On October 15, 2013, the Davis City Council voted 4-1, with Councilmember Lucas Frerichs dissenting, to enter into an agreement with UC Davis for Shared Management of the City of Davis and UC Davis Fire Departments.
Staff has now returned with the language of the agreement that is effective for one year from January 1, 2014 until December 31, 2014. There will be an automatic renew if neither party withdraws from the agreement on or before June 30, 2014.
According to the staff report, “The June thirty date was chosen to give both agencies time to adjust their individual budgets and for the City of Davis to recruit for and appoint a Fire Chief.” It also coincides with the election of the new Davis City Council.
Staff clarifies that this agreement “does not create a joint powers agency or authority, partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise of any kind.” The city manager and vice chancellor “will serve as the Executive Managers of the agreement,” who will “be responsible for jointly developing an annual cost allocation plan, collaborate regarding the appointment of the Fire Chief, as well all other positions subject to the shared formula portion of the agreement.”
As previous articles have noted, the Davis Professional Firefighters Association strongly opposes this structure. They have pushed a petition and signature-gathering drive as their latest attempt to sway the public to push council against this change.
According to several people who approached the firefighters, they were told that the city fire department will be run by UC Davis, that the city is giving away control of the fire department to the UC Regents.
Further adding fuel to the fire was a letter from elected officials asking the city to reconsider the JPA.
A letter from Senator Lois Wolk, Assemblymember Mariko Yamada, Supervisors Don Saylor and Jim Provenza and former Supervisor Helen Thomson urged “the Davis City Council to take another look at the serious long-range consequences of this proposal before contracting out any of these core municipal functions. There is a key difference between sharing or coordinating services and merging governance with the constitutionally separate and unelected Regents and Chancellor.”
“This proposed action would place a well-established and effective municipal service within an entity whose primary mission is higher education and research, not public safety,” the letter continues. “This could easily result in a lessening of service and response for the residents of the Davis community and the surrounding areas historically served by the Davis Fire Department. We deeply appreciate the presence of the UC Davis campus and respect the leadership of the campus. Unified operations and efficiencies are appropriate considerations, but should not come with loss of community accountability.”
Supervisor Provenza 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.”
However, city officials disagree with this assessment and believe that the letter is largely inaccurate.
Both City Manager Steve Pinkerton and UC Davis Vice Chancellor John Meyer confirmed to the Vanguard that none of the signers of the letter had met with or spoken with them about the agreement or their concerns.
The city argues and shows documentation that strongly suggests that this agreement does not give UC Davis control over the city’s fire department; rather it creates a shared management model for the management of both departments.
The shared management services model would acknowledge “the current level of collaboration between the agencies relative to the West Valley Regional Fire Training Consortium, the sharing of the Division Chief duty coverage, and the positive aspects of the Management Services Agreement between the parties that was placed on hold in January of 2012.”
As the staff report in October indicated, “A Shared Management Services Agreement would take full advantage of the Joint Powers Agreement governance model where both parties retain a significant amount of local control. Implementation of this alternative could be accomplished in a short period of time (one to three months).”
According to a presentation posted on the city’s website, for both the city council and UC Davis, “each retain their independent legislative authority to exercise their powers independently.”
The city manager and vice chancellor would “jointly develop and recommend to the Council and UC an annual Cost Allocation Plan based on the formula in the Agreement;” “Collaborate regarding appointments for positions;” and “Collaborate to determine recommended personnel actions by each Party (these decisions subject to the existing personnel rules of each party).”
The fire chief, in this case, Nathan Trauernicht, would provide “general administration and oversight of the Davis/UC Davis Fire Departments, all in accordance with the requirements and expectations of this Agreement, statutory law, local ordinances, applicable Davis and UC Davis rules and regulations and the customary duties of a Fire Chief.”
All key management personnel will remain employees “of only one Party for purposes of compensation, benefits, and other applicable terms and conditions of employment adopted by that employing Party.”
However, “The individual Parties will retain absolute authority for any appointment authorizations, subject to the requirement as stated herein for the Managers of the Executive Committee to collaborate on appointments of Key Management Positions.”
In addition, “When a Key Management Position becomes vacant through any termination of the prior incumbent’s employment, the Managers shall meet to discuss collaborative procedures for identifying, selecting and appointing an employee to fill the position.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If accurate, it is surprising to me that the UCD Fire Chief will not receive a raise (since his duties will increase and am sure hassles with the union will as well)?
Also, no mention of the disparity in the two staffs’ salaries. I know that was the sticky point in prior discussions. How do the execs plan to deal with that.
All said, I think it is a good plan, overdue, and hope it passes 5-0 to send a message. However, we’ll see…..
They dealt with the disparity in salary by going to a joint management rather than a fully merged department. It’s not ideal. In fact, I have heard pretty audibly that the City of Davis firefighters don’t see the UCD Firefighters as legit.
David
“Legit” as firefighters, or “legit” as a bargaining unit ?
I understand how they dealt with it David, but what is the morale and sentiment of the UCD firefighters specifically….making significantly less yet doing same job essentially, correct and working side by side. Don’t get me wrong, all the reasons given are positive for the change as I see it….
medwoman: legit as firefighters.
…
“medwoman: legit as firefighters.”
that won’t help morale, etc and make it more difficult for the Chief which prompted my comments above….when are Bobby and friends up for retirement? I saw an ad for Davis firefighter in the Enterprise this wkend. Only in person and one day for applications; sounds like the supply of eager firefighters still much higher than demand….
The issue of firefighter “legitimacy” between the City Firefighters and the UCD Firefighters is not new . . . not new at all. If the UCD Firefighters were going to take offense at this slap in the face by their City counterparts they would have taken that offense many many years ago. The UCD Firefighters have consistently taken the high road and concentrated on the reward that they get by doing an important job well, and getting valuable experience in their chosen profession.
good to hear Matt….
In reading this article, I can’t help but wonder whether Wolk-Yamada-Sayor-Provenza-Thomson didn’t do both the City and the University and all of us citizens a favor when they sent their letter to City Council.
The issues they raised, whether accurate or inaccurate in their details, were issues that probably are important to the public [u]perception[/u] of what this shared management agreement really represents . . . and just as importantly, what it does not represent.
I’m beginning to feel that the W-Y-S-P-T letter provided very much the same function as an editor does for an author, or a devil’s advocate does for a debate team. The prose gets sharpened. The message gets better focused. As a result the audience is better served . . . and gets a better understanding.
While that is a silver lining, remember that the original letter came out on Tuesday at 9 am before the council was to meet and at least in theory address this issue. It is true that with two weeks in between, the city was able to address their concerns, but that was not the original intent or set up.
In addition to David’s comments, Matt, if the letter had only asked questions, that would be one thing, BUT it prompted answers from the inaccurate statements condemning the change without apparently asking the two principals for confirmation…..comments?