Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated testimony on HB 547 as Butte‑Silver Bow fire governance divides volunteers and officials
Summary
Butte‑Silver Bow leaders and firefighters split over HB 547, a bill intended to clarify chain of command in the consolidated government. Supporters—paid chiefs, county attorney and city executives—said unified command will improve safety and training; rural trustees and volunteer leaders warned it would erode trustee authority and could threaten volunteer districts and pensions.
Representative Scott DeMorse presented House Bill 547 as a targeted change for Butte‑Silver Bow’s unique consolidated government, saying the bill would remove confusing 1979 language and return clarity to which authorities administer fire departments within the consolidated charter. He described the measure as a cleanup to allow the director of fire services to coordinate paid and volunteer departments under a clear chain of command.
Proponents from the Butte‑Silver Bow professional and volunteer leadership framed the bill as a public‑safety measure. Battalion Chief Chad Silk described the need for a single standardized approach and coordinated training so that firefighters and incident commanders can rely on a predictable response: “We need a clear standardized set of operations that everyone follows, regardless of volunteer or career members.” JP Gallagher, the county CEO, and union leaders said the change would reduce confusion at scenes and improve response efficiency.
But multiple rural trustees and volunteer leaders rose in opposition. Jason Willoughby, chair of a rural fire district board, said the bill “poses a significant threat to the autonomy and rights of the rural fire districts” and warned it could erase trustee authority established under Title 7, chapter 33. Opponents repeatedly expressed concern about losing local control over budgets, trustees’ roles and volunteer pension protections. Several witnesses said they had learned about the draft late and sought more local input.
Committee members pressed both sides on whether a mediated interim process could produce agreed changes; sponsors and some opponents said they would participate in a mediated table to try to reach compromise. The sponsor added a technical amendment during the committee record to preserve volunteer pension benefits and to clarify that the bill is intended as a cleanup rather than a pension or budgetary overhaul.
By the end of the hearing the committee had asked staff to coordinate potential clarifications and noted interest in an interim study if the parties ask for more time to negotiate. The hearing brought out sustained public comment and exposed long‑running friction in Butte‑Silver Bow about local control, budgets and operational command.
