GEORGETOWN – Amid complaints from the SelectBoard chair and several members that the Stirm Group report is flawed, the board last week unveiled the long-awaited report from the private detective firm about the town’s Conservation Commission (ConCom) and particularly the former Conservation Agent.
The board accepted the report by the Newburyport firm, which cost the town $10,000, but in its official response said it “finds (the report) inadequate and does not endorse it.”
SelectBoard member Laura Repplier called it a “misuse of funds.” SelectBoard chair Robert Hoover said, “nothing important has come out of this report.”
Member Michael Donahue said he planned to refer the report and his comments to the Essex County District Attorney (DA), claiming SelectBoard member Rachel Bancroft had committed a crime by filing a “false police report.” No other SelectBoard member agreed to join Donahue in filing with the DA.
It was not the first time the issue has been referred to law enforcement. The state Inspector General (IG) reviewed the issue of what Town Administrator Orlando Pacheco called “vast payroll fraud.” The IG could not substantiate the charge.
The report is the latest battle in a long-standing power struggle among town officials about the ConCom, which regulates the town’s wetlands.
Some town officials, including a few developers, bankers and property owners, believe the ConCom prevents growth in town, while others see the ConCom as a last stand to prevent the abuse of green space and wetlands.
Accusations were made by SelectBoard and ConCom members that the Stirm Group, headed by a former state police officer, used “intimidation, blackmail and harassment tactics” as part of its investigation.
Laura Repplier, a SelectBoard member and former member of the ConCom, blasted the report, saying it “does not provide the information the firm was contracted to provide” and that it included information unrelated to the scope of work.
She also wrote, “Rumor, gossip and speculation should not be included in a factual investigation.” No attempt was made to substantiate the validity of personal opinions in it, she wrote.
Repplier concluded that the funds paid to the group were “misused in the investigation and in writing of the report.”
Newly elected Selectman Michael Donahue, who supported the Stirm Report, but agreed it was “imperfect,” read a lengthy memorandum he wrote about issues he perceives with the ConCom. He claimed Bancroft had committed a crime when she filed a police report with former Georgetown Police Chief Don Cudmore that the Stirm Group used intimidation, blackmail and harassment tactics against her, Shreder and other town officials.
SelectBoard and ConCom members claimed the investigators, whom they nicknamed “Stirm Troopers,” hid in bushes and the stairwells of Town Hall to accost town officials. Most of the startled town officials declined to answer the investigators’ questions, which was blamed for the incomplete report.
After Donahue threatened Bancroft with criminal prosecution, Hoover offered her a chance to defend herself. Bancroft said she felt she had been “blindsided” and had “her knees knocked out from under her” and would address Donahue’s accusations at a future SelectBoard meeting.
Donahue has filed complaints against Bancroft before. Last year, before being elected to the SelectBoard, he wrote a 1,300-word petition, requesting that Bancroft be removed from the SelectBoard for being “unprofessional.” The board did not act on his petition.
The private detectives were asked to substantiate the town administrator’s claim of “vast payroll fraud,” allegedly committed by former Conservation Agent Steve Przyjemski, Shreder and Bancroft.
The report concluded only that Przyjemski was often out of the office and was seen by unidentified town employees leaving Town Hall during the day.
Shreder, who headed the ConCom for more than 20 years, called Przyjemski a highly qualified conservation agent, who spent much of his workday, inspecting encroachments on town wetland sites.
Przyjemski resigned two and a half years ago, blaming Pacheco for creating a “toxic environment.”
Stirm Group president Larry Smith, a former state trooper, demanded that Bancroft turn over a copy of a letter from the State Ethics Board. Bancroft informed Smith that no letter existed because the Ethics Board attorney spoke to her on the phone.
She had inquired if there were any conflict under state law with her serving on the SelectBoard and the ConCom. Bancroft said the attorney told her that there is no conflict.
Smith appears to threaten Bancroft that if she did not provide the letter or give the Stirm Group the date and the name of the state attorney she spoke to, he would file a complaint against her colleague Shreder with the State Ethics Board for a sarcastic remark he made.
Shreder, in frustration with town government, joked at a ConCom meeting that a good use of Town Hall was to set it afire so the Georgetown Fire Department could practice putting out fires.
At a SelectBoard meeting, he apologized for the comment and explained it was meant as a joke after a SelectBoard member claimed that it frightened some employees.
Smith sent Bancroft an email that she characterized as extortion, blackmail and intimidation by the group. Smith wrote: “Please understand that failure to comply with this request will compel us to act. Specifically, we will proceed to forward the video footage featuring Carl Shreder, threatening to burn down the town hall and the video recording of the special hearing conducted on August 28, 2023, to address Mr. Shreder’s arson threat.”
“Additionally, we will forward the handwritten letter we received from you in response to our public records request that confirms you do not have a letter from the Ethics Commission authorizing you to participate as a select board member in any discussion or vote that pertains to the Conservation Commission.
“Our decision to send this package to the Ethics Commission is a result of our investigators’ perception of a potential bias in your actions, which seemed to prioritize the interests of the Conservation Commission over your responsibilities as a member of the select board. Additionally, your continued reluctance to engage in our assessment, which the town has contracted us to perform, has raised concerns,” he wrote.
Smith concluded: “The choice is yours, Ms. Bancroft. You can opt to participate in the assessment as requested and provide the ethics-related information we are seeking, or we will proceed with the actions outlined above. We hope for your cooperation and look forward to your prompt response.
“Ms. Bancroft, if you have come to remember things differently after having time to reflect, I strongly encourage you to correct the record as soon as possible.” ♦
