More questionable affairs by Chief Button arise.
By Tim McGuigan, Conte2006.com
I can understand wanting respect and privacy, especially when dealing matters as delicate and potentially damaging as the many rumors surrounding Chief Button’s departure. After all, no one likes getting caught with their pants down. I wonder did he ever concern himself with the privacy of the police officers and dispatchers he blindsided and abruptly dismissed or how his insensitive actions could have affected their families. I doubt it!
Having been kicked once or twice myself, I don’t make a habit of knocking someone when their down, however when I first began submitting to this site, someone who went by the screen name LAWMAN, took it upon themselves to badger me about my departure from Sturbridge. Like many, I’m certain Chief Button’s explanation, coupled with a heavy dose of character assassination was the version he heard.
This week a civil suit by Claudia S. Weiss, a Williamsburg lawyer charging the Sturbridge police with retaliation while Chief Button was in command was settled before going to trial, terms were not disclosed.
The attached civil suit, which had been prepared by Attorney William Scannell in 2003 explains my position of how and why I left Sturbridge. Incidentally, although Attorney Scannell took the time to meet with me on several occasions, investigate my allegations and prepare this complaint, he never filed it in Superior Court and I never received an adequate answer as to why.
I didn’t resign from Sturbridge, nor did I withhold information on my background. I didn’t commit a wrongful act punishable by law. What I did was allow the information and evidence that I had obtained speak for itself and asked the simple question of why Holly Piirainen never received a Grand Jury.
A letter I received from Chief Button dated December 20, 2002 refers to his refusal to return my investigative report on Holly Piirainen.
Like my former Chief Peter Fullam of North Brookfield, I believe Chief Button received a call from someone associated with District Attorney John Conte. Unlike Chief Fullam, however I believe Button took his marching orders and came after me.
I can only imagine the damage control when Conte and his cronies learned of my discovery of Molly’s swim suit and there I was again.
June 3, 2006
Sturbridge lawsuit settled
Complaint derives from 1999 arrest
By Brian Lee
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
STURBRIDGE— A civil lawsuit against the town of Sturbridge and its
Police Department, stemming from a 1999 traffic stop and arrest of a
Williamsburg lawyer, has been settled before going to trial.
The complaint alleged that the town and police were negligent in
failing to adequately train police officers regarding the laws of
arrest and protective custody, and laws pertaining to probable cause
regarding arrest and prosecution.
The plaintiff, Claudia S. Weiss, also alleged she was assaulted by
then Patrolman Jeffrey Lavallee, who is now a sergeant.
The case was
settled May 16, but terms were not disclosed in documents obtained
from U.S. District Court in Worcester.
Town Administrator James J. Malloy yesterday declined to comment on
the settlement amount. The Telegram & Gazette requested a copy of
the settlement terms in a public records request to Mr. Malloy’s
office.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Malloy said he was not sure whether
the financial information was a public record.
Town Counsel Joel Bard of the Boston firm Kopelman & Paige said
yesterday morning he was unfamiliar with the case. The town’s lawyer
on the case, Nancy Frankel Pelletier of Springfield, was in court
and could not be reached for comment.
Ms. Weiss did not return phone calls left at her practice in Putnam,
and her lawyer on the case, Harry L. Miles of Amherst, declined to
comment.
The case surfaced in October 2001.
According to court records, Sturbridge police had charged Ms. Weiss
with assault and battery on a police officer, disorderly conduct and
malicious destruction of property as a result of the stop. During
the stop, Ms. Weiss said she was trying to evade her then husband,
William T. Weiss. She was a passenger in a car that had been
followed by her former husband, when both cars were stopped.
According to the court records, there was a dispute as to whether
Ms. Weiss got out of the car on her own after police stopped the
vehicle. Ms. Weiss claimed she was inside the car with both feet on
the running board until told by police to get out of the car.
According to Ms. Weiss’ complaint, police placed her in protective
custody and she was arrested after protesting the legality of being
taken into custody.
The three charges were dismissed in district court in July 2000.
In February 2001, Ms. Weiss filed notice that she was considering
suing police and the town for its supervision of the department. She
filed a 10-count complaint, and a district court judge last year
found there was enough evidence to proceed with the case.
Ms. Weiss accused Sturbridge police of retaliating against her after
she gave notice, because police reintroduced the three charges on
June 7, 2001. According to her complaint, they also tacked on three
more charges — another count of assault and battery on a police
officer, resisting arrest, and assault and battery with a dangerous
weapon.
