Those who caught Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk’s nearly 12:30 am interrogation of the new fire chief might have wondered what that was all about. What they might not have known is that, minutes earlier, Mr. Wolk was sitting in the lobby with Fire Captain Emily Lo, who appeared to be briefing him on precisely what to ask and what points to make.
Most certainly the public would be unaware that the statewide professional firefighters’ union later in the week would be interviewing all four assembly candidates to determine which one they will support.
Last year council implemented four critical changes to the fire department – they raised the required response times, they enacted boundary drop, they reduced staffing from 12 to 11, and most recently they hired UC Davis’ fire chief to run both departments in a shared management services agreement.
The last two issues were decided on 3-2 votes with Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk along with Councilmember Frerichs dissenting.
The staff report is relatively positive, showing that the boundary drop is working as hoped with less need to rotate fire personnel, allowing for more consistent responses in the west and east of the city. Overtime, which firefighters cited last fall as a serious concern, has been reduced to a more manageable number relative to average shifts per member.
But Mayor Pro Tem Wolk questioned some of the report, its motivation, and even accused the city manager of making unprofessional comments.
“To be quite honest, I found the staff report to be written almost as if it were making an argument,” he said. “Written with a certain amount of persuasion in mind. One of those was the staffing changes where the first part of the staffing changes talks about the benefits and it sort of talks about how, it says, ‘finally there is no evidence that the staffing changes have created an unsafe condition for the city and its firefighters.’”
Later near the end of the item, he would add, “I was very disconcerted by your sentence at the end of overtime saying, ‘It is interesting to note that once the staffing levels were reduced, making the extra Firefighter II available for coverage of the first vacancy that the sick and vacation usage increased.’”
He said that this “is an insinuation that the firefighters are taking more sick leave and vacation time on purpose… because of this new policy.” He added, “I found it very disconcerting again with regards to getting unbiased information to us, that that was in there. I thought it was inflammatory, I think what it insinuates is very inflammatory.”
Steve Pinkerton responded, “Point taken. I’m sorry if it seemed inflammatory. We’re just doing a data analysis and pointing out the disparities in the data.”
“One of my concerns, in moving from 4 to 3, was the reduced services particularly in instances where you’d like to have four on a scene immediately which is the old system, versus having three and having to wait in instances where that matters,” Mr. Wolk began.
He pointed Chief Nathan Trauernicht’s attention to the appendix of the staff report which illustrates the fire response for two separate incidents.
Mr. Wolk focused on the Marina Circle fire, because “this was my exact concern” in voting against the staffing changes. “There was a three person engine and then it was another three and a half minutes before any other personnel arrived.”
Under the old system, “the team could have gone into the house, right?”
Chief Trauernicht responded that this was correct.
Mr. Wolk continued that during that time more property could be lost and “it is my understanding that if that three person team does not know whether or not there is someone in the house, they cannot go in because they need that two-in, two-out.”
Chief Trauernicht responded that OSHA’s policy does exactly what he states, “with the exception of concern for whether or not there is life at risk.” He explained that decision comes “based on things that they see as possible signs of occupants so things like vehicles in the driveway, time of day, day of week. All of these different factors play into a decision-making process that is required when you switch to a three-person company.”
Mr. Wolk argued that while the staff report argues “there is no evidence that the staffing changes have created an unsafe condition for the city and its firefighters, but I would argue that the Marina Circle fire argues a possible unsafe condition.”
Chief Trauernicht again responded, “The decision on three person versus four person staffing comes down to a couple of factors. One is community risk and one is a community’s willingness to pay for a level of service. I think that’s part of what we’re looking at in terms of this whole process that the Davis fire department has gone through in the last year, which is a decision that the community makes and really puts in the port of the council.”
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk continued to the subject of overtime, noting, “One of the arguments about moving from 4 to 3 is that we would see reduced overtime.”
Dan Wolk argued, looking at the overtime data, that we only reduced overtime by 1000 hours, “a good chunk of which only happened because we pulled out of the strike team participation.”
“That doesn’t seem like a huge savings to me in overtime,” he stated.
