Baker City council delays approval of new nonunion assistant chief position after questions on pay, duties

Baker City councilors on May 27 discussed but did not approve a proposal to create a new nonunion, nonexempt assistant chief of operations position in the fire department that would convert an existing part‑time floating firefighter post into a supervisory role.

The proposal would not increase the department’s overall headcount, city staff said: the city would reclassify a current part‑time floating firefighter into a titled assistant chief role and pay a modest hourly increase. Councilors pressed for more detail on the exact cost, benefit eligibility and whether the change would effectively create two different jobs — clerical/administrative duties versus firefighting — before approving the change.

City staff described the reclassification as part of a succession plan for the fire department that would give a long‑time part‑time employee more authority to supervise day‑to‑day operations and to act with delegated authority in the chief’s absence. “This is part of the succession plan that I’m trying to develop,” a city official said during discussion. Staff said the change was intended to use the employee’s experience for operations management and to create an extra layer of supervision similar to that in the police department. The city said the position would be posted and filled according to city hiring rules.

Councilors asked whether the reclassification would remove the employee from union coverage; staff confirmed the post would be nonunion and that benefits eligibility would follow the city handbook thresholds for hours worked. Councilors repeatedly asked for a precise dollar figure for the salary increase and for a comparison to adjacent classifications. At one point a councilor said the hourly increase discussed during the meeting was $3.79, and multiple councilors requested an itemized cost estimate showing the total annual impact on city payroll and benefits before taking action.

Several councilors said they were concerned that combining supervisory administrative duties and firefighter duties into one position could reduce firefighting capacity when the supervisor is working in the office. Others said the candidate already performs many of the listed duties and that formalizing the role could clarify authority during incidents. No motion to approve the position was made; council members asked staff to return with additional information and a pay‑scale comparison after the new fire chief had been on board for a short period so the council could evaluate the proposal in context.

Councilors also raised operational questions about scheduling to ensure supervisory coverage seven days a week and whether the city could afford to post and fill a separate clerical position instead of expanding an existing firefighter’s duties. The council’s discussion concluded with an agreement to defer action until staff provides detailed cost and classification information for further review.