Her complaint said the six charges were dismissed in September 2001.
Ms. Weiss complained that the training of Sgt. Lavallee was
“constitutionally deficient” in protective custody matters. She also
alleged reckless and-or intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
The suit also cited complaints about the training and policy
practices of Officer Pamela G. Des Plaines, who is now a detective,
and Police Chief Thomas R. Button. Chief Button, who held the
appointed position since early 1998, resigned this week, effective
June 30, for “personal family reasons.”
June 1, 2006
Sturbridge police chief maintains silence
No explanation available for sudden resignation
By Brian Lee
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
STURBRIDGE— No further explanation for the sudden resignation of
Police Chief Thomas R. Button was available yesterday.
Chief Button did not attend Tuesday’s Board of Selectmen meeting
when his resignation was accepted, and he was not at his home
yesterday afternoon. His wife, Jeanne, said the chief was
unavailable and the family wanted their privacy respected.
Chief Button was placed on paid administrative leave May 5 to deal
with a “personal family issue.”
His resignation, which takes effect June 30, does not include a
financial package, Town Administrator James J. Malloy said
yesterday.
The police chief’s salary is $104,625. As an appointed employee,
Chief Button did not have a contract.
In a two-paragraph letter to Mr. Malloy, Chief Button announced his
“resignation and retirement” from the position he has held for 8-1/2
years.
“It has always been my intent to continue in this position between
the ages of 52 and 55,” the letter read. “It is necessary that I
retire now to deal with personal family issues.”
Button had previously served as Athol’s police chief for four years,
and was a New York state police captain before moving to
Massachusetts.
The board will soon form a search committee in accordance with the
town charter to find a successor to lead Sturbridge’s 18-person
police force. Lt. Thomas Ford is currently in charge.
Sturbridge
police chief, on leave, resigns
Selectmen cite complaint as reason for closed-door session; Lt. Ford
in charge
By Brian Lee
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
STURBRIDGE— The Board of Selectmen last night accepted a letter of
resignation from Police Chief Thomas R. Button, 25 days after he was
placed on administrative leave for a personal family issue.
Selectmen met in executive session just under two hours to “hear a
complaint brought against a public employee.”
Their decision was 5-0 to accept the eight-year chief’s resignation,
which takes effect June 30.
Chief Button submitted the letter yesterday, and he had been on
leave since May 5. He was not at the meeting.
Afterward, Board Chairman Arnold P. Wilson would not divulge details
of the chief’s departure.
Chief Button has held the appointed position since early 1998.
Mr. Wilson answered “no comment” when asked whether the chief was
asked to resign.
“We received the letter; we acted upon it,” Mr. Wilson said.
Mr. Wilson said the board would act soon in formulating a search
committee in accordance with the town charter to find a successor.
The police chief’s salary is $104,625.
The force’s second-in-command, Lt. Thomas Ford, is currently in
charge.
Before joining Sturbridge police in early 1998, Chief Button held a
similar post in Athol for four years.
He had also served 16 years with the New York State Police.
As an appointed employee, Chief Button did not have a contract.
He also served as Sturbridge’s emergency preparedness coordinator,
and on the town’s emergency planning, streetlight, safety and
traffic safety committees.
Chief Button current status under scrutiny.
By Tim McGuigan, Conte2006.com
A recent phone call from a concerned Massachusetts Trooper who is aware of my questionable departure from Sturbridge contacted me to advise of Chief Button’s current status. Upon hearing the reason why he left I could not help but feel delight for those still employed there.
Wanting to confirm what I had been told I contacted my former dispatcher at the Sturbridge police department. Upon hearing my name, her tone immediately changes as if knowing the reason for my call. Although I am privy to the rumors currently circulating through the ranks, I wanted to know, first hand the real reason for his untimely departure. I was given the scripted answer and advised that he was on personal leave.
With that being said, the most recent issues surrounding Police Chief Thomas Button came of no surprise to me when I learned of the scandal surrounding his "administrative leave". Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t have former State Representative Tom Colo, the Town of Athol or anyone else to blame for his most recent woes.
I have talked with several officers and former officers who have worked for Button and I am certain that the manner in which he "constructively" terminates cops is a well contrived system that in and of itself appears legitimate, however the sheer numbers and the similarity of how they were pressured is anything but.
In November of 2002, I corresponded with the Sturbridge Town Administrator James J. Malloy and requested via the freedom of information act any and all records pertaining to my employment with that town, specifically any investigation where I was the subject.
In a letter dated December 5, 2002 Mr. Malloy denied me access to the information I requested sighting MGL Ch. 4 s 7 (c). A follow up to his response generated the same denial. On December 12, 2002 I again received a letter from Mr. Malloy advising that he had conferred with the Secretary of State’s Public Records Division and felt comfortable that he provided the appropriate information. In the letter, Mr. Malloy corrects my assertion that I had been terminated and advised “At no time was your employment with the town of Sturbridge terminated, but that you resigned from your position as a police officer” At the time of this correspondence 22 police officers had come and gone the Sturbridge Police Department during Chief Button’s tenure. Other Police Officers who worked under Chief Button have since left.
Mr. Malloy’s lack of respect for the Freedom of information act and my understanding of what transpired in Chief Button’s office, only served to strengthen my resolve and I found the Town of Athol to be far more respectful of the FOA. They furnished me detailed documentation regarding Chief Button employment in that town.
According to the Telegram & Gazette dated Wednesday March 17, 1999 titled “Button sues, says he had to resign,” Button claimed that former state representative Colo’s criticism destroyed his reputation, diminishing his standing in Athol and made it impossible for him to perform his police duties effectively. The article goes on to report that Button was hired by Sturbridge in 1999 for a salaried position of $56,692, as of his recent departure his salary position in six years has nearly doubled to $104,625.
Among the literally hundreds of documents I was provided, to include stern warnings from the State ethics commission for questionable business practices, letters regarding improper phone use and paid time off, what I found most disturbing was on page 117 of his deposition conducted on September 20, 2001 at the offices of Pierce, Davis & Perritano. When asked If he had ever been disciplined while employed with the Athol Police Department he replied by saying, “you would have to define what you mean by discipline”. When asked if he was fired he replied by saying “I believe I was” Chief Button goes on to explain a term later referred to in other documents as "constructive termination".
By instituting what many Police Officer's consider to be a hostile work environment, he effectively manipulate who stays and who goes with little to no liability to the town. We need only look at the fine work Officer Chris Donaise and others have done for the town of Sturbridge and what happen to their careers to understand the bias and wrong doing that went on behind closed doors in his office.
May 12, 2006
Chief on leave
of absence
Gerard F. Russell, Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
STURBRIDGE -
Police Chief Thomas R. Button is on a paid leave of absence from the
police department for an indefinite time, according to Town
Administrator James J. Malloy.
Mr. Malloy this week confirmed that the police chief is not running
the department. The second-in-command, Lieutenant Thomas Ford, is in
charge, Mr. Malloy said.
The town
administrator did not reveal the reason for the leave, other than to
say it was for personal reasons.
"Right now he is taking time off for a personal family issue," Mr.
Malloy said. He said he had no idea when the police chief would
return to work. The leave began last week.
The police chief is in town, Mr. Malloy said. His town-issued police
car is parked at the police station.
The police chief's salary is $104,625. He is an appointed employee
and does not have a contract, Mr. Malloy said.
Chief Button began work in Sturbridge in early 1998, replacing
then-chief Kevin P. Fitzgibbons, who left to become police chief in
Chatham. Before coming to Sturbridge, Chief Button was police chief
of Athol for four years. Before that, he served 16 years with the
New York State Police.
February 4, 1999
POLICE STUNG BY PUBLIC SCRUTINY \ CHIEFS SEE NEED FOR QUICK
Ian Donnis;
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
When former Athol
Police Chief Thomas R. Button was faced with evidence of serious
wrongdoing by one of his officers, he felt compelled to investigate.
The ensuing inquiry resulted in the dismissal of Officer Brian J.
Dodge who, in October 1997, pleaded guilty in Franklin Superior
Court to five counts of assault and five counts of civil rights
violations.
As Button saw it, the resolution yielded justice, since Dodge was a
problem officer and a potential liability to the town. But despite
the guilty pleas by Dodge, Button's investigation troubled some
Athol officers.
"There were
people there who felt that I was head hunting, who felt that this
stuff had been investigated previously and nothing had been done,"
Button, now police chief in Sturbridge, said yesterday. The
aftermath of the case, he said, was among many factors in his
decision to leave Athol.
