Charla Stevens' website indicates that her firm provides "remediation if requested". Some time back I contacted the town ("Contact Us" on the town's website) wondering if any member of the BOS might have suggested "remediation" in the Vilchock case. I received no response or acknowledgment.
Doug, thanks again for keeping up on this situation. I find the following curious:
1. The Town's attorney has indicated that the BOS had not appointed the Fire Chief for 2023.
2. A review of the BOS meeting minutes does not indicate any such vote to appoint the Fire Chief for 2023.
3. The BOS meeting minutes of 2023 indicates "Fire Chief" and "Chief Vilchock" several times. What person were they referring to?
4. According to the Nottingham Fire and Rescue Bylaws in effect at that time, the Fire Chief selection is subject to final approval by the BOS at their next regularly scheduled meeting (Article VI, Election of Chief and Secretary).
5. The appointment of the Fire Chief is incumbent upon a vote by the BOS, not the department.
6. Was the Interim TA delinquent in his duties to address the Fire Chief 2023 election?
7. Was the BOS delinquent in addressing the election during their meetings?
8. Was the writer of the BOS meeting minutes at fault for not documenting a vote?
9. How could a person that was NOT appointed to a position be placed on PAID administrative leave or -indeed- terminated from that position?
10. A review of the BOS meeting minutes over the last 18 years would indicate the this BOS Fire Chief appointment was not done consistently.
11. A review of the Town Reports from 2007 through 2023 indicates payroll payments were made to Mr. Vilchock as part of the fire department.
Upton & Hatfield is throwing a hail mary by claiming Chief was in temporary status. And the reason it's not mentioned in any minutes of any meeting or by any selectmen or in any of the communication is because it is a legal maneuver dreamed up after the fact in an attempt to find some basis to defend their prejudicial actions. Go Chief go! They are grasping at straws.
Seems like the town has twisted themselves up in a million different knots with this case. Why go through all the trouble of suspension, investigation, etc for a, as they’re now trying to claim ‘temp Chief’? Changing the NFRD bylaws after the fact is very odd to say the least.
17 years straight this Chief was unanimously elected by NFRD.
17 years those election results in accordance with NFRD bylaws were sent to the Town Office.
Whatever happened next appointment or not the town was inconsistent, some years they followed through with the appointment others they did not, signaling the town was either negligent in their duties or something worse was in the works in the case of 2023.
I have to agree with the other commenters here that the town looks extremely foolish by trying to deny the Chief an opportunity to defend himself against an unknown complaint which lead to all of this.
It’s crazy that it never occurred to anyone from the town to maybe have a simple conversation with the Chief instead of launching this attack funded by the taxpayers against their will.
That’s right Nottingham paid for all of this and continued to without even a proper explanation offered to the Chief, Lieutenant or the public.
Charla Stevens' website indicates that her firm provides "remediation if requested". Some time back I contacted the town ("Contact Us" on the town's website) wondering if any member of the BOS might have suggested "remediation" in the Vilchock case. I received no response or acknowledgment.
Doug, thanks again for keeping up on this situation. I find the following curious:
1. The Town's attorney has indicated that the BOS had not appointed the Fire Chief for 2023.
2. A review of the BOS meeting minutes does not indicate any such vote to appoint the Fire Chief for 2023.
3. The BOS meeting minutes of 2023 indicates "Fire Chief" and "Chief Vilchock" several times. What person were they referring to?
4. According to the Nottingham Fire and Rescue Bylaws in effect at that time, the Fire Chief selection is subject to final approval by the BOS at their next regularly scheduled meeting (Article VI, Election of Chief and Secretary).
5. The appointment of the Fire Chief is incumbent upon a vote by the BOS, not the department.
6. Was the Interim TA delinquent in his duties to address the Fire Chief 2023 election?
7. Was the BOS delinquent in addressing the election during their meetings?
8. Was the writer of the BOS meeting minutes at fault for not documenting a vote?
9. How could a person that was NOT appointed to a position be placed on PAID administrative leave or -indeed- terminated from that position?
10. A review of the BOS meeting minutes over the last 18 years would indicate the this BOS Fire Chief appointment was not done consistently.
11. A review of the Town Reports from 2007 through 2023 indicates payroll payments were made to Mr. Vilchock as part of the fire department.
Thanks again!
Upton & Hatfield is throwing a hail mary by claiming Chief was in temporary status. And the reason it's not mentioned in any minutes of any meeting or by any selectmen or in any of the communication is because it is a legal maneuver dreamed up after the fact in an attempt to find some basis to defend their prejudicial actions. Go Chief go! They are grasping at straws.
Seems like the town has twisted themselves up in a million different knots with this case. Why go through all the trouble of suspension, investigation, etc for a, as they’re now trying to claim ‘temp Chief’? Changing the NFRD bylaws after the fact is very odd to say the least.
17 years straight this Chief was unanimously elected by NFRD.
17 years those election results in accordance with NFRD bylaws were sent to the Town Office.
Whatever happened next appointment or not the town was inconsistent, some years they followed through with the appointment others they did not, signaling the town was either negligent in their duties or something worse was in the works in the case of 2023.
I have to agree with the other commenters here that the town looks extremely foolish by trying to deny the Chief an opportunity to defend himself against an unknown complaint which lead to all of this.
It’s crazy that it never occurred to anyone from the town to maybe have a simple conversation with the Chief instead of launching this attack funded by the taxpayers against their will.
That’s right Nottingham paid for all of this and continued to without even a proper explanation offered to the Chief, Lieutenant or the public.