At what point do we, who pay the bills, have a right to expect a FULL accounting of all co$t$ associated with "l'Affaire Vilchock?" This was promised to us in a board meeting well over a year ago. That's the 'simple' part.
The human cost; the cost in morale; the admitted dysfunction; the damage done to the reputations of the town, the department and the Vilchocks - these cannot be measured.
One is inclined to wonder whether a problem was solved, or one was created. And - what have we, the residents of town, done to deserve this?
And, Skip, in response to your final question - "Not I", said the little red hen.
There are more costs than just the legal expenses. How much did the two "administrative leaves with pay" cost us. The building inspector filled in as temporary chief - increase in his remuneration? Hired a temporary building inspector - his pay? These come to mind easily.
Doug, thank you for that rehash. From that article, it's clear to me that you did that research based on documents to which you gained access. Thank you. I do not want to speak for Mr. Garnett, but his point and in a long way around the barn my point is that the BOS has washed their hands if this situation without completing the JOB. You supplied the budget info, not the BOS!
And to take this one step further - last year's budget failed by 26(?) votes. One wonders if it might have passed but for the dysfunction created by this mess. That is a price that the BOS has had to deal with throughout the year.
The individual members of the BOS may be wishing that the effects - political and fiscal - are over (understandably), but that is probably not the case.
And back to Skip's point, when were the Vilchocks ever give an opportunity to hear the complaints and respond to them???????????? Simple question - yet to be answered formally. And is this "Nottingham"?
I like the way you are looking at it with a consideration of total cost. However, you need to look at it from the other side as well. The court determined, factually, that there was "dysfunction" under the Vilchock leadership. There were also (factually) safety concerns that were not addressed under that leadership. There was certainly the potential for lawsuits against the town by employees and for liability torts in the event a known safety issue caused damage/injury. What was the total potential cost of all of those legal expenses? If it is less than the total cost of everything you pointed out then the BOS made a good fiscal decision.
You are right, but we will never know "the other side." I still think that the Vilchocks deserved to hear and answer the complaints before a decision was made on "administrative leave with pay."
I found this statement interesting! "So all this talk in town that we voted for 24/7 years ago was wrong. It was voted for 24/6. Sunday was always left vacant, covered by part-time or per diem help." The presentation to Townspeople was 24/7 coverage. It was never indicated by what level of coverage would be provided. As the statement indicates "Sunday was always left vacant, COVERED BY PART-TIME OT PER DIEM HELP. Sounds like the shifts were covered to me!!! For those that don't know, the Sunday shift was typically covered by Chief Vilchock and Lieutenant Vilchock. Now after termination, this shift is apparently not filled. Again, please explain the value in termination!!!
The problem is that no qualified individual will do that job for 11K a year. The court transcripts confirm that Chief Vilchock was not actually a firefighter because he never got certified. Can you imagine that there were issues when the people he was hiring were more certified for his role than he was?
The past cannot be changed. At this point there is no distinction between the Vilchock's being fired and them moving to Florida. The Town would be in the exact same place and in need of a Chief that is qualified AND certified.
Doug: Can you please find out if the Vilchock's slept over at the station EVERY Sunday night or if they covered the Town from home? If they did not sleep over then it was not a 24/7 coverage with 2; It was in fact 24/6.
And what value from the termination? Hard to say, but with the documented safety concerns and certifications issues, there could have easily been a lawsuit against the town. The legal fees alone fees could have easily cost more than the termination.
BOTTOM LINE: It is time to more forward. While how we got here is relevant to learning from past mistakes, it is not relevant to the solution.
I imagine Chief Vilchock refused to increase the stipend over the years on principle and because he loved his job. That was great, but, now we must pay for that decision. A better option would have been to increase that line by 2% every year, even if he did not take the addition money. Why? Because he was going to retire eventually and the Town would again be in the same spot of needing to fund the position.
Let us realize that while we can disagree and debate the past, that does not change the present or the future. We can disagree on how the past was handled but we can't allow that to prevent us from coming together to find a solution to the CURRENT problem.
The claim that Vilchock was not a certified firefighter is false. The court transcripts do not confirm that claim; they refute it.
This is the first I've heard of a claim that the Vilchocks slept at the Fire Station on Sundays. My understanding is that in late 2022 and early 2023 Sundays were covered by per diem staff, providing 24-hour coverage.
