Unfortunately, we can ask until the cows find their way home. There will be no answers or responses that are satisfactory. Lives ruined, trust in the BOS evaporated, distinction between full timers and volunteers confused, public input ignored.
The truly sad part is that I believe the individuals involved were (are) good people trying to do the right thing.
Excellent questions! Every one of these questions should be addressed by the BOS in a public forum. There are several that the Fire Department should work on.
I have several additional questions relating mostly the the Fire Department:
1. From what I can tell, the Chief was elected to Chief by the volunteers every year for 17 years running, including January 2023. Additionally, he ran unopposed. If this is truly the case, where are those firefighters that knew better to run against the Chief for his position?
2. Question 1 might mean that the volunteers knew nothing of the problem. Ok, so that would mean the full-timers are the ones with the issue with the Chief, perhaps because they want to vote for their boss. In what world is that a good idea?
3. But we also now know that the complaints did not come just from the full-timers, so that means some complaints came from volunteers. So why did these volunteers who complained not run for Chief (supports question 1)?
4. If there is a valid timeline for all of this, it seems actions started happening late in 2022. It also seems that these actions were taking place at the Town Administrator/ BOS Chairman level along with perhaps other individuals in a fire capacity as to creating a strategy to oust the Chief. is this fair to any resident of Nottingham, not to mention the Chief?
5. Selectman Morin has been identified as the BOS liaison to the Fire Department during this time. On the stand, he was unaware of any of this negative activity at the Department. What are we as residents to believe as to this BOS liaison activity?
6. The Nottingham BOS used to have a policy, very similar to to the present personnel policy that specifically identified the complaints needed to be written and signed. Great policy! How was this simple part of the present personnel policy not followed?
These questions appear to be (mostly) already answered by Doug's previous reporting:
1. A culture of retaliation and retribution was indicated by multiple witnesses. This includes individuals who said they were fearful of retaliation AND corroborated by actions which demonstrated a fear of relation (car pooling in another vehicle and going in the back door). The fact that no one ran against an incumbent Chief of 10+ years is further evidence of this. It seems much more likely that people were fearful of being driven out of the department (retaliated against) for what they believed would be perceived as "questioning" the Chief by running against him. Consistently uncontested elections with no challengers doesn't mean "Everything is good here", it means that the democratic system that appears to be in place is fundamentally broken (Russia has "democratic" elections, but Putin wins every time!). This is further supported by the fact that the findings of the 2023 investigation were apparently corroborated by a 2013(ish) letter in the Chief's personnel file. If the BOS and TA had done something 10 years ago to put the proper training in place, could this have been avoided?
2. From the previous reporting, the full timers did not get to vote in the election for Chief. So it would follow that they were also ineligible to run. The Chief indicated in his testimony that he was only certified at the Firefighter 1 level. This means every fulltime employee, and likely many of the volunteers, were certified at level 2. The volunteers voted for their boss too, which, to your point, is a bad idea.
3. See question 1. Fearful for retaliation.
4. It seems the documentation goes back to 2013 where many of the same issues were raised. (Doug looking forward to more reporting on this letter). Consider the cost of defending multiple discrimination, harassment, and other employment related claims. Backpay alone for ONE of those cases would likely come to more than the cost of this entire ordeal. The real problem seems to be the issue existed for a long time and nothing was done about it.
5. This is a good question
6. This is a question that people keep asking and not sure why... IT IS ALLLLLLL DOCUMENTED. In fact, the Town spent $20k documenting the complaints. The BOS testified they were blindsided with the depth and breadth of the reports of potential wrongdoing in the non-public meeting. Clearly the BOS felt they could not do the investigation justice and they wanted everything documented before they took action. With a minimum of 6 people with a wide range of complaints it does not appear there was a simple single "complaint" to write down from one or two people. There were multiple people with different versions of the same events. Because it was so complicated, they paid an 3rd party to do an investigation and DOCUMENT the complaints and make findings. Therefore, the policy to get a "written" complaint was in fact followed before any action was taken. As has been said by others, requiring employees to sign a "complaint" form as a prerequisite to taking action is ILLEGAL and would cost much more in the long run
‘Morin conceded that while the termination letter said there were HIPPA violations, the investigator's report made no such finding. Morin said he didn't know how this got into the termination letter.’
