Day 3: Vilchock v. Nottingham Board of Selectmen

Testimony from former Deputy Chiefs Carlson and Curry, former Chief Vilchock

This article recaps the third and final day of testimony. Prior days’ testimony are at Day 1 and Day 2. These articles detailing the hearing will be followed by an article analyzing the information provided at the hearing. 

Judge English will meet with the parties on June 28 to discuss the substance of the evidence and the threshold for a decision. 

At the very end of the hearing, the Judge thanked the large number of members of the public who attended, both in person and online. She recognized the importance of the hearing to the citizens of Nottingham and appreciated the public’s intense interest. 

Testimony of Heidi Carlson

The Town Attorney asked questions to ascertain the witness’ background. Carlson graduated from UNH Durham in Dec 1991. She majored in business administration & community development. Her first full-time job was with the Town of Sutton, NH. Her title then was Administrative Assistant to the Board of Selectmen. These days that position is normally called “Town Administrator.” She was there for two years. Then she became the Town Administrator of the Town of Freemont. She still is in that role.

She joined the Nottingham Fire Department in the fall of 1992. She has been a member of the department ever since. She is currently an Advanced EMT, involved with emergency medial incidents. Previously she was an EMT and a certified Firefighter. She was Deputy Chief from 2005 until 2014. Vilichock became Chief in 2007.

She is also on the roster of the Fremont Fire Department. She is a volunteer there who receives no compensation. 

When Vilcock became Chief she had a conversation with him. She offered to continue as Deputy. He was amenable to it. Years later they had a conversation where she said she did not want to be Chief. If there was another candidate who wanted to work up through the ranks to become Chief, that person should become Deputy Chief. She stepped down from Deputy Chief to the role of EMS Captain in 2014. She continued in that role until November 2021. 

She explained that it was her decision to step down in 2021. She had more work obligations than she could keep up with. Her husband had retired. She wanted to spend more time with him. She also found that her relationship with the Chief was not as productive as it once had been. She thought the Chief needed someone who could spend more time with the department. She is currently an on-call member of the department. 

Carlson was one of the six complainants on March 20. She became aware that they would present to the board about 10-14 days prior. She felt awful about it. She said she was sick to her stomach the whole time. She was nervous about what her participation would mean for her. It was unnerving. It was not something she wanted to do, but felt that she had to in order to support the staff and the organization. Even now she is uncomfortable testifying. 

There was a discussion of how the complainants got to the meeting. Carlson said 5 of them went in a family member’s car. They were nervous about being seen in a public place. Carlson said she entered via the front door of Town Hall but exited out the back door. 

There was a discussion of the nature of the complaints. 

She participated in the investigation. 

Then there was a discussion of the TEMSIS reports. Carlson said that the name of the reports is now “ESR Reports.” She thought the reports were laborious and time-consuming to fill out, but not difficult. They were somewhat intuitive, but there was a learning curve to learning how to do them properly. 

The report is important. It is the record of a medical interaction. It documents what happened. It’s a legal document. It follows the patient through their care.

In the Fire Department the reports were first done electronically, then printed. Reports were kept at the Fire Station in a paper file. Carlson had concerns about the QA process. There were parts she was not comfortable with. When the new process was instituted there was a lot of training done on it. 

Carlson’s objection was that she was occasionally asked to make changes she didn’t agree with. She gave an example of a call on a child suffering an anaphylactic reaction in which she was asked to say she used a treatment protocol different from the one she actually used. She refused to change the document. She said there were a couple other situations where this happened. She was so concerned about these that she made copies for herself to retain should there ever be a subsequent issue because the department did not keep a change log. She had been called to testify on a few occasions about incidents recorded in TEMSIS. 

Carlson recalled the concerns of some of the full-time firefighters. They were concerned about write-ups and discipline Firefighter Bruno had received. She heard that he had been written up cumulatively about things. She saw some of the documents. She did not witness the events.

She was concerned about the Chief’s treatment of the full-time Firefighters. Although she did not see any mistreatment firsthand, she heard about it. She did, however, have concerns that some of the stories she heard were skewed. 

There were a lot of changes going on in the department due to staffing growth. Carlson thought that the Chief was not managing these changes well; however, she was unable to present specific examples of this. She noted that she and Vilchock came to firefighting as a volunteer service. This culture was fading away. Departments were becoming much more difficult to manage than they ever had been before. This process required giving up control of some things. 

Carlson thought the town made the right decision to fire Vilchock. There was no good alternative. She would have liked to have seen him be able to retire. She thought that was going to happen. She thinks it was regrettable that things came out the way they did. Vilchock simply wasn’t able to manage the transition of the department. 

The Town Attorney asked if Carlson knew about a dossier that was being kept about one of the full-time Firefighters. Carlson said she had heard that one was being kept by one of the officers. She had not seen this. She didn’t think this was an appropriate thing to do; however, she didn’t know enough about the details to properly assess the situation. 

Carlson said she had heard all of the allegations about the slurs. She said a relatively new employee told her that he was quitting. He said the reason was he could not tolerate what Lieutenant Sandra Vilchock said. 

Carlson had heard about a situation in the report where there was a homophobic comment associated with having one’s steel-toe boots stepped on. She did not witness the event. 

Carlson discussed the Standing Orders binder and whether this qualified as SOPs. They are similar and overlap, but standing orders are isolated and not comprehensive about all of the emergency situations that were likely to happen

She said that the Fremont Fire Department has pre-plans and SOPs. What Nottingham has is not comparable. 

