AUBURN, IOWA – JULY 12, 2010
Councilor Potthoff held a fire training for a couple of his relatives by standing by while what is described as a “very big” pile of brush was burned within city limits with a fire truck. Mayor Beidler was not consulted. The Iowa Department of natural Resources was not consulted. Councilor Potthoff contends that he alerted his chain of command and that that was sufficient. He further contends that under the code he was authorized to hold training in city limits due to the exception wording in the code. Mayor Beidler, who claims to enforce the Auburn’s burn bans personally claims that this is incorrect and that Councilor Potthoff knew better. So begins the conversation.
CITIZEN’S VIOLATION
1. What to do about the violation.
- Charge them with the “infracture”
- Slap their fingers.
- Address at “This here” meeting.
2. Did the citizen in question get permission from the city?
- no.
- They consulted fire department who stood by with fire truck
3. Mayor Beidler claims fire was within city limits.
- Not disputed.
- Councilor Potthoff cites code 6-15-9 (Auburn, Iowa burn ban code) exception “Training fires may be conducted by volunteer fire departments in the course of training members in fire fighting techniques.”
--Department of Natural Resources was not contacted as per regulation that a training fire was to be conducted.
--- Potthoff cites elevator pit burning with no DNR consultation as precedent.
----Councilor Mead questions relevance of elevator cite.
----Potthoff points out that pit burning is conducted by the city.
----City Clerk corrects Potthoff saying the pit burn is done by “Tech” family and Auburn FD.
-----Not disputed.
---Potthoff cites regular burn event conducted by city.
----City Clerk suggests that the city is not required to get burn permit.
-----not disputed.
4. Potthoff claims he acted as a representative off the city regarding the burning action in question.
- Beidler points out that he did not notify anyone.
--Potthoff claims he notified his department head and that it is not his responsibility to make sure the city is informed.
---Potthoff claims this is a failure of the chain of command as opposed to an ordinance infraction.
5. Was anyone present for training?
- Potthoff claims sister, brother in-law, and fire chief were present.
- All first responders.
-- Training was primarily for Potthoff’s brother in-law who works at night and cannot attend regular trainings.
6. Councilor King asks if the training was discussed at the firemen’s meeting.
- Potthoff claims he talked to “Kenny” (fire chief) alone.
- Were any other firemen called?
--no.
---Beidler claims Kenny was only called as the fire was taking place.
----Potthoff claims Kenny called him before fire was lit.
7. Who lit the fire?
- “I did” – Potthoff
8. Beidler states in a questioning tone that Potthoff has copies of the burn ban ordinance.
9. Potthoff claims the fire was lit outside of corporate city limits line.
- Disputed by Councilor Finley.
10. Potthoff recommends that if there is blame, that the blame be laid on himself.
11. Beidler again claims that Kenny was not aware of fire prior to lighting.
- Potthoff claims that Kenny was in the fire station when he left with the truck.
--Not disputed further.
12. Beidler asks on what authority Potthoff used fire in question for training.
- he is the fire department training officer.
13. Potthoff wonders what the problem is given that the fire was not near any structures and wind conditions kept smoke from drifting into town.
- Beidler cites fairness to other residents that have been forced to extinguish their bonfires.
--Bonfire defined as fire bigger than 2 foot by 2 foot in volume.
14. Potthoff claims that if Kenny had objection to the burn, Potthoff should have been instructed to put it out.
- Beidler claims Kenny was not in possession of ordinance, unlike Potthoff and knew no fires were allowed within city limits.
- Not disputed.
15. Finley asks if state fire marshal has to approve controlled burns.
- For structures only.
-- Not disputed
15. King points out that the city has a dumpsite for brush the citizen could have used.
- Potthoff claims the dumpsite is for small brush and that the brush in question is large.
16. What else was on the pile?
- Potthoff claims brush only.
-- Mead claims “A bunch of other crap” was on burn pile as well.
---Potthoff claims not to have seen anything else.
17. Can you have a controlled burn in city limits?
- Not unless the state fire marshal authorizes it or the council directly approves it.
--Council only governing body within city limits that can give permission to hold controlled burn.
--- One single councilor is not authorized to grant permission without a majority vote by the council.
18. Beidler treats a citizen badly.
19. Beidler gives opinion about situation in the form of a loaded question.
20. Is the public aware of this ordinance?
- It’s been put out at least two times recently
21. Beidler claims to have visited burn sites as an enforcement entity
- But did not visit the fire in question.
22. Potthoff starts minor argument with Beidler.
23. Mead insists that the people in charge of the fire in question should be acted upon legally.
- Potthoff cites precedent.
-- Finley defends actions of cited precedent by claiming possible ignorance and that they were actions prior to the ordinance.
24. Beidler disallows Potthoff from consulting citizen in council chambers.
25. Beidler lays possible course of action before council
- Letter reminding those responsible of ordinance.
26. Potthoff reminded of amount of fine
- $50 for the first time.
27. King says that she’s ok with sending a letter and a copy of the ordinance.
- Mead disagrees.
--Potthoff seems to suggest that Mead is basing his disagreement on personal reasons.
- Zimmerman expresses no thoughts.
28. According to Beidler, this ordinance has never been enforced.
- She suggests that she personally visits sites of burn violations and makes them put fires out, but that in this case, because a fire truck was there, she did not
29. According to Beidler, the fire department is at fault because “we” (the city) didn’t know.
- This was in reaction to Potthoff saying that he passed notification of training to his chain of command.
30. According to Zimmerman, two members of the fire department were on hand to man the truck, which is the minimum number of people required.
- Beidler points out the Kenny or Randy are the gentlemen that have to be informed of a training scenario.
-- Zimmerman concurs.
