For some time, it has been clear that the firefighters do not want to be under the authority of anyone they cannot control. That is why they did not get along with Interim Fire Chief Scott Kenley, it is why they took a no confidence vote against Police Chief Landy Black and Assistant Chief Steve Pierce, and it is why they attempted to discredit UC Davis Chief Nathan Trauernicht when the city moved to name him chief of the City of Davis Fire Department in addition to the UC Davis Fire Department.
In the winter and spring, they held public meetings and walked precincts trying to scare the public on staffing cuts. They have protested in front of city hall for weeks. None of these actions have produced much in the way of results for the union, however.
This week they have decided, in a last ditch effort to avoid joint management services, to collect signatures. While the move probably won’t work, it is certainly their right to petition the city council.
The problem is that the message being sent the public is not exactly accurate. According to several people who approached the firefighters, they were told that the city fire department will be run by UC Davis, that the city is giving away control of the fire department to the UC Regents.
These are fear tactics, once again trying to scare the public into siding with the firefighters’ union. And they are dishonest tactics, at that.
The public needs to have accurate facts on their side before they decide whether this move is a mistake.
What the Davis City Council agreed to is actually short of a full merger. The problem with the merger, which was attempted a few years ago, was that the contractual and compensation differences were too broad to overcome. That is why the merger failed a few years ago.
Staff wrote, “Given the differences between the governance models for the City of Davis and UC Davis, fully merging the two agencies would be best facilitated by a contract for services by one agency to the other. Since there are no examples in the State where a municipality contracts with a college or university, it stands to reason that if the two agencies were to merge, UC Davis would contract with the City for the delivery of fire and life safety services to the UC Davis campus.”
The problem here remains the discrepancy in the benefit package and compensation provided by the city, as opposed to that of the university.
Staff notes, “The net savings to the City of Davis is approximately $170,000 annually. However, the increased cost to UC Davis is over $1,300,000. The primary reason for the increased cost is the cost of the benefit package provided by the City of Davis.”
Efforts to curtail costs have been met with resistance from the firefighters’ union which has, to this point, refused to sign onto the city’s new bargaining contract and remains at impasse with the city.
This is actually a step short of that. Council has directed staff to create a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Davis and UC Davis to provide Fire Management Services for each entity.
This does not give UC Davis control over the city’s fire department; it creates a shared management model for the management of both departments.
The shared management services model would acknowledge “the current level of collaboration between the agencies relative to the West Valley Regional Fire Training Consortium, the sharing of the Division Chief duty coverage, and the positive aspects of the Management Services Agreement between the parties that was placed on hold in January of 2012.”
“A Shared Management Services Agreement would take full advantage of the Joint Powers Agreement governance model where both parties retain a significant amount of local control. Implementation of this alternative could be accomplished in a short period of time (one to three months).”
Staff recommends the joint management structure which “provides for one Fire Chief; two Deputy Fire Chiefs; three Division Chiefs (24 hour); and, one Fire Marshal (40 hour). The Fire Chief will have executive management responsibilities for setting the organizational values and vision; representing both the City and UC in interactions with external influences and the business community; and, providing guidance and recommendations to the City Council and UC Chancellor’s Office relative to the delivery of fire and life safety services. Both of the Deputy Fire Chiefs will report directly to the Fire Chief; one having managerial responsibilities for the day-to-day operations of the fire department, and the other will serve as the West Valley Regional Fire Training Consortium Coordinator.”
The key point here is that the fire chief would represent both the City and University and would make recommendations to the City Council and the Chancellor’s Office.
This is not turning the fire department over the UC Regents, it is a joint model for delivery of fire service. The fire department will remain under the control of the Davis City Council and City Manager, it will not be turned over to the UC Regents. Policies will be made by the city, not the university. The fire chief would be as much a city employee as a university one.
The public has no reason to fear this model. Who does have a reason to fear this model? The firefighters’ union – who would finally lose control of their department, and that is what this battle is really about.
The firefighters are, in effect, using dishonesty to scare the public into backing them in a power struggle against city hall.
Given the years of corruption and political favoritism, it understandable that the firefighters would not want to lose their last vestige of power. However, resorting to dishonesty is not a good approach to restore public confidence.
The city can no longer afford to just sit back and allow the firefighters to lie about city policy. They need to not only address it but confront it.
The public needs to understand the level of dishonesty here and the fact that, by holding out for a contract, the firefighters along with DCEA are costing the city over $100,000 per month in additional costs.
It is a sad day when firefighters, who once epitomized the hallmarks of heroism and bravery in the face of danger, have come to represent nepotism and cronyism at its worst.
There are many great and brave and honest people in the firefighting profession and they need to come forward and speak out against this black mark on their entire profession.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The firefighters have huge salaries. No doubt. But there is still an underlying resentment in Davis towards a group of hardworking folks without PHD’s who make more than the intelligencia. I have heard many people in Davis make comments about firefighters with high school degrees who make more than they do, with a PHD…This is a real resentment.
