Letter Presented as Evidence Describing Problems with Fire Chief

The Nottingham Blog’s coverage of the third and final day of hearings on Vilchock v. Nottingham Board of Selectmen contained the following:

The Town Attorney directed Vilchock’s attention to an exhibit the town had filed with the court - a letter in Vilchock’s personnel file from Town Administrator Charlie Brown, addressed to the board, from 2012. Vilchock was unfamiliar with the letter. The Town Attorney read out loud some parts of the letter very quickly. It was very negative. [I have filed a right-to-know request for a copy of this letter. Being an exhibit in this public trial makes it public information. I will publish the contents of  the letter once I receive them.] In the letter, Brown says he’s had it with the Chief. There’s a communication problem with the Chief. A poor atmosphere in the department. The Chief will not respond to things he doesn’t agree with. Many other negative comments I couldn’t take notes fast enough on. Vilchock said that Brown had never discussed this with him.

My right-to-know request for the letter was filled promptly. I was also promptly contacted by one of the three addresses of that letter: Mark Carpenter, who was then a Selectman. Carpenter offered to provide background information on the letter and information about what happened after the letter was received.

Town Administrator Brown passed away a couple of years ago. 

Carpenter told me that his recollection of the letter was that it was not as negative as the Town Attorney pitched it. The Town Attorney assembled parts of the letter out of order and out of context to make it sound worse than it did. Carpenter didn’t recall it saying that the former Town Administrator “had had it with the Chief” as the Town Attorney said. (He’s right. The letter does not say that.) Instead, the letter was about the Town Administrator not knowing what to do next because of the communication breakdown. He was seeking the help of the Board. 

Carpenter recalled clearly some of the substantive issues in the letter. One issue was about expediting job offers to certain candidates. Nottingham has always had difficulties recruiting. Vilchock wanted to make some exceptions to land a particular highly recommended candidate who he thought would go somewhere else without quick action. Another issue was about Vilchock not having a personal cell phone (it was 2012). The Chief had a federal-government-issued cell phone that had restricted use.

Some of the issues in the letter about Vilchock’s management style are similar to complaints heard at the hearing. Ironically, one of Brown’s complaints about the Chief was that he was “making up the rules as he goes along. This could come back to bite us in the future.” This is what the Chief argued that the Board of Selectmen did throughout his termination process. And it came back to bite the board.

Carpenter acknowledged that there had been a communication breakdown between Vilchock and Brown. He also acknowledged that Vilchock has an idiosyncratic style of communication, such as using “negative” instead of “no,” and will act defensively when he believes he is in a hostile environment. Carpenter said that this was a short-term issue that got resolved - something that the Board of Selectmen addressed immediately and properly.

After receiving the letter, Carpenter, as the board's liaison to the Fire Department, stepped in to mediate the communication breakdown. It turned out that Brown and Vilchock had different understandings of some basic facts. Neither of them had inquired with each other whether their understandings of these facts might be different. Once Carpenter discovered that this was the source of the communication problem and explained his discoveries to Brown and Vilchock, the immediate problem was solved, but there were still relationship issues. Carpenter then recommended that Brown and Vilchock get to know each other better. The two had an informal meeting away from town offices to do so. From then on they had a good working relationship. The communications between the Chief and Brown were much more productive and fluid.

Carpenter - who is presently the CEO of a company -  thinks mismanagement is why the town ended up in court. The mismanagement came from key people in the situation ignoring the need to treat people as humans. Management is a human endeavor, not simply a bunch of rules. He said the mismanagement did not come from Town Administrator White. She inherited the problem. Carpenter thought that the town may have grounds to sue interim TA Scruton for his role in contributing to the town having to defend itself in court. Carpenter also thought that the Board of Selectmen should re-assess Upton & Hatfield’s performance in providing legal representation to the town and any activities it considers with Municipal Resources, Inc.

Here’s the full text of the letter: