Council Will Discuss Reduction to Three Personnel on a Fire Engine – It was the 2008 city council election campaign that first really focused my attention on the firefighters. Up until that point, they were mainly a side issue. The issue of a fourth fire station seemed, even in the pre-Lehman Brothers collapse days, to be a pipe dream. The issue of pensions and total compensation were just getting on my radar.
The firefighters’ union, for better or worse, ran the city of Davis for the better part of a decade. By the end of the 2008 election, they won two of the three seats. That meant that 7 of the last 9 councilmembers had won with their endorsement.
The power of this stranglehold was not yet in evidence in those days. Later in the same month would be a critical turning point in the affairs of the Davis Firefighters. Unbeknownst to us at the time, the Grand Jury would deliver a bombshell – a report that initially cast the firefighters as a drunken brood who slept it off at the fire station.
But there was much more in there – accusations of favoritism and retaliation against those firefighters who did not toe the line.
It was embarrassing enough that it forced then-City Manager Bill Emlen, along with Mayor Ruth Asmundson, to call for Bob Aaronson to investigate the Grand Jury’s findings.
The firefighters probably figured this would buy them time for the crisis to blow over and that they would utilize their three-councilmember stranglehold to keep the most damaging stuff out of the public light.
So in December, it was not a huge surprise that the city council voted 3-2 not to read the report. It was the single most galling move that we have seen in the six and half years of covering the city council. And yet they got away with it. At least temporarily.
The second blow to the firefighters came with the collapse of the U.S.’ – and almost the world’s – financial system. The collapse of Lehman Brothers on September 18, 2008 focused this community on fiscal issues like never before.
It was then simply a matter of connecting the dots, which we did in a mailer that was sent out in early 2010. The firefighters had benefited from a public largesse for over a decade at that point.
First, they were given four firefighters on an engine in 1999. Then they were given 3% at 50 retirement enhanced benefits. Then their salaries more than doubled from 2000 to 2009.
But just as they had won their victory in 2008, the world changed and suddenly we could no longer afford to pay this largesse of exploding compensation, enhanced retirement benefits and four firefighters on an engine.
The turning point on council came when Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson were elected without support from the firefighters – in fact, they both turned down that support. In June of 2011, with Dan Wolk having been appointed, they pushed through the first reform, the budget which, over the objections of the firefighters’ Union President and 150 other city employees, would cut $2.5 million from employee compensation.
The next election saw the completion of the political change, as the three new members of the council would win without support from the firefighters.
There were still changes that needed to be made. While the council cut $2.5 million from employee compensation in 2011, the city manager at that time dragged his heals at implementing it.
Had Paul Navazio taken the lead on implementing these cuts, there are some who believe he would be city manager today. Instead, in September of 2011, the city council hired Steve Pinkerton to oversee the reform effort. He would bring in Scott Kenley as the interim fire chief.
Back when Rose Conroy was still chief, in early 2010, the city wanted to push for a merger in the fire operations. Chief Conroy, a close ally of the union president, was resisting, and in a rare moment of courage, City Manager Emlen, upon receiving a threat from Chief Conroy that she would resign, told her that he expected her resignation on his desk the next day.
Scott Kenley was the second interim fire chief. He was brought in for his consulting expertise and the fact that he was known to be independent of union influence.
He spent several months developing an audit. But when it came time to implement the changes, the firefighters objected.
Union President Bobby Weist complained that they had been excluded from the process. It turns out, he lied. The Vanguard earlier this month reported in great detail the numerous times that the firefighters had been asked to participate in the process, but avoided doing so.
On December 18, 2012, the city council moved quickly to drop the boundaries between Davis Fire and UC Davis. This was a common sense move that had been opposed by the firefighters’ union for more than a decade.
The council agreed to “[c]reate a joint committee made up of decision makers from both the UC and City departments to develop Standard Operating Procedures maximizing the resources of both departments in the delivery of fire and life safety services to the combined jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Davis and UC Davis” as well as create one to “develop Standards of Cover document assuming the inclusion of the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Davis and UC Davis.”