How do we explain this?
Reasons A-I on the termination letter WERE NOT successfully corroborated in court.
Kamee, all they had to do was tell the Chief that they’d deny the WILL OF THE VOTERS at NFRD and simply deny his re-appointment. That could’ve been the end of the story.
Instead they paid $20k for the town attorney to have another attorney compile a list of complaints none of which were CORROBORATED in court and therefore do not rise to the level of a fireable offense.
You deserve a Pulitzer for this reporting, Mr. Bates. Nottingham residents should all feel very grateful to you for the service you've provided during this hearing in particular.
There are so many questions still, and you raised most of them.
One I've had is what exactly is the role of the Board liaison to the Fire Dept? Most recently, I think has been John Morin. Not placing blame, just wondering what is entailed and perhaps how this role could be helpful in the future.
Also, you mentioned nothing about Sandra Vilchock in this last piece. I know the hearing wasn't meant to address her grievances, but can we expect to be hearing from her lawyer too?
The Fire Department liaison in early 2023 was Selectman Morin. After Shirland joined the board, it was Shirland. Morin was not informed about any problems in the department until, it appears, the March 20 non-public meeting of the board.
Sandra Vilchock does not have the kind of statutory protections that Chiefs have. I don't know what will become of her situation.
Outstanding work, analysis and follow-up questions! It’s the residents responsibility to hold the current board of selectmen responsible; and ask these questions until they’re answered or the selectmen resign or get voted out. Everyone works for the Selectmen unless a signed charter reads otherwise and the selectmen work for the residents.
Unfortunately, we can ask until the cows find their way home. There will be no answers or responses that are satisfactory. Lives ruined, trust in the BOS evaporated, distinction between full timers and volunteers confused, public input ignored.
The truly sad part is that I believe the individuals involved were (are) good people trying to do the right thing.
Unfortunately, we can ask until the cows find their way home. There will be no answers or responses that are satisfactory. Lives ruined, trust in the BOS evaporated, distinction between full timers and volunteers confused, public input ignored.
The truly sad part is that I believe the individuals involved were (are) good people trying to do the right thing.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Bill Garnett
Excellent questions! Every one of these questions should be addressed by the BOS in a public forum. There are several that the Fire Department should work on.
I have several additional questions relating mostly the the Fire Department:
1. From what I can tell, the Chief was elected to Chief by the volunteers every year for 17 years running, including January 2023. Additionally, he ran unopposed. If this is truly the case, where are those firefighters that knew better to run against the Chief for his position?
2. Question 1 might mean that the volunteers knew nothing of the problem. Ok, so that would mean the full-timers are the ones with the issue with the Chief, perhaps because they want to vote for their boss. In what world is that a good idea?
3. But we also now know that the complaints did not come just from the full-timers, so that means some complaints came from volunteers. So why did these volunteers who complained not run for Chief (supports question 1)?
4. If there is a valid timeline for all of this, it seems actions started happening late in 2022. It also seems that these actions were taking place at the Town Administrator/ BOS Chairman level along with perhaps other individuals in a fire capacity as to creating a strategy to oust the Chief. is this fair to any resident of Nottingham, not to mention the Chief?
5. Selectman Morin has been identified as the BOS liaison to the Fire Department during this time. On the stand, he was unaware of any of this negative activity at the Department. What are we as residents to believe as to this BOS liaison activity?
6. The Nottingham BOS used to have a policy, very similar to to the present personnel policy that specifically identified the complaints needed to be written and signed. Great policy! How was this simple part of the present personnel policy not followed?
These questions appear to be (mostly) already answered by Doug's previous reporting:
1. A culture of retaliation and retribution was indicated by multiple witnesses. This includes individuals who said they were fearful of retaliation AND corroborated by actions which demonstrated a fear of relation (car pooling in another vehicle and going in the back door). The fact that no one ran against an incumbent Chief of 10+ years is further evidence of this. It seems much more likely that people were fearful of being driven out of the department (retaliated against) for what they believed would be perceived as "questioning" the Chief by running against him. Consistently uncontested elections with no challengers doesn't mean "Everything is good here", it means that the democratic system that appears to be in place is fundamentally broken (Russia has "democratic" elections, but Putin wins every time!). This is further supported by the fact that the findings of the 2023 investigation were apparently corroborated by a 2013(ish) letter in the Chief's personnel file. If the BOS and TA had done something 10 years ago to put the proper training in place, could this have been avoided?
