The Davis firefighters’ union may have lost their influence and hold over the city government, but the power and influence that they have outside of the city boundaries was on ready display earlier this week when four current and on past elected officials co-wrote a letter to the Davis City Council filled with concerns about the proposed Fire JPA.
Unfortunately for them, they did not do their homework. There were numerous errors in the structure and content of the letter. The most stunning thing is that not one of those individuals met with either the city of Davis or UC Davis Vice Chancellor John Meyer to express their concerns or learn more about the process.
That lack of inquiry was backed by the stunning lack of response from three of the co-signers. Both Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblymember Mariko Yamada were unable to be reached by staff over two days, to get them to respond to Vanguard questions. Don Saylor never bothered to respond to an emailed question and only Jim Provenza responded at all.
Supervisor Provenza’s response largely confirmed our hunch as to the key factor at work here. You see, in 2010, the city of Davis and UC Davis were prepared to fully merge their operations together – in fact they started to do so for a time before compensation differences and a general bad attitude by the Davis firefighters, that essentially treated their UC Davis counterparts as second class citizens, undid the deal.
That deal created a management structure nearly identical to the one proposed for this JPA. The only difference is that in 2010, the chief of both departments would have been Bill Weisgerber, the interim chief at the city of Davis. In 2013, it will be Nathan Trauernicht, the chief at UC Davis.
Jim Provenza confirms that this was the concern when he told the Vanguard, “As I understood it, the City of Davis was the lead in the prior model with the Davis Fire Chief in charge. A big difference. The trend has been to shift authority to cities in communities with a university. It is essential that police and fire departments be directly accountable to elected officials.”
The problem here is that if you read the language in the JPA proposal, it does no such thing. It does not shift any authority away from the city. The JPA language mentions, “Both parties retain a significant amount of local control” and there would be no new agency created. Instead, “The Fire Chief is directly supervised by the City Manager of his/her employing agency, however, he/she answers to the respective City Managers in relation to the managerial responsibilities and activities of each organization.”
In other words, if you read the language here, while Chief Trauernicht would remain a UC Davis employee, however, for management decisions involving the city of Davis, he would answer to the Davis city manager.
Former City of Davis Police Chief Phil Coleman noted in a comment on the Vanguard yesterday that even presently police and fire officials are not directly accountable to elected officials, as Supervisor Provenza suggests; instead the police and fire departments are directly accountable to the city manager, not the city council.
The city council hires the city manager who hires the fire chief. The city council cannot fire the fire chief if they do not like what they are doing. In both this model and the present model, the fire chief answers to the city manager.
Of course, all of this is subtext. The real problem here is not the JPA, it’s that the firefighters’ union loses control over the next chief.
When the city announced Nathan Trauernicht as the next possible chief, the firefighters’ union immediately tried to sabotage the chief by raising a three-year-old incident.
A letter from retired Fire Captain Neal Boysen, a 26-year veteran who retired in December 2012, criticized Nate Trauernicht who, as on-call Duty Chief for both the city of Davis and UC Davis, was required to show up at an accident, but according to Mr. Boysen “chose note to.”
Chief Trauernicht responded that he monitored the scene from his vehicle and determined that his assistance was not needed. Chief Trauernicht noted that, in more than three years of service as Chief at UC Davis, this is the only complaint he has against him.
The letter from the public officials argues, “We believe that community wide fire and medical emergency service is not a core function of the University. Only two of the University of California campuses currently operate their own fire and emergency services departments: UC Santa Cruz and UC Davis.”
They continue, “Santa Cruz is now in the process of moving away from this model and placing the UC Santa Cruz fire and medical emergency service under the total authority of the City of Santa Cruz. Davis, however, is on the verge of going in the opposite direction, moving more responsibility and authority to the University, away from the City.”
However, that contention is contradicted by information about the UC Santa Cruz Fire Department on the agency’s web site.
Their site notes, “Beginning in January 2012, the UCSC Fire Department entered into a joint management contract with the Santa Cruz Fire Department. Following the retirement of the former Santa Cruz Fire Chief, UCSC Fire Chief Jeff Trapp assumed the role of Fire Chief for both agencies, and all other chief officer positions are shared as well.”
It continues, “During emergency responses for serious incidents, the SCFD duty Battalion Chief responds as the incident commander and other SCFD units respond to assist the campus engine company.”
Most of these errors would have been picked up had the public officials attempted to meet with the city or UC Davis first rather than jumping to conclusions that are unsustainable when the actual content of the proposed agreement is analyzed.
These errors, the fact that the public officials failed to meet with the agencies, and the fact that the firefighters’ union argued so vehemently against Chief Trauernicht, inevitably leads us to the conclusion that the letter was written at the behest of the union, by fire officials with close ties over the years to the union.
Unfortunately, all we have to go on here is speculation based on the known facts, because most of the public officials felt it unnecessary to address the difficult but pertinent questions raised by the Vanguard.
The city council in October approved the JPA in concept by a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Frerichs dissenting. The Vanguard believes it unlikely that this effort will result in the JPA not going forward, as there would appear to remain three if not four solid votes.