Carlson said that trust in the department was broken. The Chief did not trust the staff. The staff did not trust the Chief. The Chief was engaging in micromanaging and was unwilling to take suggestions. She agreed with the investigator’s findings. 

Carlson said that after the Chief was put on paid leave there were all sorts of problems with keys and passwords. No one but the Chief had some of them. There were also problems with bills and subscriptions. They were being charged to the Chief’s credit card. While there was nothing wrong with that, because that was often the most reasonable way to do things, and to file for reimbursement afterwards, it caused problems. Even a year later it’s still causing problems. Many administrative items were difficult to do without Vilchock. Some things only Vilchock knew about and understood. 

There was a discussion of the organizational chart and the responsibilities of the officers other than Vilchock. These responsibilities often did not work out that way in practice. There were problems about sharing information and delegation. 

Vilchock’s attorney then cross-examined.

Carlson conceded that she was never criticized for any of her refusals to make changes to a TEMSIS report. The only instance that she was ever criticized for was a situation where, in part due to discussions about disagreements, she failed to get the report filed within the 10 limit required. 

Carlson never witnessed Lieutenant Sandra Vilchock using slurs. 

Carlson reported that she told the Chief - in very general terms - that the full-time firefighters had concerns about how the department was being run. 

Carlson conceded that she never raised concerns about improvements being needed in the SOPs or about things Freemont was doing better than Nottingham in this regard. The only time she recalled ever bringing up something like this was in 2004, prior to Vilchock’s tenure as Chief. 

For the elections for Chief the volunteers got to vote but the employees (the full-time firefighters) did not. She voted in the elections. She could not remember who she voted for in 2022. The attorney pointed out that the vote was unanimous for Vilchock. Carlson said then she must have voted for him. 

Testimony of Matt Curry

[Note: I had to leave the room for about two minutes during Curry’s testimony. Therefore a bit of it is missing here.]

The Town Attorney asked questions to establish Curry’s background.

Curry is currently the Fire Chief. He has been in that role for about a year. Before that he was the Deputy Chief, a position he held for 9-10 years. He has Firefighter 1 and 2 certifications. His role as Chief is not a full-time position. When Covid hit Curry owned an auto repair business, which he had done for about 10 years. [Disclosure: I was a regular customer of Curry Automotive.]

Curry did not know about the nonpublic meeting on March 20 until after it happened. He was interviewed as part of the investigation. 

The concerns about mutual aid were discussed. Curry was involved in the incident about the woman who was pinned by a tree and whose leg was broken. Curry first became aware of the incident when he heard the tone on the radio calling for an ambulance. Curry was not among the Firefighters who took the assignment. Later, the Chief called him to respond, too. When he received the call, Curry was in Epsom. To respond to the call he’d first need to go to his home in Deerfield to get his gear, then he’d have to travel to the scene of the incident in Nottingham. Curry was unaware at this time that the Chief had called off mutual aid. 

Curry said the full-time Firefighters who responded to the call made the request for mutual aid while they were traveling to the scene. Curry said that these firefighters knew what they were going to. Curry thought it was appropriate to call for mutual aid based on the information the firefighters had. The Chief was not on the scene when he called off the mutual aid.

Curry was asked about the department’s Standing Order about calling for mutual aid. He said the highest ranking member on the scene is responsible for determining the need for mutual aid. Curry said that if you’re not on the scene you should not be calling it off. Curry felt that the Chief should not have called off mutual aid. 

Curry said he never heard the Chief or Lieutenant Vilchock make inappropriate comments. He was, however, aware of accusations that they had done so. Curry was aware of an employee who left the department supposedly because of discriminatory comments. 

There was a discussion about the safety issue with the utility vehicle. Facts were established that the report said the truck was taken out of service on December 30 and that it was repaired on January 4, and that there’s an incident report saying that Ashly Vega arrived to the structure fire in Engine #3 and returned to the station in the utility vehicle as the driver. The incident report had dates of January 2 and January 3 on it. Curry said that was probably because the incident began before midnight and ended after midnight. 

Curry said he was aware of the brake problem on the utility vehicle. The brakes were gone. There were no pads left. The Town Attorney said, you have experience as a mechanic. Would you have instructed someone to drive that vehicle in that state? Curry said no. 

Curry said the Chief was on the scene for that structure fire and was in command. Curry described how the utility truck was used at the end of fires: to pick up tools and hoses. Curry said that for this purpose one of the members’ personal truck could have been used instead of the utility vehicle. 

Curry said that he was aware of issues involving some of the full-time firefighters. That some of them wanted to wear their own helmets, which the department did not allow. That one of them had the lock on their locker cut off.

Curry described a conversation he had with the Chief about the problems with Firefighter Bruno. In the incident where the Chief tried to fire Bruno and Bruno objected because he had never been given written warnings, and in response the Chief began rapidly documenting Bruno’s offenses, Curry said he had told the Chief, “do you want to fire him? I’ll stand behind you. But enough bullshit with the write-ups!” Curry said these write-ups occurred after the incidents and that they were being done to paper the file. 

There was a discussion of the incident about Bruno’s lock being cut off. Lockers are used for employees’ personal items and changes of clothes. Curry said there was no policy about locks. The Chief instructed Lieutenant Ross to cut off Bruno’s lock. Curry said he did not know why the Chief did this. Bruno spoke to Curry about the incident, requesting to be reimbursed for the lock. 

As the current Chief, Curry has no policy against locked lockers. 

