Bourne Town Hall

Conference Room

7:00 P.M.

August 19, 2003

Present: William R. Griffin

Town Administrator

Mark A. Tirrell, Chairman

Linda Zuern, Vice Chairman

Richard LaFarge, Clerk

W. Thomas Barlow

James Grady was not present at the meeting

Meeting was called to order

Salute the flag

Selectman LaFarge made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to approve the minutes of July 29, 2003 as presented.

No public comment

Selectman LaFarge read correspondence that was received

Linda commented on soil sampling at the military base and that DEP & EPA will be conducting an internal investigation due to possible percholrate from fireworks.

Selectman Barlow requests that the Town Administrator send a letter on behalf of the Board of Selectmen to State Representative Susan Williams Gifford thanking her for supporting the lease extension. Also, send a letter to Joe Carrara thanking him for putting forward the Boards position to the governor.

The Board of Selectmen received a letter of resignation from Bob Deane which, they accept with regret. Bob has served on the following committees: Towns Representative to the Cape Cod Commission, chairman on the Conservation Commission, Open Space Committee, Local Emergency Planning Committee, Economic Development Task Force, Residential Growth Management Committee, Barnstable County Bay Legal Fund and Town Administrator Search Committee.

Selectman Barlow expressed his appreciation and gratitude for the tremendous amount of time Bob has put into the Town of Bourne. Extremely impressed with Bob’s concerns for people, effort made to find a resolution to a problem and how he responds to people’s needs. Extremely pleased with a job Bob has done.

Bob said he enjoyed his 8 years on the commission and serving the town. Sad about leaving the town. Has enjoyed his stay here. Made a lot of friends in the town. Told the Board that the Town has one of the finest group of town employees. Of all 4 towns he has served, Bourne is the friendliest and the easiest to do business with.

Enjoyed working on the Cape Cod Commission. It was a wonderful experience. Also served 4 years on the Advisory Board of Americorp. Enjoyed working with almost 100 students.

It was also an honor to serve on the committee to appoint the first Town Administrator. Thanked Selectmen for appointment and thanked Bill for coming to Bourne and that he is a real asset to the Town.

Selectman Tirrell said he appreciates Bob’s personal counsel, friendship and experience he brought to the town and wished Bob and Anne all the best.

Selectman Tirrell presented citation to Bob on behalf of the Board of Selectmen.

Next item was taken out of order

Discussed the number of trips provided by Counsel On Aging and GATRA and the use of the Sagamore Park and Ride for medical appointments in Boston. Council on Aging received a new mini van to replace the old bus.

Being a voting member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, we determine what federally funded highway and transit projects are to go forward. The long-range transportation plan has been revised. The Sagamore Rotary Improvement project is on a conditional basis.

Regional Transit Authority will be voting tomorrow and Mr. Parady will be casting a vote on the town’s behalf. Looking for direction from Selectmen on how he should be voting on this project.

Selectman Tirrell said he has no problem with a conditional listing. Issues being raised will be answered. Project as proposed most recently will be acceptable and serves the people of Bourne and will realize benefit from project and a favorable vote should be cast.

Selectman LaFarge said he is very much in favor of conditional listing. Organizations have done their studies. Mass Highway has heard concerns and are trying to adopt around them by making a lot of changes.

Selectman Barlow said people need to plan trips accordingly due to traffic both weekdays and weekends. Very much in favor of this project going forward. Ongoing problem for many years and needs to be addressed. It’s in the best interest to the Town of Bourne to have this project to go forward.

Selectman Zuern asked for clarification on the conditional listing. Mr. Parady explained that by putting the restrictions indicates what key issues need to be addressed. Selectman Zuern said she doesn’t have a problem with the conditions as long as the conditions aren’t made so the project can’t go forward.

James Mulvey and Kathleen Donovan spoke on this issue.

Selectman LaFarge made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern move to express the Selectmen’s position that the Sagamore Rotary project be included in the transportation plan on a conditional basis.

Selectman Tirrell read letter that was sent to Mr. Smith into record regarding this hearing. Sworn in all individuals who will be testifying.

Attorney Wagner represented Mr. Smith.

Chief Ford said all services have been made and copies of reports were given to the manager and owner of Smitty’s.

Incident occurred on April 28, 2003 at approximately 12:07 A.M.

Officer Jeffrey Lanoie went over events that occurred that night. Received a call of a pedestrian accident on MacArthur Blvd near Guardian Storage. Injured person was being treated by Bourne Rescue for serious injuries and later med-flighted to Brigham & Women’s in Boston. He was identified as Robert Gossen. While assisting with traffic, Officer Lanoie was approached by a female who was identified as Mary O’Neil.

Exhibit A: Copy of police log was submitted as evidence.

Ms. O’Neil asked what was going on when she saw the police vehicles? She thought that Mr. Gossen was being arrested because of an altercation that took place in Smitty’s Bar. At time of speaking, it was clearly obvious that she was intoxicated. She told the officer that she was in a fistfight with male subject and kicked out of the bar by the bartender. Outside of bar in parking lot, they got into another verbal fight. Mr. Gossen then left and starting walking towards Rte 28.

While speaking with the officer she didn’t realize that Mr. Gossen was struck by motor vehicle. She thought that the bartender called the police. Ms. O’Neil was told about the victim and she said she knew who he was. There was another individual identified as Matthew Clemens who is a friend of Mr. Gossen. Officer Lanoie approached Mr. Clemens in Smitty’sparking lot. Mr. Clemens told Officer Lanoie about the fight in the bar. He had alcohol on breath but didn’t appear to be intoxicated. Advised State Trooper Brito about their statements and he would later interview them when he cleared the accident. Officer Lanoie stated that State Trooper Brito put Ms. O’Neil into protective custody because she was intoxicated. Attorney Wagner objected to Officer Lanoie’s comment because he was not the officer who put Ms. O’Neil into protective custody.

Discussion followed on why Attorney Wagner is objecting the last statement by Officer Lanoie.

Selectman LaFarge said the charge before the board is whether or not a sale of alcoholic beverages was sold to an intoxicated person(s) on the licensed premises. Isn’t concerned with who hit who. Officer Lanoie formed an opinion that Ms. O’Neil was intoxicated based on his training. His observations of Ms. O’Neil was that she was unsteady on her feet, had slurred speech and strong odor of alcohol.

