The situation was shamefully handled by the BOS and interim administrator. Regardless of the court decision, which I understand but find as lacking in deep consideration as I found the town-paid investigator's report biased and filled with innuendo, the Vilchock's deserve our respect and an apology from the town. Chief sued to defend his honor, he did not seek damages, just an apology and his legal fees. In my opinion, moving on him as the BOS and interim administrator did was uncalled for and should have begun with an open explanation of the charges and opportunity to respond to such charges. What happened, instead, as happens too often in this dystopian culture, is the cancellation of a long standing, respected, town servant.
I still think the way the town fired the chief is the reason he brought a law suit against the town. This is an opportunity for the town to review how the situation was handled and to improve on the way employees of the town are treated. Not a win for Nottingham.
Nowhere in the judge’s ruling was Vilchock’s attorneys argument, that the process used by the BOS for firing the Chief, being so poorly conducted and so biased against the Chief that the court should overturn the board’s decision on the basis of the injustice of the process, ever addressed at all!
My understanding is that according to the statute the only things the judge had to rule on was whether the Chief was entitled to a hearing (the "holdover" argument) and whether the BOS had grounds to fire the Chief. There's nothing in the statue about whether the process was fair. Therefore the judge did not have to give a ruling about the process.
The situation was shamefully handled by the BOS and interim administrator. Regardless of the court decision, which I understand but find as lacking in deep consideration as I found the town-paid investigator's report biased and filled with innuendo, the Vilchock's deserve our respect and an apology from the town. Chief sued to defend his honor, he did not seek damages, just an apology and his legal fees. In my opinion, moving on him as the BOS and interim administrator did was uncalled for and should have begun with an open explanation of the charges and opportunity to respond to such charges. What happened, instead, as happens too often in this dystopian culture, is the cancellation of a long standing, respected, town servant.
I still think the way the town fired the chief is the reason he brought a law suit against the town. This is an opportunity for the town to review how the situation was handled and to improve on the way employees of the town are treated. Not a win for Nottingham.
Nowhere in the judge’s ruling was Vilchock’s attorneys argument, that the process used by the BOS for firing the Chief, being so poorly conducted and so biased against the Chief that the court should overturn the board’s decision on the basis of the injustice of the process, ever addressed at all!
Shame on this Judge.
My understanding is that according to the statute the only things the judge had to rule on was whether the Chief was entitled to a hearing (the "holdover" argument) and whether the BOS had grounds to fire the Chief. There's nothing in the statue about whether the process was fair. Therefore the judge did not have to give a ruling about the process.
Yikes, I don’t think anyone in their right mind expected this result. Wild.