When the group, Friends of Davis Firefighters sent out a press release this week, announcing that a new organization has been launched to defend the Davis firefighters and claiming, “A group of prominent Davis citizens today announced the formation of a new community group, the Friends of Davis Firefighters, to educate the community about the ongoing efforts of the Davis Fire Department to ensure the safety of the City of Davis’ 69,000 residents through its emergency and preventive services,” it was not hard to figure out the origins of the group.
After all the group’s domain name was registered to Bobby Weist, the union present and the PO Box referred to the union’s PO Box.
But incredulously, Bobby Weist told the Davis Enterprise – which had also done the search and reported on it – “that the union is not a part of the community group, which he said the firefighters learned of as they walked precincts in anticipation of a March council discussion of the staffing issue.”
“They’re basically running the show,” Mr. Weist told the paper. “Because we have mutual goals, we’re happy to offer them some resources to get their information out. We’re grateful that there’s a grassroots group of folks out there that supports what we support.”
This of course is not the first time that Mr. Weist has been caught being blatantly less than truthful in public statements.
Mr. Weist on December 20, told Councilmember Brett Lee during his public comment that the firefighters, “as of yet we have not been involved in any of the things that have gone on within our department. The Union’s been excluded from all of that there has not been one, one minute of discussion.”
The truth is that the interim chief had, on repeated occasions, attempted to get input from the rank and file firefighters and the union. The firefighters repeatedly skipped meetings and avoided giving the chief input.
The Chief in explaining the audit process told the Vanguard, “Throughout the process, I had an open door policy whereby any member of the Department was free to discuss with me any subject.”
The audit was completed in draft form on October 26 and distributed to the City Council the next day, Saturday, October 27, 2012. All of the captains and stations received the audit the following Monday.
He said, “I scheduled a staff meeting for Monday, November 5th, with the Management Audit as the primary topic of discussion. I received no comments from the members of the department from October 29th to the meeting on November 5th..”
Chief Kenley continued, “At the meeting on the 5th, four captains attended the meeting, the Union President, Vice President and Secretary, and one newly promoted captain. The meeting lasted ten minutes and when it came time to discuss the management audit, there were no comments from the members present.”
In the meantime, a professionally produced YouTube video has emerged.
The spot, done by a professional narrator said, “Last year the Davis firefighters answered more than 4500 calls. They saved lives, protected homes and property. Risked their lives every day for us.”
The announcer then says: “Tell Davis City Council you stand with our first responders. Join friends of Davis firefighters today.”
The YouTube site reads: “Davis professional firefighters put their lives on the line every day to protect our community — yet they continue to fall under attack by a vocal few who are bent on making major cuts to public safety, despite what it could to our families.
“Budget cutbacks would put all of us at risk. Tell the Davis City Council you stand with the first responders who keep us safe.”
The centerpiece of the claim is of course the 4500 calls. That sounds impressive until you recognize that over the course of a 365 day year, that means an average of 12.3 calls per day, which means 4.1 calls per fire station.
That of course leads the inquisitive person who has actually bothered to do the math to ask, what exactly the firefighters are doing in between those 4.1 calls per day.
Aside from the math difficulty that the firefighters suffer from, there is the apparent fact that the firefighters are shooting the video using city equipment. That would be an improper use of city equipment.
All of this in an effort to avoid having staffing cut at a time when the firefighters continue to cost the city tens of thousands each month they fail to agree to the current labor agreements like the other employees, except DCEA, in the city.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Enterprise that staff continues to support former interim Chief Scott Kenley’s recommendations.
“We have a very good report that (Kenley) put together and now we’re scheduled for the council to make a decision,” City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Enterprise Tuesday. “We stand by Kenley’s recommendations and if you look in the context of our budget, you can see why.”
In the meantime, the group Friends of Davis Firefighters despite the non-credible claims by Mr. Weist to the contrary, resembles more an astroturf group than a truly grassroots organization.
According to Wikipedia, “Astroturfing refers to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are designed to mask the sponsors of the message to give the appearance of coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity by withholding information about the source’s financial connection.”
They continued, “The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.”
The group SourceWatch defines an astroturf as “[an] apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms.”
Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a “grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.”
SourceWatch writes, “Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing.” He calls it “democracy for hire.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Does the group list it’s members or leaders?
David wrote:
> The centerpiece of the claim is of
> course the 4500 calls.
Do they get 4,500 “calls” or actually respond to 4,500 “events”? If David and I both see a car on fire and call 911 does that count as 1 or 2 “calls”. If an old lady calls about a cat stuck in a tree (my firefighter friends tell me that people really do call 911 asking the fire department to roll out with a hook and ladder to rescue cats in trees) but they tell her to wait until it gets hungry and comes down is this a “call”.