However, it quickly became clear that Mayor Pro Tem Wolk was misreading the chart. City Manager Steve Pinkerton pointed out that, after the city canceled strike team participation, there were no additional opportunities where the city would have participated in strike team but did not because of their withdrawal.
But secondly, as the chart shows, the city breaks down the overtime into strike-team and non-strike team hours and “you can see after the staffing shift we went from 9700 non-strike team hours down to 7892 non-strike team hours. It would have been lower but you can see there was far higher sick leave and vacation leave in the second six-month period.”
Mayor Pro Tem Wolk then added, “Unless I’m mistaken, this council did not intend to pull out of the state’s strike team participation that was made at the administrative level.”
“I don’t know how my colleagues feel about that, but I have some real concerns about the city not participating in state strike teams,” he added. He noted that the governor is hiring additional CalFire personnel due to the drought concern and suggested, “It seems like in comparison to last year, there is going to be even more of a concern at the statewide level over fires. And when we get a call from the state saying we need your help, we’re going to tell them no, is that correct?”
Steve Pinkerton responded, “That was just a policy we enacted last fall, it doesn’t have any bearing on this year.” The policy was enacted after the firefighters, for several weeks, came forward complaining about overtime and their participation in strike team. The city ended their participation in response.
Chief Trauernicht added, “There has been discussion this last week, the city manager and I… we’re going to resume DFD’s participation in out of county, statewide strike teams.”
He explained that, during the previous year, the concern was safety issues involving exhaustion and fatigue and other risks due to the amount of overtime. He assured council that, as they do assign units, “they will make sure we don’t over-commit on resources. That is something we will be mindful of.”
The following is the video of the exchange:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
One of my concerns in moving from 4 to 3, was the reduced services particularly in instances where you’d like to have four on a scene immediately which is the old system, versus having three and having to wait in instances where that matters,” Mr. Wolk began.
Why not 6 per engine? Why not 6 fire stations? Certainly the more stations around the city, and the more firefighters we deploy on a call, the quicker we would be able to respond to fires and the more capable we would be for preventing harm and damage. But, life is a perpetual assessment of risks, costs, opportunities and benefits. What actual risk would we be mitigating with 4 person engine teams? It would be de minimis. We cannot afford it. Most other communities have decided the same.
It is clear that Councilman Wolk is aligning himself as a friend of the firefighters.
One question… given the animus that has developed between police and fire, is Councilman Wolk doing himself any favors?
I knew this was coming Frankly, that there would be an incident where the friends of the firefighters would jump on some incident and try to make hay out of it. No surprise here. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner.
One of the things I’ve been trying to get is what a response matrix looks like in cities like West Sac and Woodland, where they already have three on an engine.
Is Wolk going to try and sell 4 on an engine to W. Sac and Woodland? What financial shape are they in?
Or is only Davis property worth saving?
Like Davis, West Sacramento only recently went to three on an engine. Woodland also made the change in the relatively recent past. It’s worth noting that WS is not in the same Assembly District as Davis anymore.
No. You’re totally wrong there. West Sac has had 3 on an engine since the dawn of time. They did not “recently” go to 3 on an engine unless you are talking in terms of ice ages.
Thanks. But I don’t think that’s true because when I did a records request in 2009, I was informed that they had some engines with 4 and some with three, and I believe they went to being all three. I can probably dig up that information request somewhere.
“What they might not have known is that minutes earlier, Mr. Wolk was sitting in the lobby with Fire Captain Emily Lo, who appeared to be briefing him on precisely what to ask and what points to make.”
I wonder how the fire chief feels about having one of his fire captains appearing to have briefed Dan Wolk before the hearing? I have a very low opinion of Dan Wolk. David, did any of the other council members speak up in defense of the report.
Does Emily live in Davis? If so, she has every right to talk to her Council member. If she lives out of town, then I think that going around her superiors to speak to our elected representative (her supervisor’s, supervisor’s, boss) is out of line.
I think it comes down to what we can afford.
I think it is common knowledge that the employees work within the system to maximize overtime.
obviously emily lo can talk to whomever she wants regardless of whether she lives in davis or vacaville or dixon or wherever. it’s not an issue about emily lo, it’s an issue of whether dan wolk is trying to curry favor with the firefighters by carrying their water and being obnoxious to the city manager.
I think it is an issue when one of our employees tries to influence my representative. I bet this is an issue for all of her supervisors that she is critical of their management and bringing her concerns directly to the Council. I do not fault Dan for asking hard questions and bring up an issue. It is important that we understand what kind of coverage we are paying for. I would like Dan to be just as searching when it comes to overtime by employees.
General statement… for clarification, are you saying ALL employees try to maximize overtime, or just FF’s?
Although it wasn’t my statement, I’ll jump in by saying that overtime is perceived differently by different people, regardless of occupation. Some people want as much as they can get, some resent having to put in any. I’m sure the fire department staff comprises some of each.
What an embarrassing performance by our ambitious councilman Dan Wolk.
Any doubt that he’s sold his soul to the firefighter union (thereby earning support from other unions) evaporated with his lengthy, unseemly and ignorant Tuesday night interrogation. Any doubt that he’s been engaging in a back-room effort to drive City Manager Pinkerton and Chief Trauernicht out of Davis also seems to have dissolved with this public display.
If he had time to get so thoroughly (yet, still poorly) prepped by firefighters, why wouldn’t he have checked out a few of his “facts” with the city manager and/or fire chief before taking this so public?
The tone of the inquisition (and the misinformation used) makes it clear he was intent on airing Bobby Weist’s alleged grievances rather than evaluating the safety issues of city policy.
What a shame that this newbie politician has learned and engaged so quickly the dark side of his profession.
Typically, when a councilperson has an advance question or concern about anything in a staff report to the Council, the query is directed to the city manager, department head, and occasionally includes the person who prepared the staff report. Such queries in advance of a council meeting are fairly common. Comments after the formal presentation are even more commonplace.
Here we have a witnessed oral exchange between the Vice Mayor and a Fire Department employee. It is suspected or presumed that this conversation between Wolk and Lo was a briefing on the staff report, followed by an “interrogation” of the Fire Chief.
Indisputably, Lo and Wolk have the legal right to talk to each other. Lo can speak to a public official as a private citizen or as a union representative or supporter. As an employee, however, giving comment on a staff report prepared by her superiors is, well, highly irregular and I’ll leave it at that.
Once it was happening, however, I was impressed by how forthcoming and courteous both the fire chief and the city manager were during the Wolk ambush. They didn’t rise to any bait even though the questioning got increasingly hostile. “Point taken,” we’re just providing the information, concluded Pinkerton.
If Dan had followed the respectful, typical practice you describe, it would have precluded him spouting the unwarranted allegations he dropped into the public square. Perhaps he didn’t want to be enlightened since it would have hampered his performance for the firefighter union.
What is so funny watching Dan Wolk hoover the firefighters and repeat their talking points in his campaign speech from the dais is that the firefighters have not yet formally endorsed him. Why not? I assume it is because the corruption they unleashed on the City Council over the last 15-20 years has made that union’s name toxic in Davis. Weist and company know that if they give Wolk their imprimatur, marginal voters in Davis will clearly see that his frantic and seriously inarticulate arguments against reforming our fire service are not about public safety–in fact, they are against public safety–but rather they have all along been about having a corrupting union pay him off in his bid for higher office.
The real question is: Will the voters of Davis in this Assembly race call Dan on the carpet for choosing his own ambitions over their interests? Or will they, per usual, pay no attention and simply vote for a last name they know?
If done right, grandstanding can be very effective. If executed poorly, it’s transparent and embarrassing. This was painful to watch.
So assuming this is a political play for his State Assembly campaign, is it even a good strategy? Putting aside the messy ethical question of “is this right?,” I’m just wondering “is this smart?” Is firefighter support worth alienating everyone else? Maybe only if they can donate a lot of money to the campaign? I have no idea, but I can’t imagine they have access to SO much money. Others here will know more though, I’m sure.
