BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
August 18, 2003
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Jeffrey A. Stern 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 August 18, 2003 in the amount of $441,520.36. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,198,112.96.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, moved to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to litigation, deployment of security personnel, 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 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ball, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2003 meeting.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION – LARRY ROSEN
On a motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Larry Rosen from the Recreation & Park Commission.
Mr. McKinley, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, moved to post the vacancy. Unanimously voted.
SHERWOOD PLAZA – FESTIVAL
Joel Feingold of Joel Feingold Presents appeared before the Board on behalf of Sherwood Plaza to request permission to hold a promotional event in the parking lot of Sherwood Plaza on Saturday, September 6, 2003. The event would include BMX bikes, a half pipe, a variety of food supplied by restaurants in the Plaza, a fitness demonstration, etc. He had also spoken to the Natick Police Department about a kids ID packet. It would involve a one-day setup and a one day take down with the exception of one piece of equipment. There would be no signage and no trash.
Mr. Stern inquired if the Plaza would be open during the festival, and Mr. Feingold’s response was, ‘most definitely’. He added that the event was on a portion of the road toward Route 9 with parking directly in front. He anticipated using the overflow parking in the rear some of which was for the Plaza and some for the Natick Office Park. There will be signage to indicate the parking.
Mr. Feingold explained that the festival fronted on Route 9 and was bordered by a cross road off Route 9 and the other side was bound by the principal traffic corridor for cars coming in. When asked how he intended to separate traffic going to retailers and keep pedestrians safe, Mr. Feingold presented some supplemental diagrams, which showed bike racks. The racks will be installed to prevent vehicles from getting into the area where there would be pedestrians.
Mr. McKinley inquired as for whose benefit this was being staged, and was told by Mr. Feingold that it was by the Sherwood Plaza to promote the retailers in the Plaza. They were trying to showcase the new
SHERWOOD PLAZA – FESTIVAL (contd)
retailers and restaurants. Most of their retailers were not enormous retail chains. The object was to get the news out and show off the Plaza that had been recently renovated.
Asked if all of the retailers were businesses within the Plaza, Mr. Feingold stated that that was correct.
To Mr. McKinley the removal of 100-150 parking spaces seemed like a lot and asked if Mr. Feingold was convinced that it would work. He also asked if there would be an adequate Police presence. Mr. Feingold assured the Board that he would use as many Police officers as the Town decided he should have. With regard to the question about parking, the answer was, ‘yes’. Usually at both eastern and western ends of the parking lot there were some areas that were less used. Plus there was parking in the rear and in the office park.
Mr. Hughes questioned if the Board was being asked to create a license or approval, and Mr. Lemnios responded that that had been discussed today. The Board could discuss it and place any conditions it desired upon this application, but it wasn’t clear if it was a one-day common victualer’s license or something beyond. If the Board was inclined to approve it with any conditions, the operator would be bound to follow those conditions.
Mr. Hughes asked if this was a carnival license, but Mr. Feingold noted that it wasn’t a carnival. He explained that he started this process to get a handle on specifically what permits needed to be pulled. He wanted it done in a manner where everybody said this was good.
If the restaurants that were already licensed for the Sherwood Plaza were providing the food, Mr. Hughes questioned if a common victualer’s license would be needed. Mr. Lemnios advised that it would because the Board licensed those premises for a particular location and this was outside that location. For the climbing wall and half pipe, building
permits would be require to ensure that they were structurally sound for that day.
Mr. Lemnios noted that the other reason it was before the Board was that a few months ago the Board denied an application from someone who wanted to sell tools because the Board didn’t want competition for established businesses. Mr. Lemnios called attention to the recommendation from the Planning board.
Mr. Ball asked about the necessity for liability insurance naming the Town as an additional insured, but Mr. Lemnios didn’t believe it was needed because it wasn’t on Town property. Mr. Ball questioned if approval of the event by the Board would produce any liability. Mr. Lemnios agreed that it never hurt to have coverage, but reiterated that because it was on private property and the responsibility of Mr. Feingold and the Sherwood Plaza, even though the Town was granting approval or imposing conditions, it didn’t follow that the Town would have a liability on this property.
Mr. Ball questioned if there was liability insurance, and was told by Mr. Feingold that insurance for public events since 9/11 was very topsy turvy. At the moment the insurance policy didn’t name the Town of Natick as an additional insured. It covered the venue, people who owned the venue, and the producer. In this case he had to have another insurance certificate for the half pipe and the climbing wall. In other cities he had been asked to produce a copy of the policy, but if he needed to add Natick, he would have to go back to the insurance company. It would be a first for him.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to grant the petitioner approval for a common victualer’s license for all restaurants in the Sherwood Plaza for September 6,2003 with the condition that he obtain any and all necessary building permits, approval from the Board of Health, and Police detail for traffic. In addition the generator onsite must meet Fire Department approval and no advertising to occur off the premises – no flyers on telephone poles. The only advertising to be through
SHERWOOD PLAZA – FESTIVAL (contd)
newspapers or on the premise. Mr. Hughes seconded with an amendment that the hours be limited from 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Mr. McKinley offered a second amendment that Mr. Feingold be required to submit a certificate of liability insurance naming the Town of Natick as an additional insured. Both amendments were accepted by the maker and seconder of the motion. Unanimously voted.
Speaking to his amendment, Mr. McKinley stated that he believed the Town should be named as an additional insured. He understood that it may or may not be necessary, but it was a minor administrative detail and shouldn’t be a problem. Mr. Hughes proposed that on the odd chance that the insurance company would not add the Town, Mr. Feingold should be invited back on September 2.
THE CENTER FOR ARTS IN NATICK
Mr. Stern recused himself and Mr. Ciccariello chaired the meeting for this portion of the agenda.
a. Change of address - Licenses
Representing The Center for Arts in Natick was Joseph Hurwitz, Chairman of the Board of Directors.
As requested by TCAN, Mr. Ball moved approval of changing the address of the common victualer’s, daily entertainment, and Sunday entertainment licenses held by TCAN from 31 Main Street to 14 Summer Street. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern had recused himself and did not vote.
b. Cupola – Extension of Completion Date
Mr. Hurwitz noted that in accordance with the sales agreement, the cupola must be done by March 2004. The architect submitted drawings late in May. Mr. Hurwitz requested a one-year extension for completion so that the project could be put out for competitive bid and avoid construction in the winter.
Mr. Ball inquired as to how confident Mr. Hurwitz was that the cupola would be completed by 2005 and Mr. Hurwitz responded that he was as confident as he could be. He added that the funds were available. The bids had been tested and the range was from $50,000-150,000. Drawings were done, but were not as yet approved by the Building Inspector.
Mr. Hughes inquired if the cupola was the last part of the initial construction that had to be completed. Mr. Hurwitz advised that it was the last requirement. He pointed out that TCAN did more than required and used the example of the sidewalk that had to be completed, but they went with the brick, which was more expensive.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to whether TCAN had received Mass Historic sign off on the cupola, Mr. Hurwitz responded that they had received some of the money but not all of it. He noted that TCAN had sufficient funds now to complete the cupola if forced to do it now.
Mr. Hughes moved approval of extending the completion date for the cupola to March 2005. Seconded by Mr. McKinley. The motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Stern had recused himself and did not vote.
Mr. Stern resumed as Chairman.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
Representing the Town was Attorney David DeLuca from Town Counsel’s firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane. Representing the American Legion E.P. Clark Post #107 was Attorney Theresa Capobianco.
Mr. Stern noted that this was a continuation of the hearing begun on July 28, 2003 and any witnesses sworn in at the last meeting would remain under oath.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Mr. DeLuca told the Board that he reissued the subpoenas to all of his witnesses but wasn’t sure who was here and who was not. He called the names and confirmed the presence of George Souliopolos, Kimberly MacDonald, Edwin Hasgill, and Steven Stoddard all of whom had been sworn in at the previous meeting.
Ms. Capobianco advised that she planned to call Michael Willis, the keeper of the records for the Sons of the American Legion to testify on the membership list given at the last meeting, Nicole Donovan, Catherine Thistle, and possibly Lawrence D’Innocezo although Mr. D’Innocezo had not as yet arrived. Ms. Thistle was sworn in the last time.
Mr. Stern swore in Ms. Donovan and Mr. Willens.
Ms. Capobianco had referred to a membership list, but Mr. Hughes didn’t recall getting a membership list. Ms. Capobianco advised that she had provided that to Mr. DeLuca at the last meeting and Mr. DeLuca confirmed that copies had been provided to him. He distributed copies of the by-laws, and noted that he had a single copy of the rolls, which he would give to the Board.
Mr. DeLuca called George Souliopolos as his first witness. Mr. Souliopolos stated that he lived at 43 Gorman Road, Framingham, had worked at Agostino’s for 20 years and was a manager and co-owner of Agostino’s.
