BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
July 28, 2003
6:00 p.m.
The Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Stern, John Ciccariello, Jay H. Ball, Charles M. Hughes, Paul R. McKinley
ALSO PRESENT: Philip E. Lemnios, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on July 28, 2003 in the amount of $497,863.41. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,492,602.18.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation, consideration of discipline of a public employee, and real property negotiations. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board so retired at 6:00 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was called to order at 7:25 p.m.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2003 meeting.
STEPHEN MACKINNON: PLEASANT STREET – BLOCK PARTY
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McKinley, moved approval of Stephen MacKinnon’s request to close Pleasant Street in North Natick from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. on August 23, 2003 for a block party. Unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO ARTS COUNCIL:
a. Barbara Little
b. Amy Lawler
In her letter of interest, Mr. Ball noted that Amy Lawler said that as a member of the Council she would seek ways to reach a broader range of participation and a broader range of programs. In response to Mr. Ball’s request that she elaborate, Ms. Lawler stated that she had participated in one of the workshops funded by the Council. There weren’t that many people there and she thought the Council should be better at getting the word out so people could take advantage of what could be funded. She wanted to make sure the public knew about it.
Mr. Ball then inquired if Ms. Little was aware of which projects were currently funded by the Council. Ms. Little responded that she was not.
Mr. Hughes moved to appoint Barbara Little and Amy Lawler to the Arts Council. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
a. Department Presentation
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky noted that his department had put together a short power point presentation to refresh everyone’s memory about what the DPW did, what it did in the past, and what it hoped to do in the future. Currently it was the DPW’s responsibility to: maintain the Town’s parks, keep the fleet running, snow removal, patching roads, recycling, removing trash, maintaining Town buildings, repair water leaks, GPS surveying, water treatment plant, and pay-as-you-throw.
Mr. Sisitsky recognized the work of Eric Henderson and Tony Comeau in putting the presentation together.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (contd)
He noted that the DPW was comprised of eight operational units: administration, building maintenance, LFNR, water & sewer, sanitation/ landfill, engineering, equipment maintenance, highway.
The function of the administration division was to provide supervision and administrative and secretarial services to the department. The unit was responsible for payroll, tracking sick leave, vacation pay, processing purchase orders, scheduling water meter readings, preparing bids and construction contracts, preparing the budget, and taking all storm calls.
Goals and objectives were prepared for each unit. The goals for the administration included the development and maintenance of a computerized report for sick and vacation leave so the supervisors could keep track of how much an employee had earned. That helps in scheduling days off. They would also like to develop a tracking system to maintain complaints to make sure they were addressed in a timely fashion.
The building maintenance division has six employees and was charged with maintaining the 17 Town-owned buildings. The division supervised the custodial contract with a private contractor, prepared work orders and monitored the computerized HVAC system for the different buildings. The objectives of the building maintenance division included the development of realistic budgets and the installation of economizers on the rooftop of Town Hall to operate in an efficient manner. Mr. Sisitsky told the Board that funds would be sought from the Finance Committee for the economizers.
The engineering division has four employees and provided support to all other DPW divisions and other departments in Town. The division reviews subdivision and site development plans, updates assessor’s maps, maintains street opening permits, and does field inspections of subdivisions. Over the years the engineering division has become very
high tech. The objectives of the division include the implementation of the Town’s storm water management plan, updating the utility layer on GIS, and providing good information to other departments.
Equipment Maintenance has 9 employees and maintains the entire fleet of Town-owned vehicles. There were over 175 Town registered vehicles plus other equipment such as lawnmowers. They also maintain the fuel depot. For objectives, the division was anxious to update the parts department inventory system by using a computerized inventory system. Currently they were operating with a paper inventory.
The newest DPW supervisor, Thomas Hladick, was in the Highway division. The division has 13 employees and was charged with maintaining the roads. They do line painting, put up street and traffic signs, clean and maintain catch basins, and plow and sand streets. The upcoming goals were to assist the engineering division with the storm water management plan, implement an efficient method of sidewalk and street cleaning, and implement an aggressive roadside brush-clearing plan.
The Land Facilities and Natural Resources division has 8 employees and maintains over 60 sites and 70 acres of turf. They maintain the baseball fields, high school track, football field, beach, cut the grass, line the fields for all sports, and handle public shade trees. The objective was to continue to provide services.
The function of the 14 Sanitation employees was to collect and dispose of solid waste and maintain the recycling center. It includes the oversight of curbside recycling and the maintenance of the flaring station. To date pay-as-you-throw has been very successful with a very high percentage of cooperation from the residents. The objective was to develop a new contract for curbside pickup and discuss the end of the disposal contract with Millbury.
Mr. Sisitsky told the Board that the Water & Sewer division was in the process of upgrading the alarm system for all pump stations. In the past wires were used, but they have started upgrading with wireless systems. There were 25 employees who were responsible for operating and
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (contd)
maintaining all water mains, wells and the treatment plant. There were 152 miles of distribution mains. They were also responsible for water meter installation and the inspection and testing of back flow devices. The division was on call 365 days a year, 24 hours a day to respond to emergencies. The objectives were to maintain 1200 hydrants, the relining the North Main Street water mains from Pine to Cottage Street, and continue flushing the water mains.
Mr. Sisitsky noted that the treatment plant had switched to a state-of-the art operation, and the operation of all the wells can be controlled at the treatment plant. The goals for the treatment plant were to meet all federal and state criteria for safe drinking water, and to begin the upgrade of the treatment plant increasing the capacity from 4 mgpd to 8 mgpd.
The Sewer division operated and maintained over 131 miles of sewer line and monitored 36 sewer pump stations seven days a week. They were currently working on replacing the Oak & Jennings sewer lift stations at Bradford Road, and running the I&I program. The goal was to continue the sewer main flushing system.
In conclusion Mr. Sisitsky referred to a chart showing the employment of the department by division since Fiscal 1981-2004. In 1981 there were 88 employees and in 2004 there were 83. It was not a big change but highway went from 26 to 13 and LFNR and Building Maintenance weren’t part of the DPW in the early years. Those two divisions now provide 14 additional employees. Even with the reduction of that number of employees, the department was still able to maintain the services the Town expected. The department did that by becoming more efficient, new technology, and modern equipment. They hoped to be able to do that in the future, but each year as the number of employees decrease it becomes harder and harder. Since 1981 a number of new streets and subdivisions have been added. The
workload has increased, but the manpower has decreased.
Mr. Stern thanked Mr. Sisitsky for the presentation and the hard work.
Regarding the increase in capacity for the water treatment plant, Mr. Hughes inquired if the line was connected and just waiting for the new capacity. Mr. Sisitsky advised that that was correct. The bottleneck at the treatment plant was how to treat everything that came in. By increasing the size, more capacity can be treated. The pipes were in place.
