Local Government – Brookfield Examiner

Questions Raised After Charlton Coalition Health Agent Denies Food Truck Permit Tied to Neighboring Farm

Christopher Kelleher — Wed, 06 May 2026 21:02:01 +0000

FOOD TRUCK OWNER QUESTIONS PERMIT DENIAL LINKED TO NEIGHBOR DISPUTE

Questions Raised After Charlton Coalition Health Agent Denies Food Truck Permit Tied to Neighboring Farm

By Christopher Kelleher

A dispute involving a first-year local food truck business is raising questions about permitting standards, conflict-of-interest concerns, and the role of a regional health inspector who allegedly previously complained about the same property tied to the application.

Smashing Patties owner Nathaniel Lundstrom told the Brookfield Examiner that he applied for a mobile food permit to operate in East Brookfield while using Wildberry Acres Farm as part of his commissary and base-of-operation arrangement.

According to emails reviewed by the Examiner, Lundstrom was asked to provide additional documentation during the permitting process, including information related to water sourcing, wastewater disposal, inspections, and fire permitting.

Lundstrom stated that he complied with those requests, including obtaining a fire department permit related to the trailer’s hood suppression and ventilation system. He also stated that he paid the required $120.00 application fee to East Brookfield as part of the permitting process.

Despite that, Lundstrom said he ultimately received a brief email from regional health inspector Molly Tuller stating only:

“You are not eligible for permitting in East Brookfield.”

The email did not identify any specific regulation, code provision, or deficiency explaining why the application was denied.

The denial is drawing attention because Lundstrom says he has already received permits or approvals from neighboring communities including Brookfield, Brimfield, Southbridge, and is finalizing permitting in West Brookfield.

The Brookfield Examiner has previously reported on Brookfield’s strict permitting environment involving food operations and local businesses. As a result, Lundstrom’s approval in Brookfield is raising additional questions about the basis for East Brookfield’s determination that he was “not eligible” for permitting.

According to Lundstrom, the permitting process became more difficult after regional health inspector Molly Tuller learned that Wildberry Acres Farm would be used as the commissary location.

Lundstrom alleges that Tuller — the same official responsible for reviewing and determining the fate of his application — repeatedly encouraged him to find a different commissary or base of operation elsewhere, despite already obtaining approval from Brookfield to use the property.

Lundstrom stated that alternative locations in Worcester and Brookfield were suggested by Tuller during the process.

The matter is further complicated by emails reviewed by the Examiner showing that Molly Tuller had previously raised complaints involving Wildberry Acres Farm as a neighboring resident before later participating in permit decisions tied to the same property.

In an April 2 email, Brookfield Town Administrator Bob Ayers wrote that he had received a call from Tuller “concerned about her neighbor making food without a permit.”

Former Brookfield Board of Health Chair Christina Predella confirmed to the Brookfield Examiner that Molly Tuller had previously raised concerns with Brookfield officials regarding Wildberry Acres Farm in her capacity as a private citizen and neighboring resident.

Predella stated that she personally spoke with Tuller for approximately 20 to 30 minutes regarding the matter and explained that Brookfield had reviewed the operation under the town’s Right-to-Farm protections and determined the farm was operating compliantly.

According to Predella, she encouraged Tuller to attempt to resolve any remaining concerns directly with her neighbors, describing the owners of Wildberry Acres as “nice people.”

However, Wildberry Acres owner Lea Moreau later told the Brookfield Examiner that Tuller never ultimately reached out or attempted to discuss the concerns directly with the farm.

Predella previously wrote in an email reviewed by the Examiner that after discussions regarding the matter, Tuller “did not feel the need to move forward with any formal Board of Health discussion.”

Moreau further alleges that Tuller privately complained about the farm’s kitchen operations, driveway activity, lighting, and food-related use of the property. Moreau argues the situation now presents a conflict-of-interest concern because the same official later participated in permit decisions involving the property.

Lundstrom says the delayed appeal timeline is now impacting his business directly. According to emails reviewed by the Examiner, he was informed he could appeal the determination to the East Brookfield Board of Health at its next meeting scheduled for June 1.

However, Lundstrom stated that several planned East Brookfield events will occur before that date, forcing him to cancel appearances during what would have been his first operating season.

“This is my first year in business,” Lundstrom told the Examiner. “I’m just trying to sell burgers. I’m not looking for a fight.”

Lundstrom also stated that he had originally planned to pursue permitting in Sturbridge, but ultimately decided against it after learning that the same regional coalition oversees permitting there as well.

“I just don’t want to go through the same fight again,” he said.

When contacted by the Brookfield Examiner for comment regarding the denial, the permitting process, and questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest, Molly Tuller stated that she had “no comment.” When asked whether she wished to provide any clarification or response whatsoever regarding the matter, Tuller again stated “no,” and the call abruptly ended.

The Brookfield Examiner also contacted the Charlton Coalition for Public Health seeking clarification regarding the permitting process, conflict-of-interest policies, and the basis for the determination that Lundstrom was “not eligible” for permitting in East Brookfield. A response was not received prior to publication.

Tree project fallout raises questions about Brookfield’s procurement process

Christopher Kelleher — Tue, 05 May 2026 21:27:40 +0000

Tree project fallout raises questions about Brookfield’s procurement process

By Christopher Kelleher

BROOKFIELD, MA — A Brookfield tree removal project that was put out to competitive bid—and later cited as part of the town’s Tree Warden’s resignation—has raised questions about whether the town’s procurement process was effectively undermined after work was performed outside that process.