Responding to a series of questions, Mr. Souliopolos testified that the night of May 21-22, 2003 he worked at Agostino’s from 10:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. After work he cleaned up and went to the American Legion. He was a member of the Legion as a baseball booster and had been for approximately eight years. He was not a veteran and did not recall who sponsored him. He showed Mr. DeLuca his membership card and explained that it unlocked the door and was used to gain entry. The other manner of gaining entry was to ring the bell, which he usually never did. He probably did some times and somebody answered.
Continuing to respond to Mr. DeLuca’s questions, Mr. Souliopolos stated that he got to the American Legion that night at 10:30-10:45 p.m. and had 1-2 drinks. He thought he had Cape Codder’s but didn’t remember. He was served by Ms. Thistle who was tending bar that night. He left at approximately 2:30 a.m.
Mr. DeLuca inquired as to when the 1-2 drinks at the club were consumed, and Mr. Souliopolos responded that he didn’t really recall but would say that before 1:00 a.m. they were pretty much gone. Asked if he had anything to drink after 1:00 a.m., Mr. Souliopolos responded,
‘no’. He did not consume alcohol, but thought he may have had spring water. He did not have anything to eat.
When asked if he knew when last call was, Mr. Souliopolos replied that it varied night to night, but that night he thought it was 12:30 a.m. Again Mr. Souliopolos replied that he didn’t consume alcohol after 1:00 a.m. Mr. DeLuca questioned what Mr. Souliopolos was doing and Mr. Souliopolos replied that he was watching ESPN, reading the newspaper, and talking to friends. Also present were Ms. MacDonald, Ms. Crone, and the bartender. To Mr. DeLuca’s comment that he wasn’t doing anything wrong, Mr. Souliopolos replied, ‘not really’. When asked if he knew what Ms. MacDonald was doing, Mr. Souliopolos responded that she was helping Ms. Thistle clean up – moving chairs around, wiping tables. Mr. DeLuca asked who Mr. Souliopolos saw and he responded that it was mostly Ms.
Crone and Ms. MacDonald. Ms. Thistle was still closing up doing things. It continued until 2:30 a.m. with lots of breaks for talking.
Responding to Mr. DeLuca’s questions, Mr. Souliopolos stated that Ms. MacDonald, Ms. Thistle, or Ms. Crone did not consume alcohol. They might have had a soda. They left at 2:30 a.m. because it was time to go and Ms. Thistle was closing up. He did not hear any noise
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
activities outside – the bell ringing, knocking or banging at the door, or the telephone ring. He did recall speaking with a police officer. He was approached by an officer and asked where he was coming from and if he had anything to drink. He told the officer he came from the American Legion and he had something to drink. He didn’t recall if he said anything else. Mr. DeLuca asked if Mr. Souliopolos recalled saying, ‘you guys are on the prowl’. Ms. Capobianco objected on the grounds that it had been asked and answered. Mr. DeLuca stated that he was trying to refresh his memory, but Mr. Stern thought it sounded familiar. Mr. DeLuca then asked what he (Mr. Souliopolos) meant, and again Ms. Capobianco objected. Mr. DeLuca argued that if Mr. Souliopolos had a
premonition of what the officer was there for, it seemed as though he had some knowledge of what it was about, but Ms. Capobianco didn’t think anything had been heard about which he could have been having a premonition. Mr. Stern allowed the question and Mr. Souliopolos responded that the way he (Officer Salis) pulled up so quick, it felt like he was being attacked. Mr. DeLuca pointed out that it was 2:30 a.m. and according to his own testimony he had had something to drink. Mr. Souliopolos agreed, but added that he didn’t do anything wrong and the officer seemed abrupt.
Mr. DeLuca questioned if Mr. Souliopolos was driving and Mr. Souliopolos stated that he was. He was parked behind the Legion. Mr. DeLuca asked if it was Mr. Souliopolos’ intention to go to his vehicle and drive away, but Ms. Capobianco objected and Mr. DeLuca withdrew the question. Mr. DeLuca then asked if he drove away, and again Ms. Capobianco objected noting that tonight’s hearing was to determine whether the American Legion served alcohol after 1:00 a.m. Mr. DeLuca withdrew the question.
When approached by the officer at 2:30 a.m. and he (Mr. Souliopolos) stated that he had a couple of drinks earlier, Mr. DeLuca questioned if Mr. Souliopolos considered himself to be under the influence of alcohol. Ms. Capobianco objected based on relevance, but Mr. DeLuca felt that it was relevant and went to Officer Salis’ credibility. Ms. Capobianco argued that in the absence of any extrapolation information, technically there was no evidence before the Board and this was not relevant. Mr. Stern noted that Mr. Souliopolos had admitted that he was drinking, and Ms. Capobianco concurred but pointed out that (he admitted to drinking) before 1:00 a.m. There was no evidence he was drinking after 1:00 a.m. Mr. DeLuca’s response was, ‘not necessarily’, adding that the question of his own
sobriety was relevant. Mr. Stern stated that he would allow the question. Mr. DeLuca again asked Mr. Souliopolos for an opinion on his (Mr. Souliopolos’) sobriety, and Ms. Capobianco requested that her objection be noted. Mr. Stern responded that it was so noted. Mr. Souliopolos answered that he thought he was still sober.
Mr. Souliopolos acknowledged that he had exited with Ms. MacDonald and when asked for his opinion of Ms. MacDonald’s sobriety, Ms. Capobianco objected, noting that he was not qualified to make that assessment. He had no training. Mr. McKinley pointed out that as a manager of a license holder in Natick, Mr. Souliopolos was required to be TIPS trained. If he was not qualified to make a determination, then there was a different issue to be dealt with. Ms. Capobianco stated that she stood corrected.
Mr. DeLuca repeated the question as to Mr. Souliopolos’ opinion of Ms. MacDonald’s sobriety, but Mr. Souliopolos did not recall. Asked if he recalled identifying Ms. Crone as the duty bar staff, Ms. Souliopolos stated that he thought that was wrong. It was Ms. Thistle. He didn’t recall telling Officer Salis that it was Ms. Crone. Mr. Souliopolos was asked if Sergeant Lauzon was present, and he responded that at one point he (Sergeant Lauzon) must have been, but he didn’t recall.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross-examination and Mr. Souliopolos responded that on May 21, 2003 he was a member of the American Legion, he arrived at the American Legion at approximately 10:30 p.m., he did not notice Mr. Stoddard present, he did not notice any drinks being
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
poured after the last call rounds were poured, and neither Sergeant Lauzon nor Officer Salis gave him a field sobriety test or breathalyzer.
Mr. Souliopolos continued to respond to questions from Ms. Capobianco and stated that neither Sergeant Lauzon, nor Officers Morrill and Salis ever called him to verify facts, he did not hear from any of those officers after May 22, 2003, he didn’t think either officer had asked if he were a member of the American Legion, he didn’t think he had been asked for identification.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Souliopolos was an auxiliary member, but Mr. Souliopolos thought it was called a booster or baseball member. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked about Mr. Souliopolos entering Agostino’s and Mr. Souliopolos confirmed that he was one who went into Agostino’s around 2:30 a.m. He went there because he wanted some coffee and to make a telephone call. Agostino’s was not open. He opened it with a key.
After discussion with Officer Salis, Mr. Ball questioned if Mr. Souliopolos drove away. Ms. Capobianco objected as not being relevant. Mr. Ball rephrased the question and asked if Mr. Souliopolos relinquished his car keys. Again Ms. Capobianco objected as not being relevant. Mr. DeLuca argued that he thought Mr. Souliopolos’ sobriety and ability to drive or decision not to drive was extremely relevant to the inquiry if he (Mr. Souliopolos) had anything to drink between 1:00-2:30 a.m. Mr. Stern inquired as to Mr. Ball’s rationale and was told that if Mr. Souliopolos relinquished his keys he must have done so for a reason. Mr. Ball believed that one officer had testified that Mr. Souliopolos had relinquished his car keys and he was trying to verify if that was the case. The question was
allowed, and Mr. Souliopolos responded that he did not relinquish the keys. He kept them with him.
Mr. McKinley believed that Sergeant Lauzon had represented that Mr. Souliopolos had voluntarily related that he would not be driving a motor vehicle. Mr. Souliopolos confirmed that he believed he had said that. Mr. McKinley then noted that Sergeant Lauzon stated that both subjects were found to be under the influence of alcohol and would not be driving. When asked if he agreed that that was a reasonable assessment, Ms. Capobianco objected as already had been asked and answered. Mr. DeLuca thought it was a different question than he had asked. Mr. McKinley reworded the question and asked if that correlated with Mr. Souliopolos’ recollection. Mr. Stern felt that that was a question to ask Sergeant Lauzon, but Mr. McKinley explained that he was asking if Mr. Souliopolos thought he was sufficiently
under the influence of alcohol that that was the assumption to make. Mr. Stern felt that voluntarily pocketing the keys and not driving was on the record.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to how long Mr. Souliopolos had known Mr. Stoddard, and Mr. Souliopolos answered 4-5 years. He knew Mr. Stoddard from the American Legion, but not well. He saw him at the Legion a couple of times a year, but did not see him anywhere else.
