The city of Jamestown has filed an official response to the lawsuit by the Jamestown Professional Firefighters Association Local 137, which was originally filed with the Chautauqua County Clerk’s office at the beginning of March.

Firefighters and members of the Jamestown Professional Firefighters Association Local 137 are suing the city of Jamestown over consistently leaving management positions such as battalion chief, captain, and lieutenant unfilled with permanent appointments, and instead filling them with temporary ones, even while there is not an emergency situation.

A verified petition, petitioner’s affidavit, and petitioner’s memorandum of law have been filed with the Chautauqua County Clerk’s office with Benjamin McLaughlin, a captain in the Jamestown Fire Department and member and president of the Jamestown Professional Firefighters Association Local 137, as the petitioner. By the city not filling these management positions besides temporary appointments, the documents state that the city — specifically Mayor Kim Ecklund and Acting Fire Chief Ryan Roush — is in violation of Article V, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution, and Civil Service Law Sections 61(2) and 64. Charles DeAngelo is the attorney representing the fire department.

In the city’s response, filed by city attorney and Corporation Counsel, Elliot Raimondo, the city claims that the facts surrounding the assignments of these acting leadership assignments are being misrepresented.

“The Petitioners have misrepresented the facts surrounding the assignments of individuals assigned in an acting capacity,” Raimondo states in the response. “Any individual assigned as acting is either on the current civil service list or is approved to take the next scheduled test. Additionally, any employee serving in an acting capacity receives the appropriate upgrade in pay for the time they are in such acting position.”

Raimondo’s response continues by saying the city agrees that assigning employees in acting positions is not the preferred method of operation, but the city in making these appointments is in compliance with the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and state law. The response also states that there are many changes occurring with regard to the structure of the Fire Department that can only occur in a specific sequence. This has led to a delay in certain appointments being made, but the response says that the city is near the end of this process and anticipates all structural changes with department leadership to be finalized in the coming weeks.

Currently, the city has 13 Lieutenant positions with five vacancies, and the city says that permanent appointment into a position does not automatically guarantee that they are properly trained. According to the response, two appointed Lieutenants are not scheduled to attend the required training until September 2026, and the city has no control over the scheduling of these trainings or how many are allowed to attend — adding that historically it can take six months to a year for a newly appointed Lieutenant to be able to take the necessary training.

The response cites the five individuals currently serving as acting Lieutenant have anywhere from over nine to over 17 years of experience in the Jamestown Fire Department. Specifically it states, “FF Hendrickson over 17 years of experience, FF Johnson over 17 years of experience, FF Akin over nine years of experience, FF Wadsworth 20 plus years of experience, FF Amatuzzo over 14 years of experience.”

“These individuals are hardly ‘unqualified’ to serve in an ‘acting’ position until such time as the structure changes are complete and permanent appointments can be made,” Raimondo’s response continues. “Further, some of these individuals have been in ‘acting’ roles since 2025. There is no immediate danger to the public or members of the Jamestown Fire Department.”

The rest of the response acknowledges the petitioners and the city are in the midst of an arbitration on these same issues, which was first heard on March 12 and scheduled for continuation on April 28. Methods to resolve the dispute are underway, including day one of an arbitration hearing being completed, and with the Arbitrator — officially designated to be Mark Gaston Pearce — encouraging parties to meet before April 28 to attempt a settlement of the dispute. The parties have agreed to meet to attempt a negotiation, and it is noted by the response that the union and the city are bound by the terms and conditions in the collective bargaining agreement to “exhaust administrative remedies prior to commencement of an Article 78 proceeding.” If unable to agree on a settlement, the arbitration will continue and the arbitrator will render a decision.

New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 78 Section 7801(1) requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to commencing a judicial proceeding. The city’s response says the already ongoing arbitration is an “adequate remedy” to address these ongoing issues.

As the firefighters’ attorney, DeAngelo responded to the city’s filed lawsuit response in an official Attorney Reply Affirmation. DeAngelo says that the city’s answer is not verified, “so it must be struck from the record pursuant to CPLR 7804(d).” DeAngelo adds that the principals — the union president with firsthand knowledge, not the union’s attorney — should verify the statements made in the answer, which DeAngelo says the union’s petitioner did and the city did not by having its lawyer attesting, signing the answer and accompanying the affidavit.

“Nowhere in this case as the city did not contest that they are assigning firefighters out of title,” DeAngelo states. “Their whole argument is basically that they are allowed to do that. It is a pure question of law for the court. Therefore, the question before the Court is a simple question of law. Is the City of Jamestown violating Civil Service Law 61(2) when it regularly and routinely assigns Firefighters to work out of title where the Firefighters have not been properly appointed to the position or received the required supervisory training.”

As far as the pending arbitration is concerned, DeAngelo says that arbitration clauses in Union Bargaining Agreements are creatures of the contract, vested with the authority to interpret the contract, and are not judges. He adds that no one has ever brought an Article 78 out-of-title work case to an arbitrator.

“That issue is within the sole province of the courts — enforcing Civil Service Law is not done by arbitrators, it is done by the courts,” DeAngelo said. “Arbitrators do not make Civil Service Law rulings — that suggestion is ridiculous.”

DeAngelo refers to the arbitration case as “the stepbrother” of this case, saying that by this case the union is trying to stop regular and recurring out-of-title assignments under Civil Service Law Section 61 and 64, while with the arbitration is asking the city to fill the vacancies. DeAngelo cites multiple cases — also brought up in the Petitioners’ Memorandum of Law — where the court, not the arbitrator, decided the issue over whether an employer was violating Civil Service Law 61 and 64.