To Be Continued –

Animal Control Hearing Details Allegations

By Kendra Bobowick

“Be strong mom, keep going,” said Anthony Mason.

Turning toward her son and a room filled with supporters Wednesday during a personnel hearing regarding her employment, former animal control officer Carolee Mason said, “I just want it over with, I am so nervous.” Unfortunately for Ms Mason, the hearing did not conclude this week, but will reconvene — starting with her testimony — on May 28 at 3 pm, with a location to be decided.

First Selectman Joe Borst fired her as of April 1. Mr Borst recused himself from the decision process that must affirm, modify, or reverse his decision to terminate Ms Mason within 15 days from the time the hearing concludes.

Beginning the hearing with strong words, attorney David Zabel, representing the town’s interests, first warned Ms Mason and her lawyer, Henry Murray, “The charges are serious, could even implicate criminal proceedings, they are serious enough. I have to advise you, you have the right to remain silent or speak to a lawyer before you make statements or answers.

“If you speak it can be used against you …” Mr Zabel continued. “You are not compelled to answer … do you understand?”

“Yes, yes,” Ms Mason said.

“Do you want a break to talk with your attorney,” he asked.

“No,” she answered.

Similar to a court case, the hearing then began.

Why did Mr Borst fire Ms Mason? What were the complaints? What was the evidence? Three hours of witnesses and testimony did little to substantiate the list of “failures” outlined in her letter of termination. Soon a picture of the steps that led to Ms Mason’s job loss emerged, bringing with it questions of procedure and evidence.

Mr Murray guided the first selectman to page 31 in an employee handbook — a page that became a primary point in his argument. “Page 31, procedure for termination,” Mr Murray read, asking Mr Borst to follow along. He noted another paragraph that talks about predisciplinary hearings and pretermination procedures. He said, “It says that prior to termination an employee shall receive written notice.” Did Ms Mason receive such a notice?

“I am not sure,” Mr Borst said. Minutes later Mr Murray came to the question again. “Did the town provide Ms Mason — pursuant to procedure — a written statement of action and charges against her?” Mr Borst mentioned her termination letter. And a phone call asking her to a meeting with the first selectman, Police Chief Michael Kehoe, and Human Resources Director Carole Ross.

“Ms Mason was told about the meeting by phone?” Mr Murray asked.

 “As far as I recall,” Mr Borst replied.

Pressing his point, Mr Murray asked, “Was there a written notice?”

“Not that I know,” Mr Borst answered.

Other contentions emerged. Was that meeting with the police chief, Mr Borst, and Ms Ross taped? Did Ms Mason know or consent to the taping? “Not that I am aware,” Mr Borst answered the latter question.

Ms Mason’s personnel file, per a Freedom of Information Act request by the Danbury News Times, included her checking account information and birth certificate. “Did the town notify Ms Mason about the request for her file?” asked her lawyer. “No,” said Mr Borst.

Turning to her termination letter, Mr Murray began: “You cite a failure to enforce laws regarding control of rabies as per general state statute 22-330.” After a pause, Mr Murray asked, “What’s the specific allegation?”

“I reserve an answer because technical aspects should be answered by the police department,” Mr Borst said. Approaching the inquiry again, Mr Murray asked, “Do you know the factual basis for the allegation?”

“I have a good idea,” Mr Borst said.

Mr Murray: “What is it?” The first selectman explained that “it is my understanding” that people adopting a dog did not receive proper forms and “it took a while” to get them rabies certificates. “There were questions if it was legal,” Mr Borst added.

“Your conclusion was the choice to terminate?” asked Mr Murray.

The lawyer clarified that because of heartworm treatments, the animal — per a veterinarian’s recommendation — should wait to receive rabies shots. “Ms Mason told you that?” Mr Murray asked?

“I had heard words to that effect,” said Mr Borst.

As the afternoon waned and testimony aired similar discrepancies about paperwork and conversations, the more than 50 people in the room were left without conclusive answers, just conflicting testimony.

Moving through the list of charges against Ms Mason, Mr Murray asked repeatedly, “Can you tell me the basis for the allegation?”

