On Tuesday night it was more like watching an old relic, the specter of the president of what was very recently the most powerful union in the city of Davis, caught in a lie by the mayor, and quite literally begging for a seat at the table.
There were the firefighters, in reduced numbers, getting up trying to stop inevitability. Those who perhaps saw a glimpse of the council bending and breaking were mistaken. The council could have rammed through the vote on Tuesday night – they would have had five votes to drop the boundaries and at least three, perhaps four or even five, on staffing.
The fact that they decided to wait had more to do with their wanting to make sure they made the right decision rather than any question as to what the outcome might have been at that point.
Interim Chief Scott Kenley wrote a fine report that came up with some good ways to move forward with boundary drop, shared leadership at UC Davis and Davis Fire, and, of course, staffing.
They are good starting places, and the boundary drop issue is frankly a no-brainer.
In addition to the chief’s ideas, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Councilmember Brett Lee floated the idea of using student firefighters, both as a means to give them experience and a means to provide four on the fire engine for when the crew first has to enter the building.
Someone suggested that this was a safety issue, but it’s actually something that has been done at UC Davis for years and it amounts to, at most, a 90-second stop gap approach for less than a handful incidents a year.
Another suggestion has been to train police to be that fourth person for those 90 seconds.
But the firefighters, at least those present on Tuesday night, balked at that suggestion. This was about public safety they said. They had examples of an incident or two, where we definitely, in their opinion, needed the current staffing arrangement.
The problem that we face is that the staffing arrangement is not only antiquated, developed during a different era when resources were more plentiful, but it is slow and clunky.
The firefighters’ favored approach is for a full arsenal of personnel to bring all of their equipment and drag it around to each call. It would be like fighting a war by bringing in your ground troops and all equipment to each and every fight – there are times to do it, but it makes you slow and immobile.
The interim chief’s idea is to create a small but more mobile unit that does not require all equipment for all calls.
On Tuesday, the firefighters became what we refer to as the party of “no.” No, we can’t do that. No, we must always staff for the biggest conceivable incident. Public safety relies on that 12th firefighter being on duty at all times.
The Davis firefighters, led by their union president, literally begged to be at the table and the council generously allowed them their place. But if their goal is only to obstruct, if they expect to roll the council, then they are wasting all of our time.
The firefighters need to understand that they have lost this battle. And so, if their only purpose is to try to talk the council out of making changes, they are in for a rude awakening.
Frankly, I think that is a shame, but they have a large amount of collective experience and knowledge to offer the council, if they wanted to engage in discussions about how to make this city as safe as possible within current 2012 parameters and beyond budget realities.
I would like to see some out-of-the-box thinking. This is not a matter of their attempting to save jobs – no current employees lose their jobs based on this staffing arrangement. In fact, according to the interim chief, we will actually have to hire new firefighters.
Here are some thoughts where they could help. In addition to the idea of a student firefighters, how can we incorporate citizen volunteers into the mix?
Furthermore, the one big issue that Chief Kenley did not touch was medical response. Currently we send four firefighters and two AMR ambulance personnel to a medical response.
The county has recently opted for a county-wide emergency response contract. The question that I would have is whether there is a way that we can reduce the costs to the city and the burden on the fire department, which responds to those calls rather than fires 90% of the time.
It seems to me that we are wasting a lot of resources on this arrangement. However, every time people bring up these issues, they are met by a chorus of no’s from the firefighters.
In the past, city council and city staff were at their beck and call. Council even did the dirty work of burying the Aaronson report from themselves by a 3-2 vote back in 2008.
Times have changed. The question, going forward, is not whether we will change, but whether we change with the help of the firefighters or over the objections of union leadership.
Finally, as we noted in yesterday’s column, we are disappointed that so many wished to obstruct rather than work with the interim fire chief.
The city of Davis is currently conducting a search for a new chief. We need a chief that will unite the department, bring an end to infighting and petty squabbles, and be able to remake the department into a modern firefighting force capable of serving this community while not draining it of its resources.
We need someone who can embrace the challenges faced with the challenges of shared resources with UC Davis.
Once again, the key question is whether the firefighters will be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem.
It’s sad. Every little kid still grows up dreaming of being a firefighter. What they don’t know about, as a kid, is that the professional has been corrupted by $210,000 a year union bosses. It’s time for the firefighters to step up and save their profession from their own greed and avarice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David wrote:
> On Tuesday night it was more like watching an old
> relic, the specter of the president of what was
> very recently the most powerful union in the city
> of Davis
I agree with Rich in his last post, the firefighters may have had a bad meeting this week but the unions are still running the state (more so than ever after November). I can only hope that people on the city council have the guts to think about the safety of the people of Davis before the pay and benefits of the firefighters (as has been done in the past)…
> Every little kid still grows up dreaming of being a firefighter.
