Sometimes overreaching but generally under-appreciated, citizen watchdogs are

among our best resources. They spend their evenings at public meetings keeping local government under close eye, helping guide a community’s growth while their neighbors are home watching “reality TV.”

So when we sat down in the sparse gallery at Monday’s fire board meeting – the topic of discussion being the rather wonky and arcane matter of the department’s long-term organization chart – we were pleased to find ourselves sitting behind Bob and Nancy Fortner. Not a surprise in itself – the booksellers have been monitoring local tax trends for months now, and sharing their findings with various elected officials. But while we do enjoy the company of familiar faces, we must also give credit to the Fortners for putting on the fire board’s radar screen an issue that would otherwise have gone unnoticed: the board itself.

The Fortners argue that the fire board should be expanded to five members from the present three. Amongst their reasons is the undesirability of allowing a “majority of two” to hold sway on department policies and a budget that is about to top $4 million per year. Too, there is simple logistics; on a three-person board, a conversation on department issues between any two members constitutes a legally defined public meeting, requiring such formalities as advance notice. A larger board would allow the selection of functional committees, and two members could lunch together without violating the law.

There is also the question of representation, within and without: “More board members circulating in the community raises the visibility and value of the department,” the Fortners wrote in a recent letter to commissioners.

For the last four years, this newspaper has argued for an expansion of our local fire board. Our reasoning has been largely the same as the Fortners’ – broader representation and more diversity of viewpoints to meet the needs of a growing community.

Some past fire commissioners fell back on the bromide that “no one runs for the three positions we have,” a position belied by considerable interest in the board over the past few years. A board vacancy in 1997 brought out 18 applicants; the last two board elections have brought out enough candidates to force primaries, which is more than you can say about most city council, school or park board races.

The fire board and its ad hoc committee appear thoughtful in their deliberations over the department’s future, and we are confident that their work will prove fruitful. And as to the

number of fire commissioners, that may well be beyond the scope of the current study. Well and good.

But the fire board can’t acknowledge an era of change, and then fail to change with it. After resolving the department’s structural issues, commissioners should turn their attention to expanding their own ranks, and put the matter to the voters.

A five-person fire board is long overdue; islanders deserve the chance to decide the issue for themselves. Thanks to the Fortners for bringing it back to the fore.