Yesterday the Vanguard reported that the city has contracted with Citygate to examine the operations and staffing of the Davis Fire Department. The same Public Records Act Request also shows an interesting relationship between various players in City Hall and the Fourth Estate.
The Davis Enterprise following their article that chronicled the number of 100K employees in the city and their editorial call for changes in staffing, ran two articles dealing with employee salaries and fire staffing. First on April 5, Claire St. John ran an article on the latest negotiations. Then second on April 8, Lauren Keene ran an article that showed the fire chief arguing for the current staffing arrangement. That was followed by former Councilmember Ted Puntillo’s Op-Ed which argued much the same.
“We’re preparing another story about employee salaries and negotiations, and I’d like to talk with you again about employee salaries.”
Astonishingly she then prompts the City Manager:
“I was hoping you would say something about how it’s not the fault of the employees that they’re paid the salaries that they’re paid, it was the result of the negotiations, but only, of course, if that’s what you want to say.”
It does not appear the City Manager took the bait, because there is no such statement by him in the article which turned out to be fairly balanced. However, the leading question is somewhat appalling.
We also see interesting relationships at play when Davis Enterprise Reporter Lauren Keene emailed all five councilmembers their views on fire staffing and whether the city should move from four personnel to three.
That article, Ms. Keene focuses mostly on Chief Rose Conroy’s view of the fire staffing and her support of the status quo. However, she also elicits the response of the council on the issue.
Three councilmembers responded–Sue Greenwald, Don Saylor and Steve Souza.
“At this point, I think we have no choice but to explore options,” Greenwald said. “There are many technical factors to consider, so this is one case where I think we could benefit by hiring a consultant to help us assess the effects of any proposed changes on the quality of the services.”
Saylor says he supports retaining four-person crews because they can respond more efficiently to a wide range of emergencies.
“Public safety is an essential, core function of city government,” Saylor said. “Rapid response capability with sufficient staffing available is an essential element of public safety. We should look elsewhere for budget reductions and we are.”
Souza, meanwhile, said severe financial constraints call for the city to make “the most efficient use of our resources.”
“In determining the size of our fire crews we must use a reasoned approach which enables us to determine the level of resources needed based on an analysis of our local fire and life-safety risk within our community,” Souza said. “This deployment standard also needs to be based on empirical data methods that allow us the ability to determine our acceptable level of service and risk as long as we balance it by properly providing for fire department employee’s health and safety.”
What is interesting, is that in response to the email from Ms. Keene, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor asked both Chief Rose Conroy and City Manager Bill Emlen for their thoughts. And when he responded finally to Ms. Keene nearly a week later, he copied both along with Paul Navazio on his response email.
He received considerable guidance from the Fire Chief on his crafted answer. Here are her talking-points:
Loren called and set up a meeting with me for tomorrow for an article. I plan on sharing this same information to her.
In 1999 I recommended 4 person engine companies because we had two options:
1. Wait outside a structure until the arrival of 2nd due engine or
2. Increase the minimum staffing at outlying stations to for person engine companies-downtown has always been staffed with 4 (to drive the rescue).
I recommended option 2 because:
1. It would not decrease the service level we provided to date,
2. It will provide a safety net for the firefighters (I believe it is reasonable to expect the firefighters to risk their lives – that is why they get public safety pensions- and for us to have two firefighters outside to go in and pull them out if they go down inside the building-whole point of OSHA requirement 2in 2 out ),
3. 4 person engine companies are more efficient and get more work done (not just 25% more work, studies have shown 73-80% increased efficiency)
a. 4 per eng co also have fewer injuries/deaths for civilians and firefighters; lower fire damage dollar and higher loss/save ratio; reduction in number of greater alarms; preservation of tax base properties; fewer worker’s compensation for firefighters; lower civil liability for the City and Fire Department.
4. With 4 person engine companies we are able to break away engine companies for simultaneous calls which with 3 per engine companies would require two engine companies for even routine emergencies.
Considerations:
1. Civilian fire deaths and firefighter fatalities historically have mostly occurred in residential property uses. What do we have a lot of in Davis? Single and multifamily homes.