TEMSIS reports were discussed. Curry does not write TEMSIS reports as he is not an EMT. Curry said it was true that reports were not always locked up. Since becoming Chief, Curry has changed the process. Now the reports are not printed out. He has been working with his Deputy Chief to change the QA process. 

There was a discussion of the book of Standing Orders. Curry described that there were Standing Orders on all sorts of things. Some of the things he thought represented the kinds of things that would be called Standard Operating Procedures. Some weren’t. For example, there was a Standing Order that probationary members cannot buy department tshirts - a policy that Curry objected to. 

The Town Attorney asked Curry if some people called the Standing Orders “reactionary.” Curry said yes. Some of the orders were in reaction to things that had happened.

Curry said there were no preplans in the binder. The Town Attorney asked if there should have been. He replied that the department is in an evolving stage and that preplans were something it should ultimately accomplish. Then he said that there were preplans for the school and daycare centers. It was unclear to me whether Curry was correcting his initial statement to say that there had been some preplans or was giving examples of the department’s progress in creating preplans. 

Curry said the department is currently working on upgrading its SOPs. They are rewriting them to be more in line with those of other departments on the Seacoast and based on FEA recommendations. 

There was a discussion of the consequences to the department of the changes initiated by the 2022 warrant article to increase the department’s staffing. Curry said the transition was a struggle. From the beginning it was difficult to fill the positions. 

Curry said that the morale of the full-time firefighters was cliquey. They had their own ideas about how a department should operate and those ideas were different from the methods used in our department. The department needed to evolve. Things needed to change. The full-timers had an idea of how to change the department, as they had experience from other departments. The Chief did not like having his department compared with those of other towns. He was not always open to suggestions. 

[It was here that I missed a couple minutes of testimony.]

Curry said that the Chief absolutely micromanaged. Nothing could be done without his approval. The Chief would try to manage even when he was not on the scene. He would override the decisions of the officer on the scene. 

Even with the Chief gone the micromanagement continues to cause problems for the department. Some computer systems no one had the password to except the Chief. Some subscriptions they have no access to. Some bills were going to his credit card. (The use of a personal credit card itself was not a problem.) This was not noticed until the department got late notices. These problems are still ongoing. 

There was a discussion of the terms of the letter from the board instructing the Vilchocks to not contact anyone in the department. Curry reported that he was contacted by Sandra Vilchock who requested a secret meeting with the Chief. Curry agreed to it. He went to the secret location but the Chief did not show up. 

Later, Curry said his wife was contacted by the Vilchock’s son who requested to meet with Curry. Curry agreed to meet with the son. The son then called to say that the attendees of the meeting would be different. His parents would be attending and other parties - parties Curry did not consider to be neutral. One of the other parties was Brent Tweed. Curry did not agree to this change. The son offered Cassie as a replacement for Tweed. Curry agreed to this. The meeting took place at the Vilchock’s home. The meeting lasted several hours. The Vilchocks directed lots of anger at him. He felt like a punching bag. 

There was other contact. When the Chief was first put on leave, the Chief would send text messages to Curry about issues such as items missing from the Fire Station. Curry wondered how it was that the Chief knew about such things. 

Later the Chief got a new cell phone number. Messages from that number were “do the right thing.” Curry got a text right before he was elected Chief saying “do the right thing.”

Curry said that he agreed with the finding in the investigator’s report about leadership issues and trust having been broken. It was no longer a strong department. The problems had become systemic prior to the Chief’s termination. 

Vilchock’s attorney then cross-examined. 

Curry said he was aware of reports about problems with the Chief’s use of language and behavior prior to the investigation, but over the 20 years that he worked with the Chief, he never observed any such problems. He remembered Firefighter Bruno making such an allegation, but he did not remember when Bruno said this to him. 

Curry thought Bruno was a good firefighter. He recalled that Bruno had asked for a raise right before the Chief wrote him up. Curry reported that Bruno had left the department, doing so after the Chief was terminated. 

Curry conceded that no one in the department had ever put a lock on their locker. 

Curry acknowledged that at a meeting of the department right after the Chief was put on leave that the members of the department were instructed not to have contact with the Vilchocks or to discuss the investigation with other members of the department. 

Curry reported to the Interim Town Administrator that the Chief had contacted him. Curry was not reprimanded for this. 

Curry said he’d discussed morale issues with the Chief prior to March 20, but he remembered no specifics about any conversation. 

Curry could not remember when the department’s budget was increased as a consequence of the voters approving the 2022 warrant article to increase the department’s staffing. He did recall that as soon as the warrant article passed, the department began recruiting. Curry was not involved in the interview process for the resulting candidates. He remembers their joining the department. 

Curry said that the transition problems caused by the new staffing method were not entirely due to the Chief. He conceded that the department is still in the process of updating the SOPs. Curry said the process took a long time not because it took long to develop an SOP, but because they were time-consuming to implement. 

Curry said that the Chief had standing meetings for trainings - one monthly for EMT, one for fire. 

Curry said the department had trouble filling positions because every department in the country is having problems. It’s a revolving door. Nottingham gets young people. They find that we don’t live the Chicago lifestyle. [This appears to be a reference to the TV show, Chicago Fire.] They moved on to bigger towns. 

Curry was asked about the lack of a pre-plan for the gas station [Liars Paradise]. Curry conceded that this was the location of his auto-repair business and that he had thorough knowledge of the facility. 

The Town Attorney then asked questions. 

She asked if Curry had ever heard the Chief use negative language in general, and not directed to a person. Curry said that he had. It had happened at the station and at another place. 

