Opposition pieces written against Measure S are long on rhetoric and short on specifics. One gentleman from Discovery Bay exemplified this general pattern with his recent letter to the editor. He clearly supports a Paid On Call program and stated that they are being used “successfully” around the country. What does his vision of “success” look like?
Is it a firefighting operation using the nationally recognized incident management system with a complete complement of specific fire equipment operated by certified firefighters and certified company officers, who safely engage the interior of a structure fire with enough personnel to abide by OSHA’s hazardous atmosphere laws (when entering smoke-filled environments, for every two firefighters inside there must be a two-firefighter backup team in place for emergencies)?
Or is it a truck full of part-timers following a fire engine driven by another part-timer, on their way to put out a smoldering house foundation. POC programs are great ways to help apprentice firefighters get experience but the scope of any POC program should be limited in size as to avoid turning the community of East County into a perpetual training ground for rookie firefighters and folks who use firefighting as a hobby.
He also states that the underfunded pension program is too costly. Do we know what percentage of operational money has been allocated to pensions, specifically? It’s in the single digits! But his statement leads us to think that the firefighter’s retirement is bankrupting the district.
Let us remember that firefighters not only pay for retirement with 13 to 20 percent out of their base pay but also physically by accepting long-term health issues many acquire over their career. Let’s have an honest discussion about whether you feel they have earned this benefit and we as a community should support them or they simply are not entitled to it. Please be specific.
Further clouding the issues, he relies on citing the City Gate report that supports contracting with CalFire. This begs the question: Who is City Gate? Is it the fire and emergency services consulting service run by a former state employee who worked out of Cal Fire’s Sacramento Office? Does City Gate employ multiple contractors from CalFire to provide services to their firm? Is this report truly unbiased?
This is never stated by Measure S opponents. Instead, most attack ECCFPD firefighters over some union resistance. What specifically was the union upset about in the rules that made it resist CalFire? It might have something to do with increasing their hours from 56 to 72 a week and being told that all future promotional opportunities may require relocation of their families to either end of California. Maybe they have ownership in the community and want to stay here and serve without extending already long hours.
Obamacare is nothing like Measure S because its fundamental difference is that money from Measure S will go directly to our firefighters who protect us and our community. It will not feed the federal general fund, which is cut up and squandered on pet projects, rewarding the “lobbyist of the week.”
Our local emergency response system is one of the last good investments of tax dollars available. You call, they come, every time. I hope our community votes to maintain our vital services. I would rather our firefighters get the money over the insurance companies, who will raise our rates if Measure S is defeated.
Matt Brown
Brentwood
I do not know if you copied this stuff from a union osha book or someone wrote it for you. You are exaggerating everything Mr. Mc Vittie has said.
You have made me chuckle when you tear down the CityGate report. The CityGate report has been defended and quoted by people for the new tax. Because it uses some volunteers you think the report is wrong. You seem to only want to bad mouth the volunteer firemen that kept us safe for my last fifty years. Yesterday houses burned down to the ground and your perfect union firemen and nine fire engines did not make a difference to the poor man who lost everything. I'm scared if the tax passes I will not get medical help because they will be firemen on a fire.
Mr. Brown you are childish when you insult volunteers. You also insult many of the firemen we have now because they came from volunteers. Most of the country is protected by volunteers. There is no reason not to use them to help the other firemen. This is one thing that makes me angry and against this new tax. The other thing you said was that about the pension. You said this Mr. Brown = But his statement leads us to think that the firefighter’s retirement is bankrupting the district.
Mr.Brown you do not pay much attention to where your tax money if you even pay taxes like me. I worked long and hard to own my house. I'm not going to give it away to politicians or unions. The pension has already made the District insolvent and on the brink of bankruptcy. They are $29,000,000 million dollars in the hole from what I read in the editor section of the contra costa times. That's not single digit Mr. Brown. You did say one good thing that makes me really vote no. The emergency service by a separate paramedic company will stay if we vote no. Someone is filling you with bad information Mr. Brown or you have been made a fool by the threats.
I am voting no on this, but I do love firemen they are great. This new tax does not help the firemen.
No we all need to vote no and make them fix this
Sorry but my letter last week was specific as to areas that need to be restructured. You just happen to have a different opinion and seem to believe the financial operating structure is just fine and that the taxpayers just need to send more money.
As for your comments regarding the POCs, I am sure you have offended the dedicated POCs that have effectively worked for the fire district in the past until the union ran them out. They were extremely effective before and can be part of the financial solution of our fire district. I know you and the union do not like POCs because it reduces the number of full time employees that are union. However, they worked for our district before and are extremely efficient in districts like ours throughout the U.S.
You talk about OSHA requirements and the need to follow the 2 man in 2 man out rule. Your proposed Measure S solution does nothing to meet this rule until a second responder gets to the scene. Your colleagues have stated in other post that for a structure fire usually 4-5 truck end up on the scene. With POCs they can be on the scene faster than additional trucks and mitigate problems faster. Personally I would rather see more stations with fewer full time employees than the measure proposes and POCs to augment at the scene. More stations more trucks mean faster response to the scene. This can be done with a different model than is currently in use here and is successfully done in many other places.
As for the pension program, if you think that having a pension system that now cost the district 25% of revenue and projected to cost 50% of revenue is a good financial model for the district, I and many disagree. I appreciate the firemen. I also appreciate every other profession out there. We all work hard and many long hours with lots of stress. Welcome to the working world we all live in. However, these types of pension programs are bankrupting or putting into extremely difficult financial problems municipalities and government agencies throughout the State and Country. Private sector has understood this for years and have done the restructuring to keep many of the pensions available. Public agencies have not made the tough decisions.
Cal Fire, IF it is a cost effective solution for us, lets use it. Sorry, but restructuring is a part of the real world for most of us. We all have had to modify our jobs for the past decade as old operating models need to be modified for current financial situations. Work rules change. It is time for the Union to understand this.
I understand the problems that are caused by the current revenue sources. The combination of restructuring, that will save money while still providing quality service and additional revenue are needed. Myself and others just believe that there will be no meaningful changes that will save the district money if this measure passes. There is no restructuring mentioned in the measure. So our only conclusion is things will not change and it will just be put on the taxpayers backs. I am voting NO and encouraging others to do the same to send the message to the Fire Commission to be open to cost saving options to be part of the solution not just more taxes.
And please stop the scare tactics of double and triple insurance and no one being able to be there to help you when you need it. There are options if you open your eyes to alternatives.
NO on S
Citygate was not complimentary to the old POC program. A couple of you need a remedial read of the report.