Weist Willing to Risk Public Safety in Order to Protect Turf – This past week, Davis Interim Fire Chief Scott Kenley made a thorough presentation of the Davis Fire Department.
Contained within the report were recommendations as to how the city could move forward with a reduction of fire staffing, first reducing staffing from 42 to 36 and then reducing staffing from 12 personnel per shift down to 10 or 11, depending on how the city wanted to proceed.
What is clear is that staffing that seemed to make sense 13 years ago, when OSHA developed their guidelines for two-in/two-out fire intervention, makes less sense today, given both the increased costs of six additional firefighters as well as the limited number of calls requiring an interior entry into a working structure fire.
Concurrent to these discussions are ongoing labor negotiation talks between the city and all bargaining units. In the budget adopted in late June, the council created a goal of $4 million in savings from “all funds,” and $3 million dollars from the general fund.
Currently the negotiations continue to drag and the city is looking at perhaps half of that for this fiscal year, $3.3 million by the end of the labor contracts.
The barrier to budgetary savings and reform remains chiefly the firefighters union, Local 3499. It was their long-time president Bobby Weist who, once again at Tuesday’s council meeting, spoke out against reform proposals.
At times, the president was clearly mocking the interim chief’s recommendations.
For instance, when the chief recommended reducing unobtainable response time goals – a finding similar to Citygate’s recommendations starting in 2009 – Mr. Weist responded mockingly, “Sure we can meet the response time if we go from four to eight to twelve, now 20. If it took us a half hour to get to the call – we’re going to get there within a half hour anywhere in the city…”
It was with irony that his overall thought was that the report’s “flavor seemed to be money – nowhere in there did it say it was going to improve the service, that it’s going to give the citizens a better service than they’re getting – I don’t think it can be done without another station and continuing what we’re doing.”
There is the obvious irony of a department, whose employees are making between $150,000 and $170,000 per year in total compensation, complaining that the focus on their department is monetary rather than quality of service. Bobby Weist himself makes presently $210,000 annually in total compensation, a figure that includes salary, overtime, medical, leave accrual and retiree medical, among other benefits.
However, information that the Vanguard has received from sources within the UC Davis Fire Department demonstrates that Mr. Weist only focuses on quality of service when he wants to avoid the focus of the fiscal impact of his department and his members’ compensation from taxpayer money.
In his report, Interim Chief Scott Kenley analyzes the potential for a merger with UC Davis that was put on hold early in 2012 by UC Davis Vice Chancellor John Meyer.
“Both of our agencies remain committed to a unified fire department to serve our shared community,” Vice Chancellor Meyer wrote to Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton on January 12, 2012. “However, I believe that we have reached a point of limited progress and that for a variety of reasons, most particularly the City’s pending negotiations with its firefighters, we should pause this process as described below and then reconvene in the 2012-13 fiscal year.”
Mr. Weist noted in his comments to council this week that it was UC Davis who ended the fire merger, not the City of Davis.
Technically speaking, this is true, but Mr. Weist’s comment ignores the huge problem, what Vice Chancellor Meyer cited as a “significant compensation disparity.” Davis firefighters make far more in compensation than their UC Davis counterparts, to the point where that gap would not be bridgeable for purposes of merging the two departments.
Interim Chief Kenley notes that there is limited opportunity for direct fiscal savings from the merger.
The biggest obstacle is cultural. Chief Kenley writes, “In interviews with administration and members from both agencies it is clear that there is a sense of pride of ownership and a need to maintain a level of autonomy. Given the difficulties of achieving a full merger of the agencies dating back as early as 1999; it is unlikely that the taxpayers, elected officials, Regents and labor groups will ever reach agreement on a full merger.”
A full merger may ultimately be less important than one critical reform. Right now there is what one might call a “wall” between the city of Davis and UC Davis. What that means is that if a call for service is called for in the city of Davis, one of Davis’ three fire units automatically gets first response.
That happens regardless of whether the UC Davis station is actually closer.
As Chief Kenley noted in his report, a UC Davis unit cannot be the first responder to an emergency in the city.
He writes, “Currently, Engine Thirty-four is not on the initial call for any emergency calls within the City of Davis’s response boundaries, including simultaneous calls in Engine Thirty-one’s first-in response area.”
“I think you and the rest of the public would be surprised how many times Davis Fire sends E-32 or E-33 to an emergency that E-34 or T-34 is closer,” one of our sources who asked not to be identified told the Vanguard.
Often this situation arises when Davis’ fire station 31 is either on another call or otherwise out of the station.
Moreover, there are times when station 31 is closer to parts of campus than UC Davis’ fire station, and the same is true with station 32 located in West Davis, in response to incidents with the Primate Center.
“We moved in the correct direction when UC Fire signed an agreement with the City of Davis for dispatching. However, as stated above, we have not moved towards closest unit response,” a source told the Vanguard.