The project involved the removal of 15 hazardous trees at multiple locations across town, including municipal properties and roadside areas. Bid documents show that contractors were required to visit each site, assess conditions, and submit sealed bids along with supporting documentation such as insurance certifications, safety training credentials, and work qualifications.

The tree list itself identified specific locations throughout Brookfield—including Main Street, the Brookfield Cemetery, Rice Corner Road, Gay Road, and areas near the town water tower—requiring bidders to evaluate conditions across a wide geographic scope.

Six companies submitted bids, including Chaffee Tree Service, owned by the son of Select Board member Richard Chaffee. The company submitted a bid of $19,050, while Rusty’s Tree Service appeared to be the lowest bidder at $16,565.

Board delays decision—but work proceeds anyway

At an initial Select Board meeting, officials did not award the contract, indicating that the matter would be reviewed at a subsequent session.

Before that follow-up discussion occurred, however, two of the trees included in the bid were cut down.

During a later public meeting, Select Board member Richard Chaffee said he had performed the work himself, explaining that he went onto town property with a chainsaw and hoist, removed the trees, and cleaned up the site.

He also said his actions were intended to “save the town money.”

Safety questions raised

During the discussion, Select Board member Beth Coughlin said that town employees are typically required to work in pairs when operating chainsaws, citing standard safety practices.

Board members also raised questions about potential liability if work is performed outside normal procedures—particularly if an incident were to occur when a person is working alone.

Impact on a completed bidding process

By the time the trees were removed, contractors had already visited multiple sites, evaluated hazardous trees, prepared documentation and certifications, and submitted sealed bids in good faith.

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B, municipalities are required to conduct procurement in a manner that promotes full and fair competition.

Public procurement processes are designed not only to protect taxpayers, but also to ensure that businesses competing for municipal work are treated fairly.

When part of a project is performed after bids are submitted and opened—but before a contract is awarded, the scope of work changes, submitted pricing may no longer reflect the project, and the competitive process can be disrupted.

During the meeting, the situation was described as having effectively “sabotaged” the contract, referring to the impact of removing part of the work after bids had already been completed.

Conflict and contradiction raised

The issue is further complicated by the presence of Select Board member Richard Chaffee’s son among the bidders.

During the meeting, Chaffee acknowledged that his son had submitted a bid and was not the successful bidder, stating:

“It’s also true that my son lost the bid, but it’s also true that I want the tree work to go to the individual that Mr. Tucker [the Tree Warden] wants to hire.”

However, his decision to perform part of the work himself—after bids had been opened—raised questions about whether those actions aligned with that stated position.

Chaffee went on to describe the contract as having become “functionally… sabotage to a certain extent” and a “defective RFP,” attributing that assessment to the involvement of National Grid, which he said would remove part of the work.

He also stated that he had spoken with National Grid regarding the removal of two trees. Public records reviewed by the Brookfield Examiner, however, do not reflect an agreement authorizing that work.

Water department concerns

The incident also reportedly extended onto water department property, raising concerns about potential impacts to municipal infrastructure.

While no damage has been publicly confirmed, the involvement of multiple municipal properties—including infrastructure-related land—adds another layer of concern regarding how the work was performed and whether appropriate coordination occurred.

Connection to Tree Warden resignation

The handling of the project is not occurring in isolation. It overlaps directly with the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Brookfield’s Tree Warden, Denis Tucker.

In his February 2025 resignation letter, Tucker stated that his decision was driven by what he described as “ongoing disregard for legal and safety protocols surrounding tree work, specifically due to the actions of Selectman Chaffee.”

He warned that essential safety principles were being ignored, writing that such conditions were “putting both employees and the public at unnecessary risk.”

Tucker also raised concerns about the use of untrained personnel for hazardous work and what he described as a shift away from established arboricultural standards in favor of convenience and perceived efficiency.

The bidding process described in this case—including work performed outside that process, the use of non-contracted labor, and questions raised about safety practices—occurred during the same timeframe and involved the same subject matter outlined in Tucker’s resignation.

A question of trust—and cost

Beyond the immediate project, the situation raises a broader question for Brookfield: whether contractors will continue to bid on town work.

Preparing a bid for a project of this scale typically requires site visits, risk assessment, documentation and certification, and a significant investment of time and labor. If that work can be rendered moot after submission, some contractors may choose not to participate in future bids.

When participation declines, competition can decrease and costs can rise. Public procurement laws are designed to prevent that outcome by promoting a fair and predictable process intended to deliver the best value for taxpayers.

Unanswered questions

Several questions remain unresolved, including why the work was performed before the board completed its review and how the decision to proceed outside the bidding process was made.

During the meeting, board members indicated that the work had not been authorized.

It also remains unclear how removing part of the project may affect the submitted bids, and what steps, if any, the town will take to ensure future bidding processes are followed.

A broader implication

At its core, the issue is not just about two trees.

It is about whether Brookfield’s bidding process—designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and value for taxpayers—can be relied upon by the businesses asked to participate in it.

For contractors weighing whether to bid again, the answer may come next time Brookfield puts work out to market.

Richard Chaffee did not respond to several requests for comment.

Editor’s Note

This article is the second in a multi-part series examining the circumstances surrounding the Tree Warden’s resignation, the town’s handling of public tree removal, and the impact on Brookfield’s bidding process. Additional coverage will follow.

