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".
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.
"Publish" is well defined in the context of defamation suits. It doesn't necessarily mean the "classic" definition of, say, publishing a story on a blog. It can mean sharing with ONE other person.
91-A exempts content in a personnel file. HOWEVER, there are also several NH Supreme Court cases which would suggest, in the case of misconduct, that investigative reports and discipline MUST be disclosed if there is a compelling public interest that out weighs the individuals right to privacy.
The Town providing you with the letters, presumable under 91-A, takes away a pretty easy motion to dismiss off the bat. However, the Town could still argue that disclosure was required by law and therefore privileged. The Town will also likely argue that it followed its internal policies and found the allegations credible. That means Vilchock will need to PROVE the Town should NOT have believed the complainants. However, given the strict laws governing harassment, I think this will be very difficult. All statement's by the Vilchock's against others, that seem of dubious truthfulness, will also all be relevant and may cause issues, especially for their credibility, which is central to the case.
Would be a better outcome for everyone to just shake hands and take the the little "l"... Continuing to use the courts instead of BOTH sides admitting mistakes were made by ALL is just going to result in a BIG "L" for everyone, regardless of the eventual outcomes... years from now... The lawyers win though.
Unless the Town has some good precedent in their pocket, this is not going to be a cut and dry case and will drag on.
You are right about the legal definition of "publish" with respect to defamation. I was just trying to make things clear that my source for the termination letters was the town, not the Vilchocks or social media, as you suggested was likely the case; and that I'm the one who, with respect to defamation, "published" it.
‘All statement's by the Vilchock's against others, that seem of dubious truthfulness, will also all be relevant and may cause issues’
Can you please give an example or explain what you mean by ‘All statement’s by the Vilchock’s against others, that seem of dubious truthfulness’?
What are you referencing?
Be specific.
The ‘Vilchock’s’ so-called credibility issues were born from false accusations launched at them and accepted by the town as fact, hence how we got here.
The credibility of the accusers, not the accused is what’s finally being questioned, something the BoS or investigator neglected to consider.
You’re going in circles twisting yourself up and seeming to not realize it.
Brett Webster, I’m willing to bet any self respecting individual (including yourself) would seek to defend themselves against lies, defamation, and character assassination.
Good standing in a community takes decades to earn, that is something the Vilchock’s built from the ground up by their deeds.
Hindsight is 20/20 so we can look back and see how mismanaged this whole situation was. I recognize that our selectboard is made up of flawed humans who are not professionals in politics but mostly people who want to serve their community. I'm grateful for their service but sincerely hope that they see that this situation was mismanaged and caused damage to the Vilchocks. The Vilchocks are also people who have served this community for decades. They have been there for the most vulnerable citizens in critical situations to providing education, working with the youth, coordinating blood drives and being a presence at Town events.
I hope the Select board recognizes this was mismanaged, pays up and moves on with lessons learned about how to handle such sensitive personnel issues.
Just this section indicates that this whole situation was mishandled. "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 bexercise reasonable care in making allegations about criminal conduct defamed Vilchock."
This response from Mr. Morin demonstrates there were errors made in this whole process.
It is difficult to admit when you have erred, but the best you can do is apologize, make restitution and move on with more knowledge about how to avoid repeating the offense in the future.
I bet the Town could issue a public apology and settle for the same or less than what we will be charged to pursue this through the courts. Hopefully the Board will recognize that the citizens want closure on this situation.