Mr. Hughes asked about Mr. Sisitsky’s mention of getting rid of as many sewer pump stations as possible. Mr. Sisitsky explained that whenever new subdivision plans were reviewed, the engineering division looked at how sewer would be provided and if a new sewer pump station was proposed, they looked hard to see if it could be eliminated. The Sanctuary required a new station, but the Town had the developer redo some lines to eliminate one so the net gain was zero. Although not subject to OSHA requirements, the Town tried to operate under those regulations. They were attempting to upgrade all pump stations and had about 2-3 left.
When a sewer pump station failed, Mr. Ball inquired as to how quickly the DPW responded and what happened if the DPW couldn’t get it going. Mr. Sisitsky advised that it varied depending on the time. All have different capacity holding tanks and some stations could go hours and hours because of the holding tank. In some stations emergency generators were on site, but occasionally it backs up to the lowest point. That didn’t happen often. He also noted that people were on call and when the alarm came in, the on call person was automatically called. If the on call person didn’t respond, the automatic dialer kept calling people. At some point the Police were called.
Mr. Stern inquired as to how many pump stations had generators and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that there were four. When asked if the generators were tested, Mr. Sisitsky advised that they were. A company had been hired to do maintenance on them every year. He noted that one day there
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (contd)
was a problem with the generator at the station on Rutledge Road and it was found that mice got in there and ate the wires. The company mouse proofed the generator.
Mr. Ball asked Mr. Sisitsky to elaborate on his statement that they went to wireless because the fire alarm hard wire was unreliable. Mr. Sisitsky explained that when the Fire Department ran the fire alarms, they ran extra bales of cables for sewer stations. Some of the wires were pretty old and on some occasions when the Fire Department updated the cables, they failed to upgrade the ones for sewer. Rather than spend a lot of money to upgrade the wires, the DPW moved to the wireless system. At some point he expected the same system could be used for fire alarms as well.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to the status of reconfiguring the gravel pit, Mr. Sisitsky responded that a year or so ago the crusher was torn down. Last year a bulldozer graded the back of the hill, and the Town submitted an application to the DEP to use compost leaves to mix with gravel and spread it on the hill to generate vegetation. All activity was behind where the crusher used to be. The activity in the front was temporary. The contractor doing the water relining was using it as a staging area, and when the contractor was done the whole front would be available.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if gravel was still being mined and if not, when did Mr. Sisitsky expect to be out of it (gravel)? Mr. Sisitsky advised that the Town was not mining any more. They were using what was stock piled over the years and this year they purchased ¾” stone.
Referring to Mr. Sisitsky’s statement that economizers for Town Hall units were being looked at, Mr. Ciccariello noted that those units were fairly new and he was under the impression that they were state-of-the-art. Facilities Director Corey Lovett advised that in going through the process of installing equipment, they ran into a lot of problems with the roof top units. The economizers, which open and allow fresh air were not of the best quality, and now they were trying to correct the problem and put in a better grade economizer.
Mr. McKinley stated that he was impressed by the employee numbers over 20 years. The chart showed 83 employees and seven unfilled vacancies and Mr. Sisitsky explained that the seven were in addition to the 83. 83 positions were funded. The seven vacancies were not funded, but he didn’t want to lose track of them so he carried them in the budget.
With regard to road maintenance, Mr. McKinley inquired as to what Mr. Sisitsky thought were the big strategic challenges and how the Board could help. Mr. Sisitsky responded that service had been provided by using outside contractors with Chapter 90 funds. Instead of paving, the
Town employees were basically doing maintenance, and the same thing was true of snow removal. They really relied on outside contractors, and depending on the economy some years were easier than others to get contractors to sign up. Insurance was high and there was no guarantee. Mr. Sisitsky also noted that a mowing contractor did a good deal of the fields. Mr. McKinley questioned if they (contracts) were good business decisions, and Mr. Sisitsky advised that they were because the activities were either seasonal or dependent on the availability of money. If the DPW staffed up to do it, there could come a time when not that much staff was needed.
Noting that LFNR’s activities were seasonal, Mr. Ball inquired as to what they did in the winter. LFNR Supervisor John Cunniff responded that they inspected and repaired and painted playgrounds, park benches, roadside brush, limited tree work and went through the equipment to get it ready for the spring.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the members of the department had put a lot of work into tonight’s presentation and it was a testament to the department and how well they worked together. As a Town Administrator he was proud of this department, the staff members and the management
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (contd)
team and he thought they did a very good job for the citizens of Natick. They were a credit to the community.
b. BFI: Extension of Contract
Mr. Sisitsky noted that Pay-As-You-Throw began July 1. The existing contract with BFI expired June 30, 2003 and a one-year contract extension was negotiated. It was felt that one-year was needed to gain more experience on PAYT. He pointed out that the extension was revised to add at least a third recycling truck. The total cost was $489,000 and the money was in the DPW budget.
Recognizing that it had only been one month since PAYT started, Mr. Hughes asked if there was any sense whether recycling had increased and if so how much and if the amount of solid waste had decreased. Mr. Sisitsky responded that so far it looked like collection of solid waste had decreased and recycling picked up, but it was a little early to characterize the amount of the change. It was still in vacation mode, but the preliminary sense was that PAYT was working as planned. People were cooperative in using the special bags. A tremendous amount of bags had been sold in addition to an increased sale in recycling bins.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Article 3 of the contract stated that if the additional truck wasn’t required, the fee would be reduced. Mr. Sisitsky confirmed that as being correct, and added that that was built into the contract because of the uncertainty of what would happen. When asked about the dollar amount, Mr. Sisitsky advised that it could be the full amount up to $156,000 if the third truck was cut completely.
Mr. Ball asked if that meant that he could infer that the one-year extension was $156,000 over the previous year. Mr. Sisitsky advised that that was correct.
In driving around Town, Mr. McKinley stated that he noticed an increase in recycling materials some of which were not in legitimate containers. Mr. Sisitsky responded that that was not a problem. People could use whatever containers they wanted and there were special bumper stickers to put on barrels.
A motion was made by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, to extend the curbside recycling contract with BFI for one year in the amount of $489,000. Unanimously voted.
A brief recess was called and the meeting resumed at 8:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC & VERIZON N.E. – BODEN LANE – ONE (1) HIP GUY
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Tamarack Road resident Frank Salvoni told the Board that he wanted to make sure that NSTAR kept the guy wire on Town property and not his. His experience was that NSTAR bullied people, and he had to get a court order to get it (guy wire) removed. He didn’t want NSTAR’s equipment or guy wire on his property. Mr. Salvoni also noted that he was pretty sure the pole in question was already done.
Mr. Salvoni added that when he got the order for them to take the wire off his property, they took it off and put in another pole at a 45o degree angle. If NSTAR was going to put a wire in, it would definitely be going on his property again.
Mr. Ball noted that it had been a subject of aggravation to a number of people with NSTAR putting guy wires and hip guys on private property. Notwithstanding that this guy was purported to be for supporting the pole, Mr. Ball proposed that the petition be tabled and a NSTAR representative be requested to come in and answer the question of whether this would require anything on private property and if it did, that the owner be notified prior to the fact.
