Columns
Mansfield board should stick to penny-ante game
Top Headlines Judging by the recent settlement reached between the Mansfield selectmen and Town Manager John D'Agostino, you would not want to play poker with D'Agostino. But if the selectmen invite you, by all means accept. To term the agreement between Mansfield and their manager a "settlement" is misleading. In a settlement, both sides usually get something of value they might not have gotten otherwise. This does not appear to be the case here. D'Agostino appears to have gotten everything his contract entitled him to in exchange for leaving June 30 and promising not to sue the town or their agents for unspecified reasons. He will be paid to the end of his contract in November, complete with a 3 percent raise. After that he receives a six-month lump sum severance payment. He will be indemnified in ongoing or future legal actions, and will cash in his unused sick leave time to the tune of many thousands of taxpayer dollars. So somebody needs to explain to me - exactly how is this "settling"? D'Agostino's performance has certainly been questionable. His firing of two town employees resulted in lawsuits, and his comments and actions have justifiably come under fire. A court initially ruled him personally liable for $500,000 in damages, which is still being adjudicated. Some clamored for his firing, and virtually everyone agreed his days in Mansfield were numbered. You would think that would not leave him in a position of strength when negotiating his exit. Selectmen hired special counsel to advise them on D'Agostino's situation. Yet when the terms were announced, it was a clear, complete and total victory for the man who pretty much knew he had to leave. The question is - why? Did D'Agostino have the board over a barrel? Was his contract ironclad? Did he have embarrassing or damaging information or facts about prior or current selectmen or town employees? Was he in a strong legal position to sue the town and get even more money than his settlement? Only he, the selectmen and the lawyers know for sure - and it appears none of them are talking. The agreement was hammered out in secret, so the public has been prevented from knowing why their money went to D'Agostino in the manner it did. D'Agostino leaving early is most definitely a good thing for all. Despite his considerable skills and abilities, he had become the focus of too much controversy. He had become the issue in town, which often prevented other important issues from receiving the attention they deserved. But selectmen owe the townspeople a better explanation for the terms of D'Agostino's severance package. Chairman Ann Baldwin said it was time for the town to move on, and that is true - but why now and not months ago? Why agree to a provision that prevents the town from saying anything negative if potential future employers call for a reference? Why does the "settlement" have to be so one-sided? What alternatives to the settlement did the selectmen consider? What was the objection of George Dentino, the lone selectman to vote against the settlement? What alternative did he favor - if there was one - and why was that rejected? What cards did the selectmen believe D'Agostino was holding? What threat was he hanging over their heads that caused them to be so afraid? What do they know that the rest of Mansfield apparently does not? Did John D'Agostino have an ace up his sleeve when dealing with the board? Or did he bluff with a pair of deuces, and dare them to call him on it? We may never know, because when you fold the bluffer does not have to reveal his cards. And in this case, "folding" may be a very accurate description of what the Mansfield selectmen did. BILL GOUVEIA is a local columnist who wishes he could bluff. Poker invitations may be sent to aninsidelook@aol.com.
View Comments » 4 comment(s)
« Hide Comments
|
xrunnerx wrote on Jun 27, 2009 4:59 PM:
kd40 wrote on Jun 27, 2009 2:02 PM:
How do we get the truth??? Maybe its time to elect new board members??? "
Bill Gouveia wrote on Jun 27, 2009 9:30 AM:
That is my error, for which I apologize. "
veritas wrote on Jun 27, 2009 7:17 AM: