Nice Try Mr. Tim,

Your trip to the Hospital would still cost $2,000 regardless. The Fire Department does not transport to the Hospital. As far as 0$, your math and logic must come from the same tree as Bobs. Those of us who own homes or real estate pay every year to the Fire Department. Some paid dearly when the housing market was over productive. You may be a renter or dependant on others for your shelter but whomever owns that shelter pays. Your B.S. is almost as bad as Bob's. He probably called you up for some help on this discussion but you have nothing tangible to offer.

Watch the slander, John.

It's one thing to have a point, it's another to slander someone on a public forum.

I love you internet know it all tough guys.

Take a chill pill Timmy. There has been no slander unless you have a comprehension problem. In that case get your dictionary out and read. Don't bring down in the mud with you. Rick will end this public forum in a second when you and Bob head into the mud. Facts are facts and will be posted as long as you two sway them.

I may have a "comprehension problem" but you have an "English" problem. "Don't bring down in the mud with you." Do they sell a "I'm a moron that should stick to concrete" dictionary I can buy?

What you call facts others call opinion. Your ego is blinding yours ability to see straight.

Bob, your comment back wreaks of someone who has just been bested and is now grasping to fight back. Trying to come up with some type of motive to stereotype me with, that I must have career envy or wanted to be a firefighter. You don't know me, and you can't pretend to know me, but please, just throw these accusations out because it really does make you look like a fool here. Trying to twist my words back at me, nice attempt. AMR is not a union, the employees have a union, one which provides them no representation which is what I originally said, they have no representation through them (I believe their contract expired back in July).

I bring some solid facts and evidence to the table to make what I feel are legitimate points about how their a wealth of other career fields and professions which are remarkably more dangerous then that of a firefighter yet receive no comparison in terms of benefits/pension and you "gloss over", how convenient for you to pick and choose.

^^^^ Gah, I meant that to reply to the thread going below. Sorry John for jacking your comment thread.

John, one last round because this has outlived its usefulness. You can have the last word, so knock yourself out with the quippy insults.

I don’t have the answers to a lot of things, John. But one thing I can say with a degree of certainty is you DON’T make sense when it comes to commenting on this subject.

But let’s do a little of that situational awareness thing I mentioned earlier. I know you don’t know what it means, but follow me here:

Your target audience for selling this parcel tax is largely made up of baby boomers, a big percentage of which are nearing retirement age and elderly lifestyles. So you’re selling the idea into that demographic. Do those people likely most value for the district:

A) A new million dollar ladder truck

B) More resources directed to the fire boat

Or

C) Doubling the number of available paramedics to respond to medical emergencies with shorter response times.

John, you insist it’s A and B before C. I think C rates higher up the scale. I guess we’ll find out in due time.

To summarize some of the rest of what you’ve posted over the last week, and you correct me if I’m wrong so I can go back to copy and paste your own words:

You, John Gonzales, think:

- Firefighters are compensated too much overall

- Firefighters should NOT be granted Cost of Living Allowances(COLA) You repeatedly said you wanted that axed.

- After you take away their COLA, you want to give them something which is “tied to the economy”.....Which is another way of putting COLA. I guess you’re stuck on the choice of acronyms?



- Wages should be frozen indefinitely. Not exactly a race to the bottom, but more like a slow bleed

- Rising health costs(biggest contributor to rising benefits cost) should be put on the firefighters according to you

- You wish to embed some of your expectations into the ballot measure language even though that is not legally possible

- If the Board does not agree to your priority list stated above, you will NOT support the measure and will live with a reduction to 3 stations

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that’s what I’ve read you post, John. Though that last comment about 3 stations is what I deduced from the list.

One thing you didn’t get addressed earlier and that’s the 5% bump. The proposal is UP TO 5% annually, but tied to consumer price index, meaning most years it will be lower. That’s pretty much SOP for ballot measures as it links your increase in revenue to increase in outside your control costs.

“Gavin”, one last round for you and we’ll pick this up some other time. I’ll give you the “Criminal Minds” style profile on you and you just laugh along with me(or at me) if I’m completely off my rocker.