PUBLIC HEARING: NSTAR ELECTRIC & VERIZON N.E. – BODEN LANE – ONE (1) HIP GUY (contd)
Mr. Ball moved to table to August 4. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. A subsequent motion passed and no vote was taken.
In speaking to the motion, Mr. Hughes noted that a guy wire had to be there to support the pole and he questioned if the Board wanted to delay that being done. Mr. McKinley proposed making approval conditioned upon NSTAR certifying in writing that everything was in the public way and not on Mr. Salvoni’s property.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would like to know if the 45o angle pole was coming down when the support was put up.
Mr. Hughes moved to continue the public hearing and invite NSTAR to attend the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Following the vote, Mr. Ball asked about Mr. McKinley’s suggestion of having NSTAR submit a letter. Mr. Hughes stated that he would like an answer to Mr. Ciccariello’s question of whether the second pole currently supporting the pole would be removed. Mr. Lemnios responded that he would seek an answer to both questions and if NSTAR couldn’t provide the answers in letter format, then ask them to appear.
If the response was in letter form, Mr. Hughes requested that a copy be sent to Mr. Salvoni.
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
A court stenographer was present on behalf of the American Legion.
The notice of hearing was read.
David DeLuca identified himself as being from Town Counsel’s office representing the Natick Police in their investigation of this matter.
Attorney Theresa Capobianco identified herself as representing E.P. Clark Post #107, American Legion. Ms. Capobianco stated her objection to Mr. DeLuca serving as counsel for the prosecution if he had advised the Board previously on this matter. She anticipated that he would engage in discussions with this Board on the outcome of this matter and she objected.
In response to Mr. Stern’s request, Mr. DeLuca stated that he planned to call Sergeant Brian Lauzon, and Officer Christopher Salis as witnesses plus the Town had subpoenaed a number of witnesses and the record keeper of the American Legion post.
Ms. Capobianco listed her witnesses as Edwin Hasgill, Jr., the manager of the E.P. Clark Post #107; Nicole Donovan, a bartender; Catherine Thistle, a bartender; Steven Stoddard, a member of the American Legion; George Souliopolos, a member of the American Legion; William Thistle, a member of the American Legion; Kimberly MacDonald, a member of the American Legion; Debra Crone, a member of the American Legion.
All witnesses who were present were sworn in by Mr. Stern.
Mr. DeLuca called Sergeant Brian Lauzon as his first witness. Sergeant Lauzon stated that he was a Police Officer since 1992 and a Sergeant since 2000. He worked the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift and on May 21-22, 2003 he was working the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift. He was assigned to a marked cruiser that night and worked alone. When asked about the weather conditions, Sergeant Lauzon responded that that evening was clear with mild temperatures between 50-60 degrees.
Responding to questions posed by Mr. DeLuca, Sergeant Lauzon testified that at 1:57 in the early morning hours of May 22, he was on West Central Street in front of the American Legion. The Legion was on a
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
two-lane highway and there was a court that ran between the American Legion and an adjacent building complex. He was assigned as control supervisor and technically didn’t have a sector. What drew his attention was the number of cars parked on West Central Street in the vicinity of the Legion. They were metered spaces and traditionally at that time they were empty.
He took a right hand turn down Clark’s Court in the vicinity of the American Legion and The Center for Arts in Natick. In the rear parking lot of the American Legion he observed a green Jeep with a white male inside. There were a number of other vehicles parked in Clark’s Court and the rear parking lot. Sergeant Lauzon stated that he approached the vehicle and got the attention of the individual inside. He identified the person as Steven Stoddard and asked what he (Mr. Stoddard) was doing. Mr. Stoddard said he just recently left the American Legion post.
Sergeant Lauzon continued that he got Mr. Stoddard’s identification and determined that he was under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Stoddard said he just recently left the American Legion but did not give a time. He (Mr. Stoddard) was definitely impaired, intoxicated. Sergeant Lauzon stated that he offered Mr. Stoddard a ride home, but he didn’t want that. He (Sergeant Lauzon) took his keys and said he would bring them back in the morning. Mr. Stoddard was glassy eyed with slurred speech. He didn’t ask Mr. Stoddard to get out of his vehicle. Mr. Stoddard agreed to give him the keys to the vehicle. Sergeant Lauzon said he asked who the other vehicles belonged to, and Mr. Stoddard told him there were a number of people still in the American Legion.
Sergeant Lauzon continued that he walked up to the steel door rear entrance. It was locked but he could hear voices. He knocked and pounded on the door. He asked the dispatcher to call and see if she could raise anybody, but she said she was unsuccessful. He went to the front of the building and Officer Salis and Officer Morrill arrived and they tried to get someone’s attention by banging on the glass. All the windows and drapes were drawn with the exception of the left hand window. He could see in a little and could see some shadows but couldn’t see individual people. He continued to try to get someone’s attention.
Asked if he saw any glass or bottles, Sergeant Lauzon responded that he couldn’t see anything. He went to the front and banged on the doors. He then wrote down the plate numbers of the vehicles on West Central Street. Those were the same vehicles that were in the report. He couldn’t get anyone’s attention and detailed Officer Salis to wait and try to get someone’s attention. He (Sergeant Lauzon) went back on patrol and was notified a half hour later by Sergeant Salis that people left the front of the building. He returned and Officer Salis had two people stopped on Clark’s Court. Sergeant Lauzon stated that he joined into that conversation with George Souliopolos and Kim MacDonald. They were under the influence of alcohol with glassy eyes, the odor of
alcoholic beverages, and somewhat slurred speech. They voluntarily agreed not to operate their motor vehicles. Ms. MacDonald related that she just got out of work at the Sherborn Inn at 1:00 a.m. and just recently arrived at the American Legion. This conversation was at 2:30 a.m. They (Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald) indicated that they would not drive. Their cars were left there and the last time he saw them they were entering Agostino’s on Washington Street. He (Sergeant Lauzon) spoke to Officer Salis about the other individuals and Officer Salis informed him that others left and entered their cars. When he (Sergeant Lauzon) got back there the two vehicles he had seen and annotated their license plates were gone.
When asked how many individuals he saw outside this location after 2:00 a.m., Sergeant Lauzon responded that he saw two individuals on Clark’s Court. There were five cars found in the area.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross-examination by reminding Sergeant Lauzon that he was under oath. She showed him a document and Sergeant Lauzon
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
confirmed that it was his police report. He acknowledged that his signature did not appear on the report, but that was normal procedure. All of their reports were done that way.
In response to Ms. Capobianco’s questions, Sergeant Lauzon advised that he did not take notes at the scene, and he drafted the report in the morning. He had to complete it before 8:00 a.m. and assumed it was done between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. but couldn’t confirm that. He didn’t believe that Officer Salis had taken any notes at the scene and confirmed that his report was done from memory only.
In response to another series of questions, Sergeant Lauzon testified that he got to Clark’s Court just before 2:00 a.m. What he considered to be a high number of cars was 2-3. He was not aware that there were residential apartments and was informed by Ms. Capobianco that there was an apartment above 15 West Central. There were apartments at 12 and 15 West Central Street directly across the street.