> That sounds impressive until you recognize
> that over the course of a 365 day year, that
> means an average of 12.3 calls per day, which
> means 4.1 calls per fire station
Don’t forget that most stations have about 4 trucks and they don’t roll every truck for every call. My best friend is just a “firefighter” not a “firefighter/paramedic” so he only goes on “fire” calls not “medical” calls where, as he says they just “roll the box” (aka send a couple younger firefighter/paramedics in the ambulance truck with the box on the back). There are often months on end when the only time my friend leaves the station in a fire truck is when they head out to the grocery store to go shopping (something that 99.9% of other employees do on their own time)…
P.S. To be fair some “calls” (aka a three alarm fire) might get every truck in town heading to the event…
Somebody is giving this “group” some healthy “resources.” As I was viewing video clips on “Mediaite” yesterday, an ad flashed up before each clip started suggesting that I “Stand Up for Davis Firefighters.”
The advertisement linked to something called Care2 (thepetitionsite.com) where two dozen safety-minded folks have supported a short statement again noting that our dear firefighters “continue to fall under attack by a vocal few….”
I can’t even imagine what technology enables someone to track me down while I’m viewing a national web site in order to offer up a local ad. Or, how much such an advertisement campaign costs. It was a weird and surprising sensation indeed.
Although the ad is sponsored by Friends of Davis Firefighters, it oddly includes a pre-checked box that signs up petition supporters to receive Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee action alerts.
This obviously is a pretty sophisticated, well planned campaign. I wonder if our councilman knew (at the time he insisted that the city council postpone the decision about the staffing changes and aid call improvements until contract and budget negotiations) that the chief and his proposal already were scheduled to be demonized by the firefighters and their union during the waiting period? Hmmmm….
The argument to put off the decision on very sensible improvements in our fire protection seemed odd at the time. Now, it looks like a bad choice that benefits only the union’s efforts to fight the loss of one position. Did anyone really think Bobby Weist’s gang would be cooperative in this matter?
Is our council simply naive when it plays into the hands of the union strategy this way? Or, was delay an intentional move to kill the chief’s improvement plan without having to publicly oppose it?
One thing to be mindful of when considering the tactics of Bobbie Weist and his buddies in the firefighters’ union and his [s]shills[/s] “friends” like Alan Fernandes: Every fire union in our state acts like this. All of them. And some police unions do, too (but not the Davis police, thankfully). The root of the problem is much, much deeper than Bobbie Weist. It goes all the way to the leadership of the IAFF. That larger union teaches its members to be ruthless.
[img]http://www.carbondalefiredept.com/iaff_900.jpg[/img]
One example: When the firefighters in Vallejo were running that city into the ground, and the city manager spoke up and said, “We are about to go bankrupt if we don’t fix this compensation problem right now,” what was the response of that IAFF-affiliated fire union? Beside, of course, buying the votes of the Vallejo city council and paying for citizens groups and having other union-affiliated scumbags to stand arm in arm with their “brothers,” the Vallejo firefighters hired an airplane. And they had that airplane fly all over the city of Vallejo for hours, dragging a large banner which read, “Fire the city manager.” And so the corrupt Vallejo city council decided, “That sounds like a good idea!”
In Stockton: similar story, but with cops. When the city manager stood up to the local police union, the union bought the house next door to the city manager’s house. Why? In order to harrass the man into quitting his job in Stockton. They bothered him continually. The violated all sense of decency and privacy and disturbed that hole neighborhood. And if he called the police for help, you think the cops who were harrassing him were going to get arrested?
When the taxpayers of Davis pay Bobbie’s full salary plus overtime to go to IAFF conventions in Las Vegas and beyond, Bobbie is being taught by higher up union leaders to organize campaigns much like this bogus “citizens” campaign he is running right now in Davis. There is nothing unique in how amoral Fernandes or Weist act. This bad behavior is widespread … and, of course, it’s always done in the name of “public safety,” even when it is completely bad for public safety. Weist gets paid. His buddies get paid. And Alan Fernandes hopes to get elected to higher office. And the Friends of Alan Fernandes will trumpet his great support for “the working man.” Oh, boy!
“… that [b]hole[/b] neighborhood.”
Ooops. Make that “whole” not “hole.”
JustSaying, I understand your concern about the timing issue, but I still disagree. In effect age this “expensive” campaign is being paid for by taxpayer dollars. Council isn’t going to be able to ignore that. In addition, the message to all the other City workers is “Firefighters are more important than anyone!”
Rich wrote:
> When the city manager stood up to the local police
> union, the union bought the house next door to the
> city manager’s house.