In response to questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Souliopolos confirmed that he had testified that he didn’t take any sobriety test, he didn’t recall if either officer had asked him to take a test but he thought one of them might have and he refused.
Responding to questions from Mr. Hughes, Mr. Souliopolos stated that he had worked at Agostino’s from 10:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m., he didn’t have anything to drink at Agostinos, and the sum total of his alcohol intake
was at the American Legion. Ms. Capobianco objected as not being relevant to Mr. Hughes’ inquiry as to how long Mr. Souliopolos remained at Agostino’s. Mr. DeLuca waived any argument. Mr. Hughes noted that the inference had been that the gentleman decided not to drive because he was not in a condition to drive, he had had nothing to drink all day and he only drank at the Legion and he (Mr. Hughes) wanted to know how
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
long he remained there. Ms. Capobianco noted that it was not relevant, but Mr. Stern allowed the question.
Mr. Hughes repeated the question, and Mr. Souliopolos replied that he was at Agostino’s for about an hour. He left at approximately 3:30 a.m.
Ms. Capobianco questioned if Mr. Souliopolos drove or went some place else when he left Agostino’s, and Mr. Souliopolos replied that he went to a friend’s two blocks away and walked there.
For the record Mr. Souliopolos stated that he thought the policemen were very nice.
Mr. Stern stated that he was looking through the (American Legion) by-laws trying to find a clarification for the baseball membership, but didn’t see one. He asked if the article and section that created the baseball membership could be pointed out. Ms. Capobianco advised that she could, but when Mr. Hasgill testified he could address that better.
Mr. DeLuca called his next witness Kimberly MacDonald. Ms. MacDonald stated that she lived at 7 Bee Street, Natick, and was a part-time waitress at the Sherborn Inn for 2-l/2 years.
Through a series of questions from Mr. DeLuca, Ms. MacDonald testified that her working hours were fairly regular, she worked the evening of May 21, 2003 from 5:00 p.m.-10:30-11:00 p.m., on occasion she worked later than 10:30 p.m. depending on how late people stayed there. On weekends it could be as late as midnight, but during the week it was usually not later than 11:00-11:30 p.m.
Ms. MacDonald continued to respond. She testified that she was a member of the American Legion for two years. She was an auxiliary member through her husband and showed Mr. DeLuca and the Board her membership card.
Mr. DeLuca noted that Mr. Souliopolos had described the use of the purple card to activate the magnetic system and asked if that was how she gained entrance to the Legion. Ms. MacDonald advised that it was as long as it was before 11:00 p.m. After 11:00 p.m. it didn’t work and you rang the bell. Knocking on the door usually nobody heard you. The bell was clearly audible inside.
Mr. DeLuca continued with his questions and Ms. MacDonald replied that on May 21, 2003 she went to the American Legion by herself, but
couldn’t recall how she gained entry. She consumed alcohol at the Legion that evening, she had a few beers served in bottles, she was served by Ms. Thistle. She knew Ms. Thistle, and Ms. Thistle was working that night. Asked what she meant by a few, Ms. MacDonald replied two. She was sure that it wasn’t more than two. Ms. Thistle served one and then last call. Asked if she finished the second beer prior to 12:30 a.m., Ms. MacDonald acknowledged that she got another at last call and that may have been her third, but there were no more than that.
Through another series of questions, Ms. MacDonald testified that the Legion was fairly business that night (May 21, 2003). There were approximately 20 people. She knew Mr. Stoddard but did not recall if he was present that night. She was certain that Mr. Stoddard was not present at 12:30 a.m. There were five people at 12:30 a.m. – she, Mr. Souliopolos, Ms. Crone, Ms. Thistle, Ms. Donovan. She left the American Legion at 2:30 a.m. and between 12:30 a.m.-2:30 a.m. she helped Ms. Crone and Ms. Thistle cleaning the floors, bathrooms, tables, bar. She did not consume any alcoholic beverages between 12:30-2:30 a.m. She did not drink anything. Ms. Donovan went home before 1:00 a.m. Ms. Thistle, Mr. Souliopolos, Ms. Crone did not have any alcohol between 12:30-2:30 a.m., but they may
have had something to drink.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Ms. MacDonald continued her testimony and stated that she did not hear the bell, knocking, or banging. They weren’t cleaning in the proximity of the doorbell, and there may have been music playing, but she was not sure. Ms. MacDonald confirmed that she left the American Legion at 2:30 a.m. with Mr. Souliopolos, Ms. Crone, Ms. Thistle and they all left through the same door. She and Mr. Souliopolos were approached by the two officers when they got down by the end of the alley – one drove up and the other came quickly. She guessed that she had been asked if she was in the American Legion, but didn’t recall. When asked if she recalled telling the officer that she got out of work from the Sherborn Inn at 1:00 a.m., Ms. MacDonald responded that she wouldn’t have said that because she wouldn’t work that late. Asked if she recalled saying that she hadn’t been there that long, Ms. MacDonald replied that she didn’t. Ms. MacDonald was then asked if she had an opinion on the sobriety of
Mr. Souliopolos, and her reply was, ‘no, I don’t’. Mr. DeLuca questioned how she would judge her own sobriety, and Ms. Capobianco objected. Mr. DeLuca argued that it was probative if she had anything to drink between 1:00-2:30 a.m. Mr. Stern allowed the question, and Ms. MacDonald responded that she thought she was fine.
Continuing, Mr. DeLuca questioned if Ms. MacDonald drove from the Sherborn Inn in her own vehicle, and agreed that she wouldn’t be driving her own vehicle. Ms. Capobianco objected as not being relevant why she decided not to drive. Mr. DeLuca felt it was extremely relevant, but Ms. Capobianco pointed out that there was no reverse extrapolation. There was no evidence that Ms. MacDonald was intoxicated so why she decided not to drive was not relevant. There
was a huge gap of missing information. Mr. Stern noted that the Board had broad latitude and did not have to follow strict rules of evidence and he would allow the question. Mr. DeLuca rephrased the question and inquired as to the reason behind Ms. MacDonald’s decision not to operate her motor vehicle. Ms. MacDonald replied that she had something to drink. When asked how much, Ms. MacDonald stated that from the time she arrived until last call, three beers. After deciding not to drive her automobile, Mr. DeLuca inquired as to where Ms. MacDonald went. Ms. Capobianco lodged the same objection and Mr. DeLuca withdrew the question.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross-examination by asking if Ms. MacDonald’s membership in the auxiliary was in full active status on May 21, 2003. Ms. MacDonald’s response was, ‘yes’. Responding to Ms. Capobianco’s questions, Ms. MacDonald testified that neither officer gave her a field sobriety or breathalyzer test nor did she believe that either officer asked if she were a member of the American Legion and she was not asked for her American Legion identification.
Ms. Capobianco noted that Ms. MacDonald had testified that she thought she worked from 5:00 p.m.-11:30 p.m., but thought she entered the American Legion around 10:30-11:00 p.m. Ms. MacDonald responded that she didn’t recall what time she left work although she knew that it was later that night. Asked if she knew for a fact that she got to the Legion at 10:30-11:00 p.m., Ms. MacDonald’s answer was, “I do”. Ms. Capobianco pointed out that the police report said that Ms. MacDonald had related that she only got out of work at the Sherborn Inn at 1:00 a.m. and was not at the Legion for long. Ms. MacDonald responded that she was aware it was there (in the police report) but she didn’t know why. It was incorrect.
Ms. Capobianco then requested that Ms. MacDonald explain auxiliary membership through her husband. Ms. MacDonald stated that her husband was a member because his father was a veteran and she was his wife.
In response to a series of questions from Mr. McKinley, Ms. MacDonald testified that she served alcohol as a waitress, she had undergone training, she was not certified right now but had been. She was not Tips certified. She denied having identified Ms. Crone as the on duty bar staff to the police.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Mr. McKinley noted that Ms. MacDonald had voluntarily agreed not to drive her motor vehicle but had the police not been there, was it her intention to drive. Ms. Capobianco registered the same objection as before. Mr. DeLuca felt that it was relevant and she was entitled to give her reason behind deciding not to drive as it went to the issue of her sobriety. The question was allowed, and Ms. MacDonald responded that she intended to drive.
In response to questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. MacDonald confirmed that prior to 11:00 a.m. you could get into the Legion with your card
but after that you would need to use the bell. She didn’t recall if the night of May 21, 2003 she used her card or the bell. She did not hear any banging or ringing of the bell, she did not realize the Natick Police were outside the door trying to get in and no one saw the Natick Police prior to exiting.
Ms. Capobianco asked if Ms. MacDonald had made the decision not to drive because she was afraid of being pulled over or if she felt she was intoxicated. Ms. MacDonald responded that she thought she would be pulled over and added that she thought she was being interrogated.
Unless she thought she might fail a sobriety test, Mr. McKinley questioned why she would be afraid of being pulled over. Ms. MacDonald explained that she had had something to drink that night. She thought she was OK but she didn’t know the legal limit. Asked if that were a concern, Ms. MacDonald said not really but she felt that was why they (police) were there.
