Wilton’s Board of Selectmen held a public hearing last night (Monday, Aug. 5) on a proposed amendment to a town ordinance pertaining to the Wilton Fire Department. The question at hand concerned whether or not the fire marshals should report to the department’s fire chief.

Wilton Fire Chief Jim Blanchfield and the Wilton Fire Commission support the proposed amendment, but Wilton Fire Marshal Rocco Grosso and Firefighter Gary Mandel — who is also president of the Local 2233 firefighters union — both spoke in opposition to it.

Overview of the Proposed Amendment

Chief Blanchfield requested a modification to Wilton’s Code of Ordinance Chapter 14A Section 12 (“Appointment by Fire Commission”) with regard to operational responsibility for the positions of Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshal.

Currently, both positions are appointed by the Wilton Fire Commission, and under the Code’s current language, the Fire Commission retains “operational authority” over both employees. As written, the Town’s Fire Chief does not have the authority to direct the actions of these employees, issue work assignments, enforce the provisions of the Town’s employee manual and/or the collective bargaining agreements, etc. 

The proposed modification would continue to allow the Fire Commission to appoint those positions, but once appointed, both marshals would report to the Fire Chief. Under the proposed amendment, “The Fire Marshal, and such deputy Fire Marshals as the Commission may deem necessary, shall be appointed by the Commission, but shall be administratively and operationally responsible to the Chief of the Wilton Fire Department.”

Support and Opposition

Blanchfield spoke at the public hearing to reiterate his preference for the proposed amendment, calling it a better model for organizational structure and more in line with the professional fire departments in several surrounding communities.

Fire Commission Chair Casey Healy and fellow member Terrie Schwartz also joined the public hearing to express support for the proposed amendment.

Fire Marshal Grosso disagreed and urged the board to reject the proposed amendment.

Grosso said he believes the proposal would diminish the “integrity and independence” of the marshal’s office.

“We have a positive, cooperative work environment. I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with it, and I don’t think that it needs to be fixed,” Grosso said.

Mandel, speaking on behalf of the firefighters’ union, also voiced opposition to the ordinance change for the “significant potential conflict” that could arise if a fire chief were to have an operational role in a fire marshal’s duties.

“We need the fire marshals to be independent, and really not answer to someone who could have an interest — good or bad — in certain situations. A fire marshal has to be able to operate that way,” Mandel said. “We think changing the ordinance this way puts us right into that potential [for conflict]. And it would be difficult.”

He clarified that independence did not include day-to-day administrative matters.

“It’s not saying that the chief can’t tell them this is the uniform we wear, when are you taking vacation.”

The debate recalled an earlier instance about 10 years ago when a similar disagreement arose within the department. According to Town Administrator Matt Knickerbocker, there was a dispute regarding whether the chief at the time could discipline the then-fire marshal. As a result, the firefighter’s union filed a Prohibited Practices Act Complaint, arguing that the marshal did not report to the chief at a hearing in front of the state labor board. When the hearing officer recommended that the complaint against the town be dismissed, the union exercised its right to appeal but ultimately withdrew the complaint.

No other members of the public offered public comment.

To Be Continued

After the public hearing, the BOS members continued the discussion about the proposed ordinance change among themselves — acknowledging that some of the language in the proposed ordinance (including the terms “administrative” and “operational”) may need to be modified.

At least one selectman, Bas Nabulsi, said he would like an opportunity to address more questions with the fire chief.

The selectmen agreed to continue the discussion to the next BOS meeting on Aug. 20.