The room was packed with firefighters and community members opposing cuts to fire staffing. The council listened to the community concerns, they listened to the firefighters like Captain Joe Tenney, who argued that former Interim Fire Chief Scott Kenley’s plan sounds good on paper but falls apart in the in the real world, and they blinked.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs stated his discomfort with moving forward with these cuts outside of the broader context of the budget. Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk made a motion to bring this decision back within the context of discussing the budget. Councilmember Rochelle Swanson would then push for an earlier, a May 14 check-in date.
While most of the council saw this as linked to the budget and the MOU discussions, which remain ongoing as the firefighters remain one of two bargaining units not to have agreed to a new contract, Mayor Joe Krovoza saw this differently.
“I’m not seeing this as overly linked to the budget,” he said. “As I read these reports and listen to the presentation, for our medical service needs of the community, this increases service.”
“If people disagree with me, I want letters, I want emails explaining to me… how this is proposed, how this decreases medical service,” he said. “I’m happy to have this gone on in the budget context… but I don’t see this as a budget question back and forth.”
“I see this as doing the most with the resources we’ve got as a city,” he said.
Councilmember Brett Lee disagreed.
“If we’re not talking about it from a budget sense, then I think we can agree that the current model 12, versus the proposed model of 11, the service would be improved if the service model 11 was bolstered by an additional person,” he said. “If we’re not talking about this from a budget standpoint, if we’re talking about improving service in the community, I see the current 12 person model has some opportunity to be slightly adjusted where we still have 12 people but where service is objectively improved across all measures.”
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.
The message from council then was mixed. On the one hand, a number of councilmembers have now stated their reluctance to cut staffing. They have allowed this to be a budgetary issue rather than a means by which to improve service within the limitations of the current budget situation.
The city faces a dire economic situation. At one point, it seems that the city may be on the brink of bankruptcy. The city does face a daunting situation with regard to unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities.
But the biggest problem does not appear to be unfunded liabilities, but deferred maintenance. The city has stayed afloat largely by failing to address infrastructure needs, whether that was water system delivery, parks, roads or other infrastructure.
The city faces an immediate interjection of road maintenance money, far greater than is currently budgeted. When council made the decision to go to four firefighters on an engine, the fire department’s budget was a mere $4.4 million, by 2008-09 it peaked at $10 million and it currently sits at $9.6 million.
By contrast, the city spent a total of $10 million on roads over the last decade.
A month ago, the firefighters were disorganized. The month delay between the January 29, 2013 meeting and the March 5, 2013 meeting allowed the firefighters to mobilize citizens to come to council and write to council to oppose staffing changes.
But it was clear that the firefighters were behind in their efforts, scrambling to mobilize. Now they will have the next three months to continue to work to educate the public, as well as scare the public with claims that public safety and their property will be in danger.
Now the issue continues to linger, and staff will have to continue to work on this issue along with the rest of the budget. We are implementing the boundary drop over the next month, and now lack the clarity as to what the city’s staffing situation will be after the new budget is adopted at the end of June.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that the council has now sent a clear message to the firefighters’ union that, with sufficient salary concessions, they may have a chance to keep 12 firefighters on a shift.
It would take a lot.
As we have reported, by equalizing the pay between firefighters and police, we could save about $400,000 a year, just over the savings for reduction in staff. The firefighters gave no inclination of the willingness to do this on Tuesday, but perhaps when they return to bargaining table, this will give fresh energy as well as urgency to negotiations.
Nevertheless, it is clear that while the game is slow, the council has some very tough decisions to make in the next few months and none of those will be pleasant.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I watched the whole thing and was disappointed. I understand that this is about money first and service second. Brett is not wrong about that. But money IS an issue now and the changes in service are simply not a compelling reason not to move forward now.
I would like to review how we got to this point: the Kenley report came out with the firefighters refusing to engage it while it was in process; the firefighters deceived the public by suggesting publicly that their views had not been solicited (that they had not had a chance to speak into it); they requested a round table to have an open discussion; they used the two round table discussions to rally highly emotive stories that “proved” that the recommendations in the report were “dangerous”; they impugned Kenley’s knowledge and expertise on the matter (Tenney did not simply say what was on paper would not work in the real world, he also said it was full of errors–though he never said what they were and was not challenged). And now they will use the next several months to continue their campaign.
