CalFire will either come in by contract or on an emergency basis. If HMBFPD can’t keep up Linestaff levels, HMBFPD would most likely discontinue service to PMFPD. The PMFPD Board would then have NO CHOICE other than bringing in engines staffed by the State Fire Marshal. The HMBFPD and PMFPD Boards are constrained at this point by public safety issues.
HMBFPD Fire Fighters have been wringing the last bit of drama out of this. The news coverage has been a succession of HMBFPD Fire Fighters making career limiting remarks on the way out the door. But, each Fire Fighter that walked out the door contributed to the staffing emergency that has now empowered the Boards to react to a public safety crisis and call on the State Fire Marshal. But, there are bigger messages to be conveyed than the plight of the HMBFPD Fire Fighters. Other San Mateo County Districts and Municipalities have been shown the lengths they would have to go to in order to contract with CalFire. That is why there is more news coverage on this story over the hill.
The San Mateo County Times failed to mention in their latest article Local 2400 sued PMFPD and HMBFPD Boards and obtained a temporary order baring the Districts from contracting with CalFire. Had the lawsuit and writ of mandate for stay of contract not been filed, CalFire would have been able to take over a month ago and supply staff from its larger resources. If there is a ruling from the Judge lifting the order, then CalFire could come in with their staffing resources. The Coastside taxpayers can add the cost of the litigation of this lawsuit to the cost of solving the staffing crisis short term with overtime.
I agree with President MacKimmie’s remarks in the article. With the CalFire contract only pending litigation resolution, there is no point in taking on this additional expense, training and management load and delay. HMBFPD being short staffed at both the Linestaff and Management level, should keep the emphasis on running operations day to day.
There are issues with hiring per diem Firefighters from other Departments within the County. The HMBFPD and PMFPD Boards have to look at the financial risks associated with getting stuck with latent disability costs. Given the shenanigans bordering on criminal that occurred within HMBFPD, why take on additional individual effectively unaccountable Fire Fighters and create more internal Management problems? Better to get accountable engine companies from the State Fire Marshal.
The $1.1M cost for one station from the State Fire Marshal is $350K to $800K less than the current cost for one station using HMBFPD rates.
CalFire is the only option the residents of PMFPD or PMFPD as a service zone within a combined Coastside Fire can afford long term.
Brent Smith,
The Boards have a responsibility not just to the Employees, but to the residents of the community, any person that visits the Districts, mutual aid agreements and ultimately the State Fire Marshal. The Boards have to balance all the needs and requirements of all the stakeholders.
Local 2400 was selected by the HMBFPD Linestaff to represent your interests. If you feel you have communication issues with the Board you should bring that up with your Local, before coming to this forum. It is one thing to bring suggestions and input to Management and a Board, it is entirely another to think you have a right to run the Board, represent all of the stakeholders interests or repeatedly demand rehearing your old claims, until you are satisfied. I can only guess how your coworkers feel about you representing their interests.
Last year Mr. Alan Davis representing Local 2400 threatened the two Boards with Lawsuits in a joint public meeting. The Boards have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens to minimize litigation costs and be careful in their communications. Can you understand how your own behavior and that of your Local have stiffled communications with the Boards?
Last Spring the Board’s the Board’s began to face the issues of the strife effecting operational responses and public safety. I recall in one fairly grim meeting, Director Efusia saying something to the effect of, when
the bell goes off, we have to be there. The recommendation from two temporary Chiefs with decades of experience and the SMC Civil Grand Jury was to contract out for services. The Boards have moved in a deliberate open manner to outsource, to solicit proposals from other agencies, to evaluate the proposals, take public comment and ultimately contract with CalFire. That process has been going on for almost a year. Everybody was listened to in the meetings. The people we elected to represent us weighed all the arguments and made a decision. If IAFF Local 2400 drags the issue of the petitions into court in an attempt to stay the CalFire contract, a judge is compelled not just to look at the law or the arguments of the plaintiff and defendant but, the equity issues for all of the stakeholders from a public safety standpoint. It’s time to end the debating over old issues and accept the changes of contracting with CalFire.
