It was a night where the subtext not only became the text, but became more important than the text itself. It began like every other night this fall, with a protest in front of City Hall by the firefighters pushing for public support, for traction, for anything that could prevent their last vestiges of power from slipping away into the night.
But something different happened on this night – something that represents not just a game-changing event, but a new game altogether. A few minutes before 6:30, in walked a group of men and women wearing the white shirts of the Davis Police Officers’ Association (DPOA). They had had enough, they were ready to take back their city.
You see, eight years ago in 2005 when the Davis firefighters’ union was fleecing the city with a 36 percent pay increase over four years, the Davis Police Officers’ Association settled on a much more modest 17 percent increase, believing that the firefighters’ union had asked for and received too much and that it would come back to haunt them.
While the firefighters have been a constant presence, complaining and throwing up roadblocks to city efforts to rein in salaries and compensation, the police officers have watched from the sidelines – quietly doing their jobs as crime seems to be on the uptick. They took the city’s compensation package and have watched as the firefighters obstruct city efforts at sustainability.
If the Chamber op-ed on Tuesday morning set the stage, the presence of at least twenty DPOA members in the chambers for really the first time in years ended the debate. On one side of the room were the police officers wearing white, and on the other side of the room were the firefighters wearing mainly black (though a few had white shirts on as well).
The script was flipped. After a long presentation by former Interim Fire Chief Scott Kenley, now a consultant to the city, Mayor Joe Krovoza asked for public comment. No one stirred.
No one knows exactly what happened at that moment. Perhaps the firefighters recognized that if they spoke out against the joint management item it would open the door for the police officers to respond. At that moment, it seemed, the last vestiges of the power that the firefighters union once held over city council lay in ruins.
As recently as a few weeks ago, Union President Bobby Weist bragged that there were three votes to kill the Joint Powers Agreement for joint management of the Davis and UC Davis fire departments, but on Tuesday night he had only one vote.
A noticing snafu put councilmember Rochelle Swanson, up in Washington for a training for her job, on the sidelines and unable to vote. State law requires a 72-hour notice at the location of the councilmember for a remote participation in a meeting, but the hotel only posted the notice this morning.
With all of this playing out, the actual text became for a moment an afterthought. However, the council still had a job to do and that was to pass a new management structure that staff was proposing.
Former Interim Chief Scott Kenley laid out the model in great detail, showing at one point the similarity in the model to the 2007 Battalion Chief model where a deputy chief instead of an assistant chief occupies the critical intervening layer of power. However, while the Battalion Chief Model would have cost the city hundreds of thousands in additional costs, this model saves the city at least $78,000 at the start.
This is not a merger, Mr. Kenley told the city council. “It’s not like all of a sudden the chief of the UC Davis Fire Department is now controlling the Davis Fire Department, it’s a total change in philosophy,” he explained. “It’s happened all across the state.”
“It’s commonplace in the fire service across the state of California based primarily on the need to consolidate cost in a more economical manner,” he added.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton added, “We’re proposing that we jointly manage both departments.” He would add, “It really isn’t important which agency that fire chief works for. What’s important is that that fire chief works for the entire department. He reports to the city managers in our case, the Vice Chancellor and myself, and we jointly manage that.”
“What we’re really asking for you here is the structure,” he said. “We don’t think who is the fire chief… is important as much as whether you philosophically agree with the structure.”
The report notes that the current fire chief at UC Davis is fully qualified to also be the fire chief for the city of Davis.
Councilmember Brett Lee said, “So during this job search, which was a nationwide job search, it just seems to me odd that only one candidate would move past the oral boards and be recommended to the final interviews, and it just happens to be our next door neighbor.”
Steve Pinkerton explained that it was a fully vetted search and, these days, it is not unusual to go out multiple times for recruitments. “I don’t think that’s unusual at all,” he said. “You often find that your most qualified candidates are nearby. That there are not as many people at this point who are willing to make the big transition from state to state.”
The agreement would just be initially for one year that would allow the council to assess how it is working before a long agreement would be implemented.
The only question at this point was whether there would be three votes in the absence of Rochelle Swanson to support a vote on Tuesday night. When Joe Krovoza moved the staff recommendation and Brett Lee seconded it, for a while there appeared to be real doubt.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs immediately indicated his opposition to the motion.
“I’m not supportive of your motion,” said Mr. Frerichs. He cited a variety of reasons for his opposition. He said that he wanted to see how the boundary drop, which is only a few weeks into effect, plays out and how the staffing changes play out over a longer time.