The case reflects the way many police administrators see internal
affairs investigations: important matters that require prompt and
thorough attention to maintain public trust, but also hornet's nests
of issues that can sink morale and divide a department.
"Police can look at it as a witch hunt and the public can look at it
as a whitewash," said Ashby Police Chief Robert N. Willhauck Sr.,
former chairman of the criminal justice department at Mount
Wachusett Community College in Gardner. "If you appear too
competent, you're zealous. If you don't find the evidence, you
appear to be a bumbling fool. All of this comes into a credibility
thing."
The sensitivity that police attach to internal affairs complaints
can be seen in Worcester City Manager Thomas R. Hoover's decision to
censor key information before releasing internal affairs documents
to the Telegram & Gazette. Hoover and police unions contend that
disclosing the entire complaints would damage the effectiveness of
Worcester police.
This week Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly began considering
whether to force Worcester officials to release the full contents of
internal affairs complaints from the last two years.
VULNERABLE
Willhauck said the disinclination of police departments to publicly
air internal complaints is similar to that of most private
companies. At the same time, the nature of police work, in which
people are sometimes arrested and deprived of their liberty, makes
police particularly vulnerable to complaints, he said.
But there can be severe implications in terms of embarrassment,
liability and vanishing community support if police administrators
fail to investigate complaints promptly and properly, Willhauck
said. "Things can go awry pretty quickly," he said. He mentioned the
woes that befell the Spencer Police Department, including a costly
takeover by state police in 1997, after a large number of abuses by
officers who no longer work there.
"The leadership has to set a level or a tolerance, or zero
tolerance, for any kind of behavior that would bring disrepute to
the department," Willhauck said. "That has to come from the top
down. Because if that doesn't come from the top down, what would we
expect from the subordinate officer?"
Button, a former captain with the New York State Police, brought 17
years of experience in internal affairs investigations when he came
to Athol in 1994. He said internal affairs complaints are unfounded
or unsubstantiated 95 percent of the time.
There is a legitimate need to believe an accused officer in a
one-on-one dispute, he said, since people frequently file false
complaints against police to gain leverage in court.
At the same time, there are officers "who believe in the thin blue
line, the brotherhood," who will not speak against any officer who
has committed abuses, Button said.
Disclosing the resolution of internal affairs complaints is a
particularly thorny issue. Many police chiefs nod to the public's
right to know, but are unwilling because of morale and union
concerns to disclose internal sanctions or to talk about a case
before it has slowly made its way through Civil Service and other
forums.
But even though police officials might punish a wrongdoer, the lack
of public information in such cases can damage community support for
police, according to Ronal C. Madnick, executive director of the
Worcester County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts.
"Things may be happening beneath the surface that the public is not
aware of, so it may seem to the public that nothing is happening,"
Madnick said. "How do you find that out?"
MOTIVATION
A handful of police officials from around Central Massachusetts
expressed confidence in their ability to monitor their own
departments, but they agreed that any internal investigation
ultimately depends on the motivation and thoroughness of the person
who conducts it.
"Obviously, police officers do not like to see themselves under any
type of investigation," said Gardner Police Chief James E. Dufort.
"The job is tough enough, never mind being accused of something you
didn't do."
Nonetheless, Dufort said, investigating complaints thoroughly and
promptly is important since "one bad apple can reflect on the whole
police department if you try to cover that up."
February 18, 1999
LIST OF ATHOL COMPLAINTS PROMISES CONTINUING RANCOR \ THREE YEARS
George Barnes;
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
CORRECT:The
following correction was published Feb. 25, 1999: ATHOL - H. Thomas
Colo stayed in his seat and directed his comments at selectmen in
response to remarks made by resident Richard Buchanan during last
week's selectmen's meeting. The scenario for Colo's comments was
incorrect in the Feb. 18 Telegram & Gazette.
ATHOL - Closure might not be the operative word for the impact of a
report by Town Counsel Mark A. Goldstein on complaints raised by
businessman H. Thomas Colo.
What has been three years of recrimination and accusations with no
end in sight will continue at least another two weeks, and
indications are it may take much longer to resolve.
After Goldstein
gave selectmen a brief synopsis of his opinion Tuesday on what
should be done about several issues Colo raised, the businessman
interrupted a vote to table Goldstein's report until the first
meeting in March, insisting on being allowed to speak.
When allowed to speak, he indicated his displeasure with Goldstein's
report and the process the selectmen followed in dealing with his
complaints.
"If you're looking for closure - closure is acceptable to both
sides," he said.
MADE NO CONTACT
Colo then said the selectmen, Goldstein and Police Chief Sandra M.
Dines all failed to contact him while reviewing the list of issues
he wants addressed. He said if they hope to mediate a solution to
his complaints, they didn't do a good job.
"I'm not looking to be proven right on every issue, but you're not
going to bury me with the rest of the trash," he said.
For the past three years, Colo has been regularly before the
selectmen with complaints about the conduct of selectmen and members
of the Police Department.
The main target of Colo's complaints, former Police Chief Thomas R.
Button, left last year. Button's leaving had no effect on the
businessman's efforts to seek satisfaction over what he claims were
unfair and illegal acts perpetrated against him.
Last month, in an effort to bring closure to the issues that had
haunted the board, selectmen asked Colo to put down on paper the
issues upon which he wanted some type of action taken. After
considerable debate about how the complaints should be outlined,
Colo gave the selectmen several points he said should be addressed.
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
Colo requested certain police documents he has been refused by Dines
and three state agencies.
The documents include an envelope containing papers left by Button.
Colo has claimed the papers are of ongoing investigations, possibly
involving himself and members of the Board of Selectmen.
Goldstein said there is no blanket exemption for investigative
documents. Part or all of the documents could be released if they do
not compromise ongoing investigations.
"Every document needs to be reviewed carefully to determine what can
be released," he said. "Even if you have investigative materials, a
certain portion can be released."
Goldstein said Dines should review all the documents and decide what
can be released, blacking out what is not public record.
In response to a question by Colo on whether other documents had
been removed from the police station by Button or any officers,
Goldstein said the chief should inquire whether officers have
documents at home. He said removing documents from the station is
improper.
Colo requested an inquiry into whether proper procedure was followed
when he was investigated in 1997 by Detective Robert Bouchard.
Goldstein said Dines has reviewed the investigation and found
Bouchard acted properly and no further action is warranted. He said
if selectmen want, they can hold a hearing on a complaint against
Bouchard, but if the issue came to involve Bouchard's professional
competence, it should be held in executive session.
Another issue raised by Colo also involved Bouchard and his actions,
and again Goldstein said the board could hold a hearing if it
wished.
SEARCHING FILES
In regard to Bouchard conducting research in old newspaper files
seeking articles involving Colo, Goldstein said if Bouchard did the
research on his own time, there is no action the selectmen can take.
If it was done during duty hours, it would be an issue of whether it
was appropriate use of police work time.
Goldstein said Bouchard says the research was conducted on his own
time.
Colo also said he wanted to know what actions can be taken by the
selectmen over charges made by former Selectman Keith Hensley in his
resignation letter last year. Goldstein said it is up to the
individuals named in the letter to decide if they want to respond -
not the board.
An issue of whether Criminal Offender Records Information checks
were made on residents and city employees, Goldstein said, is an
issue of attorney-client privilege; if those who were checked wish
to make the issue public, they may.
Another issue was whether the town should seek payment from Button
for making personal calls on town telephones. Goldstein said the
board has to decide if the issue is worth pursuing. He said the cost
of seeking the money would outweigh what is owed.
Colo said he feels the issue is of greater importance because it
involves a police officer. He said he has also requested and
received records of Button's calls made in Sturbridge, where Button
now works. He said the records show Button has continued to keep
contact with members of the Athol Department.
Colo said he was frustrated with the pace of the selectmen's actions
in regard to his requests. Colo told the selectmen, "My inclination
is that everything we're going to get out of you folks, we're going
to force out of you."
Colo said the issues should be resolved before a new Board of
Selectmen is elected.
THE REGAL `WE'
The statement resulted in a confrontation between Colo and resident
Richard Buchanan after the businessman stopped speaking.
Buchanan told selectmen they should require Colo to refer to Button
as chief, rather than Mr. Button. He also demanded to know who was
working with Colo.
"Who is "We?' " he asked. "I want to know who "We' is."
Colo then jumped up and said he took exception to Buchanan's
comments.
"The only thing he does (at meetings) is jump up and castigate me,"
Colo said.
When Colo refused to quiet down and stop shouting at Buchanan,
Selectman Mary E. Forristall ignored him and called for a vote on
tabling Goldstein's report until the March 2 selectmen's meeting.
The vote was unanimous.
