If you thought the fire issue was put to rest with the 3-2 vote a few days ago, you would be incorrect. In today’s Enterprise, Glen Byrns, a Davis resident, writes in to argue that, while there may be few fire calls, he was one of them.
“There’s been a lot of talk about reducing staffing levels for the Fire Department. During the discussion, it was often mentioned that Davis doesn’t get a lot of fires, as fire calls apparently amount to 1 percent of the call volume,” Mr. Byrns writes. “Well, here I am, the 1 percent. The 1 percent who always thought of firefighters as a group of people who live down the street from me and are there for other people.”
This is like the Rockwell image of American life – the firefighters living down the street, sacrificing, there only for others. It is a myth that many of us who grew up, idolizing firefighters, shared.
But the myth has been exploded in contemporary local communities, where firefighters in a city like Davis, do not live down the street – most do not live in this community. And, while they perform an admirable task, they do so for a very considerable amount of pay – $175,000 on average in total compensation.
These men, still brave and performing noble tasks, exact huge prices on those who do not play ball according to their rules – creating a hostile work environment for dissenters in their ranks, threatening politicians who do not do their bidding, and forming one of the most formidable public employee unions in the state.
And yet, none of this is Mr. Byrns’ fault. He is perhaps unknowingly caught in the middle of a game that he has no interest in playing.
He writes, “I feel compelled to write this article not because I have a particular cause, but rather to share with you what can happen to you if you are so unlucky as to join my wife and me in the 1 percent, and to point out how things will change with reduced staffing levels.”
The problem is that, while he is correct that some of us will be unlucky and join in the 1 percent club (and we are actually talking about a percentage of calls that is far less than one percent), what he is going to point out is not how things will change with reduced staffing, but what the firefighters’ union has told him will change with reduced staffing.
He recounts the story of how he found his garage on fire. By the time he got out there, the garage was filled with flames and he and his family watched for minutes before the fire engine arrived.
He writes, “They went inside a burning building and stopped the fire at the garage (I lost two of my beloved vehicles), but they saved everything else in my house. They carefully put all the salvageable items in an area so we could go through it later. They spoke with my neighbors to make sure we had a place to stay. They contacted a board-up company to make sure our house would be secured. They were there every step of the way.”
He writes, “On one hand, I know how lucky I am to have lost only ‘things’ in my life. I’m beyond grateful for the fact that no one died or was injured. Yet as I sat sifting through the wreckage of the garage and the remnants of my life memories, barely recognizable in the ashes, I realized that the brave and professional conduct of the Davis firefighters on the scene had prevented the complete loss of our home.”
He then talks about the city council meeting he attended where staffing level was discussed.
He said, “I sat in the back and listened to the discussion. Interim Chief Scott Kenley used the fire at my house as an example of how four firefighters might have made a difference as far as property damage is concerned. He went on to explain how if there were three firefighters on that engine, they may have to apply water from the outside and risk more property damage.”
He adds, “Not only do I agree with him, I will take it a step further and say that the four-person crew made all the difference in the world. If there had been the slightest extra delay awaiting the arrival of a fourth firefighter before entry could be attempted, the gas tanks in both burned cars would have gone off and the entire house and contents lost. The loss of the garage contents would have paled next to the total loss of all our belongings.”
“Unfortunately, despite many other professional experts’ convincing analysis and citizens’ personal testimonies on the importance of keeping four firefighters, the city manager went ahead and recommended to cut the staffing level and in the end, only Council members Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs stood up for what’s right,” he writes. “To see their motives for their votes questioned angered me. I would suggest that perhaps they are two council members who have carefully thought through the consequences of the intended reductions on the residents of Davis.”
The problem is that, while Mr. Byrns understandably feels very grateful to the firefighters for their work to save the rest of his home and especially him and his loved ones, the explanation he gives is not all that accurate.
The first point to be made here is that, with the new system in place, the likelihood that a unit would arrive on the scene much sooner goes up greatly. That is because, first, we will no longer have Stations 32 and 33 backfilling Station 31.
Mr. Byrns expressed to council that he lives on Eel Place which is only a few blocks from the Arlington Blvd fire station. It would take less than a minute for the fire engine to travel from the station at the corner of Lake and Arlington to Mr. Byrns’ place, but given the length of time he describes, it is possible that the firefighters actually had to be routed from the central fire station to their home.
That means that with these changes it is likely the firefighters would get to Mr. Byrns’ home two or three minutes faster than under the existing system.
Second and most importantly, having one less firefighter would not likely have delayed entry. The fire, according to Chief Kenley, was confined to the garage, and the firefighters would have been able to immediately enter the residence because the IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health) condition, which triggers the two-in/ two-out requirement, did not exist in the residence.
The garage was already fully involved by the time the first engine arrived. That means that none of the contents in the garage were salvageable.