When a professor gets tired grading papers, he can put them aside until tomorrow. When a family lawyer gets tired working on a divorce, he can put aside the papers until tomorrow. When the city manger gets tired, he can go home to his family. When a firefighter gets tired working a fire in another part of CA or another state, he has to keep battling the blaze. Then he comes home to battle another blaze from the community.
Lower other salaries before you mess with the firefighters.
As mentioned before, I’m extremely biased because they saved my South Davis Home & my dog, back in 2005. And they saved the home and life of one of my neighbors, with a newborn baby.
firefighters being dishonest and making a power play? this is sad, but that isn’t even news anymore.
“As mentioned before, I’m extremely biased because they saved my South Davis Home & my dog, back in 2005. And they saved the home and life of one of my neighbors, with a newborn baby. “
and your bias is causing you to overlook blatant dishonesty and power politics.
if a doctor performs a surgery that saves your life, and then commits misconduct, does the fact that they saved your life, excuse their misconduct?
David
“It is a sad day when firefighters, who once epitomized the hallmarks of heroism and bravery in the face of danger, have come to represent nepotism and cronyism at its worst.
There are many great and brave and honest people in the firefighting profession and they need to come forward and speak out against this black mark on their entire profession.”
I was completely with you until the end. Bad behavior on the part of individuals does not, or at least should not be seen as casting “a black mark on an entire profession”. This is in effect no different in principle from the abhorrent practice of making judgements about an entire group based on the bad actions of a person of the same race, or religion, or sex, or any other generalized stereotype one might chose to pick.
I would love to see firefighters who believe that the JPA model is a good choice come out in favor of it publicly. I think in terms of their work environment, this might be very difficult for Davis firefighters. I wonder if a story could be done from the perspective of the UCD firefighters ?
This:
[quote]When a firefighter gets tired working a fire in another part of CA or another state, he has to keep battling the blaze.[/quote]
Does not justify this:
[quote]The firefighters are, in effect, using dishonesty to scare the public into backing them in a power struggle against city hall.[/quote]
“Bad behavior on the part of individuals does not, or at least should not be seen as casting “a black mark on an entire profession””
i think the point that david is making is that if people are not willing to speak out against the dishonesty, that’s acceptance.
i also think this isn’t about whether the firefighters support the jpa or not, it’s about the dishonest representation of it.
just my two cents.
[quote] Bad behavior on the part of individuals does not, or at least should not be seen as casting “a black mark on an entire profession”.[/quote]
I agree it shouldn’t but it often does.
[quote]I would love to see firefighters who believe that the JPA model is a good choice come out in favor of it publicly. I think in terms of their work environment, this might be very difficult for Davis firefighters.[/quote]
Another sad reality. I imagine it would be very difficult. I wonder what internal dialogue is occurring.
DP
“…
if a doctor performs a surgery that saves your life, and then commits misconduct, does the fact that they saved your life, excuse their misconduct?”
You beat me to it ; )
And, one more analogy from the medical field. Doctors who work 12-24 hour shifts are frequently equally tired near the end of that shift as are the nurses working the same shift and yet this factor is not considered in compensation.
I do not believe that “fatique” or “bravery” or the dramatic nature and emotional nature of certain high profile lines of work ( all highly subjective in terms of relative value) should be used as leverage to obtain advantage over others who may hold other equally valuable but less high profile jobs. I would consider the work of a teacher, or garbage collector or plumber equally valuable to that of a firefighter.
was thinking of you when i wrote it…
JD
I admire your forthrightness about the reason for your bias.
I do have one question. Who are the “others”whose salaries you would have cut ?
[quote] I would consider the work of a teacher, or garbage collector or plumber equally valuable to that of a firefighter. [/quote]Just want to see if I understand you correctly… are you saying that all people, irregardless to education, training, experience should be compensated the same? Perhaps at the current median income? With a 100% income tax above that level? That scenario would certainly help alleviate poverty, provide universal health care, etc. Not saying that’s a bad idea, just need to understand your point.
I certainly question the FF’s total compensation, compared to other city employees’. It appears clear that Jimmy’s Daughter would rather see professional engineers, planners, administrative staff, blue collar workers take major cuts to preserve the compensation of FF’s.
BTW, I take exception to characterization of DCEA to be the same as the FF’s. Fact finding for the former is done, and it appears that the proverbial “ball” is in the CC’s side of the net, unlike the situation with the FF’s.