Any claim arising from these allegations has ZERO chance of success. That's how confident I am - ZERO. I agree with most of Brett's analysis, but the most important points are that the alleged defamatory statements were made by other people, not the Town, and the Town cannot be sued for investigating them or even crediting those statements. Public figures such as the former Chief have a greatly heightened burden to prove defamation: it requires proof of actual malice (an intent to harm) or such reckless indifference to the truth that it is basically equal to malice, in addition to proving the statement is false, was published without a privilege, and proving damages. This is a standard that in application is even more difficult than it sounds, but think about it in this context: How does one prove an employer had actual malice or reckless indifference to the truth when it investigated employee complaints of unlawful conduct? The Termination Letter did not repeat the statements, nor did it say definitively that the former Chief had done what the employees said; it simply and accurately stated that conduct outlined in the report "implicated" a statute. In fact, you cannot read the Termination Letter and know for certain that the Town was referring to the statements the Demand Letter claims they were referring to. As an employment lawyer I can assure you that other conduct in the Confidential Report also implicates Anti-discrimination statutes. The investigator did find credible (quoting from the Report): "the allegations of inappropriate and discriminatory statements" and concluded "that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a hostile work environment was created and/or permitted to continue after notice was provided to the Chief." "These allegations come within the definitions of prohibited conduct under the Equal Employment Opportunity and Policy Against Unlawful Discrimination and/or Harassment contained in the Town's Personnel Policies." (Confidential Report, p. 15). This conclusion was based on the reports of 9 witnesses, NOT the statements of just 2 people as the Demand Letter would have us believe. There is also discussion of retaliatory conduct directed toward an employee who had been the target of homophobic slurs, which would also implicate anti-discrimination laws. The second most important point Brett gets to in his second response. The Town didn't put the termination letter in the newspaper or send it out to all Nottingham addresses. This information is subject to disclosure pursuant to RSA 91-A and Doug (and likely others) requested it, but then Doug put it on his blog. Prior to that, if my memory serves, Jaye Jr. also published the letters. So, even if the Town had directly repeated a statement that could be proven to be false - something that cannot be done here - the publication issue would still be a tremendous obstacle. The Town should absolutely not settle, IMO, as it would set a bad precedent. Yes, legal fees suck, but guess who else has to pay legal fees? People who bring frivolous lawsuits against the Town. We should not let the fear of litigation costs turn us into easy marks. If people know it will cost them dearly because we cannot be extorted, they will learn to think carefully about the legitimacy of their claims.
There was never a time or place when or where 9 people heard the Chief say what he was accused of saying.
There was however, 2 individuals making all the claims, not 9.
9 people confirming each other’s accounts under oath would mean something, in reality though the opposite happened.
1 person claimed under oath the Chief said nasty things.
That’s it. 1 person.
The Chief, also under oath denied it.
Someone is lying.
I heard the moon was made of cheese, some guy said so.
The guy next to me heard the same thing, but my buddy says he heard otherwise.
Someone is telling the truth.
Someone is spreading non sense, many of us heard it, a few others are aware of the non sense being spread.
Thats your 9.
A time, date, location of these accusations was never produced.
The Chief vehemently denies the ridiculous allegations against him, so is he a liar?
Who’s lying?
Someone is.
Matt Curry and Heidi Carlson Foss who was even described by Donna Danis (then Chairman of the BoS) as someone ‘who does not like Jay’ (the Chief) both testified under oath this summer that in 30 years of working with the Chief they’ve never witnessed any racist, homophobic, inappropriate or discriminatory language or behavior.
Again, someone is lying, and it seems you’re implying the Chief is lying.
The one launching the attack should be automatically believed?
Why is that?
Can disgruntled employees just make up the most ridiculous lies about their boss, spread those rumors and be immune to the consequences of their defaming actions?
I’m no lawyer, but there is at least one lawyer intimately involved who believes there’s a case to be made here in defense of the Chief.
I agree. Someone is lying. But for defamation of a public figure you have to show that someone published a false statement with malice or with reckless indifference. So, how are you going to prove it was false? It is well established that just because some people didn't experience something that is not evidence that other people did exerience it. Tell me how they prove the statement is false and that the Town knew it or should have known it (nevermind that there wasn't just one statement and the Termination letter didn't even include a statement)?
I’m curious now, and seriously would like to know, what would you say or do if someone got a couple of buddies together who didn’t like you, and anonymously complained to our employer about you, in the process one or 2 of us say that you said some racist crap?
Your employer then hands you a piece of paper saying you’ve been suspended because of an unspecified complaint has been filed.
Next your under investigation.
Then the investigators disregard everything you say in your own defense, your employer never speaks with you but instead sends a Sheriff to your home to deliver a termination letter which states reasons for termination that aren’t valid according to the investigation itself!
To make matters worse you later discover termination wasn’t even a recommendation in the investigation report.
What’s your move?, knowing you didn’t say anything racist, never have, no track record of racism etc what do you do in that situation?
I’ve been following the events surrounding your family, and I can’t begin to imagine how painful this experience must be for you. It’s clear how much you love your parents and how deeply you feel that they've endured injustice. That kind of love and loyalty is admirable, and I truly respect your desire to stand up for them. I’ve been reflecting on something recently that I feel compelled to share with you, in the hope that it might bring even a small measure of peace.
