Updated, Nov 13
Tisbury’s decision to discipline Fire Chief Greg Leland came in response to reports of a romantic relationship between the chief and a subordinate, and the resulting poor morale within his department. That’s according to an investigation into the chief commissioned by the town, obtained by The Times through a state records request.
The report, by KP Law, includes interviews with several fire department and EMS employees about professional difficulties caused by what one called “the worst kept secret on Martha’s Vineyard.”
It finds that Leland, fire chief since 2020, was first rumored to be in a relationship in 2023.
The 23-page document was completed on August 22. It is heavily redacted in parts, including all names within the department aside from Leland.
The Times originally requested access to the report in August, but Tisbury town administrator Jay Grande denied the request, noting that the document involved a personnel issue. He noted the report could be available after the issue was resolved. The Times made a second request in October following news that Leland was no longer employed by the town as of Oct. 28, before receiving the document on Friday. Leland’s end of employment followed an hour-and-a-half hour executive session with select board members, Leland, and his attorney on Oct. 24.
The Times reported on Oct. 18 that Tisbury had spent nearly $70,000 to investigate Leland and pay his salary since placing him on leave in July.
The town may end up spending more money on the matter, as Leland told The Times after the Oct. 24 meeting that he would take legal action.
“I have worked to professionalize the department and hold employees accountable, which is likely the cause of my termination,” he said then in a statement to The Times.
The KP Law report details a half-dozen employee accounts that department workplace culture suffered, and “that people are leaving the department to avoid the drama” because of Leland’s relationship with an employee — a contrast from Leland’s initial success as chief, when morale was high and people were leaving other towns’ fire departments to join Tisbury.
The report recommended that Leland’s contract be terminated if the relationship continues. If Leland were to have remained on staff, the report recommended that he attend training regarding sexual harassment, specifically geared toward supervisors, as well as training so he could better manage the fire and EMS departments.
The report also recommended all employees receive training regarding sexual harassment.
Town leadership caught wind of the issue in 2023, when human resources director Pam Bennett heard from current and former town employees that Leland might be in a romantic relationship with a subordinate. When Bennett inquired, Leland and the unnamed woman denied the relationship, the report states. The woman’s name is redacted in the report.
But Bennett continued to hear accounts, and the report states that town administrator Jay Grande sent Leland an email on May 15 that such a relationship would violate the town’s sexual harassment policy. He also put Leland on notice that he could be terminated if such a romance continued.
Employees continued to report that the relationship was ongoing, as well as that Leland was favoring the woman, negatively affecting department morale. In July, the town put Leland on paid administrative leave and then contacted KP Law to review the situation.
In Leland’s interview with investigators, he denied that he was in a relationship. He also said he approached Grande and Bennett to notify them of his friendship with the unnamed woman, and told them that he and the woman would be seen together. Later, he said, he received Grande’s letter about the potential legal issues that a romantic relationship could cause the town.
He added that the report interviewed just six of his employees, a fraction of the workforce that he managed. He said that all six had something to gain from his leaving the department.
In a written statement to The Times on Tuesday, Leland did state that he was in a relationship, but pushed back against it being a secret. “I, in fact, disclosed my relationship with a subordinate to the town in late February/early March 2024,” he wrote. “I made the disclosure and looked for guidance as to how to move forward.”
“I had numerous in-person meetings and email exchanges with the town, and I was told that I needed to sign a ‘love contract,’” he added.
Leland also wrote that he received no guidance for two months after that, then received the May 15 email from Grande that any relationship with a subordinate would violate the town sexual harassment policy. He then said that Grande told him the ‘love contract’ was taken off the table at KP Law’s advice.
“I was told that the town understood the situation, but any further disclosure of the relationship would be grounds for termination. A letter stating as much was placed in my personnel file.”
The staff interviews detail the breakdown of morale within the fire department during the alleged romantic relationship; one unnamed employee recalled seeing Leland massaging the woman’s shoulders at her desk. One staffer is quoted in the report that it was like walking on eggshells when the subordinate was in the department.
Leland denied massaging the subordinate’s shoulders when asked by investigators, stating that he was instead leaning over to look at a computer screen.
Other accounts involve Leland allegedly talking down to employees, and denying the relationship multiple times when coworkers confronted him.
Some department staff took issue with other actions from Leland.
According to interviews held by KP Law, one employee recalls that his relationship to Leland declined around summer 2023, when he appeared before the town personnel board to discuss his classification and compensation.
This employee recalled that he first heard at the board meeting that he would no longer be responsible for EMS work, and that Leland had failed to notify him of the change beforehand.
“[W]hen he was told that at the personnel board meeting, he was blindsided and embarrassed,” the report states.
The report also contains staff’s concerns about Leland’s response time to emergency calls, as well as a lack of availability and communicativeness since last summer.
One account states that Leland had taken longer to respond to emergencies due to his traveling from Edgartown, where an unnamed individual lives.“[The employee] has received reports that the chief has responded to calls from Edgartown, where [redacted] lives, taking him longer to respond to calls, than if he had come from West Tisbury, where he is currently living,” the investigation states. Another employee told KP Law that Leland had arrived six to eight minutes late to a call.
In his statement to The Times, Leland said that he rarely fell behind when traveling from the unnamed woman’s house. “The difference in distance between my primary residence and her residence is less than two miles … There were very few incidents where I was not the first on the scene. If I wasn’t first to the scene, I would be the second to arrive,” he said.
Deteriorated working relationships also impacted calls for mutual aid between Tisbury’s fire and other towns’ departments, staff noted. “There has been collateral damage, because when there is a call for mutual aid, there is a lack of trust,” one account reads.
A major gripe from staff is Leland’s alleged favoritism toward the woman he was thought to be in a relationship with, allegedly evident in her work schedule.
“[An employee] stated that he has also heard complaints about favoritism … that the chief allows [redacted] to make her own work hours, and that she is allowed to work the eight (8) hour hospital shift that all the paramedics work during her administrative days, while the paramedics have to work their ‘hospital hours’ on days they are not working,” investigators wrote.
“On the days she does work, [redacted] oftentimes comes in late,” the report adds. “In addition, the [employee] stated that [redacted] does not cover the ambulance anymore, instead putting another paramedic on the schedule when she is supposed to be covering the ambulance.”
The account adds that EMS staff grew uncomfortable complaining to Leland about the woman.
Leland denied favoritism in his written statement to The Times, and stated that another employee targeted the woman he was in a relationship with. “When she applied for, and was hired for the position, there was no personal relationship … She negotiated her contract with the town administrator, which included her specific work conditions … One of her co-workers was clearly jealous of her work conditions, and immediately began filing complaints and making allegations,“ he said.
“Each of these complaints were investigated by Human Resources and were found to be untrue,” he added.
One account also states that Leland became less available to his other coworkers during the relationship, and was paid $170,000 to work fewer hours than his predecessors — four days a week, and not on nights or weekends.
“[Redacted] stated that the chief is not available as much as he used to be. He stated that while the chief is supposed to work four days a week, he leaves at 2:00 [redacted]. As an example of the chief’s not being available, [redacted] stated that the chief offered a fireman on his truck who is not an officer a ‘sweetheart’ deal, offering him $12,500 to take shifts and to work Friday, Saturdays, and Sunday, nights and weekends.”
An employee also reported that Leland stopped contributing to his share of short-term rental inspections and fire reports, leading to a backlog of work from March 2024.
The document also details a disagreement between Leland and the town department of public works over a denied insurance claim.
The section in the report follows an entirely redacted paragraph, and describes damaged equipment in the town’s EMS building caused by a leaking sewer pipe. This section includes an account from department of public works Director Kirk Metell that he, at Leland’s request, provided a dumpster in which soiled equipment was disposed of. This occurred, however, before an insurance company could inspect the site.
Metell told investigators that he believes the insurance company denied the town’s claim for the damaged items because there was insufficient documentation to prove damage. This could result in the town having to cover the costs of the broken equipment, though the redacted report does not state what led to the broken pipe and what was damaged.
The report did not offer an opinion regarding who was at fault for throwing the equipment out before the insurance claim adjuster’s inspection, noting that Leland and Metell blamed one another, and may have simply miscommunicated with the insurance company.
Both men told investigators that they were on vacation during the response to the leak, and Leland told The Times that he was in Florida when the events took place.
In another incident, an employee told investigators that Leland was dismissive of a complaint that she made, and that she felt unfairly scrutinized by the chief afterward.
This occurred when the employee was uncomfortable taking a particular call, leading another employee to yell at and push her. “When she said no, [redacted] screamed at her in front of the patient and her co-worker, and then proceeded to get behind her and push her out of the way.”
She then brought up the issue to Leland. “Chief Leland told her that [redacted] was probably just trying to encourage her to be a better EMT and to push her boundaries.”
Leland told The Times that he did not recall reading that section of the report, so could not offer comment.
In his later written statement, Leland said the incident occurred when he did not have oversight of EMS staff. “However, on the day of the incident, both employees came to my office to talk about the call and what had transpired … After investigating, I determined that in the heat of the call there was a simple misunderstanding that was blown out of my proportion. I informed both individuals of my determination and they each took responsibility for their part in the misunderstanding. I ensured that they were OK with continuing to work together, and they both finished their shifts,” Leland said.
He added that both employees declined to file a written complaint about the incident, and that neither mentioned to him that a physical exchange occurred.
The report concludes that all of the interviews substantiated claims that Leland and the woman are dating, and that perceptions of their relationship created an uncomfortable working environment.
The report did not take a side regarding accusations of favoritism, noting a lack of documentation in the woman’s working hours, but did not rule it out.
“Based on the information learned during the investigation, specifically the information about the chief’s relationship with [redacted], I recommend that if the chief’s relationship with [redacted] continues, that the chief’s employment be terminated,” the report states.
Writing to The Times, Leland expressed concerns about the report as a whole, adding that he was not allowed to speak to employees who would have defended him. “At any time during the investigation, KP Law had the ability to fact-check the claims that the six individuals, made but chose not to,” he wrote. “KP Law imposed a gag order on me, which prevented me from talking to fire department members who supported me.”
The story was updated with further comments from the former fire chief.
