08/07/2026
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 7, 2026
Before Assigning Blame, Norwich Deserves the Full Story
Statement from the Yantic, Taftville, Occum, and Laurel Hill Volunteer Fire Department Chiefs:
Norwich residents deserve an open and honest discussion about the future of their fire service. Instead, they are increasingly being presented with conclusions before the most important legal questions have even been answered.
At Monday night’s City Council meeting, the Council considered transferring more than $535,000 to cover additional Fire Department expenditures following the shutdown and takeover of Yantic and Taftville, respectively. Taxpayers have every right to ask why those costs were incurred, whether they could have been avoided, and what the long-term financial impact will be.
The meeting also reflected the depth of public concern. Emotions ran high, decorum broke down, and members of the public were ultimately removed from the Council chambers. While maintaining order is an important responsibility of the Mayor, the frustration expressed by residents should not be dismissed. It reflects just how significant these issues have become.
Unfortunately, much of the public discussion surrounding this issue has shifted away from those legitimate questions and toward assigning blame.
Before the meeting, Councilwoman Jill Zuccardy wrote on social media that “Yantic closed itself” and that the volunteer companies are responsible for diverting more than half a million taxpayer dollars to make a political point.
Following last week’s court hearing, Councilman Joe DeLucia publicly stated that the volunteer departments are “the plaintiffs, the instigators,” that they are causing the legal costs and overtime expenses, and that their lawsuit is intended to protect “long-standing and entrenched fiefdoms” rather than improve public safety.
Councilwoman Zuccardy and Councilman DeLucia are entitled to their opinions. What deserves equal recognition is that these remain matters in dispute.
One fact is not in dispute. The events that led to Yantic’s shutdown and the City’s hostile takeover of the Taftville firehouse resulted from executive actions taken by City officials. The City removed Yantic from service, repossessed its city-owned apparatus, terminated its funding, and assumed responsibility for protecting its district.
Yantic initiated no legal action until AFTER the department was removed from service and the City repossessed all apparatus. The City initiated Yantic’s closure; it was a premeditated and well-choreographed legal action in conjunction with the Norwich Police Department.
Additionally, the City took the Norwich Fire Department’s Squad A engine out of service several weeks ago. It replaced it with a Yantic engine, while continuing to negotiate in bad faith with Yantic, Taftville, Laurel Hill, and Occum.
The City, via court order, forced Taftville to “vacate the firehouse immediately,” a stronger action with less legal rights than an eviction notice. The City changed the locks on the Taftville firehouse and assumed its operations and responsibility for protecting its district. Those actions did not result from a City ordinance, a Charter revision, or a vote of Norwich’s citizens.
It should also be made known that the agreements presented to Yantic and Taftville by the City Manager and Chief Wilson are different; the Taftville contract forces the department to become a combination department with the City department, essentially throwing away 109 years of history and dedicated community involvement.
At the same time, East Great Plain has signed nothing—no agreement, no contract—and yet they can still operate without City oversight on every single call, which is currently happening for Laurel Hill and Occum department responses.
Additionally, the City Council has done nothing for several months on the alert system, even though the volunteer departments continually bring it up at the Public Safety Meetings.
The central issue before the Superior Court is whether City officials possessed the authority under the Norwich Charter to implement their so-called “unified command” through executive action.
The volunteer fire companies maintain that the Charter requires a different process. The City maintains otherwise. The Court, not social media, newspaper comment sections, or political rhetoric, will ultimately decide those legal questions.
Likewise, while the additional Fire Department expenditures followed Yantic’s shutdown and Taftville’s takeover, reasonable people may disagree about whether those costs were unavoidable, whether different decisions by City officials could have produced a different outcome, or whether responsibility is shared among multiple parties. Those are legitimate questions deserving thoughtful public discussion, not predetermined conclusions made by City officials.
Seeking judicial review of governmental authority is neither extraordinary nor improper. Courts exist to resolve disputes over the limits of governmental power. Asking a judge to interpret the Norwich Charter is not an attack on public safety. It is the lawful process our system provides when government officials and citizens disagree about the scope of governmental authority.
Regardless of where one stands on this topic, every taxpayer should expect elected officials to distinguish between opinion and established fact, respect the judicial process, and allow the public to reach its own informed conclusions.
Norwich deserves nothing less.
# # #
