||| FROM KAT BARNARD for BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS |||
EASTSOUND—The San Juan County Fire Protection District #2 Board of Fire Commissioners held a continuance of their June 17th Regular Meeting on Friday, June 21st, 2024, at 3 p.m. The board approved two new policies before Chair Ehrmantraut added an executive session to the meeting agenda.
After a 45-minute executive session, most of it held with Fire Chief vanSchaick and Safety Officer Greg Sawyer present, the Board returned to the open meeting. With no further remarks, discussion, or motion, the Board moved on to discussing their steps for
an interim chief appointment and hiring process.
Upon opening public comment, the first commenter stated, “It continues to be concerning to me the amount of business that is conducted in executive sessions. I think the community has a right to understand the options that are being presented and discussed and rejected.”
Fire Chief vanSchaick then submitted a public comment in response to the audience’s requests for transparency. vanSchaick thanked Safety Officer Sawyer for arranging a meeting with Chair Ehrmantraut and explained what she offered to the Board in executive session.
“I told [Chair Ehrmantraut] that I would love to continue building and I told him the plans I had for the things we’re going to continue to build for this department in this community,” said vanSchaick, “and I said I need two things in return. I need job security. I need to be able to move my family here, and in order to do that, I need my contract to not be under attack.”
“The other thing I said that I need,” continued vanSchaick, “is to come to meetings where we can be productive and where I am not being treated like a hostile witness in a courtroom. Where I’m not being persecuted for spending too many hours doing a thing
that I love and care about.”
After over 40 more minutes of public comment, the Board adjourned. See recording:
- 2024-06-21 Continuance of 2024-06-17 Regular Meeting Video Recording
- 2024-06-21 Continuance of 2024-06-17 Regular Meeting Audio Recording
The one detail left undisclosed, or at least not discussed, is the fact that after the first regular meeting of the new board on December 18, 2023 Commissioner Gaylord was given a letter from the chief’s attorney accusing him of sexual discrimination. In this letter the chief threatened to sue the board and commissioner Gaylord personally as well as reporting him to the Washington State bar for “misconduct”!!
This letter spurred an exaustive investigation into the allegations which took 4 months and cost the district nearly $65,000!
The investigation concluded that there was no evidence of sexual discrimination on Commissioner Gaylord’s part.
On May 21, 2024 the board was scheduled to meet with the chief to discuss the report.
Instead of meeting that day the attorney for the chief presented the attorney for the board a request for a “separation agreement”. That agreement was negotiated over the course of 4 executive sessions and was approved on June 17.
Any questions?
Yes Bill, I do have several questions about this statement of yours:
“This letter spurred an exaustive investigation into the allegations which took 4 months and cost the district nearly $65,000!”
1. How much extra over and above this $65,000 did the Commissioners spend of our money with a legal firm to produce an exaustive investigation into the Chief’s contract and the process used to produce it?
2. Or is that exhaustive investigation into her contract/process, which determined there was no good basis for challenge, included in the $65,000, and if so, how much?
Just wondering….
Or if someone else knows the definitive answer to the two above questions, the community would appreciate knowing just how much in their short tenure the new commissioners have spent of our tax dollars on legal fees, which all started with their unwarranted investigation into the Chief’s contract.
Terry, Those are great questions. Thank you for the opportunity to answer.
1. The Pacifica Report cost @ $16k as I recall. That report concluded that the contract was executed illegally and it needed to be addressed. There was no plan to remove the chief. Simply fix the process to avoid issues that loomed on the horizon.
By the way, the board requested to review all contracts. Not just one as the chief has claimed. It’s their job.
2- The most recent investigation ($64,719.00) was because the chief (as it turned out) falsely accused Commissioner Gaylord of “sexual discrimination”. The board was required by law to thoroughly investigate this very serious charge.
I hope this helps you to understand the precarious position the board was put in for the past 5 months while this investigation was underway. They couldn’t discuss any of it publicly.
The review of the illegal actions of the previous board concerning the contracts was hardly “unwarranted”.
The $64,719 investigation was required by state law. The taxpayers have the chief to thank for that expense.
Finally, I have some advice moving forward. As all attorneys know: never ask a question unless you know the answer and it fits your agenda. I suspect these answers do not fit yours.
Excellent summary and response.
Commissioner Kate Hanson asked at the last meeting to have legal advice on what executive session discussions can be revealed to the public, and that was approved. Will be interesting to see the legal advice to follow.
If the fire commissioners would have been able to reveal to the public what was actually occurring since December of last year, perhaps most the harsh and almost toxic criticism the new commissioners have been subjected to in public comment and media posts would not have occurred.
They deserve full public support for their now difficult effort to get OIFR put back on track and managed as Orcas Island taxpayers would expect.