Brent Smith wrote:
“...Chief Fererra and Paul Cole have worked out a deal to eliminate the Half Moon Bay fire District and replace it with a state run agency administered by Paul Cole.”
Opinion, not fact. CalFire(CDF) responded to the PMFPD and HMBFPD Request For Proposal drafted by Interim Chief Hamilton last year. After reviewing two proposals the PMFPD and HMBFPD Boards negotiated a contract with CalFire, which has the two Boards setting the level of service on an ongoing basis. The work that Chief Cole performed was under the direction of the HMBFPD and PMFPD Boards, during the proposal review and contract negotiation.
Brent Smith wrote:
“...all of the firefighters efforts to have a honest, ethical and incorruptible administrative staff have failed. This failure is largely due to the current and past boards refusal to deal with the evidence presented to them by numerous investigations and lawsuits into the management teams dishonorable conduct.”
The HMBFPD and PMFPD have a primary mission of providing fire and emergency services to the Coastside. How the employees feel about where they work is a secondary consideration. But, that consideration has dominated the political discussion for years to the point that the service level has been impacted and the two Districts are in financial distress trying to maintain a level of service. A contract with CalFire solves both of these problems, that directly effect the citizens of this community.
Brent Smith wrote:
“The public needs to realized that those individuals who have come in and destroyed over a hundred years of tradition, and their communities fire district have only one purpose and that is to further their own personal careers and self interests on the backs of the HMB firefighters and at the expense of the HMB community members and thier local fire department.”
The PMFPD and HMBFPD Boards have taken the sound advice of two Chiefs with decades of experience and the SMC Civil Grand Jury and acted to not have the 100 year mission fail on their watch. It was a tough decision. Chief Cole has taken on an awesome responsibility maintaining operations, until CalFire can take over. This is not some conspiracy concocted to advance Chief Cole’s or Chief Ferreira’s careers. The Linestaff have to understand that the citizens of this community are speaking to them through their elected representatives. The citizens are tired of having whoever assumes the Chief’s responsibilities vilified and disrespected for the gain of the Linestaff. The Coastside citizens have paid the bills for the strife. This is a public safety orginization, where a operational failure could cost a citizen their life or home. We need an organization that can provide a level of service, now, without new parcel taxes. That organization is CalFire. The HMBFPD Board has negotiated a transitional MOU with your IAFF Local 2400. Your interests have been represented by your Union.
I was among three citizens that attended the PMFPD Special Meeting Tuesday evening. There were no Fire Fighters in attendance. I don’t know the specifics of the second petition circulated by IAFF local 2400. But, it appears the second sets of referenda were more rhetorical than legally drafted to challenge the actions of the Boards on contracting with CalFire(CDF).
The more pressing issue for Chief Cole and the Board at the meeting was an urgent agenda item placed on the Tuesday PMFPD Open Session Agenda by a majority of the PMFPD Board. The item was Staffing Update. Chief Cole was somewhat limited in the specific details he could provide by California employee privacy laws and Federal HIPA regulations. A combination of factors is causing a Linestaff shortage. Some Linestaff are going out on disability, some are going to other Fire Departments and some are doing a combination of the two.
Chief Cole has declared a staffing emergency and went through various options with the Board and public. It’s important to note the service level may degrade somewhat temporarily, but all three engines will be staffed continuously. The interesting point is the strife in HMBFPD and the issue of the Coastside contracting with CalFire is an issue at the San Mateo County level, CalFire Region Level and within the IAFF International. The issue is which agency steps up to the plate short term to provide the resources, fast track acreditization of Certified Paramedics from other counties to work in San Mateo County or as a last resort whether State OES or Cal Fire Engine companies get dispatched to the Coastside with the State Fire Marshal certifying them to operate in the San Mateo County. This issue may prove more interesting to Coastsider readers than the local firehouse shenanigans.
It’s important to note that the HMBFPD Board has bent over backwards to negotiate a transitional MOU with Local 2400. Local 2400 representative Ed Hawkins reported on another Coastsider article back in October that he was off to negotiate with the HMBFPD Board. Negotiating the transition has been going on for months. CalFire is scheduled to transition around April first, once State level approvals are complete.