You’re a late 20s, early 30s EMS professional. Though not employed by AMR, as you stated earlier. Possibly employed by another transport agency, perhaps outside the County. You take pride in your profession, to the point of being a little overly protective. Envious to a degree of firefighters who do, for most part, have a decent pension/benefit package. Possible past firefighter applicant who didn’t make the cut and carry a chip on your shoulder toward them as a result. Sort of an outside looking in syndrome. Not particularly active in politics. Possibly the first time you’ve taken a real public stance on an issue because it’s near and dear to your livelihood. Evidenced by the fact you’re not on the voter rolls in the district. So either fresh off the bus or never saw the importance of voting previously. No evidence of deeded property, so possibly not directly impacted by the proposed parcel tax, but certainly allowed to weigh in with a vote if you register for the upcoming election.

Remember how you jumped into this a week back? You took issue that the ambulance crew that was on standby for the city hall incident. They didn’t get equal mention with the fireman who was up on the third floor roof risking his neck trying to keep the troubled young man from practicing Acapulco Cliff Diving.

When you list other dangerous occupations like fisherman and garbage collectors, those would be a sampling of the people running OUT of the burning building while the firemen are running INTO it. I don’t see a point in equal billing in reporting that scenario either. Put another way, I think you’re attacks on the profession are rooted in some unspoken pettiness.

As you gather your bullet points for our next encounter, consider this: The number one on-the-job killer of firemen is not burning to death or from smoke related malaise. It’s from sudden cardiac arrest. Now if you’ve seen a fireman lately you’ll notice that on average they are a pretty physically fit lot. But heart attacks take them out in those numbers because it’s obviously a young person’s profession with a MASSIVE stress component in play.

Hence the reason the profession and pensions are structured for comparatively short careers or time on the job. It’s out of necessity. If you and John had your way and whacked the existing pension programs to force firefighters to stay longer on the job, all you’re going to do it have more of them tipping over on you or a MASSIVE jump in your workman’s comp claims. Which BTW, is already a major cost concern for a lot of districts, this one included.

Responding fire engines loaded down with 60 year old firefighters is not in anyone’s best interest.

Another “gotcha” with your short sided desire to chop, chop, chop on the compensation package is you create your own revolving door within the department. Because surrounding districts are more stable and are not having these incredibly naïve discussions that you can pay these guys peanuts, you’ll find the idea blows up on you with increased turnover. It’s self defeating.

So consider those facts as your sharpen your spears for the next round of banter a few months down the road.

I do want to leave this with one important note though. If in the course of this dialog I came across as attacking EMS people, be they AMR personnel or any others, that was certainly not my intent. In no way should our front line emergency people be vilified or used as pawns in this discussion. I was focusing on the lowest cost delivery option for a 7 paramedic solution and perhaps lost sight of collateral damage comments in the process.

You Gentlemen have a great holiday and go easy on the eggnog.

Sadly enough Bob Mankin,

I would love for you to cut and paste my words. YOU DID NOT cut and paste my comments, you added words changing them to suit your intimidation and innuendo. You are a piece of work Bob. Some words were there but you added your typical assault as usual changing the meaning and connotation to make me look bad.

That’s O.K. Bob because the public is smarter than that and will vote accordingly.

The fact remains that,

Your quote about doubling the paramedics is a so misleading. If we started today to replace the paramedics at seven locations, we both would be at the end of our life span before all of them were implemented.

On that note, the eighth station ( Discovery Bay’s closed one) may still be closed in five years and your community would still have only one paramedic and three firefighters. My suggestion would give Discovery Bay two stations, two engines, six firefighters, and a Paramedic QRV. In addition possibly some reserves too.

What a sellout Bob. Your Town gets nothing more than it has yet will be paying dearly to subsidize other areas and ( more importantly) let the county off the hook for providing paramedics (we already pay for).



This time keep your promise. "one last round because this has outlived its usefulness"

You still have not addressed to merit of my suggestions. That’s O.K. Bob because they have validity. Take your toys and go home Bob. Talk about not playing well with others, maybe go play in Jens sandbox it appears exclusive to your thinking or you’ll get kicked out.

