HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Fireman's Relief and Pension Board - 10/10/1966� FIREMEN'S PENS�0M BOARD MEETING
� OCT8DER N/ /986
The regular meeting of the Firemen's Pension Board was called to order
at |O;C0 o"m^ by Mayor 8|e� Thornton. Present, in addition, were members:
�r " / , �
` Marie Jenson, Duffy Armstrong, James 3mmi | and Don Bridge. Also prose'. �
>� City Attorney John B. Dermiter, Attorney Alva Long, Fire Chief Tom Foster,
and Fireman Glen Webster
�
^ John D. Dere7fer stated that this meeting had been convened at the request
of Fireman Webster to appeal the hnord/u decision to take him off the payroll
� as of August 12, 1966. Webster was represented by Attorney Long. Webs�er
x was first employed by the City of Kent on April 4 |Q�2 a� o F�rewon Jon� �or
� / — ,
�
While on probation/ ow " fo | / time Fireman, he broke his |n�i ankle on 0�f
. "
17' 1965, while off duty. He was off duty for the remainder of Oct. , and
/ur the entire month of Nov. , returning to duty on Dec., | . During this time,
' the City of Kent elected to pay Webster his fo | | wa 's. When it became necessary
for Webster to wOo| n have surgery on his ankle on Aug. /2/ 1906/ the city took
h|n off the payroll an of that date and he has neither worked nor been paid i
�8 n nce.
Mr. Long opined that in April /962/ when Webster was hired to work x*ingnhift
and Alvin Simms was hired to work graveyard shift, this made o full—time fire
a
department, with Chief Bridges making the third fireman, ho covering the clay
-
�^ shift . Mr. Dore| tor noted that the city records showed that both Webster and
Simms were hired as "Janitor—Firemen" and served in both capacities until they
� became mambvrs of the Full Paid Fire Department on August | / 1965.
"
�
Mr. Lung pointed out that the question is thln: was there a fu / | timw F|re
Department from Apr[ / 2, 1982 to August | / 1985, and did V�Iebuter come under it
according to the Sessions Laws of /935, 0oc^ 3? He stated further that i /
� Webster came within the definitions of the |umo of /935/ in April , May and June
of /962/ then he would be covered by the "grandfather clause" of Civil Servfre
and would he entitled to all of the rights of the Civil Service Act not with—
standing the proposed probationary status.
Long conceded that Webster was off duty when the accident occurred and that the
a.
c- 8 2 _.
most recent operation on his ankle was directly connected with the original
accident. 16r. Beret ter asked if Long would concede that 'Webster would not
be entitled to Civil Service privileges if it was determined that from April ,
1962 to August I , 1965, the City of Kent did NOT have a "Full Paid Fire Depart—
me n I Long stated that tie would so concede if the court or this Board so ruled.
` ., Long further stated that in the event that Aug. I , 1965 is established as the
date of the start of Kent 's full dine Fire Department, then Webster is not en—
titled to the benefits of the Civil Service Act and the rules relative to pro—
bationary status would apply with this exception; as he saw It : the rule relative
to this situation° a full paid fireman on probationary status who has an accident
� ._ off—duty, was passed subsequent to the: date of the off—duty incident, therefore
that rule cannot be applied retroactively to Webster.
Mr, Bereiter asked if this opinion was based on the Civil Service Rules, and Long
answered yes. Mr. Bereiter then stated that this Board was acting on Firemen's
i I Pension Board Rules NOT Civil Service rules, and that the only issue to determine
was whether or not the City of Kent had a full time Fire Department at the time
_ Webster was hired in 1962, Bereiter opined that we did not. Ile stated further
that Bridges was the Fire Chief and Webster and Simms were hired as part—firemen
and part—janitor. Neither devoted 'their whole. time as firemen.
Long explained that Webster's position in asking for this hearing should he made
clear- and stated That he is not being vindictive, nor does he feel that he has
been "picked on" by the city, but merely wants the question of law cleared up.
