FOI Commission Upholds Ruling Against Five Town Council Members

The state Freedom of Information Commission upheld the recommendations of hearing officer Kathleen Ross, finding that five East Hampton Town Council members violated FOI rules when they met in executive session to discuss the termination of Police Chief Matt Reimondo in June of last year.

The commission met May 11 and voted 3-2, with amendments, on behalf of Reimondo, who filed the complaint July 15.

Town council chairwoman Melissa Engel, vice chairman John Tuttle and members Thom Cordeiro, Barbara Moore and Chris Goff were ordered to contact the commission to set up a training session on executive session procedures within three months of notice of the final decision. Council member Sue Weintraub was not named in the complaint.

Reimondo’s complaint stems from a town council executive session, a meeting not open to the public, held June 22, 2010. According to the commission’s findings, the meeting took place approximately 90 minutes following a 4 p.m. meeting Reimondo had with then-town manager Jeffrey O’Keefe, who informed the Chief he was being terminated immediately and presented him with a severance package.

After the executive session commenced, Weintraub questioned the other members whether the unnamed individual on the agenda, who was to be discussed in executive session, had been notified and had waived his rights because it appeared to her the discussion would pertain to the termination of that individual’s employment. According to the findings, the town attorney replied that the individual had not been notified because the purpose of the executive session was not “employee performance review” but “attorney-client privilege and a draft document.”

Though a legal opinion was discussed, it was found that so too was the Chief’s termination, that O’Keefe informed the council Reimondo had been terminated from his position and that the severance package also was discussed. The commission ruled that such discussions of Reimondo’s termination were impermissible.

After the executive session, the council voted 5-1 (Weintraub dissenting) in public to authorize the town manager to offer the severance package to Reimondo.

The commission found that the five town council members were in violation of discussing a matter that had not been disclosed as an agenda item either to the complainant or the public; denied the complainant the right to attend and participate in the meeting regarding his termination of employment and denied the complainant the right to request the meeting regarding his termination be held in public session and that such denials were without reasonable grounds.

However, the commission did rule in the council’s favor on some matters, including declining to declare the actions of the council null and void and declining to impose a civil penalty.

A copy of the final decision has not been released. The April 1 hearing officer's report and the minutes of the May 11 commission meeting, with amendments, are available on the pdfs attached to this story. The amendments can be found at the bottom of the file.

O'Keefe has since resigned, leaving with a $170,000 severance package in September, and Reimondo was reinstated after the issue went to referendum in November. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the chief, 3,701 to 1,617.

Reimondo still has a lawsuit pending against the town, naming O'Keefe, Engel, Tuttle and police Sgt. Michael Green, who at the time had been promoted to Lieutenant to fill a new position that would oversee the police department.

The suit charges that, in an effort to prevent him from investigating sexual harassment allegations made against O'Keefe, certain town officials retaliated by eliminating the police chief position, saying in his complaint they "combined and conspired to create a scheme."

Four Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) complaints also are pending.

The town council voted unanimously in April to make an offer to Reimondo to settle all of his legal claims against the town.

Clarification: The story originally reported that the $50 fine first imposed against the five council members was upheld. It was not. The commission declined to impose any civil penalties, but upheld the hearing officer's finding that FOI violations did occur. East Hampton-Portland Patch regrets the error.

Why not join us on Facebook or Twitter!