Gavin,

Here is another place to rebut Bob's B.S.

http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/parcel-taxes-proposed-for-consolidated-and-east-county-fire-districts-in-2012#more-18017

John, shouldn't you be more concerned about your own comments over in the H2C kitty litter box?

You claim you support the parcel tax when you're here, but over there a couple of hours ago you posted:

"There are other forces at work here that I think are not in the best interest of tax dollars spent. This is my main concern. This can change at the public hearings in February. That is when I would make my final decision of support or not."

I agree with your earlier comment that you're fully entitled to your opinions, John. What would be wonderful is if you actually picked an opinion that you could stuck with for longer than 24 hrs.

You're all over the map.

"Gavin" I'm not in the rush you think to read the propaganda as it's sure to have many holes in it. I'm more interested in you answering the bio question, motivations and your reason for using an alias. I answered your question. For credibility sake it's past time you answered the same rather than continuing to dodge.

The AMR contract is valued at $53M if memory serves. People will go to great lengths to defend that kind of pricey turf and your defense of that EMS resource at the expense of fire suppression resources isn't adding up here.

Furthered by the fact that you authored a letter to the Editor of this paper a couple of months back under an apparent false name which is nothing short of fraud.

Sorry, my friend, but we're not going to play your charade with something as important as public safety.

"Gavin", did you get lost on your way to the rebuttal? You were boasting you were going to come in with a massive amount of citations to dismiss all of the 20 IAFF facts stated in the link. Now here you are showing up empty handed.

What gives?

I've addressed the motivations question, but appears you struggle with reading comprehension much like John. So here it is one last time.

I'm am a concerned citizen who's advocated on some local issues, to include other public safety related ones(police). I see a critical threat to public safety on the horizon if a revenue enhancement is not secured. I've studied the issued extensively and bring what I've learned into various forums to share and save other voters desiring to learn about the issue the time of digging for all the same information. My desire is to protect my family, my community and the fire district, in that order of priority.

So I think that thoroughly answers yours.

So now answer why you post under an alias, what your angle is and why you serve up the caustic commentary about professional firefighters as you do.

At this point I have nothing to prove that you even live in this district or would be subjected to the consequences of the agenda you're promoting. It's pretty clear you're protecting EMS assets currently under AMR. The question is why.

11) Young firefighters always pay more into the retirement system than current retirees did, ensuring the long term viability

What kind of point is this? I'm paying more into my social security and 401k then my father did? So what? It's called inflation, should I get a great pension and be able to retire in my 50s because of it?

12)PERS (Public Employees retirement System) and MCERA (Marin County Employees Retirement Association) have billions of dollars of assets from employee and employer contributions and outstanding market growth from investment during the "boom years." PERS is the single largest investor in the stock market, and their investments have beaten the market even during the recent economic downturn.

And where did the employers get all that money to make contributions? Enough said.

13) So every once in a while the pension system makes money off the market/investments and they don't use as much employer money, but how did that employer get the money in the first place? Also, something I should have added earlier is that we can't say that it's just employer (tax payer) money going to pay and fund the pension,but also employee and how are they payed? Tax payers...

14) Most firefighter salaries in Marin are low by Bay Area standards.

Marin specific statement but I'll reply since there are folks who would say the same for ECCFPD. I think it's all a matter of perspective..low compared to what? A captain or battalion chief somewhere earning 150k a year? For the level of education and qualification required to have the job I would say a firefighters starting salary in ECCFPD is adequate.

15) Few firefighters are able to afford to live in Marin or other affluent bay area communities were they work. Young firefighters often commute 2-3 hours (or more) to work,

Again Marin specific but I will relate to ECCFPD. Lots and lots of people commute every single day, crossing bridges, sometimes multiple bridges, spending hours in their car for this same reason in an incredible number of professions. Except they have to do it 5 days a week, 20 times a month, versus what, once or twice a week for a firefighter, 8-10 times a month max? Are you telling me that because you are a firefighter you should be exempt from having to commute at all and be so lucky to get to work in your very own neighborhood?

16) The average firefighter salary is not enough to qualify to purchase even below median priced homes in Marin,

Marin specific again but firefighters think they are alone in this? Why do you think so many families are having both parents working, with some working multiple jobs? You think because you are a firefighter you should be entitled to a salary which will allow you to purchase a home in an affluent high cost of living area (Marin) or your comparable local counterpart?

17)Firefighters in California tend to make up for their relatively low hourly wages by working overtime

Which is some of the easiest overtime available, sometimes nothing but sitting around a station all day, your only "work" consisting of polishing a fire truck. If everybody could pick up an overtime shift which provided them a house (station), a recliner and TV, and a bed with a pretty good chance at getting some shut eye I think lots of folks would be working overtime to raise their income level.

18)Fire engines in Marin are dangerously understaffed,

Marin specific but it can relate to ECCFPD and this is the one point you won't have me argue. I would support increasing the number of firefighters on our engines out here to 3-4 personnel, but do that first before you worry about raises, benefits and providing paramedics already supplied.

19)Firefighters have accepted pay and benefits cuts during the economic downturn.  

Do firefighters think they are alone in this? Welcome to reality, tons of people have accepted pay cuts, benefit cuts, lacks or raises or promotions and news flash, lost their jobs and homes. Just because you are a firefighter should not give you immunity from fat trimming and skimming in tough times.

20) Firefighters are citizens and taxpayers

What the heck kind of point in this? I, as well as millions of other people are citizens and taxpayers too and we never receive anything even close to such a glory deal as a firefighter pension.

6) Firefighters pay more into their retirement system than other public or private sector employees. In Marin, firefighters pay 8-16% of their salary towards retirement

Laugh. I know many people who put comparable, or more into their 401k's and will never see the return these pensions get. I put 20% of my paycheck into my 401k and I'll have to be incredibly lucky with my market earnings and then that still won't be enough to live on alone. For anyone to ever come close to be comparable to these pensions they'd have to pick all the right stocks at all the right times their entire lifetime and hope for no more market crashes. Yea right.

7) Like the rest of the population, aging firefighters are at significantly higher risk of injury and illness - it is a young person's profession.

And none of those other jobs I listed are geared towards young people? Loggers, construction workers, roofers, ranchers, coal miners..you think all those people are able to work just as safely into their older years? No of course not, but I don't see them getting great pension deals.

8) It's a myth that all firefighters retire at 50 with 90% of their salary.

Maybe not at 50, but I bet they are still retiring before 65-67 with that same salary percentage or higher. I have personally heard local firefighters mention how they will be eligible to retire at such and such age, but are purposefully working longer to retire at 100%, then selling vacation/sick credit back to hit 110%, and they still get off before 65-67, earlier then I or many others ever will. How many people also have to work past 65-67? Not a firefighter.

9) When firefighters negotiate for enhanced retirement benefits (in recognition of the above factors) other potential benefits or salary enhancements are given up.

Like what? Article gives no example. Heck, I'll give up a ton of benefits at my work if they'll give me 110% of my salary in retirement after 33 years of service.

10) Firefighter jobs have become significantly more complex and technical

They have outreached in so many different areas because if they hadn't there is no way their salaries, pensions and large existence could even remotely be justified. The U.S. is pretty much the only country in which our FIRE department responds to medical calls. Other countries just don't grasp why you send a fire engine to a medical call. If you need more personnel you add more ambulances, or more bodies on the ambulance, or more "fly cars" (kind of what they call QRVs). Contra Costa Fire and ECCFPD are not being forced by anyone to provide paramedic service, they are doing it on their own. Why? Because it protects their existence and provides a higher salary. It makes the general public say, "Oh my gods, the fire department won't have a paramedic to come help me in my emergencies, I better give them money or I'll die!"

"Gavin", you're going to have to do better than that.

Some weeks ago I linked to a draft version of the AMR contract rather than the final in a mistake. That's the only thing you have corrected me on and your broad brush attempt to discredit me across the board because of it is a joke.

I've asked you at least 5 times now to address why you're using an alias and you skirt or ignore the issue each time. The readers here cannot even be certain that you are a resident of the district in which you're making suggestions about choices for fire service.

A couple of days ago you insisted AMR was not union at all, and now your tune changes to not represented very well.