---Potthoff claims that Kenny was at the station when the fire truck rolled.
----Beidler, Finley and Potthoff disagree to timeline of Kenny’s being made aware of training fire
31. Potthoff claims Beidler is not allowing non-council witnesses to speak.
-Beidler agrees suggesting that the council meeting is not the place for witnesses to speak.
- Potthoff makes the point that if there is an investigation happening, witnesses should be allowed to speak.
--Finley suggests that an investigation has already happened.
-- Potthoff wonders why he was not contacted, if he was the firefighter on site.
--- Beidler says she was “trying to get the facts”
--- Potthoff says, “Come to the one with the source of the facts.” Meaning himself.
32. Beidler again points out that Potthoff did not inform her that they were having a fire.
33. Potthoff and Beidler have a minor argument about mayoral participation in fire department affairs.
34. Mead makes a motion to charge (does not name party) with a $50 infraction.
- Before a second is made Beidler reaffirms her recommendation that parties be given a warning.
- Zimmerman suggests sending out a reminder to all citizens each year about burn ban.
--Finley seems to disagree saying, “…We can’t babysit every citizen…”
35. Before second is made King wonders what would happen if she had a big fire in the middle off her yard.
- It wouldn’t be deemed safe because of the nearby buildings
- Kings makes the point that actual fire event and theoretical fire in her yard are both inside city limits.
36. Beidler ignores motion on the floor and asks for new motion to send warning letter.
- Zimmerman clarifies proposed motion
-- First infraction: letter of warning. Second infraction: $50 fine.
- Mead seems to defend his motion on floor calling for fine.
- Finley seems to agree with motion on floor criticizing residents at the address in question but doesn’t second motion on the floor to fine.
- Beidler again ignores motion on the floor to fine and asks for motion to warn.
- King makes the motion to send warning letter.
-- Mayor allows second motion without resolving first motion.
- Potthoff seconds motion to warn.
-- Clerk suggests to Beidler that Potthoff recuse himself
--- Potthoff agrees.
- Zimmerman seconds motion to send written warning.
-- Nobody votes to approve motion to send warning at first.
- Eventually, Zimmerman votes to approve. Mead, Finley and King vote nay. Potthoff abstains.
- Motion to fine still on the floor and has not been pronounced dead.
- King makes exact same motion to send warning letter again… Zimmerman seconds.
-- Motion passes 4-0 with Potthoff abstaining.
NON-EXTENGUISH VIOLATION
37. Beidler moves on to next item on agenda: responsibility to extinguish the same fire.
- Beidler claims that according to ordinance she should have contacted Sac County Sheriff, but did not because she did not have all of the information.
- This issue is directed at the fire department. During a clarification it is suggested that the fire department had a responsibility to put the fire out once it was discovered and that they did not do so.
- According to Clerk, the city attorney has recommended that a warning letter be sent to the FD to make them aware that they have to put out unauthorized fires, as per city ordinance.
38. Finley makes a motion to send fire department a letter to make them aware of code requirements.
- King seconds.
- Motion passes 4-0 with Potthoff abstaining.
CITY COUNCILPERSON CENSURE
39. Beidler moves on to item giving the council the choice of taking action against Potthoff for violating city ordinance.
- Potthoff claims that he had a different understanding of the ordinance.
-- Beidler asks for a clarification of what Potthoff understood the law to say.
40. Beidler engages citizen who points out that mayor didn’t know the application of the ordinance.
- Beidler claims she did then demands quiet from citizen.
- Finley yells at citizen, then tells mayor to ignore citizen.
41. Potthoff suggests that since both he and the mayor didn’t know the letter of the law that all people involved do some code training.
42. Beidler asks for motion to send letter of warning to Potthoff.
- Zimmerman Indicates that the preceding conversation should be enough to set Potthoff straight.
-- Beidler wants something in writing.
---Zimmerman concedes.
- Finley wants another option.
-- Beidler suggests giving him and “infracture”
43. Beidler threatens citizen who spoke out of turn with being ask to leave room.
44. Finley seems to suggest willful perpetration of illegal fire on the part off Potthoff when she says, “I think he knew what he was doing”
- Potthoff seems to suggest that Finley cannot read his mind when he says, “Glad you can see into my head, Cindy”
45. Beidler suggests that Potthoff be given a warning in writing.
46. Finley asks Zimmerman , (who is a fireman) if he knew that they weren’t supposed to burn big fires inside city limits.
- Zimmerman indicates that they’ve done controlled fires, but does not answer the question.
-- Finley points out that they’ve always gotten permission.
---This is not disputed.
47. Beidler asks if they should send a notice to the fire department stating that the city ordinance does not allow a fire within the city limits and to please follow through with it.
- King points out that if a house needs to be burnt down for training purposes, this demand could stand in the way of it.
-- Finley points out that there would be prior approval in that case.
48. Kings asks for clarification about how they are addressing Potthoff: Councilor or firefighter.
- Potthoff expresses a preference the he be addressed as both.
- -King is unsatisfied with that and insists that it is two separate issues.
--Potthoff insists that it is the same because he holds a role in both positions.
49. Mead says, “I also think a council member shouldn’t be trying to use that ordinance against the town and should be trying to work with the town.”
- Potthoff says that he “did it as I read it.”
50. King revisits issue of in what capacity Potthoff was acting when the alleged violation of the code occurred, (councilor or fireman)
51. Mead calls infraction “Huge”
- King agrees.
52. City Clerk suggests that the council can defer this until another meeting.
- Council takes her suggestion.
--Finley makes a motion to table the discussion, King Seconds
---Approved 4-0 with Potthoff abstaining.
Copyright (c)2007-2010 Curtis Bloes All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment