10-23-08, Unedited Version of Bruce Philpott’s Glendale News-Press Community Commentary, “Trimming fire staff will save city money”

Today’s economic circumstances demand that we save where we can, and if we can save nine million dollars by making the Fire Department more efficient we must.

My idea is that trimming fire staffing from four to three is a safe and effective path to saving precious tax dollars.

It seems like simple math: a four-person engine company is safer and better than a three-person team. But, the math is misleading.

Research data indicate that 89% of the fire department emergency responses back up an ambulance on a single person medical call. In most of these incidents, the fire fighters are not needed and return quickly. And if they are needed, three, not four can provide sufficient and more-than-adequate assistance for the medical team.

Regarding the 11% of emergency calls that are classified as ‘Fire,’ the consulting firm Emergency Consulting and Research Center in 1998 reviewed responses to Glendale’s fire calls, and stated, “The great majority of fires are single-alarm incidents handled by the first-due company. These incidents are resolved quickly and do not impact the overall emergency response capability of the fire department”. Ten years later, our fire call volume has decreased by one thousand per year, while medical calls have jumped by several thousands. Of the 1,640 fire calls last year, there were only five actual structure fires, and all five were contained to a single room. This quick response and effective fire suppression is a testament to our Glendale firefighters, who train and perform as professionally as any fire department around.

The retired fire chiefs that I worked with for years know that most fire calls are of a minor nature and are easily handled by a three-person engine company (over 90% of fire alarms are false). They also know that, even if staffed with four, they cannot enter a structure on fire until the second engine company has arrived, which is not an issue because it arrives, on average, in less than one minute after the first engine. And, if both engine companies are staffed with three firefighters each, there are still enough personnel to mount an interior attack on the fire.

A critic of my proposal wrote, “I sleep better at night knowing they are fully trained and staffed to meet the needs of our great community.” I can assure the writer that the residents of Culver City, for instance, who also have a Class I fire department like Glendale, also sleep well at night, knowing they also have an excellent fire department. The only difference is that the taxpayers in Culver City are saving the equivalent of $9 million per year because they staff, as I propose, with three. The staffing model proposed by the retired fire chiefs does not diminish safety or performance to the firefighters or public. If it did, neither they nor I would be supporting it.

My critic went on: “Have any of these individuals (a former police officer or other political activists) faced the complexities of firefighting?” That is a valid question. My answer is that for many years I have collaborated with fire chiefs who have commanded fire departments in such diverse cities as Pasadena, San Jose, San Mateo, Compton, Alhambra, West Covina and Riverside. Combined, they have over 300 years of authoritative experience.

It obviously bears repeating. The staffing model I propose was the product of many sessions with two or more of these retired fire chiefs over the course of years. After auditing the call data of the Glendale Fire Department, the staffing models advocated by these fire chiefs fit perfectly.

The letter writer ends by saying, “Do reductions in firefighting staff make sense? No! Not for my tax dollars”. As economic conditions worsen and begin to impact people locally, a growing number of citizens and taxpayers are beginning to pay closer attention.

Ultimately, this staffing policy rests with the city council. But hope of any objective and reasoned evaluation of this issue at the council level is tempered by other factors. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times on 10-17-08 puts this issue in perspective by stating, “The argument – valid enough – is that elected officials often rely on union donations to their campaigns and afterward feel obligated to approve new perks for union employees”.

This kind of support and protection by elected officials drives a wedge between union self interests and innovations/reforms that are based upon fact-driven analysis. A majority of the current Glendale city council is willing to protect this union’s interests for reasons the editorial identified.

It may be that, after a further period of declining city revenues and burgeoning expenditures, untenable deficits and desperation will force the city to reconsider this expensive and needless staffing policy. The city council has conducted two recent revenue enhancement special study sessions. This effort will raise taxes and fees for sure, but even if the council adopts all of them, they will not produce the kind of new revenues that will meet the growing demand of expenditures. The only way for the city to make significant cost reductions is to cut payroll and my proposal will do that without adversely impacting the quality of services.

The only other answer would be a grass roots movement of citizens and taxpayers who realize they can no longer afford the financial obligations the city is demanding and, come April, they express it in the form of their vote.

Submitted by:

Bruce Philpott