Last week, Davis Enterprise columnist Rich Rifkin took a volatile situation, disagreement over fire staffing and, pardon the pun, threw rhetorical gasoline on the fire.
His column lead with: “Stupidity. Corruption. Fear. Take your pick. One or more of those explains why the Davis City Council, when given the choice between a more expensive option that provides worse service and a less expensive structure that promises better outcomes, chose last week to stick with what we now have – the costlier, inferior model.”
His rhetorical salvo is returned this week, with a letter from Wendy Benner who writes in part, “Stupidity. Corruption. Lack of fear or repercussion or accountability. Take your pick. All of these are reasons Rich Rifkin can write whatever he wants regardless of the truth, or lack their (sic) of, behind it.”
“There are so many inaccuracies in Rifkin’s article, that it blows my mind,” she writes. “So, I will stick to what many of us hold most dear and feel is most important – our public safety. More important that any budgetary amount between three- and four-person engines, is life safety. Not only could the reduced staffing result in more property damage, and with that the loss of what most of us hold most dear after our loved ones – our photos, our memories.”
While I take her lack of correcting the inaccuracies to mean that she cannot, it illustrates perhaps that the blustery approach that Mr. Rifkin took simply backfired on him and he lost the higher ground.
In fact, he largely falls into the same trap that the Davis City Council did.
Ms. Benner writes: “Chief Kenley will not address how one would know if someone is asleep or sick or trapped in the house when an engine arrives on scene.”
She notes, “Currently, with four people arriving in one engine, two could go inside and two would remain outside, ensuring that a home is vacant and fighting the fire from the inside out. However, with three people on a single engine, no one could enter the burning structure until a second truck arrived from another station. Therefore, firefighting begins on the outside, pushing the fire inwards, where all our memories, belongings and, most importantly, loved ones could be trapped. Not BMWs, Mr. Rifkin, people.”
And then the heart of the matter: “What is a life worth to you? Not the inflated figure of $570,000 you published, which was actually more accurately $360,000, per the City Council meeting.”
Make no mistake, this is the most dangerous argument that the firefighter proponents can make. Former Chief Scott Kenley can cite statistics on the number of firefighters, or the number of past fires that would be impacted by the rules change, but at the end of the day, we end up with the emotion rather than logical argument about the worth of a life.
The council believes that they can overcome this. They believe that Bobby Weist reached his high point two weeks ago. They believe that once the issue is put in the context of the budget overall, that it becomes more difficult for the firefighters to spin their tale.
But what if they are wrong? What if they cannot adequately address the legitimate fear that Ms. Benner poses to the proposal that Scott Kenley produced based on budgetary concerns, logic, statistical analysis, etc.?
Just as you are about to yell checkmate, you failed to see my bishop covering the flank.
You see, the question can be flipped back to the firefighters. Many in this community do not understand the depths of the fiscal crisis that the city faces. Right now, we are facing a $444 million deficit on road maintenance that will explode if we do not inject about $20 million immediately and then $8 million per year thereafter.
Our parks, despite the recent parks tax, face a myriad of repairs and the city faces the potential of closing parks in addition to pools.
The city has engaged in a lengthy collective bargaining process with city employees, and remarkably the firefighters are just one of two bargaining units in the city that have yet to agree to labor concessions.
The firefighters are the highest compensated of the city’s rank and file employees and they make more than $1000 more per month than their police counterparts. During the last decade their salaries alone almost doubled, and that does not include the expansion of the fire department to accommodate four on an engine and it does not include the enhanced 3% at 50 benefits.
So when the firefighters attempt to reposition this issue as one of public safety rather than budget, they are being disingenuous. As we reported previously, if the firefighters simply took salary concessions to reduce their pay to be on par with that of police officers, in addition to taking the pension, cafeteria cash out, and retiree health concessions that all other employees in the city have already agreed to, we might not need to have to this conversation.
But they have not. They are attempting to have their cake and to eat it at the same time. They want to cry public safety and accuse the chief of endangering that public safety. They want to scare residents into believing that they will not be safe, when 95% of all other departments have three on an engine and manage to somehow protect the public and deal with these issues that Chief Kenley, they say, won’t address.
