Chelsea fire board votes 3-2 to review chief's hiring, firing decisions
Chelsea Area Fire Authority board members, from left to right, James Bollinger, Craig Maier and Kurt Koseck discuss the resolution Tuesday.
John Counts | AnnArbor.com
The Chelsea Area Fire Authority board came together Tuesday afternoon at a special meeting and voted 3-2 to review personnel decisions made by the chief, who previously had sole discretion when it came to hiring and firing.
It was the same resolution the board voted on last week, but the approval of which was found to be invalid.
The same issue passed 2-1 at the board's regular meeting last Tuesday, but it was later discovered that the two members who abstained -- Craig Maier and Kurt Koseck -- weren't allowed to.
The board came to the same decision on the issue with a full vote, however.
Board chair Rod Anderson and Koseck voted against the resolution while board members John Francis, James Bollinger and Maier voted for it. "I have never worked for an organization where one person had total authority," Maier cited as a reason for his vote.
Anderson made a later motion to replace Francis with Koseck on the controversial Policies, Procedures and Personnel (PPP) committee. Some firefighters have expressed they felt threatened by the committee's questioning of each member about how the department could operate better because it resulted in a lot of finger-pointing, Anderson said.
Anderson's motion failed by a 2-3 vote that echoed the vote for the review resolution: Anderson and Koseck voted yes; Francis, Bolling and Maier voted no.
"I'm very disappointed," Anderson said about the vote after the meeting.
The votes came after Fire Chief Jim Payeur read a scathing letter to the board that suggested a toxic relationship between the two.
“Over the past few months, I feel I’ve never been treated so disrespectfully as a professional,” he said. “I have never seen problem employees steer the ship. I’ve never seen board members allowing the chain of command to be thrown out the window.”
The two resolutions are just part of a deeper problem in the department, officials acknowledged. The passage of a millage that seemed to call for a reduction of the department prompted four of the firefighters to try unionizing. That was voted down 7-4 in January.
The department continues to be split, with the pro-union firefighters on one shift and those who didn't support the union on the other two shifts, Anderson said.
Payeur doesn't feel fully supported by some members of his department, accusing some of leading a "smear and slander campaign" against him.
“We know for a fact that members of this department have been providing the news media, board members and other departments slandering comments about the department and myself,” he said. “My good name has been (dragged) through the mud, Good honest people in this department have been smeared and their good names have been dragged through the mud as well.”
The chief said he has fielded many calls from people who have heard rumors he's being fired for various reasons, including the misappropriation of fundraising funds.
Anderson and Maier, when interviewed for a previous story, did not want to comment on allegations that money for the Paint the Town Pink event had been mishandled.
Payeur said the board also hasn't had his back, citing "severe violations" of chain of command and not having any professional respect for him. He said the PPP “created an intimidating work environment,”
“Honesty and trust has been broken," Payeur said. "It can be repaired. It’s going to take a lot of hard work and strong leadership. I’m asking for your help so we can pull together as a team in the best interest of the citizens that we serve.”
Board members had mixed responses Payeur's letter after the meeting.
"I was glad to hear him express his feelings," Francis said.
Bollinger hopes to have an opportunity to hear Payeur elaborate on what he said.
"I'm going to ask him for an explanation of his letter," he said. "He's a good man."
John Counts covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at johncounts@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Cheu Kok
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 12:09 a.m.
You got yourself some juicy intel when you're leader be callin you out in the world wide web. Fireman unite against the man you suppose to be tight.
Twink Twice
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
8 out of 12 are standing with the Chief.
averagejoe1949
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11 p.m.
According to this article, the "problem employees" are all on one shift. That is interesting. I wonder if they were all moved to the same shift to intimidate and seclude them? A whole shift of problem employees just seems questionable to me, and wouldn't these employees be spread out to be with the "good honest people" (quote from article). A2.com should find out when these employees were put together. In my workplace it wouldn't make sense to have all "problem employees" together from any management standpoint, unless they aren't really problem employees, but rather bringing things to light. It would be interesting to find out more... And a probationary employee wrote a letter asking for a board member to be fired? Really...? How much can you know about an organization when you're still probationary...?
Twink Twice
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
Two Captains signed the letter. Two Lieutenants signed the letter. Three firefighters signed the letter and the 4th firefighter was there in person. The fourth firefighter didn't sign the letter because he now works for another department. A probationary firefighter, meaning new to CAFA, read the letter. You only attempt to shoot the messenger when you can't argue with the message.
John Counts
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 12:35 a.m.
The way Board Chair Rod Anderson explained it to me during an interview last week is the employees who wanted to unionize were put on the same shift as they went through the process that culminated in the January vote to not unionize. Anderson said since there is such dissension in the department, the firefighters were kept on the same shift for safety reasons. Firefighters have to have each other's backs when out on calls, Anderson said, and the department didn't want any doubt about this by mixing pro-union and anti-union firefighters.
