Board of Selectmen Meeting, July 10, 2023

New privacy violation revealed. Displeasure over the town’s handling of many aspects of personnel management. Cash to continue to be accepted at Recycling Center.

About 25 people attended the meeting. All of the selectmen except Selectman Dabrio were present. 

Chairman Ben Bartlett began the meeting with a brief recap of recent events involving the Fire Department and a statement that the board will not discuss personnel issues with the public.

Fire Department Personnel Issues

The scheduled presentation and open comment periods of the meeting were almost entirely focused on complaints about the town’s mishandling of personnel matters.

During the period for public input, one person complained that the investigator’s report identified that the town’s former Town Administrator appears to have done nothing to oversee the Fire Department despite documented evidence that he had received indications that something was amiss. This was followed by loud applause from the audience.

Another person said the town needs a part-time Human Resources professional. 

Another asked what the board plans to do about the town’s chronic personnel problems. Chairman Bartlett replied that the board would not discuss personnel issues, upon which there were several angry shout-outs from the audience. One of the shout-outs pointed out that the question was about how the town is managed - not about any “personnel” issues. Following that there were additional, even angrier shout-outs.

Forty minutes of the meeting was devoted to a presentation from Jaye Vilchock - the son of the town’s former Fire Chief of the same name. Confusingly they do not use “Jr.” and “Sr.” to distinguish between them. In my prior article, I mistakenly inferred that it would be the former Chief presenting as his son is not a Nottingham resident. My policy in this blog is not to draw attention to the identity of private citizens - only elected officials and town employees with respect to doing their jobs. In this case it is unavoidable to make an exception to this policy. 

Jaye Vilchock Jr. read prepared comments as fast as he could - exceeding my ability to take notes. At several points he said he was cutting parts out due to the time limits being imposed upon him. When he was eventually cut off by Chairman Bartlett he said he’d be back in two weeks to continue.

He disparaged the town’s handling of the situation. He condemned the town for engaging in defamation of character. He noted that the former Chief earned only $11k/yr for his service to Nottingham. 

He disparaged the unequal treatment the former Chief and Lieutenant had received relative to the way the town had treated complaints about the former Director of Public Works - who was alleged to have assaulted an employee and was never subjected to any investigation - and complaints about the behavior of the staff of the Recycling Center, which were addressed in a completely different manner - if addressed at all.

He then gave a lengthy recitation of testimonials he had received vouching for his parents’ character.

At the twenty-minute mark Chairman Bartlett interrupted him to declare that his time was up. The next person on the agenda called out to say that he ceded his time to Vilchock. Bartlett assented to allowing Vilchock to continue.

Eventually, Vilchock changed the topic to flaws in the investigation conducted by Charla Stevens and the redacting of Charla Stevens’ report, many of which have been previously discussed but he added several new ones, the most shocking of which is that the name of one of the complainants was not only not numerically keyed to protect the identity of the witnesses but that it wasn’t even redacted. Vilchock said the report disclosed on page 18 the name of one of the six employees who complained to the board. Page 18 is the page I reported was missing from the copy I was provided.

[COMMENTARY: It turns out that when accessing this document on my desktop computer’s PDF reader page 18 will not display, but the page does display when viewed from my iPhone’s PDF reader. The page does indeed disclose the identity of an employee and details about that employee’s dispute with the Chief. I am withholding the name because this employee is not a member of management and is an innocent victim of the town’s failure to properly redact the document.]

Vilchock also claimed that Charla Stevens had failed to obtain from Foss Motors maintenance records on the utility truck that would have proven that the Chief had not knowingly forced an employee to drive the truck with unsafe brakes, contrary to Stevens’ conclusion.

Vilchock then referenced a publication by an expert investigator identifying the qualities of a proper investigation. He quoted several of these qualities and contrasted them with the attributes of Charla Stevens’ report, explaining how her investigation failed on these points. As Vilchock’s time was about up at this point he was speaking so rapidly that he was hard to follow. 

Vilchock then detailed the town’s failure to follow the Fire Department’s bylaws and the town’s own established procedures. During this Chairman Bartlett declared Vilchock’s time to be up. 

In the public comment portion of the meeting, Brent Tweed gave a rapidly read statement denying the conclusions of Charla Stevens’ report. Tweed is not only a member of the Nottingham Fire and Rescue Department and a member of the town’s Budget Committee, he has previously prevailed over the town in a lawsuit that accused the town of acting illegally. The presentation is concise and detailed. I have obtained a copy and present it here in its entirety. 

