The standard view of folks who have been critical of the firefighters has been to separate the economic and fiscal impact of the firefighters from the vital service they provide. After all, my firefighters are our heroes. They rush into burning buildings and put their lives on the line fighting forest and brush fires.
And so for several years I bought into the idea that the problem with the firefighters is that we are paying too much compensation to them for this city to remain fiscally solvent. Their union was able to purchase influence through their numbers and unity in supporting political candidates that would support four on an engine, 3% at 50, 36% salary increases, hiding the fire report critical of their union and their chief, and resisting most other policy reforms coming out of city hall.
Understanding that stream within the context of our society’s general approval of firefighters makes sense, but it has become less reliable based on information coming out of city hall that shows, at the very least, potential for trouble.
Troubling is the fact that the fire department remains woefully behind the curve in terms of training and other new innovations. Troubling is that the fire department was set up less to be efficient in fighting fires and delivering services, and more to make the point through coverage gaps that we need a fourth fire station.
Troubling is that morale, which was bad before, has gotten worse. Dissenting firefighters have been subjected to workplace harassment and a hostile work environment for years, as the finally-released fire report showed us. Less competent and qualified personnel were promoted ahead of more deserving personnel.
And most recently we learned that when the union chief and captain was compelled to participate in a training, instead of being a leader, he used sick leave to avoid orders from above.
This is a toxic atmosphere and one that could bleed into public safety aspects of their job. Thankfully, we have no evidence that this is the case. Everyone claims that the service provided by this department is top-notch.
But that leads me to the critical question: how do we know? How can we evaluate the performance of the department?
It is here that we have Rich Rifkin’s column, in which he claims to have a new perspective on the Davis Fire Department.
He is careful to point out, “As readers of this column know, I have been critical of the city’s contract with the Fire Department’s union. I remain critical. They are overcompensated.”
Mr. Rifkin then adds, “Some firefighters mistakenly believe I have a vendetta against their department or against them personally. Neither is true. I admire the work they do. It’s vital. But that doesn’t mean our city’s policies should go unchallenged as we lurch toward insolvency.”
“Davis continues to have a huge fiscal hole, and a big part of that was dug by not properly managing labor costs, especially with the Fire Department,” he writes.
All true and it is important to keep that perspective. But the problem is that Mr. Rifkin throws out the rest of perspective here.
He rode with the firefighters for four hours. Undoubtedly, just as police officers I ride with are going to be exceedingly unlikely to whip out their Taser and haphazardly tase people, the firefighters were undoubtedly on their best behavior.
I have been on a fire ride-along – it’s been a few years, but it is important experience to gain the perspective of those city officials who do perform a vital task.
However, Mr. Rifkin writes, “Yet having spent a full afternoon riding with the DFD, I have a new perspective, and I have advice for my readers, including members of the Davis City Council: Sign up for a ride-along.”
“Our firefighters are professionals. They care about their work. And sitting high up in a big, red fire engine racing to an emergency gives you a point of view you’ve likely never had before.”
While I don’t doubt what Mr. Rifkin writes, a four-hour ride-along does not give one much in the way of perspective. He is making a mistake he often accuses other people of making – mistaking an anecdote for the analysis of data.
The firefighters are professionals, except for when they don’t get their own way with city council – and they misrepresent facts and details of events. They are professional until they do not get their own way with the interim chief and division heads – and they use sick leave to avoid their vital responsibilities.
They are professionals until it comes to the training and accountability they need to ensure that they do a good job.
I’m glad that the fire engines drove really fast and disappointed more people who do not yield to fire engines trying to get to their emergency calls, but we all know what the response time charts look like and how the firefighters may be able to get to those calls quicker with better deployment – things they have steadfastly fought against.
The sad thing is that the culture of the department is such that it is going to take years to undo a lot of the damage that has been done. Mr. Rifkin has done a great service to this community, pointing out some of the problems with the fire department compensation to the Davis Enterprise audience that does not get that information from their beat reporters or a certain columnist who writes five columns a week, but nothing on the firefighters.
However, in this column, Mr. Rifkin does us a real disservice by going to anecdote over data and forgetting about the mounds of reports that tell him things that he was never going to be able to witness in four hours.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Is this April Fools Day? A four-hour ride “sitting high up in a big, red fire engine racing to an emergency” negates years of unsavory history and research about documented mismanagement and questionable, at least, union behavior?
Now one has suggested that firefighters are not brave guardians, critical to our city’s operations. We’ve respected their work even before 9-11. One doesn’t need to ride around atop a truck to gain a perspective, just attent the DFD open houses with your kids.
WTF does tha afternoon described here have to do with the things Rich, the Vanguard, the grand jury, the ombudsman and others have bed reporting for years about the atmosphere in the firehouse, the co-opting of our political leadership, the favorable treatment of some and the humiliation of others? Does Rich say all this vanished when he got to push the siren button.
Are you kidding here or is Rich? Is it today’s Enterprise where we can read the full detaile of his dramatic epiphany and turn-around?
Another day another fire department hit piece.
Just Saying: Sorry meant to link this: A New Perspective on the Davis Fire Department ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/a-new-perspective-on-the-davis-fire-department/[/url])
Professional –
How can you a blogger understand a standard of professionalism ?
Last week your article claims that you berated a Davis citizen , at a City Council meeting , with FOUR letter words .
If I was a City Council person , City Manager , or a Davis citizen that saw and heard what you said ,I would of been asking that your privileges been taken away .
There is the wrong thing and the right thing to do , YOU chose poorly and should be punished , shame on you and the Council for glossing over this show of disrespect .
Maybe Rich Rifkin has a open mind , but you blogger are blinded by a closed mind !
I’ll be writing City Council next .
“YOU chose poorly and should be punished”
what would be the appropriate punishment? a spanking?
btw, what did the citizen do to instigate mr. greenwald’s response or do you think he randomly lashed out for no good reason?
“Another day another fire department hit piece. “
so what – if you are unable to refute the content, it’s irrelevant if it’s a hit piece or if he has a vendetta.
Davis Progrssive,
“”””what would be the appropriate punishment? a spanking? “”””
Have his City Council privileges taken away .
“”””btw, what did the citizen do to instigate mr. greenwald’s response or do you think he randomly lashed out for no good reason?”””””
It doesn’t matter , he wasn’t professional .
“Have his City Council privileges taken away . “
what privileges would those be?
“It doesn’t matter , he wasn’t professional . “
was he acting in his professional capacity? was there are reason? don’t you think those are important things to take into consideration?
bottom line here is that avatar is a retired firefighter and he’s trying to distract from the scrutiny on his former colleagues. perhaps mr. avatar or should i say former firefighter kevin kelly can enlighten us on what he thinks should happen to bobby weist in wake of his insubordination?
“After all, my firefighters are our heroes. They rush into burning buildings and put their lives on the lines fighting forest and brush fires.”
Upon reading Rich’s column, I don’t think he’s saying much more that you you are here. And, it’s something that everyone has acknowledged all along.
I don’t see that he’s really changed much except to imply that Bobby Weist has another side to him than his union bullying. His anecdotes don’t really replace any data he’s provided in the past. In fact, he ignores the issues about which he’s been so vocal.
I think Rich’s “new perspective” overstates his conversion unless he had a much lower opinion of rank-and-file firefighters’ dedication than I thought he had. The professionalism of firefighters racing to aid calls, fires or other emergencies never has been in question.
Rich’s writeup may go a ways toward disabusing some people of the notion that his criticisms simply grow from a lack of respect about the work firefighters do. I never saw his exposés as an unwarranted vendetta, but some suggested that. Now, it’s clear that he (like you and most others) can separate the two aspects of the fire department situation
Is there really any evidence that “by going to anecdote over data” in this one ride-along account, Rich has put aside any of his well-founded criticism of the union’s unhealthy impact on our political process, the over-compensation that’s evolved and the poor management of many parts of the department?
Are you so sure that your own report of a thrilling ride-along with Bobby Weist would look much different than Rich Rifkin’s?
Davis Progressive
[quote]bottom line here is that avatar is a retired firefighter and he’s trying to distract from the scrutiny on his former colleagues. perhaps mr. avatar or should i say former firefighter kevin kelly can enlighten us on what he thinks should happen to bobby weist in wake of his insubordination? [/quote]
I thought we weren’t supposed to out aliases. Would you like to be outed?
