Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Hiring Reform topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Firefighters ask to temporarily waive civil‑service entry test to hire certified EMTs

City — Firefighters Collective Bargaining Session · September 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The association proposed a temporary article allowing the city to appoint certified firefighters (fire basic + EMT) without civil‑service entry testing for a limited number of vacancies; negotiators agreed agility, medical and background checks would remain required but differed on the number of hires and pay implications.

Union negotiators proposed an amendment to allow the city to forgo the civil‑service entry test for a limited window and appoint candidates who already hold firefighter basic certification and EMT‑basic certification. The temporary article would place appointees into classification 1 with the usual probationary period and background/medical/psychological screening intact.

The city confirmed the agility test and other non‑contractual onboarding checks would remain in place, and emphasized it was not proposing to change statutory age limits (discussed as 18–36 in the session) or other qualification requirements found in state law. The association suggested prioritizing candidates who are paramedic‑certified, which union members said could require separate pay adjustments to attract paramedics.

Negotiators also disputed how many vacancies the temporary hiring article should cover: the union initially proposed allowance for six hires, suggested changing to eight to reflect added positions, and then advocated for nine hires to improve minimum staffing by adding one firefighter per shift. The city said the number could be evaluated but reiterated that a full financial picture was needed before accepting cost‑impacting proposals.

No final agreement was reached; the parties agreed to exchange numerical costings and to revisit the hiring language at the next session.