Mr. DeLuca called his next witness Steven Stoddard. Mr. Stoddard stated that he lived at 11 Spruce Lane, Natick and had been unemployed since he got off active duty last year. He had been a member of the American Legion for 15-20 years and showed his identification card.
Through a series of questions from Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Stoddard testified that he usually used the card to get in but on weekends with the color guard he would bang on the door. There were certain hours the magnetic key was in operation, but he didn’t know what the time was now. He had no experience with knocking or using the bell after 11:00 p.m.
Mr. DeLuca’s question as to where Mr. Stoddard had been the afternoon of May 21, 2003 raised an objection from Ms. Capobianco. She noted that where Mr. Stoddard was on the afternoon of May 21 had nothing to do with this hearing. Mr. DeLuca rephrased the question and asked where Mr. Stoddard was in the evening of May 21, 2003. Mr. Stoddard replied that he arrived at the American Legion late in the afternoon about four-ish and drank a couple of beers. He believed he was served by Mary. He then left to get something to eat and returned a couple of hours later. He left about 6:00-7:00 p.m. and went to Burger King on Route 30 in Framingham and returned to the American Legion about 8:00 p.m. He gained entry with his key card. He consumed 3-4 beers served in 12 ounce mugs. He was served
by Ms. Thistle.
Continuing to respond to Mr. DeLuca’s questions, Mr. Stoddard stated that he consumed 3-4 12 ounce drafts he figured it was time to go, as he was tired. That was 10:00-10:30 p.m. He knew that because he looked at the clock on the wall. He went to his vehicle, sat down and thought that maybe he better not drive and just crashed there. On his own he decided not to operate his vehicle. When asked what he recalled next, Mr. Stoddard responded that he remembered hearing voices outside, people leaving and someone knocking on his window – a police officer. He didn’t know what time that was because it was hard to see his watch
in the dark. He opened his window and talked to the officer. He recalled cooperating with the officer in a field sobriety test and took a PBT. He didn’t recall what it was (reading of PBT). Ms. Capobianco objected citing the testimony as inappropriate and irrelevant. Mr. DeLuca felt that it was relevant since testimony was heard from the officer. Ms. Capobianco countered that Sergeant Lauzon testified that he didn’t know when Mr. Stoddard left the American Legion or how long he had been at the Legion. Everyone who testified said that Mr.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Stoddard left the Legion at 10:00-10:30 p.m. The degree to which he was inebriated between 1:00-2:30 a.m. was not relevant. Mr. DeLuca withdrew the question.
Mr. DeLuca then asked if Mr. Stoddard had anything to drink between 10:30 p.m. and when he was aroused. Mr. Stoddard stated that he did not and confirmed that the only alcohol he consumed was provided by the Legion prior to 10:30 p.m. Asked if as a result of his conversation with the Natick Police Department he made a decision relative to his keys, Mr. Stoddard responded that he was asked by the Sergeant to give up his keys and he did and he stayed in the vehicle. The keys were returned to him later in the morning. He was still in the parking lot and when he received the keys he finished his old coffee sitting in there and left. He further confirmed that he was not present in the Legion between 10:30 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross-examination by asking if Mr. Stoddard was an active member of May 21, 2003. Mr. Stoddard stated that that was correct. He was a member because he served in the military. He did not recall if either office had asked if he were a member, but they did not ask to see his American Legion identification.
Mr. McKinley noted that when Mr. Stoddard left the American Legion he retired to his vehicle and fell asleep and was awoken by people leaving and then the officer. He questioned if Mr. Stoddard was woken up two times. Mr. Stoddard’s response was, “yes”. He did not know when he was woken up the first time or the second, but between the time he left the Legion and when he was woken up he consumed no additional alcohol.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who served him the beer at the American Legion, and Mr. Stoddard answered that it was Ms. Thistle and only Ms. Thistle. There was only one bartender on.
Mr. DeLuca called his next witness Edwin Hasgill, Jr. Mr. Hasgill declined to give his home address because the meeting was being filmed. He stated that he had been the canteen manager of the American Legion Post #107 for four years and his business address was 13 West Central Street.
Mr. DeLuca inquired if Mr. Hasgill was also the record keeper of membership, and Mr. Hasgill responded that he oversaw it – he had knowledge of it. Mr. Hasgill acknowledged receiving a subpoena to produce the membership roles and policies and procedures and he had
them with him. Mr. Hasgill was asked to direct the Board to the section of the by-laws that detailed the form of membership for the E.P. Clark Post #107, and he cited Article 2, Section 1&2. He summarized that anybody could become a member if a veteran and presented a valid form of discharge. The papers would be checked by the state and he would become a member. It was reviewed by the adjutant post for approval and sent to the state. Mr. DeLuca questioned if both sections pertained to a membership derived from active membership in the military. Mr. Hasgill acknowledged that that was correct. Asked about auxiliary or baseball membership, Mr. Hasgill explained that there were three different areas – the American Legion, the Auxiliary, and Sons of the Legion. The sons were comprised
of sons whose dads served in active duty. It was a separate organization but under the same umbrella. The auxiliary likewise and still under the same umbrella. Mr. DeLuca pointed out that neither the auxiliary nor the sons of the legion were indicated in the by-laws of the E.P. Clark. Mr. Hasgill concurred.
Responding to Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Hasgill advised that he had a copy of the active membership of E.P. Clark Post #107. When asked if Mr. Souliopolos was listed, Mr. Hasgill responded that Mr. Souliopolos was a baseball member as a baseball booster. The category was established for people who did not have dads who served in the service or of foreign dissent and dues went directly to the baseball team. They were notified from the state five years ago that the state did not want any more baseball boosters and no more were added. Mr. Hasgill confirmed
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
that there was no provision in the by-laws (for baseball members). Asked for some evidence of Mr. Souliopolos’ membership as a baseball member, Mr. Hasgill referred to the membership roster submitted and noted that the names that were circled were the ones who were up-to-date and current as far as dues and had (membership) cards. Mr. Souliopolos’ name was listed and circled.
Mr. DeLuca then asked if Ms. MacDonald was noted as an active member on the roster, and Mr. Hasgill’s response was, ‘yes’. When asked about Ms. Thistle and Mr. Stoddard being listed as active members, in each case Mr. Hasgill’s response was, ‘yes’. Mr. Hasgill advised that the roster he had with him covered May 2003.
Mr. DeLuca then asked a series of questions concerning the key card system, and Mr. Hasgill responded that the system was on a timer that allowed access from 11:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m. during the week, from 10:00 a.m.-midnight on Saturdays and on Sundays from 12:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. There was a doorbell both front and back in good working order. The doorbell operated at all times. He had been in the club and heard someone knock, but it had to be understood that when he was in the club no one else was in the club. There was an actual room between the canteen and the outside of the building. The front door had a bell and a camera. The camera was in good working order and viewed from behind the bar, and if a knock was heard at the front door, someone could
check who was out there by using the camera. Mr. Hasgill noted that it was working on May 21, but commented that the doorbell wasn’t wrung.
Ms. Capobianco began her cross-examination and Mr. Hasgill responded that there were two entrances to the building – front and back door. There was no video camera in the back door. Asked if there was some other way, Mr. Hasgill replied that when someone pressed a bell it activated an intercom system.
Ms. Capobianco pointed out that the membership roster presented this evening stated on the front of each sheet that it was a true and accurate copy and was signed by the individual responsible for holding onto the membership roles. Mr. Hasgill confirmed that as being correct.
Ms. Capobianco then asked if there was any policy with respect to members or employees staying at the Legion after 1:00 a.m. to clean up. Mr. Hasgill answered that there was no policy and added that that night the usual custodial staff was out of town and Ms. Thistle was cleaning for the custodian. Rather than come back at 8:00 a.m., she decided to stay and do it. She also had the responsibility of making up the bank deposit because Thursday was his golf day and he didn’t go in until late in the day. Continuing to respond to questions, Mr. Hasgill testified that the Legion didn’t have any policy with respect to members assisting the bartender cleaning up. It was OK if the bartender had a generous friend who agreed to stay until 2:30 a.m. to help clean toilets. There was no prohibition or
policy about members sleeping in their cars. Ms. Thistle was the bartender on the night of May 21. Ms. Crone was never a bartender.
Regarding the policies and procedures for locking up the building, Mr. Hasgill advised that it was done by the bartender. The last person had to leave through the front door. Ms. Capobianco showed a photograph, which Mr. Hasgill identified as a picture of the front window from the back of the bar toward West Central Street. The curtains were drawn. Ms. Capobianco presented a piece of fabric and Mr. Hasgill advised that the swatch of fabric was what was used on the curtains. When asked about a policy and procedure with respect to the curtains, Ms. Hasgill advised that they were drawn tight.
Ms. Capobianco then asked how long the magnetic key card had been used at the Legion, and Mr. Hasgill replied that he would guess that it had been used for at least 20 years.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Mr. Hasgill was shown two other photographs, which he identified as the view standing at the front window and looking toward the bar.
The guest sign in book was shown, and Mr. Hasgill explained that anybody who came in with a member as a guest had to sign into the book. Usually the member signed the guest in.