But while they talk about what a life is worth, they appear to not take their own advice. If they truly believe that a life is worth more than $360,000, if they truly believe this is about public safety, why are the firefighters not stepping up to the plate, putting their money where their mouth is, and making us an offer that can preserve that 12th firefighter while also helping the city’s budget?
Until I see them do that, this is all just talk and talk is cheap. They want to have their cake, they want to eat it, and they want someone else to make the sacrifice. And they’ll use Wendy Benner and half a dozen other good people to do their bidding for them, because they know they can scare them on the issue of public safety.
The council is taking a big gamble here that they can get in front on this issue. But until they step up, they run a risk of getting run over.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In September, 2006, there was a fire in the field directly behind Albany Circle. It spread to my neighbor’s bark dust on their front lawn & threatened my home. I was at the store, buying balloons for my daughter’s birthday. My kids, thank God, were not home at the time. Davis Fire Dept. saved my home and my precious dog. Afterwards we realized the only “things” that mattered were our lives and our dog’s life. Thank you, Davis Fire Dept. for saving our beloved dog, Nikki. Thank you for being there when we needed you.
Wendy Benner said . . .
[i]”Currently, with four people arriving in one engine, two could go inside and two would remain outside, ensuring that a home is vacant and fighting the fire from the inside out. [b]However, with three people on a single engine, no one could enter the burning structure until a second truck arrived from another station.[/b] Therefore, firefighting begins on the outside, pushing the fire inwards, where all our memories, belongings and, most importantly, loved ones could be trapped.”[/i]
Is the above statement from Ms. Benner true? If it is true, why is it true?
Wendy Benner said:
> Currently, with four people arriving in one engine,
> two could go inside and two would remain outside,
> ensuring that a home is vacant and fighting the fire
> from the inside out. However, with three people on
> a single engine, no one could enter the burning
> structure until a second truck arrived from another
> station.
Like Jimmy’s Daughter we also had great service from the Davis FD. When I heard my neighbors smoke alarm going off I went outside and saw smoke coming out the back window.
I called 911 and went over to see if anyone was home. No one answered the front door. I then went around back and was looking in the windows when the FD pulled up and my wife told them the smoke was in back.
I had just taken a screen off and opened a window when the FD came around back and they sent the smallest guy in the window and he took the burning pot off the stove. He opened the doors and the FD set up fans to blow the smoke out (and gave my neighbor a lecture when she pulled up after running to the Co Op for “just a minute”).
My firefighter friend said that fires like this are the most common and in the 20 years he has been a firefighter he has never been to a “fully involved” (what firefighters say when an entire house is burning) house fire.
I don’t want to get anyone in trouble but I saw one guy go in to fight a kitchen fire and I find it hard to believe that he would have had to wait for another truck (since he would have had to watch me go in to take the burning pot off the stove) and I also find it hard to believe that any firefighter would just look in the window at a shouldering couch with a space heater on it rather than opening the door and going in with a fire extinguisher.
I would be interested to see if anyone knows how many homes have been “fully involved”/”totally on fire” when the FD rolls up. I can think of one (it was a vacant home and arson was suspected).
BLOGGER ,
Read it here on your blog , firefighters give back money over a 3 year period , adding up to $ 850,000.00 dollars , I see no mention of this in your blog today , all I see is your usual Vendetta talking of the firefighters .
“””””””But while they talk about what a life is worth, they appear to not take their own advice. If they truly believe that a life is worth more than $360,000, if they truly believe this is about public safety, why are the firefighters not stepping up to the plate, putting their money where their mouth is, and making us an offer that can preserve that 12th firefighter while also helping the city’s budget?
Until I see them do that, this is all just talk and talk is cheap. They want to have their cake, they want to eat it, and they want someone else to make the sacrifice. “”””””””””
They did make the sacrifice !
Kelly:
“Read it here on your blog , firefighters give back money over a 3 year period , adding up to $ 850,000.00 dollars , I see no mention of this in your blog today.”
