‘Uplifting for the morale': Hendersonville mayor apologizes to fire department for recent drama
'The police deserve what they had [a raise], but so does the fire department,' said one speaker.
'Yes, this is what we signed up for, but we also came to this job thinking the city of Hendersonville had our back and would pay us a fair living wage so we don't have to work another job,' said a Hendersonville firefighter.
PREVIOUS | Hendersonville firefighters call out mayor, claim 'personal vendetta' toward their department
Four other fire associations showed up to support HFD on Tuesday: Wilson County, Dickson County, Murfreesboro and Gallatin.
Public comment lasted over an hour and, in the end, Mayor Jamie Clary took the microphone and apologized for the recent drama.
'We've got an exceptional fire department, one of the best in the state. I had more to say and, honestly, some corrections to make. But I want to move forward. I appreciate the firefighters, I really really do. I'm prepared to respond to everything that's been said, but I think I need to say nothing more than: I'm truly sorry,' said Clary. 'I want peace, we all want peace, and I will work harder and more deliberately for peace.'
This tension between Mayor Clary and the Hendersonville Fire Department has been building for some time, boiling over after the mayor's State of the City address earlier this month.
MARCH 2025: Hendersonville approves pay raises for entire police department
While stating their support for Hendersonville police and the raises they recently received, Hendersonville Fire believes they deserve more respect from the city.
An apology from the mayor is a good first step.
'It's so uplifting for the morale of our firefighters association,' said Matt Elliott, vice president for Hendersonville's Firefighters Association. 'There's still a lot of work to be done, and we plan to hold [Clary] to that. But we appreciate the mayor validating our anger… we're looking forward to where it goes from here.'
Where it goes from here is, likely, budget discussions with the city to sort out how HFD can see a raise in the next year. Hendersonville has their next budget workshop in early May.
⏩
One key figure who has remained silent throughout this funding feud: longtime fire chief Scotty Bush.
'I've been the fire chief for 10 years in May, and my focus has always been on my staff and the citizens of the City of Hendersonville. And I will never stray from that,' Chief Bush told News 2.
Bush did not speak in direct response to Mayor Clary's apology. Instead, he praised his department for their continued 'professionalism and integrity.'
'We got 122 in the department, counting myself. I would match their skills, their interpersonal skills, their abilities to do their jobs, against anybody in the state,' Bush said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Johnston's "dream" meets a $250M reckoning
Mayor Mike Johnston's second State of the City address Monday night brimmed with Mile High optimism — invoking the word "dream" a dozen times and pitching Denver as the "capital of the New West." Yes, but: What the mayor largely skipped in his 38-minute speech was the $250 million budget hole that's about to swallow City Hall — and potentially hundreds of jobs with it. He spent barely a minute on the deficit, pledging to "minimize impact" on city workers and core services while delivering a government that will "work better and cost less." The big picture: Two years into his first term, Johnston touted historic drops in street homelessness and violent crime, downtown revitalization efforts, and a newly overhauled building permitting process. Over the next two years, he's setting his sights on tackling long-term support services for unhoused residents, theft and public drug use, stagnant downtown office demand, and a housing market that's pricing teachers and nurses out. Reality check: How the mayor plans to accomplish his ambitious goals under such severe budget constraints and with staffing slashed is the elephant not just in the room — but squarely in his lap. Between the lines: Johnston also doubled down on plans to put an $800 million "Vibrant Denver" infrastructure bond on November's ballot — a tough sell in a city facing cuts. What's next: A formal budget-balancing plan is expected this fall, likely setting off tense negotiations in City Hall. Layoff announcements could start as soon as Aug. 2. The bottom line: Johnston is urging Denverites to rally around a common vision — but with a quarter-billion-dollar shortfall, it's hard to ignore the realities crowding out the hope.
CNBC
4 days ago
- CNBC
Trump's cuts to NPR, PBS and foreign aid clear Congress
The Republican-controlled House voted 216-213 to give final passage to a bill cutting $9 billion in spending that had already been approved, sending it to President Donald Trump to become law. The cuts aimed at public media and foreign aid passed in another middle-of-the-night vote on Capitol Hill, one day after the Senate voted 51-48 after 2 a.m. Thursday to approve the measure. The measure cuts $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides funding for NPR and PBS. It cuts $8 billion more from foreign aid, including to the U.S. Agency for International Development and programs to promote global health and refugee assistance. But planned cuts to PEPFAR were removed from the package in recent days, leaving funding for the popular Bush-era foreign aid program to combat HIV/AIDS intact. The package, which was requested by the White House, passed both chambers with only Republican votes through a rarely used "rescissions" process that can bypass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. GOP leaders touted it as a bid to slash "woke and wasteful" spending by the government. "This bill tonight is part of continuing that trend of getting spending under control. Does it answer all the problems? No. Nine billion dollars, I would say, is a good start, and hopefully we do more things like this," said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. Democrats unified to oppose the package, slamming the cuts as cruel, detrimental to American leadership and a cynical attempt by the GOP to appear fiscally responsible after it added $3.3 trillion to the debt in its party-line megabill that passed Congress this month. The House voted after Republican leaders quelled a rebellion from their members on the Rules Committee who wanted a vote on requiring the government to release files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an issue that has divided the MAGA wing of the party in recent days. They placated those GOP lawmakers by approving a separate "rule," setting up a vote as soon as next week on a symbolic resolution calling for the release of certain Epstein documents. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who has proposed a separate Epstein-related measure that would carry the force of law, called the move by his party's leaders a stunt. "Congress thinks you're stupid," Massie said on X. "The rules committee passed a NON-BINDING Epstein resolution, hoping folks will accept it as real. It forces the release of NOTHING." Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the Massie proposal, co-authored by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., has "teeth." By contrast, he said, the version Republicans are advancing is "a meaningless, hortatory, fig leaf, Swiss cheese resolution that has no teeth at all." "It doesn't even have dentures. It's all cavities," Raskin said. (Democrats, eager to fan the flames of Republican infighting, have embraced to push to release Epstein documents). Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, called the domestic cuts an attempt to "defund left-wing state sponsored outlets." Other Republicans — most notably Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who voted against the measure — warned that the NPR and PBS cuts could be damaging to rural areas that rely on public broadcasting. "The public will remember who stood with Big Bird, and who strangled him," said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, D-N.M. The bill had to return to the House after the Senate trimmed it downward from $9.4 billion, removing $400 million in proposed cuts to PEPFAR, which numerous Republicans said they support. Prior to the vote, top Democrats in both chambers warned that the GOP was strangling the bipartisan nature of government funding by undoing previously approved spending on a partisan basis. They also said the rescissions package cedes too much power the executive branch. "I am deeply fearful that, at a time when appropriators must come together to defend our power of the purse, the path the majority has chosen will only survive to degrade the efficacy and credibility of what we are doing in this room," Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said before the House vote.
