Drama surrounding the “Special Meeting” of Mount Holly’s Fire District was already high. Its surprise timing coincided with the vacation of Commissioner Logue who was halfway across the country. The legality of the meeting was in question by some who said it was not advertised to the public as per law and that Commissioner Logue did not receive any notification. Objections were also raised about what appeared how the “Conflict” attorney Michael Watson was hired without a vote of the Commissioners.
Concerned residents communicated via telephone to Commissioner Logue and she cut her vacation short to fly back to Mount Holly. Note: a Commissioner may only vote when physically present at the meeting. Despite the difficulty getting back to Mount Holly on such short notice, Logue arrived to the firehouse at 10 AM with Sheppard, Gaskill and Brown.
But the start time came and went and the person who called the surprise meeting, Chairwoman Saucier, was absent. Commissioner Sheppard used the PA system to summon Saucier to the meeting room. At about 10:10, with the meeting still not started, Commissioner Logue started to read the Open Public Meetings Act language out loud as a public service regarding how meetings are supposed to be conducted.
At 10:14 Chairwoman Saucier arrived with new Attorney Michael Watson as Commissioner Logue was reading. Saucier hammered the gavel hard enough to cause its sounding board to skip across the table.
COMMISSION VOTING FACTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF THE RECENT COURT RULING
It is a fact that the firehouse meetings have been fractious and that the voting is often split with Logue and Sheppard voting “no” to the agenda that is controlled by Saucier, Gaskill and Brown. In general, the objections are often more about process than content with Logue and Sheppard complaining that they did not receive timely and complete information about upcoming business and did not get replies to their questions and requests. Even the provision of basic organizational documents such as the District Bylaws has been unfulfilled for so long that Commissioner Logue believes the failure to provide it is intentional.
It was against this backdrop that the special meeting began, with the need for the meeting having not been raised to Logue or Sheppard separately and with a late arriving agenda packet [provided at 640 PM on the evening prior to the 10 AM meeting] leaving the Commissioners with numerous questions.
Those assembled at the meeting were given an agenda that called for “Appointing the Director of Fire District Services and Authorizing Chairwoman to Negotiate the Employment Agreement with Same.” This would likely result in a 2-2 vote since Judge Cook had banned Commissioner Gaskill from voting on any “matters involving the appointment, employment, or supervision of any position potentially exercising authority over her spouse while he remains a District employee.”
But in the public comment section, Commissioner Gaskill’s husband George announced that “I just resigned as a fire inspector”. And with his resignation, the restriction on Mrs. Gaskill was removed, meaning her vote would likely be to re-appoint Jason Carty with a 3-2 majority.
SAUCIER CLAIMS THE MEETING WAS PUBLIC NOTICED “BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW”
At the very start of the meeting, Commissioner Logue and Sheppard objected to the meeting saying it “violated the Open Public Meetings Act” due to faulty notifications. Chairwoman Saucier did not engage Logue’s comment. Calling the meeting to order, she read the agenda opening statement that the meeting was in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act because
“Notice of the meeting was published on the District website on September 17, 2025 and written notice with the Town Clerk on September 17, 2025 and other notice posted in places where applicable”
Nicole Saucier, Chair of Board of Commissioners
Logue then questioned where the meeting information was posted. After a sidebar with attorney Watson, Saucier said that “a new law was signed into act by the Governor, I think it was this year, if I am correct, Counsel?”
No further clarification on the locations of the posting were [or were’nt] shared until the public question portion of the meeting where I asked which newspapers had notice of the meeting to which Ms. Saucier stated:
“We did not have to advertise it in the newspaper”. Saucier then repeated the agenda statement and added that “We did everything by the letter of the law”
HOW AND WHEN WAS THE NEW “CONFLICT COUNSEL” HIRED?
Chair Saucier attempted to begin the meeting agenda but Commissioner Logue stated that the agenda was only communicated to her at 6:40 PM the previous evening and Saucier’s instruction to ask any questions to “the Clerk” was fruitless since the Clerk did not respond. Sheppard objected to starting the meeting with a new Counselor that had not been voted on by the Commission.
This exchange was followed by a lot of inaudible cross talk featuring Commissioner Brown and new Counselor Watson not using the microphones supplied to them. Members of the public began to complain that the content of the meeting inaudible.
Speaking into her microphone, Sheppard queried when the new lawfire Brown and Connery started working for the District and when their employment proposal was received by the District. Saucier stated that they were retained as Conflict Counsel during the shared services agreement with the Township. They remain as Conflict Counsel until they are voted in as interim counsel since the District lost its other counsel. Sheppard again asked when the proposal by Brown and Connery was received and why the proposal was not provided to the rest of the Board prior to “last night” when it was apparently received last August. Saucier stated that “In early August, that was under the Director’s purview. He had the right to retain conflict counsel”. Sheppard asked “Without Board approval?” and Saucier answered “Yes”.
Note: The employment contract addendum from the time in question of Director Carty stated that he is tasked with “RECOMMENDING the hiring, firing, promoting, demoting and/or disciplining of employees.” His employment documents do not cite an authority to hire without Board approval.
RESIDENT COMMENTS FRAME CORE ISSUES OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mike Rothmel noted that the Board needs to redo its candidate search and should not have just gone back to the candidate selected in a process that Judge Cook had ruled “void from the start” due to conflict of interest. He noted that since the Bylaws state that the Board must act as a whole, the idea of the Chairwoman negotiating the contract is a violation of the bylaws. Rothmel stated that Mr. Carty should not be appointed to Director again since he “publicly blamed Jeena Sheppard and Rosemarie Logue for the resignation of prior counsel, which is a discussion of personnel matters”. In terms of the appointment of a “Conflict Solicitor”, Rothmel said “I’ve looked at Jason Carty’s contract, and there’s no provision in there that he can appoint a conflict Solicitor. You’re just making that up.” And finally, he said that “With regard to George Gaskill’s resignation, it was horrible that Mrs. Gaskill would sacrifice her husband to appoint Jason Carty.”
George Gaskill responded specifically to Mike Rothmel’s comment by saying “I’m not a sacrificial lamb”. He explained his resignation was a result of the disgust he feels due to the conflict between Board members and especially due to what he called disrespect toward his wife.
“I don’t want to be a part of it no more. I’ll still be a volunteer fireman, which I have been for 56 years. Im not giving that up and nobody’s gonna make me”. George Gaskill
With Mr. Gaskill no longer an employee of the District, Mrs. Gaskill was free to vote to reappoint Jason Carty as Fire Department Director, which carried with a 3-2 vote.