Given that, it would seem to make even more sense for these officials to meet with the city – as we see no reason that the JPA would not move forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote] in fact they started to for a time before compensation differences and a general bad attitude by the Davis Firefighters that essentially treated their UC Davis counterparts as second class citizens undid the deal.[/quote]
I understand about the compensation differences. Would you mind expanding upon the “general bad attitude”
part of the statement for those of us who were not paying attention at the time ?
[quote]In Bill Weisgerber, the firefighters union had someone they felt they could control.[/quote]
I don’t know whether or not this is accurate. There is a very fine line between “feeling that you can control” someone, and believing that their ideas are more closely aligned with your own. The former has quite a nefarious sound to it. The latter is how most of us tend to chose who to hire, promote, or associate with and do not see anything wrong with the promotion of our own ideas in this manner. Looking for ” a good fit” is usually considered a wise move, not a conspiracy.
The language was that the firefighters union felt they had something they could control, which is different from having someone they could control. Based on what I have heard, I believe my language is accurate. However, you are accurate, former Chief Weisgerber is clearly someone who sees eye to eye with the union and the union does not feel the same way about Trauernicht.
[quote]former Chief Weisgerber is clearly someone who sees eye to eye with the union and the union does not feel the same way about Trauernicht.[/quote]
Do you know if there are substantive issues on which there are disagreements between the union and Chief Trauernicht other than those relating to compensation / benefits ?
[quote]the fact that the fire fighters union argued so vehemently against Chief Trauernicht inevitably leads us to the conclusion that the letter was written at the behest of the union by fire officials with close ties over the years to the union.[/quote]
Kapow!$#%@*
Many interesting and thoughtful comments seen on this topic. I was waiting for another to be mentioned–and since it hasn’t yet–I’ll toss it into the pile.
Elected officials has their recognized areas of control and responsibility in public governance. When a contentious public policy matter is being considered, theses same public officials will receive and occasionally solicit input from other public officials. These political brethren can have past experiences to share, or they are, themselves, marginally affected by the pending policy decision and want to influence it.
Rarely, however, does an uninvolved government official PUBLICLY question or criticize the decisions of another ruling body’s actions on a public policy issue. This is what happened here and the JPA participants assuredly resent this very public interference and embarrassment. The four letter writers are aware of the impact of their unusual actions and its consequences in terms of future personal and professional interaction.
But they did it anyway, which reveals how compelled the 4 fringe players felt the need to act. Why they felt so compelled us subject to conjecture and comment as already demonstrated.
“Do you know if there are substantive issues on which there are disagreements between the union and Chief Trauernicht other than those relating to compensation / benefits ?”
I don’t. I think right now it’s a power play and a perception issue. I’ve come away extremely impressed with Chief Trauernicht in my limited dealings with him and several others who have had more extensive dealings have nothing but good things to say.
Another good point Phil.
David wrote:
> In Bill Weisgerber, the firefighters union had
> someone they felt they could control.
I’m wondering if David would also write:
“In BOBBY WEIST, the firefighters union had someone they felt they could control.”
I don’t see Bobby or Bill as a puppet that the union “controls” but as a couple guys that believe in the union (and appreciate what it has done for them) and will work hard to keep the firefighters getting more money (with more days off) than any other public employees.
With rare exceptions everyone wants more money and more time off (it looks like BART workers may go on strike again unless they all get 6 more weeks of PAID leave every year).
The merger with the lower paid UCD department will make it harder for the Davis FD guys to get more money (or more paid time off) and seems to me the main reason the union and their elected friends (including friends with benefits) oppose the merger.
Phil Coleman
[quote]Rarely, however, does an uninvolved government official PUBLICLY question or criticize the decisions of another ruling body’s actions on a public policy issue.[/quote]
I agree with David that this is a good point, and clearly a different perspective on the issue. I am wondering though about the wisdom of the convention that makes it rare for government officials to publicly question or criticize the decisions of another ruling body.
I can see a number of effects of what is effectively maintaining silence on a controversial issue, some good, some deleterious:
1) Maintaining public silence retains a certain sense of decorum and propriety
2) It avoids the appearance and thus the controversy of undue influence
3) It maintains an appearance of agreement and acceptance that may not be warranted
4) Since public officials frequently have access to more information about issues than does the public,
the silence may lead to a less than full discussion of issues since the public, of course, cannot bring up
issues of which it is unaware.
Let’s take a slightly different scenario. Let’s suppose a group of public officials have a very real, substantive concern about a decision being made by another governmental body on a public policy issue. One could argue that they first have a duty to privately make their concerns known. But, for the moment let’s assume that they have reason to believe that this will not be effective. Do they then not have the responsibility to make their concerns public ? Again, I am just asking. I do not have a firm opinion on what would be the best approach.
[quote]I’m wondering if David would also write:
“In BOBBY WEIST, the firefighters union had someone they felt they could control.”[/quote]
No. My impression is that Bobby Weist is the union – at least the public lever of the union.
