Montgomery County sentinel., 1955-05-19
2020 Henderson Avenue
Wheaton, Maryland
Nav .. 1855

Dear Sir:
In the April 81 issue of the
Sentinel a story appeared to the
effect that the Kensington Fire
Board had reprimanded the Ken
sington Fire Department by re-
fusing to confirm an appointment
of the Department, except as of
April 18, although the Depart
ment had taken on the man earl
ier. In the April % issue of the
Sentinel, Mr.. Widmayer, Jr.,
President of the Board denied
there was a reprimand and sta
ted, there was an admitted hon.
est mistake by the department
and technically April 18 became
the effective date of employment
when formal approval was voted
by the Board. L would like to
make it clear, Widmayer said,
that the Boards adherance to
policy was not a "reprimand" nor
intended as Such.'"
He stated, "The relationship
and cooperation between the Fire
Department and the Fire Board
is excellent and we want to keep
it that way"
Here is what happened at the
Fire Board meeting in question
Your readers can decide the
Soundness of Mr.. Widmayer's
statements. At the April 19 meet
ing of the Board, out of the 13
members of the Board, the fol
lowing members of the Board
were present: Mr.. Widmayer, Jr.,
Mr.. Lawrence Masoner, Mr.. Dale
Montgomery, Mr.. Halle Chisholm,
Mr.. Ste phen Hotsko, and Mr.
Richard Urban. Mr.. Hawkins,
Chief of the Department and Mr..
Richardson, Sergeant of the De-
partment among others, were
present. Mr. Curtis, President Of
the Fire Department was not pre-
sent. 1t appeared that a new fire
man had been "hired" by the
Fire Department on April 5, 1855.
Several members of the Fire
Board questioned the propriety
of such hiring. AS a result of the
charges which had been made
against the Fire Department sew
eral months ago, the Board had
adopted a set of temporary regu-
lations with respect to the De-
partment. One of these regula-
tions required approval by the
Board before anyone was hired
by the Fire Department. A Board
member stated that at the pre-
vious meeting of the Board, the
Fire Department has submitted a
name to the Board, but no action
had been taken by the Board
and he had not been formally ap-
proved. Mr.. Richardson argued
that since the Board had not
raised objections to the hiring of
the man, the Department had
thought it all right to do so. The
question was raised as to who
did the hiring for the Fire De-
partment. Mr.. Hawkins, although
supporting Mr.. Richardson, sta
ted the latter did not have such
authority, but Mr.. Curtis did.
Mr.. Montgomery then stated
that right after the last meeting
he and Mr.. Masoner had advised
Mr.. Curtis not to hire the man
until he had been approved by
the Board. He expressed consid-
cradle concern over the Depart
ment's going ahead and hiring
the man. He thought the Fire De-
partment should be reprimanded.
Mr.. Dennis, a member of the Fire
Department, expressed the opin-
ion that it was all right for the
Fire Department to have done
what it did. Mr.. Urban of the
Fire Board agreed.
Mr.. Montgomery moved that
the man be discharged and new
man be hired. Mr.. Urban moved
that the man be considered hired
as of April 5, but there was no
second to this amendment. Sew
eral members of the Board felt
the Department should be repri-
manded; that the Department
should pay the man from its own
funds from April 5 to April 18;
and that the taxpayers should
not pay for such period. Finally,
the Board voted to approve hir-
ing of the man as of April 1S.
Mr.. Urban dissented.
Neither Mr.. Widmayer nor the
rest of the Board has been dis.
tinguished in the past for their
attitude toward investigating
charges against the Fire Depart
ment. l had thought that this
last meeting showed some indica.
ton of the Fire Boards recogniz.
ing its responsibilities, but per.
haps / was mistaken. Mr.. Wild.
mayors attitude with respect to
looking into charges against the
Fire Department is Illustrated by
ihn fnnA AhnA ,nrIn,, Al,n ,rr,.iA %.