Fire District Roles, Responsibilities and Terminations Discussed

SEELEY LAKE – Missoula County Deputy Attorney Matt Jennings spoke to the Seeley Lake Rural Fire District Board Feb. 20 and nearly 20 members of the public about the distinction between the Seeley Lake Fire District and the Seeley Lake Fire Company. He made several recommendations on how to better clarify the roles of both entities moving forward. He and Seeley Lake Fire Chief Michael Greer answered questions regarding the recent volunteer terminations.

The Seeley Lake Fire District was created in 1983. This is the entity that volunteers apply to, provides firefighting and medical services to the community, provides their insurance and workmen’s compensation and is funded by the taxpayers.

The Fire Company predated the district as a support entity. For the past three decades names and functions were inseparable. In 2013 the Seeley Lake Fire Company incorporated as a 501c3 non-profit. Board Chair Scott Kennedy said that the impetus to form the Company into a separate 501c3 was based around the tax issues.

“Until the 501c3 was created, it was not a separate entity, it was part of the Fire District,” said Matt. “Under the law, forming the 501c3 was a really big deal. It severed the tie between the District and the Company. I’m not sure how much it changed how the volunteers and the members of the district were operating. If it didn’t change how they were operating, then I think that is what caused the confusion.”

Matt said Fire Companies are most commonly used as the philanthropic arm of the District, raising money to support the firefighters in various ways.

“As far as firefighting activities, that is something that is specifically reserved for the Fire District in Seeley Lake [including approving membership],” said Matt. “In my abstract view, in a vacuum, some of the intermingling between the Company and the District probably needs to be clarified a little bit more so it is not uncertain when people are trying to deal with issues such as chain of command or organizational issues.”

Kennedy said he was going to suggest to the membership that they should change the name of the Company so it could be better understood. Public in attendance agreed that “Company” implies for-profit and is not well understood.

Board member Rachel Jennings said Greer had recently terminated a couple members of the department. At the top of the volunteers’ termination letters it quotes District and Company bylaws. While she is happy the District is going to work to clarify the separation between the Company and the District, the terminations happened under the “cloud of uncertainty.”

“I don’t feel it is appropriate for a person taking an action as a Company member being disciplined on a District level,” said Rachel highlighting that the chief is only one board member in the Company organization. “I’ve given the Chief the authority to hire and fire [being the only board member in October to argue for that power] but what are the repercussions of those actions? What are the whistleblower statutes that pertain to volunteers or do they not? What are the due processes for the termination of volunteers or do they not have the due process that employees have?”

Matt responded that it is difficult to determine and it depends on how the individuals want to proceed. A volunteer is not considered an employee and the employee protections given to county employees are not the same for volunteers.

“The District can not terminate a Company volunteer. There is a hard break between the two entities. Similarly the Company cannot determine who is a volunteer of the District,” said Matt. “I think it would be really important to look at those operating guidelines and make sure those issues can be addressed.”

Greer said that the header for the termination letter was modified after receiving an email from Fire Captain Shawn Ellinghouse’s attorney stating that there was a division between District and Company. On the second reference to the attorney, Ellinghouse corrected Greer saying it was the Fire Company’s attorney.

“There was a new termination letter that clarified that and said it was from the District only,” said Greer. “We recognized that confusion and clarified that before the termination actually took effect.”

Rachel continued to press Greer pointing out that his reasons in the termination letters for insubordination were issues involving the Company.

“My concern is when the lines are so clearly blurred between the Company and the District and, while there are certainly things that are District related, my concern is with those that are clearly Company related where it seems to me you are over stating your authority,” said Rachel.

Board Chair Scott Kennedy asked Rachel to stick with one person since there were three different instances with three different people. However there were issues of privacy they needed to be protected.

After being asked, Ellinghouse waved his right to privacy so his termination letter could be discussed.

Greer responded that the issue was the request for the Company email password. He said the information being kept in the Company Google account were District documents including training documents and records, rosters and plans. While he was initially given access, he was denied access after repeated requests and was given no explanation.

Rachel questioned why Greer had the authority to mandate access to that since he is only a board member and then mandate meeting about it.

“It was a Company account,” said Greer. “I’m a board member of the Company. Yet I was told I had no authority to access a Company account that had District records as the Chief Administrative Officer for the District.”

Rachel asked if Greer took his request to the Company Board.

“No because it is not a board issue,” said Greer. “Discipline is a Chief issue.”

“You are disciplining a president of a company for action he is taking as president of a company that has nothing to do with the District. It has nothing to do with his actions as a volunteer,” said Rachel. “You are crossing the line.”

“You are talking about one issue,” said Greer who highlighted that it was one issue in seven pages of issues of insubordinate activity that resulted in Ellinghouse’s termination.

Greer also said that the problem has been corrected and the Company no longer maintains District documents.

In response to Rachel’s concern about due process, Greer said there were multiple requests for meetings, not demands.

“There was an attempt at due process and it failed due to noncooperation on others parts,” said Greer. “In our new operations manual stepwise discipline is clearly laid out, which it has not been the case and has lead us here.”

Rachel asked why in one termination letter when one volunteer came to the board with a concern about the chief that was considered not following chain of command and when another volunteer came to the chief with a concern is was considered insubordination.

Greer said no one has ever come to him with a concern and that alone was considered insubordination.

“This is a great example of where the by-laws are silent on some of these issues, Rachel,” said Matt. “I understand the frustration that you are feeling for some of the things that went on but your by-laws don’t necessarily address some of those roles and responsibilities. So in the absence of direction from this board in the by-laws, you refer back to the statute.”

Matt explained that Montana law gives a lot of authority to a Fire Chief of a government entity. For most districts the Fire Chief has the sole authority to hire and fire. Since a volunteer is not considered an employee under the law they are not protected by the Wrongful Discharge Act, they are not unionized and there is no due process.

“The decisions are in the hands of the chief,” said Matt. “Do I think you made some error under the employment law in Montana? No, I do not. But I do know some of these issues cause strife on the board and among the District and the Company.”

Matt recommended in light of some of the issues that have come up, he would remove the chief from the Company board. The Chief could still play an active role in the Company but would not be a voting member.

Matt added that looking through the documents, he doesn’t feel that the answers to some of Rachel’s questions are contained anywhere in the documents that currently exist.

“When you have something like this happen and you have a void where there should be direction, this is a time when you fill that void and you make sure this board decides how they are going to handle these types of things,” said Matt who doesn’t believe there are currently guidelines for discipline or termination policy for the Seeley Lake Fire District.

Greer presented the Seeley Lake Rural Fire District Operations Manual to the board. Cory Calnan presented it to the Fire Company in November and Greer has added in a few things at the District level and cleaned it up so it only references the District. Greer said it is a basic framework that deals with general procedures, chain of command and discipline. They will continue to work through the other policies and procedures.

“If there at any point arises a conflict between the old stuff and the new district policies, the new stuff takes precedent,” said Greer.

The Operations Manual is available in hard copy at the Seeley Lake Fire Hall and is posted on the website. Visit seeleylake.org, click on Special Projects and scroll to the bottom of the page. Comments can be sent to info@seeleyfire.org or made at the board meeting when it is discussed.

The next regularly scheduled board meeting is Tuesday, March 20 at 6 p.m. at the Seeley Lake Fire Hall. Any special meetings will be posted on the website, seeleyfire.org.

 

Reader Comments(0)