A couple of days ago you insisted that fire deployment overall should be hacked to save money, now you're saying fix it first before talking paramedics.

Much like John, you can't comprehend the potential benefit through reduced response times that having 7 available engine based paramedics would offer over the current 3. In my world 7 is better than 3, but apparently for you and John math works backwards.

This morning you're attacking ECCFPD wages/benefits without any frame of reference and you're playing the same game as John and not talking actual numbers. I've repeatedly cited salary figures to keep the discussion framed properly.

You said you were going to dismiss each and every point in the IAFF link, then you open by agreeing with point #1 and then offering some weasel explanation.

Your attack in item 2 could be applied to your buddies with AMR, so be careful as you're swinging that double edged sword. Downtime is part of the program. It sounds like you have career envy going on and you're either pissed you didn't choose fire fighting earlier on or you did but couldn't make the cut in qualifications.

Then you launch into comparisons to loggers and some other nonsense and my eyes started to glaze over.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of deferred compensation. To rectify that and to pay firefighters a salary that is equivalent to the private sector, you're talking a 40% bump in pay.

Or are you expecting them to fund both retirement and pay their own health benefits out of a $60k salary. Do you even have a grasp of out of pocket insurance costs to understand the full impact of that idea?

Yes, one of us does have a credibility problem and is in bad need of constant correction, but it isn't me.

We could continue this dance, but not until you step up to the plate. The longer you dodge the priority questions of who you are and why you're here, the more the suspicion rises that you're a plant. Not big on playing the conspiracy game, but this is way beyond casual effort on your part.

OK, I am not sure what is wrong with this site but it will only let me post like a sentence at a time now. I have answers to all your questions but I will have to try and get them on here tomorrow sometime. Maybe I hit a limit I can post or someone is locking me out or something, I don't know.

6) Firefighters pay more into their retirement system than other public or private sector employees. In Marin, firefighters pay 8-16% of their salary towards retirement

there is more..having problems posting the rest on here...

Now for that little pro-pension article you linked (put out by the international firefighters union, C'mon, seriously?)

1) Firefighters do not receive Social Security.

No, they don't. But they don't put into it either so what is the loss? Give them social security and a 401k and I betcha even with the employer matching there will still be substantial savings.

2) Firefighters in Marin (and much of the US) work a 56 hour work week

Oh yea, is this like that college job I had at 7-11 late at night where I got paid to pretty much study for 6 hours because the majority of the time you aren't doing any job duties? Give me full access to monitoring of a fire crew when they are on duty and we will see exactly how much of a 24hour day is spent just sitting around their station in their recliners watching sports games, movies, on their computers, reading, sleeping, etc. Sure they are at "work" and not at home with families, but this is one of the biggest scams, how EASY firefighters have it the majority of the time and how actual little work they do. Also not like they don't see families while they are at work, I have heard stories about the family coming over and spending Christmas with mom or dad at the fire station. You think many other jobs let their family come spend the day with you and sit around eating meals, watching movies?

3) Firefighters have shorter life expectancies than the average population and are three times more likely to die on the job

One of my favorite points to make. Firefighting a dangerous and risky career? According to the US BLS it's not even on 2011 top 15 list (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-2011-9#no-1-fishers-and-related-fishing-workers-15). Beat out by; Fisherman, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, coal miners, roofers, garbage collectors, drivers/sales workers/truck drivers, police/sheriff, electricians, construction workers, taxi drivers/chauffeurs, ground maintenance workers, athletes/coaches/umpires, operating engineers/construction equipment operators.

So tell me, since all of these careers are so much more dangerous and statistically result in these people having a shorter life expectancy why don't the loggers, ranchers, taxi drivers, roofers, drivers and truck drivers out there have amazing pensions that allow them to retire early in life?

4) In a public defined benefit retirement system, when a firefighter dies, their retirement contributions and all earned interest go back into the"system" to help pay for other living retiree's benefits, unlike a private sector 401K where the retiree's family keeps 100% of their retirement contributions

Already addressed this in that we could give them a 401k and social security let the family get the benefits if they die early and there will still be substantial cost savings. I would also be very curious to see what the average pension collection amount is over a firefighters life versus a similarly salaried individual on a traditional 401k/social security, I have a feeling the firefighter comes out ahead. If not I'd imagine that they'd be all for ditching that pension and getting on board with a "normal" retirement package.

