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 .
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.
Thanks for such a detailed comment. It's twice as long as the article!
Regarding the quote from the Town Administrator, I see your point about how it can be interpreted as a non-answer in an attempt to evade the question. However, my observation is that the Town Administrator is more honest and forthright than that. If she thought it was a matter for which the town could withhold an answer on 91-a grounds of it being an internal personnel practice, I think she would have come out and said so rather than give the public an answer that would be simultaneously non-informative and unflattering to the BOS.
I don't see anything in your comment that would lead me or anyone else to believe that I have a misunderstanding about the structure of municipal public safety in NH. I said nothing about the Chief being an at-will employee, or anything about the process for terminating them, or anything about those other topics you brought up. In particular, you have a sentence saying, "For this reason, it is not uncommon, as you reported, for these types of personnel decisions to be reviewed for legal compliance." I reported no such thing in the article. It seems to me that you have read a bunch of things into the article that are not there!
It's fine by me if you think it is good that Fire and Police Chiefs should have no managerial oversight regarding their major personnel decisions. And it's also fine if you wish to take the position that our public servants should hold or lose their positions based on their personal loyalties. As this is a major Trump objective to apply to high levels of the federal government, it is something much debated these days. However, if politics is playing that much of a role in a small-town fire department, I think you would find plenty of people who would consider that a sign of departmental dysfunction. I would be among them. I think such low-level roles should be evaluated on the basis of merit, and not politics. It's worth remembering that the investigator concluded the department was in a state of dysfunction. There's no guarantee that the removal of two of the department's managers fixed all of the problems. The former Chief was accused of operating the department tyrannically. It's pretty common for a tyranny to be replaced by another tyranny.
Lastly, I find this claim of yours unreasonable: "your classification that the town is "withholding" a letter of resignation is patently absurd." The simple facts are that I asked the town for the resignation letter. They said they would not give it to me. This fits the dictionary definition of "withhold" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/withhold .
I do not think it is an entirely bad idea to give our fire department the means to decide (based on their bylaws) how the department runs. After all, they are the ones doing the work and likely know best what is needed. However, I think that ALL town departments should follow best business practices. I don't know if there is that much depth of knowledge in that regard. Inline with that, those same practices should apply to the town administration. Meaning, in this case the recommended demotion would have been reviewed and approved at a higher level. If nothing else it serves as a check to make sure we are following current labor laws. It doesn't hurt to have a fresh set of eyes to make sure actions are correctly applied. It protects all parties, and if correctly applied, it also builds trust.
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 .
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.
Thanks for such a detailed comment. It's twice as long as the article!
Regarding the quote from the Town Administrator, I see your point about how it can be interpreted as a non-answer in an attempt to evade the question. However, my observation is that the Town Administrator is more honest and forthright than that. If she thought it was a matter for which the town could withhold an answer on 91-a grounds of it being an internal personnel practice, I think she would have come out and said so rather than give the public an answer that would be simultaneously non-informative and unflattering to the BOS.
I don't see anything in your comment that would lead me or anyone else to believe that I have a misunderstanding about the structure of municipal public safety in NH. I said nothing about the Chief being an at-will employee, or anything about the process for terminating them, or anything about those other topics you brought up. In particular, you have a sentence saying, "For this reason, it is not uncommon, as you reported, for these types of personnel decisions to be reviewed for legal compliance." I reported no such thing in the article. It seems to me that you have read a bunch of things into the article that are not there!
It's fine by me if you think it is good that Fire and Police Chiefs should have no managerial oversight regarding their major personnel decisions. And it's also fine if you wish to take the position that our public servants should hold or lose their positions based on their personal loyalties. As this is a major Trump objective to apply to high levels of the federal government, it is something much debated these days. However, if politics is playing that much of a role in a small-town fire department, I think you would find plenty of people who would consider that a sign of departmental dysfunction. I would be among them. I think such low-level roles should be evaluated on the basis of merit, and not politics. It's worth remembering that the investigator concluded the department was in a state of dysfunction. There's no guarantee that the removal of two of the department's managers fixed all of the problems. The former Chief was accused of operating the department tyrannically. It's pretty common for a tyranny to be replaced by another tyranny.
Lastly, I find this claim of yours unreasonable: "your classification that the town is "withholding" a letter of resignation is patently absurd." The simple facts are that I asked the town for the resignation letter. They said they would not give it to me. This fits the dictionary definition of "withhold" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/withhold .
I do not think it is an entirely bad idea to give our fire department the means to decide (based on their bylaws) how the department runs. After all, they are the ones doing the work and likely know best what is needed. However, I think that ALL town departments should follow best business practices. I don't know if there is that much depth of knowledge in that regard. Inline with that, those same practices should apply to the town administration. Meaning, in this case the recommended demotion would have been reviewed and approved at a higher level. If nothing else it serves as a check to make sure we are following current labor laws. It doesn't hurt to have a fresh set of eyes to make sure actions are correctly applied. It protects all parties, and if correctly applied, it also builds trust.