Mr. McKinley interpreted the document as presented as meaning that no one was signed in on May 21. Ms. Capobianco noted that that could be correct. She didn’t believe there were any guests that evening, but Mr. Hasgill had been requested to provide the document.
Mr. Stern referred back to the letter from the state five years ago regarding the baseball booster and inquired as to exactly what it said. Mr. Hasgill didn’t know and noted that he was not employed there at that time. Asked if he had a copy, Mr. Hasgill said he would have to refer to someone else. Mr. Stern stated that he would like to see the letter. If the state ordered the E.P. Clark Post to cease and desist from having that classification, he wondered if the post dumped any members who previously had the status of that membership. As far Mr. Hasgill knew everyone was grandfathered in, which prompted Mr. Stern to respond that that was why he would like to see the letter.
Mr. Stern then noted that Articles 1 & 2 didn’t seem to extend any other membership such as the auxiliary, boosters or sons and questioned how those other classifications of membership were allowed when they were not mentioned. Mr. Hasgill advised that they had their own by-laws, but Mr. Stern questioned how they related to the Legion. Mr. Hasgill responded that it was a trickle down. Their by-laws were similar to the Legion’s. He added that the two organizations had been in existence almost as long as the Legion.
Mr. Stern stated that he would like to see a copy of their (Sons of the Legion and Auxiliary) articles of organization to see how they were admitted into this club. He would also like to see the Legions articles of organization to see how these by-laws meshed with the articles.
Continuing Mr. Stern noted that Mr. Hasgill was the first witness to mention an intercom system that was activated automatically by ringing the bell. When asked if that was front and back, Mr. Hasgill responded that it was just in the back, it works, and it worked on May 21. Recalling that Mr. Hasgill had said the playback for the video was by the bar, Mr. Hughes inquired as to where the intercom was. Mr. Hasgill advised that it was by the bar.
Regarding the video camera outside, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if that camera watched the front door after 11:00 p.m. Mr. Hasgill responded that it was 24 hours a day and if you came to the front door, the video camera would see you. When asked about someone standing behind the bar (seeing someone at the front door), Mr. Hasgill replied that if someone pressed the button and drew attention to it. He (Mr. Hasgill) stated that he did not have tape from that night and did not normally have a tape.
Mr. Ciccariello noticed that the membership roster had a pay date, a transmit date, and the last paid year. As the keeper of the records Mr. Ciccariello assumed that Mr. Hasgill kept the records up to par.
Mr. Hasgill stated that he didn’t – the adjutant did. If it didn’t say paid or transmitted, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if that meant that the person had not paid to date. Mr. Hasgill responded that he wouldn’t venture a guess as he would be assuming. Referring to the document, Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that for Ms. MacDonald there was no paid date and nothing under the last paid year. To him that meant that Ms. MacDonald hadn’t paid her dues for 2002 and yet she was still a member. Mr. Hasgill deferred to the record keeper.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Ms. Capobianco objected, noting that Mr. Hasgill was not the actual keeper of the records. It was more appropriate to direct that question to Ms. Thistle who was the keeper of those records.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned who the letter came from that said the post couldn’t have baseball sponsors as members. Mr. Hasgill stated that he was not the manager at the time and had no idea. As far as he knew it was the state branch of the American Legion.
Mr. Ciccariello then questioned if the card system recorded who came in, and Mr. Hasgill’s response was, “no”. To a follow-up question Mr. Hasgill responded that he didn’t think the system had that capacity.
With respect to the photograph from the bar end looking toward the curtains, Mr. Ball noted that it showed the curtains tightly closed. Were the curtains ever opened? Mr. Hasgill stated that they were open during the day because there were plants. Asked if it was conceivable that the curtains weren’t always closed at night, Mr. Hasgill conceded that it was conceivable but highly unlikely.
Mr. Ball assumed that Mr. Hasgill was familiar with the guest book and looked at it from time-to-time to make sure it was properly kept. Mr. Hasgill was asked to read the member’s name on the third line. He complied and read, ‘Elmer Fudd’. Mr. Ball asked if Mr. Hasgill reviewed these records, and Mr. Hasgill replied that he did.
Responding to questions from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Hasgill testified that the phone rang by the front door and behind the bar, it was highly unlikely that someone trying to place a telephone call to the club would not be heard, and the policy for handling individuals who were thought to have consumed too much alcohol was to follow the protocol laid down by Tips. If a server was determined to have exceeded those guidelines, Mr. McKinley questioned if there was a policy for how to deal with it. Mr. Hasgill responded that it had not happened thus far but he would probably have a talk. There was no written policy for discipline.
Mr. Ball noted that whoever was acting as the bartender determined an individual had too much, the proper action was to refuse service. He inquired if all of the (Legion) bartenders including Ms. Thistle were trained. Mr. Hasgill’s response was, “yes”. In follow-up Mr. Ball asked if it were correct that if someone had been at the Legion on May
21 and were intoxicated by her judgment, she would not have served that individual anything further. Mr. Hasgill’s response was, “yes”.
Mr. DeLuca had no further witnesses. By way of documents he offered the E.P. Clark Post #107’s by-laws and membership roles, reports of the Natick Police Department and a copy of an attested copy of the license in effect on May 21, 2003.
Ms. Capobianco stated that she had one more witness – Nicole Donovan.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it was not Ms. Capobianco’s intent to call Mr. Willis who was the keeper of the records. Ms. Capobianco offered to call him if the Board would like, but she didn’t have any specific questions for him. He produced the document and it showed valid membership for everyone. Mr. Ciccariello thought Ms. Thistle was the keeper of the records, but Ms. Capobianco explained that that was for auxiliary members.
Nicole Donovan stated that she lived at 3 Cross Street, had been a member of the American Legion for 16 years, and was an active member in good standing on May 21. She was at the American Legion on May 21, arriving at 8:00 p.m. and leaving at 12:30 a.m. She remembered seeing Mr. Stoddard and thought he was there when she arrived, but couldn’t be certain. He (Mr. Stoddard) left about 10:30 p.m. by the backdoor and didn’t come back in after 10:30 p.m. She knew Mr. Stoddard very well and they were friendly through the membership at the American Legion.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
In response to Mr. Ball’s inquiry, Ms. Donovan advised that she was a member of the auxiliary.
Ms. Donovan was excused and Ms. Capobianco asked if the Board would like to call Ms. Thistle or Mr. Willis. The Chair suggested starting with Ms. Thistle. Ms. Capobianco assumed that because Ms. Thistle was being called with respect to the membership roles that all questioning would be limited to the membership status. Mr. Stern told Ms. Capobianco that he couldn’t speak for all members, but should a question get asked she could raise an objection.
Ms. Thistle was asked to explain how the records were maintained, and she responded that she was sent a list by the state. If people handed her the dues she either immediately gave them a card or compiled it at home and did them all at once and then transmitted the paperwork back to the state. Usually it was done once a month. When asked to explain the difference between pay and transmit date, Ms. Thistle noted that when she received the money was the paid date, but sometimes it didn’t get recorded because they were all together for the month. The transmit date was when she sent the money and the cards to the state. The transmit date was more important to keep than when they paid.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what it meant if there was nothing written where it said last paid year. Ms. Thistle replied that it
could be a newer member that didn’t get on the state list. Usually the ending date for her to send the paperwork to the State to get on the list for the next year was by March. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the register had a date of April 4, 2002 and Ms. MacDonald’s name was handwritten in. Ms. Thistle advised that she had written the name in. When asked if that meant that as of April 4 Ms. MacDonald was not an auxiliary member, Ms. Thistle’s reply was, “no”, adding that Ms. MacDonald paid in April, or June of 2002 – she paid early summer. Mr. Ciccariello recalled that Ms. MacDonald’s testimony was that she was a member for 2 years. Ms. Thistle noted that it would be 2002 and 2003 – a year and a half. Ms. MacDonald was off by a few months.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello questioned if none of the members handwritten in were auxiliary members in April 2002. Ms. Thistle replied that according to the state they hadn’t received anything from her (Ms. Thistle) by March 2002. Mr. Ciccariello then inquired if the state had to recognize them as members before they could be allowed to enter into the American Legion facility. Ms. Thistle explained that they became members at the local facility and then she sent the paperwork into the state. Asked what she meant by her reference to the state, Ms. Thistle responded the American Legion Auxiliary state chapter.
Mr. Ball inquired if the document provided was the most updated record of who was a current paid member of the auxiliary. Ms. Thistle advised that it was and in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Ball advised that the list came out once a year – usually in August.
Mr. McKinley asked if he could ask a question unrelated to records, and Mr. Stern suggested that he could try.
