Commentary: Mayor Calls Out Union President for Misleading the Council – The Davis City Council had already voted 4-1 to have a continued discussion on the proposed changes to fire staffing and boundary drops, as recommended by Interim Chief Scott Kenley on Tuesday night. The discussion focused on the idea of sitting the firefighters down, along with other interested parties, to further discuss these new ideas.
Following the vote, Union President Bobby Weist got up and said, “I just wanted to make sure… that we will be involved in this process… As of yet we have not been involved in any of the things that have gone on within our department. The union’s been excluded from all of that. There has not been one minute of discussion.”
Except that Mr. Weist was not telling the truth.
Suddenly Joe Krovoza looked less like the mayor and more like his vocation, an attorney, cross-examining a witness. “Except that there were sessions in the report that were unattended,” he said.
“There was one,” Mr. Weist started.
“There was one and a few people came,” the mayor continued.
“I was there,” Mr. Weist suddenly said. “There was one and it was four days after you had gotten it.”
The mayor clarified, “So there was involvement. You just said there was no involvement.”
“There was no involvement in the development of the report, correct,” Mr. Weist continued. “After you had seen the draft, just prior to it coming to council.”
The truth is that the interim chief had, on repeated occasions, attempted to get input from the rank and file firefighters and the union. The firefighters repeatedly skipped meetings and avoided giving the chief input.
Finally the chief held a mandatory meeting, likely the one that Mr. Weist referred to at the end of the item on Tuesday, and only four members of the department showed up. For Mr. Weist to come up and complain that they were excluded is outright dishonest.
But, in fact, it was par for the course on Tuesday night. The interim chief recommended two major changes to the fire department – one which would end the boundaries between the UC Davis fire department and the Davis fire department. The other would reduce the shift size from 12 to 11, which would create three three-person fire engines and a two-person staffing of a rescue apparatus.
The Vanguard has reported that for nearly 18 years, Mr. Weist has been blocking any effort to drop the boundaries between UC Davis and the city of Davis, even though it clearly would vastly improve public safety by enabling the closest unit to respond to an emergency, regardless of department.
Against 18 years of blocking this simple move that would vastly improve public safety, it was ironic that of the members of the department, 15 of whom showed up on Tuesday night, several of them complained that staffing changes would put the public in greater jeopardy.
If anything, the changes that the chief recommended, particularly moving to 11 personnel, rather than the current 12 and previous 10, make the public more safe.
Right now, the department is larger but more immobile, transporting its full arsenal of equipment and personnel to each call. By allowing for three fire engines and one rescue apparatus, the department becomes smaller, but more mobile and more flexible in its response.
Now, the rescue apparatus is an independent unit that can respond to any emergency from a central location. That prevents what currently happens, which is the shifting of personnel and equipment from the periphery to the central fire station. It also allows a quick and rapid response to a fire in any part of the city.
But perhaps the unspoken part of this that is most appalling is that the firefighters somehow believe that they are entitled to everything. They are one of two bargaining units that have not agreed to the new contract and so, while most of the other employees have taken their concessions, the firefighters have not.
They have done this despite the fact that, over the last 14 years, the firefighters have gotten more than their share. Starting in 1999, they got the enhanced 3% at 50 benefits, they got four on an engine, and they got a 36% pay increase from 2004 to 2008.
There was Bobby Weist, whose union has not approved the new MOU, who receives about $210,000 in total compensation including salary, overtime, medical, PERS, retirement medical and other benefits, arguing against changes that might save the city millions over the long term.
He and his guys want to complain about public safety? They are taking their cake from the taxpayers and trying to eat it as well. If they are so concerned with public safety, why not offer to take concessions so that the city can afford to keep the current staffing arrangement?
The truth is that the Vanguard calculated three years ago that 85% of California’s cities are served with firefighting forces predominantly made up of three-person crews. Somehow these units manage to fight fires without having the full two in and two out on a single unit.