Officer Lanoie was unable to speak with bartender because Smitty’s was closed and bartender had left. Advised Sergeant McGonagle on what had taken place because she was taking over the investigation.

Attorney Wagner cross-examined Officer Lanoie.

Falmouth Police Office Ronald Savioli was a patron at Smitty’s Pub at the time the fight occurred between Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Gossen. Attorney Wagner said that when Mr. Savioli was interviewed by a member of the Police Department, he didn’t think that Ms. O’Neil or Mr. Gossen were injured, intoxicated or in any need of service when they left.

Chief Ford called Matthew Clemens, 19 Crows Nest Drive, Bourne.

Mr. Clemens stated that he and Mr. Gossen work together. Arrived at Smitty’s around 8:00 P.M. there were approximately 15 – 20 people present. When the fight broke started around 12:00 midnight, there were 5 people in the bar. They were: Matthew Clemens, Robert Gosson, Mary O’Neil, Ronald Savioli and Craig Sampson who is the bartender.

After arriving at Smitty’s, Mr. Clemens had several drinks and played pool. Met Mary O’Neil about 20 minutes after arrival. Mr. Gossen had approximately 2-3 drinks but didn’t see all drinks. Ms. O’Neil also had 2-3 drinks and they looked like rum and coke. Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Gossen started arguing a lot by end of night. Mr. Gossen was extremely aggravated. Went to bar to get another drink and he heard commotion and looking bar he saw Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Gossen were rolling on ground and she was sitting on him. Mr. Savioli went over to break up fight. The two patrons got up and walked away. Chief Ford asked Mr. Clemens what his opinion was, from his experience as a friend, if Mr. Gossen could hold his liquor?

Attorney Wagner objected. Opinion can only be given from someone who has specialized training, background and experience.

Chief Ford asked if Mr. Clemens would let Mr. Gossen drive him home and he responded with "No" because he had been drinking for several hours and didn’t know how much they had to drink.

Bartender told Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Gossen to leave to building. Ms. O’Neil went to the ladies room before leaving and Mr. Gossen was gathering his belongings. Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Gossen were still arguing even after leaving the building. They continued to argue so Mr. Clemens got in between them. Mr. Gossen got upset and decided that he was going to walk home. Mr. Clemens went to sit in Ms. O’Neil's vehicle. Did not see any alcohol in Ms. O’Neil's vehicle.

Mr. Clemens said he was present when State Trooper Brito did a sobriety test on Ms. O’Neil but Mr. Clemens was not given a sobriety test.

Attorney Wagner cross-examined Mr. Clemens.

Mr. Clemens and Mr. Gosson went to Smitty’s to play pool and had 2-3 drinks. The fight broke out when Mr. Clemens went to get another drink. He didn’t know what they were doing on the floor and he didn’t see anybody throw a punch. After being told to leave the bar, Ms. O’Neil asked the bartender if she could go to ladies room. It appeared the bartender was able to understand what she had asked without having to repeat it.

Outside in the parking lot, Mr. Gosson indicated that was going to walk home. He resides in Fall River. He often threatens that he’s going to walk home, but he doesn’t actually goes anywhere. He comes back every time.

Mr. Clemens gave Mr. Gosson money to buy some drinks. He had no money with him when they got to Smitty’s. He owed him money for work that day.

Mr. Clemens initially thought the police arrived because of the encounter at the bar or perhaps his friend was picked up from walking on the highway. After police arrived, Clemens wasn’t allowed to leave for another 3 hours.

Selectman Barlow asked Mr. Clemens if he recalled making the statement in front of officers that Mr. Gosson had 5 beers? Mr. Clemens said he didn’t recall but if I did say something it was a rough estimate. He knew for sure that he had 2–3 but doesn’t know how many more he may have had.

Selectman Lafarge asked how much money Mr. Clemens gave Mr. Gossen? Mr. Clemens said $40.00. Selectman LaFarge asked what were the prices of the drinks? Prices were average, between $2.50 - $3.00 for a beer.

Selectman Zuern asked Mr. Clemens when the 3 of them left, did they get into Ms. O’Neil’s car? Mr. Clemens said only after Mr. Gosson walked away.

Selectman Barlow asked Mr. Clemens if the stated to any officer that Ms. O’Neil looked quite intoxicated? Mr. Clemens said he may have said that but he can’t say for sure.

Chief Ford asked Mr. Clemens if he made the statement to Sergeant McGonagle that "he has rarely seen him that drunk"? Mr. Clemens said he has seen him drunk before. I haven’t seen him act like that. If I made that statement, I based that on his behavior.

Selectman Tirrell asked Mr. Clemens if he and Mr. Gosson had gone and consumed alcoholic beverages and played pool for a period of time in the past? Mr. Clemons responded yes.

Attorney Wagner wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstaing, Mr. Clemens didn’t say that he rarely seen him that drunk, meaning that night. Mr. Clemens said he couldn’t say for sure on how drunk he was. He was belligerent at that point, it may have been because he was too drunk, and it may have been that they were arguing. Mr. Clemens said he could guarantee that both of them had 2-3 drinks that he physically saw them drink.

Chief Ford Called State Trooper Kevin Brito to testify.

Selectman Tirrell swore in State Trooper Brito.

Trooper Brito stated he has been a State Trooper for 10 years. Responded to accident scene involving a pedestrian and motor vehicle at approximately 12:10 A.M. EMS personnel were working on pedestrian that was down later identified as Robert Gosson. Med-flight patient due to severity of injuries. After speaking with motor vehicle operator, Mr. Leite, it was determined that he struck Mr. Gosson who was walking in the right travel lane trying to flag him down. Mr. Leite moved his vehicle to right shoulder of the road and stopped. While talking with Mr. Leite it was determined that there was no signs of intoxication. Requested assistance from crime scene services who takes photographs and accident reconstruction team. No other witness to accident. It was determined that Mr. Leite was traveling about 55 – 60 miles per hour when he struck Mr. Gosson.

Spoke with Mr. Gosson on 2 occasions several months after accident and Mr. Gosson doesn’t recall the accident at all. No charges against Mr. Leite.

While trying to secure the scene, there was a female individual who walked crossed road and appeared behind the trooper. She was identified as Ms. Mary O’Neil. Speaking with her briefly, she said she didn’t witness anything. Trooper asked the assistance of local officers to escort Ms. O'Neil away from the road for her own safety. During a brief conversation he had with her, she did appear to be intoxicated. Trooper did have a hard time understanding her. She was trying to tell Trooper about altercation at the Smitty’s Bar. At this time, Trooper still didn’t think that Ms. O’Neil knew that Mr. Gosson was hit by motor vehicle.

