Excuse Me, I'm A Bit Confused.

I am only following this whole thing as any other resident of Sturbridge is, and the more I read, the more confused I am becoming.

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.

Maybe.







Suhoski finds holes in report

List of fire chief’s faults has errors

By James F. Russell CORRESPONDENT

STURBRIDGE —  A consultant’s report that blasts the way Fire Chief Leonard Senecal does his job is not entirely accurate and failed to account for steps under way to fix problems, the town administrator said.

And any talk of discipline against the chief is premature and would not occur until after he meets with selectmen next week, Shaun Suhoski said.

The report cited myriad alleged deficiencies about the chief’s leadership — among them morale problems, out-of-date equipment, unclean areas and poor or nonexistent recordkeeping on some matters.

The consultant, Ernest Horn, is now the acting Mendon town administrator and fire chief and has been the police chief there for years.

Although Sturbridge selectmen are alarmed, and the administrator is concerned about the consultant’s 116-page report, they also are giving Chief Senecal an opportunity to respond at a public meeting next week.

“There are observations that need a little more attention to detail,” Mr. Suhoski said when asked if the consultant’s operational review was accurate.

The fire chief “and I are working on an update, which is to let selectmen know about the progress.”

One area of dispute in the report involves the gear firefighters wear during emergencies.

Chief Horn said in the report that the equipment, known as turnout gear, was outdated — more than 10 years old. He said Sturbridge needs to pay $100,000 to equip the firefighters with proper gear.

But Mr. Suhoski said Chief Senecal had already applied for grant money to properly equip the firefighters.

“This year the Fire Department received an $82,000 grant to replace all the turnout gear,” Mr. Suhoski said. The award was announced in January, the money was received last month and firefighters are being measured and fitted for the new equipment, he said.

“We had a third party peer review that we were all on board with it,” the administrator said. “That tells me we are looking at how to improve operations. I know Lenny’s a bit under the gun now and a lot needs to be done. But after next Tuesday’s public meeting, we will have a balanced picture, through the chief, and then if there are areas of disagreement, they can be weighed out and resolved.”

Mr. Suhoski said Chief Horn is expected at the meeting along with Chief Senecal. The report cost $3,000.

On the matter of possible discipline, Mr. Suhoski said: “I can’t discuss personnel action publicly, but those actions would not be considered prior to the April 16 meeting with the chief.”

Selectmen released the Horn report during a special meeting on Friday. The board had met behind closed doors on April 1.