March 23, 1999
DEFENDANT IN
ATHOL SUIT WANTS STURBRIDGE'S PHONE RECORDS
J.P. Ellery; CORRESPONDENT, Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
STURBRIDGE - One
of the five Athol residents named in a suit filed two weeks ago by
Sturbridge Police Chief Thomas R. Button has sought back records of
more than 5,780 telephone calls made at the Public Safety Complex in
Sturbridge, specifically calls by police personnel.
H. Thomas Colo, a former Athol selectman and state representative,
was at last night's Sturbridge selectmen's meeting seeking
clarification on the availability of those telephone records and
what phone numbers, for legal reasons, could be redacted or blanked
out.
The suit by
Button, who was chief in Athol until coming to Sturbridge in early
1998, accuses Colo and four Athol selectmen, two now on the board
and two former members, with damaging Button's reputation, causing
emotional distress and loss of privacy.
In 1996, a committee that Button had served on in Athol refused to
recommend the purchase of property owned by Colo as the site for a
new police station.
Colo subsequently charged Button with official misconduct, which
Button denied, and Button now has charged in the suit that the four
selectmen allowed Colo to slander him by permitting Colo to have a
forum to criticize Button at public meetings in Athol in 1996.
Button's contract with Athol was supposed to run until Jan. 30,
2000, and he contends that Athol officials permitted a situation
that forced him to leave.
When Colo left mid-way through last night's Sturbridge selectmen's
meeting, he was asked whether the record of telephone calls he was
seeking had anything to do with Button's law suit.
He said they were not directly related to the chief's legal action,
but had a bearing on things that led up to the suit.
"We're seeking to find closure to the matters that were not resolved
before he left," Colo said of Button. "The telephone numbers tell us
the calls made up there (Athol) and when calls were made down here
(Sturbridge) and what communications still are in contact."
Colo said Button has continued a liaison with Marc MacDonald, a
former Athol selectman, who also is a former state police officer,
as is Button.
Button was not present at last night's Sturbridge meeting to comment
on Colo's remarks.
Because it took 44 hours of work to compile the telephone records,
Colo will be charged $553, which he agreed to pay. The town is
allowed by state law to charge 20 cents per page of information.
There was a misunderstanding on the part of town officials as to
which telephone numbers could legally be blanked out for reasons of
confidentiality. As a result, a prior list prepared for Colo blanked
out too much information and had to revised.
The first list later was destroyed by the town.
"I was concerned with the town administrator saying the first set of
records had been destroyed," Colo told selectmen during the meeting.
"I specifically cautioned that it should not be destroyed. I wanted
to purchase them too."
But Selectman Charles T. Blanchard said there should be no
significant difference in the two listings. If there was any
problem, Blanchard invited Colo to call Malloy and resolve it.
March 17, 1999
BUTTON SUES, SAYS HE HAD TO RESIGN
Ian Donnis;
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
ATHOL - Former
Police Chief Thomas R. Button is suing four selectmen and the town,
saying selectmen forced him to resign by allowing resident H. Thomas
Colo to repeatedly slander him at public meetings.
The lawsuit, which names selectmen Mary Forristall and Alan Rich and
former selectmen Richard Whelpley and Leon Lozier, was filed last
week in Worcester Superior Court.
Button, who has
been police chief in Sturbridge since February 1998, is suing Athol
for unspecified damages. But in a section of the court complaint his
lawyer notes selectmen were obligated to pay Button for the balance
of his contract if they terminated him "for any reason other than
just cause."
Button's contract with Athol was good through Jan. 30, 2000. In
February 1998 he demanded selectmen pay him a lump sum of $164,000,
and threatened to sue.
According to the suit, Button suffered damage to his reputation,
emotional distress and a loss of privacy.
The suit focuses on a series of public meetings held by selectmen,
starting in fall 1996, in which Colo, who owns a glass company on
Main Street, criticized Button. The meetings were regularly
broadcast on the town's cable access television station.
According to the suit, the meetings were held after a committee that
Button served on refused to recommend that the town buy property
owned by Colo and use it as the site of a new police station.
The suit alleges "the meetings provided Colo with a high-profile
forum in which to impugn Button's honesty and integrity, and to
accuse him of both abdicating his responsibilities and abusing his
office.
"Although the defendants had received written notice from Button's
former counsel that the accusations being leveled were baseless,
they persisted in holding further meetings thereby giving Colo free
reign to persecute Button in open, televised hearings."