Mr. McKinley proceed to ask Ms. Thistle if she was the bartender on the evening of May 21, but Ms. Capobianco objected noting that Ms. Thistle’s recall was solely for the purpose of record keeping. Mr. DeLuca stated that he believed it was within the Board’s authority to decide on the process and conduct of the hearing. Ms. Thistle did testify and he didn’t believe the hearing was terminated and she could be recalled for records or any other matter. Ms. Capobianco argued that Ms. Thistle was excused as a witness and had no obligation to be here this evening. Mr. Stern was under the understanding that everyone had been re-subpoenaed, but Mr. DeLuca advised that they hadn’t for tonight’s hearing; however, the witness was present and if she refused to testify the Board would have other
remedies. She (Ms. Thistle) was before the Board and she could choose to decide for herself whether she wants to answer the Board’s questions. Mr. Ball noted that Ms.
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Capobianco had asked the Chairman if the questions would be restricted to record keeping only and Mr. Stern’s answer was in effect no. Ms. Capobianco countered that she didn’t object at that time because she was confident that the Board would not delve back into other questions.
Mr. McKinley rescinded his question.
Mr. Ball pointed out that the line on the document with Ms. Crone’s name had no paid date. When asked what the absence of a paid date meant, Ms. Thistle responded that she was not a very good secretary and added that she may go a whole month without recording anything. Ms. Crone paid some time before the submittal date. Asked if Ms. Crone was considered to be a member in good standing the date she paid or the date transmitted, Ms. Thistle answered that she supposed it was the date transmitted. She noted that Ms. Crone had been a member for 15 years.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned what would happen if someone didn’t pay their dues, and was told by Ms. Thistle that with the state you had two years to make it up. There was a policy within the club that if someone didn’t pay their dues by November, the locks change on the door and they can no longer get in with their key card.
Mr. Stern requested the recall of Edwin Hasgill, Jr.
Responding to questions from Mr. McKinley, Mr. Hasgill stated that he was the one responsible for preparing and submitting the paperwork for the annual license renewal. He did not attach a copy of the Club by-laws to the renewal. Ms. Challis advised that the Town had nothing on file that made reference to E.P. Clark Post 107’s by-laws for the Auxiliary or the Sons of the Legion.
A five-minute recess was called at 9:45 p.m. and the hearing resumed at 9:50 p.m.
It was Mr. Ball’s understanding that Ms. Capobianco was going to be an additional witness. Ms. Capobianco advised that the witness may have left, but Mr. Hasgill could be asked the questions. Mr. Willis (witness) controlled the Sons of the American Legion.
Mr. Ball inquired as to what the notation “vote” meant, and Mr. Hasgill explained that the post had elections in June and every member that came in and voted were marked off on the registration sheet. To vote you had to be a current member.
Mr. Stern stated that before moving on he would like to pursue a request for additional documents and make sure the Board would receive them. It was Ms. Capobianco’s understanding that the Board would like, if it can be recovered, a letter from the state from approximately five years go on the booster membership, the by-laws of the Sons of the American Legion and the Auxiliary as they exist. Mr. Stern added that he would also like a copy of the articles of organization of those organizations and for E.P. Clark Post 107.
Ms. Capobianco noted that there was a member present, Jake Corliss, who was very knowledgeable of how the membership worked, but Mr. McKinley stated that he would like to see the by-laws first. Mr. Stern agreed as he was not sure what he would want to ask until he saw the documents
first. Ms. Capobianco noted that Mr. Corliss could explain how those different memberships were supported or set up, but if the Board preferred to wait she would request to defer closing arguments.
Mr. Stern noted that he was not concerned with the legitimacy of the organizations, but was interested in how they came to interact with the subject license holder. Ms. Capobianco reiterated that Mr. Corliss was very familiar with the membership. Ms. Capobianco also advised that there may not have been a letter five years ago but a directive handed by word of mouth by the state or federal level. In the event the Legion didn’t have a document to produce, Mr. Corliss could answer
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
questions. She added that the documents they produced were in response to the request of the Board. Mr. Stern pointed out that had the Board known they needed them (other documents requested), they would have asked. If there were no letter, he would like to hear from the state official who verbalized the requirements down to the post. Ms. Capobianco didn’t know if she could produce the individual but she could provide the Board with his identification.
Mr. Ball stated that he would like to see a copy of Ms. MacDonald’s time card from the Sherborn Inn. Ms. Capobianco was dumbfounded at the request, but understood why the Board would like to see it and she would try to produce it. She didn’t know if the Sherborn Inn used a time card and in the event there was no time card, Ms. Capobianco inquired as to what the Board would like to see in the alternative. Mr. Stern stated that he would accept a letter from a superior, a boss, who could attest to the time of departure. Mr. DeLuca advised that the Board was authorized to subpoena evidence and witnesses. He had subpoenaed the keeper of the records to provide a list of names and addresses of members, etc. and he would be happy to re-issue a subpoena to the keeper of records at the Sherborn Inn for Ms.
MacDonald’s time and that keeper would be required to appear here with the records and may be subject to cross-examination. Mr. Stern requested Mr. DeLuca to do that.
Ms. Capobianco noted that on July 28 before the hearing started she reviewed every document she brought with Mr. DeLuca and asked if there was anything else and he said no. If he had said there was anything else, she would have brought it tonight. She did not want it to be the Board’s impression that she came here with anything less than the documents the Board requested. Mr. Stern assured her that he had not come to that impression, he was just asking for specific documents.
Mr. Stern announced a continuation of the hearing to September 2nd.
Ms. Capobianco clarified that the records submitted were as up-to-date as you got, and the Board would just be receiving additional documents.
If it didn’t say paid and someone was paid, Mr. Ciccariello told Ms. Capobianco that the Board wanted to know that and this was an opportunity to bring those up-to-date. Ms. Capobianco stated that she
would ask the keeper of records to do that. The problem was that when checks were received during the month, she (Ms. Thistle) put them in a pile and did not record them. The important date was when it got transmitted and if the transmittal information was there, it could be assumed the individual paid.
Mr. Hughes noted that the point of the hearing was to determine if the American Legion was serving alcohol after the time it was supposed to be serving. With the exception of the Sherborn Inn, he didn’t see how the other documents would help. He would just as soon get the hearing over with.
Although he agreed with Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley stated that he was now interested in knowing if the license as issued granted the licensee the authority to be serving liquor to the other sub-memberships. Until the last hearing he never understood there were sub-categories of memberships and until he saw the by-laws he never understood that those categories weren’t mentioned and provided for in the by-laws. One of the issues that the Board needed to understand relative to this hearing was were they serving to people they weren’t licensed to be serving.
Mr. Stern pointed out that the hearing notice stated that the reason for the hearing was that it was alleged that the E.P. Clark Post #107 American Legion was selling alcoholic beverages permitted by said license holder and to persons in violation of provisions of Section 12. He felt the Board was covered under that concern.
Ms. Capobianco argued that if the Board were bringing forth a new charge based on a review of the membership roles that was not a charge
CONTINUE HEARING: E.P. CLARK POST #107, AMERICAN LEGION: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
she was given notice of. When she contacted Mr. DeLuca and asked for the specific charges she was told that one of the six individuals identified was a non-member, but it wasn’t known who. The second charge was the service of alcohol beyond 1:00 a.m. If she was here defending another charge, she didn’t have appropriate notice of that charge.
Mr. Stern responded that he thought she did (have appropriate notice), but Ms. Capobianco contended that she had a right to rely upon the representation of Town Counsel of the charges. The letter was pretty vague and until she called Mr. DeLuca, they could have been almost anything. She reiterated that if the Board was going to bring a third charge this evening, she was not prepared to defend that and did not have proper notice and it would be the subject of an appeal. If the Board was going to charge the American Legion (with what she claimed to be a 3rd charge), the Board would need to re-notice the Legion. Ms. Capobianco stated that she was prepared to cooperate and provide the documents the Board wanted, but not as a defense of another charge that was coming up tonight.
Mr. McKinley thought there was no third charge. The charge remained that alcohol was served to a non-member. Ms. Capobianco didn’t
disagree that the Board wanted clarification of a member, but a question if the license was valid – that was an issue she was not prepared to defend. Mr. Stern noted that he didn’t believe that anyone had suggested that the license was not valid, but Ms. Capobianco believed that that had been suggested. Mr. McKinley felt that the Board needed to understand how the Sons of the Legion, baseball members, and the Auxiliary fit into the by-laws before tackling that. The concern was that the Legion had been serving alcohol to those who weren’t technically members under the Legion’s own by-laws and, therefore, in violation. Ms. Capobianco noted that that was the charge for which she would like notice. Mr. McKinley countered that that was an original allegation – serving to a non-member. Ms. Capobianco acknowledged that it was, but she was told that one of the six was a non-member. Again Ms. Capobianco stated that she would be happy to see what she had for documents, but she was not
prepared to defend a third charge. She also noted that Mr. Corliss was here tonight to give the Board the information. Mr. McKinley was of the opinion that understanding the by-laws and seeing how they fit in was the best resolution to that question.
Mr. Stern requested that the additional documentation be presented to the Board on or before September 2. He also suggested that it may be a wise idea for Ms. Capobianco to have Mr. Corliss present at that time.
HEARING: LAMPARA, INC. D/B/A SKIPJACK’S: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
The hearing was scheduled on an allegation that Skipjack’s sold alcohol to two minors on May 10, 2003.
Representing Skipjack’s were David Maniscalco, the manager, and Attorney David Krumsiek.
Attorney David DeLuca of Town Counsel’s firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane represented the Town.
Mr. Stern asked if either side wished to call any witnesses. Mr. Krumsiek responded that Skipjack’s wasn’t going to contest the accusations, but they would like to give the Board the context so the punishment fit the crime.
Mr. DeLuca advised that Natick Police Sergeant Robert Davis was here for purposes of the facts.
Mr. Stern inquired if there was a stipulation to the facts. Mr. DeLuca believed there was but for procedure’s sake, he believed it would be appropriate for Sergeant Davis to give his statement and see if Skipjack agreed.
HEARING: LAMPARA, INC. D/B/A SKIPJACK’S: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
Sergeant Davis and Mr. Maniscalco were sworn in by Mr. Stern.
Sergeant Davis told the Board that the Natick Police Department conducted a compliance check of all licensed premises and on May 10, 2003 two young ladies entered Skipjack’s and were served by an individual named Nick. They were also served alcohol. Both young ladies took a PBT before and after indicating they had no alcohol. Chief Mannix was notified of the violation after completion of all the stings, which took six weeks, and he notified the Board.
Sergeant Davis continued that on July 25, the Skipjack’s manager entered the Natick Police Department and indicated that he received a letter from the Board of Selectmen that a violation had occurred. He asked what to do about it and he (Sergeant Davis) told him that he didn’t know. The manager then asked if it involved two young ladies and related a story that on the night of the violation a bar manager observed these two ladies sitting with alcohol and surmised they were not of legal age. He (manager) called Nick and asked if he carded the individuals and Nick indicated that he had not. The manager returned to the area where the ladies sat and they had left. The employee was counseled and later terminated.
When asked if Skipjack’s agreed to the facts, Mr. Krumsiek believed they were accurate but would like to have Mr. Maniscalco relate his version which may shed some more light on it.
Mr. Maniscalco stated that Sergeant Davis had pretty much explained the situation. It was Skipjack’s policy to card anyone 35 or younger. He (Mr. Maniscalco) was brought into the loop and asked Nick if he had carded the ladies. Nick said he hadn’t. Mr. Maniscalco said he counseled Nick within 15 minutes partially out of frustration. The Police Department had given a letter saying a sting was going to occur and he (Mr. Maniscalco) talked about it over and over. He counseled Nick on his failure to adhere to the Skipjack’s policy. He (Mr. Maniscalco) didn’t see the ladies but Michael Ferguson did. Nick was terminated within three weeks for the lack of job performance not specifically related to alcohol service.
Mr. Ball questioned if the waiter had received TIPS training and Mr. Maniscalco advised that he was trained by AIM.
Mr. McKinley inquired as to any changes in operating policies or procedures, and Mr. Maniscalco responded that the managers were far more active in identifying people than before. Generally a manager was at the host stand and on the front and as guests were being seated, the manager will designate someone who should be carded. To Mr. McKinley’s comment that Skipjack’s was now proactively designating all servers to card individuals, Mr. Maniscalco responded that he couldn’t say every guest was being identified, but they were taking a far more active approach.
Mr. Ball recognized that Skipjack’s in Natick had been there for a short time, but Skipjack’s had places in Newton and Brookline and he
inquired if there was any history of having had service to minors at those establishments. Mr. Maniscalco advised that according to the owner of Skipjack’s, Jeffrey Senior, in 18 years there had never been a problem.
Mr. Maniscalco had mentioned that he had counseled the employee the night of the incident, and Mr. Ball inquired as to what the counseling consisted of. Mr. Maniscalco explained that there was a counseling statement with a series of categories that in essence said that Skipjack’s had a policy for carding anyone under 35 and the need for the employee to be aware that he was responsible for any alcohol he served and to whom it served it.
At Mr. Krumsiek’s suggestion that he relate some of the other training done on top of AIM, Mr. Maniscalco told the Board that all server staff was Tips or AIM certified. Plus during their first week (of
HEARING: LAMPARA, INC. D/B/A SKIPJACK’S: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
employment) there was a program that covered signs of intoxication. He liked to think that Skipjack’s was a proactive organization and he was confident that the employees were trained properly. Mr. Krumsiek asked about the employee manual, and Mr. Maniscalco responded that there was a page in the manual that talked about liquor liability.
Responding to some additional questions from Mr. Krumsiek, Mr. Maniscalco stated that the violation occurred on Saturday night. The check came at 7:47 p.m., and the busiest time for the restaurant was 7:15-9:30 p.m. May 10th had a high sales of $17,000 that night which was their second or third highest volume.
Although he knew it didn’t excuse it, Mr. Krumsiek noted that he had worked in the restaurant business and knew that some times you got so busy a mistake could be made.
Mr. Hughes moved to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes inquired as to what the Board had done in the past for this type of violation, and Mr. DeLuca responded that having been involved in a certain number of these cases it had been customary for the Board to discipline in the form of a suspension. The suspension was often related to the history of any prior violation. In Natick the suspensions could range from 1-3 days depending on the seriousness and the extent and record of any priors.
It was Mr. McKinley’s memory that three days was the normal course when trying to send a clear message that the Board took these violations seriously, but he was influenced by the responsible manner in which the management addressed this problem and put in place policies and procedures to make sure it didn’t happen again.
Mr. McKinley moved to suspend Skipjack’s alcohol license for one day on a Wednesday for a date to be determined. In further discussion of the
motion, the date was established as September 3, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Hughes. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Stern, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKinley voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello was opposed.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ball inquired if Wednesday was Skipjack’s slowest day. Mr. Maniscalco advised that the slowest days were Monday and Tuesday. Wednesday would certainly be a message.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he disagreed with Mr. McKinley. He knew that this was Skipjack’s first offense, but since he had been on the Board for first time offenses it had been 2-3 days. The Board keeps saying it wants to send a message and he wouldn’t support one day.
Mr. McKinley agreed that it was important to send a message and he felt the history of the Board was to clearly send a message to violators and the proof in that was Sergeant Davis and Officer Halloran’s experience in conducting the sting operations. They hit every licensed establishment in Natick and only one person (served to a minor), and he would say good progress had been made. The effect of giving the suspensions had produced a positive result, and he had a feeling that it would be a long time before the Board saw this one (Skipjack’s) again.
To Mr. Hughes’ suggestion that a date be set, as the maker of the motion, Mr. McKinley proposed September 3, 2003. As the seconder Mr. Hughes agreed.
Mr. Stern stated that he was conflicted. On one hand he found that the licensee had acknowledged the violation and took steps to ensure it didn’t happen again, but on the other hand he wasn’t aware that all the licensees were noticed before the sting was conducted. They talked about the notice and still came up with a violation and that bothered him. He needed to reconcile that disappointment with them being before
HEARING: LAMPARA, INC. D/B/A SKIPJACK’S: ALLEGED LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION (contd)
the Board tonight saying they took steps so it didn’t happen again. To that end he was not sure that a one-day got the job done.
To Mr. Ball it seemed as though it was one day versus two. He recalled that in times past when an establishment had a vacancy, there was a big argument about ‘we didn’t do it’ or all kinds of excuses. What were offered tonight weren’t excuses and he was impressed by the pro-activity prior to the incident and the subsequent improvements to communicate to servers that this was something that would not happen in Natick without consequences.
ELIOT SCHOOL RFP
Mr. Hughes moved to issue the RFP for the disposition of the Eliot School. Seconded by Mr. Stern for discussion. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Stern and Mr. Hughes voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ball, Mr. McKinley were opposed.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. Hughes noted that there had been long discussions concerning this matter, several public hearings, and a lot of input. He saw this as an opportunity to keep two pieces of property essentially the same as they were now in perpetuity. He understood the whole thing had become complicated, but he thought the RFP provided an opportunity that should not be missed.
Mr. Ball stated that he was opposed to issuing the RFP and the reason could best be summed up that if the RFP were to result in the exchange of the school for land, it would be an exchange of an asset for an amenity. He believed the school was an asset and he was opposed to the Town parting with it and opposed to taking the process any further.
Even if it were something as simple as swapping one piece of land for another, Mr. McKinley said he was opposed to it. He liked the piece of land the Town had and even liked the building. Over time the proposal had gotten more complicated, and his concern was that the Board could issue the RFP and cause people to spend money and time and he had no intention of accepting any (proposals). He didn’t see any proposals that would be acceptable to him. He was not interested in swapping A for B and couldn’t see getting any proposals that would be so overwhelming. He agreed that now was not the time to issue the RFP and let’s keep what we got. He was not against reconsidering it in the future but at this time, no.
Mr. Ciccariello raised the question that if there wasn’t another piece of land available, would he consider selling this building for the sake of putting $1.2 million in the Town’s pockets and just spending it and have no asset. The answer would be no, that was not good business. He noted that he looked at this and questioned if this was a good asset. It was in a good location and the Town had control of a piece of property that abuts the Charles River. Eliot Montessori was in there for a long-term lease, and to exchange that property for another, there was no guarantee it would be a piece of property that everybody believed it might be. It had to be an open and competitive bid process, and he was not interested in going through this and have a proposer spend his money and have a protest.