The firefighters were quick to give the one or two examples a year where this staffing arrangement might make a difference – might make a difference.
At that same time, the solution always offered by the union is status quo. There is never thinking outside of the box. For instance, as Councilmember Brett Lee brought up, how about a conversation with UC Davis about the prospect of using student firefighters as the fourth person for the brief time between when the first unit shows up to make an immediate entry and the time the second unit arrives? Under this structure, both UC Davis and the rescue apparatus would be included as possible second units.
We also could look into training the police who are often the first on a scene, because their units are more mobile, to be the fourth person for those critical 90 seconds, one or two times each year.
The firefighters are not thinking outside the box, nor are they participating in the possible solutions. They think they can show up in mass numbers and intimidate the council, just like in years past.
The firefighters are no longer united behind this antiquated vision, either. While 15 firefighters showed up on Tuesday, that means 21 still on staff did not. It has been nearly four years since the Aaronson report came out, when every firefighter in the city showed up – those days are over.
There is a contingent of firefighters that no longer support the union president, and the council wants to hear from them, as well. Unfortunately, many are still too intimidated by the union to speak out.
The citizens of Davis deserve an honest discussion. Bobby Weist and his crew tried obfuscation and intimidation again, but this time, it did not work.
The reality is that there were at least three votes to make the changes on Tuesday night. The council does not prefer to take that approach and will definitely embrace a discussion, but if the firefighters want to play the role of obstructionists to reform, they will find out that they do not have three votes to block the changes.
The truth is that we can have a very safe community with a good firefighting force without bankrupting this city. Thankfully, the council is no longer bought and paid for by the firefighters’ union, but they still need the help.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The reality is that there were at least three votes to make the changes on Tuesday night.”
At least three and there had better be five when/if the time comes.
“The firefighters are no long united behind this antiquated vision either. While 15 firefighters showed up on Tuesday, that means 21 still on staff did not.”
“The firefighters repeated skipped meetings and avoided giving the chief input. Finally the Chief held a mandatory meeting, likely the one that Mr. Weist referred to at the end of the item on Tuesday, and only four members of the department showed up.”
I’m not sure that the rank and file really has any split whatsoever. Did anyone tell you that the numbers reflected discontent?
A lot more appeared for Bobby’s off-duty council show than for the Chief’s meetings to get their input (4 employees total) including the “mandatory” meeting. Most organizations would call this behavior insubordination, and fire their asses.
How can such a disfunctional outfit even continue in operation, given the purposeful, total disrespect the firefighters show their leadership and the department and its mission? Disgraceful!
“I’m not sure that the rank and file really has any split whatsoever. Did anyone tell you that the numbers reflected discontent?”
No one told me the numbers reflected the split, but by sheer coincidence none of the firefighters known to be disgruntled or critical of Weist were in attendance.
“…none of the firefighters known to be disgruntled or critical of Weist were in attendance.”
I stand corrected….or, at least, better informed.
What explains the 17’s (21-4) failure to follow their chief’s order to attend the mandatory meeting and all 21’s lack of support for the chief’s effort to engage them? (How many are known to be disgruntled with/critical of Weist? Enough to turn the place around?)
It sounds like there are a lot of assumptions going into this article.
There should be a third arm of the Vanguard to join Reisig Watch and Water Watch. WEIST WATCH!!!
Mr. Obvious
“There should be a third arm of the Vanguard to join Reisig Watch and Water Watch. WEIST WATCH!!!”
LOL, don’t forget the DUNNING WATCH!!!!!!!
Just Saying: there are 36 firefighters currently. I don’t know what explains their failure to attend the meeting.
“How many are known to be disgruntled with/critical of Weist? “
I don’t have a firm number on that, I know of some names.
“Enough to turn the place around?”
We need a strong chief at this point who is committed to change.
“It sounds like there are a lot of assumptions going into this article. “
This was a commentary, but what do you consider the assumptions going into the article that I should note or address?