The majorities of the PMFPD and HMBFPD Boards are working together effectively as I have not seen them in years. Chief Cole is doing a valiant job of maintaining our service, setting the right priorities and holding the service together, until CalFire starts up. They have all performed very well and deserve our support.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Jonathan,
Try this Java applet from NASA
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?sstr=C/2006+P1+&group=all&search=Search
NASA, Near Earth Object Program, Orbit Diagrams, Comet c/2006 P1
Click forward and back on the days.
The visibility of the comet depends on seeing it against a dark or darkened sky. In daylight the sun outshines it and washes out the sky. It’s still there. It just moves from the dark northern sky, light southern sky to the dark southern sky, light northern sky, when it goes through perhellion.
When the comet is near the sun, like the inner planets at some points in their orbits, it’s visible in the morning and evening.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
Friday evening the comet was spectacular. It was possible to follow the bright nucleus of the comet right over the horizon with the naked eye.
I waited for sunset and went to the end of Weinke in Moss Beach and watched from the bluffs. When Venus made its appearance I scanned a line from it to where the sun set. I caught a glimpse of the tail in the sunset afterglow with averted vision. I wasn’t expecting it would be that low. It first appeared as a white streak in the orange glow. I stared for a minute or so around that area and the whole comet came into view as the haze in the sunset shifted. It faded in and out of the orange haze, until it set about twenty minutes later. At times, 7 power binoculars helped the view. But, at times the view was better with the naked eye.
There are two more opportunities, Saturday morning and evening. It will be a little closer to the horizon tomorrow.
Vince Williams
Moss Beach
I found “B. Robert Ptacek” on the “Roster of Qualified Candidates - Local Offices Gubernetorial General Election Tuesday November 7,2006,
Update Saturday October 21,2006(12:22 PM)”
link is
http://www.shapethefuture.org/documents/dynamic/candidaterosterweb.pdf
Can also be accessed from county elections web site
scroll down “VIRTUAL ELECTION CENTER” select “SMC County Roster”.
I am not affiliated with Bob Ptacek’s campaign for CUSD.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“Can a three station department run itself and be cost effective? ...”
I asked Robert Olsen of Robert Olsen and Associates at an MCC meeting what an optimal size was. He said five engine stations.
Comparing incorporated cities to special districts is comparing apples to oranges. Incorporated cities have more flexibility in how they allocate resources. Unincorporated special districts have a tax resource disadvantage since Proposition 13. I doubt any of the cities mentioned pay $800 per household on average for fire and emergency services? That is what the residents of PMFPD are paying, right now.
Despite Ed Hawkins claims, all the Departments he mentioned are struggling to meet the Linestaff costs that are 70 to 80% of their budgets. Mr. Hawkins “ideas that really work” are really fiscal bandaids. A fiscal baindaid can’t turn a special district’s revenue stream into a city’s. He fails to mention the new parcel taxes and fire assessments on the Bayside. Here is one of the examples of Local 2400’s success stories mentioned earlier in Belmont and San Carlos, but curiously absent from his latest post:
How do the citizens feel about it:
http://www.sanmateodailynews.com/article/2006-9-27-sc-fire-assesment
PMFPD approached Chief Myers of NCFA for a service contract in 2004. He looked at the numbers and said it wouldn’t work. NCFA no bid on the joint RFP from PMFPD and HMBFPD. San Mateo was the only one that bid and their costs were higher than HMBFPD current costs. PMFPD would have had to add another $200 or so parcel tax to afford San Mateo’s service. Look at any of the cities budgets you mentioned and tell me they spend less that $1.8M per station. That’s what PMFPD can afford, right now and as a service zone in Coastside Fire.
Local 2400 has been in place since April in HMBFPD. There have quite a few meeting to discuss options that Local 2400 and the Linestaff no showed. Local 2400 hasn’t offered a solution. When the options for the Coastside narrowed down to two, Local 2400 woke up in a frenzy of self interest and postured about meeting and conferring, threatened litigation, then circulated referenda. Now, Ed Hawkins appears on this forum with all kinds of disingenuous statements and demands to be given the chance to come up with some creative solution that may or may not work at some future date.