The council also deferred the hiring of a permanent chief for another six months “to allow the City of Davis and UC Davis to fully analyze the feasibility of a shared management oversight concept for management of the City of Davis and the UC Davis Fire Departments.”
In a bold move, the city manager, facing the end of Scott Kenley’s term, put Police Chief Landy Black as the head of public safety, while Assistant Chief Steve Pierce will be the administrative head of the fire department.
The bigger issues still remain, and they are the changes to the response time goals and appropriate staffing levels.
In December, Scott Kenley followed the CityGate report in recommending a change from the five-minute response time to a more realistic seven-minute response time.
The bigger change is the proposal to reduce the number of firefighters on an engine from four to three, with an additional two member crew on the fire apparatus. All told, the number of personnel on each shift is being reduced to 11 members.
On Tuesday night, a round table discussion, which will feature the UC Davis Fire Department, the Davis Firefighters Local 3494 and others, will sit at this round table.
According to the staff report, “The members of the round table discussion have been identified as: Davis Fire administration; UC Fire administration; UC Davis administration; City of Davis administration; and two representatives from Local 3494.”
The structure of the round table is a presentation from Davis Fire administration on the merits of the recommendation. Local 3494 will then be given the opportunity to argue for the merits of the status quo.
The council will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the members of the round table, and the members of the public will have the opportunity to ask questions of members of the round table and/or council members, then council will have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions of the public.
The item will then be brought to council for internal discussion and action.
This is one of the most important issues faced by the Davis City Council. The council needs to hear from the public on this matter and see that they have support for a move that will not only save money, but should improve public safety.
Currently, the fire department only responds to a small number of working structure fires per year. And yet, for each call, most of them medical calls, they bring out all of their equipment whether they need it or not.
By creating a two-member rescue apparatus in addition to three three-person fire engines, the fire department will be able to respond in a smaller but more mobile manner to fires.
By creating the boundary drop, UC Davis fire crews can respond in town if they are the closest unit. Under the existing structure, the first responder must be a city of Davis unit, regardless of response time.
We know from the December 18, 2012 City Council meeting that Union President Bobby Weist has no problem outright lying to council in order to keep the status quo.
Following the vote in December, Union President Bobby Weist got up and said, ” I just wanted to make sure, Council Member Lee brought it up, that we will be involved in this process. As of, up to, 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, one minute of discussion umm, with exception of a grievance. Uh, so I hope that we will be noticed when this is going to happen and we’re given ample time to–this is the holidays (laughs)–we’re given ample time to make it. “
However, Interim Chief Scott Kenley provided documentation that demonstrated that he had on numerous occasions asked the firefighters to participate in the audit process.
He said, “Throughout the process, I had an open door policy whereby any member of the Department was free to discuss with me any subject.”
The audit was completed in draft form on October 26 and distributed to the City Council the next day, Saturday, October 27, 2012. All of the captains and stations received the audit the following Monday.
He said, “I scheduled a staff meeting for Monday, November 5th, with the Management Audit as the primary topic of discussion. I received no comments from the members of the department from October 29th to the meeting on November 5th..”
Chief Kenley continued, “At the meeting on the 5th, four captains attended the meeting, the Union President, Vice President and Secretary, and one newly promoted captain. The meeting lasted ten minutes and when it came time to discuss the management audit, there were no comments from the members present.”
The council so far has held strong, but they will face immense pressure from the firefighters’ union, desperate to keep their power.
We believe the votes are there to reduce personnel and staffing, but we cannot take anything for granted. The public needs to show the council that they are on the side of reform and budget savings. Most importantly, the council needs to understand that the new staffing arrangement will actually make citizens more safe.
