By Sean Longoria
Record Searchlight
SHASTA LAKE, Calif. — Directors with the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District will conduct a special meeting today to discuss an alternative to laying off a firefighter.
The board also may approve a response to a former director’s letter alleging violations of the state’s open meeting law.
Board members on Monday agreed to look at ways to avoid laying off an engineer, a decision they made in February. The district has faced declining revenues during the past five years, officials have said.
The discussion came as the district’s firefighters offered to take a 5 percent pay cut to avoid the layoff, which is supposed to take effect May 1.
“If that’s what the union wants to do and the board is fine with that, I would suggest we defer laying off that engineer,” Chief Adrian Rogers said Monday.
The pay cut would require an agreement with Teamsters Local 137, the firefighters’ labor union. “I hate like hell to have had to vote to lay off an engineer. I even hate worse for people to lose 5 percent,” Director Steve Morgan said. “If that’s what you guys want to do ... I’d be interested to hear what the union has to say about it.”
But at least two board members didn’t want their already low-paid staffers to make even less.
“I am completely against this consideration,” said board Vice Chairwoman Lori Chapman-Sifers, who also commended the union workers for their offer.
Director Jack Ferguson also opposed the cut, instead preferring to dip into the district’s “dry period” funding.
That money, Rogers said, is used to pay district bills from July to December while the agency waits for its annual disbursement of tax money. “We could take money of there,” Ferguson said. “I’m willing to go that way.”
Rogers, who voluntarily gave up 5 percent of his pay, said Wednesday the board has several options before it, including dipping into reserves.
"(Tonight) is the board discussing what they really want to do,” he said.
In other action, directors will discuss a response to former director Gary Nichols’ letter alleging the district repeatedly has violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.
Specifically, Nichols claims the board has failed to post meeting agendas in advance on its website, a new requirement this year for local governments and special districts that have websites.
He also alleges the board has applied arbitrary time limits on public comments and misquoted the Brown Act in demanding written copies of one of his statements to the board.
Nichols’ allegations come after a tense March 12 meeting, when he was cut off from reading a prepared statement after five minutes. Board member Ted Chase also demanded a copy of Nichols’ statement and said the Brown Act required it.
Chase remained silent at Monday’s meeting.
Rogers said the district has begun loading its agendas on its website ahead of meetings after resolving a software issue and launching the district’s redesigned website. The agenda for Monday’s meeting was posted Friday.
Michael Fitzpatrick, the district’s lawyer, said at Monday’s meeting the board could request a copy of a person’s written statement, but that person isn’t obligated to provide it.
He also said the board can adopt time limits on public comment, but any limit should be applied unilaterally and the board can always decide to give someone more time.
“I’d recommend that you be as flexible as you can with those type of limitations,” Fitzpatrick said.
Copyright 2012 Record Searchlight