BROOKFIELD SELECT BOARD TO INTERVIEW TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CANDIDATES, APPOINTMENT EXPECTED THIS WEEK

Christopher Kelleher — Sun, 03 May 2026 15:42:05 +0000

BROOKFIELD SELECT BOARD TO INTERVIEW TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CANDIDATES, APPOINTMENT EXPECTED THIS WEEK

By Christopher Kelleher

BROOKFIELD — The Brookfield Select Board is scheduled to conduct a series of remote interviews this week for the position of Town Administrator, with an appointment expected following the final session.

The interviews will take place over three public Microsoft Teams meetings:

Monday, May 4 at 4:15 p.m.

Blythe Robinson

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/212432284009142…

Meeting ID: 212 432 284 009 142 | Passcode: ve2M4Rb6

Tuesday, May 5 at 11:45 a.m.

David C. Snowdon III

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/265025082287632…

Meeting ID: 265 025 082 287 632 | Passcode: ei3eT25y

Wednesday, May 6 at 6:00 p.m.

Eric Weiss

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/275250720313803…

Meeting ID: 275 250 720 313 803 | Passcode: dC9ti2Vm

According to the posted agenda, the board will vote to appoint a Town Administrator immediately following the final interview on Wednesday evening.

All meetings will be held remotely, with no in-person location listed. Members of the public may attend via the provided links.

Follow the Brookfield Examiner to stay updated as interviews unfold and the Select Board makes its final appointment this week.
https://www.facebook.com/BrookfieldExaminer

BROOKFIELD WITHOUT TREE WARDEN AFTER RESIGNATION CITING SAFETY FAILURES AND “HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT”

Christopher Kelleher — Fri, 01 May 2026 16:12:32 +0000

BROOKFIELD WITHOUT TREE WARDEN AFTER RESIGNATION CITING SAFETY FAILURES AND “HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT”

By Christopher Kelleher

BROOKFIELD, MA — The Town of Brookfield currently does not have a Tree Warden, a position required under Massachusetts law to oversee the care and removal of public shade trees.

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 87, municipalities are required to appoint a Tree Warden responsible for managing public trees and ensuring proper procedures are followed. As of publication, the Town has not publicly identified a replacement.

The vacancy follows the resignation of Tree Warden Denis Tucker, who stepped down in February 2025 citing serious concerns about safety and working conditions.

RESIGNATION DIRECTLY NAMES SELECT BOARD MEMBER

In his resignation letter, Tucker explicitly attributes his decision to the actions of Select Board member Richard Chaffee:

“This decision comes as a result of the ongoing disregard for legal and safety protocols surrounding tree work, specifically due to the actions of Selectman Chaffee.”

Tucker further warned that critical safeguards were being ignored:

“These essential principles are being ignored, putting both employees and the public at unnecessary risk.”

SAFETY CONCERNS AND TRAINING ISSUES

The resignation letter outlines multiple safety concerns, including the use of untrained personnel for hazardous work.

Tucker wrote that he had requested proper training for workers handling dangerous equipment, but:

“Selectman Chaffee instructed the Highway Department that this individual did not need training… this employee worked for weeks without the legally mandated instruction.”

He described the situation in stark terms:

“Ignoring these risks is reckless and unacceptable.”

DEPARTURE FROM PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

Tucker also criticized what he described as a shift away from established arboricultural practices:

“Selectman Chaffee has repeatedly advocated for tree removals based on convenience and perceived efficiency rather than adhering to industry best management practices.”

He emphasized that proper tree risk assessment requires qualified professionals and structured evaluation methods—not expediency.

TOXIC WORK ENVIRONMENT” AND RESIGNATION

According to his resignation letter , Tucker described broader workplace issues beyond safety concerns.

“Selectman Chaffee’s leadership style has created a toxic work environment. His micromanagement, bullying, and misogynistic behavior… have fostered dysfunction and resentment.”

He further stated:

“His behavior has already led to multiple resignations, and I refuse to be complicit in an organization that enables such conduct.”

Tucker ultimately concluded:

“I can no longer, in good conscience, support tree removals under Selectman Chaffee’s misguided directives.”

A QUALIFIED OFFICIAL LOST

Tucker noted that he brought more than 20 years of experience, along with professional credentials and arboricultural training, to the role.

During public meetings, he demonstrated detailed knowledge of both the technical and legal requirements governing tree work, often answering questions in real time and citing applicable standards directly.

His departure represents the loss of an experienced and knowledgeable official in a role that requires both expertise and adherence to state law.

REQUIRED ROLE NOW VACANT

The Tree Warden position is not optional.

Under Chapter 87, the role is responsible for:

Overseeing public shade trees
Approving removals
Ensuring compliance with legal and safety requirements

With the position now vacant, it remains unclear who is currently performing those duties.

THE BIGGER ISSUE

The resignation, and the language used in the letter, raises broader concerns about governance, safety, and oversight in Brookfield.

When a required municipal official steps down citing disregard for legal protocols, unsafe working conditions, and a hostile work environment, the impact extends beyond a single department.

It raises questions about how decisions are being made—and who is responsible for ensuring they are carried out safely and in accordance with the law.

Editor’s Note

This is the first in a multi-part series examining the circumstances surrounding the Tree Warden’s resignation, the town’s handling of public tree removal, and the impact on Brookfield’s bidding process.