My doctor suggested I join Weistwatchers.
“There is never thinking outside of the box. For instance, as Councilmember Brett Lee brought up, how about a conversation with UC Davis about the prospect of using student firefighters as the fourth person for the brief time between when the first unit shows up to make an immediate entry and the time the second unit arrives?”
Brett Lee is a creative thinker but I’m not sure student firefighters is a good idea since we are dealing with public safety.
Mr. T: I’m not sure if it’s workable either, but UCD uses them on their engines. Their role here would be very limited in terms of being the fourth personnel for the first 90 seconds of an entry that might occur twice a year.
“Brett Lee is a creative thinker but I’m not sure student firefighters is a good idea since we are dealing with public safety.”
I don’t know, to me it sounds like a great way to intern and get some on the job experience without having to actually enter the fire. And what a great savings for the City.
David:
“Their role here would be very limited in terms of being the fourth personnel for the first 90 seconds of an entry that might occur twice a year.”
That 4th FF, isn’t that what we’re now pay close to $200,000/yr. for now?
The easiest way to get a dedicated, competent, affordable firefighting operation back in Davis would be to contract the whole thing out to the UCD Fire Department.
A “strong chief” might help, but what good is that with a majority of those she supervises refuses to follow orders and show up at meetings, for God’s sake. What good is a strong chief with a workforce that doesn’t care about the community because they live elsewhere during their embarrassingly lengthy periods of time off?
What good is a strong chief when the department’s union feels so bold as to lie in public to the city council. This is out of hand and, maybe, unfixable until a criminal scandal is uncovered.
David and Rifkin= where were either of you Tuesday night. You are both so vocal in seeing changes (especially Rifkin) that I would have expected to see you in the Public Comment Session. The firefighters had all the power as nobody got up to speak in favor of the changes. Bobby played the majority of the CC! The CC was looking for support.
I was sitting at the press table, I don’t think it’s appropriate to sit at the press table and then engage in public comment. I have only done it once or twice. I was tempted to say something, but thought better of it. Nevertheless, the majority of the CC is in favor of these changes, Tuesday just wasn’t the right time to push them through.
“The firefighters had all the power as nobody got up to speak in favor of the changes. Bobby played the majority of the CC! The CC was looking for support.”
I don’t want my CC to lay down just because a majority of firefighters show up to try to protect their overpayed wages, benefits and work rules. I want my CC to stand up and do the right thing regardless of who is in attendance or trying to put pressure on them.
I don’t think you have to worry, there’s at least a very solid three there. I don’t have a problem with them taking their time to get this one right.
David, who was the NO vote and what was their reasoning?
The no vote was Lucas Frerichs and he told me it had to with the process and timing rather than the substance of the issue.
I think the headline of “firefighters” should be changed to “Bobby Weist” or “union head” or “union”
It is pretty clear many “firefighters,” like say, the “firefighter chief” are not attempting deception and probably wouldn’t appreciate the headline.
Although maybe that will spur them to get a find a new spokesperson.
reality: [i]”David and Rifkin= where were either of you Tuesday night. You are both so vocal in seeing changes (especially Rifkin) that I would have expected to see you in the Public Comment Session.”[/i]
I was there for public comment. My primary intent was to speak about an important part of the new MOUs which is not included in them, the second-tier pension formulas. However, I misunderstood the process and was not able to speak.
While I was in line (standing behind Sue Greenwald), Joe Krovoza said that anyone interested in speaking on an issue on the consent calendar–which is where the MOUs were placed–should step out of line and wait until your issue comes up in the consent calendar. So I duly stepped out of line and waited.
But no one on the Council pulled the MOU question. So it was never discussed and there was no public comment allowed.
Because I have family obligations, I could not stay any later. I was there for about an hour and a half, as it was. (The meeting started about 30 minutes late.) So I went home, unheard.