“I think it’s important for us to have our own autonomous city of Davis fire chief,” he said. “The issue of cost savings. Yes, $78,000 a year, could be more over time. But $78,000 a year, we’re talking a city budget $250 million (all funds) a year, General Fund $45 million or in that range… still $78,000, I just don’t see the… I think there are a whole range of things we could be doing to save money that would be more effective.”
Mr. Frerichs noted that “consistent leadership” is “something that has been missing for a number of years in this city of Davis fire department and it’s time that we change that.”
Councilmember Brett Lee followed up his second by noting that, while he supports the staff recommendation, he does think it is essential that the city hire a strong deputy chief to work under the joint power chief.
The critical question was where would Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk stand. Mr. Wolk had opposed the fire staffing changes, but previously supported personnel cuts in the critical 2011 3-2 budget vote.
Mr. Wolk quickly made it clear which way he was going. “Like Brett I am supportive of this. I think sharing management services does make sense. It’s not a foreign concept to this council and there’s a real synergy to be achieved here.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza noted that they had asked staff to look into joint management structures and noted, “We’re not going as far as we could go. There’s good reasons – cultural and financial – for us not to go that far.”
“We found a bit of a middle ground which lets us test the waters and quite frankly we’ve had pretty good success starting to work together in the training area,” he said.
The motion would pass 3-1 with Rochelle Swanson, again, absent and Lucas Frerichs the lone dissenter.
This was clearly a first step, but a critical one that will move the fire service forward while at the same time signaling critical changes in the city’s political landscape.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Luis Frerichs:
[quote]”The issue of cost savings. Yes, $78,000 a year, could be more over time. But $78,000 a year, we’re talking a city budget $250 million (all funds) a year, General Fund $45 million or in that range… still $78,000[/quote]
Just $78,000 here, $78,000 there, no big deal. Attitudes like this
is why we’re in the fiscal mess we’re in now. I hope voters remember this when Frerichs comes up for re-election.
Did any of the cops speak? Did you talk with any of them to get their perspective?
GI, you left out the last part of Lucas’ quote, “I think there are a whole range of things we could be doing to save money that would be more effective.”
Why were the police there?
Toad: “After a long presentation by former Interim Fire Chief Scott Kenley, now a consultant to the city, Mayor Joe Krovoza asked for public comment. No one stirred.”
B. Nice: They were tired of listening to the firefighters complain while they had played by the rules – taken the concessions, not picketed, not complained about staffing changes, etc.
Bi Nice, if there are more things that can be done to save money they should be done in addition to the $78,000 savings of only needing one chief.
Growth Izzue wrote that Lucas Frerichs thinks $78K for a chief is no big deal:
Then B. Nice wrote:
> GI, you left out the last part of Lucas’ quote,
> “I think there are a whole range of things we
> could be doing to save money that would be more
> effective.”
Since Lucas does not seem to be doing anything about the “whole range” of ways to save $78K that tells us even more about him…
P.S. If you look at the cost of health care and pensions going forward the savings will be MUCH more than $78K…
David wrote:
> On one side of the room were the police officers
> wearing white, and on the other side of the room
> were the firefighters wearing mainly black
This reminds me of on one side was the evil Lord Vader in black, and on the other side was the brave Jedi Luke Skywalker in white…
P.S. To any cops an firefighters reading this many people see it as a lack of respect when you wear a baseball hat to a city council meeting (or church)…
I partly agree with Lucas. The $78K in savings is not a reason to do it or not do it. If we were talking a substantial savings, then I see the point. But to do a huge upheavel over a relatively small amount makes no sense to me.
So the more pertinent question is whether or not, we should do it irrespective of the money and I disagree with Lucas, I think there are a lot of good reasons, many of them that went unstated to do so.
[i]State law requires a 72-hour notice at the location of the councilmember for a remote participation in a meeting, but the hotel only posted the notice this morning.[/i]
WTH?
First, why this rule? Do we live in a technology stone age?
Second, what staffer screwed up getting this done?
If this vote would have split due to the lack of a fifth vote… well it seems pretty important to at least make sure we don’t continue to make the same mistake.
The police – already very high on my impression list under the leadership of chief Black – just moved several notches higher. I hope the firefighters learned something last night. I hope they learned that their previous thuggish tactics no longer work. The time is now for them to start demonstrating that they really care about the community that employs them.
So, I thought the Council was going to be dealing with the labor contracts. When is that scheduled?
That’s two votes where Frerichs has sided with the firefighters.
frerichs is owned by the firefighters. dan there is hope for.
“So, I thought the Council was going to be dealing with the labor contracts. When is that scheduled? “
closed sessions. the impasse process is moving forward, slowly.
when are the firefighters going to recognize that weist is leading them down the path to destruction.
