Investigator Deletes Controversial Twitter Account. Complaint Filed Against Town Employee.

Investigator Deletes Twitter Account

Following the revelations on the Nottingham Blog, Charla Stevens - the consultant recommended by the town’s attorney to investigate the Fire Chief and Lieutenant - has deleted her Twitter account. Her website, however, still shows a link to the now-deleted account. 

Her Twitter account included strongly partisan political opinions, including harshly worded negative views of one of the cable television news networks. The article pointed out that it had been reported that one of the issues Stevens had pursued in her investigation concerned what news stations were selected to be shown on the television in the break room of the fire station. 

These revelations have produced more emails from subscribers than any previous article published on the Nottingham Blog. As examples of the comments I received from readers, one reader wrote to me saying, 

After reading the well crafted sub stack Conclusion of the Investigation.... I was struck again at how well you blend the pieces of this puzzle together.  The careful consideration to all sides creates a tone of respect while delving into the obviously underhanded goings on.

Another reader wrote to me saying, 

If the investigator pursued the issue of what television channel was put on at the Fire Station, that was because there was presumably a complaint about it and not because of her own personal political views, right? How can you conclude otherwise? And if it was Fox, then perhaps the issue had to do with being subjected to a propaganda and entertainment channel that has settled a lawsuit against it for knowingly promoting lies and misinformation, which it actually admitted as part of the settlement. I might complain about that myself. Reporting as many of the facts as you have without editorializing would be great! Putting this kind of slant on it only inflames an already overinflamed situation.

I think people read the news to confirm their pre-existing opinions. If one believes something underhanded is going on, that’s what one sees. If one believes Fox News is despicable, then an investigator who has the same beliefs couldn’t possibly have been influenced by them as part of the investigation. Any suggestion that this might be so is “editorializing.”

Another reader wrote:

This implies that the investigation was not fair.  Is that your view?

My view is that the content of the investigator’s Twitter feed seems to be relevant to the questions the investigator was asking about the television and that readers would want to know about these things. Yes, it was obvious that some readers would infer from this information that the investigation might not have been fair. Whether it was fair or not, I don’t know. I do, however, hold the view that it was foolish and unprofessional for the investigator - who is marketing themselves on the basis of their impartiality - to not only post such opinions on Twitter, but to advertise their Twitter account on their business website. 

As Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, Ben Bartlett said, “the town has relied on legal counsel to hire a neutral investigator.” Since this information was so easily obtainable, I now have the view that the town’s attorney failed to properly vet their recommendation, which just adds to my previously expressed concerns about whether the town should be doing whatever Upton & Hatfield tells the board to do.

The view that’s now important here is whether the public views the investigation to be fair. For a perspective on that, Brent Tweed, who is both a Budget Committee member and a member of the Fire Department said on Facebook: 

I am honestly quite concerned why an investigator with such a leftist bent was hired to conduct this investigation. I reviewed her Twitter feed and it is quite concerning. I am not sure, based on the line of questioning and the investigator's Twitter feed that the accused will get a fair hearing. …since I am a member of the Nottingham Fire Department I know for a fact it is Fox News that is being referred to.

With the deletion of the investigator’s Twitter account, even the investigator now appears to be concerned that she may have undermined her own claims to act “as a neutral third party.” Deleting her Twitter account may have made matters worse because it destroyed evidence about potential biases that may have affected the investigation, further exacerbating concerns about whether the investigation of the Chief and Lieutenant was fair and impartial. 

Meanwhile, despite having received the final report and having had two non-public sessions on Monday and Wednesday, the Board of Selectmen has not announced a decision. The board’s announcement on Wednesday did, however, provide the public with a timeline of events and new information that there were six members of the Fire Department who presented their complaints at the March 20 non-public session of the board. 

The board is in a difficult position. They are highly limited with regard to what information they may make public, and this lack of transparency fuels speculation. The new information the board provided has improved the board’s credibility by dispelling long-standing rumors that the complaint came from a single disgruntled employee or that the complaint was anonymous. It also explains why there was no written complaint, despite there being a town policy that complaints must be in writing. 

While many readers are convinced there’s something underhanded going on, there’s nothing more than hearsay evidence about that. As for whether the investigation is being properly handled, there’s now some evidence of improprieties. As the Lieutenant has waived her privacy rights, the public is going to get to see a redacted copy of the investigator’s report. It will no doubt be closely scrutinized for bias, motivations, and mistakes. 

Complaint Filed About Town Employee’s Facebook Postings

Complaints about a non-supervisory town employee (and town resident) have been filed with the town. As the employee is making these postings outside of work, the town must respect the citizen’s free speech rights. Nevertheless, the comments have drawn public scrutiny. Here’s an example of what this employee has been posting.