I am a current member of the Nottingham Fire-Rescue Department.  I have been a member for about 3 years.  The investigation report does not reflect what I have observed in those 3 years of working with the Vilchock’s.  What I observed was a well organized, well run fire department.  Equipment was maintained very good and procedures and protocols followed.  Both Vilchock’s operated in an exceptionally professional manner.  There are descriptions in the report of the Vilchock’s acting unprofessionally, rudely, and with foul language in front of patients.  I witnessed no such thing and in fact it is my opinion that both would have given very stern warnings and/or disciplinary action to any individual on the department who behaved in such an unprofessional manner. I have never heard either use any language that could be deemed racially or ethnically discriminatory, homophobic, or transphobic.

I take serious issue with the quality and accuracy of the investigation report.  From what I observed the chief always took the safety and maintenance of equipment and vehicles very seriously.  Whenever an issue arose he immediately took action to have the equipment fixed.

The investigator has findings that the Chief had knowledge of “potentially unsafe brakes” yet the investigator never consulted an expert outside the department to validate this claim.  Additionally, she doesn't appear to have looked into whether proper procedure and notifications were made by those claiming an issue with the brakes.  Was the chief notified this was a safety issue?  Was the issue documented in a deficiency report? Was the chief and Rockingham County Sheriff Dispatch notified prior to taking the vehicle out of service as required?  The investigator puts no focus on determining whether this was an actual safety issue that was mishandled by the chief. Instead she seems to focus on perceptions.  She states this incident is corroborated by 4 witnesses, but she makes no distinction between whether the witnesses observed that maintenance was required on the brakes or whether they corroborated an issue with equipment being operated in an unsafe condition.  Brakes needing maintenance is not an uncommon issue to have. Like much of the report the investigator fails to do any due diligence and to determine if this was truly a safety issue or if it was just a routine maintenance issue. Additionally, like much of the report, she groups much of the so-called corroboration so it is unclear what exactly is being corroborated. According to the report, the Chief stated the brake issue “was identified and repaired upon discovery.”

The investigator reports claims about lack of up to date standard operating procedures and guidelines yet she made no attempt to review these documents or consult an expert to do so.  Additionally, she reports claims of lack of incident pre-planning and training yet she makes no attempts to validate these claims by consulting an outside expert.  Any member or officer is free to make proposed changes and submit those changes to the chief for approval and/or suggest changes.  There is no evidence presented to suggest that any member or officer proposed or suggested any changes.  The investigator just falls back on the claim that “the Chief is not receptive to suggestions about updating and improving these procedures and guidelines” without providing any evidence or examples.

The investigator lists concerns about no schedule for routine maintenance on vehicles and when provided testimony to the contrary she makes no attempt to validate whether such a schedule in fact exists.  She also lists concerns about snow chains on vehicles (an uncommon practice in this area), radios, an air compressor, and the station furnace.  The investigator just appears to have compiled a list of gripes without actually determining whether or not these were just routine maintenance issues and whether or not these issues were handled properly.  The investigator does not address this in her report.  She makes no finding as to whether or not these issues were properly handled by the department management.  Her only finding in regard to these issues are that “the issues raised… are valid and raise questions about the adequacy of communication”.   The fact that she lists these issues in her report without properly investigating them creates the appearance that there are numerous maintenance and equipment issues, but in fact she makes “no specific finding regarding the adequacy of the maintenance” and equipment in that section of her report.

The sections of the report about canceling mutual aid are also concerning.  The investigator made no attempt to consult an outside expert and her findings amount to the incident was “most concerning” and “several individuals expressed the view” about the chief’s “dislike of receiving mutual aid”.  These findings are not helpful at all and clearly show the investigator had no business performing this investigation without the aid of an expert in emergency services.  The investigator attempts to paint the picture that the chief was averse to receiving mutual aid.  In my experiences with the chief, I have seen nothing but the most professional command and control during emergency services incidents.  In fact, in regard to mutual aid, he has specifically told me to call for mutual aid early and to fail conservatively by requesting potentially more help then is necessary when on your way to the scene of an incident.  Then, once on scene you can make an evaluation for what help is necessary and call off any help that was called that is determined to be not needed.  One incident in which mutual aid was called off was for a female pinned under a fallen tree. The report states mutual aid was requested because “more hands were needed to carry her out of the woods.”  According to the report, the Chief called off the mutual aid request for more help to extricate the patient once he determined “the Department itself could” handle “the matter without” the additional mutual aid.  Again, the investigator failed to properly investigate this incident by consulting with an expert.  Without consulting an expert, the investigator is in no position to make any determination as to whether or not the Chief’s decision to call off mutual aid was proper.

