Laurie Casey here.

Cindy Purdue Dolan here.

Matt Stefan present.

Yeah, Mr.

Chad's okay.

Cindy Shaw present.

I just on page six.

Um that seems really loud tonight.

But um on page six, uh it says on the top, uh and it's referring to option two.

It says Ms.

Purdue Dolan shared this idea with volunteers, and they did not think it would work.

Actually, um I shared a little bit of option two, but not only kind of what the goal was.

Um I didn't have any specifics, and I didn't want to um say one way or the other on what that act option two was.

So they're waiting to weigh in after they receive more details on option two.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So uh uh just a question and a comment for uh question for uh Ms.

Purdue Dolan.

How how would you like to have that um language to be said in the as a rewrite on the part of the m of the uh minutes?

And uh I think that was it.

So that's just a question.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Cindy, yeah.

Let's say uh Ms.

Purdue Dollan shared this idea with the volunteers, and they'll weigh in after receiving more info.

Something like that.

Simple.

Thanks.

Any other two discussions on that six?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would move to approve the minutes from January twenty-sixth as amended.

God damn I never will I be chairperson again.

Unfinished business.

Um fire department working group updates.

Uh I would like to maybe go through the possible scenarios that we heard last week.

Uh and apparently there's some updates uh today regarding some of the themes that were developed by the working group.

So I would ask to go in order, and let's talk about option one.

That is removing removing volunteer fire departments from the charter.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so a couple updates on option one this evening.

Um I was able to have a couple conversations.

So I'll start with a conversation that I had with uh Jason Willoughby, who is um with the volunteers, and um he had sent us last week uh language for option one, but after reaching out to him again saying that's great, but we need more meat.

We need more information with regard to if option one is chosen, what does that look like?

Because I think we don't have really anything about what that would look like moving forward.

So um Mr.

Willoughby said that um they will get us that list as soon as possible before next week's meeting, and it will likely include um he said the number one thing on their minds is coming up with, and we talked about this before the maps and boundaries of the fire districts and what map is being used and all that.

Also, again, something we've already talked about is what is gonna happen with buildings, equipment, assessing all of that, and then a list of what does what does that look like for the idea of consolidation and other things that are paramount to option one's viability, I guess is the best word to say.

So that said, um, he has taken that baton and said, I will get you something from the volunteers by next week's meeting, because I said this is vital, we are under deadlines, statutory deadlines that we need to meet.

So that's what that is.

So hopefully they'll get something to us as soon as possible, um, outlining outlining what that would look like.

Um then the other thing, oh the other thing um I spoke with um Commissioner Josh O'Neill with regard to the formal statement from the fire advisory board, but that's not option one.

So I don't know if you want me to talk about that or wait till we go through all the options and then come back to this.

Let's go through all the options and then go back to the perfect.

Thank you.

That's all I have for my update for option one.

Just a question, uh Cindy.

When you're talking about Mr.

Willoughby and the information you sent to the the chair tonight, or to the commission tonight, we all got it today, right?

Yeah.

Is that similar to what his or is this totally separate?

That was what oh, sorry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for the question.

Um that is um just sending it to the whole commission.

Last week I sent it on Monday to the working group.

So that was just a forward to the whole commission with what they presented to us last week.

Okay.

Another question, if you please.

Is that gonna change from what we're going to hear next week, or is it going to be similar to Mr.

Willoughby's presentation or his uh information he sent the today?

Do you know?

Oh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um no, it's not something different.

It was just what I just sent it to the whole group from last week.

Okay.

Um and I apologize my delay.

A lot of things happened last week.

But that said, um, it will be an addition to that was him talking about or the volunteers focusing on language where we need to get some more information for a plan, something like apples and oranges.

I mean, it's great to have all kinds of info.

Right.

But we really need as a study commission, and I really made the point of we need to know what you guys are going to do if in fact you are taken out of the charter.

That's what our role is, and we need to know that.

And it shouldn't be something new, it should be something you guys have been ruminating on for decades.

So I'm hoping that it would be an easy list to identify and send off to us so we can all look at that and make some good decisions from that, if that makes sense.

It does.

Okay, another question.

So we received the changes in the charter for Mr.

Willoughby today.

He added some sections to the charter, he deleted sections from the charter.

He uh I'm assuming that he did this through the volunteer councils.

Is that correct?

Or um and with that changes and the deletions and the additions.

Are we looking for next week the reasons why their changes are forthcoming?

So in other words, we have all the changes that uh the volunteer fire departments want in the charter.

We've I think we've seen them before.

Um I think their attorney uh submitted those changes to us early on in the process.

Uh the volunteer firemen have had their attorney send some additions and deletions to the charter.

And so with that and it it's a well-rounded document.

It excludes some and adds to and uh changes the charter.

But I'm what I'm getting at is that presentation for next week.

Slim similar to that, or is this why we want to uh have separate volunteer fire departments, why we want different chiefs versus the director of fire services, why we want uh non unified command uh as a process, because that's what it said today.

So uh do you know that?

I I'm sorry, I don't want to put you on the spot.

And I know you're not talking for anyone.

I just I just want to know if they told you anything clear about that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good question.

And I have to reiterate again, it was nothing new that was sent to us today.

This was just a forward of the documentation that we got as the working group that sent it to the whole study commission.

So it was something from last week, and that those several pages is one idea from them apparently, but what I was getting at was saying that's that documentation they sent to the working group last week didn't answer our questions with regard to after our meeting last week that we all said we need more information.

We need to feel that in or not feel understand what is going to happen if the volunteers are taken out of the charter, not changing charter language, but what would it look like?

What is the plan moving forward if in fact option one is chosen?

We need to know that ahead of time, and I and it's kind of like a little bit of a crystal ball because they don't know, you know, some things maybe way down the road, but initially I would think at this point in time, they would have a clear understanding of this needs to happen first, this needs to happen, this and this.

Whatever that list looks like.

Whatever that list looks like, but I said please put it in language that we all can understand.

We're on I'll bet, Mr.

Silk, but we're not in the fire services, we don't know we we need to be educated on what that will look like.

So that is a um an ask that is imperative for the volunteers to do for option one to give us more information so we are educated and then we make any determinations based on that information but more importantly we have correct information for the public and for any kind of framework we're working on because I think we don't want any big question marks as we move forward.

Hopefully that helps.

Thank you.

Okay.

Lori.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just a clarifying question because when I think of option one as removing the volunteers from the charter I think of that there would be no mention of them that the volunteer language would just simply be deleted from the charter and um my name was left off your list when you sent it around but Dan forwarded it to me.

I kind of view that as a maybe an option for because it does leave the volunteers in the charter when I think of it literally it further maybe explains or identifies their role and like the the section that you spoke of of like who's in command and that so is it I guess I need some clarifying of what we're calling option one versus maybe the proposed language that the volunteers had sent thank you Mr.

Chair and thank you Lori I apologize I do do it from memory and I always go around but way we're seated sorry.

So anyway but yes that's that's a great question and that does need to be clarified.

So when we get more information for option one I will ask that clarifying question because that's a great point do they want that as another option or is it something because it kind of seems like it's apples and oranges at this point but the clarifying information will certainly help Matthew thank you Mr.

Chair for using my full actually middle name but um the way that I interpreted what was sent was their suggested language to put option one into action that our responsibility would be to work with the county attorney to make sure the language in option one accomplishes what the the option was intended and that they were providing their suggested edits but it would be on us as a commission to put that language into action but option one is least as I presented last week was removal from the charter Ms.

