Former ACO Answers Allegations

By Kendra Bobowick

Telling answers emerged as former animal control officer Carolee Mason — at times wiping her eyes and struggling with composure — faced the Board of Selectmen on Thursday, May 28, during the continued employment hearing she had sought in the hopes of reclaiming her job. First Selectman Joe Borst fired Ms Mason effective April 1.

The hearing, in its second session since May 20, was continued once again after another four-hour session on May 28. The latest session began with 75 minutes of Ms Mason’s responses to town attorney Fred Dorsey’s cross-examination. After four hours last week, selectman Paul Mangiafico noted, “It’s a good time to stop now.” The hearing will resume on June 4 (after The Bee goes to press).

Enmeshed in testimony were details about rabies certificates, dogs’ adoption details, forms filed with the state, and matters of kennel personnel procedures, including rabies inoculations. Questions from lawyers and selectmen sought to untangle time-lines and a series of events occurring at the pound in the last two years, during Ms Mason’s tenure as ACO.

Picking up threads of testimony from the prior week, Ms Mason’s attorney Henry Murray began, “It occurs to me that I had a couple more questions for Carolee…” From there, the afternoon at times ran into conflicting stories. Did Ms Mason recall adopting cats to a resident? Yes. Her attorney asked, “You took them for rabies [shots]?”

“Yes,” said Ms Mason.

Town attorney Fred Dorsey asked her about the same cats once the resident brought them to the hospital.

“Sergeant [John] Cole testified that … the veterinarian said they are not the certificates for this cat. Do you refute that?” he asked.

“No, I am saying I gave the cats certificates from Mount Pleasant [Hospital for Animals],” Ms Mason testified. “They were those cats.”

Mr Dorsey changed topics, asking Ms Mason to review her job description. Was it the same as the prior animal control officer’s description when Ms Mason was a kennel keeper? Was she familiar with the description when she took the job? Has the description been the same since she started her job? Yes, yes, and yes, Ms Mason answered.

The town attorney turned to the fine print. After handing her other papers specifying her employment requirements, he asked, “You knew there were procedures to do your job?”

She answered, “I guess. It was a learning [experience] for me, what to do, not to do. I learned on my own.”

Was Mr Dorsey surprised that Ms Mason did not specify procedures? He asked, “You applied for this job?”

“I was given [the job]. I was approached by Sergeant Cole and asked if I wanted the job. I said yes,” Ms Mason replied.

Did she know what the job entailed?

“I never knew how to do reports,” Ms Mason admitted. The prior animal control officer “kept things a secret,” she said adding, “I was good with animals.”

“Did you look at the job description?” asked Mr Dorsey.

“No, not really,” said Ms Mason.

Mr Dorsey: “When did you first look?”

“I don’t know. I took the job and learned on my own,” Ms Mason replied.

Mr Dorsey: “No idea when you first saw [the job description]?”

“I was never given it, and told to read,” she said.

Mr Dorsey: “When did you get the handbook?”

“Carole Ross handed it to me when I was hired,” she said.

Mr Dorsey: “Page 5, isn’t that the job description?”

“Oh,” said Ms Mason.

Mr Dorsey: “So she gave it to you.”

“She never explained what to read,” said Ms Mason.

Mr Dorsey: “She explained nothing about procedure?”

“No.”

Did Ms Mason receive contacts regarding training?

“No,” she said. She had called the state animal control officer regarding a seminar. “I wanted to further myself,” she said.

“There is money in the budget for training?” asked Mr Dorsey.

“Yes,” Ms Mason said.

“In 2006 was there money for training?” he asked.

“I don’t really know about what was in the budget,” she answered.

Cross examination soon revealed more than problems with paperwork and procedure.

“The budget also had vaccinations for employees,” Mr Dorsey stated. “How many?”

“Three or four, but some were afraid to get shots,” Ms Mason said.

“They’re supposed to be vaccinated?” he asked.

“Yes,” she said.

“Some weren’t,” he said.

“One girl was afraid to get shots,” she answered.

“How did you find out?” Mr Dorsey asked.