She asked about the trainings. The Chief would ask Curry to put together trainings. It was one of the duties of being an officer. Curry complained, however, that training plans were often changed by the Chief without consulting the officer doing the training. The Chief would make last-minute changes. Curry felt that this wasted the officers’ time. 

Vilchock’s attorney then asked for clarification about what Curry had just testified about. Curry clarified that the words used by the Chief were as part of cursing and they were not directed at anyone. Curry conceded that he also cursed. 

Testimony of Jaye Vilchock

Vilchock’s attorney asked questions to establish Vilchock’s background.

Vilchock joined the Nottingham Fire Department in the summer of 1988 as a volunteer firefighter. He was first elected Chief in January 2007. He ran for re-election every subsequent year and was always re-elected. 

Vilchock said that there were two occasions when following his election that the board failed to re-appoint him. One year it just fell through the cracks. One was during Covid. Under the circumstances the board just skipped it because it was just a formality. 

Vilchock started rattling off his certifications and trainings. He’s an EMT and a Firefighter 1. He began naming all of the courses he’d taken at the Fire Academy. After naming a few from memory he started to consult notes on his phone. The Town Attorney interrupted to say that if the witness was going to use notes that those notes would need to be provided to the defendant. It was decided that the list of courses was unnecessary and to go onto the next subject. 

Vilchock reported that his role as Chief was not full-time; it was a stipend position for which he earned $11k/yr. 

Vilchock described his career outside the Fire Department. He spent 37 years with the federal government, Navy, and Air Force as an electrical engineer. He worked in weapons systems program management and acquisition roles. He had top security clearances. Some of his roles were technical, especially those early in his career, such as repairing submarines. He later progressed to management positions. In his last role doing program management for the Air Force he had 5 to 10 contractors and staff reporting to him. He retired from this work in February 2017. His last position was as a submarine maintenance engineer at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. 

His professional career required high leves of attention to duties. The stakes were large because it involved protecting lives. His work was classified. He had a level-3 security clearance, which entailed investigations of his personal contacts. 

Before Vilchock became Chief he’d go out on call 2-4 times a week, on average. So, between 1988 and 2007 that amounted to several thousand calls. 

After becoming Chief his role became more administrative; however, he then started going out on even more calls, especially on weekends. 

When he became Chief he inherited a department with two full-time employees. These two employees covered the five weekdays during the day. At night, the on-call personnel took the calls. They were compensated on a point system. 

Sometime between 2007 and 2017 there was a warrant article that funded a staffing increase to three full-time staff. This was the first stage of a multi-year initiative outlined in the town’s Capital Improvement Program to bring the department up to 24/7 coverage, with the aim of having full-time staff cover every day but Sundays, which would be covered by per deim and on-call members. This plan was not something the board had ordered Vilchock to do. It was a response to the ongoing trend of people losing interest in serving as volunteers. There used to be a lot of interest in serving one’s community as a volunteer firefighter or EMT. Young people don’t want to do this like prior generations did. 

The role of Nottingham Fire & Rescue Department is primarily for emergency medical services. There aren’t many fires. It’s mostly a transport organization. [Transporting people to emergency rooms].

Vilchock described his administrative duties. A major one was overseeing the planning and execution of the department’s move to a new fire station. Others involved acquiring equipment and managing testing. 

Vilchock described managing a “combination” department as tough. [“Combination” means a combination of volunteers and employees.] This is a common model in smaller towns in the southern part of the state. It’s difficult because the motivations of the members vary. The motivations of the volunteers are much different from those of the employees. The volunteers are there because they want to be. They want the social aspects of being a volunteer and the psychological fulfillment that comes from serving their community. This desire is important for motivating people to get up at 2:00 am for a call. 

In the earlier years of his tenure as Chief he migrated the department to a system of having volunteers responsible for particular days of the week. Previously this aspect of scheduling was unstructured. This lack of structure caused some people to be on call too many nights in a row. Sleep deprivation was a problem. It also wasn’t a fair sharing of responsibilities, as some members would pick and choose what they would respond to. 

Later Vilchock instituted a program of creating “companies” - a small number of staff who were responsible for set times, such as 10:00 pm to 5:00 am on certain days. This system was successful. The staff said they appreciated it, as it allowed them to unplug during certain periods and not to have to worry about being on call. It also improved camaraderie among the small teams who worked together, and it improved pride an ownership. These are psychological benefits that are necessary for volunteers’ engagement with their duties. 

After Vilchock retired from his day-job in 2017, his participation in the department increased. He was at the Fire Station whenever needed. He made a point of being at the station during the evenings - the most difficult part of the day to fill the schedule. He was usually there on the weekends, too. He clocked over 40 hours every week. Meanwhile, his stipend was his only compensation. He did not participate in the point system. He did not get paid for his hours. In terms of the number of calls he went on, he was the fourth highest in the department. The third highest was Lieutenatn Sandra Vilchock. This amount of call was at the level the full-time staff were doing. Vilchock structured his hours so that he would routinely be going on call with the newest members of the department. 

Vilchock described how Covid affected the department’s operations. Running the department at this time was exceptionally difficult: ever-changing protocols and ever-changing information about how to operate. Shortages of supplies and cost increases - so bad that they had to be metered and rationed in an authoritarian way to ensure that supplies remained available. Difficulties in staffing and recruiting. Nottingham couldn’t pay as well as other departments. It couldn’t offer much overtime. The structure of its shifts were less desirable. Full-time firefighters prefer 24-hour shifts. The department was forced to consider job applicants who would have previously have been considered unhirable.