Shaw Mr Chair and I I do concur with Matt that was just a these are pretty simple options that are we have put it out there so it's understandable is this is our first blush I like to say of the first inkling that we have from the public that what they want and we're we're presenting it as three options and of course there has to be ballot language but I'm thinking maybe at this stage and I I did look at this there's there's quite a bit to be said I don't know if we can condense the actual language or just the concept that we are looking to do eventually in the charter and then the rest can come under ordinance because this is just a it's a lot of information and I don't know that's all I can think about it the point is I want whatever we put in our uh preliminary report is understandable and I don't I don't mean to make it I'm not trying to um be little or you know make it smaller or more less important than it really is but we're just trying to get a a sense from the public what they'd like to see it's about the public's input and of course we want to make them happy too as far as the volunteers go but I just think that there's a lot of information to put in our preliminary report that's just my opinion thank you.

Thank you Ms.

Shaw Ms Purdue Dolan Thank you Mr.

Chair I I totally agree Cindy I think that by next week we should have um some more clarification and some additional information with regard to option one and I think it will help us move the ball forward thank you Ms.

But um, I'm thinking that with the information that we received today from Mr.

Willoughby and the Volunteer Fire Department, it is another option.

I'm going to say option four, because some of that isn't of as Mr.

Steppen said, getting the volunteers completely out of the charter.

That's option one.

This says a little bit more than that.

This is a I think this is a different option altogether.

So I I think we'll need some more discussion and we'll continue on tonight with that discussion.

But this and that's probably what I was thinking.

Option one, which is very clear, there's one unified or there's no mention of volunteer fire departments in the charter.

The new information we received today doesn't say that.

It says, well, we like everything, but we don't want to be under the unified command structure, and we want similar to what we have now.

So that might be a hybrid of one, two, three, and now four, but I don't think it's one.

And I don't think it's I think it's four.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I think I just want to again reiterate this is not new information.

This is information we got as the working group last week, actually yes uh last Monday during the day before our meeting on Monday the second, excuse me, Monday, whatever the last Monday of January was, sorry.

Um so we got it then, so it's not new, but it was sent originally to the working group because we needed to go get it first, look through it, whatever, and then give it to the rest of the study commission.

So it's not a change, it's not new.

We got the information last week, but after last week's meeting and discussion, we we all seem to agree that all three options needed additional information for not only ourselves to make decisions here, but to present to the public when we go out for our second round of listening sessions to make sure we're spot on, we've got the latest and greatest information, correct information with regard to each option, and I agree this may be an option four.

We'll have to see what how that plays out.

But I I you know we have to figure that out.

Thanks.

Any other discussions?

Mr.

Steppen.

Maybe I can thank you, Mr.

Chair, and maybe I can help clarify.

When these three options were drafted, the draft that I presented that we presented Monday was written prior to receiving the information that Mr.

Willoughby sent.

So that's likely why you don't see what he sent in inside of the presentation.

And the other thing I would say that I believe, at least through my lens, that the intent of the options was to address the ambiguity on authority by creating very different options that clearly pointed the authority in essentially two different directions, right?

And that I think as we deliberate and make decisions on what options are moved forward, we want to keep clear paths to try and address the very ambiguity that has been the source of the of the contention, in my opinion.

Thank you, Ms.

Steppen.

Any other questions regarding option one?

Okay, let's move to option two.

Um who in the working group has option two for clarification or disc discussion?

Mr.

Thieland.

Mr.

Chair.

Um I wouldn't know really uh in where it came up in the and that said it was illegal after uh to to have an option to because you can't have two chiefs upon further review uh between myself and Mr.

Enro, it is very much doable because the other chief is a volunteer chief.

So one's paid, one's volunteer, so you can still do option two.

And just to refresh our memory, it's to create one volunteer fire department in the charter, potential consolidation of existing volunteer fire departments and establishing unifying volunteer voice.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Is that what you're looking at?

Or we haven't really got that far yet.

We um you know it would be the chief, but the other thing we discussed and we discussed with the some of the union guys was that uh there should be a training officer to if this were to happen, so that everybody's trained the same, trained by the same person so they all know what's going on.

They gave us some great insight as to how some things have happened in other communities, and quite honestly, I think it's uh it's a pretty good deal.

And if they were going to uh hire from that point, then they would be able to choose from the volunteers as the sheriff does choosing his people from the jail.

So it's kind of a proving ground, a training ground is you were if you were uh have it that way, and everybody's all on the same page.

Um it would just help it help guys like Jad, it would help all the the paid guys to know what the volunteers can do, and it would also help the volunteers to know what the paid guys could do.

I mean, not knowing who's doing what and who's on second, and you know, i it's nonsense.

I mean, I've I had a whole thing formulated what to say today, but it was pretty colorful, so I'm leaving it go.

Thanks for helping us there.

Um so but the the premise of it is redefining the volunteer governance uh consolidate, I'm sorry, redefining the volunteer governance leadership and bylaws and consolidation of existing fire departments into one entity.

Is that still the option or part of the option and option two?

Yes, it is.

You know, and that way there, it just some of these places that they're a mile apart or less than a mile apart.

You know, some of them can absorb the other ones, the bigger ones absorb the smaller ones.

You're still not losing any people, it's just going to be one bigger department, better department to help the volunteers and help the paid.

Mr.

Thielen, have you had discussions with the volunteer fire departments regarding the potential consolidation of existing fire departments?

Has that happened or I'm sitting here, so no.

True.

So there hasn't been any discussion, uh, either A or Yay on the No, and quite honestly, uh Dan, I really haven't had time.

Gotcha.

You know, I I work all day.

Uh the times that I can be are after five.

So that's kind of where we're at.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ms.

Perdue Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I will say, you know, not for option two, but overall, an overarching question has been raised multiple times with volunteers at meetings I've been at and discussions I've had with various volunteers.

They are all for consolidation because they uh just to what to Ben's point about a lot very tiny um stations at this point that can be absorbed into a bigger uh volunteer group.

I'll bet they go they say that and then they also qualify it saying that they want the autonomy to make those decisions.

They didn't want the the paid chief to make those decisions for them, but they are very willing to go down that road.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Thielen.

I think if we can put a plan together, I think something like that would probably be uh more up to the voters, I would think.

Any other questions on option number two?

Chad.

Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Mr.

Denhy.

Um I guess with with the option two, the the main question, as Mr.

Stefan alluded to is the authority, right?

That's the question that has always been the gray area.

It would be great to have a volunteer department that was consolidated.

And although we've heard that some want to do that, I've been hearing my entire career that that was not an option within the volunteer system, and maybe that's changed, and I hope it has.

Regardless of option one or option two, there is no criteria that would hold the volunteers accountable to the training standards on both sides, unless there was authority from Butte Silver Bow.

And I I think that one thing needs to be mentioned again, and then I'll I'll wrap it up.

But we hear that the director is the one who chooses to combine districts.

We hear that the director is the one that chooses to have full authority, and we need to remember that the director has a boss, and that's the chief executive.

And that it states in the charter that no district boundaries can be changed without two-thirds vote of the county commissioners.

So there are checks and balances.

Going back to Miss Casey's point, if we can have most of the department run through ordinance, it allows us to change instead of be stuck.

And I'll leave it with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Silk.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I think that and uh just through my interpretation of County Attorney Enruth's with respect to the two chiefs, and one being paid and one being volunteer.

And I wish he were here, because I don't want to I don't want to be wrong and I don't want to speak for him.

The way that I understand it is that if it is one department under the charter, there has to be clear authority and chain of command.

If they're out of the charter, then they have their own authority over coordination and training and budget and and those things.

So I'm not sure, at least under my interpretation, that options two and three don't provide the same authority to the director.

I think that's something that we have to I think we need clarity on from county attorney Enruth because I agree there was there was a lot of conversation about you can't have two chiefs, and then at the last minute in that conversation, he said, well, if one's volunteer, then yeah.

But I don't think that speaks to the authority if they're all if they're in the charters one department, and I think we need clarity on that.

Mr.

Thielen.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Um and to kind of take that on a little further, uh, as far as the director, I still think that the director should be somebody that doesn't have a dog in either fight.

I still think the director should be appointed or hired by the the chief or whomever.