I have found Fire District to be fairly complex. The devil is in the details. It’s easy to take one statistic or find one example somewhere and make all kinds of wild claims. Running this forum thread into the ground policing Ed Hawkins disengenous statements is really a waste of everybodies time. Have a look back, see who is more credible. I think the major points have been made already.
Hal Bolger wrote:
“If you are correct that San Mateo County may well be heading toward a consolidation...”
A thirty year old LAFCo report is probably obsolete. A lot has changed both in the Districts and the way fire and emergency services are delivered. LAFCo did a Municipal Service Review for the Coastside last year which is available online.
What I have heard in summary is that SM County is headed toward a County wide Fire Department. The hegemony of Local 2400 in the Bayside Districts and cities in San Mateo County keeps Linestaff costs up. The folks at the top need to be taken care of also. So as wages and benefits ratchet up, ways to save costs and share resources become more attractive. With the Bayside Districts density climbing and them butted up against each other, the boundry drops and County wide dispatch and communications were non-controversial resource sharing changes. Then there are regional resource sharing JPA’s like North County Fire Authority (NCFA) and mergers like Hillsborough and Burlingame. But, its not without some pain and adjustment. There are JPA’s like South County Fire Authority that ran into cost allocation problems. There is also the issue of all the Chiefs and Admin. and how they all merge into one organization. These are not small issues, it takes time to resolve them. Who pays for what and peoples employment can be very contentious. It may take 10 years to get to a County Wide Department.
Then look at the western territories and small single engine Distircts in the County. That would include HMBFPD and PMFPD, Skylonda, San Mateo Hills and The County providing service to the unincorporated areas without special districts. They have different sets of issues and revenue structures than the Bayside Districts and Cities. In my opinion, CDF is a good fit for them. The Western Boards and the County Board of Supervisors with CDF would be able to challenge any Bayside JPA or Department that wants to merge with them with, beat CDF’s price and the level of service. I suspect that is what Ed Hawkins is really concerned about. If the Coastside goes CDF, the Bayside won’t be able to compete on a cost basis. Each year, year after year, CDF will most likely prove to be the better deal. Under CDF with CDF’s resource we will only pay for what we use. To restart Coastside on its own will have pretty steep startup costs recruiting and hiring staff to do functions that may not wind up being fulltime jobs or finding the staff with the right mix of skills. With just three engines, the scale is not there to be cost effective, anymore. But, each year CDF has to perform for us or we can pay more to get service from the Bayside that meets our requirements. Having two sets of suppliers and a knowledgable Board on the Coastside offers a great deal of local control. When it’s time to negotiate with the County wide department our Boards will have the option of staying with CDF.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“But for those who like to dig out scandalous promotions consider this. Acting Half Moon Bay Cole now makes more than the chief of San Francisco. If the state takes over Half Moon Bay, they will “red circle” Chief Cole at his current salary and he will then make more than all of his bosses”
Dave Heckman wrote:
“This does not hide the fact that we have the highest paid chief in the county and the lowest paid firefighters. Also the HMBFPD just gave their chief a brand new car to take home. Home is only probably 100 miles round trip. (Gas card?)”
Well the red herring that the press release predicted has been thrown out. You claim you have a good working relationship with all the Bayside Districts and have worked successfully with them. You propose to offer that same relationship to HMBFPD and want to rebuild the Department with a new Chief. Nitpicking Chiefs has been a staple of the strife in HMBFPD over the years. I suspect this red herring is just an appetizer of the strife that would ensue, if the Boards agree to work with Local 2400 to rebuild HMBFPD. How does bringing this up make recruiting the Chief you say you want any easier? What professional Fire Chief would want to relocate to HMBFPD and take on this terminal strife? Two professional interim Chiefs have already tried. You are so desperate to fight your way to the negotiating table, you would work against your own stated interests by bringing this up.