This is a misleading statement and it’s from the wrong time period. The previous MOU from 2009 contained some cost-cutting provisions, but to suggest it was $850,000 is misleading and inaccurate. The $850,000 as we have explained in the past was derived from calculating the rate of increase from 2005 MOU and extending it into the future. The actual savings in real dollars was far smaller. Moreover, the firefighters have not agreed to the concessions that everyone else in the city have THIS ROUND of MOUs. The 2009 MOU was what everyone else took at that time, it was far too small in terms of structural reform in terms of pensions, retiree health, and cafeteria cash out. And again, unlike everyone else (except DCEA), the firefighters have had no round of concessions this time, which is what I refer to. So my article was accurate and the firefighters have not.
Avatar said . . .
[i]”Read it here on your blog , firefighters give back money over a 3 year period , adding up to $ 850,000.00 dollars , I see no mention of this in your blog today , all I see is your usual Vendetta talking of the firefighters .
They did make the sacrifice !”[/i]
Avatar, in relation to the overall Budgetary shortfall is $280,000 a [u]meaningful[/u] sacrifice? Is it a [u]proportional[/u] sacrifice?
The reason I fully support (strongly support) the Council’s decision to deal with Firefighting cuts in the context of the whole Budget is that Bobby Wiest and the firefighters will have to sit down at the same table as all the other City employee groups and look those groups in the eye and say to them, [b][i]”You non-firefighter employee groups need to shoulder a larger proportion of the salary/staffing cuts than the firefighters shoulder.”[/i][/b]
I know for a fact that Dianna Jensen is running the Water Department with sacrifices (staffing reductions) that far, far exceed any sacrifices (staffing reductions) that the firefighters have stepped up with.
Dare I say your perspective is myopic Avatar? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The 2009 MOU was what everyone else took at that time, it was far too small in terms of structural reform in terms of pensions, retiree health, and cafeteria cash out.”[/i]
David, your focus above ignores head count. The total picture includes all the items you list [u]and[/u] headcount.
Matt: What do you mean by headcount, you mean per person?
Matt Williams ,
1. What Wendy Benner says is true , the blogger will try and talk circles around this as usual .
2. The giveback was $ 850,000.00 , and your City of Davis Fire Dept. is down ( 9 ) personnel currently .
3. MYOPIC ?
Matt: They claimed $850,000 last year, here was the response we had…
link ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5518:spin-cycle&Itemid=79[/url])
David, budget cuts can come from both per unit cost cuts and cuts in the number of units. For instance the Water Department has absorbed a 4 person decrease in its staffing complement in 2012, which carries over into 2013. I do not know what the total Water Department head count was prior to the headcount cuts, but regardless of what the number was, the headcount in Water has decreased by x%. In addition as you know there are further efforts to reduce the cost per employee through hourly wage pay cuts, and the restructuring of pensions, retiree health, and cafeteria cash out. Staffing reductions and reductions in per employee costs will add up to the total savings.
Avatar said . . .
[i]”1. What Wendy Benner says is true.”[/i]
So you are saying that if a truck with a staffing complement of three pulls up as first responder to a fire and makes the assessment that going into the structure is necessary, then as two of the three initiate that active response to the situation, the third person on the truck will be frozen in place unable to do anything? Why?
Avatar said . . .
[i]”2. Your City of Davis Fire Dept. is down ( 9 ) personnel currently.”[/i]
To validate your statement that Fire Department paid staffing levels are lower in 2013 by nine (9) positions than in previous years, please post the City Budgetary payment history for Fire Department staffing levels over the past years (10 years would be useful). Please provide a link to the documents that confirm those paid staffing levels. If the City actually has a combined total of nine lay offs and positions eliminated by attrition I will be very surprised. The Enterprise and the Vanguard would have been trumpeting that success in budgetary cuts from San Francisco to Tahoe.
Matt:
I think the attrition rate is relatively accurate, the problem is that it does not produce pure savings because the attrition is backfilled with overtime because we have not cut staffing.
But that’s happened in every department in the system AND they’ve agreed to additional concessions in the 2012 MOUs that the firefighters have yet to agree to.
Here’s the article with the fire department’s expenditures over time…
Article ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6185:commentary-fire-staffing-battle-becomes-high-stakes-game-of-chicken&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Bottom line is there is a chart midway through that article and if you look at the second column you can track the personnel costs over time. You are talking about a $400,000 difference in personnel compensation from 08-09 to 12-13. So there’s no $850,000 in savings there. Most of that $400,000 is from attrition.