Covid slowed down the planned transition to 24/7. The 2022 warrant article was originally planned for 2021, but delayed because of concerns about raising taxes during Covid. Vilchock worked with Town Administrator Sterndale on these issues, succeeding in getting the voters to approve the warrant article by a healthy margin. 

Vilchock reported that in his tenure as Chief the Fire Department had never gone over budget. Frequently, money in the Fire Department’s budget would be used to cover spending overages in other departments. 

Vilchock described why full-time firefighters preferred 24-hour shifts. These minimize the number of days of the week that they are scheduled to work, allowing them to work at other jobs. These other jobs are often at other fire departments. It also allows them to consider farther-away jobs because it minimizes communting time. 

Following the approval of the warrant article, the department began recruiting. The plan and budget was for bringing the new staff onboard one at a time, about a month or two apart, to allow for better training and onboarding. The target for full staffing was the end of 2022, although the department briefly experienced full staffing during the summer of 2022 due to low attrition. Then attrition increased. One firefighter the department lost at this time had only been in the department a short amount of time. He had been promised by Firefighter Bruno that he’d get 24-hour shifts. But this wasn’t true. We could not provide those shifts at that time. He wired only about a month. Our shifts were incompatible with the schedule for his family business. 

Vilchock was asked if he received any complaints from members of the department between September 2022 and February 2023. He reported one from August 2022 in which Firefighter Bruno had claimed that Lieutenant Sandra Vilchock had made a remark about his economic capability that he found embarrassing. This was 5-6 weeks after Bruno had joined the department and during the process leading up to firing him was taking place. Bruno had failed to follow orders, violated safety procedures, such as in daily ambulance checks. There was evidence that the checks were not being made, such as test strips not being filed, and missing log book entries. Direct orders had been disregarded, such as an instance in which Bruno was instructed to clean up a leak from a piece of equipment. 

Bruno had problems with another Firefighter on the same shift: James Summers. Summers also had issues about not doing assignments. There was finger-pointing, mostly by Bruno. But they were part of a team. Both were assigned for tasks that did not get done. 

Vilchock informed Town Administrator Sterndale about these employee issues, and obtained approval to fire them. However, when he went to fire Bruno, Bruno objected, saying that he could not be fired because he had never received any written warnings. He then threatened that he was going to go to the board to turn him and his wife in for her comment that he felt embarrassed him, giving an account of the situation that differed from what Lieutenant Sandra Vilchocck had given, although the Chief could not recall the details. 

Vilchock said that a decision to fire an employee had to be approved by the Town Administrator because, according to town bylaws, the Town Administrator was his boss. He reported to the Town Administrator. 

In response to questions about why he didn’t go ahead and terminate Bruno, Vilchock said he agreed with what Bruno had said. He had not written Bruno up for anything prior. So, he told Bruno that if he needs things written up, then that what we’ll do. We’ll document everything. 

Vilchock said he first learned that a complaint had been filed against him at 19:15 on March 23 a the board’s non-public meeting. However, he had a hunch that something bad was about to happen because a couple of days earlier from Selectman Morin saying that the meeting was about a personal issue. Vilchock said that in addition to the board, the meeting was attended by the outgoing Interim Town Administrator Scruton and incoming Town Administrator White. 

There was a discussion about Scruton. Vilchock said October 31, 2022 was Scruton’s first day. He remembers it because it was the same day Vilchock’s mother died. Vilchock was invited to Scruton’s first meeting. 

Vilchock described the working relationship he had with Scruton as the worst he ever had with a Town Administrator. His requests for the Town Administrator’s personal contact information - needed for after-hours notifications of major incients, such as a fatality - were ignored until after a major equipment malfunction at the beginning of 2023. 

Scruton’s office hours were not announced. Vilchock said that he used to meet with the prior Town Administrators once a week. He never got on Scruton’s schedule or established any rapport with him. 

Vilchock said he had a good wroking relationship with the prior two Town Administrators. They were not friends outside of work. He said he received coaching from both of them, mainly about his department’s budget and especially about his communication style. Vilchock said his communication style was formed by his work in the defense sector of the federal government and that municipal government communication style was very different. He was coached on modifying his style. 

Vilchock said he received no coaching from Scruton. Only once did they ever meet face-to-face. One day Vilchock just happened to visit Town Hall at a time that Scruton happened to be there. Vilchock offered to give Scruton a tour of the Fire Station. Scruton said he was free at the moment, so they immediately did the tour. 

There was a discussion about the Fire Station’s boiler problems. These producdd a major incident in January 2023. Vilchock said that building maintenance issues such as these were the Town Administrator’s responsibility, not his. Maintenance was handled by a contractor who reported to the Town Administrtor. Invoices went to the Town Administrator. 

The company that did regular maintenance on the boiler found during an inspection in the fall of 2022 that one of two boilers wasn’t working due to a faulty control board, which required replacement. When Vilchock attended a meeting in early 2023 in which the board was being briefed about the budget he learned that Scruton had fired the maintenance company and hired another company. Vilchock inferred that the issue with the boiler needing repair had fallen through the cracks. 

A week later the second boiler failed. The Fire Station had no heat. This is an especially serious problem for a Fire Station because water in tanker trucks must not be allowed to freeze. The failure was discovered in the late afternoon on a Sunday. Vilchock had no way of contacting Scruton for an urgent issue. He then called Selectman Bartlett, as Bartlett was the only member of the board whose personal contact information Vilchock had. 

Bartlett called Scruton. Scruton called Vilchock. Vilchock called the new contractor. The contractor was not immediately able to fix the boiler, but was able to hook up a temporary heating source to address the crisis. Within a week both boilers were replaced. 