The Town controlled this great piece of property and if it gave it up, the Town would lose control of it.
Mr. Stern stated that he too was not interested in selling the property outright for cash. Nobody was interested in sacrificing an asset for a quick shot of cash to be expended and gone immediately. What intrigued him about this proposal was the opportunity for the Town to obtain an asset in perpetuity – a property that would most likely be lost to development. It was a unique opportunity for the Town to acquire this hard asset. It would be exchanging one hard asset for another, retaining riverfront access, and preventing development on the front common of the Eliot School and the Town would come out a winner. Comments had been made that this was complicated, but for those involved it was not complicated, but it had taken 1-l/2 years to get
ELIOT SCHOOL RFP (contd)
there. It was a complex proposal that could result in a benefit to the Town and benefit the people of the Town for years to come.
BONDING REFINANCING AWARD
In a memo to the Board, Finance Director Robert Palmer recommended the refinancing of $2.775M in general obligation bonds originally issued in 1992 and 1994. Based on the results of the procurement, he recommended the award of the bond refinancing to Corby Capital Markets. Savings over the life of the bond based on this issue were $201,523.96 with savings in the initial year of FY2004 of $75,965.21.
The memo also indicated that an ongoing analysis of the municipal bond market may result in the 1996 and 1997 general obligation bond issues becoming favorable for refinancing. In the event that market conditions became favorable, the GOB issues for 1996 and 1997 would be refinanced in a separate refinancing package.
In an additional memo, Mr. Palmer advised that the net interest cost was 3.1133682%.
Mr. Ball inquired if the refinancing was bid or did it not have to be. Mr. Lemnios explained that the Town’s banking service contacted a variety of finance agencies that would be interested. It was not a traditional bid where an RFP was issued. The bank works with their refinancing agencies and puts it on the market place. When asked if there was an exemption from 30B for this, Mr. Lemnios’ response was, “yes”. Mr. Ball then inquired if the $201,000 in savings was net of any cost to bond counsel and the financing agency and again Mr. Lemnios’ response was, “yes”.
Mr. Hughes moved that the sale of the $2,775,000 Refunding Bonds of the Town dated September 1, 2003 to Corby Capital Markets at the price of $2,832,648.95 and accrued interest is hereby confirmed. The bonds shall be payable on August 1 of the years and in the principal amounts and bear interest at the respective rates, as follows:
Interest Interest
Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate
2004 $195,000 2.00% 2009 $305,000 3.00%
2005 340,000 2.00 2010 295,000 4.00
2006 325,000 2.25 2011 290,000 4.00
2007 315,000 2.50 2012 275,000 4.00
2008 310,000 4.00 2013 125,000 4.00
Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
Mr. Hughes moved to confirm the provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement dated August 11, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
Mr. McKinley congratulated Mr. Palmer for his work on the refinancing.
Mr. Stern pointed out that in his memo Mr. Palmer had advised that the Town continued to have ratings of AA+ from Standard & Poors and AA2 from Moody’s. The reports of the two organizations recognized the Town’s strong financial operations. Mr. Stern felt that that was something that was not to be taken lightly. It showed the Town’s efforts in strengthening the finances and controls have been working and the Board should continue along the same line because the Town was getting recognition from the bond agencies.
SEWER LICENSE AGREEMENT: WHATLEY
Before the Board was a two-year license agreement to allow Dixie Whatley of 30 South River Street, Wellesley, MA to connect to and use the Natick sewer system.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that Paragraph 6 appeared to have a word missing, and Mr. Stern noted that in the same paragraph it should say that the Town of Wellesley shall read the inside domestic water meter plus it should say that the meter would be read no less than every
SEWER LICENSE AGREEMENT: WHATLEY (contd)
three months. Since the agreement obligated the Town of Wellesley to do a number of things, Mr. Hughes felt that the agreement should also be signed by an authorized representative of the Town of Wellesley. Plus he pointed out that the County at the signature line should read Middlesex.
With those changes, Mr. Hughes moved approval of the license agreement to allow Ms. Whatley to tie into the sewer system. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
FALL TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
Mr. Hughes moved to put an article on the warrant for a home rule petition that would allow the clubs to rent their facilities for functions at which alcohol was sold. Seconded by Mr. McKinley and unanimously voted.
The Board had asked that the Legislators file a statewide bill, and Mr. Hughes questioned if that had a chance of passage. Mr. Lemnios advised that he had a conversation with Representative Linsky last week and Representative Linsky recommended that the Board put forth a home rule petition. Mr. Hughes asked if there was any way to do it (file home rule petition) before Town Meeting as one of the clubs depends on a fundraiser and starts right after Labor Day.
Mr. Lemnios suggested that one option would be for the Board of Selectmen to file legislation directly on Natick’s behalf. Representative Linsky would like to see the language of that legislation so he could shop it around to get a reaction from the House members. Mr. McKinley inquired as to how that would differ from a home rule petition, and Mr. Lemnios explained that it was more direct although Representative Linsky may need the ammunition of Town Meeting. It would mean asking him (Representative Linsky) to take every route open.
Mr. Ball was of the opinion that any action by the Legislature on a request by the Board of Selectmen for legislative action would have to wait until a vote of Town Meeting provided additional ammunition. Mr. Lemnios noted that while a Town Meeting vote would give Representative Linsky something in hand that showed the will of the Town, it didn’t preclude the Board of Selectmen from submitting legislation before that for him to file.
Mr. Hughes called attention to a copy of an article drafted by Community Development Director Sarkis Sarkisian for a housing overlay option plan. It was his understanding that Mr. Sarkisian had presented it to the Planning Board and the Planning Board declined to put it on the warrant. His (Mr. Hughes) concern was that that would put it off for a year or so. It was a complicated zoning article and his request would be that some article be drafted so discussion could start now. While he didn’t expect it to pass, he urged the Board to put it on so the education process could begin. He felt that it would help the Town deal with the state in terms of 40B projects, and he would like the discussion to begin.
Mr. Stern supported the concept including the design review element. If the Board were to vote to put it on the warrant, at least it would be in front of Town Meeting and the Board could ask that it be referred. Mr. Hughes reiterated that he was just looking to get the process going. The Planning Board was a busy board and if it (article) waited until April, it would still be where it was now.
Mr. McKinley questioned if the Board could sponsor a zoning by-law article, but Mr. Lemnios didn’t see why not.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Board sponsor an article for a housing overlay option plan. Seconded by Mr. Ball and unanimously voted.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
a. Pending Issues List
Mr. Ciccariello reviewed the Pending Issues List and suggested eliminating the following as they had been resolved or in the process of being resolved:
Skating Rink
Water & Sewer billing
Drainage study
Castle Property. Mr. Hughes noted that the issue wasn’t exactly
resolved, as Mr. Sarkisian was to make arrangements to have
an appropriate ceremony
Eliot School
St. Patrick’s Lease
Pay-As-You-Throw
b. 56 Everett Street Property
On June 2, 2002 the Board had authorized Town Counsel to do a Furcolo test on property at 56 Everett Street. Mr. Hughes requested an update.
c. Winnemay Street Complaint
The Board was in receipt of a complaint from Nora Field and Richard Geckle concerning property at 3 Winnemay Street. Mr. Stern found the letter to be disturbing if the time line attached to the letter was to be believed and it needed to be attended to post haste. He also found it disturbing that these kinds of letters keep coming.
Mr. McKinley agreed. He felt that these people had been yanked around long enough and deserved an answer. He asked that they be notified that it would be on the next agenda.
Mr. Lemnios was asked to provide the Board with a report for the next meeting.
d. Town of Leicester
Mr. Ball called attention to a letter from the Town of Leicester seeking support for a non-revocable charge that the state present the cities and towns with a balanced budget. He noted that the Town had suffered at the hands of the House, Senate and Governor’s Office. As stated in the letter the delays and uncertainties with the delays make Mr. Lemnios’ and the Finance Committee’s job nearly impossible. It had to start somewhere and he would ask that the Board ask Mr. Lemnios to correspond to Leicaster and say that the Natick Selectmen were in support of this action and would like to help.
Mr. McKinley suggested that it be referred to the MMA. Until a group as powerful as the MMA got its teeth around it, there wouldn’t be a response from the Legislature. Mr. Ball pointed out that the MMA had been around for a long time and were aware of the problem. Mr. McKinley saw no problem talking to the MMA, and Mr. Ciccariello agreed that the MMA was another source. Mr. Stern proposed opening discussions with the appropriate parties and seeing where it went.
e. Boston Marathon Donation
Mr. Stern raised the possibility of opening a dialog with the Boston Athletic Association concerning the size of the contribution given to the Town for the Boston Marathon. The amount had been the same for many years while the costs had increased. Mr. Lemnios was asked to begin a discussion with the BAA.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
__________________________
Jay H. Ball, Clerk
| 
