‘A total disgrace’: Questions surround selection process after Kingston, N.S., fire chief dismissed after 22 years
Senior firefighters are sounding the alarm on what they allege was a faulty selection process for Kingston’s fire chief.
While they’re not trying to get the former chief reinstated, they want to ensure the process is fair and properly conducted in the future.
Meanwhile, the Kingston District Fire Commission maintains the commissioners are not privy to the discussions and decisions of the selection committee and therefore cannot respond to criticisms.
“I’m not out for revenge. I’m not out for trying to fix the chief and get him back in. My only concern, as it was identified right from Day 1, is that they did not follow our policy,” said Allan Hearn, who was the Kingston District Fire Department’s administrative deputy chief until he resigned in September.
Hearn, who served as a staff sergeant with the RCMP, is known in the fire department and beyond for his policy work. He is a by-the-books guy, someone who takes pride in whatever he’s tasked to do.
In 2023, two people put their names forward to be chief: Watson Armstrong, who held the position for 22 years, and Troy Bruce, who was a deputy fire chief.
It marked the first time that someone ran against Armstrong.
Hearn said Dan Lundrigan, the senior chairperson of the Kingston District Fire Commission, reached out to him for a copy of the fire department’s administrative policy and for clarification for what the fire commission was responsible for in the promotion process. In August, via email, Hearn said he spelled out exactly what was expected.
The process
Hearn said the selection committee, which consisted of three fire commissioners and two senior firefighters from the department, would each receive the complete resumés for the fire chief position prior to any discussions or interviews taking place. During the interview, the same questions would be asked of the applicants and the committee would have a week to mull over the answers and review the resumés before voting.
Alden Neiley was one of the firefighters on the selection committee. He said after the vote, he began to realize the policy wasn’t followed and began to speak out about it.
“I just feel that people should know; people are asking questions, like taxpayers,” said Neiley.
He said they didn’t receive a full resumé for either candidate. Instead, the chairperson read aloud highlights. Neiley said he discovered this after asking to read Armstrong’s application.
“The applications weren’t even completely read and if someone’s reading them off to you, you don’t soak it all in,” said Neiley.
“But Watson did give me a copy of his resumé and reading that over, I just shook my head because the written references in there told the whole story of what a loss it was going to be, or it is, to both counties and beyond.”
Neiley also alleged the chairperson went online and downloaded a list of questions that could be asked during the interview process. Each person on the selection committee picked one.
Hearn said that flies in the face of what was supposed to happen.
“In regards to the interview process, there was four questions designed for both applicants and these questions are designed for the chief and the responsibility and role that he has to take on,” said Hearn, noting the chief needs to demonstrate experience in both firefighting and human resources.
Another sticking point for Neiley was that it felt like the decision was made before they voted. He said when the commissioners entered the room, they were ready to cast a ballot.
“I said, ‘Well, are we having any discussion on this?’ And they said, ‘Well, if you have something to say, go ahead,’” Neiley recalled. “So I did. I told them my feelings of who I thought should be chief and reasons why.”
Taking a step back
When Hearn learned that Neiley didn’t receive a copy of the complete application, he was frustrated.
“With my background and the position appointed to me by the chief of the department, I couldn’t continue as the administrative deputy chief knowing that this was done improperly, and the fact of the matter is they just disregarded what they were told and did what they wanted,” Hearn said.
Both Neiley and Hearn have left their senior positions with the department, staying on, at least for now, as operators. For the last five years, Neiley had been in charge of maintenance on the trucks, making appointments and getting the vehicles inspected and serviced.
But they’re not the only ones disgruntled. Another firefighter, who was a captain, resigned from the department, and at least one other who was a senior member stepped away from his leadership role, they said.
Hearn said once he realized what happened, he wrote a letter to the firefighters.
“I thought that even as a firefighter engineer at the time, they had a right to know what took place during this process,” said Hearn. “They had a right to know that the commission did not follow the direction they were given, did not follow the policy that we created and has been in effect in various forms since January of 2016.”
The term for Kingston’s chief is every two years.
‘Not responsible’
Lundrigan said the Kingston District Fire Commission “respectfully rejects being interviewed on a fire department internal matter in which selection committee members are bound by confidentiality of the selection process.”
However, he provided a statement on the commission’s behalf.
The statement confirmed the fire department’s policy requires three fire commissioners to sit on the selection committee along with two firefighters selected by the chief’s executive to aid in the selection process. The statement noted the commission did not select the fire chief.
“As for the details of the actual selection committee, members of the selection committee are bound by confidentiality so they cannot provide any comment on the proceeding, which means that the commission is not privy to what happened within the selection committee,” the statement reads.
“The commission was not responsible for selecting the chief, it was done based on the fire department’s internal policy. The fire commission voted to accept the selection committee’s final decision.”
That decision was announced in October at the department’s monthly meeting.
Accountability requested
Armstrong was considered a frontrunner for the spot as he had been leading the department for 22 years, was well-respected throughout the fire service in Nova Scotia, and was retired from full-time employment. When word got out that he wasn’t the successful candidate, a combination of surprise and dismay was expressed by many firefighters and community members. Questions began popping up on social media, asking what happened.
“I’m not here to overturn this decision and I think that that has to be pretty clear. It’s the process and that’s all it is,” said Armstrong.
“We have a great bunch of firefighters in the department and 98 per cent of them want to do exactly what they joined up for. … They want to jump on the truck and put the gear on and go put fires out and go do cardiac arrests and go do medicals,” Armstrong said.
“But there’s always going to be a few that want to go bring the politics into it and most people don’t want that. They just want to come in and serve.”
Armstrong said he requested a letter outlining what took place and how the decision was made, but it’s gone unanswered.
“But with 46 years’ experience, and 22 as fire chief, I think I deserve a letter explaining how you made the decision, why you made the decision, and I’m still waiting for that one,” said Armstrong.
He also feels the public has a right to know who made the decision.
“Our taxpayers, 99 per cent of them, don’t even know the fire commission exists,” said Armstrong.
“If anything ever happens, it’s always the fire chief’s fault or the fire chief’s problem.”
Hearn said no one is looking to oust the new chief. But he believes an explanation is warranted.
“I’d like to say, I think it’s a total disgrace that an entity that serves the public and the ratepayers of this area did what they did and refused to explain why they did it,” Hearn said.
“If everything was done properly then I wouldn’t have a real headache over it,” added Watson.
But after everything he’s heard following the decision, he just hopes for answers.
“I just don’t want this to happen again. Somebody has to be accountable … and in my 22 years as chief, I was always accountable.”