I confess that I cannot make head or tail out of the conversations that are taking place in public about the proposed municipal fire department in Weathersfield. My observations are indirect, gathered through the lens of reporting by Jeff Epstein and more recently Patrick Adrian. Letters to the editor have accused the Eagle Times coverage of being weighted toward the town government position, but this is largely because the personnel of both fire departments are not inclined to speak with the media, except in the context of public meetings.

As far as I can see, largely from reading the report by John Wood, the municipal department is the right thing to do. But, after reading many articles about the proposed department, I can’t really blame the voting population of the town for turning down funding for the municipal department.

Why? Because I haven’t heard the select board members or the town manager acknowledge the emotional attachment that many express for the fire departments in public forums. Instead they advance rationalist arguments about efficiency, safety, and liability, which while accurate and sound, seem to pretty much ignore the tone of the statements they are hearing.

It would behoove the town government officials to emphasize the continuing role of the members of the existing fire departments in a reorganized municipal entity. Instead, they make it sound like the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. The town is proposing to modify the administrative aspects of fire protection services, not change fire protection utterly.

With a population of 2,800, Weathersfield is more populous than some of its immediate neighbors and less than some. Windsor has 3,400 people packed into less than half as many square miles. They have one fire house, one chief, and they are “always looking” for new call personnel, according to their website. Springfield is about the same area as Weathersfield, but has 9,200 residents, more than three times Weathersfield’s population. And yet, it has only one fire company, but they employ professionals. In fact, they are currently looking for a full-time firefighter/EMT.

West Windsor is about the same area as Windsor, but only has 1,000 people in it. They have one fire house in Brownsville with a volunteer company staffing it. Reading is the size of Weathersfield, but has fewer people in it (660) than West Windsor. They have one fire and rescue team and the webpage for it invites anyone interested to call if they want to join.

Cavendish is about the same area as Weathersfield, but is home to only 1,400 people. And yet it has two volunteer fire departments, one in Cavendish village and one in Proctorsville. News coverage of their travails is scant but the Vermont Journal has documented some of their difficulties, which make Weathersfield’s look tame. Relations between departments appear to be quite poor, and the Cavendish company is losing members to the Proctorsville company.

I have been covering small town fire departments for about 15 years and a lot has changed over that time. At town and village meetings I have listened to many fire chiefs speak of the difficulties and expense of keeping up with ongoing changes to regulations for mandatory equipment and training. The equipment is increasingly expensive and the training is not only costly, but also time consuming. The fire chief or one of the other officers had better have the time and the expertise to write grant proposals or ever more of these expenses are passed on to the local taxpayers. The volunteer fire chief in the village where I lived is a professional firefighter in a nearby city; we were lucky to have his expertise (also, he had succeeded his father at the post) and a regular stream of grants came the department’s way.

Surrounding towns were not so lucky. In addition to not being able to pull in grant money, they had trouble getting and keeping members. In central New York this was caused by a long-term trend in the centralization of employment. Over time fewer people worked in the towns where they lived and more worked some distance away where jobs were concentrated. If you are not working nearby, it is difficult to respond to calls during the day. Furthermore, many people have second or side jobs now, and that leaves less time for required training. Is the situation the same around here? The number of departments in this region that are openly and constantly looking for members suggests so, but I still need to track down the local causes.

The dispassionate conclusion of the Wood report is that Weathersfield ought to have a unified municipal department. The town manager (a former professional firefighter) and the selectboard (excepting Mr. Fuller) have been in favor and furthermore believe a paid professional fire chief would ensure that mandated regulatory paperwork is done and grant proposals are written, easing the burden on the town taxpayers (and helping to pay the chief’s salary).

But dispassionate conclusions aren’t flying here. These fire departments have put out fires and have saved people’s lives and their property. There’s nothing dispassionate about that. The Weathersfield selectboard needs to frame its position in terms of the role these departments will have going forward, not make it seem like they are simply going away. In theory, having a unified department and a paid chief will free these firefighters to fully focus on what they have done for decades, save people’s property and their lives.

Bill Chaisson is the editor of the Eagle Times.