Last night the firefighters at the table openly disrespected the CC, the Mayor in particular and Mr Kenley. They threw the entire burden of the issue of public safety on the CC knowing that they (the firefighters) have helped to create the problem. I cannot understand the idea that the discussion needs to wait for “budget discussions.” A decision to go with the report’s recommendations last night would have sent a clear message about the intent of this CC to take seriously the need to change the status quo–the maintaining of which is the clear goal of the firefighters. Such a message would have had the advantage of making it clear where labor negotiations were going to go. That opportunity has now been lost.
Like I said… disappointing.
Was there a vote?
What a strange argument: The proposed changes would affect spending levels so let’s not make decisions on the merits of the recommendations? An obvious stalling tactic, but to what end?
So, Brett really thinks that cutting $360,000 from next year’s spending on equipment, etc., will solve the long-term problems of firefighter costs for the city? What is the actual cost of maintaining these extra folks for the rest of heir lives?
Then there’s his great concept of dumping these decisions into the collective bargaining process where the council has such a great history of doing the best thing for the city. Snookered again.
Agree Robb. Surprising (at least for Brett and Rochelle) and disappointing. And I don’t think it is only about the money. Many of Mr Kenley’s points seemed to make sense regardless of the money saved, which is what Joe tried to convey. I doubt this will be changed in the budget discussions, we all have seen what line item minutiae decisions are made then. And Mr Kenley won’t be there to answer technical questions. On the night of a successful (allbeit not overwhelming) election the CC disappointed.
Robb wrote:
> I watched the whole thing and was disappointed.
> I understand that this is about money first and
> service second.
It is about politics first and money second (service is way down on the list) the council did not want to risk getting the fire union mad at them (it is hard to get re-elected or run for higher office in CA when the unions are mad at you)…
I also was watching the round table discussion and disappointed for the reasons that Robb pointed out. Enough so to send this communication to the members of the CC.
As a physician, my primary concern with regard to public health and safety is primary prevention. This is true for public health issues as well as in my individual practice. As a physician, I also attempt to give advice and make decisions that are evidence based and not driven by personal anecdotes, fears and biases.
Last night, I watched the presentation at the round table discussion and saw a totally unbalanced presentation. The proposed plan seemed to be grounded in evidence , albeit limited, and observation of actual response times and numbers of individuals needed to complete specific tasks. The firefighters and their community supporters however, presented a string of anecdotes, which while touching, do not add to an evidence based approach to decision making. Their presentation was also peppered with scary “what if” scenarios. If there is actual evidence in terms of lives or property saved by having a four man vs a three man crew this evidence should be considered. From my point of view, it is up to the firefighters to present such information to the council. Without such evidence, this has the appearance of their arguments being based on the claim that plans on paper “fall apart in the real world”. This is a classic argument against innovation and in favor of the status quo not because the status quo is better, but because it is familiar and or advantageous to its proponents. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the belief of at least some of the firefighters that the current system is best, I also am aware from years in management that people dislike change, are fearful and tend to cling to what is familiar rather than change that might actually be beneficial.
My recommendation from a public health and safety perspective would be, if you feel that the firefighters have presented solid evidence supporting the need for the 4 on a truck model, then this should be preserved. If that evidence is not strongly demonstrated, I would recommend moving to the model presented. I personally did not see any such evidence presented last night, or throughout the entire discussion which I have followed.
Agree medwoman and well said. The person I thought who tried to pull the discussion back to what you are talking about was Landy Black. But to no avail. It was very discouraging to watch. I had expected more from our new CC; they have bucked other status quo issues, but come to think of it, some of them haven’t and for political future possibilities….thinking of Davis Diamonds comes to mind.
medwoman – Nice analysis and well stated. What I have learned over the past few years is that evidence does not take one very far in Davis. Sorry to sound a bit cynical about this but my observations are twofold: 1) many decisions are made without reference to marshaling any evidence at all. Targets are set with no plan to collect data to assess progress towards them would be one example of this. 2) evidence is trumped by emotion-driven anecdotes about what an action would mean for “me and mine” without reference to the common good. Last night this was on full display.