“The firefighters have huge salaries. No doubt. But there is still an underlying resentment in Davis towards a group of hardworking folks without PHD’s who make more than the intelligencia. I have heard many people in Davis make comments about firefighters with high school degrees who make more than they do, with a PHD…This is a real resentment. ” [img]http://www.tintanaudio.com/thumbs_up_smiley.gif[/img]
Define “huge salaries”. Those might be huge salaries in Dixon or even Sacopotatoes, in D’ville that’s a three bedroom and public schools for the kids, if the spouse has an income.[img]http://th360.photobucket.com/albums/oo46/Szabokisandi/th_smiley_sad.png[/img]
Really, the elect in D’ville are intellectual snobs?[img]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSX64-Ai5OmkLafwNw0pJFsJz8KL66p2Q2whtAywLYqgPUwM3qv[/img] Those on the outside can only see this snobbery as most unfounded .
David usually manages to omit his own bias in this issue, resulting from his wife’s failed 2008 candidacy, which failure he blames on the fire fighters.
Biddlin ;>)/
[quote]David usually manages to omit his own bias in this issue, resulting from his wife’s failed 2008 candidacy, which failure he blames on the fire fighters.
Biddlin ;>)/[/quote]
Wether or not David has a bias is irrelevant if, in fact, the firefighters are really are misleading the public. Are you questioning the legitimacy this claim or just David’s overall ability to report without bias on this issue in general.
actually i don’t think david blames his wife’s loss on the firefighters. he has pointed to that period as important in that he started to look into te firefighters actions at that point. what he and others have found out is the ability of the firefighters to pool their resources and the negative impact of that ability on the city budget. in this case, we have blatant dishonesty and you appear to be trying to change the subject – as usual.
hpierce
[quote]Just want to see if I understand you correctly… are you saying that all people, irregardless to education, training, experience should be compensated the same? Perhaps at the current median income? With a 100% income tax above that level? That scenario would certainly help alleviate poverty, provide universal health care, etc. Not saying that’s a bad idea, just need to understand your point.
[/quote]
Your first sentence is an accurate reflection of what I believe. I do not know enough economics to know what kind of tax structure would support my proposal which would be the following. Any one who is doing what the societal expectations are for their age group, say attending school for those under 18, or working in the home raising children ( clearly needed work for the future of the human species) or any work that contributes to society such as teacher, firefighter, doctor, plumber, should be compensated equally. The basis for the compensation should be that which is undeniably equal for all of us. An hour of my time is equal to an hour in the life of my next door neighbor, the factory worker. This scheme would keep everyone fed, clothed and housed and would still be open to individual enterprise since, if you wanted more “goodies” you could put in more hours to earn them. If you want to save money for your children to inherit, simple, you just work more hours. If you know that they will be covered adequately by the system for reasonable societal contribution, maybe you would prefer to spend more time doing the things you love if that is not your work and enjoy your time knowing that your children, and everyone else will be able to do the same.
[quote]Your first sentence is an accurate reflection of what I believe. [/quote]Thank you for your candor. I do not agree with it necessarily, but I honor, and would be willing to defend your right to that belief. There was this guy who was an itinerant preacher in the mid-east ~ 2000 years ago who held a similar belief. I’m not that good or noble. I believe that someone who has to put years of training into being prepared to do the job, serving the public well, in the face of those who verbally (and psychologically) abuse them, deserve more than someone who just puts in time ‘doing their job’. If we could find the place where all were respected the same, and as you say, compensated for their advanced training (I wasn’t), perhaps I could come to the same belief you espouse.
Not sure that situation will happen in my lifetime, particularly where we pay athletes millions of dollars to play a game to entertain us.
In the interim, paix to you and all those you care for.
I’m not sure what the Fire Fighters are doing nor have I had a chance to see if Mr. Greenwald’s claims are true. I’m not sure why he tied the DCEA to this blog, though. Seems slightly disingenuous.
I am far from alone in questioning David’s overall ability to report without bias on this issue in specific and many others as well. David does not claim to be unbiased, rather he views his biases as always being in Davis’ best interest.
Biddlin ;>)/
[quote]I am far from alone in questioning David’s overall ability to report without bias on this issue in specific and many others as well. David does not claim to be unbiased, rather he views his biases as always being in Davis’ best interest.
Biddlin ;>)/[/quote]
So are you saying his claims that the fire fighters are misleading the public are false? I have no first hand knowledge of wether his claim is true or not, do you? (I’m really asking, not attempting to be snarky).
Where does it end? Why not add West Sac, Woodland and the county as one big tent fire department with one chief. Think how much money you could save.
I’ve actually long thought we should do that with school administration reducing the need for so many administrators duplicating work that could be done by far fewer people using modern technology and getting more money into the classroom to reduce class size.
Isn’t this what the County is trying to do by combining the Clerk and Assessor positions? Looks like this is the wave of the future, more Indians, fewer chiefs. Or in this case more firefighters, fewer chiefs.
[quote]David usually manages to omit his own bias in this issue, resulting from his wife’s failed 2008 candidacy, which failure he blames on the fire fighters.