I’ve never met a little girl that even hinted that they were interested in a career in firefighting and I would estimate that maybe 10% of little boys actually tell their parents they want to be a fireman (when he was two my son wanted to drive the trash truck but he never mentioned wanting to be a fireman, but maybe this is because we often visit my best friend the fireman and he thinks that the “fireman” job entails sitting around all day and watching sports and playing “call of duty”…
Dear South: You haven’t met Susan Gilik,
http://fire.ucdavis.edu/sf/current-student-firefighters
I watched Tues as I watched the late evening in Nov when the interim chief first presented his report. I hope we are paying him well. I cannot imagine what his work conditions have been while in Davis.
I for one did not see the strong resolve in CC that you mentioned but that may have been the TV. Especially Lucas reminded me of the old Saylor/Asmundsen crowd. Hope you’re right and hope the “workshop” that Brett suggested will be televised.
I watched this segment carefully and one thing that is unclear to me (but pretty important to this discussion) is whether, in fact, the Chief invited firefighters to meetings as he was developing these recommendations and they chose not to attend. I am unclear on this point.
IF, and I mean IF, the firefighters were given one or more opportunities before the draft report was released and chose not to participate then Mr Wiest is not “begging” at all but rather engaging in carefully considered political theater–feigning sadness at having been excluded and playing the victim of a Chief who cares not for the views of his staff. IF, on the other hand, the firefighters were brought into the discussion only after the report had been drafted then I think Mr Wiest has a point.
Robb
Good point and should be easy to verify. I was surprised that wasn’t clarified on Tuesday and made me wonder if indeed, the firefighters hadn’t been included.
“Commentary: Free Advice for the Davis Firefighters”
“What they don’t know about, as a kid, is that the professional has been corrupted by $210,000 a year union bosses. It’s time for the firefighters to step up and save their profession from their own greed and avarice.”
I guess your title was a joke because your mean-spirited conclusion makes your title laughable. The firefighters are going to take a hit, that is clear, but your article has a kick em while they are down tone that is more schadenfreude than empathy.
Robb- I was told by several different people that the Chief attempted on multiple occasions to meet with rank and file and get their input and he could never get anyone to meet with him. He attempted the meeting that was described during the council meeting but it was only sparsely attended, though Weist apparently was there.
“your mean-spirited conclusion”
you ought to know about mean-spirited conclusions – it seems that’s every post you make these days.
Robb Davis and SODA
Perhaps you missed David’s report yesterday:
“….The truth is that the interim chief had, on repeated occasions, attempted to get input from the rank and file firefighters and the union. The firefighters repeatedly skipped meetings and avoided giving the chief input. Finally the chief held a mandatory meeting, likely the one that Mr. Weist referred to at the end of the item on Tuesday, and only four members of the department showed up. For Mr. Weist to come up and complain that they were excluded is outright dishonest….”
I missed the CC meeting. Are you concerned that these defailed facts didn’t come up there, that David didn’t provide any source/attribution re. the information or that you don’t believe his reporting. In any case, It’s pretty clear that Wiest was publicly exposed (and appropriately) by the mayor regarding the one meeting.
I’d be as concerned as you (and really surprised) if the chief didn’t attempt to draw the firefighters into the process. The fact that most refused to show up for a mandatory meeting before the report was presented to the CC is particularly distressing and bodes ill for any expectations that our first responders will be responsive in the future.
As you say, SODA, it should be easy to verify whether David’s claims are true about the chief’s attempts to get the firefighters to help with his study and report.
After a lifetime of every boy’s high regard for brave firefighters, my view has dramatically dropped after seeing the Davis department’s behavior over the past five years.
If they view their duties as “just another job” in which they buy off politicians to obtain unreasonable pay, work conditions and benefits, boycott local businesses for the meanest of reasons, aim for retirement with ill-gotten “disability” bonuses at unjustifiably young ages, sleep off their public drunkeness at the firehall, lie about their professional judgment about what constitutes best practices for public safety and drag out featherbedding practices as long as they can get away with it–well, they should expect to find themselves treated just like other unprofessional, selfish workforces eventually find themselves treated.
Thanks David – I am one of those who accepts the reality that you need to use anonymous sources at times and so for you to say that “several different people” told you something does not bother me. I am assuming they are people in a position to know. However, I would really like you to see if the Chief will go on record to confirm this. If this is true I think the public and the CC should be fully aware of it because that would mean that Mr Wiest is purposefully trying to deceive the public and the CC about being excluded from providing input on the issues. I hope it is not that and I still think he and other firefighters should be around the table for the upcoming roundtable on proposed policy changes. Thanks.
I wrote:
> I’ve never met a little girl that even hinted that
> they were interested in a career in firefighting
then GreenandGolden wrote:
> Dear South: You haven’t met Susan Gilik,
You are correct that I have not met Susan Gilk and you can add her to the list of “little” girls that were not interested in becoming a firefighter (the the web site you linked to says “During high school I became interested in becoming a firefighter”).
