Public Safety – Brookfield Examiner

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.

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.

Child’s Dirt Bike Stolen in Middle-of-the-Night Garage Break-In — Police Ask Residents to Check Cameras

Christopher Kelleher — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:01:53 +0000

Child’s Dirt Bike Stolen in Middle-of-the-Night Garage Break-In — Police Ask Residents to Check Cameras

BROOKFIELD, MA — March 29, 2026, at approximately 1:22 a.m.

A quiet Brookfield neighborhood was disrupted early Sunday morning after a group of individuals broke into a residential garage and stole a dirt bike belonging to an eight-year-old child—an incident that is now drawing attention to both public safety concerns and ongoing police staffing challenges.

According to the family, the break-in occurred at a home on Lake Road in the early morning hours. Three unknown individuals entered the garage and removed the child’s dirt bike, which had been purchased just two weeks earlier.

The child was awakened by the sound of the garage door opening and, to the family’s distress, witnessed the theft as it was happening.

“It’s not just the bike,” a family member said. “This has really shaken his sense of safety at home.”

Father Confronts Suspects

The child’s father, Jeff Evans, immediately reacted after realizing what was happening.

“I chased after them down the road—in my underwear,” Evans said, describing the moments after discovering the theft.

Despite his efforts, the individuals were able to leave the area before police arrived. The family also reported that the suspects left the scene in a vehicle. The description of the vehicle is limited at this time, but it is believed to have been a dark-colored vehicle seen leaving the area shortly after the theft.

Response Time and Staffing Concerns

Evans stated that it took over eight minutes for Massachusetts State Police to arrive after the incident was reported. At the time of the break-in, there was no overnight Brookfield police officer on duty, due to ongoing staffing shortages within the department.

This is not a new issue for the town. However, on April 1st, the Brookfield Select Board did vote to appoint a new police officer. While that step may help address long-term coverage gaps, the impact is not immediate.

Police: Investigation Active, Public Assistance Requested

Brookfield Police Chief Michael Blanchard confirmed to the Brookfield Examiner that the incident remains under investigation. The Chief is asking for the public’s assistance and urges anyone with information to come forward.

According to Chief Blanchard, anyone who may have seen suspicious activity or has relevant information should contact either the Brookfield Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police.

Community Asked to Check Surveillance Footage

Residents in the Lake Road area, surrounding streets, and nearby neighborhoods are being asked to review any available surveillance footage.

Specifically, police and the family are asking residents to:

Check Ring cameras, security systems, and doorbell cameras
Review footage from approximately 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on March 29
Look for any unfamiliar vehicles or individuals in the area

Even small details could help investigators piece together what happened.

Family Starts GoFundMe to Replace Stolen Bike

The family has launched a GoFundMe to help replace the stolen dirt bike, which was not insured.

https://gofund.me/de94a0af4

The child’s brother shared the following message:

“Hi there, I wanted to share a story about my little brother who recently had his dirt bike stolen—something he worked so hard for and was so proud of. This has really shaken his sense of safety at home, and we’re hoping to help him feel secure again by replacing his bike.”

More Than a Theft

While the financial loss of the dirt bike is significant, the emotional impact on the family—especially the child—has been profound. This was not a theft from a public place or an unlocked vehicle. It was a break-in at a private home, in the middle of the night, while a child was inside.

For the Evans family, the incident represents more than stolen property—it represents a loss of safety and peace of mind.

Ongoing Investigation

Authorities have not announced any arrests, and the case remains active.

Anyone with information is encouraged to contact:

Brookfield Police Department (508) 867-5570
Massachusetts State Police (508) 867-2912

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.

Brookfield Man’s Criminal Trial Postponed After Defendant Fails to Appear

Christopher Kelleher — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 23:01:54 +0000

Brookfield Man’s Criminal Trial Postponed After Defendant Fails to Appear

A jury trial scheduled Monday in East Brookfield District Court involving Brookfield resident John D. Holdcraft was postponed after the defendant failed to appear, with his attorney informing the court that Holdcraft had been hospitalized that morning.

Charges Filed

Holdcraft is charged with:

Criminal harassment, a misdemeanor under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, Section 43A(a), which court records classify as carrying potential incarceration of more than 100 days; and
Witness intimidation, a felony under Chapter 268, Section 13B, formally listed as intimidation of a witness, juror, police officer, or court official.

The charges stem from allegations involving former Select Board Chair Bradford J. Kadelski.

Courtroom Proceedings

When the case was called, Holdcraft was not present in the courtroom.

His defense attorney informed the court that Holdcraft, described as a 70-year-old man, was experiencing breathing difficulties and had gone to Harrington Hospital earlier that morning.

The judge asked whether documentation could be provided to confirm the hospitalization. Defense counsel stated that he did not have documentation at that time, referencing medical privacy concerns, but indicated that Holdcraft was at the hospital.

Defense counsel also informed the court that a defense witness, Richard Chaffee, was unavailable due to a medical condition described as shingles.

The judge then asked the Commonwealth whether it was prepared to proceed. The Commonwealth responded that it was ready for trial.

The court noted that jurors had already been summoned and were present for the scheduled trial. Approximately 20 jurors had appeared for jury duty and were subsequently dismissed following the delay.

The judge stated that the case would be held for a second call and requested documentation confirming Holdcraft’s hospitalization.

According to court staff, documentation was later provided following the hearing, and the case has been rescheduled for a jury trial on June 17.

After the court indicated the matter would be held for a second call, the prosecutor asked whether witnesses could be excused.

The judge allowed the request.

At that point, several individuals present for the case—including Brookfield Police Chief Michael Blanchard, Kadelski, and other residents—left the courtroom.

Background of the Charges

According to court documents, testimony, and video evidence referenced in the case, the charges arise from a series of interactions between Holdcraft and former Select Board Chair Bradford J. Kadelski.

At an October 2024 Select Board meeting, Holdcraft is alleged to have tossed a pair of women’s underwear toward Kadelski, with the item landing on Kadelski’s desk. The incident was captured on video.

The underwear appeared to have a brown stain. In prior sworn testimony referenced in the matter, Holdcraft acknowledged that the underwear may have come from materials obtained during a property clean-out, which is consistent with his business performing junk removal and clean-out services.

Kadelski has further alleged that Holdcraft engaged in repeated conduct directed toward him, including a late-night phone call in which Holdcraft allegedly asked what color woman’s underwear he was wearing.

According to court filings, Kadelski subsequently sought a harassment prevention order at East Brookfield District Court.

Video from Town Hall referenced in the case shows Holdcraft inside the building prior to a meeting, pacing in the front lobby area, repeatedly entering and exiting the building, and looking out toward the entrance.

The video then shows Kadelski arriving at Town Hall, at which point Holdcraft is seen following him from the front entrance area into the meeting space.

According to testimony cited in court documents, Holdcraft made derogatory remarks toward Kadelski during this interaction, including statements referencing Kadelski’s decision to seek a court order.

These allegations form part of the basis for the witness intimidation charge.

Holdcraft has publicly denied wrongdoing and has stated in prior media interviews that his actions are protected under the First Amendment. The Brookfield Examiner was unable to reach Holdcraft for comment prior to publication.

Procedural History

Court records show the case has been ongoing since February 2025, when a criminal complaint was issued. Holdcraft later entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.

In August 2025, a motion by the defense to dismiss the case was denied by the court.

A previously scheduled jury trial in December 2025 was rescheduled at the request of the defendant.

Monday’s trial date was marked in court records as rescheduled due to illness, with a note indicating the defendant was taken to the hospital.

Related Civil Matter and Prior Absences

Holdcraft is also named as a defendant in a separate civil case, Fromm v. Holdcraft, involving allegations of defamation and related claims.

According to filings in that case, Holdcraft previously failed to appear for a scheduled deposition despite a court order compelling his attendance. Court records indicate that motions to compel the deposition were filed and allowed, with the court ordering that Holdcraft appear.

On the morning of that compelled deposition, Holdcraft’s attorney notified opposing counsel that Holdcraft was either at the hospital or on the way to the hospital and would not be able to attend.

According to information provided in that matter, individuals involved in the deposition—including counsel, a stenographer, a videographer, and a notary public—were already present or en route at the time the cancellation was communicated.

Public records indicate that Holdcraft had attended a town meeting the evening prior to that scheduled deposition.

In Monday’s criminal proceeding, Holdcraft was again absent when his case was called for trial, with his attorney stating he had gone to the hospital that morning.

No findings have been made by the court regarding the reasons for Holdcraft’s absences.

What Comes Next

The case is scheduled to return to East Brookfield District Court for jury trial on June 17.

The Commonwealth indicated in court that it was prepared to proceed with trial on Monday.