State Trooper spoke with Mathew Clemens later during the night and he stated that he didn’t witness the accident. After scene was cleared, Trooper spoke with Mr. Clemens and Ms. O’Neil in Smitty’s parking lot. She said she was fine and that she was going to leave by making her own travel arrangements. Several hours later, something happened between Ms. O’Neil and Mr. Clemens and she wasn’t going to depart with him. She had no ride and nobody to take care of her, Trooper gave her a field sobriety test because she was attempting to drive her own vehicle. Had her placed in custody and transported to Bourne Barracks. During both conversations with Mr. Clemens, he didn’t appear intoxicated and his driving was going to be impaired and was allowed to leave.

Trooper Brito spoke with Ms. O’Neil awhile after scene was cleared, it was determined that she was down on Cape hours before accident happened and found herself at Smitty’s Bar.

Ms. O’Neil requested a breathalyzer test. She arrived at Bourne Barracks at 3:00 A.M. but didn’t actually take breathalyzer test until 3:45 A.M. and test was .06 at that time. She was still considered impaired so she was not released.

Attorney Wagner cross-examined State Trooper Brito

Discussion followed on how the breathalyzer works.

Attorney Wager defining the difference between being intoxicated and under the influence. Reading of .08 and above is operating under the influence and .079 is not under the influence and a person can’t be held.

Exhibit B: Motor Vehicle Crash/Collision Report

Exhibit C: Influence Chart

Selectman LaFarge asked State Trooper Brito what his observations were of Ms. O’Neil? Obvious signs of intoxication by Ms. O’Neil were the odor and babbling.

Selectman Zuern said according to report, she was also taking medication 3 times a day. Mixing pills and alcohol, wouldn’t that make you more intoxicated? Trooper Brito said yes it could.

Chief Ford called Sergeant McGonagle to testify

Chief Ford: Sergeant McGonagle ,were you the commanding officer on the 12-8 shift on April 28, 2003?

Sergeant McGonagle: Yes I was

Chief Ford: Will you tell the Selectmen what happened that night.

Sergeant McGonagle: The Police Department received a call of a serious pedestrian/motor vehicle accident and two officers were dispatched to it. When they arrived the State Police were already at the scene of the accident and they assisted them there. While they were there, Officer Lanoie contacted the station and advised that a female approached him and made a complaint that she had been assaulted while in Smitty’s Pub – Smitty’s Sports Pub. Sergeant McGonagle advised Officer Lanoie that he needed to investigate that complaint and write a report on it.

Chief Ford: Was it the request of the Chief that when he read report that he request you to take over the investigation?

Sergeant McGonagle: Right, I was directed to follow up it, on the other end of it. Not only for assault and battery but it may constitute a liquor law violation.

Chief Ford: As a result of the investigation, can you walk the Board through the actions that you took.

Sergeant McGonagle: Well, I contacted a number of people involved in the incident. I spoke to Matthew Clemens and questioned him about his observations and what had occurred in the bar that night. How much did the people that he had been present with had to drink and whether or not he felt that they were intoxicated. I spoke with Mary O’Neil about what had occurred at the bar, asked her how long she was there, what she had been drinking, how the fight had occurred and whether or not she believed that the other party who was involved in the fight with was intoxicated and whether or not she believed herself was intoxicated. I spoke to Ronald Savioli

Attorney Wagner: Excuse me, but lets back up and go back to Ms. O’Neil. What did she tell you?

Sergeant McGonagle: She told me that she had been in the bar for several hours after her car broke down in the parking lot. That she had been drinking rum and cokes all day and that she met two guys who had come in late into Smitty’s. She played pool with them at the back of the bar and that they had purchased drinks for her and she continued drinking. One of the two men, she wasn’t able to name either of them by name but she described one of the two men as having a disagreement and at some point started calling her names and he pushed her and she took a swing at her because of the push. At which point he punched her in the face. She was afraid at this point that she started punching him back. At this point he and she were thrown out of the bar by the bartender. She said she was injured in the fight and that she asked to go into the ladies room and wash up her cut. When she came back out, she didn’t feel safe going outside because the other party was still there and asked to be accompanied out. She states she told the bartender to call the police as a result of the fight that she was in. When I asked her about the other party she said when they got outside he started the fight again and that his friend had to get in between them to keep it from getting physical again. I asked her what she could tell me about the other guy and his condition. She said he was intoxicated and she used the words "trashed" and "obliterated". I asked her if she was intoxicated and she said she was intoxicated but that she didn’t feel that she was trashed. She admitted she was placed in protective custody as a result of her intoxication, which she did have an issue with because she did admit that she told the trooper that she was going to drive home. She then said that as far as the assault and battery charges, she had no interest in pursuing criminal complaint because she was aware that the other individual had been struck by a car and was very seriously injured.

Attorney Wagner: Who might that other individual be?

Sergeant McGonagle: Mr. Gosson. She said at that point she was more concerned that he recover from his injuries and that the fight in the bar was just a stupid drunken thing and that he didn’t need to be prosecuted as far as she was concerned on the complaint on the victim.

Attorney Wagner: Did you also interview a Falmouth Police Officer?

Sergeant McGonagle: I did.

Attorney Wagner: What was the name of the Falmouth Police Officer?

Sergeant McGonagle: Ronald Savioli

Attorney Wagner: Can you tell us what he said?

Sergeant McGonagle: He stated that he had gone to the bar that night at 8:00 P.M. to watch the Red Sox game. That it was crowded when he got there and that by the time the game had gone into the 13^th inning, there were only 5 people left in the bar counting himself. He said during the course of the evening, well actually he said that upon his arrival at 8:00 P.M. he saw the female there and his attention was drawn to her by someone (change of tape). He said he had no personal contact or no conversation with her. He had seen her with a drink in her hand, but he wasn’t able to identify it. He said from what it looked like to him, it was a coke. He stated that later in the evening two gentlemen had come in and he had seen them and the female together playing pool. He had observed that at least one of them buying drinks and had attracted his attention because he thought that the kid didn’t have enough money. He kept asking the bartender how much it was going to be afterwards.

Attorney Wagner: Who was buying the drinks and what kid was that?