Vilchock emphaisized that the boiler issues were the Town Administoratr’s responsibility. The contractor reported to the Town Administratoer and billed the Town administrator. Vilchock said that to the best of his knowledge, this was not charged to the Fire Department’s budget, but to some other budget, exactly which Vilchock did not know. 

There was a discussion about what happened at the March 23 meeting. Vilchock said he was not told about the nature of the complaints at this meeting. The exhibit containing the letter that Selectman Danis read to Vilchock at that meeting was read. It referred only to “a complaint filed.” It was emphasized that the letter says “complaint” - in the singular. Vilchock asked Danis about the nature of the complaint. Danis replied: “we are not here to discuss the complaint.”

The letter also prohibited Vilchock from accessing any of the department’s systems. Vilchock has not been back at the Fire Station since then. He’s been unable to retrieve anything from the station. 

There was a discussion of the investigation. Vilchock described his repeated efforts to obtain information about the complaint. Nothing was ever provided to him. It was at this point he secured an attorney. 

He said that he was eager to speak with the investigator. He did, however, request to have his attorney present. There was resistance to this, but he eventually was allowed to have his attorney present as a witness. 

Vilchock did not see a copy of the investigator’s report until after he was terminated. A redacted copy was included with his termination letter, which was delivered to his door by a sheriff. 

Vilchock described the board’s request for him to appear before them. It conflicted with a cardiologist appointment he’d been waiting six months to have. Further, right after that he had a commitment to be out of town. Further, if he was going to appear before the board, he wanted his attorney present. 

There was a discussion of the investigator’s report. Vilchock said he disagreed with the conclusions of the report. He was shocked at the large number of inconsistencies in the report and the large number of untrue statements and unverified claims. For example, the very first paragraph of the report says that every witness was asked the same questions. This was obviously false because the report mentions many questions he was not asked. 

There was a discussion about the utility vehicle. Vilchock described the history of maintenance issues with the truck. He was very familiar with the truck because he was its regular driver. It went home with him so he could use it for answering calls, for which the radio and emergency-vehicle lights are improtant. It also has some emergency-response supplies (e.g., a defibrillator).

In September 2022 the truck failed inspection. After repairs, noises in the front-end were noticed, but no fault could be found by Allens Diesel. In driving the vehicle through the end of December Vilchock reported no brake problems until he had the truck taken out of service on Friday December 30. On the next business day Tuesday January 3, Vilchock drove the truck to HCR for repairs, and picked it up the next day. The front brake pads had to be replaced. The rear brake pads were okay. HCR had identified a potential source of the noise noted earlier as a faulty hub bearing assembly, which HCR replaced. 

There was a discussion of the deficiency report. Vilchock noted that he was the one who implemented the reporting system. Then there was a discussion of the incident report, which Vilchock had signed. The details of the report show that Vilchock drove Engine #2 to the scene. Ashley Vega arrived as a passenger in Engine #3. There is no record of the utility vehicle having been driven to the scene, but there is a record of Ashley Vega having driven the utility vehicle from the scene. Vilchock did not know how the utility vehicle got there. He said he did not instruct Vega to drive the utility vehicle. He received no complaint from Vega about having to drive the vehicle. 

The incident was on January 2. Vilchock drove the utility vehicle to HCR himself the following day. He did not consider it to be unsafe to drive to HCR.  He recalled that Stevens had asked him about the incident. Vilchock said that the investigator’s conclusions on this issue were inaccurate, and that he would not and had not instructed an employee to drive an unsafe vehicle. 

There was a discussion about the Standing Orders. Vilchock described the difference between Standing Orders and Standard Operating Procedures as a difference in the level of detail. Vilchock said that he didn’t know whether the Standing Orders complied with the latest recommendations from the NFPA. He said that in the period in question, he had not received recommendations from staff for updates to the Standing Orders. He insisted that he would have been receptive to suggestions for updates. He described where the binder was located, how easily accessible it was to the staff, and how it was required reading for new members. 

There was a discussion of probationary periods for new members. These are usually up to six months long. They vary by job offer and are subject to being extended. 

There was a discussion about vehicle maintenance. Vilchock said there was a maintenance and testing schedule. All of this was tracked. There were daily, documented checks on all of the apparatus. Any deficiency discovered was to be reported to an officer. Deficiencies were prioriztized. Cosmetic deficiencies got low priority. An urgent priority might be a cut in a tire’s sidewall. Such a thing required an emergency replacement. 

There was a discussion of a request by some of the full-time staff to use a phone app called “I Am Responding.” Vilchock said that the department had been aware of and discussed the application for a long time, but when the new full-timers promoted adopting it, the Chief took their suggestion and did so. 

There was a discussion about an incident with Firefighter Bruno. Bruno had suggested that the department apply for a specific grant for radio equipment. Vilchock said that it was a good idea. He assigned Bruno to write the grant application. Bruno never did so. Vilchock checked up with him and reminded him about the deadline approaching. There were text messages about this. 

There was a discussion of mutual aid. Vilchock pointed out that departments don’t just receive mutual aid, they provide it, too. There’s an inter-town pact for this, which town government approved participation in. The pact has restrictions. A town cannot rely on mutual aid for things the town itself is responsible for. Travel time must be taken into consideration. Requests need to be real needs, as they involve tying up resources that may be needed to respond to other emergencies. Resources are not unlimited. It is necessary to consider what resources you are taking from other towns, and if you take up one town’s ambulance they may end up having to take another town’s.