Long stated that as he understood It, when the City of Kent hired Webster it was
his duty, while on the job, to answer every fire call , along with the volunteers"
Notwithstanding the fact that he was also assigned janitorial duties, when there
was a fire he responded. Long said that the argument submitted is a problem in
defining form, and substance-.- In 1935, the law required for this to be applicable
\
3 -
/ ^ for overy municipality having o fu | | paid Fire Department vd i did no y
�
� sa
how many employees constituted u ful | paid department as other Civi i Service
|n*w did.
`
�
Long further, stated, " | believe that it should be considered by all present
that I Apr / / 1902, the Ctiy of Kent did have a fu | |-pald Fire Department, and
the quest ion /s/ whether or not Webster was a fu | |-pa/d [lraman^ | say that in
actual substance he WAS, because that was his primary duty between April 1962
` and October 1965^ He answered a | | firw co | Is, took care of the trouks, etc, and
co what he actually was being, was o full-paid fireman, Doe to the lack of fires,
� .
and because of the law and the administrative procad: rps of the City of Kent, he
' was pal for work that he dfd other than fTroman, but during his 8 hour ah| fi ,
^
he was primarily o fireman and was paid accordingly. , | [oe | that the Board should
�n.
look of his reoyuns| b| | ity, which was, andl[�j�[ being e f[rmman not o
' /�^����� - '
� � �
jan| tvr/ regardless of the accounting procedure used. At this time the City of
�^ Kent was smaller and the demands on the Fire Department were |euu. The city did
T�
have a Civil Service Board and a full-paid Fire Department, and the question, in
�
my opinion is whether or not he could be considered NOT u fireman. The Board must
look at his responsibilities when he was working and determine whether or not as
o matter of fuut ~ was he not hetng paid for an 8 hour shift as n flreman? If
he were paid $ /O per day, $5 for each capacity /n which he served, could he
have said when he had a fire call "| cannot go because | have to do the janitorial
work?'' No/ as n matter of substance, not budget department or f|oco| / his duty,
,nr
primarily, was that of a fireman. He was a janitor when not busy as a fireman. �
�« | do not believe that this Bard can decide by the budget technique employed, �
`
and actually the court will |wuk at substance rather than form. In researching
Civil 3orvloo rules, | have found that some cities hired 12 or 15 part-time police-
men for the purpose of avoiding the Civil Service uuf. The roo | question in this �
�e
�
`
�
� , �
d
case is not why was this set up this way, but what was Webster, a fireman or a
janitor? I submit that everyone would have assumed that we had one man on duty
J as a fireman each shift".
Long continued, stating that he felt that the Board might well be required, under
the facts of this case, to hold more than this hearing and under the responsibilities
of their office to take testimony, and examine the witnesses: Bridges, Simms and
others who were here in 1962 and 1963 because the real issue is "what was he really
hired for".
Bereiter asked Long if he was challenging the sufficiency of this hearing and
Long replied that he was, and that he felt the testimony should be taken.
Long' reiteraied that if the Board decided that Webster was a full paid fireman
from April 1962 then he must be paid for the time off since August 12, 1966.
•, Bereiter noted that Long was building a record for use if the matter should go
to court, and that the testimony should be taken. Bereiter and Long agreed that
it would not be necessary to have a court reporter, that perhaps Mrs. Reynolds
of the Auburn Court office could take the testimony.
On Alex Thornton's motion, the hearing was adjourned and the Secretary was
requested to contact Chief Bridges and Simms and to then set up a meeting to take
their testimony.
In other regular business to come before the Board, Bridge moved for Simms to be
referred to the Virginia Mason Clinic for a complete physical check--up at the
expense of the Firemen's Pension Board. Motion seconded and passed and the
Secretary was asked to make the arrangements and to notify Simms.
There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was p -
TA
seconded to adjourncdt 11 :30 a.m.
Marie Jensen
Secretary