Editor's Note: This is Part 4 of WBR Independent's ongoing coverage of Fire District No. 1. Part 1 covered the termination and appeal. Part 2 detailed the charges against Hartley. Part 3 examined the captains exam waiver.
PORT ALLEN — The attorney for terminated West Baton Rouge Parish Fire District No. 1 Deputy Chief James "Bean" Hartley argues in a formal appeal that no one involved in his investigation or firing had the legal authority to carry it out.
The appeal, filed January 30, 2026 by employment attorney Kevin Vogeltanz and obtained by WBR Independent through a public records request, challenges not just the grounds for Hartley's termination but the fundamental legality of the entire disciplinary process — beginning with who had the power to initiate it.
At the center of the dispute is Hillary R. "Butch" Browning Jr., who signed Hartley's termination letter on January 16, 2026 as "Chief, West Baton Rouge Fire Protection District No. 1." According to the appeal, Browning does not hold the classified civil service position of Fire Chief. That position was abolished by resolution of the parish council, acting as the Fire District's Board of Commissioners, in August and October 2025. The Fire Civil Service Board followed with its own resolution in December 2025.
The appeal states that Browning operates as superintendent of Fire District No. 1 through Browning Associates, LLC, a private limited liability company under contract with the parish, and argues that an LLC cannot serve as fire chief under Louisiana law.
'Only the Fire Chief'
Under West Baton Rouge Parish Ordinance Section 28-11(c), the fire chief has the authority to "hire, discipline, and dismiss all employees" of Fire District No. 1, subject to civil service rules. The appeal states that Hartley's attorney could find no parish ordinance conferring that authority on any other official — including Parish President Jason Manola, who signed investigation notices as "appointing authority" during the process.
The appeal argues that the Board of Commissioners' resolutions to abolish the fire chief position were unlawful because the position was created by parish ordinance under Section 28-11, and a resolution cannot override an ordinance. Only the parish council, acting in its legislative capacity, could repeal the ordinance that created the position. According to the appeal, no such repeal has occurred.
"To the extent the Parish Council, while acting in its authority as Council, has not repealed Sec. 28-11 in a lawfully advertised, public, and open meeting — which doesn't seem to be the case — then the position of Fire Chief remains the appointing authority of FD1 firefighters today, albeit an unfilled position," the appeal states.
The result, Vogeltanz argues, is that Hartley was neither investigated nor terminated by any lawful appointing authority — which the appeal argues renders the entire process invalid under Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 33:2560(A).
A Policy That Still Says 'Fire Chief'
The authority question is reinforced by the department's own internal policies issued after the Board of Commissioners voted to abolish the position.
Standing General Order 2025-01, a Daily Shift Operations Policy signed by Browning on September 3, 2025 — weeks after the August abolishment vote — establishes the department's chain of command. The policy states that the Chief of Operations "directly reports to the Fire Chief" and that Deputy Chiefs, in the absence of the Chief of Operations, should notify "the Fire Chief."
Browning signed the order as "Chief Butch Browning, EFO CFO, Superintendent."
The department's chain of command, as defined by its own policies, runs through a position that the Board of Commissioners voted to eliminate — yet the policies continued to reference the position and Browning continued to sign documents using the title.
Beyond the Authority Question
The appeal raises seven additional arguments, several of which build on the authority challenge.
The 60-day rule. Under the Firefighter's Bill of Rights, an investigation must be concluded within 60 days of commencement. The appeal argues that FD1 initiated its investigation on November 18, 2025, and that Hartley's termination did not take effect until January 19, 2026 — 62 days later. The appeal contends this makes the termination an "absolute nullity" under state law.
Sick leave protections. Hartley called out sick on November 9, 2025, and subsequently injured his hand at home, requiring surgery and rehabilitation. He remained on sick leave at the time of his termination. The appeal argues that under Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 33:1995, a firefighter is entitled to full pay during sickness or incapacity for up to 52 weeks, and that terminating a firefighter on sick leave effectively deprives him of that statutory protection.
FMLA interference. The appeal contends that FD1's sick leave policy — which restricted Hartley from leaving his home — unlawfully interfered with his rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. Hartley was within his 12-week FMLA leave period at the time of his termination.
No good cause. The appeal argues Hartley did not engage in the alleged misconduct, and that even if he had, the conduct did not impair the efficiency of the fire service. The appeal further argues that FD1 departed from its own progressive discipline policies and did not discipline similarly situated firefighters for comparable conduct.
Retaliation. Hartley spoke publicly at the Board of Commissioners' open meeting in October 2025, criticizing the resolution to abolish the fire chief position. The appeal states that within a month, FD1 commenced its investigation, and argues the timing raises questions about whether the stated reasons for discipline were pretextual.
The appeal also challenges the expansion of the investigation. According to the appeal, the investigation began November 18, 2025 with a single sick leave inquiry from November 9 and was expanded over two months to encompass nine areas of alleged misconduct, including charges dating back to September and October 2025. The appeal argues all of these facts were known to management before November 20, 2025, placing them outside the 60-day investigation window.
Hartley has reserved the right to amend his appeal before the hearing. A hearing date has not yet been publicly announced.
What's Next
The fire district's legal response to these claims is expected to be addressed through its motion to dismiss at the March 30 hearing, with additional proceedings scheduled for April 13. The Civil Service Board will ultimately determine the validity of these claims.
The Fire Civil Service Board accepted Hartley's appeal at its February 9 meeting. The first hearing is scheduled for March 30 at 1 p.m. Hartley had requested the hearing be scheduled at 5 p.m. to allow public attendance. The board scheduled it for 1 p.m. That hearing will address the fire district's motion to dismiss Hartley's appeal, filed by fire district attorney Tony Ingram. If the motion fails, the appeal will proceed to a hearing on the merits.
WBR Independent will be at the March 30 hearing and will continue to report on this story as it develops.
https://www.scribd.com/document/1014923650/Notice-of-Appeal
WBR Independent obtained the appeal document through a public records request to the Fire District No. 1 Civil Service Board. This article is based on the claims made in the appeal. The allegations have not been adjudicated. Parish President Jason Manola denied in February that the termination was connected to Hartley's public criticism of department leadership. Previous coverage and responses are available in Parts 1-3 at WBRIndependent.com.
John Summers is the editor of WBR Independent. Contact: editor@wbrindependent.com
