I was reading Rich Rifkin’s column on the fire staffing vote from a week ago this past Tuesday, and he argues that he was not surprised by the vote of Councilmembers Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs on the fire staffing vote.
He noted that in his March 13 column he had written, “It is clear, when listening to Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs, both ambitious young Democrats, that they are willing to bend over backwards to not come across as anti-union. They know that label could imperil their futures in higher office.”
Mr. Rifkin went onto write that, following that column, Councilmember Frerichs requested a meeting, “unhappy (Rich Rifkin) had insinuated that his priority was neither public safety nor the city’s fiscal health.”
Mr. Rifkin describes a pleasant discussion for more than an hour and describes the councilmember as “a charming and pleasant person.”
However, Mr. Rifkin writes, “One thing I could not get out of him, however, was a cogent argument why the 4-4-4 union model, put in place by former Chief Rose Conroy – who, according to the city’s ombudsman, was exceedingly deferential to the union – was better from a public safety perspective than 3-3-3-2.”
He goes further to note that the councilmember provided him an example of a major crash on I-80 toward the causeway. Mr. Frerichs argued, according to Rich Rifkin, “If we have only three firefighters in South Davis, they won’t be able to do as much as having four, imperiling lives.”
Writes Mr. Rifkin, “Unfortunately for Lucas, his one example of what’s wrong with the Kenley model is actually a good example of its superiority. Yes, three firefighters would arrive on Engine 33. But immediately thereafter, two more would come on Rescue Truck 31.”
“That is exactly what the two in 3-3-3-2 creates: a decoupled rescue truck that can respond independently of Engine 31,” he adds. “So if there were a big crash near the Causeway, the city of Davis could dispatch five personnel and still have two engines ready if needed. Under the union model, that crash on I-80 would only get four firefighters on scene, and those four would be coming from downtown, if South Davis had another call.”
Mr. Rifkin goes on to cite the Davis Enterprise editorial from Sunday in which they wrote, “We’re extremely disappointed that Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilman Lucas Frerichs didn’t see the wisdom in making this change.”
“Disappointed, perhaps. But no one should have been surprised,” Mr. Rifkin writes.
Mr. Rifkin goes on to describe the political calculus here. Trying to get into motivations is like trying to get into someone’s head. Things are never quite as simple as you want them to be because, for the most part, human beings are complex creatures.
I have been talking about the power of the firefighters’ union for five years now, and I absolutely believe the union has been a powerful force shaping Davis politics and I equally believe, for the most part, that has been to the determinant of the community.
Like Rich Rifkin, I am not surprised but I am disappointed.
First, I am disappointed that the firefighters, despite all of their flaws, could never embrace the idea that the status quo is unsustainable. So they to this day have not made contract concessions in the current MOUs – they and fellow hold out DCEA are the only two bargaining units not to have reached agreement.
They never offered an alternative to the status quo. They spent a lot of time scaring people that change would be impact public safety, but they never put forward perhaps an alternative to the Kenley model, other than the status quo.
Worse yet, the firefighters turned this into an “us against them,” and a “them against the world.”
This was embodied within the comment by in the op-ed by Alan Fernandes, Lori Duisenberg, Gina Nunes and Sean Cowan, “We value our firefighters” where they write, “It makes little sense why three City Council members recently sided with a small, but vocal, number of people in our city who have chosen to second-guess our firefighters and devise their own plan for how Davis ought to be protected.”
Within that language is the notion that there was a small group of citizens who pressured the council to ignore the wisdom of the firefighters and follow some convoluted plan to change staffing.
It was this mentality that caused Councilmember Rochelle Swanson to recoil.
“I’m disturbed by the tenor by some … that doing anything but status quo is anti-fire and anti-fire personnel and that couldn’t be further from the truth,” Councilmember Rochelle Swanson said. “Sure, four is better than three; if we can do best-case for everything we would have that across the board. … I just think we have to realize efficiencies.”
Such a mindset was not going to be conducive to resolving differences and moving forward. I truly believe that they thought they could win this by obstructing and fear-mongering. And they nearly succeeded – despite not having bought any of the council, they fell just one vote short.
But it also led to bullying by the firefighters to try to silence those whom they perceived to be against them.
Perhaps this attitude was most embodied in a comment by Avatar, a retired firefighter, who, begrudging the role of Division Chief Shawn Kinney, said, “Shawn Kinney, Look in the mirror, you’ve got stuff on your nose.”