Biddlin ;>)/ [/quote]
In my opinion David’s wife lost in 2008 because of her dealings as a member of the HRC.
But I don’t see any proof here of Davis firefighter dishonesty? Seems like amid all the hoopla here about dishonesty and cronyism, etc, they are just exercising their rights by appearing at City Council meetings, interacting with Davis citizens and collecting signatures on petitions.
What, specifically, have they done wrong.
They certainly have done a lot of right in Davis for many, many years, saving lives and property.
As others have indicated, we need to keep separate our appreciation for the dedication and competency of the Davis firefighters from the actions of the union. There’s very little linkage between the two.
I’m not opposed to public employee unions; I think collective bargaining is a rational solution to the inherently unequal power of employer and employee. But just as an overly powerful employer can (and often does) lead to substandard compensation for employees, the reverse can also occur. It happens so infrequently that it takes many by surprise, but it happened here in Davis. Over the course of many years, the union built a powerful political machine that managed to gain so much control that firefighter compensation got seriously out of sync with comparable positions outside the department. Unwinding that unbalance in a short span of time — something the city has to do in order to regain control of its budget — is what’s now causing so much strife.
I don’t blame the firefighters for pushing up firefighter pay, or for wanting to keep their current compensation levels. But they pushed it beyond what the market could sustain, and now the howls of protest over return to more rational levels are landing on deaf public ears. It’s stressful and disruptive for all concerned, but I believe it must and will happen.
Just to address Growth Izzue’s post, I think he’s partially right. I think my wife lost in 2008 because she did not do enough to counter the negative perception about what happened in 2006 with the HRC. I don’t see a huge role that the firefighters played in that. I focused more heavily on the firefighters during the 2008 election but the biggest turning point for me was actually the Grand Jury report and then the cover up by the council. Final point to Biddlin, if we were so upset about losing in 2008, don’t you think she would have run again? But we got kids starts in 2009 and our priorities shifted. Most of my focus on the firefighters stems from the corruption and unsustainability that came to light in 2008 rather than personal feelings.
BrianKenyon
[quote]they are just exercising their rights by appearing at City Council meetings, interacting with Davis citizens and collecting signatures on petitions.
What, specifically, have they done wrong. [/quote]
The firefighters clearly have the right to appear at City Council meetings, interact with Davis citizens, and collect signatures on petitions. I do not believe that anyone is disputing their rights. What is being questioned is that, in the exercise of those rights, are they being honest, or are they attempting to sway people with fear.
The arguments that I have seen at CC presentations were suggestions that if changes were made, such as reductions in compensation, adoption of the boundary drop, essentially any changes made in the degree of integration with the UCD fire department that Davis citizens would somehow be “less safe”. They have enlisted a few homeowners who, understandably enough, are gratefully to the firefighters for saving lives and property.
However, what has been absent in this presentations is any evidence that the proposed changes would make anyone less safe. Assertion and repetition without evidence, or data, to me represents a fear tactic.
This combined with the union unwillingness to cooperate in any way as other groups within the city have done in attempts to control costs for the city are what I see as the answer to “what, specifically, they have done wrong”.
Medwoman writes: “The arguments that I have seen at CC presentations were suggestions that if changes were made, such as reductions in compensation, adoption of the boundary drop, essentially any changes made in the degree of integration with the UCD fire department that Davis citizens would somehow be “less safe”.
Did the firefighters union members at the CC meetings mention any specifics about “reductions in compensation” and how that would affect the safety of Davisites?
That almost sounds like you are suggesting they would go on some kind of work slowdown or strike if their compensation were reduced.
Pretty radical, if true.
I’m sorry but you have not convinced me that Davis firefighters would put Davisites at risk for any reason.
They are dedicated to saving lives and property; that is their job.
BrianKenyon
[quote]That almost sounds like you are suggesting they would go on some kind of work slowdown or strike if their compensation were reduced.
Pretty radical, if true.
I’m sorry but you have not convinced me that Davis firefighters would put Davisites at risk for any reason[/quote]
I am not sure how you got to this conclusion from what I wrote. I certainly never said anything about what action they might or might not take. What I did say is that on several occasions the statement was made by firefighters that the safety of the community would be compromised without any substantiating evidence.
There were a hand full of community members who gave testimonials to the good work of the firefighters paired with pleas to not make changes. The juxtaposition of these two positions to me appeared to be implying that proposed changes would put the community at risk. There were no substantive numbers presented to back up these claims. It was this, and only this, that made me interpret their strategy as one attempting to play upon the fears of an inadequate response to a fire if the proposed changes were made.
I certainly am not attempting to convince you or anyone else that the firefighters would put Davisites at risk.
But I do not believe that some of them are above implying to Davisites that the changes would put them at risk without any evidence that this is the case. If there is supporting data, they should present it, if not they should drop the innuendos.