Chief Cole has stepped into the breach a second time this year to try to hold operations together, until a solution to the problems can be put in place. The risk to his professional career is incredible, if anyone on the staff gets distracted by this strife and there is an operational failure, it happened on his watch. If he manages to hold operations together he will have accomplished a great feat in his career. I ran into President Donovan at Safeway and had a chat with him. President Donovan told me Chief Cole has been working 120 hours per week.
The “red circle” salary values that go into effect on the proposed transition date of January 1, 2007 are negotiated on an individual basis between HMBFPD and CDF. I haven’t heard that Chief Cole’s “red circle” or any of the other staff has been done yet.
HMBFPD Firefighters are not the lowest paid Firefighters in the county.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“I suggest the department I work for is only relevant to one person whose mind is already made up and who is grasping at anything he can find to avoid an open debate of the real issues...”
You have made your judgment and transparency an issue by claiming numerous times on this forum that you are qualified to solve the problems in HMBFPD like you have in the other San Mateo Fire Districts. Based on your statements, the HMBFPD Board hasn’t indicated any interest in meeting and conferring with you. Now, you have brought your appeals to this forum. There are expectations that public representatives should avoid even the hint of a conflict. For you to make the determination that there is not a potential conflict, when you identified yourself only as the Local 2400 Representative to the PMFPD and HMBFPD joint meeting was poor judgment. It took three posts on this forum to get your employer and the details about the consequences of a contract with San Mateo. A lot has been known to happen in Fire Districts, before retirement to lock in higher retirement benefits based on final salary. Even after your last post, there is still the appearance of a potential personal gain. The issue is not whether you actually stood to benefit from a contract with San Mateo, but your judgment and transparency. I am not really interested in your relationship with your cat.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“In the case referenced by the link, we were a defendant against an action INITIATED and doggedly pursued, in spite of our non-stop plea to settle it, by South County fire. Try to get the facts right.”
I guess we are splitting legal hairs here. OK, your Local 2400 was a party to litigation. Who ran into the courthouse with the first petition a few year ago is not all that relevant. Your record as far as “initiating” litigation in court is the same as the Teamsters in HMBFPD.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“ I repeat, we have not sued any agency for 15 years.”
Please be more specific about who “we” is? You, you and IAFF local 2400 staff, you and IAFF local staff and any attorneys you may have retained, AFL/CIO members staff or attorneys under retainer.
Here is a link to a news article with your name and quotes attributed to you, that could use some explanation:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060629/ai_n16519674
As I understand it the Teamsters were never named parties to any of the filed litigation in HMBFPD, either. It still cost the taxpayers.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“As I understand it there are currently NO legal issues pending against the fire district. So the bogeyman of litigation has long gone.”
You did not take issue with what I claimed Mr. Alan Davis said at the September 14,2006 joint PMFPD and HMBFPD meeting. Mr. Davis’s statement was a treat of litigation. If a suit had been filed it would be “pending” litigation. I said “potential” litigation. A board has a fiduciary obligation to protect its district from potential litigation. You are being disingenuous in this discussion.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“I speak as the elected president of my local and the what department I work for is absolutely irrelevant.”
It is relevant. When you are speaking in a public meeting and you identify yourself as a representative of Local 2400, fail to mention you rank and affiliation with San Mateo City Fire Department and recommend your employer for contact, that is a potential misrepresentation by omission and a potential conflict of interest. You left the impression you worked somewhere in San Mateo County and there are potentially more opportunities for promotion for you, if San Mateo combines or merges or takes on service contracts with other districts.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“As to Mr. Davis’s comments, I suggest you talk to him about that.”
What is Mr. Alan Davis’s relationship with you, Local 2400, IAFF and the AFL/CIO?
(3/3 continued from previous post)
I have heard from people that were accosted in the post office in Montara by petition gatherers for your referenda. Who wants to say no to someone who may very well be in a position to save their life in the future? As Ed Carter alluded to, some people associated with the Fire Districts have used their position for questionable purposes. Who wants to cross them? To many in the community that are disgusted with the Fire District mess this was an unwelcome intrusion. The petitions were not targeted at any specific Board action. With Mr. Alan Davis threating litigation, I’d have assumed the referenda would pass legal muster. Now those petitions having been rejected by the two Boards. The Boards continue their deliberations and there is no great public controversy about the petitions being deferred on.
