First things first; I have some questions:
- Who's idea was it to hire a consultant to review the Fire Chief, and his department?
- Why was the consultant hired?
- When was the consultant hired?
Simple questions, but knowing the answers to them could help explain some of the back peddling being done now by the town administrator.
What prompted hiring the consultant? Was there a specific action, or a history of them that needed further documentation, and corroboration?
Who's idea was it? The TA? The selectmen? A joint effort?
Finally, when was this consultant hired? If they were hired last year, then the inclusion of certain corrective measures mentioned by the TA may not have been in place at the time of the hire, but are only presently being worked on. If they were hired more recently, while those corrective measures were being implemented, then I see a problem.
Why bring in a third party while the issues were being "fixed"?
In the article posted below, written by James Russell of the Telegram, the TA states that the report has inaccuracies. An example given is that the report indicated new turn out gear for the firefighters was needed, however a grant was applied for by the Chief, and was awarded in January. The money came in last month, and the firefighters are currently being fitted for their gear.
This covers a period of at least four months, not including the time before the actual awarding of the grant when the grant was written, and submitted.
This is a huge discrepancy in time. Was this report just submitted last week, or was it submitted before the grant was applied for, or received? Why was there no mention of the grant, or the new gear in the report?
Is it me, or is any one else having a hard time with the information, and timeline?
Maybe it's all much ado about nothing.
Suhoski finds holes in report