I just found an interesting link on the story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578217721463389166.html
If unions keep doing stuff like this (and are allowed to get away with it) we are doomed…
From the aforementioned WSJ story link to a training paper aimed at polic unions (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/NegotiationsPlayBook.pdf):
“• Campaigning – If any members of the governing body are up for election, the association should begin actively campaigning against them, again for their lack of concern over public safety. If you are in a non-election year, make political flyers which you can explain will be mailed out the following year during the election season.
• Focus on an Individual – Avoid spreading your energy. Focus on a city manager, councilperson, mayor or police chief and keep the pressure up until that person assures you his loyalty and then move on to the next victim.”
Wonder if any of these strategies are attempted here by Weist and his cohorts.
“Does the group list it’s members or leaders? “
Just the three people listed on the press release.
“Do they get 4,500 “calls” or actually respond to 4,500 “events”? If David and I both see a car on fire and call 911 does that count as 1 or 2 “calls”. I”
I believe that counts as one call for service.
“Is our council simply naive when it plays into the hands of the union strategy this way? Or, was delay an intentional move to kill the chief’s improvement plan without having to publicly oppose it? “
The council clearly underestimated Weist in my opinion, but there are still at least three solid votes for the chief’s plan.
[i]”… there are still at least three solid votes for the chief’s plan.”[/i]
If you are right, that means there are two solid votes against public safety.
Sadly, I think you are wrong. I think this council punted (twice!!) for one or more of three reasons: one, some members of the council are blockheads, who don’t understand that the Weist Model is harmful to public safety; two, other members understand that the Weist Model is dangerous, but think the public is too stupid to figure that out; and three, some members of the council are clearly willing to sell their souls for future aspirations at higher public office.
The sad truth in Davis politics is that your chances of winning higher office are much worse by crossing Bobbie Weist than they are actually damaging city finances for a generation or putting the lives of residents in danger by supporting the Weist fire staffing model. That’s what we get living in a one-party town when that party is the party of the unions, for the unions and by the unions.
[i]”Do they get 4,500 “calls” or actually respond to 4,500 “events”?[/i]
The 2011 fire department call statistics are on the city’s website: [quote] FIRE 154
MEDICAL 2,453
HAZARDOUS CONDITION 396
SERVICE CALL 387
STEAM/OVERPRESSSURE 2
GOOD INTENT*** 238
CANCELLED ENROUTE 187
FALSE ALARM/FALSE CALL 301
[u]OTHER CALLS FOR THE DFD 3[/u]
TOTAL RESPONSES 4,121 [/quote]***I have no idea what a ‘good intent’ call means.
Here are the breakdown of some of the categories which have various subtypes: [quote] [b]FIRE 154 [/b]
Structure Fire 62
Vehicle Fire 28
Natural Vegetation 33
Outside Rubbish 22
Special Outside Fire 9
[b]HAZARDOUS CONDITION 396 [/b]
Vehicle Accident 304
Other 92
[b]SERVICE CALL 387[/b]
Assist Invalid 182
Water Problem 18
Smoke, Odor Problem 16
Unauthorized Burning 5
Public Service Assistance, Other 166 [/quote]
“If you are right, that means there are two solid votes against public safety.”
I don’t know that. The three solid votes are people I have spoken to. I have meetings set up with the other two so I don’t know. The only way I’m wrong is if someone either lied to me or changes their mind.
“some members of the council are blockheads”
Why must you insult people who are favorably representative of the community just because they aren’t doing what you think is best for the community?
An open note to the firefighters:
I am normally in favor of workers rights and unions which truly work for the rights and safety of workers.
Your actions are giving a bad name, to say nothing of ammunition, to those who are inherently opposed to unions. To be specific :
1. Disrespect for other city workers by depicting the firefighters as the only group uniquely dedicated to public
safety.
2. Not choosing to participate in the department audit.
3. Defending without benefit of presenting any evidence, a demonstrably less safe option. ( On this count,
I would be happy to be proven wrong, but you have offered only emotional testimonials and no factual
data to support your position.) If you have the money to produce videos and ads, surely you could expend
some resources to substantiate your claims with data…..unless of course, there is none.
As a doctor, I have had a profound respect for first responders whose charge it is, in part, to bring people in for more advanced medical care in a safe, timely manner, sometimes risking their own health to do so. This is the first time in my 30 year career that I have begun to lose faith in the good will of our firefighters. This is terribly disappointing and I have largely remained silent until now hoping that some evidence of good faith bargaining would appear. Sadly that would not seem to be the case.
in my view this is outrageous, you have a group of people who think they and they alone are the only ones that matter and they are apparently willing to lie, cheat, steal to get what they want.