The round table is agendized for 9 pm on Tuesday night. Everyone needs to show up and attend this crucial meeting.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Be there or be square. Show up and support the council and show them that the people of Davis are tired of the status quo and that we want the firefighter costs brought under control.
“So in December, it was not a huge surprise that the city council voted 3-2 to not read the report.”
Not sure that this action wouldn’t have been a huge surprise at the time (except, possibly, to the union). It’s astonishing to this day that elected officials would behave this way–saying “I don’t need to read this”–and hiding the information from themselves as well as the citizens. Certainly a mystery to me. Just imagine how differently this disaster would have played out had the council done its basic due diligence for us at that time.
What the firefighters did over the years was on the table, and legal. You can criticize the process, or CC members, or all of us for being stupid, but the fact is Bobby’s job was to maximize the cash and benefits haul for his membership, and he has done a good job of that. Overreached? Yes, but he got the dough.
Contrast that to our City’s handling of the water project, which is far, far larger of a fiscal impact on the city than the public employee union overreaching.
Did the FF ever try to sneak through huge rate increases for a plant that was way too large? No.
David, where are your articles on that? Let’s call for an investigation, like you did on the FFs.
The FFs never called our referendum illegal.
The FFs never adopted rates – without even bothering to get a rate study – in August 2010 that blantantly violate Prop 218. (Yep, you heard that right: the city is grossly mischarging us right now … every day.)
The FFs never tried to adopt rates like those in Friday’s Prop 218 rate notice that violate Prop 218.
Come on, David: call for an investigation, and give us the stories as to why we voters and ratepayers cannot trust the City?
Off topic, Mike. Not every article is going to be about water.
It goes to trust of city government. The DV has been posting on that subject, and tying in the various subjects.
It also goes to the DV process. The Saturday Forum on 2/2 is a set up for Yes on I, on city property using city facilities using “experts” who are all partisans, when the city is a political litigant on a project that will suck well over $250 million from our wallets.
So Ryan, it’s all highly relevant.
says the same michael harrington who for months wrote that he keeps seeing four fire fighters on an engine. it’s hard to imagine that this is the same man who i voted for twice.
Ok, it’s tangentially relevant, but no more about the water project on this thread, ok?
[quote]“What the firefighters did over the years was on the table, and legal. You can criticize the process, or CC members, or all of us for being stupid….”[/quote]A bigger concern is whether, at the behest of the union, the CC majority refused even to look at the investigation report in executive session let alone in a public meeting because they’d been bought off.
The process is not really an issue; “stupid” council members isn’t really a fair criticism. Bad motive and individual representation is the more serious prospect here.
David, you note that the vote to refuse to read their own investigation was 3-2. Who voted which way?
I know you’ve covered this disgraceful and embarrassing incident before, but what was the supposed rationale’ for refusing to their job (in 50 words or less)?
[quote]“The Saturday Forum on 2/2 is a set up for Yes on I, on city property using city facilities using “experts” who are all partisans, when the city is a political litigant….”[/quote]There you go again, Michael. The first time you brought up this illegal/inappropriate use of city property in the [i]Vanguard[/i], you were informed of the facts and convincingly corrected about its proper use.
Now, you’re repeating the same sleazy kind of attack and implications. And, again (for the fourth time), do you intend to provide any support for your repeated dirty river water charges?
[b][i]This is one of the most important issues faced by the Davis City Council. The council needs to hear from the public on this matter and see that they have support for a move that will not only save money, but should improve public safety.[/i][/b]
If this is the case why is the round table is scheduled at the end of the agenda? In the previous CC meetings the Fire Audit came up so late that there was not ample time to give it the attention it deserves or interest from tired CC members!!
This issue has reminded me of the suppressed report. Now I am wondering HOW our fair city’s citizens failed (me too) to protest this action…..hope it is my faulty memory and the chambers were actually full of citizens protesting but ??
but then that was when public comment was severely limited by the same CC folks who voted to suppress the report from themselves…no wonder.