My bad – I meant “his State Assembly campaign,” not Senate.
Painful, indeed, but it might have done the desired job.
How many Davis voters will be repelled by this scripted grandstanding episode–the number that ever see this embarrassing and disrespectful performance will be tiny.
The target audience (Weist and the rest), however, must be applauding and will continue to provide various kinds of support to Wolk’s campaign. The word has gone out to the other unions interested in this assembly race: Dan Wolk is trainable and worthy of your campaign money and time.
Painful to watch; sickening to contemplate.
Wolk…Wolk.
As embarrassing as Wolk’s latest episode was, it was better than his and Frerich’s earlier display when they hemmed and hawed looking and searching for reasons to vote in the firefighter’s favor. I would watch the video again and count Wolk’s hems and haws but I can’t stand the frustration of watching it once more.
One humorous point of this clip is when Dan’s script had him passing the baton to Lucas before he proceeded to his next illogical point, but Lucas didn’t bite. Hard to tell if he hadn’t gotten the memo or if he realized how Dan’s case was collapsing and didn’t want to get involved at that point. This tandem deal didn’t operate quite as anticipated.
Lucas did speak on the issue after Dan finished.
Understand. It’s just that it appeared Dan was expecting Lucas to jump in at that moment to support his failing charges. Or, maybe, praying that he would.
I’m still curious how the rest of the gang responded to Dan’s 15-minute charade. Didn’t see the meeting and got only Kemble after Dan’s segment.
My question regarding Dan Wolk’s questions is : Is he demanding the same standard of neutrality, documentation and lack of ” insinuation” from the Davis firefighters as he is from Nate Trauernicht and the city manager? At no time, despite multiple invitations to provide actual safety and cost information, have the firefighters provided actual data demonstrating that three on a truck vs four is in fact safer, or more effective in preventing property loss. Surely such information rather than just a claim based on a “more is better” philosophic stand would be of more value. One example of potential concern such as the Marina Circle fire does not an objective case make. I think it is very fair and important to ask these questions. And I think that they need to be addressed to each side equally.
“Unless I’m mistaken, this council did not intend to pull out of the state’s strike team participation that was made at the administrative level.”
“I don’t know how my colleagues feel about that, but I have some real concerns about the city not participating in state strike teams,”
The remarks here initially state that the Council (the ruling body) had no intention for the Fire Department to withdraw from the State’s strike team. But the subsequent sentence is a significant pull-back of the earlier remark. If Vice Mayor Wolk was unaware of his fellow councilperson’s feelings on this issue, is it fair to assume the Council never formally deliberated on the matter of Strike Team participation? If that is true, then the Council’s intent is unknown and nonexistent and Mr. Wolk cannot presume to speak for the Council majority. Can somebody speak to the Council’s participation on Strike Team participation?
Given all the firefighter complaining about the negative health and safety impacts of the Strike Team burden combined with the city workload issues, one would think the firefighters and the council would support any decision by the city manager and interim chief to try to keep limits on Strike Team participation if possible.
When it became obvious that the temporary management decision: first, was academic because the department didn’t get any more requests, and, second, was one that isn’t carrying into the new year, Dan simply brushed off this information to continue expressing his upset.
How could Dan have become so offended about things for which he was so misinformed?
The FFs can brief their elected officials; there is nothing wrong with that in the democratic process. As I have said over and over, the FF leadership’s job is to ask for a lot, and the CC’s job is to listen, and decide what is fair and affordable. The CC breached its duties and caved in to the FF’s demands. Don’t blame the FF for asking, or for briefing electeds.
The key is “their elected officials.” If the fire fighter does not live in town, then the City Council is not their elected official. As an employee, they should go through existing channels to make their grievances heard – through their managers or through their union – not to the City Council.
Ryan
I am not sure how far you would extend your exclusion of non citizens from active engagement within the community. I am not criticizing your view. Just seeking clarification.
For example, if an employee of a public agency in Davis who lives outside the city is aware of a street light not working, and is aware that Councilman Freirichs has a special interest in this problem, would it be wrong for them to bring it to his attention ?