I mean uh instead of giving Chief Osborne several hats to wear, you know, let it let him do his deal and um let the other guys do their deal, but you're gonna have to have one person that's in the just independent to be able to have these guys come to them.

I and I I believe that.

I mean, either way, nobody's got a you know, got their uh dog in there, and if they get bit, then hey, so be it.

You know, you didn't do your homework.

Where where's the budgets?

We've been wanting to see budgets.

We haven't seen anything from the volunteers.

Um there's a lot of gray area there, and a lot of things, like I said, a lot of people are going to get upset.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

But it's gonna depend on what the voters say and which option we choose or to give them or how we can word it to make it more palatable.

Ms.

Purdue Down.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I think because you sorry, you were about a few minutes late, we talked about option one, Ben, and we did talk about the fact that the volunteers are getting us more information, the exact information, you additional information you're looking for, so we should have that by next week.

Um but I will say um one more thing with regard to um my amendment to the minutes from last week, exactly to Matt's point.

I said uh the volunteers, I gave them this is what option one, excuse me, option two looks like um, but I didn't have any additional information and that clarity, once we get that from the county attorney and some more information, then the volunteers can learn more about option two and what that looks like and how that would go moving forward.

Um I think that will be very important.

Thank you.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so we we uh Ben and Matt and I met with uh several volunteers and I and one of the paid and also the union rep last Tuesday, and they brought up that this is another little piece of the puzzle is the the lack of the um assistant chief that has been in the has been in the ordinance for a long long time and they were talking about an F2 position, it be the that person was does that design need to be a training supervisor and also do command control and that sort of thing.

And it did happen for a while, but in the 80s it was still in the ordinance, but it no longer exists.

And that came up because that person would train everybody.

And I know Chad knows what I'm talking about, it would just be there were three things, but training was that the big one, and then also they did the budgetary review.

So that to me, when I heard that being spoken out loud at our meeting, it spoke volumes to me about what would what that would do to change this whole landscape, you know, having one person doing that.

But that it it is on the books.

I've tried to talk to John Morgan about it because I mean, if we're not enforcing something that's on uh in the ordinance, you know, we need to do something about it.

But I just want to bring that up because that that was clearly stated at our meeting.

Mr.

Thielen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh you're absolutely right.

And they also said Chief Osborne asked for that position to be filled every year through his budget.

And he's pretty much never answered, they just kind of out the door with you, you know.

That and that thing's that thing's by ordinance, it's it's in there.

So it needs to, you know, I we don't know if the money's been absorbed somewhere else for something.

Don't know.

That brings me to the whole thing about a audit forensically.

Let's let's handle one controversy at a time, will you, Mr.

Thana?

Mr.

Perdudola.

Thank you, Mr.

Ms.

I'm sorry.

Whatever.

Sorry, Dan.

Oh my God.

Okay, so thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair.

Um question for Cindy.

So can you tell us so we have it with the meeting?

I've unfortunately I I had to I was working, so I couldn't attend this meeting, unfortunately, but um with the union meeting, you know, we had the five chiefs, five different chiefs of the volunteers um pledge to work with the study commission and the working group um for volunteer information.

Were the volunteers that were at the union meeting, because I was under the impression the union meeting was for the paid and the union rep.

And so I was kind of shocked to learn just about a half hour ago that there were volunteers at the meeting, and who were they representing and did they get the okay from the chief?

Mr.

Steppen and then Ms.

Shaw.

Um and maybe I shouldn't.

Maybe the question was directed to you, but I think that I'm not aware that there were volunteers at the meeting.

I think maybe you misspoke.

I think four out of the five that were in attendance came up through the volunteer ranks, but were not volunteer firefighters.

They were all career firefighters.

My bad.

Thanks, Niz Shaw.

Did Mr.

Silk.

I think I can clear up a lot of a lot of this.

Uh your guys' meeting on Tuesday was just with the current department.

Um all members um, even Mr.

Whitesell's been working at the Current Department for probably a couple years now.

That was union representation leadership.

But most of those did come through the volunteers.

I want to talk about the F2 position.

Um how amazing it would be if we could have an F2 training officer.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion right now if we had the F2.

And the reason that it it was um not funded anymore from the 80s was because when the mine shut down and it was through attrition that that position was not to be filled again.

Now director, former director Miller also asked many times for it.

When Director Osborne asked for it now, the fire department said a cap.

I'm sure you guys have been hearing about this cap a lot.

There's no funding legally to even fund it.

Because if an F2 position was a hundred thousand dollars with uh benefits, we don't even have enough money within the fire department to it get up to a hundred thousand dollars.

So that is one of the reasons currently that it's not funded.

Um hopefully one day it will be.

The director, Director Osborne understands the importance of it, and I am lucky enough to be tasked for six months as the F2 to create and develop a safety program with the volunteers and the career department.

And through that safety committee, all volunteers have a representative and an alternative member, and the career department has uh members and alternates to go to the safety committee.

The very first safety committee was just last week, I remember.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to some health issues.

And just even getting the same people in the room made things better.

The problem with not having a structure where administrative control is clear, operational control is clear, and financial control is clear is that if option one were to happen, there was no or two, there is no authority for the safety committee to continue.

Because under rural fire district law, each individual uh fire chief, based off of what the five district trustees want, happens.

So if uh say a volunteer department didn't think that they needed to or didn't like the training and didn't want to work that way with the career department, you do not have to go to there would be no teeth other than the trustees would have to make their chief make that mandatory.

Um there's an option that where that that would just not take place.

You could some people would not have to play, is what I'm saying.

That is why the authority, not only administratively but operationally financially, is so important to make it clear in the charter.

A lot of these other things that you guys have heard and have brought up are great points to be put in ordinance, in my opinion, because that document needs to continue to evolve over time and not be so stringent.

I believe that our opportunity is to give a framework for the Council of Commissioners to legally understand and implement financial decision making power, operational decision making power, administrative decision making power, and that is our goal, in my opinion, what we need to do.

A lot of the other things could happen through ordinance, could happen through a memorandum of understanding or agreement, which might even be easier than ordinance that was brought up by uh someone else when I think it's a great idea.

I won't call her out, but I think it's a fantastic idea.

But there's we always come back to who holds the liability, and whoever holds the liability usually is the one that pays the bills, and the one that paid the bills get to have the final say.

And that's something that I just hope that my fellow commissioners keep in mind.

We can have all the great ideas in the world, and usually the simplest idea is the best, and then it'll allow the commissioners and the public to come up through a democratic process to figure out how the fire department runs through ordinance where everyone can have a voice at any given time and not just during a 10 or 30-year stint during a study commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Silk.

Any other questions, comments?

Ms.

Perdue Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So Chad, let me ask you a couple questions.

Um you said that you're worried now, you didn't say you're worried, but the fact that the safety committee that just started last week hasn't been implemented over the past like five, say just say five years.

The the time that the Osborne's been in in as fire chief, this committee has not existed, correct?

Mr.

Silk.

It's never existed.

Yeah.

Okay.

So the fact that if you you know, if it's gonna go away, that's a big concern, but it just started, right?

The fact that it could go away when we have an opportunity to finally come together and make some standardization through not only volunteers but the career department makes me extremely worried for public safety that it could go away with no accountability to make members from the career and volunteer participate.

Okay, so Mr.

Chair, sorry, follow up for that.

Um it just I understand the safety aspect, but I also understand that we've gone through again back to the uh ongoing conversation of went through 50 years of not getting this worked out.

We had HB 547 get vetoed by the governor, and that didn't work, and so now we're here trying to come up with options, and I think to try and water it down to go just to ordinance and you know, control and authority.

I think that we owe the the voter and the taxpayer of Butte Silverbow several different options based on what we've learned over not only the past year personally with our group, but looking historically on trying to come up with a framework in or out of the charter that will suffice and also go with um what statutory and state law requires at this moment, and we can all discuss what's good and bad and indifferent about the state law, but again, as our working group talked about consistently in our working group meetings, everything we can do in charter is subject to state law.