“No,” Mr Borst had answered.

What about training? Mr Borst could confirm only that Ms Mason received on-the-job training, but no formal instruction on administrative paperwork.

When had Mr Borst become aware of problems?

“I don’t recall the date, but Ms Ross and Chief Kehoe came to me, by the expressions on their faces I could tell something was wrong. Mr Kehoe had let Ms Ross know there was a problem,” he said.

Did the police chief and HR director ever approach Ms Mason?

“I don’t know,” Mr Borst said.

Why did Mr Borst fire Ms Mason, and did he have any other disciplinary thoughts?

“I asked [Mr] Kehoe and [Ms] Ross and they answered that the charges were serious.” As Selectman Paul Mangiafico would later query, Mr Murray asked, “Was there no other way to handle this? What was the most serious charge?”

Mr Borst: “Incomplete or inaccurate documents.”

Mr Murray: “So, she had faulty paperwork?”

Mr Borst: “Yes.”

Had the first selectman considered instruction to rectify the paperwork?

“I discussed if there was anything we could do to minimize the situation or provide corrective action, but [Mr] Kehoe and [Ms] Ross felt it was not possible,” Mr Borst said.

“So, you fired her on [their] advice?” asked Mr Murray.

“Yes,” Mr Borst said.

Borst: ‘Weigh The Evidence’

Also present on the selectmen’s behalf was attorney Fred Dorsey. He asked Mr Borst, “What do you recommend the selectmen do about reinstatement?”

“I say, weigh the evidence,” Mr Borst replied.

As the lawyers rested, Mr Mangiafico made his thoughts clear. “Let me ask you something; was there any consideration other than termination and Ms Ross and Mr Kehoe told you this was serious and wanted termination?”

Mr Borst: “Yes.”

Mr Mangiafico noted the “broad range” of disciplinary actions, asking, “Why was a punishment less than termination not warranted?” Mr Borst soon admitted that Ms Mason “does a great job with the animals, but not administrative capabilities.”

Also speaking favorably of Ms Masons’ past work performance was Sergeant John Cole — who also had been involved in the investigation regarding Ms Mason’s work. Previously in their careers, Ms Mason and Mr Cole had worked closely when Ms Mason was a kennel assistant before becoming the animal control officer. He observed in his long testimony that “she was a very good animal control officer …”

Since the time he had worked with her until the time he investigated her recently, he had said he did not know what had happened.

He testified to allegations of falsified documents, claiming that kennel assistant Amy Andras had called him, concerned that Ms Mason asked her to white-out information on forms. He testified that Canine Advocates of Newtown (CAN) member Adria Henderson had told him she was present when Ms Mason allegedly asked Ms Andras to white out information. Neither woman was at the hearing.

Mr Cole’s testimony also included other potentially incriminating stories — dogs received from other towns, lost or missing rabies certificates, a written statement that Ms Henderson provided to Mr Cole to which Ms Henderson would not sign her name. He also testified about a rabies certificate that was later found attached to forms.

The afternoon did much to raise confusion, and little to answer questions regarding certain incidents concerning animals and cases Ms Mason handled.

Mr Murray questioned Ms Ross at length. He concluded that Ms Mason never received notice for a predisciplinary hearing, she was never informed that she could consult counsel. Why did she not receive notice, Mr Mangiafico had asked Ms Ross.

“I needed to accelerate the process,” she replied

Mr Murray then spoke with Ms Mason, retelling the story and chain of events from her point of view. She admitted to “assumptions” about where dogs had come from before arriving at the pound. She had also refuted the allegation that she had asked Ms Andras to use white-out on paperwork. “I did not tell her to white-out anything …” Ms Mason said.

They went over incidents with specific dogs, rabies certificates, and more of the same conversation and accusations that Ms Ross and Mr Cole had addressed.

Next week, Mr Dorsey will begin cross examining Ms Mason. Mr Rosenthal and Mr Mangiafico will also question her. Mr Murray did not indicate if he would call Chief Kehoe to testify.