[i]”Why must you insult people who are favorably representative of the community just because they aren’t doing what you think is best for the community?”[/i]
That is a great question. It is their behavior which calls for an honest insult. They were elected to serve the public interest. And they are not serving it. They are putting the public in danger, and at least a few of them have parroted the unbelievable and disingenuous claim of the firefighters’ union which says they are in favor of the Weist Model because it is best for public safety.
As every person in Davis I know, and many more I don’t know, has asked in the last 6 months, exactly how does the 4-4-4 model improve public safety compared with 3-3-3-2?
Because no one–not even a shill for the union–has ever given a good answer to that question after it being out there for six month, it is impossible to believe that this comes down to an honest difference of opinion. The choices left are corruption, stupidity, dishonesty and personal ambition over the public good. It may be some of all of those things. It may only be one or two or three. But there is no doubt that we are being badly misled by the city council.
And this bad leadership is nothing new. These current members of the city council inherited labor contracts which carry huge and unsustainable liabilities from past councils which I and others said were not in the public interest. And those councils did the wrong thing by approving them.
Same story with our roads and sidewalks. Past councils imposed a huge problem on this group by essentially passing the buck (in order to pay off firefighters and others who were given too much compensation short and long-term).
Our biggest problem is that in our community, when we have stupid people doing stupid things on the city council, no one calls them on it. And when I do, some people, such as Mr. Toad, will blast me for saying the obvious.
[quote]”I did find out that Bobby Weist and the Davis Firefighters Union are the ‘Friends’ who set up the site (on February 1, 2013)….”(SouthofDavis)[/quote][quote]”Councilmember Lucas Frerichs stated his discomfort with moving forward with these cuts outside of the broader context of the budget….Brett Lee made it clear that, within the context of the budget, cuts clearly are going to have to be made. He stated that his preference, however, was for those cuts to occur through the bargaining process and if sufficient cuts were achieved in that manner, it would be less necessary to attempt to achieve $360,000 in savings through staffing changes with fire.” ([i][u]Council Blinks: Not Ready to Make Fire Cuts[/u][/i], March 6)[/quote] [quote]”Then on Tuesday night, the crucial point was when Brett Lee got up there and rambled on for about ten minutes. The crux of his point was that, while we may be all right with 11 personnel, 12 is better and we would not be having this discussion outside of the budget, therefore we need to have the discussion within the budget standpoint.”[/i], [i][u]My View: Questioning the Toughness of this Council[/u][/i], March 9)[/quote]We’ll see if there will be at least three votes sometime down the road–when there were not when the council had the perfect opportunity to adopt Chief Kenley’s proposed improvements last month.
I think we’ll look back at the March 5 game of kick the can as the turning point, when the union got the council momentum headed its way.
Will it surprise anyone if some mystery “savings” turn up that allow the council to keep from ever from voting on the merits of the chief’s plan?
It would be one thing to argue for your position on its merits in the hope that it would prevail. It is another to reduce yourself to name calling if things aren’t going your way or not going fast enough. If the firefighters end up getting more than you think the deserve it isn’t because the council members are”block headed” or the result of “corruption, stupidity, dishonesty and personal ambition” as you claim. More likely they are the result of inherited legacy problems left over from previous councils. Rather than call names and hurl insults you would do better by respectfully pointed out the issues and encouraging the council members to do the right thing as they grapple with a tenacious bargaining unit and the fiscal realities the community is facing. Petty insults before any action has been taken only serves to undermine your credibility.
Rifs
[quote]The choices left are corruption, stupidity, dishonesty and personal ambition over the public good.[/quote]
I think that your list of possibilities is too short. It may be that some hold the honest belief that if three firefighters on a truck is good, four must be better. This may not be stupidity, or any of your other deleterious terms but rather a reflection of a societal preference for more over less, even if more is demonstrably not better. In my field for example, one experienced surgeon, great ! Then two experienced surgeons must be better…..except not when they are working a small area where they get in each others way, or when one might be more productively employed doing another task, or when it is better to have only one with experience and a junior surgeon who is gaining training experience….or any of a host of circumstances that might not be apparent to a non medical person, but are obvious to the experienced surgeon.
This would not make the lay observer stupid, or ambitious, or corrupt, or dishonest. How about naive, or misinformed, or cautious, or change averse, or just plain not in agreement with your position ? Can you really not see any other alternatives than your derogatory chosen few ?
[i]”It would be one thing to argue for your position on its merits in the hope that it would prevail.”[/i]
I have argued my case on the merits. I have done so publicly for a long time. I twice was invited to present my views in front of the council. More importantly, they heard from Chief Kenley and he explained to them clearly why the Weist Model is bad for public safety.