There is much one could find fault in regarding how the BOS handled the situation. It's a more difficult problem than the one you suggest as comparable - the Vilchocks moving to Florida. That would not have had the drama and the conflict. It would not have had the loss of confidence and good will. There would have been a transition.
The problem is more complex than just a competitive wage for a Chief. In this meeting the committee discussed the structure of the department. They didn't go into any specifics, but the structural problems were to me obvious upon initial inspection. I published an article about the unfairness of not letting the paid staff vote. That was just the most obvious issue. I got some mail from people who were upset with that article. No wonder our elected officials are avoiding discussing the matter. There's stuff that needs to be said that is likely to be uncomfortable.
The past is not irrelevant. Whether deserved or not, the BOS lost credibility with some of the electorate. This likely contributed to the voters' rejection of the operating budget and several warrant articles. Because of this and the 4% tax cap, the Budget Committee is highly constrained with what it can recommend. The BOS needs to persuade the voters to take action. To do so it may need to address what happened in the past.
"The claim that Vilchock was not a certified firefighter is false. The court transcripts do not confirm that claim; they refute it."
Doug I truly expect better of you. I double checked the record before making my comment and I expect you to do the same. Considering you have missed this very important fact from the transcript I think you should run an entire story on this because it is significant.
If we look at the transcript:
Q: And do you have any certifications related to being fire chief?
A: I do. I do. I'm an EMT. I'm a Wildland Firefighter. I am not certified, get that out of the way, as a structural firefighter. Okay."
Doug please issue an apology and retracting of your previous incorrect comment.
The very text you cite says he has certification, contradicting your claim.
Note that the termination letter said nothing about an issue with certification. Certification was not an issue in the investigator's report. Why is that particular certification you're interested in such a big deal to you when it was apparently not an issue to anyone else?
"I am not certified...as a structural firefighter." ??? Neither EMT nor wildland firefighting is of particular relevance if a structure is on fire and there are people inside...
I feel as though it is an objectively reasonable concern for a manager to be certified in the subject area they are managing. For example, a manager of a food establishment should also have Serve Safe certification so they can oversee the safe preparation and serving of food and know if there is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. I also feel it is reasonable to conclude that not being certified in this way is likely to lead to employee issues.
The certification point is related to the compensation and not related to the termination. I think everyone agrees the situation was handled poorly by the BOS. This certification issue is something the board should have required over a decade ago. However, now that they are aware of the issue (and presumably that these certifications even exist), it should be required going forward.
Essentially, and I hope this is clear, this is not the fault of one BOS. This was a problem that has roots long ago with lack of oversight. The "blame" should be spread to some degree to the blissfully ignorant boards that came before. But again, the "blame" is not relevant. There need to be solutions to more forward from the current situation.
My understanding is that firefighters work as teams. Not everyone is certified in everything. What I know is that Vilchock had a firefighting certification and certification was not an issue in his dismissal.
If you're concerned about the town's firefighter certifications, there's no reason to be talking about Vilchock's certifications. He's no longer there. You should be asking about the certifications Curry and the rest of the department have. I think you should be asking the BOS. I have no reason to think that they are aware of your concern about certification, nor do I think that they are concerned about it. Absence of evidence is of course not evidence of absence, but I've just never heard them talk about it and I could not readily find anything online that seemed to warrant a concern about this.
Amazing! Again the BOS is asking the Nottingham residents to correct a situation that they created. For 17 years there was adequate management of the NFRD and staffing levels were maintained by Chief Vilchock for the stipend authorized. Now, after the BOS changed the NFRD Bylaws and the voters rejected the NFRD warrant article, the BOS wants to change the Bylaws/warrant article again to reflect something they know nothing about.
I would still like to know the reason for termination; to me it is still related to some monetary gain that could have been realized by the interim Town Administrator and/or employees that whine and cannot follow supervisor direction. Either way, it was not grounds for termination; maybe training, BOS direction, certification, etc. could have been used to address the situation.Termination NO!
Not only has this misguided BOS direction affected our Town's bottom line with proposed increase in salaries, attorney fees, etc, it appears we still have a dysfunctional NFRD!
Please note, as best as I know, the BOS has not addressed the reason for termination to Chief Vilchock and his wife. This is not right! It should have been addressed on MARCH 23, 2023 when they were provided their original PAID leave of absence letter. It was not! That was 1 year 8 months ago. Do you know of any employer that allows that to happen?
Additionally, the Chief and his wife have not been allowed back into the workplace to retrieve their box of personal items.
