Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Volunteer Fire Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public comment spotlights volunteer fire controversy as council sets ordinance hearing
Summary
After setting an ordinance to 'protect the Norwich Volunteer Fire Service' for a July 6 public hearing, council members heard more than 30 minutes of emotional citizen comment criticizing leadership, alleging manipulated response times, and urging reopening of volunteer stations.
The Norwich City Council voted unanimously to set a July 6 public hearing (subject to corporate-counsel review) on an ordinance described as protecting the Norwich Volunteer Fire Service. The vote came before an extended and often contentious public-comment period in which multiple residents criticized city leadership and raised allegations about volunteer-management relations and emergency response times.
Council set the ordinance for hearing by roll call (7–0). The item drew immediate public attention: dozens of speakers used the council’s 30 minutes of general comment to air grievances, defend volunteer stations and demand transparency.
Joe McMahon, who identified himself as “a lifelong resident of Taffill and a proud, long time member of the Taffill Volunteer Fire Department,” warned of the cost of replacing volunteers with paid staff and argued volunteers are more affordable. “Free firefighters is way more affordable than paid firefighters,” he said, urging unity and support for the five volunteer departments.
Other commenters alleged problems with response times and managerial decisions. Pat Stoltz Sabinick said a March call showed a 13-minute response time when she believed a unit was only two minutes away and questioned legal costs the city has incurred in disputes with volunteers. Lynn Maher said the community has lost trust and accused leadership of secrecy and “blatantly lying at public meetings.” Several speakers demanded the immediate reopening of the Yantic volunteer station or argued the council lacks authority to direct volunteer departments in certain contexts.
Council members did not take action on the ordinance at the meeting beyond setting the public hearing date; staff said corporate counsel would review the item’s form and legality before July 6. The mayor and council members heard the statements but did not respond directly to the allegations during the public-comment window.
What happens next: the ordinance will come back for a public hearing on July 6 with counsel’s opinion on form/legality. Council members and staff indicated the topic will remain under review; residents who spoke said they expect the hearing to be broadly attended.
