||| FROM GREG AYERS |||
We lost a chief, a leader in the fire department, also her second in command and 2 board members. This is a large loss that 3 remaining commissioners will need to manage.
I do not believe anyone, including the 3 commissioners, intended to have the chief resign. However, as a past OIFR volunteer member, current professional paramedic having worked with volunteers in 14 fire districts in Washington and Oregon, a past corporate board member and CEO, as well as serving in roles in the public sector, there are a few lessons I have learned that seem pertinent to the discussions occurring. Each position in an organization has job requirements and responsibilities, of which this OIFR chief had 3 based, on her job description and the intent of hiring her:
First, the chief was to maintain her status as a clinician, a fire/paramedic, one trained to help the people of the community who needed medical help. To manage fire operations on the fire grounds. It is clear the community loves the chief for being a caring and knowledgeable paramedic and skilled firefighter. Many people in the community says this is why we need her to stay. Let’s give her a A+
Second, she was hired to be a leader, a strong leader, in what was viewed as a department lacking leadership. We needed a leader that motivates the troops to do their best, and beyond. This is critical role she had and a very important part of her job. We have heard from members of the department that her leadership has made a major difference in the moral of the department. Let’s give her an A+
Lastly, the chief serves as the chief business executive of a fire district, responsible for the business of operating the district. This is where the angst, anger, and confrontation has happened. She clearly does not receive an A+, no one has even said or indicated she receives more than a failing grade.
Let’s look at the timeline as best can be determined from public information:
- The prior commission allowed the chief to serve as chief executive officer, with minimal challenges or concerns. Discussion of strategy was not challenged, things were a bit carefree when it came to sound governance and conformity to best business practices. No issues with the chief.
- Three new commissioners were elected to provide better governance. They were not elected to fire the chief. They were elected to hold her accountable and to “clean up” any possible issues with things, such as financials and contracts, including the Chief’s contract.
- When the chief was challenged, she brought her lawyers to the table. Bring attorneys to a business discussion and this is where things were basically done, over. She threatened the 3 new directors legally, and had her attorney threaten one commissioner with harassment and disbarment.
- An investigation was conducted, concluded, with no support for her claims.
- Within some brief period after the results of the investigation were provided to the chief proposed a settlement, a resignation with financial renumeration.
- At a commissioner’s meeting a community outpouring occurred. “Don’t fire her.” “She saved me when I was sick.” “She improved moral so that I leave my pager on now.”
- After being provided with a signed resignation agreement that the Chief had drafted, the board accepted her resignation.
The drama during the meeting was amazing, almost like it was scripted. The chief said she did not want to leave, was emotional, as was the community. Discussion amongst board members occurred. More emotions. But what did NOT occur……..
The chief did not say the one statement she could have said to stop this all – “I withdraw my request for a separation, I withdraw my signed resignation, I will remain chief.” In the days since, no retraction of her drafted resignation and agreement.
Why? That is the real question, one for which I do not have an answer. Money? Inability to perform the job? Many speculations by many smarter people than myself.
I believe she did not know how to, or did not want to be an executive officer of the district so increased her focus on everything else required of her. More calls, helping more patients. A larger recruit class. Commendations from the troops and the community for improved department moral. Based on my experience, employees who have an issue with one part of their job requirement instead focus on the other aspects where they excel. I believe it was no different here. The chief has had no formal training in being the chief. No mentoring and months of training in an officer academy, no moving up through the ranks of a fire district, so her focus was on the other two areas of her job.
This is a loss. A huge loss. We are losing a paramedic/firefighter, a leader of the troops, a contributor to the community. I am not sure we lost a chief executive officer of our fire department. It is also a financial loss to the community, a chief leaving with a substantial financial settlement she requested. But more than the financial loss is the disruption to the community and the department, which is significant, similar to her departure from Anacortes FD and Sunnyside FD. A huge effort will be needed to move forward.
Words of wisdom from a true mensch. I begin to understand the complexities of what happened at OIFR.
Fascinating and cogent analysis/review, Greg. Thanks much for posting this. I’ve attended most of the OIFR meetings this year, but missed the turmoil that characterized last year. I wonder how many dollars have been spent on legal fees dealing with her contract issues etc. Given the facts of her ten month’s tenure here, and her $12,000/month salary, let’s hope that she refuses to accept the six figure contracted payments, and directs them instead to critical maintenance and repairs that she was pointing out had become critical issues.
Greg Ayers: Accurate and well stated!
It seems exceedingly clear the general public had no clue that Holly initiated the legal issues when she threatened the 3 new directors legally, and had her attorney threaten one commissioner with harassment and disbarment. This reportedly done was just hours after their first meeting after they were elected, and if so, clearly premeditated.
And because it was then an on-going legal case, the commissioners couldn’t talk about their legal issues while it was in the investigative stage.
With all her qualities of being a highly respected paramedic and extraordinary dedicated worker with an almost cult like following from Orcas fire district personnel,
what wasn’t generally known was her almost unexplainable legal actions taken immediately against the newly elected commissioners. Her inexplicable legal action initiated any number of continuing legal expenses for OIFR … virtually all criticized by the public and most fire district staff on the new commissioners when they didn’t know the facts and blamed the new commissioners, especially Mr. Gaylord, of having a pre-election agenda to remove her. That was NEVER their pre-elective objective.
The three new commissioners have been almost been uniformly criticized by the public and in the local media because the perception has been this was a plot against Holly when in fact it was Holly’s legal plot against the new commissioners. It’s my understand that when she received notice that she lost her legal case, she decided to take the money and move on. Not sure if all the legal documents can be released after Holly leaves, but that should shed a whole different light on this confusing saga.
There are more than 22,000+ fire chiefs in the United States. Finding a qualified replacement that doesn’t take legal action against elected fire commissioners he or she doesn’t like and isn’t constantly argumentative in public meetings should not be overly difficult. But it will take some time.
Meanwhile, the public should recognize the new fire commissioners have faced a most unexpected, unwelcome and unusual management challenge. They are to be respected because there is now considerably better professional manage oversight and than there has been for many years at OIFR. The path to full recovery will take a while, but the public will eventually benefit, and the dedicated OIFR personnel will continue to provide high quality public service that we have come to expect.
A failing grade, Greg? Why has the finance officer not been replaced? OIFR sorely needs one. The Chief is CEO. Big operations need, if not a CFO, certainly either a controller or at the minimum, a finance officer.
Dan. Very good point. Finance officer was replaced, due to resignation. New CFO is Kim Kimple, a well respected finance person, a member of the department and a community member. That said a CFO can’t obviate the need for a strong CEO. The new CEO will certainly benefit from Kim’s skills.
I was disappointed that the bofc voted to terminate Chief Holly. She offered to address their concerns and revisit her contract.
we are approaching wildfire season and tourist season. This is not the time to leave oifr with an interim chief.
Choosing a new chief is expensive and exhausting. There is no guarantee that a new chief will turn out to be a good fit for oifr. Chief Holly has the overwhelming support of the volunteers.
There are a number of issues that are being pushed aside because of turmoil. Not the least of which is two front line fire trucks that are 8 years out od compliance.
$12,000 per MONTH?! Is that accurate?
That’s her base salary, you can find it on the second page of her employment contract at https://www.orcasfire.org/public-records/. BTW this amount is not excessive when you consider the costs of having to move to Orcas full time, and what her predecessors were being paid. Or what the managers at local utilities are being paid.
So this opinion post and some responses to this and the original post regarding the Chief’s resignation have resorted to trashing her reputation and performance in order to support what the 3 remaining Commissioners doing. What is being ignored is the following:
The Commissioners could have spent their time and energy putting in place policies to help the Chief be successful with her CEO duties. Instead they spent their time, energy and OUR dollars pursuing a witch-hunt. She never had a chance.