It was also reported that the chief improperly called off mutual aid on an incident that involved an individual trapped in a well.  It is stated the chief called off a specialty rescue team when he was not on scene.  From my experience working with the Chief, he would not have called off mutual aid for a specialty rescue team until he had made a proper determination that they were no longer required.  It would take quite the stretch of the imagination for me to believe otherwise.  Again, the investigator has failed to properly investigate this incident and failed to consult an expert.  It should be noted that the investigator listed no findings in regard to this issue.

Another example given of the chief’s “problematic” command and control is in regards to a wildland fire at Pawtuckaway State Park.  This was a several day event, and I spent at least one day helping to fight this fire.  I witnessed no command and control issues while I was fighting this fire.  The specific issue in regard to the incident concerns the chief having personnel “wait at the station” and that this was “inappropriate….as it may have delayed response and caused more property damage”. This is yet another example of the investigator failing to conduct a proper investigation. It is common with incidents of this nature to have personnel stage at the station or other locations until more information about an incident is known.  Because Pawtuckaway State Park is so big and there are multiple entrances it may actually cause a delay in response if personnel respond to the wrong location or park entrance.  It can take upwards of 45 minutes to get from one point in the park to another.  If the personnel had responded to the park and gone to an incorrect location this could have in fact delayed response to the fire.  Again, it would be necessary for the investigator to consult with an expert in order to make any determinations in regard to this incident.  And again, in her findings section, she lists no findings for this incident.

Most of the rest of the report have the same issues I have just discussed.  The investigator sums up a bunch of complaints and fails to adequately list the rebuttal of the Vilchock’s and the investigator fails to consult an expert in emergency services.  In the findings section, she often makes no finding in regard to some of the serious claims, neglecting to conduct a thorough investigation. She combines the investigation of Chief Vilchock and Lt Vilchock, in my opinion, to create the appearance of a more convincing case then if she wrote a separate report for each person.  Often she combines a number of complaints together and then is able to state the “issue” has been corroborated by more people. In one example, she lists 2 people as corroborating an incident because they heard the chief call off mutual aid over the radio.  In another section she combines the complaints about criticisms of other employees and inappropriate communications so that no determination can be made about corroboration of some of the more serious accusations.  She fails to adequately deal with the credibility of any of the witnesses, especially regarding some of the more serious accusations, even though the report makes clear there are credibility issues in regards to the behavior and insubordination of some individuals.  The report lists several examples of insubordination and the testimony of one officer who stated some individuals were "troublemakers" and “refused to complete simple tasks such as cleaning…and laundry”.  An officer also testifies that individuals made racially insensitive remarks. The Chief testifies that one individual "falsified" a medical report.  She fails to determine what actions were taken to document and relay concerns up the chain of command and if this wasn’t done why wasn’t it done.  She continually falls back on the “chief wasn’t receptive” without providing any evidence or examples.  I always found the Chief to be receptive.  I could walk into his office anytime and talk with him which I did on a number of occasions.  Never once did I feel uncomfortable speaking with the Chief or bringing up any issues or problems and the Chief was always professional and treated me with the upmost respect.  Additionally, the investigator often fails to obtain documentary evidence or follow up by interviewing additional witnesses that could have corroborated the complaints.

When I read this investigation report, it almost seems I must be reading a report about another department because it is not an accurate description of the department I have been volunteering at the past 3 years.  The report conclusion states “The Nottingham Fire-Rescue Department is currently in a state of dysfunction with extremely low morale”.  Now that the investigation is over and the Chief and Lt Vilchock have been terminated I would have to agree with that conclusion.

A former member of NFRD (whose signature appears on the department’s bylaws) claimed that the investigator’s report was sloppy and had failed to access much of the relevant available information. He asked the board if the town could get a refund from Charla Stevens. He said that the TEMSIS reporting issues Stevens had faulted were normal procedures. He also said that two members of the department had been fired from other departments. 

