Final Arguments Presented in Vilchock v. Nottingham Board of Selectmen
Both sides presented written final arguments to Rockingham Superior Court on June 28. The Nottingham Blog has obtained copies of these arguments. The key points in the documents are as follows.
Under RSA 105:2-a, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated that: “The selectmen have the burden of proof going forward in superior court to establish the validity of their action. The chief has the ultimate burden of persuasion.”
The Town Attorney asserts that because the Board of Selectmen did not formally re-appoint the Chief in early 2023, the Chief’s legal status was, therefore, that of a holdover appointee. Holdover appointees do not have the legal right to contest their terminations. Hence, the court should dismiss the Chief’s challenge to the board’s decision. Vilchock’s attorney says this argument was made up after the fact. At the time of the Chief’s firing, everyone thought he was the Chief and not a holdover.
Vilchock’s attorney argues that the process the board used for firing the Chief was so poorly conducted and so biased against the Chief that the court should overturn the board’s decision on the basis of the injustice of the process. The Town Attorney argues that the process was just.
Vilchocks’ attorney argues that the termination reasons did not meet the standards of the statute with respect to what Chiefs may be fired for. The Town Attorney argues that the reasons for termination were serious and met the standards of the statute. The Town Attorney identified the following reasons that independently justified firing the Chief: compromise of public safety, compromise of employee safety, inadequate standard operating procedures, discrimination and retaliation, leadership and management failures, and a violation of the Town’s notification policy.
Vilchock’s attorney argues that the reasons the Town gave for terminating the Chief were not proven. The Town Attorney argues that they were proven.
Vilchocks’ attorney argues that Vilchock is entitled to attorney fees because of the public benefit of the case. The Town Attorney argues that Vilchock should not be entitled to this.
The complete documents may be accessed below.
I just want you to know, Doug, how much I have appreciated your efforts in keeping us informed about this complex and difficult situation. Thank you.
Bill Garnett