The suit claims Colo's criticism destroyed Button's reputation,
diminished his standing in Athol and "made it impossible for him to
perform his police duties effectively." Button, a former New York
State Police captain who became Athol's chief in January 1994,
resigned to become Sturbridge's chief in February 1998.
After Colo accused Button of official misconduct, investigations by
the town and state attorney general's office cleared Button of
wrongdoing, according to court documents.
The suit contends Colo and the four selectmen named as defendants
knew Colo's allegations were baseless.
Lawyers for Button, who is being represented by Fletcher, Tilton &
Whipple of Worcester, informed Athol officials in June 1998 of their
intention to sue the town if a settlement could not be reached
outside of court.
The suit also alleges breach of contract, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, invasion of privacy and violation of civil
rights.
At the time of his resignation in Athol, Button cited a number of
reasons for his departure, including a belief that Sturbridge would
be a more appealing place to live with his family.
But Frederick M. Misilo Jr., one of Button's lawyers, described the
relocation as an unnecessary hardship that was forced on Button by
events in Athol. Misilo said Button is earning considerably less
money in Sturbridge than he was in Athol, where he was making
$70,443 at the time of his resignation.
He was hired by Sturbridge for $56,692. His pay there increased to
$61,000 last July, and is due to rise to $64,000 this coming July.
"All this was caused by the malevolence of one sole angry citizen
and the acquiescence of a group of public officials who didn't stand
in the way and protect their employee," Misilo said. "It's not only
wrong, it's illegal."
Forristall and Lozier didn't return calls seeking comment. Rich
declined comment. Whelpley, who described himself as an ardent
Button supporter, was surprised to learn that he was named in the
suit. "As far as I'm concerned, I'm on Button's side when it comes
to Tom Colo," Whelpley said.
Town Counsel Mark Goldstein referred comment on the suit to Peter
Archangeli, a lawyer for the town's insurance company, Great
American Insurance Co. of Hartford. Archangeli did not return a
telephone message seeking comment. Colo declined to comment.
April 4, 1999
NEW CHIEF BRINGS CHANGES TO STURBRIDGE \ MORALE WOES IN PD ALLEGED
Harold A. Gushue
Jr.; TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
STURBRIDGE - In a
little over a year here, Police Chief Thomas R. Button has
contributed to what some employees contend is a morale problem at
the Public Safety Complex.
The police chief and other officials acknowledge some of the changes
that critics cite, but attribute complaints to a minority within the
building shared by the Police and Fire departments. Button said some
of the changes are to increase professionalism.
The elimination
of two jobs and the creation of two other positions contributed to
the morale problem which actually began last year, public safety
employees said.
Other signs they contend reflect a sour atmosphere are in command
ranks: one sergeant voluntarily stepping down to officer status and
a second who was talked out of stepping down.
Even firefighters have been affected, bristling at a Button memo
forbidding loitering in the departments' common dispatch area.
SELECTMEN
Whether a morale problem exists, it has been acknowledged in recent
months by one selectman and, last week, by a selectman candidate who
said it became apparent when he visited public safety headquarters
to get acquainted.
"I think there was some concern with the morale," Selectman James M.
Korman said, who couldn't say whether the problem was significant or
if it still exists.
But Button said morale was good and improving.
"I've been there," George T. Dib Jr., a candidate for selectman,
said at a candidates' debate Wednesday. "I've talked with people who
work there. There is a morale problem."
Selectmen recently voted to eliminate two clerk-dispatcher posts for
the Police and Fire departments and to create positions of lead
dispatcher and full-time secretary.
The changes resulted from a request by Button for a full-time
secretary, something the previous chief, Kevin P. Fitzgibbons, had
also said he needed. Button started here in February 1998,
succeeding Fitzgibbons who left in July 1997 to become police chief
in Chatham. Button was previously the chief in Athol and, before
that, a New York state trooper.
LABOR ISSUES
The staffing changes were the subject of a Dec. 7 executive session
by selectmen, but the record has not yet been made public because of
labor issues.
Town Administrator James J. Malloy said Local 170 of the
Massachusetts Coalition of Police, which represents the officers and
the dispatchers, plans on including the secretary position in its
mediation request "because we are at an impasse on our labor
negotiations."
In Dec. 9 memorandum, Malloy informed the union of the changes.
Malloy said the secretary position would not be part of the union
because that person would be handling confidential records and
correspondence.