So we have to be cognizant of that and make sure that we we continue our work, but with that realization that that might be an implication down the road, Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Mr.

Denhy.

Uh a lot of questions, I think, in there.

Um first one, the reason that it was never implemented before is there was no money.

The reason that the director was able to do it for the last six months is because he got creative with the budget and we had retirements in the fund for salaries.

So he was creative just to get it just for the six months.

That's why it has never been done because it's never been funded.

We have a strong disagreement on running a department through ordinance because a lot of, if not all departments, are run through ordinance to a specific uh degree.

The state law allows the charter through charter supremacy, if it's specific enough in the charter, to run the fire department how it sees fit.

We do not have to follow state law if the community of Butte Sorbeau doesn't want to follow it.

We can make our own fire department how we want to if our charter is specific enough to meet MCA.

Ms.

Purdue Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just one quick follow-up.

And this is that's a great comment, uh, Chad, and I appreciate that.

I I just again wish the county attorney was here because we've got these legal questions that he can answer.

So hopefully next week he can answer some of more specificity.

But thank you, Chad.

Appreciate that.

Any other discussion on option two?

Okay, let's move to option three.

Option three is to affirm the director of fire services as the authority over career and volunteer fire services, subject to confirmation of compliance with state law currently under legal review.

It'll maintain a unified fire service structure with the city-county government.

It creates a formal mechanism for volunteer input through memorial memorization of the volunteer fire coordinator position in charter, and it requires follow-up ordinance to define roles, processes, and expectations.

This is Mr.

Steppen's Bailey Wick, and I'll have Mr.

Steppen review that for us.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um as presented last week, the intent behind option three, again with the underlying priority of solidifying of removing ambiguity on authority, the ability to coordinate, the ability to supervise, that option uses language to be added, removed, or revised in the current charter to make clear authority to the director of fire services.

And I when we talked to the career members on Wednesday, Tuesday, Tuesday was the day.

Those guys, they don't care about budget.

They don't care about who calls the shots.

What I heard loud and clear is they care about having confidence that the people around them, when it matters most, are trained, that they understand that they're trained, that they can coordinate effectively by knowing that they've been trained the same, and that they can not only have that comfort and confidence, but through the development of a unified department, they can put in place, call it the farm system, like it used it once was or it is in other communities where your your volunteer ranks are prepared to be career because everybody knows everybody's re following the same book, and that was really eye-opening to to listen to some of those guys that don't care about what's been happening for 50 years.

What they care about is when the chips are down that they have confidence that you know the the the brother next to them is is of the same understanding as them, and their opinion is that the only clear way to make sure, or the best way, I don't know if you can ever make sure, but the best chance you have is by clear authority through through one director and one department.

Um the other thing that I heard from them was we really need an effective volunteer department, and I think they're worried about what could potentially happen if the safeguards that are in place for the volunteer departments now are removed.

Um that it's the ultimately it's the the person who's in the emergency or in the fire, they're the ones that are likely to be most affected by the by not having clear authority with unified training and those things, and that matters to them more than what you know the the former career people had to go through with the former and current volunteers have to go through uh and that to me that message was clear from them.

Mr.

Thielen, I just want to echo what Matt said.

I mean, it was clearly eye-opening.

Um these guys going forward, they just want everybody on the same page.

One for their safety, and two, and most importantly, is public safety.

It's you and me.

I mean, if there's a fire and somebody's shows up, you want somebody that's able to go in the house.

You know, I mean, that's the first thing I'm uh I'm looking for, you know.

Hey, there's somebody in there, you need to go in, you're trained, I'm not.

Um but the the safety aspect of what they voice their concerns was paramount.

That's it above everything, and the and the F2 was second.

And but to me it would be first because you gotta have guys like Chad teaching everybody all on the and so they're all on the same page.

They have um other communities where these guys are getting trained, well, they wear different color helmets outweigh he knows what he can do, he knows what I can do, I know what he can do, and so on down the line, right?

So it all comes down to no matter what we do or what we decide.

I think we're gonna get sued anyway, so it just really doesn't matter.

Please don't say that.

You're right.

I think it was that was said by the county attorney, so it's okay.

Uh I just wanted to maybe have my input.

The reason why we have unified command is 9-11, and being in the business for eight years with Butserbo, unified command is really important, and having standards in terms of safety and having unified command and having coordination with different sorts of roles and responsibilities, whether your career or volunteer is really important on how to run an incident.

We have tested when I was there, I don't know how many times, of having mock disasters, marked mocked school shootings, mock fire department instances, marked mocked environmental disasters, mock marked, mocked.

Excuse me.

Chemical responses, and every time we did it, we did it under the unified command.

What I just read and which was given to us today doesn't really talk about unified command.

It kind of dismisses it if you look at it.

And I just looked at it.

So again, it's really important that what we do here is explain very clearly to the voters.

And I think with these three options, and let's call it for sake of argument, four options, and we might call it a fourth option when we hear from the volunteer fire departments that clarifies their issues, how they want to do it, uh make it specific on how they do it, is that we are going to the public in terms of listening sessions.

We are working, Mary and Chad and myself and uh Ray Lynn on that preliminary study.

And we are going to write a lot of it because we had agreement to a lot of it.

This is a heavy lift.

This fire coordination is a heavy lift.

It's easy to say when you have the discussion, we know 12 commissioners is a lot.

Let's move it to five.

And so this is hard.

This is hard.

So there should be options that we can hear during the public comment.

It gives us an idea of what the comment, what the public needs, and then from there have another robust robust discussion debate on what the ballot language should be.

But I think it's obvious that we need some additional information, as Cindy said from the volunteer fire departments.

And once that's happened, we would glean what the public comment would be, or what the what those options were so people can look at them and discuss them and provide information back to us.

Just that's by commercial for the night.

Mr.

Thieland.

You know, in my heart of hearts, I mean, trying to be the fixer.

You know, it's been 50 years.

Somebody needs to grow up.

You guys, if you're listening, I'm not gonna say what I'm thinking, but grow up.

Everybody needs to get along.

You need to have the safety of the community be your number one deal.

Hopefully, with with some of the things that the volunteers are going to come through with, maybe some of them will see a clear path ahead for them to where they can work well with the paid.

That's my hope.

Thank you, Mr.

Thielen.

Ms.

Purdue Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I will just uh say this.

I don't think anybody is dismissing anything.

I think there are people doing a lot of good work trying to get these options up to speed so they can be evaluated, not only individually, but also to the point of bringing it to the public, like you said, Dan, and and being able to explain it simply for each option.

And also we are also going to have to come up with um language for new a new survey, new survey questions with regard to maybe each of the options and see what that looks like.

I think that when you say unified command, um I think the volunteers from my standpoint and and getting information back and forth from them with regard to option one and possibly an option four is the idea that while they want to work together with mutual aid agreements or MOUs and to work in concert with the paid because they know that they work must work together to Ben's point.

But that said, they want autonomy to establish and work with their trustees and their folks and to try and solve the problem with relation to the state law, but I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the volunteers or the paid think any more or less about safety for our community.

I think that is the number one thing, and how it works is just a matter of the preference in trying to solve a 50-year problem.

Maybe we can, maybe we can't, because one of the options ultimately may be status quo.

And that would be sad because then we'd be kicking the can down the road.

And personally, I don't want to do that.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

As a matter of, you know, just discussing our foregoing process.

I think we want to be careful about a shotgun approach to this with too many options that are that are maybe overlapping and try to get to even maybe a binary approach to this that with two very different options.

And maybe through the public sessions other things come out of those conversations, but I'm a little worried even at three, but but especially at four.

And I don't know if we're making decisions today.

But I also know we're we're making decisions very soon, right?