After threatening the Board the citizens elected with lawsuits, disparaging other Firefighters, being rather circumspect about your agenda and badgering citizens to sign you stillborn referenda, you turn around and appeal to the citizens that you are reasonable, should be given a seat at the table and all the parties should wait for your wisdom. I can see good reason for the Boards keeping you in the audience with the rest of the name callers and gadflys like myself.
(3/3 end)
(2/3 continued form previous post)
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“But for anyone who thinks other ideas should be considered we have stepped up with an offer to look at other solutions...”
Coming late and requesting to be brought up to speed on your terms and suggesting a process that will most likely take over a year doesn’t sound like competence to me. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the current situation in HMBFPD.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“I have noticed from recent posts that the discussion has shifted from issues to me. “Full disclosure” is requested. I am a fire service professional with 21 years experience. I am a Captain on an engine company in San Mateo...”
You keep repeating the same over the top rhetoric, selectively not responding to issues raised by others and pleading for reasonableness on your terms. That leaves us with, why should we trust what you or Local 2400 says?
At the August 17, 2006 Joint Board meetings in HMBFPD, speaking as the Local 2400 President, you advised the Boards, that if they chose to outsource, they should choose San Mateo City Fire Department. It would have been appropriate to disclose your affiliation and rank with San Mateo City Fire Department, at that time. You didn’t.
At the September 14, 2006 Joint Board meetings in HMBFPD, Mr. Alan Davis characterized CDF as the Walmart of Fire Services. Did he by inference mean that your fellow members of AFL/CIO IAFF Local 2881 were little more than Walmart employees and their dedication and competence was any less than AFL/CIO IAFF Local 2400’s? As an aside, I was very impressed with Chief Ferreira’s grace under pressure in responding to this slur.
I suspect you are being somewhat evasive about Local 2400’s intent on the Coastside. You have lobbied in San Carlos to keep CDF out and restructure the JPA with Local 2400. That will involve a new fire assessment that may or may not get approved. You advocated in San Bruno for mergers in San Mateo County with your Department. I’m not sure the citizens of the Coastside want the additional burden of Bayside issues and San Mateo City Fire Department’s merger ambitions with all our current problems.
(2/3 continued in next post)
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“If, after an honest and open debate of the issues, the taxpayers in Half Moon Bay are asked and they indicate via majority rule they want to give up a local department and allow a state takeover we have absolute respect for that. That is not a decision the Grand Jury should make.”
How can there be an “honest and open” public debate when most of the issues involve personnel matters, past litigation and potential litigation? I asked that earlier, you haven’t answered.
At the September 14, 2006 Joint Board meetings in HMBFPD, Mr. Alan Davis gave the case you recently won on appeal in the State Supreme Court as an example of your Local 2400’s intent to litigate, if necessary. That case was over termination procedures for a Captain in San Carlos accused of exposing himself to a subordinate amounting to sexual harrasment. The HMBFPD Board had been embroiled in its own employee tiffs turning into lawsuits with amazing speed. With the transition of the Linestaff from HMBFPD to some other agency the potential for employee grievances and lawsuits is very real. The HMBFPD Board and the citizens know the costs of being played trying to be “fair” and “reasonable.” Your representative has already made an and open and honest public debate impossible.
You seem to infer that the citizens of El Granada and PMFPD are along for the ride on what the taxpayers in HMB decide. The HMBFPD and PMFPD constituents already elected Board members to represent them. The majority is speaking thought their elected representatives. Many in the community have withdrawn in disgust from the soap opera of self interest in HMBFPD and PMFPD. Now, you ride into town and characterize the Boards deliberations on contracting out for fire services as “give up” and “state takeover” and demand a public debate and the Fire District taxpayers foot the bill for an election. If you then lose the election, at some future date (May 2007 or later), you will “have absolute respect for that.”