In a Dec. 15 letter, the police union told Malloy the town "should
refrain from implementing any changes until the negotiation process
has concluded." Local union officials did not answer messages
seeking their comments.
Malloy said in an interview that voter approval was not needed to
create the new positions because the money was in the budget for the
clerk-dispatchers. Malloy agreed the two new positions should have
been reviewed by the Personnel Board, but that was not done and
selectmen accepted his recommendation.
Earlier this year, after the changes were announced, Patricia
Bourassa, longtime clerk-dispatcher for the Fire Department,
submitted her resignation. She had been offered the job of full-time
secretary. She declined, stating her loyalty was to the Fire
Department and the change would have her working more for the
police.
"They eliminated my job," she said, adding that she was never
formally notified by the town.
Of the 12 full- and part-time employees interviewed, split between
the Police and Fire departments, all did not want to be identified
because they feared reprisals.
That includes one officer who said he likes many of the changes
Button has made, but also said there is a morale problem caused by
infighting and employees not liking the chief.
Firefighters said they miss Bourassa personally and professionally
as well as her handling of paperwork that they now have to handle
themselves.
DISPATCH CENTER
The Fire Department employees said an October memo noting the
dispatch center is not to be used as a social gathering place
contributed to the morale problem. The memo was written by Button
and issued by him and Fire Chief Leonard E. Senecal. It notes, in
part, that fire personnel shall not enter the center except for
necessary gathering of information required for Fire Department
business.
Firefighters said they consider that a slap in the face, questioning
their professionalism as to why they are in dispatch center.
Button disagrees.
He said in an interview that the memo was to address "a lack of
efficiency" because a phone call or a radio call could be missed if
others are talking. Also, he said, criminal record information
should only be seen by police officers, but a computer terminal used
to access that information is in plain sight of anyone in the
center.
"So, for the firemen to feel that I slapped them - I wasn't slapping
them," Button said, noting the memo says everybody is to stay out of
the center unless they're there on business. He admitted he
sometimes has found himself in violation of the memo and said all
personnel have to try harder to comply with the memo.
EXPLANATIONS
Officers interviewed said they feel Button is second-guessing them
on police matters. He responded that he sometimes asks his officers
for explanations of their actions because it's his job. He said he
can't review everything his men do, but he does try to review major
cases and the like. "And I'm proud of it."
Officers have said that indicates a lack of faith. He responded "No.
I do it because that's what I'm paid to do. I try to give the
highest-quality police service to the town that I can."
Button issued a memo in April 1998 informing part-time officers that
the only reasons for not accepting a shift will be legitimate
sickness, conflict with primary employment, "or other legitimate
reason." It said those who do not have a legitimate reason for not
accepting a shift will not be allowed to work private details until
they work a departmental shift.
The reason, he said in the interview, is some part-timers join only
to get the private paid details, which "are like frosting to the
cake." He said use of part-timers helps reduce overtime, "and that
wasn't occurring."
At least one part-timer said he was told that buying advance tickets
to an event wasn't sufficient reason for not working a shift. Asked
if that would be sufficient reason, Button replied, "Yeah. Probably.
Yeah."
Officers said Button is running the department by intimidation and
he will make things hard for those who don't go along with him.
One officer, Frank Leo, turned in his sergeant's stripes reportedly
because of differences with Button.
Another, Randy Berg, also considered turning in his sergeant's
stripes but reportedly was talked out of it by other officers. Berg
was acting chief when Fitzgibbon left and before Button came on
board. Berg was also a candidate for the chief's job.
Button said the department has 13 full-time people and only two or
three think there is a morale problem.
"I don't think morale's a problem," he said. "There's no indication
morale's a problem with me. There are people that have been affected
by issues. People that are affected by issues are going to have a
low morale, certainly."
Malloy added, "I've not had any of the officers come to me en masse
and say we have a major morale problem."
One firefighter said the atmosphere in the Public Safety Complex
"has got everybody on edge, and it never used to be like that."
Firefighters also said Button does not know their jobs and yet had
the "audacity" to issue the memo that they feel questions their
professionalism.
Selectman Charles T. Blanchard, board liaison to the Police
Department, said, "I'm not concerned about a morale problem in that
department. I think we've got good people who want to work with the
new chief and understand what he's trying to do down there. And
we've got some people who don't feel that way."
Selectmen Arnold P. Wilson and Josef Rokus said they were not aware
of any major morale problems.