Rich provided the correct options here.
The information was available for the council to make the decision on Chief Kenley’s study/proposal at the meeting. The council dramatically narrowed its own options the moment it was suggested that the decision could wait until budget formulation/contract talks. And, it fairly assures that the decision never will be made on its merits.
The meeting was the “high point” for the council to take responsibility for moving to a better fire department model. Why “they believe Bobby Weist reached his high point two weeks ago” is a mystery. Only stupidity or fear could be blamed if they [u]really[/u] believe that justifies their failure.
Corruption is a possibility if they’re just [u]saying[/u] now that they believe Weist exhausted his best influence in order to justify their own delay in deciding.
Choosing to make the proposed changes only will be made more difficult by announcing tha budget reduction will be the primary consideration.
In any case, the council had no need to make strategic concerns rule the night. The council had full power to move us to “a less expensive structure that promises better outcomes” that evening. Residents would have supported such a decision.
Now, the debate rules have changed and the basic question has been revised to: “Where can we find $360,000 so we can keep ‘the costlier, inferior model’?” And, the new question already has built in the assumption that the current staffing is better and safer (with no such finding on the council’s part).
Everything we’ve read in the [i]Vanguard[/i] since the meeting adds to the reality that the conversation has moved on, away from the wisdom of the proposal itself. The peripheral issues of strategy, arguments about history, illusory budget savings, etc., have taken over.
The council never again will have the opportunity to make a clean decision on Scott Kenley’s thoughtful, well-supported plan. The albatross has been hung.
Is Bobby Weist smart enough and calculating enough to purposely have led the council into this trap? Just lucky? Beats me. But, fear or stupidity seem like fair speculation once one comes to realize just how much our council probably lost with its procrastination two weeks ago. Checkmate?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Bottom line is there is a chart midway through that article and if you look at the second column you can track the personnel costs over time. You are talking about a $400,000 difference in personnel compensation from 08-09 to 12-13. So there’s no $850,000 in savings there. Most of that $400,000 is from attrition.”[/i]
David the dollars are helpful, but they don’t put Avatar’s assertion into stark relief. Are there annual head count (FTE) numbers that relate to the annual Personnel Only Budget dollars? Somehow, a 5% reduction of $431,402 from $8,252,068 in FY 08/09 to $7,820,666 in FY 12/13 doesn’t appear to support a headcount reduction of nine (9) as Avatar has asserted. If that were the case, then the average firefighter annual Personnel costs would be less than $50,000 per firefighter, and we all know that isn’t the case.
As I said, Avatar appears to be suffering from myopia.
Just Saying: Agree 100%
Matt: You have to calculate the savings offset with overtime to backfill because the hours of work are still being worked. So the savings is the cost of benefits minus the additional cost of overtime salary
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Rich provided the correct options here.
The information was available for the council to make the decision on Chief Kenley’s study/proposal at the meeting. The council dramatically narrowed its own options the moment it was suggested that the decision could wait until budget formulation/contract talks. And, it fairly assures that the decision never will be made on its merits.
The meeting was the “high point” for the council to take responsibility for moving to a better fire department model. Why “they believe Bobby Weist reached his high point two weeks ago” is a mystery. Only stupidity or fear could be blamed if they really believe that justifies their failure.
Corruption is a possibility if they’re just saying now that they believe Weist exhausted his best influence in order to justify their own delay in deciding.”[/i]
We will have to agree to disagree JS. I see huge value to putting Bobby Wiest at a table with all the other employee bargaining unit representatives and having him say to his own peers, [i]”You shoulder the burden of the necessary cuts. We, the firefighters, are simply too important and too lowly paid to be able to absorb any of the reductions.”[/i] Wiest clearly has balls, but I don’t think either he or the firefighters have balls enough to do that. It would be a modern day version of the Dan Ackroyd – Jane Curtin SNL point-counterpoint exchange with Bobby turning to Michael Lindquist and saying “Michael you ignorant _____.”
