Town Accused of Defamation
Town resists right-to-know request for details. Details obtained anyway.
On January 4, the Nottingham Blog received a tip that former Fire Chief Jaye Vilchock had filed a demand letter with the town (i.e., a threat to sue the town if the town does not satisfy the demand stated in the letter). On January 5, I emailed the Town Administrator to confirm the rumor. I received no response. The person providing the tip did likewise, also receiving no response.
At the January 6 Board of Selectmen meeting I inquired about the subject during the public comment period. The Town Administrator said the town had received a “legal letter” that was discussed during the December 23rd non-public session and that this letter was sealed with the minutes of that meeting.
On January 7, I filed a right-to-know request for the letter, arguing that the town lacked the right to withhold the letter from the public by sealing it with the minutes. On January 8, I received a reply from the Town Administrator acknowledging my request, saying,
We kindly urge you to bear with us as we carefully review this document with our legal counsel. It is essential for us to ensure that its content is released appropriately, safeguarding both reputation and privacy. We appreciate your understanding and ask for your patience, as we aim to finalize our determination by end of day Friday, January 10th. Should our review require additional time, I will be sure to update you accordingly.
Later that day I emailed Jaye Vilchock asking if he would provide a copy of the letter to the public. He declined to comment, but said that he had authorized his attorney, Craig McMahon, to respond to my questions.
McMahon responded today, corroborating the rumor by providing a copy of the demand letter that the town has been withholding from the public. It is a five-page letter that may be downloaded below. In summary the letter says:
At least two Fire Department employees defamed Vilchock. Details of the defamatory statements are provided.
The town participated in the defamation by adopting those statements as true.
The town is both vicariously liable for the torts of its employees and directly liable for its own role in adopting those statements.
Vilchock’s termination letter, which was made pubic, said Vilchock’s conduct as Chief was “implicated” in a host of anti-discrimination laws, leading the public to believe that Vilchock was fired for violating those laws, further defaming Vilchock.
Selectman Morin testified under oath that he did not know why the termination letter referenced specific laws that the investigator’s report expressly declined to make any findings on. This failure to exercise reasonable care in making allegations about criminal conduct defamed Vilchock.
To compensate Vilchock for injuries inflicted upon him by the town, Vilchock demands
Payment of $250k.
The town to publicly retract its statement that Vilchock broke civil rights laws.
The town to publicly disavow the defamatory statements of its employees against Vilchock.
The town has 30 days (from December 20) to comply with these demands or else the town will be subject to litigation.
I asked McMahon why he thought the town was withholding the letter from the public. He said,
I don't work for the Town, of course, so anything I answer on that is my opinion, not the Town's. But, from my perspective, everything referenced in the letter is already a matter of public record one way or the other, and so I don't see any particular privacy / reputational issues at stake.
Thanks for getting this Doug. Unfortunately, I see this all as a continuation of a very bad scenario. Mistakes were made yes, but continuing to draw this out seems to just add to the pain and suffering, especially for the Vilchocks.
Unfortunately, I would assess 90% of the case asserted in the Demand Letter to be moot and the lawyer representing the former chief should know that. Specifically, "(a) fail to exercise reasonable care in PUBLISHING".
I haven't seen any information that would suggest THE TOWN published the termination letter. It was however published here: https://nottingham.substack.com/p/fire-chief-and-lieutenant-termination.
Only Doug can answer where those letters came from but it seems likely they were sourced from the Vilchocks or came from Facebook. The Vilchocks are highly unlikely to succeed on a case that hinges on their decision to share a confidential termination letter with third parties. Now if the Town published these letters than full speed ahead, there is a highly concerning liability there and I would expect the Town to settle... But I don't think the Town did that. The Town will not be liable for a private letter discosed only to the plaintiff and contained within a confidential personell file. I'm not defending or disputing there may be carelessly incorrect information in that letter BUT that alone does not create liability given the confidential nature of the letter. It's also important to note while the investigation didn't make certain conclusions that does not prevent the BOS from making them based on direct information received to the TA prior to the investigation starting... Not necessarily wise and kinda makes the investigation a waste of money, but legally within their rights. (Why pay an investigator to investigate something if the Board (in their view) already had sufficient evidence to conclude?). Also to clarify, testimony of a single member of the board does not carry the authority of the Town because of quorum.
Perhaps there is a case to be made against the individuals mentioned... But there is also a danger those two individuals can provide evidence to support their testimony and prove what they allege is true. That would then expose the Vilchocks to a counter defamation suit. Unfortunately, I see this as an everyone loses scenario.
Side note: Thanks Doug for all the recent reporting and articles.
Outstanding work Doug, thank you for your investigative reporting holding the town govt accountable