I started with a question: why?

How I got involved

I’ve lived in Norwich for 20 years. When I heard in February 2026 that Yantic had been closed, I knew very little about how our fire service worked. I wanted to understand what had happened.

That Saturday, I went to Yantic and spent about two hours with the chief and deputy chief. They described the Town Street incident, the discipline dispute that followed, and their concerns about the City’s demands. That was their account. I wanted to see the records behind it. I requested the video and related documents.

I also heard the City’s explanation that the Chief had spent six months attending roughly 100 incidents to understand the system. What had he observed? What problems had he identified? How did those findings lead to removing a volunteer company from service?

Listening, reading and checking

I visited all the stations and met members. I attended City Council and Public Safety meetings. I spent several hours with Chief Wilson listening to the City’s side. I watched video, read incident reports and correspondence, and worked through fire-service policies, the Charter, and material on EMS, NFPA and OSHA standards.

As new information came in, I followed leads and compared statements with the records. The question was straightforward: is this true, and what supports it?

I support the volunteers. I also recognize that Norwich’s fire service needs updates. Consistent command, training, reliable staffing and accountability are legitimate concerns. Hearing those concerns made it important to understand the specific deficiencies and whether the response was proportionate.

The work continues. I haven’t finished every question or reviewed every possible record. What I have examined has left me with serious concerns about the justification for the City’s actions.

I explained what would answer the questions

The requests were specific. On February 25, I asked for incident numbers, dates, locations, incident types, responding units, personnel totals and whether volunteer companies attended. I offered to clarify the relevant timeframe.

When the Chief supplied reporting-system records, he explained that they recorded incidents where he took official action and did not capture every event he attended. I took that distinction seriously.

On March 10, I asked for any list or dataset identifying the roughly 100 incidents, dispatch records or the equivalent system then in use, incident summaries, contemporaneous notes, analyses and briefing materials. If the number did not come from a documented compilation, I asked for confirmation.

After the Chief said he had provided all records kept by the Fire Department, I initially acknowledged the request as complete. Later that day, examining the reports raised a separate problem: some units appeared to have identical dispatch and arrival times even though the narratives described sequential arrivals. I asked how the timestamps were generated and requested the underlying unit-level times.

Then, at the April 7 budget hearing, the City Manager referred to receiving a report back. I renewed the request for the report, drafts and transmittal emails. I also asked him to identify a different document or record set if that was what he meant. The Chief’s April 8 answer was limited to documentation in his possession. I clarified that my request was not limited to his office.

Four written assessments were sent to the manager on February 24. They contain substantive criticism and must be considered. In later correspondence, the manager said he had verbal reports rather than written reports. The relationship between those replies, the four assessments and the specific six-month review remains unclear.

I still cannot reconstruct that complete review from the materials examined: which incidents formed the sample, what was recorded, how the conclusions were reached and how they justified company removal.

Why the gaps matter

The consequences were substantial. The City’s own September court brief defends removing Yantic and Taftville from fire-service operations. Paid coverage continued, but the companies’ ability to serve changed fundamentally. Individual volunteers being offered a role does not by itself restore their companies.

I remain unconvinced that the evidence adequately explains why company removal was necessary. Residents deserve to see the connection between identified problems, the remedy chosen and the alternatives considered.

What I want Norwich to do

The City’s 2021 McGrath study supported continuing career and volunteer providers while calling for substantial improvements in coordination, training and oversight. It identified genuine problems and proposed reform with volunteers still serving. That is a direction worth pursuing.

I want qualified volunteers restored under clear, lawful operating terms, with measurable standards and a workable path to meeting them. I want reliable performance information, understandable costs and specific explanations of why less disruptive alternatives would not work.

The Charter dispute remains contested. I’m not presenting a settled court ruling. I’m asking Norwich to make full use of people willing to give their time and skills to this community, and to support consequential decisions with evidence residents can examine.