First Selectman Michael Freda said at a Feb. 25 special Board of Selectmen’s meeting that a concluding decision will be made at the March 4 selectman meeting regarding former town engineer-two Bob Burns.

One option appears to be bringing Burns back.

After the selectmen conferred with new town attorney William Ryan for an hour-and-a-half in an executive session, Freda said that a topic discussed was “the restoration of the engineer-two position.” However, Freda cautioned that the selectman and Ryan were exploring all their options in handling the Burns case.

“We are weighing various options,” Freda said after the meeting. “It is not my intention to prolong this. At the March 4 Board of Selectmen meeting we will be finalizing a conclusion on this.”

Freda and Ryan declined to comment on the particulars of any of the options, citing legal reasons.

Burns’ town engineer-two position was eliminated with the passing of the 2009-10 town budget on March 18 by the Board of Finance, which also voted against restoring the position on April 15. Burns’ petition for a special town meeting to vote on the reinstallation of his position was denied by the Board of Selectman on May 4, even though it contained signatures of 20 town residents qualified to vote. Former First Selectman Janet McCarty and then-second selectman Steve Fontana voted against Burns, while then–third selectman Freda was in favor of recognizing the petition.

In response, Burns’s attorney Chip Walsh, of Licari, Walsh, and Sklaver, New Haven, filed for a writ of mandamus to request that a higher court overrule the May 4 decision. Former town attorney Richard Parrett’s attempt to quash the application for mandamus was denied by New Haven judge Robert Berdon on Sept. 30, pushing the case toward a potential trial.

The date of a potential trial was delayed after Freda replaced McCarty as First Selectman, and after William Ryan replaced attorney Parrett. The Feb. 25 special meeting was called for the new Board of Selectman to discuss the case’s future with Ryan.

Freda said on Feb. 25 that helping to influence the board and Ryan’s decision will be the Connecticut Supreme Court Case Morris v. Congdon (2006), as well as judge Berdon’s Sept. 30 ruling.

In Morris v. Congdon, the town of Preston was granted the right to hold a town meeting to vote on the removal of a town position. Attorney Parrett, in defending the town against Burns, had argued that Burns’ petitioned meeting was not for a “legitimate and proper purpose,” and therefore could be denied. Citing Morris v. Congdon (2006), Judge Berdon wrote in his Sept. 30 ruling, “it is obvious that the appointment of Engineer II is such a [legitimate and proper] purpose.”

Judge Berdon, in writing his memorandum of decision in favor of Burns, also consulted Connecticut General Statute 7-1 as well as Connecticut Supreme Court Case Lyon v. Rice (1874). Connecticut General Statute 7-1 states that “the selectman… shall warn a special town meeting on application of 20 inhabitants qualified to vote on town meetings.” In connection, Judge Berdon utilized Lyon v. Rice as precedent. The 19th century ruling found that “as long as the requested meeting is for ‘any legitimate and proper purpose’, the selectmen must warn the meeting and have no discretion to refuse it.”

Additionally, Judge Berdon ruled that the Connecticut General Statutes mandate Boards of Selectmen to warn special town meetings if a petition is filed with at least 20 signatures from town citizens qualified to vote. Judge Berdon also ruled that while Burns could have filed a union grievance, “it is insufficient reason to summarily grant this motion to quash without a full hearing on this writ of mandamus.”

Following Judge Berdon’s Sept. 30 ruling that the case warranted a court hearing, Attorney Parrett filed an answer and special defense on Oct. 30, outlining five specific defenses against the assertions of Attorney Walsh. Attorney Parrett’s defenses argued that Burns’ claims against North Haven are barred by the North Haven Town Charter and Connecticut General Statutes, that Burns lacks the legal right to prompt the Board of Selectmen to warn the meeting, that restoring the engineer-two position to the budget cannot be done without Board of Finance approval, and that Burns failed to exhaust alternative grievance procedures through the town’s union.

On Nov. 10, Attorney Walsh filed a motion to strike four of the five special defenses, targeting all but the grievance defense. In the motion, Attorney Walsh claims that besides the grievance defense, the special defenses “have previously been ruled upon by Judge Robert I. Berdon, and are barred by the law of the case doctrine.”