I removed Davis Progressive’s post that outed a moniker which is in violation of Vanguard rules. I removed Growth Izzue’s post that quoted it because it repeats the post in question. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. There will be no further outing of commenters. The topic of this article is the firefighters and Rich Rifkin’s article, please keep the discussion on track.
“Are you so sure that your own report of a thrilling ride-along with Bobby Weist would look much different than Rich Rifkin’s?”
My ride-along was not so thrilling. I don’t agree on your assessment of Rich’s overall piece. But that’s fine.
sorry got a little ticked at the use of personal crap out of context to attack the messenger.
DG: “I removed Davis Progressive’s post that outed a moniker which is in violation of Vanguard rules.”
I am no fan of your policy of anonymous comments, but I agree with the policy of not allowing anonymous posters to be identified against their will. When one anonymous poster intentionally identifies another however I think the first has lost their right to further anonymity. Even though you have removed the offending post, the damage has already been done.
Mark: I go back and forth about anonymity. There are legitimate reasons for it at times. In terms of sanctions, I think for a first time offense, a warning is sufficient, if it becomes a problem, removing their ability to post is always an option. I believe we’ve done that once. I expect this won’t be a problem with Mr. Progressive.
[quote]Even though you have removed the offending post, the damage has already been done. [/quote]
Exactly, it’s too late now, I’m sure many people saw the post and now know who Avatar is. How did DP know who that alias was anyway? That was just flat out wrong.
I didn’t see it GI, but now I want to know. Will my wisser be besser if I do?
i figured it out based on similarities between posts by avatar and a letter published in the vanguard a few months ago.
i apologize for helping to further divert the conversation.
Computer content analysis, eh?
use of a very specific phrase – blogger and columnist as long as referring to “blogger” as an epithet.
Back to the topic, please, folks.
After David posted the link I read Rich’s Enterprise article.
As I have posted many time some of my best friends (really) are firefighters. As their friends it is great that they get paid so much since I get to borrow their ski boats, jet skis and use their cabins in Tahoe (and I almost always have someone who can head up to the mountains with me for a mid week bluebird day)…
As a taxpayer I wonder why my friends with a JC fire science degree who work 10 days a month are paid more than my friends who are MDs and DVMs that work closet to 25 days a month…
One of the commenters to the Enterprise article (after reading that Rich and the guys went on mostly medical calls) posted a question that basically asks “why do we send fireman and fire trucks to do the work of paramedics and ambulances”?
Rich mentions in his article that the firefighters in Davis are EMTs. I’m an EMT (and also have a lot of specialized “wilderness medicine” training) and it did not take a lot of work to become an EMT and it seems like we should set a low bar of paramedic for our firefighters since most of their calls are medical (or let a third party firm use our fire stations to park their ambulances since the cost is about half as much as the EMT/firefighters).
I don’t know the politics in Davis, but my two closest friends are firefighter/EMTs and while their department now only hires firefighter/paramedics the union protects them so they don’t have to become paramedics and they get to sleep through most nights since the young guys who are paramedics take “the box” out on all medical calls so they can sleep and be rested for their other jobs when they get off at 8:00 am.
[quote]Undoubtedly, just as police officers I ride with are going to be exceedingly unlikely to whip out their Taser and haphazardly tase people, the firefighters were undoubtedly on their best behavior.[/quote]
Do police officers whip out Tasers and haphazardly tase people when you are not on a ride along?
I was trying to make a funny.
I figured but sometimes it’s hard to tell.
Mr Obvious wrote:
> Do police officers whip out Tasers and haphazardly
> tase people when you are not on a ride along?
I bet these guys did not have any ride alongs this day (the day the “don’t tase me bro” guy got it for lack of “respect”):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
I’m not trying to sidetrack here but the “don’t tase me bro” should not be used as a poster boy for haphazardly tasing people. He physically resisted and pulled away from the police.
Maybe this will embed?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE [/url]
fixed. Just click the URL icon, third from the right and then paste the link.
Biddlin ;>)/