Board Releases Report On Findings Of Hearing Of Manager Kendrick-This Day In Norwood History-December 9, 1938

Holman Signature Withheld From Addenda Statement

Removal Process Is Dismissed By Selectmen’s Vote

The Norwood Board of Selectmen have rendered their decision in the matter of the removal of General Manager William C. Kendrick and, stating that no specific reasons had been advanced for his removal, have dismissed said removal proceedings. The Board unanimously agreed on this action, while an additional statement, made to answer accusations leveled at the conduct of the hearing of the manager by the present board and filed as an addenda to the formal report, was signed by, but four members of the Board, the signature of Charles F. Holman being omitted.

The formal report on the removal proceedings reviews the circumstances of the action taken by the former majority selectmen, quoting first, action introduced August 30th to remove the Manager by filing a written statement of charges; secondly, action taken on September 22nd when the charges were filed. Both Selectmen Harry, B. Butters and Charles F. Holman were recorded as opposed to the motions.

Thirdly, the report quotes the communication of Mr. Kendrick asking for a hearing made on September 23rd following this with mention of the removal election which placed Selectmen Charles E. Houghton, Francis W. Smith, and John Folan in office for the unexpired terms of the removed selectmen. Continuing, the report cites the hearing date set by the newly elected Board on October 27th, and the fact that the selectmen, Mr. Kendrick and his counsel were present. The report quotes the letters sent to the three recalled selectmen inviting them to the hearing and to present facts pertinent to the reasons for removal, and similar letters addressed to the Planning Board members, and Chief Alonzo N. Earle and Deputy Chief Louis F. Parker of the Fire Department. Of these, the report states, only Chairman Thomas U. Mahoney and Secretary Charles A. Nicholson of the Planning Board attended the hearing, and they denied any lack of cooperation on the part of the manager or making any charges against him.

Reasons Not Detailed

Since no facts either general or detailed were presented at the hearing in support of the charges, and since the Manager through his attorney had stated that answers had been given at a public meeting and that it seemed unnecessary to repent them as those who had seen fit to make the charges had not come to substantiate them, and since the manager had requested a detailed statement of the charges which the former majority Board had not given, the Board states
that the reasons for the Manager’s removal as filed did not comply to their minds with the Charter rulings calling for detailed charges, and that these detailed reasons should have been furnished the Manager immediately upon his request.

Concluding their statements with “whereas said reasons and each of them as set forth in said removal statement were entirely without support at said hearing”, the Board’s report states, “Now therefore be it voted by the unanimous action of the Board of Selectmen as at present constituted that said reasons and each of them have not been sustained and no warrant has been shown that the said William C. Kendrick should be removed from the office of General Manager based upon said reasons or any of them as set forth in said removal statement and that said removal proceedings be and hereby are dismissed.
This report is signed by all five members of the Board. The additional statement to be filed with the report bears but four signatures with that of Charles F. Holman omitted.

Issue Statement

In the attached statement the selectmen state that their good faith has been challenged by the recalled selectmen, and that some comment in fairness to themselves and the voters of Norwood should be made. The statement cites the reasons which lead the present hoard to the conclusion that the removal proceedings were instituted and to that extent carried on without proper and just foundation in fact.

To support this conclusion, they cite the fact that the eleven reasons for the Manager’s removal, which were charges which should have been based on facts within the knowledge of the removing selectmen in such form as to be specifically and definitely stated, were not specific nor defined so that the Manager could defend himself. The last reason pertaining to turning over records, the Board says relates to a period subsequent to the initial action for removal and therefore should only have been included if new removal proceedings were to be instituted.

“It is plain and it is entirely warranted to state that when action was first taken the then majority of the selectmen had decided to remove General Manager Kendrick from his office but were lacking reasons for so doing and had to seek and set them up later and required more than three weeks of effort to do so and then furnished only inadequate and unfairly stated reasons”, the statement continues. The Manager asked for a hearing and for more specific reasons on September 26th, but these were not furnished nor was the hearing date set prior to October 11th the date of the recall election. Every step the statement says was a delayed step, and steps that should have been taken were not taken. “If,” the Board asks, “ the best interests of the town required the removal of Mr. Kendrick from his office as General Manager why was not expedition used instead of delay all along the line”

Hearing Disinterested

Discussing the matter of the Rearing on the charges made against the Manager and conducted by the present Board, the statement answers accusations made by the recalled selectmen as to the disinterested character of that hearing. The fact that the recalled selectmen refused to appear at the hearing though courteously invited in ample time, the statemen cites as an indication that “they felt no duty to the citizens of the town or themselves when they ceased to be officials to support the reasons for removal which as officials they indicated were of such vital importance to the best interests of the town as to demand this drastic action, although if they had the evidence to support the charges it was the proper and necessary time to present it as citizens interested in the welfare of the town although no longer officials”.

Quoting the challenge to “our good faith” with respect to the hearing as, “We feel this hearing is not designed or intended to be a disinterested inquiry as to the reasons or facts surrounding the vote of the selectmen removing the General Manager from office, etc.”, the statement of the Board labels it as grossly unfair and unfounded. They point out that the hearing was required by law and obligatory, and their duty was to give the Manager a full, fair and impartial hearing, and that they had pledged themselves to that course in the campaign preceding the recall election. No proof has been offered, the selectmen state, that the hearing and the decision to follow were not to be disinterested. Furthermore, they call attention to the fact that the recalled selectmen when they were in office in a circular distributed throughout the town said “We can assure you that any man chosen to succeed Mr. Kendrick will be one who has no entangling alliances with any of the local politicians”. That statement the Board says, is an admission that “these, their selectmen were fully determined irrespective of their duty not to make a fair unpredjudiced decision following the hearing yet to be held”.

Qualifying the charge that the newly elected members had pledged themselves to vindicate the Manager as a “base charge,” the statement denied any such pledge and says that nothing that they had said could be offered as proof of it.

Conduct Unbecoming

Concluding, the statement cites the recalled selectmen’s statement that they saw no possible benefit in the hearing, calling attention to the fact that the hearing was not only required by law but that the Supreme Court has said in other cases that an accused official must be given an opportunity to defend himself. Their action in the conduct of the hearing and in inviting the members of the old Board to it, speaks for itself, they say, and add, “We could not force them to accept and we could do no more than give them an opportunity which they refused on grounds clearly inadequate if their sense of duty to the public remained as strong as they would lead us to believe it was after their recall as it was before. We conclude with the statement that the conduct of these removed officials was clearly unbecoming officers of a municipality, that it has brought upon the town unfavorable publicity and added expense and that it warrants severe criticism.”

(All articles originally published in the Norwood Messenger)