Sergeant McGonagle: That would have been Gosson. He said he witnessed pouring a Heinekin.

Chief Ford: One person had a Heinekin and what was the other person drinking?

Sergeant McGonagle: I’m not sure because that was from Savioli’s statement. Mr. Clemons was drinking Bud Light and Mr. Gosson was drinking Heinekin and some kind of schnapps or shot.

Chief Ford: So he had a shot

Sergeant McGonagle: This was a statement from the bartender. That wasn’t from Savioli.

Chief Ford: Did the bartender say anything else to you?

Sergeant McGonagle: Mr. Savioli said he saw her with a drink and that he couldn’t identify it but it looked like a Coke product because of what he could see in the glass and the size and shape of the glass.

Chief Ford: No time did he tell you that they just came in. He had seen her there (hard to understand)

Sergeant McGonagle: He had seen her there at 8:00 P.M. and they came in later and placed it sometime around 10:00 P.M.

Chief Ford: Who else did you interview?

Sergeant McGonagle: The bartender, Craig Sampson.

Chief Ford: Who was present when you (hard to understand) You couldn’t interview the bartender the night of the incident?

Sergeant McGonagle: No

Chief Ford: Why?

Sergeant McGonagle: Well, he had closed the night of the incident and the times that I had gone there to contact him, it wasn’t a scheduled day or they had already closed. Then we set up a meeting to speak with him through the owner of the bar. The first meeting was cancelled and it was rescheduled so that the Mr. Smith and the attorney could be present.

Chief Ford: Prior to that did you send Officer Gelson to get the address and information on the bartender?

Sergeant McGonagle: I did. Well I actually asked him to go and speak with the bartender but the bartender wasn’t there.

Chief Ford: Did you get the information that you needed to contact the bartender?

Sergeant McGonagle: Initially, we just got his name and was told that he was on his day off. He me called before I go back to the bay (hard to understand)

.

Chief Ford: What did the bartender say to you?

Sergeant McGonagle: The bartender told me that he was the only employee working and that he worked 6:00 P.M. to midnight. He stated that the female and two males came in approximately 1 to 1 1/2 hours before the fight, which was approximately midnight. They came in together and that he served a single beer to Mr. Clemons and a single beer and one shot to Mr. Gosson and no drinks at all to Mary. O’Neil.

Chief Ford: As a result of this investigation, what did you do next?

Sergeant McGonagle: I put forward a report to you and that I believe the Board of Selectmen should be made aware because of the problems that have occurred on the premises. Concerns that two people could be involved in a physical altercation in which one of them was physically injured and one was bleeding. The police were not called and they were kicked out of the bar into parking lot with no arrangements made to as to how they were going to leave the premises. No employee accompanied them to guarantee that the disturbance wouldn’t carry on outside, which it actually did. To the fact that they were thrown out and one of them was seriously injured in a car accident and the other one had to be put in protective custody by the State Police. All parties involved that I spoke to indicate that both of them were intoxicated and that they were being served on the premises in an intoxicated state.

Chief Ford: At some point did you request blood-sampling report from the hospital on the victim or did you sit by the car until he was taken to the hospital (hard to understand)?

Sergeant McGonagle: We requested a medical report that runs analysis. It’s one of those completed things that they provided, which is specifically what our interest was in.

Chief Ford: Looking at that report, you were a prosecutor for the Bourne Police Department. Tell us how much time you served as prosecutor?

Sergeant McGonagle: I served for a period of 8 months but as the relief prosecutor, 5 years.

Chief Ford: In looking at that report, what does it tell you what the alcohol contents were?

Attorney Wagner: Objection. I don’t want to be objecting to the medical report on what blood alcohol has to be evidence and (hard to understand) if the blood alcohol is not the usual taking of blood. The hospital would obviously for reasons use swabs (hard to understand) blood alcohol effects dramatically the blood alcohol reading. Number 2 – The blood alcohol reading for persons who are seriously injured, the body, and the severe injury in this case, the body produces its own alcohol and as a result to that there is no distinction between alcohol consumption and blood alcohol reduction in the body as well as the swabs. This is the first I’ve ever seen of this and if I had, I would have summoned someone in who is willing to testify to that because the prosecutor knows full well that with these being excluded in court every single day because you have to show those to be introduced. I had no way of knowing as I stand here representing my client whether this is a true blood alcohol for intoxication purposes or a blood alcohol which is a proper reading as a result of medical treatment. The only ones who could testify to that is the lab at Brigham & Women’s and I think that’s only fair and that’s not raising a technicality, that is a statement of fact. I suspect that the Chairman, with his background already knows that.

Chief Ford: What I’m asking is that allow us just to continue here and you can make an evaluation on its value afterwards. Were going to produce evidence that he was treated and transported to the hospital because they were going to do other things to him (hard to understand) This happens all the time in a number of cases and we subpoena the hospital records. I know in your past history regarding the taking of blood, but basically here I was looking at the reading and I’m going to be introducing the serum conversion chart that shows a 176 would be a .15 and that would well be above the consumption of a person being under the influence.

Attorney Wagner: And that’s my point Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a problem with the conversion chart, it’s the creditability of what its taking indicates. The law is that there has to be proof that this is a blood alcohol from alcohol consumption and the laboratory at Brigham & Women’s can say yes we did those procedures or no we didn’t. But normal taking of blood in the hospital for emergency purposes does not qualify. It has to show that no swabs were used and it has to be a showing that the assessment was made because of the traumatic condition of the patient that the body doesn’t produce the alcohol itself and therefor in this case that is probably a pretty good suspicion. In fairness we would be entitled to that evidence because if you look at the evidence you have before you in this case. You have a gentleman here who was (hard to understand) the entire time, probably both drinking the same number of drinks, give or take one drink, maybe even 2 and yet that the reading is dramatically higher than what the police say were the observations of Mr. Clemons. So that leads you to believe is this a true blood alcohol exam or is this one that isn’t admitted for the purposes of some intoxication’s. If I were to know that they were going to introduce this, I would have brought down the toxicologist from Brigham & Women’s and that person would either say your dead wrong, meaning myself, or your dead right and we’ll bring down that person. I even called Ms. Sundman as I’m sure she could tell you, asked if we could put this over to a different date if there was going to be a toxicologist contest. We didn’t even know they had this. The Chief said he gave me the entire report. Well, this is part of their report and this is the first time I’ve seen it. I believe, without any question, that if he tells you I received this report that is just not true. This is the first time I have seen this piece of evidence and if I had seen it this morning, I would have summoned down a toxicologist at Brigham & Women’s or at least called him or her and said is this blood alcohol reading or is this a medical blood alcohol reading which is a combination of swabs dramatic production of alcohol and alcohol consumption.

Chief Ford: I would just like to say that we brought into evidence that they were going to be the same, but they weren’t. As explained in Sergeant McGonagle’s testimony that he was drinking beers and a shot. The other person was just drinking beer. Beer and shots are a big difference between just a beer. This is an administrative hearing. Its the fact that he was brought to a qualifying hospital that you wouldn’t want to get alcohol on the swab, you just have to get the alcohol from the blood because they are going to be treating this individual with medication. I would say this is done all the time. I would say look at it the way you want after you hear the testimony.

Attorney Wagner: I would very simply say to you that we are entitled to bring a toxicologist to a meeting at a later date to explain. What the good Chief just said is not correct. What the good Chief said, his job is to see that justice is done also. He knows full well that in court that the distinction is made that in more than 90% that the hospitals takings in blood, they don’t take it for the purpose, they take it for emergency purpose and medical reasons trying to save some blood. If there’s anything left for a toxicology or intoxication there is a different procedure that they have to follow and we don’t know if they followed that or if they didn’t follow that. And the Chief knows that and his good prosecutor, if she has any knowledge should know that. It’s very simple. It’s not a mystery to anybody.

Chief Ford: The weight goes to the bartender, basically (hard to understand) he had served him. Testimony has already been presented and further evidence is from the Sergeants investigation and we’ll hear another side from other witnesses.

Attorney Wagner: Your job is to collect on the evidence for this Board like hopefully I’m doing. The gentleman who testified, Mr. Clemons is basically each others company for the evening. They were coming and going but they were playing pool the whole time and he said they had between 2 – 3 drinks and under Selectman LaFarge’s impression, maybe one or two more and the observations from that gentleman where that, very simply, that the police decided he didn’t have anything that goes to the level that he had been drinking. How much did he drink? That’s inconsistent with the person who reaches that type of reading on the transfer scale. I don’t have any problems with this being introduced, so long as the Board gives me the opportunity to bring a toxicologist down to explain what is a real reading issue and which is not.

Chairman Tirrell: Well, based on the time that it is now and how long you guys have been going, and we will stay and we will hear until we have heard all that you have to present and all we can to make a full judgement here. But we are humans and we are getting, well suggesting that we may have to have another session to complete this hearing. Chief, be brief and move on to the point of toxicology reading and then move on to more substance.

Chief Ford: OK, we are going to pass on the toxicology reading. Suggest that we take back that application.

Attorney Wagner: It’s been provided as an exhibit provided that I have the opportunity to produce a toxicologist.

Chairman Tirrell: Marking Brigham & Women’s Clinical Laboratories Report as item D

Chief Ford: Martha, this will refer to the last exhibit. You came in with the Office of Alcoholic Testing regulations?

Sergeant McGonagle: Yes

Chief Ford: I’m going to submit this to the Board. This is what 176 would represent if taken properly.

Chairman Tirrell: Receipt by identification, Toxicology Report and labeled Exhibit E

Sergeant McGonagle: 176 converts over to 0.15

Chief Ford: Sergeant McGonagle, is there anything else that you want to tell the Board in regards to your investigation?

Sergeant McGonagle: The only thing that I would like to tell them, is that when we spoke with Officer Brito and we were talking about how much people come down and there was a chart presented. There were several different formulas issued by several different people on how they come down. If you read the bottom of that chart, it says a person could come down .41 every 40 minutes and going on .01 every 40 minutes placing her back to midnight makes her a .14 going by the Blood Alcohol Estimation Chart from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They suggest 2 different numbers to come down depending if you are a moderate drinker or a heavy drinker. Moderate drinkers come down .017 per hour and heavy drinkers come down .02 per hour and usually most formulas, she would have to be a minimum of a .11 to a maximum of a .14 on the chart.

Attorney Wagner: Just a quick question. OK, I understand that you got all these people in here and probably lost patience at this point

Chairman Tirrell: No, please sir, don’t patronize us. We haven’t lost patience.

Attorney Wagner: You’ve been very patient.

Chairman Tirrell: We are just human beings.

Attorney Wagner: Sergeant McGonagle, Did Ms. O’Neil reveal to you that she was on any medication?

Sergeant McGonagle: She did not and my understanding of that is

Attorney Wagner: Please, just answer the question.

Sergeant McGonagle: She did not. She did not tell me that she was on any medication.

Attorney Wagner: When you referenced Police Officer Savoili, Falmouth Police Department that he was a patron, did you determine whether or not he was an employee of that establishment at any point and time as well as a patron?

Sergeant McGonagle: I actually asked him if he worked there and he said he did not.

Attorney Wagner: So, was he was a patron their watching the Red Sox?

Sergeant McGonagle: That’s what he informed me.

Attorney Wagner: Did you ask him about the extent of his training was making observations of people in determining whether they were intoxicated or not?

Sergeant McGonagle: Not at all because he told me he had no interaction with them and no conversation with them other than lifting the female off the male.

Attorney Wagner: Well, he indicated to you that he was there when she asked to use the ladies room because he overheard that conversation. Did he not? Am I reading your report correct?

Sergeant McGonagle: He said he heard it but he had no conversation with her.

Attorney Wagner: But he lifted her off, he lifted her off Mr. Gosson, the person on top. Correct?

Sergeant McGonagle: He lifted her off, that was the extent of his involvement.

Attorney Wagner: Did he pry, did he leave the room or did he stay there in order to hear her ask to use the ladies room prior to going outside?

Sergeant McGonagle: I didn’t ask him where he went. I asked him if he had any interaction or conversation with him or her.

Attorney Wagner: It was obvious that he did. He lifted her up off Mr. Gosson according to your report and he overheard the conversation when she asked to go to the bathroom instead of following the command to leave the establishment after the fight. Is that not true?

Sergeant McGonagle: Yes, it did happen.

Attorney Wagner: And he also told you that he thought that both males have been hitting on the young lady over that evening which lead to the fight that was a complaint. Did you ask him why he was making that statement to you if you weren’t making any observations of him?

Sergeant McGonagle: He said he heard Gosson saying that she was going from guy to guy.

Attorney Wagner: And then he said that he also heard a conversation that Mr. Gosson apparently asked the bartender, where he didn’t have any money or where he was short of money and wanted to know how much the drinks were going to cost. That was the time that he was making observations also. Was he not?

Sergeant McGonagle: He did hear that.

Attorney Wagner: Did you ask him whether that conversation was early on in the evening or late in the evening.

Sergeant McGonagle: No, I did not.

Attorney Wagner: And did you ask him if he observed the parties when he closed down the establishment or if he was still in the parking lot when he left?

Sergeant McGonagle: I believe he volunteered that (hard to understand) He saw a vehicle in the parking lot that he hasn’t seen and it had people in it.

Attorney Wagner: He did tell you that in his opinion they didn’t observe anyone that bad injuries and he didn’t consider the injuries sufficient to contact anyone. Correct?

Sergeant McGonagle: That’s correct.

Attorney Wagner: And that in his opinion none of the three were intoxicated? Or none of the three were in need of any services when he left. Did you ask him how he formed those opinions?

Sergeant McGonagle: He said he had no interaction with them and no conversation with them so I did not put any weight into anything he said if he did not speak with these people himself.

Attorney Wagner: But he told you, and I read in one of your paragraphs, his observations were unfound. Now lets go to meeting with the bartender. The bartender told you who they were and that they were playing pool and a fight ensued.

Sergeant McGonagle: No, he said he thought that he went to the back room and he followed him.

Attorney Wagner: And when he went to the back room, Savioli already lifted Ms. O’Neil off Mr. Gosson.

Sergeant McGonagle: Well, at first he told me that he saw him do that then he told me that he didn’t actually see him do that but was told that.

Attorney Wagner: Did you determine if any of the parties used charge cards that night for charges for the drinks that they have been drinking?

Sergeant McGonagle: No

Attorney Wagner: Did you ask them how they paid for their drinks?

Sergeant McGonagle: I did ask Mr. Clemons and asked Mary O’Neil.

Attorney Wagner: Did you find it at all unusual that Mr. Gosson was intoxicated and that his compadrade, who he rode with and that he had accompanied him most of the time was found not intoxicated?

Sergeant McGonagle: Not at all.

Attorney Wagner: Certainly, Mr. Clemens told you 2-3 drinks.

Sergeant McGonagle: Actually, he told me 5.

Attorney Wagner: Well, according to his testimony here tonight that he recanted, that did he not.

Sergeant McGonagle: I don’t know if he recanted it, he saw him consume at least 3 and may have had more because he wasn’t following him around. He told me when I interviewed him that he had at least 5 beers.

Attorney Wagner: Did you ask Mr. Clemons or Ms. O’Neil how much time transpired from the time they were told to leave the bar to the time the police arrived and when Mr. Gosson was struck out on MacArthur Blvd?

Sergeant McGonagle: They told me about approximately 15 minutes.

Attorney Wagner: Did you confirm that?

Sergeant McGonagle: It was stated that they were thrown out, that they argued in the parking lot for 2 – 5 minutes and that they within 10 minutes after that they saw the cruisers and fire trucks on the street.

Attorney Wagner: So they were outside for about 15 minutes. Correct?

Sergeant McGonagle: Correct.

Attorney Wagner: And observations were made shortly after that by the officers. Correct?

Sergeant McGonagle: Correct

Attorney Wagner: So its fair to say that whatever level of intoxication he had when he left, observations have been made of him personally within a matter of 15 – 20 minutes from when he was last inside Smitty’s.

Sergeant McGonagle: Correct.

Attorney Wagner: And no observations could obviously be made of Mr. Gosson because he had been struck by motor vehicle.

Sergeant McGonagle: Correct.

Attorney Wagner: And at least for a period of time, in regards to Ms. O’Neil, no observations had been made to put her into protective custody for a considerable amount of time because she was told to go back and stand behind the cruisers and then another spot. According to the State Trooper it was considerable period of time before he decided to take her into protective custody and back to the barracks.

Sergeant McGonagle: I think it was 3. When Officer Lanoie watched her closely and formed an opinion until 12:25 that she was intoxicated.

Attorney Wagner: but he didn’t take her in for that.

Sergeant McGonagle: He did not because he thought it was more important that the Trooper be allowed to interview her as a witness. He made arrangements with Mr. Clemons that Mr. Clemons not allow her to leave, that he would watch her and that he would later drive her home after the Trooper had a chance to interview the 2 of them. He knew that he was going to have to be staying because it was his friend that was involved in the accident. The Trooper was tied up for a period of time but she was not left alone and she still intoxicated when the Trooper came back and at that point she was refusing to take the ride home and wanted to drive herself. Trooper was forced to put her into protective custody.

Attorney Wagner: When the Trooper came back, according to the police report, and he decided to place her into protective custody, it was less than 20 minutes since she took the breathalyzer and gives a reading of .06.

Sergeant McGonagle: She was put into protective custody at 2:40 A.M. and didn’t give her the breathalyzer until 3:40.

Attorney Wagner: You read the report and the transportation time is about 20 minutes from (hard to understand) Lets assume the hour – your saying she was intoxicated at 2:40 A.M. and gave a reading of .206 at 3:40 A.M. one hour later. Is that what you are saying? You don’t think that is consistant do you?

Sergeant McGonagle: I don’t understand the question.

Attorney Wagner: Nothing further

Chairman Tirrell: Members of the Board questions for Sergeant McGonagle.

Selectman Barlow: My question is to the report that you wrote on page2.

Sergeant McGonagle: There are several page 2’s.

Selectman Barlow: I believe it starts with Matthew Clemons saying in the time he has known him, that he has rarely seen him that drunk and as you go through that there is a statement (hard to understand) that Mr. Gosson had at least 5 beers and he thought both Gosson and O’Neil were pretty intoxicated. He wasn’t sure how much he had to drink but he knew he had at least 2 while playing pool in which Gosson purchased them. Then he says he thought their intoxication is why he were behaving the way they were. Can you please testify that the comment you put in there is accurate (hard to understand).

Sergeant McGonagle: That is what Mr. Clemons told me during the initial interview. I just hope (hard to understand) That was the very first interview and that is what he told me.

Chairman Tirrell: Any further questions

Attorney Wagner: I don’t want to take up a lot of your time and I know you have a lot of business, but as you are aware I placed a call with Nancy Sundman and in light of her indications, I appear here with the understanding that there wasn’t a toxicology issue. I will be asking you for time to present that person in the flesh and I made her aware almost 2 weeks ago that if this is going to be an issue we could have someone here. I was going to have the Falmouth Police Officer here but we had a conflict and I don’t know what the conflict was whether its work or not work related. So we would be looking for another period of time to present those 2 people. If you want us to present our entire defense at that time, we can do that. The toxocologist as you are well aware is expensive to bring someone here. If I had this toxicology report, even yesterday, I would have tried to get you an answer so I can probably get it you without anything else but because to put it to us without (hard to understand) so it is somewhat a surprise this evening to receive it.

Chief Ford: If you look at the top, it was faxed to me on the 13^th so I didn’t have it at the time available as the other information. If it pleases the Selectmen, I don’t know if you need any more than what you have but we can pass on the test in bringing in an expert to testify on the blood alcohol. I think there was enough testimony given tonight. The witness, the Falmouth Police Officer who was going to testify will expedite (hard to understand)

Attorney Wagner: Chief, I don’t want to mislead you and it’s not my style but #1 as courtesy I’m sentenced to opposing counsel 1 hour before hearing if you were seated on my court. It’s not a criticism but a fact. With regards to the toxicologist, if I wouldn’t mind not bringing him here, but unless I’m missing a plane somewhere, that is whole issue about this case whether or not someone was intoxicated was served alcohol beverages. The issue, toxicology and under the influence are dramatically different. The statue, as they have to address speaks to the word of intoxicated and not under the influence. Your proof has to be intoxication. If you fail to show that the party was intoxicated but only under the influence, you can’t prevail because of the reading in section in the statue and I’ll be happy to use it. It requires you to prove that the person served was intoxicated. Under Ch 158 Sec 69 says no alcoholic beverage shall be sold on any premises licensed under this Chapter to an intoxicated person. I’ll be happy to present you a brief of cases and cases that applies to the Selectmen, Mayors and Licensing Board and not just the courts that intoxicated persons is entirely different standards than under the influence. If your intoxication asks to introduced a particular woman, the toxicologist says it can’t be used because it was not appropriate taking of the blood sample for intoxication purposes. You don’t have a single bit of evidence in this case other than under the influence.

Chief Ford: I see it a little bit different that the fact that you have the friend that was with him and the testimony that they drank, the Troopers response in the parking lot, Officer Lanoie’s response and you put it all together and I think even without the toxocology report, you have a person that was drinking and our contention is that they shouldn’t have been served the liquor. Look at the sale to an intoxicated persons under MGL Ch138 Sec. 69. In the book that you receive no alcoholic beverages to be sold or delivered to an intoxicated person on the licensed premise. It does not matter whether that person is driving.20% of all alcohol related accidents involved and the licensee should have clear policy known to all staff on offering assistance to an intoxicated person who under what circumstances notify the police.

Attorney Wagner: We don’t dispute that. The good trooper testified to exactly what the law is. The difference between intoxicated person and under the influence is 0.06 or even 0.08 in not an intoxicated person under the law.

Selectman LaFarge: The definition of intoxication for liquor violations, personally, I don’t think the Board is going to distract and I don’t want to get my (hard to understand) with the State Trooper. If this is right, this guy was dead falling down drunk and was being served. If that is the case then that deserves a pretty severe penalty. If you are suggesting that you are going to get any toxicologist rather than the toxicologist I don’t know where it’s going.

Attorney Wagner: I will bring or hope to bring the toxicologist from Brigham & Women’s hospital because that would be the person to bring. I would hate to differ with you my good Selectmen, but your dead wrong if you think there is no distinction between an intoxicated person and under the influence. I don’t wish to argue with you on that. I don’t want any finger pointing from you.

Selectman LaFarge: I’m not pointing my finger at you

Attorney Wagner: Or anywhere else

Selectman LaFarge: Let me finish this. I would like to see a brief demonstrating that you are right. My gut tells me your wrong. I may suggest to the Board that we give Mr. Wagner the opportunity to rebut that or not.

Chairman Tirrell: I tend to agree.

Selectman Zuern: If you can give it to us in writing instead of having to bring somebody down in person. I think if we close the hearing

Chairman Tirrell: I think we need to swear a witness and identify the lab report and have that witness speak from the lab report that relevant to this case. I don’t think we can get around that. The Chief brought it up and I think your right.

Selectman LaFarge: It’s a point we need help with if Mr. Wagner is correct of the law and the definition of the situation applies to this case. If that is true

Attorney Wagner: I have been involved with the same issues many, many times. I will give you that brief. I will get you that brief ahead the next meeting when I produce the live witness. I would just ask that you might allow time to introduce my other witness and we can do the officer at the next hearing and that will be it. Testimony will be very limited with the toxicologist and the gentlemen, Mr. Savioli who is not here. I intended to put the bartender on tonight but I know there are a lot of people waiting.

Chairman Tirrell: Don’t worry about the other people. We just want to get this done right.

Selectman Barlow made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to continue liquor hearing violation to boards regular meeting on September 16, 2003 at 8:30 P.M. Vote: 4-0

Selectman Tirrell read legal notice into record and certified cards were submitted.

Attorney Robert Mills represented Erik Bevans

Mr. Bevans has been manager at the Beach Club for 6 years. Former stockholders have agreed to sell their stock to Mr. Bevans. The d/b/a (Doing Business As) has formerly been changed from The Beach Club to Mashnee Island Grill.

Officers and Directors have been changed.

Mr. Bevans will be the sole stockholder, sole officer and director of the corporation.

Dan Maneikis, 87 Mashnee Road, Bourne has concerns with people tearing out of the club and is afraid of somebody getting hurt.

Mr. Bevans said he is aware of more traffic then in years past. Have discussed cutting back shrubbery along the exit way. Installing a gate with attendant to slow traffic down has also been discussed with the chairman of the Association.

Selectman Barlow made MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to approved the transfer and related actions as listed in application notice. Vote: 4-0

Nancy Angus made a presentation on a parcel of land known as Sagamore Highlands consisting of approximately 15 acres to be used as open space. Land to be retained in perpetuity.