Brookfield Business Faces Lengthy Process to Sell Prepackaged Food

Christopher Kelleher — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 14:08:57 +0000

Brookfield Business Faces Lengthy Process to Sell Prepackaged Food

BROOKFIELD, MA — What began as a simple plan to offer food products at a local retail shop has turned into a complicated, months-long permitting process involving multiple applications, shifting requirements, and repeated requests for clarification, according to the owner of Post Road Trading.

Bonnie Toomey, the shop’s owner, said she initially explored allowing an outside vendor to operate within her store and sell baked goods. That plan ultimately fell through due to permitting challenges.

She then pivoted to a more limited idea: offering coffee alongside prepackaged baked goods sourced from a licensed wholesaler.

According to Toomey, she was advised by the Director of the Leicester Regional Public Health Coalition (LRPHC)—which provides public health inspection and permitting services for Brookfield—that she would need to complete a food safety certification course and apply for permitting. She paid approximately $175, took a full day away from her business, and arranged for someone to cover her store in order to complete the training.

Only after completing those steps, she said, was she informed that the operation would require additional infrastructure—including a three-compartment sink and a dedicated handwashing sink—requirements typically associated with full food preparation.

Because Toomey does not own the building, those changes were not feasible, forcing her to abandon that plan.

That determination, she said, came only after she had already completed the required course and incurred associated costs.

“It would have been helpful to know that upfront,” she said.

Shift to Prepackaged Goods

Following that setback, Toomey shifted again—this time to selling only prepackaged, commercially produced items, including sealed jellies and jams.

Even that, she said, triggered additional requirements.

Emails reviewed by the Brookfield Examiner show that she was directed by the Leicester Regional Public Health Coalition (LRPHC), the Town’s contracted public health provider, to complete both a food permit application and a plan review process.

The plan review application itself spans more than 20 pages and is typically used to evaluate the layout, equipment, and design of food establishments.

Toomey said she was also required to submit a floor plan indicating where products would be stored. She was told the purpose was to ensure items would be kept at least six inches off the ground.

“I’m a retailer,” she said. “I’m not putting food on the floor.”

During the process, Toomey said she was additionally told she would need an allergen-related permit. After reviewing state regulations herself, she questioned whether that requirement applied to her operation.

According to Toomey, the issue went back and forth before the requirement was ultimately withdrawn.

“They came back and said I was right—that I didn’t need it,” she said.

Toomey also said she was given conflicting information about the cost of the permit itself—being told it would be either $50 or $100. Unable to get a definitive answer, she submitted two separate checks, one for each amount, with her application.

Despite submitting the requested materials and fees, Toomey said she still does not have approval to sell jelly and is scheduled to appear before the Board of Health on April 29.

Toomey also expressed frustration with how the process was communicated.

She described her interactions as unclear at times, saying she struggled to get direct answers to questions about what would ultimately be required.

“I just couldn’t get a straight answer,” she said.

Toomey said the lack of clarity made it difficult to plan and resulted in additional time and expense as she adjusted her business model.

Two-Tier Permitting System Identified

Records reviewed by the Brookfield Examiner show that Brookfield maintains two separate application processes for food establishments.

A standard Food Establishment Application—used for routine permitting—is relatively short and covers basic operational and licensing requirements.

In addition, the town also utilizes a separate Food Establishment Plan Review Application, which spans more than 20 pages and is typically intended for new construction, major renovations, or more complex food operations.

Archived records from 2023 show only the shorter, standard application in use at that time.

The expanded plan review process now being applied represents a significantly more detailed level of review than what appears in earlier records. The existence of both processes raises questions about how and when each application is applied—particularly in cases involving limited retail sales of prepackaged food.

Regional Comparison Raises Additional Questions

A review of permitting materials from multiple municipalities—including both neighboring towns and larger jurisdictions—highlights significant differences in how similar food establishment applications are administered.

In East Brookfield, food permit applications covering both retail and open food operations are approximately three to five pages in length and require a single application and fee.

West Brookfield’s process similarly consists of a straightforward application and checklist requiring basic documentation such as certification, insurance, and payment.

In Sturbridge, applicants complete a consolidated packet of approximately six to seven pages, with requirements clearly outlined at the outset.

In Spencer, a larger municipality, a single Food Establishment Application covering full restaurant operations—including kitchens and food trucks—spans approximately five pages.

Boston, one of the state’s largest municipalities, utilizes a structured, step-based process that clearly distinguishes when a full plan review is required. Under Boston’s system, plan review is limited to cases involving new construction, renovation, or significant operational changes, while routine permitting is handled through a standard application and inspection process.

By comparison, the process described by Toomey in Brookfield—administered through the Leicester Regional Public Health Coalition (LRPHC)—includes a plan review application exceeding 20 pages, along with additional documentation requirements and multiple stages of review.

The variation between municipalities raises questions about how similar state food code standards are being interpreted and applied—particularly in cases involving limited retail sales of prepackaged food.

Board of Health Chair Raises Concerns

Brookfield Board of Health Chair Christina Predella said she became involved after hearing directly from Toomey regarding the permitting delays and confusion.

Predella said she has worked to gather the full history of the matter, communicate with LRPHC for clarification, and place Post Road Trading on the Board of Health agenda—similar to recent actions taken to assist other business permitting matters.