In the end, Mr. Kenley concludes, the outcome would have been the same with the three personnel arriving on the scene in the first arriving engine, given the lack of an IDLH in the residence. He did not weigh in on whether a faster response might have made a bigger difference.
Mr. Byrns continues, writing, “Some people may think it’s really no big deal if your house catches on fire, especially if the insurance would pay for it. Insurance has definitely given us the financial strength to rebuild. But no amount of insurance payout could compare to what our firefighters did for us that day.”
I do not think anyone believes it is no big deal if you house catches on fire. And there is no doubt that if the only object were safety, having four person fire engines on each block would be better.
However, in the real world, safety is not the only factor in making public policy decisions. The question is how best to utilize scarce resources.
Mr. Byrns writes, “I’m one citizen who knows what fire protection is worth. I’m glad two council members felt the same way. I dread the inevitable day that a three-person crew shows up at some desperate neighbor’s door and is forced to wait those critical few extra moments that will destroy someone else’s precious memories.”
And what Mr. Byrns seems oblivious to is that he likely had to wait a couple of extra moments himself because of the positioning of the fire engines in the town, which would have been closer to him under this model.
From Chief Kenley’s assessment in looking at three years of data, there might have been one or two incidents in which two in/two out would have mattered, but even then, firefighters do not jump off their fire engines and rush into a building. They have set up time and by the time they got set up, the second unit from UC Davis and the third unit from the central fire station would have arrived, and you would have at least 11 firefighters there within two or three minutes after arrival of the first engine.
Mr. Byrns dismisses this as a “shuffling shell game they have presented to justify the reductions may improve service somewhere for someone.”
He writes, “But if you are in my neighborhood, it will mean a three-person crew will arrive and hold the line from outside until another crew arrives. In our case, it would have meant that my wife also would have lost much of what is dear to her. That, in a nutshell, is the difference we are being sold.”
He’s wrong. As we noted, in his neighborhood, the first engine would, quite a few times, respond far faster than it would have under the existing system. And in his case and in 99.99 percent of all cases they could have entered immediately. In the few where they theoretically could not, the next unit would arrive just as they were ready to go in anyway.
So while Mr. Byrns is rightly grateful to the firefighters, he has not been given the honest facts by them about his situation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Ahoy Captain, Thar she blows the great red whale off the starboard bow.
[b]Fallacy of the Faulty Generalization[/b]
This is a classic example of anecdotal evidence. The single case does not out weigh the statistical analysis that the boundary drop and forming the 2 person medical response unit will in fact improve coverage, response times and public safety. Furthermore, this is also the Fallacy of the Appeal to Emotion for us to empathize with Mr. Byrnes over the fire (which we all do) to sway our judgement against what the facts tell us.
Not only will the problems with the pocket lining fire union continue, it has a great danger of escalating as certain self interested (above public interest) politicians may become shills for the union in a quid pro quo exchange for campaign contributions to further their careers.
The fire union possesses no facts on their side of the argument of public safety. Therefore they will continue to use false argument to obstruct everything from the obviously beneficial boundary drop with UCD to having 4 fire fighters standing around watching 2 private ambulance company employees put an IV in a persons arm. Yes, I have witnessed more than one medical assistance call.
Where did Mr. Byrns get the idea that he wouldn’t have better served by the new set-up?
It seems as though the evidence is on the side of making Kenley’s proposed changes. Even Wold and Frerichs didn’t come up with justification for their votes beyond “later would be better” and “four is more.”
One can appreciate and sympathize with Burns’ personal perspective on fire-fighting effectiveness based on his experience with a threatening fire. Like the Fire Department position he mimics, Burns’ relies on emotion rather than logic and applicable data. With his incomplete analysis of events for an rare isolated occurrence, he ends up causing more harm than help for the Fire Department.
It’s really really hard to argue a resource allocation measure based on a one-percent probability of occurrence. Even worse, as already noted, is when it is an inflated one percent. Public safety staffing levels cannot be economically supported with a goal of 100 percent safety, or even 99 percent.
Public resources can support only so much safety measures, and and the remainder is calculated risk. Notwithstanding Mr. Byrns’ experience and shared story, it resulted in no increased feeling of risk to the other 99+ percent of us being asked to continuing paying the high price tag.
Also in today’s Enterprise is a letter to the editor from Charles Lacy, who chides the paper for being anti-union and suggests that Wolk and Frerichs cast their fire staffing votes based upon thoughtful analysis rather than union influence. What he conveniently omits from the letter is the fact that his son is a Davis firefighter.
.
Fact: Staffing four firefighters per engine has additional cost compared to staffing three firefighters per engine.
Fact: Mr. Byrns claims that 4FF staffing (compared to 3FF) saved him money in his incident.
Principles of accountability: An entity who incurred the cost should pay for the fair share of that incurred cost.