Selectman Zuern made a MOTION and SECONDED Selectman LaFarge that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the revised version of the Conservation Restriction. Vote: 4-0

Proposed Sagamore Fire Station

Chief Klueber said this is continuation from last Selectmen’s meeting held on July 29th with options 1, 2 & 3. There is another piece of property that the town owns on Meetinghouse Lane. Asked Earth Tech to site station on that lot to see which would work better.

Mr. Kelly from Earth Tech showed plans of options 3 & 4 and described each option along with their advantages and disadvantages.

Free Site, separation of community room and fire station, separate public and fire vehicle access, extensive landscaped area, flat drive, 18 community room parking spots on site, adjacent to park & ride lot, sidewalks and pedestrian signal, allows for fire vehicles to back in without stopping State Road traffic, storm water conveyed to adjacent detention pond

5% sidewalk, public drive access location (right turn in/out), U-turn @ lights on Scenic Highway allowed, no direct access to Scenic Highway eastbound, requires setback variances, limited parking available, requires special permit on parking

23% larger site (1.31 acres vs 1.06), better lot configuration, less variances/special permits required, more on-site parking possible, good expansion possibilities, southern exposure for the bay doors, less surrounding traffic and noise than State Road location

On-site detention required, additional excavation required, increase in construction money, new abutters affected, closer to residential neighborhood than State Road location, loose a free site to build on, need to stop traffic on Meetinghouse to back in, additional traffic signal needed on Meetinghouse Lane, portion of town road (Cape View Road) requires construction, impact to schedule

Chief Klueber said functionally, either site works. It fits equipment that it needs and parking spaces and southern exposure are a bonus. Don’t want to see the size of the building cut down on option 4.

Discussion followed on which would be a better option for the proposed fire station. Hamilton Whiting, James Mulvey and Charles Miller voiced their opinions.

Selectman Tirrell will abstained from vote. He is employed by a company that would be impacted by any of the proposed layouts.

Selectman Barlow made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to select and recommend option 4. Vote: 3 yeas – 1 abstain

Bourne Recreation Authority members Curt Duane and Paul Forsberg were present. Read letter from State Ethics stating that it is permissible and lawful for Mr. Johnson to work and be paid for on a part-time basis for the Bourne Recreation Authority in addition to his duties as part-time clerk. While waiting receipt from the State Ethics Commission opinion, Mr. Johnson has not been compensated for his work at the Authority since becoming elected Town Clerk.

Selectman Barlow made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to approve the request to allow compensation for Mr. Johnson. Vote: 4-0

Mr. Gibson had submitted a letter to Selectmen requesting lighting at the Monument Beach field. Selectman Tirrell read letter submitted by Recreation Director Krissanne Caron who stated that the Recreation Committee wasn’t able to hear proposal to make recommendation at their last meeting. She feels confident that at the next Recreation Committee meeting will support the project.

Mr. Gibson, speaking on behalf of Bourne Youth Baseball, would like lights installed at the field on Shore Road, Monument Beach. There will be no cost to the town. Funds raised independently. Labor and parts will be donated. Bourne Youth Baseball will pay for maintenance and bills for running the lights.

Lights will go on main breaker, which need to be turned on and off manually. If there are any concerns with neighbors due to lights, lights will be turned off earlier. Normally lights will be turned out at 10:00 P.M.. Games are played from April – after July 4^th.

Selectman Barlow said he is grateful for Mr. Gibson taking on this project. Suggest the Board gets in writing that Bourne Youth Baseball will maintain the lights. Town Administrator to write memorandum of agreement. Copy of agreement will be given to Mike Leitzel and Rickie Tellier as well as the as-built plan that Mr. Gibson will be providing.

Charles Miller said he does not object to the lights but noise does travel at night and would suggest that lights should be shut off at 10:00 P.M.

Selectman Barlow made MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to approve the request contingent upon the approval of the Bourne Recreation Committee and that lights are off at 10:00 P.M. Vote: 4-0

Town Administrator said we need to have Special Town Meeting to set tax rate later this fall and there are a number of financial issues that needs to be addressed. State aid turned out quite differently and to our advantage, major changes to regional school budget that adjustments need to be made because the Governors plan didn’t go through and hopeful that there will be collective bargaining agreements and articles that Board members have submitted. Proposing to hold a Special Town meeting on Monday, October 20^th and suggest the Board vote to call meeting for that date and to close warrant on Friday, August 29th at the end of the business day.

Selectman Barlow made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to call a Special Town Meeting on October 20, 2003 and to open the warrant today with this vote and close warrant at the close at end of business at Town Hall on Friday, August 29, 2003. VOTE 4-0

There is 3 Board of Director positions that are appointed by the Selectmen, 2 appointments have already been made and the Board did not act on Mr. Harding.

Opinion from Town Counsel says that this appointment is not a Town Office as the term is intended by the Bylaw. There is no impediment to a member of the Finance Committee being appointed or re-appointed to the Bourne Financial Development Corp.

Selectman LaFarge said he disagrees with Bob Troy’s opinion and stated his reasons why.

Selectman Barlow made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to appoint John Harding to the Bourne Financial Development Corp.

Selectman Barlow made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Zuern to appoint David Wiggin as the Shore & Harbor Representative to the Selectmen’s Task Force on Local Pollution. VOTE 4-0

Selectman Barlow made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman LaFarge to appoint Michele Ford, Virginia Anderson and William Locke to the Economic Development Task Force. VOTE 4-0

Mr. Locke said the Task Force need direction from the Board of Selectmen and what accomplishments they expect from the Task Force.

Currently there are only 3 members with 8 vacancies. Need to look into possibly amending membership.

Selectman Zuern made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman LaFarge to approve Junk Dealers License to Rosa L. Mitchke d/b/a Sagamore Mercantile. VOTE 4-0

Selectman Barlow attended School Building School Committee and organized.

Selectman Lafarge: No report

Selectman Tirrell: No report

Selectman Zuern attended Pollution Task Force meeting. Will serve as Selectman’s representative on Pollution Task Force if nobody else wants appointment.

Town Administrator’s reported on Open Space and Recreation Plan is scheduled for updating. Open Space Committee will get input from Recreation Committee, Recreation Director Town Planner and Conservation Commission for updating plan.

Selectman LaFarge made a MOTION and SECONDED by Selectman Barlow to approve deligating of this task to the Open Space Committee. VOTE 4-0

Jim Mulvey spoke on the lease of MMR

Adjourned 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Debbie Judge

Secretary