If what you want is an argument on the merits, you need to join me in suggesting that the dummies on our city council explain what merit there is in their supporting the dangerous scheme that Weist wants.
[i]”It is another to reduce yourself to [b]name calling[/b] if things aren’t going your way or not going fast enough.”[/i]
Name-calling? It’s not name-calling I am engaged in. That serves no purpose at all. I am calling a spade a spade, an act of stupidity stupid, much as I would call an ugly building ugly, one that everyone with a modicum of taste knows is ugly.
[img]http://hume.ucdavis.edu/images/photos/ssh3.jpg [/img]
You raise the question of speed. Speed is yet another topic which demonstrates the lack of sound judgment by some on the council. If they agree that the current scheme is dangerous–as everyone with a brain understands it is–then how is it in the public interest to allow this danger to persist month after month, when changing it does not come with a secondary cost to the public?
There are times when delay is in order, even if the public is less well off in the interim. Such a time would be when the short-run costs make it impossible to make a quick change. But in this particular case, it is just the opposite: Not only would the public safety be far better with the Kenley Plan, but changing to it immediately has the added benefit of saving public money.
[i]”Brett Lee got up there and rambled on for about ten minutes. The crux of his point was that, while we may be all right with 11 personnel, 12 is better and we would not be having this discussion outside of the budget.”[/i]
What evidence or logic has Brett ever expressed to prove that 12 is better than 11?
I challenge him or anyone to prove the point that 444 beats 3332 in any respect.
When Brett and I last spoke in person, he told me that he might favor 4332. But as far as I know, he has never mentioned this in a public setting. And when I told him that has no benefit compared with 3332, he had no answer at all.
[i]”This may not be stupidity, or any of your other deleterious terms but rather a reflection of a societal preference for more over less, [b]even if more is demonstrably not better[/b].”[/i]
Huh? If more is not demonstrably better–or even less, not arguably better–and one still goes for it, that is stupidity.
I am not challenging the IQ of those who are behaving stupidly. I am following the Forrest Gump maxim: stupid is as stupid does. Plenty of people with adequate wattage make dim-bulb decisions. The ‘societal preference’ bias is such an example, short of a demonstration or logical argument to think otherwise.
[i]Name-calling? It’s not name-calling I am engaged in.
[/i]
Of course it is.
I suspect they are being cautious, and I fully expect either a 4 – 1 or 5 – 0 vote in favor of the change in June. Probably the latter.
[i]”How about naive, or misinformed, or cautious, or change averse, or just plain not in agreement with your position?”[/i]
In my column I suggested that Lucas and Dan seemed to be risk averse, due to their political ambition. It seems clear to me that is a factor in this. However, after I wrote that column, I went out for coffee with Lucas, and he tells me that is not the case with him.
As to misinformed, that doesn’t fit the evidence. Chief Kenley explained the facts to the council for hours and hours–not once, but twice. On top of that they received a long report from him which explained why 3332 is much safer in great detail, and full of examples.
And after all of that, Joe Krovoza’s comments made it perfectly clear how he understood what Kenley called for and Joe supported it. Then one by one his colleagues said things which made no sense at all, in light of what all of them had just heard from Chief Kenley. I believe they are capable of understanding. But their comments were shockingly stupid–to the point that they either don’t get it or they think we are stupid enough to not get it.
By the way, I explicitly asked Lucas if he could think of a single case where public safety is enhanced with 444 over 3332. He thought for a moment and all he could come up with is this: Maybe, he said, if there is a big accident around the Causeway and there are a bunch of cars involved and we send a fire truck in there from the S. Davis station and it has 3 people on it, not 4, then it will take 33% longer to rescue the people in those cars.
It’s possible that I failed to give Lucas a chance to make a case for real public safety problems in Davis–as opposed to a car crash on I-80 5 miles from town–but that was all he could think of that day.
And I pointed out to him that a vehicle accident on I-80 between Davis and W. Sac would call for West Sac fire engines, as well. They have 3 people on each truck. Moreover, if the accident was very serious, Davis (under 3332) could send Engine 31, Engine 33, Engine 34 and Rescue Truck 31 — 10 people in total. And W. Sac would send a second or third engine company, also.
Likewise, Woodland has 3 person crews. And they are right on I-5 where there are serious accidents that they respond to.
I am still waiting for an example in Davis which attempts to demonstrate a public safety benefit having 444 over 3332.
[i]”Davis (under 3332) could send Engine 31, Engine 33, Engine 34 and Rescue Truck 31 — [b]10 people[/b] in total.”[/i]
Correction–that would be [b]15 people[/b], not 10. 9 from the 3 city fire engines; 2 more from the city rescue truck; and 4 from the UCD engine (counting the student ff).