Ethical conclusions based on accountability:
1) If 3FF/Engine staffing is decided, the proponents should have a fund to reimburse the victim for the additional damage that would have been avoided with 4FF/Engine staffing if the victim is not an proponent.
2) If 4FF/Engine staffing is decided, the proponents should pay for the extra cost, and every victim (proponents or opponents alike) should reimburse that cost when an actual incident occurs.
Illustrative example:
Suppose the year is 2014 and 4FF/Engine staffing is still in place, and the 4th FF position costs $300,000/year. Suppose there is one fire in that year that happened to Mr.B’s house where $X is saved by having 4FF instead of 3FF per engine. Suppose that is the only case in that year where the 4th FF would have saved something.
According to accountability, Mr.B is responsible for paying the fire department up to $300,000 for that year (certain details apply to how the actual amount is calculated). This means that Mr.B could be better off (financially) if $X is greater than $300,000.
In this scenario, the fewer incidents there are where the 4FF would matter, the more burden each victim would share. The 4FF staffing would be “worth it”, and be proven by the accounting when the victim can [b]happily pay for the cost because they know that they are saving more money than what they paid.[/b] That is the expected outcome when the decision is rational. When the outcome deviates from the expectation, one needs to evaluate whether the decision is rational.
(Cont. Illustrative Example)
If the city has 3FF staffing, and Mr.B’s property is damaged by an extra $X, while the cost to have 4FF would have been $300,000, $X is greater than $300,000, and Mr.B “voted” for 4FF staffing, the proponents (altogether) for 3FF staffing should reimburse Mr.B up to the difference ($X minus $300,000).
This kind of accounting can only be made possible if:
a) Each person understands their responsibilities of their decisions and takes initiate to be accountable for their decisions
– or –
b) The city has an IT system that keeps tracks decisions, incidents, and accounts of who made what decision and who owes whom what amount.
I am hoping that people understand accountability because when people understand it (and has the integrity to act it out), people will realize that we don’t need to be discuss this Firefighter staffing issue because the FD can have any number of FF since each of them will be “sponsored” by the proponents and the sponsors will be reimbursed by the victims of an incident when the applicable incident occurs.
With that level of education, there is no need to vote or to discuss. The issue is taken care of by ethics and accountability.
Staffing with 4 FF per engine is overkill. Byrns’ and others may point to the marginal decrease in probability that they would suffer additional damage to justify 4 FF staffing. However, like everything in life we must make rational cost-risk assessments and decisions.
Nevertheless, it is possible that we might agree to pay for all that overkill of superior risk mitigation had not the Democrat politicians and the public safety employee unions driven up the labor costs of these municipal services. Since they have done so, we have to make rational fiscal decisions that in-turn require us to let go of our expectation that we will have near zero risk.
I suggest any homeowner concerned about the miniscule added risk of damage caused by 3 FF engine crews, consider paying for a home fire prevention and safety inspection. The end result of that effort will likely more than offset any additional risk from harm moving from 4 FF engine crews, to 3 FF engine crews. Otherwise start demanding that your local politicians work harder to cut back pay and benefits for firefighters to a labor market reality. We know that even with half the pay and benefits, there would still be lines around the block of qualified applicants dreaming about working 3 days on and 4 days off as a firefighter. With labor costs set to labor market reality, we could afford 4 FF crews.
talk about one-hit wonder…
“Nevertheless, it is possible that we might agree to pay for all that overkill of superior risk mitigation had not the Democrat politicians and the public safety employee unions driven up the labor costs of these municipal services. “
there you go again…
Edgar, does your scenario start out with the assumption that the city is obligated to provide some specific level of certainty? Otherwise, how do you get to the assumption that reducing capability results in some obligation to reimburse fire victims for a percentage of their losses?
The “proponents,” of course, are not the decision makers here. But, where did you get the idea that “Democrat (sic) politicians” have “driven up labor costs”? In Davis, at least, it’s our city council members who determine such things.
Frankly
[i]”I suggest any homeowner concerned about the miniscule added risk of damage caused by 3 FF engine crews, consider paying for a home fire prevention and safety inspection.”[/i]
Good point Frankly. If Mr. Byrns had a sprinkler system in his garage, he wouldn’t have even lost his two “beloved” old english cars.
Lest I be criticized as an unfeeling old curmudgeon, for the record the house I lived in during 1969 in Ithaca, NY burned to the ground during the night of Christmas Eve that year. I lost everything I owned in that fire. So I understand Mr. Byrns when he says, [i]”I’m the 1 percent with a family, a history and decades of memories represented in various possessions that surround us in our home.”[/i]
With that said, Mr. Byrns’ situation is not one percent of the 4,329 Davis fire calls in the most recent year (57 structure fires out of 4,329 is 1.3%), but rather his situation exists in only 1% of the structure fires if I understand Chief Kenley correctly. So Mr Byrns’ situation represents a one out of 4,000 chance of happening. Said another way that is one such fire every 11 or 12 years.