Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weed council hears appeal of fire chief’s termination, will deliberate in closed session
Summary
The Weed City Council held a public administrative appeal over Fire Chief Steven Duncan’s termination by Interim City Manager Steven Baker; Baker’s attorney argued the removal was lawful under the firefighter Bill of Rights, while Duncan’s counsel said the action lacked evidentiary support and pointed to alleged hostile conduct by a council member; the council adjourned to closed session and will issue a written determination within 30 days.
The Weed City Council convened a public administrative appeal on the termination of Fire Chief Steven Duncan, heard under Government Code §3254(c) (the firefighter Bill of Rights). Pamela Grim, attorney for Interim City Manager Steven Baker, told the council that Baker provided written notice citing “incompatibility of management styles,” a statutory ground the attorney said is sufficient for removal of an at‑will fire chief. Grim argued Baker followed the process required by law and city policy and that the council may affirm the termination on that basis.
Isam, who represented Mr. Duncan, challenged the sufficiency of the stated reason and urged a fuller hearing. Isam said Duncan had served the city for 35 years with a strong record and alleged the termination reflected a hostile work environment linked to actions by Council Member Mazon. He questioned how the stated incompatibility affected public safety or the fire department’s operations and asked the council to preserve the option of a hearing before an administrative law judge.
During the appeal record discussion, city counsel explained the process: the administrative appeal would be decided on the written administrative record supplemented by the brief verbal statements presented at the meeting; no witnesses would be called. Grim cited case law and city personnel rules to support the legal position that a department‑head fire chief is an at‑will employee who is entitled to a name‑clearing opportunity rather than a full evidentiary hearing.
Several members of the public spoke in support of Chief Duncan. Isaro Sanchez, speaking for firefighters and reading a letter from a colleague, praised Duncan’s leadership, mentorship and training contributions and urged the council to reconsider the suspension. Another public commenter expressed concern about fairness if certain council members participate in the closed‑session deliberations.
After receiving the parties’ statements and public comment, the council voted to adjourn to closed session to deliberate on the administrative record. The council’s procedural statement said a written decision and statement of its determination will follow within 30 calendar days.
The appeal centered on (1) whether the statutory basis of “incompatibility of management styles” met legal requirements under Government Code §3254(c) and (2) whether Mr. Duncan’s assertions about council conduct and alleged managerial dysfunction warranted a different procedural forum. The council’s written decision will be the definitive public record of its determination.