The Civil Grand Jury did not make a decision, they made a recommendation. The recommendation was to outsource by the end of the year. The decision is for the PMFPD and HMBFPD Boards to make. HMBFPD is being held together by acting Chief’s prioritizing and making hard choices with limited resources. The longer that goes on the greater the risk to the Linestaff and the community. The Boards have held public meetings and taken input from the public on the options. The fact that Local 2400 hasn’t been granted a seat at the table and doesn’t like the way the deliberations are going, doesn’t justify a delay, increased public safety risk and the cost of an election.
(1/3 continues)
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“I have read the grand jury report on the district. As a fire service professional and labor leader, I do not see anything in that report that cannot be resolved if the parties agree to try.”
Trying was not the recommendation of the Civil Grand Jury. It was to consolidate and contract out services. We have had two professional Interim Fire Chief’s with decades of experience and no dog in the fight come in and say the Department was dysfunctional and recommend contracting out for services.
Ed Hawkins wrote:
“As to solutions, we are attempting to discern the nature of the problems the board thinks a sellout to CDF will resolve. Since the board will no engage us on the issues… We don’t have the solutions in our pocket but we do have the expertise, experience, and leadership to help if the board lets us. Unfortunately they are not interested. “
So, you don’t know and the people you need to sell your solution to, when you finally get around to having one, won’t meet and confer with you. Why should the citizens treat this as a credible proposal and not another stalling tactic?
The Boards have listened to your comments in public meetings along with mine, other citizens, Linestaff, former Linestaff, Volunteers and their families. You represent one set of stake holders. You have the same access we all do. Welcome to the two minute speaking limit club.
Kathryn Slater Carter wrote:
“For full disclosure, Ed Hawkins is the a representative of the union local currently representing the HMB firefighters. His is the union that will loose union dues if we contract with CDF.”
Ed Hawkins should also disclose who his current employer is and what Union and Local represents the CDF Linestaff.
(2/2 continued form previous post)
Ed Hawkins,
Under the laws of this state we elect the Directors of these Special Districts to make decisions like letting service contracts for us. State laws vest the decision to contract out for services to the Directors, not the citizens by referendum except in the case of incorporated cities. There are many legal approaches to deferring referenda. In the first round, the Boards chose an easy argument, they hadn’t really taken any action. I can’t see any judge wanting to own the HMBFPD situation, while subsequent petitions are being litigated in their court. This is a public safety issue. In my opinion, the Board’s should not be given the opportunity to punt the issue to the voters. The Board’s are ultimately responsible and know the situation best. I have been following this for a number of years. It’s been spun every way imaginable by the different factions. The level of detail required to get at the “truth” involves a lot of personnel information, pending and post litigation matters that cannot be made public. The only ones that can know the truth, legally are the Boards. So, even if it were legal to put contracting with CDF to public vote, the election would be little more than an ill informed popularity contest.
Vince Williams
Ed Hawkins,
Thanks for commenting here on Coastsider.
The last audit conducted by the HMBFPD Board is a public document. The Board packets, have had all the accounting information details up to the last meeting. I don’t see any missing pieces to the puzzle that is not in the public domain.
It’s just not financial. The “crisis” and “problem” is more like a number of serious problems:
1. HMBFPD Board running operational deficits trying to hold a high level of service together, absorb the cost of litigating employee lawsuits and provide PMFPD a favorable annual cost for services asan incentive to consolidation,
2. PMFPD has a thin revenue stream and has difficulty meeting the current cost of Linestaff for its engine,
3. Inability of HMBFPD Board to keep a Management team in place for the past year,
4. Strife between the Linestaff and HMBFPD Management and Board,
5. Strife between PMFPD and HMBFPD Boards,
6. HMBFPD financial situation causing service cuts this year,
7. The laws and regulations from Sacramento, dealing with personnel issues and all the small details of running a fire district have made a small district not cost effective (three engine district is considered small, now) .
The Boards have really gotten themselves in a jam and the only way out is to contract out for services. The fact that only two Fire Agencies submitted proposals to the Spring RFP speaks to seriousness of the problems of the Coastside Districts.
This past year has been all about delay and denial. Nobody on either side of this issue wants to talk about how bad things have gotten at HMBFPD. In my personal view, it’s gotten so bad, the Boards are now constrained to have to make the “choice” of a contract with CDF. If one really understands the issues and responsibilities of boards, there really isn’t a “choice” being made here. A contract with CDF fixes most of the problem areas.
