In a recent interview with former Nottingham Selectman Mark Carpenter, Carpenter said the Town of Nottingham should sue Interim Town Administrator John Scruton for his role in causing the Town to be taken to court by former Fire Chief Jaye Vilchock for improper termination.
John Scruton was (is?) a private contractor to MRI, not an employee, further complicating an already complicated rabbit's warren.
All that had to be done was to apprise the excommunicated fire chief and his wife of the complaints against them and give them an opportunity to respond prior to taking any action. It seems simple in hindsight. We don't if this was considered or not at the board level, but I fervently hope that at least one board member had the good sense to raise a red flag at some point - even though it may have been ignored. John may have been "not Nottingham", but the board members are.
Lots of lessons to be learned all the way around here. The divisions that have been created may well outlive the lessons. Proper process matters, and when it is not followed . . . .
The contract makes clear that it was a contract between the Town and MRI, not with Scruton, and that Scruton's services were covered by MRI's insurance.
The counter-argument for letting the Chief know about the complaints is that the complainants said they feared retribution. This would make it difficult to provide any specificity about the complaints to the Chief. That seems reasonable; however, was it reasonable to sit on the matter for weeks, only discussing the matter with the CEO of MRI with regards to the possibility of selling more services? Why wasn't the BOS informed? (We were told they didn't learn about this until shortly before the March 20 meeting, and then not in any detail until that meeting.) Why wasn't more oversight applied? Why wasn't more information gathered?
The reason I made that statement is because, regardless of your position w.r.t. Chief Vilchock and Lt Vilchock, there was clearly a bad player afoot who believed the ends justified the means. We should all, and I mean all to include the BOS and administration, understand that this one person's actions, clearly with malicious backroom bullshit intent, made us all victims. It's a microcosm example of what's happening all around us up to the federal level -- bad players who believe the ends justifies the means, who do not act out of integrity, they act out of intent for their agenda, and leave those in their wake to pick up the pieces.
The ends NEVER justifies the means for anyone with integrity. NEVER. It's happened in this town before and likely will again that bad players believe the exact opposite and give absolutely no regard to the fallout. They just want their agenda and will literally self-justify anything to get there. I am saddened for ALL of us, except for the known bad players, and call shame on any unknown bad players in this fiasco. As I believe we all should, again, regardless on your stance w.r.t the Chief and Lt.
Does this end well? It can, we can learn from this, we can act like adult human beings and seek contrition and to forgive one another and focus on ridding ourselves of the bad players. That takes courage and integrity, it means risk taking, it means candid dialog and active listening. Anybody else up for that?
As Doug has pointed out regarding the contract, the hold harmless may obviate the opportunity to seek relief. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But wouldn't it be interesting and enlightening to see an investigative report on the former temporary TA's history and background and see if there is any kind of pattern or recurring themes?
Mr. Bates- I assume, as a frequent writer about this case, that you are aware that in the state of NH the Fire Chief has the legal right to a trial when they are terminated— this is regardless of the circumstances surrounding termination or the reasons for his termination. Please don’t take my word on this, review for yourself at https://www.nhafc.org/nh-fire-chiefs-powers-and-duties
Your argument for holding a specific person or company liable for a court hearing that Mr. Vilchock was legally entitled to because he was the Fire Chief is well interesting—I continue to be amused by your one sided reporting… also because I don’t have the time or desire to correct all of your written misinformation- I do feel it’s important to note that Matt Curry does not and has never lived in Deerfield, he is a resident of Nottingham.
You appear to have misunderstood the article. Former Selectman Mark Carpenter contacted me for an interview. In that interview, he described the mismanagement and argued for holding a specific person or company liable for that mismanagement. This article is a follow-on to that interview. I obtained the contract to identify what entity would have to be the target for such a suit.
Several past articles have discussed that Fire Chiefs are legally entitled to hearings to contest their terminations. It seems strange that you think you need to point out to me that this was a hearing the Chief was legally entitled to. Perhaps you missed the point that the hearing turned up evidence of mismanagement and that Carpenter's point was that had there not been mismanagement, the Town would not have had to incur the costs that resulted from that mismanagement - costs that included having to defend itself in court.
As for Matt Curry living in Deerfield, this was what I heard in his testimony in day 3 of the hearing. I'm not a court stenographer and I don't have access to the stenographer's transcripts. I was just there furiously taking notes of 6 hours or so of daily testimony, then compiling those notes that evening into articles. That's what I heard him say on the witness stand. Maybe I misheard or maybe he misspoke, but I recall that he emphasized in his testimony that he could not go directly to the scene and that he had to go to elsewhere to get his gear. I recall him saying "home" and "Deerfield" with respect to this place. If Chief Curry would like to issue a statement to clarify the matter, I would publish it as I have done with similar correspondence in the past.
As for one-sidedness, you are closely connected to one of the parties involved in the dispute. I am not a party to the dispute. If you know a former Selectman who would like me to interview them for the Nottingham Blog to give a contrasting opinion to Carpenter's, have them contact me.
Doug, again an excellent job of relating known facts and putting them together in a coherent and succinct manner. Thank you.