Emails show Predella questioned LRPHC regarding whether all applications and requirements being requested were necessary and sought clarification on several points where the business owner had received inconsistent or incomplete information.

Predella emphasized that while LRPHC serves as Brookfield’s contracted subject matter expert for public health and food code enforcement, the Board has raised concerns about communication, efficiency, and whether all requirements are being clearly explained upfront to applicants.

“Our goal is to support businesses while ensuring compliance with public health regulations,” Predella said. “When business owners are not given complete information upfront, it creates unnecessary delays, expense, and frustration. We are actively working to improve that process.”

A Broader Question

The situation has also raised a broader question that has surfaced in other local discussions.

Toomey said she was told that certain food items could be offered for free, or by donation, without triggering the same level of permitting requirements.

That distinction has led to confusion among some business owners about how the exchange of money affects regulatory oversight.

At issue is whether the act of selling a food or beverage—versus giving it away—changes the underlying public health risk associated with that item, or whether the distinction is primarily regulatory.

Looking Ahead

Toomey is expected to appear before the Board of Health on April 29 as she continues seeking approval to sell prepackaged jellies and jams.

As of publication, the matter remains unresolved.

Town officials say discussions with the Leicester Regional Public Health Coalition are ongoing as they work to improve communication, consistency, and overall efficiency in the permitting process.

For now, the question of when—or whether—Post Road Trading will be permitted to sell prepackaged food remains unanswered.

Select Board Vote Fails; Questions Emerge Over Use of Vice Chair Title

Christopher Kelleher — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 16:39:01 +0000

Select Board Vote Fails; Questions Emerge Over Use of Vice Chair Title

Reorganization Vote Ends Without Majority

During a recent reorganization meeting of the Brookfield Select Board, a motion to appoint a vice chair did not receive the majority required to pass, leaving the position formally unfilled.

At the April 1, 2026 meeting, the three-member board took up a motion to appoint Select Board member Richard Chaffee as vice chair. Mr. Chaffee voted in favor of his own appointment, while Select Board member Beth Coughlin voted against.

Newly elected Chair Sarah Campbell did not cast a vote.

With one vote in favor and one against, the motion did not achieve a majority. Under standard municipal practice, a motion that does not receive a majority of votes cast does not pass.

The result left the board without a formally appointed vice chair at the conclusion of that vote.

Role of Vice Chair in Board Operations

In most municipal boards, the vice chair serves as the acting presiding officer in the absence of the chair and may be called upon to perform administrative or procedural functions tied to the board’s work.

The position is typically filled during annual or periodic reorganization votes, which establish leadership roles for the coming term.

Because those roles are created through formal votes, their validity depends on the outcome of those proceedings.

Documents Appear to Reflect Title

Despite the outcome of the vote, documents reviewed by the Brookfield Examiner appear to show Mr. Chaffee signing official materials using the title “Vice Chair” of the Select Board.

The documents were issued following the reorganization meeting in which the motion to appoint a vice chair did not pass.

A review of publicly posted Select Board agendas and records shows no indication that the board has taken any subsequent public action to revisit or resolve the outcome of the vice chair vote.

Without a new vote, the position was not formally filled.

Discrepancy Between Vote and Public Characterizations

Some public descriptions of the board’s reorganization have indicated that Mr. Chaffee was elected vice chair.

However, the recorded vote—one in favor, one against, and one member not voting—did not result in a majority.

As a result, the outcome reflected in the meeting record does not indicate that an appointment was made at that time.

Open Meeting Law History and Potential Implications

The situation may carry implications under the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, which requires that meeting minutes accurately reflect the actions taken by a public body.

Under the law, minutes serve as the official record of a board’s proceedings, including votes and outcomes. If minutes were to state that a vice chair was elected despite the absence of a majority vote, that record could be subject to challenge as inaccurate.

The Brookfield Select Board has, on multiple occasions, been found by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office to have violated the Open Meeting Law, including findings related to procedural compliance and the handling of official actions.

Those determinations typically require public bodies to correct deficiencies—often through revised minutes, public acknowledgment of the violation, or additional deliberation conducted in compliance with the law.

In this instance, no publicly available record indicates that the board has taken corrective action to revisit or resolve the outcome of the vice chair vote.

The continued use of the vice chair title in official documents does not appear to be supported by a recorded vote.

Importance of Majority Vote in a Three-Member Board

In a three-member body such as the Brookfield Select Board, each vote carries equal weight, and a majority is required to take official action.

A split vote does not result in approval of a motion. When a member present does not vote, that non-participation does not add to the number of votes needed for a majority, but it also does not convert a split vote into an approval.

As a result, the 1–1 outcome recorded at the meeting left the motion without the support required to pass.

Status of the Position

As of this writing, no public record indicates that the Select Board has taken a subsequent vote to appoint a vice chair following the failed April 1 motion.

In the absence of a majority vote, the position was not formally filled.

How the board ultimately records that vote in its official minutes—and the basis for the continued use of the vice chair title—may determine whether further clarification or corrective action is required.

Watch the Vote

The vote can be viewed in the publicly available meeting recording below:

Meeting Video (queued to the Agenda item of reorganize the Board):
https://youtu.be/vdPrYUAwCAU?list=PLEZBtq345cqzQaARJA4LIOJm8orNmTnbY&t=421

Citizen Petition Seeks to Allow Firearms in Brookfield Town Hall Amid Safety Concerns

Christopher Kelleher — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:53:01 +0000

Citizen Petition Seeks to Allow Firearms in Brookfield Town Hall Amid Safety Concerns

A citizen petition set to appear on the warrant at an upcoming May Town Meeting would allow individuals to carry firearms inside Brookfield Town Hall, raising questions about public safety, legal authority, and how such a policy would function in a municipal building.