“I asked her,” she said.

“What did you do?”

“Nothing,” she admitted.

Did Ms Mason understand the reasons behind the vaccinations?

“Because they deal with stray dogs,” she said.

“Why take the shot? So you don’t get rabies. Is that the point?” Mr Dorsey asked.

“Yes,” Ms Mason said.

Another case involving Rottweilers, rabies certificates, and an adoption occupied the next 40 minutes.

Filing dates and state forms aside, Mr Dorsey wanted to know how two dogs from Guilford arrived in Newtown. Concerning a large number of dogs reportedly recovered from a homeless man, Mr Dorsey asked, “You took them to prevent euthenization?”

“Yes,” Ms Mason said.

“The dogs were not found in Newtown?” he asked. “So, other than the fact that they would have been euthenized, was there another reason you took them?”

“No,” Ms Mason answered.

The attorney and Ms Mason discussed other animals, other cases, and other discrepancies. Did Ms Mason advertise for the adoption of certain dogs? She had asked her kennel assistant to handle it, she told him.

Mr Dorsey asked, “Did you check if it occurred?”

“No,” replied Ms Mason.

“Is that the kennel keeper’s responsibility?” he asked.

“If I tell her to, I believe it is,” she answered.

Conversation moved to the means of handling wild animals, in one case where Ms Mason believed an animal was not rabid, but homeowners had their doubts. Ms Mason had dealt with raccoons, a turkey, a possum, a wounded owl. Depending on circumstances, she would either keep the animal at the pound until she could get it to a wildlife crisis center or to a rehabilitator.

“Is that the procedure for wild animals at the facility?” Mr Dorsey inquired.

“I was the animal control officer. I thought I had to handle it,” she said.

Did she write and file reports for these cases? Did she have to? Like the first hearing, many questions arose, with inconclusive answers.

Raising another incident specifically, Mr Dorsey questioned Ms Mason about a dog signed over to the pound earlier this year. Did it need surgery? Was it licensed?

“Did that dog have a rabies certificate?” he asked. Yes, he was told.

Was that certificate on file, he wondered? Again, yes. Did the dog have a license? No, Ms Mason said. The dog had been signed over to the pound. Ms Mason testified that the owner asked, “She said if she could raise money for surgery, would I adopt it back?” Ms Mason went on a vacation after that, and then was placed on administrative leave in the weeks before Mr Borst fired her. What happened to that dog?

“They gave it back [to the owner] while I was on vacation,” Ms Mason said.

Her Attorney

When it was his turn to again question his client, attorney Henry Murray opened by asking who Ms Mason reported to in her position as animal control officer.

 “I believe I report to the first selectman,” she said. Herb Rosenthal was first selectman when Ms Mason became the animal control officer.

“Did he send you for training?”

“No.”

“Any relation to the police department as the animal control officer?” he asked.

“My understanding is for tickets or reports, I talk to them.”

Her attorney asked, “Did anyone provide you with budget training?”

“No. I got a call one day, looking for my budget,” she said. “I said, ‘What budget?’ I looked at an old budget.”

At times, Ms Mason contacted the state for answers.

Did anyone ever call attention to problems with reports? No, she replied.

Minutes later, Mr Rosenthal posed questions from her earlier discussion.

“What do you think is your most important duty?” he asked Ms Mason.

“Pick up strays, license dogs. Rabies certificates,” she said.

“What is your attitude toward rabies,” he asked.

“Important, serious,” she answered.

“You realize, if a human contracts rabies, it’s fatal,” he said.

“Yes, I know,” Ms Mason said.

Stepping in for redirect, attorney Dorsey hammered his point: Ms Mason had not carefully read her job description or certain rabies statutes.

In the following minutes he learned: she received the police department reports to use as examples for filing, clarification on adoption papers regarding two Rottweilers, and agreement from Ms Mason that, yes, she realized that a series of reports were filed late with the state.

“Sometimes I was late. [State Animal Control Officer Ray Connors] told me to be sure they got in,” she said.

Were reports to the state required for cats? She did reports for some, not others.

