Demotion of Lieutenant Ross
Evidence of a Structural Problem in Town Management
While the town continues to withhold Firefighter Steven Ross’s resignation letter from the public, it appears that he has had an exit interview and that the Board of Selectmen was updated on the situation in their July 21 non-public session.
Further, it has been reported that the resignation letter likely cited unfairness in Ross’s demotion from his role as Lieutenant. The demotion occurred the day after the 2024 Deliberative Session. At the Deliberative Session, Ross sat with former Fire Chief Vilchock, who was then in the process of contesting his termination.
A few months prior to that, Ross had run against Matt Curry for the position of Fire Chief, elected by the members of the Fire Department. Curry won 14 to 3.
In response to an inquiry about whether Fire Chief Curry’s decision to demote Ross had been subjected to any managerial oversight, Town Administrator Ellen White responded,
… the Select Board does not have authority over the appointment or removal of officers serving under the Fire Chief. Those decisions fall solely under the Chief's discretion.
Per Article V of the Nottingham Fire-Rescue Department Bylaws:
"The Chief shall appoint Deputy Chief(s), and Line Officers, as necessary for safe and efficient Department operations."
Ultimately, it is up to Chief Curry to appoint officers as he sees fit to meet the department's operational needs. There is no requirement that individuals serving under a previous Chief remain in their roles under new leadership.
However, according to testimony from former Fire Chief Vilchock at his hearing, it appears that it was the former practice for the Chief to obtain approval from the Town Administrator for major personnel decisions, such as this one.
[COMMENTARY: It is a well-known fact that it is a bad management practice to allow supervisors to make major personnel decisions such as firings and demotions on their own, without any oversight or input from their management. Such unilateral authority puts the organization at risk of decisions made on impulsive, improper, or unfair grounds, as has been alleged in the case of Lieutenant Ross. Among the complaints about the former Fire Chief was that the Chief had too much leeway for abusing his authority. Based on what happened to Lieutenant Ross, it appears that this is a structural problem in the way that the Fire Department is organized, entailing insufficient supervision by the Town Administrator and the Selectmen.]
Hi Doug your commentary, taken literally, implies that you have a misunderstanding about the structure of municipal public safety in NH. Neither Fire or PD are like other Town Departments, like the Highway Department, where the directors report into the Town's management structure. Neither the Fire Chief nor the Police Chief have managers/supervisors by law; They are executive level employees. They do not report to the Town Administrator. They are not "at will" employees and can only be terminated "for cause", with specific protocols for administrative review by the court, as you well know. By extension, all personnel working within the Fire and Police departments report to their respective chief and not Town Management. That is to say, the Board of Selectmen has NO authority over the Fire or Police Chiefs personnel decisions. While, as you suggest, they may act in an advisory capacity, they can't control or modify a decision that has been made. Their ONLY recourse would be to terminate the chief if they made a decision that violated a written policy or law. For this reason, it is not uncommon, as you reported, for these types of personnel decisions to be reviewed for legal compliance, however, there is no such requirement.
On the fire side, this is established in RSA 154:1 - VI. "Subject to statute, charter, or local ordinance, and subject to such written formal policies or guidelines as may be adopted or approved by the appointing authority, the fire chief shall have the organizational and administrative control of the fire department." Seems like the Town's position is that there are no applicable policies meaning the fire chief has full "organizational and administrative control".
So your commentary that the Fire Chief has "management" and "supervision" form the TA and BOS is incorrect, and to the extent above, illegal by current policy. Management and supervision both imply power and control of which, by the Town's statement and the law, there is none over the Fire Chief. This is for good reason. Do you know the firearm proficiency and accuracy requirement for Police Officers? The BOS and TA probably don't and that's okay because its NOT THEIR JOB! Public Safety has been insulated from political interference by the legislature. Of course, there should still be oversight, and there is. This is where the budgeting process comes in and this is why the chief's go to BOS meetings to provide updates. However, if the TA/BOS shows up to a police or fire emergency and starts trying to direct personnel that work for the respective chief, then the TA/BOS may very well end up getting arrested. Imagine a member of the BOS/TA trying to tell the Fire Chief how to put out a fire or the Police Chief how evidence should be collected... The system is setup this way for a reason.
There is typically wide authority given to new executives (including the private sector); Demotions, terminations, resignations, and reassignments are all EXTREMELY common in new administrations. When there is a new president or governor, it is hardly news when there is changeover in high level personnel. For that reason, I also disagree with your characterization that this event, without more information, is anything out of the ordinary. Chief's, as an executive, have a right to surround themselves with a staff that shares their strategic vision. Reasonable individuals may disagree with a particular strategic vision and that is fine but may lead to personnel changes.
Also, your classification that the town is "withholding" a letter of resignation is patently absurd. I highly encourage you to send a RTK request to every town in NH asking for the "Most Recent Letter of Resignation". If you get a SINGLE document responsive to that vague and broad request, I would consider that a newsworthy event, and very likely a slam dunk lawsuit for the now former town employee who's privacy was violated for no articulable strong public interest (Provenza v. Town of Canaan, 175 N.H. 121 (2022)). If you are going to make RTK requests, make them in accordance with the exemptions and the narrowly tailored exemptions to those exemptions.
[COMMENTARY: You have not reported any evidence that the Fire Chief did NOT consult the TA or BOS before making this demotion. Your reporting STRONGLY implies (without asserting) that there was no consultation when in fact all you got was a "non-answer" to your "managerial oversight" question, which is appropriate given the exemptions for "internal personnel practices" in 91-A. Given that, and the facts presented in your reporting, I would argue you lack a factual basis to declare "Evidence of a Structural Problem in Town Management." I would agree with your general commentary that these types of decisions should have, what I will call a "legal review" phase. Based on the same facts used in this article, I will conclude the "legal review" did occur which would allow me to make an equally uninformed headline stating "Evidence of Well Organized and Executed Town Management". I will credit you with getting an on the record statement for the article. However, I think your article would be better suited with a more constructive tone highlighting the lack of "local ordinance, and subject to such written formal policies or guidelines as may be adopted or approved by the appointing authority" and proposed a policy/ordinance to resolve that concern given your reasonable concern that a "legal review" MAY not have occurred because there is no policy that requires it. Afterall, when you boil it down, and remove the clickbait, all this article is about is what POTENTIALLY did not happen, not what ACTUALLY did not happen.]
As always though, thank you for your reporting. Even though I disagree with the tone I still am happy to see some insight into the government.
It has been made abundantly clear that the Nottingham Fire Department is now in a true state of dysfunction.
This Chief Curry character clearly bullied Lieutenant Ross.
The town’s personnel policy clearly states no bullying or retaliation will be tolerated.
Seems Ross was the victim of bullying and retaliation.
I wonder how the selectboard will handle this?
Will Curry be investigated?
Will they try to sweep it under the rug?
How does Curry, first as Deputy Chief, and now as the fill in part time Chief escape accountability again?
Does Nottingham drug tests it’s employees?
If not the town should strongly consider randomly drug testing those who routinely operate heavy equipment and Fire Engines, there’s a gigantic liability concern.
The evidence of a severe structural problem in Nottingham town management is overwhelming .