In addition to my comments on the second-tier pension forumulas (which continue to be absent from the new contracts), I was going to briefly add my support for the boundary change and my support for the leadership of Scott Kenley. That said, everyone on the Council knows my views on the boundary question. Well, at least those who are sharp enough to figure out who writes editorials like this one ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/our-view/this-is-a-matter-of-life-and-death/[/url]).
I should say that some months ago I met privately with Chief Kenley, Mayor Krovoza and then Mayor Pro Tempore Rochelle Swanson, and we talked about these topics. They fully understand my views.
[i]”The Davis City Council had already voted 4-1 to have a continued discussion on the proposed changes to fire staffing and boundary drops, as recommended by Interim Chief Scott Kenley on Tuesday night.”[/i]
I should add this: I think having a continued discussion is a good idea, especially with regard to the fire staffing changes. I do think Local 3494 should be invited. For months I have told Joe Krovoza that we ought to have a forum on the topic–in large part to make sure that everyone on the Council feels comfortable making a change, after a full vetting.
What disappointed me last month, when Chief Kenley gave his excellent, and long-awaited presentation, was how disinterested almost everyone on the Council was to engage in a discussion. They seemed very eager to leave that night. It was about 10:30 pm when Kenley finished, and they only allotted 15 minutes for questions, and then Lucas Frerichs complained for 7 minutes about the lateness of the hour, and then Frerichs took up another 5 minutes for his one comment/question, and with 2 minutes left, the others said nothing of substance.
After that, I again said that the Council needs to have a special session focused on these fire issues. It’s not crucial that everyone agrees. But it is crucial that all the opinions are aired, all questions are asked and answered, and hopefully a majority of the Council will make the right decisions.
In the past, when the Council was bought and paid for by Local 3494, no one was even allowed to discuss these matters. If a Sue Greenwald or Lamar Heystek would try to bring the matter up, the corrupt majority would do what Bobby Weist wanted–kill the debate without a debate.
So for nearly 20 years we have had a threat to public safety with this boundary–all because the firefighters have been so good at playing politics by corrupting members of the City Council.
And keep this in mind: this corruption is not over, even though no one now on the Council got there with firefighter money. Any Democrat on our City Council who wants to attain higher office knows that he or she cannot succeed in that effort if the public employee unions, which own the Democratic Party, are mad at them. So it would not surprise me if the ambitious Democrats on our current Council tread very lightly around Capt. Weist. He has a lot more bight that a piddly newspaper columnist like me.
[i]”He has a lot more [s]bight that[/s] [b] bite than[/b] a piddly newspaper columnist like [s]me[/s] [b]I am[/b].”[/i]
My bad. Fixed.
One more aside on these unions: It is not the case that a Democrat can easily buck the firefighters without being punished by the teachers, the plumbers, the pipefitters, the prison guards, the SEIU, etc. etc. If, Joe Krovoza, for example, has a dispute with Local 3494 which is important to Local 3494, all of the other unions are going to listen to 3494 and will vigorously work to make sure than Joe never gets elected to higher office, especially to keep him out of the legislature.
We saw an example of this with Christopher Cabaldon. He is a very talented, highly effective and hard working mayor of West Sacramento. He has done a great job for his city. He has also served effectively on regional and state boards. Cabaldon has a lot of ambition, and he hoped to make it into the Assembly.
But largely due to the unions, Cabaldon was defeated by an incompetent, unethical union hack named Mariko Yamada. The unions could not easily manipulate and control Cabaldon. They play with Yamada like she is their puppet.
I don’t completely know all the problems Cabaldon had with the unions in the first place. I was told his troubles were largely with the teachers union. He may have supported a charter school in W. Sac. But every other union from the cops to the firefighters to all the trade unions and so on flooded Yamada with cash and negatively campaigned againts Cabaldon. I was told by a Democratic lobbyist who lives in Davis that the unions even started an anti-gay whisper campaign against him.