The proposal follows recent changes to Massachusetts firearms law under Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, which made sweeping updates to the state’s gun regulations.

The law explicitly prohibits the carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations, and schools, with certain exceptions, placing municipal buildings such as town halls within a category of restricted locations.

How those exceptions apply at the local level remains an open question, as some Massachusetts communities have begun exploring whether local policies or votes could affect how the law is enforced within municipally controlled buildings.

Prior Incidents Raise Safety Questions

The proposal comes amid a series of reported incidents at Brookfield Town Hall that have raised ongoing concerns about safety inside the building.

According to prior reporting by the Brookfield Examiner and accounts from individuals involved, these incidents have included:

A former town administrator allegedly being pushed into a wall during a confrontation
Reports of a town assessor having his office door pounded on by an individual attempting to gain entry
An incident in which a town employee was reportedly cornered inside a small office during a verbal confrontation
A reported physical altercation in which an individual was thrown to the ground
An incident in which an item was thrown at a town official
A confrontation during a public meeting in which a private citizen allegedly struck another individual, including grabbing them by the neck
Reports of water being thrown at an individual during a dispute
Reports, including prior coverage in regional media, of a town official allegedly jumping across a table during a confrontation with another official

While not all incidents resulted in formal charges, multiple individuals have expressed concerns about safety inside Town Hall.

A Question for Voters

The petition raises a broader policy question that Town Meeting voters will ultimately decide:

Whether allowing firearms in a municipal building could serve as a deterrent to violence—or whether their presence could increase the risk of a confrontation escalating into a more serious or potentially deadly incident.

Supporters of expanded firearm access often argue that lawful gun owners provide an added layer of protection in emergency situations.

Others raise concerns about introducing firearms into environments where disputes have already occurred, particularly in close quarters and emotionally charged public settings.

Legal questions also remain about how the law applies at the local level, and whether municipal policies allowing firearms in government buildings could ultimately be subject to review or challenge.

Next Steps

The petition is expected to be considered at The Annual Town Meeting that will be held at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, June 4, 2026, where voters will debate and vote on the measure.

As with all citizen petitions, approval would require a majority vote of those present.

Town officials have not yet publicly detailed how such a policy would be implemented if adopted, including any potential safeguards or enforcement mechanisms.

The Brookfield Examiner also spoke with a town official in a leadership position who indicated they would support restrictions if the measure were adopted, including the possibility of restricting firearm access for individuals with a documented history of physical altercations inside Town Hall. Any such measures would likely require further legal review and formal policy development before implementation.

Bottom Line

The issue places Brookfield at the center of a broader debate over firearms, public safety, and the boundaries of civic spaces.

For voters, the decision may ultimately come down to whether Town Hall should be treated as a place requiring stricter controls—or one where individuals retain the right to carry for personal protection.

BROOKFIELD HR OFFICIAL RESIGNS AFTER ALLEGED COMMENT BY INTERIM TOWN ADMINISTRATOR

Christopher Kelleher — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 15:56:14 +0000

BROOKFIELD HR OFFICIAL RESIGNS AFTER ALLEGED COMMENT BY INTERIM TOWN ADMINISTRATOR

BROOKFIELD — A female Human Resources official for the Town of Brookfield has resigned following an alleged inappropriate remark made by the Interim Town Administrator during their first interaction, according to a resignation letter obtained by the Brookfield Examiner.

In the letter, the employee states that upon arriving at Town Hall on Feb. 2, 2026, she was introduced to Interim Town Administrator Robert Ayers. Within minutes of that introduction, she alleges Ayers made a comment that left her “shocked and offended.”

“I’m sorry I stole your office, but you can sit in my lap for a bit if you’d like.”

According to the resignation letter, she immediately responded “No,” and another town employee present at the time stated words to the effect of:

“You can’t say that. Saying things like that is going to get you in trouble.”

The employee emphasized the timing and impact of the interaction, writing:

“These statements were made within the first five minutes of me meeting Robert. I was shocked and offended at his statement because of his blatant lack of professionalism and the fact that he is roughly three times my age. It made me extremely uncomfortable and raises concerns about the workplace culture I would be operating in as his subordinate.”

The employee, who served in a Human Resources role responsible for workplace compliance and personnel matters, stated that this interaction—along with other factors—led to her decision to resign, effective Feb. 28, 2026.

Her departure appears to be part of a broader pattern of turnover within Town Hall and may represent the 67th employee to leave Town employment in recent years, according to records reviewed by the Brookfield Examiner.

Conflict With Town Policy

The Town of Brookfield maintains a Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy that prohibits verbal conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile or offensive work environment.

The policy states that sexual harassment “will not be tolerated” and requires that complaints be addressed through a prompt and fair investigation, with corrective action taken where appropriate.

Executive Session Lasted Less Than Six Minutes

Following the resignation, the Select Board entered executive session to address the matter. According to available information, that session lasted less than six minutes before returning to open session.

It remains unclear whether a formal investigation was conducted, whether the employee was interviewed, or whether any findings or disciplinary action were issued. No detailed public statement has been released by the Town.