Oddly enough, accidents along I-80 near Davis are cases where sending Engine 31 and Rescue Truck 31 together under 3332 INCREASES the personnel on scene compared with 444. Instead of just 4 people (2 on the engine and 2 on the truck), Kenley’s model sends 3 on the engine plus 2 on the truck.
On second thought … If you want to say I have engaged in name-calling, I am fine with that. I don’t care if I am not politically correct. I hope, if those who have harmed the public interest are offended by “name-calling,” they will respond by proving me wrong and changing their votes.
Some points to be cleaned up here:
South of Davis asks what a “call” is. A call is a dispatched response. A structure fire and a medical call are each calls. The number of people calling 911 doesn’t affect that number.
Medwoman says “I think that your list of possibilities is too short. It may be that some hold the honest belief that if three firefighters on a truck is good, four must be better.” More is always better. More hands allow more tasks to be accomplished in less time. I refer you to a federally funded study showing substantial time differences between 2 3 and 4 man staffing performing basic fireground tasks. [url]http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/residential-fire-report_042810.cfm[/url] The question is are the seconds saved worth the financial cost to the city.
In a perfect world 4 person engine companies staaffed with paramedics would be the norm. Of course we all know there are financial limits. Most cities can’t afford it. Perhaps Davis is due to join the ranks. I still think the best thing for DFD to do would be to staff paramedic ambulances billing for services like AMR. Self sustaining firefigher staffing. It works for my department.
I posted this in an old thread and it bears repeating in regards to the potential new staffing model:
For a structure fire near Oak at Russell Blvd, the current first alarm dispatch would be engines 31 + rescue 31 (4 FFs), Engine 32 (4 ffs), engine 33 (4 FFs) and UCD Truck 34 (3-4 career ffs and up to 3 or 4 student ffs ie up to 7 total)
12 Davis FD personnel and 3 to 7 UCDFD personnel plus a UCD or DFD chief officer. (16 people at minimum)
UCD T34 and E/R31 would likely arrive about the same time with UCD perhaps beating them by 30 seconds. UCD T34 does not carry a pump or water. ts purpose is search, rescue, ladders, and venting a structure fire so E31 would be fire attack. The time difference is not a huge deal but if E31 is on another call or out of position for whatever reason it could be a factor.
In the boundary drop/reduced staffing scenario scenario, UCD Engine and Truck 34 would both respond (up to 5 on the engine and 7 on the truck – 3 and 3 at minimum) along with engine 32 (3 ffs) engine 31 (3 FFs) and Rescue 31 (2 FFs)
8 DFD personnel, 6-12 UCDFD personnel, and a UCD or DFD chief officer (15 people at minimum)
UCDFD engine and truck 34 would arrive together with DFD engine and rescue 31 close behind. UCD engine 34 would be the initial attack engine. There would perhaps be one less firefighter on scene but this would usually be made up for by the UCD student firefighters arriving with the UCDFD staff.
How much is that one extra firefighter worth? That is the question.
“I am calling a spade a spade, an act of stupidity stupid”
As Ronald Reagan once said “There you go again.”
“the dummies on our city council”
Now you are channeling Mussolini.
“I don’t care if I am not politically correct. “
Whoever claimed you were politically correct?
Nvn8tv, thank you for the scenario analysis. It is great to hear from you.
Can you please line out for us a similar scenario comparison for the northeast corner of Wildhorse? Thanks.
No problem. Here’s the same idea for Rockwell drive at Moore blvd in Wildhorse:
The current first alarm dispatch would be engines 31 + rescue 31 (4 FFs) station 2.7 miles away, Engine 32 (4 ffs) station 4.3 miles away, engine 33 (4 FFs) station 3.2 miles away, and UCD Truck 34 (3-4 career ffs and up to 3 or 4 student ffs ie up to 7 total) station 5.2 miles away taking 113 to covell which should be faster than up anderson. E 34 would be covering the city unless the fire went to a 2nd alarm.
12 Davis FD personnel and 3 to 7 UCDFD personnel plus a UCD or DFD chief officer. (16 people at minimum)
Engine and Rescue 31 would likely arrive first with engine 33 a minute or two behind. E31 would be fire attack and able to make entry immediatly with 4 FF staffing. Third due is E32 and T34 is 4th due.
In the boundary drop/reduced staffing scenario scenario, 31 (3 FFs) and Rescue 31 (2 FFs) would respond together arriving first. They still would be able to meet 2 in 2 out if both were in quarters. If one was on a call there would be a delay without an immediate known victim. R31 carries no hose, pump or water and as such an engine is needed to attack anything other than a very small fire. As before, engine 33 then 32 would arrive next but with 3 FFs each. T34 would arrive last with between 3 and 7 FFs. UCD engien 34 would not be included as it is the farthest away and remain to cover the city unless toned as part of the second alarm.
11 DFD personnel, 3-7 UCDFD personnel, and a UCD or DFD chief officer (15 people at minimum)
West or South Davis are areas where 3 FF engines 32 and 33 would arrive first and without a known rescue would have to wait for another unit to make entry. In most cases I feel that by the time the tasks needed to prepare to make entry are finished a senond unit or chief will have arrived and there will be little to no waiting around for that unit.
All scenarios assume response from the station and all units available. Obviously many other variables dictate responses.
nvn8v
Thanks for providing some sense of objectivity to this discussion. Are you aware of any stats regarding safety data in comparable communities over time who have gone from a 4 to 3 model, or vice versa ?
Not off hand though I would be most interested in reading such a study.
Good question medwoman. Overtime is a consideration.
I too thank nvn8v.
Thanks to nvn8v for the good data, but I think the most important question is “How many fully involved structure fires to we have in Davis where every station responds?”
We can talk about the time it takes to get to Oak & Russell or Rockwell & Moore, but if we only roll every truck and firefighter to a structure fire once a decade we might as well start talking about staffing up for 20 lightning strikes lighting 20 fires (that could happen) someday…
P.S. I just saw this in the Enterprise (I wonder if the UCD Firefighters know they make so much less than the City of Davis Firefighters):
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/top-firefighters-honored/
P.P.S. Matt mentioned overtime and I’ve always wondered how fire chiefs manage to get paid time and a half for even one hour of overtime when I can’t think of a single other senior management job in America that pays $150-$300K a year where overtime is paid…
The answer to your question based on the 2011 data is 63 or about 1 per week. Not to say there were 63 actual structure fires but 63 instances where the 911 caller(s) thought there could be one. This could be anything from smell of smoke to oven fire to a minor fire in the trash can. A better question would be how many fires caused more than $1000 in damage or whatever $$ figure you feel like.
As to chiefs and overtime, in most organizations only the battalion chief ie shift supervisor equal to police Lt or Capt receives overtime. This is because they work the same shift schedule as the people they supervise. Higher management ie deputy or division chiefs to the fire chief are salaried and work a 40 hour week. I don’t know of any examples where a chief above BC rank is paid per hour.
nvn8v
[quote]More is always better. More hands allow more tasks to be accomplished in less time. I refer you to a federally funded study showing substantial time differences between 2 3 and 4 man staffing performing basic fireground tasks. http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_re…042810.cfm The question is are the seconds saved worth the financial cost to the city.
[/quote]
While I truly appreciate the provision of this study for consideration, I feel that real world situations may prove significantly different from controlled experiments. I would love to see comparison studies of numbers of lives saved, fire damage cost rates over time in similar communities or the same community over time using the three and four man staffing models.
Also, at least in my field, which frequently involves emergencies, more is not always better. The “right amount”
where everyone has a well defined job at which they are expert is best. Once more people start accumulating there is more room for confusion, duplication of efforts and inadvertent omissions because of role uncertainty. Over time, in labor and delivery, and in hospital work in general, we have
gone from the philosophy of getting as many people there as possible by calling a code blue or emergency Cesarean overhead and having everyone show up, to limited rapid response teams with precisely defined roles.
Only that team arrives, and once assembled, everyone else goes about their routine business, because at least in my field, more is not always better.
Thank you for your well though out comments. As a firefighter/paramedic who manages the scene of EMS calls, I fully appreciate what you mean by the right amount. The fire department I work for staffs a 2 person paramedic ambulance and a 2 person paramedic engine company at each station. For the vast majority of medical calls I feel this is the “right amount” of people and sometimes 4 is a crowd. Only for cardiac arrests and other high intensity calls do I find another body or two helpful and then only for CPR or moving of the patient. Any more than 6 or 7 people and I find I am unable to control the scene effectively.
For fires the fire captain manages me and the other firefighters at the station as one 4 person company. If I’m out on the ambulance transporting then the engine is a 2 person company. On fire scenes the first 5 minutes usually determine how the the incident will progress. There are a multitude of tasks to be done and usually limited hands. I can think of at least 10 critical tasks that need to be performed by the first arriving crew before anyone even enters a burning building. The less people you have initially the longer it takes to set up because each member of the team must shoulder more tasks. For example, the New york City Fire Department, an aggressive fire department by west coast standards, typically runs 5 firefighters on an engine and six firefighters on a ladder truck. This enables the critical tasks to be accomplished faster. At the end of the day wither its 2 or 6 people arriving on a unit all the tasks get accomplished and the fire goes out. Less people means either higher fire losses or more units required to control an incident.
