Judge Rules Against Attleboro Redevelopment Authority
The city solicitor says he has identified several legal issues with the decision that would be the basis for an appeal.
A Bristol County Superior Court judge ruled this week that the state Civil Service Commission was correct when it determined last year that two Attleboro Redevelopment Authority employees were wrongfully fired in 2009. Judge Thomas F. McGuire Jr. ordered the ARA to reinstate Michael Milanoski and Meg Ross to their former positions as executive director and chief financial officer, respectively, with back pay, benefits and interest. Their attorney estimated the ARA owes his clients at least $600,000.
In his eight page opinion (it is attached), McGuire wrote that although the ARA board claims it voted to fire Milanoski, Ross and the ARA's other two employees due to lack of funds, the action was actually taken "in an effort to assist" Mayor Kevin Dumas, who since the previous year had been "engaged in a public and private campaign to oust Milanoski."
McGuire wrote:
Mayor Dumas' campaign was initially unsuccessful because Milanoski had the support of a majority of the Authority’s board members. However, in 2009, the mayor's appointees and allies gained a majority on the board. At the first meeting after gaining that majority, on October 13, 2009, a majority of the Authority's board of directors voted to terminate the employment of all four Authority staff members, effective November 13, 2009, ostensibly due to a lack of funds.
The judge continued:
At the time of this vote, as throughout the years in question, the Authority was financially dependent on grants from a variety of government agencies to fund its operations. As part of his efforts to oust Milanoski, Mayor Dumas terminated funding through the federal Community Development Block Grant funds administered by the city of Attleboro. Other grants, such as those administered by the Federal Transit Authority, were in jeopardy. However, the commission found that the authority had funds available to pay the salaries from three sources.
Colin Confoey, attorney for Milanoski and Ross, said he and his clients were pleased with a second consecutive decision in their favor. He said if the ARA board chooses to follow McGuire's order, his clients could begin working again "rather quickly." But it appears City Solicitor Robert Mangiaratti plans to recommend the board appeal the decision.
"In my review of the court's decision, I have identified several legal issues that would be the basis for an appeal," wrote Mangiaratti in a statement released Friday evening (it is attached). "The ARA eliminated the employees' positions for budgetary reasons. I think that the court did not recognize the established right of the ARA to exercise its discretion about how it should spend its limited remaining funds after the federal government terminated its financial support for the Intermodal Transportation Center. Additionally, I think that the court failed to fully distinguish the city and the ARA as separate legal entities as a matter of law."
McGuire wrote that the city and the ARA are "distinct legal entities" that are "closely intertwined."
"The Authority and mayor of Attleboro may have been legally distinct, but they were hardly strangers," McGuire wrote.
When asked about the possibility of an appeal, Confoey noted that the Civil Service Commission and McGuire reached their conclusions after reviewing a substantial amount of information, including a six-day commission hearing, more than 100 exhibits from both sides and briefs in excess of 100 pages from both sides.
"I think any objective person looking at it, now that two independent agencies have reviewed the evidence and found in favor of Michael and Meg, is going to reach the same conclusion," Confoey said.
Mangiaratti plans to meet with the ARA board next week about the possibility of an appeal.
Hope Attleboro
7:45 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Another great example of the fine management in this city. Does anyone know how to settle? When can Mike come back? Get real instead of appeal!!!
NeonElephant
8:10 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
The pay back is already in the $600k range. I'm sure the city will appeal the court and the interest and pay back with continue to grow.
paul
7:07 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Never fire anyone, just lay them off. Sorry, things are slow right now, maybe we will call you back. The ARA is Socialism and nothing but another tax bill for the citizens of Attleboro. Pay out the 600K and blow up the ARA!
Larry Rose
7:48 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Maybe the taxpayers of Attleboro should consider a sidewalk dining experience for its two former ARA employees, or better yet tell them to run for the School Committee, where "Peace and Harmony" prevail. HA HA!!!
Roxanne Houghton
9:39 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I would ask the City Council and Mayor Dumas to stop spending my money on this lawsuit. The taxes and user fees have just been raised on everyone in this city - why?........so we can continue to lose the lawsuits regarding the ARA?
The fate of these lawsuits were sealed when the "private" email that City Councilor Brian Kirby sent to Max Volterra was revealed. This is the most under-reported story in this entire mess. City Councilor Brian Kirby "secretly" offered money to the ARA, if the ARA would fire Mike Mikinoski - thus proving that money WAS avaiable, while the city's entire case rested on cries of "we have no money". City Councilor Brian Kirby has now cost this city $600,000 - and more - especially if the city files an appeal.