This disruption started when these Commissioners decided, for reasons still unknown, to get rid of the Chief by any means possible. This included showing no spirit of cooperation, challenging her contact, spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses trying to find a legal basis for nullifying her contact, and not being able to find such a basis.
When that didn’t work, they then decided to do all they could to make the situation so bad that it would become untenable for the Chief to continue doing her job. Based upon my multiple observations, this included not just being uncooperative, but showing extremely passive-aggressive behavior towards her in EVERY interaction I witnessed. These interactions were demeaning, aggressive, abrupt and completely devoid of any constructive intent. It has been absurd.
Note that the clearly disruptive instigator of this entire situation is one specific Commissioner, who is being followed down the rabbit hole by the other 2. They have not been and are not being transparent, and are not operating in the best interest of we who elected them.
So that is the reason that we have lost 2 other commissioners and an exemplary Chief, the staff/volunteers are in limbo, and our community is so disappointed.
This path that the remaining Commissioners are pursuing is not helping, either long term or short term, the OIFD protect our lives and our property.
Mr. O’Sullivan,
I am concerned about your statements. I feel it is these type statements are what is creating emotional responses in the community. I have found this level of emotion does not lead to a successful resolution. I am concerned that what is being said is misleading and not supported by facts.
First, you will note in my comments so far and in my original post that when I am providing an opinion I use the word “I”. I might suggest that some of your speculation that are not supported by facts that you use a way to identify these statements as opinions or speculations.
With that I want to make it clear that in my original post I went back to all the material on the OIFR server including each recorded meeting. I also obtained campaign materials and interviewed each commissioner.
Given this, can you please provide materials or specifics on why you have stated emphatically that the 3 commissioners wanted to terminate or fire the chief. Which commissioner stated that and when, or is this your opinion? From what I found on the videos is quite the opposite, in 73% of the meetings to date one or more of the 3 commissioners states they wanted the chief to stay and/or stated they had no intent of firing the chief. During 21% of the meetings 2 or all 3 commissioners stated this. I could not find anything in their campaign materials nor was anything stated in the LWV night. During interviews all commissioners confirmed they did not want to fire or even have the chief resign. So have they repeatedly lied? I think not.
With respect to nullifying her contract at the meeting where they requested a legal review to strengthen her contract they stated, all 3 commissioners said multiple times that their intent was to perfect or improve her contract, not terminate her. The scope of work for outside legal counsel was clear that it was not to nullify. Please provide specifics when any of the 3 commissioners stated otherwise.
The commissioners asked for many documents you stated would be needed to make the chief successful, such as policies and procedures. Occurring on 17 instances I have found the commissioners actually asked for the department policies. They also asked for all the department job descriptions. Lastly they asked for all department contracts. The commissioners also drafted a few policies and procedures. What was requested could make the chief more successful
In reviewing the videos I have found the commissioners were not being passive-aggressive but rather direct and firm, in their pursuit of materials and information. I was unable to find many of the documents they requested so they must not have been provided by the chief. In many meetings I feel the chief was equally aggressive in her manner towards her bosses, the board. Again that is my interpretation. I encourage you to actually watch the videos, it is enlightening when compared to what is being said
It seems the word transparency is thrown out like holy water, including in your statement. Have you reviewed was is posted and publicly available? What specific things do you believe you are entitled to have but you are unable to find them? People have asked for the rationale as to why they accepted the Chief’s resignation. This is also fully documents in the video and associated documents. In brief the Chief provided a signed separation agreement that included resignation. She had a chance before the vote to rescind the document. She did not. The commissioners voted and accepted the agreement and her resignation.
Lastly, and the last numerical discussion. So did you vote for all 3 commissioners personally? You indicated you did in your statement. Did all those who are making various statements of concern and are maligning the 3 commissioners? Probabilities indicated that many did not vote for these three commissioners. So what is my point? Given the size of the group prostrating, they represent a limited few who actually voted for the 3 commissioners and there is an enormous silent majority who is just fine with how the people they voted for are doing.
I am hopeful that calmer minds will prevail