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt: You have to calculate the savings offset with overtime to backfill because the hours of work are still being worked. So the savings is the cost of benefits minus the additional cost of overtime salary.”[/i]
So what I hear you saying when you say that Davis is that Avatar’s statement, “your City of Davis Fire Dept. is down ( 9 ) personnel currently” represents no dollar savings at all because the hours of the 9 personnel are simply being backfilled by existing personnel . . . with a dollar multiplier of 1.5 for each backfill hour so worked.
Am I hearing that right Avatar?
[quote]“We will have to agree to disagree JS. I see huge value to putting Bobby Wiest at a table with all the other employee bargaining unit representatives and having him say to his own peers, ‘You shoulder the burden of the necessary cuts….'”[/quote]You’re probably looking at a bigger picture than I was. Time will tell, but I think the council gave away the ability to decide that we should go to the smaller crew size standard most everywhere else.
I agree that it might be fun to see Weist squirm in such a setting, but I don’t foresee it happening–given the way budgets are planned and bargaining units engage with the city.
He essentially has been kissing off the other city employees all these years anyway, just not in the same room. “Separate (bargaining) tables, please,” he says.
The Kenley plan is dead. Not because it isn’t a better way, but because council members transformed into a simple budget issue. The cash will be “found” to keep everyone on. After all, how much is your life worth?
JS
[quote]The Kenley plan is dead. [/quote]
I do not understand why you believe this to be true. This is a council that on a number of occasions has revisited a decision and made alterations to their initial stand when they have perceived a better course of action. I do not see why that could not be the case here as well.
I this his reasoning is not that the council can’t rethink and revisit a position but that the firefighters will be able to pressure the council off that decision and move the discussion from staffing changes to budget alternatives.
Benner: [i]”Currently, with four people arriving in one engine, two could go inside and two would remain outside, ensuring that a home is vacant and fighting the fire from the inside out. However, with three people on a single engine, [b]no one could enter the burning structure until a second truck arrived from another station.[/b]”
This is a lie. It’s also false. It’s completely untrue. And Benner knows it.
The law is determined by OSHA. Even if only two firefighters were to arrive on scene (or two police officers for that matter), they can (and often must) make entry into the burning building in order to make sure no people are inside, in danger of being harmed. There is no difference at all in this respect whether the engine company has 3 or 4 people. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone in the Woodland or Vacaville fire departments, where they (like most FDs in our state) have 3 per engine company.
Benner: [i]”Therefore, firefighting begins on the outside, pushing the fire inwards, where all our memories, belongings and, most importantly, loved ones could be trapped. Not BMWs, Mr. Rifkin, people.”[/i]
Here, Benner changes the subject. Now she is talking about how the fire is fought. And while it is true that in about 1% of structure fires–not 1% of all calls or 1% of all fires, but 1% of all Davis structure fires–the 2-in, 2-out rule would require the [i]firefighting[/i], but not the lifesaving action, to be done from outside.
Keep in mind that this puts no people in danger. It might put more property in danger.
However, the Kenley plan, most importantly, if much, much safer for property and human lives in about 60% of structure fires and the same in the other 39%. The reason Kenley’s plan improves safety for people and saves property compared with the Weist/Conroy plan is that it will remove the serious problem of firefighters arriving much later to calls because they are out of position at some points every day. Kenley’s plan will result in much faster response. And that is a huge factor in all medical calls.
So if you want your grandmother to die of a heart attack waiting for medical response, and you want to pay $570,000 more per year (that is, 3 firefighters at $190,000 per year in 2013-14), then go for the Weist/Conroy scam.
If you want grandma to live and you want the fire at your house put out much quicker and hence causing less property damage, go with Kenley.
This is a no-brainer. Sadly, the council proved is has no brains, other than Joe Krovoza’s.
“However, the Kenley plan, most importantly, [b]if[/b] much, much safer for property and human lives in about 60% of structure fires and the same in the other 39%.”
Is much, much safer.
I am going to make the same plea to those who oppose the Kenley plan as I made to those who opposed
Measure I. If you have data to support your claims that the current model is safer than what is proposed in the Kenley plan, please make that data known. It does not strengthen your case to make histrionic arguments about the value of life as though some value it more than others, without any evidence at all to demonstrate the greater safety of the current model. The response times as portrayed in the Kenley plan did provide actual evidence of how this plan would provide for faster response times which are proven to be life saving in the case of medical resuscitation efforts. I have remained very open minded on this issue.
