TOWN OF OLD LYME
Board of Selectman
Special Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2016
The Board of Selectman held a Special Meeting at 11:00 am on December 12, 2016 in the Meeting Hall of the Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall. First Selectman Reemsnyder, Selectman Skip Sibley and Selectwoman Mary Jo Nosal were present. In addition, Attorney Eileen Duggan was present representing the Board of Selectmen.
- Step 2 Grievance Meeting (Town – AFSCME Council 4 Local #26933; 5 day suspension grievance)
First Selectman Reemsnyder read the statement “This Special Meeting of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Old Lyme is convened for purposes of compliance with Step 2 grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between the Town and AFSCME Council 15/4, Local 26933. The Union and Officer Sal Milardo have filed a grievance regarding the Town’s imposition of a 5 day suspension on Officer Milardo. Among other things, this grievance constitutes a pending claim against the Town. The grievance was denied at Step 1 by me, and the Union and Officer Milardo have submitted the grievance to Step 2. Pursuant to Step 2, the Board of Selectmen is required to meet with the Union for the purposes of resolving the grievance within 45 days of
submission to Step 2. Attorney Eileen Duggan is assisting the Board in conducting this meeting.”
John Miller, Council 4 representing Old Lyme Police Union and Attorney Patrick McHale representing the interests of the Town introduced themselves.
She further read, “It is my understanding that the representatives for the Town and the Union have agreed to or acknowledge certain aspects of this Step 2 meeting, namely that:
1. Officer Milardo has been notified of this Step 2 meeting and afforded the opportunity to attend and participate in the meeting, but has chosen not to attend the meeting.” John Miller confirmed this.
“2. The open portion of these proceedings will be recorded by a stenographer. Among other evidence that may be presented, a witness of the Town – Shane Burlingham – will testify. The Union will have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Burlingham. As Mr. Burlingham may not be available to attend any potential future arbitration hearing, his recorded testimony may be submitted, without objection, into the record of that arbitration hearing in lieu of live testimony.
The rules of evidence will be construed liberally at this proceeding; should either party object to certain testimony or evidence, the Board may confer briefly with its counsel and then issue a ruling. Board members, through me, may also ask questions of the representatives and of the witness. After both parties have had the opportunity to present evidence, the Board will go into executive session for purposes of strategy and deliberations related to its response to the Step 2 grievance. The Board reserves the right to respond prior to the close of this meeting, or, as outlined in Step 2, within 7 dates after this meeting. “
At this time, Shane Burlingham arrived and was introduced. Atty. McHale gave an opening statement describing the case, which he stated involved a police officer who tried to coerce a resident into making a false, baseless complaint against the Resident Trooper. He described some of the veiled threats that he made to Shane Burlingham in an effort to compel him to do him this favor. The coercion was made by Officer Milardo because he told Mr. Burlingham that Trooper Inglis was out to get him. He pointed out that after the investigation by the State Police, which sustained the complaint, the First Selectman issued discipline of a 5 day suspension, which is the extent of the suspension that can be
John Miller gave his opening statement, strongly disagreeing with the ‘theory’ of Atty. McHale, accusing the complainant of being a pathological liar. He pointed out that Officer Milardo has been an officer for 15 years, with a recent single one day suspension. He stated that Officer Milardo went to speak to Mr. Burlingham to determine if he left out any information on an investigation he, Officer Milardo, had conducted the previous summer. He reiterated that he believes the 5-day suspension was excessive.
Atty. McHale presented his case, passing out a binder to each of the selectmen, and proceeded to describe each document, describing their relevance to the case, including sections of the Town of Old Lyme Employee Handbook, relevant sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Town of Old Lyme and Old Lyme Police Union, documents reflecting written reprimands in the file of Officer Milardo, etc. He also questioned Shane Burlingham about the incident and his recollection of the incident.
John Miller then cross-examined Shane Burlingham on his recollection of the incident, asking him if he remembered the date, the time, etc. Mr. Miller spent the next 14-15 minutes questioning Mr. Burlingham on his version of the incident.
Atty. McHale continued to describe the remaining documents in the binder, which included the required notifications, responses from Officer Milardo, and suspension notice, etc. He then concluded the town’s presentation
Mr. Miller responded to the town’s presentation, noting that Officer Milardo was not present, but that he had no obligation to be present. He also noted that no criminal charges were filed, and the charge that was sustained did not mention untruthfulness. He concluded by stating that Officer Milardo’s statement to Internal Affairs was consistent through, and he was not charged with untruthfulness. Basically it is a case of one party saying one thing, and another party saying another. Mr. Miller said that this was his closing statement.
Attorney McHale gave his closing statement, reiterating the fact that the State Police Internal Affairs Investigation concluded that Officer Milardo did engage in the threatening conduct Mr. Burlingham testified to. This conduct was reprehensible for a sworn police officers, and citizens that are victims of this conduct are rightly fearful of retaliation. He compelled the Board of Selectmen to uphold the suspension imposed for this conduct.
- Potential Executive Session (strategy and/or deliberations related to the pending grievance/claim and/or collective bargaining)
Selectwoman Mary Jo Nosal made a motion at 11:53 AM that the Board of Selectmen, along with Atty. Eileen Duggan, go into executive session, pursuant to General Statutes 1-200(6)(B) for the purposes of discussion of strategy or deliberations regarding a pending claim, and/or executive session for the purpose of discussing strategy or deliberation with respect to collective bargaining. This action is taken without prejudice to the board to discuss collective bargaining or strategy, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 1-200(6)(B). Seconded by Selectman Sibley. So voted.
The Board of Selectmen came out of executive session at 12:39 PM, with no votes taken during executive session.
- Potential action related to 5 day suspension grievance
Selectman Sibley stated that after careful consideration of the evidence and testimony presented, he moves that the Board of Selectmen authorize First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder to issue a written denial of the pending grievance at Step Two. Seconded by Selectwoman Nosal. So voted.
A motion was made by Selectman Sibley to adjourn at 12:41 PM, seconded by Selectwoman Nosal. So voted.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bonnie Reemsnyder
| 