When they find out that you can make over $200K a year working less than half the days in the month, take years off with great “disability” benefits to have kids and retire at 50 with a $15K a month pension (or even earlier like most female firefighters do with a “permanent disability” pension that includes full medical for the entire family) I’m sure that plenty of “older” girls like Ms, Gilk with think about going in to firefighting.
Since I talk to my best friend often I am constantly reminded how stupid I was to go to college and not become a firefighter when he did. Since I work for myself I don’t “need” a degree and I could still have the business I have today since (like most of the firefighters I know) it is easy to run a business on the side when you only work 10 days a month and are free to work on your other business most of the hours you are at the fire house (with a cell phone, laptop and the wi-fi, in the private bedrooms at the newer fire houses no one will know you are “working” at your firefighter job when you call or e-mail clients or customers).
Robb: Joe was trying to make his point without going into a lot of the details. I could ask Kenley on the record if that makes people more comfortable.
Here is the transcript of the exchange. I am spending time on this only because I believe that we must expect the highest level of integrity from our public institutions (and their leaders). I am not out to make life difficult for Mr Weist (apologies, I have been spelling his name wrong) or for the CC. On the contrary, I am merely trying to find out if, in fact, Mr Weist misled the CC. As a citizen this matters to me. I will make one more comment after the transcript and then I am going to stop commenting on this:
Exchange between Bobby Weist and CC 12/18/2012
Starting at 4:17:52
Bobby Weist: I just wanted to make sure, Council Member Lee brought it up, that we will be involved in this process. As of, up to, as of yet we have not been involved in any of the things that have gone on within our department. The Union’s been excluded from all of that there has not been one, one minute of discussion umm, with exception of a grievance. Uh, so I hope that we will be noticed when this is going to happen and we’re given ample time to–this is the holidays (laughs)–we’re given ample time to make it.
Brett Lee: “I think that’s essential”
Joe Krovoza: But, you were, you’ve been invited to comment on the report. Correct?
Bobby Weist: But here. (points to the floor). Not in the process of making the report or… or assisting in putting it together or anything that has gone on within the Department for the last six months.
Joe Krovoza: There were sessions on the report in the Department.
Bobby Weist: Ummm
Joe Krovoza: That weren’t attended. Correct?
Bobby Weist: Umm, no there was one…
Joe Krovoza: There was one and a few people came and the rest of the Department…
Bobby Weist: I was there. I was there. There was one. And it was four days after you had gotten it.
Joe Krovoza: Okay. So there was, but you just said there was no involvement. There was involvement or there was not involvement?
Bobby Weist: There was no involvement in the development of the report. Correct. There was one, four days after you had gotten it and…umm
Joe Krovoza: After the draft was released or after we had the meeting?
Bobby Weist: After you had received the draft. Just prior to it coming to Council. Yes. So no, we had no direct involvement in putting that report together.
Joe Krovoza: Okay.
Bobby Weist: I’m just asking. It was presented that we would be able to be there and I’m just asking that we’re noticed and that we’re allowed to be there.
Joe Krovoza: Yeah, I mean that’s exactly what we were saying earlier. Yeah, so, yes.
Bobby Weist: Okay, thank you.
Dan Wolk: They need to be involved. So… You got that?
(Dan Wolk was not on camera so I am not sure to whom the last question was asked)
Final comment: What Mr Weist is saying, clearly, is that in the lead up to the submission of the report to the CC his Union was not involved at all. He is clearly implying that they had no opportunity to do so. It should be pretty simple to find out whether or not the Union (members) was invited to speak into the process before the draft report came out or not and whether or not they declined. I am requesting that David find someone who will speak on the record about this. We must build trust within our city and we cannot do that if we do not develop clear understandings of the processes used to make decisions.
If the Union was NOT invited to give input before the draft report was prepared then I think that is unfortunate and the CC must use the upcoming round table to hear, in detail their concerns.
If the Union WAS invited to give input before the draft report was prepared and chose not to then I think Mr Weist should be called to accounts for his comments to the CC (and the public) and should be asked to make a public apology for misleading the public.
Dear South: Is it to late for you to become a fire fighter? Susan Gilik went to college and has become a firefighter, you might be able to become a firefighter too! I really don’t think that you are stupid (yer just poormouthing!). Nor did you make a mistake going to college.
Dear South: Another thought. When my daughter was very young, I would take her to the fire station. On one of these visits an alarm sounded, the firefighters slid down the pole (including one woman!), and they rolled on the fire with sirens screaming. My daughter later told her mom that she would like to be a firefighter except that the sirens frightened her. Now she is an attorney and tells me that she spend a lot of time “putting out fires.”