5) Firefighter retirement benefits are not paid by the "taxpayers," cities, counties or state

What a skewed remark. They state this but then immediately go on to say, "these funds come from employee and employer contributions made while the employee was working". Well I would like to know where the employer is getting the money to make those contributions. Since the fire dept. isn't billing on a per call basis and their revenue is based on my taxes,……

Bob, the calling a firefighter a truck driver is a jab just as calling the AMR EMTs and paramedics nothing but ambulance drivers is. One could say giving someone "a taste of their own medicine" to see how they like it. I don't know if guest24 or whatever their name was ever read past my first post, but the idea was to share a point of view with them and make an example. If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, I don't care.

You want proof that AMR employees are in the process of decertifying their union? I told you go ask any single one of them and they'll immediately tell you. You want to read it? Take a look at http://www.uemsw.org/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_EMS_Workers_-_AFSCME_Local_4911, that looks to be a union they are looking at. You state how a union has to be representing to decertify them, what do you consider representation? Perhaps the reason the members are choosing to decertify is just that, their current union isn't providing representation at all. Not everyone has the mighty IAFF.

You accuse me of disinformation when I have provided current sources of information and facts on these forums posts. Of all people I see you spreading disinformation. On numerous occasions in the past I have had to correct blatant misinformation you post on these forums because you cite old, outdated contracts and use that misinformation to spin a web of lies and deceit to provide your point of view with a glamorous visage. The stakes here are too great? For what? Better wages, raises, benefits and first responder paramedics that we already receive at no cost to tax payer dollars? My message to the ECCFPD: Fix the problem with the fire protection aspect of the district first. Then, once you have proven to me that you can appropriately provide and manage fire prevention/protection services we'll talk about me allowing you to use my money for other things, and still only as necessary.

Oh I'm not lost Bob, take your chill pill okay. I am preparing quite the response for you as we speak, it's still being written and in notepad right now. You'll get it soon enough. =)

Now that all that is out of the way I'll get to your last point. My name is as you see it, and I don't know why you still think otherwise. You want to put my name in quotes, that's fine Bob, it doesn't bother me, actually makes me feel a bit special. I've never addressed it before because it's completely idiotic but you just won't stop pressing it, will you? What records are you so privy to that has you convinced I don't exist? What are you resources? Is it like all your other references which are outdated and resultantly filed with misinformation not pertinent to the present situation? Why do I serve up the commentary I do against firefighters? Because as I mentioned earlier, I see a broken system that continues to stay broken and includes the public having a smoke screen pulled over their faces and always scared into giving more money for fear of any other solution. Protecting EMS assets under AMR? How about protecting EMS, period. Insuring that if I or a loved one codes when a fire incident is going on that it won't jeopardize a dedicated first responder paramedic responding, or better yet, just more ambulances available in general. A fire first responder paramedic does not and cannot transport to definitive medical care. If I have a stroke or an ST-elevation heart attack you can send ten fire paramedics to me and none of them will be able to do a darn thing worth while to help me, it's all up to rapid transport to definitive medical care that will make a difference for me. You have your concerns and I have mine. You are here to share your point of view, I am here to do the same, and educate that things are not always as they seem with the fire service, and there is more to America's heroes then meets the eye.

.

John, you struggle to even deliver factually correct insults.

It's 45,000 lots in the district.

I've tried to engage you and to the extent possible tolerate your childish insults. But even after explaining that I come here to speak for myself only, you dismiss it and effectively call me a liar.

Like soooooo many before me, I had to learn that you don't play well with others and heavily rely on bullying and belligerence to make your points.

Really can't take you seriously anymore, not that it was a cake walk before your latest hissy fit here.

You enjoy your holiday, John. Perhaps take a little time out of it to brush up on the subject matter. To include understanding COLA and what the purpose of collective bargaining is so you don't embarrass yourself copying and pasting that last passage a fourth time.

You're doing a disservice to your community with this junk.