2. From the previous reporting, the full timers did not get to vote in the election for Chief. So it would follow that they were also ineligible to run. The Chief indicated in his testimony that he was only certified at the Firefighter 1 level. This means every fulltime employee, and likely many of the volunteers, were certified at level 2. The volunteers voted for their boss too, which, to your point, is a bad idea.
3. See question 1. Fearful for retaliation.
4. It seems the documentation goes back to 2013 where many of the same issues were raised. (Doug looking forward to more reporting on this letter). Consider the cost of defending multiple discrimination, harassment, and other employment related claims. Backpay alone for ONE of those cases would likely come to more than the cost of this entire ordeal. The real problem seems to be the issue existed for a long time and nothing was done about it.
5. This is a good question
6. This is a question that people keep asking and not sure why... IT IS ALLLLLLL DOCUMENTED. In fact, the Town spent $20k documenting the complaints. The BOS testified they were blindsided with the depth and breadth of the reports of potential wrongdoing in the non-public meeting. Clearly the BOS felt they could not do the investigation justice and they wanted everything documented before they took action. With a minimum of 6 people with a wide range of complaints it does not appear there was a simple single "complaint" to write down from one or two people. There were multiple people with different versions of the same events. Because it was so complicated, they paid an 3rd party to do an investigation and DOCUMENT the complaints and make findings. Therefore, the policy to get a "written" complaint was in fact followed before any action was taken. As has been said by others, requiring employees to sign a "complaint" form as a prerequisite to taking action is ILLEGAL and would cost much more in the long run
Doug, thank you for this reporting!
‘Morin conceded that while the termination letter said there were HIPPA violations, the investigator's report made no such finding. Morin said he didn't know how this got into the termination letter.’
How do we explain this?
Reasons A-I on the termination letter WERE NOT successfully corroborated in court.
It got into the termination letter because the Town Attorney put it there. It appears that the board signed the letter without questioning it.
That is completely unacceptable.
The town attorney and the BOS both should be on the hook, at the minimal, for serious ethics violations.
Kamee, all they had to do was tell the Chief that they’d deny the WILL OF THE VOTERS at NFRD and simply deny his re-appointment. That could’ve been the end of the story.
Instead they paid $20k for the town attorney to have another attorney compile a list of complaints none of which were CORROBORATED in court and therefore do not rise to the level of a fireable offense.
Time will tell. And I thought working in private industry was a cluster…
You deserve a Pulitzer for this reporting, Mr. Bates. Nottingham residents should all feel very grateful to you for the service you've provided during this hearing in particular.
There are so many questions still, and you raised most of them.
One I've had is what exactly is the role of the Board liaison to the Fire Dept? Most recently, I think has been John Morin. Not placing blame, just wondering what is entailed and perhaps how this role could be helpful in the future.
Also, you mentioned nothing about Sandra Vilchock in this last piece. I know the hearing wasn't meant to address her grievances, but can we expect to be hearing from her lawyer too?
The Fire Department liaison in early 2023 was Selectman Morin. After Shirland joined the board, it was Shirland. Morin was not informed about any problems in the department until, it appears, the March 20 non-public meeting of the board.
Sandra Vilchock does not have the kind of statutory protections that Chiefs have. I don't know what will become of her situation.
Outstanding work, analysis and follow-up questions! It’s the residents responsibility to hold the current board of selectmen responsible; and ask these questions until they’re answered or the selectmen resign or get voted out. Everyone works for the Selectmen unless a signed charter reads otherwise and the selectmen work for the residents.
Unfortunately, we can ask until the cows find their way home. There will be no answers or responses that are satisfactory. Lives ruined, trust in the BOS evaporated, distinction between full timers and volunteers confused, public input ignored.
The truly sad part is that I believe the individuals involved were (are) good people trying to do the right thing.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Bill Garnett