However, with only one side providing actual evidence, it is very hard not to see the Kenley plan as superior.
[quote]The law is determined by OSHA. Even if only two firefighters were to arrive on scene (or two police officers for that matter), they can (and often must) make entry into the burning building in order to make sure no people are inside, in danger of being harmed. There is no difference at all in this respect whether the engine company has 3 or 4 people.[/quote]
This is consistent with statements made by the Davis firefighter leading a recent CERT meeting.
.
There is no reason to ask how much a life is worth unless it is established that the 4-4-4 staffing saves more lives than 3-3-3-2. In this case, that has not been established.
A better argument of comparison should be comparing a plan of 4-3-3-2 staffing versus 3-3-3-2 staffing, where there is definitely no concern that a 4-3-3-2 staffing plan would provide less service/save less lives than a 3-3-3-2 staffing plan.
[b]Self-regulated wage setting[/b]
The following describes the principle and mechanics of automatically setting salary/wages based on the value of the job role.
This type of principle differs from wage-setting based on supply and demand, which can be intentionally distorted by exploiting job in-elasticity and entrance barriers. Self-regulated wage setting is immune to these issues because the compensation is computed when the value is incurred. In the context of city budget, self-regulated wage setting is a self-funding mechanism that does not require public funds.
In other words, Self-regulated wage setting is a concept that provides the seemingly impossible answer to the question, “How do you design a compensation mechanism so that a City can have a well-maintained fire department without budgetary discussion?”
The solution is rather simple. The first observation leading to the solution, is the missing link of accountability in public services.
In a private enterprise, accountability is established when the enterprise receives no revenue until its product or service is purchased. This relation is missing because the fire department does not directly charge its clients for their services.
To compute the value of a service is to compute the cost when the service is not provided.
If a grass fire occurs and there is no firefighter, a homeowner may decide to fight the fire himself. For the sake of demonstration, let’s say that effort costs the homeowner $1000, which includes material cost, labor cost, and health costs. In a rational community, the fire department should put out the fire with [b]less[/b] cost. (Otherwise the community does not need the fire department because the homeowners can fight the fire more efficiently.) It is a logically necessary condition that the fire department does so more efficiently than the average homeowners with no training or specialized equipment. For the sake of demonstration, let’s say that the fire department only takes $500 to put out that fire.
With these two numbers, we know that the compensation to the fire department should be at least $500 (to cover the cost), and below $1000 (otherwise there is no point of having the fire department). According to the universal principle of fairness, the fair amount is one where both parties get the same percent benefit. Let X be the fair compensation, then:
$1000/X = X/$500
:. X = sqrt( $1000 * $500) = $707
X is the geometric mean of the two costs. The homeowner saved 41% by having a fire department, the fire department earned 41% for their efficient service.
Each homeowner [i]willfully[/i] welcome the fire department because it [i]saves them money[/i]. The concept that fire department needs to be budgeted is illogical in this compensation structure. The fire department can pay for itself because its service has value.
In an economy with market-driven pricing (instead of equality-driven pricing), depending on which entity has “power”, the charge may also be:
o above $1000 (when information is distorted, or the homeowner is coerced)
o $1000 (when the fire department charges the homeowner at the maximum)
o $500 (when the homeowner pays the fire department at the minimum)
o below $500 (when the homeowners underpay the fire department).
Equality pricing prescribes what pricing is fair and what is not. It is up to the people to understand the principle and act accordingly to uphold fairness.
The fact that the citizens do not directly pay the fire department is a layer of accounting simplification/abstraction, where the City represents the citizens, much like a head of household would be responsible for paying the bills for its dependents. The algorithm required to calculate the fair compensation is the same.
To derive the fair compensation, the City may analyze the statistics to get the total cost of dealing with the issues without the fire department, and the total non-personnel costs of the fire department. The geometric mean of those two numbers is the fair personnel payments for the fire department.
When this analysis is complete, it should be clear to every community member that they are definitely saving money by having a fire department. If not, the fire department should be disbanded because it would be irrational to have a fire department that is less efficient in dealing with the issues. That would violate the most fundamental reason to have a fire department.
