Former Selectman Says Nottingham Should Sue for Damages

In a recent interview with former Nottingham Selectman Mark Carpenter, Carpenter said the Town of Nottingham should sue Interim Town Administrator John Scruton for his role in causing the Town to be taken to court by former Fire Chief Jaye Vilchock for improper termination.

The whole episode of Vilchock’s termination has been expensive for Nottingham. Foremost among the costs the Town incurred was defending itself in court earlier this month in the case of Vilchock v. Nottingham Board of Selectmen. Vilchock’s attorney argued in court that the process the town used in determining to fire Vilchock was so riddled with errors, inconsistencies, and bias that the decision to terminate Vilchock was manifestly unjust, and that the reasons the town gave for terminating Vilchock were all unproven. Vilchock is seeking not only to have his firing overturned, but to have the Town pay his attorney fees. The case is currently awaiting adjudication. Details of the hearing have been published here in the Nottingham Blog.

Other out-of-pocket costs incurred by the town include $20k the town paid for an investigation, costs for an Interim Fire Chief and additional per diem workers while the Vilchocks were on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation, and costs for the Town Attorney’s time in handling the termination. 

In addition to these out-of-pocket costs, the town has had to invest a substantial amount of limited managerial time in the matter, particularly with respect to the Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator. 

The Nottingham Blog has obtained a copy of the town’s consulting contract with Scruton. The contract is not directly with Scruton, but with the firm for which Scruton was a subcontractor: Municipal Resources, Inc. (MRI), a firm that provides professional, technical, and managerial services to municipal governments in New England. 

Key aspects of the contract.

• John Scruton is specified as the consultant to be provided.
• Billing is to be based on hours, travel time, and expenses, at $85/hr.
• Scruton is to be onsite an average of 2 to 3 days per week, in addition to working remotely. 

The contract has two clauses relative to issues about professional liability.

• “MRI has in force and effect general commercial liability and errors and omissions coverage to protect the client from accidents which MRI or its authorized representatives may cause to persons or property or from professional errors or omissions when performing under this agreement.”
• “The client agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend MRI, its agents, employees, and affiliates while acting for and on behalf of the client as if MRI, its agents, employees, and affiliates were acting in the capacity of full-time permanent employees of the client.”

Although in the interview former Selectman Carpenter did not spell out the grounds on which MRI would have liability for the costs incurred by the town, he thought that the situation was mismanaged by Interim Town Administrator Scruton. 

Evidence for mismanagement that has been revealed in either the hearing or in documents released by the town in response to right-to-know requests include:

• Despite becoming aware of employee complaints at the end of January, Scruton never discussed those complaints with the Chief, nor did he make the Board of Selectmen aware of them until slightly before the March 20, 2023 non-public session of the board during which six employees gave oral testimony to the board.
• Scruton told his employer, MRI, that the board was likely about to urgently need a replacement Fire Chief, doing so without ever discussing the matter with the board or getting any input from the board that this is what the board wished to do, and doing so over a month before the board became aware of any employee complaints against the Chief.
• Scruton may have violated the Town’s conflict of interest policy by promoting MRI services for handling the investigation of the Fire Department and for providing an interim Fire Chief. 
• Scruton may have intentionally exacerbated conflict with the Chief over issues such as overtime and ice golf, potentially for the benefit of his employer and to the detriment of the Town. Vilchock filed an ethics complaint with the board about these actions made by Scruton. 
• In the six months Scruton served as Interim Town Administrator he met only once with Chief Vilchock.
• Scruton failed to provide any contact information to Scruton other than the email address used by whoever is in the role of Town Administrator. This prohibited the Chief from contacting Scruton in case of an emergency, as in the case where the heating system at the Fire Station failed. 

Of course, Nottingham’s Board of Selectmen will wish to wait until after Rockingham Superior Court rules on Vilchock v. Nottingham Board of Selectmen to consider the question of suing MRI. Should the board lose to Vilchock, the Town’s case against MRI would likely be stronger and the damages higher. But, even if the board wins, had Scruton addressed the employee complaints promptly, rather than waiting over a month, during which time new incidents emerged, the Town may have been able to avoid large legal bills and damage to its reputation that it has since suffered. 

Photo byMunicipal Resources, Inc.'s website