Councilmember attacks Dixon Firefighters
Posted by webmaster | Posted in News | Posted on 09-05-2012
0
Below is a letter submitted to Councilman Ceremello and the outlets that he publishes to regarding comments that he submitted last week.
Dear Councilman Ceremello:
I am writing you on behalf of the Dixon Professional Firefighters Association regarding comments submitted by you in the most recent issue of the Dixon Independent Voice, as well as published electronically via Ted Hickman’s blog. We strongly feel that your comments are without fact or merit, and are furthermore out of line, particularly from an individual who represents the City of Dixon, as well as the citizens of the community.
Your comments state: “…I am also not unaware that we continue to have an overtime problem at the fire department. Maybe, instead of adding additional volunteers which would alleviate the need and balance our budget, we should be looking hard at going back to an all volunteer organization.
Most of our firefighters started out as volunteers. Now they don’t want others to do this because it affects their paychecks. I am sorry but I think it is unconscionable for you to be sticking the city for $50,000 in overtime pay every year. And that is apiece folks.”
Please allow me to provide some much due education regarding your comments. First, let’s address the overtime issue that you speak of. You are correct in saying that there is an overtime problem, however there needs to be some understanding on why this problem exists. Long prior to your status as an elected official, the fire department was staffed with 18 line personnel, six on each shift. This facilitated one individual being off duty without the need to incur overtime costs via backfill. One line firefighter and two chiefs left for other departments, individuals were promoted from the bottom up to fill the vertical vacancies which left the department vacant in three bottom tier positions. The City has had all along two of those positions budgeted for, however opted to freeze the positions for cost savings. Now at five personnel on duty a day, the department was then thrust into a position, which anytime an individual was off of work, there would be backfill to cover that fifth position, thus constituting overtime. Despite this fact, it was recognized that it was more cost effective to pay overtime than it was to fill the budgeted positions. Since that time, the department has endured long term injuries to multiple personnel as well as a military deployment of another to where at a given time; the department was actually down to 12 line personnel. Recently, at the pleading of the fire chief, the city appears prepared to act on a testing process and consider hiring for the budgeted positions which will in turn reduce overtime significantly. This does not even go so far as to consider the fact that the fire chief has worked extremely hard to establish grant funding which may facilitate those positions at little to no cost to the city.
You’re estimate of each individual of this department “sticking the city” for $50,000 is grossly overstated and insulting to the members of this department none of which have seen that amount reflected in their paychecks. Your estimate of $50,000 places the overall overtime expenditures at over two times the actual figure. It is also insulting that one would put an inflated estimate over the individuals who have worked tirelessly often up to 96 or 120 hours a week away from their own homes and families to serve the community, not to mention each individually taking on significantly more duties in the absence of adequate staffing. What should be looked at is the fact that the fire department, sans overtime, is well within budget and even goes well above and beyond to bring actual revenue into the city through its agreements with Winters, Solano Community College, the Dixon Fire Protection District, and the Public Private Partnership with EMS. Additionally, many items that the department needs to provide an adequate service to the community has been secured via grant funding at little to no cost to the city. Please illustrate to us any other city department that brings in as much revenue to the general fund as the fire department does.
Your other point regarding the fire department going back to a sole volunteer agency is atrocious at best. There is many of our staff that did start out as volunteers as you stated, however were volunteers in a city with almost half of the population and size as it currently is now. They are now career members of the department. They deserve just as much right to earn a paycheck as a factory worker, a police officer, or a cook. They are just as much part of the working community as any other. They go on to pay sales taxes and property taxes just like any other worker within the city. You’re statement suggests that your community firefighters should become one of the many unemployed of society that will go on to suffer the tertiary effects that so many others have befallen through unemployment and what has largely become a reason of the financial hardships of the city.
The Dixon Fire Department does employ several capable and extraordinary individuals as volunteers, and while their role is vital to the department, it is best served in an ancillary role. Also note that volunteerism with the department does not go without its financial cost to the city, however we consider that worthwhile based on their ancillary need.
The standards that govern the nationwide fire service as a whole is found within the many books published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Someone as yourself should recognize the importance of global standards as you are one who consistently recites the “Brown Act” in your public agenda. NFPA standards recommend that in a residential structure fire for example, that the department will have an 80 second turnout time from dispatch to being out the door and furthermore that first responding resources should be on scene in four minutes or less. Scientific evidence shows that fires grow exponentially with every minute that goes by uncontrolled. A person suffering cardiac arrest has 4-6 minutes before irreversible damage as well as the window of successful resuscitation looses effectiveness. So let me ask you, is adding a significant response time for a volunteer to wake up from home in the middle of the night, drive to the station, and respond to the incident something that you want to put on the taxpaying community that you have been elected to serve? The taxpayers pay for adequate fire suppression and emergency response. Actually, they are entitled to and should receive exceptional response. Citizens have a choice in nearly every facet of life in who they do business with. They choose their physicians, their plumbers, their eateries, etc. They pay for these services accordingly. If they receive substandard service, they are afforded the ability to challenge payment. As an elected official, you represent the choice that they do not have which is who will arrive to their emergency. They do not have the option to not pay for the service. Why would you suggest to short change the taxpayer by offering them longer response times if any possible response at all?
Additional challenges with having a sole volunteer agency are as follows:
- Difficult to maintain response times
- Would result in a severe reduction in level and scope of service provided (paramedic, hazmat, technical rescue)
- Increases administrative overhead because volunteer systems of this size are
cumbersome to manage
- Volunteer departments experience recruitment and retention problems (volunteerism has faltered significantly nationwide)
- Turnover of volunteers is high relative to the turnover of career firefighters
- Difficult to maintain training and quality services
- Given current labor market trends, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find
people with flexible enough schedules to volunteer
- Difficult to amass a response adequate to handle incidents in industrial, large
commercial, and multifamily units (volunteers do hold “paying” day jobs)
- Would lose the multiple functions provided by the current staff (e.g., public education, inspections, etc.)
- Politically sensitive move (especially for a mayoral candidate)
- Less direct control over personnel
- Would result in a large number of private vehicles responding to emergencies
- Increases worker’s compensation exposure for the city
- Proficiency suffers over time
You are a citizen of this community. How would you feel about all of this as someone who pays for the service and is entitled to the best? As an elected official, how could you subject your community to this? Why would you provide less to the citizens to protect your own interests?
You may remember last year when members of the DPFA and the community filled the City Council Chambers. The DPFA bent over backwards to meet the Council’s and the City’s numbers at great personal sacrifice to our membership. You also may remember complimenting our efforts to do so. Negotiations would not have been an appropriate term to use in that situation, as we as a group gave again to the better cause of the city and did so under duress. When all was said and done, you expressed satisfaction with the outcome. Now, you once again are quick to attack us. As an elected official who presides on the Council now and has openly announced his candidacy for Mayor, do not attack the citizens who put you in the seat you are in now, nor the ones who’s votes you’re seeking this fall.
Sincerely,
Nick Warren
DPFA IAFF Local 4665 – Vice President