Another example, I am a resident of Davis. As a member of the community, I am aware of a public health problem usually dealt with on the county level. I am aware that the problem is far worse in Woodland than in Davis. Do I not have the right to bring this concern to
Supervisor Provenza who I know has an interest in this issue ? What do you see as appropriate geographic boundaries for issues that cross over between employment and residence ?
I would think that a call to Public Works regarding a broken street light would go farther than speaking to a City Council person. Similarly a call to the Yolo County Public Health Department would go farther than talking to Jim Provenza who could only refer the issue to the proper department. I have made a call to Public Works when finding broken water pipes in another City to alert them of the problem.
I think an employee who doesn’t live here to lobby a City Council person and the result is an interrogation of their new boss and the City Manager at a public meeting is crossing a line of what is expected behavior from one of our City employees . I’m sure that she wouldn’t appreciate it if someone treated her similarly. She should have taken up her concerns with her supervisor or gone to the union, if there was some issue with a policy preventing her from doing her job. She is a Captain with several layers of management above her.
No one has answered the question as to if she is a Davis resident or not. If she is, then she has every right to speak to her representative.
Two more questions. Does, in your opinion, a non resident have the right to escalate their concern if they have attempted to go “through the chain of command” and have not seen results ? Or what about the individual, as in my case, who already sits on a number of county health groups, and feels that what is actually needed is an advocate on the council or board in question. Do you feel that residency is still critical ?
By the way, I am not ignoring your question. I simply don’t know the answer.
Tia – the community has already complained about fire fighters’ undue influence in our local political process. The example you state is regarding health issues of which you are an advocate. You are not an employee who would benefit directly. This is a specific incident of a low-level management employee questioning her managers’ decisions and is a member of an employee group that is in the middle of a contentious contract negotiation. It has been communicated loud and clear by the community that meddling in our local politics by the Fire Fighters employees (80% of whom do not live in Davis) has got to end. She should have brought her concerns to her supervisors or taken it up with her Union.
For all we know she was tasked by the union or asked by Dan to provide a briefing.
I don’t object to a member of a special interest group — city employee or not — lobbying council members. I do object to council members dancing to a tune called by a special interest group when that dance runs counter to the best interests of the city.
Ryan,
Distinction acknowledged. Thanks of hanging in there with me.
As I listened to the presentation and looked at the following graphic:
I felt that the fiscal benefit of the staffing change was understated. From 1/7/2013 through 7/7/2013 the total OT was 10,251.57 hours, of which 514.5 was for State Forest Fire Strike Team OT, leaving a net attributable to local fire operations of 9,737 hours. During the same period there was a total of 8,494.7 hours of combined sick and vacation time that needed to be covered. Netting the 9,737 by the 8,494.7 (since the primary driver of OT is covering for missing employees) we get a net OT amount of 1,243.3 hours due to non-vaction/sick reasons.
Looking at the 7/8/2013 through 1/5/2014 period the total OT was 9,295.3 hours, of which 1,403.23 was for State Forest Fire Strike Team OT, leaving a net attributable to local fire operations of 7,892.07 hours. During the same period there was a total of 9,915 hours of combined sick and vacation time that needed to be covered. Netting the 7,892.07 by the 9,915 (since the primary driver of OT is covering for missing employees) we get a net OT amount of minus 2,022.93 hours due to non-vaction/sick reasons.
That means that non-vacation/sick operations of the fire department was able to be more efficient under the new configuration by over 3,266 hours for the six moth period (6,532 hours if annualized). That is an overtime efficiency improvement of 3.14 FTEs over and above the 1 FTE per 8 hour shift saved by the staffing change. If a firefighter FTE costs $150,000 thne the 3 FTES saved on engine staffing equates to $450,000 saved in salary and benefits, and the 3.14 FTEs of overtime (at a time and a half pay rate) represents another $700,000 saved. $1.15 million saved in total.
So the question I had rolling through my head as the two minutes at Marina Circle was being considered was, “Were those two minutes worth $1.15 million?”