I ask "Who would want to work for the Town of Nottingham knowing these workplace irregularities!"
Imagine that they need structure and it’s gonna cost! What narcissistic clowns including their predecessors! You had a leader and a manager who took demanding shifts, for $12k stipend, and sought to run a tight ship and share proper foundational firehouse requirements! And you axed him cause you’re weak and narcissistic and you let the n mates run the asylum and now they need more structure; imagine that! No one wants to work there and pay is the farthest of the problems!
Also worth noting, NFRD doesn’t require its Fire Chief to be an EMT.
I believe the former Chief was an Advanced EMT.
I believe the interim and current are NOT licensed EMT’s.
In a small town like Nottingham, where well over 80% of the calls are for emergency medical situations, not fires, while not technically required it would seem logical for the Fire Chief to also be an EMT.
Stop spreading misinformation, this town has been through enough…..
A "chief" in a fire department, like a Fire Chief, is not considered a "structural firefighter" in the sense of actively performing firefighting duties on the front lines, but rather holds a leadership position overseeing the entire fire department, including structural firefighters; their primary role is management and administration, not direct firefighting operations.
Key points about a Fire Chief:
Leadership role:
The Fire Chief is the highest ranking officer in a fire department, responsible for the overall operations and management of the department.
Administrative duties:
Their focus is on budgeting, policy development, personnel management, and ensuring the department is adequately prepared for emergencies.
Command on scene:
While they may be present at major incidents, their role is usually to provide strategic oversight and command rather than actively engaging in firefighting tasks.
Concerns about liability and potential lawsuits against the town over ‘factual’ safety concerns and issues then maybe
the town should consider random drug tests for it’s employees, specifically department heads like those operating heavy machinery and Fire Engines. Think of the lawsuits against the town if a current leadership member of the fire department got into an accident while driving a piece of town equipment ‘high’ as a kite. Ugly situation the BoS has put this town in.
All this talk of dishing out more $$ and restructuring, when the previous Chief had this stuff all figured out while the department was fully staffed and shifts were covered.
At what point do we, who pay the bills, have a right to expect a FULL accounting of all co$t$ associated with "l'Affaire Vilchock?" This was promised to us in a board meeting well over a year ago. That's the 'simple' part.
The human cost; the cost in morale; the admitted dysfunction; the damage done to the reputations of the town, the department and the Vilchocks - these cannot be measured.
One is inclined to wonder whether a problem was solved, or one was created. And - what have we, the residents of town, done to deserve this?
And, Skip, in response to your final question - "Not I", said the little red hen.
Here's an article about the legal expenses. https://nottingham.substack.com/p/nottinghams-legal-expenses-far-exceed
There are more costs than just the legal expenses. How much did the two "administrative leaves with pay" cost us. The building inspector filled in as temporary chief - increase in his remuneration? Hired a temporary building inspector - his pay? These come to mind easily.
Doug, thank you for that rehash. From that article, it's clear to me that you did that research based on documents to which you gained access. Thank you. I do not want to speak for Mr. Garnett, but his point and in a long way around the barn my point is that the BOS has washed their hands if this situation without completing the JOB. You supplied the budget info, not the BOS!
And to take this one step further - last year's budget failed by 26(?) votes. One wonders if it might have passed but for the dysfunction created by this mess. That is a price that the BOS has had to deal with throughout the year.
The individual members of the BOS may be wishing that the effects - political and fiscal - are over (understandably), but that is probably not the case.
And back to Skip's point, when were the Vilchocks ever give an opportunity to hear the complaints and respond to them???????????? Simple question - yet to be answered formally. And is this "Nottingham"?
I like the way you are looking at it with a consideration of total cost. However, you need to look at it from the other side as well. The court determined, factually, that there was "dysfunction" under the Vilchock leadership. There were also (factually) safety concerns that were not addressed under that leadership. There was certainly the potential for lawsuits against the town by employees and for liability torts in the event a known safety issue caused damage/injury. What was the total potential cost of all of those legal expenses? If it is less than the total cost of everything you pointed out then the BOS made a good fiscal decision.
You are right, but we will never know "the other side." I still think that the Vilchocks deserved to hear and answer the complaints before a decision was made on "administrative leave with pay."