“I didn’t know if they needed to be,” Ms Mason explained. How many cats were at the pound, Mr Dorsey inquired? “Would you be surprised to learn it was over 30?” he said.

Timelines Clarified

Selectman Mangiafico wanted to clarify timelines. When had she been placed on administrative leave? Trying to answer, Ms Mason spoke through tears. Mr Mangiafico asked for several minutes of recess.

After describing a sequence of meetings and phone calls following March 9, when Ms Mason was put on administrative leave, she soon found herself facing an ultimatum from town Human Resources Director Carole Ross and First Selectman Borst.

“Carole Ross and Joe Borst wanted me to resign,” she said. “The date?” asked Mr Mangiafico.

“March 31,” she said.

“I asked [Mr Borst] for another chance, what could be done?” she said. “I had to make a decision then and there.” When she was granted several minutes on March 31 to consider resignation rather than being fired, Ms Mason called her husband.

“He said, ‘Make them fire you,’” she said.

When she reentered the office where Mr Borst and Ms Ross were waiting, Ms Mason gave them her decision.

“They said, ‘We wish you wouldn’t do that,’ but I took fire,” Ms Mason said.

Minutes later Mr Mangiafico asked, “Until March 9 was there any indication that work was unsatisfactory?”

“No, no. Nobody ever said that to me,” Ms Mason stressed.

Mr Mangiafico: “You asked if there was anything you could do, work it out…”

Ms Mason: “I wanted to know if I could do something differently.”

Mr Mangiafico: “Did you feel the things you did were not quite right?”

Ms Mason: “I did feel some things were wrong. I asked if I could correct them, learn from the mistakes, you know?”

Did she think it was OK to take in animals from other towns, place the burden of care on the town pound, to avoid euthanization?

“They were asking for help and I had the room,” Ms Mason said.

“What if there was no room,” Mr Mangiafico asked.

“I would have turned people down.”

Mr Mangiafico turned to attorney Murray: “Tell me what relief you’re looking for.”

Speaking on behalf of his client, Mr Murray said, “[Ms Mason] is looking to be returned to her job.”

Procedure Neglected

Residents who filled the library meeting room on May 28 heard again from Human Resources Director Carole Ross and the state’s Department of Agriculture Animal Control Officer Ray Connors. Their testimony added another hour to the proceedings.

Mr Murray to Ms Ross: “You agree that the [employee] handbook provides procedure for termination for all employees. Do you recall?”

Ms Ross: “Yes.”

Mr Murray asked if the handbook indicated procedures for termination, predisciplinary actions, and “obligations of the town. You don’t deny?”

Ms Ross: “I don’t deny it’s in the handbook.”

Did she deny that the town followed the handbook, he asked.

“I know I have to follow the charter when I feel an employee puts others at risk,” she answered.

“Despite due process?” Mr Murray asked. “Did you look at the handbook?”

“Did I look at a 12-year-old document? No,” Ms Ross said.

Picking up the thought, Mr Mangiafico asked if she felt the handbook was applicable.

“I’m not sure what’s applicable,” she said. The document exists, however. Should it be withdrawn, he posed to the HR director.

“It should be,” she said.

Mr Mangiafico: “By virtue of the handbook, is the town obligated to follow procedure?”

“Yes,” Ms Ross said.

“Yes. OK, so it is applicable?” he asked.

“I follow the charter,” said Ms Ross. Mentioning the detailed disciplinary procedures in the handbook, Mr Mangiafico asked if it should not be followed.

“Not in this instance,” said Ms Ross.

“Why?”

“I felt I had to expedite,” Ms Ross said.

Since Ms Mason was on administrative leave, why did Ms Ross feel she was a danger and that Ms Ross had to expedite. “She was on leave at the time she was fired,” he argued. “What specifically prevented applications of procedures in the handbook?”

“I don’t know,” Ms Ross said.

“Who would know?” Mr Mangiafico pressed.

“I don’t know,” she repeated.

“You’re aware of the procedure?” he asked.

“I followed the charter,” Ms Ross said.

After a few more minutes of questioning, he said, “You didn’t follow procedure.”