And so I think ultimately, in my own opinion, I'm speaking for the committee or for the study commission, but too many options creates confusion.

And I, you know, I really think a binary approach with two very different options that the public can weigh in on would be ideal.

Thank you, Mr.

Steppen.

Mary.

Ms.

McCormick, and then Cindy.

I guess that's what happens when you don't talk that much.

But I agree with Mr.

Steppen.

I really do believe that we should just have probably two options.

But there's something when I listen to all these discussions that I really want to know, aren't the VIP volunteers part of Butte Silverbow?

I mean, sometimes I feel like if it sounds like if the volunteers are written out of the order, I decide they want to not be included in the ordinance, even if they're not included in the ordinance, aren't they part of Butte Silver Bow?

I just I just want to know that.

You mean I guess what I would really like to see is the opportunity, especially for us to set the volunteers up for success.

Whether it's however that works.

But I I think it's time to start looking about how we can make the volunteers successful.

And part of that, a big part of that, is making them feel listened to, included, and have a decision and be a part of the big decision-making processes.

So that's thank you, Mary.

Cindy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And I also agree with Mary and everyone else has spoken.

We we all have been pretty much inundated from every direction on so many things.

But for option three, I just want to conclude my thought on option three.

We really need to remember that we need to have volunteer input through some volunteer coordinator position, the one person that would be that liaison, that go-to channel for the volunteers that we don't have right now.

And I think in the past it's worked at different kind of levels with different titles, but that that's you know, one of the parts of our key implications here is that we have a coordinator, and that's actually uh in the charter.

It's it's been spoken and it becomes the the law for us to have that.

And I also remember during our meetings with the volunte uh with the paid last week is uh the trustees, I mean, where do they fall into this?

I they they didn't have a whole lot of great things to say about the trustees, and that was uh uh something that was dictated by the state.

And I don't know if we can put a little more heavy um responsibility on that or or accountability is probably a better word for the trustees since they already have been out there designated for everybody.

So let's not forget about the volunteers and some kind of representation, kind of an even playing field, sort of along the line of Mary's comments.

Thank you, Ms.

Shaw.

Ms.

Purdue Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, Cindy, to your to your point.

Um, yes, that is part of the list of information that we will get before next week's meeting, and that will include the path forward for what do the trustees look like.

What are they going to be doing?

What what accountability do they have with the volunteers?

It's all encompassing, and they've got work to do, but we've given them what we need.

They have until Monday to get it to us for next week's meeting, and that we can work on these options.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Well, so I see it, these are really, really complicated and gnarly issues that have gotten worse and worse and worse over the years to expect that the volunteers are going to come and tell us how they're going to be able to survive when they if they have to go back to a taxing unity and stuff like that.

I I think it's maybe a a little unrealistic.

Which, you know, I guess what I feel is a big sense of frustration that we're here right now having to deal with this issue.

When you know it was over a year ago that this came back from the governor telling us to deal with this, and I haven't seen, you know, anyone in our government and our chief executive or our council of commissioners really try to address this issue.

I think there's a lot of creative things.

If people really just could sit down and look at it and creative ways that we could make a strong, viable volunteer department and maintain our strong, viable paid department and figure out ways that they could work together that wouldn't be so contentious.

But I mean, I feel just this huge frustration sitting here.

How are we going to solve this problem?

It's a, you know, it's it's really frustrating that our I'm gonna say it, and that our city county officials have not taken this problem seriously, and it's kind of come to us.

So with that said, I'm happy that we're taking this on, and we're gonna come up with some two options maybe to present before the public and maybe the public, us and the public are the ones that are gonna help to try to solve this issue.

Thanks, Ms.

McCormick.

Mr.

Silk.

The fire coordinator, the volunteer coordinator position or the liaison position was uh uh recommended in the uh master plan study for the the fire service uh had completed just recently.

That was one of the recommendations that came from the director of fire services was to have that voice.

There's a voice in there right now with the fire advisory.

Now you can go ahead and say what you want about it.

I've worked in it before.

I understand how good it is, how it could be, and I also say understand how terrible it can be.

There is always a voice that a volunteer can have by simply communicating with a director of fire services.

I know that you say that you have frustration about hearing about it.

Try working in it for almost two decades and the frustration on how good it could be.

And I know that you said that, you know, why isn't anyone in local government fixed it?

And Mary, it's because we can't.

Because state law says this and state law says that, and there's two different opinions on it.

The way to fix it through local government is to bring it to a judge or to fix it right now.

There have been way better people besides us sitting at this table that have tried to fix it before.

And it's always failed.

It's a vicious circle because there's no authority to hold people accountable to make sure that the public comes first and not individual departments.

And I'm sorry about hearing my frustration that comes out with this, but going to all of your points, this has been tried before, and it hasn't worked.

And it's just continuously gonna go down this road, and I know that you say let's set the volunteers up for success.

Let's set the whole fire service up for success and not pick one side or the other.

Because I was hoping not to get into this with this commission about being on the volunteer side or being on the career side.

Worry about the public first and have the public govern and run its fire department, not each individual trustees that maybe just sign a piece of paper to fill a seat in a trustee district.

What about the commissioners that are held legally responsible for spending taxpayer dollars to go ahead and listen to the public through ordinance or MOU to run the fire department to make it better?

But hold people accountable for what they say they're going to do and what is expected of them to the public.

Thank you, Mr.

Silk.

Ms.

Purdue Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, Mary, to your point, um, yeah, it is really frustrating.

I feel the same frustration, but I don't want you to think that it's unrealistic for the volunteers to come up with a time a timeline or a list of things that are going to happen if option one is agreed to or voted on.

Um they have had decades to to think about it.

And so in my discussions today with Jason Willoughby was no problem, we will get that list to you.

We will get, you know, I said more meat on the bone, please.

We need some information and to help us make this decision and these decisions.

And so it's not unrealistic to them, even though it seems to us as lay people a big lift.

It's not because they've been thinking about this for decades.

And um I just want to I don't think that past study commissions ever worked on fire as much as we are.

I think they have kicked the can down the road, sadly, in past study commissions, or I could be wrong with what they actually accomplished.

So sadly, here we are trying to figure it out and um doing the best we can.

Thanks, Ms.

Purdue Dolan.

Um so we went through our three options.

Is there any further discussions on option one, two, and three?

Seeing none, I guess the wild card in this is waiting back for the volunteer fire departments to come up with language by Monday.

I'm in agreement with Mr.

Steppen.

I think we should make it binary, two choices, make it simple to understand, but at the same time listen to the volunteer fire department's recommendations as you said, it'll be here on Monday.

Um maybe what I was going to suggest is the hold off on all meetings until the 26th of February, so that the um reclam the the uh writing of the plenary report and that information back to us as we're writing it and having Mary review it for substance, that would be happening on the 26th of February.

However, since we have no, I mean, since we are waiting for the volunteer fire department's information for next Monday, I would uh probably suggest we meet Monday, next Monday, and listen and see what the Volunteer Fire Department has to say regarding their future or what their vision is.

Um, because I don't know right now.

And so to listen to that information, to get the information, to share the information, and have another discussion.

But I would like to maybe at the end of next week, next Monday's meeting, have a direction where we want to go.

Three options or two options or ten options.

But I think we need to move this down the line and make a decision.

And I took it very clear understanding and move forward from you, Sydney.

We have kicked this down the line for 50 years.

Well, let's give the options to the public, let them chew on it, let them give us their recommendations, let us put it in a ballot vote of two very distinct different ideas, and let the people vote on it.

I have all confidence in what the uh what the voters in this community do have done a really great job over the years.

So I will this is my vision, and I'm hopeful to hear from all of you after we're after I do this litany of discussion or my diatribe, but I think that we give it till week.

If they don't come up with anything on in next week, well, okay, we move forward.

So I entertain any other discussions from the commission.

Ms.

