This Was Never About One Fire Chief

The real story isn't the dispute. It's how we respond to hard questions.

After reading today's article in the Livingston Enterprise, I kept coming back to the same question. Why are we still talking about this like it's a dispute between the City Manager and the Fire Chief?

I don't think that's what this is anymore.

If it were, it probably would have blown over by now. One person would leave, another person would get hired, and life would move on. But that's not what's happening, and honestly, I don't think it ever was.

The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the same question. Every time someone inside City Hall seems to challenge Grant Gager or question one of his decisions, the story starts to look awfully familiar. People who speak up somehow become the problem instead of the issues they were trying to raise. Many times those departures have included nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements. That doesn't sound like normal practice to me. I don't know every detail behind every departure, and I'm not pretending that I do. But I do know it's enough to make me wonder whether this is the kind of workplace culture we want in our local government.

Because healthy organizations don't solve problems by getting rid of the people who identify them.

They solve the problems.

Think back to where all of this started.

Before there were Facebook posts.

Before any of us had even heard the phrase "outside investigator."

Fire Department leadership stood in front of the commission and did exactly what department heads are supposed to do. They talked about staffing shortages. They talked about aging apparatus. They talked about a fire station that needs major investment. None of those things should have been controversial. In fact, if commissioners are going to make informed decisions about the budget, that's exactly the kind of information they need to hear.

What surprised me wasn't that those issues were raised. What surprised me was how quickly the conversation stopped being about the issues and started being about the people who raised them.

Somewhere along the way, we stopped talking about the problems and started talking about the messenger.

While Everyone Was Watching the Drama...

Apparently my Facebook posts are front-page news now. That's embarrassing. Not for me, but for Livingston.

Because while everyone was busy talking about Facebook, the budget quietly passed, and buried in that budget discussion were the questions that are actually going to determine what public safety looks like in Livingston five and ten years from now.

When it was my turn to speak, I asked what I thought were pretty straightforward questions.

If public safety is one of the city's strategic priorities, where is the long-term strategic plan for Livingston Fire Rescue?

I wasn't asking about tomorrow. I wasn't asking whether the ambulance levy expires in 2028. I wanted to know where we're headed as a community. What's the staffing strategy? What's the plan for replacing aging apparatus? Is there a roadmap for a north side station? How are we preparing for Livingston's future?

I listened carefully because I genuinely wanted to hear those answers. Instead, I heard an explanation of the ambulance levy process, future conversations with the public, and how capital requests work within the budget. Those are all important discussions, but they aren't the same thing as a long-term strategic plan for the Fire Department.

One of my questions did get answered, and I appreciate that.

I asked why the proposed budget included about $230,000 in fire impact fee capital expenditures when only about $40,000 had been discussed during the earlier budget meeting. The explanation was that those funds are intended for a future emergency services vehicle storage and training facility funded through fire impact fees.

That was helpful information, but it immediately made me wonder what comes next. When is that facility planned? How does it fit into the department's long-term vision? Is it part of a larger roadmap, or is it simply one project among many?

And before anyone points me to Appendix A, yes, I've read it. I even wrote an entire article explaining the difference between a list of capital requests and a true capital replacement plan.

Those aren't the same thing.

A capital replacement plan tells taxpayers what assets the city owns, when they're expected to reach the end of their useful life, what those replacements are likely to cost, and how the city intends to pay for them over time. That's the kind of roadmap that allows commissioners and taxpayers to see beyond the next budget cycle.

One thing I couldn't stop thinking about as I listened to the budget discussion was the contrast between stormwater and public safety.

Whether you agree with the stormwater project or not isn't really the point. The point is that it's obvious somebody has spent years thinking about it. There are engineering reports. There are feasibility studies. There are identified projects. There are funding strategies. There are implementation phases. Staff walked through nearly a decade of planning that led to where the city is today.

You can clearly see where the city is trying to go.

And that made me wonder...where is the roadmap for Fire and EMS?

Where is the Fire Master Plan?

Where is the staffing plan?

Where is the fleet replacement schedule?

Where is the station development plan?

Where is the grant strategy?

Those are the kinds of documents I would expect to see for one of the city's most important public safety services.

Then I realized something else.

The budget passed, and unless I completely missed it, we never really talked about the fact that there are still two Battalion Chief positions sitting vacant and unfunded. That's half of the department's Battalion Chief coverage.

Maybe there is a long-term plan for filling those positions. I hope there is. But if there is, I haven't seen it.

I didn't hear much discussion about recruitment. I didn't hear anyone talk about succession planning or what public safety should look like as Livingston continues to grow. Those are the conversations I expected us to be having.

The same thing goes for grant funding.

One question I still can't answer is what the long-term funding strategy actually looks like. Has the city been aggressively pursuing grants for Fire and EMS? Are we applying for federal opportunities? State funding? Looking at regional partnerships? Is there a strategy for staffing, apparatus replacement, or eventually building a north side station?

If all of that work is happening behind the scenes, that's great.

I'd genuinely love to see it because those are exactly the kinds of things that build confidence with the public.

This Is Bigger Than One Fire Chief

The more I think about all of this, the more I realize it really isn't about one Fire Chief, one City Manager, or even one budget meeting.

It's about leadership.

I've spent my entire career in healthcare, and one thing you learn pretty quickly is that good leaders don't want people around them who simply nod their heads and tell them everything is fine. They want the person who says, "Something isn't right," because that's how you catch problems before they become tragedies.

If a nurse tells me a patient is deteriorating, I don't accuse the nurse of creating the problem. I'm grateful they spoke up because now we have a chance to figure out what's wrong and do something about it before it's too late.

Fire departments aren't any different.

City government shouldn't be either.

The people closest to the work are often the first ones to see cracks forming.

Department heads should be able to tell commissioners when staffing isn't keeping up, when equipment is aging, or when a station is falling apart without worrying that they'll become the story.

Good leaders don't put their heads in the sand because the conversation is uncomfortable.

They lean into those conversations.

They ask more questions.

They invite people to challenge assumptions.

They understand that hard questions don't weaken an organization. Hard questions make organizations better.

The issues Fire Department leadership raised haven't magically disappeared.

The department is still operating with two Battalion Chief positions vacant.

The long-term planning questions are still there.

The staffing questions are still there.

The capital replacement questions are still there.

Those issues exist whether Josh is Fire Chief or not.

That's why I keep saying this isn't about one person.

Public safety deserves a vision that extends beyond any one Fire Chief, any one City Manager, or any one commission.

That's what good government is supposed to do.

Don't Get Distracted

I understand why headlines focus on conflict. Conflict gets attention, and personalities are always easier to write about than budgets or strategic planning.

But while everyone is arguing over personalities, the decisions that are really going to shape Livingston are quietly moving forward. Budgets get approved. Staffing decisions get made. Capital projects get prioritized. Grant opportunities come and go. Those decisions will affect this community long after today's headlines disappear, which is exactly why I wish we spent as much time talking about them as we do talking about Facebook.

If this were simply a disagreement between one City Manager and one Fire Chief,

eventually it would fade away.

But if what we're seeing is actually a pattern...

If raising difficult questions is met with investigations instead of solutions...

If the people pointing out problems become the problem...

Then this isn't one Fire Chief's issue.

It's Livingston's issue.

Because good government depends on people who are willing to ask hard questions, and it depends just as much on leaders who are willing to hear them.

That's the conversation I hope we start having.