Part of a Broader Pattern

This incident comes amid ongoing concerns about turnover and workplace conditions at Brookfield Town Hall. In prior reporting, questions have been raised about employee retention, workplace treatment, and whether Town leadership has done enough to protect employees and maintain a professional working environment.

The resignation of the Town’s Human Resources official—the very position responsible for enforcing workplace policies—may add to those concerns.

Request for Comment

The Brookfield Examiner made multiple attempts to contact Interim Town Administrator Robert Ayers for comment on the allegations outlined in this report. As of publication, no response was received.

Requests for comment were also sent to the Chair of the Brookfield Select Board regarding the Town’s handling of the matter and whether a formal investigation was conducted. As of publication, no responses were received.

Key Question: Was Policy Followed?

The situation raises a central question: Did the Town follow its own sexual harassment policy?

The Town’s policy states that sexual harassment “will not be tolerated” and requires a prompt investigation. In this case, the employee responsible for enforcing that policy is no longer with the Town, no investigation findings have been publicly released, and no leave or disciplinary action involving the Interim Town Administrator has been announced.

Editorial Note

The Brookfield Examiner has chosen to withhold the name of the employee referenced in this report due to the sensitive nature of the allegation and out of respect for her privacy.

Brookfield Board of Health Meeting Draws Wave of Public Concerns

Christopher Kelleher — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 17:04:00 +0000

Brookfield Board of Health Meeting Draws Wave of Public Concerns

BROOKFIELD — A three-hour meeting of the Brookfield Board of Health on March 25, 2026, brought forward a wide range of concerns from local businesses, residents, and advocates, as new leadership opened the floor to expanded public participation.

Under the direction of Chair Christina Predella—recently elected to the role—the Board encouraged members of the community to come forward with any concerns. That approach was reflected in both the structure of the meeting and the number of individuals who chose to speak.

Public comment was also allowed at both the beginning and end of the meeting, resulting in multiple residents, business owners, and stakeholders addressing the Board directly.

Several agenda items involved direct input from local businesses.

Representatives from Wildberry Acres, White’s Landing, and Dollar General each addressed the Board regarding prior interactions. During the discussion involving Dollar General, a store manager described what they characterized as an intimidating situation in which tobacco products were removed from shelves over an alleged non payment licensing issue. It was stated during the meeting that corporate documentation showed payment had been made, though questions remained about where that payment had ultimately been processed by the Board.

Public records previously obtained by the Brookfield Examiner indicate that, in past instances, the Board of Health has misplaced records, applications, and associated fees—issues that were indirectly reflected in concerns raised during the meeting.

The Board also discussed an ADA accommodations policy, with concerns raised regarding equal participation in public meetings and the need for consistent accessibility for those attending remotely due to disability.

During the meeting, the Board indicated it would use the proposed ADA policy as a guiding framework moving forward. The guidance includes ensuring that individuals attending remotely due to disability are able to participate without being muted in advance of meetings.

The change in approach to remote participation also extended beyond the formal meeting itself. Following adjournment, this reporter was able to briefly communicate with Chair Christina Predella to offer congratulations on the meeting—an interaction that had not been possible for over a year.

This reporter previously raised concerns that disabled remote attendees were muted and unable to speak before, during, or after meetings, while able-bodied individuals physically present were able to communicate freely. For the first time under the Board’s current leadership, that dynamic appeared to change.

An additional concern was raised regarding the inclusion of full residential addresses in publicly posted meeting minutes. The issue was framed as both a privacy and safety concern, given that meeting minutes are subject to public records law.

Following discussion, the Board agreed and revised its approach, indicating that the perviously approved minutes will not include full residential addresses.

The meeting concluded with a vote to appoint dog officer Deb Young as interim clerk. During that discussion, the former chair exited the meeting prior to the vote after making a brief remark and did not participate in the decision. The remaining two Board members voted in favor of the appointment.

A consistent theme emerged throughout the meeting, as multiple business owners and members of the public expressed frustration with how they had been spoken to or treated in prior interactions with the Board of Health and its representatives. Although each situation involved different circumstances, the concerns reflected a broader pattern of strained communication and negative experiences in the past. In contrast, during this meeting the current Board heard from each speaker and engaged directly with their concerns, signaling a shift toward a more open and responsive approach and a willingness by the Board to hear concerns and make adjustments in real time.

Because several of the matters raised during the meeting involve detailed concerns from individual businesses and residents, the Brookfield Examiner will be publishing additional follow-up articles in the coming days to provide more in-depth coverage of those issues.

Meeting Video Timestamps (Watch Specific Segments)

Wildberry Acres discussion – https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=248

Dollar General interaction https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=1356

White’s Landing discussion. https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=2139

ADA accommodations policy discussion. – https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=5829

Meeting minutes / address privacy concern – https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=9369
(Final public comment period)

Former clerk resigns – https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=9740

Clerk appointment vote (Deb Young) – https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=10430

Former chair exits meeting – https://youtu.be/6Z-3Dox3MXw?t=10552

Brookfield police staffing crisis forces overnight coverage cuts as resignation and town-wide turnover raise broader questions

Christopher Kelleher — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:39:30 +0000

Brookfield police staffing crisis forces overnight coverage cuts as resignation and town-wide turnover raise broader questions

BROOKFIELD — A staffing shortage within the Brookfield Police Department will result in the suspension of overnight police coverage beginning February 1, 2026, marking a significant change for a department that has provided uninterrupted 24/7 service for more than 25 years.