John Scruton was (is?) a private contractor to MRI, not an employee, further complicating an already complicated rabbit's warren.
All that had to be done was to apprise the excommunicated fire chief and his wife of the complaints against them and give them an opportunity to respond prior to taking any action. It seems simple in hindsight. We don't if this was considered or not at the board level, but I fervently hope that at least one board member had the good sense to raise a red flag at some point - even though it may have been ignored. John may have been "not Nottingham", but the board members are.
Lots of lessons to be learned all the way around here. The divisions that have been created may well outlive the lessons. Proper process matters, and when it is not followed . . . .
The contract makes clear that it was a contract between the Town and MRI, not with Scruton, and that Scruton's services were covered by MRI's insurance.
The counter-argument for letting the Chief know about the complaints is that the complainants said they feared retribution. This would make it difficult to provide any specificity about the complaints to the Chief. That seems reasonable; however, was it reasonable to sit on the matter for weeks, only discussing the matter with the CEO of MRI with regards to the possibility of selling more services? Why wasn't the BOS informed? (We were told they didn't learn about this until shortly before the March 20 meeting, and then not in any detail until that meeting.) Why wasn't more oversight applied? Why wasn't more information gathered?
The reason I made that statement is because, regardless of your position w.r.t. Chief Vilchock and Lt Vilchock, there was clearly a bad player afoot who believed the ends justified the means. We should all, and I mean all to include the BOS and administration, understand that this one person's actions, clearly with malicious backroom bullshit intent, made us all victims. It's a microcosm example of what's happening all around us up to the federal level -- bad players who believe the ends justifies the means, who do not act out of integrity, they act out of intent for their agenda, and leave those in their wake to pick up the pieces.
The ends NEVER justifies the means for anyone with integrity. NEVER. It's happened in this town before and likely will again that bad players believe the exact opposite and give absolutely no regard to the fallout. They just want their agenda and will literally self-justify anything to get there. I am saddened for ALL of us, except for the known bad players, and call shame on any unknown bad players in this fiasco. As I believe we all should, again, regardless on your stance w.r.t the Chief and Lt.
Does this end well? It can, we can learn from this, we can act like adult human beings and seek contrition and to forgive one another and focus on ridding ourselves of the bad players. That takes courage and integrity, it means risk taking, it means candid dialog and active listening. Anybody else up for that?
As Doug has pointed out regarding the contract, the hold harmless may obviate the opportunity to seek relief. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But wouldn't it be interesting and enlightening to see an investigative report on the former temporary TA's history and background and see if there is any kind of pattern or recurring themes?
What a mess.
Mr. Bates- I assume, as a frequent writer about this case, that you are aware that in the state of NH the Fire Chief has the legal right to a trial when they are terminated— this is regardless of the circumstances surrounding termination or the reasons for his termination. Please don’t take my word on this, review for yourself at https://www.nhafc.org/nh-fire-chiefs-powers-and-duties
Your argument for holding a specific person or company liable for a court hearing that Mr. Vilchock was legally entitled to because he was the Fire Chief is well interesting—I continue to be amused by your one sided reporting… also because I don’t have the time or desire to correct all of your written misinformation- I do feel it’s important to note that Matt Curry does not and has never lived in Deerfield, he is a resident of Nottingham.
You appear to have misunderstood the article. Former Selectman Mark Carpenter contacted me for an interview. In that interview, he described the mismanagement and argued for holding a specific person or company liable for that mismanagement. This article is a follow-on to that interview. I obtained the contract to identify what entity would have to be the target for such a suit.
Several past articles have discussed that Fire Chiefs are legally entitled to hearings to contest their terminations. It seems strange that you think you need to point out to me that this was a hearing the Chief was legally entitled to. Perhaps you missed the point that the hearing turned up evidence of mismanagement and that Carpenter's point was that had there not been mismanagement, the Town would not have had to incur the costs that resulted from that mismanagement - costs that included having to defend itself in court.
As for Matt Curry living in Deerfield, this was what I heard in his testimony in day 3 of the hearing. I'm not a court stenographer and I don't have access to the stenographer's transcripts. I was just there furiously taking notes of 6 hours or so of daily testimony, then compiling those notes that evening into articles. That's what I heard him say on the witness stand. Maybe I misheard or maybe he misspoke, but I recall that he emphasized in his testimony that he could not go directly to the scene and that he had to go to elsewhere to get his gear. I recall him saying "home" and "Deerfield" with respect to this place. If Chief Curry would like to issue a statement to clarify the matter, I would publish it as I have done with similar correspondence in the past.
As for one-sidedness, you are closely connected to one of the parties involved in the dispute. I am not a party to the dispute. If you know a former Selectman who would like me to interview them for the Nottingham Blog to give a contrasting opinion to Carpenter's, have them contact me.
Did Matthew Curry lie under oath about where he lives?
I am confused about the reference to retrieval of his personal vehicle from Deerfield in order to respond to a call in Nottingham?
What was happening there?
The transcript can be purchased if anyone wishes to dig deeper on this.