When asked if it was Vilchock’s experience that new firefighters were sometimes too quick to call for mutual aid, Vilchock said that was not his experience, except with those who were unfamiliar with the the town’s geography such that they had trouble calculating travel times. This was a reason new firefighters would prematurely call for mutual aid. 

There was a discussion of the fire in the state park on August 22. It was a 3+ day fire. Vilchock denied forbidding any firefighter from fighting that fire on grounds of lack of trust. 

Vilchock described the circumstances of the fire. There were difficulties firguring out exactly where the fire was; however, reports were coming in that it was growing rapidly. 

The two firefighters on duty plus one highly experienced on-call member responded to the tone. One full-timer was told to take the utility vehicle loaded with the remote vehicle - the “gator.”  

There are 55 hundred acres in the park. It was 30-45 minutes to access points of the park. It was unclear what access point was best. Meanwhile, members were coming to the station to stage to fight the fire. Staging like this was a normal procedure. A resident with a view gave a location suggestion. The team headed to the Round Pond parking lot. Vilchock had concerns about whether the driver of the tanker knew the layout of the park. 

As Vilchock was relating this story it became rambling and increasingly hard to follow. Vilchock was supplying large amounts of details for which no relevance could be discerned. It was unclear how they related to the narrative or what point was to be made. The situation became so bad that Vilchock’s attorney told him to move on. 

There was a discussion of the incident of the person who fell into a well that was in the investigator’s report. Vilchock was asked why he canceled mutual aid. He responded that he didn’t recall whether he had canceled it or whether it was Durham’s Deputy Chief who did so on the scene. However, the decision to cancel mutual aid was obvious. The victim had been about to get themselves out of the well with the help of a ladder that someone got to them. There was no longer any need for mutual aid to bring equipment for getting the victim out of the well. Vilchock said that what the investigator had put in the report about the incident and what Durham’s Fire Chief had said was totally false. 

There was a discussion of the TEMSIS reports. Vilchock said that he had received no complaints about the QA process from the staff. He had instituted the QA process years ago due to problems found in the reports when they were requested by legal teams and billing agencies. A review found that the department was filing reports with lots of errors. 

Vilchock assigned QA to Liutentants Ross and Sandra Vilchock. They standardized expectations and gave TEMSIS trainings. However, some of the full-timers refused to attend these trainings. 

There was a discussion of bigoted language. Vilchock noted that he was being asked to prove a negative - prove that it did not happen. No one can prove a negative. He denied ever using bigoted language. He denied that he swore at people

He admitted that he used salty language in private conversations, such as “shit” and the f-word. He denied that he used swear words while on call. He denied that he swore at people. He denied the accusations in the investigator’s report. He said that the investigator asked him only about one incident covered by the report - the use of “spic.” The investigator withheld the other accustations from him. He had no opportunity to respond to those in the investigation. 

He denied that he put his arm around Rosfield while saying someting about preventing the spics from taking over the department.Vilchock noted that when Vash Rosfield worked in the department that he went by a different surname. He was Vash Cupp. 

Moreover, that he might be bigoted about Hispanics makes no sense. His daughter-in-law is from South America. He has grandchildren by her. 

He said that as Chief he had no tolerance for bigoted language in the workplace. It could be grounds for immediate termination. 

There was a discussion of the bumper damage to Engine #2. Vilchock said that there was a departmental report sometime in February that the bumper was out of alignment. The misalignment was cosmetic. It did not affect the operation or safety of the truck. He knew this because this had happened to the truck on two prior occasions. The truck has been in service since 2009. It did not rise to the level of an insurance claim. For cosmetic things like this he would delay repairs until the end of the year, to retain money in the budget. Vilchock noted, however, that the scratches on the bumper shown in the photo were not there in February. He did not know where the damage came from. 

There was a discussion of a letter in Sandra Vilchock’s personnel file, dated August 26, 2012. The same letter was received by other people in the department. It was for exceptional service during an instance such as a severe storm during which the town had exceptional needs for public safety assistance. 

Vilchock was asked if he intended to remain Chief forever. Of course not. He intended to step down for a successor. The board, however, never had a discussion with him about stepping down. He was aware that everyone had a shelf life in a particular role. He would have taken the board’s recommendations into consideration. 

He said that after being put on leave whether anyone in the department contacted him for help with passwords. He said no. 

He was asked what this end of his 35 years of service to the town meant to him. He said it was all a shock. It felt like a death in the family - or more like the death of his connection with the town. It affected his whole family. It has given him severe insomnia. If the board had wanted him gone it could have done so in a much less vindictive way. 

Vilchock denied ever threatening to fire anyone for unionizing. He said one could not fire people for that. He said for part of his career he’d been in a union. 

Vilchock was then cross-examined by the Town Attorney

The Town Attorney described the responsibilities of the Chief according to the department’s bylaws. Vilchock responded, “the buck stops with the Chief.” 

The Town Attorney described what the bylaws said of the requirements of the members of the department: no discrimination, must act professionally, must comply with town policies. The Chief is subject to these. 

There was a discussion of the bumper incident. The Town Attorney asked if damage to the bumper had been reported to the town by March 20. Vilchock said no, there was only a report that was internal to the department. The Town Attorney asked how the failure to report the damage affected the town. Vilchock said it didn’t affect the town. The damage was cosmetic and unimportant. 