The change was announced Jan. 29, by Police Chief Michael Blanchard, who cited three vacant patrol officer positions and ongoing challenges in hiring and retaining officers.

This report is based on statements issued in late January, along with documents obtained through a recent public records request.

Beginning Feb. 1, no Brookfield officer will be on duty between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., with the Massachusetts State Police expected to respond to calls during those hours.

While staffing shortages have affected police departments across the state, additional records and local developments suggest the situation in Brookfield may also reflect broader challenges within town government.

End of 24/7 coverage after decades of continuous service

“This department has provided 24/7 police services to the residents of Brookfield without interruption for over 25 years,” Blanchard said in his Jan. 29 statement. “Unfortunately, we are temporarily unable to continue to provide that high level of service that the citizens of this town need and deserve.”

Blanchard pointed to a combination of factors, including increased certification requirements and a competitive hiring market, and stated that the department is actively working to restore full staffing levels.

The loss of overnight coverage represents a notable shift for residents who have long relied on continuous local police presence.

Resignation clarification provides detailed account of concerns

A clarification communication obtained by the Brookfield Examiner through a public records request provides additional detail regarding Officer Lee Murphy’s decision to leave the department.

The email, sent to Select Board Chair Richard Chaffee and copied to the full board, was written to “avoid any misinformation” and outline the reasons for Murphy’s resignation.

In the communication, Murphy again states that he is leaving due to “ongoing issues within the Town of Brookfield’s municipal government,” and provides specific examples of those concerns.

Among them:

A lack of support from elected officials, including funding concerns and delays in swearing in new hires
Concerns that long-serving employees and volunteers are no longer valued, contributing to widespread departures
Issues surrounding the town’s adoption of new health insurance, including a reported mid-year cost increase
Instances where town employees are questioned without full board awareness
Concerns over Select Board involvement in matters traditionally handled within the Police Department

Murphy also described a specific incident involving an executive session related to a cruiser accident, in which he said officers were told the meeting was not disciplinary in nature, while communications suggested otherwise.

He wrote that this has led to concern among officers that disciplinary matters may be handled outside the department’s chain of command.

Policy and oversight concerns outlined

Murphy further detailed concerns regarding town-level policy decisions affecting the department.

These included:

The implementation of GPS tracking in police vehicles without a finalized policy
The installation of GPS equipment prior to completion of required bargaining processes
The installation of GPS in the Chief’s cruiser despite safety concerns raised to town officials
Ongoing uncertainty regarding how data collected from GPS systems would be handled

Murphy also referenced decisions to fully mark the Chief’s cruiser and an unmarked department vehicle, stating that such decisions reflect poorly on the department.

Murphy attributes issues to town officials—not department leadership

In the clarification, Murphy explicitly states that the issues he identified are not related to the Police Department itself.

“These issues rest with the town officials.”

He further emphasized that he is not leaving due to workload, overtime, or pay, noting that he has volunteered for assignments and shifts throughout his career.

Murphy reiterated his support for Chief Blanchard and department leadership, stating that their efforts to improve conditions—including salary and quality-of-life measures—have been ongoing.

Statement distinguishes between department and town leadership

In his resignation, Murphy also addressed the Police Department directly.

He wrote that he “fully supports the Brookfield Police Department and the leadership provided by Chief Blanchard and Sergeant Marino,” crediting them with shaping his career as an officer.

Murphy further noted that department leadership and the police union had taken steps to improve pay and working conditions.

He added, however, that despite those efforts, Brookfield remains among the lowest-paying departments and continues to face challenges in retaining officers.

Low pay and retention challenges

Murphy’s reference to compensation highlights an issue frequently raised in discussions about police staffing across smaller municipalities.

Lower pay relative to surrounding departments can make it more difficult not only to recruit new officers, but to retain experienced ones.

In Brookfield’s case, Murphy’s resignation suggests that compensation concerns may be occurring alongside other factors, including working conditions and town-level policies.

Broader pattern of departures across town government

Murphy’s resignation also points to a broader trend affecting Brookfield’s municipal workforce.

“Far too many have left town, leaving gaps that are extremely hard to fill.”

In recent years, the town has seen a significant number of employee and volunteer departures across boards, committees, and administrative roles. Public discussions and community reporting have referenced over 65 of such departures over a relatively short period.

Until now, those impacts have largely been confined to Town Hall operations and local governance.

First visible impact on public safety

The current staffing shortage within the Police Department represents what appears to be the first time that broader turnover has had a direct and visible impact on public safety services.

While Murphy’s resignation does not identify specific individuals, it does connect his departure to conditions within town government, suggesting that factors beyond traditional hiring challenges may be contributing to staffing issues.

The reduction in overnight coverage represents the most tangible effect to date.

Citizen petition seeks 10% salary increase

Amid these challenges, a citizen-led petition has been introduced for an upcoming Town Meeting that would increase police salaries by 10%.

Supporters of the proposal say it is intended to improve recruitment and retention, particularly as the department works to fill multiple vacancies.

The petition reflects a growing recognition within the community that compensation may be one factor influencing staffing stability.

A shift residents will notice

For residents, the loss of overnight police coverage represents a significant and immediate change.

After more than two decades of continuous local service, the shift reflects a new reality—one in which staffing challenges have begun to affect day-to-day public safety operations.