John Klimm.
To this day Joakim has not fully explained her absence that night while Jim Tinsley has explained his absence that night. All Joakim has said is that her absence was for “medical reasons” that night. I happen to know that she was inundated with emails and phone calls from irate constituents on June 24, 2011 and over absence.
You’ve gotta accept that this town is riddled with cancerous corruption.
There was no doubt in my mind that Joakim skipped that meeting intentionally. She’s crawled out of a deathbed to vote on something, and then go back home mid-meeting. If Klimm wanted her there, she’d have been there. Again I think Anne Canedy had the best explanation – the “Crocker Six” got played. Klimm is a smart, savvy guy, with loads of experience. Joakim was either “in on it”, or, more likely, she also “got played”.
The point is, we (the voters and the council) allowed John Klimm to create his own job description. The town needs to return to operating in concert with the charter. Anyone who learned how the job was done by Klimm is likely to attempt the same modus operandi. In the absence of a mayoral charter, we cannot allow Klimm style management to replace him.
I don’t know alot about Mr. Lynch, other than his history with housing, and that folks seem to genuinely like him. It’s not enough to be likable. Klimm was very likable, but he operated in a fashion that was destructive to the council, which was destructive to town government.
Now we have an opportunity to start from scratch. Let Tom Lynch throw his hat in the ring, and do a thorough search.