One of the reasons that this change has not occurred is that Bobby Weist is dead set against it, apparently viewing a UC Davis fire response to calls within the city as taking away work from his own membership.
Several sources have in the past told the Vanguard that Mr. Weist has acknowledged that he does not care about customer service, what he cares about is protecting his own turf and that this wall will never be torn down.
“We need to change this attitude. We need to send the closest available resource to the emergency,” a source said, noting that the typical customer does not care if they are assisted by a city unit or a UC unit.
And while Mr. Kenley argues that a merger with UC Davis does not have huge fiscal consequences, our source suggests that sending the closest unit may save money, given that the unit is traveling less distance.
Moreover, it would better allow the city to cope with fewer fire personnel serving the city, as they could utilize UC Davis’ crew.
As our source notes, this should be an easy fix. It has limited fiscal impact. And in fact, it would improve not only customer service but public safety.
However, the chief impediment to this solution is Bobby Weist and primarily because, for whatever reason, he views this as a threat to his control.
It is questionable as to why this would be a union issue at all. After all, it does not change their conditions of employment, either compensation or work hours.
Sources tell the Vanguard that fire administration has been reluctant to implement such changes due to fears that the Bobby Weist and the union would file a grievance against the city. However, most seem to believe that PERB would rule in favor of the city on this issue.
So, while Bobby Weist will, on the one hand, argue that the city’s reforms are geared for saving money rather than improving service, he himself has long been a critical obstacle to some of the biggest improvements to service.
It should be a no-brainer that the closest unit should respond to an emergency, regardless of which side of the boundary the call and the station is on. Anything else is playing politics with people’s lives.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
For an attack article named ‘Weist willing to risk public safety in order to protect turf’ their certainly are a lot of unnamed sources chiming in. I am not a proponent of Bobby Weist, but am a proponent of fair and accurate reporting. For me personally, paragraphs that start out, ‘sources say’, or ‘our sources say’, or ‘the sources say’ are filler material. This is what Fox news is for.
Unfortunately people expressed fear of retaliation if they put their name out there. The New York Times uses anonymous sources well, so I’m not exactly sure why you immediately go to Fox News unless you wish to discredit the information. In fact, in a follow up, the report by Kenley goes into a lot of the boundary drop issues explicitly.
I watched Mr Weist respond to the Interim Chief and if not disrespectful, very close. And his comments didn’t seem convincing.
It is hard to imagine the same lack of respectful comments to oe’s boss in the PD or city, but wait, this is a strong union shop and I am sure he thinks he is the boss.
I think there could be a WAC-type discussion for the fire issue, but it would be hard to find volunteers.
I applaud the Interim Chief and hope the CC acts. They did not appear overly interested in his report the other night but it was late.
The old saw, “fear of retaliation” is code for fear of accountability and responsibility for self-motivated public attacks against others. The call for more facts and responsible comments is well taken. Let’s go there for a moment.
Bobby paints a picture of his membership being called out on many occasions, in seemingly frequent hazardous circumstances, all in the name of public safety at personal hazard.
The data is there for examination. Dispatch records can capture the frequency of calls for service, the type of call, and particularly the occasions where the “two-in, two-out” does, in fact,happen. Please note at no time did Bobby give any data in support of his painted scenario.
Personal risk in public safety is a given. If you want a job with no danger element at all, look elsewhere.
Maximum safety is stressed in public safety training and policy, but so also is “calculated risk.” There are times where a public safety provider must go in harms way to, get this, protect the public.
Mr. Weist speaks in broad generalities about workload and hazard level to support current staffing levels. A Council Member needs to ask Bobby to come back with the number of instances, in comparable cities, where death or injury was realized because two persons were not available to go into a hazardous circumstance. Compare that against the total calls for service. Warning: Don’t rely on data gathered by collective fire unions, for the obvious reasons.
The companion public safety provider known as law enforcement has personal risk circumstances literally every day, and more than once. In most of these situations the law enforcement officer is alone. Vehicle stops are inherently hazardous, so are domestic violence calls, and bar fights.
Let’s call for both the police and fire chief to extract CAD data from the dispatch center detailing the work volume and risk factor for both providers of public safety in Davis. Then, compare that information with comparable cities in California. The information is there, and readily retrievable. Then, and only then, can fire spokesmen AND anonymous sources be fairly analyzed and judged.
Greenwald said “Several sources have in the past told the Vanguard that Mr. Weist has acknowledged that he does not care about customer service, what he cares about is protecting his own turf and that this wall will never be torn down.”
Really, did Mr. Weist really say this? You obviously have a problem with Mr. Weist, but a statement as inflammatory as this one should have a source attached to it. If this alleged statement can’t be corroborated, then it’s slander.
