10-31-08, Bruce Philpott’s Response to Vince J. Shellock’s 10-18-08 Letter in the Glendale News-Press, “Fire staff is in no need of cuts”

 

 “Wow, here we go again” is the opening phrase of letter writer Vince J. Shellock (GNP Mailbag, 10-18-08) in his version of refuting my proposal to staff routinely with three firefighters, rather than the current staffing of four.  He 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 the kind of experience that Mr. Shellock might consider to be authoritative.

 

It obviously bears repeating. The staffing model that I am proposing 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. 

 

Because Mr. Shellock specifically referenced Fire Station 24, noting how busy they always were, I reviewed the official activity records for that station. In calendar year 2006, Engine Company 24 responded to 828 emergency calls. That represents an average of 2.2 calls per 24-hour shift. The Glendale Fire Department’s dispatch records shows that the average time engine companies spend on calls is 15 minutes, regardless if they are responding on a fire or medical call. Multiplying 2.2 by 15 minutes reveals that Station 24 was busy on calls for about 40 minutes per 24-hour shift. The reason why they average only 15 minutes per call is that on 89% of the calls they are backing up the ambulance on a single person medical call. In most of these incidents, they are not needed and return quickly. And, if they were needed, three, not four can adequately handle the assists.

 

Regarding the 11% of emergency calls that are classified as ‘Fire’,  a consulting firm called Emergency Consulting and Research Center in 1998, reviewed responses to 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, fire call volume has decreased by one thousand calls per year, while medical calls have jumped by several thousands. Of the 1640 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.

 

Mr. Shellock also said, “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 cities like Culver City, 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. 

 

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.

 

 

Bruce Philpott

(818)240-8949 

Brcphilpott1@aol.com