Anger and hatred have a way of chaining us to the past, keeping us trapped in cycles of pain. It’s understandable to want justice and accountability when we feel wronged. But forgiveness — not for the sake of those who hurt us, but for our own sake — can break those chains. Forgiveness doesn’t mean forgetting or excusing what happened. It simply means choosing to release the grip that anger and resentment have on our hearts.
I’ve seen in our community how anger has consumed so many of us, but I believe that there’s still a path forward toward healing. That path doesn’t begin with more lawsuits or public battles. It begins with the courage to let go — to let go of the need to prove someone else wrong, to let go of the need for vengeance. And in that letting go, we can find peace.
I don’t know you personally, but it's clear you’re someone with a strong sense of justice and, given the love you clearly feel for your parents, a big heart. I hope you know that those qualities can also be used to lead our community toward healing, to bring people together instead of deepening the divides. Your voice is powerful — you have the ability to help mend what’s been broken, if you choose to use it that way.
Forgiveness is never easy, but it’s the most liberating thing we can do for ourselves. It doesn’t mean surrendering; it means reclaiming your own peace and joy, no longer allowing past pain to dictate your future. I believe your family deserves peace. You deserve peace. And that peace begins within you.
Seems like this fits the bill of reckless indifference considering how this situation was handled from the get go, plus Morin’s comment under oath regarding how reasons listed in the termination letter were not a conclusion of the investigation. I think everyone’s who been watching this closely from its genesis can see it was nothing more than a clustered convoluted mess, with sole purpose of disposing of an old man public servant volunteer fire chief. The town has been salivating over the idea of a full time fire chief for over a decade now. The former Chief was on a different timeline. There was no open and honest communication. A very bad shame for everyone involved that it had to happen like this. Seemed unnecessary and over the top.
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.
I don't think Vilchock's attorney used the right word here. Instead of "publish" it should be "made public."
The town made the termination letters public. I received them by email from the Town Administrator on July 6, 2023.
"Publish" is well defined in the context of defamation suits. It doesn't necessarily mean the "classic" definition of, say, publishing a story on a blog. It can mean sharing with ONE other person.
91-A exempts content in a personnel file. HOWEVER, there are also several NH Supreme Court cases which would suggest, in the case of misconduct, that investigative reports and discipline MUST be disclosed if there is a compelling public interest that out weighs the individuals right to privacy.
The Town providing you with the letters, presumable under 91-A, takes away a pretty easy motion to dismiss off the bat. However, the Town could still argue that disclosure was required by law and therefore privileged. The Town will also likely argue that it followed its internal policies and found the allegations credible. That means Vilchock will need to PROVE the Town should NOT have believed the complainants. However, given the strict laws governing harassment, I think this will be very difficult. All statement's by the Vilchock's against others, that seem of dubious truthfulness, will also all be relevant and may cause issues, especially for their credibility, which is central to the case.
Would be a better outcome for everyone to just shake hands and take the the little "l"... Continuing to use the courts instead of BOTH sides admitting mistakes were made by ALL is just going to result in a BIG "L" for everyone, regardless of the eventual outcomes... years from now... The lawyers win though.
Unless the Town has some good precedent in their pocket, this is not going to be a cut and dry case and will drag on.
You are right about the legal definition of "publish" with respect to defamation. I was just trying to make things clear that my source for the termination letters was the town, not the Vilchocks or social media, as you suggested was likely the case; and that I'm the one who, with respect to defamation, "published" it.
‘All statement's by the Vilchock's against others, that seem of dubious truthfulness, will also all be relevant and may cause issues’
Can you please give an example or explain what you mean by ‘All statement’s by the Vilchock’s against others, that seem of dubious truthfulness’?
What are you referencing?
Be specific.
The ‘Vilchock’s’ so-called credibility issues were born from false accusations launched at them and accepted by the town as fact, hence how we got here.
The credibility of the accusers, not the accused is what’s finally being questioned, something the BoS or investigator neglected to consider.
You’re going in circles twisting yourself up and seeming to not realize it.
Brett Webster, I’m willing to bet any self respecting individual (including yourself) would seek to defend themselves against lies, defamation, and character assassination.
Good standing in a community takes decades to earn, that is something the Vilchock’s built from the ground up by their deeds.
Outstanding work Doug, thank you for your investigative reporting holding the town govt accountable
He deserves it. Mishandled from the get-go. Lawyer/Investigator should pay as their counsel was so poor
Hindsight is 20/20 so we can look back and see how mismanaged this whole situation was. I recognize that our selectboard is made up of flawed humans who are not professionals in politics but mostly people who want to serve their community. I'm grateful for their service but sincerely hope that they see that this situation was mismanaged and caused damage to the Vilchocks. The Vilchocks are also people who have served this community for decades. They have been there for the most vulnerable citizens in critical situations to providing education, working with the youth, coordinating blood drives and being a presence at Town events.
I hope the Select board recognizes this was mismanaged, pays up and moves on with lessons learned about how to handle such sensitive personnel issues.
Just this section indicates that this whole situation was mishandled. "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 bexercise reasonable care in making allegations about criminal conduct defamed Vilchock."
This response from Mr. Morin demonstrates there were errors made in this whole process.
It is difficult to admit when you have erred, but the best you can do is apologize, make restitution and move on with more knowledge about how to avoid repeating the offense in the future.
I bet the Town could issue a public apology and settle for the same or less than what we will be charged to pursue this through the courts. Hopefully the Board will recognize that the citizens want closure on this situation.
Any claim arising from these allegations has ZERO chance of success. That's how confident I am - ZERO. I agree with most of Brett's analysis, but the most important points are that the alleged defamatory statements were made by other people, not the Town, and the Town cannot be sued for investigating them or even crediting those statements. Public figures such as the former Chief have a greatly heightened burden to prove defamation: it requires proof of actual malice (an intent to harm) or such reckless indifference to the truth that it is basically equal to malice, in addition to proving the statement is false, was published without a privilege, and proving damages. This is a standard that in application is even more difficult than it sounds, but think about it in this context: How does one prove an employer had actual malice or reckless indifference to the truth when it investigated employee complaints of unlawful conduct? The Termination Letter did not repeat the statements, nor did it say definitively that the former Chief had done what the employees said; it simply and accurately stated that conduct outlined in the report "implicated" a statute. In fact, you cannot read the Termination Letter and know for certain that the Town was referring to the statements the Demand Letter claims they were referring to. As an employment lawyer I can assure you that other conduct in the Confidential Report also implicates Anti-discrimination statutes. The investigator did find credible (quoting from the Report): "the allegations of inappropriate and discriminatory statements" and concluded "that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a hostile work environment was created and/or permitted to continue after notice was provided to the Chief." "These allegations come within the definitions of prohibited conduct under the Equal Employment Opportunity and Policy Against Unlawful Discrimination and/or Harassment contained in the Town's Personnel Policies." (Confidential Report, p. 15). This conclusion was based on the reports of 9 witnesses, NOT the statements of just 2 people as the Demand Letter would have us believe. There is also discussion of retaliatory conduct directed toward an employee who had been the target of homophobic slurs, which would also implicate anti-discrimination laws. The second most important point Brett gets to in his second response. The Town didn't put the termination letter in the newspaper or send it out to all Nottingham addresses. This information is subject to disclosure pursuant to RSA 91-A and Doug (and likely others) requested it, but then Doug put it on his blog. Prior to that, if my memory serves, Jaye Jr. also published the letters. So, even if the Town had directly repeated a statement that could be proven to be false - something that cannot be done here - the publication issue would still be a tremendous obstacle. The Town should absolutely not settle, IMO, as it would set a bad precedent. Yes, legal fees suck, but guess who else has to pay legal fees? People who bring frivolous lawsuits against the Town. We should not let the fear of litigation costs turn us into easy marks. If people know it will cost them dearly because we cannot be extorted, they will learn to think carefully about the legitimacy of their claims.
I avoid making work for the town with RTK requests when I can get the documents elsewhere. I got the termination letters from the town.
9 witnesses never confirmed anything.
That is false.
This was pointed out on numerous occasions.
Heard of or aware of doesn’t equal fact.
There was never a time or place when or where 9 people heard the Chief say what he was accused of saying.
There was however, 2 individuals making all the claims, not 9.
9 people confirming each other’s accounts under oath would mean something, in reality though the opposite happened.
1 person claimed under oath the Chief said nasty things.
That’s it. 1 person.
The Chief, also under oath denied it.
Someone is lying.
