No Charges Made Against Manager On Tuesday Night-This Day In Norwood History-September 16, 1938

Selectman Gives Out Copies Of Letters To Answer Statement

Following an executive session (held at the beginning of the Norwood selectmen’s Tuesday night meeting, the majority members of the Board submitted to the press a signed statement which had been read to the Board and which purported to set forth to the public the reasons why charges were not to be brought against the General Manager William C. Kendrick on that night as had been promised by these members voting for his removal.

The statement cites as the reasons for the employment of special counsel the action of a member of the Board and the refusal of the manager to make available to members of the Board certain records necessary to identify the charges against him. Further the statement declares that with the special counsel employed only last Thursday, in justice to the Board and in fairness to the General Manager the papers should be carefully drawn.

The town has been anxiously awaiting the charges against the Manager for some weeks now. In connection with the reference to the action of a member of the Board, Selectman Harry Butters to whom the reference was made, gave the press copies of letters relating to his action. His action he said related solely to information being given out by the clerk or to aid being sought from the town counsel by individual members of the Board without a formal request from the Board voted in a regular meeting It is further understood that the manager’s refusal to make certain papers available to members of the Board was also predicated on the belief that papers should be made available only at the request of the entire Board by vote rather than to individual members of the Board at their personal request.

Selectman Butters requested when the press had been admitted to the Tuesday night meeting, that the clerk read into the records a paragraph from his statement made at last Thursday night’s meeting of the Board which stated his objection the motion for turning over records. This objection was made unless the General Manager be given photostatic copies of all papers turned over by him to the Board and its counsel and registered Selectman Butters, opposition to the motion.

The statement issued by the majority members follows together with a statement made by Selectman Butters and the copies of the letters submitted by him.

TO THE PUBLIC:

At a special meeting of the Selectmen held on Thursday, September 8th, it was voted to employ special counsel and further voted that the Manager make available the Town records in his care. The reasons for the removal of the General Manager were discussed with the Town Counsel, but by reason of certain action taken by a member of the Board of Selectmen and by reason of the refusal of the General Manager to make available to members of the Board of Selectmen, certain Town records necessary to identify the charges being legally prepared, it was found necessary to employ special counsel.

In this connection, it must be remembered that the vote engaging Mr. Farnum as special counsel was only passed last Thursday, and he was not officially notified until Saturday. However, in justice to the Board and in fairness to the General Manager, the reasons should be carefully drawn and if the papers are available prior to a regular meeting of the Selectmen, we shall request that a special meeting be called so that the public may be promptly informed.

In its action, the Board is only exercising the powers conferred upon it by the people of Norwood and is proceeding in a legal manner. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that those sponsoring a recall election could not have awaited the outcome. As it is, they are not only putting the Town to the expense of a special election but, in spirit at least, are trying, by a political maneuvre, to nullify the provisions of the Town Charter that the “General Manager shall be subject to the direction and supervision and shall hold office at the will of the Selectmen.”

Sture Nelson,
Herbert V. Brady,
John M. Mutch,

Members of the Norwood Board of Selectmen.

---

Butters’ Statement In answer to a statement made to the public Tuesday night by a majority of the board of selectmen it appears to me that the public should, be given a statement concerning my own position with reference to the above mentioned statement by the majority of the board.

I am submitting for your perusal two communications which I forwarded to the town clerk and the town counsel, respectively. You will note in this statement of the majority of the board of selectmen they state that by “reason of certain action taken by a member of the board of selectmen, and by the reason of the general manager’s failure to make available to the board of selectmen certain town records necessary to identify charges being legally prepared it was found necessary to employ special counsel.”

You will note that the objection I had raised as contained in my communications to the town cleric and the town counsel is definitely based upon or against any action being taken at any other than a duly constituted meeting of the board of selectmen. Can anyone find fault with my insisting on the preservation of my rights and duties as a member of the hoard?

I still insist that it is unnecessary to employ special counsel in the conduct of this removal proceeding. I objected to them turning over to special counsel any documents, by the general manager, concerning town affairs, unless the general manager be permitted to have and to hold for himself during the proceedings photostatic copies of all requested documents, etc. Is there anything unfair about that? The majority of the board of selectmen have positively refused that concession. Why?

They say in their statement “and if the papers are available prior to a regular meeting of the selectmen we shall request that a special meeting be called, so that the public may be promptly informed.” During these preliminary activities with respect to the case in question I have pleaded with the board for representation to the public and through the press, which has been denied. Who do you think is unfair to date? Let me tell you definitely and specifically, that the majority of the board of selectmen if they have read the charter must know how to bring this entire question to an immediate head.

10 Weld Ave.
Norwood, Mass.
Sept. 3, 193S

---

James A. Halloran, Esq.
Town Counsel Norwood, Mass.
Dear Sir:—

In view of the public statement of Selectman Mutch in connection with a motion of dismissal of General Manager William Kendrick, i. e. that said motion had been prepared by town counsel. I herewith as a minority member of the board of selectmen in the present crisis in our town government, raise objection, to you as town counsel, rendering legal aid or comfort to any individual member or group of members of the board of selectmen unless said legal aid or comfort is specifically requested in writing by the board of selectmen at or by a duly constituted meeting of said board of selectmen, and that if legal aid or comfort is requested in the manner herein set forth, and that if it be the duty oí the counsel to render such legal aid or comfort that it be in writing and delivered to the bôard of Selectmen.

The objection is predicated upon the theory of equal rights in this or any other controversy in which the board of selectmen are or may become involved.

The formality of this communication is most certainly occasioned by the circumstances.

Sincerely yours.
HARRY BUTTERS.
10 Weld Ave.
Norwood, Mass.

---

Sept. 3,1938
James E. Pendergast,
Town Clerk,
Norwood, Mass.

Dear Sir:—

As a member of the board of selectmen, I herewith object to you, or the members of your office staff, submitting for the purpose of scrutiny or otherwise any and all documents or papers pertaining to the conduct of town affairs past or present, to any individual or group of selectmen unless authorized to do so by (action) of the board of selectmen at or by a duly constituted meeting of said board or unless otherwise provided by law.

With the utmost confidence in the veracity and integrity of you, Mr. Clerk, both as a gentleman and a public official the objection herein contained to the scrutiny as recited above is Herewith withdrawn, provided such scrutiny, etc. is done or held within the presence and observation of yourself.

The formality of this communication is occasioned by the circumstances.

Sincerely yours, HARRY B. BUTTERS.

(All articles originally published in the Norwood Messenger)