A couple of caveats: evidence is rarely 100% conclusive but decisions will be made on [i]some[/i] basis and evidence should be carefully assembled and used to assist in the decision making. This should be done explicitly. A second caveat is that as a public health practitioner I have been trained to think about issues in the aggregate rather than give too much weight to individual cases. There are clear reasons to do this which have to do with setting population-based policy that cannot afford to be tailored to each individual need. The case before us, in my view, is a classic example of how we must put aside individual “wishes” to consider the best we can do collectively.
These collective decisions are ALWAYS–always–about money, about organizing limited resources to accomplish something collectively that we could not do alone. In such cases one can always argue that there are “better” solutions. Of course there are. The question is whether the better is achievable given the constraints.
We simply cannot have public policy swayed by emotional appeals and, in a time of serious fiscal constraints at the city level we simply cannot assemble policies that maintain the status quo and give us what we all want. This is not going to get any easier folks. It is past time that we recognize this.
FYI – SODA, I had the exact same impression as you re: Landy Black.
It is far easier to engage people emotionally, rather than rationally. Last nights meeting played into the hands of those most focused on the emotion side and I too was disappointed that the CC was so obviously swayed by it. This Council has been the best in recent times at focusing more on the facts than the emotions (with some notable exceptions) but it my view, last night’s meeting was a huge step backwards. I hope with a fresh outlook this morning, the five will get back to a rational discussion of our current reality.
The other thing that was obvious was the complete lack of respect demonstrated by the fire captains towards the City Council, the Chief and by extension, the public. They acted as if they are the ones running the City, and they may well be right.
Sorry, I didn’t see. Who voted to do what? From David’s report and your comments, this seems like a typical kick the can, decision-avoidance decision.
What better time to decide than when all the information and expertise is available and the whole room is focused on the substance of an issue? The eventual decision might be foreshadowed by where the council makes the decision–hiding in a collective bargaining setting (in tradeoffs for what?) or working on a massive budget where this issue plays only a small role.
Then there’s the mayor’s call for letters that disagree with his opinion; I suspect Bobby will be more than glad to generate a gear supply.
They voted 5-0 to support Dan’s motion and Rochelle Swanson’s friendly amendment to consider the matter with the budget with a May 14 check in.
“…to generate a good supply.”
Extremely disappointing that the council refused to take action. Particularly since there are other future tough decisions coming. This council did not create this mess, but they are going to have to clean it up. Hopefully they have the stomach to make the tough decisions going forward.
It is a shame, by quickly acting last night they would have sent a message to the city that things have changed. The current council is going to make the prudent financial decisions when necessary. Unfortunately it was back to the status quo.
I am in favor of five man crews for safety. Money is no object. Think of the children.
[i]”On the other hand, there are those who believe that the council has now sent a clear message to the firefighters’ union that, with sufficient salary concessions, they may have a chance to keep 12 firefighters on a shift.”
[/i]
Bingo. My guess is you’ll all see the changes you want implemented in May.
I hope you are right Don. Right now, I am not sure. At this juncture I am not sure this should be an “either/or”. Given the dire situation we face it may need to be a “both/and”.
Brett Lee hinted that it would be “less necessary” to make staffing changes if collective bargaining and city budgeting (uncharacteristically) resulted in some undefined level of cost reductions, according to David’s report. I’m not sure, Don, how you foresee that we would move to smaller shifts in May with that kind of message.
What is the total annual reduction (every year for the next 50 years) we’d have to make in order to finance the positions the council decided not to cut? Isn’t it the long-term unsustainability issue the council was supposed to be attacking.
I’d guess it’s far more than the annual savings figure we’re tossing around here. I’d guess that not cutting a position maintains a much higher, decades long funding need, but only Rich know how to calculate such a situation.