Town to appeal arbitration panel decision

#MiddleburyCT #PoliceUnion #Arbitration #Appeal

Officer Alton Cronin, left and Officer Randy Ireland, right, were fired by the Middlebury Police Commission in 2019. Both filed grievances with the Connecticut Department of Labor, and an arbitration panel recently ruled in the officers’ favor. (Contributed photos)

By MARJORIE NEEDHAM

The Middlebury Board of Selectmen (BoS), at their June 17 meeting, voted 2:1 to support the Police Commission (PC) in whatever action it finds appropriate following a Connecticut Labor Department Board of Mediation and Arbitration panel’s May 31, 2024, ruling in favor of two former Middlebury police officers, Alton Cronin and Randy Ireland. The two were abruptly terminated “for serious misconduct” by the Middlebury Police Commission during its July 8, 2019, meeting.

Based on the panel’s votes, the officers’ attorney, Jeffrey Ment, said of the town’s possible efforts to overturn the panel’s decision, “They’re never going to get a judge to flip this.” He said an appeal (a motion to vacate) would drag this on for another 2 to 3 years. “The longer they let this go, the worse it’s going to get,” he said, noting that the town already will owe the officers more than $1 million, and the amount the town owes will only increase.

While Ment is quite sure the current debt is more than $1 million, the exact amount to be paid the officers is worked out when the attorneys for the two opposing parties sit down and negotiate it. Ment said he likes to average salaries over recent years and use the average as the yearly amount due. However, someone familiar with the process said the officers’ base salaries without overtime or special duty could be paid instead. How much the town would actually pay apparently will depend upon the negotiating skills of each of the attorneys.

The town was represented by attorney Thomas G. Parisot. Neither Parisot nor attorney Robert Smith, who served as a legal adviser to the Police Commission, have returned phone calls from this reporter.

After the panel’s ruling was announced, both the Middlebury Democratic Town Committee and Selectman Jennifer Mahr issued statements saying they strongly felt the town should not appeal the rulings. Mahr also stressed the decision to appeal or not needed to be made by the entire Board of Selectmen.

The Police Commission held an executive session at its Monday, June 10, meeting and afterwards voted unanimously to forward to the Board of Selectman its intent to pursue an appeal to the panels’ rulings.

At the June 17 Board of Selectmen meeting, discussion and a possible vote on an appeal of the panel’s decision was added to the agenda. Then First Selectman Edward B. St. John reviewed events leading up to the officers’ firings before saying he had stepped aside and had asked Vance to take the lead on the issue of an appeal and to work with the Police Commission and legal counsel on the matter.

Vance said an appeal may be in the best interest of the taxpayers. He then introduced a motion to uphold the decision of the Middlebury Police Commission to file an appeal or to take whatever legal action is necessary to reverse or modify the decision of the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration involving the termination of the two former Middlebury police officers.

Selectman Jennifer Mahr strongly objected to this, asking how this squared with the Town Charter saying the Board of Selectmen has the sole authority to decide to defend or prosecute legal cases for the town of Middlebury. Vance said his motion was to support the Police Commission as they determined with legal counsel what needs to be done.

“So you want to delegate that authority to the Police Commission instead of leaving it with the Board of Selectmen where it belongs,” she said. Vance said he would attend PC meetings and oversee its actions and the PC would have to come back to the BoS for approval before spending a large sum of money.

Mahr said to delegate this to the Commission that didn’t properly oversee the case in the first place was like handing things over to the fox in the hen house.

Vance said it needed to go the PC because it hires and fires officers. Mahr said, “This is not about hiring or firing. This is about an appeal.”

St. John then asked PC Chairman George Moreira if he would like to comment. Mahr objected to that on point of order grounds. She said, “This is our meeting, not theirs.” She said Moreira should wait until public comments if he wanted to speak.

St. John said all but one member of the PC was present and since Mahr was talking about them, they had every right in the world to respond. He then invited Moreira to speak.

Moreira said the fox would like to respond. He said the PC members read the decision, disagreed with it and were highly disappointed with it, as any taxpayer in town would be. He said the decision was far afield from the underlying facts. When the PC fired the officers it did so because it was a case of terminate the officers and save the police department or do nothing and let the place fall apart. “It was absolutely, positively the right decision,” he said, adding that he and the PC believe the decision should be appealed.

Mahr also expressed concern about how much this was going to cost the town, saying you need to know the cost before you make a decision. Vance said he wasn’t going to speculate about the legal fees. St. John said you can’t know the cost in advance; you can only take a guess. Vance said he believes in the PC and will stick by them, noting they cannot share their legal strategy during negotiations.

When the motion was put to a vote, it passed 2:1 with St. John and Vance voting for it and Mahr against it.

During public comments, Vance again mentioned not being able to discuss details without compromising the case but said he didn’t want to throw good dollars after bad. Moreira said he wished he could share more details. but the best thing to do right now is appeal the decision.
Regarding the cost, Moreira said “We have a fiduciary responsibility to save the town money. I wouldn’t be asking for this if I thought it was wrong. We have taken this position because it’s the right position. We are taxpayers, too.”