2. Is the Davis Fire Department too expensive? Do we have too many firefighters?
No. In annual cost comparisons we check with agencies that we have historically compared with citywide, who are nearby and/or are college towns and provide similar services. The following are the results:
- Davis has more people per station than others
- Davis has more density in city limit than others
- One of the lowest in cost per capita
- Davis has fewer fire stations than all but one
- Davis’ number of firefighters per thousand is one of lowest
- Davis is one of two cities that do not have battalion chiefs (out of 9)
- One of the lowest total number of firefighters working on shift
On Monday morning we had a fire in a residence on Arthur. First engine on scene went in and put multiple fires out. Second engine arrived 2 1/2 minutes later. If we would have had 3 person engine companies the first engine would have had to wait until the second engine arrived while the fire continued to bum. So instead of a few articles in the room burned, the fire could have been burning freely for 2 1/2 minutes causing more property damage and possibly additional pets lost. One tortoise died in that fire but the occupants and their cats safely evacuated with another tortoise that had a burned shell.}
Much of this outline would appear in the article attributed to the fire chief.
Mayor Pro Tem Saylor would then craft his response which included the 2007 fire staffing study for the city.
While the response itself is quite lengthy, here is the core of it:
“Public safety is an essential, core function of city government. Proper staffing for police and fire service must be a high priority for any city. Everything I have read, heard, and observed first hand leads me to support the decision of the 199.9 Davis City Council to staff our emergency first responders at four persons per engine company. This long standing practice is well grounded. This is the best and most efficient way for us to protect the public in a wide range of emergencies. Furthermore, four staff on an engine company meets OSHA guidelines and the many national standards for safety of the public and firefighters in emergency situations.
Rapid response capability with sufficient staffing available is an essential element of public safety. We should look elsewhere for budget reductions and we are. The City Council has maintained a 15% reserve over the past five years and implemented a number of fiscal reforms. The unresolved deficit moving into 2009-2010 is about $2.7 million. We will be implementing spending reductions, maintaining the reserve of about $5 million, and not seeking new funding. In addressing this deficit, we must assure that essential services remain intact.”
It is instructive that the Fire Chief, Mayor Pro Tem, and later Former Councilmember Ted Puntillo also site half of the data of Davis’ fire staffing. The half of the data that show that Davis has a lower level of service as opposed to the data that show Davis has the fewer fire calls and the highest cost per call of all comparable cities.
A decent amount of the fault of that also lies with the Staff Report from 2007 on fire staffing which also only includes half the data–the half that shows Davis understaffed compared to comparable cities.
Former Councilmember Ted Puntillo notably briefed the friendly portion of the council (Asmundson, Saylor, and Souza) along with Mr. Emlen and Chief Conroy about his eventual op-ed in the Davis Enterprise.
He writes:
“I know we can find the money to keep our Fire Department in tact and operating at the safest level possible. We find money for parks, pools and all the feel good stuff, and we need to to keep our eye on the real important things like the personal safety of our citizens. How much is a human life worth? That is why we pay you the big bucks.”
City Manager Emlen responded:
“I appreciate your insights. At the last workshop on the budget, I established a goal of no reductions to fire of police staffing.
I must admit, it will be tough to meet. COPS money may help on the police side. It will be tougher on the fire side. I do believe there may be ways to save money and keep them at current staffing levels if their operational model is modified. Volunteers could be a component of this change. I may pick your brain at some point given your unique perspective.”
What these emails show is the Mayor Pro Tem decisively taking his lead at the very least from the Fire Chief on this issue. We see an interesting relationship between City Hall and the Davis Enterprise. And yet at the same time, we see the city being pushed forward to address the salary and staffing issues.
The key question at this point is really what the outcome will be of the consultant report, whether the public will find out what the paid consultants have to say, and ultimately, what the city is able to accomplish through the collective bargaining position. It is clear that some are not willing to be open to address the tough issues and choices they will have to make.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Enterprise never ceases to amaze me. I can’t think of a more biased newpaper. It’s basically a public relations rag for special interests. And as a “reporter”, St. John is a joke. Talk about totally biased reporting. But you know, her marching orders come from the editor and owners. Davis has an ugly web of some city council members, public employees, city manager, Davis Enterprise, etc. In the next election let’s vote these people OUT.
Emlen’s fine. Enterprise is a rag, but considering their budget, I’m not that surprised. Claire is good in my personal opinion, but there are so few reporters on staff that there aren’t enough viewpoints.