Purdue Dolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um yes, I think that by next week, um I think and going back to what I said at the beginning of the meeting, um, I think we need to get some more specificity with option two, because I just basically explained the first sentence of it, just saying we're uh stand-up, uh volunteer department with one chief, one department, but that's all I gave.

So I think they need to work on that and get more more meat on that to figure out that path forward, because I think that's a heavy lift as well, and then decide maybe next week what those choices and options ultimately are.

Um and I agree, I think this is, you know, we can get that done, and then we can start working on actual language and go from there.

But I think that's a good plan.

Thank you, Dan.

You're welcome.

Any other comments?

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'm I'm happy to circle back with County Attorney N Ruth to, and I think the question we're trying to get answered there is on the authority between the two chiefs, correct?

With respect to option two.

Um I have a comment or I don't know, maybe this is a question with respect to our timeline for preliminary report and the deadlines that we laid out to where what is that is it next Monday?

Is it next Monday?

I mean, do we need to come out of next Monday's meeting with what is going forward to the preliminary report so that so that there's time to write and work with the county attorney on that language?

I mean, is Monday?

I think we've kind of pushed this back a couple of weeks.

Is Monday kind of the drop data?

I think the schedule is February slash March is the in February we'll have adopt a tentative report, and then February and March public listening sessions.

Uh have the public hearing hearing in March, and then after March, it's a long place till July 7th to adopt the final report.

So we do have some time in between the March 2nd public hearing and July 7 drop did a drop dead date of adopting the final report.

So maybe my question's better.

When do we have to decide what's going in front of the public initially?

And what time does it take to put that?

You know, for our we're talking about our first public meeting being in March.

Yes.

And so what do we need to back up to from there?

Here's what I'm getting at if I'm just speaking plainly.

We we may have new information on Monday.

We expect to have new information on Monday.

I but we also need to come out of Monday with decisions, right?

And that doesn't necessarily give us a lot of time to like this.

The purpose of last week's presentation and today was to have a week to absorb and discuss and um we're we're getting to that and fully understanding we're trying to get everyone's perspectives.

It's and this is a contentious and ongoing issue, but I think thus far we've provided far more communication with with the with the affected parties than any other issue.

I don't think we went to the chief executive and said, how do you feel about city manager?

Right?

And so we're doing a lot of that now, and at some point, you know, I think we got to come out of next Monday, even with new information with a path, if we expect to meet our timeline.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

In looking at the updated timeline uh that we we have before us and is I think next on our agenda from March.

We we don't have anything really scheduled in April.

I would not really want to go maybe the first part of May, but given the information that's coming in, given the discussion that we've had, I think maybe we should push this the public hearing to gather the response on the tentative report to April.

It could be the first or second week of April, and then still have time to adjust that report to a final report.

But that gives us more time, as Matt said with this information coming in.

It'll give us time to prepare for the public listening sessions because I think at the public listening sessions, there's gonna have to be a lot of education on the different options, kind of like what was laid out, the pros and cons that you did in your presentation.

The public will need to in order to make an informed decision, they're gonna be have to be educated.

So that's gonna take some time.

And so I'm just wondering if we can adjust our timeline into the April, since we did not do anything for April or May.

Ms.

Shaw.

I agree with Lori.

We do have a little window of time here, but I'm wondering I don't know as I asked Shanna this, when would we actually put a new survey out in this picture I'm looking at on my phone here?

So we got the public listening sections well, probably not February, but during the month of March.

Is that also going to be in in conjunction with the survey at that time, do you think?

So I think that's something that the board needs to discuss.

I have heard um a little bit of conversation about a survey just related to the fire.

So if that's what we want to do, I mean I think you really need I would say a minimum of a month to get a survey out and to get a substantial amount of responses would be the minimum amount of time.

So if you do want to do a survey in that window, just kind of keep that in mind.

What's the pleasure?

We have as Lori said, April, May has opened.

I would like at least the third week of February, have the language for the fire department up and reviewed and approved.

Get that to the report.

Have that report ready, the draft tentative report ready to go, and have the PowerPoint presentation, what our presentations are going to be during the public hearing.

The ones we've talked about, including the fire did um fire department issues.

And the kid continue to move forward with that, and at the same time, may uh have Shanna get ready to send another survey out.

The only question I have is that going to be specific to the fire department, and what the questions are going to be.

Is it going to be the two binary decisions?

Or is it going to be something else which we don't know until next week?

So we have a lot of unanswered questions, but April and May are opened, and I think we should utilize them, as Matt said, to the best of our ability to get public input and then move forward.

Ms.

Perdudola.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I think all of that well said, and I think that we need actually I'm not one to punt things down the road, but I think we can't really make any decisions until we have more information.

So I think I don't want to put the cart before the horse with what the outlook looks like until we get that more information next week, and maybe we can make that determination next week, formulate that with the timeline and come up with some guideposts on what needs to happen when and with the additional time.

Um but I'm that's only one thought.

Thanks.

Mary.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Ms.

Stolen, I'd like to ask, is there I'm sure they probably didn't give you uh a time when they could have their information to you.

But you gave them a deadline of next week or Monday.

Mr.

Chair, um Mary, yes, I said we needed it for Monday's meeting.

So if I can come back to them and say, would it be better to say maybe by Friday before so we have time to read it and look at it, maybe ask any questions or formulate questions for Monday's meeting, would that be more helpful?

Ms.

McCormick.

Yes, I think that would be really helpful.

It would be helpful for me.

I like to sit down and be able to read and digest things, and then if we could, you know, if we have that information and we could all come to the meeting and we were prepared, I think we could maybe make a decision at next month's or next Monday's meeting, which would be great, if not that, the meeting after that.

But with that said, I think I agree with Lori.

I think we should look at putting the preliminary report out in April because realistically that's about when it's gonna happen anyway, and so why not, you know, we can say otherwise, but you know, this is the last major issue that we have to deal with.

I think we're gonna make a decision, maybe not next Monday, but the Monday after that, and then be able to move forward.

But you know, it's gonna take a lot of um, you know, heavy lifting to get that into the report in a in a in a clear manner for the public to understand.

Chad.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I I think we could we're totally capable of making a decision on this issue because it's a tentative report.

This is not going on the ballot.

There's things that can change in the next couple months.

This is just what we're thinking, just what we heard, and we should I believe feel very confident with picking two decisions to go ahead and move it forward.

Uh in regards to the survey, I was really hoping not I would love the fire department questions, but also I want to hear from the public on what they're thinking about uh number of commissioners, uh, how they would like those districts to be set throughout the the community, whether they're gonna be integrated in in rural, suburban, and urban areas, or there's gonna be I I just want to hear from the community more, way more than just the fire stuff.

Um selfishly, because that is truly where I'm lacking with the the understanding and um since it is so new to me.

So I would I would hope that this commission would uh help Shannon put together a survey that had more than just fire Ms.

Shaw.

This is really quick, but I noticed on my calendar here, which now it faded away on me.

Uh next, so the 9th is this coming Monday, but the weekend after that, the Monday after that is a holiday.

So I don't know if we're I I think Ray Lynn at one time said that the uh president's day, which is the 16th, that we would just take that off.

But you know, if she's not here and I mean we've this whole thing has risen to the top a little higher than we probably thought it would.

So just as a point of you know, information, we might want to make it on a Tuesday the 17th or something if we do have to meet on that week.

And I do believe that we should have a dip drop dead date to have this presentation by the 23rd.

I don't think we can go into March with it.

That's just my opinion.

Ms.

Ms.

Shah, are you talking about the presentation with the fire department on the 23rd?

No, I our preliminary report, I believe that we wanted to have that done by then.

So we've got next Monday and then the following Monday, but I understand if Mary and the rest of you they're crafting this document, it's gonna be pretty, you know.

Pretty it's substantial.

It's substantial.

So yeah, anyway, that my my thought, I would love to see us hit the 23rd is when we have it done.

Thanks.

Casey.