“frerichs is owned by the firefighters. “
I thought he was owned by his wife.
“That’s two votes where Frerichs has sided with the firefighters.”
Must be a pattern here somewhere.
[quote]Must be a pattern here somewhere. [/quote]
Toad, I know you’re trying to be sarcastic and that as far as you’re concerned unions are the best thing since the wheel but yes, there is a pattern here. On two very important votes Frerichs is the only council member to side with the firefighters both times. I’m glad that Dan Wolk saved a little face and did the right thing this time because it would have been a terrible outcome to not get this through because of a technicality on Swanson’s part.
But here is the thing on both votes Lucas explained his concerns and yet the your either for us or against us attitudes on display here reject any nuance. In both first case Lucas said he wasn’t ready at that time to go to 3 on an engine but that of course isn’t good enough for The Davis Vanguard. This time Lucas argued that we just did the boundary drop so lets give it some time to see if it works before taking this next step. While you might disagree with Lucas some of the things being said about him are over the top. Most importantly, we don’t know what is going on with the contracts being negotiated in closed session, where Lucas argues these issues should be negotiated. Passing judgement without a better understanding of the bigger picture is as we say in Toad Hollow, jumping the gun.
Toad, I’m just glad that we have three to four other council members that are in my opinion a lot more sensible than Mr. Frerichs when it comes to dealing with the firefighters.
“Growth Izzue:Bi Nice, if there are more things that can be done to save money they should be done in addition to the $78,000 savings of only needing one chief.”
I agree with David on this, saving $78,000 is a fringe benefit of this option but is not a good enough reason to do or not do it. This is how I interrupted Lucas’ comment.
SouthofDavis: P.S. To any cops an firefighters reading this many people see it as a lack of respect when you wear a baseball hat to a city council meeting.”
And many people don’t…..
” They were tired of listening to the firefighters complain while they had played by the rules – taken the concessions, not picketed, not complained about staffing changes, etc.”
Very sad, and a little worrisome, that it has come to this. I will trust they are all professional enough to keep this feud from effecting their ability to work together as they often most.
B.Nice
[quote]I agree with David on this[/quote]
LOL, that’s goes without saying………
“LOL, that’s goes without saying……… “
As do most of your over generalizations.
I can’t help it David has already written what I was thinking, great minds? (Another soft ball for you:-).
“But here is the thing on both votes Lucas explained his concerns and yet the your either for us or against us attitudes on display here reject any nuance.”
Is this the same Toad that was commenting a couple of days ago on the Robb Davis candidacy thread? What a turnabout!
-Michael Bisch
DT Businessman
“But here is the thing on both votes Lucas explained his concerns and yet the your either for us or against us attitudes on display here reject any nuance.”
Is this the same Toad that was commenting a couple of days ago on the Robb Davis candidacy thread? What a turnabout!
-Michael Bisch
I was thinking the same thing about this comment he also made on that thread
“One where he understands you don’t get everything you want in politics instead of making unreasonable demands as a condition for support. “
” but that of course isn’t good enough for The Davis Vanguard.”
not following you here, the davis vanguard hasn’t criticized lucas in this piece
Lucas provided nuanced explanations. Robb’s position is all or none on Cannery. I’m not sure how I’m being inconsistent?
it just seems like you have your favorites – which is fine – but you act like you are above such stuff.
Toad, you are absolutely wrong on this one and would have us believe the sun rises in the west. On peripheral growth in general, and The Cannery project in particular, you represent the “All” position. Others, such as GI, represent the “None” position. Robb represents the nuanced position, much like Lucas on fire (according to you). Robb has repeatedly stated he is OK with The Cannery project subject to a condition. You clearly oppose his condition. I don’t have a problem with your opposition. But to state that he is in the “None” camp or is inflexible is ridiculous. Inflexible is taking the position that under no circumstances will he support The Cannery project. Another inflexible position would be for Robb to impose a condition that simply cannot be met (e.g. pay for the entire surface water project as a condition of rezoning). Robb has done neither. The developer can accept the condition, not accept it, simply ignore Robb, whatever. It’s the developer’s choice. But the way you are trying to label Robb is inaccurate and therefore not conducive to fostering a productive debate.
-Michael Bisch
Lucas Frerichs is a political youngster who has a long political career ahead of him that will require lots of fundraising. He knows his 2 votes in support of firefighters will guarantee that he will be a prime recipient of their considerable fundraising efforts on his behalf in any future elections. I think he can spin his reasoning as much as he wants, but at the end of the day underneath all of that lipstick is still a pig.
I fully agree wesley, well said.