[quote]JS: “The Kenley plan is dead.”
MW: “I do not understand why you believe this to be true. This is a council that on a number of occasions has revisited a decision and made alterations to their initial stand when they have perceived a better course of action. I do not see why that could not be the case here as well.”[/quote]David pretty well evaluated my point, noting that “firefighters will be able to pressure the council off that (the Kenley better-service proposal) decision and move the discussion from staffing changes to budget alternatives.”
In fact, I think the union already has succeeded, and it’ll be nearly impossible for the council to retreat to reconsidering the Kenley plan on its merits.
The turning point occurred when Councilman Brett Lee argued in a muddled manner that the current 12 staffing must be better than the proposal because 12 is a higher number than 11:[quote]“He argued the reason to go from 12 to 11 is not to improve service, but to cut costs. At the same time, Brett Lee made it clear that, within the context of the budget, cuts clearly are going to have to be made. He stated that his preference, however, was for those cuts to occur through the bargaining process and if sufficient cuts were achieved in that manner, it would be less necessary to attempt to achieve $360,000 in savings through staffing changes with fire.”[/quote]David’s recent commentary, “Fire Staffing Battle Becomes High Stakes Game of Chicken,” outlined the problem of the council’s (inadvertent?) ceding the basis for its decision. The council already blinked.
JS, I tend to agree with medwoman. You are of the “history is destined to repeat itself” school of thought, and I see the wisdom of that cautionary logic, but I have come to expect more from this current Gang of Five. Time will tell whether the blinking that you saw is incidental of prescriptive. I am hopeful that it is the former not the latter.
In case it matters, one of our council members who could not figure out that 3-3-3-2 is much safer for medical and almost all fire calls than 4-4-4 is, [b]asked to meet with me this coming Sunday[/b] to discuss this and hopefully to clear up this person’s thinking.
Clearly, my explanations failed and Kenley’s failed and Joe Krovoza’s failed. But it gives me a bit of hope that at least one member of the Misguided Four wants to hear more. Maybe I will be able to convince the other three as well before Davis merges with Woodland.
Actually, Matt, I base my guess on what this council did a couple weeks ago, not on what’s happened in years past. I, too, think more of the present council. I expected them to approve Kenley’s 3-3-3-2 proposal, but would have accepted a thoughtful decision to stick with the 4-4-4 status quo.
I was surprised that they didn’t act. But, I was astounded that they accepted Brett Lee’s argument that the decision wasn’t one of service quality and costs, but simply one that would be resolved if some funds could be redirected during budget planning or collective bargaining.
I do hope Rich is successful at convincing at least two more council members to pull back Kenley’s plan for reconsideration. Otherwise, Bobby Weist has the debate right where he wants it to be.
I’m a bit late to this discussion but as a full time firefighter (not for Davis) I think I need to clear up some misconceptions.
“2 in 2 out” does NOT apply when a CONFIRMED victim is inside a structure fire. No firefighter would EVER sit outside knowing there’s a life in jeopardy. “2 in 2 out” DOES apply without a victim though.
When firefighters show up to a house fire we do not just run in with hoses flowing. Without a known rescue, there is usually a 2-5 minute set up time. During this period we are generally pulling hoses to the point of entry, preparing tools to force entry, setting up ladders, connecting to a fire hydrant, and putting on our SCBA (air tank) while the company officer sizes up the scene and walks around the building looking for secondary exits, room of origin, and safety concerns. Only once most of these tasks are completed does the team enter the structure. Even a known rescue does not speed this process much because at the end of the day we need to account for our safety and go home safe.
Why do I point this out? IMO the 4 man argument is largely a red herring. By the time the above tasks are completed it is reasonable to expect a second engine or truck company will have arrived thus nullifying “2 in 2 out” before the first due engine was ready to go in anyway. Refer to the citygate report to see which areas of the city have a second company arrival within 4 minutes of the first. That’s most of the city and UCD.
Also, a chief officer can satisfy the 4th person requirements until additional companies arrive.