“I did not,” she said.

State Animal Control

State Animal Control Officer Ray Connor’s territory includes Newtown. When questioned on May 28 he testified that he went over reports with Ms Mason “about what she needed to do.” He also spoke with her regarding her questions about her responsibilities. Did he contact her if he noticed mistakes?

“Yes,” he said.

After the hearing, Mr Mangiafico noted portions of the testimony that surprised him. According to Mr Connors, no animal control officer or police officer can respond to wildlife calls unless they are specifically licensed — excluding rabies incidents.

One case regarding a cat arose several times in his testimony.

Mr Connors had investigated a claim that Ms Mason took one cat off a neighboring property and the animal went to the pound. She had no authority to do that, Mr Connors had told her. Per his testimony, Ms Mason said she advertised to adopt the cat, but Mr Connors had received a complaint that Ms Mason had not actually advertised as she had said.

Where did she advertise, he had pressed.

“Carolee said, ‘I lied, I didn’t advertise. I already adopted the cat out, what do I do?’ I told her she had to work it out with the cat owner and she said they worked it out and the new owner kept the cat.”

Later in the conversation Ms Mason’s attorney Mr Murray asked, “She didn’t tell you if she had conversations with the administration about why she took care of the cat the way she did?”

“No, she never…”

“OK,” Mr Murray said.

Similar questions just before the cat inquiry focused on a $75 fee.

First raised by town attorney Dorsey, he asked if Carolee had charged $75 for an adoption when the fee should have been $5.

“Was she charging $75,” Mr Dorsey asked.

“Yes,” said Mr Connors.

Mr Murray began: “At the time you received the complaint she indicated the fee was discussed with town administration and they authorized?”

Mr Connors answered, “I said the statute doesn’t allow it.”

“She corrected it?”

“Yes,” answered Mr Connors.

Mr Murray asked again, “She didn’t say she was carrying out administration’s instructions?”

“She told me she was collecting money for [Canine Advocates of Newtown],” he said.

“That’s where the money went,” Mr Murray clarified. He asked, “Did she tell you the fee was discussed with the finance director?”

“Not that I recall,” said Mr Connors.

Mentioning the case of the cat again, Mr Murray asked, “You don’t know if she was under instructions from the town not to return the cat?”

“No,” Mr Connors said.

Mr Connors later explained to Mr Mangiafico that he had met face-to-face with Ms Mason roughly 20 times. He also confirmed for the selectmen that once Ms Mason learned to correct her documents, her paper work had improved.

Mr Connors is on vacation and unavailable for comment this week.

Continued Again

As the hearing closed at roughly 7 pm last Thursday, Newtown Police Chief Michael Kehoe’s testimony remained to be heard regarding evidence and an investigation that prompted Mr Borst, on advice from Ms Ross and Mr Kehoe, to terminate Ms Mason as of April 1. The hearing was then scheduled to resume on June 4.

Excluding the first selectman, who has recused himself from the decision process, the Board of Selectmen has 15 days from the time the hearing concludes to affirm, alter, or reverse Mr Borst’s decision to fire Ms Mason. Once the police chief’s testimony and subsequent questions from Ms Mason’s attorney Henry Murray and the selectmen conclude, Mr Mangiafico believed — as of last week — that the hearing would adjourn.

“We will not begin deliberations at the conclusion of the hearing,” Mr Mangiafico said on May 29. Deliberations, and ultimately a decision, will occur in the days following the hearing’s conclusion.

Mr Mangiafico said he won’t trust memory alone to recall key portions of conversations with witnesses. He wants the transcripts of the entire hearing, including the discussion generated this week. He will “absolutely” refer to the exact conversations recorded in the transcripts, he said. The paperwork is hefty.

“Hundreds of pages,” said Mr Mangiafico. “There is some critical testimony that took place,” he said. He also noted that “some answers had to be drawn out,” and would require close review.

(This week’s continuation was scheduled to begin at 4 pm on Thursday, June 4, in the Newtown High School lecture hall, several hours after press time. Updates will be posted at NewtownBee.com shortly thereafter.)