One element of incoming Sedona Fire District Chief Kristian Kazian’s employment contract stands out as surprising. If by some caprice of this or the next Sedona Fire District Board of Directors, Chief Kazian is terminated without cause, he will be entitled to a severance package of three years’ salary plus six months’ health insurance for himself and his family.
That’s probably a really smart move on his or his attorneys’ part, given that Former Chief Nazih Hazime lasted less than two years into his three-year contract. However, Nazime was not let go either with or without cause. He resigned, and in compliance with his contractual agreement, gave the Board 60 days’ notice.
What Board of Directors would be stupid enough to fire Kazian, knowing they would have to pay his three years’ severance in addition to hiring another chief (or doing without one)?
The agreement does, however, set up a good challenge. No matter how difficult any Board of Directors might make things for Kazian, he is smart enough to stick it out, not even thinking of resigning, because it would be to his advantage to keep his nose clean, perform all his work above reproach, and if the Board is still aggravated enough with him to want him gone—whether they don’t like his management style, or whether they just don’t like a chief managing at all—the Board would then be put in the position of sticking it out, or writing a check for $405,000 or three years of his then-current salary minus taxes.
Let’s look at the major comparisons and contrasts between the two chiefs’ contracts:
Former Fire Chief Nazih Hazime |
Incoming Fire Chief Kris Kazian |
| Contract date: May 29, 2009 | Contract date: February 22, 2012 |
| Work start date: September 1, 2009 | Work start date: March 19, 2012 |
| Term: 3 years, with 3-year auto-renewing | Term: 5 years, with 1-year auto-renewing |
| Salary: $130,743.14 | Salary: $135,000.00 |
| Other benefits: vehicle for personal and business use, business-related travel and expenses, insurances (health, life, disability), retirement, clothing allowance of $750 annually, 30 days’ vacation, etc. | SAME |
| Cell phone reimbursement: $125/month; later cut to $75 | Cell phone reimbursement: $75/month |
| Travel allowance: self & wife’s travel to and stay in Sedona prior to employment, consistent with IRS rate; travel expenses incurred for him and his wife in conjunction with one trip to Michigan for purposes of closing on the sale of his home in Dearborn, Michigan, even if said closing does not take place until after Chief Hazime is employed by the District. | Travel allowance: Chief Kazian |
| Moving allowance: [a "reasonable amount" of moving expense was allotted; ask for documentation per the Freedom of Information Act to find out how much was reimbursed—allegedly not near $16,000]
“it is agreed that the District’s obligation to reimburse the moving and travel expenses for Chief Hazime’s spouse shall be limited to the sum of $2,000.” |
Moving allowance: Employer shall reimburse Employee up to $16,000.00 of his reasonable moving expenses and costs incurred in moving from Libertyville, Illinois to Sedona, Arizona as approved by the SFD Governing Board. |
| Temporary housing: “relocation allowance consisting of monthly rental or mortgage reimbursement for housing in Sedona, Arizona, in an amount not to exceed $2,400 per month for up to one year for prior home sale”
Chief and Mrs. Hazime bought a house in the Sedona Fire District right away. To ascertain whether they used any of the temporary housing allowance, ask for documentation under the FIA. |
SAME MONTHLY ALLOWANCE |
| Board discontinuity: This clause, item 5.2 termination, appeared in Chief Hazime’s contract: “Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, any newly elected board may, within 90 days of being seated after said election, terminate this contract without cause.” | Omitted in Kazian’s contract. |
| No “non-interference” clause in Hazime’s contract. | Interference: “the SFD Governing Board shall not unnecessarily interfere with the aforementioned responsibilities of Employee unless Employee’s conduct in carrying out such duties rises to the level of constituting grounds for termination for cause in accordance with Section 3 of this Agreement.” |
The above-submitted contract comparisons and contrasts are offered without judgment. The facts are presented so you can decide. The author’s opinion is that Kazian negotiated a very sharp contract, having watched the current Board of Directors in action. Former Chief Hazime did not have that luxury, nor would he have had any reason to suspect a Board could or would take over operational decisions at the level this current Board has.