[i]”David, you note that the vote to refuse to read their own investigation was 3-2. Who voted which way?”[/i]
3 — Asmundson, Souza and Saylor — “Let them read no evil.”
2 — Greenwald and Heystek — “Let’s f+cking read it.”
[i]”What the firefighters did over the years was on the table, and legal.”[/i]
Mike, there is a bigger factor to consider: Ethics.
What the firefighters union has done for most of the last 20 or so years is to (lawfully) corrupt our city council. They have given tens of thousands of dollars in direct contributions to the candidacies of incumbents and challengers for city council seats who would award them raises and benefits worth tens of millions of dollars. They have spent tens of thousands more publishing and mailing advertisements which favored those same candidates, thereby indirectly financing campaigns for pliable members. They have gone door to door (wearing union garb which looks quite like city firefighter garb) on behalf of those members of the council who would enrich the firefighters with our money. And the firefighters have used all of these (legal) tactics to defeat anyone who was willing to stand up for the public interest in negotiations.
To me, it’s not all a matter of legality. There is right and wrong within the law. No other union or labor association in the City of Davis has ever done anything like the firefighters have done. All of them could have done so legally. But they chose not to. In some respects they road the coattails of Bobby Weist. They let him do all of the work and they shared in the rewards of multi-million dollar retirement deals for all well paid worker. But, to the extent that there is a fixed pie–that is, only so much money to be spent–the more the firefighters took, the less went to all the other city employees. Many workers for the city of Davis have expressed this sentiment to me–that the firefighters have been excessively greedy at the expense of other employees (such as the cops, who do more for Davis and make less money).
There are two points of the bigger picture which need to be made:
The first is that our Local 3494 fire union is not unique. Their aggressive methods are taught by the larger state group of fire unions and the much larger IAFF union. Of course, when Bobby Weist goes to the meetings of these larger groups, in order to be trained on how to get members of the city council to enrich Davis firefighters, we pay his full salary and full benefits (some of it overtime!) while he is out of Davis, working for his union. Nothing tells me more about how corrupt our city is than the fact that we pay Weist when he is at Las Vegas conventions learning how to pick our pockets.
The second is that our democracy is corrupt (and always has been), due to private campaign finance. In our state, the most corrupting elements are the unions, particularly the public employees. They own most elected Democrats at the municipal, county and state level. The ones they don’t own get crushed by union money, power and tactics (or they learn to conform). Likewise, the businesses which pour money into politicians (including Republicans in California) do so in order to benefit themselves. It’s all corrupting. The only way around it would be to have clean money public finaning or exclude everyone but the super-rich who will self-finance.
Thanks for the background, Rich, as critical as it is. At some point, the candidates said, “no more.”
I wonder if firefighters still target council members and candidates they feel are at the less-friendly end of the spectrum.
Do you think the union has made itself political poison by its excesses? Will this history eventually fade, opening the door again for Weist’s successor?
[i]”Do you think the union has made itself political poison by its excesses?”[/i]
Yes. I think the exposure of the union in the Vanguard and to some extent my column and in unsigned Enterprise editorials has awakened the community and as a result made that union’s money ‘poison.’
[i]”I wonder if firefighters still target council members and candidates they feel are at the less-friendly end of the spectrum.”[/i]
Not lately, as far as I know. A current council member told me that he was approached by Weist and Weist immediately gave him a lecture about what he needed to do and say to get the union’s money. The then-candidate told Weist to eff off.
[i]”Will this history eventually fade, opening the door again for Weist’s successor?”[/i]
A big factor is the fiscal bind the city is in and likely will be in for another 10 years. When we had little debt and when the city was growing rapidly and when real estate prices were bubblicious, the council had ripe conditions to massively increase firefighter comp and greatly expand the cost of benefits.
All of those factors are different today, and likely will be for a long time. But if conditions for corruption are ever ripe again, then, yes, this could happen another time, just the same.