| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2008 : 9:07:02 PM
|
A request was made of me to attempt to explain what the "reserve list" that City of Everett uses to hire firefighters is all about and why its usage may be an issue for the Common Council. The term "reserve list" does not appear anywhere that I could find in MGL. However, I believe the term is derived from Sections 59 B, C, D and E of Chapter 48 of MGL which describe reserve fire forces. The "reserve list" would, therefore, be nothing more than a list of the members of the reserve fire force.
What is the purpose of a reserve fire force? It is not explicitly stated in the four sections of Chapter 59 that define the reserve fire force. Chapter 59 also does not contain a definition section that is found in many other sections of MGL. I could attempt to provided my own interpretation of the intent of these four sections of MGL. However, I happened to come across a copy of a booklet on the state web site produced by the Civil Service Unit of the state's Human Resources Division that provides an official version of the law's intent. Since this document also contains a complete description of the hiring process from the reserve fire force, it is going to make my job here I lot easier than I thought it would be. It is a plain English document in a FAQ (frequently asked questions) format and is, therefore, a pretty easy read. A link to the document (MS Word required) is found below:
You must be logged in to see this link.
As used in Everett, the "reserve list" is used as a pseudo civil service list. The "reserve list" is created and re-stocked from a civil service list but the difference is that once you are on this list, your spot on it is protected; if it were just a regular civil service list, the entire remaining list would be voided by the next civil service exam. After reading the document found at the above link, I believe that the Common Council's issue with the use of the "reserve list" as a hiring tool is pretty evident and backed up rather strongly by examining the linked document's first question and answer pair, which is listed below:
I. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A RESERVE OR INTERMITTENT FORCE?
The category of reserve or intermittent service is designed to provide Appointing Authorities with a roster of authorized civil service employees who can be called at short notice to work on an as-needed basis, performing essentially as substitutes for full-time employees who may be out ill or on vacation, and to provide extra personnel in emergency or special situations on a short-term basis. This category of employment is not designed to provide additional staff to work on a full-time regularly scheduled basis for long periods of time. Misuse of the intermittent and reserve category through long-term full-time assignments is inappropriate under the provisions of MGL Chapter 31, and may have a detrimental effect on the rights of the employees involved. Appointing authorities are asked to insure that this employment category is properly utilized.
For clarifications sake, Chapter 31 of MGL is civil service law. Although the above answer doesn't go into the consequences of not properly using the "reserve list", it would seem pretty clear that the city is not using these laws as intended and could, therefore, be opening itself up for a lawsuit. Actually, by having established a "reserve list" and using it as they are, the city may have created another rock and a hard place legal scenario. If the use of the "reserve list" were to be flat out terminated at this point, wouldn't it seem feasible that the people currently on it might have the basis for a law suit as well? It will take a better legal mind than mine to sort this one out.
It appears that over the course of time, the City of Everett has used the "reserve list" a few times for reasons that I could not fully ascertain. I can't provide specific sources for when this process was used that can be verified on the internet; the only evidence that I have is only anecdotal . As best as I can determine, the "reserve list" had not been used in a number of years but the issue reared its head again, to the best of my recollection, sometime during the Hanlon administration. The actual implementation of the list may have occurred earlier but I believe wholeheartedly believe that is when the issue came to the surface, at least. I've been thru most of the Common Council meeting agendas for 2007 and haven't found it in any of them; there is no online source for agendas before then. So I have to assume that the issue came to light sometime during 2006.
Why is the "reserve list" being used at the present time? As my memory serves me, the fire chief's reasoning for this when he was questioned in front of the City Council was that the fire academy would no longer reserve slots for training unless they had the trainee's names. Presumably, this was so the appropriate background checks could be done before accepting the candidates; it's a fuzzy memory, but I seem to recall the words "homeland security" being part of the discussion. At the time, I thought it was a reasonable argument, given the realities of the times. But upon reconsideration, I don't think that the argument holds up. The background checks for firefighter trainees would be a requirement for all cities and towns in Massachusetts and they all don't utilize a "reserve list". It would seem that the same thing could be done utilizing a civil service list; other communities do it. You may run into some issues such as when someone from a civil service list has been accepted for training and the current civil service list expires. If a situation like this is not presently covered by civil service law, perhaps slight modifications of it are needed. In this particular instance, it may be reasonable to say that once an individual is accepted for training, they become a provisional member of the fire department and come off the civil service list. Maybe a slight deviation from current civil service law but perhaps a "necessary evil" given the realities of the modern world. There may have been other points to the chief's argument but I can't recall them.