Loud applause erupted from the audience.

Highway and Public Works Personnel Issues

The Town Administrator informed the board that the Highway Foreman had resigned and that two vacant highway positions have been filled. She reported that none of the applications received for the Director of Public Works vacancy had relevant highway experience. She proposed to reorganize the role to separate the highway function from the other functions. The board unanimously approved the recommendation. 

Recycling Center Payment System

The Town Administrator reported that the credit/debit card reader system was up and running at the Recycling Center; although they were having some problems with WiFi coverage that were being looked into. 

The board debated the staff’s decision to no longer accept cash and unanimously voted to overturn the decision. Cash and checks will continue to be accepted for payment. The board also debated whether the card processing service fee should be passed onto residents. It decided to retain the service fee. 

Celebrate Nottingham

Selectman Welch proposed that based on the success of the events in the celebration of Nottingham’s tricentennial that the town form a committee similar to the tricentennial committee to produce future events, such as fireworks and bonfires. He also noted that the military re-enactors were eager to hold future events here because the site Nottingham provided was one of the best suited for re-enactments that they had ever experienced. 

Tabled Issues

The board reviewed a long list of tabled issues that it hopes to address at its next meeting.

---

Note to Readers

I’ve seen recent comments about this blog having changed from “unbiased” to “biased.” I consider these to be not only silly but indications that one hasn’t been reading or remembering past articles. 

It’s silly because human beings cannot escape being biased. We all see things from a particular perspective, with particular past experiences, with particular bits of information as salient or hidden from us. The very decision of what to and not to report entails a bias. Just because my blog doesn’t read like the partisan dreck produced by the political infotainment industrial complex these days doesn’t mean I’m “unbiased.” I have never claimed or pretended to be unbiased. 

Since the very first issue of this blog I have provided commentary and analysis. I have faulted town officials for stating errors, illogical reasoning, disruptive comments, illegal decisions, etc. If readers have forgotten about these instances it is perhaps because I have so seldom needed to make such statements. On a day-to-day basis, this town runs reasonably well, with just a handful of problematic things occurring each year. Then, on a cycle like that of an active volcano, the town does something profoundly questionable and wildly controversial where there’s lots to analyze and comment on. The regular eruption of these situations - that often get the town sued - implies that there are systemic causes. I aim to bring those causes to light.

That aim is in itself a bias.

The pursuit of this aim at times must be unpleasant for various town officials, particularly the selectmen, who are essentially volunteers doing jobs that are stressful, thankless, and full of unforeseen difficulties that they have not been trained to deal with. It’s a truism that no good deed goes unpunished. The selectmen are deserving of our gratitude for stepping up to do this necessary job - one that is guaranteed to make some people unhappy - while having a klieg light aimed at them. 

Another bias I have is that I have a strong preference for taxpayers’ money to be spent on services to residents rather than on legal fees. This has been a major theme in my critique of town government that long predates this blog.

Because of this, as a rule, I also aim to point out problems with processes, systems, and reasoning, while avoiding pointing to individuals as the source of problems, although this is inescapable when there are accusations against individuals. Most of town management turns over regularly, but problems seem to persist indefinitely. Those problems seem to get the town periodically sued. 

The great American writer and social reformer, Upton Sinclair, once pointed out:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

I earn nothing on this blog. It’s a community service. Meanwhile, I observe that I now have a harsh critic on Facebook who is not only misrepresenting what I have written but is slandering not only me but even my wife. This critic is a lawyer who makes their living representing employers in employment lawsuits and employees who sue on grounds of discrimination. 

This is a blog about how well the town’s government is operating. I have criteria for that evaluation. You may well have different criteria. I appreciate getting to observe the respectful discussion of opposing views. I particularly appreciate the private emails I have received from knowledgeable people in town with views and insider information that they think I should know but would not wish to be publicly associated with. 

It seems to me that there are always good, although often complex and subtle, reasons underlying these eruptions of controversy in town. Maybe together we’ll be able to figure out how to fix the problems and build better systems of governance. 

If you’re looking for articles about what goes on in Board of Selectmen meetings that just describe what is said there and give news about what’s going on in town, there’s an excellent source for that style of journalism that I see no reason to duplicate.

Readers may make their own judgments about whether this image is about events to be conducted by the proposed Celebrate Nottingham Committee or a reference to my prior article.

Watch the video: