To the Editor:

A Time Magazine reporter wrote an article titled, “As Wildfires Burn, Are U.S. Cities Spending Too Much on Their Fire Departments?” And who’s the main voice in the piece? Ogdensburg’s city manager, who, it’s said, “spent the past year trying to get rid of firefighters.”

The author can answer, why him? But my guess is, he volunteered his input because he wanted a bigger platform to promote himself and his consulting business.  He’s even pictured, with his two titles below.

The pic provided by him, of course.

Maybe he’s the only one the author could find, with the title of fire chief, who actually wanted to be the poster child for cutting firefighters.

But, the article pretty much lays bare his purpose here. To use our city to advance his future prospects as a consultant for cutting public safety. Something he talked about when he first got here, saying he didn’t intend to stay on as city manager. But here we are, serving as his path to future gigs.

The article states, about the reckless cuts he’s made here, “It’s a move that he says countless cities across the country are going to have to do going forward.” There’s a promotional line. Free advertising for his consulting services.

This is what he must see (from the article): “There are 55% more career firefighters in the U.S. than there were in 1986.”

But that definitely doesn’t apply here. We had 36 firefighters in 1986. The current contract calls for a minimum of 24, which is a 33% reduction. This city manager recklessly cut it to 18, so now a 50% reduction since 1986 (information not included in the piece).

With the point the article’s making, about an increase in career firefighters, why then is Ogdensburg in the spotlight? Because the city manager couldn’t resist the attention he could get, for himself.

And as for an increase in career firefighters in the U.S., it’s well known that volunteers have decreased. So instead of a city manager, we have an unabashed advocate for cutting public safety. A consulting philosophy that feeds politicians and administrators what they want to hear about making cuts. Cuts that no respectable city manager would even attempt (violating a binding contract and ignoring all safety concerns).

But in his resume-building push, he partners with law firms to fight his battles. He simply doesn’t care how much taxpayer money is spent on legal services, because losing the battles, that he’s brought on, is something he can’t let happen. Not for the city’s sake, but for his record.

What city manager would have access to such a major news publication, only to talk about cutting public safety? And even though he calls himself a fire chief, his main goal, as laid out in the article, is cutting firefighters.

He made himself the sole voice, in talking about a city he’s lived in (part-time) for less than six months. He obviously didn’t want other local voices heard. And he allowed Ogdensburg citizens, and career public servants, to be characterized in a disparaging way. All to further his own agenda. How is that good for Ogdensburg?

A few things in the Time article need some truth. Something the author should’ve provided.

Most importantly, the city manager downplays the threat and danger of structure fires. He states, “the number of structure fires is going down”. We’ve had four here since the end of May; all four considered total losses (one, a garage threatening homes), with close to two dozen residents displaced. But he wasn’t here for three of the four, because he’s still in Tupper Lake much of the time.

On a side note, he's now trying to convince people on facebook, that a response time, from outlying volunteer fire departments, of “15 min +/-“, is just as safe as 3 min +/- (with what was, prior to his cuts, an effective staffing level with two engines).

So he’ll say anything, to try to justify his position. If arriving 12 minutes sooner to a structure fire, with adequate personnel and equipment, doesn’t make a difference, everything I learned about firefighting was wrong.

The article states that the legal case against the firefighters union “was fought all the way to the state Supreme Court.” And “Jellie eventually prevailed”. Well, the Appellate Court hasn’t ruled yet, but he just wants people to believe he prevailed, and the author didn’t seek the truth.

He also said, in reference to the firefighter cuts he’s made: “All but one of the firefighters have found other jobs in city departments”. Now there’s some fiction.

One firefighter, who was laid off, went to work for the DPW for a couple weeks, but has long since moved on, and is now utilizing the firefighter training he received here, to serve a different community.

No other former Ogdensburg firefighter has found another job with a different city department.

But he just wanted to convey a narrative. That nobody was negatively affected by his damaging cuts, which is clearly not the case.

Ogdensburg has its flaws, as does any community, but being used like this, is demeaning. His tactics are seriously dividing our community. All because four politicians hired a public safety cutting consultant as city manager.

To close, the Time article did include this truth: “In 2019, 48 firefighters died on duty in the U.S., and firefighters are at a higher risk for cancer than the general population. And the structure fires that do happen are still extremely dangerous—more than 2,700 people died in home fires in 2019.”

But that information wasn’t provided by the city manager. It doesn’t help his desired narrative. One that downplays the risks, to further his self-serving agenda.

Ron Bouchard
Ogdensburg