Perhaps union President Bobby Weist, Captain Joe Tenney, Captain Emily Lo and retired firefighter Kevin Kelly ought to look in their own mirrors and understand that Shawn Kinney, in a very professional way, was simply standing up to Mr. Weist and company after years of bullying and retribution.
Sadly, my final disappointment is that the council majority, in an effort to soften the blow here, acknowledged that four was greater than three, seeming to concede the argument. Whereas I think, given flexilibilty and boundary drop, it is not clear that four really is better than three, and more importantly that’s not the critical question.
As Shawn Kinney put it, “What this comes down to is four is better than three,” he said. However, he argued that the Kenley plan allows for the increased ability to respond with a quicker and more agile force that, in many cases, can eventually bring more units to bear on an emergency.
While he too conceded the four versus three argument, he at least was able to make the point that agility matters.
The East Davis Fire Protection District was complaining about the reduction in service but failed to comprehend that right now, half the time, there may be four people responding to the brush fire east of Davis, but they are coming from the central fire station, not the station on Mace Blvd.
And so, if there is a fire under the new model, three people will likely be able to arrive a minute or two faster and they’ll quickly be backed up with a superior force. East Davis Fire Protection District should actually be in better shape – the same argument that Mr. Rifkin is making with regard to the causeway.
Like Rich Rifkin, I think both Lucas Frerichs and Dan Wolk want what is best for this community, but I’m more than a little baffled at their vote.
As Mr. Rifkin notes, “I know from talking with Dan Wolk – another exceedingly nice person – is that Dan is not dumb. He’s a Stanford graduate and has a law degree from Boalt Hall. Yet when it came time to defend 4-4-4 over 3-3-3-2 last week, he could not articulate anything coherently.”
Mr. Rifkin notes a critical point in time when Mayor Pro Tem Wolk “asked why we couldn’t keep four people on each of the three engines and still have a decoupled rescue truck.”
The answer was, of course, that such a scenario would require there to be four on the engine and two on the rescue apparatus, meaning that the city would need to hire two additional firefighters per shift.
Writes Mr. Rifkin, ” ‘Oh,’ Dan replied, aware that would be tough, considering Davis is now drowning in red ink.”
Mr. Rifkin also does a great job debunking another contention that the problem of simultaneous events would entirely be solved through boundary drop.
“Alas, it won’t. Under 4-4-4 with the boundary drop, if Engine 31 (Central Davis) is on a call, say on Sycamore Lane, one of Engine 32 (West) or Engine 33 (South) will still be positioned downtown. The city’s dispatchers cannot move Engine 34 (UCD) off campus to await city calls,” write Rich Rifkin. “Neither of the ambitious young Democrats bothered to argue that we are not better off with a decoupled rescue truck. They did, however, state the obvious that, all else held equal, ‘four is better than three.’ “
The bottom line here, and Mr. Rifkin lays it out brilliantly, we are actually far better off under this plan than we were before. And we’ll be better off still moving the station to the north – that is the next battle, but one worth waging.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Mr. Rifkin recounted what he has said numerous times in the past, including this forum. So I found his column a summation of past arguments. One fresh point, however, was raised which made the column worth reading. I was looking for it being discussed here.
Wolk and Freich were depicted by Rifkin as acting in a cowardly manner and placing their desire for higher political office at the cost (literally) of their Davis constituency. Their motivation was to avoid incurring the wrath and opposition of the fire fighter union. A Democrat portrayed as anti-union by a powerful union faced a insurmountable obstacle when later seeking higher elective office.
Mr. Rifkin’s argument had no substance UNTIL he cited a specific example of the fire fighter union’s wrath against Democrats who oppose their agenda. Dan Wolk’s mom, Senator Lois Wolk, was punished by the fire fighter’s union for opposing a fire fighter measure. The senior Wolk had her committee assignment removed as a message and retaliation and the son took note.
Powerful stuff, but is it true?
“Powerful stuff, but is it true?”
That’s the problem, it’s just as likely that she had her position stripped because she bucked leadership on the Delta Issues.
You leave out that both council members wanted to try to save money on the contract with the firefighters gaining savings for the city while still having more staff on the job. If you could do this and still have the boundary drop it would be even better.
What I find annoying is you talk about what bully’s the firefighters union guys are and how they can damage a career but then condemn people for not standing up to them. The firefighters lost the vote anyway so instead of looking back maybe its time to look forward to the next fight on the contract.