Ms. Capobianco recalled that Sergeant Lauzon testified that he investigated and went down Clarks Court and saw a Jeep parked alongside the backside of the TCAN building. She inquired as to where the dumpsters were, but Sergeant Lauzon didn’t recall. He added that he would have made note, but Ms. Capobianco reminded Sergeant Lauzon that he testified that he didn’t make any notes. Ms. Capobianco continued her questions and Sergeant Lauzon responded that Mr. Stoddard’s keys were in the car and he asked for his (Mr. Stoddard’s) identification.
When asked if he gave Mr. Stoddard a field sobriety test, Sergeant Lauzon stated that Officer Salis gave a PBT. Both he and Officer Salis were trained to give a PBT.
In response to another series of questions, Sergeant Lauzon stated that he believed Officer Morrill came after Officer Salis arrived. He wasn’t
sure if either (Officer Morrill or Officer Salis) were present when he had a conversation with Mr. Stoddard.
Ms. Capobianco noted that Sergeant Lauzon testified that Mr. Stoddard came out of the American Legion recently and asked what that meant. Officer Lauzon responded that she would have to ask Mr. Stoddard. Sergeant Lauzon stated that he did not know what time. Ms. Capobianco noted that Sergeant Lauzon was not here to testify that people were in the American Legion after 1:00 a.m. drinking. Sergeant Lauzon’s response was, ‘no’. When asked if he was not suggesting that at all, Sergeant Lauzon responded, ‘no I am not’.
Ms. Capobianco questioned why Sergeant Lauzon was trying to enter the American Legion, and he replied that he was trying to determine what activity was going on there after 2:00 a.m. Ms. Capobianco noted that it was a private building, but Sergeant Lauzon pointed out that they had a liquor license. Sergeant Lauzon acknowledged that it was a private building and private membership. Ms. Capobianco stated that there was no reason to believe illegal or suspicious activity was occurring, but Sergeant Lauzon replied that he wouldn’t say that. There was an intoxicated person sitting in their parking lot and they had a liquor license.
Responding to another series of questions, Sergeant Lauzon testified that he did not ask Mr. Stoddard who was inside, he did not ask what they were doing, and he would be surprised to learn that the people were cleaning. Ms. Capobianco commented that that was what they were doing. She showed Sergeant Lauzon a picture of the back door and asked if he knocked on it. Sergeant Lauzon replied that he did. He didn’t recall if he rang the bell, but remembered pounding. He tried to enter the front door with Officer Morrill and pounded on the front door, but didn’t recall if he rang the doorbell.
Ms. Capobianco asked Sergeant Lauzon to look at a picture and identify which window he looked through. Sergeant Lauzon complied. He was then asked if he had ever been in the American Legion and responded that he
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
had once or twice. Sergeant Lauzon further testified that when he looked at the window it was similar to the picture – the curtain was closed almost all the way. There was about a 6”-8” opening, but he saw nothing but darkness and some shadows. When asked about people, Sergeant Lauzon said he couldn’t tell. Ms. Capobianco commented that Sergeant Lauzon was not testifying that he saw shadows of people sitting at the bar drinking. Sergeant Lauzon’s response was, ‘no I am not’.
Continuing to respond to Ms. Capobianco’s questions, Sergeant Lauzon testified that he left Officer Salis at the American Legion on a stake out to wait for people to leave to have an encounter. Asked what they (people leaving the Legion) did, he responded that he was investigating a liquor license violation of operating after hours. His conclusion was that they were (violating license). As to how he reached that conclusion, Sergeant Lauzon stated that speaking to the two people on
Clark’s Court and finding them intoxicated and hearing the testimony that Ms. MacDonald didn’t get out of work until 1:00 a.m. and just recently arrived led him to believe people were consuming alcohol. He couldn’t say if it was sold to them.
Ms. Capobianco noted that Ms. MacDonald was present and would testify that the timeframe was incorrect. Mr. DeLuca objected citing it was inappropriate to editorialize about her feelings of his (Sergeant Lauzon’s) conclusions. Ms. Capobianco noted the objection.
Ms. Capobianco then questioned how he determined that Mr. Souliopolos was inebriated. Sergeant Lauzon responded that it was through his speech and behavior and the encounter he had with him on Clark’s Court. His (Mr. Souliopolos) speech was slurred, his eyes glassy, and he voluntarily elected not to drive his motor vehicle. Ms. Capobianco read from Sergeant Lauzon’s report and observed that none of that was written in the report. No explanation was given for his findings. Sergeant Lauzon confirmed that as correct.
Through another series of questions, Sergeant Lauzon testified that Officer Salis started the conversation with Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald. He (Sergeant Lauzon) was in the area of the VFW and arrived back in the time it took to drive from there to Clark’s Court. When he arrived Officer Salis was speaking to them (Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald). He (Sergeant Lauzon) did not arrest them nor did he do a field sobriety or PBT. Asked if he reviewed his report before it was sent to the Board of Selectmen, Sergeant Lauzon responded that he did, but he did not make any changes from the original draft. When asked if he had training in writing reports, Sergeant Lauzon said he did. He was an associate professor at Dean College and one course he taught was report writing. He had training
in investigation technology. The last course was in training for the lieutenant’s exam.
Ms. Capobianco questioned if he called Mr. Hasgill to confirm the facts or compared notes with Officers Salis or Morrill. Sergeant Lauzon responded that he did not. He turned his report in and did not make any recommendations.
Ms. Capobianco noted that Sergeant Lauzon testified that he believed illegal activity was going on i.e. service of alcohol after 1:00 a.m. He wrote a report on it, didn’t sign it, and didn’t take any notes, submitted it to Sergeant Davis, and didn’t make a recommendation. Sergeant Lauzon explained that the officers did not sign their reports. They dictated over the telephone and they were transcribed. It was his belief that he provided circumstantial evidence that people were there after hours.
In response to Ms. Capobianco’s further questions, Sergeant Lauzon acknowledged that it was his job to fight crime, he would report it if he saw someone breaking the law, and he spoke to Officer Salis, his Lieutenant, and the dispatcher who made the call about the report.
Sergeant Lauzon acknowledged that he didn’t see anybody drinking. He didn’t believe Officer Salis contributed to his (Sergeant Lauzon’s) report.
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Mr. McKinley noted that Sergeant Lauzon had indicated that he dictated his report from memory but there was an incredible amount of specific information of names, addresses. Sergeant Lauzon advised that the names came from the teletype listing. That was done on five occasions with five different vehicles. Asked if he were referring to the motor vehicles or the owners, Sergeant Lauzon responded that it was the same difference. The dates of birth and addresses came from the teletype.
Mr. Ciccariello noted a reference to IP#2 and asked if Sergeant Lauzon ever encountered this person William Thistle. Sergeant Lauzon replied that he did not. When asked if Mr. Thistle wasn’t there, Sergeant Lauzon responded that he couldn’t say that. It was the same with IP#1. He did not meet that individual. He met Mr. Souliopolos, Ms. MacDonald, and Mr. Stoddard.
Mr. Hughes asked if Sergeant Lauzon got the result from the PBT on Mr. Stoddard. Ms. Capobianco objected but Mr. Stern allowed it. Sergeant Lauzon responded that Officer Salis would have that information.
Mr. DeLuca called his next witness – Officer Christopher Salis. Officer Salis stated that he was a patrol officer employed since October 2001. On the night of May 22, 2003 he was working the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift. He was assigned to a marked area that included the downtown area. He was in a marked cruiser in uniform. At approximately 1:57 a.m. Sergeant Lauzon informed dispatch that he was out with a subject on Clark’s Court in the Jeep. For the Officer’s safety he headed in that direction. When he got there Sergeant Lauzon was done speaking to Mr. Stoddard, and Sergeant Lauzon was by his cruiser on Clark’s Court. He (Officer Salis) had a conversation with Sergeant Lauzon who told him that Mr. Stoddard was going to spend the night in his car as he was under
the influence of alcohol.
Officer Salis continued that he observed Mr. Stoddard and spoke to him on his (Officer Salis) own. In speaking with Mr. Stoddard he said he was unable to drive his car. Officer Salis said he offered to give Mr. Stoddard a ride home and bring him back in the morning, but he declined. He (Officer Salis) administered a PBT and recorded Mr. Stoddard’s blood alcohol. Mr. Stoddard was sitting in the car the whole time. Officer Salis stated that there was a strong odor of alcohol, Mr. Stoddard’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy and he was slumped over. He (Officer Salis) didn’t remember if he was slurring his speech. Officer Salis stated that he assisted Sergeant Lauzon in the rear as he was trying to knock on the door. He (Officer Salis) heard voices and laughing. He
started with a knock, went to the back, and he (Officer Salis) pushed the button and got no answer. Sergeant Lauzon was pounding with his fist.
Officer Salis was asked to describe the sounds he heard coming from the building, and responded that he heard a group of people talking and laughing. He didn’t believe there were any windows at the rear. When asked what happened next, Officer Salis replied that he stayed in the back. Officer Morrill showed up and Sergeant Lauzon and went to the front. Nothing occurred. He (Officer Salis) didn’t continue banging or knocking. He stayed in his car on Clark’s Court. Nobody could get past him. He had a good view of the back area. Sergeant Lauzon came back and told him to stay in the area and notify him when people exited the establishment. Sergeant Lauzon went westbound on Route 135. He did not know where Officer Morrill went. About 10-15 minutes after
Sergeant Lauzon left, Officer Salis said he saw people exiting the establishment, and he tried Sergeant Lauzon via the police radio that people were coming out. He (Officer Salis) moved across the street to the municipal parking lot where he could only see the front door, not the back.
Asked if he recalled how many people, Officer Salis responded that he did not. After notifying Sergeant Lauzon he noticed two people walking around the corner. There was a group of 2-3 people still in front. He followed the two that went around the corner and identified them as George Souliopolos and Kimberly MacDonald. He approached them and asked if they had been drinking that night. They said yes, but he did not ask
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
them where. When asked about his observations of their condition, Officer Salis replied that Ms. MacDonald seemed to be the more intoxicated of the two. Mr. Souliopolos was asked for identification and produced it. Officer Salis stated that his (Officer Salis) main concern was their ability to operate a motor vehicle. Mr. Souliopolos declined to take a PBT fearing a punishment, but he explained to Mr. Souliopolos that it didn’t matter, he (Officer Salis) just didn’t want him to drive. Mr. Souliopolos elected not take the car and both parties agreed to depart the area. Mr. Souliopolos still had his keys.
Officer Salis continued that he stayed in the area to make sure they didn’t double back and watched them walk up and down Main Street once or twice and watched them walk over to Agostino’s.
Mr. DeLuca questioned if Sergeant Lauzon was present during that encounter, and Officer Salis responded that he (Officer Salis) started the encounter and Sergeant Lauzon came while he was talking with Mr. Souliopolos. He didn’t see the other individuals and assumed they went home. He did not see if they operated any vehicles.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. DeLuca, Officer Salis testified that the individuals he spoke with did not indicate that they had anything to drink at the American Legion at any time that evening, they did not indicate there were other persons inside the Legion, they did not identify the bar staff at that time.
Mr. DeLuca requested the information on the PBT administered to Mr. Stoddard. Ms. Capobianco objected. Her objection was so noted by Mr. Stern.
Mr. DeLuca continued his questioning and asked if the information refreshed Officer Salis’ memory. Officer Salis indicated that it did and stated that on May 22, 2003 a PBT test was given at 2:09 a.m. with a reading of .212. Asked if that was over the legal limit, Officer Salis’ response was, ‘yes’. When asked how much, Ms. Capobianco objected, but was overruled by Mr. Stern. Officer Salis responded that .02 was the legal limit and confirmed that Mr. Stoddard’s was more than twice.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross-examination by asking if Officer Salis had received training in reverse extrapolation techniques and if he knew what it was. Officer Salis’ response was, “no”. She then asked about the report, and Officer Salis’ responded that he did not contribute to Sergeant Lauzon’s report, the only notes he made that evening were the two individuals’ names and addresses, he did not review Sergeant Lauzon’s report, he had no notes to compare (to Sergeant Lauzon’s report), he was not required to submit a report and he would only do a report if he made an arrest or if he was the responding officer.
Ms. Capobianco then asked about Officer Salis’ arrival at the American Legion and Officer Salis responded that he arrived approximately 2:00 a.m., he met up with Sergeant Lauzon in Clark’s Court and joined Sergeant Lauzon who was attempting to enter the American Legion. When asked why he was trying to enter the Legion, Officer Salis responded because he (Sergeant Lauzon) was. Sergeant Lauzon said he thought there was illegal activity. Ms. Capobianco questioned if Officer Salis had asked why and Officer Salis responded that voices could be heard. Asked about hearing glasses or clinking beer bottles, Officer Salis responded just voices. Ms. Capobianco asked if Officer Salis had any idea of what was going on, and Officer Salis testified that he did not. He had no personal knowledge, but he
had an idea.
Ms. Capobianco noted that Officer Salis attempted to enter through the front, but Officer Salis corrected her that he did not. He was in the rear of the building. She then noted that when Officer Morrill and Sergeant Lauzon departed Officer Salis was asked to stay behind and stake out. His car was in the municipal lot and she inquired as to how many people he saw exit. Officer Salis responded 3-5, but he didn’t remember exactly. When asked what they did, Officer Salis stated that they were standing out there talking for about one minute before going
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
around the back of the building. Ms. Capobianco recalled that Officer Salis had testified that he notified Sergeant Lauzon that some individuals exited and asked if that was before he (Officer Salis) exited the municipal lot. Officer Salis responded that he was still in the municipal lot.
