The case of Christopher Keefe vs. Gregory Neffinger is now in the hands of the jury, which must decide if the former West Springfield mayor wrongly terminated Keefe, who is seeking financial damages for lost wages.
SPRINGFIELD — It's now up to the jury in the case of Gregory C. Neffinger, the former West Springfield mayor on trial for allegedly wrongfully terminating an employee, to judge the credibility of Neffinger and Christopher Keefe, the former employee, to determine which man is telling the truth.
On multiple occasions during the Hampden Superior Court trial, which began Friday and concluded Wednesday with closing arguments, both men gave testimony that contradicted what the other said during the civil trial.
Keefe, West Springfield's former principal assessor, is seeking damages in a lawsuit against the town, claiming the mayor fired him for refusing to circumvent a Department of Revenue determination that nonprofit social clubs were not tax-exempt charities. Neffinger says he only asked Keefe to check if the clubs,none of which had previously paid property taxes, were eligible for some form of tax relief.
Keefe and fellow town assessor Kathleen Cooley said they refused to break the law, testifying that Neffinger had a meltdown during a meeting with them about the topic in February 2012. The next day, Keefe was terminated, issued a no-trespassing order and escorted from town property by a police officer. He is seeking over $192,000 in financial damages — the estimated value of the public pension he would have been entitled to if he had not been fired in "violation of public policy," he claims.
In closing arguments Wednesday, Patricia M. Rapinchuk, the attorney representing Neffinger and the town, acknowledged that testimony during the trial was so far apart at times, it will be up to the jury to determine the truth. The undisputed facts in the case, however, are that Keefe was an at-will employee who served at Neffinger's pleasure and the mayor decided to fire him, Rapinchuk told jurors.
"Credibility is an issue in this case," she said. "You cannot get around that."
In 2011, Neffinger campaigned on a platform of lowering taxes, including looking out for nonprofit social clubs that traditionally had not been required to pay property taxes. Keefe issued tax bills to four clubs before Neffinger took office in January 2012.
"The social clubs were going to be taxed for the first time in their history," Rapinchuk said. "(Neffinger) didn't want to see them ... get taxed out of town."
Neffiner repeatedly testified that he was looking for a team to work with to "accomplish some of the goals he had put forth in his campaign," Rapinchuk said. But Neffinger quickly developed a bad feeling about Keefe, whom he found to be "evasive," "cold" and "bureaucratic," Rapinchuk said.
Cooley, meanwhile, was a Democrat who supported Neffinger's Democratic opponent in the mayor's race, Rapinchuk said. Neffinger, a Republican, issued a campaign press release in October 2011, stating his support for social clubs and the possibility of tax breaks to help them remain viable.
Keefe and Cooley issued their own press release in response to Neffinger's release, stating that Neffinger was intent on violating state laws for "personal political gain." Not only was it unusual for an assessor to send out a press release, Rapinchuk said, but Keefe "took a political potshot" at Neffinger. "Mr. Keefe was inserting himself into the political arena," she said.
Neffinger won the mayor's race in November 2011 and took office in early January 2012. However, Keefe had a negative view of Neffinger before he had even met the new mayor, Rapinchuk said. She cited emails in which Keefe said he expected to get fired, even though Neffinger had never expressed any desire to replace Keefe.
"Mr. Keefe is already anticipating some kind of conflict here that may be of his own creation," the attorney told the jury.
Rapinchuk focused on the minutes from a Feb. 7, 2012, meeting that Neffinger had with Keefe and Cooley, during which Neffinger admitted to losing composure and shouting at Keefe. The mayor also admitted to using foul language and apologized to Keefe and Cooley afterward, according to Rapinchuk. Neffinger fired Keefe the very next day, claiming Keefe was not a team player.
The lengthy minutes from the contentious meeting were submitted after Keefe's termination and were not an accurate reflection of the session, Neffinger testified during the trial. "This is a document designed to make Mr. Neffinger look bad," Rapinchuk said of the minutes, which were submitted as evidence in the trial. "What were the motivations of the parties here?" she asked.
Keefe had a "chip on his shoulder" and an "adversarial approach to Mr. Neffinger" before the mayor even took office, Rapinchuk said. "It's almost like he didn't want the social clubs to have their hearings or to have their voices heard, she said.
Neffinger also never asked Keefe and Cooley to violate the law, but rather asked the assessors to treat the social clubs fairly. "He wanted them to to get a fair shake," Rapinchuk said.
Keefe's attorney, Tani E. Sapirstein, quickly got to the point in her closing arguments, laying out a scenario in which a political neophyte came to power and summarily got rid of two career assessors — Keefe and Cooley — who, collectively, had close to two decades of experience in the field. Cooley, a member of the Board of Assessors for about a dozen years, was removed by Neffinger. Keefe, a career real estate assessor, formerly worked for the DOR.
Sapirstein also focused on the February meeting minutes, which Neffinger initially referred to as "a total fabrication" before changing his testimony and admitting he had exaggerated. Keefe and Cooley submitted the minutes from the meeting because Neffinger had asked them to "violate the law, to circumvent the law," Sapirstein said.
Neffinger accused Keefe of being evasive and of providing incomplete or inaccurate answers to his questions about tax rules for social clubs. However, Neffinger was unable to offer a single example of Keefe's alleged evasiveness, Sapirstein told the jury.
Neffinger also testified that it was his understanding that assessors had "very wide discretion" in determining which properties to tax, and that DOR guidelines were not binding. DOR guidelines "are, in fact, binding on assessors," Sapirstein said, adding that assessors cannot ignore rules and opinions established by the state agency.
Although Keefe said he left his public-sector job at DOR ahead of anticipated cuts, he specifically applied for the West Springfield position because he wanted to continue working toward a pension after paying into a public retirement plan for several years.
"He only had two years and four months left before he was vested," Sapirstein said.
After Neffinger fired Keefe, Sapirstein said, her client was unemployed for about six months and lost around $30,000 in wages and $9,000 in vacation time.
"Mr. Keefe was fired for refusing to follow the mayor's law," Sapirstein said, "and for following the law of the commonwealth."