Board of Selectmen Meeting May 1, 2023
Overflow turnout. Shirland appointed to board. Status of Fire & Rescue Operations. Fire Chief & Lieutenant investigation to be completed in 1-2 weeks
Overflow Turnout
Early in the meeting, an attendee pointed out that there were 70 people in the room. Legal maximum occupancy for the room is 61. Many more people were standing in the hallway.
There was a debate about whether to table discussion of the Fire Chief and Lieutenant investigation so that the next meeting could be held in a bigger room or whether people would voluntarily leave the room so that the meeting could continue. Several people volunteered to leave so that meeting could continue.
Some anger was expressed at the board for their failure to be competent enough to know that turnout would exceed the room’s capacity and to plan accordingly.
Board Vacancy
The board discussed how to handle the vacancy caused by Tiler Eaton’s resignation. No announcement was made about why he resigned. State law authorizes the board to appoint a replacement who will serve until the next general election, ten months from now.
Ben Bartlett said he thought the position should be filled immediately. He announced that three people had contacted the board to volunteer: Sandy Vilchock, Donna Danis, and Matt Shirland. Bartlett asserted that the board should appoint Matt Shirland because he got the most votes of any losing candidate in the most recent election.
John Morin described how the Budget Committee handled a similar situation at this time last year, in which the committee publicly called for volunteers and then publicly interviewed them before making a decision. Tim Dabrio and Steve Welch said they thought there should be a public announcement and a call for volunteers before someone was appointed.
Some discussion followed that included members of the audience regarding whether there should be a public call for volunteers or whether the board should appoint someone on the spot.
The board decided to appoint someone immediately. Matt Shirland was nominated and elected unanimously. He was immediately sworn in and joined the board.
Investigation
Ben Bartlett made a brief statement regarding what the board could make public regarding the ongoing investigation of the Fire Chief and Fire Lieutenant.
The board is following the advice of town counsel. An outside investigator has been engaged. The board hopes that the investigation will be completed as early as this week and if not then probably next week. It will probably be two weeks until the board receives the investigator’s completed formal report. This report will probably not be disclosed to the public.
Ben Bartlett said that there were separate investigations ongoing and that both the Fire Chief and the Fire Lieutenant are being investigated. The outside investigator will interview the Chief and Lieutenant at the end of the investigation.
An audience member asked if the town is at risk of a lawsuit because of the handling of the case. Bartlett said the town was following the advice of town counsel.
Concerns were expressed from audience members regarding whether the town is following its procedures correctly.
Status of Fire and Rescue Operations
Members of the public asked many questions about the status of Fire and Rescue operations.
The Interim Fire Chief is Dale Sylvia. He has a lapsed EMT license. Ben Bartlett said that Sylvia is qualified to be Fire Chief.
Deputy Fire Chief Matt Curry was not appointed Interim Fire Chief because the board wanted a neutral person in that position.
The Interim Fire Chief is on call 24/7. He has already responded to two fires. He is driving the Fire Department’s utility truck home with him to Barrington. The utility truck is not a medical rescue vehicle. It carries nothing more than a first aid kit. Nottingham’s Rescue service is responding to medical emergencies as usual.
Who Is a Town Employee?
The letters given to Fire Chief and Fire Lieutenant when they were put on paid administrative leave say that they are prohibited “from contacting any town employees” while the investigation is ongoing. This raises the question of who exactly qualifies as a town employee. For example, are the members of the town’s food pantry town employees? Ben Bartlett said they were.
Planning Board
John Morin informed the board that a 25-house subdivision had been proposed. There will be a public site walk on May 17. There’s also a proposal about the Nottingham Business Park. A public hearing on that will be held May 10.
Lamprey Drive Improvements
The status of a short segment of Lamprey Drive remains undecided. The issue was first raised in July 2022. This small section was planned and approved but never built, causing Lamprey Drive to not be a contiguous road.
Because of e-911, the town wanted to rename and renumber the unconnected portions of Lamprey. Residents abutting the missing section said it would be better to fill in the missing section so that renaming and renumbering could be avoided. They volunteered to do this at their own expense. The section of road has been completed for months now.
It is widely agreed that this new section of road improves public safety and plow access.
There is long-standing disagreement among the board about whether the petitioners followed the process the board wanted them to follow, whether the town properly informed the petitioners of that process, whether the town properly participated in that process, and whether a failure to follow the process disqualifies the road from acceptance regardless of how well the road was built.
To resolve the situation the board asked for the Highway Department to have the section reviewed by an engineering firm. The Town Administrator reported that CMA Engineers concluded “conditions not met” for approving the section.
John Morin took issue with the quality of CMA’s work. CMA’s report concluded that only “minor” improvements had been made to the road. Morin said that was obviously false. The section had been cut through a forest. There was no road at all there until the petitioners paid to have it constructed. He recommended approving the road.
Ben Bartlett said he didn’t feel comfortable accepting the road because he felt he did not have the qualifications to judge the situation. He recommended that the board defer to the Director of Public Works.
Ben Bartlett asked whether the Director of Public Works oversaw any of the construction. The Town Administrator said that he had not. Bartlett asked why not. A petitioner said that he was on medical leave during the construction process.
A petitioner pointed out that if the town’s grounds for refusing approval are due to the town wanting an engineering plan prior to construction, it is impossible to go back in time to get one.
Tim Dabrio requested construction details from the contractor. Steve Welch said he wanted to go look at the road section.
The issue was tabled yet again. The Director of Public Works was requested to attend the next board meeting and give a statement.
Meeting Video
Complaints About this Blog’s Disclosure of Selectman Bartlett’s Tax Credits
Several people expressed disapproval on Facebook that I published publicly available information about the $4,000 tax credit the town provides to Selectman Ben Bartlett. The key issues brought up by those who disapproved were about what the status means, what should be disclosed to voters, and whether this was a partisan attack.
Jamie Burleigh published a public comment on this blog giving additional information about why VA certification for “total and permanent disability” does not mean that the person is totally and permanently disabled.
“You need to read and understand what a VA disability rating is verse a TDIU rating. Civilians don’t usually understand the terms used and take them out of context.”
Many people complained that the information should never have been published on the grounds that letting voters know about a disability certification (a public record which, as demonstrated, anyone can look up online) is disrespectful to veterans. My policy is that a well-functioning democracy requires voters to be made aware of and given an opportunity to discuss things that are unpleasant and distasteful; and that efforts to prevent this are disrespectful to the voters.
There was also a complaint that publishing the information was driven by partisanship against Republicans. Although I am withholding the name of the person who gave me the tip, it’s relevant to disclose that I got the tip from a person known to me to be a Republican. My opinion is that the tipster’s allegiance to Nottingham is greater than their allegiance to the Republicans.
There are many possibilities about why a Republican might wish to draw scrutiny on Ben Bartlett. Here are some I have thought of.
Ben Bartlett signed off on the decision to put the Fire Chief and Fire Lieutenant on paid administrative leave. He’s now the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. Many people feel the board is treating the Vilchocks unfairly, with Ben Bartlett being substantially responsible for this.
The legislature is closely divided between the parties. The Republicans desperately need their members present to vote. Ben Bartlett let his party down, missing nearly every vote so far this year.
Bartlett’s resignation puts the seat at risk of being captured by the Democrats.
Filling Bartlett’s former seat will be expensive to the taxpayers, who now will need to pay for two special elections - a primary and a general election.
Bartlett has not been showing up to Board of Selectman meetings. As previously reported, he has missed 2 of the (now) 13 meetings this year and was late to 2 more. This should also be upsetting to Republicans who were expecting him to represent them (even though the Board of Selectmen is formally non-partisan). Ben Bartlett also had many absences last year. Of the 27 meetings in 2022, Bartlett was absent 11 times. In the last 6 months of 2021 Ben Bartlett missed 5 of 15 Board of Selectmen meetings. In the first 6 months of 2021 he missed 4 of 13 meetings. Might it not have been poor judgment for Ben Bartlett to run for State Representative when he was already having such difficulties in fulfilling his duties on the Board of Selectmen?
The tipster appears to think that the tax break is unfair - the angle highlighted in the prior article. Here’s the text of the tip for readers to judge the author’s sentiment: “ck with assessing dept for his 100% total and permanent disability (Public Record) affording huge town tax break, yet is full time with VA, runs a business, is Chair of Selectboard, member of town assessors (BOS are also the Assessors), was State rep.” Further, the RSA explicitly empowers the Board of Selectmen to reject a disability certification from Veterans Affairs if the board has evidence that the property owner is not disabled - “disabled” in the ordinary sense of the term. The author not only appears to supply such evidence, the author also appears to be concerned that in Bartlett’s role of being on the Board of Selectmen, Ben Bartlett has partial responsibility for giving himself a huge tax break.
When I first heard that one of the Selectmen had resigned, I was hoping it was Ben Bartlett so that he would then be a private individual and not a public official, allowing me to avoid needing to make this unpleasant disclosure to the public. Politics is a contact sport. Those who choose to play are subject to scrutiny and getting piled on, particularly when they have let their constituents down.