As for the transition to fire agency based paramedics, we find this within the contract between AMR and the County:

Section VII, Paragraph A, which states:

“Contractor shall support the development and integration of the fire first response component of the EMS system and shall cooperate and support the expansion of paramedic first response.”

Now if John or "Gavin" want to explain why AMR should be excused from faithfully executing the existing contract, I'm all eyeballs.

Within the same section of the contract is a passage noting that Paramedic training for the District is to be provided at no tuition cost by AMR.

But I predict this will only temporarily slow the red herring issues being thrown in here by these two.

Bob, you still do not get it. I have no problem supporting Paramedics on engines. I have a problem with it being done prior to other more important issues like the Discovery Bay Fire Station staying closed. I know you could care less about your own communities Fire Stations being a priority but I do. I also care about the Byron Station staying closed. So as I stated before, priorities for this new tax need to change so all our neighbors have maximum fire suppression first.

AMR can train the Paramedics at anytime. There is no urgent hurry to begin paramedics today while Stations, equipment, and Manpower are not being taken care of first.

I advise Bob for you to come to your senses and get off the political part of this issue.

Your agenda does not include fire suppression as apriority. This is a Fire Protection District first. Bob your doing a disservice to your Community and East County promoting a new tax for the wrong reasons. I know you support unions and Mary Piepho. I support unions too when they do the right thing. I do not support Mary Piepho and the damage created in this entire fire district fiasco over the past seven years. Let’s get back on track with real Fire Suppression priorities or oppose the tax. Open ALL Stations with 3 person firefighters being the first priority.

John, who are you kidding with this pandering?

You haven't been to a fire commission meeting in 18 mos, but you're going to sit there and suggest you know what I have and have not advocated for? Seriously??

But now you're for paramedics on engines after arguing against them all weekend? Amazing how citing a couple of passages from a contract can change your tune.

You have no handle whatsoever on the revenue breakdowns or the power makeup of the board or the realistic chances of gaining a majority of 9 vote on any station reopenings. You sit here and think you can load up ballot measures with all sorts of riders to suit your whims, with little concern or even clue whether what you suggest is legal.

News flash: it's not.

Before you run around demanding people "come to their senses", maybe you should get your butt to a meeting so you're not wandering around so misinformed about what's going on there and what's possible? Just a suggestion.

Discovery Bay collectively contributes $1.24M to the district in the current fiscal year. It costs $1.9M to run a station. $3.8M to run two.

So in these tight fiscal times you tell me where you're going to find 5 votes to support that reopening in the current board makeup of 2 inincorporated reps, 3 from Oakley and 4 from Brentwood. Since you've obviously forgotten, it's the same group that voted to close it in the first place.

Talk about swimming against the current. Same goes for your fire boat plan. How much waterfront property were you figuring the Brentwood representatives are overly concerned with protecting for their residents?

Math, fiscal terms related to budgeting and now situational awareness. All things you seem to struggle with.

My comment is a continuation from yours and Gavin's on the other Fire thread.

Bob Mankin's statistical quote;

"The $435K is take from the AMR EMS contract with the County and represents the value assigned to “buying” additional units over and above the 4 existing QRVs" .

Again, your quote above Bob, This is what we already pay for. You promote moving the QRV's and their paramedics out to get that big $30,000 refund for your $435,000 QRV from the county. Like I want to trade $435,000 for $30,000. Come on Bob who got to you ? Are you still at the Queens beck and call ? Even a child knows that's not a good deal. This is another flaw in your logic and a rip off to the taxpayers.

Then again your only the messenger. Is that message coming from special interest ? Is that message sent from you because maybe the union will not support the tax without a raise and taking over the QRV paramedics ?

I support more Fire Fighters not a union takeover of QRV's that costs me unnecessarily.

It's simple as pie unless you have a special agenda Bob from your sender. Re-open closed stations, guarantee Marsh Creek Station open year round, Increase firefighters to three ( maybe four in the highest call areas or on the ladder truck ), take out the 5% annual increase above the base new tax ( or tie it to prop 13 increases), leave out the 2% cola raises and replace it with something that follows the economy swings, purchase a ladder truck, upgrade the communications, expand the reserve program or something similar, and upgrade the surrounding fire boat coverage ability. The good part is that there is time for you to come to your senses and do the right thing.