I would ask Jonathan Freidman to re-print Brian Kirby's private offer to Max Volterra as a reminder of why we now owe 600,000 and more - all to come out of our taxes.
In another city or town, i believe that Mr. Kirby would have faced some sort of lawful charges.
Please re-print the offer made to MaxVolterra -
Reason
10:06 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Details of the offer are printed on page 34 of this report http://www.mass.gov/anf/docs/csc/decisions/layoff/milanoski-ross-060211.pdf
Ari Sharon
12:59 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Roxanne you hit the nail on the head. I believe the lawful charge against Kirby should be extortion. Brian presents himself as a kind and Godfearing man, which he probably was at some point in his life, but no more. He is a power hungry follower who will blindly do anything that Kevin asks of him. Including committing crimes,
Kevin Dumas, Brian Kirby, Frank Cook, Peter Blais and Barry LaCasse (all mentioned in the investigation) have been and will continue to act unlawfully in this city with little to no regard for the constituents that put them in their positions. (With the exception of LaCasse, Kevin put him in his position, illegally.) These men carelessly waste tax payer dollars. 17 lawsuits the city has lost over the last few years with many more to come.
This Lawsuit will be appealed at least 2 times, because lord knows Kevin is never wrong. He is such a vain and insecure man. Unfortunately, you can appeal this all day long and the decision WILL NOT CHANGE. As a result of the judgment having been handed down, there is an average of 12% interest building on the balance everyday until it is paid. More wasted tax dollars.
Man up Kevin, admit you were spiteful and deceitful and pay them their money. Wait, you don’t have to admit that. We already know it
Daniel F. Devine
10:25 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
As I said in the past, everything's not so "Rosey" in Attleboro! You can fool some of the people all of the time! Well, I guess that's what the exce$$ive water & $ewer rate funds are for: (To pay the citys many lawsuits).
Jerry Chase
4:15 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Ari Sharon is a very impressive contributor to this forum, IMO. Interesting that he not only remembers, but informs others, that the hiring of B. LaCasse was, in fact, illegal per the requirements of the City's Municipal Council Rules of Procedure.
Brian Kirby is merely the likeable puppy dog, loyal to a fault, and does the bidding of this 'regime'. The REALLY "bad guys" are Kevin and Barry. Frank Cook and Peter Blais are merely loyal henchmen of the regime, and there are a few others.
The one "reaping the harvest" all the time is R. Mangiaratti, whose law firm collects whether the City wins or not. Most usually, it is the latter. The ultimate financial losers are City taxpayers.
But unless and until these political rats are replaced by the voters with superior candidates, little or nothing will change . . . . that is, unless a federal indictment hits.
That won't be good news for anybody, including the taxpayers.
BTW, I continue to maintain that if the current mayor had not pressured the old ARA board and replaced them----piercing the two-way by-Massachusett-law protective wall designed to insulate redevelopment authorities to AND from the communities in which they operate, the City and its taxpayers may have continued to be protected from ARA creditors. As witness, note the the other judge in the second suit by
Anderson & Cullaz REFUSED to remove the City from the short list of defendants.
Time's coming for a voter revolt in Nov., '13.
Another unhappy taxpayer
9:33 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
And the mayor got re-elected! This is not the first case against the city it has lost and cost us taxpayers thousands of dollars. Some one should file an ethics complaint against the mayor.
Max Opus
11:59 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
It was the lesser of two evils... an incompetent retired fire chief with more skeletons in his closet than the public knew about was not a fit candidate.
Daniel F. Devine
7:22 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Any other City would vote out this Mayor & puppet City Councilors! Wonder why the Sun Chronicle hasn't reported on this? (ISN'T IT NEWS?)
Ari Sharon
8:07 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
the Sc did report on it. Below of the fold, front cover on Saturday. Don't think that wasn't planned. You get that nice buried placement when Brian Kirbys brother is the editor. Oh and the Mayor controls the info that gets printed (or not).
Jerry Chase
2:06 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
In his predictable recommendation that the City appeal the recent Superior Court decision, the City Solicitor claims there are two or three issues which can be the basis for an appeal. The REAL question is, what are the odds for a SUCCESSFUL appeal? That, as used to be said, "is another kettle of fish". And yes, this mess is starting to smell like aging fish, isn't it?
The City needs a Recall Provision in its Charter.