Fine job. You have given an in-depth look at the Sedona Fire District. This is important information most people in the community don’t know.
Nice job of presenting the facts. I don’t blame the new Chief for trying to protect himself. It was still irresponsible to conduct a questionable process that ended up with hiring an individual who’s experience is so lacking in many areas, including resource management, budgeting, and finance, Remember that Chief Hazime was constantly attacked in these areas by the same people who made the decision to hire this new Chief.
You might want to take notice of what is going on in the Mayer Fire district with their Chief’s contract.
Arizona has laws pertaining to these contracts and whether they are binding on new Fire boards. This could become another example of the present Board setting the District taxpayers up for more lawsuits and legal fees. I’m wondering why this individual chose to make this career decision, while many highly qualified Chiefs from the State and Southwest chose not to participate because of the pending recall election.
Many people in the Fire District were upset or disappointed that the Fire Board conducted such a secretive hiring process.
Chief Kazian does have experience in resource management, budgeting and finance. Former Chief Hazime was attacked by a Board who appeared to desire to manage everything. Kazian’s contract says they cannot do that.
Please state your documentation, Mr. Heguy, that Arizona has a contractual law that supersedes the hiring contract for Kazian that says the new Board (should there be one) cannot oust him. In Hazime’s contract, it was explicit that they could. In Kazian’s contract, if any Board fires him, he’s guaranteed three years’ salary.
The courts have had rulings in the past in Arizona. The Mayer Fire board is dealing with this issue right now because of legal advice they received stating the contracts aren’t binding.
Refer to:
http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19860930_0000017.DAZ.htm/qx
I have submitted a link referencing the legal rulings regarding Fire board employment contracts in Arizona law.
My reference about Chief Kazian’s lack of experience in budgeting finance and resource management is based by his stated career assignments exclusively in Operations. According to his prior Department’s web page, the budgeting, purchasing, etc is the responsibility of the Deputy Chief over Resources, the Fire chief, and the 3 member Board.
I wish him well, but I feel it is important that we understand what justified this employment contract,
as well as his selection.
Thanks for letting me clarify.
Where is the “link referencing the legal rulings regarding Fire board employment contracts in Arizona law”? I don ‘t see it. Please post.
Sorry, it must have been deleted. Here is the link. Notice on page 3 the courts talk about the rulings.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=1986942659FSupp283_1874.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7
The court case is Tryon v. Avra Fire District in Arizona courts. I don’t know why the link doesn’t come through to you.
Thanks for your patience.
Here is a link to the lawsuit Mr. Heguy is talking about. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1986942659FSupp283_1874.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
“Arizona courts have dealt with the issue of one board binding successor boards in a few cases. In Town of Tempe v. Corbell, 17 Ariz. 1, 147 P. 745 (1915), the Arizona Supreme Court first addressed the issue. In Corbell, the town of Tempe, acting through its town council, entered into a contract for street sprinkling with Corbell for one year commencing June 1, 1912. Twelve days later, on June 13, 1912, a new council took office. Upon taking office, the new council replaced Corbell. In Corbell, the Arizona Supreme Court recognized the general rule that “a contract extending beyond the term of office of the members of a public board, such as a board of county commissioners, a municipal board, or other like controlling body representing a municipal corporation, is, if made in good faith, ordinarily a valid contract.” 17 Ariz. at 9. The court stated that the ground upon which these decisions are based is that a board is a continuous existing corporation; while the personal membership changes, the corporation continues unchanged. Id. However, the Court also recognized an exception to the general rule and chose to base its decision on that exception. The exception applies to employment contracts which are personal to the board by their nature, where the contract would limit the power of succeeding members to exercise discretion in the performance of a duty owing to the public. Id. Where a contract is personal to the board it cannot bind successors.” http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19860930_0000017.DAZ.htm/qx