Ms. Capobianco then recalled that Officer Salis testified that only two individuals walked around to Clark’s Court and the remaining stayed out front. Officer Salis confirmed that as being correct. In follow-up Ms. Capobianco questioned how he decided to pursue the two individuals in Clark’s Court and not the individuals in the front. Officer Salis responded that his primary concern was that he didn’t want them getting
into their vehicles. The people in the front seemed like they may talk for a while.
When asked if he observed Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald walking from the front door to the vehicle, Officer Salis replied that he saw them up to the corner. Asked if he saw them fall down, Officer Salis’ response was, “no”. Asked if he saw them stumble, Officer Salis responded that Ms. MacDonald had a hard time walking. He did not administer a field sobriety test. He only asked the operator of the vehicle (to do a sobriety test), and he declined. Ms. Capobianco questioned if Mr. Souliopolos was engaged in the commission of a crime when he was stopped. Officer Salis’ response was, “no” nor was he exhibiting suspicious behavior. Officer Salis confirmed as being correct Ms. Capobianco’s statement that both showed a driver’s license and said they
wouldn’t be driving. Neither was arrested and no attempt was made to put them in protective custody.
Ms. Capobianco continued her questioning and Officer Salis testified that when the interview was done, Mr. Souliopolos locked his vehicle and he (Officer Salis) watched them walk up and down Main Street. He (Officer Salis) was driving around making sure they wouldn’t double back. His (Officer Salis) concern was making sure no one was driving. Neither Mr. Souliopolos nor Ms. MacDonald indicated that they had been drinking alcohol inside the American Legion after 1:00 p.m., and he was not testifying that he saw them doing that nor was he testifying that he saw anybody drinking in the American legion after 1:00 am. He did not have any conversation with the other individuals who departed the American Legion.
Having testified that he rang the rear doorbell, Mr. Ball asked if Officer Salis heard it ring. Officer Salis responded that he did not. Asked if he heard anything other than the voices, Officer Salis again responded, “no”. Mr. Ball inquired as to what time Officer Salis saw Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald go into Agostino’s, and Officer Salis replied that it was ten minutes after they were released – roughly 2:30 a.m.
Responding to questions from Mr. McKinley, Officer Salis confirmed that when he was at the back door with Sergeant Lauzon he could hear voices and Sergeant Lauzon aggressively knocked on the door. Ms. Capobianco objected to Mr. McKinley asking if Officer Salis thought they (people in the Legion) could hear them pounding on the door, but Mr. Stern overruled the objection. Officer Salis responded that he didn’t know.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the report stated that both subjects identified Ms. Crone as the on duty bar staff, but Officer Salis testified that he did not request them to identify the bar staff. Officer Salis confirmed that he did not. They didn’t identify to him that Ms. Crone was the bar staff. Asked if he were pretty clear that he saw the two individuals enter into Agostino’s, Officer Salis responded that he saw them inside the restaurant. It was after 2:00 a.m.
Mr. DeLuca called his next witness – Debra Crone. Ms. Crone stated that she lived at Whalen Lane and on the night of May 21-22, 2003 was at the American Legion. She was not employed there. Her friend Kathy worked there and the person who regularly cleaned was on vacation and Kathy asked her to help. She (Ms. Crone) was a member of the auxiliary. Ms. Crone was not sure of the time she got to the American Legion, but it
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
was probably between 10:00-10:30 p.m. She didn’t remember how many people were there.
Responding to questions from Mr. DeLuca, Ms. Crone testified that she was not employed by the American Legion. She acknowledged having something to drink, but when Mr. DeLuca asked what it was that she had to drink, Ms. Capobianco objected based on relevance. Mr. DeLuca explained that he was trying to determine if she consumed alcohol and if so the timeframe. Mr. Stern overruled the objection and Ms. Crone answered that she probably had beer. Mr. DeLuca inquired as to how much beer, and again Ms. Capobianco objected based on relevance. Mr. Stern stated that he would allow some latitude and Ms. Crone responded that she probably had 2-3 beers.
Mr. DeLuca continued questioning and Ms. Crone responded that she left after 2:00 a.m., they started cleaning around 1:00 a.m., she had no alcohol after 1:00 a.m., she had 2-3 prior to that time. Ms. Crone also testified that her purpose for staying was not solely for cleaning but also to socialize. The cleaning was doing the floors, cleaning the tables. The equipment was already there. She had come from earlier employment, but stopped at home first. Mr. DeLuca inquired as to what she was wearing, but Ms. Capobianco objected and Mr. Stern sustained the objection.
Responding to another series of questions, Ms. Crone stated that she left the building some time after 2:00 a.m. which she only knew because it was being talked about here and she was with Ms. Thistle, Mr. Souliopolos, and Ms. MacDonald. She didn’t speak with the officer. When she left the building her car was parked across the street. She drove her car. No one else was with her.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross examination and Ms. Crone responded that Kathy Thistle was the bartender, she didn’t recall if she saw Mr. Stoddard when she arrived at the American Legion, Ms. Thistle gave last call about midnight. After last call Ms. Thistle took the till into another room and counted it and then started cleaning. Once Ms. Thistle poured last call, she didn’t pour any other drinks. Once last call was called that was it. She didn’t observe any alcoholic beverages being consumed after 1:00 a.m. No member of the Natick Police Department called to verify any facts of what may have happened.
Ms. Capobianco questioned if Ms. Crone heard any knocking on the door, and Ms. Crone responded that they would have heard them if they did. They did not hear the doorbell.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that Ms. Crone testified that she didn’t know how many people were in the club but she left with four individuals and he questioned if she didn’t know that four individuals were there. Ms. Crone explained that she understood the question to be how many people were at the bar when she arrived at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Ciccariello asked if Ms. Crone was now testifying that she didn’t know how many people were there when she was in the bar. He pointed out that she was in the club for in excess of two hours. Ms. Capobianco objected noting that two hours was a large timeframe and Ms. Crone testified that she didn’t know how many were there when she came but there were four when she left. Mr. Stern overruled the objection. Ms. Crone said she didn’t understand
the question and Mr. Ciccariello rephrased to ask if between the time she arrived and when she left if she recalled any other individuals in the club. Ms. Crone responded that there were people there at 10:30 p.m. and after that Ms. Thistle, Mr. Souliopolos, Ms. MacDonald were there.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that Ms. Crone was not the on duty bar staff at the club, and Ms. Crone confirmed that as being correct. When asked if she served any alcohol to any persons, Ms. Crone’s response was, ‘no’.
Mr. Ball inquired as to where the cleaning was being done relative to the front door and back door. Ms. Crone responded that they weren’t near the back door because that was the kitchen area. The front door
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
was where there were glass windows. They were (cleaning) in the bathroom and the bar area. Mr. Ball noted that after last call and between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. they were cleaning in the area that went from the front to the bathrooms and the bar. He questioned if they did not hear anyone banging. Ms. Crone replied that they did not, adding that they would have heard – maybe not the back door, but definitely the front.
Mr. Ball then asked if the other folks who exited with Ms. Crone were also helping to clean. Ms. Crone’s response was, ‘yes’, but not as much. Having heard testimony from both Sergeant Lauzon and Officer Salis that they heard laughter, Mr. Ball questioned if there was laughter involved. Ms. Crone’s response was, ‘sure’.