Chicago Tribune
5 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Managers of exotic investments want more access to your 401(k). Bad idea.
After George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, he famously decided to spend his political capital on an all-out effort to overhaul Social Security and oblige ordinary Americans to make investment decisions on a portion of their federally funded retirement income. The initiative was a high priority for Wall Street, which salivated at the opportunity to manage this massive pool of cash and earn fees on all those assets. Democrats successfully depicted Bush's Social Security reform as a threat to Americans' economic security in their golden years, and Bush's top priority fizzled without even a congressional vote. Arguably, his second term never really recovered from that failure. Two decades later, Social Security remains at risk of insolvency and will require reform of some sort, quite likely by the end of this decade. But right now we wish to address yet another Wall Street gambit to get access to more of ordinary Americans' retirement nest eggs. President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order aimed at clearing the way for employer-sponsored 401(k) plans to offer private-equity and private-credit funds as investment options, The Wall Street Journal reported. Those illiquid asset classes now are available mainly to institutional investors like endowments and pension plans, as well as high-net-worth individuals. We're concerned the net result of this maneuvering is that ordinary investors will be taking considerably more risk in their 401(k)s without even being aware of it. Private-equity firms and non-bank lenders have grown impressively over the last few decades due to substantial demand for their offerings from those sophisticated investors. But these big-time financial players — think Blackstone and Apollo Global Management — have begun to saturate their existing markets. That's where your 401(k) plan comes in. There was $12.4 trillion stashed in U.S. defined-contribution accounts at the end of last year. Managers of more exotic investments than index funds want a bigger piece of that pie. There's good reason these highly illiquid, opaque asset classes have been confined until now to institutional investors. They're riskier than stocks and bonds — the assets that dominate 401(k) plans today — and they're harder to value, providing opportunities for their managers to obscure how well (or poorly) they're doing. Such funds also are difficult to exit for their investors, who typically must remain for the duration of each fund (typically 10 years or longer). Many such funds have performed very well, which is why their participants keep investing in these firms' new offerings. But they're not for everyone, and their investors must carefully weigh the risks before taking the plunge. Making the timing of this move even worse, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, the nation's most high-profile banker, is warning that private credit funds may be heading for a 2008-style crisis. There seems to be too much money chasing too few deals, and that dynamic usually leads to reckless lending. Direct lending has ballooned in the past two decades, reaching nearly $700 billion last year, according to The Wall Street Journal. Per that model, non-bank lenders strike deals with corporations and buyout firms that rely on debt for their acquisitions. The borrowers that turn to direct lenders in lieu of traditional banks typically do so because the non-bank lenders provide more flexible terms, albeit at higher interest rates. There's a reason banks don't allow for as much flexibility in their loan covenants. When borrowers can't cover their debt payments or show other signs of financial strain, more flexible terms buy them time and often lead to them taking on even more debt to meet their cash needs. That can make the ultimate losses for the original lenders that much deeper at the point of bankruptcy. All that said, it's one thing to make these alternative funds available to those 401(k) participants who prefer to weigh their own risk tolerances and pick and choose among their options in determining their retirement-fund portfolio. It's another to stick these asset classes into so-called target-date funds that are designed to be cookie-cutter investment options for those plan participants who want a ready-made solution. And winning coveted places in those cookie-cutter portfolios increasingly is what these private-equity and private-credit firms are seeking. Some of the nation's largest administrators of 401(k) plans, like Boston-based State Street, have taken initial steps in that direction. Down that path lies many potential unhappy surprises in our opinion. And, with the Trump administration apparently enthusiastically on board, the federal government appears intent on giving the investment industry legal protections from those future aggrieved customers. Who will tap the brakes on this incautious course? With private-sector pensions essentially relegated to history, the 401(k) plan is the primary vehicle financing retirement for most Americans. Unlike pensions, these plans aren't guaranteed to provide retirees an income until the end of their days. Injecting 401(k)s with risks that heretofore were shouldered by our most sophisticated investors doesn't seem aimed mainly at ensuring more Americans have enough socked away to retire with dignity. It looks designed rather to further enrich those who already have reached the mountain top.