Before completing this post, I checked to see if anyone else had weighted in on the "reserve list" issue. When I first read cozulady's post, I couldn't agree with it the way that I read it the first time. From an equity standpoint, I would have to think that the pay issue while training would have to be the same whether the trainee came from a civil service list or the "reserve list". Otherwise, this could do nothing but cause hard feelings. But I have not, as of yet, found anything to confirm or deny my way of thinking. However, when I read her post again, I saw a very valid point in what can happen after training is complete for someone from the civil service list vs. someone from the "reserve list". Someone from a civil service list would immediately become a member of the fire department, whereas someone from the reserve list could take that same path or go back on the reserve list until they are actually needed. Maybe this was part of the chief's reasoning as well. In theory, I subscribe to the "use it or lose it" theory in regards to training; however, as a practical matter, it may not be possible to match up training availability exactly with staffing needs. This may be another instance where civil service law could stand to be tweaked (i.e., permanent assignment to commence within x days of successfully completing the training program) to reflect the realities of how firefighters are trained these days and the economic challenges that cities and towns are presently facing.
I'll start to wrap this up by sharing some other information pertaining to "reserve list" issues that I came across while researching the main points of my posts. The chief mentioned Monday night that someone on the "reserve list" could accrue up to five years of retirement credit while on the list. This is a state law that is found in MGL Chapter 32, Section 4. Included in this section is a provision that any retirement credit earned while on the "reserve list" does not vest unless a permanent appointment to the regular fire department is received. Therefore, it is not possible to get a pension if someone is on the "reserve list" and never makes it to active duty on the fire department. As far as the paying for the cost of the retirement credit accrued while on the "reserve list", I think I'll take a pass on that part of the issue, at least for now.
In 1967, special legislation was passed for the City of Everett that sets the maximum number of members of the reserve fire force at 30, overriding the rules in MGL Chapter 48, Section 59C. As far as I can tell, this legislation is still in place. A link to this act is found below (Adobe required):
You must be logged in to see this link.
Finally, I came across a summary document that contains a lot of good information about which cities and towns have fire departments that fall under civil service law, which have consent decrees, which have reserve forces and which have age limit requirements. It is a good reference document, especially since part of the previous debate about Everett's "reserve list" had some concerns about age limits. A link to the document follows (MS Word required):
You must be logged in to see this link.
The document states that Everett has no age limit for hiring firefighters. I take a small exception with that because I don't think that it takes into account a provision of MGL Chapter 31, Section 60. This section concerns appointments from the reserve force to the regular force and it states the following:
"No person who has passed his fiftieth birthday shall be appointed pursuant to this section to the regular police or fire force."
With that one exception, I would agree that the City of Everett has no age limitations on the hiring of firefighters.
Hope that this was helpful.
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2008 : 9:56:06 PM
|
| Tetris, thank you. You have certainly done a great deal of research on this issue. Would I be correct in thinking there might be something amiss since the EFD has been on the agenda so frequently? |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 4:17:37 PM
|
| That's a lot of information and very good to know. Do you have an opinion of what could be going on because I cant quite figure it out? I'm not happy with "who's on the list" but..........it could be perfectly fine. There is obviously tension and some in doubt, especially concerning the veterans on the list issue. My questions are.........why eight and why now. We all know who number eight is. If your going to go for eight then why not ten........or better yet....stick with the four that "may" be leaving. Is eight people on a reserve list mandatory because I did not see that anywhere. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 10:31:59 PM
|
I'd prefer if the city wasn't using the "reserve list". There's been a general warning issued by the state that cities and towns should not be using the reserve fire force in the way that the city is currently using it. Other cities and towns manage the same issues that Everett has without using a "reserve list". Of course, the question is how well are they managing them? If the "reserve list" was being used because there are minor issues with civil service law and the city made a statement that they are using it until an attempt can be made to address these issues thru the legislative process, I would probably support its use as long as a legitimate effort were being made get the appropriate laws modified. Otherwise, use of the "reserve list" just raises suspicions and bypasses the intent of civil service law.
As far as actual allegations of any wrong doing, I can't really comment. I don't have access to the type of detailed information that would be required to make any type of informed statements. A detailed history of the current usage of the "reserve list" (when it started, who has been on it, who has received an appointment, etc.) would be required before that could even be attempted. And even then, it might not be wise to do so without some other type of evidence as well.
Tails, as far as I know, there is no minimum number for the "reserve list" and the City of Everett is allowed to have up to 30 firefighters on the reserve force at any one time. Are there currently eight on the list or are there more? I just don't know.
|
Edited by - tetris on 04/12/2008 10:33:34 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
"Reserve List"
