Considine Files Complaint With State Ethics Commission Against Town Manager Libby Gibson

Patrick Considine, the public safety dispatcher at the center of a tense dispute with the Nantucket Police Department and the town of Nantucket over a series of grievances stemming from a disagreement about whether the dispatchers are entitled to work third-party police details, has filed a formal complaint with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission against Town Manager Libby Gibson.

Considine claims that Gibson came into possession of emails he sent to members of the Select Board but not to her and replied to him directly with “what I believe to be false and misleading information regarding the timeline of the installation of a surveillance camera within the Communications Department.”

“I believe her involvement raises serious ethical and conflict-of-interest concerns, particularly given her husband's involvement in the underlying allegations that include whistleblower retaliation and other serious matters,” Considine told the Current. “I also believe she attempted to use her position of authority to protect her husband and intimidate me.”

Libby Gibson is married to deputy police chief Charlie Gibson, who Considine has named in several previous allegations, alongside police chief Jody Kasper.

“Because Mr. Considine’s comments involve ongoing personnel matters, the Town has no further comment at this time,” town of Nantucket communications director Florencia Rullo told the Current.

Considine previously claimed that he and other dispatchers had been wrongfully suspended and faced retaliation, discrimination, and unlawful surveillance after filing a grievance claim asserting that their contract entitles them to work paid third-party details—such as directing traffic around road construction areas—which historically have gone to police officers and the department’s seasonal Community Service Officers.

One day after making his complaints public at a Select Board meeting, Considine was fired, sparking a wave of community backlash that may have contributed to sinking a Town Meeting proposal to renovate a building used as a dorm for Community Service Officers during the summer.

Town and police leadership have responded to certain specific allegations, including claims related to housing for one dispatcher, but have said that they are unable to publicly respond to other claims.

“While I would like to share more information, I am not able to do so at this time,” Kasper wrote in a statement when the dispute first became public. “More broadly, as Chief of Police, I have a responsibility to address concerning behavior within our work environment. I hold myself and members of this department to the high standards that our community expects and deserves. When those standards are not met, it is my duty to ensure that the matter is addressed appropriately. I remain committed to maintaining a department grounded in professionalism, integrity and service.”

Libby Gibson has remained directly involved with Considine’s complaints, emailing him as recently as this month rather than delegating communication to one of her subordinates, as she has at times done in other contentious disputes involving a relative.

Considine has asked the state to review whether Gibson’s email violates conflict of interest law and compromises the independence of local oversight efforts.

The Current has reviewed emails from Considine, Gibson, and the members of the Select Board. Gibson’s reply came after Considine raised a series of concerns, some of them related to the police department’s use of video surveillance. The complaints came while the town grappled with the controversial Flock cameras that were, at the time, installed on the corner of Broad Street and Easy Street but have since been removed.

One of Considine’s concerns was about a camera installed in the police department’s dispatch area, where Considine worked. Considine claims that the camera was installed in October of 2025, at least partially in response to the grievance filed over third-party details.

In her reply, Gibson wrote that “the issue of the camera in the dispatch area, which has been present since the building was constructed, is currently in litigation, and the [Select] Board is not able to discuss that with you.”

Gibson also replied to some of Considine’s other concerns, once again directing him away from the Select Board.

Considine spoke during the public comment portion of the Select Board’s most recent meeting, saying that “under no circumstances should our town manager email my personal email address to comment on pending litigation, especially when it contains an inaccurate timeline of events that involves her husband.”

Considine is not the only dispatcher who has spoken out against the police department and town administration. Last May, he was joined by several other dispatchers, who accused the police department of creating a hostile work environment and putting island residents at risk by organizing trainings for road traffic details that failed to comply with state standards. Police and town leadership denied some of these claims, including those related to road traffic details.

After he was fired, Considine filed a wrongful termination grievance, but the Select Board sided with the police department and upheld his termination. His state-level complaints remain pending.

“As you know, it is the policy of the Town of Nantucket as well as state law that we do not comment on the status of pending internal personnel matters,” Select Board chair Dawn Hill told the Current at the time. “We have been informed that this is due to the privacy rights of employees. In general and without specific reference to this case town departments are all have work rules which we expect will be observed by all employees. The town strives in all cases to apply those rules equally across the board. I am sorry that we are not able to make any further comment on this matter at this time.”

The dispute began when the dispatchers claimed that they are entitled to work third-party details. A clause in their contract reads “employees of the Police Department are eligible to enroll in third-party detail training and sign up for third-party detail assignments. Employees will be limited to third-party detail work that is not conducted by the Town of Nantucket and will be compensated pursuant to the fee structure paid by the third-party to the Town of Nantucket. Third-party detail work may not be performed during regularly scheduled hours of work and accrued leave may not be utilized to perform such detail work.”

It has escalated significantly since then, spiraling into a broad debate about the treatment of the dispatchers and the actions of town leadership, including Kasper and both Gibsons.

“I believe [Libby Gibson’s] involvement raises serious conflict-of-interest concerns and interferes with the integrity of an impartial investigation,” Considine said in a statement shared with the Current. “Under the leadership of Town Manager Libby Gibson, employees cannot have confidence that they will receive fair treatment, unbiased investigations, or impartial hearings.”

“Our elected Select Board members have a responsibility to understand and uphold the Nantucket Town Charter, including their duties when acting as the Town's Police Commissioners. In my opinion, the seriousness of these allegations warranted multiple senior level administrators to be put on administrative leave pending an investigation,” Considine said. “The residents and employees of Nantucket deserve transparency, accountability, and confidence that allegations of misconduct will be investigated fairly, regardless of who is involved, but yet here we are. Our year-round employees, residents and children should live in a place where we have a neutral, unbiased Select Board and a government who holds everyone accountable.”