When the university announced a few months ago they were ending shared management of the firefighters, it marked the end of one of the more contentious issues in the city.
This weekend the Vanguard received a copy of the 3rd District report from Bobby Weist, president of the Davis Professional Firefighters Association and 3rd District vice president. Despite statistical analysis that continues to show otherwise and indications that the university backed out of the agreement mainly because the Davis union made matters too difficult, Mr. Weist brags of the news.
He writes: “Local 3494 are celebrating the first step in getting their department back after a failed experiment in shared management with the University of California, Davis.”
He added, “Three years ago, we gave up our fire department. To be able to get it back on the centennial is very meaningful.”
Here is the full write up from Bobby Weist:
Davis Ends Shared Management University
While the City of Davis is commemorating its centennial anniversary, members of Davis Professional Firefighters, Local 3494 are celebrating the first step in getting their department back after a failed experiment in shared management with the University of California, Davis.
The shared management structure, which was implemented in 2014 over the objections of Local 3494, came to [an] end in early February, meaning the transition coincides rather serendipitously with another major event in the department’s history.
“The Davis City Council held its first meeting on April 3, 1917. The reason they incorporated was that there had been a major fire, and they wanted to establish an independent fire department” said Local 3494 President Bobby Weist. “Three years ago, we gave up our fire department. To be able to get it back on the centennial is very meaningful.”
The decision to end the shared management agreement brings an end to a governance structure that drew the ire of not just local firefighters, but elected officials from around the region, who noted that operation decision[s] would be made outside the purview of the elected representatives of the City of Davis.
While the severing of the two departments restores that sense of local control, it does not come without its own set of problems.
When searching for its new fire chief, Davis city leadership posted a hiring announcement advertizing [sic] a salary range that is not only the lowest in Yolo County, Weist said, but is also the lowest in the greater Sacramento Valley region.
“This is something that won’t attract the level of experience needed to lead the department,” he said, noting that the low salary could lead candidates to view the position as a stepping stone toward a better paying position elsewhere.
“This could end up being a short-term employee for our city,” Weist said.
The joint fire department did not fail on its own. Weist and companions deliberately sabotaged a combined effort that was statistically successful in order, not to better serve the citizens of Davis, but rather “to get back our ( aka my) fire department”. And now he has the nerve to complain about the low salary offered for a new fire chief. A vacancy that he helped create the need for… Really ?
I ditto Tia Will’s comment. I still say we need to bring our overpaid firefighter’s compensation down. Hopefully it happens in the next round of wage discussions.
Keith, it is highly unlikely that the firefighters union will agree to wage concessions in the wage discussions, which means the likely outcome will be another impasse, which (as I understand it) essentially holds their pay at its current level for another contract period.
There is another option… the “nuclear option”… eliminate the fire dept (or specific positions), and contract the positions/function(s) out to UCD or the private sector (very rare, but exists)… that option is solely in the hands of the City… does not require meet/confer…
Later, the City could form a new FD under new rules…
Might be MAD (as in mutually assured destruction), but it indeed is an option…
DFD appears to be content to go with “status quo”… they assert they are “in power” in the long term… no reason for them to come to the “table”…
I think part of the problem is that there was an increasing sentiment on the part of the council that the fire chief needed to be on Fifth Street rather than campus. So I don’t think the council has the will to do anything other than hire a new chief and allow the situation to continue to fester.
As an FYI here are the total comp number from 2015. Seems like we have a lot of “chiefs” now.
Name
Job title
Total pay &
Paul Swanson
FIRE DIVISION CHIEF
$293,976.48
Richard Moore
FIRE CAPTAIN
$240,723.19
Ronald Zoghbi
FIRE CAPTAIN
$226,864.37
Joseph Tenney
FIRE DIVISION CHIEF
$215,338.47
Timothy Annis
FIRE DIVISION CHIEF (MARSHAL)
$202,198.38
Luis Parrilla
FIREFIGHTER II
$192,920.75
Looking at your list… am assuming the numbers include salary, overtime, vacation, sick leave, SDI, life insurance premiums, employer share of pension (3%@50), medical/dental, sinking fund for retiree medical, and includes “catch-up” for previously under-funding both PERS and retiree medical… are my assumptions correct?
Whatever Transparent California includes. Likely you are correct but I would visit their site to be sure.
Thanks… fair answer.
BTW, ‘Transparent CA’ is anything but (transparent), at least last time I tried to “drill down” into their data… and you have to temp cease your ad-blocker to get anywhere… they are based in Nevada…