(if you’re curious I work for a department with two man engine and two man paramedic ambulance staffing our stations for a Davis size popullation and am a former UCDFD student FF)
To add a bit more to the points made by [b]nvn8v[/b], all of which I agree with and have been told by retired City of Davis firefighters, it is very likely that with the UCD boundary drop and under the Kenley 3-3-3-2 plan, a second unit will arrive far sooner than second units are now arriving.
Based on what Chief Kenley said, it sounds like a second unit will normally be on scene less than 5 minutes after the first unit arrives, and as [b]nvn8v[/b] said, the first unit will not be pouring water or other retardants on that fire inside 4-5 minutes most of the time. Rather, they will be saving lives, if needed, and/or setting up hoses and securing a perimeter.
With the exception of a very small, very easily extinguished fire, normal procedure in Davis is to send as many firefighting resources to a structure fire as possible. If your house in Davis is on fire, even today under the Weist/Conroy model, multiple fire engines will be sent to fight that fire.
But with Kenley, that second unit will get there faster.
Say for example you own a home on Oak Avenue near Russell Blvd which is on fire. And say when your call comes in, Fire Engine 31 (downtown) is dispatched to a small non-structure fire in Covell Park near Catalina. With the boundary drop, the first Engine company to arrive will be Engine 34 (UC Davis). But just as fast as Engine 34 gets there, Rescue Truck 31 (downtown) will arrive. In very short order, this means your house will have at least 5 firefighters on scene (plus any student-trainees with the UCD crew).
But that would be very different under the Weist/Conroy scam. First, the UCD Engine would not be allowed to dispatched first. (Why not? Because that takes away union jobs!) There would be no Rescue Truck 31 downtown. It would be out in Covell Park. Assuming that the Catalina Drive fire was under control, Engine 31 and Rescue 31 would be dispatched to your Oak Ave. house. But they would not get there quickly, because they would be far out of position.
It’s possible, fearing just such a problem, that dispatch would have moved Engine 33 from South Davis to downtown in order to cover Engine 31’s territory when 31 was busy on Catalina. However, that presents a huge public safety hazard for people in South Davis and Mace Ranch. What if the house fire call does not come from Oak Ave, but rather comes from Willowghbank? It will take 8 or 9 minutes for Engine 33 to race back to that fire. Under the Kenley plan, Engine 33 would have been in Willowbank in 2 minutes or less. And maybe 6-7 minutes later, Rescue Truck 31 would have joined up at the scene in Willowbank. In other words, the Weist/Conroy scam puts the people of Davis who rely on fire and medical services from the DFD in grave danger. And we do that because it costs more money!
Thank you nvn8v for weighing in with an experienced view that confirms what folks like Rich have been arguing for for a long time, and for adding perspective to personal thoughts that seemed like common sense to me. Please post here again soon. You are a valuable addition to the dialogue.
To add to Rich’s Oak at Russell Blvd scenario the current dispatch would be engines 31 + rescue 31 (4 FFs), Engine 32 (4 ffs), engine 33 (4 FFs) and UCD Truck 34 (3-4 career ffs and up to 3 or 4 student ffs ie up to 7 total)
12 Davis FD personnel and 3 to 7 UCDFD personnel plus a UCD or DFD chief officer. (16 people at minimum)
UCD T34 and E/R31 would likely arrive about the same time with UCD perhaps beating them by 30 seconds. UCD T34 does not carry a pump or water. ts purpose is search, rescue, ladders, and venting a structure fire so E31 would be fire attack. The time difference is not a huge deal but if E31 is on another call or out of position for whatever reason it could be a factor.
In the boundary drop/reduced staffing scenario scenario, UCD Engine and Truck 34 would both respond (up to 5 on the engine and 7 on the truck – 3 and 3 at minimum) along with engine 32 (3 ffs) engine 31 (3 FFs) and Rescue 31 (2 FFs)
8 DFD personnel, 6-12 UCDFD personnel, and a UCD or DFD chief officer (15 people at minimum)
UCDFD engine and truck 34 would arrive together with DFD engine and rescue 31 close behind. UCD engine 34 would be the initial attack engine. There would perhaps be one less firefighter on scene but this would usually be made up for by the UCD student firefighters arriving with the UCDFD staff.
How much is that one extra firefighter worth? That is the question.