“I don’t see Bobby or Bill as a puppet that the union “controls” but as a couple guys that believe in the union “
Again the need to point out that the comment was refering to the union’s perception of Weisgerber as opposed to Trauernicht and not meant to assess the truth of whether Weisgerber really was a tool of the union.
I was told by someone this year that Bobby directly told them that Weisgerber was someone they felt they could control and that they don’t feel the same with Traurnicht. That’s where the comment came from and it was not my intention to imply maliciousness or to put Weisgerber down.
Phil wrote:
> Rarely, however, does an uninvolved government official
> PUBLICLY question or criticize the decisions of another
> ruling body’s actions on a public policy issue.
I don’t know if I would say it is “rare” since it seems to me that more often than not a politician can’t help but comment on decisions of another ruling body (I read recently that the majority of the CA GOP voted to tell schools what bathrooms they think kids should use)…
[quote]I was told by someone this year that Bobby directly told them that Weisgerber was someone they felt they could control and that they don’t feel the same with Traurnicht. That’s where the comment came from and it was not my intention to imply maliciousness or to put Weisgerber down.[/quote]
What a difference a single word can make! I doubt there would be anything like as much drama if the word
“control” in the above sentence had been replaced with the words “work with”.
Perhaps this holds a lesson for all of us in being careful in our choice of words when expressing controversial opinions.
David-
You should check out this link regarding UCSC FD and the City of Santa Cruz.
http://fire.ucsc.edu/news-events/news/news-management-consolidation.html
I went off this link: http://fire.ucsc.edu/about/index.html
The bottom line for me on this issue is this:
At the last moment a bunch of non-City electeds weigh in on the side of the firefighters. This is such an obvious ply by the union to influence the City. Lois, Mariko, Don, Jim and Helen ought to be ashamed. This sort of naked pandering is an affront to the process the City has gone through.
It’s ridiculous.
This sort of naked pandering is an affront to the process the City has gone through.
Pandering is not something done while naked although the one being pandered may be naked at the time. Politicians should not be seen doing anything naked.
rd
[quote]Lois, Mariko, Don, Jim and Helen ought to be ashamed. This sort of naked pandering is an affront to the process the City has gone through.
[/quote]
And now, for a different point of view. Mariko, Don, Jim and Helen may or may not have cause to be ashamed.
This depends on how much research they put into this question prior to writing the letter. If they made an honest effort to weigh the pros and cons prior to writing, then no shame warranted. If they did not, I feel they made a poor choice. As for an affront to the “process the City has gone through”, I disagree. The only thing “affronted” here was the good judgement of each of them.
And as Mr. Toad put it, if a couple agreed 100% of the time, it would indeed be boring ! Here’s to a lively future ; )
David you should be getting a different page.
http://fire.ucsc.edu/news-events/news/news-management-consolidation.html
Here’s the text:
FAQ: Management Consolidation of UCSC and Santa Cruz Fire Departments
Two year pilot program for joint management of both agencies begins January 1, 2012
January 01, 2012
By Jeff Trapp, Fire Chief (831) 459-2344
UCSC Fire Department and Santa Cruz Fire Department patches
Patches of the UC Santa Cruz Fire Department and the Santa Cruz Fire Department
What is happening?
The City and Campus have entered into a two-year agreement to jointly manage the two agencies’ fire departments. This primarily involves sharing chief officer positions between the two agencies.
This is a two-year pilot program, which took effect January 1, 2012.
During the pilot period, UCSC Fire Chief Jeff Trapp will assume the position of fire chief for both departments.
During the pilot period, the city and campus will undertake an assessment to determine the feasibility of a structure in which the departments are co-managed, and where further integrations might be possible.
Why are we doing this now?
The retirement of the city’s fire chief provided an opportunity to determine if the departments — long-term — can be co-managed in an effort that would maintain service levels and reduce expenditures. The assessment will also determine if there are other integrations that make sense to undertake.
Why are we participating in this pilot program?
As public entities, both the city and campus have a responsibility to taxpayers to determine if they can more efficiently deliver services.
UCSC’s and the city’s relationship has improved dramatically in recent years, opening the door to this kind of pilot program.
Will there be impacts to campus service during this pilot period?
There will be no impact on emergency services currently provided by the Campus Fire Department.
For non-emergency services, the Fire Chief’s office will be relocated to downtown Santa Cruz, the Fire Marshal’s office will remain on campus, even though he will also be filling the duties of City Fire Marshal.
Will there be any changes in the campus fire station and/or in on-duty staffing there?
On-duty firefighter staffing on campus will remain the same with a minimum of 4 firefighters on-duty each day. They will continue to respond to campus calls from the Fire Station on Chinquapin Road.
The Campus Fire Marshal, Emergency Manager, and Business Continuity Planner will continue to be located at the Campus Fire Station.
Will there be differences in the way in which people contact the fire department?
For emergency calls, there is no difference. People should ALWAYS dial 9-1-1.
For nonemergency calls there will be no apparent changes, as the Fire Chief’s on-campus phone number will forward to his office in downtown Santa Cruz.
And here’s another one:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_23110786/santa-cruz-ucsc-fire-units-would-benefit-from