NORTHFIELD — The town’s police chief is complaining that he has been slandered by the newest Selectboard member, Alex Meisner, who raised questions in an open meeting about the hours the chief works.
The questions evolved from a discussion about the town paying $20,322 to buy back 433 hours of Police Chief Robert Leighton’s accumulated vacation time.
Leighton has filed an open meeting law complaint that contends Meisner, who defeated him in a selectmen’s race this spring, improperly discussed complaints or concerns from the public.
Leighton says Meisner relayed someone’s concerns that “I was not working 40 hours a week.” But Meisner never said precisely that.
At the May 29 session, Meisner was reluctant to sign off on the chief’s vacation buyback until he had documentation to support the request, including a work schedule for the department.
Leighton said the work schedule was “not to be disseminated.” That led to push-back by Meisner, who said the Selectboard acts as police commissioners. “I think we have a right to see the schedule,” he said.
Meisner then asked: “What hours on patrol do you actually work right now? Because I’ve had a couple complaints actually from people in the town who have been asking me … they’re just concerned, and they would like to know what hours you’re working … It would be nice for the town to know on the record here, just what your hours are.”
Leighton replied that he works 40 hours a week, but noted that he works “a lot from home,” answering emails and phone calls. “It’s not a 40-hour-a-week job, it’s a 24-hour job, and that certainly doesn’t include the time that I’m on call,” he said.
Eventually, the vacation buyback request was approved contingent on getting the documentation that Meisner had sought.
It wasn’t until after the meeting, which was being cablecast, that Leighton filed his open meeting complaint, saying he had been slandered by Meisner’s questions in open session. Leighton alleged that Meisner made an “intentional attempt to slander my character and reputation in public and on air,” according to his complaint, which first goes to the Selectboard for a response, and then can be sent to the Attorney General’s Office.
“I consider his remarks to be an attack on my integrity, reputation, and a questioning of my character in public,” Leighton wrote in the complaint.
When asked later, Leighton declined to clarify how or why he interpreted the questions to be improper or an attack. In the letter of complaint, he claimed that Meisner’s questions violated his rights to privacy as guaranteed by the Open Meeting Law, and that they should have been indicated on the agenda for the meeting.
The law says that a closed-door session may be called to discuss the reputation, character, physical condition or mental health, rather than professional competence, of an individual, or to discuss the discipline or dismissal of, or complaints or charges, brought against a public officer, employee, staff member or individual. In such a case, the person in question must have 48 hours notice and may ask for the meeting to be public or private and have a lawyer present.
During the May 29 meeting, however, Leighton did not at any point request that the conversation be held in closed meeting, nor did he indicate any concerns about the suitability of Meisner’s questions for an open meeting.
Meisner this week, in a written reply, countered that he never accused the chief of anything and that he was simply doing his job as a police commissioner trying to understand how the police department operates, given the request for vacation buyback. He conceded he did use the world “complaint” initially but switched to “concern.”
In Meisner’s written response to Leighton, which he read at the Selectboard’s June 12 meeting, he said that the questions he asked all had to do with basic departmental procedures, and therefore did not have to be listed on the meeting’s agenda.
“Your apparent discomfort seems due to your desire to operate independently of oversight,” Meisner wrote in response.
“I am your police commissioner,” Meisner wrote. “Your commission is still this board. You respond to this board and you answer to it. I look at your complaint as a threat and an attempt to silence me in my duly elected role. … This conduct is not only unbecoming of a police chief but is also insubordinate to the authority of this board. You will not receive an apology from me or have an apology letter in your personnel file, but you may put this letter in your file.”
In a later conversation, Meisner called Leighton’s complaint a “retaliation” for losing the May 8 Selectboard election. Meisner and Leighton were the only candidates for the seat previously occupied by Jack Spanbauer. During the race, some residents expressed concerns that Leighton’s position as police chief might affect his ability to serve on the Selectboard properly, and whether holding both positions could create conflicts of interest. Meisner won the election in a vote of 542 to 165.
Leighton’s complaint has since been forwarded to the town’s lawyer, Town Administrator Bernie Kubiak said. The Selectboard must make a formal response to the complaint. If Leighton is not satisfied by the response, he will have the option of requesting the attorney general to review it.
Contact Max Marcus at: mmarcus@recorder.com or 413-772-0261, ext. 261.