The only “web” that really concerns me is the firefighters lobbying power.
I would lke to hear the City Council proclaim this at the beginning of the budget process-
“We understand the taxpayers are our shareholders and the purpose of municipal government is to provide a long term stream of services to the shareholders. The cost of current and future services, all of the costs, must fit within a reasonable projection of current and future tax revenue.”
That is the mission.
The primary purpose of government is to meet the needs of shareholders – not to meet the needs of government and its employees. Government is a service and it should act like it is part of the service industry.
[quote]Davis has an ugly web of some city council members, public employees, city manager, Davis Enterprise, etc. In the next election let’s vote these people OUT.[/quote]The problem with the argument that The Enterprise is in cahoots with the fire department or Councilman Saylor or Chief Conroy is that The Enterprise has officially taken [i]the opposite position[/i] on the question at hand, fire department staffing. That puts The Enterprise, in this case, at odds with the others.
I should add that I don’t know what Bill Emlen’s view is on fire staffing at this time. I met with him and Paul Navazio (before I wrote my own op/ed calling for 3-man crews, the first to do so) and we talked about financial aspects of reducing the staffing levels. Bill didn’t express a firm position that it had to stay the same; or it had to change. He mostly just answered my questions. However, I got the feeling that he was open to the idea and that he thought, in light of the budgetary mess, it was worth considering. Paul, likewise, did not tell me “we should cut back to 3-person crews.” However, when I suggested that we could save millions of dollars in overtime by reducing the minimum staffing levels while keeping all current ff’s and only reducing the total personnel through natural attrition, he noted we could save even more by laying off a handful of them right away. (I don’t endorse firing anyone in the DFD, unless there is no other choice.) I interpreted Paul’s words to mean that he is very much interested in exploring the idea of 3-man crews.
Rich: Do you think it was appropriate for Claire to suggest to Emlen what she wanted to hear?
“I should add that I don’t know what Bill Emlen’s view is on fire staffing at this time. I met with him and Paul Navazio (before I wrote my own op/ed calling for 3-man crews, the first to do so) and we talked about financial aspects of reducing the staffing levels.”
And you believed anything those two had to say? They do nothing but put out doublespeak.
“On Monday, March 30, 2009, prior to the April 5, 2009 article, Claire St. John emails Bill Emlen:
“We’re preparing another story about employee salaries and negotiations, and I’d like to talk with you again about employee salaries.”
Astonishingly she then prompts the City Manager:
“I was hoping you would say something about how it’s not the fault of the employees that they’re paid the salaries that they’re paid, it was the result of the negotiations, but only, of course, if that’s what you want to say.””
This is typical Claire St. John. She has been given the slant she is to project, and then interviews people in a way that will get the results she is looking for or has been told to create. The Emptyprise has become nothing more than a huge Op-Ed page. Claire needs to go back to integrity school and take “Ethics 101”.
[quote]Rich: Do you think it was appropriate for Claire to suggest to Emlen what she wanted to hear?[/quote]I’m willing to withhold judgment. Sometimes things are not what they appear to be. I don’t know if, for example, Bill had said something to her along those lines but she did not have a quote from him, and therefore she was trying to prompt him to repeat in quote form what he had said before. If that’s what happened, then her request seems reasonable. As a general rule, I suggest not always assuming the worst possible explanation as the most likely one. I would wait to hear more from the parties involved before reaching a conclusion.
Claire’s suggestion to Emlen may be an attempt to get this point made – that the individual employees are not responsible for the current agreement – without inserting her own opinions into the article. I think this is OK. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard of campaigns organize endorsements or a “quote” and asking the person to OK it as attributed to them. Claire may have heard this pointed out before during other conversations, but wanted Emlen to go on record as stating this fact. Again, I am OK with that.
When I see fire fighters at the grocery store, I can’t help but envision $$$ signs floating over the heads of each one. I think that it is important to recognize that the salaries are set in negotiations involving a small circle of people – union representatives, city management, the city attorney and elected representatives. It is essential that people don’t get angry or vent their frustrations directly with employees.
Fascinating piece, Vanguard, as always. How did you get the emails? Are emails that go through a government system public record?
The simple answer is yes, but there are some things that are exempted including pending litigation, personnel matters, and what they call part of the deliberative process.
If memory is correct, Claire St. John handled the UCD Biolab controversy. I thought she did a splendid job.
