Overtime Means Understaffing... Unless You're the Fire Chief

One of the most revealing moments from Tuesday night's meeting had nothing to do with the budget itself. It was a simple explanation from City Manager Grant Gager about why dispatch may need another employee. It was a perfectly reasonable explanation. The problem is that it's completely different from the explanation taxpayers were given when Livingston Fire Rescue raised the very same concerns.

During the discussion of the dispatch budget, Gager explained that dispatchers have been working a tremendous amount of overtime because the department hasn't been fully staffed. He told the Commission there have been times when dispatch had only five of its ten positions filled, explained that overtime naturally increases when positions are vacant, and said adding another dispatcher is "certainly on our radar."

I don't disagree with any of that.

In fact, I think that's exactly how a manager should look at the situation. If employees are consistently working excessive overtime because there aren't enough people to do the work, then maybe the answer isn't to expect them to keep working harder. Maybe the answer is to hire another employee.

So here's what I can't reconcile.

Why was that same logic never applied to Livingston Fire Rescue?

If you've followed this story from the beginning, you'll remember that one of the central themes of Chief Joshua Chabalowski's May 19 presentation was staffing. He talked openly about firefighters working extraordinary hours because there simply weren't enough people to cover the workload. That wasn't hidden. It was one of the reasons he came before the Commission in the first place.

Then came the disciplinary letter.

According to the Livingston Enterprise, City Manager Grant Gager accused Chief Chabalowski of insubordination and unprofessional behavior following that presentation.

The article also reports that Gager concluded: "Your comments in the presentation detail outstandingly poor management of the department."

One of the examples cited was Chief Chabalowski's discussion of a fire captain who had averaged "10.5 hours, 365 days last year," after department staff acknowledged that schedule "was too much."

Read that again.

Chief Chabalowski pointed out that an employee was working an extraordinary number of hours.

On Tuesday night, Gager pointed out that dispatchers have been working extraordinary hours.

One department gets another position.

The other department gets accused of poor management.

That's the part I can't get past.

I'm not arguing that dispatch shouldn't get another dispatcher. If dispatchers are overworked, then absolutely, they deserve more help.

What I'm asking is why the exact same circumstances led to two completely different conclusions.

When dispatch employees work excessive overtime, it's because the department needs more people.

When firefighters work excessive overtime, it's because the chief supposedly isn't managing the department correctly.

How can both of those things be true?

If working extraordinary hours is evidence that dispatch needs another employee, why wasn't it evidence that Livingston Fire Rescue needed additional staffing?

That's a fair question.

It's also one that deserves an answer.

This isn't really about dispatch, and it isn't really about the Fire Department. It's about consistency. Taxpayers should expect the same management philosophy to be applied across every city department. If excessive overtime is a staffing problem in one department, it should be a staffing problem in another. If it's considered poor management in one department, then that same standard should apply everywhere.

Either excessive overtime is evidence of understaffing, or it is evidence of poor management. It cannot be both depending on which department's budget is being discussed, which department head is asking difficult questions, or which department head is simply falling in line.