These are immediate needs Bob. Its common sense. Your selling an elephant that doesn't fit the real immediate needs. Your political cravings and special interest messenger sales are disingenuous. So, after you wipe the egg off your face explain exactly why each of my suggestions should be superseded by a paramedic takeover of AMR QRV's when we already pay those costs ?

John, are you just incapable of having a discussion that doesn’t involve juvenile insults and conspiracy theories?

Any opinions I express are my own. The facts I bring to the table come as a result of researching the issue on my own time, by my own choice. I don’t represent, nor have I been prompted to speak on anyone elses behalf. The facts stand on their own, hence the messenger reference.

I’m tempted to ask if you even know what COLA is, but based on the fact you can’t answer to the difference between salaries and fully loaded budgeting figures, there’s no point going there.

Since you won’t support a union takeover of QRVs, then you must be apoplectic with the fact that unions already run the AMR resources in CoCo County.

http://www.nemsausa.org/ContraCosta.htm

Math is apparently not a strong suit with you, so no point trying to explain the numbers again. The folks that matter will have gotten it.

Before you go shopping for a new ladder truck, you might want to figure out where you’re going to park it. Or where you assuming it will just fit in any of these stations, some in bad need of retrofitting?

What is the need for a ladder truck in the priority list here? How many structures are served by that? Particularly since that type of equipment is probably going to have a seven figure price tag on it.

I’d attempt to address this comment from your last post,

“….paramedic takeover of AMR QRV’s when we already pay those costs ?”

But it makes no sense. Paramedics operate the QRVs now and we don’t pay anything for it. You’ve even acknowledged this latter fact in previous posts. So you’re 0 for 2 in the span of half a sentence.

John, it’s clear you’re stumbling over some of your own ignorance of the issue because you’re more focused on taking shots at me. Speak to the issues, not the personalities.

“Gavin” was advocating for a hatchet job to existing staffing, but now is saying we need to enhance staffing before addressing Paramedics.



There seems to be a glaring lack of consistency in the message you fellas are serving up.

Bob, you have me laughing out loud here. Seriously, you post a link to an article written by the IAFF, the mother load union of firefighter truck drivers about why their outrageous retirement benefits are justified. Every single point they make that in that article I can counter immediately, and over the next couple days when I have some time I think I will. Not just from my opinions either, but with actual statistical facts. Actually I can probably a wealth of articles that counter that single one put out by their union. I can't wait, this is going to be fun.

As for your claim that AMR resources in this county are being run by a union, please now... Go talk to any single one of their employees, they have absolutely no representation though that union (NEMSA), haven't had any for years, and in the process of decertifying them through the National Labor Relations Board. NEMSA has absolutely no union control over any EMS resources in Contra Costa whatsoever. Nice try.

"Gavin", you need to bring better than hyperbole to the table here.

You took issue with another poster in the other thread for calling AMR personnel "ambulance drivers". But you have repeatedly referred to professional fire fighters as "truck drivers". Clear hypocrisy.

You insist NEMSA is not involved, then talk about decertification. Decert is not possible unless they are in fact representing today. Then you provide no evidence of your claim that a decert is even under consideration.

Then you insist you can immediately discredit a list of facts. Immediate must mean something different for you than for me. But I'll grab just the first and last from the IAFF piece to show how you're mistaken:

1) Fire fighters receive no social security. This is fact if they are covered by a state pension plan as is the case here. Social Security Administration and IRS rules dictate this.

20) Fire fighters are citizens and taxpayers too. Odd that you would even hint you’ll attempt to disprove this, but that’s where blanket comments can bite you on the butt.

This is all unfortunate because it was clear you had some inside baseball stuff to contribute from the AMR side, though that's not really in play here. We are talking about the core need for a parcel tax to maintain fire coverage. Which you have labeled as unnecessary.

If you have any other facts to contribute or just opinions to offer, that's great. But your disinformation campaign is unappreciated and will be challenged. The stakes here are too great.