She also handled Measure X and did a good job. Then she seemed to sell out.
The Enterprise feeding wished for answers to interviewees is bad, but so is DPD’s tendency to write sensational headlines in any piece that involves Don Saylor. It strikes me as eminently reasonable for a city council person to consult city employees on a technical issue like the number of people to staff a firetruck with. What would be more troubling would be if any of these part-time, minimally paid elected officials had formed their own knee jerk opinions based on little information or political winds.
In my reading DPD usually does a good job, except under a few circumstances, and anything involving Saylor is one of those circumstances.
“I’m willing to withhold judgment. Sometimes things are not what they appear to be. I don’t know if, for example, Bill had said something to her along those lines but she did not have a quote from him, and therefore she was trying to prompt him to repeat in quote form what he had said before. If that’s what happened, then her request seems reasonable. As a general rule, I suggest not always assuming the worst possible explanation as the most likely one. I would wait to hear more from the parties involved before reaching a conclusion.”
Ordinarily, I might concede your point. But unfortunately I have had experience w Claire St. John, and she has a nasty habit of putting words in people’s mouth, or slanting articles by taking comments out of context. I have very little respect for her as a reporter, and would never, ever do another interview w her. And I doubt she would ever ask me for another one, either, bc I took her to task for her slanted reporting.
What a bunch of useless busybodies. “I’m okay with this, that or the other…”
Sheesh. Who among you asked Bill Emlen what he thought of the email Claire St. John wrote? Who asked Claire St. John about her email, why she wrote it, what she expected? No, Greenwald is ripping off memos and judging them in a vacuum, or his head…
And the cheap shot: Claire St. John “selling out.” That’s just ad hominem ad nauseum to the max. How specifically did she “sell out?” Which source did she compromise? Did she rat out a whistle-blower? Did she make stuff up? C’mon, busybodies, if you’re going to spout off, ask around first, so you at least sound like you know what you are talking about…
Hey dickhead Brian K, have you asked around; checked your source; done your homework? NO!! How can you deny the email she sent Emlen, not to mention the respondents who obviously have had a poor experience with her. Obviously your a useless busybody as well if you have the time to read the comments and respond. Dickhead!
“No, Greenwald is ripping off memos and judging them in a vacuum, or his head”
How do you know?
Moi? A “dickhead?” Remy, have we ever met? Am racking my brains, nope nothing in the memory banks. I don’t know any rude so-and-so’s named Remy. So who are you to call me a dickhead? Glad I don’t ectually, know you that is.
Anyway, I know Greenwald doesn’t have the journalistic ethics to go and talk to Emlen, because I don’t see any quotes from him. Neither any from Claire St. John. Greenwald would have included them in this blog, if they’d sent or told him any you can be sure–even negative publicity is publicity, and he needs all he can get for this parasitical virtual rag.
Hey Remy your mom needs to clean your mouth out with soap!
If memory is correct, Claire St. John handled the UCD Biolab controversy. I thought she did a splendid job.
That was Crystal Ross O’Hara.
“What a bunch of useless busybodies. “I’m okay with this, that or the other…”
Sheesh. Who among you asked Bill Emlen what he thought of the email Claire St. John wrote? Who asked Claire St. John about her email, why she wrote it, what she expected? No, Greenwald is ripping off memos and judging them in a vacuum, or his head…
And the cheap shot: Claire St. John “selling out.” That’s just ad hominem ad nauseum to the max. How specifically did she “sell out?” Which source did she compromise? Did she rat out a whistle-blower? Did she make stuff up? C’mon, busybodies, if you’re going to spout off, ask around first, so you at least sound like you know what you are talking about…”
Excuse me, but before you spout off about everyone else, take a look at Claire St. John’s words: “I was hoping you would say something about how it’s not the fault of the employees that they’re paid the salaries that they’re paid, it was the result of the negotiations, but only, of course, if that’s what you want to say.”
“I was hoping you would say…” is putting words in someone’s mouth, or at least attempting to.
I have had bad experiences with this reporter, been interviewed by her, and would never, ever give her another interview. She took my words out of context, so that I was forced to explain what I really meant in both the Vanguard and Enterprise editorial page. That is not good reporting, and IMHO Claire St. John needs to go back and take “Ethics 101”.