In my opinion the biggest obstacle to higher staffing levels in California and on the west cost in general is personnel costs. California firefighters typically make double what their east coast counterparts make. One can speculate why this. Is is it cost of living? Is it because most departments in CA provide some form of EMS service which many east coast fire departments still do not? Is ti the higher percentage of active volunteer fire departments? In any event this compensation difference drives the reason why 3 man staffing or less is the norm in California. It’s not because it’s better. It’s what we as citizens can afford.
Does this mean I think firefighters should be paid less? No. I think I make a fair wage for my labors and most firefighters do too. I think each community needs to take a close look at what kind of fire protection they want and what funds they have and decide for themselves. I think the suggested DFD staffing plan does a good job of maintaining a safe level of fire protection while focusing on the MAIN duty of fire departments today, EMS response.
nvn8v said . . .
[i]”Thank you for your well though out comments.” [/i]
That is a two way street. The thanks are mutual and broadly felt.
nvn8v said . . .
[i]”As a firefighter/paramedic who manages the scene of EMS calls, I fully appreciate what you mean by the right amount. The fire department I work for staffs a 2 person paramedic ambulance and a 2 person paramedic engine company at each station. For the vast majority of medical calls I feel this is the “right amount” of people and sometimes 4 is a crowd. Only for cardiac arrests and other high intensity calls do I find another body or two helpful and then only for CPR or moving of the patient. Any more than 6 or 7 people and I find I am unable to control the scene effectively.”[/i]
This comment gets to the real heart of the issue from my perspective . . . non-fire calls. If I read what you say correctly, in your jurisdiction when a medical 911 call is received, one or both of your 2 person units is dispatched, but none of your fire units. Is that correct?
nvn8v said . . .
[i]”I think the suggested DFD staffing plan does a good job of maintaining a safe level of fire protection while focusing on the MAIN duty of fire departments today, EMS response.”[/i]
One of the issues that I have a hard time wrapping my head around in Davis/Yolo is the “duality” (one might say “overlap”) that exists between DFD and AMR (American Medical Response). It seems to me that we have some redundancy there. Can you share your thoughts about that “duality” here in Davis/Yolo?
My agency’s setup for each station is one paramedic ambulance staffed with two firefighters and a fire engine staffed with a fire captain and a firefighter. At least one person on each unit is a paramedic and both units are fully equipped with paramedic level equipment and drugs. Obviously the ambulance transports patients and has more medical stuff but the idea is that both units can provide the same level of care in the field prior to transport.
My county’s dispatch center used ‘Priority based dispatching’ to determine what to send. Basically the dispatcher asks a series of questions and based on the answers to the questions the CAD computer aided dispatching software determines both whether the call merits an ambulance, engine, or greater and whether all some or none of the units respond lights and sirens.
As an example, a chest pain or shortness of breath call generally calls for both the engine and ambulance to respond lights and sirens while a ground level fall where the person is fully conscious and has a sprained ankle will likely only have an ambulance respond no lights or sirens.
The idea is to sent the most appropriate type and number of units to each call at the right time. It also serves to reduce liability through reduced lights and sirens use.
[url]http://www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/whatis.html[/url]
This system is not used in Yolo county and as far as I know all EMS calls are dispatched as lights and sirens runs for both AMR and Fire.
As to the public/private setup as it exists in Yolo, I firmly believe that fire departments are the superior means for providing paramedic level EMS service and transport. The duality you see exists IMO for two reasons. The first is an old school mentality among most yolo county fire departments that EMS is a sideshow. The fact is fires are not anywhere near as common as they once were and EMS is easily 80% of our job. This mentality is changing but slowly. The second reason is that the contract EMS provider, AMR has successfully lobbied to prevent fire departments in yolo county with the exception of cache creek from providing a higher level of care than EMT basic. This in combination with a monopoly of EMS transports in Yolo County means AMR calls the shots and takes the money from transports. I know the county was looking to change providers but who knows…
Anyway in my perfect world for Davis each fire station would be staffed with a 3 person engine company. At least one person would be a paramedic and equipped as such. station 32 and 33 each also would have a 2 person ambulance staffed with at least one firefighter paramedic. Station 31 would have rescue 31 cross staff anther ambulance at the paramedic level for third out calls. UC Davis would also staff a EMT basic ambulance during weekends and special events or special call outs with student FF/EMTs while the engine and ladder truck would have full time paramedics aboard. Both the City and UCD would bill patients transported by ambulance for treatment rendered and mileage to the hospital. Costs recovered should largely be able to fund the ambulances in a well off city such as Davis where most all are insured.
Again, this is my pie in the sky dream but I think it could happen.