Phil’s comments are pretty much “on spot”…
If those who don’t want to have any attribution, they are either paranoid (recommend counseling) or the city is too weak at the senior management level to prevent employees from a petty dictatorship… if Mr Weist and/or the union is that ‘powerful’, there is a cancer that needs to be excised. Such “power” should not exist either in the private or public sector.
ProDavis… arguably, now that is “in print”, it may be “libel” as well… or it may be true, in which case the City and/or public should act to excise the cancer.
I would say that Bobby Weist is out of line here. He is a captain, who was promoted into that position over other more qualified employees. He is not in charge of setting staffing levels or policies of the department or the City. He doesn’t live in Davis. He is merely an employee and has no power other than the power granted to him by the Fire Chief, the City Manager and our elected representatives. Decades of political contributions bought Bobby power, but I think that the community has tired of that and there is less influence in that manner. I suspect that he makes it uncomfortable for Fire Chiefs we do hire to run the department and his efforts to “protect his turf” are making it difficult to make changes. The City Council needs to give his comments the weight that they deserve – that of an employee of a City department.
i guess i’m missing the evidence that the report is wrong just because he relied on someone who didn’t wish to go on the record. what makes you guys think he didn’t corroborate the information?
Never said the report is wrong… my point is that if those who allege things are afraid to attribute, there is perhaps a BIGGER problem, or they are “spit-balling”. I personally suspect the former, rather than the latter. I do not know.
Hpierce, I respect your knowledge of our city. How would you recommend the situation be resolved, or at least analyzed as you suggest?
just seems like people are writing this story off because he relied on someone or more than one someone who didn’t want to give their name.
[quote]How would you recommend the situation be … at least analyzed [/quote](other parts of the quote were omitted, as I ‘suggested’ nothing)
Well, one idea would be to do REAL investigative reporting, to see to what extent employees or others feel intimidated by Mr Weist, any union/employee organization, the HR employees/department, or CM’s office. Think there is “smoke”, but honestly, have never had direct evidence of a “fire”. If I did/had, I’d “out” it… I have had a long-standing hatred/animus against “bullies”… goes back over 50+ years.
No wisdom here, just observation. My experience is that bullies will be defeated IF THOSE THEY BULLY REFUSE TO TAKE IT, AND STAND UP. Bullies know how to deflect those in “authority” positions. They generally cannot withstand those who they perceive as weaker, who have the courage to [despite size, etc.] confront them and tell them that if they don’t stop, the “weakling” will exact a heavy price from them. Sometimes, ‘kinda like poker… you don’t have to have the best hand to win… you just have to convince the other player that you do. Obviously, that technique would not work with armed sociopaths, but don’t think that applies in this discussion.
[quote]”Several sources have in the past told the Vanguard that Mr. Weist has acknowledged that he does not care about customer service, what he cares about is protecting his own turf and that this wall will never be torn down.” [/quote]
I find it somewhat suspect that Mr. Weist would actually have come out and said that he does “not care about customer service, what he cares about is protecting his own turf”.
This sounds suspiciously like an inference made from his positions and actions which may or may not reflect his actual motives.
I agree with Phil Coleman that what is actually needed here is data. Numbers of calls, degree of hazard, length of the call from start to complete resolution, actual call related injuries with their cost of treatment and actual cost of the call and damage to any call related structures. As was pointed out, this should be relatively easily obtained data. The only point on which I would differ is that I do not think that the CC should charge Mr Weist with compiling this data. I believe that it should be gathered, summarized and presented by an independent party with no preconceived idea of the outcome. This would clearly preclude Mr. Weist, but would also preclude participation of others who have already arrived at their conclusions such as Mr. Harrington.
medwoman’s concurrence with Mr Coleman is ALSO spot on…
Still see 4 members on those truck crews. The City fiddles while its budget burns. Sure, let’s have another study.
MH
So, what, other than the fact that you have already made up your mind, would you see as the downside to reviewing the data I suggested ?
come on mike, you know how these things work better than anyone here.
you guys do realize that almost everything that coleman suggested, greenwald has reported.
“Dispatch records can capture the frequency of calls for service, the type of call, and particularly the occasions where the “two-in, two-out” does, in fact,happen.”
greenwald reported for example that there have been 15 structure fires in the last 3 years, 5 required an entry, only two where three on an engine might have mattered.
if you look really closely at phil coleman’s post, his attack was on weist, not greenwald.
Growth: i do, way way too much.
I’m thinking of retiring again from this Peyton Place drama when I see 3 crew and the utilities initiative is implemented.
you missed your chance to do something about it. you’ll have to wait for others to get it right now.
medwoman wrote:
> I find it somewhat suspect that Mr. Weist would actually
> have come out and said that he does “not care about
> customer service, what he cares about is protecting
> his own turf”.
I have spent a lot of of time around union leaders over the years and I would be surprised to hear a union leader say that they do “not care about protecting their own turf (or union pay), what he cares about is customer service…