The Boards were looking at options at many of their meetings this Spring. The Linestaff, Teamsters and IAFF Local 2400 were conspicuous in their absence from those meetings. The time for proposals has come and gone. I can’t really see Local 2400 coming up with solutions to all these problems from the bottom up. Fire Districts are traditionally run as hierarchies. The “culture of strife” is well documented. It’s foolish to think that taking care of one set of stakeholders and giving them what they want will fix all the problems at HMBFPD.
(1/2, Continued in following post)
I hope citizens read this press release, so that they understand both sides, before signing any more petitions. The HMBFPD Board has taken the time and care to respond to the referenda supported by the Firefighters. It is interesting to note the Boards went on record with much of the financial compensation that had been discussed here earlier on Coastsider. The Boards have to balance the needs of the community against the requirements of the employees. It’s easy to lose sight of the goal of providing fire and emergency services in a cost effective manner and get swept up in all the strife. In my view, the Boards are well ahead of the petitioners in offering a viable long term plan for Coastside fire and emergency service. I haven’t heard anything from IAFF Local 2400 on their “audit” of HMBFPD or proposal for financing the combined District continuing with its own employees. The clock is ticking and standing in the way of a contract which puts Management under a stable orginzation, maintains local control of services and provides more Linestaff coverage for less tax dollars, is not in the communities interest.
Thanks for putting the press release on line. I hope people take the time to read it.
Kathryn,
I was not concerned by President Donovan’s comments. It makes sense. PMFPD and HMBFPD have their own different weaknesses on their own, now. By combining they merge their different strenghts and weaknesses to become stronger, have an economy of scale and speak with one voice for the fire and emergency needs of the Coastside. Combining with some other San Mateo County agency before combining PMFPD and HMBFPD is going to leave a weak orphan as an adjacent district to the one that combined with the larger agency. With mutual aid, a district is only as strong as its neighboring districts and their willingness to cooperate. Despite all the past strife between the PMFPD and HMBFPD Boards, that mutual need probably is what sustained the concept of consolidation over the past ten years.
Most fire experts say in San Mateo County we are now in a period of regional consolidations and JPA’s. The prediction over the next ten years or so is to evolve from regional departments to a County wide department. In the future, a combined stronger Coastside Fire can negotiate from a position of strength with the specific service needs of the Coastside in mind or choose to stay independant longer. The best strategey is to stay solvent, right sized and not to merge too soon or wait for the no options merger.
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 4 9:50am comment by Kevin J. Lansing, Ken Johnson has it right. Why is an elected school board member like Charles Gardner more occupied with things like…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 3 10:43pm comment by Ken Johnson, Yes Paul, Charlie Gardner has an 'agenda' - do to MWSD what he accomplished at CUSD. He has been on…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 3 5:57am comment by Paul Perkovic, Charlie, Do you have any MWSD agendas, staff reports, minutes, letters, etc. - i.e., some actual documentation - that supports…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 10:44pm comment by Carl May, Mr. Gardner: Why an intertie with the NCCWD? You say "and only use the water when we need it." Do…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 10:22pm comment by Ken Johnson, Charlie Gardner, You are good at asking questions and making unsupported claims - you are not very reliable at answering…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 8:46pm comment by Charlie Gardner, Paul, What has MWSD done to investigate the possibility of an inter-tie to the north with Pacifica? Is it true…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 5:31pm comment by Paul Perkovic, The analysis is very useful to Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) customers, too. One of the misplaced attacks that…
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 1:47pm comment by Todd McGee, I'm sure Paul's analysis is correct and very useful to the CCWD customers. And I will readily admit that he…
Letter: Alternatives to July 4th fireworks?, Jul 2 12:29pm comment by Leonard Woren, What would the 2 sides be in a 2008 tug-of-war?
Just the facts: Where's the water for CCWD?, Jul 2 12:25pm comment by Leonard Woren, Every new CCWD customer increases the water cost for all existing CCWD customers. This is simple arithmetic, which "engineer" Jim…
