Did Seymour’s Board of Police Commissioners violate the law by having department brass sit on executive session interviews of job candidates?
That’s the question at the center of a complaint currently under review by the state Freedom of Information Commission, part of a larger battle between retired Detective Sgt. Ronald Goodmaster and the Seymour Police Department and Board of Police Commissioners.
Goodmaster’s FOI complaint was the subject of a two-hour hearing at the FOI Commission last week. His lawyer says the complaint is just one of a “vast morass” of issues that will likely culminate with a lawsuit.
Goodmaster has been at odds with the department and the commission since at least 2010, when he was suspended then demoted. Both decisions were overturned, and Goodmaster has since filed several complaints – including with the FOI Commission and the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
At issue in this specific FOI complaint is whether the Board of Police Commissioners has been violating the FOI Act when it routinely allowed Chief Michael Metzler and Lt. Paul Satkowski to participate in hiring and promotion interviews for members of the department.
The complaint is part of a larger, more recent, conflict over whether Goodmaster should have been forced to retire in March 2013 because he had reached the age of 65.
The FOI Issue
The current FOI complaint stems from a Nov. 8, 2012 meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners. Click here to view the minutes from that meeting.
The commissioners at that meeting interviewed three candidates for the detective sergeant position, in anticipation of Goodmaster’s retirement in March 2013. They didn’t vote on the candidates at the meeting, but later promoted Joe DeNigris to the post.
Goodmaster says the executive session violated the FOI Act because Metzler and Satkowski were in the executive session for almost its entirety — instead of just a specific period of time when they might be answering questions from the commissioners.
While a board or commission is allowed to invite people into its executive session, section 1 – 231 of the FOI Act outlines that their time in the executive session “shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion.”
At question is whether Metzler and Satkowski should have been present during the interview portion of the executive session, or whether it would have been enough to call them in afterward to answer any questions from the commissioners.
Attorneys for Goodmaster and the police commission interviewed witnesses at a FOI hearing in Hartford May 9. Click play on the video above, recorded and posted to YouTube by citizen Frank Loda, to see the first hour and a half of the hearing. Another video with the hearing’s conclusion is posted later in the story.
Goodmaster’s attorney, Bill Palmieri, said the executive session — and previous ones during other interviews — were very concerning.
“An executive session can readily trans-mutate into a Star Chamber, where things go on outside of proper public oversight, with the proper input of interested persons,” Palmieri said.
But Lucy McConologue, the chairman of the Board of Police Commissioners, argued that the commission wanted Metzler and Satkowski present for the interviews so they could better answer questions after the interviews ended.
“I would think in any business you would have the administration (present),” she testified. “In the school system, when you hire new personnel, the administration is part of the interview process. And I can’t understand why the police department can’t have administration as part of the interview process.”
Warren Holcomb, the lawyer representing the town at the hearing, said it simply boils down to “common sense.”
Metzler and three police commissioners testified at the hearing Thursday.
FOI commission hearing officer Valicia Harmon, who presided over the hearing, will now review the testimony and eventually make a recommendation to the full Freedom of Information Commission on whether it should impose fines to the Seymour police commissioners named in the complaint, and whether it should declare null the executive session.
Article continues after copy of the complaint.
The Retirement Issue
Palmieri said the FOI complaint “is just focusing on one fundamental problem in a vast morass of fundamental problems” surrounding Goodmaster’s employment.
Goodmaster didn’t want to retire from the department in March 2013, when he turned 65. He instead wanted to wait a little over a year later — so he could finish a full 25 years in the state’s municipal employee retirement system.
However, a state law effectively forces all police department employees to retire at 65 unless they are granted an extension by their municipality. While the Board of Police Commissioners initially voted to extend Goodmaster’s employment, the town later ruled that it had to be the Board of Selectmen making that decision.
The Board of Selectmen in December rejected Goodmaster’s request.
The conflict continues to simmer among police commissioners, even after Goodmaster’s retirement in March. At their regular meeting last month, they discussed a grievance regarding Goodmaster’s employment and eventually denied it, but the meeting didn’t adjourn before First Selectman Kurt Miller was patched in via speakerphone to consult about Robert’s Rules of Order.
Click here to read the minutes of that meeting.
Now Goodmaster and Palmieri are gearing up for a lawsuit.
Goodmaster has filed a complaint with CHRO, which oversees labor discrimination disputes in the state. The complaint was filed April 11, according to CHRO spokesman Jim O’Neill, who said he can’t comment on the content of complaints.
If Seymour doesn’t change its decision on Goodmaster’s employment, Palmieri said he and Goodmaster plan to file either a state or federal lawsuit claiming the town is discriminating against Goodmaster based on age.
Palmieri said he expects to get the state law on police retirement thrown out as unconstitutional because it discriminates against employees based on their age.
“Our argument is this statute is overbroad, saying all police officers should retire at this age,” Palmieri said.