@Bill King, I encourage you to read the memo I wrote in response to the Pacifica document you reference: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jCQFMJwkck0RYV5EI6qPCMDd6L4xbKNY/view
In short, the Pacifica memo does not establish that the Chief’s contract is (or was) illegal. Contracts almost always contain room for argument and Pacifica merely took one side of the debate (for which reasonable counterarguments exist – see my memo). At the very least, the Chief’s contract has a severability clause and any objectionable terms could have been severed without invalidating the overall agreement.
Happy to discuss any of the above further, especially if it advances civil discourse on this matter.
Respectfully,
A volunteer EMT and attorney
PS: the board authorized $15k-$20k for the Pacifica Law Group memo (see pg. 2-3 of Commissioner Gaylord’s 1/11/24 report, “No 2024-01”) and my understanding is that total costs exceeded the $20k, although I don’t know by how much.
I never received notification about this continuation meeting, even though I am on the notification email list. Did others have the same issue with lack of notification? I learned of the meeting after the fact.
Somehow I’m not surprised about the Chief’s resignation because any scrutiny of that larger-than-life-contract would be seen by her as persecution, given the other two times she had similar issues with other fire departments. Calling in the attorneys with threats of lawsuits – none of this surprises me, knowing some of the history before this, concerning how she handled treatment of the two EMTs she was trying to get fired. I didn’t know of the January allegations against Commissioner Gaylord and threats to sue him personally, plus all 3 of the newly elected commissioners. I’m not surprised by the reaction or threats or her quitting. Which is a real shame, because she seemed to be well liked by a lot of the EMTs and firefighters, who spoke of improving morale. I’m not sure what she was building, but I still question the monies spent – and for what – since, as we recall, equipment needs were being ignored for several years before this.
Grateful for Bill King’s succinct brevity on ‘just the facts that unfolded and the timeline of what happened since January. I have many questions:
How much was the entire severance package, compared to the others – in 2021 and the one before that?
Threats to sue cost the department nearly $65K: How much more money will her resignation/severance agreement cost the department and taxpayer stakeholders?
How will this unforeseen payout affect the ways the newly approved levy will or can be used as concerns failing equipment?
What would have happened if the commission had refused to accept Chief Holly’s resignation? Would that have led to lawsuits and even more costs?
What about her job did the former chief feel was not ‘secure,’ since she was not terminated, only questioned about her contract? Looking for specifics here.
Questions lead to more and more questions.
The red flag that is hard to ignore is that the former Chief has done this 3 times with 3 different fire departments, including ours; at the beginning of wildfire season nonetheless. I don’t understand the need to drag attorneys into it – and the large severance packages each time. Things don’t make sense. Including the quitting of commissioners Fuller and Biddick and the Captain: some kind of solidarity? What’s their motive because from here it sure all seems like efforts to implode the department even further, if that’s possible.
The irony seems to be that the very people who are still accusing anyone who dared question the motives of the former commissioners with allegations that we were trying to destroy the department, seem to be doing a pretty good job of it themselves. Is all that happened this past year or two some kind of twisted retaliation toward the people trying to get to the bottom of the blatant dysfunction and corruption in the department? I don’t know. But it seems like someone is aiming to retaliate – department and citizens be damned. That has hurt everyone – and it’s where I can’t bring myself to respect or condone some of the things vanSchaick did throughout her short career here as chief, nor the people who give her a pass for those things – and that is the deal breaker.
The chief’s decision to quit was hers alone, not the commissioners.’ She had the chance to withdraw her resignation, and chose not to. Why? to prove a point? How was her job not ‘secure?’ I think studying all the financials for the last 5 or 6 years with a fine tooth comb may lead to some – not all – of the answers, since the problems seem to go much further back than today.
We hashed all of this out last summer and fall with the levy discussions, and the findings were grim. Equipment did not meet standards. New required equipment was not obtained; state mandates were ignored. All the money went into operations, including hefty raises – probably well deserved – but there were no checks and balances or attempts to right the equipment wrongs, leading to danger for everyone and possible down-rating of the department, which is why those supporting the first levy were desperate to pass it. Unfortunately, the incoming commissioners are left to clean up all the messes and look like the ‘bad guys.’
Too many unanswered questions and this latest fiasco just leads to more of them. It all feels like a continued breach of Public trust, and I’m sad that the newly elected commissioners are vilified when everyone, including me, only has parts of the story, and those parts have not added up for awhile.
Addendum: Not that I know everything about executive session, but I’ve been to a lot of meetings where they take place and the rules are clearly spelled out in the Open Meetings and Public Records Act about how they are to be conducted. One of those rules is that they can’t discuss performance of an employee in an open meeting – they have to meet in executive session. This protects the privacy of the person being discussed.
Another is that they have to make actions in Public meetings; they can decide something in Executive Session but they can’t act on it.
There are also rules there that I never liked, and feel that the State should be challenged on them because a board that decides to be authoritarian can run with them and exclude the public – such as, they are not required to have Public Comment. How that one ever made the books is beyond me. Luckily, due to Public Pressure, most commissions here give the courtesy of allowing Public Comment. When people don’t attend meetings, we can’t blame the commissioners. We are the government in a taxing district. If we don’t follow what’s going on, we don’t really have cause to blame the commission. Want things to change? Show up regularly; contact commissions with concerns and what you want to see. A good commission will listen. A dysfunctional commission will break apart, people will leave, and elections will be a chance to rectify things – if people run who are into doing the work and listening to all stakeholders.
Sadie,
As a casual observer you pretty much nailed it.
We can only suspect that commissioner Fuller resigned because it was actually he who lit the sexual discrimination match regarding the chief and commissioner Gaylord. He did so in an email shortly after the new board was sworn in.
Shame on him.
Agree with all you say. I don’t know commissioner Fuller but yes, you are right; it was he and Helminski who were the main arsonists in this mess, and I watched how they both behaved once the Public started asking questions and all through the vote of no confidence and beyond.
Jim Biddick, I know to be a person of integrity. I’m sorry he felt he couldn’t stick around and work with this commission. I feel sad that he resigned, as he is a community person who gives a lot to our community.
Seen it all before though; the divide, and the remaining commissioners leaving because they can’t work with the new ones who the people voted in. It’s very sad every time it happens. It’s also very sad to see the Public turn on the new commissioners and make them the bad guys, but I suspect that those 40 or more Public comments were not those of us who knew a bit more of some of the inside scoop.
Thanks for clearing the air on some of this that the Public doesn’t know. I hope things can be mended going forward but I know that some people will hold a permanent grudge and not let it go – the problem is, they poison the minds of folks not really following until the abscess bursts and the crisis is revealed; reaction instead of careful thought and waiting til all the facts are in is never a good way to go. Everyone loses. Seems to be a microcosm here of the macrocosm, so it’s not surprising. Only sad.
Very good Bill…. You’re further demonstrating your mastery of (1) half-truths, (2) selective facts, (3) ambiguity, (4) stating as fact what is opinion, as follows:
“The one detail left undisclosed, or at least not discussed” (1)
“…. cost the district nearly $65,000….” (2)
“We can only suspect….” (3)
“I suspect….” (3)
“The Pacifica Report cost @ $16k as I recall.” (3) (4)
“the illegal actions of the previous board” (4)
“There was no plan to remove the chief.” (4)
There are many more examples of your mastery….
Obviously your advice was not needed and it’s just not productive to continue, because there’s nothing more to reveal given the above.
Mr O’Sullivan,
I would recommend you read my reply in the other post. I do not want to repeat here.
Ms. Palmer,
I believe the civil discourse has broken down. It is my understanding that commissioners are now being personally insulted and threatened. No longer civil? This needs to be ratcheted down a few levels
Also there is a silent majority who appear fine with the situation. They should be respected as well.
I encourage all of you who want to engage, instead of enrage, please consider becoming a commissioner and help out the community
Tally of 2024 legal fees paid to date…sourced from published data. Listed by firm and amount paid. (Note: No additional detail is given for bills paid to CSD, the department’s general legal counsel.)
Several citizens both here and in BOFC Public Comment periods are conflating the Pacifica report (delivered in February 2024) with the Chief’s Separation Agreement. Rather, it appears this Separation Agreement was initiated by the Chief’s legal counsel soon after the McNaul Ebel report was delivered in May 2024.
January:
– CSD $17,792 General Legal Counsel to OIFR Admin
– CSD $4,984 General Legal Counsel to OIFR Admin
– Pacifica $16,782 Board inquiry to Chief Contract (report subsequently published)
April:
– CSD $7,704 General Legal Counsel to OIFR Admin
– CSD $1,312 General Legal Counsel to OIFR Admin
– Pacifica $4,437 Board inquiry to Chief Contract
May:
– CSD $4,408 General Legal Counsel to OIFR Admin
– Bundy $1,595 Admin investigation of a career employee’s benefits. WA State Auditor’s Office determined that material controls deficiencies within OIFR Admin caused the discrepancies in benefits. (Fees charged by the State Auditor’s Office to find these deficiencies at OIFR Admin, not included)
– CSD $2,604 General Legal Counsel to OIFR Admin
– McNaul Ebel $64,719 Investigation of allegations made by Chief’s attorney against Board of Fire Commissioners in Dec 2023. Allegations determined to be not true in a report delivered in May 2024.
YTD Totals as of 6/23/24 public data postings.
– CSD $38,804
– Pacifica $21,219
– Bundy $1,595
– McNaul Ebel $64,719
GRAND TOTAL
– $126,337
Is there a reason for not using a mediator? That trained individual might have been helpful at a number of points along the way, and might still be helpful, before the whole budget burns up in legal fees! It is so disappointing to see this degree of breakdown in an essential, life-saving service
It’s mind-boggling, frankly.
@Pegeen White: Exactly. Well said. The time for a mediator would have been before the Chief’s accusations in January with attorneys. forcing the investigation.
Sounds like a “SOAP OPERA”.