Uh well, I can I know that we have a lot of work to do.

I think Cindy's timeline's a little ambitious for the people writing the report.

I would recommend that we uh set a hard deadline of February 6 17th.

We meet on that Tuesday and have a final of what our options will be for the report.

We give the committee two weeks, which put you into March to write and get that report out to us.

And then whatever that second week in March is, then we review the tentative report.

I I I know that's pushing us, but that gets us to an April public hearing.

We we can do the public listening sessions late March, even into early April, but I think it's important that the committee also has time to write and review and edit the report too.

So that would be my recommendation.

Thank you.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I was going to just suggest that the other working groups, the chief executive versus the uh city county manager, the commissioners, while we're still deliberating the fire issue, each of those committees can start to think about and maybe put forward some suggested survey questions.

We can we don't have to wait till we're all the way done to come up with survey questions.

So fire is not the only one doing work here.

Um my goodness.

Do you like that?

Do you like that?

Yeah.

So that just uh seat well I was going to uh I was going to suggest the formation of a committee to start working at survey questions so that we can hit the ground running when the preliminary reports ready, but maybe the working groups themselves can work on a set of survey questions for each topic.

Ms.

McCormick I have to convey some disappointment because I thought we we'd be farther along, just like I thought that we would be the um we'd have the preliminary report out before Christmas and I made plans to go somewhere for Christmas and now I thought we'd have the preliminary report out in January, and I have made a commitment to be I have to be out of town from the 11th to the 18th of February, which means I'm you know I really I had to miss the vote on something that I worked very hard for.

I couldn't give the presentation for this, you know, the city county manager, commissioners, you know, and and I'm just whining and crying.

And now something that I really feel strongly about that I want to be part of the vote for what we're gonna put in for the fire department.

I won't probably be able to be there because I thought we wouldn't be here at this point.

So anyway, but I still agree with Lori.

I think we need to there's no way but that we're gonna I mean it's unrealistic to think that we would have that preliminary report done by the end of February.

I can tell you that.

And I mean I think Raylean would strongly support that.

It's it's it's a lot of writing, and we want to make sure we get that right.

So I think it's very more much more realistic to April.

I don't like it, but any Ms.

Perdudolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Mary, I or anyone actually, um, I don't know what in maybe Cindy would know the answer to this one.

Um what does a study a study commission in Montana look like with regard to proxy voting?

Because if you would want a proxy or no, that doesn't work.

Okay, just I thought I'd throw it out there.

One of our first decisions.

Okay.

Say that again.

I'm sorry, Cindy, it was one of our first decisions.

There would be no proxy votes.

Ms.

Casey.

I believe the county attorney, and I believe technology is here today because we did it four years ago, that if Mary wanted to join in, they could set up a Zoom meeting for her to participate in the meeting and and vote.

Uh, we said I the county attorney said no to proxy.

But there is the technology.

We did it all through COVID with the planning board with the zoning board and everything else.

So Zoom technology is available, or there might even be something better right now in today's world.

But I think uh if Mary would want to attend and attend that way, that we could make it happen.

Very good.

I do too.

It's not having a proxy vote, but having you directly here by Zoom, listening to what were the deliberations are and having your input and your vote.

So we will I think we can make that happen.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate that.

And even if that couldn't happen, I will be watching on Zoom.

So I think appreciate that if that can happen.

I'd really appreciate it.

I think that can happen.

I just hate to miss another that another opportunity.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments, concerns?

Yeah, I know.

Uh Ms.

Purdue Dolan, you were talked about an issue prior to going through the three um options that your working group um worked on, and it was about the advisory committee process.

You the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um one of the other calls I had today um at lunchtime was to talk with um Commissioner Josh O'Neill with regard to the formal statement that we all received from the fire advisory board.

Um and uh having um read and and looked at the um minutes from the January 6th uh meeting of the fire advisory board and one of the pages of that meeting um discussed drafting, said uh motion to draft a letter to the study commission uh in support of Chief Osborne being the director of fire services and maintain that after the study and may excuse me and maintain that after the study commission is concluded.

He's in charge of and oversees all fire services in Butte Silver Bow and it was motioned and seconded, and then the next sentence says all were in favor, and then um reaching out to the one volunteer who attended that meeting on the 6th, um Jonathan Rice, um for with Rocker, Rocker Chief, said that he did not vote, he did not vote yay or nay on the motion to draft a letter.

Um and so technically all were not in favor, but that aside that I just want to give you that context.

So talking with um Mr.

O'Neill um or Commissioner O'Neill, um what he thought would be best uh moving forward, they have a meeting tomorrow.

He said possibly tomorrow, hopefully we'll get everyone together.

Um and he will um revisit this statement and resend it to us hopefully on letterhead and dated and all that stuff, technically stuff that I I asked about.

Um, but to get some um buy-in, there is also an issue that they're down one commissioner as well because Mr.

Anderson um left the district and they have a new commissioner as of last week, but they have not appointed anybody to the fire advisory board.

So they have two commissioners, Ms.

Commissioner O'Neill and Commissioner Walker currently on the fire advisory board, and so um they also need the know that they need to fill that post.

Um but bottom line is they are gonna work on this tomorrow and then resend it to us, and I thought that was a great um great move forward.

But bottom line is they are going to work on this tomorrow and then resend it to us, and I thought that was a great um great move forward.

So we have clarification and we have undisputed statement from the fire advisory board.

We want to make sure that they're heard and they're heard correctly.

Um and so they're gonna do that for the commission.

And then uh Commissioner O'Neill will send that to us probably after they meet tomorrow.

And that's what I wanted.

And and Mr.

O'Neill, excuse me, I always say that, Mr.

Commissioner O'Neil gave me the permission to um update you on our call today.

Thank you.

Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I was at that meeting normally, as you everyone knows, all in favor, ayes, all opposed, nay.

There was there was no nay.

We can go ahead and go down that road.

If you do the math, it still would have passed uh with majority.

Um do what you want with that information, I guess.

Ms.

Perdudowan.

Mr.

Chair, thank you, Chad, for that.

And I should have been more specific.

Um the the motion um from Mr.

Hanley was to draft a letter, not to send the letter, not an approved letter.

It was just to draft a letter, and um even if you say all were in favor, and if it was a majority, you are correct.

Um, but it was just to draft it, not to send it.

And so I think that was the disconnect.

Um and Mr.

O Commissioner O'Neill did agree with that.

He said we should have done it a little bit more cleanly with the language, and uh I I think and from what I talked to Mr.

Rice, he said he was under the impression they were going to draft a letter and not and there would be input with regard to what the letter included once it was drafted.

But it sounds like it was drafted and sent and not to give um input further input.

So I think that's what they're gonna try and figure out tomorrow, if that makes sense.

Thanks.

I don't know if that makes sense or not.

Um this is my last comment.

This these are the kinds of reasons why fire advisory doesn't work so well is is situations like this that just keep coming back and and almost like reopening a scab.

Um so um I uh frustration is coming out a little bit tonight, and I just want to uh put that out there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Silk.

I understand that it's draft, but there was a vote.

There was A's and there's nays.

And I have voted a lot of times when I found out I should have voted nays.

And I said, God, I wish I would have changed my mind and voted with the majority.

But I think it's a legitimate vote.

We will keep that in mind, and I'm sure that Commissioner O'Neill and Fire Advisory will give us another, I guess, official letter from that group, but as I see it.

I'm not an attorney, but the question was asked.

They asked for a vote, and they got a vote, and we got the letter.

So unless things change dramatically in a day, and things are voted no ayes and everybody nays, then I guess uh we'll wait for that information.

But uh just my comment.

Thanks.

Ms.

Perdu Doah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to make again the clarification that there wasn't a vote, there was no letter to vote on.

They didn't hadn't drafted the letter yet.

It was a call to come up with a letter and send it to the commission.

And so that's how I read the minutes of this meeting.

