City Council Faces Backlash for Ousting Fire Chief Kellogg
Citizens and taxpayers are protesting the dismissal of the popular fire chief, alleging the Democratic council is prioritizing partisan control over public safety.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The action of the city council in refusing by a decisive vote to confirm the election of Mr. Kellogg as chief of the fire department is generally condemned by citizens and property-holders irrespective of party. It is in line with the policy of the present Democratic administration which has, up to the present time, been consistently and aggressively pursued. That policy would seem to be to turn every department of the city government into a portion of the Democratic machine. The present chief of the fire department is a man whose whole heart has been in his task. By his energy and aptitude for his work, he has brought the fire department of this city to such a degree of efficiency as to challenge comparison with any department in the country. Every citizen, from the owner of a brick block to the owner of a small home, has shared in the pecuniary advantages accruing to this city by reason of the low rates of insurance that have been made for no other reason except that the insurance companies saw and appreciated the merits of the fire department. And yet, in spite of Mr. Kellogg's efficiency and in spite of his conscientious devotion to his duties, the Democratic 'bosses' have said that he must go. The charter reposes in the fire commissioners the choice of a chief, and gives to the council the right of confirmation in order that if an unfit man is appointed his appointment may be rejected. Does anyone claim that Mr. Kellogg is an unfit man or that he is incompetent? Not at all. The only possible reason that the council can have in rejecting him is that he is a Republican and not a Democrat.
“It is not proper nor is it right that the vital business interests of Seattle should be tampered with in order that a supposed partisan advantage may be gained.”
This 1892 clash over the 'politicization' of essential city services remains a core issue in local government, where professional management and political patronage continue to pull in opposite directions.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.