I found this statement interesting! "So all this talk in town that we voted for 24/7 years ago was wrong. It was voted for 24/6. Sunday was always left vacant, covered by part-time or per diem help." The presentation to Townspeople was 24/7 coverage. It was never indicated by what level of coverage would be provided. As the statement indicates "Sunday was always left vacant, COVERED BY PART-TIME OT PER DIEM HELP. Sounds like the shifts were covered to me!!! For those that don't know, the Sunday shift was typically covered by Chief Vilchock and Lieutenant Vilchock. Now after termination, this shift is apparently not filled. Again, please explain the value in termination!!!
The problem is that no qualified individual will do that job for 11K a year. The court transcripts confirm that Chief Vilchock was not actually a firefighter because he never got certified. Can you imagine that there were issues when the people he was hiring were more certified for his role than he was?
The past cannot be changed. At this point there is no distinction between the Vilchock's being fired and them moving to Florida. The Town would be in the exact same place and in need of a Chief that is qualified AND certified.
Doug: Can you please find out if the Vilchock's slept over at the station EVERY Sunday night or if they covered the Town from home? If they did not sleep over then it was not a 24/7 coverage with 2; It was in fact 24/6.
And what value from the termination? Hard to say, but with the documented safety concerns and certifications issues, there could have easily been a lawsuit against the town. The legal fees alone fees could have easily cost more than the termination.
BOTTOM LINE: It is time to more forward. While how we got here is relevant to learning from past mistakes, it is not relevant to the solution.
I imagine Chief Vilchock refused to increase the stipend over the years on principle and because he loved his job. That was great, but, now we must pay for that decision. A better option would have been to increase that line by 2% every year, even if he did not take the addition money. Why? Because he was going to retire eventually and the Town would again be in the same spot of needing to fund the position.
Let us realize that while we can disagree and debate the past, that does not change the present or the future. We can disagree on how the past was handled but we can't allow that to prevent us from coming together to find a solution to the CURRENT problem.
The claim that Vilchock was not a certified firefighter is false. The court transcripts do not confirm that claim; they refute it.
This is the first I've heard of a claim that the Vilchocks slept at the Fire Station on Sundays. My understanding is that in late 2022 and early 2023 Sundays were covered by per diem staff, providing 24-hour coverage.
There is much one could find fault in regarding how the BOS handled the situation. It's a more difficult problem than the one you suggest as comparable - the Vilchocks moving to Florida. That would not have had the drama and the conflict. It would not have had the loss of confidence and good will. There would have been a transition.
The problem is more complex than just a competitive wage for a Chief. In this meeting the committee discussed the structure of the department. They didn't go into any specifics, but the structural problems were to me obvious upon initial inspection. I published an article about the unfairness of not letting the paid staff vote. That was just the most obvious issue. I got some mail from people who were upset with that article. No wonder our elected officials are avoiding discussing the matter. There's stuff that needs to be said that is likely to be uncomfortable.
The past is not irrelevant. Whether deserved or not, the BOS lost credibility with some of the electorate. This likely contributed to the voters' rejection of the operating budget and several warrant articles. Because of this and the 4% tax cap, the Budget Committee is highly constrained with what it can recommend. The BOS needs to persuade the voters to take action. To do so it may need to address what happened in the past.
"The claim that Vilchock was not a certified firefighter is false. The court transcripts do not confirm that claim; they refute it."
Doug I truly expect better of you. I double checked the record before making my comment and I expect you to do the same. Considering you have missed this very important fact from the transcript I think you should run an entire story on this because it is significant.
If we look at the transcript:
Q: And do you have any certifications related to being fire chief?
A: I do. I do. I'm an EMT. I'm a Wildland Firefighter. I am not certified, get that out of the way, as a structural firefighter. Okay."
Doug please issue an apology and retracting of your previous incorrect comment.
The very text you cite says he has certification, contradicting your claim.
Note that the termination letter said nothing about an issue with certification. Certification was not an issue in the investigator's report. Why is that particular certification you're interested in such a big deal to you when it was apparently not an issue to anyone else?
"I am not certified...as a structural firefighter." ??? Neither EMT nor wildland firefighting is of particular relevance if a structure is on fire and there are people inside...
I feel as though it is an objectively reasonable concern for a manager to be certified in the subject area they are managing. For example, a manager of a food establishment should also have Serve Safe certification so they can oversee the safe preparation and serving of food and know if there is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. I also feel it is reasonable to conclude that not being certified in this way is likely to lead to employee issues.
The certification point is related to the compensation and not related to the termination. I think everyone agrees the situation was handled poorly by the BOS. This certification issue is something the board should have required over a decade ago. However, now that they are aware of the issue (and presumably that these certifications even exist), it should be required going forward.