I heard the moon was made of cheese, some guy said so.
The guy next to me heard the same thing, but my buddy says he heard otherwise.
Someone is telling the truth.
Someone is spreading non sense, many of us heard it, a few others are aware of the non sense being spread.
Thats your 9.
A time, date, location of these accusations was never produced.
The Chief vehemently denies the ridiculous allegations against him, so is he a liar?
Who’s lying?
Someone is.
Matt Curry and Heidi Carlson Foss who was even described by Donna Danis (then Chairman of the BoS) as someone ‘who does not like Jay’ (the Chief) both testified under oath this summer that in 30 years of working with the Chief they’ve never witnessed any racist, homophobic, inappropriate or discriminatory language or behavior.
Again, someone is lying, and it seems you’re implying the Chief is lying.
The one launching the attack should be automatically believed?
Why is that?
Can disgruntled employees just make up the most ridiculous lies about their boss, spread those rumors and be immune to the consequences of their defaming actions?
I’m no lawyer, but there is at least one lawyer intimately involved who believes there’s a case to be made here in defense of the Chief.
I agree. Someone is lying. But for defamation of a public figure you have to show that someone published a false statement with malice or with reckless indifference. So, how are you going to prove it was false? It is well established that just because some people didn't experience something that is not evidence that other people did exerience it. Tell me how they prove the statement is false and that the Town knew it or should have known it (nevermind that there wasn't just one statement and the Termination letter didn't even include a statement)?
I’m curious now, and seriously would like to know, what would you say or do if someone got a couple of buddies together who didn’t like you, and anonymously complained to our employer about you, in the process one or 2 of us say that you said some racist crap?
Your employer then hands you a piece of paper saying you’ve been suspended because of an unspecified complaint has been filed.
Next your under investigation.
Then the investigators disregard everything you say in your own defense, your employer never speaks with you but instead sends a Sheriff to your home to deliver a termination letter which states reasons for termination that aren’t valid according to the investigation itself!
To make matters worse you later discover termination wasn’t even a recommendation in the investigation report.
What’s your move?, knowing you didn’t say anything racist, never have, no track record of racism etc what do you do in that situation?
Do you give up and concede to the lies?
I don’t think you would.
I’ve been following the events surrounding your family, and I can’t begin to imagine how painful this experience must be for you. It’s clear how much you love your parents and how deeply you feel that they've endured injustice. That kind of love and loyalty is admirable, and I truly respect your desire to stand up for them. I’ve been reflecting on something recently that I feel compelled to share with you, in the hope that it might bring even a small measure of peace.
Anger and hatred have a way of chaining us to the past, keeping us trapped in cycles of pain. It’s understandable to want justice and accountability when we feel wronged. But forgiveness — not for the sake of those who hurt us, but for our own sake — can break those chains. Forgiveness doesn’t mean forgetting or excusing what happened. It simply means choosing to release the grip that anger and resentment have on our hearts.
I’ve seen in our community how anger has consumed so many of us, but I believe that there’s still a path forward toward healing. That path doesn’t begin with more lawsuits or public battles. It begins with the courage to let go — to let go of the need to prove someone else wrong, to let go of the need for vengeance. And in that letting go, we can find peace.
I don’t know you personally, but it's clear you’re someone with a strong sense of justice and, given the love you clearly feel for your parents, a big heart. I hope you know that those qualities can also be used to lead our community toward healing, to bring people together instead of deepening the divides. Your voice is powerful — you have the ability to help mend what’s been broken, if you choose to use it that way.
Forgiveness is never easy, but it’s the most liberating thing we can do for ourselves. It doesn’t mean surrendering; it means reclaiming your own peace and joy, no longer allowing past pain to dictate your future. I believe your family deserves peace. You deserve peace. And that peace begins within you.
With love and respect,
A Neighbor
Seems like this fits the bill of reckless indifference considering how this situation was handled from the get go, plus Morin’s comment under oath regarding how reasons listed in the termination letter were not a conclusion of the investigation. I think everyone’s who been watching this closely from its genesis can see it was nothing more than a clustered convoluted mess, with sole purpose of disposing of an old man public servant volunteer fire chief. The town has been salivating over the idea of a full time fire chief for over a decade now. The former Chief was on a different timeline. There was no open and honest communication. A very bad shame for everyone involved that it had to happen like this. Seemed unnecessary and over the top.