I was not there, but in talking with the chair of the fire advisory board, he did say it wasn't clarified, so he that's why he agreed we need to come back, clarify it, take a vote, and then I offered to him to Chad's point about the frustration with the board itself.

If you meet and folks don't show up, that's on them.

And if they're not there, they don't have a vote.

But one thing that I I would suggest uh and I suggested to Mr.

O'Neill was um the idea of doing a round robin on email.

If you have a draft letter, send it to the members of the fire advisory board and get consensus through email if folks have trouble getting to a meeting.

But that was just a suggestion that I thought of at the top of my head of you know something that I've seen work in the past, and um and hopefully that will be helpful and I do appreciate the frustration because I mean I I I felt like you know, two steps forward, three steps back.

So hopefully we can get things figured out.

Thanks.

I appreciate it.

Thanks, Ms.

Purdue Dillon.

Any other comments?

I just wanted to go back to the schedule.

Maybe go.

I was just gonna ask you.

Um kind of what I heard was the week of the 16th, um, and the meeting might be on the 17th because of President's Day that the board would decide on the final options to go into the preliminary report.

I just wanted to share it.

Sounds like Mary will be gone, and Ray Lynn is watching online, and she will be gone from the 14th to the 19th.

So, you know, you can decide to keep that schedule or push it back a week.

That's up to the board.

Um, and then the tentative report, you know, roughly that second week in March.

Um, which I think is fine, and then we can kind of plan to launch the survey about the same time that the report comes out.

So people will have the report with the backup information that they can read and then also have a survey to ask their opinion on the things that are in the report.

Um, and then again, they'll have something to react to so we can start planning for those listening sessions late March, April, and that'll give us you know, two months or so to leave that survey going.

So just to kind of recap on the schedule.

Shannon, could you have an updated updated schedule next meeting?

Yeah, we'll we'll get an updated schedule and get that updated on the website as well.

Um and then if you do have ideas for survey questions, you can send them to me, but I'll start working on that so you guys kind of have something to react to as well.

Thank you very much.

Ms.

Casey.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I would recommend that we do not update our schedule on the website until we all agree because this is the timeline that is supposed to be published.

And we've published, I believe, twice now, and we will need to publish it a third time.

So I think that publication and the update of the website should maybe go hand in hand.

We do update our meetings on the website and we could put that information, but uh this is supposed to be a published uh timeline in the in the Montana standard.

So unless we're all in an agreement tonight, which I don't have any problem with, then uh but we don't have the updated updated in front of us.

So just a recommendation.

Ms.

Shaw.

Since I am so ambitious, I can't believe it is.

I was going off an old timeline, so I apologize to Mary.

She almost had a heart attack next to me.

Uh so did we decide that on the the President's Day Monday that we will have a meeting on the 17th, or are we gonna skip that week or what I didn't quite catch that part, sorry.

Um, we'll be here on the 9th.

And now if we're pushing the public uh the preliminary report to March, I don't know.

I was just curious.

I would suggest that we take the week of the 16th to the 20th off and resume on the 23rd.

Okay.

Listen to comments.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So that would be saying that the vote on what the fire services options we bring forward would be on February 23rd.

Yes.

Is that okay?

Any comments?

Ms.

Casey.

Mr.

Chair, I would just ask that maybe uh the committee could get it to us before then.

It could um so that we can make that vote on the 23rd, so that maybe we could set that deadline a little earlier, like Thursday or so of the week before.

So the committee, all of the committee has uh time to review your the new information.

Okay.

What are we doing on the 9th of February?

I might I don't know, Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So my understanding is that next week we will we will have new information to review and discuss.

Very good, yes.

Um and so I think just to try and answer your question, Laurie.

Is it is it the wishes of the commission that our working group come forward with the recommendation on the options?

So I guess I'm I'm unclear on what we can provide ahead of time if that makes sense.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Steppen.

I guess I was under the understanding that we are also kind of rushing the volunteers by getting it on February 5th or even the 9th, so that if we had it on the 9th, the information that would be great.

But if not, we were pushing it to the 23rd.

And so I was asking for that information that uh is supposedly coming within the next week.

But if it does if it doesn't happen and we don't get it, I was asking that that could be ahead of time so we would be ready to make a decision.

And I I think the decision of the two options, three options, would I think probably easiest for the working committee is to make it here with the whole group.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, thank you for that clarity.

I would suggest that we hold the line on when we expect the information from them and get that and for discussion on the ninth with a vote on the 23rd.

No, my suggestion was if we need to have a vote on the 17th, we can do that.

I was just throwing that as an option, Matt.

So if if we want to meet on the 17th to have a finalize, that's fine with me too.

But I will defer to my colleagues.

So I think um as we get more information on the 9th, then if need be, and if to maybe have the working group meet that week of the 16th, um to finalize stuff, because I know Mary said you were going to be gone.

Um I think that time frame and also Ray Lynn.

So if we were to meet that week to formalize some stuff and maybe even reach out to the county attorney with regard to the options and then uh have them start thinking about language that then we could come back on the 23rd and finalize everything with the big group, hoping fingers crossed, we get all the information we need um or most of it by next week.

Does that make sense?

It does.

Um but I'm hoping that the 23rd is the cut.

That's it.

It's a drop to the 23.

So if it doesn't come the ninth, we're gonna make a decision come hail or high water on the 23rd.

Okay.

Any comment?

Okay, so we will meet the ninth, reviewing additional information.

The 16th through the 19th, the working group will discuss and provide us with those options.

And on the 23rd, we will make a final decision on what the the uh language for the fire department will be.

Options, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, option.

You know, Lori, I've been with you all day, and I'm about at it.

Lori and I have been we were selected to jury duty today.

We were here at nine.

So both of us got on the jury duty.

So, yeah, so God dang it.

Uh okay, okay, very good.

Have the options available for the 23rd.

Any other questions?

Okay, any uh new business.

Do it.

Oh Ben, you yes, Mr.

Thielen.

Mr.

Chair, how the heck are you?

Very good, buddy.

Good.

Hey, it it's kind of old, but it's kind of new.

Um I mean, I've had a lot of people approaching me on the number of commissioners.

Um they think five and six are entirely too many.

You could do three commissioners and go along and still have your odd number of votes, let them work it out.

And and their concerns are they don't want five or six commissioners, their support staff and everything else full time, because then we're not going to be able to afford them.

You have three, then you have their support staff, make them earn their money and make their decisions instead of having five or six commissioners plus staff.

Can't afford it.

So with that, you know, love me or hate me, I really don't care, but I'm going with three.

Okay, very good.

We will have we are working on that language now, I think.

Thank you.

Love you, I hate you.

I'm going with the the last part of that, I think.

Just kidding.

So uh I I think we had discussed that, and we have, but we have voted on that.

However, it's a tentative report.

And if there's a ground swell of having three, then we will uh look at that.

Absolutely.

Mr.

Stepan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Was there, am I making this up or was based on our type and classification of city there is a minimum?

And was that was that what would drove the decision on the number?

Three was the minimum.

Okay.

You have to have a minute up three county commissioners.

I don't know if there's so if we consider ourselves a con you know consolidated city-county government, I think we we have to have a minimum of three.

Thank you.

Any more discussion?

Mr.

Silk.

I think those are all things for the survey that we would love to have feedback on.

Very good point.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Public hearing, we haven't set one, and that'll be Shannon.

We'll have these really nice schedule with different colors for us next week and pink and purple, and we'll work it out.

For the drop dead, right?

Any other matters that come up in front of us tonight?

Any other concerns?

Seeing none.

Oh wait, announcements.

Next weekly study coming.

Okay, we know that.

Okay.

Uh I would have a motion to adjourn.

I make a motion to adjourn and let's get the heck out of here.

Okay.

There's moved and seconded, we adjourned, so be it.

All in favor?

Okay.

The ayes have it.

Thank you very much.