EDITORIAL: WHO DONE IT?
Examining Clues In The Latest Counselor “Withdrawal” At Mount Holly Fire District
The first resignation of a Mount Holly Fire District legal professional happened in February 2025. And that resignation letter provided this clue as to what caused the departure:
Sendzik had been with the Fire District for years and her letter made clear that the “fragmented” Board problem had arisen “recently”. And so, The Reporter asked Ms. Sendzik to be specific as to whether one or another Commissioner was at fault. Sendzik did not respond.
Since then, the District has cycled through another four counselors, with the most recent being Dom Rota, of Malamut Law. Readers will recall that even the selection of Malamut arrived with a controversy since there was a “bid spoiling” incident. Commissioner Saucier opened just the Malamut bid, causing the entire process to be redone.
Commission Chair Thiessen ruled that the incident was just an administrative mistake.
Like any good mystery, there are rumors circulating. Rumors about administrative conflicts that may have driven a counselor to distraction. For instance, a long-time company member was banned from entering the building due to a charge that was dismissed, but that decision is still somehow not resolved by the Fire District. Then there is the ongoing administrative chaos created by a suspended Director, which delays business because part-time Commissioner Thiessen has been “temporarily” in charge for the last 7 months, which holds up decision making.
Obviously the answer is to appoint a new Director, but as readers will recall, that position is in limbo because the Board has been unable to fire Director Carty [who remains suspended with pay] even though a special counselor determined that he should be terminated.
The Reporter is aware of other administrative problems, some of which were disclosed by Mr. Young in his “safety report” [see SAFETY CONCERNS AT FIRE DISTRICT RESURFACE]. When you take all of these administrative SNAFUs in aggregate, it would seem to provide enough centrifugal force to eject even the most determined counselor.
But that is speculation, so I contacted Mr. Rota in hopes of at least getting a generalized description of what drove him out. Unfortunately for our purposes here, Mr. Rota refused to tell tales that would compromise his legal responsibility to keep advice confidential.
For a moment I thought that the resignation letter provided a hidden clue. Mr. Rota made an oblique reference to a reason that might provide better understanding.
He said “the Firm [must] preserve the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and other protected information. AND FOR THAT REASON, it would be inappropriate to elaborate further on the circumstances giving rise to this withdrawal.”
Why would an attorney refuse to tell his own clients why he resigned? Was there some OTHER client who had a matter before the Board which produced a conflict of interest? Or perhaps Malamut represented a Commissioner as a private client which somehow got cross-wise with Board business? There are other permutations of these questions which might provide insight.
But Mr. Rota wrote back to the Reporter to say that neither of the possibilities I asked about were true.
And so, at least for now, this mystery remains unsolved.