Ms. Crone had testified that she came from home and before that she was working and Mr. Hughes inquired as to where she worked. Ms. Capobianco objected. When asked by Mr. Stern what he was trying to establish, Mr. Hughes replied how long. Mr. Stern allowed the question, and Ms. Crone stated that she worked at the MetroWest Medical Center.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. Hughes, Ms. Crone testified that she did not recall seeing Mr. Stoddard, she knew Mr. Stoddard, from 10:30 p.m.-2:00 a.m. she didn’t recall seeing Mr. Stoddard, she didn’t remember if the club was crowded, and she didn’t recall how many people were at last call.
Mr. Ball noted that Ms. Crone was a member of the auxiliary and asked if she signed the book. Ms. Crone didn’t recall but she always did so she would say that she did.
Mr. Stern inquired as to where the alcohol was stored, and Ms. Crone answered that it was behind the bar. In follow-up Mr. Stern asked if it was accessible, and Ms. Crone stated she didn’t believe they locked it.
Ms. Crone confirmed as being correct Mr. McKinley’s understanding that Ms. Crone didn’t know how many people were present at last call and from last call to 2:00 a.m. she didn’t recall seeing Mr. Stoddard.
Mr. DeLuca called his next witness, Catherine Thistle. Ms. Thistle stated that she lived at 51 North Main Street and was an auxiliary member for 22 years. On May 21-22, 2003 she was working at the American Legion as a bar tender. She had been employed at the Legion for 20 years with the exception of two years when she moved away. It was part-time regular employment – four nights a week from 5:00 p.m.-1:00 a.m. May 21, 2003 was a Wednesday night and she got there between 4:30-4:45 p.m. She knew Mr. Stoddard and recalled seeing him. He was served alcohol but she didn’t remember when he got there. She knew he wasn’t at last call and knew that he left at least an hour before last call. Mr. Stoddard would not have been served alcohol by anyone other than her.
Mr. DeLuca inquired as to what Ms. Thistle served Mr. Stoddard. Ms. Capobianco objected and Mr. DeLuca withdrew the question.
Responding to questions from Mr. DeLuca, Ms. Thistle stated that last call was a little later that night because it was crowded. She thought it was more like 12:15-12:30 a.m. rather than midnight. She estimated that there were probably 15 or more people there.
Mr. DeLuca asked if she was familiar with the club license, and Ms. Thistle stated that she was – that service extends only to 1:00 a.m. on weekdays. Mr. DeLuca submitted to the Board an attested copy of the license that was in effect for this establishment.
Through another series of questions, Ms. Thistle responded that at 1:00 a.m. it was just the four of them – Ms. Crone, Ms. MacDonald, Mr. Souliopolos and herself. The purpose (for them staying) was that the regular cleaner was on a golf vacation and she needed to do the cleaning that night for him. The cleaning was everyday and he usually came in
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
the morning. She hadn’t had to do that in the past. This was the first occasion. She asked Ms. Crone to stay and when Ms. MacDonald & Mr. Souliopolos came in she asked them (to help) and they said sure. They (Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald) came about 11:00 p.m. Ms. MacDonald worked in Sherborn. Ms. Thistle stated that she didn’t know Ms. MacDonald’s hours just that when she comes after work on Wednesdays it was about 11:00 p.m. It wasn’t until she and Mr. Souliopolos got that that she (Ms. Thistle) asked them about staying late. Ms. Thistle
further stated that she did not hear any activity outside the building nor did she hear any knocking or banging. After 1:00 a.m. the alcohol was behind the bar and the beer coolers were behind the bar. They weren’t locked. When asked if she could recall if anyone had anything to drink after that time (1:00 a.m.), Ms. Thistle said they did but not alcohol. Asked if they could have gotten one, Ms. Thistle stated that she wouldn’t have let them do that.
Continuing to respond to Mr. DeLuca’s questions, Ms. Thistle testified that she left about 2:30 a.m. with Ms. Crone, Ms. MacDonald, and Mr. Souliopolos . They walked out the front door. They had to leave through the front because the alarm had to be set. She saw a cruiser across the street in the municipal lot and when Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald went around the corner, the cruiser went down the alley. She and Ms. Crone crossed the street. She was driving an Oldsmobile registered to her husband William Thistle. Her husband was not present. Ms. Thistle denied having served alcohol to any persons present after 1:00 a.m.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross-examination and Ms. Thistle responded that in addition to a bartender she was the Treasurer of the Auxiliary and the keeper of the membership records. She was familiar with the members on May 21-22, 2003 and on those dates Ms. Crone was an active auxiliary member, Ms. MacDonald was an active member and she (Ms. Thistle) was an active member. Ms. Thistle responded that while cleaning she did not hear the doorbell. When the doorbell was pushed, the buzzer sounded behind the bar and the only time she wouldn’t hear it would be if she were in the bathroom and maybe if she was in the front of the building.
Mr. Capobianco recalled that Ms. Thistle had testified that when they were done cleaning they left the building and she had to set the alarm. Ms. Thistle confirmed that as being correct and added that there was no one left in the building when she left. There were two other alarms – one near the office, which had been set earlier in the evening, and one near the back door.
Mr. Capobianco questioned if there was a door between the bar and the counter, and Ms. Thistle stated that there was. When asked if the door was shut, Ms. Thistle responded that it could have been. She didn’t need to go into the kitchen area. Ms. Capobianco then asked if Ms. Thistle had been stopped by any officer, and Ms. Thistle replied, ‘no’ nor did anyone from the Natick Police Department call to confirm the facts. She was the only bartender on duty that evening.
Mr. Ball asked if Ms. Thistle were the keeper of the records, and Ms. Thistle replied that she was for the auxiliary. Asked if she was responsible for the sign in log, Ms. Thistle stated that only the guests needed to be signed in. Mr. Ball questioned if a member of the auxiliary was not a guest, but Ms. Thistle advised that they were members. She explained that Ms. Crone was talking about the daily book
that she kept and they put their name in. Ms. Crone didn’t need to sign in. Mr. Ball asked about Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Souliopolos, and Ms. Thistle advised that both were members.
Mr. Ball then asked if Ms. Thistle was Tips certified and Ms. Thistle advised that she was within the last 12 months. She acknowledged serving Mr. Stoddard. When Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Stoddard appeared intoxicated, Ms. Capobianco objected. Mr. Stern overruled the objection and Ms. Thistle responded that she didn’t believe so.
HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Mr. McKinley recalled that Ms. Thistle had mentioned that Ms. MacDonald and Mr. Souliopolos arrived around 11:00 p.m. He questioned if they came in together. Ms. Thistle advised that they did not. They both work and the work schedules were about the same. She asked them to stay and help her clean. Responding to other questions, Ms. Thistle replied that Mr. Hasgill (club manager) was not present, and Mr. Stoddard left at least one hour before last call.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the normal procedure for closing and Ms. Thistle responded that she gives last call, cleans off any bottles or glasses off the tables and bar and gets people out. Then she counts the till in another room and makes up the till for the next day. Usually she would finish normal cleaning, not any floor cleaning, but that night she had to. She would then set the alarms and leave.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it was normal procedure to lock the door after last call. Ms. Thistle stated that outside the doors were locked and a key card was needed. On Wednesday the key cards stopped at 11:00 p.m. and someone had to ring the doorbell after 11:00 p.m. To her knowledge the doorbell worked.
Mr. Ciccariello then questioned if Ms. Thistle was familiar with Ms. MacDonald’s work hours, and Ms. Thistle replied that she was not very familiar she just knew that Ms. MacDonald comes into the Legion. She was pretty sure that Ms. MacDonald arrived there at 11:00 p.m.
Mr. DeLuca inquired if the key card entry system operated as a record in some way of the number of people using the system. Ms. Thistle stated that it did not. The key card was on a timer and the system didn’t allow entry even with the key card after 11:00 p.m. on a Wednesday. Asked if Mr. Souliopolos and Ms. MacDonald entered with a key card or by the doorbell that evening, Ms. Thistle replied that she didn’t remember.
Noting the time, Mr. Stern indicated that he would continue the hearing to August 18. Ms. Capobianco inquired as to the possibility of a date sooner than the 18th, but Mr. Stern advised that if she wanted to go forward he would not be present on August 4. Ms. Capobianco preferred to have all members present.
At 10:15 p.m. a ten-minute recess was called. The meeting was called back into order at 10:25 p.m.
MODIFICATION OF ALCOHOL RULES & REGS
Town Counsel had submitted a revision of proposed rules & regs incorporating the comments from the last meeting.
Mr. McKinley moved approval of the rules & regs as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball inquired as to when the rules and regs, if approved, would go into effect. Mr. Stern pointed out that if a date was not established, it would be immediately. Mr. Lemnios felt it would be to the Board’s benefit to choose a date that was 15-30 days in the future. If the maker of the motion would agree, Mr. Ball suggested setting the effective date as of September 1, 2003. Mr. McKinley was willing but noted that hadn’t heard any argument that that was a reasonable thing to do.
Mr. Hughes thought that it should be understood that the fact that the regulations had changed didn’t mean that tomorrow the license holder could open the bar area of his restaurant without coming to the Board for a modification.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to make the revised rules & regs effective September 1, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Mr. Stern then raised the issue of fees. Mr. Hughes thought the Board should hold a hearing on whether to change the fee and proposed the meeting of September 2, 2003. Mr. McKinley questioned if that was being
MODIFICATION OF ALCOHOL RULES & REGS (contd)
done now because the policy had just changed. Mr. Hughes explained that it was to consider whether there needed to be a separate fee that was different than the other for someone who came for this license. The Board agreed to hold a hearing on the 2nd.
UPDATE CLUB LICENSE LEGISLATION
The Board was in receipt of a copy of a letter sent by Representative David Linsky to Representative Daniel Bosley, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Regulations seeking assistance in filing corrective legislation on behalf of the clubs and war veterans organizations to sell alcohol at functions held in the club.
Mr. McKinley informed the Board that he had attended a meeting at one of the clubs relative to this issue and an interesting question came up. Should the proposed legislation pass as written, would it obviate the subdivision A&B. Mr. Lemnios advised that he would check with Town Counsel.
JOHN CONNOLLY CLAIM
Before the Board was a claim from John Connolly of 6 Allen Street seeking reimbursement for a sewer backup that occurred on July 4, 1998.
Notwithstanding the longevity of this whole issue and the fact that Mr. Connolly should have known better how to navigate the bureaucracy to put this business to bed, Mr. Ball stated that he would move to accept the $165 invoice for labor and materials involved in the cleanup of the
sewer backup on July 4, 1998. Seconded by Mr. Hughes with the condition that the $165 be a credit against Mr. Connolly’s water bill as opposed to a refund, that Mr. Connolly sign a release, and that Mr. Connolly agreed to have a new water meter that can be read with an automatic reader installed. As the maker of the motion, Mr. Ball accepted the amendment. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley abstained.
APPOINTMENT OF BOARD’S REPRESENTATIVE TO METROWEST GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to reappoint Mr. McKinley as the Board’s representative to the MetroWest Growth Management Committee. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. McKinley abstained.
Mr. McKinley reminded the Board that maybe next year the Board should start thinking about training someone else.
BUDGET PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE
Mr. Hughes reported that the Budget Planning Subcommittee met and were working on preparing proposed projections for 2005. He hoped to have something to present to the Board and the School Committee by the end of August.
TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Mr. Stern reminded the Board that articles for Fall Town Meeting were due by August 22, 2003.
Mr. Hughes urged that Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian do something with regard to a zoning article for a housing plan in the downtown area. Even if it were not ready to go forward, at least an article would begin to educate the citizens. It was very important for the changes expected at the state level to at least start the process moving along and he would urge that the discussion at least begin at Town Meeting.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Circular Avenue Dead Tree Complaint
Mr. Ball referenced a letter in correspondence concerning a tree with a dead branch on Circular Avenue. In her letter to the Board, Ms. Fortini indicated that she had been told that the Town didn’t have the money to take it down. If this was a safety issue, Mr. Ball felt that the Town
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
should be able to find the money to do it. He asked that Mr. Lemnios follow-up with LFNR Supervisor John Cunniff.
b. Request to Use Common for Art Show
Mr. Ball called attention to a letter in correspondence requesting permission for a group of artists to sell their paintings in conjunction with the farmer’s market. Both Mr. Cugini (Superintendent of Recreation & Parks) and the Recreation & Parks Commission made positive recommendations, but he felt that since the market operated at the
pleasure of the Board, it would be appropriate for the Board to concur. He requested that the Board convey its approval to the Natick Center Associates.
Mr. Ball so moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. McKinley noted that it wasn’t obvious to him that anything needed to be approved. The Board voted to grant a license to Natick Center Associates to run the farmer’s market and wasn’t specific about what they could bring in. If the farmer’s market wanted to have some artists within that umbrella, he didn’t see that as an issue.
Mr. Hughes noted that he talked to Ms. Sayre, the farmer’s market manager. She indicated that Mr. Cugini was reluctant about having this kind of event and she would like the Board’s approval.
c. Sherwood Plaza Festival
In correspondence was a letter from Joel Feingold Presents talking about an event at the Sherwood Plaza and what was required. Mr. Ciccariello requested more information about the event.
d. Rockland Street Nuisance
Noting that there had been a number of letters concerning an alleged problem on Rockland Street, Mr. Hughes asked if the Building Inspector had responded.
Mr. Ball advised that he went over to Rockland Street and there were four vehicles parked there plus a trailer. The extent of what was there seemed to be less than indicated but there were two unregistered vehicles.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation. A roll call vote was unanimous and the Board retired to executive session at 10:45 p.m. after announcing that the meeting would not return to open session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
_____________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