The Town Attorney directed Vilchock’s attention to an exhibit the town had filed with the court - a letter in Vilchock’s personnel file from Town Administrator Charlie Brown, addressed to the board, from 2012. Vilchock was unfamiliar with the letter. The Town Attorney read outloud some parts of the letter very quickly. It was very negative. [I have filed a right-to-know request for a copy of this letter. Being an exhibit in this public trial makes it public information. I will publish the contents of  the letter once I receive them.] In the letter, Brown says he’s had it with the Chief. There’s a communication problem with the Chief. A poor atmosphere in the department. The Chief will not respond to things he doesn’t agree with. Many other negative comments I couldn’t take notes fast enough on. Vilchock said that Brown had never discussed this with him. 

The Town Attorney said that after March 23 Vilchock sent numerous emails to Town Administrator White. Evenutally he created a new email address for these. That Sandra did the same, and also had a special email address. Vilchock agreed that this happened. 

The Town Attorney asked why Vilchock did not immediately schedule an interview with the investigator when he was requested to do so. Vilchock said because he wanted a copy of the complaint and he wanted his attorney present. 

The Town Attorney pointed out that it was many weeks between the request and the interview. Vilchock said he trusted his attorney to negotiate the schedule. 

The Town Attorney asked Vilchok to confirm that when he was interviewed by the investigator that he did not provide recommendations for who should also be interviewed. Vilchock denied this. The Town Attorney said, you didn’t give her Tweed. Vilchock replied, no, I did not give her Tweed. I told her to interview the entire department. I also told her the names of four people outside the department who should be interviewed. 

There was a discussion about the letter Vilchock received about not contacting town employees. Vilchock said the letter said “refrain,” not no contact. The problem was there was ambiguity about who not to talk to. Could I not talk to the dump attendant? 

The Town Attorney brought up Vilchock contacting Curry. Vilchock said that he did so after he received a letter from the Town Attorney that said he was free to move about the town. His communication with Curry was personal. I was making a personal mayday - are you familiar with the term? - I was put into a position of distress. 

The Town Attorney brourught up the alleged bigoted comment made by Lieuteant Sandra Vilchock: “god forbid our little spic….” Vilchock said that did not happen. That’s Bruno’s claim. No slur ever happened. 

The Town Attorney asked, weren’t you upset he was going to go to the board? Vilchock said no. The Town Attorney said, but you testified that he was going to go over your head. 

The Town Attorney said, you understand that any harassment is to be reported to the Town Administrator, by town policy. Vilchock said that on no occasion did he need to document discipline of Lieuteant Sandra Vilchock. 

There was a discussion about the firefighters Vilchock had told the investigator that he had concerns about. The Town Attorney said this number was many. Vilchock said it was two: Bruno and Summers. The Town Attorney pointed out that he referred to one of them in the interview as a “borderline problem child” and another as “stubborn.” There was a discussion about what was meant and the credibility of their statements. 

There was a discussion of the events following Vilchock’s meeting with the board on March 23. Scruton made Vilchock relinquish the keys to the utility vehicle. He was allowed to get his personal belongings from the truck. Scruton called for the Police Chief to drive Vilchock to his home. The Town Attorney asked if Vilchock told the Police Chief that he had to retrieve a weapon from the truck. Vilchock said no. The Town Attorney said you know you’re not allowed to have weapons on town property. Vilchock said that many years ago he carried a weapon. This issue was addressed with Town Administrator Brown many years ago. 

The Town Attorney said, you’ve denied all the allegations. Vilchock said I don’t know about all. 

The Town Attorney asked, don’t you think you’ve done something wrong? Vilchock replied, wrong? In what sense? Any, she responded. He replied, since I was an infant? She said, since you were the Chief, in respect to the allegations. Vilchock answered, I think I am wrongly accused of the allegations. 

Vilchock’s attorney then asked questions.

The attorney asked if there were things Vilchock wished he had done differently, or thought better of in hindsight. Vilchock agreed he did. 

Do you think there was anything that constituted reason for termination? Vilchock answered, no.

The attorney directed attention to page 2 of the investigator’s report. This page showed that Vilchock was not the last persoon to be interviewed. Vilchock’s interview was on May 22, 2023. The final interview was on May 26. 

The attorney got Vilchock to expand on what was meant by “borderline problem child.” It was not about disliking or belittling him. It was an attempt to describe the management situation. The attorney asked why immediate actions were not taken against firefighters Bruno and Cupp. Vilchock replied that they had not been onboard long. 

The attorney asked if it was Vilchock’s understanding that the policy on reporting damage was to taken literaly as any damage. Vilchock said no, the policy meant only about serious problems. It was not that every scratch needed to be reported. He thought the bumper problem was due to hitting snow. 

There was a discussion of Vilchock’s relationship with Town Administrator Brown. [Who died a couple of years ago]. Vilchock thought he had a good relationship with Brown. He didn’t know what caused Brown to write that letter, but he suspected that it had to do with a major controversy in town around that time about constructing a liquid propane distribution center directly across the street from the school. Vilchock and Brown disagreed about the safety of this. [The distribution center was never constructed.] Vilchock and Brown worked together for two years after this letter until Sterndale took over for Brown. 

The attorney directed attention to the termination letter. It made no reference to carrying a weapon. 

This concluded the testimony. 

The judge ended the hearing by thanking the large number of members of the public who attended, both in person and online. She recognized the importance of the hearing to the citizens of Nottingham and appreciated the public’s intense interest. 

I thank the large number of members of the public - according to my data, over a thousand of you - who have read the three articles summarizing the 15 hours or so of testimony into about 22,000 words - or about a quarter the length of a typical book. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, this court hearing has provided tremendously useful information to the public about the operation of Nottingham town government.