Stockbridge — The fallout from the departure of former Town Highway Superintendent Hugh Page has prompted one town official to respond to allegations of “character assassination” and lack of transparency in municipal meetings.
The Stockbridge Select Board was scheduled to meet in executive session at 3 p.m. on July 2 to discuss “the reputation, character and potential discipline” of Page. A copy of that agenda can be found here.
Prior to that session, however, Page resigned. That is when feathers were ruffled.
Residents, including Berkshire Edge columnist Carole Owens who called the agenda notice “character assassination,” questioned the wording of the agenda post as “inappropriate,” “defamatory,” and inflammatory.” She urged residents to attend the July 10 Stockbridge Select Board meeting to question the circumstances surrounding Page’s departure while advocating for the publishing of the process governing personnel matters amid allegations that Town Administrator Michael Canales exceeded his authority regarding the hiring and firing of local employees.
Massachusetts General Law provides the circumstances allowing a public body, such as select boards, to meet in executive session, including words used in the questioned agenda: “to discuss the reputation, character, physical condition or mental health, rather than professional competence, of an individual, or to discuss the discipline or dismissal of, or complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual.”
On July 10, Canales fired back, attaching a copy of the town’s official Personnel Procedures in his correspondence to Owens and voicing concern for attempts to encourage action for officials to discuss personnel matters, issues not permitted in open session pursuant to Massachusetts Open Meeting laws. Those items are also not listed on the evening’s Select Board agenda. “Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L.c.4 paragraph 7 (26)), information involving personnel and medical files is exempt from disclosure if releasing it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” Canales’ letter states. “Therefore, we will not—and cannot—discuss the specifics of any individual employee’s case.”
A copy of Canales’ July 10 response can be found here.
The correspondence provides the process for personnel complaints or incidents. That process, Canales states, involves first determining whether an investigation is needed, with the town administrator listed as the party responsible for initiating such an investigation. Union representation is involved, a formal report documents the findings, the town administrator prepares a recommendation, and, ultimately, the Select Board makes the final decision that may range from dismissing the case or terminating, transferring, or demoting the employee.
A copy of the town of Stockbridge’s Personnel Procedures can be found here.
Canales states the Select Board did not offer Pugh other positions in the town but that, rather, the group could have considered other alternatives “had a hearing occurred.” “No offers were extended,” he says.
Canales differentiates the type of government that prevails in Stockbridge, with the town administrator lacking “unilateral authority to hire or fire department heads.” “The Town Administrator’s role is to investigate, recommend, and ensure that all procedures conform to applicable laws, contracts and best practices,” he states.
Regarding allegations of transparency improprieties, Canales states that public meetings are posted in accordance with state law, provisions that ensure personnel matters, including disciplinary procedures, are kept confidential. “Governance is not about pleasantries it is about ensuring fairness, due process, legal compliance, and service to the public—all of which sometimes require making difficult, even unpopular decisions,” he states. “Civility is important—and we strive to treat everyone with respect—but civility is not the same as avoiding conflict or accountability. The two should not be confused.”
Canales concludes his dialogue noting the challenge personnel matters present to town officials, balancing “transparency, legality, fairness, and privacy.” “We remain committed to operating lawfully, professionally and with the utmost integrity,” he states.