Essentially, and I hope this is clear, this is not the fault of one BOS. This was a problem that has roots long ago with lack of oversight. The "blame" should be spread to some degree to the blissfully ignorant boards that came before. But again, the "blame" is not relevant. There need to be solutions to more forward from the current situation.
My understanding is that firefighters work as teams. Not everyone is certified in everything. What I know is that Vilchock had a firefighting certification and certification was not an issue in his dismissal.
I looked at some websites that discuss the qualifications required to be a fire chief, such as this one https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/how-to-become-fire-chief . I did not find one that said one specifically had to be certified in structural fires.
If you're concerned about the town's firefighter certifications, there's no reason to be talking about Vilchock's certifications. He's no longer there. You should be asking about the certifications Curry and the rest of the department have. I think you should be asking the BOS. I have no reason to think that they are aware of your concern about certification, nor do I think that they are concerned about it. Absence of evidence is of course not evidence of absence, but I've just never heard them talk about it and I could not readily find anything online that seemed to warrant a concern about this.
Amazing! Again the BOS is asking the Nottingham residents to correct a situation that they created. For 17 years there was adequate management of the NFRD and staffing levels were maintained by Chief Vilchock for the stipend authorized. Now, after the BOS changed the NFRD Bylaws and the voters rejected the NFRD warrant article, the BOS wants to change the Bylaws/warrant article again to reflect something they know nothing about.
I would still like to know the reason for termination; to me it is still related to some monetary gain that could have been realized by the interim Town Administrator and/or employees that whine and cannot follow supervisor direction. Either way, it was not grounds for termination; maybe training, BOS direction, certification, etc. could have been used to address the situation.Termination NO!
Not only has this misguided BOS direction affected our Town's bottom line with proposed increase in salaries, attorney fees, etc, it appears we still have a dysfunctional NFRD!
Please note, as best as I know, the BOS has not addressed the reason for termination to Chief Vilchock and his wife. This is not right! It should have been addressed on MARCH 23, 2023 when they were provided their original PAID leave of absence letter. It was not! That was 1 year 8 months ago. Do you know of any employer that allows that to happen?
Additionally, the Chief and his wife have not been allowed back into the workplace to retrieve their box of personal items.
I ask "Who would want to work for the Town of Nottingham knowing these workplace irregularities!"
Imagine that they need structure and it’s gonna cost! What narcissistic clowns including their predecessors! You had a leader and a manager who took demanding shifts, for $12k stipend, and sought to run a tight ship and share proper foundational firehouse requirements! And you axed him cause you’re weak and narcissistic and you let the n mates run the asylum and now they need more structure; imagine that! No one wants to work there and pay is the farthest of the problems!
‘Brett Webster’
Also worth noting, NFRD doesn’t require its Fire Chief to be an EMT.
I believe the former Chief was an Advanced EMT.
I believe the interim and current are NOT licensed EMT’s.
In a small town like Nottingham, where well over 80% of the calls are for emergency medical situations, not fires, while not technically required it would seem logical for the Fire Chief to also be an EMT.
Hopefully you can see the point.
@ ‘Brett Webster’
An axe to grind?
This took 2 seconds to search on the interwebs……
Stop spreading misinformation, this town has been through enough…..
A "chief" in a fire department, like a Fire Chief, is not considered a "structural firefighter" in the sense of actively performing firefighting duties on the front lines, but rather holds a leadership position overseeing the entire fire department, including structural firefighters; their primary role is management and administration, not direct firefighting operations.
Key points about a Fire Chief:
Leadership role:
The Fire Chief is the highest ranking officer in a fire department, responsible for the overall operations and management of the department.
Administrative duties:
Their focus is on budgeting, policy development, personnel management, and ensuring the department is adequately prepared for emergencies.
Command on scene:
While they may be present at major incidents, their role is usually to provide strategic oversight and command rather than actively engaging in firefighting tasks.
@ Brett Webster
Concerns about liability and potential lawsuits against the town over ‘factual’ safety concerns and issues then maybe
the town should consider random drug tests for it’s employees, specifically department heads like those operating heavy machinery and Fire Engines. Think of the lawsuits against the town if a current leadership member of the fire department got into an accident while driving a piece of town equipment ‘high’ as a kite. Ugly situation the BoS has put this town in.
All this talk of dishing out more $$ and restructuring, when the previous Chief had this stuff all figured out while the department was fully staffed and shifts were covered.