John Birch
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 5:59 p.m.
Why have we heard NOTHING from this segregated shift? I think they have too much pride for the profession and department to publicly slander it. We have read reports of a letter to support Chelsea Fire's Chief and a letter making allegations about a PPPC member asking to remove him for asking questions they didn't want to answer? This letter read to the board by a Probationary Firefighter? Now this Chief publicly questions the Chain of Command from the same board his lowest level employees attacked? In my experience problems start at the top. What information came out in those meetings to warrant this Chief publicly saying one shift is to blame for all these issues? This Chief publicly accused them of a public "Smear and Slander Campaign" against him and Chelsea Area Fire Authority -yet we have heard nothing from these men in any public forum? Can you imagine how this segregated shift feels? Why write this letter but not meet with the PPPC privately, go over these problems and find out how to fix them internally? Are these problems unable to be fixed unless this Chief keeps his power to demote or fire? Let's make sure this attack on this shift isn't because they brought issues forward that have been ignored far far too long. Maybe this shift of "problems" will come forward one day and defend their good names.
Twink Twice
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
@ John Birch - there are 4 Firefighters per shifts, 12 full time in CAFA. Two entire shifts were represented at the board meeting by the 7 signatures on the letter and the 8th firefighter in person. The 8th firefighter, though now employed by another department, was there to show support. The firefighters did meet with John Francis and other members of the board. As mentioned at the board meeting, they said they were told the board could fire them. "We have two votes already and we only need one more." That is not the best line for a board member to use if he wanted an honest, open dialog and wasn't already pursuing an agenda. Two Captains signed the letter, two Lieutenants signed the letter and three Firefighters signed the letter (the 8th firefighter - thus completing two entire shifts, was there also). The Firefighter that read the letter for 75% of the personnel in support of Chief Payeur, though new to Chelsea, has had extensive years of service in Federal firefighting programs. As far as problems starting at the top - I agree there appears to be some board members sticking their fingers where they don't belong.
Twink Twice
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.
@John Birch - the previous board meeting did hear complaints from the segregated shift in the form of John Francis "rough draft" of notes. John Francis did not present his notes to the board or to Chief Payeur prior to the board meeting. Mr. Francis very cleverly managed to read his notes in the meeting without providing any supporting documentation. Courtroom lawyers will, when they know a judge will not allow inadmissible evidence, intentionally make a statement or ask a question in court knowing full well the judge will strike it down. But they don't care - because they have done the damage without having to provide evidence, and they have made the accusation again - without evidence. The message cannot be erased from the jurors' minds - what has been heard cannot be unheard. Mr. Francis is a lawyer.
withoutta cause
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:26 p.m.
I don't understand why a shift of 4 "problem Employees" would petition for a Union? Union's offer fairness and equality as a group. Rather than going about it alone you "collectively bargain". Chelseaupdate.com reported 6 petitions to Unionize and 12 employees but voted down 7-4? Someone didn't vote? Are the other 2 not "problem employees" anymore? Rod Anderson is quoted in a previous Chelsea Standard article saying he doesn't know who filed the petitions and as far as motivation "personal reasons" was given to the board? but reasons now are due to a millage passing? Why a millage? Why not any of these "questionable" acts later reported to CAFA's PPPC? CAFA's Chief had rights to hire until today, so he must have hired them? Are they not also "good honest men"? Has Rod Anderson met directly with these men to make such statements about them? So many questions? Other than Rod Anderson's motion, I think the Board Members are accepting responsibility for the Citizens covered by CAFA and making a strong effort to fix the problem.
Twink Twice
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
There could be lots of different interpretations of the attempted union organizing and the resultant bad feelings. Could it be there was a minority who thought they could hide their poor performance behind a union shield? Or perhaps a majority that feel merit and good work are the ways you earn and keep your job whether there is a union or not? Why are all these charges coming out after the union failed and being focused on those that voted against the union - retribution? Also, FYI, if you want a letter writing campaign to appear to be a 'grassroots' effort - don't quote the talking points exactly.
mifd
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:14 p.m.
I agree Dog Guy, not enough Indians... Chelseaupdate.com reported August 2012 of promotions to 1/4 of CAFA's staff, giving a 2:2 ratio of Officers to Firefighters, that's a lot of "Chiefs" in 1 station. I think if you don't establish a Chain of Command starting with the "boss" down to the "newbies" then anyone can grab the wheel and drive. Other than Rod Anderson's motion, I think the CAFA Board is accepting responsibility for the Citizens covered by CAFA and making a strong effort to fix the problem.
newsboy
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:15 a.m.
A simple investigation should show who has Chelsea's best interest at heart. It's time for Chelsea to grow-up and leave behind its (juvenile small town) beginnings, before someone sues or someone dies because of the unprofessionalism it currently displays!
Dog Guy
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 12:13 a.m.
Typical for local government: too many chiefs . . .