WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Select Board on Tuesday morning issued a statement calling allegations in a federal lawsuit against the town "disheartening" and committing to "prioritize our efforts to be transparent on these issues."

 

The board met Monday for more than three hours in executive session in a virtual meeting attended by the outside counsel retained to represent Williamstown in an action brought by Sgt. Scott McGowan, an 18-year veteran of the town police whose filing alleges racism, sexual assault and gender discrimination — in particular by the chief of police, who is named as a defendant in the suit.

 

McGowan's suit, which also identifies Town Manager Jason Hoch, Chief Kyle Johnson's supervisor, as a defendant, makes a claims of discrimination and retaliation against a whistle-blower.

 

"Like the rest of our community, the Select Board of Williamstown is very disturbed by the allegations made by Sergeant McGowan of racism, sexual discrimination, and assault in the Williamstown Police Department," the two-paragraph statement begins.

 

The statement adds that the town previously has disputed allegations cited by McGowan in support of his claim, and the Select Board said it is working to put more evidence in front of town residents.

 

"We note that the allegations made in Sergeant McGowan's complaint were previously disputed by the Town in prior proceedings, which required a detailed analysis of the facts and allegations made," the statement reads. "We are working with counsel to provide as much of that analysis as allowable, given that some of the information may have to be redacted for privacy concerns. We believe the community should see the facts developed so far, and will prioritize our efforts to be transparent on these issues."

 

On Tuesday morning, Select Board Chair Jane Patton said the board may end up releasing redacted portions of testimony before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, some of which was quoted by McGowan in his court filing.

 

"We want to be super-transparent, but we need to balance that against being mindful and respectful of the other officers [named in the testimony] and even the complainant," Patton said. "There may be things [McGowan] may not want fully public."

 

The second paragraph of the statement talks about the Select Board's creation this summer of a committee to address issues of inclusion and equity in the town. But it stopped short of taking a step the new committee, the Diversity, Inclusion, Race and Equity Committee, sought in a resolution at its meeting held concurrently with the Select Board's closed-door session on Monday.

 

The DIRE Committee called on the town to commission an independent, third-party study of the allegations that are cited in McGowan's lawsuit and to consult the DIRE Committee in the selection of that investigator.

 

The president of Williams College also Monday sent the Select Board a letter asking it to "commission a prompt, full and impartial investigation."

 

The Select Board's statement makes no reference to such an investigation.

 

On Tuesday morning, Patton confirmed that the town was advised by its counsel, Springfield's Robinson Donovan, that any product of such an investigation, including interim reports, would be subject to discovery in the ongoing court case.

 

"It's not to say that we think anything that comes out would help the plaintiff's side," Patton said. "But that is the ongoing caution by the insurance company and the counsel."

 

Patton, who serves on the DIRE Committee as a representative of the Select Board, needed to attend Monday's special executive session of the Select Board and could not participate in the DIRE Committee's proceedings. She was not part of a 7-0 vote by the nine-member DIRE panel that passed the body's resolution.

 

The DIRE Committee on Monday also called on the Select Board to consider whether to put some town employees on administrative leave while the allegations raised in the lawsuit are being investigated.

 

Patton said that Monday's Select Board executive session, which was called "to discuss strategy with respect to litigation," an allowable use of closed-door meetings under the Open Meeting Law, did not give the board the opportunity to broach the subject of administrative leaves.

 

She said the Select Board later this week likely would have another executive session under "purpose No. 1" of the 10 allowable uses under the Open Meeting Law.

 

Purpose 1 reads, in part, "To discuss the reputation, character, physical condition or mental health, rather than professional competence, of an individual, or to discuss the discipline or dismissal of, or complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual." Under that exception to the OML, the individual who is the subject of discussion has the right to be present and be represented by counsel.

 

Late Tuesday morning, that executive session of the Select Board was posted for 4 p.m. on Thursday.

 

Another issue that came up at Monday's DIRE Committee meeting: When did the Select Board become aware of the allegations raised in McGowan's lawsuit?

 

Tuesday morning's statement by the board said its members "recently learned of these allegations," and Patton declined to say whether the board knew of the allegations before McGowan's lawsuit was filed last Wednesday.

 

"I think we're going to, for now, leave it with 'recently,' " she said. "I understand [the question], but, for right now, recently."

 

Patton said the Select Board had no concrete plans to read its statement or make any other pronouncement at Tuesday evening's annual town meeting, but she did not rule out the possibility. In the meantime, she was sending the board's statement to everyone who had emailed the Select Board on the issue.

 

Patton, who was elected to the board in 2013 and is serving her second stint as chair, appeared at times in Tuesday's telephone interview to be struggling with what she wanted to say and what she could say based on the board's agreed upon statement.

 

"The real thing right now is: Yes, this is a disappointment, and the Select Board takes it as seriously as we've ever taken anything," she said. "But we have to be mindful that, so far, these are allegations. Nothing has been proven. Nothing has been adjudicated. As much as there may be a desire to have swift actions, there's a difference between allegations and conviction.

 

"We're trying to walk that line and be mindful to what the townspeople need and want, respecting that these are allegations."

 

The DIRE Committee on Monday agreed to meet on Wednesday to discuss whatever came out of Monday's Select Board meeting.

 

The full statement by the Select Board appears here:

 

"Like the rest of our community, the Select Board of Williamstown is very disturbed by the allegations made by Sergeant McGowan of racism, sexual discrimination, and assault in the Williamstown Police Department. Since we recently learned of these allegations, we have been working to understand the full story. We note that the allegations made in Sergeant McGowan's complaint were previously disputed by the Town in prior proceedings, which required a detailed analysis of the facts and allegations made. We are working with counsel to provide as much of that analysis as allowable, given that some of the information may have to be redacted for privacy concerns. We believe the community should see the facts developed so far, and will prioritize our efforts to be transparent on these issues.

 

"As the community knows, we have established the Diversity, Inclusion and Racial Equity Committee to initiate local conversations about these issues and to develop recommendations to prevent such behaviors. These claims are particularly disheartening as we take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that the Town's appointed officials and staff consistently work towards the highest standards of professionalism and behavior in the discharge of their duties. We are committed to undertaking a thorough review of the allegations and the responses by town personnel, in order to fully understand the facts, many of which are disputed, and to determine whether any additional administrative action is necessary."